Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
BY K E N N E T H S. IX{. DAVIDSON, / ~ E M B E R 1
Ships have been turned and steered with reasonable success for centuries. Yet, as recently as
1923, Sir Arthur Johns referred to the study of
turning and steering as "a generally neglected
portion of naval architecture" [1]. 2 T o be sure,
the literature on these subjects has been augmented in the twenty years since 1923, [2] [3] [6]
[11] and others. The fact remains, however, t h a t
it has not yet become possible to predict turning
and steering characteristics with assurance in the
preliminary design stage.
The situation is not unlike that which would
exist with regard to resistance and effective horsepower estimates, if codified experimental results
like those for Taylor's Standard Series of hull
forms [4] had never been worked out. The Standard Series data provide a coordinated framework
of quantitative information on resistance which
brings out clearly the relative influence of the principal governing variables, and from which reliable
estimates can be made for new designs. Lacking
a corresponding framework of quantitative information on turning and steering, the designer
finds himself in a position where, as one naval
architect put it recently, " I t is one thing to progress from one design to the next, on the basis of
accumulated experience, and quite another to 'hit
it on the nose' every time."
This paper makes no pretense of providing design information. I t is essentially a progress report on methods of attack, dealing first with
broad concepts in an a t t e m p t to gain perspective
on the scope of the problems involved, and
second with analytical and experimental procedures aimed at simplifying a comprehensive
attack.
Attention is centered largely on the influence
of the hull. This is done, not with any thought
that the rudder is of secondary importance in fixing the turning and steering characteristics, but
because (1) the rudder is basically an appendage,
the design of which is necessarily governed b y the
job it has to do, that is, b y the characteristics of
the hull to which it is applied; (2) a good deal of
reliable information on rudder characteristics is
already available, [2 ] [ 10] [ 11] and others,, whereas .
relatively little systematic work has been done on
hull characteristics. In effect, the point of view is
adopted that a better knowledge of hull action is a
prerequisite to a better understanding of rudder
action and, ultimately, of interference effects between hull, rudder and propellers.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TURNING
MANEUVER
288
ON
THE
_ .........
TURNING
AND
STEERING
OF SHIPS
I
I
I
i
"E'I
/ x"
?
.-.i I
I
col
@
7\.
?I
\
'\
\,
~I
<I
-~Jr
I
J
I
-olT>
./
,/
\~o//
I
]
Execue
/- . /
/ //
5+ec~dy- Turrli~g
Approoch
Speed
Smeed
V/
= ~/~'o
T
J
_jl
7t
~J
31
Note:
(1) Successive positions s h o w n are for equal t i m e intervals.
(2) A d v a n c e , t r a n s f e r a n d tactical d i a m e t e r are defined with r e s p e c t to
t u r n i n g p a t h . I n o r d i n a r y n a v a l u s a g e t h e y are defined w i t h r e s p e c t to t h e
s h i p ' s h e a d i n g . T h e principal effect of this difference is Oll t h e transfer.
l
l
FIG.
1,--TYPICAL
ON T H E T U R N I N G AND S T E E R I N G OF SHIPS
289
Ficjhfer
Tramspor+
AirpI~ne
Airplane
Sh!ip
5Bamk
80Bcmk
Ce.n-~rif:uojal Accel.l.09 ~
O.04oj-
t.)
Ca)
(b)
No+e:
Forces Propo~+~om(xl +o Accelerc~fions
L =40F~.
L =I00 Ft.
L =400F+,
:4ooM.~.H.
: Z O O M.~.H.
: I~ K+s.
v/TE : ss (v i~ K~o+~)
7E: ~4 (v i~ K~o+~)
7V[ = 0.8
%-9o
y~s4
o/~=3
FIG. 2.--~OMPARATIVE 1V~INIMUM TURNING CIRCLES OF AIRPLANES AND SHIPS, SHOWING THE GREAT EFFECT OF SPEED
ON THE I~ESULTANT ACCELERATION IN TURNING
swinging thereafter at constant angular velocity stitutes really good turning, or whether it repreabout a fixed center, at a uniform turning speed sents simply a mean of what has been accomplished
less than the approach speed.
so far. This is rather a basic question, which de(b) A transient phase occurs at the start, dur- serves some attention.
ing which the instantaneous turning radius diminThe possibility suggests itself of getting a someishes from infinity to the steady-turning value and what broader view of the question by comparing the
the instantaneous speed diminishes from the ap- minimum turning circles of ships with those of airproach to the steady-turning value.
