Download - Design of a Geophysical Vessels

7/27/2019 Design of a Geophysical Vessels

1/240

Design of a Geophysical andHydrographic Survey Vessel for the

Hecate Strait

The Haida Explorer

By: The University of British ColumbiaErik Berzins

Erik JohnstonRomain TheryShaun Zealand

Submitted To:International Student Offshore Design Competition 2004

May 28, 2004

Naval Architecture Program, Mechanical Engineering, University of British Columbia


2/240

ii

Executive Summary

Design of a Geophysical and Hydrographic Survey Vessel for the Hecate StraitBy, E. Berzins, E. Johnston, R. Thery, and S. Zealand

Project Definition

In recent years there has been increased interest in the possibility of oil and gas

production off the shores of British Columbia. In light of this interest, the 23 rd

International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE) will

be held in Vancouver, in June 2004. Therefore it is intended that the design an offshore

seismic exploration vessel be carried out. The vessel will operate in the Hecate Strait,

between the Queen Charlotte Islands and the North Coast of British Columbia, to assist in

the exploration of oil and gas reserves, which are predicted to exist in the coastal waters

of British Columbia.

General Arrangement

The principal dimensions of the survey ship were based on the results of a parametric

study of existing offshore research vessels. A conventional monohull form was chosen

for the design, as it provided ample volumes to carry the required amounts of fresh water

and fuel. The vessel, Haida Explorer, is 60 meters long, with a 17-meter beam. The

unusually large beam was selected to accommodate the five tow winches, located at the

stern. The vessel is capable of carrying 236.2 cubic meters of fresh water and 753.5 cubic

meters of fuel. With these capacities, the vessel is capable of remaining at sea for up to

40 days without re-supply.


3/240

iii

Weight, Buoyancy, and Stability

The weight estimate indicates that the vessel will displace approximately 986.3 metric

tonnes when all tanks are empty and 1845.5 metric tonnes with all tanks full. The

corresponding drafts are 2.94 meters and 4.15 meters, respectively. The stability of the

vessel was analysed using the General Hydrostatics (GHS) software package. The results

of the stability analysis indicate that the vessel has sufficient stability in all loading and

towing conditions with respect to the American Bureau of Shipping regulations.

Local and Global Loading

An Excel spreadsheet was used to analyse the environmental loads exerted on the vessel.

The environmental forces included in the analysis are wind, wave and current forces.

The forces were determined for both bow and beam seas and are 37.1 kN and 201.0 kN,

respectively. Forces for other directions can be estimated by vector addition of the bow

and beam sea forces.

Strength and Structural Design

The ABS regulations dictate the required section modulus of various structural members

within the vessel, which are dependent on the principal dimensions of the ship and the

frame spacing. The section modulus calculations were completed using the MathCAD

software and are presented the appendices. The dimensions of each structural member

type were determined using an Excel spreadsheet.


4/240

iv

Hydrodynamics of Motions and Loading

The natural periods of the vessel in roll, pitch, and heave were also determined using an

Excel spreadsheet. The resulting natural periods are 3.9s, 4.3s, and 3.1s, for roll, pitch,

and heave motions, respectively. These are all well below the natural significant wave

period of 13s for the Hecate Strait region, which indicates that the vessel will perform

well in this body of water.

Wind and Current Loading

The wind and current loads, in bow and beam seas, were determined for extreme high

and low draft conditions of 5.5m and 3.75m, respectively. The forces were governed by

the projected areas of the above water and below water regions of the ship in both draft

cases. As expected, the beam seas conditions experience higher wind and current loads.

It is therefore preferable to align the ship and towlines with the wind and current to

improve the quality of the surveys.

Propulsion

Using the NavCAD resistance and propulsion analysis software, it was determined that

the vessel has to overcome approximately 150 kN of resistance at 14 knots design speed.

The Caterpillar 3512 engines require a gear ratio of 1:5.5 to decrease the propeller speed

to 330 rpm. Two 1.75 m diameter B-series propellers can sufficiently deliver the

required thrust power to propel the vessel at the design speed.


5/240

v

Cost

The cost estimate was conducted using an Excel spreadsheet to tally up the costs of each

piece of equipment onboard, including the hull steel and labour to fabricate and install

each component. The costs were estimated using the quotation library provided by

Robert Allan Limited, a local naval architecture office. The final build cost of the ship is

estimated at $15 million USD. This cost does not include taxes, exchange rates, or

delivery costs.

Regulatory Compliance

The vessel has been design to comply with the American Bureau of Shippings Rules for

Classification and Building of Steel Vessels Under 90 Meters in Length (2001), which

governs various aspects of the design, from the structures to stability. Excerpts from the

ABS rules which were directly used in the design of this vessel are provided in the

appendices. For complete rules, visit the ABS website, http://www.eagle.org/.


6/240

vi

Abstract

This final report discusses the completed work for the 2004 International StudentOffshore Design Competition. The intent of this report is to provide the reader with asummary the design methodology that has been employed by the UBC ISODC team.The chosen topic is a 60-meter geophysical and hydrographic survey vessel, which isintended to carry out oil exploration in the Hecate Strait.

Research on existing vessels was carried out by searching online sources to compile adatabase, which was used to conduct a parametric study. The parametric study revealedseveral trends that assisted the UBC ISODC team to begin design of the survey ship.From the initial results of the parametric study, a hullform was developed using AutoshipPro 8.2.0. Using this hullform, a linesplan, general arrangement, and tank plan werecreated using AutoCAD 2002.

An analysis of the natural frequencies of roll, pitch and heave were conducted to evaluatethe performance of the vessel in the Hecate Strait environment. NavCAD was used toestimate the total resistance of the hull and to determine the total break horsepower required to steam at 14 knots. From these results, Caterpillar 3512 engines were selected.

The internal stiffening structures of the vessel were design to meet the regulations setforth by the American Bureau of Shipping: Rules for Building and Classing Steel VesselsUnder 90 Meters in Length, 2001. All supporting drawings and calculations for all theanalyses are provided in the appendices.

The weights of each component onboard were added to the steel weight estimate to arrive

at the overall weight estimate of the vessel. Using this weight estimate and the hullform,a computer analysis of the stability was conducted using the General Hydrostaticssoftware package. The results of the analysis are present in the appendix.

The local and global loads, including wind, wave, and current loads, exerted on the vesselwere analysed using Excel spreadsheets. The forces were determined for both bow and

beam seas and are 37.1 kN and 201.0 kN, respectively. Detailed calculations are provided in the report.

The cost estimate was conducted using an Excel spreadsheet to sum the costs of eachcomponent onboard. The costs were estimated using the quotation library provided by

Robert Allan Limited. The final build cost of the ship is estimated at $15 million USD.


7/240

vii

Acknowledgements

The University of British Columbia Team thanks the following people who havecontributed their expert knowledge and advice to the success of our team:

Lars Ronning McClure and AssociatesJon Mikkelsen University of British ColumbiaDr. Sander Calisal University of British ColumbiaBrian Konesky University of British ColumbiaDan McGreer Kvaerner Masa MarineDr. William Crawford Institute of Ocean Sciences, Hydrographic Service of CanadaFred Stephenson Institute of Ocean Sciences, Hydrographic Service of CanadaGrant Brandlmayr Robert Allan Limited


8/240

viii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary............................................................................................................ iiProject Definition............................................................................................................ iiGeneral Arrangement...................................................................................................... ii

Weight, Buoyancy, and Stability ................................................................................... iiiLocal and Global Loading ............................................................................................. iiiStrength and Structural Design ...................................................................................... iiiHydrodynamics of Motions and Loading ...................................................................... ivWind and Current Loading ............................................................................................ ivPropulsion ...................................................................................................................... ivCost ................................................................................................................................. vRegulatory Compliance .................................................................................................. v

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. viAcknowledgements........................................................................................................... viiList of Figures ..................................................................................................................... x

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... x1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... 1

Team Organization.......................................................................................................... 22.0 Competency Areas ........................................................................................................ 3

2.1 General Arrangement and Overall Hull/System Design........................................... 32.1.1 Parametric Study................................................................................................ 32.1.2 Overall Hull Design ........................................................................................... 42.1.3 General Arrangement......................................................................................... 7

2.2 Weight, Buoyancy, and Stability ............................................................................ 112.2.1 Weight Estimate............................................................................................... 112.2.2 Buoyancy and Stability .................................................................................... 11

2.3 Local and Global Loading ...................................................................................... 142.4 Strength and Structural Design ............................................................................... 172.5 Hydrodynamics of Motions and Loading ............................................................... 20

2.5.1 Natural Periods of Vessel................................................................................. 202.5.2 Pitch, Roll and Heave Motions ........................................................................ 21

2.6 Wind and Current Loading ..................................................................................... 262.7 Propulsion and Station Keeping.............................................................................. 282.8 Cost Estimate .......................................................................................................... 30

3.0 Summary and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 32References......................................................................................................................... 33Appendix A: Vessel Database and Parametric Study Results .......................................... 34

Appendix B: Calculations ................................................................................................. 39B.1 Heave Added Mass Coefficient.............................................................................. 39B.2 Structures Section Modulus Calculations Using ABS Rules ................................. 40B.3 Structure Dimension Calculations.......................................................................... 43B.4 Weight Estimate ..................................................................................................... 46

B.4.1 Steel weight ..................................................................................................... 46B.4.2 Weight Estimate .............................................................................................. 81

Appendix C: Environmental Data for the Hecate Strait ................................................... 83


9/240

ix

Appendix D: NavCAD Input/Output ................................................................................ 85Appendix E: GHS Input/Output........................................................................................ 90Appendix F: Drawings.................................................................................................... 108Appendix G: ABS Rules................................................................................................. 123


