Alternative Powering for High Speed Ships

8/7/2019 Alternative Powering for High Speed Ships

1/44

i

Interim Progress Report

On the

Economic Analysis Of

Alternative Powering Concepts

For High Speed Sealift Ships

5 November 2001

Prepared For:

Center for Commercial Development of Transportation Technology

6300 State University Drive, Suite 332

Long Beach, California 90815

Submitted by:

John J. McMullen Associates, Inc.4300 King Street, Suite 400

Alexandria Virginia 22302

703-418-0100

The material presented in this report is based on conceptual design information of an advanced propulsion system that iscurrently under limited development. Use of the engineering and design information developed herein is highly preliminary andintended only to derive a baseline economic comparison between this system, such as it might exist after full-scale development

in 10+ years hence, and a more conventional state-of-the-art powering alternative for the unique requirements of a high speedcross-ocean commercial ship application.


2/44

Alternative Powering for High Speed Ships 11/05/01Interim Progress Report

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This interim report was developed to document the in-process status of this project as of the end of Phase I. The

original proposal, the tasking and funding breakdowns, and overall project scope were not structured to support aclean break between Phase I and II, therefore this interim report represent a snap-shot in the projects progress.

As such this report documents progress to date, technical and safety issues that were identified during the original

reactor design, the current analysis of these issues, and the current Phase II approach to resolve these issues.

This projects original goal was to prepare a concepts for conventionally and nuclear powered FastShip Atlantic

vessels, and to develop a detailed economic analysis of these concepts to determine the viability of commercially

operating a nuclear-powered variant. JJMA originally submitted a proposal to perform this project as a single,

seamless effort. The proposed team included JJMA as the prime and lead for the ship designs and economicanalysis, Fastship Atlantic as a sub-contractor for the ship concept, and General Atomics for all work related to the

reactor design and operations. Due to the timing of the annual Research and Development cycles, CCDOTT split

the tasking for this project into two specific efforts, Phase I provided for with FY00 funding, and Phase II providedfor with FY02 funding.

Status ~ As of this interim report, the Team has completed the originally planned requirements analysis and initial

reactor and ship sizing designs. The Requirements have been documented under separate correspondence, and the

key findings of the reactor and ship concept designs are provided in this report.

During the development of the initial tasks, and the review of the results of these tasks by JJMA and CCDOTT and

their representatives, a total of 11 technical and safety issues related to the reactor design were identified. A

summary of these issues include:

1. An assessment of the reactors ability to maintain sub-criticality while experience progressive seawaterflooding at all conditions of operations and shut-down is required.

2. An assessment of the reactor components ability to withstand the thermal shock anticipated from theprogressive flooding envisioned in item #1 is required.

3. An assessment of the reactors control rod, reactor control, and reactor structural sub-systems ability toaccommodate ship motions is required.

4. A fuel element failure history is required to be provided, along with threshold and goal requirements, and aplan to ensure the threshold can be achieved through design and testing.

5. Provide assurance that the current land-based containment systems are suitable for a marine environment.6. Provide assurances that the assumption that the assumption that a turbine blade casualty will not breach the

reactor primary system is valid.

7. Investigate the assumption that analysis of reactor operations at full-power conditions adequately accountsfor the variations in operating conditions routinely experienced by a commercial vessel.

8. Investigate the reactors ability to accommodate rapid changes in operating loads that would beexperienced during periods of vessel maneuvering operations.

9. It is necessary to determine the rationale start-up/shut-down times that should be anticipated for the reactorgiven the anticipated marine Op-Tempo, and the reactor characteristics (e.g., the graphite walls)

10. The selection of re-fueling intervals used in the economic analysis must be based on rationale, feasible fuelpurity levels. Changes to current limits and regulations should be investigated for feasibility.

11. A more complete description of the Reactors auxiliary systems are required.

Phase II Approach ~ Adequately addressing the 11 identified issues is critical to successful completion of thisstudy. As of the development of this interim report, an initial response to these issues has been developed, and the

Phase II proposed work-scope has been adjusted to provide for the effort required to address the issues. A Revised

Phase II approach has been defined that increases the focus on addressing the identified technical issues.


3/44


iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................................................II

1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................11.1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................1

1.1.1. Technical Guidance ...............................................................................................................................11.1.2. Economic Guidance...............................................................................................................................2 1.1.3. Operating Issues Guidance...................................................................................................................31.1.4. Regulatory Issues Guidance ..................................................................................................................3

1.2. PURPOSE OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................4

2. OVERVIEW OF GT-MHR REACTOR ...........................................................................................................62.1. GT-MHRSAFETY FEATURES.........................................................................................................................8

3. MODIFICATION OF GT-MHR FOR MARINE APPLICATION..............................................................103.1. REACTORDESIGN DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................................10

3.1.1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................................103.1.2. Design Configuration ..........................................................................................................................10 3.1.3. System Design and Arrangement .........................................................................................................113.1.4. Shielding Design..................................................................................................................................12

3.1.5. System Weights ....................................................................................................................................153.2. REACTORMARINIZATION ISSUES AND RESOLUTION ....................................................................................16

4. REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................................204.1. ECONOMIC....................................................................................................................................................204.2. MISSION AND OPERATING PROFILE ..............................................................................................................204.3. OVERALL TECHNICAL AND PROGRAMMATIC REQUIREMENTS......................................................................20

4.3.1. Conventional Variant Design Criteria.................................................................................................20

5. ATLANTIC VARIANT CONVENTIONAL POWERING (FASTSHIP) .................................................225.1. NAVAL ARCHITECTURE &MARINE ENGINEERING DESIGN ISSUES ...............................................................22

5.1.1. Hull Sizing and Configuration.............................................................................................................22 5.2. DESIGN INTEGRATION FORCONVENTIONALLY POWERED ATLANTIC VARIANT ...........................................23

5.2.1. Propulsion Plant Design......................................................................................................................23

5.2.2. Machinery Arrangement......................................................................................................................235.2.3. Manning...............................................................................................................................................235.3. PROPULSION PLANT COST ............................................................................................................................23

5.3.1. Acquisition ...........................................................................................................................................235.3.2. Operational and Support Costs ...........................................................................................................235.3.3. System Disposal Costs .........................................................................................................................23

6. NUCLEAR POWERED VARIANT ................................................................................................................246.1. NAVAL ARCHITECTURE & MARINE ENGINEERING .........................................................................................24

6.1.1. Hull Sizing and Configuration.............................................................................................................24 6.2. DESIGN INTEGRATION FORNUCLEARVARIANT ...........................................................................................25

6.2.1. Propulsion Plant Design......................................................................................................................25 6.2.2. Machinery Arrangement......................................................................................................................256.2.3. Manning...............................................................................................................................................25

