The University of British Columbia | Point Grey Campus ...name2-engineering.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2015/08/FINAL-REPORT-FINAL... · SAVU SEA FERRY The design of a ROPAX ferry for

Gabriel Penalba

2274 Mountain Dr.

Abbotsford, BC V3G1E5

May 6th, 2016

Chris B. McKesson, Ph.D., P.E., P.Eng.

Instructure of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering

Department of Mechanical Engineering

The University of British Columbia | Point Grey Campus

2050 – 6250 Applied Science Lane, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4

Dear Dr. McKesson,

On behalf of Team Ferry, it is my distinct pleasure to present you with this capstone project report in

accordance with the requirements of the Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering program at UBC.

If you should require clarification or have any questions about our methodologies or results, please do

not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you for the magnificent opportunity to participate in this process of designing ships together.

Yours sincerely,

Gabriel Penalba, P.Eng.

SAVU SEA FERRY The design of a ROPAX ferry for Indonesia

Shaun Ren, Gabriel Penalba, Timothy Lee

Abstract Among the South-east Asian countries, Indonesia is known for its unsafe ferry practices. This

project seeks to find a safe, affordable, and yet innovative design for the Savu Sea in the province of East Nusa Tenggara. A steel catamaran with a length of 55 meters, a beam of 23.5 meters, and a draft of 2.8 meters at a full load displacement of 1010 tonnes is proposed. Although still in the

concept design phase, the solution proposed in this report manages to open up a new design space – a robust, safe, and economical ‘workhorse of the sea’ for the people of Indonesia.

Contents

1. LIST OF FIGURES 6

2. LIST OF TABLES 8

3. SUMMARY 10

3.1. Ship Placemat 10

4. INTRODUCTION 11

4.1. Why does this report exist? 11

4.2. Intended Audience 11

4.3. Who produced this report? 11

4.4. Overview of the ship design project 11

5. MISSION 11

5.1. Project Scope 11

5.1.1. Need 12

5.1.2. Goals 13

5.1.3. Objectives 13

5.1.4. Assumptions 13

5.1.5. Constraints 13

5.1.6. Budgets & Schedules 15

5.2. Mission Description 15

5.3. Concept of Operations 16

5.4. Owner’s Requirements 17

5.5. Critical Performance Parameters 18

6. HULL FORM & HYDRO 19

6.1. Summary of Hull Form Driving Considerations / Hull Form Development Rationale 19

6.2. Hull Geometry 23

6.2.1. Body Plan 26

6.2.2. Lines plan 28

6.2.3. Principal Dimensions and Coefficients Table 28

6.2.4. Future Hull Developments 28

6.3. Hydrostatics and Stability 29

6.3.1. Stability Criteria Used 29

6.3.2. Stability Results summary table 31

6.3.3. Limiting KG diagrams 32

6.3.4. Damaged stability Requirements 33

6.3.5. Damaged stability results 34

6.4. Hydrodynamics 35

6.4.1. Resistance and Powering 35

6.4.2. Ship Motions and Seakeeping 38

6.4.3. Ship Maneuverability 39

7. SHIP ARRANGEMENT 39

7.1. Arrangement Rationale 39

7.2. Arrangement Descriptions 42

7.2.1. Arrangement block drawings 42

7.2.2. Area/Volume Report 45

7.2.3. Future Improvements 48

8. SHIP STRUCTURE 49

8.1. Rule set and Methodology 49

8.1.1. Local Pressures 49

8.1.2. Vessel Loading 50

8.1.3. Global Loading 50

8.1.4. Material Selection 52

8.1.5. Plating Thickness 52

8.1.6. Stiffener Properties 53

8.1.7. Hull Girder Strength 54

8.2. Midship section drawing 58

8.2.1. Design Reservations and Recommendations 59

9. SHIP PROPULSION 59

9.1. Machinery plant description 59

9.1.1. Main Engine 59

9.1.2. Gearing and shafting 61

9.1.3. Rationale for Selection 61

9.1.4. Summary of Propulsor Comparison 64

9.2. Machinery Arrangement 70

9.2.1. Block diagram 70

9.2.2. Arrangement Rationale 70

9.3. Endurance fuel calculation 71

10. SHIP ELECTRICAL SYSTEM 71

10.1. Electric plant description 71

10.2. Generator Sizing and Selection Rationale 71

10.3. Electric plant block diagram 71

11. SHIP AUXILIARY AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 72

11.1. Description of systems 72

11.2. Simplified block or one-line diagrams 72

11.2.1. Control System 72

11.2.2. Bilge/fire System 73

11.2.3. Fuel Systems 73

11.2.4. Cooling System 75

11.2.5. Water systems 75

12. WEIGHT ENGINEERING 77

12.1. Margin Policy 77

12.1.1. Margins 77

12.1.2. Allowances 77

12.2. Master Equipment List 78

12.3. Weight & KG Estimate 79

13. COST ESTIMATE 81

13.1. Estimate of Acquisition Cost 81

13.1.1. PODAC Cost Estimate Methodology & Assumptions 81

13.1.2. Parametric Cost Estimate Methodology and Assumptions 83

13.2. Estimate of Operating Cost 86

13.3. ESTIMATE OF rEVENUE 88

14. Technical Risk Assessment 92

15. ISSUES REMAINING FOR NEXT PHASE 93

16. CONCLUSIONS 94

17. REFERENCES 94

18. APPENDICES 97

18.1. Appendix: Project Planning Documents for this Project 97

18.2. Appendix: Renderings 103

18.3. Appendix: General Arrangement Drawings 104

18.4. Appendix: Lines Plan 111

18.5. Appendix: Intact Stability Calculations 112

18.6. Appendix: Damaged Stability Calculations 117

18.6.1. A and B flooded: 118

18.6.2. B and C flooded: 119

18.6.3. C and D flooded: 120

18.6.4. D and E flooded: 122

18.6.5. E and F flooded: 123

18.6.6. F and G flooded: 124

18.7. Appendix: Resistance Calculations 126

18.7.1. NPL Resistance calcs 126

18.7.2. VWS Resistance calculations 128

18.7.3. Pram and Sahoo Resistance Calculations 129

18.8. Appendix: Structural Calculations 131

18.9. Appendix: Weight Estimate 143

18.9.1. Structural Weight 151

1. LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Project Summary Placemat ......................................................................................................... 10

Figure 2 – Existing Passenger only Ferry Routes ......................................................................................... 12

Figure 3: Ramp Measurements ................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 4: Proposed Route ........................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 5: Overcrowding in Indonesian Ferries is typical ............................................................................. 19

Figure 6: Wave Piercing Catamaran Hull .................................................................................................... 20

Figure 7: Cars vs Vessel Length ................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 8: Medium speed CAT power ........................................................................................................... 22

Figure 9: Parent Ship - North Island Princess .............................................................................................. 23

Figure 10: Body Plans of NPL Models ......................................................................................................... 24

Figure 11: Residuary Resistance of NPL Models ......................................................................................... 24

Figure 12: Fat vs Slender Catamarans at Fn = 0.35 ..................................................................................... 25

Figure 13: Summary of Catamaran Target Particulars ................................................................................ 26

Figure 14: NPL Model 3b body plan ............................................................................................................ 27

Figure 15: VWS89 Body Plan ....................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 16: Savu Sea Ferry Demihull Body Plan ........................................................................................... 27

Figure 17: Savu Sea Ferry body plan with Cross Structure ......................................................................... 28

Figure 18: Severe Wind and rolling Criterion .............................................................................................. 30

Figure 19: Ship Fully Loaded Condition ....................................................................................................... 31

Figure 20: Orca Stability Results for Fully Loaded Departure. .................................................................... 32

Figure 21: Hull Subdivision .......................................................................................................................... 33

Figure 22: Example - Removing Buoyancy of Damaged Zones ................................................................... 34

Figure 23: Body Plans used by Pham and Sahoo ........................................................................................ 36

Figure 24: Resistance Predictions (design speed in Red) ............................................................................ 37

Figure 25: Kennell's data on the effect of slenderness ............................................................................... 38

Figure 26: Transport Factor for Similar ROPAX Catamarans ....................................................................... 38

Figure 27: Securing Points [23] ................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 28: Midship Arrangement ................................................................................................................ 42

Figure 29: Deck 5 - Pilot House and Officer Cabins ..................................................................................... 43

Figure 30: Deck 3 and 4 - PAX Accommodations and Seating .................................................................... 43

Figure 31: Deck 2 - Vehicle Deck ................................................................................................................. 44

Figure 32: MLC Space Requirements .......................................................................................................... 46

Figure 33: Vertical Wave Bending Moment ................................................................................................ 50

Figure 34: Twin-hull Bending Moment ....................................................................................................... 51

Figure 35: Twin-hull Torsional Moment ...................................................................................................... 51

Figure 36: Longitudinal Vertical Wave Bending Moment ........................................................................... 51

Figure 37: Simplified Hull form for Shear Stress Calculations ..................................................................... 55

Figure 38: Max Permissible Hull Shear Stress ............................................................................................. 55

Figure 39: Actual Hull Shear Stress ............................................................................................................. 56

Figure 40: Midship Section.......................................................................................................................... 58

Figure 41: NAV 550 Propulsion Unit ........................................................................................................... 60

Figure 42: Main Engine ............................................................................................................................... 61

Figure 43: Machinery Arrangement ............................................................................................................ 70

Figure 44: AC Power Estimate ..................................................................................................................... 71

Figure 45: Simplified Electric Diagram ........................................................................................................ 72

Figure 46: Control System ........................................................................................................................... 73

Figure 47: Bilge and Fi-Fi system ................................................................................................................. 73

Figure 48: Fuel Transfer System .................................................................................................................. 74

Figure 49: Fuel Supply system ..................................................................................................................... 74

Figure 50: Lube Oil System .......................................................................................................................... 75

Figure 51: Cooling System ........................................................................................................................... 75

Figure 52: Potable Water System ............................................................................................................... 76

Figure 53: Oily Water System...................................................................................................................... 76

Figure 54: Black Water System ................................................................................................................... 77

Figure 55: Ship Coordinate System ............................................................................................................. 79

Figure 56: Fully Loaded Weight .................................................................................................................. 79

Figure 57: Operating Trim, Fully Loaded ..................................................................................................... 80

Figure 58: Unloaded Weight ....................................................................................................................... 80

Figure 59: Operating Trim in the Unloaded Condition ............................................................................... 81

Figure 60: Capacity Value vs Salvage Price ................................................................................................. 84

Figure 61: Area Value for various Ferries .................................................................................................... 84

Figure 62: Ship Depreciation ....................................................................................................................... 85

Figure 63: Capacity Value ............................................................................................................................ 85

Figure 64: Annual Expense Pie Chart .......................................................................................................... 87

2. LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Weather Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 14

Table 2: Sea State Probabilities ................................................................................................................... 14

Table 3: Ferry Ramp Dimensional Findings ................................................................................................. 15

Table 4 - Loop around the Savu Sea ............................................................................................................ 16

Table 5: Owner's Requirements .................................................................................................................. 18

Table 6: Critical Performance Parameters .................................................................................................. 18

Table 7: Parametric Study of ROPAX Catamarans ...................................................................................... 21

Table 8: Preliminary Weight Estimate ........................................................................................................ 22

Table 9: Principle Particulars ....................................................................................................................... 28

Table 10: Tank Free Surface Effects ............................................................................................................ 31

Table 11: NPL Model Data compared to Ship Data .................................................................................... 36

Table 12: Local Design Pressures ................................................................................................................ 49

Table 13: Local Loads acting on Vessel ....................................................................................................... 50

Table 14: Hull Bending Moment, Torsional Moment, and Vertical Shear Force ........................................ 51

Table 15: Load Combinations for Cross Deck strength check ..................................................................... 52

Table 16: Minimum Plating Thickness Requirements ................................................................................. 53

Table 17: Sample Calculations of Stiffener Properties................................................................................ 54

Table 18: Maximum Permissible Hull Bending Stress ................................................................................. 55

Table 19: Hull Girder Strength at the Strength Deck .................................................................................. 55

Table 20: Max allowable Stress for the Cross-Deck Structure .................................................................... 56

Table 21: Cross-Deck Strength Criteria for Bending and Shear Stress ........................................................ 56

Table 22: Cross-deck Bending Strength Check ............................................................................................ 56

Table 23: Cross-Deck Shear Strength Check ............................................................................................... 57

Table 24: Propulsion Comparison Criteria .................................................................................................. 63

Table 25: Decision Indexes [26] .................................................................................................................. 63

Table 26: Criteria Weight ............................................................................................................................ 64

Table 27: Summary of Propulsor Comparisons........................................................................................... 65

Table 28: Propulsion Selection Overview ................................................................................................... 66

Table 29: Combined Weight Tables ............................................................................................................ 66

Table 30: ROI Comparisons ......................................................................................................................... 68

Table 31: Weight Allowances ...................................................................................................................... 78

Table 32: Master Equipment List ................................................................................................................ 78

Table 33: Cost Estimate Comparison .......................................................................................................... 81

Table 34: Cost Estimating Relationship Breakdown ................................................................................... 81

Table 35: PODAC Results ............................................................................................................................. 82

Table 36: Cost Estimation Rates.................................................................................................................. 82

Table 37: PODAC Based Cost Breakdown ................................................................................................... 82

Table 38: PODAC Cost Estimate Results...................................................................................................... 83

Table 39: Ticket Prices in the Operating Region ......................................................................................... 83

Table 40: Operating Cost Breakdown ......................................................................................................... 87

Table 41: Trips and Ticket Prices ................................................................................................................. 88

Table 42: Gross Revenue per Stop at 100% Capacity ................................................................................. 88

Table 43: Total Revenue per Year ............................................................................................................... 88

Table 44: Investment Metrics ..................................................................................................................... 89

Table 45: Revenue at Reduced Capacity ..................................................................................................... 90

3. SUMMARY

3.1. SHIP PLACEMAT

Figure 1 - Project Summary Placemat

4. INTRODUCTION

4.1. WHY DOES THIS REPORT EXIST? This report is the combined effort of a group of Naval Architecture and Marine engineering students at

UBC. The research, calculations, and drawings in this report was a powerful opportunity to allow their

knowledge of Naval Architecture and marine engineering to grow as well as fulfill graduation

requirements for the MEng NAME program at UBC.

4.2. INTENDED AUDIENCE Although this report is written to complete a class requirement, it’s also written with fellow students in

mind. Navigating through a large project can be difficult, and sometimes the only solid footing in the

vast sea of information on a topic is a method or reference used in another project. The team hopes that

some of the descriptions or techniques in this report is useful for future Naval Architecture students to

build upon.

4.3. WHO PRODUCED THIS REPORT? The project team includes Shaun Ren, Gabriel Penalba, and Timothy Lee. The team would like to thank

their professor, Dr. Chris McKesson as well as their Industry sponsor, Robert Allan, for their direction,

ideas, and encouragement.

4.4. OVERVIEW OF THE SHIP DESIGN PROJECT The idea for this project was initially conceived from the World Ferry Safety Association’s annual safe

and affordable ferry competition. The major focus of the design was to build a viable ferry concept for

Indonesia. This meant solving the challenges of safety and affordability through stability, capacity, and

ingenuity while meeting and exceeding regulatory requirements. Because of the wide scope and

complexity of the project, the design process took on the form of a spiral. The overall purpose of this

report is to present the design results and also present some of the data that supports the design

decisions. The design is a steel catamaran ferry with an overall length of 55 meters and a full load

displacement of 1010 tonnes.

5. MISSION

5.1. PROJECT SCOPE The aim of this project is to develop a concept level design for a safe and affordable roll-on roll-off

passenger ferry (ROPAX ferry) for the Worldwide Safe Ferry Association’s (WSFA) third annual design

competition. The scope of the competition and of this report is to develop a design at the concept level,

with work done on all the following areas:

ship particulars

general arrangements

outboard profile

mid-ship section

light ship weight

intact and damaged stability estimates

speed-power estimates

machinery arrangement plans

life-saving plans

cost estimate

We don’t expect to be able to cover everything in detail or have all the right answers. What we do

expect is to have gone around the design spiral a couple of times and fill in enough to gain a much

better sense of our design’s feasibility.

5.1.1. NEED Indonesia is currently the fourth most populous country after the United States of America and consists

of over 6,000 inhabited islands [1]. Despite being a country heavily influenced by the sea, the WFSA

reports that in the 14 years since 2000, 17% of the 21,574 lives lost due to ferry accidents in the world

are from Indonesia [2]. This competition is a response by the WFSA to encourage the development of

safe ferries that are affordable for the regions that are still overwhelmed with ferry tragedies.

East Nusa Tenggara (NTT, Nusa Tenggara Timur), a province of Indonesia, is particularly in need for safe

and affordable transportation. NTT is the poorest province in Indonesia with 15% inflation rates, 23%

interest rates and a stunning 30% unemployment rate [3]. A report on the problems and cost by the Asia

Foundation in this particular region indicates that a 10% reduction in transportation cost will reduce the

inflation rate by at least 1% [4]. Furthermore, ferry ticket accounts for about 77% of the inter-island

transportation costs and “entire journey time” (which increases truck crew costs). Consequently, an

improvement to the region’s ferry transportation is key to the region’s growth.

Figure 2 – Existing Passenger only Ferry Routes

5.1.2. GOALS The goal of this design project as students is to bring together what we have learn in the classroom with

the needs identified in NTT to advance the safety and affordability of ferry transportation. By

participating in this design project, we hope to learn about and share a few of the significant challenges

that ultimately affect ferry transport in NTT.

5.1.3. OBJECTIVES This project’s objective is to design a ferry concept tailored for NTT region’s needs. In particular for this

region, a ferry that addresses the common safety concerns present in this region such as fire safety,

storm-proofing and maneuverability while keeping the vessel affordable to potential owners.

5.1.4. ASSUMPTIONS Existing conditions are used as the baseline for current operating design parameters. These parameters

include fuel costs, transportation demands, social behaviors (such as overcrowding), and labor wages.

Furthermore, since the design requirements from WFSA have not specified a maximum cost nor a

maximum capacity for vehicles, the following assumptions were made prior to starting the project:

Maximize the vehicle capacity to increase revenue. The more vehicles the ferry can carry, the

better.

The acquisition cost should be kept as low as possible.

The ship is affordable if it can have a payback period that is equal to or less than 75% of its

expected life.

The ship’s operational life span is estimated to be 40 years based on various accounts describing

ferries in this region have an average age of 15-25 years [5].

5.1.5. CONSTRAINTS The environment of the region of operation constrains the design of the ship as much as the key

performance parameters. In fact, adverse weather contributes up to 53% of world ferry accidents

according to WFSA [6]. Some constraints were outlined in the owner’s requirements like depth

(maximum draft) and port constraints. Other constraints, like ramp constraints, were carefully

investigated to guarantee that the designed ROPAX ferry could berth at the designated ports to

successfully fulfill its mission of loading and unloading vehicles.

The tables below summarize the local weather conditions the ferry must withstand.

LOCATION FACTOR MIN HIGH UNIT CITATION

On route

Depth No restrictions m P3

Wind Speed 0 30 knots P3

Wind Direction N or SE

Sea Swelling 2 4 m P3

Wave Height 0 6 m

Dock

Depth (of ship) 6 m P3

Sea Swelling 4 5 m P3

Table 1: Weather Conditions

The designed ferry will have to satisfy these environmental conditions, as further detailed in the report

sections on hull form and structures. To verify that the owner’s specified maximum wind speed is

actually 30 knots the probability of the occurrence of 30 knot wind was computed (Note: 30 knots

sustained wind corresponds to Sea State 6 in NATO STANAG 4154 table for the North Atlantic

Ocean).The probability distribution of wind magnitudes is modeled as a Rayleigh Distribution just as

wave heights are modeled.

Equation 1: Exceedance Probability for Rayleigh Distribution [7]

“Q(r)” is the exceedance probability, “sigma” is the mode and “r” is the threshold of interest. From the

exceedance probability equation for a Rayleigh distribution, the probability of the wind exceeding 30

knots is 1.5*10^(-8). The low probability of exceeding 30 knots indicates that the statement made by the

owner is realistic. The most frequently seen (mode) wind speeds were obtained from inspecting the

maximum wind speed in the 2001 pilot charts for each month in the operating area. The table below

sums up the step by step results of the calculations.

WIND SPEED PROBABILITY SUSTAINED WIND SPEED

(KNOTS)

SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT

MODE (MOST SEEN BY

MARINERS – FROM THE PILOT

CHARTS)

10

SEA STATE 2

0.1-0.5 m

RMS (mode = 0.707*RMS)

14.14

SIGNIFICANT ~= MODE*2 20

SEA STATE 4

1.25-2.5 m

STANDARD DEVIATION

(SIGMA_N = 0.25 SIGNIFICANT) 5

EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY

Q(R.) = 1.5*10^(-8)

30

SEA STATE 6

4 - 6 m

Table 2: Sea State Probabilities

Inquiry into the ferry piers show that they were designed for mono-hull ROPAX ferries that carry their

own stern and bow ramps; these ramps are located at the center-line of the ship. Since the hull form

chosen for this project is a catamaran, it was vital to determine how the ramps will be placed to ensure

compatibility with the existing piers.

Movable ramps in the region were measured to be generally over 5 m wide. Nevertheless, it is

recommended that the ramp be no more than 5 m to increase for tolerances as well as compatibility

with a wider range of ports. A Ferry Rehabilitation Project report [8] records that some of the purchased

movable “bridges” installed in Indonesia are of dimension as small as 19 x 5m.

Figure 3: Ramp Measurements

Most ferry piers have passenger walkways located on the starboard side of the ship from the

perspective of a ship unloading from the bow. The center of the ramp to the concrete dolphins or pier

side for passengers is about 3.9 m for the smallest pier in the designed route (Port of Savu/Sabu, the

smallest pier, uses a simple concrete ramp). If our ferry is to carry a bow or stern ramps, the center the

ramps is constraint to no more than 3.9m from the side of the ship.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON FERRY PIER MOVABLE RAMPS

Physical Dimensions Dimension Range

Ramp Width 5.0 m 5.78 to 10m

Center of ramp to concrete dolphin 3.9 m 3.9 to 6.55m

Road width 4.5 m 4m to 6 m

Table 3: Ferry Ramp Dimensional Findings

5.1.6. BUDGETS & SCHEDULES

5.2. MISSION DESCRIPTION Within East Nusa Tenggara (NTT), the ferry is to operate in the region of the Savu Sea. This sea is

surrounded by five major islands. The ferry is to operate in a scheduled loop with five stops; stops are

located at major city ports of each island. The ROPAX Ferry will transport around 185 passengers, as well

as cars, and trucks that carry cargo. The proposed loop for the ferry is between the cities of Waingapu,

Ende, Tenau, Rote, and Savu, as shown in Table 1 and Figure 2 below.

Figure 4: Proposed Route

Mission Loop [Nm] Time in hours @15kn

Ende to Waingapu 99 6.6 Hr.

Waingapu to Sabu 110 7.3 Hr.

Sabu to Rote 88 5.9 Hr.

Rote to Tenau 32 2.1 Hr.

Tenau to Ende 139 9.3 Hr.

Total: 468 31.2 Hr.

[Nm] [hours, travelling] Table 4 - Loop around the Savu Sea

5.3. CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS A concept of operations informally describes how a system will be used in order to build consensus

among the stakeholders [9]. The following CONOPS describes, with broad strokes, the operational life of

the ferry.

Regular operating schedules will be created for the new ferry to operate among the five cities, Ende,

Waingapu, Savu, Rote, and Tenau. At 15 knots, the ferry will take about six days to one week to make a

complete loop based on average weather conditions. The crew will both live and work on the ferry.

Living accommodations including cabins, a mess room, a laundry room, and a galley will be provided.

Crew work spaces include the bridge and store areas as well as the various machinery spaces.

Passengers will begin boarding in the morning before it sets off. Cars, trucks, and passengers board from

the stern ramps. As passengers board, the crew will collect tickets.

Passengers climb the stairs from the deck to the 2nd deck, where the seating area is located. There is

premium and economy seating. Premium seats have the advantage of getting on and off the ferry first

as well as extra seating space. Accommodations are also available for passengers travelling on-board for

multiple nights on the Savu Sea loop or those who wish for a more comfortable and private ride. All

interior spaces will be ventilated and air conditioned, as the weather can get uncomfortably hot in

Indonesia. A kiosk to buy drinks, snacks or even basic groceries will be available behind the passenger

area. Stairs to the top deck allow passengers to enjoy the fresh air and scenery.

When the ferry is ready to leave port, the stern ramp is raised and then ferry will move out of the port.

The ferry will make a quick U-turn using the azimuth thrusters and head towards the destination port

city, gradually picking up speed to about 15 knots. The captain and the helmsman make use of the

navigation systems and will be on the lookout for obstacles. The longest trip will be a little over 9 hours

long; hence, the ship will arrive in the late afternoon. Tools such as GPS/chart plotters, advanced radar,

thermal imaging cameras, and night-vision scopes will be required if night-time navigation is desired.

Upon reaching the pier, the bow ramp will be lowered to disembark first class passengers and then the

general passengers and vehicles.

After the bustle of unloading, the crew cleans the vacant accommodations in preparation for the next

occupants of the following day. The janitor will obtain equipment from the janitor room to clean the

deck; the sewage tanks will be emptied and consumables such as store goods, food, fresh water, fuel,

and lube oil will be replenished.

Preparing for the next day’s loading from the stern ramp, the ferry will briefly pull out of its berth, turn

around and pull in from the stern ship.

When the ship’s engines are due for scheduled maintenance, a spare propulsion unit or engine unit will

be available at one of the piers for a quick swap out promptly ready for the next departure. The engine

swap will reduce significant amount of downtime by transferring on-board maintenance to the more

convenient on-shore maintenance.

In the case of a fire which is commonly caused by causes by the engine or trucks; automatic fire

sprinklers will be activated. Two separate fire-hoses also be accessible on the car deck. The well

ventilated deck feature of the ship also allows fire-fighting vessels to better put out fires as opposed to

the typical enclosed car decks. Well ventilated car deck are also known to have 90% less fire occurrences

[6].

5.4. OWNER’S REQUIREMENTS The owner’s requirements are defined in the Terms of Reference document of the “Student Design

Competition for Safe Affordable Ferries 2015” by the Worldwide Ferry Safety Association. The owner

specified that “the ferry must be affordable to construct, acquire, operate, maintain and repair” while

operating safety in its designed operations as description in section 9.2.

A summary of the requirements for passenger and crew comfort as specified in the MLC 2006,

International Conventions and the project’s Terms of Reference [10] is shown below in table.

Requirement Minimum Interpretation

Affordability Undefined by owner As good as or better than

investing in a conventional design

Passengers 70

Vehicles Undefined by owner Maximize

Passenger Cabins 20

Crew Cabins 7

Galley 1

Mess room 1

A/C environment Accommodation area

Design Speed 14 knots

Cruising Range 1000 Nm

Table 5: Owner's Requirements

The requirements for the number of vehicles is interpreted as an optimizing value since the other

revenue flow of passengers is limited to 185 passengers. Similarly, affordability of the ship is viewed

from an investment point of view of the owner. The owner’s next best alternative for their investment is

likely a conventional design or another student competition design.

5.5. CRITICAL PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS The key performance parameters, measurable system capabilities that must be met for operational

goals, are summarized in the table below.

Key Performance

Parameter

Minimum

Threshold

Maximum

Threshold

Designed Performance

Passenger Capacity 70 185 185

Vehicles unspecified to maximize 34 sedans, 10 trucks

Passenger Cabins 20 unspecified 20

Design Speed 14 18 15

Endurance 1000 Nm unspecified 1000 Nm

Sea Sate 6 unspecified 6 *

Table 6: Critical Performance Parameters

Additional miscellaneous requirements specified by the owner are: designing layouts to Maritime Labor

Convention (MLC) 2006 standards, providing specific crew spaces, and installing ventilation and air

conditioning for all accommodations areas.

6. HULL FORM & HYDRO

6.1. SUMMARY OF HULL FORM DRIVING CONSIDERATIONS / HULL FORM DEVELOPMENT RATIONALE With terms of reference as specific as is provided by the World ferry safety association including the

suggested maximum length of 50m (for alongside berthing), the design space of the ferry quickly started

to take shape. Many of the drivers that were considered in the hull design are summarized below.

Above all else, priority was given to safety. As has been previously mentioned, many ferries in Indonesia

are accidents waiting to happen. The number one cause of accidents in Indonesia is human error which

includes improper stowage of cargo, overcrowding, and misjudgment of weather conditions.

Overcrowding is very common in the area and should be expected.

Figure 5: Overcrowding in Indonesian Ferries is typical

Besides safety, cost is a prime consideration in this design. Indonesians will not easily invest in an

expensive hull form, no matter how efficient it is. For example, many recently built catamaran ferries of

similar length use a wave piercing hull, as shown in the next figure. Although this hull form has lower

overall resistance and improved sea-keeping characteristics due to its SWATH-like properties, it’s more

complex to both design and manufacture and so is not a prime candidate for this design.

Figure 6: Wave Piercing Catamaran Hull

Cost of the ship can be compensated by increasing the payload, which lowers the life-cycle cost and

lowers the payback period. This is reflected in the terms of reference from the WFSA that state that the

number of cars and trucks should be maximized. If a ship can make money, the owners are far more

likely to make the investment than to purchase a used ship and retrofit it as a ferry.

Choice of materials is also very important for this design. Aluminum is a third of the weight of steel and,

according to Davidson, an aluminum design is 53% the mass of its equivalent in steel [11]. With about

45% of a catamaran’s lightship weight due to hull structure, this would seem like an obvious choice.

However, aluminum is more expensive and results in a higher labor rate. According to our sponsor, a

fabricated cost (material and labor) of aluminum of about 7x the cost per tonne of steel. This cost can be

reduced over time with increased expertise and custom extrusions, as has is demonstrated by the

Australian Catamaran industry. Although the Indonesian ship building industry is growing, fueled by

changes like the Cabotage principles of 2008 [12], there are very few shipyards that will construct and

repair aluminum, and none in East Nusa Tenggara, the province the ship will be operating in. Lastly, it’s

important to mention that the amount of fire insulation required on an aluminum structure is

significantly more than on a steel vessel, somewhat offsetting the weight advantage of aluminum.

A review of ROPAX catamarans in operation shows that most of them are aluminum high speed craft.

This makes sense as the stability of the craft allows the demihulls to be very slender, providing less

resistance at high speed. Aluminum is used to increase the proportion of the ship’s displacement that is

payload: more of the displacement is making money, less is providing buoyancy and structure.

Connecting the dots of safety and cost, we’ve settled on a catamaran hull-form. A catamaran would

effectively counter the poor practices of ships being overloaded with people and potentially hazardous

materials while also maximizing deck space. Slender hulls spaced widely apart provides not only speed

and stability, but also dramatically increases the available deck area. This makes catamarans very well

suited for transport of high volume, low density cargo, which is exactly what we need. Simply put, a

catamaran satisfies the requirements of safety and affordability.

