Article: Advanced Double Hull Concept Reduces Costs, Increases ...

Special Issue: 

Ships Navy Experts Explain 

the Newest Material & 

Structural Technologies 

AMPTIAC is a DOD Information Analysis Center Administered by the 

Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Technical Information Center

The issue you hold in your hands has been 14 months in the 

making. It began with a simple idea: turn the spotlight on the 

age-old art of building ships. We wanted to show the exciting 

new technologies that are offering novel materials for ship construction, 

changing the way ships are built, and indeed creating 

one of the most fundamental shifts in Navy combatants since 

steel replaced wood. 

This simple mission turned 

out to be much more complex. 

The project underwent a number 

of different iterations, but 

finally settled in and came 

together. It has been a labor of 

love for yours truly, for I really 

do believe that even though airplanes 

and tanks often grab the 

spotlight, Navy ships are still the most challenging structural 

and materials engineering systems fielded in today’s military. 

Nothing has the complexity, impact, size, and sheer force of a 

fighting vessel, nor can many things capture the imagination in 

quite the same way. 

So here it is, finally, and I am thankful that it is done. Not 

just because it is off my desk and I can get on to the next project, 

but we are proud because AMPTIAC has compiled something 

that probably has not existed before: an overview of the 

newest technologies being incorporated into structures and 

materials for use aboard Navy combatants. And the people providing 

the perspective are the experts at the Office of Naval 

Research, NSWC-Carderock, and the Naval Research Lab. You 

won’t find this level of detail, variety, and expert content 

focused on this subject anywhere else. 

That all being said, there is one critical feature of this publication 

that needs some attention: the DOD center behind it. 

Some of you out there have been reading this publication for 

seven years now. You undoubtedly remember about two years 

ago when we shifted over to our current layout format and full 

Editorial: 

There’s More to AMPTIAC 

than the Quarterly 

color reproduction. You also have probably noticed that we are 

publishing these large special issues fairly often. It is all a part 

of our mission to bring you the most in-depth, focused, and 

technologically exciting coverage of Defense materials and processing 

advances available anywhere. 

But the side effect of the more noticeable and attentiongrabbing 

Quarterly, is that 

AMPTIAC itself has lost some 

attention. The reality is that the 

center has grown with numerous 

projects, focused reports, 

and database efforts over the 

past few years, but there are 

many out there that may read 

this publication and not even 

know that the center exists. 

We want to put more emphasis on the other efforts 

AMPTIAC is involved in, and let our customers and potential 

customers know that we are here for you. We help with questions, 

assist in materials selection, and provide consultation on 

a variety of materials and processing-related issues. We have 

more than 210,000 DOD technical reports in our library and 

direct access to hundreds of thousands more throughout DOD, 

DOE, NASA, and other US Government agencies. We have 

dozens of focused reports tailored to specific technology areas 

and many more compiling vast amounts of data into handbook-style 

resources. 

The basic message here is to take note of this magazine, read 

it, and enjoy. But if you think AMPTIAC is just the Quarterly, 

Think Again. 

Wade Babcock 

Editor-in-Chief 

http://iac.dtic.mil/amptiac 

Editor-in-Chief 

Wade G. Babcock 

Creative Director 

Cynthia Long 

Information Processing 

Judy E. Tallarino 

Patricia McQuinn 

Inquiry Services 

David J. Brumbaugh 

Product Sales 

Gina Nash 

Training Coordinator 

Christian E. Grethlein, P.E. 

The AMPTIAC Quarterly is published by the Advanced Materials and Processes Technology Information 

Analysis Center (AMPTIAC). AMPTIAC is a DOD sponsored Information Analysis Center, administratively 

managed by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). 

The AMPTIAC Quarterly is distributed to more than 15,000 materials professionals around the world. 

