Student Paper

Arctic Supply Consultants Group, Inc.
Design of the Offshore Supply Vessel

Preliminary Design of an Offshore Supply
Vessel for the Arctic

1/c Carmine Faul
1/c Leigh Sowers
1/c Max Walker

Arctic Supply Consultants Group, Inc. Design of the Offshore Supply Vessel
2

Abstract

This document presents the final work completed on the Arctic Offshore
Supply Vessel (AOSV). The design process started with a Top Level
Requirements document (TLR), which outlined the minimum operational
requirements for the vessel. The design team worked on all major areas of
design from creating hull lines and general arrangements to a tankage and
liquid loading. The document will go into further detail on all design and
calculations completed on the AOSV. The design team also designed the
vessel around the secondary mission of the ice breaking and ice
management. The primary mission of the AOSV is to supply oil platforms
on the North Slope of Alaska near Barrow, AK. The ship, along with
breaking ice, will carry liquid mud, potable water, deck cargo, methanol, and
diesel fuel to and from the oil platforms. The design of the AOSV has
undergone several revisions and this document incorporates these updates
into a comprehensive review.

3

Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................... 8
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................11
2.0 Mission Analysis and Design Philosophy ....................................................................................12
2.1 Background .....................................................................................................................................12
2.2 Time Frame .....................................................................................................................................12
2.3 Operational Requirements ...............................................................................................................13
2.4 Key Performance Parameters ..........................................................................................................13
2.5 Philosophy .......................................................................................................................................14
2.6 Research Areas ................................................................................................................................15
3.0 Similar Ships Analysis and Principal Dimensions ......................................................................16
3.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................16
3.2 Formulation of Design Lanes ..........................................................................................................16
3.3 Selection of Principal Dimensions ..................................................................................................22
3.4 Parent Hulls .....................................................................................................................................23
4.0 Development and Optimization of Ships Lines .........................................................................24
4.1 Background .....................................................................................................................................24
4.2 Hull Characteristics .........................................................................................................................24
4.3 Comparison of Target Parameters to Current Hull Properties.........................................................25
4.4 Superstructure Development and Arrangements .............................................................................26
4.4 Plant Trade-Off Study .....................................................................................................................27
5.0 Stability and Hydrostatics Analysis .............................................................................................29
5.1 Background .....................................................................................................................................29
5.2 Procedure ........................................................................................................................................30
6.0 Placement of Watertight Bulkheads ............................................................................................31
6.1 Background .....................................................................................................................................32
6.2 Procedure ........................................................................................................................................33
7.0 Design of General Arrangements .................................................................................................34
7.1 Background .....................................................................................................................................34
7.2 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................34
7.3 Updated Design Philosophy ............................................................................................................35
7.4 Propulsor Selection .........................................................................................................................36
7.5 Engine Selection..............................................................................................................................36
7.6 Electrical Load Analysis .................................................................................................................37
7.7 General Arrangements ....................................................................................................................38
8.0 Estimate of Ships Weights and Centers .....................................................................................41
8.1 Background .....................................................................................................................................42
8.2 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................42
8.3 Updated General Arrangements ......................................................................................................42
8.4 SWBS Template ..............................................................................................................................42
8.5 Righting Arms .................................................................................................................................45
9.0 Liquid Loading and Intact Stability ............................................................................................46
9.1 Background .....................................................................................................................................46
9.2 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................46
9.3 Initial TanksGeneral Arrangements ............................................................................................46
9.4 Insertion of Double-Hull .................................................................................................................47
9.5 Intact Stability Information .............................................................................................................48
9.6 Loading Condition Summary ..........................................................................................................49
9.7 Liquid Loading Instructions ............................................................................................................50
9.8 Liquid Loading Diagram .................................................................................................................51
10.0 Hull Primary Loads Analysis .......................................................................................................51
10.1 Background ..................................................................................................................................51
10.2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................51
4

10.3 SWBS 100 Series .........................................................................................................................52
10.4 Loading Conditions ......................................................................................................................54
10.5 Total Weights ...............................................................................................................................54
10.6 Worst Case Scenario ....................................................................................................................55
11.0 Tow Tank Analysis ........................................................................................................................55
11.1 Problem Definition .......................................................................................................................55
11.2 Facility Description ......................................................................................................................56
11.3 Calibration Procedure ..................................................................................................................56
11.4 Data Collection Overview ............................................................................................................56
11.5 Raw Data ......................................................................................................................................57
11.6 Data Analysis and Results ............................................................................................................57
11.7 Error Analysis ..............................................................................................................................58
11.8 Comparison with Predicted NavCad Resistance ..........................................................................59
12.0 Seakeeping .....................................................................................................................................60
12.1 Background ..................................................................................................................................61
12.2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................61
12.3 Natural Periods of Motion ............................................................................................................61
12.4 Sea State 4 ....................................................................................................................................62
12.5 Sea State 8 ....................................................................................................................................66
13.0 Structural Design ..........................................................................................................................66
13.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................67
13.2 Plate/Stiffener Characteristics ......................................................................................................67
13.3 Appropriating Weights .................................................................................................................69
13.4 Loading Conditions ......................................................................................................................69
13.5 Model Weight Comparison ..........................................................................................................69
13.6 Von Misses Stress ........................................................................................................................69
13.7 Future Work .................................................................................................................................70
14.0 Damaged Stability Assessment .....................................................................................................70
14.1 Purpose.........................................................................................................................................70
14.2 Background ..................................................................................................................................71
14.3 Results and Analysis ....................................................................................................................72
14.4 Worst Case ...................................................................................................................................74
15.0 HVAC Analysis ..........................................................................................................................74
15.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................74
15.2 Background ..................................................................................................................................74
15.3 CFM Allowance Method .............................................................................................................75
15.4 Temperature Rise Method ............................................................................................................75
15.5 HVAC System Design .................................................................................................................76
15.6 Fan Selection ................................................................................................................................76
15.7 Duct Design .................................................................................................................................76
16.0 Crewing Analysis ...........................................................................................................................77
16.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................77
16.2 Manning Requirements ................................................................................................................77
16.3 Sailing List ...................................................................................................................................78
16.4 Estimated Crew Cost ....................................................................................................................79
16.5 Emergency Station Bill ................................................................................................................80
17.0 Cost Analysis .................................................................................................................................80
17.1 Background ..................................................................................................................................80
17.2 Acquisition and Construction Cost ..............................................................................................80
17.3 Life Cycle Costs ...........................................................................................................................81
References
Appendices

5

List of Appendices

[3-1] Parent Hulls and their Characteristics
[4-2] Ships Lines
[5-1] Hydrostatic Properties at Level Trim
[5-2] Cross Curves, KG = 25 ft
[5-3] Righting Arm Curves, KG = 36 ft
[5-4] Righting Arm Curves, KG = 25 ft
[6-2] Floodable Length Curve
[7-3] Deck Arrangement Plan
[7-4] Inboard Profile
[8-1] Reference Parameters and Ratios
[8-2] SWBS 100Ship Structure
[8-3] SWBS 200Propulsion
[8-4] SWBS 300Electrical Systems
[8-5] SWBS 400Navigation/Communication Systems
[8-6] SWBS 500Piping/Steering Systems
[8-7] SWBS 600Compartements
[8-8] SWBS 700Gunnery and Armory
[8-9] Full Load Weights
[8-10] KG data with Margins
[8-11] Righting Arm Curves
[9-1] Tank list/Tank soundings
[9-5] Liquid Loading Instructions
6

[9-6] Liquid Loading Diagram
[11-1] Vessel Scaling Information
[11-2] Tow Tank Calibration
[11-3] Hydrostatics Report
[11-4] Hand Calculations
[11-5] Plots of Raw Data
[11-6] ITTC-57 Calculation
[12-1] SPP motions data for Sea State 4 at 4kts
[13-1] Total weight spreadsheet
[13-2] Model pre-loaded
[13-3] Model in still-water
[13-4] Model in max-hogging condition
[13-5] Model in max-sagging condition
[13-6] Von Misses analysis of max-sagging wave
[13-7] Von Misses analysis of the max-hogging wave
[14-1] Table of Damage Cases
[15-1] CFM Allowance Calculation
[15-2] Temperature Rise Method Calculation
[15-3] Pressure Head Calculation
[15-4] Pressure Head Calculation Cont.
[15-5] Engine Room Ventilation System Diagram
7

[16-1] Emergency Station Bill
[17-1] Cost Model
[17-2] Profit Calculations

8

Executive Summary

The Arctic Offshore Supply Vessel was designed to operate off of the North Slope
Alaska and support the oil drilling rigs. This design is very relevant to the current
industry because currently OSVs in the United States are for the Gulf of Mexico.
Currently there is a Jones Act exemption that allows foreign vessels to operate in the
Arctic, which expires in 2017. There also is a high demand to reduce the United States
dependence on foreign oil. The vessel that was designed has the primary mission of a
supply ship with a secondary mission of ice breaking and ice management. This vessel is
also very versatile ship capable of adapting with the changing demands in the Arctic. The
following are the mission objectives of the AOSV; ABS polar class 6 icebreaker,
Dynamic Positing Class 2, conduct flight operations, conduct liquid transfers, and
conduct dry cargo transfers with a deck crane. The final product is able to perform all of
these missions and is in compliance with all applicable regulations. The principal
characteristics can be viewed in Table 1 below.
Length 375 feet
Beam 78 feet
Draft 33 feet
Full Load Displacement 15274 LT
Min-Op Displacement 13668 LT
Brake Horsepower 47000 HP
Block Coefficient .599
Ice Breaking Capability 4 ft continuous, 8 feet backing and ramming
Compliment 16 Permanent Crew, 36 Transient off shore employees
Propulsion System 2x ABB Azipod IV2300S
2x FU80, 2250mm, 1.2 MW
4000 kW Hotel Load
Main Machinery 4x Wartsila 12V38-8700 kW
1x Wartsila Aux Pac 2100W8L26-2100 kW
Flank Speed 16 Knots
Cruise Speed 11 Knots
Table 1. Principle Characteristics

Eight Declared Competencies
Cross Curves of Stability/Hydrostatic Curves of Form: After the ships lines were
developed the design team was able to evaluate the AOSVs hydrostatics and stability.
This was a crucial step in the design process because it determines if the AOSV will have
good sea keeping and be able to perform in different operating conditions. While
calculating the righting arm curves, it is noted that a VCG of 38 feet was used for the
worst case scenario and a VCG of 25 feet was used for an ideal case. A VCG of 38 feet
was assumed because that is the location of the main deck. Also similar ships data was
consulted and it was determined for an ASOV that at the worst case scenario the VCG
should be assumed at the main deck, which was at 38 feet. With a max righting arm of
13.2 feet at ideal conditions at full load design, the vessel is stable through angle of heel
up to 110 degrees. The OSV displays good stability characteristics at all angles evaluated
at ideal VCG, and at a worst case scenario for VCG, the OSV was deemed still fairly
stable, allowing for a heeling angle of 65 degrees. However, when moving forward in the
design process, the VCG will most likely be higher than the ideal conditions due to the
excess tanks for the mud which are up higher in the vessel.
General Arrangements: With the design philosophy kept in mind, the general
arrangements of the OSV were formed. A unique aspect of the OSV is that has an Ice-
9

Command Center (ICC) located high on the ship. The OSV also contains two elevators,
one towards the aft of the vessel in order to transport the Remove Operating Vehicle
(ROV), and one that is towards amidships that can help transport stores aboard the OSV.
In the development of the superstructure, great consideration was taken into visibility at
the helm. This is because the vessel breaks ice astern and transits in open water while
moving ahead. In the arrangements there is a bridge in the forward and the aft with full
visibility. This redundancy is important to Arctic operations because if bridge equipment
has a casualty the same equipment will be available on the other bridge. Also the
helicopter landing pad is located directly in front of the forward bridge on the main deck.
In the middle of the bridge there is a room that both houses the ice management systems
and is a mess for the bridge with a head included. The deck below the bridge has the
medical facility, the recreation room and the captains stateroom. The captains stateroom
is located directly underneath the bridge so if the captain is ever needed in a situation he
or she will be easily accessible. The main deck on the super structure has the officers
staterooms as well as the officers mess and the mess deck for the crew. It is also noted
that the reefers and dry stores are located below the galley for easier access for the ships
stewards.
First Weight and Center of Gravity Estimate: An accurate weight estimate for the
OSV was crucial in determining the displacement, resulting draft, and reasonable speed
that the OSV can maintain. A first scientific guess at the vessels center of gravity could
also be made after the placement of the weights. Following the Ship Work Breakdown
Structure (SWBS) Format, weights were calculated for the OSV. Categories from SWBS
cover every possible weight that can be added to a ship including liquid loads. Most of
the weights that were calculated for each of the SWBS groups were determined through
ratiocination, while others through an educated scientific guess. Based off of the general
arrangements, full load weights from the liquids and additional cargo to be carried for the
off-shore drills were calculated. These weights were not the complete and final weights
that would be carried by the OSV, but they were extremely close. The actual weights
from liquids for full load/min-op loads that were to be carried was evaluated in Submittal
VIII. After all the weights were determined, they were summed up and the Lightship
displacement was determined to be 9,809 LT with a VCG of 28.5 feet and LCG of 182.9
feet, while the Full Load displacement was determined to be 13,136 LT with a VCG of
27.8 feet and LCG of 182.9 feet, without margins.
Liquid Loading and Intact Stability: Tank placement is a crucial part of ship design
because tanks account for a large volume of the interior space in a ship. Placement of
tanks in the general arrangement stage should be conducted with consideration to a ships
initial stability as well as the final stability once the tanks are loaded. Consideration of
type of tanks, the symmetry of the tanks, and placement of tanks will all eventually affect
the stability of the vessel once loaded. Once the tanks were placed into the OSV, the
total volume available for Potable Water, Diesel Fuel, Ballast, Mud, and Methanol was
calculated to determine if the vessel could meet requirements based off of the Top Level
Requirements.
Longitudinal Bending and Primary Load Analysis: Ensuring that the primary bending
stresses is not too excessive is an important final step in the design spiral. To evaluate
the bending stress of the OSV, the design team reconsidered the SWBS information. The
design team broke up the OSV into 20 different bins, each with 19 feet of longitudinal
10

length. Also to determine the distributed weight of the SWBS 100 group which is ship
structures a trapezoid was utilized with 1/3 of the weight. Then the buoyancy curve was
plotted for full load displacement and 2/3 of the area of that curve for each bin was
plotted with the trapezoid for 1/3 of the weight. Each SWBS category was broken up into
bins, and the resulting loads were run against a worst-case scenario hogging/sagging
moment, generated by a wave directly in the middle of the OSV. The resultant loads and
moments were determined for each loading condition, as well as for hogging and sagging
waves. It was determined that the worst possible case scenario for the OSV to be in is a
hogging condition at Min-Op loading. In this condition the maximum shear was
calculated to be 1888.4 LT, and the maximum bending moment was calculated to be
1859 LT-ft.
Propulsion System: The vessel is designed to be a double acting hull, in order to break
ice while moving astern and transit while moving ahead the vessel will be equipped with
an IPS system with two Azipods. The Azipods are necessary because they can provide
equal thrust while moving both ahead and astern. The AOSV will have 4 Wartsila
generators producing 8700 kW each. This gives the vessel a break horse power of 47000.
The generators will be providing power to the hotel loads, 4 kW, and the rest of the
power to two ABB Azipod VI2300S pods. These pods are specifically designed for ice
breaking and are capable of handling the large amount of power produced by the
generators.
Seakeeping: After using the UMICH SPP program, it was determined that the AOSV has
an OI of 1 for transiting and cargo transfers, and an OI of .5 for helicopter launch and
recovery. This translates to a 100% probability of being able to transit and conduct
transfers in Sea State 4, and a 50% probability of being able to launch and recover the
helicopter in Sea State 4. Also, the natural periods of motion of the ship could be
determined to give a better understanding of how the ship will operate in various seas.
The periods for heave, pitch, and roll were calculated to be 7.87, 1.96, and 7.88 seconds
respectively.
Cost Analysis: A cost analysis spreadsheet was provided to the design team from an
undisclosed commercial ship yard. This cost estimating spreadsheet is a SWBS weight
based cost model that predicts the design as well as the construction costs of the AOSV.
Roughly 35% of the cost of the ship came from the structure, the structure costs were
taken from SWBS 100 weight estimates. A labor rate of $102 per hour was assumed and
a total construction cost of $188 million was obtained. The design team then added in the
lofting package and final design costs which brought the total cost of the ship up to $190
million.
Electrical Load Analysis: Using similar ships analysis, the total electrical load of the
vessel was estimated. This hotel load was important, because it verified earlier
estimations used by the design team. The electrical load in various conditions such as at
anchor, pier side, cruising in winter, and cruising in summer was calculated by estimating
the percentage that a piece of equipment was on. This is important because it would be
impossible to select generators that could power all equipment at all times. After the
analysis, it was determined that the vessel would have a hotel load of 4.06MW, including
margins. The generator sets selected earlier were chosen based off an estimation of a
4MW hotel load, thus our engine selection was verified.
11

Risk Assessment: A preliminary probabilistic damage stability risk assessment was
conducted in General Hydrostatics (GHS). This was vital because the AOSV will be
operating in an extremely environmentally sensitive location. The AOSV passed all
criteria outline in SOLAS. Just because the vessel passed the damaged stability
requirements does not mean that there is no chance for a disaster to occur. The vessel also
has a double hull to mitigate the risk of an oil spill. The double hull is within the
regulation set forth by MARPOL Annex 1, regulation 12a. The AOSV is carrying more
than 600m
3
of diesel so it must comply with this regulation. The design team took risk
into account in every step of the design process.

1.0 Introduction
Drilling for oil in the Arctic has become a key issue for both the commercial industry as
well as the Coast Guard. As of today, there is a Jones Act exemption until 2017 that
allows for foreign flagged vessels to operate in these waters and provide support services
to the drill rigs. Additionally, there is only one U.S. flagged Arctic Offshore Supply
Vessel (AOSV) capable of providing services to the Arctic drill rigs in the Chukchi and
Beaufort Seas. Due to the remoteness of the Arctic as well as the harsh weather and
sensitive environment, the typical U.S. flagged OSV designed for the Gulf of Mexico suit
the needs of the Arctic drill rigs. If this Jones Act exemption is not extended, there will
be a high demand to have new U.S. flagged OSVs capable of completing these missions
so that the U.S. can continue to drill in the Arctic and reduce our dependence on foreign
oil.
This vessel was designed to supply the oil rigs in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas as well
as provide ice management services for the rigs. The vessel was designed to meet a set of
Top Level Requirements (TLR) for the oil rigs as follows:

Vessel shall be inspected by the U.S. Coast Guard and receive a Certificate of
Inspection (COI).
The AOSV shall comply with American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Offshore
Support Vessel and Steel Vessel Rules.
Service life of 25 years and a fatigue life of 35 years.
Address the effects of low temperatures so that the vessel and crew are not
adversely affected.
The AOSV shall be able to operate in Sea State 4 and survive Sea State 8.
Designers shall select a propulsion plant and identify different operating speeds.
The AOSV shall be able to sustain operations for 30 days.
The AOSV shall support 36 offshore workers in addition to the crew.
In addition to potable water for the crew, the AOSV must have the capacity to
resupply the drilling right with up to 150,000 gallons of potable water.
The AOSV shall be able to supply the drill rigs and other vessels with up to
150,000 gallons of diesel fuel.
The AOSV shall be capable of delivering or recovering 12,500 barrels of liquid
mud/oil and 1,200 barrels of methanol.
A clean ballast/rig water system shall be provided for at least 67% of the capacity
of the combined fuel oil, potable water and liquid mud/oil tanks.
12

The AOSV must have 9000 square feet of deck space and be capable of carrying
5000 long tons of deck cargo.
The AOSV shall have a deck crane suitable for delivering and receiving cargo.
The AOSV shall have a helideck suitable for landing a Sikorsky S76 or smaller
helicopter. Sufficient refueling capability shall be available as well as firefighting
equipment.
The vessel must meet the ABS Polar Class 6 notation and must include means for
detection of ice hazards.
The AOSV shall have dynamic positioning capability certified to IMO Equipment
C lass 2 notation.

2.0 Mission Analysis and Design Philosophy

The first step in the design process was to outline the Operational Requirements, Key
Performance Parameters, the Philosophy of the design team, a discussion of ship
building, and a highlight of what the design teams research topics will consist of in
efforts of building an Offshore Supply Vessel capable of assisting oil rigs being utilized
in the Arctic. Additionally, this mission analysis will also provide a solid for the length
of the design project.

2.1

Background
As the worlds oil supplies are slowly diminishing, it is said that 25% of Earths
remaining oil deposits lie under the Arctic. Shell Alaska has been given permission by
the U.S. Department of the Interior to begin exploratory drilling in the Chukchi Sea on a
sight known as the Berger Prospect while they finalize their permits to drill in more
locations. To successfully and safely, drill in the Arctic, Shell will need supply vessels
that can assist and aid the oil rigs. One of the necessary offshore supply vessels that will
support the oil rigs is an ice management vessel which will clear up ice from the rig and
break paths so that other supply vessels may do their job. The only port from which to
refuel and resupply is in Dutch Harbor, 1000 nm away from the site of the oil rigs. Along
with large transit distances, the vessels will need to operate in the hazardous Bering Sea,
which can produce waves up to 20 feet high.

2.2

Time Frame
Generally, the construction of a ship from design to completion takes a total of eight
years. The concept design generally will span around 10 months. Another 15 months
will be spent on the preliminary design effort. Currently, Shell Alaska has not been given
the final permits to drill in the Arctic, allowing for a delivery date of spring 2015. By the
end of the preliminary design, a combined ten thousand man days will have been spent on
designing a vessel worthy of being built. The next two years will be spent contracting
and negotiating with ship builders and buyers. Once a deal is met, it will take about a
13

year and a half more to build the vessel. By the end of the whole process, a combined
375,000 man days will have been spent in creating one vessel.

2.3
This vessel is an Arctic Offshore Supply Vessel with ice breaking and ice management
capabilities. It will be classified as a Polar Class 2 icebreaker and meet Dynamic
Positioning Class 2 requirements. This vessel will have the ability to conduct flight
operations, conduct liquid transportations and conduct dry cargo transportations with a
deck crane. At sea state five, the vessel will be able conduct ROV operations. At sea state
six, the vessel will be able to be the standby vessel as well a rescue vessel if needed. In
sea state seven, the operations will be severely limited. In sea state eight, the objective
will be for the vessel to survive. The vessel will be able to go at flank speed of eighteen
knots. It will also have a range of 4000 nautical miles at a cruise speed of 16 knots and it
will have an endurance of 60 days. This vessel will have a crew of 22 and be able to carry
up to 36 off shore workers. Having a crew of 22 was determined from the certificate of
inspection from similar vessels.
Operational Requirements
The vessel will have plenty of tank space for various liquids. The vessel will have
150,000 gallons of potable water ready for off load for the rig as well as water making
systems for the crew. In addition to the fuel that is required to propel the vessel and
supply electricity the vessel will also have 150,000 gallons of fuel on board ready to
offload to the oil platforms. Heating elements will also be installed to make sure the fuel
and water does not freeze. The vessel will also be able to recover and deliver 12,500
barrels of liquid mud/oil from the drill rig and supply the rig with 1200 barrels of
methanol.
The vessel will have 9000 square feet of deck space and will be capable of carrying 5000
long tons of deck cargo with a maximum of 100 long tons per package. The vessel will
have a two deck cranes able to reach over the entire deck. The aft of vessel will also be
equipped with an A-Frame in order to handle the ROV. The vessel will also have a flight
deck capable of handling a Sikorsky S76 or smaller.
The design team chose to focus on ice breaking and ice operations and the vessel will fall
under polar class 6 which includes autumn and summer operations in the Arctic in
medium and first year ice with multiyear inclusions. The vessel will be breaking ice off
of Barrow Point which is off the coast of northern Alaska. Medium first year ice is
defined as ice being 70 to 120 cm (2.296 ft to 3.937 feet) thick. The vessel will be able to
break five feet of ice at three knots, three feet of ice at six knots, and be able to back-and-
ram ice up to eight feet. The vessel will also be able to push 3 acre ice flows away from
the oil platforms. To aid in the vessels support missions Dynamic Positioning System
Class 2 will be met with automatic position and heading control, with manual
intervention possible.

2.4

Key Performance Parameters
Length 380 ft
Beam 80 ft
Draft 22 ft
Speed (cruise) 15 knots
14

Speed (flank) 18 knots
Manning 22 people
Ice Breaking Capability 5 feet at 3 knots, 3 feet at 6 knots, 8 feet ramming
Endurance 60 days
Range 4000 NM at cruise speed
Total Accommodations 58 people
Deck Space 9000 square feet
Potable Water Generation and
Storage
55 gallons per accommodation per day and 150 gallons
per day for hot water/steam piping necessary to keep
the deck ice free. Additionally, 150,000 gallons of
potable water to resupply the rig.
Fuel
150,000 gallons to resupply the rigs, in addition to the
fuel required to power the OSV.
Mud 12,500 barrels
Methanol 1,200 barrels
Ballast
67% capacity of combined fuel, potable water, and
mud.
Misc. L/O, H/O, ect. To support the missions
Table 2. Performance Parameters

2.5

Philosophy
The goal for the ship that will be designed is to build a long lasting vessel that can be
depended on. The vessel should be as cost efficient as possible, while attempting to be as
environmental friendly to the Arctic. Assuming that Shell has intentions in drilling in the
Arctic for many years to come, the ship designers should focus on building a vessel that
might be more expensive to build initially, but in the long run, will be cheaper in
maintenance and crewing. Also, Shell might not maintain their rights to drill up in the
Arctic, leaving way for other companies. These companies may want to save money by
buying used vessels that will have already proved themselves in the Arctic. By creating a
vessel that has a long lifetime, the re-sell value would be greater.
The vessel will be operating in the Bering Sea, notorious for its rough conditions. The
vessel will also be operating in ice. The vessel will therefore be under a lot of stress and
experience constant fatigue with the ramming of the ice and the bashing of the waves.
The design team will focus on creating a strong-based hull so that the vessel can
withstand the test of time. Chart 1 outlines how much emphasis the design team will
place on the cost, habitability, process of reduced manning, and environmental impacts
that the OSV will have.
Element Weight out of 10
Cost 10
Habitability 8
Reduced Manning 7
Environmental 2
Table 3. Emphasis of each element
Cost: To maximize interest in the buyer and to make the vessel the best that it can be, the
vessel should be as efficient as possible. The more efficient the vessel is, that is, the
15

faster and further the vessel can operate at minimal costs, the better it will sell. Long
term operating cost reductions is the most important driving factor for this design.
Efficiency is rated a 10 out of 10 as far as importance is involved.
Habitability: Due to the demanding nature of working in the Arctic for long periods of
time, habitability is a major concern. Morale of the crew, fitness, and entertainment are
major of requirements driving the design. By building gyms, lounges, entertainment
centers, and hospitals, the crew can maintain their health and fitness in an appropriate
manner. State of the art video conference surgery and examination rooms would allow
for better medical treatment while the crews are far away in the Arctic. Along with
entertainment, a professional environment must be available to utilize. Meeting rooms,
shore-side communication rooms, and greeting rooms for the landing helicopters must be
present in order to maintain a business-oriented aspect. The design team gives
habitability an 8 out of 10.
Reduced Manning: As technology continues to advance, the need for crewing is
diminishing. With better technology, vessels have been designed with engine rooms that
do not need direct attendance; crew size is decreasing because computer systems are
monitoring gauges and oil levels, and only one person is needed to monitor the
computers. Crewing for the United States Flagged vessels in 2010 consisted of about
68% of operational costs, suggesting that crewing is a very expensive aspect of ship
design. The designers goal is to reduce manning. This will call for more technological-
improved machinery, which will call for an initial higher construction cost, as previously
stated. The designers rate this aspect a 7 out of 10.
Environmental: While the sensitive environmental nature of the Arctic is a concern, the
design team will not be overly concerned with groundbreaking environmental
improvements. The vessel will be designed well within the current and soon to be
implemented environmental standards; however unproven experimental technology will
not be investigated. Common environmental precautions will be taken such as double-
hulls to reduce potential oil spills. Although the vessel might not have new
environmental conservation technology, it will adhere to EPA standards. The EPA
standards are more stringent than those of the IMO, so when comparing the vessel with
foreign flagged vessels, it will be environmentally friendly. This aspect is given an
importance of 2 out of 10.

2.6

Research Areas
Faul: In order to help maximize the vessels efficiency, the possibility of an axe bow
while in the Arctic will be researched. If the vessel can improve its efficiency by
improving its bow shape, then we would like to utilize it. Using this bow shape would
imply that the double acting hull form would be utilized with icebreaking astern.
16

Walker: Different propulsion systems will be researched in order to accomplish the goal
of having a double acting hull. An IPS system along with azimuthing thrusters such as
azipods will be heavily focused on as an ideal solution for a double acting icebreaker.
Sowers: Another bow shape that will be researched to compare with the axe bow is the
bulbous bow. The operating conditions for when a bulbous bow is most effective will be
compared with the operating conditions of the OSV. Again, this assumes the use of a
double-acting hull where ice is broken astern.

3.0 Similar Ships Analysis and Principal Dimensions

After the team philosophy was developed, the OSV design team began the design process
by evaluating different vessels. A database for the outline of similar ships was created to
help in the design efforts of creating an Offshore Supply Vessel that can do its mission
completely and effectively. By gathering vessels that resembled the an idea of what the
OSV could look like, the design team had a list of vessel characteristics they could
evaluate. Aspects of the gathered vessels were then compared against each other to
determine the characteristics of the OSV that would be most beneficial. Three vessels
were chosen out of the lot to be considered the OSVs parent vessel. Two of the parent
vessels chosen were double-acting vessels (the Fennica and the Vitus Bering). The other
vessel, the Louis S St. Laurent, had a traditional hull, but was chosen due to its similarity
in dimensions compared to the OSV.

3.1
A total of 32 hulls were compared and evaluated for the similar ships analysis. The ships
ranged from small offshore supply vessels to large ice-capable container ships. Also, five
of the ships analyzed were double-acting hulls. All of the data from the ships were then
complied into excel where scatter plots were created of both dimensional and non
dimensional numbers. A trend line was then added to each one of the plots to determine
a correlation of the data. Through the analysis of these similar ships, the design team was
able to determine the principal dimensions of the Arctic offshore supply vessel.
Introduction

3.2
A database of similar ships with all of their principal dimensions is included in Appendix
[3-1]. From this data, the plots were created with dimensions that were considered the
most important to the design team. Design lanes were created within the plots, each
containing error bars of .5 standard deviations.
Formulation of Design Lanes
Length vs. Beam: Figure 1 shows the length versus beam for each ship analyzed on a
scatter plot containing 32 individual data points. The plot was analyzed and a trend line
was added. This plot showed a very strong correlation for the data gathered, having an
R
2
value very close to 1. One trend that the design team noticed was that the double
acting hull had a wider beam than a standard displacement hull of the same length. This
could be due to multiple reasons. The first reason is that double-acting hulls need to be
ice-capable. Hulls that are required to break ice generally contain wider beams in order
to accomplish their task. Another reason that the double-acting hulls generally contain
wider beam to length ratios than that of the other OSVs is possible because the other
OSVs are less-wide vessels so that they can follow in their own wake, allowing them to
17

travel faster. Keeping in mind that the four OSVs in Figure 1 follow closely to the trend
line, the design team will choose a Length to beam ratio that will fall close to the trend
line to follow the pattern that the other four double-acting hulls have created. The chosen
Length and Beam is indicated on Figure 1 as a blue dot.

Figure 1. Similar Ships Beam vs. Length
Speed vs Length: Figure 2 shows the relationship between the speed of a vessel and its
length. Most of the data that was recorded concurred with the general idea that as length
increases, so does speed in a parabolic function. However, there were a few vessels that
were 300 feet long that only had a max speed of 12 knots, which did not concur with the
general equation of I
mux
! "#$% -
I
pp
. For a 300 foot vessel, this equation suggests
that the max velocity should be about 23 knots, but because most of the vessels that were
recorded were icebreakers, the vessels in general are not geared for speed. Because the
general equation does not apply to the OSV that is to be designed, a relationship between
Speed vs Length was formed and evaluated to determine an estimated speed for an
icebreaking OSV. Once again, the five double-acting hulls had a small range of speeds,
varying from 15 knots to about 18 knots. One of the main goals for the design team is to
have a higher transiting speed, getting the vessel up the 2000 mile coast faster to do its
job longer. The blue circle on Figure 2 shows the general area in which the speed for the
OSV is to fall within.
18

Figure 2. Similar Ships Speed vs. Length.
Displacement vs. Length: Figure 3 shows the relationship between Displacement and
Length for each vessel analyzed. A trendline was added and the data showed a very
strong correlation; an R
2
value of almost 1 was achieved. This was expected because as
displacement increases, so does the length of the ship in a linear fashion. This is also
supported by the fact that every ship except for one fell within the design lanes. Also, the
double-acting hulls fell relatively close to the trend line and were very similar to standard
displacement hulls. Knowing that the length is going to be 375 feet, a blue circle was
placed representing the range of tons that the OSV will contain.

Figure 3. Similar ships Displacement vs. Length
19

Length vs. Draft: Figure 4 shows the correlation between the vessels drafts and their
lengths. The trend line generated is linear with a slope of 13.814, meaning that for every
13.8 feet of length, one foot of draft is gained. The regression constant found was .7703,
which is fairly linear. Most of the double-acting hulls that were recorded fell right on the
trend line. Trying to continue on with the trend, the draft that was picked for the design
was chosen on the trend line. Picking a data point on the trend line was done in order to
continue with the consistency that has been previously displayed with the double-acting
hulls. The data point that was chosen is indicated with a blue data point on Figure 4.

