DESIGN OF A 17 METRE FAST PATROL BOAT WITH AN INSIGHT INTO AN INNOVATIVE BOW TYPE

Southampton Solent University SCHOOL OF MARITIME SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING This project is submitted in part fulfilment of the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering with Honours in Yacht and Powercraft Design Southampton Solent University April 2016 BEng (Hons) Yacht and Powercraft Design Alexander MacLean DESIGN OF A 17 METRE FAST PATROL BOAT WITH AN INSIGHT INTO AN INNOVATIVE BOW TYPE April 2016 i Project Abstract This project is to design of a 17 metre fast patrol boat. The ergonomics and comfort of the crew were to be a prominent consideration throughout the design process. The design process considers: hull shape and form; general layout above and below deck to include both the structure and fitting out of the crew space; and, propulsion systems. In addition, there is an examination, under tank test conditions, between a conventional hull and a hull with the addition of a deflector. This is done by creating a 1:15 scale model of the design and then using a tank, with various simulated sea conditions, to examine and then compare the performance (resistance and accelerations) of the two hulls. ii Contents Page Project Brief ............................................................................ Aims and Objectives ................................................................... Research Undertaken and Design of the Vessel ................................... Area of Operation ...................................................................... Structural Theory Introduction to the Structures and the Rule Followed .................. Structural Layout .............................................................. Material Considerations ...................................................... Structural Calculations ....................................................... Appraisal ........................................................................ Tank Testing Reasoning for Testing ......................................................... Building of the Model ......................................................... Test Matrix Followed .......................................................... Preperation for Tests ......................................................... Analysis of Tests ............................................................... Results of Tests ................................................................ Powering Calculations ......................................................... Validation of Deflector ....................................................... Appraisal ........................................................................ Machinery and Systems Installed Onboard Introduction .................................................................... Reasoning of Choices ......................................................... Detail of the Scania DI-16076M Engine ..................................... Detail of the ZF 825A Gearbox .............................................. Detail of the Rolls Royce Kamewa A3-36 Jets ............................ Ventilation System Design ................................................... Cooling System Design ........................................................ Exhaust System Design ....................................................... Fuel and Tankage Layout and System Design ............................. Layout of the Machinery with an Insight into Access and Egress ...... Environmental Compliance ................................................... Alternative Propulsion Options .............................................. Appraisal ........................................................................ General Arrangement Below Deck Layout Forward Stowage ..................................................... Galley and Saloon .................................................... Main Cabin ............................................................. Machinery Spaces ..................................................... Above Deck Layout Wheelhouse ........................................................... Deck and Special Features .......................................... Stability Introduction .................................................................... Weights and Centres .......................................................... Calculations .................................................................... Rule Compliance ............................................................... Damage Stability ............................................................... Appraisal ........................................................................ Critical Analysis of the Project ...................................................... Conclusion ............................................................................... References .............................................................................. Appendices Section .................................................................... Visual Representations ................................................................ 1 1 2 4 5 8 8 9 14 15 16 16 18 19 20 23 25 26 27 27 27 30 31 33 35 35 36 37 38 38 40 41 41 42 42 43 44 45 45 46 46 50 50 51 52 53 56 68 iii Technical Drawings Drawing 001 – Lines Plan ...................................................... Drawing 002 – Structural Layout, Plan view ............................... Drawing 003 – Structural Layout, Profile View ........................... Drawing 004 – Structural Layout, Midship Section ....................... Drawing 005 – Deflector Design and Structural Arrangement .......... Drawing 006 – Wheelhouse Structural Design ............................. Drawing 007 – Installment of the Drivetrain .............................. Drawing 008 – Representation of the Ventilation Design ................ Drawing 009 – Representation Cooling and Exhaust Design ............. Drawing 010 – Representation Fuel and Tankage Arrangement ........ Drawing 011 – Access and Egress from the Machinery Spaces .......... Drawing 012 – Interior General Arrangement ............................. Drawing 013 – General Arrangement, Section View ...................... Drawing 014 - Exterior General Arrangement ............................ 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Page | 1 Project Brief The initial brief was set by the Scottish Government Coastal Agency, who were looking to replace their current fleet of patrol boats with a new vessel with a more human focused design. There were some limitations that had to be taken into account and also several requirements that the Client detailed. These were as follows: • A commercial boat to carry out littoral patrol, pilot, search and rescue and light military activities • Must have a minimum speed of 30 knots • Compliment of 6 permanent crew and 4 survivors • Hotel facilities for 2 persons • Human focused design philosophy to be adopted Aims and Objectives The aim of this project design was to adhere to the Client’s requirements, whilst maintaining a modern and up to date design. The aesthetics of a commercial boat can sometimes be overtaken by the practicality of the craft. However, for this design, the aesthetics of the vessel and comfort of the crew were to be of high importance throughout the design process, whilst maintaining a practical and functional design. The vessel itself will be designed to meet with the requirements of the Lloyds Register Special Service Craft Guidelines (LR SSC) [01] and the stability requirements of the MGN280 code [02]. With the stress on a human design philosophy, it was key to ensure that the comfort of the crew and the ergonomics of the vessel were to a high quality design. The addition of a wave deflector was to try and reduce the vertical motions of the craft, and thus reduce the pitching motions that will be felt in the wheelhouse by the crew. The vertical motions are those most linked to sea sickness, and therefore crew fatigue. It is hoped that the deflector will reduce these vertical motions and, therefore, reduce crew fatigue. This concept will be tested in tank conditions and the results will be appraised in the Tank Testing Section (Page 15). Page | 2 Research Undertaken and the Design of the Vessel – Drawing 001 There was an initial research carried out into several different types of commercial craft [03, 04, 05, 06, 07] that met with the length requirements of the proposed design. The data analysed here included: design ratios such as the slenderness ratio, length/beam ratio, volumetric Froude number; and, the measure of the installed power to weight. This gave a good insight as to what the vessel should incorporate into its design. As well as each vessel’s parameters being studied, the vessel itself was studied in order to ascertain as much information as possible from the research. With the initial outline of the Client’s requirements, and the base parametric study carried out, the design of the first of 26 hulls began. The hull was designed in the Maxsurf Modeller design program, where the shape and hydrostatics of the hull can be altered easily. The final hull sits above the parametric studied for all values, mainly due to the speed that the proposed vessel will be achieving. The final design parameters are shown in Table 1 below along with the comparison between the parametric study design ratios and that of the actual design in Table 2 shown overleaf. Measurement Abbreviation Value Units Length Overall Loa 17.60 Metres Length Waterline Lwl 16.85 Metres Beam Overall Boa 4.85 Metres Beam Waterline Bwl 4.24 Metres Draft Tc 0.96 Metres Freeboard Fb 1.61 Metres Volumetric Displacement ∇ 25.23 Metres 3 Displacement ∆ 25.87 Tonnes Table 1: Technical particulars of the vessel Page | 3 Value for Comparison Parametric Study Value Designed Vessel Value Slenderness Ratio 5.06 5.75 Volumetric Froude Number 3.36 3.07 Length/Beam Ratio 3.42 3.97 Power/Displacement Ratio 48.80 62.54 Beam/Draft Ratio 4.10 4.48 Table 2: Comparison of ratios between the parametric study and the designed vessel As can be seen, the vessel is a very slender design with a low draft and a high length in relation to the beam of the boat and this lends itself to a fast vessel. However, the vessel does operate at a lower volumetric Froude number than those of the parametric study. (This is due mainly to the fact that several Interceptor craft were studied as part of the research, and these types of craft have a very slender, low volume design capable of travelling at speeds in excess of 40 knots.) As a result of this, the power/displacement ratio for the proposed vessel is somewhat higher than that of the parametric study. This is mainly due to the vessel travelling at a top speed of 32 knots. The power output requirements of the proposed engines will be discussed at length in the Tank Testing Section (Page 15). The hull shape is set to be of deep V-style, with a relatively high deadrise angle. The deadrise angle has been set at 22.50 following the results from the parametric studies and the characteristics that are associated with a vessel with this hull form. The bow of the vessel has a very sharp forefoot, but this quickly transforms into a constant deadrise angle of Station 6 (6.74 m forward of the stern) in order to try and create the biggest planing surface possible. The final design of the hull can be seen in Drawing 001 of the Technical Drawing Section (Page 72). This drawing is the 2D lines plan of the hull, portraying the curvature of the hull. Page | 4 The reasoning behind installing a deflector was via research undertaken into the