Running head: A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 1

Physics, Computer Testing, and Ships: A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine

Engineering

Thomas Jack LeRette

Ocean Lakes High School, Math and Science Academy

Author Note

Mentorship conducted by Jack LeRette, Math and Science Academy, Ocean Lakes High

School, under the direction of Mr. Jeffrey Bowles, PE at Donald L. Blount and Associates,

Chesapeake, Virginia.

This mentorship was conducted as a part of the Senior Capstone Project at the Ocean

Lakes High School Math and Science Academy. Special thanks to Mr. Jeffrey Bowles for serving

as the mentor during the summer. Special thanks to Nick Husser for the additional help he

provided while at the mentorship site. Special thanks to Mrs. Graves for aiding the researcher at

every step up of the project to this point.

Correspondence concerning this paper should be directed to Jack LeRette, Ocean Lakes

High School, 885 Schumann Drive, Virginia Beach, VA 23454.

Email: thejackle99@gmail.com
A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 2

Introduction

If an everyday person were asked what they think of when they hear the word,

architect, they would probably think of some guy, sitting at a desk with a light shining on a

large piece of paper, his pencil flying across the paper, guided by some sort of architectural tool

and genius, drawing tall skyscrapers or elaborate pieces of infrastructure. When they think of a

Naval Architect, most people would probably just imagine that same guy, only hes drawing

boats, rather than buildings. However, as I soon found out, Naval Architecture constitutes much

more than merely drawing neat, symmetric lines on a paper.

Naval architecture and marine engineering are often grouped into the same field, as the

work done in each of these studies goes hand in hand with the other. There is a Society of Naval

Architects and Marine Engineers, but not a separate society for each of them. Now, given that

the two fields go hand in hand, naval architecture holds many of the characteristics of marine

engineers, and everyone knows that engineering involves lots of math and scientific know-how.

There is much more to naval architecture than simply drawing boats on paper or computer.

However, they both share the same goal: to design and build an ocean-going vessel or platform

that will successfully meet the requirements set by their clients and achieve full functionality

(i.e., not sinking and being able to complete its designated job).

Of course, Hampton Roads has a very strong connection to naval architecture and marine

engineering. The worlds largest military installation in the world is in Hampton Roads and

includes port facilities that house submarines, cruisers, and aircraft carriers. Additionally, the

port of Hampton Roads resides in Norfolk, one of the deepest ports in the United States. It

generates more than 60 billion dollars in total revenue for the Commonwealth of Virginia each

year1. Obviously, to maintain the facilities and ships that travel in and out of the waters of
A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 3

Hampton Roads, naval architects and marine engineers are a necessity for the local economy.

Virginia Beach alone has its own charter fishing industry, and naval architects and marine

engineers are responsible for designing the vessels that allow this market to function efficiently

and provide the most prosperity for the area.

I have had an affinity for all things fishing and boating for as long as I can remember. I

have fished from a very young age on the Chesapeake Bay, and my family has gone through

numerous boats over the years. In 10th grade, when I was doing preliminary work for my Isearch

paper, I continued to indulge myself in this affair by looking into the basics of hull designs and

propulsion. However, I did not always want to research naval architecture; I had planned on

studying a completely different field of engineering before I finally decided on pursuing naval

architecture and marine engineering. Thus begins the story of my search for a senior mentorship

idea.

The Search

Along with fishing and boating, aviation has long been a passion of mine. World War II

and fighter jets have captivated my imagination since a young age; in fact, I currently plan on

becoming a fighter pilot for the Navy, flying jets off of carriers. As a result, it was my intention

for the longest time to go to college, major in Aerospace Engineering, and then become a pilot.

At the Naval Academys Candidate Visitation Weekend, when prospective applicants spend two

nights with freshmen at the academy (plebes), a midshipman I was rooming with inquired me as

to what I planned on majoring in and my intended career. I replied to him aerospace engineering

and then flying for the Navy, to which he replied, Oh, youre one of those people. This

response puzzled me, but I thought little of it at the time.