6.3. PROPULSION PLANT COST ............................................................................................................................256.3.1. Acquisition ...........................................................................................................................................266.3.2. Operational and Support Costs ...........................................................................................................266.3.3. System Disposal Costs .........................................................................................................................26


4/44


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(Continued)

7. PACIFIC VARIANT - CONVENTIONAL POWERING DESCRIPTION........... ........... ........... ........... ....277.1. NAVAL ARCHITECTURE & MARINE ENGINEERING .........................................................................................277.2. DESIGN INTEGRATION ..................................................................................................................................297.3. ECONOMICANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................................29

7.3.1. Acquisition ...........................................................................................................................................297.3.2. Operational and Support Costs ...........................................................................................................307.3.3. System Disposal Costs .........................................................................................................................30

8. REMAINING WORK SCOPE.........................................................................................................................318.1. ALTERNATIVE POWERING FORHIGH SPEED SHIPS .......................................................................................31

9. SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................................32


5/44


1

1. INTRODUCTION

This project was commissioned by the California State University at Long Beach (CSULB), Center for

the Commercial Deployment of Transportation Technologies (CCDoTT) to evaluate the projected

economic feasibility of an alternative nuclear powering concept for high speed cargo ship application.

This report is an interim deliverable that addresses the original Program Plan and identifies the teams

current findings. Specific attention in this report is directed towards the identification of a number of

technical and safety issues and the definition of a plan to respond to these issues. These issues are

discussed in Section 3.2 of this report; the plan is outlined in Section 7, and is detailed in the Phase II

Proposal provided to CCDOTT separately.

1.1. BACKGROUND

The USN High Speed Sealift Ship Technology Workshop in 1997 identified that high-speed sealift ships

are technically feasible. The Workshop showed that it is possible to build ships with speeds above 30

knots and useful weight fractions. The Workshop also demonstrated that as the range requirement for

such ships increases, the resulting growth in the weight of fuel rapidly diminishes the sealift capacity of

the platform. Indeed, studies have shown that at some range the ship becomes incapable of carrying

cargo, having all of its lift capacity taken up by own-ships fuel.

Concurrent with the efforts of the Sealift Workshop, the Society of Naval Architects and Marine

Engineers (SNAME) formed an ad hoc technical panel (Ad hoc Panel #10) to evaluate technical

alternatives for high speed propulsion of marine vehicles. This panel recognized that the two most

promising technologies, Nuclear power and fuel cells, offered different benefit trade-offs and therefore

were likely to be applied to separate ship types.

In addition, it is recognized that alternative power sources may prove an economically desirable option

for ranges of 5,000-10,000 nautical miles when fuel costs and/or freight rates reach certain levels.

Conventional pressurized water reactor plants are large and heavy, and have not proven to be

economically viable for commercial marine propulsion. There are, however, new alternative nuclear

power systems that potentially offer higher power-to-weight ratios and smaller volume requirements,

which have not been previously examined for these applications. Assuming their demonstration of

technical feasibility through further engineering development, these higher power-to-weight ratios offer

the promise of achieving a nuclear-favorable situation.

1.1.1. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE

To make an evaluation of the feasibility of using nuclear power to provide propulsion for high speed

commercial containerships, an economic comparison to conventionally powered containerships was


6/44


2

deemed necessary for both Atlantic and Pacific trade routes. A matrix of ship configurations to be

assessed is presented below.

Conventionally Powered Nuclear Powered

Atlantic Service Based on the FASTSHIP Atlantic

Design, Modified for the Route

Details provided in Section 5 of this

report.

Atlantic Service Conventional Powered

Ship used as a baseline, modified for the

nuclear propulsion plan.

Details provided in Section 6 of this

report.

Pacific Service Atlantic Service Conventional

Powered Ship used as a baseline,

modified for the Pacific non-stop

route.

Details provided in Section 7 of thisreport.

Same design as that used for the Atlantic

Service.

Details provided in Section 6 of thisreport.

As a baseline ship configuration the FASTSHIP Atlantic conventionally powered high speed

containerized cargo ship was used (and herein referred to as FASTSHIP). Since this variant was

initially designed for the shorter distance transatlantic service it does not have the range required for

trading between the US and Pacific ports such as Hong Kong and Singapore. For comparison of

transpacific economic alternatives, a lengthened FASTSHIP design was developed. Because of the

efficiencies offered by using a non-conventional power source, the nuclear powered design alternative

remains the same for both Atlantic and Pacific service. Thus, in all, three ship configurations will be

evaluated as part of this project in support of the economic analysis.

1.1.2. ECONOMIC GUIDANCE

The ultimate objective of this study is to perform an economic analysis of the alternative powering of

high-speed ships. This analysis will use a two-step approach to insure that all relevant cost and

economic considerations properly evaluated. First, feasible engineering solutions to the Atlantic and

Pacific variant will be developed. Then an economic assessment of the different variants will be

performed. The economic analysis will include consideration of all potential life cycle costs

including operating costs (e.g., crew, fuel, and consumables) as well as revenues (e.g., price structures

and anticipated revenues), but will exclude the extensive non-recurring development costs associated

with both the nuclear and conventionally powered alternatives. The results will be presented in a Net

Present Value (NPV) calculation to determine the relative results of each variant. Certain

assumptions will be used in the NPV calculation included:

Relevant costs will include nth of-a-kind ship acquisition and all associated operating

expenses (including nuclear fuel reloading and disposal).


7/44


3

Relevant revenues will include fares and other significant revenue sources.

A cost of capital equal to the current Federal Government bond interest rates will be used

A series of timelines will analyzed, including 1 year, 5 year, and 10 year operations.

Cargo weight is constant between all variants.

Economic analysis will be preformed on all four alternatives and will include project

operations tempo, manning, life cycle costs, acquisition costs, disposal costs, and cargo

capacity.

Economic studies will be based upon the information available for the Baseline

FASTSHIP Atlantic program.

The Pacific variant economic studies will be extrapolated from the Baseline FASTSHIP

Atlantic program.

1.1.3. OPERATING ISSUES GUIDANCE

For the purposes of this study, operating profiles were based on the known FASTSHIP Atlantic

concept and extrapolations of those concepts for Pacific routes. Critical assumptions include:

Cargo capacity and handling systems will remain the same for all study variants

Port infrastructure requirements and capabilities will remain constant

Operating profiles, routes, and usage will be identical for both the conventionally and

nuclear powered FASTSHIP alternatives, amended only if required for nuclear refueling

requirements

Primary importance was given to maintaining the integrity of the known FASTSHIP market analysis

for Atlantic service. This requirement meant that speed and cargo weight capacities were assumed

constant between the known conventionally powered FASTSHIP and the proposed nuclear powered

variant. For the Transpacific studies, the nature of the nuclear power system permits the ship size to

be the same as for the Atlantic study. The conventionally powered Pacific variant was sized to

include additional fuel while maintaining cargo weight capacity.