different bow types that can be used in order to reduce vertical accelerations [08, 09]. This bow type is used and installed in two of Naviform’s [10] supply vessels. Area of Operation The detailed area of operation for this craft will be the Firth of Clyde and out into the Irish Sea towards the Northern Channel [11]. This is shown in Figure 1. The weather in the channel has been analysed using shipping forecasts and a weather buoy which is located just south of the lower extents of the chart in Figure 1. This will be important when the waves in the tank testing are to be sized, as the data could be scaled and used to replicate real-life and operational sea conditions to test the design in more common sea states. The Firth of Clyde has commercial, pleasure and military traffic passing through it every day, with the Port of Glasgow and the Faslane Naval Base being the major shipping ports. There are also several small ferries than run from mainland ports located on the Firth of Clyde (such as Ardrossan) to ports across the firth (such as Dunoon) and to off-shore islands (such as the Isle of Bute). Therefore, it is important that the channel is monitored and any incident responded to quickly. This is why the vessel is constantly manned and equipped with hotel facilities for two crew members. Figure 1: Admiralty chart 2724 of the North Channel and the Firth of Lorn Page | 5 Structural Theory Nomenclature Hull Form Pressure Factor Stiffener Spacing Vessel Displacement Convex Curvature Factor Panel Location Factor Panel Aspect Ratio Factor Waterline Length Limiting Bending Stress Coefficient G0 Support Girth 0.2% Proof Stress of the Material Section Modulus Coefficient p Design Pressure Moment of Inertia Coefficient Effective Span Length Web Area Coefficient Modulus of Elasicity Limiting Stress Coefficient Shear Strength of Material ( ) Limiting Deflection Coefficient Introduction to the Structures and the Rule Followed It was decided to construct the vessel out of aluminium of differing tempers. The structure system chosen was predominately transverse frames with longitudinal stiffeners. The calculations and reasoning behind the structural component design and choices will be discussed throughout this section of the report. The structure will be built in accordance to the Lloyds SSC guidelines [12]. These rules detail what the structural requirements of the plating in various locations throughout the vessel need to be, as well as specifying the stiffener members required section modulus, section area and moment of inertia depending on what role they play in the supporting structure. Page | 6 There were several structural considerations that had to be made in the design process which were detailed in the Lloyds SSC rule. Most notably, these included considerations to be made around the chine [13]. It was a detail in the rule that the plating had to be increased by 6mm (or 10%, whichever is greater) or to place a reinforced chine rod of a wall thickness of a minimum of 10% of the surrounding plate. It was decided to increase the thickness by 6mm, as it was thought this would be the simplest and easiest change to make to the design. Elsewhere the rule would help calculate the minimum plate thickness, the required plate thickness, the subsequent section modulus, area and inertial moment requirements of the surrounding supports. The calculations will be discussed throughout this section. Throughout the rule, several factors of safety were included in the design pressures and subsequent calculations with respect to thickness equations. The design factors [14] in use throughout this document will reference to this table shown below (Table 3) and the corresponding values. Lloyds Factor of Safety Factors Implied Abbreviation Notation Value Service Type Notation Factor Sf Pilot 1.25 Service Area Notation Factor Gf G5 1.2 Craft Type Notation Factor Cf Mono 1.0 Hull Notation Factor Hf Light Displacement Craft 0.95 Table 3: Notation Factors (Safety Factors) used throughout the design process The design pressures associated with the design of the structure are based around the greater of: the impact pressure, wave distribution pressure and the forebody impact pressure. These were calculated separately, and the maximum calculated values taken for the use in the design pressure of the plating. In terms of high speed planing vessel, the dominant factor of the three was to be the impact pressure. This is due to the fact that there was an ‘acceleration due to slamming’ factor (av) in the equation to calculate the design pressure. This factor is as defined in Appendix 1. Page | 7 The equation [15] for calculating the impact pressure was as follows: This equation was then multiplied by the factors of safety which Lloyds employ and which denote the vessel and service type notation factors (as previously defined in Table 3) in order to gain the value that will be used to calculate the plate thickness in the bottom of the boat, PBP . This value of PBP would then be used in the following equation, which calculates the minimum thickness that the plating needs to be. The equation [16] used to calculate the bottom slamming region plating thickness was: The strength requirements of the stiffeners could now be calculated. This was done via the use of the formulae [16] shown below in the order of Section Modulus (Z), Inertia (I) and Area of the Web (AW). It should be noted that the coefficients used below for all the calculations were assumed to be the highest they could be to ensure the structure would be strong enough. If weight of the structure was a concern, then this should adjusted so as to meet with the requirements shown in Appendix 2. With the use of these equations, the vessel’s structures were designed and calculated. The limitations of the rule will be discussed in the Appraisal (Page 14). Page | 8 Structural Layout - Drawings 002-006 The layout of the vessel was to be a transverse framing system supported by longitudinal stiffeners. This was the chosen method of construction as it was decided that this would lead to the fastest construction time, and also be the lightest method. The supporting frames were calculated to be at a spacing of 1230mm, however, in the bow and around the machinery sections of the vessel, the frames were to be condensed so as to deal with the adverse loads and additional structural loads in each of these areas respectively. The associated loads in these areas were the engine girders and the waterjet frame which each required additional support around the structure. The additional structure was required in the bow to ensure that the curvature in the base of the boat was maintained as per the design and also to support the additional loads that the deflector associated loads would create. There are 6 main floor levels on the vessel. These include the wheelhouse floor, main deck, waterjet maintenance, engine maintenance, main subdeck floor and the floor in the forward stowage compartment. Material Considerations The structure of the vessel will be made up of 5083-H111 Marine Grade Aluminium for all the plating, floors and bulkheads and 6082-T6 Marine Grade Aluminium for all the extrusions. These materials show excellent resistance to corrosion and have good welding properties as compared to other marine grade aluminiums. There was the option to build this craft in GRP, however this was discounted as it was thought that an aluminium structure would be more durable and the facilities to construct the vessel do not need to be as advanced as that of a high technology GRP boat. Therefore the skill level of the workers, although still high to achieve a good quality weld, is not as high as the engineers required to calculate the skin thicknesses and lay up of the GRP vessel. There were two tempers of aluminium used throughout the vessel as previously mentioned, with 5083-H111 being used for all the plating and decks present throughout the vessel. All the extrusions such as the frames and stringers would all be constructed out of 6082-T6 grade aluminium. The reasoning for the change Page | 9 between the two tempers of aluminium is that the 6082 grade lends itself to being used for extrusions. The material properties [17] are shown below in Table 4. Aluminium Type 0.2% Proof Stress [Nmm-2] Ultimate Tensile Strength [Nmm-2] Welded Unwelded Welded Unwelded 5083-H111 125 125 275 275 6082-T6 240 125 280 190 Table 4: Properties of the materials used in the design There is only one difference in the composition of these materials, and that is that in the 6082 grade series, there is a silicon element in the alloy. Both share a magnesium percentage in the composition of the alloy. There are some evident differences that are subsequently found between the two different series of the aluminium. The most notable is how the 6082 grade changes when it is in the welded state, whilst the 5083 grade does not. The way in which they are treated also differs as the 5083 series is not heat treated (but strain treated) whilst the 6082 series is heat treated and artificially aged. Heat treating the material is why the unwelded proof stress is almost twice as strong. Despite these changes, it should be noted that the same modulus of elastic and density will be used throughout the calculations of weight and strength. Structural Calculations The structure was assessed initially using Dave Gerr’s book The Elements of Boat Strength [18], and this gave a good base outline of what the structure would comprise of and what size the plate and stiffeners needed to be. This was only a base estimate, and carried out solely to gain a base weights and centres estimate for the vessel and also that of the volume that the structure would take up within the hull, so an initial general arrangement could be drafted up. These structures were then optimised so as to meet with the requirements of the Lloyds SSC guidelines. It was calculated that the following plate thicknesses were required as shown in Table 5 overleaf. The reason for the increase in plate thickness around the chine is as previously discussed and the transom plate thickness has been increased so as to support the waterjet attachment [19]. Page | 10 Plate Location Thickness [mm] Bottom Plate 10 Chine Plate 16 Topsides Plate 10 Transom Plate 18 Table 5: Definition of calculated plate size The subsequent stiffener size and spacing could then be designed and calculated. It was found that a stiffener spacing of 305mm and frame spacing of predominantly 1050mm was the best for the design of the structure. With this frame and stiffener spacing, the longitudinals were sized as 80x8mm flat bar in the hull bottom and topsides. In the deck, the stiffener spacing drops to 250mm, and therefore the longitudinals were sized as 60x8mm flat bar. In order to support the engines and waterjets installed, there is a main girder that the engine will sit on, and the waterjet structure will be welded to. This girder is sized as a plate of 14mm with a flange of 70x12mm. There is also a central girder that runs all the way from the forefoot of the vessel to the stern. This provides a huge amount of strength to each frame and the vessel as a whole. It is detailed in the rule [20] that the minimum number of bulkheads be 2, although in the case of this design there are 3, due to the fact that the machinery compartments are independent of each other. This is to maintain watertight integrity between each room and compartment of the vessel. The main room definitions, in the way of watertight bulkheads, are defined in Drawing 012 (Page 83). The calculated bulkhead thickness was 10mm and the ring frame thickness 8mm, with a web height of 180mm and a flange of 90x11mm. This allowed for