Reaching Out to the Future Generation of

Reaching Out to the Future Generation of Shipbuilders and
Shipbuilding Leaders
Christopher Skiba (SM), Dr. Richard Boutwell (M), and William Boze (M) 1
Christopher Skiba (right) presents the first-ever SNAME Boat Design Contest trophy to Advanced Technology Center students from
Virginia Beach, Virginia. Photo by Kathy McIntire
The Office of Naval Research recognizing the importance of education, specifically science and
mathematics, embarked nearly a decade ago on their National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering
program. Since then, academia, industry, and SNAME have increased their individual and collaborative efforts
towards reaching out to students in an effort to share the excitement and opportunities available within the
marine industry. Recently, in this vein, the Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding Apprentice School Chapter of the
Hampton Roads SNAME chapter held a “Boat Design Competition” exposing over 240 high school students
from 10 school districts (30 teams from 18 different high schools) to the excitement and knowledge needed to
prepare design, construction and engineering packages using guidelines, lectures, and tutorial videos prepared
by Apprentices and veteran Naval Architects. This was the first time high school students had the opportunity to
compete in a head-to-head competition to design, construct, and operate the best boat relative to a number of
prescribed requirements. The program also served to educate Apprentices in leadership, project management,
research methods, brainstorming, naval architecture and systems engineering as well as establish a nurturing
relationship between student chapter and veteran SNAME members which continues today.
1
Christopher Skiba is a Piping Designer with Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding – Newport News (NGSB-NN) and
the 2008 Boat Design Competition Team Captain. Dr. Richard Boutwell is the Manager of Training at NGSB-NN
and the founder and faculty advisor of the student chapter. William Boze is the Manager of Naval Architecture at
NGSB-NN and the student chapter technical leader.
1
¾
¾
INTRODUCTION
Motive behind the Competition
¾
The Bureau of Labor and Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor
(2008) projects nearly an eleven percent need in growth for
engineers from 2006 to 2016. Contained within this prediction
is an eleven percent growth for marine engineers and naval
architects due to (1.) a strong demand for naval and recreational
vessels in the future, (2.) growth in employment as the result of
the need to replace workers who retire or take other jobs, and
(3.) the limited number of students pursuing careers in this
occupation. Yet, the United States ranks 4th (behind Russia,
Israel, and Canada) in the population ages 25–64 with any
postsecondary science or engineering degree (including 2-year
and 4-year or higher degrees), and it ranks 10th (behind Russia,
Canada, Japan, Israel, South Korea, Sweden, Belgium, Ireland,
and Norway) in the population ages 25–34 with any
postsecondary science or engineering degree (National Science
Board, 2008). Long gone are the days when the number of
students entering engineering curriculums directly tracked the
funding for the Apollo program or even the defense budget of
the Reagan administration. Fortunately, the projected growth in
engineering demand and the decline in students pursuing degrees
leading to careers in the marine industry have prompted several
organizations to take proactive steps.
The Office of Naval Research (ONR) recognized its national
naval responsibility by looking at various scientific and naval
fields, aligning academia, government and industry to work
together, and by funding relevant programs to ensure that the
talent to design the Navy's next generation of ships and
submarines will exist when needed. One of the student outreach
programs initiated by ONR is the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) Sea Grant's Sea Perch program which
introduces pre-college students to the wonders of underwater
robotics. The Sea Perch program challenges students to build an
underwater self propelled robot (called a Sea Perch), develop a
controller, and investigate weight and buoyancy (Wallace,
2008).
The Society of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineers
(SNAME) has responded by assisting with the marketing of the
Sea Perch Program, as well as by providing college students
with career information, student chapters, mentoring programs,
and scholarships. An examination of the society’s website
provides access to 2 :
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
2
An Industry Description
Educational Sources
Employment Opportunities
Outreach Videos
Student Chapter Newsletters
www.sname.org.
2
Mentoring Programs
Student Member assistance in providing increased
recognition of the importance of being part of a professional
society
Scholarships
Such activities directly support one of the core missions of
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, which is the:
“furtherance of education in naval architecture, marine, and
ocean engineering (Society Bylaw, 1977, P.5).”
In February 2008, shipbuilding companies along with
government organizations and academic institutions joined
together at Old Dominion University (ODU) in a Shipbuilding
and Repair Career Day designed to educate middle and high
school students on the products and services these industry
representatives produce in addition to career opportunities
(Shipbuilding and Repair Career Day a Success, 2008,
February). This event was one of two held in the United States
as part of the National Shipbuilding Research Program project; a
project designed to inject “sizzle” into a marketing campaign for
the industry. The ODU location consisted of an Expo requiring
students to visit at least six industry booths and participate in
hands-on activities designed by the Northrop Grumman
Shipbuilding Apprentice School at Newport News in addition to
touring BAE Systems Shipyard in Norfolk.
Also in 2008, after two years from conception, the Northrop
Grumman Shipbuilding Apprentice Student Chapter of SNAME
responded further by holding its first annual High School Boat
Design Competition. The Apprentice Student Chapter aligned
with its parent chapter as well as Northrop Grumman
Shipbuilding – Newport News, the Shipyard Apprentice School,
local area high school districts, and Bass Pro Shops of Hampton,
VA. By aligning interest, energy, and resources, the Apprentice
Students successfully exposed high school students to the
challenges and passion of ship design and construction in the
interest of generating future shipbuilders and shipbuilding
leaders.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN SHIPBUILDING
APPRENTICE SCHOOL SNAME STUDENT
CHAPTER
The Apprentice School chapter of SNAME was chartered in the
spring of 2005 with the aspirations of strengthening the SNAME
student chapter body and exploiting its uniqueness as a student
section. Recognizing that Apprentice Students learn ship design
and construction from classroom instruction supplemented by
mentoring and hands on application, the students wanted to
utilize this successful formula along with their core values of
craftsmanship, leadership and scholarship to advance the student
chapter membership strength by doing something meaningful for
the society and industry.
The Apprentice Students were aware of the society’s initiative of
reaching out to grade school students and wanted to further that
objective. Collectively, they asked, “What can we do that would
promote the societies’ values while utilizing our skills and
talents to expose pre-college students to the excitement of the
shipbuilding and marine industry?” This question was answered
by the Student Chapter Advisor’s vision of sponsoring a High
School Boat Design Competition. After all, who better could
relate to high school youth than Apprentice Students whom are
entering the profession? This vision would become the
beginning of a long and rewarding journey beyond expectations,
not only for the high school students, but for the apprentice
students as well.
