senior design_spring 14 final (1)

Team CIRV and Protect

Design Team:Jason MorrisKyle TysonMatthew WeltonLucas WieserJackson wilsonUniversity of New OrleansNAME 4175 Design ProjectInstructor: Pamela Pilaroscia

University of New OrleansNAME 4175

University of New OrleansNAME 4175Spring 2014

7

Table of ContentsVessel Specifications1Mission3Parametric Study4Weight Estimate5Hull Form Development9General Arrangements13Military Performance15Weapon Systems15Troop Carrying Capacity17Ballistic Protection18Structure19Aluminum19Composites23Resistance25Propulsion and Machinery System29Propulsor Selection29Engine Selection31Gear Selection31Cooling System32Stability33Motions36Cost Estimate40Team Operating Agreement41Article 1, Contact Information:41Article 2, Purpose:42Article 5, Monitoring:44Article 6, Decisions:44Article 7, Conflicts:44Article 8, Slacking:45Appendix A - Drawings46Appendix B Parametric Study50Appendix C Weight estimate51Appendix D Structure55Aluminum55Composites68Appendix E Propulsion System92Appendix F Stability105High Speed Turn105Crowding of Personnel117Wind and Roll128Appendix G Design Proposal140

ii

Vessel Specifications

DimensionsLOA49.685 ft15.14 m

LWL40.689 ft12.40 m

Beam12.85 ft3.92 m

Draft2.33 ft.71 m

Displacement9.296 LT(Lightship)9.389 t

L/B3.865

Cb.323

Cp.602

Machinery & Combat SystemsMain Engines: Cummins QSM-11

Total Power:1,340hp

Propulsors: Hamilton HJ-403 water jet

Small Boats:1x Navy Combat Rubber Raiding Craft

Main Guns:Saab RWS Track Fire

Performance and CapacitiesFlank Speed:50 knots

Cruising Speed:35 knots

Range (Cruise):560 nm

Fuel:580 gal

Crew:4 + 12 Ground Combat Force

Mission

In 2012 Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) announced the merger of their Riverine Force (Riveron) and their Maritime Expeditionary Security Force (MESF) into a single unit now known as Coastal Riverine Force (CORIVFOR). The new Coastal Riverine Force is now responsible for a much more broad range of missions and is expected to perform them in both brown and green water environments. Currently the unit has been forced to utilize an aging fleet of several different mission specific vessels and have expressed the need for a single vessel with more versatile operating capabilities.The goal of this design project is to create a vessel capable of conducting both Maritime Security and Interceptor operations in the green and blue water littorals as well as insertion/extraction and combat support in a brown water riverine environment. A vessel capable of operating in both environments must strike a compromise between what have traditionally been very different designs. For instance, a typical riverine vessel (above) has a very shallow draft, flat bottom hull and little to no crew protection while the larger Interceptors(below) have much deeper draft hulls with deadrise angles suitable for higher sea states.

Parametric Study

Due to the duel mission/role of the vessel a parametric study was conducted to gain insight on current vessels in each category as well as to determine starting values for the vessel particulars. Data was collected for five different vessels in each class (Interceptor and Riverine) and averaged, then compared to determine the final values. When choosing the vessels to use for the study, precedence was placed on current use and production. This was done to gain a better understanding of whats already proven and in use and what needs to be improved upon. Due to the combining of the two different missions some of the results from the study must be slightly deviated from in order to accomplish the overall mission. The results from the study are shown below and the full study can be seen in the appendix.

Weight Estimate

The weight estimate was arranged using the Expanded Ship Work Breakdown Structure (ESWBS). This method uses a system of numbers to designate certain ship systems, and a simplified 3 digit system was used for this project (100-700). The 400 group, Command and Surveillance, was omitted from this weight report at this time because of the lack of information available. Much of the equipment in this group is considered classified by the government and weight reports from similar vessels were not able to be obtained. This group, however, will be on the relatively small side and should be covered by the margin added.100Hull Structure

200Propulsion System

300Electric System

500Auxiliary Systems

600Outfitting

700Armament

Because of the small size of the vessel, a full three dimensional weight estimate was completed using a Rhino model. All major components of the vessel (structure, engines, propulsors, armament, outfitting) were modeled to scale in the Rhino model. The exact locations of the centroids of each component were found and referenced to the transom. Once completed, additional margins were added to account for smaller items that were not known at this time. Because of the level of detail obtained from the three dimensional modeling, the weight estimate is relatively matured for this stage of design. The following is the summary of the Lightship condition, Added Margins, Half Load Condition, and Full Load Condition. Further detail of the weight estimate can be found in Appendix XXX.

Table 1 Lightship Weight and MarginsITEMWeightLCG (ft)VCGTCG

[lbs][ft. fwd Transm][ft abv BL][ ft port +] [ft stbd -]

Hull & Structure8402.119.54.90.0

Propulsion System9257.04.41.80.0

Electrical System183.619.23.50.2

Auxiliary System75.08.04.7-2.0

Outfitting531.919.45.40.0

Armament258.010.512.30.0

Lightship Weight18708 lb[8.35 LT]11.813.500.00

Lightship18707.611.813.500.00

Margin 15% Weight10% VCG2806.10.350

Lightship with Margin2,1514 lb[9.6 LT]11.813.850.00

Table 2 Half Loading ConditionHalf Loading Condition

ITEMWeightLCG (ft)VCGTCG


Lightship Weight with Margin21513.811.83.90.0

Pilot & Coxan350.016.37.90.0

Additional Passengers Cockpit (0)0.00.00.00.0

Additional Passengers Fwd Deck (0)0.00.00.00.0

Ammunition100.020.73.00.0

50% Fuel Load (294 Gal)2149.218.71.60.0

Half Load Weight24,113 lb[10.76 LT]12.523.700.00

Table 3 Full Loading ConditionFull Loading Conditions

ITEMWeightLCG (ft)VCGTCG


Lightship Weight with Margin21513.811.83.90.0

Pilot & Coxan450.016.37.90.0

Additional Passengers Cockpit (2)450.010.87.90.0

Additional Passengers Fwd Deck (12)2700.031.76.10.0

Ammunition200.020.73.00.0

98% Fuel Load (577 Gal)4212.218.72.40.0

Full Load Weight29,526 lb[13.18 LT]14.723.970.00

Figure 1 Weight Breakdown*Note: The 15% Weight Margin is of the calculated weight while the graph depicts the 13% of the total weight.

