Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Ship Project A final report
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Ship Project A final report

1,815
views

Published on

Published in: Technology

0 Comments
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,815
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
222
Comments
0
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. AALTO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING Department of Applied Mechanics Marine Technology Ship Project A M/S Arianna Cruise ship without lifeboats Jürgen Rosen 338099 Sander Nelis 337498 Justin Champion 397205
  • 2. AALTO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING Department of Applied Mechanics Marine Technology Introduction and Feasibility Studies M/S Arianna
  • 3. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 2 1.1 1.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE ................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 2 FOREWORD .............................................................................................................................. 2 VESSEL OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................. 3 FEASIBILITY STUDIES ................................................................................................ 4 2.1 MISSION ................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 MARKET .................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2.1 The cruise industry........................................................................................................................ 5 2.2.2 The luxury cruise market .............................................................................................................. 5 2.2.3 Cruising in England ...................................................................................................................... 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 - Outboard profile ..................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2-1 - Cruise route ............................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2-2 – Past cruiser statistics .............................................................................................. 6 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 - Main particulars ....................................................................................................... 3 Table 2-1 - Port limitations ........................................................................................................ 4 1
  • 4. 1 Introduction 1.1 Foreword This project was assigned in conjunction with the course Kul-24.4110, Ship Project A. The task was to develop further the design completed in the Ship Conceptual Design course by completing an additional iteration through the ship design spiral. One major objective is to achieve as holistic a design as possible, with an equal amount of effort placed on each of the deliverables. This report summarizes the main challenges and outcomes of each task, along with the methods used for their completion. 1.2 Project schedule In addition to time reserved for the final report and all corrective measures, the project was divided into five major phases. For each, background information including a summarization of completed work, areas for improvement, and additional tasks to be completed were first presented. The main project tasks were as follows:  Task 1 – resistance, propulsion, and machinery  Task 2 – general arrangement  Task 3 – hull structure  Task 4 – lightweight and intact stability  Task 5 – cost and ship price Not included in this structure were additional NAPA considerations, such as the damage stability and lines drawing. 2
  • 5. 1.3 Vessel overview The final design is for the cruise ship Arianna, a small-scale, luxury cruise ship to be based in the United Kingdom. The main difference between this ship and existing ones is the fact that she has no lifeboats onboard, but rather alternative forms of lifesaving equipment. The vessel’s final main particulars are provided in Table 1-1 and the outboard profile in Figure 1-1. Table 1-1 - Main particulars Length overall Length between perpindiculars Beam Draft Air draft Service speed Froude number Displacement Gross registered tons Block coefficient Max. passenger capacity Max. crew capacity Total electric power Propeller diameter Fuel Classification societies 120 107,5 18 5,4 18 17 0,25 7023 6577 0,65 184 62 17,82 3,8 HFO DNV and ABS m m m m m kn [-] t GRT [-] [-] [-] MW m [-] [-] Figure 1-1 - Outboard profile 3
  • 6. 2 Feasibility studies Though the focus of this project is on the technical characteristics and overall design process, it is no less important to research the current demand and industry in order to ensure the project’s feasibility. As such, the definition of the vessel’s mission, research of the market, and compilation of current ship data served as the starting point of the design process. 2.1 Mission The vessel’s mission, as a cruise ship, is straightforward: to transport passengers in a comfortable setting with overnight accommodations to the decided ports of call. As a luxury cruise ship, however, a much higher standard will be expected in terms of comfort and service. Finally, a core mission is to ensure an extremely high level of safety in both normal operation conditions and emergencies. As the ship has no lifeboats, this is among the most important considerations throughout the project. According to SOLAS regulations, vessels without lifeboats must operate no more than 200 miles from the coast, so selecting a suitable area of operation was important. With these limitations, a route along the coast of the United Kingdom was selected. Many UK ports are popular among current cruise lines and there is no need to sail long distances in open water. A typical itinerary starts from the port of Dover and visits, in order, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Swansea, Holyhead, Douglas, and Liverpool. This results in an open-ended cruise, though it could be customized to end at the same port of embarkation as well. Known port limitations are listed in Table 2-1. It should be noted that exact information for the port of Douglas was not found, though commercial vessels are offered deep-water berths in the outer harbour while large vessels, including cruise ships, may be restricted to anchoring in the bay and using tenders to bring passengers ashore. With such a small ship, however, this should not be an issue. The route, along with estimated distances, is shown in Figure 2-1. Table 2-1 - Port limitations Port Dover Portsmouth Plymouth Swansea Holyhead Douglas* Liverpool Max. Length [m] 342.5 285 140 200 300 350 Breadth [m] 26,2 - Max. Draught[m] 10.5 9,5 18 9,9 10,5 10.5 4
  • 7. Figure 2-1 - Cruise route 2.2 Market Even in today’s questionable economic climate, the cruise industry is expected to continue growing in the future. All industry aspects affecting this design show strong trends over recent years. 2.2.1 The cruise industry The cruise industry is the fastest growing category in the leisure travel market, with an annual growth of 7.6% since 1990 (1). Today, the industry demand outstrips supply (based on berthing), where demand is at 103.2% of such supply (2). As for the future, the industry is forecast to grow over the next 15 years, expanding from a worldwide base of 16 million passengers to between 21 and 28 million in 2027 (1). These trends can be seen in current and future new-build projects, as there are 26 planned cruise ships, carrying from 100 to over 4,000 passengers, to be built in the next two years (2). 2.2.2 The luxury cruise market The cruise industry as a whole continues to expand and so does the luxury cruise market specifically, though at a slightly smaller rate. The market is largely successful because of the high interest and return rate of past cruisers, as highlighted in Figure 2-2. It has been indicated that 87% of luxury cruisers are repeat cruisers and 43% have taken six or more cruise vacations (1). In addition, it was found that 80% of the core market group belonged in the 5
  • 8. “affluent” range in terms of finances, as defined by the CLIA, showing that the future luxury market is promising. This, along with the new cruiser market, makes the luxury market a successful yet under capacity market in regards to demand vs. berths. In fact, there are currently only twenty ocean-going, non-expedition luxury ships in service, with only two new-build projects planned at this time (3). Figure 2-2 – Past cruiser statistics 2.2.3 Cruising in England As with the entire industry, the UK-based cruise market is thriving at present, both in terms of UK cruisers and cruises within the country. Currently, UK ranks second, behind only the US, in terms of passenger market penetration. As of 2012, nearly 3% of all UK citizens have taken a cruise, and the annual number of cruisers has increased greatly over the past decade (4). The UK and northern Europe make up the third largest cruise market, with almost 11% of current deployments, behind only the Caribbean and Mediterranean (4). The cruise industry in the UK specifically is experiencing a rapid increase and a record number of cruise ships will call at UK ports in 2014 (5). Further, 860 cruises are scheduled to depart from British ports while there has been a 12% rise in the number of cruises starting and ending in the UK. This all leads to a promising market forecast and validates the choice to base the ship in the UK. 6
  • 9. Bibliography 1. Cruise Lines International Association, Inc. CLIA Overview. 2012. 2. —. Cruise Market Profile Study. 2011. 3. Ward, Douglas. Complete Guide to Cruising and Cruise Ships 2012. London : Berlitz, 2011. 4. Cruise Lines International Association. 2013 Cruise Industry Update. s.l. : CLIA, 2013. 5. Travel Magazine. Cruise industry booming as UK sailing forecast to hit all-time high. 2013. 7
  • 10. AALTO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING Department of Applied Mechanics Marine Technology Primary Dimensions and Hull Form M/S Arianna
  • 11. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... 1 1 PARAMETRIC STUDY .................................................................................................. 2 1.1 2 PRELIMINARY DIMENSIONS ..................................................................................................... 2 HULL FORM DEFINITION .......................................................................................... 5 2.1 BOW SHAPE .............................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 MIDSHIP SHAPE ........................................................................................................................ 7 2.3 STERN SHAPE ........................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 PRISMATIC COEFFICIENT ......................................................................................................... 8 2.5 LENGTH OF PARALLEL MID-BODY ........................................................................................... 8 2.6 LOCATION OF MID-SECTION..................................................................................................... 9 2.7 LONGITUDINAL CENTRE OF BUOYANCY .................................................................................. 9 3 LINES DRAWING ......................................................................................................... 10 4 HYDROSTATIC CURVES ........................................................................................... 11 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Length as a function of number of passengers ........................................................ 3 Figure 1-2. Breadth as a function of number of passengers ....................................................... 3 Figure 1-3. Draft as a function of number of passengers ........................................................... 4 Figure 1-4. Breadth as a function of length ................................................................................ 4 Figure 1-5. Draft as a function of length .................................................................................... 5 Figure 2-1. Shapes of the bow .................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2-2. Modern bulb form.................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2-3. Midship deadrise ..................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2-4. Prismatic coefficient dependent of Froude number ................................................. 8 Figure 2-5. Graph for the parallel mid-body length ................................................................... 8 Figure 2-6. Location of mid - section as a function of Froude number. .................................... 9 Figure 2-7. Longitudinal centre of buoyancy as function of prismatic coefficient .................... 9 1
  • 12. 1 Parametric study In order to identify the initial, major characteristics of the ship, data was collected for cruise ships and luxury cruise ships specifically. With this database, a parametric study was completed for both the preliminary dimensions and general cruise ship characteristics. 1.1 Preliminary dimensions The ship’s main dimensions are limited by the harbours in which she visits, along with the fact that the vessel has no lifeboats. From the previous chapter, it can be seen that the main dimensions are mainly limited by Portsmouth, Plymouth, and Swansea. The Portsmouth harbour limits the draft of the ship to 9.5 m and Plymouth limits the length to 140 m. Finally, Swansea limits the vessel’s breadth to 26.2 m. With no lifeboats, it is important to limit the total number of passengers in order to comply with regulations, therefore, a maximum passenger capacity of 184 persons will be considered. For initial estimations, dimensions were plotted as a function of number of passengers.. The trend for length, breadth and draft are shown in Figure 1-1, Figure 1-2 and in Figure 1-3. The regression for length yields 120 m, for breadth 18 m, and for draft 5,4 m corresponding to the estimation of approximately 184 passengers. In the Figure 1-4 and in Figure 1-5 are shown breadth and draft as a function of length 2
  • 13. 140 130 Length (m) 120 110 Project ship 100 90 80 50 100 150 200 250 300 Number of Passengers Figure 1-1. Length as a function of number of passengers 22 Breadth (m) 20 18 16 Project ship 14 12 10 50 100 150 200 250 300 Number of Passengers Figure 1-2. Breadth as a function of number of passengers 3
  • 14. 6 5.5 Draft (m) 5 4.5 4 Project ship 3.5 3 2.5 2 50 100 150 200 250 300 Number of Passengers Figure 1-3. Draft as a function of number of passengers 20 19 Breadth(m) 18 17 16 Project ship 15 14 13 12 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 Length (m) Figure 1-4. Breadth as a function of length 4
  • 15. 6 5.5 Draft (m) 5 4.5 4 Project ship 3.5 3 2.5 2 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 Length (m) Figure 1-5. Draft as a function of length 2 Hull form definition Hull shape is always designed by considering hydrodynamics, stability, and also the operation area and ship type should be taken into account. The following subsections summarize the major criteria taken into account at the very early design stage. 2.1 Bow shape The shape of the bow of ship project is V-shaped because it has many advantages when compared with a U-shaped bow.  Greater volume of topsides and more space for wider decks  Greater local width in the CWL and thus greater moment of inertia of the water plane and a higher centre of buoyancy - both effects increase KM. The heeling accelerations are smaller and, for a cruise ship, it is one of the most important considerations.  Smaller wetted surface, lower frictional resistance, and lower steel weight  Less curved surface and cheaper outer shell construction  Better seakeeping ability due to a) greater reserve of buoyancy and b) no slamming effects 5
  • 16. Figure 2-1. Shapes of the bow The ship’s hull includes a bulbous bow because the Froude number is over 0,23. Therefore, a bulbous bow is recommended. Today, bulbous forms tapering sharply underneath are preferred since these reduce slamming. Additional advantages are as follows.  Bulbous bows can reduce the powering requirements of the propulsion by 20 %  Course-keeping ability and manoeuvrability are improved  The wetted surface area increasews, which affects the frictional resistance - modern bulbs decrease resistance often by more than 20%. (1) Figure 2-2. Modern bulb form 6
  • 17. 2.2 Midship shape In the midship section, deadrise is used, resulting in the following affects.     Improved flow around the bilge Raised centre of buoyancy KB, which improves stability Decreased rolled damping, which results in larger rolling angles Improved course-keeping ability. (1) Figure 2-3. Midship deadrise 2.3 Stern shape The shape of the stern is a transom stern for the current ship project because of the fact that Fn ≤ 0,3. The transom should be above the waterline. The flat stern begins at approximately the height of the CWL. There will be a conventional twin-screw arrangement. Therefore, this form was introduced merely to simplify construction. The transom stern for fast ships should aim at reducing resistance through the effect of virtual lengthening of the ship. (1) 7
  • 18. 2.4 Prismatic coefficient Figure 2-4. Prismatic coefficient dependent of Froude number As Froude number is equal to 0,25, the prismatic coefficient using Troost’s criteria is . 2.5 Length of parallel mid-body Figure 2-5. Graph for the parallel mid-body length As which is smaller than 0,65, there is an assumed zero parallel mid-body. 8
  • 19. 2.6 Location of mid-section Figure 2-6. Location of mid - section as a function of Froude number. As Froude number is 0,25, the location is 0,4 and the mid –section location from the forward perpendicular is m 2.7 Longitudinal centre of buoyancy Figure 2-7. Longitudinal centre of buoyancy as function of prismatic coefficient LCB is aft of the mid-ship for small values and ahead of for large values. The location of the longitudinal centre of buoyancy is from -1,2% to 0,8% of the overall length. 9
  • 20. m m m m m m Disp Disv S Cb Cm Cp Cwp LCB VCB KMT 10.8 10.5 20 19 7.5 18 0 1 5.4 17 4.5 16 2 15 120.00 110.61 107.49 18.00 18.00 5.40 6.15 20.48 3.33 = = = = = = = = = 3 14 4 5 16 9 8 7 0 9 8 3 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 2 11 1 8 6999 6828 2564 0.6536 0.9209 0.7097 0.8733 -0.93 3.10 9.12 = = = = = = = = = t m3 m2 Lines drawing Loa Lwl Lpp Bmax Bwl Tdwl Lwl/Bwl Lwl/Tdwl Bwl/Tdwl % m m 1.5 9 0 Scale 1:357.51 Scale 1:715.03 10.8 10.5 7.5 5.4 4.5 3 1.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 0 Scale 1:715.03 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
  • 21. m of b uoy. 6 6 mo 4 t wa l ta to di nt me trans ce v. m la eta c. sp eff heik co ocght bl en ici er li ne ar ch to ent m m tri nge a m /c on si r me im ea 4 t 2 2 total displacement 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 t 11000 long. centre of buoy. 56 56.5 57 57.5 58 58.5 m 59 transv. metac. height 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 m 26 block coefficient 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 waterline area 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 moment to change trim 40 60 80 100 120 140 12 13 14 15 16 17 tm/cm 160 immersion/cm 11 m2 1900 18 t/cm 19 HYDROSTATIC CURVES PROJECT DATE HULL ARIANNA/A 2013-11-05 HULL SIGN CREATED TEEK 2013-10-31 draught, moulded draught, moulded m long . ce ntre
  • 22. Bibliography 1. Schneekluth, H and Bertram, V. Ship Design Efficiency and Economy. 2nd. 1998. 12
  • 23. AALTO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING Department of Applied Mechanics Marine Technology Resistance, propulsion and machinery M/S Arianna
  • 24. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. 1 1 RESISTANCE ....................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 1.2 ANDERSEN-GULDHAMMER METHOD .......................................................................................... 5 1.3 NAVCAD SOFTWARE ESTIMATIONS ........................................................................................... 9 1.4 FINAL RESISTANCE COMPARISONS ........................................................................................... 12 1.5 2 ITTC-57 METHOD ....................................................................................................................... 3 EFFECTIVE POWER PREDICTION ................................................................................................ 14 PROPULSION .................................................................................................................... 15 2.1 2.2 OPTIMIZATION OF PROPULSION ................................................................................................. 15 2.3 PROPULSION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY ............................................................................................. 17 2.4 3 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 15 CAVITATION .............................................................................................................................. 21 MACHINERY ..................................................................................................................... 22 3.1 SELECTING MACHINERY ............................................................................................................ 22 3.2 ELECTRIC BALANCE ................................................................................................................... 25 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 26 APPENDIX 1 – ITTC-57 CALCULATIONS .......................................................................... 27 APPENDIX 2 – ANDERSEN-GULDHAMMER CALCULATIONS.................................... 29 APPENDIX 3 – NAVCAD INPUT PARAMETERS ............................................................... 34 APPENDIX 4 – NAVCAD RESISTANCE OUTPUTS ........................................................... 35 APPENDIX 5 – ELECTRIC BALANCE ................................................................................. 36 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Incremental Resistance Values .................................................................................... 5 Figure 1-2. Bulb Correction Interpolation Plot ............................................................................... 9 Figure 1-3. Resistance Results ...................................................................................................... 12 Figure 1-4. Updated Resistance Results ....................................................................................... 13 Figure 1-5. Effective Power Results ............................................................................................. 14 1
  • 25. Figure 2-1. Wageningen B-series graph ....................................................................................... 17 Figure 2-2. Areas of cavitation (7)................................................................................................ 21 Figure 3-1. Electric propulsion illustration. (9) ............................................................................ 22 Figure 3-2. Motor output range (12) ............................................................................................. 24 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Bulb Correction Table ................................................................................................... 8 Table 1-2. Final Effective Power .................................................................................................. 15 Table 3-1. Generation sets (10) (11) ............................................................................................. 23 Table 3-2. Diesel generator set data (11) ...................................................................................... 24 Table 3-3. Electric motor data (13) ............................................................................................... 25 2
  • 26. 1 Resistance Before choosing the main engine and additional machinery for project ship, a preliminary total resistance prediction and subsequent power estimation must be performed. Various methods are used to predict these values, as described in the subsequent sections. 1.1 ITTC-57 Method The method for predicting the resistance of a ship defined by the International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC-57 and ITTC-78) is one of the most straightforward procedures with defined equations (1). By simplifying the process and removing various coefficients, the result is a basic estimation that is generally sufficient for the preliminary design of a conventional vessel. One advantage of this method is its simplicity. Total resistance is calculated with the following formula: ( ) 1-1 where, – total resistance coefficient – density of salt water v – ship speed [m/s] S – wetted surface area of the hull [m2]. For an initial calculation, wetted surface area is estimated using the Holtrop-Mennen method, which is an empirical formula utilizing many vessel parameters. ( ( ) ] ( ) 1-2 The total resistance coefficient is calculated as following (1): 1-3 where, – frictional resistance coefficient – residual resistance coefficient 3
  • 27. – volume-length resistance coefficient – appendage resistance coefficient – air resistance coefficient – steering resistance coefficient Of these, the frictional and residual are calculated while the others approximated. Frictional resistance is calculated by using the ITTC-57 equation, which utilized the Reynolds number, where v, L, and are the ship speed, ship length, and kinematic viscosity of water, respectively. 1-4 where, – Reynolds number Reynolds number is calculated as following: 1-5 where, v – ship speed [m/s] L – ship length [m] – kinematic viscosity of water [m2/s] Following this, we calculate the residual resistance coefficient with the following estimation. This is not prescribed by the ITTC method itself, but is an appropriate approximation (1). [ )] ( 1-6 where, – Froude number – prismatic coefficient – volume-length coefficient B – ship breadth T – ship draft 4
  • 28. The volume-length coefficient equation is a simple ratio between the volumetric displacement and length multiple. 1-7 Remaining resistance coefficients are identified with simple approximations. The incremental resistance coefficient is dependent on speed (see Figure 1-1). The remaining three coefficients: appendage, air, and steering, are taken as suggested values given in the procedure. Figure 1-1. Incremental Resistance Values All calculated and estimated values are provided in Appendix 1. 1.2 Andersen-Guldhammer Method A second method of predicting the total resistance of a ship is Andersen and Guldhammer (2), which refines an earlier method by Guldhammer and Harvald (3). The newer procedure shares many similarities with the ITTC method, but puts a larger focus on the smaller resistance coefficients. It also includes several factors that make up for any deviations with the model hull, including B/T, LCB, hull form, bulb, and appendage factors. Another advantages of this method is that it was specifically created as a computer-oriented tool for the prediction of propulsive power, with an emphasis on the preliminary calculation of an optimum propeller. Therefore, it may be a more accurate prediction method for later use in propeller and machinery calculations. 5
  • 29. Though the input variables are mostly the same, there are some unique definitions for this method, specifically for the length and longitudinal center of buoyancy (LCB). 1-8 1-9 where, – the length of the bulb forward of the forward perpendicular – length of the waterline aft of the aft perpendicular – longitudinal center of buoyancy The total resistance equation is the same as before, shown in Equation (1-1), and the total resistance coefficient differs only in syntax, where resistance coefficient and represents a combined air and steering the frictional resistance coefficient, which is the same as equation 3-4, assuming that there is minimal appendage effect. 1-10 Incremental resistance coefficient is solved with a single equation, as shown below. It is dependent only on the volumetric displacement of our hull form. 1-11 The residuary resistance, however, is more complex, as it depends on four arithmetic variables: E, G, H, and K. 1-12 In turn, the first of these variables, E, depends on four more defined variables: as well as the Froude number, meaning it changes according to the tested ship speed. 1-13 1-14 6
  • 30. 1-15 1-16 1-17 Similarly, the second residuary resistance coefficient, G, is determined by four more defined variables: , of which and therefore G vary with speed. In turn, the first of these variables, E, depends on four more defined variables: as well as the Froude number, meaning it changes according to the tested ship speed. ( ) 1-18 1-19 1-20 1-21 1-22 The final two residuary resistance coefficients are each represented by only one equation each. ( ( )) 1-23 1-24 Following the residuary resistance coefficient calculations, we begin checking for and applying necessary corrections. The first of these is the correction, which adjusts the results in case the hull deviates from the required standard characteristics. There are two initial correction checks: one for the beam to draft ratio and one for the LCB. If the beam to draft ratio is greater than the standard value of [ ⁄ ], then an additive correction must be implemented, as follows. 1-25 7
  • 31. The requirement for an LCB correction is based on a more lengthy equation, which is in turn dependent on a predefined standard LCB value. 1-26 If the actual LCB varies from this, a correction according to the following equation must be implemented. [ ][ ] 1-27 Both factors in the formula must be positive for the correction to work, which for particular ship calculations was not the case. Therefore, the correction is set to zero. A hull form correction is not necessary for project vessel, since it has neither a pronounced “U” nor “V” shaped fore or after body. Bulb correction is needed, however, since the standard hull is defined as one without a bulbous bow. This correction depends on the bulb shape, as defined by the bulb area ratio . In order to calculate the correction, a double interpolation of a given table is needed. Table 1-1. Bulb Correction Table For this particular vessels is obtained a value of 0.615 (Equation 1-19) so was chosen from the table. Then was plotted the correction values and fit a power regression to the data, yielding an interpolation equation and very high coefficient of determination (R2) value. 8
  • 32. 0.3 y = -85734x5 + 104751x4 - 49867x3 + 11531x2 - 1295.9x + 56.908 R² = 0.9992 0.2 Correction 0.1 0 0.14 0.19 0.24 0.29 0.34 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 Froude Number Figure 1-2. Bulb Correction Interpolation Plot These values, however, are only valid for bulb area ratios greater than 1.0, which was not true for this hull form. Therefore, a proportional reduction was needed. With this correction, the residuary resistance coefficient can be found, as can the total resistance coefficient. The latter utilizes suggested values for the air and steering resistance coefficients, with and respectively. Both values are suggested by the Guldhammer and Harvald 1974 resistance method. The final step in resistance estimation is plugging all variables into Equation (1-1). Again, the complete results are provided in Appendix 2. 1.3 NavCAD Software Estimations In order to check hand calculations, additional resistance predictions are completed using the software tool NavCAD. This tool is specifically for the prediction and analysis of ship speed and power performance, focusing on hull resistance, propulsion selection, and propeller interaction and optimization. It features an extremely user-friendly interface and is a good tool for applying many additional estimation methods that would otherwise be difficult or prone to error. (4) Another advantage with NavCAD is that it considers the available input parameters and hull form and suggests which prediction methods are most suitable. Considering this, five additional calculations were performed, according to the following methods: 9
  • 33.  Holtrop 1984  HSTS  Simple Displacement  Denmark Cargo  Degroot RB These five methods were chosen because of their high prediction match with the input data; they were predicted to be the most applicable in accordance to the input parameters that are currently available for the ship. When information that is more detailed is known, the program may recommend other resistance prediction methods, but the included information is sufficient for preliminary resistance estimations. As with the hand calculations, there are advantages and disadvantages for each method. The Holtrop 1984 method is intended for commercial vessels, is formulated from a data set of 334 randomly collected models, and is regarded as a reliable method for preliminary resistance estimations (5). This method was chosen because of its widespread use in early resistance calculations. It is applicable for vessel speeds in the range of a Froude number between 0.100.80. The HSTS model is derived from a total of 739 models and 10,672 data points and is a speeddependent approach (5). It has many more required input values than other methods. One potential issue is that its database includes a very diverse set of vessels, though most errors are encountered only at very low speeds (5). This method was the highest rated for available input variables, though it uses a 2D method for the residual resistance calculation, which is likely not as accurate as one utilizing the 3D form factor. It is valid for a 0.15-0.90 speed range. The simple displacement/semi-displacement method is dependent primarily on the waterline length and volumetric displacement, and therefore the vessel’s volume coefficient (5). It is useful only for very early stage analysis and is derived from a basic power demand relationship. It was chosen because of its high rating, though it is similar to the ITTC method in that it features many simplifications. It can be used for Froude numbers between 0.0-0.40. The Denmark Cargo method is a numerical implementation method using the Guldhammer procedure (5). Though its focus is on cargo vessels, it is again a very early stage prediction 10
  • 34. method that can be used for generic hulls such as this. It is meant for general purpose early design estimations only, which is suitable for the current purposes. It does include analysis for ships with a bulbous bow. It was chosen as a prediction method specifically because of its tie to the Andersen-Guldhammer procedures, which were followed in the hand calculations. Its speed range correlates to a Froude number of 0.05-0.33, which is at the limit of the selected speed. Therefore, it will rely on extrapolation at the extremes. The final method, DeGroot RB, is based on various model test series, based on a numerical representation of the published graphical form resistance curves (5). It can be used at preliminary design stages for general hull types, though it also puts emphasis on hard-chine vessels and vessels with pronounced round bilges. It is applicable for Froude values between 0.30 and 1.05, again meaning extrapolation will again be used for the lower speeds. The input parameters used for all methods, showing also NavCAD’s interface, are given in Appendix 3, along with the output data in Appendix 4, for each method. 11
  • 35. 1.4 Final Resistance Comparisons The results from the two hand-calculation methods and five computer-generated ones are shown in Figure 1-3. 1600 AndersenGuldham mer Holtrop 1400 1200 Total Resistance [kN] Ittc 1000 HSTS 800 Simple Displacem ent Denmark Cargo 600 400 200 DeGroot 0 9 11 13 15 Speed [knt] 17 19 21 Figure 1-3. Resistance Results This graph shows that the methods are, as a whole in line, though there are clearly outliers, specifically the ITTC, Denmark Cargo, and DeGroot methods. The ITTC method is predictably high, as it does not include correction reductions for important properties such as the bulbous bow. As one of the most basic numerical prediction methods, it is unlikely to compare as favourably as those with more considerations are. Therefore, it was removed from the final prediction analysis. The Denmark Cargo method was chosen based on its dependence on the Andersen resistance procedures, though its speed range is limiting and it must rely on extrapolation at some of the speeds for this vessel. It is clear that its focus on cargo ships results in comparison differences and it is thus neglected from this point on as well. The DeGroot method seems to focus too heavily on more unique hull shapes, in contrast to the generic shape chosen for the cruise ship. Even though it was highly rated by the NavCAD software, it is also intended for higher Froude numbers, meaning the output is not accurate at our 12
  • 36. speeds, as the other methods have direct computations as opposed to extrapolations. With this method eliminated, four remaining methods give very comparable results, one from hand calculations and three from the software. The final resistance graph is given in Figure 1-4. 900 800 700 AndersenGuldham mer Holtrop Total Resistance [kN] 600 500 400 HSTS 300 Simple Displacem ent 200 100 0 9 11 13 15 Speed [kn] 17 19 21 Figure 1-4. Updated Resistance Results In summary, a large number of prediction methods were chosen in order to give as holistic an initial resistance estimation as possible. Though no method is perfectly accurate at such an early design stage, comparing many methods will give more credibility to consistent results, which is warranted for important characteristics like the ship’s resistance, as this will greatly influence the vessel’s design, equipment selection, and general characteristics. The final four predictions show very strong correlations with one another, meaning the resistance prediction should be reasonable. Though the deliverable only requested basic numerical calculations such as the ITTC or Holtrop methods, taking the time to compare such approaches with an industry-approved software such as NavCAD can only improve the quality of the prediction. 13