A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 4

My sophomore year of high school in the Math and Science Academy, I researched

winglets and their aerodynamic effects for my symposium project. I expounded upon this

research in my Independent Study class by writing my Isearch paper about winglets. I was

particularly proud of the work I had accomplished: I had interviewed a professor of aerospace

engineering at Penn State, and I reached all the goals I originally set out to achieve. However, in

this same class, I had also done some preliminary research into hull designs and naval

architecture, a field I did not really know existed until that year. Consequently, when I received

the surprising response from the midshipman at the Naval Academy about what I wanted to

major in, I began to consider other career fields besides aerospace engineering. Working with

and designing boats remained in the back of my mind for a very long time. As I stated earlier,

being on the water is a part of who I am, and when I began to reconsider my major, Naval

Architecture crept its way up on my list of possible other careers.

Despite this recurring feeling, when I first conjured up ideas about what to do for my

senior project, I wanted to study something in the aerospace engineering field. I looked into

attending the Governors School for Engineering, but I decided against it because, frankly, I lost

interest in attending the school for a month of my summer. I also looked into participating in a

sort of internship/summer mentorship experience with NASA at NASA Langley Research

Center. This program would have interfered with attending Naval Academy Summer Seminar,

which, even though I would later get rejected from, I could not plan on attending both, and Naval

Academy took priority. I was now back to square one, so I approached Mrs. Graves to see if she

could help me find the best fit for a mentorship.

I told Mrs. Graves how I was interested in aerospace engineering, but that most of my

plans had fallen through at that point. We then discussed my other interests. At this point, the
A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 5

thought of performing a mentorship experience in the field of Naval Architecture began to pick

up steam. Mrs. Graves put me in contact with an OLHS alumnus, Nick Husser, who shadowed

with a company called Donald L. Blount and Associates (DLBA), a Naval Architecture and

Marine Engineering firm in Chesapeake, Virginia. I was soon in contact with Nick, learning

about what he did on site and for his capstone product.

Not long thereafter, I was researching Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering for my

junior year symposium project. This surface-level work did not really help me understand the

specifics of naval architecture. Instead, it helped me grasp the basic concept of what Naval

Architects do on the job and the kind of projects they perform.

Come April of my junior year, I was reaching out to DLBA about a possible mentorship

experience with them that summer. At first, I was rejected, the reason being that the new

company which had acquired DLBA had a policy prohibiting studentssuch as myselffrom

working on actual engineering projects at the firm. The man I was in contact with, Mr. Jeffrey

Bowles, offered me some relief when he quickly notified me later that day that a mentorship

would be possible, so long as I was not working on actual company projects. I was soon locked

in for a meeting with Mr. Bowles, where I was assigned some interesting homework.

Mr. Bowles wanted me to, before the mentorship started in June, understand the basic

concepts of ship stability and wall-sided theory. Stability, as defined by Munro-Smith2, is, the

quality of returning to the upright position whendisturbing forces are removed. For example,

pushing down on the side of a canoe and watching it return to its original upright position

demonstrates stability. According to Basic Ship Theory3, two main forces act on a floating

object: the force of gravity (G) acting down through the center of mass and the buoyant force
 A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 6

(B) acting up through the center of buoyancy. When the floating object is upright and in

equilibrium, the two centers are vertically in line with each other. When a ship heels (rolls or

lists), B moves on the vessel, but G does not. The point where the vertical through the new

center of buoyancy (B') intersects the floating object's center line is called the transverse

metacenter (M).

If the center of gravity (G):

Is below M while the ship lists, the ship is stable

Is above M while the ship lists, the ship is unstable
Occurs at the same point as M, the ship will be in a neutral state

Figure 1. Geometry of vessel

stability.

The distance between G and M is the metacentric height and determines how the ship

will roll. For example, if the value of GM is small, the ship will slowly roll, and vice versa. Fast

and violent rolling corresponding with a large value of GM could spell danger for the ship and its

crew3.
A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 7

An important equation to note from Figure 1 regarding stability is3:

KM = KG + GM (Equation 1),

where K represents the keel of the ship. Thus, KM is the height from the keel to the transverse

metacenter. Additionally, GM is crucial to stability calculations, which will be demonstrated

further on.