Medium speed, steel catamarans are uncommon. A number of parent vessels were collected to further

fill in the design space. The white rows below are medium speed, aluminum catamarans, and the green

rows are ROPAX catamarans with steel hulls. For posterity, the full list of catamarans and mono-hull

ferries used in the parametric analysis are included in the appendix.

Table 7: Parametric Study of ROPAX Catamarans

Some important parametric relationships that were developed with our list of similar ships include the #

of cars vs catamaran length and a parametric relationship for powering. The first serves to further

solidify our choice of a catamaran hull form; the second is a good initial power estimate.

Figure 7: Cars vs Vessel Length

Name Ref Type Materials Lightship Disp LOA LWL Beam BWL b Cb Draft

CATAMARANS [tonnes] [tonnes] [m] (overall) [m] [m] [m] [m]

Pentalina Sea Transport ROPAX CAT Aluminum 1137.2 68.9 62.01 20 19.5 6.50 0.55 2.5

Don Nasib Sea Transport ROPAX CAT Aluminum 966.6 61 54.9 20 19.5 6.50 0.55 2.4

Aurora V Sea Transport ROPAX CAT Aluminum 729.7 55.26 49.734 20 19.5 6.50 0.55 2

Don Nasib II Sea Transport ROPAX CAT Aluminum 729.7 55.26 49.734 20 19.5 6.50 0.55 2

Bigred Cat Sea Transport ROPAX CAT Aluminum 543.9 54 48.6 18 17.5 5.83 0.55 1.7

Fast CAT Sea Transport ROPAX CAT Aluminum 603.2 49.9 44.91 17.5 17 5.67 0.55 2.1

Ivete Sangalo Sea Transport ROPAX CAT Aluminum 424.7 49 44.1 16.5 16 5.33 0.55 1.6

Seascape Sea Transport ROPAX CAT All Aluminum 424.7 49 44.1 16.5 16 5.33 0.55 1.6

Island Navigator ROPAX CAT unknown… 413.0 38.5 34.65 13.7 13.2 4.40 0.55 2.4

Sealion 2000 Austral Ships ROPAX CAT Steel hull 685.2 48.8 47 16 15.5 5.17 0.55 2.5

CD551 Incat Crowther ROPAX CAT Steel Hull/Al Super 312.4 40 36.25 15.5 15 3.75 0.70 1.6

Sealink Sea Transport ROPAX CAT Steel Hull/Al Super 157.27 330.27 41 35 13 1.5

North Island Princess BC Ferries ROPAX CAT Steel Hull and Super 665.0 804.0 61.0 52.8 17.98 5.14 3.28

Starlite Ferry ROPAX CAT Steel Hull and Super 1029.5 41.4 39.8 15.90

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 20 40 60 80 100

# O

F C

AR

S

LENGTH

# OF CARS VS VESSEL LENGTH FOR MONOS AND CATS

Mono hulls

Cats

Linear (Mono hulls)

Linear (Cats)

Figure 8: Medium speed CAT power

The best parent ship available is the North Island Princess (NIP), a 61m long ROPAX catamaran

constructed from steel, with a lightship displacement of 665 tonnes. The NIP represents the only

accurate data point for displacement, so its lightship weight was used to make a rough estimate for the

full load displacement of our vessel. The following weight estimate, although very preliminary, tended to

fit in with later weight estimates. The DWT/displacement ratio from this estimate, at 0.3, is also quite

reasonable for ROPAX vessels.

Table 8: Preliminary Weight Estimate

y = 5.7363x - 1.8448

2

3

4

5

6

0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20

KW

/TO

NN

E

FN_V

MEDIUM SPEED CAT POWERING TRENDS

Figure 9: Parent Ship - North Island Princess

6.2. HULL GEOMETRY Hull geometry was developed in concert with a few different sources. The NPL round bilge displacement

series provided a systematic series to initially size the hulls and recommend a hull spacing. Dr. Max

Haase et al. [13] provided some very well documented advice on catamaran particulars for the medium

speeds around a Froude number of 0.35. The lines plan of the VWS89 series was used as a reference to

add a chine to the hull. Lastly, the expert advice of Chris McKesson and Robert Allan improved hull

iterations, lighting the way forward.

The NPL hull series are well organized for catamaran designs because they’re set up in incremental steps

of increasing Length/Displacement ratio (slenderness ratio). Molland calls the slenderness ratio the

predominant hull parameter, and for good reason. It is a major driver in demihulls design. According to

McKesson in [14], “The desire for slenderness is the very raison d’être for…the catamaran and

trimaran.” Assuming a waterline length of 50 meters and using our initial weight estimate of over 1000

tonnes in sea water, the closest NPL model is 3b, with a slenderness ratio of 6.27.

Figure 10: Body Plans of NPL Models

Examining the residuary resistance of the NPL ‘b’ models clearly shows a hollow in residuary resistance

at a Froude number of around 0.35. With a design speed of 14 to 18 knots as specified in the owner’s

requirements, a range of length between about 45 meters to 60 meters is possible.

Figure 11: Residuary Resistance of NPL Models

Longer ships are more slender and produce less wave-making resistance at Fn = 0.35 but will cost more

to manufacture and since they travel at a faster absolute speed, will require more power to reach the

desire Fn. Shorter ships make more waves, but travel slower and cost less. Put another way: Longer

ships are more efficient but you pay a premium for that efficiency. Figure 11 illustrates the constant

displacement line in the cloud of possible ship designs.

Because of the focus on the affordability of this design, shorter ships were favored. A selection was

made by prioritizing cost, tabulating all the required areas, and iterating over the resistance of possible

ships. A waterline length of 52.5 meters was settled on.

Figure 12: Fat vs Slender Catamarans at Fn = 0.35

Other principle dimensions and coefficients important to a catamaran design are prismatic coefficient,

block coefficient, transom depth, demihulls separation ratio, and cross structure height. Most of these

target particulars are covered very clearly in [15] with summarizing plots for medium speeds, which are

shown here in Figure 12.

A multihull’s prismatic coefficient has an affect much greater than that for a monohull, and should be at

most 0.6 if not lower. Block coefficient, especially for displacement (rather than planing) catamarans, is

of particular importance, and should range between 0.39 and 0.45, as is shown with the NPL models

which have a Cb of 0.39. Demihull separation ratio also has a great effect on catamaran resistance.

Separation ratio much be chosen correctly to avoid undesirable crossflow effects. Based on Haase,

Dubrovsky, and Molland, generally a wider separation is better, although a separation ratio (s/L) of 0.3

at a Froude number of 0.35 has been shown to reduce the wave-making resistance, as shown in Figure

12. This separation ratio is also fully documented in [16], which shows a marked drop in residuary

resistance at our design speed. Furthermore, the overall deck width created with s/L = 0.3 and LWL =

52.5 works well for a layout of standard car and truck lanes. These layouts will be covered more

thoroughly in the arrangements section of this report.

Figure 13: Summary of Catamaran Target Particulars

The tunnel height clearance chosen was 1.5 meters based on expert advice, which is a good first

estimate. Transom depth was chosen to ensure it stays dry – this occurs at a transom Froude number of

2.5. Solving for the transom depth at our design speed shows the transom depth must be less than

1meter.

Using these hull particulars, Orca’s hull assistant was used to generate an initial hull form. Dynamically

updating hydrostatics proved very useful. After 7 iterations through the hull assistant, the final touch

was to add more control points and move the LCB further aft to match the -6% midship LCB of NPL

models. Rebuilding the surface (RebuildUV in Rhino) to remove un-needed control point faired the hull,

greatly increasing its aesthetic appeal.

6.2.1. BODY PLAN The two body plans used to develop our hull were the NPL model 3b as well as the VWS89. They’re both

shown below along with the body plan of our hull for comparison.

Figure 14: NPL Model 3b body plan

Figure 15: VWS89 Body Plan

Figure 16: Savu Sea Ferry Demihull Body Plan

Figure 17: Savu Sea Ferry body plan with Cross Structure

6.2.2. LINES PLAN

6.2.3. PRINCIPAL DIMENSIONS AND COEFFICIENTS TABLE

Table 9: Principle Particulars

6.2.4. FUTURE HULL DEVELOPMENTS Although the hull was developed enough to provide a good start for arrangements, midship structure,

and weights, it’s far from being a finished product. Further iterations of this hull could include:

Widening the deck line forward to provide more flare, improving spray deflection and

seakeeping.

Increasing the slope from the chine to the wet deck, adding more reserve buoyancy.

Round out the bow so it ends in a nice radius instead of a point (perhaps 500mm)

Provide more of a transition from the demihull to the cross structure to match the midship

section drawing.

Lower the prismatic coefficient to more closely match the recommended value of 0.6.

6.3. HYDROSTATICS AND STABILITY

6.3.1. STABILITY CRITERIA USED SOLAS was used as the benchmark for safety, including intact stability requirements. Regulation 5, part

B-1 of SOLAS states that every passenger ship of length 24m and upwards shall at least comply with part

A of the 2008 IS Code. The 2008 IS Code clearly defines mandatory stability criteria, each to be applied

at the 4 conditions of loading defined for a passenger ship. As will be seen with the results, our ship is

incredibly stable and is able to easily satisfy all criteria. HSC Code (for high speed craft) has criteria

specific for multi-hull ships, and so it was considered worth reviewing. The purpose of HSC is to set

levels of safety equivalent to those of conventional ships. HSC Code applies to:

Passenger craft that do not proceed more than 4 hours at 90% max speed from a place of

refuge.

O At a speed of 15 knots, one leg of the Savu Sea loop will take the ship over 4.5 hours

away from a place of refuge.

‘HSC’ craft, as defined in HSC 2000 Chapter1.4: A craft capable of maximum speed in meters per

second, equal to or exceeding 3.7𝛁0.1667.

O At our design waterline, this amounts to 22.7 knots, which is far above our maximum

speed.

No enclosed sleeping berths for passengers are provided.

o We have over 50 passenger berths in our design.

Although we do not meet the requirements for all of HSC, some of the stability criteria shed light on

what is considered an “equivalent level of safety” for catamaran stability.

The stability criteria from IS 2008, including general criteria, severe wind and rolling criteria, as well as

special passenger ship criteria are as follows:

I. The area under the right lever curve (GZ Curve) is not to be less than 0.055 meter-radians (3.15

meter-degrees) up to a 30 degree angle of heel.

II. Area under GZ curve is not to be less than 0.09 meter-radians (5.16 meter-degrees) up to a 40

degree angle of heel.

III. Area under GZ curve is not to be less than 0.03 meter-radians (1.72 meter-degrees) from 30 to

40 degrees, or between 30 and the angle of down flooding.

IV. Right lever GZ shall be at least 0.2m at an angle of heel equal to or greater than 30 degrees.

V. The maximum righting lever shall occur at an angle of heel not less than 25 degrees. If this is not

practicable, alternative criteria based on an equivalent level of safety maybe applied.

VI. Initial metacentric height GM0 shall not be less than 0.15 meters.

VII. Under the severe wind and rolling criterion, area ‘b’ is to be greater than area ‘a’, as shown in

the following figure (See the appendix for a full calculation).

VIII. The angle of heel from crowding passengers, with passengers distributed to produce the most

unfavorable combination of passenger heeling moment and/or metacentric height, shall not

exceed 10 degrees.

IX. The angle of heel resulting from the steady wind heeling (𝛗0 ) should not exceed 16 degrees.

X. Angle of heel on account of turning shall not exceed 10 degrees, using the formula shown in IS,

part B, Chapter 3.1.2.

Figure 18: Severe Wind and rolling Criterion

The loading conditions include:

A. Fully loaded departure with cargo, full stores and fuel, and full number of passengers with their

luggage.

B. Fully loaded arrival condition, with cargo, full number of passengers and their luggage but with

only 10% stores and fuel remaining.

C. Ship without cargo, but with full stores and fuel and the full number of passengers and luggage.

D. Ship without cargo, but with only 10% stores and fuel remaining.

6.3.2. STABILITY RESULTS SUMMARY TABLE Part A, part 2.1.1 of IS Code states that free surface effects (FSE) have to be accounted for in all

conditions of loading. For simplicity, we’ve calculated the FSE for all large tanks for the worst case only –

the unloaded arrival case – and then applied this decrease in GM to all loading cases.

Table 10: Tank Free Surface Effects

Normally, the stability results should be calculated for all loading conditions. However, because of how

stable this catamaran is, only the worst case was considered (Fully loaded condition). Orca was used to

set the criteria limits and do all hydrostatic calculations.

Figure 19: Ship Fully Loaded Condition

Figure 20: Orca Stability Results for Fully Loaded Departure.

The one stability criteria that isn’t met is the angle where the maximum righting arm occurs. For an

equivalent level of safety, we can look at the parallel criteria in High Speed Craft code, which has a

similar criteria tailored for catamarans in HSC 2000 Annex 7. Here, the Maximum GZ value should occur

at an angle of at least 10 degrees. From this, we can conclude that the ship meets intact stability

requirements.

6.3.3. LIMITING KG DIAGRAMS As has been shown in the intact stability analysis, this catamaran ferry is very stable. Even with the

combined heeling moments of wind, overcrowding, and turning, the heeling angle was far below the

limit. Because of this, it was decided that a limiting KG diagram would not make a meaningful addition

to the ship’s stability analysis or proof of its ultimate safety.

6.3.4. DAMAGED STABILITY REQUIREMENTS SOLAS 2009 includes probabilistic methods to analyze subdivision and, in turn, damaged stability. This

newer method to assess stability opens up ship subdivision to a designer like never before, allowing for

all sorts of ship subdivision besides the traditional watertight transverse bulkheads. Rather than try to

solve for the optimal hull subdivision, this design subdivides using more traditional methods and then

uses deterministic methods based on SOLAS 1974 to assess damaged stability. It’s worthwhile noting

that a recent study on small ROPAX vessel stability (ship lengths ranging from 32m to 100m) shows that

vessels designed to SOLAS 90 requirements almost always meet the 2009 requirements [17]. All the

vessels in the study meet SOLAS 90 when their GM margins are considered.

Initial subdivision was done based on Table 3.4.1 of Lloyd’s Register rules and Regulations for the

Classification of Ships, Part 3, Chapter 3, Section 4. The total number of bulkheads for a ship of our

length is at least 3 with machinery aft, plus the addition of a collision bulkhead and after peak bulkhead.

We’ve exceeded these requirements by having a total of 6 watertight bulkheads.

For damaged stability criteria, SOLAS 2004 was used to define 2 compartment flooding. The criteria

evaluated were:

I. Righting lever curve shall have a minimum range of 15 degrees past equilibrium.

II. Area under the righting lever curve shall be at least 0.015m-radians (0.86 m-degrees) from

equilibrium to 27 degrees.

III. Residual GZ after damage to be heeling moment/displacement + 0.04, where the healing

moment is the greatest of crowding, launching survival craft, and wind pressure.

IV. A heel angle of 12 degrees is the maximum permitted after flooding.

V. The margin line should not be submerged in any case.

In order to do the analysis, a simplified ‘lost buoyancy’ method was used with Orca. Using ‘boolean

difference’ with solids, the volume of two compartments (A and B from the following figure, for

example) was removed. SOLAS defines the vertical extent of damage to be from the baseline up,

without limit, so the entire volume of the sections was removed, without regard to subdivision due to

tanks. Sections were then defined for the damaged hull and the righting arm curve was calculated to

evaluate stability criteria. A similar analysis could be done using the ‘added weight’ method by adding

‘Orca weight points’ to the hull representing the added weight of water taken on board after damage.

Figure 21: Hull Subdivision

Figure 22: Example - Removing Buoyancy of Damaged Zones

6.3.5. DAMAGED STABILITY RESULTS The following are stability criteria results for damage stability in the fully loaded departure condition.

6.4. HYDRODYNAMICS

6.4.1. RESISTANCE AND POWERING Resistance was calculated using three methods to approximate an upper envelope of effective power to

drive the ship at the design speed. All of these methods are summarized in [18]. The first is based on the

NPL series [16]. Molland reports resistance data for various models of the NPL round bilge series in both

monohull and catamaran configurations. Because the particulars of our hull do not fully match any one

model, resistance was calculated for our ship using the two closest models: Model 3b, which displaces

more if scaled to our ship, and model 4b, which displaces less. Residuary resistance was interpolated

between these two models for our ship, based on values of slenderness (L/V^1/3).

Freeboard At FreeEquil >= 0.076 meters 3.9198 0.076 1.7131 Pass

Angle At FreeEquil <= 12 deg 3.9198 12 3.9198 Pass

GZ At GZmax >= 0.29 meters 21.897 0.29 6.4237 Pass

Area Between FreeEquil and 27 >= 0.86

meters-deg

3.9198 27 0.86 107.7353 Pass

Angle Between FreeEquil and GZ0 >=

15 deg

3.9198 75.1032 15 71.1834 Pass

Name Angle 1 Angle 2 Required Actual Pass / Fail

Stability Criteria - SOLAS 2004, After Damage, compartments D and E





meters-deg

4.8345 27 0.86 75.2789 Pass


15 deg

4.8345 70.4717 15 65.6372 Pass


Stability Criteria - SOLAS 2004, After Damage, compartments F and G

Table 11: NPL Model Data compared to Ship Data

The next method that was used is a systematic series of 18 hard-chine demi-hulls [19]. Wave resistance

was calculated using SHIPFLOW, a hydrodynamics CFD software. After that, the data was analyzed and a

regression equation was developed. The authors admit that further research is needed to improve the

data, as the results deviate from other more established methods quite a bit. However, because of how

close the body plans used in this method match our body plan, it was included in this design. This

method predicts resistance in the Froude number range of 0.4 to 1.5, so the data was extrapolated

down to our design Froude number of 0.35.

The last method used in our resistance prediction is the VWS Hard Chine 89 Series Regression developed

by Zips [20]. This series covers a Length to demi-hull beam ratio of 7.55 to 13.55, an angle of dead rise

amidships of 16 to 38 degrees, and a transom wedge angle of 0 to 12 degrees. Our ship falls within these

parameters, but not within the speed range covered by the regression. The regression has data down to

a volumetric Froude number of 1. Like the last method, the available data was extrapolated down to the

design volumetric Froude number of 0.85.

Figure 23: Body Plans used by Pham and Sahoo

Figure 24: Resistance Predictions (design speed in Red)

The results above show that for a design speed of 15 knots, we can expect an effective power

requirement somewhere in the range of 700kW to 1650kW. Due to our lack of confidence in the Pham

and Sahoo method, we expect an effective power in the upper range of this estimate, from about 1300

to 1500kW.

The parametric relationship on powering, Figure 8 , can now be used to corroborate our powering

estimate. With an initial weight estimate of 1033 tonnes and a volumetric Froude number of 0.78 based

on a design speed of 15 knots, installed power is calculated to be 2620kW (using the relationship

KW/tonne = 5.7363*FN_v - 1.8448). Assuming a quasi-propulsive coefficient of 0.5 (this includes open

water efficiency, hull efficiency, and relative rotative efficiency), this brings right inside of the range of

our estimate of 1300 to 1500kW.

Another quick way to do a reality check is with Transport Factor (shown below), which has been

extensively written about in [14] for all ships and used in [15] to compare recently built high speed

catamarans. As recorded in [14], Kennell’s data on the effect of slenderness shows trend lines dropping

with decreasing slenderness away from the ‘State Of the Art’ curve. Plotting our table of similar ships in

the same way yields a trend that flows in the same direction as Kennell’s data. The best parent ship we

have, the NIP, has a transport factor of 34. Solving for the engine power using our initial weight estimate

and a design speed of 15 knots yields about 2400kW.

𝑇𝐹 =∆ × 𝑔 × 𝑈

𝑃𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒

Figure 25: Kennell's data on the effect of slenderness

Figure 26: Transport Factor for Similar ROPAX Catamarans

6.4.2. SHIP MOTIONS AND SEAKEEPING Due to our divergence from the more common wave-piercing hull forms used on ferries today resulting

in a lack of sea-keeping data on our hull form, no further research into ship motions was done. It was

noted that the wave piercing hull form was developed as a response to the reduced resistance to

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Fac

tor

Speed (kn)

Transportation Factor for Similar Ferries

pitching because of the slenderness of the catamaran hulls. Our hulls are at the lower end of catamaran

slenderness, so they may not benefit as much from the wave piercing form. It may be just as beneficial

to add more reserve buoyancy by adding more flare moving up towards the deck line.

6.4.3. SHIP MANEUVERABILITY Four azimuth thruster that can provide thrust in 360 degrees are included in the propulsion

arrangement. Due to the wide spacing and versatility of these thrusters, maneuverability was not seen

as a design constraint and was not further analyzed.

7. SHIP ARRANGEMENT

7.1. ARRANGEMENT RATIONALE The arrangement was carefully considered during the design process and is discussed below. There are

many factors that play off each other to achieve an arrangement that begins to be suitable such as

safety, mission, available space, weight, structural simplicity, and amenities. “Capacity, flow, and

passenger safety are the guiding principles…” [21]. For our purposes, these can be boiled down to

mission and safety.

Most of the area on the first deck of the ship is devoted to the temporary storage of vehicles. Cars and

trucks are located on the main deck with trucks placed in the center lanes for easy loading and

offloading. At 2.5 tonnes per lane-meter, trucks are the largest contributor to deadweight. Not only that,

trucks in Indonesia are often overloaded according to [22], on average up to 45% beyond their rated

capacity. For this reason, only the center lanes are high enough for trucks to travel under.

Cars and trucks are major drivers of the vessel’s beam. As shown in the arrangement drawings in the

next section, the midship’s beam is made up of 6 car lanes as well as space for a stair well and service

space on either side of the ship. According to [21], cars require from 2.2- 2.35m of lane width, and trucks

up to 3.2m of width. For our design, 2.6m wide lanes were used for cars, and 3.25m wide lanes for

trucks. From the resistance analysis, it was found that a demihull spacing to length ratio (s/L) of 0.3

resulted in low hull interference. Several combinations of car and truck lanes were calculated before the

current beam of 23.5 meters was settled on, which meets our minimum of 2.5m on each side for service

spaces and stairs. This 2.5m will include a stair and a walkway. This is based on the SOLAS requirement

of a minimum of 900mm open space, between railings, for a stair, plus space for bulkheads, framing,

and lining.

The locations of stairwells drove the longitudinal locations for the accommodations. Many possible

room and corridor configurations were drawn, but the team settled on the current arrangement of the

3rd and 4th decks (The stepped passenger area) for a few reasons, outlined below:

All cabins exceed minimum MLC requirements of 14.5m2 for a 4 berth room and 7.5m2 for a 2

berth room. Officer accommodations far exceed these minimums.

All the berths are placed longitudinally for increased passenger comfort. We found that adding

basic furnishings to the arrangement (Beds, sink, table) was key to generating a layout concept.

The size and direction of the beds and minimum spacing for passenger access greatly influenced

the size and arrangement of the rooms.

Sinks and toilets were placed close together to minimize plumbing. Plumbing routes were

visualized and roughed in to ensure feasibility.

A nominal 150mm was left between stairs and any structural bulkheads to allow for framing and

lining.

Premium rooms include a balcony on the starboard/port sides of the ship and economy rooms

are located in a block at the center of the ship. After several layout we found we had extra beam

that resulted in a clumsy central corridor. The best use of this corridor was to split it and move it

far to port/starboard as a balcony.

Although the containerized propulsion units include noise insulation, the passenger

accommodations are further insulated by bathrooms and corridors which are located abaft all

rooms. The ‘step’ in the hull described earlier is used in a clever way by creating a stepped

atrium hallway that allows light in. This serves to open up and lighten the accommodation area,

providing a more dynamic and live-able space. This runs in line with MLC 4.69, which requires

natural light in sleeping accommodations. Adding natural light also makes the cabins more

attractive to passengers.

An effort was made to line up structural bulkheads with the transverse frame spacing of

550mm. To match this, passageways in the accommodations block were made 1100mm wide.

Bulkheads that line up with frames include bathroom bulkheads, stair bulkheads, and the

bulkhead separating the accommodation from the seating area. Non-structural bulkheads, like

those found between accommodations, do not have to line up.

The arrangement lines up well with the structure at midships to minimize unnecessary moments

on columns that support the superstructure.

The safety of the passengers and crew is one of the prime considerations of this design. The safety of a

ship is not simply dependent on how seaworthy she is. The International Convention for the Safety of

Life at Sea (SOLAS) was consulted to select and place appropriate emergency equipment, define muster

stations, define fire zones and place ample means of escape.

The functional requirements of fire safety as described by SOLAS include the separation of

accommodation spaces by thermal and structural boundaries as well as the protection of the means of

escape. To address these, we’ve separated the entire accommodation area from the seating area by a

steel bulkhead. This bulkhead will be further insulated by A-60 rated fire insulation to isolate any fire in

its zone of origin. Access between the two sections will be by fire-rated doors on magnetic hold-backs.

The main stairwells have also been isolated from public areas by steel bulkheads and fire-rated doors to

guarantee a means of escape.

Safety equipment requirements are based on SOLAS, Chapter III, Part B, Section II, Regulation 21. This

regulation defines a short international voyage as one in which the last port of call in which the voyage

begins to the final port does not exceed 600 miles.

1 Fast Rescue Boat with a capacity of 15 people, including a slewing arm davit

1 Lifeboat with a capacity of 65 people, including a hydraulic davit.

8 throw-over, self-righting life-rafts, each with a capacity of 50 people. In preparation for vessel

overcrowding, twice the required capacity of life-rafts were added to the design. Pictures and

videos of Indonesian ferries in the region show a similar number of life-rafts on board.

Life Buoyant, spaced at about 5m intervals on all open decks.

440 Life Jackets, one under each seat and berth as well as 200 extra life jackets distributed close

to the muster stations for easy distribution.

Safety also extends to the safe stowage of cargo. IMO Resolution A.581 – Guidelines for Securing

Arrangements for the Transport of Road Vehicles on Ro-Ro Ships recommends securing points for road

vehicles along the deck, spaced not more than 2.5m apart. According to this resolution, a 25 tonne lorry

requires at least 3 securing points on each side.

Figure 27: Securing Points [23]

7.2. ARRANGEMENT DESCRIPTIONS

7.2.1. ARRANGEMENT BLOCK DRAWINGS

Figure 28: Midship Arrangement

7.2.1.1. DECK PLANS

Figure 29: Deck 5 - Pilot House and Officer Cabins

The top deck is primarily for crew. It includes the Pilot house, officer accommodations, a day room, and

an emergency generator room, as required by SOLAS. The rest of the area is open to the public and from

our research into the area will easily be crowded by passengers looking for a place to sit.

Figure 30: Deck 3 and 4 - PAX Accommodations and Seating

The stepped deck, decks 3 and 4, is the main passenger accommodations area. There are 4 vertical

stairways on this deck, providing ample means of escape. The cabins are in 2 and 4 berth

configurations, each including bunks, a desk, and a vanity unit with hot and cold running water. The 4

berth cabins include a door out to a small private balcony. Water closets are located towards the stern.

Each includes a sink, shower, and toilet.

Figure 31: Deck 2 - Vehicle Deck

Ample room has been provided for movement between cars to access the stairs to upper levels. Access

to these stairs is via small alcoves in the side structure so doors swinging open does not impede the flow

of traffic. The propulsion units are isolated from the rest of the main deck in a walled service space

located on the transom to give the ship’s engineer space to work and to keep the public safe.

7.2.1.2. INBOARD PROFILE

The Inboard profile cuts right through the centerline of the ship, hiding the step in the superstructure.

7.2.1.3. OUTBOARD PROFILE

The blue ‘speed line’ gives the ferry a sleek appearance while providing a structure to hide the generator

uptakes in. From this view, it’s also easy to see that the pilot has a good line of sight.

7.2.1.4. RENDERINGS

The rendering was made by composing a 3D model in Rhino based on the GA. The model is built up from

the hull from based extruded 3D shapes with materials applied.

7.2.2. AREA/VOLUME REPORT Areas and volumes were at first estimated from similar ships and recommendations from MLC and other

sources. Later, some of the areas were recorded from the GA to corroborate estimates and get better

accuracy for corridors and service spaces.

Figure 32: MLC Space Requirements

Dim 1, m Dim 2, m Area, m2 Notes

Minimum berth size 0.198 0.8

Minimum headspace 2.03

Single berth Sleeping area 4.5 All from MLC, 2006, pg 43 and 44

Two person sleeping room 7.5

Three person sleeping room 11.5

Four person sleeping room 14.5

More than 4 people 3.6 per person

Junior officer, single berth 7.5

Senior officer, single berth 8.5

Mess rooms 1.5 per person, Place close to the Galley

MLC REQUIREMENTS, minimum dimensions influencing facility areas

Public Accomodations - Frames 17 to 47

Name or use QTY Area each, m2 Height, m ∑ Area, m2 ∑ Vol, m3

PAX Cabin 4 single bunk 8 14.52 2.75 116.16 319.44

PAX Cabin 2 single bunk 12 7.36 2.75 88.32 242.88

***** Bunk bed size, min 200cm 90cm

Cabin Balconies 8 3.33 2.75 26.64 73.26

Cabin corridors 2.75 126 346.5

Women's Cabin Bathroom 2 7.68 2.75 15.36 42.24

Men's Cabin Bathroom 2 7.18 2.75 14.36 39.49

Total Passenger Berths 56 386.84 1063.81

Passenger Public Spaces - Frames 47 to 73

Name or use QTY # of PAX m2/PAX Height ∑ Area, m2 ∑ Vol, m3

Economy seating 1 128 1.11 2.75 141.9 390.115

Premium seating 1 44 2.17 2.75 95.5 262.57

Kiosks with drinks/snacks 1 2.75 24.5 67.4905

Outdoor viewing areas 1 2.75 12.8 35.2

Walkways 1 2.75 38.8 106.8

Public Women's Bathroom 1 185 0.05 2.75 9.6 26.5

***** # of toilets, women 2

*****# of sinks, women 2

Public Men's Bathroom 1 185 0.05 2.75 9.6 26.5

***** # of toilets, men 2

*****# of sinks, men 2

*****# Urinals 1

Total PAX public spaces 332.762 915.10

Crew Accomodations # of crew: 15

Name or use # Cabins Beds/cabin Size, m2 Height, m ∑ Area, m2 ∑ Vol, m3

Crew Cabin, Officer, private 4 1 7.5 2.75 30 82.5

Crew Cabin, Officers 2 2 7.5 2.75 15 41.25

Crew Cabin, Crew 2 4 14.5 2.75 29 79.75

Cabin Corridors, wall lining… use an extra::: 20% 2.75 14.8 40.7

Total Crew Cabins 8 16 88.8 203.55.92 m2/crew

Crew Spaces

Name or use #of Seats m2/seat m2/crew Height, m ∑ Area, m2 ∑ Vol, m3

Galley (kitchen) 5 2 1.00 2.75 15.0 41.3

Mess room 15 1.5 1.5 2.75 42.5 116.9

Laundry Area 2.75 8.0 22.0

Crew bridge head 2.75 6.8 18.6

Crew stores area 1.5 2.75 22.5 61.9

QTY Area Each

Crew single bathroom 2 4 2.75 8.0 22.0

***** # of toilets 1

*****# of sinks, men 1

Cabin corridors, wall lining… use an extra::: 10% 2.75 10.3 28.3

Total Crew Spaces 113.0 310.87.54 m2/crew

Service Spaces For all Crew + pax = 200

Name or use QTY m2/PAX Height ∑ Area, m2 ∑ Vol, m3

Garbage handling 1 0.05 2.75 5.0 13.8

Linen storage 1 0.1 2.75 5.0 13.8

Janitorial 2 2.75 10.0 27.5

Wheelhouse 1 2.75 18.0 49.5

Main Deck Service Spaces - 2.75 35.0 96.3

Total Service Spaces 73 200.75

Technical Spaces For installed engine power: 2984 kw

Name or use QTY area each m2/kW Height ∑ Area, m2 ∑ Vol, m3

Engine and thruster 2 26 3 52.0 156.0

pumps 1 3 100.0 300.0

Generator room 1 0.25 3 125.0 375.0

Switchboard rooms 1 0.005 3 2.5 7.5

Workshop + stores 1 0.01 3 29.8 89.5

Total Technical spaces 309.3 928.0

Deck Spaces

Name or use QTY m2/item Height ∑ Area, m2 ∑ Vol, m3

Staircase 2 10.5 8.75 21 183.75

Engine casing 2 8.8 5 17.6 88

funnel 1 3 5 3 15

Car spaces 34 13.5 2.75 459 1262.25

Truck spaces 10 31.5 4.25 315 1338.75

Storage space 2.75 145 398.75

Corridors, wall lining… use an extra::: 5% 48.03 164.325

Total Deck Spaces 1008.63 3450.83

7.2.3. FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS In many ways, the GA drove various other areas of the design, such as weight and structure. Through

the GA, we’re also able to communicate many of our design decisions in a very concise form. Because of

this, we spent a lot of time reviewing and refining it. Although it could be considered at the concept

design stage, we believe it’s far from where it should be to truly be a reflection of the viability of this

design. The next few improvements that

Add in allowances for framing, lining, and fire insulation on structural bulkheads as well as

allowances for non-structural bulkheads between accommodation areas.

