Concept for a nuclear powered submarine tanker

Submarine Tankers
By Vito L. Russo,1 Member,Harlan Turner, Jr., 2 Member,and
Frank W. Wood, 3 AssociateMember

This paper is a report of a study of the technical feasibility of submarine tankers ranging
in deadweight from 20,000 to 40,000 tons and in speed from 20 knots to a little over 40
knots. It is in no sense an economic analysis. General arrangements of the smallest
and slowest and of the largest and fastest of the designs studied are presented as well
as the principal dimensions and characteristics of 23 other designs between these two
extremes, all of which are considered to be technically feasible. Limiting the draft of
large cargo submarines to permit access to harbors in the loaded surface condition
requires a departure from the optimum submarine form. To avoid, at the same time,
excessive beam or length a rectangular section is suggested. The results of model tests
to evaluate the resistance and directional stability of such forms are summarized. The
paper develops the approach to calculation of volumes, weights, scantlings, tank capaci-
ties, trim, power, and form parameters of submarine tankers. It emphasizes the im-
portance of propulsion-machinery arrangements on the size and general arrangements of
these vessels. It also describes briefly some of the systems that are peculiar to sub-
marines.

1 Deputy Chie[, Office of Ship Construction, Maritime
Administration, U. S. Department of Commerce, Washing-
ton, D. C.
2 Technical Assistant to Design Manager, General
Dynamics Corporation, Electric Boat Division, Groton,
Conn.
693
3 Naval Architect, Design Department, General Dy-
namics Corporation, Electric Boat Division, Groton, Conn.
Presented at the Annual Meeting, New York, N. Y.,
November 17-18, 1960, of The Society of Naval Architects
and Marine Engineers.
 Introduction
IT should be postulated at the outset that over-
seas transportation of people, goods, and products,
which originated in the unrecorded past, will
continue in the foreseeable future to serve the
needs of commerce between nations.
In the past few decades, a new mode of trans-
portation has entrenched itself in overseas com-
merce. Modem airlines perform an efficient,
rapid, and increasingly reliable passenger service
in direct competition with passenger ships. The
beginning of air freight is already here; and, based
upon past performance and the known .potential
of air transportation, it is prudent to assume that
water transportation will soon meet keen competi-
tion in securing high-paying premium package
freight.
Air service will grow, and by its very presence
will impose new conditions which water transpor-
tation must consider and resolve in order to com-
pete.
The basic ingredient of overseas commerce is
still ships, which will still carry the great bulk of
cargoes moving in international trade for the fore-
seeable future.
From the beginning of waterborne commerce,
ships have lifted and moved peoples and cargoes
from port to port. The range of activity of ships
has extended from protected waters, to open seas,
to oceans, and the type and size of ships have
changed correspondingly.
Advances in the sciences and engineering, and
the demands of peoples, commerce, and war, have
contributed to the evolution of ships from rudi-
mentary river craft to supediners. Basically,
however, ships have thus far maintained the
fundamental concept of floating vessels, encJosing
a volume greater than the displaced water, and
thereby being capable of lifting and carrying pas-
sengers and cargoes.
The tempo of modern commerce puts a con-
siderable premium on speed at sea, as well as on
land and in the air. Speed, relatively high speed,
is a very expensive characteristic for conventional
ships. As the speed of surface ships is pushed up,
we get nearer and nearer to an hydrodynamic
barrier brought about by excessive wave-making
resistance. In terms of modern speeds, this bar-
rier is not too far away from the present practice.
If we consider a sustained sea speed of 20 knots as
the present-day maximum operating speed for
general cargo ships, we can approximately assume
that doubling of this speed would place us right
against the hydrodynamic barrier referred to.
Cargo ships of speeds around 40 knots, con-
ceived as extrapolations of present naval architec-
694 Submarine Tankers
tural practice, would be very large ships, requir-
ing extremely large power. In order to maintain
some sort of architectural feasibility such cargo
carders would require nuclear propulsion, exten-
sive use of light alloys, and similar measures which,
in combination with size, would price these ships
out of proportion to their economic capability, at
least with the technology now available.
In addition to increases in the speed of cargo
ships, the fierce competition for ocean traffic will
demand improvements toward more mechaniza-
tion, more automation, and ~herefore more com-
plex cargo carriers. These trends, which are to-
day very much present and very active in all the
maritime centers of the world, have brought about
great emphasis on maritime research as a means
for maintaining the competitive position of ocean
water transportation by giving better service
through better ships conducive to more profitable
operation.
In our country a number of shipbuilders and
ship operators are involved in many phases of
maritime research. The Society, through the
Technical and Research Committees, has been
instrumental in organizing a considerable amount
of research spanning a wide range of maritime
interests.
For several years the Maritime Administration
has conduc.ted research in many aspects of ship
design and ship operation. Significant results
have been reported periodically in the Trans-
actions of the Society; the present paper is an-
other one in this series of technical reports to the
shipping industry.
~VIarAd initiated the project discussed here in a
speculative sort of w.ay: If our quest for higher
sea speeds is headed for insurmountable situations
with displacement-type vessels, what other avenue
or avenues are available to circumvent these
difficulties and what sort of results can be pre-
dicted by exploring these avenues? Basically,
in these speculative questions is the beginning of
MarAd research activities in submarine and
hydrofoil types of commercial vessels and may be
the beginning of other projects in other types of
craft as new ideas and new possibilities develop.
Of course, there is nothing new in the submarine
ship concept. Submarines have been built, by
most of the world's navies for years, and this type
of war craft has already reached a high level of
engineering performance. With the advent of
nuclear propulsion the submarine has come even
more into its own, and. more advanced designs
and higher degrees of performance are already
here or in the process of being engineered into
actual construction.
Basic Design Considerations
The military submarine is unquestionably a
highly efficient vehicle for the task assigned to it;
it is not, however, a suitable prototype for im-
mediate and direct extrapolation to a commerc~l
submarine. From a commercial viewpoint, the
military submarine is too small in displacement,
carries an insignificant amount of pay load; is very
complex in an engineering sense, and is altogether
too expensive mostly byreason of these limitations.
At the outset, it can be agreed that in order to
have any commercial merit by comparison with
displacement vessels, a 'cargo-carrying submarine
must have large displacement, and be engineered
on a much simpler basis than is usual for military
craft. Nuclear power is a natural type of power
for underwater propulsion, and therefore this
commercial submarine study has been based upon
nuclear propulsion.
By running a ship underwater with sufficient
submergence, we can eliminate wave making, and
there lies the great incentive. The submergence
of the vessel increases the wetted surface and, at
low speeds, this increase more than offsets the
gain in wave resistance. As the speed goes up,
however, the submarine will show superior results;
and at high speeds the submarine should offer a
decided advantage over the displacement ship
from a resistance viewpoint. The other significant
advantage of submerged ships is that these ships
are removed from the effects of bad weather and
can be scheduled with more regularity in any
service. The advantages of this mode of trans-
portation in war time are self-evident. Possi-
bility of navigation under the polar cap and ac-
cess to regions not accessible to surface vessels
might, in the future, prove advantageous also
from a commercial viewpoint.
There are obviously many features on the other
side of the ledger. Structurally, a submarine
must resist water pressure; by comparison with a
surface vessel for the same deadweight, the sub-
marine must have a much greater displacement.
The prevalent design practice for military subma-
rines is based on hulls having body of revolution
shape; this gives a minimum resistance form and
is satisfactory for comparatively small craft.
At large displacements, the diameter of the opti-
mum form submarine hull may range up to 100
ft and more. It is immediately evident that the
draft of water required to accommodate such
ships at building and repair yards, at dry docks, at
loading and unloading stations, and so on, will
present great operational difficulties. A way
around these difficulties is to prescribe that a
study on commercial submarines shall be based
upon a given maximum draft. A corollary to
Submarine Tankers
this is to abandon .the body of revolution (mini-
mum resistance) form and resort to other forms
basically rectangular or elliptical, whereby the
necessary volume is obtained by maintaining the
draft and inerea'sing the beam and length.
The difficulties and limitations implied in the
considerations briefly sketched in the foregoing
are considerably affected by the nature and den-
sity of the cargoes contemplated for submarine
service. The lower the cargo density the larger
the submarine and the magnitude of engineering
a n d operational problems. Dry cargo, which
must be contained in pressure hulls and moved in
and out through large openings in these hulls,
complicates greatly the basic configuration, the
proportions, and the structural design of a sub-
marine ship.
Obviously these problems are considerably xe-
dueed if the cargo is oil cargo. A submarine
tanker does require a minimum pressure hull to
contain living spaces, machinery spaces, and so on,
plus pressure hulls to provide for density varia-
tion of the cargo. The cargo can be pumped in
and out without need of introducing structural
discontinuities. Finally, the density of the cargo
can approach that of sea water, and variations in
density are predictable and can be prescribed
within practical limits. The amount of water
ballast, the displacement-deadweight ratio, and
the over-all dimensions of the submarine, are
reduced to a minimum.
It seemed evident that in order not to compli-
cate unduly the first feasibility study of a com-
mercial submarine, it was desirable to base this
study on submarine tankers. To encompass a
range of commercial utility, it was further decided
that the feasibility study should consider cargo
variations in the range of bunker fuels to gasoline
(61 API).
As just mentioned the hydrodynamically opti-
mum hull form for a submarine of large size may
have such large draft that operational difficulties
are unacceptable. The alternative is to use non-
circular sections, either rectangular or elliptical.
For low to inoderate speed and capacity the draft
can be held within a selected limit in this way.
Departing from the ideal body of revolution will
increase the resistance and power at the desired
speed. As the size and speed of submarines of
limited draft are increased, at some point the
proportions will become impractical, the power
will become prohibitive, and, therefore, a relaxa-
tion in the permissible draft must be accepted.
With the draft restriction eased, offshore load-
ing and discharging of cargo is possible, but dry-
docking must still be considered. For drydocking,
the draft of the ship without cargo is the control-
695

.~__~WITH GASOLINE CARGO-"
--~---'~FW'~UI~FUEL CARGO
A A K L A ~
Fig. 1 Schematic sectional views showing method of
accommodating various cargo densities
ling factor. Since this is less than loaded draft,
another type of design m a y become feasible.
This is a body of revolution lengthened by the in-
sertion of a cylindrical section of parallel middle
body to get the same volume with less diameter
than the ideal body.
Power estimates for submarine bodies of rec-
tangular sections were handicapped for lack of
experimental data on the controllability charac-
teristics of submarines with such hull forms and
696 Submarine Tankers
the corollary lack of data on required appendages.
As part of this research study, an experimental
program was set up at the Davidson Laboratory
to obtain experimental data on appendages and
resistance. This paper contains the experimental
data developed there.
Finally, it was necessary to set up quantitative
limits to be covered by the feasibility study. It
is agreed that, on the basis of present-day condi-
tions, there is no demand for movement of petro-
leum products by high-speed submarine nuclear
tankers. On the other hand, submarine tankers
could render possible, from an engineering view-
point, a type of service which would be impractical
with displacement-type vessels. The advantage
of the submarine is at high speed, and therefore
the feasibility study was oriented toward speed
limits which start with the present-day maximum
(20 knots) and extended to approximately double
this speed. In conjunction with these speed
limits, it was prescribed that the feasibility study
should cover a range of cargo deadweight from
20,000 tons to 40,000 tons. Because of the as-
sumption of nuclear power, no limits of range were
required.
It is realized that there is no demand for 40
knots speed in the oil trade. I t could even be
granted that a submarine mode of transportation
at such speeds would be uneconomical, unproven,
difficult to man and manage, and so on. The
fact remains, however, that based on the technol-
ogy available today, and the research study de-
scribed in this paper, it could be possible, from an
engineering viewpoint, to design an optimum sub-
marine tanker which could carry 40,000 tons of oil
products at about 37 knots with installed power
of about 2,50,000 shp. A displacement ship could
not do this job; even designing beyond present
limits, the surface (nuclear) ship of this dead-
weight and speed would require approximately
twice that amount of power or more. Even if one
considers that these numbers are gross approxi-
mations, there is enough incentive indicated to
recommend further work to define better the
engineering feasibility of submarine tankers, leav-
ing other questions of operation, economics, and
so on, in abeyance for the time being.
Volume
Archimedes' principle states that a floating
body displaces its own weight and a submerged
body displaces its own volume. While a surface
ship must satisfy only the first condition, a sub-
merged submarine must satisfy both requirements
in all conditions of loading and in all densities of
water to be encountered. Hence, volume is as im-
portant as weight in submarine design.
 In order to obtain an economical weight-volume
balance with cargoes lighter than water, it is
desirable that the noncargo volume be kept as
small as possible. Any weight deficit must be
overcome by the addition of high-density ballast
or, preferably, by increasing the structural weight,
and the lighter the cargo, the heavier the vessel.
It is to be noted t h a t the maximum deadweight/
displacement ratio obtainable with an unmanned,
unpropelled submarine tanker cannot exceed the
specific gravity relative to salt water of the cargo
for which it is designed.
For the return trip, a submarine tanker must
carry an amount of salt water ballast exactly equal
to the cargo deadweight. This is accomplished
by dividing the cargo tanks into two types; main
cargo tanks (MCT's) of capacity equal to the dead-
weight in salt water ballast, and variable cargo
tanks (VCT's) which, together with the main tanks,
carry the desired deadweight of the specified
cargo. When carrying cargoes of densities inter-
mediate between gasoline and salt water, the main
tanks are filled while the variable tanks carry only
the amount necessary to reach the deadweight
capacity. The three conditions are illustrated in
Fig. 1. If it is contemplated that cargoes heavier
than water might also be carried, then the main
tanks should be sized on the basis of the heavier
cargo, as ballast can always be added in the vari-
able cargo tanks as necessary to balance. Fig. 2 Schematic sectional views showing method of
accommodating cargo expansion and contraction
The main cargo tanks, being always full of cargo
or ballast, can be equalized with sea pressure,
and therefore need only be of comparatively light
construction. The variable cargo tanks must, of water in the expansion tank as a result of compres-
course, be made pressure resistant. I t can be sion or thermal shrinkage of the cargo, Fig. 2.
seen that a submarine designed for heavy oil 2 A decrease in the buoyant volume of the
exclusively would require smaller, and hence pressure hull due to compression or thermal shrink-
lighter, variable cargo tanks than one designed for age of the structure.
gasoline. This saving in weight, along with a 3 An increase in buoyancy due to the increase
reduction in fixed ballast, could be translated into in sea-water density.
a substantially greater cargo deadweight in the
same size submarine. Variations of water density with salinity will
On the other hand, a submarine tanker could not also be encountered, and it is the usual practice
submerge if filled with a cargo of lower density to allow for a range of density from 63.6 to 64.3
than that for which it was designed. Therefore, pcf. Consumption of food, stores, lube oil and
61 API gasoline was selected as the basis for the fresh water also must be compensated. These
design of the tankers discussed in this paper. changes in relative weight are offset by adding or
One ton of this gasoline occupies 49 c u f t as com- discharging an equivalent amount of salt-water
pared with 35 c u f t for a ton of salt water. Allow- ballast from pressure resistant variable ballast
ing 5 per cent for structure, fixed ballast, and so on, tanks (VBT's).
the cargo-tank volumes required for three selected The variable ballast tanks are designated as for-
deadweights are as given in Table 1. ward trim, after trim, and auxiliary; the trim
As a submarine tanker goes deeper or enters tanks being used primarily to adjust the moment
colder water, it will become relatively heavier as a while the auxiliary tanks, located near the center
net result of the following effects: of buoyancy, take care of the major portion of the
weight adjustment. Of course, the trim tanks
1 An increase in the amount of compensating may be made large enough to accommodate the

Submarine Tankers 697

 Table 1 Compartment Volumes
Deadweight (toffs) 20000 30000 40000
Main cargo tanks, eu ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735000 1102500 1470000
Variable cargo tanks, eu ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295000 442500 590000
Total cargo volume, eu ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030000 1545000 2060000
Cargo expansion tanks, (ind. in main cargo tap'y),
eu ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (28700) (43100) (54400)
Variable ballast tanks, eu ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50000 70000 90000
Crew, stores, access and operating spaces, cuft . . . . . 70000 80000 90000
Cargo pump room, cuft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40000 60000 80000
".Free flooding, eu ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10000 15000 20000
Net volume (exclusive of main ballast and machin-
ery spaces) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1200000 1770000 2340000

total variable baUast requirements and the auxil-
iary tanks omitted.
As a minimum, the variable ballast tanks need
only be large enough to accommodate consump-
tion of stores, changes in sea-water density, and
pressure effects on the cargo and pressure hun.
T e m p e r a t u r e changes in the cargo will be gradual
and m a y be balanced b y transferring cargo from
the variable cargo tanks to the cargo expansion
tanks or vice versa. T h e t e m p e r a t u r e of the pres-
" sure hull ~ill always be higher than the surround-
ing liquid because of the internal heat generation.
However, for the purpose of establishing volume
requirements, it has been assumed t h a t all varia-
tions will be handled b y the variable ballast tanks.
Based on a test depth of 1000 ft, a t e m p e r a t u r e
differential of 60 deg F, the usual range of sea
water salinity, and allowing for 350 tons of con-
sumables, the variable ballast and cargo expan-
sion-tank volumes are as given in T a b l e 1. T h e
derivation of these values is contained in the Ap-
pendix.
T h e normal surface condition is defined as t h a t
condition from which the submarine will submerge
at neutral b u o y a n c y and zero trim when the
main ballast tanks ( M B T ' s ) are flooded, and thus
is considered u s a corollary of the submerged
condition. T h e reserve buoyancy, or emerged
volume, in the surface condition is therefore equal
to the volume of the main ballast tanks, and the
center of b u o y a n c y of the emerged volume will be
in the same vertical line as the center of gravity
of the main ballast. I t is noted t h a t the sub-
marine m u s t always float a t the same waterline
in the normal surface condition regardless of cargo
loading or the density of the sea water. Being
always full when submerged, the main ballast
tanks need not be constructed to resist sea pres-
sure.
For a o n e - c o m p a r t m e n t flooding standard, the
volume of the main ballast tanks should be equal
to the volume of the largest, normally d r y com-
partment. A limit on the draft in the surface
condition m a y also govern the a m o u n t of main
ballast required. I n this connection, arrange-
merits can be m a d e to convert some main cargo
tanks to hallast tanks should access to certain har-
bors require t h a t the draft be less than the de-
signed draft.
I n all of the designs covered b y this paper, the
reserve buoyancy, i.e., the main ballast-tank
capacity, has been m a d e a b o u t 10 per cent of the
surface displacement. This provides adequate
freeboard for surface operation in and out of har-
bors. F o r the 20-knot vessels, it also satisfies the
requirement of a o n e - c o m p a ~ m e n t standard of
subdivision, b u t for some of the higher speed ves-
sels, the engine room is so large t h a t either more
bulkheads or more reserve b u o y a n c y would be
required to m e e t this standard.
An allowance should be m a d e for some free
flooding spaces, particularly a t the bow for a
navigating sonar, and a t the stern around control
surface operating mechanisms. One per cent of
the cargo volume has been included for this pur-
pose.
T h e normally dry spaces such as the crew's
quarters,, storerooms, operating spaces, passage-
ways, p u m p rooms and machinery spaces m u s t all
be contained within the pressure hull along with
the variable cargo and variable ballast tanks.
T h e volumes of these spaces v a r y in a n u m b e r of
different ways; crew's quarters and storerooms
according to the size of the crew; passageways
and operating spaces such as control room, stern
room, and windlass room according to ship size;
p u m p room with cargo volume and discharge rate;
and machinery spaces with ship size and speed or
power. T h e particular pressure-hull diameter
chosen will also h a v e a large influence on the
volume of these spaces.
W i t h the exception of machinery spaces, which
will be quite large in the higher powered vessels,
the total volume of these spaces will be less t h a n
10 per cent of the gross volume of the vessel so
t h a t variations from the assumed volumes found

698 Submarine Tankers

necessary as the design is developed will not affect Power and Form
the size of the vessel appreciably. The results The general expression for power is the same
of arrangement studies indicate that the volumes for submarines and surface ships; viz,
listed in Table 1 are reasonable for establishing
the gross volumes required. r 8 SCt
E H P = '/2p 550 - - 0"00872V8SC~ (2)'
For the purpose of establishing gross volume, it
is assumed t h a t the volume of the machinery and, in the same manner as in surface ship design,
spaces is proportional to the shaft horsepower. it is assumed t h a t
The specific volume (cu ft/shp) to be used depends
on such" things as pressure-hull diameter, number .c, = G + a G + c, (3)
of shafts, multiplicity of units, shaft speed, steam where the frictional resistance coefficient, Ct, is
conditions, and so on. An arrangement study in
obtained from the Schoenherr formulation
considerable detail for a single-serew, 35,000-shp
plant in a 35-ft-diam hull resulted in a machinery 0.242
-- log,0 (R Ct) (4)
volume of about 151,000 c u f t , giving a specific
volume of 4.32 cu ft/shp. An arrangement of a
60,000-shp package in a 35-ft-diameter hull re- The roughness allowance, ACt, is a dimension-
sulted in a volume of 159,000 c u f t for a specific less factor which accounts for the excess of the
volume of 2.65 cu ft/shp. One of these plants resistance of the full-sized ship over the resistance
was intended for each shaft of multiple-screw predicted from model tests. In addition to foul-
ships, and therefore, did not require as much du- ing and the condition of the paint, it allows for
plication of components to obtain reliability. such surface irregularities as sea chests, plate
Although a considerable amount of engineering edges, doublers, and weld reinforcements. For the
and drafting effort went into this arrangem.ent, it is purpose of this study a value of 0.0004, as currently
believed t h a t the specific volume would increase accepted for surface merchant ships, has been
to about 3.00 cu ft/shp if it were developed in com- assumed. In order to obtain this in a submarine
plete detail. A third arrangement consisting of tanker, it will probably be necessary to provide
four 60,000-shp units in a single pressure hull for housing or fairing of such items as bitts, chocks,
64 ft diam produced ~ volume of about 881,000 cleats, capstans, and the like, and to make life
cu ft giving a specific volume of 3.67 cu ft/shp. lines or hand rails portable.
As a result of these studies, the following specific The residual-resistance coefficient, C,, for sur-
volumes were used to obtain preliminary machinery face vessels is a complex quantity generally con-
and gross volumes: sidered to be composed of three parts:
1 A constant portion of relatively small
(a) Single-screw plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.32 magnitude, dependent upon the hull form.
(b) Twin-screw plants in one pressure 2 A portion which is a measure of the natural
hull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.00 wave-making attributes of the bow and stern
(c) Quadruple-screw plants in one pres- and which increases rapidly with speed.
sure hull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.67 3 A portion which reflects the interference
(d) Multiple screw ships, each plant in a effects of the bow and stern wave trains and is de-
separate pressure hull . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.00 pendent upon the speed/length ratio.
The coefficient for a submarine consists of only
Thus, in addi-tiqn to needing an approximate the constant portion 1, which is dependent upon
power, a general concept of the power-plant ar- hull form. This is true, of course, only when the
rangement is necessary in order to arrive at the submarine is submerged about four diameters to
gross volume requi~d.. For a specified speed, this avoid disturbing the surface. Consequently,
requires t h a t hull form and tentative d!mensions while C, and, hence, Ct of a weft-designed subma-
be established. rine will be comparable to a surface ship at low
In summary, the volume equation for 10 per speeds, they will certainly be less at speeds where
c.ent reserve buoyancy is the surface ship is generating waves to any ap-
Vr = 1.1 Vs = 1.1 (Cl q- C2 SHP) (1) preciable extent.
The wetted surface of a submarine, however,
where Vr and Va are the gross submerged and will be greater than t h a t of a surface ship of equal
surface displacement, respectively; Cl is the displacement, and will be even greater on the
total volume of all spaces except main ballast basis of equal deadweight. There will be some
and machinery, as given in Table 1; and C2 is
the machinery-space specific volume. 4 I n s e a w a t e r a t 59 F.