10/240

x

List of Figures

Figure 1. Map of Hecate Strait, BC .................................................................................... 1Figure 2. Hull Curves.......................................................................................................... 5Figure 3. Hull Surfaces ....................................................................................................... 6Figure 4. Hull Surface (Shaded) ......................................................................................... 7Figure 5. Monowing Towing Arrangement ........................................................................ 8Figure 6. Conventional Towing Arrangement .................................................................... 8Figure 7. General Arrangement - Profile View .................................................................. 9Figure 8. Generalized Diagram of a Flange-Web Structural Member.............................. 18Figure 9. Typical Midship Sections for Web and Normal Frames................................... 19Figure 10. Encountering Wave Spectrum......................................................................... 21Figure 11. Hecate Strait Wave Spectrum.......................................................................... 22Figure 12. Roll Response Amplitude Operator................................................................. 22Figure 13. Pitch Response Amplitude Operator ............................................................... 23

Figure 14. Heave Response Amplitude Operator ............................................................. 23Figure 15. Roll Response Spectrum.................................................................................. 24Figure 16. Pitch Response Spectrum ................................................................................ 24Figure 17. Heave Response Spectrum .............................................................................. 24Figure 18. Break Horsepower Per Propeller vs. Speed..................................................... 89Figure 19. Total Resitance vs. Speed................................................................................ 89

List of Tables

Table 1. Team Assignments................................................................................................ 2Table 2. Vessels Used in Parametric Study ........................................................................ 4Table 3. Summary of Parametric Study Results ................................................................. 4Table 4. Tank Capacity Summary .................................................................................... 10Table 5. Steel Weight........................................................................................................ 11Table 6. Weight Estimate Summary ................................................................................. 11Table 7. Wind, Current and Wave Loads ......................................................................... 14Table 8. Combined Global Loading.................................................................................. 16Table 9. Shell Plating Thickness and Girder Dimensions ................................................ 17Table 10. Dimensions and Section Modulus of Structural Members ............................... 18Table 11. Summary of Natural Periods of the Vessel....................................................... 20Table 12. Ship Motions..................................................................................................... 25Table 13. Wind and Current Loading ............................................................................... 26Table 14. Cost Estimate .................................................................................................... 30


11/240

1

1.0 Introduction

The purpose of this project is to design a hydrographic survey vessel for the Hecate Strait of British Columbia. The vessel will survey the ocean floor for evidence of oil reserves below theHecate Strait. The vessel design meets the American Bureau of Shipping Rules for Building andClassing Steel Vessels Under 90 Meters in Length 2001.

This preliminary report is intended to discuss the stages of the design work completed thus far.To date, the general arrangement and overall hull design, strength and structural design,resistance and propulsion, and hydrodynamics of motions and loading analyses have beencompleted.

The Hecate Strait is bounded on the North by Dixon Entrance, on the South by Queen CharlotteSound, On the West by the Queen Charlotte Islands, and on the East by the coast of mainlandBritish Columbia. The ocean depth ranges between 200 and 400 meters, and the width of the

Hecate Straight varies from 60 to 120 km.

Figure 1. Map of Hecate Strait, BC

The majority of the oil reserves off the Coast of British Columbia are speculated to lie in theHecate Strait. There has been a provincial moratorium on the offshore exploration and

production of oil in British Columbia since 1981. However, there has been recent debate on the possibility of lifting the moratorium.


12/240

2

Data collected over the past 10 years from environmental buoys in the Hecate Strait indicate thatthe significant wave height in the northern portion can reach 9 meters, while significant waveheights in the southern region can exceed 10 meters. The wave period for the maximumsignificant wave height in both regions is approximately 13 seconds. Wind speeds in the northand south regions can reach up to 24 and 21 m/s (46.7 and 40.8 kts), respectively, with gusts

exceeding 30 m/s (58.3 kts).

Team Organization

Tasks were delegated to each team member based on their knowledge of software and areas of expertise. The distribution of tasks was done to ensure that each member was contributingequally to the project. Table 1 lists the task assignments for the project.

Table 1. Team Assignments

Competency Task Software Used Person(s) ResponsibleParametric Study Excel Erik JohnstonHullform Development Autoship Shaun Zealand

General Arrangementand Overall Hull Design

General Arrangement AutoCAD Romain Thery ABS Rules Interpretation MathCAD Erik JohnstonStrength and Structural

Design Structural Drawings AutoCAD Erik JohnstonResistance Calculations NavCAD Erik BerzinsResistance and

Propulsion Propulsion Calculations NavCAD Erik BerzinsNatural FrequencyCalculations

Excel, MathCAD Romain TheryHydrodynamics of Motions and Loading

Response AmplitudeOperator Calculations

Excel, MathCAD Shaun Zealand

Weight Estimate Excel Romain Thery, ErikJohnston

Buoyancy Calculation GHS Erik Berzins

Weight, Buoyancy, andStability

Stability Analysis GHS Erik BerzinsLocal Loading Analysis Excel, MathCAD Shaun ZealandLocal and Global

Loading Global Loading Analysis Excel, MathCAD Shaun ZealandWind Loading Analysis Excel, MathCAD Erik JohnstonWind and Current

Loading Current Loading Analysis Excel, MathCAD Erik JohnstonCosting Cost Estimate Excel Everyone


13/240

3

2.0 Competency Areas

The design of the hydrographic survey vessel involved various aspects of the design must beresearched, analyzed, and detailed. The design in this project focuses on eight specific areas:

General arrangement and overall hull design Weight, buoyancy, and stability Local and global loading Strength and structural design Cost Hydrodynamics of motions and loading Wind and current loading Resistance and propulsion

The following sections describe the methods and results of each of the completed competencies.

2.1 General Arrangement and Overall Hull/System Design

2.1.1 Parametric Study

To begin design of the hydrographic survey vessel, it was necessary to determine thecharacteristics of similar vessels. Data was collected for various vessel properties, such aslength, beam, draft, displacement, engine power, and speed. Much of this information wascollected from searching online sources. A summary of the database is provided in Table 2. A

more complete version of the database, along with full results from the parametric study, can befound in Appendix A: Vessel Database and Parametric Study Results.

Vessels under 25 meters or over 100 meters in length were neglected from the database. Vesselsunder 25 meters are considered too small to have significant stability to function as a surveyvessel, whereas, vessels over 100 meters tended to skew the data too heavily to the upper end.

The cubic number of each vessel was calculated by multiplying together the three principledimensions, length, beam, and draft. Each of the vessel characteristics was individually plottedagainst the cubic number. Linear relationships were fitted to each plot using the Least SquaresMethod. It was found that the average vessel length in the database was 60 meters. Using this

length as a reference, the cubic number was determined to be approximately 2700 m3

. Byinterpolating the other relationships using the estimated cubic number, a table of approximatevessel characteristics was developed and is summarized in Table 3. Using these values, it

became possible to begin the first iteration of the design spiral, beginning with hullformdevelopment.


14/240

4

Table 2. Vessels Used in Parametric Study

Vessel Name Length Beam Draft Vessel Name Length Beam Draft(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)

Alkor 55.2 12.5 4.16 Moana Wave 64 10.97 4.05 Aranda 59.2 13.8 5 MV Sagar Sandhani 70.2 15 5.2

Arc Providencia 50.9 10 4.4 Nalivkin 71.7 12.8 5.4 Atlantis 83.5 16 5.18 R/V A.V. Humboldt 64.23 10.5 5.2CCGS Alfred Needler 50.3 11 4.9 R/V Atlantic Twin 27.43 8.53 2.29CCGS Hudson 90.4 15.4 6.8 R/V Longhorn 31.39 7.32 N/ACCGS Matthew 50.3 10.5 4.3 R/V Melville 85.04 14.02 5.03CCGS Parizeau 64.5 12.2 4.6 Southern Surveyor 66.12 12.3 5.3GTV Samudra Sarvekshak 83.45 18.3 8.2 Thales Eastern 58.9 14.5 4.4Iskatel-3 (CAT) 49.29 18.2 2.15 Whiting 49.7 10.1 3.7M.V. Pacific Maple 48.72 12.2 4.5 Zeeleeuw 56.6 9 3.65M.V. Pacific Titan 64.5 18.5 6 Zephyr 1 81.85 14.8 6M/V Davidson 53.34 11.64 3.96 Zirfaea 63 11.5 6

Source: Ship Information and Schedules, University of Delaware,http://www.researchvessels.org/qryshipinfo.asp

Table 3. Summary of Parametric Study Results

Vessel Characteristic ValueLength Overall 60 m

Beam 12.5 mDraft 4.5 m

Displacement 1900 TEngine Power 2200 kW

Crew 29

Endurance 38 Days

2.1.2 Overall Hull Design

The overall hull design had the following main requirements: a length of 60 m, a large beam, anarrow bottom and a draft of between 4 and 5 m. The length of 60 m was chosen based on the

parametric study as discussed earlier. The large beam requirement was based on the amount aftdeck space needed for the winch and streamer arrangement. A beam of 17 m was chosen to

provide spacing for 6 to 8 winches in a monowing-towing set-up. The narrow bottom is a featurethat will reduce ship sway, allowing the vessel to maintain a strait course during surveys. The

draft requirement was based on the majority of vessels in the parametric study, which had draftsof 4 to 5 m. The hull draft was subject to change throughout the hullform design based on weightcharacteristics.

The hullform was developed in Autoship Pro 8.2.0, to view the final hullform see DWG: M443-04-100, which is the linesplan. The hullform was exported from Autoship as a DXF file intoAutocad 2002, where the linesplan, tank plan, and general arrangements were drawn. Autoshipalso provided complete hydrostatics for vessel at various displacements and curvature analysis.