Add in vertical trunks for wiring and plumbing, with thought of how these could be serviced

when necessary.

Make an evacuation plan, considering the number of passengers which would normally occupy

the spaces and where they would run to in the event of an emergency.

Tanks and Voids

Installed Engine Power 4977 kW

Cruising speed 15 kn

Total # of passengers and crew = 200 people

Name or use SG [t/m3]

Consump.

g/kWh Range, Nm

Days,

Endur. Margin factor ∑ Vol, m3

Fuel Oil 0.87 200 1000 2.8 0.6 45.8

Lube Oil 0.92 1.5 1000 2.8 4 2.2

l/pers/day

Potable Water 1.00 100 1000 1 1 20.0

Black water 1.00 150 1000 3 1 0.00

Grey Water 15.00

Used oil 0.50

Sludge 1.00

Oily Water 5.00

Voids… Extra ---> 25% 13.4

Total Tank space required 102.84

Name or use m2/pax Area, m2 Vol, m3

Crew facilities 201.8 514.3

Passenger facilities 719.6 1978.9

Service Spaces 73.0 200.8

Total Furnished Interior spaces (AC spaces) 994.4 2694.0

Total Machinery Spaces 309.3 928.0

Deck Car/truck Space 1008.63 3450.8

Tanks and Void Spaces 102.8

GROSS VOLUME 7175.66

GROSS TONNAGE 1988.50

System Design Summary

8. SHIP STRUCTURE

8.1. RULE SET AND METHODOLOGY The mid-ship section was designed to meet Lloyd’s Register Rules and Regulations for the Classification

of Special Service Craft, July 2011. Lloyd’s Register provides calculation procedures on the determination

of local design pressures, global loads, and associated scantling requirements. For the design of steel

catamarans, Part 5 and 6 within this rule set were mainly used.

The mid-ship structural design was performed based on the following design process and methodology.

First, the calculation was done for local design loads induced by environmental conditions, vessel

motion and impact loads such as hydrostatic, hydrodynamic pressure and impact pressures. Secondly,

global loading conditions including wave longitudinal moment, shear force, twin-hull transverse moment

and torsional moment were obtained. The scantlings were therefore determined based on the results of

design loads. The local design pressures were used to calculate the requirement of plating thickness,

sectional area and section modulus of each structural member, while the global loads were used to

check for the hull girder strength with the scantlings selected. It is noted that some of the fundamental

structural design decisions left for designers play very important role on the structural arrangement,

such as the type of framings for hull and deck, spacing of frames, type of keels and bottom to be used

for the vessel. The following sections provide the rationales on the design decisions for the vessel.

8.1.1. LOCAL PRESSURES The local design pressures were calculated using equations from Lloyd’s Register based mostly on the

vessel’s particulars and the environmental condition. The maximum values were selected for each type

of pressure to calculate the local loads exerted on the vessel. The results are summarized in the table

below, more detailed calculations on how the results were achieved can be found in Appendix.

hydrostatic pressure Ph 28.14

hydrodynamic pressure Pm 57.66

pitching pressure Pp 79.70

Impact pressure Pdh 64.74

deckhouse, superstructure pressure Pdhp 7.04

shell envelope pressure Ps 107.84

fore body impact pressure Pf 64.74

Impact pressure on cross-deck Ppc 22.76

pressure on weather deck Pwh 12.40

deck pressure for cargo Pcd 25.16

watertight bulkhead, plating Pbh, plating 28.25

watertight bulkhead, stiffener Pbh, stiffener 35.21

Table 12: Local Design Pressures

8.1.2. VESSEL LOADING The local load acting on vessel were found using the results from design pressures induced by

hydrostatic, hydrodynamic, impact pressures and etc. These loads were used to determine the plating

thickness and stiffening properties for the local members. The following table summarized the results of

the design load used for the vessel. The criteria from Lloyd’s Register and detailed calculations can be

found in Appendix.

bottom shell plating PBP 113.23

bottom shell stiffening PBF 56.61

side shell plating, outboard PSP, outboard 113.23

side shell stiffening, outboard PSF, outboard 56.61

side shell plating, inboard PSP, inboard 113.23

side shell stiffening, inboard PSF, inboard 56.61

cross-deck plating PCP 83.68

cross-deck stiffening PCF 41.84

weather deck plating PWDP 25.16

weather deck stiffening PWCDF 25.16

coach roof plating PCRP 13.02

coach roof stiffening PCRF 7.00

interior deck plating PIDP 25.16

interior deck stiffening PIDF 25.16

inner bottom plating PIBP 88.68

inner bottom stiffening PIBF 56.61

superstructure plating PDHP 7.39

superstructure stiffening PDHF 3.69

bulkhead plating PBHP 28.25

bulkhead stiffener PBHF 35.21

Table 13: Local Loads acting on Vessel

8.1.3. GLOBAL LOADING The global loads were calculated to check the hull strength. For catamarans, the major global loading

cases that need to be considered in addition to longitudinal vertical wave bending moment include:

twin-hull transverse bending moment, and twin-hull torsional connecting moment, as illustrated in the

figures below.

Figure 33: Vertical Wave Bending Moment

Figure 34: Twin-hull Bending Moment

Figure 35: Twin-hull Torsional Moment

The results of vertical wave bending moment along the length of the vessel, for both hogging and

sagging moment. Detailed calculations and table of results can be found in the Appendix.

Figure 36: Longitudinal Vertical Wave Bending Moment

The following tables show the results of twin-hull transverse bending moment, twin-hull torsional

moment, and vertical shear force at cross-deck centreline.

Twin hull transverse bending moment, kNm MB 26184

Twin hull torsional connecting moment MT 40389

Vertical shear force cross-deck centreline QT 1586

Table 14: Hull Bending Moment, Torsional Moment, and Vertical Shear Force

-30000

-20000

-10000

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Ver

tica

l wav

e b

end

ing

mo

men

t,

kNm

%Length

Vertical Wave Bending Moment

hogging

sagging

In addition, for multi-hull vessel, it is required to load the cross-deck subject to primary load

combinations depending on the heading of ship, including head sea, beam sea and quartering sea. These

load combinations were used to check the cross-deck strength against ductile failure modes. The results

of maximum values for each of operating conditions are summarized in the table below.

Vessel Heading Moment, kNm

Head sea 39215

Beam sea 37517

Quartering sea 56030

Table 15: Load Combinations for Cross Deck strength check

The results from global loads are to be used to check hull girder strength, as discussed in the following

sections.

8.1.4. MATERIAL SELECTION As mentioned in the previous section, one of the major design aspect from the owner’s requirement is

affordability, therefore steel was primarily chosen for the vessel to lower the construction as well as

overall lifetime cost. Furthermore, research on the infrastructure facilities in Indonesia also became one

of the driven factor as local shipyard has limited facilities and experience for aluminum vessel

construction, maintenance and repair. For structural design, Steel Grade A was selected with yielding

stress at 235MPa.

8.1.5. PLATING THICKNESS With the results obtained from local design pressures and the selected design frame spacing, the

minimum plating thickness requirements were calculated for all shell envelope, primary and secondary

stiffeners as well as plating on superstructure. First, the thickness of plating and stiffeners determined

by rule scantling requirement was calculated using the equation from Lloyd’s Register based on the local

design load, as shown here:

Equation 2: Thickness of Plating and Stiffeners

The results obtained from the equation were compared with the minimum thickness requirements for

shell envelope and each individual member set by the criteria table, which can be found in Appendix.

The overall thickness requirement of plating and stiffeners were therefore selected for the results

determined by both of the criteria, for whichever is larger. The results are summarized in the table

below. Detailed calculation and tables of results can be found in Appendix.

In addition, the plating thicknesses for the design were chosen, incorporating an optimized construction

practice, where common plating thicknesses were considered to reduce the complexity of structural

arrangement and ultimately construction cost. As a results, 10mm steel plate was selected for shell

envelope for hull and deck, and 8mm steel plate was chosen for the use of primary and secondary

stiffeners, while the plating for superstructure was 5mm. It is noted that potential weight reduction

might be achieved where extra plating thickness was selected. Further cost analysis is therefore

recommended for the trade-off.

Minimum thickness Design selection

Shell envelope

bottom shell plating 9.9 10

side shell plating 9.9 10

wet-deck plating 8.5 10

Single Bottom structure

centre girder web 6.7 8

floor webs 5.1 8

side girder webs 6.1 8

Bulkheads

watertight bulkhead plating 4.8 8

Deck plating and stiffeners

strength/main deck plating 8.5 10

lower deck/inside deckhouse 5.2 10

Superstructures and deckhouses

superstructure side plating 3.1 5

superstructure top plating 3.0 5

machinery casing side plating 3.0 5

Pillars

rectangular pillars 5.0 5

Table 16: Minimum Plating Thickness Requirements

8.1.6. STIFFENER PROPERTIES In addition to the plating thickness requirements, Lloyd’s Register requires calculations to be performed

on the minimum section modulus and moment of inertia for each of the individual structural members.

The sample calculation shown in this section is for the primary stiffener: The web frame for the cross-

deck structure. The procedure will be briefly described with these calculations.

Calculations were performed based on the equations provided by Lloyd’s Register, as shown below:

Equation 3: Required Section Modulus

Equation 4: Required Moment of Inertia

The stiffener properties of the design selection were calculated to check against the requirements. The

results are summarized in the following table.

Cross-deck Web Frame

load model a, b or c a

design pressure, [kPa] P 41.84

stiffener spacing, [mm] S 3300

effective span length, [m] Le 9.5

section modulus coefficient Φz, mid 0.04

inertia coefficient ΦI, mid 0.0026

web area coefficient ΦA, end 0.5

limiting bending stress coefficient fσ 0.65

limiting deflection coefficient fδ 1000

limiting shear stress coefficient fT 0.65

section modulus, [cm³] Z 3399

moment of inertia, [cm4] I 154144

web area, [cm²] Aw 74

section selection 1450x8

section modulus, [cm³] Z, selected 4205 OK

moment of inertia, [cm4] I, selected 203242 OK

web area, [cm²] Aw, selected 116 OK

Table 17: Sample Calculations of Stiffener Properties

Similar calculations were done for other structural members. Detailed calculations and complete tables

can be found in Appendix.

8.1.7. HULL GIRDER STRENGTH With the preliminary plating thicknesses selected for shell and deck plating, the hull girder strength of

the vessel was checked to meet the requirements. For multi-hull vessels over 40m, Lloyd’s Register

requires checking hull girder strength subject to wave bending moments and shear force for both

departure and arrival conditions. For the purposes of the concept design, only the fully-loaded condition

was considered based on the assumption that the vessel would be operating in full-loaded condition for

most of time due to the high local demand for ferry transportation services. The calculation procedure

and the summary of results are discussed in the following sections.

The hull girder longitudinal bending strength had to be checked for both the strength deck and keel

amidships. The section modulus for both the strength deck and keel were calculated - detailed

calculation can be found in Appendix. The bending stress subject to the global loading cases were

calculated using the following formulas provided by Lloyd’s Register:

Equation 5: Hull Girder Bending Stress at the Strength Deck

Equation 6: Hull Girder Bending Stress at the Keel

The calculated bending stresses were used to compare with the maximum permissible bending stress

based on material properties. The results are summarized in the following tables.

Hull Girder

Max permissible hull vertical bending stress, σp 169

Table 18: Maximum Permissible Hull Bending Stress

Actual section modulus at deck Zd 1.349

Hull girder bending stress at strength deck σd 24.1

check <σp? OK

Table 19: Hull Girder Strength at the Strength Deck

The equation used to calculate hull shear strength is shown below, using effective shear area as defined

by Lloyd’s Register:

Equation 7: Hull Sheer Strength

The transverse shear area was calculated by simplifying the hull form into rectangular boxes, where the

dimension of the boxes was based on the vessel particular, as shown in the figure below.

Figure 37: Simplified Hull form for Shear Stress Calculations

The complete table of total effective area calculation can be found in Appendix. The results of shear

stress check is summarized below.

Hull Girder

max permissible mean shear stress, τp 98

Figure 38: Max Permissible Hull Shear Stress

actual section modulus at keel Aτ 0.236

hull girder bending stress at keel QR/Aτ 5.7

check <τp? OK

Figure 39: Actual Hull Shear Stress

For catamarans, Lloyd’s Register requires checking the cross-deck structure strength against bending

moment and shear force. The bending and shear stress for cross-deck structure were calculated as a

function of vessel heading direction, namely Head Sea, Beam Sea and Quartering Sea. The results of

moment distribution for each heading direction can be found in Appendix. The maximum values of

bending and shear stress, along with the capacity check are included in this section.

The table below summarizes the results for the maximum permissible bending and shear stress for the

cross-deck structure based on the material properties.

Cross-deck Structure

max permissible hull vertical bending stress, σp 169

max permissible mean shear stress, τp 98

Table 20: Max allowable Stress for the Cross-Deck Structure

As per the requirement stated in Lloyd’s Register, the total bending and shear stress for the cross-deck

structure were calculated as sum of the stress induced by different global loading cases, including hull

girder stress, stress induced by twin-hull transverse bending moment and torsional connecting moment.

The criteria for multi-hull craft that was used in calculation is shown in the figure below.

Table 21: Cross-Deck Strength Criteria for Bending and Shear Stress

The results for checking the bending stress for the three major vessel heading directions are

summarized in the table below. Detailed calculations can be found in Appendix.

Head sea Beam sea Quartering sea

hull girder bending stress σd 24.1 2.4 9.7

stress induced by transverse bending σMB 4 39 4

stress induced by torsional moment σMT 5 10 48

total direct stress σP 32.8 50.6 61.6

check OK OK OK

Table 22: Cross-deck Bending Strength Check

Similarly, the required cross-deck shear stress was checked for the same heading direction, and the

results are summarized in the following table.


shear stress induced by vertical shear

force

τT 0.40 4.02 0.40

bending shear stress induced by

torsional moment

τMBT 2.07 4.14 20.69

shear stress induced by torsional

moment

τM 0.03 0.07 0.35

total shear stress τp 2.5 8.2 21.4

check OK OK OK

Table 23: Cross-Deck Shear Strength Check

Notice that the torsional stress calculation is not required by Lloyd’s Register for the type of vessel in

this project. Further studies and analysis for cross-deck structure torsional strength are recommended.

In general, it is noted that the proposed structure with design plating thickness provides sufficient hull

girder strength to meet the requirements as per Lloyd’s Register. The governing load case, therefore,

can be concluded to be the load design pressure that is discussed in the previous sections.

8.2. MIDSHIP SECTION DRAWING

Figure 40: Midship Section

A hybrid framing was selected considering the complexity of multi-hull structures and from parametric

studies. Note that transverse framing was selected for the demi-hull, while longitudinal framing was

chosen for the deck and cross-deck structure.

The spacing of frames was chosen to be fairly consistent for both longitudinal and transverse framing.

For a vessel with a length of 55m, the proposed 550m spacing was selected for the first design iteration.

One of the most important trade-offs for selection of the frame spacing is the overall steel weight, as

frame spacing essentially determines the plate thickness and the properties of stiffening members. The

maximum spacing of web frames is 3.3m taking into account the location of bulkheads. Further studies

on the specific location of frames, web frames and transverse bulkhead is recommended.

A double bottom was initially considered for the potential space reserved for use of fuel tanks, after

calibrating with general arrangement and discussing with the industry mentor. A single bottom was

chosen since the accommodation floor inside the hull performed the function of an isolation barrier for

grounding damage.

As transverse framing was selected for the hull, a number of five transverse bulkheads was selected for

each of the demi-hulls. This meets the Lloyd’s Register requirement where a minimum number of four

transverse bulkheads is needed.

Transverse framing was selected for the superstructure. The structural arrangement was to be designed

to be simple as possible for better stress flow consideration. As shown in the mid-ship section drawing,

the superstructure consists mostly of rectangular structures. A continuous column for the interior was

used to be the main structural support. It is also noted that the column was supported by the web

frames.

8.2.1. DESIGN RESERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The above section describes the scope of the conceptual design for this project. It is recommended to

conduct further studies and analysis on structural design for the next design cycles. Some of the points

discussed below can be taken into considerations:

Finite element analysis is recommended to check overall vessel strength

Potential weight reduction could be achieved for optimal frame spacing

Properties of stiffening members should be further defined

Location of web frames and bulkheads should be specified along the length of the vessel

9. SHIP PROPULSION The propulsion system is the heart, fins and tails of a ship; hence, much attention has been put into its

selection and arrangement. The following section details the chosen machineries and the rationales for

their selections.

9.1. MACHINERY PLANT DESCRIPTION Two outboard power plants are placed on each of the catamaran’s demi-hulls. Each outboard plant

powers a Shottel rudder-propeller (azimuth thruster). The wide spacing between these pair of rudder-

propellers as well as the 360 degree rotations of the propellers provide the ferry with outstanding

maneuverability.

A maintenance feature of the Shottel rudder-propeller is the ability to hydraulically swing-up its

propellers for inspection and maintenance. The depth of the rudder-propellers can also be further

adjusted at the helm to prevent grounding or reducing drag when only two of the four propellers are

used.

9.1.1. MAIN ENGINE The outboard plant chosen for this project is the Schottel Navigator 550. The prime mover of the unit is

the Caterpillar 746 kW C32 ACERT engine. From the technical Specification:

An additional soundproof canopy is installed to lower the engine noise to 80 dB at a distance of one

meter [24]. This is lower than the 85dB level defined by the Code on Noise Levels on Board Ships. At

85dB, personnel are required to wear ear protection. The cabins are further insulated from the

propulsion units by several bulkheads and spaces. This should easily satisfy the limit of 60dB for

accommodation spaces. As the unit is closed, air is forced in via axial fans for cooling and combustion.

Figure 41: NAV 550 Propulsion Unit

“The SCHOTTEL Navigator is in principle a large-scale outboard plant

deck-mounted. A base frame, that is also capable of accommodating

the fuel day tank, serves to support the prime mover and provides all

necessary foundations as well as suspensions for the subsystems. A

canopy is mounted on top of the base frame. Bolted together, base

frame and canopy, they form a unit.”

Figure 42: Main Engine

9.1.2. GEARING AND SHAFTING The Nav500 includes an upper gearbox and a lower gearbox. The upper gearbox is connected to the

hydraulic clutch mounted to the engine housing by a cardan shaft. The lower gearbox connects the

vertical shaft with the propeller, completing the bottom portion of the ‘Z’ drive.

9.1.3. RATIONALE FOR SELECTION The five propulsion methods considered for this ferry were:

Drive shaft and rudder, hence forth called conventional propeller (assumed to be diesel

powered)

Voith Schneider Propulsion System

Outboard Azimuth Thruster

L-drive Thruster

Marine Waterjet

Marine waterjet propulsor was shortlisted early because of its costly maintenance and poor fuel

efficiency at slow speeds.

To best match the ideal propulsion type to the ferry’s mission, an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was

utilized. AHP decision making method helps compare unlike criteria.

The process of propulsion selection starts by relating the owner’s primary goals –safety and affordability

- with propulsion characteristic such as maintenance cost, fuel consumption, and maneuverability.

When utilizing AHP, it was helpful to define a relevant point of reference for each criteria and to

view the ship as an entire system rather than only the immediate outputs of the propulsion

system. The viewpoints for evaluating cost and maneuverability are as follows:

1. Calculating direct and indirect expenses (including opportunity cost) in terms of net

present value over the forty year lifespan of the ferry

2. Maneuverability of the ship is considered as a whole rather than just the propulsion

system ie. The effect of widely space propulsor on a catamaran.

CHALLENGES

Minimizing risk is another goal of this project. According to the recorded ferry accidents by the WSFA,

about 15% of all ferry accidents in Indonesia are related to collision [25]. The ongoing high risk that

exists in this region indicated that a minimum upgrade of maneuverability performance must be

attained over the propulsion systems and optimized as a commodity.

To avoid the dilemma of comparing and trading-off safety for costs benefits, it was known that the

maneuverability feature of motor-powered catamarans enables all five potential propulsion selections

and satisfies the minimum requirements for safe maneuvering. In fact, the ability to maneuver is vastly

increased due to the spacing of the propulsion units relative to mono-hull.

Commodity benefits of increasing maneuverability for the ROPAX ferry are:

minimizing the probability of small collisions that lead to increase maintenance costs

reduction in trip time due to faster docking and turnaround times

additional control at slow speeds while in harbor area (whereas rudders lose lift-force at slow

speeds)

The table below summarizes the computations performed to rank the four major propulsion

characteristics that affect the design goals.

For Propulsion

System

What was Compared Conclusion Major Assumptions

Affordability of

Propulsion

The cost of the

propulsion system to

the estimated cost of

the ship.

The propulsion system

is a big part of the

ship’s acquisition cost

if built in Indonesia

(about 30%)

The cost of different

propulsion can be

approximated linearly by

using parametric studies.

Fuel Efficiency

The net present day

value of fuel cost for

the lifetime of the ship

to the acquisition cost

of the ship

Fuel efficiency is

slightly more

important compared

to the ship’s

acquisition cost

The ship life is about 40

years

Cost of fuel remains

constant

The expect average

interest rate in 40 years is a

7.744%, the current rate

given by Indonesian

government for 10 year

bonds

Maneuverability The commodity

benefits of having

more maneuverability

than a catamaran with

twin-propellers such as

less down-time

Additional trip

performance and

safety features such

as better response

time is valued slightly

more than the

acquisition cost

15% calculated from World

Ferry Safety known data

The estimated payback

period for around 8 years

of a 40 year ship already

justifies the value or

affordability of the ferry

Maintenance/

Reliability

The effect of trading

off fuel efficiency for

up-time in net present

day value

The combined net

present value of

maintenance cost,

down-time and

revenue exceeds the

acquisition cost (see

section 18 for more)

Maintenance cost of our

ferry is assumed to be ¾

effect of Washington State

Ferry’s (WSF)’s cost

Washington State Ferry

(WSF) of ~$81.5/operating

hour

Fouling rates are higher in

Indonesia than in

Washington

Table 24: Propulsion Comparison Criteria

The evaluations in the table above is this transposed to index value as listed in the table below.

Table 25: Decision Indexes [26]

The pairwise comparison of propulsion system criteria outputs a criteria weight that ranks the

percentage of important out of 100%. The Consistency Ratio, a measure of the similarity of the

comparisons for the rows and columns, is found to be 1.7 %. Consistency Ratios are required to be

below 10% for AHP evaluations.

Table 26: Criteria Weight

Similar to pairwise comparison of criteria, four additional pairwise comparison of propulsion were

performed for each of the four criteria comparing the four different propulsion methods.

9.1.4. SUMMARY OF PROPULSOR COMPARISON Affordability

[$US/kW]

Fuel Efficiency

[compare to

conventional]

Maneuverability Maintenance/

Reliability

Outboard 1546

~15% less

By assuming a

number of gears

[27]

For hydraulic drive

~ 20% less [28]

Rotates at about

180 degrees per 12

seconds

[CITE SHOTTEL

SHEET]XXX

Can be lifted out

without dry-

docking

Modular, can be

swaps and

replaced quickly

Propulsor can be

hydraulically swung

out

L-drive 1304 One less gearbox

compared to Z-

drive (Outboard)

Cite *XXX*email

Likely the same

propulsor as the

outboard system

Likely between

outboard and

conventional in

terms of

serviceability

Voith Schneider 976

~25% less

Can almost

instantly change

thrust direction

“High maintenance

effort” according

to Voith [29] ;

Complex parts may

be expensive to

replace in

Indonesia

Conventional Require shaft

alignment, difficult

920 The reference

point in these

comparisons

Limited thrust

directions and

rudder loses lift-

force at slow

speeds

to access in

confined space;

taking apart entire

engine (commonly

done in Indonesia

as scheduled

maintenance [5]) is

a major task

Table 27: Summary of Propulsor Comparisons

EXPOUNDING ON THE PERFORMANCE INDEX OF PROPULSION SYSTEM

Performance Index of the propulsion system was assessed by calculating cost per kWh for each distinct

propulsion system. It was assumed that the cost per kWh of the propulsion systems can be reasonably

linearly interpolated. All of the propulsion systems above were evaluated as diesel engines. Since the

actual cost of propulsion units are proprietary and difficult to obtain, only one historic point was

establish for each of the four propulsion systems evaluated. The hydraulic outboard and L-drive unit

prices are quotes from Adam, a representative of the marine propulsion company -Thrustmaster. The

Voith Schneider propulsion cost was obtained from a budget approval request document for the Halifax

ferry in 2012 [5]. Conventional propulsion cost and characteristics were calculated from a science

vessel’s propulsion costs provided by Robert Allen; the dollars per kWh also closely matched Robert

Allen’s dollar per kWh rule of thumb for the cost of the conventional propulsion system.

EXPOUNDING ON THE MANEUVERAILITY OF PROPULSION SYSTEM

Differences in maneuverability for Z-drive and L-drive were assumed to be the same as they are both

azimuth propellers. Azimuth drives are much more maneuverable in wind conditions than conventional

shaft and rudder system but have a slight disadvantage in course keeping [6]. Voith Schneider

propulsion is “slightly” to “much better” than azimuth thrusters (Z and L-drives) as it can almost

instantly change the direction of thrust (thus faster crash stop), can be used for roll stabilization [7], and

is said to be much easier to learn. Conventional propulsion, in this case a twin-screw & rudder system, is

the least maneuverable of the four systems in terms of crash stopping and slow speed maneuverability.

Table 28: Propulsion Selection Overview

Combing all the weight tables above the following AHP decision was produced. Outboard propulsion is

ranked the most desirable propulsion method compared to the other three methods.

Table 29: Combined Weight Tables

This decision matrix should not be applied to other vessels as it was based on a custom scenario. Some

of the factors that effected the decision of this matrix include:

Service speed of 15 knots and length of ship of 55 m

Twin hull catamaran

Indonesia, an oil producing country with lower fuel costs

Steel RoPax Ferry carrying up to 40 vehicles and 185 passengers

Expected service life of around 40 years

Interest rates of about 7.74%

Low labor rates compare to North America

Region with high ferry accidents

Region with a trend of ship fire from engine and cargo

Ship assumed to be built in Indonesia

Tropical warm water climate

A fleet of these ferries can share the cost of spare propulsion units

Downtime mean loss in revenue and trust in ferry system

Downtime means additional cost of renting other service ships

THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTENANCE IN THE SELECTION

A detailed cash flow analysis was done to compare outboard propulsion system with the conventional

twin-screw and rudder system. The conventional system is assumed to be 20% more efficient in terms of

fuel efficiency whereas the outboard unit is assumed to have an additional week of operations every

four month early in the ship’s life. The extra week is due to the scheduled dry-dock maintenance as seen

the Washington State ferry’s maintenance schedule [30]. The WSF ROPAX ferries are range in 5 to 40

years old and are good data points for early and late life maintenance rates. Older WSF ROPAX ferries

typical have a dry-docking time of one month in every four months (an assumption was made that the

limited four month maintenance schedule could be applied throughout the year). For our ferry designed

to use outboard propulsion system. It is designed that the propellers can be maintained without dry-

docking and any major engine problems or scheduled maintenance can be replace in a short period

without major interruptions to the ferry operations. The swapped out outboard unit is perceived to be

repair on land in the repair shop rather than onboard or in the dry dock.

In addition to opportunity costs of down-times, there is the cost of renting service ferries to substitute

the on-maintenance ferry. Assuming ship rentals are like car rentals, the owner will have to pay about

0.15% of the total ship’s original cost per day of rental.

To calculate the cost of operation and maintenance of the ship, an excel spreadsheet of the cash flow

table was constructed. The net present value, including ferry revenue, fuel cost, maintenance cost and

ship rental cost of the conventional and outboard propulsion systems are compared. The following

assumptions were made for the net present value calculations:

The ferry is assumed to be fully loaded with passengers and vehicles since overcrowding

problems means that capacity is less than demand

The ferry ticket rates are assumed to increase with the prevailing inflation rate of 6%

Cabin prices are assumed to be the same as a sedan ticket price

The interest rate for comparing future value remains the same, 7.744%

The outboard propulsion system is 20% less efficient than the conventional system; outboard

units probably do not increase as quickly since conventional engine systems are said to be

dismantled and replaced fairly often as ship ages in Indonesia [5]

Maintenance costs (which increase every year) are assumed to be the same for both systems;

this simplified the calculations as less variables need to be changed and further specific costs are

difficult to estimate.

The conventional system will have 1 week of dry-docking every 4 months T

The outboard scenario will have on-board inspections every four months and dry-docking yearly

during stormy seasons that are dangerous to operate in

When the ship reaches the age of 20, the conventional system scenario will increase its require

maintenance duration to 1 month of dry-docking every 4 months

The outboard propulsion system will require a purchase of a 1 to 2 outboard propulsion units at

after 5 and 20 years of service to keep up a steady supply of units for swap maintenance. The

cost of purchases are $500,000 US each time.