It is recognized that the proposed use of nuclear technology as a propulsion system for cargo ships

presents a number of major technical, safety, social and geo-political considerations. This report does

not address these latter two issues. To the extent appropriate, certain important safety issues have

been addressed commensurate with good design practice and both historic and anticipated technical

and regulatory considerations.

1.1.4. REGULATORY ISSUES GUIDANCE

It is well recognized that nuclear power is not presently a viable alternative for commercial maritime

applications. While there were some nuclear powered commercial ships constructed in the past 50

years, they have either been uneconomical to operate --N.S. SAVANNAH (USA) and OTTO HAHN


8/44


4

(FRG) demonstration ships-- or have been government-owned and used for public service (several

Soviet nuclear icebreakers). Because of this, there is not a significant body of currently applicable

regulatory material upon which to base any proposed design or installation. In fact, the United States

Coast Guard deleted all references to commercial nuclear propulsion applications from the Code of

Federal Regulations in 1995. Thus, for the purposes of this study, existing (or the most recent version

of the previously existing) regulations have been considered and applied where appropriate. Where

the regulations are no longer in force or may not be appropriate to the state of the art in ship design,

assumptions have been made concerning how regulations might be developed or applied. This report

does not offer any definitive proposals for regulations nor does it necessarily take into account all

regulatory aspects, which might come into play. These efforts would be properly addressed during

the extensive engineering development, design and rulemaking process inherent with the application

of any new technology to the marine industry. Instead, the present project considers only the

economic aspect of the application. Indeed, the reasoning behind this division of effort is that only if

there is economic incentive does it make sense to open and resolve what will assuredly be extensive

and expensive regulatory issues.

In addition to the pre-1995 USCG rules, the most recent American Bureau of Shipping rules

pertaining to nuclear propulsion systems is dated 1968. To support these two sources, research was

conducted into relevant nuclear standards for other nations including Japan. The reactor design in

this project (provided by General Atomics) was based on the appropriate sections of the American

Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) since it a system intended for land-based power

production. These guidelines were augmented by JJMA guidance to General Atomics concerning

good maritime design practice for the installation of mechanical systems aboard ships.

1.2.PURPOSE OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The original plan for this study was to perform an economic analysis of the feasibility of nuclear

power as a powering alternative for high-speed ships. This study would have been accomplished via

the development of an engineering concept design for the ship using conventional and nuclear

propulsion systems. These designs would have been followed by a detailed cost estimate for the ship

and nuclear component acquisition, operation and support and disposal costs.

During the initial phase of the study, the engineering concept design for the nuclear variant surfaced a

number of technical issues. These issues are listed in section 2.1.1 and focus on the technical

operation, safety and marine viability of the nuclear variant. Since the importance of these issues

may well determine the basic technical feasibility of the concept a redirection of this study was

required. In conjunction with CCDOTT, it was decided that additional engineering effort would be

focused on the development of responses to the engineering issues. The development of the solutions

to these issues would insure that the variants in this study were conceptually feasible at least on a

first-level basis (i.e.-no clearly apparent Fatal Flaws). It should be noted that these changes to the

studys scope were planned within the initial cost cap for the overall study; thus the increased focus


9/44


5

on the technical issues resulted in a reduction in the economic analysis detail. The final analysis will

still analyze the economic potential of each variant, however that analysis is not contained in this

report.


10/44


6

2. OVERVIEW OF GT-MHRREACTOR

The power plant for this study is based on the Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR)

developed by General Atomics of San Diego, California. The GT-MHR is an advanced nuclear

power system that, assuming considerable further engineering development and resolution of some

basic issues relating to nuclear safety, may be well suited to shipboard application by virtue of itscompact size, high thermal efficiency, certain inherent safety features and environmental advantages.

The concept was originally developed by General Atomics under U.S. Department of Energy funding

for stationary power production, and is still under development. Thus, there a number of major

considerations involving its adaptation to shipboard propulsion that will require further engineering

analysis and development specifically related to a marine application. These issues are identified in

Section 3.

The GT-MHR couples a helium-cooled modular

helium reactor, contained in one vessel, with a high

efficiency Brayton cycle gas turbine Power

Conversion System (PCS), contained in an adjacent

vessel. The stationary GT-MHR module, as shown in

Figure 2-1 is designed to be located below ground in

a concrete silo with both vessels in a vertical

arrangement. However, the vessel dimensions and

orientation of the PCS vessel can be altered to fit the

specific marine application.

Figure 2-2 shows the GT-MHR system diagram with

seawater cooling. Helium coolant is heated in the

reactor by flowing through coolant channels in

graphite fuel elements. The heated coolant flows

through the cross-vessel, which connects the reactor

vessel with the PCS vessel where the helium it is

expanded through a gas turbine to drive the electric

generators and compressors. From the turbine exhaust, the helium flows through the hot side of the

recuperator transferring residual heat energy to helium on the recuperator cold side returning to the

reactor. From the recuperator, the helium flows through the precooler and then passes through low

and high-pressure compressors. From the compressor outlet, the helium flows through the cold, high-pressure side of the recuperator where it is heated for return to the reactor.

An intermediate cooling loop is used as a safety buffer between the primary cooling helium and the

external heat sink (e.g., seawater). This provides a double barrier (precooler and intermediate heat

exchanger) against possible release of any radioactive material to the environment. The intermediate

cooling loop also provides essential cooling to the generator.

Figure 2-1. GT-MHR Cross-Section


11/44


7

The PCS incorporates an integral electric generator on the same shaft as the gas turbine. The generator

produces electrical power at constant frequency independent of the gas turbine output power. Thus the

generation of electrical power enables the use of electrical motors to power the waterjets. In order to

provide the very high power levels required of the drive motors, their weight and volume is significant.

As of this interim report, our analysis has used homo-polar permanent magnet motors to support

development of the weight estimate, ship and ship system sizing, and associated analyses. Electric motors

were selected as the logical counter-part to take advantage of the electrical power generators integral to

our baseline GT-MHR design. The final Phase I study report will further investigate the prime mover

selection, including execution of a top-level prime mover trade-off study.

TurbineGenerator

Compressors

PrecoolerRecuperator

IntermediateHX

IntermediateLoop Pump

Helium

IntermediateLoop Water

REACTOR

SeawaterIntake

Seawater

Figure 2-2. GT-MHR System Diagram


12/44


8

2.1.GT-MHRSAFETY FEATURES

One of the most important characteristics of any nuclear powered concept for commercial shipboard

application is safety. The GT-MHR concept offers the potential of a number of inherent safety features.