  • 37. 1.5 Effective Power Prediction With the total resistance estimates, the power needed to power the ship in calm seas, or the effective power, was calculated. 1-24 The effected power curves for the four selected methods are shown in Figure 1-5. 10000.0 Andersen Guldham mer Holtrop 9000.0 8000.0 Effective Power [kW] 7000.0 HSTS 6000.0 5000.0 Simple Displace ment 4000.0 Design Speed 3000.0 2000.0 Max. Speed 1000.0 0.0 9 11 13 15 Speed [kn] 17 19 21 Figure 1-5. Effective Power Results An initial design speed of 17 [kn] was chosen in accordance with the selected itinerary around the English coast. In order to allow for flexibility in future deployment, resistance values are taken at a more conservative level, corresponding to a maximum speed of 20 [kn]. This will allow the vessel to complete an array of itineraries without needing to adjust port times in order to compensate for an underpowered arrangement. Since the methods agree overall, the average value at the maximum speed was taken as final power prediction to be used in the machinery selection process. Each method includes a large preliminary design margin, so this result should be sufficiently conservative. Table 1-2 shows the calculated power in [kW] for the various prediction methods and speeds. As a summary, the required effective power can be taken as 7839 [kW]. 14
  • 38. Table 1-2. Final Effective Power Speed [kn] 17 18 19 20 Effective Power Prediction [kW] AndersenSimple Guldhammer Holtrop HSTS Displacement Average 3139 3758 4198 3217 3652 4032 4988 5268 4067 4681 5435 6892 6806 5157 6194 7357 8795 8343 6247 7839 2 Propulsion 2.1 Introduction The ship has two controllable pitch propellers (CP-propeller). The propeller is a traditional four bladed propeller with revolutions of 180 revolutions per minute, which is based on the chosen electrical motors. A CP-propeller was chosen because it gives the highest propulsive efficiency over a broad range of speeds and load conditions and it improves maneuverability when compared to fixed pitch propellers (FP-propeller), which is mainly used on bulkers and tankers due to the little need for maneuverability. The main advantage of a CP-propeller is fine thrust control when maneuvering, which can be achieved without necessarily the need to accelerate and decelerate the propulsion machinery. Fine control of thrust is particular in certain cases, for example, in dynamic positioning situations or where frequent berthing maneuvers are required (6). There, it is also possible to use azimuth thrusters, but due to the fact that vessel has quite small draft, it is not reasonable to use those, as the propeller diameter would be small and it would not be as efficient. 2.2 Optimization of propulsion The propeller diameter is roughly estimated based on (7), where it is said that the clearance between blade tips and hull plating should be 25-30 per cent of diameter. Therefore, it is estimated that the propeller diameter D is 70% of the draft. Thus, the propeller diameter is calculated as the following: [m] 2-1 15
  • 39. For finding the operational point for the propeller, the Wageningen B-series graphs are used. For that, several parameters should be first calculated. Using simplified equations, the wake fraction can be calculated as following: 2-2 And the thrust reduction coefficient can be obtained from: 2-3 The speed of advanced is calculated as follows: 2-4 [m/s] Therefore, the thrust of the propellers is: [kN] 2-5 The blade area ration is (7): 2-6 Where Z=4 for a propeller with four blades, k=0,1 for two propeller ship and hydrostatic pressure, is the vapor pressure at is the [Pa] , and [Pa]. The thrust coefficient is calculated as the following: 2-7 The advanced number for the propellers is: 2-8 From the Wageningen B4-75 series, with the graph seen in Figure 2-1, the P/D ratio is obtained. Therefore, the P/D ratio is approximately 1 and open water efficiency 0,68. Thus, it is well seen that, if advance speed increases, the propeller open water efficiency also increases. 16
  • 40. Figure 2-1. Wageningen B-series graph 2.3 Propulsion system efficiency The propulsion system efficiency is a product of different efficiencies as can be seen in the following: 2-9 where, – hull efficiency – open water efficiency – relative rotative efficiency 17
  • 41. 2.3.1 Hull efficiency Hull efficiency tells how good the selected propeller to operate behind the hull is. For a beneficial propeller-hull interaction, hull efficiency has a value exceeding unity. This is often the case for a single screw vessel with a properly selected propeller. From the definition of hull efficiency, it is seen that it is beneficial to locate propeller in the region of decelerated flow (wake). On the other hand, the propeller location should not lead to a high acceleration of hull flow velocities because this causes an increase of thrust deduction. (8) Hull efficiency equation: 2-10 As it can be seen, the main variables of the previous formula are wake fraction w and thrust reduction coefficient t. These can be calculated based on some developed rules or simplified rules. In this project, it is calculated with two ways. Wake fraction for twin-screw ships is calculated based on Holtrop and Mennen 1982: 2-11 √ where, – Block coefficient, – propeller diameter, – draft, – breadth, [m] [m] [m] – viscous resistance coefficient 2-12 where, – factor that describes the viscous resistance of the hull form – frictional resistance of ship according to the ITTC-57 (Equation 1-4) – correlation allowance coefficient: √ 2-13 18
  • 42. where, – ship length [m] 2-14 Substituting values from Equations 2-4 and 2-5 and other constants to Equation 2-3, the wake fraction is: √ √ 2-15 The thrust deduction factor is calculated as the following: √ √ 2-16 Using now Equation 2-2, the hull efficiency can be calculated: 2-17 2.3.2 Simplified equations Using simplified equations, the wake fraction can be calculated as: 2-18 And the thrust reduction coefficient can obtained from: 2-19 As such, the hull efficiency would then be: 2-20 For ships with two propellers and a conventional aftbody for, the hull efficiency is approximately between 0.95 - 1.05, so in this particular case both methods gives good results. 19
  • 43. 2.3.3 Open water efficiency Open water efficiency is related to working in open water, i.e. the propeller works in a homogenous wake field with no hull in front of it. The propeller efficiency depends mostly on the speed of advance, thrust force, rate of revolution, diameter, and design of the propeller. There are methods to approximately get open water efficiency but for traditional shaft propulsion systems, the number can be close to 0,7. It is estimated that it is for this ship 0,69. (8). This estimation is also in a good agreement with the previously found efficiency based on Wageningen B-series. 2.3.4 Relative rotative efficiency The actual velocity of the water flowing to the propeller behind the hull is neither constant nor at right angles to the propeller’s disk area, but rather has a kind of rotational flow. Therefore, compared with when the propeller is working in open water, the propeller’s efficiency is affected by the factor , which is called propeller’s relative rotative efficiency. For ships with a conventional hull shape and two propellers, this will normally be less than 1, approximately 0,98. (8) 2.3.5 Propeller efficiency The ratio between the thrust power , which the propeller delivers to the water and the power , which is delivered to the propeller, i.e. the propeller efficiency for a propeller working behind the ship, is defined as (8): 2-21 2.3.6 Total propulsion efficiency The propulsion efficiency , must not be confused with the open water propeller efficiency, as it is equal to the ratio between the effective (towing) power delivered to the propeller : 2-22 The total propulsion efficiency is taken into account in the engine selection process. 20
  • 44. 2.4 Cavitation Cavitation occurs when the local absolute pressure is less than the local vapor pressure for the fluid medium. The critical measurement for cavitation performance is the cavitation inception point, which is the conditions, i.e. cavitation number, for which cavitation is first observed anywhere on the propeller. Cavitation will harm propeller blades, so corrosion occurs and also, cavitation stars causing vibration and noise. Therefore, it is necessary to check the cavitation limit to be sure that chosen propeller will not start to cavitate. The cavitation number can be calculated by equation: ( ) 2-23 where, – hydrostatic pressure, [Pa] – vapor pressure at , – advance speed, [Pa] [m/s] According to Equation 2-23, the cavitation number equals 3,42 and, comparing it to the cavitation graph (see Figure 2-2), it can be seen that cavitation will not occur. (7) Cavitation of suction side Cavitation free area Cavitation of pressure Figure 2-2. Areas of cavitation (7) 21
  • 45. 3 Machinery 3.1 Selecting machinery 3.1.1 Introduction The space for engines and auxiliary systems is limited and the diesel generators are chosen not to spend space for extra generators to produce electricity. The advantage of diesel generators is also the freedom to locate heavy main machines, because there is a pool in the aft area, the engines should be more in the fore, meaning that, if the shaft is sprightly attached to engine, the shaft line is long and may cause extra vibrations and noise, which may in turn cause inconveniences for passengers. Therefore, the propellers are powered by electric engines and electricity is produced by diesel generators. Figure 3-1. Electric propulsion illustration. (9) 3.1.2 Diesel generator Power prediction is done in Chapter 1 and, according to Table 1-2, the effective power is kW. Also, the propulsion efficiency is taken into account (see Chapter 2.7) and, using Equation 2-9, the delivered power need is: [kW] 22
  • 46. Electricity is also needed for the vessel’s other systems, therefore, an additional 2500 [kW] is added to power in the first approximation. Additionally, the diesel engine minimum fuel consumption per kilowatt is in the range of 85 – 90% of the maximum output and this is taken into account in selection process. Finally, the losses in electric circuit are considered and the engine output and needed power should have about 5% additional cap. Two or three generators are chosen because it makes maintenance more flexible and adds safety in case of an accident and helps to fulfil Safe Return to Port regulations. Four or more engines are not suitable because the total area for machinery is limited. Combinations of different generating sets are not used in order to be able to have engine maintenance onboard without docking the ship. Table 3-1. Generation sets (10) (11) Producer Type Generator output [kW] Weight [t] Main [mm] dimensions Fuel consumption [g/kWh] Wärtsilä Wärtsilä 12V38 16V38 8400 11600 160 200 11900 x 3600 x 4945 13300 x 3800 x 4945 176-185 192-204 Wärtsilä Wärtsilä Rolls – Royce Caterpillar 16V32 18V32 B32:40V12 C280-12 8910 8640 7449 5200 121 133 102 100 11174 x 3060 x 4280 11825 x 3360 x 4280 10400 x 2310 x 3855 8040 x 2000 x 4085 192-204 176-185 183 880,8 [l/h] From Table 3-1, three Wärtsilä 16V32 generator sets are chosen because it fulfils the power requirements and also is light and small enough for the ship, as the engine room height is 7 [m] and width 6 [m]. In that case, two engines are used to produce electric energy and the third is in back-up. The same set of Wärtsilä 12V38 engines are not sufficient because they are bigger and weight more, with an increased weight of about 32%. Using the two Wärtislä 16V38 set does not fulfil the power requirement and using three is not valid regarding weight. Weight is one of the main points to be concerned in because of the aim to keep the ship’s design draft and from Ship Conceptual design it is known that ship weight is a big concern. Three Rolls – Royce B32:40V12 sets are 15% lighter and smaller than Wärtsilä 16V32 but fulfils the power need precisely. Using four Catepillar C280-28 generation sets will take too much deck space and is 10% heavier. 23
  • 47. Table 3-2. Diesel generator set data (11) Engine Wärtsilä 16V32 Output [kW] 9280 Output[kWe] 8910 Cylinders V16 Engine speed [rpm] 750 Output per cylinder [kW] 580 Cylinder bore [mm] 320 Piston stroke [mm] 400 Mean effective pressure [bar] 28,9 Piston speed [m/s] 10,0 Voltage [kV] 0,4 – 13,8 Length [mm] 11175 Height [mm] 4280 Width [mm] 3060 Weight [ton] 121 Fuel [cSt/50 °C] 700 SFOC [g/kWh] 183-191 3.1.3 Electric motors Electric motors are chosen by taking the power handling into account and selecting reasonable revolutions of propeller, which is 180 [rpm]. Motor selection is done by using Figure 3-2. The most reasonable choice at 6 [MW] output and 180 [rpm] is the ABB AMS 1250 electric motor. Figure 3-2. Motor output range (12) 24
  • 48. Table 3-3. Electric motor data (13) Output power Number of poles Voltages Frequency Protection Cooling Enclosure material Motor type Mounting type Standards Marine classification 3.2 1 – 60 [MW] 4 – 40 1 – 15 [kV] 50 or 60 [Hz] IP23, IPW24, IP44, IP54, IP55 IC01, IC611, IC81W, IC8A6W7 Welded steel AMS Horizontal and vertical IEC and NEMA All international societies (ABS, BV, DNV, GL) Electric balance To be able to choose suitable engines and engine setup, the total electrical power consumption must be estimated. Electricity is consumed by propulsion electrical motors, ventilation, heating, and other auxiliary systems. The electricity consumption needs to be calculated for different operating situations, as the profile of electricity consumption varies in different situations. The operating situations are open water, manoeuvring, in harbour, at rest, and emergency. A summary of the electrical balance for the selected engine is provided in Appendix 5. 25
  • 49. Bibliography 1. Birk, Lothar. NAME 3150 Course Notes - Ship resistance and propulsion. New Orleans : s.n., 2011. 2. Guldhammer, H.E. and Harvald, Sv. Aa. Ship Resistance - Effect of Form and Principle Dimensions. Copenhagen : Akademisk Forlag, 1974. 3. Andersen, P. and Guldhammer, H.E. A Computer-Oriented Power Prediction Procedure. Lyngby : Department of Ocean Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 1986. 4. Hydro Comp PLNC. NavCad. Durham, NH : s.n., 2013. 5. —. Appendix H - Resistance Prediction Methods. 2011. 6. Carlton, John. Marine Propellers and Propulsion. 2nd. Burlington : Elsevier Ltd, 2007. 7. Matiusak, Jerzy. Laivan Propulsio. Espoo : s.n., 2005. 8. Basic Principles of Ship Propulsion. http://www.mandieselturbo.com/files/news/filesof5405/5510_004_02%20low.pdf. [Online] 10 1, 2013. 9. Electric propulsion. Wärtsilä. [Online] 10 29, 2012. http://www.wartsila.com/en/powerelectric-systems/electric-propulsion-packages/electric-propulsion. 10. Generating sets. Catepillar. [Online] 10 29, 2012. http://marine.cat.com/cat-C280-12-genset. 11. Generating sets. Wärtsilä. [Online] 10 29, 2012. http://www.wartsila.com/en/engines/gensets/generating-sets. 12. Synchronos Motors Brochure. ABB. [Online] 1 16, 2013. http://www05.abb.com/global/scot/scot234.nsf/veritydisplay/822ae96e598fd891c125796f0032e7 5d/$file/Brochure_Synchronous_motors_9AKK105576_EN_122011_FINAL_LR.pdf. 13. Electric motor data. ABB. [Online] 1 16, 2013. http://www.abb.com/product/seitp322/19e6c63b9837b35dc1256dc1004430be.aspx?productLang uage=us&country=FI&tabKey=2. 26
  • 50. Appendix 1 – ITTC-57 Calculations KNOWN PARAMETERS length between perpindiculars beam draft displacement midship coefficient wetted surface area (HoltropMennen) block coefficient prismatic coefficient slenderness coefficient initial design speed ship speeds to consider CONSTANTS salt water density gravitational acceleration kinematic viscosity of water Lpp B T V Cm 110 18 5.4 6380 0.94 m m m m^3 [-] S Cb Cp C∆ v v 2562.5362 0.67 0.712766 0.0047934 17 10 TO 20 m^2 [-] [-] [-] knots knots ρ g ν 1025.86 9.81 1.188E-06 kg/m^3 m/s^2 m^2/s 1. FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT C'F V [kn] V [m/s] Rn C'F 10 5.144 476217191.7 0.0016819 11 5.659 523838910.9 0.0016612 12 6.173 571460630 0.0016427 13 6.688 619082349.2 0.0016259 14 7.202 666704068.4 0.0016106 15 7.717 714325787.5 0.0015966 16 8.231 761947506.7 0.0015836 17 8.746 809569225.9 0.0015715 18 9.260 857190945 0.0015603 19 9.774 904812664.2 0.0015498 20 10.289 952434383.4 0.0015399 2. RESIDUARY RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT V [kn] V [m/s] Fn Cr 10 5.144 0.156605725 0.0027916 11 5.659 0.172266298 0.0028504 12 6.173 0.18792687 0.0029481 13 6.688 0.203587443 0.003099 14 7.202 0.219248015 0.0033196 15 7.717 0.234908588 0.0036286 16 8.231 0.250569161 0.004047 17 8.746 0.266229733 0.0045979 18 9.260 0.281890306 0.0053068 19 9.774 0.297550878 0.0062013 20 10.289 0.313211451 0.0073114 27
  • 51. 3. ADDITIONAL COEFFICIENTS additional resistance coefficient CA appendenge resistance coefficient CAAP air resistance coefficient CAA steering coefficient CAS 0.0004 0.00006 0.00007 0.00004 from graph [-] [-] [-] 4. TOTAL RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT V [kn] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 V [m/s] 5.144 5.659 6.173 6.688 7.202 7.717 8.231 8.746 9.260 9.774 10.289 5. TOTAL RESISTANCE V [kn] V [m/s] 10 5.144 11 5.659 12 6.173 13 6.688 14 7.202 15 7.717 16 8.231 17 8.746 18 9.260 19 9.774 20 10.289 6. POWER ESTIMATION V [kn] V [m/s] R [N] 10 5.144 175442.643 11 5.659 213891.0137 12 6.173 258514.7714 13 6.688 311281.1323 14 7.202 375008.7271 15 7.717 453579.2686 16 8.231 552172.5412 17 8.746 677524.7021 18 9.260 838209.8914 19 9.774 1044945.144 20 10.289 1310918.602 Fn 0.156605725 0.172266298 0.18792687 0.203587443 0.219248015 0.234908588 0.250569161 0.266229733 0.281890306 0.297550878 0.313211451 Ct 0.0050435 0.0050816 0.0051608 0.0052949 0.0055002 0.0057952 0.0062005 0.0067394 0.0074371 0.0083211 0.0094213 Fn 0.156605725 0.172266298 0.18792687 0.203587443 0.219248015 0.234908588 0.250569161 0.266229733 0.281890306 0.297550878 0.313211451 Rt 175442.64 213891.01 258514.77 311281.13 375008.73 453579.27 552172.54 677524.7 838209.89 1044945.1 1310918.6 R [KN] 175 214 259 311 375 454 552 678 838 1045 1311 PE [Watts] 902554.93 1210385.5 1595897.9 2081779 2700896.2 3500120 4544993.5 5925329.9 7761823.6 10213758 13487896 PE [KW] 902.6 1210.4 1595.9 2081.8 2700.9 3500.1 4545.0 5925.3 7761.8 10213.8 13487.9 28
  • 52. Appendix 2 – Andersen-Guldhammer Calculations Known Parameters length between perpindiculars length of bulf forward of FP length of WL aft of AP beam draft displacement midship coefficient waterplane area coefficient wetted surface area midship CSA bulbous bow CSA at FP block coefficient longitudinal center of buoyancy propeller diameter no. propeller blades initial design speed ship speeds to consider Constants salt water density gravitational acceleration kinematic viscosity of water Lpp 110 m Lfore 3.5 m Laft 0 m B T V Cm 18 5.4 6380 0.94 m m m^3 [-] Cw 0.73 [-] S Am 2562.536197 m^2 91.368 m^2 Abt 10 m^2 CB 0.67 [-] LCB 51.33 m D Z v v 3.0 4 17 10 TO 20 m [-] knots knots ρ 1025.86 kg/m^3 g 9.81 m/s^2 ν 1.1883E-06 m^2/s 1. LENGTH DEFINITION length L 113.5 m 2. LCB DEFINITION LCB0 -3.67 meters aft of Lpp/2 LCB -0.2175 meters aft of Lpp/2 3. FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT C'F V [kn] V [m/s] Rn C'F 10 5.144 491369556.9 0.001675044 11 5.659 540506512.6 0.001654511 12 6.173 589643468.3 0.001636094 13 6.688 638780423.9 0.001619422 14 7.202 687917379.6 0.001604213 15 7.717 737054335.3 0.001590245 16 8.231 786191291 0.001577343 17 8.746 835328246.7 0.001565366 18 9.260 884465202.4 0.001554199 19 9.774 933602158.1 0.001543745 20 10.289 982739113.8 0.001533925 29
  • 53. 4. INCREMENTAL RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT factored 10^3CA 0.4547443 actual CA 0.000454744 [-] [-] 5. RESIDUARY RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT M 6.119589657 A0 0.39188691 N1 8.539179315 A1 15869.58731 V [kn] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 V [m/s] 5.144 5.659 6.173 6.688 7.202 7.717 8.231 8.746 9.260 9.774 10.289 Fn 0.154172192 0.169589411 0.18500663 0.20042385 0.215841069 0.231258288 0.246675507 0.262092726 0.277509946 0.292927165 0.308344384 B1 Ø B2 3.629556018 0.615220359 0.331893277 [-] [-] [-] V [kn] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 V [m/s] 5.144 5.659 6.173 6.688 7.202 7.717 8.231 8.746 9.260 9.774 10.289 Fn 0.154172192 0.169589411 0.18500663 0.20042385 0.215841069 0.231258288 0.246675507 0.262092726 0.277509946 0.292927165 0.308344384 B3 67.14125334 50.63381822 37.17639717 26.44668177 18.12283216 11.88384567 7.410317711 4.3861404 2.50262006 1.469122938 1.040131244 E 0.44052 0.45241 0.46729 0.48686 0.51382 0.55229 0.60842 0.69107 0.81281 0.99102 1.24943 G 0.017941656 0.023790922 0.032402958 0.045549202 0.066470032 0.101366618 0.162560539 0.274643566 0.481345635 0.819962176 1.158147348 H 5.91634E-10 2.03096E-09 6.9719E-09 2.39332E-08 8.21579E-08 2.82032E-07 9.68161E-07 3.32351E-06 1.14089E-05 3.91647E-05 0.000134445 K 0.004425061 0.006296109 0.008687402 0.011681799 0.01536714 0.019836131 0.025186235 0.031519572 0.038942836 0.047567205 0.057508269 10^3CR 0.46289 0.48250 0.50838 0.54409 0.59565 0.67349 0.79617 0.99724 1.33311 1.85859 2.46522 CR 0.000462885 0.000482501 0.000508385 0.000544092 0.000595653 0.000673493 0.000796167 0.000997241 0.001333107 0.001858588 0.002465221 6. RESIDUARY RESISTANCE CORRECTION LCB Correction B/T 3.333333333 Correction Needed? YES Δ10^3CR 0.133333333 30
  • 54. V [kn] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Fn 0.154172192 0.169589411 0.18500663 0.20042385 0.215841069 0.231258288 0.246675507 0.262092726 0.277509946 0.292927165 0.308344384 LCBst/L -0.026164236 -0.019380659 -0.012597083 -0.005813506 0.00097007 0.007753647 0.014537223 0.0213208 0.028104376 0.034887952 0.041671529 Factor 2 -0.024247936 -0.01746436 -0.010680783 -0.003897207 0.00288637 0.009669946 0.016453523 0.023237099 0.030020676 0.036804252 0.043587828 [+] Factors? NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Bulb Correction ABT/AM 0.109447509 Correction Needed? YES Table 12 Ø Fn 0.6 0.15 0.6 0.18 0.6 0.21 0.6 0.24 0.6 0.27 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.33 10^3Crbulb 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 Bulb Correction Factor 0.3 Correction 0.2 y = -85734x5 + 104751x4 - 49867x3 + 11531x2 - 1295.9x + 56.908 R² = 0.9992 0.1 0 0.14 -0.1 0.19 0.24 0.29 0.34 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 Froude Number 31
  • 55. Fn 0.154172192 0.169589411 0.18500663 0.20042385 0.215841069 0.231258288 0.246675507 0.262092726 0.277509946 0.292927165 0.308344384 uncorrected 10^3Crbulb 0.171653791 0.169717063 0.197442975 0.198115716 0.149519896 0.054979374 -0.065603907 -0.184711083 -0.276167542 -0.324104088 -0.331918106 corrected Δ10^3Crbulb 0.062206282 0.060269554 0.087995466 0.088668207 0.040072387 -0.054468135 -0.175051416 -0.294158592 -0.385615051 -0.433551597 -0.441365615 10^3CR 0.46289 0.48250 0.50838 0.54409 0.59565 0.67349 0.79617 0.99724 1.33311 1.85859 2.46522 Δ10^3CRB/T 0.133333333 0.133333333 0.133333333 0.133333333 0.133333333 0.133333333 0.133333333 0.133333333 0.133333333 0.133333333 0.133333333 Δ10^3CRbulb 0.062206282 0.060269554 0.087995466 0.088668207 0.040072387 -0.054468135 -0.175051416 -0.294158592 -0.385615051 -0.433551597 -0.441365615 Δ10^3CRcorr. 0.65842 0.67610 0.72971 0.76609 0.76906 0.75236 0.75445 0.83642 1.08083 1.55837 2.15719 CR 0.000658425 0.000676104 0.000729714 0.000766094 0.000769059 0.000752359 0.000754448 0.000836416 0.001080825 0.00155837 0.002157189 7. AIR AND STEERING RESISTANCE COEFFICIENTS CAA 0.00007 [-] CAS 0.00004 [-] 8. TOTAL RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT CR C'F CA 0.000658425 0.001675044 0.000454744 0.000676104 0.001654511 0.000454744 0.000729714 0.001636094 0.000454744 0.000766094 0.001619422 0.000454744 0.000769059 0.001604213 0.000454744 0.000752359 0.001590245 0.000454744 0.000754448 0.001577343 0.000454744 0.000836416 0.001565366 0.000454744 0.001080825 0.001554199 0.000454744 0.00155837 0.001543745 0.000454744 0.002157189 0.001533925 0.000454744 CAA 0.00007 0.00007 0.00007 0.00007 0.00007 0.00007 0.00007 0.00007 0.00007 0.00007 0.00007 CAS 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 CT 0.003043124 0.003040128 0.00307708 0.003097774 0.003084917 0.003052715 0.003041363 0.003114853 0.003359757 0.003850202 0.00446865 32
  • 56. 9. TOTAL RESISTANCE V [kn] V [m/s] CT 10 5.144 0.003043124 11 5.659 0.003040128 12 6.173 0.00307708 13 6.688 0.003097774 14 7.202 0.003084917 15 7.717 0.003052715 16 8.231 0.003041363 17 8.746 0.003114853 18 9.260 0.003359757 19 9.774 0.003850202 20 10.289 0.00446865 R [N] 105858.2361 127962.3657 154136.7847 182113.217 210331.6479 238931.7586 270840.2805 313141.347 378667.3889 483499.2246 621786.7008 10. EFFECTIVE POWER V [kn] V [m/s] R [N] 10 5.144 105858.2361 11 5.659 127962.3657 12 6.173 154136.7847 13 6.688 182113.217 14 7.202 210331.6479 15 7.717 238931.7586 16 8.231 270840.2805 17 8.746 313141.347 18 9.260 378667.3889 19 9.774 483499.2246 20 10.289 621786.7008 R [KN] 106 128 154 182 210 239 271 313 379 483 622 11. DESIGN MARGIN V [kn] V [m/s] 10 5.144 11 5.659 12 6.173 13 6.688 14 7.202 15 7.717 16 8.231 17 8.746 18 9.260 19 9.774 20 10.289 PE [KW] 688.9 832.7 1094.3 1400.6 1742.1 2120.3 2563.7 3149.4 4032.4 5434.8 7357.1 PE [KW] 599.0 724.1 951.5 1217.9 1514.9 1843.8 2229.3 2738.6 3506.5 4725.9 6397.5 PE [Watts] 599039.9958 724124.8092 951537.7512 1217932.725 1514855.269 1843756.737 2229316.442 2738595.047 3506460.021 4725936.31 6397494.277 PE [KW] 599.0 724.1 951.5 1217.9 1514.9 1843.8 2229.3 2738.6 3506.5 4725.9 6397.5 33
  • 57. Appendix 3 – NavCAD input parameters 34
  • 58. Appendix 4 – NavCAD resistance outputs Fn Fv Rn Cf Cr Ct Rbare Rtotal Rtotal Rbare/W Pebare Petotal [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [N] [N] [kN] [-] [kW] [kW] 8 0,125 0,301 3,81E+08 0,001732 0,00055 0,002806 62465 62465 62,465 0,0009 257 257 10 0,157 0,377 4,76E+08 0,001682 0,000599 0,002806 97595 97595 97,595 0,00141 502 502 12 0,188 0,452 5,71E+08 0,001643 0,0008 0,002967 148624 148624 148,624 0,00215 918 918 14 0,219 0,527 6,67E+08 0,001611 0,001216 0,003351 228452 228452 228,452 0,0033 1645 1645 16 0,251 0,603 7,62E+08 0,001584 0,001855 0,003962 352863 352863 352,863 0,0051 2904 2904 17 0,266 0,64 8,10E+08 0,001572 0,002179 0,004275 429740 429740 429,74 0,00621 3758 3758 18 0,282 0,678 8,57E+08 0,00156 0,002695 0,004779 538653 538653 538,653 0,00778 4988 4988 20 0,313 0,753 9,52E+08 0,00154 0,004079 0,006143 854775 854775 854,775 0,01235 8795 8795 22 Hoptrop 1984 Vel [kts] 0,345 0,829 1,05E+09 0,001522 0,004313 0,00636 1070720 1070720 1070,72 0,01547 12118 12118 613 0,125 0,301 3,81E+08 0,001732 0,004433 0,00669 148928 148928 148,928 0,00215 613 0,157 0,377 4,76E+08 0,001682 0,00263 0,004836 168227 168227 168,227 0,00243 865 865 12 0,188 0,452 5,71E+08 0,001643 0,002316 0,004483 224543 224543 224,543 0,00325 1386 1386 14 0,219 0,527 6,67E+08 0,001611 0,002421 0,004556 310618 310618 310,618 0,00449 2237 2237 16 0,251 0,603 7,62E+08 0,001584 0,002599 0,004707 419119 419119 419,119 0,00606 3450 3450 17 0,266 0,64 8,10E+08 0,001572 0,002679 0,004775 479990 479990 479,99 0,00694 4198 4198 18 0,282 0,678 8,57E+08 0,00156 0,002963 0,005048 568950 568950 568,95 0,00822 5268 5268 20 0,313 0,753 9,52E+08 0,00154 0,003763 0,005827 810842 810842 810,842 0,01172 8343 8343 22 HSTS 8 10 0,345 0,829 1,05E+09 0,001522 0,004234 0,00628 1057285 1057285 1057,285 0,01528 11966 11966 3,81E+08 0,001732 0,000478 0,002734 60875 60875 60,875 0,00088 251 251 0,377 4,76E+08 0,001682 0,000472 0,002678 93150 93150 93,15 0,00135 479 479 12 0,188 0,452 5,71E+08 0,001643 0,000462 0,002629 131682 131682 131,682 0,0019 813 813 14 0,219 0,527 6,67E+08 0,001611 0,000787 0,002922 199251 199251 199,251 0,00288 1435 1435 16 0,251 0,603 7,62E+08 0,001584 0,001311 0,003419 304449 304449 304,449 0,0044 2506 2506 17 0,266 0,64 8,10E+08 0,001572 0,001564 0,00366 367901 367901 367,901 0,00532 3217 3217 18 0,282 0,678 8,57E+08 0,00156 0,001812 0,003897 439160 439160 439,16 0,00635 4067 4067 20 0,313 0,753 9,52E+08 0,00154 0,002299 0,004363 607128 607128 607,128 0,00877 6247 6247 0,345 0,829 1,05E+09 0,001522 0,002775 0,004822 811782 811782 811,782 0,01173 9188 9188 0,125 0,301 3,81E+08 0,001732 0,000478 0,002734 60875 60875 60,875 0,00088 251 251 10 0,157 0,377 4,76E+08 0,001682 0,000472 0,002678 93150 93150 93,15 0,00135 479 479 12 0,188 0,452 5,71E+08 0,001643 0,000564 0,002731 136816 136816 136,816 0,00198 845 845 14 0,219 0,527 6,67E+08 0,001611 0,0009 0,003034 206890 206890 206,89 0,00299 1490 1490 16 0,251 0,603 7,62E+08 0,001584 0,001679 0,003787 337208 337208 337,208 0,00487 2776 2776 17 0,266 0,64 8,10E+08 0,001572 0,002482 0,004578 460215 460215 460,215 0,00665 4025 4025 18 0,282 0,678 8,57E+08 0,00156 0,003849 0,005934 668751 668751 668,751 0,00966 6193 6193 20 0,313 0,753 9,52E+08 0,00154 0,007519 0,009583 1333447 1333447 1333,447 0,01927 13720 13720 22 0,345 0,829 1,05E+09 0,001522 0,007968 0,010014 1685973 1685973 1685,973 0,02437 19081 19081 8 0,125 0,301 3,81E+08 0,001732 0,000478 0,002734 60875 60875 60,875 0,00088 251 251 10 Denmark Cargo 0,301 0,157 8 DeGroot RB 0,125 22 Simple displ/semi 8 10 0,157 0,377 4,76E+08 0,001682 0,000472 0,002678 93150 93150 93,15 0,00135 479 479 12 0,188 0,452 5,71E+08 0,001643 0,000462 0,002629 131682 131682 131,682 0,0019 813 813 14 0,219 0,527 6,67E+08 0,001611 0,00044 0,002575 175540 175540 175,54 0,00254 1264 1264 16 0,251 0,603 7,62E+08 0,001584 0,000407 0,002515 223919 223919 223,919 0,00324 1843 1843 17 0,266 0,64 8,10E+08 0,001572 0,000388 0,002484 249715 249715 249,715 0,00361 2184 2184 18 0,282 0,678 8,57E+08 0,00156 0,000407 0,002492 280863 280863 280,863 0,00406 2601 2601 20 0,313 0,753 9,52E+08 0,00154 0,000999 0,003064 426292 426292 426,292 0,00616 4386 4386 22 0,345 0,829 1,05E+09 0,001522 0,002092 0,004138 696740 696740 696,74 0,01007 7886 7886 35
  • 59. Appendix 5 – Electric balance Open water Quantity Time spend Speed Annual running Propulsion Electric propulsion motors HFO circulation pump HFO feeding pump HFO separator HFO separator pump Lubrication pump Lubrication oil separator HT - waterpump LT - waterpump Seawater pump Starting air compressor Bearing lubrication pump Preheating pump Total Factor Group loading HVAC Boiler burner Air cooler Air blowers Boiler water treatment Fresh water treatment Boiler feed water pump Warm water supply pump Warm water feed pump Fresh water supply pump Seawater pump Exhaust gas boiler feed pump Electric motor air cooler Electric engine drive cooler Total Factor Group loading Auxillary systems Gray water treatment Gray water pump Black water treatment Black water pump Bilge pumps Bilge water feed pumps Fire figthing water pumps Total Factor Group loading Deck machinery Achur winch Mooring lines winch Passanger elevator Service elevator Total Factor Group loading Lights Cabins Public rooms Machinery rooms Outside ligths Total Factor Group loading Service systems Kitchen machines Refridgerators Total Factor Group loading Navigation, automation Navigation Communication systems Loading Loading factor [%] [kn] [hrs] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] Quantity Loading 55 17 4818 Manouvering Quantity Loading 3 3 263 In harbor Quantity Loading 39 0 3416 In harbor at rest Quantity Loading Emergency Quantity 3 0 263 Loading 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 2 3 6124.0 3.4 0.8 5.0 0.6 25.0 2.0 6.3 6.3 7.5 5.2 6.0 6.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 12248.0 6.8 1.6 10.0 1.2 50.0 4.0 12.6 12.6 15.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 12373.8 1.0 12373.8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 12248.0 6.8 1.6 10.0 1.2 50.0 4.0 12.6 12.6 15.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 12373.8 1.0 12373.8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6124.0 3.4 0.8 5.0 0.6 25.0 2.0 6.3 6.3 7.5 5.2 6.0 6.3 6198.4 1.0 6198.4 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0.0 3.4 0.8 5.0 0.6 25.0 2.0 6.3 6.3 7.5 0.0 6.0 0.0 62.9 1.0 62.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.6 1.0 12.6 [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] 1.0 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5.5 2.3 7.5 3.6 3.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 3.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 0.0 2.3 22.5 0.0 3.6 0.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 6.9 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 0.0 2.3 22.5 0.0 3.6 0.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 6.9 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5.5 2.3 22.5 3.6 3.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 6.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 3.5 [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] 1 2 1 1.3 5.0 3.7 0.8 1.0 1.0 1 2 1 1.3 10.0 3.7 54.2 1.0 54.2 1 2 1 1.3 10.0 3.7 54.2 1.0 54.2 1 0 0 1.3 0.0 0.0 50.8 1.0 50.8 1 1 1 1.3 5.0 3.7 10.0 1.0 10.0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 1.0 8.4 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3.6 0.8 3.6 0.8 4.0 2.0 7.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 3.6 0.8 3.6 0.8 4.0 2.0 0.0 14.8 0.5 7.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 3.6 0.8 3.6 0.8 4.0 2.0 0.0 14.8 0.5 7.4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 3.6 0.8 3.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.5 4.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3.6 0.8 3.6 0.8 4.0 2.0 14.0 28.8 0.5 14.4 2 4 1 1 10.0 12.0 5.0 5.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0 0 1 1 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 0.4 4.0 0 0 1 1 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 0.4 4.0 1 1 1 1 10.0 12.0 5.0 5.0 32.0 0.4 12.8 1 1 0 1 10.0 12.0 0.0 5.0 27.0 0.4 10.8 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 - 150.0 150.0 30.0 50.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1 1 1 1 150.0 150.0 30.0 50.0 380.0 0.8 304.0 1 1 1 1 150.0 150.0 30.0 50.0 380.0 0.8 304.0 1 1 1 1 150.0 150.0 30.0 50.0 380.0 0.8 304.0 0 1 1 0 0.0 150.0 30.0 0.0 180.0 0.8 144.0 0 1 0 1 0.0 150.0 0.0 50.0 200.0 0.8 160.0 - 100.0 100.0 0.7 0.7 1 1 100.0 100.0 200.0 0.8 160.0 1 1 100.0 100.0 200.0 0.8 160.0 1 1 100.0 100.0 200.0 0.8 160.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 1 1 10.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1 1 10.0 5.0 1 1 10.0 5.0 0 1 0.0 5.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 1 1 10.0 5.0 [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] 36
  • 60. Navigation lights Total Factor Group loading Special equipment Thrusters Rudder hydrolic pump Total Factor Group loading Total load Power factor Required power Number of engines in use Diesel generator loading [kW] [kW] 1 5.0 1.0 1 5.0 20.0 0.8 16.0 1 5.0 20.0 0.8 16.0 0 0.0 5.0 0.8 4.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 1 5.0 20.0 0.8 16.0 2 2 1500.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 0 2 0.0 14.0 14.0 0.9 12.6 1 2 1500.0 14.0 1514.0 0.9 1362.6 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0 2 0.0 14.0 14.0 0.9 12.6 [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kVA] [%] 12931.9 0.8 14368.8 2.0 84.9 14281.9 0.8 15868.8 2.0 93.7 6734.4 0.8 7482.7 1.0 88.4 227.7 0.8 253.0 1.0 3.0 223.9 0.8 248.8 1.0 2.9 37
  • 61. AALTO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING Department of Applied Mechanics Marine Technology General Arrangement M/S Arianna
  • 62. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... 1 1 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 2 2 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................. 2 3 SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS....................................................................................... 3 3.1 3.2 4 SUBDIVISION AND FIRE SAFETY ............................................................................................... 3 EVACUATION AND LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT............................................................................ 3 PASSENGER COMFORT .............................................................................................. 5 4.1 4.2 5 STATEROOMS ........................................................................................................................... 5 PUBLIC SPACES ........................................................................................................................ 6 CREW AND SERVICE FACILITIES ........................................................................... 6 5.1 CREW ACCOMMODATION ........................................................................................................ 6 5.2 SERVICE SPACES ...................................................................................................................... 7 5.3 ADDITIONAL SPACES ............................................................................................................... 8 6 MATERIAL ACCESS ..................................................................................................... 8 7 TANK ARRANGEMENT ............................................................................................... 9 7.1 7.2 BALLAST TANKS ...................................................................................................................... 9 7.3 FRESH WATER TANKS .............................................................................................................. 9 7.4 BLACK AND GREY WATER TANKS ............................................................................................ 9 7.5 8 FUEL TANKS ............................................................................................................................. 9 TANKS FOR OTHER SYSTEM ................................................................................................... 10 MACHINERY ARRANGEMENT ............................................................................... 10 8.1 MAIN MACHINERY ROOMS ..................................................................................................... 10 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 12 APPENDIX 1 – ARRANGEMENT DRAWINGS............................................................... 13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4-1- Sample stateroom floor plans .................................................................................. 5 Figure 5-1- Sample crew cabin floor plans ................................................................................ 7 LIST OF TABLES Table 7-1. Fuel tank capacities ................................................................................................... 9 1
