CAPT. JAMES W. KEHOE, JR. USN (RET.

),
KENNETH S. BROWER & ERBIL H. SERTER

THE DEEP- VEE HULL FORM -

IMPRO VES SEAKEEPING AND
COMBAT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
THE AUTHORS From the standpoint of incorporating a deep-Vee hull form
into a ship design, certain features of a deep-Vee hull form af-
Captain James W. Kehoe, Jr., USN (Ret.) is well known for fect ship proportions, calm water resistance, hull structure
his work in comparative naval architecture studies of U.S. and (particularly hull girder bending moments), stability, deck
foreign warship design practices, for which he received the area, arrangements, propulsion plant configuration, light ship
American Society of Naval Engineer’s Gold Medal f or 1981 weights and centers of gravity, and acquisition and life cycle
and the Legion of Merit in 1982. He received the ASNE “‘Jim- costs differently than a round-bilge hull form. Based on a
mie” Hamilton Award f or 1983. He is currently a partner in comparative feasibility design study of two frigates of about
Spectrum Associates Incorporated, Arlington, Virginia. Prior 4,500-tons, one with a deep-Vee and the other with a round-
to his retirement in 1982, his naval career included sea duty bilge hull, the authors quantify the impact of these differences
aboard three destroyers and three aircraft carriers, including on a ship design.
command of a destroyer and engineer officer of an aircraft
carrier.
INTRODUCTION
Kenneth Brower is a partner in Spectrum Associates Incorpo-
rated, a naval engineering firm which he founded in 1978, T h e seakeeping performance of naval ships, and its
which is currently engaged in the design of naval ships, com- impact on their combat system performance, is a critical
parative naval architecture studies, and the development of operational issue for all navies. Advances in antiship
ship design synthesis computer programs. A graduate in naval
architecture from the University of Michigan, he has contrib-
warfare technology, including nuclear powered subma-
uted to the design of numerous warships and merchant ships, rines and long-range, all weather weapons and sensors
as well as several frigate designs f or foreign military sales. Mr. have made it vital that warships be able to maintain high
Brower has been the author or coauthor of numerous technical speed, maneuver freely and be able to use their weapons,
studies and articles. He received the ASNE “Jimmie” Hamil- sensors and aircraft under the most severe sea conditions
ton Award fo r 1983. [I].
Like all navies, the U.S. Navy faces a major problem
Erbil Serter is the director of Hydro Research Systems S.A., in trying to provide more seaworthy replacements for
Geneva, Switzerland. He is a graduate in naval architecture existing frigates without incurring the large cost in-
from Sunderland College and the Imperial College of Science creases associated with monohull type ships that may be
and Technology of London University in England where he
earned a D.I.C. in aeronautics. Mr. Serter is a Fellow of the
even larger and more expensive. Such cost increases tend
Royal Institution of Naval Architects and a member of the to result in a reduction in the total numbers of ships that
Royal Society of Aeronautics. His interest in deep- Vee hull a navy can afford to acquire and operate.
forms began with his involvement in the early investigations of In response to the requirement for better seakeeping
fast patrol boat design concepts. In the early 1970s, he devel- performance, naval engineers have improved the sea-
oped a 200-ton FPB design with a deep-Vee hull form called keeping performance of the familiar round-bilge hull
the SAR-33, fourteen of which have been built for Turkey. form. A round-bilge hull form that provides improved
Since 1974, Mr. Serter has been developing deep- Vee hull form seakeeping performance has been incorporated in the
designs between 600- and 7 , W t o n s . design of the DDG-51 Burke class destroyer [2]. In addi-
tion, several new ship design concepts have been devel-
ABSTRACT
oped in the last two decades in response to the require-
A unique deep-Vee hull form has been developed and model ment for naval ships with better seakeeping perfor-
tested in Europe for use in the design of corvette and frigate mance and the ability to achieve higher speeds in rough
sized ships. The seakeeping performance of this new deep-Vee seas. In general, these new ship design concepts, which
hull form, whose proportions are suitable for ship operations include small waterplane area twin hull (SWATH)
in a displacement mode at conventional speed-to-length ratios, ships, hydrofoils, air cushion vehicles and surface effect
exceeds the performance of ships with more conventional ships, provide significantly better seakeeping perfor-
round-bilge hull forms. It promises to provide a 4,5004011 frig- mance and higher speeds in rough seas than monohull
ate with the speed, course selectivity, and combat system per- type ships with round-bilge hull forms [3]. Unfortunate-
formance equivalent to that of larger destroyers when opera- ly, these new ship design concepts also introduce new
ting in the high latitudes of the North Atlantic, especially dur- elements of technical risk and high costs. In the case of
ing the winter season.
The authors describe and compare the seakeeping perfor-
the SWATH, which is often perceived as being suitable
mance of two 4,5004011 frigates, one with a deep-Vee and the for use in the design of large-size frigates, a recent study
other with a round-bilge hull. They discuss the impact of dif- indicated that an increase of about 30% in full load dis-
ferences in seakeeping performance on combat system availa- placement is required if the ship is to be capable of ac-
bility. complishing the same mission as a ship with a round-bilge
Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987 39
 DEEP-WE HULL FORM KEHOE/BROWER/SERTER

IU ‘ =

~
I
Figure 1. Deep-vee hull form.

hull, i.e., carry the same payload of weapons and sensors deep-Vee hull compared to a frigate with a round-bilge
and provide similar calm water speed and endurance [2]. hull.
In addition to improvements in the round-bilge hull Secondly, the paper reports on several design features
form and the introduction of new concepts, there is a of a deep-Vee hull that can have a significant impact on a
new and unique hull form which, based on model test ship design. Then, to quantify and compare the impact
data, promises better seakeeping performance and higher of a deep-Vee hull form on ship characteristics, the third
speeds in high sea states than any existing round-bilge section reports the results of a comparison of a deep-Vee
hull form. Test data indicates that this new hull form ex- and a round-bilge frigate.
hibits less heave, pitch and yaw, experiences lower verti- The paper concludes with a discussion of the findings
cal accelerations, has comparable roll motions and lateral and the authors’ conclusions. Included is a prognosis of
accelerations, and has a lower probability of slamming ways in which lessons learned from the ship design
than a round-bilge hull. This new design is the HRS studies may be used to improve the deep-Vee hull form.
deep-Vee hull developed by Hydro Research Systems
S.A., Geneva, Switzerland, hereafter referred to as Hull SEAKEEPING PERFORMANCE
Form V, or imply as the “deep-Vee hull form” [4]. OF DEEP-VEE HULLS
Unlike the hard-chine hull form used in planing craft,
the deep-Vee hull form is designed for operations at EARLYDEVELOPMENTAL
WORK
speed-to-length ratios associated with displacement type
hulls. As shown in Figure 1, the deep-Vee hull form has a The original investigations associated with the develop-
unique and synergistic combination of design features, ment of a deep-Vee hull form for use in the design of
which include: ships with displacement type hulls involved models with
- The bow extending below the keel line, hull forms derived from Hull Form I, which was used in
- After sections with constant deadrise that increase the design of the Turkish Coast Guard SAR-33 patrol
in the area immediately adjacent to the transom, craft. Seakeeping model tests of Hull Form I1 and a
- Reverse keel drag, with parallel buttock lines, round-bilge hull, based on the Leander class frigate, were
- A stern skeg that acts like a bilge keel, and conducted separately in the open waters off the Isle of
- Partial bilge keels located aft, in way of the chine. Wright using large radio controlled models of frigates
[ 5 ] . This is the only occasion in which a deep-Vee hull
The deep-Vee hull form, under development for the and a round-bilge hull have been model tested in open
past 15 years and for which a patent is pending, is based waters under similar conditions. The models were fitted
on an evolutionary series of model tests conducted by the with identical autopilots, rudders, propellers, brackets,
British Hovercraft Corporation and the model test basins and shafting. In addition, the round-bilge model was fit-
in Hamburg, Duisburg, and Paris. A series of models, ted with bilge keels, a skeg and fin stabilizers (which were
HRS Hull Forms I through VI, have been constructed not operated).
and tested with the objectives of: The full scale characteristics of the models used for
these tests were as follows:
- Studying the development of a deep-Vee hull form
with proportions typical of displacement type hulls,
- Reducing calm water resistance at relatively low Deep-Vee Round-Bilge
speed-to-length ratios ( V / n , and
- Improving seakeeping performance at all speeds. Length, LBP 352.9 ft. 360.8 ft.
Beam, B 50.8 ft: 39.4 ft.
This paper is divided into four areas. Initially reported Displacement, A 3,042 L.T. 3,000 L.T.
is the seakeeping performance of the deep-Vee hull form.
A comparison is made with the seakeeping performance A comparison of the results of early model tests are
of a round-bilge hull form. An estimate is made of the summarized in Figure 2, in terms of significant single
combat system performance of a 4,500-ton frigate with a amplitude ship motions and ship speeds of 12-14 knots in
40 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987
 k\.\,:
KEHOE/BROWER/SERTER DEEP-WE HULL FORM