Submarine Tankers 699

 o,00o
(or entrance and run) of such length and shape as

r will provide minimum resistance, he obtains the

required volume by .adding sufficient parallel
body. The envelope volume, then, is given by
V~ = VB + Ve = A (CeB LE + Le) (5) 5
_ I . I_ J ,woo and the bare-hull wetted surface by
s = C (G. + (6)
Substituting these in equations (1) and (2)
n- 30,000 1.1 (C1 + C, SHP) -- A (Cex L z -t- Lp) (7)
and
.
EHP.. = 0.00872 nG (C8,, L . + L,.)C, (8)
20,000
Three eases have been investigated:
1 Circular section without parallel body, no
limit on dimensions.
2 Circular section with p~rallel body, maxi-
mum diameter limited to 80 ft.
~ ~ I 10~o0 3 Rectangular section with parallel body,
20,000 DWT TANKERS depth limited to 40 ft.
- I
Circular Hull Without Parallel Body
SPEED
The' circular section hull without parallel body
io 12 14 16 18 20 22 has, as far as is known by the authors, the least
Fig. 5 Comparison o f p o w e r requirements o f a surface resistance; that is, the best combination of wetted
tanker "and an optimum form submarine tanker each surface and form drag. The form selected for
designed to carry 20,000 dwt at 20 knots this study has the following characteristics:
Length to diameter ratio, L I D . . . . . . . . 7.0
Position of maximum section . . . . . . . . . 0.4L
speed, though, at which the product of wetted Prismatic coefficient,
surface and total resistance coefficient, and thus C , = Vr/(~r/4)D2L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6
power, will be equal because of the rapid increase Wetted-surface coefficient,
of surface ship Cr with speed. Above this speed, Cs = S/~rDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 7374
the submarine will have a distinct advantage. Residual resistance coefficient, Cr . . . . . 0. 00007
As an example, Fig. 3 shows the speed-power The length-to-diameter ratio can be varied over
curves for a surface tanker and a submarine tanker a rather wide range of values without affecting
of good hydrodynamic form, both designed to the total resistance very much. A smaller L / D
carry 20,000 dwt at a speed of 20 knots. In this might be better from the point of view of bare-
particular case, the crossover occurs just above hull resistance, but the smaller appendage drag
the design speed at about 21 knots. It is realized and better propulsive efficiency of a more slender
that, if the surface tanker were designed for a body more than counterbalance the effect of the in-
higher speed, it would be longer and finer so that creased wetted surface. The precision of the esti-
the power upswing due to wave making would be mated value of residual-resistance coefficient is
deferred for a few more knots, but there is a limit not too critical because, in any reasonably well-
to the amount of fining that can be done, and the shaped body of revolution, it is small compared to
submarine becomes increasingly favorable at the roughness allowance. For this particular hull
speeds above 25 knots. Of course, for speeds form ( L / D = 7), the bare hull EHP, from equation
higher than the design speed, both types would (8), is
have to be increased in displacement to accommo- EHPBa = 0.1414 V3D2C~ (9)
date larger power plants.
With wave making eliminated and C~ constant Assuming a propulsive coefficient (PC) of 0.70
a~ndindependent of speed, speed/length ratio is not for the purpose .of establishing a first approxima-
a factor in submarine design, and the designer has tion to ship size, and allowing 15 per cent for ap-
more freedom in his choice of length. By'selecting s Subscripts E and P designate ends (bow and stern)
a maximum section together with a bow and stern and parallel body, respectively.

700 Submarine Tankers

 MAX. DIAMETER (FEET)
400 55 60 65 70 75 BO 85 90 95 IO0 IO5 IIO 115
I I I I
'l ' I' 'l I 'I ' '
SHP vs LENGTH ~ MAX.DIAM. I
FOR |
BODY OF REVOLUTION HULLS I
WITH OR WITHOUT ,I
PARALLEL MIDDLE BODY I , /
a 300 _ FOR AN ASSUMED RC.=0.70 I
z I [**~ / /
(n LEGEND ~ / " &/ /
0 BODYOF REVOLUTION
-r-
I- WITHOUT PARALLEL
MIDDLE BODY,LID:7.0
r,,
I I I BODY OF REVOLUTION
3 200 WITH PARALLEL MIDDLE
O
a.
bJ
u~
BODY, MAXIMUM
DIAMETER: BO F E E T ~
f- /
ri-
O
l~o~f
I~
! ~ ]/ /
~f~w~~
i~o!S
,
~......-.-W
ttO't'S .....
//
/ --'"7
09 tO0

I ._ Z_.O__KNOTS__...~,

o 400
/ ?'
500
/
BOO
/
700
LENGTH (FEET)
800
r... 900 I000

Fig. 4 P a r a m e t r i c curves for body o f r e v o l u t i o n h u l l s w i t h a n d w i t h o u t parallel b o d y

pendages and 10 per cent service margin, the shaft ularly in the larger sizes, since not only will it be
horse-power required is necessary to 10ad and discharge such ships off shore,
1 . 1 X 1.15
but in addition there are no existing drydocking
SHP - EHPBH -- 0.2555V3D2Ct facilities capable of taking a vessel drawing much
0.70
over 40 ft of water.
(10)
The volume equation for this particular hull form, C/rcular Hulls with Parallel Body
from equation (7), becomes The diameter of the circular section hulls may be
C1 Jr C2SHP reduced and the required volume obtained by add-
n 3 - (11)
3.00 ing parallel body, thus increasing length, wetted
As shown in Fig. 4, equations (10) and (11) surface, and power. Using the same form for the
can be plotted as curves of SHP versus diameter ends and making the same assumptions relative to
or length using speed as a parameter for equation appendage power (15 per cent), service margin
(1.0)-and ~leadweight for equation (11). The (10 per cent), and propulsive coefficient (70 per
intersections of-these two sets of curves thus give cent), the volume and power equations, from equa-
the desired solutions (length, diameter, and tions (7) and (8), become
SHP) for specified speeds and deadweights. Vr = VB Jr Vv = 0.7854D 2 (0.6 L~ Jr Lp) .
It is noted that the maximum diameters and = 1.1 (Ct Jr C~SHP) (12)
the surface drafts of the resulting ships are quite
large. With 10 per cent reserve buoyancy, the. S l i p = 0.0495 V3D (0.7374 L~ Jr L~) C, (13)
draft in the normal surface condition will be about
80 per cent of the maximum diameter. For in- where
stance, the 40,000-dwt, 40-knot ship has a maxi- LB + Lv = L, and LB = 7D
mum diameter of about 105 ft and will draw
about 84 ft of water in the normal surface condi- For any specified diameter, deadweight, and
tion. (loaded). In the light surface, condition-it will speed, a. solution may be obtained in the same
draw about 50 ft of water. Therefore, these manner as the previous case. Curves for a maxi-
optimum hull ships may not be practical, partic- mum diameter of 80 ft are included in Fig. 4. It

Submarine Tankers 701

 f

A.R 90 80 70 60 50 40

9'o so .0
Fig. 5 Lines plan of parent form rectan~

will be seen t h a t length becomes impractical in the ratios for the purpose of model tests. Fig. 5
larger and faster vessels as diameter is reduced. shows the lines o f . t h e BID = 2.0 model. T h e
wetted surface coefficients obtained from these
Rectangular Hulls lines are as follows:
From the practical point of view, a draft in the
normal surface condition (loaded) in the order of B/D 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
36 ft is about the most t h a t can be accepted with Cs~ 0.722 0.736 0.750 0.765
present channel limitations and pier facilities.
With 10 per cent reserve buoyancy, this limits the
depth of the hull to around 40 ft, and, in order to T h e area of the maximum section is obtained
keep the ship length within reason, the beam must from the formula
be increased. This entails a departure from the A = BD -- 0.86R 2 (14)
body of revolution hull form.
Rather than investigate the intermediate ellip- and the girth of this section, allowing for a 21/2-ft-
tical section, the authors have elected to use a rec- high rectangular fairing for vent piping, is
tangular section because, for a given depth and G = 2 (B -b D - 0.86R + 2.5) (15)
volume, the beam a n d / o r length will be less than
for any other shape. T h e corners of the rectangu- Assuming a propulsive coefficient of 0.70 and
lar section are rounded at a radius (R) to ease the allowing 25 per cent for appendages and 10 per
flow. cent for service margin, the shaft-horsepower
T h e following constants were adopted for the equation for this series is
family of vessels discussed in this paper; 1.1 X 1.25
SHP = " EHPBH
Lm/v~BD
4.0 = 0.7
R/~/BD0.14 = = 0.0171ING (Cs~ LB-{-Lp) C, (16)
Cpx = V~/LzA = 0.60 T h e simultaneous solutions of equations (7) and
A curve of sectional areas was developed and (16) for a depth (D) of 40 ft with beam as a param-
lines plans drawn for four different b e a m / d e p t h eter are shown in Figs. 6, 7 and 8. These charts

702 Submarine Tankers

 Upper & Lower Tangen+

Vent Fairing Side

40 30 20 I0 5 F.R

Curve of Areos

Top of Vent F~iring /

Side Temcjen~

Axis

Side Tangent"

40 30 ~o IO 5 F.P.

B I D = 2.0, P M B ~- 6 0 p e r c e n t

have been prepared with the simplifying assump-
tion t h a t the bare hull Cr is 0.0001 regardless of the
amount of parallel body or the beam-depth ratio.
Because the parametric charts, Figs. 4, 6, 7
and 8, are based upon estimates of volume require-
ments, no variation of Cr with proportions, and an
assumed propulsive coefficient of 0.70, it is em-
phasized t h a t they are only for the purpose of
roughing out a design. Using the results of
model tests described in the next section, the de-
signer can correct the power calculations for de-
partures from the parent form.
Model Tests
Since no resistance data were available on sub-
merged rectangular-section form.s, it was necessary
to conduct model tests to determine resistance and
the effect of variations in proportions.
' A program of model tests of" submarine tanker
hulls was carried out at the Davidson Laboratory
of Stevens Institute of Technology [1]. 6 When
this program was planned, two objectives were
given primary consideration, viz:
1 T o optimize as quickly as possible t_he form
s N u m b e r s in b r a c k e t s d e s i g n a t e R e f e r e n c e s a t t h e e n d
of t h e paper.
of a 20-knot, 20,000-ton-deadweight tanker with
draft of about 35 ft 6 in. or less.
2 T o obtain enough additional, parametric
data to facilitate the future design of a draft-
limited vessel of different capacity a n d / o r speed.
The parent form selected for the series of models
was identical with a 20,000-dwt, 20-knot prelimi-
nary design which had been worked out in consider-
able detail. This design had been given the
Maritime Administration designation S5-N-MA-
48a. T h e principle dimensions of this vessel
were:
Length BP, ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565.
Beam, ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Depth, ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Draft, normal surface condition, ft-in . . . . . 35-6
T h e model scale was 1:120. Thus the parent
model was 56.5 in. long.
T h e appendages make a major contribution to
the resistance of a submarine; therefore, it i~
important to design them well. T h e control sur-
faces must be big enough for directional stability,
b u t they should not be any bigger than necessary.
T h e stability coefficients cannot be predicted
accurately on familiar submarine forms without
model tests. On the unfamiliar rectangular form,
the .need for such tests was thus quite apparent.

Submarine Tankers 703

 400
I

500

L
-I-
f~
0 200
0
/
7J
/
/, / / 20,000 DWT
40 FT DEPTH

400 500 600 700 800 900 I000

LENGTH (FT)
i J 30,000
40 DWT
FT DEPTH
Fig. 6 Parametric curves for 20,000 dwt rectangular
hulls---D = 40 ft

Davidson Laboratory carried out the directional

G
stability tests on the Laboratory's rotating-arm 500 600 700 800 900 I000 I100
facility. LENGTH (FT)
The advantages and disadvantages of small Fig. 7 Parametric curves for 30,000 dwt rectangular
models have been discussed many times. In the hulls---D = 40 ~
submarine-tanker program, the advantages ap-
peared to outweigh the disadvantages. Rea-
sonably good data on a parametric series of forms Table 2 Data for Models Tested
were needed more than high precision on a single PMB,
form. Even with small models, it was desirable to Form B/D percent Scale
conserve time and money by varying only those l 1.0 60.2 1:120
2 1.5 60.2 1:120
parameters which could be expected to have a 3 2.0 53.1 1:128.1
significant effect on the power required. Propor- 4 2.0 60.2 1:120.1
5 2.0 65.4 1:113.6
tions outside the range of practical arrangements 6 2.5 60.2 1:120
did not need to be tested.
Models with four "different b e a m / d e p t h ratios
and three different lengths of parallel middle body With fuller ends, the length of the parent form
were tested, Table 2. could have been reduced a little, thus effecting a
Forms 1, 2, 4 and 6 aU had the same length reduction in wetted surface. Assuming that the
and the same crave of sectional areas. F o r m 4 resulting saving in frictional E H P would not
was the parent form. Forms 3 and 5 had the have been entirely offset b y an increase in resid-
same ends as the parent, but the length of parallel uary E H P , there still would have been a strong
middle body was altered b y substituting blocks of possibility t h a t the thrust deduction would have
different length. This, of course, made the dis- been so much higher t h a t little, if any, saving in
placements of models 3 and 5 different from the S H P would have resulted. Since Davidson
parent. When the test data were expanded to Laboratory is not equipped to make self-propul-
ship size, different scale factors were used on these sion tests with large models, any experiments with
two models to make the displacements of each of fuller ends would have been inconclusive with re-'
them the same as all of the others. spect to SHP. Therefore, it was decided not to

704 Submarine Tankers

change the lines of the ends unless the residuary 500
resistance of the parent should prove to be un-
expectedly high.
All of the models had rectangnlar sections with
rounded corners. H a d the residuary resistance
of these models proved to be high, it was planned 400
to test an alternate form with elliptical sections.
However, the residuary resistance of the parent
form was found to be so low that no room was left
for significant improvement. Furthermore, the
elliptical section for equal draft would be so much
wider tha ~ wetted surface would be greater than 300 -. :/
on the parent form.
The sequenc ~ of model tests was as follows: =
1 A preliminary stability investigation of the o
parent hull (form 4) was carried out with the ro- 0_0
taring-arm facility in Davidson Laboratory T a n k
No. 2. This study was undertaken with various 2oc / ~OKTS
sizes of thin-plate rudders and stern diving planes. 40,000 DWT
The results of these tests were extrapolated to 40 FT DEPTH
establish a set of approximate empirical equations
which expressed the hydrodynamic derivatives
and hence the stability indices ~ 61 and 63 in terms
of the fin sizes and hull dimensions of the series of ,oo
forms under consideration. These equations were
then used to determine the sizes of fins, both rud-
ders and stern planes, required b y all of the models
to achieve the desired indices ffl ---~ 6 3 - ~ --0.3.
2 The resistance of the bare hull# was meas- o
ured in the straight towing tank (Davidson T a n k ~oo 600 700 800 SO0 lOOO I10O
LENGTH(FT)
No. 3) to determine E H P .
3 The required rudders and diving planes Fig. 8 Parametric curves for 40,000 dwt rectangular
were installed on all models as well as the "sail," hulls--D = 40 h
i.e., the bridge fairwater. The resistance of the
fully appended models was then measured in T a n k amounted to about 36 per cent of the bare hull
No. 3 to determme the E H P of the complete E H P on the parent ship and roughly the same
ships. a m o u n t on the other forms. The excessive drag
4 Models 1, 3 and 4 were tested for directional was believed to be due in part to the thickness and
stability with their streamlined appendages. orientation of the twin rudders. This was con-
These tests were considered necessary because the firmed b y substituting thir/ner rudders 9 with the
simplifying assumptions and skimpy data from the leading edges towed outboard 2, 4 and 6 deg rela-
preliminary tests could not be regarded as a firm tive to the trailing edges. The residual-resist-
basis for sizing the fins. ance coefficient for the parent form with the orig-
The resistance added b y the sail was found to be inal rudders, based on total surface, was 0.00059.
so small that it was not necessary to change the With the thinner rudders at various angles, C,
size of sail to suit the different scale of models 3
came down as follows:
and 5.
The increased resistance due to stern append- Angle, deg : C,
ages was considered excessive. Appendage E H P 0 0.00045
2 0.00040
4 0.00037
6 0.00046
7 The stability indices a~ and a3 used by Davidson
Laboratory for motions in the horizontal and vertical
planes, respectively, indicate that an initial disturbance of For the best case tested, it will be seen t h a t total
the vessel under consideration will damp to 1/e in -- 1/~ E H P had dropped from 136 to 124 per cent of bare
lengths traveled by the vessel.
a A small appendage along the deck at the centerline
of all models to serve as a fairing for vent piping was con-
sidered part of the bare hull. 0 Thickness/chord ffi 0.09.

Submarine Tankers 705

 Table 3 Full-Size Results and Calculations, for Constant Full-Size Volume and 20 Knots
PMB,
per
Form a B/D cent X S, L, R. C, CI, Ct, EHP
1-a 1.0 60 120 119472 565 1.4g 100 0.00073 0.00146 0.00259 21620
1-b 109357 0.00021 0.00207 15830
2-a 1.5 60 120 122790 565 1.49 X 109 0.00054 0.00146 0.00240 20590
2-b 112563 0.00008 0.00194 15270
3-a 2.0 53 128.1 120341 512.7 1.35 X l0 g 0.00063 0.00148 0.00251 21110
3-b 111785 0.00025 0.00213 16670
4-a 2.0 60 120 126978 b65 1.49 X 109 0.00059 0.00146 0.00245 21740
4-b 117678 0.00009 0.00195 16030
4-m 126978 0.00037 0.00223 19800
5-a 2.0 05 113.6 1326b0 615.1 1.62 X 109 0.00073 0.00144 0.00257 23820
5-b 122791 0.00006 0.00150 16320
6-a 2.5 6() 120 132559 565 1.49 X l0 g 0.00052 O.00146 0.00238 22050
6-b 123892 0.00007 0.00193 10720
6G = fully-appended hull. b -- bare hull. m -- modified rudders.

hull E H P . A further reduction in E H P might be

.obtained b y increasing the spacing between the EFFECT OF B/D EFFECT OF PMB
PMB = 6 0 % BID 2.0
rudders and b y using thinner sections on the driv- $XlO "4
(FT 2)
ing planes. 15
Unfortunately,. the rotating-arm tests on the S
EHP
three fully appended models indicated instability. XlO-3
20 +10
T h e methods suggested to reduce appendage drag
[Cr)sx tO 3
would also improve stability. However, some in- OR EHP
(Ct)t X i0 3
crease in area might still be necessary. This 15 3 "5
leaves k small range of uncertainty in E H P predic-
J tot)s (Ct)s
tions based upon the tests conducted to date.
tO 2 JO
Nevertheless, the available data are considered to
b e adequate for preliminary design. If the con-
t r a c t design of a submarine tanker is undertaken, 5 I
of course, a larger model should be tested for direc- t,)s (Cr)s
tional stability as well as for resistance and propul-
sion. 0 1.0 2~ 3,0 40 50 60 70
BEAM / OEPTH RATIO" PARALLEL MIDOLE BODY
Although the model with modified rudders has |B/D) PER CENT OF LENGTH
(PMB)
n o t been retested for directional stability, it seems
reasonable to assume t h a t a small increase in fin Fig. 9 Bare hull m o d e l results for rectangular hulls o f
equal volume at a speed o f 20 knots
area will be required b u t t h a t the resulting power
increase can be matched b y a decrease due to re-
finements of the appendage design. Thus, for
cient C, is nearly constant for b e a m / d e p t h ratios
preliminary design of submarine tankers with rec-
tangular sections, a reasonable allowance for all from 1.5 to 2.5, inclusive. Cr is higher for B / D =
appendages is 25 per cent of the E H P of the bare 1.0. Wetted surface increases as BID increases.
These effects combine to m a k e E H P m i n i m u m at
hull. This allowance has been used for such de-
B/D = 1.5.
signs elsewhere in this paper.
2 (7, decreases rapidly as length of parallel
Results of all of the model tests for E H P ex-
middle b o d y increases until P M B reaches a b o u t
panded to the full size of the parent ship 1 are
60 per cent of the length of the hull. Thereafter
given in Table 3. T h e effects of the most sig-
C, decreases slowly as P M B increases. W e t t e d
nificant form p a r a m e t e r s studied; i.e., b e a m / d e p t h
surface increases as P M B increases. These effects
ratio and parallel middle body, are illustrated in
Fig. 9. combine to m a k e E H P m i n i m u m a t a b o u t 60 per
cent P M B .
F r o m the results of the model tests assuming
3 F o r the p a r e n t ship (S5-N-MA48a), the pro-
c o n s t a n t displacement, several general conclu-
portions selected appear to be the best t h a t can be
sions can be drawn:
obtained with the desired deadweight, speed, and
1 T h e bare-hull residual-resistance eoeffi-
limited draft.
4 T h e assumption t h a t the effects of parallel
~oSS-N-MA48a, 20,000 dwt, 20 knots. middle b o d y will be independent of BID is a logi-