Figure 4. Similar ships Draft vs. Length
BHP vs Displacement: Figure 5 shows the correlation between brake horse power and
displacement in LT. The data showed a moderate correlation with a linear trend line.
There was a very obvious outlier in the data that had a very large displacement with a
small amount of horsepower. Although shown on Figure 5, the outlier was not included
in the formula to create the trend line. It is noted that the double acting hulls have a very
large brake horse power when compared to their displacement. This is because the ships
need to break large amounts of ice while moving astern simultaneously maintaining the
need to transient quickly while moving forward. The function that was graphed from the
data points ended up best being plotted as a power function, resulting in a linear
regression value of about 0.71, which suggests a strong correlation between BHP and
Displacement. A range correlating back to Figure 3 of displacements was placed down
on Figure 5 to find the required BHP.
20

Figure 5. Similar ships BHP vs. Displacement.
BHP vs. Length: Figure 6 shows the relationship between Length and total power
(BHP). Most of the data was more linear as BHP increased. In the lower BHPs, a range
of vessels were recorded. A major outlier was the first ever double-acting hull, the
Tempera, which had a length of over 800 feet but only 55,000 BHP. If it followed the
trend line, it would have had a BHP of about 155,000 BHP. Because the data point was
so far off, it was ignored when creating the trend line. The lanes were created with 0.5
standard deviations. The linear regression coefficient was found to be .4226, suggesting
mild linearity. The range of the design vessels BHP will be within the blue oval on
Figure 6. For BHP, the design team wanted to stay close within range of the other
double-acting hulls, thus choosing a range similar to that of one of the parent hull, the
Fennica.
21

Figure 6. Similar ships BHP vs. Length
C
b
vs. B/T: Figure 7 shows the relationship of C
b
vs the ratio of Beam to Draft. This
was the weakest of the correlations with a linear regression coefficient of .1277. The data
was very scattered, probably due to the fact that some of the vessels recorded in
Appendix [2-1] were ice breakers, normally having a higher block coefficient, while
others were Offshore Supply Vessels and Patrol Boats that shared similar characteristics,
but usually had a lower coefficient. Only two of the double-acting hulls were located
within the design lane, but it was not as much of a worry since there was more of a
cluster of points in one area rather than a linear relationship. Instead of choosing a block
coefficient from the non-relationship of Figure 7, C
b
was found using the equation
C
b
!
A-35
L-B-1
. The values that were outlined in the previous figures were chosen to find
the block Coefficient.

22

Figure 7. Similar ships Block Coefficient vs. the Ratio of Beam to Draft

3.3
Principal dimensions of the Offshore Supply Vessel were based on the previously
designated design lanes. The principle design values of the vessel are summarized in
Table 4.
Selection of Principal Dimensions
Length 375 feet
Speed 18 knots
Beam 78 feet
Draft 28 feet
Displacement 15,200 tons
Brake Horse Power 47,000 hp
Table 4. Summary of chosen design parameters.
Length: The design team started the similar ship process by choosing a length of 375 feet
for the Arctic offshore supply vessel. This was done to ensure that all the initial living
space goals along with the required deck space of 9,000 square feet outlined in the TLR
were met. This length would also give the vessel more volume under the deck to place
tanks, engine machinery, and possible storage rooms. This length closely compares to
the parent hull of the Fennica, which has a length of 380 feet. When looking at the
scatter plot in Figure 1 of length versus beam, which showed a very strong correlation, it
was determined that the beam of the vessel was to be 78 feet after plugging in 375 feet
into the linear equation and finding the x value, which represented beam.
Speed: The TLR does not indicate a speed that the vessel needs to achieve. However, it
would be convenient for max speed to be higher so that the OSV can make the trip up the
2,000 nautical miles of shore line as fast as possible to be on scene and operating for
23

longer. This, in turn, will be more efficient for the drilling companies because the vessel
will be on scene for longer periods of time. When looking at Figure 2 and the design
lanes of Speed vs Length, a proposed speed of 18 knots was chosen with hopes of saving
the time of transit. With this speed, the vessel can make it up the shore about 11 hours
faster than if its max speed was 15 knots. The trip back down to Dutch Harbor is another
11 hours, so the roundtrip would save almost a whole day in travel if the vessel traveled
18 knots compared to 15 knots. The proposed 18 knots could be achievable, as seen in
Figure 2 with the speeds of the other double-acting hulls.
Displacement: From the chosen length of 375 feet it was determined from Figure 3 that
the displacement of the vessel shall be around 15,200 long tons. The exact value for
displacement was determined by the equation from trend line. It is noted that the trend
line was very precise for Figure 3 with only one vessel falling out of the design lanes.
Because of the concentrated data, the design team can confidently choose a proper
displacement.
Draft: The TLR does not place limits on the vessels draft. The waters that the vessel
will be operating in will not be a limiting factor for the design of the vessel. Looking at
Figure 4 for Draft vs. Length, most of the double-acting hulls lie right on the trend line.
Because of this, a value also on the trend line was chosen with respect to length. The
length previously chosen was 375 feet, and the correlating draft is about 28 feet.
BHP: First the design team used Figure 5 to determine a BHP of 40,200 HP. The scatter
plot for BHP versus displacement showed a moderate correlation between the vessels. It
was determined that double acting hulls had a much larger horse power than similar
standard displacement hulls of the same displacement. As a result, the design team
corrected for this and chose a value for BHP that was not along the trend line, but still
within the design lanes. The team then looked at Figure 6 to come up with another value
for BHP. Figure 6 is the plot of BHP versus length, which is a stronger correlation.
Using this trend line and the design lanes it was determined that the BHP was to be
42,000. Since there was a slight difference in the data, the team chose to take the average
of the two and determined that the arctic offshore supply vessel is to have 41,000 BHP.
C
b:
The Block Coefficient can be found mathematically from the previously derived
variables from Figures 1 through 6. When using the equation for block coefficient:
C
b
!
A-35
L-B-1
, where the boat is operating in salt water, the vessel would have a block
coefficient of .64. A higher block coefficient would make more sense because the vessel
is going to be an ice breaking vessel. Ice breakers generally have a higher block
coefficient because of the need to break ice and not really a need for going fast, although
going faster would be preferred for the design.

3.4
Three parent hulls were chosen to best represent the design characteristics of the OSV.
They are the MSV Fennica, CCGC Loius S. St-Laurent, and the M/V Vitus Bering.
Parent Hulls
MSV Fennica: The Fennica, a double-acting hull from Finland that is actually being
utilized by Shell in the Arctic, was chosen as the primary parent hull due to the fact that it
has very similar missions that the OSV has. The length and beam are closely related to
the numbers chosen for the OSV. The hull will be closely compared in the future while
designing of the OSV continues.
24

CCGC Loius S. St-Laurent: The Canadian Coast Guard Cutter Louis S. St-Laurent was
chosen as a parent hull because it shares similar desirable dimensions that the OSV is
aiming to achieve. The Louis S. St-Laurent also operates in the same seas that the OSV
will operate in, giving the dimensions of characteristics some credibility.
M/V Vitus Bering: The Russian vessel Vitus Bering was chosen as a secondary parent
hull due to the fact of it being a double-acting ice breaker with a relatively small block
coefficient and similar installed power as the OSV is aiming for. The characteristic ratios
are proportional to that of the desired OSVs.

4.0 Development and Optimization of Ships Lines
Once a general idea was formed through similar ships, the design team began to design
hull lines for the AOSV. Hull lines are the foundation for a vessels design. It is the
backbone in which the rest of the ship is designed off of. In Submittal 3, hull lines for the
design of the OSV were created in reference to Submittal 2, Similar Ships Analysis [1].
Rhino 4.0 was utilized in creating the 3-D hull shape which would represent the OSV and
her major design decisions so far. The preliminary lines include a shallow stern to
accommodate for the twin azipods, a wide beam to accommodate for the needed deck
space, and a rounded fore-foot bow that allows the OSV to be more efficient in open
waters. These features were inspired by the parent hulls created in Submittal 2 [4], and
the design philosophy, which urges for a double-acting hull that can make good speed in
open water.

4.1
Outlining a ships hull lines is the most important aspect of the early design process. In
completing the hull lines, the concept can be laid out to outline the rest of the design
process. By approximating a vessels KG, the KM can be found using Rhino. Estimated
horsepower, as well as hull resistance can also be found using the design lines. Fairing
out the hull using the design lines can result in a smoother hull, creating less resistivity
for the vessel. The use of design lanes can also be helpful for the future arrangement of
the power plant.
Background

4.2
Serious consideration was put into stability, hydrodynamics, structure, and sea keeping.
The design team primarily based the hull shape of the AOSV off of the hull shape of the
parent hull, Fennica. The final hull shape is a double- acting full hull with a rounded
forefoot. In order for the hull to be double acting the beam is considerably large at the
stern with a steep stern rake. This is because the ship will need to ride up over the ice, in
order to break it while moving astern. Another feature that makes the design teams hull
unique is a large cut out in the stern. This was done because it was estimated that the
AOSV will need 47,000 BHP in order to break ice and make a flank speed 18 knots. In
order to put azimuthing thrusters that large in the vessel it was determined that there
needed to be an 18 foot cut out from the base line. This cut out also gives 2 feet of
clearance between the propeller and the bottom of the ship. The vessel has a very full hull
which will lead to a very stable ride and very good sea keeping characteristics. The vessel
also has a considerable amount of flair at the bow to reduce sea spray and in turn
Hull Characteristics
25

reducing icing on the vessel as it operates in the arctic. The bow of the vessel is also
designed to cut through the water more efficiently than a conventional ice breaker,
allowing it to achieve such a high flank speed.

4.3
The parameters were chosen off of the similar characteristics that were found in the
similar ships analysis. The parameters were then altered slightly to reflect the teams
design philosophy, while still staying close to the original design parameters. Table 5
outlines the original design parameters that were used to initiate the hull lines.
Comparison of Target Parameters to Current Hull Properties
Length 375 feet
Speed 18 knots
Beam 78 feet
Draft 28 feet
Table 5. Table of Original Design Parameters
To begin the design process, a simple vessel with the original beam, draft, and length
parameters was created. Control points were created on the vessel so that the hull could
take form to a hull that was idealized and thought up. The inspiration for the hull design
came from each individual member of the design team creating an initial profile view for
a design. The other inspirations came from the design of the main parent hull, the MSV
Fennica. As the alterations in the control points were made, the design of the hull started
to take place. Fixtures in the hulls appearance were made on Rhino so that the hull
would look as much like a double-acting ice-breaking hull as possible, while following as
close as possible the original design parameters. After all the alterations were made, new
values of the vessel were found, each outlined in Table 6.
Length 375 feet
Speed 18 knots
Beam 78 feet
Draft 28 feet
Table 6. Table of Current Design Parameters
One of the major changes occurred in the resulting displacement. The changes in the
hull shape resulted and altered displacements required newly defined horsepower
requirements and block coefficients from the previous calculations. With the decrease in
the new displacement, a new block coefficient was found. Because the block coefficient
was less than originally designed, the brake horse power did not call for more
horsepower. This factor will ultimately influence the size of azipods that will be used,
resulting in the placement of the propulsion system. This concept confirms the idea of
the design circle; if one characteristic changes, the design team has to evaluate the rest of
the characteristics to ensure that everything falls within place.
26

Length: The length of the waterline was found to be 350.4 feet, while the overall length
was set at 375 feet. The length is to accommodate with the supplies carried and the
required deck space.
Beam: The maximum beam of the OSV was chosen to be 78 feet. With a wide beam of
78 feet, the balance of cost and productivity is determined to be in order. The OSV will
need to break ice for the other service vessels that are operating around the oil rigs. With
a beam of 78 feet, the OSV can break an ice channel within two passes to accommodate
for the rest of Shells support vessels, in which the widest beam of a vessel comes from
the OST Affinity, a beam of 106 feet as determined from the Shell Offshore Alaska
Exploration Drilling Program .
Draft: A maximum draft of 35 feet was applied to the OSV. The draft remains
consistent, except in the stern where a tunnel stern was implicated to accommodate for
the azipod system. The stern draft was shallower to accommodate for the 18 feet of
height needed for the azipod to hang and still be above the keel line, according to CAPT
Simpson, an instructor of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering at the U.S. Coast
Guard Academy.
Displacement: 11,500 LT was set to be the full load displacement. This falls 3,800 LT
short of the design parameters previously established. The reason for the difference was
because the original range of displacement was too broad; the 11,500 LT does fall within
the original range set. The lighter displacement will be beneficial to the design team
because the ship will be lighter, and therefore will not require as much power to propel
the vessel through the water.
Brake Horse Power: Based off of a rough hull analysis from Rhino, the OSV should be
able to make 18 knots with a 60% propulsive efficiency with only 26,000 hp. This is also
less power than the original brake horse power of 47,000. This could be due to the
lighter hull that was created.

4.4
In the development of the superstructure great consideration was taken into visibility at
the helm. This is because the vessel breaks ice astern and transits in open water while
moving ahead. In the arraignments there is a bridge in the forward and the aft with full
visibility. Also the helicopter landing pad is located directly in front of the forward bridge
on the main deck. The two bridges will have the exact same equipment and controls. In
the middle of the bridge there is a room that both houses the ice management systems and
is a mess for the bridge with a head included. This room in between the two bridges is
necessary to the success of the vessel. It allows the ship driver to have everything they
need to do while never leaving the bridge. The deck below the bridge has the medical
facility, the recreation room and the captains stateroom. The captains stateroom is
located directly underneath the bridge so if the captain is ever needed in a situation he or
she will be easily accessible. The main deck on the super structure has the officers
staterooms as well as the officers mess and the mess deck for the crew. The messing area
is located at the main deck because it is centrally located and can be easily accessed by
anyone on the crew no matter where they are working. It is also noted that the reefers and
dry stores are located below the galley for easier access for the ships stewards. Lastly the
design team made the superstructure aesthetically pleasing to potential buyers. A view of
the ship with the superstructure can be viewed in Appendix [4-1].
Superstructure Development and Arrangements
27

4.4

Plant Trade-Off Study
The plant trade-off study was completed to determine the most optimal propulsion plant
for the arctic offshore patrol vessel. By analyzing the integrated propulsion system with
azipods, diesel shafted, duel fuel, water jet, and CODAG the team will create a decision
matrix. A decision matrix was then created and the team looked at the total values that
were calculated based on characteristics that the team thought was most important for the
ASOV. Whichever value was the highest for the propulsion plants is the plant the team
used for the prime mover for the ASOV.

"#$%& '()*
+,"
-./0
1234435%4
-.670
8%3&3$# 954&
-.670
:*#3$;3#3&(
-.<70
1==3>3*%>(
-.<70
?3@*
-.A0 '5&$#
8"? B C < B D B "#$%
EF$# GF*# C D < H D < &#%%
E3*4*#
?I$=&*J C K B B H C &#"%
L$&*M N*& H B 7 H H 7 &#"%
9OEPQ D 7 C B C K "#'%
Table 7. Plant Trade Off Study
Once the decision matrix was analyzed design team choose to use the integrated
propulsion system with azipods for the arctic offshore supply vessel. This was chosen for
several reasons. The first is that the AOSV is to have a double acting hull, which means
the vessel will break ice moving astern and transit in open water while moving ahead.
The integrated propulsion system with azipods is the only propulsion system that can be
used with a double acting hull. This is because equal thrust is needed in all directions, to
break ice and transit with equal power. The second is that it scored the highest in the
decision matrix with a score of 7.85 the next closest plant was the CODAG with a score
of 7.15. The IPS was also chosen because it scored the first or second highest in the
categories that were most important to the design team which were break horse power,
reliability, and efficiency. The last reason that the IPS was chosen was because it scored
highly in categories that were consistent with the design teams philosophy. In the design
philosophy it was very important that the propulsion system had a large horse power in
order to break ice and achieve a high transit speed. The design philosophy states that it is
more important to have a higher initial cost of the vessel as long as the operating costs are
low. The IPS with azipods achieves this goal with a high initial cost but it is highly
efficient which leads to a low operating cost while maintain a high transit speed. The two
aspects of the IPS with azipods that were appealing to the design team were how reliable
they were along with the size of the unit. The IPS with azipods has not had any major
problems since they were invented about 20 years ago. This is very important since
servicing them in Alaska will be very difficult. Also while there are many components of
the IPS there is no need for a shaft line. Which means that the components of the IPS can
be put anywhere in the ship since they are connected with flexible cables. The propulsion
system is consistent with the design teams philosophy and allows the vessel to be ice
capable while moving quickly ahead.
28

4.5

Preliminary Resistance Calculation
Once the ships lines and hull form was completed a preliminary effective horse power
estimation was done in NavCad. The principle dimensions of the vessel were entered into
NavCad. The two methods that were the best fit for the AOSV and that were used to
calculate resistance were Jin 1988 and Holtrop 1984. These two model tests seem to fit
our hull the best, not just in reference to the parameters, but also for the type of ship that
it is. For the resistance assessment, the resistance was calculated including the wind, and
resistance of two bow thrusters. The resistance of the azimuthing pods was then
calculated and added to the resistance calculated from NAVCAD.

For the resistance of the azimuthing thruster pods, the following formulas were used.
This formula utilizes information for parent hulls with azimuthing pods. It uses estimated
areas and coefficients for similar ships with similar style azimuthing pods. The formulas
can be viewed in Figure 8 below.
+
Figure 8. Resistance for Azimuthing Pods

The results have a higher resistance than some similar icebreaking OSVs. However, at
the beginning of the design phase the design team decided that the AOSV would have a
higher power than that of typical OSVs. The predominant icebreakers are being used in
the Arctic are the M/V Fennica and M/V Nordica both with 28,161 hp installed. The
29

M/V Vitus Bering which is under construction has 24,000 hp installed. These vessels
typically cruise around 9 knots and have a maximum speed of 17 knots.
It is noted that shallow water resistance was looked at for the AOSV. However since the
AOSV will rarely be transiting in deep water the shallow water resistance was not a
factoring when determining the effective horse power.
The AOSV is to have 47,000 break horse power and with efficiency deductions of 60%
the effective horse power of the vessel in order to make 13 knots at flank speed is 28,200
horse power. Originally the design team wanted the AOSV to make 18 knots but this was
later discovered to be not possible due to limitations on the amount of diesel fuel the
vessel could carry. This large power difference between similar ships and the AOSV is
due to the secondary mission of ice breaking. The AOSV will be able to break more ice
than any vessel in its class.

5.0 Stability and Hydrostatics Analysis

As the ships lines were being developed, it became paramount that the general
hydrostatics and stability were calculated. The stability is crucial in vessels design
because it can determine if a vessel will float and operate during different scenarios.
Using GHS, the righting arm curves, cross curves of stability, and curves of form were
generated.

5.1
Hydrostatics and ship stability calculations are crucial in the early design process. This
allows ship designers to determine whether or not the ship passes all stability criteria in
both the Code of Federal Regulations and U.S. Navy Design Data Sheets (DDS). If the
ship fails any of these standards the design team is able to make corrections to the hull
form before moving on to further ship design and analysis. Even if the ship passes all of
the criteria, hydrostatics and ship stability are also important in ship design. This is
because the design team needs to make sure that the ship is able to operate safely in the
ships area of responsibility. For example if the ship is operating only in the Caribbean the
right arm curve would not need to look the same as if the ship was operating in arctic
waters. The stability of a ship also effects how comfortable the ship is in heavier seas,
large righting arms at low angles of heel may lead to a ship that snaps back upright,
making the ride very unpleasant. All of these factors are taken into account early in the
design process in order to create the best hull form possible for the missions of the ship.
Background

While calculating the righting arm curves, it is noted that a VCG of 38 feet was used for
the worst case scenario and a VCG of 25 feet was used for an ideal case. A VCG of 38
feet was assumed because that is the location of the main deck. Also similar ships data
was consulted and it was determined for an ASOV that at the worst case scenario the
VCG should be assumed at the main deck. An ideal VCG of 25 feet was assumed again
after consulting similar ships data. However the design team did increase the ideal VCG
from that of similar ships because without an accurate weights analysis a precise VCG
could not be determined.

30

5.2
GHS Background: Rhinoceros 4.0 (Rhino) was used initially in creating the OSVs hull.
This was because the software allowed for an easier creation of parts of the vessel
compared to the other software available. From the ships dimensions in Rhino, a
geometry file (.gf) was created and then input into General Hydrostatics Software (GHS).
Rhino is a good program to create the hull, but GHS is more appropriate to use for
evaluating Righting Arms, curves of from, and cross curves of stability.
Procedure
It is important to use Rhino to create the hull and all of its aspects accurately as possible
so that when the model is exported into GHS, the calculations for the righting arms and
Cross Curves can be as accurate as possible. If the vessel is called to have stabilizing fins
which are mainly for dynamic stability but could have an effect on intact stability
calculations, and stabilizing fins are not inserted on the model in Rhino, then GHS will
conclude that the vessel is less stable than it actually is. If the design team finds the
model to be too unstable, they could waste a lot of time creating a new hull when all they
really had to do was make their hull more accurate before exporting to GHS.
Hydrostatic Curves of Form: When forming the Hydrostatic Curves of Form, the file
from Rhino was first exported to GHS, as mentioned above. Research was done to
determine what properties were needed to form the necessary Hydrostatic Curves.
According to DDS-079-1, Draft (T) in feet should be compared against Displacement
(Disp) in Long Tons, Tons per Inch Immersion (TPI), Transverse metacenter above keel
(KMT) in feet, Longitudinal metacenter above Keel (KML) in feet, Moment to Trim 1
Inch (MT1) in foot-long tons, Transverse center of buoyancy above keel (KB) in feet,
Longitudinal Center of Buoyancy (LCB) in feet, and Longitudinal Center of Flotation
(LCF) in feet. The draft range for the properties, also according to DDS-079-1 should
run from slightly below lightship to at least 3 feet above the limiting draft. The
limiting draft was determined to be about 25 feet, so the range of drafts that were
analyzed ranged between 2 feet to 29 feet. The Hydrostatic Curves of Form for the OSV
can be found in Appendix [5-1].
When creating the Curves, it should be noted that the individual data points were joined
via straight line segments and not by interpolation. A comparison between the OSVs
Hydrostatic Curves of Form and those from the parent hulls, Fennica and Nordica, were
noted and confirmed that the analysis yielded beneficial values.
Cross Curves of Stability: Calculating the cross curves of stability is a very important
step in determining the hydrostatics and stability of the ship. This allows the design team
to see the righting arms of 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 degrees, and then at ten degree intervals from
10 to 110 degrees to be plotted versus the displacement of the vessel. Displacement in LT
was plotted against GZ in feet. It is expected that as the displacement increases that the
righting arm should increase. This is because as the vessel gets lower in the water there
is less reserve buoyancy. It is noted that all of the displacements are at the same assumed
VCG of 25 feet. Once a more accurate VCG is determined, later in the design process, a
sine correction will be done to obtain more accurate cross curves of stability. The cross
curves of stability, as seen in Appendix [5-2] shows that the OSV will maintain positive
stability through 90 degrees of heel with a VCG of 25 feet, this was not the case for a
VCG of 36 feet. By comparing to similar ships, the design group concludes that the cross
curves are both valid and reasonable.
31

Righting Arm Curves: Righting Arm Curves are important because they tell the
designer the maximum and minimum righting arms available for a vessel at a range of
heeling degrees at different displacements. For the OSV, Righting Arms were created
from a range of degrees of heel from 0 degrees to 110 degrees from 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10
degrees, and then at ten degree intervals from 10 to 110 degrees. This interval was
chosen because it is in the first couple degrees of heel that the righting arm will differ the
most from displacement to displacement. For the OSV, the range for the displacements
varied from 50% full displacement to 125% full displacement. The range was chosen
because the design team feels that the vessel will never weigh less than 50% the full
displacement, and never more than 125% the full displacement; 50% and 125% are worst
case scenarios, but should be checked for in case a worst case scenario occurs, a VCG of
38 feet. The max heeling arm with 100% displacement, at the worst case scenario, was
found to be 37 degrees with 2.8 feet of righting arm. The max righting arm at the worst
case scenario with 50% displacement was found to be 3.3 feet at 60 degrees. The vessel
will always be more positively stable when there is less of a load compared to a full load.
When the load is 125% at the worst case scenario the max heeling angle for positive
stability was found to be 55 degrees with 3.1 feet of righting arm. It is noted that all of
these calculations were done without an accurate weight estimate and will most likely
change as the design team progresses in the design spiral. The results can be seen in a
graph generated from excel in Appendix [5-3].
Righting arms were also calculated for an ideal VCG of 25 feet. In is noted that a VCG of
25 feet is the design teams best guess for the best case scenario. The maximum righting
arm at 50% displacement was 13.2 feet at 68 degrees and had positive righting arms out
to 110 degrees. The maximum righting arm for the design displacement of 11000 long
tons was 10.9 feet at 55 degrees, for this displacement the ship also had positive righting
arms out to 110 degrees. Righting arms were also calculated for 125% displacement. The
maximum righting arm was 9.6 feet at 52 degrees. Again the vessel had positive righting
arms out to 110 degrees. The results can be seen in a graph generated from excel in
Appendix [5-4].
It can be concluded from the results of the righting arm calculations that the vessel is very
stable for an assumed VCG of 25. The vessel has positive stability out to 110 degrees of
heel. For the worst case scenario with a VCG of 38 feet and at 125% of full load
displacement the vessel only had positive righting arms out to 65 degrees. However, for
the ship to have a VCG of 38 feet is highly unlikely and the design team concluded that
the ship will be stable and no changes need to be made to the hull form. It is noted that
the design displacement was calculated in Rhino 4.0 for a design draft of 25 feet, which
was determined from similar ships analysis.

6.0 Placement of Watertight Bulkheads

After the Cross curves of stability were formed, the design team had adequate knowledge
of the initial stability of the hull. With this knowledge, the design team then had to
generate the placement of bulkheads within the OSV. Because bulkheads can take away
from extra space that could be used for machinery spaces and living spaces, the
placement of the bulkheads were critical in order to maximize living and working
32

conditions. However, if the spacing between bulkheads is too spread out, then the OSV
would not pass flooding scenarios IAW 46 CFR 171.085. By ensuring that the bulkheads
are placed effectively, the overall construction costs of the bulkheads will be kept to a
minimal be maximizing working spaces while still maintaining within regulations and
minimizing costs.

6.1
Main Transverse Watertight Bulkheads (MTWB) placement is important for survivability
when the ship experiences a mishap. If a vessel did not have any TWBs, and it ran
aground puncturing a hole in the side of the hull, water would rush in, and most likely
flood the entirety of the vessel. With the placement of TWBs, water can be trapped and
prevented from entering different compartments. By placing TWBs in strategic
locations, a design can accommodate vital general arrangements as well incorporate the
use of floodable length curves that will pass CFR requirements.
Background

6.2
Bulkhead Placement: Earlier in the design process, when the general arrangements were
created, not much thought was inputted in creating bulkheads. Some of the general
arrangements had bulkheads which did not even carry through all of the decks, and
therefore, was not truly watertight. Now that the design team has an almost finished hull,
the team can get a better understanding for where bulkheads need to be placed. The
design team followed closely the standards outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR).
Procedure
When laying out the bulkheads, the first bulkhead that was to be created would determine
the outline of the collision bulkhead, the compartment that is formed in which collision
with another vessel is most likely. The placement of the first bulkhead needs to be at least
5 percent of the LBP from the forward perpendicular in a motor vessel, and no more than
10 feet plus the 5 percent of the LBP from the forward perpendicular. The OSVs length
at the waterline (LWL) was found to be 364.1 feet. The range of feet aft of the forward
perpendicular (FP) that the first bulkhead could be placed was determined to be anywhere
from 18.205 feet to 28.205 feet. The design team chose a distance of 28 feet, so that if
there is a damage to the hull, it would hopefully not span more than one compartment.
The minimum spacing requirements were outlined by 46 CFR 174.207(a). The minimum
spacing was determined by the equation 10feet+.03(L), which yielded a result of 20.03
feet. However if there is a space less than 20.03 feet the adjacent bulkhead must be
flooded in order to survive one compartment flooding. The minimum bulkhead spacing
that the vessel has 28 feet which is the collision bulkhead which far exceeds the
regulations. In order to pass one compartment flooding the vessel has 5 bulkheads which
will save money by having less steel in the structure of the vessel. The first bulkhead is
the collision bulkhead at 28 feet. The next bulkhead is at 115 feet, followed by the
machinery space which is 80 feet long. Next there are two bulkheads placed at 260 feet
and 320 feet. The vessel had to have a large space aft, 55 feet in length, for the
azimuthing thrusters equipment. It is noted that all of the measurements are taken from
the bow of the ship.
Floodable Length Curve Creation: In order to flood the vessel design, a permeability of
.95 was set for the vessel in General Hydrostatics Software (GHS) for all the
33

compartments except for the engine room, which was set at a permeability of .85. This
means that if a compartment is to flood, then .95 percent of the volume would consist of
water, where the other 5 percent would consist of the volume of other objects within the
compartment. This is consistent with the CFR.
After the permeabilites were set, a margin line was created which would help define the
bulkhead deck. The design team created a margin line that would be 3 inches below the
top deck. This measurement was defined in GHS, and a margin line was created so that a
floodable length curve could be made from the margin line. Using GHS, the design team
was able to follow the shape of the top deck, so that the step in the deck was accounted
for.
Once the margin line was set, GHS was used to calculate the Floodable Length Curve.
The floodable length curve was completed using a full load draft of 27.5 feet. The rough
estimate of the permeabilities would have to suffice for the floodable length curves
because the general arrangements have not yet been finalized. Once the compartments
are figured out, it will be determined what the exact value for the permeabilities will be
used. This will create more accurate floodable length curves. Also, a vertical center of
gravity (VCG) had to be assumed. A value of 25 feet from the keel was used based off of
similar ships; the true VCG is unknown at this point in the design process. Later in the
design process, when the total weight of all components within the ship are considered, a
true VCG can be calculated and incorporated within the OSV model to gain more
accurate floodable length curves. However, for now the VCG had to be assumed and the
results of the Floodable length curves can be seen in Appendix [6-2].
The OSV was considered to be a one-compartment vessel as stated by 46 CFR
174.207(a), meaning that the vessel had to be able to survive one compartment flooding.
As stated above if there were bulkheads placed closer than 20.93 feet then the adjacent
bulkhead must be flooded in order to pass the one compartment standard. This was not an
issue with the Arctic offshore supply vessel. In order to pass the one compartment
standard a margin line had to be defined in GHS. According to 46 CFR 171.015 if the
vessel had an average sheer at the forward perpendicular and aft perpendicular that is
greater than 12 inches, which the vessel has, then the margin line is required to be
positioned 3 inches below the top deck at amidships. Using the run file given to the
design teams, with minor alterations made, it was determined that the vessel passed the
one compartment flooding standard. In order to fail one compartment flooding the margin
line would have to be submerged when the compartment is flooded. The least amount of
freeboard that the vessel had was when the largest compartment was flooded at .65 feet.
This is because the compartment is considerably larger than the others and is located near
the bow of the ship. Each compartment was very close in failing the standards; however,
when 46 CFR 174.207(a) is followed later on in the design process, the OSV will pass the
flooding scenarios with flying colors because there are requirements that can be utilized
that can make the OSV passing the flooding scenarios much easier. The transverse extent
is 36 inches. This means that as long as wing tanks are inserted that are at least 30 inches
wide, the wing tanks can be evaluated instead of the whole compartment flooding. This
will result in less water entering the hull, and generate a more stable vessel.
Some tradeoffs that were considered were the cost versus damage control bulkheads.
Only 5 bulkheads were inserted in the OSV, compared to that of a military vessel which
needs to pass requirements that call for a two-compartment vessel where the OSV is only
34

a one compartment vessel. This allows the OSV to have less compartments, because only
one compartment is being evaluated at a time when flooding the OSV. The fewer
bulkheads will allow for a much cheaper design cost for the OSV, because about half the
bulkheads will be used in the OSV, calling for a lot less steel in the OSV, saving a lot of
money. However, less bulkheads means less stability in a case of flooding. But as long
as the vessel is within design requirement outlined in the CFR, then the design for the
OSV is acceptable, which the OSV is.

7.0 Design of General Arrangements

Based on the determined bulkhead placement and the deck heights, the machinery, and
the estimated volume of fuels, oils, and water, a general arrangement plan was formed in
creation for the OSV. After redefining the design philosophy for the OSV, the design
team created the general arrangements for the OSV. Once an initial general arrangement
plan is established, a general weight estimate can be created. If the weight estimate
proves that the general arrangements are invalid, generating too much instability over one
section of the OSV, the design team will look into altering the general arrangements,
changing the hull if needed to accommodate with the needs of the general arrangements.
This process follows the idea of the design spiral.

7.1
General Arrangements for the OSV are conducted around the design and consideration of
many different aspects of a ship. For example, when deciding on the location of living
spaces, consideration should be taken for the comfort as well as convenience of the crew.
The crews berthing should be placed so that the crew is not uncomfortable when trying
to sleep, but also conveniently placed close to working areas so that they do not have to
track across the whole vessel to their workstations. General Arrangements are also
important to the design in that they directly affect stability. If tanks within a vessel are
placed unevenly, either favoring the bow or aft, the vessel can be initially trimmed by the
bow or aft, reducing stability. A good general arrangement plan for a vessel considers
the convenience and comfort of a crew, missions of the vessel, as well as the stability and
characteristics of the vessel.
Background

7.2
The general arrangements of the OSV were decided using the mission philosophy, the
Top Level Requirements (TLR), the OSVs bulkhead placement , and with consideration
for the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). When considering similar ships and power
estimates done in Ship Propulsion Design class, machinery spaces were also considered.
With a good estimate of the power needed and type of propulsion plant that could
produce the needed power of approximately 30,000 HP, a space was designated as the
OSVs machinery space. The space required for the tanks of fuel needed to power the
machinery, as well as the tanks of potable water, mud, methanol, and lube oil required
from the TLR, was determined. The tanks were then placed in the general arrangements
because these would affect the stability of the vessel the most. The liquids within them
Introduction
35

are the heaviest and most concentrated material onboard. After machinery spaces and
tanks were inserted, living and working spaces were considered.
7.3

Updated Design Philosophy
The goal for the OSV design is to build a long lasting vessel that can be efficient and
dependable. The vessel should be as cost efficient as possible, while attempting to be
environmental friendly to the Arctic. Assuming that Shell has intentions in drilling in the
Arctic for many years to come, the ship designers will focus on building a vessel that
might be more costly initially, but will be cheaper in maintenance and crewing. In order
to accomplish this task, there will be a great reliance on technology.
The vessel will be operating near Alaska in rough seas. The vessel will also be operating
in ice. The vessel will therefore be under a lot of stress and experience constant fatigue
with the ramming of the ice and the slamming of the waves.
Cost: To maximize interest in the buyer and to make the vessel the best that it can be, the
vessel should be as efficient as possible. The more efficient the vessel is, that is, the
faster and further the vessel can operate at minimal costs, the better it will sell. Long
term operating cost reductions is the most important driving factor for this design.
Because the design team decided to involve the use of a double-acting hull to improve the
open water transit, Efficiency is maintained at a rating of 10 out of 10 as far as
importance is involved.
Habitability: Due to the demanding nature of working in the Arctic for long periods of
time, habitability is a major concern. Crew morale, fitness, and entertainment are major
requirements driving the design. By building gyms, lounges, entertainment centers, and
hospitals, the crew can maintain their health and fitness in an appropriate manner. State
of the art video conference surgery and examination rooms would allow for better
medical treatment while the crews are far away in the Arctic. The design team originally
gave habitability a score of 8 out of 10. Although ample crew accommodations were
designed to keep the crew entertained, the berthing areas were not designed with as much
space as originally anticipated, leading to the revision of a score of 6 out of 10 for
habitability.
Reduced Manning: As technology continues to advance, the need for crewing is
diminishing. With better technology, vessels have been designed with engine rooms that
do not need direct attendance; crew size is decreasing because computer systems are
monitoring gauges and oil levels, and only one person is needed to monitor the
computers. Crewing for the United States Flagged vessels in 2010 consisted of about
68% of operational costs, suggesting that crewing is a very expensive aspect of ship
design. The designers goal is to reduce manning. This will call for more technological-
improved machinery, which will call for an initial higher construction cost, as previously
stated. The designers maintained a score of 7 out of 10 for Reduced Manning.
Environmental: While the sensitive environmental nature of the Arctic is a concern, the
design team will not be overly concerned with groundbreaking environmental
improvements. The vessel will be designed well within the current and soon-to-be
implemented environmental standards; however unproven experimental technology will
not be investigated. Common environmental precautions will be taken such as double-
hulls to reduce potential oil spills. With the prediction of future environmental laws
being placed on disposal of grey water, the OSV is being designed to retain all black and
36

grey water so that it may hold all of the crews bodily waste throughout the deployment
of the OSV. Although the vessel might not have new environmental conservation
technology, it will adhere to EPA standards and hopefully all future standards that might
be established in its lifetime. Because of the new consideration of the future
environmental regulations that might come into effect in the Arctic, the design team
reevaluated the score of 4 out of 10 for Environmental. A summary of the scores can be
seen in Figure 9 and Figure 10.

