high speed connector - mitweb.mit.edu/13a/www/dsgnsymp/hsc.pdf · 2005-05-19 · 2 initial...
TRANSCRIPT
1
High Speed Connector
LT Fragiskos Zouridakis, HNLT Daniel Wang, USN
2
Initial Requirement
• Part of System of Systems– Intra-theater Connector within the Sea Basing
Concept– High Speed, Agile, Versatile Platform
• Focused Logistics– “…ensure the delivery of the right equipment,
supplies, and personnel to the right place, at the right time to support operational objectives.”*
• Affordable• Industry Standard vs. Navy Standard
*Note: CJCSM 31170.01, “Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System”, June 2003.
3
Required Capabilities
• Cargo: – 500-1000 ltons
• Speed >40 kts• Range ~2000nm• Interface: Roll-on-roll-off,
Cargo, Vertical Movement of Cargo.
• Manning 20~30• Navigational Agility:
– Low Draft• Limited Self-defense:
– Air: point defense– Surface: visual range– Sub-surface: passive arg *
fuel
c o
WeightWeight RangeR =
*Pegrum, M., Kennell, C. “Fuel Efficiency Comparison between High Speed Sealift Ships and Airlift Aircraft” Marine Technology, Vol. 39, April 2002
Generation of Competing Variants
Trade of Studies
POWER PLANTS
PROPULSORS CONSTRUCTIONMATERIALS
Diesel
Gas turbines
Electric-Diesel
Waterjet
Propeller
Aluminum
Steel
TransportFactorPayload Speed⋅InstalledPower
Comparison of alternative solutions by means of:
•Quantitative attributes (Transport Factor)
•Qualitative attributes •Seakeeping•Loading interface•Survivability•Feasibility•Ability to manufacture
Design of Experiments:•Data points were produced with proper randomization for the execution of the experimental runs.
Range of operational requirements:•Speed: 32 knots to 44 knots.•Payload: 500 ltons to 1000 ltons.
Developed Variants:•Catamarans (26)• Monohulls (27)• Trimarans (28)
5
Hull SelectionTransport Factor (TF) -vs- Cost
• Catamarans demonstrate the best combination of TF/LCC
• Trimarans give smaller TF for slightly lower LCC
• Monohulls represent the least attractive combination
Catamarans
Trimarans
TF vs LCC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Life Cycle Cost
Tra
nsp
ort
Fac
tor
catamarans
monohulls
trimaransCatamarans
Trimarans
Monohulls
Life Cycle Cost
• Trimarans demonstrate higher acquisition cost than catamarans due to high R&D
• Monohulls become more competitive in terms of acquisition cost
Acquisition CostTF vs Acquisition Cost
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 100 200 300 400
Acquisition Cost
Tra
nsp
ort
Fac
tor
catamarans
monohulls
trimarans
`
Catamarans
Trimarans
Monohulls
($mil) ($mil)
6
Hull SelectionTF and Cost in Speed-Payload Space
• Monohulls: worst performance in all combinations of speed-payload
• Trimarans: excel only in High speed -High payload case
• Catamarans: best TF in the rest of Speed-Payload space
Catamaran
Monohull
Trimaran
• Monohulls: worst solution in terms of LCC
• Trimarans: marginally lower LCC in High speed - High payload region
• Catamarans: lowest LCC in the rest of Speed-Payload space
Transport Factor Cost
($m
il)
7
Qualitative Analysis - Catamarans
• Seakeeping Capability• Recent designs have demonstrated the ability to travel with 30 knots in sea
state 6• Loading interface
• Lowest draft• Highest maneuverability• Best arrangeability due to rectangular configuration of cargo area• Lowest rolling angle• Capability for Vertical Access, Cargo Ramps for RO-RO
• Survivability• Large reserve cross-structure volume• Duplicated systems in fair separation
• Tested technology • 37 catamarans on 49 HSC were delivered on 2003
• Ability to manufacture• Demonstrated over a number of shipyards across US
8
TF and Cost for Catamarans
• Excellent performance in low speed regions
• Serious degradation with high speeds• Low degradation with payload
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Transport Factor Cost
• Very attractive choice for low speed regions
• High increase in LCC with speed
($mil)
($mil)
9
Vessel Performance –vs- Seabasing System Performance
Pareto Frontier diagram
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
LCC
Sp
eed
*Pay
load
Diesel
ElectricGasturbine
1
2
3
45
Non Dominated Variants:•Aluminum hull•Waterjet propulsion•Diesel Propulsion plant
Optimization of overall system:•Speed: 32knots•Payload: 1000tons •Number of required vessels: 4
System OMOE vs Fleet LCC
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Fleet LCC ($bil)
Del
iver
y Ti
me
(hou
rs)
1000nm
1500nm
2000nm
3
3
3
10
Geometry
• Round bilge hull FW• Flat bottom AFT• High L/B ratio• Low draft • Bulbous bow• Raised wet deck • Small bottom rake angle AF
m91.59Lwl
m30.15Beam
52.6
3.8
Long Ton.mMTc
Long Ton/cm8.14Immersion (TPc)
m216.8KMl
m59.3KMt
m214.6BMl
m57.1BMt
m2.25KB
m-5.1LCF from zero pt
m-3.1LCB from zero pt
-0.83Cwp
-0.77Cm
-0.61Cb
-0.82Cp
mDraft
Long Ton2222Displacement
11
Hydrostatics
BA0123456789101112131415161718
1.0001.4001.8002.2002.6003.0003.4003.8004.200DWL
2
2.4
2.8
3.2
3.6
4
500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750
500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
5.2 5.6 6 6.4 6.8 7.2 7.6 8 8.4 8.8
38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56
Disp.
