Hull Form Optimization for Early Stage Ship Design

2010 ◽  
Vol 122 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
WESLEY WILSON ◽  
DANE HENDRIX ◽  
JOSEPH GORSKI
Keyword(s):  
2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Igor Mizine ◽  
Charles Rogers ◽  
Bruce D. Wintersteen

The objective of the ship design synthesis process is to derive a ship’s physical and performance characteristics based on mission requirements and selected technology and configuration options. To accomplish this objective an effective compromise must be achieved between the many competing requirements and constraints that form the available design space. The engineering disciplines that are addressed during the design synthesis process include; mission systems and cargo requirements, hull form geometry, hull subdivision, deckhouse geometry and subdivision, structures, appendages, resistance, propulsors, machinery arrangements, weight estimates, required arrangeable area and volume, intact stability and seakeeping. The hull form is a critical component of the design synthesis process. The hull is subdivided with decks and bulkheads to establish the compartment configuration (to the watertight compartment level) within the hull and to determine if the required mission capabilities and systems can be accommodated. The hull form is the principal boundary for the structural design. Required appendages must be integrated with the hull form. The propulsor design (propellers, waterjets, etc.) depends on resistance and the water flow around the hull form. The hull form significantly drives the propulsion power required and significantly impacts the location of the principle machinery equipment within the hull. While the weight estimates draw directly from the structural design and machinery equipment and other known data (mission systems), many of the other weight groups are estimated by algorithms. These algorithms are very dependent on hull volume and the distribution of that volume within the hull. Hull hydrostatics, stability and seakeeping are all very dependent on the hull form. The investigation of hull form variations during early stage design has long been limited by the capabilities present in the available design tools and their supporting framework. While some excellent hulls have been designed in parallel or preceding the overall ship design process, the limitations in design tools and their integration have often left the design process with a significant unknown as to whether the selected hull form is truly the best configuration for the ship and its mission. The hull form has a significant influence on almost every subsystem and discipline involved in ship design, not just hydrodynamics The routine Navy practice during early stage design has been to perform analysis based on a single baseline hull form point design, which is usually derived from dimensional scaling of existing designs or prototypes. This practice limits analysis of the hull form related characteristics and performance in concert with other tradeoffs and analysis of the disciplines that are very much influenced by the hull form. In some cases, this approach has perpetuated the undesirable characteristics of the selected starting hull form. In many, if not most recent designs, the limitations of our design process capabilities have produced less than optimal hull form configurations, especially in view of the operational profile, which determines the life cycle cost. In addition, late design improvements in hull form such as stern flaps or bulb changes result in the ship exceeding the design requirements that drive cost into the ship, i.e. larger engines installed then required to meet the ship’s KPP for speed. The paper explains how it is possible to overcome this limitation and how to restructure the ship design processes to facilitate effective investigation of hull form variations as part of the design synthesis process. The development of the hull form along with the overall development of the ship design configuration can be effectively integrated during the early Mizine Hull Form Exploration in the Early Stage of Design 2 stages of design when sufficient flexibility remains to enable the most effective design across all disciplines. This paper addresses the process, tools, and methodologies the authors have been developing and applying for several ship design projects to enable the effective development of the hull form and the investigation of hull form variations and their impact on the overall ship effectiveness. The approach used to facilitate the effective integration of the range of design and analysis tools necessary to support the process is described. The methodologies and theories used to investigate the potential range of hull form alternatives and assess their relative performance are presented. Examples of analyses done for actual design projects are provided, along with lessons-learned and recommendations for further refinements and improvements to the processes presented.


1988 ◽  
Vol 25 (04) ◽  
pp. 239-252
Author(s):  
G. Robed Lamb

Even though in 1987 there were only a dozen SWATH (smali-waterplane-area twin-hull) craft and ships afloat around the world, word of their markedly superior seakeeping performance is spreading rapidly. The number of SWATH vessels is likely to double within five years. As in many other areas of technology, the United States and Japan are the acknowledged leaders in the development and practical application of the SWATH concept. This paper reviews the characteristics of existing SWATH craft and ships from the standpoint of the stated seakeeping objective. Hull form differences between four SWATH craft and ships, including the Navy's SSP Kairnalino, are analyzed and interpreted. Important considerations for the early-stage design of a SWATH ship are discussed. Differences in the range of feasible hull form geometries for coastal areas and unrestricted ocean operations, and for low-speed versus moderately high-speed applications, are pointed out.