Inquiries about AMPTIAC capabilities, products and services may be addressed to 

David H. Rose 

Director, AMPTIAC 

315-339-7023 

EMAIL: amptiac@alionscience.com 

URL: http://amptiac.alionscience.com 

We welcome your input! To submit your related articles, photos, notices, or ideas for future issues, please contact: 

AMPTIAC 

ATTN: WADE G. BABCOCK 

201 Mill Street 

Rome, New York 13440 

PHONE: 315.339.7008 

FAX: 315.339.7107 

EMAIL: 

amptiac_news@alionscience.com

Jeffrey E. Beach, Director 

Survivability, Structures, and Materials Directorate 

Daniel D. Bruchman 

and 

Jerome P. Sikora, Branch Head 

Design Applications Branch 

Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center 

West Bethesda, MD 

INTRODUCTION 

The primary hull structure of a modern surface ship can provide 

practical solutions for a multitude of obstacles facing a commercial 

or combatant design. Acquisition cost, life cycle costs, 

detectability, survivability, speed, range and payload are all, potentially, 

important factors when selecting a platform to perform a 

specific mission. For improved performance in many of these 

areas, significant resources have been allocated for further development 

of structural technologies used in both primary and secondary 

structural applications. Often these technological options 

increase the cost and complexity of the structure, have limited 

impact on overall ship operational capabilities, and are, therefore, 

only utilized in very weight-critical locations and designs. 

In the late 1980’s, the Structures and Composites Department 

at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division 

(NSWCCD) began assessing the feasibility of the Advanced 

Double Hull (ADH) concept with attributes that can significantly 

impact all the areas in the design space. The ADH concept 

consists of an inner and outer hull, connected by longitudinal 

web girders. The resulting cellular structure 

exhibits increased structural capacity 

under typical seaway loads and the opportunity 

for improved resistance to weapons 

effects. The ADH concept is shown in 

Figure 1. 

Figure 1. Graphic Depiction of ADH Concept (Left) and Traditional 

Ship Construction (Right). 

GENERAL BENEFITS OF THE ADH 

The ADH structure is unidirectional; all of the shell and deck 

material acts in the longitudinal (parallel to the long axis of the 

ship) direction. The transverse (perpendicular to the long axis of 

the ship) frames (welded stiffeners) have been eliminated and the 

transverse bulkheads provide the support for the longitudinal 

structure. The elimination of transverse frames in an ADH configuration 

has a number of positive effects on hull girder cost 

and performance. 

First of all, the elimination of the transverse framing leads to a 

geometric simplicity that produces significant acquisition cost savings. 

It contributes to an overall reduction in the number of piece 

parts, substantially reducing labor costs associated with the cutting 

and welding at longitudinal stiffener and transverse frame intersections. 

Figure 2 and Table 1 illustrate the potential piece-part 

reduction of a typical destroyer assembly. The geometric simplicity 

also lends itself to automated fabrication processes. 

Further, the elimination of transverse frames and the smooth 

interior surfaces of the ADH structure greatly facilitate the 

installation of distributive systems, 

painting, and their associated costs. 

A visual comparison is provided in 

Figures 3 and 4 showing the relative 

complexities associated with the installation 

of these systems on a conventionally 

framed combatant and an ADH combatant, 

respectively. 

The distributive systems added to an 

ADH structure would not have to navigate through 

and over transverse structure. In fact, a cost comparison was 

conducted for electrical, HVAC, and piping systems in a 

destroyer. The analysis estimated that the use of an ADH 

configuration would result in a 17.5% labor hour savings in the 

electrical craft, a 17.9% labor hour savings in the sheet metal 

craft and a 23.6% labor hour savings in the piping craft. 

When combined with other material, labor, and yard costs, 

construction expense for an ADH destroyer can be reduced by 

$60 million when compared to a conventional ship.[1] 

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 3 5

Panel 

Stiffeners 

Compensation 

Rings 

Collar Plates 

Transverse 

Floors 

Flange & Tangency 

Chocks 

Chafing 

Rings 

Shell & Inner 

Bottom 

Longitudinals 

& Stringers 

Longitudinal 

Girders 

Longitudinal 

Girders 

Keel 

Brackets 

Panel Stiffeners 

Figure 2. Piece-parts Used In Framing a Conventional Destroyer Hull Section. 

Table 1. Comparison of Piece-part Requirements in a 

Conventional and ADH Destroyer Assembly. 

