1

High Speed Connector

LT Fragiskos Zouridakis, HNLT Daniel Wang, USN

2

Initial Requirement

• Part of System of Systems– Intra-theater Connector within the Sea Basing

Concept– High Speed, Agile, Versatile Platform

• Focused Logistics– “…ensure the delivery of the right equipment,

supplies, and personnel to the right place, at the right time to support operational objectives.”*

• Affordable• Industry Standard vs. Navy Standard

*Note: CJCSM 31170.01, “Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System”, June 2003.

3

Required Capabilities

• Cargo: – 500-1000 ltons

• Speed >40 kts• Range ~2000nm• Interface: Roll-on-roll-off,

Cargo, Vertical Movement of Cargo.

• Manning 20~30• Navigational Agility:

– Low Draft• Limited Self-defense:

– Air: point defense– Surface: visual range– Sub-surface: passive arg *

fuel

c o

WeightWeight RangeR =

*Pegrum, M., Kennell, C. “Fuel Efficiency Comparison between High Speed Sealift Ships and Airlift Aircraft” Marine Technology, Vol. 39, April 2002

Generation of Competing Variants

Trade of Studies

POWER PLANTS

PROPULSORS CONSTRUCTIONMATERIALS

Diesel

Gas turbines

Electric-Diesel

Waterjet

Propeller

Aluminum

Steel

TransportFactorPayload Speed⋅InstalledPower

Comparison of alternative solutions by means of:

•Quantitative attributes (Transport Factor)

•Qualitative attributes •Seakeeping•Loading interface•Survivability•Feasibility•Ability to manufacture

Design of Experiments:•Data points were produced with proper randomization for the execution of the experimental runs.

Range of operational requirements:•Speed: 32 knots to 44 knots.•Payload: 500 ltons to 1000 ltons.

Developed Variants:•Catamarans (26)• Monohulls (27)• Trimarans (28)

5

Hull SelectionTransport Factor (TF) -vs- Cost

• Catamarans demonstrate the best combination of TF/LCC

• Trimarans give smaller TF for slightly lower LCC

• Monohulls represent the least attractive combination

Catamarans

Trimarans

TF vs LCC

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Life Cycle Cost

Tra

nsp

ort

Fac

tor

catamarans

monohulls

trimaransCatamarans

Trimarans

Monohulls

Life Cycle Cost

• Trimarans demonstrate higher acquisition cost than catamarans due to high R&D

• Monohulls become more competitive in terms of acquisition cost

Acquisition CostTF vs Acquisition Cost

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 100 200 300 400

Acquisition Cost

Tra

nsp

ort

Fac

tor

catamarans

monohulls

trimarans

`

Catamarans

Trimarans

Monohulls

($mil) ($mil)

6

Hull SelectionTF and Cost in Speed-Payload Space

• Monohulls: worst performance in all combinations of speed-payload

• Trimarans: excel only in High speed -High payload case

• Catamarans: best TF in the rest of Speed-Payload space

Catamaran

Monohull

Trimaran

• Monohulls: worst solution in terms of LCC

• Trimarans: marginally lower LCC in High speed - High payload region

• Catamarans: lowest LCC in the rest of Speed-Payload space

Transport Factor Cost

($m

il)

7

Qualitative Analysis - Catamarans

• Seakeeping Capability• Recent designs have demonstrated the ability to travel with 30 knots in sea

state 6• Loading interface

• Lowest draft• Highest maneuverability• Best arrangeability due to rectangular configuration of cargo area• Lowest rolling angle• Capability for Vertical Access, Cargo Ramps for RO-RO

• Survivability• Large reserve cross-structure volume• Duplicated systems in fair separation

• Tested technology • 37 catamarans on 49 HSC were delivered on 2003

• Ability to manufacture• Demonstrated over a number of shipyards across US

8

TF and Cost for Catamarans

• Excellent performance in low speed regions

• Serious degradation with high speeds• Low degradation with payload

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Transport Factor Cost

• Very attractive choice for low speed regions

• High increase in LCC with speed

($mil)

($mil)

9

Vessel Performance –vs- Seabasing System Performance

Pareto Frontier diagram

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

LCC

Sp

eed

*Pay

load

Diesel

ElectricGasturbine

1

2

3

45

Non Dominated Variants:•Aluminum hull•Waterjet propulsion•Diesel Propulsion plant

Optimization of overall system:•Speed: 32knots•Payload: 1000tons •Number of required vessels: 4

System OMOE vs Fleet LCC

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Fleet LCC ($bil)

Del

iver

y Ti

me

(hou

rs)