706 Submarine Tankers

 Table 4 P o w e r , Dimensions a n d Principal Characteristics o f Submarines I n v e s t i g a t e d

20000-dwt v e s s e l s
Speed, knots .20 . 20- , 42.3 42.0 31.4
Rec- Rec- Rec-
Section Circle Circle tangle Circle Circle tangle Circle Circle tangle
Parallel body, %L . . . . . . . . 0 59.5 0 58.0 0 17.6 58.6
Length, ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525 555 560 570 620 680 580
Beam, f t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.5 diam 80 79.0 diam 90 88.5 diam 80.0 dlam 90
4O 40 40
Depth, f t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Surface displ, tons . . . . . . 36600 38000 42800 43600 59400 59500 44500
Submerged displ, tons... 40300 41800 47100 47900 65400 65500 45000
DWT/surf dlspl . . . . . . . . . . . 0.546 0.527 0.467 0.460 0.337 0.336 0.490
EHP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14300 19700 51600 71600 172500 176500 83000
SHP, trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16900 27400 68600 95400 218000 218000 109000
EH P/SH P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.846 0.720 0.752 0.750 0.790 0.810 0.760
SliP, service . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18600 30200 75500 105000 240000 240000 120000
No. of screws . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 2 2 4 4 2
RPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Prop diam, f t . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.8 26.1 19.8 22.6 21.0 21.0 23.0
SH P/shaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18600 30200 37750 52500 60000 60000 60000
Mach vol/gross vol . . . . . . 0.057 0.089 0.18 0.19 0.39 0.39 0.21
Speed X DWT/serv SliP. 21.5 13.2 7.95 5.72 3.55 3.50 5.23

30000-dwt v e s s e l s
Speed, knots 20 . r 30 - 40.0 39.4 32.3
Rec- Rec- Rec-
Section Circle Circle tangle Circle Circle tangle Circle Circle tangle
Parallel body, %L . . . . . . . . 0 11.8 60.8 0 20.0 55.5 0 30.5 57.0
Length, f t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600 635 650 625 700 625 670 805 650
Beam, ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 85.5 diam 80.0 diam 100 89.5 diam 80.0 dlam 120 96.0 diam 80.0 dlam 120
Depth, ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 40 40
Surface displ, tons . . . . . . . 53700 53700 56000 61300 62200 62800 75600 75800 65900
Submerged displ, t o n s . . . 59100 59100 61600 67400 68400 69100 83200 83400 72500
DWT/Surf displ . . . . . . . . . . 0.559 0.559 0.536 0.490 0.483 0.478 0.396 0.396 0.455
EHP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18300 18800 27200 64700 68500 97000 171000 178500 124000
SHP. trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22100 23000 38900 87200 90200 128000 218000 218000 163500
EHP/SHP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.830 0.820 0.700 0.743 0.760 0.760 0.785 0.820 "0.760
SHP, service . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24300 25300 42800 95000 99200 141000 240040 240000 180000
No. of screws . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 3
RPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150 150
Prop diam, f t . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.3 25.5 28.2 21.1 21.4 22.5 21.1 21.1 23.7
SHP/shaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24300 25300 42800 48000 49.600 47000 60000 60000 60000
Mach vol/gross vol . . . . . . . 0.053 0.053 0.085 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.30 0.30 0.21
Speed X DWT/serv SHP. 24.7 23.7 14.0 9.38 9.07 6.38 5.00 4.92 5.39

40000-dwt v e s s e l s
-20 , 30 38.2 37.4 30.6
Speed, knots
Rec- Rec- Rec-
Section Clrcle Circle tangle Circle Circle tangle Circle Circle tangle
26.8 60.6 0 33.3 64.1 0 39.8 64.4
Parallel body, %L . . . . . . . . 0
Length, f t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 660 765 710 680 840 780 715 930 785
Beam, f t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.5 diam 80.0 diam 120 98.0 diem 80.0 diem 120 102.5 diem 80.0 diem 120
40 40 40
Depth, f t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Surface displ, tons . . . . . . . 70600 70600 73300 80000 80500 81800 92000 92200 82400
Submerged displ, t o n s . . . 77700 77700 80600 88000 88600 90000 101200 101400 90700
DWT/surf, displ . . . . . . . . . . 0.566 0.566 0.546 0.500 0.497 0.489 0.435 0.434 0.486
170000 181000 , 124000
EHP ..................... 21800 23400 32900 76500 84800 115500
26800 29300 48400 104400 110000 152000 218000 218000 163500
SHP, trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EHP/SHP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0,813 0,800 0,680 0,732 0,770 0,760 0.778 0.830 0.760
29500 32000 53300 115000 121000 168000 240000 2.40000 180000
SHP, service . . . . . . . . . . . . .
No. of screws . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 3
RPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150 150
Prop diam, ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.5 27.0 29.4 22.1 22.2 23.6 21.1 21.2 23.8
SHP/shaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29500 32000 53300 57500 60500 56000 60000 60000 60000
Mach vol/gross vol . . . . . . . 0.049 0.049 0,079 0,15 0.15 0.17 0.25 0.25 0.17
Speed X DWT/serv SHP. 27.1 25,0 15.0 10.5 9.92 7,15 6.37 6.23 6.80

cal and useful extrapolation, b u t it should be re- minimum hull depth that can be used. Opposing
m e m b e r e d t h a t the P M B variations were tested this, a draft limit, together with a limit on re-
only on the hull with . B / D = 2.0. serve buoyancy, will determine the maximum
depth of hull. When these two requirements
Influence o f M a c h i n e r y A r r a n g e m e n t on Ship Size conflict, the draft limitation must be relaxed.
The final selection of dimensions must be based The diameter of the engine room is governed
on the geometry of the noncargo pressure hull, by the main turbine-reduction gear-condenser
especially that part containing the machinery. complex. The size of these units for a given
The pressure hull should be cylindrical to with- power depends on such considerations as steam
stand sea pressure, and, since it must fit inside the conditions, condenser vacuum, propeller RPM
outer envelope, its diameter will control the and the arrangement of the turbine cylinders.

Submarine Tankers 707

 I^ II

Reoc"kor

MCT No.15
I I II iHl
A~P. 550 500 450 400 350
I I I
I'I'o" 20'0" 35'0'

MBT
_ MCT.N,o.ll(P) MCTNo.I~
~ ~ EngineRm ~]-~--~-~ Reaclor
A ] <:
~,~,,.~ : : .
_ _
. . . . .: -:- , -. , - -.--~ - - a ~ - - .' . . J , ~, :
L " ' F
T
~r ,-,o '," ""
---= [, r,
'-........r.p.~2 o--] ,.-,.--, ,..,_, ,, .... :.~=::=
MBT IMC(Fs~i MCTNoJ3(S} MCTNo.12(S)v-MCTNo.II($) 4CTNo.|C
l
N'3CS)I . . . . . . . .
vcT~'141 VCT No. 13(S) VCT No.I:~ (S) VCT No.II(S) 'CT No.lO

Fig. l O ( a ) General arrangement i

With the diaineter thus established, the various In order to keep the pressure-hull diameter at a
components must be located relative to one an- minimum for the limited draft ships, it was con-
other in some logical arrangement, and this will ceived that the power plant for each shaft would
have considerable influence on compartment be contained in its own cylinder and considered
length. as a complete unit or package by itself. T h e
The reactor-compartment diameter depends arrangement study of a 60,000-shp package indi-
on the number and size of reactor vessels and cated that it could be contained in a 35-ft-diam
steam generators; one reactor will require a cylinder. This is compatible with the 40-ft outer
larger diameter than two for the same power out- hull depth. B y the same token, it is evident t h a t
put. Of course, two reactors will require a longer two such units will require a beam of about 80 ft;
cylinder. The length of compartment required three units, 120 ft; and four units, 160 ft. Since
for each reactor is a function of the coolant pipe a b e a m / d e p t h ratio of 4.0 is rather impractical,
configuration as determined by thermal-stress 180,000 shp, or three 60,000-shp units, is about the
considerations. upper limit of power that can be accommodated
In general, marine power plants have not ex- in vessels limited to drafts in the order of 36 ft.
ceeded 70,000 shp per shaft. W h i l e higher Although admittedly the pressure-hull plating
power turbines could, without doubt, be built, will be quite thick, the 64-ft diam required for a
the problems involved in shafting the propellers four-shaft, 240,000 shp plant in one cylinder can
for such. powers do not offer much incentive. be accommodated in the unlimited draft and
Perhaps some as yet untried method of propul- 80-ft-diam circular hulls.
sion may be developed which will raise the upper
limit, but to arrive at a realistic arrangement it Specific Vessels
'"Lr'" W#S necessary to use known components. The The authors have prepared Table 4 to show the
upper limit Of power per shaft was established at power, dimensions, and other characteristics of
60,000 shp for the purpose of this study. the three different types of vessels for each of the

708 Submarine Tankers

 /Discharge Manifold
~
l ~
rldge

i
I

I I I B
Falrlng I I/ .I" MI
'~' o, [ ~ )No3 I ~ ~' : "

? ]l |
Pumproom. ~llc,pt~ cry,,
QrScrew
Q,rs Ga,te,
Me.Ss,
ore.
m VCT" ~:I VCTro.e V C T ~
; I I~MCTN'81 [~]TNEllMCTN'6 IMB]'tI~':I ] MCTN'5 IMI:TN[~'I ,,CTNo.3I HCTNo.?- METN~-I.I, Une ]1
--.., l,,,,w*~l~.B=se
2GO ?00 150 I00 50 F.v
i I I I I I
~5'0" ZG'O" Inner Hull Diarneers Z6'O" tZ'O" 16'0"

nks fCTN~gB
(p) VCTNo.gA VCT VCTNo.'I(P)VCTNo.6(PIvCTNcLSB
"(P) N~B(P) (P) VCTNa5A VCTNoA(K VCTNo.3(P:
CP)
MCTNo.Z(P) MCTNo,l(P)
I'ks Cofl.ITks.
"ks
j.cTRocP) MCTI~
(P)
MCTNo.I(KMCTNo.G(P]MBTNo.2(P)MCTN~5(P)MCTN~4(P) MCTNa3(P MBTNo1(P)
\
,~ cI~,~.EI':~]~I;IO~
~" FanRm..]' II -~1 'I 'h'"" (o)
~1:~:~-
" I1~ ]_ .~ No.3():VCTNo.Z VCTNo.1 i -
IFwdTrim
,, ~,, H S
L22--
- - - [
Pass.~e
-

c
Pump Room o o I == I =
TksTks ~ g ( S ) 4CT~I~8(S)MCTN~?(S)MCTR~G($1 NIBTNo.Z(S: ~CTN~5(S)14CTNo.4(S)MCTNo.3($)
MCTNo.2(S)
WindlassRm,
MCTNo.I(:S) J
MBTNo.t(S) Y
=nks VCTNo.9B VCTNo.gA VCT ~CTNo.l(S)VCTNo.6(S)VCTNo.5B VCTNo.5AVCTNo.4{S VCTNo.3($)
(8) (S) No.8CSI (S) (s)

A48a--20,000 dwt, 35,000 shp

three parametric deadweights and for speeds of reader's point of view. Some of the more signifi-
20 and 30 knots and also for the speed correspond- cant conclusions are the following:
ing to the maximum power for each type. In 1 The hull with'circular sections and without
arriving at these characteristics, the following parallel middle body, having a length-to-diameter
corrections have been made to the powers and ratio of about 7 to 1, is hydrodynamically the best
dimensions obtained from Figs. 4, 6, 7 and 8: of the three types considered. It therefore re-
Length--adjusted to the nearest 5 ft to provide quires the least power for a given speed. How-
the required displacement. ever, except in the smaller sizes, the draft is ex-
Diameter of circular hulls--adjusted to the cessive even in the light condition. Drydocking
nearest half foot. would be impossible for most of the vessels of
Displacement--adjusted to provide a machinery this type. In the loaded condition, their large
volume corresponding to the corrected service draft would exclude them from most harbors.
shaft horsepower using the appropriate specific 2 The introduction of parallel middle body to
volume. the hulls with circular sections makes it possible
EHP of rectangular hulls--calculated using to reduce the maximum diameter considerably
C, adjusted for BID and PMB in accordance with with only a very modest increase in the power re-
model tests. quired. In the examples selected for this type
Trial SHP--calculated using propeller efficiency of hull, the maximum diameter is 80 ft. If the
obtained from Troost B5.60 series and estimated pressure hull is located in the correct longitudinal
values of wake fraction, thrust deduction and rela- position, these hulls will float on an even keel in
tive rotative efficiency. the light condition; i.e., without cargo and
Service SHP--trial SHP plus 10 per cent. ballast. Those having a deadweight/surface
A comparison of the characteristics of the displacement ratio of about 0.43 or greater can
various designs covered in Table 4 will lead to thus be drydocked in existing docks. It will be
many different conclusions, depending upon the seen that the vessels of maximum power and

Submarine Tankers 709

o
IG'O'DIo, G;rder-Web "Pl,
(T~p;cal)~
V rVcal Si~f
FIg.4"(MS'~j--"I p;~Ixi4'll!li"
L,
"~IxTCJ~"LrMS)
,
+c~ rtga~'xG'Pl 2'Pl.CmS)$he # Z'x i'P CMS)
Vet+leo1 Stiff
Web~.pL_rlg.S~i,(HTS)t i-. ~ , ; , < , + + 1
Girder-W~b "Pl. L l U U U U Girder-Web I'PI.
"] I ~{:t4TS) 11"" O ~ I f ~#,(I I II II II Illll~ FIg's;I-('MS)
i I , Ver,t; u St ff

l A l/io , iGlrdlr.Web/ ~ 0
,~l ; ,
_~/"PI.(HT$)~4,4-x~'rM$.
i . ~ Swash Bhci
_~ II ! I V I I il~ILI,~I~ l~l~s~l: .m~i, ~

~-,, .!,.'/:__.
Ver+ieal Still I i I =__~ 4i'0"
w.+,.,,.-,,,.,~,.--kl-J~ l,+~.-t---;- lis) I I ', I j o/ . ~ 1
~ PI.CM$)
7 . . . . I
'"" <"+'XAGI ! 1"~ ~ P'i<>

l
'e,";+$.'~-b'/fl II II II ! ! ~1111 I ~ ' I ''+-'+"
, ,"g.IO~I~'(HT$)!
I i '
/('/
0
.... ~ 1 1 1 ~ +111 IIloll i ! III1~ HT+)I J /
~'' g i i i l ~
I
i
IO'x4~35.3Lb L CUt I
r+~%~""'Fr~. 1 I?,FTi3~ ...,o,. ._i
"from lS"xd'x4Z.'ll.bE ~ Girder-~',~b'll~Pl. $ ' t ~ I ! L Pl.CM5) Verat;colfiirde r / $ I I $
31"Frame SpcclngCMS) FIg.4"(MS) I'PLCMS) ~+"PLCMS) PI.(M5) (T~teicol) I Web~" PI- Ylg.4"('XS) - GircleP- Webl" PI.-Rg.8;l[" PL(HT$) l
BHD 325 I~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50'0"Beom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d
5OO FT HOLDING BHD m, TYPICAL ~ I TYPICAL WEB FRAME BHD IIO TYPICAL WEB FRAME FWD
OF AUXMAICNHIpJ~
DSPACE
WING BHDS FOR MCT B VCT AFT 850 FT HOLDING BHD LOOKING FWD
LOOKINGFWD 81 TYPICAL WING BHOS $CQntfingi not I.abeledSire to
LOOKINGFWD Typlcl Web Frame of Aux. Mschlne 3pace
SCcn~:I;ngsnot LaboledS;m ~o Bhd 325

,~eamGurera~or

5"
(D
MBTHo.Z MBT No.~ VCT WTD-~

MCT No.10 .
MalnCoolonl ~
~ w
TD

MCT
VCT No,10

Noi.l.0.,~. -
Ma;nCoolawl"

VCT "" " VCT No,tO

SECTION AT 155'O" SECTION iT 305'0"

LOOKINGAFT LOOKINGAFT

Aux.Tank Aux.Tank~ Aux.Tank

G
MCTNo.13

~M~'~~~Au~'Tank
Shir~-NStoo2s~

C004 le-
I~P"~ _'~-~%---01

SECTION AT 265'0"
I . , ~ . , ; c P,on+

G A u Tank

SECTION AT 385'0"
LOOKUJGAFT LOOKINGAFT

Fig. 10(b) General arrangement and structural sections:of SS-N.MA48a--20,000 dwt, 55,000 shp
20,000 or 301000 tons deadweight do not satisfy
this requirement, but the high-powered 40,000-
dwt vessel and all of the lower powered ones do
satisfy it.
3 The hulls with rectangular section have
reasonable operating draft in the surface condi-
tion, loaded or light. However, they pay a rather
heavy price in power as compared to the circular
hulls.
4 The top speed for submarine tankers which
are feasible to build and to drydock at the present
state of technology is in the neighborhood of 40
knots. A hull of circular or nearly circular sec-
tion with parallel middle body would be required.
5 The top speed for rectangular-form sub-
marine tankers with draft limited to about 36 ft
in surface condition, loaded, is not much above 30
knots. This conclusion is based upon the authors'
opinion that 180,000 shp is the upper limit for
present day feasibility in such hull forms. It
should be noted that in the smallest (20,000 dwt)
vessel of the series, this limit is 120,000 shp be-
cause the addition of a third screw in this vessel
requires a beam/length ratio which results in an
impossible arrangement and such high E H P
that no appreciable increase in speed could be
obtained.
6 High deadweight and relatively low speed
pay off in transport momentum per horsepower
(i.e., DW T x speed/SHP) in submarines just as
they do in surface tankers. High deadweight
and/or low power also improves the deadweight/
displacement ratio and reduces the light-ship
draft, thereby facilitating drydocking.
General Arrangement
As in any preliminary ship design, having estab-
lished dimensions, hull form, and power, the next
step is to subdivide the hull into the various
compartments and tanks.
During the development of the preliminary
general arrangement, it may be found that some
spaces require more or less volume than originally
provided in the volume equation. Such changes
will be reflected as changes in the cargo volume.
If it is found that the cargo volume is much more
or mdch less than specified, the parallel body
length may be changed to suit and the power re-
evaluated. Adequate margin should be provided
for such things as access trunks, passageways,
shaft alleys, sumps, sanitary tanks, compressed
air flasks, and so on, as well as structure and fixed
ballast.
There are a few desirable objectives which
should be kept in mind when locating the various
compartments. These are as follows:
1 The center of gravity of the main ballast
Submarine Tankers
tanks must be in the same fore-and-aft location
as the center of buoyancy of the emergedvolume.
It is desirable that the submarine surface about
on an even keel. although a slight trim b y - t h e
stern is usually acceptable.
2 The center of gravity of the variable cargo
tanks should be in the same fore-and-aft location
as the center of gravity of the main cargo tanks
so that the ship will have the same balance in the
ballast condition as when loaded with cargo.
3 The longitudinal center of gravity of the
cargo expansion tanks should be about the same as
the center of the main cargo tanks so that ex-
pansion and contraction of the cargo does not
affect the trim.
4 The longitudinal center of the auxiliary
tanks should be about the same as the center of
the cargo expansion tanks so that changes in the
amount of compensating water in the expansion
tanks may be offset by adjusting the amount of
water in the auxiliary tanks without having to use
the trim tanks.
5 The cargo collecting tanks should be abreast
of the cargo pump room so that the pump suction
lines are as short as possible.
Before undertaking a general arrangement,
rough arrangement studies of such spaces as the
crew's quarters, control room, engine room,
reactor compartment, and cargo pump room
should be made in enough detail to establish the
diameter and length of their cylinders. As al-
ready noted, the machinery arrangement study
must be started as soon as the approximate power
is known because the size of the machinery com-
partments will have considerable bearing on the
dimensions of the ship.
The arrangement of the noncargo pressure hull
can then be established and its volume and center
of gravity determined. The location of the pres-
sure hull relative to the outer hull can then be
adjusted fore and aft to obtain the cargo and
ballast centers desired.
The variable cargo tanks may be incorporated
as extensions of the main pressure hull and as
separate cylinders abreast of the main hull. In
the single-cylinder rectangular ships, they are
best located in the corners where the heavy plating
can contribute most effectively to hull girder
strength, although this can only be done in way
of the parallel body.
The boundaries of the main ballast tanks are
located to suit volume and trim requirements.
I'n general, any nonpressure tanks may be des-
ignated as either main ballast or main cargo at
this stage of design. The difference between the
two occurs mainly in the piping systems. In
fact, all main cargo tanks can be used as main
711
 Re~rac'mble Discharge Han~fold
Ven4"l. Has~
Escape Trunk

--' '

VCT20 VCTI9 VCTI8 VCTI'I VCTI VCTI5 VCTI4 Puj~liP VCT 13

MeT-/
, 1.. , , t"'"i "c''+
A.P. g00 850 800 "750 ~00 650 / ] 600 550 500
Exp..Tk,--JC olLTk.
V I I I I I I I I I
| '0" I
I-/'0" 33'0" 33'0" 36'0" 39'0" 42'0" "43'0" 44'0" 54'0" 64'0"

AfarPump Rm.
/
I I \ ~ ........ ---------=+~--:,~~--J J A'I _J I I I

t~J
I
~
I \o " ~
~
I vc, ~o I
- - - , - I .VCTIg
.
I
. IVCTte
. .
I
!VCTIT~
. . .
I 5~ho++ iA,,,,y/ I
. VCTIg~VCTIB,VCT'I4[
. . ,,---
,-~-~
~ .saaeJ
_~'+-+_:~___~_+o,
-F -'I
~
~
s,t

Afi" Access ~ C . ~ $ . hip ~Sh~p ~Ship

Coll. TR. N o . 5 , ~ ~ W e H No.4

Fig. 11 G e n e r a l a r r a n g e m e n t o 4 0 , 0 0

ballast tanks in the ballast condition if the re-
quired venting, flooding, and blowing systems
and sufficient air capacity are provided.
While the authors wish that arrangement plans
o.f all the vessels of Table 4 could have been in-
cluded, this would be an overwhelming project.
A preliminary design, of the 20 knot, 20,000-dwt
rectangular vessel has been completed and given
the designation S5-N-MA48a. Considerable
work has been done on the 240,000-shp, 40,000-
dwt, 80-ft-diam ship. The general arrangement
plans.of these vessels are shown in Figs. 10 and
11. Since these plans were prepared prior to
having the results of the model tests, the 20,000-
dwt tanker shown here has a 35,000-shp plant.
Structure, Weights, and Stability
While it is true that, from a longitudinal
strength point of view, the outer hull of a sub-
marine tanker may be made lighter than a com-
parable surface ship beeause of the elimination of
wave bending moments, this argument is academic
in the ease of low-density cargo designs. The
problem with which the designer is faced is the
balancing of the weight-volume equation by the
judicious alloeation of weight among pressure
hull, outer hull, and ballast. It may be solved
by the cut-and-try method of designing the struc-
ture for certain assumed criteria, calculating the
resulting struetural weight, and then determining
whether the ballast needed to balance is reason-
able. In this case the test depth is considered the
variable; but, of course, there is a practical limit
to the thickness of the pressure hull from the
aspect of fabrieation. If the resulting test depth
is too modest, as may be the ease with the large-

712 Submarine Tankers

 Re~rac#able Re,rateable .Hcts,s
Venal MasJf _ ~ & Periscopes
.,,|[
Spiral Stairs, F ~
I Ill I I IO'Sch~
~e M'71':::~ l ~l. ~ I i ': 'dT::~%:;~ 4~~:1

spoo, _I_ Ivo,:,l,c-r=l,,c,-, 7-I

reea lan~ 4CT 2

tx.Dia,Otrter" Shell 800 Coll.Tk. ~ Exp.Tk.