So with a unified vision, a team was formed and the apprentice
students embarked on defining the competition and developing
the guideline document. With the basis of the guidelines
established, the Team Captain (Chris Skiba) and Student Chapter
Faculty Advisor (Dr. Dick Boutwell) began marketing the idea
to local school superintendents. To the team’s surprise and
pleasure, they captured the interest of 10 school districts
throughout the Hampton Roads area but quickly realized that
this competition had now become a sizable undertaking
requiring much time, effort and devotion from each apprentice
student from here on out. This concern was later heightened
when 240 high school students registered for the competition.
The focus then became how each Apprentice Student would
manage attending school, their full time job, tending to their
families and working this competition simultaneously?
Fortunately, the answer presented itself when members of the
parent local SNAME chapter joined the team in equal number,
equipped with lots of experience and similar interest and
passion. It was then that the Apprentice Student team realized it
had the potential to transcend its original intent and redefine the
chapter’s uniqueness.
THE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT FOCUS
The focus of the competition was to expose high school students
to the excitement and passion of ship design and construction by
teaching them ship design principles and processes while
providing the opportunity for them to interact with apprentices
and professionals within the industry. All this would have to be
accomplished in a series of a few months (adhering to both a
stringent competition and school schedule simultaneously) and
without any prior exposure to basic naval architecture.
¾ Testing and Validation
Each student would combine this knowledge with a similar
introduction to basic naval architectural principles towards
designing and generating the products necessary for Apprentice
Students to potentially construct their boat. They would later
learn, through participation in the final lake event, how to
validate and measure a boat’s performance. This would make
the event unique in that the students would learn basic systems
engineering and naval architectural principles while being
tutored by Apprentice Students and industry veterans. By
interacting via e-mail and many planned face-to-face
opportunities throughout the competition, the high school
students would be exposed to the passion and energy of industry
representatives and become aware of the potential opportunities
that await them. This was best demonstrated during the
interactive Orientation Session arranged by the Apprentice
Team, where the high school students and all present were first
captivated by a veteran naval architect demonstrating design
exploration and out-of-the-box thinking. Once captivated, it was
easy to continue further interaction with the students by
engaging them in performing preliminary requirement and
physical analyses, and assisting them in understanding the
interdependencies and potential conflicts when searching for the
satisficing solution. In the end, the high school students came
away energized and ready to begin exploring the design lanes in
search for their winning solution.
Though the high school students were provided guidelines, an
orientation session, and instructional videos, it was clear that
they (just like the Apprentice Team) were going to have to learn
other aspects like project management and organizational
behavior, as later became evident from their design history
notebook submittals. The design history notebook is an informal
journal that chronicles the highlights of each team meeting,
concepts explored, difficulties encountered during the design
process, and decisions that led to the final design. The notebooks
provided the Apprentice Team insight into the high school
student activities and approaches that highlighted the following:
¾
¾
The approach would be to introduce the high school students to a
microcosm of the entire shipbuilding process encapsulating:
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
Concept definition
Concept design
Planning
Detail design
Construction
¾
3
Time management was approached several different ways.
Some established a set time during each day to meet or as
time permitted. Some faculty members made the
competition a part of their daily class work. This approach
appeared to work the best based on gauged progress. Some
schools dropped out due to conflicts in managing schedule
conflicts.
Some schools explored the design space accepting the
higher risk, while others resorted to what they knew would
work by modeling their boat to known designs (row boat
like).
The high school teams had to deal with the discomfort of
learning something foreign like the naval architecture
formulas; which one student vividly portrayed as similar to
“learning French.”
The project lead and the team had to learn how to manage
stress and conflict.
The design history notebooks also revealed that competition was
strong between schools and within school districts, and teams
recognized that to advance they were going to have to provide a
product superior to that of their competition. Though not fully
recognizable from the design history notebooks received, the
Apprentice Team realized that each team would begin to learn
from the experience as they did some of the many effective
approaches to collaborative team efforts, such as those outlined
by Luthans (2008):
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
Students were going to have to form right sized teams, small
enough to effectively tackle a task in a short period of time
but large enough to provide a reasonable division of labor.
Members should be selected based on motivation and
competency.
Project leads should be selected based on their ability to
promote the creative juices of the team by effectively
organizing their collaborative efforts.
Group cohesiveness and strong leadership would yield to
high performance
Social loafing or reduced effort from team members would
contribute to dysfunctional teams
Plus for the two finalist teams, the Apprentice Team hoped each
individual participant would get to experience the pride and
excitement of a successful effort. The benefit of this was later
substantiated by John Hammons 3 in a quote from a local
newspaper covering the final competition at the lake; “The
experience was valuable…. It's very rare for kids to see
something they design get built (Grimes, C., 2008, p. A4).”
In short, the desire of the Apprentice Team was for the high
school students to experience something unlike they had ever
encountered before, so that their view of educational and career
opportunities would be broadened, and that the experience
would have some intrinsic value.
THE TEAM BECAME A LEARNING
ORGANIZATION
When the Apprentice Students embarked on the idea and vision
of creating and holding a High School Boat Design Competition,
their focus and attention were on educating the high school
students. Little did they realize that this too would be a learning
opportunity for them. This became clear when the Manager of
Naval Architecture at Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding (Bill
Boze) offered his assistance and announced at his first meeting
that while the Apprentice Students would eye the high school
students, his mission would be to “use this opportunity to
educate the Apprentice Students.” Though Apprentice Students
are educated in a variety of math and science courses in addition
to ship construction methods and trade skills, the High School
3
John Hammons is a York High School Technology Teacher
and advisor to the York Falcons student team.
4
Boat Design Competition subjected the Apprentice Students to
learning other skills and methods commonly used in managing
multi-faceted projects; lessons that are not contained within the
Apprentice Schools formal course curriculum. These lessons
can be categorized easily into three categories outside of
Apprentice Students more comfortable knowledge of boat or
ship construction; Engineering, Project Management, and
Leadership.
Engineering
Learning naval architecture principles is required coursework for
every Apprentice Student. Yet, as most anyone will agree, the
best way to comprehend the theory is by practical application of
that theory or teaching the theory to others. This High School
Boat Design Competition provided the Apprentice Students the
opportunity to learn by doing both. Determining what naval
architectural principles were needed for the competition required
the Apprentice Student team to examine the typical design
process that they learned (for those who finished their naval
architecture course), and the various formulas and methods for
calculating weight, center of gravity, displacement, draft, trim
and stability. Wrestling with topics such as speed and
maneuvering prediction took even more consideration, as these
topics are more difficult to grasp and apply. In tackling the
challenge of applying their own introductory knowledge towards
the eventual instruction of high school students, the Apprentice
Students prudently sought the assistance of naval architectural
professionals within the parent SNAME society. By working
with these professionals, the Apprentice Students began to better
understand the approach and theory, in addition to learning and
observing how the boat characteristics would be measured and
validated.