planes (Fig. 2). Airplanes and ships differ radically
Fig. 1 has been drawn with some care to show to in their overall configurations. Yet both are free
scale a typical minimum-diameter turn (with bodies moving through fluids, and, in general, have
maximum rudder angle) for a normal seagoing to be turned as expeditiously as possible. Without
vessel having good turning characteristics by looking into the matter, it could easily be imapresent-day standards. The term "good" is ap- gined that airplanes might be found to have better
plied to these characteristics primarily because the turning characteristics than ships. This, however,
tactical diameter is only three times the length is not the case. Airplanes have to turn in much
of the ship (TD/L = 3), and this figure is rarely larger circles than ships--measured in terms of
bettered in practice at the present time. Mini- length--simply because of the limitation imposed
mum tactical diameter is a simple criterion by by the permissible centrifugal force. In airplanes,
which to compare the turning characteristics of the centrifugal force caused by the high speed may
different vessels, and has been used widely for the easily exceed the force of gravity by a large marpurpose. But the question naturally arises of gin, making heavy banking necessary--as also in
whether a tactical diameter of three lengths con- racing automobiles or even racing bicycles. In
t.O
0.9
15
E ~ 0.s
...,,.,.L.~
~dP'
E
L
--...~
~"
;-
" e ~
p
t
C0
"4CO
f:
4-
/0
fZ
12
I
I
[
~L
:Z
1.0
~ O.g
~0
ogo
__. I L
0 ii~|
- " V . . ~ -
.roy
"l
i,......I
o
0.5
2
I
9
"
]l
,I
10
11
'~ ] . . . .
12
1S
IZ
t3
F-
"~. 0.7
!
I
[
L) 1_5
:I.o
8
p
];If;..~.
Yc~c~]c~I D]~me+er
Lengf~
GI{OMETR1C 1)ROP()RIIONS ~1~" r i t e "I'I'RNIN(; I'A'I'H.
r/L
l0
II
I/ROI~I "I'EST I)ATA FOR NORMAL ~t,;AGOIN(; StlIP5 (.AND ~I{~DIgLS) AT VARI()L'S ~PEIFDS s~.ND t)~UI)DI~R ANC*I.ES
>-~
e)
@,
u)
A2
4--
0
0
0
O:Z
to
r"
4-
09
..A
tD
r'o
.4-0
p')
)0
'D
I~
0
"+-
0_~.
x:
L~
:Z
,C
I
'~)B
t
~B
IB
~z
=].
6',
TWL=3
~J
11
-'2d';1
TD/L= 2
Execufe
7_
TD/L= 4~
~o~
/30
,,
\
s
,/
~
4
~z
\\Zl\\\
3
.
(/Z
-rD/t :e3~4
~Z
5
TD/L= IO "8
F I G . ~ : . - - T U R N I N G ~ H A R A C T E R I S T I C S AND ~ P E E D RECOVERY
Note:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
lines).
t~
292
ON THE TURNING
AND STEERING
VJ V~,
A/TD,
T/TD.
TD/L.
OF SHIPS
ON THE TURNING
293
294
ON T H E T U R N I N G A N D S T E E R I N G OF S H I P S
o,
d
_3
(a)
5hip
J-fitc, ss Y a c h f
i
i
-<
.....
Lengfh,L
<- . . . . . . .
. . . . .
-/-/i
-jI~-
Lengfh, L
(c)
S f a r Cle~ssYoch+
L
)
" x
"~
I
I
(d)
!),i
Transpo-+
Fit;.
Showing diagrammatically
,~.-
Mrplane
-T&'PICAL HULL
FORMS
a p r o g r e s s i o n f r o n t t h e t m i f o r m d r a f t of t h e n o r m a l s e a g o i n g v e s s e l to t h e s e p a r a t e w i n g a n d t a i l of t h e a i r p l a n e
ON T H E T U R N I N G A N D S T E E R I N G OF SHIPS
DrcLcjCornponenf
, ~Cenfr,fu~ol Force,Mv~/r
(MvVr) si= ~ \
Propeller
Pafh of C.G.
M= Mass
--pivo+
poin+
295
STEADY T U R N I N G
296
ON THE
TURNING
AND STEERING
OF SHIPS
I00
I
I co#
:
i "~I
-0
!~
-f-
80
Dracj ornpo~nen}of\
-o
Cen+ri#ugal Forca
P e r Ton at TD/L=
ok.
u9
-6 6o
od
~6 4O
Typ'mal
Resisfance Curv
EL
20
cO
i~.."
c~
4
- - '
I
20
)'I
40
60
Per CenJ- of Normca', Speed
80
Io0
U S E D FOR M E A N
Typical curves of straight-course hull resistance and drag component of centrifugal force
Resistance curves are for Standard Series hulls, as follows:
Ships
I
II
III
DisplacementLength Ratio
60
100
170
BeamDraft Ratio
2.5
2.5
2.5
Prismatic
Coefficient
0.60
0.65
0.70
Drag curves are based on pivot point locations from test data. Drag curves are parabolas,
since centrifugal force varies as I:% If total propeller thrust is assumed to remain constant
during turning, and straight-course hull resistances are assumed to apply, then the drag
component of centrifugal force reduces the thrust available for forward speed. As an example, a ship having the mean resistance curve indicated has a steady-turning speed 71
per cent of its normal speed, when turning in a steady circle with T D / L = 4.
T h e c o m p a r a t i v e analysis in Fig. 9 of c e r t a i n
tests of the same models used for Fig. 8 brings o u t
forcefully the relative influence of the hulls in
this instance. T h e s e models are a d m i t t e d l y
s o m e w h a t extreme examples, i n a s m u c h as model
A t u r n s very well a n d model B q u i t e poorly.
