RO-PAX FERRY

Gabriel, Shaun, Timothy

April 28th, 2016

Introduction

ROPAX Ferry Concept Design for WFSA competition

Low-cost vessel for service between the islands of Indonesia

All others42%

Bangladesh25%

Indonesia16%

Philippines11%

China6%

Causes and Circumstances of Major Ferry Accidents, 2000-2014, by Abigail Golden, Worldwide Ferry Safety Association.

Ferry Accidents

Pelni - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.). Retrieved January 22, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelni

Location

Basic Requirements

• 14 to 18 knots

• Maximum 185 passengers

• Maximize car and truck payload

• 20 Cabins

• Range of 1000 Nm

• Affordable to construct and operate

ROPAX ferry 2007http://indahnesia.com/indonesia/event/45/ferry_sinks_off_java_coast.php

Safety• Overloading• Fire Safety

Affordability

Indonesian Ferries | Paul's Travel Blog. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.paulstravelblog.com/wp/?p=260

Challenges:

Overloading

Fire

Affordability

• Catamaran design

• Limited number of trucks

• Well ventilated car deck

• Engines on deck

• Fire zones

• Catamaran (more deck area)

• Steel construction

• Ease of maintenance

• Built in Indonesia

Problems: Solutions:

Parent Ship: North Island Princess

Hull Form

• Waterline Length: 52.5 m

• Displacement: 1025 tonnes

• Based on NPL, VWS 89

• Design speed of 15 knots

VWS 89

NPL

Savu Ferry

Catamaran Hull Form

• L/V^(1/3) = 6.67

• Cp = 0.6

• Cb = 0.5

• BOA = 23.5m

• LOA = 55m

• LCB = -6.5% midships

• Single Chine

Stability

• SOLAS

• IS 2008

• General Criteria for 4 conditions:• Fully loaded arrival/departure

• Unloaded arrival/departure

• Wind Criteria

Intact Stability Results

Stability Criteria - IS 2008, Open Water Criteria for Fully loaded departure

Name Angle 1 Angle 2 Required Actual Pass / Fail

GM At 0 > 0.15 meters 0 0.15 39.4 Pass

GZ At 30 >= 0.2 meters 30 0.2 6.3 Pass

Angle At GZmax > 25 deg 14.5 25 14.5 Fail

Area Between 0 and 30 > 3.15 meters-

deg

0 30 3.15 175.3 Pass

Area Between 0 and Flood > 5.15

meters-deg

0 22.7 5.15 126.3 Pass

Area Between 30 and 40 > 1.72 meters-

deg

30 40 1.72 57.8 Pass

-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 40

GZ

(m)

Angle of Heel (Degrees)

Righting Arm Curve

Damaged Stability

• Lost Buoyancy Method

Damaged Stability Results

Freeboard At FreeEquil >= 0.076 meters 3.3 0.1 1.8 Pass

Angle At FreeEquil <= 12 deg 3.3 12.0 3.3 Pass

GZ At GZmax >= 0.29 meters 21.6 0.3 6.1 Pass

Area Between FreeEquil and 27 >= 0.86

meters-deg3.3 27 0.9 107.3 Pass

Angle Between FreeEquil and GZ0 >=

15 deg3.3 74.9 15.0 71.5 Pass

Name Angle 1 Angle 2 Required Actual Pass / Fail

Stability Criteria - SOLAS 2004, After Damage, compartments C and D flooded

Resistance and Powering

• NPL• Model testing• Round bilge, displacement

• VWS 89• Model testing• Chined, planing

• Pham and Sahoo• Regression Analysis• Chined

• Engines selected based on:• 1500 kW Effective Power

Transport Factor: Reality Check

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 (ROPAX Catamarans)

Ship Arrangement

• Capacity, flow, and passenger safety

• Mission requirements for each deck• Cars/trucks

• Stairwells, access

• Accommodations

• Service spaces

• Seating

• WC’s

Profile

Inboard Profile

Midship

Main Deck

Deck 2

Deck 3

Machinery Arrangement

Structure: Design Methodology

Hydrostatic, Hydrodynamicpressure etc.