an adequate space for the longitudinal cutouts in the frame to be supported by the surrounding, solid, plate. It is important to consider the longitudinal strength of the vessel with regard to how the structure will behave when it is supported on a sinusoidal wave. The tested wave was to be a 6.67m high, 16.84m long wave, as this is the worst wave height that is detailed for the craft in the Lloyds SSC Guidelines [21], which states the vessel Page | 11 should survive a significant wave height of 4m and a maximum wave height of 6.67m. The length of the wave was chosen as the worst wavelength for a vessel of that hull length. There were three tested cases, and the two wave bending moment set ups can be seen below in Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic of the wave bending moments measured The maximum section modulus of the craft mid section was compared with the section modulus requirements of the three bending moments. This was calculated by the use of the formula: . This formula had two knowns, as the maximum bending moment was calculated and the material stress was detailed in Lloyds SSC as 125Mpa. The section modulus of the midship section was calculated using tabular methods and the results of the tests are shown below in Table 6. The calculated section modulus of the midship section was 40682412.76mm3. Tested Condition Bending Moment Calculated [kgm] Section Modulus Requirement [mm3] Pass Factor Still Water Moment 3231.69 253623.27 160.40 Wave (Hull Length) 2 Supports 41071.99 3223329.46 12.62 Wave (Hull Length) 1 Support 25508.63 2001917.16 20.32 Table 6: Calculated wave bending moment and section modulus requirements From the calculations shown above, it can be seen that the vessel is strong enough to survive the worst possible wave bending moment measured. Page | 12 It is also important to consider the forces that the vessel will experience when a point load of a pair of lifting straps is applied. This is important, as a mark can then be made on the vessel in order to indicate where the lifting points should lie. It was found that the lifting points will lie at 3m and 10.5m from the aft end of the boat, as this is where the lowest bending moment was found over each frame tested. This calculated value was 3814kgm and gave a corresponding section modulus requirement of 299322.72mm3 for the section. The section modulus of the midship section was 40682412.76mm3. Therefore, there is a factor of 135 before the structure is going to fail under this load. The position of the lifting straps and the vessel’s CoG is shown below in Figure 3. Figure 3: Position of the vessel’s CoG and the lifting straps In respect of the deflector, there is a support network of framing and longitudinal supports. These correspond to the frames in the hull. Up to the deflector these are built as solid plate, and then become ring frames in the upper half of the hull. This is to provide strength to the deflector and keep space free in the forward storage compartment. The deflector is made from 12mm plated aluminium and the grillage network underneath is constructed out of 8mm plate of varying depths depending on the curvature of the deflector. These are spaced at 350mm and provide adequate support for the forces that the deflector will experience. With respect to the design of the wheelhouse structures, these were designed to cope with a base hydrostatic load. It was found that the structural requirements are for 6mm plate and 17mm glass as according to Lloyds SSC [22]. There was to be a transverse framing system of 4 frames which are all sized at a web depth of 120mm Page | 13 and thickness of 8mm. These ring frames would have a corresponding flange of 40x10mm. There was to be 4 supporting longitudinal per side of the wheelhouse, with 30x6 flat bar stringers providing the strength at a spacing of 400mm. In the roof, there are two main girders that are made of 50x6/50x6mm Tee section. These run fore to aft and act as pillars in the foremost section of the wheelhouse, where the front windows are located. There are also 3 supporting 30x6 flat bar supports in the roof of the wheelhouse. The frames in the wheelhouse line up and correspond with those in the hull in order to maintain structural continuity between the hull and the wheelhouse. If these were not lined up, then there would be a shear concentration at the join, and the structural joint may become compromised when the boat is in use. The wheelhouse will be welded and bolted onto a lip built into the deck and framing system of the hull. This will comprehensively attach the wheelhouse to the hull and also allows for the two structural entities to be built in separate modules. The floors on the vessel, including the main deck, cabin floor, engine floor and wheelhouse floor, will all be constructed out of 6mm aluminium plate. The floors in the wheelhouse and cabin will be covered in carpet to make them more visually aesthetic. The aft platform of the vessel used for access and egress will be constructed out of aluminium grille plate. This is to allow the water to drain from the platform, so as to lower the design requirements and the weight of the component if it were to be made from solid plate. This platform is supported by two 450 angle 120x120mm box section with a wall thickness of 10mm. This is then bolted and welded to the shelf on the inside of the waterjet compartment. The platform is also bolted onto the transom. However, this is only strong enough to support the platform weight, hence the need for the additional support. The bulwark of the vessel will involve the frames running up to the underneath of the bulwark and the 6mm plating being welded onto these. The fender of the vessel will be mechanically attached to a central box section that is to be bolted and welded to the hull. The rubber fender provides a rub rail for the docking of the vessel and should it need to approach any vessels in open water. Page | 14 Appraisal Overall, it is felt that the decision to choose aluminium for the application was correct. Aluminium is the most widely used material in small, fast commercial craft. The durability of the material when it is compromised and the weight of the material are relatively good as compared to other materials. The structural layout of the vessel has been laid out and optimised to meet with the Lloyds SSC guidelines, after an initial estimation. This optimisation was done in order to ensure that the designed components met with the requirements of the classification society. It was found that the stringers in the deck needed to be increased with respect to the section modulus of the components. Elsewhere, all the loads to calculate the strength requirements of the platform, handrail and bulwark were based upon sense loads such as a person’s weight acting on the component. The interior volume displaced by structure was not a major concern in the design of the structures onboard. Therefore, there is no requirement to go down to Tee sections anywhere in the hull bottom. The rule itself was chosen as the majority of the commercial craft studied were built in accordance to the rule. There are some limitations however, such as the minimum requirements for the increase in plate thicknesses around the chine and waterjet instalment area. The fact that the waterjet has increased by 8mm to an 18mm thickness of plate (almost double the 10mm plate used everywhere else) suggests that perhaps this is an over estimation on Lloyds behalf. However, in the case of the craft, there is also the opportunity to over design the craft, because weight saving was not an issue. Page | 15 Tank Testing Nomenclature Total Resistance due to Drag V Velocity Viscous Drag Component Rn Reynolds Number Wave Drag Component Fn Froude Number Friction Drag Component Cf Coefficient of Friction Form Factor Ct Coefficient of Total Drag Epower Effective Power LCF Longitudinal Centre of Floatation Indices M Model FS Full Scale Reasoning for Testing The vessel required tank testing to fully assess the effect, if any, the deflector would have. Therefore, there were two sets of tests done: one without the deflector, and one with the deflector added. It was be important to maintain a constant environment and test conditions between the tests so as to give a good reflection of how the vessel performs without and then with the deflector. The deflector is expected to decrease the pitching motion of the craft by damping the bow’s motions as it moves through waves. The hydrostatic force from the water on both the topside and underside of the bow is the reasoning as to why this moment or damping motion is created. There were some concerns over how the deflector would behave in the waves and whether or not it would actually amplify the pitching motion of the vessel. Also, there were concerns raised over whether the vessel will in fact dive when a wave flows over the deflector, as the force of the water may be too large for the vessel to correct its trim, and thus push the boat deeper into the wave. Page | 16 Building of the Model The model was sent to Monstercam [23] for milling and some 3 months later, the 5- star CNC cut 1:15 scale model arrived. There was some work to be done on the model, which included laminating [24] over the polystyrene surface and then finishing the model in a high-finish paint filler [25] to give the model’s hull a smooth finish. Detailed in Appendix 3 is the method used on each day and then the steps taken to resolve any issues. The model was tested between Hits 4 and 5 and also after Hit 6, as these times corresponded with the model being ready for testing, before and after the deflector was added. The high-finish paint filler was used to give a smooth surface finish to the model thus preventing any roughness presenting extra drag on the day(s) of testing. In summary, the construction of the model passed with ease, and the model was finished to the highest standard in order to ensure the tests were uniform over the course. Test Matrix Followed The testing matrix to be followed was to vary between the two days of testing. On the first day of testing (4th February 2016) the flat calm conditions and initial powering calculations test runs were carried out. The model was tested from full scale speeds of 5.64 knots up to a maximum speed of 32 knots over 18 test runs. It was found that more runs were required at interim speeds to both confirm the results of the afternoon’s session in the tank, and also ascertain more data points on the resistance graph. These runs were carried out on the second day of testing (5th February 2016), when the model was to be tested in waves. The deflector was then tested in exactly the same test matrix in order to assess the effect that the deflector had on the design. The dates set for the second set of tests were 18th and 19th February 2016 respectively. The tested sea states were set according to the Beaufort Scale at a Force 4 (Condition 1) and 5 (Condition 2 and 3) sea state respectively. The data used in calibrating the wave machine to the height and associated time period was real life Page | 17 data taken from a weather buoy in the Irish Sea [26] and the marine forecast in Malin [27]. The wave period was then transposed to length by use of the formula: Where: g = Gravitational constant (9.81ms-2) Tp = Time period of the wave [seconds] λ = Wavelength [metres] This is the format the data was required to be in by the wave machine. The wave data set used was as displayed in Table 7. Wave Condition Wave Height Model (Full size) Wave Length Model (Full size) Wave Time Period Model (Full size) 1 0.067 (1.00) m 2.63 (39.50) m 1.30 (5.03) secs 2 0.167 (2.50) m 1.63 (39.50) m 1.30 (5.03) secs 3 0.204 (3.06) m - 1.81 (7.00) secs Table 7: Data used for calibration of the wave machine The waves analysed in the test were set to be the same wave set and speeds for both test dates, so as to confirm and compare the data set for the vessel both with and without the deflector. The waves in Conditions 1 and 2 were based upon a constant sea state, so as to guarantee that the vessel would encounter the same wave set for both tests, whereas the waves created in Condition 3 were a long crested random sea state. This random sea state is programmed according to Pierson and Moskowitz [28] and will create a random sea state which produces waves all across the spectra of heights and lengths. The H1-3, time period and scale factor of the waves were needed in order to calibrate the machine correctly and for the machine to produce the desired waves. The random sea states were used solely when the vessel was without its deflector as a measure of how the vessel would perform in a real life sea state. The accelerations of the vessel were measured in the forward compartment which lay 30-40% aft of the forward perpendicular along the DWL. In theory, this should be where the maximum slamming impact the boat would be felt according to Heller and Page | 18 Jasper [29]. It should be noted that the accelerations were used using a Smartphone app [30], and although this has its limitations, the data provided gave a good interpretation of what accelerations the boat was experiencing at this position. The sample rate was set at 100Hz, so there was a broad set of data obtained at a high sample rate. It should be noted that the Smartphone app was used solely as a comparison in order to qualify the success of the deflector, and the accelerations measured by the app may in fact not be accurate. It is possible to calculate these accelerations at any point along the vessel. This would be of use if the accelerations had to be analysed for crew sleeping quarters or passenger seating. However, because there is no passenger or crew to be located anywhere other than in the wheelhouse during the voyage, then the accelerations throughout the craft do not need to be fully analysed other than for structural needs. Preparation for tests In order to ensure that there was a consistent and accurate set of data recorded, the model and the tank measuring equipment required calibration. The way the tank measuring equipment measures the data is by measuring a change in voltage across a terminal, which is then translated into a change in resistance, side force, heel or trim. It is therefore important to set the calibration of these so as to ascertain a definite change in drag, etc for a corresponding change in voltage. This was carried out by using a set of calibration weights equalling 20N of force. The computer was calibrated by use of these artificially creating 20N of force for drag and side force respectively. The trim was measured by using a small 50mm block and placing this under the gauge cylinder. This created a 50mm change in trim to calibrate to. The heel was done in much the same way, although a 150 block was placed between the post fitting in the model and an artificial angle of heel was created. Again, this created a voltage difference that could be used for calibration. The model (once completed) needed to be ballasted in order to be scaled down correctly. The required weight was 7.65kg according to the 1:15 scale. The model itself only weighed 1.82kg, and therefore required 5.83kg of ballasting weight. 2.5 kg of this was accounted for by the tom post and heel fitting, which is located at the LCF of the vessel, therefore does not affect the trim of the vessel. This left 3.33kg of ballast to be located. 2.5kg of this ballast was located in the main compartment of Page | 19 the model, whilst 0.5kg was located in the aft compartment. The remaining 0.33kg was located in the compartment where the accelerometer was to be placed. The location of these weights resulted in a level trim of the vessel. Analysis of Tests With these results, several calculations were then carried out which would allow the results to be scaled from those obtained at model scale up to what they would be for the full size boat. All of these calculations are based upon the ITTC1978 Formula [31] which states that: Where: Shown below in Table 8 are the calculated results for a chosen test run. These involve the use of the numbered equations also shown overleaf in Figure 4. The full results from all the test runs from both cases can be seen in Appendices 4 and 5. Test Speed [m/s] Fn Fn4 Rn Cf 12 3.000 0.9039 0.6674 2.96 E6 0.0038 Equation N/A 1 14 2 3 Test Rf [N] Rv [N] Rw [N] Rt [N] Ct 12 4.7958 5.5151 8.7465 14.262 0.0119 Equation 4 5 6 N/A 7 Table 8: Example of how the results were analysed Page | 20 Where the above Equations reference to: 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- Figure 4: Formulae used in the calculations shown above in Table 8 In order to calculate the value for the wave drag, the value for the viscous drag component was required. This in turn required the calculation of , involving the ITTC1957 Formula [32] (shown in Figure 4 in Equations 3 and 4 ) and then multiplying this value by the form factor (1+k). There were also more lower speed runs done to try and gain a better interpretation of the value of (1+k) for the model, however due to the low speeds and low forces associated with these speeds at a 1:15 scale, the values were too varied to gain any useable data from this. Therefore a (1+k) of 1.15 was assumed in the analysis of the tests as will be discussed. Results of Tests The full data set recorded from the tank test including the model scale and full size results can be seen in Appendices 4 to 7. The data set was scaled according to the ITTC1975 method. The value for (1+k) was assumed to be 1.15. This was due to the lack of useable data that was ascertained from the tests at low speeds. It would be recommended that a larger scale model be made in order to test the resistance at these low speed runs if that was an option, in order to gain a good interpretation of the (1+k) factor. A larger scale would result in higher forces being tested than those at a lower scale, and thus more accurate data should follow. Page | 21 The graphs of the three resistance components and the measured data can be seen in Figure 5 below. Without Deflector With Deflector Figure 5: Resistance curves for both test sets, without the deflector (left) and with (right) The accelerations, with respect to gravity, that begin to result in human blackout are +8g and -3g over a prolonged amount of time [33]. This means at -3g, your body will weigh 3 times as much as it would on a day to day basis. The accelerations measured by the Smartphone application were almost double this for one tested situation, however the test was done from a purely experimental point of view, to see if the deflector would have a damping effect on the pitching motions of the craft, and the values should not be taken as an accurate set of results. The accelerations measured can be seen in Appendices 8 to 28 of the Appendix section. The corresponding run and wave conditions are in Table 7. The results of the test show that with the added deflector, the model’s accelerations in waves do in fact drop by some 23% for the best scenario. It was found that if the boat could plane (and plane well) in a sea state, then the deflector would not be of use in the design, as it is nowhere near breaking the surface water. The vessel however displayed good sea keeping in a force 4 of speeds of 21 knots without the deflector. Despite this apparent success of the design, it should be noted that at some speeds, the deflector actually amplifies the accelerations of the bow of the vessel. This was one of the concerns before testing began, and will be a key factor in the decision quantifying the success of the deflector. A summary of the results found is shown in Table 9 overleaf. A full set of results can be seen in Appendix 27. Page | 22 Run Numbers Speed [ms-1] Wave Condition Resistance Increase in Waves Positive Acceleration Increase Negative Acceleration Increase Without Deflector With Deflector 1 8 2.00 1 12% 0% 18% 2 9 2.71 1 14% -6% 5% 3 11 1.00 2 34% 10% 71% 4 12 1.00 2 44% 25% -9% 5 14 0.50 2 108% 43% -18% 7 15 1.62 1 11% -9% -23% Table 9: Comparison of the effect of the deflector expressed as percentage increases The deflector also added resistance to the design, and again this varied with the speed of the vessel. It was found that an average of 13% of the total resistance of the vessel was added when the deflector was installed in calm water tests. This increase in resistance required the powering to be reassessed, and a drivetrain with a higher total power to be installed. This is portrayed graphically in Figure 6. Figure 6: Resistance comparison of the model with and without the deflector in calm water Page | 23 The trim of the vessel was affected, as at lower speeds with the deflector attached, the trim was relatively much higher. This can be put down to the fact that the deflector blade will create some lift due to the air passing over it and the water pushing up from underneath the vessel. This lift produced by the blade will be minimal, but enough to increase the relative trim of the vessel by some 25% in the worst case. This could be linked to the increase in drag, as the running angle of the boat is greater for the speed of the vessel in the non-deflector test series. This may mean that there is a higher wetted surface area at the transom and therefore more frictional resistance as the boat travels through the water. Despite this, as the boat speed increases, the deflector actually helps to level out the running trim of the vessel. This is due to the airflow of the blades increasing and thus creating more surface velocity on either side of the deflector. The force associated with this was lift, but this lift is now beginning to act as downforce. Powering Calculations The results of the tank test allowed for the calculation as to how much effective power the vessel would require at full scale. This was first of all achieved by finding the speed at which the power required calculation and using the following formula: It was important that this value was not taken for the power that the vessel actually required to operate at the desired speed, as there are several efficiencies to take into account. These can be summarised as the open water, machinery and appendage efficiencies and reduce the effective power from 100% down to 55%. The result of this is the effective power needs to be divided by 0.55 in order to calculate the actual power required for the boat to achieve the desired speed. In the case of the tested boat, the results from the service speed to the maximum speed are detailed overleaf in Table 10. The results used are already at full scale and are from tests when the deflector was added. Page | 24 Test Speed [knots] Froude Number Total Resistance [Newtons] Effective Power [kW] Required Power [kW] 13 24.45 0.98 42158.99 530.66 964.84 14 26.35 1.05 45462.01 616.26 1120.47 15 28.23 1.13 48930.56 710.07 1292.10 16 30.11 1.21 49362.20 764.72 1390.41 17 32.00 1.28 47762.13 786.17 1429.40 Table 10: Powering Calculations carried out to assess the power requirements As can be seen, the power requirements actually drop off as the model speeds up. This is due to a drop in the total resistance of the craft at this speed. Despite this, the power still increases by some 40kW. The reason behind this drop in resistance is because of scaling issues between model and full size regarding the resistance due to waves. The resistance due to waves is the key factor as the vessel’s speed increases and, at these high speeds and small scale, a small change can have a huge effect on the results. It is at the speed of 32knots full scale that the resistance factors due to waves and friction uncharacteristically cross over. This crossing over at model scale means when the full scale results are analysed, there will be a drop in the total resistance after this speed of 32 knots. Therefore, it was decided that the machinery capacity should have a minimum power of the required power + 10% of the total power. The engines that would be searched for and will be discussed in the Machinery and Systems Installed Onboard Section (Page 27) must have a minimum combined power of 1572.34 kW. Page | 25 Validation of Deflector Therefore, it was decided that the model testing was inconclusive. However the results found were of interest. Further study and analysis into the tank testing showed why it was that the deflector behaved in the way it did. The reasons were as follows:  The added resistance was because of more aerodynamic and hydrodynamic drag factors increasing due to more surface area present in the design.  