Number of Basic Structural Pieces 

Item ConventionalADH Variance 

Design Design < - > 

Collars 200 0 

Chocks 120 0 

Panel Stiffeners 40 0 

Access 40 11 

Opening Rings 

Chafing Rings 100 20 

Deep 11 13 +2 

Longitudinal Girders 

Intermediate 6 0 

Shell Longitudinals 

Intermediate Inner6 0 

Bottom Longitudinals 

Individual 50 0 

Floor Panels 

Docking 10 10 – 

Keel Brackets 

Deep Long'l Girder7 9 +2 

Panel Stiffeners 

Total Basic 584 63 

Ultimately, cost is most often the metric that governs the 

selection of a ship platform. Before a new technology is adopted 

into a platform’s design, significant acquisition and/or life 

cycle cost reductions as compared to existing processes and 

designs must be demonstrated. Acquisition cost is easily quantified 

and readily demonstrated with the ADH concept. 

However, life cycle cost reduction potential can be difficult to 

demonstrate – particularly for a combatant. Life cycle costs 

encompass recurring expenses such as routine maintenance, 

painting, corrosion management, structural failures resulting 

from typical seaway or combatant operations, military and 

political ramifications if a platform cannot complete a mission, 

and replacement costs if a ship is lost at sea. The ADH concept 

offers a unique solution that significantly reduces costs and 

risks throughout the operational life of the ship. 

The structural material comprising the transverse frames in 

conventional, grillage construction (utilizing both transverse 

and longitudinal welded stiffeners) is redistributed into the 

inner and outer hulls in an ADH configuration - increasing the 

hull girder section modulus. This lowers the primary, seawayinduced 

longitudinal bending stresses and increases the fatigue 

life of the structure. The elimination of the transverse frames 

further increases the hull girder fatigue life by significantly 

reducing the number of crack initiation sites at the intersections 

of longitudinal stiffeners and transverse frames. 

The increased section modulus also gives the ship designer 

flexibility to isolate (both acoustically and from shock) internal 

decks, because they no longer need to resist primary loadings. 

Similarly, ADH technology can be utilized to incorporate modular 

design capabilities into a ship system. The inherent 

6 

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 3

Machinery 

Platform 

Plate & Beam 

Web Frame 

Longitudinals (Typical) 

strength of an ADH hull form can also allow for large openings 

in deck structures, simplifying the removal and replacement of 

obsolete systems. 

Pipe (C) 

Figure 3. Typical Structure-System Interface on 

Conventional Combatant. 

Pipe (C) 

Pipe (B) 

Longitudinal BHD Plating 

Plate & Beam 

Smooth Cored Deck 

Machinery Platform 

Pipe (B) 

Advanced 

Double Hull 

Pipe (A) 

Inner 

Plating 

Figure 4. Typical Structure-System Interface on an ADH 

Combatant. 

Figure 5. Rigid Vinyl and Finite Element Analysis 

of Stress Behavior in ADH Structures. 

Smooth 

Hull 

Pipe (A) 

STUDYING THE MECHANICS OF THE ADH 

Over the last several years substantial research into the ADH 

has documented the structural characteristics and performance 

of the concept under a variety of loading conditions. This 

research has primarily focused on the performance of a prismatic 

ADH structure located in the mid-section of the ship 

(where the sides are roughly parallel). Research has included 

investigations into the stress behavior of prismatic ADH structures 

[2] (Figure 5) and their ultimate strength (Figure 6). 

Ford, et. al. were able to use the finite element method in 

conjunction with rigid vinyl model tests to evaluate the stress 

behavior of an ADH structure. It was shown that, for a given 

ADH geometry, the stress state of the structure could be predicted 

using classical strength of material approaches. Further 

investigations were conducted to determine the collapse 

strength of ADH cellular structures, and are pictured in Figure 

7.[3] 

Devine tested a series of large 3-cell and 5-cell ADH 

columns to collapse under axial loading conditions. A significant 

amount of scatter was observed in the behavior of the 

columns, particularly in the columns with plates having a slenderness 

ratio (length/thickness) typically used in ship construction. 

