Journal of KONES Powertrain and Transport, Vol. 20, No.

 2013

DIMENSIONAL CONSTRAINTS IN SHIP DESIGN

Adam Charchalis

Gdynia Maritime University

Faculty of Marine Engineering
Morska Street 83, 81-225 Gdynia, Poland
e-mail: achar@am.gdynia.pl

Abstract
The paper presents general rules for calculations of ship’s hull principle dimensions at preliminary stage of
design process. There are characterized and defined basic assumptions of design process and limitations for
calculations of dimensions and some criteria numbers. Limitations are an outcome of shipping routes what is
related to shipping restrictions, diminishing of hull drag, achieving of required strength of hull and safety of
shipping requirements. Shipping limitations are because of canals and straits dimensions or harbours drafts. In
order to diminish propulsion power, what is related to economically justified solution, selected form and
dimensions of hull must ensure minimizing of resistance, including skin friction and wavemaking resistance. That is
why proper selection of coefficients of hull shape and dimensional criteria according to ship owner’s requirements
i.e. deadweight (DWT) or cargo capacity (TEU), speed and seakeeping. In the paper are analyzed dimensional
constraints due to shipping region, diminishing of wavemaking and skin friction resistance or application of
Froude Number, ships dimensional coefficients (block coefficient, L/B, B/T, L/H) and coefficients expressing
relations between capacity and displacement. The scope of applicability above presented values for different
modern vessels construction were analyzed.
Keywords: ship principal dimensions, hull volumetric coefficients, hull design

1. Methodology of ship’s principal dimensions selection at early design stage

Process of ship design consist of several subsequent stages. At each step, more advanced
solutions are created. During first stage called preliminary design phase, concept project is
elaborated as first, and next is contract project.
First step of that stage is concept design. Base for beginning of design work are client’s
requirements. That assumptions, in form of technical and economical features of future ship, must
be defined very precisely. The concept phase has crucial importance for final project shape and
generally is an iteration process. During the process, single analysis and even all cycles are
repeated several times. Preliminary determination of principle dimensions of ship is very
important sub stage of design. Correct selection of that dimensions has strong impact at project
cost and consequently, at construction and exploitation costs. Any changes of main dimensions at
that stage, can be done with insignificant changes of project costs, while the same changes at later
stages are much more expensive. Preliminary selection of principal dimensions can be carried out
in way of analysis or iteration.
Analytical methods are based on empirical equations, which were elaborated using regressive
analysis of collected data. That equations present mathematical relations between different
parameters and features of specified type of vessel. Accuracy of analytic methods depends on
verification based on data base coming from contemporary generation of vessels. Iteration
methods relay on straight application of data coming from significant ships list. Collected data
enable to determine, basing on statistics methods, relation between dimensions of designed ship.
When from one hand, that will be general dimensions of the vessel, and from another preliminary
design assumptions, then basing on obtained relations, general dimensions of designed vessel can
be determined.
 A. Charchalis

2. Design assumptions

A ship is a complex vehicle. Its production requires the involvement of a wide range of
engineering disciplines. Ship design is not an exact science but embraces a mixture of
theoretical analysis and empirical data accumulated from previous successful designs. Due to
the complex interrelationships between features of the technical design, and the construction of
the ship and its operation, the final ship design will often represent a compromise between
opposite ship requirements. The development of the overall ship design and its production
cannot normally be treated in technical isolation as operational requirements have to be
considered. For example, the ship will often form a part of a through transport system; this may
range from sophisticated container systems with dedicated ships operating between specified
ports, or ferries and RO/RO vessels relying on a regular wheeled through cargo, to tramp
vessels on non-regular schedules which rely on carrying various types of cargo between various
ports. The route and its environment, type of cargo, quantity to be moved, value of the cargo
and port facilities are typical features which will be considered when evolving the size, speed
and specification of a suitable ship. Specific service requirements will be similarly considered
when evolving vessels such as warships, passenger ships or fishing vessels. Ship owners
operate ships to make a satisfactory profit on their investment the evolution of a technical
design can therefore be considered as a component part of an overall economic model. In
evolving a ship design it is therefore necessary to assess the operating requirements and the
environment in which the vessel is to operate, to evolve the feasible technical design and to
economical justify the viability of the proposal. In an overall final design process the objectives
have to be clearly identified and constraints in the process incorporated. The following
discusses some of the alternative objectives. first is design for efficiency and economy: this is
normally also a pre-requisite and might take several forms including designing to minimize
running costs, maintenance costs, turnaround time for container ships, or turn round time for
ferries, all with a view to improve the overall efficiency of the operation. Design for
production: in this case producibility is important, and savings in construction costs may be
assessed. In this case, the analysis may, for example, be trading increases in steel mass (and
hence decrease in deadweight) against decreases in production costs. Design for maintenance:
this will often amount to increase in space and improved access for maintenance of tanks or
machines. This might entail accepting surplus volume and an increase in ship first cost. Design
for the environment: aspects may include pollution, emissions, noise and wave wash. These
objectives are becoming increasingly important. Some of these aspects are covered by
MARPOL. Before the design process will be initiated, the basic technical data related to the
operational requirements have to be defined and specified, or derived or assumed if several
alternatives are to be investigated.
Exemplary design assumptions defines:
 Type of Vessel: for ex. container ship, bulk carrier, etc.,
 Number of Containers or DWT: for ex. 1300 TEU for container ship or 50000DWT for bulk
carrier.,
 Speed in service and max speed: 18.0 kn at 85% MCR and 20 kn at 100% MCR,
 Propulsion System: for ex. Low Speed Diesel Engine with fixed propeller,
 Sea Margin: 15%engine power redundancy for heavy condition operating,
 Autonomy: range(for ex.15500 NM)or shipping route,
 Stability: The ship should be able to maintain its stability being loaded at 60% of his max.
capacity,
 Classification Society: np. Det Norske Veritas, Germanischer Loyd, PRS,
 Other regulations to apply: SOLAS, Marpol and ILLC.
In Tab. 1 are presented dimensional constraints for specified vessel class and shipping region.

