AALTO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING Department of Applied Mechanics Marine Technology Ship Project A M/S Arianna Cruise ship without lifeboats Jürgen Rosen 338099 Sander Nelis 337498 Justin Champion 397205
Ship Project A final report
Oct 22, 2014
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
AALTO UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
Department of Applied Mechanics
Marine Technology
Ship Project A
M/S Arianna
Cruise ship without lifeboats
Jürgen Rosen 338099
Sander Nelis 337498
Justin Champion 397205
AALTO UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
Department of Applied Mechanics
Marine Technology
Introduction and Feasibility Studies
M/S Arianna
1
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... 1
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 2
1.1 FOREWORD .............................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE ................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 VESSEL OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................. 3
2 FEASIBILITY STUDIES ................................................................................................ 4
2.1 MISSION ................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 MARKET .................................................................................................................................. 5
2.2.1 The cruise industry ........................................................................................................................ 5
2.2.2 The luxury cruise market .............................................................................................................. 5
2.2.3 Cruising in England ...................................................................................................................... 6
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 - Outboard profile ..................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2-1 - Cruise route ............................................................................................................ 5
Figure 2-2 – Past cruiser statistics .............................................................................................. 6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 - Main particulars ....................................................................................................... 3
Table 2-1 - Port limitations ........................................................................................................ 4
2
1 Introduction
1.1 Foreword
This project was assigned in conjunction with the course Kul-24.4110, Ship Project A. The
task was to develop further the design completed in the Ship Conceptual Design course by
completing an additional iteration through the ship design spiral.
One major objective is to achieve as holistic a design as possible, with an equal amount of
effort placed on each of the deliverables. This report summarizes the main challenges and
outcomes of each task, along with the methods used for their completion.
1.2 Project schedule
In addition to time reserved for the final report and all corrective measures, the project was
divided into five major phases. For each, background information including a summarization
of completed work, areas for improvement, and additional tasks to be completed were first
presented. The main project tasks were as follows:
Task 1 – resistance, propulsion, and machinery
Task 2 – general arrangement
Task 3 – hull structure
Task 4 – lightweight and intact stability
Task 5 – cost and ship price
Not included in this structure were additional NAPA considerations, such as the damage
stability and lines drawing.
3
1.3 Vessel overview
The final design is for the cruise ship Arianna, a small-scale, luxury cruise ship to be based in
the United Kingdom. The main difference between this ship and existing ones is the fact that
she has no lifeboats onboard, but rather alternative forms of lifesaving equipment.
The vessel’s final main particulars are provided in Table 1-1 and the outboard profile in
Figure 1-1.
Table 1-1 - Main particulars
Length overall 120 m
Length between perpindiculars 107,5 m
Beam 18 m
Draft 5,4 m
Air draft 18 m
Service speed 17 kn
Froude number 0,25 [-]
Displacement 7023 t
Gross registered tons 6577 GRT
Block coefficient 0,65 [-]
Max. passenger capacity 184 [-]
Max. crew capacity 62 [-]
Total electric power 17,82 MW
Propeller diameter 3,8 m
Fuel HFO [-]
Classification societies DNV and ABS [-]
Figure 1-1 - Outboard profile
4
2 Feasibility studies
Though the focus of this project is on the technical characteristics and overall design process,
it is no less important to research the current demand and industry in order to ensure the
project’s feasibility. As such, the definition of the vessel’s mission, research of the market,
and compilation of current ship data served as the starting point of the design process.
2.1 Mission
The vessel’s mission, as a cruise ship, is straightforward: to transport passengers in a
comfortable setting with overnight accommodations to the decided ports of call. As a luxury
cruise ship, however, a much higher standard will be expected in terms of comfort and
service. Finally, a core mission is to ensure an extremely high level of safety in both normal
operation conditions and emergencies. As the ship has no lifeboats, this is among the most
important considerations throughout the project.
According to SOLAS regulations, vessels without lifeboats must operate no more than 200
miles from the coast, so selecting a suitable area of operation was important. With these
limitations, a route along the coast of the United Kingdom was selected. Many UK ports are
popular among current cruise lines and there is no need to sail long distances in open water. A
typical itinerary starts from the port of Dover and visits, in order, Portsmouth, Plymouth,
Swansea, Holyhead, Douglas, and Liverpool. This results in an open-ended cruise, though it
could be customized to end at the same port of embarkation as well. Known port limitations
are listed in Table 2-1. It should be noted that exact information for the port of Douglas was
not found, though commercial vessels are offered deep-water berths in the outer harbour
while large vessels, including cruise ships, may be restricted to anchoring in the bay and using
tenders to bring passengers ashore. With such a small ship, however, this should not be an
issue. The route, along with estimated distances, is shown in Figure 2-1.
Table 2-1 - Port limitations
Port Max. Length [m] Breadth [m] Max. Draught[m]
Dover 342.5 - 10.5
Portsmouth 285 - 9,5
Plymouth 140 - 18
Swansea 200 26,2 9,9
Holyhead 300 - 10,5
Douglas* - - -
Liverpool 350 - 10.5
5
Figure 2-1 - Cruise route
2.2 Market
Even in today’s questionable economic climate, the cruise industry is expected to continue
growing in the future. All industry aspects affecting this design show strong trends over recent
years.
2.2.1 The cruise industry
The cruise industry is the fastest growing category in the leisure travel market, with an annual
growth of 7.6% since 1990 (1). Today, the industry demand outstrips supply (based on
berthing), where demand is at 103.2% of such supply (2). As for the future, the industry is
forecast to grow over the next 15 years, expanding from a worldwide base of 16 million
passengers to between 21 and 28 million in 2027 (1). These trends can be seen in current and
future new-build projects, as there are 26 planned cruise ships, carrying from 100 to over
4,000 passengers, to be built in the next two years (2).
2.2.2 The luxury cruise market
The cruise industry as a whole continues to expand and so does the luxury cruise market
specifically, though at a slightly smaller rate. The market is largely successful because of the
high interest and return rate of past cruisers, as highlighted in Figure 2-2. It has been indicated
that 87% of luxury cruisers are repeat cruisers and 43% have taken six or more cruise
vacations (1). In addition, it was found that 80% of the core market group belonged in the
6
“affluent” range in terms of finances, as defined by the CLIA, showing that the future luxury
market is promising. This, along with the new cruiser market, makes the luxury market a
successful yet under capacity market in regards to demand vs. berths. In fact, there are
currently only twenty ocean-going, non-expedition luxury ships in service, with only two
new-build projects planned at this time (3).
Figure 2-2 – Past cruiser statistics
2.2.3 Cruising in England
As with the entire industry, the UK-based cruise market is thriving at present, both in terms of
UK cruisers and cruises within the country. Currently, UK ranks second, behind only the US,
in terms of passenger market penetration. As of 2012, nearly 3% of all UK citizens have taken
a cruise, and the annual number of cruisers has increased greatly over the past decade (4). The
UK and northern Europe make up the third largest cruise market, with almost 11% of current
deployments, behind only the Caribbean and Mediterranean (4). The cruise industry in the UK
specifically is experiencing a rapid increase and a record number of cruise ships will call at
UK ports in 2014 (5). Further, 860 cruises are scheduled to depart from British ports while
there has been a 12% rise in the number of cruises starting and ending in the UK. This all
leads to a promising market forecast and validates the choice to base the ship in the UK.
7
Bibliography
1. Cruise Lines International Association, Inc. CLIA Overview. 2012.
2. —. Cruise Market Profile Study. 2011.
3. Ward, Douglas. Complete Guide to Cruising and Cruise Ships 2012. London : Berlitz,
2011.
4. Cruise Lines International Association. 2013 Cruise Industry Update. s.l. : CLIA, 2013.
5. Travel Magazine. Cruise industry booming as UK sailing forecast to hit all-time high.
2013.
AALTO UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
Department of Applied Mechanics
Marine Technology
Primary Dimensions and Hull Form
M/S Arianna
1
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... 1
1 PARAMETRIC STUDY .................................................................................................. 2
1.1 PRELIMINARY DIMENSIONS ..................................................................................................... 2
2 HULL FORM DEFINITION .......................................................................................... 5
2.1 BOW SHAPE .............................................................................................................................. 5
2.2 MIDSHIP SHAPE ........................................................................................................................ 7
2.3 STERN SHAPE ........................................................................................................................... 7
2.4 PRISMATIC COEFFICIENT ......................................................................................................... 8
2.5 LENGTH OF PARALLEL MID-BODY ........................................................................................... 8
2.6 LOCATION OF MID-SECTION ..................................................................................................... 9
2.7 LONGITUDINAL CENTRE OF BUOYANCY .................................................................................. 9
3 LINES DRAWING ......................................................................................................... 10
4 HYDROSTATIC CURVES ........................................................................................... 11
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 12
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Length as a function of number of passengers ........................................................ 3
Figure 1-2. Breadth as a function of number of passengers ....................................................... 3
Figure 1-3. Draft as a function of number of passengers ........................................................... 4
Figure 1-4. Breadth as a function of length ................................................................................ 4
Figure 1-5. Draft as a function of length .................................................................................... 5
Figure 2-1. Shapes of the bow .................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2-2. Modern bulb form .................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2-3. Midship deadrise ..................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2-4. Prismatic coefficient dependent of Froude number ................................................. 8
Figure 2-5. Graph for the parallel mid-body length ................................................................... 8
Figure 2-6. Location of mid - section as a function of Froude number. .................................... 9
Figure 2-7. Longitudinal centre of buoyancy as function of prismatic coefficient .................... 9
2
1 Parametric study
In order to identify the initial, major characteristics of the ship, data was collected for cruise
ships and luxury cruise ships specifically. With this database, a parametric study was
completed for both the preliminary dimensions and general cruise ship characteristics.
1.1 Preliminary dimensions
The ship’s main dimensions are limited by the harbours in which she visits, along with the
fact that the vessel has no lifeboats. From the previous chapter, it can be seen that the main
dimensions are mainly limited by Portsmouth, Plymouth, and Swansea. The Portsmouth
harbour limits the draft of the ship to 9.5 m and Plymouth limits the length to 140 m. Finally,
Swansea limits the vessel’s breadth to 26.2 m. With no lifeboats, it is important to limit the
total number of passengers in order to comply with regulations, therefore, a maximum
passenger capacity of 184 persons will be considered.
For initial estimations, dimensions were plotted as a function of number of passengers.. The
trend for length, breadth and draft are shown in Figure 1-1, Figure 1-2 and in Figure 1-3. The
regression for length yields 120 m, for breadth 18 m, and for draft 5,4 m corresponding to the
estimation of approximately 184 passengers. In the Figure 1-4 and in Figure 1-5 are shown
breadth and draft as a function of length
3
Figure 1-1. Length as a function of number of passengers
Figure 1-2. Breadth as a function of number of passengers
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
50 100 150 200 250 300
Len
gth
(m
)
Number of Passengers
Project ship
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
50 100 150 200 250 300
Bre
adth
(m
)
Number of Passengers
Project ship
4
Figure 1-3. Draft as a function of number of passengers
Figure 1-4. Breadth as a function of length
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
50 100 150 200 250 300
Dra
ft (
m)
Number of Passengers
Project ship
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Bre
adth
(m)
Length (m)
Project ship
5
Figure 1-5. Draft as a function of length
2 Hull form definition
Hull shape is always designed by considering hydrodynamics, stability, and also the operation
area and ship type should be taken into account. The following subsections summarize the
major criteria taken into account at the very early design stage.
2.1 Bow shape
The shape of the bow of ship project is V-shaped because it has many advantages when
compared with a U-shaped bow.
Greater volume of topsides and more space for wider decks
Greater local width in the CWL and thus greater moment of inertia of the water plane and
a higher centre of buoyancy - both effects increase KM. The heeling accelerations are
smaller and, for a cruise ship, it is one of the most important considerations.
Smaller wetted surface, lower frictional resistance, and lower steel weight
Less curved surface and cheaper outer shell construction
Better seakeeping ability due to a) greater reserve of buoyancy and b) no slamming effects
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Dra
ft (
m)
Length (m)
Project ship
6
Figure 2-1. Shapes of the bow
The ship’s hull includes a bulbous bow because the Froude number is over 0,23. Therefore, a
bulbous bow is recommended. Today, bulbous forms tapering sharply underneath are
preferred since these reduce slamming. Additional advantages are as follows.
Bulbous bows can reduce the powering requirements of the propulsion by 20 %
Course-keeping ability and manoeuvrability are improved
The wetted surface area increasews, which affects the frictional resistance - modern bulbs
decrease resistance often by more than 20%. (1)
Figure 2-2. Modern bulb form
7
2.2 Midship shape
In the midship section, deadrise is used, resulting in the following affects.
Improved flow around the bilge
Raised centre of buoyancy KB, which improves stability
Decreased rolled damping, which results in larger rolling angles
Improved course-keeping ability. (1)
Figure 2-3. Midship deadrise
2.3 Stern shape
The shape of the stern is a transom stern for the current ship project because of the fact that Fn
≤ 0,3. The transom should be above the waterline. The flat stern begins at approximately the
height of the CWL. There will be a conventional twin-screw arrangement. Therefore, this
form was introduced merely to simplify construction. The transom stern for fast ships should
aim at reducing resistance through the effect of virtual lengthening of the ship. (1)
8
2.4 Prismatic coefficient
Figure 2-4. Prismatic coefficient dependent of Froude number
As Froude number is equal to 0,25, the prismatic coefficient using Troost’s criteria is
.
2.5 Length of parallel mid-body
Figure 2-5. Graph for the parallel mid-body length
As which is smaller than 0,65, there is an assumed zero parallel mid-body.
9
2.6 Location of mid-section
Figure 2-6. Location of mid - section as a function of Froude number.
As Froude number is 0,25, the location
is 0,4 and the mid –section location from the
forward perpendicular is m
2.7 Longitudinal centre of buoyancy
Figure 2-7. Longitudinal centre of buoyancy as function of prismatic coefficient
LCB is aft of the mid-ship for small values and ahead of for large values. The location of
the longitudinal centre of buoyancy is from -1,2% to 0,8% of the overall length.
Linesdraw
ing
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 210123456789
Scale 1:715.03
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2101.534.55.4
7.5
10.510.8Scale 1:715.03
01
2
3
45678910 11121314
15
1617
18
19
20
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90
1.5
3
4.5
5.4
7.5
10.510.8
Scale 1:357.51
LoaLwlLppBmaxBwlTdwlLwl/BwlLwl/TdwlBwl/Tdwl
=========
120.00110.61107.49
18.0018.005.406.15
20.483.33
mmmmmm
DispDisvSCbCmCpCwpLCBVCBKMT
=========
699968282564
0.65360.92090.70970.8733-0.933.109.12
tm3m2
%mm
totaldisplacement
2
4
6
draught,moulded
m
2
4
6
draught,moulded
m
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
total displacement t
long. centre of buoy.
56 56.5 57 57.5 58 58.5 59
long. centre of buoy. m
transv. metac. height
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
transv. metac. height m
block
coeffi
cient
0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
block coefficient
waterlinearea
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900
waterline area m2
moment
tocha
ngetri
m
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
moment to change trim tm/cm
immers
ion/cm
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
immersion/cm t/cm
PROJECT ARIANNA/ADATE 2013-11-05 SIGN TEEKHULL CREATED
HYDROSTATIC CURVES
HULL 2013-10-31
12
Bibliography
1. Schneekluth, H and Bertram, V. Ship Design Efficiency and Economy. 2nd. 1998.
AALTO UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
Department of Applied Mechanics
Marine Technology
Resistance, propulsion and machinery
M/S Arianna
1
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. 1
1 RESISTANCE ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 ITTC-57 METHOD ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 ANDERSEN-GULDHAMMER METHOD .......................................................................................... 5
1.3 NAVCAD SOFTWARE ESTIMATIONS ........................................................................................... 9
1.4 FINAL RESISTANCE COMPARISONS ........................................................................................... 12
1.5 EFFECTIVE POWER PREDICTION ................................................................................................ 14
2 PROPULSION .................................................................................................................... 15
2.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 15
2.2 OPTIMIZATION OF PROPULSION ................................................................................................. 15
2.3 PROPULSION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY ............................................................................................. 17
2.4 CAVITATION .............................................................................................................................. 21
3 MACHINERY ..................................................................................................................... 22
3.1 SELECTING MACHINERY ............................................................................................................ 22
3.2 ELECTRIC BALANCE ................................................................................................................... 25
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 26
APPENDIX 1 – ITTC-57 CALCULATIONS .......................................................................... 27
APPENDIX 2 – ANDERSEN-GULDHAMMER CALCULATIONS .................................... 29
APPENDIX 3 – NAVCAD INPUT PARAMETERS ............................................................... 34
APPENDIX 4 – NAVCAD RESISTANCE OUTPUTS ........................................................... 35
APPENDIX 5 – ELECTRIC BALANCE ................................................................................. 36
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Incremental Resistance Values .................................................................................... 5
Figure 1-2. Bulb Correction Interpolation Plot ............................................................................... 9
Figure 1-3. Resistance Results ...................................................................................................... 12
Figure 1-4. Updated Resistance Results ....................................................................................... 13
Figure 1-5. Effective Power Results ............................................................................................. 14
2
Figure 2-1. Wageningen B-series graph ....................................................................................... 17
Figure 2-2. Areas of cavitation (7) ................................................................................................ 21
Figure 3-1. Electric propulsion illustration. (9) ............................................................................ 22
Figure 3-2. Motor output range (12) ............................................................................................. 24
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Bulb Correction Table ................................................................................................... 8
Table 1-2. Final Effective Power .................................................................................................. 15
Table 3-1. Generation sets (10) (11) ............................................................................................. 23
Table 3-2. Diesel generator set data (11) ...................................................................................... 24
Table 3-3. Electric motor data (13) ............................................................................................... 25
3
1 Resistance
Before choosing the main engine and additional machinery for project ship, a preliminary total
resistance prediction and subsequent power estimation must be performed. Various methods are
used to predict these values, as described in the subsequent sections.
1.1 ITTC-57 Method
The method for predicting the resistance of a ship defined by the International Towing Tank
Conference (ITTC-57 and ITTC-78) is one of the most straightforward procedures with defined
equations (1). By simplifying the process and removing various coefficients, the result is a basic
estimation that is generally sufficient for the preliminary design of a conventional vessel. One
advantage of this method is its simplicity. Total resistance is calculated with the following
formula:
(
) 1-1
where,
– total resistance coefficient
– density of salt water
v – ship speed [m/s]
S – wetted surface area of the hull [m2].
For an initial calculation, wetted surface area is estimated using the Holtrop-Mennen method,
which is an empirical formula utilizing many vessel parameters.
( (
) ] (
) 1-2
The total resistance coefficient is calculated as following (1):
1-3
where,
– frictional resistance coefficient
– residual resistance coefficient
4
– volume-length resistance coefficient
– appendage resistance coefficient
– air resistance coefficient
– steering resistance coefficient
Of these, the frictional and residual are calculated while the others approximated. Frictional
resistance is calculated by using the ITTC-57 equation, which utilized the Reynolds number,
where v, L, and are the ship speed, ship length, and kinematic viscosity of water, respectively.
1-4
where,
– Reynolds number
Reynolds number is calculated as following:
1-5
where,
v – ship speed [m/s]
L – ship length [m]
– kinematic viscosity of water [m2/s]
Following this, we calculate the residual resistance coefficient with the following estimation.
This is not prescribed by the ITTC method itself, but is an appropriate approximation (1).
[ (
)] 1-6
where,
– Froude number
– prismatic coefficient
– volume-length coefficient
B – ship breadth
T – ship draft
5
The volume-length coefficient equation is a simple ratio between the volumetric displacement
and length multiple.
1-7
Remaining resistance coefficients are identified with simple approximations. The incremental
resistance coefficient is dependent on speed (see Figure 1-1). The remaining three
coefficients: appendage, air, and steering, are taken as suggested values given in the procedure.
Figure 1-1. Incremental Resistance Values
All calculated and estimated values are provided in Appendix 1.
1.2 Andersen-Guldhammer Method
A second method of predicting the total resistance of a ship is Andersen and Guldhammer (2),
which refines an earlier method by Guldhammer and Harvald (3). The newer procedure shares
many similarities with the ITTC method, but puts a larger focus on the smaller resistance
coefficients. It also includes several factors that make up for any deviations with the model hull,
including B/T, LCB, hull form, bulb, and appendage factors. Another advantages of this method
is that it was specifically created as a computer-oriented tool for the prediction of propulsive
power, with an emphasis on the preliminary calculation of an optimum propeller. Therefore, it
may be a more accurate prediction method for later use in propeller and machinery calculations.
6
Though the input variables are mostly the same, there are some unique definitions for this
method, specifically for the length and longitudinal center of buoyancy (LCB).
1-8
1-9
where,
– the length of the bulb forward of the forward perpendicular
– length of the waterline aft of the aft perpendicular
– longitudinal center of buoyancy
The total resistance equation is the same as before, shown in Equation (1-1), and the total
resistance coefficient differs only in syntax, where represents a combined air and steering
resistance coefficient and the frictional resistance coefficient, which is the same as equation
3-4, assuming that there is minimal appendage effect.
1-10
Incremental resistance coefficient is solved with a single equation, as shown below. It is
dependent only on the volumetric displacement of our hull form.
1-11
The residuary resistance, however, is more complex, as it depends on four arithmetic variables:
E, G, H, and K.
1-12
In turn, the first of these variables, E, depends on four more defined variables:
as well as the Froude number, meaning it changes according to the tested ship speed.
1-13
1-14
7
1-15
1-16
1-17
Similarly, the second residuary resistance coefficient, G, is determined by four more defined
variables: , of which and therefore G vary with speed.
In turn, the first of these variables, E, depends on four more defined variables:
as well as the Froude number, meaning it changes according to the tested ship speed.
(
) 1-18
1-19
1-20
1-21
1-22
The final two residuary resistance coefficients are each represented by only one equation each.
( ( )) 1-23
1-24
Following the residuary resistance coefficient calculations, we begin checking for and applying
necessary corrections. The first of these is the correction, which adjusts the results in case the
hull deviates from the required standard characteristics. There are two initial correction checks:
one for the beam to draft ratio and one for the LCB. If the beam to draft ratio is greater than the
standard value of [
], then an additive correction must be implemented, as follows.
⁄ 1-25
8
The requirement for an LCB correction is based on a more lengthy equation, which is in turn
dependent on a predefined standard LCB value.
1-26
If the actual LCB varies from this, a correction according to the following equation must be
implemented.
[
] [
] 1-27
Both factors in the formula must be positive for the correction to work, which for particular ship
calculations was not the case. Therefore, the correction is set to zero.
A hull form correction is not necessary for project vessel, since it has neither a pronounced “U”
nor “V” shaped fore or after body. Bulb correction is needed, however, since the standard hull is
defined as one without a bulbous bow. This correction depends on the bulb shape, as defined by
the bulb area ratio . In order to calculate the correction, a double interpolation of a given
table is needed.
Table 1-1. Bulb Correction Table
For this particular vessels is obtained a value of 0.615 (Equation 1-19) so was chosen
from the table. Then was plotted the correction values and fit a power regression to the data,
yielding an interpolation equation and very high coefficient of determination (R2) value.
9
Figure 1-2. Bulb Correction Interpolation Plot
These values, however, are only valid for bulb area ratios greater than 1.0, which was not true for
this hull form. Therefore, a proportional reduction was needed. With this correction, the
residuary resistance coefficient can be found, as can the total resistance coefficient. The latter
utilizes suggested values for the air and steering resistance coefficients, with
and respectively. Both values are suggested by the Guldhammer and Harvald
1974 resistance method. The final step in resistance estimation is plugging all variables into
Equation (1-1). Again, the complete results are provided in Appendix 2.
1.3 NavCAD Software Estimations
In order to check hand calculations, additional resistance predictions are completed using the
software tool NavCAD. This tool is specifically for the prediction and analysis of ship speed and
power performance, focusing on hull resistance, propulsion selection, and propeller interaction
and optimization. It features an extremely user-friendly interface and is a good tool for applying
many additional estimation methods that would otherwise be difficult or prone to error. (4)
Another advantage with NavCAD is that it considers the available input parameters and hull
form and suggests which prediction methods are most suitable. Considering this, five additional
calculations were performed, according to the following methods:
y = -85734x5 + 104751x4 - 49867x3 + 11531x2 - 1295.9x + 56.908 R² = 0.9992
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.14 0.19 0.24 0.29 0.34
Co
rre
ctio
n
Froude Number
10
Holtrop 1984
HSTS
Simple Displacement
Denmark Cargo
Degroot RB
These five methods were chosen because of their high prediction match with the input data; they
were predicted to be the most applicable in accordance to the input parameters that are currently
available for the ship. When information that is more detailed is known, the program may
recommend other resistance prediction methods, but the included information is sufficient for
preliminary resistance estimations.
As with the hand calculations, there are advantages and disadvantages for each method. The
Holtrop 1984 method is intended for commercial vessels, is formulated from a data set of 334
randomly collected models, and is regarded as a reliable method for preliminary resistance
estimations (5). This method was chosen because of its widespread use in early resistance
calculations. It is applicable for vessel speeds in the range of a Froude number between 0.10-
0.80.
The HSTS model is derived from a total of 739 models and 10,672 data points and is a speed-
dependent approach (5). It has many more required input values than other methods. One
potential issue is that its database includes a very diverse set of vessels, though most errors are
encountered only at very low speeds (5). This method was the highest rated for available input
variables, though it uses a 2D method for the residual resistance calculation, which is likely not
as accurate as one utilizing the 3D form factor. It is valid for a 0.15-0.90 speed range.
The simple displacement/semi-displacement method is dependent primarily on the waterline
length and volumetric displacement, and therefore the vessel’s volume coefficient (5). It is useful
only for very early stage analysis and is derived from a basic power demand relationship. It was
chosen because of its high rating, though it is similar to the ITTC method in that it features many
simplifications. It can be used for Froude numbers between 0.0-0.40.
The Denmark Cargo method is a numerical implementation method using the Guldhammer
procedure (5). Though its focus is on cargo vessels, it is again a very early stage prediction
11
method that can be used for generic hulls such as this. It is meant for general purpose early
design estimations only, which is suitable for the current purposes. It does include analysis for
ships with a bulbous bow. It was chosen as a prediction method specifically because of its tie to
the Andersen-Guldhammer procedures, which were followed in the hand calculations. Its speed
range correlates to a Froude number of 0.05-0.33, which is at the limit of the selected speed.
Therefore, it will rely on extrapolation at the extremes.
The final method, DeGroot RB, is based on various model test series, based on a numerical
representation of the published graphical form resistance curves (5). It can be used at preliminary
design stages for general hull types, though it also puts emphasis on hard-chine vessels and
vessels with pronounced round bilges. It is applicable for Froude values between 0.30 and 1.05,
again meaning extrapolation will again be used for the lower speeds.
The input parameters used for all methods, showing also NavCAD’s interface, are given in
Appendix 3, along with the output data in Appendix 4, for each method.
12
1.4 Final Resistance Comparisons
The results from the two hand-calculation methods and five computer-generated ones are shown
in Figure 1-3.
Figure 1-3. Resistance Results
This graph shows that the methods are, as a whole in line, though there are clearly outliers,
specifically the ITTC, Denmark Cargo, and DeGroot methods.
The ITTC method is predictably high, as it does not include correction reductions for important
properties such as the bulbous bow. As one of the most basic numerical prediction methods, it is
unlikely to compare as favourably as those with more considerations are. Therefore, it was
removed from the final prediction analysis.
The Denmark Cargo method was chosen based on its dependence on the Andersen resistance
procedures, though its speed range is limiting and it must rely on extrapolation at some of the
speeds for this vessel. It is clear that its focus on cargo ships results in comparison differences
and it is thus neglected from this point on as well.
The DeGroot method seems to focus too heavily on more unique hull shapes, in contrast to the
generic shape chosen for the cruise ship. Even though it was highly rated by the NavCAD
software, it is also intended for higher Froude numbers, meaning the output is not accurate at our
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Tota
l R
esi
sta
nc
e [
kN
]
Speed [knt]
Andersen-
Guldham
merHoltrop
Ittc
HSTS
Simple
Displacem
entDenmark
Cargo
DeGroot
13
speeds, as the other methods have direct computations as opposed to extrapolations. With this
method eliminated, four remaining methods give very comparable results, one from hand
calculations and three from the software. The final resistance graph is given in Figure 1-4.
Figure 1-4. Updated Resistance Results
In summary, a large number of prediction methods were chosen in order to give as holistic an
initial resistance estimation as possible. Though no method is perfectly accurate at such an early
design stage, comparing many methods will give more credibility to consistent results, which is
warranted for important characteristics like the ship’s resistance, as this will greatly influence the
vessel’s design, equipment selection, and general characteristics. The final four predictions show
very strong correlations with one another, meaning the resistance prediction should be
reasonable. Though the deliverable only requested basic numerical calculations such as the ITTC
or Holtrop methods, taking the time to compare such approaches with an industry-approved
software such as NavCAD can only improve the quality of the prediction.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
9 11 13 15 17 19 21
To
tal
Res
ista
nce
[kN
]
Speed [kn]
Andersen-
Guldham
merHoltrop
HSTS
Simple
Displacem
ent
14
1.5 Effective Power Prediction
With the total resistance estimates, the power needed to power the ship in calm seas, or the
effective power, was calculated.
1-24
The effected power curves for the four selected methods are shown in Figure 1-5.
Figure 1-5. Effective Power Results
An initial design speed of 17 [kn] was chosen in accordance with the selected itinerary around
the English coast. In order to allow for flexibility in future deployment, resistance values are
taken at a more conservative level, corresponding to a maximum speed of 20 [kn]. This will
allow the vessel to complete an array of itineraries without needing to adjust port times in order
to compensate for an underpowered arrangement.
Since the methods agree overall, the average value at the maximum speed was taken as final
power prediction to be used in the machinery selection process. Each method includes a large
preliminary design margin, so this result should be sufficiently conservative. Table 1-2 shows the
calculated power in [kW] for the various prediction methods and speeds. As a summary, the
required effective power can be taken as 7839 [kW].
0.0
1000.0
2000.0
3000.0
4000.0
5000.0
6000.0
7000.0
8000.0
9000.0
10000.0
9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Eff
ecti
ve
Po
wer
[kW
]
Speed [kn]
Andersen
-
Guldham
merHoltrop
HSTS
Simple
Displace
ment
Design
Speed
Max.
Speed
15
Table 1-2. Final Effective Power
Effective Power Prediction [kW]
Speed [kn] Andersen-Guldhammer Holtrop HSTS
Simple Displacement Average
17 3139 3758 4198 3217 3652
18 4032 4988 5268 4067 4681
19 5435 6892 6806 5157 6194
20 7357 8795 8343 6247 7839
2 Propulsion
2.1 Introduction
The ship has two controllable pitch propellers (CP-propeller). The propeller is a traditional four
bladed propeller with revolutions of 180 revolutions per minute, which is based on the chosen
electrical motors. A CP-propeller was chosen because it gives the highest propulsive efficiency
over a broad range of speeds and load conditions and it improves maneuverability when
compared to fixed pitch propellers (FP-propeller), which is mainly used on bulkers and tankers
due to the little need for maneuverability. The main advantage of a CP-propeller is fine thrust
control when maneuvering, which can be achieved without necessarily the need to accelerate and
decelerate the propulsion machinery. Fine control of thrust is particular in certain cases, for
example, in dynamic positioning situations or where frequent berthing maneuvers are required
(6). There, it is also possible to use azimuth thrusters, but due to the fact that vessel has quite
small draft, it is not reasonable to use those, as the propeller diameter would be small and it
would not be as efficient.
2.2 Optimization of propulsion
The propeller diameter is roughly estimated based on (7), where it is said that the clearance
between blade tips and hull plating should be 25-30 per cent of diameter. Therefore, it is
estimated that the propeller diameter D is 70% of the draft. Thus, the propeller diameter is
calculated as the following:
[m] 2-1
16
For finding the operational point for the propeller, the Wageningen B-series graphs are used. For
that, several parameters should be first calculated. Using simplified equations, the wake fraction
can be calculated as following:
2-2
And the thrust reduction coefficient can be obtained from:
2-3
The speed of advanced is calculated as follows:
[m/s] 2-4
Therefore, the thrust of the propellers is:
[kN] 2-5
The blade area ration is (7):
2-6
Where Z=4 for a propeller with four blades, k=0,1 for two propeller ship and is the
hydrostatic pressure, [Pa] and
is the vapor pressure at , [Pa].
The thrust coefficient is calculated as the following:
2-7
The advanced number for the propellers is:
2-8
From the Wageningen B4-75 series, with the graph seen in Figure 2-1, the P/D ratio is obtained.
Therefore, the P/D ratio is approximately 1 and open water efficiency 0,68. Thus, it is well seen
that, if advance speed increases, the propeller open water efficiency also increases.
17
Figure 2-1. Wageningen B-series graph
2.3 Propulsion system efficiency
The propulsion system efficiency is a product of different efficiencies as can be seen in the
following:
2-9
where,
– hull efficiency
– open water efficiency
– relative rotative efficiency
18
2.3.1 Hull efficiency
Hull efficiency tells how good the selected propeller to operate behind the hull is. For a
beneficial propeller-hull interaction, hull efficiency has a value exceeding unity. This is often the
case for a single screw vessel with a properly selected propeller. From the definition of hull
efficiency, it is seen that it is beneficial to locate propeller in the region of decelerated flow
(wake). On the other hand, the propeller location should not lead to a high acceleration of hull
flow velocities because this causes an increase of thrust deduction. (8)
Hull efficiency equation:
2-10
As it can be seen, the main variables of the previous formula are wake fraction w and thrust
reduction coefficient t. These can be calculated based on some developed rules or simplified
rules. In this project, it is calculated with two ways.
Wake fraction for twin-screw ships is calculated based on Holtrop and Mennen 1982:
√ 2-11
where,
– Block coefficient,
– propeller diameter, [m]
– draft, [m]
– breadth, [m]
– viscous resistance coefficient
2-12
where,
– factor that describes the viscous resistance of the hull form
– frictional resistance of ship according to the ITTC-57 (Equation 1-4)
– correlation allowance coefficient:
√
2-13
19
where,
– ship length [m]
2-14
Substituting values from Equations 2-4 and 2-5 and other constants to Equation 2-3, the wake
fraction is:
√
√ 2-15
The thrust deduction factor is calculated as the following:
√
√ 2-16
Using now Equation 2-2, the hull efficiency can be calculated:
2-17
2.3.2 Simplified equations
Using simplified equations, the wake fraction can be calculated as:
2-18
And the thrust reduction coefficient can obtained from:
2-19
As such, the hull efficiency would then be:
2-20
For ships with two propellers and a conventional aftbody for, the hull efficiency is approximately
between 0.95 - 1.05, so in this particular case both methods gives good results.
20
2.3.3 Open water efficiency
Open water efficiency is related to working in open water, i.e. the propeller works in a
homogenous wake field with no hull in front of it. The propeller efficiency depends mostly on
the speed of advance, thrust force, rate of revolution, diameter, and design of the propeller. There
are methods to approximately get open water efficiency but for traditional shaft propulsion
systems, the number can be close to 0,7. It is estimated that it is for this ship 0,69. (8). This
estimation is also in a good agreement with the previously found efficiency based on
Wageningen B-series.
2.3.4 Relative rotative efficiency
The actual velocity of the water flowing to the propeller behind the hull is neither constant nor at
right angles to the propeller’s disk area, but rather has a kind of rotational flow. Therefore,
compared with when the propeller is working in open water, the propeller’s efficiency is affected
by the factor , which is called propeller’s relative rotative efficiency. For ships with a
conventional hull shape and two propellers, this will normally be less than 1, approximately 0,98.
(8)
2.3.5 Propeller efficiency
The ratio between the thrust power , which the propeller delivers to the water and the power
, which is delivered to the propeller, i.e. the propeller efficiency for a propeller working
behind the ship, is defined as (8):
2-21
2.3.6 Total propulsion efficiency
The propulsion efficiency , must not be confused with the open water propeller efficiency, as
it is equal to the ratio between the effective (towing) power delivered to the propeller :
2-22
The total propulsion efficiency is taken into account in the engine selection process.
21
2.4 Cavitation
Cavitation occurs when the local absolute pressure is less than the local vapor pressure for the
fluid medium. The critical measurement for cavitation performance is the cavitation inception
point, which is the conditions, i.e. cavitation number, for which cavitation is first observed
anywhere on the propeller. Cavitation will harm propeller blades, so corrosion occurs and also,
cavitation stars causing vibration and noise. Therefore, it is necessary to check the cavitation
limit to be sure that chosen propeller will not start to cavitate.
The cavitation number can be calculated by equation:
( )
2-23
where,
– hydrostatic pressure, [Pa]
– vapor pressure at , [Pa]
– advance speed, [m/s]
According to Equation 2-23, the cavitation number equals 3,42 and, comparing it to the
cavitation graph (see Figure 2-2), it can be seen that cavitation will not occur. (7)
Figure 2-2. Areas of cavitation (7)
Cavitation of suction side
Cavitation free area
Cavitation of pressure
22
3 Machinery
3.1 Selecting machinery
3.1.1 Introduction
The space for engines and auxiliary systems is limited and the diesel generators are chosen not to
spend space for extra generators to produce electricity. The advantage of diesel generators is also
the freedom to locate heavy main machines, because there is a pool in the aft area, the engines
should be more in the fore, meaning that, if the shaft is sprightly attached to engine, the shaft line
is long and may cause extra vibrations and noise, which may in turn cause inconveniences for
passengers. Therefore, the propellers are powered by electric engines and electricity is produced
by diesel generators.
Figure 3-1. Electric propulsion illustration. (9)
3.1.2 Diesel generator
Power prediction is done in Chapter 1 and, according to Table 1-2, the effective power is
kW. Also, the propulsion efficiency is taken into account (see Chapter 2.7) and, using
Equation 2-9, the delivered power need is:
[kW]
23
Electricity is also needed for the vessel’s other systems, therefore, an additional 2500 [kW] is
added to power in the first approximation. Additionally, the diesel engine minimum fuel
consumption per kilowatt is in the range of 85 – 90% of the maximum output and this is taken
into account in selection process.