An example of validation that educated all
Apprentice Student team members, high school students,
parents, and other observers of the final competition was how
the final high school boat weight was validated using a boat
trailer, two scale measurements, a tape measure, and one
longitudinal shift of the boat on the trailer. As explained to all
during this portion of the boat competition validation, the
derived formula from a naval architect support team member
came from a simple application of the static equilibrium
conditions (The sum of forces shall equal zero and the sum of
the moments about a common origin shall equal zero).
System validation during the project creation was also a lesson
learned by the Apprentice Student Team members. For example,
the radio controlled propulsion and steering system was an
integrated system designed by the Apprentice Student. When
the system was built, the team took their outfitted prototype
vessel to the lake for validation of the system and quickly
learned the system had electrical and radio control interference
problems. By isolating portions of the system and performing
bench tests with the assistance of Northrop Grumman
Shipbuilding subject matter experts, the Apprentice Student
team eventually solved the problems.
Project Management
Perhaps the greatest lesson to the Apprentice Students during the
development and execution of the High School Boat Design
Competition was the effective project management methods and
skills learned from the competition team parent chapter support
group.
From the start of the project, the Apprentice Students quickly
learned that balancing their own personal affairs, school, and this
boat competition required that they learn effective time
management skills, and that the additional burden of this
competition would need to be equally shouldered by the
Apprentice Student team members. However, as is typical with
many volunteer activities, the actual contribution of time and
energy was unequal, and students with the commitment to
succeed had to either decide to take on additional tasks or make
it clear to fellow team members that the team was counting on
their successful execution of their assigned tasks.
To approach this project in a logical and effective fashion, the
Apprentice Student team compartmentalized the competition
into life-cycle phases which included:
Phase I -The competition marketing and high school student
registration process
Phase II – The Design Rules and Process
Phase III – The Construction, Testing and Competition
This approach provided uniformity in project planning and
control by:
¾
¾
¾
¾
Allowing for benchmarking and brainstorming at each phase
Allowing the team to have critical reviews of the plan
Allowing the team to gain approval before proceeding to the
next phase
Capturing issues and risks to be resolved
As the team walked through the planning of each phase, a bar
chart schedule was constructed and adjusted based on team
evaluation and feedback. Each section of the developed
guidelines went through a systems engineering-like requirements
analysis, where team members challenged the wording and
meaning of each sentence to ensure clarity of purpose, and
continuity of thought. As the team reviewed the guidelines, they
also captured risks, without letting the tendency to “solve it
now” get in the way of making the progress planned for that day
or week by deviating on a tangent. The documented risks would
later be reviewed and mitigated accordingly, until the residual
risk was reduced to acceptable levels. These risks also included
identification of potential injury to high school students,
Apprentice Students, SNAME members, and observers of the
final competition day. The Apprentice Students learned that
even the lawyers and city needed to weigh in on the plan.
5
One particular challenge in developing the guidelines was the
configuration management of the vision and guideline document
itself throughout its development. Initially, sections of the
guidelines were parsed out to subcommittees to develop and
mature. But along the way especially in the beginning, the
individual section contents began to diverge or conflict and even
the identification of the latest document version became
difficult. So the Apprentice Students had to re-establish a
Guideline Document baseline so they could begin exercising a
change control process, in which the changes were passed
through a document lead and team captain.
The need for effective communication also became apparent to
the team relatively early in the competition planning. The team
employed the use of regular team e-mail distributions, a
dedicated computer network drive folder for posting the latest
documents, meeting minutes with assigned actions and action
parties, and regular phone calls between the team captain,
subcommittee team leads, and team advisors. Recognizing the
importance of communication, the team established a
communication plan within the competition guidelines and a
website for the high school students to access registration
information, announcements, training and orientation videos,
and answers to frequently asked questions (FAQ’s).
Interfacing collaboratively with other entities was best
exemplified by the team’s desire to utilize Bass Pro Shops in
Hampton, VA for launching and operating the two finalist boats
at the lake adjacent to their facility. The Apprentice Team had to
meet with the Marketing Director and sell their idea in the hopes
of generating enough interest for the store to take part in
executing the lake competition. Fortunately, the Bass Pro Shops
reception was beyond expectations, and the team quickly began
formulating interface documents that captured the:
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
Division of responsibility for material, labor support,
marketing, and any necessary approvals/permits
Lake course layout
Public viewing area
Parking lot layout for performing weight and center of
gravity validation
Schedule (competition was held concurrent with the store’s
popular Spring Fishing Classic)
Working with the Bass Pro Shops provided an excellent
opportunity for the Apprentice Team to learn effective
interfacing techniques.
The Apprentice Students also learned that for any project
involving a sponsor, they must continually maintain
communication during the planning and execution. Aside from
the obvious sponsor interest in cost, schedule and in this case
high school student interest, the Apprentice Students quickly
learned that executive sponsors would have other unanticipated
demands, such as repainting the Apprentice Student prototype
boat in the school colors just prior to the Finalist Luncheon.
This resulted in the student team man-handling a freshly painted
but sticky hull through a corporate office building lobby, narrow
elevator, and general meeting space to put the vessel on display.
Needless to say, all the boat handlers walked away with paint on
their hands and clothing to be worn at the luncheon. Another
example was resolving the conflict that materialized when a vice
president of Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding (a key sponsor)
requested the boat competition at the lake be held later in the day
so he could arrive from Washington, D.C. and be present for the
competition. Unfortunately, the schedule was already sent and
widely broadcasted to schools and school superintendents,
mayor’s offices, Bass Pro Shops and the media. Fortunately, this
vice president understood placing people ahead of himself and
allowed the competition to proceed as originally planned.
Leadership
Harold Kerzner (2006) captures best one intended lesson that the
two student chapter advisors wanted to teach the Apprentice
Team members. In his list of dos and don’ts, Kerzner identifies
understanding the expectations as one of four variables for
gauging a team’s success. According to Kerzner, and as learned
by the Boat Design Competition Team Captain, the project team
expects the project leader to (p. 360):
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
Assist in the problem-solving process by coming up with the
ideas
Provide proper direction and leadership
Provide a relax environment
Interact informally with all the team members
Stimulate the group process
Facilitate adoption of new members
Reduce conflicts
Defend the team against outside pressure
Resist change
Act as a group spokesperson
Provide representation with higher management
Likewise, the project team members learned the expectations of
the Boat Design Competition Team Captain and advisors which
included (Kerzner ,2006):
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
Commitment to the project
A can do attitude; results oriented
Resourceful with the capacity to resolve problems
Clear and constant communication
Creative thinking and innovation
Respect to all members
An environment which bolstered morale and participation
These behaviors were initially exemplified by the veteran team
members as seen through the eyes of Chris Skiba, the Boat
Design Competition Team Captain. “They (the veteran team
members) were committed to supporting the Apprentice Team
6
members” noted Chris, “and they did so voluntarily with
positive attitude, energy, respect, and a willingness to bestow
knowledge without expecting anything in return.” Thus it was
easy to understand why early on in the project, the behaviors of
the veteran team were matched by the Apprentice Team
members. This was but one of the many examples of effective
leadership demonstrated and conveyed to the Apprentice Student
Team members.