15/240

5

The hullform was drawn by developing and extruding several curves. The original curve was a

plan view of the prospective main deck shown in Figure 2. In the plan view, it extended 8.5 mfrom the centreline to represent the 17 m beam requirement. It was 60 m in length and attachedto the centreline at the bow and stern. The second curve was the keel curve also shown in Figure

2, which ran along the centreline 6 m below the deck curve. This curve represented the bottom profile of the hull. The deck curve was extruded and attached to the keel curve creating the bottom surface of the hull.

Figure 2. Hull Curves

The bow, stern, and midship profiles were made by adjusting the control points, which arerepresented in Figure 3 by mesh line intersections. Extruding the same deck curve upwardcreated the above deck section of the hull. The bow section was extruded upward by 5 mwhereas the stern only 1 m. The bow and forward section of the hull are higher because an extra

bow deck was needed. The stern deck was kept low to keep centre of gravity low because themajority of the heavy equipment and tow apparatus would be located on the stern deck.

Keel Curve


16/240

6

Figure 3. Hull Surfaces

After the hullform was completed a hydrostatics analysis was carried out to determine thewaterline and draft based on the empty and full vessel displacements of 1500 tonnes and 1900tonnes. Complete hydrostatics for both displacements is in the appendix. The drafts at 1500 and1900 tonne displacements are 3.96 m and 4.45 m.

All the surfaces were analyzed with Gaussian, Mean, and Absolute Curvature functions inAutoship. These functions indicate the amount of curvature in a surface and whether the surfaceis developable. The curvature at the stern and bow were much higher than with the midship,however they are below the non-developable limit for surface construction methods. Also thelower the curvature usually the lower the hull construction costs. Figure 4 is the side view of thehullform surface.


17/240

7

Figure 4. Hull Surface (Shaded)

A bulbous bow was not used in the hullform design because for the majority of operation, thevessel would travel at slow survey speeds and a bulbous bow would only increase resistance.Many of the vessels in the parametric study had bulbous bows for the long travel betweensurveys. However, with this vessel travel distance to its survey area is minimal because it can

port in Prince Rupert, which is at the northeast section of the Hecate Strait. The bow is quitenarrow to reduce bow wave resistance and increase slenderness.

2.1.3 General Arrangement

The general arrangement features four different levels with an aft and forward deck. The entirefloor and deck layouts are shown in the general arrangement drawings DWG: M443-04-106. Themain requirements for the deck layouts were a helicopter pad for safety and supply issues andsufficient deck space for a monowing towing apparatus.

The monowing towing apparatus (Figure 5) was chosen based on its lower tow drag forces than

with the conventional towing arrangement (Figure 6). This can go a long way towards reducedfuel consumption during surveys and lower operational costs. The monowing set-up ideally uses between six and eight streamers with monowing diverters that keep the streamers separate and parallel during the survey. This required space for six to eight winches on the aft deck.


18/240

8

Figure 5. Monowing Towing Arrangement

Figure 6. Conventional Towing Arrangement

Monowings

ConventionalTow Wings


19/240

9

The vessel features a helipad on the forecastle deck, forward of the superstructure. This providesa landing pad for a small to medium sized helicopter if the need arises to airlift in extra suppliesor to evacuate the crew. The accommodation space is divided into five decks. The lower threedecks provide living space for the crew, including galley, mess, and games room. Deck four isthe officers living quarters, which also contains the sauna that is available for the crews use.

Deck five, the uppermost deck, contains the masters quarters and the bridge. The bridge hasexcellent forward viewing capabilities. The science laboratory is located on deck two, which iseasily accessible from the aft deck space.

Two 14-meter, 25 tonne SWL cranes are located on the aft portion of the deck to assist in theloading and offloading of stores, cargo and additional towing cable spools. Five tow winches arestaggered on the stern. Each winch is capable of spooling up to 2500 meters of 35-mm towlinefor towing the various scientific instruments required by geophysical survey missions. TwoCaterpillar 3512 engines, located in the engine room, are capable of outputting 1750BHP, each,at 1800rpm. Two generator sets (Caterpillar 3408C) provide ample electric power to run thevarious onboard systems.

Figure 7. General Arrangement - Profile View


20/240

10

Tank Plan

The tank plan drawing (DWG: M443-04-102) indicates the tank arrangements within the hull of the vessel. The ballast tanks are located at the fore and aft extremes of the vessel to allow for trimming and heeling compensation. The fresh water tanks are all located in the forward end of

the ship, near the crew accommodations. The fuel tanks are all located in the mid to aft sectionsof the vessel. Cofferdams are located on the boundary between the fresh water and fuel tanks, asrequired by ABS regulations. Table 4 provides a summary of the total capacities of each of thetank types. The survey ship will need to remain out at sea for extended periods of time, upwardsof 40 days per mission, therefore the fresh water and fuel tanks are sized much larger than other ships of similar size.

Table 4. Tank Capacity Summary

Tank Type CapacityFuel Oil 729.7 m 3 Fresh Water 236.2 m 3 Ballast (Sea) Water 753.5 m 3


21/240

11

2.2 Weight, Buoyancy, and Stability

2.2.1 Weight Estimate

The weight estimate was conducted in two phases. First the hull steel weight was determined bycalculating the center of gravity and mass of each structural member and plate in the hull on aframe-by-frame basis. Detailed calculations for the steel weight estimate are available inAppendix B.4.1 Steel weight. The results are provided in Table 5.

Table 5. Steel Weight

Mass(Tonnes)

VCG(m Above BL)

LCG(m aft of Fr.50)

TCG(m stbd of CL)

716.99 3.77 0.32 0

From the steel weight estimate, it was then possible to calculate the overall weight of the vessel by adding the masses of the various components at their respective centers of gravity. Table 6shows a summary of the weight estimate calculation. More detailed calculations of the weightestimate are provided in Appendix B.4.2 Weight Estimate.

Table 6. Weight Estimate Summary

Number Item Weight VCG LCG TCG(tonnes) (m) (m) (m)

100 Structure 828.65 4.92 -0.72 0200 Deck Equipment 45.25 10.13 21.52 0

300 Machinery 23.55 3.03 2.68 0400 Mooring 17.30 9.59 -25.35 0500 Miscellaneous 24.57 5.02 -0.82 0

Subtotal Lightship 939.32 5.21 -0.02 0+ 5% Design Allowance 46.97

Total 986.29 5.21 -0.02 0

2.2.2 Buoyancy and Stability

The Haida Explorer has been designed to the 2001 ABS Rules for Classification and Building of Steel Vessels under 90m in Length, Part 5, Chapter 8, Appendix 1. In order to test the stabilityof the survey vessel, a program called General Hydrostatics (GHS) was used to simulate variousoperating conditions and to ensure the vessel passed ABS intact stability requirements.


22/240

12

Stability tests were preformed under three operating conditions: full load departure condition,intermediate load condition, and arrival condition. Towing operations in these three conditionswere also analyzed to ensure adequate vessel stability in most conditions.

Full load departure condition simulates the vessel being fully loaded about to embark on a

voyage. All tanks containing fresh water and fuel oil are completely full in this condition. The black, grey and oily water tanks, as well as dirty oil tanks are 10% full, as it is difficult to fullyempty these tanks. All ballast tanks are empty as well due to the large amount of fuel and freshwater on board.

The intermediate load condition simulates an operating condition of the vessel being at sea after a number of days. All tanks are 50% full, including ballast tanks. This allows sea water in the

ballast tanks to account for the already consumed fuel and water and keep the ship at areasonably constant draft.

The arrival condition allows the stability to be tested when the vessel is returning from a voyage.

In this case, all fuel oil and fresh water tanks are 10% full, while the ballast and waste tanks full.As the Haida Explorer is a geophysical survey vessel, towing capability is an importantconsideration. Towing of up to six appendages under many loading conditions is possible for this vessel, and the ship must also meet ABS stability requirements while towing whatever equipment is required for a particular survey.

The ABS requirements are as follows:1. The area below the righting lever curve (GZ curve) must be at least 0.055m-radians

between 0 and 30 degrees of heel.2. The area below the righting lever curve must be at least 0.0900m-radians between 0 and

40 degrees of heel.3. The area below the righting lever curve must be at least 0.0300m-radians between 30 and

40 degrees of heel.4. The righting arm must be at least 0.200m at 30 degrees of heel.5. The maximum righting arm must occur at and angle of at least 25 degrees of heel.6. The initial metacentric height (GM) of the vessel must be at least 0.15m.

These rules have been created to ensure adequate stability of vessels under 90m.

Appendix E: GHS Input/Output shows the results of the GHS run files, as well as the ABSstability criteria and test results. Under all operating conditions, the Haida Explorer passes allthe stability criteria. The GHS tests indicate results that are over an order of magnitude higher than the minimum ABS requirements in terms of areas under curves and righting arms. Thisindicates the ship is very stable in all operating conditions, especially when noting the smallestGM of the vessel to be 5.74m. This stability is likely due to the large freeboard of the vessel, aswell as a reasonably wide beam and a low centre of gravity.


23/240

13

With a righting arm that remains positive to beyond 90 degrees even in the arrival condition, thevessel remains positively stable at the most uncomfortable of heeling angles. This indicates theHaida Explorer will be a suitable ship to handle the seas in the Hecate Straight.

It must be noted that the loading due to winches, cranes, engines and other machinery are all

included in the lightship weight of the vessel. The longitudinal, transverse and vertical centres of gravity (LCG, TCG and VCG respectively) of each piece of equipment is incorporated into theLCG, TCG and VCG of the entire lightship vessel. This prevents the need for applying multiplemachinery loads as well as tank loads in GHS.