Devine showed that classical plate-buckling equations 

that did not account for welding-induced residual stresses 

were somewhat unconservative. There was a significant 

reduction in the column collapse strength resulting from the 

welding-induced residual stresses, which must be accounted 

for in the design process. 

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 was enacted following the 

Exxon Valdez tragedy in 1989. This legislation requires newly 

built tankers trading in US waters to be fitted with double hull structure. 

It also set a schedule for phasing out single hull tankers currently 

in service. Significant assets were, therefore, allocated in the 

ADH program to evaluate and improve the grounding and stranding 

behavior of double hull configurations (Figure 8).[4, 5, 6, 7] 

Rodd was able to demonstrate through a series of large-scale 

grounding tests, that inner hull rupture occurred at the transverse 

frames of conventional grillage construction. Removal of 

transverse frames in the ADH allowed the structure to 

absorb substantially more energy before inner hull failure. 

Additional crash resistant features were also 

developed to further enhance the configuration’s 

damage resistance. 

In addition to the extensive research to determine 

the structural characteristics and behavior of 

ADH structures under conventional loading conditions, there 

has also been substantial research to determine their behavior 

under combatant loading conditions. This included analysis of 

explosions above the waterline (called AIREX) and below (called 

UNDEX) (Figure 9). 

NSWC conducted an extensive numerical analysis of an 

ADH cruiser subjected to an underwater explosion.[8] Results 

indicated that an ADH configuration was better at attenuating 


Figure 6. Test Articles for Ultimate Strength Analysis of 

ADH Structures. 

Figure 7. 

Measuring the 

Collapse 

Strength of 

ADH 

Structures. 

shock on equipment by reducing accelerations and peak velocities 

during the UNDEX event. 

Research to date indicates that, compared to a conventional 

grillage type of structure, the ADH is generally stronger and 

more damage resistant under the tested loading conditions, with 

little increase in weight. Both acquisition and life cycle costs are 

reduced in the ADH concept due to geometric simplification, 

piece-part reductions and the associated facilitation of painting 

and the installation of distributive systems. Furthermore, if the 

space between the hulls is properly utilized and the right materials 

selected, the ADH concept offers the potential for significant 

reductions in IR, acoustic and magnetic signature levels. The extensive 

research to date has culminated in the development of guidelines 

for ADH structure design.[9] 

MANUFACTURING/MAINTENANCE ISSUES 

WITH THE ADH CONCEPT 

There are significant manufacturing, maintenance and inspection 

issues unique to the ADH hull form. These issues 

generally revolve around the ability to gain access to the 

interior cell spaces and are magnified for smaller ship classes 

as the separation between the inner and outer hulls is reduced 

for weight and volumetric considerations. As the distance 

between the inner and outer hulls increases beyond about one 

meter, more conventional construction, maintenance and 

inspection methods can be employed. 

Conventional welding techniques can be used for all aspects of 

ADH construction until the inner shell region is welded to the 

longitudinal web girders in a design with a hull separation less 

than one meter. Then, because of the limited access to the interior 

space, other welding processes may be required. These 

processes may include automated welding techniques and can be 

accomplished from either inside or outside the cellular structure. 

Laser welding, electron-beam welding, and friction-stir welding 

(please see accompanying article in this issue by DeLoach, et. al.) 

have all been investigated and are viable options. Most near-term 

applications being considered could be effectively fabricated 

using manual or mechanized welding techniques. 

Maintenance and inspection issues of the small interior cellular 

structure have been investigated. Robotic technologies have 

been studied [10] and proven to be effective means of performing 

inspections and routine maintenance, such as painting and 

minor repairs when necessary (see Figure 10). 

Corrosion maintenance and repair costs of Navy combatants 

are estimated to be at least $1.2 billion a year for approximately 

360 ships.[11] Material selection, coatings and manufacturing 

techniques must be carefully evaluated to minimize corrosion. 