n:
g 2.6
,,,/,-- o6
.+

0.26
-

-
n
'.
180 90 0 180 90 0 180 90 0

i'v-.I"i--
Headlng Headlng Heading

PITCH B O W V E R T I C A L ACCELERATION YAW

b 10
-DEEP-VEE AT 12 KNOTS
n 6 / ---- LEANDER AT 14 KNOTS
0.1

180 90 0 180 90 0
Headlng Headlng
ROLL LATERAL ACCELERATION

Figure 2. Seakeeping performance.

waves with a significant height of 22 feet, i.e., low sea of 455.33 feet, operating at speeds of 15 to 25 knots in a
state 7. The sea spectra used for these tests were selected Pierson-Moskowitz sea spectrum with a significant wave
to ensure that the sea conditions would be similar to a height of 16.07 feet, i.e., sea state 6 [6].
Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum. At 25 knots, Figure 3 indicates that the significant
As shown in Figure 2, the deep-Vee model generally single amplitude pitch was about 2.6" and the vertical ac-
exhibited better seakeeping performance than the celerations midships were about 0.19 Gs. These values
Leander model. The deep-Vee model experienced less are well within the limits of the U.S. Navy seakeeping
pitch and lower bow vertical accelerations, significantly limiting criteria for full power operations, which are:
less yaw in following seas and, hence, much better course
keeping ability than the Leander model. However, a Roll 8"
separate analysis of Leander's full-scale characteristics Pitch 3"
suggests that it's yaw performance is, in fact, better than Vertical acceleration (Bridge) 0.4 Gs
Lateral acceleration (Bridge) 0.2 Gs
that reflected by model test data. The roll angles and Slamdhour 20
lateral accelerations of the deep-Vee model were lower in
beam seas, although it was not fitted with fin stabilizers,
bilge keels, or skeg.
I
COMPARISON WITH A HULL
ROUND-BILGE - 5.0
VERTICAL

m o
yI 0.5 - V ELOCITY
MIDSHIPS

" A (ZM). I t / s e c
In recent years, a series of model tests have been con- AI:
> :> 0.4 -
:N -4.0 HEAVE
ducted of resistance and seakeeping in head seas with the - m
m 0z
2
(Zrn). 11.
objective of modifying the earlier deep-Vee hull form in
order to reduce its calm water resistance and improve its
P 5 0.3 - -30
'U PITCH
U W
U W
J A
seakeeping performance. These objectives have been 80 Y 0.2 - - 2.0
("1, d e g r e e s

met. Additional modifications and tests are continuing to

/
'
'
a
be made. XI
g2 0.1 - ZM -10
I
Head Seas Performance

I
10 15 20 25

Figure 3 shows the seakeeping model test perfor- Speed. K n o t s

mance in head seas of improved H-15 HRS Hull Form V.

The model represented a 4,500-ton frigate with a length Figure 3. Head seas performance.

Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987 41

DEEP-VEE HULL FORM KEHOE/BROWER/SERTER

50
DEEP-VEE
\
I / 1001 \ -- - - - - ROUND-BILGE

- / I -Deep-Ye0 \
40
- - - - Round-Bilge \
' I \
U
3
0
' I ;8 0 - \
$ Z \
5
30- ' I 4
I-
4
-I
rn
I / 5 /

/
I?
(I)
W
I I /
[r

n 60-
20 - I / /
w
n
n
4
/ Sea State I-
z
W
0
5 40-
n H 1/3=

19.7 11.

20 -
10 20 30 9.8 ft.
SPEED, KNOTS

Figure 4. Probability of slamming in head seas. 2.5 11.

I
There was very limited evidence of slamming during 10 2b 30
these extensive model tests in head seas. SPEED, KNOTS

Slamming Figure 6. Added drag versus sea state.

Based on available data, the probability of slamming tions forward. Model tests have shown that this round-
was calculated for deep-Vee and round-bilge frigate de- bilge hull form, which is shown in Figure 5 , has excellent
signs of similar length and a displacement of 4,500-tons. seakeeping and powering characteristics.
The slamming calculations were based on the prediction As shown in Figure 4, the results of which are consis-
methodology developed by M.K. Ochi at the David Tay- tent with observations of seakeeping model tests in head
lor Naval Ship Research and Development Center [7]. seas, a ship with a deep-Vee hull has a much lower prob-
The results are shown in Figure 4 [ 8 ] . ability of slamming than a comparable size ship with an
The round-bilge hull form used in these calculations excellent round-bilge hull. This results from the lower
was based on the hull form of an existing frigate, which ship motions of the deep-Vee ship and its relatively deep-
was fitted with a stern wedge to improve its powering per- er bow immersion.
formance. The lines incorporate hull flare above the
waterline and a full waterplane area and Vee-shaped sec- Speed in Rough Seas

I Because it exhibits lower motions, less yaw, and bet-

ter course keeping ability, the added wave making resis-
tance in high sea states is less for a deep-Vee hull than
for a round-bilge hull. Figure 6 shows the comparative
results of the best available model test data, which is for
early Hull Form 111, scaled to reflect 4,500-ton frigate
characteristics [9]. This figure shows the estimated added
resistance caused by waves with a significant height of 2.5
to 19.7 feet, i.e., sea states 3 through 6 , on 425-foot long
round-bilge and deep-Vee frigates.
As reported in Reference [l], the commanding of-
ficers of frigates indicate that they generally reduce
speed and/or change course after they experience only a
few successive slams in a short period of time. This ob-
servation indicates that if the onset of slamming with a
deep-Vee hull occurs later (or in higher sea states) than
with a round-bilge hull, the deep-Vee hull should be
capable of maintaining a higher maximum speed in
Figure 5. Round-bilge hull form. rough seas.
42 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987
KEHOE/BROWER/SERTER DEEP-VEE HULL FORM

- Deep-Vee
The data in Figure 7 indicates that the speed of the
____- Round-Bilge
deep-Vee frigate is only limited by resistance when op-
erating in waves of up to about 30 feet i.e., high sea
state 7, not by ship motions; whereas, the speed of the
round-bilge frigate is limited by slamming when opera-
ting in waves higher than about 13 feet, i.e., higher than
sea state 5. Therefore, a deep-Vee frigate should be cap-
able of maintaining significantly higher speeds in moder-
ate to high sea states than a comparable round-bilge frig-
ate because the commanding officer will not have to re-
duce power in order to reduce slamming.