2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
William A. Hockberger

The Quadrimaran was invented in France in the mid-1980s by Daniel Tollet. It was an inspired design and a radical departure from traditional ship design by a man from outside the marine industry unconstrained by industry technical practices and education. Technical experts could see it would entail more structure and subsystems than other high-performance vessels, but its promise was that those penalties would be more than offset by its claimed low power and fuel consumption. A prototype/demonstrator, Alexander, was built in 1990 and operated for five years carrying and impressing many hundreds of riders. Alexander performed beautifully and appeared to bear out what was claimed. Contracts for several Quadrimarans of different sizes came quickly, especially considering how conservative an industry this is. That was significantly due to Tollet's personal charisma and skill in selling riders on the dream of carrying passengers and freight over the water fast and in comfort, yet economically. Great skepticism prevailed in some quarters, especially among naval architects knowledgeable about AMVs (advanced marine vehicles) and early-stage whole-ship design. At technical meetings, one Quadrimaran principal would comment, for example, "Why would you carry freight across the Atlantic at 38 knots on 230,000 horsepower (a reference to the planned Fastship Atlantic TG-770) when you could do it at 60 knots on only 65,000 horsepower?" Listeners would ask how this could be possible, and he would assert again that the Quadrimaran could do it, but would decline to explain. Respected technical people were working with Tollet and his company and becoming convinced of the Quadrimaran's merit. Along with the contracts came engineers with experience in ship detail design and construction (very different from early-stage whole-ship design), or responsibilities for assessing and approving ships for service. Others were with engine and equipment suppliers. Their opinion that there was something unique and special about the Quadrimaran gave it credibility and influenced more people to accept the major claims made for it. Some dismissed the most extreme claims but still accepted the idea that the Quadrimaran was capable of unusually high performance - considerably less than was being claimed, perhaps, but high nevertheless. In hindsight it is clear the skeptics were right. Results never met expectations, nor could they have. In reality, the Quadrimaran has aspects that inherently prevent it from achieving the characteristics and performance its inventor believed attainable. It cannot be built in a commercially useful size and actually perform as intended. Why this is so will be explained. A crucial fact in the Quadrimaran's history is that Daniel Tollet and his close associates believed strongly that naval architects and engineers who had been immersed in working with the existing ship types would be unable to give the Quadrimaran the very different treatment they believed it required. (Their own educations and professional work were nontechnical.) Such people were excluded from the development of Quadrimaran designs, and the belated discovery of many fundamental technical problems can be attributed to this. The company Tollet established had a number of names over the years, and other associated entities were created at times for various purposes. In this paper they are referred to collectively as QIH (Quadrimaran International Holdings) so as not to confuse things unnecessarily. In 2004 QuadTech Marine LLC was established and acquired the Quadrimaran patent (US Patent No. 5,191,849) and related intellectual property from QIH. QuadTech laid out an extensive R&D program to close gaps in the technical background and address identified issues. In the process, additional information on earlier QIH projects and products was obtained and studied, which brought to light problems that significantly compromised the Quadrimaran's prospective performance and utility. The resulting much-reduced set of potential uses and users led the company to effectively stop pursuing Quadrimaran projects after 2009. (Note: The author was Chief Technology Officer for QuadTech Marine during 2006-9, studying the Quadrimaran and planning the R&D.)


2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (02) ◽  
pp. 81-100
Author(s):  
Rachel Pawling ◽  
Victoria Percival ◽  
David Andrews

For many years, the design spiral has been seen to be a convenient model of an acknowledged complex process. It has virtues particularly in recognizing the ship design interactive and, hopefully, converging nature of the process. However, many find it unsatisfactory. One early criticism focused on its apparent assumption of a relatively smooth process to a balanced solution implied by most ship concept algorithms. The paper draws on a postgraduate design investigation using the University College London Design Building Block approach, which looked specifically at a nascent naval combatant design and the issues of size associated with "passing decks" and margins. Results from the study are seen to suggest that there are distinct regions of cliffs and plateau in plots of capability against design output, namely ship size and cost. These findings are discussed with regard to the insight they provide into the nature of such ship designs and different ways of representing the ship design process. The paper concludes that the ship design spiral is a misleading and unreliable representation of complex ship design at both the strategic and detailed iterative levels.


2018 ◽  
Vol 163 ◽  
pp. 107-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin P.F. Shields ◽  
Michael J. Sypniewski ◽  
David J. Singer

2021 ◽  
Vol 93 (6s) ◽  
pp. 73-87
Author(s):  
Vedran Slapničar ◽  
◽  
Katarina Zadro ◽  
Viktor Ložar ◽  
Ivo Ćatipović ◽  
...  

Estimating the lightship mass is an important factor in the early stage of ship design given its impact on shipbuilding costs. The mass of the hull and equipment, as well as its distribution, affects the hull strength, deadweight, and stability of the ship. Furthermore, a good estimate of the lightship mass in the preliminary phase is very important for defining the construction costs as accurately as possible. As the time available to the designer in the conceptual or preliminary phase of ship design is often limited, the methods used to determine the lightship mass must be reliable, fast, and effective. The paper presents and analyzes methods for estimating the lightship mass that are based on empirical data of built ships. Several empirical methods were combined and calibrated to establish the least-squares method which combination gives the value of the lightship mass closest to the one given in the collected database for three types of merchant ships: tankers, bulk carriers, and container ships. The paper presents the results of the calculations of the masses of hull steel, outfitting, machinery, and superstructure. It can be concluded that the presented model for all three types of merchant ships gives satisfactory results.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document