Hull Form Development

After completing our parametric study of current riverine and coastal interceptor craft, hull development was started. Based on our parametric study, the basic craft dimensions were determined of 49ft LOA and 12ft BOA. Because the requirement of being C-130 transportable was not deemed an important requirement for this craft, the size was increased approximately 20%. This helps both in crew comfort and habitability but also the ability of the craft to perform well in the coastal environment.Initially two hull forms were proposed, a conventional planing hull form with a padded keel and a novel semi stepped hull design. This semi stepped design was dismissed due to the difficulty in evaluating performance the performance of a stepped hull as well as the increased risk of cavitation when used in conjunction with waterjets. Due to the relatively simplistic nature of the stock planing hulls available in Max Surf and Orca, our hull forms were manually generated in rhino. While this poses more risk for the design it allows more design flexibility, and reflects the reality of design in the small boat community where most hulls are generated without the use of a parametrically optimized parent hull.Starting from the transom and working forward the hull is a variable deadrise hull with a lower deadrise pad running down the centerline of the vessel. The pad has a transom deadrise angle of 18 degrees and a hull deadrise of 20 degrees. This is designed to give a good compromise between efficient planing provided by the pad and good sea keeping characteristics of the higher deadrise sections. Moving forward the hull carries a wide chine beam forward again for better low speed planing performance and increased static stability. The forward sections, from station 4 to the bow, have a high deadrise increasing from 25 degrees to approximately 60 degrees at the step. Both the spray rails and chines are turned down at a negative angle to help with flow separation and again providing a dry ride. The forward sections of the hull also have a slightly convex shape to them to help disapate the energy and thus reduce vertical accelerations when the hull reenters the water. The illustration below shows how different bottom section profiles can influence the forces experienced by the hull during slamming.

Figure 2 - Bottom SectionWhile much of the design work done in the small craft world comes from experience or advanced first principles calculations, there are a few hull characteristics which may be non-dimensionalized to aid in comparison of similar craft and help predict performance. The table below lists some of these hull characteristics.Table 4 - Hull CharacteristicsHull Characteristics

LCG 6.55

S/L Ratio 7.14

L/B4.083

HP/ Weight 22.03 lb/hp

Bottom Loading Coeff 7.32

One of the most critical steps in small craft design is a highly detailed weight study to allow the designer to accurately locate the CG of the craft. A small craft with an incorrectly located CG can be absolutely devastating to an otherwise good design. Too far forward or back and the craft may porpoise, broach, or require inordinately large amounts of power to reach the design speed. We chose to non-dimensionalize our LCG location so that it could be compared to other craft as a percentage of a 10 station waterline. Above you can see that in the half load condition the LCG is located at station 6.55 or 65% of the waterline length aft of the FP. It was found that this LCG location compared well to boats of similar design.Both the speed to length (S/L) and length to beam (L/B) ratios are used to help define which planing regime a craft belongs in. Per renowned naval architect Renoto Sonni Levi the following speed to length ratios define what regime a craft falls in Table 5 - S/L RegionsSpeed to Length RatioS/L

Displacement 1.4

Semi-Planing 1.4 - 3

Planing3 - 5

High Speed 5

Calculating the S/L of our craft using the equation S/L = gives a S/L ratio of 7.14 well into the high speed planing regime. Another non-dimensional characteristic for comparing vessels is the L/B ratio according to both Savitsky and Blount this crafts L/B of 4.083 is well within the region for high performance planing craft with some having L/B ratios as high as 5.8. The final non-dimensional unit used for comparing planing hull designs is the bottom loading coefficient calculated by Cbl =, where Ap is the projected bottom area, and is the static volumetric displacement our bottom loading of 7.32 indicates a fairly lightly loaded bottom, this indicates good planing performance in regards to the craft being able to easily get over hump speed and on plane without heavily loading the engines.The final aspect of the hull design was the design of the chines and lifting strakes. The chines at the transom are 10% of the overall chine beam, and the spray rails are 4.5%. In regards to spray rail design and location, there is little in the way of material on this subject, and there are two ways to go about it. The first being experience based and the second method uses the lift force and area required at a given speed to locate the spray rails based on the required wetted bottom area, due to the relatively short time given to develop the hull an experience based approach was used. After talking with several naval architects and boat builders the above mentioned chine and spray rail widths were chosen.Due to the fact that this craft is powered by waterjets the inboard spray rail must be stopped well forward to ensure that at planing speeds the spray rail is clear of the water to avoid air traveling along it and being drawn into the jets. The outboard spray rail location was dictated by the inlet opening of the jet as this rail is carried all the way to the transom.In conclusion, we determined that the hull form we produced would provide us with the desired speed and sea keeping characteristics while being relatively straight forward to produce in aluminum. Furthur iterations and first principle CFD could have been used to help further optimize the design and quantify performance perameters. Below is a figure of our hull rendered in RHINO, the lines plan may be found in Appendix A.

General Arrangements

As the navy has moved towards using more small fast craft it has become apparent that reducing crew exposure to large accelerations is key to an effective and healthy fighting force. Because of this we sought to design as ergonomic and functional crew layout as possible. To help isolate the crew from accelerations the 4 crew members four Shox 6155 seats are installed. These seats can handle accelerations of up to 12gs before bottoming out , which is far more than should be experienced during normal operations, as 8gs has become the industry standard acceleration to design to. Forward there is space for a compliment of 12 ground combat troops on Shox 8100 folding seats. These seats are not shock mitigating as it was determined that these seats would be rarely during offshore interdiction operations. This operating profile also allowed mounting the seats facing outboard to allow the combat element to take up arms if taking fire from a riverbank. After looking at existing platforms it was also deemed desirable to have both bow and stern ramp to allow quick insertion and extraction as well as allow for stowing of a combat rubber raiding craft.

Figure 3 - Interior Configuration

One area where previous designs have seriously lacked was the area of pre-engineered armoring to help protect the crew. We chose to design for full crew protection from 7.62mm Nato rounds, this simplified matters when it came to performance prediction and weights, two areas which are critical in small craft.

