The Principles of Naval Architecture Series The Geometry of Ships John S. Letcher Jr. AeroHydro, Inc J. Randolph Paulling, Editor 2009 Published by The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 601 Pavonia Avenue Jersey City, NJCopyright © 2009 by The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers It fs understood and agreed that nothing expressed herein is intended or shall be construed to give any person, fim, or corporation any right, remedy, or claim against SNAME or any of its officers or members, Library of Congress Csataloging-in Publication Data A catalog record from the Library of Congress has been applied for ISBN No. 0-939773.67.8 Printed in the United States of America First Printing, 2009,Table of Contents A Word from the President ...... Foreword .. bevees Preface ........- Acknowledgments .. Author's Biography. Nomenclature . 1 Geometric Modeling for Marine Design .. . 2. Points and Coordinate Systems . 7 3. Geometry of Curves . 10 4 Geometry of Surfaces... : 16 5 Polygon Meshes and Subdivision Surfaces . ar 6 Geometry of Curves on Surfaces .......6cscssseeesessereeeseeseesseteeseteeteeseesseresiees 29 7 Geometry of Solids 30 8 Hull Surface Definition . 34 9 Displacement and Weight 38 10 Form Coefficients for Vessels 45 11 Upright Hydrostatic Analysis... . aT 12 Decks, Bulkheads, Superstructures, and d Appendages 53 13 Arrangements and Capacity .. 55 eee ener ec 87 TNMGd oo ccecccscesceesenseseceesecaceraevsteesensssecessenscseensenseeaeriesserorsnsenansecseaas 59A Word from the President "The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers is experiencing remarkable changes in the Maritime Industry as we enter our 115" year of service. Our mission, however, has not changed over the years . . . “an internationally recognized . .. technical society... . serving the maritime industry, dedicated to advancing the art, science and prac- tice of naval architecture, shipbuilding, ocean engineering, and marine engineering . . . encouraging the exchange and recording of information, sponsoring applied research . . . supporting education and enhancing the professional status and integrity of its membership.” In the spirit of being faithful to our mission, we have written and published significant treatises on the subject of naval architecture, marine engineering and shipbuilding. Our most well known publication is the “Principles of ‘Naval Architecture”. First published in 1939, it has been revised and updated three times ~ in 1967, 1988 and now in 2008. During this time, remarkable changes in the industry have taken place, especially in technology, and these changes have accelerated. The result has had a dramatic impact on size, speed, capacity, safety, quality and environ- mental protection. ‘The professions of naval architecture and marine engineering have realized great technical advances. They in- clude structural design, hydrodynamics, resistance and propulsion, vibrations, materials, strength analysis using fi- nite element analysis, dynamic loading and fatigue analysis, computer-aided ship design, controllability, stability and the use of simulation, risk analysis and virtual reality. ‘However, with this in view, nothing remains more important than a comprehensive knowledge of “first principles”. Using this knowledge, the Naval Architect is able to intelligently utilize the exceptional technology available to its fullest extent in today’s global maritime industry. It is with this in mind that this entirely new 2008 treatise was devel- ‘oped - “The Principles of Naval Architecture : The Series". Recognizing the challenge of remaining relevant. and cur- rent as technology changes, each major topical area will be published as a separate volume. This will facilitate timely revisions as technology continues to change and provide for more practical use by those who teach, learn or utilize the tools of our profession. Tt is noteworthy that it took a decade to prepare this monumental work of nine volumes by sixteen anthors and by a distinguished steering committee that was brought together from several countries, universities, companies and laboratories. We are all especially indebted to the editor, Professor J. Randolph (Randy) Pauling for providing the leadership, knowledge, and organizational ability to manage this seminal work. His dedication to this arduous task embodies the very essence of our mission . . . “to serve the maritime industry”. It is with this introduction that we recognize and honor all of our colleagues who contributed to this work. Authors: Dr. John 8. Letcher Hull Geometry Dr. Colin 8. Moore Intact Stability Robert D. Tagg. Subdivision and Damaged Stability Professor Alaa Mansour and Dr. Donald Liu Strength of Ships and Ocean Structures Dr. Lars Larson and Dr. Hoyte Raven Resistance Professors Justin E. Kerwin and Jacques B. Hadler Propulsion Professor William S. Vorus Vibration and Noise Prof. Robert S. Beck, Dr. John Dalzell (Deceased), Prof. Odd Faltinsen Motions in Waves and Dr. Arthur M. Reed Professor W. C. Webster and Dr. Rod Barr Controllability Control Committee Members are: Professor Bruce Johnson, Robert G. Keane, Jr., Justin H. McCarthy, David M. Maurer, Dr. William B. Morgan, Professor J. Nicholas Newman and Dr. Owen H. Oakley, Jr. I would also like to recognize the support staff and members who helped bring this project to fruition, especially Susan Evans Grove, Publications Director, Phil Kimball, Executive Director and Dr. Roger Compton, Past President. In the new world’s global maritime industry, we must maintain leadership in our profession if we are to continue to be true to our mission. The “Principles of Naval Architecture: The Series”, is another example of the many ways our Society is meeting that challenge. AMIRAL ROBERT E. KRAMEK, PresidentForeword Since it was first published 70 years ago, Principles of Naval Architecture (PNA) has served as a seminal text on naval architecture for both practicing professionals and students of naval architecture. This is a challenging task ~ to explain the fundamentals in terms understandable to the undergraduate student while providing sufficient rigor to satisfy the needs of the experienced engineer ~ but the initial publication and the ensuing revisions have stood the test of time. We believe that this third revision of PNA will carry on the tradition, and continue to serve as an in- valuable reference to the marine community. In the Foreword to the second revision of PNA, the Chairman of its Control Committee, John Nachtsheim, lamented the state of the maritime industry, noting that there were “. . . too many ships chasing too little cargo,” and with the decline in shipping came a“. . . corresponding decrease in technological growth.” John ended on a some- what optimistic note: ‘Let’s hope the current valley of worldwide maritime inactivity won't last for too long. Let's hope for better times, further technological growth, and the need once more, not too far away, for the next revision of Principles of Naval Architecture.” Fortunately, better times began soon after the second revision of PNA was released in 1988. Spurred by the ex- panding global economy and a trend toward specialization of production amongst nations around the world, seaborne trade has tripled in the last twenty years. Perhaps more than ever before, the economic and societal well being of nations worldwide is dependent upon efficient, safe, and environmentally friendly deep sea shipping. Continuous improvernent in the efficiency of transportation has been achieved over the last several decades, facili- tating this growth in the global economy by enabling lower cost movement of goods. These improvements extend over the entire supply train, with waterborne transportation providing the critical link between distant nations. The ship design and shipbuilding communities have played key roles, as some of the most important advancements have been in the design and construction of ships. With the explosive growth in trade has come an unprecedented demand for tonnage extending over the full spec- trum of ship types, including containerships, tankers, bulk carriers, and passenger vessels. Seeking increased throughput and efficiency, ship sizes and capacities have increased dramatically. Ships currently on order include 16,000 TEU containerships, 260,000 m? LNG carriers, and 5,400 passenger cruise liners, dwarfing the prior genera- tion of designs ‘The drive toward more efficient ship designs has led to increased sophistication in both the designs themselves and in the techniques and tools required to develop the designs. Concepts introduced in Revision 2 of PNA such as finite element analysis, computational fluid dynamics, and probabilistic techniques for evaluating a ship's stability and structural reliability are now integral to the overall design process. The classification societies have released the common structural rules for tankers and bulk carriers, which rely heavily on first principles engineering, use of fi- nite clement analysis for strength and fatigue assessments, and more sophisticated approaches to analysis such as are used for ultimate strength assessment for the hull girder. The International Maritime Organization now relies on probabilistic approaches for evaluating intact and damage stability and oil outflow. Regulations are increasingly per- formance-based, allowing application of creative solutions and state-of-the-art tools. Risk assessment techniques have become essential tools of the practicing naval architect. ‘The cyclical nature of shipbuilding is well established and all of us who have weathered the ups and downs of the marine industry recognize the current boom will not last forever. However, there are reasons to believe that the need for technological advancement in the maritime industries will remain strong in the coming years. For example, naval architects and marine engineers will continue to focus on improving the efficiency of marine transportation systems, spurred by rising fuel oil prices and public expectations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As a consequence of climate change, the melting Arctic ice cap will create new opportunities for exploration and production of oil and other natural resources, and may lead to new global trading patterns. SNAME has been challenged to provide technical updates to its texts on a timely basis, in part due to our reliance on volunteerism and in part due to the rapidly changing environment of the maritime industry. This revision of PNA emphasizes engineering fundamentals and first principles, recognizing that the methods and approaches for apply- ing these fundamentals are subject to constant change. Under the leadership of President Bob Kramek, SNAME is reviewing all its publications and related processes. As the next SNAME President, one of my goals is to begin strate- gizing on the next revision of PNA just as this third revision comes off the presses. Comments and ideas you may have on how SNAME can improve its publications are encouraged and very much appreciated.vill FOREWORD PNA would not be possible without the contributions of SNAME members and other marine professionals world- wide, who have advanced the science and the art of naval architecture and then shared their experiences through technical papers and presentations. For these many contributions we are indebted to all of you. We are especially indebted to its editor, Dr. J. Randolph Paulling, the Control