Finally, the losses in electric circuit are considered and the engine output and needed power
should have about 5% additional cap.
Two or three generators are chosen because it makes maintenance more flexible and adds safety
in case of an accident and helps to fulfil Safe Return to Port regulations. Four or more engines
are not suitable because the total area for machinery is limited. Combinations of different
generating sets are not used in order to be able to have engine maintenance onboard without
docking the ship.
Table 3-1. Generation sets (10) (11)
Producer Type Generator output
[kW]
Weight
[t]
Main dimensions
[mm]
Fuel consumption
[g/kWh]
Wärtsilä 12V38 8400 160 11900 x 3600 x 4945 176-185
Wärtsilä 16V38 11600 200 13300 x 3800 x 4945 192-204
Wärtsilä 16V32 8910 121 11174 x 3060 x 4280 192-204
Wärtsilä 18V32 8640 133 11825 x 3360 x 4280 176-185
Rolls – Royce B32:40V12 7449 102 10400 x 2310 x 3855 183
Caterpillar C280-12 5200 100 8040 x 2000 x 4085 880,8 [l/h]
From Table 3-1, three Wärtsilä 16V32 generator sets are chosen because it fulfils the power
requirements and also is light and small enough for the ship, as the engine room height is 7 [m]
and width 6 [m]. In that case, two engines are used to produce electric energy and the third is in
back-up. The same set of Wärtsilä 12V38 engines are not sufficient because they are bigger and
weight more, with an increased weight of about 32%. Using the two Wärtislä 16V38 set does not
fulfil the power requirement and using three is not valid regarding weight. Weight is one of the
main points to be concerned in because of the aim to keep the ship’s design draft and from Ship
Conceptual design it is known that ship weight is a big concern. Three Rolls – Royce B32:40V12
sets are 15% lighter and smaller than Wärtsilä 16V32 but fulfils the power need precisely. Using
four Catepillar C280-28 generation sets will take too much deck space and is 10% heavier.
24
Table 3-2. Diesel generator set data (11)
Engine Wärtsilä 16V32
Output [kW] 9280
Output[kWe] 8910
Cylinders V16
Engine speed [rpm] 750
Output per cylinder [kW] 580
Cylinder bore [mm] 320
Piston stroke [mm] 400
Mean effective pressure [bar] 28,9
Piston speed [m/s] 10,0
Voltage [kV] 0,4 – 13,8
Length [mm] 11175
Height [mm] 4280
Width [mm] 3060
Weight [ton] 121
Fuel [cSt/50 °C] 700
SFOC [g/kWh] 183-191
3.1.3 Electric motors
Electric motors are chosen by taking the power handling into account and selecting reasonable
revolutions of propeller, which is 180 [rpm]. Motor selection is done by using Figure 3-2. The
most reasonable choice at 6 [MW] output and 180 [rpm] is the ABB AMS 1250 electric motor.
Figure 3-2. Motor output range (12)
25
Table 3-3. Electric motor data (13)
Output power 1 – 60 [MW]
Number of poles 4 – 40
Voltages 1 – 15 [kV]
Frequency 50 or 60 [Hz]
Protection IP23, IPW24, IP44, IP54, IP55
Cooling IC01, IC611, IC81W, IC8A6W7
Enclosure material Welded steel
Motor type AMS
Mounting type Horizontal and vertical
Standards IEC and NEMA
Marine classification All international societies (ABS, BV, DNV,
GL)
3.2 Electric balance
To be able to choose suitable engines and engine setup, the total electrical power consumption
must be estimated. Electricity is consumed by propulsion electrical motors, ventilation, heating,
and other auxiliary systems. The electricity consumption needs to be calculated for different
operating situations, as the profile of electricity consumption varies in different situations. The
operating situations are open water, manoeuvring, in harbour, at rest, and emergency. A
summary of the electrical balance for the selected engine is provided in Appendix 5.
26
Bibliography
1. Birk, Lothar. NAME 3150 Course Notes - Ship resistance and propulsion. New Orleans :
s.n., 2011.
2. Guldhammer, H.E. and Harvald, Sv. Aa. Ship Resistance - Effect of Form and Principle
Dimensions. Copenhagen : Akademisk Forlag, 1974.
3. Andersen, P. and Guldhammer, H.E. A Computer-Oriented Power Prediction Procedure.
Lyngby : Department of Ocean Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 1986.
4. Hydro Comp PLNC. NavCad. Durham, NH : s.n., 2013.
5. —. Appendix H - Resistance Prediction Methods. 2011.
6. Carlton, John. Marine Propellers and Propulsion. 2nd. Burlington : Elsevier Ltd, 2007.
7. Matiusak, Jerzy. Laivan Propulsio. Espoo : s.n., 2005.
8. Basic Principles of Ship Propulsion.
http://www.mandieselturbo.com/files/news/filesof5405/5510_004_02%20low.pdf. [Online] 10 1,
2013.
9. Electric propulsion. Wärtsilä. [Online] 10 29, 2012. http://www.wartsila.com/en/power-
electric-systems/electric-propulsion-packages/electric-propulsion.
10. Generating sets. Catepillar. [Online] 10 29, 2012. http://marine.cat.com/cat-C280-12-genset.
11. Generating sets. Wärtsilä. [Online] 10 29, 2012.
http://www.wartsila.com/en/engines/gensets/generating-sets.
12. Synchronos Motors Brochure. ABB. [Online] 1 16, 2013.
http://www05.abb.com/global/scot/scot234.nsf/veritydisplay/822ae96e598fd891c125796f0032e7
5d/$file/Brochure_Synchronous_motors_9AKK105576_EN_122011_FINAL_LR.pdf.
13. Electric motor data. ABB. [Online] 1 16, 2013.
http://www.abb.com/product/seitp322/19e6c63b9837b35dc1256dc1004430be.aspx?productLang
uage=us&country=FI&tabKey=2.
27
Appendix 1 – ITTC-57 Calculations
KNOWN PARAMETERS
length between perpindiculars Lpp 110 m
beam B 18 m
draft T 5.4 m
displacement V 6380 m^3
midship coefficient Cm 0.94 [-]
wetted surface area (Holtrop-
Mennen) S 2562.5362 m^2
block coefficient Cb 0.67 [-]
prismatic coefficient Cp 0.712766 [-]
slenderness coefficient C∆ 0.0047934 [-]
initial design speed v 17 knots
ship speeds to consider v 10 TO 20 knots
CONSTANTS
salt water density ρ 1025.86 kg/m^3
gravitational acceleration g 9.81 m/s^2
kinematic viscosity of water ν 1.188E-06 m^2/s
1. FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT C'F
V [kn] V [m/s] Rn C'F
10 5.144 476217191.7 0.0016819
11 5.659 523838910.9 0.0016612
12 6.173 571460630 0.0016427
13 6.688 619082349.2 0.0016259
14 7.202 666704068.4 0.0016106
15 7.717 714325787.5 0.0015966
16 8.231 761947506.7 0.0015836
17 8.746 809569225.9 0.0015715
18 9.260 857190945 0.0015603
19 9.774 904812664.2 0.0015498
20 10.289 952434383.4 0.0015399
2. RESIDUARY RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT
V [kn] V [m/s] Fn Cr
10 5.144 0.156605725 0.0027916
11 5.659 0.172266298 0.0028504
12 6.173 0.18792687 0.0029481
13 6.688 0.203587443 0.003099
14 7.202 0.219248015 0.0033196
15 7.717 0.234908588 0.0036286
16 8.231 0.250569161 0.004047
17 8.746 0.266229733 0.0045979
18 9.260 0.281890306 0.0053068
19 9.774 0.297550878 0.0062013
20 10.289 0.313211451 0.0073114
28
3. ADDITIONAL COEFFICIENTS
additional resistance coefficient CA 0.0004 from graph
appendenge resistance coefficient CAAP 0.00006 [-]
air resistance coefficient CAA 0.00007 [-]
steering coefficient CAS 0.00004 [-]
4. TOTAL RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT
V [kn] V [m/s] Fn Ct
10 5.144 0.156605725 0.0050435
11 5.659 0.172266298 0.0050816
12 6.173 0.18792687 0.0051608
13 6.688 0.203587443 0.0052949
14 7.202 0.219248015 0.0055002
15 7.717 0.234908588 0.0057952
16 8.231 0.250569161 0.0062005
17 8.746 0.266229733 0.0067394
18 9.260 0.281890306 0.0074371
19 9.774 0.297550878 0.0083211
20 10.289 0.313211451 0.0094213
5. TOTAL RESISTANCE
V [kn] V [m/s] Fn Rt
10 5.144 0.156605725 175442.64
11 5.659 0.172266298 213891.01
12 6.173 0.18792687 258514.77
13 6.688 0.203587443 311281.13
14 7.202 0.219248015 375008.73
15 7.717 0.234908588 453579.27
16 8.231 0.250569161 552172.54
17 8.746 0.266229733 677524.7
18 9.260 0.281890306 838209.89
19 9.774 0.297550878 1044945.1
20 10.289 0.313211451 1310918.6
6. POWER ESTIMATION
V [kn] V [m/s] R [N] R [KN] PE [Watts] PE [KW]
10 5.144 175442.643 175 902554.93 902.6
11 5.659 213891.0137 214 1210385.5 1210.4
12 6.173 258514.7714 259 1595897.9 1595.9
13 6.688 311281.1323 311 2081779 2081.8
14 7.202 375008.7271 375 2700896.2 2700.9
15 7.717 453579.2686 454 3500120 3500.1
16 8.231 552172.5412 552 4544993.5 4545.0
17 8.746 677524.7021 678 5925329.9 5925.3
18 9.260 838209.8914 838 7761823.6 7761.8
19 9.774 1044945.144 1045 10213758 10213.8
20 10.289 1310918.602 1311 13487896 13487.9
29
Appendix 2 – Andersen-Guldhammer Calculations
Known Parameters
length between
perpindiculars Lpp 110 m
length of bulf forward
of FP Lfore 3.5 m
length of WL aft of
AP Laft 0 m
beam B 18 m
draft T 5.4 m
displacement V 6380 m^3
midship coefficient Cm 0.94 [-]
waterplane area
coefficient Cw 0.73 [-]
wetted surface area S 2562.536197 m^2
midship CSA Am 91.368 m^2
bulbous bow CSA at
FP Abt 10 m^2
block coefficient CB 0.67 [-]
longitudinal center of
buoyancy LCB 51.33 m
propeller diameter D 3.0 m
no. propeller blades Z 4 [-]
initial design speed v 17 knots
ship speeds to consider v 10 TO 20 knots
Constants
salt water density ρ 1025.86 kg/m^3
gravitational
acceleration g 9.81 m/s^2
kinematic viscosity of
water ν 1.1883E-06 m^2/s
1. LENGTH DEFINITION
length L 113.5 m
2. LCB DEFINITION
LCB0 -3.67 meters aft of Lpp/2
LCB -0.2175 meters aft of Lpp/2
3. FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT C'F
V [kn] V [m/s] Rn C'F
10 5.144 491369556.9 0.001675044
11 5.659 540506512.6 0.001654511
12 6.173 589643468.3 0.001636094
13 6.688 638780423.9 0.001619422
14 7.202 687917379.6 0.001604213
15 7.717 737054335.3 0.001590245
16 8.231 786191291 0.001577343
17 8.746 835328246.7 0.001565366
18 9.260 884465202.4 0.001554199
19 9.774 933602158.1 0.001543745
20 10.289 982739113.8 0.001533925
30
4. INCREMENTAL RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT
factored 10^3CA 0.4547443 [-]
actual CA 0.000454744 [-]
5. RESIDUARY RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT
M 6.119589657
A0 0.39188691
N1 8.539179315
A1 15869.58731
V [kn] V [m/s] Fn E
10 5.144 0.154172192 0.44052
11 5.659 0.169589411 0.45241
12 6.173 0.18500663 0.46729
13 6.688 0.20042385 0.48686
14 7.202 0.215841069 0.51382
15 7.717 0.231258288 0.55229
16 8.231 0.246675507 0.60842
17 8.746 0.262092726 0.69107
18 9.260 0.277509946 0.81281
19 9.774 0.292927165 0.99102
20 10.289 0.308344384 1.24943
B1 3.629556018 [-]
Ø 0.615220359 [-]
B2 0.331893277 [-]
V [kn] V [m/s] Fn B3 G H K 10^3CR CR
10 5.144 0.154172192 67.14125334 0.017941656 5.91634E-10 0.004425061 0.46289 0.000462885
11 5.659 0.169589411 50.63381822 0.023790922 2.03096E-09 0.006296109 0.48250 0.000482501
12 6.173 0.18500663 37.17639717 0.032402958 6.9719E-09 0.008687402 0.50838 0.000508385
13 6.688 0.20042385 26.44668177 0.045549202 2.39332E-08 0.011681799 0.54409 0.000544092
14 7.202 0.215841069 18.12283216 0.066470032 8.21579E-08 0.01536714 0.59565 0.000595653
15 7.717 0.231258288 11.88384567 0.101366618 2.82032E-07 0.019836131 0.67349 0.000673493
16 8.231 0.246675507 7.410317711 0.162560539 9.68161E-07 0.025186235 0.79617 0.000796167
17 8.746 0.262092726 4.3861404 0.274643566 3.32351E-06 0.031519572 0.99724 0.000997241
18 9.260 0.277509946 2.50262006 0.481345635 1.14089E-05 0.038942836 1.33311 0.001333107
19 9.774 0.292927165 1.469122938 0.819962176 3.91647E-05 0.047567205 1.85859 0.001858588
20 10.289 0.308344384 1.040131244 1.158147348 0.000134445 0.057508269 2.46522 0.002465221
6. RESIDUARY RESISTANCE CORRECTION
LCB Correction
B/T 3.333333333
Correction Needed? YES
Δ10^3CR 0.133333333
31
V [kn] Fn LCBst/L Factor 2 [+] Factors?
10 0.154172192 -0.026164236 -0.024247936 NO
11 0.169589411 -0.019380659 -0.01746436 NO
12 0.18500663 -0.012597083 -0.010680783 NO
13 0.20042385 -0.005813506 -0.003897207 NO
14 0.215841069 0.00097007 0.00288637 YES
15 0.231258288 0.007753647 0.009669946 YES
16 0.246675507 0.014537223 0.016453523 YES
17 0.262092726 0.0213208 0.023237099 YES
18 0.277509946 0.028104376 0.030020676 YES
19 0.292927165 0.034887952 0.036804252 YES
20 0.308344384 0.041671529 0.043587828 YES
Bulb Correction
ABT/AM 0.109447509
Correction
Needed? YES
Table 12
Ø Fn 10^3Crbulb
0.6 0.15 0.2
0.6 0.18 0.2
0.6 0.21 0.2
0.6 0.24 0
0.6 0.27 -0.2
0.6 0.3 -0.3
0.6 0.33 -0.3
y = -85734x5 + 104751x4 - 49867x3 + 11531x2 - 1295.9x + 56.908 R² = 0.9992
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.14 0.19 0.24 0.29 0.34
Co
rre
ctio
n
Froude Number
Bulb Correction Factor
32
uncorrected corrected
Fn 10^3Crbulb Δ10^3Crbulb
0.154172192 0.171653791 0.062206282
0.169589411 0.169717063 0.060269554
0.18500663 0.197442975 0.087995466
0.20042385 0.198115716 0.088668207
0.215841069 0.149519896 0.040072387
0.231258288 0.054979374 -0.054468135
0.246675507 -0.065603907 -0.175051416
0.262092726 -0.184711083 -0.294158592
0.277509946 -0.276167542 -0.385615051
0.292927165 -0.324104088 -0.433551597
0.308344384 -0.331918106 -0.441365615
10^3CR Δ10^3CRB/T Δ10^3CRbulb Δ10^3CRcorr. CR
0.46289 0.133333333 0.062206282 0.65842 0.000658425
0.48250 0.133333333 0.060269554 0.67610 0.000676104
0.50838 0.133333333 0.087995466 0.72971 0.000729714
0.54409 0.133333333 0.088668207 0.76609 0.000766094
0.59565 0.133333333 0.040072387 0.76906 0.000769059
0.67349 0.133333333 -0.054468135 0.75236 0.000752359
0.79617 0.133333333 -0.175051416 0.75445 0.000754448
0.99724 0.133333333 -0.294158592 0.83642 0.000836416
1.33311 0.133333333 -0.385615051 1.08083 0.001080825
1.85859 0.133333333 -0.433551597 1.55837 0.00155837
2.46522 0.133333333 -0.441365615 2.15719 0.002157189
7. AIR AND STEERING RESISTANCE COEFFICIENTS
CAA 0.00007 [-]
CAS 0.00004 [-]
8. TOTAL RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT
CR C'F CA CAA CAS CT
0.000658425 0.001675044 0.000454744 0.00007 0.00004 0.003043124
0.000676104 0.001654511 0.000454744 0.00007 0.00004 0.003040128
0.000729714 0.001636094 0.000454744 0.00007 0.00004 0.00307708
0.000766094 0.001619422 0.000454744 0.00007 0.00004 0.003097774
0.000769059 0.001604213 0.000454744 0.00007 0.00004 0.003084917
0.000752359 0.001590245 0.000454744 0.00007 0.00004 0.003052715
0.000754448 0.001577343 0.000454744 0.00007 0.00004 0.003041363
0.000836416 0.001565366 0.000454744 0.00007 0.00004 0.003114853
0.001080825 0.001554199 0.000454744 0.00007 0.00004 0.003359757
0.00155837 0.001543745 0.000454744 0.00007 0.00004 0.003850202
0.002157189 0.001533925 0.000454744 0.00007 0.00004 0.00446865
33
9. TOTAL RESISTANCE
V [kn] V [m/s] CT R [N]
10 5.144 0.003043124 105858.2361
11 5.659 0.003040128 127962.3657
12 6.173 0.00307708 154136.7847
13 6.688 0.003097774 182113.217
14 7.202 0.003084917 210331.6479
15 7.717 0.003052715 238931.7586
16 8.231 0.003041363 270840.2805
17 8.746 0.003114853 313141.347
18 9.260 0.003359757 378667.3889
19 9.774 0.003850202 483499.2246
20 10.289 0.00446865 621786.7008
10. EFFECTIVE POWER
V [kn] V [m/s] R [N] R [KN] PE [Watts] PE [KW]
10 5.144 105858.2361 106 599039.9958 599.0
11 5.659 127962.3657 128 724124.8092 724.1
12 6.173 154136.7847 154 951537.7512 951.5
13 6.688 182113.217 182 1217932.725 1217.9
14 7.202 210331.6479 210 1514855.269 1514.9
15 7.717 238931.7586 239 1843756.737 1843.8
16 8.231 270840.2805 271 2229316.442 2229.3
17 8.746 313141.347 313 2738595.047 2738.6
18 9.260 378667.3889 379 3506460.021 3506.5
19 9.774 483499.2246 483 4725936.31 4725.9
20 10.289 621786.7008 622 6397494.277 6397.5
11. DESIGN MARGIN
V [kn] V [m/s] PE [KW] PE [KW]
10 5.144 599.0 688.9
11 5.659 724.1 832.7
12 6.173 951.5 1094.3
13 6.688 1217.9 1400.6
14 7.202 1514.9 1742.1
15 7.717 1843.8 2120.3
16 8.231 2229.3 2563.7
17 8.746 2738.6 3149.4
18 9.260 3506.5 4032.4
19 9.774 4725.9 5434.8
20 10.289 6397.5 7357.1
34
Appendix 3 – NavCAD input parameters
35
Appendix 4 – NavCAD resistance outputs
Vel Fn Fv Rn Cf Cr Ct Rbare Rtotal Rtotal Rbare/W Pebare Petotal
[kts] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [N] [N] [kN] [-] [kW] [kW]
8 0,125 0,301 3,81E+08 0,001732 0,00055 0,002806 62465 62465 62,465 0,0009 257 257
10 0,157 0,377 4,76E+08 0,001682 0,000599 0,002806 97595 97595 97,595 0,00141 502 502
12 0,188 0,452 5,71E+08 0,001643 0,0008 0,002967 148624 148624 148,624 0,00215 918 918
14 0,219 0,527 6,67E+08 0,001611 0,001216 0,003351 228452 228452 228,452 0,0033 1645 1645
16 0,251 0,603 7,62E+08 0,001584 0,001855 0,003962 352863 352863 352,863 0,0051 2904 2904
17 0,266 0,64 8,10E+08 0,001572 0,002179 0,004275 429740 429740 429,74 0,00621 3758 3758
18 0,282 0,678 8,57E+08 0,00156 0,002695 0,004779 538653 538653 538,653 0,00778 4988 4988
20 0,313 0,753 9,52E+08 0,00154 0,004079 0,006143 854775 854775 854,775 0,01235 8795 8795
22 0,345 0,829 1,05E+09 0,001522 0,004313 0,00636 1070720 1070720 1070,72 0,01547 12118 12118
8 0,125 0,301 3,81E+08 0,001732 0,004433 0,00669 148928 148928 148,928 0,00215 613 613
10 0,157 0,377 4,76E+08 0,001682 0,00263 0,004836 168227 168227 168,227 0,00243 865 865
12 0,188 0,452 5,71E+08 0,001643 0,002316 0,004483 224543 224543 224,543 0,00325 1386 1386
14 0,219 0,527 6,67E+08 0,001611 0,002421 0,004556 310618 310618 310,618 0,00449 2237 2237
16 0,251 0,603 7,62E+08 0,001584 0,002599 0,004707 419119 419119 419,119 0,00606 3450 3450
17 0,266 0,64 8,10E+08 0,001572 0,002679 0,004775 479990 479990 479,99 0,00694 4198 4198
18 0,282 0,678 8,57E+08 0,00156 0,002963 0,005048 568950 568950 568,95 0,00822 5268 5268
20 0,313 0,753 9,52E+08 0,00154 0,003763 0,005827 810842 810842 810,842 0,01172 8343 8343
22 0,345 0,829 1,05E+09 0,001522 0,004234 0,00628 1057285 1057285 1057,285 0,01528 11966 11966
8 0,125 0,301 3,81E+08 0,001732 0,000478 0,002734 60875 60875 60,875 0,00088 251 251
10 0,157 0,377 4,76E+08 0,001682 0,000472 0,002678 93150 93150 93,15 0,00135 479 479
12 0,188 0,452 5,71E+08 0,001643 0,000462 0,002629 131682 131682 131,682 0,0019 813 813
14 0,219 0,527 6,67E+08 0,001611 0,000787 0,002922 199251 199251 199,251 0,00288 1435 1435
16 0,251 0,603 7,62E+08 0,001584 0,001311 0,003419 304449 304449 304,449 0,0044 2506 2506
17 0,266 0,64 8,10E+08 0,001572 0,001564 0,00366 367901 367901 367,901 0,00532 3217 3217
18 0,282 0,678 8,57E+08 0,00156 0,001812 0,003897 439160 439160 439,16 0,00635 4067 4067
20 0,313 0,753 9,52E+08 0,00154 0,002299 0,004363 607128 607128 607,128 0,00877 6247 6247
22 0,345 0,829 1,05E+09 0,001522 0,002775 0,004822 811782 811782 811,782 0,01173 9188 9188
8 0,125 0,301 3,81E+08 0,001732 0,000478 0,002734 60875 60875 60,875 0,00088 251 251
10 0,157 0,377 4,76E+08 0,001682 0,000472 0,002678 93150 93150 93,15 0,00135 479 479
12 0,188 0,452 5,71E+08 0,001643 0,000564 0,002731 136816 136816 136,816 0,00198 845 845
14 0,219 0,527 6,67E+08 0,001611 0,0009 0,003034 206890 206890 206,89 0,00299 1490 1490
16 0,251 0,603 7,62E+08 0,001584 0,001679 0,003787 337208 337208 337,208 0,00487 2776 2776
17 0,266 0,64 8,10E+08 0,001572 0,002482 0,004578 460215 460215 460,215 0,00665 4025 4025
18 0,282 0,678 8,57E+08 0,00156 0,003849 0,005934 668751 668751 668,751 0,00966 6193 6193
20 0,313 0,753 9,52E+08 0,00154 0,007519 0,009583 1333447 1333447 1333,447 0,01927 13720 13720
22 0,345 0,829 1,05E+09 0,001522 0,007968 0,010014 1685973 1685973 1685,973 0,02437 19081 19081
8 0,125 0,301 3,81E+08 0,001732 0,000478 0,002734 60875 60875 60,875 0,00088 251 251
10 0,157 0,377 4,76E+08 0,001682 0,000472 0,002678 93150 93150 93,15 0,00135 479 479
12 0,188 0,452 5,71E+08 0,001643 0,000462 0,002629 131682 131682 131,682 0,0019 813 813
14 0,219 0,527 6,67E+08 0,001611 0,00044 0,002575 175540 175540 175,54 0,00254 1264 1264
16 0,251 0,603 7,62E+08 0,001584 0,000407 0,002515 223919 223919 223,919 0,00324 1843 1843
17 0,266 0,64 8,10E+08 0,001572 0,000388 0,002484 249715 249715 249,715 0,00361 2184 2184
18 0,282 0,678 8,57E+08 0,00156 0,000407 0,002492 280863 280863 280,863 0,00406 2601 2601
20 0,313 0,753 9,52E+08 0,00154 0,000999 0,003064 426292 426292 426,292 0,00616 4386 4386
22 0,345 0,829 1,05E+09 0,001522 0,002092 0,004138 696740 696740 696,74 0,01007 7886 7886
De
Gro
ot
RB
Ho
ptr
op
19
84
HSTS
Sim
ple
dis
pl/
sem
iD
en
ma
rk C
arg
o
36
Appendix 5 – Electric balance
Open water Manouvering In harbor In harbor at rest Emergency
Quantity Loading
Loading factor Quantity Loading Quantity Loading Quantity Loading Quantity Loading Quantity Loading
Time spend [%] 55 3 39 3 0
Speed [kn] 17 3 0 0 0
Annual running [hrs] 4818 263 3416 263 0
Propulsion Electric propulsion motors [kW] 2 6124.0 1.0 2 12248.0 2 12248.0 1 6124.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
HFO circulation pump [kW] 3 3.4 1.0 2 6.8 2 6.8 1 3.4 1 3.4 0 0.0
HFO feeding pump [kW] 3 0.8 0.9 2 1.6 2 1.6 1 0.8 1 0.8 0 0.0
HFO separator [kW] 3 5.0 0.9 2 10.0 2 10.0 1 5.0 1 5.0 0 0.0
HFO separator pump [kW] 3 0.6 1.0 2 1.2 2 1.2 1 0.6 1 0.6 0 0.0
Lubrication pump [kW] 3 25.0 1.0 2 50.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 0 0.0
Lubrication oil separator [kW] 3 2.0 0.9 2 4.0 2 4.0 1 2.0 1 2.0 0 0.0
HT - waterpump [kW] 3 6.3 1.0 2 12.6 2 12.6 1 6.3 1 6.3 1 6.3
LT - waterpump [kW] 3 6.3 1.0 2 12.6 2 12.6 1 6.3 1 6.3 1 6.3
Seawater pump [kW] 2 7.5 1.0 2 15.0 2 15.0 1 7.5 1 7.5 0 0.0
Starting air compressor [kW] 1 5.2 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 5.2 0 0.0 0 0.0
Bearing lubrication pump [kW] 2 6.0 1.0 2 12.0 2 12.0 1 6.0 1 6.0 0 0.0
Preheating pump [kW] 3 6.3 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 6.3 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total [kW] 12373.8 12373.8 6198.4 62.9 12.6
Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Group loading [kW] 12373.8 12373.8 6198.4 62.9 12.6
HVAC
Boiler burner [kW] 1.0 5.5 1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 5.5 0 0.0 0 0.0
Air cooler [kW] 1 2.3 1.0 1 2.3 1 2.3 1 2.3 0 0.0 0 0.0
Air blowers [kW] 3 7.5 1.0 3 22.5 3 22.5 3 22.5 0 0.0 0 0.0
Boiler water treatment [kW] 1 3.6 1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.6 0 0.0 0 0.0
Fresh water treatment [kW] 1 3.6 1.0 1 3.6 1 3.6 1 3.6 0 0.0 1 3.6
Boiler feed water pump [kW] 1 1.3 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0
Warm water supply pump [kW] 1 1.3 0.8 1 1.3 1 1.3 1 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0
Warm water feed pump [kW] 1 1.3 0.8 1 1.3 1 1.3 1 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0
Fresh water supply pump [kW] 1 1.3 0.8 1 1.3 1 1.3 1 1.3 0 0.0 1 1.3
Seawater pump [kW] 2 3.5 0.8 2 6.9 2 6.9 2 6.9 0 0.0 1 3.5
Exhaust gas boiler feed pump [kW] 1 1.3 0.8 1 1.3 1 1.3 1 1.3 1 1.3 0 0.0
Electric motor air cooler [kW] 2 5.0 1.0 2 10.0 2 10.0 0 0.0 1 5.0 0 0.0
Electric engine drive cooler [kW] 1 3.7 1.0 1 3.7 1 3.7 0 0.0 1 3.7 0 0.0
Total [kW] 54.2 54.2 50.8 10.0 8.4
Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Group loading [kW] 54.2 54.2 50.8 10.0 8.4
Auxillary systems
Gray water treatment [kW] 1 3.6 1.0 1 3.6 1 3.6 1 3.6 0 0.0 1 3.6
Gray water pump [kW] 1 0.8 0.8 1 0.8 1 0.8 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 0.8
Black water treatment [kW] 1 3.6 1.0 1 3.6 1 3.6 1 3.6 0 0.0 1 3.6
Black water pump [kW] 1 0.8 0.8 1 0.8 1 0.8 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 0.8
Bilge pumps [kW] 2 4.0 1.0 1 4.0 1 4.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4.0
Bilge water feed pumps [kW] 2 2.0 1.0 1 2.0 1 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.0
Fire figthing water pumps [kW] 2 7.0 1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 14.0
Total [kW] 14.8 14.8 8.8 0.0 28.8
Factor 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Group loading [kW] 7.4 7.4 4.4 0.0 14.4
Deck machinery
Achur winch [kW] 2 10.0 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 10.0 1 10.0 0 0.0
Mooring lines winch [kW] 4 12.0 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 12.0 1 12.0 0 0.0
Passanger elevator [kW] 1 5.0 0.8 1 5.0 1 5.0 1 5.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Service elevator [kW] 1 5.0 0.8 1 5.0 1 5.0 1 5.0 1 5.0 0 0.0
Total [kW] 10.0 10.0 32.0 27.0 0.0
Factor 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Group loading [kW] 4.0 4.0 12.8 10.8 0.0
Lights Cabins [kW] - 150.0 0.8 1 150.0 1 150.0 1 150.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Public rooms [kW] - 150.0 0.8 1 150.0 1 150.0 1 150.0 1 150.0 1 150.0
Machinery rooms [kW] - 30.0 0.9 1 30.0 1 30.0 1 30.0 1 30.0 0 0.0
Outside ligths [kW] - 50.0 0.9 1 50.0 1 50.0 1 50.0 0 0.0 1 50.0
Total [kW] 380.0 380.0 380.0 180.0 200.0
Factor 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Group loading [kW] 304.0 304.0 304.0 144.0 160.0
Service systems
Kitchen machines [kW] - 100.0 0.7 1 100.0 1 100.0 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Refridgerators [kW] - 100.0 0.7 1 100.0 1 100.0 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total [kW] 200.0 200.0 200.0 0.0 0.0
Factor 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Group loading [kW] 160.0 160.0 160.0 0.0 0.0
Navigation, automation
Navigation [kW] 1 10.0 1.0 1 10.0 1 10.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 10.0
Communication systems [kW] 1 5.0 1.0 1 5.0 1 5.0 1 5.0 0 0.0 1 5.0
37
Navigation lights [kW] 1 5.0 1.0 1 5.0 1 5.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 5.0
Total [kW] 20.0 20.0 5.0 0.0 20.0
Factor 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Group loading [kW] 16.0 16.0 4.0 0.0 16.0
Special equipment
Thrusters [kW] 2 1500.0 1.0 0 0.0 1 1500.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Rudder hydrolic pump [kW] 2 7.0 1.0 2 14.0 2 14.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 14.0
Total [kW] 14.0 1514.0 0.0 0.0 14.0
Factor 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Group loading [kW] 12.6 1362.6 0.0 0.0 12.6
Total load [kW] 12931.9 14281.9 6734.4 227.7 223.9
Power factor 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Required power [kVA] 14368.8 15868.8 7482.7 253.0 248.8
Number of engines in use 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Diesel generator loading [%] 84.9 93.7 88.4 3.0 2.9
AALTO UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
Department of Applied Mechanics
Marine Technology
General Arrangement
M/S Arianna
1
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... 1
1 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 2
2 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................. 2
3 SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................... 3
3.1 SUBDIVISION AND FIRE SAFETY ............................................................................................... 3
3.2 EVACUATION AND LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 3
4 PASSENGER COMFORT .............................................................................................. 5
4.1 STATEROOMS ........................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 PUBLIC SPACES ........................................................................................................................ 6
5 CREW AND SERVICE FACILITIES ........................................................................... 6
5.1 CREW ACCOMMODATION ........................................................................................................ 6
5.2 SERVICE SPACES ...................................................................................................................... 7
5.3 ADDITIONAL SPACES ............................................................................................................... 8
6 MATERIAL ACCESS ..................................................................................................... 8
7 TANK ARRANGEMENT ............................................................................................... 9
7.1 FUEL TANKS ............................................................................................................................. 9
7.2 BALLAST TANKS ...................................................................................................................... 9
7.3 FRESH WATER TANKS .............................................................................................................. 9
7.4 BLACK AND GREY WATER TANKS ............................................................................................ 9
7.5 TANKS FOR OTHER SYSTEM ................................................................................................... 10
8 MACHINERY ARRANGEMENT ............................................................................... 10
8.1 MAIN MACHINERY ROOMS ..................................................................................................... 10
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 12
APPENDIX 1 – ARRANGEMENT DRAWINGS ............................................................... 13
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1- Sample stateroom floor plans .................................................................................. 5
Figure 5-1- Sample crew cabin floor plans ................................................................................ 7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 7-1. Fuel tank capacities ................................................................................................... 9
2
1 Overview
The general arrangement is a time consuming portion of the design due to the inherent
difficulties of arranging a passenger vessel. As a cruise ship, the major considerations are
safety and passenger comfort and the layout of the ship reflects a combined approach to each
topic. Generally, the ship is segmented into different areas, with accommodation spaces
forward and public and lifesaving spaces aft. This is in line with many of the luxury, small-
scale cruise ships in service today. With this layout, the staterooms are subject to much less
noise and vibration, the balconies are maximized, and the passenger and service flow are
simple. The main reason, however, is due to the vessel’s unconventional lifesaving layout.
The starting point for the general arrangement is the initial NAPA model that reflects the
vessel’s initial design constraints and parametric study. With the basic lines, the
superstructure can be designed to house the expected 150 passengers and 50 crewmembers in
comfort. The challenge, however, is including the required and expected spaces into the
necessary structural arrangement, which is already designed at a preliminary level. This is
particularly true for the pillars that are set throughout the ship.
One important reference in the arrangement is past and present luxury ship designs. With
these in mind, strong aspects of some vessels can be included while avoiding the negative
aspects of others. This is especially helpful for the public arrangement layouts at this stage of
design. Studied ships include those of Azamara Club Cruises, Ponant Cruise Line, Silver Seas
Cruises, and Seabourn Cruises, all of which belong in the luxury market.
Finally, the aesthetics of the ship were taken into account throughout the general arrangement
process. Key aesthetic points of today’s cruise ships include the profile, bow, stern, funnel,
color scheme, and portlight and window shape and arrangement, among others. The
preliminary outboard profile of this vessel is shown in the appendix.
2 Regulatory requirements
The ship is designed using DNV classification rules (1). This, along with the regulations set
by the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (2), serves as the primary limiter of
arrangement design. The SOLAS regulations are important for fire protection, evacuation, and
general safety considerations, while the DNV rules give a broader idea of general
requirements to be considered. Though not the governing body for this ship, the ABS rules for
Crew Habitability on Ships (3) and Passenger Comfort on Ships (4) also serve as a checking
3
point for dimensional aspects, as they include a checklist of minimum dimensions. At this
level of design, a conservative approach to such dimensioning aspects will ensure a feasible
design that will not need to be altered at a later design stage.
3 Safety considerations
At the preliminary design stage, the major safety considerations taken into account are
subdivision requirements, fire protection, and evacuation procedures, all of which are crucial
to ensure the safety of those onboard.
3.1 Subdivision and fire safety
In regards to fire and safety protection, recent amendments to the SOLAS regulations have
raised fire safety regulations for passenger vessels (5). They are crucial in listing required
equipment and subdivision rules for all vessels. The main consideration at this stage is the
requirement that cruise ships be separated by main vertical zone bulkheads (MVZBs), or main
fire bulkheads (MFBs) with a maximum spacing of 48 meters. Fire doors must be located in
the bulkheads where necessary. These bulkheads, along with the aforementioned pillars, serve
as a major guideline in the placement of public spaces. This vessel is divided into three MVZ
spaces by two MVZBs.
Misting fire protection systems for all accommodation and machinery spaces, CO2 systems
for the engine rooms, and proper training are also included in the revised SOLAS
requirements for cruise ships. While not reflected in the general arrangement for this design
stage, such considerations must be taken into account to ensure complete fire safety and
regulatory compliancy.
3.2 Evacuation and lifesaving equipment
The uniqueness of this vessel, and therefore the innovation, revolves around the fact that there
are no lifeboats onboard. Therefore, it is crucial that the chosen alternative not only suffice in
offering appropriate lifesaving capabilities, but improve on the traditional systems. It must be
proven that the procedure is not only as safe as comparable ships, but safer. This is needed not
only to satisfy the regulations, but also to provide a sense of comfort for passengers.