The next step for me in preparing for my mentorship was to understand the concept of

what an inclining experiment was. To do this, Mr. Bowles assigned to me two papers written by

the same naval architect, RJ Dunworth. These two papers were Back Against the Wall and Up

Against the Wall. These papers analyze the traditional method of inclining test calculations and

propose a more accurate set of calculations for inclined tests.

An inclining test is, the established method used to determine the vertical [center] of

gravity of a ship.4 The vertical center of gravity (VCG) of a ship is the height of the center of

gravity of a ship measured from its keel. The vertical center of gravity for a ship will almost

always rise over time. This is a result of adding more equipment or cargo above decks or

replacing older, heavy machinery below decks with lighter equipment. Finding an accurate

measure of the vertical center of gravity is necessary because overestimation leads to,

unnecessary operational restrictions,4 while underestimation makes the vessel more susceptible

to heeling.
A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 8

For hundreds of years, the calculation of the KG of a vessel relied on finding the

metacentric height, with the assumption that the vessel was wall-sided. The first step in finding

KG, using this old method, is to perform an inclining experiment.

Inclining experiments are an ingenious way of finding KG. First, several key

measurements are taken of the vessel; chiefly among these values is displacement. Large

weights (often 500 pounds or more) are then placed on the vessel, with some going on the port

(left) and starboard (right) sides of the ship, while others will be placed along the centerline of

the ship. These weights are then shifted from the sides to the centerline of the ship, or vice versa.

A pendulum device then records how far the ship lists. A needle is suspended by a stand, and as

the boat heels, the needle will draw a line along a measuring tape recording how far the ship

heels. This measurement is called deflection. Using basic trigonometry, we can find the heel

angle by using the equation:

pendulum deflection
tan-1 (
pendulumlength

(Equation 2).

At this point in the old method of finding KG, the metacentric height becomes key. Recalling

equation 1, KG can be found from finding GM and KM. KM is the height from the keel to the

metacenter and is found using naval architecture software called General HydroStatics (GHS),

which I will discuss in great detail later.

GM, however, must be calculated. GM is found using the following equation:

A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 9

wd
GM = tan ( ) (Equation 3),

where w*d is the heeling moment for each mass movement, is the vessel displacement, and

is the heel angle. The heeling moment is equal to the sum of each mass, w, multiplied by its

distance, d, from the centerline of the ship. Thus, if all the masses start at centerline, then the

heeling moment after one mass movement is equal to the weight of the inclining mass multiplied

by the distance it is moved from the centerline. Following each movement, the deflection is

wd
measured in order to find the heel angle. Values of are then plotted against tan().

The slope of the line of best fit is equal to the GM of the vessel, according to equation 3.

Once GM is known, and KM is found using GHS, KG is found according to equation 1.

The method just prescribed is the old, traditional method for finding KG. A crucial

concept that underlies the traditional method for finding KG, stability, and inclining tests is wall-

sided theory. According to wall-sided theory, a ship is wall-sided when the, sides of [the] ship

are vertical in way of the waterline when the vessel is upright, meaning that the vessels sides

are nearly perpendicular to the waters surface. When Bouguer, a French engineer, created the

first inclining test procedure in 17465, he was assuming that his vessel was wall-sided. As I

mentioned with regards to Equation 1, it is common practice to say that the metacenter does not

move for small angles of heel. However, the only instances for which this is true are, solids of

revolution about a horizontal axis, of which a sphere and cylinder are two simple examples,5.

Otherwise, the metacenter moves with heel. This circumstance is best illustrated through the
A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 10

use of the metacentrique. The metacentrique utilizes a perfectly wall-sided object, a square, and

illustrates the movement of the metacentric height of a ship as heel angle increases.

Figure 2. The metacentrique, which illustrates the movement of a wall-sided

vessels metacentric height.
The problem with wall-sided theory is that most vessels are not truly wall-sided. Many vessels

have hulls that enter the water at angles much less than 90 degrees. Unfortunately, the traditional

method for finding KG assumes that the vessel being examined is wall-sided, thus also assuming

that the metacenter does not move. However, the metacentrique clearly demonstrates how the

metacenter moves with angles of heel. Therefore, the traditional method must not be providing

accurate answers.

This conundrum is what Dunworth analyzes in Back Against the Wall and Up Against the

Wall, and is what I was supposed to understand by the time I arrived at my mentorship in June.