Both, however, are models of existing ships;
t h e y are properly referred to as n o r m a l seagoing
types, a n d t h e y are in no sense freaks. As a
m a t t e r of fact, b o t h h a v e t h e same t y p e of stern,
m o d e r a t e deadwood a n d s p a d e - t y p e r n d d e r s well
297
./,o
> 0.6
0.5 /
O.4
I.I
Rudder
Angle
~
Model A
1.0
c~ 0.9
I0o
~. 0.8
0.'7
15
0.6
Angle HodetB
0.5
O.1
,.-., 0.6
0.4
8
TD/L
lO
11
IZ
IS
Fla. 8.--TURNING PATH PROPORTIONS FOR MODELS A AND ]3 (EXTRACT FROM FIG. 3)
298
0.70 Lb.
9 Lb.
~11-~- o.oos L
0.4z kb.[
t0.s0Cb.
0.0~L ~ ~ _ ~
----0.43
Model A
5.63
1.03
0.27
53.50
1. 405
O. 0348
138
5.5
3.81
0. 512
0. 466
0.02,5
3.19
2.65
0.83
0.80
0.66
33.2
5.9
6
--0.01
0.70
O. 69
0. 005L, forward
0.43L
8.3
O. 0726
0. 0088
FIG
9.--COMPARATIVE
k--~-
- - 8 . 5 % - _~
PARTICULARS
Dimensions
L e n g t h , L, ft
B e a m , B, ft
Draft, H , ft
D i s p l a c e m e n t , W, lb
Area of lateral plane, L A , sq ft
R u d d e r area, RA, sq ft
Ratios
D i s p l a c e m e n t - l e n g t h r a t i o , A/(L.'100) a
L e n g t h - b e a m ratio, L / B
B e a m - d r a f t ratio, B / H
e.g. aft of b o ~ < l e n g t h , G.'L
R u d d e r post aft of e . g . / l e n g t h , b
R u d d e r a r e a / l a t e r a l area, R A / L A
TUST DATA
Ap'proach speed, I;~, ft per sec
T u r n i n g speed, I't, ft per see
Ratio, I ' t / l ' ,
A p p r o a c h s p e e d - l e n g t h ratio, V , / ' V ~ T u r n i n g speed-length ratio, 7v~,/x/ZSteady t u r n i n g diameter, D, ft
Ratio, D / L
R u d d e r angle, deg
R u d d e r force (measured), lb
(Mv2,,"r) sin 0, lh
Hull force, lb
Hull force location, from e.g.
P i v o t point, a h e a d of e.g.
Drift angle, 4,, at e.g.
HULL COEFFICII~NTS
" L i f t " coefficient of hull force,
hull force
(CLIH = (LA) (p/'2)vt ~
Lift coefficient/drift angle,
(CL)H/d)~.~.
-/.6%-->
5.88
0.63
0.21
23.50
1. 105
0. 0253
54
9 4
3.0
0..522
t). 451
II 023
3.26
2.67
0.82
0.80
O. 66
34.6
5.9
35
0.12
O. 30
I). 42
I). 13L, aft
0.40L
7.8
t). 0548
~). ()~)71)
AND Vt/%'/L.
ANALYSIS RE-
299
(b')
Yaw
(a)
S+ectdy- Turn[no3
D/L=3
FIG. 1 0 . - - M O T I O N OF H U L L IN STI~AD TURNING AND IN Y A W
300
ON THE TURNING
Moctel A
O.IZ L--~
2.33 Lb.
I.] 3
Lb.
....
(ss),o.~o
D/L = 2.3
Lb.
iI
I
l.lro Lb. I 1.02 Lb.
I
AND STEERING
OF SHIPS
=o.o,oo
4.
--~i<--0.005 L
MC'PC
(),-o.o~ Lb.
~
~':--;-~-f___g ~ ( c j l ~
....
D / L : 5.9
,~',
;r--
"[ I
....
DzL=s.9
Note:
Tur'n~r~S Speed Sctme cts
in F;c3ure 9
0.I2 b ~
r~
D/L---Z8
Cs),s '~
o.g. = o.oo6~
(.~s),o.os u~.
FIG. I I . - - E x T E N S I O N
DATA FOR D / L
: D/L=I2.6
/
{.g-----.= o.oo67
= 5 . 9 A R E SAME AS ON FIG. 9
ON T H E T U R N I N G A N D S T E E R I N G O F S H I P S
The evidence of these two models is insufficient,
of course, to justify a general conclusion to the
effect that, other things being equal, an increase
of beam-length ratio produces an increase of hullforce coefficient. This seems a good working
hypothesis for the present, however; if for no
other reason, then simply on the ground t h a t first
order differences ought to be considered first.
Fig. 11 broadens the scope of the analysis of
Fig. 9, by showing what happens at other ratios
of steady-turning diameter to length, resulting
from the use of other rudder angles. The data
for each model are for the same steady-turning
speed as in Fig. 9, hence for somewhat differing
approach speeds. Use of the same speed in turning eliminates any possible influence of speed on
the characteristics shown, even if the relative force
magnitudes are somewhat distorted in comparison
with those which would occur with constant approach speed.
The ultimate points of interest in Fig. 11 are
the indications that, with decrease of diameterlength ratio (increase of rudder angle) :
(1) The ratio of hull lift coefficient to drift angle
at the center of gravity increases.