- - Dia.lm~er Hull t
64'0"
'
52'0"
' ,
4Z'O'
l
42'0"
t,
40 O"
~
36'0"
'
3Z'O"
' - 20' ,u.
27'0
?.50Ton Air Contr. Uni~s
/ Reserve
/ FeedTonk ColI.Tk.Ho.Z /Exp.Tk.No.2

r- ~,~, o Io o Io -I I I

---Lo olo ol I
~'--~-bEH~ / lor~o~po~rOql VCTS k ~J "vJIGL,r s PVCTSI veT4

tl..v3 II I I /q V I I f l ~ I I I --
,:o,,.',,,.,'o., '",p.',',,.','o.,
0111~ I
14,0006a1.Per Day Evapora~rs -~. Ship ~ ~. Ship
.Ship
Passge2< ~ Passage./~ ~ x ~ iral S,=irs

' c J r lr - II~ F ~~ W /14-4-SCenm

6enerar l~ ~il
% ~-t-}-~FWdlPurnp
." ~Pr.ssurizer ~., ~ l J Rrn"
Exp.Tk.No.l" "Exp.Tk.No.2
},000 shp, 80-ft-diam submarine tanker

diameter, high-powered circular hulls, the use of give the crew time to blow main ballast in the
high-strength steels such as H 80 may be neces- event of collision on or near the surface. It is
sary. also about the limit of depth at which salvage
Although there is no need for a commercial of the vessel would be practical.
submarine tanker to operate at a depth greater Fig. 10 shows typical cross sections developed
than that necessary to eliminate surface interac- for the S5-N-MA48a design on the basis of the
tion, the pressure, hull should be designed for a foregoing criteria. The calculated steel weight
somewhat greater depth to permit recovery from is 11,880 tons, requiring the addition of about 2250
a momentary loss of control. tons of fixed ballast to bring this ship to diving
Main ballast tank structure must be designed trim. This ballast amounts to about 5 per cent
to withstand the air pressure required to blow of the submerged displacement and. about 15 per
ballast out against sea pressure at the bottom of cent of the light-ship weight
the tank. - Escape compartment bulkheads should In a submerged submarine, BM is zero and,
be designed to maintain watertight integrity hence, G must be below B. With the center of
at the maximum depth at which rescue operations buoyancy at the axis, the center of gravity must
are considered feasible. Other watertight bulk- therefore be below the axis. As most submarines
heads are designed to hold at 200 to 300 ft. This are nearly symmetrical about the horizontal
is considered sufficient to localize flooding and plane through the axis, it thus becomes important

Submarine Tankers 713"

 .i P. . . . ~,s..... ~ - - - ~ [ So!!.Co,*.~ne l 3 rd,Sc 4~h.0ff.
I E.r ~"-~ : ' = Diesel
~Ran Di~ssl 0 '
m. F.O.
, Eng,r"-r ) ,~ "-~" i "-'f I I ~-CONTROLRkL~.J Office
,

-- _ , , C )

H I-~. I Ih~d+o'~T-I , - - - , ~Immmr"os+i-- ~" Is~. 2nd

"+I + ,II 11 l I Rm. ~ [ ~ l r = l [ ~ l Ol I.I II I F 3

FIRST PLATFORM DECK

)ies~l
p.O.

o~

SECOND P L A T F O R M DECK

t i 1 . . . .
lHedic.a! ~ ~,Ship~ Dry 1Or,yin91 Diesel

+I . l~---~--~-[ng. Xoinf. H. . . . . . . ~Hae1nis l e - - - ~ m p H ..... --~ /_ ~ Y" L

~ Lkn ~.mo~+~Sto~es!l ~ s
t ~ v.] ..Ji~

I p.O. .
Ii . _ _ L .i. F..' ~ . ~ . ~.,,~. . - ~- . .~.;.
r..~ . ...... ~ . ~_
T H I R D P L A T F O R M DECK

Fig. 12 Crew's quarters arrangement o f S S - N - M A 4 8 a - - 1 9 oS~cers and 57 m e n

to kee p heavy weights such as machinery as low is estimated to be only 0.1 ft. With all ballast
as possible. When this does not provide the installed at the keel, the submerged BG becomes
desired stability, the center of gravity must be 1.1 ft. This is considered satisfactory, but a close
lowered by increasing the scantlings of the bottom check of weights would have to be kept during the
structure or b y the installation of sufficient ballast detail design stage to insure t h a t the a m o u n t of
at the keel Reduction of other weights, includ- ballast is not seriously decreased.
ing topside structure, m a y be necessary when the With the rectangular hull ships, G M in the
ballast required to balance the displaced volume is surface condition is more than adequate, as it is
insufficient. in surface tankers; it is estimated to be 13.5 ft
During design and construction, it is customary in the case of the SS-N-MA48a design. With
to hold some weight in reserve for development. circular hums, however, the metacenter is at the
This reserve is considered as ballast located at axis in the surface condition as is the center of
the axis for bookkeeping purposes. Such as re- buoyancy when submerged. Consequently, G M
mains upon completion of the vessel is installed surface and B G submerged are about the same.
as fixed ballast as low as possible with a resulting
increase in BG. Therefore, the fixed ballast is Accommodations and Ship Control
considered as divided into two parts; t h a t re- T h e arrangement of the crew's quarters and
quired for stability, and the remainder considered contro] room developed for the S5-N-MA48a
as reserve. design is shown in Fig. 12. Accommodations
In the case of the SS-N-MA48a design, the BG are provided for 19 officers and 37 men plus a
submerged with all ballast considered as reserve four-berth hospital and two spare berths in the

"/14 Submarine Tankers



M r Cond. Fan 8
11 Cooling Coil ~ ~]
II / 3 0 0 Kw Set ~ I
~Jl ~ ~ Switchboard iill lilll I

-- 3bO'KW Set" ~3(}0 KW St~ Rea'~r PIor~" --

./ ~ Starter Speed Regulator FW & .SW Heat - - ~
/ \ Guardroil~ Exchanger _ [ _ _

/
[ geaeroHng
III 11 Io'oL'll
III / * I ' P ' T T T L I
t~er.p.-i.
I Honfforlng ('--"
\..o~+orP,an+
~/Con+rol
~
[
--
/ FeedTcmk ~l -,, ,,, ,'r-~, k I I \', ~ m
,, <over..od~ / ~'s~,rw.,,~ \~'~,, \ /
\ / [ N ,oweo~eve, /~.~,,, \ ~___

- .
ueaeroTmg
~o~r-- I I I .I
I
I_ I ) ~
I ! I Si'eom Plant
Control
h " ~"
- - " iv ivY. I ,

. ~
1 Supervisors I
I I
I i I

/" ~
\ , (()) I / ' ~ Desk ~ ~ i I . -

p
('Overhead) I Hydroullc ~_ /" ~" - -
/ I can+tale I--- /\
X / Elec+rlCPlan+
\.. _~,// 300 KWSet 300 I~W Set Control
Swi'~hboord Speed Regulo'~r

300 KW HG

300KW Set" ~ I Lavafor), 8c \

Sfartev .... ~ l Shower ~
Air Canal. Fan ~ ,/
Cooling Call

Fig. 15 (a) Plan view of engine room intermediate level of SS-N-MA48a--BS,000shp

wardroom. While somewhat more austere than sidexed necessary, bow planes are not contem-
currently provided in most surface tankers, the plated.
quarters do meet minimum Coast Guard require- The ballast-control panel contains the controls
ments and are more elaborate than those provided and instruments for operation of the main ballast
in military submarines. vent and blow systems and the trim system as well
The control room is the center of ship opera- as indicator lights to show the status of access
tion when submerged. In addition to the peri- hatches, air induction valve, and so on. The
scope station and navigating center, it includes snorkel and antenna masts are also raised and
the diving and steering station, and ballast- lowered hydraulically from this station.
control panel. The ship may be planed to the surface and main
The diving and steering station has an instru- ballast expelled by low-pressure blowers taking
ment panel containing the engine-order telegraph, air directly from the atmosphere through the air-
rudder and plane angle indicators, gyro compass induction valve. Alternatively, it may be sur-
repeater, and depth and rate-of-depth-change faced by partially blowing out the main ballast
gages. The single stick control column, similar with high-pressure air stored in flasks.
to that used ih aircraft, operates both rudders The surface search radar, radio direction finder,
and diving planes. An automatic pilot may be and radio whip antennas are installed on tele--
incorporated for course and depth control. Since scoping masts to permit operation at periscope
accurate depth control at low speed is not con- depth, as well as on the surface. One periscope,

Submarine Tankers 715

 H.P.Air ComprQssor i ~ ~ .
Up ~--q

I Haln CondenseP I j

/
k',: .-.
!;..........',.,&L
',',~
,I ,-.
tillX I c:a
~. -c-,r ~;,m~
tj
._~
I ~ ) ~, i i ( &~ :1 ~ "1 "
tl,~- ',I ,k - I,.,P fl I-1 ~ _ Ji~ , ,'.J, ,

~op.S~off
[ ~- ....
/ II'iaoGPI3
. _
, +,<o+=/
',-~.---~-/'"
I , / /
(11
\ II I
-
"N
7--=--_ _:z~- . . . .
/i
,

s.~,~. ,o~ ,--I-~'k.OU ..

pl li'lg
JJ \~ /
/
/ ~
~ ~
I--1.i Ii ~ ", ~
/
/ / r
.
L- -_ ,--'P
~ I' ,,oinL.O.To.ko~o|Y ~ I ' ~ / ,
II I ll!C~l i \ / 1-41 JI - '1 " - . /"
I I Pro e er I II] I I ~,/ I ]k JL . ] Hain L.O.Tankage I
I-i e I U-I I I V I ~l-~XmnL.~ I " \-" I
"1 I 5ha~ I Ill I /~ I rl-~--~ Pumps I . ~ I
I I I II] I Maln Reducion Geop I zr xr / ._ j
U I IIl'~l / I / \ ~ a I / / ~ I
' '" V~ , / , I k ]~ II .- ~ i
I I ~ \ I .c~---=~
''~' ....... -'~--~:~
I , / \ ~ / 1 1 I! / ~ ,,,
I ~ I I Hain LO.Coolep ~ I I I I! /" Hain Condensae Pumps, "~ iI
J I ~ " -- ~ I I I Ill-._______X_ . . . . . "/ . . . . . ,.,i,._"~lI
.r~ ...... _r . . . . J- -~ ~---- r--- I
dTr , ii
I I ,"-~
I I
I I
I"
,..,,,+
--'l !,, I l i
t.L!_l Ig-~
,, I
"~ "~
I
, ,, I
..
I
I

Aux.Circ. Jl I I - \ ~ /1 r-- ~-~ =r:--~ r-,

W. Pumps "' ] l/ ".I I II ( } ( 3 ', l
\ ~ 'L 1 1 II "~ "-" ',!
i Ho,. Condenser I I
L--~

J~J I H.P.AlrCompressor
, --tilling_
~
_ _ ~
,,

Fig. 13 (b) Plan view of engine

an active navigating sonar, fathometer, and generated b y turbine-driven generator sets. T h e

bathythermograph are also provided. main feed and main circulating water pumps are
For surface operation, the ship m a y be conned turbine driven. These pump turbines exhaust to
from the bridge located in the top of the fair- a deaerating feedwater heater. The main coolant
water or "sail." The usual surface navigating pumps and all other power-plant auxiliaries are
instruments and a pressure-proof speaker are motor driven.
provided at this station. The reactor plants were developed from discus-
sions with Westinghouse Commercial Atomic
Machinery Plant
Power Division. T h e pressure-vessel outlines
All the power plants used in this study consist were established b y a core design based on com-
of one or more pressurized-water-type reactors mercial nuclear power-plant practice rather than
generating steam at 425 psig saturated at the b y naval designs. In addition, the following
steam generator outlet. Steam is utilized in assumptions were made:
extraction-type single-casing or cross-compound 1 Full-power operation 90 per cent of the time.
turbines and exhausts to condensers rated at 5 in. 2 Refueling half the core every 12 months and-
Hg abs back pressure at full power in 65 F sea rearranging the remaining half at the same time
water. Power is transmitted to the propeller via to permit more complete burn-up of the fissionable
a reduction gear. Auxiliary electrical power is material.

716 Submarine Tankers

 ReserveFeed
/I I% WaferTankNo.
(.Air Cond.Condenser

Feed" " . ~
~Air Cond Receiver/
r I r r

TrimPump
8000.GPD
Prlm~
Suct.Valve I ~" _

MainCirc.W.
Disch.Valve f ReserveFeed

MainCirc.W.
/~'Wafer TankNo.3 Oeaerafir~g
~Reserve Feed
~ ~ WTank aNo.Z
Hea+"~
Exchanger /
~~ r e r

MainCirc.W. l Disch.Valve Trim Pump~
Stra{ner

MainFeedPumps
H.RAirCompressor,
__---L -- ----

Chiller
Air Cond.Receiver7
.--L=,-=.I CoolingColl . ?

Reserve Feed
WaterTankNo,l

,level of SS-N-MA48a--55,000 shp

3 Four per cent enrichment (96 per cent
natural uranium, 4 per cent U2~). The high
enrichment and large excess reactivity of naval
reactors to permit quick startups is not considered
to be worth the high fuel cost for merchant
vessels.
The cpolant pressure is approximately 2500
psig. Coolant velocity in the main loops is in the
order of 35 fps. Coolant pressure is maintained
within predetermined limits by an electrically
heated pressurizer with a steam expansion dome.
For vessels with one shaft and for vessels with
each plant in a separate cylinder, a plant consist-
ing of 2 single-cylinder turbines driving a single
shaft through a reduction gear has been used. In
this design, each turbine exhausts to a separate
condenser. Asseciated with each turbine and
condenser is a ship's service turbine-generator set.
The main reduction gear is of the double-re-
duction, locked-train type. The K-factor for the
first reduction is 125 and the K-factor for the
second reduction is 100. These design factors are
higher than present merchant ship practice and
lower than present naval practice but are neces-
sary to keep the gear within acceptable over-aU
dimensions.
The 240,000-shp propulsion plant consists of
four separate 60,000-hp units. Each plant in
this arrangement cofisists of a single 60,000-hp
cross-compound turbine driving a shaft through a
locked-train, double-reduction gear. The LP tur-
bine exhausts to a separate single-pass, two-tube-
bundle condenser. The single-pass condenser
is required for this plant because the condenser
heads and shell diameter would be excessively large
with a two-pass design. The cross-compound ar-

Submarine Tankers 717


FILLING a DISCHARGE
t FROId AUK SEA ~
WATER SYSTEM '
PUMP "\_C.OLi'ECTtNG TANCKs
TANX
WATER REMOVAL LINE- - ~
LEGEND
CARGO
SEA__~
SEA WATER BOX ~"~-"~_~__~,TER PUMP
Fig. 14 Simplified cargo-system diagram showing
arrangement for accommodating expansion and con-
traction of cargo during voyage
rangement has been used in this case because the
compartment diameter is not a limitation.
The six 2500-kw turbine-generator sets in this
plant are arranged on separate condensers, two to
a condenser. Full-power ship's service load is
estimated to be 10,000 kw, and four of the 2500 kw
turbine-generators sets with their two associated
condensers can handle the total ship's service
load.
In a submerged submarine, heat cannot be
dissipated to the atmosphere by a ventilating sys-
tem as in a surface ship, and all of the heat loss
from the power plant, as well as the personnel
air-conditioning load, must be accommodated by
the air-conditioning plant. Consequently, a rela-
tively large amount'of air-conditioning refriger-
ation capacity is required in all these designs as
compared to a surface ship.
The arrangement of the machinery spaces of
the 35,000-shp plant developed for the 20,000-dwt
tanker shown in Fig. 10 is included as Fig. 13.
Cargo-Handling System
Except for having to accommodate expansion
and contraction of the cargo in the main cargo
tanks and the necessity of keeping these tanks full
at all times when submerged, the cargo-handling
system need not be much different from that
provided on surface tankers. However, a system
can be provided which will permit simultaneous
ballasting or deballasting as the cargo is dis-
charged or loaded, and such a system will be
described herein.
The advantages of this self-compensating sys-
tem are:
I The vessel will be ready to dive immediately
upon leaving port.
718
HEAD TANK
HEAD TANK
~ ,J FNOMAUKSEA,~,~ "~
FILLING B DISCHARGE ~ WATER SYSTE
CONNECTION
I
I
t
CA N
T~NK puMP ~O,T~IF,RG TANKS ~ T A N K -I
:: LEGEND WATER REMOVAL LiNE- ~ ~1
m m m
CAESO SE~ t "A,N\CA.O
. , J CARSO
SEA WATER "O ~ - S ' t E t - ~ P
Fig. 15 Simplified cargo-system diagram showing
tanks being discharged in series
2 The explosive hazard can be reduced by the
elimination of petroleum vapor in the main cargo
tanks after discharging the cargo.
3 Corrosion of the main cargo-tank structure
can be reduced since these tanks are always full
of cargo or water.
On the other side of the ledger is the big dis-
advantage of disposing of the dirty ballast at the
loading port. It would perhaps be necessary to
build a tank farm to take the ballast discharged
and separate the petroleum residue from the
water. However, it will take in the order of 8 h r
of surface operation to ballast to diving trim or
to deballast prior to loading if the vessel is not
compensated at the dock.
The whole system presupposes, of course, t h a t
a definite cleavage plane will be obtainable be-
tween the cargo and ballast or that only slight
intermixing will occur at the interface. This may
be a problem with heavier oils such as bunker C
and crudes.
In-Transit Condition
Fig. 14 is a simplified diagram showing the
line-up of the proposed system to accommodate
cargo expansion and contraction in transit.
The function of the head tank, located in the sail,
is to maintain a positive head on the main cargo
tanks when the vessel is on the surface. It is
kept filled by an orificed line from the auxiliary
sea-water cooling system. The bottom of the
expansion tank is connected to the sea through
the head tank. The top of the expansion tank
and of each main cargo tank is .connected to the
bottom of the next tank in series. Thus, as the
cargo expands, it flows from the bottom of one
tank to the top of the next, forcing water over-
board through the head tank.
Submarine Tankers