In an ADH combatant, the increased horizontal surfaces 

where water can accumulate and the generation of additional 

moisture caused by variation in temperature between the inner 

8 


Figure 8. Studying the Grounding Response of ADH 

Structures. 

and outer cell walls can aggravate corrosion problems.[9] 

Several coatings were evaluated for ADH applications to help 

minimize corrosion problems. In general, high build epoxies 

were the most effective in both long- and short-term exposure 

tests [12] and often outperformed the standard Navy F150/151 

epoxy system. Pre-coating ADH structural components also 

proved effective in reducing coating costs. 

STAINLESS STEELS 

Budget conditions mandate that ship construction costs be 

reduced in future combatant construction. Many technologies 

and systems that would improve combatant performance are not 

considered because they increase acquisition costs, and the 

implementation of stainless steels for hull construction is one 

example of this. Although preferable to ordinary steel construction 

for many reasons, austenitic stainless steels and other nonmagnetic, 

corrosion resistant materials are not often considered 

in combatant designs because of acquisition cost constraints. 

The ADH concept provides a practical solution to the combatant 

need for a more survivable hull form. It offers a unique 

geometry and significant cost savings during construction and 

the installation of distributive systems that enable the practical 

implementation of many multi-spectral ship signature reduction 

options. These options include the use of austenitic stainless 

steels, not only for their ability to reduce the magnetic signature, 

but also for their high resistance to Charpy impact and explosion 

bulge loading. Their high elongation before rupture can also 

lower hull girder bending stresses acting on the hull during an 

UNDEX event, and significantly increase survivability in these 

conditions.[13] In Table 2, the properties of commonly used 

magnetic shipbuilding steels are compared with select non-magnetic 

stainless steels. 

There are a number of reasons why the ADH concept is an 

ideal platform to introduce non-magnetic stainless steels. The 

estimated $60M savings for a 9,000 long-ton ADH combatant 

can more than offset the added expense in material and fabrication 

costs of a comparable stainless steel combatant. Further, 

because the ADH concept lends itself to automated welding 

processes, fume controls mandated by the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA) are less problematic. These 

requirements were set forth to protect personnel from the fumes 

generated during the welding of non-magnetic steels and nickelbased 

alloys.[14] Finally, automatic and robotic welding operations 

enabled by the ADH’s geometric simplifications can ensure 

a more consistent, high quality weld than possible with manual 

welding techniques. This is doubly important when welding 

non-magnetic stainless steels, as the weld quality must be 

extremely high in both weld surface condition and the weld 

deposit itself.[15] 

To identify the costs and benefits of a stainless steel ADH 

combatant, a comprehensive research and development program 

began in the late 1990’s. In this program, several stainless 

steels were evaluated based on the following criteria: weldability, 

welded properties, yield strength, elongation, residual stress 

effects, fabrication distortions and crevice and stress corrosion 

susceptibility. The materials also had to be non-magnetic. Based 

on the selection criteria, the focus of the study centered on 

austenitic stainless steels because, although the high nickel and 

chromium content makes the alloys expensive, they exhibit 

Figure 9. ADH Structures in UNDEX and AIREX Tests. 


Figure 10. Robotic Maintenance and Inspection of ADH 

Structures. 

excellent ductility, formability and superior corrosion resistance. 

Austenitic stainless steels evaluated include AL-6XN, Nitronic 

50, and the 300 series. The material costs for plating ranged from 

$1.90/lb for the 300 series, $3.10/lb for the Nitronic 50, to 

$4.00/lb for AL-6XN. 

Based on the results from the stainless steel research and development 

program, several performance and cost characteristics 

were identified. Of the metals investigated, the 300 series steels 

were particularly susceptible to crevice corrosion. In general, the 

AL-6XN provided the best corrosion protection and is recommended 

for the most corrosion-sensitive locations. Both the AL- 

6XN and the Nitronic 50 exhibited yield stresses comparable to 

AH 36. The 316L had a yield stress value around 30 ksi. 

The stainless steel ADH hull form exhibited excellent multispectral 

signature control characteristics. The magnetic signature 

alone was an order of magnitude less than that of an ordinary 

steel hull. However, this did require special handling and 

cutting techniques akin to those used for other non-magnetic 

metals such as aluminum. The space between the hulls could 

also be designed to significantly reduce the IR signature as well 

by the inclusion of active or passive insulators. 