Figure 4 - Bow Configuration

Along with the reduction in acceleration exposure and crew protection it was also seen as desirable to try and reduce the radar cross section of the vessel. To accomplish this all of the deck surfaces are angled towards centerline, this causes the radar to scatter when it hits the surfaces thus reducing the radar return of the vessel.

Military Performance

Weapon SystemsThe CIRV was designed with three standard weapon systems. The primary system is a stabilized remote operated M2 .50cal machine gun. The use of stabilization drastically increases accuracy and max effect range of the weapon in open water environments allowing a larger standoff distance and more reaction time in hostile environments as well as lower risk of collateral damage in highly populated regions.

The two secondary systems are port/starboard mount GAU 17 Mini Guns capable of laying down a massive base of fire in support of troops during riverine combat operationsThe three weapon systems have been strategically placed in order to maintain 360 degree interlocking fields of fire during defensive operations.

Figure 5 - Stabilization Setup

Figure 6 - Gau 17 Mini Gun

Figure 7 - Weapon CoverageTroop Carrying Capacity

The CIRV was designed to be capable of insertion/extraction/support of a Ground Combat Element. When determining the general arrangement and layout, special attention was giving to oversizing the space requirements needed to carry combat loaded troops and their equipment. In addition to the bow door, the aft deck was left open and sized to fit a rubber raiding craft.

Figure 8 - Troop Arrangment

Ballistic Protection

The CIRV is designed with standard ballistic protection (shown in red) for the crew and forward passengers. The light weight armor is capable of stopping multiple impacts of 7.62-51mm NATO rounds. Traditionally similar vessels do not come with standard armor packages but have the option to add it on at a later date. The added armor then results in several consequences such as loss of speed and sluggish performance, loss of stability due to higher center of gravity, smaller payload, and lower efficiency and range. We decided to include armor as a standard feature to account for the previously mentioned effects therefore ensuring the vessel can still perform as advertised.

Figure 9 - Ballistic Protection

Structure

Aluminum

The structural design of the Coastal Interceptor and Riverine Vehicle (CIRV) was completed using ABS High Speed Naval Craft rules. The primary class societies considered for the vessel were the International Maritime Organization (IMO), American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Det Norske Veritas (DNV), and Lloyds Register of Shipping (LR). Each of these classification societies has their own definition of what makes a vessel a high speed craft. The IMO HSC rules specifically excludes combatant craft and troop carrying craft, and the LR rules do not include a section designated for war craft so those do not apply to the CIRV. A comparative analysis of the two remaining class societies, ABS and DNV, was performed by The Ship Structure Committee in 2005.This comparison of the HSC structural requirements shows that the ABS standards are typically less stringent than those given by DNV. ABS rules require a slightly lower operating speed than the other societies in order to be labeled a HSC, although at approximately 50 feet long and operating at speeds up to 40 knots the CIRV meets each class societys HSC requirements. ABS rules also generally yield lower design accelerations, hull girder strength, design pressures, and plate thicknesses. The calculations of the accelerations and loads lead to a lower structural weight overall. Using ABS HSNC rules allows for the development of the lightest structure possible for the CIRV, which is extremely important so that it can fully perform both of its missions to maximum effectiveness.The CIRVs bottom shell, side shell, and hull stiffeners are produced with marine grade 5083-H116 aluminum plate. This particular aluminum has excellent corrosion resistance, a larger tensile and yield strength than 5086 alloy, and is commonly used in marine applications. The CIRV is a longitudinally framed vessel with longitudinal stiffeners spaced every 16 inches and transverse frames every 32 inches. The frame spacing was chosen based off of similarly sized vessels and input received from industry professionals. The vessel has four transverse watertight bulkheads placed strategically throughout the vessel to support major load considerations. The forward most bulkhead is located just aft of where the troop ramp folds down at the bow. This bulkhead serves as the vessels collision bulkhead and provides additional strength when beaching. The following three bulkheads are located at the center of the troop carrying seats, where the main console begins, and at the beginning of the engine room. These bulkhead locations were dictated by ABS guidance, fuel tank and engine room sizes, and deck load considerations.The following table shows all of the aluminum components included in the structure of the CIRV.Table 6 - Structural ComponentsSide Shell1/4" Plate

Bottom Shell3/8" Plate

Centerline Vertical Keel12x6x1/4" T

Bulkhead Plate1/4" Plate

Sideshell Transverse Frame6x1/4" Flatbar

Bottom Transverse Frame9x1/4" Flatbar

Sideshell Longitudinal Stiffeners3x2x3/16" Angle

Bottom Longitudinal Stiffeners3x2x3/16" Angle

Bulkhead Stiffeners3x2x3/16" Angle

Additional Welding Plate6x1/4" Flatbar

Typical transverse sections at each bulkhead can be seen in the following figures.

Figure 10 - Collision Bulkhead

Figure 11 - Troop Carrying Seat Bulkhead

Figure 12 - Main Console Bulkhead

Figure 13 - Engine Room Bulkhead

Composites

The structure of the CIRVs deck, liner, bulwark, and superstructure were designed to be built using advanced composite materials. This rather unconventional method of using an aluminum hull and hull structure with topsides was chosen because of the weight savings, and ease of manufacturing complex shapes associated with the use of composites. Two comparisons were done to help determine which fibers and construction methods would be best for this application. Using the commercially available composite design software VectorLam a traditional E-glass, Airex foam core, and vinlyester resin composite produced using traditional open molding was compared against an advanced composite laminate stack. The advanced composite was composed of a hybrid of carbon fiber, aramid (Kevlar)/e-glass hybrid weave, and an airex core which were to be laminated using an epoxy resin drawn through the fibers using vacuum infusion. The hybrid laminate yielded a 24% weight reduction with no appreciable change in the physical properties of the structure.It should be noted that a hybrid laminate versus a pure carbon laminate was chosen due to some of the drawbacks of a pure carbon structure. Carbon can be thought of as akin to bearing steel, in that it is very strong but brittle which means much greater care must be used in aligning fibers with load paths. Perhaps the largest drawback of a pure carbon structure on a military craft is that it is transparent to radar waves which causes very distinct returns of whatever is behind the structure. This necessitates the use of heavy Radar Absorbing Material (RAM), thus giving up some of the weight benefits.Once the laminate schedule had been determined we analyzed it again using VectorLam to evaluate the stack to ISO 12215-5 small craft structural standards. The ISO standard is specifically written for craft built in composites, but is targeted towards the recreational craft industry. Due to this there is an additional designer specified safety factor to increase the minimum design vertical acceleration which is based on craft size, speed, and design category. The additional safety factor allowed us to make sure that our structure would be capable of withstanding the loads associated with an 8g vertical acceleration. Based on the ISO calculations our structure was deemed to be capable of withstanding the forces that it would be subjected to. Further optimization could be carried out to which would include varying the laminate design based on the location and the direction of the loads it would experience, which would have allowed for further weight reduction. It would also be advantageous to carry out FEA analysis of the structure of the cabin top around the area of the Co-axial weapon mount to ensure that the structure was capable of withstanding sustained recoil throughout the weapons area of fire.The composites were designed to be attached to the hull using a traditional shoe-box deck joint which would allow the deck to be through bolted around its perimeter. It would then be structurally bonded with additional layers of tabbing around the inside perimeter. The deck would also be attached to transverse bulkheads in a similar fashion, using tabbing to ensure watertight integrity as well as through bolting for additional strength. See Appendix xx : Composite Structure