28
 Dimensional Constraints in Ship Design

Tab. 1. Some limitations of shipping routes [4]

Max. height from
B [m] T [m] L[m]
waterline [m]
Kiel Canal 40 9.5 315
DanishStraits 48 15 260
Panama Canal 32.2 12.04 289.5
Suez Canal 55 18.29 -
St. Lawrence Seaway 23 7.6 222 57.5
MalaccaStraits - 21 470

3. General parameters of ship construction

3.1. Hull principal dimensions

Principal dimensions of the hull are length overall, breadth, draft and depth. Ship’s hull is
a block which boards have curved areas in all directions. Because of that, several dimensions and
coefficients were elaborated in order to describe underwater part of hull as a cubic with
dimensions L x B x T.
One of basic general dimensions with impact at reduction of hull resistance is length between
perpendiculars Lpp. Relation between overall length Loa is expressed by equation:
L B
DWT ( ) 2
L ( B T )1 / 3 [m]. (1)
U ˜ CB ˜ CD
Length between perpendiculars is a basic dimension related to Froude Number which is related
to wavemaking friction. Knowing the Froude Number, the Lpp of our vessel can be obtained as
shown below.
v . (2)
Fn
g L pp
Wavemaking friction coefficient reaches maximum value when Froude number is 0.5; and
local maxima for values 0.22 and 0.3.
From all values from significant ships´ tables we will take the Froude number (Fn) and the
block coefficient (CB) as constants as values for calculations beginning.
Another main ship’s dimensions i.e. breadth, draft, free board height, depends on displacement
and range of sailing speed. Proper selection of that coefficients affect ships behavior like stability,
speed range or seakeeping. General dimensions influence are not so important like adequate
coefficients i.e. L/B, B/T, B/H and T/H and block coefficients.

3.2. Principal dimensions coefficients

Length to breadth relation coefficient L/B depends on type and destination of a vessel. For
cargo vessels, tankers and container ships, it takes value amongst 5.5 to 6.5. For passenger vessels
and fast vessels the value range is between 6.5 and 8.5 (Molland [7]). Correlation between
coefficients L/B and B/T enables defining of impact of specified dimensions at ships, length.
Coefficient B/T has impact at transverse stability of a vessel. Increasing of breadth will result with
better stability, but higher resistance of a hull and requirement for higher propulsion power. Relation
B/T for different classes of ships takes value from range 2-5. For fast vessels like container ships,
which have slim shape of hull, B/T coefficient takes values from 2.3 to 3.6 but most often is equal to
3. One has to notice that container vessel’s breadth depends on container unit dimensions and
number of loading rows at a deck. For other cargo vessels value of coefficient is 2-2.5. Basing on list
of significant ships, hull’s breadth for cargo vessels can be calculated according to relation B = L/10

29
 A. Charchalis

+ (5 – 7.5) [m]. For container vessels the relation is B = L/10 + (7.5 + 10).
Because of Hull strength requirements, crucial relation is coefficient L/H, where H is board
height, and due to stability important is coefficient B/H. For cargo vessels coefficient L/H takes
values from 12 to 13. B/H coefficient for tankers and bulk carriers is around 1.9 and for fast ships
like container vessels its limit value is 1.7.
Considering free board criteria, important is coefficient T/H, which for typical cargo vessels
takes value 0.7 – 0.8 and for container vessels around 0.55.