(2) The center of pressure moves aft.
These indications are consistent for the two
models; they are rather more marked in model A
than in model B, but this may be only because the
range of diameter-length ratios for this model
embraces smaller values.
STEERING
It is an old adage that a good-turning ship is
hard to steer and that a good-steering ship is hard
to turn [1]. The implication is clear that good
turning and good steering are essentially antagonistic qualities. The definitions often used,
that turning is the process of altering course and
steering the process of maintaining course, tend
also to suggest a certain antagonism between the
two. Under these circumstances, it becomes important to consider steering characteristics along
with turning characteristics, before reaching
general conclusions regarding either one. I t is
particularly important to do this as additional
background for judging whether or not tactical
diameters of the order of, say, two lengths are
practicable.
It is somewhat more accurate to define steering
as the process of "correcting" course than as the
process of "maintaining" course. In practice,
steering is a m a t t e r of bringing the ship back to
the desired course, after a departure from this
301
HodeI A
Mod~l B
bO
(K=o.2s L3
+t+
!S
So
..A
0 o
~-+,3
D,
X5
5 ii.
~o
0c -2!'--
V9 (
4-
2
g
9o
on
c
20
+ 2 _ _
RighRudder
om
( ,Irni+ia+[om o Turning)
30
25 ~
20 o
+-
b~
i0 o ed
I5
5~
+~
>
Oo
L
@
~J
9o
12
15 o
c
a~
m
,)
.I2
x~
<
ff
r~
<.
~c
Rudder
te++
(S}eer;ng)
{
0~
8o
i~o
a~o
'*'~w ,Angle t o S f G r b o o r d
V = 3 3 9 F%. Per S e c .
(I)
(2)
"r'cxw
V -5.2_6
12.
YAW I~IoMENT
Angl~
VFRSUS
YAW
ANGLE
FOR VARIOUS
RUDDER
ANGLES,
8o
+o
Far, P e r
Sec.
~iodel A
1.8 deg y a w
0.09 rad./sec."0.33 rad./secY
~IODELS
17o
S+c~rboc~rd
Z AND B
NIodel B
2.2 deg yaw
0.I0 rad./sec. 2
0.30 r a d . / s e c 2
ON T H E T U R N I N G A N D S T E E R I N G OF S H I P S
505
model has an inherent tendency to steer itself. steady-turning circle. Model A is so extremely
But, as will be seen from the data under the dia- sensitive in its response to the rudder at small
grams, a correcting rudder angle of just about angles t h a t the actual process of steering in openthree times the amount of the yaw angle will sea conditions might well be more difficult.
neutralize the unstable moment in both models.
There is thus some question as to whether the
Poin[s 1 show, for example, that the application results of straight-line tests like those of Fig. 12 are
of 6 degrees correcting rudder in either model will a sufficient index of the steering qualities of ships.
offset any tendency for a yaw of about 2 degrees The whole matter wilt bear further study. The
to increase. This rough three-to-one ratio holds implication is clear that, to completely evaluate
over a wide range; it is a rather startling indica- the steering characteristics, it may become necestion of uniformity in the steering characteristics sary to take into account the turning characterin view of the big difference in the relative turning istics at very large diameter-length ratios, in
characteristics.
addition t o - - o r even, conceivably, instead o f - Nor is this all. If the same over-correction in the directional stability characteristics on straight
rudder angle is applied in both cases, say 12 de- course. For the present, however, it seems better
grees left rudder at 2 degrees starboard yaw, sub- to concentrate attention on the directional stastantially the same angular accelerations tending bility, and to explore fully this relatively simple
to return the models to the original course can be approach. This point of view is adopted in the
expected, Points 2, because the restoring moments remainder of the present discussion.
introduced are nearly in proportion to the probReverting, then, to Fig. 12, the fact must not
able yawing moments of inertia (to a first approxi- be lost sight of that for any given combination of
mation, all normal seagoing vessels have longi- yaw and rudder angles the moment created by the
tudinal radii of gyration, k, of roughly one-quarter rudder of model A is much greater than the moof their lengths). Further, the indications re- ment created by the rudder of model B. The ratio
garding the initiation of turning are entirely con- between the moments is, in fact, much the same
sistent with the indications regarding over-correc- as the ratios between the displacements and the
tion in steering. Supposing, for instance, that, to moments of inertia, and this is evidently the
start a turn, 25 degrees of right rudder is applied fundamental reason for the indicated similarity
with no yaw, it will be seen that the angular ac- of steering qualities in the two models. Thus, a
celerations of the two models are again much the conclusion that good turning is not necessarily
accompanied b y poor steering, stated in just those
same, Points 3.