Resistance

To investigate the resistance of the vessel, two methods were used. The first method was using NavCADs Savitsky method for planning hull drag prediction. This method is developed for prismatic hulls, meaning that the hull is a pure wedge shape. It does not reflect the CIRV directly, but this method is used industry wide. Savitsky method solves for resistance by the following formula:

L = lift on the planning bottom (boat weight)t = dynamic trim angleCF = frictional drag coefficient across the wetted planning surfacer = mass density of the waterS = wetted planning surface area at the particular dynamic trim angleV = mean water velocity across the wetted planning surfaceNavCAD solves for the above variables and the dynamic trim angle in order to make sure that equilibrium is maintained. This is done by using the vessels LCG location and location of the center of lift to determine the running trim of the vessel. The following table shows the inputs required by NavCAD to compute the resistance.

Table 7 - NavCAD Vessel InputChine Type:Single/hard

Displacement:13.32LT

Water Type:Salt

Speeds:25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55kts

Max Beam on WL:10.44ft

Max Molded Draft:2.33 ftft

LCG fwd Transom:16.39ft

Aft station (fwd Transom)0ft

Dearise:21deg

Chine Beam:10.44ft

Chine Height below WL:.2ft

Fwd station (fwd Transom)20.20ft

Dearise:21deg

Chine Beam:10.44ft

Chine Height below WL:.26ft

This information provided the calm water resistance information. At the design speed of 50 kts, the effective horse power total (EHP) was computed to be 1125 EHP and a running trim of 3.09 degrees. In order to size the engines, additional margins were added that included design margin and wind and seas margin for Sea State 3. Below is the final output with the margins included and the full output by NavCAD can be found in Appendix XXX. Because of our desired speed, limits of propulsors selected, and drastic increase in resistance with higher speeds, the 50 kt speed and power was selected.Table 8 - NavCAD OutputSpeedTrimEHP

[kts][deg][hp]

256.48889

305.83911

355.12939

404.53986

454.041048

503.651125

553.341210

Figure 14 - Resistance Curve

In order to verify this resistance, other methods in NavCAD were considered such as Series 62, Series 65B. These methods were not able to be used because the vessel was outside the prediction ranges. Additional programs were considered such as Orca or spreadsheets, but these methods used the same calculations as the NavCAD model. Because of this, the next alternative considered was using the VsSea for planning hulls developed by William S. Vorus, Ph.D. This code was based from his paper written in 1996, A Flat Cylinder Theory for Vessel Impact and Steady Planing Resistance. In order to find the resistance using this program, the hull was first modeled in the program. After modeling the hull, the vessel was verified that an accurate representation in the program was formed. The program was then iterated to solve for the weight and trim of the vessel in its running condition. Once equilibrium on the lift and weight of the vessel and location of the center of lift and longitudinal center of gravity were obtained, the vessels calm water, bare hull resistance was found. This was then compared to the calm water, bare hull resistance computed using NavCAD.Table 9 - NavCAD/VsSEA ComparisonSpeed[kt]PETotal[hp]

NavCAD50752

VsSEA50693

As can be seen, the results from the NavCAD and VsSea are very close. The NavCAD results were then verified and used for two main reasons. First, the NavCAD results were slightly higher, providing additional margin for uncertainty. Second, NavCADs program allows for quick and easy addition of additional margins. Due to the timeline of the this project, the VsSea was not able to analyzed in regular sea conditions.

Propulsion and Machinery System

Propulsor Selection

Several different propulsor options were considered to achieve the wide range of operating capabilities required from the vessel such as high speed interception, shallow water insertion/extraction and maneuverability. Three different options were considered and ranked from one to five (1 being the worst, 5 being the best) on several different performance characteristics and how well they fit the vessels desired operating capabilities. The results of the study and rankings are shown below are shown below. Table 10 - Propulsor Study

Water Jets were determined to be the most versatile option due to the fact they allow the vessel to operate in shallow water without the risk of being damaging. At the same time they can still produce large amounts of thrust in order to achieve desired our desired speeds and are extremely maneuverable at all speeds and operating conditions. Hamilton HJ 403 Water Jets were selected and can produce a maximum 4500 pounds of thrust per jet at maximum input power, more than sufficient to meet the demands from the resistance study while leaving a large margin for uncertainty. The performance curves can be seen in the appendix.

Figure 15 - Hamilton Waterjet

Figure 16 - Hamilton Waterjet

Engine Selection

Several different engines with a rated horsepower in the desired range were considered and compared based on performance characteristics to determine the best selection. The full list can be found in the appendix. Cummins QSM-11 high speed diesel engines were selected and have the following characteristics. Full data and specifications can be seen in the appendix.

These engines were primarily chosen for their high power density and compact size as well as their excellent efficiency.

Gear Selection

The engines and water jets were then coupled with ZF marine gears with a reduction ratio of 1.1 which provides a good margin against cavitation. Additionally the gears provide the ability to back flush the system by reversing the jet flow clearing any blockages.