Safety is achieved through a combination of characteristics and design selections that take maximum

advantage of the inherent characteristics. These characteristics include:

Use of Helium coolant ~ in its use as a single phase coolant, its nobility or inertness,

has no reactivity effects

Graphite Core ~ selection of graphite provides a core with high heat capacity, slow

thermal response, and structural stability at very high temperatures

Refractory coated particle fuel ~ selected coating system is designed to retain fission

products at temperature much higher than the GT-MHR normal operating parameters

Negative temperature coefficient of reactivity ~ the GT-MHR design concept provides

stability during power excursions by automatically lowering neutron flux levels withincreasing core temperatures

Redundant Cooling Systems ~ the designed of a low power density core in an un-

insulated steel reactor vessel surrounded by a reactor cavity cooling system (RCCS)

provides layered cooling systems

The large heat capacity of graphite core structure is an important inherent characteristic that significantly

contributes to maintaining safe fuel temperatures. The thermal mass retains excursions in the fuel below

their damage limits during the high temperatures experienced during loss of cooling, or coolant, events.

A substantial time (on the order of days vs minutes for other reactors) is available for operators to take

corrective actions to mitigate abnormal events and to restore the reactor to normal operations before fuel

element damage would occur in the absence of cooling.

The reactor fuel particles are composed of radionuclides contained within a multi-layered refractory

coating. The purposes of these coating are to provide space and protection surrounding the fuel particle.

One of these layers is to provide gaseous expansion space for the byproducts of fission. Another layer

serves as physical protection to the fuel particles. The use of these coating provides for fuel element

containment and protection without the intervention of system operators.

The reactor core concept design described herein features a high negative temperature coefficient of

reactivity. This feature, which is an inherent property of the uranium fuel and graphite moderator, adds a

large amount of negative reactivity in the event that the core temperature rises above the normal operating

temperature. Thus, any rise in core temperature reduces the reactors thermal power level, and vice-versa.

This is an important feature in basic reactor safety and a very desirable feature in load following

applications such as marine propulsion.


13/44


9

The redundant cooling systems include the two active systems, the PCS and the shutdown cooling system

shown in Figure 2-1, and the RCCS. The RCCS independently provides for the removal of core decay

heat from the reactor vessel in a passive manner. For passive removal of decay heat, the core power

density and the annular core configuration are designed such that the decay heat can be removed by heat

conduction, thermal radiation and natural convection without exceeding the fuel particle accident

temperature design limit. Core decay heat from the fuel elements is conducted to the pressure vessel and

then transferred by radiation from the vessel to the normally operating RCCS. The RCCS is composed of

a cooling flow of exterior ambient air circulated within the reactor annular core space via convection.

The combination of these safety characteristics and design features result in a reactor that should be able

to withstand loss of coolant circulation or even loss of coolant inventory and maintain fuel temperatures

below damage limits and protect the environment. Further design development of the reactor and

associated auxiliary systems is necessary to analyze and support this claim. Additional design activities

in these areas are contained in the Phase II Proposal to begin this analysis.


14/44


10

3. MODIFICATION OF GT-MHRFORMARINE APPLICATION

During the execution of the initial elements of this project, a number of first order technical and

operational issues surfaced with respect to the marinization of the advanced GT-MHR system. Since the

GT-MHR is currently under development for land-based application the design concept was reviewed

against the additional design considerations that can affect a marine reactor. A list of the considerationswas developed and the JJMA Team is currently focusing our effort on the preparation of responses to

these items.

Our initial review of these issues did not appear to identify any that pose a fatal flaw to the technical

feasibility of this system, although in a number of cases, their final resolution will only be achievable in

further applications-oriented engineering development. Additional specific responses to these issues will

be provided in the final report documenting the results of this project.

3.1.REACTORDESIGN DESCRIPTION

3.1.1. INTRODUCTION

Initially, two GT-MHR reactors, each with a nominal power generation of 125MWe have been

investigated this application. The reactor power level matches that necessary to support the 37.5-knot

FASTSHIP speed. The design was prepared to meet the identified requirements for construction and

operation of a marine reactor within a cargo vessel. These led to the following initial design changes

from the 280 MWe GT-MHR land based system configuration:

The reactor core comprises of standard graphite blocks stacked 4 blocks high.

Additional shielding was required due to the confined space and need for normalmaintenance/refueling operations.

The power conversion system was placed in a horizontal configuration and divided into twovessels, separating the heat exchanger components from the remaining components.

Helium coolant inventory control was incorporated to allow 1% per second power increase inFASTSHIP design.

3.1.2. DESIGN CONFIGURATION

Physical parameters of the cargo ship, reactor vessels and components, are presented in the attached

AutoCAD drawings. As shown, the reactor vessels are located below the third deck. The ship will be

powered through an integrated electric drive system, with the 250 MWe produced by the two reactorsgas turbine generators driving five advanced technology electric motors. Our current design development

has identified a change to a single reactor with two gas turbines as a better design choice. Additional

design development of this single reactor will be included in the final study report.


15/44


11

3.1.3. SYSTEM DESIGN AND ARRANGEMENT

The basic system arrangement is shown in Figure 3.1.3-1. No inter-cooling was used in order to simplify

the cycle. This trade-off significantly simplifies the plants auxiliary support systems at only a small loss

of over-all plant efficiency. The compressor is designed to operate on the same shaft as the turbine. A

nominal temperature of 65F is used as a coolant for the pre-cooler system. Thermal hydraulic analysiswas performed on the 125MWe GT-MHR design using a previously developed spreadsheet program.

Results from this are also shown in Figure 3-1. Key thermal hydraulic parameters are given in Table 3-1.

Drawings of the shipboard installation are shown in Appendix A to this report.

G T - M H RG T - M H R

G E N E R A T O R ( 1 2 5 M W e )

T URBINE

C O M P R E S S O R

R E C U P E R A T O R

P R E C O O L E R

1607 O F (875 OC )7 .13 MPa (1033 ps ia )

94 7 OF (508 OC )7 .13 MPa (1035 ps ia )

97 6 OF (525 OC )2 .62 MPa (380 ps ia )

424 O F (218 O C )2 .6 MPa (377 ps ia )

74 O F (23 OC )2 .59 MPa (376 ps ia )

39 5 OF (202 OC )7 .22 MPa (1047 ps ia )

F R O M H E A TSINK

(280 M Wt )

Figure 3-1. FASTSHIP Power Unit Flow Schematic


16/44


12

Table 3-1

Key Thermal Hydraulic Parameters

Number of Power Units........................................................................................2Reactor Thermal Power Per Power Unit .................................................280 MWt

Net Electrical Power Per Power Unit .....................................................125 MWe

Total Power Produced ............................................................................250 MWe

Net Plant Efficiency .......................................................................................45 %Core Inlet Pressure ..................................................................................1035 psia

Core Inlet Temperature .................................................................. 9478F/508 8C

Core Outlet Temperature.............................................................. 16078F/875 8C

Turbine Outlet Pressure.............................................................................380 psia

Turbine Inlet Temperature............................................................ 1286 8F/696 8C

Turbine Outlet Temperature...........................................................976 8F/525 8C

Turbine Expansion Ratio...................................................................................1.7

Recuperator Effectiveness..................................................................................95

Recuperator LP Outlet Temperature .............................................. 424 8F/218 8C

Compressor Inlet Temperature...........................................................74 8F/23 8CCompressor Outlet Pressure ....................................................................1047 psia

Compressor Pressure Ratio .............................................................................2.79

3.1.4. SHIELDING DESIGN

The identified requirement is unlimited access in the cargo area above the reactor, which amounts to the

tissue dose criteria as shown in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2Dose Criteria

Position Maximum Tissue Dose (cSv/hr)

Top Deck 0.001

Bottom of Vessel 0.020

1600 cm from center of reactor (radius) 0.001

2-D shielding calculations have been performed to calculate the radial, top, and bottom thickness using a

variety of material layers to meet the dose criteria. Tables 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5 summarize these results.