To solve this problem, Dunworth proposes a new method for finding KG that does not rely on

finding GM.

Dunworth starts his quest for finding a new route to KG by defining the heeling arm

(HZ), which is similar to the heeling moment, following each mass movement in the inclining

test. The heeling arm is essentially a force causing the vessel to heel and is caused by the

movement of the inclining masses on the vessel. The heeling arm is defined as4:
A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 11

wdcos ()
HZ = (Equation 4).

Through some substitution, HZ can be redefined as4:

HZ = KN KGsin() TCG1 cos() (Equation 5),

where KN is the righting arm of the vessel (basically, a force acting to restore the vessel to its

upright position), TCG1 is the transverse center of gravity of the vessel5, or how far off the

centerline the center of gravity is, and KG is the vertical center of gravity, the desired value.

Using some simple algebra, equation 5 is rewritten as4:

KGsin() = KN HZ TCG1 cos() (Equation 6).

In equation 5, KN is a constant and is found using GHS software. HZ is defined by equation 4,

with w*d equal to the sum of the moments for each inclining mass. The transverse center of

gravity is defined as4:

TCG1 = KN0 HZ0 (Equation 7).

KN0 is equivalent to the value of the initial transverse center of buoyancy and is found using

GHS software. HZ0 is the value of HZ when heel angle is zero and can be found by finding the

intercept of the trendline when HZ is plotted against each respective value of heel angle (the

intercept of the graph).

However, equation 6 does not itself yield the KG of the vessel. KGsin() is graphed

against sin(), and the slope of the trendline is the true value of KG.
A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 12

Thus, Dunworth was able to successfully derive a method for finding KG that does not

rely on finding GM, which introduces inaccuracies due to the movement of the metacenter.

Armed with all of this mathematical and theoretical knowledge, I began my mentorship.

The Real Deal

Mr. Bowles had been studying Back Against the Wall and Up Against the Wall for some

time before I began my mentorship, and even before we met in April of my junior year. He was

skeptical about the benefits of finding a whole new method of finding KG. The traditional

method had worked for over two centuries, and Dunworth himself said that the improvements

offered by his method are relatively slim.

In order to test Dunworths method, I would, for my mentorship, replicate the very same

tests that Dunworth ran to prove his work. I would find the discrepancies between the traditional

method of finding KG and Dunworths method and report on its significance. At the same time,

I would create an excel spreadsheet that would calculate KG using Dunworths new method and

test its accuracy using several practical examples, i.e., I would use actual inclining data to test the

validity of the excel tool. This excel procedure would come to serve as my capstone project

because it encapsulates all of the research conducted hitherto: understanding of stability, wall-

sided theory, the traditional method for finding KG, and Dunworths proposed new method for

finding KG.

All the while, I had several overarching questions I would aim to answer: learn what

naval architects do on the job, what it takes to be a naval architect, what role naval architects

play in society, and what kind of skills naval architects use to be successful; practice various

skills naval architects use on the job; observe how naval architects interact with their clientele
A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 13

and each other; and how naval architects incorporate teamwork to accomplish their tasks. With

these objectives in mind, I set out to complete my mentorship.

I spent most of the first day trying to get acquainted with my computer and GHS

software. This program at first reminded me of AutoCAD, but I soon found out that it is nothing

like it. The interface is challenging to adapt to at first, which is why I had so much trouble.

Rather than selecting tools to use to draw objects, commands must be entered into the computer

manually and must follow specific syntaxand this is how the entire program functions. I

imagine that if I were to major in naval architecture, I would be able to learn how to use the

software better. Regardless, I had never done anything like that and I have virtually no computer

science skills, so the first day was kind of rough.