Fig. 12, then, does not indicate that model A is words, m a y easily be misinterpreted. A better
inferior to model B with respect to either steering statement is perhaps, that:
or the initiation of turning. On the basis of this
(1) A good-turning hull needs powerful rudder
analysis, the conclusion is therefore strongly sug- action for steering, but not for turning.
gested that good turning qualities (small tactical
(2) A poor-turning hull needs powerful rudder
diameters) are not invariably purchased at the action for turning, but not for steering.
expense of good steering qualities, since model A
Further light is thrown on the matter by the
has been seen to have the better turning qualities. data in Fig. 13. The yawing tests represented in
This is not an entirely satisfying conclusion. Fig. 12 included measurements of resultant lateral
It is true that the full-size prototypes of both force components and lateral rudder-force commodels A and B are being successfully operated ponents, as well as yawing moments. With these
as designed, so that neither one of them can very additional data, it is possible to make an analysis
well be considered markedly deficient in steering of lateral hull-force components similar to that
qualities. On the other hand, some difficulty made for the case of steady-turning in Fig. 9.
seems to have been experienced at first in steering This is done in Fig. 13 for the models with rudders
the prototype of model A, until her crew got used amidships. No problem arises in this instance
to her, and the fact remains that in the models it regarding the angle of attack, because the motion
was very easy to make model B run on straight is rectilinear and the geometric angle of attack
course (without restraints) b y accurately center- (identical with the angle of yaw) is therefore coning the rudder, whereas it was nearly impossible stant throughout the length, as in Fig. 10 (b).
to accomplish this with model A. This last dif- However, for the sake of consistency, the analysis
ference is no doubt directly associated with the is carried out for yaw angles equal to the drift
much greater sensitiveness of the turning diameter angles at the centers of gravity in Fig. 9. These
to the rudder angle in model A; as shown b y Fig. are, of course, rather larger yaw angles than would
9, a 6-degree rudder angle in model A and a 35- ordinarily occur in the normal course of events,
degree rudder angle in model B produce the same either in steering or in the initial instants of turn-
504
ON THE TURNING
AND STEERING
OF SHIPS
Model B
Model A
/O~#iLFOrce
Rudder Force
-.
~
uctaer force
* =~-s ~ - -
V = 3.19
F*.Per Sec.
/ Hull F o r c e
/ O ~3 Lb
/"
~-~-_-~-~'~-4~
V=3.?.6 F.
Per Sec.
COEFFICIENTS
(CL)~' =
hull force
(LA) (p/2) Y 2
0.0465
0.0069
F I G . 1 3 . - - L A T E R A L FORCES IN ~YA~,V, ~ [ O D E L S
0. 0059
A AND
J3
Model A
Model B
0.390L (ahead)
(1.230L (ahead)
0.005L (ahead)
0. 130L (aft)
0. 385L"
0. 360L
0. 0069
0. 0059
0.0088
0:0070
ON T H E T U R N I N G A N D S T E E R I N G O F S H I P S
505
306
ON T H E T U R N I N G A N D S T E E R I N G OF S t t l P S
a very simple analysis would suffice, and systematic experiments could readily be organized to explore each of the elements separately. Generally suitable analyses have in fact been suggested,
Fig. 14 showing the basic diagram for one of them
[6] in which the hull is replaced b y an "equivalent" airfoil. These, or even simpler, analyses
work quite well for airplanes [12], where an assumption that the elements act independently is
close to the facts.
/3
.
ON T H E T U R N I N G AND S T E E R I N G OF SHIPS
panics a change of diameter-length ratio, or a
change from straight-line to steady-turning motion, is independent of design differences.
To be sure, these are as yet nothing more than
indications--guideposts for directing further experiments on a systematic basis. They are important at this time primarily because, unless full
advantage is taken of indications of this sort which
come to light, and reasonable luck is had in selecting for emphasis those indications which bear most
directly on the controlling variables, any comprehensive program of systematic experiments becomes too lengthy and involved to be practicable.
507
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This paper represents a distillation of certain
ideas which have developed in the course of recent
work on the turning problem sponsored by the
Bureau of Ships, Navy Department, and by the
National Defense Research Committee. Acknowledgment is made to these agencies for permission to publish.
Acknowledgment is made also of help in the
preparation of the paper given by the staff of
the Experimental Towing Tank, Stevens Institute
of Technology, in particular by Messrs. John B.
Drisko and William H. Sutherland, and by Miss
Ruth Magor.
APPENDIX
NOTES ON TEST METHODS
The turning data used to illustrate various aspects of the discussion in the text were derived
from two sources--tactical trials of ships, and
turning tests of models.
Tactical trials of full-size naval vessels have
been made periodically by the Navy, over a
period of years, by methods developed by the
U. S. Experimental Model Basin and the David
Taylor Model Basin [7]. The trials are made
near shore, where deep water is available and observation from two shore stations is practicable.
The path of the ship is determined by triangulation from the shore stations. The heading of the
ship is determined from simultaneously recorded
gyro-compass readings on the ship. All data are
photographically recorded to provide a permanent
record.
Turning tests of models have been made at the
two Navy Model Basins and also, during the past
four or ~five years, at the Experimental Towing
Tank at Stevens Institute of Technology. The
following notes relate principally to the work at
the Experimental Towing Tank.
Early tests were made in the Stevens Institute
swimming pool, and in the somewhat larger swimming pool at Columbia University. In 1942, a
maneuvering basin was constructed at Stevens
Institute by the National Defense Research Committee. This tank is 75 feet square, by 41/~ feet
deep, and has a 25-foot extension on one side to
provide scope for an approach run preceding a
turn. The models tested are generally from 5 to
7 feet in length, and weigh from 15 to 75 pounds.