Cooling System

The raw water engine cooling system was designed to utilize the combination of the water jets and gears to provide a back flushing capability. This greatly reduces the risk of overheating the engines in the event of a clogged intake during shallow water operations. The system utilizes the Miller-Leaman raw water strainer shown below which has receives flow from a thru hull and from the water jets as shown in the following schematic. Figure 17 - Cooling Schematic

Stability

For our stability evaluation we fell under the following intact stability criteria:- Beam Winds with Rolling- Crowding of Personnel to one Side- High-Speed TurnAfter inputting our limits in the run files for each of the criteria, we were able to output our max allowable VCG curves at different displacements running at 1 degree forward trim, even keel, and 3 degree aft trim. The following graphs are the output of each of the criteria:

Figure 18 - Max VCG per Wind and Roll criteria

Figure 19 - Max VCG per Crowding of Personnel Criteria

Figure 20 - Max VCG per High Speed Turn CriteriaFrom our Weight estimate, we were able to pull our maximum allowable VCG at our displacement from our conditions at lightship, half-load, and full load. Here is a table of our conditions and a graph showing that all conditions passed.

ConditionsLightshipHalf-LoadFull Load

VCG (ft)3.853.703.97

Displacement (LT)9.6010.7613.18

Figure 21 - Loading Conditions

Figure 22 - Max Allowed VCG vs. Loading Conditions

Motions

For small high speed craft, vertical accelerations are very important in the overall design of the vessel. In typical recreational craft, a maximum acceleration of 4g is typically designed for, however, because this crafts military mission, a larger G range wanted to be accounted for. Therefore early on in the design, a maximum acceleration of 8g was determined to adequately size our structure. Once our model was completed, a check of the actual motions of the vessel were done using the program VsSea developed by Dr. William Vorus. This program was specifically written for predicting high speed craft accelerations and calm water resistance. Below is a body plan view of the vessel as modeled by the VsSea.

Figure 23 - VsSea Body PlanFor the modeling, two main assumptions were done to simplify the vessels shape for the program to properly calculate. First, the deadrise angle was considered constant aft of station 4. As Figure XX shows, there is only 5 degree change station 4 to station 10. Also, to account for the change a constant angle of 22 degrees was used.

Figure 24 - Deadrise DistributionThe second assumption was that the chine beam aft of station 4 was also constant. This can be made because the change in chine beam in this region is only a few inches. Therefore with these assumptions, the modeled was simplified to its basic shape.

Once the modeled was finished, the first process in analyzing the vessel was to find its operating condition at 50 knots. Using the GHs model of the hull, a draft of 2.33 ft and a trim of 0 degrees was used to find the displacement and LCG location in the station condition. Once found, the program was iterated until the displacement of the vessel equaled the lifting force and the location of the LCG from GHs to the center of lifting from VsSea. Table XX shows the operating condition at 50 knots used for the motions and resistance.Table 11 - Operating Conditiong Operating Condition at 50 knots

Draft [ft]1.93

Trim [deg]2.76

Using the running condition, the vessel was then analyzed in seas. The code has built in function for regular seas and irregular seas using the Jonswap Spectrum. To try and use a more realistic scenario, the Jonswap spectrum was used. After research, it was found that a maximum of 4 ft wave height could be expected in Sea State 3, therefore, a significant wave height of 4 ft was modeled in the spectrum. The vessel was then simulated in the spectrum for an overall time of 2 minutes. The program was then run again to get a more random scatter in the data. This was achieved because the program has a built in random variable that would make the values slightly different in each run. Figure XX shows a snapshot of the vessels response during one of the program runs.

Figure 25 - Example VsSea Accelerations OutputThis graph shows the vessels accelerations at the Transom, Bow, and LCG, and one can see the waves affecting the vessel across the time. Once the program completed the runs the following statistics were calculated.

Table 12 - Motion StatisticsBowLCGTransom

RMS Accelerations [g]2.121.72.02

Time Mean Acceleration [g]1.071.011.03

As previously stated, the motion analysis was to be used to ultimately find if the assumption of 8g accelerations were correct. After analyzing all the data, the maximum acceleration seen by the vessel is 7.5g. Because of this, our structure should be able to withstand the loads easily.

Cost Estimate

The cost estimate of the CIRV can be broken down into components. The table below shows an overview of the preliminary cost breakdown for the design and construction of the CIRV.

Table 13 - Cost Estimate SummaryComponentCost

Aluminum$25,000

Composites$65,000

Ballistic Armor$300,000

Engines$120,000

Water Jets$175,000

Manufacturing and Labor$30,000

Production Development and Engineering(40 boat series)$8,000

20% Margin$145,000

Total Acquisition Cost$868,000

As can be seen in the table, the majority of the CIRVs cost lies with the ballistic armor, engines, and water jets. The structural components, labor, and design work is all relatively inexpensive comparatively. After completing all of the major cost items, a 20% margin was applied for miscellaneous expenditures to reach a total acquisition cost of $868,000. It should be noted that this cost does not include any of the weapon or other military systems in the vessel as those fall under the category of Government Furnished Equipment, and therefore are not included in the CIRVs cost.

Team Operating Agreement

Article 1, Contact Information:Group members should be contacted at the following email addresses and phone numbers to ensure proper communication throughout the design process:Matthew [email protected]

Kyle [email protected]

Jackson [email protected]

Lucas [email protected]

Jason [email protected]

Group [email protected]

Article 2, Purpose:The members of Team CIRV are organized to design a next generation navy combatant craft to fulfill the need for a multirole riverine and litoral high speed interceptor. While built to fulfill this specific mission, Team CIRV intends to design an ocean going patrol boat with modern capabilities to meet the various missions of defense for forces of all nationalities. Throughout the design process, all requirements of NAME 4175 will be met or exceeded. Further, the Team is committed to produce a unique, innovative design worthy of serving the United States Navy. All Team members agree to follow the articles laid out in this document in effort to deliver such a vessel, and to commit themselves to meet all project schedules, work diligently, and communicate effectively.

Article 3, Communications:The group intends to communicate most often via e-mail and regular group meetings at times to be scheduled throughout the semester. Members agree to meet regularly at the agreed class meeting time (?). One group member will be working remotely (Matthew Welton), but he has agreed to be available by phone and e-mail at those hours and during any other group meeting time. As the project progresses, additional meetings will be required and the group has agreed to coordinate meeting times, including weekends as is necessary. It is anticipated Matt will come to New Orleans several times over the course of the semester for key events as outlined below.