Committee, the authors, and the reviewers who have given so generously of their time and expertise. R. Kerry Mice, President-electPreface During the 20 years that have elapsed since publication of the previous edition of Principles of Nawal Architecture, or PNA, there have been remarkable advances in the art, science, and practice of the design and construction of ships and other floating structures. In that edition, the increasing use of high speed computers was recognized and computational methods were incorporated or acknowledged in the individual chapters rather than being presented ina separate chapter. Today, the electronic computer is one of the most important tools in any engineering environ- ment and the laptop computer has taken the place of the ubiquitous slide rule of an earlier generation of engineers. ‘Advanced concepts and methods that were only being developed or introduced then are a part of common engi- neering practice today. These include finite element analysis, computational fluid dynamics, random process meth- ods, and numerical modeling of the hull form and components, with some or all of these merged into integrated design and manufacturing systems. Collectively, these give the naval architect unprecedented power and flexibility to explore innovation in concept and design of marine systems. In order to fully utilize these tools, the modern naval architect must possess a sound knowledge of mathematics and the other fundamental sciences that form a basic part of a modern engineering education. In 1997, planning for the new edition of PNA was initiated by the SNAME publications manager who convened a meeting of a number of interested individuals including the editors of PNA and the new edition of Ship Design and Construction. At this meeting, it was agreed that PNA would present the basis for the modern practice of naval ar- chitecture and the focus would be principles in preference to applications. The book should contain appropriate reference material but it was not a handbook with extensive numerical tables and graphs. Neither was it to be an el- ementary or advanced textbook; although it was expected to be used as regular reading material in advanced under- graduate and elementary graduate courses. It would contain the background and principles necessary to understand and intelligently use the modern analytical, numerical, experimental, and computational tools available to the naval architect and also the fundamentals needed for the development of new tools. In essence, it would contain the ma- terial necessary to develop the understanding, insight, intuition, experience, and judgment needed for the success- fal practice of the profession. Following this initial meeting, a PNA Control Committee, consisting of individuals hav- ing the expertise deemed necessary to oversee and guide the writing of the new edition of PNA, was appointed. This committee, after participating in the selection of authors for the various chapters, has continued to contribute by critically reviewing the various component parts as they are written. In an effort of this magnitude, involving contributions from numerous widely separated authors, progress has not been uniform and it became obvious before the halfway mark that some chapters would be completed before oth- ers. In order to make the material available to the profession in a timely manner it was decided to publish each major subdivision as a separate volume in the “Principles of Naval Architecture Series” rather than treating each as a sep- arate chapter of a single book. ‘Although the United States committed in 1975 to adopt SI units as the primary system of measurement, the transi- tion is not yet complete. In shipbuilding as well as other fields, we stil find usage of three systems of units: English or foot-pound-seconds, SI or meter-newton-seconds, and the meter-kilogram (force)-second system common in engi- neering work on the European continent and most of the non-English speaking world prior to the adoption of the SI system. In the present work, we have tried to adhere to SI units as the primary system but other units may be found particularly in illustrations taken from other, older publications, The Marine Metric Practice Guide developed jointly by MARAD and SNAME recommends that ship displacement be expressed as a mass in units of metric tons. This is in contrast to traditional usage in which the terms displacement and buoyancy are usually treated as forces and are ‘used more or less interchangeably. The physical mass properties of the ship itself, expressed in kilograms (or metric tons) and meters, play a key role in, for example, the dynamic analysis of motions caused by waves and maneuvering while the forces of buoyancy and weight, in newtons (or kilo- or mega-newtons), are involved in such analyses as static equilibrium and stability. In the present publication, the symbols and notation follow the standards developed by the International Towing Tank Conference where A is the symbol for weight displacement, A, is the symbol for mass displacement, and V is the symbol for volume of displacement. While there still are practitioners of the traditional art of manual fairing of lines, the great majority of hull forms, ranging from yachts to the largest commercial and naval ships, are now developed using commercially available soft- ‘ware packages. In recognition of this particular function and the current widespread use of electronic computing in virtually all aspects of naval architecture, the illustrations of the mechanical planimeter and integrator that were found in all earlier editions of PNA are no longer included. ‘This volume of the series presents the principles and terminology underlying modern hull form modeling soft- ware. Next, it develops the fundamental hydrostatic properties of floating bodies starting from the integration of fluid pressure on the wetted surface. Following this, the numerical methods of performing these and relatedx PREFACE computations are presented. Such modeling software normally includes, in addition to the hull definition function, appropriate routines for the computation of hydrostatics, stability, and other properties. It may form a part of a com. prehensive computer-based design and manufacturing system and may also be included in shipboard systems that perform operational functions such as cargo load monitoring and damage control. In keeping with the overall theme of the book, the emphasis is on the fundamentals in order to provide understanding rather than cookbook instruc- tions. It would be couinterproduetive to do otherwise since this is an especially rapidly changing area with new prod- ucts, new applications, and new techniques continually being developed. J, RaNDowPH PAULING EditorAcknowledgments ‘The present volume, The Geometry of Ships, could not have been completed without the assistance of a number of associates, colleagues, and others who read and critiqued portions or all of the manuscript, helped with illustrations, tracked down references, and provided other vital services. In addition to the Control Committee, members of which provided reviews of early versions of the manuscript, the author wishes especially to acknowledge the contributions, of the following individuals: Professor Horst Nowacki, Technical University of Berlin (Emeritus) Professor Fred Munchmeyer, University of New Orleans (Emeritus) ‘Mr. George Hazen, DRS Technologies, Inc. Professor J. Nicholas Newman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Emeritus) and WAMIT, Inc. ‘Mr, Edward W. Stanley, AeroHydro, Inc. Mr. Robert W. Page, AeroHydro, Inc. Mr. D. Michael Shook, AeroHydro, Inc. Mr, Spencer Schilling, Herbert Engineering Corp. SNAME Panel SD:3 Mr. D. Lunn Sawyer, AeroHydro, Inc., who deserves special thanks for preparation of figures Finally, the Editor extends his thanks to the author for his time and monumental efforts in writing the volume, to the Control Committee, and to the individuals listed above as well as others whose advice and assistance was essen- tial to the successful completion of the task. He is especially grateful to Susan Evans, SNAME’s Director of Publications, for her patience, ready advice, and close attention to detail without all of which this work could not have been accomplished.Biography of John S. Letcher Jr. Author of The Geometry of Ships John 8. Letcher Jr. was educated at the California Institute of Technology, receiving his B.S. in Physics (honors) in 1963, his M.S. in Aeronautics in 1964, and his Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Applied Mathematics in 1966. Later, he at- tended the University of Michigan, receiving his MS. in Naval Architecture in 1985. He has held temporary faculty positions at University of Washington, Colorado State University, University of Florida, and University of Michigan. In 1963 to 1965 he sailed single-handed from California to Hawaii and Alaska and returned in the 20-foot cutter Island Girl. In 1966 to 1967, he designed, and he and his wife built, the 25-foot sailing yacht Alewtka, believed to be the first actual vessel designed and lofted from a parametric surface definition. From 1967 to 1971, they cruised in Aleutka to Hawaii, Alaska, British Columbia, Mexico, and U.S. west, gulf, and east coasts. He wrote two books based ‘on these cruising experiences: Self-Steering for Sailing Craft and Self-Contained Celestial Navigation. From 1971 to 1973, he held the position of Naval Architect at yacht builder Henry R. Hinckley and Co., in Southwest Harbor, Maine. In 1974, he founded Letcher Offshore Design, an independent yacht design office with a focus on development of computer programs for boat design, including hull geometry, hydrostatics, hydrodynam- ics, and sailing yacht performance. Initially, the programs were for internal use, but in 1980 the company started sell- ing software to other boat designers and, in a short time, this became its principal business. In 1987, the business was incorporated as Aerollydro, Inc, it has since remained a leading supplier of marine design software. He was Senior Scientist for the design team of Stars & Stripes, winner of the 1987 America’s Cup. He is a Life Member of SNAME, and recipient of its Adm. E. L. Cochrane Award for 1987. He has over 30 publications on com- puter-aided design and analysis of boats, ships, and marine structures.Nomenclature B bevel angle B transverse stretching factor 6 vertical stretching factor A displacement (weight) Bn displacement (mass) 6 polar coordinate 6 heel angle 6 rotation angle K Curvature a Iength stretching factor ? Density o scale factor t Torsion $ polar coordinate $ trim angle v displacement volume A Area Ams midship section area dup waterplane area A affine stretching matrix B Beam Bi) B-spline basis function Ca block coefficient, Gms midship section coefficient G prismatic coefficient Cv ‘volumetric coefficient Cup waterplane coefficient Cus wetted surface coefficient Co, Cl, C2 degrees of parametric continuity F Force 9 acceleration due to gravity Go, Gi, Go degrees of geometric continuity H mean curvature I moment of inertia tensor Abbreviations BM height of metacenter above center of buoyancy CF center of flotation DLR displacement-length ratio DWL design waterline GM height of metacenter above center of gravity KB height of center of buoyancy above base line KG height of center of gravity above ‘base line ENC Q® why TIS BREE ES OORT u,v, wi ‘wu, v) wy ,Yy% tp ap