Figure 9. Initial Scores

Figure 10. Reevaluated Scores
7.4 Propulsor Selection
Two ABB VI2300 Azipods were selected for the AOSV. These azipods were chosen
because they are specifically designed for ice breaking. Also they are capable of handling
the large amount of power that the AOSV produces. Below are various tables and figures
that overview the pods that were selected.

7.5

Engine Selection
By comparing properties and characteristics of different manufacturers, the best engine
selection available for the OSV could be made. Because of the large load that the OSV
would have to output, the design team decided to select the Wartsila engines.
The engine that the design team chose to use for the AOSV is the Wartsila 12V38. It is
noted that four generators are required in order to provide the break horse power needed.
There were several design tradeoffs in choosing the correct engine for the vessel. The
first was the number of generators that the vessel would have. The design team wanted to
use at the most four generators, using 5 or 6 is unnecessary due to space constraints of the
37

engine room generated in the general arrangements. Also using less, larger generators
will give the AOSV maximum efficiency throughout all operations. When the AOSV is
loitering, it will only run off of one generator which is enough power to propel the vessel
and supply power to the hotel loads. In order for the vessel to run off of one generator it
needed to be large, this is the main reason that the Wartsila was chosen. Also the transient
speed of the vessel is 11 knots which is very fast for this type of vessel. In order to
achieve this, a large amount of horse power will be needed. When transiting the vessel
will have all four generators online and being run to maximum capacity. The trade off to
the large generators is the weight. This generator weighs the most out of the five different
ones that were analyzed. The design team feels that this will be okay since they are
mounted so low in the ship and towards the longitudinal center of flotation. It is noted
that engine size was not a factor when determining the correct engine for the AOSV. The
engine compartment is two decks in height and almost 70 feet in length by 70 feet wide.
Another trade off is the amount of fuel the vessel will need to carry with such large
generators. Calculations were done for fuel consumption and it was determined that the
AOSV will be able to carry enough fuel for the mission profile. The issue with so much
fuel is that there needs to be ballast water, a total volume of 67 percent of the fuel. This
was very difficult to incorporate into the design. However the vessel will be able to carry
all ballast needed through the use of the double hull and several ballast tanks throughout
the vessel.
The four Wartsila generators produce a total of 28 megawatts. It was assumed that the
hotel load would be 3,000 kilowatts and that the vessel needed a total power of 28,000
kilowatts or 38,300 horse power. Assuming an electrical efficiency of 91 percent, a total
of 23.66 megawatts will be delivered to the Azipods. From this power and data from the
propeller that was selected, the AOSV can maintain a flank speed of 13 knots and a
cruise speed of 11 knots throughout the time of its mission. The azmuthing thrusters that
were chosen are the ABB Azipod VI V2300S. These pods have a range of power from
10-15.3 megawatts each, which matches up nicely to the generators chosen. It is noted
that the pods are also specifically designed for ice breaking and are currently installed on
many ice breakers around the world.

7.6

Electrical Load Analysis
Using similar ships analysis, the total electrical load of the vessel was estimated. This
hotel load was important, because it verified earlier estimations used by the design team.
The electrical load in various conditions such as at anchor, pier side, cruising in winter,
and cruising in summer was calculated by estimating the percentage that a piece of
equipment was on. This is important because it would be impossible to select generators
that could power all equipment at all times. After the analysis, it was determined that the
vessel would have a hotel load of 4.06MW, including margins. The generator sets
selected earlier were chosen based off an estimation of a 4MW hotel load, thus verifying
the engine selection.
After the electrical load analysis, a one-line diagram was created by modeling after the
USCGC MACKINAWs one-line diagram. The final electrical configuration for the
AOSV is shown in Appendix [7-2].

38

7.7
Tank Top and Deck Spacing: The tank top was placed at 10 feet above the baseline.
This was done to accommodate the 925,378 gallons of fuel that will be stored onboard.
The deck spacing varies throughout the hull from the baseline. The 4 deck which is
directly above the tanks has a deck spacing of 10 feet. The 3 deck has a spacing of 8 feet.
The 2 deck has a deck spacing of 7 feet. The 1 deck level has a deck spacing of 14 feet.
The main deck has such large deck spacing in order to lower stress concentrations on the
hull. If it was lower it would intersect with the curvature of the hull in an awkward
manner. The main deck has a deck spacing of 10 feet and then as you move under the
superstructure the deck spacing decreases to 7 feet. The design team attempted to have
the decks as evenly spaced as possible but because of the curvature of the hull, this was
not possible for all decks.
General Arrangements
Above Decks: Dating back to the first submittal, general arrangements have always been
considered from the design team. Each member of the design team was asked to generate
his own set of general arrangements for a projected vessel. After the second submittal, a
new set of general arrangements were created once the hull started to take form. After
each submittal, the general arrangements were updated, leading the design team to fall
into the design spiral, constantly changing the design and shape of the hull to meet
different criteria that were outlined in the design philosophy.
The bridge was placed on the O-7 deck. The bridge was made to span the entirety of the
breadth with a great height of eye to better spot ice patches that the OSV will be called on
to break. On the bridge, the latest state of the art equipment can be found that will be
able to see upcoming ice patches and inclement weather.
This deck contains space for the crew to relax and read books. A library is essential in
provoking an individuals mind, as well as relaxing. A library full of books can help the
crew relax, as well as learn.
The O-5 level houses the offshore workers that may need to live on the OSV from time to
time. Regulations state that offshore workers can be placed in berthing that contain up to
6 racks per room. There are a total of 6 berthing rooms, each containing 6 persons per
room, meeting the TLR accommodation of 36 offshore workers. According to the CFR,
each member in the berthing shall be allotted at least 30 square feet of deck space. In
order for the berthing rooms to pass regulations, each room had to be at least 180 square
feet. The actual area of each offshore berthing room was determined to be 300 square
feet, big enough for the mandatory lockers and beds. The regulations were also met for
the required toilets, WCs, and showers. The OSV design team considered placing
another berthing for the offshore workers in another deck of the superstructure so that the
workers would not be crammed for space, but after space considerations, it was thought
best to place six berths in each room all on one deck than make another deck dedicated to
add more berthing.
The O-4 deck contains the berthing for the common crew members. According to the
CFR, the berthing rooms could contain up to 4 people per room. Four rooms were placed
on the O-4 deck, two on each side of the passage way. A bathroom was placed between
the rooms on each side to satisfy the CFR. Crew comfort was considered while
organizing crew berthing on the O-4 deck. The offshore workers were placed lower in
the ship because they would be on the OSV more often than the offshore workers. The
further away from the center of the OSV, the more righting arm is experienced when the
39

vessel heels over. The living conditions are better lower in the super structure, and are
why the crew members live lower on the superstructure than the offshore workers do.
The O-3 deck contains living spaces for the officers of the vessel. The first and second
mate shared a room, while the first and second engineering assistant shared another room.
Each of these two rooms had their own bathroom with a toilet and shower. On the other
side of the passageway, the master and chief engineer has his own room with a personal
bathroom. This follows with other ships general arrangements and the tradition that the
higher ranking crew members usually have more leisurely berthing areas. Contemplation
occurred when the design team considered if the masters room should be held higher up
in the super structure to be closer to the bridge, but ultimately, the design team felt that
the master would rather climb a few more stairs to the bridge and live in a more
comfortable deck down below than live closer to his command center, but higher up.
The O-2 Deck is the deck in which the helicopter pad is located on. The helicopter pad is
located up forward, satisfying the requirements for Sikorsky S76 that the OSV was
requested to accommodate in the TLR. Aft of the helideck beyond the bulkhead is a fire-
response station in case of an emergency for the helicopter. Accommodations for the
crew also on the O-2 Deck are a laundry room suitable for the whole crew, a crew
lounge, and a male and female sauna. Thought of an aviation locker room and fire-
response room near the helicopter landing pad was considered in case of an emergency,
the needs to quell the emergency would be readily available and close by. Also, a service
elevator reaches up to the O-2 deck so that materials can be easily transported up and
down throughout the hull.
The O-1 Deck contains two different mess decks, one for the officers and one for the
crew. The crew messdeck can accommodate all of the working crew at once. If the
offshore workers are present on board, there will have to be two different eating sections
because the mess deck will not be able to accommodate everyone at once. The galley
was also conveniently placed next to the dry stores and reefer so that foods and supplies
could easily be walked back and forth if needed. The service elevator continues through
the O-1 Deck so that supplies going to the reefers and dry stores can easily be brought
down in bulk instead of hauling the materials down on a stairwell. Two deck cranes on
the cargo deck have to ability to reach the entire span of the deck and will be able to load
supplies into the service elevator. Keeping an environmental friendly factor in mind, a
trash room with an area of about 1,450 square feet was designed so that no trash ever has
to be tossed overboard. This space will also contain an incinerator as well as a trash
compactor so that they space may be most effectively utilized. It is calculated to be big
enough so that the trash from the rigs can also be taken aboard without ever having to be
disposed of in the Arctic oceans.
The main deck is where the design team considers the watertight deck; everything below
the main deck, as well as the forward portion of the hull is considered to be water-tight.
The main deck consists of shops, which are right above the engine room. The main deck
also holds the medical center which can help injured or sick members. The decision to
place the medical center on the main deck was done because at about the main deck is
where the highest sense of livability occurs. Placing sick people where the boat is
rocking the least will help them in their recovery.
Below Decks: The main machinery room is located in the 79 foot space between the 96
foot and 175 foot transverse bulkheads. The main machinery space is on the 4
th
deck and
40

extends up to the 1
st
deck, spanning three decks total and the space utilizes the entire
beam of the ship. This space is so large because there will be 4 Wartsila generators,
which were chosen to power the ASOV based on resistance calculations in NavCad. The
four generators are going to placed towards the 175 foot bulkhead with 10 feet of
clearance to the bulkhead. The four generators will be mounted in line with the ship bow
to stern. This is because the design team wants to keep the heavy weights as close to the
LCF as possible. It is noted that there is at least 9 feet of clearance around each generator
to allow space for maintenance and repair. Also included in the main machinery space is
the main switch board and the ship service switchboard and all auxiliary systems
associated with the integrated propulsion system. The engineering control center is also
located in the generator room near the 96 foot bulkhead. This is because it gives the
engineer of the watch visibility of all generators and auxiliary systems. If a casualty
would to occur the engineer could quickly respond to prevent any further damage.
The azipod machinery room is located in the furthest compartment aft, directly above the
where the azipods are mounted to the hull. This machinery is located here because the
azipods need the machinery directly above the pods to function properly. Also the bow
thruster machinery room is located in the forward most compartment on the skin of the
ship. This is located here because the bow thruster needs all auxiliary machinery in close
proximity to function properly.
The emergency generator is located on the main deck in the forward part of the vessel
underneath of the helicopter pad. This location is in accordance with the CFR which
mandates that the emergency generator must be located above the last watertight deck.
There are several auxiliary machinery spaces throughout the vessel. The reverse osmosis
system is located 1
st
deck just forward of the generator room. The air conditioning and
heating rooms are located next to each other and are just aft of the generator room on the
02 deck. The crane auxiliary machinery room is located above the air conditioning and
heating rooms on the main deck. It is located here because it is directly below where the
crane is mounted on the cargo deck. It is noted that all auxiliary machinery spaces are
located near the generator room for ease of access for engineering crew members. There
is also a chain locker and windlass room located in the forward most compartment on the
1
st
deck. This machinery is located directly below the windlass on deck and the haws
pipe.
The trash room is located on the main deck directly underneath the helicopter pad.
Included in the trash there is a muffin monster, incinerator, and a trash compactor. This is
located here because it is far away from living spaces but close to the galley which is the
main source of trash on the vessel. The trash room is also very large and has the
capability to hold the vessels trash for 45 days and also take on some of the oil platforms
trash if it is needed.
The repair locker is located on the O-1 deck. This location was chosen because it is a
central location on the ship, Making the space easily assessable in case of a casually.
There are several shops and store rooms throughout the ship. The electrical shop is
located on the O-1 deck. It is located here because it is in close proximity to the main
switchboard and also centrally located in the vessel. The machinery shop is located
directly above the engine room and right next to it is the extra parts for the ship storage.
This is located here because it is in close proximity to the generator room and auxiliary
machinery rooms and also is centrally located in the ship. There are a total of 6 store
41

rooms located throughout the ship. There are two store rooms located in the two forward
most compartments on the main deck. There is science store room located on the O-2
deck, a ground tackle storage room located directly above the science store room on the
O-1 deck, and a remote operated vehicle storage room located in the most aft
compartment on the 01 deck. The ROV storage room is located here because this is
directly below where the ROV will be launch on the cargo deck.
It is noted that there are multiple fan spaces located throughout the ship to allow for
adequate air circulation in all manned spaces in the ship. Also all spaces over 300 square
feet have 2 means of escape, in accordance with the regulations in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Engine Box Sizing: The location of the four diesel generators chosen to power the
ASOV are shown in the general arrangements. The four generators are the exact same
model which is a Wartsila 8L38. The measurements of the generator are 14.5 feet high,
40 feet wide, and 9.5 feet wide and they output 5600 Kilowatts each. This equates to
7500 horse power each or a total horse power of 30000 horsepower. According to
resistance calculations done is NavCad the flank speed of the vessel will be about 20
knots. This leaves about 1500 kW of available horsepower for hotel loads. The generators
will easily fit in the large generator room leaving about 9 feet around each generator.
Estimated Fuel Oil and Potable Water Usage: Total fuel consumption for a 40 day
patrol based on the operational profile of the vessel was calculated assuming the use of
some combination of the four generators. The operating conditions are as follows along
with generator usage at each condition; conducting operations 10 percent of the time
using 2 generators, loitering 30 percent of the time using 1 generator, ice breaking 30
percent of the time using all four generators, transiting 25 percent of the time using three
generators, full power 5 percent of the time using all four generators. Once these values
were determined total kilowatt hours could then be calculated. Using the conversion that
190 grams of diesel are used per kilowatt hour, a total of 925,378 gallons of fuel was
determined. This value includes a 10 percent reserve. Next it was determined that
130,234 feet cubed of tankage was required to hold all the fuel, 95 percent permeability
was taken into account when determining total tankage. The total tankage for diesel fuel
that the vessel can hold is 132,675 feet cubed in three separate tanks. This allows for
some margin in the design. The calculations for the fuel oil can be viewed in Appendix
[7-1].
Total potable water consumption over a 40 day period was assuming a worst case of 58
persons on board using 55 gallons per day, a deck heating system using 150 gallons of
water per day, 150,000 gallons of water supply for the oil platform, and a reverse osmosis
system that can produce up to 10,000 gallons per day of potable water. The total tankage
determined was 175,000 gallons. This decision was based on that the reverse osmosis
system can produce more water than can be consumed per day. This also allows for
25,000 gallons of reserve water after the 150,000 gallons is transferred to the oil
platform.

8.0 Estimate of Ships Weights and Centers
After the general arraignments were completed for the AOSV, an accurate estimation of weights
can be done using the SWBS method. Without an accurate estimation of these values, a ships
42

stability is indeterminate. Previously, estimations for weight and KG of the OSV were created
using ratiocination using USCGC Mackinaw and USCGC Healy as parent hulls.

8.1
A first weight estimate is vital in a design process for any vessel. It provides the design team an
estimate of weights throughout the ship, as well as a first scientific guess at the vessels center of
gravity. Stability calculations were done initially for the OSV using a worst-case scenario of a
KG of 36 feet, but this worst case scenario was determined from similar ships where the worst
KG was evaluated at the main deck. With the KG at the OSVs main deck, the vessel was stable,
but did not have positive stability through all angles of heel. Finding a better KG value through
weight estimates will solidify the center of gravity value that was previously estimated at 25 feet.
Background

8.2
By evaluating the weight estimates, the OSV design team could concur or disagree with an
established center of gravity. If the OSV team found that the KG value was too high, or that the
LCG value was too far forward or aft, the design team could go back to the general
arrangements, and reevaluate the positioning of each compartment so that the KG and LCG
values seemed more appropriate. The center of gravity is conducive to the stability of the OSV
because the higher the KG value is, the smaller the righting arm would be. A smaller righting
arm means that the ship has a smaller range of angles that it can list before the ship capsizes due
to a lack of stability. The Longitudinal Center of Gravity (LCG) is where the center of all the
weights lie on a vessel in the longitudinal direction. It is important that the LCG is not too far
forward or aft in the vessel to reduce problems with trimming.
Introduction

8.3
Before a weights estimate could be conducted, a fixture of the general arrangements had to be
conducted. Some big changes that were conducted in the new general arrangements were that
the helicopter deck was raised to meet regulations, the methanol tanks were changed so that they
were not directly below living spaces, and a whole deck in the engine room was eliminated to
account for extra space that was not being used. With the new and updated general
arrangements, a more accurate Weight Estimate could then be conducted.
Updated General Arrangements

8.4
By setting up a spreadsheet which included different parameters from parent vessels, ratios from
the OSV and the parent vessels could be determined. These ratios were then compared with
weights of each different category within SWBS that could provide an accurate estimate for the
weight of the respective category for the OSV.
SWBS Template
Three different hulls were used to find ratios, each chosen for their believed relationship with the
design teams OSV. The hull of the USCGC Mackinaw (WLBB-30), the hull of a United States
National Security Cutter, and the hull of USCGC Healy (WAGB-20) were all evaluated for
specific series in the first weight and center of gravity estimate. The reference parameters for
each of the three hulls, as well as the basic parameters for the OSV, are tabulated in Appendix
[8-1].
Several methods were employed while finding the weights of each category in the different
SWBS series. The first method included finding specific ratios, and employing the ratio
calculations found in Marine Vehicle Weight Engineering. In the design teams spreadsheet,
43

these values are highlighted in yellow. A second method that was used was looking at the value
given from the ratios, and if the values seemed off from the projected value or value that the
designer had in mind before the calculations were conducted, the value was changed, and noted
with an orange highlighted section. The third method, where values for the equation to derive a
ration weight were not available, utilized the method of scientific guessing to determine a more
appropriate weight estimate. When this method was used, the SWBS weights were highlighted
in red. By highlighting the different weight methods in different colors, the design team could
categorize each SWBS number by uncertainty. If the design team found more accurate numbers
later in the design spiral, they could adjust the SWBS weights accordingly.
SWBS 100Ship Structure: When finding weights, some of the heaviest weights of the vessel
were first evaluated. The structure of the ship is the heaviest part of the OSV, constituting about
60% of the lightship weight. In evaluating the Ship Structure, the team felt that comparing and
scaling the structure of the Mackinaw would be most appropriate for the ship design weights
because the team felt that the Mackinaw was a miniature version of the OSV that could be
properly scaled up to the dimensions of the OSV. By sizing up the OSV, an accurate
measurement could be determined. Most of the weights for each category were found via
equations. The most difficult part in calculating and choosing weights for Ship Structures is that
SWBS accounts for the first deck, the second deck, and the O1 level, where the OSV has a lot
more decks. To account for this, the categories in SWBS were altered so that it included the
following three categories: Main Deck, the 2
nd
Deck and below, and the. These weights that fell
into the three categories were highlighted in red, indicating a scientific guess.
After summing up the weights in SWBS 100, it was determined that the total weight would be
about 2883.0 LT, located vertically 35.5 feet from the Keel, and transversely located about 152.6
feet from the bow. The SWBS 100 results are outlined in Appendix [8-2].
SWBS 200Propulsion: The vessel that was used to scale the weights for propulsion was the
USCGC Mackinaw. This ship was chosen because it also uses an IPS system with azipods. This
was the only azipod weight data available to the design team. Although the ship is much shorter
than the AOSV, utilizing the ratios the weights could be accurately scaled to the AOSV. There
were no major challenges in determining the weight of the propulsion systems. The values that
the design team was not certain about were scaled from the Mackinaw. Although they may not
be exact, the design team feels that they are fairly accurate. The weight of the prime movers was
determined from Wartsilas web page. The vessel is to have four generators of equal size that
weigh 110 tons each. The weight of the propulsors was determined form ABBs web page. The
design team chose to use the azipods that are specifically designed for ice breaking and can
deliver up to 14 megawatts and weigh 220 tons each. The rest of the weights in the propulsion
section were determined from ratios from the weights of the Mackinaw. The design team feels
confident for all of the weight values for the propulsion section.
SWBS 300Electrical Systems: The vessel that was used to scale the weights for the electrical
systems was USCGC Mackinaw. This vessel was chosen because it uses an IPS system with
azipods. The design team felt that the electrical system for the Mackinaw will be very similar to
the AOSV because they both utilize an IPS system. All of the values for the weights of the
electrical system for the AOSV were determined through ratios from the parent hull. Although
none of the weight values are exact for the electrical systems, the design team feels that are fairly
44

accurate. The biggest challenge the design team faced when calculating weights was the ship
service power generation weight, the lighting distribution, and the lighting fixtures. The
Mackinaw had a weight for the ship service power generation but the design team was unsure if
this category should have a weight since the prime movers will provide all the power for the
ship. In the weight estimation for the AOSV, a weight for this was included but the design team
does not feel confident in this value. The lighting distribution and the lighting fixtures were
difficult to determine because they are located all throughout the ship. The design team feels that
the weights determined through ratios from the parent hull are accurate, however are not
confident in the KG and LCG values. This is because again the lighting fixtures and lighting
distribution is located in one compartment on the ship but rather distributed through the entire
hull and superstructure.
about 601 LT, located vertically 23 feet from the Keel, and transversely located about 137.7 feet
from the bow. The SWBS 300 results are outlined in Appendix [8-4].
SWBS 400Navigation/Communication Systems: In evaluating the
Navigation/Communication Systems, the hull for the National Security Cutter was chosen. This
was done because it was thought that the NSC had adequate amounts of technologic systems on
the bridge, similar to the OSV. The design team feels like the OSV will have a lot of navigation
and communication systems aboard to counteract the lack of crew aboard, as well as evaluate the
weather and ice conditions that will be present in the Arctic while breaking ice. The hardest part
of SWBS 400 and finding the weights for the OSV was that the design team was not completely
sure on how heavy some of the electrical systems were, resulting in more scientific guesses than
the design team would have liked. This makes the uncertainty of the Navigation systems a bit
higher than the other SWBS categories.
SWBS 500Piping/Steering Systems: In evaluating the Piping/Steering Systems for the OSV,
the USCGC Healy was used to find ratios of weight estimates. Because of Healys similar size
and relatively similar mission and operations, the design team thought that Healy would be an
appropriate vessel to use to find weight estimations. The hardest part when determining the
weight estimations for SWBS 500 was that some of the ratios when calculated did not make
sense; Healy has very similar ship characteristics as the OSV, but when the equations were
entered into excel to find the ratios of each weights, some of the numbers for the parent and new
hull differed greatly. To compromise for this result, a lot of values were reconsidered and re-
entered into excel, as highlighted in orange.
SWBS 600Compartements: The vessel that was used to scale the weights for the
compartments was the USCGC Mackinaw. This vessel was chosen because it performs similar
missions when compared to the AOSV. Most of the weight values of the compartments were
determined through ratios from the Mackinaw. The design team is confident in the weight values
calculated for the AOSV compartments. The greatest challenged faced when determining the
weight of the AOSVs compartments was the outfit and furnish operating fluids and the outfit
and furnishings repair tools. For these two categories the design team estimated the weights
45

without the use of ratios. The weight estimated for the operating fluids was double of the
Mackinaw at 9 tons and the weight of the repair tools was a little less than double of the
Mackinaw at 400 tons. These values were difficult to determine because in these categories the
missions of the two vessels vary and the AOSV is considerably larger. The AOSV must stay out
for a longer period and is not able to pull into port for maintenance as often. The AOSV must be
able to carry significantly more repair tools and more operating fluids. This is why the design
estimated the weight values so much greater than Mackinaw.
SWBS 700Gunnery and Armory: No data was collected or evaluated for the Gunnery and
Armory aspect of the weight estimate because the OSV will not have any weapons aboard.
However, the different SWBS categories can be found in Appendix [8-8].
Full Load Weights: The vessel that was used to scale the weights for the full loads was the
USCGC Mackinaw. This vessel was chosen because it is also an IPS ice breaker and the weight
data was readily available. The only weights that were scaled off of the Mackinaw were the ships
officers, ships crew, lubricating oil, and sanitary liquid. The design team feels that these weight
values are accurate. The design team calculated the weights for the diesel fuels, JP-5, fresh
water, liquid mud, and methanol. All of these values were calculated based on the tank size for
each liquid. The design team is very confident in these weight values. The biggest challenge in
calculating the weights of the full loads were the weight of the general stores and the provisional
and personal stores. When a parent hull ratio was used to calculate these weights it estimated the
weight significantly less than that of the Mackinaw. The design team decided that the weights for
these should be higher than that of the Mackinaw due to the size of the vessel. The weights for
general stores and provisional and personal stores are educated guesses. The weight of the
general stores was estimated at 12 tons and the weight of the provisional and personal stores was
estimated at 15 tons. The design team feels s that these weights are much closer to the actual full
loads of the AOSV. The results can be found in Appendix [8-9].
Total KG and LCG with margins: After all of the weight estimates were completed, the total
weights and moments were summed up so that the KG and LCG for the OSV could be
calculated. The total lightship weight for the OSV was calculated to be 6,956 LT, with a KG of
31.5 feet and an LCG of 161 feet. With the weight percent margins, the Lightship weight was
estimated to be 8383 LT, with a KG value of 34.8 feet.
With a full load, including the weights of all the tanks filled to the appropriate values, the total
weight was determined to be 13,180 LT, with a KG of 26.1 feet and an LCG of 170.3 feet. With
the weight percent margins, the full load weight was estimated to be 15,881 LT, with a KG value
of 28.9 feet. The results can be found in Appendix [8-10].

8.5
The righting arm curves developed for both the lightship condition and full load condition show
that the OSV is stable throughout a wide range of heeling angles. After including margins, the
weight and KG was higher than initially expected. However, with the new draft and LCG
location, the ship was found to still be stable in these conditions. Our ship has no issues with
draft, trim or heel. The worst case scenario for the OSV is the light ship condition where every
tank is empty. However, the OSV will never realistically be in this position and should therefore
always be more stable than what the righting arm curve shows. For a full load, the righting arm
Righting Arms
46

shows that the OSV is stable to a heeling angle of 100 degrees, with a maximum righting arm of
4.2 feet at 45.2 degrees. For a light ship calculation, the righting arm shows that the OSV is
stable up to a heeling angle of 75 degrees, with a maximum righting arm of 3.2 feet at 38.19
degrees. The graph of the righting arms can be found in Appendix [8-11].

9.0 Liquid Loading and Intact Stability
After the final weights and displacements were calculated for each loading condition, the liquid
tanks could be formed and placed within the OSV hull. By making the tanks as symmetrical as
possible about the centerline and amidships, the OSV could experience minimal trim and heel
after the tanks were loaded. Having an accurate account of the tanks in full load condition of a
vessel is critical to ship design. Without a calculated maximum full load, a ship departing might
be too heavy when leaving home port, causing for downflooding in rough conditions at sea.

9.1
Tank placement is a crucial part of ship design because tanks account for an adequate volume of
the ship. Placement of tanks in the general arrangement stage should be conducted with
consideration to a ships initial stability as well as the final stability once the tanks are loaded.
Consideration of type of tanks, the symmetry of the tanks, and placement of tanks will all
eventually affect the stability of the vessel once loaded.
Background
The placement of tanks will affect how the vessel is trimmed and heeled once the tanks are
loaded to the appropriate volume. If too many tanks are located in one location, loading the
tanks might cause for too much heel or trim, resulting in instability of the OSV.
In addition to initial stability of a vessel, a design team should take into consideration the
loading/offloading of each tank. If the design team places a 10,000 gallon tank as far outboard
as possible, loading the tank will have more of an effect on heel than a smaller tank closer to the
centerline of the ship. The same can be said for tanks further forward with respect to trim than a
tank closer to amidships.

9.2
Tanks were first uploaded by comparing the general arrangements in Rhinoceros 4.0 (Rhino) and
inputted into General HdyroStatics (GHS) so that initial trim and heel could be found. A Tank
List, including data for the content, capacity, weight, center of gravity locations, and free surface
effect of each tank, was then formed using GHS. These tanks were then offloaded, loaded, and
transferred according to the Liquid Loading Instructions to simulate what the OSV might
experience while underway. Lastly, a liquid loading diagram was produced for full load to min-
op conditions from the tanks, outlined in a profile and deck-by-deck view for each tank,
containing its name and their effects on trim/heel when offloaded.
Introduction
By the strategic placement of the tanks, requirements listed in the TLR as well as guidelines
outlined in the Marine Safety Center (MSC) Guidelines can be satisfied and followed so that the
OSV remains stable throughout the process of filling and emptying tanks from the full load to the
min-op conditions.

9.3

Initial TanksGeneral Arrangements
Initially, the tanks that were placed into the hull to be evaluated by GHS were constructed based
off of the general arrangements. However, after the tank list was created, some tanks had more
47

volume than needed, while other tanks did not have the required amount of volume that initially
estimated. Before the double hull was added to the OSV in GHS, the amount of water, fuel,
ballast, mud, and methanol was calculated by summing up the gallons of each cargo. The
amount of water needed from the TLR was satisfied in that 150,000 gallons of water would be
available for offload for to oil rigs with more than 12,000 gallons of water left for the OSV.
Using the Reverse Osmosis equipment, more water can be promptly made to fill the potable
water tanks. Even if the R/O was deemed to be out of commission, the OSV would have enough
water for a full crew including 36 offshore workers to satisfy 4 additional days worth of water.
The onboard potable water content was satisfied in accordance with the TLR.
By using the fact that there are 42 gallons of oil per barrel, only 525,000 gallons of fuel is needed
in accordance with the TLR. The initial calculations after inputting data from Rhino into GHS
concluded that the OSV had an excess of 8,112 gallons of mud than what was required. The
onboard mud content was satisfied in accordance with the TLR.
By using the conversion factor of 31.5 gallons of methanol per barrel, only 37,800 gallons of
methanol are needed in accordance with the TLR. The initial calculations after inputting data
from Rhino into GHS concluded that the OSV had an excess of 8,483 gallons of methanol than
what was required. The onboard methanol content was satisfied in accordance with the TLR.
Because the double hull was yet to be inserted and accounted for in the GHS model, the design
team knew that after fitting the double hull into GHS, some contents that were placed more
outboard on the model would have to be reduced. Keeping this aspect in mind, the design team
felt that the extra gallons of mud, methanol, and potable water were needed to account for
possible future subtractions once the double hull was generated. Although the Potable water,
mud, and methanol requirements were initially satisfied, the calculated fuel and the percent
ballast were not. The design team estimated that the OSV would need approximately 1.2 million
gallons of Diesel fuel onboard to reach a maximum speed of 18 knots. However, after initial
placement of the tanks, the total gallons of fuel onboard was determined to be about 860,000
gallons, about 340,000 gallons fewer than what was required. In addition to the shortage of
diesel fuel, there was a shortage of ballast. In accordance with [1], the ballast should consist of
67% of the total fuel onboard. According to Figure 1, the ballast is far from the requirement.
With the placement of the double hull, and in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), the double hull can be filled with ballast. After the double hull is created, it can be filled
with ballast water and the Tank List can be re-evaluated. The ballast within the double hull
should increase the total percentage well above the required 67% needed. If it does, the design
team can then go back and change some of the ballast tanks to fuel tanks so that more fuel can be
maintained onboard the OSV. If requirements are still not met, then the design team will have to
reconsider general arrangements or settle for a slower cruise speed, resulting in less required fuel
onboard.

9.4

Insertion of Double-Hull
The double hull was a crucial aspect for the design team. Once it was inputted into GHS, the
total amount of contents within the tanks was re-evaluated. Like expected, there was an
abundance of ballast water due to the double-hull, and the space for diesel fuel diminished from
860,000 gallons to approximately 560,000 gallons. The double hull alone accounted for over
1,000,000 gallons of ballast. Because the double-hull could contain so many gallons of ballast,
the design team made a decision to turn all of the ballast tanks into fuel tanks. Figure 12 shows
48

the updated table that includes the content and total gallons onboard for the OSV after the double
hull was placed and after the initial ballast tanks were converted into fuel tanks. A summarized
tank list in which Figure 2 was constructed from was generated and can be seen in Appendix A.
This tank list is considered to be what the total capacity of each tank has to offer, but not
necessarily the departure condition in which the OSV will conduct its missions with.