W A V E HEIGHT, F E E T Roll Motions and Lateral Accelerations

SEA S T A T E
Deep-Vee ship designs generally have substantially
Figure 7. Speed versus sea state.
more stability (GM) than comparable round-bilge de-
The estimated maximum speed versus sea state of signs, i.e., a GM/beam ratio of 15-20%, compared to
4,500-ton frigates with deep-Vee and round-bilge hulls 8-10%. Figure 8 shows the roll angles and lateral accel-
is shown in Figure 7. The data for Figure 7 was derived erations of deep-Vee and round-bilge frigates of com-
from the slamming and added drag data shown in Fig- parable length (418.6 feet) and displacement
ures 4 and 6 and is based on a conservative limiting cri- (4,500-tons), measured at a point 19.9 feet above the
teria of ten slams per hour, compared to the U.S. waterline. Data is shown for frigates operating on
Navy's criteria of 20 slams per hour. The criteria of ten various headings and at speeds of 10-30 knots in a
slams per hour results in a curve for the round-bilge Pierson-Moskowitz wave spectrum with a significant
frigate that is very similar to the actual experience re- height of 15.2 feet, i.e., low sea state 6 [lo]. The roll
ported by the commanding officers of U.S. Navy frig- motions and lateral accelerations shown in Figure 8
ates and destroyers of about similar size, like the were analytically predicted based on the use of a six-de-
FF-1052 and DDG-2. gree of freedom seakeeping computer program used by
----- 1 1 KNOTS

--- 22 KNOTS

33 KNOTS

MOTIONS EXCEED
U.S. NAVY CRITERIA

g1
Y

ACCELERATIONS
0 : I I I I I i
180 150 120 90 60 30 0 180 150 120 90 60 30 0
HEADING, DEGREES HEADING, DEGREES
DEEP-VEE ROUND-BILGE

Figure 8. Roll angles and lateral accelerations.

Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987 43
DEEP-VEE HULL FORM KEHOE/BROWER/SERTER

the HSVA model test basin in Hamburg. The roll damp- IMPACT OF DEEP-VEE HULL
ing factors for the unappended deep-Vee hull form were DESIGN FEATURES
based on yoll damping model test data. The deep-Vee de-
sign was fitted with short bilge keels (that are integrated There are several features, inherent in a deep-Vee
into the after chine), spray rails, and a stern skeg. The hull, that can have a significant effect on a ship design.
round-bilge design (Figure 5 ) incorporated a displace- The influence of these design features was determined
ment skeg and bilge keels. For the purposes of the through an analysis of the deep-Vee hull form using first
analysis neither design had active fin stabilizers. principles and by conducting feasibility design studies of
The U.S. Navy's limiting design criteria is 8" of roll a 1,200-ton corvette and a 2,400-ton frigate with deep-
and 0.2 Gs of lateral acceleration. The model test data Vee hull forms [12, 131.
shown in Figure 8 indicates that the roll motions and
lateral accelerations of the deep-Vee and round-bilge CALMWATERRESISTANCE
frigates are generally comparable. The data indicates that
the deep-Vee frigate will not exceed the U.S. Navy criter- A deep-Vee hull form has more wetted surface than a
ia when operating at speeds of about 22 knots or more on comparable round-bilge hull form; hence, it has more
any heading; whereas, the round-bilge frigate will not ex- frictional resistance. It also has a relatively higher
ceed the criteria when operating at speeds of about 20 prismatic coefficient (C,) and a relatively higher im-
knots or more on any heading. At speeds below 22 knots, mersed transom area.
the deep-Vee frigate will be limited only when operating Figure 9 shows the estimated shaft horsepower (SHP)
within about +30" of beam seas. At speeds below 20 curves of two comparable deep-Vee and round-bilge
knots, the round-bilge frigate will be limited when frigates in calm water, calculated using U.S. Navy prac-
operating within about f60" of beam seas. tices for applying the Taylor-Gertler Standard Series.
The roll motions and lateral accelerations predicted As shown in the following tabular data, these SHP
by the HSVA seakeeping computer program for the curves reflect frigates of equal displacement and length.
deep-Vee hull form are larger than the roll motions and However, as shown in the tabular data, the frigates have
lateral accelerations that were measured during earlier different beam-to-draft ratios, reflecting the different
deep-Vee seakeeping model tests in head seas at similar proportions of deep-Vee and round-bilge hull forms.
speeds and sea states. These differences in performance
are due to the inability of the computer program to ac-
count for the dampening effect of the added mass of the
deep-Vee hull form operating in waves. Figure 8,
therefore, may predict somewhat higher roll motions and 70.000
lateral accelerations for the deep-Vee hull form as com-
pared to those of the round-bilge hull form. DEEP-VEE
The use of a fin stabilization system would allow the 60,000 ROUND-BILGE
deep-Vee frigate to conduct unlimited operations on all
headings and speeds in waves of 15 feet or higher, i.e.,
low sea state 6. Because of its high GM and its hull
e
form, the size of the fins used in a deep-Vee design a 50.000
I
would have to be larger than those used in a convention- v)
v
al round-bilge frigate of comparable size. However, a U
W
recent computer study, that was based on the HSVA roll
40.000
damping model test data, indicates that a deep-Vee hull a
W
form can be effectively fitted with fin stabilizers [ll]. v)
a:
The new rudder roll stabilization system that is currently 0
I
under development would be particularly attractive for + 30,000
deep-Vee frigates. LL
a
r
v)

Directional Stability
20,000
During the previously noted HSVA roll damping
tests, it proved possible to qualitatively assess the direc-
tional stability of Hull Form IV. As noted in Reference 10.000
[ 101, the model was free-running and hand-operated by
an experienced helmsman. The model was connected to
the carriage only by flexible cables and could carry out
motions in all six degrees of freedom. The tests were MI I I I I I
conducted at speeds corresponding to 0, 10, 20, and 25 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

knots. Following the tests, the helmsman reported that

the self-propelled model could be steered easily and that
"/K
its course-keeping ability was above average. Figure 9. Calm water powering.