With this in mind, the ship features Marin Ark 2 marine evacuation systems (MES) (6). For
vastly improved safety, there are two separate systems situated on each side of the vessel,
giving four evacuation stations, each with the capability of serving 158 persons. The MES
stations are located on decks three and five. This is more than enough to evacuate all
4
passengers from one side of the vessel in case of severe listing. Not only does this provide a
redundancy of over three times the total passengers and crew, but the fact that the systems are
located on different decks makes it safer than the traditional setup.
In addition, two traditional, davit-launch life raft stations are included on deck 4. Each station
has storage space for two compact Viking davit-launched, self-righting life rafts, along with a
davit. With this arrangement, the life raft is connected to the davit and then inflated at the
deck level, enabling passengers to board directly from the deck (7). Each raft has a 39 person
capacity, meaning, with two at each station, a total of 156 passengers can be evacuated by
more traditional means. This is important for passengers with disabilities, elderly, or others
who are incapable of safely evacuating the ship via MES. The fact that the traditional life rafts
are located on the middle of the three evacuation decks is also conducive to the evacuation
procedure, as it is central and therefore more accessible to passengers with disabilities.
In case of emergency, today’s rules require all persons to report first to an assembly station
before proceeding, if necessary, to an evacuation station (5). By placing all six stations
directly adjacent to the three assembly stations (the main dining room, theatre, and casual
restaurant), this process is greatly streamlined, allowing for a more orderly and faster
evacuation process. The assembly stations may either be on deck or in public spaces and must
have an area of at least 0.35 [m2] per person to be evacuated (5), which is fulfilled by each of
the three chosen locations.
In comparison to modern lifeboats, the evacuation systems are fully inflatable and operational
within 90 seconds of deployment and are fully reversible, meaning they will inflate upright
every time. The chutes are also fully enclosed, ensuring no passenger is exposed to the
elements at any time. As the vessel has no permanent openings within the hull or
superstructure to prevent stress concentration in openings and ease the production process, the
systems are accessible through large, interior evacuation rooms and deployed after opening
weather tight doors. The evacuation arrangement is shown in the appendix of this report.
In summary, the selected evacuation methods have multiple advantages over traditional
lifeboats. By arranging all accommodations forward, unlike most current cruise ships, three
separate stations, per side, can offer a faster and more accessible evacuation when compared
to lifeboats located on one deck.
5
4 Passenger comfort
When completing the general arrangement, focus on passenger comfort is second only to
safety considerations. As a luxury cruise ship, it is extremely important that passenger
staterooms and public spaces reflect a high level of passenger comfort to compete with
today’s luxury ships.
4.1 Staterooms
All passenger staterooms feature not only outside views, but private balconies as well. All
cabins are sized with the high standard of luxury design taken into account, and the layouts,
sizing, and spacing are all in line with comparable vessels. There are also wheelchair
accessible cabins onboard, sized with extra space for the navigation of wheelchairs and
featuring appropriate head arrangements. The six accessible cabins make up nearly 8% of the
total staterooms, which is well above the Passenger Vessel Accessibility Guidelines (PVAG),
which states that 2% of all cabins must be accessible. A breakdown of available passenger
staterooms is listed below, as well as subsequent sample plans in Figure 4-1.
(76) 23-26 [m2] balcony staterooms
(6) 31 [m2] wheelchair accessible balcony staterooms
(10) 39-50 [m2] balcony suites
These staterooms compare very favourably to the current norm. Today’s standard balcony
stateroom averages 20 [m2] while suites are generally around 33 [m
2] (8).
Figure 4-1- Sample stateroom floor plans
6
4.2 Public spaces
As with the design of the passenger staterooms, the various public passenger facilities were
arranged to both meet the regulatory requirements and provide a high level of comfort. One
focus is locating as many spaces as possible with sea views, especially the dining facilities,
which are required to have both natural and artificial lighting. The vertical layout of major
public spaces makes this an easy task. Another challenge is fitting as many passenger
amenities as possible on such a small vessel, which is aided by the high passenger space ratio,
meaning public spaces can be located in areas that would otherwise be reserved for cabins.
The result is a ship that features the spaces that passengers both need and expect, including a
main two-level foyer, medical center, large formal dining room, casual buffet, show lounge,
observation lounge, spa, gym, pool area, and multiple bars. The only typical cruise feature
missing from the vessel is a casino, which was excluded due to the restricting itinerary plan,
as the vessel operates in inland waters.
5 Crew and service facilities
Though not as major a focus as passenger comfort, it is nonetheless important to ensure that
the crew have adequate cabins and facilities in order to ensure their wellbeing and motivation,
which will directly affect the guests. There are many requirements to take into account,
including the sizing of accommodation spaces, inclusion of the required recreation areas and
practical spaces, and the complete separation of crew and passenger facilities.
5.1 Crew accommodation
The final arrangement features crew cabins on deck two, sufficiently far from the main engine
and equipment rooms. The senior officer’s cabins are situated on deck five, directly adjacent
to the navigation bridge. To ensure a high level of comfort, all cabins feature outside views
and no cabin sleeps more than two persons, which is a rarity aboard cruise ships. Still, there
are accommodation spaces for 56 crewmembers, which leave a margin for guests or a future
increased crew capacity. Sample crew schematics are shown in
7
Figure 5-1- Sample crew cabin floor plans
As with cabins, additional crew spaces are included to comply with the regulations. These
include the obligatory messes for general crewmembers and officers, gym, laundry room, and
recreation facility. In addition, practical spaces that are necessary for a successful working
order of the ship are taken into account. Examples of these include multiple office spaces as
well as a conference room for the navigating officers.
5.2 Service spaces
Separate crew and service stairwells and elevators are provided to service all decks, ensuring
a convenient and efficient service flow. There is one large, main galley on board to prepare
the bulk of the food for both passengers and crew. In addition, for easier serviceability, there
are smaller galleys and pantries adjacent to every dining facility, all of which are connected
both by a stairwell and service elevator. This is especially important with the vertical
arrangement, as it would not be convenient to transport food from lower decks.
Included both in the main galley and a separate room directly below is an ample amount of
provisions storage. At this design stage, the ABS guidelines for provision storage allotment
(4) were considered. These guidelines estimate the needed area or volume based on both the
number of intended passengers and continuous operating time, as listed below.
Dry provisions: 0.06 [m2 per person/per day]
Chilled provisions: 0.017 [m3 per person/per day]
Frozen provisions: 0.023 [m3 per person/per day]
8
The space allotted for these provisions is more than adequate for these estimations. It is
important to include a large margin to allow for the possibility of expanding itinerary options
in the future, as some may last more than seven days.
The bridge is located on the second highest deck and includes the central safety control center
that is required by SOLAS. This permanently manned station contains control panels for the
various systems onboard. These include the fire detection and alarm systems, sprinkler
systems, fire and watertight doors, ventilation fans, general alarm systems, communication
systems, and the public address system (9).
5.3 Additional spaces
Besides the aforementioned spaces, machinery spaces, and tanks, the remaining space
onboard are reserved for operational requirements, including exhaust spacing, hotel service
spaces, and heating and cooling facilities. Approximately 5% of the total interior space aboard
cruise ships should be allocated to heating and cooling spaces on each deck (10). This is
crucial for the decks that feature large amounts of passenger staterooms. In addition, at least
3% should be reserved for hospitality rooms, including storage and cleaning lockers and
laundry stations.
6 Material access
Another functional consideration is the access and flow of various materials. In this regard,
space has been allocated in both the arrangement and profile views for the needed stations and
doors. Passenger embarkation can be accomplished with both the general gangway access and
passenger tender stations near the waterline. Even though this ship has a low draft, it is
important to include tendering capabilities for future deployment flexibility. Another
watertight door leads to a bunker station, with one station port and one starboard to allow
flexibility when docking.
Additional doors are identified for material handling. The forward is dedicated to luggage
access and egress and is situated near the luggage handling room. This is an important feature
for cruise ships, which must handle a large amount of luggage on the embarkation and
debarkation days. Finally, the provision access doors are located aft of the bunker stations and
lead directly to two of the provision storage rooms. All doors from the deck to superstructure
are weather tight while the closures below the bulkhead deck are watertight.
9
7 Tank arrangement
7.1 Fuel tanks
The sizes of fuel tanks are calculated based on the fuel consumption of all engines and taking
into account mission of the ship. Therefore, the fuel tanks must have enough capacity to
ensure a sufficient period of independency on sea. The vessel visits during the cruise every
day one port; therefore, each of storage tanks for HFO must be able to hold fuel for at least
one day. In addition to the storage tanks, there are also two settling tanks, each capable of
providing fuel for 24 hours operation at maximum fuel consumption. This time will be
sufficient for settling (water and sediment separation). There are also day tanks, each which
holds fuel for 8 hours of sailing at full power. As the fuel consumption for all engines is
[m3/h] which was calculated during Ship Machinery course, then tank capacities are
calculated according to this and the results can be seen in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1. Fuel tank capacities
Number of tanks Capacity [m3/h]
Storage tank 2 259,2
Settling tank 2 259,2
Day tank 2 86,4
Total: 604,8
7.2 Ballast tanks
Capacity for the ballast water tanks, at this stage is first estimation due to the preliminary
weight calculations and it is not known how much ballast water is needed. Therefore, most of
the tanks in double bottom which do not have other purpose are ballast water tanks.
7.3 Fresh water tanks
The fresh water consumption per person is chosen to be 300 [l/day]. Additionally steam
boilers use fresh water and the total steam need is 2054 [kg/h]. Therefore in total, assuming
that the ship is in full use with 152 persons, the daily water consumption used by passengers
and crew will be 45 600 [l]. The total amount of fresh water needed for steam boilers is taken
as 50 000 [l/day]. Thus, fresh water tanks are designed to have capacity for approximately 2
days, equaling in volume 200 [m3].
7.4 Black and grey water tanks
Black and gray water holding tank capacities are calculated based on average generated
sewage and grey water per person in day. The average black water generated per person in
10
one day is approximately 32 liters per person (11). The grey wastewater generated per person
in one day is approximately 255 liters per person (12). Therefore, black water holding tank
capacity should be 4864 liters per vessel and the designed tank capacity is 10 [m3].
Grey wastewater holding tank capacity should be 38 760 liters per vessel and the designed
tank capacity is 78 [m3]. These tank sizes are made twice a bigger, because if something
happens with treatment plant, then there is not an issue to hold all the black and grey
wastewater during trip between two ports.
For a waste treatment plant is chosen EVAC advanced membrane bio-reactor (MBR)
treatment plant, which will treat grey and black water as well dry waste and food waste. A
membrane bioreactor is used to filter grey and black water so, that clean water is separated
from the biomass by membrane filtration. In choosing the treatment plant it is considered that
it will be capable to treat as much water as the person generates per one day.
7.5 Tanks for other system
In addition to these bigger systems, there are also some smaller systems which tanks needs to
be mentioned and these are: lubricating oil tank, sludge tank for lubricating oil system and
some minor fuel tank for boiler.
8 Machinery arrangement
In all type of the ships, the machinery area is tried to keep as small as possible, to have more
space for passenger or cargo, the payload. This fact makes machinery area arrangement
significantly more complicated than others, as it has to fit a lot of equipment. The project ship
is designed according to DNV rules and the requirements pointed out in ( (13), Section 3) are
followed. For safety reasons are followed the SOLAS rules (14).
8.1 Main machinery rooms
In the following list are described the main machinery rooms and the aspects, which are taken
into consideration of their arrangement:
Main engine rooms are all separated by longitudinal bulkheads, to ensure the ship
performance in case of emergency. The main engines rooms are located in the middle of
the ship, because the weight of the engines will cause bigger trim angle when located in
aft or fore of ship.
11
Propulsion motors are located as stern as possible to decrease the shaft length; considered
as one of the main sources of vibration in ship, which are tried to keep as low as possible
in passenger ships.
Main drive and switchboard rooms should be located as close as possible to generators, as
the cables between those three are the biggest and with highest voltages and therefore
tried to keep short.
Water treatment and heating are placed close to each other to limit the piping length,
which lowers the accident and failure possibilities and gives extra space.
Fuel separating and feeding unit are placed as close to engines as possible to decrease
piping length
Thruster room should be separated from other areas as it contains big drive unit with high
voltage and to lower the chance of getting in case of accident.
12
Bibliography
1. DNV. Passanger and Dry Cargo Ships. Rules for Classification of Ships. 2011.
2. International Maritime Organization. International Convention for the Safety of Life at
Sea. 1994.
3. Shipping, American Bureau of. Crew Habitability on Ships. Houston : s.n., 2012.
4. Passenger Comfor on Ships. Houson : s.n., 2001.
5. Aarnio, Markus. Rules and Regulations - How the Rules and Regulations affect Passenger
Ship Design. 2012.
6. Marine, RFD Beafort. Marin Ark Technical Manual. 2013.
7. Viking. Viking Liferafts. 2013.
8. Jatunen, Olli. Passenger Ship Design Criteria, Functions, and Features. 2013.
9. American Bureau of Shipping. Guide for Bridge Design and Navigational Equipment and
Systems. Houston : s.n., 2000.
10. Levander, Kai. Passenger Ships. [book auth.] Thomas Lamb. Ship Design and
Construction Vol II. Jersey City : Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 2004.
11. Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report.
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/vwd/upload/2009_01_28_oceans_cruise_ships_section2_sewag
e.pdf. [Online]
12. Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report.
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/vwd/upload/2009_01_28_oceans_cruise_ships_section3_grayw
ater.pdf. [Online]
13. DNV. Newbuildings Machinery and Systems - Main Class. Rules For Classification of
Ships. 2011.
14. SOLAS. Means of escape from machinery spaces. Regulation 13. Means of Escape. 2002.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 11010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 11010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
FUEL FEEDING AND SEPERATION
HFO
HFO
BILGE WATER
SEA CHEST
WB
WB
WB
WB
WB
WB
WB
WB
WB
PUMP
ROOM
SETTLING
TANK
DAY
TANK
SEA CHEST
LUBRICATION
OIL
SLUDGE
WB
HVAC
FRESHWATER TREATMENT
AND HEATING
WORKSHOP
MAIN
DRIVE
MAIN
SWITCH-
BOARD
MAIN ENGINE ROOM
MAIN ENGINE ROOM
MAIN ENGINE ROOM
STORAGE
GRAY AND BLACK WATER
TREATMENT
FRESH WATER TANK
BOILER FEED
WATER TANK
FIRE
FIGHTING
PROPULSION
MOTOR
ROOM
GRAYWATER TANK
GRAY AND BLACK WATER
TREATMENT
SEA CHEST
LUBRICATION
OIL
SLUDGE
GRAYWATER TANK
THRUSTER CONTROL ROOM
SETTLING
TANK
DAY
TANK
MFBMFB
Aalto University
School of Engineering
Marine Technology
Tank plan and machinery deck
ARIANNA
Ship Project A
A3
07.12.2013Nelis
07.12.2013Champion
5-1
EXHAUST
CASING
MAIN GALLEY
AND
PROVISIONS STORAGE
GRAND
FOYER
EXCURSION
DESK
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
SECURITY
AND
CONTROL
RE
CE
PT
IO
N
PASSENGER EMBARKATION STATION
PASSENGER EMBARKATION STATION
LUGGAGE ACCESS
LUGGAGE ACCESS
SECURITY
AND
CONTROL
MOORING
AND
CREW
SPACE
LUGGAGE
HANDLING
MEDICAL CENTER
MFBMFB
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
PROVISIONS
STORAGE
STEERING GEAR
EXHAUST
CASING
PASSENGER TENDER STATION
PASSENGER TENDER STATION
PROVISION ACCESS
PROVISION ACCESS
BUNKER STATION
BUNKER STATION
ENGINE CONTROL
ROOM
MAIN ENGINE ROOM
MAIN ENGINE ROOM
MAIN ENGINE ROOM
PROPULSION
MOTOR
ROOM
MFBMFB
PROPULSION
MOTOR
ROOM
PROVISIONS STORAGE
AND
GARBAGE HANDLING
OFFICER MESS
AND LOUNGE
COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY AND LINEN
STORES
CREW LOUNGE
AND BAR
HVAC
HOTEL
STORES
PAINT
STORES
PROVISION ACCESS
PROVISION ACCESS
MACHINERY
ACCESS
MACHINERY
ACCESS
CREW ACCOMODATION
CREW ACCOMODATION
Aalto University
School of Engineering
Marine Technology
Deck 1 and Deck 2
ARIANNA
Ship Project A
A3
07.12.2013Nelis
07.12.2013Champion
5-2
EMERGENCY
GENSET ROOM
EXHAUST
CASING
EXHAUST
CASING
OPEN
WC
WC
MAIN DINING ROOM
WC
WC
ASSEMBLY STATION #1
GALLEY
EVACUATION STATION #1
158 PERSONS
EVACUATION STATION #2
158 PERSONS
EVACUATION STATION #3
78 PERSONS
EVACUATION STATION #4
78 PERSONS
HOSPITALITY
STORE
RETAIL
SHOP
MAIN SHOW LOUNGE
AND BAR
ASSEMBLY STATION #2
SOUND
AND
LIGHTING
CONTROL
HVAC ROOM
LAUNDRETTE
HOSPITALITY
STORE
CLEANING
LOCKER
HVAC ROOM
HOSPITALITY
STORE
MFBMFB
MFBMFB
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
BALCONY STATEROOM ACCESSIBLE STATEROOM BALCONY SUITE
BALCONY STATEROOM ACCESSIBLE STATEROOM BALCONY SUITE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Aalto University
School of Engineering
Marine Technology
Deck 3 and Deck 4
ARIANNA
Ship Project A
A3
07.12.2013Nelis
07.12.2013Champion
5-3
EXHAUST
CASING
EXHAUST
CASING/
AIR INTAKE
NAVIGATION BRIDGE
RADIO
ROOM
CENTRAL
SAFETY
CONTROL
CENTER
WC
WC
WC
WC
EVACUATION STATION #5
158 PERSONS
EVACUATION STATION #6
158 PERSONS
OFFICE OFFICE
CONFERENCE
ROOM
DECK
DECK
CAPTAIN
CHIEF
ENGINEER
HOTEL
DIRECTOR
SR.
OFF.
SR.
OFF.
SR.
OFF.
POOL
JACC.
JACC.
POOL TRUNK
PANTRY
CASUAL BUFFET
RESTAURANT
ASSEMBLY STATION #3
LIBRARY/
CARD ROOM
DECK AND POOL
STORAGE
SPA
GYM
SPA
GYM
SPA
SUN DECK
SUN DECK
POOL BAR
AND
PANTRY
HVAC ROOM
HOSPITALITY
STORE
LAUNDRETTE
CLEANING
LOCKER
SUN DECK
MFBMFB
MFBMFB
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
ACCESSIBLE STATEROOMBALCONY SUITE BALCONY STATEROOM
JOGGING TRACK
MAST
FUNNELCREW RECREATION DECK SUN DECK
OBSERVATION LOUNGE
AND BAR
Aalto University
School of Engineering
Marine Technology
Deck 5, Deck 6 and Deck 7
ARIANNA
Ship Project A
A3
07.12.2013Nelis
07.12.2013Champion
5-4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 900 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 900 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Aalto University
School of Engineering
Marine Technology
Profile views
ARIANNA
Ship Project A
A3
07.12.2013Nelis
07.12.2013Champion
5-5
MFBMFB
PA
SS
EN
GE
R LIF
TS
1,2
PA
SS
EN
GE
R S
TA
IR
S
SE
RV
IC
E LIF
T 1 A
ND
S
ER
VIC
E S
TA
IR
S
PA
SS
EN
GE
R S
TA
IR
S
PA
SS
EN
GE
R LIF
TS
3,4
SE
RV
IC
E LIF
T 2 A
ND
S
ER
VIC
E S
TA
IR
S
NAVIGATION BRIDGEOFFICER ACC.
OBSERVATION LOUNGESPA AND GYMPOOL AREA
SUN DECK
CASUAL RESTAURANT
SHOW LOUNGE AND BAR
MAIN DINING ROOM
MAIN GALLEY AND PROVISIONS
GALLEY
MOORING
PASSENGER ACC.
PASSENGER ACC.
PASSENGER ACC.
PASSENGER ACC.
PASSENGER ACC.
PASSENGER ACC.
PASSENGER ACC.
PASSENGER ACC.
PUBLIC SPACE AND EVACUATION
PUBLIC SPACE AND EVACUATION
PUBLIC SPACE AND EVACUATION
PUBLIC AND OFFICE SPACES
PROVISIONSPROVISIONS AND MACHINERY
STORAGEPOOL BAR
FUNNEL
MAST
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 900 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Aalto University
School of Engineering
Marine Technology
Inboard view
ARIANNA
Ship Project A
A3
07.12.2013Nelis
07.12.2013Champion
5-6
DWL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 900 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Aalto University
School of Engineering
Marine Technology
Evacuation profile
ARIANNA
Ship Project A
A3
07.12.2013Nelis
07.12.2013Champion
5-7
AALTO UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
Department of Applied Mechanics
Marine Technology
Hull Structure
M/S Arianna
1
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... 1
NOTATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 3
1 MAIN FRAME CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................................... 4
1.1 FRAMING SYSTEM .................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 WEB FRAME ............................................................................................................................. 4
1.3 DOUBLE BOTTOM HEIGHT ........................................................................................................ 4
1.4 SIDE GIRDER ............................................................................................................................ 4
1.5 FLOORS .................................................................................................................................... 5
1.6 LONGITUDINALS ...................................................................................................................... 5
1.7 PILLARS ................................................................................................................................... 5
1.8 BRACKETS ............................................................................................................................... 5
1.9 OPENINGS ................................................................................................................................ 6
1.10 SPACE RESERVATIONS ......................................................................................................... 8
1.11 LOCATION OF BULKHEADS .................................................................................................. 8
1.12 DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS IN ENGINE ROOM ......................................................... 9
2 RELEVANT LOADS ................................................................................................. 10
2.1 HULL AND DECKS PRESSURES................................................................................................ 10
2.2 HULL GIRDER BENDING MOMENTS ........................................................................................ 12
2.3 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 14
3 MATERIAL SELECTION ........................................................................................ 14
4 STRUCTURAL ELEMENT CALCULATIONS .................................................... 16
4.1 BOTTOM STRUCTURES ........................................................................................................... 16
4.2 SIDE STRUCTURES .................................................................................................................. 17
4.3 DECK STRUCTURES ................................................................................................................ 18
4.4 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 19
5 STRUCTURAL ELEMENT CALCULATIONS USING BEAM THEORY ....... 20
6 HULL GIRDER NORMAL STRESS RESPONSE ................................................ 22
6.1 BENDING STRESS ................................................................................................................... 22
6.2 SHEAR STRESS ....................................................................................................................... 27
6.3 STRESS COMPARISON WITH RULE LIMITS .............................................................................. 29
7 WEB FRAMES ........................................................................................................... 31
8 CRITICAL BUCKLING STRESS ........................................................................... 32
8.1 JOHNSON CORRECTION .......................................................................................................... 32
8.2 STIFFENER BUCKLING ............................................................................................................ 32
8.3 PLATE BUCKLING IN COMPRESSION ....................................................................................... 33
8.4 PLATE BUCKLING IN SHEAR STRESS....................................................................................... 33
8.5 USAGE FACTOR ...................................................................................................................... 33
8.6 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 34
9 ULTIMATE STRENGTH ......................................................................................... 34
9.1 FIRST FIBRE YIELD ................................................................................................................. 34
2
9.2 FIRST FIBRE BUCKLING .......................................................................................................... 35
9.3 CONSTRUCT RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 35
10 NATURAL FREQUENCIES OF PLATES, STIFFENERS AND GIRDERS ...... 36
11 TORSION PROBLEMS ............................................................................................ 37
12 VIBRATORY LEVELS ............................................................................................. 37
13 FATIGUE ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 38
14 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................... 41
APPENDIX 1 – MAIN FRAME CHARACTERISTICS .................................................... 42
APPENDIX 2 – BULKHEAD LOCATIONS ...................................................................... 43
APPENDIX 3 – MAIN FRAME AT MACHINERY ROOM............................................. 44
APPENDIX 4 – MAIN FRAME ........................................................................................... 45
APPENDIX 5 - MATERIAL GRADES AND CLASSES ................................................... 46
APPENDIX 6 - BEAM THEORY CALCULATION TABLES ......................................... 47
APPENDIX 7 - TABLES FOR BLEICH APPROACH ..................................................... 54
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 5-1. Stiffener section modulus with plate. .................................................................... 22
Figure 6-1. Bending stress distribution in hogging. ................................................................. 24
Figure 6-2. Hogging bending stress distribution according to Construct. ............................... 25
Figure 6-3.Bending stress distribution in sagging. ................................................................... 25
Figure 6-4. Sagging bending stress distribution according to Construct. ................................ 26
Figure 6-5. Shear stress distribution. ........................................................................................ 28
Figure 6-6. Shear stress distribution according to Construct. .................................................. 28
Figure 9-1. Ultimate strength according to Construct. ............................................................. 35
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Load types, magnitudes and frequencies. ............................................................... 14
Table 3-1. Structural element materials. .................................................................................. 15
Table 4-1. Structural element minimum dimensions according to DNV (3) ........................... 19
Table 5-1. Section modulus calculation ................................................................................... 20
Table 6-1. Shear force distribution factor ................................................................................ 27
Table 6-2. Stress comparison. .................................................................................................. 30
Table 8-1. Critical buckling stresses ........................................................................................ 34
Table 10-1. Frequency ranges .................................................................................................. 36
3
Table 13-1. S-N parameters ..................................................................................................... 40
Notations
ship length [m]
ship breadth [m]
ship draft [m]
Block coefficient
pressure [kN/mm2]
stiffener spacing [m]
stiffener span [m]
section modulus corrosion factor
corrosion addition [mm]
material factor
bending stress [MPa]
shear stress [MPa]
yield stress [MPa]
correction factor for aspect of plate field
girder or web-frame spacing [m]
vertical distance from the waterline at draught T to the load point [m]
vertical distance in m from the load point to the top of tank [m]
distance from the centre line to the load point [m]
vertical distance from the baseline to the load point, maximum T [m]
acceleration of gravity [m/s2]
vertical acceleration [m/s2]
density of liquid [kg/m3]
t plate thickness [mm]
4
1 Main frame characteristics
The ship is designed according to Det Norske Veritas (DNV) rules. Most of the design is done
by following to the DNV Rules for Classification of Ships, part 3 - Hull and Equipment, Main
Class chapter 1. This corresponds to the hull structural design for ships with a length of 100
metres and above. Even so, there are some differences between different ship types and
therefore part 5, Special Service and Additional Type Classes and chapter 2, Passenger and
Dry Cargo Ships, are also used when necessary. The final main frame is presented in
Appendix 1-Main frame characteristics.
1.1 Framing system
A longitudinal framing system is chosen for the ship because of its lower weight compared to
transverse and mixed framing systems. Additionally, with more longitudinal stiffeners, the
shell and deck plating are reinforced more effectively in comparison to transverse framing,
allowing resistance of longitudinal compressive stresses. This is important since cruise ships
are usually with relatively high L/B ratios, meaning longitudinal stresses are the main issues
(1).
1.2 Web frame
The web frame spacing is chosen by considering the fact that cabins should be fitted between
web frames. As such, a web frame spacing of 3m is chosen for the final design. (2)
1.3 Double bottom height
For passenger vessels and cargo ships other than tankers, a double bottom shall be fitted,
extending from the collision bulkhead to the afterpeak bulkhead, as far as is practicable and
compatible with the design and proper working of the ship ( (3), Section 6). The minimum
height of the double bottom is calculated as follows:
[mm] 1-1
1.4 Side girder
Side girders shall normally be fitted so that the distance between the side girders and the
center girder or margin plate or between the side girders themselves does not exceed 5 m. In
the engine room, one side girder is to be fitted outside the engine seating girders in all cases
( (3), Section 6).
5
1.5 Floors
The floor spacing is normally not to be greater than 3,6 m. In way of deep tanks with heights
exceeding 0,7 times the distance between the inner bottom and the main deck, the floor
spacing is normally not to exceed 2,5 m. In the engine room, floors shall be fitted at every
second side frame. Bracket floors shall be fitted at intermediate frames, extending to the first
ordinary side girder outside the engine seating. For thrust bearings and below pillars,
additional strengthening shall be provided ( (3), Section 6). Floors are fitted equally with web
frames and the floor spacing is 3 m.
1.6 Longitudinals
All longitudinals (bottom, inner bottom, and deck) are fitted with spacing of 600 mm or as
near it as possible. The stiffener span must be chosen in accordance to the following
considerations:
Longitudinals shall be continuous through transverse members within 0,5 L amidships in
ships with length L > 150 m
Longitudinals may be cut at transverse members within 0,5 L amidships in ships with
length 50 m < L< 150 m. In that case, continuous brackets connecting the ends of the
longitudinals shall be fitted.
Longitudinals may be welded against the floors in ships with length L < 50 m, and in larger
ships, outside 0.5 L amidships.
1.7 Pillars
The main issue with pillar location is cabin arrangement, as they must fit between pillars or
between a pillar and side. Pillars should be connected with transverse deck girders and deck
girders at the strongest point, therefore, pillars should be located at the crossing points of deck
girders. Pillars should be in one line as much as possible to avoid shear force. The same
reason is taken into account by locating pillars on bulkheads.
1.8 Brackets
1.8.1 End connections of stiffeners
Normally, all types of stiffeners (longitudinals, beams, frames, and bulkhead stiffeners) shall
be connected at their ends. In special cases, however, sniped ends may be allowed.
Connections between stiffener and bracket shall be designed so that the section modulus in
6
way of the connection is not reduced to a value less than required for the stiffener. If the
flange transition between the stiffener and an integral bracket is knuckled, the flange shall be
effectively supported in way of the knuckle. (3)
1.8.2 End connections of girders
Normally, ends of single girders or connections between girders forming ring systems shall be
provided with brackets. Brackets are generally to be made with a radius or be well-rounded at
their toes. The free edge of the brackets shall be arranged with a flange or edge stiffener. The
thickness of brackets on girders shall not be less than that of the girder web plate. Where
flanges are continuous, there shall be a smooth taper between bracket flange and girder face
plate. If the flange is discontinuous, the face plate of the girder shall extend well beyond the
toe of the bracket. (3)
Between supporting plates on the centre girder, docking brackets shall be fitted. Alternative
arrangements of supporting plates and docking brackets require special consideration of the
local buckling strength of the centre girder/duct keel and local strength of the docking
longitudinal that is subject to the forces from docking blocks. (3)
1.9 Openings
Openings may be accepted in watertight bulkheads, except in the part of the collision
bulkhead which is situated below the freeboard deck. Openings situated below the freeboard
deck which are intended for use when the ship is at sea, shall have watertight doors which
shall be closable from the freeboard deck or an alternative place above the deck. The
operating device shall be well protected and accessible. Openings in the collision bulkhead
above the freeboard deck shall have weather tight doors or an equivalent arrangement. The
number of openings in the bulkhead shall be reduced to the minimum compatible with the
design and normal operation of the ship.
No door, manhole, or ventilation duct or any other opening will be accepted in the collision
bulkhead below the freeboard deck. The collision bulkhead may, however, be pierced by
necessary pipes to deal with fluids in the forepeak tank, provided the pipes are fitted with
valves capable of being operated from above the freeboard deck.
Openings in the side shell, longitudinal bulkheads, and longitudinal girders shall be located
not less than twice the opening breadth below the strength deck or the termination of a
rounded deck corner. Small openings are generally to be kept well clear of other openings in
longitudinal strength members. Edges of small unreinforced openings shall be located at a
7
transverse distance not less than four times the opening breadth from the edge of any other
opening.
Smaller openings (manholes, lightening holes, and single scallops in way of seams, etc.) do
not need to be deducted provided the sum of their breadths or shadow area breadths in one
transverse section does not reduce the section modulus at the deck or bottom by more than
3%. In addition, the height of lightening holes, draining holes, and single scallops in
longitudinals or longitudinal girders must not exceed 25% of the web depth and a maximum
75mm is imposed for scallops.
In the strength deck and outer bottom within 0,6 L amidships, circular openings with a
diameter equal to or greater than 0,325 m shall have edge reinforcement. The cross-sectional
area of edge reinforcements shall not be less than the following:
[cm2] 1-2
Where,
- diameter of opening in [m],
The reinforcement is normally to be a vertical ring welded to the plate edge. Alternative
arrangements may be accepted but the distance from plating edge to reinforcement is in no
case to exceed 0,05 b.
In areas specified in previously elliptical openings with a breadth greater than 0,5 m, edge
reinforcement must be included if their length/breadth ratio is less than 2. The reinforcement
shall also be required in the strength deck and outer bottom for circular openings, taking b as
the breadth of the opening. For corners of circular shape the radius shall not be less than:
[cm] 1-3
Where,
- breadth of opening
For streamlining, shape edge reinforcement will generally not be required; edges of openings
shall be smooth. Machine flame cut openings with smooth edges may be accepted.
Holes in girders will generally be accepted provided the shear stress level is acceptable and
the buckling strength is sufficient. Holes shall be kept well clear of end of brackets and
locations where shear stresses are high.
8
1.10 Space reservations
As the present project is a cruise ship with a capacity of 184 people, there should be enough
space to accommodate all the passengers and crew members. Therefore, an important issue is
cabin measurements. Cabin measures depend on the distances between web frames, as cabins
should fit in between web frames. Thus, there must be compromises between cabins size and
web frame spacing in order to find the best solution. In the current project, web frame spacing
is chosen to be 3 m, which is sufficient to accommodate two or four persons. The number of
people depends on the cabin layout. In a cabin, there must be enough space to move freely
and feel comfortable. Deck heights are about 2,6 m, so there is enough space in the ceiling
for, for example, piping and cable lines. The engine room height is through two decks, with
an initial approximation of 7 m. What is more, there must be reserved space for hallways
between public spaces and accommodation spaces and also space for stairways between
decks.
In conclusion, the space is divided between cabins, crew accommodation, machinery room,
public restaurant, and lounges, etc.
1.11 Location of bulkheads
The following transverse, watertight bulkheads shall be fitted in all ships:
a collision bulkhead
an after peak bulkhead
a bulkhead at each end of the machinery space(s).
According to (3) Section 3, Table A1, there must be 6 bulkheads. The minimum distance xc
from the fore perpendicular PF to the collision bulkhead is calculated with the following
equation (3):
[m] 1-4
The after peak bulkhead is placed approximately 18 m from the aft perpendicular to the
location where the double bottom and rising stern part meets. There is also a longitudinal
bulkhead between two engines and a bulkhead to allocate the switchboard. The location of
other bulkheads is shown in Appendix 2-Bulkhead locations.
9
1.12 Design of structural members in engine room
The side shell in the engine room always supports the water pressure from the outside,
especially in the fully loaded condition, as it will be quite high. The water pressure is
supported by the longitudinal frames and the load is transmitted to the web frames which are
finally supported by the engine flats. From this viewpoint, the engine flat is not only the
foundation of the machinery but also an important strength member. In order to reduce the
hull steel weight as consequence of the water pressure, the thickness of the engine flat is
reduced and is finally constructed by a frame work without a plate. Even in such a situation, it
is good to remember that the engine flat is an important strength member to support the web
frames in the engine room.
Ship machinery is not installed directly on the supporting surfaces of foundations, but rather
on appropriate intermediate elements such as foundation chocks. This is due to the fact that
large supporting surfaces of foundations and machine bodies are difficult to match in contact
exactly. Also, there is the often arising need to have the connected machines aligned with high
precision. Metal chocks made of steel or cast iron, with their characteristic high rigidity, have
traditionally been used in shipbuilding and the seating arrangements utilizing them are rigid.
The load should be evenly distributed among all chocks, which is obtained by their
appropriate placement and fitting. Resulting from the high rigidity of metal chocks, small
inaccuracies in their fitting may lead to a highly uneven foundation loading, holding down the
bolts and bodies of machines. As this phenomenon is highly detrimental, demanding
requirements have been introduced with regard to the precise fitting of the chocks during the
installation of ship machinery. (4)
1.12.1 Transverse framing
Side girders shall be fitted so that the distance between the side girders and centre girder or
margin plate or between the side girders themselves does not exceed 4 metres. In the engine
room, side girders are in all cases to be fitted outside the engine seating girders.
In the engine room, floors shall be fitted at every second side frame. Bracket floors shall be
fitted at intermediate frames, extending to the first ordinary side girder outside the engine
seating. With respect to the thrust bearing and below pillars, additional strengthening shall be
provided (3). The vessel’s machinery room is presented in Appendix 3-Main frame at
machinery room.
10
2 Relevant loads
According to the project ship, there are several loads acting on its design lifetime of 20 years,
which is an assumed value at this stage. Loads on ship structures can be divided into the
following categories:
static loads (e.g., still water bending moments)
low-frequency (dynamic) loads (e.g., wave-induced hull pressure variations)
high-frequency (dynamic) loads (e.g., wave-induced loads from primary short waves)
impact loads(e.g., collision, slamming)
The load calculation results are presented in
Table 2-1.
2.1 Hull and decks pressures
2.1.1 Side pressures
Firstly, there is an estimated sea pressure to ship’s sides as well as pressure to the decks.
Water pressure increases with depth and tends to set in the ship’s plating below the water line.
A transverse section of a ship is subjected to a static pressure from the surrounding water in
addition to loading resulting from the weight of the structure, cargo, etc. Although transverse
stresses are of lesser magnitude than longitudinal stresses, considerable distortion of the
structure could occur in absence of adequate stiffening. The sea pressure is calculated with
two different equations. According to the DNV rules, the pressure acting on the ship side shall
be taken as the sum of the static and dynamic pressure. Pressure which is below the summer
waterline can be calculated as the following:
[kPa] 2-1
The pressure is taken as:
( ) [kPa] 2-2
Where,
( ) (
√ ) [kPa] 2-3
11
Where,
[
]
[kPa] 2-4
Side pressure decreases when decreases, therefore, the pressure near the waterline is
calculated similarly as above and the result can be seen in
Table 2-1.