Article 4, Logistics:The Team has created a Dropbox folder accessible from any internet connection to facilitate the sharing of documents. All members have joined dropbox and currently have access to said folder. The dropbox folder is organized according to final report requirements and will be maintained by the group collectively.

Document Check-out/Check-in procedure: Each group member, when working on a document, will download it from dropbox and work on the document locally. When the work session is complete, the group member will then upload the revised document to dropbox. Each dropbox folder contains a superseded folder. After a member has uploaded a revised document, he will then place the older version in the superseded folder. Superseded folders will be deleted only as necessary to maintain adequate space in the dropbox.

Weekly E-mail reports: Additionally, each group member will be responsible for submitting a short status email to the entire group regarding their areas of responsibility each Friday, and another group member will be responsible for compiling these reports and sending a project status e-mail, along with weekly project goals, copied to each group member every Monday. This is intended to keep the Team on schedule, aid in the identification of potential problems, and ensure all members are engaged in the project. Regular phone communications are anticipated when group responsibilities overlap or questions arise.

Remote Member Considerations: Because Matthew Welton will be participating remotely, he will be in charge of the Monday project status e-mail to ensure his continued participation and also to ensure he is fully aware of work done by the group. Additionally, it is anticipated he will be making several trips to New Orleans over the course of the semester for key events and as the need arises. Preliminarily, it is anticipated he will come toward the end of the semester to help finalize the report and prepare the presentation. He will also attend the presentation.

Report Consolidation: A Template for the final report will be set up as a word document. The final report will be maintained on Dropbox but will be the primary responsibility of one team member. Individual sections of the report will be assigned to individual members of the team in the early stages of project management. Each member will be responsible for creating a final section document. As sections are completed, the section will be added to the final report document only with express permission of the team member in charge of maintaining the final report. This process is intended to prevent confusion and the existence of many different versions of the final report, and ultimately to prevent the loss of information or time due to poor document management.

Project Plan: A Project Plan and Schedule will be created in the early stages of the project. The plan will set deadlines for the completion of tasks and sections of the report, assign sections to members of the group, and allow for monitoring the progress of the project and potential impacts to the critical path.

Article 5, Monitoring:The group will be in charge of monitoring itself. The weekly status e-mails and weekly meetings will serve as the primary tools to keep tabs on group members progress and the quality of their work. Additionally, when a section of the project is completed, it is the responsibility of the member in charge of that section to notify the entire group, and it is the responsibility of each member of the group to review the completed section for completeness and accuracy in a timely manner.Article 6, Decisions:Major decisions will be made by a 3/5 majority of the group. Major decisions include hull form, propulsors, engine selection, and other decisions which have a large impact on the overall project design. Smaller decisions within a members area of responsibility will be made by that member, however, the member must disclose the decision to the group in the weekly status reports and the decision is subject to review of the group (if 3 members of the group disagree with a decision, it is reversed and a new decisions will be discussed and agreed to). Tasks will be assigned according to a group effort in which everyone agrees on the distribution of work. Tasks will be outlined in a Microsoft Project document intended to schedule and monitor the project. The team also encourages its members to take initiative and anticipate design areas that need to be addressed. When a group member initiates work on an area of the project prior to group agreement, he should inform the group via e-mail and proceed unless there is objection by a member of the group. Article 7, Conflicts:For any major changes, disagreements, or conflicts, a 3/5 majority of the group is required to resolve the matter. No decision that will affect one or more areas of the design outside a members assigned area should be made without consulting every group member first. If the group fails to reach a 3/5 decision after allowing all group members to be heard, the group will submit the decision to a professor who will be considered a subject matter expert (SME) for review.Article 8, Slacking:Any slacking noticed by a member of the team will be brought to the attention of the entire group and addressed. If the group cannot reach a resolution, then professor McKesson, Birk, or Taravella will be consulted. If a problem is persistent or recurring with a group member, the issue will be taken to Pam (with a 3/5 vote) with the understanding that doing so will have a negative impact on that group members grade in the class.If a group member feels he is doing a proportionally greater amount of work or a member feels his workload is greater or less than expected, he should inform the group so that the issue can be resolved and work redistributed appropriately. Each member is responsible to perform the majority of his assigned work, although the group is available to provide input, advice, and help if necessary.

Appendix A - Drawings


1

145

Appendix B Parametric Study


Appendix C Weight estimate

ITEMWeight LCG (ft)L-Mom't (ft-lb)VCG (ft)V-Mom't (ft-lb)TCG (ft)T-Mom't (ft-lb)

[ ft port +] [ft stbd -]