Table 3-6 estimates the cumulative weights, excluding the balance of plant components.


17/44


13

Table 3-3

Radial Shield

Radius (cm) Thickness (cm) Material Weight (MT)

415.7


18/44


14

Conclusions have been made from plots of radial tissue dose from different sides of the reactors. It was

found that in some regions, the limit of 0.001 cSv/hr is not met. These results are plotted in the following

figures. For the purposes of estimating the weights, the current calculations should be adequate since

equipment and coolants will provide additional shielding.

Vessel Twin GT- MHR Driven

Radial Tissue Dose at Bottom of Vessel

0.00E+00

5.00E-03

1.00E-02

1.50E-02

2.00E-02

2.50E-02

3.00E-02

3.50E-02

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

radius (cm)

neutrons

gammas

total

Figure 3-3. Radial Tissue Dose At Bottom of Vessel

Vessel Twin GT-MHR Driven

Radial Tissue Dose Profile Across Top

0.00E+00

5.00E-04

1.00E-03

1.50E-03

2.00E-03

2.50E-03

3.00E-03

3.50E-03

4.00E-03

4.50E-03

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

radius (cm)

tissuedose

(cSv/hr

neutrons

gammas

total

Figure 3-2. Radial Tissue Dose Profile Across Top Shield


19/44


15

3.1.5. SYSTEM WEIGHTS

A summary of the overall weights of the power system is given in the Table 3-7. The weight summary

includes the two reactor power units, associated shielding, five electric motors for powering the water jet

propulsion units, and an allowance for electrical conversion equipment.

Table 3-7

System Weight Summary

Total for

Power Unit Weight Data, MT Single two

Power Unit Power Units

Total Reactor Assembly 450 900

Radial shield 550 1,100

Top shield 390 780

Bottom shield 310 620

Total Shield Assembly 1,250 2,500

Rotating machinery vessel 210 420

Rotating machine internals 230 460

Total Rotating Mach. Assembly 440 880

Heat exchanger vessel 210 420

Recuperator 100 200

Precooler 50 100

Total Heat Exchanger Assembly 360 720

Total Power Unit 2,500 5,000

HomoPolar Electric Drive Motors

Motor Power, MW 50

No. of Motors 5

Motor OD, m 3.18

Motor Length, m 4.53

Motor Weight, MT 160

Total Motor Weight, MT 800

Electrical support equip allowance, MT 200

Total Power Units + Motor Weight, MT 6,000

Note As discussed in Section 2.1 of this report, the Homo-Polar electric motors were selected to act as a

weight and physical dimension reservation to support ship and auxiliary system sizing. A top-level

prime mover trade-off analysis will be performed and documented in the final summary report.


20/44


16

3.2.REACTORMARINIZATION ISSUES AND RESOLUTION

As discussed previously, our design development efforts included a technical and safety review of the

concept. This review identified a number of issues for further investigation during this project. Each of

these issues is described in the following paragraphs along with our initial responses.

Issue #1 ~ It is necessary to provide assurance that the current core design can reach and will maintain

sub-criticality while experiencing progressive flooding by seawater at all initial conditions of reactor

operations and shutdown; this analysis should reflect progressive flooding into a very hot, massive core

with copious steam blanketing of the fuel elements for a defined period of timethereby affecting both

nuclear reactivity and pressure within the 'contained' system itself. Describe, assuming the worst

hypothetical condition, how high does reactor power level go before being reduced from a combination of

control rod insertion and/or steam vapor dissipation to the liquid phase?

Position ~ Reactivity effect of moisture ingress within the 450 MW(t) land-based reactor has

been examined. Similar results are assumed to reasonably scale down to a 280 MW(t) core

design. Two basic scenarios were considered: water ingress during power operation; and water

ingress during shutdown. During power operation, moisture ingress into the active core would

vaporize into steam. If this was to continue, the hypothetical upper limit of steam ingress into the

active core was calculated at 677 kg. The upper limit of steam would cause a positive reactivity

insertion of 3.4% p. With all control rods inserted, the shutdown margin would still be met by

several percent. During cold shutdown or refueling, moisture ingress into the active core would

contain very little vapor. Two-dimensional GAUGE calculations were performed to determine K-

eff as a function of mass flow of water into the core at various times during the cycle. Worst-case

scenario performed occurs at beginning of equilibrium cycle with the control rods fully insertedand full nuclide decay. As seen in the attached Figure 3-22, criticality could occur with 1400 kg

of water homogenized in the core, with a maximum K-eff of 1.06 for 6000 kg full density water

(about 38% maximum water allowable in core). Note that these numbers are conservative due to

the GAUGE calculations not taking into account reactivity feedback effect of a temperature

increase from the increased power. Calculations in the past have also proved that a fully flooded

core is subcritical. Although this does not provide a complete answer to the question, it

contributes to understanding which scenarios to concentrate more on during a later phase of the

"marinization" process.

Issue #2 ~ Provide assurance of the ability of the major reactor components and pressure containment

systems in withstanding the thermal shocks attendant to progressive immersion by cold seawater (35F)

without loss of structural integrity.

Position ~ The design has not progressed to the point that analyses are available that demonstrate

maintenance of structural integrity during progressive emersion by cold seawater (35F),

especially since this is not a design requirement imposed on the land-based GT-MHR. To the


21/44


17

extent that it is shown to be necessary, structural integrity will be maintained during emersion by

cold seawater.

Issue #3 ~ Provide assurance of the ability of the current control rod drive sub-system, the power

conversion sub-system and primary reactor system structural elements (including the core and reflectors)

to accommodate the loads and attitudes attendant to both 'normal ' design ship operating conditions of

roll, pitch, heave, etc. as well as 'abnormal' events such as collision, high speed grounding, and capsize.

Please include a description of the current control rod drive system.

Position ~ The control rod drive systems in past modular-helium reactors were gravity driven.