24/240

14

2.3 Local and Global Loading

The global loading is a combination of wind, current, and wave forces on the vessel. The amountof loading is dependent on the weather conditions, which can vary significantly. The wind,

current, and wave forces were analyzed separately and then later combined to determine theglobal loading situations on the vessel.

Table 7 lists the wind, current and wave loads on the vessels for bow and beam seas in theHecate Strait. Significant wind, current, and wave heights were used in the calculations, whichwere a wind speed of 14 m/s or 27.2 knots, an ocean current of 0.65 m/s or 1.25 knots, and awave height of 5.0 m.

Table 7. Wind, Current and Wave Loads

Wind LoadingBeam Seas

Draft (m) Projected Area (m^2) Drag Coefficient Cd Drag (N)3.75 377.1 2 886945.5 272.2 2 64022

Bow SeasDraft (m) Projected Area (m^2) Drag Coefficient Cd Drag (N)

3.75 172.7 1.2 243715.5 144.5 1.2 20392

Current LoadingBeam Seas

Draft (m) Projected Area (m^2) Drag Coefficient Cd Drag (N)3.75 198.9 2 863465.5 303.8 2 131885


3.75 36.1 1.2 94035.5 64.3 1.2 16748

Wave LoadingBeam Seas

Draft (m) Wave Impact Angle Drift Coefficient Wave Drift Force (N)3.75 90 0.008459 51125.5 90 0.008459 5112

Bow SeasDraft (m) Wave Impact Angle Drift Coefficient Wave Drift Force (N)

3.75 180 0.008459 05.5 180 0.008459 0


25/240

15

The values in Table 7 were obtained as follows:The wind and current loading parameters are described in more detail in the wind and currentloading section. Below are the basic equations for the global loading analysis.

Wind Loading

Dwind = V2ACd

Where: D wind = wind drag forceair = air density = 1.19 kg/m 3 V = wind speedA = projected area above the waterline affected by windCd = drag coefficient

Current Loading Dcurrent = V2ACd

Where: D current = current drag forcesaltwater = salt water density = 1027.5 kg/m 3 V = ocean current speedA = projected area below the waterline affected by ocean currentCd = drag coefficient

Wave LoadingDwavedrift = gLC drift sin3()

Where: D wavedrift = wave drift forcesaltwater = salt water density = 1027.5 kg/m 3 L = vessel length = 59.9 m = wave impact angle with respect to vessel directiong = gravity = 9.81 m/sCdrift = drift coefficient

Determining the wave drift force on the vessel varies from the procedures for finding wind andcurrent force. The main difficulty in determining the wave drift force is finding the driftcoefficient C drift

Cdrift = {S(0)[D wavedrift (0)/(0.5 ga2]}d0 Where: C drift = wave drift coefficient

S(0) = wave spectrum from Hecate Strait data0 = natural wave frequency rad/sg = gravity = 9.81 m/s


26/240

16

Cdrift = drift coefficient

S(0) = (A/ 05)exp[-B/ 04]

Where: A = 8.1(10 -3)g2

B = 3.11/a2

Table 8. Combined Global Loading

Total Loading (3.75 m Draft)Beam Seas Bow Seas

Wind Force (N) 88694 24371Current Force (N) 86346 9403Wave Force (N) 5112 0Total Force (N) 180152 33774

Total Loading (5.5 m Draft)Beam Seas Bow Seas

Wind Force (N) 64022 20392Current Force (N) 131885 16748Wave Force (N) 5112 0Total Force (N) 201019 37140

Table 8 shows the combined global loading on the vessel for the two sea states. This representsthe global loading on the vessel for the various environmental effects. The environmental effects

analyzed were the significant weather conditions not the 100 year storm conditions because thesignificant weather conditions are much more likely. Table 8 shows that there is much higher forces on the vessel for beam seas as opposed to bow seas. The quartering seas can also bedetermined and should have forces between the beam and bow forces. Ideal survey directionswould be at bow seas because there is no wave drift occurring and the wind and current force aremuch lower than with beam seas. This makes keeping a straight course during surveys mucheasier and efficient, less energy is needed via bow thrusters to keep a straight course. Duringsurveys it is very important that the vessel maintains its course and avoids any swaying.


27/240

17

2.4 Strength and Structural Design

The design of the ship structures is highly regulated by the various international classificationsocieties. In order for a ship to be approved for construction, it must meet the standards of one

of the classification societies. This vessel has been designed to meet the rules and regulations setforth by the American Bureau of Shipping: Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels Under 90 Meters in Length 2001. The sections used for the design of the internal ship structures are

provided in Appendix G: ABS Rules. A complete version of the rules can be downloaded fromthe ABS website.

The ABS rules determine the minimum allowable thickness and depth of deck and shell plating,and center and side girders. The plating thickness is highly dependent on its location. Table 9shows the minimum plate thickness for different locations on the vessel and the dimensions of the center and side girders, detailed calculations can be found in Appendix B: Calculations.

Table 9. Shell Plating Thickness and Girder Dimensions

Structure Thickness(mm)

Depth(mm)

Bottom Shell 9.0 -Side Shell 8.5 -Deck Plating

Exposed Freeboard deck with no deck below6.5 -

Exposed Freeboard deck with deck below, forecastledeck, superstructure deck forward of amidships 0.5L

6.5 -

Freeboard deck within superstructure, any deckbelow freeboard deck, superstructure deck between0.25L forward of and 0.20L aft of amidships.

6.0 -

All other locations 5.5 -Center Girder 40 1000Side Girder 8 -

For other internal structures, the ABS rules dictate the minimum required section modulus, basedon a number of parameters, including, vessel length, beam and frame spacing. It is the duty of the naval architect to select suitable structures to fulfill the section modulus requirements. Theframe spacing used in determining the section modulus requirements was 600mm. Table 10

provides the minimum required section modulus of various ship structures, detailed calculationscan be found in Appendix B: Calculations.

Where a large section modulus is required for structures, it is often that a structural member will be built up using several pieces of plate to create webs and flanges. Figure 8 shows a typicalarrangement of a built up section. The reference axis is an arbitrary axis used to determine theneutral axis, and therefore the section modulus, of the member, including the associated plating.Through several iterations, dimensions for the web and flange of each structural member wasdetermined such that the given section modulus exceeded the ABS requirement. Table 10summarizes the resulting members, see Appendix B: Calculations for full section moduluscalculations.


28/240

18

Table 10. Dimensions and Section Modulus of Structural Members

Dimensions Section ModulusStructureWeb

(cm x cm)Flange

(cm x cm)Actual(cm 3)

Required(cm 3)

Bottom Frames 55 x 3.5 25 x 2 1683 1681Transverse Side Frames 30 x 2 20 x 2 279 278Transverse Web Frames 75 x 4 25 x 3 3532 3474Side Stringers 50 x 1.5 15 x 1 525 514

Figure 8. Generalized Diagram of a Flange-Web Structural Member

Using these built up structural members, structural arrangement and midship section drawingswere created using AutoCAD 2002, see DWG M443-04-104 and M443-04-105, respectively.

The structural arrangement drawing shows the bottom and side structures in both plan andelevation views. The vessel has been transversely framed with a frame spacing of 600mm. Webframes are typically located 2400mm apart, however some variation exists due to the presence of tank boundaries. Figure 9 depicts the typical structural arrangement of web and normal frames.Detailed drawings are provided in Appendix F: Drawings.

Reference Axis(RA)

Flange

Web

Shell Plating


29/240

19

Figure 9. Typical Midship Sections for Web and Normal Frames


30/240

20

2.5 Hydrodynamics of Motions and Loading

2.5.1 Natural Periods of Vessel

The natural periods of roll, pitch, and heave are shown in Table 11. These values were obtained based on hullform hydrostatics and Simpsons approximations for the mass moments of inertia inthe longitudinal and transverse cases.

Table 11. Summary of Natural Periods of the Vessel

Motion Added MassCoefficient (a)

Natural Frequency (rad/s)

PeriodT (seconds)

Roll 0.2 1.627 3.861Pitch 0.5 1.456 4.317Heave 1.76 2.018 3.114

Roll:

The added mass coefficient remains fairly constant for rolling conditions at a = 0.2, which wasassumed for these calculations. The added mass term is applied to represent the fluid around thehull, which has to be accelerated at rates similar to the hull acceleration. It can be thought of asadding the mass of the surrounding fluid to displacement mass.

Hydrostatics: GM t = 6.43 m m = 1899.6 tonnes

Simpsons Approximation : I xx = 37707(103

) kg/m2

= m K xx2

K xx2 = 19.85 m 2

2 = gGM t/K xx2(1 + a ) = 9.81(6.43)/[19.85(1 + 0.2)] = 2.65

T = 2/ = 2/1.627 = 3.861 seconds

Pitch:

The added mass in pitching conditions remains fairly constant at a = 0.5.

Hydrostatics: GM l = 71.64 m m = 1899.6 tonnes

Simpsons Approximation : I yy = 420115(10 3) kg/m 2 = m K yy2 K yy2 = 221.16 m 2

2 = gGM l/K yy2(1 + a ) = 9.81(71.64)/[221.16(1 + 0.5)] = 2.12

T = 2/ = 2/1.456 = 4.317 seconds


31/240

21

Heave:

The added mass for heave varies significantly according to the hull shape. For this hull a heavecoefficient of a = 1.76 was obtained. The calculation for this coefficient is shown in the

appendix.