The path of the model is determined from polar
308
ON T H E T U R N I N G AND S T E E R I N G OF SHIPS
measure lift, drag and torque is now being developed, for use on large models at the David
Taylor Model Basin. This piece of equipment
is a step in the direction of getting a more detailed
REFERENCES
[8] Davidson, Kenneth S. M., "The Growing Importance of Small Models for Studies in
Naval Architecture," Transactions of The Society
of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Volume 49, 1941, pages 91-121.
[9] Davidson, Kenneth S. M., "Some Experimental Studies of the Sailing Yacht," Transactions of The Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers, Volume 44, 1936, pages 288303.
[10] Baker, G. S., and Bottomley, G. H.,
"Maneuvering of Ships--Part I--Unbalanced
Rudders of Single Screw Ships," Institution of
Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland 1921-22,
page 522 ft. Parts II, lII, and IV, by G. H. Bottomley appeared subsequently, see "Bibliography"
of reference [2].
[11]. Gawn, R. W. L., "Steering Experiments," Transactions of the Institution of Naval
Architects, Volume 85, 1943, pages 35-73.
[12] Diehl, Walter S., "Engineering Aerodynamics," Revised Edition, 1936.
DISCUSSION
309
310
ON T H E T U R N I N G A N D S T E E R I N G OF SHIPS
ON T H E T U R N I N G A N D S T E E R I N G OF S H I P S
and the difficulty is to determine when it ceases to
be a virtue and becomes a fault in which the directional instability is violent and the ship is subject to wild yawing requiring excessive and continual application of helm to keep her on a straight
course. From the statement made in the paper
regarding the full-size prototype of model A it
probably does not fall into this category although
there appeared to be some difficulty in keeping it
on a course at first until the crew got used to it.
tt can doubtless be assumed, therefore, that the
hyper-sensitive helm on model A is not a liability
and may be a great asset in an emergency where
quickness of response means everything. This is a
different picture, however, with automatic steering by gyro-pilot and may cause steering gear
trouble.
It would be of interest and give a clearer picture
of the difference between the steering qualities of
models A and B if turning diagrams for each were
plotted to scale and superimposed on a drawing
similar to Fig. 1 and which would show the relative positions and headings of each model at equal
time intervals during a 1S0-degree turn. It is
hoped that the data are at hand for plotting such
a diagram or can be obtained without too much
additional work.
Although Professor Davidson states that the
present discussion is not concerned with appendages, it is suggested that the interest and value of
the paper would be increased if another figure were
added showing to a reasonably large scale the stern
profiles of models A and B with dimensions and
relative positions of rudders, propellers, deadwood, etc.
This paper is of much interest and we hope Professor Davidson can follow it up with another one
at each succeeding meeting of the Society until
we have the quantitative information which he
states is lacking on this subject.
The discusser would not consider these comments complete if he did not record here that the
effect of rudder design will undoubtedly influence
all of this work of Professor Davidson's. Professor Davidson particularly set forth that he was
going to hold that in abeyance for future experiment. The writer's experience has disclosed that
there is a tremendous effect on steering, particularly from the standpoint of quick answering, as
indicated by rudder design, and not the least of
this effect is from the fact that a properly designed
streamline rudder will reduce the load on the steering gear so as to speed up the hard-over to hardover action and thus improve steering.
We look forward to Professor Davidson's future
experiments on rudder and appendages as a very
necessary and worth-while effort.
311
512
ON T t I E T U R N I N G A N D S T E E R I N G OF S H I P S
angle.
I have never taken the idea seriously, but it
m a y be of interest to mention that to improve directional stability one well-known naval architect
makes a practice of adjusting the forefoot and
skeg so that the center of area of the underwater
lateral plane is at least slightly, abaft the center of
gravity of the vessel. In contrast to this, it is well
known that sailing yachts having a deep forefoot
stay o n course better than those having the modern cut-away forefoot. The author's ideas on
means to minimize directional instability would
be welcomed.
Shallow water steering and astern steering
should not be overlooked. Some merchant vessels easily maintain an astern course and can be
put through a figure eight astern maneuver at will.
Others cannot. One important modern class of
twin-screw seagoing vessels is completely out of
control going astern. These vessels' propellers
turn inboard going astern. They promptly start
to turn and regardless of rudder angle, varying
ON THE TURNING
AND STEERING
OF SHIPS
315
2 V' cos
If we assume that, up to the angle of rudder breakdown, the rudder force varies as the sine of the
rudder angle, as given b y Joessel and verified
reasonably well in rudder experiments, this equation m a y be re-written as follows:
p
2a V' cos
Ca sin a cos aAk'( L -- a)
314
ON T H E T U R N I N G A N D S T E E R I N G OF S H I P S
C a A k ' ( ~ -- a)sin 2~
This last formula indicates the generally accepted
facts t h a t : (1) the radii of the turning circles of a
model and its prototype vary as the ratio of their
linear dimensions; (2) the radius of the turning
circle varies inversely as the rudder area; (3) the
radius of the turning circle varies inversely as the
sine of twice the rudder angle, provided no breakdown in flow occurs; (4) the radius of the turning
circle varies directly as the distance between the
center of gravity of the ship and the point of application of the hull force component. This formula also indicates that the radius of the turning
circle is independent of speed. While not absolutely correct, speed variation does have a relatively minor effect on radius.