The accelerations increased because of the added buoyancy the deflector created, thus making the bow ‘jump’ up out of the water.  The trim of the craft decreased as speeds got higher because the flow over the deflector blade started to level out and create a down force moment. In terms of qualifying the success of the deflector, the results were so varied that there is no definite answer. This is because of the additional accelerations that were experienced at some speeds and the added drag. If there was a constant drop in accelerations across the spread of the results, then the deflector would have been a definite success. However, because the results were inconclusive it would require a much more in depth test matrix than that carried out, including several more sea conditions and changes to deflector shape and gyradius of the model in order to find the ideal combination where the deflector is a constant aid throughout the data set. Appraisal It was found from the first set of tests carried out, that there was a set of speeds around 1.75ms-1 at model scale that resulted in an air bubble being formed on the starboard chine. This may be a result of the low pressure created by the chine around the pressure difference boundary, thus pulling the air down under the vessel and having an adverse effect. This effect causes the water to slap of the hull side and causes a huge resonance effect throughout the model and tow post, which results in the model jolting and vibrating wildly. These movements affect the results taken from the dynamometers, as they are measuring a much broader range of data. For the worst measured case (1.75ms-1 itself), the variation in maximum and minimum drag measured was some 64 Newtons. However, out with this speed set, the data measured was not of as high a variation as this, and could be used efficiently. Page | 26 It was concluded that this was a model scale problem and could be discounted from occurring at full scale. The reason for this assumption was that the pressure due to atmosphere and water cannot be scaled and therefore it is much easier for smaller objects to create abstract vortices that on a full size vessel, would simply not occur. Another example of this was when the deflector was being tested, some of the water would not separate from the blade, and thus add more residual resistance to the total drag. Again, this would not affect for the full scale model of the craft, as the water would separate much more efficiently off a larger surface. The problems which were encountered with the resistance curves for all three components (especially the resistance due to waves at model and full scale, and the total resistance at model scale) were down to the results at model scale uncharacteristically crossing over. The viscous drag (associated with friction) should not be the predominant factor in the resistance at model scale at the higher tested speeds. In the case of the results explained previously, this does become happen. The reasoning for this is that the resistance measured by the dynamometer actually begins to plateau at certain points, and at this point, the plateau has allowed the wave resistance component to decrease below that of the ever increasing frictional component. The frictional component will keep on rising, as it is based on speed being the major variable, and is no way related to the total resistance as can be seen in Figures 5 and 6. The fact that this is not related and that wave resistance is directly related to the total resistance measured at model scale and the total resistance found at full scale, means any anomalies may be carried through to the graphs, and be amplified at full scale. This is why the graphs are as scattered as they are, especially at full scale. It should be noted that for when a vessel to be built in accordance to LR SSC Guidelines that requires tank testing, must meet with guidelines set out by the rule [34]. However, although these are the requirements, it would not have been possible to carry out the tests that are required. This is because of both facility and time constraints. In summary, the effects of the deflector, in the tests carried out and after the results were analysed, were deemed to be negative. However, the deflector will remain in the design process, as after refining has taken place, it is believed that the deflector will aid in damping the accelerations of the vessel. Page | 27 Machinery and Systems Installed Onboard Introduction The machinery installed on board the vessel will be a drivetrain of twin engines driving two waterjets. The engine choice is a Scania DI-16076M [35], which has a power of 809kW per engine at 2300RPM, whilst the waterjet choice is a Rolls Royce Kamewa A-33 A3 Waterjet [36]. This engine was chosen primarily because its design can be optimized for waterjet applications and also because the power produced by these engines closely reflects the power required by the vessel discovered during the tank test process. Reasoning behind Choices The reasoning behind choosing to utilise a waterjet based propulsion unit ahead of a more conventional propeller arrangement was that the waterjets would give the best efficiency for the craft when it is operating at higher speeds and the best manoeuvrability for the craft when it is operating at lower speeds. It was thought that a hybrid propulsive unit could be used in place of the diesels, however this was discarded due to the already limited amount of machinery space that there is on board the vessel. Detail of the Scania DI-16076M Engine - Drawing 007 The engines are V8 style, with 4 cylinders on either side of the longitudinal centreline of the engine at a 450 offset, thus representing a V-shape as would be viewed in the body plan view of the engine. The engine’s operating profile states that the engine is rated for 1/6 hours maximum power use and a recommended usage of 2000 hours per annum. When the engine has been put to the maximum power output, it is recommended that the revs of the engine must be lowered by 10% between maximum power usages. In theory this suggests that when the engine has been running at 2300 RPM, then the revolutions must be reduced by at least 10% ( Page | 28 The load factor of the Patrol craft requires 960kW of combined power in order to maintain its 24knot service speed. This equates to around 60% of the total power of the engines. This would suggest that the load factor of the vessel will fit in with that of the engine operating profile. Scania also provide an unlimited operational use engine, with the same power output as the one selected, and although this engine has a more compensating load factor where 1/3 hours can be maximum power and 80% total load factor is allowed, the lower rated engine was chosen as the boat will not be in use for more than 5.5 hours per day (on average). This intermittent usage rating is the middle rating that Scania carry, with the lowest rating having an annual recommended usage of only 1200 hours, which is too low for this vessel’s intended usage. These engines are also fitted with a crankcase ventilation valve, which allows the engine to be rolled over, without damaging the engine. Without this valve, the engine’s cylinders would fill with oil and this would lead to either irreparable damage or the engine combusting uncontrollably. When the engines pass an angle of 300 of heel, the valves begin to close and the engine will power down as a safety precaution. There are engines, such as the MTU 8v2000M84L [38], which are fully roll-over proof and will keep running for a period of 30 seconds, whilst upside down. However, the engines chosen can be started again after the boat has self-righted. Scania have produced a recommended time schedule for the maintenance of varying components of the engine. These range from daily checks to once every 4800 hours of use. It should be noted that although Scania do not explicitly state a Time Between Overhaul (TBO) period when the engines should have a full service and be rebuilt, one has been estimated as every 9600 hours of use. This operational window relates to around 5 years of service for the vessel and ties in with when the valves and injectors will be requiring service for the fourth time according to the schedule set by Scania. The maintenance schedule [37] is as follows:  Daily checks o Oil level o Coolant level o Fuel level o Obvious leaks Page | 29  Every 400 hours of use o Oil and corresponding filters changed o Oil centrifugal pump cleaned o Heat exchanger anodes and sea water impeller checked and changed if necessary  Every 1200 hours of use o Air and fuel filter cleaned o Batteries changed o Drivebelt checked o Coolant checked and replaced if necessary  Every 2400 hours of use o Coolant replaced o Rocker cover removed, and injectors, gasket, valves and piston cylinder cleaned and replaced where appropriate  Every 4800 hours of use o Cooling system flushed and cleaned o Air and fuel filters replaced It is essential that this maintenance is followed by the engineer maintaining the craft as this will result in the engines operating to their full potential for the maximum amount of time, and preserve the TBO time period. Figure 7 is the ratings curve for the Scania DI-16. This displays the Torque, Power, Fuel Consumption and Specific Fuel Consumption for the engine with respect to whatever speed the engine may be doing at that specific time of operation [35]. This gives a good overview as to what the engine is capable of at a given RPM. Figure 7: Ratings curve for the Scania DI16-076M Page | 30 Another measurement that can be used as a base for comparison is the Brake Mean Effective Power (BMEP). This is a measure of the average pressure that is exerted on the engine’s pistons by the gas in the cylinders throughout one whole cycle of the 4- stroke. The values for the BMEP are measured in Pascals (Newtons per square metre). The formula used to work out the BMEP of the engine is as follows: Where: T = Torque of the engine at a given RPM [Nm] Nc = Number of Revolutions per Power Stroke (2 for a 4 stroke engine) Vd = Volume Displaced by the Engine Cylinders [m 3] The graph showing the BMEP of the engine is shown in Figure 8. It can be seen that the BMEP of the engine drops sharply as the RPM of the engine increases. This is due to the decrease in torque that the engine experiences at this specific RPM. Figure 8: BMEP curve for the Scania DI16-076M Detail of the ZF 2050 Gearbox - Drawing 007 The chosen gearbox for use in the installation will be a ZF 2050 (medium duty gearbox) [39]. This is rated by ZF as