Hydrostatics: A wp = 788.51 m 2 V = 1899.6 m 3

z2 = gA wp/V(1 + a) = 9.81(788.51)/1899.6(2.76) = 4.072

Tz = 2/z = 2/2.018 = 3.114 seconds

2.5.2 Pitch, Roll and Heave Motions

The maximum pitch, roll, and heave motions of the vessel in the Hecate Strait were determinedfor the significant wave heights. The pitch and roll motions were determined for a worst-casescenario by analyzing the pitch in bow seas ( = 180 degrees) and the roll in beam seas ( = 90degrees). The ship motions were all determined based on the Hecate Strait wave buoy data,which was used to determine the encountering wave spectrums as shown in Figure 10.

Encountering Wave Spectrum (roll)

00.10.20.30.40.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Encoutering Frequency

S

Figure 10. Encountering Wave Spectrum

The encountering spectrums are derived from the Hecate Strait wave spectrum shown in Figure11. The Hecate Strait wave spectrum is dependent of the wave frequency ( w) whereas theencountering spectrums are dependent on the vessel encountering wave frequency ( e) with avessel speed (V) of 7.2 m/s or 14 knots. The frequencies are altered with the following formula:

e = w(1-w Vcos/g)


32/240

22

Hecate Strait Wave Spectrum

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5wave frequency (rad/s)

S ( w

)

Figure 11. Hecate Strait Wave Spectrum

Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs) were determined from the ship and Hecate Strait data,calculations and the values for determining the RAOs are in the appendix. RAOs are the squareof the pitch, roll, or heave motion divided by the significant wave height.

RAO(roll) = ( /)2 RAO(pitch) = ( /)2 RAO(heave) = (z/ )2

where: = roll angle = pitch angle z = heave motion = significant wave height

The RAO chart for pitch and roll are shown in Figure 12, Figure 13, and Figure 14.

Response Amplitude Operators (roll)

00.010.020.030.040.05

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Encountering Frequency

R A O

Figure 12. Roll Response Amplitude Operator


33/240

23

Response Amplitude Operators(pitch)

0

0.20.4

0.6

0.8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6


R A O

Figure 13. Pitch Response Amplitude Operator

Response Amplitude Operator (heave)

00.20.40.60.8

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6


R A O

Figure 14. Heave Response Amplitude Operator

The RAOs were used to determine the response spectrum for the vessel in the Hecate Strait. Thiswas done by multiplying the RAO by S in Figure 10 and Figure 11 as in the following formula:

S(e) = RAO(S (e))

Figure 15, Figure 16, and Figure 17 show the response spectrums for rolling and pitching of thevessel. The maximum roll and pitch motions are found finding the area under each plot and usingthe following equation:

Pitch or Roll = 2.00(area)1/2

For pitch and roll the area has units in degrees 2 and for heave the units are m 2.


34/240

24

Response Spectrum

00.20.40.60.8

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6


S r

Figure 15. Roll Response Spectrum

Response Spectrum (pitch)

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6


S p

Figure 16. Pitch Response Spectrum

Response Spectrum (heave)

0

0.05

0.1

0.150.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6


S

Figure 17. Heave Response Spectrum

Table 12 lists the maximum ship motions for wave loading in the Hecate Strait for bothsignificant and average wave heights.


35/240

25

Table 12. Ship Motions

Ship MotionsResponse Area Movement

Pitch 0.367 degrees 2 1.212 Roll 1.98 degrees 2 2.817

Heave 0.192 m 2 0.876 m

The rolling and pitching motions are quite small and ideal in terms of data acquisition, shiploading, and crew comfort. There is a much higher movement in heave, which may pose future

problems regarding ship performance.


36/240

26

2.6 Wind and Current Loading

The wind and current loading on the vessel are determined from the highest known wind andcurrent forces in the Hecate Strait to approximate the 100 year storm condition. These conditions

consisted of a wind speed of 31.1 knots or 16 m/s and an ocean current of 1.5 knots or 0.772 m/s.The vessel was analyzed at the loaded and unloaded drafts and at bow and beam seas. The windand current loading are represented by drag forces on the vessel as shown in Table 13 below.

Table 13. Wind and Current Loading

Wind LoadingBeam Seas

Draft (m) Projected Area (m^2) Drag Coefficient Cd Drag (N)3.75 377.1 2.0 1158455.5 272.2 2.0 83620


3.75 172.7 1.2 318325.5 144.5 1.2 26634

Current LoadingBeam Seas

Draft (m) Projected Area (m^2) Drag Coefficient Cd Drag (N)

3.75 198.9 2.0 1218015.5 303.8 2.0 186039


3.75 36.1 1.2 132645.5 64.3 1.2 23625

The drag forces from wind and ocean currents are determined from the following equation.

D = V2ACd

Where: D = wind or current drag force = fluid density [(1.19 kg/m 3 for air) (1027.5 kg/m 3 for salt water)]V = wind speed or ocean current speedA = projected area of vessel affected by wind or currentCd = drag coefficient


37/240

27

The values for the projected areas and drag coefficients are also listed in Table 13. The projectedareas were derived the AutoCad General Arrangements and drawing M443-04-107 in AppendixF: Drawings shows each of the vessels projected areas for beam and bow seas. The dragcoefficients are approximations based 3-dimensional object drag coefficients. For instance, asshown in M443-04-107, much of the beam seas wind loading is against vertical sections, which

can be modeled as flat plates, which have a C d of 2.0. The bow and front surface of the shipresembles more of a half cylinder, which has a C d of 1.2. The drag coefficient values could bedetermined with higher accuracy by model testing a scaled vessel with wind and current loads.

Table 13 only shows the wind and current loading for the 100 year storm condition, however, thelower wind and current loading can be determined for various situation by simply inputting thevarious wind and ocean current speeds.


38/240

28

2.7 Propulsion and Station Keeping

There are numerous influences on the overall resistance of a hull which all must be taken intoconsideration when performing a simulation.

Using NavCAD allows most resistance-influencing factors to be input for resistance and propulsion predictions. Inputs are divided into sections pertaining to different parts of the hulland are as follows: environment, hull, appendages, propulsion, miscellaneous, and operatingspeed.

The environment section incorporates factors such as windage, channel influences and wavemotions. As the superstructure of the vessel is still under modification, accounting for the forceof the wind on an undetermined area would significantly alter the NavCAD outputs. As a result,special wind conditions have not been taken into consideration. The channel input was alsoneglected, as the vessel would very seldom require passage through a channel. The wave

motions used are standard Sea State two wave height and periods. Most vessels analyzed for propulsion and resistance are tested in this state, since performance in higher sea states focusesmore on the survivability of the vessel.

Considerations for the hull include dimensions, as well as wetted surface area, maximum sectionarea, and hull type and general shape. Whether the transom of a ship is submerged plays animportant factor in ship resistance. When the vessel is in its lightship condition, the transom iscompletely out of the water. However, as the ship becomes fully loaded and the draft increasesto nearly six meters, the dragging transom causes reasonable resistance as flow around the stern

becomes quickly separated.

Apart from just a hull form, other underwater appendages cause resistance as well. With four rudders to increase steering performance, resistance must also increase as well. However, the benefits of superior handling far outweigh the resistance caused by additional rudders.Stabilizers must also be taken into account, as well as exposed propeller shafts, struts and

brackets.

Equipped with twin Caterpillar 3512 diesel engines running at 1800rpm through a gearbox with agear ratio of 5.5:1, the two propellers will spin at nearly 330rpm. However, efficiencies of bothgears and shafts must be taken in account, which slightly reduce the performance of propulsionsystem. Two standard, five-blade B-series fixed-pitch propellers, 1.75m in diameter were chosento propel this vessel, as other survey ships of similar size are equipped with propellers of this

kind.

Miscellaneous other influences include numerous margin factors, as well as equipment towed bythe vessel. Due to the wide variety and size of potential towed vessels and equipment, thesignificant differences in their respective resistances causes input in this category to skew theresults. It is also the resistance and propulsion required by the survey vessel which is beinginvestigated, as opposed to the equipment it can tow behind it.


39/240

29

The vessel was desired to run at a speed of 14 knots with both engines ideally providing 1300kWeach. Figure 18 in Appendix D: NavCAD Input/Output indicates the required brake power per

propeller shaft versus ship velocity. Examination of this graph indicates 900kW are required per propeller shaft in order to reach this speed at lightship displacement in Sea State two. Running atfull power, the ship can reach a speed of 15 knots. Shaft power is only slightly lower than the

brake power required, as the gearbox and shaft efficiencies are 98% each.

Since low-speed manoeuvres are critical as well for a survey vessel in order to facilitate towing procedures, it can be noted that the ship can slowly manoeuvre with minimal amounts of power per shaft, or can comfortably run at low speeds with only one engine.

The propellers were found to be 60% efficient, which is standard for such a propeller type.Examining the % cavitation data, minimum cavitation occurs within the 12 to 14 knot speedrange. This is ideal, as this is the cruising speed of the vessel and as a result the propellers willhave a longer life span while running in this range.

The resistance values for the hull form indicate a total drag force of 150 kN, includingappendages and margin factors. This result is reasonable and compares favourably with databaseresistance values of similar sized ships. This is crucial, as additional power is not required inorder to attain the design cruising speed.


40/240

30

2.8 Cost Estimate

The cost estimate of the Haida Explorer is provided in Table 14. The cost of each major component was estimated with reference to the quotation library provided by a local design

office. Smaller items are accounted for in the miscellaneous items of each subsection. A 15%margin was added to the cost estimate to account for inflation, since quotes given in thequotation library have become dated. A further 2% has been added as a contingency fund tocover the cost of late materials and equipment. It was found that the cost of the vessel will beapproximately $15 million.