1000nm

1500nm

2000nm

3

3

3

10

Geometry

• Round bilge hull FW• Flat bottom AFT• High L/B ratio• Low draft • Bulbous bow• Raised wet deck • Small bottom rake angle AF

m91.59Lwl

m30.15Beam

52.6

3.8

Long Ton.mMTc

Long Ton/cm8.14Immersion (TPc)

m216.8KMl

m59.3KMt

m214.6BMl

m57.1BMt

m2.25KB

m-5.1LCF from zero pt

m-3.1LCB from zero pt

-0.83Cwp

-0.77Cm

-0.61Cb

-0.82Cp

mDraft

Long Ton2222Displacement

11

Hydrostatics

BA0123456789101112131415161718

1.0001.4001.8002.2002.6003.0003.4003.8004.200DWL

2

2.4

2.8

3.2

3.6

4

500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750

500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

5.2 5.6 6 6.4 6.8 7.2 7.6 8 8.4 8.8

38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56

Disp.

Wet. Area

WPA

LCB

LCF

KB

KMt

KML

Immersion (TPc)

MTc

Draft = KML = 1.800 m 519.256 m

Displacement tonne

Draf

t m

Area m^2

LCB, LCF, KB m

KMt m

KML m

Immersion tonne/cm

Moment to Trim tonne.m

When draft increases:• Displacement and WSA increase

linearly due to vertical sides of hull• LCB, LCF move back• Transverse and longitudinal

metacentric radii decrease resulting to lower but still more than efficient stability

12

Equilibrium conditions

• Very large variation of characteristics with cargo

• Challenge to maintain neutral trim– In general, catamarans very

sensitive due to small WPA– Usage of ballast tanks had to be

avoided due to extra weight, system complexity, environmental considerations

• Tankage volume 140% of required for specified range

– Negligible KG correction for free surface

– Adaptability: replacing 130 tons of cargo with fuel will result to ~40% higher range

In. Bottom 02

In. Bottom 01

In. Bottom 04

In. Bottom 03

In. Bottom 06

In. Bottom 05

In. Bottom 08

In. Bottom 07

In. Bottom 10

In. Bottom 09

In. Bottom 12

In. Bottom 11 302

301

304

303

308

307

312

311

314

313

316

315

202

201

204

203

206

205

208

207

210

209

212

211

200

102

101

104

103

106

105

0102

0101

0104

0103

0106

0105

1001

1003

1005

01001

01003

01005

cg306a

cg305a

cg306b

cg305b

cg310a

cg309a

cg310b

cg309b

zero pt.

-2.603.82219Full of cargo - Hi fuels

3.4

2.2

Draft (m)

-3.221959Full of cargo - Low fuels

-0.66963.5Empty of cargo - Low fuels

LCG(m)

Total Weight (ltons)

13

Intact and Damaged Stability

• Fulfills IMO Intact and Damaged stability requirements

• High max GZ value• Low equilibrium angles• Max GZ appears at a small angle of

inclination due to– high metacentric height – extremely high beam/freeboard

• Double hull extending from FW perpendicular to FW machinery room

• Compartment subdivision: Designed for 15%LWL floodable length

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Max GZ = 11.386 m at 15.8 deg.

1.5: HTL: Area between GZ and HA Hpc + Hw1.5: HTL: Area between GZ and HA Ht + Hw3.2.1: HL1: Angle of equilibrium Wind heeling (Hw)2.1.1: HL4: Area between GZ and HA Hpc + Hw3.2.2: HL3: Angle of equilibrium Wind heeling (Hw)

GZ = Heel to Starboard = -0.007 m 0.000 deg. Area (from zero heel) = 0 m. deg.

Heel to Starboard deg.

GZ

m

LegendGZ1.5: HTL: Area between GZ and HA Hpc + Hw1.5: HTL: Area between GZ and HA Ht + Hw3.2.1: HL1: Angle of equilibrium Wind heeling (Hw)Max GZ = 11.386 m at 15.8 deg.

14

Main machinery components

Gear Boxes•RENK ASL 53 (x4)•single-engine, non reversible•reduction ratio 2.05:1 •Shaft offset on horizontal

Waterjets•KaMeWa Quadruple 112SII (x4)•6500kW at 582 RPM•Steerable, Reversible•seven bladed impellers with skew

Main Engines•MTU 20V 1163 TB73L (x4)•Power: 6500kW(8710hp) at 1230rpm•SFC: 220gr/(kWhr)

15

Resistance and Powering Prediction

44.134.1Sea Trials

43.133After consumption of

10% margin

EmptyFullCondition

Speed (knots)

Variation of overall propulsive coefficient with speed & draft

Power requirements

Achievable speeds

10.39 16.16 21.92 27.69 33.46 39.23 450.56

0.59

0.61

0.64

0.67

0.69

0.72nD for waterjet

nD_WJ

VsKnots

Full load

Empty

13 16.1 19.2 22.3 25.4 28.5 31.6 34.7 37.8 40.9 440

3500

7000

1.05.104

1.4.104

1.75.104

2.1.104

2.45.104

2.8.104

3.15.104

3.5.104

KaMeWa prediction_Empty LoadKaMeWa prediction_Full LoadHSC Team prediction_Empty LoadHSC Team prediction_Full Load