100 HULL STRUCTURES[lbs][ft. fwd Transm][ft-lbs.][ft abv BL][ft-lbs][ft-lbs]

Bottom Shell Plate2362.5318.48436501.1928110.000

Side Shell Plate1670.6919.25321564.2771340.000

Longitudinal Stiffeners -

Side, Port44.9421.009445.602525.55249

46.1820.579504.932285.29244

48.0319.869544.071954.96238

46.7818.818803.201504.79224

Bottom, Port28.7713.283822.00584.65134

37.0517.176361.74643.53131

42.0519.548221.39582.2795

43.1320.108670.82351.0646

Bottom, Stbd43.1320.108670.8235-1.06-46

42.0519.548221.3958-2.27-95

37.0517.176361.7464-3.53-131

28.7713.283822.0058-4.65-134

Side, Stbd46.7818.818803.20150-4.79-224

48.0319.869544.07195-4.96-238

46.1820.579504.93228-5.29-244

44.9421.009445.60252-5.55-249

Hull Girder388.9420.8180940.742880.000

Transverse Stiffeners/Bulkheads

Transom61.840.0002.161340.000

63.042.671682.171370.000

63.985.333412.171390.000

Aft Bhd309.169.1828382.959120.000

65.1310.676952.181420.000

65.1313.338682.181420.000

66.2816.0010602.211460.000

66.3818.6712392.231480.000

64.4521.3313752.271460.000

Center Bhd332.0923.9179403.3110990.000

63.7229.0218492.641680.000

Fwd Bhd83.9231.6826592.852390.000

57.3034.3519683.201830.000

48.5337.0217973.751820.000

36.5339.6814504.581670.000

20.8841.368635.251100.000

000

Glass port side100.0012.5612568.818815.02502

Glass stbd side100.0012.5612568.81881-5.02-502

Glass Fwd Port50.0019.599809.334673.56178

Glass Fwd Stbd50.0019.599809.33467-3.56-178

Glass Fwd CL50.0020.4410229.4047000

Port side bottom armor201.6913.5827394.9610005.091027

Stbd side bottom armor201.6913.5827394.961000-5.09-1027

Port Side mid armor81.4015.2712437.275925.32433

Stbd Side mid armor81.4015.2712437.27592-5.32-433

Port Side thin armor27.2014.553967.892154.91134

Stbd Side thin armor27.2014.553967.89215-4.91-134

Fwd facing armor0.0022.5507.74000

Port Fwd troop carrying armor401.3433.63134975.1920834.361750

Stbd Fwd troop carrying armor401.3433.63134975.192083-4.36-1750

Fore Deck Sole231.4032.6575554.3410050.000

Aft Deck213.603.166764.479550.0512

Cabin Sole195.7516.8633003.98780-0.02-4

Deck/Superstructure 1125.0016.52185888.221592490.05506757962

House Top Frame/Cabin Liner200.0013.2226439.571913-0.061321097-12

Console131.2519.1025075.8176300

Collar300.0021.8165426.111832-0.00515896-2

Gun Mounts30.005.261587.3922200

100 HULL STRUCTURES TOTAL8402.1219.45163440.674.9241359.870.0156.12



200 PROPULSION PLANT[lbs][ft. fwd Transm][ft-lbs.][ft abv BL][ft-lbs][ft-lbs]

230 Propulsion Units

233 Propulsion Engines (2)5240.006.82357372.4212663.50.000.0

240 Transmission and Propulsion Systems

241 Propulsion Reduction gears (2)400.003.5014001.80720.00.000.0

243 Propulsion Shafting (2)100.003.003001.80180.00.000.0

247 Waterjet Propulsors 3502.000.7526271.003502.00.000.0

261 Fuel Service System5.0046.462322.1410.70.000.0

200 PROPULSION PLANT TOTAL9247.004.3640295.601.8517076.180.000.00

ITEMWeigWeight LCG (ft)L-Mom't (ft-lb)VCG (ft)V-Mom't (ft-lb)TCG (ft)T-Mom't (ft-lb)


300 ELECTRIC PLANT[lbs][ft. fwd Transm][ft-lbs.][ft abv BL][ft-lbs][ft-lbs]

310 Electric Power Generation

313 Batteries House and Start (4)153.6020.0030722.57394.80.000.0

314 Power Conversion Equipment10.009.009012.60126.00.151.5

320 Power Distribution System

324 Switchgear and Panels20.0017.753555.75115.02.0040.0

300 ELECTRIC PLANT TOTAL183.6019.163517.003.46635.770.2341.53



500 AUXILIARY SYSTEMS[lbs][ft. fwd Transm][ft-lbs.][ft abv BL][ft-lbs][ft-lbs]

513 Machinery Space Ventilation25.008.002006.00150.00.000.0

555 Fire Extinguishing Systems50.008.004004.00200.0-3.00-150.0

500 AUXILIARY SYSTEMS TOTAL75.008.00600.004.67350.00-2.00-150.00



600 OUTFIT AND FURNISHINGS[lbs][ft. fwd Transm][ft-lbs.][ft abv BL][ft-lbs][ft-lbs]

Shox 8100 Seats156.0031.5049145.00780.00.000.0

Shox 6155 Seats320.0014.0044805.201663.30.000.0

GEM Steering Wheel5.0016.99857.0035.0-2.31-11.6

Simrad MO-1610.0017.921796.7567.50.000.0

Simrad NSO 24.4017.92796.7529.70.000.0

Merc. DTS controls w/rigging25.0017.924486.75168.80.000.0

FLIR M-61811.509.6011012.51143.80.000.0

600 OUTFIT AND FURNISHINGS TOTAL531.9019.3610295.245.432888.12-0.02-11.56



700 ARMAMENT[lbs][ft. fwd Transm][ft-lbs.][ft abv BL][ft-lbs][ft-lbs]

710 Guns and Ammunition

711 Man Mounted Guns83.005.264369.89820.50.000.0

711 Gyro Controlled Mount (Pilothouse Top)175.0013.00227513.502362.50.000.0

700 ARMAMENT TOTAL258.0010.512711.1712.343182.960.000.00



SUMMARY[Lt][ft. fwd Transm][ft-lbs.][ft abv BL][ft-lbs][ft-lbs]

100 HULL STRUCTURES TOTAL3.7519.45163440.674.9241359.870.0156.12

200 PROPULSION PLANT TOTAL4.134.3640295.601.8517076.180.000.00

300 ELECTRIC PLANT TOTAL0.0819.163517.003.46635.770.2341.53

500 AUXILIARY SYSTEMS TOTAL0.038.00600.004.67350.00-2.00-150.00

600 OUTFIT AND FURNISHINGS TOTAL0.2419.3610295.245.432888.12-0.02-11.56

700 ARMAMENT TOTAL0.1210.512711.1712.343182.960.000.00

LIGHT SHIP TOTAL (no margin)8.3511.8198.603.5029.240.00-0.03

Appendix D StructureAluminum

Composites

Appendix E Propulsion System

Appendix F Stability

High Speed Turn

Crowding of Personnel

Wind and Roll

Appendix G Design Proposal

NAME 4175RIVERINE/COASTAL INTERCEPTER VESSELProject Proposal for ApprovalPresented To: Pam PilarosciaPresented By: Matt Welton, Jackson Wilson, Kyle Tyson, Lucas Wieser, Jason MorrisDate: 12/9/2013Rev. 2

Mission:

The mission for the proposed Coastal Interceptor Vessel (CIV) will be two fold. in its near shore coastal duty the craft would serve as a military or paramilitary high speed interceptor used for counter-terrorism operations against paramilitary groups such as terrorists, pirates, and drug runners. In the vessels role as a Riverine Patrol Boat it would be expected to be able to deploy and provide support to ground based troops through mounted weapons systems as well as advanced imaging capabilities provided by onboard systems.