Another leadership lesson learned by the Apprentice Team
members was in mentoring. From the very beginning, the
behavior of the veteran team members demonstrated that leaders
treat followers more like partners than underlings. This was
initially a foreign concept for the Apprentice Students since the
veteran team consisted of several PhD’s, managers, supervisors,
senior designers, and naval architects. The Apprentice Students’
tendency to “speak only when spoken to” when in the presence
of more senior personnel was eventually replaced by a
partnership-driven mentorship of equality and trust.
Even more noteworthy was the veteran team’s inclination to let
the Apprentice Students learn by struggling and finding their
own way, though admittedly there were occasions when this
intent was trumped unintentionally by an overly enthusiastic
veteran team response. Even so, self-reflection of the veteran
team’s response also demonstrated to the Apprentice Student
team the need to evaluate and correct behavior along the way.
Perhaps again the view of the Boat Design Competition Team
Captain, Christopher Skiba, best captures the perspective of this
learning experience:
“As young professionals in the industry, it is hard to comprehend
the value of mentorship. It is a term that is usually thrown
around but rarely is its true meaning unraveled. Life is a
collection of one’s experiences, some bad and some good. These
experiences make us who we are. It is usually realized later in
one’s career, looking back and realizing those individuals who
made a difference in their life. Having the opportunity to
comprehend the meaning early in life can have a positive impact
on a young person’s career. Mentor’s possess wisdom and
experience that can serve as examples to young individuals who
are willing to learn and absorb this knowledge.
This
competition serves as an example of effective mentoring and the
positive influence it can have to both the mentor and mentee.
For me, this nurturing relationship which continues today has
been invaluable. I hope other young professions will benefit
likewise by other senior professionals taking advantage of any
opportunity to mentor others.”
COMPETITION DETAILS
The Apprentice Team Approach to Writing the
Guidelines
The Apprentice Team supported by Northrop Grumman
Shipbuilding Newport News naval architects, developed an
extensive set of competition instructions along with detailed
guidelines and requirements typically used by ship designers. 4
The guidelines were prepared collaboratively by the team over
the course of about two months. From benchmarking of similar
initiatives researched, the team was able to quickly envision the
scope and content of the guidelines that would be suitable for
this competition.
require no more than three sheets of 10’ by 5’, 1/8” thick steel
plates, and had to interface properly with the standard propulsion
motor, propulsion battery, power cable, and steering assembly
provided by the Apprentice Students.
High school students were required to furnish supporting naval
architectural calculations for basic hull hydrostatics, as well as a
weight report and intact stability analysis. In addition to the
calculation package, the students were also required to provide a
design and construction package including:
¾
¾
¾
An outline was generated, and the team brainstormed the
potential approaches, required section contents, issues and risks,
and possible solutions. The team used this approach and its
ensuing meeting minutes to ensure no detail was overlooked. In
the course of these sessions, the Apprentice Students were quick
to observe the effective methods for managing team
brainstorming sessions, the importance of not allowing more
vocal members to be overbearing, the need to clearly identify
guideline section leads and group assignments with periodic
follow-up on those assignments, and configuration management
of the Guideline document to reflect changes as they occurred.
Upon completion of the requirements, risks and validation
analyses of the guidelines, the Apprentice Students embarked on
designing and building a boat themselves in order to validate the
guidelines, the propulsion and steering systems interface
requirements, and the radio control system. In addition to
building the craft, the Apprentice Students also had to select and
purchase a set of propulsion trolling motors, propulsion
batteries, and radio control transmitters and receivers. The
Apprentice Student effort included the design, fabrication,
assembly and testing of the power supply wiring harness, radio
controlled power on/off switch and radio controlled steering
control system (made up of separate power supply, servo, and
rudder arm linkages). It turned out that this latter effort became
the critical path for the entire boat competition due to radio
frequency range and interference issues experienced on the lake.
This demonstrated the importance of validation, scheduling and
professional networking (knowing where to find subject matter
experts quickly for assistance in trouble- shooting systems).
The Competition Guidelines and Website Contents
The competition required high school students to work
independently to design the fastest and most maneuverable boat
capable of transporting 200 pounds of bulk sand. The boat could
4
For the Competition Guidelines, visit:
http://www.apprenticeschool.com/sname_competition.html
7
¾
¾
¾
A Design History Notebook capturing design discussions,
decisions, meeting minutes, issues and risks.
Design drawings including plan, elevation, section and
isometric views of the boat design
Construction drawings providing the views, details,
dimensioning, material list, part numbers and notes
necessary to construct the boat
A 2D nesting plan showing the scaled layout of each piece
on the steel plate to ensure that the required pieces can be
fabricated from the material provided.
A paint drawing to identify the colors (limited to two) and
pattern scheme (limited to three zones).
A loading diagram identifying the location of the
receptacles for carrying the bulk sand.
Two designs from the high school team submissions were
selected by the Apprentice Students based on judging criteria,
and constructed by Apprentice Students for an eventual head-tohead competition at a lake.
The design judging was
accomplished by the naval architecture support team and
Apprentice Students using weighted judging criteria that
included:
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
Format and content of the Design History Notebook
Clarity of the design
Proper detail drawing views
Correct drawing dimensioning
Completeness and correctness of the calculation package
Creativity
The winner of the head-to-head competition was based on the
clarity of the construction drawings, accuracy of the calculations
for weight, center of gravity, draft, trim and stability (through
measured validation), as well as lowest timed speed, measured
boat turning radius, and observed team engagement. The
competition was held at a lake belonging to the City of Hampton
and was marketed and supported with assistance from Bass Pro
Shops of Hampton.
High school students became familiar with the basic
shipbuilding principles and skill sets through an appendix to the
guidelines containing an overview of the boat design process,
naval architecture formulas and performance metrics, basic
computer aided design (CAD) drawing format and content and
stability measurements (see Appendix A). To assist the high
school students with their comprehension of the contents of the
appendix, the Apprentice Students planned and held an
Orientation Session at the Virginia Advanced Shipbuilding
Carrier Integration Center (VASCIC) at Northrop Grumman
Shipbuilding – Newport News. High school students who
attended were provided open remarks from their primary
corporate sponsors, Mr. Danny Hunley, VP of Operations at
Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, and Bob Leber, Director of
Workforce Development. Following the opening remarks, the
high school students were provided a competition overview by
the Design Competition Coordinator and a Design Approach
Overview from the Manager of Naval Architecture at Northrop
Grumman Shipbuilding.