['~,~,"~T,%~EDHA"E ~ 'WIO~NA~Xs~"----"~
- ................
GTNA,NE,
WATERT:~OVAL LIN :~
LEGEND ESE-~A
CANGO
m SEA WATER BOX~GTER"
Fig. 16 Simplified cargo-system diagram showing
tanks being discharged in parallel
Discharging Cargo
With the system fined up as described for the in-
transit condition, cargo may be discharged by
simply dosing the line from the expansion tank to
the head tank, taking suction from the top of the
collecting tank with the main cargo pump, and
forcing water into the bottom of the expansion
tank using the main cargo booster pump. This
arrangement is indicated in Fig. 15.
If desired, water may be pumped in and cargo
pumped out of each tank individually or simul-
taneously as shown in Fig. 16.
Cargo also may be discharged without com-
pensation by opening the vents and using the low
suctions.
Discharging Ballast
Dirty ballast may be discharged prior to loading
cargo or for drydocking using both main and
booster pumps by opening the vent lines, dosing
the high suctions and opening the low suctions as
shown in Fig. 17.
Loading Cargo
Cargo may be loaded with or without ballast
aboard by reversing the foregoing procedures and
by-passing the main cargo pump.
Variable Cargo Tanks
The variable cargo tanks are filled and emptied
in the conventional surface-ship manner using
either the main cargo or booster pumps. Sepa-
rate variable cargo pumps could also be provided.
In the event it is necessary to transfer cargo
between the main and variable tanks enroute, the
cargo may be pumped from the variable tanks,
bleeding air into these tanks from the high-pres-
sure air system, or it may be forced into the vail-
HEAD TANK HEAD TANK
: PNOMAUX SEA..~ p
L~.~:.~.E.T?..%..
EX,ANE,D(
Go~Icl,N G TAN,,S TAN,,
LEGEND
WATERREMOVALLINE--t ~..~ [
SEA WATER
~ ".A,N\GA.O
PUMP
Fig. 17 Simplified cargo-system diagram showing
arrangement for discharging ballast
able tanks by sea pressure, allowing the air in the
tanks to compress.
Mixed Cargoes
The cargo tanks may be divided into four groups
each with its own set of variable cargo tanks,
expansion tank, collecting tank and pumps so that
four different cargoes may be carried at the same
time. The groups would be cross connected to
provide the utmost flexibility.
Pumps, Valves, and Level Indicators
All pumps will be turbine driven. All valves
in tanks will be operated remotely from the pump
room or access passageways. The location of the
ballast-cargo interface in the expansion and
collecting tanks may be indicated by Fielden or
Liquidometer type liquid-level gages. Visible
and/or audible alarms also may be provided to
indicate when water enters the collecting tank
during cargo discharge.
Ventilation
On the surface, air is drawn in through the main
air-induction valve in the fairwater and dis-
charged through the bridge access trunk. When
submerged, air is recirculated and conditioned to
maintain the ambient temperature at 78 F with
50 per cent relative humidity in the living spaces
and 100 F in the machinery spaces. A concentric
ventilation induction and exhaust snorkel will
permit changing air in the vessel at periscope
depth. Air-purification equipment'such as COs
scrubbers, a CO-H2 burner, and oxygen stored in
flasks also may be provided to permit continuous
submerged operation for 30 days.
The cargo pump room is ventilated by an inde-
pendent exhaust system during cargo-handling
Submarine Tankers 719
operations. The system takes air near the bottom surface condition. Wildcats are driven by a
of the pump room and discharges up a telescoping hydraulic motor located in the windlass room.
mast terminating in a flame attester. Air dis- To obtain maximum speed submerged, all deck
placed from the cargo tanks when loading cargo mooring fittings such as chocks, bitts, and capstans
will also be. discharged up this mast through the are intended to be retracted or hinged to stow
cargo vent system. below the main deck. Life lines and stanchions
will be portable. A safety track is provided for
Access
crew members who must be on deck when entering
Vertical access trunks from the main deck to the and leaving port.
pressure hull are provided to the crew's quarters,
cargo pump room, and engine room. An access Conclusion
trunk is provided from the control room to the The authors have attempted to show the limi-
bridge. Two other trunks are also provided, one tations of submarine tankers which could be
near each end of the ship, for access to the windlass built today and what such vessels would look
room and" stern room. The location of these two like. With this approach, the paper is devoid
trunks should be such that the topside hatch is of any "wild blue yonder" concepts.
above water in the normal surface condition. Complete automation, eliminating the crew
entirely, even taking the cargo pumps off the vessel
Sanitary System
and installing their equivalent at the discharge
All sanitary system drains are lead to sanitary terminals, would not reduce the volume 10 per
tanks. These tanks are pressure resistant. cent.
When necessary, they are emptied by blowing with The only developments which would make a
air from the high-pressure air system. great difference in the size or speed of these
Rescue and Salvage Arrangements vessels would be either a great reduction in the
volume occupied by the machinery or a great
The test depth of these designs is assumed to deal more power in" the volume allotted, together
be around 1000 ft, and the collapse depth will be with some method of efficiently converting the
somewhat greater. However, the possibility of power to thrust without noticeably increasing the
rescue and/or salvage operations at such depth is diameter of the propulsive mechanism. In this
extremely remote. On the other hand, the proba- respect, it is not believed that the use of some
bility of loss while cruising submerged is also other type reactor plant, such as gas-cooled cycle,
remote; the greatest danger lies in loss of control would make a significant difference. What is
during the initial dive and in collision with other needed is the development of some sort of direct-
vessels when surfacing. Both diving and surfac- energy-conversion system.
ing maneuvers are usually conducted relatively
close to shore where the depth of water is such References
that escape, rescue, and salvage are possible and 1 "Model Tests of a Series of Submarine
facilities available. Tanker Forms," Stevens Institute of Tech-
Two of the access trunks are fitted for free- nology, Part I q " D r a g , " by R. L. Van Dyck,
ascent escape and removal of the crew by standard Davidson Laboratory Letter Report No. 781,
navy rescue chambers. Two marker buoys are Part II--"Stability," by H. Dugoff, Davidson
provided. Laboratory Letter Report No. 783.
Salvage air connections are provided at the
2 Michiya Shigemitsu, "Nuclear Powered
main deck for each compartment and tank. They
Submarine Tanker," Second United Nations
are suitably marked for diver identification by
International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of
touch.
Atomic Energy, 1958.
Inflatable life rafts may be provided if neces-
sary. 3 J. A. Teasdale, "Characteristics and Per-
formance of Nuclear Powered Submarine Cargo
Ground Tackle and Mooring Equipment Vessels," Trans. North East Coast Institution of
The anchor-handling arrangement, is subject to Engineers and Shipbuilders, vol. 75, 1958-1959.
further development. It is contemplated that 4 W . R . Anderson, "TheArctic as a Sea Route
anchors be of the mushroom type housing in of the Future," National Geographic. Magcizine,
pockets in the bottom of the ship. Wildcats January 1959. .
should be located in a free-flooding pocket just 5 A. I. McKee, "Submarine Naval Architec-
under and accessible from the main deck in the ture," New England Section, SNAME, April 1948.

720 Submarine Tankers

 Appendix
In the following discussion, it is assumed t h a t PdV.
the vessel will be designed for a test depth, z, of $nVe = -- 2Est (2.5-2#) = - - 0.0020V~ (cu ft)
1000 ft and a temperatur.e change, T, of 60 F
(90 F to 30 F). P
It is also assumed t h a t the pressure-hull thick- ~ATp -- SA~p -- 35Ew (Vr -- VB) --
uess/diameter ratio, t/d, is 0.007. 0.0000384 (Vr -- VB) (tons)
Effects of Pressure, Temperature, and Salinity.
Pressure
Temperature
' ~Var = a o T V o = - - 0.036Vo" ( c u f t )
PVo
~Vap = Eo - 0.00306 Ve (cu ft)
SVHr = 3 a s T V a = --0.00117VH (cu ft)

Nomenclature

A area of maxi'mum section, sq ft Va = main cargo t a n k volume, c u f t

B= maximum beam of rectangular hulls, ft
~ = gross submerged volume less main ballast and
machinery space volumes, cu ft
machinery space specific volume, cu f t / S H P
C,= total resistance coefficient
Ct= frictional reAistance coefficient
ACI= roughness coefficient
C,= residual resistance coefficient
Cp= prismatic coefficient of ship
Ceg = prismatic coefficient of ends of ship
wet'ted surface coefficient of ship
C.qB = wetted surface coefficient of ends of ship
8 = diameter of pressure hull, in.
D = maximum diameter of circular ships or maxi-
mum depth of rectangular ships, ft
D W T = cargo deadweight, tons
bulk modulus of gasoline ffi 145,000 psi
E a = modulus of elasticity of steel -- 30,000,000 psi
R w = bulk modulus of water ffi 330,000 psi
I~.HP = effective horsepower
EHPBH = bare hull effective horsepower
gffi gravity acceleration = 32.17 ft/sec 2
Gffi girth of the maximum section, ft
L f f i length between perpendiculars, ft
total length of ends of ship, ft
Leffi length of parallel middle body, ft
P = pressure change -- 0.444z, psi
P M B = parallel middle body
R f f i corner radius of rectangular hulls, ft
R = Reynolds number
S = bare hull wetted surface, sq ft
S H P -- shaft horsepower
t = pressure hull thickness, in.
T change in temperature, deg F
ship speed, fps
V = ship speed, knots
v ~ = variable cargo t a n k volume, en ft
VB= main ballast t a n k volume, cu ft
VE = gross submerged (envelope) volume of ends of
ship, c u f t
VH = pressure hull volume, cu ft
VL = volume of crew, stores, access, and operating
spaces and cargo pump room, c u f t
V~ = machinery space volume, en ft
Ve = gross submerged (envelope) volume of parallel
middle body of ship, en ft
V s = displaced volume, normal surface condition,
cuft
VT = gross submerged (envelope) volume, c u f t
s ffi change in submergence depth, ft
ao = coefficient of cubic expansion of gasoline ffi
0.0006, ft3/ft 8 deg F
a s - - c o e f f i c i e n t of linear expansion of steel =
0.0000065, f t / f t deg F
8aT ffi change in 'mass density of salt water with
temperature, lb.sec2/ft4
BTs = change in density of water with sarmity, pet
~VGP ffi change in gasoline volume with pressure, c u f t
SVGT ffi change in gasoline volume with temperature,
cuft
~/Hp = change in pressure huh volume with pressure,
neglecting effect of frames, c u f t
8VHT = change in pressure hull volume with tempera-
ture, c u f t
~h~e = change in main ballast weight with pressure,
tons
BAsT = change in main ballast weight with tempera-
ture, tons
BATe = change in envelope buoyancy with pressure,
tons
6Avr = change in envelope buoyancy with temperature,
tons
BATs = change in envelope buoyancy with salinity,
tons
A = model scale factor
# ffi Poisson's ratio = 0.30
p -- mass density of sea water, lb sec~/ftl
ffi stability index

Submarine Tankers 7"21

 Table 5 Expansion-TankVolumes Assuming there will be 350 tons of consumables,
Deadweight, Expansion-tank Salt-water Vv = 0.03906 Vo -t- 0.00317 V~ -- 0.00834 (Vr
tons volume, cuft capacity, tons
-- VB) ~u 0.01093 Vz ~ 12,250
20000 28700 820
30000 43100 1230 and, since
40000 54400 1640
V~ = VB q- Vo q- VH

~ATT "-- ~ABT = --

SP~g0( V ~ -
224"---' V~) = this reduces to

0.0002 (Vr -- VB) (tons) Vv = .0.04165 V~ -{- 0.00576 VH ~-

(~Pr ---- pg0o -- p~o ffi 1 . 9 8 0 9 - 1.9948 ---- --0.0139) 0.01093VB W 12, 250
F o r 10 per cent reserve buoyancy,
Salinity
V~ = 0.1 (V~ + V , )
~TsV~
~Ar~ -- 2240 - 0.000312 VT (tons) and hence

(87a = 6 4 . 3 - 63.6 -----0.7) Vv = 0.04274 Va -{- 0.00685 Va + 12,250

Cargo ExpansionTanks B u t since

T h e cargo expansion tanks should accommodate
the change in volume of the cargo in the main
cargo tanks resulting from pressure and temper-
ature changes. Hence, the m i n i m u m volume of
the expansion tanks is 0.03906 Vo, and, for the
selected deadweights, is as given in Table 5.
Variable Ballast Tanks
T h e variable ballast tanks m u s t be of sufficient
capacity to compensate for the net effect of
pressure, t e m p e r a t u r e and salinity as well as
consumables.
V~ = V v + V A W V L - I - V ~
then
v~ = 0.043 va + 0.007 (v~ + vL + v x )
+ 12,350
Using the values of Vo, V.A, and V,. given in
Table 1, and assuming a r b i t r a r y values of the
t e r m 0.007 VM, since machinery volume is
unknown a t the outset of a design, the variable
ballast-tank volumes required for the selected
deadwe!ghts are as given in T a b l e 6.

Table 6 Variable Ballast Tank Volumes

Deadweight, tons . . . . . . . 20000 30o00 40000
0.043 V~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31600 47400 63200
0.007 Vx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2100 3150 4200
0.007 VL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700 950 1200
0.007 VM (assumed) . . . . 3250 6150 9050
Consumables . . . . . . . . . . . 12350 12350 12350
Vv (cll ft) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50000 70000 90000

Discussion
Dr. George C. Manning, Member: This p a p e r is
the kind of complete and logical s t u d y which I
would expect from m y personal knowledge of the
high capabilities of the authors. I t presents so
clearly such a large number of the requirements
of an excellent preliminary design t h a t I .think I
shall m a k e it required reading for the students
who are exposed to m y course in this subiect.
Although no economic study has been included,
I doubt very m u c h t h a t now, or in the forseeable
future, will the building of such .ships as t h o s e
discussed b e justified f r o m the standpoint of
economics. Nevertheless, this remains simply a
conjecture until a s t u d y is made. .4.U of us who
h a v e some background of experience can re-
m e m b e r m a n y projects which are physically
possible b u t cannot be justified from financial
considerations. I think it is too bad t h a t tlle
authors did not include an economic s t u d y to
complete t h e i r excellent "technical studies, and
I hop.c t h a t this omission m a y be cured in reply
to this discussion.

722 Submarine Tan.kers

 Royden H. Rogers, Member: This p a p e r presents
in a concise manner the solutions to some of the
m a j o r technical problems t h a t are encountered
when designing submarines for handling bulk
petroleum" products.
T h e authors state t h a t the roughness allowance
value mentioned in their paper is set at 0.0004
as this is a currently accepted value for merchant
ships. T h e y further state t h a t to approach this
factor on a submarine it will be necessary to house
or fair external fittings, chocks, and so on. We
find t h a t on our 'large tankers this roughness
allowance is more in the order of 0.0002 as a
m a x i m u m so the submarine tanker will, compara-
tively speaking, be at a greater disadvantage as
far as the roughness factor is concerned t h a n the
authors contemplate.
On the question of longitudinal strength, the"
a u t h o r s state t h a t the question of whether the
hull of the submarine tanker m a y be lighter than
a comparable surface ship because of the elimina-
tion of wave bending moments is academic in the
case of low-deasity cargo designs. Other papers
on the general subject of submarine tankers have
emphasized this possible comparative reduction of
scantlings of a submarine versus a surface vessel as
a distinct advantage. Personally, I believe t h a t
scantlings to handle a n y surface stresses encount-
ered should always be incorporated in a com-
mercial submarine vessel in case propulsion
machinery or other equipment failure required
surfacing at sea. This, of course, is not quite as
serious a problem in a multiple-screw vessel as in a
single-screw vessel. I would appreciate knowing
the authors' thinking on this point.
Although I realize t h a t space is at a p r e m i u m
within the presssure hull of a submarine, the
quarters shown on the authors' general arrange-
" m e a t plan, although equivalent to standards of a
naval submarine, are certainly a long way from
those being furnished merchant seamen on new con-
struction. N a v a l vessels are frequently berthed
in port for long periods, which enables a crew to
get relief from confined quarters, whereas,
tankers come and go on a change of tide and it is
doubtful, in m y mind, whether a crew would
accept such compact quarters for two or three
months at a time. If not, then substar/tial
additional costs will be incurred for relief crews.
T h e satisfactory functioning of the cargo sys-
t e m is predicated on little or no intermixing of
the interface of the water and oil. We doubt
t h a t this would be the case and are of the opinion
t h a t the t y p e of cargo system would result in
delivery of a considerable a m o u n t of contaminated
cargo which would not be acceptable to the
consignee. T h e discharge of oil-contaminated
Submarine Tankers
water from the head t a n k during intransit condi-
tions would be prohibited in m a n y areas. N o
mention is m a d e of the installation of relief valves
on the cargo tanks in case a t a n k is isolated in-
advertently from the other series of connected
tanks. We would also anticipate stripping prob-
lems as the last of the cargo would be mixed with
water in the collecting t a n k to form an emulsion
due to agitation at the suction beUmouth.
Except for national defense purposes, it is h a r d
for m e to conceive how a submarine tanker carl
b e justified. Of course, if oil is ever discovered
in commercial quantities in the polar regions then.
a submarine tanker might be the only w a y t o
m o v e the product. I realize the authors s t a t e
they h a v e not a t t e m p t e d to evaluate the operating~
problems or financial aspects of the submarin~
tanker. Unfortunately, it is one of the things
t h a t is u p p e r m o s t in commercial operation.
Over and above the initial costs of the submarine
itself, large shore-side expenditures will be
required for berthing, cargo shore connections,
d i r t y ballast facilities, stores handling, and so on.
I t would be interesting if the authors could give
a n y approximate construction costs for one or
two of the designs described in the paper. F o r
a quick, economic evaluation I should like to
compare the o p t i m u m submarine t a n k e r men-
tioned at the beginning of the paper with an 84,000
dwt class of tanker m y c o m p a n y is building
in Europe. T h e submarine will carry 40,000
dwt at 37 knots on 250,000 shp. Our tankers
will carry 84,000 dwt at 161/~ knots on 26,500
shp. I n other words, the surface ship carries
twice as much cargo at one half the speed a t
one tenth of the power.
The authors are to be congratulated on their
paper. I t is a v e r y comprehensive s t u d y on t h e
a r t of designi~ig a submarine tanker and a wel-
come addition to the .literature on this subject.
t h a t has been forthcoming since the a d v e n t of
nuclear propulsion.
Prof. Harry Benford, Member: A highly imagina-
tive paper such as the one under discussion is
certain to generate a flood of comments so I
shall confine m y remarks to two points. T h e
first is to question the s t a t e m e n t t h a t the pro-
posed crew quarters meet m i n i m u m Coast G u a r d
requirements. T h e absence of cofferdams be-
tween oil cargo tanks and .the accommodation
spaces (to say nothing of machinery spaces)
is a practice I should hesitate to recommend.
This point is sure to be argued b y others more
qualified t h a n I, so I shall m o v e on to the second
point.
The authors h a v e deliberately steered clear
I
723~
 Table 7 Economic Comparisons-of Submarine an'd Conventional Tankers
(All costs are in thousands of dollars)
Voyage ~------Coastwise--------~ ~-----Long Ocean------:..
Round trip ~--~38(D--------~ ~--~24000--------.
Type Conv. Sub. Conv. Sub.
Deadweight, tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20000 20000 80000 40000
Sea speed, knots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 20 16 37.4
SHP, normal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8000 30200 20000 240000
Screws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 4
Cost of hull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5100 12000 11700 23100
Cost of machinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2600 10100 4100 57100
Invested cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7700 22100 15800 80200
Cargo per year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563000 685000 383000 424000
Income per year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 1604 1950 5725 6340
Oper. costs per yr:
Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 505 597 4200
Wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372 452 393 775
Maint. and repair . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 190 160 550
Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 337 180 1200
Miscellaneous. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 220 154 204
Amortization. . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . 617 1765 1265 6420
Total annual costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1636 " 3469 2749 13349
Ton-miles per year, (10)6.... . . . . 1067 1300 4600 5080
Mils per ton-mile . . . . . . . . . : . . . . 1.53 2.67 0.60 2.63
Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. 00 I. 74 I. 00 4.48
Nominal pay-off period, years... 13.1 90.0 3.73 (loss)

of t h e q u e s t i o n of economics b u t h a v e disclosed Table 8 Unit Costs of Various Modes of T r a n s p o r t a

e n o u g h facts to allow a n outsider, such as myself, Cents
to m a k e r e a s o n a b l e e s t i m a t e s of t h e dollars in- per ton-
volved. I h a v e t a k e n t h e l i b e r t y of so d o i n g 1VIode mile Ratio
a n d in T a b l e 7 give t h e p r i n c i p a l findings. If Air transport (current) . . . . . . . . . . 26 433
Air transport (projected goal) . . . . 8.5 142
m y a s s u m p t i o n s are too far amiss, p e r h a p s t h e Highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 88.3
a u t h o r s will b e m o v e d to r e s p o n d w i t h m o r e Railroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.75 29.2
a c c u r a t e estimates. Barge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.15 19.2
Conventional cargo ship . . . . . . . . . 0.90 15.0
M y s t u d y c o m p a r e s each of two proposed Unitized, semi-automated cargo
s u b m a r i n e s w i t h c o n v e n t i o n a l t a n k e r s of equiv- ship..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.50 8.33
Nuclear submarine . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.26 4.33
alent trade-route suitability. The 20-knot 25,000-dwt Great Lakes ore
20,000-dwt s u b m a r i n e is considered s u i t a b l e for carrier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.16 2.67
a s h o r t coastwise v o y a g e a n d is c o m p a r e d w i t h 20,000-dwt tanker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.15 2.50
50,000-dwt ore carrier . . . . . . . . . . . 0.14 2.33
a c o n v e n t i o n a l t a n k e r of t h e s a m e d e a d w e i g h t 80,000-dwt tanker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.06 1.00
b u t m o r e n o r m a l speed (16 k n o t s ) . T h e 37.4- a Figures represent approximate operating costs, includ- "
k n o t 40,000-dwt s u b m a r i n e a p p e a r s b e s t suited ing amortization but not profit, for U.S. built and operated
cargo vehicles. Units are long tons and nautical miles.
for long voyages a n d is c o m p a r e d w i t h a n 80,000-
d w t c o n v e n t i o n a l t a n k e r of 16 knots, c a r r y i n g
6 N o m i n a l pay-off period excludes a m o r t i z a t i o n
c r u d e oil f r o m t h e P e r s i a n Gulf to P h i l a d e l p h i a
as a n o p e r a t i n g cost.
via t h e C a p e of G o o d Hope.
7 I n c o m e is based o n U S M C flat rates.
T h e following a s s u m p t i o n s are m a d e :
T h e following conclusions m a y b e d r a w n :
1 N u c l e a r m a c h i n e r y c o n s t r u c t i o n costs are 1 T h e s m a l l s u b m a r i n e w o u l d h a v e u n i t op-
d o u b l e t h e costs of c o n v e n t i o n a l m a c h i n e r y of e r a t i n g costs a b o u t 75 p e r c e n t h i g h e r t h a n those
t h e s a m e horsepower. of a c o m p a r a b l e c o n v e n t i o n a l t a n k e r . I t s r a t e .
2 T h e n u c l e a r p l a n t s are of a n a d v a n c e d t y p e of r e t u r n w o u l d l~robably b e t o o - l o w to r e p a y
w i t h a t o t a l fuel cost of 2.5 mils per shphr. t h e i n v e s t m e n t w i t h i n t h e life of t h e ship.
3 S u b m a r i n e consCruction a n d o p e r a t i n g costs 2 T h e large fast s u b m a r i n e w o u l d h a v e u n i t
are slightly higher t h a n t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g costs o p e r a t i n g costs 400 to 500 p e r c e n t g~eater t h a n
in a c o n v e n t i o n a l ship of equal weight. T h i s those of a large e o n v e n t i o r i a l tanke~. F r e i g h t
is aside f r o m e x t r a costs of n u c l e a r o p e r a t i o n . r a t e p r e m i u m s of t h e s a m e m a g n i t u d e w o u l d b e
4 B u n k e r oil costs $2.50 p e r bbl. r e q u i r e d to m a t c h t h e p r o f i t a b i l i t y of i n v e s t m e n t
5 Ships are U.S. b u i l t a n d operated. i n t h e slower n o r m a l ship.