Obviously this system is inappropriate for vessels in a marine environment. However, a design

developed for the OKBM Project control rod drive system design is rack and pinion driven, and

would most likely be applied for our application. The land-based GT-MHR has been designed to

comply with specific structural requirements relating to earthquake operability and lateral/vertical

stability. Continued investigations on the impacts of ships motions and the resulting accelerationswill be performed.

Issue #4 ~ Provide fuel element failure history in conjunction with current 'threshold' (maximum or

worst) and 'objective ' design goals; provide assurance that the threshold design goal will be achieved

through a defined program of testing, plus related estimates of various accident releases and maintenance

issues at this threshold failure rate level in the system;

Position ~ Coated particle fuel has been used in the U.S. at Peach Bottom, UHTREX, and Fort

St. Vrain and in other reactors in Great Britain, Germany, Japan and China. About 33,400 kg of

coated particle fuel was manufactured for Fort St. Vrain with a defect fraction from burn/leachtesting of less than 3x10-3. The defect fraction objective for the GT-MHR is less than 6x10-5.

Test fuel meeting this design goal has been manufactured both in Germany and the U.S.

Additional irradiation and accident heating tests are planned for the GT-MHR fuel.

Issue #5 ~ Provide persuasive assurance of the suitability of the current land based containment system

design for the marine environment; provide plot of temperature gradient during depressurized cool-down

from fuel to "reactor compartment" with ship in both normal and abnormal attitudes (stranding

conditions); conduct thermal analysis of average temperatures in adjacent compartments and alternative

design approaches to limit these temperatures to those suitable for shipboard environment.

Position ~ The land-based containment concept of a vented low-pressure containment (VLPC)

should be suitable for the marine environment. The VLPC may require operational restrictions on

the reactor when it is near or in port. Thermal analysis of the depressurized conduction cooldown

for the marinized GT-MHR has not been completed but would be similar to the analysis

presented in the 1994 safety assessment report.


22/44


18

Issue #6 ~ If its assumed that loss of turbine blade casualty will not breech the primary system. What

analysis and/or reviews of similar prior incidents have been conducted to provide assurance that this

assumption is completely valid, even for a "Maximum Hypothetical Accident"?

Position ~ Reviews of gas turbine failures have been conducted and the design of the casing for

the turbomachine will restrain a loss of turbine blade accident and prevent any damage to the

primary coolant pressure boundary.

Issue #7 ~ Most of the events analyzed assume that the reactor is at full power conditions, with the

caveat that analysis outside of those conditions was beyond the scope of the analysis. Recall that as a

propulsion system, a marine variant will often be operating under varying conditionsand for an

application such as FASTSHIP the "All-Stop " condition underway will only require about 10% of full

reactor power to accommodate the ship 's regular hotel loads.

Position ~ While the events analyzed did assume the reactor is at full power, a complete safetyanalysis would include partial load and shutdown conditions as required for either a land-based or

marine propulsion system.

Issue #8 ~ All ships maneuver. Thus, the ability of the reference design to accommodate "rapid" changes

in reactor power levels (compared to central power plants) continuously over many cycles is a definite

requirement.

Position ~ Rapid changes in power is a design feature of the land-based GT-MHR and

requirements for rapid changes in power would also be incorporated into a marine propulsion

system. The limits, rates, and number of cycles required over the ship's lifetime shall be agreed toin the design of the marinized GT-MHR.

Issue #9 ~ A marine propulsion reactor system will probably experience a significantly higher number of

complete shutdowns and start-ups during its life cycle versus that of a central station plant. Many of these

will be made to and from 'cold iron ' conditions. Because of the mass of graphite involved and the very

high temperatures to be reached in arriving at plant operating conditions, some 'acceptable' start-up/warm-

up and shutdown/cool-down rates (i.e. times) and cycles need to be developed.

Position ~ The mass of the graphite imposes a time constraint of 4-6 hours on startup from cold

conditions. The operation and life cycle of the marine propulsion system would accommodate

agreed upon startup and shutdown rates and cycles between either cold or hot shutdown and

partial or full-power operation.

Issue #10 ~ The selection of the refueling intervals must be addressed accordingly. If indeed a five-year

core lifetime can only be effected through using a higher enrichment level than current non-proliferation

limits allow, the possibility of changing the current requirement must be addressed by some discussion


23/44


19

with appropriate sources. If relaxation of the current requirement is deemed infeasible, the longest batch

load lifetime (or shuffle if that yields a longer core access interval) just below the limit must be calculated

and used in the economic analysisunderstand that this will be likely to the significant prejudice of the

nuclear ship alternative

Position ~ The need of a five-year core lifetime can be achieved through one possible option -

increase the enrichment level above 20%. The problem encountered here, besides the current non-

proliferation limit, lies in the fact that no feasible enrichment facility available exists. If this

option is deemed infeasible, the longest batch load lifetime, in conjunction with increasing the

burnable poison loading, would need to be examined from detailed 3-dimensional depletion

calculations.

Issue #11 ~ A more complete description of the auxiliary systems associated with a marine variant of the

GT-MHR system, including one- line diagrams of the pre-cooler cooling water system and any other

'systems' required for reactor compartment, generator, etc. cooling is necessary to support further designdevelopment.

Position ~ More complete descriptions of the auxiliary systems including one-line diagrams will

be provided in the final report.


24/44


20

4. REQUIREMENTS

4.1.ECONOMIC

For the purposes of this study, analysis of a nominal route for each the Atlantic and Pacific was planned.

This decision was a logical outgrowth of the original FASTSHIP business model, which is heavilydependent on specific cargo support capabilities within destination ports to facilitate rapid on-load and

off-load of cargo.

FASTSHIP is planned to operate between Philadelphia PA and Cherbourg France. Each of these two

ports is projected to have dedicated facilities to support on-load and off-load operations. The FASTSHIP

route, vessel speed, cargo capacity, rate structure are supported by a detailed economic study. For the

purposes of evaluating the economic impact of the alternatives, it was decided that maintaining the known

operating parameters of the FASTSHIP concept clearly offers the best method for maintaining

commonality in the study.

The decision to maintain ship design speed is supported by the assumption that the fast container

transport market is supported mostly by high-value time-sensitive cargo. Measuring the sensitivity of the

performance of a nuclear variant using similar cargo capacity, speed and revenue while limiting variables

to added ship length and associated acquisition and maintenance costs was deemed far more reliable than

measuring the same sensitivity in terms of different cargo capacity and vessel speeds.

4.2.MISSION AND OPERATING PROFILE

The Atlantic Ocean operating profiles were based the known planned operating schedule for the

FASTSHIP Atlantic (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA to Cherbourg, France). This is a non-stop route,

and endurance calculations for fuel and consumables for this route were estimated for as such.

For the Pacific Ocean, an un-refueled transit distance of 8,500 nautical miles was assumed based upon a

San Francisco to Singapore transit with reserve. This is a non-stop route, and endurance calculations for

fuel and consumables for this route were estimated as such.