44 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987

KEHOE/BRO WER/SERTER DEEP-VEE HULL FORM

Deep-Vee Round-Bilge STABILITY

Item Frigate Frigate
Because of its Vee-shaped lower sections, the ver-
Length between perpen- tical center of gravity of a ship with a deep-Vee hull is rel-
diculars, LBP 400 ft. 400 ft. atively higher than that of a ship with a round-bilge hull
Beam at design waterline, B 50.39 ft. 48.55 ft.
and the same depth amidships. However, as compared to
Draft amidships, t 15.67 ft. 15.81 ft.
Full load displacement, a round-bilge hull, the deep-Vee hull has a wider beam
AFL 4,194 L.T. 4,196 L.T. and a much fuller waterplane area, which provide much
Beam-to-draft ratio, B/t 3.22 3.07 more transverse inertia. Deep-Vee designs, therefore,
Length-to-beam ratio, L/B 7.94 8.24 have much more stability than round-bilge designs, i.e., a
Prismatic coefficient, C, 0.737 0.617 GM/beam ratio of 15-20%, compared to 8-10%.
Midship sectional area The following is a comparison of the hull form fac-
coefficient, C, 0.617 0.759 tors that affect stability, using Hull Form V and the
Block coefficient, c b 0.455 0.468 hull form shown in Figure 5 as representative of
deep-Vee and round-bilge hull forms:
The deep-Vee curve shown in Figure 9 is based on
model test resistance data for Hull Form V with stock Item Deep-Vee Round-Bilge
propellers and non-optimized propeller brackets [6]. The
round-bilge curve is based on resistance data for the hull Ratio of the vertical center
form shown in Figure 5 , which has unusually good bare of buoyancy to draft, KB/t 0.656 0.626
hull powering performance and a very high propulsive Prismatic coefficient, C, 0.737 0.617
coefficient. At speed-length ratios of 0.6 t o 1.6, the Midship sectional area
following table shows the wetted surface of a Taylor coefficient, C, 0.617 0.759
Inertia coefficient
Standard Series ship of equal dimensions, the residual (I = CiLB3), Ci 0.062 0.049
wave making resistance of the ship compared to the Waterplane area
residual resistance of an equivalent Taylor Standard coefficient, C, 0.855 0.760
Series ship, and the ratio of resistance to propulsive
power (EHP/SHP), i.e., the propulsive coefficient. DECKAREAAND ARRANGEMENTS
Wetted Inferiority/
Speed/Length Surface Superiority Propulsion The full waterplane area of a deep-Vee hull design
Ratio, V / f i Adjustment Curve Ratio Coefficient provides more useful deck area than a comparable
round-bilge hull design. However, experience to date
0.6 3.39 0.690 indicates that since the main machinery spaces of a
0.8 2.37 0.690 typical 4,500-ton deep-Vee frigate design may have
1 .o 1.083 1.275 0.690 to extend up to the main deck because of the Vee-
1.2 0.850 0.688 shaped lower hull sections, the potential benefits of
1.4 0.725 0.682 the full waterplane area on available deck area will
1.6 0.740 0.671 be partially offset. Therefore, the superstructure of
a deep-Vee frigate design should generally be com-
As shown in Figure 9, the calm water power re- parable in size to the superstructure of a round-bilge
quired for the deep-Vee hull compares t o that of the design of similar dimensions.
round-bilge hull as follows:

Speed-Length SHP, Deep-Vee HULLSTRUCTURE

Ratio, V / f i SHP, Round-Bilge A deep-Vee hull, with its fuller sections forward
0.6 0.93
and aft, has more buoyancy at the bow and stern
0.8 1.12 than a round-bilge hull. Therefore, a deep-Vee hull
1 .o 1.22 has higher hull girder bending moments than a
1.2 1.39 round-bilge hull when balanced on a 1 . l f l trichoi-
1.4 1.23 dal wave. The hull girder bending moment coeffi-
1.6 1.08 cient for a 4,500-ton deep-Vee frigate is estimated to
be about 16.5, compared to a bending moment coeffi-
Model tests have also been performed to measure cient of about 23 for a round-bilge frigate [ 131.
the resistance of a deep-Vee hull in shallow waters. The effect of the differences in hull girder bending
The results indicate that as speed is increased a moments on structural weight increases with ship
ship with a deep-Vee hull trims down by the stern size. The impact on a ship of 4,500 tons was identi-
less than a ship with a round-bilge hull. This sug- fied by developing midship sections for deep-Vee
gests that the resistance of the deep-Vee hull should and round-bilge frigates of comparable displace-
not increase as much as speed is increased and, con- ment, length, beam, and depth, but with different
sequently, may be able to achieve higher speeds in hull forms, drafts, and hull girder bending moments.
shallow waters than a ship with a round-bilge hull. The differences in the calculated weight per foot of
Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987 45
DEEP-VEE HULL FORM KEHOE/BRO WER/SERTER

these midship sections were used to estimate the COMPARISON OF A DEEP-VEE AND
light ship structural weights of the deep-Vee frigate ROUND-BILGE FRIGATE
design.
The midship sections developed for comparative In order to quantify and compare the impact of a
estimating purposes were based on the following de- deep-Vee and a round-bilge hull form on the light
sign characteristics: ship and full load displacement, fuel load, and speed
of a large frigate of about 4,500-tonsYtwo feasibility
Item Deep-Vee Round-Bilge designs were developed. The designs were devel-
oped as modified repeat follow-ons of the FFG-7
Full load displacement, L.T. 4,500 4,500 class frigate. The designs had the same length, re-
Displacement-to-length ratio, quired deck area, combat system, number of accom-
~/(~/100)3 55 55 modations, propulsion systems, design practices and
Length-to-depth ratio, L/D 13.5 13.5
Block coefficient, C, 0.46 0.48 criteria, margins, and endurance cruising range.
Beam-to-draft ratio, B/t 3.18 3.21 One study used Hull Form V and the other, the
Hull girder bending moment round-bilge hull form shown in Figure 5 . The designs
constant, K 16.5 23.0 were not developed, or expected, to have the same
Calculated primary stress, seakeeping performance.
tons/in.2 8.5 7.5 Both designs include the combat system of the
FFG-7, except that a 29-cell VLS launcher, in a type
The midship section of the round-bilge hull was based A module, was substituted for the Mk-13 launcher.
on the use of mild steel (MS). The use of mild steel is The combat system of the FFG-7 was selected only
consistent with the historical parametric weight data because it provided a typical budget of payload
which is available for weight estimating purposes. High weights, vertical centers of gravity, deck areas, and
tensile steel (HTS) was used for the midship section of electrical loads.
the deep-Vee frigate. The two simplified midship sec- Both designs include a twin screw gas turbine pro-
tions are shown in Figure 10. Based on this data, as pulsion plant consisting of two LM2500 gas turbines
compared to existing ships of comparable size, the in- rated at 22,500 BHP each, with a mechanical cross
crease in hull structural weight associated with the use connection between the shafts to permit cruising op-
of a deep-Vee hull form is estimated to be about 115 erations on one shaft. The machinery box arrange-
tons, or about 3.5% of the light ship displacement of a ment of the FFG-7 was used for both designs. In rec-
4,500-ton round-bilge frigate. ognition of the Vee-shaped lower hull sections, the

Dimensions in Inches

0.50 $ 0.025 .$ 0.75 0.50 $ 0.025

I I

0.025
O.?5

0.25 0.25
5 4A I *
0.025 0.50
e
DEEP-VEE
0.50
ROUND-BILQE *
I -b+ 0.375

1.00 $

Figure 10. Midship section.

46 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987
KEHOE/BRO WER/SERTER DEEP-VEE HULL FORM

depth of the forward auxiliary machinery room was

increased in the deep-Vee design. The endurance
cruising range of both designs was set at 4,500 n.mi.
at a speed of 20 knots. Both designs were developed
with 185 accommodations.
Both design studies were conducted using conven-
tional U.S. Navy design criteria and practices, as re-
flected in the FFG-7 class frigate and the new
DDG-51 class destroyer. In general, U.S. Navy design
margins were used, except that as modified repeat
designs, the light ship design and construction Deep-Vee
weight margin was reduced from 12.5% to 8% of the cal-
culated light ship displacement, and the vertical
center of gravity (KG) margin for design and con-
struction was reduced from 10% to 6.5% of the calcu-
lated light ship KG.
To reduce displacement, both designs incorporate
an HY-SO/HSLA hull girder, with a calculated pri-
mary hull girder stress of 9.5 L.T./h2. Both designs
have a steel superstructure. The light ship weights
and vertical centers of gravity were calculated
based on those of the FFG-7, modified to reflect the
configurations, dimensions, and hull forms of the de-
signs. Round-Bilge

Figure 12. Inboard profile and plan view.