The pressure above the summer waterline is constant along the entire side and can be
calculated as follows:
[kPa] 2-5
2.1.2 Deck pressure
The deck pressures in accommodation decks are calculated as the following:
( ) [kPa] 2-6
However, the minimum pressure must be larger than a specified value:
( ) [kPa] 2-7
The deck pressures in machinery spaces are calculated as the following:
( ) [kPa] 2-8
2.1.3 Inner bottom pressure
The pressure for the inner bottom is calculated with the following relationship:
[kPa] 2-9
2.1.4 Outer bottom pressure
The outer bottom pressure is calculated in the same way as the side pressure below the
summer waterline and the result can be seen in
Table 2-1. Although the ship has deadrise in the bottom, the pressure acting on the bottom is
taken as a constant and is calculated using Equation 2-1 at the design draft.
12
2.1.5 Pressure in tanks
The pressure in full tanks is calculated as follows:
( ) [kPa] 2-10
2.2 Hull girder bending moments
2.2.1 Stillwater loads
2.2.1.1 Stillwater bending moments
The loads from cargo and lightweight are balanced by the displacement in port and that will
cause still water bending of the hull girder. The design still water bending moments amidships
(sagging and hogging) are calculated as follows:
Sagging:
( ) [kNm] 2-11
Hogging:
( ) [kNm] 2-12
In case of unrestricted service, the relationship must be satisfied.
2.2.1.2 Stillwater shear force
The design values of still water shear forces along the length of the ship are normally not to
be taken less than the following:
[kN] 2-13
[kN] 2-14
Where,
, between 0,4L and 0,6L from aft perpendicular
A specified sign convention is to be applied:
when sagging, condition positive in forebody, negative in afterbody
when hogging, condition negative in forebody, positive in afterbody
13
2.2.2 Wave loads
2.2.2.1 Bending moment
In a heavy seaway, a ship may be supported at the ends by the crests of waves while the
middle remains unsupported. If the wave trough is now considered at amidships then the
buoyancy in this region will be reduced. With the wave crest positioned at the ends of the
ship, the buoyancy here will be increased. This loading condition will result in a bending
moment which will cause the ship to sag.
In contrast, if the wave crest is considered at amidships then the buoyancy in this region will
be increased. With the wave trough positioned at the ends of the ship, the buoyancy here will
be reduced. This loading condition will result in a significantly increased bending moment,
which will cause the ship to hog. As such, the vertical wave bending moments are:
Sagging:
( ) [kNm] 2-15
Hogging:
[kNm] 2-16
For seagoing conditions, the parameter is equal to one.
2.2.2.2 Shear force
The wave vertical shear forces along the length of the ship of are calculated as a positive shear
force:
( ) [kN] 2-17
A positive shear force should be used when a positive still water shear force appears.
The negative shear force can also be found:
( ) [kN] 2-18
Where,
for seagoing conditions,
between 0,4 L and 0,6 L from A.P,
14
between 0,4 L and 0,6 L from A.P,
Negative shear force should be used when negative still water shear force appears.
2.2.3 Total bending moment
The total moment acting on the hull is calculated utilizing Equations 2-11 to 2-16 as follows:
[kNm] 2-19
2.3 Summary Table 2-1. Load types, magnitudes and frequencies.
Load type Sign Magnitude Frequency
Side pressure below waterline [kPa] 4,3 - 71,3 Constant
Side pressure above waterline [kPa] 9 Constant
Bottom pressure [kPa] 71,3 Constant
Inner bottom pressure [kPa] 19,3 Constant
Accommodation deck pressure [kPa] 13,3 Constant
Machinery deck pressure [kPa] 20,2 Constant
Pressure in tanks [kPa] 19,8 Constant
Stillwater bending moment [kNm]: Sagging Constant
Hogging Constant
Wave bending moment [kNm]: Sagging Periodic
Hogging Periodic
Total wave moment [kNm]: Sagging Periodic
Hogging Periodic
Stillwater shear force Sagging Periodic
Hogging Periodic
Wave shear force [kN] : Positive Periodic
Negative Periodic
Stillwater bending moments are also calculated using NAPA and is seen that in stillwater
conditions the ship is hogging and the biggest moment affects the ship when it is arriving to
port and it is kNm. Compared to bending moment calculated according to DNV
rules, , the difference is significant. In calculations, the DNV bending moment is
used to assure the strength is guaranteed.
The shear force is also taken from NAPA, where it is found to be 820 kN, but according to
DNV in hogging, the shear force is 730 kN, which results in a difference of 11%. The DNV
shear force is used in calculations to prevent mixing different result sources and, as the
bending moment difference is much bigger, it is reasonable to use DNV in still water loads.
15
3 Material selection
Material selection is done according to DNV classification rules ( (3) , Section 2). The most
cost efficient for the shipyard is to use as few different materials as possible. In this project,
the main materials are normal strength steel (yield strength 235 [N/mm2]) and high strength
steel (yield strength 355 [N/mm2]). The normal strength steel is used in the hull structure and
high strength steel is used in the superstructure. There is no point to use high strength steel in
the hull structure because, due to the huge amount of welding, HSS loses its properties, which
change basically to the same as normal strength steel. Also, HSS is more sensitive to welding
fractures than normal strength steel. High strength steel is used in the superstructure in order
to decrease the structure weight. The critical factors for the superstructure are buckling and
vibrations. When using HSS, as the plate thicknesses are much smaller, the most buckling-
critical locations, higher decks, should have extra attention. The materials are divided into the
grades as following:
Normal strength steel grades: A, B, D and E.
High strength steel grades: AH, DH and EH.
In various parts of the structure, different material grades are used. These grades and classes
are given in DNV tables (Appendix 5), which describes which grade/class should be used in
various parts. The materials ascribed to the project ship’s main frame structural elements are
given in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Structural element materials.
Structural element Strength group Grade Class
Bottom
Keel plate NV-NS A/AH III
Bilge plate NV-NS A/AH III
Bottom plate NV-NS A/AH III
Tank top plate NV-NS A/AH I
Floors NV-NS A/AH I
Longitudinal girder NV-NS A/AH I
Centre girder NV-NS A/AH I
Bottom longitudinals NV-NS A/AH I
Inner bottom longitudinals NV-NS A/AH I
Longitudinal girder and floor stiffeners NV-NS A/AH I
Side structures
Below waterline
Side plate NV-NS A/AH III
Side longitudinals NV-NS A/AH I
Above waterline
Side plate NV-NS A/AH III
Side longitudinals NV-NS A/AH I
Superstructure
Side plate NV-36 A/AH III
Side longitudinals NV-36 A/AH III
16
Sheer strake at strength deck A/AH III
Deck structures
Strength deck
Stringer plate NV-NS B, D or E III
Deck plate NV-NS A/AH III
Deck longitudinals NV-NS A/AH I
Girders NV-NS A/AH I
Decks above strength deck
Deck plate NV-36 A/AH III
Deck longitudinals NV-36 A/AH III
Girders NV-36 A/AH III
Decks below strength deck
Deck plate NV-NS A/AH I
Deck longitudinals NV-NS A/AH I
Girders NV-NS A/AH I
4 Structural element calculations
The preliminary prediction of structural elements is done by calculating the dimensions
according to (3), minimum requirements. Formulas used in calculations are shown below and
the results are given in Table 4-1. Pressures used in calculations are taken from Chapter 2.1.
The equation member’s descriptions are shown in notations. The material factor for normal
strength steel is 1,0 and for high strength steel 1,28 and the corrosion addition is 1,5 mm.
4.1 Bottom structures
4.1.1 Keel plate
The keel plate extends over complete length of the ship. The breath of is:
[mm] 4-1
The thickness of keel plate can also be found:
√ [mm] 4-2
4.1.2 Bottom and bilge plating
The thickness of bottom plating shall not be less than:
√ [mm] 4-3
If the bilge plate is not stiffened or has only one stiffener inside the curved part, the thickness
shall not be less than:
√
[mm]
4-4
Where,
17
( ) [mm] 4-5
[mm]
The thickness of the bilge plate shall not be less than that of the adjacent bottom and side
plates, whichever is greater.
4.1.3 Inner bottom plating
The thickness shall not be less than:
√ [mm] 4-6
Where,
4.1.4 Double bottom floors and girders
The thickness of longitudinal girders and floors shall not be less than:
√ [mm] 4-7
Where,
- for centre girder
- for other girders
4.1.5 Bottom and inner bottom longitudinals
The thickness of web and flange shall not be less than:
[mm] 4-8
Where,
, maximum 5
4.2 Side structures
4.2.1 Plating
The thickness is not for any region of the ship to be less than:
√ [mm] 4-9
Where,
up to 4.6 m above the summer load waterline. For each 2.3 m above this level, the k-
value may be reduced by 0.01 (minimum value 0.01)
18
4.2.2 Sheer strake at strength deck
The breadth shall not be less than:
[mm] 4-10
with a maximum 1800 [mm]
The thickness shall not be less than:
[mm] 4-11
4.2.3 Side longitudinals
The thickness of web and flange shall not be less than:
[mm] 4-12
Where,
4.3 Deck structures
4.3.1 Strength deck plating
The thickness is not for any region of the ship to be less than:
√ [mm] 4-13
Where,
4.3.2 Deck plating below and above strength deck
The thickness of steel decks shall not be less than:
√ [mm] 4-14
Where,
- for unsheathed weather and cargo decks
- for accommodation decks and for weather and cargo decks sheathed with wood or an
approved composition
19
4.3.3 Deck longitudinals
The thickness of web and flange shall not be less than:
[mm] 4-15
Where,
- in general
- for accommodations decks above strength deck
4.3.4 Girders
The thickness of web plates, flanges and stiffeners of girders shall not be less than:
√ [mm] 4-16
Where,
- in general
The thickness of girder web plates is in addition not to be less than:
[mm] 4-17
4.4 Summary Table 4-1. Structural element minimum dimensions according to DNV (3)
Dimensions
Bottom
Minimum thicknesss [mm]
Keel plate 13
Bilge plate 10
Bottom plate 10
Tank top plate 9
Floors 9
Longitudinal girder 9
Centre girder 11
Bottom longitudinals 7
Inner bottom longitudinals 7
Longitudinal girder and floor stiffeners
Superstructure
Side plate 7-10
Side longitudinals 7
Sheer strake at strength deck 8
Deck structures
Strength deck
Deck plate 6
Deck longitudinals 7
Girders 7
Decks above strength deck
Deck plate 6
Deck longitudinals 11
20
Girders 7
Decks below strength deck
Deck plate 6
Deck longitudinals 7
Girders 7
5 Structural element calculations using beam theory
The aim of this part is to calculate the section modulus of different structural parts using beam
theory. For section modulus calculations, there excel tables are used to get sufficient stiffener,
girder, and plate sizes. The calculations are made for most of the structure parts: bottom
structures, tank top, strength deck, decks, and sides. Furthermore, the calculations are made
for each structure part separately where stiffener or girder spacing is different, using values
which are calculated in Chapter 4. There is no need to do calculations for all the
accommodation decks because they all are similar, so it was enough to complete one deck
only. All the calculation tables can be seen in Appendix 6. In following table, there is an
example section modulus calculation for an entire cross-section of one stiffener coupled with
a plate. This example can be seen in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1. Section modulus calculation
In this case, there is a calculated bottom plate coupled with stiffener section modulus. Plate
breadth is taken as the same as the spacing between stiffeners. In deck girder calculations,
there an effective breadth was used, which was calculated according to the lecture notes.
The height of the plate is the plate thickness and for the stiffeners the height is their length.
The neutral axis is the distance from the center of gravity to the main coordinate axis and, if
considering the plate, the neutral axis is in the middle of plate thickness. The plate area is
calculated as the following:
[m2] 5-1
- number of parts
- breadth, [m]
Part Pcs E Effective breadth Calculated, b Height N.A Area 1. Moment 2. Moment Steiner
n be b=E/Eref*be h el A=n*b*h S=A*el I0=n*b*h3/12 Is=A*e2
[-] [-] [Gpa] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m2] [m3] [m4] [m4]
Plate 1 210 0,44 0,44 0,01 0,005 4,40E-03 2,20E-05 3,67E-08 1,10E-07
Stiffener HP 200x12 1 210 0,2 0,127 2,97E-03 3,77E-04 1,16E-05 4,78E-05
Total 7,37E-03 3,99E-04 1,16E-05 4,79E-05
Entire cross-section
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 5,41E-02 m
Elements, Io.tot 1,16E-05 m4
Elements, Is.tot 4,79E-05 m4
In 5,96E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 3,80E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Ztop 2,44E-04 m3 243,83 cm3 From rules: 171 cm3
Zbot 7,02E-04 m3 702,21 cm3
21
- height (thickness), [m]
Plate first moment of area:
[m2] 5-2
Where,
- location of neutral axis, [m]
Second moment of area (plate moment of inertia):
[m4] 5-3
Steiner moment:
[m4] 5-4
For stiffeners, these calculations are not necessary because this data can be obtained from
Ruukki HP profile sheets. Thus, the neutral axis of plate-stiffener system can be calculated as:
[m] 5-5
The total moment of inertia according to the new main coordinate axis is:
[m4] 5-6
Where,
- total second moment of area of parts, [m4]
- total steiner moment of parts, [m4]
The moment of inertia, which will be used in section modulus calculation, is found as:
( ) [
( )] [m4] 5-7
Finally, the new section modulus can be calculated as:
( )
( ) [m3] [cm3] 5-8
[m3] [cm3] 5-9
The difference between and can be seen in Figure 5-1.
22
Figure 5-1. Stiffener section modulus with plate.
6 Hull girder normal stress response
6.1 Bending stress
External moments acting on the hull are caused by waves and also by still water. These
moments are obtained by using classification society rules in Chapter 2.2, as presented in
Table 2-1. The total moments’ values are:
Sagging: [kNm]
Hogging: [kNm]
Whilst the hogging and sagging moments´ absolute values are equal, the calculations can be
done by using only one, of which the hogging moment is chosen because, according to
NAPA, the ship operates in hogging conditions.
As the project ship is a passenger ship, the superstructure takes some of the bending moment
and therefore the stress distribution cannot be calculated using basic beam theory. In this
work, stress distribution in the main frame is obtained using Bleich approach (5).
In the Bleich approach, the hull and superstructure are taken as two independent beams. In
calculations, needed parameters are both areas, respective neutral axes, and and second
moments of area around these axes. Calculations are done using Tables 1 and 2 (presented in
Appendix 7).
Hull characteristics:
[m2]
[m]
23
[m4]
Superstructure characteristics:
[m2]
[m]
[m4]
The neutral axis of the whole ship is calculated using the table which is presented in
Appendix 6:
[m]
The following parameter describes the distance between hull and superstructure:
[m] 6-1
Non – dimensional parameters are then:
6-2
6-3
As this particular ship has no openings for lifeboats in the superstructure and it is fully
supported by the hull, there is no vertical interaction between the hull and superstructure and
the spring constant in Bleich approach is discarded.
The influence of membrane forces is calculated as following:
[m2] 6-4
and the term :
6-5
Because of the superstructure, the normal forces applied into superstructure and hull are:
( )
( )( )
( )
( )( ) [MPa] 6-6
and additional moment:
( )( )
( )( ) [MPa] 6-7
( )( )
( )( ) [MPa] 6-8
The change of normal stress in the superstructure and hull is calculated as the following:
( ) ( ) [MPa] 6-9
24
( ) ( ) [MPa] 6-10
The normal stress is calculated as following:
( )
( ) [MPa] 6-11
Utilizing Equations 6-1 - 6-11, the total stress can be calculated:
{
[MPa] 6-12
The Bleich method results are compared to the Construct results. Although the ship is always
in hogging condition, the results are presented also for sagging. The bending moment
distribution in hogging is presented in Figure 6-1 and the Construct results for hogging can be
seen in Figure 6-2. The bending moment distribution in hogging is presented in Figure 6-3
and the Construct results for hogging can be seen in Figure 6-4.
Figure 6-1. Bending stress distribution in hogging.
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Hei
ght
z [m
]
Bending stress [MPa]
Total
Normal
Change of stress
Construct
25
Figure 6-2. Hogging bending stress distribution according to Construct.
Figure 6-3.Bending stress distribution in sagging.
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Hei
ght
z [m
]
Bending stress [MPa]
Total
Normal
Change of stress
Construct
26
Figure 6-4. Sagging bending stress distribution according to Construct.
From Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-3, it can be seen that the ship’s superstructure is not fully
effective, which means that most of the loads are carried by the hull. The difference in the
Bleich method and Construct is well seen and the Construct results are declared more reliable,
as it uses coupled beam theory, which is a development of the Blecih method. The Bleich
method also shows the change of stress due to different hull and superstructure stiffness, as
the ship is not behaving as a beam. Construct results are more reliable also because of the
lower chance of error, as the modelling error probability is lower compared to analytical
calculation.
As mentioned previously, the ship is operating in hogging condition and, in that case, the
highest bending stresses occur in the bottom and in the strength deck. The maximum
compression stress is at the bottom with a value of 33,2 MPa. The stress reaches 0 around 3,2
m. The tensile stress reaches its maximum around 10,8 m, the location of strength deck, where
stress is 31,1 MPa. After that, stress starts to decrease and increases near the highest deck and
at top deck, the stress is 26,4 MPa.
The distribution in sagging is different, but the stresses in the bottom and top deck are the
same while the difference is near the strength deck where the stress is 10,1 MPa, the higher
stress is at deck 2, 14,4 MPa, but is smaller compared to hogging.
27
6.2 Shear stress
Shear stress distribution is done by using the DNV classification society rules (3).
Firstly, the still water and wave induced shear forces are calculated, which is presented in
Chapter 2.2.
Still water:
Sagging: [kN]
Hogging: [kN]
Wave induced: | | [kN]
The plate thickness requirement is given in DNV rules (3):
| ( ) |
[MPa] 6-13
From Equation 6-13 shear stress is disclosed:
| ( ) |
[MPa] 6-14
Where,
- shear force distribution factor, given in Table 6-1.
- shear force correction due to shear carrying by longitudinal bottom members ans
uneven transverse load distribution. As the value of is 0.
- first moment of area in [cm3] of the longitudinal material above or below the horizontal
neutral axis, taken about this axis.
- moment of inertia in [cm4] about the transverse neutral axis
Table 6-1. Shear force distribution factor
28
Shear stresses are calculated for each plate according to Equation 6-14. The calculations are
also done with Construct for comparison and results can been seen in Figure 6-6 and the shear
stress distribution in is presented in Figure 6-5.
Figure 6-5. Shear stress distribution.
Figure 6-6. Shear stress distribution according to Construct.
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
0 50 100 150 200 250
Hei
ght
[m]
Shear stress [MPa]
Hogging
Sagging
Construct
29
To the Figure 6-5 is plotted the vertical shear stress distribution. Only vertical shear stresses
are calculated, as they are much bigger when compared to the deck plating shear stresses. As
seen from Figure 6-5, shear stresses occurs as known from basic beam theory, which means,
in the bottom and top deck, the stresses are 0 and the highest stress occurs at neutral axis. Big
differences between Construct and DNV results are caused by the simplification of DNV rules
and also the aspect that acceptance of classification society should provide a quality of
structure that increases the values, as it assures a little over-dimensioned structure. The shear
stress distribution according to basic beam theory is a smooth curve, but as seen in Figure 6-5,
the distribution according to Construct is not. The non-smooth distribution is related to large
window openings in superstructure, which increases the shear stresses significantly and is
considered as one of the most challenging problems in modern cruise ships.
From DNV rules, it is known that the maximum allowed shear stress is [MPa]. In the
range where the maximum shear stress occurs, and the maximum allowed shear
stress is 110 [MPa]. The maximum shear stress is 46,3 [MPa], which means that the safety
factor taking only shear force into account is:
6-15
The safety factor shows that the shear stresses which occur in the side shells are in the
allowable range.
6.3 Stress comparison with rule limits
In the Chapter 4, the minimum structural element dimensions were calculated and these were
used in Construct calculations, as the stresses in structure was too high, the dimensions were
changed to reach optimal stress range. The structural elements must be calculated to local
strengths using given pressures (see Chapter 2). The response to local loading is calculated as
following:
From DNV (3), the section modulus of the longitudinals is calculated as the following:
[cm3] 6-16
from Equation 6-16 stress is derived:
[MPa] 6-17
30
The stress is calculated also for plates:
( )
( ) [MPa] 6-18
and girders:
[MPa] 6-19
The calculated stresses are compared with maximum allowable stresses according to DNV,
which is calculated as following:
Bottom
[MPa] 6-20
Inner bottom and decks
[MPa] 6-21
Side structures
[MPa] 6-22
The material factor in Equations 6-20 - 6-22 is taken according to material of the structure,
which are described in Chapter 3. The results are shown in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2. Stress comparison.
Dimensions
Bottom
Minimum DNV required thickness [mm]
Section modulus (DNV) [cm3]
Section modulus (beam theory) [cm3]
Stress [MPa]
Maximum allowable stress according to DNV [MPa]
Bottom plate 10 79 120
Keel plate 10 79 120
Bilge plate 13 79 120
Tank top plate 9 21 140
Floors 9 30 130
Longitudinal girder 9 30 130
Centre girder 11 20 130
Bottom longitudinals 7 171 194 113 160
Inner bottom longitudinals
7 53 80 90 160
Longitudinal girder and floor stiffeners
7 76 80 96 160
Side structures
Up to 7,8 [m]
Side plate 10 63 140
Side longitudinals 7 246 274 157 160
7,8 to 10,8 [m]
Side plate 10 10 140
Side longitudinals 7 12 32 63 160
10,8 to 13,8 [m]
Side plate 9 13 194.6
Side longitudinals 7 9 32 63 222.4
13,8 to 16,8 [m]
Side plate 8 16 194.6
31
Side longitudinals 7 9 33 61 222.4
16,8 to 22,8 [m]
Side plate 7 22 194.6
Side longitudinals 7 9 33 61 222.4
Deck structures
Deck 1 and 2
Deck plate 6 48 120
Deck longitudinals 7 21 33 137 160
Girders 7 113 116 155 160
Deck 3
Deck plate 6 25 120
Deck longitudinals 7 27 197 36 160
Girders 7 226 297 91 160
Deck 4
Deck plate 6 19 154
Deck longitudinals 7 15 34 91 205
Girders 7 82 106 170 205
Deck 5
Deck plate 6 24 154
Deck longitudinals 7 15 33 88 205
Girders 7 82 105 171 205
Deck 6 and 7
Deck plate 6 24 154
Deck longitudinals 7 15 83 35 205
Girders 7 82 297 61 205
7 Web frames
The ship’s main frame web-frames are divided into to two parts – the first is from the tank top
to Deck 2 and second part is from Deck 2 to the top deck.
Firstly, the web frames are calculated using DNV classification society rules ( (3), Section 7
C400).
The section modulus requirement is given by:
[cm3] 7-1
- as external pressure is used
- full length of frame including brackets
For first part [m]
For second part [m]
Calculated section modules are:
[cm3]
[cm3]
The section modulus values are calculated also using analytical beam theory, which is
described in Chapter 5, and the calculation table is shown in Appendix 5. Two different
effective breadths are used to calculate the section modulus, where differences come from the
32
length of the frame. This is first used as the length from the tank top to Deck 2 and the second
distance is from Deck 2 to the top deck. As classification society rules give the minimum
value of the section modulus, the section modulus calculated by analytical beam theory must
be higher than section modulus calculated according to DNV rules:
For first part T - beam 230 x 110 x 8 x 8 is chosen as: [cm3]
For second part T - beam 130 x 100 x 7 x 7 is chosen as: [cm3]
8 Critical buckling stress
Buckling stresses are calculated for four different cases for every plating: stiffener buckling
stress for compression, x – axis directional buckling for plate for compression, y – axis
directional buckling for plate for compression, and buckling stress for plate for shear stress.
All the buckling stresses are calculated according to Euler buckling equation taking Johnson’s
correction into account when
. For shear stresses, the yield stress is defined as
√ . Critical buckling stresses are calculated for every deck and, in this estimation,
the side shell buckling and double bottom longitudinal girder buckling are not calculated.
Results are presented in Table 8-1. In locations where buckling stress varies, the smallest
value is taken because it defines the critical stress. All calculation tables are presented in
Appendix 6.
8.1 Johnson correction
(
) [MPa] 8-1
Where,
- critical buckling stress according to Euler
8.2 Stiffener buckling
Stiffener critical buckling stress is calculated taking also the plate into account and is
calculated as follows:
[MPa] 8-2
Where,
- stiffener lenght [m]
33
Deck girders are considered as I – beams and the same formula is used to calculate the
buckling stress for those structural members.
8.3 Plate buckling in compression
In plate buckling, a corrosion factor added in Chapter 4 is disunited because it has no
resistance in buckling. Plate buckling is calculated as following:
(
)
[MPa] 8-3
Where,
- load buckling coefficient which depends on the boundary conditions. In both cases ,
as the plate is clamped
- plate breath perpendicular to stress in [m]
8.4 Plate buckling in shear stress
The ideal elastic buckling stress may be taken as:
(
)
[MPa] 8-4
Where,
(
)
8-5
Where,
- shortest side of plate
- longest side of plate
8.5 Usage factor
The usage factor is defined as the ratio between the actual value of the reference stress due to
design loading and the critical value of the reference stress.
The usage factor is presented in Table 8-1 and is calculated as:
8-6
Where,
- actual compression maximum stress, calculated in previous assignment by Bleich method
- critical buckling stress, minimum of buckling stress calculated using equations presented
in previous chapters.
- actual maximum shear stress, calculated in previous assignment.
- critical buckling stress, due to shear moment
34
8.6 Results
In Table 8-1, the critical buckling stresses are presented, which are calculated according to
Equations 8-1 to 8-4 and usage factors using Equation 8-6.
Table 8-1. Critical buckling stresses
σel.stiff σx.plate σy.plate txy.plate σel.girder txy.girder Bending stress [MPa]
Shear stress [MPa]
Usage factor (compression)
Usage factor (shear)
Bottom 247.1 212.7 212.7 138.8 33.2 0.0 0.2 0.0
Tank top
217.8 200.5 200.5 135.5 17.0 10.0 0.1 0.1
Deck 1 138.9 114.3 114.3 111.6 228.2 151.7 3.5 21.0 0.0 0.2
Deck 2 138.9 114.3 114.3 111.6 228.2 151.7 11.2 26.0 0.1 0.2
Deck 3 247.6 147.4 147.4 121.3 253.8 151.0 9.9 38.0 0.1 0.3
Deck 4 139.3 114.3 114.3 130.7 223.1 151.7 11.8 43.0 0.1 0.4
Deck 5 156.5 84.0 84.0 103.9 226.8 151.7 12.4 35.0 0.1 0.3
Deck 6 281.3 84.0 84.0 103.9 255.3 151.0 19.8 26.0 0.2 0.3
Deck 7 281.3 84.0 84.0 103.9 255.3 151.0 26.4 0.0 0.3 0.0
As seen from the usage factors, the buckling risk in the structure is very low; the acting
bending and shear stress is around 3 times smaller in critical areas than critical buckling
stress.
9 Ultimate strength
Ultimate strength is calculated using Construct and first fibre criterion. Results are shown in
Figure 9-1.
9.1 First fibre yield
The first fibre yield criterion means that elastic moment of structure is calculated according to
material yield stress and the criterion is fulfilled when the moment does not exceed the design
moment. The most critical locations for yielding are top deck in case of hogging and bottom
in case of sagging. First fibre criterion is calculated with the following:
[Nm] 9-1
Where,
- elastic section modulus
First fibre yield moment in top: [MNm]
First fibre yield moment in bottom: [MNm]
The moments calculated using Equation 9-1 are significantly higher compared to the design
moment, which is calculated according to DNV (see Chapter 2.2), therefore, it can be said that
the yielding criterion is fulfilled.
35
9.2 First fibre buckling
First fibre buckling criterion means that elastic moment of structure is calculated according to
structure critical buckling stress and the criterion is fulfilled when the moment does not
exceed the design moment. The most critical locations for yielding are the top deck in case of
sagging and bottom in case of hogging. The critical buckling stresses are presented in Table
8-1. First fibre buckling criterion is calculated with the equation:
[Nm] 9-2
Where,
- elastic section modulus
First fibre yield moment in top: [MNm]
First fibre yield moment in bottom: [MNm]
The moments calculated using Equation 9-2 are significantly higher compared to design
moment, which is calculated according to DNV (see Chapter 2.2) and it can therefore be said
that the buckling criterion is fulfilled.
9.3 Construct results
Figure 9-1. Ultimate strength according to Construct.
As seen in Figure 9-1, the Construct ultimate strength calculation results exceed the design
moment. The margin between the maximum moment and design moment is sufficient to
provide structural reliability.
The maximum moment that the structure can respond to is calculated with Construct and is
around two times lower compared to first fibre criterions. The reason for this difference may
be errors in modelling or errors in calculation tables. Construct results are more reliable
-600-500-400-300-200-100
0100200300400500600
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
ME [MNm]
ε [mm]
Construct ultimate strengthresults
Design moment
36
because they take into consideration the fact that the minimum thickness and section modulus
requirements has to be fulfilled, which lowers the section modulus for first fibre criterions.
10 Natural frequencies of plates, stiffeners and girders
Natural frequencies of plates, stiffeners, and girders are calculated using formulas which are
presented in the lecture notes and in the calculations, a plate is coupled with a stiffener or
girder according to the certain structure part. It is also assumed that the boundary conditions
are clamped, which means all six degrees of freedom are fixed from both sides. So, as the
plate is coupled with the stiffener, for example, it is acting as a beam and therefore the
eigenfrequency equation for beams is used:
√
[rad/s] 10-1
Where
- value corresponding to the first mode of oscillation
[kg/m3] - density of steel
- length
As the is circular natural frequency, its unit is rad/s, so in the calculation it is divided by
and the unit becomes Hz. All of the calculations and results can be seen tables which are in
Appendix 6.
The frequency range is the biggest on the strength deck and the lowest on deck as can be seen
in Table 10-1. There will be no threat of resonance due to the fact that possible locations for
that are not near each other and, for example, this particular ship frequency caused by
machinery and shaft are relatively smaller than the structure frequency. They fall within a
range of 2 -17 Hz.
Table 10-1. Frequency ranges
Location Frequency range [Hz]
Bottom 36 - 75
Tank Top 43
Strength Deck 25 - 87
Deck 27 - 52
Side 23 - 84
Web Frame 16 - 75
37
11 Torsion problems
Torsion is not overly severe in passenger ships, as these do not have large opening in the
deck, unlike container ships. Still, torsion is an issue which has to be considered in the design
stage. In this particular ship, the following things can be done to prevent torsion:
add material to the places where torsion effect can be most effectively prevented, in the
corners of superstructure and hull
double side “torsion boxes”
applying transverse bulkheads to increase cross sectional area in dangerous areas
12 Vibratory levels
The most common sources of vibration excitation are propellers and main machinery. All
vibration is undesirable. It can be unpleasant for people on board and can be harmful to
equipment. It must be reduced as much as possible but it cannot be entirely eliminated.
Vibrations may occur due to various excitations:
Machinery and systems
Wave-induced
Global hull girder vibrations:
Vertical bending
Horizontal bending
Torsion
Longitudinal
Local vibrations:
Decks and bulkheads
Superstructure
Measures to control vibratory levels:
Supporting machinery with special foundations. This is especially important for main
engines and other large equipment. The foundation will dampen the vibrations created by
machinery.
Wave induced vibrations can be controlled by adding stiffness to structure, as it increases
the section modulus and therefore creates better response to bending and other loads.
38
One of the main vibration producers is also the cavitation effect caused by the propeller,
therefore, the propeller has to be designed properly and good flow has to be ensured to
prevent vibrations.
Although this particular ship does not have long shaft line, it should still be supported
correctly with bearing to decrease vibrations.
To avoid vibrations in the superstructure, resonance should be avoided by changing the
stiffness of components or varying the exciting frequencies.
13 Fatigue analysis
At this stage, it is assumed that the operating time of this particular ship is 20 years and the
most critical structure for fatigue would be a welded joint of the bottom plate under maximum
compression stress if considering the hogging condition. At this design stage, the fatigue
analysis is made for one part of the structure only, where normal stress is largest. The
maximum normal stress caused by bending for the bottom is 33,2 MPa.
Fatigue is calculated according to DNV rules and defined by applying Weibull distribution for
the different load conditions and a one slope S-N curve is used. The fatigue damage is given
by:
∑
(
)
13-1
where
- total number load condition considered,
- fraction of design life in load condition,
- design life of a ship in seconds,
- Weibull stress range shape distribution parameter for load condition n,
- Weibull stress range scale distribution parameter for load condition n,
- long term average response zero-crossing frequency,
- S-N fatigue parameter,
(
) - gamma function,
- usage factor which is defined as =1.
39
The design life of ship is second during 20 years:
[s] 13-2
The Weibull scale parameter is defined from the stress range level , as
( )
13-3
where
is stress range for bottom plating which is most critical and calculated as following:
( ) [MPa] 13-4
- number of cycles over time period for which the stress range level , is
defined ,
- Weibull stress range shape distribution parameter for load condition n can be calculated
as following:
( ) 13-5
In simplified fatigue calculations, the zero value-crossing frequency may be taken as:
( )
13-6
The value for the gamma function (
) can be calculated or found from the DNV
rulebook. [ (6), Table G-1]. In this case the gamma value is:
(
) 13-7
where
- S-N fatigue parameter,
Another fatigue parameter from the S-N curve is air condition and for the welded joint is
taken from Table 13-1.
40
Table 13-1. S-N parameters
Thus, fatigue damage according to Equation 13-1 is as the following:
∑
(
)
,
According to the results, the fatigue criterion is fulfilled if considering DNV rules, withs D<1.
This means that the fatigue resistance of the bottom plating is sufficient.
41
14 Bibliography
1. Bannerman, David B. and Jan, Hsein Y. Analysis and Design of Principal Hull Structure.
[book auth.] Robert Taggart. Ship Design and Constuction. New York : The Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers, 1980.
2. Kujala, Pentti. General Arrangement and Cargo Handling. Ship Conseptual Design lecture
notes. 2012.
3. DNV. Hull Structural Design, Ships with Length 100 metres and above. Rules for
Classification of Ships. 2012.
4. Okumoto, Yasushia, et al., et al. Design of Ship Hull Structures. Berlin : Springer, 2009.
5. Bleich, H. H. Nonlinear distribution of bending stresses due to distortion of the cross
section. Journal of Applied Mechanics 29. 1952, pp. 94-104.
6. Fatigue Assessment of Ship Structures. DNV Rules for Classification of Ships.
Main fram
e characteristics (fram
e #45)
AR
IA
NN
A
Ship P
roject A
1:100
A3
07
.1
2.2
01
3N
elis
07
.1
2.2
01
3R
osen
6-1
℄
TANK TOP
10800
13800
16800
19800
DECK 6
DECK 5
DECK 4
DECK 3
DECK 2
7800
DECK 1
4800
22800
DECK 7
3300
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
600600
3000 3000
9000
1500
500500
1000
1500
6000 6000
18000
500
500
600
34 x 600 =
20400
1500
750
795
200
1200
890
Detail C
1:20
Ma
te
ria
ls:
Hu
ll stru
cture
s N
V-N
S
Su
pe
rstru
cture
N
V-36
C
B
Detail B
1:20
Detail A
1:20
A
MFBMFB
PA
SS
EN
GE
R LIF
TS
1,2
PA
SS
EN
GE
R S
TA
IR
S
SE
RV
IC
E LIF
T 1 A
ND
S
ER
VIC
E S
TA
IR
S
PA
SS
EN
GE
R S
TA
IR
S
PA
SS
EN
GE
R LIF
TS
3,4
SE
RV
IC
E LIF
T 2 A
ND
S
ER
VIC
E S
TA
IR
S
NAVIGATION BRIDGEOFFICER ACC.
OBSERVATION LOUNGESPA AND GYMPOOL AREA
SUN DECK
CASUAL RESTAURANT
SHOW LOUNGE AND BAR
MAIN DINING ROOM
MAIN GALLEY AND PROVISIONS
GALLEY
MOORING
PASSENGER ACC.
PASSENGER ACC.
PASSENGER ACC.
PASSENGER ACC.
PASSENGER ACC.
PASSENGER ACC.
PASSENGER ACC.
PASSENGER ACC.