CONCLUSIONS AND REMAINING CHALLENGES 

The Advanced Double Hull concept can significantly 

reduce both acquisition and life cycle costs. The cellular 

structure exhibits increased structural capacity under 

typical seaway loads, superior fatigue performance, and 

the opportunity for improved resistance to weapons 

effects. The inherent strength of an ADH hull form also 

offers the opportunity to isolate internal decks acoustically 

and from shock, providing a less detectable, more 

survivable hull. Further, the ADH concept is an ideal 

platform to construct out of stainless steels, thus providing 

the opportunity for multi-spectral signature control. 

Several issues however, remain to be investigated. ADH technology 

can’t efficiently be implemented approaching the bow 

where the hull form rapidly changes and exhibits flare. Therefore 

optimum details need to be identified in the regions where the 

ADH structure transitions to a conventional structure. Work has 

begun to evaluate the performance of non-prismatic ADH structures, 

but further research is necessary. When constructing a nonmagnetic, 

stainless steel ADH, a dedicated yard with special tooling 

may be necessary. Additionally, there are higher levels of distortion 

resulting from the welding process of the austenitic stainless 

steels and flame straightening may be required. 

REFERENCES 

[1] J. Beach. “Evaluation of Advanced Double Hull (ADH) 

Including the Use of Stainless Steels”, Presentation to SC-21 

Program Office, April 1997 

[2] H. Ford, J.M. Grassman, and R. Michaelson. “Stress 

Behavior of Advanced Double Hull Structures”, Paper No. 10. 

Proceedings of the Advanced Double Hull Technical 

Symposium, 25-26 Oct, 1994, at Gaithersburg, MD 

[3] E. Devine, J. Ricles and R. Dexter. “Instability and Collapse 

Strength of Advanced Double Hull Structures”, Proceedings of the 

Advanced Double Hull Technical Symposium, Paper No. 6, 

Gaithersburg, MD, 25-26 Oct, 1997 

[4] J. Rodd, with M. Phillips and E. Anderson. “Stranding 

Experiments on Double Hull Tanker Structures”, Proceedings of 

the Advanced Double Hull Technical Symposium, Paper No. 2, 

Gaithersburg, MD, 25-26 Oct, 1994 

[5] J. Rodd. “Frame Design Effects in the Rupture of Oil Tanks 

During Grounding Accidents”, DERA, Proceedings of the 

International Conference - Advances in Marine Structures III, 

Table 2. Material Property Comparison of Commonly Used Shipbuilding Steel and Select Non-magnetic Stainless Steels. 

Ultimate Yield Elongation Charpy Modulus Density 

Material Alloy Strength (ksi) Stress (ksi) (% in 2-in.) Toughness (ft-lb) (x10 6 psi) (lb/in 3 ) 

Shipbuilding AH36/ 71-90 51 22 17 transverse 30.0 0.283 

Magnetic DH36 25 longitudinal 

Steel 

(20 °F DH36) 

(0 °F AH36) 

Non- Nitronic 50 104 57 60 103-110 (75 °F) 

Magnetic 83-88 (-100 °F) 26.2 0.285 

Steel AL-6XN 108 53 47 140 (70 °F) 

100 (-200 °F) 28.3 0.291 

10 


Dunfermline UK, 20-23 May, 1997 

[6] T. Wierzbicki, E. Rady, D. Peer and J.G. Shin. Damage 

Estimates in High Energy Grounding of Ships, Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology, Department of Ocean Engineering, 

Tanker Safety Program, Report No. 1, June 1990 

[7] T. Wierzbicki, D. Peer and E. Rady. The Anatomy of Tanker 

Grounding, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department 

of Ocean Engineering, Tanker Safety Program, Report No. 2, 

May 1991 

[8] H. Gray. “Survivability Implications of Advanced Double 

Hull Combatants”, Proceedings of the Advanced Double Hull 

Technical Symposium, Paper No. 18, Gaithersburg, MD, 25-26 

Oct, 1994 

[9] J. Sikora, and E. Devine. Guidelines for the Design of 

Advanced Double Hull Vessels, NSWCCD-65-TR-2001/04, 

West Bethesda, MD: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock 

Division, 2001 

[10] M. Gallagher, T. Barbera, and M. Bankard. “Inspection and 

Maintenance of Advanced Double Hull Cells”, Paper No. 17. 