Figure 12. Updated Liquid Cargo
Because the amount of diesel fuel available does not come close to what is needed to achieve a
cruising speed of 18 knots, the design team reconsidered the situation to determine the best
possible outcome. After considering the cruise speeds of similar parent hulls, such as the
FENNICA and the AIVIQ, the design team felt that there is a reason why these professionally
constructed boats are only running at a max speed of 13 knots. A conclusion was made to accept
that the OSV might not be able to go as fast as initially intended. To continually conduct the
mission of the OSV for the required time span, with the new volume of diesel fuel, the design
team feels that the OSV can travel at a transit speed of only 15 knots. This figure was
determined through evaluation of power curves found in NavCad, coupled with the calculations
that were conducted for specific fuel consumption.

9.5

Intact Stability Information
In developing the intact stability information, Tank capacity, Draft Marks, and Intact Stability
were each evaluated with respect to the CFR. For the Tank Capacity, CFR 170.075(4) and (5i-
5ii) states that Capacities, vertical centers of gravity, and longitudinal centers of gravity in
graduated intervals and free surface data for each tank should be included in tank sounding
tables, which can be found in Appendix [9-1]. The intact stability calculations, which are
outlined in 46 CFR 170.170, 46 170.173, and 46 CFR 174.185, were followed to ensure that the
OSV stayed within guidelines.
For weather, CFR 46 170.170 state that each vessel must be shown by design calculations to
have a metacentric height (GM) that is equal to or greater than the following in each condition of
loading and operation: 0H '
PAH
wtun(1)
, where P is defined as (.0025)+(L/14,200)^2, L is LBP in
feet, H is the vertical distance in feet from the center of A to the center of the underwater lateral
area or approximately to one-half draft point, W is the displacement in long tons, and T is 14
degrees.
The calculations conducted and values used for the equations are found in Table 8.
P 0.003197 tons/ft^2
A 14625 feet^2
H 32 feet
W 15274 LT
T 0.244339 radians
>5%&*%& &5&$# R$##5%4 5%;5$MJ
S$&*M <HC</6
J3*4*# BA<C<A.B
;$##$4& A6C<B<<
2FJ KDACDB
2*&I$%5# K67AC
49

GM
0.392946
ft Passes
Table 8. Calculation of GM

Because the criteria in 46 CFR 170.173 states that each mechanically powered vessel less than
328 feet LLL, other than a tugboat or towboat, must be shown by design calculations to comply
with: Because the OSV is greater than 328 feet, 46 CFR 170.173 does not apply to the OSV.
Different conditions calculation were done to maximize on the requirements listed in 46 CFR
174.185 . Regulations require that:
a) The area under each righting arm curve must be at least 15 foot-degrees up to the
smallest of the following angles:
a. The angle of maximum righting arm;
b. The downflooding angle; or
c. 40 degrees.
b) The downflooding angle must not be less than 20 degrees.
c) The righting arm curve must be positive to at least 40 degrees.
d) The freeboard at the stern must be equal to the freeboard calculated.
After running the OSV file through GHS with several different loading conditions, it was
determined that the OSV cannot depart with a full load condition that would hold all of the tanks
full to capacity. It should be noted that a full load condition of 15,275 LT could be supported
with a LCG of 180 feet and VCG of 32.09 feet. Possible vents that were used to determine the
results consisted of the exhaust from the engine room (labeled ER VENT 1 in Appendix [9-3]),
the intake air for the engine room (labeled ER VENT 2 in Appendix [9-3]), and non water tight
doors. The OSV could not support a non-water tight door below the O-1, so all doors on the
main deck and O-1 deck must be watertight. This will be a slight inconvenience for the crew,
but in order for the vessel to might stability criteria, it has to be done.
The supporting GHS output file can be found in Appendix [9-4]. All requirements were met.
Because the OSV cannot support a condition in which all diesel tanks are filled, this needs to be
explained to potential operators. The OSV might have to make specified trips (either for diesel
or potable water), but cannot make a trip that will meet every requirement listed in the TLR.

9.6

Loading Condition Summary
In order to achieve a good idea of how much the OSV weighs (displacement), the total Center of
Gravity, including Free Surface Effect, the Longitudinal Center of Gravity, and the Trim and
List, a loading condition summary was created. This table will highlight the definition of a full
load and arrival load, as well as the overall light ship condition for the OSV.
For the OSV, it was determined that the full load of the OSV is when all of the diesel tanks are
filled to 95 percent capacity, the potable water tanks are filled to 50 percent capacity, the
methanol tanks are filled to 95 percent capacity, the JP-5 tanks are filled to 95 percent capacity,
the L/O and the H/O tanks are filled to 95 percent capacity, and the two most aft ballast tanks are
filled to 95 percent capacity.
When the OSV accomplished its mission, it will have come to an arrival load. The design
team defined the arrival condition when the AOSV has the potable water tanks loaded to 30
percent capacity, the L/O and H/O tanks filled to 95 percent capacity, and the JP-5 tanks J-02-9-2
and J-02-9-1 filled to 25 percent capacity. The following diesel tanks are filled to 95 percent
50

capacity: F-5-70-2, F-5-60-2, F-5-60-1, F-3-74-2, F-3-74-1, F-3-68-0, and F-5-70-1. The aft most
ballast tank is loaded to 38 percent capacity and the second most aft ballast tank is loaded to 15
percent capacity. The mud tanks are all loaded to 95 percent capacity with the exception of tank
F-2-60-2, which is loaded to 31.8 percent capacity. Both the sewage and grey water tanks are
loaded to 95 percent capacity. OSV has all of the potable water tanks loaded to 30 percent
capacity, the L/O and H/O tanks filled to 95 percent capacity, and the JP-5 tanks J-02-9-2 and J-
02-9-1 filled to 25 percent capacity. Also the following diesel tanks are filled to 95 percent
capacity: F-5-70-2, F-5-60-2, F-5-60-1, F-3-74-2, F-3-74-1, F-3-68-0, and F-5-70-1. The aft
most ballast tank is loaded to 38 percent capacity and the second most aft ballast tank is loaded
to 15 percent capacity. The mud tanks are all loaded to 95 percent capacity with the exception of
tank F-2-60-2, which is loaded to 62 percent capacity. Both the sewage and grey water tanks are
loaded to 95 percent capacity.
The minimal operating condition of the AOSV is defined when all of the potable water tanks are
filled to 30 percent capacity. The H/O and L/O tanks are filled to 95 percent capacity. JP-5 tanks
J-02-9-2 and J-02-9-1are filled to 25 percent capacity. Diesel tanks F-5-70-2, F-5-60-2, F-3-74-2,
F-3-74-1, F-3-68-0, F-3-25-1, and F-5-70-1 are filled to 95 percent capacity. The aft most ballast
tank is filled to 79 percent capacity and the second most aft ballast tank filled to 50 percent
capacity.
The Loading Condition Summary can be used when determining what type of loads to expect
when beginning and ending a mission. It can also be used by future ship designers under similar
design conditions to determine their own departure and arrival conditions; the OSV can serve as
a parent hull. The loading condition summary can be found in Table 9.
It is noted that the displacement for the departure and arrival conditions are the same they are
very different loading conditions. This is due to the fact the AOSV needs to bring mud and water
up to the rig and brings back methanol. In order to maximize the capacity of the cargo for the trip
to and from the oil rig, the load was the greatest that it could be according to the intact stability
regulations in the CFR.

Displacement
(LT) KG
LCG (ft aft
FP)
Trim
(ft)
List
(deg) T (feet)
Departure
Condition 15274 25.62 178.87 0.0 .25s 33.71
Arrival
Condition/min op 13668 20.59 179.12 0.1f .01p 33.03
Light Ship
Condition 11819 20.15 173.7 .22f 0 28.59
Table 9. Loading Condition Summary

9.7

Liquid Loading Instructions
Once all of the tanks were finalized, and a departure and arrival condition was determined, a set
of Liquid Loading Instructions were formed to ensure that the OSV maintained stability
throughout its voyage. By depleting the fuel oil tanks and transferring fuel from one tank to
another, as well as emptying and filling the ballast tanks that exist within the double hull, a
hypothetical situation could be created to guarantee a stable voyage. By utilizing GHS,
individual tanks could be altered while simultaneously keeping an eye on the vessels trim and
heel to ensure that the vessel is still stable. Different trials were conducted until one was found
51

that maintained the trim less than .75 degrees at all time. The degree of list was also well
maintained, never exceeding a value of .3 degrees. Because the amount of heel and trim were
contained to a small value, stability in this aspect was not a concern. The loading instructions for
the OSV from departure to arrival are found in Appendix [9-5].

9.8 Liquid Loading Diagram

Once all of the liquid loading instructions were created from the full load condition to the min-op
condition, a liquid loading diagram could be made in accordance with US Coast Guard Damage
Control books. Each tank onboard was labeled with its name, as well as its affect that it would
have by loading or emptying it. The effects listed on the tanks within the Liquid Loading
Diagram consist of degrees of heel/list, the weight added/subtracted, and the change of draft both
forward and aft that would result from emptying/filling the tank.
In GHS, each tank was either emptied or loaded, depending on its status during max load
conditions. If the tank was to be emptied after max loading condition (such as diesel), then the
tank in GHS was emptied and the results were recorded on the Liquid Loading Diagram. If the
tank was to be filled after max loading condition (such as sewage or grey water), then the tank in
GHS was filled and the results were recorded on the Liquid Loading Diagram. The Liquid
Loading Diagram can be found in Appendix [8-6].

10.0 Hull Primary Loads Analysis
After liquid loading and intact stability were determined and calculated, the longitudinal bending
could then be evaluated. When the liquid loading was complete it gave an even more accurate
weight distribution for the different the different operating conditions, min-op, full load, and
arrival conditions. Without this accurate estimation, the shear and moment experienced by the
hull cannot be calculated. Proper estimations for the shear and moment are critical so that Finite
Element Analysis (FEA) can be used later on to determine the proper structural requirements of a
hull.

10.1
When considering the Longitudinal Bending of a ship, the primary loads, shear forces, and
moments have to be evaluated to find a worst case scenario. Considering longitudinal bending
is essential for ship design in that it is necessary to approximate where the vessel will experience
the most stress. If the stress is too great, the vessel may not be able to support itself; if the
maximum bending stress exceeds the yield strength of the ships material, the ship will fail. By
evaluating the maximum stresses under different conditions, a designer can assure himself that
the ships hull will remain intact.
Background

10.2
To evaluate the OSV, the design team reconsidered the SWBS information that was established
previously. The design team broke up the OSV into 20 different bins, each with 19 feet of
longitudinal length. The weights from SWBS were then distributed to the bins as seen
necessary.
Introduction
Every weight from SWB category 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 were distributed amongst the bins
as either point loads or evenly distributed to the necessary bins. The LCG for each weight listed
in SWBS was compared to the Rhino general arrangements file, and the weights were distributed
52

accordingly to each bin. Under lightship, Min-Op, and full load conditions, the weight
distribution for SWBS 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 were all the same. Each individual SWBS
category from 200 600 is listed in Appendix [9-1]. Each category contains the sub-number that
the weights represent, the total weight from the sub-number, and the weight attached to each bin.
To the right of each sub-number, all of the weights were summed up to ensure that the total
weights for all the bins equaled the same weight corresponding to the sub-number.
For the SWBS 100 category, the same was done for the weights as was done for SWBS 200
SWBS 600, but then the number was again re-evaluated in accordance to the manner which was
described in class (where 1/3 of the W100 weight series was accounted from the trapezoidal
method, and 2/3 of the weight was accounted for the sectional area). The weight was then
checked so that the LCG of the W100 series conducted from the previously mentioned method
was the same as the actual total weight of the W100 series. The calculated weights were then
entered into General HydroStatics (GHS) so that the still water buoyancy, the weight, the shear,
and the moment for the three conditions of lightship, min op, and full load conditions could be
evaluated. The resulting information was then graphed in excel.
Following the evaluation of the results listed above, GHS was then used to generate a wave so
that the resulting stresses could be evaluated from a max hogging and sagging condition, under
Min-Op and full load conditions.

10.3

SWBS 100 Series
The total weight for the 100 Series, like previously mentioned, was determined first by
distributing the loads from SWBS to each bin. Then, 1/3 of that weight was applied to the
Trapezoidal method. The trapezoidal method included utilizing a spreadsheet that was
distributed in class. First, the weight of the SWBS 100 was identified, and then 1/3 of that
weight was calculated. The LPP of the OSV was then entered, as well as the LCG of the SWBS
100 series was entered as the Straubinger LCG as previously calculated in Submittal 7.
Goalseek was then utilized so that the resultant LCG would equal the Straubinger LCG by
altering Y1, resulting in a change in Y2. Once Y1 and Y2 were found 5.21742 and 4.9888
respectfully, the length of the vessel was applied and a slope from the bow of the ship to the stern
of the ship was constructed with a slope of .0006096. Using the equation for a trapezoid (Area =
(Y1+Y2)*(length of bin)/2, the area, which corresponded to the Weight of each bin, could be
calculated. A summary of the areas and its accompanying plotted chart for each bin calculated
from the trapezoidal method can be found in Figure 1. With the trapezoidal spreadsheet, the
LCG for the trapezoidal area can be guaranteed to be the LCG of the actual W100 series with the
help of Goalseek.

53

Figure 13. Trapezoidal Weights (1/3 method)
A bouyancy curve was generated from GHS to determine the 2/3 method weight for each bin.
2/3 of the SWBS 100 weight data was used in GHS and the area under the curve for each bin was
calculated inorder to determine the weight of each bin. It is noted that this weight was
determined using the full load displacment. The weights calculated from the 2/3 method can be
found in Figure 14.

Figure 14. 2/3 Method Weights

The total weight determined for the W100 series was determined from summing up the total
weights of the bins from the 1/3 and 2/3 methods. The resulting Weights for each bin for the
W100 Series can be found listed in Figure 15.
bin x y Area (LT)
1 0 5.217421 99.02096
2 19 5.205838 98.80087
3 38 5.194254 98.58079
4 57 5.182671 98.3607
5 76 5.171087 98.14062
6 95 5.159504 97.92053
7 114 5.147921 97.70045
8 133 5.136337 97.48037
9 152 5.124754 97.26028
10 171 5.113171 97.0402
11 190 5.101587 96.82011
12 209 5.090004 96.60003
13 228 5.07842 96.37994
14 247 5.066837 96.15986
15 266 5.055254 95.93978
16 285 5.04367 95.71969
17 304 5.032087 95.49961
18 323 5.020503 95.27952
19 342 5.00892 95.05944
20 361 4.997337 94.86831
375 4.988802
;3% -<T/0LA66 -U'0
A 7.CK7
< CH.HKA
/ A/H./CK
K AD6.67<
7 <//.//A
C <C7./<6
H <DA.CC/
B /A7.AB7
D /K6./DD
A6 /CC.D/A
AA /B6.A6/
A< /HA.C/C
A/ /<H.KAC
AK <<7.B6K
A7 AA<.D6<
AC K<.D6/
AH <H.<B7
AB /K.<KH
AD K/.<HD
<6 KH.HD7
54

Figure 15. Total Weights for Each Bin for W100 Series

10.4
Once the SWBS 100SWBS 600 weights were distributed to each bin, the amount of contents
within the tanks, as well as the weight of people and stores aboard had to be accounted for. The
total weight for each bin included the weights of SWBS100SWBS 600, as well as the loaded
condition. For the lightship load, the loading condition for the OSV was zero which means that
no people, no stores and all tanks have zero contents.
Loading Conditions
For the full-load loading condition, any content which was loaded into the tanks for the full-load
condition previously was considered when distributing the weight. The GHS file with the full
load condition was evaluated, and the proper loads were distributed so that the weights added in
GHS matched the weights added for the load condition. For the loading condition for the full
load, the weights are divided by types of contents within the tanks, as well as each individual
tank. These weights were then distributed into each tank as necessary. The weights were then
summed up by bin, as well as by tank, and then summed up so that the total added weight for
each bin could be confirmed with the added weight from each tank. In addition to the tanks, in
the full load condition, cargos as well as personnel were included.
For the Min-Op loading condition, the same was done as was done for the full-load loading
condition. Each tank that was filled was evaluated from GHS, and the weights of each
liquid/substance were added to the appropriate bins. The weights were then summed up by bin,
as well as by tank, and then summed up so that the total added weight for each bin could be
confirmed with the added weight from each tank. Because the Min-Op condition does not
include any deck cargo, the deck cargo aspect was left blank. Also, the stores for Min-Op were
less, representing the diminishing stores available after a month underway.

10.5
Once the SWBS 100SWBS 600 weights were placed accordingly into bins, and the loading
conditions were included, the total weights for each bin could be summed up for each loading
condition. The total weights for each bin, as well as the weights per length (LT/ft) are included
Total Weights
bin (1/3) (2/3) total (LT)
1 99.02096 5.64509 104.666
2 98.80087 67.7411 166.542
3 98.58079 137.364 235.9448
4 98.3607 190.05 288.4107
5 98.14062 233.3307 331.4713
6 97.92053 265.32 363.2405
7 97.70045 291.663 389.3635
8 97.48037 315.184 412.6644
9 97.26028 340.3994 437.6597
10 97.0402 366.9314 463.9716
11 96.82011 380.1033 476.9234
12 96.60003 371.6356 468.2356
13 96.37994 327.4157 423.7956
14 96.15986 225.8039 321.9638
15 95.93978 112.902 208.8418
16 95.71969 42.90274 138.6224
17 95.49961 27.2846 122.7842
18 95.27952 34.24693 129.5265
19 95.05944 43.27908 138.3385
20 94.86831 47.795 142.6633
Totals 1938.632 3826.998 5765.63
55

for each loading condition. For a light ship condition, the weights calculated for Submittal 7 and
Submittal 8 was 9809 LT, where the weights calculated with the bin method was calculated to be
9776 LT. The difference between the two weights was a mere .32% difference. For a full load
condition, the weights calculated from SWBS were 13136 LT, and the total calculated load from
the bin method was 13218.6 LT. The difference between the two full-load weights was a mere
.56%. Because the displacements of the bin method was very close to the displacements of the
SWBS method, the calculations for the bin method can be validated.

10.6
After examining the maximum shear and bending moments from all of the above conditions, it
was determined that the worst possible case scenario for the OSV to be in is a hogging condition
at Min-Op loading. In this condition the maximum shear was calculated to be 1888.4 LT, and the
maximum bending moment was calculated to be 1859 LT-ft.
Worst Case Scenario

11.0 Tow Tank Analysis

In order to establish a more accurate estimated-power requirement for the OSV, a model made of
foam and made waterproof was created and tested in a tow tank. The test was conducted to
determine the resistance of the Arctic Offshore Supply Vessel. The model could be scaled down
from original size, tested, and then scaled back up to achieve results. These results could then be
compared to the results that were calculated from the NavCad prediction method.

11.1

Problem Definition
The purpose of testing the model in the tow tank is to obtain accurate resistance data over a range
of speeds. This is a necessity in the design process because it allows the designer to accurately
determine the size of the propulsion that is required. Up until this point the design team only had
resistance predictions from NavCad. This was a good starting point to get an idea of what size
propulsors the supply vessel needed and the space that the AOSV would require in the engine
room. However, there is no better way to obtain accurate resistance for the hull short of building
the ship and testing it at full scale. With the results of the tow tank tests the design team could
begin another iteration in the design process and more accurately choose the main propulsors and
make modifications to the general arrangements if necessary. If modifications are needed they
will also affect the weight of the vessel which in turn affects the stability of the vessel. This is
why the tow tank testing early in the design process is vital to the design of vessel.
The model was scaled using Froude scaling. The beam of the supply vessel was the constraint
that drove the model scale factor. This is because the foam block that was provided was only 1
foot wide. With the appropriate scaling factor the vessel is .95 feet wide. This led the model to be
1/83.5 the size of the actual vessel. Froude scaling was also used for the speed of the vessel in
the tow tank. The model test speeds were 2.03 ft/sec, 2.4 ft/sec, and 3.3 ft/sec which equates to
11, 13, and 18 knots respectively. It is noted that all speeds and model resistance were in the
range of the capabilities of the tow tank. It can be concluded that none of the parameters of the
model compromised testing in any way. An excel document with the scaling information are in
Appendix [11-1]. The models principle dimensions can be viewed in Table 10 below.
Length (ft) 4.49
Beam (ft) 0.958
56

Depth (ft) 0.778
Displacement (LT) 0.024
Wetted Surface Area (ft^2) 6.163
Table 10. Dimensions of Model

11.2

Facility Description
The Coast Guard Academy tow tank is 110 feet long, 10 feet in width, and a maximum depth of
6 feet. The maximum carriage speed is 10 ft/sec, but in order to allow for ample time for steady
state operation, carriage testing speeds are limited to roughly 7.5 ft/sec. The model was cut using
a ShopBot Computer Aided Machining (CAM) tool capable of cutting material 4ft x 9ft x 1ft in
3 dimensions.

11.3

Calibration Procedure
A calibration of the system was needed before every new speed of the vessel, in total three
calibrations were conducted. Also, the system was zeroed before every run down the tow tank.
The procedures for calibration are as follows. First a small eye hook was installed on the stern of
the vessel. Then a string was attached to the eye and then ran through a series of pulleys so that a
platform could be hung from the string. When the platform was hung and all motion stopped the
system was zeroed. Then a one pound mass was placed on the platform and when all motion
stopped a reading was taken. Then an additional four readings were taken with the one pound
mass. This data was measuring how many volts the strain gauge felt when the vessel had a
resistance of one pound. These values were then averaged and a calibration coefficient was
determined for that speed. It is noted that the calibration coefficients for each speed were all
within ten percent of one another. This was an important figure because a large change to the
system in between runs could have a large impact on the results. An excel spreadsheet of the
calibration results can be viewed in Appendix [11-2].

11.4

Data Collection Overview
The model was tested a total of 12 times, 4 runs at each different speed. Also, as stated above,
the system was zeroed before each run and calibrated before each new speed. Data was collected
at 2,000 samples for second for 35 seconds for a total of 70,000 samples for each run. Between
each different run down the tow tank the design team waited 15 min for the water to get flat. This
was done in order to make sure that each run down the tank the model saw the same water
conditions. This also allows for more accurate readings in resistance because wave resistance
was not taken into account in the calculations. The model was mounted to the carriage at the
longitudinal center of buoyancy and ballasted down with lead weights to the correct model draft.
The test matrix can be viewed below in Table 11. The complete hydrostatics report for the scaled
model can be viewed in Appendix [11-3]. It is noted that Rhino Orca 3D had a difficult time
creating a hydrostatics report for such a small model. This is why some of the ship characteristics
are zero. Also the hand calculations for scaling can be viewed in Appendix [11-4].
13 Knots
Carriage Speed
(ft/sec)
2.4
57

Model Speed (ft/sec) 2.4
Reynolds Number 1.03E6
Froude Number 0.1999
Predicted Force on
Model (pounds)
0.1505
Table 11. Test Matrix

11.5

Raw Data
There were a total of three strain gauges on the force block that were all plotted on one graph.
The raw data had an initial spike in resistance at the beginning; this was due to the model
accelerating. Then the data remained relatively flat until the model decelerated which caused
another spike in the graph. The flat portion of the data is when the vessel was a steady state
moving through the water. All of the data was analyzed when the model was at steady state and
the acceleration and deceleration portions were omitted. It is noted that excel can only handle
32,000 data points. The raw data has a total of 70,000 data points, causing the later portion of the
plots to be omitted. A plot of the 290 RPM test can be viewed below in Figure 16. The rest of the
plots of the raw data can be viewed in Appendix [11-5].

Figure 16. 290 RRM Test #1

11.6

Data Analysis and Results
The data over the flat portion of the plot, steady state data, was averaged and then divided by the
calibration coefficient for the respective speed. This value was the average water resistance over
the model during the test run. All averaged resistance values were within 15 percent of one
another for each respective speed. These averaged values were then imported in an excel
spreadsheet so that they could be scaled up to the actual resistance of the ship at different speeds.
A plot of speed versus resistance was then created. It is noted that since the design team only
tested at three speeds the curve between data points is not an actual representation of what the
58

actual speed versus resistance plot would look like. In other words, the resistance for a speed
other than 11, 13, or 18 knots cannot be accurately determined from the plot. To make this plot
more accurate in the second iteration of the design spiral, the design team should test at least 5
different speeds. The results were much higher than the design team anticipated. The resistance
at 18 knots was almost 2 times greater than the prediction that was done in NavCad using the
Holtrop 1984 prediction method. A plot of speed versus resistance can be viewed below in
Figure 17.

Figure 17. Speed versus Resistance

In order to scale up the model resistance to full scale ship resistance an 8 step process was
utilized. This process used the ships and models Reynolds Numbers as well as the ITTC-57
Frictional Line. A complete example of the process can be viewed on pages 265-268 in Applied
Naval Architecture. It was assumed that the density of saltwater was 1.9905 lb*sec
2
/ft
4
and the
density of fresh water was 1.9371 lb*sec
2
/ft
4
. A complete Excel Spreadsheet of the calculation
can be viewed in Appendix [11-6].

11.7

Error Analysis
An uncertainty analysis was conducted for each different testing speed of the model. A random
uncertainty analysis was done for the resistances of the model at each testing speed. Then a
systematic uncertainty was done for each other the three Reynolds Numbers corresponding to
each different testing speed. Finally using the propagation of uncertainty the systematic
uncertainty was determined for coefficient of friction in fresh water. A table of the uncertainties
as well as the results of the uncertainty analysis can be viewed below in table 12, 13 and 14. Also
the hand calculations for the uncertainty analysis can be viewed in Appendix [11-7].
Random Uncertainty (290 RPM) .31629.027297 lbs
Random Uncertainty (344 RPM) .381851.0010 lbs
Random Uncertainty (475 RPM) 1.5361.05329 lbs
Table 12. Random Uncertainty
Uncertainties Tolerances
59

Length 1/12 ft
Velocity .1ft/sec
Table 13. Tolerances
B
Re
(290 RPM) 46428.5
B
Re
(344 RPM) 46749.9
B
Re
(475 RPM) 50174.3
B
CF
(290 RPM) 10.67
B
CF
(344 RPM) 10.42
B
CF
(475 RPM) 10.25
Table 14. Systematic Uncertainties
The random uncertainty for the resistance is relatively low for the experiment. One way to get
the value even lower would to run the test more times for a given speed. The values for the
systematic uncertainty are very high. This could be because of the whole process of creating the
model and testing it from cutting out the model and sanding it down. This value also could be so
high because the unstable conditions in the tow tank. The water is not going to be absolutely flat
before every test and the fact that we are relying on mechanical equipment that does not work the
exact same for every run. These high uncertainty values could also explain why the resistances
obtained in the test were so much higher than predicted in NavCad.

11.8

Comparison with Predicted NavCad Resistance
The results the design team obtained with tow tank testing greatly differed from the predicted
NavCad resistance. A table of the results can be viewed below in Table 15. Also the resultant
plot from the NavCad prediction with the tow tank prediction overlaid can be viewed below in
Figure 18.
Speed (Knots) Resistance from
NavCad (lb)
Resistance from Tow
Tank (lb)
EHP
11 110259 120049 4052
13 151703 138598 5529
18 303238 637655 35222
Table 15. Resistance Comparison
60

Figure 18. Comparison of Results
There are several reasons why the data was so much higher in the tow tank when compared to
the predicted resistance in NavCad. First the model developed bubbles in the hull from it
sitting in the water for over a week. This can be attributed to the epoxy tint mixture that was used
to paint the hull. The tint that was used was not marine grade and decayed after a week in the
water. This caused more drag on the model then would be expected with a smooth finish.
Second, when the data is scaled up to the full size hull this could add significant increases in
resistance. Also there is some uncertainty with running the tests in the tow tank which could lead
to unexpected increases in resistance.
The current design has a total of 29,289 effective horsepower. Using all horsepower available,
utilizing the resistance data from tow tank testing, the vessel is able to make 17 knots at flank
speed. According to the line of best fit for the tow tank resistance the effective horse power
needed to reach 17 knots is 25,600. The original flank speed of the vessel was predicted to be 18
knots. The design team feels that this is an acceptable speed for the supply vessel. This is
because the supply vessel is only able to carry enough fuel to sustain 13 knots for the duration of
the underway period. The design team is going to leave the existing prime movers in the supply
vessel in light of the slower flank speed.

12.0 Seakeeping

An accurate estimation of the seakeeping characteristics of a vessel is critical in determining the
probability of mission execution. Without this accurate estimation, there is no way to determine
which operations can be completed at specific speeds and Sea States. After most of the
characteristics for the OSV was determined, the stability in different seastates had to be
calculated to ensure that the OSV fell within regulations set forth for Comercial Cargo Vessels.
To achieve this, the UMICH SPP program could be used to compute heave, pitch, and roll
probabilities. This information could then used to create magnitude of response plots as well as
generate an Operating Index which showed the probability of completing the vessels various
operations.
61

12.1

Background
Knowing the response of a vessel is critical in determining under which parameters certain
operations can be completed. For an Arctic offshore supply vessel these operations include
transiting, crane/liquid transfers, and helicopter launch/recovery. Under certain wave conditions,
or sea states, and speeds, some operations cannot be safely executed. Sea states vary according
to the operating area and our vessel is expected to operate mainly in the North Pacific. The
Significant Wave Height (SWH), and Modal Period (MP) for the North Pacific was found using
PNA Vol III, Chap VIII, Table 7, pg. 28.

12.2

Introduction
The SPP program requires the ship to be split into 10 stations, where the data for the beam,
depth, section area, and weight for each station must be entered. This allows for the program to
have the general parameters of our ship to complete the calculations. The design team used
Rhinoceros 4.0 and the Orca 3D plug-in to get exact data for beam, depth, and section. By using
Rhinoceros 4.0, an accurate representation of the vessel could be inputted into the SPP program.
Unfortunately, as noted in the SPP program guide, transom sterns often do not work with the
program and the station 10 data must be edited until there is a local Ca of 0.60. Our design team
encountered this error in the program and had to edit the station 10 data. The program help
guide stated that this should not have too great of an impact on our results. This is another
reason why it is beneficial that we had exact values for all of the other stations instead of just
estimations.
In SPP, the design team chose to use the ISSC two parameter spectrum to model the sea because
just the significant wave height and modal period is needed for this spectrum. At Sea State 4,
speeds of 4kts as well as our transit speed of 11kts were analyzed over various headings from 0
to 360 degrees in increments of 15 degrees. For Sea State 8 the design team estimates a safe
speed of 8kts.

12.3

Natural Periods of Motion
Using equations 1, 2 and 3 below, estimations of the natural periods of motion for heave, pitch,
and roll were calculated for our hull.
Heave:
I
n
*#*+ , _
1
g
, c:p (eq. 1)
For a commercial ship, c:p ! -#+
I
n
*#*+ ,
_
$"#"$t
$.#.
t
s
2
,
, #+ ! 7# 87 xecundx
Pitch:
I
n
! .n , _
I
p|tch
+I
a
K
p
(eq. 2)
62

I
ptch
/I
u
("#0 -$)
Rungc
, (#.0 , I)
2
,
A
L
(eq. 3)
K
p
! A , 0H
L
(eq. 4)
For our hull:
I ! I
wL
! .1% t
0H
L
! 0-*#2"t
A! "%---II
I
n
! .n ,
_
$ , (#.0 , .1%t)
2
,
"%---II
.1%t
"%---II , 0-*#2"t
! 1# 9 xecundx
Roll:
I
n
!
2,n,k
g,uM
T
(eq. 5)
k
r -#$1 , B (eq. 6)
For our hull:
0H
1
! "2#." t
B ! *. t
I
n
!
. , n , (#$1 , *.t)
_
$.#.
t
s
2
, , "2#."t
! 7# 88 xecundx
Comparison of Values:
Estimated
(seconds)
Computed
(seconds)
Heave 7.87 6.77
Pitch 1.96 6.83
Roll 7.88 8.65
Table 16. Periods of Motion
Table 16 shows a side-by-side comparison for the estimated and computed natural periods of
motion. For both heave and roll, the estimated natural periods were longer than the periods
calculated by the SPP program. However, for pitch, the estimated period was significantly less
than the computed value. Some possible explanations for this are that displacement used in the
SPP program was slightly different than that used in the hand calculations and that perhaps
manipulating the station 10 data in the SPP program to create a local Ca of 0.6 changed the
computed period for pitch. After analyzing the data for both Sea State 4 and 8, no apparent
resonance points that matched with the vessels natural periods of motion were noticed.

12.4

Sea State 4
Using the wave data for the North Pacific Ocean, motion data was generated for our hull
transiting in Sea State 4 at both 4 and 11kts. This motions data was generated over a range of
headings so as to determine which headings our vessel could operate at for various conditions.
The following table lists the limits for various operations of our vessel.
Sea
State
Speed Pitch
Limit
Roll
Limit
63

Transit 4 11kts 3SSA 8SSA
Crane, Liquid
Transfer
4 4kts 2SSA 5SSA
Helicopter
Launch/Recovery
4 4kts 2SSA 2SSA
Table 17. Operational Limits
For the pitch and roll limits, SSA is the Significant Single Amplitude the average of 1/3 highest
motions calculated. For every 15 degrees of heading, the vessel either passed or failed the criteria
for the three operations. Using this pass or fail data the Operability Index (OI), the probability
that a vessel can complete an operation, was calculated for all of the various speeds and sea state
combinations and tables generated. In these charts a Pi score of 1 indicates that vessels motions
do not exceed the limits, and a 0 indicates that the vessels motions do exceed the limits and the
missions cannot be completed. Additionally, Pm is the probability of a particular heading of the
bow relative to the waves, and Pv is the probability of the vessel being at that speed. The OI for
each condition is computed by 0I ! Pp , P: , Pi (eq. 5). These various OI for each condition
are then summed to give the final OI for the specific operation.