Due to the anticipated risk and concern of high school students
not being able to grasp the required naval architectural
computations for this competition, the Apprentice team
produced video tutorials in the subject areas of calculating
weight and center of gravity, displacement, longitudinal and
vertical center of buoyancy, longitudinal center of flotation, trim,
and stability and qualifying speed and maneuvering
characteristics. Both the Orientation video (for those unable to
attend) and calculation tutorial videos were posted on the
Apprentice Student competition website. The site proved
particularly beneficial since the high school student teams all
reported that they revisited the videos periodically to assist with
their understanding of the principles of ship design. A
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) site was posted on the
competition website and was updated as high school teams
submitted questions. 5 Additionally, a preliminary design
package submittal was encouraged so that the Apprentice
Students and support naval architecture team could coach the
high school students through the calculations and any observed
deficiencies that would potentially result in an inadequate
design.
maneuverability. On the other hand, the York Falcons design
used a more traditional and sleek hull shape to try to gain the
advantage with speed.
With the top two designs chosen, construction of the boats began
in the shipyard’s steel fabrication Apprentice Gallery. Using the
actual plans drawn by the winning teams, the boats were
constructed by Apprentice Students who are learning the art of
shipbuilding and gaining hands-on experience at the same time.
The build process moved along swiftly and soon both boats were
completed and ready to be tested for seaworthiness.
The Apprentice School SNAME team took the boats to the Bass
Pro Shops Lake in Hampton Virginia to outfit them for remote
control steering and to check the boat and systems performance.
Next, the Falcons and “Sink Oar Swim” teams came to the race
site (on different days) to get familiar with the course and how
the boats responded to the controls. Finally, on a cold, clear
Saturday morning of March 15, race day arrived! The crowds
gathered in front of the Bass Pro Shops and admired the two
finalist team’s boats and the Apprentice prototype on display.
Competition Day
Final Competition Validation of Boat Weight and Center of Gravity
Once all the teams’ final submittals were accepted and judged,
the Apprentice Students with Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding –
Newport News sponsorship hosted an appreciation luncheon for
the participants. The main purpose of the luncheon was to
announce the two winning finalist teams. At this luncheon, the
high school students also got the opportunity to view the
outfitted Apprentice Student prototype boat, as well as each high
school team’s design submittal which were displayed throughout
the room. Though the selection process was rigorous, the judges
finally came to agreement; with the winning designs coming
from The Falcons of York High School and the “Sink Oar
Swim” team from the Advanced Technology Center (ATC) in
Virginia Beach. The design from “Sink Oar Swim” utilized a
catamaran hull concept to enhance the boat’s stability and
5
For Orientation videos, tutorial videos and FAQ’s see:
http://www.apprenticeschool.com/sname_competition.html
8
Once the judges validated the weight and center of gravity of
each boat, each team chose a member to officially christen their
vessel, an ancient shipbuilding tradition. In appreciation of their
support, a representative from the Bass Pro Shops was given the
honor of christening the Apprentice prototype vessel.
Next, the crowd moved to the racing platform as the two
competing boats were outfitted with their propulsion, steering
system, and payload (200 pounds of sand) at the launch site.
With encouraging words from the Mayor of Hampton, the
competition was finally ready to get underway and, after a quick
sallying test to verify stability, the competitors were given the
remote controls.
Christening of “Sink Oar Swim” – Advanced Technology Center
Participants and Spectators Watch the Approach of the Boats to the Course
Each team passed through the course on three timed speed runs
and an average score of the three passes was compiled. The
competition was close with the sleek design of the York Falcons
vessel giving it an advantage in the speed category. The judges
worked together at the launch site and at the podium to keep the
crowd informed throughout the scoring process.
Before awarding the 1st annual SNAME Apprentice School High
School Boat Design Competition trophy to the first place
winner, special recognition awards were also presented to
participants who excelled in other aspects of the competition.
The Best Design Notebook resulted in a tie, with an award going
to “Sink Oar Swim” from ATC and Woodrow Wilson’s “Team
Toad”. The Best Overall Drawing Package went to York High.
The Best Construction Drawing went to “Chicken of the Sea”
from ATC. Most Creative Approach went to Landstown High
and the “Chicken of the Sea” team from ATC won the Closest to
Vessel Performance Requirements award.
But when all
categories were finally tallied, it was the Advance Technology
Center Team from Virginia Beach and their “Sink Oar Swim”
catamaran boat that took top honors. Although slower than the
York’s Falcon vessel, the little red boat’s nimble
maneuverability put it over the top to become the first winner of
what is hoped will become an annual tradition.
Boats Outfitted and Loaded Awaiting Signal to Get Underway
After both teams completed their speed passes, they were next
judged on maneuverability by comparing the turning radius of
each vessel. The catamaran style design chosen by the ATC
“Sink Oar Swim” team produced a small turning radius and gave
the ATC the clear lead in the maneuverability category. After
the three runs were made for maneuverability, final tallies were
calculated for all categories.
Both High School Entrees Making a Pass by the Crowd
9
¾
MARITIME INDUSTRY STRATEGIC
CHALLENGES
The Maritime industry faces many workforce related challenges
that threaten its future vitality. Workforce challenges such as the
skill drain due to higher rates of retirees, recruitment of young
people into an industry with low perceived glamour, high
technical skill requirements due to the advanced
shipbuilding/operational
characteristics,
organizational
complexity associated with long and interactive value streams,
retention of skilled employees and finally, higher levels of
accountability for cost and schedule efficiency issues.
The NGSB Apprentice School SNAME Chapter Boat Design
Competition was an unqualified success. However, that success
is not merely measured by two high school design boats, built by
Apprentice students, going head-to-head in a local lake. This
competition is a microcosm for reducing the workforce
challenges facing the maritime industry. The issues facing the
industry were the same issues faced during the planning and
executing of this competition. Those issues were:
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
Recruiting students into a complex and interactive value
stream: competition design planning and execution
Transferring knowledge from mature naval architects to
inexperienced apprentice students for planning and
execution
Changing the high-touch low-tech personal and functional
experience of apprentices to low-touch high-tech
shipbuilding perspective
Changing the industry image associated with ship design
and building from low esteem to a high value, challenging
and exciting image.
Engendering the belief that high cognitive requirements can
be successfully met by average hard working students
Retaining highly skilled employees
Developing metrics that really count with initiatives that
really matter to employees
MITIGATING THESE CHALLENGES
Human behavior is based upon personal values and attitudes.