x) x(u, v) x(u, v, w) LBP LCB LCE LOA LPP LWL vcB unit vector in positive Z direction Gaussian curvature Length heel restoring moment Mass ‘trim restoring moment general transformation matrix moment vector vector of mass moments unit normal vector Pressure cylindrical polar coordinate radius vector center of buoyancy spherical polar coordinate rotation matrix arc length section area curve curve parameter Draft surface parameters solid parameters Volume mass / unit length mass / unit area NURBS curve weights NURBS surface weights cartesian coordinates x-coordinate of center of buoyancy x-coordinate of center of flotation parametric curve parametric surface parametric solid height of metacenter above base line Iength between perpendiculars longitudinal center of buoyancy longitudinal center of flotation ength overall length between perpendiculars waterline length vertical center of buoyancy wetted surfaceSection 1 Geometric Modeling for Marine Design Geometry is the branch of mathematics dealing with the properties, measurements, and relationships of points and point sets in space. Geometric definition of shape and size is an essential step in the manufacture or pro- duction of any physical object. Ships and marine struc- tures are among the largest. and most complex objects produced by human enterprise. Their successful plan- ning and production depends intimately on geometric descriptions of their many components, and the posi- tional relationships between components. ‘Traditionally, a “model” is a three-dimensional (3-D) representation of an object, usually at a different scale and a lesser level of detail than the actual object. Producing a real product, especially one on the scale of aship, consumes huge quantities of materials, time, and labor, which may be wasted if the product does not function as required for its purpose. A physical scale model of an object can serve an important role in pl ning and evaluation; it may use negligible quantities of materials, but still requires potentially large amounts of skilled labor and time. Representations of ships in the form of physical scale models have been in use since an- cient times. The 3-D form of a ship hull would be de- fined by carving and refining a wood model of one side of the hull, shaped by eye with the experience and intu- itive skills of the designer, and the “half-model” would become the primary definition of the vessel's shape. ‘Tank testing of scale ship models has been an important design tool since Froude’s discovery of the relevant dy- namic scaling laws in 1868, Maritime museums contain many examples of detailed ship models whose primary purpose was evidently to work out at least the exterior appearance and arrangements of the vessel in advance of construction. One can easily imagine that these mod- els served a marketing function as well; showing a prospective owner or operator a realistic model might well allow them to relate to, understand, and embrace the concept of a proposed vessel to a degree impossible with two-dimensional (2-D) drawings. From at least the 1700s, when the great Swedish naval architect F. H. Chapman undertook systematic quantita- tive studies of ship lines and their relationship to per- formance, until the latter decades of the 20th century, the principal geometric definition of a vessel was in the form of 2-D scale drawings, prepared by draftsmen, copied, and sent to the shop floor for production. The lines drawing, representing the curved surfaces of the hull by means of orthographic views of horizontal and vertical plane sections, was a primary focus of the de- sign process, and the basis of most other drawings. An intricate drafting procedure was required to address the simultaneous requirements of (1) agreement and consis- tency of the three orthogonal views, (2) “fairness” or quality of the curves in all views, and (8) meeting the design objectives of stability, capacity, performance, seaworthiness, etc. The first step in construction was lofting: expanding the lines drawing, usually to full size, and refining its accuracy, to serve as a basis for fabrica- tion of actual components. Geometric modeling is a term that came into use around 1970 to embrace a set of activities applying geometry to design and manufacturing, especially with computer assistance, The fundamental concept of geo- metric modeling is the creation and manipulation of a computer-based representation or simulation of an ex- isting or hypothetical object, in place of the real object. Mortenson (1995) identifies three important categories of geometric modeling: (2) Representation of an existing object (2) Ab initio design: creation of a new object to meet functional and/or aesthetic requirements (B) Rendering: generating an image of the model for visual interpretation. Compared with physical model construction, one profound advantage of geometric modeling is that it re- quires no materials and no manufacturing processes; therefore, it can take place relatively quickly and at relatively small expense. Geometric modeling is essen- tially full-scale, so does not have the accuracy limita- tions of scale drawings and models. Already existing in a computer environment, a geometric model can be readily subjected to computational evaluation, analysis, and testing. Changes and refinements can be made and evaluated relatively easily and quickly in the fundamen- tally mutable domain of computer memory. When 2-D drawings are needed to communicate shape informa- tion and other manufacturing instructions, these can be extracted from the 3-D geometric model and drawn by an automatic plotter. The precision and completeness ofa geometric model can be much higher than that of ei- ther a physical scale model or a design on paper, and this leads to opportunities for automated production and assembly of the full-scale physical product. With these advantages, geometric modeling has today as- sumed a central role in the manufacture of ships and offshore structures, and is also being widely adopted for the production of boats, yachts, and small craft of es- sentially all sizes and types. 1.1 Uses of Geometric Data. It is important to realize that geometric information about a ship can be put to many uses, which impose various requirements for pre~ cision, completeness, and level of detail. In this section, we briefly introduce the major applications of geometric data. In later sections, more detail is given on most of these topics.2 THE PRINCIPLES OF NAVAL ARCHITECTURE SERIES: 1.1.1 Conceptual Design. A ship design ordinarily starts with a conceptual phase in which the purpose or mission of the vessel is defined and analyzed, and from that starting point an attempt is made to outline in rela- tively broad strokes one or more candidate designs which ‘will be able to satisfy the requirements. Depending on the stringency of the requirements, conceptual design can amount to nothing more than taking an existing design for a known ship and showing that it can meet any new re- quirements without significant modifications. At the other extreme, it can be an extensive process of analysis and performance simulation, exploring and optimizing over a ‘wide range of alternatives in configuration, proportions, leading dimensions, and proposed shapes. Simulation based design of ships often involves a variety of computer simulation disciplines such as resistance, propulsion, sea- ‘keeping, and strength; radar, thermal, and wake signa- ‘tures; and integration of such results to analyze overall economic, tactical, or strategic performance of alterna- tive designs. 1.1.2 Analysis. ‘The design of a ship involves much more than geometry. The ability of a ship to perform its mission will depend crucially on many physical charac- teristics such as stability, resistance, motions in waves, and structural integrity, which cannot be inferred di- rectly from geometry, but require some level of engi- neering analysis. Much of the advancement in the art of naval architecture has focused on the development of practical engineering methods for predicting these char- acteristics. Each of these analysis methods rests on a geometrical foundation, for they all require some geo- metric representation of the ship as input, and they can- not in fact be applied at all until a definite geometric shape has been specified. Weight anatysis is an essential component of the de- sign of practically any marine vehicle or structure. Relating weights to geometry requires the calculation of lengths, areas, and volumes, and of the centroids of curves, surfaces, and solids, and knowledge of the unit ‘weights (weight per unit length, area, or volume) of the materials used in the construction. Hydrostatic analysis is the next most common form of evaluation of ship geometry. At root, hydrostatics is the evaluation of forces and moments resulting from the variable static fluid pressures acting on the exterior sur- faces of the vessel and the interior surfaces of tanks, and the static equilibrium of the vessel under these and other imposed forces and moments. Archimedes’ principle shows that the hydrostatic resultants can be accurately caleulated from the volumes and centroids of solid shapes. Consequently, the representation of ship geome- try for purposes of hydrostatic analysis can be either as surfaces or as solids, but solid representations are far more commonly used. The most usual solid representa- tion is a series of transverse sections, each approxi- mated as a broken line (polyline). ‘Structural analysis is the prediction of strength and deformation of the vessel's structures under the loads expected to be encountered in routine service, as well as extraordinary loads which may threaten the vessel’s in- ‘tegrity and survival. Because of the great difficulty of stress analysis in complex shapes, various levels of ap- proximation-are-always-employed; these’ typically in= volve idealizations and simplifications of the geometry. At the lowest level, essentially one-dimensional (1-D), the entire ship is treated as a slender beam having cross- sectional properties and transverse loads which vary with respect to longitudinal position. At an intermediate level, ship structures are approximated by structural models consisting of hundreds or thousands of (essen- tially 1-D and 2-D) beam, plate, and shell finite elements connected into a 3-D structure. At the highest level of structural analysis, regions of the ship that are identified as critical high-stress areas may be modeled in great de- tail with meshes of 3-D finite elements. Hydrodynamic analysis is the prediction of forces, motions, and structural loads resulting from movement of the ship through the water, and movement of water around the ship, including effects of waves in the ocean environment, Hydrodynamic analysis is very complex, and always involves simplifications and approxima tions of the true fluid motions, and often of the ship geomeizy. The idealizations of “strip theory” for sea- keeping (motions in waves) and “slender ship theory” for wave resistance allow geometric descriptions con- sisting of only a series of cross-sections, similar to a typical hydrostatics model. More recent 3-D hydrody- namic theories typically require discretization of the ‘wetted surface of a ship and, in some cases, part of the nearby water surface into meshes of triangular or quadrilateral “panels” as approximate geometric in- puts. Hydrodynamic methods that include effects of viscosity or rotation in the water require subdivision of part of the fluid volume surrounding the ship into 3-D finite elements. Other forms of analysis, applied primarily to military vessels, include electromagnetic analysis (e.g, radar cross-sections) and acoustic ‘and thermal signature analysis, each of which has impacts on detection and survivability in combat scenarios. 