Table 14. Cost Estimate

Item Unit Cost Units Quantity Cost

100 Structure

Steel $1,500 Metric Tonne 870 $1,305,000

+20% Scrap $1,500 Metric Tonne 174 $261,000

Labour $40 Hour 108750 $4,350,000

Cathodic Protection $500 Metric Tonne 8 $4,000

Paint $650 Metric Tonne 17 $11,050

Outfitting (doors, portlights, etc.) $250,000 Fixed 1 $250,000

Subtotal $6,181,050

200 Deck Equipment

Winch $175,000 Each 5 $875,000

Cranes $400,000 Each 2 $800,000

A-Frame $350,000 Each 1 $350,000

Tow Cable $30 m 12500 $375,000

Misc. $75,000 Fixed 1 $75,000

Subtotal $2,475,000

300 Machinery

Main Engines $300,000 Each 2 $600,000

Gearboxes $35,000 Each 2 $70,000

Bow Thruster $50,000 Each 1 $50,000

Propellers $45,000 Each 2 $90,000

Fuel System $12,000 Fixed 1 $12,000

Machinery Cooling & Exhaust $35,000 Fixed 1 $35,000

Misc. $20,000 Fixed 1 $20,000

Subtotal $877,000

400 Mooring and Steering

Anchor $25,000 Each 3 $75,000

Chain $20 m 400 $8,000

Anchor Windlass $30,000 Each 2 $60,000

Misc. $10,000 Fixed 1 $10,000

Subtotal $153,000


41/240

31

Item Unit Cost Units Quantity Cost

500 Electrical

Generator Sets $45,000 Each 2 $90,000

Wiring $25,000 Fixed 1 $25,000

Switchboards $40,000 Each 2 $80,000

Misc. $15,000 Fixed 1 $15,000Subtotal $210,000

600 Miscellaneous

Navigation Equipment $250,000 Fixed 1 $250,000

Communication Equipment $400,000 Fixed 1 $400,000

Science Lab Outfit $1,000,000 Fixed 1 $1,000,000

Crew Outfit $200,000 Fixed 1 $200,000

Domestic Systems $60,000 Each 1 $60,000

Classification Survey & Approval $30,000 Each 1 $30,000

Engineering Costs 10% of 100, 200, 300 and 400 $968,605

Subtotal $2,908,605

Summary

100 Structure $6,181,050

200 Deck Equipment $2,475,000

300 Machinery $877,000

400 Mooring and Steering $153,000

500 Electrical $210,000

600 Miscellaneous $2,908,605

+15% Margin on Goods and Services $1,920,698

+2% Contingency $256,093

Total $14,981,446

Budget $15,000,000


42/240

32

3.0 Summary and Conclusions

In this report, the design methodology for the design of a geophysical and hydrographic surveyvessel, to operate in the Hecate Strait, has been examined. A database of 26 similar survey

vessels was created. Several linear relationships between cubic number (length x beam x draft)and various vessel characteristics were developed to estimate the dimensions and other propertiesof the proposed survey vessel. From the parametric study, a vessel length of 60 meters waschosen because this length provides ample deck area for the multiple winches that are requiredfor survey-type missions.

Using the results from the parametric study, a hullform was developed in Autoship Pro 8.2.0.This hullform served as the basis for the design work to follow. A linesplan, generalarrangement, and tank plan were developed from the original hullform. Design drawings areavailable in the appendices. Analyses of the natural frequencies of roll, pitch, and heave motionswere completed to examine the performance of the vessel in the waters of the Hecate Strait.

Further analysis is required to quantify the effect of waves on the ship motions.

NavCAD was employed to evaluate the total resistance of the vessel at various operating speeds.From these results it was determined that approximately 900kW break power per shaft isnecessary to steam at 14 knots. 1.75 meter B-propellers at 330 rpm are able to deliver therequired power. Caterpillar 3512 engines have been selected to generate the necessary power.

The internal ship structures have been designed to meet the American Bureau of Shipping: Rulesfor Building and Classing Steel Vessels Under 90 Meters in Length, 2001 regulations. DWG443-04-104 and DWG 443-04-105 illustrate the typical stiffening structures in plan view,elevation view and section view. Calculations for determining the dimensions of the stiffening

structures are provided in Appendix B: Calculations.

Using the weight estimate and the hullform, the stability was analysed using the GHS software package. The results of the analysis are present in the appendix. It was found that the vesselgreatly exceeds all ABS requirements for intact stability and towing stability for all operatingconditions.

The local and global loads, including wind, wave, and current loads, exerted on the vessel wereanalysed using Excel spreadsheets. The forces were determined for both bow and beam seas andare 37.1 kN and 201.0 kN, respectively. The cost estimate was conducted using an Excelspreadsheet to sum the costs of each component onboard. The costs were estimated using the

quotation library provided by Robert Allan Limited. The final build cost of the ship is estimatedat $15 million USD.


43/240

33

References

American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Rules and Guides. March 24, 2004.http://www.eagle.org/rules/downloads.html . Copyright 2004.

ABS, Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels Under 90 Meters (295 Feet) in Length;Houston TX, 2001.

Bhattacharyya, R, Dynamics of Marine Vehicles, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, 1978.

Crawford, B., Personal Communication. Canadian Hydrographic Service, Institute of OceanSciences: Sidney, BC, March 2004.

Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME), Principles of Naval Architecture2nd Revision; Jersey City, NJ, 1988.

Stephensen, F., Personal Communication. Canadian Hydrographic Service, Institute of OceanSciences: Sidney, BC, March 2004.


44/240

34

Appendix A: Vessel Database and Parametric Study Results

Vessel Name LOA Beam Draft Displ. Gross Net Engine Power Speed Crew Year Owner Operat(m) (m) (m) (MT) Tonnage Tonnage (kW) (knots) Built

Alkor 55.2 12.5 4.16 1463 1322 396 1575 12.5 23 1990 Germany G Aranda 59.2 13.8 5 1734 3000 10.5 40 1989 Finland Arc Providencia 50.9 10 4.4 1040 1171 13 38 1981 Columbia Atlantis 83.5 16 5.18 3566 2903 15 36 1997 USA CCGS Alfred Needler 50.3 11 4.9 958.9 225 2600 14 29 1982 CCG MCCGS Hudson 90.4 15.4 6.8 3740 1686 6469 17 37 1963 CCG MCCGS Matthew 50.3 10.5 4.3 856.8 228 1350 12 13 1990 CCG MCCGS Parizeau 64.5 12.2 4.6 1314 361 1967 14 20 1967 CCG MGTV Samudra Sarvekshak 83.45 18.3 8.2 3444 1033 5995 1986 India InIskatel-3 (CAT) 49.29 18.2 2.15 878 840 10 35 1987 RussiaM.V. Pacific Maple 48.72 12.2 4.5 780 234 2386 12.5 1982 M.V. Pacific Titan 64.5 18.5 6 3211 963 5518 10 70 1982 M/V Davidson 53.34 11.64 3.96 1118 833 250 1223 10 42 1967 PMoana Wave 64 10.97 4.05 1882 972 281 1268 10 23 1974 US AMV Sagar Sandhani 70.2 15 5.2 2156 647 3579 1986 India Nalivkin 71.7 12.8 5.4 1932 2300 12.5 1985 Russia R/V A.V. Humboldt 64.23 10.5 5.2 1286 12 28 1967 GermanyR/V Atlantic Twin 27.43 8.53 2.29 14 Alpine OceanR/V Longhorn 31.39 7.32 152.76 537 10 4 1971 U of Texas R/V Melville 85.04 14.02 5.03 2991 2283 1033 14 23 1969 US Navy Southern Surveyor 66.12 12.3 5.3 1594 2460 12 29 1972 Australia AThales Eastern 58.9 14.5 4.4 1278 384 2312 10 1975 Belize AWhiting 49.7 10.1 3.7 823 631 137 2386 12 25 1962 USA

Zeeleeuw 56.6 9 3.65 710 1192 14.5 10 1977 Belgium Zephyr 1 81.85 14.8 6 2833 850 11 1987 Russia Zirfaea 63 11.5 6 1261 12 23 1993 Netherlands


45/240

35

LOA vs. Cubic Number

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Cubic Number

L e n g t

h ( m )

Beam vs. Cubic Number

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Cubic Number

B e a m

( m )


46/240

36

Draft vs. Cubic Number

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Cubic Number

D r a

f t ( m )

Displacment vs. Cubic Number

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Cubic Number

D i s p l a c e m e n

t ( t o n n e s )


47/240

37

Gross Tonnage vs. Cubic Number

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Cubic Number

G r o s s

T o n n a g e

Engine Power vs. Cubic Number

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Cubic Number

E n g

i n e

P o w e r

( k W )


48/240

38

Crew Size vs. Cubic Number

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Cubic Number

C r e w

S i z e

Endurance vs. Cubic Number

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Cubic Number

E n d u r a n c e

( d a y s )


49/240

39

Appendix B: Calculations

B.1 Heave Added Mass Coefficient

Virtual Added Mass Chart for Heave Motions

station breadth draft Asect/BT B/T Bw^2/2g C added mass (kg) multiplier kg0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 01 4.052 4.4 0.5 0.920909 0.08672 0.5 3304.259537 4 13217.042 8.168 4.4 0.54 1.856364 0.17481 0.6 16111.94545 2 32223.893 12.027 4.4 0.57 2.733409 0.2574 0.7 40754.72212 4 163018.94 14.6 4.4 0.62 3.318182 0.312467 0.7 60057.7456 2 120115.55 15.66 4.4 0.65 3.559091 0.335153 0.8 78965.75223 4 3158636 15.66 4.4 0.65 3.559091 0.335153 0.8 78965.75223 2 157931.57 15.66 4.4 0.65 3.559091 0.335153 0.8 78965.75223 4 3158638 15.66 4.4 0.65 3.559091 0.335153 0.8 78965.75223 2 157931.59 15.66 4.4 0.63 3.559091 0.335153 0.8 78965.75223 4 315863