HSC and KaMeWa BHP Prediction

Speed(Knots)

Pow

er (

Hp)

Full load

Empty

16

Seakeeping Conditions and Criteria

SEAKEEPING CONDITIONS

SPEED (knots)

HEADING (deg)

SEA STATE

(PM)

CARGO LOADING

14

20

26

32

42

180

135

90

45

1m / 5sec

2m / 7sec

3 m / 8.6sec

Full load

Empty load

0

4 m / 9.9sec

5m / 11.1sec

6m / 12.2sec

7 m / 13.2sec

Examined Conditions

Criteria• Roll angles• Pitch angles• Accelerations at the bridge• Wet deck slamming• Waterjet aeration• Deck wetness at the stern 1.32.9Relative vertical motion (m)WaterJet inlet

3.72.1Relative vertical motion (m)Stern ramp

5.94.7Relative vertical motion (m)Wet deck FW

0.2g0.2gLateral vertical acceleration (m/sec^2)Bridge

0.5g0.5gAbsolute vertical acceleration(m/sec^2)Bridge

33Pitch angle (deg)CG

88Roll angle (deg)CG

EmptyFull Load

LIMIT VALUEMEASURE (in significant values)LOCATION

17

Seakeeping Results

Unrestricted operation

Restricted operation

18

Structural Design

• Design Criteria– Based On Det Norske

Veritas (DNV) High Speed Light Ship Rules.

• Iterative Process– Plate Design (boundary

conditions: clamped-clamped)

– Longitudinal Girder/Stiffener Design

– Transverse Web Frame Design

– Torsion Stress Check

TransverseDesign

LongitudinalDesign

Plate DesignTorsion

Stress Check

19

Loading Stresses

• Major Factors– Speed– Loading Condition– Sea State Condition– Geometry (length, width,

draft)• Stress Due To

– Water Pressure– Longitudinal Bending– Slamming (bottom, cross-

structure)– Forward Motion (bow

bottom, side)– Vehicle Loading

20

Loading Stresses (cont.)

Sea Pressure Loading Stress

Slamming Pressure Loading Stress

Longitudinal Bending Stress

21

Scantling Design Results

• Material– Aluminum Alloy 3008H18– Density: 2730 kg per cubic

meter– Yielding stress 225 Mpa

• Plate (5x1.849 m)– 27mm – 23mm– 19mm

• Stiffener– Type 243 CY FdaTb

Fundia TB 160x40 (two sizes)

• Webframe– Same type (two sizes).

• Safety Factor >3– Maxi stress 72 Mpa in Web

frame with torsion

22

Arrangement

mooringmachinery

vehicle deck

cargo deck

CIWS

RAM launcher

magzine

cargoanchor

tankage allocationtankage allocationtankage allocationengine roomengine room

CPO/Off. living

bridgeCIC/radio

eng. control eng. storage AUX machinery laundry tankage allocation

crewliving/mess

Profile View

23

Arrangement (cont.)

O-1 level

Main Deck

24

Arrangement (cont.)

First Deck

Second Deck

25

Arrangement (cont.)

26

Arrangement (cont.)

27

Cost

• Parametric ESWBS weight groups– Material Cost– Labor Cost

• Adjusted for individual items– Engines– Gensets– Gear boxes, cables.

• Life Cycle Cost (in 2005 US dollar)– 20-year span– 4-ship class– Including

• Design: 4.42 million• Acquisition: 186.5 million• Manning: 3.95 million/year• Maintenance: 11.5 million/year• Operational Cost: 29.5 million/year

– Total 780.12 million/195 million per ship.

– Annual cost per ship: 9.75 million

design

acqusition

manning

maintenance

operation

28

Conclusion

• Success– Achieved payload of 1000 ltons. – Partially achieved speed goal of >40 knots.– Low-draft, agile, inexpensive and versatile.

• Future Works– To consider the dynamic stress load of the

ramp to the stern structure– To design propulsion system and control for

dynamic station-keeping while unloading. 46 million50 million150 millionCost

2100 nm2000 nm2000 nmRange

500 ltons

32kts

Threshold

1000 ltoons

34-44kts

Achieved

>40ktsSpeed

1000 ltonsPayload

Goal

nm2100Range (Full load, max speed)

Knots44Speed - Light Ship

Knots34Speed - Full Load

KaMeWa Quadruple 112 SII waterjets4Propulsion

MTU 20V 1163 TB7.3L Diesels4Power Plant

Personnel29Manning

m30.15Beam WL

m91.6LWL

m3.8Draft (Full Load)

LT2222Displacement

Principal Ship Characteristics

29

Questions?