1.1.3 Classification and Regulation. Classification is a process of qualifying a ship or marine structure for safe service in her intended operation. Commercial ships may not operate legally without approval from gov- emmental authoritiés, signifying conformance with vari- ous regulations primarily concerned with safety and environmental issues. Likewise, to qualify for commer- cial insurance, a vessel needs to pass a set of stringent requirements imposed by the insurance companies. Classification societies exist in the major maritime coun- tries to deal with these issues; for example, the American Bureau of Shipping in the United States, Lloyds’ Register inthe U.K, and the International Standards Organization in the European Union. They promulgate and administer rules governing the design, construction, and mainte- nance of ships.THE GEOMETRY OF SHIPS 3 Although final approvals depend on inspection of the finished vessel, it is extremely important to anticipate classification requirements at the earliest stages of de- sign, and to respect them throughout the design process. Design flaws that can be recognized and corrected easily early in the design cycle could be extremely expensive or even impossible to remediate later on. Much of the in- formation required for classification and regulation is geometric in nature — design drawings and geometric models. The requirements for this data are evolving rap- idly along with the capabilities to analyze the relevant hydrodynamic and structural problems. 1.14 Tooling and Manufacturing. Because manu- facturing involves the realization of the ship's actual geometry, it can beneficially utilize a great deal of geo- metric information from the design. Manufacturing is the creation of individual parts from various materials through diverse fabrication, treatment, and finishing processes, and the assembly of these parts into the final product. Assembly is typically a hierarchical process, ‘with parts assembled into subassemblies, subassemblies assembled into larger subassemblies or modules, etc., until the final assembly is the whole ship. Whenever two parts or subassemblies come together in this process, it is extremely important that they fit, within suitable toler- ances; otherwise one or both will have to be remade or modified, with potentially enormous costs in materials, labor, and production time. Geometric descriptions play a crucial role in the coordination and efficiency of all this production effort. Geometric information for manufacturing will be highly varied in content, but in general needs to be highly accurate and detailed. Tolerances for the steel work of a ship are typically 1 to 2 mm throughout the ship, essentially independent of the vessel's size, which can be many hundreds of meters or even kilometers for the largest vessels currently under consideration. Since most of the solid materials going into fabrica- tion are flat sheets, a preponderance of the geometric in- formation required is 2-D profiles; for example, frames, bulkheads, floors, decks, and brackets. Such profiles can be very complicated, with any number of openings, cutouts, and penetrations. Even for parts of a ship that are curved surfaces, the information required for tooling and manufacturing is still typically 2-D profiles: mold frames, templates, and plate expansions. 3-D informa- tion is required to describe solid and molded parts such as ballast castings, rudders, keels, and propeller blades, but this is often in the form of closely spaced 2-D sec tions. For numerically controlled (NC) machining of these complex parts, which now extends to complete hulls and superstructures for vessels up to at least 30 m in length, the geometric data is likely to be in the form of a 3-D mathematical description of trimmed’ and untrimmed parametric surface patches. 1.1.5 Maintenance and Repair. Geometry plays an increasing role in the maintenance and repair of ships throughout their lifetimes. When a ship has been manufactured with computer-based geometric descri tions, the same manufacturing information can obvi- ously be extremely valuable during repair, restoration, and modification. This data can be archived by the en- terprise owning the ship, or carried on board. Two im- portant considerations are the format and specificity of the data. Data from one CAD or production system will be of little use to a shipyard that uses different CAD or production software. While CAD systems, and even data storage media, come and go with lifetimes on the order of 10 years, with any luck a ship will last many times that long, Use of standards-based neutral formats such as IGES and STEP greatly increase the likelihood that the data will be usable for many decades into the future. ‘A ship or its owning organization can also usefully keep track of maintenance information (for example, the locations and severity of fatigue-induced fractures) in order to schedule repairs and to forecast the useful life of the ship. When defining geometric information is not available for a ship undergoing repairs, an interesting and chal- lenging process of acquiring shape information usually ensues; for example, measuring the undamaged side and developing a geometric model of it, in order to establish the target shape for restoration, and to bring to bear NC production methods. 1.2 Levels of Definition. The geometry of a ship or marine structure can be described at a wide variety of levels of definition. In this section we discuss five such levels: particulars, offsets, wireframe, surface models, and solid models. Each level is appropriate for certain uses and applications, but will have either too little or too much information for other purposes. 12.1 Particulars. ‘The word particulars has a special meaning in naval architecture, referring to the description of a vessel in terms of a small number (typi- cally 5 to 20) of leading linear dimensions and other vol- ume or capacity measures; for example, length overall, waterline length, beam, displacement, block coefficient, gross tonnage. The set of dimensions presented for par- ticulars will vary with the class of vessel. For example, for a cargo vessel, tonnage or capacity measurements will always be included in particulars, because they tell at a glance much about the commercial potential of the vessel. For a sailing yacht, sail area will always be one of the particulars. Some of the more common “particulars” are defined as follows: Length Overall (LOA): usually, the extreme length of the structural hull. In the case of a sailing vessel, spars such as a bowsprit are sometimes included in LOA, and the length of the structural hull will be presented as “length on deck.” Waterline Length (LWL): the maximum longitudinal ex- tent of the intersection of the hull surface and the wa- terplane. Immediately, we have to recognize that any4 THE PRINCIPLES OF NAVAL ARCHITECTURE SERIES vessel will operate at varying loadings, so the plane of flotation is at least somewhat variable, and LWL is hardly a geometric constant. Further, if an appendage (commonly a rudder) intersects the waterplane, it is sometimes unclear whether it can fairly be included in LWL; the consensus would seem to be to exclude such an appendage, and base LWL on the “canoe hull,” but that may be a difficult judgment if the appendage is faired into the hull. Nevertheless, LWL is almost uni- versally represented amongst the particulars. Design Waterline (DWL): a vessel such as a yacht which has minimal variations in loading will have a planned flotation condition, usually *half-load,” i.e,, the mean between empty and full tanks, stores, and provisions. DWL alternatively sometimes represents a maximum- load condition. Length Between Perpendiculars (LBP or LPP): a com- mon length measure for cargo and military ships, which may have relatively large variations in loading, This is Iength between two fixed longitudinal loca- tions designated as the forward perpendicular (FP) and the aft perpendicular (AP). FP is conventionally the forward face of the stem on the vessel’s summer oad line, the deepest waterline to which she can legally be loaded. For cargo ships, AP is customarily the centerline of the rudder stock. For military ships, AP is customarily taken at the aft end of DWL, so there is no distinction between LBP and DWL. Beam: the maximum lateral extent of the molded hull (excluding trim, guards, and strakes). Draft: the maximum vertical extent of any part of the ves- sel below waterline; therefore, the minimum depth of water in which the vessel can float. Draft, of course, is variable with loading, so the loading condition should be specified in conjunction with draft; if not, the DWL loading would be assumed. Displacement: the entire mass of the vessel and contents in some specified loading condition, presumably that corresponding to the DWL and draft particulars. ‘Tonnage: measures of cargo capacity. See Section 13 for discussion of tonnage measures. Form coefficients, such as block and prismatic coeffi- cient, are often included in particulars. See Section 10 for definition and discussion of common form coefficients. Obviously, the particulars furnish no detail about the actual shape of the vessel. However, they serve (much better, in fact, than a more detailed description of shape) to convey the gross characteristics of the vessel in a very compact and understandable form. 12.2 Offsets. Offsets represent a ship hull by means of a tabulation or sampling of points from the hull surface (their coordinates with respect to certain refer- ence planes). Being a purely numerical form of shape representation, offsets are readily stored on paper or in computer files, and they are a relatively transparent form, i.e., they are easily interpreted by anyone familiar with the basics of cartesian analytic geometry. The com- pleteness with which the hull is represented depends, of course, on how many points are sampled. A few hundred to a thousand points would be typical, and would gener- ally-be -adequate-for-making-hydrostatic-calculations within accuracy levels on the order of 1 percent. On the other hand, offsets do not normally contain enough in- formation to build the boat, because they provide only 2- D descriptions of particular transverse and longitudinal sections, and there are some aspects of most hulls that are difficult or impossible to describe in that form (mainly information about how the hull ends at bow and stern). ‘An offsets-level description of a hull can take two forms: (1) the offset table, a document or drawing pre- senting the numerical values, and (2) the offset file, a ‘computer-teadable form. ‘The offset table and its role in the traditional fairing and lofting process are described later in Section 8: It is a tabulation of coordinates of points, usually on a regu- lar grid of station, waterline, and buttock planes. The off- set table has little relevance to most current construc- tion methods and is often now omitted from the process of design. An offset file represents the hull by points which are located on transverse sections, but generally not on any particular waterline or buttock planes. In sequence, the