PUBLIC SPACE AND EVACUATION
PUBLIC SPACE AND EVACUATION
PUBLIC SPACE AND EVACUATION
PUBLIC AND OFFICE SPACES
PROVISIONSPROVISIONS AND MACHINERY
STORAGEPOOL BAR
FUNNEL
MAST
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 900 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Aalto University
School of Engineering
Marine Technology
Location of bulkheads
ARIANNA
Ship Project A
A3
07.12.2013Nelis
07.12.2013Rosen
6-2
Machinery room
(fram
e #66)
AR
IA
NN
A
Ship P
roject A
1:100
A3
07
.1
2.2
01
3N
elis
07
.1
2.2
01
3R
osen
6-3
Un
marke
d dim
en
sion
s
are
take
n sam
e a
s in
ma
in
fra
me
℄
Thickness 45 mm
Thickness 20 mm
Thickness 14 mm
600
690
500
597
3570
Plate 7 mm
Longitudinal HP 140x10
600600
TANK TOP
10800
13800
16800
19800
DECK 6
DECK 5
DECK 4
DECK 3
DECK 2
7800
22800
DECK 7
WL
570
Structural elem
ents dim
ensions
AR
IA
NN
A
Ship P
roject A
1:100
A3
07
.1
2.2
01
3N
elis
07
.1
2.2
01
3R
osen
6-4
℄
TANK TOP
10800
13800
16800
19800
DECK 6
DECK 5
DECK 4
DECK 3
DECK 2
7800
DECK 1
4800
22800
DECK 7
WL
Centre girder 1500x11
Longitudinal girders 7 mm
Floors 7 mm
Stiffeners HP 140x10
Tank top longitudinals HP 140x8Tank top plate 9 mm
Keel plating 13 mm
Deck plate 6 mm
T-Beam 210x120x8x8
Deck longitudinals HP 100x7
Deck plate 8 mm
T-Beam 340x150x8x8
Deck longitudinals HP 200x10
Transverse
T-Beam 340x150x8x8
Transverse
T-Beam 200x120x8x8
Side plate 10 mm
Side longitudinals HP 100x7
Side plate 10 mm
Side longitudinals HP 220x12
Web frame 130x100x7x7
Web frame 230x110x8x8
Deck plate 6 mm
T-Beam 210x120x8x8
Deck longitudinals HP 100x7
Deck plate 7 mm
T-Beam 200x120x8x8
Deck longitudinals HP 100x7
Deck plate 6 mm
T-Beam 200x120x8x8
Deck longitudinals HP 100x7
Deck plate 6 mm
T-Beam 340x150x8x8
Deck longitudinals HP 140x7
Deck plate 6 mm
T-Beam 340x150x8x8
Deck longitudinals HP 140x10
Side plate 9 mm
Side longitudinals HP 100x7
Side plate 8 mm
Side longitudinals HP 100x7
Side plate 7 mm
Side longitudinals HP 100x7
D110
Bottom plate 10 mm
Bilge plate 10 mm
Bottom longitudinals HP 200x10
D220
CH 150x10
CH 150x10
CH 180x10
CH 180x10
CH 150x10
CH 180x10
CH 180x10
46
Appendix 5 - Material grades and classes
Table 1. Material classes (3)
Table 2. Material classes and grades for ships in general (3)
Appendix 5 - Analytical beam calculation tables
Plate thickness [m]
Bottom 0.01
Keel 0.013
Tank top 0.009
Strength deck 0.008
Deck 0.006 Materials Tank top 1.5
Side 1 0.01 Eref 210 265 MPa 152.9978213 Deck1 4.8
Side 2 0.009 k 4.73 for beam 355 MPa 204.9593456 Deck 2 7.8
Side 3 0.008 a 3 m Deck 3 10.8
Side 4 0.007 E 2.10E+11 Deck 4 13.8
Centre girder 0.011 Deck 5 16.8
Long. girder 0.007 Deck 6 19.8
Bilge 0.01 Deck 7 22.8
Part Pcs E Effective breadth Calculated, b Height N.A Area 1. Moment 2. Moment Steiner
n be b=E/Eref*be h el A=n*b*h S=A*el I0=n*b*h3/12 Is=A*e2
[-] [-] [Gpa] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m2] [m3] [m4] [m4]
Bottom Plate 1 210 0.5 0.5 0.01 0.005 5.00E-03 2.50E-05 4.17E-08 1.25E-07
HP 200x10 1 210 0 0.2 0.119 2.57E-03 3.05E-04 1.02E-05 3.63E-05
Total 7.57E-03 3.30E-04 1.02E-05 3.65E-05
Entire cross-section
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 4.37E-02 m
Elements, Io.tot 1.02E-05 m4
Elements, Is.tot 3.65E-05 m4
In 4.67E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 3.23E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 75.33 Hz
el.stiff 247.11 MPa
x.plate 212.75 MPa k 4
y.plate 212.75 MPa k 4
xy.plate 138.80 MPa k 5.451
Ztop 1.94E-04 m3 194.06 cm3 From rules: 171 cm3
Zbot 7.39E-04 m3 739.29 cm3 739289.1565
Longitudinal girders Plate 1 210 0.44 0.44 0.009 0.22 3.96E-03 8.71E-04 2.67E-08 1.92E-04
Girder 1 1 210 0.007 0.007 1.415 0.4435 9.91E-03 4.39E-03 1.65E-03 1.95E-03
Plate 1 210 0.44 0.44 0.01 0.667 4.40E-03 2.93E-03 3.67E-08 1.96E-03
Total 1.83E-02 8.20E-03 1.65E-03 4.10E-03
Entire cross-section b 0.44
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 0.4489 m r> 6
Elements, Io.tot 0.0017 m4 a 3
Elements, Is.tot 0.0041 m4 a/b 6.82
In 0.0058 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot C 1
I 0.0021 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot be 0.44
Eigenfreuqency 615.87 Hz
Ztop 0.0021 m3 2101.08 cm3
Zbot 0.0046 m3 4611.00 cm3
Plate 1 210 0.55 0.539 0.009 0.0045 4.85E-03 2.18E-05 3.27E-08 9.82E-08
Girder 2 1 210 0.007 0.007 1.313 0.6655 9.19E-03 6.12E-03 1.32E-03 4.07E-03
Plate 1 210 0.55 0.539 0.01 1.327 5.39E-03 7.15E-03 4.49E-08 9.49E-03
Total 1.94E-02 1.33E-02 1.32E-03 1.36E-02
Entire cross-section b 0.55
r> 6
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 0.6840 m a 3
Elements, Io.tot 0.0013 m4 a/b 5.45
Elements, Is.tot 0.0136 m4 C 0.98
In 0.0149 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot be 0.539
I 0.0058 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfreuqency 533.71 Hz
Ztop 0.0089 m3 8937.80 cm3
Zbot 0.0085 m3 8468.07 cm3
Plate 1 210 0.56 0.5488 0.009 0.0045 4.94E-03 2.22E-05 3.33E-08 1.00E-07
Girder 3 1 210 0.007 0.007 1.208 0.613 8.46E-03 5.18E-03 1.03E-03 3.18E-03
Plate 1 210 0.56 0.5488 0.01 1.222 5.49E-03 6.71E-03 4.57E-08 8.20E-03
Total 1.89E-02 1.19E-02 1.03E-03 1.14E-02
Entire cross-section b 0.56
r> 6
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 0.6308 m a 3
Elements, Io.tot 0.0010 m4 a/b 5.36
Elements, Is.tot 0.0114 m4 C 0.98
In 0.0124 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot be 0.549
I 0.0049 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfreuqency 477.79 Hz
Ztop 0.0082 m3 8196.68 cm3
Zbot 0.0077 m3 7746.32 cm3
Plate 1 210 0.66 0.6336 0.009 0.0045 5.70E-03 2.57E-05 3.85E-08 1.15E-07
Girder 4 1 210 0.007 0.007 1.075 0.5465 7.53E-03 4.11E-03 7.25E-04 2.25E-03
Plate 1 210 0.66 0.6336 0.01 1.089 6.34E-03 6.90E-03 5.28E-08 7.51E-03
Total 1.96E-02 1.10E-02 7.25E-04 9.76E-03
Entire cross-section b 0.66
r> 6
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 0.5642 m a 3
Elements, Io.tot 0.0007 m4 a/b 4.55
Elements, Is.tot 0.0098 m4 C 0.96
In 0.0105 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot be 0.634
I 0.0043 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfreuqency 394.07 Hz
Ztop 0.0080 m3 8038.19 cm3
Zbot 0.0075 m3 7547.66 cm3
Plate 1 210 0.5 0.5 0.013 0.0065 6.50E-03 4.23E-05 9.15E-08 2.75E-07
Keel HP 200x10 1 210 0 0.2 0.119 2.57E-03 3.05E-04 1.02E-05 3.63E-05
Total 9.07E-03 3.48E-04 1.03E-05 3.66E-05
Entire cross-section
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 3.83E-02 m
Elements, Io.tot 1.03E-05 m4
Elements, Is.tot 3.66E-05 m4
In 4.69E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 3.36E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 68.98 Hz
el.stiff 244.39 MPa
x.plate 234.08 MPa k 4
y.plate 234.08 MPa k 4
xy.plate 144.60 MPa k 5.451
Ztop 1.92E-04 m3 192.24 cm3 From rules: 171 cm3
Zbot 8.76E-04 m3 875.70 cm3
Centre girder Plate 1 210 0.44 0.44 0.009 0.0045 3.96E-03 1.78E-05 2.67E-08 8.02E-08
Girder 1 210 0.011 0.011 1.5 0.759 1.65E-02 1.25E-02 3.09E-03 9.51E-03
Plate 1 210 0.44 0.44 0.013 1.5155 5.72E-03 8.67E-03 8.06E-08 1.31E-02
Total 2.62E-02 2.12E-02 3.09E-03 2.26E-02
Entire cross-section b 0.44
r> 6
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 0.8102 m a 3
Elements, Io.tot 0.0031 m4 a/b 6.82
Elements, Is.tot 0.0226 m4 C 1
In 0.0257 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot be 0.44
I 0.0086 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfreuqency 703.82 Hz
Ztop 0.0120 m3 12015.56 cm3
Zbot 0.0106 m3 10557.37 cm3
Plate 1 210 0.75 0.75 0.012 0.006 9.00E-03 5.40E-05 1.08E-07 3.24E-07Keel girder with
stiffener HP 140x10 1 210 0 0.14 0.0792 1.66E-03 1.32E-04 3.16E-06 1.04E-05
Total 1.07E-02 1.86E-04 3.27E-06 1.08E-05
Entire cross-section
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 1.74E-02 m
Elements, Io.tot 3.27E-06 m4
Elements, Is.tot 1.08E-05 m4
In 1.40E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 1.08E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 35.84 Hz
el.stiff 189.58 MPa
x.plate 183.36 MPa k 4
y.plate 183.36 MPa k 4
xy.plate 131.36 MPa k 5.590
Ztop 8.02E-05 m3 80.17 cm3 From rules: 76 cm3
Zbot 6.19E-04 m3 619.48 cm3
Plate 1 210 0.7075 0.7075 0.012 0.006 8.49E-03 5.09E-05 1.02E-07 3.06E-07Girder 1 withstiffener HP 140x10 1 210 0 0.14 0.0792 1.66E-03 1.32E-04 3.16E-06 1.04E-05
Total 1.02E-02 1.83E-04 3.26E-06 1.07E-05
Entire cross-section
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 1.80E-02 m
Elements, Io.tot 3.26E-06 m4
Elements, Is.tot 1.07E-05 m4
In 1.40E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 1.07E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 36.70 Hz
el.stiff 192.68 MPa
x.plate 192.35 MPa k 4
y.plate 192.35 MPa k 4
xy.plate 133.65 MPa k 5.562
Ztop 7.99E-05 m3 79.94 cm3 From rules: 76 cm3
Zbot 5.96E-04 m3 595.51 cm3
Plate 1 210 0.6565 0.6565 0.012 0.006 7.88E-03 4.73E-05 9.45E-08 2.84E-07Girder 2 withstiffener HP 140x10 1 210 0 0.14 0.0792 1.66E-03 1.32E-04 3.16E-06 1.04E-05
Total 9.54E-03 1.79E-04 3.25E-06 1.07E-05
Entire cross-section
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 1.88E-02 m
Elements, Io.tot 3.25E-06 m4
Elements, Is.tot 1.07E-05 m4
In 1.40E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 1.06E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 37.81 Hz
el.stiff 196.39 MPa
x.plate 202.45 MPa k 4
y.plate 202.45 MPa k 4
xy.plate 136.24 MPa k 5.532
Ztop 7.96E-05 m3 79.65 cm3 From rules: 76 cm3
Zbot 5.66E-04 m3 565.72 cm3
Plate 1 210 0.604 0.604 0.012 0.006 7.25E-03 4.35E-05 8.70E-08 2.61E-07Girder 3 withstiffener HP 140x10 1 210 0 0.14 0.0792 1.66E-03 1.32E-04 3.16E-06 1.04E-05
Total 8.91E-03 1.75E-04 3.25E-06 1.07E-05
Entire cross-section
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 1.97E-02 m
Elements, Io.tot 3.25E-06 m4
Elements, Is.tot 1.07E-05 m4
In 1.39E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 1.05E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 39.08 Hz
el.stiff 200.20 MPa
x.plate 212.05 MPa k 4
y.plate 212.05 MPa k 4
xy.plate 138.74 MPa k 5.502
Ztop 7.93E-05 m3 79.30 cm3 From rules: 76 cm3
Zbot 5.34E-04 m3 533.79 cm3
Plate 1 210 0.5375 0.5375 0.012 0.006 6.45E-03 3.87E-05 7.74E-08 2.32E-07Girder 4 withstiffener HP 140x10 1 210 0 0.14 0.0792 1.66E-03 1.32E-04 3.16E-06 1.04E-05
Total 8.11E-03 1.70E-04 3.24E-06 1.07E-05
Entire cross-section
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 2.10E-02 m
Elements, Io.tot 3.24E-06 m4
Elements, Is.tot 1.07E-05 m4
In 1.39E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 1.03E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 40.90 Hz
el.stiff 205.02 MPa
x.plate 223.07 MPa k 4
y.plate 223.07 MPa k 4
xy.plate 141.64 MPa k 5.468
Ztop 7.88E-05 m3 78.79 cm3 From rules: 76 cm3
Zbot 4.91E-04 m3 491.40 cm3
Plate 1 210 0.5 0.5 0.01 0.005 5.00E-03 2.50E-05 4.17E-08 1.25E-07
Bilge HP 200x10 1 210 0 0.2 0.119 2.57E-03 3.05E-04 1.02E-05 3.63E-05
Total 7.57E-03 3.30E-04 1.02E-05 3.65E-05
Entire cross-section
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 4.37E-02 m
Elements, Io.tot 1.02E-05 m4
Elements, Is.tot 3.65E-05 m4
In 4.67E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 3.23E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 75.33 Hz
el.stiff 247.11 MPa
x.plate 212.75 MPa k 4
y.plate 212.75 MPa k 4
xy.plate 138.80 MPa k 5.451
Ztop 1.94E-04 m3 194.06 cm3
Zbot 7.39E-04 m3 739.29 cm3
Part Pcs E Effective breadth Calculated, b Height N.A Area 1. Moment 2. Moment Steinern be b=E/Eref*be h el A=n*b*h S=A*el I0=n*b*h3/12 Is=A*e2
[-] [-] [Gpa] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m2] [m3] [m4] [m4]Tank top Plate 1 210 0.5 0.5 0.009 0.0045 4.50E-03 2.03E-05 3.04E-08 9.11E-08
HP 140x10 1 210 0 0.14 0.0792 1.66E-03 1.32E-04 3.16E-06 1.04E-05Total 6.16E-03 1.52E-04 3.19E-06 1.05E-05
Entire cross-sectionNeutral axis, bending, e=S/A 2.47E-02 mElements, Io.tot 3.19E-06 m4Elements, Is.tot 1.05E-05 m4In 1.37E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 9.97E-06 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 46.58 Hzel.stiff 217.81 MPa 0.000218 MPax.plate 200.49 MPa k 4y.plate 200.49 MPa k 4xy.plate 135.47 MPa k 5.451
Ztop 8.01E-05 m3 80.15 cm3 From rules: 53 cm3Zbot 4.04E-04 m3 404.19 cm3
Part Pcs E Effective breadth Calculated, b Height N.A Area 1. Moment 2. Moment Steinern be b=E/Eref*be h el A=n*b*h S=A*el I0=n*b*h3/12 Is=A*e2
[-] [-] [Gpa] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m2] [m3] [m4] [m4]Strength deck Plate 1 210 0.6 0.6 0.008 0.004 4.80E-03 1.92E-05 2.56E-08 7.68E-08
HP 200x10 1 210 0 0.2 0.119 2.57E-03 3.05E-04 1.02E-05 3.63E-05Total 7.37E-03 3.25E-04 1.02E-05 3.64E-05
Entire cross-section
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 4.41E-02 mElements, Io.tot 1.02E-05 m4Elements, Is.tot 3.64E-05 m4In 4.66E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 3.23E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 76.28 Hzel.stiff 247.62 MPax.plate 147.44 MPa k 4y.plate 147.44 MPa k 4xy.plate 121.33 MPa k 5.5
Ztop 1.97E-04 m3 197.26 cm3 From rules: 27 cm3Zbot 7.34E-04 m3 733.97 cm3
T-profile 340x8 Plate 1 210 3 1.2 0.008 0.004 9.60E-03 3.84E-05 5.12E-08 1.54E-07
Flange 150 x 8 1 210 0.15 0.15 0.008 0.012 1.20E-03 1.44E-05 6.40E-09 1.73E-07Web 332 x8 1 210 0.008 0.008 0.332 0.182 2.66E-03 4.83E-04 2.44E-05 8.80E-05
Total 1.35E-02 5.36E-04 2.45E-05 8.83E-05Entire cross-section b 3
r> 6Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 3.98E-02 m a 3Elements, Io.tot 2.45E-05 m4 a/b 1Elements, Is.tot 8.83E-05 m4 C 0.4In 1.13E-04 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot be 1.2I 9.14E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 87.28 Hzel.stiff 253.76 MPax.plate 257.65 MPa k 4y.plate 257.65 MPa k 4xy.plate 150.96 MPa k 5.35
Ztop 2.97E-04 m3 296.58 cm3 From rules: 226 cm3Zbot 2.29E-03 m3 2293.51 cm3
Part Pcs E Effective breadth Calculated, b Height N.A Area 1. Moment 2. Moment Steinern be b=E/Eref*be h el A=n*b*h S=A*el I0=n*b*h3/12 Is=A*e2
[-] [-] [Gpa] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m2] [m3] [m4] [m4]Deck 1 and 2 Plate 1 210 0.6 0.6 0.007 0.0035 4.20E-03 1.47E-05 1.72E-08 5.15E-08
HP 100x7 1 210 0 0.1 0.0587 8.74E-04 5.13E-05 8.50E-07 3.01E-06Total 5.07E-03 6.60E-05 8.67E-07 3.06E-06
Entire cross-section
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 1.30E-02 mElements, Io.tot 8.67E-07 m4Elements, Is.tot 3.06E-06 m4In 3.93E-06 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 3.07E-06 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 26.76 Hzel.stiff 138.94 MPax.plate 114.33 MPa k 4y.plate 114.33 MPa k 4xy.plate 111.64 MPa k 5.5
Ztop 3.27E-05 m3 32.68 cm3 From rules: 20 cm3Zbot 2.36E-04 m3 236.12 cm3
T-profile 200x8x120x8 Plate 1 210 3 1.2 0.007 0.0035 8.40E-03 2.94E-05 3.43E-08 1.03E-07Flange 120 x 8 1 210 0.12 0.12 0.008 0.011 9.60E-04 1.06E-05 5.12E-09 1.16E-07Web 202 x 8 1 210 0.008 0.008 0.202 0.116 1.62E-03 1.87E-04 5.49E-06 2.17E-05
Total 1.10E-02 2.27E-04 5.53E-06 2.20E-05Entire cross-section b 3
r> 6Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 2.07E-02 m a 3Elements, Io.tot 5.53E-06 m4 a/b 1Elements, Is.tot 2.20E-05 m4 C 0.4In 2.75E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot be 1.2I 2.28E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 45.97 Hzel.stiff 228.24 MPax.plate 260.30 MPa k 4y.plate 260.30 MPa k 4xy.plate 151.69 MPa k 5.346
Ztop 1.16E-04 m3 116.09 cm3 From rules: 113 cm3Zbot 1.10E-03 m3 1099.76 cm3
Part Pcs E Effective breadth Calculated, b Height N.A Area 1. Moment 2. Moment Steinern be b=E/Eref*be h el A=n*b*h S=A*el I0=n*b*h3/12 Is=A*e2
[-] [-] [Gpa] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m2] [m3] [m4] [m4]Deck 4 Plate 1 210 0.6 0.6 0.007 0.0035 4.20E-03 1.47E-05 1.72E-08 5.15E-08
HP 100x7 1 210 0 0.1 0.0587 8.74E-04 5.13E-05 8.50E-07 3.01E-06Total 5.07E-03 6.60E-05 8.67E-07 3.06E-06
Entire cross-section
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 1.30E-02 mElements, Io.tot 8.67E-07 m4Elements, Is.tot 3.06E-06 m4In 3.93E-06 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 3.07E-06 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 26.76 Hzel.stiff 139.26 MPax.plate 114.33 MPa k 4y.plate 114.33 MPa k 4xy.plate 130.73 MPa k 5.5
Ztop 3.27E-05 m3 32.68 cm3 From rules: 15 cm3Zbot 2.36E-04 m3 236.12 cm3
T-profile 240x8 Plate 1 210 3 1.2 0.007 0.0035 8.40E-03 2.94E-05 3.43E-08 1.03E-07Flange 120 x 8 1 210 0.12 0.12 0.008 0.011 9.60E-04 1.06E-05 5.12E-09 1.16E-07Web 192 x 8 1 210 0.008 0.008 0.192 0.111 1.54E-03 1.70E-04 4.72E-06 1.89E-05
Total 1.09E-02 2.10E-04 4.76E-06 1.91E-05Entire cross-section b 3
r> 6Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 1.93E-02 m a 3Elements, Io.tot 4.76E-06 m4 a/b 1Elements, Is.tot 1.91E-05 m4 C 0.4In 2.39E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot be 1.2I 1.98E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 42.78 Hzel.stiff 223.08 MPax.plate 260.30 MPa k 4y.plate 260.30 MPa k 4xy.plate 151.69 MPa k 5.346
Ztop 1.06E-04 m3 105.69 cm3 From rules: 82 cm3Zbot 1.03E-03 m3 1027.04 cm3
Deck 5 Plate 1 210 0.6 0.6 0.006 0.003 3.60E-03 1.08E-05 1.08E-08 3.24E-08HP 100x7 1 210 0 0.1 0.0587 8.74E-04 5.13E-05 8.50E-07 3.01E-06
Total 4.47E-03 6.21E-05 8.61E-07 3.04E-06Entire cross-section
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 1.39E-02 mElements, Io.tot 8.61E-07 m4Elements, Is.tot 3.04E-06 m4In 3.90E-06 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 3.04E-06 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 28.40 Hzel.stiff 156.46 MPax.plate 84.00 MPa k 4y.plate 84.00 MPa k 4xy.plate 103.93 MPa k 5.5
Ztop 3.30E-05 m3 33.03 cm3 From rules: 14 cm3Zbot 2.19E-04 m3 219.20 cm3
T-profile 240x8 Plate 1 210 3 1.2 0.006 0.003 7.20E-03 2.16E-05 2.16E-08 6.48E-08Flange 120 x 8 1 210 0.12 0.12 0.008 0.01 9.60E-04 9.60E-06 5.12E-09 9.60E-08Web 192 x 8 1 210 0.008 0.008 0.192 0.11 1.54E-03 1.69E-04 4.72E-06 1.86E-05
Total 9.70E-03 2.00E-04 4.75E-06 1.87E-05Entire cross-section b 3
r> 6Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 2.06E-02 m a 3Elements, Io.tot 4.75E-06 m4 a/b 1Elements, Is.tot 1.87E-05 m4 C 0.4In 2.35E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot be 1.2I 1.94E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 45.29 Hzel.stiff 226.78 MPax.plate 260.30 MPa k 4y.plate 260.30 MPa k 4xy.plate 151.69 MPa k 5.346
Ztop 1.04E-04 m3 104.45 cm3 From rules: 82 cm3Zbot 9.38E-04 m3 937.81 cm3
Part Pcs E Effective breadth Calculated, b Height N.A Area 1. Moment 2. Moment Steinern be b=E/Eref*be h el A=n*b*h S=A*el I0=n*b*h3/12 Is=A*e2
[-] [-] [Gpa] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m2] [m3] [m4] [m4]Decks 6 and 7 Plate 1 210 0.6 0.6 0.006 0.003 3.60E-03 1.08E-05 1.08E-08 3.24E-08
HP 140x10 1 210 0 0.14 0.0792 1.66E-03 1.32E-04 3.16E-06 1.04E-05Total 5.26E-03 1.43E-04 3.17E-06 1.05E-05
Entire cross-section
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 2.71E-02 mElements, Io.tot 3.17E-06 m4Elements, Is.tot 1.05E-05 m4In 1.36E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 9.78E-06 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 50.25 Hzel.stiff 281.27 MPax.plate 84.00 MPa k 4y.plate 84.00 MPa k 4xy.plate 103.93 MPa k 5.5
Ztop 8.22E-05 m3 82.20 cm3 From rules: 14 cm3Zbot 3.61E-04 m3 361.03 cm3
T-profile 240x8 Plate 1 210 3 1.2 0.006 0.003 7.20E-03 2.16E-05 2.16E-08 6.48E-08Flange 150 x 8 1 210 0.15 0.15 0.008 0.01 1.20E-03 1.20E-05 6.40E-09 1.20E-07Web 332 x8 1 210 0.008 0.008 0.332 0.18 2.66E-03 4.78E-04 2.44E-05 8.61E-05
Total 1.11E-02 5.12E-04 2.44E-05 8.62E-05Entire cross-section b 3
r> 6Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 4.63E-02 m a 3Elements, Io.tot 2.44E-05 m4 a/b 1Elements, Is.tot 8.62E-05 m4 C 0.4In 1.11E-04 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot be 1.2I 8.70E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 96.23 Hzel.stiff 255.30 MPax.plate 257.65 MPa k 4y.plate 257.65 MPa k 4xy.plate 150.96 MPa k 5.350
Ztop 2.90E-04 m3 290.21 cm3 From rules: 82 cm3Zbot 1.88E-03 m3 1879.45 cm3
Part Pcs E Effective breadth Calculated, b Height N.A Area 1. Moment 2. Moment Steinern be b=E/Eref*be h el A=n*b*h S=A*el I0=n*b*h3/12 Is=A*e2
[-] [-] [Gpa] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m2] [m3] [m4] [m4]Side up to 7,8 [m] Plate 1 210 0.6 0.6 0.01 0.005 6.00E-03 3.00E-05 5.00E-08 1.50E-07
HP 220x12 1 210 0 0.22 0.13 3.34E-03 4.34E-04 1.59E-05 5.64E-05Total 9.34E-03 4.64E-04 1.60E-05 5.66E-05
Entire cross-section
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 4.97E-02 mElements, Io.tot 1.60E-05 m4Elements, Is.tot 5.66E-05 m4In 7.25E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 4.95E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 84.61 HzZtop 2.74E-04 m3 274.40 cm3 From rules: 246 cm3Zbot 9.95E-04 m3 995.47 cm3
Side 7,8 to 10,8 [m] Plate 1 210 0.6 0.6 0.01 0.005 6.00E-03 3.00E-05 5.00E-08 1.50E-07HP 100x7 1 210 0 0.1 0.0587 8.74E-04 5.13E-05 8.50E-07 3.01E-06
Total 6.87E-03 8.13E-05 9.00E-07 3.16E-06Entire cross-section
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 1.18E-02 mElements, Io.tot 9.00E-07 m4Elements, Is.tot 3.16E-06 m4In 4.06E-06 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 3.10E-06 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 23.43 HzZtop 3.16E-05 m3 31.58 cm3 From rules: 12 cm3Zbot 2.62E-04 m3 262.09 cm3
Side 10,8 to 13,8 [m] Plate 1 210 0.6 0.6 0.009 0.0045 5.40E-03 2.43E-05 3.65E-08 1.09E-07HP 100x7 1 210 0 0.1 0.0587 8.74E-04 5.13E-05 8.50E-07 3.01E-06
Total 6.27E-03 7.56E-05 8.86E-07 3.12E-06Entire cross-section
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 1.21E-02 mElements, Io.tot 8.86E-07 m4Elements, Is.tot 3.12E-06 m4In 4.01E-06 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 3.10E-06 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 24.34 HzZtop 3.19E-05 m3 31.94 cm3 From rules: 12 cm3Zbot 2.57E-04 m3 256.95 cm3
Side 13,8 to 16,8 [m] Plate 1 210 0.6 0.6 0.008 0.004 4.80E-03 1.92E-05 2.56E-08 7.68E-08HP 100x7 1 210 0 0.1 0.0587 8.74E-04 5.13E-05 8.50E-07 3.01E-06
Total 5.67E-03 7.05E-05 8.76E-07 3.09E-06Entire cross-section
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 1.24E-02 mElements, Io.tot 8.76E-07 m4Elements, Is.tot 3.09E-06 m4In 3.96E-06 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 3.09E-06 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 25.43 HzZtop 3.23E-05 m3 32.31 cm3 From rules: 9 cm3Zbot 2.49E-04 m3 248.51 cm3
Side 16,8 to 22,8 [m] Plate 1 210 0.6 0.6 0.007 0.0035 4.20E-03 1.47E-05 1.72E-08 5.15E-08HP 100x7 1 210 0 0.1 0.0587 8.74E-04 5.13E-05 8.50E-07 3.01E-06
Total 5.07E-03 6.60E-05 8.67E-07 3.06E-06Entire cross-section
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 1.30E-02 mElements, Io.tot 8.67E-07 m4Elements, Is.tot 3.06E-06 m4In 3.93E-06 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 3.07E-06 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 26.76 HzZtop 3.27E-05 m3 32.68 cm3 From rules: 9 cm3Zbot 2.36E-04 m3 236.12 cm3
Web frame calculationPart Pcs E Effective breadth Calculated, b Height N.A Area 1. Moment 2. Moment Steiner
n be b=E/Eref*be h el A=n*b*h S=A*el I0=n*b*h3/12 Is=A*e2
[-] [-] [Gpa] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m2] [m3] [m4] [m4]Part 1 Plate 1 210 0.6 2.1 0.006 0.003 1.26E-02 3.78E-05 3.78E-08 1.13E-07
Flange 110 x 8 1 210 0.11 0.11 0.007 0.0095 7.70E-04 7.32E-06 3.14E-09 6.95E-08Web 230 x 8 1 210 0.008 0.008 0.222 0.124 1.78E-03 2.20E-04 7.29E-06 2.73E-05
Total 1.51E-02 2.65E-04 7.33E-06 2.75E-05Entire cross-section b 3
r> 6Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 1.75E-02 m a 6.3Elements, Io.tot 7.33E-06 m4 a/b 2.1Elements, Is.tot 2.75E-05 m4 C 0.7In 3.48E-05 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot be 2.1I 3.02E-05 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 45.06 HzZtop 1.39E-04 m3 138.76 cm3Zbot 1.72E-03 m3 1722.57 cm3
Part 2 Plate 1 210 0.6 2.79 0.006 0.003 1.67E-02 5.02E-05 5.02E-08 1.51E-07Flange 100 x 7 1 210 0.01 0.01 0.007 0.0095 7.00E-05 6.65E-07 2.86E-10 6.32E-09Web 130 x 7 1 210 0.007 0.007 0.123 0.0745 8.61E-04 6.41E-05 1.09E-06 4.78E-06
Total 1.77E-02 1.15E-04 1.14E-06 4.94E-06Entire cross-section b 3
r> 6Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 6.51E-03 m a 15Elements, Io.tot 1.14E-06 m4 a/b 5Elements, Is.tot 4.94E-06 m4 C 0.93In 6.07E-06 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot be 2.79I 5.32E-06 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Eigenfrequency 16.42 HzZtop 4.11E-05 m3 41.11 cm3Zbot 8.18E-04 m3 817.72 cm3
Main framePart Pcs E Effective breadth Calculated, b Height N.A Area 1. Moment 2. Moment Steiner
n be b=E/Eref*be h el A=n*b*h S=A*el I0=n*b*h3/12 Is=A*e2
[-] [-] [Gpa] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m2] [m3] [m4] [m4]Bottom Plate 2 210 8.3 8.3 0.01 0.01 1.66E-01 8.30E-04 1.38E-06 4.15E-06
HP 200x10 20 210 0.2 0.129 5.13E-02 6.62E-03 1.02E-05 8.54E-04Keel Plate 2 210 0.7 0.7 0.013 0.01 1.82E-02 1.18E-04 2.56E-07 7.69E-07
HP 200x10 2 210 0 0.2 0.132 5.13E-03 6.77E-04 1.02E-05 8.94E-05Bilge Plate 2 210 1.5 1.5 0.01 0.01 3.00E-02 1.50E-04 2.50E-07 7.50E-07
HP 200x10 2 210 0.2 0.129 5.13E-03 6.62E-04 1.02E-05 8.54E-05HP 200x10 2 210 0.2 0.5396667 5.13E-03 2.77E-03 1.02E-05 1.49E-03HP 200x10 2 210 0.2 1.0793333 5.13E-03 5.54E-03 1.02E-05 5.98E-03
Tank top Plate 2 210 8.75 8.75 0.009 1.50 1.58E-01 2.36E-01 1.06E-06 3.52E-01HP 140x8 22 210 0.14 1.4092 3.04E-02 4.29E-02 2.66E-06 6.04E-02
Centre girder Plate 1 210 0.011 0.011 1.5 0.75 1.65E-02 1.24E-02 3.09E-03 9.28E-03HP 140x10 1 210 0.14 0.5 1.66E-03 8.32E-04 3.16E-06 4.16E-04HP 140x10 1 210 0.14 1 1.66E-03 1.66E-03 3.16E-06 1.66E-03
Girder 1 Plate 2 210 0.007 0.007 1.4 0.79 1.96E-02 1.55E-02 3.20E-03 1.23E-02HP 140x10 2 210 0.14 1.023 3.33E-03 3.40E-03 3.16E-06 3.48E-03HP 140x10 2 210 0.14 0.555 3.33E-03 1.85E-03 3.16E-06 1.02E-03
Girder 2 Plate 2 210 0.007 0.007 1.3 0.71 1.82E-02 1.29E-02 2.56E-03 9.17E-03HP 140x10 2 210 0.14 0.927 3.33E-03 3.08E-03 3.16E-06 2.86E-03HP 140x10 2 210 0.14 0.494 3.33E-03 1.64E-03 3.16E-06 8.12E-04
Girder 3 Plate 2 210 0.007 0.007 1.2 0.76 1.68E-02 1.28E-02 2.02E-03 9.70E-03HP 140x10 2 210 0.14 0.96 3.33E-03 3.19E-03 3.16E-06 3.07E-03HP 140x10 2 210 0.14 0.56 3.33E-03 1.86E-03 3.16E-06 1.04E-03
Girder 4 Plate 2 210 0.007 0.007 1.1 0.81 1.54E-02 1.25E-02 1.55E-03 1.01E-02HP 140x10 2 210 0.14 0.994 3.33E-03 3.31E-03 3.16E-06 3.29E-03HP 140x10 2 210 0.14 0.628 3.33E-03 2.09E-03 3.16E-06 1.31E-03
Deck 1 Plate 2 210 8.75 8.75 0.006 4.80 1.05E-01 5.04E-01 3.15E-07 2.42E+00HP 100x7 22 210 0.1 4.7353 1.92E-02 9.11E-02 8.50E-07 4.31E-01Web 192 x 8 3 210 0.008 0.008 0.202 4.69 4.85E-03 2.28E-02 1.65E-05 1.07E-01Flange 120 x 8 3 210 0.12 0.12 0.008 4.59 2.88E-03 1.32E-02 1.54E-08 6.06E-02
Deck 2 Plate 2 210 8.75 8.75 0.006 7.80 1.05E-01 8.19E-01 3.15E-07 6.38E+00HP 100x7 22 210 0.1 7.7353 1.92E-02 1.49E-01 8.50E-07 1.15E+00Web 192 x 8 3 210 0.008 0.008 0.202 7.69 4.85E-03 3.73E-02 1.65E-05 2.87E-01Flange 120 x 8 3 210 0.12 0.12 0.008 7.59 2.88E-03 2.19E-02 1.54E-08 1.66E-01
Deck 3 Plate 2 210 8.75 8.75 0.008 10.80 1.40E-01 1.51E+00 7.47E-07 1.63E+01HP 200x10 22 210 0.2 10.673 5.65E-02 6.03E-01 1.02E-05 6.43E+00Web 332 x 8 5 210 0.008 0.008 0.332 10.63 1.33E-02 1.41E-01 1.22E-04 1.50E+00Flange 150 x 8 5 210 0.15 0.15 0.008 10.46 6.00E-03 6.27E-02 3.20E-08 6.56E-01
Deck 4 Plate 2 210 8.75 8.75 0.007 13.80 1.23E-01 1.69E+00 5.00E-07 2.33E+01HP 100x7 22 210 0.1 13.7343 1.92E-02 2.64E-01 8.50E-07 3.63E+00Web 192 x 8 5 210 0.008 0.008 0.192 13.70 7.68E-03 1.05E-01 2.36E-05 1.44E+00Flange 120 x 8 5 210 0.12 0.12 0.008 13.60 4.80E-03 6.53E-02 2.56E-08 8.87E-01
Deck 5 Plate 2 210 8.75 8.75 0.006 16.80 1.05E-01 1.76E+00 3.15E-07 2.96E+01HP 100x7 22 210 0.1 16.7353 1.92E-02 3.22E-01 8.50E-07 5.39E+00Web 192 x 8 5 210 0.008 0.008 0.192 16.70 7.68E-03 1.28E-01 2.36E-05 2.14E+00Flange 120 x 8 5 210 0.12 0.12 0.008 16.60 4.80E-03 7.97E-02 2.56E-08 1.32E+00
Deck 6 Plate 2 210 8.75 8.75 0.006 19.80 1.05E-01 2.08E+00 3.15E-07 4.12E+01HP 140x10 22 210 0 0.14 19.7148 3.66E-02 7.21E-01 3.16E-06 1.42E+01Web 332 x 8 5 210 0.008 0.008 0.332 19.63 1.33E-02 2.61E-01 1.22E-04 5.12E+00Flange 150 x 8 5 210 0.15 0.15 0.008 19.46 6.00E-03 1.17E-01 3.20E-08 2.27E+00
Deck 7 Plate 2 210 8.75 8.75 0.006 22.80 1.05E-01 2.39E+00 3.15E-07 5.46E+01HP 140x10 22 210 0.14 22.7148 3.66E-02 8.31E-01 3.16E-06 1.89E+01Web 332 x 8 5 210 0.008 0.008 0.332 22.63 1.33E-02 3.00E-01 1.22E-04 6.80E+00Flange 150 x 8 5 210 0.15 0.15 0.008 19.46 6.00E-03 1.17E-01 3.20E-08 2.27E+00
Side up to 7,8 [m] Plate 2 210 0.01 0.01 6.3 4.65 1.26E-01 5.86E-01 4.17E-01 2.72E+00HP 220x12 2 210 0.012 2.1 6.68E-03 1.40E-02 2.80E-07 2.95E-02
2 210 0.012 2.70 6.68E-03 1.80E-02 2.80E-07 4.87E-022 210 0.012 3.30 6.68E-03 2.20E-02 2.80E-07 7.27E-022 210 0.012 3.90 6.68E-03 2.61E-02 2.80E-07 1.02E-012 210 0.012 4.50 6.68E-03 3.01E-02 2.80E-07 1.35E-012 210 0.012 5.10 6.68E-03 3.41E-02 2.80E-07 1.74E-012 210 0.012 5.70 6.68E-03 3.81E-02 2.80E-07 2.17E-012 210 0.012 6.30 6.68E-03 4.21E-02 2.80E-07 2.65E-012 210 0.012 6.90 6.68E-03 4.61E-02 2.80E-07 3.18E-012 210 0.012 7.50 6.68E-03 5.01E-02 2.80E-07 3.76E-01
Side 7,8 to 10,8 [m] Plate 2 210 0.01 0.01 3 9.30 6.00E-02 5.58E-01 4.50E-02 5.19E+00HP 100x7 2 210 0.007 8.10 1.75E-03 1.42E-02 1.99E-08 1.15E-01
2 210 0.007 8.70 1.75E-03 1.52E-02 1.99E-08 1.32E-012 210 0.007 9.30 1.75E-03 1.63E-02 1.99E-08 1.51E-012 210 0.007 9.90 1.75E-03 1.73E-02 1.99E-08 1.71E-012 210 0.007 10.50 1.75E-03 1.84E-02 1.99E-08 1.93E-01
Side 10,8 to 13,8 [m] Plate 2 210 0.009 0.009 3 12.30 2.70E-02 3.32E-01 3.54E-02 4.08E+00HP 100x7 2 210 0.007 11.1 1.75E-03 1.94E-02 1.99E-08 2.15E-01
2 210 0.007 13.50 1.75E-03 2.36E-02 1.99E-08 3.19E-01Side 13,8 to 16,8 [m] Plate 2 210 0.008 0.008 3 15.30 2.40E-02 3.67E-01 3.15E-02 5.62E+00
HP 100x7 2 210 0.007 14.1 1.75E-03 2.46E-02 1.99E-08 3.48E-012 210 0.007 16.50 1.75E-03 2.88E-02 1.99E-08 4.76E-01
Side 16,8 to 22,8 [m] Plate 2 210 0.007 0.007 6 19.80 4.20E-02 8.32E-01 2.21E-01 1.65E+01HP 100x7 2 210 0.007 17.1 1.75E-03 2.99E-02 1.99E-08 5.11E-01
2 210 0.007 19.50 1.75E-03 3.41E-02 1.99E-08 6.65E-012 210 0.007 20.10 1.75E-03 3.51E-02 1.99E-08 7.06E-012 210 0.007 22.50 1.75E-03 3.93E-02 1.99E-08 8.85E-01
Total 2.05E+00 1.89E+01 7.62E-01 2.90E+02Entire cross-section
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 9.22E+00 mElements, Io.tot 7.62E-01 m4Elements, Is.tot 2.90E+02 m4In 2.91E+02 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 1.17E+02 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Ztop 8.58E+00 m3 8.58E+06 cm3Zbot 1.26E+01 m3 1.26E+07 cm3
Appendix 6 - Tables for Bleich approach
Table 1-HullPart Pcs E Effective breadth Calculated, b Height N.A Area 1. Moment 2. Moment Steiner
n be b=E/Eref*be h el A=n*b*h S=A*el I0=n*b*h3/12 Is=A*e2
[-] [-] [Gpa] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m2] [m3] [m4] [m4]Bottom Plate 2 210 8.3 8.3 0.01 0.005 0.166 0.00083 1.38333E-06 4.15E-06
HP 200x10 20 210 0.2 0.129 0.05132 0.00662028 0.0000102 0.000854Keel Plate 2 210 0.7 0.7 0.013 0.0065 0.0182 0.0001183 2.56317E-07 7.69E-07
HP 200x10 2 210 0.2 0.132 0.005132 0.00067742 0.0000102 8.94E-05Bilge Plate 2 210 1.5 1.5 0.01 0.005 0.03 0.00015 0.00000025 7.5E-07
HP 200x10 2 210 0.2 0.129 0.005132 0.00066203 0.0000102 8.54E-05HP 200x10 2 210 0.2 0.539667 0.005132 0.00276957 0.0000102 0.001495HP 200x10 2 210 0.2 1.079333 0.005132 0.00553914 0.0000102 0.005979
Tank top Plate 2 210 8.75 8.75 0.009 1.4955 0.1575 0.23554125 1.06313E-06 0.352252HP 140x8 22 210 0.14 1.4092 0.030426 0.04287632 0.00000266 0.060421
Centre girder Plate 1 210 0.011 0.011 1.5 0.75 0.0165 0.012375 0.00309375 0.009281HP 140x10 1 210 0.14 0.5 0.001663 0.0008315 0.00000316 0.000416HP 140x10 1 210 0.14 1 0.001663 0.001663 0.00000316 0.001663
Girder 1 Plate 2 210 0.007 0.007 1.4 0.791 0.0196 0.0155036 0.003201333 0.012263HP 140x10 2 210 0.14 1.023 0.003326 0.0034025 0.00000316 0.003481HP 140x10 2 210 0.14 0.555 0.003326 0.00184593 0.00000316 0.001024
Girder 2 Plate 2 210 0.007 0.007 1.3 0.71 0.0182 0.012922 0.002563167 0.009175HP 140x10 2 210 0.14 0.927 0.003326 0.0030832 0.00000316 0.002858HP 140x10 2 210 0.14 0.494 0.003326 0.00164304 0.00000316 0.000812
Girder 3 Plate 2 210 0.007 0.007 1.2 0.76 0.0168 0.012768 0.002016 0.009704HP 140x10 2 210 0.14 0.96 0.003326 0.00319296 0.00000316 0.003065HP 140x10 2 210 0.14 0.56 0.003326 0.00186256 0.00000316 0.001043
Girder 4 Plate 2 210 0.007 0.007 1.1 0.81 0.0154 0.012474 0.001552833 0.010104HP 140x10 2 210 0.14 0.994 0.003326 0.00330604 0.00000316 0.003286HP 140x10 2 210 0.14 0.628 0.003326 0.00208873 0.00000316 0.001312
Deck 1 Plate 2 210 8.75 8.75 0.006 4.797 0.105 0.503685 0.000000315 2.416177HP 100x7 22 210 0.1 4.7353 0.019228 0.09105035 0.00000085 0.431151Web 192 x 8 3 210 0.008 0.008 0.202 4.693 0.004848 0.02275166 1.64848E-05 0.106774Flange 120 x 8 3 210 0.12 0.12 0.008 4.588 0.00288 0.01321344 1.536E-08 0.060623
Deck 2 Plate 2 210 8.75 8.75 0.006 7.797 0.105 0.818685 0.000000315 6.3832870 HP 100x7 22 210 0.1 7.7353 0.019228 0.14873435 0.00000085 1.1505050 Web 192 x 8 3 210 0.008 0.008 0.202 7.693 0.004848 0.03729566 1.64848E-05 0.2869160 Flange 120 x 8 3 210 0.12 0.12 0.008 7.588 0.00288 0.02185344 1.536E-08 0.165824
Deck 3 Plate 2 210 8.75 8.75 0.008 10.796 0.14 1.51144 7.46667E-07 16.317510 HP 200x10 22 210 0.2 10.673 0.056452 0.6025122 0.0000102 6.4306130 Web 332 x 8 5 210 0.008 0.008 0.332 10.626 0.01328 0.14111328 0.000121981 1.499470 Flange 150 x 8 5 210 0.15 0.15 0.008 10.456 0.006 0.062736 0.000000032 0.655968