724 Submarine Tankers

 I do not care to leave the impression that the
apparently poor economic potential of cargo
submarines means that the authors have wasted
their time. On the contrary, such broad studies
are prerequisite to economic analysis and are,
in themselves, stimulating and useful in pointing
up needed areas of development. They may
also lead to new trade possibilities. Paper studies
of advanced ship types are not expensive and
should be pursued as a matter of policy.
Finally, for what it may be worth, I should
like to point out that the estimated unit trans-
portation costs for nuclear submarine tankers
compare quite favorably with unit costs for vari-
"ous other modes of transport, Table 8.
David Mylrea, Member: The authors are to be
congratulated on the comprehensive and masterful
handling of this all-important aspect of marine
transportation. They have effectively removed
this concept from the field of pure conjecture
and landed it on the hard foundation of reality.
The writer is completely in accord with the
initial .assumptions made. The inherent ad-
vantage of these undersea cargo carriers lies in
the possibility of transporting /arge quantities
at high speed below the surface, where the re-
sidual resistance is a minimum. By the same
token, hydrofoils will eventually find their "niche"
transporting light cargoes at very high speed in
protected waters, and there is no advantage to
be gained by considering these various types
in anything other than their natural element.
Perhaps the most important single contribution
of this paper is that, in the final analysis, it is the
size and space requirements of present-day ma-
chinery which create the most severe limitations.
The success of this type of craft is consequently
dependent, not, as one might suspect, on hydro-
dynamic considerations primarily, but on ma-
chinery development. The thought expressed
in the authors' conclusion concerning the need
for "the development of a direct energy conversion
system" is.most heartily endorsed.
Another factor which stands out in this study
is the additional power required to overcome
the resistance of the appendages. The 25 per
cent additional EHP, over and above the bare
hull resistance, tends to offset the initial advantage"
gained by getting below the surface, and as a
consequence is worthy of future consideration.
The proposed cargo-handling system upon
which hinges so many important considerations,
including the scantlings of the main cargo tanks,
is a trifle suspect, even though the reasons for
the proposal are certainly well founded. This
aspect of submarine tanker operation is of ftmda-
Submarine Tankers
mental importance, and a satisfactory solution
is mandatory before any real progress can be
made in this mode of transportation. The dis-
posal of thousands of tons of dirty ballast on
every trip is a problem that should not be dis-
missed lightly.
Even though no attempt has been made to
evaluate the economics of this design concept,
and rightly so, one can hardly fail to recognize
the fact that a large submarine tanker will cost
somewhere in the neighborhood of ten times the
amount .of its surface competitor, and that t hi s.
payment is essentially for an increased speed
of about twelve knots. In essence then, this
writer comes to the conclusion that until we
achieve a real "break through" in power plant
design, commercial submarine tankers will remain
a subject of academic interest only.
Perhaps, in view of this situation, it would
be wise to investigate an intermediate possibility.
The recent tankers of 50,000 to 65,000 tons dead-
weight have proved their economic worth. The
greatest single factor which limits the trend to
even larger' vessels is draft, which is controlled
by the channel "depth of our harbors. If we
would open the door completely to the concept
of off-shore loading and unloading, perhaps we
would find that our surface tankers have an un-
suspected potential.
It is a weU-known fact that depth is the least
expensive dimension of a t a n k e r . . If our draft
limitation is removed, we can go to abnormally deep
ships which will give us increased cargo dead-
weight at minimum cost in steel and power.
These big, deep .ships can be made considerably
"~iner" than. their present-day counterparts,
which will give them better seakeeping qualities.
The superstructure can be designed to take the
impact of a moderate amount of "green water,"
and with the wheel well down below the surface
they can be driven harder without ill effect.
Just for the sake of comparison, we have chosen
a 60,000-dwt tanker and worked up rough sets
of dimensions, which tend to indicate the ad-
vantages of unlimited draft. The 60,000
"tonner'" was chosen simply because vessels of
lessdr deadweight are only moderately, hampered
by draft limitations, and thus do not serve to
illustrate the point quite as effectively.
No attempt was made to optimize these ships,
since we require only representative dimensions
to illustrate the point.
If the draft is limited to 37 ft 6 in., for example,
a tanker should be approximately 800 ft X 115 ft
X 57 ft 6 in. to carry 60,000.tons at 16.5 knots
with 20,000 normal SHP.
If the draft is not limited, our ship can be 750
725
 ft X i08 ft X 55 ft and carry the same pay load
at a draft of 4 1 f t 3 in. In this case the S H P
required is only 19,000 for 16.5 knots. A much
more economical ship! Both of these vessels
would have a block of about 0.800.
If we now want to push this vessel up to 30
knots, and again, we are not restricted in draft,
we would choose dimensions which provide mini-
m u m residual resistance. A 60,000-ton tanker
can attain a speed of 30 knots with 150,000 SHP,
if we choose a block coefficient of about 0.530.
This tanker would be 800 ft )< 120 ft X 78 ft, with
a corresponding draft of 60 ft. She would make
25 knots with only 60,000.SHP.
Thus we see, t h a t a surface vessel .can compete
~eryfavorably with a submarine, even at the higher
speeds contemplated, if we merely remove the
draft limitations.
I t is our belief t h a t this particular concept
has not received sufficient attention.
Prof. Edward V. Lewis, Council Member: This
paper is an interesting presentation of an unusual
type of ship. However, attention ig called to
the authors' statements: " I t is agreed that, on
the basis" of present-day conditions, there is no
demand for movement of petroleum products
by. high-speed submarine tankers . . . . The
advantage of the submarine is at high speed . . .
I t is realized t h a t there is no demand for 40-knot
speed in the. oil trade." With this important
reservation made at the outset, one is free to
discuss the submarine tanker as an interesting
technical problem.
One of the critical questions raised in the pape.r
is the crossover point in speed at which the elimi-
nation of the submarine's wavemaking resistance
offsets the increase in wetted surface. Fig. 3
shows a crossover at 21 knots for ships designed
for 20 knots. The paper states, " I t is realized
t h a t if the surface tanker were designed for a
higher speed, it would be longer and finer so that
the power upswing due to wavemaking would
be deferred for a few more knots, but there is a
limit to the amount of fining that can be done,
and the submarine becomes increasingly favorable
at speeds-above 25 knots." Later it is stkted
t h a t "the top speed for rectangular-form sub-
marine tankers with draft limited to about 36 ft
..in surface condition, loaded, is not much above
30 knots." I t is the writer's opinion t h a t in this
25-30 knot range, a properly designed surface
hull will still show a power advantage over the
submarine. For example, Davidson 11 showed a
11K. S. M. Davidson, "Ships," 9th International Con-
gress of Applied Mechanics, Brussels, 1956.
726 Submarine Tankers
crossover point for a ship of A/(L/100) a = 50
at VIA I/' ---- 6.5. This corresponds to a speed
of 34 knots for a ship of 20,000 tons displacement
and 38 knots for a ship of 40,000 tons displace-
ment. Hence, it is quite probable t h a t the 40-
knot submarines, particularly the 20,000-dwt
ships, might require less power t h a n the best
practical surface ship design, if such speed should
ever be needed.
In any case, it should be noted t h a t the sub-
marine is faced with several great handicaps for
economical operation--it must utilize nuclear
power, it must incorporate a complex and ex-
pensive structure, and it must involve m a n y
complications and costs in outfit and equipment
in order to operate submerged.
Considering now the resistance of different
submarine forms, it is explained in the paper
t h a t forms with circular sections in general have
the lowest resistance. But for practical use,
where draft or depth is limited, rectangular sec-
tions are most suitable. This results in flattened
forms, such as t h a t shown in Fig. 5. I t is in-
teresting to find, in making calculations for mini-
mum wetted surface of rectangular section forms
of constant depth and displacement, t h a t wetted
area decreases as beam is increased and length
reduced. In fact, this trend continues until
beam equals length, well beyond the range of
practical proportions. Furthermore, as flatness
increases the afterbody slopes are considerably
reduced, which should lead to decreasing residuary
(eddy) resistance.
Considering the Davidson Laboratory re-
sistance results presented in Fig. 9, it will be
noted t h a t the trend of E H P with B/D follows
wetted surface, S, until B/D -- 1.0 is reached.
At this value of B/D Cr is noticeably higher.
Apparently this is the result of steeper slopes in
the afterbody resulting from the change in section
shape, with length and displacement held con-
stant. Steeper slopes might be expected to cause
some separation of flow at the stern, which would
account for the resistance i n c r e a s e . . H o w e v e r ,
a word of caution should be offered regarding the
conclusion that E H P is a minimum at exactly
BID = 1.5: (a) This conclusion depends greatly
on the results of one model test at B / D = 1.0
"(Form l-b). Slight experimental errors could
change the picture appreciably. (b) Whenever
separation occurs there are questions regarding
scaling from model to full size. These questions
arise whether the model is large or small. In
general one expects separation to occur sooner
on a model than on the ship itself, and hence
it is quite possible t h a t the optimum BID is
less than 1.5.
 Similar comments apply to the trends with a parametric study made some time ago. Power
parallel middle body shown in Fig. 9. In addi- requirements were determined for a number of
tion, there is in this case no indication of the hulls, of constant displacement and speed and
reason for the increased E H P at P M B = 53 of varying dimensions. The curves show t h a t
per cent. The stern slopes are identical for all up to a point as length is increased power require-
models, and therefore one would not expect much ments are reduced. The ship I have selected
variation in C,. Hence, the conclusion t h a t is not quite at the point of minimum resistance
minimum E H P occurs at P M B -- 60 per cent but is p r e t t y much at the mean u p t u r n of the
should be considered approximate. curve. T o reach the point of minimum resistance,
T h e foregoing remarks apply to the bare hull. it would be necessary to increase the length
When appendages are added, scale-effect prob- another 220 ft to save only 20,000 hp. T h e sur-
lems again arise. I t is quite possible t h a t the face ship would be 1230 ft in length, 98 ft beam
appendage resistance of the full-size ship would and 43 ft draft. This vessel would make 40
be appreciably less than predicted by model tests. knots on 322,000 shaft horsepower installed.
The authors have presented a most interesting Whenever high speeds are mentioned the subject
account of an unusual type of ship. I t is to of planing craft and hydrofoils inevitably arises.
b e hoped that the possible military applications Skene's "Elements of Yacht Design," 1945
of the submarine-tanker concept will not be edition, contains coefficients leading to power
overlooked. requirements for planing hulls. On this. basis,
it turns out t h a t a hull similar to a fast runabout
Harry B. Stover, Associate Member: Fig. 3 of the type would require about eleven million horse-"
paper shows speed-power curves for a surface power to drive 80,000 tons at 40 knots. A large
tanker and submarine and indicates t h a t above step-hydroplane type could do the job for about
about 21 knots the submarine has the advantage. eight and one half million horsepower.
T h e authors state that if the surface tanker were Hydrofoils can probably be built with lift-drag
designed for higher speed, it would be longer and ratios of about 9. On this basis a hydrofoil
finer and the crossing point would be higher. I would require about three and a half million
thought it would be of interest to compare the horsepower to maintain a speed of 40 knots.
situation at 40 knots and at the same time look In all cases except for planing hulls a pro-
at the possibilities of using other types such as pulsive coefficient of 0.66 has been assumed and
planing hulls and hydrofoils. no margins have been provided. The powering
In the interests of brevity, I shall limit the coefficients used for planing hulls resulted in
discussion to 40,000-dwt, 40-knot vessels and installed horsepower and in this case the margins
will be concerned only with power requirements. are not known.
All other considerations such as cargo density, In summary the installed powers for 80,000
personnel requirements, draft limitations, and tons displacement at 40 knots are as follows.
so on will be omitted.
In each case it was assumed t h a t the weight Shaft
of ship itself would equal the deadweight and horsepower
thus the total displacement to be propelled would Submarine--optimum shape . . . . . . . . . . 253,000
Surface--displacement type . . . . . . . . . . . 322,000
be 80,000 tons. Surface--large runabout type . . . . . . . . . 11,100,000
Although 80,000 tons displacement might seem Surface--large step hydroplane type... 8,600,000
high, ships designed for such speeds are large and Surface---hydrofoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,690,000
v e r y heavy. The surface ship would have to
be more than 1200 ft long. For the submarine I t was somewhat of a .surprise to me to discover
the displacement is actually less than that given that the conventional surface ship and submarine
in Table 4 of the paper for the 40,000-ton, 38.2 would require nearly the same power. If con-
knot design. Planing hulls and hydrofoils of ventional margins were added the submarine
such size are so far beyond anything known t o d a y would be favored since it could do with smaller
t h a t data are not available. I t is likely, however, allowances. The planing hulls are completely
t h a t they would be somewhat lighter. out of the picture and the hydrofoil requires ten
Using data from the paper, I estimate that a times as much power as either the submarine or
submarine of circular hull without parallel middle corLventional ship.
body o.f this displacement would be 660 ft long
and 95 ft diam. This hull would require 253,000 Peter M. Kimon, Associate Member: T h e subject
shaft horsepower for a speed 40 knots. of submarine tanker design is rather intriguing
For the surface ship, data were obtained from and, althoug h its practical application might

Submarine Tankers 727

 seem remote at present, it might become a reality
in the not too distant future.
Economic considerations do present one of the
most significant single objections to the com-
mercial acceptance of this mode of transportation
by the oil industry:.. I t would appear then, t h a t
any increase in deadweight for a submarine of
a given configuration would be a welcome eco-
nomic saving. Having this goal in mind, it
should be emphasized t h a t a tanker submarine
should be designed to carry cargo oil of specific
volume no higher t h a n the one likely to be used,
so long as it remains a volume-controlled design.
For such a design the deadweight is approximately
inversely proportional to the oil specific volume.
If instead of designing for gasoline of specific
volume 49 cu f t / t o n (61 API) we would design
for heavy oil of, say, 42 cu f t / t o n (34 API) for
a given size submarine, a cargo deadweight in-
crease' of 7/42 or about 17 per cent would be
obtained.
T h e authors must have been well aware of the
advantages of designing for lower specific volumes
when they state: " I t can be seen t h a t a submarine
designed for heavy oil exclusively would require
smaller, and hence lighter, variable cargo tanks
than one designed for gasoline. This saving in
weight, along with a reduction in fixed ballast
could be translated into substantially greater
cargo deadweight in the same size submarine."
I t would be desirable to add to the foregoing
sentence the following words: "provided it re-
mains a volume-controlled design." I t would
appear t h a t with a number of designs presented
in Table 4 the ballast margin is quite small, so
as to make any increase in deadweight with de-
creasing specific volume questionable. T h e
authors seem to verify this when "they infer
that the 2250 tons of fixed ballast left over for the
20-knot 20,000-dwt rectangular hull design is
about the minimum required for intact stability.
In this connection it is felt that estimates of light
ship weight (exclusive of fixed ballast) for the
designs presented in Table 4 would add to
the value of this paper. For the same designs, the
authors' opinion as to the minimum fixed-ballast
requirements for stability considerations would
be of interest. The combination of light ship
weight and minimum fixed ballast would be very
useful in defining the lower limit of cargo specific
volume to be considered in submarine tanker
designs.
The authors have arbitrarily accepted and
used throughout their study main ballast t~tuk
capacities approximately equal to 10 per cent of
the surface displacement. Is this a desirable
assumption? If this is so, do these large ballast
728 Submarine Tankers
tanks serve a useful purpose, or are they perhaps
inherited from the military submarine? Are
they necessary in maintaining one-compartment
flooding standard? Are they needed for ex-
tensive voyages while the submarine is surfaced ?
Are they required for surfacing at a fast rate?
Before answering these questions, it should be
remembered t h a t the submarine tanker is a v e r y
special and a very expensive suggested way of
oil transportation, and as such, it would justify
a v e r y special effort in reducing the size of any
noncargo-carrying spaces. T h e authors state:
" F o r the return trip, a submarine tanker must
carry an amount of salt water ballast exactly
equal to the cargo deadweight." Unintentionally
perhaps, this statement b y the authors suggests
t h a t the main ballast tanks form part of the cargo
deadweight. If in fact t h a t were the case and
the main ballast tanks were made convertible,
m.ain water ballast or cargo oil, then the available
cargo deadweight would be substantially higher
b y an amount of the order of 10-15 per cent.
Since the ratio of the total cargo oil volume
outside the pressure hull to the volume of the
variable cargo tanks would have to be maintained
constant for a design of a given density, rearrange-
ment of the main and variable cargo tank volumes
would be necessary. More specifically, the main
cargo tanks together with the convertible tanks
would occupy a slightly smaller volume than was
occupied previously b y the main ballast tanks
and main cargo tanks. This decrease in volume
would be added to the variable cargo tanks.
T h e submarine then could submerge .from the
normal surface condition b y either flooding the
main ballast tanks with salt water or b y the addi-
tion of cargo oil in the variable cargo tanks and
main ballasttanks. T h e one-compartment flood-
ing standard could be maintained by making the
weight of the cargo oil in the main ballast tanks
equal to the weight in salt water of t h e l a r g e s t
normally dry compartment.
I t is anticipated t h a t a set of small capacity
main ballast tanks would be provided exclusively
for salt-water ballast. T h e r e s e r v e buoyancy
of such tanks might be on the order of 1 per cent
of the surface displacement, sufficient to emerge
the sail and all other superstructure associated
with cargo oil loading and discharging" arrange-
ments.
A comparison of the authors' 20-knot 30,000-
dwt ton circular cross section submarine and a
similar one with convertible man ballast tanks in-
dicates an approximate deaclweight increase of 11
per cent. Similar results would be obtair/ed for a
rectangular hull. Table 9 compares the affected
volumes of the two designs. A third column
 Table 9 Modification to 20-Knot 30,000-DWT Circular Hull Section Submarine
Tanker
Cargo oil specific volume cu ft/ton . . . . . . .
Deadweight, tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Main cargo tanks, eu ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Variable cargo tanks, cuft . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Convertible ballast tanks (salt water or
cargo oil), cuft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Main ballast tanks (salt water only),
cuft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Increase in deadweight over original
design, p e r c e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
indicates some further increase in deadweight
.due to change of oil specific volume I t has
been assumed that a sufficient amount of fixed
ballast could be removed without affecting ad-
versely the stability.
Of course, it is realized that several additional
problems of draft, freeboard, and cargo handling
would have to be solved before a scheme such
as the one proposed should be considered seriously.
Finally, I wish to thank the authors for their
unusual and interesting presentation.
Marinos S. Costeletos, Associafe Member: I n view
of the recent world-wide interest in the feasibility
of submarine vessels for the carriage of oil, the
authors are to be congratulated for this thorough
study, which is a valuable addition to the existing
literatur~ on the subject.
T h e writer has one comment concerning the
hull and relative rotative efficiencies which were
used in Table 4.
If we take a straight look at Table 4 of the
paper, we will observe the following variations
of the propulsive coefficient with apparent pro-
peller loading (EHP/serew/V3D 2) for increasing
deadweight and at approximately constant ship
speed.
Circular Hulls Without Parallel Body. The
propulsive coefficient for all speeds decreases with.
increasing propeller loading.
Circular Hulls With Parallel Body. For those
a t speeds of 20 knots, the propulsive coefficient
decreases; for all higher speeds it increases with
increasing propeller loading.
Rectangular Hulls. For those at speeds of
20 knots, the propulsive coefficient decreases;
for all higher speeds (with the exception of the
o n e designed for 20,000 dwt and 3 0 knots) it
remains constant with increasing propeller load-
ing.
The behavior of the propulsive coefficient for
circular hulls with parallel body at speeds higher
than 20 knots can be explained if we accept an
Submarine Tankers
Original
design ------proposed versions-----,
49 (gasoline) 40 (gasoline) 42 (crude oil)
80000 33300 38800
1102500 961000 1203000
442500 490000 285000
. . 264000 227000
189000 19000 19000
11 20
improvement in hull efficiency, and perhaps also
in relative rotative efficiency, as parallel body is
added to the hull. If such is the case, then the
decrease in propuls!ve coefficient at 20 knots
remains unexplained.
According to Tabl~ 4, the propulsive coefficients
of rectangular hulls at speeds higher than 20
knots are constant and equal to 0.760 (with one
exception as noted above). I t appears t h a t this
m a y also be a result of changing hull efficiencies.
The writer would be most interested in any
information which the authors can give in ex-
planation of the foregoing variations.
John Posnakoff, Associate Member: T h e specula-
tion of oil transportation with nuclear-powered
submarine tankers resulted in the almost simul-
taneous undertaking of feasibility studies in three
countries more than 2 years ago. F r o m the
results published it appears t h a t the study made
by Electric Boat is the most vigorous one and
because of its parametric nature it establishes
good foundations for any economic study t h a t
may be undertaken in the future if the incentive
arises.
Such incentive will most likely, if ever, arise
from military or national prestige rather than
commercial grounds since the merit of the sub-
marine tanker as it has been demonstrated through
t h e s e studies appears to lie in areas t h a t are be-
yond the range of present commercial marine
practice and concern.
However, even though all limitations attributed
to the submarine tanker are justified under present
beliefs and attitudes, the future picture m a y be
considerably different, giving the fullest possible
merit to underwater transportation.
T h e inevitable future demand for an. increase
of the transport momentum could be a good
incentive to consider such high speeds t h a t will
make the submarine a most attractive solution.
Bearing this in mind the writer wishes to express
his views on some of the already much discussed
pros and cons of the submarine tanker.
729
 The inevitable necessity of .off-shore loading
and unloading facifities for the hydrodynamically
best submarine designs may soon cease being a
drawback since such facilities are already being
established, not only to accommodate the recent
trends to larger supertankevs but also to facilitate
loading or unloading under weather conditions
which make shore docking impossible.
Di-ydocking m a y be accomplished even with
the present-day limitations if the structural weight
is kept to a mini.mum, compensating for the weight
deficit by use of high-density, easily removable
ballast. Using ballast rather than structural
material is certainly cheaper and in addition to
the aforementioned ease of drydocking, through
its removal an increase in D W T m a y be realized
for cargoes of densities higher than the design.
For example, the S5-N-MA48a detailed design
of a 20,000-dwt submarine tanker has an estimated
steel coefficient of 0.563. This is almost twice
as much as the corresponding Japanese design
(reference 2 of the paper). Although the $5
design has .the volumetric capacity to carry 25
per cent more cargo D W T if it carried crude oil,
it cannot realize even half of it by removal of the
permanent ballast.
A lighter hull structure and more removable
ballast could permit the realization of such a
potential gain. "(Some permanent ballast will
always have to be retained as governed by sta-
bility requirements.) Further reduction in light
ship weight m a y result from potential improve-
ments in nuclear power plants.
While these weight improvemeflts may have
little merit for aviation gasoline where the upper
limit of D W T / A coefficient is 0.715 for a sub-
marine barge, they are significant for higher
density cargoes such as crude oil where the upper
limit of D W T / A approaches 0.920. In all cases,
however, as with N a v y submarines it is volume
rather than weight considerations which will
govern the size of the submarine tanker.
The'reduction therefore of the noncargo volume
to a minimum will make the submarine tanker
a more attractive proposition. The following
noncargo spaces m a y .be considered for reduction
in size, thus increasing the cargo volumetric
capacity:
1 Main ballast tanks from 10 to 5 per cent
of surface displacement if off-shore loading and
unloading is considered.
2 Machinery room: As nuclear power plants
are perfected it is possible to reduce further the
specific volumes.
I t is assumed t h a t the curve presented in Fig. 3
of the paper is only a sample of the many t h a t
may have been drawn. The writer feels t h a t
730 Submarine Tankers
a more realistic comparison between the sub-
marine and surface tanker would be accom-
plished when each Speed-SHP curve is established
by connecting the poifits designating individual
designs of equal deadweight, designed for various
speeds.
Using available characteristics for surface
tankers of conventional power I~ and the same
design characteristics set forth in the paper (sub-
marine tankers of circular hull with no parallel
middle body; propulsive coefficient of 0.80 from
T a b l e 4), the S H P characteristics were developed
for submarine and surface tankers of D W T ca-
pacifies 10,000-50,000 tons designed for speeds
from 10-24 knots at 2-knot intervals. Thus th~
break-even speeds for each D W T was established,
Fig. 18 of this discussion. The break-even line
which passes through these break-even points
has an upward increasing slope indicating t h a t
for higher D W T the break-even speed becomes
higher.
For the surface tankers the total D W T was
used and it is felt t h a t if the exact cargo D W T
was known that would certainly lower the values
of the break-even speeds. A further possible
lowering of the break-even speeds could be real-
ized if, instead of conventional tankers, nuclear
surface tankers were used for the comparison.
In this graph the power curve of the 30,000-
D W T Japanese submarine tanker (reference 2
of the paper) is plotted and, although this would
be valid only at the design speed, it is of interest
to see t h a t the S H P requirements in this case
exceed that of the corresponding American design
b y as much as 15 per cent.
In addition, the 47,000-DWT submarine tanker
of British design (reference 3 of the paper) is
shown. "This seems to compare very optimis-
ticaUy with the corresponding American design.
I t was felt also t h a t some available data on
feasible designs of surface nuclear tankers should
be included. T h e T7-N-52a design of M A R A D
which has approximately 43,000 cargo D W T
capacity seems to compare unfavorably with
the corresponding submarine tanker. For its
design speed of 18.3 knots it requires almost 25
per cent more power than the corresponding
submarine tanker.
A somewhat similar graph of break-even speeds
for submarine and surface tankers designed for
equal displacement is shown in Fig. 19 which is
reproduce.d from an unpublished M.I.T. thesis.18
~ H. Benford, "Engineering Economy in Tanker De-
sign," TRANS.SNAME, vol. 65, 1957.
as John Posnakoff and Theodore Efstathiou, "'The
Feasibility of the Submarine Tanker," unpublished M.I.T.
thesis, May 26, 1958; supervised by Prof. J. H. Evans.
 50 ""