  • 63. 1 Overview The general arrangement is a time consuming portion of the design due to the inherent difficulties of arranging a passenger vessel. As a cruise ship, the major considerations are safety and passenger comfort and the layout of the ship reflects a combined approach to each topic. Generally, the ship is segmented into different areas, with accommodation spaces forward and public and lifesaving spaces aft. This is in line with many of the luxury, smallscale cruise ships in service today. With this layout, the staterooms are subject to much less noise and vibration, the balconies are maximized, and the passenger and service flow are simple. The main reason, however, is due to the vessel’s unconventional lifesaving layout. The starting point for the general arrangement is the initial NAPA model that reflects the vessel’s initial design constraints and parametric study. With the basic lines, the superstructure can be designed to house the expected 150 passengers and 50 crewmembers in comfort. The challenge, however, is including the required and expected spaces into the necessary structural arrangement, which is already designed at a preliminary level. This is particularly true for the pillars that are set throughout the ship. One important reference in the arrangement is past and present luxury ship designs. With these in mind, strong aspects of some vessels can be included while avoiding the negative aspects of others. This is especially helpful for the public arrangement layouts at this stage of design. Studied ships include those of Azamara Club Cruises, Ponant Cruise Line, Silver Seas Cruises, and Seabourn Cruises, all of which belong in the luxury market. Finally, the aesthetics of the ship were taken into account throughout the general arrangement process. Key aesthetic points of today’s cruise ships include the profile, bow, stern, funnel, color scheme, and portlight and window shape and arrangement, among others. The preliminary outboard profile of this vessel is shown in the appendix. 2 Regulatory requirements The ship is designed using DNV classification rules (1). This, along with the regulations set by the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (2), serves as the primary limiter of arrangement design. The SOLAS regulations are important for fire protection, evacuation, and general safety considerations, while the DNV rules give a broader idea of general requirements to be considered. Though not the governing body for this ship, the ABS rules for Crew Habitability on Ships (3) and Passenger Comfort on Ships (4) also serve as a checking 2
  • 64. point for dimensional aspects, as they include a checklist of minimum dimensions. At this level of design, a conservative approach to such dimensioning aspects will ensure a feasible design that will not need to be altered at a later design stage. 3 Safety considerations At the preliminary design stage, the major safety considerations taken into account are subdivision requirements, fire protection, and evacuation procedures, all of which are crucial to ensure the safety of those onboard. 3.1 Subdivision and fire safety In regards to fire and safety protection, recent amendments to the SOLAS regulations have raised fire safety regulations for passenger vessels (5). They are crucial in listing required equipment and subdivision rules for all vessels. The main consideration at this stage is the requirement that cruise ships be separated by main vertical zone bulkheads (MVZBs), or main fire bulkheads (MFBs) with a maximum spacing of 48 meters. Fire doors must be located in the bulkheads where necessary. These bulkheads, along with the aforementioned pillars, serve as a major guideline in the placement of public spaces. This vessel is divided into three MVZ spaces by two MVZBs. Misting fire protection systems for all accommodation and machinery spaces, CO2 systems for the engine rooms, and proper training are also included in the revised SOLAS requirements for cruise ships. While not reflected in the general arrangement for this design stage, such considerations must be taken into account to ensure complete fire safety and regulatory compliancy. 3.2 Evacuation and lifesaving equipment The uniqueness of this vessel, and therefore the innovation, revolves around the fact that there are no lifeboats onboard. Therefore, it is crucial that the chosen alternative not only suffice in offering appropriate lifesaving capabilities, but improve on the traditional systems. It must be proven that the procedure is not only as safe as comparable ships, but safer. This is needed not only to satisfy the regulations, but also to provide a sense of comfort for passengers. With this in mind, the ship features Marin Ark 2 marine evacuation systems (MES) (6). For vastly improved safety, there are two separate systems situated on each side of the vessel, giving four evacuation stations, each with the capability of serving 158 persons. The MES stations are located on decks three and five. This is more than enough to evacuate all 3
  • 65. passengers from one side of the vessel in case of severe listing. Not only does this provide a redundancy of over three times the total passengers and crew, but the fact that the systems are located on different decks makes it safer than the traditional setup. In addition, two traditional, davit-launch life raft stations are included on deck 4. Each station has storage space for two compact Viking davit-launched, self-righting life rafts, along with a davit. With this arrangement, the life raft is connected to the davit and then inflated at the deck level, enabling passengers to board directly from the deck (7). Each raft has a 39 person capacity, meaning, with two at each station, a total of 156 passengers can be evacuated by more traditional means. This is important for passengers with disabilities, elderly, or others who are incapable of safely evacuating the ship via MES. The fact that the traditional life rafts are located on the middle of the three evacuation decks is also conducive to the evacuation procedure, as it is central and therefore more accessible to passengers with disabilities. In case of emergency, today’s rules require all persons to report first to an assembly station before proceeding, if necessary, to an evacuation station (5). By placing all six stations directly adjacent to the three assembly stations (the main dining room, theatre, and casual restaurant), this process is greatly streamlined, allowing for a more orderly and faster evacuation process. The assembly stations may either be on deck or in public spaces and must have an area of at least 0.35 [m2] per person to be evacuated (5), which is fulfilled by each of the three chosen locations. In comparison to modern lifeboats, the evacuation systems are fully inflatable and operational within 90 seconds of deployment and are fully reversible, meaning they will inflate upright every time. The chutes are also fully enclosed, ensuring no passenger is exposed to the elements at any time. As the vessel has no permanent openings within the hull or superstructure to prevent stress concentration in openings and ease the production process, the systems are accessible through large, interior evacuation rooms and deployed after opening weather tight doors. The evacuation arrangement is shown in the appendix of this report. In summary, the selected evacuation methods have multiple advantages over traditional lifeboats. By arranging all accommodations forward, unlike most current cruise ships, three separate stations, per side, can offer a faster and more accessible evacuation when compared to lifeboats located on one deck. 4
  • 66. 4 Passenger comfort When completing the general arrangement, focus on passenger comfort is second only to safety considerations. As a luxury cruise ship, it is extremely important that passenger staterooms and public spaces reflect a high level of passenger comfort to compete with today’s luxury ships. 4.1 Staterooms All passenger staterooms feature not only outside views, but private balconies as well. All cabins are sized with the high standard of luxury design taken into account, and the layouts, sizing, and spacing are all in line with comparable vessels. There are also wheelchair accessible cabins onboard, sized with extra space for the navigation of wheelchairs and featuring appropriate head arrangements. The six accessible cabins make up nearly 8% of the total staterooms, which is well above the Passenger Vessel Accessibility Guidelines (PVAG), which states that 2% of all cabins must be accessible. A breakdown of available passenger staterooms is listed below, as well as subsequent sample plans in Figure 4-1.    (76) 23-26 [m2] balcony staterooms (6) 31 [m2] wheelchair accessible balcony staterooms (10) 39-50 [m2] balcony suites These staterooms compare very favourably to the current norm. Today’s standard balcony stateroom averages 20 [m2] while suites are generally around 33 [m2] (8). Figure 4-1- Sample stateroom floor plans 5
  • 67. 4.2 Public spaces As with the design of the passenger staterooms, the various public passenger facilities were arranged to both meet the regulatory requirements and provide a high level of comfort. One focus is locating as many spaces as possible with sea views, especially the dining facilities, which are required to have both natural and artificial lighting. The vertical layout of major public spaces makes this an easy task. Another challenge is fitting as many passenger amenities as possible on such a small vessel, which is aided by the high passenger space ratio, meaning public spaces can be located in areas that would otherwise be reserved for cabins. The result is a ship that features the spaces that passengers both need and expect, including a main two-level foyer, medical center, large formal dining room, casual buffet, show lounge, observation lounge, spa, gym, pool area, and multiple bars. The only typical cruise feature missing from the vessel is a casino, which was excluded due to the restricting itinerary plan, as the vessel operates in inland waters. 5 Crew and service facilities Though not as major a focus as passenger comfort, it is nonetheless important to ensure that the crew have adequate cabins and facilities in order to ensure their wellbeing and motivation, which will directly affect the guests. There are many requirements to take into account, including the sizing of accommodation spaces, inclusion of the required recreation areas and practical spaces, and the complete separation of crew and passenger facilities. 5.1 Crew accommodation The final arrangement features crew cabins on deck two, sufficiently far from the main engine and equipment rooms. The senior officer’s cabins are situated on deck five, directly adjacent to the navigation bridge. To ensure a high level of comfort, all cabins feature outside views and no cabin sleeps more than two persons, which is a rarity aboard cruise ships. Still, there are accommodation spaces for 56 crewmembers, which leave a margin for guests or a future increased crew capacity. Sample crew schematics are shown in 6
  • 68. Figure 5-1- Sample crew cabin floor plans As with cabins, additional crew spaces are included to comply with the regulations. These include the obligatory messes for general crewmembers and officers, gym, laundry room, and recreation facility. In addition, practical spaces that are necessary for a successful working order of the ship are taken into account. Examples of these include multiple office spaces as well as a conference room for the navigating officers. 5.2 Service spaces Separate crew and service stairwells and elevators are provided to service all decks, ensuring a convenient and efficient service flow. There is one large, main galley on board to prepare the bulk of the food for both passengers and crew. In addition, for easier serviceability, there are smaller galleys and pantries adjacent to every dining facility, all of which are connected both by a stairwell and service elevator. This is especially important with the vertical arrangement, as it would not be convenient to transport food from lower decks. Included both in the main galley and a separate room directly below is an ample amount of provisions storage. At this design stage, the ABS guidelines for provision storage allotment (4) were considered. These guidelines estimate the needed area or volume based on both the number of intended passengers and continuous operating time, as listed below.    Dry provisions: 0.06 [m2 per person/per day] Chilled provisions: 0.017 [m3 per person/per day] Frozen provisions: 0.023 [m3 per person/per day] 7
  • 69. The space allotted for these provisions is more than adequate for these estimations. It is important to include a large margin to allow for the possibility of expanding itinerary options in the future, as some may last more than seven days. The bridge is located on the second highest deck and includes the central safety control center that is required by SOLAS. This permanently manned station contains control panels for the various systems onboard. These include the fire detection and alarm systems, sprinkler systems, fire and watertight doors, ventilation fans, general alarm systems, communication systems, and the public address system (9). 5.3 Additional spaces Besides the aforementioned spaces, machinery spaces, and tanks, the remaining space onboard are reserved for operational requirements, including exhaust spacing, hotel service spaces, and heating and cooling facilities. Approximately 5% of the total interior space aboard cruise ships should be allocated to heating and cooling spaces on each deck (10). This is crucial for the decks that feature large amounts of passenger staterooms. In addition, at least 3% should be reserved for hospitality rooms, including storage and cleaning lockers and laundry stations. 6 Material access Another functional consideration is the access and flow of various materials. In this regard, space has been allocated in both the arrangement and profile views for the needed stations and doors. Passenger embarkation can be accomplished with both the general gangway access and passenger tender stations near the waterline. Even though this ship has a low draft, it is important to include tendering capabilities for future deployment flexibility. Another watertight door leads to a bunker station, with one station port and one starboard to allow flexibility when docking. Additional doors are identified for material handling. The forward is dedicated to luggage access and egress and is situated near the luggage handling room. This is an important feature for cruise ships, which must handle a large amount of luggage on the embarkation and debarkation days. Finally, the provision access doors are located aft of the bunker stations and lead directly to two of the provision storage rooms. All doors from the deck to superstructure are weather tight while the closures below the bulkhead deck are watertight. 8
  • 70. 7 Tank arrangement 7.1 Fuel tanks The sizes of fuel tanks are calculated based on the fuel consumption of all engines and taking into account mission of the ship. Therefore, the fuel tanks must have enough capacity to ensure a sufficient period of independency on sea. The vessel visits during the cruise every day one port; therefore, each of storage tanks for HFO must be able to hold fuel for at least one day. In addition to the storage tanks, there are also two settling tanks, each capable of providing fuel for 24 hours operation at maximum fuel consumption. This time will be sufficient for settling (water and sediment separation). There are also day tanks, each which holds fuel for 8 hours of sailing at full power. As the fuel consumption for all engines is [m3/h] which was calculated during Ship Machinery course, then tank capacities are calculated according to this and the results can be seen in Table 7-1. Table 7-1. Fuel tank capacities Storage tank Settling tank Day tank Number of tanks 2 2 2 Total: Capacity [m3/h] 259,2 259,2 86,4 604,8 7.2 Ballast tanks Capacity for the ballast water tanks, at this stage is first estimation due to the preliminary weight calculations and it is not known how much ballast water is needed. Therefore, most of the tanks in double bottom which do not have other purpose are ballast water tanks. 7.3 Fresh water tanks The fresh water consumption per person is chosen to be 300 [l/day]. Additionally steam boilers use fresh water and the total steam need is 2054 [kg/h]. Therefore in total, assuming that the ship is in full use with 152 persons, the daily water consumption used by passengers and crew will be 45 600 [l]. The total amount of fresh water needed for steam boilers is taken as 50 000 [l/day]. Thus, fresh water tanks are designed to have capacity for approximately 2 days, equaling in volume 200 [m3]. 7.4 Black and grey water tanks Black and gray water holding tank capacities are calculated based on average generated sewage and grey water per person in day. The average black water generated per person in 9
  • 71. one day is approximately 32 liters per person (11). The grey wastewater generated per person in one day is approximately 255 liters per person (12). Therefore, black water holding tank capacity should be 4864 liters per vessel and the designed tank capacity is 10 [m3]. Grey wastewater holding tank capacity should be 38 760 liters per vessel and the designed tank capacity is 78 [m3]. These tank sizes are made twice a bigger, because if something happens with treatment plant, then there is not an issue to hold all the black and grey wastewater during trip between two ports. For a waste treatment plant is chosen EVAC advanced membrane bio-reactor (MBR) treatment plant, which will treat grey and black water as well dry waste and food waste. A membrane bioreactor is used to filter grey and black water so, that clean water is separated from the biomass by membrane filtration. In choosing the treatment plant it is considered that it will be capable to treat as much water as the person generates per one day. 7.5 Tanks for other system In addition to these bigger systems, there are also some smaller systems which tanks needs to be mentioned and these are: lubricating oil tank, sludge tank for lubricating oil system and some minor fuel tank for boiler. 8 Machinery arrangement In all type of the ships, the machinery area is tried to keep as small as possible, to have more space for passenger or cargo, the payload. This fact makes machinery area arrangement significantly more complicated than others, as it has to fit a lot of equipment. The project ship is designed according to DNV rules and the requirements pointed out in ( (13), Section 3) are followed. For safety reasons are followed the SOLAS rules (14). 8.1 Main machinery rooms In the following list are described the main machinery rooms and the aspects, which are taken into consideration of their arrangement:  Main engine rooms are all separated by longitudinal bulkheads, to ensure the ship performance in case of emergency. The main engines rooms are located in the middle of the ship, because the weight of the engines will cause bigger trim angle when located in aft or fore of ship. 10
  • 72.  Propulsion motors are located as stern as possible to decrease the shaft length; considered as one of the main sources of vibration in ship, which are tried to keep as low as possible in passenger ships.  Main drive and switchboard rooms should be located as close as possible to generators, as the cables between those three are the biggest and with highest voltages and therefore tried to keep short.  Water treatment and heating are placed close to each other to limit the piping length, which lowers the accident and failure possibilities and gives extra space.  Fuel separating and feeding unit are placed as close to engines as possible to decrease piping length  Thruster room should be separated from other areas as it contains big drive unit with high voltage and to lower the chance of getting in case of accident. 11
  • 73. Bibliography 1. DNV. Passanger and Dry Cargo Ships. Rules for Classification of Ships. 2011. 2. International Maritime Organization. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. 1994. 3. Shipping, American Bureau of. Crew Habitability on Ships. Houston : s.n., 2012. 4. Passenger Comfor on Ships. Houson : s.n., 2001. 5. Aarnio, Markus. Rules and Regulations - How the Rules and Regulations affect Passenger Ship Design. 2012. 6. Marine, RFD Beafort. Marin Ark Technical Manual. 2013. 7. Viking. Viking Liferafts. 2013. 8. Jatunen, Olli. Passenger Ship Design Criteria, Functions, and Features. 2013. 9. American Bureau of Shipping. Guide for Bridge Design and Navigational Equipment and Systems. Houston : s.n., 2000. 10. Levander, Kai. Passenger Ships. [book auth.] Thomas Lamb. Ship Design and Construction Vol II. Jersey City : Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 2004. 11. Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report. http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/vwd/upload/2009_01_28_oceans_cruise_ships_section2_sewag e.pdf. [Online] 12. Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report. http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/vwd/upload/2009_01_28_oceans_cruise_ships_section3_grayw ater.pdf. [Online] 13. DNV. Newbuildings Machinery and Systems - Main Class. Rules For Classification of Ships. 2011. 14. SOLAS. Means of escape from machinery spaces. Regulation 13. Means of Escape. 2002. 12
  • 74. BOILER FEED WATER TANK MAIN DRIVE FIRE FIGHTING MAIN SWITCHBOARD SETTLING TANK DAY TANK STORAGE MAIN ENGINE ROOM GRAY AND BLACK WATER TREATMENT FRESH WATER TANK GRAYWATER TANK WORKSHOP 10 20 PROPULSION MOTOR ROOM 30 FRESHWATER TREATMENT 40 AND HEATING 50 60 70 80 90 MAIN ENGINE ROOM 100 GRAY AND BLACK WATER TREATMENT 110 GRAYWATER TANK THRUSTER CONTROL ROOM HVAC SETTLING TANK FUEL FEEDING AND SEPERATION DAY TANK PUMP ROOM MAIN ENGINE ROOM MFB MFB SEA CHEST WB HFO LUBRICATION OIL WB 20 30 40 50 SLUDGE WB BILGE WATER SLUDGE 10 WB 60 WB 70 80 WB 90 100 110 WB HFO SEA CHEST WB LUBRICATION OIL SEA CHEST WB WB 5-1 A3 Ship Project A ARIANNA Tank plan and machinery deck Champion Nelis 07.12.2013 07.12.2013 Aalto University School of Engineering Marine Technology
  • 75. CREW ACCOMODATION PASSENGER EMBARKATION STATION LUGGAGE ACCESS CREW ACCOMODATION OFFICE SECURITY AND CONTROL OFFICE OFFICER MESS AND LOUNGE EXCURSION DESK 0 RECEPTION MAIN GALLEY AND PROVISIONS STORAGE MOORING AND CREW SPACE GRAND FOYER 10 20 30 40 OFFICE OFFICE EXHAUST CASING 50 OFFICE SECURITY AND CONTROL LUGGAGE HANDLING 60 70 80 CREW LOUNGE AND BAR 90 100 110 MEDICAL CENTER OFFICE LUGGAGE ACCESS PASSENGER EMBARKATION STATION MFB PROVISION ACCESS PROVISION ACCESS PROPULSION MOTOR ROOM PROVISIONS STORAGE AND GARBAGE HANDLING STEERING GEAR 0 10 MACHINERY ACCESS MFB PASSENGER TENDER STATION BUNKER STATION HOTEL STORES HVAC MAIN ENGINE ROOM PROVISIONS STORAGE 20 30 EXHAUST CASING 40 50 MAIN ENGINE ROOM 60 70 COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY AND LINEN STORES 80 90 100 110 ENGINE CONTROL ROOM PROPULSION MOTOR ROOM PROVISION ACCESS MACHINERY ACCESS PROVISION ACCESS PAINT STORES BUNKER STATION MAIN ENGINE ROOM PASSENGER TENDER STATION MFB MFB 5-2 A3 Ship Project A ARIANNA Deck 1 and Deck 2 Champion Nelis 07.12.2013 07.12.2013 Aalto University School of Engineering Marine Technology
  • 76. EVACUATION STATION #4 78 PERSONS MAIN SHOW LOUNGE AND BAR WC 0 10 20 SOUND AND LIGHTING CONTROL HOSPITALITY STORE RETAIL SHOP 30 40 50 LAUNDRETTE EXHAUST CASING 60 HOSPITALITY STORE HVAC ROOM 70 80 CLEANING LOCKER 90 100 110 WC ASSEMBLY STATION #2 EVACUATION STATION #3 78 PERSONS BALCONY STATEROOM ACCESSIBLE STATEROOM MFB BALCONY SUITE MFB EVACUATION STATION #2 158 PERSONS MAIN DINING ROOM WC GALLEY EXHAUST CASING OPEN 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 HOSPITALITY STORE HVAC ROOM 70 80 90 100 110 WC ASSEMBLY STATION #1 EMERGENCY GENSET ROOM EVACUATION STATION #1 158 PERSONS BALCONY STATEROOM ACCESSIBLE STATEROOM MFB BALCONY SUITE MFB 5-3 A3 Ship Project A ARIANNA Deck 3 and Deck 4 Champion Nelis 07.12.2013 07.12.2013 Aalto University School of Engineering Marine Technology
  • 77. MAST FUNNEL CREW RECREATION DECK 0 10 20 30 40 50 SUN DECK 60 70 80 90 100 110 JOGGING TRACK SPA SUN DECK JACC. POOL BAR AND PANTRY SUN DECK POOL 0 10 20 30 40 50 WC EXHAUST CASING/ AIR INTAKE DECK AND POOL STORAGE 60 GYM OBSERVATION LOUNGE AND BAR SPA 70 80 90 100 110 WC JACC. SPA SUN DECK MFB GYM MFB SR. OFF. EVACUATION STATION #6 158 PERSONS HOTEL DIRECTOR CHIEF ENGINEER DECK RADIO ROOM CASUAL BUFFET RESTAURANT PANTRY WC 0 10 20 HOSPITALITY STORE LIBRARY/ CARD ROOM POOL TRUNK 30 40 50 CLEANING LOCKER LAUNDRETTE 60 OFFICE OFFICE EXHAUST CASING HVAC ROOM 70 NAVIGATION BRIDGE 80 CONFERENCE ROOM 90 100 110 WC ASSEMBLY STATION #3 CENTRAL SAFETY CONTROL CENTER SR. OFF. EVACUATION STATION #5 158 PERSONS BALCONY SUITE BALCONY STATEROOM MFB SR. OFF. CAPTAIN DECK ACCESSIBLE STATEROOM MFB 5-4 A3 Ship Project A ARIANNA Deck 5, Deck 6 and Deck 7 Champion Nelis 07.12.2013 07.12.2013 Aalto University School of Engineering Marine Technology
  • 78. 0 10 0 20 10 30 20 40 30 50 40 60 50 70 60 80 70 90 80 100 90 110 100 5-5 110 A3 Ship Project A ARIANNA Profile views Champion Nelis 07.12.2013 07.12.2013 Aalto University School of Engineering Marine Technology
  • 79. FUNNEL SUN DECK MAST MOORING MAIN GALLEY AND PROVISIONS PROVISIONS AND MACHINERY PUBLIC SPACE AND EVACUATION PUBLIC SPACE AND EVACUATION PASSENGER ACC. PASSENGER ACC. PASSENGER ACC. PUBLIC AND OFFICE SPACES 10 20 OFFICER ACC. NAVIGATION BRIDGE PASSENGER ACC. PASSENGER ACC. PROVISIONS MFB 0 OBSERVATION LOUNGE PASSENGER ACC. PASSENGER ACC. PASSENGER STAIRS GALLEY PASSENGER ACC. PASSENGER LIFTS 3,4 MAIN DINING ROOM SERVICE LIFT 2 AND SERVICE STAIRS SHOW LOUNGE AND BAR PUBLIC SPACE AND EVACUATION SPA AND GYM PASSENGER STAIRS CASUAL RESTAURANT STORAGE PASSENGER LIFTS 1,2 POOL BAR SERVICE LIFT 1 AND SERVICE STAIRS POOL AREA 30 40 MFB 50 60 70 80 5-6 90 A3 Ship Project A ARIANNA Inboard view 100 110 Champion Nelis 07.12.2013 07.12.2013 Aalto University School of Engineering Marine Technology
  • 80. DWL 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 5-7 100 A3 Ship Project A ARIANNA Evacuation profile 110 Champion Nelis 07.12.2013 07.12.2013 Aalto University School of Engineering Marine Technology
  • 81. AALTO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING Department of Applied Mechanics Marine Technology Hull Structure M/S Arianna
  • 82. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... 1 NOTATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 3 1 MAIN FRAME CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................................... 4 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 2 FRAMING SYSTEM .................................................................................................................... 4 WEB FRAME ............................................................................................................................. 4 DOUBLE BOTTOM HEIGHT........................................................................................................ 4 SIDE GIRDER ............................................................................................................................ 4 FLOORS .................................................................................................................................... 5 LONGITUDINALS ...................................................................................................................... 5 PILLARS ................................................................................................................................... 5 BRACKETS ............................................................................................................................... 5 OPENINGS ................................................................................................................................ 6 SPACE RESERVATIONS ......................................................................................................... 8 LOCATION OF BULKHEADS .................................................................................................. 8 DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS IN ENGINE ROOM ......................................................... 9 RELEVANT LOADS ................................................................................................. 10 2.1 2.2 2.3 HULL AND DECKS PRESSURES................................................................................................ 10 HULL GIRDER BENDING MOMENTS ........................................................................................ 12 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 14 3 MATERIAL SELECTION........................................................................................ 14 4 STRUCTURAL ELEMENT CALCULATIONS .................................................... 16 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 BOTTOM STRUCTURES ........................................................................................................... 16 SIDE STRUCTURES .................................................................................................................. 17 DECK STRUCTURES ................................................................................................................ 18 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 19 5 STRUCTURAL ELEMENT CALCULATIONS USING BEAM THEORY ....... 20 6 HULL GIRDER NORMAL STRESS RESPONSE ................................................ 22 6.1 6.2 6.3 BENDING STRESS ................................................................................................................... 22 SHEAR STRESS ....................................................................................................................... 27 STRESS COMPARISON WITH RULE LIMITS .............................................................................. 29 7 WEB FRAMES ........................................................................................................... 31 8 CRITICAL BUCKLING STRESS ........................................................................... 32 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 9 JOHNSON CORRECTION .......................................................................................................... 32 STIFFENER BUCKLING ............................................................................................................ 32 PLATE BUCKLING IN COMPRESSION ....................................................................................... 33 PLATE BUCKLING IN SHEAR STRESS....................................................................................... 33 USAGE FACTOR ...................................................................................................................... 33 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 34 ULTIMATE STRENGTH ......................................................................................... 34 9.1 FIRST FIBRE YIELD ................................................................................................................. 34 1
  • 83. 9.2 9.3 FIRST FIBRE BUCKLING .......................................................................................................... 35 CONSTRUCT RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 35 10 NATURAL FREQUENCIES OF PLATES, STIFFENERS AND GIRDERS...... 36 11 TORSION PROBLEMS ............................................................................................ 37 12 VIBRATORY LEVELS ............................................................................................. 37 13 FATIGUE ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 38 14 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................... 41 APPENDIX 1 – MAIN FRAME CHARACTERISTICS.................................................... 42 APPENDIX 2 – BULKHEAD LOCATIONS ...................................................................... 43 APPENDIX 3 – MAIN FRAME AT MACHINERY ROOM............................................. 44 APPENDIX 4 – MAIN FRAME ........................................................................................... 45 APPENDIX 5 - MATERIAL GRADES AND CLASSES ................................................... 46 APPENDIX 6 - BEAM THEORY CALCULATION TABLES ......................................... 47 APPENDIX 7 - TABLES FOR BLEICH APPROACH ..................................................... 54 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 5-1. Stiffener section modulus with plate. .................................................................... 22 Figure 6-1. Bending stress distribution in hogging. ................................................................. 24 Figure 6-2. Hogging bending stress distribution according to Construct. ............................... 25 Figure 6-3.Bending stress distribution in sagging. ................................................................... 25 Figure 6-4. Sagging bending stress distribution according to Construct. ................................ 26 Figure 6-5. Shear stress distribution. ........................................................................................ 28 Figure 6-6. Shear stress distribution according to Construct. .................................................. 28 Figure 9-1. Ultimate strength according to Construct. ............................................................. 35 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1. Load types, magnitudes and frequencies. ............................................................... 14 Table 3-1. Structural element materials. .................................................................................. 15 Table 4-1. Structural element minimum dimensions according to DNV (3) ........................... 19 Table 5-1. Section modulus calculation ................................................................................... 20 Table 6-1. Shear force distribution factor ................................................................................ 27 Table 6-2. Stress comparison. .................................................................................................. 30 Table 8-1. Critical buckling stresses ........................................................................................ 34 Table 10-1. Frequency ranges .................................................................................................. 36 2
  • 84. Table 13-1. S-N parameters ..................................................................................................... 40 Notations t ship length [m] ship breadth [m] ship draft [m] Block coefficient pressure [kN/mm2] stiffener spacing [m] stiffener span [m] section modulus corrosion factor corrosion addition [mm] material factor bending stress [MPa] shear stress [MPa] yield stress [MPa] correction factor for aspect of plate field girder or web-frame spacing [m] vertical distance from the waterline at draught T to the load point [m] vertical distance in m from the load point to the top of tank [m] distance from the centre line to the load point [m] vertical distance from the baseline to the load point, maximum T [m] acceleration of gravity [m/s2] vertical acceleration [m/s2] density of liquid [kg/m3] plate thickness [mm] 3
  • 85. 1 Main frame characteristics The ship is designed according to Det Norske Veritas (DNV) rules. Most of the design is done by following to the DNV Rules for Classification of Ships, part 3 - Hull and Equipment, Main Class chapter 1. This corresponds to the hull structural design for ships with a length of 100 metres and above. Even so, there are some differences between different ship types and therefore part 5, Special Service and Additional Type Classes and chapter 2, Passenger and Dry Cargo Ships, are also used when necessary. The final main frame is presented in Appendix 1-Main frame characteristics. 1.1 Framing system A longitudinal framing system is chosen for the ship because of its lower weight compared to transverse and mixed framing systems. Additionally, with more longitudinal stiffeners, the shell and deck plating are reinforced more effectively in comparison to transverse framing, allowing resistance of longitudinal compressive stresses. This is important since cruise ships are usually with relatively high L/B ratios, meaning longitudinal stresses are the main issues (1). 1.2 Web frame The web frame spacing is chosen by considering the fact that cabins should be fitted between web frames. As such, a web frame spacing of 3m is chosen for the final design. (2) 1.3 Double bottom height For passenger vessels and cargo ships other than tankers, a double bottom shall be fitted, extending from the collision bulkhead to the afterpeak bulkhead, as far as is practicable and compatible with the design and proper working of the ship ( (3), Section 6). The minimum height of the double bottom is calculated as follows: [mm] 1.4 1-1 Side girder Side girders shall normally be fitted so that the distance between the side girders and the center girder or margin plate or between the side girders themselves does not exceed 5 m. In the engine room, one side girder is to be fitted outside the engine seating girders in all cases ( (3), Section 6). 4
