Transcript Virginia Tech Naval Architecture

T-AKE UNREP Ship
USS Hokie
Michael Fetsch
Jen Sickmund
Tobey Coombe
Joshua Hammond
Conrad Cooper
Design Overview
• Optimization
• Hull design
• Resistance and Propulsion
• Arrangements
• Structures
• Weights and Stability
Mission Need
• To replace current Combat Logistics Force
• Speed: 20 Kts
• Range: 14000 NM
• Capacity to carry a combination of:
•
•
•
•
Dry stores
Refrigerated stores
Ammunition
Cargo fuel
Design Parameters for Optimization
• Genetic Optimization
•
•
•
•
of design using
regression data
analysis
Design variables
Measures of
Performance
Values of Performance
Total Ownership Cost
Optimization
T-AKE Non-Dominated Frontier - Feasible
1.00
0.90
GEN 1
OMOE
0.80
GEN 30
0.70
GEN 80
0.60
GEN100
0.50
BEST
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
250
500
750
TOC ($M)
1000
1250
1500
USS Hokie
• Satisfies all Mission need requirements
Hull Design
• USS Hokie
•
•
•
•
•
LWL – 680 ft CB - .577
B – 99 ft
CP - .592
D – 69 ft
T – 38 ft
Disp – 42288.7 lton
• AE36 Parent Hull
• Single shaft, similar
design speed,
Kilauea Class UNREP
ship
Resistance and Propulsion
• IPS power plant
• Holtrop-Mennen
•
50000
3000
45000
2500
40000
35000
2000
Speed vs Total Power
30000
25000
1500
20000
1000
15000
10000
500
5000
0
0
0
5
10
15
Speed, knots
20
25
gph
Total Power, kW
•
Resistance calculations
Full Electric Load
analysis and Fuel
consumption done in
spreadsheet
Fixed Pitch Propeller
optimization
Speed vs Total Electric Load and Fuel Consumption
Speed vs gph
Optimized Propeller
Characteristics
• 5 Blade, B-Series
• EAR = 0.710,
P = 25.1 ft,
D = 24 ft,
eff. = 0.7131
• Design Speed of
20 kts
Arrangements
• Cargo flow and efficiency were of the
utmost importance throughout this stage of
design
Hull Arrangements
Main Machinery Arrangements
Main Engine Arrangements
• 2 LM2500 gas turbine
•
•
marine generator sets
Centerline bulkhead
separates gen-sets
Auxiliary engine is a
2000kW diesel
generator
Motor Arrangements
• 2 21MW propulsion
•
motors w/ converters
Centerline bulkhead
also separates motors
Deckhouse Arrangements
• MSC Standards – 136 Crew
Structure
• ABS were used to find initial scantlings
• Full Ship Maestro Model was used for further
structural analysis
Cargo Oil & Midship Sections
Structural Adequacy
Hull Subdivision
• Subdivision optimized as a Passive Defense
Capability
Weights and Stability
• Weight distribution by SWBS designations
• Distributions calculated for Lightship, Full
Load, and 60% full cargo loading cases
• Intact and Damage Stability cases were
examined for several loading conditions and
damage cases using HECSALV software
Weights Distribution
Lightship Weight Distribution (lton)
1276.40
2097.77
SWBS 100
103.20
SWBS 200
433.94
SWBS 300
SWBS 400
1358.95
SWBS 500
10744.00
SWBS 600
Full Load Weight Distribution (lton)
87.204
1521.88
1400
Lightship Weight
7283.26
16014.26
Fuel Oil
Cargo Oil
Dry Cargo
Ammunition
Refer Cargo
Other Loads
9778
5895
Hydrostatics
Lightship Weight
16014.26
VCG
34.84
LCG
406.90
Full Load Weight
42205.26
lton
ft above BL
ft aft FP
lton
VCG
27.74
LCG
340.87
ft aft FP
LCF
341.11
ft aft FP
ft above BL
Intact Stability
• Stability analysis for Arrival, 60%, and Full Load
conditions respectively
Full Load Damaged Stability
Using 15% LBP Criteria (Approx: 102 ft.)
There were three worst case scenarios
a: Starboard Cargo Oil 6, Cargo 1, Cargo 2
b: Forepeak, Foretank, Starboard Cargo Oil
2 and Cargo Oil 4
c: Cargo 4, Starboard Cargo 6 and ER 2
Full Load Damaged Stability
• Worst case scenarios
a:
b:
Full Load Damaged Stability
• Worst case scenarios
c:
Continuing Analysis
• Seakeeping
• Structural Improvement
Questions?