points representing each station comprise a 2-D polyline which is taken to be, for purposes of hydrostatic calcu- lations, an adequate approximation of the actual curved section. Various hydrostatics program packages require different formats for the offset data, but the essential file contents tend to be very similar in each case. 1.2.3 Wireframe. Wireframes represent a ship hull or other geometry by means of 2-D and 3-D polylines or curves. For example, the lines drawing is a 2D wire- frame showing curves along the surface boundaries, and curves of intersection of the hull surface with spec- ified planes. The lines drawing can also be thought of as a 8D representation (three orthogonal projections of a 3.D wireframe). Such a wireframe can contain all the in- formation of an offsets table or file (as points in the wireframe), but since it is not limited to transverse sec- tions, it can conveniently represent much more; for ex- ample, the important curves that bound the hull surface at bow and stem. Of course, a wireframe is far from a complete surface definition. It shows only a finite number (usually a very small number) of the possible plane sections, and only a sampling of points from those and the boundary curves. ‘To locate points on the surface that do not lie on any wires requires further interpolation steps, which are hard to define in such a way that they yield an unequivo- cal answer for the surface location. Also, there are many possibilities for the three independent 2-D views to be inconsistent with each other, yielding conflicting or am- biguous information even about the points they do pre- sume to locate. Despite these limitations, lines drawingsTHE GEOMETRY OF SHIPS 5 and their full-size equivalents (loftings) have historically provided sufficient definition to build vessels from, espe- cially when the fabrication processes are largely manual operations carried out by skilled workers. 1.2.4 Surface Modeling. In surface modeling, math- ematical formulas are developed and maintained which define the surfaces of a product. These definitions can be highly precise, and can be (usually are) far more com- pact than a wireframe definition, and far easier to mod- ify. A surface definition is also far more complete: points can be evaluated on the vessel's surfaces at any desired location, without ambiguity. A major advantage over wireframe definitions is that wireframe views can be easily computed from the surface, and (provided these calculations are carried out with sufficient accuracy) such views will automatically be 100 percent consistent with each other, and with the 3-D surface. The ability to automatically generate as much precise geometric infor- mation as desired from a surface definition enables a large amount of automation in the production process, through the use of NC tools. Surface modeling is a sul ciently complex technology to require computers to store the representation and carry out the complex eval- uation of results. 1.2.5 Sotid Modeting. Solid modeling takes an- other step upward in dimensionality and complexity to represent mathematically the solid parts that make up a product. In boundary representation, or B-rep, solid modeling, a solid is represented by describing its boundary surfaces, and those surfaces are represented, manipulated, and evaluated by mathematical opera- tions similar to surface modeling. The key ingredient added in solid modeling is topology: besides a descrip- tion of surface elements, the geometric model contains full information about which surface elements are the boundaries of which solid objects, and how those sur- face elements adjoin one another to effect the enclo- sure of a solid. Solid modeling functions are often framed in terms of so-called Boolean operations — the union, intersection, or subtraction of two solids — and local operations, such as the rounding of a specified set of edges and vertices to a given radius. These are high- level operations that can simultaneously modify multi- ple surfaces in the model. 1.3 Associative Geometric Modeling. The key con- cept of associative modeling is to represent and store generative relationships between the geometric ele- ments of a model, in such a way that, some elements can ‘be automatically updated (regenerated) when others change, in order to maintain the captured relationships. ‘This general concept can obviously save much effort in revising geometry during the design process and in mod- ifying an existing design to satisfy changed require- ments. It comes with a cost: associativity adds a layer of inherently more complex and abstract structure to the geometric model — structure which the designer must comprehend, plan, and manage in order to realize the benefits of the associative features. 1.3.1 Parametric (Dimension-Driven) Modeling. In parametric or dimension-driven modeling, geometric shapes are related by formulas to a set of leading dimen- sions which become the parameters defining a paramet- ric family of models. The sequence of model construction steps, starting from the dimensions, is stored in a linear “history” which can be replayed with different input di- mensions, or can be modified to alter the whole paramet- ric family in a consistent way. 1.3.2 Variational Modeling. In variational model- ing, geometric positions, shapes, and constructions are controlled by a set of dimensions, constraints, and for- mulas which are solved and applied simultaneously rather than sequentially. These relationships can include engineering rules, which become built into the model. ‘The solution can include optimization of various aspects of the design within the imposed constraints. 1.3.3 Feature-Based Modeling. Features are groups of associated geometry and modeling operations that en- capsulate recognizable behaviors and can be reused in varying contexts. Holes, slots, bosses, fillets, and ribs are features commonly utilized in mechanical designs “and supported by feature-based modeling systems. In ship design, web frames, stiffeners, and shell plates might be recognized as features and constructed by high-level operations. 1.3.4 Relational Geometry. Relational geometry (RG) is an object-oriented associative modeling frame- ‘work in which point, curve, surface, and solid geometric elements (entities) are constructed with defined depend- ency relationships between them. Each entity in an RG model retains the information as to how it was con- structed, and from what other entities, and consequently it can update itself when any underlying entity changes. RG has demonstrated profound capabilities for con- struction of complex geometric models, particularly involving sculptured surfaces, which possess many de- grees of parametric variability combined with many con- strained (“durable”) geometric properties. ‘The underlying logical structure of an RG model is a directed graph (or digraph), in which each node repre- sents an entity, and each edge represents a dependency relationship between two entities. The graph is directed, because each dependency is a directed relationship, with one entity playing the role of support or parent and the other playing the role of dependent or child. For ex- ample, most curves are constructed from a set of “con- trol points’; in this situation the curve depends on each of the points, but the points do not depend on the curve. Most surfaces are constructed from a set of curves; the surface depends on the curves, not the other way around. When there are multiple levels of dependency, as is very typical (e.g, a surface depending on some curves, each of which in turn depends on some points), we can speak of an entity's ancestors, i.e., all its sup- ports, all their supports, etc., back to the beginning of the model — all the entities that can have an effect on the given entity. Likewise, we speak of an entity’s6 THE PRINCIPLES OF NAVAL ARCHITECTURE SERIES descendants as all its dependents, all their dependents, etc., down to the end of the model — the set of entities that are directly or indirectly affected when the given entity changes. The digraph structure provides the com- munication channels whereby all descendants are noti- fied Gnvalidated) when any ancestor changes; it also allows an invalidated entity to know who its current supports are, $0 it can obtain the necessary information from them to update itself correctly and in proper sequence. Relational geometry is characterized by a richness and diversity of constructions, embodied in numerous entity types. Under the RG framework, it is relatively easy to support additional curve and surface construc- tions. A new curve type, for example, just has to present a standard curve interface, and be supported by some defined combination of other RG entities — points, curves, surfaces, planes, frames, and graphs (univariate functions) — then it can participate in the relational structure and serve in any capacity requiring a curve; likewise for surface types. Relational geometry is further characterized by sup- port of entity types which are embedded in another en- tity of equal or higher dimensionality (the host entity): Beads: points embedded in a curve Subcurves: curves embedded in another curve Magnets: points embedded in a surface ‘Snakes: curves embedded in a surface Subsurfaces and Trimmed Surfaces: ded in another surface Rings: points embedded in a snake ‘Seeds: points embedded in a solid. ‘These embedded entities combine to provide power- ful construction methods, particularly for building accu- rate and durable junctions between surface elements in complex models. 1.4 Geometry Standards: IGES, PDES/STEP. IGES (hitial Graphics Exchange Specification) is a “neutral” Ge., nonproprietary) standard computer file format evolved for exchange of geometric information between CAD systems. It originated with version 1.0 in 1980 and has gone through a sequence of upgrades, following de- velopments in computer-aided design (CAD) technology, up to version 6.0, which is still under development in 2008. IGES is a project of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and has had wide participa- tion by U.S. industries; it has also been widely adopted and supported throughout the world. Since the early 1990s, further development of product data exchange standards has transitioned to the broader international STEP standard, but the IGES standard is very widely used and will obviously remain an important medium of exchange for many years to come. The most widely used IGES format is an ASCII (text) file strongly resembling a deck of 80-column computer cards, and is organized into five sections: start, global, directory entry, parameter data, and terminate. The directory entry section gives a high-level synopsis of the file, with exactly two lines of data per entity; the parameter data section contains all the details. The use of integer-pointers-linking these-two-sections makes the file relatively complex and unreadable for a human. Because it is designed for exchanges between a wide range of CAD systems having different capabilities and internal data representations, IGES provides for commu- nication of many different entity types. Partial imple- mentations which recognize only a subset of the entity types are very common. Except within the group of entities supporting Brep solids, IGES provides no standardized way to represent associativities or relationships between entities. Communication of a model through IGES generally re- sults in a nearly complete loss of relationship informa- tion. This lack has seriously limited the utility of IGES during the 1990s, as CAD systems have become progres- sively more associative in character. ‘STEP (STandard for the Exchange of Product model data) is an evolving neutral standard for capturing, stor- ing, and communicating digital produet data. STEP goes far beyond IGES in describing nongeometric information such as design intent and decisions, materials, fabrication and manufacturing processes, assembly, and mainte- nance of the product; however, geometric information is still a very large and important component of STEP repre- sentations. STEP is a project of the International Standards Organization (ISO). PDES Inc. was originally a project of the U.S. National Institute of Standards and ‘Technology (NIST) with similar goals; this effort is now strongly coordinated with the international STEP effort and directed toward a single international standard. STEP is implemented in a series of application proto- cols (APs) related to the requirements and interests of various industries. AP.203 (Configuration Controlled Design) provides the geometric foundation for many other APs. It is strongly organized around Brrep solid representations, bounded by trimmed NURBS surfaces. ‘The application protocols currently developed specifi- cally for shipbuilding are: AP-215 Ship Arrangements, AP-216 Ship Molded Forms, AP-217 Ship Piping, and AP- 218 Ship Structures. 