4.3.OVERALL TECHNICAL AND PROGRAMMATIC REQUIREMENTS

4.3.1. CONVENTIONAL VARIANT DESIGN CRITERIA

The initial phase of the study focused on the identification of relevant design criteria for the performance

of the analysis. The following list is the summary of the identified requirements:

The existing FASTSHIP hull shall be used.

No impacts will occur to the cargo weight and volume used in the FASTHIP design.


25/44


21

Weights, moments, space, speed, and operating profile will be scaled as appropriate to reflect

design changes necessary for the nuclear powered variant.

All FASTSHIP cargo arrangement critical design and operations features will be retained.

The Nuclear powered design will replicate the speed requirements of FASTSHIP.

Any increase in lightship weight due to the installation of a nuclear power plant will be offset

by an increase in ship length to recover the necessary buoyancy.


26/44


22

5. ATLANTIC VARIANTCONVENTIONAL POWERING (FASTSHIP)

5.1.NAVAL ARCHITECTURE &MARINE ENGINEERING DESIGN ISSUES

FASTHIP is a paper ship, albeit one with regulatory body approval, contract level design drawings, a

specification and various other design documents. This wealth of design detail enables our feasibilitydesign of each variant to be based upon a known, accepted design.

5.1.1. HULL SIZING AND CONFIGURATION

FASTSHIP design documents used for this study represent a contract level package and include

arrangement drawings, weight report to 3-digit SWBS level, machinery powering estimates, and ship

construction specification.

Ship Particulars & Basic Performance Characteristics

Metric EnglishLength Overall m(ft) 263.0 862.9

Length on Waterline m(ft) 229.0 751.3

Beam, max on WL, m(ft) 35.8 117.5

Depth to Main Deck, m(ft) 32.0 105.0

Draft to keel, m(ft) 10.6 34.8

Displacement, Full Load mt(LT) 33, 497.5 32,970.0

Installed Shaft Horsepower 335,000 HP

Ships Speed, Sustained 37+ Knots Sustained

Endurance 4,250 nm @ Max Continuous Power

with 12% Fuel Reserve

Conventional Variant Weight Summary

Weight VCGGroup

(metric tons) (m)

1 Hull Structure 13,171.0 17.3

2 Propulsion Plant 2,005.0 12.6

3 Electric Plant 226.0 35.0

4 Comm & Surveil 22.0 32.2

5 Aux Systems 679.5 19.3

6 Outfit & Furn 956.0 24.9

7 Armament 0.0 0.0

8 Variable Loads 16,438.0 20.4

Full Load 33, 497.5 18.9


27/44


23

Major Equipment List

5 50 MW (67,000 hp) Rolls-

Royce Gas Turbines

5 KeMeWa Waterjets

Ships Complement

3 Officers

18 Crew

5.2.DESIGN INTEGRATION FORCONVENTIONALLY POWERED ATLANTIC VARIANT

Per the plan developed in the Phase I Proposal, integration of the propulsion systems into the design, and

execution of the economic analysis, was to be developed in the Phase II effort. As such, the follow

paragraphs for design integration are To Be Developed in Phase II.

5.2.1. PROPULSION PLANT DESIGN

To Be Developed in Phase II.

5.2.2. MACHINERY ARRANGEMENT


5.2.3. MANNING


5.3.PROPULSION PLANT COST


5.3.1. ACQUISITION


5.3.2. OPERATIONAL AND SUPPORT COSTS


5.3.3. SYSTEM DISPOSAL COSTS



28/44


24

6. NUCLEARPOWERED VARIANT

6.1.NAVAL ARCHITECTURE & MARINE ENGINEERING

For this study, a nuclear powered variant will be developed to compare with the FASTSHIP concepts. As

stated in the assumption section, the FASTSHIP design speed and power were maintained. Any increasein lightship weight due to the installation of a nuclear power plant will be offset by an increase in ship

length to recover the necessary displacement.

6.1.1. HULL SIZING AND CONFIGURATION

The configuration of the nuclear variant is similar to that of FASTSHIP. Cargo volumes and engine

spaces have remained relatively unchanged although slight alteration to the longitudinal extents of the

cargo hold may need to be adjusted to balance trim and resistance against cargo handling requirements.

Ship ParticularsMetric English

Length Overall m(ft) 268.0 879

Length on Waterline m(ft) 232.0 761

Beam, max on WL, m(ft) 35.8 117

Depth to Main Deck, m(ft) 32.0 105

Draft to keel, m(ft) 11.2 37

Displacement, Full Load mt(LT) 35,316 34,759.8

Ships Speed 37+ knots sustained

Endurance Not Applicable No Fuel Limit

Nuclear Variant Weight Summary

Weight VCGGroup

(metric tons) (m)



3 Electric Plant 6,002.1 9.0



6 Outfit & Furniture 964.8 24.9

7 Armament 0.0 0.0


Full Load 35,316.0 17.1


29/44


25

Major Equipment List

2 GT-MHR Reactors, Generators, and

Associated Equipment

5 67,000 HP Perm Magnet Motors

5 KeMeWa Waterjets

Ships Complement

Officers 4

Crew 21

6.2.DESIGN INTEGRATION FORNUCLEARVARIANT

Characteristics of the nuclear variant are presented in the following. A fuel weight increase of 4,229.2

tonnes was needed to support the increased range of the pacific trading route. To support this weightincrease and maintain design speed an additional 15m of hull was added to the baseline design. Weight

associated with this length increase is based on parametric scaling of the baseline design.

The large amount of fuel which was added to the pacific ship concept resulted in a decrease of

approximately.3m to the ships overall KG. This additional added fuel weight also resulted in a shift in

the vessels longitudinal center of gravity of approximately 2%. This shift while not insignificant can be

dealt with through adjustments to the ships center of buoyancy, and can be decreased by reallocating

tankage volume, and is therefore not believed to significantly impact resistance.

6.2.1. PROPULSION PLANT DESIGN


6.2.2. MACHINERY ARRANGEMENT


6.2.3. MANNING


6.3.PROPULSION PLANT COST

The objective here is to support identification of the economic characteristics for the candidate vessels

within each of the alternatives. The final report will follow a two step approach for conducting this

analysis. This will include operating costs (e.g., crew, fuel, and consumables).


30/44


26

The second portion of this analysis will focus on performing a Net Present Value calculation to determine

which options represent the best value. Assumptions that will be used in the NPV calculation will

include:

Relevant costs will include ship acquisition and all relevant operating expenses of an Nth of-

a-kind ship (excluding non-recurring of reactor, propulsion machinery and lead ship, but

including nuclear fuel reloading and disposal).

Relevant revenues will include fares and other significant revenue sources.

A cost of capital equal to the current Federal Government bond interest rates will be used

A series of timelines will analyzed, including 1 year, 5 year, and 10 year operations.