Figure 11. Frigate characteristics.

Item Deep-Vee Round-Bilge

The design of the two 4,500-ton frigates was con-
Length overall 451 ft. 451 ft. ducted using a unique ship design synthesis comput-
Length between perpendiculars 425 ft. 425 ft. er program [14]. This computer program can calcu-
Beam at design waterline 52.5 ft. 47.7 ft.
Draft amidships at full late the characteristics of a ship with a deep-Vee
load displacement 16.3 ft. 15.4 ft. hull form, which has a fixed beam-to-draft ratio that
Length-to-beam ratio, L/B 8.1 8.9 is associated with a preselected deadrise angle. The
Full load displacement 4,836 L.T. 4,266 L.T. beam and draft of the deep-Vee design were set by
Light ship displacement 3,693 L.T. 3,298 L.T.
Cubic numJer, the buoyancy needed to equal the calculated light
LXBXDX~O-5 7.323 x low5 6.655 x ship and load weights. By comparison, the beam-to-
Fuel load 873.6 L.T. 694 L.T. draft ratio of the round-bilge design was not similar-
Sustained speed, calm water 26.1 Knots 28.6 Knots ly fixed. The beam of the round-bilge design was set
Endurance cruising range 4,500 n.mi. @ 4,500 n.mi. @ to provide a GM-to-beam ratio of 10% at the full load
20 knots 20 knots
Accommodations 185 185 displacement, and the draft was set by the required buoy-
Propulsion plant Twin Screw, Twin Screw, ancy.
Gas Turbine, Gas Turbine, Preplanned alternate override values in the com-
45,000 BHP, 45,000 BHP, puter program allowed the parametric data base to
CPP Propellers CPP Propellers
Electrical plant 4 x 1,000kW 4 x 1,000kW be adjusted to reflect the use of conventional U.S.
D-G Sets D-G Sets Navy ship design criteria and practices, margins,
and the impact of the deep-Vee hull form on all ship
Combat system - SQS-56 Hull Mounted Sonar design characteristics, including weights, vertical
- SQR-19 Towed Array Sonar
- 2 LAMPS Mk 111 ASW Helicopters/RAST
centers of gravity, stability, resistance, deck area,
- 2 Mk32 Torpedo Tubes etc. In general, light ship and load weights and verti-
- 1 CIWS cal centers of gravity were estimated using conven-
- 32 Cell VLS Launcher in SSES ‘A’ Module tional parametric relationships [ 151.
w/29 Missiles
- 176mm Gun
- Mk92 Fire Control System w/STIR FEASIBILITY
DESIGNCHARACTERISTICS
- SLQ-32V(2) ECM
- NIXIE The characteristics of the deep-Vee and round-
- 2 SRBOC Chaff Launchers bilge frigate designs are summarized in Figure 11.
- SPS-49 Air Search Radar
- SPS-55 Surface Search Radar
Comparative inboard profiles and plan views are
- FFG-36 Command, Control, Communica- shown in Figure 12. The machinery arrangements
tions used for the deep-Vee design are shown in Figure 13.
Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987 47
 DEEP-VEE HULL FORM KEHOE/BRO WER/SERTER

LIGHTSHIP AND LOAD WEIGHTS

The light ship and load weights of the two designs

are shown in Figure 15. This data indicates that the
light ship displacement of the deep-Vee design, with-
out margins, is about 365 L.T., 11.9% more than that of
the round-bilge design. Most of the increase is in weight
group one, structures. The greater light ship weight of
the deep-Vee design is primarily a function of its wider
148'.0'
beam, which was set by the required buoyancy.
An increase in light ship weight is usually asso-
ciated with an increase in cost. However, experi-
ence in the construction of the Turkish Coast
Guard's SAR-33 class patrol boats suggests that the
platform fabrication cost per ton of a deep-Vee frig-
ate should be lower than that of a comparable
round-bilge frigate because of its developed sur-
I I I I faces and largely rectangular compartments that fa-
I
cilitate construction. Based on experience to date,
1 - Propul8lon Ga8 Turblne the overall fabrication cost per ton of a deep-Vee de-
2 - Reduction Gear sign is estimated to be about 7.5% less than that of a
3 - DIe8el Generator Sat
round-bilge design. Therefore, it is estimated that, based
Figure 13. Machinery arrangement. on the cost per ton of the FFG-7, the total platform ac-
quisition cost of a deep-Vee design will be about 1070 less
than that of the round-bilge design.
The machinery arrangements of the round-bilge de-
sign differ only in that the forward auxiliary machin- SPEED IN CALM WATER AND ROUGHSEAS
ery room extends up to the first platform vice the second
deck, the reduction gear and gas turbine are located The SHP curves for the deep-Vee and round-bilge
somewhat lower in the hull, and the shafting rake angle is designs are compared in Figure 16. This figure
slightly less. shows the SHP curves in calm water and the esti-
A conventional flush deck configuration was used mated curves when operating in waves with a signif-
for both designs. The depth amidships was set equal icant wave height of 9.8 feet, i.e., sea state 5.
to that of the FFG-7. For comparative purposes, the As shown in Figure 16, the deep-Vee design re-
length between perpendiculars of both designs was quires more power than the round-bilge design. The
set at 425 feet. Figure 14. Internal deck area.
Foreshortening either design would result in a de-
crease in speed and an increase in the required fuel Required Deck
load. In the case of the round-bilge design, it would Space Area, Sq. Ft.
also lead to a small decrease in light ship and full
load displacement. In the case of the deep-Vee de- Military Mission:
sign, the light ship displacement would decrease, but
the full load displacement would not change appre- Comm., Detec. & Eval. 3,910
ciably because of an offsetting increase in the re- Weapons 2,047
Aviation 4,275
quired fuel load.
Both designs could be lengthened somewhat to Subtotal 10,232
achieve an improvement in seakeeping and an in-
Ship Personnel:
crease in calm water speed, but with an associated
increase in light ship displacement and a decrease Subtotal 8,954
in the required fuel load. The full load displacement
of the round-bilge design would increase, but that of Ship Related:
the deep-Vee design would not change appreciably
because of an offsetting increase in the required Ship Control 3,200
fuel load. Main propulsion machinery 3,510
The required deck area for both designs was the same. Auxiliary systems 4,476
It is summarized in Figure 14. The volume in the Maintenance 3 97
superstructure of the deep-Vee design is 85,448 cubic Stowage 1,985
feet, compared to the volume in the superstructure of the Passageways and access 4,963
Future growth margin 1,985
round-bilge design, which is 108,467 cubic feet. In part,
this reflects the fact that the deep-Vee design has a wider Subtotal 20,516
beam and, hence, relatively more internal hull deck area. Total 39,702

48 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987

KEHOWBROWERBERTER DEEP-WE HULL FORM

Deep-Vee I migate Round-Bilge ‘ r i g a t e

Weight Groups Weight L.T. % Total Weight, L.T. X Total
Structures 1710.0 46.3 1436.5 43.5
Propulsion P l a n t 347.4 9.4 347.4 10.5
Electrical Plant 204.3 5.6 202.1 6.2
Surveillance &
E l e c t r o n i c s Systems 131.1 3.5 129.9 3.9