Material Selection

Local Design Pressure

Local Members(plating&stiffener)

Global LoadsHull Girder

Strength

• Lloyd’s Register Rules and Regulations for Classification of Special Service Craft

Structure: Local Design Pressures

Design Pressure kPa

bottom shell plating 113.23bottom shell stiffening 56.61side shell plating, outboard 113.23side shell stiffening, outboard 56.61side shell plating, inboard 113.23side shell stiffening, inboard 56.61cross-deck plating 83.68cross-deck stiffening 41.84weather deck plating 25.16weather deck stiffening 25.16interior deck plating 25.16interior deck stiffening 25.16inner bottom plating 88.68inner bottom stiffening 56.61superstructure plating 7.39superstructure stiffening 3.69bulkhead plating 28.25bulkhead stiffener 35.21

hydrostatic pressure 28.14

hydrodynamic pressure 57.66

pitching pressure 79.70

Impact pressure 64.74

deckhouse, superstructure pressure 7.04

shell envelope pressure 107.84

forebody impact pressure 64.74

Impact pressure on cross-deck 22.76

pressure on weather deck 12.40

deck pressure for cargo 25.16

watertight bulkhead, plating 28.25

watertight bulkhead, stiffener 35.21

Wave Pressure/Impact Pressure Local Member Design Pressure

Structure: Local Plating ThicknessMinimum thickness Design selection

Shell envelopebottom shell plating 9.9 10side shell plating 9.9 10wet-deck plating 8.5 10

Single Bottom structurecentre girder web 6.7 8.0floor webs 5.1 8.0side girder webs 6.1 8.0

Bulkheadswatertight bulkhead plating 4.8 5

Deck platingstrength/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 5Pillars

rectangular pillars 5.0 5

Structure: Global Loads

Twin-hull Transverse Bending Moment Twin-hull Torsional Moment

Twin hull

transverse

bending moment

26,184 kNm

Twin hull torsional

connecting

moment

40,389 kNm

Vertical Wave Bending Moment

Head sea

Beam sea

Quartering sea

total directbending stress 32.8 50.6 61.6total shear stress 2.5 8.2 21.4

Structure: Hull Girder Strength

Hull Longitudinal Bending Strength Hull Shear Strength

Hull Girder Bending Stress

Deck Keel

24.1 51.9

max permissible hull vertical bending

stress, MPa

169

Demand Capacity

max permissible mean shear stress,

MPa

98

Hull Girder Shear stress, MPa

5.7

Strength of Cross-deck StructureCross-deck

max permissible vertical bending stress 169max permissible mean shear stress 98

< <

<

Structure: Midship Section

Frame

spacing 550 mm

Max. web

frame

spacing

3.3m

Propulsion: Pairwise Comparison

Propulsion: Selection

Propulsion: Unit

4 X Schottel Outboard units

CAT ACERT 32746 kW each

Weight Engineering

Light Ship Summary Weight

(MT) LCG VCG TCG L.Mom V.Mom T.Mom

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

Outfitting estimatesOutfitting weights QTY Length, m height, m kg/U t/m2 Weight, t

Cabin floor 0.0335 6.85

ceilings 0.007 1.43

Corridor floor 0.0335 4.22

ceilings 0.007 0.88

Bathroom floor 0.0335 1.00

ceilings 0.007 0.21

Balcony floor weight 0.0335 0.89

Non structural bulkheads 193.5 2.75 0.01 5.32

Interior Stairs 12 50 0.60

Interior Railings 30.8 10 0.31

Interior doors 20 50 1.00

Exterior doors (to balconies) 8 130 1.04

Bunk Beds 56 50 2.80

Vanity unit 20 25 0.50

Chair + desk 20 20 0.40

Toilet Stalls 4 40 0.16

Bathroom washbasin 4 25 0.10

Showers 4 25 0.10

Total PAX accomodation outfit weight TONNES: 27.8

Full Load SummaryFull Load Displacement Summary Weight

(MT) LCG VCG TCG L.Mom V.Mom T.Mom

Consumables

Fuel (98%) 39 32 2 0 1258 64 0

Potable Water (98%) 20 26 2 8 500 32 162

Passengers, Crew, and Stores

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 (Fully loaded) 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

Estimated FULL LOAD DISPLACEMENT 1008.3 30.0 5.9 0.2 30223 5971 173

Cost: Shipyard’s Perspective

Is it affordable?

Cost: Cash Flow Analysis

Appendix