The net present value, payback period and rate of return results are as follows:

CONVENTIONAL PROPULSION

SYSTEM

OUTBOARD PROPULSION

SYSTEM

Net Present Value of 40

years of service at 100%

capacity

$ 16,555,000

$ 20,000,000

Payback Period

(not discounted)

100% Loaded

11.2 YEARS

11.2 YEARS

Payback Period

(not discounted)

at 90% capacity

13.8 YEARS

13.9 YEARS

Return on Investment

(ROI)

at 90% capacity

7.25%

7.20%

Table 30: ROI Comparisons

The results show that the trade-off is not significant. The cost of downtime due to maintenance is

comparable to fuel efficiency. Note that the conventional prolusion system has a slightly shorter

payback period even though it has a slightly less net present value. This is calculated by the simple

payback period which does not take into account future changes and discount rates.

Since both systems have a similar ROI, the outboard propulsion system rather than conventional

propulsion system has much higher present value. Other values not accounted for in the dollar values

are summarized below.

Having an outboard propulsion system that provides more uptime/reliability also suggests:

Better scheduled services for customers and a ferry system that can be trusted

More regular customers that use the ferry system rather than planes or cars

Reduction in safety risks of renting ferries to substitute for ferry downtimes

Better service to the community as an essential transport system - analogous to a bridge

Lower maintenance costs that were not accounted for in the calculations (maintenance cost

accounts for about ½ of the acquisition costs)

Open access to engines aids in the fight against engine fire

All the maneuverability benefits listed previously

OUTBOARD UNITS

Thrust master ODN 1500N and Schottel NAV 500 were compared and ultimately the NAV units were

chosen based on the following criteria:

Although the Thrust master unit is hydraulically driven with constant torque over a range of

speeds, we do not require high torque at low speeds.

The Thrust master power ratings do not match our estimated required power. The next size up

of power unit is much too heavy and expensive to seriously consider.

Schottel has over 50 years of production and is also advertised as a reliable and easy to maintain

propulsion unit.

When travelling at low speeds in harbor, 2 out of the 4 NAV 550 units could be used. In this way,

the engines would be run at their most fuel efficient loads.

One or even 2 engines could be disabled without the Ferry becoming stranded.

With 4 propellers, they will likely have access to cleaner flows as they can be placed out of the

hull shadow.

9.2. MACHINERY ARRANGEMENT

9.2.1. BLOCK DIAGRAM The machinery arrangement shown below is cropped closer to better show equipment locations.

FIGURE 43: MACHINERY ARRANGEMENT

9.2.2. ARRANGEMENT RATIONALE For a first order location estimates, block envelopes were used for each components. The arrangement

was largely based on placing items from the same systems close together. The catamaran hull and

separation of the main propulsion systems meant that some components had to be doubled up. For

example, with a tank in each hull, it makes sense to have a separate fuel pump, purifier, and day tank in

each hull. Other systems, like the bilge system, require having pumps in separate compartments. All

other things considered, reference ships were used when any further input was required.

9.3. ENDURANCE FUEL CALCULATION A require endurance of 1000 nautical miles is required by the owner. Using that average value fuel

consumption of 200g/kW-hour for the four Schottel engines and a diesel density of 0.832 kg/L, 49,000

liters of diesel fuel capacity is required for the required endurance. Further fuel capacity for hotel loads

such as lighting, laundry machine, air conditioning and control systems were not calculated in this

project due to resource constraints and focus on other systems.

10. SHIP ELECTRICAL SYSTEM For the purpose of this concept design, detailed electric load analysis is not included due to the limited

time constraint. A first order estimation was done to provide an approximation on the generator

selection mainly based on parametric studies and empirical equations for major electric load usage, as

discussed in the following sections. A complete electric load analysis for the vessel is therefore required

to be conducted in the future design iterations.

10.1. ELECTRIC PLANT DESCRIPTION

10.2. GENERATOR SIZING AND SELECTION RATIONALE One of the major electric loads came from the HAVC systems provided for passenger enclosed-spaces as

per owner’s requirement. The equation from [31] provides first-order electrical power estimation of Air

Conditioning system. The preliminary estimate of the required power for air conditioning was calculated

simply based off the vessel displacement using the equations as shown below.

Figure 44: AC Power Estimate

Based on our parametric study, the maximum total electric load was estimated to be around 450kW for

the vessel in the fully-loaded cruising condition.

10.3. ELECTRIC PLANT BLOCK DIAGRAM

Displacement 996 tonnes

AC BTU 1646835 BTU

AC power 275 kW

Figure 45: Simplified Electric Diagram

11. SHIP AUXILIARY AND CONTROL SYSTEMS

11.1. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEMS The following on ship systems are required for ship operations:

Fuel System

Cooling System

Electrical System

Black Water System

Grey Water System

Fire Fighting System

Bilge System

11.2. SIMPLIFIED BLOCK OR ONE-LINE DIAGRAMS The diagrams below represent simplified systems indicative of what systems on the ferry could look like.

They are not to scale and are missing all of the details, but they are the product of our musings about

catamaran systems and helped in the development of a machinery arrangement.

11.2.1. CONTROL SYSTEM The propulsion system and its control is entirely supplied by Schottel. In case of an emergency, the

Schottel NAV 550 units have local control panels that can be activated at any time.

Figure 46: Control System

11.2.2. BILGE/FIRE SYSTEM The fire pumps act as backup bilge pumps in this system. The fire hydrants in this diagram represent

sprinklers that would be regularly placed throughout the superstructure and hoses that would be

located on deck to fight cargo fires.

Figure 47: Bilge and Fi-Fi system

11.2.3. FUEL SYSTEMS The fuel transfer system allows for easy filling on either side of the ship, and then transfer from one tank

to the other via the transfer pumps. The day tanks are located above deck, close to the propulsion units

(900 L day tanks are included in the Schottel package).

Figure 48: Fuel Transfer System

Figure 49: Fuel Supply system

Figure 50: Lube Oil System

11.2.4. COOLING SYSTEM The cooling system for the generators could be a ‘box cooler’ type of system, where the cooler tubes

plug right into the sea chest, or more of a remote cooler configuration as shown below.

Figure 51: Cooling System

11.2.5. WATER SYSTEMS Water Systems include potable water, oily water, black water, and grey water. For simplicity, it would be

possible to combine the grey and black water tanks together. They grey water system would be similar

to the black water system except that it would receive water from showers and sinks instead of from

toilets.

Figure 52: Potable Water System

Figure 53: Oily Water System

Figure 54: Black Water System

12. WEIGHT ENGINEERING

12.1. MARGIN POLICY

12.1.1. MARGINS A 5% margin was applied to lightship weight. As dead weight was calculated based on a fully loaded,

‘worst case’ scenario, no margin was applied to deadweight.

12.1.2. ALLOWANCES Wherever possible, weights were based on supplier information. This could come in the form of a per

unit weight, per area weight, or per volume weight. When supplier information was not available, a

weight allowance was used, based on other ships through ratiocination. In a few cases, a more

unmotivated allowance was made based on expert advice. These weight allowances account for just a

little over 12 percent of the light ship weight. Items that use allowances include:

Item Allowance

Bow and Stern Quarter Ramps 15,000 kg

Fuel Service System 2,000 kg

Lube oil System 300 kg

Ship Service Power Cable 15,500 kg

Switchgear and Panels 5000 kg

Lighting 4000 kg

Command and Control Systems 2000 kg

Navigation Systems 750 kg

Interior Communications 450 kg

Exterior Communications 200 kg

Ventilation System 3000 kg

Machinery Ventilation 2000 kg

Air Conditioning 6800 kg

Refrigeration System 4000 kg

Fire main and flushing 3000 kg

Potable Water 2000 kg

Mooring and Towing 2000 kg

Hull designating and Marking 150 kg

Painting 8000 kg

Cathodic Protection 300 kg

Workshops and test areas 2000 kg

Store rooms 1000 kg

TOTAL 79,450 kg

Table 31: Weight Allowances

12.2. MASTER EQUIPMENT LIST

Table 32: Master Equipment List

Item Qty

Sea Chest 2

Fire pump 2

Bilge pump 4

Bilge manifold 2

Black Water pump 1

Sewage Vaccuum 1

Lube oil pump 2

Sludge pump 1

Oily water pump 2

Oily water separator 1

Freshwater filtration 1

Water pump 2

Hot water pump 2

Fuel transfer pump 2

Fuel pumps 2

Fuel oil purifier 2

Machinery space Fans 2

Gensets 2

Main Switchboard 1

Emergency Genset 1

Emergency Switchboard 1

Distribution panels 12

Battery Box 1

Air Conditioning Units 5

AC Fan Coil Units 20

Master Equipment List

12.3. WEIGHT & KG ESTIMATE The weight and KG estimate is shown here for both the fully loaded departure condition as well as the

unloaded arrival conditions. These two conditions most widely reflect the different operating trims of

the ferry. Since this design does not include ballast tanks, the trim has been calculated for each

condition. As a quick check, the depth of the transom has also been calculated. The analysis shows that

as the ship lightens, the transom comes out of the water. For our project, we deem this as acceptable

since the ship will almost always be travelling with a full load. For future iterations however, adding an

aft bilge tank should be considered.

Figure 55: Ship Coordinate System

Figure 56: Fully Loaded Weight

Coordinate System

Axis Reference Positive Input

Direction Units

LCG Bow Aft m

VCG Baseline upwards m

TCG Centreline Port m

Ship in fully loaded departure condition: With Cargo, Full Stores, fuel, and all passengers

Full Load Displacement Summary Weight

(MT) LCG VCG TCG L.Mom V.Mom T.Mom

Consumables

Fuel (98%) 39.2 32.1 1.6 0.0 1258 64.3 0.0

Potable Water (98%) 19.6 25.5 1.6 8.3 500 32.1 161.7

Passengers, Crew, and Stores

Passengers + Crew 12.0 25.0 10.9 0.0 300 130.8 0.0

Crew Stores (15 crew) 0.8 22.8 4.0 -6.5 17 3.0 -4.9

Passenger stores (185 pax) 2.8 30.6 9.5 0.0 85 26.4 0.0

Misc. Liquids

Grey Water (10%) 1.5 24.5 2.0 0.0 37 3.0 0.0

Black Water (10%) 0.6 22.7 2.0 9.7 14 1.2 5.8

Lube Oil (98%) 1.8 38.3 2.2 0.0 69 3.9 0.0

Used Oil (10%) 0.0 38.3 2.2 0.0 2 0.1 0.0

Sludge (10%) 0.1 38.9 2.2 0.0 4 0.2 0.0

Oily Water (10%) 0.5 38.3 1.9 0.0 19 0.9 0.0

Mission Load

Cars, x 34 57.8 25.2 6.5 0.0 1457 376 0.0

Trucks (Fully loaded) x 10 200.0 27.8 6.6 0.0 5560 1320 0.0

Total Deadweight 336.7 27.69 5.83 0.48 9321 1962 163

Estimated Lightship Weight 671.7 31.1 6.0 0.0 20902.6 4008.9 9.9

LCG VCG TCG

Estimated FULL LOAD DISPLACEMENT 1008.3 29.974 5.921 0.171 30223 5971 173

LCB VCB TCB

29.979 1.888 0.188

Figure 57: Operating Trim, Fully Loaded

Figure 58: Unloaded Weight

Operating Trim, fully loaded

𝛁 = 986.73 m 3

T_LCF = 2.85 m Draft at the LCF

Trim lever = -0.03 m = LCG - LCB

TM = -26.29 tonne*m aplied trimming moment

Trim = -1.27 cm If negative, Trim by the bow.

If positive, Trim by the stern

dTf = 0.00 m Change in Draft Aft

T_transom = 0.80 m Design Transom Draft

T_tran_new = 0.80 m Static transom draft at current LCG!

Unloaded condition, with No cargo, full # of passengers and luggage, but only 10% stores and fuel

Unloaded arrival Weight


Consumables

Fuel (98%) 4.0 32.1 1.6 0.0 128.4 6.6 0.0

Potable Water (98%) 2.0 25.5 1.6 8.3 51.0 3.3 16.5


Passengers + Crew 12.0 25.0 10.9 0.0 300.0 130.8 0.0

Crew Stores (15 crew) 0.8 22.8 4.0 -6.5 17.1 3.0 -4.9

Passenger stores (185 pax) 2.8 30.6 9.5 0.0 84.9 26.4 0.0

Misc. Liquids

Grey Water (10%) 14.7 24.5 2.0 0.0 359.6 29.4 0.0

Black Water (10%) 5.9 22.7 2.0 9.7 133.2 11.8 56.7

Lube Oil (98%) 0.2 38.3 2.2 0.0 7.1 0.4 0.0

Used Oil (10%) 0.5 38.3 2.2 0.0 17.3 1.0 0.0

Sludge (10%) 0.9 38.9 2.2 0.0 36.2 2.0 0.0

Oily Water (10%) 4.9 38.3 1.9 0.0 187.9 9.2 0.0

Mission Load

Cars, x 34 0.0 25.2 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Trucks (Fully loaded) x 10 0.0 27.8 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0



LCG VCG TCG

Estimated UNLOADED DISPLACEMENT 720.2 22.042 4.198 0.078 22225 4233 78

Figure 59: Operating Trim in the Unloaded Condition

13. COST ESTIMATE Ship building cost was estimated in two ways, the Product-Oriented Design and Construction (PODAC)

cost model as well as the Parametric Cost Analysis using second hand ships prices on the market.

13.1. ESTIMATE OF ACQUISITION COST The table below compares the estimated acquisition cost by two methods.

Estimation Method

Bid Cost in USD, 2016

Parametric Cost Estimate $ 7,580,000

PODAC (1996) Cost Estimate $ 11,960,000

Table 33: Cost Estimate Comparison

13.1.1. PODAC COST ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS The labor and material cost of the Ship Work Breakdown Structure (SWBS) groups 100 to 600 were

estimated using the Product-Oriented Design and Construction (PODAC) preliminary cost model. The

table below is extracted from the PODAC document [1] which contains the formulas to be used. By

applying these formulas, it is assumed that the prices of steel, manufacturing technologies, and methods

in Indonesia today are similar to those estimated in 1996. Since Indonesia is a developing country and

the shipbuilding industry is considered rather conservative, it is the assumptions seems to be a

reasonable.

Table 34: Cost Estimating Relationship Breakdown

Operating Trim, unloaded

𝛁 = 704.80 m 3

T_LCF = 2.04 m Draft at the LCF

Trim lever = -7.96 m = LCG - LCB

TM = -5731.67 tonne*m aplied trimming moment

Trim = -277.11 cm If negative, Trim by the bow.

If positive, Trim by the stern

dTf = -1.09 m Change in Draft Aft

T_transom = 0.80 m Design Transom Draft

T_tran_new = -0.29 m Static transom draft at current LCG!

Inputs Source

Ship Type Factor

1.25 From PODAC tables

Size Factor (SF)

2.31 = 32.47 x DISPL^(-0.3792)

Complexity Factor (CF)

2.89 = Ship Type Factor x Complexity Factor

Table 35: PODAC Results

“Ship Type Factor” for a ROPAX ferry in particular was not exactly available in the tables. From the three

similar ship types: Roll-on Roll-off Vessel, Ferry and Passenger Ship. The “Ferry” ship type was chosen as

it describes our ship and has values between the two. The table below summarize the values obtained

for the labor and material costs.

Table 36: Cost Estimation Rates

Using the assumed rates above, the ship costs were computed and tabulated in the following tables. An

interesting point is that the magnitude of the propulsion and electrical systems cost is about 63% of

total SWBS material cost, and as much as 43% of the grand total cost.

Table 37: PODAC Based Cost Breakdown

Table 38: PODAC Cost Estimate Results

The bid price from 1996 was projected to 2016 dollar value by using an average inflation rate of 2.1%.

13.1.2. PARAMETRIC COST ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS A method used to check whether the PODAC cost estimate of our ferry is affordable is to compare

second-hand ferry market prices. Price data was collected from used ferries because their prices were

easily accessible. Furthermore, because developing countries tend to buy more second hand ferries, it is

assumed to be a reasonable estimate for the owner’s minimal expected value of a ferry. The following

steps detail the calculations:

To compare all of the nine ROPAX ferries found on the market with lengths ranging from 37 m to 89 m

and speeds ranging from 10 knots to 18.5 knots, the following assumptions where made:

1. The key parameters of value are the capacity of people and vehicles

2. Cabins and vehicle capacities are worth 10 times more than a passenger seat space (this is based

on the calculated ticket price per area). Hallways and washroom areas for passengers were also

roughly accounted for as passenger area.

3. A ferry’s depreciation lifespan is around 22 years after which depreciation it no longer

depreciates and has a fixed salvage value

Table 39: Ticket Prices in the Operating Region

The following plot shows the Salvage Value (the value of a ship after full ~ 22 years of depreciation) vs

“Capacity Value” (a made-up term that relates the values of the space of cabins, cars and passengers)

Figure 60: Capacity Value vs Salvage Price

It is noted that the salvage prices of ROPAX ferries are relatively consistent between “capacity values” of

400 to 1200. The potential designs of this ferry also fit within this range of consistency. A closer look at

this range is in the table below.

Figure 61: Area Value for various Ferries

Assuming that ships retain a salvage value of 20% of the new build price [2], then the new build prices

for the seven ships older than twenty one years of age are as follows in yellow in figure 18.3-5. The

orange and grey data points are ferries that are less than twenty-two years old and have not full

depreciated.

Figure 62: Ship Depreciation

Figure 63: Capacity Value

Suppose that our ROPAX ferry were to carry 180 passenger, 20 cabins and 50 cars (sedans), the

“capacity value” would be;

Capacity Value = 180 + (50+20)*10 = 880

Using the linear curve fit equation of the new-build prices scaled up from salvage value price, the new-

build price is estimated to be:

New-Build Price = 6158.9*(880) - 381712 = $ 5,038,000.00 USD (22 years ago)

Then, taking inflation rates into account and assuming an inflation rate of 2.1% from the USA applies,

the purchase price of a mono-hull (since that data points were mainly mono-hull) ferry of this capacity is

around $7,580,000 US. Philip Koenig, Director of NAVSEA, commented that the idea of using salvage

price to estimate the price of a new-build ship price was doubtful because salvage prices fluctuates with

the market demand; nevertheless, the rough order of magnitude cost estimate was valuable in

comparing acquisition affordability.

An interesting data point found that helps gauge the affordability of our vessel was from a ferry

operator’s new sections. ASDP, an Indonesian ferry company, announced the procurement of five

passenger ferries of 2000 GT at $10,000,000 each [2]. Since our vessel’s gross tonnage was estimated to

be about 1800 GT, our vessel’s acquisition affordability can be compared to an Indonesia ferry operator

company.

The parametric cost estimate and future vessel procurement announcement affirms that cost estimated

from PODAC is likely to be within a reasonable price tag called affordable at acquisition.

13.2. ESTIMATE OF OPERATING COST Operating costs included in the estimate are:

1. Fuel Cost

2. Maintenance Cost

3. Crew Cost

4. Moorage Cost

5. Merchandise Cost

The table below summaries the methodology and costs per year of these expenses.

Cost (USD) Method Inputs

Fuel Cost

810,900

Utilized the CAT ACERT 32 engine’s fuel consumption rate and estimated trips per year to compute the fuel cost

USD 0.68 / liter of diesel as of date

CAT ACERT 32 consumes on average 200g/kWh

Assumed ship travels at designed speed, 15 knots

Maintenance Cost

166,870

Based on operational hours, Washington State Ferry’s (WSF) maintenance average and labor rates.

WSF estimates their maintenance rates to be USD 81.5/hour [32]

Since Indonesia has lower labor rates, the cost per hour was assumed to be 25% less

Crew Cost

155,000

Used labor rate cost estimate similar to shipyard cost estimate for a crew of twelve.

Crew was assumed to have a decent pay of USD 1.75 /hour with an 85% overhead rate to

account for miscellaneous ship expenses such as lighting

Administration/ Moorage Cost

77,500

Other unaccounted expense may include cost of using ports, and offices for the ferry operator. These costs were assumed to scale with maintenance costs as man-hours and operational hours are likely the main inputs

Based on BC Ferry Expense chart, their Administration costs is about half of the magnitude of the maintenance cost. [33]

Retail Goods Sold 6,680

A function of the number of good sold and the mark-up rate of the goods

Assumed:

A quarter of the passengers will spend a quarter of the value of their ticket price to buy refreshments or groceries

Mark-up rate of 200% like vending machines

Table 40: Operating Cost Breakdown

Figure 64: Annual Expense Pie Chart

13.3. ESTIMATE OF REVENUE Revenue of the ROPAX ferry was calculated using the designed ship capacity and ticket rates from table

18.3-1. A full load capacity was assumed because the issue of overcrowding, overloading, and long line

up queues suggest that demands currently exceed the capacity of passengers at this time. The yearly

revenue break-down results are tabulated in tables XX5-3. An inflation rate of 6% (based on 2000 to

2015 average) and 7.744% interest rate (based on government 10 year bond) was assumed in the cash

flow analyses.

Table 41: Trips and Ticket Prices

Table 42: Gross Revenue per Stop at 100% Capacity

Table 43: Total Revenue per Year

The performance of this investment, the ferry, is calculated using the cash flow analysis consisting of the

acquisition cost, annual revenue and future equipment purchase expenses. It was assumed that by

investing in spare propulsion units (estimated to be USD 250,000 each), the ship can transfer most of its

dry-dock maintenance to a repair shop at scheduled maintenance times. This maintenance plan is to

help increase operational time. The purchases in spare propulsion systems are assumed to happen at

year 5 and 20 of the vessel’s life when the vessel begins to require more maintenance. The full cash flow

is shown in table 18.5-6 and the summary of the investment performance in various performance

parameters are listed below. The salvage value was neglected for a conservative estimate.

Investment Performance Indicators

Net Present Value $20,017,050

Internal Rate of Return 14.76%

Return on Investment 9%

Simple Payback Period 11.19 years

Discounted Payback Period 13 years

Table 44: Investment Metrics

Table 18.5-5 below shows the non-ideal case where only 80% of the ship is full; the ship still has a

decent payback period of 19.3 years. At 67% load capacity, the ferry can just manage to pay itself back in

40 years if everything else remains the same. An audience during our final project presentation at UBC

pointed out that some ferry operators have revenue deficits and are government reimbursed. Perhaps

simply having an essential transportation that can pay itself back over its lifecycle is already considered

outstanding.

Table 45: Revenue at Reduced Capacity

14. TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT An attempt was made to manage technical risk at the outset of the project by defining stakeholders and

team-mate roles and expectations. From there, requirements were collected and a work breakdown

structure was roughed out.

To begin the project, we made a Project Proposal using a standard template. For our project, this

proposal acts as the project charter, formally opening the project. It defines the name of the project

(Savu Sea ROPAX Ferry), the main stakeholder (Ferry Safety Association), our sponsor (Chris McKesson),

and our advisor (Robert Allan). It also touches on cost constraints and completion dates. Although we

did not formally obtain signatures on this document, our stakeholders, sponsor, and advisor all accepted

the project implicitly through their continued support.

Stakeholders are any individual or organization who may affect or be affected by the outcome of the

project (PMBOK pg 30). Some stakeholders influence the project (ie. Through expectations), such as our

professor Chris Mckesson, or the World Ferry Safety Organization. However, in our case, the people of

the Savu Sea are our “Unaware” stakeholder. Although they do not provide direct influence, we must

act on their behalf to predict their needs, and make a concerted effort to reach out and discover their

needs.

Stakeholder engagement is critical to success. From PMBOK, pg 403: C denotes current Engagement, D

indicates desired engagement. The size and structure of this project is simple, but it is apparent that

although difficult because of the distance and language barrier, it would be valuable to engage the end

users, the people of Indonesia.

Stakeholder Unaware Resistant Neutral Supportive Leading

Chris McKesson C,D

Rob Allan C,D

Ferry Safety As. C,D

End Users C D

With a project charter and stakeholders identified, we start to collect requirements. Many requirements

are laid out in the terms of reference provided by the World Ferry Safety Association, and are tabulated

in the appendix. Each requirement could further categorized by one of the following evaluation criteria,

taken from the terms of reference:

Safety (Fire safety is specified)

Affordability

Responsiveness

Inventiveness

Conceptual level design

Opportunities for Implementation (Whether Indonesians look favorably on the design and want

to build it)

Ease of repair

Our Scope initially had two distinct phases. The first was purely to meet the deliverables required by the

World Ferry Safety Organization. The second phase will took the form of a massive scope change after

the March 15 competition deadline to gear up to meet requirements for the NAME 591 report. Because

of unexpected project difficulties, the March 15 deadline was not met, which removed the need to have

a stepped scope.

The following describes some of the project management document used during the course of the

project. Most of them were initiated and assigned to a team-member to update, but most fell away as

team-mates preferred to have impromptu meetings and informally define their short term scope of

work, instead of formally recording progress.

Project Proposal: The proposal formally initiates the project, describing roles, deadlines,

sponsorship, and stakeholders.

Scope Spreadsheet: The spreadsheet includes all the scope definition inputs such as

requirements documentation, KPP’s, evaluation criteria, deliverables, RACI (acting as a WBS for

deliverables), assumptions, and the scope statement.

Rail Spreadsheet: This spreadsheet acts as the activity list for the project. This document is will

be updated at every project meeting by the project manager to ensure activities are done on

time.

Gantt chart: This chart acts as a top level schedule. An example of it is shown in the Appendix.

Risk Register: This spreadsheet contains all the identified risks or opportunities, like a SWOT

analysis spreadsheet, and serves to trouble shoot potential problems before they happen.

15. ISSUES REMAINING FOR NEXT PHASE With many of the major strokes of this design worked out, the next phase includes research into some

of the larger unknowns of this design to confirm feasibility.

Further research into the sea state and ship motions is required to confirm the tunnel height

and freeboard.

Improvements and fairing of the hull to improve its manufacturability and seakeeping

Work is required to hash out more detail on the fore and aft ramps and to improve compatibility

with current ferry ramps in the area of operation.

Another detailed pass on the arrangements to:

o Develop an evacuation plan and further meet SOLAS and FSS regulatory requirements

o Improve the flow of traffic on the main deck.

o Add allowances for bulkheads, piping, and wiring

Another detailed pass on weights to:

o Save weight on the structure

o Further refine the weight estimate

Complete a probabilistic damage assessment to confirm deterministic results.

16. CONCLUSIONS A new concept for a medium speed steel catamaran for Indonesia has been developed. This concept

deviates considerably from current ferries operating in the region, putting into question the enterprise

decisions that ferry operators in the region have taken. If safety and affordability are truly important to

the region, this report has shown that a steel catamaran ferry with outboard motors warrants another

look. Further work is required to paint in more details to prove out the concept.

17. REFERENCES

[1] "Notice of Competition 2015," WSFA, 2015.

[2] A. S. G. a. R. E. Weisbrod, "Trends, Causal Analysis, and Recommendations from 14 Years of Ferry

Accidents," 2016.

[3] "East Nusa Tenggara".

[4] "Transportation of Goods in East Nusa Tenggara: Problems and Costs," LPEM-FEUI and the Asia

Foundation, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2010.

[5] Liputan, "Si Tua yang Setia Seberangi Selat Sunda".

[6] J. Hemgard, "(mt) The Changing Ferry," SNAME, 2015.

[7] T. S. Sutulo, "Maritime Engineering and Technology," p. 233.

[8] "Indonesia Ferry Terminal in East Java and Bali Islands Urgent Rehabilitation Project," 2000.

[9] "The Mitre Corporation," [Online]. Available: http://www.mitre.org/publications/systems-

engineering-guide/se-lifecycle-building-blocks/concept-development/concept-of-operations.

[Accessed 2 Feb 2016].

[10] WSFA, "Student'Design'Competition' Safe Affordable Ferries 2015," 2015.

[11] G. Davidson, "Maximising Efficiency and Minimising Cost in High Speed Craft," in 11th International

Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2011.

[12] G. Yee and N. Din, "Clyde & Co," 4 March 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://www.clydeco.com/insight/updates/view/cabotage-and-its-impact-in-indonesia. [Accessed

15 04 2016].

[13] M. Haase and G. Davidson, "A Practical Design Approach and RANSE-based Resistance for Medium-

speed Catamarans," Australian maritime College, Tasmania, 2012.

[14] C. McKesson, "The Practical Design of AMV," US Office of Naval Research, New Orleans, 2009.

[15] M. Haase, J. Binns, T. Giles and N. Bose, "On the macro hydrodynamic design of highly efficient

medium-speed catamarans with minimum resistance," The International Jounral of maritime

Engineering, vol. September, 2012.

[16] A. Molland, W. J.F. and C. P.R., "Resistance Experimenets on a Systematic SEries of High Speed

Displacement Catamaran Forms: Variation of Length-Displacement Ratio and Breadth-Draught

Ratio," University of Southampton, 1994.

[17] H. Erichsen, "Small Ro/Pax Vessel Stability Study," in WMTC, 2015.

[18] P. Sahoo, M. Salas and A. Schwetz, "Practical evaluation of resistance of high-speed Catamaran hull

forms," Ships and Offshore Structures, pp. 307-324, 2007.

[19] X. Pham, K. Kantimahanthi and P. Sahoo, "Wave Resistance Prediction of Hard-Chine Catamarans

through Regression Analysis," Australian Maritime College, Launceston, Australia, 2006.

[20] J. Zips, "Numerical Resistance Prediction based on the Results of the VWS Hard Chine Catamaran

Hull Series '89," in FAST 95: Third International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, Lubeck-

Travemunde, Germany, 1995.

[21] J. Knox, "Ferries," in Ship Design and Construction, Vol II, SNAME, 2004, pp. 38-7.

[22] N. McCulloch, "Asia Foundation," 23 April 2008. [Online]. Available: http://asiafoundation.org/in-

asia/2008/04/23/in-indonesia-keeping-trucks-moving/. [Accessed 16 February 2016].

[23] Freight Link Solutions, "Freightlink," 16 10 2014. [Online]. Available:

https://www.freightlink.co.uk/knowledge/articles/securing-load-ferry-winter. [Accessed 12 04 16].

[24] "Technical Specifications-Shottel Navigator-Type Nav550 Offshore," Shottel, 2016.

[25] A. Golden, "Ferry Fatalities MFA," 2015.

[26] "Geographic Information Technology Training Alliance - Weighting by Pairwise Comparision," 2013.

[Online]. Available: http://www.gitta.info/Suitability/en/html/Normalisatio_learningObject3.html.

[27] E. M. G. Parson, in Introduction to Marine Engineering, 2015, pp. Section 11-7.

[28] "Beta Marine Hydraulic Propulsion," [Online]. Available: http://betamarine.co.uk/portfolio-

item/hydraulic-propulsion/. [Accessed 2016].

[29] I. B. Dirk J, "Voith Turbo - Offshore Supply Vessels".

[30] "erry Service Impacts and Schedule Adjustments," Washington, 2016.

[31] D. Gerr, "BOAT MECHANICAL SYSTEMS HANDBOOK," International Marine/McGraw Hill, 2009.

[32] "Passenger-only Ferry Cost Analysis," Bellevue, 2006.

[33] "BCFS_AnnualReport_14_15," 2015.