  • 86. 1.5 Floors The floor spacing is normally not to be greater than 3,6 m. In way of deep tanks with heights exceeding 0,7 times the distance between the inner bottom and the main deck, the floor spacing is normally not to exceed 2,5 m. In the engine room, floors shall be fitted at every second side frame. Bracket floors shall be fitted at intermediate frames, extending to the first ordinary side girder outside the engine seating. For thrust bearings and below pillars, additional strengthening shall be provided ( (3), Section 6). Floors are fitted equally with web frames and the floor spacing is 3 m. 1.6 Longitudinals All longitudinals (bottom, inner bottom, and deck) are fitted with spacing of 600 mm or as near it as possible. The stiffener span must be chosen in accordance to the following considerations:   Longitudinals shall be continuous through transverse members within 0,5 L amidships in ships with length L > 150 m  Longitudinals may be cut at transverse members within 0,5 L amidships in ships with length 50 m < L< 150 m. In that case, continuous brackets connecting the ends of the longitudinals shall be fitted.  Longitudinals may be welded against the floors in ships with length L < 50 m, and in larger ships, outside 0.5 L amidships. 1.7 Pillars The main issue with pillar location is cabin arrangement, as they must fit between pillars or between a pillar and side. Pillars should be connected with transverse deck girders and deck girders at the strongest point, therefore, pillars should be located at the crossing points of deck girders. Pillars should be in one line as much as possible to avoid shear force. The same reason is taken into account by locating pillars on bulkheads. 1.8 Brackets 1.8.1 End connections of stiffeners Normally, all types of stiffeners (longitudinals, beams, frames, and bulkhead stiffeners) shall be connected at their ends. In special cases, however, sniped ends may be allowed. Connections between stiffener and bracket shall be designed so that the section modulus in 5
  • 87. way of the connection is not reduced to a value less than required for the stiffener. If the flange transition between the stiffener and an integral bracket is knuckled, the flange shall be effectively supported in way of the knuckle. (3) 1.8.2 End connections of girders Normally, ends of single girders or connections between girders forming ring systems shall be provided with brackets. Brackets are generally to be made with a radius or be well-rounded at their toes. The free edge of the brackets shall be arranged with a flange or edge stiffener. The thickness of brackets on girders shall not be less than that of the girder web plate. Where flanges are continuous, there shall be a smooth taper between bracket flange and girder face plate. If the flange is discontinuous, the face plate of the girder shall extend well beyond the toe of the bracket. (3) Between supporting plates on the centre girder, docking brackets shall be fitted. Alternative arrangements of supporting plates and docking brackets require special consideration of the local buckling strength of the centre girder/duct keel and local strength of the docking longitudinal that is subject to the forces from docking blocks. (3) 1.9 Openings Openings may be accepted in watertight bulkheads, except in the part of the collision bulkhead which is situated below the freeboard deck. Openings situated below the freeboard deck which are intended for use when the ship is at sea, shall have watertight doors which shall be closable from the freeboard deck or an alternative place above the deck. The operating device shall be well protected and accessible. Openings in the collision bulkhead above the freeboard deck shall have weather tight doors or an equivalent arrangement. The number of openings in the bulkhead shall be reduced to the minimum compatible with the design and normal operation of the ship. No door, manhole, or ventilation duct or any other opening will be accepted in the collision bulkhead below the freeboard deck. The collision bulkhead may, however, be pierced by necessary pipes to deal with fluids in the forepeak tank, provided the pipes are fitted with valves capable of being operated from above the freeboard deck. Openings in the side shell, longitudinal bulkheads, and longitudinal girders shall be located not less than twice the opening breadth below the strength deck or the termination of a rounded deck corner. Small openings are generally to be kept well clear of other openings in longitudinal strength members. Edges of small unreinforced openings shall be located at a 6
  • 88. transverse distance not less than four times the opening breadth from the edge of any other opening. Smaller openings (manholes, lightening holes, and single scallops in way of seams, etc.) do not need to be deducted provided the sum of their breadths or shadow area breadths in one transverse section does not reduce the section modulus at the deck or bottom by more than 3%. In addition, the height of lightening holes, draining holes, and single scallops in longitudinals or longitudinal girders must not exceed 25% of the web depth and a maximum 75mm is imposed for scallops. In the strength deck and outer bottom within 0,6 L amidships, circular openings with a diameter equal to or greater than 0,325 m shall have edge reinforcement. The cross-sectional area of edge reinforcements shall not be less than the following: [cm2] 1-2 Where, - diameter of opening in [m], The reinforcement is normally to be a vertical ring welded to the plate edge. Alternative arrangements may be accepted but the distance from plating edge to reinforcement is in no case to exceed 0,05 b. In areas specified in previously elliptical openings with a breadth greater than 0,5 m, edge reinforcement must be included if their length/breadth ratio is less than 2. The reinforcement shall also be required in the strength deck and outer bottom for circular openings, taking b as the breadth of the opening. For corners of circular shape the radius shall not be less than: [cm] 1-3 Where, - breadth of opening For streamlining, shape edge reinforcement will generally not be required; edges of openings shall be smooth. Machine flame cut openings with smooth edges may be accepted. Holes in girders will generally be accepted provided the shear stress level is acceptable and the buckling strength is sufficient. Holes shall be kept well clear of end of brackets and locations where shear stresses are high. 7
  • 89. 1.10 Space reservations As the present project is a cruise ship with a capacity of 184 people, there should be enough space to accommodate all the passengers and crew members. Therefore, an important issue is cabin measurements. Cabin measures depend on the distances between web frames, as cabins should fit in between web frames. Thus, there must be compromises between cabins size and web frame spacing in order to find the best solution. In the current project, web frame spacing is chosen to be 3 m, which is sufficient to accommodate two or four persons. The number of people depends on the cabin layout. In a cabin, there must be enough space to move freely and feel comfortable. Deck heights are about 2,6 m, so there is enough space in the ceiling for, for example, piping and cable lines. The engine room height is through two decks, with an initial approximation of 7 m. What is more, there must be reserved space for hallways between public spaces and accommodation spaces and also space for stairways between decks. In conclusion, the space is divided between cabins, crew accommodation, machinery room, public restaurant, and lounges, etc. 1.11 Location of bulkheads The following transverse, watertight bulkheads shall be fitted in all ships:  a collision bulkhead  an after peak bulkhead  a bulkhead at each end of the machinery space(s). According to (3) Section 3, Table A1, there must be 6 bulkheads. The minimum distance xc from the fore perpendicular PF to the collision bulkhead is calculated with the following equation (3): [m] 1-4 The after peak bulkhead is placed approximately 18 m from the aft perpendicular to the location where the double bottom and rising stern part meets. There is also a longitudinal bulkhead between two engines and a bulkhead to allocate the switchboard. The location of other bulkheads is shown in Appendix 2-Bulkhead locations. 8
  • 90. 1.12 Design of structural members in engine room The side shell in the engine room always supports the water pressure from the outside, especially in the fully loaded condition, as it will be quite high. The water pressure is supported by the longitudinal frames and the load is transmitted to the web frames which are finally supported by the engine flats. From this viewpoint, the engine flat is not only the foundation of the machinery but also an important strength member. In order to reduce the hull steel weight as consequence of the water pressure, the thickness of the engine flat is reduced and is finally constructed by a frame work without a plate. Even in such a situation, it is good to remember that the engine flat is an important strength member to support the web frames in the engine room. Ship machinery is not installed directly on the supporting surfaces of foundations, but rather on appropriate intermediate elements such as foundation chocks. This is due to the fact that large supporting surfaces of foundations and machine bodies are difficult to match in contact exactly. Also, there is the often arising need to have the connected machines aligned with high precision. Metal chocks made of steel or cast iron, with their characteristic high rigidity, have traditionally been used in shipbuilding and the seating arrangements utilizing them are rigid. The load should be evenly distributed among all chocks, which is obtained by their appropriate placement and fitting. Resulting from the high rigidity of metal chocks, small inaccuracies in their fitting may lead to a highly uneven foundation loading, holding down the bolts and bodies of machines. As this phenomenon is highly detrimental, demanding requirements have been introduced with regard to the precise fitting of the chocks during the installation of ship machinery. (4) 1.12.1 Transverse framing Side girders shall be fitted so that the distance between the side girders and centre girder or margin plate or between the side girders themselves does not exceed 4 metres. In the engine room, side girders are in all cases to be fitted outside the engine seating girders. In the engine room, floors shall be fitted at every second side frame. Bracket floors shall be fitted at intermediate frames, extending to the first ordinary side girder outside the engine seating. With respect to the thrust bearing and below pillars, additional strengthening shall be provided (3). The vessel’s machinery room is presented in Appendix 3-Main frame at machinery room. 9
  • 91. 2 Relevant loads According to the project ship, there are several loads acting on its design lifetime of 20 years, which is an assumed value at this stage. Loads on ship structures can be divided into the following categories:  static loads (e.g., still water bending moments)  low-frequency (dynamic) loads (e.g., wave-induced hull pressure variations)  high-frequency (dynamic) loads (e.g., wave-induced loads from primary short waves)  impact loads(e.g., collision, slamming) The load calculation results are presented in Table 2-1. 2.1 Hull and decks pressures 2.1.1 Side pressures Firstly, there is an estimated sea pressure to ship’s sides as well as pressure to the decks. Water pressure increases with depth and tends to set in the ship’s plating below the water line. A transverse section of a ship is subjected to a static pressure from the surrounding water in addition to loading resulting from the weight of the structure, cargo, etc. Although transverse stresses are of lesser magnitude than longitudinal stresses, considerable distortion of the structure could occur in absence of adequate stiffening. The sea pressure is calculated with two different equations. According to the DNV rules, the pressure acting on the ship side shall be taken as the sum of the static and dynamic pressure. Pressure which is below the summer waterline can be calculated as the following: [kPa] The pressure 2-1 is taken as: ( ) [kPa] 2-2 ) [kPa] 2-3 Where, ( )( √ 10
  • 92. Where, [ 2-4 ] [kPa] Side pressure decreases when decreases, therefore, the pressure near the waterline is calculated similarly as above and the result can be seen in Table 2-1. The pressure above the summer waterline is constant along the entire side and can be calculated as follows: [kPa] 2-5 2.1.2 Deck pressure The deck pressures in accommodation decks are calculated as the following: ( ) [kPa] 2-6 However, the minimum pressure must be larger than a specified value: ( ) [kPa] 2-7 The deck pressures in machinery spaces are calculated as the following: ( ) [kPa] 2-8 2.1.3 Inner bottom pressure The pressure for the inner bottom is calculated with the following relationship: [kPa] 2-9 2.1.4 Outer bottom pressure The outer bottom pressure is calculated in the same way as the side pressure below the summer waterline and the result can be seen in Table 2-1. Although the ship has deadrise in the bottom, the pressure acting on the bottom is taken as a constant and is calculated using Equation 2-1 at the design draft. 11
  • 93. 2.1.5 Pressure in tanks The pressure in full tanks is calculated as follows: ( 2.2 ) [kPa] 2-10 Hull girder bending moments 2.2.1 Stillwater loads 2.2.1.1 Stillwater bending moments The loads from cargo and lightweight are balanced by the displacement in port and that will cause still water bending of the hull girder. The design still water bending moments amidships (sagging and hogging) are calculated as follows: Sagging: ( ) [kNm] 2-11 Hogging: ( ) [kNm] In case of unrestricted service, the relationship 2-12 must be satisfied. 2.2.1.2 Stillwater shear force The design values of still water shear forces along the length of the ship are normally not to be taken less than the following: [kN] 2-13 [kN] 2-14 Where, , between 0,4L and 0,6L from aft perpendicular A specified sign convention is to be applied:  when sagging, condition positive in forebody, negative in afterbody  when hogging, condition negative in forebody, positive in afterbody 12
  • 94. 2.2.2 Wave loads 2.2.2.1 Bending moment In a heavy seaway, a ship may be supported at the ends by the crests of waves while the middle remains unsupported. If the wave trough is now considered at amidships then the buoyancy in this region will be reduced. With the wave crest positioned at the ends of the ship, the buoyancy here will be increased. This loading condition will result in a bending moment which will cause the ship to sag. In contrast, if the wave crest is considered at amidships then the buoyancy in this region will be increased. With the wave trough positioned at the ends of the ship, the buoyancy here will be reduced. This loading condition will result in a significantly increased bending moment, which will cause the ship to hog. As such, the vertical wave bending moments are: Sagging: ( ) [kNm] 2-15 Hogging: [kNm] 2-16 For seagoing conditions, the parameter is equal to one. 2.2.2.2 Shear force The wave vertical shear forces along the length of the ship of are calculated as a positive shear force: ( ) [kN] 2-17 A positive shear force should be used when a positive still water shear force appears. The negative shear force can also be found: ( ) [kN] 2-18 Where, for seagoing conditions, between 0,4 L and 0,6 L from A.P, 13
  • 95. between 0,4 L and 0,6 L from A.P, Negative shear force should be used when negative still water shear force appears. 2.2.3 Total bending moment The total moment acting on the hull is calculated utilizing Equations 2-11 to 2-16 as follows: [kNm] 2.3 2-19 Summary Table 2-1. Load types, magnitudes and frequencies. Load type Side pressure below waterline [kPa] Side pressure above waterline [kPa] Bottom pressure [kPa] Inner bottom pressure [kPa] Accommodation deck pressure [kPa] Machinery deck pressure [kPa] Pressure in tanks [kPa] Stillwater bending moment [kNm]: Wave bending moment [kNm]: Total wave moment [kNm]: Stillwater shear force Wave shear force [kN] : Sign Sagging Hogging Sagging Hogging Sagging Hogging Sagging Hogging Positive Negative Magnitude 4,3 - 71,3 9 71,3 19,3 13,3 20,2 19,8 Frequency Constant Constant Constant Constant Constant Constant Constant Constant Constant Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic Stillwater bending moments are also calculated using NAPA and is seen that in stillwater conditions the ship is hogging and the biggest moment affects the ship when it is arriving to port and it is rules, kNm. Compared to bending moment calculated according to DNV , the difference is significant. In calculations, the DNV bending moment is used to assure the strength is guaranteed. The shear force is also taken from NAPA, where it is found to be 820 kN, but according to DNV in hogging, the shear force is 730 kN, which results in a difference of 11%. The DNV shear force is used in calculations to prevent mixing different result sources and, as the bending moment difference is much bigger, it is reasonable to use DNV in still water loads. 14
  • 96. 3 Material selection Material selection is done according to DNV classification rules ( (3) , Section 2). The most cost efficient for the shipyard is to use as few different materials as possible. In this project, the main materials are normal strength steel (yield strength 235 [N/mm2]) and high strength steel (yield strength 355 [N/mm2]). The normal strength steel is used in the hull structure and high strength steel is used in the superstructure. There is no point to use high strength steel in the hull structure because, due to the huge amount of welding, HSS loses its properties, which change basically to the same as normal strength steel. Also, HSS is more sensitive to welding fractures than normal strength steel. High strength steel is used in the superstructure in order to decrease the structure weight. The critical factors for the superstructure are buckling and vibrations. When using HSS, as the plate thicknesses are much smaller, the most bucklingcritical locations, higher decks, should have extra attention. The materials are divided into the grades as following:  Normal strength steel grades: A, B, D and E.  High strength steel grades: AH, DH and EH. In various parts of the structure, different material grades are used. These grades and classes are given in DNV tables (Appendix 5), which describes which grade/class should be used in various parts. The materials ascribed to the project ship’s main frame structural elements are given in Table 3-1. Table 3-1. Structural element materials. Structural element Bottom Keel plate Bilge plate Bottom plate Tank top plate Floors Longitudinal girder Centre girder Bottom longitudinals Inner bottom longitudinals Longitudinal girder and floor stiffeners Side structures Below waterline Side plate Side longitudinals Above waterline Side plate Side longitudinals Superstructure Side plate Side longitudinals Strength group Grade Class NV-NS NV-NS NV-NS NV-NS NV-NS NV-NS NV-NS NV-NS NV-NS NV-NS A/AH A/AH A/AH A/AH A/AH A/AH A/AH A/AH A/AH A/AH III III III I I I I I I I NV-NS NV-NS A/AH A/AH III I NV-NS NV-NS A/AH A/AH III I NV-36 NV-36 A/AH A/AH III III 15
  • 97. Sheer strake at strength deck Deck structures Strength deck Stringer plate Deck plate Deck longitudinals Girders Decks above strength deck Deck plate Deck longitudinals Girders Decks below strength deck Deck plate Deck longitudinals Girders A/AH III NV-NS NV-NS NV-NS NV-NS B, D or E A/AH A/AH A/AH III III I I NV-36 NV-36 NV-36 A/AH A/AH A/AH III III III NV-NS NV-NS NV-NS A/AH A/AH A/AH I I I 4 Structural element calculations The preliminary prediction of structural elements is done by calculating the dimensions according to (3), minimum requirements. Formulas used in calculations are shown below and the results are given in Table 4-1. Pressures used in calculations are taken from Chapter 2.1. The equation member’s descriptions are shown in notations. The material factor for normal strength steel is 1,0 and for high strength steel 1,28 and the corrosion addition is 1,5 mm. 4.1 Bottom structures 4.1.1 Keel plate The keel plate extends over complete length of the ship. The breath of is: [mm] 4-1 The thickness of keel plate can also be found: [mm] √ 4-2 4.1.2 Bottom and bilge plating The thickness of bottom plating shall not be less than: [mm] √ 4-3 If the bilge plate is not stiffened or has only one stiffener inside the curved part, the thickness shall not be less than: √ [mm] 4-4 Where, 16
  • 98. ( ) [mm] 4-5 [mm] The thickness of the bilge plate shall not be less than that of the adjacent bottom and side plates, whichever is greater. 4.1.3 Inner bottom plating The thickness shall not be less than: [mm] √ 4-6 Where, 4.1.4 Double bottom floors and girders The thickness of longitudinal girders and floors shall not be less than: [mm] √ 4-7 Where, - for centre girder - for other girders 4.1.5 Bottom and inner bottom longitudinals The thickness of web and flange shall not be less than: [mm] 4-8 Where, , maximum 5 4.2 Side structures 4.2.1 Plating The thickness is not for any region of the ship to be less than: √ [mm] 4-9 Where, up to 4.6 m above the summer load waterline. For each 2.3 m above this level, the kvalue may be reduced by 0.01 (minimum value 0.01) 17
  • 99. 4.2.2 Sheer strake at strength deck The breadth shall not be less than: [mm] 4-10 with a maximum 1800 [mm] The thickness shall not be less than: [mm] 4-11 4.2.3 Side longitudinals The thickness of web and flange shall not be less than: [mm] 4-12 Where, 4.3 Deck structures 4.3.1 Strength deck plating The thickness is not for any region of the ship to be less than: √ [mm] 4-13 Where, 4.3.2 Deck plating below and above strength deck The thickness of steel decks shall not be less than: √ [mm] 4-14 Where, - for unsheathed weather and cargo decks - for accommodation decks and for weather and cargo decks sheathed with wood or an approved composition 18
  • 100. 4.3.3 Deck longitudinals The thickness of web and flange shall not be less than: [mm] 4-15 Where, - in general - for accommodations decks above strength deck 4.3.4 Girders The thickness of web plates, flanges and stiffeners of girders shall not be less than: √ [mm] 4-16 Where, - in general The thickness of girder web plates is in addition not to be less than: [mm] 4.4 4-17 Summary Table 4-1. Structural element minimum dimensions according to DNV (3) Dimensions Bottom Keel plate Bilge plate Bottom plate Tank top plate Floors Longitudinal girder Centre girder Bottom longitudinals Inner bottom longitudinals Longitudinal girder and floor stiffeners Superstructure Side plate Side longitudinals Sheer strake at strength deck Deck structures Strength deck Deck plate Deck longitudinals Girders Decks above strength deck Deck plate Deck longitudinals Minimum thicknesss [mm] 13 10 10 9 9 9 11 7 7 7-10 7 8 6 7 7 6 11 19
  • 101. Girders Decks below strength deck Deck plate Deck longitudinals Girders 7 6 7 7 5 Structural element calculations using beam theory The aim of this part is to calculate the section modulus of different structural parts using beam theory. For section modulus calculations, there excel tables are used to get sufficient stiffener, girder, and plate sizes. The calculations are made for most of the structure parts: bottom structures, tank top, strength deck, decks, and sides. Furthermore, the calculations are made for each structure part separately where stiffener or girder spacing is different, using values which are calculated in Chapter 4. There is no need to do calculations for all the accommodation decks because they all are similar, so it was enough to complete one deck only. All the calculation tables can be seen in Appendix 6. In following table, there is an example section modulus calculation for an entire cross-section of one stiffener coupled with a plate. This example can be seen in Table 5-1. Table 5-1. Section modulus calculation Part Pcs E Effective breadth Calculated, b [-] Plate Stiffener HP 200x12 [-] 1 1 210 210 N.A Area 1. Moment 2. Moment Steiner b=E/Eref*be h el A=n*b*h S=A*e l I0=n*b*h3/12 Is=A*e 2 [m] [Gpa] Height be n [m] [m] 0,44 0,44 [m] 0,01 0,005 0,2 0,127 Total [m2] 4,40E-03 2,97E-03 7,37E-03 [m3] 2,20E-05 3,77E-04 3,99E-04 [m4] 3,67E-08 1,16E-05 1,16E-05 [m4] 1,10E-07 4,78E-05 4,79E-05 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot 5,41E-02 m 1,16E-05 m4 Elements, Is.tot 4,79E-05 m4 In 5,96E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I 3,80E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot Ztop 2,44E-04 m3 243,83 cm3 Zbot 7,02E-04 m3 702,21 cm3 From rules: 171 cm3 In this case, there is a calculated bottom plate coupled with stiffener section modulus. Plate breadth is taken as the same as the spacing between stiffeners. In deck girder calculations, there an effective breadth was used, which was calculated according to the lecture notes. The height of the plate is the plate thickness and for the stiffeners the height is their length. The neutral axis is the distance from the center of gravity to the main coordinate axis and, if considering the plate, the neutral axis is in the middle of plate thickness. The plate area is calculated as the following: [m2] 5-1 - number of parts - breadth, [m] 20
  • 102. - height (thickness), [m] Plate first moment of area: 5-2 [m2] Where, - location of neutral axis, [m] Second moment of area (plate moment of inertia): 5-3 [m4] Steiner moment: 5-4 [m4] For stiffeners, these calculations are not necessary because this data can be obtained from Ruukki HP profile sheets. Thus, the neutral axis of plate-stiffener system can be calculated as: [m] 5-5 The total moment of inertia according to the new main coordinate axis is: 5-6 [m4] Where, - total second moment of area of parts, [m4] - total steiner moment of parts, [m4] The moment of inertia, which will be used in section modulus calculation, is found as: ( [ ) ( )] [m4] 5-7 Finally, the new section modulus can be calculated as: ( ) ( [m3] ) [m3] The difference between and [cm3] [cm3] 5-8 5-9 can be seen in Figure 5-1. 21
  • 103. Figure 5-1. Stiffener section modulus with plate. 6 Hull girder normal stress response 6.1 Bending stress External moments acting on the hull are caused by waves and also by still water. These moments are obtained by using classification society rules in Chapter 2.2, as presented in Table 2-1. The total moments’ values are: Sagging: [kNm] Hogging: [kNm] Whilst the hogging and sagging moments´ absolute values are equal, the calculations can be done by using only one, of which the hogging moment is chosen because, according to NAPA, the ship operates in hogging conditions. As the project ship is a passenger ship, the superstructure takes some of the bending moment and therefore the stress distribution cannot be calculated using basic beam theory. In this work, stress distribution in the main frame is obtained using Bleich approach (5). In the Bleich approach, the hull and superstructure are taken as two independent beams. In calculations, needed parameters are both areas, respective neutral axes, and and second moments of area around these axes. Calculations are done using Tables 1 and 2 (presented in Appendix 7). Hull characteristics: [m2] [m] 22
  • 104. [m4] Superstructure characteristics: [m2] [m] [m4] The neutral axis of the whole ship is calculated using the table which is presented in Appendix 6: [m] The following parameter describes the distance between hull and superstructure: 6-1 [m] Non – dimensional parameters are then: 6-2 6-3 As this particular ship has no openings for lifeboats in the superstructure and it is fully supported by the hull, there is no vertical interaction between the hull and superstructure and the spring constant in Bleich approach is discarded. The influence of membrane forces is calculated as following: [m2] 6-4 and the term : 6-5 Because of the superstructure, the normal forces applied into superstructure and hull are: ( ( ) ( )( ) ( ) )( [MPa] ) 6-6 and additional moment: ( ( )( )( ) ( ) ( )( ) )( [MPa] [MPa] ) 6-7 6-8 The change of normal stress in the superstructure and hull is calculated as the following: ( ) ( ) [MPa] 6-9 23
  • 105. ( ) ( ) [MPa] 6-10 The normal stress is calculated as following: ( ) ( ) [MPa] 6-11 Utilizing Equations 6-1 - 6-11, the total stress can be calculated: { 6-12 [MPa] The Bleich method results are compared to the Construct results. Although the ship is always in hogging condition, the results are presented also for sagging. The bending moment distribution in hogging is presented in Figure 6-1 and the Construct results for hogging can be seen in Figure 6-2. The bending moment distribution in hogging is presented in Figure 6-3 and the Construct results for hogging can be seen in Figure 6-4. 24 Height z [m] 20 16 Total 12 Normal Change of stress 8 Construct 4 0 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Bending stress [MPa] Figure 6-1. Bending stress distribution in hogging. 24
  • 106. Figure 6-2. Hogging bending stress distribution according to Construct. 24 Height z [m] 20 16 Total 12 Normal Change of stress 8 Construct 4 0 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 Bending stress [MPa] Figure 6-3.Bending stress distribution in sagging. 25
  • 107. Figure 6-4. Sagging bending stress distribution according to Construct. From Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-3, it can be seen that the ship’s superstructure is not fully effective, which means that most of the loads are carried by the hull. The difference in the Bleich method and Construct is well seen and the Construct results are declared more reliable, as it uses coupled beam theory, which is a development of the Blecih method. The Bleich method also shows the change of stress due to different hull and superstructure stiffness, as the ship is not behaving as a beam. Construct results are more reliable also because of the lower chance of error, as the modelling error probability is lower compared to analytical calculation. As mentioned previously, the ship is operating in hogging condition and, in that case, the highest bending stresses occur in the bottom and in the strength deck. The maximum compression stress is at the bottom with a value of 33,2 MPa. The stress reaches 0 around 3,2 m. The tensile stress reaches its maximum around 10,8 m, the location of strength deck, where stress is 31,1 MPa. After that, stress starts to decrease and increases near the highest deck and at top deck, the stress is 26,4 MPa. The distribution in sagging is different, but the stresses in the bottom and top deck are the same while the difference is near the strength deck where the stress is 10,1 MPa, the higher stress is at deck 2, 14,4 MPa, but is smaller compared to hogging. 26
  • 108. 6.2 Shear stress Shear stress distribution is done by using the DNV classification society rules (3). Firstly, the still water and wave induced shear forces are calculated, which is presented in Chapter 2.2. Still water:  Sagging:  Hogging: [kN] [kN] | Wave induced: | [kN] The plate thickness requirement is given in DNV rules (3): | ( ) | [MPa] 6-13 From Equation 6-13 shear stress is disclosed: | ( ) | [MPa] 6-14 Where, - shear force distribution factor, given in Table 6-1. - shear force correction due to shear carrying by longitudinal bottom members ans uneven transverse load distribution. As the value of is 0. - first moment of area in [cm3] of the longitudinal material above or below the horizontal neutral axis, taken about this axis. - moment of inertia in [cm4] about the transverse neutral axis Table 6-1. Shear force distribution factor 27
  • 109. Shear stresses are calculated for each plate according to Equation 6-14. The calculations are also done with Construct for comparison and results can been seen in Figure 6-6 and the shear stress distribution in is presented in Figure 6-5. 24 21 Height [m] 18 15 12 Hogging 9 Sagging Construct 6 3 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Shear stress [MPa] Figure 6-5. Shear stress distribution. Figure 6-6. Shear stress distribution according to Construct. 28
  • 110. To the Figure 6-5 is plotted the vertical shear stress distribution. Only vertical shear stresses are calculated, as they are much bigger when compared to the deck plating shear stresses. As seen from Figure 6-5, shear stresses occurs as known from basic beam theory, which means, in the bottom and top deck, the stresses are 0 and the highest stress occurs at neutral axis. Big differences between Construct and DNV results are caused by the simplification of DNV rules and also the aspect that acceptance of classification society should provide a quality of structure that increases the values, as it assures a little over-dimensioned structure. The shear stress distribution according to basic beam theory is a smooth curve, but as seen in Figure 6-5, the distribution according to Construct is not. The non-smooth distribution is related to large window openings in superstructure, which increases the shear stresses significantly and is considered as one of the most challenging problems in modern cruise ships. From DNV rules, it is known that the maximum allowed shear stress is range where the maximum shear stress occurs, [MPa]. In the and the maximum allowed shear stress is 110 [MPa]. The maximum shear stress is 46,3 [MPa], which means that the safety factor taking only shear force into account is: 6-15 The safety factor shows that the shear stresses which occur in the side shells are in the allowable range. 6.3 Stress comparison with rule limits In the Chapter 4, the minimum structural element dimensions were calculated and these were used in Construct calculations, as the stresses in structure was too high, the dimensions were changed to reach optimal stress range. The structural elements must be calculated to local strengths using given pressures (see Chapter 2). The response to local loading is calculated as following: From DNV (3), the section modulus of the longitudinals is calculated as the following: [cm3] 6-16 from Equation 6-16 stress is derived: [MPa] 6-17 29
  • 111. The stress is calculated also for plates: ( ) ) [MPa] 6-18 [MPa] ( 6-19 and girders: The calculated stresses are compared with maximum allowable stresses according to DNV, which is calculated as following: Bottom 6-20 [MPa] Inner bottom and decks 6-21 [MPa] Side structures 6-22 [MPa] The material factor in Equations 6-20 - 6-22 is taken according to material of the structure, which are described in Chapter 3. The results are shown in Table 6-2. Table 6-2. Stress comparison. Dimensions Bottom Minimum DNV required thickness [mm] Bottom plate Keel plate Bilge plate Tank top plate Floors Longitudinal girder Centre girder Bottom longitudinals Inner bottom longitudinals Longitudinal girder and floor stiffeners Side structures Up to 7,8 [m] Side plate Side longitudinals 7,8 to 10,8 [m] Side plate Side longitudinals 10,8 to 13,8 [m] Side plate Side longitudinals 13,8 to 16,8 [m] Side plate Section modulus (DNV) [cm3] Section modulus (beam theory) [cm3] Stress [MPa] Maximum allowable stress according to DNV [MPa] 120 120 120 140 130 130 130 160 160 10 10 13 9 9 9 11 7 7 171 53 194 80 79 79 79 21 30 30 20 113 90 7 76 80 96 160 10 7 246 274 63 157 140 160 10 7 12 32 10 63 140 160 9 7 9 32 13 63 194.6 222.4 16 194.6 8 30
  • 112. Side longitudinals 16,8 to 22,8 [m] Side plate Side longitudinals Deck structures Deck 1 and 2 Deck plate Deck longitudinals Girders Deck 3 Deck plate Deck longitudinals Girders Deck 4 Deck plate Deck longitudinals Girders Deck 5 Deck plate Deck longitudinals Girders Deck 6 and 7 Deck plate Deck longitudinals Girders 7 7 9 33 61 222.4 7 7 9 33 22 61 194.6 222.4 6 7 7 21 113 33 116 48 137 155 120 160 160 6 7 7 27 226 197 297 25 36 91 120 160 160 6 7 7 15 82 34 106 19 91 170 154 205 205 6 7 7 15 82 33 105 24 88 171 154 205 205 6 7 7 15 82 83 297 24 35 61 154 205 205 Web frames The ship’s main frame web-frames are divided into to two parts – the first is from the tank top to Deck 2 and second part is from Deck 2 to the top deck. Firstly, the web frames are calculated using DNV classification society rules ( (3), Section 7 C400). The section modulus requirement is given by: 7-1 [cm3] - as external pressure is used - full length of frame including brackets For first part For second part [m] [m] Calculated section modules are: [cm3] [cm3] The section modulus values are calculated also using analytical beam theory, which is described in Chapter 5, and the calculation table is shown in Appendix 5. Two different effective breadths are used to calculate the section modulus, where differences come from the 31
  • 113. length of the frame. This is first used as the length from the tank top to Deck 2 and the second distance is from Deck 2 to the top deck. As classification society rules give the minimum value of the section modulus, the section modulus calculated by analytical beam theory must be higher than section modulus calculated according to DNV rules: For first part T - beam 230 x 110 x 8 x 8 is chosen as: [cm3] For second part T - beam 130 x 100 x 7 x 7 is chosen as: [cm3] 8 Critical buckling stress Buckling stresses are calculated for four different cases for every plating: stiffener buckling stress for compression, x – axis directional buckling for plate for compression, y – axis directional buckling for plate for compression, and buckling stress for plate for shear stress. All the buckling stresses are calculated according to Euler buckling equation taking Johnson’s correction into account when . For shear stresses, the yield stress is defined as . Critical buckling stresses are calculated for every deck and, in this estimation, √ the side shell buckling and double bottom longitudinal girder buckling are not calculated. Results are presented in Table 8-1. In locations where buckling stress varies, the smallest value is taken because it defines the critical stress. All calculation tables are presented in Appendix 6. 8.1 Johnson correction ( ) [MPa] 8-1 Where, - critical buckling stress according to Euler 8.2 Stiffener buckling Stiffener critical buckling stress is calculated taking also the plate into account and is calculated as follows: [MPa] 8-2 Where, - stiffener lenght [m] 32
  • 114. Deck girders are considered as I – beams and the same formula is used to calculate the buckling stress for those structural members. 8.3 Plate buckling in compression In plate buckling, a corrosion factor added in Chapter 4 is disunited because it has no resistance in buckling. Plate buckling is calculated as following: 8-3 ( ) [MPa] Where, - load buckling coefficient which depends on the boundary conditions. In both cases , as the plate is clamped - plate breath perpendicular to stress in [m] 8.4 Plate buckling in shear stress The ideal elastic buckling stress may be taken as: ( ) [MPa] 8-4 Where, () 8-5 Where, - shortest side of plate - longest side of plate 8.5 Usage factor The usage factor is defined as the ratio between the actual value of the reference stress due to design loading and the critical value of the reference stress. The usage factor is presented in Table 8-1 and is calculated as: 8-6 Where, - actual compression maximum stress, calculated in previous assignment by Bleich method - critical buckling stress, minimum of buckling stress calculated using equations presented in previous chapters. - actual maximum shear stress, calculated in previous assignment. - critical buckling stress, due to shear moment 33