Table 18. OI for Transiting
SS4 P
V=4 kts V=11 kts V=4 kts V=11 kts V=4 kts V=11 kts
0 0.02 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.001 0.019
15 0.07 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0035 0.0665
30 0.07 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0035 0.0665
45 0.05 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0025 0.0475
60 0.03 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0015 0.0285
75 0.01 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0005 0.0095
90 0.01 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0005 0.0095
105 0.02 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.001 0.019
120 0.03 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0015 0.0285
135 0.05 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0025 0.0475
150 0.07 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0035 0.0665
165 0.07 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0035 0.0665
180 0.02 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.001 0.019
195 0.07 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0035 0.0665
210 0.07 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0035 0.0665
225 0.05 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0025 0.0475
240 0.03 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0015 0.0285
255 0.02 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.001 0.019
270 0.01 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0005 0.0095
285 0.01 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0005 0.0095
300 0.03 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0015 0.0285
315 0.05 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0025 0.0475
330 0.07 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0035 0.0665
345 0.07 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0035 0.0665
Sum 0.05 0.95
Total 1
Pv Pi OI
OI
transit
64

Table 19. OI for Cargo Transfers

SS4 P Pv Pi OI
0 0 1 1 0
15 0 1 1 0
30 0 1 1 0
45 0 1 1 0
60 0 1 1 0
75 0 1 1 0
90 0 1 0 0
105 0 1 1 0
120 0.1 1 1 0.1
135 0.15 1 1 0.15
150 0.17 1 1 0.17
165 0.08 1 1 0.08
180 0 1 1 0
195 0.08 1 1 0.08
210 0.17 1 1 0.17
225 0.15 1 1 0.15
240 0.1 1 1 0.1
255 0 1 1 0
270 0 1 0 0
285 0 1 1 0
300 0 1 1 0
315 0 1 1 0
330 0 1 1 0
345 0 1 1 0
Sum 1
OIcrane
SS4 P Pv Pi OI
0 0 1 1 0
15 0 1 1 0
30 0 1 1 0
45 0 1 1 0
60 0 1 0 0
75 0 1 0 0
90 0 1 0 0
105 0 1 0 0
120 0.1 1 0 0
135 0.15 1 0 0
150 0.17 1 1 0.17
165 0.08 1 1 0.08
180 0 1 1 0
195 0.08 1 1 0.08
210 0.17 1 1 0.17
225 0.15 1 0 0
240 0.1 1 0 0
255 0 1 0 0
270 0 1 0 0
285 0 1 0 0
300 0 1 0 0
315 0 1 1 0
330 0 1 1 0
345 0 1 1 0
Sum 0.5
OIhelo
65

Table 20. OI for Helo Operations
The most notable aspect of our Operability Indices is the limited range of headings that our
vessel is constrained to while conducting Helicopter Operations. Fortunately, the range of
acceptable headings falls within the headings to the seas which are most likely to occur.
In addition to formulating Operability Indices for Sea State 4, a Magnitude of Response Plot
was created for both 4 and 11kts. This plot visually represents the magnitude of the motions
which are felt by the vessel at various headings.

Figure 19. Sea State 4 and 4kts

Figure 20. Sea
State 4 at 11kts
For heave
and pitch,
the values
had to be
multiplied by 8 so that they could be plotted within the same magnitude as Roll. By visually
inspecting these plots, it is seen that the vessel responds the best with a heading of 0 degrees
66

relative to the waves, also known as following seas. The SPP motions data used to generate
Figures 19 and 20 can be found in Appendices [12-1] and [12-2].

12.5

Sea State 8
For Sea State 8 a safe speed had to be determined for our vessel. To do this the design team
analyzed a wide range of speeds and noticed that the vessel can survive the pitch and roll
generated by any speed the vessel is capable of generating. As speed was increased, both the
pitch and roll responses were decreased. However, even though pitch and roll were decreased,
heave increased with the increase in speed. In order to make a compromise between diminished
pitch and roll and acceptable amounts of heave, a safe speed of 8kts was determined. The
response of the vessel was then compared with the computed downflooding angle of the vessel
of 53 degrees. If the ship did not roll pass this angle, it was determined that the ship could
survive.

Figure 21. Sea State 8 at 8kts

For this Magnitude of Response Plot the heave and pitch values were multiplied by 3 so as to be
on the same order of magnitude as the roll. In Sea State 8, all three responses are significantly
greater, especially heave. This amount of heave will make the vessel very uncomfortable for the
crew. Even though the vessel is available to survive Sea State 8; these conditions should be
avoided at all costs. The SPP motions data used to generate Figure 3 can be found in Appendix
[12-3].

13.0 Structural Design

In the process of designing a vessel it is important to verify that the structure of the hull is
adequate enough to support the loads on the vessel. Using Maestro, a Finite Element Analysis
67

tool for ship structures, a structural model of the OSV could be generated. This structure can
then be evaluated using the maximum expected hogging and sagging waves. By evaluating the
model at different loading conditions, the design team could identify if the OSV will survive a
max hogging and sagging wave with the current structure and support.

13.1

Introduction
In designing a vessel, the strength of structures is a very important aspect to be analyzed.
Initially, an estimated weight for the hull of the OSV was calculated using ratiocination and the
SWBS method. After completion of the ratiocination, weight of the hull was determined to be
5,741 LT. However, this number was only an estimate. Working through the design spiral, the
next step was to do another estimation of the hull weight, but using a different method.
The program Maestro was the next method that was utilized in estimating the hull weight. The
program can receive input as to the material used to create frames, stiffeners, and beams, as well
as the dimensions of all other elements used to generate a model. By investing enough time into
the program, a designer could theoretically get the weight of his/her design estimated to within a
fraction of a percent. Maestro was also seen as a good alternate in estimating weight because it
also evaluates the strength of the materials based off of the surrounding support and structures.
After the model was built in Maestro, a balancing test was conducted.
Another aspect that was utilized by the design team was an evaluation of the vessel at worst-case
bending moments. Maestro evaluated the OSV in still water, max hogging moment, and max
sagging moment to determine where the vessel would require additional structure, or to
determine if the structure was inadequate all together.
Although the designer could be very accurate with the model, a lot of time would be required to
achieve the desired results. For this evaluation, approximately 25 hours was spent into the
creation of the model. With a greater time period, the Maestro design could become even more
accurate and representative of the actual vessel.

13.2

Plate/Stiffener Characteristics
The Maestro model was divided up into 6 different subsections. Within each subsection, there
were between one to three modules. The module spacing was determined from the hull shape; in
areas with a more drastic shape change, the modules were shorter so that the strakes created from
the endpoints were not too boxy. By adding more modules, the design group could make the
hull look as much like the ships lines as possible.
The model structure was analyzed as being comprised entirely out of ST-24. This was chosen as
the material because it is a very common building material. The properties for ST-24 can be
found in Table 21.
68

Table 21. ST-24 Properties.
The spacing for all of the subsections and modules are displayed in Table 22. Within the table, a
list of the subsections, modules, the dimensions of each module, and the stiffener spacing within
the module as well as the number of stiffeners is outlined. It is now noted that changing the
stiffener spacing over the length of the vessel can lead to structural continuity problems, and
when evaluating the vessel, Maestro does not take into account the different spacing. Future
work for the Maestro program includes going back to the model and correcting the spacing.

Table 22. Stiffener/Frame Spacing
The stiffener dimensions of the deck and bulkhead frames are listed in Table 23. This table
includes the web height, thickness, flange width and thickness.

Table 23. Stiffener Characteristics
The same plate was used when creating the model: a .5 inch plate made of ST-27. The
properties of the plate are listed in Table24.

Table 24. Plate Properties

845&M5)3>
?'<K
V5F%RW4 X5JF#F4 -#;=T=&Y<0 K.<C1Z6D
)53445% :$&35 6./
E*%43&( -#;=T=&Y/0 KD6.6CA
V3*#J ?&M*44 -#;=T=&Y<0 K.DA1Z6C
[#&32$&* '*%43#* ?&M*%R&I -#;=T=&Y<0 B./71Z6C
:*JF>*J V3*#J ?&M*44 $& PU ,*$& P==*>&*J \5%* -#;=T=&Y<0 K.DA1Z6C
-]^:0 P##5S$;#* +*%J3%R ?&M*44 -#;=T=&Y<0 /.D/1Z6C
?F; J32*%435%4 -6_;5S0 X5JF#*4 25J J32*%435%4 -6_;*R3%%3%R 5= 25JF#*0 ?&3==%*M ?)$>3%R -=&0 ?&3==%*M4
()* ' +,"%-,'%.
25J A 6`C6 / <6
()* / +%'%-/%'.
25JA 6`<K / B
25J < <K`7K / A6
25J / 7K`CK < 7
()* , +/%'-'"&.
25J A 6`HC K AD
()* 0 +'"&-1&.
25J A 6`77 / AB
25J < 77`HD / B
()* % +1&-/$.
25J A 6`K/ K AA
25J < K/`CB / B
()* & +/$-2.
25J A 6`AK K $%J / K
25J < AK`<B /a< H
?*> '()* X$&*M3$# L*; ,*3RI& -=&0 L*; 'I3>b%*44 -=&0 G#$%R* L3J&I -=&0 G#$%R* 'I3>b%*44 -=&0
?&3==%*M '** ?' <K 6.7 6.6KACCDD 6./ 6.6KACCDD
'M$%4c*M4* GM$2* '** ?' <K A 6.6KACCDD 6./ 6.6KACCDD
69

13.3

Appropriating Weights
Once the structure was generated, weights were applied to each module to accurately depict the
weights that were found in the ESWBS weights submittal. In order to do this, the bins submittal
was reconsidered. Because the bins did not match up with the modules, a ratio of LT/ft was
taken for each bin and then applied to the module based on the location of the module and the
bin. For example, for Sub1/mod1, which extended from 375 feet forward to 315 feet, weights
from bins 20, 19, 18, and parts of 17 were utilized in creating the weight for Sub1/mod1. The
formula that was used was as follows:
wcigbt o
Sub"
HoJ"
, ! totol
bn20
/totol
bn19
/totol
bn18
/ 3* , (
II
t
,
)
bn17
.
Eq. 1 Representative Equation for Module Weights
This process was then applied to each module of each sub-section. An excel spreadsheet was
created to generate the total weights, as seen in Appendix [13-1].

13.4

Loading Conditions
After creating the Maestro model, three loading conditions were used to generate an analysis. A
condition of no waves with the model in still water, a condition of the max sagging moment the
vessel is expected to experience, and a condition of the max hogging moment the vessel is
expected to experience.
The model before any of the loads applied can be seen in Appendix [13-2]. A screenshot of the
model deformed after applying the stresses experienced from the still water condition can be
seen in Appendix [13-3]. A screenshot of the model deformed after applying the stresses
experienced from the max hogging condition can be seen in Appendix [13-4]. The max hogging
condition was created by generating a wave that was equal to the length of the ship, but with a
phase angle of 180 degrees so that the crest of the wave would be centered amidships. This
would cause the greatest moment in the stern and bow of the vessel. A screenshot of the model
deformed after applying the stresses experienced from the max sagging condition can be seen in
Appendix [13-5]. The max sagging condition was created by generating a wave that was equal
to the length of the ship, with the crest of the waves originating at the bow and the stern. This
would cause the greatest bending moment amidships. For both scenarios, the wave height was
equaled to L/20, which equated to 18.75 feet.

13.5

Model Weight Comparison
When the model was balanced and loaded, Maestro estimated the model to be 8,491,370 pounds,
or 3790.79 LT after using the conversion factor of 2240 lbf per LT. This is about 2,000 LT
lighter than the estimated weight calculated in the Bins submittal. Because this number
equates to about 40% less material used in creating the hull than estimated, more stiffeners,
beams, and added structural stability would be added to the model for additional support if more
time was given.

13.6

Von Misses Stress
After analyzing the deformed models and evaluating the Von Misses stresses that were also
generated, the weak spots of the model could be identified. Appendix 12-6 shows the Von
70

Misses analysis of the Max Sagging wave condition, where the maximum stress applied occurred
at the bow and stern at the centerline of the vessel. The amount of stress experienced at these
points were about 4.3x10^6 lb/ft^2, which equates to 29,800 psi.
Appendix [13-7] shows the Von Misses analysis of the Max Hogging wave condition. In this
condition, the maximum stress applied occurred at the bottom of the hull and towards amidships
at the main decks where the maximum stress was found to be 2.32x10^6 lb/ft^2. This number
equates to 16,111 psi. This number is below all values for the maximum allowable stress for ST-
27, suggesting that the OSV would be adequate enough to survive a Maximum Hogging
Moment.

13.7

Future Work
If time permitted, more changes to the structure would happen so that the strengths of the
structures could be solidified. When looking at the deformities, more structure should be added
to the decks so that they do not deform as badly.
More time would also be spent in making the decks more accurate. As of right now, the decks
were placed as close as possible to the actual placement of the decks for the OSV. However, the
deck placements are not perfect. By creating more accurately placed endpoints, the decks could
be placed more precisely.
In addition to making the placement of the structure more accurate, the placement of the support
beams and additional girders would have to take place as well. In general, a designer would not
want to add any unnecessary support to the design because it adds more cost. The model would
be supported in areas which require more strength, but the areas which are structurally sound
would not be reinforced if the material used to build the plates (ST-24) did not require additional
support.
Another aspect of the design that would increase the structural strength of the superstructure
would be to align the bulkheads with the superstructure so that additional structural support will
not be required. By aligning the bulkheads with the superstructure, the bulkheads can provide
support to the superstructure without adding unnecessary beams, which also add to the cost of
construction.

14.0 Damaged Stability Assessment

Earlier in the design process, an intact stability test was performed to ensure that the OSV could
survive in different operating conditions while considering downflooding, as required in 46 CFR
174.185. However, these requirements hold true for OSVs conducting their missions in the Gulf
of Mexico and do not set minimal requirements for OSVs sailing up in the Arctic. In order to
further investigate the stability of the OSV, a probabilistic damage study was conducted to
ensure that the OSV has adequate stability when sailing in the Arctic.

14.1

Purpose
The purpose of conducting a damage stability evaluation is to determine how stable a vessel is
after different scenarios where a vessel is being damaged (i.e. running aground or a collision).
For commercial vessels, including the OSV, criteria is set forth by (SOLAS) in determining
whether a vessel passes a damage stability evaluation. However, regulations set forth for vessels
71

in the Arctic, similar to the OSV, have not yet been completely established. These regulations
that the design team is using are meant for OSVs of similar size operating in the Gulf of
Mexico. In anticipation for future regulations that will be implemented as more vessels make the
presence apparent in the Arctic, the design team conducted damage stability tests that exceeded
the current requirements for an OSV. The current set regulations state that the OSV must
conduct damage stability calculations with a penetration of 30 inches. However, the design team
used current SOLAS regulations which require penetration to the centerline, but not exceeding.
This was done to test the stability of the OSV with anticipated future requirements that will
probably be similar to those set forth by SOLAS. It is noted that all of the regulations for
probabilistic damaged stability can be viewed in SOLAS Chapter 2-1 in regulations 6-7.
By checking different loading conditions, the OSV was evaluated to see how likely it would
survive under different damage scenarios. In general, a damage stability analysis serves the
purpose to provide proof of the damage stability standard required for the respective ship type.

14.2

Background
When determining whether the OSV survives the different damage scenarios, guidelines from
the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), under Chapter II-1, Part B
were evaluated and applied to the OSV. In general, the effects when damage to a watertight
division are applied depends on: (1) Which particular space or group of adjacent spaces is
flooded; (2) the draft, trim and intact metacentric height at the time of the damage; (3) the
permeability of affected spaces at the time of the damage; (4) the sea state at the time of damage;
and (5) other factors such as possible heeling moments due to unsymmetrical weights. For the
OSV, all circumstances were taken into consideration when determining the survivability during
different damage cases.
To determine the effects of the damage scenarios, a multitude of data was inputted into the
program General Hydrostatics (GHS). The initial hull from GHS that was evaluated was
reconsidered. The designers had originally placed divisions in the hull to represent the different
tanks that are present in the OSV, but not any of the machinery, living, or side-ballast spaces. To
fully represent the hull of the OSV, the designers inputted all spaces into GHS so that
circumstance (1) mentioned above could be considered. To satisfy circumstance (2) mentioned
above, the permeability requirements listed in Regulation 7.3 of MSC(216)82 was followed.
Three main loading conditions were utilized when evaluating the damage scenarios: loading
conditions at draft ds (the deepest subdivision draft), dl (the service draft corresponding to the
lightest anticipated loading and associated tankage), and dp (the light service draft plus 60% of
the difference between the light service draft and the deepest subdivision draft. Table 25 outlines
the necessary permeabilities, dependant on each load condition
Spaces Permeability at draft
ds
Permeability at draft
dp
Permeability at
draught dl
Dry Cargo Spaces .7 .8 .95
Container Spaces .7 .8 .95
Ro-ro Spaces .90 .9 .95
Cargo Liquids .7 .8 .95
Appropriated to stores .6 .6 .6
Occupied by
Accommodation
.95 .95 .95
72

Occupied by
Machinery
.85 .85 .85
Void Spaces .95 .95 .95
Intended for Liquids .95 .95 .95
Table 25. Permeabilities
In addition to any bulkheads that might be ruptured during a mishap of the OSV, vents and
exhausts were also considered while placing critical points. Critical points designated where any
possible downflooding could occur on the OSV. For the OSV, a variety of critical points
extending longitudinally down the OSV were chosen to represent a few critical points. With
each tank, a vent was incorporated via a gooseneck. While considering the feasibility and
convenience of the placement of the vents, all goosenecks were placed 2 feet inboard of the
bulwarks, while extending 3 feet above the deck. Because the bulwarks extend 4 feet above the
main deck, the gooseneck vents were not higher than the bulwarks.
After completing all the necessary inputs, a probabilistic damaged stability assessment can be
conducted. In order to determine the probability of survival of the scenarios, probability Index
(A) is first determined. Producing A requires calculations of various damage scenarios that are
defined by the extent of damage, coupled with the initial loading conditions of the OSV before
damage. The three loading conditions are each considered, however not equally. Equation 1
outlines the equation used when determining the Attained Index:
A ! # 4A
x
/ # 4A
p
/ # 2A
|
(Eq. 1)

In Equation 1, the indices s, p and l represent the three loading conditions that were previously
mentioned. Based on the different inputs that were placed within the GHS Wizard, an Attained
Index could be solved for. This index was then compared to the Required Index.
Regulation 6 of MSC (216)82 describes how a subdivision is considered sufficient. It states,
The subdivision of a ship is considered sufficient if the attained subdivision Index A,
determined in accordance with Regulation 7, is not less than the required subdivision Index R
calculated in accordance with this regulation. For the purpose of the OSV, the vessel is
considered a cargo ship greater than 100 meters in length. For the assessment the OSV was
considered a cargo vessel greater than 100 meters in length. The formula to generate R is
outlined in Equation 2:
R ! 1 -
128
|
x
+152
(Eq. 2)
Where l
s
is the length overall of the OSV. When inputting the length (114.3 meters) of the OSV
into Equation 2, an R value of .519 is obtained. This value concurs with the value that is
obtained from the GHS Wizard.

14.3

Results and Analysis
A total of three trials with different drafts were analyzed, the deepest draft, the lightship draft,
and an intermediate draft. For each trial the vessel was broken down into 10 separate divisions. It
is noted that GHS used auto division to break up the ship into sections based on the
characteristics of the vessel. For each draft condition, 1, 2, 3, and 4 division damage scenarios
were analyzed. An attained index was also calculated for each damage scenario and were then
added together to get the total attained index for that particular draft.

73

For the deepest draft condition the AOSV did not attain the required index to pass damage
stability. To pass the deepest draft condition, there was a required index of 0.518. The vessel
achieved an attained index of 0.443, which when put into the overall attained index equation
passes. However, the vessel was able to pass the 1-division damage scenario while in the
deepest draft. Also, for 2-division damage the vessel was able to pass all scenarios except when
division 4 and 5 were flooded in the deepest draft. Division 4 and 5 are located between the first
and the third bulkheads. When these compartments were flooded the double hull was also
included in the analysis. As a result of the damage to those two divisions at full load draft, the
ship would sink. The AOSV passed 3-divison damage scenarios except when divisions 3, 4, and
5 are flooded or when divisions 4, 5, and 6 are flooded. These results were expected for 3-
divison damage based on the results of 2-divison damage at full load draft. For 4-division
damage the vessel was only able to stay afloat when divisions 1, 2, 3, and 4 were flooded. These
divisions are located forward in the vessel and represent a small volume of the overall hull. This
is the absolute worst case condition for the vessel. Meaning that if 4 divisions were damaged at
full load draft there is a very high probability that the vessel will not stay afloat. It is noted that
the probability of surviving 4-division damage at full load draft is less than 1 percent. These
results again were expected since flooding 4 divisions in the vessel can represent up to half of the
volume of the total ship.
For both the intermediate and lightship draft scenarios the AOSV had an attained index over
0.518, achieving a 0.703 and 0.732, respectively. The AOSV was able to pass 1, 2, and 3-
division damage for both lightship and intermediate drafts. For the lightship draft there was only
one condition where the AOSV would sink. When flooding divisions 4, 5, 6, and 7 the AOSV
would not be able to stay afloat. For the intermediate draft there were three cases in 4-division
damage where the AOSV would not survive. These results were expected because flooding 4
divisions near amidships represents almost half of the vessels overall volume.
However, in order to pass probabilistic damage stability the overall attainted index must be
greater than 0.518. Even though the AOSV was not able to achieve the required attained index
for the deepest draft condition, the vessel was able to achieve an overall attained index of 0.6048.
This means that the vessel successfully passed damaged stability.
There are two primary concerns that the design team has after the analysis of the results. First, is
when the vessel suffers 4-division damage. For all three draft conditions the vessel fails at least
one scenario when 4 divisions are damaged. Second is during the deepest draft condition. The
vessel sinks in numerous scenarios while loaded to the full load displacement and four divisions
are damaged.. After an analysis of these results these are two areas which would require the
design team to conduct future analysis. A spreadsheet of the results can be viewed in Appendix
[14-1].

Draft Damage
Attained
Index
ds Starboard 0.443
dl Starboard 0.732
dp Starboard 0.703
Table 26. Summary of Each Load Condition
Overall
Attained
Index 0.6048
74

Required
Index 0.518
Table 27. Final Attained Index
The above tables are a summary of the final attained indices after all possible permutations for
each draft were completed as well of the overall final attained index as compared to the required
index.
It is noted that the AOSV does have a double hull which acts as wing tanks, 36 inches wide,
around the perimeter of the hull. When the analysis was conducted these wing tanks were not
input into General Hydrostatics. This was because the vessel attained an index that was higher
than the required index without the wing tanks in the model. However in future design work the
wing tanks will be input into GHS and a more accurate and higher attained index will be
achieved.

14.4

Worst Case
The worst case scenario is at the deepest draft condition when the vessel has 4-division damage.
The only scenario in which the AOSV passes is when division 1, 2, 3, and 4 are flooded. The
vessel would sink under every other combination of divisions for 4-division damage. An
example of this is when divisions 4, 5, 6, and 7 are flooded. It can be seen from the data that in
this particular scenario over half of the hull is being flooded. Most of the scenarios for 4-division
damage flood half or near half of the vessel.

15.0 HVAC Analysis

The HVAC design of the AOSV is a very complex and tedious process. The design team used
two methods in order to determine the required CFM for the space, the CFM allowance method
and the temperature rise method. Based on calculation, the worst-case method could be identified
as the driver for the HVAC design. A set of fans for the engine room could be selected and the
duct work could be designed up to the design teams standards. In for the AOSV HVAC system
to be considered successful, an air circulation rate of one minute needed to be achieved.

15.1

Introduction
The HVAC system is a combination of systems that heats, cools, and ventilates most spaces in a
ship. The primary function of the HVAC system is to maintain a comfortable environment for
the crew members of the vessel. The primary functions of the HVAC system installed on the
arctic offshore supply vessel will to be to heat the vessel because it will operate in very cold
conditions. Due to the nature of heat flow, it is important for a Naval Architect to understand that
heat can travel in a three-dimension fashion, travelling transversely, longitudinally, and vertically
through systems of bulkheads, decks, and overheads. Because of the complexity of the system,
this submittal will just be focusing on the cooling of the main machinery space in the engine
room.

15.2

Background
75

HVAC stands for Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning, and for this submittal, the
ventilation component of HVAC was examined. The supply system of the OSV ushers fresh air
into the engine room, flushing in fresh air into the vessel so that the engine room is not
unbearably hot. For other spaces of the vessel, the HVAC system could serve a purpose to heat
up the area so that the space is not uncomfortably cold. Spaces like berthing areas, the bridge,
and other work spaces can become cold as the vessel travels through the Arctic while completing
its mission. The HVAC system ensures that each space is cooled or heated to appropriate
temperatures. If air is allowed to remain in the engine room, it will begin to heat up. The
exhaust aspect of the HVAC system discharges the air from the ships interior before it becomes
stagnant which helps maintain a steady temperature within the AOSV. When working properly,
the supply and exhaust ventilation in the system maintains a steady flow of fresh air that will
circulate throughout the AOSV.
When designing the HVAC system for the AOSV, guidelines and regulations are established so
that the temperature rise and the rate of air that is being circulated is not too great. These
regulations are established in the Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Design Criteria
Manual for Surface Ships of the United States Navy (DCM). The DCM contains a multitude of
sheets that outline the air quality and flow rates to be maintained at all times during operation for
each space on a vessel.

15.3

CFM Allowance Method
The first method that was used to determine the required flow rate was based on the required
CFM allowances of the specific machinery in the engine room. For this analysis the equipment
that will most likely be on during operations was accounted for: three main diesel generators, an
air compressor, and a fire pump. The power, in horsepower, for each piece of machinery was
then multiplied by the CFM/Unit which is 4.35 for generators, 30.00 for the air compressor, and
30.00 for the firepump. The required CFM for the diesel generators operating at 90 percent is
84653, required CFM for the air compressor is 644, and the required CFM for the fire pump is
429. These values were then added together and a total equipment air requirement of 85,726
CFM was determined in order to reach flank speeds. These calculations showed that in order to
cool the engine room the rate of change of the air would need to be .58 minutes. This would
make the engine room very uncomfortable and almost impossible to work in due to the high
speeds of the ventilation. After further analysis it was determined that the AOSV would only be
operating with 3 gensets at 90 percent capacity for only 5 percent of the time. The calculations
were then redone for the cruising speed of the AOSV which is defined as 2 gen-sets running at
86 percent capacity. This was done because it was determined that the AOSV would be operating
at cruise speed 75 percent of the time. These calculations yielded a required CFM of 85,726,
which yielded a rate of change for the air in the engine room of 1 minute. This meets the
requirement for the rate of change of air so that the space may be manned and comfortable to
work in. The calculations can be viewed in Appendix [15-1].

15.4

Temperature Rise Method
The second method that was used was the Temperature Rise Method. This method utilized
information given in the DCM: engine room operating temperatures in heating and cooling
seasons, rates of heat transfer transversely, longitudinally, and vertically through bulkheads and
76

decks. Different insulations were evaluated that would be utilized for the engine room of the
AOSV. The insulation values and respective heat transfer coefficients were outlined in the
SNAME T&R 4-7. The design team chose an insulation of 1. This method utilizes an excel
spreadsheet which computes CFM by using supply air temperature, cooling temperature, heat
transfer coefficients, and area. This method yielded a total air requirement of 64,435 CFM
Within the DCM, values for a multitude of different spaces are given to be evaluated.
Depending on the space being evaluated, values for different spaces are given for both the
cooling and heating season. For the purpose of solving the required CFM for the engine room,
only spaces adjacent to the engine room were calculated in the excel spreadsheet. The
calculations associated with the Temperature Rise Method can be seen in Appendix [15-2].

15.5

HVAC System Design
When evaluating the two different methods of finding the required CFM, the method that yielded
more required CFM is chosen when designing the HVAC System. This is done as a
consideration to the worse-case scenario. The CFM allowance method is the driving factor in the
HVAC design of the engine because the output of this method was far greater than the output of
the temperature rise method. The CFM Allowance Method was also deemed more reliable, as
the power ratings for the Main Diesel Generators were found specifically for the Wartsila 12V38
Generator Sets, allowing the design group to be more confident when choosing this method over
the Temperature Rise Method.
Because the standard of rate of change should be over 1.0 minute, the chosen CFM allowance
Method with a rate of change of air of 1.0 minute is seen as acceptable. This means that every
minute, the air within the Engine Room must be circulated.

15.6

Fan Selection
In total two exhaust and two supply fans were chosen for the HVAC system in the engine room.
The fan selected is a Navy Axial Fan size A30. This fan is able to operate at 33,000 CFM, which
is more than enough due to the required CFM of the engine room is 65,000. To come to this
conclusion the design team looked at the performance van axial fan chart and it was determined
that there were two acceptable fan choices. One was the A30 and the other was the A25. Both
fans require 25 horse power to operate but the A30 had a slightly higher pressure head. This
increase in pressure head means that the ducting size in the engine room could be decreased in
size.

15.7

Duct Design
After the Fan Selection was made, the duct design was considered. With consideration of the
engine room dimensions, the size of the generators, and the fact that the Exhaust system has to
be 125% of the Supply volume, a duct design for the OSV was created. It was determined
previously that four fans would exist for the duct design, two exhaust systems and two supply
systems. A worse-case scenario was asked to be considered, so an evaluation of the longer
exhaust system and the longer supply system was evaluated. Although the supply system is
longer than the exhaust system, the exhaust system required more air flow, and thus greater sized
ducts to maintain positive pressure. After combining a system of fans, elbows, wyes,
77

goosenecks, and diffusers, a duct design that would fit within the physical limitations of the
engine room while simultaneously satisfying the requirement to maintain 125% of Supply
Volume for the Exhaust system, was created. Appendices [15-3] and [15-4] include the pressure
head calculations used to determine the positive pressure flow through the duct system, and
Appendix [15-5] contains the line drawing of the Duct Design.
After consideration of the two methods to determine the CFM, the CFM allowance method was
chosen for evaluation of a duct design because it was more reliable and prepared the design team
for a worse-case scenario. A design that includes four different fans, with a duct design of two
supply and two exhaust systems were created while satisfying the required 125% exhaust to
supply ratio requirement. If the group could go through the design spiral again, emphasis would
be placed on making more space in the engine room for the chosen generator sets, or perhaps
choosing different generators altogether to allow great requirements to be met for flanking
speeds using the original three generators at 90%.

16.0 Crewing Analysis
As the first design spiral is starting to see its end, the OSV design team can make estimates for
the crew size that will be required for the OSV. Considering the Code of Federal Regulations,
the Outer Continental Shelf National Center of Excellence OSV Manning Policy Guidance, and
the Marine Safety Manual Vol III, a safe and adequate crew size can be determined and
established for the OSV.

16.1

Introduction
During the initial meetings in which the design team came together, a Design Philosophy was
formed which would put emphasis on reducing the crew of the OSV by introducing more
automated systems. This would increase the initial cost of building the OSV, but would reduce
the operating costs, hopefully reducing the lifetime cost of the vessel.
For US-flagged Container Ships, the daily operating cost amounted to 17,656 dollars a day, or
about 530,000 dollars a month. Operating costs are defined as: Cost of Crew + Store/Lubes +
Maintenance & Repair + Insurance + Overhead Costs. According to the same study, 68% of the
operating cost for US-flagged vessels is attributed from the crewing cost. Because the cost of
crewing has been determined to dominate the percentage of operating costs, the design team was
determined to minimize the amount of crew aboard.

16.2

Manning Requirements
Within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), manning requirements for a number of different
vessels are listed. 46 CFR 15.501 states the minimal manning requirements for any vessel is
determined by: Emergency situations, size and type of vessel, installed equipment, proposed
routes of operation including frequency of port calls, cargo carried, type of service in which
employed, degree of automation, use of labor saving devices, and the organizational structure of
the vessel.
The OSV that has been designed has a gross tonnage that exceeds 1,000 GT and a round-trip
voyage of about 4,000 NM, placing the vessel in the last category of Figure 22.
78

Figure 22. Outline of Crewing Requirements
As seen in Figure 22, the minimum amount of licensed/Assistant Engineers without any
automation is two, whereas the minimum for a vessel that has automation that requires only
periodic attendance is only one. The same relationship can be seen for the minimum amount of
Oilers. With no automation aboard, there is a required of three oilers needing to be present.
With a vessel that is periodically unattended, only one oiler is required.
Although there are minimum manning requirements, other factors should be considered in
determining the minimum safe and effective manning. These factors consider: (1) the
management of the safety, security and protection of the environment functions of a ship at sea
when not under way; (2) the provision of qualified deck officers to ensure that it is not necessary
for the master to keep regular watches by adopting a three-watch system; (3) the provision of
qualified engineer officers to ensure that it is not necessary for the chief engineer to keep regular
watches by adopting a three-watch system; (4) the maintenance of applicable occupational health
and hygiene standards on board; and (5) the provision of proper food and drinking water for all
persons on board, as required. 46 CFR 15.705b states that for vessels over 100 gross tons, the
personnel shall be divided, when at sea, into at least three watches and shall be kept on duty
successively to perform ordinary work incident to the operation and management of the vessel.
Because of the requirements, the OSV will require a three-watch system. Because the OSV will
need to maintain a three watch rotation, there will be more than the one required assistant
engineer to maintain a proper watch rotation.

16.3

Sailing List
When creating a sailing list, a combination of the minimal manning requirements coupled with
real-life examples of other bulk carriers were used to determine the actual size of the crew.
Factors such as maintaining a watch rotation that would allow for maximum efficiency without
paying for overtime were considered. The OSV should not have to anchor on its way to its
destination to avoid additional crewing costs. By maintaining enough people onboard to stand
watch, the vessel can maintain operations 24 hours a day without having to deal with paying for
overtime. The extra Seamen and Oilers aboard also allow for crew to upkeep in the vessels
maintenance and any cargo operations without cutting into the mates watch schedule. Fueling
can also be done efficiently with multiple Oilers onboard, crew that is generally cheaper to carry.
In accordance with 46 CFR 61 and 62, the OSV must record over 3,000 underway hours as a
vessel fully attended before it can proceed as a vessel that is periodically unattended, as
79

denoted in Figure 1. Once the vessel records over 3,000 underway hours, a Coast Guard
technical review must be conducted to ensure compliance with the requirements in 46 CFR 61.40
and the applicable sections of 46 CFR part 62 to ensure that the OSV complies within
automation requirements. Once the vessel is deemed to be within the proper requirements to be
determined a periodically unattended engine system, the crew can be cut down to save tens of
thousands of dollars a month.
Once automation is deemed appropriate, a sailing list can be created to represent the desired
amount of crew aboard the OSV. With the amount of bodies needed to maintain a safe and
effective watch, a sailing list was created for a vessel deemed to have an engine room that is self-
automated. The Sailing List is in Figure 23:

Figure 23. Sailing List for the OSV
The OSV must be within CFR requirements to be deemed as periodically unattended. Systems
that are to be used for automation for unattended machinery spaces are outlined in 46 CFR 130.4,
which makes the OSV subject, but not limited to, Pilothouse having controls to start a fire pump,
charge the fire main, and monitor the pressure in the fire main (46 CFR 130.430), a
communications system to immediately summon a crew member to the machinery space
wherever one of the alarms is activated (46 CFR 130.440), and a system of alarms much be
installed to alert engineers in case of events outlined in 46 CFR 130.460.