Auxi 1i a r y Systems 573.1 15.5 508.9 15.4

Ou tf it t i ng 342.5 9.3 319.3 9.7
Weapon Systems 111.3 3.0 111.3 3.4
Design & C o n s t r u c t i o n
Margin 273.5 7.4 244.3 7.4

L i g h t Ship Weight 3693.2 100 .oo 3299.7 100.00

Load Items
Crew & E f f e c t s 21.8 21.8
Stores & Provisions 41.1 41.1
Po t a b l e Water 41.2 41.2
Lube O i l 19.4 17.1
Ammuni t ion 63.3 63.3
A v i a t i o n Loads 82.0 82.0
Fuel O i l 873.6 699.9
F u l l Load Displacement 4835.6 4266.1

Figure 15. Weight data.

additional calm water power requirement is the re- erating costs, the data shown in Figures 6 and 16 was us-
sult of: ed to estimate an annual fuel bill for a deep-Vee and a
(1) The inherently higher calm water resistance of
round-bilge frigate. The estimated fuel bill was based on
the deep-Vee Hull Form V, and the speed and operating profile shown in Figure 17 for
(2) The higher full load displacement of the deep-Vee frigates operating in the various sea states encountered in
design, which is caused by: the North Atlantic over the period of a year. Based on
a. The impact of the higher resistance on the re- this data, it is estimated that the annual fuel bill for a
quired fuel load, deep-Vee frigate will be about 15% more than that for a
b. The impact of the deep-Vee hull form on struc- round-bilge frigate. This is less than would have been the
tural weights, and case had the fuel bill been estimated for frigates
c. The impact of the greater beam of the deep-Vee operating in calm water for a year, in which case it would
hull on light ship weights. have been 26% greater.
Compared to a round-bilge hull, the deep-Vee hull DISCUSSION O F THE FINDINGS
has less added resistance in high sea states because
it has better pitch, heave, and yaw motions. There- A deep-Vee hull form can provide a frigate size
fore, as shown in Figure 16, the two designs will ship with substantially superior seakeeping and
have more equal resistance when operating in high combat system performance than a round-bilge hull
sea states. form. The comparative design study indicated that
In order to identify the impact of the calm water compared to a round-bilge frigate, a deep-Vee frig-
resistance of the deep-Vee hull form on annual op- ate has higher calm water resistance, higher light
Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987 49
DEEP-VEE HULL FORM KEHOE/BRO WER/SERTER

- 30
90, SPEED vs. TIME
DEEP-VEE
I
70. I-
z 20-
W

15-
60 n
J
I-
50
5-

- I I I I I I I I 1
40 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
n
I
v) SPEED, KNOTS
Speed Operating Profile
30

20 301
25-
V NORTH ATLANTIC - WINTER
z
W

10.
g 20-
3
0
0
0 15-
I-
z
1 " " 1 " " I ' $10-
10 20 30
IT
SPEED, KNOTS w
a
-~ ~~
5-
Figure 16. SHP curves.
ship and full load displacement, and lower speed in calm
water.
I . I 4

I I I 1
1 4 ' 5 6 7 8
CALMWATERRESISTANCE SEA STATE

The difference between the calm water resistance Sea State Operating Profile
of the large baseline deep-Vee and round-bilge frig- Figure 17. Frigate speed and sea state operating profile.
ates is greater than has been identified in previous
studies of a 1,200-ton corvette and a 2,400-ton frig-
ate [12, 131. This increase in the difference in calm Navy frigate hull form. In this case, the round-bilge
water resistance is thought to reflect the fact that: FFG-7 hull form, as well as its appendages and propul-
sion train were used. Compared to a round-bilge hull, a
(1) The round-bilge hull form used in the study, deep-Vee hull is better able to accommodate a free
which also incorporates a stern wedge to im- flooding transom extension. Model tests have shown that
prove its powering performance, has excellent there is clean separation of the flow aft of the transom
calm water resistance characteristics. when a deep-Vee hull is operated at low speed-to-length
(2) The previously developed deep-Vee corvette and ratios. The deadrise angle of the improved deep-Vee hull
frigate incorporated a short, free flooding, trans- form was also increased somewhat in order to reduce the
om extension; and, prismatic coefficient. The calculations were performed
(3) This study emphasizes resistance characteristics
at lower speed-to-length ratios than the previous
for frigates with the following characteristics:
studies, which were based on shorter, relatively Improved FFG-7
higher speed ships.
Deep- Vee Round-Bilge
Item Frigate Frigate
In order to quantify the impact of factors (1) and
(2), above, on differences in calm water resistance, the Length between perpen-
performance of an improved version of Hull Form V, diculars, LBP 400 ft. 400 ft.
with a short, free flooding transom extension added, was Beam at design waterline, B 48.76 ft. 50.73 ft.
compared to a round-bilge frigate with an existing U.S. Draft amidships, t 16.64 ft. 15.94 ft.

50 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987

KEHOE/BROWER/SERTER DEEP-VEE HULL FORM

Full load displacement, As previously noted, it may be feasible to reduce

AFL 4,193 L.T. 4,203 L.T. the impact of the calm water resistance on the dis-
Beam-to-draft ratio, B/t 2.93 3.18 placement of the deep-Vee frigate design by:
Length-to-beam ratio, L/B 8.20 7.88
- Reducing the prismatic coefficient and increasing the
The results of the comparison are as follows: length-to-beam ratio,
- Incorporating a free flooding transom extension,
Speed/ and
Length SHP, - Incorporating other calm water powering im-
Speed, Ratio, Improved SHP, FFG-7 SHP Deep-Vee provements currently under investigation.
Knots V /& Deep-Vee Round-Bilge SHP Round-Bilge
Experience also indicates that if the beam-to-draft
12 0.6 2,010 1,922 1.05 ratio (B/t) of Hull Form V were reduced slightly, by
16 0.8 5,664 5,071 1.12 increasing the deadrise angle and/or the immersion
20 1.0 12,409 10,650 1.17 of the chine, the light ship displacement of the deep-
24 1.2 23,377 20,166 1.16 Vee design would be reduced.
28 1.4 41,475 42,017 0.99
32 1.6 63,974 72,195 0.89
POTENTIAL
IMPROVEMENTS
TO THE