  • 115. 8.6 Results In Table 8-1, the critical buckling stresses are presented, which are calculated according to Equations 8-1 to 8-4 and usage factors using Equation 8-6. Table 8-1. Critical buckling stresses σel.stiff Bottom Tank top Deck 1 Deck 2 Deck 3 Deck 4 Deck 5 Deck 6 Deck 7 σx.plate σy.plate txy.plate 247.1 217.8 212.7 200.5 212.7 200.5 138.8 135.5 138.9 138.9 247.6 139.3 156.5 281.3 281.3 114.3 114.3 147.4 114.3 84.0 84.0 84.0 114.3 114.3 147.4 114.3 84.0 84.0 84.0 111.6 111.6 121.3 130.7 103.9 103.9 103.9 σel.girder txy.girder Bending stress [MPa] 33.2 17.0 Shear stress [MPa] 0.0 10.0 Usage factor (compression) 0.2 0.1 Usage factor (shear) 0.0 0.1 228.2 228.2 253.8 223.1 226.8 255.3 255.3 151.7 151.7 151.0 151.7 151.7 151.0 151.0 3.5 11.2 9.9 11.8 12.4 19.8 26.4 21.0 26.0 38.0 43.0 35.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 As seen from the usage factors, the buckling risk in the structure is very low; the acting bending and shear stress is around 3 times smaller in critical areas than critical buckling stress. 9 Ultimate strength Ultimate strength is calculated using Construct and first fibre criterion. Results are shown in Figure 9-1. 9.1 First fibre yield The first fibre yield criterion means that elastic moment of structure is calculated according to material yield stress and the criterion is fulfilled when the moment does not exceed the design moment. The most critical locations for yielding are top deck in case of hogging and bottom in case of sagging. First fibre criterion is calculated with the following: [Nm] 9-1 Where, - elastic section modulus First fibre yield moment in top: First fibre yield moment in bottom: [MNm] [MNm] The moments calculated using Equation 9-1 are significantly higher compared to the design moment, which is calculated according to DNV (see Chapter 2.2), therefore, it can be said that the yielding criterion is fulfilled. 34
  • 116. 9.2 First fibre buckling First fibre buckling criterion means that elastic moment of structure is calculated according to structure critical buckling stress and the criterion is fulfilled when the moment does not exceed the design moment. The most critical locations for yielding are the top deck in case of sagging and bottom in case of hogging. The critical buckling stresses are presented in Table 8-1. First fibre buckling criterion is calculated with the equation: 9-2 [Nm] Where, - elastic section modulus First fibre yield moment in top: [MNm] First fibre yield moment in bottom: [MNm] The moments calculated using Equation 9-2 are significantly higher compared to design moment, which is calculated according to DNV (see Chapter 2.2) and it can therefore be said that the buckling criterion is fulfilled. 9.3 -100 Construct results -80 -60 -40 ME [MNm] 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 -100 0 -20 20 -200 -300 -400 -500 -600 Construct ultimate strength results 40 60 80 Design moment 100 ε [mm] Figure 9-1. Ultimate strength according to Construct. As seen in Figure 9-1, the Construct ultimate strength calculation results exceed the design moment. The margin between the maximum moment and design moment is sufficient to provide structural reliability. The maximum moment that the structure can respond to is calculated with Construct and is around two times lower compared to first fibre criterions. The reason for this difference may be errors in modelling or errors in calculation tables. Construct results are more reliable 35
  • 117. because they take into consideration the fact that the minimum thickness and section modulus requirements has to be fulfilled, which lowers the section modulus for first fibre criterions. 10 Natural frequencies of plates, stiffeners and girders Natural frequencies of plates, stiffeners, and girders are calculated using formulas which are presented in the lecture notes and in the calculations, a plate is coupled with a stiffener or girder according to the certain structure part. It is also assumed that the boundary conditions are clamped, which means all six degrees of freedom are fixed from both sides. So, as the plate is coupled with the stiffener, for example, it is acting as a beam and therefore the eigenfrequency equation for beams is used: [rad/s] √ 10-1 Where - value corresponding to the first mode of oscillation [kg/m3] - density of steel - length As the is circular natural frequency, its unit is rad/s, so in the calculation it is divided by and the unit becomes Hz. All of the calculations and results can be seen tables which are in Appendix 6. The frequency range is the biggest on the strength deck and the lowest on deck as can be seen in Table 10-1. There will be no threat of resonance due to the fact that possible locations for that are not near each other and, for example, this particular ship frequency caused by machinery and shaft are relatively smaller than the structure frequency. They fall within a range of 2 -17 Hz. Table 10-1. Frequency ranges Location Bottom Tank Top Strength Deck Deck Side Web Frame Frequency range [Hz] 36 - 75 43 25 - 87 27 - 52 23 - 84 16 - 75 36
  • 118. 11 Torsion problems Torsion is not overly severe in passenger ships, as these do not have large opening in the deck, unlike container ships. Still, torsion is an issue which has to be considered in the design stage. In this particular ship, the following things can be done to prevent torsion:  add material to the places where torsion effect can be most effectively prevented, in the corners of superstructure and hull  double side “torsion boxes”  applying transverse bulkheads to increase cross sectional area in dangerous areas 12 Vibratory levels The most common sources of vibration excitation are propellers and main machinery. All vibration is undesirable. It can be unpleasant for people on board and can be harmful to equipment. It must be reduced as much as possible but it cannot be entirely eliminated. Vibrations may occur due to various excitations:  Machinery and systems  Wave-induced Global hull girder vibrations:  Vertical bending  Horizontal bending  Torsion  Longitudinal Local vibrations:  Decks and bulkheads  Superstructure Measures to control vibratory levels:  Supporting machinery with special foundations. This is especially important for main engines and other large equipment. The foundation will dampen the vibrations created by machinery.  Wave induced vibrations can be controlled by adding stiffness to structure, as it increases the section modulus and therefore creates better response to bending and other loads. 37
  • 119.  One of the main vibration producers is also the cavitation effect caused by the propeller, therefore, the propeller has to be designed properly and good flow has to be ensured to prevent vibrations.  Although this particular ship does not have long shaft line, it should still be supported correctly with bearing to decrease vibrations.  To avoid vibrations in the superstructure, resonance should be avoided by changing the stiffness of components or varying the exciting frequencies. 13 Fatigue analysis At this stage, it is assumed that the operating time of this particular ship is 20 years and the most critical structure for fatigue would be a welded joint of the bottom plate under maximum compression stress if considering the hogging condition. At this design stage, the fatigue analysis is made for one part of the structure only, where normal stress is largest. The maximum normal stress caused by bending for the bottom is 33,2 MPa. Fatigue is calculated according to DNV rules and defined by applying Weibull distribution for the different load conditions and a one slope S-N curve is used. The fatigue damage is given by: ̅ ∑ ( ) 13-1 where - total number load condition considered, - fraction of design life in load condition, - design life of a ship in seconds, - Weibull stress range shape distribution parameter for load condition n, - Weibull stress range scale distribution parameter for load condition n, - long term average response zero-crossing frequency, ̅ - S-N fatigue parameter, ( ) - gamma function, - usage factor which is defined as =1. 38
  • 120. The design life of ship is second during 20 years: 13-2 [s] The Weibull scale parameter is defined from the stress range level ( , as 13-3 ) where is stress range for bottom plating which is most critical and calculated as following: ( ) [MPa] - number of cycles over time period for which the stress range level 13-4 , is defined , - Weibull stress range shape distribution parameter for load condition n can be calculated as following: ( ) 13-5 In simplified fatigue calculations, the zero value-crossing frequency may be taken as: 13-6 ( ) The value for the gamma function ( ) can be calculated or found from the DNV rulebook. [ (6), Table G-1]. In this case the gamma value is: ( ) 13-7 where - S-N fatigue parameter, Another fatigue parameter from the S-N curve is air condition and for the welded joint is taken from Table 13-1. 39
  • 121. Table 13-1. S-N parameters ̅ Thus, fatigue damage according to Equation 13-1 is as the following: ̅ ∑ ( ) , According to the results, the fatigue criterion is fulfilled if considering DNV rules, withs D<1. This means that the fatigue resistance of the bottom plating is sufficient. 40
  • 122. 14 Bibliography 1. Bannerman, David B. and Jan, Hsein Y. Analysis and Design of Principal Hull Structure. [book auth.] Robert Taggart. Ship Design and Constuction. New York : The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1980. 2. Kujala, Pentti. General Arrangement and Cargo Handling. Ship Conseptual Design lecture notes. 2012. 3. DNV. Hull Structural Design, Ships with Length 100 metres and above. Rules for Classification of Ships. 2012. 4. Okumoto, Yasushia, et al., et al. Design of Ship Hull Structures. Berlin : Springer, 2009. 5. Bleich, H. H. Nonlinear distribution of bending stresses due to distortion of the cross section. Journal of Applied Mechanics 29. 1952, pp. 94-104. 6. Fatigue Assessment of Ship Structures. DNV Rules for Classification of Ships. 41
  • 123. 9000 3000 600 600 3000 3000 DECK 7 22800 3000 DECK 6 19800 3000 DECK 5 16800 DECK 4 13800 6000 3000 34 x 600 = 20400 B 6000 890 C DECK 3 10800 3000 1200 A 3000 DECK 2 7800 795 DECK 1 4800 6-1 500 3300 500 1000 750 1500 Ship Project A 1500 TANK TOP ARIANNA 600 1500 500 500 18000 A3 Main frame characteristics (frame #45) 200 1:100 Rosen Nelis Detail A 1:20 Detail B 1:20 Detail C 1:20 Materials: Hull structures NV-NS Superstructure NV-36 07.12.2013 07.12.2013
  • 124. FUNNEL SUN DECK MAST MOORING MAIN GALLEY AND PROVISIONS PROVISIONS AND MACHINERY PUBLIC SPACE AND EVACUATION PUBLIC SPACE AND EVACUATION PASSENGER ACC. PASSENGER ACC. PASSENGER ACC. PUBLIC AND OFFICE SPACES 10 20 OFFICER ACC. NAVIGATION BRIDGE PASSENGER ACC. PASSENGER ACC. PROVISIONS MFB 0 OBSERVATION LOUNGE PASSENGER ACC. PASSENGER ACC. PASSENGER STAIRS GALLEY PASSENGER ACC. PASSENGER LIFTS 3,4 MAIN DINING ROOM SERVICE LIFT 2 AND SERVICE STAIRS SHOW LOUNGE AND BAR PUBLIC SPACE AND EVACUATION SPA AND GYM PASSENGER STAIRS CASUAL RESTAURANT STORAGE PASSENGER LIFTS 1,2 POOL BAR SERVICE LIFT 1 AND SERVICE STAIRS POOL AREA 30 40 MFB 50 60 70 80 6-2 90 A3 Ship Project A ARIANNA Location of bulkheads 100 110 Rosen Nelis 07.12.2013 07.12.2013 Aalto University School of Engineering Marine Technology
  • 125. DECK 7 22800 DECK 6 19800 DECK 5 16800 DECK 4 13800 DECK 3 10800 600 600 6-3 DECK 2 7800 Plate 7 mm Longitudinal HP 140x10 Ship Project A ARIANNA WL 597 A3 Machinery room (frame #66) 570 Thickness 45 mm TANK TOP 1:100 Thickness 14 mm 600 500 690 3570 Thickness 20 mm Rosen Nelis Unmarked dimensions are taken same as in mainframe 07.12.2013 07.12.2013
  • 126. Deck plate 6 mm T-Beam 340x150x8x8 Deck longitudinals HP 140x10 Deck plate 6 mm T-Beam 340x150x8x8 Deck longitudinals HP 140x7 CH 180x10 Side plate 7 mm Side longitudinals HP 100x7 Side plate 8 mm Side longitudinals HP 100x7 CH 150x10 Side plate 9 mm Side longitudinals HP 100x7 Deck plate 6 mm T-Beam 200x120x8x8 Deck longitudinals HP 100x7 CH 180x10 CH 180x10 Deck plate 7 mm T-Beam 200x120x8x8 Deck longitudinals HP 100x7 Deck plate 8 mm T-Beam 340x150x8x8 Deck longitudinals HP 200x10 DECK 6 19800 DECK 5 16800 DECK 4 13800 DECK 3 10800 D220 Transverse T-Beam 340x150x8x8 CH 180x10 Side plate 10 mm Side longitudinals HP 100x7 DECK 7 22800 Deck plate 6 mm T-Beam 210x120x8x8 Deck longitudinals HP 100x7 Web frame 130x100x7x7 Side plate 10 mm Side longitudinals HP 220x12 DECK 2 7800 Web frame 230x110x8x8 Deck plate 6 mm T-Beam 210x120x8x8 Deck longitudinals HP 100x7 CH 150x10 WL DECK 1 4800 6-4 D110 Transverse T-Beam 200x120x8x8 Tank top plate 9 mm Ship Project A ARIANNA Bottom plate 10 mm Bilge plate 10 mm Bottom longitudinals HP 200x10 A3 Structural elements dimensions CH 150x10 Centre girder 1500x11 Keel plating 13 mm Tank top longitudinals HP 140x8 TANK TOP Longitudinal girders 7 mm Floors 7 mm Stiffeners HP 140x10 1:100 Rosen Nelis 07.12.2013 07.12.2013
  • 127. Appendix 5 - Material grades and classes Table 1. Material classes (3) Table 2. Material classes and grades for ships in general (3) 46
  • 128. Appendix 5 - Analytical beam calculation tables Plate thickness [m] Bottom 0.01 Keel 0.013 Tank top 0.009 Strength deck 0.008 Deck 0.006 Materials Side 1 0.01 Eref Side 2 0.009 k Side 3 Tank top 1.5 210 265 MPa 152.9978213 Deck1 4.8 4.73 for beam 355 MPa 204.9593456 Deck 2 7.8 0.008 a Side 4 0.007 E Centre girder 0.011 Long. girder 0.007 Deck 6 19.8 0.01 Deck 7 22.8 Bilge Part 3m [-] 10.8 Pcs E Deck 4 13.8 Deck 5 16.8 Effective breadth [-] [Gpa] Calculated, b Height N.A Area 1. Moment 2. Moment Steiner be n Bottom Deck 3 2.10E+11 b=E/Eref*be h el A=n*b*h S=A*el I0=n*b*h3/12 Is=A*e2 [m] Plate 1 210 HP 200x10 1 [m] 0.5 210 [m] 2 [m ] [m] 0.5 0.01 0 0.005 0.2 0.119 5.00E-03 3 4 [m ] [m ] 2.50E-05 4.17E-08 [m4] 1.25E-07 2.57E-03 3.05E-04 1.02E-05 3.63E-05 7.57E-03 Total 3.30E-04 1.02E-05 3.65E-05 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 4.37E-02 m Elements, Io.tot 1.02E-05 m4 Elements, Is.tot 3.65E-05 m4 In 4.67E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I 3.23E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot Eigenfrequency 75.33 Hz 247.11 MPa el.stiff x.plate 212.75 MPa k y.plate 212.75 MPa k 4 xy.plate 138.80 MPa k 5.451 Ztop 4 1.94E-04 m3 Zbot 194.06 cm3 7.39E-04 m3 From rules: 739.29 cm3 171 cm3 739289.1565 1 210 0.44 0.44 0.009 0.22 3.96E-03 8.71E-04 2.67E-08 1.92E-04 Girder 1 1 210 0.007 0.007 1.415 0.4435 9.91E-03 4.39E-03 1.65E-03 1.95E-03 Plate Longitudinal girders Plate 1 210 0.44 0.44 0.01 0.667 4.40E-03 2.93E-03 1.83E-02 Total 8.20E-03 Entire cross-section 3.67E-08 1.96E-03 1.65E-03 4.10E-03 b Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 0.4489 m 0.0017 m4 a Elements, Is.tot 0.0041 m4 a/b In 0.0058 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot C I 0.0021 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot 0.44 r> Elements, Io.tot be Eigenfreuqency 1 0.44 615.87 Hz Ztop 0.0021 m3 Zbot 0.0046 m3 Plate 6 3 6.82 1 210 0.55 2101.08 cm3 4611.00 cm3 0.539 0.009 0.0045 Girder 2 1 210 0.007 0.007 1.313 0.6655 9.19E-03 6.12E-03 1.32E-03 4.07E-03 Plate 1 210 0.55 0.539 0.01 1.327 5.39E-03 7.15E-03 4.49E-08 9.49E-03 1.94E-02 1.33E-02 1.32E-03 1.36E-02 Total 4.85E-03 2.18E-05 Entire cross-section 3.27E-08 b 0.55 r> Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 0.6840 m 0.0013 m4 6 a Elements, Io.tot a/b Elements, Is.tot 0.0136 m4 9.82E-08 3 5.45 C 0.0149 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot 0.0058 m4 0.98 be In I 0.539 In-n.a^2*Atot Eigenfreuqency 533.71 Hz Ztop 0.0089 m3 Zbot Plate 8937.80 cm3 0.0085 m3 1 210 0.56 8468.07 cm3 0.5488 0.009 0.0045 4.94E-03 2.22E-05 3.33E-08 1.00E-07 Girder 3 1 210 0.007 0.007 1.208 0.613 8.46E-03 5.18E-03 1.03E-03 3.18E-03 Plate 1 210 0.56 0.5488 0.01 1.222 5.49E-03 6.71E-03 4.57E-08 8.20E-03 1.89E-02 1.19E-02 1.03E-03 1.14E-02 Total Entire cross-section b 0.56 r> Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 0.6308 m Elements, Io.tot 0.0010 m4 6 a a/b Elements, Is.tot 0.0114 m4 3 5.36 C 0.0124 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot 0.0049 m4 0.98 be In I 0.549 In-n.a^2*Atot Eigenfreuqency 477.79 Hz Ztop 0.0082 m3 Zbot 0.0077 m3 Plate 1 210 0.66 8196.68 cm3 7746.32 cm3 0.6336 0.009 0.0045 Girder 4 1 210 0.007 0.007 1.075 0.5465 7.53E-03 4.11E-03 7.25E-04 2.25E-03 Plate 1 210 0.66 0.6336 0.01 1.089 6.34E-03 6.90E-03 5.28E-08 7.51E-03 1.96E-02 1.10E-02 7.25E-04 9.76E-03 Total 5.70E-03 2.57E-05 Entire cross-section 3.85E-08 b 0.66 r> Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 0.5642 m 0.0007 m4 a/b Elements, Is.tot 0.0098 m4 In 0.0105 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot 0.0043 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot I Eigenfreuqency 3 4.55 C 0.0080 m3 0.96 be 0.634 394.07 Hz Ztop Zbot 8038.19 cm3 0.0075 m3 Plate Keel 6 a Elements, Io.tot 1.15E-07 1 210 HP 200x10 1 0.5 210 7547.66 cm3 0.5 0.013 0 0.2 0.0065 0.119 6.50E-03 4.23E-05 1.02E-05 3.63E-05 1.03E-05 3.66E-05 3.83E-02 m Elements, Io.tot 1.03E-05 m4 Elements, Is.tot 3.66E-05 m4 In 4.69E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I 3.36E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot Eigenfrequency el.stiff 68.98 Hz 244.39 MPa x.plate 234.08 MPa k 4 y.plate 234.08 MPa k 4 144.60 MPa k xy.plate 5.451 Ztop 1.92E-04 m3 192.24 cm3 Zbot 8.76E-04 m3 875.70 cm3 2.75E-07 3.05E-04 3.48E-04 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 9.15E-08 2.57E-03 9.07E-03 Total From rules: 171 cm3
  • 129. Centre girder 210 0.44 0.44 Girder 1 210 0.011 0.011 1.5 0.759 1.65E-02 1.25E-02 3.09E-03 9.51E-03 Plate Plate 1 1 210 0.44 0.44 0.013 0.009 1.5155 0.0045 5.72E-03 8.67E-03 8.06E-08 1.31E-02 2.62E-02 2.12E-02 3.09E-03 2.26E-02 Total 3.96E-03 1.78E-05 Entire cross-section 2.67E-08 b 0.44 r> Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 0.8102 m 0.0031 m4 a/b Elements, Is.tot 0.0226 m4 In 0.0257 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I 0.0086 m4 3 6.82 In-n.a^2*Atot Eigenfreuqency C 1 be 0.44 703.82 Hz Ztop 0.0120 m3 Zbot 0.0106 m3 Plate Keel girder with stiffener 6 a Elements, Io.tot 8.02E-08 1 210 HP 140x10 1 0.75 210 12015.56 cm3 10557.37 cm3 0.75 0.012 0.006 9.00E-03 5.40E-05 1.08E-07 0 0.14 0.0792 1.66E-03 1.32E-04 3.16E-06 1.04E-05 1.07E-02 1.86E-04 3.27E-06 1.08E-05 3.06E-07 Total 3.24E-07 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 1.74E-02 m Elements, Io.tot 3.27E-06 m4 Elements, Is.tot 1.08E-05 m4 In 1.40E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I 1.08E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot Eigenfrequency 35.84 Hz 189.58 MPa el.stiff x.plate 183.36 MPa k y.plate 183.36 MPa k 4 xy.plate 131.36 MPa k 5.590 Ztop 8.02E-05 m3 Zbot Girder 1 with stiffener 80.17 cm3 6.19E-04 m3 Plate 1 210 HP 140x10 1 0.7075 210 4 From rules: 76 cm3 619.48 cm3 0.7075 0.012 0.006 8.49E-03 5.09E-05 1.02E-07 0 0.14 0.0792 1.66E-03 1.32E-04 3.16E-06 1.04E-05 1.02E-02 1.83E-04 3.26E-06 1.07E-05 2.84E-07 Total Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 1.80E-02 m Elements, Io.tot 3.26E-06 m4 Elements, Is.tot 1.07E-05 m4 In 1.40E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I 1.07E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot Eigenfrequency 36.70 Hz el.stiff 192.68 MPa x.plate 192.35 MPa k y.plate 192.35 MPa k 4 xy.plate 133.65 MPa k 5.562 Ztop 7.99E-05 m3 Zbot Girder 2 with stiffener 79.94 cm3 5.96E-04 m3 Plate 1 210 HP 140x10 1 0.6565 210 4 From rules: 76 cm3 595.51 cm3 0.6565 0.012 0.006 7.88E-03 4.73E-05 9.45E-08 0 0.14 0.0792 1.66E-03 1.32E-04 3.16E-06 1.04E-05 9.54E-03 1.79E-04 3.25E-06 1.07E-05 2.61E-07 Total Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 1.88E-02 m Elements, Io.tot 3.25E-06 m4 Elements, Is.tot 1.07E-05 m4 In 1.40E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I 1.06E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot Eigenfrequency 37.81 Hz 196.39 MPa el.stiff x.plate 202.45 MPa k y.plate 202.45 MPa k 4 xy.plate 136.24 MPa k 5.532 Ztop 7.96E-05 m3 Zbot Girder 3 with stiffener 79.65 cm3 5.66E-04 m3 Plate 1 210 HP 140x10 1 0.604 210 4 From rules: 76 cm3 565.72 cm3 0.604 0.012 0.006 7.25E-03 4.35E-05 8.70E-08 0 0.14 0.0792 1.66E-03 1.32E-04 3.16E-06 1.04E-05 8.91E-03 1.75E-04 3.25E-06 1.07E-05 2.32E-07 Total Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 1.97E-02 m Elements, Io.tot 3.25E-06 m4 Elements, Is.tot 1.07E-05 m4 In 1.39E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I 1.05E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot Eigenfrequency 39.08 Hz 200.20 MPa el.stiff x.plate 212.05 MPa k y.plate 212.05 MPa k 4 xy.plate 138.74 MPa k 5.502 Ztop 7.93E-05 m3 Zbot Girder 4 with stiffener 79.30 cm3 5.34E-04 m3 Plate 1 210 HP 140x10 1 0.5375 210 4 From rules: 76 cm3 533.79 cm3 0.5375 0.012 0.006 6.45E-03 3.87E-05 7.74E-08 0 0.14 0.0792 1.66E-03 1.32E-04 3.16E-06 1.04E-05 8.11E-03 1.70E-04 3.24E-06 1.07E-05 Total Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 2.10E-02 m Elements, Io.tot 3.24E-06 m4 Elements, Is.tot 1.07E-05 m4 In 1.39E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I 1.03E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot Eigenfrequency 40.90 Hz 205.02 MPa el.stiff x.plate 223.07 MPa k 4 y.plate 223.07 MPa k 4 141.64 MPa k xy.plate 5.468 Ztop 7.88E-05 m3 78.79 cm3 Zbot 4.91E-04 m3 491.40 cm3 Plate Bilge 1 210 HP 200x10 1 0.5 210 0.5 0.01 0 0.2 From rules: 0.005 0.119 Entire cross-section 4.37E-02 m Elements, Io.tot 1.02E-05 m4 Elements, Is.tot 3.65E-05 m4 In 4.67E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I 3.23E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot Eigenfrequency el.stiff 75.33 Hz 247.11 MPa x.plate 212.75 MPa k y.plate 212.75 MPa k 4 xy.plate 138.80 MPa k 5.451 4 Ztop 1.94E-04 m3 194.06 cm3 Zbot 7.39E-04 m3 739.29 cm3 76 cm3 2.50E-05 4.17E-08 1.25E-07 2.57E-03 3.05E-04 1.02E-05 3.63E-05 7.57E-03 Total Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 5.00E-03 3.30E-04 1.02E-05 3.65E-05
  • 130. Part Tank top Pcs n [-] Plate HP 140x10 E [-] 1 1 Effective breadth be [Gpa] 210 210 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot Calculated, b b=E/Eref*be [m] [m] 0.5 Height h [m] 0.009 0.14 0.5 0 N.A el Area A=n*b*h [m] 0.0045 0.0792 Total 2 [m ] 4.50E-03 1.66E-03 6.16E-03 1. Moment S=A*el 2. Moment I0=n*b*h3/12 3 4 [m ] 2.03E-05 1.32E-04 1.52E-04 [m ] 3.04E-08 3.16E-06 3.19E-06 Steiner 2 Is=A*e 4 [m ] 9.11E-08 1.04E-05 1.05E-05 2.47E-02 m 3.19E-06 m4 Elements, Is.tot 1.05E-05 m4 In 1.37E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I Eigenfrequency In-n.a^2*Atot Ztop 9.97E-06 46.58 217.81 200.49 200.49 135.47 8.01E-05 Zbot 4.04E-04 m3 el.stiff x.plate y.plate xy.plate Part Pcs n [-] Strength deck Plate HP 200x10 E [-] 1 1 m4 Hz MPa MPa MPa MPa m3 0.000218 MPa k k k 80.15 cm3 Calculated, b b=E/Eref*be [m] [m] 0.6 From rules: 53 cm3 404.19 cm3 Effective breadth be [Gpa] 210 210 4 4 5.451 Height h [m] 0.008 0.2 0.6 0 N.A el Area A=n*b*h [m] 0.004 0.119 Total 2 [m ] 4.80E-03 2.57E-03 7.37E-03 1. Moment S=A*el 2. Moment I0=n*b*h3/12 3 4 [m ] 1.92E-05 3.05E-04 3.25E-04 Steiner 2 Is=A*e 4 [m ] 2.56E-08 1.02E-05 1.02E-05 [m ] 7.68E-08 3.63E-05 3.64E-05 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot 4.41E-02 m 1.02E-05 m4 Elements, Is.tot 3.64E-05 m4 In 4.66E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I Eigenfrequency In-n.a^2*Atot Ztop 3.23E-05 76.28 247.62 147.44 147.44 121.33 1.97E-04 Zbot 7.34E-04 m3 el.stiff x.plate y.plate xy.plate T-profile 340x8 Plate Flange Web m4 Hz MPa MPa MPa MPa m3 k k k 4 4 5.5 197.26 cm3 From rules: 27 cm3 733.97 cm3 1 150 x 8 332 x8 210 3 1.2 0.008 0.004 9.60E-03 3.84E-05 5.12E-08 1.54E-07 1 1 210 210 0.15 0.008 0.15 0.008 0.008 0.332 0.012 0.182 Total 1.20E-03 2.66E-03 1.35E-02 1.44E-05 4.83E-04 5.36E-04 6.40E-09 2.44E-05 2.45E-05 1.73E-07 8.80E-05 8.83E-05 3 6 3 1 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot b r> a a/b 3.98E-02 m 2.45E-05 m4 Elements, Is.tot 8.83E-05 m4 In 1.13E-04 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I Eigenfrequency In-n.a^2*Atot Ztop 9.14E-05 87.28 253.76 257.65 257.65 150.96 2.97E-04 Zbot 2.29E-03 m3 el.stiff x.plate y.plate xy.plate m4 Hz MPa MPa MPa MPa m3 C k k k 0.4 be 1.2 4 4 5.35 296.58 cm3 2293.51 cm3 From rules: 226 cm3
  • 131. Part Pcs [-] Plate HP 100x7 [-] E Effective breadth be n Deck 1 and 2 1 1 [Gpa] 210 210 Calculated, b b=E/Eref*be [m] [m] 0.6 Height N.A el h [m] 0.007 0.1 0.6 0 Area A=n*b*h [m] 0.0035 0.0587 Total [m2] 4.20E-03 8.74E-04 5.07E-03 1. Moment S=A*el 2. Moment 3 I0=n*b*h /12 [m3] 1.47E-05 5.13E-05 6.60E-05 Steiner 2 Is=A*e [m4] 1.72E-08 8.50E-07 8.67E-07 [m4] 5.15E-08 3.01E-06 3.06E-06 3.43E-08 5.12E-09 5.49E-06 5.53E-06 1.03E-07 1.16E-07 2.17E-05 2.20E-05 3 6 3 1 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot 1.30E-02 m 8.67E-07 m4 Elements, Is.tot 3.06E-06 m4 In 3.93E-06 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I Eigenfrequency In-n.a^2*Atot Ztop 3.07E-06 26.76 138.94 114.33 114.33 111.64 3.27E-05 Zbot 2.36E-04 m3 el.stiff x.plate y.plate xy.plate T-profile 200x8x120x8 Plate Flange Web 1 1 1 120 x 8 202 x 8 210 210 210 m4 Hz MPa MPa MPa MPa m3 3 0.12 0.008 k k k 4 4 5.5 32.68 cm3 From rules: 20 cm3 236.12 cm3 1.2 0.12 0.008 0.007 0.008 0.202 0.0035 0.011 0.116 Total 8.40E-03 9.60E-04 1.62E-03 1.10E-02 2.94E-05 1.06E-05 1.87E-04 2.27E-04 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot b r> a a/b 2.07E-02 m 5.53E-06 m4 Elements, Is.tot 2.20E-05 m4 C 2.75E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot 2.28E-05 45.97 228.24 260.30 260.30 151.69 1.16E-04 1.2 In-n.a^2*Atot el.stiff x.plate y.plate xy.plate Ztop Zbot m4 Hz MPa MPa MPa MPa m3 k k k Pcs [-] Plate HP 100x7 E [-] 1 1 [Gpa] 210 210 From rules: 113 cm3 1099.76 cm3 Effective breadth be n 4 4 5.346 116.09 cm3 1.10E-03 m3 Part Deck 4 0.4 be In I Eigenfrequency Calculated, b b=E/Eref*be [m] [m] 0.6 Height N.A el h [m] 0.007 0.1 0.6 0 Area A=n*b*h [m] 0.0035 0.0587 Total [m2] 4.20E-03 8.74E-04 5.07E-03 1. Moment S=A*el 2. Moment I0=n*b*h3/12 [m3] 1.47E-05 5.13E-05 6.60E-05 Steiner Is=A*e2 [m4] 1.72E-08 8.50E-07 8.67E-07 [m4] 5.15E-08 3.01E-06 3.06E-06 3.43E-08 5.12E-09 4.72E-06 4.76E-06 1.03E-07 1.16E-07 1.89E-05 1.91E-05 3 6 3 1 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot 1.30E-02 m 8.67E-07 m4 Elements, Is.tot 3.06E-06 m4 In 3.93E-06 m4 I Eigenfrequency 3.07E-06 26.76 139.26 114.33 114.33 130.73 3.27E-05 el.stiff x.plate y.plate xy.plate Ztop Zbot T-profile 240x8 Plate Flange Web 1 1 1 120 x 8 192 x 8 210 210 210 I0.tot+Is.tot In-n.a^2*Atot m4 Hz MPa MPa MPa MPa m3 2.36E-04 m3 3 0.12 0.008 k k k 4 4 5.5 32.68 cm3 From rules: 236.12 cm3 0.007 0.0035 0.008 0.011 0.192 0.111 Total 1.2 0.12 0.008 8.40E-03 9.60E-04 1.54E-03 1.09E-02 15 cm3 2.94E-05 1.06E-05 1.70E-04 2.10E-04 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot b r> a a/b 1.93E-02 m 4.76E-06 m4 Elements, Is.tot 1.91E-05 m4 C 2.39E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot 1.98E-05 42.78 223.08 260.30 260.30 151.69 1.06E-04 1.2 In-n.a^2*Atot el.stiff x.plate y.plate xy.plate Ztop Zbot Deck 5 0.4 be In I Eigenfrequency m4 Hz MPa MPa MPa MPa m3 k k k 105.69 cm3 1.03E-03 m3 Plate HP 100x7 1 1 210 210 4 4 5.346 From rules: 82 cm3 1027.04 cm3 0.6 0.6 0 0.006 0.1 0.003 0.0587 Total 3.60E-03 8.74E-04 4.47E-03 1.08E-05 5.13E-05 6.21E-05 1.08E-08 8.50E-07 8.61E-07 3.24E-08 3.01E-06 3.04E-06 2.16E-08 5.12E-09 4.72E-06 4.75E-06 6.48E-08 9.60E-08 1.86E-05 1.87E-05 3 6 3 1 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot 1.39E-02 m 8.61E-07 m4 Elements, Is.tot 3.04E-06 m4 In 3.90E-06 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I Eigenfrequency 3.04E-06 28.40 156.46 84.00 84.00 103.93 3.30E-05 In-n.a^2*Atot el.stiff x.plate y.plate xy.plate Ztop Zbot T-profile 240x8 Plate Flange Web 1 1 1 120 x 8 192 x 8 210 210 210 m4 Hz MPa MPa MPa MPa m3 2.19E-04 m3 3 0.12 0.008 k k k 4 4 5.5 33.03 cm3 From rules: 219.20 cm3 0.006 0.003 0.008 0.01 0.192 0.11 Total 1.2 0.12 0.008 7.20E-03 9.60E-04 1.54E-03 9.70E-03 14 cm3 2.16E-05 9.60E-06 1.69E-04 2.00E-04 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot b r> a a/b 2.06E-02 m 4.75E-06 m4 Elements, Is.tot 1.87E-05 m4 C 2.35E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot Zbot 9.38E-04 m3 el.stiff x.plate y.plate xy.plate Part Pcs [-] Plate HP 140x10 [-] E 1 1 m4 Hz MPa MPa MPa MPa m3 k k k [Gpa] 210 210 From rules: 82 cm3 937.81 cm3 Calculated, b b=E/Eref*be [m] [m] 0.6 4 4 5.346 104.45 cm3 Effective breadth be n Decks 6 and 7 1.2 In-n.a^2*Atot Ztop 1.94E-05 45.29 226.78 260.30 260.30 151.69 1.04E-04 0.4 be In I Eigenfrequency Height N.A el h [m] 0.006 0.14 0.6 0 Area A=n*b*h [m] 0.003 0.0792 Total [m2] 3.60E-03 1.66E-03 5.26E-03 1. Moment S=A*el 2. Moment I0=n*b*h3/12 [m3] 1.08E-05 1.32E-04 1.43E-04 Steiner Is=A*e2 [m4] 1.08E-08 3.16E-06 3.17E-06 [m4] 3.24E-08 1.04E-05 1.05E-05 2.16E-08 6.40E-09 2.44E-05 2.44E-05 6.48E-08 1.20E-07 8.61E-05 8.62E-05 3 6 3 1 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot 2.71E-02 m 3.17E-06 m4 Elements, Is.tot 1.05E-05 m4 In 1.36E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I Eigenfrequency 9.78E-06 50.25 281.27 84.00 84.00 103.93 8.22E-05 In-n.a^2*Atot el.stiff x.plate y.plate xy.plate Ztop Zbot T-profile 240x8 Plate Flange Web 150 x 8 332 x8 1 1 1 210 210 210 m4 Hz MPa MPa MPa MPa m3 3.61E-04 m3 3 0.15 0.008 k k k 4 4 5.5 82.20 cm3 From rules: 361.03 cm3 0.006 0.003 0.008 0.01 0.332 0.18 Total 1.2 0.15 0.008 7.20E-03 1.20E-03 2.66E-03 1.11E-02 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot Elements, Is.tot 14 cm3 2.16E-05 1.20E-05 4.78E-04 5.12E-04 b r> a a/b 4.63E-02 m 2.44E-05 m4 8.62E-05 m4 C In 1.11E-04 m4 Zbot 1.88E-03 m3 0.4 1.2 In-n.a^2*Atot Ztop 8.70E-05 96.23 255.30 257.65 257.65 150.96 2.90E-04 be I0.tot+Is.tot I Eigenfrequency el.stiff x.plate y.plate xy.plate m4 Hz MPa MPa MPa MPa m3 k k k 4 4 5.350 290.21 cm3 1879.45 cm3 From rules: 82 cm3
  • 132. Part Side up to 7,8 [m] Pcs n [-] Plate HP 220x12 E [-] 1 1 Effective breadth be [Gpa] 210 210 Calculated, b b=E/Eref*be [m] [m] 0.6 0.6 0 Height h [m] 0.01 0.22 N.A el [m] 0.005 0.13 Total Area A=n*b*h 2 1. Moment 2. Moment S=A*el I0=n*b*h3/12 3 4 Steiner 2 Is=A*e 4 [m ] [m ] [m ] [m ] 6.00E-03 3.34E-03 9.34E-03 3.00E-05 4.34E-04 4.64E-04 5.00E-08 1.59E-05 1.60E-05 1.50E-07 5.64E-05 5.66E-05 5.00E-08 8.50E-07 9.00E-07 1.50E-07 3.01E-06 3.16E-06 3.65E-08 8.50E-07 8.86E-07 1.09E-07 3.01E-06 3.12E-06 2.56E-08 8.50E-07 8.76E-07 7.68E-08 3.01E-06 3.09E-06 1.72E-08 8.50E-07 8.67E-07 5.15E-08 3.01E-06 3.06E-06 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot 4.97E-02 m 1.60E-05 m4 Elements, Is.tot 7.25E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I Eigenfrequency Ztop Zbot Side 7,8 to 10,8 [m] 5.66E-05 m4 In 4.95E-05 m4 84.61 Hz 2.74E-04 m3 In-n.a^2*Atot Plate HP 100x7 274.40 cm3 9.95E-04 m3 1 1 210 210 0.6 From rules: 246 cm3 995.47 cm3 0.6 0 0.01 0.1 0.005 0.0587 Total 6.00E-03 8.74E-04 6.87E-03 3.00E-05 5.13E-05 8.13E-05 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot 1.18E-02 m 9.00E-07 m4 Elements, Is.tot 4.06E-06 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I Eigenfrequency Ztop Zbot Side 10,8 to 13,8 [m] 3.16E-06 m4 In 3.10E-06 m4 23.43 Hz 3.16E-05 m3 In-n.a^2*Atot Plate HP 100x7 31.58 cm3 2.62E-04 m3 1 1 210 210 0.6 From rules: 12 cm3 262.09 cm3 0.6 0 0.009 0.1 0.0045 0.0587 Total 5.40E-03 8.74E-04 6.27E-03 2.43E-05 5.13E-05 7.56E-05 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot 1.21E-02 m 8.86E-07 m4 Elements, Is.tot 4.01E-06 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I Eigenfrequency Ztop Zbot Side 13,8 to 16,8 [m] 3.12E-06 m4 In 3.10E-06 m4 24.34 Hz 3.19E-05 m3 In-n.a^2*Atot Plate HP 100x7 31.94 cm3 2.57E-04 m3 1 1 210 210 0.6 From rules: 12 cm3 256.95 cm3 0.6 0 0.008 0.1 0.004 0.0587 Total 4.80E-03 8.74E-04 5.67E-03 1.92E-05 5.13E-05 7.05E-05 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot 1.24E-02 m 8.76E-07 m4 Elements, Is.tot 3.96E-06 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I Eigenfrequency Ztop Zbot Side 16,8 to 22,8 [m] 3.09E-06 m4 In 3.09E-06 m4 25.43 Hz 3.23E-05 m3 In-n.a^2*Atot Plate HP 100x7 32.31 cm3 2.49E-04 m3 1 1 210 210 0.6 From rules: 9 cm3 248.51 cm3 0.6 0 0.007 0.1 0.0035 0.0587 Total 4.20E-03 8.74E-04 5.07E-03 1.47E-05 5.13E-05 6.60E-05 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot 1.30E-02 m 8.67E-07 m4 Elements, Is.tot 3.06E-06 m4 In 3.93E-06 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I Eigenfrequency Ztop 3.07E-06 m4 26.76 Hz 3.27E-05 m3 In-n.a^2*Atot Zbot 2.36E-04 m3 32.68 cm3 236.12 cm3 From rules: 9 cm3
  • 133. Web frame calculation Part Part 1 [-] Plate Flange Web Pcs n E [-] 110 x 8 230 x 8 1 1 1 Effective breadth be [Gpa] 210 210 210 Calculated, b b=E/Eref*be [m] [m] 0.6 0.11 0.008 2.1 0.11 0.008 Height h N.A el [m] 0.006 0.007 0.222 [m] 0.003 0.0095 0.124 Total Area A=n*b*h 2 [m ] 1.26E-02 7.70E-04 1.78E-03 1.51E-02 1. Moment S=A*el [m ] 3.78E-05 7.32E-06 2.20E-04 2.65E-04 3.78E-08 3.14E-09 7.29E-06 7.33E-06 b r> a a/b 1.75E-02 m 7.33E-06 m4 Elements, Is.tot 2.75E-05 m4 In 3.48E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I Eigenfrequency Ztop Zbot Part 2 4 [m ] Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot 2. Moment 3 I0=n*b*h /12 3 3.02E-05 m4 45.06 Hz 1.39E-04 m3 Steiner 2 Is=A*e 4 [m ] 1.13E-07 6.95E-08 2.73E-05 2.75E-05 3 6 6.3 2.1 In-n.a^2*Atot Plate Flange Web 100 x 7 130 x 7 C 210 210 210 0.6 0.01 0.007 1722.57 cm3 2.79 0.01 0.007 0.006 0.007 0.123 0.003 0.0095 0.0745 Total Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot 2.1 138.76 cm3 1.72E-03 m3 1 1 1 0.7 be 1.67E-02 7.00E-05 8.61E-04 1.77E-02 5.02E-05 6.65E-07 6.41E-05 1.15E-04 5.02E-08 2.86E-10 1.09E-06 1.14E-06 b r> a a/b 6.51E-03 m 1.14E-06 m4 Elements, Is.tot 4.94E-06 m4 In 6.07E-06 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I Eigenfrequency Ztop 5.32E-06 m4 16.42 Hz 4.11E-05 m3 In-n.a^2*Atot Zbot 8.18E-04 m3 1.51E-07 6.32E-09 4.78E-06 4.94E-06 3 6 15 5 C 41.11 cm3 817.72 cm3 0.93 be 2.79
  • 134. Main frame Part Pcs n [-] Bottom Keel Bilge Tank top Centre girder Girder 1 Girder 2 Girder 3 Girder 4 Deck 1 Deck 2 Deck 3 Deck 4 Deck 5 Deck 6 Deck 7 Side up to 7,8 [m] Plate HP 200x10 Plate HP 200x10 Plate HP 200x10 HP 200x10 HP 200x10 Plate HP 140x8 Plate HP 140x10 HP 140x10 Plate HP 140x10 HP 140x10 Plate HP 140x10 HP 140x10 Plate HP 140x10 HP 140x10 Plate HP 140x10 HP 140x10 Plate HP 100x7 Web Flange Plate HP 100x7 Web Flange Plate HP 200x10 Web Flange Plate HP 100x7 Web Flange Plate HP 100x7 Web Flange Plate HP 140x10 Web Flange Plate HP 140x10 Web Flange Plate HP 220x12 Side 7,8 to 10,8 [m] Plate HP 100x7 Side 10,8 to 13,8 [m] Plate HP 100x7 Side 13,8 to 16,8 [m] Plate HP 100x7 Side 16,8 to 22,8 [m] Plate HP 100x7 E [-] 192 x 8 120 x 8 192 x 8 120 x 8 332 x 8 150 x 8 192 x 8 120 x 8 192 x 8 120 x 8 332 x 8 150 x 8 332 x 8 150 x 8 2 20 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 3 3 2 22 3 3 2 22 5 5 2 22 5 5 2 22 5 5 2 22 5 5 2 22 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 [Gpa] 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 Effective breadth Calculated, b be b=E/Eref*be [m] [m] [m] 8.3 8.3 0.7 0.7 0 1.5 1.5 Height h 8.75 8.75 0.011 0.011 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 8.75 8.75 0.008 0.12 8.75 0.008 0.12 8.75 0.008 0.12 8.75 0.008 0.12 8.75 0.008 0.15 8.75 0.008 0.15 8.75 0.008 0.12 8.75 0.008 0.12 8.75 0.008 0.12 8.75 0.008 0.15 8.75 0.008 0.12 8.75 0 0.008 0.15 8.75 0.008 0.15 0.01 0.008 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.009 0.009 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.007 [m] 0.01 0.01 0.2 0.129 0.013 0.01 0.2 0.132 0.01 0.01 0.2 0.129 0.2 0.5396667 0.2 1.0793333 0.009 1.50 0.14 1.4092 1.5 0.75 0.14 0.5 0.14 1 1.4 0.79 0.14 1.023 0.14 0.555 1.3 0.71 0.14 0.927 0.14 0.494 1.2 0.76 0.14 0.96 0.14 0.56 1.1 0.81 0.14 0.994 0.14 0.628 0.006 4.80 0.1 4.7353 0.202 4.69 0.008 4.59 0.006 7.80 0.1 7.7353 0.202 7.69 0.008 7.59 0.008 10.80 0.2 10.673 0.332 10.63 0.008 10.46 0.007 13.80 0.1 13.7343 0.192 13.70 0.008 13.60 0.006 16.80 0.1 16.7353 0.192 16.70 0.008 16.60 0.006 19.80 0.14 19.7148 0.332 19.63 0.008 19.46 0.006 22.80 0.14 22.7148 0.332 22.63 0.008 19.46 6.3 4.65 0.012 2.1 0.012 2.70 0.012 3.30 0.012 3.90 0.012 4.50 0.012 5.10 0.012 5.70 0.012 6.30 0.012 6.90 0.012 7.50 3 9.30 0.007 8.10 0.007 8.70 0.007 9.30 0.007 9.90 0.007 10.50 3 12.30 0.007 11.1 0.007 13.50 3 15.30 0.007 14.1 0.007 16.50 6 19.80 0.007 17.1 0.007 19.50 0.007 20.10 0.007 22.50 Total Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot 9.22E+00 m 7.62E-01 m4 Elements, Is.tot N.A el 2.90E+02 m4 In 2.91E+02 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I Ztop 1.17E+02 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot 8.58E+00 m3 8.58E+06 cm3 Zbot 1.26E+01 m3 1.26E+07 cm3 Area A=n*b*h 2 [m ] 1.66E-01 5.13E-02 1.82E-02 5.13E-03 3.00E-02 5.13E-03 5.13E-03 5.13E-03 1.58E-01 3.04E-02 1.65E-02 1.66E-03 1.66E-03 1.96E-02 3.33E-03 3.33E-03 1.82E-02 3.33E-03 3.33E-03 1.68E-02 3.33E-03 3.33E-03 1.54E-02 3.33E-03 3.33E-03 1.05E-01 1.92E-02 4.85E-03 2.88E-03 1.05E-01 1.92E-02 4.85E-03 2.88E-03 1.40E-01 5.65E-02 1.33E-02 6.00E-03 1.23E-01 1.92E-02 7.68E-03 4.80E-03 1.05E-01 1.92E-02 7.68E-03 4.80E-03 1.05E-01 3.66E-02 1.33E-02 6.00E-03 1.05E-01 3.66E-02 1.33E-02 6.00E-03 1.26E-01 6.68E-03 6.68E-03 6.68E-03 6.68E-03 6.68E-03 6.68E-03 6.68E-03 6.68E-03 6.68E-03 6.68E-03 6.00E-02 1.75E-03 1.75E-03 1.75E-03 1.75E-03 1.75E-03 2.70E-02 1.75E-03 1.75E-03 2.40E-02 1.75E-03 1.75E-03 4.20E-02 1.75E-03 1.75E-03 1.75E-03 1.75E-03 2.05E+00 1. Moment S=A*el 3 [m ] 8.30E-04 6.62E-03 1.18E-04 6.77E-04 1.50E-04 6.62E-04 2.77E-03 5.54E-03 2.36E-01 4.29E-02 1.24E-02 8.32E-04 1.66E-03 1.55E-02 3.40E-03 1.85E-03 1.29E-02 3.08E-03 1.64E-03 1.28E-02 3.19E-03 1.86E-03 1.25E-02 3.31E-03 2.09E-03 5.04E-01 9.11E-02 2.28E-02 1.32E-02 8.19E-01 1.49E-01 3.73E-02 2.19E-02 1.51E+00 6.03E-01 1.41E-01 6.27E-02 1.69E+00 2.64E-01 1.05E-01 6.53E-02 1.76E+00 3.22E-01 1.28E-01 7.97E-02 2.08E+00 7.21E-01 2.61E-01 1.17E-01 2.39E+00 8.31E-01 3.00E-01 1.17E-01 5.86E-01 1.40E-02 1.80E-02 2.20E-02 2.61E-02 3.01E-02 3.41E-02 3.81E-02 4.21E-02 4.61E-02 5.01E-02 5.58E-01 1.42E-02 1.52E-02 1.63E-02 1.73E-02 1.84E-02 3.32E-01 1.94E-02 2.36E-02 3.67E-01 2.46E-02 2.88E-02 8.32E-01 2.99E-02 3.41E-02 3.51E-02 3.93E-02 1.89E+01 2. Moment I0=n*b*h3/12 4 [m ] 1.38E-06 1.02E-05 2.56E-07 1.02E-05 2.50E-07 1.02E-05 1.02E-05 1.02E-05 1.06E-06 2.66E-06 3.09E-03 3.16E-06 3.16E-06 3.20E-03 3.16E-06 3.16E-06 2.56E-03 3.16E-06 3.16E-06 2.02E-03 3.16E-06 3.16E-06 1.55E-03 3.16E-06 3.16E-06 3.15E-07 8.50E-07 1.65E-05 1.54E-08 3.15E-07 8.50E-07 1.65E-05 1.54E-08 7.47E-07 1.02E-05 1.22E-04 3.20E-08 5.00E-07 8.50E-07 2.36E-05 2.56E-08 3.15E-07 8.50E-07 2.36E-05 2.56E-08 3.15E-07 3.16E-06 1.22E-04 3.20E-08 3.15E-07 3.16E-06 1.22E-04 3.20E-08 4.17E-01 2.80E-07 2.80E-07 2.80E-07 2.80E-07 2.80E-07 2.80E-07 2.80E-07 2.80E-07 2.80E-07 2.80E-07 4.50E-02 1.99E-08 1.99E-08 1.99E-08 1.99E-08 1.99E-08 3.54E-02 1.99E-08 1.99E-08 3.15E-02 1.99E-08 1.99E-08 2.21E-01 1.99E-08 1.99E-08 1.99E-08 1.99E-08 7.62E-01 Steiner 2 Is=A*e 4 [m ] 4.15E-06 8.54E-04 7.69E-07 8.94E-05 7.50E-07 8.54E-05 1.49E-03 5.98E-03 3.52E-01 6.04E-02 9.28E-03 4.16E-04 1.66E-03 1.23E-02 3.48E-03 1.02E-03 9.17E-03 2.86E-03 8.12E-04 9.70E-03 3.07E-03 1.04E-03 1.01E-02 3.29E-03 1.31E-03 2.42E+00 4.31E-01 1.07E-01 6.06E-02 6.38E+00 1.15E+00 2.87E-01 1.66E-01 1.63E+01 6.43E+00 1.50E+00 6.56E-01 2.33E+01 3.63E+00 1.44E+00 8.87E-01 2.96E+01 5.39E+00 2.14E+00 1.32E+00 4.12E+01 1.42E+01 5.12E+00 2.27E+00 5.46E+01 1.89E+01 6.80E+00 2.27E+00 2.72E+00 2.95E-02 4.87E-02 7.27E-02 1.02E-01 1.35E-01 1.74E-01 2.17E-01 2.65E-01 3.18E-01 3.76E-01 5.19E+00 1.15E-01 1.32E-01 1.51E-01 1.71E-01 1.93E-01 4.08E+00 2.15E-01 3.19E-01 5.62E+00 3.48E-01 4.76E-01 1.65E+01 5.11E-01 6.65E-01 7.06E-01 8.85E-01 2.90E+02