18. APPENDICES

18.1. APPENDIX: PROJECT PLANNING DOCUMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT

RACI R - Responsible, A - Accountable, C - Consult, I - Inform

Template Activity Description Shaun Tim Gabriel

9 Project scope, mission, CONOPS, Parameters and KPP's I R A

11 Hull form and Hydro, Body Plan, hydrostatics and stability I I R

11.3 Hydrostatics and Stability, Intact Stability calcs I R A

11.4 Hydrodynamics: Resistance and Powering, ship motions, ship maneuverability R

12 Ship Arrangement and drawing I R

13 Ship Structure, loading cases, structural calculation R I

14 Ship Propulsion, machinery plant description, machinery arrangement A R

15 Ship electrical system, generator sizing, electric load estimate R I

16 Auxiliary and Control systems, Aux system diagrams R I

17 Weight Engineering (Weight estimate), master equipment list, KG estimate A R I

18 Cost Estimate, build strategy, cost through lifecycle R I

23.1 Project Planning documents, technical risk assessment R I R

23.1 Electric Plant Calculations R I

23.12 Areas and Volumes I R

23.4 Lines Plan and Renderings I R

23.6 Damaged Stability Calculations R I

23.7 Resistance Calculations I R

23.9 Propeller Calculations R

Names

A list of stakeholder requirements taken from the Terms of reference. These are used to drive scope and activities

Item # Requirement KPPs Scope Analysis Related Deliverable

1Ship must be safe to operate in the

conditions of the weather and

waterway – further specified

below.

Design is to be verified to meet specific

weather requirements, and will be

built according to Lloyd’s Register Rules

and Regulations as well as applicable

IMO conventions (SOLAS, MARPOL)

Scope should emphasize

seakeeping, weather, research

into he Indonesian waterway, as

well as class compliance Life-saving plans

2Ship must have a draft restriction

of 6 meters due to the depth of

some wharves.

The design will have a maximum draft

less then 6m, with a margin, possibly

4m

Keep draft restriction in mind

during hull sizing, this is a key

part of initial sizing and

parametrics. Table of particulars, GA

3Ship must be safe to operate in

wind speeds of up to 30 knots that

change direction seasonally:

Direction of wind NW and SE.

Consider wind resistance in powering

analysis as well as wind heeling

moment into the stability analysis. The

seasonal nature of the weather in this

region is to be studied for potential

impacts on the design.

Scope should, again, emphasisze

research into the waterway and

weather of the Savu Region to

determine impact on ship

(Seakeeping) Intact stability estimates

4Sea characteristics: Swells up to 2-

4m height, and 4-5 meters in

length.

Ensure ferry can operate safely within

sea state 4 to sea state 5, design to

International code on intact stability

(IS)

Scope needs to include

seakeeping and class compliance,

research into the region Intact stability estimates

5 Ship must be able to safely travel

in the day and overnight

Must have appropriate navigation

systems and lighting for overnight

travel.

Scope must include 24h

navigation Life-saving plans

6If alongside berthing, the vessel

length should not exceed 50m.

The maximum ship length should

probably not be much more than 50. A

survey of the ship berths will be

completed.

Scope must include both a local

survey of berths and a complete

parametric analysis.

Ship's particulars, outboard

profile, GA

7Fire safety must be carefully

addressed in the design.

Fire hazards will be mitigated according

to SOLAS. Look at the possibility of

having an open deck.

Scope must have a huge emphasis

on compliance to SOLAS as well as

a clear plan in place for fires. Life-saving plans

8 The ship must have a maximum

capacity of 185 with a crew of 15

Parametric analysis a part of

scope, as well as economic

analysis. GA

9Affordable to construct, acquire,

operate, maintain, and repair

Scope to include life-cycle costing

analysis. Cost estimates

10

The ship must have 20 cabins of

mixed configuration 2 and 4 bunks

each.

10 cabins with 4 bunks, 10 cabins with 2

bunks made to at least comply with

MLC 2006

Scope to include GA and

parametric analysis.

GA, cost estimates,

structural midship

11The ship must seat between 70

and 160 passengers

Scope to include GA and

parametric analysis. GA, cost estimates

15

All passenger compartments shall

be fitted with A/C. Also include all

standard customer comforts such

as toilets and showers. Include a

shop for groceries and soft drinks,

as well as a storage area for this

shop.

The ship will be designed according to

MLC 2006 for crew and passenger living

areas. The revenue from the shop

should be included in the cost analysis.

Include A/C for all compartments in the

electrical load analysis.

Scope to include GA, cost, and

electrical load analysis.

GA, cost estimates, speed-

power estimates

16Maximize the # of vehicles that the

ship can carry.

Maximize the deck area, and maximize

the possible Ro-Ro DWT in the design.

Scope to include a deadweight

calculation, and parametric

analysis to try to maximize

vehicle space GA, cost estimates

18

There must be Bow and Stern

loading for passengers and

vehicles, side loading for

passengers is acceptable. All ports

are equipped with moveable

ramps.

Scope to include a survey of the

region, assumptions made for

ramps, and how this influences

ferry dimensions.

19 The ship must be designed with a

design speed from 14 to 18 knots.

Design speed from 14 to 16 knots. Max

speed about 18 knots.

Scope to include parametric

analysis.

Speed-power estimates,

machinery arrangement

plans

21

Specific crew spaces are required.

(7 cabins, 4 single beds, 2 double

beds, 1 with 4 beds). Galley, mess

room, storage space,

toilets/showers

Include all required spaces, designed to

minimum requirements of MLC 2006,

include all spaces in a parametric

analysis.

Scope to include thorough

parametric analysis and class

compliance.

GA, outboard profile,

structural midship

Evaluation Criteria of the project, defined, with possible action items relating to the scope

Item Definition Scope Analysis Possible Actions

Safety

Safeguard loss of

life

Project scope should emphasis safety, including (but

not limited to) a complete safety analysis including

safety equipment list, plan and rationale for fire safety,

passenger evacuation plan, plan for securing vehicles,

and definition of compliance with SOLAS.

Research SOLAS. Use Lloyd's search

tool

Affordability and

Cost Analysis

Low cost across

lifecycle

Project Scope should include a comprehensive cost

analysis, including costs to construct, acquire, operate,

maintain, and repair.

Research how to do costing. Use

past student projects, similar ships,

SDAC (lamb), other references

Responsiveness Maneuverability

Scope should address maneuverability of the ship

quantitatively, with Lloyd's compliance Research what maneuverability is.

Inventiveness

Creative solutions

imbedded in the

design

Scope statement should describe an inventive solution

as being a key part of the project, and one that our

sponsor can provide insight into.

He probably already knows, but

mention this requirement to our

sponsor.

Conceptual

Design approach

Design at the right

depth; Even-

handed focus across

topics

Scope statement should describe the design as being

conceptual in nature, enough information to be able to

create interest in the design but not comprehensive

research into any area. Assumptions will have to be

made and clearly documented to save time.

Create a clear Scope statement and

a well defined WBS with

responsibilities mapped out. All

deliverales should be rudimentary

I nature.

Opportunities for

Implementation

Indonesian interest

in furthering the

design

The scope should lightly address finding some

connection with our Indonesian stakeholders, or at

least find some information to tailor the project to the

Savu sea, thus making it more attractive for actual

implementation.

Send out feelers (emails) to

possible Indonesian contacts.

Easy to Repair

and maintain

Limited repair

facilities available.

Project scope and scope statement should include an

emphasis on making the design easy to maintain and

repair across the ship. [Steel favored as a possible hull

material; Provide plenty of head clearance in machinery

spaces; Specify non-specialized mechanical and

electrical equipment.]

Create a list of how this was done

in example projects, both student

and commercial. Mention this to

our sponsor.

18.2. APPENDIX: RENDERINGS

18.3. APPENDIX: GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWINGS

18.4. APPENDIX: LINES PLAN

18.5. APPENDIX: INTACT STABILITY CALCULATIONS

SEVERE WIND AND ROLLING CRITERION

P = 504 Pa Given

A = 544.72 m2 From GA

Z = 6.96 m From GA

Δ = 1008.3 tonnes @ the full load condition

g = 9.81 m/s^2

lw1 = 0.193 m Righting arm from a 504Pa wind

lw2 = 0.290 m

CB = 0.524

LWL = 52.493 m Waterline length

KG = 5.921 m @ the fully loaded condition

Draft = 2.85 m @ the fully loaded Draft

B = 23.476 m Moulded breadth of the ship

d = 2.81 m Moulded draft of the ship

B/d = 8.354 m

GM = 39.127 m Corrected for FSE

C = 0.543

T = 4.073 s Estimate of Rolling period

s = 0.100 We're out of the chart, our period is very short

OG = 3.111

r = 1.394

Ship in fully loaded departure condition: With Cargo, Full Stores, fuel, and all passengers





LCG VCG TCG


LCB VCB TCB

29.979 1.888 0.188

Trim Angle = 0.075 deg

LWL = 52.500 m

Trim = 0.069 m

Draft = 2.845 m

GM0 = 39.410 m

FSE = 0.283 m

GM1 = 39.127 m Corrected for FSE

X1 = 0.800 From the table, but we're off the chart.

X2 = 0.854 From a table, depending on Cb, interpolated

k = 0.700 For a ship with sharp bilges

φ0 = 0.03951712 degrees Interpolated from full load heeling results

φ1 = = 109 x k x X1 x X2 X sqrt(r x s)

19.46 degrees =

φ2 = 50 degrees = 0.873

ang of flooding, or 50 degrees, whichever less

φ0 - φ1 = -19.42 degrees = -0.34 rad -7 m

Angle at lw2 17 deg = 0.297 rad

Considering all passengers on the roof at once:

Lever Arm = 11.25 m

All passengers = 300

Weight, each = 75 kg

Total weight = 22500 kg

Heeling moment = 253125

Max Heeling arm = 0.25 m

Angle of heel with respect to turning:

v0 = 7.72 m/s service speed

LWL = 52.5 m

Displacement = 1008 tonnes

KG = 6.20 m Corrected for FSE

d = 2.81 m mean draft

MR = 1098 kNm

max heeling arm = 0.111 m

Worst case heeling arm:

Crowding + turning + wind gusts = 0.652 m

Stability Criteria - IS 2008, Open Water Criteria for Fully loaded departure


GM At 0 > 0.15 meters 0 0.15 39.4186 Pass

GZ At 30 >= 0.2 meters 30 0.2 6.3479 Pass

Angle At GZmax > 25 deg 14.5197 25 14.5197 Fail

Area Between 0 and 30 > 3.15 meters-deg 0 30 3.15 175.2671 Pass

Area Between 0 and Flood > 5.15 meters-deg 0 22.6871 5.15 126.253 Pass

Area Between 30 and 40 > 1.72 meters-deg 30 40 1.72 57.8432 Pass

Stability Criteria - IS 2008, Severe Wind and Rolling_lw1, Wind Heeling_lw1


Angle At SteadyEquil < 16 deg 0.032 16 0.032 Pass

Stability Criteria - IS 2008, Severe Wind and Rolling, lw2, Wind Heeling_lw2


ResRatio Between SteadyEquil-19.45 deg and

50 >= 1

-19.277 50 1 2.6217 Pass

Stability Criteria - IS 2008, Passenger Crowding, Roof Overcrowding


Angle At SteadyEquil <= 15 deg 0.1148 15 0.1148 Pass

Stability Criteria - IS 2008, Turning Criteria, Turning moment



Stability Criteria - IS 2008, Combined Wind + Overcrowding + turning, Combined Arms



USING SIMPSON’S RULE TO CORROBORATE ORCA RESULTS

step = 0.01

7 rads

0 to 40 0 to 30 30 to 40 Ar. b vs Ar. A

Heel Trim Righting Moment Heel

Righting Arm SM

SM*arm SM

SM*arm SM

SM*arm

SM

SM*arm

(deg)

(deg) (kgf-m) [rad] (m)

-40 1.28 -5022656 -0.70 -5.0

-39 1.26 -5143942 -0.68 -5.1

-38 1.23 -5263302 -0.66 -5.2

-37 1.21 -5380630 -0.65 -5.3

-36 1.18 -5496101 -0.63 -5.5

0.1.FULLY LOADED CONDITION

Area under the GZ curve not to be less than:

0.055 meter-radians up to 30 Deg angle of heel

Area from 0 to 30 = 3.102 >0.055 PASS

0.09 meter-radians up to 40 deg, or angle of downflooding

Area from 0 to 40 = 4.120 >0.09 PASS

Area under the GZ curve between 30 and 40, or 30 and downflooding angle

… shall not be less than 0.03 meter radians

Area, 30 to 40 = 1.018 >0.03 PASS

GZ shall be at least 0.2 m at an angle of heel equal to or greater than 30 deg

GZ @ 30 deg = 6.391 >0.2 PASS

The maximum righting lever shall occur at an angle of heel not less than 25 deg

*** This is not practical for our ship, see high speed craft code

Initial metacentric height GMo shall not be less than 0.15 m

Initial GM = 39.17m > 0.15m PASS

Max GZ is: 7.699 m

Which occurs at: 14.000 deg

-8.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40GZ (

m)

Heel (Degrees)

Righting Arm (m)

-35 1.16 -5609654 -0.61 -5.6

-34 1.13 -5720890 -0.59 -5.7

-33 1.11 -5830482 -0.58 -5.8

-32 1.09 -5937387 -0.56 -5.9

-31 1.06 -6042685 -0.54 -6.0

-30 1.04 -6145202 -0.52 -6.1

-29 1.02 -6245162 -0.51 -6.2

-28 1.00 -6342918 -0.49 -6.3

-27 0.98 -6437980 -0.47 -6.4

-26 0.97 -6530367 -0.45 -6.5

-25 0.95 -6620213 -0.44 -6.6

-24 0.94 -6707517 -0.42 -6.7

-23 0.93 -6792212 -0.40 -6.7

-22 0.92 -6874385 -0.38 -6.8

-21 0.92 -6954357 -0.37 -6.9

-20 0.92 -7031485 -0.35 -6.97

-19 0.91 -7107035 -

0.332 -7.05

-18 0.92 -7180288 -0.31 -7.1

-17 0.92 -7251193 -0.30 -7.2

-16 0.92 -7320616 -0.28 -7.3

-15 0.92 -7388084 -0.26 -7.3

-14 0.93 -7428595 -0.24 -7.4

-13 0.96 -7307016 -0.23 -7.2

-12 1.00 -7043833 -0.21 -7.0

-11 1.03 -6675040 -0.19 -6.6

-10 1.04 -6223625 -0.17 -6.2

-9 1.04 -5712120 -0.16 -5.7

-8 1.02 -5154780 -0.14 -5.1

-7 1.00 -4559302 -0.12 -4.5

-6 0.98 -3928508 -0.10 -3.9

-5 0.95 -3264389 -0.09 -3.2

-4 0.93 -2581813 -0.07 -2.6

-3 0.91 -1894456 -0.05 -1.9

-2 0.90 -1205816 -0.03 -1.2

-1 0.89 -516765 -0.02 -0.5

0 0.89 172419 0.00 0.171 1 0.2 1 0.2

1 0.89 861550 0.02 0.854 4 3.4 4 3.4

2 0.90 1550443 0.03 1.5 2 3.1 2 3.1

3 0.91 2238817 0.05 2.2 4 8.9 4 8.9

4 0.93 2925803 0.07 2.9 2 5.8 2 5.8

5 0.95 3607901 0.09 3.6 4 14.3 4 14.3

6 0.98 4271442 0.10 4.2 2 8.5 2 8.5

7 1.00 4901556 0.12 4.9 4 19.4 4 19.4

8 1.02 5496248 0.14 5.5 2 10.9 2 10.9

9 1.04 6052702 0.16 6.0 4 24.0 4 24.0

10 1.04 6563224 0.17 6.5 2 13.0 2 13.0

11 1.04 7013565 0.19 7.0 4 27.8 4 27.8

12 1.01 7381185 0.21 7.32 2 14.6 2 14.6

13 0.96 7643076 0.23 7.58 4 30.3 4 30.3

14 0.93 7763218 0.24 7.70 2 15.4 2 15.4

15 0.92 7721178 0.26 7.66 4 30.6 4 30.6

16 0.92 7652103 0.28 7.59 2 15.2 2 15.2

17 0.92 7580971 0.297 7.5 4 30.1 4 30.1 1 7.52

18 0.92 7508255 0.31 7.4 2 14.9 2 14.9 4 29.79

19 0.92 7433091 0.33 7.4 4 29.5 4 29.5 2 14.74

20 0.92 7355529 0.35 7.3 2 14.6 2 14.6 4 29.18

21 0.92 7276288 0.37 7.2 4 28.9 4 28.9 2 14.43

22 0.92 7194105 0.38 7.1 2 14.3 2 14.3 4 28.54

23 0.93 7109622 0.40 7.1 4 28.2 4 28.2 2 14.10

24 0.94 7022516 0.42 7.0 2 13.9 2 13.9 4 27.86

25 0.95 6932707 0.44 6.9 4 27.5 4 27.5 2 13.75

26 0.97 6840266 0.45 6.8 2 13.6 2 13.6 4 27.14

27 0.99 6745188 0.47 6.7 4 26.8 4 26.8 2 13.38

28 1.01 6647342 0.49 6.6 2 13.2 2 13.2 4 26.37

29 1.03 6546706 0.51 6.5 4 26.0 4 26.0 2 12.99

30 1.05 6443781 0.52 6.4 2 12.8 1 6.4 1 6.4 4 25.56

31 1.07 6338204 0.54 6.3 4 25.1 4 25.1 2 12.57

32 1.09 6229754 0.56 6.2 2 12.4 2 12.4 4 24.71

33 1.11 6119610 0.58 6.1 4 24.3 4 24.3 2 12.14

34 1.14 6006690 0.59 6.0 2 11.9 2 11.9 4 23.83

35 1.16 5892041 0.61 5.8 4 23.4 4 23.4 2 11.69

36 1.19 5774984 0.63 5.7 2 11.5 2 11.5 4 22.91

37 1.21 5655933 0.65 5.6 4 22.4 4 22.4 2 11.22

38 1.24 5534923 0.66 5.5 2 11.0 2 11.0 4 21.96

39 1.26 5411818 0.68 5.4 4 21.5 4 21.5 2 10.73

40 1.29 5286696 0.70 5.2 1 5.2 1 5.2 4 20.97

41 1.31 5159605 0.72 5.1 2 10.23

42 1.34 5030626 0.73 5.0 4 19.96

43 1.37 4899756 0.75 4.9 2 9.72

44 1.40 4767078 0.77 4.7 4 18.91

45 1.43 4632665 0.79 4.6 2 9.19

46 1.46 4496545 0.80 4.5 4 17.84

47 1.48 4358738 0.82 4.3 2 8.65

48 1.51 4219306 0.84 4.2 4 16.74

49 1.54 4078261 0.86 4.0 1 4.04

50 1.57 3935726 0.87 3.9

18.6. APPENDIX: DAMAGED STABILITY CALCULATIONS

18.6.1. A AND B FLOODED:

18.6.2. B AND C FLOODED:

Stability Criteria - SOLAS 2004, After Damage, compartments A and B flooded



15 deg

0.3457 74.3977 15 74.052 Pass


meters-deg

0.3457 27 0.86 145.389 Pass




18.6.3. C AND D FLOODED:

Stability Criteria - SOLAS 2004, After Damage, compartments B and C flooded



15 deg

1.6092 74.5676 15 72.9583 Pass


meters-deg

1.6092 27 0.86 125.8385 Pass








meters-deg3.3155 27 0.86 107.3328 Pass


15 deg3.3155 74.8554 15 71.5399 Pass


Stability Criteria - SOLAS 2004, After Damage, compartments C and D flooded

18.6.4. D AND E FLOODED:

18.6.5. E AND F FLOODED:





meters-deg

3.9198 27 0.86 107.7353 Pass


15 deg

3.9198 75.1032 15 71.1834 Pass


Stability Criteria - SOLAS 2004, After Damage, compartments D and E

18.6.6. F AND G FLOODED:





meters-deg

3.5124 27 0.86 108.6101 Pass


15 deg

3.5124 74.2201 15 70.7077 Pass


Stability Criteria - SOLAS 2004, After Damage, compartments E and F





meters-deg

4.8345 27 0.86 75.2789 Pass


15 deg

4.8345 70.4717 15 65.6372 Pass


Stability Criteria - SOLAS 2004, After Damage, compartments F and G

18.7. APPENDIX: RESISTANCE CALCULATIONS

18.7.1. NPL RESISTANCE CALCS

rho_sw 1021.88 kg/m 3 at 29.4 C rho_sw 1025 kg/m 3 at 15 C

v_sw 8.5975E-07 m2/sec at 29.4 C v_sw 8.5975E-07 m2/sec at 15 C

Ship Environment Model Environment

Model Data One hull

Name LWL L/B B/T L/V^(1/3) Cb Cp Cm S.A_wet LCB Form Factor

[m] [m2] % Midship (1 + Bk)

3b 1.6 7 2 6.27 0.397 0.693 0.565 0.434 -0.064 1.65

4a 1.6 10.4 1.5 7.4 0.397 0.693 0.565 0.348 -0.064 1.43

SavuFerry 52.50 8.02 2.33 6.67 0.50 0.73 0.39 872.00 -0.065 1.51

Resistance data for current ship design detailed above

s/L Fn C_TM Cr.model 1+Bk Cf.model V_model LWL_ship λ =

[m]

0.3 0.2 7.80E-03 3.21E-03 1.65 4.58E-03 0.79 52.50 32.81

0.3 0.25 8.10E-03 3.73E-03 1.65 4.37E-03 0.99 52.50 32.81

0.3 0.3 8.96E-03 4.75E-03 1.65 4.21E-03 1.19 52.50 32.81

0.3 0.35 1.00E-02 5.94E-03 1.65 4.08E-03 1.39 52.50 32.81

0.3 0.4 1.16E-02 7.65E-03 1.65 3.97E-03 1.58 52.50 32.81

0.3 0.45 1.64E-02 1.26E-02 1.65 3.88E-03 1.78 52.50 32.81

Resistance data for current ship design detailed above

s/L Fn C_TM Cr.model 1+Bk Cf.model V_model L_ship λ =

[m]

0.3 0.2 7.15E-03 2.56E-03 1.43 4.58E-03 0.79 52.50 32.81

0.3 0.25 7.69E-03 3.32E-03 1.43 4.37E-03 0.99 52.50 32.81

0.3 0.3 8.49E-03 4.28E-03 1.43 4.21E-03 1.19 52.50 32.81

0.3 0.35 8.65E-03 4.58E-03 1.43 4.08E-03 1.39 52.50 32.81

0.3 0.4 9.84E-03 5.87E-03 1.43 3.97E-03 1.58 52.50 32.81

0.3 0.45 1.18E-02 7.95E-03 1.43 3.88E-03 1.78 52.50 32.81

Approximated Ship resistance with interpolated residuary resistance

s/L Fn Cr.model 1+Bk Cf.model V_model L_ship λ =

[m]

0.3 0.2 2.79E-03 1.51 4.58E-03 0.79 52.50 32.81

0.3 0.25 3.46E-03 1.51 4.37E-03 0.99 52.50 32.81

0.3 0.3 4.45E-03 1.51 4.21E-03 1.19 52.50 32.81

0.3 0.35 5.06E-03 1.51 4.08E-03 1.39 52.50 32.81

0.3 0.4 6.50E-03 1.51 3.97E-03 1.58 52.50 32.81

0.3 0.45 9.59E-03 1.51 3.88E-03 1.78 52.50 32.81

Interpolated Values

SAVU SEA FERRY

MODEL 3B

MODEL 4B

Both Hulls

A_wet V_ship V_sh.kn Rn C_f.ship C_TS R_ship P_E PE

[m2] [m/s] [knots] ship [N] [W] [kW]

934.54 4.54 8.82 2.77E+08 1.81E-03 3.22E-03 31649.74 144E+3 143.65

934.54 5.67 11.03 3.46E+08 1.75E-03 3.78E-03 58090.36 330E+3 329.58

934.54 6.81 13.23 4.16E+08 1.71E-03 4.84E-03 107126.72 729E+3 729.35

934.54 7.94 15.44 4.85E+08 1.68E-03 6.06E-03 182606.90 1,450E+3 1450.44

934.54 9.08 17.65 5.54E+08 1.65E-03 7.79E-03 306492.29 2,782E+3 2782.23

934.54 10.21 19.85 6.24E+08 1.62E-03 1.27E-02 633903.99 6,474E+3 6473.66



749.36 4.54 8.82 2.77E+08 1.81E-03 3.18E-03 25065.59 114E+3 113.77

749.36 5.67 11.03 3.46E+08 1.75E-03 3.94E-03 48606.36 276E+3 275.77

749.36 6.81 13.23 4.16E+08 1.71E-03 4.92E-03 87352.85 595E+3 594.72

749.36 7.94 15.44 4.85E+08 1.68E-03 5.22E-03 126149.72 1,002E+3 1002.00

749.36 9.08 17.65 5.54E+08 1.65E-03 6.52E-03 205794.34 1,868E+3 1868.13

749.36 10.21 19.85 6.24E+08 1.62E-03 8.61E-03 343758.36 3,511E+3 3510.59

from model



855.46 4.54 8.82 2.77E+08 1.81E-03 3.19E-03 28741.11 130E+3 130.45

855.46 5.67 11.03 3.46E+08 1.75E-03 3.89E-03 54668.92 310E+3 310.17

855.46 6.81 13.23 4.16E+08 1.71E-03 4.89E-03 99133.37 675E+3 674.92

855.46 7.94 15.44 4.85E+08 1.68E-03 5.52E-03 152210.27 1,209E+3 1209.00

855.46 9.08 17.65 5.54E+08 1.65E-03 6.97E-03 251095.92 2,279E+3 2279.36

855.46 10.21 19.85 6.24E+08 1.62E-03 1.01E-02 458973.15 4,687E+3 4687.20

SAVU SEA FERRY

MODEL 3B

MODEL 4B

18.7.2. VWS RESISTANCE CALCULATIONS

"Numerical Resistance Prediction based on the Results of the VWS Hard Chine Catamaran Hull Series '89"

Jan M. Zips - presented at FAST '95 , Travemünde GE

The scope of the VWS 89 Chine hull series is:

1. Hull lengths from 20 to 80 m

2. displacement 25 to 1000 ts

3. Service speed 35 to 40 kn

4. Fn from 0.8 to 1.4

Inputs

LWL Waterline Length 52.49 m

BXDH Demihull Beam 6.55 m

LWL/BXDH 7.55 - 13.55 8.020

bM Deadrise Angle 16 - 38 deg 31 deg

dW Transom Wedge 0 - 12 deg 0 deg

D Displacement 996.1 tonnes For full ship, I assume…

Displaced volume 974.754 m3

r Sea water density 1021.88 kg m-3

n Sea water kinematic viscosity 8.5975E-07 m2 s

g Specific gravity force 9.807 m s-2

CA Correlation allowance 0.0004

Computed values

SW/2/3 Wetted surface coefficient 9.729520 SW = 957 m 2

LWL/(/2)1/3 Length-volume coefficient 6.410140

Fn/2 eR Rn CF RF v (m s-1) VK (kn) PE (kW) PE (hp)

1.00 0.030392325 515461109.1 0.00166468 77875.88 8.79 17.07 3292 4413

1.25 0.07165081 644326386.3 0.00161764 118908.33 10.98 21.33 8992 12054

1.50 0.076282926 773191663.6 0.00158066 168090.01 13.18 25.60 12035 16132

1.75 0.074679585 902056940.9 0.00155038 225291.20 15.37 29.87 14679 19677

2.00 0.077526059 1030922218 0.00152484 290405.52 17.57 34.13 18409 24677

2.50 0.087365591 1288652773 0.00148356 444026.55 21.96 42.66 28496 38198

3.00 0.097831239 1546383327 0.00145106 628365.99 26.36 51.20 41748 55962

3.50 0.092569908 1804113882 0.00142441 842961.63 30.75 59.73 53724 72016

18.7.3. PRAM AND SAHOO RESISTANCE CALCULATIONS

Practical Evaluation of Resistance of high-speed Catamaran hull forms

Extrapolated Data

Fn/2 v (m s-1) VK (kn) R_T (N) PE (kW) PE (hp)

0.55 4.83 9.39 29091 141 188

0.6 5.27 10.24 42108 222 298

0.65 5.71 11.09 59170 338 453

0.7 6.15 11.95 81075 499 668

0.75 6.59 12.80 108701 716 960

0.8 7.03 13.65 143006 1005 1347

0.85 7.47 14.51 185034 1382 1852

0.9 7.91 15.36 235913 1865 2500 Extrapolation form:

0.95 8.35 16.21 296857 2478 3321 R_T = k*V^x

0.975 8.57 16.64 331506 2839 3806 k = 36

1.00 8.79 17.07 374765 3292.34 4413.32 prediction: 952991.06

1.25 10.98 21.33 818835 8991.91 12053.50 exp = 4.25

Italic cells reference the table above

Fn alpha beta_1 beta_2 beta_3 beta_4 Cw_CAT V_ship V_sh.kn Rn C_f.ship (1+Bk) CT _cat R_ship P_E PE

[m/s] [knots] ship [N] [W] [kW]

0.4 2.507751 -2.25588 -1.819332 0.921796 -0.02667 0.002705 9.08 17.6 5.54E+08 1.65E-03 1.29 4.83E-03 177220.16 1.61E+06 1608.64

0.5 2.448887 -2.42472 -1.582805 0.861936 -0.2786 0.003203 11.35 22.1 6.93E+08 1.60E-03 1.29 5.27E-03 301998.75 3.43E+06 3426.58

0.6 2.231476 -2.44248 -1.528469 0.931836 -0.23256 0.002655 13.62 26.5 8.31E+08 1.57E-03 1.29 4.67E-03 385797.07 5.25E+06 5252.85

0.7 1.898569 -2.40299 -1.489982 0.961013 -0.12984 0.002195 15.88 30.9 9.70E+08 1.54E-03 1.29 4.17E-03 469007.61 7.45E+06 7450.12

0.8 1.543052 -2.3511 -1.442334 0.965683 -0.0469 0.001866 18.15 35.3 1.11E+09 1.51E-03 1.29 3.81E-03 559587.03 1.02E+07 10158.81

0.9 1.20842 -2.30869 -1.384697 0.96665 -0.00486 0.001592 20.42 39.7 1.25E+09 1.49E-03 1.29 3.51E-03 652110.80 1.33E+07 13318.31

1 0.911271 -2.27998 -1.317368 0.979194 0.004593 0.001323 22.69 44.1 1.39E+09 1.47E-03 1.29 3.21E-03 737576.99 1.67E+07 16737.58

1.1 0.063404 -2.25769 -1.24056 0.995197 -0.00438 0.000103 24.96 48.5 1.52E+09 1.45E-03 1.29 1.97E-03 547829.96 1.37E+07 13674.88

1.2 0.391235 -2.24274 -1.155136 1.021166 -0.01745 0.000702 27.23 52.9 1.66E+09 1.44E-03 1.29 2.55E-03 843486.31 2.30E+07 22969.13

1.3 0.162273 -2.23328 -1.050167 1.036256 -0.02771 0.000325 29.50 57.3 1.80E+09 1.42E-03 1.29 2.16E-03 836923.46 2.47E+07 24689.61

1.4 0.0027 -2.23505 -0.908676 1.119485 -0.03114 5.76E-06 31.77 61.8 1.94E+09 1.41E-03 1.29 1.82E-03 819740.54 2.60E+07 26042.92

1.5 -0.02858 -2.26839 -0.69293 1.32658 -0.03551 -6E-05 34.04 66.2 2.08E+09 1.40E-03 1.29 1.74E-03 899653.05 3.06E+07 30623.27

Calm water resistance of catamarans is in general attributed to two major components namely, viscous resistanceand calm water wave resistance. The former has been acceptably determined from ITTC-1957 lineusing a form factor component whilst the latter still remains to be a stimulating question to theresearchers.