16.4

Estimated Crew Cost
With approximations from LCDR Cost, a reliable cost estimate can be calculated for a crew that
the OSV will support. With a watch rotation specified earlier from the CFRs, a sustainable
rotation can be maintained with the engine-room automation systems. Comparing a full crew to
the reduced crew due to automation, the OSV will save approximately 20,000 dollars a month in
crewing costs. The upfront costs of producing the required engine room alarm systems might be
overwhelming with the initial building costs, but saving 20,000 dollars a month will add up very
quickly. Table 1 displays the estimated cost for the OSV.
80

Table 28. Estimated Cost of OSV for Reduced Manning

16.5

Emergency Station Bill
In keeping within regulations, the master of the OSV is required to maintain an Emergency
Station Bill that outlines what each member of the vessel is required to do in case of a Fire or
emergency, an abandon ship call, or a man over board. After creating an example Emergency
Station Bill, found in Appendix [16-1], all requirements listed within 46 CFR 131.350 that
outlines what is required for a station bill are met.

17.0 Cost Analysis

At the conclusion of the first design spiral, an accurate estimate of the OSV can be conducted. A
vessels cost is a very important aspect for a potential buyer. A potential operator could use this
information to determine the day rate they need to charge in order to eventually make a profit
over the lifetime of these vessels. However, since this is the end of the first iteration of a design
spiral that could circulate many times, the cost estimate could see fluctuations as the design team
alters different ship characteristics.

17.1

Background
One of the driving factors in commercial ship design is the cost of the vessel. The design team
could design the most capable vessel in history but if it costs too much the ship will never be
built. Another factor that is very important in commercial ship design is when the company starts
to realize a profit from their vessel. This is often misunderstood because the day rates of an
offshore supply vessel can exceed $100,000 but in reality even at a day rate of this value in
might take over 10 years for the company to not operate at a loss. Both the acquisition and
building costs were looked at as well as the life cycle costs. More specifically the design team
defines at what year the company can realize a profit. All analysis was conducted in present year
dollars assuming a present year dollar rate of 6%.

17.2

Acquisition and Construction Cost
A cost analysis spreadsheet was provided to the design team from an undisclosed commercial
ship yard. This cost estimating spreadsheet is a SWBS weight based cost model that predicts the

d'V eTJ$( >54&TJ$(
X$4&*M A D76.66 e D76.66 e
X$&* K B<7.66 e /a/66.66 e
9I3*= 1%R3%**M A D<7.66 e D<7.66 e
P4434&$%& 1%R3%**M / B<7.66 e <aKH7.66 e
P+TO? 7 <76.66 e Aa<76.66 e
dX1ETO3#*M K <66.66 e B66.66 e
?&*S$MJT955b < <66.66 e K66.66 e
&5&$# A6aA66.66 e J$(
/6 J$(4 &5&$# /6/a666.66 e 25%&I
81

design as well as the construction costs of the AOSV. It is noted that the values in the
spreadsheet are very dated and the design team had to make modifications that are more accurate
to todays construction and design costs. Roughly 35% of the cost of the ship came from the
structure, the structure costs were taken from SWBS 100 weight estimates. Most all other values
in the cost model were taken from online and instructor provided sources. A labor rate of $102
per hour was assumed and a total construction cost of $188 million was obtained. The design
team then added in the lofting package and final design costs which brought the total cost of the
ship up to $190 million. The cost model spreadsheet can be viewed in Appendix [17-1].

17.3

Life Cycle Costs
The life cycle costs of the ship were then looked at on a price per year basis. The current price of
fuel is $119 per barrel for bunker C fuel, this fuel is still authorized to use off of the north slope
of Alaska. The design team then estimated that the ship would be underway for 160 days per
year, which equates to four 40 day patrols. The reason for only 160 days of operation a year is
because the drill rigs will only be operating in the summer months. It was determined that at
current fuel prices the cost of fuel per year is roughly $12 million. The next expense that was
looked at was the crewing costs. The crewing cost for this analysis was based on minimal
crewing after the 3000 hour threshold. Also, the crewing cost includes the cost of the food.
Through a previous crewing analysis it was determined that the crew would cost $8,575 per day.
With 160 days underway the crew will cost $1.3 million per year. The next expense that was
looked at was the pier costs when the vessel is not underway. The day rate to moor a vessel of
this size in Alaska is $1,150. Since the vessel is to be at the pier 205 days per year, the total pier
costs are $235,000. The next expense that was calculated was off loads. This value was based on
speculation and may not be accurate. Offloads includes off loading ballast, trash, and any other
items that are not allowed to be discharged at sea. The total value for off loads per year is
$125,000. The final value that was looked at was the electronic communication. Since the vessel
is operating in a remote area satellite communications will be a necessity. The estimated cost for
this was $25,000 per year. All of these values were then added together to calculate a value for
costs per year to operate the vessel, which is $14 million dollars. It is noted that all values are
increased by 6 percent per year; this was done in order for all calculations to be done in present
year dollars. Also the initial cost of the vessel was added to the first years operating costs.
Finally the design team calculated when the company could start to realize a profit from the
vessel. The design team calculated the cost per year values out to 40 years. From this calculation
a day rate for the vessel could then be determined. The day rate that the design team chose was
$150,000. Even with such a costly day rate the company would expect to operate at a loss for the
first 12 years. However to reduce this long period of operating at a loss, the company could put a
down payment on the vessel to offset the construction costs. If the company paid down 50% of
the initial construction cost then they would expect to turn a profit around year 6 of operations. A
spreadsheet of the life cycle and realized profit calculations can be viewed in Appendix [17-2].
82

References
1. http://www.natice.noaa.gov/new_look/products/sigrid.html
2. Janes Fighting Ships. 2000-2001, 103
rd
edition.
3. Nautical expo website. http://www.nauticexpo.com/prod/stx-europe-former-aker-
yards/special-vessels-icebreakers-shipyardss-30725-283628.html
4. Model Ship Gallery.
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/misc/icebreaker/stlaurent-360-mn/mn-
index.html
5. http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1593147
6. DDS-079-1
7. 46 CFR 171.085 Collision bulkheads
8. 46 CFR 174.207Permeabilities
9. 46 CFR 171.015- Margin Line
10. 46 CFR 174.207(a) Subdivision standard
11. 46 CFR 171.015- Margin Line
12. Zubaly, Robert. Applied Naval Architecture. 1st ed. Centerville,
Maryland: Cornell Maritime Press, 1996. 265-268. Print.
13. INTERIM EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE SOLAS CHAPTER II-1
SUBDIVISION AND DAMAGE STABILITY REGULATIONS
14. http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/Comparison_of_US_and_Foreign
_Flag_Operating_Costs.pd
15. http://www.uscg.mil/d8/prevention/docs/2001Policy/MultiServiceOSVs.pdf
16. http://marinelog.com/DOCS/shipcontracts.html

17. http://www.marinelink.com/maritime/EDISON-CHOUEST-
OFFSHORE

83

APPENDICES

ALnulx 1
18Aul1lCnAL PuLLS
!
"
#$
%
&
$
'
(
'
)
'
*
'
+
,
'
!
-
.
*
,
'
/
-
.
+
0
*
&
1
'
+
2
0
"
3
)
0
4
5
'
6
7
3
)
0
4
8
*
6
)
0
3
9
0
4
8
#:
$
;6
,
'
7
'
+
0
3
)0
4
<
-
=
'
*
<
;6
+
0
%
&
$
'
>+
:
0
6
;;'
?
<
-
=
'
*
3
"
$
4
<
-
=
'
*
@
&
%
&
$
'
A
6
B
#7
.
7
:
$
'
'
?
3C
0
:
4
D
+
?
.
*
6
+
,
'
-
*
,
*
.
#:
'
:
$
'
'
?
3
C
0
:
4
/
;6
:
:
#)
#,
6
0
#-
+
,
-
7
$
;'
7
'
+
0
3
$
'
*
:
-
+
:
4
(
6
+
2
'
3
+
7
4
/
@
5
E
%
1
E
5
F
E
3
1
$
$
4
G
HI
9
*
-
.
?
'
+
.
7
@
'
*
5
J
<
E
0
-
+
5
J
<
E
3
0
-
+
K
F
4
uSCCC kaLherlne Walk keeper Class !ane's 103 ed uSA 173 36 7.9 916
2 caL 33081A
dlesels, 2 ulsLeln z
drlves, bow
LhrusLer 2337.363
dlesels: 1.43 MW,
oLher: 343 kW 12 10 buoy Lender 18 0.6442 4.337 4.861 0.907 0.16 2.332 0.213
Slmon lraser
!ane's 103
ed, pg 97 Canada 209 42.3 13.4 1373 2 nC dlesels 2078.33 12.3 11 medlum Lender 24 3300 0.3318 2.76 4.918 0.863 0.132 1.312 0.121
Marha L 8lack
!ane's 103
ed, pg 96 Canada 272.2 33.1 18.9 4662
uleselLlecLrlc, 3
8omb dlesel, 2 CL
moLors, bow
LhrusLer 13086.23
dlesels: 6 mw, CL
moLors: 3.23 MW 13.3 13 LlghL lcebreaker 23 6300 0.3973 2.81 3.126 0.939 0.166 3.236 0.209
1erry lox
!ane's 103
ed, pg 96 Canada 288.7 38.7 27.2 7100
4 werkspoor
dlesles, bow sLern
LhrusLers 22797 16 13 heavy lcebreaker 23 1920 0.3391 2.138 4.918 0.942 0.166 3.211 0.201
Louls S SL LaurenL
!ane's 103
ed, pg 96 Canada 392.7 80.1 32.2 14300
krupp Mak dlesels,
3 CL moLors, bow
LhrusLer 63464.938
dlesels: 28.96, CL
moLors: 19.83 MW 18 17 heavy lcebreakers 47 23000 0.3011 2.488 4.903 0.908 0.16 4.313 0.231
Slr Pumphrey CllberL
!ane's 103
ed, pg 97 Canada 237.9 48 16.3 3036
uleselelecLrlc, 4
falrbanks,orse
dlesels, 2 moLors 9232.9
dlesels: 3.77,
moLors: 3.13 MW 13 11 LlghL lcebreaker 23 10000 0.3746 2.943 4.936 0.843 0.149 3.028 0.233
Larl Crey
!ane's 103
ed, pg 98 Canada 228.7 44.9 19 2933 uleselelecLrl, 17298.9
4 WarLslla dlesels:
6.4 Mw, 4 ueuLz
dlesels: 6.3 Mw 13 12 LlghL lcebreaker 22 18000 0.3263 2.363 3.094 0.86 0.131 3.894 0.433
Slur Wllfred Crenfell
!ane's 103 ed
pg 100 Canada 224.7 49.2 16.4 3733 ulesels 12683.86 4 ueuLz 4SA dlesels 16 14 paLrol cuLLers 20 11000 0.7243 3 4.367 1.067 0.188 3.38 0.211
Shlrase Shlrase Class
!ane's 103 ed
p 386 !apan 439.3 91.8 32.2 19000
uleselelecLrlc, 6
MlLsul dlesels, 6
gens, 6 moLors 82603.6
dlesles: 39.6 Mw,
moLors: 22 Mw 19 13 lcebreaker 170+60 23000 0.3119 2.831 4.788 0.906 0.16 4.348 0.229
aradoks 3 Sllva
!ane's 103 ed
p 603 8ussla 227 30.3 16.7 3030
2 8usskly dlesels,
bow LhrusLers 6973.2 dlesles: 3.2 MW 16 16 lcebreaker 43+10 6000 0.3376 3.024 4.493 1.062 0.187 2.286 0.143
Svalbard Cv
!ane's 103
ed, p. 489 norway 337.9 62.7 21.3 6100
uleselLlecLrlc, 4
dlesel generaLors,
2 azlmuLh pods 10728 dlsels: 8 Mw 17 13 lcebreaker 30 10000 0.4731 2.944 3.389 0.923 0.163 1.739 0.103
Posmax 320 CSv
Pornbeck
Cffshore uSA 319.3 64 19.43 3620 ulesel 6008 12 11
A8S, A1, AMS, uS2, ACC, uWlLu, llvl,(L), CS,
Loadllne, CSv 0.3186 3.29 4.992 0.671 0.118 1.66 0.138
PCS CC8AL CSv
Pornbeck
Cffshore uSA 283 64 19.43 3299 ulesel 6140 12 11 (L), +A1, +AMS, +uS2, A8S, Loadllne, CSv 0.3238 3.294 4.433 0.711 0.123 1.861 0.133
Posmax 310 CSv
Pornbeck
Cffshore uSA 302 64 21 4100 ulesel LlecLrlc 6700 12 10
A8S, A1, AMS, uS2, ACCu, uWlLu, llvl, (L),
Lnvl8C, CS, LCAuLlnL, CSv 0.3333 3.048 4.719 0.691 0.122 1.634 0.136
Posmax 300 CSv
Pornbeck
Cffshore uSA 292 64 19.3 3300 ulesel LlecLrlc 6700 12 10
A8S, A1, AMS, uS2, ACCu, uWlLu, llvl, (L),
Lnvl8C, CS, LCAuLlnL, CSv 0.3362 3.282 4.363 0.702 0.124 1.914 0.16
Pos naveganLe CSv
Pornbeck
Cffshore uSA 243 34 20.43 2314 ulesel 7844 13 12
8v, l(+A1(L)), +PuLL, +MACP(+AMS), Supply
vessel, unresLrlcLed navagaLlon, u?nACS
AM/A1 (+uS1) 0.3279 2.641 4.3 0.834 0.147 3.12 0.24
Pos Saylor CSv
Pornbeck
Cffshore uSA 243 34 20.43 2791 ulesel 7844 14 12
8v, l(+A1(L)), +PuLL, +MACP(+AMS), Supply
vessel, unresLrlcLed navagaLlon, u?nACS
AM/A1 (+uS1) 0.364 2.641 4.3 0.898 0.138 2.81 0.201
Pos SLormrldge CSv
Pornbeck
Cffshore uSA 260 60 16.73 2320 ulesel 6780 13 11 AM, +AMS, +uS2, A8S, Loadllne, CSv 0.3373 3.382 4.333 0.806 0.142 2.69 0.207
8ourbon 8orgsLeln CSv 8ourbon norway 287.7 39 26.23 3903 ulesel LlecLrlc 20113 17.7 12 unv + 1A1, llre llghLer l ClL8LC Sl 0.3067 2.248 4.876 1.044 0.184 3.131 0.291
Pavlla loreslghL CSv Pavlla norway 307 64.6 23.73 4309 ulesel 11736 16.3 14
unv + 1A1, L0Sl, uynpos Au18, CLLAn, CCMl
v (raLlng 3), uk(10),hl(2,3 / 2,8),LlL*, ClL 8LC:
Acc. 1o nofo 2003 SLandard 0.2933 2.309 4.732 0.942 0.166 2.724 0.163
kL Arendalf[ord CSv 8olls 8oyce C? 236.22 32.3 22.96 2130 ulesel 3377.3 13 10
unv, +A1SlL0CLLAn, and Solas 1974 wlLh
laLesL amendmenLs, uyn os AuL and 1MCn 0.2643 2.287 4.499 0.846 0.149 2.301 0.192
vlklng 1roll CSv Lldesvlk norway 242.43 32.3 24.93 2328 ulesel 13000 16 12 n/A 0.2788 2.106 4.618 1.028 0.181 3.934 0.371
norLhern Crusader CSv Lldesvlk norway 241.46 33.8 22.47 2333 Azlpod 13612 16 12 n/A 0.28 2.394 4.488 1.03 0.181 6.686 0.418
normand ALlanLlc CSv
SolsLad
Cffshore ASA norway 263.77 39 23.3 4200 ulesel 18600 16 13
1A1 lCLC 1ugSupply vessel llre llghLer l and
llClL8LC Sl L0 u?nCSAu18 uk(+)PL(2.3 60 0.3704 2.314 4.471 0.983 0.174 4.429 0.277
Adams AquanauL CSv
Adams
Cffshore
L1u. 8ahraln 240.3 32.3 24.6 2642 ulesel 6700 14 10 A8S 0.2977 2.134 4.381 0.903 0.139 2.336 0.181
!""#$%&' (
%)*+,# !-.&$/ 0*,,1
!
"
#$
%
&
$
'
(
'
)'
*
'
+
,
'
!
-
.
*
,
'
/
-
.
+
0
*
&
1
'
+
2
0
"
3
'
4
5
6
*
4
)0
6
#7
$
84
,
'
5
'
+
0
9
-
:
'
*
9
84
+
0
%
&
$
'
#+
7
04
88'
;
9
-
:
'
*
9
-
:
'
*
<
&
%
&
$
'
=
4
>
#5
.
5
7
$
'
'
;
?
+
;
.
*
4
+
,
'
-
*
,
*
.
#7
'
7
$
'
'
;
/
84
7
7
#)#,
4
0#-
+
,
-
5
$
8'
5
'
+
0
(
4
+
2
'
/
<
3
@
%
1
@
3
A
@
B1
$
$
CD
EF
G
*
-
.
;
'
+
.
5
<
'
*
3
H
9
@
0
-
+
3
H
9
@
B0-
+
I
A
C
$2-/3 14567589 )"3 :;<;=>9;5 $28?5@ ABA CADC A(DE CEFG %;>H>6>6>IJ8;I E(GFKDL
L M EEBK <: NN
+>8O>PQ A M G R:
!S;=29 (FDG (G &I>78>5<>8 GK LKKK KDGFEKFG ADBETBCF LDCCLGEF (DKAL(( KD(TKLFC LDBGAAA KDATABTL
1-U 15<V56;P 1-U :;<;=>9;5 NWHH;5 EKT CTDF ALDC BBTK %;>H>6>6>IJ8;I EFFTT
EM:58JH;65 XE M GTKK
<:YQ A M !++ !S;=29
3(C %5H (CDF (G ;I>78>5<>8 LK GKKK KDCF(KGA ADFBACTE LDLTEAC( KDBG(GF( KD(CFCBA EDFTCEFE KDAACFAB
*1-/! R5I<;P5? :,++ :;<;=>9;5 *1! ALK GTDG (C EGKK
&PJ>O85J>9 R5;P =82=W6H;2P
5P9 #6>IJ8;I56 "65PJ B((B !++ !S;=29 (C (L &I>78>5<>8 GG KDGLGE(F EDCGCAG LD(KAGCL (DKEAFBC KD(TAKKC ADCKGLAB KD(CATEB
.>Z=>85 -8W9> );6 .5P<>8 :;<;=>9;5 U;P65P9 TAC (LL GK CLAGB 9;>H>6#6>IJ8;I GECKK
A [ :\8JH;6\ B,ET+](^
XA [ CQK R:YQ A [
:\8JH;6\ C,ET+](^
XA [ LDK R:Y (GDA (EDG ;I>78>5<>8 AK GKKK KDEFT(FA ADTT GDFEC((( KDGATTFC KDKBEAKA KDTEL(AL KDKGLTFF
3;JWH +>8;PO "13 :;<;=>9;5 NWHH;5 EAF F(DA ALDB F(KK 9;>H>6>6>IJ8;I L(GLK
U2W8 :\8JH;6\ 9;>H>6
O>P>85J28HQ .?2 !++
!S;=29 WP;JH XA [ CDG
R:Y
.?2 72? JV8WHJ>8H (G (L ;I>78>5<>8 GK GKKK KDLATCLF ADTGBLET LDGBACBF KDTABGKA KD(LC(T( GDTGKFKL KDEBKKLF
U>PP;I5 R13 58IJ;5D_; U;P65P9 ETK TG EA (ATKK &"1 LBFT(
L :58JH;65 9;>H>6 O>PHQ
A !++ %8;4>HQ E +2?
.V8WHJ>8H A( (F &I>78>5<>8 FF CKKK KDL(LFCT EDLBFEBL LDEBET(F KDBKKGGT KD(GTFKA GDAEKBLF KDABTBEC
! "! #!! #"! $!! $"! %!! %"!
$
&
#$
#&
$$
$&
$
&
#$
#&
$$
$&
! $! '! (! )! #!! #$! #'! #(! #)! $!! $$! $'! $(! $)! %!! %$!
!"# $%&'(%&) *+,-. /)01 2 )34
'
,
5
.
-
6
7
.

8
9
,
"
#

/
"
#
1
'
,
5
.
-
6
7
.

8
9
,
"
#

/
"
#
1
:.7.9,- *+,-.
;<49=5#,#6+ >9=?.9#6.5 ,# %.@.- 096A
*+,-./012134 #'! 56 789 #:# ;6 <221=,+>3 #:$ 56?+3 /3@ ABC #)' DE: ;6
F>2134?6=+2 #'!! ;656?*1G HF5 #I ;6 HF6 #:$ ;6
589 JK,1 4>- ,0/.1L 58; JK,1 4>- ,0/.1L
!
"
#
$
%
&!
&"
&#
&$
&%
"!
! '!!! &!!!! &'!!! "!!!! "'!!! (!!!!
!
"

#
$
%
&
'()*+,-./.0% #12&
345)) 3647.)
8! 9 :; $%
' )*+,**-
&! )*+,**-
&' )*+,**-
"! )*+,**-
"' )*+,**-
(! )*+,**-
(' )*+,**-
#! )*+,**-
'! )*+,**-
$! )*+,**-
.! )*+,**-
%! )*+,**-
/! )*+,**-
)*-0+1 )0-2345*6*17
!"
#
$
%
&
"
&
%
$
" &" %" $" #" !"" !&"
!
"
#
$
%
"
&
#

'
(
)

*
+
%
,
'&#-. /+ 0..- *1.#(..2,
!"#$%"&# '() 34(5.2
*67 8 9: +% ; </(2% =>2. 2=.&>("/,
''"" () $#*' () #&'" () +$&' () !!""" () ,-./0123 !&4*' () $#*' ()
!
"
!
#
$
%
&"
&!
&#
" !" #" $" %" &"" &!"
!
"
#
$
%
"
&
#

'
(
)

*
+
%
,
'&#-. /+ 0..- *1.#(..2,
!"#$%"&# '() 34(5.2
*67 8 9: +%; .<=.>%.1 -/>?%"/&,
&&""" '( )*+,-./0 11"" '( &231" '(
!""
!#"
$""
!
"
#
$
%

&
%
'
(
)
*

+
'

,
%
%
)
-..%'!+/ 0
,$11!"#$% &%'()*
"
#"
" #" !"" !#" $"" $#" %"" %#" &""
,
$
1
1
!
&1'(+)2!+'"$ &13")+1' 4516 $13")%! ") 7 8)9