Side up to 7,8 [m] Plate 2 210 0.01 0.01 6.3 4.65 0.126 0.5859 0.416745 2.724435HP 220x12 2 210 0.012 2.1 0.00668 0.014028 2.798E-07 0.029459
2 210 0.012 2.7 0.00668 0.018036 2.798E-07 0.0486972 210 0.012 3.3 0.00668 0.022044 2.798E-07 0.0727452 210 0.012 3.9 0.00668 0.026052 2.798E-07 0.1016032 210 0.012 4.5 0.00668 0.03006 2.798E-07 0.135272 210 0.012 5.1 0.00668 0.034068 2.798E-07 0.1737472 210 0.012 5.7 0.00668 0.038076 2.798E-07 0.2170332 210 0.012 6.3 0.00668 0.042084 2.798E-07 0.2651292 210 0.012 6.9 0.00668 0.046092 2.798E-07 0.3180352 210 0.012 7.5 0.00668 0.0501 2.798E-07 0.37575
Side 7,8 to 10,8 [m] Plate 2 210 0.01 0.01 3 9.3 0.06 0.558 0.045 5.1894HP 100x7 2 210 0.007 8.1 0.001748 0.0141588 1.99E-08 0.114686
2 210 0.007 8.7 0.001748 0.0152076 1.99E-08 0.1323062 210 0.007 9.3 0.001748 0.0162564 1.99E-08 0.1511852 210 0.007 9.9 0.001748 0.0173052 1.99E-08 0.1713212 210 0.007 10.5 0.001748 0.018354 1.99E-08 0.192717
Total 1.33E+00 5.91E+00 4.74E-01 4.68E+01Entire cross-section
Neutral axis, bending, e=S/A 4.44E+00 mElements, Io.tot 4.74E-01 m4Elements, Is.tot 4.68E+01 m4In 4.73E+01 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 2.11E+01 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Ztop 1.37E+00 m3 1.37E+06 cm3Zbot 4.76E+00 m3 4.76E+06 cm3
Table 2-SuperstructurePart Pcs E Effective breadth Calculated, b Height N.A Area 1. Moment 2. Moment Steiner
n be b=E/Eref*be h el A=n*b*h S=A*el I0=n*b*h3/12 Is=A*e2
[-] [-] [Gpa] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m2] [m3] [m4] [m4]Deck 4 Plate 2 210 8.75 8.75 0.007 2.9965 0.1225 0.36707125 5.00208E-07 1.099929
HP 100x7 22 210 0.1 2.9343 0.019228 0.05642072 0.00000085 0.165555Web 192 x 8 5 210 0.008 0.008 0.192 2.897 0.00768 0.02224896 2.3593E-05 0.064455Flange 120 x 8 5 210 0.12 0.12 0.008 2.797 0.0048 0.0134256 2.56E-08 0.037551
Deck 5 Plate 2 210 8.75 8.75 0.006 5.997 0.105 0.629685 0.000000315 3.776221HP 100x7 22 210 0.1 5.9353 0.019228 0.11412395 0.00000085 0.67736Web 192 x 8 5 210 0.008 0.008 0.192 5.898 0.00768 0.04529664 2.3593E-05 0.26716Flange 120 x 8 5 210 0.12 0.12 0.008 5.798 0.0048 0.0278304 2.56E-08 0.161361
Deck 6 Plate 2 210 8.75 8.75 0.006 8.997 0.105 0.944685 0.000000315 8.499331HP 140x10 22 210 0.14 8.9148 0.036586 0.32615687 0.00000316 2.907623Web 332 x 8 5 210 0.008 0.008 0.332 8.828 0.01328 0.11723584 0.000121981 1.034958Flange 150 x 8 5 210 0.15 0.15 0.008 8.658 0.006 0.051948 0.000000032 0.449766
Deck 7 Plate 2 210 8.75 8.75 0.006 11.997 0.105 1.259685 0.000000315 15.11244HP 140x10 22 210 0.14 11.9148 0.036586 0.43591487 0.00000316 5.193839Web 332 x 8 5 210 0.008 0.008 0.332 11.828 0.01328 0.15707584 0.000121981 1.857893Flange 150 x 8 5 210 0.15 0.15 0.008 8.658 0.006 0.051948 0.000000032 0.449766
Side 10,8 to 13,8 [m] Plate 2 210 0.009 0.009 3 1.5 0.027 0.0405 0.0354375 0.06075HP 100x7 2 210 0.007 0.3 0.001748 0.0005244 1.99E-08 0.000157
2 210 0.007 2.7 0.001748 0.0047196 1.99E-08 0.012743Side 13,8 to 16,8 [m] Plate 2 210 0.008 0.008 3 4.5 0.024 0.108 0.0315 0.486
HP 100x7 2 210 0.007 3.3 0.001748 0.0057684 1.99E-08 0.0190362 210 0.007 5.7 0.001748 0.0099636 1.99E-08 0.056793
Side 16,8 to 22,8 [m] Plate 2 210 0.007 0.007 6 9 0.042 0.378 0.2205 3.402HP 100x7 2 210 0.007 6.3 0.001748 0.0110124 1.99E-08 0.069378
2 210 0.007 8.7 0.001748 0.0152076 1.99E-08 0.1323062 210 0.007 9.3 0.001748 0.0162564 1.99E-08 0.1511852 210 0.007 11.7 0.001748 0.0204516 1.99E-08 0.239284
Total 7.20E-01 5.23E+00 2.88E-01 4.64E+01Entire cross-sectionNeutral axis, bending, e=S/A 7.27E+00 mElements, Io.tot 2.88E-01 m4Elements, Is.tot 4.64E+01 m4In 4.67E+01 m4 I0.tot+Is.tot
I 8.65E+00 m4 In-n.a^2*Atot
Ztop 6.90E-01 m3 6.90E+05 cm3Zbot 1.19E+00 m3 1.19E+06 cm3
0
AALTO UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
Department of Applied Mechanics
Marine Technology
Weight and Intact Stability
M/S Arianna
1
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... 1
1. INITIAL LIGHTWEIGHT ESTIMATE ....................................................................... 3
2. DETAILED LIGHTWEIGHT ESTIMATE .................................................................. 4
2.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 CALCULATIONS AND RESULTS ................................................................................................. 6
3. PARAMETRIC WEIGHT COMPARISON ................................................................. 8
4. BASELINE GM ESTIMATE .......................................................................................... 9
5. INTACT STABILITY RESULTS ................................................................................ 10
5.1 LOAD CASE 1 – DEPARTURE FROM PORT ............................................................................... 10
5.2 LOAD CASE 2 – MID-VOYAGE ................................................................................................ 10
5.3 LOAD CASE 3 – ARRIVAL TO PORT ........................................................................................ 11
5.4 LOAD CASE 4 – LIGHTSHIP..................................................................................................... 11
5.5 STABILITY SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 11
5.6 DEADWEIGHT CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................... 13
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 14
APPENDIX 1 - DETAILED ESWBS WEIGHT ESTIMATE ........................................... 15
APPENDIX 2 – PARAMETRIC WEIGHT DATA ............................................................ 20
APPENDIX 3 – NAPA STABILITY CURVES ................................................................... 21
APPENDIX 4 – NAPA STRENGTH CURVES .................................................................. 25
APPENDIX 5 – NAPA LOADING CONDITIONS RESULTS ......................................... 29
APPENDIX 5 – NAPA CURVES OF MAX KG AND MIN GM ....................................... 33
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 - Weight breakdown by ESWBS group .................................................................. 6
Figure 3-1 - Cruise ship lightship weight correlation ............................................................... 8
Figure 5-1 – Reference deadweight vs. lightship weight ......................................................... 13
Figure 6-1 - Parametric weight data ......................................................................................... 20
Figure 6-2. Stability curve, load case 1 .................................................................................... 21
2
Figure 6-3. Stability curve, load case 2 .................................................................................... 22
Figure 6-4. Stability curve, load case 3 .................................................................................... 23
Figure 6-5. Stability curve, load case 4 .................................................................................... 24
Figure 6-6. Strength curves, load case 1 .................................................................................. 25
Figure 6-7. Strength curves, load case 2 .................................................................................. 26
Figure 6-8. Strength curves, load case 3 .................................................................................. 27
Figure 6-9. Strength curves, load case 4 .................................................................................. 28
Figure 6-10. Stability criteria results, load case 1 .................................................................... 29
Figure 6-11. Stability criteria results, load case 2 .................................................................... 30
Figure 6-12. Stability criteria results, load case 3 .................................................................... 31
Figure 6-13. Stability criteria results, load case 4 .................................................................... 32
Figure 6-14. KG limit curve ..................................................................................................... 33
Figure 6-15. GM limit curve .................................................................................................... 33
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 - ESWBS group definitions ....................................................................................... 4
Table 2-2 - Weight estimate summary by ESWBS group.......................................................... 6
Table 3-1 – Lightweight distribution comparison to references ................................................ 8
Table 3-2 - Total lightweight comparison .................................................................................. 9
Table 4-1 - Calculation parameters .......................................................................................... 10
Table 5-1 - Stability summary table ......................................................................................... 12
Table 6-1 -ESWBS 100 weight summary ................................................................................ 15
Table 6-2 -ESWBS 200 estimate ............................................................................................. 15
Table 6-3 -ESWBS 300 estimate ............................................................................................. 16
Table 6-4 -ESWBS 400 estimate ............................................................................................. 17
Table 6-5 -ESWBS 500 estimate ............................................................................................. 18
Table 6-6 -ESWBS 600 estimate ............................................................................................. 19
Table 6-7 –Paint data ................................................................................................................ 19
Table 6-8 –Paint application .................................................................................................... 19
3
1. Initial lightweight estimate
Before conducting a detailed lightweight estimation, an initial calculation will first be
completed in order to set a reference value. In this way, the result can be compared to a value
other than existing reference ships. The chosen estimation is from the reference book
provided in the Ship Conceptual Design course and it was selected based on its simplicity and
usability at a very early stage of design. Its intended purpose is nothing more than an initial,
rough estimation of the lightship weight.
The general equation for lightship weight is shown in the equation below.
1-1
The steel weight is taken directly from the NAPA steel model, as this will give a more
accurate value than the suggested empirical formula for initial steel weight estimation.
Therefore, the steel weight is taken as 2062 [t]. The preliminary machinery weight, without
considering the actual equipment specifications, can be estimated with the following equation,
where the needed power is taken as 12,248 kW, as specified in the machinery section of this
project.
1-2
With the stated power, the machinery weight totals at 1060 [t]. Next, the outfitting weight is
estimated as a function of a specified factor and the converted volume, as defined below.
1-3
With the basic dimensions of the vessel and a K value of 0.036, as prescribed by the
reference, the total outfitting weight is estimated at 1586 [t]. Finally, the interior weight is
again based on a defined coefficient, along with the interior area of the vessel. In this case, the
coefficient is taken at , or the given value for small and medium sized ships. The
interior weight calculation can therefore be completed according to the equation below.
1-4
This yields an initial interior weight of 562 [t]. With these four weight components, the total
lightship weight is found to be 5268 [t].
4
2. Detailed lightweight estimate
2.1 Overview
For a detailed initial weight estimation, the Expanded Ship Work Breakdown Structure
(ESWBS) set by the US Navy was used as an organizational hierarchy. This structure applies
five digit numbers to shipboard systems, based on their function and description. The
advantage of using a work breakdown structure is its simplicity and organization, especially at
the project management level. It is a product-oriented hierarchical division, which organizes,
defines, and graphically displays the product to be produced (1). The SWBS system, along
with MARAD, is one of the two major weight accounting systems used in the industry today
and is well regarded because it is hierarchical, third-party maintained, and well documented
(2). MARAD is divided only into three groupings, so the SWBS system was chosen to yield a
higher level of transparency.
Though the ESWBS system uses five digits, only three are needed at this level of design for
the initial weight estimate. The fourth and fifth single digit classification levels are used to
incorporate the functions that support maintenance and repair needs. The major ESWBS
groups are defined in Table 2-1 below.
Table 2-1 - ESWBS group definitions
SWBS Group Description
100 Hull Structure
200 Propulsion Plant
300 Electric Plant
400 Command and Surveillance
500 Auxilliary Systems
600 Outfit and Furnishings
700 Armament
M Margins and Allowances
These eight groups represent the projected ship design in the predefined Condition A
(lightship with margins) while an additional group, group F, is added for estimating weights
in Condition D (departure full load) (3). Initially, only the lightship condition will be
estimated. Since the vessel in question is a passenger vessel without armament, group 700
will be neglected from this point on.
5
2.2 Methodology
The lightship weight estimate can be difficult to attain at such an early design stage, as the
specifications of many features, and thus their respective weights, are not yet known. As such,
a basic bottom-up factoring method was used, where identified unit weights are multiplied by
the perceived number of units plus an uncertainty. In turn, these individual values are summed
to develop a total ship weight. The top-up or baseline method is the most common for ship
estimations, but in this case, a closely related parent ship cannot be used.
Without a parent ship, the ratiocination, or scaling, method was used to estimate various
weights for each ESWBS grouping. This is the second most common method for ship weight
estimation and multiplies weight components of reference vessels by a scaled ratio to achieve
a new weight estimate. This is especially useful as a starting point in the design process, but
there are limitations, the most serious of which is the fact that new technologies or special
features not common to all ships cannot be accurately scaled (3). To counter this, additional
margins are used to ensure a conservative estimate is achieved.
For this ship, two references were used when assigning ratios and weights. The first is a
military ship outlined in the ratiocination manual from the Society of Allied Weight Engineers
(4). Clearly, a cruise ship is completely different in design and this ship was only used to
identify small components that do not greatly affect the overall weight, including various
surveillance and command equipment. More helpful was a sample weight estimation of a
Panamax-max cruise ship, as provided by the faculty of the University of New Orleans School
of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering (5). This database provided reasonable
estimations common with the new ship’s design, though they were factored to account for the
great size differences between the two ships.
Though many parameters are estimated, the actual weights are used for components that have
specifically be identified, taken from online specifications. These include major machinery
components such as the electrical engines, emergency generator, switchboards, and main
generators, in addition to lifesaving equipment and paint. Where applicable, the source for
such components is provided in the calculation tables.
6
2.3 Calculations and results
Once the perceived weight was assigned to each component, the approximate longitudinal,
transverse, and vertical centres of gravity (LCG, TCG, and VCG) were measured from the
general arrangement and inboard profile drawings. These values represent the levers for each
component and contribute to the ship’s overall gravity measures, including the very important
lightship vertical centre of gravity (KG). The selected measuring convention takes the LCG
from the forward perpendicular, the VCG from the keel level, and the TCG from the vessel’s
centreline. For smaller components with unknown exact locations, a balanced centre of
gravity is assumed.
The results, in tabular form, are shown in Table 2-2 and Figure 2-1 below. The full calculation
data, divided by ESWBS group, is provided in Appendix 1. The total lightship weight is taken
as approximately 4,934 tonnes.
Table 2-2 - Weight estimate summary by ESWBS group
SWBS
Group Description
Weight Weight LCG TCG VCG Long'l
Mmnt
Trans
Mmnt
Vert
Mmnt
[t] [LT] [m] [m] [m] [m-t] [m-t] [m-t]
100 Steel Structure 2062.4 2029.8 48.50 0.000 7.14 100024.5 0.00 14724.5
200 Propulsion Plant 161.6 159.0 82.87 0.000 4.15 18378.0 0.00 863.9
300 Electric Plant 396.7 390.4 43.36 0.037 3.31 17200.7 14.50 1311.8
400 Command/Surveillance 1.3 1.3 56.50 -0.454 11.39 72.2 -0.58 14.5
500 Auxilliary Systems 96.8 95.2 40.78 0.000 11.73 3945.6 0.00 1134.7
600 Outfit and Furnishings 1480.3 1456.9 63.60 0.000 12.96 94143.3 0.00 19185.0
Serv. Life Allowance 318.5 313.5
Add’l 10% Margin 424.7 418.0
Total 4933 4855 46.37 0.003 7.46 233764 13.92 37234
Figure 2-1 - Weight breakdown by ESWBS group
49%
5% 9%
0% 2%
35%
Weight Breakdown
Steel Structure
Propulsion Plant
Electric Plant
Command and Surveillance
Auxilliary Systems
Outfit and Furnishings
7
The structural weights were taken directly from NAPA and show nearly 60% of the 2062
tonnes as the steel hull structure weight and the remaining 40% from the superstructure.
Group 200 includes the propulsion system, with the main weight contribution coming from
the ABB electric engines, steering gears, and propellers. In total, this group accounts for 5%
of the lightship weight. The electric systems are listed in group 300 and make up for 9% of
the weight, the vast majority of which is from the two main generator sets and third, standby
set. Group 400, command and surveilance equipment, is nearly insignificant for the cruise
ship, but was included in order to achieve a holistic estimation. The auxiliary systems, group
500, make up 2% of the lightship weight, with the largest single contribution from the
anchoring equipment and six marine evacuation systems.
Finally, the outfitting and furnishing weights, located in group 600, are the second highest
contributors, with a total weight equaling 35% of the total. An estimated outfitting weight for
each deck was accomplished using the course notes from the Ship Conceptual Design class.
For each, the total area was taken from the general arrangement and subsequently multiplied
by a predefined factor based on the spaces and functions of each deck. The decks comprised
of public spaces, for instance, have a much higher multiplication factor than those with
outdoor decks. The estimated paint and primer weights were also included in this group,
achieved with actual coverage and density values from shipping paint suppliers and calculated
surface area values for both the hull and superstructure from NAPA. It is assumed that the
hull needs both primer and paint and the superstructure paint alone. The final weight
contribution in this group is the four passenger and two crew elevators.
The final weight contributions are in the form of additional margins and allowances, which
are crucial during early design phases. This is to ensure that the estimated displacement and
KG values as originally projected during the initial conceptual design phase are met at
delivery (3). As suggested by the Society of Allied Weight Engineers, a 7.5% service life
allowance accounts for weight gains over time to compensate for additional paint and
outfitting. In addition, a 10% acquisition margin is added to account for any underestimation
or omission of individual components.
With the total weight, the vertical center of gravity of the entire ship is calculated with the
following equation (2). The total longitudinal and transverse centers are found accordingly.
2-1
8
3. Parametric weight comparison
The results of the estimate seem reasonable, with nearly half of the weight contribution
coming from the hull and superstructure structural components and another large percentage
from outfitting and furnishings. The latter is known to be especially high for cruise ships. As a
comparison, the reference cruise ship featured a similar weight distribution, with 47%, 39%,
and 14% distributions to the structure, outfitting, and machinery, respectively. There is also a
favorable comparison with Levander’s suggested cruise ship lightweight distribution (6). A
comparison of the three distributions is shown below in Table 3-1, along with the initial
estimate breakdown. In comparison, it seems as if the initial estimation puts too much
emphasis on the machinery weight at the expense of the structural.
Table 3-1 – Lightweight distribution comparison to references
Group Initial Reference Ship Levander Our Ship
Structure 39% 47% 50% 49%
Outfitting 41% 39% 38% 35%
Machinery 20% 14% 12% 16%
In order to check the rationality of the total lightship weight, a parametric study of existing
vessels was completed. The results show a steady correlation between a cruise ship’s total
lightweight and length overall, as shown in Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-1 - Cruise ship lightship weight correlation
This data yields a very close estimate to the calculated one, especially after the same margins
are applied. This provides more validation to the chosen methods and result. A comparison
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Ligh
tsh
ip W
eigh
t [t
]
LOA [m]
LS Weight vs. Length
Current ships
Calculated
9
between the parametric and calculated results is provided in Table 3-2 and the parametric data
is attached in Appendix 2.
Table 3-2 - Total lightweight comparison
Group Initial Parametric Calculated
Raw weight [t] 4483 4035 4199
Service life allowance [t] 336 303 315
Additional margin [t] 448 404 420
TOTAL 5268 4742 4934
This data shows that the detailed estimation is, on whole, in agreeance with both the
simplified initial estimate and existing ships. This is especially promising given the
uncertainties in all estimations and is satisfactory at such an early design stage.
4. Baseline GM estimate
Before using the NAPA software to estimate the metacentric height (GM) at different
specified loading conditions with more accuracy, a baseline GM will first be found by
approximate formulas. This will signify whether the NAPA results are reasonable. The
fundamental formula for the GM of an ocean-going vessel is as follows.
4-1
Here, the vertical center of buoyancy (KB), metacentric radius (BM) can be calculated with
formulas 4-2 and 4-3, respectively. The vertical center of gravity (KG or VCG) of the ship is
taken in the same manner as from equation 4-1.
4-2
4-3
These two equations are based on various coefficients and parameters, as defined below.
4-4
4-5
4-6
With these equations, a baseline GM estimate can be found using the additional known
parameters shown in Table 4-1.
10
Table 4-1 - Calculation parameters
Parameter Symbol Value Units
Length overall LOA 120 [m]
Length along waterline LBP 110 [m]
Beam B 18 [m]
Draft T 5.4 [m]
Waterplane area coefficient 0.73 [-]
Waterplane area 1445 [m2]
Vertical center of gravity KG 7.46 [m]
With these values, the baseline GM for the ship is found to be 1.04 m. Again, this is only a
basis for comparison and is not expected to represent the final stability of the vessel.
5. Intact stability results
The ship’s intact stability was assessed with the aid of the NAPA software. Four different
load cases were defined. Namely, two of them are based on (7) , these are the departure from
port and arrival to port conditions. In addition, there is also defined mid-voyage and lightship
condition for gaining additional knowledge about ship stability in some certain circumstances.
These four load cases are described in following chapters. The ship’s lightweight used in the
calculations was taken as that defined in Chapter 1. A lightweight element table feature was
used to define the lightweight distribution. Load case parameters such as draft, trim, GM,
loads, and stability curves are given in the load case reports generated by NAPA.
5.1 Load case 1 – Departure from port
In load case ,1 the ship is loaded with passenegers, with an estimated weight of 16 [t]. The
hotel and deck storages are assumed to be at full capacity. The lubricating oil, heavy fuel oil,
and fresh water tanks are also full and the gray water tanks empty. Under these conditions, the
total ship displacement was found to be 6,991 [t], with a draft of 5.38 [m] and a GM of 1.75
[m], resulting in a trimming angle of -0. . The stability criteria is fulfilled according to IMO
criteria that NAPA considers as can be seen in Figure 5-11 The stability and strength curves
corresponding to this load case can be found in Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-7.
5.2 Load case 2 – Mid-voyage
At the middle of the projected voyage, storage rooms are taken as 66% full, lubricating oil
and heavy fuel oil as 50%, and gray water tanks and garbage holds as 50%. As the ship has
freshwater producing capability, the freshwater tank is filled 80% at all times during the
11
voyage to take into account free surface effect. The resulting displacement is now 6,830 [t],
the draft 5.37 [m], and the GM of the entire ship 1.69 [m]. The ship trims -0.22 under such
conditions. Similar to the first case, stability criteria is fulfilled as can be seen Figure 5-12 and
the appropriate stability and strength curves are provided in Figure 5-4 and Figure 5-8.
5.3 Load case 3 – Arrival to port
The third case describes the ship arriving to port at the end of the voyage. Now, storage rooms
are taken as only 10% full, lubricating and heavy fuel oil as 10%, and grey water tanks and
garbage holds also as 90%. For this case, the ship is trimming -0.42 , with a displacement of
6,942 [t], a 5.37 [m] draft, and a 1.37 [m] GM. Similar to the previous cases, stability criteria
is fulfilled as can be seen Figure 5-13, and stability and strength curves are shown in Figure
5-5 and Figure 5-9.
5.4 Load case 4 – Lightship
The final case describes the ship lightship condition where all the storage rooms and tanks are
empty, so no deadweight considered. For this final case, the ship is trimming -0. , with a
displacement of 5,002 [t], a 4.16 [m] draft, and a 1.09 [m] GM. Similar to the previous cases,
stability criteria is fulfilled as can be seen Figure 5-14,and stability and strength curves are
shown in Figure 5-6 and Figure 5-10.
5.5 Stability summary
The intact stability of the vessel is checked in four different loading conditions, all of which
are realistic and probable for the selected route and characteristics. The displacement ranges
from 5002 [t] to 6991 [t] and the GM value from 1.09 [m] to 1.75 [m]. NAPA automatically
calculates the accordance of the vessel’s stability to the IMO criteria for a ship’s intact
stability and the ship is in compliance with the IMO regulations in all four loading conditions.
Therefore, it would be allowed to sail under all conditions accounted for. As seen from the
results, the ship stability does not vary greatly, meaning it will always demonstrate similar a
behavior. The design draft of 5.4 [m] was almost achieved and it was under 1% less in three
first cases and of course for lightship case it is much less due to missing deadweight. One
potential source for such a discrepancy is the lightweight estimation method, which is by no
means exact. The same is true for the vessel’s deadweight. Therefore, the small differences in
draft should be acceptable at this stage. The low GM values ensure that the vessel will have
good stability levels as well as produces higher accelerations in passenger areas. For this case,
12
such accelerations are not a severe issue since the ship is relatively low, a feature that
enhances a decrease in acceleration. It should be also mentioned that permanent ballast water
is used for correcting slightly the trim and also to maintain the necessary draft according to
different load cases. As for the max KG and min GM curves, these were not obtained due to
the lack of skills of NAPA, there are curves just for limit case as can be seen in Figure 5-15
and Figure 5-16. When trying to get these for different load cases it just gave empty graphs.
As for strength curves, then maximum bending moment in hogging is during the arrival to the
port condition, where the bending moment is approximately kNm, which is twice a
smaller of the maximum bending moment in the roughest situation that was calculated
according to the rules. Therefore, this result is quite reasonable.
A summary table for all loading conditions is shown in Table 5-1. It is clear that the
metacentric heights differ from the original, baseline calculation. This is unsurprising due to
the latter’s very generic characteristics.
Table 5-1 - Stability summary table
Loading Condition Displacement [t] Draft [m] GM [m] Trim [ ] 1 6991 5.38 1.75 -0.02
2 6990 5.37 1.69 -0.22
3 6831 5.37 1.37 -0.04
4 5002 4.16 1.09 -0.67
13
5.6 Deadweight considerations
With the achieved values, the estimated design deadweight of the vessel can be found,
according to the principle formula below.
5-1
With displacements varying slightly, but consistently near 7000 [t], it can be seen that the
deadweight will approximately reach 2000 [t]. When compared to reference cruise ships, this
seems rather high in comparison to the ship’s lightship weight. As it stands, the deadweight is
right at a 40% value of the lightship weight. As can be seen in Figure 5-1, the deadweight, on
whole, is proportional to a ship’s lightship weight. This data is taken from Appendix 2.
Figure 5-1 – Reference deadweight vs. lightship weight
With this relationship, the deadweight for modern cruise ships is, on average, around 25-31%
of the actual lightship weight. This would yield deadweight value between 1297 and 1547 [t],
which is lower than the calculated value, though not by a large margin.
Possible reasons for this discrepancy could be the rough estimation methods, particularly for
the ship’s center of gravity and total lightweight. Both of these parameters are strongly
dependent on the NAPA steel model, which may not be detailed enough for a precise
estimation. About the center of gravity, the individual gravities for various components were
very roughly estimated, as it is impossible to know exact locations at this stage of the design
process. Future iterations in the design spiral may yield a better convergence.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000
Dea
dw
eigh
t [t
]
Lightship [t]
DWT vs. Lightship Weight
Current ships
Calculated
14
Bibliography
1. McKesson, Christopher. Work Breakdown Structures. New Orleans : University of New
Orleans School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, 2011.
2. —. Estimating weight and KG. New Orleans : University of New Orleans School of Naval
Architecture and Marine Engineering, 2011.
3. Marine Systems Government, Society of Allied Weight Engineers. Weight Estimating
and Margin Manual for Marine Vehicles. Los Angeles : Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers, Ship Design Panel, 2001.
4. Redmond, Mark. Ship Weight Estimated using Computerized Ratiocination. Atlanta :
Society of Allied Weight Engineers, Inc., 1984.
5. Taravella, Brandon. Cruise Ship Weight Estimate. New Orleans : University of New
Orleans School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, 2003.
6. Levander, Kai. Passenger Ships. Ship Design and Construction Vol. II. Jersey City :
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 2004.
7. DNV. Stability and Watertight Integrity. DNV Rules for Classification of Ships. 1995.
8. ABB. Electric motor data. [Online] [Cited: 16 1 2013.]
http://www.abb.com/product/seitp322/19e6c63b9837b35dc1256dc1004430be.aspx?productL
anguage=us&country=FI&tabKey=2..
9. Cummins. Diesel Generator Set. [Online] [Cited: 29 10 2012.]
http://www.cumminspower.com/www/common/templatehtml/technicaldocument/SpecSheets/
Diesel/na/s-1494.pdf.
10. Wärtsilä. Generating Sets. [Online] [Cited: 29 10 2012.]
http://www.wartsila.com/en/engines/gensets/generating-sets..
11. MarinArk. Marin Ark Marine Evacuation Systems. [Online] [Cited: 30 10 2013.]
http://apps2.survitecgroup.com/cms_uploads/product_pdfs/1374673010_3990a56be289cf0b6
8ccde83490f9f2df1559855.pdf.
12. Blue Water Marine Paint. Blue Water Marine Paint - Mega Gloss. North Brunswick :
s.n., 2011.
13. Teamac Marine and Industrial Coating. Teamac Farm Oxide Paint. Hull : Teamac,
2011.