3.3. Calculation of displacement (')

In this case we will use two methods to calculate the displacement of the ship in design.
The first of these two possible ways consists of using the arithmetic mean’s value of the
Deadweight-Displacement ratio. Deadweight includes cargo, fuel, oil, fresh water, stores, crew and
effects. Cargo is the only component of deadweight which will bring revenue, hence other items of
deadweight should be kept to a minimum.
Knowing the deadweight of our vessel, our displacement will be then:
DWT/ ǻ=CD. (3)
Exemplary recommended values of that coefficient defining share of hull mass, propulsion
mass, crew and stores mass according to [ ] are
Cargo vessels 0.65-0.75,
Large tankers/Bulk 0.79-0.85,
Ore 0.82,
Container 0.60.
Moreover, for container ship, one has to know the relation between container capacity TEU
and deadweight DWT. Standard mass of one container is 14t/ TEU. Good results are given by
statistic elaboration of data from significant ships list. In Fig. 1 is presented function DWT = f
(TEU) for container vessel 5000 TEU.
DWT=f(TEU)
DWT = 16209.2966+7.6055*x
90000

85000

80000

75000

70000
DWT [t]

65000

60000

55000

50000

45000

40000
3800 4200 4600 5000 5400 5800 6200 6600
4000 4400 4800 5200 5600 6000 6400 6800
TEU
Fig. 1. Cargo capacity function DWT f (TEU )

30
 Dimensional Constraints in Ship Design

Expressing it as volume displacement (’), we obtain:

' ’ U SeaWater , (4)
where:
’ - capacity displacement [m3],
ǻ - mass displacement[t],
kg
for U SeaWater (seawater´s density at 15ºC) = 1025.6 [4].
m3

4. Principle dimensions coefficients

Hull’s shape is described by coefficients including displacement, linear dimensions, area of

transverse frame and waterline. Some relations between parameters were elaborated which creates
coefficients taken as criteria directions for hull selection.

4.1. Block coefficients CB

Relations between ship’s displacement and basic dimensions are expressed by Block
coefficient CB:
CB=’/LBT. (5)
Block coefficient CB can be calculated on relation:
L
0.23  20
CB B . (6)
2/3
26 ˜ Fn
In Fig. 2 are presented hull dimensions, necessary for determining of hull’s shape coefficients.

Fig. 2. Principal dimensions of a hull

4.2. Another coefficients of hull’s shape determination

 Volumetric Coefficient (C’),

’
C’ for slender coefficient L/’1/3, (7)
L3
 Midship Section Coefficient (CM),
CM=AM/BT, (8)

31
 A. Charchalis

 Waterplane Coefficient (CWP),

CWP=AW/BL, (9)
 Vertical Prismatic Coefficient (CVP).
CVP=’/LAW. (10)
Value of that coefficient depends on ship type and its cruising coefficient means less slim hull,
then resistance has bigger value.
For economical propulsion, from a hydrodynamic point of view, length and fullness at a given
speed are closely related. Recommended CB values for container ship are given by equation [2]:
0,145 . (11)
CBmin . Schneekluth
Fn
For container ships, contemporary fastest developing class of vessels, maximum CB value
should be up to 0.65.
In Tab. 2 are presented recommended values of selected coefficients for different types of
ships.

Tab. 2. Recommended values of selected coefficients for different types of ships

Vmax/
Load Vexpl
Vmin Fn CB CD B/T L/B
DWT/(TEU) [kn]
[kn]
0.7-
Bulk carriers 100000 ”16/ 14-16 0.16 0.82 2.35 5.75
0.86
0.8-
Tankers VLCC 315000 ”16/ 15.7- 0.16 0.825 2.65 5.55
0.85
Containerships 35000/
22/•16 20-22 0.22 0.6 0.76 2.3 6.4
Feeder 2500
Container ships 70000/ 0.57-
25/•16 20-25 0.24 0.7 3 6.5
Panamax 5000 0.65
Container ships 140000/ 0.57-
25/•16 20-25 0.25 0.6 3.22 7.5
Suesmax 10000 0.65
Container ships 250000/ 0.24- 0.57-
28/•16 20-25 0.6 3.61 7.1
Malaccamax 18000 0.27 0.65

References

[1] Barrass, C. B., Ship Design and Performance for Masters and Mates, Elsevier 2004.
[2] Charchalis, A., Opory okrĊtów wojennych i pĊdniki okrĊtowe, AMW, Gdynia 2001.
[3] Charchalis, A., Krefft, J., Main dimensions of the container vessels, Journal of KONES
Powertrain and Transport, 2009.
[4] Charchalis, A., Krefft, J., Main dimensions selection methodology of the container vessels in
the preliminary stage, IMAM Stambul 2009.
[5] Molland, A. F., The Maritime Engineering Reference Book, Elsevier 2008.
[6] Schneekluth, H., Bertram, V., Ship design for efficiency and economy, Butterworth
Heinemann, Oxford 1998.

32