10 15.66 3.6 0.61 4.35 0.335153 0.8 78965.75223 2 157931.511 15.34 2.05 0.57 7.482927 0.328304 0.7 66300.07713 4 265200.312 0 0.51 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Total 2015159

: C values were obtained from added mass coefficient charts for varying B/T, A sect /BT and e2

B/2g, Dynamics of Marine Vehicles , fig. 4.4, pg. 41

Total added mass in heave = (1/3)*5*(2618020) = 3358 tonnes

Virtual mass for heave motions = 1899.6(1+a) = 1899.6 + 3358 = 5258 tonnes

added mass coefficient: a = 1.76

Tw = 9 seconds (average wave period at the Hecate Strait) w = 0.698 rad/s

e = w - w2 (cos )/g = 180 degrees (head seas condition)

e = 0.648 rad/s


50/240

40

B.2 Structures Section Modulus Calculations Using ABS Rules

Calculations for Hull Girder Section Modulus Requirements

Reference: ABS Rules for Steel Vessels Under 90m 3-2-1/3.1

C1 6.4:= C2 0.01:=

Length (m): L 60:=

Beam (m): B 17:=

Block Coefficient: Cb 0.60:= (not to be taken less than 0.60; Actual Cb = 0.54) Required Hull Girder Section Modulus (m-cm 2 ):

SM_hg C1 C2 L2

B Cb 0.7+( ):= SM_hg 5.092 103

= m-cm2

Required Hull Girder Moment of Inertia (m 2 -cm 2 ):

I_hgL SM_hg

33.3:= I_hg 9.174 10 3= m2-cm 2

(use t_s = 8.5mm)t_s 8.474=t_s s h

2682.5+:=Side Shell Thickness (mm):

(use t_b = 9mm)t_b 8.803=t_b s h

2542.5+:=Bottom Shell Thickness (mm):

L 60=Length (m):

h 7.12=h max D 0.1 L, 1.18 d,( ):=Height (m):

(not less than 0.66D)d 4.7:=Scantling draft (m):

(from GA)D 7.12:=Depth (m):

s 600:=Frame spacing (mm):

Reference: ABS Rules for Steel Vessels Under 90m 3-2-2/3Calculations for Shell Plating Thickness Requirements:


51/240

41

Deck Plating (mm): t_ds h

2542.5+:=

where h (m) =

Exposed Freeboard Deck with No Deck Below: h1 0.028 L 1.0+:=

Exposed Freeboard Deck with Deck Below,Forecastle Deck, Superstructure DeckForward of Amidships 0.5L:

h2 0.028 L 0.6+:=

Freeboard Deck within Superstructure, Any Deck Below Freeboard Deck,Superstructure Deck Between 0.25LForward of and 0.20L Aft of Amidships:

h3 0.014 L 0.8+:=

All other locations: h4 0.014 L 0.4+:=

Deck Plating (mm):

Exposed Freeboard Deck with No Deck Below: t_d1s h1( )

2542.5+:= t_d1 6.424=

Exposed Freeboard Deck with Deck Below,Forecastle Deck, Superstructure DeckForward of Amidships 0.5L:

t_d2s h2( )

2542.5+:= t_d2 6.113=

Freeboard Deck within Superstructure, Any Deck Below Freeboard Deck,Superstructure Deck Between 0.25LForward of and 0.20L Aft of Amidships:

t_d3s h3( )

2542.5+:= t_d3 5.589=

All other locations:t_d4

s h4( )254 2.5+:= t_d4 5.162=

Centre Girder Calculations: (ABS Steel Vessels Under 90m 3-2-4/1.3)

Thickness (mm): t_g 0.56L 5.5+:= t_g 39.1= (Use t_g = 40mm)

Depth (mm): h_g 32 B 190 d+:= h_g 955.91= (Use h_g = 1000mm)

If the distance between the centre girder and side shell exceeds 4.57m, then side girdersmust be used. (3-2-4/1.5)

c 4.7:=

t_sg 0.036L c+:= t_sg 6.86= mm (use t_sg = 8mm)


52/240

42

Section Modulus Requirements for Bottom Frames :

Size bottom frames for worst case scenario.

Vertical distance between middleof l and the deck at side (m):

h 8.0:=(See DWG M443-04-102)

Unsupported bottom span (m): l 6.7:=For transverse frames in way of tanks: c 1.0:=

SM_bf 7.8 c h s l

2

1000:= SM_bf 1.681 10 3= cm 3

Side Frames, Webs and Stringers: (ABS 3-2-5)Transverse Side Frames (ABS 3-2-5/5) :

Section Modulus Requirements for Side Frames:

Size side frames for worst case scenario.


h 2.5:=(See DWG M443-04-102)

Unsupported side span (m): l 5.1:=For transverse frames in way of tanks: c .915:=

SM_sf 7.8 c h s l

2

1000:= SM_sf 278.45= cm 3

Transverse Web Frames (ABS 3-2-5/7) :

Section Modulus Requirements for Web Frames:Size web frames for worst case scenario.


h 7.5:=(See DWG M443-04-103)

Unsupported web span (m): l 10.4:=

c .915:=

SM_wf 7.8 c h s l

2

1000:= SM_wf 3.474 10 3= cm 3


53/240

43

(Use t_s = 10mm)t_s 8.04=t_s 0.014 L 7.2+:=Stringer thickeness (mm):

md_s 0.3=d_s 0.125 l:=Stringer depth (m):

cm 3SM_st 513.864=SM_st 7.8 c h s l2:=

c .915:=s 5:=Sum of half lengths of frames supported (m):l 2.4:=Web frame spacing (m):

(See DWG M443-04-102)h 2.5:=Vertical distance between middle

of s and the deck at side (m):

Size stringers for worst case scenario.

Section Modulus Requirements for Stringers:

Side Stingers (ABS 3-2-5/11):

B.3 Structure Dimension Calculations

1.0 Bottom Frames

Member Thickness, t Width, w Area I o d from RA A*d d from NA I NA (cm) (cm) (cm 2) (cm 4) (cm) (cm 3) (cm) (cm 4)

Shell Plate 0.9 60 54 4 0.45 24.3 -27.7 769.0Web 55 3.5 192.5 48526 28.4 5467 0.3 48526.1

Flange 2 25 50 17 56.9 2845 28.8 845.2Total 296.5 8336.3 50140.4

Neutral Axis 28.1cm above RAc1 = 29.8cmc2 = 28.1cmS1 = 1683.4cm 3 S2 = 1783.4cm 3

S required = 1681cm 3 (ABS 3-2-4/1)

w

t

t

t

w

Reference Axis(RA)


54/240

44

2.0 Side Frames


Shell Plate 0.85 60 51 3 0.425 21.675 -14.5 212.0Web 30 2 60 4500 15.85 951 1.0 4500.9Flange 2 20 40 13 31.85 1274 17.0 301.4

Total 151 2246.675 5014.3

Neutral Axis 14.9cm above RAc1 = 18.0cmc2 = 14.9cm

S1 = 279.0cm 3

S2 = 337.0cm 3

S required = 278.45cm 3 (ABS 3-2-5/5)

3.0 Web Frames


Shell Plate 0.85 60 51 3 0.425 21.675 -40.3 1623.2Web 75 4 300 140625 38.35 11505 -2.3 140630.4Flange 3 25 75 56 77.35 5801.25 36.7 1401.2

Total 426 17327.93 143654.9


S1 = 3763.1cm 3 S2 = 3531.7cm 3



55/240

45

4.0 Side Stringers


Shell Plate 0.85 60 51 3 0.425 21.675 -18.9 361.9

Web 50 1.5 75 15625 25.85 1938.75 6.5 15667.0Flange 1 15 15 1 51.35 770.25 32.0 1024.2

Total 141 2730.675 17053.1


S1 = 525.0cm 3 S2 = 880.5cm 3



56/240

46

B.4 Weight Estimate

B.4.1 Steel weight

Note: The following steel weight estimate was based on DWG M443-04-104 REV.2. It was assumed that thechanges in centers of gravity and overall weight would not differ significantly from the original steel weightestimate.