1.5 Range of Geometries Encountered in Marine Design. ‘The hull designs of cargo ships may be viewed as rather stereotyped, but looking at the whole range of marine design today, one cannot help but be impressed with the extraordinary variety of vessel configurations being pro- posed, analyzed, constructed, and put into practical service for a broad variety of marine applications. Even the cargo ships are evolving subtly, as new methods of hydrodynamic analysis enable the optimization of their shapes for improved performance. In this environment, the flexibility, versatility, and efficiency of geometric design tools become critical factors enabling design innovation.THE GEOMETRY OF SHIPS 7 ‘The concept of a point is absolutely central to geometry. A point is an abstract location in space, infinitesimal in size and extent. A point may be either fixed or variable in position. Throughout geometry, curves, surfaces, and solids are described in terms of sets of points. 2.1 Coordinate Systems. Coordinates provide a sys- tematic way to use numbers to define and describe the lo- cations of points in space. The dimensionality of a space is the number of independent coordinates needed to locate a unique point in it. Spaces of two and three dimen- sions are by far the most common geometric environ- ments for ship design. The ship and its components are fundamentally 3-D objects, and the design process bene- fits greatly when they are recognized and described as such. However, 2-D representations — drawings and CAD files — are still widely used to document, present, and analyze information about a design, and are usually a principal means of communicating geometric informa- tion between the (usually 3-D) design process and the (necessarily 3-D) construction process. Cartesian coordinates are far and away the most common coordinate system in use. In a 2-D cartesian co- ordinate system, a point is located by its signed dis- tances (usually designated «, y) along two orthogonal acces passing through an arbitrary reference point called the origin, where and y are both zero. In a 3-D carte- sian coordinate system there is additionally a 2 coordi- nate along a third axis, mutually orthogonal to the x and y axes. A 2-D or 3-D cartesian coordinate system is often referred to as a frame of reference, or simply a.frame. Notice that when a and y axes have been estab- lished, there are two possible orientations for a z axis, which is mutually perpendicular to a and y directions. These two choices lead to so-called right-handed and left-handed frames. In a right-handed frame, if the ex- tended index finger of the right hand points along the positive a-axis and the bent middle finger points along the positive y-axis, then the thumb points along the positive 2-axis (Fig. 1). Right-handed frames are conventional and preferred in almost all situations. (However, note the widespread use of a lefthanded coordinate system in computer graphic displays: « to the right, y vertically upward, z into the screen.) Some vector operations (e.g., cross product and scalar triple product) require reversal of signs in a left-handed coordinate system. Tn the field of ship design and analysis, there is no standard convention for the orientation of the global co- ordinate system. is usually along the longitudinal axis of the ship, but the positive « direction can be either for- ward or aft. z is most often vertical, but the positive 2 di- rection can be either up or down. Fig. 1 Right hond rue. Ina2-D cartesian coordinate system, the distance be- tween any two points p = (Pi, p2) and q = (q1, 92) is cal- culated by Pythagoras’ theorem: d=la-pl=(@-py+@-myl? In 3, the distance between two points p = (p1, Pa Ps) and 4 = (41, do, ds) is: d=a-pi= (r+ Ge me” 2 +@- ry © Ina ship design process it is usual and advantageous to define a master or global coordinate system to which all parts of the ship are ultimately referenced. However, it is also frequently useful to utilize local frames having a different origin and/or orientation, in description of various regions and parts of the ship. For example, a standard part such as a pipe tee might be defined in terms of a local frame with origin at the intersection of axes of the pipes, and oriented to align with these axes. Positioning an instance of this component in the ship requires specification of both (1) the location of the component's origin in the global frame, and (2) the ori- entation of the component's axes with respect to those of the global frame (Fig. 2). Local frames are also very advantageous in describing movable parts of a vessel. A part that moves as a rigid body can be described in terms of constant, coordinates in the part's local frame of reference; a description of the motion then requires only a specification of the time- varying positional and/or angular relationship between the local and global frames.8 THE PRINCIPLES OF NAVAL ARCHITECTURE SERIES 4 Fig. 2 local and globol frames. ‘The simplest description of a local frame is to give the coordinates Xo = (Xo, Yo, Zo) of its origin in the global frame, plus a triple of mutually orthogonal unit, vectors (@., 8, €,} along the x, y, z directions of the frame. Non-cartesian coordinate systems are sometimes useful, especially when they allow some geometric sym- metry of an object to be exploited. Cylindrical polar co- ordinates (7, 6, 2) are especially useful in problems that have rotational symmetry about an axis. The relation- ship to cartesian coordinates is: w=reost, y=rsing, z=2 @) or, conversely, (x? +P}, @=arctan(y/z), z=2 (4) For example, if the problem of axial flow past a body of revolution is transformed to cylindrical polar coordi- nates with the z axis along the axis of symmetry, flow quantities such as velocity and pressure are independent, of 6; thus, the coordinate transformation reduces the number of independent variables in the problem from three to two. Spherical polar coordinates (R, 0, $) are related to cartesian coordinates as follows: «= Rcos0 cos, y=Reos0 sind, 2=Rsind (5) or conversely, Rape t y+ 2p, 4 = aretan(ei{au* + y?)'”), © = arctan (y/2) 2.2 Homogeneous Coordinates. Homogeneous coordi- nates are an abstract representation of geometry, which utilize a space of one higher dimension than the design space. When the design space is 3-D, the corresponding homogeneous space is four-dimensional (4D). Homogeneous coordinates are widely used for the underlying geometric representations in CAD and computer graphics systems, but in general the user of such systems has no need to be aware of the fourth dimension. (Note that the fourth dimension in the context of homogeneous coordinates is entirely dif- ferent from the concept of time as a fourth dimen- sion in relativity.) The homogeneous representation of a 3D point [2 y 2] is a 4D vector [wx wy we wl, where w is any nonzero scalar. Conversely, the homo- geneous point [a b ¢ dl, d # 0, corresponds to the unique 3-D point [a /d 6 /d ¢ /d}. Thus, there is an infinite number of 4-D vectors corresponding to a given 3D point. One advantage of homogeneous coordinates is that points at infinity can be represented exactly without ex- ceeding the range of floating-point numbers; thus, [a b ¢ 0] represents the point: at infinity in the direction from the origin through the 3-D point [a 6 c]. Another primary advantage is that in terms of homogenous coordinates, many useful coordinate transformations, including translation, rotation, affine stretching, and perspective projection, can be performed by multiplication by a suit- ably composed 4 X 4 matrix. 2.3 Coordinate Transformations. Coordinate trans- formations are rules or formulas for obtaining the coor- dinates of a point in one coordinate system from its coordinates in another system. The rules given above re- lating cylindrical and spherical polar coordinates to cartesian coordinates are examples of coordinate trans- formations. Transformations between cartesian coordinate sys- tems or frames are an important subset. Many useful co- ordinate transformations can be expressed as vector and matrix sums and products. Suppose x = (z, y, 2) is a point expressed in frame co- ordinates as a column vector; then the same point in global coordinates is X= ¥,2)=Xo + Mx o where Xo is the global position of the frame origin, and Mis the 3 X 3 orthogonal matrix whose rows are the unit vectors @,, é,; @;. The inverse transformation (from global coordinates to frame coordinates) is: X=M"(K-Xo)=M™K-Xo). © (Since M is orthogonal, its inverse is equal to its trans- pose.) A uniform scaling by the factor o (for example, a change of units) occurs on multiplying by the scaled identity matrix: co @ w q a i cog caf 8THE GEOMETRY OF SHIPS 9 while an unequal (affine) scaling with respect to the three coordinates is performed by multiplying by the di- agonal matrix: % 0 A=|0 o, 0 ao) 0 y 0 «, Rotation through an angle @ about an arbitrary axis (unit vector 4) through the origin is described by the matrix: Ry Ry Ry Ry Ry Roy Ry Re Ry ap 080 + u2 (1 — cos0) az sin6 + Ugly (1 — cos6) ‘thy Sind + Uxtte (1 ~ 6088) ‘ty Sind + Use (1 — 0086) 080 + 13 (1 ~ cosé) the Sind + Uytte (1 ~ 6086) ty Sind + Ustly, (1 — cos6) Reg = Uy Sin8 + Ugly (1 — cosO) Rog = cos + ue (1 — cos6) ‘Sequential transformations can be combined through matrix multiplication. In general, it is essential to observe the proper order in such sequences, since the re- sult of the same two transformations performed in oppo- site order is usually different. For example, suppose the transformations represented by the matrices M;, Mo, Ms (multiplying a column vector of coordinates from the left) are applied in that order. The matrix product M = ‘M;MoM; is the proper combined transformation. Note that if you have a large number of points to transform, it is approximately three times more efficient to first ob- tain M and then use it to process all the points, rather than applying the three transformations sequentially to each point. 