Wet. Area
WPA
LCB
LCF
KB
KMt
KML
Immersion (TPc)
MTc
Draft = KML = 1.800 m 519.256 m
Displacement tonne
Draf
t m
Area m^2
LCB, LCF, KB m
KMt m
KML m
Immersion tonne/cm
Moment to Trim tonne.m
When draft increases:• Displacement and WSA increase
linearly due to vertical sides of hull• LCB, LCF move back• Transverse and longitudinal
metacentric radii decrease resulting to lower but still more than efficient stability
12
Equilibrium conditions
• Very large variation of characteristics with cargo
• Challenge to maintain neutral trim– In general, catamarans very
sensitive due to small WPA– Usage of ballast tanks had to be
avoided due to extra weight, system complexity, environmental considerations
• Tankage volume 140% of required for specified range
– Negligible KG correction for free surface
– Adaptability: replacing 130 tons of cargo with fuel will result to ~40% higher range
In. Bottom 02
In. Bottom 01
In. Bottom 04
In. Bottom 03
In. Bottom 06
In. Bottom 05
In. Bottom 08
In. Bottom 07
In. Bottom 10
In. Bottom 09
In. Bottom 12
In. Bottom 11 302
301
304
303
308
307
312
311
314
313
316
315
202
201
204
203
206
205
208
207
210
209
212
211
200
102
101
104
103
106
105
0102
0101
0104
0103
0106
0105
1001
1003
1005
01001
01003
01005
cg306a
cg305a
cg306b
cg305b
cg310a
cg309a
cg310b
cg309b
zero pt.
-2.603.82219Full of cargo - Hi fuels
3.4
2.2
Draft (m)
-3.221959Full of cargo - Low fuels
-0.66963.5Empty of cargo - Low fuels
LCG(m)
Total Weight (ltons)
13
Intact and Damaged Stability
• Fulfills IMO Intact and Damaged stability requirements
• High max GZ value• Low equilibrium angles• Max GZ appears at a small angle of
inclination due to– high metacentric height – extremely high beam/freeboard
• Double hull extending from FW perpendicular to FW machinery room
• Compartment subdivision: Designed for 15%LWL floodable length
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Max GZ = 11.386 m at 15.8 deg.
1.5: HTL: Area between GZ and HA Hpc + Hw1.5: HTL: Area between GZ and HA Ht + Hw3.2.1: HL1: Angle of equilibrium Wind heeling (Hw)2.1.1: HL4: Area between GZ and HA Hpc + Hw3.2.2: HL3: Angle of equilibrium Wind heeling (Hw)
GZ = Heel to Starboard = -0.007 m 0.000 deg. Area (from zero heel) = 0 m. deg.
Heel to Starboard deg.
GZ
m
LegendGZ1.5: HTL: Area between GZ and HA Hpc + Hw1.5: HTL: Area between GZ and HA Ht + Hw3.2.1: HL1: Angle of equilibrium Wind heeling (Hw)Max GZ = 11.386 m at 15.8 deg.