  • 135. Appendix 6 - Tables for Bleich approach Table 1-Hull Part Pcs n [-] Bottom Keel Bilge Tank top Centre girder Girder 1 Girder 2 Girder 3 Girder 4 Deck 1 Deck 2 0 0 0 Deck 3 0 0 0 Side up to 7,8 [m] Side 7,8 to 10,8 [m] Plate HP 200x10 Plate HP 200x10 Plate HP 200x10 HP 200x10 HP 200x10 Plate HP 140x8 Plate HP 140x10 HP 140x10 Plate HP 140x10 HP 140x10 Plate HP 140x10 HP 140x10 Plate HP 140x10 HP 140x10 Plate HP 140x10 HP 140x10 Plate HP 100x7 Web Flange Plate HP 100x7 Web Flange Plate HP 200x10 Web Flange Plate HP 220x12 E [-] 2 20 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 3 3 2 22 3 3 2 22 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 192 x 8 120 x 8 192 x 8 120 x 8 332 x 8 150 x 8 Plate HP 100x7 [Gpa] 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 Effective breadth be Calculated, b b=E/Eref*be Height h N.A el [m] [m] [m] [m] 0.005 0.129 0.0065 0.132 0.005 0.129 0.539667 1.079333 1.4955 1.4092 0.75 0.5 1 0.791 1.023 0.555 0.71 0.927 0.494 0.76 0.96 0.56 0.81 0.994 0.628 4.797 4.7353 4.693 4.588 7.797 7.7353 7.693 7.588 10.796 10.673 10.626 10.456 4.65 2.1 2.7 3.3 3.9 4.5 5.1 5.7 6.3 6.9 7.5 9.3 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.9 10.5 Total 8.3 8.3 0.7 0.7 1.5 0.01 0.2 0.013 0.2 0.01 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.009 0.14 1.5 0.14 0.14 1.4 0.14 0.14 1.3 0.14 0.14 1.2 0.14 0.14 1.1 0.14 0.14 0.006 0.1 0.202 0.008 0.006 0.1 0.202 0.008 0.008 0.2 0.332 0.008 6.3 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 3 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 1.5 8.75 8.75 0.011 0.011 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 8.75 8.75 0.008 0.12 8.75 0.008 0.12 8.75 0.008 0.12 8.75 0.008 0.12 8.75 0.008 0.15 0.01 0.008 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.01 Area A=n*b*h [m2] 0.166 0.05132 0.0182 0.005132 0.03 0.005132 0.005132 0.005132 0.1575 0.030426 0.0165 0.001663 0.001663 0.0196 0.003326 0.003326 0.0182 0.003326 0.003326 0.0168 0.003326 0.003326 0.0154 0.003326 0.003326 0.105 0.019228 0.004848 0.00288 0.105 0.019228 0.004848 0.00288 0.14 0.056452 0.01328 0.006 0.126 0.00668 0.00668 0.00668 0.00668 0.00668 0.00668 0.00668 0.00668 0.00668 0.00668 0.06 0.001748 0.001748 0.001748 0.001748 0.001748 1.33E+00 1. Moment S=A*el [m3] 0.00083 0.00662028 0.0001183 0.00067742 0.00015 0.00066203 0.00276957 0.00553914 0.23554125 0.04287632 0.012375 0.0008315 0.001663 0.0155036 0.0034025 0.00184593 0.012922 0.0030832 0.00164304 0.012768 0.00319296 0.00186256 0.012474 0.00330604 0.00208873 0.503685 0.09105035 0.02275166 0.01321344 0.818685 0.14873435 0.03729566 0.02185344 1.51144 0.6025122 0.14111328 0.062736 0.5859 0.014028 0.018036 0.022044 0.026052 0.03006 0.034068 0.038076 0.042084 0.046092 0.0501 0.558 0.0141588 0.0152076 0.0162564 0.0173052 0.018354 5.91E+00 2. Moment I0=n*b*h3/12 [m4] 1.38333E-06 0.0000102 2.56317E-07 0.0000102 0.00000025 0.0000102 0.0000102 0.0000102 1.06313E-06 0.00000266 0.00309375 0.00000316 0.00000316 0.003201333 0.00000316 0.00000316 0.002563167 0.00000316 0.00000316 0.002016 0.00000316 0.00000316 0.001552833 0.00000316 0.00000316 0.000000315 0.00000085 1.64848E-05 1.536E-08 0.000000315 0.00000085 1.64848E-05 1.536E-08 7.46667E-07 0.0000102 0.000121981 0.000000032 0.416745 2.798E-07 2.798E-07 2.798E-07 2.798E-07 2.798E-07 2.798E-07 2.798E-07 2.798E-07 2.798E-07 2.798E-07 0.045 1.99E-08 1.99E-08 1.99E-08 1.99E-08 1.99E-08 4.74E-01 Steiner Is=A*e2 [m4] 4.15E-06 0.000854 7.69E-07 8.94E-05 7.5E-07 8.54E-05 0.001495 0.005979 0.352252 0.060421 0.009281 0.000416 0.001663 0.012263 0.003481 0.001024 0.009175 0.002858 0.000812 0.009704 0.003065 0.001043 0.010104 0.003286 0.001312 2.416177 0.431151 0.106774 0.060623 6.383287 1.150505 0.286916 0.165824 16.31751 6.430613 1.49947 0.655968 2.724435 0.029459 0.048697 0.072745 0.101603 0.13527 0.173747 0.217033 0.265129 0.318035 0.37575 5.1894 0.114686 0.132306 0.151185 0.171321 0.192717 4.68E+01 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot 4.44E+00 m 4.74E-01 m4 Elements, Is.tot 4.68E+01 m4 In 4.73E+01 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I Ztop 2.11E+01 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot 1.37E+00 m3 1.37E+06 cm3 Zbot 4.76E+00 m3 4.76E+06 cm3 Table 2-Superstructure Part [-] Plate HP 100x7 Web Flange Deck 5 Plate HP 100x7 Web Flange Deck 6 Plate HP 140x10 Web Flange Deck 7 Plate HP 140x10 Web Flange Side 10,8 to 13,8 [m] Plate HP 100x7 E [-] Deck 4 192 x 8 120 x 8 192 x 8 120 x 8 332 x 8 150 x 8 332 x 8 150 x 8 Side 13,8 to 16,8 [m] Plate HP 100x7 Side 16,8 to 22,8 [m] Plate HP 100x7 Entire cross-section Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A Elements, Io.tot Elements, Is.tot Pcs n 2 22 5 5 2 22 5 5 2 22 5 5 2 22 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 [Gpa] 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 Effective breadth be Calculated, b b=E/Eref*be Height h N.A el [m] [m] [m] [m] 2.9965 2.9343 2.897 2.797 5.997 5.9353 5.898 5.798 8.997 8.9148 8.828 8.658 11.997 11.9148 11.828 8.658 1.5 0.3 2.7 4.5 3.3 5.7 9 6.3 8.7 9.3 11.7 Total 8.75 8.75 0.008 0.12 8.75 0.008 0.12 8.75 0.008 0.12 8.75 0.008 0.12 8.75 0.008 0.15 8.75 0.008 0.15 8.75 0.008 0.15 0.009 0.008 0.15 0.009 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.1 0.192 0.008 0.006 0.1 0.192 0.008 0.006 0.14 0.332 0.008 0.006 0.14 0.332 0.008 3 0.007 0.007 3 0.007 0.007 6 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 7.27E+00 m 2.88E-01 m4 4.64E+01 m4 In 4.67E+01 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot I Ztop 8.65E+00 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot 6.90E-01 m3 6.90E+05 cm3 Zbot 1.19E+00 m3 1.19E+06 cm3 Area A=n*b*h [m2] 0.1225 0.019228 0.00768 0.0048 0.105 0.019228 0.00768 0.0048 0.105 0.036586 0.01328 0.006 0.105 0.036586 0.01328 0.006 0.027 0.001748 0.001748 0.024 0.001748 0.001748 0.042 0.001748 0.001748 0.001748 0.001748 7.20E-01 1. Moment S=A*el [m3] 0.36707125 0.05642072 0.02224896 0.0134256 0.629685 0.11412395 0.04529664 0.0278304 0.944685 0.32615687 0.11723584 0.051948 1.259685 0.43591487 0.15707584 0.051948 0.0405 0.0005244 0.0047196 0.108 0.0057684 0.0099636 0.378 0.0110124 0.0152076 0.0162564 0.0204516 5.23E+00 2. Moment I0=n*b*h3/12 [m4] 5.00208E-07 0.00000085 2.3593E-05 2.56E-08 0.000000315 0.00000085 2.3593E-05 2.56E-08 0.000000315 0.00000316 0.000121981 0.000000032 0.000000315 0.00000316 0.000121981 0.000000032 0.0354375 1.99E-08 1.99E-08 0.0315 1.99E-08 1.99E-08 0.2205 1.99E-08 1.99E-08 1.99E-08 1.99E-08 2.88E-01 Steiner Is=A*e2 [m4] 1.099929 0.165555 0.064455 0.037551 3.776221 0.67736 0.26716 0.161361 8.499331 2.907623 1.034958 0.449766 15.11244 5.193839 1.857893 0.449766 0.06075 0.000157 0.012743 0.486 0.019036 0.056793 3.402 0.069378 0.132306 0.151185 0.239284 4.64E+01
  • 136. AALTO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING Department of Applied Mechanics Marine Technology Weight and Intact Stability M/S Arianna 0
  • 137. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... 1 1. INITIAL LIGHTWEIGHT ESTIMATE ....................................................................... 3 2. DETAILED LIGHTWEIGHT ESTIMATE.................................................................. 4 2.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 CALCULATIONS AND RESULTS ................................................................................................. 6 3. PARAMETRIC WEIGHT COMPARISON ................................................................. 8 4. BASELINE GM ESTIMATE .......................................................................................... 9 5. INTACT STABILITY RESULTS ................................................................................ 10 5.1 LOAD CASE 1 – DEPARTURE FROM PORT ............................................................................... 10 5.2 LOAD CASE 2 – MID-VOYAGE ................................................................................................ 10 5.3 LOAD CASE 3 – ARRIVAL TO PORT ........................................................................................ 11 5.4 LOAD CASE 4 – LIGHTSHIP..................................................................................................... 11 5.5 STABILITY SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 11 5.6 DEADWEIGHT CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................... 13 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 14 APPENDIX 1 - DETAILED ESWBS WEIGHT ESTIMATE ........................................... 15 APPENDIX 2 – PARAMETRIC WEIGHT DATA ............................................................ 20 APPENDIX 3 – NAPA STABILITY CURVES ................................................................... 21 APPENDIX 4 – NAPA STRENGTH CURVES .................................................................. 25 APPENDIX 5 – NAPA LOADING CONDITIONS RESULTS ......................................... 29 APPENDIX 5 – NAPA CURVES OF MAX KG AND MIN GM....................................... 33 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 - Weight breakdown by ESWBS group .................................................................. 6 Figure 3-1 - Cruise ship lightship weight correlation ............................................................... 8 Figure 5-1 – Reference deadweight vs. lightship weight ......................................................... 13 Figure 6-1 - Parametric weight data ......................................................................................... 20 Figure 6-2. Stability curve, load case 1 .................................................................................... 21 1
  • 138. Figure 6-3. Stability curve, load case 2 .................................................................................... 22 Figure 6-4. Stability curve, load case 3 .................................................................................... 23 Figure 6-5. Stability curve, load case 4 .................................................................................... 24 Figure 6-6. Strength curves, load case 1 .................................................................................. 25 Figure 6-7. Strength curves, load case 2 .................................................................................. 26 Figure 6-8. Strength curves, load case 3 .................................................................................. 27 Figure 6-9. Strength curves, load case 4 .................................................................................. 28 Figure 6-10. Stability criteria results, load case 1 .................................................................... 29 Figure 6-11. Stability criteria results, load case 2 .................................................................... 30 Figure 6-12. Stability criteria results, load case 3 .................................................................... 31 Figure 6-13. Stability criteria results, load case 4 .................................................................... 32 Figure 6-14. KG limit curve ..................................................................................................... 33 Figure 6-15. GM limit curve .................................................................................................... 33 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 - ESWBS group definitions ....................................................................................... 4 Table 2-2 - Weight estimate summary by ESWBS group.......................................................... 6 Table 3-1 – Lightweight distribution comparison to references ................................................ 8 Table 3-2 - Total lightweight comparison .................................................................................. 9 Table 4-1 - Calculation parameters .......................................................................................... 10 Table 5-1 - Stability summary table ......................................................................................... 12 Table 6-1 -ESWBS 100 weight summary ................................................................................ 15 Table 6-2 -ESWBS 200 estimate ............................................................................................. 15 Table 6-3 -ESWBS 300 estimate ............................................................................................. 16 Table 6-4 -ESWBS 400 estimate ............................................................................................. 17 Table 6-5 -ESWBS 500 estimate ............................................................................................. 18 Table 6-6 -ESWBS 600 estimate ............................................................................................. 19 Table 6-7 –Paint data................................................................................................................ 19 Table 6-8 –Paint application .................................................................................................... 19 2
  • 139. 1. Initial lightweight estimate Before conducting a detailed lightweight estimation, an initial calculation will first be completed in order to set a reference value. In this way, the result can be compared to a value other than existing reference ships. The chosen estimation is from the reference book provided in the Ship Conceptual Design course and it was selected based on its simplicity and usability at a very early stage of design. Its intended purpose is nothing more than an initial, rough estimation of the lightship weight. The general equation for lightship weight is shown in the equation below. 1-1 The steel weight is taken directly from the NAPA steel model, as this will give a more accurate value than the suggested empirical formula for initial steel weight estimation. Therefore, the steel weight is taken as 2062 [t]. The preliminary machinery weight, without considering the actual equipment specifications, can be estimated with the following equation, where the needed power is taken as 12,248 kW, as specified in the machinery section of this project. 1-2 With the stated power, the machinery weight totals at 1060 [t]. Next, the outfitting weight is estimated as a function of a specified factor and the converted volume, as defined below. 1-3 With the basic dimensions of the vessel and a K value of 0.036, as prescribed by the reference, the total outfitting weight is estimated at 1586 [t]. Finally, the interior weight is again based on a defined coefficient, along with the interior area of the vessel. In this case, the coefficient is taken at , or the given value for small and medium sized ships. The interior weight calculation can therefore be completed according to the equation below. 1-4 This yields an initial interior weight of 562 [t]. With these four weight components, the total lightship weight is found to be 5268 [t]. 3
  • 140. 2. Detailed lightweight estimate 2.1 Overview For a detailed initial weight estimation, the Expanded Ship Work Breakdown Structure (ESWBS) set by the US Navy was used as an organizational hierarchy. This structure applies five digit numbers to shipboard systems, based on their function and description. The advantage of using a work breakdown structure is its simplicity and organization, especially at the project management level. It is a product-oriented hierarchical division, which organizes, defines, and graphically displays the product to be produced (1). The SWBS system, along with MARAD, is one of the two major weight accounting systems used in the industry today and is well regarded because it is hierarchical, third-party maintained, and well documented (2). MARAD is divided only into three groupings, so the SWBS system was chosen to yield a higher level of transparency. Though the ESWBS system uses five digits, only three are needed at this level of design for the initial weight estimate. The fourth and fifth single digit classification levels are used to incorporate the functions that support maintenance and repair needs. The major ESWBS groups are defined in Table 2-1 below. Table 2-1 - ESWBS group definitions SWBS Group 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 M Description Hull Structure Propulsion Plant Electric Plant Command and Surveillance Auxilliary Systems Outfit and Furnishings Armament Margins and Allowances These eight groups represent the projected ship design in the predefined Condition A (lightship with margins) while an additional group, group F, is added for estimating weights in Condition D (departure full load) (3). Initially, only the lightship condition will be estimated. Since the vessel in question is a passenger vessel without armament, group 700 will be neglected from this point on. 4
  • 141. 2.2 Methodology The lightship weight estimate can be difficult to attain at such an early design stage, as the specifications of many features, and thus their respective weights, are not yet known. As such, a basic bottom-up factoring method was used, where identified unit weights are multiplied by the perceived number of units plus an uncertainty. In turn, these individual values are summed to develop a total ship weight. The top-up or baseline method is the most common for ship estimations, but in this case, a closely related parent ship cannot be used. Without a parent ship, the ratiocination, or scaling, method was used to estimate various weights for each ESWBS grouping. This is the second most common method for ship weight estimation and multiplies weight components of reference vessels by a scaled ratio to achieve a new weight estimate. This is especially useful as a starting point in the design process, but there are limitations, the most serious of which is the fact that new technologies or special features not common to all ships cannot be accurately scaled (3). To counter this, additional margins are used to ensure a conservative estimate is achieved. For this ship, two references were used when assigning ratios and weights. The first is a military ship outlined in the ratiocination manual from the Society of Allied Weight Engineers (4). Clearly, a cruise ship is completely different in design and this ship was only used to identify small components that do not greatly affect the overall weight, including various surveillance and command equipment. More helpful was a sample weight estimation of a Panamax-max cruise ship, as provided by the faculty of the University of New Orleans School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering (5). This database provided reasonable estimations common with the new ship’s design, though they were factored to account for the great size differences between the two ships. Though many parameters are estimated, the actual weights are used for components that have specifically be identified, taken from online specifications. These include major machinery components such as the electrical engines, emergency generator, switchboards, and main generators, in addition to lifesaving equipment and paint. Where applicable, the source for such components is provided in the calculation tables. 5
  • 142. 2.3 Calculations and results Once the perceived weight was assigned to each component, the approximate longitudinal, transverse, and vertical centres of gravity (LCG, TCG, and VCG) were measured from the general arrangement and inboard profile drawings. These values represent the levers for each component and contribute to the ship’s overall gravity measures, including the very important lightship vertical centre of gravity (KG). The selected measuring convention takes the LCG from the forward perpendicular, the VCG from the keel level, and the TCG from the vessel’s centreline. For smaller components with unknown exact locations, a balanced centre of gravity is assumed. The results, in tabular form, are shown in Table 2-2 and Figure 2-1 below. The full calculation data, divided by ESWBS group, is provided in Appendix 1. The total lightship weight is taken as approximately 4,934 tonnes. Table 2-2 - Weight estimate summary by ESWBS group SWBS Group 100 200 300 400 500 600 [m] 7.14 4.15 3.31 11.39 11.73 12.96 Long'l Mmnt [m-t] 100024.5 18378.0 17200.7 72.2 3945.6 94143.3 Trans Mmnt [m-t] 0.00 0.00 14.50 -0.58 0.00 0.00 Vert Mmnt [m-t] 14724.5 863.9 1311.8 14.5 1134.7 19185.0 7.46 233764 13.92 37234 Weight Description Steel Structure Propulsion Plant Electric Plant Command/Surveillance Auxilliary Systems Outfit and Furnishings Serv. Life Allowance Add’l 10% Margin Total Weight LCG TCG VCG [t] 2062.4 161.6 396.7 1.3 96.8 1480.3 318.5 424.7 4933 [LT] 2029.8 159.0 390.4 1.3 95.2 1456.9 313.5 418.0 4855 [m] 48.50 82.87 43.36 56.50 40.78 63.60 [m] 0.000 0.000 0.037 -0.454 0.000 0.000 46.37 0.003 Weight Breakdown Steel Structure 35% 49% Propulsion Plant Electric Plant Command and Surveillance 9% 2% 5% 0% Auxilliary Systems Outfit and Furnishings Figure 2-1 - Weight breakdown by ESWBS group 6
  • 143. The structural weights were taken directly from NAPA and show nearly 60% of the 2062 tonnes as the steel hull structure weight and the remaining 40% from the superstructure. Group 200 includes the propulsion system, with the main weight contribution coming from the ABB electric engines, steering gears, and propellers. In total, this group accounts for 5% of the lightship weight. The electric systems are listed in group 300 and make up for 9% of the weight, the vast majority of which is from the two main generator sets and third, standby set. Group 400, command and surveilance equipment, is nearly insignificant for the cruise ship, but was included in order to achieve a holistic estimation. The auxiliary systems, group 500, make up 2% of the lightship weight, with the largest single contribution from the anchoring equipment and six marine evacuation systems. Finally, the outfitting and furnishing weights, located in group 600, are the second highest contributors, with a total weight equaling 35% of the total. An estimated outfitting weight for each deck was accomplished using the course notes from the Ship Conceptual Design class. For each, the total area was taken from the general arrangement and subsequently multiplied by a predefined factor based on the spaces and functions of each deck. The decks comprised of public spaces, for instance, have a much higher multiplication factor than those with outdoor decks. The estimated paint and primer weights were also included in this group, achieved with actual coverage and density values from shipping paint suppliers and calculated surface area values for both the hull and superstructure from NAPA. It is assumed that the hull needs both primer and paint and the superstructure paint alone. The final weight contribution in this group is the four passenger and two crew elevators. The final weight contributions are in the form of additional margins and allowances, which are crucial during early design phases. This is to ensure that the estimated displacement and KG values as originally projected during the initial conceptual design phase are met at delivery (3). As suggested by the Society of Allied Weight Engineers, a 7.5% service life allowance accounts for weight gains over time to compensate for additional paint and outfitting. In addition, a 10% acquisition margin is added to account for any underestimation or omission of individual components. With the total weight, the vertical center of gravity of the entire ship is calculated with the following equation (2). The total longitudinal and transverse centers are found accordingly. 2-1 7
  • 144. 3. Parametric weight comparison The results of the estimate seem reasonable, with nearly half of the weight contribution coming from the hull and superstructure structural components and another large percentage from outfitting and furnishings. The latter is known to be especially high for cruise ships. As a comparison, the reference cruise ship featured a similar weight distribution, with 47%, 39%, and 14% distributions to the structure, outfitting, and machinery, respectively. There is also a favorable comparison with Levander’s suggested cruise ship lightweight distribution (6). A comparison of the three distributions is shown below in Table 3-1, along with the initial estimate breakdown. In comparison, it seems as if the initial estimation puts too much emphasis on the machinery weight at the expense of the structural. Table 3-1 – Lightweight distribution comparison to references Group Structure Outfitting Machinery Initial 39% 41% 20% Reference Ship 47% 39% 14% Levander 50% 38% 12% Our Ship 49% 35% 16% In order to check the rationality of the total lightship weight, a parametric study of existing vessels was completed. The results show a steady correlation between a cruise ship’s total lightweight and length overall, as shown in Figure 3-1. LS Weight vs. Length 100000 Current ships 80000 Lightship Weight [t] 90000 Calculated 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 LOA [m] Figure 3-1 - Cruise ship lightship weight correlation This data yields a very close estimate to the calculated one, especially after the same margins are applied. This provides more validation to the chosen methods and result. A comparison 8
  • 145. between the parametric and calculated results is provided in Table 3-2 and the parametric data is attached in Appendix 2. Table 3-2 - Total lightweight comparison Group Raw weight [t] Service life allowance [t] Additional margin [t] TOTAL Initial 4483 336 448 5268 Parametric 4035 303 404 4742 Calculated 4199 315 420 4934 This data shows that the detailed estimation is, on whole, in agreeance with both the simplified initial estimate and existing ships. This is especially promising given the uncertainties in all estimations and is satisfactory at such an early design stage. 4. Baseline GM estimate Before using the NAPA software to estimate the metacentric height (GM) at different specified loading conditions with more accuracy, a baseline GM will first be found by approximate formulas. This will signify whether the NAPA results are reasonable. The fundamental formula for the GM of an ocean-going vessel is as follows. 4-1 Here, the vertical center of buoyancy (KB), metacentric radius (BM) can be calculated with formulas 4-2 and 4-3, respectively. The vertical center of gravity (KG or VCG) of the ship is taken in the same manner as from equation 4-1. 4-2 4-3 These two equations are based on various coefficients and parameters, as defined below. 4-4 4-5 4-6 With these equations, a baseline GM estimate can be found using the additional known parameters shown in Table 4-1. 9
  • 146. Table 4-1 - Calculation parameters Parameter Length overall Length along waterline Beam Draft Waterplane area coefficient Waterplane area Vertical center of gravity Symbol LOA LBP B T KG Value 120 110 18 5.4 0.73 1445 7.46 Units [m] [m] [m] [m] [-] [m2] [m] With these values, the baseline GM for the ship is found to be 1.04 m. Again, this is only a basis for comparison and is not expected to represent the final stability of the vessel. 5. Intact stability results The ship’s intact stability was assessed with the aid of the NAPA software. Four different load cases were defined. Namely, two of them are based on (7) , these are the departure from port and arrival to port conditions. In addition, there is also defined mid-voyage and lightship condition for gaining additional knowledge about ship stability in some certain circumstances. These four load cases are described in following chapters. The ship’s lightweight used in the calculations was taken as that defined in Chapter 1. A lightweight element table feature was used to define the lightweight distribution. Load case parameters such as draft, trim, GM, loads, and stability curves are given in the load case reports generated by NAPA. 5.1 Load case 1 – Departure from port In load case ,1 the ship is loaded with passenegers, with an estimated weight of 16 [t]. The hotel and deck storages are assumed to be at full capacity. The lubricating oil, heavy fuel oil, and fresh water tanks are also full and the gray water tanks empty. Under these conditions, the total ship displacement was found to be 6,991 [t], with a draft of 5.38 [m] and a GM of 1.75 [m], resulting in a trimming angle of -0. . The stability criteria is fulfilled according to IMO criteria that NAPA considers as can be seen in Figure 5-11 The stability and strength curves corresponding to this load case can be found in Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-7. 5.2 Load case 2 – Mid-voyage At the middle of the projected voyage, storage rooms are taken as 66% full, lubricating oil and heavy fuel oil as 50%, and gray water tanks and garbage holds as 50%. As the ship has freshwater producing capability, the freshwater tank is filled 80% at all times during the 10
  • 147. voyage to take into account free surface effect. The resulting displacement is now 6,830 [t], the draft 5.37 [m], and the GM of the entire ship 1.69 [m]. The ship trims -0.22 under such conditions. Similar to the first case, stability criteria is fulfilled as can be seen Figure 5-12 and the appropriate stability and strength curves are provided in Figure 5-4 and Figure 5-8. 5.3 Load case 3 – Arrival to port The third case describes the ship arriving to port at the end of the voyage. Now, storage rooms are taken as only 10% full, lubricating and heavy fuel oil as 10%, and grey water tanks and garbage holds also as 90%. For this case, the ship is trimming -0.42 , with a displacement of 6,942 [t], a 5.37 [m] draft, and a 1.37 [m] GM. Similar to the previous cases, stability criteria is fulfilled as can be seen Figure 5-13, and stability and strength curves are shown in Figure 5-5 and Figure 5-9. 5.4 Load case 4 – Lightship The final case describes the ship lightship condition where all the storage rooms and tanks are empty, so no deadweight considered. For this final case, the ship is trimming -0. , with a displacement of 5,002 [t], a 4.16 [m] draft, and a 1.09 [m] GM. Similar to the previous cases, stability criteria is fulfilled as can be seen Figure 5-14,and stability and strength curves are shown in Figure 5-6 and Figure 5-10. 5.5 Stability summary The intact stability of the vessel is checked in four different loading conditions, all of which are realistic and probable for the selected route and characteristics. The displacement ranges from 5002 [t] to 6991 [t] and the GM value from 1.09 [m] to 1.75 [m]. NAPA automatically calculates the accordance of the vessel’s stability to the IMO criteria for a ship’s intact stability and the ship is in compliance with the IMO regulations in all four loading conditions. Therefore, it would be allowed to sail under all conditions accounted for. As seen from the results, the ship stability does not vary greatly, meaning it will always demonstrate similar a behavior. The design draft of 5.4 [m] was almost achieved and it was under 1% less in three first cases and of course for lightship case it is much less due to missing deadweight. One potential source for such a discrepancy is the lightweight estimation method, which is by no means exact. The same is true for the vessel’s deadweight. Therefore, the small differences in draft should be acceptable at this stage. The low GM values ensure that the vessel will have good stability levels as well as produces higher accelerations in passenger areas. For this case, 11
  • 148. such accelerations are not a severe issue since the ship is relatively low, a feature that enhances a decrease in acceleration. It should be also mentioned that permanent ballast water is used for correcting slightly the trim and also to maintain the necessary draft according to different load cases. As for the max KG and min GM curves, these were not obtained due to the lack of skills of NAPA, there are curves just for limit case as can be seen in Figure 5-15 and Figure 5-16. When trying to get these for different load cases it just gave empty graphs. As for strength curves, then maximum bending moment in hogging is during the arrival to the port condition, where the bending moment is approximately kNm, which is twice a smaller of the maximum bending moment in the roughest situation that was calculated according to the rules. Therefore, this result is quite reasonable. A summary table for all loading conditions is shown in Table 5-1. It is clear that the metacentric heights differ from the original, baseline calculation. This is unsurprising due to the latter’s very generic characteristics. Table 5-1 - Stability summary table Loading Condition 1 2 3 4 Displacement [t] 6991 6990 6831 5002 Draft [m] 5.38 5.37 5.37 4.16 GM [m] 1.75 1.69 1.37 1.09 Trim [ ] -0.02 -0.22 -0.04 -0.67 12
  • 149. 5.6 Deadweight considerations With the achieved values, the estimated design deadweight of the vessel can be found, according to the principle formula below. 5-1 With displacements varying slightly, but consistently near 7000 [t], it can be seen that the deadweight will approximately reach 2000 [t]. When compared to reference cruise ships, this seems rather high in comparison to the ship’s lightship weight. As it stands, the deadweight is right at a 40% value of the lightship weight. As can be seen in Figure 5-1, the deadweight, on whole, is proportional to a ship’s lightship weight. This data is taken from Appendix 2. DWT vs. Lightship Weight 20000 Current ships 18000 Calculated Deadweight [t] 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 Lightship [t] 60000 70000 80000 90000 Figure 5-1 – Reference deadweight vs. lightship weight With this relationship, the deadweight for modern cruise ships is, on average, around 25-31% of the actual lightship weight. This would yield deadweight value between 1297 and 1547 [t], which is lower than the calculated value, though not by a large margin. Possible reasons for this discrepancy could be the rough estimation methods, particularly for the ship’s center of gravity and total lightweight. Both of these parameters are strongly dependent on the NAPA steel model, which may not be detailed enough for a precise estimation. About the center of gravity, the individual gravities for various components were very roughly estimated, as it is impossible to know exact locations at this stage of the design process. Future iterations in the design spiral may yield a better convergence. 13
  • 150. Bibliography 1. McKesson, Christopher. Work Breakdown Structures. New Orleans : University of New Orleans School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, 2011. 2. —. Estimating weight and KG. New Orleans : University of New Orleans School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, 2011. 3. Marine Systems Government, Society of Allied Weight Engineers. Weight Estimating and Margin Manual for Marine Vehicles. Los Angeles : Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Ship Design Panel, 2001. 4. Redmond, Mark. Ship Weight Estimated using Computerized Ratiocination. Atlanta : Society of Allied Weight Engineers, Inc., 1984. 5. Taravella, Brandon. Cruise Ship Weight Estimate. New Orleans : University of New Orleans School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, 2003. 6. Levander, Kai. Passenger Ships. Ship Design and Construction Vol. II. Jersey City : Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 2004. 7. DNV. Stability and Watertight Integrity. DNV Rules for Classification of Ships. 1995. 8. ABB. Electric motor data. [Online] [Cited: 16 1 2013.] http://www.abb.com/product/seitp322/19e6c63b9837b35dc1256dc1004430be.aspx?productL anguage=us&country=FI&tabKey=2.. 9. Cummins. Diesel Generator Set. [Online] [Cited: 29 10 2012.] http://www.cumminspower.com/www/common/templatehtml/technicaldocument/SpecSheets/ Diesel/na/s-1494.pdf. 10. Wärtsilä. Generating Sets. [Online] [Cited: 29 10 2012.] http://www.wartsila.com/en/engines/gensets/generating-sets.. 11. MarinArk. Marin Ark Marine Evacuation Systems. [Online] [Cited: 30 10 2013.] http://apps2.survitecgroup.com/cms_uploads/product_pdfs/1374673010_3990a56be289cf0b6 8ccde83490f9f2df1559855.pdf. 12. Blue Water Marine Paint. Blue Water Marine Paint - Mega Gloss. North Brunswick : s.n., 2011. 13. Teamac Marine and Industrial Coating. Teamac Farm Oxide Paint. Hull : Teamac, 2011. 14
  • 151. Appendix 1 - Detailed ESWBS weight estimate Table 5-2 -ESWBS 100 weight summary 100 - Hull Structure Item Steel Hull Structure Steel Super Structure Total Vert Weight VCG [t] [m] Moment 1215.9 5.68 4.58 846.46 17.39 14719.94 2062.36 7.1396 Table 5-3 -ESWBS 200 estimate 200 - Propulsion System Item Description/ Source Electric Engine Steering Gear Propellers Bow Thruster Bow Thruster Engine Bow Thruster Gen. Sets Lube Oil System Lube Oil Pump Dirty Oil Pump Cabling ABB AMZ1250 (7) Unit [ea.] 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Weight [kg] 44000 15000 12000 1700 1000 800 150 75 75 6000 Total Weight [kg] 88000 30000 24000 3400 2000 1600 300 150 150 12000 Total 161600 LCG [m] 80 105 102 10 10 10 40 40 40 55 18378000 87.68 TCG [m] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VCG [m] 3.2 4.8 2.7 3.25 3.25 3.25 4 3.25 3.25 13 863925 4.122 15