2.4 Homogeneous Coordinate Transformations. When 4-D homogeneous coordinates are used to re- present: points in three-space, the transformations are represented by 4 X 4 matrices. 3-D coordinates are ob- tained as a last step by performing three divisions. Scaling, affine stretching, and rotations are performed by the 4 x 4 matrices: 0 RO | 1 ol (alle a2) where S, A, and R are the 8 X 3 matrices given above for transformation of three-vectors. ‘Translation is performed by a 4 x 4 matrix: [w'2! w'y! w'e! w']=[wa wy we wIT 1000 0100 = [we (ox wywewl! yg 1» 9 | O83) ty ty te 2D where (t,, ty t.) is the 3-D displacement vector. This ex- ample also illustrates the alternative, frequently used in computer graphics literature, of representing a point by a AD row vector [wa wy wz w}, and a transformation as a 4x 4 matrix multiplication from the right. 2.5 Relational Frames. In relational geometry, there is a Frame class of entities whose members are local frames. Most frame entities are defined by reference to three supporting points (Frame3 entity type): (a) The first point is the origin Xo of the frame (b) The 2 axis of the frame is in the direction from Xo to the second point (© The z, y-plane of the frame is the plane of the three points. Provided the three points are distinct and non- collinear, this is exactly the minimum quantity of infor- mation required to define a right-handed frame. Frames can also be defined by a point (used for Xo) and three ro- tation angles (RPYFrame entity type). Frames are used in several ways: + Points can be located using frame coordinates and co- ordinate offsets and/or polar angles in a frame * Copies of points (CopyPoint), curves (CopyCurve), and surfaces (CopySurf) can be made from one frame to another. The copy is durably related in shape to the sup- porting curve or surface and can be affinely scaled in the process ‘* Insertion frame for importing wireframe geometry and components in a desired orientation. 2.6 Relational Points. ‘The objective of almost all re- Jational geometry applications is to construct models consisting of curves, surfaces, and solids, but all of these constructions rest on a foundation of points: points are primarily used as the control points of curves, surfaces are generally built from curves, solids are built from sur- faces. Many of the points used are made from the sim- plest entity type, the Absolute Point (AbsPoint), speci- fied by absolute X, Y, Z coordinates in the global coordinate system. However, relational point entity types of several kinds play essential roles in many mod- els, building in important durable properties and en- abling parametric variations.10 THE PRINCIPLES OF NAVAL ARCHITECTURE SERIES Some point entity types represent points embedded in curves (“beads”), points embedded in surfaces (“magnets”), and points embedded in solids (“seeds”) by various constructions. These will be described in more detail in following sections, in conjunction with discussion of parametric curves, surfaces, and solids. Other essentially 3-D relational point entities include: Relative Point (RelPoint): specified by AX, AY, AZ off- sets from another point PolaxPoint: specified by spherical polar coordinate dis- placement from another point FramePoint: specified by «, y, 2 frame coordinates, or frame coordinate offsets Az, Ay, Az from another point, in a given frame Projected Point (ProjPoint): the normal projection of a point onto a plane or line Mirror Point (MirrPoint): mirror image of a point with respect to a plane, line, or point Intersection Point (IntPoint): at the mutual intersection point of three planes or surfaces CopyPoint: specified by a point, a source frame, a desti- nation frame, and «, y, z scaling factors. Figure 3 shows the application of some of these point types in framing a parametric model of an off- shore structure (four-column tension-leg platform). The model starts with a single AbsPoint ‘pxyz,’ which sets three leading dimensions: longitudinal and trans- verse column center, and draft. From ‘pxyz,’ a set of ProjPoints are made: ‘pxy0,’ ‘pOyz,’ and ‘px0z’ on the three coordinate planes, then further ProjPoints ‘p00z," ‘px00,' ‘pOy0" are made creating a rectangular frame- work all driven by ‘pxyz.’ Line ‘col_axis’ from ‘pxyz’ to ‘pxy0' is the vertical column axis. On Line ‘0’ from ‘pxyz' to ‘p00z,’ bead ‘el’ sets the column radius; ‘el’ is revolved 360 degrees around ‘col_axis' to make the hor- izontal circle ‘¢0,’ the column base. On Line ‘Il’ from ‘pOyz' to ‘p0y0” there are two beads: “e2’ sets the height. of the longitudinal pontoon centerline and ‘e3" sets its radius. Circle ‘cl,’ made from these points in the X plane, is the pontoon cross-section. Similarly, circle ‘c2? is made in the Y = 0 plane with variable height (‘ed’) Fig. 3_Relaional pois used to frame a porometically vaicble mode of ‘ensionleg platform {TL Perspective view; see explanation in the feat and radius (‘eS’) to establish the transverse pontoon cross section. From here, it is a short step to a consis- tent surface model having the 7 parametric degrees of freedom established in these relational points. Section 3 Geometry of Curves A curve is a ID continuous point set embedded in a 2-D or 3-D space. Curves are used in several ways in the def- inition of ship geometry: * as explicit design elements, such as the sheer line, chines, or stem profile of a ship * as components of a wireframe representation of surfaces * as control curves for generating surfaces by various constructions. 3.1 Mathematical Curve Definitions; Parametric vs. Explicit vs. Implicit. In analytic geometry, there are three common ways of defining or describing curves mathe- matically: implicit, explicit, and parametric. Implicit curve definition: A curve is implicitly defined in 2-D as the set of points that satisfy an implicit equa- tion in two coordinates: Sle, y) = 0 aayTHE GEOMETRY OF SHIPS u In 8D, two implicit equations are required to define a curve: Se, 2) = 0, 9, y, 2) = 0 a5) Each of the two implicit equations defines an implicit surface, and the implicit curve is the intersection (if any) of the two implicit surfaces. Explicit curve definition: In 2-D, one coordinate is ex- pressed as an explicit function of the other: y = f(), or & = g(y). In 3D, two coordinates are expressed as ex- plicit functions of the third coordinate, for example: Sa), 2 = g@). Parametric curve definition: In either 2-D or 3D, each coordinate is expressed as an explicit function of a common dimensionless parameter: % = SO, y = gO, [2 = hO) (6) ‘The curve is described as the locus of a moving point, as the parameter ¢ varies continuously over a specified domain such as [0, 1]. Implicit curves have seen little use in CAD, for appar- ently good reasons. An implicit curve may have multiple closed or open loops, or may have no solution at all. Finding any single point on an implicit curve from an ar- bitrary starting point requires an iterative search similar to an optimization. Tracing an implicit curve (Le., tabu- lating a series of accurate points along it) requires the numerical solution of one or two (usually nonlinear) si- multaneous equations for each point obtained. These are serious numerical costs. Furthermore, the relationship between the shape of an implicit curve and its formula(s) is generally obscure. +y vy A B | = y y c D Fig, 4. Typical midship sections, Zz xt) Fig. 5. Consivetion of « parometic cune. Explicit curves were frequently used in early CAD and CAM systems, especially those developed around a narrow problem domain. They provide a simple and efficient formulation that has none of the problems just cited for implicit curves. However, they tend to prove limiting when a system is being extended to serve in a broader design domain. For example, Fig. 4 shows sev- eral typical midship sections for yachts and ships. Some of these can be described by single-valued explicit equa- tions y = f(z), some by 2 = g(y); but neither of these for- ulations is suitable for all the sections, on account of infinite slopes and multiple values, and neither explicit formulation will serve for the typical ship section (D) with flat side and bottom, Parametric curves avoid all these limitations, and are widely utilized in CAD systems today. Figure 5 shows how the “difficult” ship section (Fig. 4D) is produced easily by parametric functions y = (0), 2 = h(#), 0 ¢S 1, without any steep slopes or multiple values. 3.2 Analytic Properties of Curves. In the following, we will denote a parametric curve by x(0), the boldface letter signifying a vector of two or three components (2, y) for 2D curves and (2%, y, 2} for -D curves). Further, we will assume the range of parameter values is (0, 1]. Differential geometry is the branch of classical geometry and calculus that studies the analytic proper- ties of curves and surfaces. We will be briefly present- ing and utilizing various concepts from differential geometry. The reader can refer to the many available textbooks for more detail; for example, Kreyszig (1959) or Pressley (2001).12 ‘THE PRINCIPLES OF NAVAL ARCHITECTURE SERIES ‘The first derivative of x with respect to the parameter ,x'(D, is a vector that is tangent to the curve at t, point- ing in the direction of increasing f; therefore, itis called. the tangent vector. Its magnitude, called the parametric velocity of the curve at ¢, is the rate of change of are length with respect to ds/dt = (x' - x’)? an Distance measured along the curve, known as are length s(t), is obtained by integrating this quantity. The unit tangent vector is thus t= x'(O/(ds/dt) = dx/ds. Note that the unit tangent will be indeterminate at any point where the parametric velocity vanishes, whereas the tan- gent vector is well defined everywhere, as long as each component of x(¢) is a continuous function. Curvature and torsion of a curve are both scalar quan- tities with dimensions V/ength. Curvature is the magni- tude of the rate of change of the unit tangent with re- spect to arc length: « = |dt/ds| =| d?x/ds? | (8) Thus, it measures the deviation of the curve from straightness. Radius of curvature is the reciprocal of cur- vature: p = W/k. The curvature of a straight line is identi- cally zero. Torsion is a measure of the deviation of the curve from planarity, defined by the scalar triple product: T= p"|dxids d?x/ds* d®x/ds* | P| délas a? é/as* | The torsion of a planar curve (i.e., a curve that lies en- tirely in one plane) is identically zero. A-curve can represent a structural element that has known mass per unit length w(0). Its total mass and mass moments are then as) 1 m= [wocas/anar @0) lo M=[w(x(aytas/anat en lo with the center of mass at x = M/m. 3.3 Fairness of Curves. Ships and boats of all types are aesthetic as well as utilitarian objects. Sweet or “fair” lines are widely appreciated and add great value to many boats at very low cost to the designer and builder. Especially when there is no conflict with performance objectives, and slight cost in construction, it verges on the criminal to design an ugly curve or surface when a pretty one would serve as well. “Faimess” being an aesthetic rather than mathematical property of a curve, it is not possible to give a rigorous mathematical or objective definition of fairness that every- one can agree on. Nevertheless, many aspects of fairness can be directly related to analytic properties of a curve. It is possible to point to a number of features that are contrary to fairness. These include: * unnecessarily hard tums (local high curvature) * flat spots (local low curvature) * abrupt change of curvature, as in the transition from a straight line to a tangent circular arc ‘* unnecessary inflection points (reversals of curvature). These undesirable visual features really refer to 2-D perspective projections of a curve rather than the 3-D curve itsélf; but because the curvature distribution in per- spective projection is closely related to its 3-D curvatures, and the vessel may be viewed or photographed from widely varying viewpoints, it is valuable to check these properties in 3-D as well as in 2-D orthographic views. Most CAD programs that. support design of curves provide tools for displaying curvature profiles, either as graphs of curvature vs. arc length, or as so-called porcu- ine displays (Fig. 6). Based on the avoidance of unnecessary inflection points in perspective projections, the author has advo- cated and practiced, as an aesthetic principle, avoidance of unnecessary torsion; in other words, each of the prin- cipal visual curves of a vessel should lie in a plane — unless, of course, there is a good functional reason for it, not to. Ifa curve is planar and is free of inflection in any particular perspective or orthographic view, from a view Point not in the plane, then it is free of inflection in all perspective and orthographic views. 