15
Appendix 1 - Detailed ESWBS weight estimate
Table 5-2 -ESWBS 100 weight summary
100 - Hull Structure
Item Weight
[t]
VCG Vert
[m] Moment
Steel Hull Structure 1215.9 5.68 4.58
Steel Super Structure 846.46 17.39 14719.94
Total 2062.36 7.1396
Table 5-3 -ESWBS 200 estimate
200 - Propulsion System
Item Description/ Source Unit Weight Total Weight LCG TCG VCG
[ea.] [kg] [kg] [m] [m] [m]
Electric Engine ABB AMZ1250 (7) 2 44000 88000 80 0 3.2
Steering Gear 2 15000 30000 105 0 4.8
Propellers 2 12000 24000 102 0 2.7
Bow Thruster 2 1700 3400 10 0 3.25
Bow Thruster Engine 2 1000 2000 10 0 3.25
Bow Thruster Gen. Sets 2 800 1600 10 0 3.25
Lube Oil System 2 150 300 40 0 4
Lube Oil Pump 2 75 150 40 0 3.25
Dirty Oil Pump 2 75 150 40 0 3.25
Cabling 2 6000 12000 55 0 13
Total 161600 18378000 0 863925
87.68 0 4.122
16
Table 5-4 -ESWBS 300 estimate
300 - Electric Systems
Item Description/ Source
Unit Weight Total Weight LCG TCG VCG
[ea.] [kg] [kg] [m] [m] [m]
Emergency Generator Cummins DQDAA (8) 1 2500 2500 47.9 5.8 10.8
Switchboard, drives ABB ACS 6000 3 9000 27000 46.2 0 3.25
Transformers 3 200 600 46.2 0 3.25
Lighting System Navigation Lights 40 3 120 60 0 16.8
Lighting System Exterior Lights 20 4 80 60 0 14
Lighting System Interior Lights 600 2 1200 60 0 12.3
Uptakes 6 40 240 105 0 3.25
Genset Intake 2 45 90 43 0 3.25
Genset Exhaust 2 250 500 43 0 3.25
Fuel Service System Pipings 1 350 350 43 0 7.8
Fuel Service System Valves 60 2.5 150 43 0 7.8
Electric Operation Fluids 2 60 120 47.9 0 3.25
Batteries 20 25 500 50 0 12.3
Battery Chargers 2 100 200 50 0 12.3
Main Genset Wartsila 16V32 (9) 2 121000 242000 43 0 3.2
Standby Genset Wartsila 16V32 (9) 1 121000 121000 43 0 3.2
Total 396650 17200688 14500 1311794
43.36 0.04 3.31
17
Table 5-5 -ESWBS 400 estimate
400 - Command and Surveillance
Item
Description/
Source
Unit Weight Total Weight LCG TCG VCG
[ea.] [kg] [kg] [m] [m] [m]
Telephone System 200 1 200 60 0 11.5
Alarm 200 1 200 60 0 11.5
Television 110 4 440 60 0 11.5
Radio 16 2 32 60 0 11.5
Fire Control System 2 50 100 71 -5.8 3.25
Cables 1 200 200 60 0 11.5
Telescope 2 7 14 7 0 18
Window Wipers 13 7 91 7 0 18
Total 1277
72155 -580 14543
56.50 -0.4542 11.39
18
Table 5-6 -ESWBS 500 estimate
500 - Auxilliary Systems
Item
Description/
Source
Unit Weight Total Weight LCG TCG VCG
[ea.] [kg] [kg] [m] [m] [m]
Pumps Bilge and ballast 10 250 2500 74 0 3.25
Fire Fighting Piping
1 1500 1500 60 0 3.25
Freshwater Piping
1 500 500 60 0 11
Ballast Piping
1 1400 1400 60 0 10
Foam Piping
1 400 400 55 0 3.2
MER Intake Fans
2 25 50 55 0 4.8
Intake Fire Dampers
2 25 50 55 0 4.8
MER Exhaust Fans
2 25 50 55 0 4.8
MER Fire Dampers
2 25 50 55 0 4.8
Galley Air Handler
4 100 400 91.5 0 13.8
Pantry Air Handler
4 100 400 91.5 0 13.8
Head Air Handler
1 100 100 72.4 0 13.8
Laundry Air Handler
1 50 50 25 0 13.8
Anchor, equipment
2 20000 40000 3.5 0 10
Anchor Chain
2 2500 5000 3.5 0 10
Mooring Bitts
3 800 2400 60 0 8
Mooring Chocks
3 700 2100 60 0 8
Liferaft, equipment MarinArk (10) 6 5800 34800 78 0 16.8
Oil Spill Containment
1 5000 5000 60 0 3.25
Total 96750 3945590 0 1134740
40.78 0.000 11.73
19
Table 5-7 -ESWBS 600 estimate
600 - Outfit and Furnishing
Item Description/ Source
Unit Weight Total Weight LCG TCG VCG
[ea.] [kg] [kg] [m] [m] [m]
Super. Paint Blue Water (11) 1.5 431.33 646.99 60 0 16.8
Hull Paint Teamac (12) 1.5 484.95 727.43 60 0 6.6
Hull Primer Teamac (12) 1.5 1718.13 2577.20 60 0 6.6
elevator 2 crew, 4 pax 6 2000.00 12000.00 60 0 13.8
Deck 1 stores, misc. 1802 95.00 171190.00 66 0 4.8
Deck 2 crew, public 1870 115.00 215050.00 64 0 7.8
Deck 3 public 2159 140.00 302260.00 62.9 0 10.8
Deck 4 public 1959 130.00 254670.00 61.8 0 13.8
Deck 5 public, bridge 1851 135.00 249885.00 62 0 16.8
Deck 6 deck, public 1665 135.00 224775.00 63 0 19.8
Deck 7 deck 930 50.00 46500.00 80 0 22.8
Total 1480281.62
94143292 0 19185049.02
63.5982 0.0000 12.96
Table 5-8 –Paint data
Item Coverage Density
[m^2/l] [kg/l]
SS Paint (11) 9.82 1.2
Hull Paint (12) 13 1.6
Primer (12) 3.44 1.5
Table 5-9 –Paint application
Item Surface Area [m2] Liquid Volume [l] Liquid Weight [kg]
Superstructure Paint 3529.70 359.44 431.33
Hull Primer 3940.25 1145.42 1718.13
Hull Paint 3940.25 303.10 484.95
20
Appendix 2 – Parametric weight data
Figure 5-2 - Parametric weight data
Ship DWT [t] LS [t] B [m] LOA [m] L/B [-]
Allure of the Seas 17600 86200 47 362 7,702
Freedom of the Seas 11319 59700 38,6 339 8,782
Voyager of the Seas 11073 53700 38,6 311 8,057
Radiance of the Seas 10759 38612 32,2 293 9,099
Legend of the Seas [-] 29102 32 264 8,25
Grandeur of the Seas 9270 [-] 32,2 279,6 8,683
Enchantment of the Seas 10979 35000 32,2 302 9,379
Celebrity Silhouette 11894 50062 36,8 319 8,668
Celebrity Xpedition 571 1769 14 88,5 6,321
Celebrity Constellation 11747 35406 32,2 294 9,13
Celebrity Century 7260 29450,5 32,2 246,1 7,643
Azamara Journey 3323 12770 25,46 181,28 7,12
Mein Shiff 2 10123 32921 32,2 263,9 8,196
21
Appendix 3 – NAPA stability curves
Figure 5-3. Stability curve, load case 1
22
Figure 5-4. Stability curve, load case 2
23
Figure 5-5. Stability curve, load case 3
24
Figure 5-6. Stability curve, load case 4
25
Appendix 4 – NAPA strength curves
Figure 5-7. Strength curves, load case 1
26
Figure 5-8. Strength curves, load case 2
27
Figure 5-9. Strength curves, load case 3
28
Figure 5-10. Strength curves, load case 4
29
Appendix 5 – NAPA loading conditions results
Figure 5-11. Stability criteria results, load case 1
30
Figure 5-12. Stability criteria results, load case 2
31
Figure 5-13. Stability criteria results, load case 3
32
Figure 5-14. Stability criteria results, load case 4
33
Appendix 5 – NAPA curves of max KG and min GM
Figure 5-15. KG limit curve
Figure 5-16. GM limit curve
1
AALTO UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
Department of Applied Mechanics
Marine Technology
Damage Stability
M/S Arianna
2
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... 2
1. DAMAGE STABILITY ................................................................................................... 3
1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.2 DAMAGE SCENARIOS ............................................................................................................... 3
1.3 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 4
APPENDIX 1 - DAMAGE CASE 1 FOR LOADING CONDITIONS 1, 2 AND 3 ............ 5
APPENDIX 2 - DAMAGE CASE 2 FOR LOADING CONDITIONS 1, 2 AND 3 .......... 14
APPENDIX 3 - DAMAGE CASE 3 FOR LOADING CONDITIONS 1, 2 AND 3 .......... 23
3
1. Damage stability
1.1 Introduction
Once the intact stability of the vessel has been assessed in the four loading conditions
described in the previous chapter, the damage stability can be assessed. At some point of the
ship’s lifetime, it might encounter some damage. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate some
probable damage scenarios and predict the ships ability to withstand the damage and assess
whether she will survive the damage or not. The damage stability evaluation was done in
NAPA, which calculates damage stability in different loading conditions. Thus, initial
conditions were defined by specifying draft, trim, and metacentric height, which was taken
from the intact stability assessment results. It has been decided to assess three loading
conditions, while the lightship load case was neglected. Three different damage scenarios
were made and all seemed quite reasonable for this type of ship. The calculations for damage
stability were done for each loading condition, with nine scenarios in total. The damage cases
are described in following subchapters.
1.2 Damage scenarios
1.2.1 Damage case 1
The first damage scenario simulates a side collision where another ship collides with this
particular ship at an angle of 90 degrees, therefore, the PS side machinery room is filled with
water and the middle engine room is damaged after deep penetration, after which it is slowly
filled with water. The penetrations did not reach to the SB side machinery room, so this one
remained undamaged.
1.2.2 Damage case 2
In this scenario, the bulb is damaged so that the upper and lower sections are damaged and
filled with water after the ship collides with another ship at an angle of 90 degrees. This might
be the case where ship has a straight collision with some port construction, for example. First,
the machinery room for thrusters is damaged and after that the room behind the thruster room.
4
1.2.3 Damage case 3
In this case, it is assumed that another ship collides with the aft of our ship at an angle of 90
degrees at 21 m from AP. First, it penetrates the outer shell and damages the side and bottom
plating of the propulsion motor room where electric generators are located. Shortly after that,
the sides of two surrounding rooms are damaged as well. Finally, nearly the whole machinery
room for generators is filled with water.
1.3 Summary
Besides the vessel’s intact stability calculations, it must also be assumed that the vessel
suffers some damages during her lifetime and therefore it is necessary to evaluate the ship’s
ability to withstand and survive such incidents with minimal losses. Damages stability
analysis of the project ship was conducted in NAPA and the results showed that the ship will
not sink in a case of damaged described in previously defined load cases. The most critical
scenario was damage case 1, with a deep side penetration due to another ship in arrival
loading condition. The ship was heeled due to that by, in the final stage, approximately 14
degrees, but with this heeling angle it manages to float and the evacuation is not needed. With
the two other scenarios, only a small trim angle was obtained and this can be balanced with
ballast tanks. Although the ship is able to float, however, it is not capable of operating by her
own power anymore, due to the damages in the propulsion motor room where generators are
located. Therefore, it is reasonable to evacuate the passengers from the ship, as this ship has to
be towed to back on the port.
With these considerations in mind, there is an endless number of possible damage cases that
are not covered in this project work and therefore analysis into the damage stability of the
ship would definitely be needed in further design. One of the scenarios that should also be
considered in analysis is a grounding scenario, as this is nowadays a statistically common case
in bad weather conditions near to the shore.
5
Appendix 1 - Damage case 1 for loading conditions 1, 2 and 3
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:47 ARIANNA/A USER TEEK Arianna Page 1
INIT CASE: INI.D => Draught: 5.38 m, Trim: 0 m, Heel: 0 deg, GM0: 1.755 m Damage: MIDSHIP Type: NORMAL Side: AUTOMATIC Phases: 0 ---------- Stage: 1 Damaged compartments: MACH4 ---------- Stage: FINAL Damaged compartments: MACH5 DAMAGE CASE: MIDSHIP => Extension: frames #54...#78, transv. -3 -> 9.01 m Flooded in at equilibrium of case INI.D/MIDSHIP: 1205.3 ton DAMAGED COMPARTMENTS: --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Comp Description Volm Perm Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- MACH4 757.3 0.85 MACH5 907.2 0.85 MACH4 757.3 0.85
X=56 X=86 X=110
Z=1.2
Z=2.3
Z=5
PROFILE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
FLOATING POSITION AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM (CASE INI.D/MIDSHIP) Tm = 5.90 m GM = 1.56 m at zero heel Ta = 5.22 m GM = 2.35 m at equilibrium Tf = 6.59 m Heel = 12.62 deg to PS side Trim = 1.38 m
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:47 ARIANNA/A Case INI.D/MIDSHIP USER TEEK Arianna Page 2
X=56 X=86 X=110
Z=1.2
Z=2.3
Z=5
PROFILE
GZ CURVE AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM Heel 0.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.0010.0012.0015.0020.0030.0040.0050.00 GZ -0.40-0.37-0.32-0.26-0.19-0.10-0.02 0.10 0.36 0.96 1.20 1.00 T 6.01 6.02 6.02 6.02 6.00 5.96 5.92 5.83 5.63 5.01 4.23 3.34 Trim 1.07 1.08 1.12 1.17 1.23 1.31 1.36 1.42 1.48 1.55 1.86 2.20 Maximum righting arm (max. GZ) (PS) 1.20 m Max GZ at angle of heel (PS) 40.0 deg Range of positive GZ curve (PS) 37.4 deg Area under GZ curve (PS) 0.531 mrad
00 10 20 30 40 5050
heeling angle degree
-0.5
0
0.5
1
righting lever m
-0.5
0
0.5
1
GZ EPHI
PS
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:47 ARIANNA/A Case INI.D/MIDSHIP USER TEEK Arianna Page 3
PhaseCriterion Description Req. ATTV Unit Status ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOST CRITICAL OPENINGS: Name Frame Height Y-coord Side Dist. to Immersion Reduction per # [m] [m] water [m] angle[deg] 1deg. of heel OP1 48 6.9 -9.0 PS 2.93 - -0.13 OP2 30 6.9 -9.0 PS 3.15 - -0.13 OP3 18 6.9 -9.0 PS 3.31 - -0.13 DURING FLOODING: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Case Stage Phase Side T TR Heel MinGM Severity m m degree m ----------------------------------------------------------------------- INI.D/MID.INTACT EQ PS 5.38 0.00 0.0 - - INI.D/MID.1 EQ PS 5.52 0.85 13.4 - - INI.D/MID.FINAL EQ PS 5.90 1.38 12.6 - -
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:47 ARIANNA/A USER TEEK Arianna Page 1
INIT CASE: INI.M => Draught: 5.38 m, Trim: 0 m, Heel: 0 deg, GM0: 1.581 m Damage: MIDSHIP Type: NORMAL Side: AUTOMATIC Phases: 0 ---------- Stage: 1 Damaged compartments: MACH4 ---------- Stage: FINAL Damaged compartments: MACH5 DAMAGE CASE: MIDSHIP => Extension: frames #54...#78, transv. -3 -> 9.01 m Flooded in at equilibrium of case INI.M/MIDSHIP: 1212.2 ton DAMAGED COMPARTMENTS: --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Comp Description Volm Perm Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- MACH4 757.3 0.85 MACH5 907.2 0.85 MACH4 757.3 0.85
X=56 X=86 X=110
Z=1.2
Z=2.3
Z=5
PROFILE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
FLOATING POSITION AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM (CASE INI.M/MIDSHIP) Tm = 5.88 m GM = 1.39 m at zero heel Ta = 5.18 m GM = 2.32 m at equilibrium Tf = 6.58 m Heel = 13.59 deg to PS side Trim = 1.40 m
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:47 ARIANNA/A Case INI.M/MIDSHIP USER TEEK Arianna Page 2
X=56 X=86 X=110
Z=1.2
Z=2.3
Z=5
PROFILE
GZ CURVE AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM Heel 0.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.0010.0012.0015.0020.0030.0040.0050.00 GZ -0.40-0.38-0.33-0.27-0.22-0.13-0.06 0.06 0.30 0.87 1.09 0.87 T 6.02 6.02 6.03 6.02 6.01 5.97 5.92 5.83 5.63 5.02 4.23 3.34 Trim 1.07 1.08 1.12 1.17 1.23 1.32 1.37 1.42 1.48 1.56 1.86 2.20 Maximum righting arm (max. GZ) (PS) 1.09 m Max GZ at angle of heel (PS) 39.5 deg Range of positive GZ curve (PS) 36.4 deg Area under GZ curve (PS) 0.473 mrad
00 10 20 30 40 5050
heeling angle degree
-0.5
0
0.5
1
righting lever m
-0.5
0
0.5
1
GZ EPHI
PS
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:47 ARIANNA/A Case INI.M/MIDSHIP USER TEEK Arianna Page 3
PhaseCriterion Description Req. ATTV Unit Status ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOST CRITICAL OPENINGS: Name Frame Height Y-coord Side Dist. to Immersion Reduction per # [m] [m] water [m] angle[deg] 1deg. of heel OP1 48 6.9 -9.0 PS 3.07 - -0.12 OP2 30 6.9 -9.0 PS 3.30 - -0.12 OP3 18 6.9 -9.0 PS 3.46 - -0.12 DURING FLOODING: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Case Stage Phase Side T TR Heel MinGM Severity m m degree m ----------------------------------------------------------------------- INI.M/MID.INTACT EQ PS 5.38 0.00 0.0 - - INI.M/MID.1 EQ PS 5.49 0.89 14.7 - - INI.M/MID.FINAL EQ PS 5.88 1.40 13.6 - -
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:46 ARIANNA/A USER TEEK Arianna Page 1
INIT CASE: INI.A => Draught: 5.00 m, Trim: 0 m, Heel: 0 deg, GM0: 1.624 m Damage: MIDSHIP Type: NORMAL Side: AUTOMATIC Phases: 0 ---------- Stage: 1 Damaged compartments: MACH4 ---------- Stage: FINAL Damaged compartments: MACH5 DAMAGE CASE: MIDSHIP => Extension: frames #54...#78, transv. -3 -> 9.01 m Flooded in at equilibrium of case INI.A/MIDSHIP: 1122.9 ton DAMAGED COMPARTMENTS: --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Comp Description Volm Perm Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- MACH4 757.3 0.85 MACH5 907.2 0.85 MACH4 757.3 0.85
X=56 X=86 X=110
Z=1.2
Z=2.3
Z=5
PROFILE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
FLOATING POSITION AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM (CASE INI.A/MIDSHIP) Tm = 5.46 m GM = 1.31 m at zero heel Ta = 4.79 m GM = 2.15 m at equilibrium Tf = 6.13 m Heel = 13.80 deg to PS side Trim = 1.35 m
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:46 ARIANNA/A Case INI.A/MIDSHIP USER TEEK Arianna Page 2
X=56 X=86 X=110
Z=1.2
Z=2.3
Z=5
PROFILE
GZ CURVE AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM Heel 0.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.0010.0012.0015.0020.0030.0040.0050.00 GZ -0.40-0.37-0.32-0.27-0.22-0.13-0.06 0.05 0.29 0.86 1.12 0.90 T 5.58 5.59 5.60 5.59 5.58 5.54 5.50 5.43 5.24 4.63 3.77 2.80 Trim 0.98 1.00 1.03 1.08 1.13 1.23 1.29 1.38 1.48 1.60 1.91 2.31 Maximum righting arm (max. GZ) (PS) 1.12 m Max GZ at angle of heel (PS) 40.0 deg Range of positive GZ curve (PS) 36.2 deg Area under GZ curve (PS) 0.476 mrad
00 10 20 30 40 5050
heeling angle degree
-0.5
0
0.5
1
righting lever m
-0.5
0
0.5
1
GZ EPHI
PS
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:46 ARIANNA/A Case INI.A/MIDSHIP USER TEEK Arianna Page 3
PhaseCriterion Description Req. ATTV Unit Status ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOST CRITICAL OPENINGS: Name Frame Height Y-coord Side Dist. to Immersion Reduction per # [m] [m] water [m] angle[deg] 1deg. of heel OP1 48 6.9 -9.0 PS 3.51 - -0.12 OP2 30 6.9 -9.0 PS 3.73 - -0.12 OP3 18 6.9 -9.0 PS 3.88 - -0.12 DURING FLOODING: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Case Stage Phase Side T TR Heel MinGM Severity m m degree m ----------------------------------------------------------------------- INI.A/MID.INTACT EQ PS 5.00 0.00 0.0 - - INI.A/MID.1 EQ PS 5.11 0.85 14.5 - - INI.A/MID.FINAL EQ PS 5.46 1.35 13.8 - -
14
Appendix 2 - Damage case 2 for loading conditions 1, 2 and 3
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:49 ARIANNA/A USER TEEK Arianna Page 1
INIT CASE: INI.D => Draught: 5.38 m, Trim: 0 m, Heel: 0 deg, GM0: 1.755 m Damage: FORESHIP Type: NORMAL Side: AUTOMATIC Phases: 0 ---------- Stage: 1 Damaged compartments: MACH9 ---------- Stage: FINAL Damaged compartments: VOID1 DAMAGE CASE: FORESHIP => Extension: frames #103...#116, transv. -3.63 -> 3.63 m Flooded in at equilibrium of case INI.D/FORESHIP: 139.9 ton DAMAGED COMPARTMENTS: --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Comp Description Volm Perm Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- MACH9 23.1 0.85 VOID1 123.0 0.95 MACH9 23.1 0.85
X=56 X=86 X=110
Z=1.2
Z=2.3
Z=5
PROFILE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
FLOATING POSITION AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM (CASE INI.D/FORESHIP) Tm = 5.48 m GM = 1.77 m at zero heel Ta = 5.17 m GM = 1.77 m at equilibrium Tf = 5.80 m Heel = 0.00 Trim = 0.63 m
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:49 ARIANNA/A Case INI.D/FORESHIP USER TEEK Arianna Page 2
X=56 X=86 X=110
Z=1.2
Z=2.3
Z=5
PROFILE
GZ CURVE AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM Heel 0.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.0010.0012.0015.0020.0030.0040.0050.00 GZ 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.16 0.23 0.33 0.40 0.52 0.73 1.17 1.37 1.13 T 5.48 5.48 5.47 5.45 5.42 5.36 5.31 5.22 5.02 4.43 3.56 2.60 Trim 0.63 0.63 0.64 0.66 0.69 0.75 0.80 0.86 0.96 1.13 1.42 1.80 Maximum righting arm (max. GZ) (PS) 1.37 m Max GZ at angle of heel (PS) 39.5 deg Range of positive GZ curve (PS) 50.0 deg Area under GZ curve (PS) 0.737 mrad
00 10 20 30 40 5050
heeling angle degree
0
0.5
1
1.5
righting lever m
0
0.5
1
1.5
GZ EPHI
PS
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:49 ARIANNA/A Case INI.D/FORESHIP USER TEEK Arianna Page 3
PhaseCriterion Description Req. ATTV Unit Status ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOST CRITICAL OPENINGS: Name Frame Height Y-coord Side Dist. to Immersion Reduction per # [m] [m] water [m] angle[deg] 1deg. of heel OP1 48 6.9 -9.0 PS 1.48 - -0.16 OP2 30 6.9 -9.0 PS 1.58 - -0.16 OP3 18 6.9 -9.0 PS 1.65 - -0.16 DURING FLOODING: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Case Stage Phase Side T TR Heel MinGM Severity m m degree m ----------------------------------------------------------------------- INI.D/FOR.INTACT EQ PS 5.38 0.00 0.0 - - INI.D/FOR.1 EQ PS 5.39 0.08 0.0 - - INI.D/FOR.FINAL EQ PS 5.48 0.63 0.0 - -
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:50 ARIANNA/A USER TEEK Arianna Page 1
INIT CASE: INI.M => Draught: 5.38 m, Trim: 0 m, Heel: 0 deg, GM0: 1.581 m Damage: FORESHIP Type: NORMAL Side: AUTOMATIC Phases: 0 ---------- Stage: 1 Damaged compartments: MACH9 ---------- Stage: FINAL Damaged compartments: VOID1 DAMAGE CASE: FORESHIP => Extension: frames #103...#116, transv. -3.63 -> 3.63 m Flooded in at equilibrium of case INI.M/FORESHIP: 139.9 ton DAMAGED COMPARTMENTS: --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Comp Description Volm Perm Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- MACH9 23.1 0.85 VOID1 123.0 0.95 MACH9 23.1 0.85
X=56 X=86 X=110
Z=1.2
Z=2.3
Z=5
PROFILE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
FLOATING POSITION AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM (CASE INI.M/FORESHIP) Tm = 5.49 m GM = 1.59 m at zero heel Ta = 5.17 m GM = 1.59 m at equilibrium Tf = 5.80 m Heel = 0.00 Trim = 0.63 m
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:50 ARIANNA/A Case INI.M/FORESHIP USER TEEK Arianna Page 2
X=56 X=86 X=110
Z=1.2
Z=2.3
Z=5
PROFILE
GZ CURVE AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM Heel 0.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.0010.0012.0015.0020.0030.0040.0050.00 GZ 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.14 0.20 0.30 0.37 0.47 0.67 1.09 1.26 1.00 T 5.49 5.48 5.47 5.46 5.43 5.36 5.31 5.22 5.02 4.43 3.56 2.60 Trim 0.63 0.63 0.64 0.66 0.69 0.75 0.80 0.86 0.96 1.13 1.42 1.80 Maximum righting arm (max. GZ) (PS) 1.26 m Max GZ at angle of heel (PS) 39.0 deg Range of positive GZ curve (PS) 50.0 deg Area under GZ curve (PS) 0.675 mrad
00 10 20 30 40 5050
heeling angle degree
0
0.5
1
righting lever m
0
0.5
1
GZ EPHI
PS
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:50 ARIANNA/A Case INI.M/FORESHIP USER TEEK Arianna Page 3
PhaseCriterion Description Req. ATTV Unit Status ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOST CRITICAL OPENINGS: Name Frame Height Y-coord Side Dist. to Immersion Reduction per # [m] [m] water [m] angle[deg] 1deg. of heel OP1 48 6.9 -9.0 PS 1.48 - -0.16 OP2 30 6.9 -9.0 PS 1.58 - -0.16 OP3 18 6.9 -9.0 PS 1.65 - -0.16 DURING FLOODING: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Case Stage Phase Side T TR Heel MinGM Severity m m degree m ----------------------------------------------------------------------- INI.M/FOR.INTACT EQ PS 5.38 0.00 0.0 - - INI.M/FOR.1 EQ PS 5.40 0.08 0.0 - - INI.M/FOR.FINAL EQ PS 5.49 0.63 0.0 - -
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:48 ARIANNA/A USER TEEK Arianna Page 1
INIT CASE: INI.A => Draught: 5.00 m, Trim: 0 m, Heel: 0 deg, GM0: 1.624 m Damage: FORESHIP Type: NORMAL Side: AUTOMATIC Phases: 0 ---------- Stage: 1 Damaged compartments: MACH9 ---------- Stage: FINAL Damaged compartments: VOID1 DAMAGE CASE: FORESHIP => Extension: frames #103...#116, transv. -3.63 -> 3.63 m Flooded in at equilibrium of case INI.A/FORESHIP: 139.9 ton DAMAGED COMPARTMENTS: --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Comp Description Volm Perm Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- MACH9 23.1 0.85 VOID1 123.0 0.95 MACH9 23.1 0.85
X=56 X=86 X=110
Z=1.2
Z=2.3
Z=5
PROFILE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
FLOATING POSITION AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM (CASE INI.A/FORESHIP) Tm = 5.10 m GM = 1.67 m at zero heel Ta = 4.76 m GM = 1.67 m at equilibrium Tf = 5.45 m Heel = 0.00 Trim = 0.69 m
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:48 ARIANNA/A Case INI.A/FORESHIP USER TEEK Arianna Page 2
X=56 X=86 X=110
Z=1.2
Z=2.3
Z=5
PROFILE
GZ CURVE AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM Heel 0.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.0010.0012.0015.0020.0030.0040.0050.00 GZ 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.15 0.21 0.31 0.38 0.50 0.70 1.09 1.25 1.02 T 5.10 5.10 5.09 5.07 5.05 4.99 4.94 4.85 4.66 4.06 3.16 2.13 Trim 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.72 0.77 0.81 0.88 1.00 1.23 1.53 1.97 Maximum righting arm (max. GZ) (PS) 1.25 m Max GZ at angle of heel (PS) 39.0 deg Range of positive GZ curve (PS) 50.0 deg Area under GZ curve (PS) 0.683 mrad
00 10 20 30 40 5050
heeling angle degree
0
0.5
1
righting lever m
0
0.5
1
GZ EPHI
PS
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:48 ARIANNA/A Case INI.A/FORESHIP USER TEEK Arianna Page 3
PhaseCriterion Description Req. ATTV Unit Status ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOST CRITICAL OPENINGS: Name Frame Height Y-coord Side Dist. to Immersion Reduction per # [m] [m] water [m] angle[deg] 1deg. of heel OP1 48 6.9 -9.0 PS 1.86 - -0.16 OP2 30 6.9 -9.0 PS 1.98 - -0.16 OP3 18 6.9 -9.0 PS 2.05 - -0.16 DURING FLOODING: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Case Stage Phase Side T TR Heel MinGM Severity m m degree m ----------------------------------------------------------------------- INI.A/FOR.INTACT EQ PS 5.00 0.00 0.0 - - INI.A/FOR.1 EQ PS 5.01 0.09 0.0 - - INI.A/FOR.FINAL EQ PS 5.10 0.69 0.0 - -
23
Appendix 3 - Damage case 3 for loading conditions 1, 2 and 3
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:52 ARIANNA/A USER TEEK Arianna Page 1
INIT CASE: INI.D => Draught: 5.38 m, Trim: 0 m, Heel: 0 deg, GM0: 1.755 m Damage: AFTSHIP Type: NORMAL Side: AUTOMATIC Phases: 0 ---------- Stage: 1 Damaged compartments: MACH1 ---------- Stage: 2 Damaged compartments: VOID2 ---------- Stage: FINAL Damaged compartments: VOID3 DAMAGE CASE: AFTSHIP => Extension: frames #9...#30, transv. -9 -> 9 m Flooded in at equilibrium of case INI.D/AFTSHIP: 927.3 ton DAMAGED COMPARTMENTS: --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Comp Description Volm Perm Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- MACH1 988.7 0.85 MACH1 988.7 0.85 MACH1 988.7 0.85 VOID2 213.7 0.95 VOID2 213.7 0.95 VOID3 66.9 0.95
X=56 X=86 X=110
Z=1.2
Z=2.3
Z=5
PROFILE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
FLOATING POSITION AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM (CASE INI.D/AFTSHIP) Tm = 5.77 m GM = 1.97 m at zero heel Ta = 6.68 m GM = 1.97 m at equilibrium Tf = 4.87 m Heel = 0.00 Trim = -1.81 m
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:52 ARIANNA/A Case INI.D/AFTSHIP USER TEEK Arianna Page 2
X=56 X=86 X=110
Z=1.2
Z=2.3
Z=5
PROFILE
GZ CURVE AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM Heel 0.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.0010.0012.0015.0020.0030.0040.0050.00 GZ 0.00 0.03 0.10 0.17 0.24 0.34 0.41 0.51 0.70 1.14 1.32 1.10 T 5.77 5.77 5.76 5.75 5.72 5.67 5.62 5.52 5.30 4.68 3.86 2.94 Trim -1.81-1.81-1.81-1.81-1.81-1.79-1.77-1.68-1.49-1.04-0.80-0.57 Maximum righting arm (max. GZ) (PS) 1.32 m Max GZ at angle of heel (PS) 39.5 deg Range of positive GZ curve (PS) 50.0 deg Area under GZ curve (PS) 0.716 mrad
00 10 20 30 40 5050
heeling angle degree
0
0.5
1righting lever m
0
0.5
1
GZ EPHI
PS
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:52 ARIANNA/A Case INI.D/AFTSHIP USER TEEK Arianna Page 3
PhaseCriterion Description Req. ATTV Unit Status ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOST CRITICAL OPENINGS: Name Frame Height Y-coord Side Dist. to Immersion Reduction per # [m] [m] water [m] angle[deg] 1deg. of heel OP1 48 6.9 -9.0 PS 0.95 - -0.16 OP2 30 6.9 -9.0 PS 0.66 - -0.16 OP3 18 6.9 -9.0 PS 0.46 - -0.16 DURING FLOODING: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Case Stage Phase Side T TR Heel MinGM Severity m m degree m ----------------------------------------------------------------------- INI.D/AFT.INTACT EQ PS 5.38 0.00 0.0 - - INI.D/AFT.1 EQ PS 5.65 -1.16 0.0 - - INI.D/AFT.2 EQ PS 5.74 -1.69 0.0 - - INI.D/AFT.FINAL EQ PS 5.77 -1.81 0.0 - -
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:52 ARIANNA/A USER TEEK Arianna Page 1
INIT CASE: INI.M => Draught: 5.38 m, Trim: 0 m, Heel: 0 deg, GM0: 1.581 m Damage: AFTSHIP Type: NORMAL Side: AUTOMATIC Phases: 0 ---------- Stage: 1 Damaged compartments: MACH1 ---------- Stage: 2 Damaged compartments: VOID2 ---------- Stage: FINAL Damaged compartments: VOID3 DAMAGE CASE: AFTSHIP => Extension: frames #9...#30, transv. -9 -> 9 m Flooded in at equilibrium of case INI.M/AFTSHIP: 927.8 ton DAMAGED COMPARTMENTS: --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Comp Description Volm Perm Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- MACH1 988.7 0.85 MACH1 988.7 0.85 MACH1 988.7 0.85 VOID2 213.7 0.95 VOID2 213.7 0.95 VOID3 66.9 0.95
X=56 X=86 X=110
Z=1.2
Z=2.3
Z=5
PROFILE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
FLOATING POSITION AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM (CASE INI.M/AFTSHIP) Tm = 5.78 m GM = 1.79 m at zero heel Ta = 6.68 m GM = 1.79 m at equilibrium Tf = 4.87 m Heel = 0.00 Trim = -1.81 m
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:52 ARIANNA/A Case INI.M/AFTSHIP USER TEEK Arianna Page 2
X=56 X=86 X=110
Z=1.2
Z=2.3
Z=5
PROFILE
GZ CURVE AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM Heel 0.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.0010.0012.0015.0020.0030.0040.0050.00 GZ 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.16 0.22 0.31 0.37 0.47 0.64 1.05 1.21 0.96 T 5.78 5.78 5.77 5.75 5.72 5.67 5.62 5.52 5.30 4.69 3.86 2.94 Trim -1.81-1.81-1.81-1.81-1.81-1.79-1.77-1.68-1.49-1.05-0.81-0.57 Maximum righting arm (max. GZ) (PS) 1.21 m Max GZ at angle of heel (PS) 39.0 deg Range of positive GZ curve (PS) 50.0 deg Area under GZ curve (PS) 0.654 mrad
00 10 20 30 40 5050
heeling angle degree
0
0.5
1
righting lever m
0
0.5
1
GZ EPHI
PS
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:52 ARIANNA/A Case INI.M/AFTSHIP USER TEEK Arianna Page 3
PhaseCriterion Description Req. ATTV Unit Status ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOST CRITICAL OPENINGS: Name Frame Height Y-coord Side Dist. to Immersion Reduction per # [m] [m] water [m] angle[deg] 1deg. of heel OP1 48 6.9 -9.0 PS 0.95 - -0.16 OP2 30 6.9 -9.0 PS 0.66 - -0.16 OP3 18 6.9 -9.0 PS 0.45 - -0.16 DURING FLOODING: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Case Stage Phase Side T TR Heel MinGM Severity m m degree m ----------------------------------------------------------------------- INI.M/AFT.INTACT EQ PS 5.38 0.00 0.0 - - INI.M/AFT.1 EQ PS 5.65 -1.16 0.0 - - INI.M/AFT.2 EQ PS 5.74 -1.69 0.0 - - INI.M/AFT.FINAL EQ PS 5.78 -1.81 0.0 - -
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:51 ARIANNA/A USER TEEK Arianna Page 1
INIT CASE: INI.A => Draught: 5.00 m, Trim: 0 m, Heel: 0 deg, GM0: 1.624 m Damage: AFTSHIP Type: NORMAL Side: AUTOMATIC Phases: 0 ---------- Stage: 1 Damaged compartments: MACH1 ---------- Stage: 2 Damaged compartments: VOID2 ---------- Stage: FINAL Damaged compartments: VOID3 DAMAGE CASE: AFTSHIP => Extension: frames #9...#30, transv. -9 -> 9 m Flooded in at equilibrium of case INI.A/AFTSHIP: 876.7 ton DAMAGED COMPARTMENTS: --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Comp Description Volm Perm Comp Description Volm Perm --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- MACH1 988.7 0.85 MACH1 988.7 0.85 MACH1 988.7 0.85 VOID2 213.7 0.95 VOID2 213.7 0.95 VOID3 66.9 0.95
X=56 X=86 X=110
Z=1.2
Z=2.3
Z=5
PROFILE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
FLOATING POSITION AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM (CASE INI.A/AFTSHIP) Tm = 5.39 m GM = 1.96 m at zero heel Ta = 6.33 m GM = 1.96 m at equilibrium Tf = 4.45 m Heel = 0.00 Trim = -1.89 m
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:51 ARIANNA/A Case INI.A/AFTSHIP USER TEEK Arianna Page 2
X=56 X=86 X=110
Z=1.2
Z=2.3
Z=5
PROFILE
GZ CURVE AT FINAL EQUILIBRIUM Heel 0.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.0010.0012.0015.0020.0030.0040.0050.00 GZ 0.00 0.03 0.10 0.17 0.23 0.33 0.38 0.47 0.64 1.04 1.23 1.00 T 5.39 5.39 5.38 5.37 5.34 5.28 5.23 5.14 4.93 4.31 3.43 2.45 Trim -1.89-1.89-1.88-1.87-1.86-1.82-1.77-1.66-1.44-0.94-0.54-0.20 Maximum righting arm (max. GZ) (PS) 1.23 m Max GZ at angle of heel (PS) 39.5 deg Range of positive GZ curve (PS) 50.0 deg Area under GZ curve (PS) 0.662 mrad
00 10 20 30 40 5050
heeling angle degree
0
0.5
1
righting lever m
0
0.5
1
GZ EPHI
PS
Napa Oy Damage Results DATE 2013-12-04 NAPA/D/DAM/121113 TIME 19:51 ARIANNA/A Case INI.A/AFTSHIP USER TEEK Arianna Page 3
PhaseCriterion Description Req. ATTV Unit Status ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOST CRITICAL OPENINGS: Name Frame Height Y-coord Side Dist. to Immersion Reduction per # [m] [m] water [m] angle[deg] 1deg. of heel OP1 48 6.9 -9.0 PS 1.33 - -0.16 OP2 30 6.9 -9.0 PS 1.02 - -0.16 OP3 18 6.9 -9.0 PS 0.81 - -0.16 DURING FLOODING: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Case Stage Phase Side T TR Heel MinGM Severity m m degree m ----------------------------------------------------------------------- INI.A/AFT.INTACT EQ PS 5.00 0.00 0.0 - - INI.A/AFT.1 EQ PS 5.26 -1.22 0.0 - - INI.A/AFT.2 EQ PS 5.36 -1.77 0.0 - - INI.A/AFT.FINAL EQ PS 5.39 -1.89 0.0 - -
0
AALTO UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
Department of Applied Mechanics
Marine Technology
Cost and Profitability
M/S Arianna
1
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... 1
1. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 3
1.1 ACQUISITION COST .................................................................................................................. 3
1.2 PROFITABILITY STUDIES .......................................................................................................... 9
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 14
APPENDIX 1 – PARAMETRIC DATA .............................................................................. 15
APPENDIX 2 – CATEGORIZED ACQUISITION COST CALCULATIONS ............... 17
APPENDIX 3 – ANNUAL OPERATING CALCULATIONS ........................................... 21
APPENDIX 4 – PROFITABILITY CALCULATIONS ..................................................... 23
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 - Gross registered tonnage vs. lightship weight ........................................................ 4
Figure 1-2- Newbuild cost vs. gross tonnage ............................................................................. 4
Figure 1-3- Truncated newbuild cost vs. gross tonnage ............................................................. 5
Figure 1-4- Acquisition cost breakdown .................................................................................... 8
Figure 1-5 - Categorized annual operating expense breakdown .............................................. 11
Figure 1-6 - Ticket rates by tonnage and category ................................................................... 12
2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 - Acquisition cost groupings ...................................................................................... 6
Table 1-2 – Costs per tonne ........................................................................................................ 7
Table 1-3 –ESWBS acquisition cost summary .......................................................................... 7
Table 1-4 – Final acquisition cost estimate ................................................................................ 8
Table 1-5 - Operating cost categories ...................................................................................... 10
Table 1-6 - Weighted ticket price ............................................................................................. 12 break Table A1- 1 - Parametric gross tonnage data ........................................................................... 15
Table A1- 2 - Parametric brand life data .................................................................................. 15
Table A1- 3 – Truncated parametric cost data ......................................................................... 16 break Table A2- 1 - ESWBS cost overview ....................................................................................... 17
Table A2- 2 - Cost breakdown overview ................................................................................. 17
Table A2- 3 - Margin application overview ............................................................................. 18
Table A2- 4 - ESWBS 100 costs .............................................................................................. 18
Table A2- 5 - ESWBS 200 costs .............................................................................................. 18
Table A2- 6 - ESWBS 300 costs .............................................................................................. 19
Table A2- 7 - ESWBS 400 costs .............................................................................................. 19
Table A2- 8 - ESWBS 500 costs .............................................................................................. 20
Table A2- 9 - ESWBS 600 costs .............................................................................................. 20 break
Table A3- 1 – Annual fuel costs ............................................................................................... 21
Table A3- 2 - Annual payroll costs .......................................................................................... 21
Table A3- 3 – Annual port costs .............................................................................................. 21
Table A3- 4 - Annual consumable costs .................................................................................. 21
Table A3- 5 - Annual maintenance and capital costs ............................................................... 22
Table A3- 6 – Total annual costs ............................................................................................. 22 break
Table A4- 1 - Daily required freight rate calculations ............................................................. 23
Table A4- 2 - Annual equivalent breakeven analysis .............................................................. 24
3
1. Economic analysis
Economic considerations for a cruise ship are crucial. Not only must the initial cost be
calculated, but additional factors must also be considered in order to ensure the ship’s
operational profitability. Annual operating costs and revenue figures are examples of
parameters that determine the success of a ship. For this analysis, it was a point not only to
compute the estimated cost of building the ship, but also to perform a profitability analysis in
order to find the minimum charge per person needed to guarantee a profit. This section of the
report summarizes all steps in performing the cost analysis for this ship.