a gearbox which can absorb 0.3771kW of power per revolution of the engine. This gearbox is rated for use with engines up to a power of 980kW at 2600 RPM and 867.6kW at 2300 RPM, so the power factor of the gearbox Page | 31 matches the chosen engine. Scania engines also have a close partnership with ZF, so there should be no issues arising when it comes to the installation of the gearbox and engine components. The gearbox chosen has a relatively low reduction factor of only 1.5 which means the majority of the engine’s RPM is transferred to the waterjets. This gearbox has a vertical offset of 220mm from the engine flywheel to the coupling on the driveshaft, which is also an aid in the installation of the machinery aboard, as there is an overall drop of 420mm to be accounted for. The gearbox itself is a non-reversing type, as there is no need for a reversing style gearbox to be installed when the propulsion unit is a waterjet. The rating of the gearbox is medium, as this is similar to the rating that Scania have detailed for its own engine. The gearbox is manufactured to ISO9001 standards. Detail of the Rolls Royce Kamewa A3-36 Jets – Drawing 007 The chosen jets were to be the Rolls Royce Kamewa A3-36 jets. These jets were primarily chosen again due to the size restrictions that the craft presented in terms of the power required and the space available for the length of installation. These jets are rated to absorb 950kW of power and therefore are suited for the installation in this vessel’s drivetrain. The weight of these jets is 575kg when dry and when there is water passing through the ducts, the weight increases to 170kg. Having this data allowed for a more comprehensive analysis of the weights and centres of the craft. When the craft needs to come to an abrupt halt and when the craft is reversing, the buckets are lowered to reverse the direction of the flow. It is reported by Rolls Royce that the overall efficiency of this is 70% of when the bucket is not lowered. These waterjets are hydraulically operated and controlled by a series of levers. The rods are located on the exterior of the jet, pulling and pushing the bucket, nozzle and interceptor trim tab as the coxswain sees fit. The cylinders driving these rods however are located on the inside of the hull, creating an efficient and compact design. The design of the A3 Kamewa waterjets [40] has been enhanced from the previous generation of waterjets (Kamewa A series), with a weight saving of 35% from the previous design. The efficiency of the bucket and steering nozzle has also been Page | 32 increased by some 16%. The majority of this weight saving has come about from the time invested into designing a new and more efficient waterjet pump. The new pump is a mix flow design instead of an axial flow design. The nature of this design and the controlling nature of the mixed flow velocities allows for a more efficient use of the water passing through the pump. The controlling of these velocities minimises the effects of cavitation within the duct and impeller tube. By the use of a mix flow pump, bollard pull of the jet is increased by 40% over its predecessors. The jets themselves are constructed out of aluminium, however they have stainless steel nozzles and pump sections. There are two bulkhead location welding points on the waterjet that will be used to tie in with the structure of the craft. Because of the nature of the instalment of the engines, there is a 200mm drop that needs to be overcome between the gearbox coupling and the waterjet coupling. There is also a 125mm offset inboard between the two components. The way that this is overcome is by utilising a twin, double universal slip jointed driveshaft. This has a permissible safe working angle of 11.50 and will allow the offset and down angle of the instalment to be resolved. The efficiency lost in this nature of installation is a key factor to consider, however the effects of such an installation are said to be negligible when the angle is less than 11.50 [41]. The angled instalment of the shaft does raise the problem of maintaining the watertight integrity of the bulkhead. However, this will be achieved by welding the shaft from the bulkhead located on the waterjet to the engine room bulkhead, and down to the supporting stringers of the base plate. There will be access hatches for inspection of the universal joints for maintenance purposes. The shaft, when it is parallel to the waterline again, will then pass through a watertight bearing and subsequent stepped bulkhead to the gearbox coupling. This box arrangement will maintain the integrity of the bulkhead both in terms of water tightness and fire proofing. The calculated shaft diameter of the driveshaft linking the engine to the waterjet was carried out according to Gerr [42]. The equation used for the calculation is shown below and as it can be seen, the calculated size was 70mm diameter Aqualoy 17 shaft. Page | 33 Where: kW Shaft = Shaft Power in Kilowatts SF = Factor of Safety (8) St = Strength of Material (Aqualoy 17, 482 MPa) RPM = Revolutions per Minute after Gearbox Reduction Ratio The way in which these jets will be mounted will be a straight weld between the fabricated aluminium plate on the jets and a supporting structure on the hull shell, which coincides with the same supporting structure that the engine will use. This leads to a fast and easy installation, which provides adequate strength to the structure for the support of the jet. The underlying supporting structure network will be analysed fully in the structures section of the report. Ventilation System Design – Drawing 008 It was stated by Scania that the required air to each engine is 63kg/min for each engine at the top RPM of each engine [43]. The full range can be seen below in Table 11. Air Consumption [kg/min] for a given engine speed [RPM] RPM 1200 1500 1800 2100 2300 Air Consumption 20 33 47 60 63 Table 11: Air consumption of the engine at each respective RPM The ventilation was to be powered by 3 axial fans on each side of the engine room, namely two 11-inch diameter fans and a 9-inch booster fan [44, 45]. These were supplied by Delta T marine. The two 11-inch diameter fans had the capacity to pass 40m3 of air per minute whilst the 9-inch was half of this at 20m3 of air per minute. The air in fans are located at the forward end of the engine room space to prevent the air from heating up too rapidly by passing over the dry exhaust run immediately. Page | 34 The air is drawn from the ambient via a Munters DF2500 mist eliminator [46] which will remove the majority of the spray and salt from the air. There is also a fire damper located between the fans and the mist eliminator. In the case where there is a fire, the air into the engine room can be stopped, and thus suffocate the fire of oxygen. These dampers would also be closed in the case that the boat rolls over, as it is then that any water ingress into the engine room would be extremely damaging, if not fatal, for the engines. To prevent the air that has been pumped into the engine room from charging and compressing, it is important to also have an air outlet point. Because of the nature of the instalment, with the Engine Room being a completely watertight space, the ventilation is forced out by a pair of Delta T premium line 15-inch axial fans, each capable of moving 115m3 of air a minute [47]. These are located at the aft end of the engine room, above the exhaust run. There is also a series of circular dampers to prevent air and water ingress, and at the aft, the air is also passed through a mist eliminator. This prevents any rain or spray from entering in through the vents. Both of these fire dampers are built in accordance to the A60 standard of fireproof bulkheads, which states a minimum of 60 minutes without the transfer of latent heat from one side of the damper to the other. Paroc supply a suitable product for to serve the purpose of the bulkhead requirements [48]. The location of these fans should also create an ambient circulation of the air in the engine room, which again is important in the design of the craft. It would be recommended that the fans are switched on before, and left on for a minimum of 30 mins after, each use of the engines in order to flush any fumes and reduce the ambient temperature of the engine room after it has been used to a minimum value as compared to that when it was running. The air is passed through a filter before entering the cylinder of the engine. There are 4 valves per cylinder which increases the volumetric efficiency of the cylinder to the most that it can be, as more ‘clean air’ will be pushing the heated air out. The waterjet compartment will be naturally ventilated as there is a large enough volume in the compartment for the air not to become compressed and the ambient of the waterjets will be relatively low as compared to that of the engine room. Page | 35 Ventilation of the cabin spaces is separate to that of the machinery spaces apart from the wheelhouse, which draws from the same intake of air as the engine room. This air is then circulated around the wheelhouse. There is the option to heat this air as there is a heating element built into the blower. Below deck, there is the same principal of heating the air. The vents are located on the side of the wheelhouse, underneath and forward of the windows of the wheelhouse. Cooling System Design – Drawing 009 The engines themselves are cooled by a sea water heat exchanger arrangement, one for each block of cylinders on opposing sides of the engine. The sea water will be taken in by a sea cock located in the forward frame compartment of the engine room. This location of the sea cock will ensure that the water will always be available to the engine, even when the boat is running at a 60 angle of trim. This can, and should be, turned off whilst the boat is not in operation from a stopcock located under the floor in the engine room. The sea water then passes through the engine’s heat exchanger which cools the closed cooling system that the engine incorporates. From this point, it is raised and injected into the hot exhaust gases thus mixing and cooling these down, before it is ejected out of the transom of the vessel back into the sea. It should be noted that Scania have the option to fit an immersion heater into the engine’s cooling circuit [37]. The immersion heater will be installed into the engine, thus providing hot water from the heat of the engines. Exhaust System Design – Drawing 009 The exhaust system of the vessel is a standard dry to wet arrangement, where the exhaust gases from the engine are raised up before being injected with sea water and passed out through the transom of the vessel. It should be noted that Scania have detailed the minimum size of the exhaust pipe to be 220 mm in diameter [43]. This arrangement is suited to the duty of the vessel, as there is no need for the exhaust to be solely dry. The sea water comes from the cooling system and will mix with the hot exhaust gases and thus lower the temperature and noise of the exhaust system. Page | 36 The run of the pipe from the Engine Room to the Transom of the vessel passes through its own segregated compartment in the Waterjet compartment so as to not transmit the ambient heat to the Waterjet compartment from the exhaust. The exhaust pipe has a constant decreasing gradient from the point of water injection to the transom. At the bulkheads, the exhaust pipe passes through horizontally level with the DWL so as to avoid creating concentrations of shear force. Fuel and Tankage Layout and System Design – Drawing 010 The fuel system aboard the vessel utilises a direct feed from the fuel tanks to the engines, via a set