I was soon tasked the next day with finding the metacentric height of a box that I would

construct and "float" in GHS. I would find the metacentric height (GM) by conducting a virtual

inclining experiment. I had to follow the procedure outlined in Back Against the Wall and Up

Against the Wall by Dunworth. He simulated using a box that had a beam of 8 m, a draft of 4 m,

and a displacement of 3200 metric tons4. To run my experiment, though, GHS requires more

information like length and depth, so I had to calculate those, with Mr. Bowles' help. Once I

acquired this information (see Appendix A), I then moved into Excel to create a spreadsheet

where I would essentially be predicting the outcome of the experiment. I would add three

masses of 100 metric tons each to the boxs displacement, and I would move them 3.85 m to

either side of the box's deck. Long story short, the more mass I shifted, the more the center of

gravity shifted. Then, I went into GHS and did the same exact thing, except GHS calculated for

me how much the box heeled (rolled) after each move. I used the Excel sheet to ensure I had the
A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 14

same longitudinal and vertical center of gravity after each move, as these are not effected by

movement along the transverse (port to starboard) axis. Finally, with the heel measurements

taken, I calculated the heeling moments for each move. Heeling moments increased

progressively as each mass was moved, as the inclining mass TCGs moved from centerline to

3.85 m in one direction. In excel, I then created a graph of heeling moment versus tangent of the

heel angle. I then took the slope and divided it by the displacement of the box and I arrived at

GM, according to equation 3. Turns out, 100 tons for the inclining masses was too heavy for the

box as they produced heel angles of up to 30 degrees, and they should not exceed 5 degrees or

so. Thus, I redid the experiment with weights of 3 tons. This task took most of the day. Nick,

the graduate of OLHS who mentored with DLBA and was now interning with them, was of great

assistance in this process.

By the end of that day, I had become more acquainted with the GHS software, so I was

more comfortable with the tasks given to me. Throughout the previous days, however, I had not

quite understood what my end goal was for the tasks I was completing. Earlier in this paper, I

had stated what my objectives were for the mentorship. They are clear to me now that I am

done, but when I first started my mentorship, I was quite unaware of what my long-term goal

was. As a result, on Wednesday, I spent most of the day grappling with the equations outlined in

Back Against the Wall and Up Against the Wall, a task that would prove to be unnecessary in the

long run. The day I did this work was also my last day for a while at my mentorship, as I would

be traveling and occupied at camps the next two weeks or so after that.

I went in for my second week of my mentorship on the 20th of July, with 22 hours logged

so far. The days leading up to the 20th, I looked over what I had done so far and I tried to figure

out what I could do at home to be ready to hit the ground running when I returned to my
A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 15

mentorship. I determined that in order for me to better understand the process for calculating the

vertical center of gravity, I would go through the process of finding it in the new method with the

data provided in Back Against the Wall.

When I arrived on Wednesday, I went to work in excel creating a spreadsheet with all

sorts of formulas and calculations to find KG. Essentially, I mimicked the method done in Back

Against the Wall for a patrol boat to find KG. I was pleased when the answer I arrived at

matched the one reached in the paper. However, after having a conversation with Mr. Bowles

after this, I realized that I was supposed to be doing these calculations for the box I built in GHS,

as well as two geometric wedges analyzed in Back Against the Wall. At this point in the

mentorship, I was still confused about what exactly I should be doing, (as evidenced by me doing

the calculations for the patrol boat instead of the box), so I had a productive conversation with

Mr. Bowles where he drew a flow chart for me describing what my exact tasks were. This flow

chart, I told him, made a lot more sense to me, rather than trying to listen to Mr. Bowles'

instructions and go off of what I hear. This incident proved to be a strong reminder of the

importance of understanding the different ways of communicating in the professional world. I

am clearly a visual learner, and I should have pointed that out to Mr. Bowles earlier so we would

not have had as much miscommunication. I spent the rest of the afternoon performing another

virtual inclining experiment on the box and figuring out what its KG was via the old and new

method.

On Thursday, I came in the morning with the knowledge that I had to finish performing

the old and new methods for calculating KG for both the 45-degree wedge and the 30-degree

wedge from Back Against the Wall. I managed to finish this by noon, so it took most of the

morning. However, I had data for my box and the two wedges using both methods for each. I
A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 16

could now look at the differences in KG that I had and compare them to the differences in Back

Against the Wall. They were not the same, except for the 45-degree wedge, but they were similar

in the fact that the old method typically underestimated KG. By this analysis, I had proved that

the excel spreadsheets that I had created were both accurate and working. My next task after

lunch was to calculate KG using both methods on a coast guard vessel. DLBA already had

performed the inclining experiment for this boat and found KG, so I replicated their procedure.