Steel Weight Summary

LCG: Midships (Fr.50 - aft is positive)VCG: BaselineTCG: Centreline

Frame LCG VCG TCG Weight LM VM TM

(m) (m) (m) (T)0 -30 8.6 0 8.52 -256 73 01 -29.4 6.2 0 2.73 -80 17 02 -28.8 5.4 0 3.38 -97 18 03 -28.2 5.5 0 8.14 -229 45 04 -27.6 5.4 0 3.50 -97 19 05 -27 5.4 0 3.54 -95 19 06 -26.4 5.4 0 3.57 -94 19 07 -25.8 5.1 0 3.12 -81 16 08 -25.2 4.9 0 5.25 -132 26 09 -24.6 4.9 0 5.36 -132 26 0

10 -24 4.9 0 5.48 -132 27 011 -23.4 4.9 0 5.61 -131 27 012 -22.8 5.4 0 9.53 -217 51 013 -22.2 4.8 0 6.08 -135 29 014 -21.6 4.8 0 6.20 -134 30 015 -21 4.8 0 6.33 -133 30 016 -20.4 4.8 0 5.47 -112 26 017 -19.8 4.7 0 6.58 -130 31 018 -19.2 4.7 0 6.71 -129 32 019 -18.6 5.1 0 10.74 -200 55 020 -18 4.6 0 6.99 -126 32 021 -17.4 4.5 0 7.13 -124 32 022 -16.8 4.5 0 7.26 -122 33 023 -16.2 4.6 0 7.61 -123 35 024 -15.6 4.5 0 7.43 -116 33 025 -15 4.4 0 7.45 -112 33 026 -14.4 4.4 0 7.48 -108 33 027 -13.8 4.3 0 7.50 -104 33 028 -13.2 4.8 0 12.02 -159 58 0


57/240

47

29 -12.6 4.3 0 7.52 -95 32 030 -12 4.2 0 7.52 -90 32 031 -11.4 4.1 0 7.50 -86 31 032 -10.8 4.4 0 8.88 -96 39 033 -10.2 4.0 0 7.39 -75 29 0

34 -9.6 3.9 0 7.30 -70 28 035 -9 4.3 0 11.79 -106 50 036 -8.4 3.7 0 7.21 -61 27 037 -7.8 3.6 0 7.14 -56 26 038 -7.2 3.6 0 7.06 -51 25 039 -6.6 4.1 0 8.83 -58 36 040 -6 4.6 0 13.64 -82 63 041 -5.4 3.2 0 7.30 -39 24 042 -4.8 3.1 0 7.21 -35 23 043 -4.2 3.0 0 7.12 -30 22 044 -3.6 3.2 0 11.19 -40 36 0

45 -3 2.9 0 6.92 -21 20 046 -2.4 2.9 0 6.85 -16 20 047 -1.8 2.8 0 6.79 -12 19 048 -1.2 3.0 0 10.67 -13 32 049 -0.6 2.8 0 6.74 -4 19 050 0 2.7 0 6.72 0 18 051 0.6 2.7 0 6.69 4 18 052 1.2 2.9 0 10.49 13 30 053 1.8 2.7 0 6.68 12 18 054 2.4 2.7 0 6.68 16 18 055 3 2.7 0 6.68 20 18 0

56 3.6 2.9 0 10.46 38 30 057 4.2 2.7 0 6.68 28 18 058 4.8 2.7 0 6.68 32 18 059 5.4 2.7 0 6.68 36 18 060 6 3.9 0 10.93 66 43 061 6.6 2.6 0 6.35 42 17 062 7.2 2.6 0 6.35 46 17 063 7.8 2.6 0 6.35 50 17 064 8.4 2.8 0 10.13 85 29 065 9 2.6 0 6.35 57 17 066 9.6 2.6 0 6.35 61 17 0

67 10.2 2.6 0 6.35 65 17 068 10.8 2.8 0 10.13 109 29 069 11.4 2.6 0 6.35 72 17 070 12 2.6 0 6.35 76 17 071 12.6 2.6 0 6.35 80 17 072 13.2 2.6 0 6.35 84 17 073 13.8 2.9 0 5.41 75 16 074 14.4 2.6 0 6.35 91 17 0


58/240

48

75 15 2.6 0 6.34 95 17 076 15.6 2.6 0 6.34 99 17 077 16.2 2.9 0 10.12 164 29 078 16.8 2.6 0 6.31 106 17 079 17.4 2.7 0 6.29 109 17 0

80 18 2.7 0 6.25 112 17 081 18.6 3.0 0 9.91 184 30 082 19.2 2.9 0 6.16 118 18 083 19.8 2.9 0 6.11 121 18 084 20.4 3.0 0 6.08 124 18 085 21 3.3 0 9.62 202 32 086 21.6 3.2 0 5.96 129 19 087 22.2 3.3 0 5.91 131 19 088 22.8 4.7 0 8.98 205 42 089 23.4 3.4 0 5.77 135 20 090 24 3.6 0 5.73 138 20 0

91 24.6 3.7 0 5.70 140 21 092 25.2 3.9 0 9.06 228 35 093 25.8 3.9 0 5.63 145 22 094 26.4 4.0 0 5.59 148 22 095 27 4.1 0 5.56 150 23 096 27.6 4.2 0 8.80 243 37 097 28.2 4.3 0 5.46 154 23 098 28.8 4.3 0 5.39 155 23 099 29.4 4.4 0 5.32 156 24 0

100 30 5.4 0 8.47 254 46 0

LCG VCG TCG Weight LM VM TM(m) (m) (m) (T)

Total 0.32 3.77 0 716.99 229 2700 0


59/240

UBC ISODCSteel Weight Estimate

LCG: Midships (Fr.50 - aft is positive)VCG: BaselineTCG: Centreline

Material: Steel

Density: 7.8 T/m3

Frame Item No. Structure LCG VCG TCG Thickness Width Length Area Weight LM VM TM(m) (m) (m) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm 2) (T)

0 0000 Shell (p&s) -30 8.50 0.9 160 1018 1.14 -34.3 9.7 0.00 0001 Centre Girder -30 8.50 1242 620 6.01 -180.2 51.1 0.00 0002 Deck Plate (p&s) -30 11.00 0.6 9156 0.04 -1.3 0.5 0.00 0003 Breasthook A (p&s) -30 10.00 426 90 0.30 -9.0 3.0 0.00 0004 Breasthook B (p&s) -30 8.00 340 90 0.24 -7.2 1.9 0.00 0005 Side Frame (p&s) -30 8.50 1018 100 0.79 -23.8 6.7 0.0

Subtotal -30 8.55 0 8.52 -255.7 72.9 0.0


1 0100 Shell (p&s) -29.4 7.05 0 0.9 60 1588 0.67 -19.7 4.7 0.01 0101 Centre Girder -29.4 1.31 60 620 0.29 -8.5 0.4 0.01 0102 Deck Plate (p&s) -29.4 11.00 0.6 1340 0.01 -0.2 0.1 0.01 0103 Breasthook A (p&s) -29.4 10.00 120 90 0.08 -2.5 0.8 0.01 0104 Breasthook B (p&s) -29.4 8.00 120 90 0.08 -2.5 0.7 0.01 0105 Breasthook C (p&s) -29.4 6.00 172 90 0.12 -3.5 0.7 0.01 0106 Breasthook D (p&s) -29.4 4.00 172 90 0.12 -3.5 0.5 0.01 0107 Breasthook E (p&s) -29.4 2.00 172 90 0.12 -3.5 0.2 0.01 0108 Side Frame -29.4 7.05 1588 100 1.24 -36.4 8.7 0.0

Subtotal -29.4 6.17 0 2.73 -80.4 16.9 0.0


2 0200 Shell (p&s) -28.8 5.67 0.9 60 2156 0.91 -26.2 5.1 0.02 0201 Centre Girder -28.8 0.83 60 620 0.29 -8.4 0.2 0.02 0202 Deck Plate (p&s) -28.8 11.00 0.6 284 60 0.08 -2.3 0.9 0.02 0203 Breasthook A (p&s) -28.8 10.00 120 90 0.08 -2.4 0.8 0.02 0204 Breasthook B (p&s) -28.8 8.00 120 90 0.08 -2.4 0.7 0.02 0205 Breasthook C (p&s) -28.8 6.00 120 90 0.08 -2.4 0.5 0.02 0206 Breasthook D (p&s) -28.8 4.00 120 90 0.08 -2.4 0.3 0.02 0207 Breasthook E (p&s) -28.8 2.00 120 90 0.08 -2.4 0.2 0.02 0208 Side Frame -28.8 5.67 2156 100 1.68 -48.4 9.5 0.0

Subtotal -28.8 5.42 0 3.38 -97.4 18.3 0.0


3 0300 Shell (p&s) -28.2 5.61 0.9 60 2190 0.92 -26.0 5.2 0.03 0301 Centre Girder -28.2 0.65 60 620 0.29 -8.2 0.2 0.03 0302 Deck Plate (p&s) -28.2 11.00 0.6 344 60 0.10 -2.7 1.1 0.03 0303 Breasthook A (p&s) -28.2 10.00 120 90 0.08 -2.4 0.8 0.03 0304 Breasthook B (p&s) -28.2 8.00 120 90 0.08 -2.4 0.7 0.03 0305 Breasthook C (p&s) -28.2 6.00 120 90 0.08 -2.4 0.5 0.03 0306 Breasthook D (p&s) -28.2 4.00 120 90 0.08 -2.4 0.3 0.03 0307 Breasthook E (p&s) -28.2 2.00 120 90 0.08 -2.4 0.2 0.03 0308 Web Frame -28.2 5.61 2190 375 6.41 -180.6 35.9 0.0

Subtotal -28.2 5.52 0 8.14 -229.44 44.9 0.0


60/240



Subtotal -27.6 5.38 0 3.50 -96.6 18.8 0.0


5 0500 Shell (p&s) -27 5.55 0.9 60 2238 0.94 -25.5 5.2 0.05 0501 Centre Girder -27 0.59 60 620 0.29 -7.8 0.2 0.05 0502 Deck Plate (p&s) -27 11.00 0.6 488 60 0.14 -3.7 1.5 0.05 0503 Breasthook A (p&s) -27 10.00 120 90 0.08 -2.3 0.8 0.05 0504 Breasthook B (p&s) -27 8.00 120 90 0.08 -2.3 0.7 0.05 0505 Breasthook C (p&s) -27 6.00 120 90 0.08 -2.3 0.5 0.05 0506 Breasthook D (p&s) -27 4.00 120 90 0.08 -2.3 0.3 0.05 0507 Breasthook E (p&s) -27 2.00 120 90 0.08 -2.3 0.2 0.05 0508 Side Frame -27 5.55 2238 100 1.75 -47.1 9.7 0.0

Subtotal -27 5.41 0 3.54 -95.5 19.1 0.0



Subtotal -26.4 5.43 0 3.57

Download - Design of a Geophysical Vessels

Top Related