14
Main machinery components
Gear Boxes•RENK ASL 53 (x4)•single-engine, non reversible•reduction ratio 2.05:1 •Shaft offset on horizontal
Waterjets•KaMeWa Quadruple 112SII (x4)•6500kW at 582 RPM•Steerable, Reversible•seven bladed impellers with skew
Main Engines•MTU 20V 1163 TB73L (x4)•Power: 6500kW(8710hp) at 1230rpm•SFC: 220gr/(kWhr)
15
Resistance and Powering Prediction
44.134.1Sea Trials
43.133After consumption of
10% margin
EmptyFullCondition
Speed (knots)
Variation of overall propulsive coefficient with speed & draft
Power requirements
Achievable speeds
10.39 16.16 21.92 27.69 33.46 39.23 450.56
0.59
0.61
0.64
0.67
0.69
0.72nD for waterjet
nD_WJ
VsKnots
Full load
Empty
13 16.1 19.2 22.3 25.4 28.5 31.6 34.7 37.8 40.9 440
3500
7000
1.05.104
1.4.104
1.75.104
2.1.104
2.45.104
2.8.104
3.15.104
3.5.104
KaMeWa prediction_Empty LoadKaMeWa prediction_Full LoadHSC Team prediction_Empty LoadHSC Team prediction_Full Load
HSC and KaMeWa BHP Prediction
Speed(Knots)
Pow
er (
Hp)
Full load
Empty
16
Seakeeping Conditions and Criteria
SEAKEEPING CONDITIONS
SPEED (knots)
HEADING (deg)
SEA STATE
(PM)
CARGO LOADING
14
20
26
32
42
180
135
90
45
1m / 5sec
2m / 7sec
3 m / 8.6sec
Full load
Empty load
0
4 m / 9.9sec
5m / 11.1sec
6m / 12.2sec
7 m / 13.2sec
Examined Conditions
Criteria• Roll angles• Pitch angles• Accelerations at the bridge• Wet deck slamming• Waterjet aeration• Deck wetness at the stern 1.32.9Relative vertical motion (m)WaterJet inlet
3.72.1Relative vertical motion (m)Stern ramp
5.94.7Relative vertical motion (m)Wet deck FW
0.2g0.2gLateral vertical acceleration (m/sec^2)Bridge
0.5g0.5gAbsolute vertical acceleration(m/sec^2)Bridge
33Pitch angle (deg)CG
88Roll angle (deg)CG
EmptyFull Load
LIMIT VALUEMEASURE (in significant values)LOCATION
17
Seakeeping Results
Unrestricted operation
Restricted operation
18
Structural Design
• Design Criteria– Based On Det Norske
Veritas (DNV) High Speed Light Ship Rules.
• Iterative Process– Plate Design (boundary
conditions: clamped-clamped)
– Longitudinal Girder/Stiffener Design
– Transverse Web Frame Design
– Torsion Stress Check
TransverseDesign
LongitudinalDesign
Plate DesignTorsion
Stress Check
19
Loading Stresses
• Major Factors– Speed– Loading Condition– Sea State Condition– Geometry (length, width,
draft)• Stress Due To
– Water Pressure– Longitudinal Bending– Slamming (bottom, cross-
structure)– Forward Motion (bow
bottom, side)– Vehicle Loading
20
Loading Stresses (cont.)
Sea Pressure Loading Stress
Slamming Pressure Loading Stress
Longitudinal Bending Stress
21
Scantling Design Results
• Material– Aluminum Alloy 3008H18– Density: 2730 kg per cubic
meter– Yielding stress 225 Mpa
• Plate (5x1.849 m)– 27mm – 23mm– 19mm
• Stiffener– Type 243 CY FdaTb
Fundia TB 160x40 (two sizes)
• Webframe– Same type (two sizes).
• Safety Factor >3– Maxi stress 72 Mpa in Web
frame with torsion
22
Arrangement
mooringmachinery
vehicle deck
cargo deck
CIWS
RAM launcher
magzine
cargoanchor
tankage allocationtankage allocationtankage allocationengine roomengine room
CPO/Off. living
bridgeCIC/radio
eng. control eng. storage AUX machinery laundry tankage allocation
crewliving/mess
Profile View
23
Arrangement (cont.)
O-1 level
Main Deck
24
Arrangement (cont.)
First Deck
Second Deck
25
Arrangement (cont.)
26
Arrangement (cont.)
27
Cost
• Parametric ESWBS weight groups– Material Cost– Labor Cost
• Adjusted for individual items– Engines– Gensets– Gear boxes, cables.
• Life Cycle Cost (in 2005 US dollar)– 20-year span– 4-ship class– Including
• Design: 4.42 million• Acquisition: 186.5 million• Manning: 3.95 million/year• Maintenance: 11.5 million/year• Operational Cost: 29.5 million/year
– Total 780.12 million/195 million per ship.
– Annual cost per ship: 9.75 million
design
acqusition
manning
maintenance
operation
28
Conclusion
• Success– Achieved payload of 1000 ltons. – Partially achieved speed goal of >40 knots.– Low-draft, agile, inexpensive and versatile.
• Future Works– To consider the dynamic stress load of the
ramp to the stern structure– To design propulsion system and control for
dynamic station-keeping while unloading. 46 million50 million150 millionCost
2100 nm2000 nm2000 nmRange
500 ltons
32kts
Threshold
1000 ltoons
34-44kts
Achieved
>40ktsSpeed
1000 ltonsPayload
Goal
nm2100Range (Full load, max speed)
Knots44Speed - Light Ship
Knots34Speed - Full Load
KaMeWa Quadruple 112 SII waterjets4Propulsion
MTU 20V 1163 TB7.3L Diesels4Power Plant
Personnel29Manning
m30.15Beam WL
m91.6LWL
m3.8Draft (Full Load)
LT2222Displacement
Principal Ship Characteristics
29
Questions?