Reference t2t does not give any precise means of
determining the location of the point of at)plication of the lateral resistance of the hull. This
paper suggests that the distance of this point from
the ship's center of gravity depends principally on
the length-beam ratio for hull forms which are
otherwise similar. The author points out that
this probability is based on experiments with only
two models and that no general conclusion can
safely rest on such a narrow base. Nevertheless,
it would appear that a promising field for further
research has been opened by this author. It is to
be hot)ed that he will run a series of models based
on the same parent lines but differing ill lengthbeam ratio to ascertain if, at constant speed and
rudder angle, there is a consistent relation between length-beam ratio and the distance of the
hull force from the center of gravity. This would
make possible k much more accurate estimate of
the maneuverability of a projected ship in the
early stages of design. If we express the tactical
diameter as a multiple of the length (i.e., let o =
nL), we have
nL =
4a V' cos ,
Cm4k ( L -- ,,) sin 2,~"
KL
2K 4- 8 V' cos 4,
where
K = ComLAk' sin 2a
From this we can plot a curve of values of a
against rudder area and thereby, for assumed hull
"
ON THE TURNING
AND STEERING
At
At
At
At
TD/L
ratios;
OF SHIPS
315
"--'4
516
ON T H E T U R N I N G A N D S T E E R I N G O F S H I P S
ON THE TURNING
AND STEERING
OF SHIPS
517
518
ON T H E T U R N I N G A N D S T E E R I N G OF SHIPS
ON THE TURNING
AND STEERING
OF SHIPS
519
CAPTAIN CIIRISTIAN BLOM, Member: The author should be complimented on attacking a subject so complicated as the turning and steering of
ships, and on dealing with it in a masterly way.
I t is particularly the influence of the hull t h a t
makes the m a t t e r involved, and I quite agree with
the remark t h a t a better knowledge of hull action
is a prerequisite to the whole subject.
The way in which the work on the problem of
turning is tackled seems to me quite convincing.
I t brings forth i m p o r t a n t factors that, to m y
knowledge, have as yet been passed unnoticed b y
the profession and will be of great help in figuring
out probable turning qualities in future designs.
I think most naval architects will bear the
author out in his r e m a r k on steering, t h a t "the
whole m a t t e r will bear further study," and it is
again the knowledge of hull action t h a t is found
lacking.
The question of good steering is of importance
primarily in a seaway, when the ship is incessantly rolling more or less. Experience tells us
t h a t some ships, which could be steered all right
when in sheltered waters, in a rough sea start pronounced yawings t h a t the rudder cannot take
charge of, while other ships are noticeably easy to
steer under all circumstances. This difference in
behavior m u s t arise from action of their hulls alone.
In this connection, I beg to call attention to two
papers read before the Institution of N a v a l Architects, London, (1937 and 1942) b y Engineer Admiral Alfred Turner, "On the Balance of Heeled
Ships." These papers give evidence t h a t ships
which are not "balanced" will deviate from their
course when inclined. ( " N o t balanced" is, in Admiral Turner's terms, a ship where the listed centers of gravity o f the different underwater section areas projected on the listed waterplane do
320
ON THE TURNING
AND STEERING
not come in line with or in line parallel to the intersection of this waterplane and a vertical plane
drawn parallel to the ship's course through the
ship's listed center of buoyancy, b u t follow an undulating line, the axis of which the ship will follow
despite the counter-action of the rudder.)
A ship which is set rolling will, if not balanced,
for each heel to starboard swing out of its course
to one side or the other (according to its special
form of hull) and to the opposite side when heeled
to port. As the center of buoyancy of the ship, at
times, also shifts in a longitudinal direction, when
the ship heels over there will at the same time
be a change of trim accompanying the heelings,
and so the ship is constantly p e n d u l a t i n g - - t o starboard and port, up and down.
These are the m o v e m e n t s when rolling in still
water, to say nothing of the movements in a rough
sea.
OF SHIPS
321
turning and steering can be made only if they result in no increased resistance to propulsion.
This does not mean t h a t there is reduced need
for a better understanding of the behavior of ships
in a turn. On the contrary, improvements of the
hull and the rudder can be advanced only through
better understanding. This work begins to throw
light on the sea of conjecture in which we have
been floundering. Dr. Davidson has his foot in
the door. I have faith he can push it open.
PROFESSOR DAVIDSON: I had naturally hoped
t h a t this paper would provoke discussion. T h a t
it would provoke so much highly instructive discussion, in these busy times, I had not dared hope.
I t seems clear t h a t the subject is one of considerable interest, and t h a t there is plenty left to
be learned a b o u t it.
The paper a t t e m p t s to do just three things:
First, to present in broad perspective a picture
of the turning characteristics of existing vessels.
This is based on actual turning-test data; its objective is to "see where we've been and to t r y to
find out where we want to go."
Second, to bring out the need for a systematic
experimental s t u d y of the variables governing
turning characteristics, and to suggest a few first
steps in a general attack.
Third, to emphasize the need for considering
steering characteristics along with turning characteristics, particularly in conjunction with any
a t t e m p t to improve on the best turning characteristics of the present day.