of fuel polishers and filters. There was the option to utilise the facility of a day tank, where there would be a central draw of fuel to this one tank, which in turn the engines would both feed from. However, it was decided to discard this option and continue with a direct feed. The fuel tanks are located in the compartment forward of the Engine Room, in the Main Cabin. These tanks take the form of wing tanks and each hold 2.11m3 of diesel. This leads to a combined capacity of 3500 litres of diesel carried by the vessel at full capacity. This capacity of fuel gives the vessel a range of around 930 Nm at a service speed of 24 knots. With respect to the system that Scania use to inject the fuel to the cylinders, it is a common rail system that has been enhanced by the engineers at Scania, thus creating their own brand of injection, Scania XPI [49]. This is an extra high pressure system that has been designed to give low exhaust emissions and a good fuel economy at a high torque level. Before the fuel can reach these injectors however, it is passed through 2 separate fuel filters on the engine, namely a particle separator and then a water separator. The Scania XPI system was designed in conjunction with Cummins and uses a three- phase injection process, which maintains a high burn temperature within the cylinder, thus keeping the Nitrous Oxide and Sulphur Oxide levels down to a minimum. This system is set up independently to the engine speed, but constantly changes to ensure that the correct amount of fuel is going in at the correct time. The three phase injection process is highly popular throughout the majority of engine manufacturers. Page | 37 Below in Figure 9 is a schematic of the fuel system that will be used on the Scania DI- 16076M [49]. As can be seen, there is only one injector shown, but on the engine there will be 4 injectors per rail, and subsequently 2 rails per engine. Figure 9: Schematic of the fuel injection system used in the Scania DI-16 engine range As can be seen in the above schematic, there is a return rail (8) that is installed in the fuel system. This is installed as any excess fuel that the system may draw, can be returned to the tank. This pipe will run under the floor and be injected into the lower reaches of the tank to prevent the fuel from dropping in whilst it is hot and foaming the tank up. The fuel will be cleaned by a pair of Wasp-HPS-WP-10 fuel polishers [50]. This is a step taken to further purify the fuel and ensure that the cleanest fuel is being used in the engine. This system can operate at 10 litres per minute, which is almost 3 times as much the rate that the engine will use fuel (3.5 litres per minute). The system operates by processing the fuel before returning it to the tank for the main fuel system to draw upon. This process should aid in the longevity of the engine. Layout of the Machinery with an Insight into Access To and Egress From – Drawing 011 The permeability of the machinery spaces is an important factor to consider. This is to do with how much of a percentage the machinery displaces in each respective room. There was a 5% allowance built in for miscellaneous items. This resulted in an 81% permeability in the Engine Room, and an 83% in the Jet compartment. It should be noted that the recommended permeability of machinery spaces is 85%. Page | 38 Access and egress from the machinery spaces comes via 2 separate routes in both cases. This is because if one route should become compromised for any reason, it is important to have an alternative route. In the Engine Room, there are doors fore and aft leading to the Jet Compartment and the Main cabin. As another means of access, there is also a hatch to the Wheelhouse. For the Waterjet Compartment, there is the aforementioned door to the Engine Room, and also a hatch towards the aft end of the compartment. It is also important to place these access points as far away from each other as physically possible. Access to the Waterjet hatch is via a ladder mounted on the inside plate of the transom, whilst the Engine Room hatch is for emergency use only, and the engine itself should be used for leverage. Environmental Compliance These engines are said to fully comply with IMO MARPOL AnnexVI (Tier II), EU Stage IIIA and EPA Tier II emission standards [51, 52, 53]. These are some of the most up to date engine emission standards set by the authority bodies. These standards are widely recognized throughout the world’s. There are higher standards set by the EPA governing body, which reach up to Tier IV, however the majority of marine diesel engines all comply with the EPA Tier II standard. In 2021, IMO will set a standard where engines must comply with the new Tier III standards. However, although some ship engines are now beginning to be designed to meet with this standard, the desire to comply with the regulation of smaller commercial and yacht engines has not yet become of as much importance Alternative Propulsion Options As with any craft, it is important to note any other engines and or jets that were discarded in the selection process, and why the Scania DI-16076M and Rolls Royce A3- 36 Jets were chosen. The primary factor behind choosing these machinery options was that they both displaced the least amount of volume in the respective machinery spaces. Because it is quite a tight fit between the engine room for fitting in regards to width and height, the Scania proved to be the smallest option. However, there were still two other competing engines that were compared. A full comparison table is shown overleaf in Table 12. These included the MAN D2842 LE410 [54] and the MTU 12v2000 M70 [55]. Page | 39 Comparative Component Scania DI-16076M MTU 12v2000- M70 MAN D2842 LE410 Rated Power [kW] 809 788 749 Rated RPM 2300 2100 2100 Fuel Usage @ Rated Power [l/hr] 210 198.4 198 Compression Ratio 15.70 - - Displacement [l] 16.40 23.90 21.93 Dry Mass [kg] 1660 2795 1860 Maximum Torque [Nm] 4000 - 3700 Rated Usage [hrs/annum] 2000 UNLIMITED 4000 Emission Standard IMO Tier II, EPA Tier II, EU Stage IIIA IMO Tier I EPA Tier II, IMO Tier II Dimensions (LxBxD) [mm] 1551x1270x1131 1890x1400x1290 1795x1227x1216 Table 12: Comparison of similar engines that may have been installed If the Client disagrees with the use of Scania engines for any reason, the secondary choice would be the MAN D2842 LE410. This is because the properties of this engine closely match that of the Scania DI-16076M. There were two other waterjet manufacturers studied for the use in this project. These included models from Ultrajet [56] and Hamilton Jet [57]. Again, the main reason for the use of Rolls Royce waterjets was the fact that they weighed the least and displaced the least length. Rolls Royce waterjets also carry the highest efficiency rating. Overleaf in Table 13 is a base comparison table between the three waterjets. Page | 40 Comaritive Component Rolls Royce A3-36 HamJet HM461 Ultrajet 525 Interior Length [mm] 2134 2048 2234 Exterior length [mm] 1166 1440 1287 Total Breadth [mm] 796 1040 1000 Total Depth [mm] 836 900 1050 Displacement Dry [kg] 575 640 1150 Displacement Wet [kg] 745 750 1328 Max Power Absorb [kW] 950 900 1100 Table 13: Comparison of similar waterjets that may have been installed Appraisal This section aimed to cover the systems installed in the vessel and all the considerations taken in the design of the respective arrangements. It is felt that the systems have been designed to a high standard and if the Client has any issues, then these can be discussed. With respect to sourcing the product installed in the vessel, the components that were fitted were the most suited to the vessel in terms of the available space and duty requirements of the vessel. Page | 41 General Arrangement Below Main Deck This section will describe and detail the fitting out and design considerations taken when the interior of the vessel was being designed. The drawings of the general arrangement in plan and profile view can be seen in Drawing – 012 and in section view in Drawing – 013 (beginning Page 83). All throughout the main compartments (Galley, Saloon and Main Cabin) there is a minimum of 1.9 m headroom. This was a key part in the design to ensure that the crew could operate and use the facilities below deck with ease. Forward Stowage In the very forepeak of the vessel, there is a stowage and anchor locker. This contains a windlass as well as two 80kg anchors. These have been sized according to LR SSC [58] which also dictates the size and length of the chain required. Because of the overhang of the deflector, it was required to extend the pivot point for the anchor chain. However, this was incorporated into the fender of the vessel. Elsewhere, in this locker, the vessel carries all its ropes, tow lines and emergency equipment as well as a spare set of life rafts. This compartment can be accessed via a hatch on the forward deck. Galley and Saloon As part of the Client’s requirements, there was the request for hotel facilities on board for two members of crew. This was the reasoning behind installing a gas cooker [59] in the Galley area. There is a fridge [60] as well as a sink elsewhere in the Galley. There are adequate food and utensil storage areas located above the sink and the cooker and also behind the deck access ladder. Completing this area, there is a table with seating for 4 people located in the foremost half of this compartment. The Saloon and Galley have been designed to make use of the limited space available, due to the high deadrise angle that is associated with the hull in this location. Page | 42 Main Cabin The main cabin has been designed to provide sleeping accommodation for two members of crew, as well as storage facilities for all their personal effects. In addition there is a head arrangement, with toilet [61] and shower [62] facilities. The beds are located around midships of the vessel in order to keep the effects of trim and heave to a minimum whilst the crew are in the bunk beds. There is a small storage area in each of the bunk bed areas for personal use. The toilet is located directly opposite the bunk beds and is split into two compartments, namely the toilet and sink and the shower compartment. The floor level in the two compartments is different, with the shower compartment having a lower floor level in order to prevent the toilet floor flooding. There is a curtain that separates these two areas. In this compartment, there are the 4 tanks that the vessel requires; with a pair of 2.11m3 diesel wing tanks located at the aft end of the compartment, and two subsequent bunker tanks underneath the floor level for the fresh (0.4m3) and grey (0.45m3) water that the vessel will use and create. Although this is not ideal to have the fuel tanks where they are, it is the most efficient way to use the space. The access to and from this area is via watertight doors fore and aft to the Galley and Saloon and Engine Room respectively. There is also a set of stairs that is used to access the wheelhouse. The stairs run from starboard to port, and are off-centre to the centreline of the floor. Underneath the stairs is a small locker for the stowage of tools and materials. Machinery Spaces Aft of the Main Cabin there are the Machinery Spaces. The first of these is the Engine Room. Because of the high deadrise angle associated with the design of the hull, installing the engines with a sensible clearance height and width was an issue. However, there is adequate space between the engines to carry out any maintenance required, with 970 mm between the outermost edges of the two engines. In terms of height, the roof of the engine room had to be raised, thus impeding the space in the wheelhouse. However this was