Legend
45 - - SUblTankers Cp=0.6 L/B=7.0
.... Surf. TankeP~ (Conven~]onal),
Oa'~ based o n H, B e n ~ o r , d
EncJ'r's Econ. in Tank Des.
A Japanese Z9~550 DWT Sub.Ta~ker (Ae~.~)
40 ~t BrH'ish, Teasdole 4"/,000 DWT Sub. TankeP
(Re~.3~

. 35

Harad (Prop.) T 7-N-B2a--

43~000 DWT T a n k e r
3O
u~

o
UB

r.- z5
I-
I
O-
//
-r-
tO
/
20

X
15

/ /./
10

S,000-DWT Diesel Power~ Sub.Tanker

J.H. H~c Cur'i'hy:
"The Pr'a,c|ca b|li't'~ o~ a ta't"l e.
Submarine Tan kee-"

O,
IO 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Speed V, Knofs
Fig. 18 Comparison of power requirements for surface and submarine tankers

Two break-even speed lines are shown; one
for equal SHP and one for equal SHP/DWT.
For .speeds above the first line the submarine
is superior to' the surface tanker in terms of SHP
while for speeds above the second line the sub-
marine is superior to the surface tanker in terms
of SHP/DWT.
Of interest is the intersection of these two break-
even lines at a displacement of 37,500 tons and a
speed of 15.5 knotg indicating the region where
both surface and submarine tankers have equal
requirements for SHP as well as for SHP/DWT.
The writer has also made several calculations
for establishing the parameters of submarine
tankers of equal deadweight capacities and power
as those of .successful surface tankers now in
operation, using design characteristics set forth
in the paper (circular hull, no PMB, and propul-
sive coefficient = 0.80). The results favor the
submarine in most cases, indicating that the
break-even speeds above which the submarine
tanker is superior to its surface equivalent may

Submarine Tankers 731

 18

A +his Poln~ Sub TankeP a n d

Surface T a n k e r have s o m e I
~. SHP a n d SHP/OWT
./
I~H-P] I~HP_-I
L ~ _ J Sub= ]D~W'~_JSur'face Tanker
tf
For Speeds above (~) ~rhe Submarine is Supermr
o ~rhe Surface Tanker" or same 5HP a n d A . -
12 For Speeds above ( ~ the Submarine is Superior
+o ~he Sur+aceTankeP or same SHWDWTand & . - - -

1 Sub-Tanker L/D-8; Cp=0.65~ C~rculor Hull

Sure'ace Tanker: D a Q based on HlBenfard 12
1
IO
20 4O re0 80 100 120
I 140 160~10a
Bulk P!spIocemen A-Tons of 2?.40 Lb

Fig. 19 ApproxJm=te SHP and S H P / D W T "break-even speed" lines

very well be in the region of present adopted
speeds of 15 to 20 knots.
The authors must be congratulated for their
effort to put in a summary form all the data which
were gathered from this study. Undoubtedly
much had to be omitted to keep the presentation
within reasonable limits. Some questions come
to mind which m a y have been covered in dis-
carded material and it would be much appreciated
if the authors would be kind enough to answer
the following:
1 For studies of surface tankers with a pres-
surized-water-reactor (PWR) nuclear plant a
coefficient of 285 lb/shp has been used for the
propulsion plant. How does this compare with
the figure used for the submarine study ?
2 Of the volumetric coefficients, what portion
is allotted for the reactor compartment alone ?
3 For single-reactor nuclear power plants
that have not been engaged in successful service
it will be required by classification societies to
provide an auxiliary take-home power of a b o u t
5 per cent of maximum SHP. Has this been
taken into consideration ?
4 W h a t is the depth for which the model tests
were simulated? The model tests made at the
Experimental T a n k of Sannders-Roe Ltd. in
England showed t h a t at large depths the LID
ratio and the position of the maximum section
from the nose have minor influence on total E H P .
Were similar results obtained from the model
tests at Davidson Laboratory?
5 I t would be of interest to know how the
crew of 56 men quoted for the SS-N-MA48a design
would compare for an equivalent surface nuclear-
powered tanker.
6 As a conclusion the writer has left aquestion,
the answer to which m a y very well place the
submarine tanker in an even more unfavorable
status: Have the authors considered what the
attitude of the classification societies, will be
toward the requirement of eofferdamming prac-
tically the entire pressure hull which is surrounded
b y cargo ?
Dr. F. H. Todd, Member: I have been greatly in-
terested in reading this paper, as I have just
recently given one on the same subject before
the 3rd Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics
organized b y the Office of Naval Research in
Holland in September. 1. Because of the theme
of t h a t Conference, m y paper was confined largely
to the hydrodynamic features of the problem,
and it is to these that I wish to devote m y re-
marks t o d a y .
The authors state t h a t the submarine, at low
speeds, will have greater resistance than the
surface ship, because the absence of .wave-making
resistance at such speeds is more than offset
b y the increase in wetted surface. However,
there is a third factor to take into account, the
form resistance, and with a modem, body-of-
revolution shape, this can be considerably less
z4 F. H. Todd, "Submarine Cargo Ships and Tankers,"
3rd Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Seheveningen,
Holland, September 19-22, 1960.

732 Submarine Tankers

 140 _

~ Russo ET AL
Todd
I?_0

I00

-~
c'-
8O
a
KO

F-"
' GO
n.
-r.

4O

~. .^ ,~_ ~ v ~ . lO ~

ZO - r -

I I 1 I I I
20 40 60 80 I00 120 I0 I(~0
Submer'ged Displa,men in Tons-Thousatads
EHP Cur,ves for, Submarine Tanker.s
Fig. 20 EHP curves for submarine tankers

than that for the surface ship, and m y own esti-
mates suggest "that the submarine and surface
ship of equal deadweight will have practically
the same resistance at low speeds, the submarine
showing to greater and greater advantage as the
speed is increased. In m y paper I estimated the
E H P for circular and elliptical section submarines
having a length-to-diameter ratio of 7 and sub-
merged displacements ranging from 25,000 up
to 150,000 tons. The circular hulls had ex-
cessively deep drafts, and the elliptical hulls
were taken to have a beam-to-depth ratio of
4 to 1 to reduce the drafts to more reasonable
figures. Estimates for intermediate values can
be interpolated linearly. The figures are based
upon the A T T C 1947 line with a "roughness"
allowance of +0.0004 and an appendage allowance
of 20 per cent.
The authors have also mad~ estimates for
circular-section submarines of the same propor-
tions, a n d the results are compared in Fig. 20
of this discussion. I t will be seen t h a t their
values of E H P are always somewhat higher than
those of the present writer, which is largely ac-
counted for by the fact that they made a greater
allowance of 25 per cent. for appendage resistance.
T h e y also estimated the E H P from rood.el, tests on
submarines having rectangular sectib-ias (with
rounded corners) and beam-to-depth ratios vary-
ing from 2 to 1 to 3 to 1, Table 4. These result~
and those of the ~vriter for elliptical-section sub-
marines are also shown in Fig. 20. At 20 knots,
and allowing for the difference in appendage
allowance, there is little to choose between the
two forms, b u t at 30 knots the E H P for the rec-
tangular forms appears to be increasing more
rapidly with increase in displacement than does
that for the elliptical hulls. This is no d o u b t
due to the fact t h a t in going from a displacement
of 47,900 tons to 90,000 tons the beam-to-depth
ratio has changed from 2 to 1 to 3 to 1. For
elliptical sections of ratio less than 4, the E H P

Submarine Tankers 733

 Table 10 Comparison of Tankers of Constant Deadweight = 93,750 Tons
Type .............. ,---------Surfaee~ .Submarine
D e a d w e i g h t , A.. 0.75 - - 0.60
A, tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125000 '---------. - 156250-
Cs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.80 0.70 0.60
CP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - " __ __ 0.60 = 0.60 ~
L a p , ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885 921 962 828 828
B, ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 141.7 148 118.3 236.6
d, ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.3 47.2 49.3 118.3 59.15

V, k n o t s . . . . . . . . . :. 15.5 21.9 28.5 15.5 21.9 28.5 15.5 21.9 28.5

:EHP~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15180 45300 110000 13780 37800 81050 20100 55150 118100
No. of screws . . . . . . . 1 2 4 1 2 4 1 4 " 4
D H P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21080 73300 194000 20680 73400 169300 30200 115300 247200
" S t r e a m l i n e d b o d y of r e v o l u t i o n , c i r c u l a r sections, l e n g t h / d i a m e t e r r a t i o = 7.0.
As above, b u t w i t h e l l i p t i c a l sections of b e a m / d e p t h r a t i o = 4.0.
" E H P based on A T T C 1947 line p l u s 0.0004

values would,, of course, be less than those shown,

and would give a more favorable comparison with l
those for the rectangular-section design. Decldwelgh+=93~'/50Tons I
. T h e authors have confined themselves to a
study of the feasibility of designing and building
submarine tankers and have, perhaps wisely,
200 / =

not entered into the controversial field of the

relative merits of such ships as compared with
surface tankers. This is, however, an important
question i n m a n y people's minds today and per-
haps a few remarks on this aspect of such ships
are in order.
In m y paper already referred to I attempted
to make some such comparison from the resistance
and propulsion point only, and gave figures for ,4 --
#l/..~oL
I~. ~ - .

surface and submarine tankers haCqng deadweights

ranging from 18,750 tons to 93,750 tons. T h e
former represents the smallest ship for which
nuclear propulsion plant would seem practicable
today, the latter is about the size of the largest
surface tankers so far built. In 'making the
comparison certain assumptions had to be made.
1 The surface ships for a given deadweight
were made larger and finer with increasing speed,
the relation between block coefficient and speed-
length ratio being given b y

V
- 2 (1.06 -- C8)
x/L 0
15 20 25 30
2 The E H P values' for the surface ships were Spaed V in Knos
based on Series 60 models. F i g. 21 Comparison of delivered horsepower f o r sur-
3 For both surface and submarine ships the face and submarine tankers
number of propellers was based on a maximum
power absorption of 40,000 dhp per screw.
4 For twin and quadruple-screw ships, sub- ably too high, but it was desired not to penalize
marine and surface, additional appendage allow- the submarine too heavily. T h e resulting power
ances of 10 and 20 per cent were made, respec- comparison and ship particulars are shown in
tively, for bossings, brackeM, and shafts. Table 10 herewith, while curves of D H P are shown
5 The ratio of deadweight to displacement in Fig. 21 f o r . t h e largest ships of 93,750 tons
was assumed to be 0.60 for submarine and 0.75 deadweight. Similar data for other deadweights
for surface tankers The former figure is prob- can be found in the writer's p a p e r . "

734 Submarine Tankers

 I t is seen t h a t in smooth-water conditions,
there is practically no difference between the
surface and circular submarine tankers until
the speed exceeds 22 or 23 knots. At 28.5 knots
the submarine requires some 121~ per ce~.t less
power. In service, of. course, the surface
ship will also have to contend with rough seas
and wind, and so will require more power or will
have to run at reduced speed, whereas the sub-
marine can avoid all bad weather. But the
cir.eular submarine has a depth of 118 ft, and if
this is reduced to 59 ft by making the sections
elliptical, then the resultant ship at 28.5 knots
requires 27 per cent more power than the surface
ship, and the latter has then a substantial margin
in hand to cope with weather.
There are, or course, marly operational prob-
lems involved in the running of large submarine
t a n k e r s - - t h e difficulties of building, drydoeking,
loading and unloading, obtaining skilled crews
and keeping up "their esprit-de-corps, the limita-
tions on the use of Suez and Panama Canals, at
least in their present form, the provision of
adequate directional stabilit3/and control, and the
fact that quite an appreciable part of the voyage,
at least when approaching Western European
or Persian ports, will be in waters less than 600
ft deep, which means that large submarines would
have to carry out this part of the v.oyage at slow
speed on the surface, where the streamlined body-
of-revolution hull is very .resistful at anything
but low speeds--for no one could contemplate
driving such ships at 35 knots submerged in such
waters! This fact, together with the risk of
having to surface at sea because of power failure
or other reasons and the need to load and unload
at deep, offshore terminals, means that the sub-
marine may, from time to time, have to cope with
rough seas in the same way as surface ships, and
this may require longitudinal strength of the
same order.
The outcome of this discussion points to the
fact that from a commercial point of view there is
little attraction in" submarine tankers so long as
we restrict our thoughts to speeds within the
limits for which economic surface vessels can be
designed. However, if we wish to go be~yond
these speeds then the submarine would be the
only answer for the carriage of the world's bulk
cargoes. Something of the magnitude of the
tasks facing.the designer of such submarines may
be realized when it is remembered that the largest
submarine built to date is the USS Triton, with
a length of 447 ft and a displacement of 5900 tons.
I t is a big step from this to tankers of the order
of 60,000 to 80,000 tons, posing formidable prob-
lems, but also presenting a great challenge to the
Submarine Tankers
o
designer. The development of a successful ship
of this kind will involve much research, develop-
ment and money, and it is certainly none too
early to initiate research projects; the authors
are to be congratulated on the way they have
surveyed the problems and the great amount of
data which they have provided to the profession
for further study.
J. G. Robinson, 1~ Visitor: The authors emphasize
that their paper is a technical feasibility study
for a submarine tanker and in this respect they
have made a good case.
The provision of variable cargo/bal!.ast tanks
seems a practical method of dealing with both
expansion and contraction of cargo, and differ-
enees in specific gravities.
The rectangular cross section of the submarine
is preferred for operational reasons and a t 36
ft loaded surface draft the vessel should have
no difficulty in approaching most of the existing
terminals nor passing through the Suez Canal.
The optimum operating draft is not specifically
mentioned, b u t "submerged about four diameters"
is quoted. This is taken to mean an under-keel
draft of 4 X 40 + 40 - 200 ft (where 40 ft is
hull depth). I t can therefore, be assumed t h a t
a de~th of at least 45 fathoms is the" absolute
minimum for operational benefits at full speed.
As the bed of the waterway is not flat, great
care would have to be exercised in the voyage
routing and in fact such operational depth of
water may only be available over a few conven-
tional trading routes.
The authors state, " . . . . . it should be pos-
sible t o . . . design an optimum submarine
tanker which could carry 40,000 tons of oil prod-
uets at about 37 knots with installed power of
about 250,000 shp. A displacement vessel could
not do this job."
If the problem is merely one of transporting a
given amount of oil per annum from A to B, then
a surface vessel of, for example, 85,000 tons at
171/~ knots with approximately 28,500 slap would
transport the same quantity. The relative eco-
nomies of the two alternatives do not require
further comment.
T h e use of high4ensile steels is briefly men-
tioned and I would agree that there would seem
to be a clear ease for the introduction of such
materials; the majority of such steels, however,
require some form of pre and post heat-treatment.
Have the authors any views on the handling of
such materials on very large structures ?
is SheU Tankers, Limited, Ibex House, Minories, Lon-
don, England.
735
 Reverting again to the service operating depth
of a submarine tanker, I would imagine that there
is an economic balance between operating depth,
structural weight, and speed. A small reduction
in operating depth would reduce the pressure
on hull scantlings pro rata with only a modest
increase in residual (wave-making) resistance.
As regards the maximum power/shaft of 60,000
shp--while I accept this figure as "being realistic
for the purposes of the s t u d y - - I have the im-
pression t h a t there m a y be some difficulty in
propeller design and particularly in propeller
longevity with operation in this deep "solid
water."
I was interested in comparing the total volume
of a 40,.000-ton submarine--given b y the authors
as 81,800 85 = 2,860,000 cu f t - - w i t h the total
enclosed volume of a 40,000-ton surface tanker.
Using the British gross tonnage as a measure of
volume, with the necessary small corrections,
one obtains a figure of 2,825,000 cu ft.
Further, a comparison of engine-room volumes
on the same basis gives: Submarine single-crew
plant 4.32 cu ft/shp; surface vessel approximately
20 cu ft/shp. There would seem to be food for
thought here.
In conclusion, I find the paper to be stimulating,
with a practical approach to the problem and
only wish that some reference might have been
made about such factors as capital cost, hull
preservation, caliber of operating personnel and
those items which would enable the shipowner
to assess whether it would, within the next dec-
ades, be possible to construct and operate eco-
nomically such craft.
Finally, I would congratulate the authors on
this most interesting study.
E. E. Bustard, Foreign Affiliate Associate Member:
This paper is the best we have seen on this subject
and the authors have done an excellent job of
highlighting the possibilities in the range con-
sidered. Inevitably in a sketchy study of this
kind there are one or two weak spots which would
come into focus in a more detailed study.
The method of determining E H P / S H P in
Table 4 as outlined in the text is not very sound,
in m y opinion, and the results will bear me out.
Instead of just estimating E H P / S H P , the authors
have estimated four components of E H P / S H P
and derived the E H P / S H P therefrom. As all
these separate estimates are subject to a margin
of error, we have in multiplying them together
achieved what I will call "error to the fourth
power." The spread is thus greater than it should One can understand and admire the manner in
be and not as reliable as it would be with the which the authors have dealt with a design prob-
cruder approach. This accounts for differences lem in advance of our time but restrained them-
736 Submarine Tankers
in over-ail propulsive coefficient of 0.813 for a
circular sectioned hull at 20k against 0.680] for
the rectangular section to take one example.
Admittedly, the circular form should have a
little higher efficiency b u t the difference here
showri is a gross exaggeration.
Other aspects of the power approximations
might be examined.
(a) How can the residual resistance of a
square sectioned hull possibly be worse than t h a t
of a rectangular one ?
(b) Is the resistance of the stern, appendages
unduly influenced b y scale effects ?
(c) Was the resistance of circular sectioned
hulls determined using the same model technique
as t h a t on the rectangular hulls ?
Our reason for mentioning these points is t h a t
we d o not believe that it would require 80 per
cent more power to drive a rectangular hull of
good form in comparison with "the ideal solid of
revolution. The difference is too much.
Unlike the authors, we.believe t h a t a surface
ship could be designed to carry 40,000 tons of
oil at 37 knots with 250,000 shp if:
(a) All the resources of m o d e m technology
were available.
(b) Economics were thrown out of the window.
(c) Draft were not restricted.
(d) Money was made available for the use of
an enthusiastic design team.
In other words, all.we think is necessary is the
same facilities accorded the authors. For ex-
ample, to drive 80,000 tons displacement at 37
knots, we have only to achieve an Admiralty
coefficient on S H P of 375 to attain our goal;
a very high figure b y existing passenger ship
standards, but one would hesitate to say it was
impossible.
At this stage, it m a y not be fair to ask how the
authors propose to deal with the problem of
moving the after control surfaces in the vessels
shown in Figs. lO(a) and 11. No provision ap-
pears to have been made for this and for the larger
vessel this equipment would be much larger
than anything so far engineered in this line. To
accommodate the control machinery, it would
probably be necessary to move the rudders and
hydroplanes forward somewhat or else, the form
could hardly follow the ideal shape shown.
None of the foregoing affects the broad con-
clusions, namely, that the project is technically
feasible though economically quite unattractive.
R. L. Townsin, Foreign Affiliate Associate Member:
selves as far as possible to proved present-day
technical achievements. T h e specification for
the investigation appears to have been free enough
for the authors not to be restricted to a tanker
design for a specific duty. The possible duties
of submerged cargo carriers can perhaps be classi-
fied under three headings:
(a) Strategic service; i.e., clandestine trans-
port and trading, particularly in time of war.
(b) Opening up trade routes inaccessible to
surface vessels; viz., under the polar ice.'cap.
(c) High-speed transport in direct competition
with surface vessels.
M a n y o.f the basic requirements have an entirely
different emphasis under each of these three
headings and in particular the comparison of
transport cost per ton-mile between submarine
and surface vessel is of much less importance
under the first two headings than under the last.
Will the authors agree t h a t the resulting designs
for these three services might be entirely different?
Studying this paper as if it were an investiga-
tion concerned only with .the last heading, one is
led to the conclusion that only a near optimum
form for a low drag-to-volume ratio is likely to
yield an effective competitor for the surface
vessel, a conclusion which m a y also be drawn
from reference [31 of this paper. These con-
clusions are drawn against a background of cur-
rent values for the power-to-weight ratio of pro-
pelling machinery, but as the authors hint de-
velopments such as those in magnetohydrody-
namics might radically alter the picture in the
future. Even so the large draft of a competitive
submarine cargo vessel will always cause diffi-
culties if existing docking facilities are to be used.
If one is unwilling to relinquish the attractions
of submerged high-speed transport, can the sub-
marine design be coupled with the desigll of,
say, floating dock facilities or added buoyancy
cradles at terminal ports ?
Frequent docking of these vessels would clearly
be a m a t t e r of great importance since the penalty
from g fouled hull is so very much greater than
for a surface vessel, the resistance being entirely
of viscous origin. Have the authors considered
the rate of decrease of speed due to probable
fouling on various routes ?
Considering the designs under the second
heading the results are .more encouraging but
whether petroleum products would be an im-
portant item for this type of trade route is a m a t t e r
for debate. Can the authors suggest what differ-
10j. H. McCarthy, "The Practicability of a Large Sub-
marine Tanker," New York Metropolitan Section
SNAME, 1955.
Submarine Tankers
ence in deadweight-to-displacement ratio might
result from a design requiring all the cargo to be
within a pressure hull? Perhaps this paper should
not be left without reference to the first published
design for a submarine tanker, presented before
a local section of this Society some five years
ago, le which came under the first heading as a
clandestine fleet oiler. Here the conclusion was
that for strategic reasons the design might be
practicable but as economic transport the sub-
merged tanker was unsuitable. No doubt more
will be heard of submarine transport and in the
meanwhile this paper provides most excellent
design experience.
J. A. Teasdale, 17 Visitor: T h e reading of this
paper has afforded me the utmost pleasure and I
would like to record m y appreciation of the effort
which has obviously gone into the technical ap-
proach and for the excdlent presentation of t h e
results.
The authors state early in the paper t h a t they
are not setting out to consider the economics of
underwater trade routes and it is refreshing to
read about and study practical designs o f a sub-
marine tanker instead of the rather vague at-
tempts at design which have been made by vari-
ous authors performing economic studies.
Having praised the excellence of the practical
design it m a y seem contradictory to raise one or
two points in this respect and hope for enlighten-
ment. An appendage allowance of 2 5 per. cent
of the E H P of the bare hull has been proposed
and this value is considerably higher than t h a t
which this contributor would have anticipated.
Perhaps the authors have stipulated a high stand-
ard of dynamical stability, necessary for a military
submarine but which m a y be relaxed somewhat
for a commercial submarine. I t m a y be t h a t
the difference in fin area between a stable form
and one which is unstable is so fine t h a t there
is negligible change in appendage resistance.
Have the authors any views on what would be a
reasonable appendage allowance for a form with
a circular or elliptical cross section? While on
the subject of power absorption has any allowance
been made for the power loss due to course keep-
ing?
With regard to the question of longitudinal
strength the statement t h a t wave bending mo-
ments are eliminated in a submarine tanker is
based on the assumption t h a t the vessel need
never surface in adverse sea conditions. This
is perhaps a dangerous presumption since emer-
17Assistant Naval Architect, Furness Shipbuilding Co.,
Ltd., Haverton Hill, U. K.
' 737
 geneies may occur which could force the sub- 500
marine to the surface no matter what the ~veather.