Operational Considerations:

Crew survivability and ergonomic design will be the driving design factors. While craft that have seen operations in the past have been adapted for their role as a high speed interceptor or as a combat ready riverine boat ours will be designed from the ground up based on real world combat experience of what works and what does not. Current craft lack integrated, fully engineered solutions for ballistic crew protection as well as integration of weapons systems and the vessels systems to provide seamless operation.

Current craft were designed as single mission craft, which is something that the military is trying to move away from in the current economic climate. Since these craft were designed for either riverine or coastal duties their hull designs tend to be vastly different. Riverine craft tend to have very shallow deadrise angles in the region of 10 18 degrees, which in conditions over sea state 2 begin to slam and become too harsh riding to be effective at their mission. In contrast offshore boats have high deadrise 24-25 degrees and narrow chine beams. These allow the boat to run effectively in large sea states but require more power for a given speed as well as a decrease in static stability. Vessels designed for offshore operations tend to be powered by either outdrives or surface piercing drives due to their high speed efficiency, but this configuration is not conducive to riverine or shallow water operations due to the possibility of damage and the poor low speed maneuverability of surface drives.

A vessel capable of operating in both riverine and offshore conditions must strike a compromise between the two types of designs to deliver a platform that can be successful in both environments. For this project that means a vessel which is powered by waterjets and has a transom deadrise between 20 and 22 degrees. Slamming can also be reduced by ensuring that sections remain slightly convex throughout the entire length of the vessel and at forward stations the chines are rotated up slightly from the horizontal.

Shock mitigation through the use of seating technologies and shock mitigating flooring will also be investigated. Coastal Dynamics Groups chief technology officer has already extended his support in helping us determine suitable seating solutions as well as calculations based investigation of vessel ride quality through the implementation of the standard g program which allows the user to calculate hull bottom pressures from know acceleration data. This helps in accurately selecting seat damping and rebound as well as driving the structural requirements for the hull.

Market Considerations:

Based on discussions with industry professionals as well as symposium presentations, the current fleet of Riverine boats used by the US Navy will be replaced by a new multi- mission riverine/ coastal interceptor craft with procurement funding beginning in FY 2015. This coupled with a new generation of paramilitary contractors providing both in-house and third party support in anti-terrorism and anti-piracy operations to maritime companies indicates a strong market for this type of craft in the coming years. Based on information from the International Chamber of Commerce there have been 206 reported incidents and 11 hijackings of vessels as of October 22, 2013 many of which occur in littoral conditions near estuaries and deltas of major rivers. These threats occur all over the world with the areas of concentration being north west Africa, the Gulf of Aden, south west Asia, and parts of South America and Caribbean

Concept Vessel:

The proposed vessel would fall into a size range between 45 and 55ft to allow transport of the vessel and trailer onboard a USAF C-17 aircraft. We will investigate both water jet and surface drive propulsors driven by high speed diesel engines as the vessel will be required to have a top speed in excess of 45 knots. Both composites and aluminum or a combination will be investigated for construction materials and be based on high speed rules available from either Lloyds, Royal Institution of Naval Architects (RINA), or American Bureau of Shipping High Speed Naval Craft Rules (ABS HSNC). Because of the high speed nature of the craft some first principles based investigation may be utilized in the form of Virgina Techs Standard G program for taking vessel acceleration data and producing a force experienced by the bottom of the boat for more accurate scantling design. This program is also used to evaluate the accelerations experienced by the crew and thus the appropriate type of shock mitigation which should be used.

Since the vessel can be used in either offensive or defensive roles the vessels environmental signature will play an important role in the design spiral as well. This will mean investigating thermal isolation, noise isolation, and reduction in radar cross section. The dual role nature of the vessel will also necessitate the mounting of both crew served and co-axial controlled weapons systems, as well as non-lethal means of incapacitating the enemy. As stated earlier, current craft lack well integrated ballistic protection for the vessel, and this is something that this vessel should address and rectify.

Based on the operating profile of the proposed craft we feel that it will be necessary to design from a clean sheet of paper a new hull design that can cope with the dual role nature of the vessel as well as provide the required capabilities the crew will need to complete their missions successfully.

References:

Bob MacDonald. The Procurement of High-Speed Military Vessels in the 21st Century. High Speed Boat Operations Forum, 17 April 2012, Goteborg, Sweden.

CDR Anthony Baker. Maritime Surface Systems Brief. Special Operations Forces Industry Conference, 16 May 2013. Web. 27 Oct. 2013. 2013 SOFIC Conference Briefing

Carl Magnus Ullman. Human Impact Exposure on Fast Boats. Powerboat & RIB Magazine January 2013: 103 105. Print. Article

High Speed Craft Human factors Engineering Design Guide, /HSC_HFE_Design_Guide_v1.0

Ensign, Hodgdon, et al. A Survey of Self-Reported Injuries Among Special Boat Operators.Navy Health Research Center. Report No. 00-48

Jussi Mannerberg. Impact Exposure on High Speed Boats. High Speed Boat Operations Forum, 17 April 2012, Goteborg, Sweden.

Johan Ullman. Designing Consoles for Speed. Professional Boatbuilder February 2013: 62-70. Print. Article

Mark Lougheed. A proposal for Industry Standard Seat Performance Evaluation Criteria. Coast Dynamics Group. 18 June 2013. Web. 27 Oct. 2013. Article

Michael Peters. Peters on (Fast) Powerboats. Professional Boatbuilder August 2010: 38-55. Print. Article Part 1

Michael Peters. Peters on (Fast) Powerboats part 2. Professional Boatbuilder October 2010:56-71. Print. Article Part 2

Michael Riley. Analyzing Accelerations, Part 2. Professional Boatbuilder February 2013: 36-48. Print.

Paul Lazarus. Ultrariverine. Professional Boatbuilder December 2013: 24 39. Print.

Paul Lazarus. Analyzing accelerations, Part 1. Professional Boatbuiler December 2012: 34-46. Print

T. Coats, M. Riley. Characterizing Wave-Impact Response Motions for High-Speed Planing Hulls. High Speed Boat Operations Forum, 17 April 2012, Goteborg, Sweden.

senior design_spring 14 final (1)

Documents

typical riverine vessel

single vessel

new coastal riverine

riverine force riveron

vessel particulars

vessel capable of operating

different vessels

ground combat force