This effort created some difficulty that was easy to work through but consumed a lot of time. I

had grown accustomed to moving the weights in my inclining tests in GHS numerically, but

DLBA's procedure moved them in a different order. What created the most difficulty, however,

was that DLBA used 4 weights, and I used 3 on my boxes and wedges. Thus, I had to

manipulate my spreadsheet by adding more rows and changing formulas by hand to

accommodate the extra rows. It was very tedious. However, I obtained good data from

both methods. They overestimated KG: the old method yielded 6.32 ft. and new method

produced 6.24 ft. The KG I used in GHS was 6. However, a lower KG value is a more

conservative value because the lower the KG, the less prone the ship is to rolling violently.

Thus, the new method would have provided a safer KG value, though not by a significant

amount. This task took me to the end of the day.

On Friday, I was given another practical task. The architects and engineers at DLBA

don't have the luxury of having a hull's geometry file for GHS already made for them, like I

have. Thus, I was assigned to converting an AutoCAD drawing of a ship's hull, called a lines

drawing, into a geometry file able to be read by GHS. Then, I would conduct my own virtual

inclining experiment and find KG using the old and new methods, like I have been doing

throughout my mentorship. To do this, I would have to take the lines drawing and extend it into
A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 17

three dimensions, since the drawing gives a two-dimensional sketch. Without going into detail

about lines plans and stations, I essentially had to move contour lines of the ship's hull the

distances that they existed from the ship's aft. For example, one of the lines is from the bow, so I

had to move it the length of the ship in the Z-dimension to the bow. The length of the ship is 59

feet, so I moved it that distance. The transom, which is the very back of the boat, would not

move at all since the aft would lie at the origin. There were 27 lines to be moved, but I only

moved every third line because GHS does not need that level of detail to create a hull form.

After I moved all of the lines (stations), I then had to scale the entire CAD drawing because I had

moved my lines in units of inches and the distance I moved them corresponded to their station

number (so I moved the bow 28 inches forward.) After scaling the drawing, I then had to delete

every single thing in the drawing that was not a part of the stations I had moved. The CAD

drawing also included side views of the ship and various texts, which all were deleted.

Once that was done, and the lines that I moved were the only thing left standing in my

drawing, I would theoretically be able to export my drawing as .dxf file and read it in GHS.

However, certain procedures must be followed when converting a CAD drawing into GHS. I

had to make sure all of the lines were polylines and on layer 0; the ship had to be oriented in a

certain direction and at a certain location; units must be in inches; and polylines must have

common endpoints if they consist of multiple lines. This last step proved the most tedious to

complete. The lines had to be on the centerline of the hull, and they were not. They were also

not polylines, they were splines. Some of the lines were not even connected. Thus, I worked to

connect all the splines and convert them into polylines. When I had finally finished this, I

thought I would be ready to move into GHS. Nick, the former OLHS student who works at

DLBA now, helped me do this, but we encountered an error multiple times after several
A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 18

attempts. Turns out, I had forgotten to convert the splines into polylines. I did this, but I still

encountered problems. The polylines had way too many points on them for GHS to read, and I

could not determine a way to decrease the number of points on the lines. Nick told me the best

way to fix this would be to essentially trace over the existing lines with lines in a different layer,

delete the original layer, and convert the new lines into layer 0. I did this, but still encountered

errors.

I originally thought that the reason the process wasn't working for me was because I did

not have the new polylines that I drew on layer 0. I tried to use this remedy, but GHS would still

not import the file correctly. Finally, Nick decided to step in and help. He took the CAD

drawing that I had and transferred it into software called Rhinoceros. This software is sort of

like CAD, but from what I could tell it had a much different interface and seemed more suitable

to the jobs that the engineers and architects perform at DLBA. Anyways, the drawing I had was

only one half of the hull. Nick took the drawing and created the second half. At this point, the

drawing really started to look like a boat rather than a bunch of lines. He then used some tool in

Rhinoceros software to add more stations into the drawing, essentially creating a GHS geometry

file (that's the best way I can describe it since I have no idea how to use Rhino). He then shared

the new Rhino file with me and I was able to easily import it into GHS. From there, I went and I

conducted the inclining test in GHS using the same procedure I have been using, and I found KG

using the old wall-sided method and the new Dunworth method. After that, I analyzed all of the