  • 152. Table 5-4 -ESWBS 300 estimate 300 - Electric Systems Item Description/ Source Emergency Generator Switchboard, drives Transformers Lighting System Lighting System Lighting System Uptakes Genset Intake Genset Exhaust Fuel Service System Fuel Service System Electric Operation Fluids Batteries Battery Chargers Main Genset Standby Genset Cummins DQDAA (8) ABB ACS 6000 Navigation Lights Exterior Lights Interior Lights Pipings Valves Wartsila 16V32 (9) Wartsila 16V32 (9) Unit [ea.] 1 3 3 40 20 600 6 2 2 1 60 2 20 2 2 1 Weight [kg] 2500 9000 200 3 4 2 40 45 250 350 2.5 60 25 100 121000 121000 Total Weight [kg] 2500 27000 600 120 80 1200 240 90 500 350 150 120 500 200 242000 121000 Total 396650 LCG [m] 47.9 46.2 46.2 60 60 60 105 43 43 43 43 47.9 50 50 43 43 17200688 43.36 TCG [m] 5.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14500 0.04 VCG [m] 10.8 3.25 3.25 16.8 14 12.3 3.25 3.25 3.25 7.8 7.8 3.25 12.3 12.3 3.2 3.2 1311794 3.31 16
  • 153. Table 5-5 -ESWBS 400 estimate 400 - Command and Surveillance Item Telephone System Alarm Television Radio Fire Control System Cables Telescope Window Wipers Description/ Source Unit [ea.] 200 200 110 16 2 1 2 13 Weight [kg] 1 1 4 2 50 200 7 7 Total Weight [kg] 200 200 440 32 100 200 14 91 Total 1277 LCG [m] 60 60 60 60 71 60 7 7 72155 56.50 TCG [m] 0 0 0 0 -5.8 0 0 0 -580 -0.4542 VCG [m] 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 3.25 11.5 18 18 14543 11.39 17
  • 154. Table 5-6 -ESWBS 500 estimate 500 - Auxilliary Systems Item Pumps Fire Fighting Piping Freshwater Piping Ballast Piping Foam Piping MER Intake Fans Intake Fire Dampers MER Exhaust Fans MER Fire Dampers Galley Air Handler Pantry Air Handler Head Air Handler Laundry Air Handler Anchor, equipment Anchor Chain Mooring Bitts Mooring Chocks Liferaft, equipment Oil Spill Containment Description/ Source Bilge and ballast MarinArk (10) Unit [ea.] 10 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 4 1 1 2 2 3 3 6 1 Weight [kg] 250 1500 500 1400 400 25 25 25 25 100 100 100 50 20000 2500 800 700 5800 5000 Total Weight [kg] 2500 1500 500 1400 400 50 50 50 50 400 400 100 50 40000 5000 2400 2100 34800 5000 Total 96750 LCG [m] 74 60 60 60 55 55 55 55 55 91.5 91.5 72.4 25 3.5 3.5 60 60 78 60 3945590 40.78 TCG [m] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 VCG [m] 3.25 3.25 11 10 3.2 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 10 10 8 8 16.8 3.25 1134740 11.73 18
  • 155. Table 5-7 -ESWBS 600 estimate 600 - Outfit and Furnishing Super. Paint Hull Paint Hull Primer elevator Deck 1 Deck 2 Deck 3 Deck 4 Deck 5 Deck 6 Deck 7 Unit [ea.] 1.5 1.5 1.5 6 1802 1870 2159 1959 1851 1665 930 Description/ Source Blue Water (11) Teamac (12) Teamac (12) 2 crew, 4 pax stores, misc. crew, public public public public, bridge deck, public deck Weight [kg] 431.33 484.95 1718.13 2000.00 95.00 115.00 140.00 130.00 135.00 135.00 50.00 Total Weight [kg] 646.99 727.43 2577.20 12000.00 171190.00 215050.00 302260.00 254670.00 249885.00 224775.00 46500.00 Total Item 1480281.62 LCG [m] 60 60 60 60 66 64 62.9 61.8 62 63 80 94143292 63.5982 TCG [m] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0000 VCG [m] 16.8 6.6 6.6 13.8 4.8 7.8 10.8 13.8 16.8 19.8 22.8 19185049.02 12.96 Table 5-8 –Paint data Item SS Paint (11) Hull Paint (12) Primer (12) Coverage [m^2/l] 9.82 13 3.44 Density [kg/l] 1.2 1.6 1.5 Table 5-9 –Paint application Item Superstructure Paint Hull Primer Hull Paint Surface Area [m2] 3529.70 3940.25 3940.25 Liquid Volume [l] 359.44 1145.42 303.10 Liquid Weight [kg] 431.33 1718.13 484.95 19
  • 156. Appendix 2 – Parametric weight data Figure 5-2 - Parametric weight data Ship Allure of the Seas Freedom of the Seas Voyager of the Seas Radiance of the Seas Legend of the Seas Grandeur of the Seas Enchantment of the Seas Celebrity Silhouette Celebrity Xpedition Celebrity Constellation Celebrity Century Azamara Journey Mein Shiff 2 DWT [t] 17600 11319 11073 10759 [-] 9270 10979 11894 571 11747 7260 3323 10123 LS [t] 86200 59700 53700 38612 29102 [-] 35000 50062 1769 35406 29450,5 12770 32921 B [m] 47 38,6 38,6 32,2 32 32,2 32,2 36,8 14 32,2 32,2 25,46 32,2 LOA [m] 362 339 311 293 264 279,6 302 319 88,5 294 246,1 181,28 263,9 L/B [-] 7,702 8,782 8,057 9,099 8,25 8,683 9,379 8,668 6,321 9,13 7,643 7,12 8,196 20
  • 157. Appendix 3 – NAPA stability curves Figure 5-3. Stability curve, load case 1 21
  • 158. Figure 5-4. Stability curve, load case 2 22
  • 159. Figure 5-5. Stability curve, load case 3 23
  • 160. Figure 5-6. Stability curve, load case 4 24
  • 161. Appendix 4 – NAPA strength curves Figure 5-7. Strength curves, load case 1 25
  • 162. Figure 5-8. Strength curves, load case 2 26
  • 163. Figure 5-9. Strength curves, load case 3 27
  • 164. Figure 5-10. Strength curves, load case 4 28
  • 165. Appendix 5 – NAPA loading conditions results Figure 5-11. Stability criteria results, load case 1 29
  • 166. Figure 5-12. Stability criteria results, load case 2 30
  • 167. Figure 5-13. Stability criteria results, load case 3 31
  • 168. Figure 5-14. Stability criteria results, load case 4 32
  • 169. Appendix 5 – NAPA curves of max KG and min GM Figure 5-15. KG limit curve Figure 5-16. GM limit curve 33
  • 170. AALTO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING Department of Applied Mechanics Marine Technology Damage Stability M/S Arianna 1
  • 171. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... 2 1. DAMAGE STABILITY ................................................................................................... 3 1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.2 DAMAGE SCENARIOS ............................................................................................................... 3 1.3 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 4 APPENDIX 1 - DAMAGE CASE 1 FOR LOADING CONDITIONS 1, 2 AND 3 ............ 5 APPENDIX 2 - DAMAGE CASE 2 FOR LOADING CONDITIONS 1, 2 AND 3 .......... 14 APPENDIX 3 - DAMAGE CASE 3 FOR LOADING CONDITIONS 1, 2 AND 3 .......... 23 2
  • 172. 1. Damage stability 1.1 Introduction Once the intact stability of the vessel has been assessed in the four loading conditions described in the previous chapter, the damage stability can be assessed. At some point of the ship’s lifetime, it might encounter some damage. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate some probable damage scenarios and predict the ships ability to withstand the damage and assess whether she will survive the damage or not. The damage stability evaluation was done in NAPA, which calculates damage stability in different loading conditions. Thus, initial conditions were defined by specifying draft, trim, and metacentric height, which was taken from the intact stability assessment results. It has been decided to assess three loading conditions, while the lightship load case was neglected. Three different damage scenarios were made and all seemed quite reasonable for this type of ship. The calculations for damage stability were done for each loading condition, with nine scenarios in total. The damage cases are described in following subchapters. 1.2 Damage scenarios 1.2.1 Damage case 1 The first damage scenario simulates a side collision where another ship collides with this particular ship at an angle of 90 degrees, therefore, the PS side machinery room is filled with water and the middle engine room is damaged after deep penetration, after which it is slowly filled with water. The penetrations did not reach to the SB side machinery room, so this one remained undamaged. 1.2.2 Damage case 2 In this scenario, the bulb is damaged so that the upper and lower sections are damaged and filled with water after the ship collides with another ship at an angle of 90 degrees. This might be the case where ship has a straight collision with some port construction, for example. First, the machinery room for thrusters is damaged and after that the room behind the thruster room. 3
  • 173. 1.2.3 Damage case 3 In this case, it is assumed that another ship collides with the aft of our ship at an angle of 90 degrees at 21 m from AP. First, it penetrates the outer shell and damages the side and bottom plating of the propulsion motor room where electric generators are located. Shortly after that, the sides of two surrounding rooms are damaged as well. Finally, nearly the whole machinery room for generators is filled with water. 1.3 Summary Besides the vessel’s intact stability calculations, it must also be assumed that the vessel suffers some damages during her lifetime and therefore it is necessary to evaluate the ship’s ability to withstand and survive such incidents with minimal losses. Damages stability analysis of the project ship was conducted in NAPA and the results showed that the ship will not sink in a case of damaged described in previously defined load cases. The most critical scenario was damage case 1, with a deep side penetration due to another ship in arrival loading condition. The ship was heeled due to that by, in the final stage, approximately 14 degrees, but with this heeling angle it manages to float and the evacuation is not needed. With the two other scenarios, only a small trim angle was obtained and this can be balanced with ballast tanks. Although the ship is able to float, however, it is not capable of operating by her own power anymore, due to the damages in the propulsion motor room where generators are located. Therefore, it is reasonable to evacuate the passengers from the ship, as this ship has to be towed to back on the port. With these considerations in mind, there is an endless number of possible damage cases that are not covered in this project work and therefore analysis into the damage stability of the ship would definitely be needed in further design. One of the scenarios that should also be considered in analysis is a grounding scenario, as this is nowadays a statistically common case in bad weather conditions near to the shore. 4
  • 174. Appendix 1 - Damage case 1 for loading conditions 1, 2 and 3 5
  • 175. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:47 USER TEEK Page 1 INIT CASE: INI.D => Draught: 5.38 m, Trim: 0 m, Heel: 0 deg, GM0: 1.755 m Damage: MIDSHIP Type: NORMAL Side: AUTOMATIC Phases: 0 ---------Stage: 1 Damaged compartments: MACH4 ---------Stage: FINAL Damaged compartments: MACH5 DAMAGE CASE: MIDSHIP => Extension: frames #54...#78, transv. -3 -> 9.01 m Flooded in at equilibrium of case INI.D/MIDSHIP: 1205.3 ton DAMAGED COMPARTMENTS: --------------------------------------Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------MACH4 757.3 0.85 MACH4 757.3 0.85 0 10 20 30 40 50 --------------------------------------Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------MACH5 907.2 0.85 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 PROFILE 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=2.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=1.2 X=56 FLOATING Tm = Ta = Tf = Trim = X=86 POSITION AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM (CASE INI.D/MIDSHIP) 5.90 m GM = 1.56 m at zero heel 5.22 m GM = 2.35 m at equilibrium 6.59 m Heel = 12.62 deg to PS side 1.38 m X=110
  • 176. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:47 USER TEEK Page 2 Case INI.D/MIDSHIP PROFILE Z=5 Z=2.3 Z=1.2 X=56 X=86 X=110 GZ CURVE AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM Heel 0.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.0010.0012.0015.0020.0030.0040.0050.00 GZ -0.40-0.37-0.32-0.26-0.19-0.10-0.02 0.10 0.36 0.96 1.20 1.00 T 6.01 6.02 6.02 6.02 6.00 5.96 5.92 5.83 5.63 5.01 4.23 3.34 Trim 1.07 1.08 1.12 1.17 1.23 1.31 1.36 1.42 1.48 1.55 1.86 2.20 Maximum righting arm (max. GZ) Max GZ at angle of heel Range of positive GZ curve Area under GZ curve m deg deg mrad EPHI righting lever m GZ (PS) 1.20 (PS) 40.0 (PS) 37.4 (PS) 0.531 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 heeling angle -0.5 50 degree PS
  • 177. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results Case INI.D/MIDSHIP DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:47 USER TEEK Page 3 PhaseCriterion Description Req. ATTV Unit Status ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOST CRITICAL OPENINGS: Name Frame Height # [m] OP1 48 6.9 OP2 30 6.9 OP3 18 6.9 Y-coord [m] -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 Side PS PS PS Dist. to water [m] 2.93 3.15 3.31 Immersion Reduction per angle[deg] 1deg. of heel -0.13 -0.13 -0.13 DURING FLOODING: ----------------------------------------------------------------------Case Stage Phase Side T TR Heel MinGM Severity m m degree m ----------------------------------------------------------------------INI.D/MID.INTACT EQ PS 5.38 0.00 0.0 INI.D/MID.1 EQ PS 5.52 0.85 13.4 INI.D/MID.FINAL EQ PS 5.90 1.38 12.6 -
  • 178. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:47 USER TEEK Page 1 INIT CASE: INI.M => Draught: 5.38 m, Trim: 0 m, Heel: 0 deg, GM0: 1.581 m Damage: MIDSHIP Type: NORMAL Side: AUTOMATIC Phases: 0 ---------Stage: 1 Damaged compartments: MACH4 ---------Stage: FINAL Damaged compartments: MACH5 DAMAGE CASE: MIDSHIP => Extension: frames #54...#78, transv. -3 -> 9.01 m Flooded in at equilibrium of case INI.M/MIDSHIP: 1212.2 ton DAMAGED COMPARTMENTS: --------------------------------------Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------MACH4 757.3 0.85 MACH4 757.3 0.85 0 10 20 30 40 50 --------------------------------------Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------MACH5 907.2 0.85 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 PROFILE 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=2.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=1.2 X=56 FLOATING Tm = Ta = Tf = Trim = X=86 POSITION AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM (CASE INI.M/MIDSHIP) 5.88 m GM = 1.39 m at zero heel 5.18 m GM = 2.32 m at equilibrium 6.58 m Heel = 13.59 deg to PS side 1.40 m X=110
  • 179. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:47 USER TEEK Page 2 Case INI.M/MIDSHIP PROFILE Z=5 Z=2.3 Z=1.2 X=56 X=86 X=110 GZ CURVE AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM Heel 0.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.0010.0012.0015.0020.0030.0040.0050.00 GZ -0.40-0.38-0.33-0.27-0.22-0.13-0.06 0.06 0.30 0.87 1.09 0.87 T 6.02 6.02 6.03 6.02 6.01 5.97 5.92 5.83 5.63 5.02 4.23 3.34 Trim 1.07 1.08 1.12 1.17 1.23 1.32 1.37 1.42 1.48 1.56 1.86 2.20 Maximum righting arm (max. GZ) Max GZ at angle of heel Range of positive GZ curve Area under GZ curve m deg deg mrad EPHI righting lever m GZ (PS) 1.09 (PS) 39.5 (PS) 36.4 (PS) 0.473 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 heeling angle -0.5 50 degree PS
  • 180. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results Case INI.M/MIDSHIP DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:47 USER TEEK Page 3 PhaseCriterion Description Req. ATTV Unit Status ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOST CRITICAL OPENINGS: Name Frame Height # [m] OP1 48 6.9 OP2 30 6.9 OP3 18 6.9 Y-coord [m] -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 Side PS PS PS Dist. to water [m] 3.07 3.30 3.46 Immersion Reduction per angle[deg] 1deg. of heel -0.12 -0.12 -0.12 DURING FLOODING: ----------------------------------------------------------------------Case Stage Phase Side T TR Heel MinGM Severity m m degree m ----------------------------------------------------------------------INI.M/MID.INTACT EQ PS 5.38 0.00 0.0 INI.M/MID.1 EQ PS 5.49 0.89 14.7 INI.M/MID.FINAL EQ PS 5.88 1.40 13.6 -
  • 181. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:46 USER TEEK Page 1 INIT CASE: INI.A => Draught: 5.00 m, Trim: 0 m, Heel: 0 deg, GM0: 1.624 m Damage: MIDSHIP Type: NORMAL Side: AUTOMATIC Phases: 0 ---------Stage: 1 Damaged compartments: MACH4 ---------Stage: FINAL Damaged compartments: MACH5 DAMAGE CASE: MIDSHIP => Extension: frames #54...#78, transv. -3 -> 9.01 m Flooded in at equilibrium of case INI.A/MIDSHIP: 1122.9 ton DAMAGED COMPARTMENTS: --------------------------------------Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------MACH4 757.3 0.85 MACH4 757.3 0.85 0 10 20 30 40 50 --------------------------------------Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------MACH5 907.2 0.85 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 PROFILE 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=2.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=1.2 X=56 FLOATING Tm = Ta = Tf = Trim = X=86 POSITION AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM (CASE INI.A/MIDSHIP) 5.46 m GM = 1.31 m at zero heel 4.79 m GM = 2.15 m at equilibrium 6.13 m Heel = 13.80 deg to PS side 1.35 m X=110
  • 182. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:46 USER TEEK Page 2 Case INI.A/MIDSHIP PROFILE Z=5 Z=2.3 Z=1.2 X=56 X=86 X=110 GZ CURVE AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM Heel 0.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.0010.0012.0015.0020.0030.0040.0050.00 GZ -0.40-0.37-0.32-0.27-0.22-0.13-0.06 0.05 0.29 0.86 1.12 0.90 T 5.58 5.59 5.60 5.59 5.58 5.54 5.50 5.43 5.24 4.63 3.77 2.80 Trim 0.98 1.00 1.03 1.08 1.13 1.23 1.29 1.38 1.48 1.60 1.91 2.31 Maximum righting arm (max. GZ) Max GZ at angle of heel Range of positive GZ curve Area under GZ curve m deg deg mrad EPHI righting lever m GZ (PS) 1.12 (PS) 40.0 (PS) 36.2 (PS) 0.476 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 heeling angle -0.5 50 degree PS
  • 183. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results Case INI.A/MIDSHIP DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:46 USER TEEK Page 3 PhaseCriterion Description Req. ATTV Unit Status ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOST CRITICAL OPENINGS: Name Frame Height # [m] OP1 48 6.9 OP2 30 6.9 OP3 18 6.9 Y-coord [m] -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 Side PS PS PS Dist. to water [m] 3.51 3.73 3.88 Immersion Reduction per angle[deg] 1deg. of heel -0.12 -0.12 -0.12 DURING FLOODING: ----------------------------------------------------------------------Case Stage Phase Side T TR Heel MinGM Severity m m degree m ----------------------------------------------------------------------INI.A/MID.INTACT EQ PS 5.00 0.00 0.0 INI.A/MID.1 EQ PS 5.11 0.85 14.5 INI.A/MID.FINAL EQ PS 5.46 1.35 13.8 -
  • 184. Appendix 2 - Damage case 2 for loading conditions 1, 2 and 3 14
  • 185. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:49 USER TEEK Page 1 INIT CASE: INI.D => Draught: 5.38 m, Trim: 0 m, Heel: 0 deg, GM0: 1.755 m Damage: FORESHIP Type: NORMAL Side: AUTOMATIC Phases: 0 ---------Stage: 1 Damaged compartments: MACH9 ---------Stage: FINAL Damaged compartments: VOID1 DAMAGE CASE: FORESHIP => Extension: frames #103...#116, transv. -3.63 -> 3.63 m Flooded in at equilibrium of case INI.D/FORESHIP: 139.9 ton DAMAGED COMPARTMENTS: --------------------------------------Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------MACH9 23.1 0.85 MACH9 23.1 0.85 0 10 20 30 40 50 --------------------------------------Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------VOID1 123.0 0.95 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 PROFILE 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=2.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=1.2 X=56 FLOATING Tm = Ta = Tf = Trim = X=86 POSITION AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM (CASE INI.D/FORESHIP) 5.48 m GM = 1.77 m at zero heel 5.17 m GM = 1.77 m at equilibrium 5.80 m Heel = 0.00 0.63 m X=110
  • 186. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:49 USER TEEK Page 2 Case INI.D/FORESHIP PROFILE Z=5 Z=2.3 Z=1.2 X=56 GZ CURVE AT Heel 0.00 GZ 0.00 T 5.48 Trim 0.63 X=86 X=110 FINAL EQUILIBRIUM 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.0010.0012.0015.0020.0030.0040.0050.00 0.03 0.09 0.16 0.23 0.33 0.40 0.52 0.73 1.17 1.37 1.13 5.48 5.47 5.45 5.42 5.36 5.31 5.22 5.02 4.43 3.56 2.60 0.63 0.64 0.66 0.69 0.75 0.80 0.86 0.96 1.13 1.42 1.80 Maximum righting arm (max. GZ) Max GZ at angle of heel Range of positive GZ curve Area under GZ curve m deg deg mrad EPHI m GZ (PS) 1.37 (PS) 39.5 (PS) 50.0 (PS) 0.737 righting lever 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 heeling angle PS 50 degree
  • 187. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results Case INI.D/FORESHIP DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:49 USER TEEK Page 3 PhaseCriterion Description Req. ATTV Unit Status ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOST CRITICAL OPENINGS: Name Frame Height # [m] OP1 48 6.9 OP2 30 6.9 OP3 18 6.9 Y-coord [m] -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 Side PS PS PS Dist. to water [m] 1.48 1.58 1.65 Immersion Reduction per angle[deg] 1deg. of heel -0.16 -0.16 -0.16 DURING FLOODING: ----------------------------------------------------------------------Case Stage Phase Side T TR Heel MinGM Severity m m degree m ----------------------------------------------------------------------INI.D/FOR.INTACT EQ PS 5.38 0.00 0.0 INI.D/FOR.1 EQ PS 5.39 0.08 0.0 INI.D/FOR.FINAL EQ PS 5.48 0.63 0.0 -
  • 188. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:50 USER TEEK Page 1 INIT CASE: INI.M => Draught: 5.38 m, Trim: 0 m, Heel: 0 deg, GM0: 1.581 m Damage: FORESHIP Type: NORMAL Side: AUTOMATIC Phases: 0 ---------Stage: 1 Damaged compartments: MACH9 ---------Stage: FINAL Damaged compartments: VOID1 DAMAGE CASE: FORESHIP => Extension: frames #103...#116, transv. -3.63 -> 3.63 m Flooded in at equilibrium of case INI.M/FORESHIP: 139.9 ton DAMAGED COMPARTMENTS: --------------------------------------Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------MACH9 23.1 0.85 MACH9 23.1 0.85 0 10 20 30 40 50 --------------------------------------Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------VOID1 123.0 0.95 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 PROFILE 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=2.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=1.2 X=56 FLOATING Tm = Ta = Tf = Trim = X=86 POSITION AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM (CASE INI.M/FORESHIP) 5.49 m GM = 1.59 m at zero heel 5.17 m GM = 1.59 m at equilibrium 5.80 m Heel = 0.00 0.63 m X=110
  • 189. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:50 USER TEEK Page 2 Case INI.M/FORESHIP PROFILE Z=5 Z=2.3 Z=1.2 X=56 GZ CURVE AT Heel 0.00 GZ 0.00 T 5.49 Trim 0.63 X=86 X=110 FINAL EQUILIBRIUM 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.0010.0012.0015.0020.0030.0040.0050.00 0.03 0.08 0.14 0.20 0.30 0.37 0.47 0.67 1.09 1.26 1.00 5.48 5.47 5.46 5.43 5.36 5.31 5.22 5.02 4.43 3.56 2.60 0.63 0.64 0.66 0.69 0.75 0.80 0.86 0.96 1.13 1.42 1.80 Maximum righting arm (max. GZ) Max GZ at angle of heel Range of positive GZ curve Area under GZ curve m deg deg mrad EPHI righting lever m GZ (PS) 1.26 (PS) 39.0 (PS) 50.0 (PS) 0.675 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 heeling angle PS 50 degree
  • 190. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results Case INI.M/FORESHIP DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:50 USER TEEK Page 3 PhaseCriterion Description Req. ATTV Unit Status ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOST CRITICAL OPENINGS: Name Frame Height # [m] OP1 48 6.9 OP2 30 6.9 OP3 18 6.9 Y-coord [m] -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 Side PS PS PS Dist. to water [m] 1.48 1.58 1.65 Immersion Reduction per angle[deg] 1deg. of heel -0.16 -0.16 -0.16 DURING FLOODING: ----------------------------------------------------------------------Case Stage Phase Side T TR Heel MinGM Severity m m degree m ----------------------------------------------------------------------INI.M/FOR.INTACT EQ PS 5.38 0.00 0.0 INI.M/FOR.1 EQ PS 5.40 0.08 0.0 INI.M/FOR.FINAL EQ PS 5.49 0.63 0.0 -
  • 191. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:48 USER TEEK Page 1 INIT CASE: INI.A => Draught: 5.00 m, Trim: 0 m, Heel: 0 deg, GM0: 1.624 m Damage: FORESHIP Type: NORMAL Side: AUTOMATIC Phases: 0 ---------Stage: 1 Damaged compartments: MACH9 ---------Stage: FINAL Damaged compartments: VOID1 DAMAGE CASE: FORESHIP => Extension: frames #103...#116, transv. -3.63 -> 3.63 m Flooded in at equilibrium of case INI.A/FORESHIP: 139.9 ton DAMAGED COMPARTMENTS: --------------------------------------Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------MACH9 23.1 0.85 MACH9 23.1 0.85 0 10 20 30 40 50 --------------------------------------Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------VOID1 123.0 0.95 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 PROFILE 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=2.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=1.2 X=56 FLOATING Tm = Ta = Tf = Trim = X=86 POSITION AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM (CASE INI.A/FORESHIP) 5.10 m GM = 1.67 m at zero heel 4.76 m GM = 1.67 m at equilibrium 5.45 m Heel = 0.00 0.69 m X=110
  • 192. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:48 USER TEEK Page 2 Case INI.A/FORESHIP PROFILE Z=5 Z=2.3 Z=1.2 X=56 GZ CURVE AT Heel 0.00 GZ 0.00 T 5.10 Trim 0.69 X=86 X=110 FINAL EQUILIBRIUM 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.0010.0012.0015.0020.0030.0040.0050.00 0.03 0.09 0.15 0.21 0.31 0.38 0.50 0.70 1.09 1.25 1.02 5.10 5.09 5.07 5.05 4.99 4.94 4.85 4.66 4.06 3.16 2.13 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.72 0.77 0.81 0.88 1.00 1.23 1.53 1.97 Maximum righting arm (max. GZ) Max GZ at angle of heel Range of positive GZ curve Area under GZ curve m deg deg mrad EPHI righting lever m GZ (PS) 1.25 (PS) 39.0 (PS) 50.0 (PS) 0.683 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 heeling angle PS 50 degree
  • 193. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results Case INI.A/FORESHIP DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:48 USER TEEK Page 3 PhaseCriterion Description Req. ATTV Unit Status ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOST CRITICAL OPENINGS: Name Frame Height # [m] OP1 48 6.9 OP2 30 6.9 OP3 18 6.9 Y-coord [m] -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 Side PS PS PS Dist. to water [m] 1.86 1.98 2.05 Immersion Reduction per angle[deg] 1deg. of heel -0.16 -0.16 -0.16 DURING FLOODING: ----------------------------------------------------------------------Case Stage Phase Side T TR Heel MinGM Severity m m degree m ----------------------------------------------------------------------INI.A/FOR.INTACT EQ PS 5.00 0.00 0.0 INI.A/FOR.1 EQ PS 5.01 0.09 0.0 INI.A/FOR.FINAL EQ PS 5.10 0.69 0.0 -
  • 194. Appendix 3 - Damage case 3 for loading conditions 1, 2 and 3 23
  • 195. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:52 USER TEEK Page 1 INIT CASE: INI.D => Draught: 5.38 m, Trim: 0 m, Heel: 0 deg, GM0: 1.755 m Damage: AFTSHIP Type: NORMAL Side: AUTOMATIC Phases: 0 ---------Stage: 1 Damaged compartments: MACH1 ---------Stage: 2 Damaged compartments: VOID2 ---------Stage: FINAL Damaged compartments: VOID3 DAMAGE CASE: AFTSHIP => Extension: frames #9...#30, transv. -9 -> 9 m Flooded in at equilibrium of case INI.D/AFTSHIP: 927.3 ton DAMAGED COMPARTMENTS: --------------------------------------Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------MACH1 988.7 0.85 MACH1 988.7 0.85 VOID2 213.7 0.95 0 10 20 30 40 50 --------------------------------------Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------MACH1 988.7 0.85 VOID2 213.7 0.95 VOID3 66.9 0.95 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 PROFILE 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=2.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=1.2 X=56 X=86 FLOATING POSITION AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM (CASE INI.D/AFTSHIP) Tm = 5.77 m GM = 1.97 m at zero heel Ta = 6.68 m GM = 1.97 m at equilibrium Tf = 4.87 m Heel = 0.00 Trim = -1.81 m X=110
  • 196. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:52 USER TEEK Page 2 Case INI.D/AFTSHIP PROFILE Z=5 Z=2.3 Z=1.2 X=56 X=86 X=110 GZ CURVE AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM Heel 0.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.0010.0012.0015.0020.0030.0040.0050.00 GZ 0.00 0.03 0.10 0.17 0.24 0.34 0.41 0.51 0.70 1.14 1.32 1.10 T 5.77 5.77 5.76 5.75 5.72 5.67 5.62 5.52 5.30 4.68 3.86 2.94 Trim -1.81-1.81-1.81-1.81-1.81-1.79-1.77-1.68-1.49-1.04-0.80-0.57 Maximum righting arm (max. GZ) Max GZ at angle of heel Range of positive GZ curve Area under GZ curve m deg deg mrad EPHI righting lever m GZ (PS) 1.32 (PS) 39.5 (PS) 50.0 (PS) 0.716 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 heeling angle PS 50 degree
  • 197. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results Case INI.D/AFTSHIP DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:52 USER TEEK Page 3 PhaseCriterion Description Req. ATTV Unit Status ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOST CRITICAL OPENINGS: Name Frame Height # [m] OP1 48 6.9 OP2 30 6.9 OP3 18 6.9 Y-coord [m] -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 Side PS PS PS Dist. to water [m] 0.95 0.66 0.46 Immersion Reduction per angle[deg] 1deg. of heel -0.16 -0.16 -0.16 DURING FLOODING: ----------------------------------------------------------------------Case Stage Phase Side T TR Heel MinGM Severity m m degree m ----------------------------------------------------------------------INI.D/AFT.INTACT EQ PS 5.38 0.00 0.0 INI.D/AFT.1 EQ PS 5.65 -1.16 0.0 INI.D/AFT.2 EQ PS 5.74 -1.69 0.0 INI.D/AFT.FINAL EQ PS 5.77 -1.81 0.0 -
  • 198. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:52 USER TEEK Page 1 INIT CASE: INI.M => Draught: 5.38 m, Trim: 0 m, Heel: 0 deg, GM0: 1.581 m Damage: AFTSHIP Type: NORMAL Side: AUTOMATIC Phases: 0 ---------Stage: 1 Damaged compartments: MACH1 ---------Stage: 2 Damaged compartments: VOID2 ---------Stage: FINAL Damaged compartments: VOID3 DAMAGE CASE: AFTSHIP => Extension: frames #9...#30, transv. -9 -> 9 m Flooded in at equilibrium of case INI.M/AFTSHIP: 927.8 ton DAMAGED COMPARTMENTS: --------------------------------------Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------MACH1 988.7 0.85 MACH1 988.7 0.85 VOID2 213.7 0.95 0 10 20 30 40 50 --------------------------------------Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------MACH1 988.7 0.85 VOID2 213.7 0.95 VOID3 66.9 0.95 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 PROFILE 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=2.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=1.2 X=56 X=86 FLOATING POSITION AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM (CASE INI.M/AFTSHIP) Tm = 5.78 m GM = 1.79 m at zero heel Ta = 6.68 m GM = 1.79 m at equilibrium Tf = 4.87 m Heel = 0.00 Trim = -1.81 m X=110
  • 199. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:52 USER TEEK Page 2 Case INI.M/AFTSHIP PROFILE Z=5 Z=2.3 Z=1.2 X=56 X=86 X=110 GZ CURVE AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM Heel 0.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.0010.0012.0015.0020.0030.0040.0050.00 GZ 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.16 0.22 0.31 0.37 0.47 0.64 1.05 1.21 0.96 T 5.78 5.78 5.77 5.75 5.72 5.67 5.62 5.52 5.30 4.69 3.86 2.94 Trim -1.81-1.81-1.81-1.81-1.81-1.79-1.77-1.68-1.49-1.05-0.81-0.57 Maximum righting arm (max. GZ) Max GZ at angle of heel Range of positive GZ curve Area under GZ curve m deg deg mrad EPHI righting lever m GZ (PS) 1.21 (PS) 39.0 (PS) 50.0 (PS) 0.654 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 heeling angle PS 50 degree
  • 200. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results Case INI.M/AFTSHIP DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:52 USER TEEK Page 3 PhaseCriterion Description Req. ATTV Unit Status ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOST CRITICAL OPENINGS: Name Frame Height # [m] OP1 48 6.9 OP2 30 6.9 OP3 18 6.9 Y-coord [m] -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 Side PS PS PS Dist. to water [m] 0.95 0.66 0.45 Immersion Reduction per angle[deg] 1deg. of heel -0.16 -0.16 -0.16 DURING FLOODING: ----------------------------------------------------------------------Case Stage Phase Side T TR Heel MinGM Severity m m degree m ----------------------------------------------------------------------INI.M/AFT.INTACT EQ PS 5.38 0.00 0.0 INI.M/AFT.1 EQ PS 5.65 -1.16 0.0 INI.M/AFT.2 EQ PS 5.74 -1.69 0.0 INI.M/AFT.FINAL EQ PS 5.78 -1.81 0.0 -
  • 201. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:51 USER TEEK Page 1 INIT CASE: INI.A => Draught: 5.00 m, Trim: 0 m, Heel: 0 deg, GM0: 1.624 m Damage: AFTSHIP Type: NORMAL Side: AUTOMATIC Phases: 0 ---------Stage: 1 Damaged compartments: MACH1 ---------Stage: 2 Damaged compartments: VOID2 ---------Stage: FINAL Damaged compartments: VOID3 DAMAGE CASE: AFTSHIP => Extension: frames #9...#30, transv. -9 -> 9 m Flooded in at equilibrium of case INI.A/AFTSHIP: 876.7 ton DAMAGED COMPARTMENTS: --------------------------------------Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------MACH1 988.7 0.85 MACH1 988.7 0.85 VOID2 213.7 0.95 0 10 20 30 40 50 --------------------------------------Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------MACH1 988.7 0.85 VOID2 213.7 0.95 VOID3 66.9 0.95 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 PROFILE 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=2.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z=1.2 X=56 X=86 FLOATING POSITION AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM (CASE INI.A/AFTSHIP) Tm = 5.39 m GM = 1.96 m at zero heel Ta = 6.33 m GM = 1.96 m at equilibrium Tf = 4.45 m Heel = 0.00 Trim = -1.89 m X=110
  • 202. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:51 USER TEEK Page 2 Case INI.A/AFTSHIP PROFILE Z=5 Z=2.3 Z=1.2 X=56 X=86 X=110 GZ CURVE AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM Heel 0.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.0010.0012.0015.0020.0030.0040.0050.00 GZ 0.00 0.03 0.10 0.17 0.23 0.33 0.38 0.47 0.64 1.04 1.23 1.00 T 5.39 5.39 5.38 5.37 5.34 5.28 5.23 5.14 4.93 4.31 3.43 2.45 Trim -1.89-1.89-1.88-1.87-1.86-1.82-1.77-1.66-1.44-0.94-0.54-0.20 Maximum righting arm (max. GZ) Max GZ at angle of heel Range of positive GZ curve Area under GZ curve m deg deg mrad EPHI righting lever m GZ (PS) 1.23 (PS) 39.5 (PS) 50.0 (PS) 0.662 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 heeling angle PS 50 degree
  • 203. Napa Oy NAPA/D/DAM/121113 ARIANNA/A Arianna Damage Results Case INI.A/AFTSHIP DATE 2013-12-04 TIME 19:51 USER TEEK Page 3 PhaseCriterion Description Req. ATTV Unit Status ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOST CRITICAL OPENINGS: Name Frame Height # [m] OP1 48 6.9 OP2 30 6.9 OP3 18 6.9 Y-coord [m] -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 Side PS PS PS Dist. to water [m] 1.33 1.02 0.81 Immersion Reduction per angle[deg] 1deg. of heel -0.16 -0.16 -0.16 DURING FLOODING: ----------------------------------------------------------------------Case Stage Phase Side T TR Heel MinGM Severity m m degree m ----------------------------------------------------------------------INI.A/AFT.INTACT EQ PS 5.00 0.00 0.0 INI.A/AFT.1 EQ PS 5.26 -1.22 0.0 INI.A/AFT.2 EQ PS 5.36 -1.77 0.0 INI.A/AFT.FINAL EQ PS 5.39 -1.89 0.0 -
  • 204. AALTO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING Department of Applied Mechanics Marine Technology Cost and Profitability M/S Arianna 0
  • 205. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... 1 1. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 3 1.1 ACQUISITION COST .................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 PROFITABILITY STUDIES .......................................................................................................... 9 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 14 APPENDIX 1 – PARAMETRIC DATA .............................................................................. 15 APPENDIX 2 – CATEGORIZED ACQUISITION COST CALCULATIONS ............... 17 APPENDIX 3 – ANNUAL OPERATING CALCULATIONS ........................................... 21 APPENDIX 4 – PROFITABILITY CALCULATIONS ..................................................... 23 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 - Gross registered tonnage vs. lightship weight ........................................................ 4 Figure 1-2- Newbuild cost vs. gross tonnage ............................................................................. 4 Figure 1-3- Truncated newbuild cost vs. gross tonnage ............................................................. 5 Figure 1-4- Acquisition cost breakdown .................................................................................... 8 Figure 1-5 - Categorized annual operating expense breakdown .............................................. 11 Figure 1-6 - Ticket rates by tonnage and category ................................................................... 12 1