John B. Parkinson, Member: Some ten years ago, Reciprocaing- Englne,, ,~

an interesting philosophical approach to the I00 A|r~rai" J / ,
speed-power relationships of various vehicles
was contributed b y O. GabrieUi and Th. yon 50 - /
Karman in a paper, " W h a t Price Speed. ''la By
compiling known installed horsepowers per ton
I
/
for everything from bicycles to transonic
bombers, the authors determined a tentative -- 20,000 DWT /
lower limit line for this parameter as a function Shbrnar~ne T~t~keps ]
5 /
of speed. The line, the position of which was 0
h~
established primarily b y the best surface ships
and aircraft, provides a convenient reference 20,000 DWT /~X, "
8urt~ceZankerS\.ll/- Gtabrie
\ tll-von Kctrmctn
in evaluating new types of water or air vehicles ~l Lim~'l" Line
i
against man's best efforts in'this direction. While Co,~o c-,d//
installed power is by no means the whole story, Ships C 3 . ~ f
Q5
it has a strong influence on most other factors such Vlctory , ~ ' .
as initial and maintenance costs, people required L~berov:.x;
~
'for operation, and even overhead expenses. ",7/
I t was thought interesting, therefore, to com- 0.1 I /I I I I
pare the estimates of power required for the large 5 I0 50 I00 ..~00
clean submarines developed in the present paper Maxlrnum Sp~ed~ Knos
with the Gabrielli-von Karman limit line and the Fig. 22 C o m p a r i s o n o f s u b m a r i n e p o w e r requirements
shaft horsepower provided for familiar merchant-
type vessels as shown in Fig. 22 of this discussion.
Because of the scope of the plot and the resulting
need for logarithmic scales, the differences between extraordinarily useful means of transportation
the submarine tanker designs do not alter the up to the highest available speeds.
picture and the 20,000 deadweight-ton circular- T h e differences between the ships and the.sub-
section submersible with no parallel body was marines are surprisingly small. However, t h e
selected as representative. The data for surface data do not reflect the dependence of the ships
tankers with the same deadweight capacity were on the sea state and weather or the corresponding
taken from a paper b y Prof. H a r r y Benford. TM freedom of the submerged craft from a generally
Those for the cargo ships came from a recent unfavorable surface environment.
tabulation in the Maritime Reporter and those The authors have been professionally above
for the aircraft from the original Gabrielli-von reproach i n recognizing the limitations of the
Karman compilation. concept they have dealt with and in scrupulously
The figure shows that t h e estimates for the avoiding any "wild blue yonder" implications
submarine tanker lie close to and more or less in their evaluations. F r o m the very basic con-
parallels the classic reference line up to the highest side.ration discussed here, they have made a
speed investigated (42.3 knots). Considering material contribution to the important and some-
its inherent freedom from rough seas and the what awesome research problem of advanced
fact that surface vessels depart rapidly from the ship types, a problem t h a t continually confronts
optimum line above 25 or 30 knots because of the profession and the Technical and Research
wave resistance, the advanced submarine thus committees of the Society.
appears to occupy a unique position in the vehicM
spectrum and does not appear to pay an inordinate Authors' Closure
price for its speed. I t is noted t h a t the com-
mercial airplane continues to approach the limit The authors wish to t h a n k all the discussers
line up to a speed of 300 knots or so, and t h a t for the friendly interest they have shown and for
like the m.erchant ship it has proven to be an the generous efforts they have made to contribute
to the potential usefulness of the paper through
their discussions.
18 3"Ieckanical Engineering, October, 1950.
19 " E n g i n e e r i n g E c o n o m y in T a n k e r D e s i g n , " TRANS. Professor Manning and Mr. Rogers have both
S N A M E , vol., 65, 1957. expressed a definite interest in having an economic
i
738 Submarine Tankeis
 analysis to supplement the technical feasibility
study. Others have also hinted rather strongly
t h a t such a supplement is needed. Fortunately
for the authors, Professor Benford has furnished
in his discussion an economic analysis which
presents the inevitable conclusion clearly and
concisely. The authors have never been under
a n y illusion regarding the competitive position
of commercial submarines visa vis surface vessels
under present circumstances. However, the value
of stealthy vehicles in wartime is quite evident.
The primary purpose of a study, like the subject
one is to identify and correlate the important
factors that bear on the problem, and perhaps
to point the way to profitable avenues of research.
Mr. Rogers has pointed out t h a t the roug.hness
allowance for large surface tankers is likely to
b e closer to 0.0002 than to the value 0.0004 used
in the paper. The authors do not agree that this
should be interpreted as a disadvantage of s u b -
marines, but rather t h a t it indicates that the
value used throughout the paper is too conserva-
tive, at least for large vessels. With careful
attention to details there is no reason to doubt
t h a t the top of the submarine hull can be made
.as smooth as the bottom. I t is certainly easier
t o maintain in good condition.
The authors concur with Mr. Rogers' con-
.clusions regarding scantlings. T h e y do not
agree with the ideu exlSressed b y Shigemitsu
in reference [2] that the structure of a submarine
tanker can be lighter than the structure of an
equivalent surface tanker. If the submarine is
designed to be able to carry gasoline, the structure
can be made even heavier than that of a combat
submarine, which does not carry buoyant cargo.
Of course, some of the weight needed to submerge
.can be in the form of fixed ballast, but it is para-
.sitic in this form, contributing neither to the cor-
rosion allowance nor to the strength.
The "problem of mixing of cargo with sea water
was recognized and stated in the paper as well as
in Mr. Rogers' comments and those of Mr.
Mylrea. The diagrams of cargo-handling sys-
t e m s presented in the paper were simplified for
clarity. More complete diagrams have been
.drawn. However the problem of contamination
-of heavy crude oils is admittedly a tough one.
Lighter oils have better natural cleavage, and the
system of traps can be correspondingly simpler.
B y loading the ship as a surface ship would be
loaded and by pressing up the tanks only after
loading is complete, it should be possible.to con-
fine the contamination to the expansion tank.
The tanker operator's view of submarine ac-
commodations as expressed by Mr. Rogers is
~rery interesting to the authors. Actually the
Submarine Tankers
accommodations shown in the paper are far more
lavish than those of any military submarine, b u t
it must be admitted t h a t they excel those of
modern tankers in only one respect, namely,
freedom from pitch and roll.
Mr. Stover's comparison of fast submarine
tankers with other types of vessels of equal speed
is a valuable addition to the paper. As he noted,
his assumption of displacement of the submarine
is on the low side. Also his propulsive coefficient
is rather low for the submarine. Extrapolating
from Table 4, one finds that these approximations
cancel each other so that the power required
without margin is almost exactly in agreement
with Mr. Stover's estimate. If Mr. Stover had
made his comparison at a smaller deadweight,
the submarine would have compared even more
favorably with the surface ship. This fact was
pointed out b y Mr. Posnakoff and was mentioned
in one of Professor Lewis's comments. The reason
is simply that the economical speed of surface
vessels increases as the size of the vessel increases.
Professor Benford and Mr. Posnakoff have
expressed misgivings about the absence of coffer-
dams between cargo oil tanks and manned spaces.
The statement in the paper that the quarters
meet minimum Coast Guard requirements was
intended to apply only to the living spaces and
accommodations for the crew and officers. If
the construction of merchant submarines should
be seriously contemplated, a number of questions
would have to be resolved with the Coast Guard
and with the.classification societies. In addition
to cofferdams, these include lifeboats, ground
tackle, and scantlings. Regarding cofferdams,
at present all t h a t can be said is that leaks are
very improbable in welded joints in 'plates as
thick as those of a pressure hull in a submarine.
Flaws occur in individual passes of weld, but
t h e y do not penetrate the whole thickness.
The authors conchr with Professor Lewis's
note of caution regarding the interpretation of
model test results, especially with respect to
optimum b e a m / d e p t h ratio and per cent parallel
middle body as well as with respect to scale effect
on appendages.. However, the authors must
confess they were gratified to find that the model
tests tended so strongly to confirm two points:
1 T h a t the proportions selected for practical
arrangement of the parent form are p r e t t y good
hydrodynamically.
2 T h a t the effects of moderate departures
from the parent form can be predicted largely
on the basis of wetted surface.
Mr. Kimon has discussed two ways to increase
the paying deadweight without enlarging the
-outer hull of a submarine tanker. The paper
739
 states that cargo tanks can be converted to ballast
to reduce draft. The converse is also true if
greater draft is acceptable. The choice of the
amount of water ballast to be carried thus depends
upon draft and freeboard desired in surface con-
dition. I t also depends upon the standard of
subdivision required. I t might be argued that
the pressure hull is so well protected from collision
by the surrounding tanks that subdivision is not
important. It might also be argued that in an
emergency cargo could be blown from one or more
tanks to obtain, reserve buoyancy. All of these
factors would have to be considered in a detailed
design. Since it is at best a somewhat arbitrary
choice, the authors used 10 per cent reserve buoy-
ancy throughout the paper to make the designs
as consistent as possible forready comparison.
Another method suggested by Mr. Kimon to
increase.paying deadweight is to design the sub-
marine for heavier oil cargo instead of gasoline.
This point was covered very briefly in the paper
because it was felt that the sacrifice in versatility
of the submarine could not be justified. It is
admittedly a premium carrier and would certainly
be used for premium cargo whenever possible.
To build such a vessel that would be unable to
carry aviation fuel in wartime would be a poor
investment from the point of view of national
defense.
As Mr. Kimon has noted, designing for heavier
cargo might cause the limiting factor to be
switched from volume to weight. This situation
could be corrected to some extent by reducing
the operating depth of the submarine and by
the use of high-tensile steel. Both of these
changes would permit reduction of the weight
of the pressure hull.
Dr. Todd's discussion is a valuable contribution
to the paper inasmuch as it adds. to the hydro-
dynamic information for submarine forms.
The authors recognize that the assessment of
submarine performance versus that which is
possible with surface ships is an indispensable
complement of the paper urlder discussion. As
stated, the advantage of the submarine ships
begins to show up at speeds h.igher than those
prevailing in the present design practice. It
is our feeling that a direct extrapolation of present
practice to estimate the characteristics and per-
formance of high-speed surface vessels does not
lead to an adequate comparison. For instance,
the design of a high-speed displacement vessel
should consider not only minimum resistance
but also the ability to perform satisfactorily
in a seaway. Mr. N~ylrea's discussion does much
to clarify this point.
The Maritime Administration has under wa~:
740 Submarine Tankers
a research project for high-speed displacement
ships. At present, the hydrodynamic aspects
of this problem are under study; and model testing
beyond the range of available "Series" work is
now in progress for resistance, propulsion, and
seakeeping. When these results are available,
a more adequate comparison of submarine and
displacement-type, high-speed ships will be pos-
sible.
In high-speed, oil-fueled surface tankers a very
large part of the total deadweight would be taken
up by fuel; and, therefore, the cargo deadweight
would be much iess. If Dr. Todd was referring
to cargo, deadweight when he assumed a ratio
of deadweight to displacement of 0.75 for surface
tankers, it is logical to suppose that he was think-
ing of nuclear propulsion.
In the paper the allowance for appendages on
hulls of rectangular section is 25 per cent of the
bare hull EHP. For hulls with circular sections
the allowance is only 15 per cent. Apparently
this distinction was not emphasized enough be-
cause Dr. Todd, Mr. Teasdale, and others over-
looked it. However, it makes it even more dif-
ficult to explain why Dr. Todd's E H P values are
so much lower than those given in the paper.
Fifteen per cent allowance for appendages on a
submarine of circular section would be optimistic
for a combatant submarine, but on the big tan-
kers the bridge fairwater is much smaller relative
to the size of the hull. The justification of the
25 per cent allowance on the rectangular forms has
been explained in the paper.
For the reasons given under the heading "Model
Tests," the authors favor rectangular sections
over elliptical sections. Dr: Todd's comparison
of E H P of elliptical hulls with rectangular hulls
would have beefi much less favorable to ellipses if
he had used the same ratio of length to d.epth.
Mr. Robinson raises many practical points,
some of which have been made by other discussers,
and all of which must necessarily be considered
in further studies of submarine ships.
It can be taken as axiomatic that the trans-
portation by sea of bulk products from an un-
limited storage place of production to an un-
limited storage place of consumption will be
most economical at sea speeds where the "slow"
large vessel has all the advantages.
As stated repeatedly, the submarine tanker
shows advantage at very high speed; and there
is no demand for such speeds. The paper has
dealt with this question in a quantitative manner
and gives an approximate idea. of the type and
size Of" ship and power required to obtain high
speeds.
The authors believe that the 37-knot, 40,000-
 bwt submarine tanker shown in Fig. 11 i.s typical
of the largest and fastest vessels of this kind t h a t
are feasible to build with present-day technology.
T h e outer hull diameter of 80 ft is about the limit
for drydocking because the light draft would be
about 40 ft. T h e 240,000-shp power plant is not
quite the most powerful marine installation to
date; b u t considering the steam conditions of the
nuclear plant, it is comparable" in size to the big-
gest. Perhaps the most restrictive factor, how-
ever, is the large diameter of the pressure hull,
which would require the use of high-strength, alloy
steel in thick sections. Mr. Robinson .has asked
for~the authors' views on handling of such mate-
rial. A complete answer would be a whole paper
in itself, b u t it might suffice to say t h a t the
authors believe the fabrication would be feasible,
though preheat would be required, and the weld-
ing would be a rather troublesome job.
Comparisons made between submarine tankers
and surface tankers have assumed nuclear fuel
for the former and fossil fuel for the latter. T o
this extent, these comparisons reflect the present
disadvantage of nuclear ship propulsion. This
may be only a transient condition; improvements
in nuclear power ~ould alter the situation con-
siderably.
Mr. Robinson notes the difference in specific
machinery volume between the nuclear submarine
and the conventional tanker and expresses the
opinion that there is food for thought. We feel
that this could apply both ways. When one
considers the disproportion between the size
of the steam-generating plant and the turbine
which uses this steam in a modern ship's power
plant, one could wonder whether progressive
engineering in heat exchangers could not reduce
the volume requirements of a conventional ship's
power plant.
Mr. Costeletos has asked for an explanation
of the variations of propulsive coefficients in
Table 4. The propellers in aU cases were from
Troost's standard series, so the rather mysterious
trends can be explained in terms of hull efficiencies.
The authors have plotted wake fraction and
thrust deduction in a number of different ways
in an .attempt to discover the most significant
parameters, using data from models of naval sub-
marines having circular or nearly eircular sections.
T h e available data showed the least scatter when
single-screw hull effieiencies were plotted against
propeller diameter over the square root of wetted
surface and when twin-screw hull effciencies were
plotted against length over hull diameter.
T h e circular hulls without parallel body are
geometrically similar, therefore huU efficiencies
do not vary greatly except with change in number
Submarine Tankers
of screws. Thus propulsive coefficient follows
the trend of propeller efficiency, decreasing with
increased loading.
The' circular hulls with parallel body all have
the same afterbody. In the single-screw, 20-knot
hulls the large propeller of the longer hull benefits
less from the'wake, and the P C is therefore less.
In the multiple-screw, higher speed hulls, on the
other hand, the trend is reversed because the
wake gain from greater length more than offsets
the reduced propeller efficiency due to greater
loading. Th.e thrust deduction is less sensitive
to length than the wake fraction.
T h e rectangular hulls all have-the same depth,
but the narrower ones have steeper buttocks.
Thus the wider ones tend to have lower thrust
deductions. Regardless of the number of screws
on these hulls, the screws are behind rather than
outboard; therefore smaller screws benefit more
from the wake than larger ones do. This tends
to favor the larger number of screws unless the
advantage is canceled by increased R P M . In-
creased parallel body length also tends to increase
wake fraction and hull efficiency.
The authors were on'less firm ground in pre-
dicting wake fractions and thrust deductions
for the ectangular hulls than they were for the
round ones, therefore, when the predicted hull
efficiency seemed high, it was arbitrarily reduced
to 0.760 to be conservative..
The following are answers to Mr. Posnakoff's
specific questions:
1 T h e weight estimates made for the vessels
shown in Figs. 10 and 11 indicate that the sum of
Marad weight accounts 20 through 29 would re-
sults in specific machinery weights of 120 and 90
lb per shp, respectively.
2 The reactor compartment specific volumes
used in the study are:
Single-screw plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.91
Twin-screw plant.s in one hull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.88
Quadruple-screw plants in one hull . . . . . . . . . . 0.86
Multiple-screw plants in separate hulls . . . . . . 0.77
These are in the order of 20 to 25 per cent of the
machinery volume and are the basis of the last
paragraph of the paper.
3 While the components have not been labeled
in Fig. 10 (a), a close study of Figs. 10 (a) and
(b) shows that a battery, a diesel generator, and an
emergency propulsion motor have been provided
in the S5-N-MA48a design for take-home power.
4 All tests at the Davidson Laboratory were
made with the axis of the hull 24 in.. below the
water surface (see Table 3 for scale of models).
5 The breakdown of the complement of S5-N-
MA48a is given in Fig. 12. Two electronics offi-
741
cers and two air-conditioning engineers have been
provided over and above what would normally
be required for an equivalent surface tanker.
Mr. Bustard has expressed the opinion that
the method used to estimate E H P / S H P is un-
sound. Whether he is correct could be deter-
mined only by self-propelled model "tests, but the
parametric trends have been explained in the au-
thors' reply to Mr. Costeletos.
Mr. Bustard has asked how the resistance of
a square-sectioned huU can be worse than that
of a rectangular one. Since the. hulls being
compared have the same sectional areas, the
squfire hull has steeper buttocks. This factor
accounts for its higher residuary resistance.
Possibly a modification of the lines of the after-
body might improve the square hull.
Mr. Bustard has raised the question discussed
by Professor Lewis regarding the influence of
seale effects on stern appendage resistance. The
authors agree with Professor Lewis that full-sized
vessels may have less appendage resistance than
742 Submarine Tankers
would be predicted from the model tests. Further-
more, the stern appendages tend to increase'
propulsive efficiency by straightening the flow
into the propellers.
The authors certainly agree with Mr. Townsin's
remark that the design of a submarine tanker will
be influenced by the type of service for which it is
intended. For example, the depth and draft will
be affected by such factors as clearance under ice,
depth of water over the whole route, and so on.
As has been mentioned in the paper and in the
discussions, the design can be improved if the
minimum specific gravity for cargo to be carried is
well known. Lacking this information, one must
make the variable cargo tanks big enough to
accommodate very light cargo.
The authors have allowed 10 per cent margin in
power for fouling, weather, sea temperature,
and so on. This is substantially less than the
usual margin in surface vessels, but it is by no
means the result of sophisticated operational
analysis.