KG values I had found (see Appendix B) for the Box, the two wedges, the Coast Guard vessel,

and now the Dixon 57. I found the percent differences between the KG values I calculated, and I

also found the percent error of each calculated KG value compared to the actual KG value. The

engineers and architects at DLBA don't know the KG value when they perform an inclining
A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 19

experiment. However, for what I was doing, GHS required some sort of KG value. Thus, the

value I entered for the practical examples (Coast Guard and Dixon 57) were in a sense quite

arbitrary, yet they were not far off from the actual KG value. For example, I used a KG of 6 feet

on the coast guard vessel in GHS, even though the actual value was higher than that (I don't

recall the exact value). When I found the percent error of both calculated values, I was really

finding how far off the values were from 6, not the actual value. Either way works fine.

I was then tasked with completing a technical report for the work I had done. It's kind of

like writing a lab report, but the report follows the company's specific formatting. I completed a

rough draft of the report, and what the engineers at DLBA typically do next is they pass on their

paper to someone above them for a quality assurance check. In my case, I handed my paper to

Nick. The real order for quality assurance goes as follows: author, engineer, senior engineer,

project manager, and finally tech director.

Rather than write a technical report, I was soon tasked with writing an engineering

procedure. DLBA has a catalog of many engineering procedures, and they are written to help the

architects and engineers at DLBA follow certain procedures, use tools correctly, etc. In my case,

the engineering procedure I would write would detail how to use the excel spreadsheet (see

Appendix C) procedure I had created. Thus, I went back into excel to make sure my spreadsheet

was as automated and easy to use as possible. As I said earlier, I learned a lot about using excel

during the mentorship because it can do so many different calculations, instantaneously. For

instance, the final data point that my spreadsheet procures is actually the slope of the trend line

on a graph that uses data points in the spreadsheet. Rather than having the engineers using the

spreadsheet look at the graph for answers, I was shown a way to calculate the slope of a set of

data using the slope command (go figure). I also used this to find the y-intercept of a series of
A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 20

data points. These changes made the usage of the spreadsheet a lot simpler. Once I made these

configurations, I typed up the engineering procedure. These instructions are much shorter and

much more concise than a technical report. The technical report, in a way, is a lot like an Isearch

paper because the researcher is supposed to detail the process of completing their study in the

report. Regardless, I finished the engineering procedure and turned it into Mr. Bowles, who said,

"This is exactly what were looking for." Once I turned in the paper, I took a picture with my

mentor, and took some photos of the office and building. With that, I was done with my

mentorship.

Conclusion

Towards the end of my mentorship, I revisited the overarching questions I had about the

research I was about to get myself into. Chiefly among these findings, I learned Naval architects

use a lot of critical thinking in their job. This doesnt really come as a surprise, as most

engineering professions require the engineer to think critically to solve real world problems.

There were many times in the mentorship where I think I lacked these critical thinking skills, and

I believe it comes from the fact that I was under prepared coming into the mentorship. Its not

that I wasnt studying the wrong stuffI just didnt understand it to the point where I could

apply the knowledge I had learned. I do, however, feel confident that as the mentorship has

progressed, my critical thinking skills have also progressed. I was able to do more of the

thinking on my own, but not for all parts.

A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 21

Aside from just critical thinking, naval engineers must also think creatively when

working out problems. I was shown solutions to problems many times where I thought, I never

would have thought of that. The way Mr. Bowles put it, engineers must think of, out of the

box solutions, to solve various problems. Perhaps I have never been exposed to true, real world

problem solving, but I hope that I have less of these moments as my studying continues over the

next couple of years.

Naval engineers also need a higher level of proficiency with various types of computer

software. This includes software I was somewhat familiar with, AutoCAD, and software I had

never seen before, such as General HydroStatics (GHS). It took some getting used to, but for the

task I was doing, I felt pretty good about GHS, and I learned new skills on AutoCADmainly

working in three dimensionswhich I had never done beforehand.

With this knowledge in computer software, I was also able to use a process that engineers use to

test their designs and procedures. This includes: technical research, process development,

validation, networking, and sensitivity analysis.