3.4 Spline Curves. As the name suggests, spline curves originated as mathematical models of the flexi- ble curves used for drafting and lofting of freeform curves in ship design. Splines were recognized as a sub- ect of interest to applied mathematics during the 1960s and 70s, and developed into a widely preferred means of approximation and representation of functions for prac- tically any purpose. During the 1970s and 80s spline functions became widely adopted for representation of curves and surfaces in computer-aided design and ‘computer graphics, and they are a nearly universal stan- dard in those fields today. Splines are composite functions generated by splicing together spans of relatively simple functions, usually low-order polynomials or rational polynomials (ratios of polynomial functions). At the locations (called knots) ‘where the spans join, the adjoining functions satisfy cer- tain continuity conditions more or less automaticall For example, in the most popular family of splines, cubic splines (composed of cubic polynomial spans), the spline function and its first. two derivatives (ie., slope and curvature) are continuous actoss a typical knot. The cubic spline is an especially apropos model of a drafting spline, arising very naturally from the small-deflection theory for a thin uniform beam subject to concentrated shear loads at the points of support. Spline curves used in geometric design can be explicit or parametric. For example, the waterline of a ship might be designed as an explicit spline function y = f(a).‘THE GEOMETRY OF SHIPS 13 Fig, 6 Curvature prole graph ond porcupine display of cunatue distibution. Boh ools are revealing undesited inflection poi in he cuve However, this explicit definition will be unusable if the ‘waterline endings include a rounding to centerline at ei- ther end, because dy/da: would be infinite at such an end; splines are piecewise polynomials, and no polynomial can have an infinite slope. Because of such limitations, explicit spline curves are seldom used. A parametric spline curve « = X(O), y = Y(O, z = Z() (where each of X, Y, and Z is a spline function, usually with the same Imots) can tum in any direction in space, so it has no such limitations. 3.5 Interpolating Splines. A common form of spline curve, highly analogous to the drafting spline, is the cubic interpolating spline. This is a parametric spline in 2-D or 3-D that passes through (interpolates) a sequence of N 2- D or 3-D data points X;, 7 [. Each of the N-1 spans of such a spline is a parametric cubic curve, and at the ‘nots the individual spans join with continuous slope and curvature. It is common to use a knot at each interior data point, although other knot distributions are possible. Besides interpolating the data points, two other issues need to be resolved to specify a cubic spline uniquely: (@) Parameter values at the knots. One common way of choosing these is to divide the parameter space uni- formly, ie., the knot sequence {0, /(N — 1), 2/(N ~ D),..(N — 2VQV - 1), 1). This can be satisfactory when the data points are roughly uniformly spaced, as is some- times the case; however, for irregularly spaced data, especially when some data points are close together, uniform knots are likely to produce a spline with loops or kinks. A more satisfactory choice for knot sequence is, often chord-length parameterization: (0, sy/S, 89/S,...1}, where s; is the ‘cumulative sum of chord lengths Guclidean distance) c; between data points i — 1 and i, and S is the total chord length. (b) End. conditions. Let us count equations and unknowns for an interpolating cubic spline. First, the un- knowns: there are N — 1 cubie spans, each with 4D coef- ficients, where D is the number of dimensions (two or three), making a total of D(4N ~ 4) unknowns. Interpolating N D-dimensional points provides ND equa: tions, and there are N — 1 knots, each with three conti nuity conditions (value, first and second derivatives), for atotal of D(4N ~ 6) equations. Therefore, two more con- ditions are needed for each dimension, and it is usual to impose one condition on each end of the spline. There are several possibilities: ‘+ “Natural” end condition (zero curvature or second derivative) * Slope imposed * Curvature imposed + Not-a-knot (zero discontinuity in third derivative at the penultimate knot). ‘These can be mixed, ie, there is no requirement that the same end condition be applied to both ends or to all dimensions. 36 Approximating or Smoothing Splines. Splines are also widely applied as approximating and smoothing functions. In this case, the spline does not pass through all its data points, but rather is adjusted to pass optimally “close to” its data points in some defined sense such as least squares or minmax deviation.14 THE PRINCIPLES OF NAVAL ARCHITECTURE SERIES Bt B2 B38 113 t Fig. 7 Bapline basis functions for N = 6, 3.7 B-spline Curves. A B-spline curve is a continuous curve x(®) defined in relation to a sequence of control points (X;, ¢ = 1...) as an inner product. (dot product) of the data points with a sequence of B-spline basis functions Bt): x(t) =)" X,B, () rt (22) The B-spline basis functions (“B-splines”) are the nonnegative polynomial splines of specified order kt (= polynomial degree plus 1) which are nonzero over a minimal set of spans. The order k can be any integer from 2 (linear) to N. The B-splines are efficiently and stably calculated by well-lmown recurrence relations, and depend only on N, k, and a sequence of (N + k) knot locations & j = 1,..(N + k). The knots are most com- monly chosen by the following rules (known as “uni- form clamped” knots): 4=01sjsk @) G=G-DIN-k+D,R m, X,B,(t)/ wm BC) en a a If the weights are uniform (ie, all the same value), this simplifies to equation (26), so the NURBS curve with uniform weights is just a B-spline curve. When the weights are nonuniform, they modulate the shape of the curve and its parameter distribution. If you view the be- havior of the B-spline curve as being attracted to its con- trol points, the weight w; makes the force of attraction to control point i stronger or weaker. NURBS curves share all the useful properties cited in the previous section for B-spline curves. A primary advan- tage of NURBS curves over B-spline curves is that specific choices of weights and knots exist which will make a NURBS curve take the exact shape of any conic section, including especially circular arcs. Thus NURBS provides a single unified representation that encompasses both the conics and freeform curves exactly. NURBS curves can also be used to approximate any other curve, to any de- sired degree of accuracy. They are therefore widely adopted for curve representation and manipulation, and for communication of curves between CAD systems. For the rules governing weight and knot choices, and much more information about NURBS curves and surfaces, see, for example, Piegl & Tiller (1995). 3.9 Reparameterization of Parametric Curves. A curve is a one-dimensional point set, embedded in a 2-D or -D space. If itis either explicit or parametric, a curve has a “natural” parameter distribution implied by its construc- tion, However, if the curve is to be used in some further construction, ¢g., of asurface, it may be desirable to have its parameter distributed in a different way. In the case of parametric curve, this is accomplished by the functional composition: y(t) = x(t), where t! =. 8) Iff is monotonic increasing, and f(0) = 0 and f(L 1, then (4) consists of the same set of points as x(é), but traversed with a different velocity. Thus reparame- terization does not change the shape of a curve, but it may have important modeling effects on the curve’s descendants. 10 Continuity of Curves. When two curves join or are assembled into a single composite curve, the smoothness of the connection between them can be characterized by different degrees of continuity. The same descriptions will be applied later to continuity be- tween surfaces. Go: Two curves that join end-to-end with an arbitrary angle at the junction are said to have Go continuity, or “geometric continuity of zero order.” Gx: If the curves join with zero angle at the junction (the curves have the same tangent direction) they are said to have Gy, first order geometric continuity, slope continuity, or tangent continuity. Ge: If the curves join with zero angle, and have the same curvature at the junction, they are said to have Gz continuity, second order geometric continuity, or cur- vature continuity. ‘There are also degrees of parametric continuity: Co: Two curves that share a common endpoint are Co. They may join with G; or Gp continuity, but if their parametric velocities are different at the junction, they are only Co. Cy: Two curves that are G, and have in addition the same parametric velocity at the junction are C,. Cz: Two curves that are G2 and have the same paramet- ric velocity and acceleration at the junction are C2. ©, and Cp are often loosely used to mean G; and Gz, but parametric continuity is a much more stringent, con- dition. Since the parametric velocity is not a visible at- tribute of a curve, C; or Cz continuity has relatively little significance in geometric design. ‘3.11 Projections and Intersections. Curves can arise from various operations on other curves and surfaces. ‘The normal projection of a curve onto a plane is one such operation. Each point of the original curve is pro- Jected along a straight line normal to the plane, resulting in a corresponding point on the plane; the locus of all such projected points is the projected curve. If the plane is specified by a point p lying in the plane and the unit normal vector @ the points x that lie in the plane satisfy (x ~ p) - f= 0. The projected curve can then be de- scribed by x) = Xo ( — [x ( ~ p)- a] where xo(f) is the “basis” curve. Curves also arise from intersections of surfaces with planes or other surfaces. Typically, there is no direct formula like equation (29) for finding points on an intersection of a parametric surface; instead, each point located requires the iterative numerical solution of a system of one or more (usually nonlinear) equations. Such curves are much more laborious to compute than (9)