  • 206. LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 - Acquisition cost groupings ...................................................................................... 6 Table 1-2 – Costs per tonne........................................................................................................ 7 Table 1-3 –ESWBS acquisition cost summary .......................................................................... 7 Table 1-4 – Final acquisition cost estimate ................................................................................ 8 Table 1-5 - Operating cost categories ...................................................................................... 10 Table 1-6 - Weighted ticket price ............................................................................................. 12 break Table A1- 1 - Parametric gross tonnage data ........................................................................... 15 Table A1- 2 - Parametric brand life data .................................................................................. 15 Table A1- 3 – Truncated parametric cost data ......................................................................... 16 break Table A2- 1 - ESWBS cost overview ....................................................................................... 17 Table A2- 2 - Cost breakdown overview ................................................................................. 17 Table A2- 3 - Margin application overview ............................................................................. 18 Table A2- 4 - ESWBS 100 costs .............................................................................................. 18 Table A2- 5 - ESWBS 200 costs .............................................................................................. 18 Table A2- 6 - ESWBS 300 costs .............................................................................................. 19 Table A2- 7 - ESWBS 400 costs .............................................................................................. 19 Table A2- 8 - ESWBS 500 costs .............................................................................................. 20 Table A2- 9 - ESWBS 600 costs .............................................................................................. 20 break Table A3- 1 – Annual fuel costs............................................................................................... 21 Table A3- 2 - Annual payroll costs .......................................................................................... 21 Table A3- 3 – Annual port costs .............................................................................................. 21 Table A3- 4 - Annual consumable costs .................................................................................. 21 Table A3- 5 - Annual maintenance and capital costs ............................................................... 22 Table A3- 6 – Total annual costs ............................................................................................. 22 break Table A4- 1 - Daily required freight rate calculations ............................................................. 23 Table A4- 2 - Annual equivalent breakeven analysis .............................................................. 24 2
  • 207. 1. Economic analysis Economic considerations for a cruise ship are crucial. Not only must the initial cost be calculated, but additional factors must also be considered in order to ensure the ship’s operational profitability. Annual operating costs and revenue figures are examples of parameters that determine the success of a ship. For this analysis, it was a point not only to compute the estimated cost of building the ship, but also to perform a profitability analysis in order to find the minimum charge per person needed to guarantee a profit. This section of the report summarizes all steps in performing the cost analysis for this ship. 1.1 Acquisition cost The economic analysis was initiated with an estimation of the ship’s new-build cost. There were two methods used in estimating this value: a parametric study and an overhead cost analysis based on industry guidelines and the previously defined breakdown structure for the ship’s components. Both methods should be considered when selecting the final acquisition cost estimate. 1.1.1 Parametric Analysis Collecting and analysing cost data for reference cruise ships gives baseline values with which to compare later calculated ones. This will serve as a reasonability check for the selected estimation method. The most easily accessible measure of a cruise ship’s size is its gross tonnage, as this is the parameter preferred by the industry, along with lower bed capacity and double occupancy (1). One caveat to this is the difficulty in correlating the gross tonnage, a volumetric measurement, with the weight displacement. The most common definition of gross tonnage is that set forth by IMO, which relates gross tonnage to the gross volume of a ship, as follows (2). [ ( )]( ) [1] Since the gross volume of current ships is not often recorded, a parametric comparison between known values for gross tonnage and lightship weight was used. After plotting the two values for several reference ships, it is clear that a strong correlation exists between the two parameters, as shown in Figure 1-1. 3
  • 208. Gross Tonnage [thousand GRT] Gross Tonnage vs. Lightship Weight 200 150 100 References 50 new design 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Lightship Weight [thousand t] 70 80 90 Figure 1-1 - Gross registered tonnage vs. lightship weight This correlation makes it possible to compare this ship to existing references directly. From this trend line, the gross tonnage is approximated as 6577 GRT. In order to compile a useful set of parametric cost data, new-build cost information for 172 cruise ships was collected. After organizing the data, a very weak correlation between ship size and acquisition cost was initially found. After taking the effect of interest into account, however, a strong trend was identified. The simple relationship between the net present value (NPV), interest (i), acquisition cost (AC), and age (n) was used in this regard. This relationship is shown in the equation below. ( ) 1-1 Original Cost w/Inflation [mill USD] The resultant graphical trend for all data is shown in Figure 1-2. Newbuild Cost vs. GRT with Inflation 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 Gross Registered Tonnage [GRT] 120000 140000 160000 Figure 1-2- Newbuild cost vs. gross tonnage 4
  • 209. An estimate with all data, however, will likely be too low. This is due to the effect of including much larger ships into the analysis. In relation, there are fewer ships within our size range, meaning they have less effect on the trend line than the larger ships, which include many additional components. Therefore, in order to achieve a more accurate estimation, the data was truncated by implementing a 20,000 GRT size limit. With this truncation, a new regression was approximated that fits the smaller ship data with much more certainty. This is shown in Figure 1-3. Newbuild Cost vs. GRT with Inflation Original Cost with Inflation [millions USD] 200 150 100 References 50 new design 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Gross Registered Tonnage [GRT] 12000 14000 16000 Figure 1-3- Truncated newbuild cost vs. gross tonnage The smaller ships are no longer devalued and the result is a larger initial cost value. From this, a final reference acquisition cost of approximately 67 million USD is selected. 1.1.2 Detailed acquisition cost estimate A second method of estimating the acquisition cost is to systematically categorize the ship’s components and estimate the cost based on weight. This method is especially useful during early design stages, where, for typical ships, the general cost structure will be known. A high degree of accuracy is not needed for budgeting, as variations in pricing can easily occur even when detailed quotations are obtained; up to a 15% margin for error is expected and acceptable at this stage of planning (3). Therefore, approximations will be used where quotations are not available. Based on its function, a ship component can be assigned to an appropriate category for which historical data is available. As such, approximate unit costs can be applied in order to calculate a total weight for any component, subsystem, or system. During the first iterations of the design spiral, eight cost groupings are sufficient to differentiate between different items while ensuring that component costs within a single group do not differ significantly (3). These groupings are listed below in Table 1-1. 5
  • 210. Table 1-1 - Acquisition cost groupings Group Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Steel Steel structure-related Cargo-related Accomodation Deck machinery-related Propulsion Auxilliary Structure-related Group 1 includes both the structural steel and steel labour costs related to the construction of the hull and superstructure. The second group includes all additional structural steel weight, such as structural castings and fabrications, hatch covers, and watertight doors. This is neglected at this point, as it can be assumed that this will comprise only a small percentage of the steel weight and costs. Therefore, this group is essentially absorbed into the first, as the NAPA model does not differentiate between these weights. The third group is not very important for a passenger vessel, but does include firefighting, paint, and plumber work, which are present. Group 4 should contain a very large percentage of the total acquisition cost, as the accommodation outfitting is significant in both weight and price. This is expected, as the ship falls into the luxury cruising market and will accordingly feature very expensive furnishings. According to this grouping system, deck coverings, windows, galley gear, HVAC units, lifts, nautical instruments, and electrical work should also be included within this group. The deck machinery and its related components are described by group 5. Examples include the steering gear, bow thruster, anchoring and mooring equipment, and davits. The final three groups consist of machinery components. With this system, the main engines, gearbox, shaft, and propellers are included in the propulsion group, group 6. The generators and pumps are consolidated into group 7 while uptakes, ventilation, and engine room pipework are included in the final group. For each group, a unit cost per tonne is provided based on statistical data (3). However, the data is only accurate for the time of publication and should be augmented to reflect its net present value in the same way as before. The result is shown in Table 1-2. 6
  • 211. Table 1-2 – Costs per tonne Cost Group Name Cost per tonnne [USD 1993] Cost per tonnne [USD 2014] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Steel Steel structure-related Cargo-related Accomodation Deck machinery-related Propulsion Auxilliary Structure-related 3600 3600 12000 16000 14000 16000 14000 3600 5686 5686 18952 25269 22110 25269 22110 5686 Though the provided grouping is adequate for defining similar costs between components, the final costs should be reported using the same breakdown structure from the weight estimate, the expanded ship breakdown structure (ESWBS). Consistency in this regard is very important, as direct comparisons cannot be made with different methods. Therefore, the individual components from the weight breakdown were assigned to their appropriate cost group based on the aforementioned definitions. Following this, the respective unit cost per tonne was applied and all components were summed for each ESWBS group. The resulting total cost can be taken as the new estimation for acquisition. The detailed calculation tables, by ESWBS group, are provided in Appendix 2 and the summary table is shown in Table 1-3. Table 1-3 –ESWBS acquisition cost summary SWBS Group Description Weight [t] Weight [LT] 100 200 300 400 500 600 [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] Steel Structure Propulsion Plant Electric Plant Command and Surveillance Auxilliary Systems Outfit and Furnishings Serv. Life Allowance Add'l 10% Margin Total without margin Total Approximated Total 2062,4 161,6 396,7 1,3 96,8 1480,3 318,5 424,7 4198,9 4933,7 [-] 2029,8 159,0 390,4 1,3 95,2 1456,9 313,5 418,0 4132,6 4855,8 [-] Total Cost [USD] 11725619 4059472 9901466 31637 2088929 37233460 [-] [-] 65040583 65000000 The result is an acquisition cost estimate that is very close to the parametrically estimated one. The new estimate of roughly 65 million US dollars results in less than a 3% difference when compared to the parametrically estimated value. This validates the chosen method and suggests that the calculated acquisition cost is reasonable. 7
  • 212. In addition to the final estimation, a breakdown of the acquisition costs by component is shown in Figure 1-4, according to the SWBS breakdown. As expected, the outfitting costs are proportionally very high. ESWBS Acquisition Cost Breakdown Steel Structure 18% 6% Propulsion Plant Electric Plant 58% 15% 3% Command and Surveillance Auxilliary Systems Outfit and Furnishings 0% Figure 1-4- Acquisition cost breakdown In the same way that a service life and additional allowance were included in the lightship weight estimate, a margin should be included for the final acquisition cost. At this design stage, two important margins should be considered to ensure a conservative assessment. The first is a ship owner’s cost margin, which covers additional expenses including spare parts, plan approval, supervision, and administrative and legal fees (4). In addition, a design margin should be implemented to account for design, electricity, and trial costs. Appropriate values for these margins are 6% and 5%, respectively (2). Therefore, with margins included, the final acquisition cost for the vessel will be approximately 72 million USD, as shown in Table 1-4. Table 1-4 – Final acquisition cost estimate Description Estimated acquisition cost Shipowner's margin Design margin Final acquisition cost Approximated cost Cost [USD] 65040583 3252029 3902435 72195047 72000000 8
  • 213. 1.2 Profitability studies The next step of the cost analysis is to measure the profitability of the ship. The goal is to calculate the minimum ticket price needed per person in order to ensure that the ship is profitable over the entire service life. This can be accomplished with the required freight rate analysis, which can be considered a required ticket rate calculation for a passenger ship (1). This is a common method used for ships designed to create revenue, including cruise ships. There are many required inputs for this analysis method, as summarized below.  initial cost  ship service life  salvage or resale value  passenger capacity  daily passenger costs  cruise fare  operating days per year  annual revenue sales  annual operating and maintenance costs  equivalent uniform annualized costs The operating days per year is taken as 340 days to allow for ample reserve time for maintenance and the resale value is an estimated 25% of the acquisition cost. The service life was based solely on luxury ship data. Contemporary cruise ships were not taken into account, as it can be assumed that luxury ships will have a lower brand life due to the higher expectation level associated with them. Though luxury ships are not usually scrapped following their retirement, they have often been rebranded to other cruise lines. Therefore, the service life is in terms of brand life and not total ship lifecycle. From the data provided in Table A1-2, an average brand life of 14.3 years was found, which is slightly less than the brand life of cruise ships in general. Thus, a service life of 15 years was chosen for this design. The remaining parameters can be divided into three major groups: acquisition cost, operating costs, and revenue estimates. With the initial cost now known, the remaining variables must be identified with various methods. 9
  • 214. 1.2.1 Annual operating costs The major operating costs were divided into a six level breakdown structure, as shown in Table 1-5. This grouping is based on the major operating cost division seen in modern cruise lines (5). In this section, the basic estimation methods and assumptions for each group will be discussed. The detailed calculation tables are presented in Appendix 3. Table 1-5 - Operating cost categories Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 Description fuel port docking and misc. fees crew payroll maintenance and capital consumables miscellaneous The fuel costs will clearly contribute to a large percentage of the total annual operating costs, as with any cruise ship. Existing prices fluctuate greatly based on date and location, but the current price in Rotterdam, 865 USD/ton, was selected (6). Along with this, the calculated hours at sea, average power according to our machinery calculations, and specific fuel consumption of the engines according to their specifications were used to calculate the annual fuel costs. As seen in Table A3-1, this is found to be approximately 5.6 million USD. For payroll expenses, the crew was divided into five categories: captain, staff captain, senior officer, junior officer, and general crew. The estimated monthly salary, in USD, was taken from current averages (5), as listed in Table A3-2. The number of crew corresponding to each position correlates with the cabin types shown in the general arrangement. The total annual payroll expenses is calculated as 1.77 million USD. Port fees will be relatively high for this ship, as the chosen itinerary is very port intensive, with no full sea days in between any two. Generally, docking fees depend on gross tonnage, and a berthing rate of 0.15 euro/GT was chosen and converted to approximately 0.20 USD/GT per day. In reality, fees will vary by port, but it was not possible to find the actual docking fee for each of the selected cities. For additional fees, including waste disposal charges, an additional margin was applied. With these considerations, an estimated 790,000 USD per year will be spent on port-related costs, as shown in Table A3-3. Maintenance and capital costs were included in the same category, as each was computed as factors of the acquisition cost. General upkeep costs were taken as 5% of this value, while 10% was taken for the more demanding refurbishment costs. The latter will be unevenly 10
  • 215. distributed based on dry-dock dates, but a yearly average was used for calculations. Finally, the capital and insurance costs were also taken as an acquisition cost percentage. The result is a yearly maintenance and capital expense of roughly 746,000 USD, as given in Table A3-5. Next, consumables for both the crew and passengers were estimated, as this should be a considerable portion of the annual costs for a luxury cruise ship. Based on current figures for the cruise market (5), an estimated 30 USD per person, per day will be spent on food, while the corresponding cost for crewmembers was factorized. Though actual figures were not found, an additional 10 and 15 USD per person, per day, was taken for the crew and passengers, respectively. This will cover additional consumables such as water and other waste needs. Table A3-4 shows the consumable calculations, resulting in nearly 2.8 million USD per year. The final annual operating expenses are presented as miscellaneous costs. According to current expense profiles, cruise ships pay an additional 14-15% in terms of operating costs that do not fit into the prior categories (5). This includes corporate, agent commission, depreciation, and amortization costs, among others. In line with the example, miscellaneous costs were estimated as 14% of the sum of the previously calculated costs. Considering all six cost categories, total annual operating costs are calculated as 13.3 million USD, as shown in Table A3-6. A breakdown of these expenses is shown in Figure 1-5. Categorized Operating Costs 12% fuel costs 42% 21% port fees crew payroll maint/capital 6% 13% 6% consumables misc. Figure 1-5 - Categorized annual operating expense breakdown 11
  • 216. 1.2.2 Annual revenue The estimated revenue calculations are largely dependent on the expected ticket fare for the various stateroom categories. These fares were estimated in line with the current luxury market (7). As shown in Figure 1-6, the ticket prices are expected to be very high for this vessel, as all cabins feature balconies and the ship is very small, meaning a premium will be applied for inclusivity. Figure 1-6 - Ticket rates by tonnage and category With these figures in mind, conservative ticket fares were estimated in order to ensure profitability under all circumstances, including a scenario where the demand decreases and ticket prices drop accordingly. A weighted fare was then calculated and used for computations. The fare categories and values, along with the corresponding weighted ticket price, are shown in Table 1-6. Table 1-6 - Weighted ticket price Cabin Type Balcony Suite Deluxe Suite Weighted Daily Fare Quantity 66 10 Fare 400 600 426 Unit USD/pp/day USD/pp/day USD/pp/day In addition to ticket fares, cruise lines make a major profit on daily passenger spending, including specialty dining, spa, alcohol, and shore excursion profits. In line with other luxury cruise lines, the average daily profit, per person, was taken as 50 USD. A projected load 12
  • 217. factor of 0.9 was also introduced. This is the ratio of average passenger capacity to that of the maximum passenger capacity and is considered in order to replicate seasonality effects. With these parameters, the annual ticket revenue and onboard revenue can be calculated based on the weighted ticket fare, operating days per year, onboard spending, and passenger capacity at the selected load factor. The full calculations are included in Table A4-1. 1.2.3 Profitability calculations By calculating expected annual revenue and operating costs as well as compiling the previous list of requirements, the required ticket rate calculation can be completed. The projected equivalent uniform annualized costs (EUAC) are divided into two sections: variable operation and maintenance (O&M) and fixed O&M. The fixed costs per passenger are the sum of crewrelated costs, ship-related costs, and general and administrative costs, while variable daily costs are largely dependent on food and drinks. The variable costs are taken as 20% of the total annual operating costs, with the remaining 80% allocated to fixed costs. Additionally, a final EUAC cost is introduced by considering the assumed capital recovery factor of 0.21. This is the ratio of a constant annuity to the present value and is considered for the entire lifecycle of the ship. The three EUAC variables are summed to yield the total projection. Finally, the required freight rate per day is taken as a relation between the total EUAC, revenue, and weighted fares. )( ( ( )( ) ) 1-2 1-3 The result, as shown in Table A4-1, is a required ticket rate of 292 USD per person, per day. Therefore, the ship will be profitable as long as the weighted fares are greater than this value. With the suggested ticket prices of today’s luxury cruise ships and the weighted fare of 421 USD per person, per day, the ship is projected to be profitable. For easier comparison, an annual breakeven analysis is provided in Table A4-2. This shows the minimum annual revenue required to run a profitable operation alongside the projected value. Again, profitability is achieved. 13
  • 218. Bibliography 1. Levander, Kai. Passenger Ships. Ship Design and Construction Vol. II. Jersey City : Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 2004. 2. Jantunen, Olli. Passenger Ship Design, Criteria, Functions, and Features. Turku : s.n., 2013. 3. Watson, David. Practical Ship Design. Oxford : Elsevier , 1998. 4. Benford, Harry. Cost Estimation. [book auth.] Lamb. Ship Design and Construction Volume 1. Jersey City : s.n., 2003. 5. Financial Breakdown of Typical Cruisers. Cruise Market Watch. [Online] 2013. http://www.cruisemarketwatch.com/home/financial-breakdown-of-typical-cruiser/. 6. Rotterdam Bunker Prices. Bunker World. [Online] November 2013. [Cited: 15 November 2013.] http://www.bunkerworld.com/prices/port/nl/rtm/?grade=MGO. 7. Katsoufis, G.P. A Decision Making Framework for Cruise Ship Design. Cambridge : Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2006. 8. Cummins. Diesel Generator Set. [Online] [Cited: 29 10 2012.] http://www.cumminspower.com/www/common/templatehtml/technicaldocument/SpecSh eets/Diesel/na/s-1494.pdf. 14
  • 219. Appendix 1 – Parametric data Table A1- 1 - Parametric gross tonnage data Ship Oasis of the Seas Freedom of the Seas Voyager of the Seas Mariner of the Seas Radiance of the Seas Legend of the Seas Enchantment of the Seas Celebrity Silhouette Celebrity Constellation Celebrity Century Celebrity Xpedition Mein Schiff 2 Azamara Quest Lightship Weight [t] 86200 59700 53700 53100 38612 29102 35000 50062 35406 29450 1769,3 32921 12770 Deadweight [t] 17600 11319 11073 11533 10759 [-] 10979 11894 11746 7260 571,1 10123 3323 GRT 225282 154407 137276 138270 90090 69130 82910 122210 90228 70606 2842 77713 30277 Table A1- 2 - Parametric brand life data Luxury Cruise Ship Crystal Harmony Radisson Diamond Galaxy Mercury Royal Viking Sun Europa Zenith Horizon Entered Service 1990 1992 1996 1997 1988 1981 1992 1990 Left Service 2006 2005 2008 2008 2002 1999 2007 2005 Brand Life [yrs] 16 13 12 11 14 18 15 15 15
  • 220. Table A1- 3 – Truncated parametric cost data Cruise Ship Name Entered Service [Year] Gross Tonnage [GRT] Original Cost [USD million] Astoria Bremen Club Med 2 C Columbus Corinthian II EasyCruise Canodros Hanseatic Island Sky Le Levant Ocean Majesty Paul Gauguin Seabourn Legend Seabourn Pride Seabourn Spirit SeaDreammII Spirit of Glacier Bay Spirit of Yorktown Van Gogh Vistamar Wind Spirit 1981 1990 1992 1997 1991 1990 1990 1993 1992 1999 1966 1998 1992 1988 1989 1985 1984 1988 1975 1989 1988 18591 6751 14983 14903 4280 4077 4100 8378 4280 3504 10417 19200 9961 10000 9975 4333 1471 2354 15402 7500 5350 55 42 125 69 25 20 20 68 25 35 65 150 87 50 50 34 9 12 25 45 34 Present Worth [USD million] 102 65 186 93 38 31 31 99 37 45 162 198 129 80 79 58 16 19 52 71 55 PW/GRT [USD/GRT] 5466 9617 12397 6231 8853 7584 7541 11824 8680 12921 15516 10308 12978 8042 7904 13394 10652 8199 3377 9461 10222 16
  • 221. Appendix 2 – Categorized acquisition cost calculations Table A2- 1 - ESWBS cost overview ESWBS Cost Summary Steel Structure Propulsion Plant Electric Plant Command and Surveillance Auxilliary Systems Outfit and Furnishings Serv. Life Allowance Add'l 10% Margin Total without margin Weight [t] 2062,4 161,6 396,7 1,3 96,8 1480,3 318,5 424,7 4198,9 Weight [LT] 2029,8 159,0 390,4 1,3 95,2 1456,9 313,5 418,0 4132,6 [-] Total 4933,7 4855,8 [-] Approximated Total [-] [-] SWBS Group Description 100 200 300 400 500 600 [-] [-] [-] Total Cost [USD] 11725619 4059472 9901466 31637 2088929 37233460 [-] [-] 65040583 65000000 Table A2- 2 – Cost breakdown overview Cost Breakdown Summary SWBS Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Name Steel Steel structure-related Cargo-related Accomodation Deck machinery-related Propulsion Auxilliary Structure-related Total Approximated Total Total cost [USD] 11725619,3 0 98580 36642816 3046815 12760867 736719 29167 65040583 65000000 17
  • 222. Table A2- 3 – Margin application overview Margin Application Description Estimated acquisition cost Shipowner’s margin Design margin Final acquisition cost Approximated cost Cost [USD] 65040583 3252029 3902435 72195047 72000000 Table A2- 4 - ESWBS 100 costs 100 - Hull Structure Item Weight Steel Hull Structure Steel Super Structure [t] 1215 846 Cost Group Cost per tonne [2014] Total Cost 1 1 5686 5686 6913042 4812578 11725619 Table A2- 5 - ESWBS 200 costs 200 - Propulsion System Item Description/ Source Electric Engine Steering Gear Propellers Bow Thruster Bow Thruster Engine Bow Thruster Gen. Sets Lube Oil System Lube Oil Pump Dirty Oil Pump Cabling ABB AMZ1250 Unit Weight Total Weight [ea.] 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 [kg] 44000 15000 12000 1700 1000 800 150 75 75 6000 Total [t] 88 30 24 3,4 2 1,6 0,3 0,15 0,15 12 161,6 Cost Group Cost per tonne [2014] Total Cost 6 6 6 5 5 5 7 7 7 4 [-] 25269 25269 25269 22110 22110 22110 22110 22110 22110 25269 [-] 2223676 758071 606457 75175 44221 35377 6633 3317 3317 303229 4059471 18
  • 223. Table A2- 6 - ESWBS 300 costs 300 - Electric Systems Item Description/ Source Emergency Generator Switchboard, drives Transformers Lighting System Lighting System Lighting System Uptakes Genset Intake Genset Exhaust Fuel Service System Fuel Service System Electric Operation Fluids Batteries Battery Chargers Main Genset Standby Genset Cummins DQDAA ABB ACS 6000 Navigation Lights Exterior Lights Interior Lights Pipings Valves Wartsila 16V32 Wartsila 16V32 Unit Weight Total Weight [ea.] 1 3 3 40 20 600 6 2 2 1 60 2 20 2 2 1 [kg] 2500 9000 200 3 4 2 40 45 250 350 2,5 60 25 100 121000 121000 Total [t] 2,5 27 0,6 0,12 0,08 1,2 0,24 0,09 0,5 0,35 0,15 0,12 0,5 0,2 242 121 396,65 Cost Group Cost per tonne [2014] Total Cost 7 7 7 4 4 4 8 8 8 8 8 7 4 4 6 6 [-] 22110 22110 22110 25269 25269 25269 5685 5685 5685 5685 5685 22110 25269 25269 25269 25269 [-] 55276 596981 13266 3032 2022 30323 1365 512 2843 1990 853 2653 12635 5054 6115108 3057554 9901466 Table A2- 7 - ESWBS 400 costs 400 - Command and Surveillance Item Telephone System Alarm Television Radio Fire Control System Cables Telescope Window Wipers Description/ Source Unit Weight Total Weight [ea.] 200 200 110 16 2 1 2 13 [kg] 1 1 4 2 50 200 7 7 Total [t] 0,2 0,2 0,44 0,032 0,1 0,2 0,014 0,091 1,277 Cost Group Cost per tonne [2014] Total Cost 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 [-] 25269 25269 25269 25269 18951 25269 25269 25269 [-] 5053 5053 11118 808 1895 5053 353 2299 31636 19
  • 224. Table A2- 8 - ESWBS 500 costs 500 - Auxilliary Systems Item Description/ Source Pumps Fire Fighting Piping Freshwater Piping Ballast Piping Foam Piping Main Engine Room Intake Fans Main Engine Room Intake Fire Dampers Main Engine Room Exhaust Fans Galley Air Handler Pantry Air Handler Head Air Handler Laundry Air Handler Anchor, equipment Anchor Chain Mooring Chocks and bits Liferaft, equipment Oil Spill Containment Bilge and ballast MarinArk Unit [ea.] 10 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 4 4 1 1 2 2 3 6 1 Weight [t] 250 1500 500 1400 400 25 25 25 100 100 100 50 20000 2500 700 5800 5000 Total Total Weight [kg] 2,5 1,5 0,5 1,4 0,4 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,4 0,4 0,1 0,05 40 5 2,1 34,8 5 96,75 Cost Group 7 8 8 8 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 4 [-] Cost per tonne [2014] 22110 5685 5685 5685 5685 18951 18951 18951 18951 18951 18951 18951 22110 22110 22110 22110 25269 [-] Total Cost 55276 8528 2842 7959 2274 947 947 1895 7580 7580 1895 947 884416 110552 99497 769442 126345 2088929 Table A2- 9 - ESWBS 600 costs 600 - Outfit and Furnishing Item Description/ Source Super. Paint Hull Paint Hull Primer elevator Deck 1 Deck 2 Deck 3 Deck 4 Deck 5 Deck 6 Deck 7 Blue Water Teamac Teamac 2 crew, 4 pax stores, misc. crew, public public public public, bridge deck, public deck Unit [ea.] 1,5 1,5 1,5 6 1802 1870 2159 1959 1851 1665 930 Weight [kg] 431,33 484,95 1718,13 2000,00 95,00 115,00 140,00 130,00 135,00 135,00 50,00 Total Total Weight [t] 0,65 0,73 2,58 12,00 171,19 215,05 302,26 254,67 249,89 224,78 46,50 1480,28 Cost Group Cost per tonne [2014] Total Cost 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 [-] 18951 18951 18951 25269 25269 25269 25269 25269 25269 25269 22110 [-] 12261 13786 48842 303228 4325807 5434107 7637820 6435267 6314354 5679849 1028134 37233460 20
  • 225. Appendix 3 – Annual operating calculations Table A3- 1 – Annual fuel costs parameter fuel cost weekly hours yearly hours average power SFC SFC fuel consumption rate yearly consumption yearly consumption annual fuel cost value 865 70 3400 12248 180 0,18 2204 7495776 7495 5621832 unit USD/t hours hours kW g/kwH kg/kwH kg/hour kg t USD Table A3- 2 - Annual payroll costs position captain staff captain senior officer junior officer crew Total unit 1 2 3 6 44 56 monthly salary [USD] 9000 7000 5000 3500 2000 [-] yearly salary [USD] 108000 84000 60000 42000 24000 [-] total pay [USD] 108000 168000 180000 252000 1056000 1764000 Table A3- 3 – Annual port costs parameter berthing rate berthing rate daily berthing cost annual berthing cost annual misc. port fees annual port fees value 0,15 0,20 1328 451552 338663 790216 unit euro/GT USD/GT USD USD USD USD Table A3- 4 - Annual consumable costs category food other total type crew passengers crew passengers daily total yearly total unit cost [USD pp/pd] 15 30 10 15 [-] [-] units 56 152 56 152 [-] [-] total cost [USD] 840 4560 560 2280 8240 2801600 21
  • 226. Table A3- 5 - Annual maintenance and capital costs parameter initial cost maintenance yearly maintenance refurbishment yearly refurbishment capital costs yearly capital costs annual maintenance and capital cost [USD] 72196098 3609804 240654 7219610 481307 360980 24065 746026 Table A3- 6 – Total annual costs category fuel costs port fees crew payroll maint/capital consumables misc. TOTAL cost [USD] 5621832 790216 1764000 746026 2801600 1641314 13364988 percentage 42 % 6% 13 % 6% 21 % 12 % 100% 22
  • 227. Appendix 4 – Profitability calculations Table A4- 1 - Daily required freight rate calculations Input Parameters Assumed Internal Rate of Return 20 % [-] Projected Ship Service Life 15 years Days/Cruise 7 days Initial Cost 77943221 USD Estimated Salvage Value 19485805 USD Passenger Accomodation Capacity and Estimated Fare Fares based on Suggested Luxury Cruise Line fares per Cabin Type Cabin Type Quantity Fare Unit Balcony Stateroom 0 350 USD/pp/day Balcony Suite 66 400 USD/pp/day Deluxe Suite 10 600 USD/pp/day Weighted Daily Fare 426 USD/pp/day Passenger Statistics Number of Passengers 152 persons Daily Cost/passenger 50 USD/pp/day Operation Profile Operating Days per year 340 days Projected Load Factor 0,9 [-] Estimated Annual Revenue Calculations Weighted Daily Fare/person 426 USD/pp/day Annual Ticket Revenue/person 144947 USD/pp Total Annual Ticket Revenue 22032000 USD Onboard Daily Revenue 50 USD/pp/day Annual Onboard Revenue 17000 USD/pp Total Annual Variable Revenue 2584000 USD Total Annual Fixed Revenue 775200 USD Total Annual Revenue 25391200 USD Calculated Required Ticket Rate Estimated Annual Revenue 25391200 USD Estimated Annual Revenue at Projected L.F. 22852080 USD Projected EUAC - Variable O&M 2672997 USD Projected EUAC - Fixed O&M 10691990 USD Projected EUAC (Capital Recovery) 2286826 USD Projected EUAC Total 15651814 USD RFR/Day at Projected L.F 292 USD RFR/Cruise at Projected L.F. 2044 USD 23
  • 228. Table A4- 2 - Annual equivalent breakeven analysis Estimated Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs 5621832 fuel costs port fees 790216 crew payroll 1764000 maint/capital 746026 consumables 2801600 miscellaneous 1641314 Total Annual Operating Costs 13364988 Annual Equivalent Breakeven Analysis capital recovery factor 0,21 Acquisition Cost -77943221 Annual Operating Cost -13364988 Salvage Value 19485805 Ship Service Life 15 Compounded Interest Value 8% Minimum Required Annual Revenue 22074510 Estimated Annual Revenue 25391200 Profitable? USD USD USD USD USD USD USD [-] USD USD USD years [-] USD USD YES 24
  • 229. Closing The design of M/S Arianna was a challenging project for all involved. From the initial design challenge of creating a cruise ship without lifeboats to the final report and presentation, critical thinking and problem solving skills have been tested. Every step of the design brought with it unique challenges and the importance of team work was clear from the onset of the semester. The objective of this course and its project was to develop concepts from the Ship Conceptual Design course at a more detailed level. The result should be a feasible design that considers all major design phases in as holistic an approach as possible, and this report shows success in that regard. Throughout its completion, the project highlighted a large learning experience. Though each task was collaborated on by all, many aspects were worked on simultaneously and major task allocations were assigned based on experience and strengths. One key lesson in this regard was that progress on any one area of development might need to be completely re-worked if another area made a major conflicting decision. Seemingly, this occurred more than once. However, this provided great insight with regard to the preliminary design stages of a ship and truly highlighted its iterative nature. Another consequence of this was that each member needed to be very informed about the progress of others, meaning transparent communication was a necessity. Additionally, yet another lesson was the fact that help was needed. That is, the guidance of professors and advice from the assignment graders were invaluable and the final ship design is much better as a result. Over the semester, the vessel’s design was constantly improving. As such, if more time were available, each area of design could naturally benefit from further development. Design never truly ends at this stage and there is no perfect solution, so further time would allow for refinement or the ability to account for additional considerations. Specifically, some design aspects could use more attention than others. The most obvious areas of improvement are in relation to the utilized software. Though effective, for instance, the NAPA and Construct models could certainly be developed further to reflect a higher level of detail. In the same vain, the basic beam theory tables in the hull structure calculations could be further improved. Similarly, the stability process, while appropriate for early stage analysis, is by no means finalized. Additional damage cases and conditions, for example, could be included. The cost estimate would be greatly improved 1
  • 230. with the identification of major equipment and component costs. Even though it is difficult to receive such information from suppliers, this would be a consideration in the next design phase. The propeller and hull forms might benefit from further optimization. As this was among the first tasks, however, it is difficult implementing changes without affecting all downstream-completed work. As such, this is again a task for future design iterations. Some processes, such as the general arrangement, are never truly complete at this design stage. Having said that, as much detail as possible was put into each deliverable with regard to time restraints and skill levels. With these future considerations taken into account, the result is still a feasible preliminary design that shows great improvement over that from Ship Conceptual Design. The initial challenge was to design a vessel without lifeboats and this has been considered throughout all phases of the project. The general arrangement is atypical in order to allow for three separate evacuation decks and the structural calculations were completed with this in mind. Though many alternatives exist, the selected evacuation methods are industry-approved and very redundant and the evacuation procedure is no less safe than a typical lifeboat system. This project has helped all involved to grow as problem solvers, communicators, and team members, and has helped in recognizing the importance of learning before, during, and after each design process. Though challenging, the design of M/S Arianna was a rewarding experience that allowed for further development of the knowledge acquired in previous courses in the completion of the project ship. In this regard, the project and course itself was a success. 2