Attitudes are formed based upon experiences. Behaviors
generate results, which are tested against ones values. As results
and behavior continue to be aligned and reinforced, permanent
behavior and attitude change is highly probable.
For NGSB-NN and SNAME, the strategy executed in the boat
competition included:
¾
Expanding apprentice students and naval architects from
their operational to tactical and strategic perspective: Why
do this? What does it mean to me? What are our
professional and personal obligations to SNAME?
10
Students experiencing the value stream, resolving
inadequate solutions, learning that their contributions really
make a difference and that with challenges, come
opportunities.
¾ Using experts with special knowledge and skills to nurture
young employees/students. The competition developed a
highly successful informal mentoring element based upon
problem-based situations. These situation became the
vehicle to jointly solve design and build problems. Bonds
were formed that engender new competencies and
professional attitudes.
¾ Apprentices seeing more than part-task activities or at times
isolated chaos. It is only time and experiences that expands
this perspective into whole task challenges and
opportunities.
¾ Teaching dedication and commitment. Once apprentice
students and naval architects joined the competition team
they never left voluntarily. The project lasted two years
from concept to execution, and the members remained
because they understood the value of their contribution, they
were growing intellectually (becoming more competent) and
because they were part of a group of people who shared
their values.
As a result of this strategy, the Apprentice School SNAME
Chapter students and parent SNAME chapter members who
participated in this endeavor experienced a positive change in
behavior and attitude, with enthusiasm to contribute more to the
industry, their respective organizations, and the society.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE FUTURE
This year’s success has inevitably paved the way for next year’s
journey. Based on the welcoming response from the high
schools, local community, Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding,
SNAME, and the Competition Design Team towards the first
annual competition, it is the student chapter’s vision to
eventually expand the competition to all high schools on a
national level. This will require a tremendous amount of support
outside of the current contributors. One objective going forward
is to have additional support from other SNAME student
chapters, allowing this competition to be a shared initiative that
can bring all the chapters together for a common good.
Currently, the chapter has begun the work preparing for the
second year competition which will be opened to all high
schools in the state of Virginia. This progression will allow the
program to be tested on a larger scale and will provide for an
assessment of the added workload and resources required for
future competitions at a national level. Team member sessions
have been held with documented lessons learned from the first
competition being applied to the next competition. Everyone is
looking forward to the challenges ahead and another fruitful year
of events.
CONCLUSIONS
This boat design competition exceeded all expectations, from the
significant high school and community response, to the nurturing
and mentoring of apprentice students by industry veterans that
continues today. From vision, leadership, collaboration, sense of
purpose and opportunity came an experience that all whom
participated or attended will remember.
The desire of the Apprentice Team was for the high school
students to experience something unlike they had ever
encountered before, so that their view of educational and career
opportunities would be broadened, and that the experience
would have some intrinsic value. Perhaps the best overall
summary of the Apprentice Teams success comes from Dr.
Patrick Konopnicki 6 of Virginia Beach City Public Schools
whose team took the grand prize:
“The SNAME project was an excellent example of project based
learning that had many STEM (science, technology, engineering
and mathematics) related aspects which helped ATC students
realize CAD principles within the marine design/build real
world context. The fact that students were engaged in not only
product design but also able to view its completion and then
perform test operations was a phenomenal learning experience.
Visiting Virginia Beach City Public School administrators were
quite impressed with the STEM math engineering concepts
involved in the SNAME project.
SNAME Naval Architecture Support Team members (from left to right):
Alan Titcomb (NGSB), Dean Royal (NGSB), Melissa Cooley (NGSB), and
Elizabeth Heaney NGSB). Photo by Scott Patten (NGSB).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
The ATC students were impressed with the professional attention
and detail found in the design feedback and eventual prototype
construction. New found passion and excitement for the marine
industry could be seen in fellow ATC students. This is further
evidenced by the fact that we have full enrollment in our
upcoming Marine Design Engineering course that will be
offered for the first time at the ATC in the fall of 2008.
Career and Technical Education educators have known for quite
some time the benefits of experiential, hands-on learning. The
SNAME project both enriched and extended the CAD curriculum
well beyond what we thought at the ATC would be possible.”
To the authors, it is clear that the industry’s marketing campaign
is beginning to make a difference. More and more government,
industry, and academic collaboration efforts are arising and the
“sizzle” in the campaign is beginning to leave its mark. But we
mustn’t stop with the current level of outreach. You too can
help attract and invest in the next generation of ship designers,
builders and marine industry leaders by becoming active in any
one of the many student outreach programs.
The Apprentice Student SNAME Chapter High School Boat Competition
Team (from Left to Right): Standing – Dr. Robert Leber (Director,
Workforce Development), Carlyn Swanson, Neil Rosenbaum, Todd Corr,
Renard McFarland, Vernon Hall, Jr., Kristin Podruchny (Student Chapter
Chair), William Boze (Technical Leader), Dr. Richard Boutwell (Student
Advisor), Nathaniel Pauley; Kneeling - Spencer Moyer, Christopher Skiba
(Boat Design Competition Team Captain), and Alan Anderson. Photo by
Kathy McIntire
6
The authors and the team would like to thank Northrop
Grumman Shipbuilding – Newport News and Bass Pro Shops of
Hampton, VA for their sponsorship, and acknowledge the
individual contributions of the following team members (in
alphabetical order) whom with their help made this a successful
Patrick Konopnicki, Ed.D. is the Director of Technical and
Career Education, Virginia Beach City Public Schools Advanced
Technology Center.
11
project:
Drake Akroyd, Walt Altice, Rae Balson, Burton
Benson, James Broncheau, Danny Brookman, Melissa Cooley,
Jennifer Dellapenta, Pete Diakun, Sekou Frye, Mike Gravitt,
David Hansch, Elizabeth Heaney, Jessicah Hegeman, Roger
Herndon, Sandra Horton (Marketing-Bass Pro Shops Hampton),
Danny Hunley (NGSB-NN VP Operations), Joe Jinnette, Lee
Lambertson, Dr. Robert P. Leber (NGSB NN -Director,
Workforce Development), Kathy McIntire, Maury Middleton,
Gaylon Montgomery, Kelly Munns, David Powell, Dean Royal,
Michael Rugnetta, Jennifer Ryan, Patrick Ryan, Alan Titcomb,
John Wander, and Harold Weissler.
REFERENCES
Bureau of Labor and Statistics, U.S. Department of
Labor (2008), Occupational Outlook Handbook,
(2008 – 09 ed.), Bulletin 2700, Superintendent
of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC 20202.
Grimes, C. (2008, Mar 16), Students Put
Creativity, Math Skills to Watery Test, Daily
Press – Newport News, VA. P. A4.
Kerzner, H. (2006), Project Management – A
Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling and
Controlling (9th ed.).New Jersey: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 360.