Over many hours of observation, I didnt get to see how the architects and engineers at

DLBA interact with their clientele on a face-to-face basis, but I did notice a lot of over the phone

communication and conference calls. This makes sense, as the clients hail from a plethora of

locations. Thus, effective verbal communication is the key to success for the engineers a DLBA.

Many times, a client would ask a question along the lines of, Can you check that I can do this

with this instead of this? The engineers at DLBA would then have to look at their computers

and relay the information to the client completely by word of mouth. This can become difficult

if what is being communicated would typically rely on visual representation. To me, it was all

pretty amazing at how quick and effective the communication was.

 A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 22

My mentorship was truly a remarkable experience. Not many people my age are afforded

the opportunity to work with a company and shadow a professional in the field. Though there

were some tough points in the mentorship, I was able to work through them with some help from

Mr. Bowles and Nick. In the end, I had done what Mr. Bowles had wanted me to really do:

experience what it's like to be an engineer. I defined my problem; I did research; I created a tool

to help other engineers; and I tested the tool to ensure its functionality and accuracy. Even

though I plan to fly in the Navy for my career, I do hope to study naval architecture in college

and possibly make a career out of it following my military service.

Reference Page

1. Fast Facts- The Port of Virginia [Internet]. [cited 2016 April 4]. Available from:

http://www.portofvirginia.com/about/fast-facts/
2. Munro-Smith R. 1975. Elements of ship design. Marine Media Management 145 p.
3. Rawson K, Tupper E. Basic ship theory. 1994. London, England: Longman Publishing Group

400 p.
4. Dunworth RJ. Australian Department of Defence, Navy Engineering Division. 2012. Back

against the wall. Royal Institution of Naval Architects.

5. Dunworth RJ. Australian Department of Defence, Navy Engineering Division. 2012. Up against

the wall. Royal Institution of Naval Architects.

A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 23

Appendix A: Dimensions of geometric shapes described in Dunworths papers.

DRAFT BEAM LOA LCG TCG KG

(MT) (M) (M) (M) (M) (M) (M)
BOX 3200.0 4.00 8.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 3.00
0
30 1600.0 4.00 9.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 4.00
WEDG 0
E
45 200.00 1.52 7.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 3.50
WEDG
E

*Note: - Displacement in metric tons

Draft - depth that vessel protrudes beneath the water
Beam - width of vessel
LOA - Length Overall
LCG - Lateral Center of gravity
TCG - Transverse Center of Gravity
KG - Vertical Center of Gravity

Appendix B: KG Data Comparisons

VESSE KG KG KG DIFFERE % WALL DUNWOR

L ACTU WALL- DUNWOR NCE DIFFERE - TH %
AL SIDED TH NCE SIDE ERROR
METHO METHOD D%
D ERRO
A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 24

BOX 3.00 3.00 3.00 -0.005 -0.167 0.00 0.17

45 4.00 3.98 3.99 0.006 0.151 0.50 0.35
WED
GE
30 3.50 3.42 3.45 0.027 0.789 2.26 1.49
WED
GE
COAS 6.00 6.32 6.24 -0.080 -1.266 5.33 4.00
T
GUAR
D
DIXO 5.84 5.95 5.93 -0.020 -0.336 1.88 1.54
N 57

Appendix C: The capstone product. Excel sheet for finding

KG using new method (including graphs).

A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 25

Appendix C: The capstone product. Excel sheet for finding KG using old method (including

graphs)

Determination of HZ0
0.0400
0.0300
f(x) = 0.02x - 0.01
R =0.0200
1
0.0100
HZ 0.0000
-1.500 -1.000 -0.500 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500
-0.0100
-0.0200
-0.0300
-0.0400

Heel Angle

Determination of KG
0.2000

0.1500
f(x) = 4.1x + 0
R =0.1000
1
KG*sin() 0.0500

0.0000
-0.0200 -0.0100 0.0000 0.0100 0.0200 0.0300 0.0400
-0.0500

-0.1000

sin()

*Note: the slope of the line on the graph Determination of KG is the actual KG value of the

vessel, which is used to produce the value in the excel table on the previous page.
A Mentorship in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 26