Appendix A
Reference
NEW Healy Ratio (n/p) NSC Ratio (n/p) Mackinaw Ratio (n/p)
L (feet) 375.00 L (feet) 396.50 0.95 L (feet) 390.00 0.96 L (feet) 227.00 1.65
B (feet) 82.00 B (feet) 82.00 1.00 B (feet) 54.00 1.52 B (feet) 58.50 1.40
D (feet) 64.00 D (feet) 42.00 1.52 D (feet) 38.83 1.65 D (feet) 30.00 2.13
Displacment (LT) 11638.00 Displacment (LT) 15955.64 0.73 Displacment (LT) 3885.00 3.00 Displacment (LT) 3125.00 3.72
WS (feet^2) 33087.00 WS (feet^2) 38860.00 0.85 WS (feet^2) 18983.70 1.74 WS (feet^2) 19347.00 1.71
SHP 18774.00 SHP 30000.00 0.63 SHP 49346.00 0.38 SHP 9119.00 2.06
V (knots) 18.00 V (knots) 17.00 1.06 V (knots) 29.60 0.61 V (knots) 15.00 1.20
Cp 0.72 Cp Cp 0.62 1.16 Cp 0.74 0.97
Cwp 0.91 Cwp 0.76 1.20 Cwp 0.78 1.17 Cwp 0.86 1.06
T (H) (feet) 27.50 T (H) (feet) 28.00 0.98 T (H) (feet) 14.40 1.91 T (H) (feet) 16.00 1.72
KW 14000.00 KW 2400.00 5.83 KW 1360.00 10.29 KW 6800.00 2.06
LD 24000.00 LD 16653.00 1.44 LD 15143.00 1.58 LD 6810.00 3.52
LB 30750.00 LB 32513.00 0.95 LB 21060.00 1.46 LB 13279.50 2.32
L*(B+2D) 78750.00 L*(B+2D) 65819.00 1.20 L*(B+2D) 51347.00 1.53 L*(B+2D) 26899.50 2.93
L*D*(2D+B)^2 1058400000.00 L*D*(2D+B)^2 458890068.00 2.31 L*D*(2D+B)^2 262506280.90 4.03 L*D*(2D+B)^2 95627722.50 11.07
LBD^2*Cp 90685440.00 LBD^2*Cp 0.00 0.00 LBD^2*Cp 1687240.08 53.75 LBD^2*Cp 117445850086.50 0.00
LD^2 1536000.00 LD^2 699426.00 2.20 LD^2 588029.87 2.61 LD^2 204300.00 7.52
L(B+D) 54750.00 L(B+D) 1365546.00 0.04 L(B+D) 817759.80 0.07 L(B+D) 20089.50 2.73
2*(D-H)*L 27375.00 2*(D-H)*L 11102.00 2.47 2*(D-H)*L 19055.40 1.44 2*(D-H)*L 6356.00 4.31
LBCwp 27982.50 LBCwp 24719.63 1.13 LBCwp 16426.80 1.70 LBCwp 11420.37 2.45
LBD/100 = CN 19680.00 LBT/100 = CN 13655.46 1.44 LBT/100 = CN 8177.60 2.41 LBT/100 3983.85 4.94
LCB 175.5
LOA 375
L01 Deck
Accomodation officer 7 Accomodation, officers 18 0.39 Accomodation, officers 25 0.28 Officer 9 0.78
Ammodation enlisted 15 accomodation, enlisted 54 0.28 accomodation, enlisted 111 0.14 Crew 46 0.33
Accomodation guests + offshore 40 accomadation, guests+offshore 13 3.08 accomadation, guests+offshore 12 3.33 Offshore +Guests 0 under
accomodation total 62 accomodation, total 136 0.46 accomodation, total 148 0.42 Total Accomadations 55 1.13
Parent Ratio (n/p) 352.00
L (feet) 360.90 1.04 78.00
B (feet) 80.00 1.03 43.20
D (feet) 34.00 1.88 10800.00
Displacment (LT) 14083.00 0.83 30246.30
WS (feet^2) 30596.00 1.08 60000.00
SHP 7077.92 2.65 20.00
V (knots) 15.00 1.20
Cp 0.70 1.03 0.75
Cwp 0.88 1.03 28.00
T (H) (feet) 28.00 0.98 750.00
KW 16240.00 0.86
15206.40
LD 12270.60 1.96 27456.00
LB 28872.00 1.07 57868.80
L*(B+2D) 53413.20 1.47 410988847.10
L*D*(2D+B)^2 268775222.40 3.94 0.00
LBD^2*Cp 23363222.40 3.88 656916.48
LD^2 417200.40 3.68 1186099.20
L(B+D) 41142.60 1.33 10700.80
2*(D-H)*L 4330.80 6.32 12605.73
LBCwp 25407.96 1.10 11860.99
LBT/100 9816.48 2.00
Appendix B
SWBS DESCRIPTION Mackinaw NEW KG Moment LCG Moment
111 Shell Plating 339.0 463.0 35.0 16205.0 135.0 62505.0
113 Inner Bottom 51.3 95.3 3.0 285.9 175.0 16677.5
114 Shell Appendages 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
115 Stanchions 2.2 4.3 37.0 159.1 140.0 602.0
116 Longitudinal Framing 101.4 203.4 5.0 1017.0 175.0 35595.0
117 Transverse Framing 190.0 310.2 5.0 1551.0 175.0 54285.0
121 Longitudinal structural bulkheads 59.1 80.0 5.0 400.0 0.0
122 Transverse structural bulkheads 132.2 186.0 32.0 5952.0 175.0 32550.0
123 Trunks and enclosures 4.3 6.0 30.0 180.0 150.0 900.0
131 Main deck 359.09 180.0 40.0 7200.0 187.5 33750.0
132 2nd deck and below 4,615.20 3000.0 17.0 51000.0 187.5 562500.0
151-154 Superstructure 1269 900.0 74.0 66600.0 187.5 168750.0
161 Structure casting and forgings 6.7 33.1 20.0 662.0 175.0 5792.1
162 Stacks 7.7 8.0 85.0 680.0 160.0 1280.0
163 Sea Chests 6.7 6.0 2.5 15.0 245.0 1470.0
167 Hull and Structural Closures 17.1 60.3 45.0 2711.9 175.0 10546.3
168 Deckhouse structure closures 0.0 2.0 80.0 160.0 135.0 270.0
169 Special purpose closures 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
171 Masts, Towers and Tetrapods 0.0 3.0 80.0 240.0 200.0 600.0
182 Propulsion plant foundations 50.7 incl. in azipods
183 Electric plant foundations 0.0 20.0 15.0 300.0 250.0 5000.0
184 Command and surveillance foundations 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 120.0 0.0
185 Auxiliary systems foundations 22.5 15.0 15.0 225.0 250.0 3750.0
186 Outfit and furnishings foundations 0.0 0.0 75.0 0.0 175.0 0.0
187 Armament foundations 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
196 Welding tolerance 61.0 97.8 50.0 4890.0 175.0 17115.0
197 Mill tolerance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
198 Free flooding liquids 49.1 68.2 40.0 2728.4 175.0 11936.8
5741.6 Sum 163162.2 Sum 1025874.6
SWBS 100 KG 28.4 SWBS 100 LCG 178.7
HULL STRUCTURE
Weight (LT)
Appendix C
233 Prime Movers (OPC-Motors) 243.4 440.0 20.0 8800.0 133.0 58520.0
234 Propulsion gas turbines 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
241 Propulsion reduction gear 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
243 Propulsion shafting 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
244 Propulsion shaft bearings 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
245 Propulsors 211.5 440.0 1.0 440.0 320.0 140800.0
251 Combustion air supply 3.9 5.6 60.0 334.0 150.0 835.1
252 Propulsion control system 3.1 4.4 21.0 93.4 100.0 444.8
256 Circulating and cooling sytem 9.8 15.8 15.0 236.6 200.0 3154.0
259 Uptakes 15.0 21.5 70.0 1502.6 197.0 4228.7
261 Fuel service system 1.2 1.7 21.0 36.2 112.0 192.8
262 Propulsio lube oil system 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 130.0 0.0
264 Lube oil fill, transfer, and purification 2.5 3.6 15.0 53.4 140.0 498.2
298 Propulsion plant operating fluids 18.7 48.6 22.0 1069.2 270.0 13122.0
299 Propulsion repair parts and tools 10.0 38.0 31.0 1178.0 200.0 7600.0
518.9 1019.1 Sum 13743.3 Sum 229395.6
SWBS 200 KG 13.5 SWBS 200 LCG 225.1 PROPULSION PLANT
Weight (LT)
Appendix E
Command and Surveillance Ratios or Factors
SWBS DESCRIPTION NSC NEW KG Moment LCG Moment
411 Data display group 1.5 3.6 105.2 380.3 104.0 376.0
412 Data processing group 5.3 12.8 105.2 1343.7 104.0 1328.4
421 Non electric navigation aids 0.3 0.2 105.2 21.0 104.0 20.8
422 Electric navigation aids 0.4 0.5 105.2 52.6 104.0 52.0
423 Electric navigation systems-radio 2.6 6.3 105.2 659.2 104.0 651.7
424 Electric navigation systems-acoustical 0.4 1.0 105.2 101.4 104.0 100.3
426 Electric navigation systems 1.1 2.7 105.2 278.9 104.0 275.7
428 Navigation control monitor 0.0 0.0 105.2 0.0 104.0 0.0
420 Navigation Systems Sum 3.0 7.2 105.2 760.6 104.0 751.9
431 SWBDS for IC systems 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
432 Telephone systems 2.2 3.8 80.0 300.1 95.0 356.3
433 Announcing systems 2.1 6.0 70.0 417.7 120.0 716.1
434 Entertainment and training systems 0.9 1.5 90.0 138.1 95.0 145.8
435 Voice tubes and message systems 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
436 Alarm safety and warning system 3.5 6.0 70.0 417.7 95.0 566.9
438 Integrated control system 3.4 5.8 60.0 347.8 100.0 579.7
439 Recording and TV system 0.7 0.3 85.0 25.5 95.0 28.5
430 Interior Communications Sum 0.4 0.7 85.0 58.0 95.0 64.8
441 Radio systems 3.7 6.3 105.2 663.7 95.0 599.3
443 Visual audible systems 0.3 0.5 85.0 43.5 95.0 48.6
445 TTY facsimile systems 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
446 Security equipment system 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451 Surface search radar 0.5 2.0 105.2 210.4 104.0 208.0
453 Air search radar 3.6 2.5 110.0 275.0 104.0 260.0
455 Identification system 0.0 0.3 105.2 31.6 104.0 31.2
457 Optronic detection 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
466 Multi-purpose surveillance system 0.0 0.2 105.2 21.0 104.0 20.8
472 Passive ECM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
474 Decoys 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
475 Degaussing 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
481 Gunfire control system 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
491 Electric test monitoring equipment 0.0 0.2 105.2 21.0 104.0 20.8
492 Flight control instrument landing 2.1 2.1 65.0 136.5 150.0 315.0
493 Non-combat data processing 4.5 2.3 105.2 242.0 104.0 239.2
494 Meterological system 0.4 0.8 105.2 84.2 104.0 83.2
495 Special intelligence system 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
498 Command and surveillance operating fluids 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
499 Command and surveillance spares 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
55.5 75.4 Sum 6705.3 Sum 7518.5
SWBS 400 KG 88.9 SWBS 400 LCG 99.7 COMMAND AND SURVEILLANCE
Weight (LT)
Appendix F
Weight (LT)
SWBS DESCRIPTION Healy NEW KG Moment LCG Moment Ratio
511 Compartment heating system 9 5.9 46.0 272.0 155.0 916.5 LBT/100 = CN 13655 1.44
512 Ventilation system 78.4 51.5 51.0 2627.0 133.0 6850.8 accomodation, total 136 0.46
513 Machinery spare ventilation system 86.9 130.4 39.8 5187.9 122.0 15902.7 LB 32513 0.95
514 Air conditioning system 29 19.1 25.0 476.3 130.0 2476.9 LD 16653 1.44
516 Refrigeration system 6.5 3.0 63.0 186.7 96.0 284.5
517 Auxiliary boilers and other heat 33.1 21.7 24.5 532.8 130.0 2827.1
521 Firemain and seawater flushing system 44.2 63.7 21.0 1337.7 120.0 7644.0
522 Sprinkler system 2.2 3.2 52.0 164.9 43.0 136.3
523 Washdown system 0 1 65.0 65.0 220.0 220.0
526 Scuppers and deck drains 9.3 8.8 64.0 562.9 225.0 1979.0
528 Plumbing and drainage 16.5 7.1 30.0 213.4 230.0 1636.3
529 Drainage and ballasting system 69.4 65.6 34.6 2271.0 96.0 6301.1
531 Distilling plant 12.2 13 25.0 325.0 133.0 1729.0
532 Electronics cooling water 0 5 25.0 125.0 135.0 675.0
533 Potable water 14.1 25 31.2 780.0 32.0 800.0
536 Auxiliary fresh water cooling 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
541 Fuel and compensating system 92 200 14.3 2860.0 150.0 30000.0
542 Aviation and general purpose fuel system 7 5 60.0 300.0 70.0 350.0
551 Compressed air system 13.7 19.7 25.0 493.6 120.0 2369.3
555 Fire extinguishing system 21.5 31.0 26.2 811.8 130.0 4028.1
556 Hydraulic fluid system 15.8 3 33.0 99.0 300.0 900.0
558 Special piping system 0 4 40.0 160.0 140.0 560.0
561 Steering and dive control system 18.3 10 35.0 350.0 300.0 3000.0
562 Rudders 45.7 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
568 Maneuvering systems 38.2 40 30.6 1224.0 302.0 12080.0
571 Replenishment and sea system 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
572 Ship stores and handling system 17.7 12 45.6 547.2 251.3 3015.6
581 Anchor handling and stowage 102.3 147.4 49.0 7224.2 15.0 2211.5
582 Mooring and towing system 49.9 71.9 35.6 2560.2 348.0 25026.4
583 Boat handling and stowage system 7 4 68.0 272.0 205.6 822.4
588 Aircraft handling stowage and service 10.4 2 65.0 130.0 60.0 120.0
593 Pollution control system 21.6 7.1 25.0 177.4 139.6 990.6
598 Auxiliary system operating fluids 106.6 90 25.0 2250.0 198.7 17883.0
599 Auxiliary system repair parts and tools 3.9 3 40.0 120.0 187.6 562.8
982.4 1074.1 Sum 34707.1 Sum 154299.0
AUXILIARY SYSTEMS SWBS 500 KG 32.3 SWBS 500 LCG 143.7
Appendix G
611 Hull fittings 5.8 9.5 40.0 380.6 210.0 1998.2
612 Rails, stanch ans lifelines 5.4 9.0 57.0 511.3 175.0 1569.8
613 Rigging and canvas 2.0 3.3 65.0 214.8 112.0 370.0
621 Non-structural bulkheads 17.0 83.7 53.7 4496.4 170.0 14234.5
622 Floor plates and grating 13.0 30.1 15.0 450.8 175.0 5259.9
623 Ladders 8.1 28.4 60.0 1704.3 135.0 3834.7
624 Non-structural closures 9.7 48.0 45.0 2158.5 170.0 8154.4
625 Airports, portlets and windows 5.5 12.8 70.0 898.0 170.0 2180.8
631 Painting 29.5 145.7 32.6 4750.7 175.0 25502.5
633 Cathodic protection 2.0 9.6 6.0 57.8 163.0 1570.2
634 Deck covering 14.3 33.1 45.0 1488.0 180.0 5952.0
635 Hull insulation 37.3 184.3 54.6 10063.3 160.0 29489.5
637 Sheathing 15.9 78.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
638 Refrigerated spaces 2.8 3.1 70.0 219.4 91.0 285.2
641 Officer berthing and furnishings 8.0 6.2 79.0 491.6 104.0 647.1
642 NCO berthing and furnishings 10.0 12.0 55.0 660.0 152.0 1824.0
643 Enlisted berthing and furnishings 0.0 0.0 55.0 0.0 145.0 0.0
644 Sanitary spaces and fixtures 11.3 12.7 50.0 635.8 136.0 1729.3
645 Leisure and community spaces 0.6 0.7 32.0 22.7 152.0 107.9
651 Commissary spaces 7.3 8.2 60.0 493.6 126.0 1036.6
652 Medical spaces 0.8 0.9 32.0 27.8 105.0 91.1
654 Utility spaces 0.3 0.3 21.0 7.1 159.0 53.8
655 Laundry spaces 0.9 1.0 54.0 54.2 83.0 83.3
656 Trash disposal spaces 7.0 7.9 49.0 386.7 40.0 315.6
661 Offices and furnishings 3.0 16.7 97.0 1620.5 122.0 2038.1
662 Machine control system furnishings 1.0 5.6 23.0 128.1 112.0 623.7
663 Electronic control centers furnishings 1.0 5.6 35.0 194.9 130.0 723.9
664 Damage control stations 1.2 5.8 40.0 233.2 175.0 1020.1
665 Workshops, labs, test areas 3.6 18.0 14.0 251.7 218.0 3919.9
671 Lockers and special stowage 2.0 11.0 24.0 264.6 242.0 2668.3
672 Storerooms 19.6 96.6 39.5 3816.7 160.0 15460.1
698 Outfit and furnishings operating fluids 4.5 9.0 29.0 261.0 175.0 1575.0
699 Outfit and furnishings repair tools 239.6 400.0 27.0 10800.0 175.0 70000.0
489.8 1297.4 Sum 47744.0 Sum 204319.6
SWBS 600 KG 36.8 SWBS 600 LCG 157.5
OUTFIT AND FURNISHING
Weight (LT)
Appendix G
611 Hull fittings 5.8 9.5 40.0 380.6 210.0 1998.2
623 Ladders 8.1 28.4 60.0 1704.3 135.0 3834.7
631 Painting 29.5 145.7 32.6 4750.7 175.0 25502.5
634 Deck covering 14.3 33.1 45.0 1488.0 180.0 5952.0
635 Hull insulation 37.3 184.3 54.6 10063.3 160.0 29489.5
637 Sheathing 15.9 78.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
652 Medical spaces 0.8 0.9 32.0 27.8 105.0 91.1
654 Utility spaces 0.3 0.3 21.0 7.1 159.0 53.8
655 Laundry spaces 0.9 1.0 54.0 54.2 83.0 83.3
672 Storerooms 19.6 96.6 39.5 3816.7 160.0 15460.1
489.8 1297.4 Sum 47744.0 Sum 204319.6
SWBS 600 KG 36.8 SWBS 600 LCG 157.5
Weight (LT)
Appendix G
611 Hull fittings 5.8 9.5 40.0 380.6 210.0 1998.2
623 Ladders 8.1 28.4 60.0 1704.3 135.0 3834.7
631 Painting 29.5 145.7 32.6 4750.7 175.0 25502.5
634 Deck covering 14.3 33.1 45.0 1488.0 180.0 5952.0
635 Hull insulation 37.3 184.3 54.6 10063.3 160.0 29489.5
637 Sheathing 15.9 78.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
652 Medical spaces 0.8 0.9 32.0 27.8 105.0 91.1
654 Utility spaces 0.3 0.3 21.0 7.1 159.0 53.8
655 Laundry spaces 0.9 1.0 54.0 54.2 83.0 83.3
672 Storerooms 19.6 96.6 39.5 3816.7 160.0 15460.1
489.8 1297.4 Sum 47744.0 Sum 204319.6
SWBS 600 KG 36.8 SWBS 600 LCG 157.5
Weight (LT)
Appendix H
SWBS DESCRIPTION Parent NEW KG Moment LCG Moment
711 Guns 0.0
712 Ammunition handling 0.0
713 Ammunition stowage 0.0
721 Launching devices 0.0
723 Missile and rocket stowage 0.0
761 Small arms 0.0
763 Small arms stow 0.0
799 Armament repair tools 0.0
0.0 0.0 Sum 0.0 Sum 0.0
SWBS 700 KG #DIV/0! SWBS 700 LCG #DIV/0! ARMAMENT
Weight (LT)
Appendix I
SWBS Mackinaw NEW KG Moment LCG Moment
F11 SHIPS OFFICERS 1.4 1.3 79.0 98.8 104.0 130.0
F12 SHIPS CPO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
F13 SHIPS CREW 3.9 2.5 47.0 116.5 164.0 406.3
F21 CARGO 0.0 100.0 45.0 4500.0 0.0 0.0
F23 ORDNANCE DELIVERYSYSTEM 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
F26 ORDNANCE DEL SYS SUPPORT EQ 5.0 0.0 63.0 0.0 98.3 0.0
F31 PROV & PERSONNEL STORES 12.5 15.0 66.0 990.0 99.0 1485.0
F32 GENERAL STORES 4.6 12.0 30.0 360.0 300.0 3600.0
F41 DIESEL FUEL 359.3 1332.3 14.8 19718.3 180.0 239817.6
F42 JP-5 0.0 52.0 50.0 2601.0 75.0 3901.5
F46 LUBRICATING OIL 4.0 140.3 25.0 3506.5 133.0 18654.6
F52 FRESH WATER 103.8 170.0 27.8 4726.0 40.0 6800.0
F## METHANOL 0 130.0266 15 2227.5 87 12919.5
F## LIQUID MUD 0 1366.97 28 45920 250 410000
F55 SANITARY TANK LIQUID 10.0 5.0 45.0 225.0 70.0 350.0
509.5 3327.3 Sum 84989.5 Sum 698064.5
Full Load KG 25.5 Full Load LCG 209.8
DESCRIPTION
Weight (LT)
Appendix I
SWBS Mackinaw NEW KG Moment LCG Moment
F11 SHIPS OFFICERS 1.4 1.3 79.0 98.8 104.0 130.0
F12 SHIPS CPO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
F13 SHIPS CREW 3.9 2.5 47.0 116.5 164.0 406.3
F21 CARGO 0.0 100.0 45.0 4500.0 0.0 0.0
F23 ORDNANCE DELIVERYSYSTEM 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
F26 ORDNANCE DEL SYS SUPPORT EQ 5.0 0.0 63.0 0.0 98.3 0.0
F31 PROV & PERSONNEL STORES 12.5 15.0 66.0 990.0 99.0 1485.0
F32 GENERAL STORES 4.6 12.0 30.0 360.0 300.0 3600.0
F41 DIESEL FUEL 359.3 1332.3 14.8 19718.3 180.0 239817.6
F42 JP-5 0.0 52.0 50.0 2601.0 75.0 3901.5
F46 LUBRICATING OIL 4.0 140.3 25.0 3506.5 133.0 18654.6
F52 FRESH WATER 103.8 170.0 27.8 4726.0 40.0 6800.0
F## METHANOL 0 130.0266 15 2227.5 87 12919.5
F## LIQUID MUD 0 1366.97 28 45920 250 410000
F55 SANITARY TANK LIQUID 10.0 5.0 45.0 225.0 70.0 350.0
509.5 3327.3 Sum 84989.5 Sum 698064.5
Full Load KG 25.5 Full Load LCG 209.8
DESCRIPTION
Weight (LT)
Appendix J
Weight (LT) KG (ft) Moment (KG, ft-LT) LCG (ft) Moment (LCG, ft-LT)
SWBS 100 5742 28.4 163162 178.7 1025875
SWBS 200 1019 13.5 13743 225.1 229396
SWBS 300 601 23.0 13802 137.7 82768
SWBS 400 75 88.9 6705 99.7 7519
SWBS 500 1074 32.3 34707 143.7 154299
SWBS 600 1297 36.8 47744 157.5 204320
SWBS 700 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Full Load 3327 25.5 84990 209.8 698065
Lightship 9809 279864 1704175
Total 13136 364854 2402240
KG (Lightship, ft) 28.5
KG (Full Load, ft) 27.8
LCG (Lightship, ft) 173.7
LCG (Full Load, ft) 182.9
Weight Margins KG Margins
Shipyard 0.08 Shipyard 0.04
Government 0.025 Government 0.015
Service Life 0.1 Service Life 0.05
Lightship (LT, with Margins) 11819 Lightship (ft, with Margins) 31.5
Total (LT, with Margins) 15829 Total (ft, with Margins) 30.7
Total Weight and KG
!
"
#
$
!
"
#$%&'$(% )*+ ,-*./0
)11/(2$3 4
%&'()*(&+
,-.. %/01
!
2
3
2
3 !3 #3 43 53 233 2!3 2#3
5/%*//0 67 8//9
,-.. %/01
!"#$#% &"%
'()* +(,(-"."#$ /0(%%&)$1 2,#-"3"- 04(5".6 7#"89. /:'1 :+0 /3.1 '+0 /3.1 ;+0 /3.1 <2= /:'>3.1 <2? /3.1
<@ABB ACDDD CEFG HFECH GDEG@( GEHD$ GEII JEG CEC@IJHI
<@ABA BDFDI CEFG HIEIF GDEG@( GEGC, GEI@ I CECHACJ@
<@JJB AHABG CEFG FIEDF BBHEDG( DECB$ GEIB B@E@ CEBFAJDH
<@JJA AHAAA CEFG FIEDD BBHEDG( DEC@, GEIA ACEF CEAIIGJ@
<@IGB AJGGC CEFG GGECI B@@EI@( FE@J$ GEI@ B@EG CEACJGD
<@IGA AJGGA CEFG GGEC@ B@@EIH( FE@G, GEI@ ACEF CEAHDD@@
<@HCB AJGCI CEFG GHEFJ BDIECA( DEBC$ GE@ B@EG CEACIJIG
<@HCA AJGCG CEFG GHEFI BDIECA( DEBI, GE@ ACEF CEAGCHDA
<@GCB B@FHI CEFG @BEIA AAFECG( FECJ$ FECJ B@ CEADBGB@
<@GCA B@FHD CEFG @BEII AAFECG( FECF, FECJ ABEJ CEIBICG@
<IHBB GB@IA CEFG AJBEFF BDIECF( BIEIF$ BIEDI BBHEH CE@CAFIH
<IHBA GB@J@ CEFG AJBEFH BDIECF( BIE@@, BIEDI BBDEA CE@BIBCJ
<IGAB G@CDB CEFG AIJEJD AJBEFB( BIEBJ$ B@ECG IJJEI BEGFCHFB
<IGAA G@CDB CEFG AIJEJD AJBEFB( BIEAJ, B@ECG IJ@ BEGFGA@@
<IF@C GIAHB CEFG AICEG AHIECF( CEBD, BHEJ GFBEG JEAIGHBB
<JA@B HFDFEI CEFG AAEJH GAEHB( ABEGI$ AJEDF HEJ CEAFBG@J
<JA@A HFDFEI CEFG AAEJH GAEHB( ABEGF, AJEDF HE@ CEADCHDF
<JAFB AF@DD CEFG DAEHD FHEFH( BHEDF$ AJEDB AAB AEJFIADA
<JAFA AF@DI CEFG DAEHF FHEFG( BGECD, AJEDB AAAE@ AEICCGJI
<JHFC GDBDC CEFG A@HEHG AA@EAF( CECJ, AJEFF ADAEJ BEBJFFBH
<JGIB JGI@A CEFG BABEJD AJIEBB( AAEAB$ AJEDJ @AEG CEIJIBJF
<JGIA JGI@A CEFG BABEJD AJIEBB( AAEAI, AJEDJ @CED CEIBDJB
,&.(K%# L(.#4
7IIAB GHCIB B AFJEAD BJHEFC( BIEJD$ B@EBA C C
7IIAA GHCIB B AFJEAD BJHEFC( BIEJD, B@EBA C C
7JBC BJIHF B @CEBF ABEHA( C AIE@A C C
7JBBB @@JIC B ACHEBG @CECI( BBEDI$ AIEBA C C
7JBBA @@JIC B ACHEBG @CECI( BBEDI, AIEBA C C
:MN ()! OMN
<JJIB ACJGC CEDAI GCEBA BCJEJC( BGEIB$ AJEFF @@EA CEGFGAAA
<JJIA ACJGC CEDAI GCEBA BCJEJC( BGE@C, AJEFF @GEB CEFBIJBF
P#.9()&%
<IJCB ACA@F CEFG H@EHH DCEFC( BJEGI$ BIEDI @GED CEFFBFB@
<IJCA ACA@F CEFG H@EHH DCEFC( BJEFI, BIEDI @D CEFDF@HF
PQ!
<IJJB II@DI CEFG BIIE@I BCFECF( BIEAG$ BIEDJ DCEI CEHA@IJA
<IJJA II@DI CEFG BIIE@I BCFECF( BIEJ@, BIEDJ DBED CEHJ@FB
<JFHB @D@GG CEFG BDJEB AHDEJF( B@E@G$ AJED BAHEJ CEH@ICH@
<JFHA @D@GG CEFG BDJEB AHDEJF( B@EHH, AJED BADEI CEHGCBBD
<JDFB IAHGB CEFG BJFEJB JCCEHG( BIEJG$ AIEAF IJAEJ JEBA@@FG
<JDFA IAHHD CEFG BJFEJ JCCEHG( BIE@J, AIEAF IJDEG JEBGDJA
<AHCB HFFDI CEFG AAJEJ ACBEJC( BCEC@$ JBEFF FCEB CEJ@FGB
<AHCA FIJA@ CEFG AGJEJB ACBEAH( BFEA@, JBEDJ BIIEJ CE@AGDGA
<AGGJ B@ABF CEFG IDEJA AJFEHG( AFEJC$ JBEDD IE@ CECDBAIB
<AGGB JB@BA CEFG BCAEBI AJFEHH( BBEJG$ JBEFA IBEB CEICAJFD
<AGGA ACGJ@ CEFG HGEAB AJFEHH( GE@B, JBEFA BBEI CEBHDHBF
<AGGI AHCCI CEFG FIEAD AJFEHG( AIEIB, JBEDA AJE@ CEAGFGDD
84#6 L(.#4
7IAFB B@CCD BECA@ @GEJB FBEAF( BJEBJ$ BIEDH ABCEJ JEHHD@BG
7IAFA B@CCD BECA@ @GEJB FBEAF( BJEJJ, BIEDH ACDEB JEHIF@GF
$#L(8#
7I@IB JDDJD BECA@ B@AE@A BH@ECB( BJEHG$ BIEDD IAFEG AEFBCGGD
7I@IA JDDJD BECA@ B@AE@A BH@ECB( BJEFB, BIEDD IJC AEFBDJCA
RS@ 3Q#%
RCADA JGFHEJ CEFG BAEAG JFEAC( IEHF, @IEGG BE@ CEBAAAID
RCADB IBDDEF CEFG BJEHB JFEAC( @EBF$ @IEGG AEB CEB@IADF
RCADJ IBDD CEFG BJEHB JFEAC( B@E@@$ @IEGG AEB CEB@IADF
RCAD@ JF@IEH CEFG BAEID JFEJB( A@E@A$ @IEFA BEJ CEBCICFJ
!&QK%# 9Q%%MK(%%($.
'TUVHE+ BABCCC BECA@ IHBEIH JIIEGD( C AIECH C C
'TUV@E+ BJF@CC BECA@ @AGECA AFBEFF( C BDEH@ C C
'TUVIE+ BFCCCC BECA@ HFHEIG ABAEDD( C BIEBJ C C
'TUVJE+ AFA@CC BECA@ BWCGHEHB BJ@EHI( C AAE@ C C
'TUVAE+ A@FCCC BECA@ DFIEI HAEID( C ADEBD C C
'TUVBE+ FAFAA BECA@ JBHEAG BHEDH( C JGEDB C C
'&.(% BCACDEFF BGBEH EAJ, ABEAH HCACEG BEHD@GDH
DESIGN FROM PARAMETERS WITH PARALLEL MIDBODY
FOR INPUT TO SPP (R2)
INPUT DATA
enter parameters
Water Dens. 1.025 tonnes/m^3 (SW 1.025; FW 1.000)
(1 + s) 1.005 shell appendage allowance
LWL 80.47 meters Note: For development of approximate
LWL - PMB 64.37 meters DWL, sectional area, and weight per
LWL - PWL 56.33 meters station data at the parameter stage.
Beam, B 24.99 meters
Draft, T 9.45 meters Note: The parallel midbody and the
Cp 0.7460 parallel waterline regions must include
Cp' 0.6825 non-PMB portion amidships.
Cx 0.7730
Cwp 0.9090 guidance Cwp with transom 0.832
Cwp' 0.8700 non-PWL portion guidance Cwp w/o transom 0.822
LCB 3.22 percent of LWL from amidships, + fwd
LCF -4.36 percent of LWL from amidships, + fwd
Atr 166.10 meters^2
Btr' 0.870 decimal percent of B
Atr' 0.910 decimal percent of B*T*Cx (calc. by spreadsheet)
Btr 21.744 meters (calc. by spreadsheet)
Ax = B*T*Cx 182.574 meter^2 (calc. by spreadsheet)
%PMB 20.0% %LWL 32.19 Lforebody 28.16 Lentrance
center PMB 50.0% %LWL 16.09 Lmidbody 24.14 LmidWL
%PWL 30.0% %LWL 32.19 Laftbody 28.16 Lrun
center PWL 50.0% %LWL 80.47 LWL check 80.47 LWL check
STA spacing 8.05 meters
APPROXIMATE HULL DESIGN MODEL Prelim. Adjusted
Reference Weights
Station x Beam(STA) Area(STA) Draft(STA) Local Ca Wt.(STA) Wt.(STA)
[m] [m^2] [m] [t] [t]
0.0 0.00 0.144 0.008 9.487 400.126 209.000
0.5 4.02
1.0 8.05 17.369 106.926 9.474 0.650 800.251 846.000
1.5 12.07
2.0 16.09 21.154 154.531 9.462 0.772 800.251 850.000
2.5 20.12
3.0 24.14 21.851 166.065 9.449 0.804 1200.377 1680.000
3.5 28.16
4.0 32.19 21.870 166.079 9.437 0.805 1200.377 1600.000
4.5 36.21
5.0 40.23 21.875 165.565 9.422 0.803 1200.377 1690.000
5.5 44.26
6.0 48.28 21.962 159.821 9.412 0.773 1200.377 1595.000
6.5 52.30
7.0 56.33 22.067 131.689 9.399 0.635 1200.377 1480.000
7.5 60.35
8.0 64.37 21.917 84.742 9.387 0.412 800.251 1260.000
8.5 68.40
9.0 72.42 22.163 69.240 9.374 0.333 800.251 1550.000
9.5 76.44
10.0 80.47 22.689 4.234 9.362 0.020 400.126 1240.000
calculated from parameters adjust adjust
calc. Cwp Trapezoidal Integration (11 ord.) 0.815
calc. Cwp Simpsons Rule Integration 0.272
calc. displ. Trapezoidal Integration (11 ord.) 10003.14 tonnes calc. weight 10003.14 14000.00
calc displ. Simpsons Rule Integration 3334.38 tonnes
calc.LCB' Trapezoidal Integration (11 ord.) 3.52% % L,+fwd calc. LCG' 0.00% -6.10%
expected displacement 11289.84 tonnes
Note: SPP uses trapezoidal integration algorithm for calculations
Units in meters and tonnes
Note: There are 4 tables of data ( two different ship speeds, two different sea states). Each line of data in
each table is a single run of SPP. The white boxes in each table are the actual significant single amplitude data
copied from the last few lines of SPP output. The grey boxes are the heave and pitch data, scaled up by your desired
scale factor so that they are all about the same magnitude for plotting. Hence, the plots for each table
are created using the two grey columns and the one white roll column.
Sea State 4 Sea State 4
SWH 1.88 m SWH 1.88 m
MWP 8.8 sec MWP 8.8 sec
Speed 11 kts Speed 4 kts
scale fact 8 scale fact 8
Heading Heave Pitch Heave (m) Pitch (deg) Roll (deg) Heading Heave Pitch Heave (m) Pitch (deg) Roll (deg)
0 3.504 6.696 0.438 0.837 0 0 3.672 8.008 0.459 1.001 0
15 3.616 6.768 0.452 0.846 0.251 15 3.784 8.056 0.473 1.007 0.507
30 3.952 6.896 0.494 0.862 0.562 30 4.136 8.152 0.517 1.019 1.011
45 4.544 6.976 0.568 0.872 1.141 45 4.728 8.112 0.591 1.014 1.761
60 5.368 6.624 0.671 0.828 2.265 60 5.56 7.488 0.695 0.936 3.125
75 6.312 4.928 0.789 0.616 4.275 75 6.48 5.32 0.81 0.665 4.647
90 7.072 0.864 0.884 0.108 5.139 90 7.152 1.128 0.894 0.141 5.236
105 7.336 3.704 0.917 0.463 4.71 105 7.104 4.008 0.888 0.501 4.682
120 7.072 6.656 0.884 0.832 3.45 120 6.416 7.32 0.802 0.915 3.614
135 6.584 8.248 0.823 1.031 2.511 135 5.584 8.984 0.698 1.123 2.439
150 6.12 8.976 0.765 1.122 1.573 150 4.912 9.608 0.614 1.201 1.421
165 5.8 9.24 0.725 1.155 0.717 165 4.512 9.776 0.564 1.222 0.64
180 5.696 9.304 0.712 1.163 0 180 4.376 9.8 0.547 1.225 0
195 5.8 9.24 0.725 1.155 0.717 195 4.512 9.776 0.564 1.222 0.64
210 6.12 8.976 0.765 1.122 1.573 210 4.912 9.608 0.614 1.201 1.421
225 6.584 8.248 0.823 1.031 2.511 225 5.584 8.984 0.698 1.123 2.439
240 7.072 6.656 0.884 0.832 3.45 240 6.416 7.32 0.802 0.915 3.614
255 7.336 3.704 0.917 0.463 4.71 255 7.104 4.008 0.888 0.501 4.682
270 7.072 0.864 0.884 0.108 5.139 270 7.152 1.128 0.894 0.141 5.236
285 6.312 4.928 0.789 0.616 4.275 285 6.48 5.32 0.81 0.665 4.647
300 5.368 6.624 0.671 0.828 2.265 300 5.56 7.488 0.695 0.936 3.125
315 4.544 6.976 0.568 0.872 1.141 315 4.728 8.112 0.591 1.014 1.761
330 3.952 6.896 0.494 0.862 0.562 330 4.136 8.152 0.517 1.019 1.011
345 3.616 6.768 0.452 0.846 0.251 345 3.784 8.056 0.473 1.007 0.507
Sea State 8
SWH 11.5
MWP 16.4 sec
Speed 8 kts
scale fact 3
Heading Heave Pitch Heave (m) Pitch (deg) Roll (deg)
0 11.919 11.931 3.973 3.977 0
15 12.03 11.748 4.01 3.916 1.135
30 12.345 11.166 4.115 3.722 2.516
45 12.837 10.065 4.279 3.355 4.261
60 13.446 8.223 4.482 2.741 6.87
75 14.052 5.199 4.684 1.733 10.841
90 14.487 0.744 4.829 0.248 13.034
105 14.592 4.422 4.864 1.474 12.808
120 14.37 8.475 4.79 2.825 10.657
135 13.998 11.367 4.666 3.789 7.925
150 13.632 13.23 4.544 4.41 5.348
165 13.377 14.253 4.459 4.751 2.679
180 13.284 14.577 4.428 4.859 0
195 13.377 14.253 4.459 4.751 2.679
210 13.632 13.23 4.544 4.41 5.348
225 13.998 11.367 4.666 3.789 7.925
240 14.37 8.475 4.79 2.825 10.657
255 14.592 4.422 4.864 1.474 12.808
270 14.487 0.744 4.829 0.248 13.034
285 14.052 5.199 4.684 1.733 10.841
300 13.446 8.223 4.482 2.741 6.87
315 12.837 10.065 4.279 3.355 4.261
330 12.345 11.166 4.115 3.722 2.516
345 12.03 11.748 4.01 3.916 1.135
The heading probability column and the ship speed probability columns are from the submittal assignment sheet.
The P
i
columns you must determine (either 0 or 1) based up your SSA values and the provided "limit" values. A value of 0 indicates
"SSA motion exceeds limit" whereas a value of 1 indicates motion does not exceed limit and hence mission is declared
as being able to be completed. The OI column is the mathematical combination of this data.
SS4 P
V=4 kts V=11 kts V=4 kts V=11 kts V=4 kts V=11 kts
0 0.02 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.001 0.019
15 0.07 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0035 0.0665
30 0.07 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0035 0.0665
45 0.05 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0025 0.0475
60 0.03 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0015 0.0285
75 0.01 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0005 0.0095
90 0.01 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0005 0.0095
105 0.02 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.001 0.019
120 0.03 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0015 0.0285
135 0.05 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0025 0.0475
150 0.07 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0035 0.0665
165 0.07 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0035 0.0665
180 0.02 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.001 0.019
195 0.07 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0035 0.0665
210 0.07 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0035 0.0665
225 0.05 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0025 0.0475
240 0.03 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0015 0.0285
255 0.02 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.001 0.019
270 0.01 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0005 0.0095
285 0.01 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0005 0.0095
300 0.03 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0015 0.0285
315 0.05 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0025 0.0475
330 0.07 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0035 0.0665
345 0.07 0.05 0.95 1 1 0.0035 0.0665
Sum 0.05 0.95
Total 1
SS4 P Pv Pi OI SS4 P Pv Pi OI
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
15 0 1 1 0 15 0 1 1 0
30 0 1 1 0 30 0 1 1 0
45 0 1 1 0 45 0 1 1 0
60 0 1 1 0 60 0 1 0 0
75 0 1 1 0 75 0 1 0 0
90 0 1 0 0 90 0 1 0 0
105 0 1 1 0 105 0 1 0 0
120 0.1 1 1 0.1 120 0.1 1 0 0
135 0.15 1 1 0.15 135 0.15 1 0 0
150 0.17 1 1 0.17 150 0.17 1 1 0.17
165 0.08 1 1 0.08 165 0.08 1 1 0.08
180 0 1 1 0 180 0 1 1 0
195 0.08 1 1 0.08 195 0.08 1 1 0.08
210 0.17 1 1 0.17 210 0.17 1 1 0.17
225 0.15 1 1 0.15 225 0.15 1 0 0
240 0.1 1 1 0.1 240 0.1 1 0 0
255 0 1 1 0 255 0 1 0 0
270 0 1 0 0 270 0 1 0 0
285 0 1 1 0 285 0 1 0 0
300 0 1 1 0 300 0 1 0 0
315 0 1 1 0 315 0 1 1 0
330 0 1 1 0 330 0 1 1 0
345 0 1 1 0 345 0 1 1 0
Sum 1 Sum 0.5
OIcrane OIhelo
Pv Pi OI
OI
transit
!"#$ %&"'() *+"'()$(",- .//01023
45!4 322 *!"# 5&"'()- 6/2.17..
45!4 322 *89&$):;- 7/.21/.
!"# 3 < 7 = 6 0 / > . 32 33 3<
?&#')( 23. 3.7> 7>6/ 6//0 /0.6 .633= 33=377 37736< 36<3/3 3/33.2 3.2<2. <2.<<>
@;)9+ ?@ 7</1. <6<1= 7=71> 7.310 =.<1= 6071< .0.13 32<21. /7.12 02613 0=.1< 6/=12
?@AB) 3/17 3717 3>13 <210 <61. <.10 6312 671/ 7>1. 731> 7=1< 721<
!"# 37 3= 36 30 3/ 3> 3. <2 );)9+
?&#')( <<><=/ <=/<00 <00<>6 <>672= 72=7<7 7<77=< 7=<703 7037/6
@;)9+ ?@ 6<<1= =2.12 7<21< <=.1. =<.1> =761= <7=1< <=/12 .//010
?@AB) </1=. <3167 301>6 37130 <<10< <<1.< 3<177 301=0
4CD3A8;E3 4CD<A8;E3 4CD<A8;E< 4CD<A8;E7 4CD7A8;E3 4CD=A8;E3 4CD=A8;E< 4CD6A8;E3 4CD6A8;E< 4CD0A8;E3 4CD0A8;E< );)9+
F"G&#$";#$ 7/6736 736<.3 <.3<03 <03<63 <633/6 3/63<2 3<2.0 .067 67<> <>3= 3=2
8;E 5&"'() 32./16 =3.1. 6201/ <3617 <72.1= <6621= >7.10 .>013 =2=17 <261> <=310 .//010
)("$ "$ H;#$"$)&#) %")( )(& D"# );)9+$
!""