Luthans, F. (2008), Organizational Behavior (11th
ed.). New York: McGraw –Hill Irvin.
National Science Board (2008), Science and
Engineering Indicators 2008. Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation, Volume 1, NSB
08-01, 2-37
Rules for the Construction and Classification of
Steel Ships (1975), Det Norske Veritas, Oslo,
p.102
Shiba, H. (1960), Model Experiments about the
Maneuverability of Turning Ships, First
Symposium on Ship Maneuverability, DTRC
Report 1461.
Shipbuilding and Repair Career Day a Success
(2008, February), Old Dominion University
News Archive for Norfolk, VA.
Society Bylaws (1977), The Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers, New Jersey, 5.
12
Wallace, S. (2008), ASNE Delaware Valley
Chapter Teaches Students Naval Engineering
through the Sea Perch Underwater Robotics
Program, Naval Engineers Journal, American
Society of Naval Engineers, 2008#1,23-27.
APPENDIX A
THE APPRENTICE SCHOOL STUDENT SECTION OF
THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS
DESIGN PROCESS AND CALCULATION APPROACH
Purpose
This appendix is intended to help each team understand the boat design process and to provide
the recommended approach and calculations required to develop a good design.
Design Spiral
Ship design is typically an iterative process in which various aspects of the design pertaining to
hullform, hydrostatics, weights, power, stability, structures, and arrangements are balanced in a
certain order to arrive at an optimal design. Most of these broad requirements cannot be analyzed
and/or determined independently of the other criteria on the design spiral. The design spiral
generally takes the following form:
This general process can apply to a Navy ship, a commercial ship like a tanker or containership,
or something as simple as a row boat. The process starts very broad and progressively gets more
detailed as one progresses from the concept design phase, to preliminary design, and finally to
detailed design. While your design will not necessarily address each of the parameters shown on
the spiral above, it can provide a useful approach to designing your vessel.
13
The process starts with defining the mission of the vessel in a one or two sentence design
statement based on the prospective owner’s requirements. Without a concise design statement, it
will be difficult to create a successful design. A simple design statement also helps to keep focus
on the overall purpose of the vessel.
Hull Definition Determine the general shape of the hull and its principle dimensions. Principle
dimensions are the length, beam, and depth of the hull. Later steps involve the creation of a lines
drawing for the ship which describes the hull form in detail. Included in this step is optimization
of the rudder to produce the smallest possible turning diameter. This involves trade-offs with
block coefficient and ship length. Careful examination of the calculations and design curves
prior to starting your concept design may help you make some good early choices that can save
you a lot of time.
Hydrostatics Consider the properties of the hull as it sits at rest in the water. This includes the
volume, displacement, design waterline, center of buoyancy, and metacentric height of the hull.
Weights Estimate the weight of all shipboard structure and components and their location and
determine the vessel’s weight, its vertical, longitudinal, and transverse centers.
Powering Determine what type of propulsion system will be required for the vessel to perform
its mission in the most economical fashion. Major considerations include speed, fuel
availability, fuel rate, space, and weight.
Stability Calculate the boat’s tendency to right itself when its position in the water is disturbed
by an outside force like wind or waves. Stability is critical to the safety and comfort of the
vessel’s passengers.
Structure Design the structure needed to maintain structural integrity through all sea and
weather conditions that the vessel can expect to see during its lifetime. Considerations include
type of material, thickness of the material, the location and size of all frames, and how the
materials are joined to one another.
Arrangements Determine how much space each function of the vessel requires and where that
space should be located for the most efficient operation of the vessel. The final step in
determining the vessel’s arrangement is to develop a detailed plan of the vessel depicting every
space on the vessel, it’s purpose, and dimensions from the highest deck to the lowest, as well as
how equipment will be located in each space or compartment.
Cost Although not shown on the generic design spiral provided here, it is important to consider
the cost of the vessel as the final parameter considered during each pass through the design
spiral. Cost estimation consists of an educated guess as to what materials and labor will be
required for the construction of the vessel, and what each will cost.
From this point forward, the designer continues to follow the steps of the spiral, reexamining
each parameter in more detail than on the previous pass. A good description of the overall
14
design process for a boat can be found in “The Design Spiral for Computer-aided Design” by
Stephen Hollister at www.newavesys.com/spiral.htm.
Developing a Concept Model
To begin the design process, it is recommended that each team generate a 3D sketch and scale
model of their boat.
Materials include cardstock, graph paper, ruler or scale, straight edge, utility knife, and tape.
Directions:
1. Sketch a 3D concept model of your design.
2. Create a 2D scaled sketch of each of the shell pieces required to construct the boat and
transfer each shell piece sketch onto cardstock (notecards, cardboard, etc).
3. Cut out the shell pieces starting with any transverse structure. Any pieces with curvature
should be oversized initially, as these pieces will be trimmed at final assembly.
4. Assemble the model by taping the individual shell pieces together along seams.
Assemble pieces without curvature first. Mark the pieces needing trimming, trim and
reattach.
Note: Painter’s tape works well in this step; allowing formed pieces to be removed and
modified.
15
Weight Calculation
For each item on the boat, calculate its weight and center of gravity in the longitudinal,
transverse, and vertical direction. The center of gravity of all material should be measured from
the same reference point, typically the forward perpendicular, baseline, and centerline.
Each item on the boat will need a weight entry. Some of the items to think about are steel plate,
stiffeners, propulsion system, steering system, and payload.
To calculate the total weight and center of gravity (CG), you will need to calculate moments for
each item by multiplying an item’s weight by the distance from its center of gravity to the
reference point. Be careful calculating the centers of curved pieces. Then sum the moments and
divide by the total weight to get the VCG, LCG, and TCG. An example is shown below.
Example: This barge has a length of 6’, a breadth of 2’, and a depth of 1.5’. Steel plate (1/8”
thick) weighs 5.1# per square foot. Sign convention is as follows: aft is positive, port is positive,
and up is positive.
reference
point
Isometric View of Barge Shape with Plating Numbered
Item
Bow plate (1)
Port plate (2)
Starboard plate (3)
Stern plate (4)
Bottom plate (5)
Total
Dimensions Area
2
(ft )
(ft)
2 x 1.5
3.0
6 x 1.5
9.0
6 x 1.5
9.0
2 x 1.5
3.0
6x2
12.0
Weight
(lb)
15.3
45.9
45.9
15.3
61.2
183.6
LCG
(ft)
0.00
3.00
3.00
6.00
3.00
3.00
16
LMOM
(ft-lb)
0.0
137.7
137.7
91.8
183.6
550.8
VCG
(ft)
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.00
0.50
VMOM
(ft-lb)
11.5
34.4
34.4
11.5
0.0
91.8
TCG
(ft)
0.00
1.00
-1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TMOM
(ft-lb)
0.0
45.9
-45.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
Once you have totaled the weights and moments, then divide each total moment by the total
weight of the boat to get the composite centers.