When this data is compared to that shown in Figure 9, DEEP-VEEHULLFORM

it indicates that the resistance of an improved deep-Vee
hull form with a short, free flooding transom extension In order to illustrate the cumulative effect of the
is still higher than that of an equivalent round-bilge improvements discussed above, the deep-Vee frigate
FFG-7 type hull form at speed-to-length ratios below design was modified to reflect:
about 1.2, but is less at higher speeds. Model test results - A slightly lower beam-to-draft ratio, and a slightly
have indicated that a slight increase in the angle of the lower prismatic coefficient,
reverse keel drag would reduce powering requirements by - A short free flooding transom extension,
about 5% with only a limited impact on seakeeping per- - A reduction in shaft horsepower by 5% to reflect
formance. It also appears that the calm water resistance the anticipated impact of other powering im-
of deep-Vee hull forms could be further reduced if addi- provements currently under investigation, and
tional reductions were made in the prismatic coefficient - A 5% reduction in the light ship weight groups that
of the hull. Therefore, our assessment'is that it may be are not linearly affected by an increase in beam.
feasible to further reduce the calm water powering penal-
ty associated with a deep-Vee hull form t o within about All of the other factors which were used for the
10% of that of a low-drag, round-bilge hull form with a initial design studies were not changed. The effect of
stern wedge. these changes are summarized in Figure 18. As
shown by the data in Figure 18, the differences be-
tween the light ship and full load displacement, fuel
LIGHTSHIP AND FULLLOADDISPLACEMENT load, and speed of the deep-Vee and round-bilge de-
signs were substantially reduced by these changes.
The higher light ship and full load displacements Figure 19 shows the SHP data for a frigate design
of the deep-Vee frigate compared to the round-bilge using the improved deep-Vee hull form and the SHP
frigate are the result of: data for the baseline round-bilge frigate in calm wa-
ter and in waves with a significant height of 9.8 feet,
- The higher calm water resistance of the deep-Vee i.e., sea state 5 . When this data is compared to that
hull form, which increases the fuel load, shown in Figure 16, it indicates that the calm water
- The impact of the deep-Vee hull form on hull gir- power required for the improved deep-Vee design
der bending moments, and was reduced by about 9-16070 in comparison to the
- The impact of the larger beam of the deep-Vee de-
sign on light ship weights. Figure 18. Frigate characteristics with improvements.

Baseline Improved
In addition, our experience indicates that the Deep-Vee Deep-Vee Round-Bilge
parametric equations used in the computer program Item Hull Form Hull Form Frigate
to estimate weights, by their inherent nature, func-
Length between perpen-
tion conservatively when two identical ships with diculars 425 ft. 425 ft. 425 ft.
different beams are compared. In this case the equa- Beam 52.5 ft. 49.5 ft. 41.1 ft.
tions unnecessarily overestimate the impact of an in- Draft 16.3 ft. 16.9 ft. 15.4 ft.
crease in beam on several light ship weight groups Length-to-beam ratio 8.1 8.6 8.9.
Full load displacement 4,836 L.T. 4,590 L.T 4,266 L.T.
by about 5% or more. In reality the difference in the Light ship displacement,
light ship weight of actual deep-Vee and round-bilge including margins 3,693 L.T. 3,566 L.T 3,300 L.T.
ships will be less than that calculated by the comput- Fuel load 874 L.T. 756 L.T. 700 L.T.
er program. Sustained speed calm water 26.1 kt. 27.1 kt. 28.6 kt.

Naval EngineersJournal, May 1987 51

DEEP-VEE HULL FORM KEHOE/BRO WER/SERTER

70.oon
i- DEEP-VEE

- - - -AOUND-BILQE
ROUND-
BILOE

I <.so0 L.T.
80.000 - DEEP-

-2 50.000-
I 4.000 L.1.
-_
u)
I

c
Y
_-
3
0
;40.000-
SWATH
-.
-,
u1
P-
O
I

IY
-
I I
1.000
..I. 8.000 L.T.

1.000
I 1
1.000
I
4.000
I
1.000
I
1.000
I
7.000
1
0.000
30.000-
v) DISPLACEYENT. L.r.
EOUIVALENT P A Y L O A D CARRYINQ CAPABILITY

2o.ono-

10,000 -

12 18 10 24
SPEED. KNOTS

CALM WATER
28 32
-12 18 20 24
S P E E D , KNOTS

9.8 FT. W A V E S
28 32 SWATH
.-
-
-<
.-_-
-

-.
----.=-
,-
..,. e.000 L.T.

Figure 19. SHP curves for improved deep-Vee hull form. ROUND-
BILGE

calm water power required for the baseline deep-

Vee design. The power required for the improved I ..I. 8.000 L.T.

o.000
deep-Vee design in calm water is still more than that i.000 2.000 1.000 4.000
DISPLACEYENT. L.T.
o.000 1.000 8.000

required for the round-bilge design. However, in 9.8-foot EOUIVALENT SEAKEEPING CAPABILITY
waves, the improved deep-Vee design requires less power
than the round-bilge design at speeds less than 20 knots Figure 20. Comparison of deep-Vee with other concepts.
or at speeds higher than 30 knots. It is estimated that the
carry the same payload, but to also have similar sea-
annual fuel bill for the improved deep-Vee frigate design,
keeping performance as illustrated in Figure 20, the
with its displacement reduced to 4,590 L.T., will be round-bilge frigate would have been much larger in
within 1% of the fuel bill for the 4,266 L.T. baseline
displacement than the deep-Vee frigate, required
round-bilge design.
more endurance fuel, and had similar calm water
speed. Had a SWATH frigate design also been devel-
COMPARISON
OF DEEP-VEE
WITH OTHERCONCEPTS
oped to carry the same payload and to have similar
seakeeping performance it would also have been
A previous study has shown that a SWATH frig- larger in displacement and required more fuel than
ate, with the same payload as a round-bilge frigate, the deep-Vee frigate. Therefore, when seakeeping
has significantly superior seakeeping performance. performance is considered as the basis for compari-
However, as illustrated in Figure 20, it is about 30% son, a frigate with a deep-Vee hull should result in a sig-
larger in displacement than the round-bilge frigate, nificant savings in size, acquisition, and life cycle cost,
requires about 30% more fuel load, and has about 6% compared to a round-bilge or SWATH frigate.
less speed. The study also has shown that a round-
bilge frigate, with equivalent seakeeping perfor- AND COMBAT
SEAKEEPING SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE
mance to a SWATH, is about 30% larger in displacement
than the SWATH, requires about 10% less In a discussion of seakeeping, combat system per-
fuel, and is 1 knot faster in calm water speed [2]. formance, and operational capabilities of frigate
From the standpoint of the seakeeping perfor- size ships in Reference [l], it was hypothesized that
mance of frigates carrying the same payload, our as- the maximum achievable speed of frigates in high sea
sessment is that a deep-Vee frigate: states would be reduced more than the speed of slower
- Provides seakeeping performance considerably
but much larger merchant ships and naval auxiliaries.
superior to a similar size frigate with a round- This hypothesis was confirmed by the results of a subse-
bilge hull form, and guent seakeeping questionnaire sent to the commanding
- Provides seakeeping performance that is general- officers of U.S. Navy auxiliary, replenishment, and am-
ly similar to a larger SWATH frigate. phibious ships.
As shown in Figure 21, a typical 20,000-ton merchant
Therefore, had the comparative frigate designs ship or navy auxiliary ship, with a maximum calm water
reported on in this paper been developed not only to speed of 21 knots, will be capable of achieving speeds of
52 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987
KEHOE/BRO WERBERTER DEEP-VEE HULL FORM

DEEP-VEE
--- - - - - ROUND-BILGE
v) 6o
AUXlLiARY SHIP W
w
u 50
0
w
12 40
w'
n
2 30
7
4
-1 20

10

Speed of Advance 1 Speed of Advance

Determined b y Speed 01 Determined b y Seakeeping 0 20 40 60 80 100
Auxlliary Ships Performance of Frlgetes P E R C E N T O F TIME

