Name: Gary M.
Several of us got into a heated discussion about how and
why a submarine submerges and surfaces. We all agree that it is doing so
because the density of the submarine is being changed.However, some argue
that it is because the water allowed into the ballast tanks to make the
sub sink increases the sub's mass and therefore the density increases and
the sub sinks. Others argue that allowing water into the ballast tanks
decrease the sub's volume and therefore the volume of the water being
displaced by the submarine. As the volume decreases, the density
increases and the sub sinks.
In other words, the first argument is that the mass of the sub increases
while the volume - and therefore the total volume of displaced water -
remains constant. Density increases because mass increases and the sub
submerges with the opposite being true to surface again.
The second argument is that the volume of the sub - and therefore the
total volume of displaced water - decreases while the mass stays the same.
Density increases because volume decreases and the sub submerges with the
opposite being true to surface again.
So - what is the correct answer?
The volume of the submarine does not change. It does not change overall
shape or dimensions as the ballast tanks are emptied or filled. The ballast
tanks are part of the volume of the submarine whether they contain water or
air. An analogy would be a balloon: Blow up the balloon to a diameter of 10
cm. First, fill the balloon with helium (it will rise in air). Second, fill
the balloon with air (it will bounce around). Third, fill the balloon with
water (it will fall to the floor immediately). In all cases the volume of
the balloon is the same:
Volume = 4/3*pi* R^3 but the weight changes.
Not being a marine engineer and never having been on a submarine, I am out
of my field, but have a few thoughts for you. My understanding is that the
ballast tanks are filled as the air from those tanks is compressed and
stored for later when the tank might need to be "blown." The ballast tanks
are filled simply to replace the air that is compressed (thereby increasing
the overall density of the submarine. The water is simply filling a void.
The density is really adjusted by the compression of the air.
However dealing with your question of why the ship submerges, it is my
understanding that the ship only achieves neutral buoyancy. By doing this,
the ship can be maneuvered up and down by the bow control surfaces in the
same way an airplane uses its elevator.
In an emergency, the ballast tanks are "blown" increasing the volume of the
compressed air and causing the average density of the submarine to decrease
and the ship to become buoyant. This technique is only used when the ship
needs to reach the surface faster than the bow controls would allow.
Try that in your conversation and see if it floats. (pun intended)
Both ways of looking at the problem are correct. When you speak of density,
you also need to specify exactly what the object is that you are calculating
the density of. In the former interpretation, you are calculating the
density of the overall submarine. When the density exceeds that of the
local density of water, it will sink. In the latter interpretation, you are
calculating the density of the submarine excluding the ballast tanks.
Again, when the density exceeds that of the local density of water, it will
Your probably going to hate this answer, but both groups are right,
depending on how you define mass and volume and which one you consider
If the volume of the submarine is considered to be the outer hull
dimensions, then this displacement never changes (ignoring deep dives).
Bringing water into the ballast tanks increases the boats mass verses
the volume displaced.
If we consider the mass of the boat to be all of the metal, equipment
and sailors, then the mass will not appreciably change. The minimum
volume would be those areas that never get wet. When the ballast tanks
are empty, the boat has a greater volume then when full vs. its mass.
The same can be said for a sinking ship.
The submarine's mass changes. A submarine's volume is fixed by its hull,
which is rigid.
You could make the argument that the water-filled fraction of the ballast
tank becomes part of the ocean -- and not part of the sub -- when the valve
connecting the tank to the ocean is open, and *after* all the water that is
going to come in has come in. But once you close the valve, the tank would
again become part of the sub, and now you have to go back to the mass-change
viewpoint. Might as well just stick with the mass-change viewpoint, since
it always works.
I think you could argue either way, but to me, defining the volume of a
submarine to include the ballast tanks when they are filled with air, but
not when they are filled with water seems rather artificial.
I would certainly prefer to say that replacing the air in the ballast tanks
by water increases the mass of the submarine while keeping the volume
constant, which then increases the average density of the submarine, and so
causes the submarine to sink.
Best, Dick Plano...
I do not think it is worth arguing about.
Both ways of thinking agree with both the structure and the behavior,
and I do not think our logic is set up enough to clearly distinguish
between the two.
This "compare the density" concept is a rule of thumb, not a law of physics.
A higher law of physics here is: which nearby (in space and time)
submarine depth minimizes the total energy of the system?
Or: that a unitized body will sink if the sum of all forces on it is
You know that the inner hull of the sub, all its contents, and the outer
hull which enclosed the ballast tanks,
are part of your solid object. The air and/or water in the ballast tanks
may be included or not, your free choice.
The set of components of the calculation differs depending on your choice,
but the net balance of forces does not.
My bias, since the water in the tanks usually travels up and down with the
sub and the air always must travel with the sub,
is to consider the contents of the tanks as part of the sub.
But when flooded, the tanks could easily have openings at top and bottom,
and then one could argue that the water part of the contents is not stuck
with the sub.
Are you mutually willing to define a measurement of the inertia of the sub
to velocity changes?
Such derivatives sometimes determine your answer in tricky cases.
Perhaps you would accept that as an arbitrator of whether the water is
part of the sub.
Click here to return to the Engineering Archives
Update: June 2012