Proceedings of the Advanced Double Hull Technical 

Symposium, 25-26 Oct. 1994, at Gaithersburg, MD. 1994 

[11] D.D. Thurston. Recurring Fleet Corrosion Issues. Paper 

read at CORROSION 97 (NACE International) Group 

Committee T-9B (CINCLANTFLT maintenance Technical 

Advisor), at New Orleans, LA, March 1997 

[12] H. Hack, Holder, A., Clayton, N., Dobias, P., Arazy, C., 

Bowles, C., Brush, N., Vasanth, K., Katilaus, J., and Jean 

Montemarano. “Corrosion Control of Advanced Double Hull 

Combatants”, Proceedings of the Advanced Double Hull 

Technical Symposium, Paper No. 16, Gaithersburg, MD, 

25-26 Oct, 1994 

[13] E. Moyer, M. Pakstys, and C. Milam. “The Effects of 

Plasticity on the Whipping Response of Surface Ships and 

Submarines”, Proceedings of the 62nd Shock and Vibration 

Symposium, Vol. II, Springfield, Virginia, 29-31 Oct, 1991 

[14] National Shipbuilding Research Program. “Impact of 

Recent and Anticipated Changes in Airborne Emission Exposure 

Limits on Shipyard Workers”, Report NSRP0463 (March 1996) 

[15] Marine Engineers Review. “Corrosion Resistance of 

Stainless Steels for Chemical Tankers”, March 1972 

Dr. Jeffrey E. Beach is Director of the Survivability, Structures, and Materials Directorate at the Carderock Division, 

Naval Surface Warfare Center where he has been employed since 1969. He earned B.S. and M.S. degrees in aerospace 

engineering from the University of Maryland and has had additional graduate training in naval architecture and 

structural engineering. He earned his doctorate in engineering management at The George Washington University. 

Dr. Beach manages a diverse program of exploratory, advanced, and engineering development research aimed at 

the advancement and application of materials and structures to marine vehicle systems. He is active nationally and 

internationally in professional societies, organizations, and exchanges, and has published and presented numerous 

technical papers in the international community. Among his awards are the 1984 American Society of Naval 

Engineers Solberg Award for research and the 1998 ASNE Gold Medal Award. 

Daniel D. Bruchman has been employed at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division since 1986 when 

he received a BS degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Mississippi. Currently, he is a Naval Architect in 

the Structures and Composites Department at Carderock, responsible for the technical analysis and evaluation of 

advanced structural systems under consideration for Navy surface ships and submarines. Mr. Bruchman began his 

career specializing in the use of numerical methods to analyze conventional and unconventional hull forms. His design 

of a ship collapse facility, capable of testing large scale ship structures to collapse under pure moment or momentshear 

combinations, has contributed to a much greater understanding of the global collapse of vessels under these 

conditions. Recently, he has been involved in the development of high strength/lightweight materials and structural systems 

for high speed ships while also serving as the Advanced Double Hull program coordinator. 

Jerome P. Sikora has been employed at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division since 1969 when he 

received a BS degree in Physics from the University of Detroit. Currently, he is the head of the twenty-member Design 

Applications Branch within the Structures and Composites Department, a position he has held since 1986. The Design 

Applications Branch is responsible for developing structural design criteria and design tools for Navy surface ships 

and submarines. Mr. Sikora began his career specializing in the field of static and dynamic optical measurements of 

such structural parameters as stress, deformations, and vibration modes. He has been instrumental in the development 

of unconventional vessels and offshore structures such as SWATHS, tri-hulled ships, and the mobile offshore base. Over 

the past two decades, he has developed probability-based loads criteria for conventional and SWATH ships. 

Recently, he has been involved in developing structural design criteria and design methods for the cellular structure of 

the Advanced Double Hull.

Article: Advanced Double Hull Concept Reduces Costs, Increases ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?