Fn V_ship V_sh.kn R_ship P_E PE

[m/s] [knots] [N] [W] [kW]

0.15 3.40 6.62 2917.6 9931.078 9.9

0.2 4.54 8.82 9908.5 44970.19 45.0

0.25 5.67 11.03 25578.6 145111.7 145.1 Extrapolation form:

0.3 6.81 13.23 55513.3 377923.5 377.9 R_t = k*V x

0.35 7.94 15.44 106886.1 848935.2 848.9 k = 16

0.4 9.08 17.64 1.77E+05 1.61E+06 1608.64 prediction: 188532.9

0.5 11.35 22.06 3.02E+05 3.43E+06 3426.58 exp = 4.25

Italic cells reference the table above

Value Product

a0 0 0.000 0.00

a1 0.258 2.326 0.60

a2 2.505 6.670 16.71

a3 -150.791 0.300 -45.24

a4 4.932 1.450 7.15

a5 -1.446 15.514 -22.43

a6 68.628 0.698 47.89

a7 6.549 2.001 13.11

a8 -2.506 3.373 -8.45

a9 -2.432 9.672 -23.52

a10 100.173 0.435 43.58

a11 -1.636 4.654 -7.61

a12 1.417 22.496 31.88

a13 -43.355 1.012 -43.86

a14 -2.927 2.902 -8.49

1.29

(L/V 1/3)(s/L)

(B/T)(1+k)

(L/V 1/3)(1+k)

Regression Coefficients

(s/L)(1+k)

0

Coefficients

(L/V 1/3)(s/L)(1+k)

B/T

L/V 1/3

s/L

(1+k)

(B/T)(L/V 1/3)

(B/T)(s/L)

(B/T)(s/L)(1+k)

Regression Multiple

(B/T)(L/V 1/3)(s/L)

(B/T)(L/V 1/3)(1+k)

18.8. APPENDIX: STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS

Factor Service group Range (NM)

0.5 G1 craft 0

0.6 G2 craft 20

0.7 G3 craft 150

0.8 G4 craft 250

1 G5 350

1 G6

Table. Vessel service group and factor

Local Design Load

Table. Vessel relative vertical motion

Table. Vessel vertical acceleration

% Lwl xwI xa Tx zk u kz Hrm

[%] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m]

0% 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.0 0.10 0.91 3.49

10% 5.2 5.2 1.5 1.4 0.17 0.84 2.99

20% 10.5 10.5 2.1 0.7 0.25 0.78 2.69

30% 15.7 15.7 2.5 0.3 0.30 0.74 2.57

40% 21.0 21.0 2.7 0.1 0.32 0.72 2.64

50% 26.2 26.2 2.8 0.0 0.34 0.71 2.89

60% 31.5 31.5 2.8 0.0 0.34 0.71 3.33

70% 36.7 36.7 2.8 0.0 0.34 0.71 3.96

80% 42.0 42.0 2.8 0.0 0.34 0.71 4.77

90% 47.2 47.2 2.4 0.4 0.29 0.75 5.77

100% 52.5 52.5 0.0 2.8 0.00 1.00 6.95

Distance from

aft end of Lwl

Distance from aft

end of Lwl

Relative vertical

motion

Distance from AP

along hull

Local draft to operating

waterline, above bottom hull

Vertical distance of

underside of keel

% Lwl xwI ax

[%] [m] [g]

0% 0.0 0.78

10% 5.2 0.76

20% 10.5 0.79

30% 15.7 0.85

40% 21.0 0.94

50% 26.2 1.08

60% 31.5 1.25

70% 36.7 1.46

80% 42.0 1.70

90% 47.2 1.99

100% 52.5 2.31

Distance from aft

end of Lwl

Distance from aft

end of Lwl

Vertical acc at xa

on static load

Table. Wave induced pressure calculation

Table. Wave induced pressure calculation (con’d)

Table. Wave induced pressure calculation (con’d)

xwI Pp Pw Hw fL E Pwh (Pd)

[m] [kPa] [kPa] [m] [kPa]

0.0 43.47 43.47 6.97 1.00 1.59 8.80

5.2 43.47 43.47 5.99 1.00 1.59 8.80

10.5 43.47 43.47 5.38 1.00 0 7.20

15.7 43.47 43.47 5.14 1.00 0 7.20

21.0 43.47 43.47 5.28 1.00 0 7.20

26.2 43.47 43.47 5.78 1.00 0 7.20

31.5 43.47 43.47 6.66 1.00 0 7.20

36.7 43.47 43.47 7.91 1.00 0 7.20

42.0 47.82 47.82 9.54 1.00 1.59 8.80

47.2 63.76 63.76 11.53 1.25 1.59 10.60

52.5 79.70 79.70 13.90 1.50 1.59 12.40

79.70 79.70 12.40

Hydrodynamic wave

pressure

Pressure on

deck

Hydrodynamic

pressure 2

Nominal wave

limit height

Location factor

weather/interior deck

deck

factor

Distance from aft

end of Lwl

xwI Φdh Pdh Pf Kpc ∇pc Ppc

[m] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa]

0.0 0 0.00 0 1.0 0.17 11.38

5.2 0 0.00 0 1.0 0.17 11.38

10.5 0 0.00 0 1.0 0.17 11.38

15.7 0 0.00 0 1.0 0.17 11.38

21.0 0 0.00 0 1.0 0.17 11.38

26.2 0 0.00 0 1.0 0.17 11.38

31.5 0.06 18.59 0 1.0 0.17 11.38

36.7 0.12 37.19 0 1.0 0.17 11.38

42.0 0.18 55.78 47.68 1.3 0.17 15.13

47.2 0.18 64.74 64.74 1.7 0.17 19.00

52.5 0.09 47.98 64.74 2.0 0.17 22.76

64.74 64.74 22.76

Impact

pressure,

Longitudinal

distribution factor

Cross-deck impact

factor

Bottom shell impact

pressure

Forebody impact

pressure

Distance from

aft end of Lwl

xwI C1 Pdhp Pcd

[m] [kPa] [kPa]

0.0 16.23

5.2 16.15

10.5 0.8 5.76 16.27

15.7 0.8 5.76 16.62

21.0 0.8 5.76 17.19

26.2 0.8 5.76 17.97

31.5 0.8 5.76 18.97

36.7 0.8 5.76 20.19

42.0 0.8 7.04 21.63

47.2 23.29

52.5 25.16

7.04 25.16

Design pressure for side plating

superstructureCargo deck design pressure

Distance from

aft end of Lwl

Pressure factor

superstructure side

Table. Hydrostatic pressure on shell plating

Table. Combined hydrostatic pressure on shell plating up to waterline

Table. Vertical distribution factor for hydrodynamic pressure

xwI

[m] 0.00 0.70 1.41 2.11 2.81

0.0 28.14 21.11 14.07 7.04 0.00

5.2 28.14 21.11 14.07 7.04 0.00

10.5 28.14 21.11 14.07 7.04 0.00

15.7 28.14 21.11 14.07 7.04 0.00

21.0 28.14 21.11 14.07 7.04 0.00

26.2 28.14 21.11 14.07 7.04 0.00

31.5 28.14 21.11 14.07 7.04 0.00

36.7 28.14 21.11 14.07 7.04 0.00

42.0 28.14 21.11 14.07 7.04 0.00

47.2 28.14 21.11 14.07 7.04 0.00

52.5 28.14 21.11 14.07 7.04 0.00

Hydrostatic pressure on shell plating, Ph [kPa]Distance from

aft end of Lwl

z [m]

28.14

xwI

[m] 0.00 0.70 1.41 2.11 2.81

0.0 71.61 64.58 57.54 50.51 43.47

5.2 71.61 64.58 57.54 50.51 43.47

10.5 71.61 64.58 57.54 50.51 43.47

15.7 71.61 64.58 57.54 50.51 43.47

21.0 71.61 64.58 57.54 50.51 43.47

26.2 71.61 64.58 57.54 50.51 43.47

31.5 71.61 64.58 57.54 50.51 43.47

36.7 71.61 64.58 57.54 50.51 43.47

42.0 75.96 68.92 61.89 54.85 47.82

47.2 91.90 84.86 77.83 70.79 63.76

52.5 107.84 100.80 93.77 86.73 79.70

Distance

from aft

107.84

Combined pressre distribution UP TO operating waterline, Ps [kPa]

z [m] < zk+Tx

xwI

[m] 0.00 0.70 1.41 2.11 2.81

0 0.68 0.76 0.84 0.92 1.00

5.2 0.69 0.77 0.85 0.92 1.00

10.5 0.70 0.78 0.85 0.93 1.00

15.7 0.71 0.78 0.85 0.93 1.00

21.0 0.71 0.78 0.86 0.93 1.00

26.2 0.71 0.79 0.86 0.93 1.00

31.5 0.71 0.79 0.86 0.93 1.00

36.7 0.71 0.79 0.86 0.93 1.00

42.0 0.71 0.79 0.86 0.93 1.00

47.2 0.71 0.78 0.85 0.93 1.00

52.5 - - - - -

z [m]

Vertical distribution factor, fzDistance from

aft end of Lwl

Table. Hydrodynamic pressure

Table. Design pressure for watertight bulkhead

Table. Summary of wave induced pressure

xwI [kPa]

[m] 0.00 0.70 1.41 2.11 2.81

0 23.66 26.46 29.26 32.06 34.85 34.85

5.2 20.69 23.00 25.32 27.63 29.94 29.94

10.5 18.87 20.88 22.88 24.89 26.90 26.90

15.7 18.22 20.09 21.96 23.84 25.71 25.71

21.0 18.79 20.69 22.58 24.48 26.38 26.38

26.2 20.65 22.71 24.78 26.85 28.91 28.91

31.5 23.80 26.18 28.55 30.93 33.31 33.31

36.7 28.27 31.09 33.92 36.74 39.57 39.57

42.0 34.07 37.47 40.88 44.28 47.68 47.68

47.2 40.79 45.00 49.22 53.44 57.66 57.66

52.5 - - - - - -

57.66

Hydrodynamic pressure 1, Pm [kPa]

z [m]

Max PmDistance

from aft

hb, [m] Pbh, plating hb Pbh, stiffener

4.89 35.21

1.97 14.183.92 28.25

Design pressure for watertight bulkhead, Pbh [kPa]

Plating Stiffeners

hydrostatic pressure Ph 28.14

hydrodynamic pressure Pm 57.66

pitching pressure Pp 79.70

Impact pressure Pdh 64.74

deckhouse, superstructure pressure Pdhp 7.04

shell envelope pressure Ps 107.84

forebody impact pressure Pf 64.74

Impact pressure on cross-deck Ppc 22.76

pressure on weather deck Pwh 12.40

deck pressure for cargo Pcd 25.16

watertight bulkhead, plating Pbh, plating 28.25

watertight bulkhead, stiffener Pbh, stiffener 35.21

Local Design Load Criteria for Craft Operating in Displacement Mode

Table. Design pressures criteria for displacement craft

Table. Summary of local design pressures

PBP Hf Sf Ps 113.23 PBF δf Hf Sf Ps 56.61

Hf Sf Gf Pdh 67.98 δf Hf Sf Gf Pd h 33.99

H f S f G f P f 67.98 δf H f S f G f P f 33.99

MAX 113.23 MAX 56.61

Outboard side shell PSP PBP 113.23 PSF δf P BP 56.61

inboard side shell PSP P BP 113.23 PSF δf P BP 56.61

1,6 P WDP at wet deck 40.26 1,9 P WDP at wet deck 47.81

MAX 113.23 MAX 56.61

wet deck PCP H f S f P p 83.68 PCF δf H f S f P p 41.84

H f S f P pc 23.89 δf H f S f P pc 11.95

MAX 83.68 MAX 41.84

weather deck PWDP H f S f G f P wh 13.02 PWDF δf H f S f G f P wh 6.51

P cd 25.16 P cd 25.16

(min) 7 7.00 (min) 7 7.00

MAX 25.16 MAX 25.16

coachroof PCRP H f S f G f P wh 13.02 PCRF δf H f S f G f P wh 6.51

7 7.00 7 7.00

MAX 13.02 MAX 7.00

interior deck PIDP H f S f P wh 13.02 PIDF δf H f S f P wh 6.51

Pcd 25.16 Pcd 25.16

3.5 3.50 3.5 3.50

MAX 25.16 MAX 25.16

deckhouse, superstructure PDHP H f S f G f P dhp 7.39 PDHF δf H f S f G f P dhp 3.69

inner bottom PIBP H f S f P m + P h 88.68 PIBF δf H f S f P s 56.61

10T 28.14 10T 28.14

MAX 88.68 MAX 56.61

watertight bulkhead PBHP P bh 28.25 PBHF P bh 35.21

Plating Stiffener

bottom shell, partially

submerged hulls

bottom shell plating PBP 113.23

bottom shell stiffening PBF 56.61

side shell plating, outboard PSP, outboard 113.23

side shell stiffening, outboard PSF, outboard 56.61

side shell plating, inboard PSP, inboard 113.23

side shell stiffening, inboard PSF, inboard 56.61

cross-deck plating PCP 83.68

cross-deck stiffening PCF 41.84

weachter deck plating PWDP 25.16

weather deck stiffening PWCDF 25.16

coachroof plating PCRP 13.02

coachroof stiffening PCRF 7.00

interior deck plating PIDP 25.16

interior deck stiffening PIDF 25.16

inner bottom plating PIBP 88.68

inner bottom stiffening PIBF 56.61

superstructure plating PDHP 7.39

supersturcture stiffening PDHF 3.69

bulkhead plating PBHP 28.25

bulkhead stiffener PBHF 35.21

Global Load and Design Criteria

Table. Vertical wave bending moment

Table. Vertical wave bending moment associated shear force

Table. Design load combination for multi-hull

% LR x Df MMW sagging MMW hogging

[%] [m] [kNm] [kNm]

0% 0.0 0.0 0 0

10% 5.1 0.3 -5087 8139

20% 10.2 0.5 -10174 16279

30% 15.3 0.8 -15262 24418

40% 20.4 1.0 -20349 32558

50% 25.5 1.0 -20349 32558

60% 30.6 1.0 -20349 32558

70% 35.6 0.9 -17442 27907

80% 40.7 0.6 -11628 18605

90% 45.8 0.3 -5814 9302

100% 50.9 0.0 0 0

Distance from aftDistance from

aft of LR

Vertical wave bending

moment, sagging

Vertical wave bending

moment, hogging

x Kf, positive Kf, negative QMW positive QMW negative

[m] [kN] [kN]

0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0

5.1 0.33 -0.46 638.0 -551.5

10.2 0.67 -0.92 1275.9 -1103.0

15.3 0.67 -0.92 1275.9 -1103.0

20.4 0.70 -0.70 1342.8 -839.2

25.5 0.70 -0.70 1342.8 -839.2

30.6 0.70 -0.70 1342.8 -839.2

35.6 1.00 -0.72 1918.3 -866.7

40.7 1.00 -0.72 1918.3 -866.7

45.8 0.67 -0.48 1278.8 -577.8

50.9 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0

Distance from aft of LR Positve shear force

factor

Negative shear force

factor

Positive wave

shear force

Negative wave

shear force

x Sagging Hogging Sagging Hogging Sagging Hogging

[m] [kNm] [kNm] [kNm] [kNm] [kNm] [kNm]

0.0 6657 6657 34262 34262 43007 43007

5.1 1570 14797 33753 35076 40972 46263

10.2 -3517 22936 33244 35889 38937 49519

15.3 -8604 31076 32735 36703 36903 52775

20.4 -13691 39215 32227 37517 34868 56030

25.5 -13691 39215 32227 37517 34868 56030

30.6 -13691 39215 32227 37517 34868 56030

35.6 -10785 34564 32517 37052 36030 54170

40.7 -4971 25262 33099 36122 38356 50449

45.8 843 15960 33680 35192 40682 46728

50.9 6657 6657 34262 34262 43007 43007

Distance from aft

of LR Head sea Beam sea Quartering sea

Service group factor Gf for MB 1.5

Twin hull transverse bending moment, kNm MB 26184

Table. Twin-hull transverse bending moment

Service group factor Gf for MT 0.75

Twin hull torsional connecting moment, kNm MT 40389

Table. Twin-hull torsional connecting moment

Service group factor Gf for QT 1.5

Vertical shear force cross-deck

QT

1586

Table. Vertical shear force at cross-deck structure

Scantling Determination for Multi-hull Craft

Item Minimum thickness

[mm]

Shell envelope

bottom shell plating 4.85 ≥ 4 4.85

side shell plating 3.91 ≥ 3 3.91

wet-deck plating 3.91 ≥ 3 3.91

Single Bottom structure

centre girder web 6.71 ≥ 4 6.71

floor webs 5.08 ≥ 4 5.08

side girder webs 5.08 ≥ 4 5.08

Double bottom structure

centre girder:

(1) within 0.4LR amidships 6.71 ≥ 4 6.71

(2) outside 0.4LR amidships 5.99 ≥ 4 5.99

floors and side girders 5.08 ≥ 4 5.08

inner bottom plating 4.57 ≥ 3 4.57

Bulkheads

watertight bulkhead plating 3.35 ≥ 3 3.35

deep tank bulkhead plating 3.91 ≥ 3 3.91

Deck plating and stiffeners

strength/main deck plating 3.91 ≥ 3 3.91

lower deck/inside deckhouse 2.98 ≥ 2 2.98

Superstructures and deckhouses

superstructure side plating 3.14 ≥ 2 3.14

deckhouse front 1st tier 4.85 ≥ 3 4.85

deckhouse front upper tiers 4.30 ≥ 3 4.30

deckhouse aft 2.03 ≥ 2 2.03

Pillars

wall thickness of tubular pillars 5.00 5.00

wall thickness of rectangular pillars 5.00 5.00

Table. Minimum thickness requirement

Table. Bottom shell plating thickness

Table. Side shell plating thickness

Table. Wet deck plating thickness

Table. Cross-deck plating thickness

design pressure P 113.23

Stiffener spacing s 550

convex curvature correction factor γ 1.0

panel aspect ratio correction factor β 1.0


minimum plate thickness tp 9.9

Bottom shell

outboard inboard

design pressure P 113.23 113.23

Stiffener spacing s 550 550

convex curvature correction factor γ 1.0 1.0

panel aspect ratio correction factor β 1.0 1.0

limiting bending stress coefficient fσ 0.75 0.75

minimum plate thickness tp 9.9 9.9

Side shell







Wet deck







Cross-deck







Watertight transverse

bulkhead

Table. Watertight bulkhead plating thickness

Table. Bar keel minimum requirement

Table. Centre girder minimum requirement

Table. Superstructure minimum plating thickness

Table. Stiffener minimum requirement bottom frame and web frame

Table. Stiffener minimum requirement side frame and web frame

bar keel cross-sectional area [cm²] Abk 38.2

bar keels thickness [mm] tbk 27.5

minimum bar keel depth [mm] depth 139

Bar keel

Centre girder

web thickness [mm] tw 5.1

overall web depth [mm] dw 630

design pressure P 7.39 7.39 7.39

Stiffener spacing s 550 550 550

convex curvature correction factor γ 1.0 1.0 1.0

panel aspect ratio correction factor β 1.0 1.0 1.0

limiting bending stress coefficient fσ 0.75 0.75 0.75

minimum plate thickness tp 2.5 2.5 2.5

Machinery casingHouse side House top peronnel loading

outboard inboard outboard inboard

load model a, b or c a a a a

design pressure P 56.61 56.61 56.61 56.61

stiffener spacing S 3300 3300 550 550

effective span length Le 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

section modulus coefficient Φz, mid 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04

inertia coefficient ΦI, mid 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026

web area coefficient ΦA, end 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

limiting bending stress coefficient fσ 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65

limiting deflection coefficient fδ 1000 1000 1000 1000

limiting shear stress coefficient fT 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65

section modulus Z 184 184 31 31

moment of inertia I 1669 1669 278 278

web area Aw 20 20 3 3

Bottom web frame Bottom transverse frame

outboard inboard outboard inboard

load model a, b or c a a a a

design pressure P 56.61 56.61 56.61 56.61

stiffener spacing S 3300 3300 550 550

effective span length Le 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2

section modulus coefficient Φz, mid 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04

inertia coefficient ΦI, mid 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026

web area coefficient ΦA, end 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

limiting bending stress coefficient fσ 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65

limiting deflection coefficient fδ 1000 1000 1000 1000

limiting shear stress coefficient fT 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65

section modulus Z 247 247 41 41

moment of inertia I 2590 2590 432 432

web area Aw 23 23 4 4

Side web frame Side transverse frame

Table. Stiffener minimum requirement cross-deck structure

Table. Stiffener minimum requirement side stringer

Table. Stiffener minimum requirement wet deck

load model a, b or c a a


stiffener spacing S 3300 528

effective span length Le 9.5 3.2

section modulus coefficient Φz, mid 0.04 0.04

inertia coefficient ΦI, mid 0.0026 0.0026

web area coefficient ΦA, end 0.5 0.5


limiting deflection coefficient fδ 1000 800

limiting shear stress coefficient fT 0.65 0.65

section modulus Z 3399 62

moment of inertia I 154144 754

web area Aw 74 4

Cross-deck longitudinalCross-deck web frame

outboard inboard

load model a, b or c b b


stiffener spacing s 2200 2200

effective span length Le 3.2 3.2

section modulus coefficient Φz, mid 0.10 0.10

inertia coefficient ΦI, mid 0.0035 0.0035

web area coefficient ΦA, end 0.5 0.5


limiting deflection coefficient fδ 800 800

limiting shear stress coefficient fT 0.65 0.65

section modulus Z 835 835

moment of inertia I 5669 5669

web area Aw 23 23

Side stringer

load model a, b or c b


stiffener spacing S 671

effective span length Le 3.2

section modulus coefficient Φz, mid 0.10

inertia coefficient ΦI, mid 0.0035

web area coefficient ΦA, end 0.5


limiting deflection coefficient fδ 800

limiting shear stress coefficient fT 0.65

section modulus Z 188

moment of inertia I 1278

web area Aw 5.1

Wet-deck longitudinal

Table. Stiffener minimum requirement superstructure

Hull Girder Strength

Table. Hull girder section modulus calculation

Table. Effective shear area calculation

Table. Load combination factor

load model a, b or c b b b

design pressure P 3.69 3.69 3.69

stiffener spacing s 550 550 550

effective span length Le 3.2 3.2 3.2

section modulus coefficient Φz, mid 0.10 0.10 0.10

inertia coefficient ΦI, mid 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035

web area coefficient ΦA, end 0.5 0.5 0.5

limiting bending stress coefficient fσ 0.75 0.6 0.75

limiting deflection coefficient fδ 600 800 600

limiting shear stress coefficient fT 0.75 0.6 0.75

section modulus Z 12 15 12

moment of inertia I 69 92 69

web area Aw 0.3 0.4 0.3

House side stiffener House top stiffener personnel

loadingCasing stiffener

scantlings scantlings a dn a*dn a*dn² h io

[mm] [mm] [mm²] [mm] [mm³] [mm4] [mm] [mm4]

main deck 23500 10 235000 5900 1386500000 8.18035E+12

wet deck 9500 10 95000 4450 422750000 1.88124E+12

side shell outboard 3900 10 39000 3700 144300000 5.3391E+11 3900 4.94E+10

side shell inboard 3900 10 39000 3700 144300000 5.3391E+11 3900 4.94E+10

side shell outboard 3900 10 39000 3700 144300000 5.3391E+11 3900 4.94E+10

side shell inboard 3900 10 39000 3700 144300000 5.3391E+11 3900 4.94E+10

bottom shell outboard 3000 10 30000 800 24000000 19200000000 2000 6.67E+09

bottom shell inboard 3000 10 30000 800 24000000 19200000000 2000 6.67E+09

bottom shell outboard 3000 10 30000 800 24000000 19200000000 2000 6.67E+09

bottom shell inboard 3000 10 30000 800 24000000 19200000000 2000 6.67E+09

center keel 150 40 6000 75 450000 33750000

center keel 150 40 6000 75 450000 33750000

SUM 618000 2483350000 1.22741E+13 2.24E+11

item

scantlings scantlings effective length effective shear area

[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm²]

side shell outboard 3900 10 3900 39000

side shell inboard 3900 10 3900 39000

side shell outboard 3900 10 3900 39000

side shell inboard 3900 10 3900 39000

bottom shell outboard 3000 10 2000 20000

bottom shell inboard 3000 10 2000 20000

bottom shell outboard 3000 10 2000 20000

bottom shell inboard 3000 10 2000 20000

SUM 236000

item


f MR1.0 0.1 0.4

f MB0.1 1.0 0.1

f MT0.1 0.2 1.0

18.9. APPENDIX: WEIGHT ESTIMATE

Vessel Particulars

LOA = 55.00 m

BOA = 23.50 m

Depth = 5.90 m

Cubic Number = 76.26

Coordinate System

Axis Reference Positive Input

Direction Units

LCG Bow Aft m

VCG Baseline upwards m

TCG Centreline Port m

Light Ship Summary Weight


100 - Structure 434.1 30.1 5.6 0.0 13072678 2418781 0

200 - Propulsion 74.3 52.9 7.9 0.0 3929600 588100 0

300 - Electrical 31.0 34.2 6.8 0.0 1059600 209223 0

400 - Command 3.4 21.9 13.9 0.0 74325 47275 0

500 - Aux Equipment 44.8 24.5 8.4 0.0 1097640 374820 0

600 - Outfit 52.2 32.0 7.1 0.2 1668768 370710 9944

MARGIN (5%) 32.0

671.7 31.1 6.0 0.0 20903 4009 9.944



Consumables

Fuel (98%) 39 32 2 0 1258 64 0

Potable Water (98%) 20 26 2 8 500 32 162


Passengers + Crew 12 25 11 0 300 131 0

Crew Stores (15 crew) 1 23 4 -7 17 3 -5

Passenger stores (185 pax) 3 31 10 0 85 26 0

Misc. Liquids

Grey Water (10%) 2 24 2 0 37 3 0

Black Water (10%) 1 23 2 10 14 1 6

Lube Oil (98%) 2 38 2 0 69 4 0

Used Oil (10%) 0 38 2 0 2 0 0

Sludge (10%) 0 39 2 0 4 0 0

Oily Water (10%) 1 38 2 0 19 1 0

Mission Load

Cars, x 34 58 25 7 0 1457 376 0

Trucks x 10 200 28 7 0 5560 1320 0

Total Deadweight 337 28 6 0 9321 1962 163

Lightship Weight 671.7 31.1 6.0 0.0 20902.6 4008.9 9.9

LCG VCG TCG


SWBS # Section 100 Weight LCG VCG TCG L.Mom V.Mom T.Mom

100 HULL STRUCTURE, GENERAL 304957 30.52 3.52 0 9307287.64 1073448.64 0

150 DECK HOUSE STRUCTURE 114106 29.384 10.87 0 3352890.7 1240332.22 0

169 SPECIAL PURPOSE CLOSURES AND STRUCTURES 15000 27.5 7 0 412500 105000 0

TOTAL 434063 30 6 0 13072678 2418781 0

SWBS # Section 200 - Propulsion Equipment Weight LCG VCG TCG L.Mom V.Mom T.Mom

200 ENERGY GENERATING SYSTEM (NON-NUCLEAR) 72000 53.3 6.8 0 3837600 489600 0

261 FUEL SERVICE SYSTEM 2000 40 3.5 0 80000 7000 0

262 MAIN PROPULSION LUBE OIL SYSTEM 300 40 305 0 12000 91500 0

TOTAL 74300 53 8 0 3929600 588100 0

SWBS # Section 300 - Electrical Weight LCG VCG TCG L.Mom V.Mom T.Mom

311 SHIP SERVICE POWER GENERATION 4000 40 2.8 0 160000 11200 0

312 EMERGENCY GENERATORS 1750 35 13.25 0 61250 23187.5 0

313 BATTERIES AND SERVICE FACILITIES 700 40 2.8 0 28000 1960 0

321 SHIP SERVICE POWER CABLE 15500 31.3 8.25 0 485150 127875 0

324 SWITCHGEAR AND PANELS 5000 40 3 0 200000 15000 0

330 LIGHTING SYSTEM 4000 31.3 7.5 0 125200 30000 0

TOTAL 30950 34 7 0 1059600 209223 0

SWBS # Section 400 - Control and Nav Weight LCG VCG TCG L.Mom V.Mom T.Mom

410 COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 2000 21 14.5 0 42000 29000 0

420 NAVIGATION SYSTEMS 750 21 14.5 0 15750 10875 0

430 INTERIOR COMMUNICATIONS 450 27.5 10 0 12375 4500 0

440 EXTERIOR COMMUNICATIONS 200 21 14.5 0 4200 2900 0

TOTAL 3400 22 14 0 74325 47275 0

SWBS # Section 500 - Auxiliary Equipment Weight LCG VCG TCG L.Mom V.Mom T.Mom

512 VENTILATION SYSTEM 3000 31.3 8.7 0 93900 26100 0

513 MACHINERY SPACE VENTILATION SYSTEM 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0

514 AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM 6800 31.3 10.65 0 212840 72420 0

516 REFRIGERATION SYSTEM 4000 27.5 6 0 110000 24000 0

521 FIREMAIN & FLUSHING (SEA WATER) SYSTEM 3000 31.3 8.7 0 93900 26100 0

533 POTABLE WATER 2000 31.3 8.7 0 62600 17400 0

581 ANCHOR HANDLING AND STOWAGE SYSTEMS 10000 10 5.8 0 100000 58000 0

582 MOORING AND TOWING SYSTEMS 2000 10 5.8 0 20000 11600 0

583 BOATS, BOAT HANDLING & STOWAGE SYSTEMS 12000 33.7 11.6 0 404400 139200 0

TOTAL 44800 25 8 0 1097640 374820 0

SWBS # Section 600 - Outfit Weight LCG VCG TCG L.Mom V.Mom T.Mom

602 HULL DESIGNATING AND MARKING 150 29.5 5 0 4425 750 0

612 RAILS, STANCHIONS, AND LIFELINES 1938 36 11.6 0 69768 22480.8 0

620 HULL COMPARTMENTATION 11.96 33 8.7 0 394.68 104.052 0

631 PAINTING 8000 29.4 7.2 0 235200 57600 0

633 CATHODIC PROTECTION 300 32.5 2 0 9750 600 0

634 DECK COVERING 30000 33 7 0 990000 210000 0

638 REFRIGERATED SPACES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6411 OFFICER BERTHING SPACES 500 30.5 13.5 0 15250 6750 0

6412 OFFICER MESSING SPACES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

643 ENLISTED PERSONNEL BERTHING AND MESSING

SPACES 2500 23 3.4 8 57500 8500 20000

644 SANITARY SPACES AND FIXTURES 4416 33 8.7 0 145728 38419.2 0

645 LEISURE AND COMMUNITY SPACES 200 31.5 3.4 8 6300 680 1600

655 LAUNDRY SPACES 640 21.8 3.4 -10.4 13952 2176 -6656

656 TRASH DISPOSAL SPACES 500 19 6.3 -10 9500 3150 -5000

665 WORKSHOPS, LABS, TEST AREAS (INCL PORTABLE

TOOLS, EQUIP) 2000 47 6.5 0 94000 13000 0

672 STOREROOMS AND ISSUE ROOMS 1000 17 6.5 0 17000 6500 0

TOTAL 52156 32 7 0 1668768 370710 9944

SW

BS

10

0: H

UL

L S

TR

UC

TU

RE

, G

EN

ER

AL

(show

ing a

ll of S

WB

S lvl

1,2

,3)

Item

Description

g/e

/sLength

Wid

thA

rea

Qty

U.