1.1 Acquisition cost
The economic analysis was initiated with an estimation of the ship’s new-build cost. There
were two methods used in estimating this value: a parametric study and an overhead cost
analysis based on industry guidelines and the previously defined breakdown structure for the
ship’s components. Both methods should be considered when selecting the final acquisition
cost estimate.
1.1.1 Parametric Analysis
Collecting and analysing cost data for reference cruise ships gives baseline values with which
to compare later calculated ones. This will serve as a reasonability check for the selected
estimation method.
The most easily accessible measure of a cruise ship’s size is its gross tonnage, as this is the
parameter preferred by the industry, along with lower bed capacity and double occupancy (1).
One caveat to this is the difficulty in correlating the gross tonnage, a volumetric measurement,
with the weight displacement. The most common definition of gross tonnage is that set forth
by IMO, which relates gross tonnage to the gross volume of a ship, as follows (2).
[ ( )]( ) [1]
Since the gross volume of current ships is not often recorded, a parametric comparison
between known values for gross tonnage and lightship weight was used. After plotting the two
values for several reference ships, it is clear that a strong correlation exists between the two
parameters, as shown in Figure 1-1.
4
Figure 1-1 - Gross registered tonnage vs. lightship weight
This correlation makes it possible to compare this ship to existing references directly. From
this trend line, the gross tonnage is approximated as 6577 GRT.
In order to compile a useful set of parametric cost data, new-build cost information for 172
cruise ships was collected. After organizing the data, a very weak correlation between ship
size and acquisition cost was initially found. After taking the effect of interest into account,
however, a strong trend was identified. The simple relationship between the net present value
(NPV), interest (i), acquisition cost (AC), and age (n) was used in this regard. This
relationship is shown in the equation below.
( ) 1-1
The resultant graphical trend for all data is shown in Figure 1-2.
Figure 1-2- Newbuild cost vs. gross tonnage
0
50
100
150
200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Gro
ss T
on
nag
e [t
ho
usa
nd
GR
T]
Lightship Weight [thousand t]
Gross Tonnage vs. Lightship Weight
References
new design
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000
Ori
gin
al C
ost
w/I
nfl
atio
n [
mill
USD
]
Gross Registered Tonnage [GRT]
Newbuild Cost vs. GRT with Inflation
5
An estimate with all data, however, will likely be too low. This is due to the effect of including much larger
ships into the analysis. In relation, there are fewer ships within our size range, meaning they have less effect on
the trend line than the larger ships, which include many additional components. Therefore, in order to achieve a
more accurate estimation, the data was truncated by implementing a 20,000 GRT size limit. With this truncation,
a new regression was approximated that fits the smaller ship data with much more certainty. This is shown in
Figure 1-3.
Figure 1-3- Truncated newbuild cost vs. gross tonnage
The smaller ships are no longer devalued and the result is a larger initial cost value. From this,
a final reference acquisition cost of approximately 67 million USD is selected.
1.1.2 Detailed acquisition cost estimate
A second method of estimating the acquisition cost is to systematically categorize the ship’s
components and estimate the cost based on weight. This method is especially useful during
early design stages, where, for typical ships, the general cost structure will be known. A high
degree of accuracy is not needed for budgeting, as variations in pricing can easily occur even
when detailed quotations are obtained; up to a 15% margin for error is expected and
acceptable at this stage of planning (3). Therefore, approximations will be used where
quotations are not available.
Based on its function, a ship component can be assigned to an appropriate category for which
historical data is available. As such, approximate unit costs can be applied in order to
calculate a total weight for any component, subsystem, or system. During the first iterations of
the design spiral, eight cost groupings are sufficient to differentiate between different items
while ensuring that component costs within a single group do not differ significantly (3).
These groupings are listed below in Table 1-1.
0
50
100
150
200
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Ori
gin
al C
ost
wit
h In
flat
ion
[m
illio
ns
USD
]
Gross Registered Tonnage [GRT]
Newbuild Cost vs. GRT with Inflation
References
new design
6
Table 1-1 - Acquisition cost groupings
Group Name
1 Steel
2 Steel structure-related
3 Cargo-related
4 Accomodation
5 Deck machinery-related
6 Propulsion
7 Auxilliary
8 Structure-related
Group 1 includes both the structural steel and steel labour costs related to the construction of
the hull and superstructure. The second group includes all additional structural steel weight,
such as structural castings and fabrications, hatch covers, and watertight doors. This is
neglected at this point, as it can be assumed that this will comprise only a small percentage of
the steel weight and costs. Therefore, this group is essentially absorbed into the first, as the
NAPA model does not differentiate between these weights.
The third group is not very important for a passenger vessel, but does include firefighting,
paint, and plumber work, which are present. Group 4 should contain a very large percentage
of the total acquisition cost, as the accommodation outfitting is significant in both weight and
price. This is expected, as the ship falls into the luxury cruising market and will accordingly
feature very expensive furnishings. According to this grouping system, deck coverings,
windows, galley gear, HVAC units, lifts, nautical instruments, and electrical work should also
be included within this group. The deck machinery and its related components are described
by group 5. Examples include the steering gear, bow thruster, anchoring and mooring
equipment, and davits.
The final three groups consist of machinery components. With this system, the main engines,
gearbox, shaft, and propellers are included in the propulsion group, group 6. The generators
and pumps are consolidated into group 7 while uptakes, ventilation, and engine room
pipework are included in the final group.
For each group, a unit cost per tonne is provided based on statistical data (3). However, the
data is only accurate for the time of publication and should be augmented to reflect its net
present value in the same way as before. The result is shown in Table 1-2.
7
Table 1-2 – Costs per tonne
Cost
Group Name
Cost per tonnne
[USD 1993]
Cost per tonnne
[USD 2014]
1 Steel 3600 5686
2 Steel structure-related 3600 5686
3 Cargo-related 12000 18952
4 Accomodation 16000 25269
5 Deck machinery-related 14000 22110
6 Propulsion 16000 25269
7 Auxilliary 14000 22110
8 Structure-related 3600 5686
Though the provided grouping is adequate for defining similar costs between components, the
final costs should be reported using the same breakdown structure from the weight estimate,
the expanded ship breakdown structure (ESWBS). Consistency in this regard is very
important, as direct comparisons cannot be made with different methods. Therefore, the
individual components from the weight breakdown were assigned to their appropriate cost
group based on the aforementioned definitions. Following this, the respective unit cost per
tonne was applied and all components were summed for each ESWBS group. The resulting
total cost can be taken as the new estimation for acquisition. The detailed calculation tables,
by ESWBS group, are provided in Appendix 2 and the summary table is shown in Table 1-3.
Table 1-3 –ESWBS acquisition cost summary
SWBS
Group Description
Weight Weight Total Cost [USD]
[t] [LT]
100 Steel Structure 2062,4 2029,8 11725619
200 Propulsion Plant 161,6 159,0 4059472
300 Electric Plant 396,7 390,4 9901466
400 Command and Surveillance 1,3 1,3 31637
500 Auxilliary Systems 96,8 95,2 2088929
600 Outfit and Furnishings 1480,3 1456,9 37233460
[-] Serv. Life Allowance 318,5 313,5 [-]
[-] Add'l 10% Margin 424,7 418,0 [-]
[-] Total without margin 4198,9 4132,6 65040583
[-] Total 4933,7 4855,8
[-] Approximated Total [-] [-] 65000000
The result is an acquisition cost estimate that is very close to the parametrically estimated one.
The new estimate of roughly 65 million US dollars results in less than a 3% difference when
compared to the parametrically estimated value. This validates the chosen method and
suggests that the calculated acquisition cost is reasonable.
8
In addition to the final estimation, a breakdown of the acquisition costs by component is
shown in Figure 1-4, according to the SWBS breakdown. As expected, the outfitting costs are
proportionally very high.
Figure 1-4- Acquisition cost breakdown
In the same way that a service life and additional allowance were included in the lightship
weight estimate, a margin should be included for the final acquisition cost. At this design
stage, two important margins should be considered to ensure a conservative assessment. The
first is a ship owner’s cost margin, which covers additional expenses including spare parts,
plan approval, supervision, and administrative and legal fees (4). In addition, a design margin
should be implemented to account for design, electricity, and trial costs. Appropriate values
for these margins are 6% and 5%, respectively (2). Therefore, with margins included, the final
acquisition cost for the vessel will be approximately 72 million USD, as shown in Table 1-4.
Table 1-4 – Final acquisition cost estimate
Description Cost [USD]
Estimated acquisition cost 65040583
Shipowner's margin 3252029
Design margin 3902435
Final acquisition cost 72195047
Approximated cost 72000000
18%
6%
15%
0%
3%
58%
ESWBS Acquisition Cost Breakdown
Steel Structure
Propulsion Plant
Electric Plant
Command andSurveillance
Auxilliary Systems
Outfit and Furnishings
9
1.2 Profitability studies
The next step of the cost analysis is to measure the profitability of the ship. The goal is to
calculate the minimum ticket price needed per person in order to ensure that the ship is
profitable over the entire service life. This can be accomplished with the required freight rate
analysis, which can be considered a required ticket rate calculation for a passenger ship (1).
This is a common method used for ships designed to create revenue, including cruise ships.
There are many required inputs for this analysis method, as summarized below.
initial cost
ship service life
salvage or resale value
passenger capacity
daily passenger costs
cruise fare
operating days per year
annual revenue sales
annual operating and maintenance costs
equivalent uniform annualized costs
The operating days per year is taken as 340 days to allow for ample reserve time for
maintenance and the resale value is an estimated 25% of the acquisition cost. The service life
was based solely on luxury ship data. Contemporary cruise ships were not taken into account,
as it can be assumed that luxury ships will have a lower brand life due to the higher
expectation level associated with them. Though luxury ships are not usually scrapped
following their retirement, they have often been rebranded to other cruise lines. Therefore, the
service life is in terms of brand life and not total ship lifecycle. From the data provided in
Table A1-2, an average brand life of 14.3 years was found, which is slightly less than the
brand life of cruise ships in general. Thus, a service life of 15 years was chosen for this
design.
The remaining parameters can be divided into three major groups: acquisition cost, operating
costs, and revenue estimates. With the initial cost now known, the remaining variables must
be identified with various methods.
10
1.2.1 Annual operating costs
The major operating costs were divided into a six level breakdown structure, as shown in
Table 1-5. This grouping is based on the major operating cost division seen in modern cruise
lines (5). In this section, the basic estimation methods and assumptions for each group will be
discussed. The detailed calculation tables are presented in Appendix 3.
Table 1-5 - Operating cost categories
Group Description
1 fuel
2 port docking and misc. fees
3 crew payroll
4 maintenance and capital
5 consumables
6 miscellaneous
The fuel costs will clearly contribute to a large percentage of the total annual operating costs,
as with any cruise ship. Existing prices fluctuate greatly based on date and location, but the
current price in Rotterdam, 865 USD/ton, was selected (6). Along with this, the calculated
hours at sea, average power according to our machinery calculations, and specific fuel
consumption of the engines according to their specifications were used to calculate the annual
fuel costs. As seen in Table A3-1, this is found to be approximately 5.6 million USD.
For payroll expenses, the crew was divided into five categories: captain, staff captain, senior
officer, junior officer, and general crew. The estimated monthly salary, in USD, was taken
from current averages (5), as listed in Table A3-2. The number of crew corresponding to each
position correlates with the cabin types shown in the general arrangement. The total annual
payroll expenses is calculated as 1.77 million USD.
Port fees will be relatively high for this ship, as the chosen itinerary is very port intensive,
with no full sea days in between any two. Generally, docking fees depend on gross tonnage,
and a berthing rate of 0.15 euro/GT was chosen and converted to approximately 0.20
USD/GT per day. In reality, fees will vary by port, but it was not possible to find the actual
docking fee for each of the selected cities. For additional fees, including waste disposal
charges, an additional margin was applied. With these considerations, an estimated 790,000
USD per year will be spent on port-related costs, as shown in Table A3-3.
Maintenance and capital costs were included in the same category, as each was computed as
factors of the acquisition cost. General upkeep costs were taken as 5% of this value, while
10% was taken for the more demanding refurbishment costs. The latter will be unevenly
11
distributed based on dry-dock dates, but a yearly average was used for calculations. Finally,
the capital and insurance costs were also taken as an acquisition cost percentage. The result is
a yearly maintenance and capital expense of roughly 746,000 USD, as given in Table A3-5.
Next, consumables for both the crew and passengers were estimated, as this should be a
considerable portion of the annual costs for a luxury cruise ship. Based on current figures for
the cruise market (5), an estimated 30 USD per person, per day will be spent on food, while
the corresponding cost for crewmembers was factorized. Though actual figures were not
found, an additional 10 and 15 USD per person, per day, was taken for the crew and
passengers, respectively. This will cover additional consumables such as water and other
waste needs. Table A3-4 shows the consumable calculations, resulting in nearly 2.8 million
USD per year.
The final annual operating expenses are presented as miscellaneous costs. According to
current expense profiles, cruise ships pay an additional 14-15% in terms of operating costs
that do not fit into the prior categories (5). This includes corporate, agent commission,
depreciation, and amortization costs, among others. In line with the example, miscellaneous
costs were estimated as 14% of the sum of the previously calculated costs.
Considering all six cost categories, total annual operating costs are calculated as 13.3 million
USD, as shown in Table A3-6. A breakdown of these expenses is shown in Figure 1-5.
Figure 1-5 - Categorized annual operating expense breakdown
42%
6% 13%
6%
21%
12%
Categorized Operating Costs
fuel costs
port fees
crew payroll
maint/capital
consumables
misc.
12
1.2.2 Annual revenue
The estimated revenue calculations are largely dependent on the expected ticket fare for the
various stateroom categories. These fares were estimated in line with the current luxury
market (7). As shown in Figure 1-6, the ticket prices are expected to be very high for this
vessel, as all cabins feature balconies and the ship is very small, meaning a premium will be
applied for inclusivity.
Figure 1-6 - Ticket rates by tonnage and category
With these figures in mind, conservative ticket fares were estimated in order to ensure
profitability under all circumstances, including a scenario where the demand decreases and
ticket prices drop accordingly. A weighted fare was then calculated and used for
computations. The fare categories and values, along with the corresponding weighted ticket
price, are shown in Table 1-6.
Table 1-6 - Weighted ticket price
Cabin Type Quantity Fare Unit
Balcony Suite 66 400 USD/pp/day
Deluxe Suite 10 600 USD/pp/day
Weighted Daily Fare 426 USD/pp/day
In addition to ticket fares, cruise lines make a major profit on daily passenger spending,
including specialty dining, spa, alcohol, and shore excursion profits. In line with other luxury
cruise lines, the average daily profit, per person, was taken as 50 USD. A projected load
13
factor of 0.9 was also introduced. This is the ratio of average passenger capacity to that of the
maximum passenger capacity and is considered in order to replicate seasonality effects.
With these parameters, the annual ticket revenue and onboard revenue can be calculated based
on the weighted ticket fare, operating days per year, onboard spending, and passenger
capacity at the selected load factor. The full calculations are included in Table A4-1.
1.2.3 Profitability calculations
By calculating expected annual revenue and operating costs as well as compiling the previous
list of requirements, the required ticket rate calculation can be completed. The projected
equivalent uniform annualized costs (EUAC) are divided into two sections: variable operation
and maintenance (O&M) and fixed O&M. The fixed costs per passenger are the sum of crew-
related costs, ship-related costs, and general and administrative costs, while variable daily
costs are largely dependent on food and drinks. The variable costs are taken as 20% of the
total annual operating costs, with the remaining 80% allocated to fixed costs. Additionally, a
final EUAC cost is introduced by considering the assumed capital recovery factor of 0.21.
This is the ratio of a constant annuity to the present value and is considered for the entire
lifecycle of the ship. The three EUAC variables are summed to yield the total projection.
Finally, the required freight rate per day is taken as a relation between the total EUAC,
revenue, and weighted fares.
(
) ( )
1-2
( )( ) 1-3
The result, as shown in Table A4-1, is a required ticket rate of 292 USD per person, per day.
Therefore, the ship will be profitable as long as the weighted fares are greater than this value.
With the suggested ticket prices of today’s luxury cruise ships and the weighted fare of 421
USD per person, per day, the ship is projected to be profitable. For easier comparison, an
annual breakeven analysis is provided in Table A4-2. This shows the minimum annual
revenue required to run a profitable operation alongside the projected value. Again,
profitability is achieved.
14
Bibliography
1. Levander, Kai. Passenger Ships. Ship Design and Construction Vol. II. Jersey City :
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 2004.
2. Jantunen, Olli. Passenger Ship Design, Criteria, Functions, and Features. Turku : s.n.,
2013.
3. Watson, David. Practical Ship Design. Oxford : Elsevier , 1998.
4. Benford, Harry. Cost Estimation. [book auth.] Lamb. Ship Design and Construction
Volume 1. Jersey City : s.n., 2003.
5. Financial Breakdown of Typical Cruisers. Cruise Market Watch. [Online] 2013.
http://www.cruisemarketwatch.com/home/financial-breakdown-of-typical-cruiser/.
6. Rotterdam Bunker Prices. Bunker World. [Online] November 2013. [Cited: 15
November 2013.] http://www.bunkerworld.com/prices/port/nl/rtm/?grade=MGO.
7. Katsoufis, G.P. A Decision Making Framework for Cruise Ship Design. Cambridge :
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2006.
8. Cummins. Diesel Generator Set. [Online] [Cited: 29 10 2012.]
http://www.cumminspower.com/www/common/templatehtml/technicaldocument/SpecSh
eets/Diesel/na/s-1494.pdf.
15
Appendix 1 – Parametric data
Table A1- 1 - Parametric gross tonnage data
Ship Lightship Weight [t] Deadweight [t] GRT
Oasis of the Seas 86200 17600 225282
Freedom of the Seas 59700 11319 154407
Voyager of the Seas 53700 11073 137276
Mariner of the Seas 53100 11533 138270
Radiance of the Seas 38612 10759 90090
Legend of the Seas 29102 [-] 69130
Enchantment of the Seas 35000 10979 82910
Celebrity Silhouette 50062 11894 122210
Celebrity Constellation 35406 11746 90228
Celebrity Century 29450 7260 70606
Celebrity Xpedition 1769,3 571,1 2842
Mein Schiff 2 32921 10123 77713
Azamara Quest 12770 3323 30277
Table A1- 2 - Parametric brand life data
Luxury Cruise Ship Entered Service Left Service Brand Life [yrs]
Crystal Harmony 1990 2006 16
Radisson Diamond 1992 2005 13
Galaxy 1996 2008 12
Mercury 1997 2008 11
Royal Viking Sun 1988 2002 14
Europa 1981 1999 18
Zenith 1992 2007 15
Horizon 1990 2005 15
16
Table A1- 3 – Truncated parametric cost data
Cruise Ship Name
Entered
Service
[Year]
Gross
Tonnage
[GRT]
Original
Cost [USD
million]
Present
Worth
[USD
million]
PW/GRT
[USD/GRT]
Astoria 1981 18591 55 102 5466
Bremen 1990 6751 42 65 9617
Club Med 2 1992 14983 125 186 12397
C Columbus 1997 14903 69 93 6231
Corinthian II 1991 4280 25 38 8853
EasyCruise 1990 4077 20 31 7584
Canodros 1990 4100 20 31 7541
Hanseatic 1993 8378 68 99 11824
Island Sky 1992 4280 25 37 8680
Le Levant 1999 3504 35 45 12921
Ocean Majesty 1966 10417 65 162 15516
Paul Gauguin 1998 19200 150 198 10308
Seabourn Legend 1992 9961 87 129 12978
Seabourn Pride 1988 10000 50 80 8042
Seabourn Spirit 1989 9975 50 79 7904
SeaDreammII 1985 4333 34 58 13394
Spirit of Glacier Bay 1984 1471 9 16 10652
Spirit of Yorktown 1988 2354 12 19 8199
Van Gogh 1975 15402 25 52 3377
Vistamar 1989 7500 45 71 9461
Wind Spirit 1988 5350 34 55 10222
17
Appendix 2 – Categorized acquisition cost calculations
Table A2- 1 - ESWBS cost overview
ESWBS Cost Summary
SWBS Group Description
Weight Weight Total Cost [USD]
[t] [LT]
100 Steel Structure 2062,4 2029,8 11725619
200 Propulsion Plant 161,6 159,0 4059472
300 Electric Plant 396,7 390,4 9901466
400 Command and Surveillance 1,3 1,3 31637
500 Auxilliary Systems 96,8 95,2 2088929
600 Outfit and Furnishings 1480,3 1456,9 37233460
[-] Serv. Life Allowance 318,5 313,5 [-]
[-] Add'l 10% Margin 424,7 418,0 [-]
[-] Total without margin 4198,9 4132,6 65040583
[-] Total 4933,7 4855,8
[-] Approximated Total [-] [-] 65000000
Table A2- 2 – Cost breakdown overview
Cost Breakdown Summary
SWBS Group Name Total cost [USD]
1 Steel 11725619,3
2 Steel structure-related 0
3 Cargo-related 98580
4 Accomodation 36642816
5 Deck machinery-related 3046815
6 Propulsion 12760867
7 Auxilliary 736719
8 Structure-related 29167
Total 65040583
Approximated Total 65000000
18
Table A2- 3 – Margin application overview
Margin Application
Description Cost [USD]
Estimated acquisition cost 65040583
Shipowner’s margin 3252029
Design margin 3902435
Final acquisition cost 72195047
Approximated cost 72000000
Table A2- 4 - ESWBS 100 costs
100 - Hull Structure
Item Weight [t] Cost Group
Cost per tonne
[2014] Total Cost
Steel Hull Structure 1215 1 5686 6913042
Steel Super Structure 846 1 5686 4812578
11725619
Table A2- 5 - ESWBS 200 costs
200 - Propulsion System
Item Description/ Source Unit Weight Total Weight
Cost Group Cost per tonne
[2014] Total Cost
[ea.] [kg] [t]
Electric Engine ABB AMZ1250 2 44000 88 6 25269 2223676
Steering Gear 2 15000 30 6 25269 758071
Propellers 2 12000 24 6 25269 606457
Bow Thruster 2 1700 3,4 5 22110 75175
Bow Thruster Engine 2 1000 2 5 22110 44221
Bow Thruster Gen. Sets 2 800 1,6 5 22110 35377
Lube Oil System 2 150 0,3 7 22110 6633
Lube Oil Pump 2 75 0,15 7 22110 3317
Dirty Oil Pump 2 75 0,15 7 22110 3317
Cabling 2 6000 12 4 25269 303229
Total 161,6 [-] [-] 4059471
19
Table A2- 6 - ESWBS 300 costs
300 - Electric Systems
Item Description/ Source
Unit Weight Total Weight Cost Group
Cost per tonne [2014] Total Cost [ea.] [kg] [t]
Emergency Generator Cummins DQDAA 1 2500 2,5 7 22110 55276
Switchboard, drives ABB ACS 6000 3 9000 27 7 22110 596981
Transformers 3 200 0,6 7 22110 13266
Lighting System Navigation Lights 40 3 0,12 4 25269 3032
Lighting System Exterior Lights 20 4 0,08 4 25269 2022
Lighting System Interior Lights 600 2 1,2 4 25269 30323
Uptakes 6 40 0,24 8 5685 1365
Genset Intake 2 45 0,09 8 5685 512
Genset Exhaust 2 250 0,5 8 5685 2843
Fuel Service System Pipings 1 350 0,35 8 5685 1990
Fuel Service System Valves 60 2,5 0,15 8 5685 853
Electric Operation Fluids 2 60 0,12 7 22110 2653
Batteries 20 25 0,5 4 25269 12635
Battery Chargers 2 100 0,2 4 25269 5054
Main Genset Wartsila 16V32 2 121000 242 6 25269 6115108
Standby Genset Wartsila 16V32 1 121000 121 6 25269 3057554
Total 396,65 [-] [-] 9901466
Table A2- 7 - ESWBS 400 costs
400 - Command and Surveillance
Item Description/ Source
Unit Weight Total Weight Cost
Group Cost per tonne [2014] Total Cost
[ea.] [kg] [t]
Telephone System 200 1 0,2 4 25269 5053
Alarm 200 1 0,2 4 25269 5053
Television 110 4 0,44 4 25269 11118
Radio 16 2 0,032 4 25269 808
Fire Control System 2 50 0,1 3 18951 1895
Cables 1 200 0,2 4 25269 5053
Telescope 2 7 0,014 4 25269 353
Window Wipers 13 7 0,091 4 25269 2299
Total 1,277 [-] [-] 31636
20
Table A2- 8 - ESWBS 500 costs
500 - Auxilliary Systems
Item Description/ Source
Unit Weight Total Weight Cost Group
Cost per tonne
[2014] Total Cost
[ea.] [t] [kg]
Pumps Bilge and ballast 10 250 2,5 7 22110 55276
Fire Fighting Piping 1 1500 1,5 8 5685 8528
Freshwater Piping 1 500 0,5 8 5685 2842
Ballast Piping 1 1400 1,4 8 5685 7959
Foam Piping 1 400 0,4 8 5685 2274
Main Engine Room Intake Fans 2 25 0,05 3 18951 947
Main Engine Room Intake Fire Dampers 2 25 0,05 3 18951 947
Main Engine Room Exhaust Fans 4 25 0,05 3 18951 1895
Galley Air Handler 4 100 0,4 3 18951 7580
Pantry Air Handler 4 100 0,4 3 18951 7580
Head Air Handler 1 100 0,1 3 18951 1895
Laundry Air Handler 1 50 0,05 3 18951 947
Anchor, equipment 2 20000 40 5 22110 884416
Anchor Chain 2 2500 5 5 22110 110552
Mooring Chocks and bits 3 700 2,1 5 22110 99497
Liferaft, equipment MarinArk 6 5800 34,8 5 22110 769442
Oil Spill Containment 1 5000 5 4 25269 126345
Total 96,75 [-] [-] 2088929
Table A2- 9 - ESWBS 600 costs
600 - Outfit and Furnishing
Item Description/ Source
Unit Weight Total Weight Cost Group Cost per tonne [2014] Total Cost
[ea.] [kg] [t]
Super. Paint Blue Water 1,5 431,33 0,65 3 18951 12261
Hull Paint Teamac 1,5 484,95 0,73 3 18951 13786
Hull Primer Teamac 1,5 1718,13 2,58 3 18951 48842
elevator 2 crew, 4 pax 6 2000,00 12,00 4 25269 303228
Deck 1 stores, misc. 1802 95,00 171,19 4 25269 4325807
Deck 2 crew, public 1870 115,00 215,05 4 25269 5434107
Deck 3 public 2159 140,00 302,26 4 25269 7637820
Deck 4 public 1959 130,00 254,67 4 25269 6435267
Deck 5 public, bridge 1851 135,00 249,89 4 25269 6314354
Deck 6 deck, public 1665 135,00 224,78 4 25269 5679849
Deck 7 deck 930 50,00 46,50 5 22110 1028134
Total 1480,28 [-] [-] 37233460
21
Appendix 3 – Annual operating calculations
Table A3- 1 – Annual fuel costs
parameter value unit
fuel cost 865 USD/t
weekly hours 70 hours
yearly hours 3400 hours
average power 12248 kW
SFC 180 g/kwH
SFC 0,18 kg/kwH
fuel consumption rate 2204 kg/hour
yearly consumption 7495776 kg
yearly consumption 7495 t
annual fuel cost 5621832 USD
Table A3- 2 - Annual payroll costs
position unit monthly salary [USD] yearly salary [USD] total pay [USD]
captain 1 9000 108000 108000
staff captain 2 7000 84000 168000
senior officer 3 5000 60000 180000
junior officer 6 3500 42000 252000
crew 44 2000 24000 1056000
Total 56 [-] [-] 1764000
Table A3- 3 – Annual port costs
parameter value unit
berthing rate 0,15 euro/GT
berthing rate 0,20 USD/GT
daily berthing cost 1328 USD
annual berthing cost 451552 USD
annual misc. port fees 338663 USD
annual port fees 790216 USD
Table A3- 4 - Annual consumable costs
category type unit cost [USD pp/pd] units total cost [USD]
food crew 15 56 840
passengers 30 152 4560
other crew 10 56 560
passengers 15 152 2280
total daily total [-] [-] 8240
yearly total [-] [-] 2801600
22
Table A3- 5 - Annual maintenance and capital costs
parameter cost [USD]
initial cost 72196098
maintenance 3609804
yearly maintenance 240654
refurbishment 7219610
yearly refurbishment 481307
capital costs 360980
yearly capital costs 24065
annual maintenance and capital 746026
Table A3- 6 – Total annual costs
category cost [USD] percentage
fuel costs 5621832 42 %
port fees 790216 6 %
crew payroll 1764000 13 %
maint/capital 746026 6 %
consumables 2801600 21 %
misc. 1641314 12 %
TOTAL 13364988 100%
23
Appendix 4 – Profitability calculations
Table A4- 1 - Daily required freight rate calculations
Input Parameters
Assumed Internal Rate of Return 20 % [-]
Projected Ship Service Life 15 years
Days/Cruise 7 days
Initial Cost 77943221 USD
Estimated Salvage Value 19485805 USD
Passenger Accomodation Capacity and Estimated Fare
Fares based on Suggested Luxury Cruise Line fares per Cabin Type
Cabin Type Quantity Fare Unit
Balcony Stateroom 0 350 USD/pp/day
Balcony Suite 66 400 USD/pp/day
Deluxe Suite 10 600 USD/pp/day
Weighted Daily Fare 426 USD/pp/day
Passenger Statistics
Number of Passengers 152 persons
Daily Cost/passenger 50 USD/pp/day
Operation Profile
Operating Days per year 340 days
Projected Load Factor 0,9 [-]
Estimated Annual Revenue Calculations
Weighted Daily Fare/person 426 USD/pp/day
Annual Ticket Revenue/person 144947 USD/pp
Total Annual Ticket Revenue 22032000 USD
Onboard Daily Revenue 50 USD/pp/day
Annual Onboard Revenue 17000 USD/pp
Total Annual Variable Revenue 2584000 USD
Total Annual Fixed Revenue 775200 USD
Total Annual Revenue 25391200 USD
Calculated Required Ticket Rate
Estimated Annual Revenue 25391200 USD
Estimated Annual Revenue at Projected L.F. 22852080 USD
Projected EUAC - Variable O&M 2672997 USD
Projected EUAC - Fixed O&M 10691990 USD
Projected EUAC (Capital Recovery) 2286826 USD
Projected EUAC Total 15651814 USD
RFR/Day at Projected L.F 292 USD
RFR/Cruise at Projected L.F. 2044 USD
24
Table A4- 2 - Annual equivalent breakeven analysis
Estimated Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs
fuel costs 5621832 USD
port fees 790216 USD
crew payroll 1764000 USD
maint/capital 746026 USD
consumables 2801600 USD
miscellaneous 1641314 USD
Total Annual Operating Costs 13364988 USD
Annual Equivalent Breakeven Analysis
capital recovery factor 0,21 [-]
Acquisition Cost -77943221 USD
Annual Operating Cost -13364988 USD
Salvage Value 19485805 USD
Ship Service Life 15 years
Compounded Interest Value 8 % [-]
Minimum Required Annual Revenue 22074510 USD
Estimated Annual Revenue 25391200 USD
Profitable? YES
1
Closing
The design of M/S Arianna was a challenging project for all involved. From the initial design
challenge of creating a cruise ship without lifeboats to the final report and presentation,
critical thinking and problem solving skills have been tested. Every step of the design brought
with it unique challenges and the importance of team work was clear from the onset of the
semester.
The objective of this course and its project was to develop concepts from the Ship Conceptual
Design course at a more detailed level. The result should be a feasible design that considers
all major design phases in as holistic an approach as possible, and this report shows success in
that regard.
Throughout its completion, the project highlighted a large learning experience. Though each
task was collaborated on by all, many aspects were worked on simultaneously and major task
allocations were assigned based on experience and strengths. One key lesson in this regard
was that progress on any one area of development might need to be completely re-worked if
another area made a major conflicting decision. Seemingly, this occurred more than once.
However, this provided great insight with regard to the preliminary design stages of a ship
and truly highlighted its iterative nature. Another consequence of this was that each member
needed to be very informed about the progress of others, meaning transparent communication
was a necessity. Additionally, yet another lesson was the fact that help was needed. That is,
the guidance of professors and advice from the assignment graders were invaluable and the
final ship design is much better as a result.
Over the semester, the vessel’s design was constantly improving. As such, if more time were
available, each area of design could naturally benefit from further development. Design never
truly ends at this stage and there is no perfect solution, so further time would allow for
refinement or the ability to account for additional considerations. Specifically, some design
aspects could use more attention than others.
The most obvious areas of improvement are in relation to the utilized software. Though
effective, for instance, the NAPA and Construct models could certainly be developed further
to reflect a higher level of detail. In the same vain, the basic beam theory tables in the hull
structure calculations could be further improved. Similarly, the stability process, while
appropriate for early stage analysis, is by no means finalized. Additional damage cases and
conditions, for example, could be included. The cost estimate would be greatly improved
2
with the identification of major equipment and component costs. Even though it is difficult to
receive such information from suppliers, this would be a consideration in the next design
phase. The propeller and hull forms might benefit from further optimization. As this was
among the first tasks, however, it is difficult implementing changes without affecting all
downstream-completed work. As such, this is again a task for future design iterations. Some
processes, such as the general arrangement, are never truly complete at this design stage.
Having said that, as much detail as possible was put into each deliverable with regard to time
restraints and skill levels.
With these future considerations taken into account, the result is still a feasible preliminary
design that shows great improvement over that from Ship Conceptual Design. The initial
challenge was to design a vessel without lifeboats and this has been considered throughout all
phases of the project. The general arrangement is atypical in order to allow for three separate
evacuation decks and the structural calculations were completed with this in mind. Though
many alternatives exist, the selected evacuation methods are industry-approved and very
redundant and the evacuation procedure is no less safe than a typical lifeboat system.
This project has helped all involved to grow as problem solvers, communicators, and team
members, and has helped in recognizing the importance of learning before, during, and after
each design process. Though challenging, the design of M/S Arianna was a rewarding
experience that allowed for further development of the knowledge acquired in previous
courses in the completion of the project ship. In this regard, the project and course itself was a
success.
Related Documents