I 1 - E x i s t i n g Round-Blige F r i g a t e
2'0
1'0 1'5
WAVE HEIGHT. FEET
2'5 310
2 - Improved Round-BliQe Hull F o r m with Fins
21 3 1 4 1 5 I 6 ' 7 1 3 - I m p r o v e d Round-Bilge Hull Form with Fins.
SEA STATE T o w e d A r r a y a n d Long Range ASW MisSiieS
4 - D e e p - V e e F r i g a t e with A d v a n c e d Combat S y s t e m
Figure 21. Improving the speed of advance of convoys.
Figure 22. Improving the ASW availability of frigates.
about 16 knots in sea state 6, about the same as a
400-foot round-bilge frigate with a calm water speed of
28 knots. Therefore, since ASW frigates must have a eep-Vee hull provides considerably better seakeeping
speed advantage over ships in company if they are to con- performance than a round-bilge hull. The data indicates
duct ASW operations effectively, merchant ship convoys that, as compared to a frigate with a round-bilge hull, a
and naval battle groups enroute to or from Northern 4,500-ton frigate with a deep-Vee hull should be:
Europe could frequently be restricted to speeds of 12 to
- Capable of significantly higher speeds in moderate to
15 knots in order to give escorting round-bilge frigates a
high sea states because of a delay in the onset of
speed advantage. However, as also shown in Figure 21, slamming, and
because of its superior seakeeping performance, a com- - Capable of operating its combat systems and other
parable deep-Vee frigate should maintain a speed advan- ship systems more effectively in higher sea states
tage up to sea state 7. Thus, the speed of convoys and while conducting such operations as antisubmarine
battle groups operating in high sea states could often be warfare, launching and recovering helicopters, and
increased by nearly 50% if deep-Vee frigates were used as replenishment-at-sea, because of lower ship motions.
escorts.
Reference [l] also reported that the availability of From the standpoint of seakeeping performance, the
existing U .S. round-bilge frigates for conducting results of the study indicate that the 4,500-ton deep-Vee
ASW operations in the winter North Atlantic, using frigate illustrated in Figure 23 should have the opera-
hull mounted sonars and helicopters, was as follows: tional capabilities of a much larger round-bilge
Latitude (N or S) Availability destroyer or cruiser. In practice, this means that if
future ships were designed with deep-Vee hulls they
60" 15% should not have to be lengthened, or lengthened as
40" 35% much, beyond the minimum length required for the
20" 55 070 location of weapons, sensors, machinery, etc., in order
0" 80% to achieve a specified minimum level of seakeeping per-
As shown in Figure 22, it is estimated that this formance. It also means that it should be feasible to
availability could be significantly improved by the adop- design smaller, lower cost frigates in the future without
tion of an improved round-bilge hull form, like that of having to sacrifice seakeeping performance.
the DDG-51 class, with roll stabilization fins, a towed Based on the results of the feasibility design study of
sensor, and a locally stabilized stand-off missile system two modified repeat designs of the FFG-7 frigate, one
which can launch missiles under severe sea conditions. with a deep-Vee and the other with a round-bilge hull
As also shown in Figure 22, it is estimated that with the form, it has been determined that the frigate with a
use of the deep-Vee hull form, the availability of deep-Vee hull would have:
frigates to conduct ASW operations in northern waters
would be about 95%, particularly if advanced hull
- Higher calm water resistance and fuel costs,
- Higher light ship displacement, but nearly equal ac-
mounted sonars were used in conjunction with quisition costs, and
helicopters. - Less speed in clam water.

CONCLUSIONS The study indicates that there are several modifica-

A comparison of seakeeping model test data for ships tions that can be made to the characteristics of the deep-
with deep-Vee and round bilge hulls indicates that a Vee hull form that should result in:
Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987 53
I 3

Figure 23. 4,5004011deep-Vee frigate.

- A substantial reduction in calm water resistance and [2] Kennell, Colen, Brian White and E.N. Comstock ,
light ship displacement, “Innovative Naval Designs for North Atlantic
- An increase in calm water speed, and Operations,” SNAME Transactions, 1985.
- Nearly equal annual fuel costs. [3] Ellsworth, W. M. (Ed.), “Modern Ships and
Craft,” Naval Engineers Journal, Vol. 97, Feb.
1985.
Until now, navies have had the choice of procuring [4] Serter, E.H., “Deep-Vee and Round-Bilge Hull
either small fast monohull type ships with a single mission Forms for Naval Applications,” International De-
fense Review, Vol. 17, April 1984.
capability, but limited seakeeping ability, or much larger,
[5] British Hovercraft Corp. Ltd. Report No.
more costly multimission ships with better seakeeping X/0/3252, ‘‘Hydro Research System, Seakeeping
ability. To break the relationship in monohull type ships Tests on a 119.5m Deep-Vee Craft,” Jan. 1984.
between seakeeping, ship size, and ship cost, new con- [6] Blume, P., “Model Tests with the Hull Form V-A
cepts, such as hydrofoils, air cushion vehicles, surface ef- (4,600-tons),” Report No. S225b/86, Hambur-
fect ships, and SWATHS have been developed which gische Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt, October 1985.
have provided improved seakeeping performance and [7] Ochi, M.K., “Predictions of Occurrences of Slam-
higher speeds in rough seas. Unfortunately, they have ming at Sea,” 5th Symposium of Naval Hydrody-
also introduced new technical risks and high costs. namics, ONR, Washington, D.C., 1964.
Model tests indicate that the deep-Vee hull form [8] Blume, P., “Prognosis of Slamming Probability in
Head Seas for Two Projects,” Report No.
should provide better seakeeping and combat system per- S221/86, HSV Hamburg, April 1986.
formance and the ability to maintain higher speeds in [9] Direction, Technique Construction Navale, “Tech-
rough seas than any monohull type ship available. In ad- nical Report No. 2291/1,” 1983.
dition, feasibility design studies conducted to date in- [lo] Blume, P., “Roll Damping and Roll Motions in Ir-
dicate that the HRS deep-Vee hull form should also be a regular Sea Waves, Serter Hull Form IV-G,”
lower cost, lower risk solution than any of the new ship Report No. S218/B-6, Hamburgische Schiffbau-
design concepts that are being considered. Equally im- Versuchsanstalt, April 1986.
portant is the fact that the deep-Vee hull form, with all of [ I l l Brown Brothers, “Estimated Roll Motions for a
its advantages, can be used in the design of small patrol Deep-Vee Frigate Using Active Fin Stabilization,”
craft and corvettes, as well as large frigates. Letter Report ACFC/MA, March 7, 1986.
[12] Kehoe, J.W., K.S. Brower, and E.H. Serter,
“Deep-Vee Hulls - Improved Seakeeping for
ACKNOWLEDGMENT Small, Fast Warships,” International Defense
Review, Vol. 19, November 1986.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the technical [13] Kehoe, J.W., K.S. Brower, and E.H. Serter, “Im-
contributions of Herbert Meier and Kenneth Walker pact of Deep-Vee Hull Form on the Design and
and the typing and graphics support of Rose Lowstuter Performance of Frigate Sized Ships,” ASNE
and Joan Lively of Spectrum Associates Inc., Arling- Destroyer, Cruiser, and Frigate Technology Sym-
ton, Virginia, in the preparation of this paper. posium, Transactions, Biloxi, MS, October 1986.
[14] Brower, K.S., and Kenneth W. Walker, “Ship De-
REFERENCES sign Computer Programs - An Interpolative
Technique,” Naval Engineers Journal, May 1986.
[l] Kehoe, J.W., K.S. Brower, and E.N. Comstock, [I51 Straubinger, Erwin K . , William C. Curran, and
“Seakeeping and Combat System Performance - Vincent L. Fighera, “Fundamentals of Naval Sur-
The Operator’s Assessment,” Naval Engineers face Ship Weight Estimating,” Naval Engineers
Journal, Vol. 95, May 1983 Journal, Vol. 95, May 1983.

54 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987