For this example, the composite longitudinal center of gravity (LCG) is 3.00 feet aft of the bow,
the vertical center of gravity (VCG) is 0.50 feet above baseline, and the transverse center of
gravity (TCG) is 0.00 feet off centerline.
Hydrostatics
The boat’s displaced volume and centers at the design waterline should be calculated using either
of two different methods. The first uses the waterplane area of the boat, while the second uses
sectional areas plotted at various waterlines. The boat’s underwater shape is calculated by
plotting either the waterplane areas at several evenly spaced waterlines or multiple sectional
areas along the boat’s length. The resulting curves can then be integrated using Simpson’s Rule
to calculate volumes and centers.
Simpson' s Rule =
h
( A0 + 4( A1 ) + 2( A2 ) + K + 4( An−1 ) + An )
3
Where:
n = number of intervals (must be an even number of equally spaced intervals, resulting in
an odd number of sections)
h = interval length (either section spacing or waterline increments)
A = area below design waterline (section or waterplane)
This equation will be represented throughout the remaining calculations as follows:
Simpson' s Rule =
h
∑ A(SM )
3
Where SM (Simpson’s Multiplier) is the coefficient (1,4,2,4,2…4,1) which is multiplied by the
area. To calculate the areas, one of two approaches may be used:
1. Using 3D CAD software to calculate your areas directly from your model.
2. Using a cardstock model as explained in the following section.
Determining Sectional Areas Using Cardstock Model
1. Longitudinally divide the previously constructed cardstock model into an odd number of
equally spaced sections, marking the divisions with pencil lines.
17
2. Cut transverse sections from graph paper to fit the marked sections. This takes a bit of
patience, but can be accomplished with persistence.
3. Calculate the area of each section up at several waterlines (including your predicted
design waterlines).
4. Calculate the area for your design waterline.
Note: This can be much more easily accomplished by graphing the breadth dimensions
from your transverse sections on the y-axis and the longitudinal spacing on the x-axis.
18
Calculating Displacement
Volume (below design waterline) (ft3):
⎛h⎞
∇ = ⎜ ⎟(∑ A(SM ))
⎝ 3⎠
Note: This equation can use either the waterplane or sectional areas (Recommended) to
determine the volume at the design waterline.
Hull Displacement (lbs):
Δ = ∇ ∗ Specific Weight
Where:
Specific Weight of fresh water = 62.4 lbs/ft3
Total Boat Displacement (lbs):
Δ T = Δ + Δ Rudder + Δ Motor
Where:
Δ Motor ≈ 0.05 ft3
Δ Rudder is calculated from your rudder design. (Consider if your rudder is
completely submerged.)
Calculating Hydrostatic Centers
Longitudinal Center of Buoyancy about the forward perpendicular (FP):
LCB =
Moment of ∇ about
=
∇
(∑ A (SM )X )
∑ A (SM )
S
S
Where:
AS = Sectional Areas
X = Longitudinal distance between the section and your design reference point
Vertical Center of Buoyancy:
VCB =
(∑ A (SM )Z )
∑ A (SM )
WP
S
Where:
Z = Vertical distance between the waterplane and baseline
AWP = Waterplane Area
19
Center of Flotation:
CF =
(∑ b(SM )X )
∑ b(SM )
Where:
b = Breadth of boat
X = Longitudinal distance between the section and FP
Moments of Inertia
Transverse Moment of Inertia of the Waterplane (around centerline):
(
)
⎛ 1 ⎞⎛ h ⎞
I T = ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ ∑ b 3 (SM )
⎝ 3 ⎠⎝ 3 ⎠
Longitudinal Moment of Inertia of Water Plane (around midship):
I Midship =
(h )3 (
3
∑ b(SM )X )
2
Longitudinal Moment of Inertia of Water Plane (around center of gravity):
I L = I Midship − AWP (CF )
Stability and Trim Calculations
Longitudinal Metacentric Radius:
BM L =
IL
∇
Distance from Baseline to the Longitudinal Metacenter
KM L = VCB + BM L
Longitudinal Metacentric Height
GM L = KM L − VCG
20
2
Transverse Metacentric Radius:
BM t =
It
∇
Distance from Baseline to the Transverse Metacenter
KM t = VCB + BM t
Transverse Metacentric Height
GM t = KM t − VCG
Moment to Trim 1 Inch:
MT 1 =
Δ(GM L )
12(Length of Boat )
Trim:
TRIM =
Δ(LCB − LCG )
12 * MT1
Speed
Speed calculations require effort, modeling, and calculations beyond the scope of this
competition. Calculations are not required to predict the actual speed of the boat for this
competition. However, there are some good rules of thumb that can be followed to maximize
your boat speed.
1) Design for a length to beam ratio of between 6 and 8. Within this range, the
higher ratio should lead to a faster boat.
2) Smaller Block Coefficients (“finer” shapes) typically go faster.
3) Minimizing the wetted surface (the surface area of the boat below the waterline)
reduces friction and generally results in increased speed.
4) Minimize abrupt transitions and shapes. Streamline your hull as much as you can.
Maneuverability
Maneuvering calculations require effort, modeling, and calculations beyond the scope of this
competition so calculations are not required. However, methods to size the rudder and roughly
estimate the turning performance are provided here to help with the design.
First, estimate the rudder size using the Det Norske Veritas formula found here:
21
Source: Rules for the Construction and Classification of Steel Ships
(1975), Det Norske Veritas, Oslo, p.102
Where:
A = Area of rudder
T = (Draft) is the distance from the waterline to the lowest point in the ship
LBP = the distance between the aft perpendicular and the forward perpendicular
B = Beam (B) the width of the hull
The rudder stock will be located at a point on the center line one third the total length back from
the leading edge, as illustrated bellow. The length to thickness ratio of the rudder will be 10%
(NACA 0010). Use the rudder area to determine the height, root, and tip lengths shown below.
Now, calculate the block coefficient as shown here:
∇
CB =
L * B *T
Where:
L = Length at Waterline
B = Beam at Waterline
T = Draft at Waterline
22
Calculate the total non-dimensional surface area of the rudder as shown here:
A' t =
AS
L2
Where:
AS = total wetted surface area of control surface
At = non-dimensional wetted surface area of control surface
Using the charts below, and a rudder deflection of 30°, determine the approximate nondimensional turning diameter.
Source: Shiba, H. (1960), Model Experiments about the Maneuverability of Turning Ships, First
Symposium on Ship Maneuverability, DTRC Report 1461.
23
24