6.3.1. ACQUISITION







31/44


27

7. PACIFIC VARIANT -CONVENTIONAL POWERING DESCRIPTION

This section describes the ship sizing analyses performed to date to develop a non-stop San Francisco to

Singapore vessel. The following discussion focuses on the conventional powered variant; as indicated in

the introduction to this report, as of this report the nuclear powered ships were the same for the Atlantic

and Pacific Variants.

7.1.NAVAL ARCHITECTURE & MARINE ENGINEERINGSeveral assumptions were made to support development of Pacific Variants that can be accurately

compared to our Atlantic Ocean conventional and the nuclear variants. For the purposes of this

investigation it was assumed that the baseline design speed and powering, as used in the Atlantic

conventional variant, would be maintained for the Pacific Variant. The decision to maintain the design

speed constant is supported by the assumption that the fast container transport market is composed of

mostly high-value time sensitive cargo. This market exists only long as the ability to move cargo at a

speed of two or three times the rate of traditional container ships is maintained. Measuring the sensitivity

of the performance of the pacific variant in terms of the naval architecture impacts costs was deemed far

more reliable than measuring the same sensitivity in terms of changes to market share and viability.

The assumption to maintain speed and the associated propulsion power requirements is driven by two

factors, 1) the complexity of adding power to the baseline design and 2) the discrete increments in which

it can be added. Adding power to the baseline design would require the enlarging of water-jets, or

addition of auxiliary or additional jets. Adding water-jets also means the addition of more prime movers

and their associated support equipment. Finding space for additional prime movers and water-jets within

the existing baseline design will be a challenge.

Enlarging the jets during the early design stages would be possible, however, enlarging associated gas

turbines would present a major challenge and will add significantly to the procurement cost if special

development and certification of higher power engines is needed just for the Pacific Variant.

Incrementally adding another prime mover has its own challenges. Not only will additional space be

needed, but additional costs will be incurred supporting prime movers of various types, a draw back of

any split plant configuration. Therefore, it has been assumed that the additional power needs of the

pacific variant will be meet through the addition of another prime mover including the gas turbine and

associated water jet.

Scaling of the Atlantic Conventional Concept to a Pacific variant has been accomplished through changes

in length only. Changes in length are considered to have the least possible impact on the baseline design

and its cargo handling systems. Beam and depth of the baseline design are assumed only to change with

significant changes in KG (ship vertical center of gravity (VCG)), to maintain adequate stability.


32/44


28

Changes in draft have been kept to a minimum, however small changes have been allowed in lieu of

changes to hull coefficients. Changes to the vessels running trim are anticipated as a result of

modification to the baseline ship concept discussed in this section, most significantly the addition of more

propulsion components. Further refinement of hull form will be necessary in Phase II of this study to

optimize hull form coefficients, running trim and resistance.

Although increases in ship length in some cases would enable the ship a greater cargo carrying capacity,

the baseline cargo capacity has been maintained, for the economic analysis issues discussed above. All

additional displacement was utilized for the necessary fuel to complete the pacific trade routes.

The conventionally powered Pacific Variant requires additional fuel to support the increased range of the

pacific trading route. To support this weight increase and maintain design speed an additional 15m of

hull was added to the baseline design. Weight associated with this length increase is based on parametric

scaling of the baseline design.

The large amount of fuel which was added to the pacific ship concept resulted in a decrease of

approximately.3m to the ships overall KG. This additional added fuel weight also resulted in a shift in

the vessels longitudinal center of gravity of approximately 2%. This shift while not insignificant can be

dealt with through adjustments to the ships center of buoyancy, and can be decreased by reallocating

tankage volume, and is therefore not believed to significantly impact resistance.

Ship Particulars

Metric English

Length Overall m (ft) 278.0 912.1

Length on Waterline m (ft) 244.0 800.5

Beam, max on WL, m (ft) 35.8 117.5

Depth to Main Deck, m (ft) 32.0 105.0

Draft to keel, m (ft) 11.6 38.0

Displacement, Full Load mt (LT) 38,673 38,064


33/44


29

Conventional Variant Weight Summary

Group Weight VCG

(metric tons) (m)



3 Electric Plant 229.9 36.1



6 Outfit & Furn 999.4 24.8

7 Armament 0.0 0.0


Full Load 38,673.2 18.6

Major Equipment List6 67,000 HP Perm Magnet Motors

6 KeMeWa Waterjets

2 1,500 kWe Ship Service Generators

Ships Complement

3 Officers

18 Crew

Vessel Performance CharacteristicsShips Speed 37+ knots sustained

Endurance Not calculated at this time

7.2.DESIGN INTEGRATION

Per the plan developed in the Phase I Proposal, integration of the propulsion systems into the design, and

execution of the economic analysis, was to be developed in the Phase II effort. As such, the follow

paragraphs for design integration are To Be Developed in Phase II.

7.3.ECONOMICANALYSIS


7.3.1. ACQUISITION



34/44


30






35/44


31

8. REMAINING WORKSCOPE

8.1.ALTERNATIVE POWERING FORHIGH SPEED SHIPS

The following Work Task Descriptions (WTD) summarize JJMAs Phase II Proposed work scope for the

efforts necessary to accomplish the next Phase of this study. The proposal, provided under separate

cover, describes the work to be performed, its schedule for completion and the cost to complete. The

major focus of the Phase II effort will be to further develop the technical design of a shipboard GT-MHR

concept. The technical and safety issues identified in this report will be reviewed in increasing detail to

ascertain the feasibility of the technical solution. The reactor and its associated cooling and auxiliary

systems will be further developed along with the electrical power generation and conversion systems.

Building upon this technical review and development effort, an economic analysis will be performed.

The results of this completed study will be documented in a final technical report, which contains the

responses to the technical issues, the design development and the economic analysis.

TABLE 7-1

PROGRAM ELEMENT DELIVERABLES

WTDNumber

Deliverable Title & Description Start (weeksafter contract)

Finish (weeksafter contract)

Cost

13 Ground rules 0 2 $5,000

14 Requirements 0 4 $15,000

15 Ship Concept Design 2 8 $55,000

16 Propulsion & Aux. System Design 4 12 $60,000

17 Technical Issue Resolution 2 8 $75,000

19 Design Integration 4 14 $15,00021 Final Report 8 18 $25,000

Sub-Total $250,000

Options

18 Reactor System Design 2 16 $100,000

20 Cost Estimate 8 12 $50,000


36/44


37/44

Alternative Powering for High Speed Ships 11/05/01Interim Progress Report - Appendices

A-1

APPENDIX A

CONCEPT DIAGRAMS


38/44


A-2


39/44


A-3


40/44


A-4


41/44


A-5


42/44


A-6


43/44


A-7


44/44


Documents

Alternative Powering for High Speed Ships