#$%&'% (&)*%+, (,-)./

!"#

$%&'()* $*+&, %-(&) .(/,,0%(&) 1&-*)2%(/*34

!"#

$%&'()* $*+&, %-(&) $%. /*00120 3*2+1(1*2 1' %44,1&+5

!"#

$%&'()* $*+&, %-(&) $%. /%00120 3*2+1(1*2 1' %44,1&+5

!"#

$%& '())*) +,-*)) .%- '/0 +/11(&1 2%&3(,(%&4

!"#

$%& '())*) +,-*)) .%- '/0 1%22(&2 3%&4(,(%&5
!""#"$% !&'(% )*$+
!,-,$,./$ #-'01" $-'01" 2 341,0,5,&16 2/70" )*"7+ 8'/7" )*"7+ 9': ;< )(%+
=./" > ? > > @AB@C ?B@@
? >B>>CD ? >B>>E > @ABEF ?BGC
A >B>A?D ? >B>AD > @?B@E ?BG@
C >B>F>@ ? >B>GH AB>G HFBEH ?BG
E >B>?AF ? >B?>G ?B@C HC ?BDD
D >B?>A > >B?>G AGB?C >
H >B>?>F ? >B??G ?BFH HE >BE?
F >B?C@A >BFAF >BAA AFBCD HABDA >B@?
@ >B?>FD ? >BCA@ AABAH EH >BEH
G >B>@?A > >BCA@ ?FGBGD >
?> >B>>>D >BGGE >BCA@ > HFBDD >BC@
?*,-,$,./ *'6'7"I >BCA@
J
?JA >B>AE@C ? >BCDC > @?B@E ?BG@
AJC >B>E>GA ? >BCGE AB>G HAB?F ?BGH
CJE >B>CE>E ? >BEA@ AB@F HFBHF ?BG?
EJD >B>CDFC > >BEA@
DJH >B>CCC@ > >BEA@ A@B@? >
HJF >B>CEDG > >BEA@ HFB>@ >
FJ@ >B>HCEF > >BEA@ FCB@ >
@JG >B>DGFA > >BEA@ ?F?B@? >
GJ?> >B>>@DF > >BEA@ ?FGBGD >
A*,-,$,./ *'6'7"I >B?
J
?JAJC >B>??CD ? >BECG AB>G HAB?F ?BGH
AJCJE >B>>A@D ? >BEEA AB@H H?BF@ ?BGD
CJEJD >B>AHEA > >BEEA
EJDJH >B>>?D? > >BEEA
DJHJF >B>C>HG > >BEEA @EBE@ >
HJFJ@ >B>>>GG > >BEEA E>B@H >
FJ@JG >B>>AF? > >BEEA DEB>E >
@JGJ?> >B>>>@F > >BEEA ?F?B@? >
C*,-,$,./ *'6'7"I >B>?E
J
?JAJCJE >B>>>H@ ? >BEEC AB@H H?BF@ ?BGD
AJCJEJD >B>>?GA > >BEEC
CJEJDJH >B>>>HG > >BEEC
EJDJHJF >B>>>@A > >BEEC
DJHJFJ@ >B>>>?F > >BEEC
HJFJ@JG > > >BEEC
FJ@JGJ?> > > >BEEC
E*,-,$,./ *'6'7"I >B>>?
2%%',/"* ,/*": ,/ %K,$
L./*,%,./I >BEEC
8"41,&"* ,/*":I >BD?@
!"#$%&$'()#$ *%)+# ,'-.
*(/(0(1"0 -/)23$ 0/)23$ 4 563(2(7(%3& 4"82$ ,'$8. 9)"8$ ,'$8. :); <= ,+#.
>1"$ ? @ ? ? ABCB DCEB
@ ?C??EBF @ ?C??G ? ABC@H DCEA
D ?C?D@BF @ ?C?DB ? AGCFF DCGD
E ?C?H?AF @ ?C?IF @CIG HECD DC@H
G ?C?@DHI @ ?C@?I @CHI FICH @CAA
B ?C@?D @ ?CD@@ GCA BFCGF ?CFE
F ?C?@?H @ ?CDD@ @CD@ HBCDI @C?B
H ?C@EADH @ ?CEF @BCIA HICED ?CI@
A ?C@?HBG @ ?CGFH DCF@ HH ?CBH
I ?C?A@D ?CIHB ?CBGF ? FHCB ?CEF
@? ?C???BG @ ?CBGH ? HF @C@E
@'(/(0(1" ')&)8$J ?CBGH
K
@KD ?C?DGAE @ ?CBHD ? AGCFF DCGD
DKE ?C?G?ID @ ?CF@E DC@H FICEF DCD
EKG ?C?EG?G @ ?CFGH DCFA HECBB DC@H
GKB ?C?EBHE ? ?CFGH @FHCHD ?
BKF ?C?EEEA @ ?CFA GCA BFCGF ?CFE
FKH ?C?EGBI ? ?CFA ADCDB ?
HKA ?C?FEGH ? ?CFA AACAG ?
AKI ?C?BIHD ? ?CFA @HEC?I ?
IK@? ?C??ABH ?CIHB ?CFAA ? FHCB ?CEF
D'(/(0(1" ')&)8$J ?C@GD
K
@KDKE ?C?@@EB @ ?CH DC@H FICEF DCD
DKEKG ?C??DAB @ ?CH?E DCIG FICDE DCD
EKGKB ?C?DFGD ? ?CH?E
GKBKF ?C??@B@ ? ?CH?E @FHCHD ?
BKFKH ?C?E?FI ? ?CH?E @?@CD@ ?
FKHKA ?C???II ? ?CH?E BDCAG ?
HKAKI ?C??DH@ ? ?CH?E FHCFI ?
AKIK@? ?C???AH ? ?CH?E @HEC?I ?
E'(/(0(1" ')&)8$J ?C?@G
K
@KDKEKG ?C???FA @ ?CH?E DCIG FICDE DCD
DKEKGKB ?C??@ID ? ?CH?E
EKGKBKF ?C???FI ? ?CH?E
GKBKFKH ?C???AD ? ?CH?E
BKFKHKA ?C???@H ? ?CH?E FECA ?
FKHKAKI ? ? ?CH?E EACFA ?
HKAKIK@? ? ? ?CH?E FHCFI ?
G'(/(0(1" ')&)8$J ?C??@
4##)("$' ("'$; (" #L(0
M1"'(#(1"J ?CH?E
9$63(%$' ("'$;J ?CB@A
!"#$%&$"' ()*+% ,(-.
/"0"&"12& '0*-34 &0*-34 5 673"-"8")39 52#-4 ,(4#. :*2#4 ,(4#. ;*< => ,+%.
?124 @ A @ @ BBCDE FCGA
A @C@@HID A @C@@J @ BBCHG FCGH
F @C@FAID A @C@FI @ BB FCGJ
H @C@E@BD A @C@GD FCJD EB FCI
J @C@AFEG A @CA@G FCHA EICID FCHG
I @CA@F A @CFAA ICHF EFCJB ACJD
D @C@A@E A @CFFA ACD BHC@B ACBI
E @CAHBFE A @CHD ECHH G@CDG ACAI
B @CA@EIJ A @CJDE HCAB BFCGA ACJB
G @C@BAF A @CIJB @ EB ACIH
A@ @C@@@IJ A @CIJG @ BFCFA FC@J
A("0"&"12 (*9*#4K @CIJG
L
ALF @C@FJBH A @CIEJ @ BB FCGJ
FLH @C@J@GF A @CDAI FCJ EICDJ FCJA
HLJ @C@HJ@J A @CDJG HCF EBCJH FCI
JLI @C@HIEH @CE @CDEJ AICJF AACJH @CAH
ILD @C@HHHB A @CE@E ICHF EFCJB ACJD
DLE @C@HJIG @ @CE@E J@ @
ELB @C@DHJE @ @CE@E JDCBH @
BLG @C@IGEF @ @CE@E AEICJB @
GLA@ @C@@BIE A @CEAD @ EB ACIH
F("0"&"12 (*9*#4K @CADE
L
ALFLH @C@AAHI A @CEFE FCJ EICDJ FCJA
FLHLJ @C@@FBI A @CEH HCAJ EICBH FCJA
HLJLI @C@FDJF @ @CEH ADJCGB @
JLILD @C@@AIA @CE @CEHA AICJF AACJH @CAH
ILDLE @C@H@DG @ @CEHA GDCAH @
DLELB @C@@@GG @ @CEHA DBCAB @
ELBLG @C@@FEA @ @CEHA BICEJ @
BLGLA@ @C@@@BE @ @CEHA AEICJB @
H("0"&"12 (*9*#4K @C@AI
L
ALFLHLJ @C@@@DB A @CEHF HCAJ EICBH FCJA
FLHLJLI @C@@AGF A @CEHF ADACEA @
HLJLILD @C@@@DG @ @CEHF ADJCGB @
JLILDLE @C@@@BF @CE @CEHF
ILDLELB @C@@@AE @ @CEHF B@CB @
DLELBLG @ @ @CEHF IFCBG @
ELBLGLA@ @ @ @CEHF BICEJ @
J("0"&"12 (*9*#4K @C@@A
5%%*"24( "2(4< "2 %$"&
M12("%"12K @CEHF
:473")4( "2(4<K @CIAB
Supply air quantity shall not be less than that based on CFM allowances for each piece of equipment as calculated below:
Power CFM
Equipment Rating Unit CFM/Unit Req'd
Main Diesel Generators 14512 KW 19461 HP 4.35 84653
Air Compressor 16 KW 21.456 HP 30.00 644
Fire Pump 16 KW 21.456 HP 20.00 429
Total Equipment Air Requirement : 85726
Since the Equipment Air Requirement is greater than the supply temperature requirement, a fan rated for _______ CFM will be used.
The DCM Sheet 2C also required an analysis of ventilation requirements based on a heat balance for an operated schedule.
The chosed condition is summer full power. The following provides equipment heat rejection data for this condition
Heat Load Equipment
Equipment Load Factor Heat Load
Main Diesel Generator 1160128 0.90 1044115
Fire Pump 18000 0.20 3600
Air Compressor 28000 0.70 19600
Total Total 3155546 BTUH
Airflow 85726 CFM
Room Temperature Rise 33.8 F
Outside Air Temp 75 F
Space Air Temp 108.8 F
ROC @ summer conditions 1.00 min
As space temperature decreases, heat radiation from equipment increases (larger T). Approximate radiation factor is 1% / F
Space Summer Temp 120 F
Space Winter Temp (Assumed) 80 F
Radiation Factor 1.4
New Equipment Heat Load 4417764 BTUH
Corrected Space Winter Load -4.42E+06 BTUH
Airflow 85726 CFM
Room Temperature Rise 47.7 F
Outside Air Temp 40 F
Space Air Temp 87.7 F
SPACE: Engine Room
Cooling Temp: 120
O
F # Personnel: 0 People O.A./ Person (Min): 0 CFM / PERSON
Heating Temp: 40
O
F Sensible / Person 235 BTUH/Person O.A. R/C (Min): N/A MINUTES
Height: 16 FT Latent / Person: 360 BTUH/Person Total Air R/C (Min): N/A MINUTES
Area: 5358.7 FT
2
Lighting: 7 BTUH/Ft
2
Assumed Supply Air Temp (Sum): 75
O
F
Design Criteria Manual Sheet No.: 2C
Xfer Coefficient
Adjoining Space Load Insul U Cool Heat Cool Heat Cool Heat Cooling Load Heating Load
Key Type Key From From To To U U Area Td Qs Ql Qt Td Qw
Ballast Tank stbd 6 20 29 8 100 50 120 40 0.434 0.389 232 -20 -2014 -2014 -10 -902
Ballast Tank port 6 20 26 8 100 50 120 40 0.434 0.389 208 -20 -1805 -1805 -10 -809
Chiller 1 4 20 15 8 105 40 120 40 0.434 0.389 120 -15 -781 -781 0 0
Chiller 2 4 20 15 8 105 40 120 40 0.434 0.389 120 -15 -781 -781 0 0
Heater 1 4 20 12 8 110 40 120 40 0.434 0.389 96 -10 -417 -417 0 0
Heater 2 4 20 10 8 110 40 120 40 0.434 0.389 80 -10 -347 -347 0 0
Mud stbd 4 20 25 8 100 50 120 40 0.405 0.362 200 -20 -1620 -1620 -10 -724
Mud port 4 20 30 8 100 50 120 40 0.405 0.362 240 -20 -1944 -1944 -10 -869
mud lower port 2 20 28 23 100 50 120 40 0.405 0.362 644 -20 -5216 -5216 -10 -2331
mud lower stbd 2 20 27 23 100 50 120 40 0.405 0.362 621 -20 -5030 -5030 -10 -2248
potable water 1 2 20 29 26 100 50 120 40 0.405 0.362 754 -20 -6107 -6107 -10 -2729
potable water 2 2 20 29 26 100 50 120 40 0.405 0.362 754 -20 -6107 -6107 -10 -2729
G/W 2 20 22 57 100 50 120 40 0.405 0.362 1254 -20 -10157 -10157 -10 -4539
locker room 1 20 32 34 100 65 120 40 0.471 0.429 1088 -20 -10249 -10249 -25 -11669
Medical 1 20 42 18 80 70 120 40 0.471 0.429 756 -40 -14243 -14243 -30 -9730
Parts storage/eng shop 1 20 49 10 80 65 120 40 0.471 0.429 490 -40 -9232 -9232 -25 -5255
Fan Space 1 20 10 10 100 50 120 40 0.471 0.429 100 -20 -942 -942 -10 -429
Solar, Overhead 1 20 24 70 120 40 120 40 0.484 0.429 1503.29 0 0 0 0 0
Stack (might have to be fixed) 1 20 120 40 120 40 0.48 0.494 176.71 0 0 0 0 0
Wing tank Stbd,above WL (draft of 32') 3 20 79 4 100 50 120 40 0.452 0.446 316 -20 -2857 -2857 -10 -1409
Wing Tank STBD, below WL 3 20 79 12 100 50 120 40 0.431 0.448 948 -20 -8172 -8172 -10 -4247
Wing Tank Port, above WL 5 20 79 4 100 50 120 40 0.452 0.446 316 -20 -2857 -2857 -10 -1409
Wing Tank Port, below WL 5 20 79 12 100 50 120 40 0.431 0.448 948 -20 -8172 -8172 -10 -4247
Lights 7 64.61 63.83 4124 75022 0 75022 0
Equipment 8 3155546 0 3155546 0
Personnel 9 0 0 0 0
Summation 3131517 0 3131517 -56278
Total Air Requirement Based on Space and Supply Air Temperature: 64435 CFM
Design Temp Design Temp
Dimensions
Fan No: Engine Room Exhaust Air Fan
Fan Size: A- 30
System No: Fitting Duct
Air Equiv Velocity Loss Press Drop Duct Fitting Total
Duct Type of Fitting Flow W H Dia Vel Pressure Coeff per 100 Ft Length Press Loss
Section Fitting Source (CFM) (in) (in) (in) (FPM) (in. H20) (K or C) (in. H20) (Ft) (in. H20)
3.5
E-F Gooseneck w/Screen SNAME TABLE 10 41250 60 30 45.7 3300 0.68 2 1.36
Elbow 90 r/W=1, H/W=2 DSS 512-1, p 23 41250 60 30 45.7 3300 0.68 0.18 0.12
Wye, Br, Ab/As=1, Qb/Qc=.9 ASHRAE 6-22 41250 60 30 45.7 3300 0.68 0.37 0.25
Duct ASHRAE FIG A-2 41250 60 30 45.7 3300 0.68 0.3 10 0.03
Transition, A0/A1=.5, 30deg ASHRAE SR4-3 41250 60 30 45.7 3300 0.68 0.05 0.03
Fan A-30 Navy STD Axial 41250 52 44.25 52.4 0
Transition, A0/A1=.5, 30deg ASHRAE ER4-3 41250 60 30 45.7 3300 0.68 0.05 0.03
Duct ASHRAE FIG A-2 41250 60 30 45.7 3300 0.68 0.3 0.20
2.03
1.47
F-G Wye, Main, Ab/As=2, Qb/Qc=.9 ASHRAE 6-22 20625 41 22 32.4 3293 0.68 0.2 0.14
Duct ASHRAE FIG A-2 20625 41 22 32.4 3293 0.68 0.4 15 0.06
Pyramidal Diffuser*, :L/D=3, 20deg ASHRAE 2-5 20625 41 22 32.4 3293 0.68 0.57 0.39
Screen, A1/A0=1.6, n=.75 ASHRAE CR6-1 20625 42 24 34.4 2946 0.5 0.17 0.09
0.67
0.79
F-H Wye, Branch, Ab/As=2, Qb/Qc=.9 ASHRAE 6-6 20625 41 22 32.4 3293 0.68 0.2 0.14
Duct ASHRAE FIG A-2 20625 41 22 32.4 3293 0.68 0.4 12 0.048
Pyramidal Diffuser*, L/D=2, 20deg ASHRAE 2-5 20625 41 22 32.4 3293 0.68 0.57 0.39
0.66
0.81
FAN TOTAL PRESSURE REQUIREMENT: 0.13
TOTAL PRESSURE AVAIL
Actual
Duct Size
SECTION PRESSURE LOSS
Total Pressure Available :
Fan No: Engine Room Supply Air Fan
Fan Size: A- 30
System No: Fitting Duct
Air Equiv Velocity Loss Press Drop Duct Fitting Total
Duct Type of Fitting Flow W H Dia Vel Pressure Coeff per 100 Ft Length Press Loss
Section Fitting Source (CFM) (in) (in) (in) (FPM) (in. H
2
0) (K or C) (in. H
2
0) (Ft) (in. H
2
0)
3.50
A-B Gooseneck w/Screen SNAME TABLE 10 33000 50 25 38.08 3802 0.90 1.000 0.90
Elbow 90 r/W=1, H/W=2 DSS 512-1, p 23 33000 50 25 38.08 3802 0.90 0.180 0.16
Wye, Br, Ab/As=1, Qb/Qc=.9 ASHRAE 6-22 33000 50 25 38.08 3802 0.90 0.37 0.33
Duct ASHRAE FIG A-2 33000 50 25 38.08 3802 0.90 0.3 10 0.03
Transition, A0/A1=.5, 30deg ASHRAE SR4-3 33000 50 25 38.08 3802 0.90 0.05 0.05
Fan A-30 Navy STD Axial 33000 52 44.25 52.40 0.00
Transition, A0/A1=.5, 30deg ASHRAE ER4-3 33000 50 25 38.08 3802 0.90 0.05 0.05
Duct ASHRAE FIG A-2 33000 50 25 38.08 3802 0.90 0.3 27 0.08
1.60
TOTAL PRESSURE AVAIL 1.90
B-C Wye, Main, Ab/As=2, Qb/Qc=.9 ASHRAE 6-22 16500 39 16 26.66 3808 0.90 0.20 0.18
Duct ASHRAE FIG A-2 16500 39 16 26.66 3808 0.90 0.4 15 0.06
Pyramidal Diffuser*, :L/D=3, 20deg ASHRAE 2-5 16500 39 16 26.66 3808 0.90 0.57 0.52
0.81
1.09
B-D Wye, Branch, Ab/As=2, Qb/Qc=.9 ASHRAE 6-6 16500 39 16 26.66 3808 0.90 0.20 0.18
Duct ASHRAE FIG A-2 16500 39 16 26.66 3808 0.90 0.4 12 0.05
Pyramidal Diffuser*, L/D=2, 20deg ASHRAE 2-5 16500 39 16 26.66 3808 0.90 0.57 0.52
0.80
1.10

FAN TOTAL PRESSURE REQUIREMENT: 0.28
Duct Size
Actual
Total Pressure Available :
Elevation
1/c Sowers
1/c Walker
1/c Faul
AOSV
!"#$ !"%&'()"*(
+&(,*- .,'" &*/ 0)"'-"*#1 23&*/4* 56,% 7&* 89"' :4&'/
!"#$%& '( )*++"(,- .$"$/*(%, /( 0/1*$ 2*3#%- 45%&"$%#
"11 )*($&*1#6 &",/*# "(, 5371/) ",,&%## #8#$%+-
9/&%)$# "(, #35%&:/#%# "11 *5%&"$/*(#- '(#$&3)$#
)&%; *( #5%)/</) ,3$/%# "))*&,/(= $*
)/&)3+#$"()%#
'( )*++"(,- .$"$/*(%, *( 7&/,=%- .%(,# ,/#$&%## "(, &",/*
,/#$&%## #/=("1#- 9/&%)$# "11 *5%&"$/*(#- >"?%# )*++"(, *<
@/<%7*"$ AB- >"?%# *:%&"11 )*++"(, #C*31, *(% @/<%7*"$ 7%
3(":"/1"71%-
D%5*&$ $* 7&/,=%E +"( C%1+E F#$"71/#C G2H D",/* )*($")$ ;/$C IC/%< !"$% /(
H-D-I- J/:%# 5%&+/##/*( $* ,%51*8 H-D-I- !"(%3:%&# :%###%1 $* "##/#$ /(
1"3()C/(= "(, &%)*:%&/(= *< H-D-I-6 *& /< (%%,%,6 +"(%3:%&# :%##%1 $* &%#)3%
+"( *:%&7*"&,-
IC/%< !"$% '( )C"&=% *< F+%&=%()8 .K3", AB- ?%%5 L&/,=%6
F(=/(% I*($&*1 D**+ "(, .K3", AM /(<*&+%, *<
#)%(% "$ </&%-
'( )*++"(, 7%C/(, !"#$%&- .$"$/*(%, *( NO 9%)? *"$
@/<%7*"$ AM- >"?% )*++"(, *< @/<%7*"$ AM- 2"(, 2%1, G2H
D",/*-
H"#$ D%#)3% I&"<$ *5%&"$*&- D%5*&$ $* H-D-I- ;/$C G2H- F(#3&% $C"$ H-D-I- /#
&%",8 $* 1"3()C- F#$"71/#C &",/* )*($")$ ;/$C L&/,=%- F(#3&% $C"$ "11 5%&#*((%1
"&% ;%"&/(= 5%&#*("1 5&*$%)$/:% %K3/5+%($- P;"/$# *&,%&#-
M(, !"$% '( )C"&=% *< F+%&=%()8 .K3", AM- Q%%5 7&/,=%6
.K"3, AB6 "(, F(=/(% I*($&*1 D**+ /(<*&+%, *<
#/$3"$/*( /( ",R*/(/(= #5")%#
D%5*&$ $* @/<%7*"$ AM- '# M(, /( )*++"(,- '( )C"&=% "$ C%1+
"(, &%1%"#% 7&"?%- '( )*++"(, *< #%"$/(= "&&"(=%+%($ /(
7*"$- 0&*:/,% F+%&=%()8 ./=("1/(= @/=C$ "(, L"$$&%8-
D%5*&$ $* H-D-I- ,":/$ ;/$C G2H D",/*- 45%&"$% ,":/$- P##/#$ /(
1"3()C/(=S&%)*:%&/(= *< H-D-I- .$"(,78 <*& *&,%&# <&*+ L&/,=%-
O&, !"$% T"?% 35 5%&#*((%1- I"11 !3#$%& $* H*&;"&, 9%)?
"<$ *< #35%&#$&3)$3&%- >C%( &%5*&$ $* L&/,=% "(,
"###/#$ !"#$%& /( )*((/(= *< :%##%1-
D%5*&$ $* @/<%7*"$ AB- '# M(, /( )*++"(,- '( )C"&=% "$ C%1+
"(, &%1%"#% 7&"?%- '( )*++"(, *< #%"$/(= "&&"(=%+%($ /(
7*"$- 0&*:/,%# F+%&=%()8 @/(% $C&*;/(= ,%:/)%#-
P##/#$ /( 1"3()C/(=S&%)*:%&/(= *< H-D-I- F(#3&% $C"$ .$&%$)C%& "(, H/&#$ P/, Q/$
"&% 7&*3=C$ $* ,":/$ "&%" *& "1$%&("$% &%)*:%&8 "&%"-
B#$ P71% .%"+"( F+%&=%()8 .K3", AB- U*VV1% !"(- H3118 #3/$%, 35
;/$C .ILP-
D%5*&$ $* @/<%7*"$ AM- '( )C"&=% *< %+7"&?+%($ *<
5%&#*((%1- J%$ .PD> "(, 2"(, 2%1, G2H D",/*
P##/#$ /( 1"3()C/(=S&%)*:%&/(= *< HDI ;/$C M(, !"$%- 2"(,1%# .%"5"/($%&-
M(, P71% .%"+"( F+%&=%()8 .K3", AM- U*VV1% !"(- H3118 #3/$%, 35
;/$C .ILP-
D%5*&$ $* @/<%7*"$ AB- P##/#$# /( F+7"&?+%($ *< 5%&#*((%1-
0&*:/,%# F0'DL
'( HDI6 ;/$C IC/%< !"$%6 .$"(, 78 <*& *&,%&#-
B#$ 4&,/("&8 .%"+"( F+%&=%()8 .K3", AM- 2*#% 2"(,1%&- H3118 #3/$%,
35 ;/$C .ILP-
D%5*&$ $* @/<%7*"$ AB- P##/#$# /( %+7"&?+%($ *< 5%&#*((%1-
.PD> "(, 2"(, 2%1, G2H D",/*-
P##/$ /( 1"3()C/(=S&%)*:%&/(= *< HDI ;/$C M(, !"$%- 2"(,1%# P<$ .$%",/(= 1/(%-
I**? F+%&=%()8 .K3", AB- 2*#% 2"(,1%&- H3118 #3/$%,
35 ;/$C .ILP-
D%5*&$ $* @/<%7*"$ AM- P##/#$# /( %+7"&?+%($ *< 5%&#*((%1
/($* @/<%7*"$-
P##/#$ /( 1"3()C/(=S&%)*:%&/(= *< HDI ;/$C M(, !"$%- 2"(,1%# HT9 .$%",/(=
1/(%-
0*-,*""',*- !"%&'()"*(
+&(,*- .,'" &*/ 0)"'-"*#1 23&*/4* 56,% 7&* 89"' :4&'/
IC/%< F(=/(%%& .$"$/*(%, /( F(=/(% I*($&*1 D**+- .%)3&% "11
5*;%& $* </&% "&%" "(, ,%)? "7*:% </&%- .$"&$ H/&% W
L/1=% 03+5#-
'# M(, )*++"(, "$ @/<%7*"$ AB- '( )C"&=% *< F+7"&?+%($ *<
0%&#*((%1-
D%1/%:%# F(=/(%%& *( ;"$)C- .%)3&%# G%($/1"$/*( F1%)$&/)"1 5*;%& $* #5")%-
!"/( F(=/(% D**+-
B#$ F(=/(%%& F+%&=%()8 .K3", AM- 2*#% C"(,1%& H3118 #3/$%, 35
;/$C .ILP-
@*)"$/*( @/<%7*"$ AB- D%1%"#% 5%1/)"( C**? *( @/<%7*"$-
9/#)*((%)$ #"<%$8 )"71% <&*+ <&/)$/*( 7&"?%6 *( *&,%&#-
D%5*&$ $* HDI 9%)?6 ;/$C 9*((%, @/<%:%#$- P##/#$%, /( +*:/(=6 .3&:/:*& <&*+
HDI $* ,%)? *< G%##%1-
M(, F(=/(%%& F+%&=%()8 .K3", AM- 2*#% 2"(,1%& H3118 #3/$%, 35
;/$C .ILP- D%)3&% +"(6 "(, D%1/%< <*& U*VV1% *&
2*#% +%(-
@*)"$/*( @/<%7*"$ AM- P##/#$# F+7"&?+%($ *< 5%&#*((%1- F(=/(%%& ' (HDI #$"(,78 <*& *&,%&# <&*+ )C/%< !"$%-
O&, F(=/(%%& '( IC"&=% *< .%$$/(= H/&% L*3(,"&/%# P7*:% "(,6
L%1*; P&%" *( H/&%- D%1/%< <*& U*VV1% *& 2*#% +%(-
@*)"$/*( @/<%7*"$ AM- D%1%"#% 0%1/)"( 2**? *( @/<%7*"$-
9/#)*((%)$# ."<%$8 I"71% <&*+ H&/)$/*( L&"?%6 *( *&,%&#-
D%5*&$ $* HDI 9%)?6 ;/$C 9*((%, @/<%:%#$- P##/#$%, /( +*:/(=6 .3&:/:*& <&*+
HDI $* ,%)? *< G%##%1-
B#$ 4/1%& 0&*:/,%# FX$&" H/&% FX$/(=3/#C%&#6 PHHH6 0/)? Y0
>37%- .$"(,# 78 <*& 4&,%&# <&*+ .K3"1, @%",%& AB-
@*)"$/*( @/<%7*"$ AB- P##/#$ /( F+7"&?+%($ *< 0%&#*((%1- .$"$/*(%, /( !"/( F(=/(% D**+6 $* "##/#$ IC/%< F(=/(%%& "# /(#$&3)$%,-
M(, 4/1%& F+%&=%()8 .K3", AM- 0&*:/,%# FX$&" H/&% 2*#% <*&
.K3", AM- .$"(,# 78 <*& 4&,%&# <&*+ .K3", @%",%&-
@*)"$/*( @/<%7*"$ AM- P##/#$ /( F+7"&?+%($ *< 0%&#*((%1 W
@/<%7*"$-
D%5*&$ $* HDI 9%)?6 ;/$C 9*((%, @/<%:%#$6 "(, H/&#$ P/, Q/$- P##/#$%, /(
0&*:/,/(= H/&#$ P/,-
.$%;"&, P##/#$%, O&, F(=/(%%& /( .%$$/(= H/&% L*3(,"&/%#6 W
H/&% 0"&$/%# P# 4&,%&%, <&*+ .K3", @%",%&#-
@*)"$/*( @/<%7*"$ AB- P##/#$ /( F+7"&?+%($ *< 0%&#*((%1 W
@/<%7*"$-
D%5*&$ $* HDI 9%)?6 ;/$C 9*((%, @/<%:%#$6 "(, H/&#$ P/, Q/$- P##/#$%, /(
0&*:/,/(= H/&#$ P/,-
P11 %X$&" 5%&#*((%1 D%5*&$ $* !"/( 9%)? <*& +3#$%&- 0%&#*((%1 7%&$C%, *( $C% 0*&$ #/,% *< :%##%1 +0;8+< <8
=>.0:82< ?@ 0%&#*((%1 7%&$C%, *( $C% .$7, #/,% *< :%##%1
+0;8+< <8 =>.0:82< ?A
D%5*&$ $* 355%& 9%)? "# 1**?*3$#-
P55%(,/X PZ F+%&=%()8 .$"$/*( L/11
SWBS SWBS GROUP LABOR MATERIALS SUB-TOTAL MATERIAL ESTIMATE GROUP PERCENT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION (HOURS) ($) ($) MARK-UP CONTINGENCY COST OF TOTAL
000 Engineering & Yard Services 171,812 2,834,266 20,359,103 0 4,072,000 24,431,103 13.0%
100 Structure 363,637 14,530,549 51,621,515 2,906,000 10,324,000 64,851,515 34.6%
200 Propulsion 17,400 10,169,540 26,944,340 2,034,000 5,389,000 34,367,340 18.3%
300 Electric Plant 232,060 1,319,500 24,989,620 264,000 4,998,000 30,251,620 16.1%
400 Command and Surveillance 16,080 10,700,000 12,340,160 2,140,000 2,468,000 16,948,160 9.0%
500 Auxiliary Systems 28,857 2,645,756 5,589,146 529,000 1,118,000 7,236,146 3.9%
600 Outfit & Furnishings 29,215 4,238,747 7,218,660 848,000 1,444,000 9,510,660 5.1%
SUB-TOTAL 859,061 $46,438,358 $149,063,000 $8,721,000 $29,813,000 $187,597,000
LABOR RATE $102 PER HOUR
MATERIAL MARKUP 20% 8,721,000
ESTIMATE CONTINGENCY 20% 29,813,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $187,597,000
Final Design NOT USUALLY INCLUDED IN CONSTRUCTION COST
Lofting package $500,000 Includes lofting plus assembly drawings, nests, stiffener cut lengths
Final Design $2,500,000
Design TOTAL $3,000,000
TOTAL COST $190,597,000
!"#$ %&'()* "%+,*-. /01/#01/)*' 1-**"
Foss Maritime, Inc.
Ocean Class Tug
Preliminary Design
Cost Estimate
Page 1 The Glosten Associates
Job No. 08111.02, 3 March 2009
S:\Cadets-Departments\NA\Faul Sowers Walker\Corl's class\appendices\16-Cost\Cost Spreadsheet 16-1
!"#$%& '()&"*&* +,-. /0$** 1$*234&50 6$257 80$9+2
!"# $"%& :;&7 ' ()****** ')*)++'* ,,-..,*
'-**** /01"# '', /02"33&4 ( (-))**** ')55-,*, (*-'*65'
73899 (-5'* 2"33&490)* 1"#9 + (.,..)** '-66,*.+ +'.,5''5
<=>>>>>> ?34&50 '.* 1"#90#&"3 ) (5-5)+5) '.6(-5*6 )+--..,-
) :"%38490#&"3 - +*(,,))6 '66(,+-- -.'(.656
'*+()* 2"33&490#&"3 . +(''6)') '56,+''6 .,)-'*5)
@<<ABB-> :;&7 #$*2 )&0 C&50 6.65);6- 6 +)*)))-, ',,(*6*) 5+-6)5+,
10&D 5 +.*56'(. ('''-,). ,5-).*(*
5-6- /01"# , +5(-(+-) ((+5(,*+ ''))'-)6'
@EF<>>> 10&D 1$*2 )&0 C&50 '* )*-)6),- (+6(-566 '+'(+6*5,
'' )(,5*+)- (-'),)(, '),*.5**-
8+&0 <EBFB> 8+&0 1$*2 )&0 C&50 '( )---,'.- (..-5+,- '.6,.566-
G99 7$5H* @<B>>> G99 I$5H* )&0 C&50 '+ )5(,(6'- (5(-65,, '55**+-,'
'7&#20$"+#* <B>>> '7&#20$"+#* )&0 C&50 @= B@@J><FA <JJBEEFE <>J<=>=JF
K;+7H+"L 1$*2 @J>>>>>>> '- -)(.'.,- +'6-*-6- (+'6-'.'6
'. -6-'6+,6 ++.--.'* (--.'+)*)
'6 .*,.5))* +-.6),). (5*,*.5,5
'5 .).(.-)6 +65'-))+ +*66'5**(
', .5-*)')* )**5)+6* ++.'+666(
(* 6(.')+55 )()5,)+( +..(.(6(5
(' 6.,6'(-' )-*+56,5 +,5',-'5(
(( 5'-5,-(. )66)''(. )+(*)+-5+
(+ 5.)5)5,5 -*.*--,+ ).6,((555
() ,'.6+,,( -+.)',(, -*-,-),-'
(- ,6'6))+' -.5.*))) -).(.5,+5
(. '*+**)5,6 .*(6(*6' -5,**'6.)
(6 '*,'5-',' .+555+,- .+)(,5-.*
(5 ''-6+.+*+ .66('.,, .5(+'+'.)
(, '((.5*)5' 6'65-**' 6++(*5.)+
+* '+**)'+'* 6.*,('*' 656'-65-(
+' '+65)+655 5*.-6.(6 5))+))*'+
80$9+25M7& +( ').''))'- 5-),6*5- ,*),.'+))
++ '-)55'(5* ,*.(.,'* ,.,('-6'-
+) '.)'6)'-6 ,.*.)-() '*+6+(-+)5
+- '6)*().*6 '*'5(5+,. ''*,-('--5
+. '5))..*5+ '*6,+5'** ''5.*),-)(
+6 ',--+)*)5 ''))')+5- '(.6'.,(*)
+5 (*6(..*,' '('(6,(), '+-+'-.*)6
+, (',6*(*-. '(5--.**) ')))+*(*,,
)* (+(55)'5* '+.(.,+.) '-)*,'.,'-

Student Paper

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Student Paper

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Arctic Supply Consultants Group, Inc.

Design of the Offshore Supply Vessel

Вам также может понравиться