Wt

Weig

ht

LC

GV

CG

TC

GL.M

om

V.M

om

T.M

om

Note

s

mm

sq m

#U

kg/U

kg

mm

m

100

HU

LL

ST

RU

CT

UR

E,

GE

NE

RA

L

Fro

m P

are

nt

Sh

ip -

No

rth

Isl

an

d P

rin

ce

sse

304957

30.5

23.5

20

9307287.6

41073448.6

40

Centr

oid

of 3D

volu

me u

sed

110

SH

ELL A

ND

SU

PP

OR

TIN

G S

TR

UC

TU

RE

0

00

110

SH

ELL A

ND

SU

PP

OR

TIN

G S

TR

UC

TU

RE

0

00

111

SH

ELL P

LA

TIN

G,

SU

RF

AC

E S

HIP

AN

D S

UB

MA

RIN

E P

RE

SS

UR

E

HU

LL

00

0

112

SH

ELL P

LA

TIN

G,

SU

BM

AR

INE

NO

N-P

RE

SS

UR

E H

ULL

00

0

114

SH

ELL A

PP

EN

DA

GE

S

0

00

117

TR

AN

SV

. F

RA

MIN

G,

SU

RF

AC

E S

HIP

AN

D S

UB

MA

RIN

E P

RE

SS

UR

E

HU

LL

0

00

118

LO

NG

ITU

DIN

AL A

ND

TR

AN

SV

ER

SE

SU

BM

AR

INE

NO

N-P

RE

SS

UR

E

HU

LL

00

0

119

LIF

T S

YS

TE

M F

LE

XIB

LE

SK

IRTS

AN

D S

EA

LS

00

0

120

HU

LL S

TR

UC

TU

RA

L B

ULK

HE

AD

S

0

00

121

LO

NG

ITU

DIN

AL S

TR

UC

TU

RA

L B

ULK

HE

AD

S

0

00

122

TR

AN

SV

ER

SE

STR

UC

TU

RA

L B

ULK

HE

AD

S

00

0

123

TR

UN

KS

AN

D E

NC

LO

SU

RE

S

0

00

125

SU

BM

AR

INE

HA

RD

TA

NK

S

0

00

126

SU

BM

AR

INE

SO

FT T

AN

KS

00

0

130

HU

LL D

EC

KS

0

00

131

MA

IN D

EC

K

0

00

140

HU

LL P

LA

TF

OR

MS

AN

D F

LA

TS

00

0

141

1S

T P

LA

TF

OR

M

0

00

150

DE

CK

HO

US

E S

TR

UC

TU

RE

Ba

sed

on

Au

toC

AD

dra

win

ge

114106

29.3

84

10.8

70

3352890.7

1240332.2

20

151

DE

CK

HO

US

E S

TR

UC

TU

RE

TO

FIR

ST L

EV

EL

00

0

152

1S

T D

EC

KH

OU

SE

LE

VE

L

00

0

160

SP

EC

IAL S

TR

UC

TU

RE

S

00

0

161

STR

UC

TU

RA

L C

AS

TIN

GS

, F

OR

GIN

GS

, A

ND

EQ

UIV

. W

ELD

ME

NTS

0

00

163

SE

A C

HE

STS

0

00

164

BA

LLIS

TIC

PLA

TIN

G

0

00

165

SO

NA

R D

OM

ES

0

00

167

HU

LL S

TR

UC

TU

RA

L C

LO

SU

RE

S

0

00

168

DE

CK

HO

US

E S

TR

UC

TU

RA

L C

LO

SU

RE

S

0

00

169

SP

EC

IAL P

UR

PO

SE

CLO

SU

RE

S A

ND

STR

UC

TU

RE

S

Bo

w a

nd

ste

rn e

lectr

ic q

ua

rte

r ra

mp

sg

15000

27.5

70

412500

105000

0V

ery

rough g

uess

170

MA

STS

, K

ING

PO

STS

, A

ND

SE

RV

ICE

PLA

TF

OR

MS

0

00

171

MA

STS

, TO

WE

RS

, TE

TR

AP

OD

S

0

00

172

KIN

GP

OS

TS

AN

D S

UP

PO

RT F

RA

ME

S

0

00

180

FO

UN

DA

TIO

NS

0

00

184

CO

MM

AN

D A

ND

SU

RV

EIL

LA

NC

E F

OU

ND

ATIO

NS

00

0

190

SP

EC

IAL P

UR

PO

SE

SY

STE

MS

0

00

191

BA

LLA

ST,

FIX

ED

OR

FLU

ID,

AN

D B

UO

YA

NC

Y U

NIT

S

00

0

192

CO

MP

AR

TM

EN

T T

ES

TIN

G

00

0

199

HU

LL R

EP

AIR

PA

RTS

AN

D S

PE

CIA

L T

OO

LS

0

00

100 T

OTA

L:

434063

13072678.3

2418780.8

60

# o

f E

ntr

ies

3

SW

BS

#

g =

guess

e =

estim

ate

s =

supplie

r

SW

BS

20

0: P

RO

PU

LS

ION

PL

AN

T, G

EN

ER

AL

(show

ing a

ll of S

WB

S lvl

1,2

,3)

Item

Description

g/e

/sLength

Wid

thA

rea

Qty

U.

Wt

Weig

ht

LC

GV

CG

TC

GL.M

om

V.M

om

T.M

om

Note

s

mm

sq m

#U

kg/U

kg

mm

m

220

EN

ER

GY

GE

NE

RA

TIN

G S

YS

TE

M (

NO

N-N

UC

LE

AR

)

Schott

el N

AV

IGA

TO

R 5

50

s4

18000

72000

53.3

6.8

03837600

489600

0D

im t

o c

ente

r of conta

iner,

supplie

d D

RY

221

PR

OP

ULS

ION

BO

ILE

RS

0

00

223

MA

IN P

RO

PU

LS

ION

BA

TTE

RIE

S

0

00

223

PR

OP

ULS

ION

STE

AM

TU

RB

INE

S

0

00

223

PR

OP

ULS

ION

IN

TE

RN

AL C

OM

BU

STIO

N E

NG

INE

S

00

0

230

PR

OP

UL

SIO

N U

NIT

S

0

00

234

PR

OP

ULS

ION

GA

S T

UR

BIN

ES

0

00

235

ELE

CTR

IC P

RO

PU

LS

ION

0

00

237

AU

XIL

IAR

Y P

RO

PU

LS

ION

DE

VIC

ES

00

0

238

SE

CO

ND

AR

Y P

RO

PU

LS

ION

00

0

239

EM

ER

GE

NC

Y P

RO

PU

LS

ION

00

0

240

TR

AN

SM

ISS

ION

AN

D P

RO

PU

LS

OR

SY

ST

EM

S

s0

00

241

PR

OP

ULS

ION

RE

DU

CTIO

N G

EA

RS

0

00

242

PR

OP

ULS

ION

CLU

TC

HE

S A

ND

CO

UP

LIN

GS

00

0

243

PR

OP

ULS

ION

SH

AF

TIN

G

00

0

244

PR

OP

ULS

ION

SH

AF

T B

EA

RIN

GS

00

0

245

PR

OP

ULS

OR

S

00

0

246

PR

OP

ULS

OR

SH

RO

UD

S A

ND

DU

CTS

0

00

247

WA

TE

R J

ET P

RO

PU

LS

OR

S

0

00

248

LIF

T S

YS

TE

M F

AN

S A

ND

DU

CTIN

G

0

00

250

PR

OP

UL

SIO

N S

UP

PO

RT

SY

S.

(EX

CE

PT

FU

EL

AN

D L

UB

E

OIL

)

00

0

251

CO

MB

US

TIO

N A

IR S

YS

TE

M

0

00

252

PR

OP

ULS

ION

CO

NTR

OL S

YS

TE

M

0

00

need?

253

MA

IN S

TE

AM

PIP

ING

SY

STE

M

0

00

254

CO

ND

EN

SE

RS

AN

D A

IR E

JEC

TO

RS

0

00

255

FE

ED

AN

D C

ON

DE

NS

ATE

SY

STE

M

00

0

256

CIR

CU

LA

TIN

G A

ND

CO

OLIN

G S

EA

WA

TE

R S

YS

TE

M

0

00

257

Reserv

e F

eed a

nd T

ransfe

r S

yste

m

0

00

258

HP

STE

AM

DR

AIN

SY

STE

M

0

00

259

UP

TA

KE

S (

INN

ER

CA

SIN

G)

0

00

260

PR

OP

UL

SIO

N S

UP

PO

RT

SY

ST

EM

S (

FU

EL

AN

D L

UB

E

OIL

)

00

0need?

261

FU

EL S

ER

VIC

E S

YS

TE

M

Fuel pum

ps,

fuel handlin

ge

2000

40

3.5

080000

7000

0ra

cio

cin

ate

d,

does n

ot

inclu

de p

ipin

g

262

MA

IN P

RO

PU

LS

ION

LU

BE

OIL

SY

STE

M

300

40

305

012000

91500

0ra

cio

cin

ate

d

264

LU

BE

OIL

FIL

L,

TR

AN

SF

ER

, A

ND

PU

RIF

ICA

TIO

N

0

00

need?

29000

SP

EC

IAL

PU

RP

OS

E S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

299

PR

OP

ULS

ION

PLA

NT R

EP

AIR

PA

RTS

AN

D S

PE

CIA

L

TO

OLS

00

0need?

200 T

OTA

L:

74300

3929600

588100

0

# o

f E

ntr

ies

3

g =

guess

e =

estim

ate

s =

supplie

r

SW

BS

#

SW

BS

300:

Ele

ctr

ical

(show

ing a

ll of S

WB

S lvl

1,2

,3)

Item

Description

g/e

/sLength

Wid

thA

rea

Qty

U.

Wt

Weig

ht

LC

GV

CG

TC

GL.M

om

V.M

om

T.M

om

Note

s

mm

sq m

#U

kg/U

kg

mm

m

310

EL

EC

TR

IC P

OW

ER

GE

NE

RA

TIO

N

0

00

0

311

SH

IP S

ER

VIC

E P

OW

ER

GE

NE

RA

TIO

N

C

AT

C18,

450 e

kW

ma

xs

22000

4000

40

2.8

0160000

11200

0

312

EM

ER

GE

NC

Y G

EN

ER

ATO

RS

CA

T C

9,

250 e

kW

ma

xs

11750

1750

35

13.2

50

61250

23187.5

0

313

BA

TTE

RIE

S A

ND

SE

RV

ICE

FA

CIL

ITIE

S

S

tart

ing

Ba

tte

rie

sg

1700

700

40

2.8

028000

1960

0R

atiocin

ate

d

314

PO

WE

R C

ON

VE

RS

ION

EQ

UIP

ME

NT

00

00

320

PO

WE

R D

IST

RIB

UT

ION

SY

ST

EM

S

00

00

321

SH

IP S

ER

VIC

E P

OW

ER

CA

BLE

g1

15500

15500

31.3

8.2

50

485150

127875

0In

clu

des s

hore

pow

er

connection

322

EM

ER

GE

NC

Y P

OW

ER

CA

BLE

SY

STE

M

0

00

0

323

CA

SU

ALTY

PO

WE

R C

AB

LE

SY

STE

M

00

00

324

SW

ITC

HG

EA

R A

ND

PA

NE

LS

g1

5000

5000

40

30

200000

15000

0R

atiocin

ate

d

325

AR

C F

AU

LT D

ETE

CTO

R (

AF

D)

SY

STE

MS

00

00

330

LIG

HT

ING

SY

ST

EM

g

14000

4000

31.3

7.5

0125200

30000

0R

atiocin

ate

d

331

LIG

HTIN

G D

ISTR

IBU

TIO

N

0

00

0

332

LIG

HTIN

G F

IXTU

RE

S

0

00

0

340

PO

WE

R G

EN

ER

AT

ION

SU

PP

OR

T S

YS

TE

MS

00

00

341

SS

TG

LU

BE

OIL

00

00

342

DIE

SE

L S

UP

PO

RT S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

343

TU

RB

INE

SU

PP

OR

T S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

390

SP

EC

IAL

PU

RP

OS

E S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

399

ELE

CTR

IC P

LA

NT R

EP

AIR

PA

RTS

AN

D S

PE

CIA

L T

OO

LS

00

00

300 T

OT

AL

:30950

1059600

209222.5

0

g =

guess

e =

estim

ate

s =

supplie

r

SW

BS

#

SW

BS

400:

Com

mand a

nd s

urv

eill

ance,

Genera

l

(show

ing a

ll of S

WB

S lvl

1,2

,3)

Item

Description

g/e

/sLength

Wid

thA

rea

Qty

U.

Wt

Weig

ht

LC

GV

CG

TC

GL.M

om

V.M

om

T.M

om

Note

s

mm

sq m

#U

kg/U

kg

mm

m

400

CO

MM

AN

D A

ND

SU

RV

EIL

LA

NC

E,

GE

NE

RA

L

0

00

0

407

ELE

CTR

OM

AG

NE

TIC

IN

TE

RF

ER

EN

CE

RE

DU

CTIO

N (

EM

I)

0

00

0

410

CO

MM

AN

D A

ND

CO

NT

RO

L S

YS

TE

MS

g

2000

21

14.5

042000

29000

0ra

cio

cin

ate

d

4110

0

DA

TA

DIS

PLA

Y G

RO

UP

0

00

0

412

DA

TA

PR

OC

ES

SIN

G G

RO

UP

00

00

414

INTE

RF

AC

E E

QU

IPM

EN

T

00

00

415

DIG

ITA

L D

ATA

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

NS

0

00

0

420

NA

VIG

AT

ION

SY

ST

EM

S

g750

21

14.5

015750

10875

0ra

cio

cin

ate

d

421

NO

N-E

LE

CTR

ICA

L/N

ON

-ELE

CTR

ON

IC N

AV

IGA

TIO

N A

IDS

00

00

422

ELE

CTR

ICA

L N

AV

IGA

TIO

N A

IDS

(IN

CL N

AV

IG.

LIG

HTS

)

0

00

0

423

ELE

CTR

ON

IC N

AV

IGA

TIO

N S

YS

TE

MS

00

00

424

ELE

CTR

ON

IC N

AV

IGA

TIO

N S

YS

TE

MS

, A

CO

US

TIC

AL

0

00

0

425

PE

RIS

CO

PE

S

00

00

426

ELE

CTR

ICA

L N

AV

IGA

TIO

N S

YS

TE

MS

00

00

427

INE

RTIA

L N

AV

IGA

TIO

N S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

428

NA

VIG

ATIO

N C

ON

TR

OL M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

0

00

0

430

INT

ER

IOR

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

NS

g

450

27.5

10

012375

4500

0M

onitoring,

Ala

rm,

warn

ing s

yste

ms inclu

ded

431

SW

ITC

HB

OA

RD

S F

OR

IN

TE

RIO

R C

OM

MU

NIC

ATIO

N

SY

STE

MS

00

00

432

TE

LE

PH

ON

E S

YS

TE

MS

00

00

433

AN

NO

UN

CIN

G S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

434

EN

TE

RTA

INM

EN

T A

ND

TR

AIN

ING

SY

STE

MS

0

00

0

435

VO

ICE

TU

BE

S A

ND

ME

SS

AG

E P

AS

SIN

G S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

436

ALA

RM

, S

AF

ETY

, A

ND

WA

RN

ING

SY

STE

MS

0

00

0

437

IND

ICA

TIN

G,

OR

DE

R,

AN

D M

ETE

RIN

G S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

438

CO

NS

OLID

ATE

D C

ON

TR

OL A

ND

DIS

PLA

Y S

YS

TE

MS

00

00

439

RE

CO

RD

ING

AN

D T

ELE

VIS

ION

SY

STE

MS

00

00

440

EX

TE

RIO

R C

OM

MU

NIC

AT

ION

S

g200

21

14.5

04200

2900

0

441

RA

DIO

SY

STE

MS

00

00

442

UN

DE

RW

ATE

R S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

443

VIS

UA

L A

ND

AU

DIB

LE

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N S

YS

TE

MS

00

00

445

TE

LE

TY

PE

AN

D F

AC

SIM

ILE

SY

STE

MS

0

00

0

446

SE

CU

RIT

Y E

QU

IPM

EN

T S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

450

SU

RV

EIL

LA

NC

E S

YS

TE

MS

, S

UR

FA

CE

AN

D A

IR

0

00

0

451

SU

RF

AC

E S

UR

VE

ILLA

NC

E R

AD

AR

SY

STE

MS

0

00

0

452

2D

AIR

RA

DA

R S

YS

TE

MS

00

00

453

3D

AIR

RA

DA

R S

YS

TE

MS

00

00

454

AIR

CR

AF

T C

ON

TR

OL R

AD

AR

SY

STE

MS

0

00

0

455

IDE

NTIF

ICA

TIO

N S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

456

MU

LTI-F

UN

CTIO

N R

AD

AR

SY

STE

MS

00

00

457

INF

RA

RE

D S

UR

VE

ILLA

NC

E A

ND

TR

AC

KIN

G S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

458

AU

TO

MA

TIC

DE

TE

CTIO

N A

ND

TR

AC

KIN

G S

YS

TE

MS

00

00

460

SU

RV

EIL

LA

NC

E S

YS

TE

MS

(U

ND

ER

WA

TE

R)

0

00

0

470

CO

UN

TE

RM

EA

SU

RE

SY

ST

EM

S

00

00

480

FIR

E C

ON

TR

OL

SY

ST

EM

S

0

00

0

481

GU

N F

IRE

CO

NTR

OL S

YS

TE

MS

00

00

482

MIS

SIL

E F

IRE

CO

NTR

OL S

YS

TE

MS

00

00

483

UN

DE

RW

ATE

R F

IRE

CO

NTR

OL S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

484

INTE

GR

ATE

D F

IRE

CO

NTR

OL S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

489

WE

AP

ON

SY

STE

MS

SW

ITC

HB

OA

RD

S

00

00

490

SP

EC

IAL

PU

RP

OS

E S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

491

ELE

CTR

ON

IC T

ES

T,

CH

EC

KO

UT,

AN

D M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

EQ

UIP

ME

NT

00

00

492

FLIG

HT C

ON

TR

OL A

ND

IN

STR

UM

EN

T L

AN

DIN

G S

YS

TE

MS

00

00

493

AU

TO

MA

TE

D D

ATA

PR

OC

ES

SIN

G S

YS

TE

MS

(N

ON

-

CO

MB

AT)

00

00

494

ME

TE

OR

OLO

GIC

AL S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

495

SP

EC

IAL P

UR

PO

SE

IN

TE

LLIG

EN

CE

SY

STE

MS

00

00

499

CO

MM

AN

D A

ND

SU

RV

. R

EP

AIR

PA

RTS

AN

D S

PE

CIA

L

TO

OLS

00

00

00

00

500 T

OTA

L:

3400

74325

47275

0

g =

guess

e =

estim

ate

s =

supplie

r

SW

BS

#

SW

BS

500:

Auxili

ary

Syste

ms

g =

guess

e =

estim

ate

(show

ing a

ll of S

WB

S lvl

1,2

,3)

s =

supplie

r

Item

Description

g/e

/sLength

Wid

thA

rea

Qty

U.

Wt

Weig

ht

LC

GV

CG

TC

GL.M

om

V.M

om

T.M

om

Note

s

mm

sq m

#U

kg/U

kg

mm

m

500

AU

XIL

IAR

Y S

YS

TE

MS

, G

EN

ER

AL

0

00

0

508

TH

ER

MA

L IN

SU

LA

TIO

N F

OR

PIP

ING

AN

D M

AC

HIN

ER

Y

g0

00

0

510

CL

IMA

TE

CO

NT

RO

L

00

00

511

CO

MP

AR

TM

EN

T H

EA

TIN

G S

YS

TE

M

00

00

512

VE

NTIL

ATIO

N S

YS

TE

M

Fa

ns,

fil

ters

, d

ucts

, lo

uve

rs,

etc

.e

3000

31.3

8.7

093900

26100

0scale

d fro

m k

g/m

2 o

f S

cie

nce v

essel II

513

MA

CH

INE

RY

SP

AC

E V

EN

TIL

ATIO

N S

YS

TE

M

e2000

00

0ra

cio

cin

ate

d

514

AIR

CO

ND

ITIO

NIN

G S

YS

TE

M

AC

Un

its,

du

cts

, e

tce

6800

31.3

10.6

50

212840

72420

0scale

d fro

m k

g/m

2 o

f S

cie

nce v

essel II

515

AIR

RE

VIT

ALIZ

ATIO

N S

YS

TE

MS

(S

UB

MA

RIN

ES

)

0

00

0

516

RE

FR

IGE

RA

TIO

N S

YS

TE

M

C

om

pre

sso

r, c

on

de

nso

r, f

an

s, p

ipin

gg

4000

27.5

60

110000

24000

0m

inim

um

valu

e fro

m r

atiocin

ations,

for

a s

tora

ge r

oom

?

517

AU

XIL

IAR

Y B

OIL

ER

S A

ND

OTH

ER

HE

AT S

OU

RC

ES

00

00

00

00

520

SE

A W

AT

ER

SY

ST

EM

S

0

00

0

521

FIR

EM

AIN

AN

D F

LU

SH

ING

(S

EA

WA

TE

R)

SY

STE

M

e

3000

31.3

8.7

093900

26100

0In

clu

des

522

SP

RIN

KLE

R S

YS

TE

M

g

00

00

523

WA

SH

DO

WN

SY

STE

M

00

00

524

AU

XIL

IAR

Y S

EA

WA

TE

R S

YS

TE

M

00

00

526

SC

UP

PE

RS

AN

D D

EC

K D

RA

INS

00

00

528

PLU

MB

ING

DR

AIN

AG

E

0

00

0

529

DR

AIN

AG

E A

ND

BA

LLA

STIN

G S

YS

TE

M

00

00

00

00

530

FR

ES

H W

AT

ER

SY

ST

EM

S

00

00

531

DIS

TIL

LIN

G P

LA

NT

0

00

0

532

CO

OLIN

G W

ATE

R

0

00

0

533

PO

TA

BLE

WA

TE

R

e

2000

31.3

8.7

062600

17400

0ra

cio

cin

ate

d

534

AU

XIL

IAR

Y S

TE

AM

AN

D D

RA

INS

WIT

HIN

MA

CH

INE

RY

BO

X

00

00

535

AU

XIL

IAR

Y S

TE

AM

AN

D D

RA

INS

OU

TS

IDE

MA

CH

INE

RY

BO

X

00

00

536

AU

XIL

IAR

Y F

RE

SH

WA

TE

R C

OO

LIN

G

0

00

0

539

AU

XIL

IAR

Y F

RE

SH

WA

TE

R C

OO

LIN

G

0

00

0

00

00

540

FU

EL

S A

ND

LU

BR

ICA

NT

S,

HA

ND

LIN

G A

ND

ST

OR

AG

E

00

00

541

SH

IP F

UE

L A

ND

FU

EL C

OM

PE

NS

ATIN

G S

YS

TE

M

Pum

ps t

o m

ove

fuel betw

een t

anks

g0

00

0

542

AV

IATIO

N A

ND

GE

NE

RA

L P

UR

PO

SE

FU

ELS

0

00

0

543

AV

IATIO

N A

ND

GE

NE

RA

L P

UR

PO

SE

LU

BR

ICA

TIN

G O

IL

0

00

0

544

LIQ

UID

CA

RG

O

0

00

0

545

TA

NK

HE

ATIN

G

0

00

0

546

AU

XIL

IAR

Y L

UB

RIC

ATIO

N S

YS

TE

MS

00

00

00

00

550

AIR

, G

AS

, A

ND

MIS

CE

LL

AN

EO

US

FL

UID

SY

ST

EM

S

0

00

0

551

CO

MP

RE

SS

ED

AIR

SY

STE

MS

0

00

0

552

CO

MP

RE

SS

ED

GA

SE

S

0

00

0

553

O2 N

2 S

YS

TE

M

0

00

0

554

MA

IN B

ALLA

ST T

AN

K B

LO

W A

ND

LIS

T C

ON

TR

OL

SY

STE

M

00

00

555

FIR

E E

XTIN

GU

ISH

ING

SY

STE

MS

C

arb

on D

ioxid

e a

nd c

hem

ical fix

ed/p

ort

able

syste

ms

g0

00

0

556

HY

DR

AU

LIC

FLU

ID S

YS

TE

M

00

00

558

SP

EC

IAL P

IPIN

G S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

00

00

560

SH

IP C

ON

TR

OL

SY

ST

EM

S

0

00

0

561

STE

ER

ING

AN

D D

IVIN

G C

ON

TR

OL S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

562

RU

DD

ER

0

00

0

563

HO

VE

RIN

G A

ND

DE

PTH

CO

NTR

OL (

SU

BM

AR

INE

)

00

00

564

TR

IM A

ND

DR

AIN

SY

STE

MS

(S

UB

MA

RIN

ES

)

0

00

0

565

TR

IM A

ND

HE

EL S

YS

TE

MS

(S

UR

FA

CE

SH

IPS

)

00

00

566

DIV

ING

PLA

NE

S A

ND

STA

BIL

IZIN

G F

INS

(S

UB

MA

RIN

ES

)

0

00

0

567

STR

UT A

ND

FO

IL S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

568

MA

NE

UV

ER

ING

SY

STE

MS

0

00

0

00

00

570

RE

PL

EN

ISH

ME

NT

SY

ST

EM

S

0

00

0

570

RE

PLE

NIS

HM

EN

T S

YS

TE

MS

00

00

571

RE

PLE

NIS

HM

EN

T-A

T-S

EA

SY

STE

MS

00

00

572

SH

IP S

TO

RE

S A

ND

EQ

UIP

ME

NT H

AN

DLIN

G S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

573

CA

RG

O H

AN

DLIN

G S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

574

VE

RTIC

AL R

EP

LE

NIS

HM

EN

T S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

00

00

580

ME

CH

AN

ICA

L H

AN

DL

ING

SY

ST

EM

S

00

00

581

AN

CH

OR

HA

ND

LIN

G A

ND

STO

WA

GE

SY

STE

MS

In

clu

de

s th

e A

nch

or,

ro

de

, w

ind

lass

e10000

10

5.8

0100000

58000

0A

ssum

e v

ery

sim

ilar

to 4

5m

tug r

ef. 2

Anchors

not

req if 1 k

ept

in p

ort

582

MO

OR

ING

AN

D T

OW

ING

SY

STE

MS

C

ap

sta

ns,

mo

ori

ng

fit

tin

gs

an

d c

om

po

ne

nts

g2000

10

5.8

020000

11600

0

583

BO

ATS

, B

OA

T H

AN

DLIN

G A

ND

STO

WA

GE

SY

STE

MS

All

bo

ats

an

d r

igg

ing

, li

fesa

vin

g e

qu

ipm

en

tg

12000

33.7

11.6

0404400

139200

0

584

LA

ND

ING

CR

AF

T H

AN

DLIN

G A

ND

STO

WA

GE

SY

STE

MS

0

00

0

585

ELE

VA

TIN

G A

ND

RE

TR

AC

TIN

G G

EA

R

0

00

0

586

AIR

CR

AF

T R

EC

OV

ER

Y S

UP

PO

RT S

YS

TE

MS

00

00

587

AIR

CR

AF

T L

AU

NC

H S

UP

PO

RT S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

588

AIR

CR

AF

T H

AN

DLIN

G,

SE

RV

ICIN

G A

ND

STO

WA

GE

00

00

589

MIS

CE

LLA

NE

OU

S M

EC

HA

NIC

AL H

AN

DLIN

G S

YS

TE

MS

00

00

587

MIS

CE

LLA

NE

OU

S M

EC

HA

NIC

AL H

AN

DLIN

G S

YS

TE

MS

00

00

00

00

590

SP

EC

IAL

PU

RP

OS

E S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

592

SW

IMM

ER

AN

D D

IVE

R S

UP

PO

RT A

ND

PR

OTE

CTIO

N

SY

STE

MS

00

00

593

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NTA

L P

OLLU

TIO

N C

ON

TR

OL S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

594

SU

BM

AR

INE

RE

SC

UE

, S

ALV

AG

E,

AN

D S

UR

VIV

AL

SY

STE

MS

00

00

595

TO

WIN

G,

LA

UN

CH

ING

AN

D H

AN

DLIN

G F

OR

UN

DE

RW

ATE

R S

YS

.

00

00

597

SA

LV

AG

E S

UP

PO

RT S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

599

AU

XIL

IAR

Y S

YS

TE

MS

RE

PA

IR P

AR

TS

AN

D T

OO

LS

g0

00

0

500 T

OTA

L:

44800

1097640

374820

0

SW

BS

#

SW

BS

600:

Outfit a

nd F

urn

ishin

gs

(show

ing a

ll of S

WB

S lvl

1,2

,3)

Item

Description

g/e

/sLength

Wid

thA

rea

Qty

U.