The very first sentence in the paper is "Ships
have been turned and steered with reasonable success for centuries." F r o m this, it would not have
been unreasonable to expect t h a t a n y group, like
ourselves, undertaking serious work on these subjects at the present time would have found a fairly
well-established framework of knowledge on which
to build. We might have expected to find ourselves concerned, not so much with broad exploration, as with clarification and elaboration of detail. This, however, was not found to be the case,
and the overall survey of the turning characteristics of existing vessels, in the first portion of the
paper, was really undertaken on this account. I
think t h a t the discussions which have been presented, when taken as a whole, tend to confirm
the fact t h a t clarification was needed, and t h a t
even more would be in order.
A number of the discussions dwell on the importance of good steering (course-keeping) qualifies rather than of good turning qualities. I t is
particularly interesting to find, however, t h a t
most of these discussions have come from individuals whose p r i m a r y concern in peacetime is
522
OF StlIPS
ON T H E T U R N I N G A N D S T E E R I N G O F S H I P S
flight situations, rather than normal, often determine control characteristics in many respects,
but with ships I do not think the special problems
can be attacked intelligently until we have a clear
understanding of turning and steering in calm
water.
,
A number of specific questions have been
raised.
Admiral Cochrane calls attention to the spread
of the test points in Fig. 3, and suggests that
there are " . . . a number of factors involved which
need further exploration." This is undoubtedly
the case. The purpose of Fig. 3, and of the
reasoning based upon it, is to get a broad perspective. I am prepared to defend it on that
ground, and, as long as it is understood for what
it is, I think it may well serve as a good springboard for the next jump.
Admiral Coehrane mentions also the question
of excessive angle of heel in very short turns at
high speed. Having recently spent a good deal
of time on this particular question in certain specific cases, I am not likely to underestimate its
importance. A reasonable accumulation of general information regarding it is already available
from tests; the paper does not dwell upon it only
because I could see no possibility of covering all
of the m a n y detailed aspects of turning and steering at one time.
Dr. Goldsmith discusses the question of
whether the hyper-sensitive helm of model A is
good or bad. Observations of the actual steering
characteristics of the corresponding full-size vessel itself, under ordinary service conditions, have
been made since the paper was written. It seems
quite clear from these that this design is somewhat deficient" in steering ability. The ship is
hyper-sensitive on her helm in the sense that large
changes of turning circle result from very small
changes of rudder angle; but in steering on
straight course her response to rudder applications is at first sluggish and then rather extreme.
I would like to emphasize, however, that I consider Dr. Goldsmith's discussion to be of precisely
the type which is required if we are to reach a
satisfactory definition of good steering.
Mr. Vincent's very interesting remarks regarding directional stability are noted. I t is
hoped that the more concerted attack on the steering problem as a whole, which has now been
started through the theory, will help to clarify this
matter.
Mr. Bates has brought out the important influence on turning of the after underwater sections, and has suggested t h a t the paper does not
give enough emphasis to these. Our experience
at the Experimental Towing T a n k amply bears
323
524
ON THE TURNING
AND STEERING
OF SHIPS
tance of thrust deduction, etc. (that is, of the interference effects in the case of propulsion) I
strongly suspect t h a t interference effects in the
case of steering and turning---between hulls, rudders, and propellers--are essentially larger. If
this turns out to be so, it would be dangerous to
proceed too far without giving t h e m a prominent
place in the studies.
C o m m a n d e r Wright mentions the use of a
rotating a r m to provide for towing models in a
uniform curvilinear p a t h in the same way t h a t
they are towed in uniform rectilinear p a t h in an
ordinary towing tank, and has pointed out t h a t a
small-scale version of this device was used b y the
Experimental Towing T a n k in early investigations. A larger one is now under construction for
use in the new maneuvering tank.
In reviewing the discussions as a whole, for the
purpose of these closing remarks, I have been impressed anew b y the extraordinarily wide range
which they cover, and b y the v e r y considerable
interest in the subject which they reveal. Each
one adds to the overall picture, and it is an education to read t h e m through consecutively. However, notwithstanding their breadth and the
nmnber of points of view they represent, I think if
one reads them carefully he will be impressed, as
I have been, with the extent to which they tend
to focus on one central theme. This is, as I see it:
(1) T h a t there is a definite need for a fuller
knowledge of the whole subject.
(2) That, in further work, steering should receive at least equal emphasis with turning.
C3) T h a t the real problem is to improve the
turning and steering characteristics of vessels
without material detriment to the resistance and
other i m p o r t a n t characteristics; f6r t h a t matter,
without having to alter designing practices in any
radical way on their account.
(4) That, in general, the s t a r t already made is
in the right direction, but t h a t greater concentration on fundamentals would be desirable for the
future.
I t is very stimulating to find t h a t the work discussed in the paper has m e t with general approval,
and to find such universal interest in carrying it
farther.
REAR ADMIRAL OEORGE H. ROCK, Chairman:
On behalf of the Society, I t h a n k Dr. Davidson for
the very excellent paper he has prepared and also
those who have taken such an interest in discussing it, bringing out so much t h a t all of us wanted
to hear.