Wt

Weig

ht

LC

GV

CG

TC

GL.M

om

V.M

om

T.M

om

Note

s

mm

sq m

#U

kg/U

kg

mm

m

600

OU

TF

IT A

ND

FU

RN

ISH

ING

S,

GE

NE

RA

L

00

00

602

HU

LL D

ES

IGN

ATIN

G A

ND

MA

RK

ING

Sh

ip's

na

me

, lo

go

, h

om

ep

ort

, o

the

r si

gn

ag

eg

150

29.5

50

4425

750

0A

ssum

e s

am

e a

s r

ef ve

ssel allo

wance

00

00

610

SH

IP F

ITT

ING

S

0

00

0

611

HU

LL F

ITTIN

GS

00

00

612

RA

ILS

, S

TA

NC

HIO

NS

, A

ND

LIF

ELIN

ES

e190

10.2

1938

36

11.6

069768

22480.8

0U

nit w

eig

ht

for

raili

ngs fro

m R

AL

613

RIG

GIN

G A

ND

CA

NV

AS

0

00

0

00

00

620

HU

LL

CO

MP

AR

TM

EN

TA

TIO

N

e

11.9

633

8.7

0394.6

8104.0

52

0calc

ula

ted b

ased o

n a

reas

621

NO

N-S

TR

UC

TU

RA

L B

ULK

HE

AD

S

0

00

0

622

FLO

OR

PLA

TE

S A

ND

GR

ATIN

GS

00

00

623

LA

DD

ER

S

00

00

624

NO

N-S

TR

UC

TU

RA

L C

LO

SU

RE

S

00

00

All

the n

on-s

tructu

ral doors

625

AIR

PO

RTS

, F

IXE

D P

OR

TLIG

HTS

, A

ND

WIN

DO

WS

0

00

0

00

00

630

PR

ES

ER

VA

TIV

ES

AN

D C

OV

ER

ING

S

00

00

630

PR

ES

ER

VA

TIV

ES

AN

D C

OV

ER

ING

S

00

00

631

PA

INTIN

G

e

8000

29.4

7.2

0235200

57600

0appro

x 2

% o

f gro

up 1

00 w

eig

ht

632

ZIN

C A

ND

ME

TA

LLIC

CO

ATIN

GS

0

00

0

633

CA

TH

OD

IC P

RO

TE

CTIO

N

g300

32.5

20

9750

600

0

634

DE

CK

CO

VE

RIN

G

e

30000

33

70

990000

210000

0calc

ula

ted b

ased o

n a

reas

635

HU

LL IN

SU

LA

TIO

N

00

00

636

HU

LL D

AM

PIN

G

0

00

0

637

SH

EA

TH

ING

00

00

638

RE

FR

IGE

RA

TE

D S

PA

CE

S

g0

00

0

639

RA

DIA

TIO

N S

HIE

LD

ING

0

00

0

00

00

640

LIV

ING

SP

AC

ES

00

00

641

OF

FIC

ER

BE

RTH

ING

AN

D M

ES

SIN

G S

PA

CE

S

00

00

6411

OF

FIC

ER

BE

RTH

ING

SP

AC

ES

Off

ice

r/P

ass

en

ge

r b

ert

hin

g o

utf

it/f

urn

ish

ing

sg

20

100

500

30.5

13.5

015250

6750

0

6412

OF

FIC

ER

ME

SS

ING

SP

AC

ES

Off

ice

r/p

ass

en

ge

r m

ess

ing

ou

tfit

/fu

rnis

hin

gs

g0

00

642

NO

NC

OM

MIS

SIO

NE

D O

FF

ICE

R B

ER

TH

ING

AN

D M

ES

SIN

G

SP

AC

ES

00

00

643

EN

LIS

TE

D P

ER

SO

NN

EL B

ER

TH

ING

AN

D M

ES

SIN

G

SP

AC

ES

Be

rth

ing

fo

r a

ll o

the

r cre

w +

me

ssin

g s

pa

ce

s2500

23

3.4

857500

8500

20000

Weig

ht

for

a m

ess fro

m r

efe

rence v

essels

, B

ert

h is 1

00 k

g

644

SA

NIT

AR

Y S

PA

CE

S A

ND

FIX

TU

RE

S

55.2

80

4416

33

8.7

0145728

38419.2

0C

oeffi

cie

nt

- "S

yste

m b

ased s

hip

desig

n"

645

LE

ISU

RE

AN

D C

OM

MU

NIT

Y S

PA

CE

S

D

ay R

oo

m f

or

cre

w200

31.5

3.4

86300

680

1600

00

00

650

SE

RV

ICE

SP

AC

ES

g

00

00

651

CO

MM

ISS

AR

Y S

PA

CE

S

0

00

0

652

ME

DIC

AL S

PA

CE

S

00

00

653

DE

NTA

L S

PA

CE

S

0

00

0

654

UTIL

ITY

SP

AC

ES

0

00

0

655

LA

UN

DR

Y S

PA

CE

S

La

un

dry

g4

160

640

21.8

3.4

-10.4

13952

2176

-6656

kg/m

2 first

appro

xim

ation fro

m "

syste

m b

ased s

hip

desig

n"

656

TR

AS

H D

ISP

OS

AL S

PA

CE

S

G

arb

ag

e h

an

dli

ng

sp

ace

g10

50

500

19

6.3

-10

9500

3150

-5000

kg/m

2 g

uess

00

00

660

WO

RK

ING

SP

AC

ES

g

00

00

661

OF

FIC

ES

0

00

0

662

MA

CH

INE

RY

CO

NTR

OL C

EN

TE

RS

FU

RN

ISH

ING

S

0

00

0

663

ELE

CTR

ON

ICS

CO

NTR

OL C

EN

TE

RS

FU

RN

ISH

ING

S

00

00

664

DA

MA

GE

CO

NTR

OL S

TA

TIO

NS

0

00

0

665

WO

RK

SH

OP

S,

LA

BS

, TE

ST A

RE

AS

(IN

CL P

OR

TA

BLE

TO

OLS

, E

QU

IP)

Wo

rksh

op

g20

100

2000

47

6.5

094000

13000

0kg/m

2 g

uess

00

00

670

ST

OW

AG

E S

PA

CE

S

g0

00

0

671

LO

CK

ER

S A

ND

SP

EC

IAL S

TO

WA

GE

0

00

0

672

STO

RE

RO

OM

S A

ND

IS

SU

E R

OO

MS

g

1000

17

6.5

017000

6500

0to

tally

a g

uess,

all

sto

re-r

oom

s o

n t

he s

hip

673

CA

RG

O S

TO

WA

GE

00

00

00

00

690

SP

EC

IAL

PU

RP

OS

E S

YS

TE

MS

0

00

0

699

OU

TF

IT A

ND

FU

RN

ISH

. R

EP

AIR

PA

RTS

AN

D S

PE

CIA

L

TO

OLS

00

00

600 T

OTA

L:

52,1

56

1668767.6

8370710.0

52

9944

g =

guess

e =

estim

ate

s =

supplie

r

SW

BS

#

18.9.1. STRUCTURAL WEIGHT

Legend

Input

Measured from drawing

Modified to OURSHIP

Not shown in NIP, designed for OURSHIP

SUMMARY

Deck Level Pax

Frame, ton Web, ton Frame, ton Web, ton Frame, ton Web, ton Frame, ton Web, ton

SUM 0.42 0.42 0.88 0.88 0.74 0.97 0.31 0.31

BridgeMid-Pax

SUMMARY

Frame, ton Web, ton

Components 1.14 3.30

Plating 2.21 2.21

SUM 3.35 5.51

HULL

Item Name Item Description thickness length Qty FB? width Area (less area)? kg/m given? Vol (m³) Weight (kg)

Forward Mid-ship ComponentsR Right longitudinals LONGS 152x102x18.3KG/M 9 18.3 90.6

R Right FB vert. cross LONGS 76x8 FB 8 610 5 FB 76 0.0018544 14.6

R Right T shape docking girder web (same as left) 8 305 1 2440 0.00244 10.5

R Right T shape docking girder flange(same as left) 9.5 102 1 969 0.000969 4.2

R Right L shape docking girder DOCKING GIRDER 254x102x8 FLANGED PLATE P&S 8 362 1 2896 0.002896 12.5

R Right FB keel floor 63.5x9.5 FB 9.5 381 1 FB 63.5 0.0002298 1.8

R Right web floor 381x8 WEB 8 3611 2 FB 381 -40856 0.021359 167.7

R Right FB on web floor 152x9.5 FB 9.5 3611 2 FB 152 0.0104286 81.9

R Right FB sitting on T docking girder (same as left) 415 1 FB 4.7 2.0

R Right hull floor beam FB (same as left) 6.3 4169 1 FB 63.5 0.0016678 13.1

R Right floor watertight flat 5 PLT 5 4315 1 21575 0.021575 93.2

R Right outboard web 254x8 WEB 8 2770 1 FB 254 0.0056286 44.2

R Right FB on outboard web 102x9.5 FB 9.5 2770 1 FB 102 0.0026841 21.1

R Right bump web 8 WEB SPACED 533 8 FB 87840 0.0007027 5.5

R Right web deck 762x8 WEB STRINGER 8 6994 1 FB 762 -149307.3325 0.041441 325.3

R Right Fb on web deck 152x9.5 FB 9.5 6994 1 FB 152 0.0100993 79.3

R Right web inboard 381x9.5 WEB 9.5 2770 1 FB 381 0.010026 78.7

R Right FB on web inboard 152x9.5 FB 9.5 2770 1 FB 152 0.0039999 31.4

MR Mid-Right Longitudinals web top LONGS 152x102x18.3KG/M 5 18.3 50.3

MR Mid-Right Longitudinals web bottomLONGS 152x89x14.6KG/M 5 14.6 40.2

MR Mid-Right FB vert. cross LONGS. 76x8 FB (TYPICAL) 8 483 5.5 FB 76 0.0016152 12.7

MR Mid-Right FB ring on web 102x12.7 FB RING 12.7 1197 1 FB 102 0.0015505 12.2 SUM

MR Mid-Right web (missing info, estimate) 8 4755 1 FB 1500 -114009 0.0561479 440.8 Web (per side)

MR Mid-Right web angle (missing info, estimate) 8 1 FB 243840 0.0019507 15.3 1.65

Item #


Forward Mid-ship Plates

R Deck deck plating 8 0 1 0 0 0.0

R Outboard 1 side top plating 8 0 1 0 0 0.0

R Outboard 2 bump plating 12.7 0 1 0 0 0.0

R Outboard 3 side shell plating 8 0 1 0 0 0.0

R Keel kell plating 8 0 1 0 0 0.0

R Inboard inboard plating 8 0 1 0 0 0.0

MR Mid top (deck) mid top plating 8 0 1 0 0 0.0 SUM

MR Mid bottom 1 angle plating 8 0 1 0 0 0.0 Plating (per side)

MR Mid bottom 2 bottom flat plating 8 0 1 0 0 0.0 1.11

Item #


Aft Mid-ship ComponentsL Left longitudinals LONGS 102x76x8.6KG/M 12 8.6 56.8

L Left outboard FB top 1 76x8 FB SPACED 533 8 762 0 FB 76 0 0.0

L Left FB attached to BKT with ring 63.5x8 FB 8 312 0 FB 63.5 0 0.0

L Left side frame on side shell SIDE FRAMES 102x76x10.7Kg/M SPACED 533 3970 1 FB 10.7 42.5

L Left keel floor outboard FLOOR 254 6.3 PLT 6.3 3611 1 FB 254 0.0057783 45.4

L Left keel floor inboard FLOOR 254 6.3 PLT 6.3 3611 1 FB 254 0.0057783 45.4

L Left keel floor FB outboard 76x6.3 FB 6.3 3611 1 FB 76 0.0017289 13.6

L Left keel floor FB inboard 76x6.3 FB 6.3 3611 1 FB 76 0.0017289 13.6

L Left hull floor beam FB BEAM SPACED 533 63.5X6.3 FB 6.3 6350 1 FB 63.5 0.0025403 19.9

L Left T shape docking girder web DOCKING GIRDER P&S CLEAR OF MACHINERY SEATS 305x8 WEB 102x9.5 FB8 305 3 7320 0.00732 31.6

L Left T shape docking girder flange DOCKING GIRDER P&S CLEAR OF MACHINERY SEATS 305x8 WEB 102x9.5 FB9.5 102 3 2907 0.002907 12.6

L Left FB sitting on T docking girder 51x51x4.7Kg/M E.A. 1480 1 FB 4.7 7.0

L Left FB sitting on T docking girder 51x51x4.7Kg/M E.A. 1480 1 FB 4.7 7.0

L Left L shape docking girder (same as right) 8 362 4 11584 0.011584 50.0

L Left inboard stiffeners STIFFENEARS 12x76x9.8Kg/M SPACED 533 3970 1 FB 9.8 38.9

L Left inboard stringer STRINGER305x8 FLGD 127 8 432 1 3456 0.003456 14.9

ML Mid-Left Longitudinals web top LONGS 152x102x18.3KG/M 8 18.3 80.5 SUM

ML Mid-Left Longitudinals web bottomLONGS 152x89x14.6KG/M 8 14.6 64.2 Frame (per side)

ML Mid-Left FB horizon. cross LONGS.76x9.5 FB 9.5 4755 1 FB 76 0.0034331 26.9 0.57

Item #


Aft Mid-ship PlatesL Deck deck plating 8 6995 1 55960 0.05596 241.6

L Outboard 1 side top plating 8 0 0 0 0 0.0

L Outboard 2 bump plating 12.7 0 0 0 0 0.0

L Outboard 3 side shell plating upper 8 2190 1 17520 0.01752 75.6

L Outboard 4 side shell plating transition 8 1780 1 14240 0.01424 61.5

L Keel 1 keel plating outboard 8 3611 1 28888 0.028888 124.7

L Keel 2 Keel plating inboard 8 3611 1 28888 0.028888 124.7

L Inboard 1 inboard plating upper 8 2190 1 17520 0.01752 75.6

L Inboard 2 inboard plating transition 8 1780 1 14240 0.01424 61.5

ML Mid top (deck) mid top plating 8 4755 1 38040 0.03804 164.2 SUM

ML Mid bottom 1 angle plating 8 1372 1 10976 0.010976 47.4 Plating (per side)

ML Mid bottom 2 bottom flat plating 8 3714 1 29712 0.029712 128.3 1.11

Item #

Distance from Forward (m)

FROM TO FROM TO FROM TO FROM TO

15053 44069 20195 4801

3 20195 43219 2019

5 4161

3

Max area (midship) 33.30 m²

15.053

44.069 20.195

48.013

20.195

43.219

20.195

41.613

Superstructure

Stn#

Section

Location from

forward (m)

HULL Deck Level Pax Mid-Pax Bridge

Section full scale weight

Immersed Area (m^2)

Area factor

Hull weight (ton)

Moment

Weight

Moment Weight

Moment

Weight

Moment

Weight

Moment


Forward Superstructure

Deck Level Components R Right casing outboard stiffeners STIFFENERS 76x51x4.6Kg/M SPACED 533 3350 1 FB 4.6 15.4

R Right casing inboard stiffeners STIFFENERS 76x51x4.6Kg/M SPACED 533 3350 1 FB 4.6 15.4

R Right outboard stays/railing STAYS 6.3 PLT Flanged 76 Spaced 1524 6.3 1 FB 196265 0.0012365 9.7

R Right H-shape column none(spaced on top of each web frame) 5 3350 0 FB 150 0 0.0

Deck Level Plating

R Casing outboard CASING SIDES 5 PLT 5 3350 1 16750 0.01675 72.3 SUM

R Casing inboard CASING SIDES 5 PLT 5 3350 1 16750 0.01675 72.3 Frame (per side)

R Deck rail bulwark BULWARK 5 5 1100 1 5500 0.0055 23.7 0.21

Item #


Pax Level Components R Right pax deck floor beam BEAMS 76x51x6.1Kg/M SPACED 533 7250 1 FB 6.1 44.2

R Right pax outboard stiffener 76x6.3 FB SPACED 1524 6.3 2000 1 FB 76 0.0009576 7.5

R Right pax top stiffener 76x6.3 FB SPACED 1524 6.3 6250 1 FB 76 0.0029925 23.5

R Right pax outboard stays/railing STAYS 6.3 PLT Flanged 76 Spaced 1524 6.3 1 FB 106325 0.0006698 5.3

Pax Level Plating

R Pax floor DECK PL 5 5 7250 1 36250 0.03625 156.5

R Pax outboard PLATING 5 5 2000 1 10000 0.01 43.2 SUM

R Pax top PLATING 5 5 6250 1 31250 0.03125 134.9 Frame (per side)

R Pax level rail bulwark BULWARK 5 5 1100 1 5500 0.0055 23.7 0.44

Item #


Mid Pax Level Components

R Mid-Right pax floor web (missing) 8 4500 1 FB 345 -49769.11082 0.0120218 94.4

R Mid-Right pax floor web corner (missing) 8 1 FB 782980 0.0062638 49.2

R Mid-Right outboard stiffener 76x6.3 FB SPACED 1524 6.3 3600 1 FB 76 0.0017237 13.5

R Officers deck beam BEAMS 76x63.5x7.3Kg/M SPACED 762 4500 1 FB 7.3 32.9

Mid Pax Level Plating

R Mid-Right floor DECK PL 5 5 4500 1 22500 0.0225 97.1 SUM

R Mid-Right outboard PLATING 5 5 3600 1 18000 0.018 77.7 Frame (per side)

R Officer deck DECK PL 6.3 6.3 4500 1 28350 0.02835 122.4 0.49

Item #


Bridge Components

R Officers outboard stiffener 76x51x4.6Kg/M SPACED 762 2750 1 FB 4.6 12.7

R Officer top beam BEAMS 76x64x6.7Kg/M SPACED 762 3000 1 FB 6.7 20.1

Bridge Plating SUM

R Officer outboard PLATING 5 5 2750 1 13750 0.01375 59.4 Frame (per side)

R Officer top DECK PL 5 5 3000 1 15000 0.015 64.8 0.16

Item #


Aft Superstructure

Deck Level Components L Left casing outboard stiffeners STIFFENERS 76x51x4.6Kg/M SPACED 533 3350 1 FB 4.6 15.4

L Left casing inboard stiffeners STIFFENERS 76x51x4.6Kg/M SPACED 533 3350 1 FB 4.6 15.4

L Left outboard stays/railing STAYS 6.3 PLT Flanged 76 Spaced 1524 6.3 1 FB 196265 0.0012365 9.7

L Left H-shape column none(spaced on top of each web frame) 5 3350 0 FB 150 0 0.0

Deck Level Plating

L Casing outboard CASING SIDES 5 PLT 5 3350 1 16750 0.01675 72.3 SUM

L Casing inboard CASING SIDES 5 PLT 5 3350 1 16750 0.01675 72.3 Frame (per side)

L Deck rail bulwark BULWARK 5 5 1100 1 5500 0.0055 23.7 0.21

Item #


Pax Level Components L Left pax deck floor beam BEAMS 76x51x6.1Kg/M SPACED 533 7250 1 FB 6.1 44.2

L Left pax outboard stiffener 76x6.3 FB SPACED 1524 6.3 2000 1 FB 76 0.0009576 7.5

L Left pax top stiffener 76x6.3 FB SPACED 1524 6.3 6250 1 FB 76 0.0029925 23.5

L Left pax outboard stays/railing STAYS 6.3 PLT Flanged 76 Spaced 1524 6.3 1 FB 106325 0.0006698 5.3

Pax Level Plating

L Pax floor DECK PL 5 5 7250 1 36250 0.03625 156.5

L Pax outboard PLATING 5 5 2000 1 10000 0.01 43.2 SUM

L Pax level rail bulwark BULWARK 5 5 1100 1 5500 0.0055 23.7 Frame (per side)

L Pax top PLATING 5 5 6250 1 31250 0.03125 134.9 0.44

Item #


Mid Pax Level Components L Mid-Left floor beam BEAMS 76x51x6.1Kg/M SPACED 533 4500 1 FB 6.1 27.5

L Mid-Left outboard stiffener 76x6.3 FB SPACED 1524 6.3 3600 1 FB 76 0.0017237 13.5

L Officers deck beam BEAMS 76x63.5x7.3Kg/M SPACED 762 4500 1 FB 7.3 32.9

Mid Pax Level Plating

L Mid-Left floor DECK PL 5 5 4500 1 22500 0.0225 97.1 SUM

L Mid-Left outboard PLATING 5 5 3600 1 18000 0.018 77.7 Frame (per side)

L Officer deck DECK PL 6.3 6.3 4500 1 28350 0.02835 122.4 0.37

Item #


Bridge Components

L Left officers outboard stiffener 76x51x4.6Kg/M SPACED 762 2750 1 FB 4.6 12.7

L Left officer top beam BEAMS 76x64x6.7Kg/M SPACED 762 3000 1 FB 6.7 20.1

Bridge Plating SUM

L Officer outboard PLATING 5 5 2750 1 13750 0.01375 59.4 Frame (per side)

L Officer top DECK PL 5 5 3000 1 15000 0.015 64.8 0.16

Item #

0 b 0.57 5.51 0.1 0.00 0.02 0.0

1 f 1.12 3.35 0.6 0.02 0.06 0.1

2 f 1.67 3.35 1.3 0.04 0.13 0.2

3 f 2.22 3.35 2.2 0.07 0.22 0.5

4 f 2.77 3.35 3.3 0.10 0.34 0.9

5 f 3.32 3.35 4.6 0.14 0.47 1.5

6 f 3.87 3.35 6.0 0.18 0.61 2.3

7 f 4.42 3.35 7.5 0.22 0.75 3.3

8 f 4.97 3.35 9.0 0.27 0.91 4.5

9 b 5.52 5.51 10.5 0.32 1.74 9.6

10 f 6.07 3.35 12.1 0.36 1.22 7.4

11 f 6.62 3.35 13.6 0.41 1.37 9.1

12 f 7.17 3.35 15.1 0.45 1.52 10.9

13 f 7.72 3.35 16.6 0.50 1.67 12.9

14 w 8.27 5.51 18.0 0.54 2.98 24.6

15 f 8.82 3.35 19.4 0.58 1.95 17.2

16 f 9.37 3.35 20.7 0.62 2.09 19.5

17 f 9.92 3.35 22.0 0.66 2.21 21.9

18 f 10.47 3.35 23.2 0.70 2.33 24.4

19 w 11.02 5.51 24.3 0.73 4.02 44.2

20 f 11.57 3.35 25.3 0.76 2.55 29.5

21 f 12.12 3.35 26.3 0.79 2.64 32.0

22 f 12.67 3.35 27.1 0.82 2.73 34.6

23 f 13.22 3.35 27.9 0.84 2.81 37.2

24 f 13.77 3.35 28.7 0.86 2.89 39.7

25 b 14.32 5.51 29.3 0.88 4.85 69.4

26 f 14.87 3.35 29.9 0.90 3.01 44.8

27 f 15.42 3.35 30.4 0.91 3.06 47.2 0.42 6.44

28 f 15.97 3.35 30.9 0.93 3.11 49.7 0.42 6.7

29 w 16.52 5.51 31.3 0.94 5.18 85.6 0.42 6.9

30 f 17.07 3.35 31.7 0.95 3.19 54.4 0.42 7.1

31 f 17.62 3.35 32.0 0.96 3.22 56.7 0.42 7.4

32 f 18.17 3.35 32.3 0.97 3.25 59.0 0.42 7.6

33 f 18.72 3.35 32.5 0.98 3.27 61.2 0.42 7.8

34 b 19.27 5.51 32.7 0.98 5.40 104.1 0.42 8.0

35 f 19.82 3.35 32.8 0.99 3.30 65.5 0.42 8.3

36 f 20.37 3.35 32.9 0.99 3.32 67.5 0.42 8.5 0.88 17.87 0.74 15.11 0.31 6.39

37 f 20.92 3.35 33.0 0.99 3.33 69.6 0.42 8.7 0.88 18.4 0.74 15.5 0.31 6.6

38 f 21.47 3.35 33.1 0.99 3.33 71.6 0.42 9.0 0.88 18.8 0.74 15.9 0.31 6.7

39 w 22.02 5.51 33.2 1.00 5.49 120.8 0.42 9.2 0.88 19.3 0.97 21.5 0.31 6.9

40 f 22.57 3.35 33.2 1.00 3.34 75.5 0.42 9.4 0.88 19.8 0.74 16.7 0.31 7.1

41 f 23.12 3.35 33.3 1.00 3.35 77.4 0.42 9.7 0.88 20.3 0.74 17.2 0.31 7.3

42 f 23.67 3.35 33.3 1.00 3.35 79.3 0.42 9.9 0.88 20.8 0.74 17.6 0.31 7.4

43 f 24.22 3.35 33.3 1.00 3.35 81.2 0.42 10.1 0.88 21.3 0.74 18.0 0.31 7.6

44 f 24.77 3.35 33.3 1.00 3.35 83.0 0.42 10.3 0.88 21.7 0.74 18.4 0.31 7.8

45 b 25.32 5.51 33.3 1.00 5.51 139.4 0.42 10.6 0.88 22.2 0.97 24.7 0.31 7.9

46 f 25.87 3.35 33.3 1.00 3.35 86.6 0.42 10.8 0.88 22.7 0.74 19.2 0.31 8.1

47 f 26.42 3.35 33.2 1.00 3.35 88.4 0.42 11.0 0.88 23.2 0.74 19.6 0.31 8.3

48 f 26.97 3.35 33.2 1.00 3.34 90.2 0.42 11.3 0.88 23.7 0.74 20.0 0.31 8.5

49 f 27.52 3.35 33.2 1.00 3.34 91.9 0.42 11.5 0.88 24.1 0.74 20.4 0.31 8.6

50 f 28.07 3.35 33.1 0.99 3.33 93.6 0.42 11.7 0.88 24.6 0.74 20.8 0.31 8.8

51 w 28.62 5.51 33.1 0.99 5.47 156.5 0.42 12.0 0.88 25.1 0.97 27.9 0.31 9.0

52 f 29.17 3.35 33.0 0.99 3.32 96.9 0.42 12.2 0.88 25.6 0.74 21.6 0.31 9.2

53 f 29.72 3.35 32.9 0.99 3.32 98.5 0.42 12.4 0.88 26.1 0.74 22.1 0.31 9.3

54 f 30.27 3.35 32.9 0.99 3.31 100.2 0.42 12.6 0.88 26.6 0.74 22.5 0.31 9.5

55 f 30.82 3.35 32.8 0.99 3.30 101.8 0.42 12.9 0.88 27.0 0.74 22.9 0.31 9.7

56 f 31.37 3.35 32.7 0.98 3.29 103.3 0.42 13.1 0.88 27.5 0.74 23.3 0.31 9.8

57 b 31.92 5.51 32.7 0.98 5.40 172.4 0.42 13.3 0.88 28.0 0.97 31.1 0.31 10.0

58 f 32.47 3.35 32.6 0.98 3.28 106.4 0.42 13.6 0.88 28.5 0.74 24.1 0.31 10.2

59 f 33.02 3.35 32.5 0.98 3.27 108.0 0.42 13.8 0.88 29.0 0.74 24.5 0.31 10.4

60 f 33.57 3.35 32.4 0.97 3.26 109.5 0.42 14.0 0.88 29.5 0.74 24.9 0.31 10.5

61 f 34.12 3.35 32.3 0.97 3.25 111.0 0.42 14.3 0.88 29.9 0.74 25.3 0.31 10.7

62 f 34.67 3.35 32.2 0.97 3.24 112.5 0.42 14.5 0.88 30.4 0.74 25.7 0.31 10.9

63 w 35.22 5.51 32.1 0.97 5.32 187.2 0.42 14.7 0.88 30.9 0.97 34.3 0.31 11.0

64 f 35.77 3.35 32.1 0.96 3.23 115.4 0.42 14.9 0.88 31.4 0.74 26.5 0.31 11.2

65 f 36.32 3.35 32.0 0.96 3.22 116.8 0.42 15.2 0.88 31.9 0.74 27.0 0.31 11.4

66 f 36.87 3.35 31.9 0.96 3.21 118.2 0.42 15.4 0.88 32.4 0.74 27.4 0.31 11.6

67 f 37.42 3.35 31.8 0.95 3.20 119.6 0.42 15.6 0.88 32.8 0.74 27.8 0.31 11.7

68 b 37.97 5.51 31.7 0.95 5.24 198.8 0.42 15.9 0.88 33.3 0.97 37.0 0.31 11.9

69 f 38.52 3.35 31.5 0.95 3.18 122.3 0.42 16.1 0.88 33.8 0.74 28.6 0.31 12.1

70 f 39.07 3.35 31.4 0.94 3.16 123.6 0.42 16.3 0.88 34.3 0.74 29.0 0.31 12.3

71 f 39.62 3.35 31.3 0.94 3.15 124.8 0.42 16.6 0.88 34.8 0.74 29.4 0.31 12.4

72 w 40.17 5.51 31.2 0.94 5.16 207.2 0.42 16.8 0.88 35.3 0.97 39.1 0.31 12.6

73 f 40.72 3.35 31.0 0.93 3.13 127.3 0.42 17.0 0.88 35.7 0.74 30.2 0.31 12.8

74 f 41.27 3.35 30.9 0.93 3.11 128.4 0.42 17.2 0.88 36.2 0.74 30.6 0.31 12.9

75 f 41.82 3.35 30.8 0.92 3.10 129.5 0.42 17.5 0.88 36.7 0.74 31.0 0.31 13.12

76 f 42.37 3.35 30.6 0.92 3.08 130.5 0.42 17.7 0.88 37.2 0.74 31.4

77 f 42.92 3.35 30.4 0.91 3.06 131.5 0.42 17.9 0.88 37.7 0.74 31.9

78 w 43.47 5.51 30.3 0.91 5.01 217.6 0.42 18.2 0.88 38.1 0.97 42.35

79 f 44.02 3.35 30.1 0.90 3.03 133.3 0.42 18.39 0.88 38.6

80 f 44.57 3.35 29.9 0.90 3.01 134.1 0.88 39.1

81 f 45.12 3.35 29.7 0.89 2.99 134.9 0.88 39.6

82 b 45.67 5.51 29.5 0.89 4.88 222.8 0.88 40.1

83 f 46.22 3.35 29.3 0.88 2.95 136.2 0.88 40.6

84 f 46.77 3.35 29.0 0.87 2.92 136.7 0.88 41.0

85 f 47.32 3.35 28.8 0.87 2.90 137.2 0.88 41.5

86 w 47.87 5.51 28.6 0.86 4.73 226.2 0.88 42.0

87 f 48.42 3.35 28.3 0.85 2.85 138.0 0.88 42.49

88 f 48.97 3.35 28.1 0.84 2.82 138.3

89 f 49.52 3.35 27.8 0.83 2.80 138.5

90 f 50.07 3.35 27.5 0.83 2.77 138.6

91 b 50.62 5.51 27.2 0.82 4.50 227.9

92 f 51.17 3.35 26.9 0.81 2.71 138.7

93 f 51.72 3.35 26.6 0.80 2.68 138.6

94 f 52.27 3.35 26.3 0.79 2.65 138.4

95 f 52.82 3.35 26.0 0.78 2.62 138.2

96 w 53.37 5.51 25.7 0.77 4.25 226.7

97 f 53.92 3.35 25.3 0.76 2.55 137.6

98 f 54.47 3.35 25.0 0.75 2.52 137.1

99 b 55.00 5.51 24.7 0.74 4.08 224.5

TOTAL WEIGHTS

Hull Deck Level Pax Mid-Pax Bridge Total Superstructure

Weight 304.96 22.14 45.64 33.77 12.55 114.11

Moment 9399.67 658.03 1569.57 1080.00 390.19 3697.79

(from bow) LCG 30.82 29.72 34.39 31.98 31.09 32.41