a vital requirement in order to raise the exhaust high enough and allow maintenance of the engines. Page | 43 Access from the Engine Room has already been covered in depth in the Layout of the Machinery with an Insight into Access To and Egress From Section of the Machinery and Systems Installed Onboard Section of the report on Page 37. The access is two weather tight doors, one at the fore and one at the aft of the compartment, leading to the Main Cabin and the Jet Compartment respectively. There is also an emergency hatch that opens up to the wheelhouse, should the other access doors become compromised. The Jet Compartment is the aftmost compartment in the vessel, and is solely home to the twin Rolls Royce jet drives. In this room, there is no floor due to the nature of the jet instalment, but the roof is a lower height in this room, in order to help create a deeper deck space at the aft end of the vessel without raising the bulwark to an unnatural looking height. Above Main Deck This section will describe and detail the fitting out and design considerations taken when the wheelhouse was being designed and also the exterior features that are present on the vessel. The drawings of the exterior and wheelhouse general arrangements in plan and profile view can be seen in Drawing – 013 and in section view in Drawing – 014 (beginning Page 84). In the wheelhouse alone, there is over 2 metres of headroom to ensure an airy design and that the crew can operate comfortably within this area. Wheelhouse In accordance to the Client’s requirements, the wheelhouse has been designed to house 6 permanent members of crew as well as 4 survivors. Therefore, there are 6 Ullyman Jockey [63] style seats for the crew and 4 bench seats for the survivors. The 6 Jockey seats are spread around the wheelhouse, and are non-symmetrical due to the access hatch for below deck. There are 3 seats for the Coxswain and the 2 navigators in the forward end of the wheelhouse, as these seats have the best access to the computers and controls of the vessel. There is then a row of 3 seats behind the starboard navigator’s chair, which is space for the remaining 3 crew. The coxswain has an excellent view in all directions thanks to the 3 rooflights in the wheelhouse and the large surrounding windows in the front and side of the wheelhouse. Page | 44 The bench seats on the port side also coincide with the navigation table of the vessel. Located behind these seats is a dry locker that can be used for hanging up any oilskins or waterproofs. This avoids dragging them through the wheelhouse. This locker is ventilated to avoid condensation, dampness and also aid in the drying process of the clothing. Because of the manner in which the Engine Rooms roof had to be raised to maintain sufficient free volume, there is a step in the wheelhouse. A small compromise has arisen because of this. As can be seen in the drawings, the aftmost Jockey seat is raised up on this level. Should the Client be unhappy with this arrangement, the issue will be addressed. The wheelhouse is ventilated as part of the Engine Room’s circuit, where the vents are drawing a proportion of the air from the Engine Room inlet. This is then circulated around the wheelhouse, and is drawn out through the locker at the aft end of the wheelhouse. Deck and Special Features The most prominent feature of the vessel from some angles is the clearly visible rescue zone of the vessel. This is located in such a place that the coxswain and navigator will have an excellent view of the rescue operation. This is located as far forward as possible in order to prevent the survivor from being sucked into the Jet intake. It is a requirement of the LR SSC rules that a ladder be available that reaches 600mm below the DWL. This is achieved in the form of a rope ladder attached to a frame and stored in a locker (visible in the drawings). This can be deployed when needed. At the aftmost end of the vessel, there is a small platform with ladders on either side. The sole function of this platform is for boarding and disembarking from the craft. The material for the plating is an aluminium grille, this reduces weight yet provides strength for the platform. Page | 45 Stability Introduction The stability of the vessel is designed to comply with the MGN280 guidelines [02], as Lloyds Register does not have their own set of compliance rules. The software used to analyse the stability of the vessel was Maxsurf Stability and a weights and centres analysis had to be carried out in order to complete this as accurately as possible. Weights and Centres The weights and centres of the craft were analysed from the initial design of the vessel, as it was necessary to depict a weight and initial displacement of the craft. Throughout the design spiral this was constantly updated as more tasks were completed and further developments were made into the design of the structures and arrangement of the vessel to name but two examples. Shown below in Table 14 and Figure 10 is a summary of the weights and centres analysis carried out and the distribution of the weight around the craft in terms of overall allocations (machinery, structure etc) via a pie chart respectively. The full weights and centres analysis of the vessel can be seen in Appendix 30. Table 14: Summary of the weights and centres analysis Figure 10: Graphical representation of the weight distribution around the vessel in 4 main categories With regard to the weights and centres of the vessel, it should be noted that the fuel tanks were located as close to the LCF of the vessel as possible. This was in order to reduce the effect of the most variable load on the vessel in terms of how the vessel would trim. The difference between 100% and 10% loadcases is only 0.0360. This Page | 46 relates to the bow lifting another 5mm out of the water, with the stern sinking by 5mm. This is a minimal change in the trim of the vessel, with the considerable loss of 3100 litres of diesel as well as a several hundred kilograms of stores. Calculations An intact and damaged stability study was to be carried out at three load conditions as defined below in Table 15. Consumables include the fuel, food and crew stores, water and people on board. Vessel Particulars Load Conditions 100% Consumables 50% Consumables 10% Consumables Displacement [tonnes] 25.870 23.515 22.036 Draft at stern [metres] 1.024 1.015 0.991 Trim [degrees, +ve by stern] 0.746 0.762 0.782 MCTC [tonne.metres] 0.463 0.452 0.442 LCF [metres, fwd of transom] 6.626 6.610 6.617 Table 15: Definition of the three tested loadcases Rule Compliance The vessel will be operating in Operation Group G5 as set by LR SSC [64], which translates to Category 1 by MGN280 thereby meeting with the initial criteria set by the rule. Working through the weights and centres of the vessel, the weight was distributed as it would be in the vessel structure and therefore the stability provides an excellent analysis of how the vessel should perform in given loadcases. The definition of a Category 1 vessel is that which will travel up to 350 nautical miles from a safe haven port. The rule’s stability guidelines are mostly involved with utilising the GZ.Area curve and the corresponding area underneath said curve for a given angle of heel. Page | 47 Shown in Table 16 below are the rule expectations for intact stability and the vessel’s actual stability values for three loadcase conditions (10%, 50% and 100% consumables) in accordance with the requirements of the rule. MGN 280 Requirements 100% Consumables 50% Consumables 10% Consumables Area under curve up to 300 angle of heel [metre.radians] >0.055 0.135 0.132 0.134 Area under curve up to 400 angle of heel [metre.radians] >0.090 0.210 0.205 0.208 Area under curve between 300 and 400 angle of heel [metre.radians] >0.030 0.075 0.072 0.074 Minimum GM value after free surface corrections [metres] >0.350 1.600 1.621 1.654 Minimum GZ value [metres] >0.200 0.781 0.786 0.813 Maximum GZ occurrence angle [degrees] >250 45 45 45 Table 16: Table showing the compliance of the vessel with the MGN280 rules As can be seen in Table 16, the vessel reaches and passes all of the appropriate criteria for stability. It should be noted that the maximum GZ occurrence angle as stated in the final row was capped at a 450 angle of heel as it is at this point that deck edge immersion will occur. The vessel’s wheelhouse actually produces a higher GZ value when the vessel is inverted, however this should be discounted due to the fact that the vessel will never operate at this angle of heel (some 1300). Therefore it was decided that the deck edge immersion would be an appropriate upper limit for a region of upright stability. Page | 48 Shown in Figure 11 (overleaf) is the corresponding GZ curve for the three defined loadcases. The curve ranges from 00 through to 1800 angle of heel to starboard. As can be seen, for all three curves, the vessel remains at a positive value of GZ. This suggests that the vessel will be self righting and therefore have excellent stability. The corresponding section view of the vessel heeled over with relation to the waterline is shown at various angles of heel along the graph in Figure 12. The reasoning for the vessel remaining at positive stability throughout the inversion process is because of the large volume that the wheelhouse carries. The large volume creates a huge amount of buoyancy that will cause the craft to become unstable when inverted and thus self right. Although this is not a requirement of the Client, it was felt that a vessel of this design duty should have the facility for self righting should it be needed. Page | 49 Figure 11: GZ curve of stability of the vessel Figure 12: Image representation of the vessel at angles of heel *Nota Bene: The Centre of Bouyancy (CB) and gravity (CF) of the vessel is shown in the schematics in Figure 12 along with the fluid Centre of Gravity (CF Fluid) Page | 50 Damage Stability In terms of damage stability, there were again minimum and maximum values that the vessel had to adhere to in order to meet with the classification of the rule. This meant that the vessel was to be split into its respective compartments via the use of bulkheads already applied to the design of the vessel. These compartments were then individually damaged in the software package and the stability of the vessel was analysed again with the compartments and subsequent tanks damaged. It was detailed in the rule that the vessel should not trim or heel by more than 70 when a compartment is damaged. It was found that the compartment most vulnerable to damage was the waterjet compartment at the aft of the vessel. This resulted in a trim of 3.50 stern down which, as previously detailed, passes the rule limitations. Another requirement was that the deck edge immersion occur at least 150 after the vessel has taken up an angle of trim or loll after being damaged. Again, there is a minimum GM value that needs to be exceeded, and in the damaged case, this is set at 0.1m. In the case where the vessel is damaged in the waterjet compartment, this value is 0.15m, which again passes the rule guidelines. The compartment permeability was set according to the code, where all compartments and tanks were set at 95% permeability, whereas the machinery space was set at 85%. It should be noted that these are only a guideline and that in reality, the permeability of the rooms should be calculated by use of lost volume and further analysed. Appraisal In summary, the vessel has been designed to meet and comply with the stability rules and requirements of the MGN280, and has excelled at doing so, without any changes needing to be made to the design throughout. It should be noted, however, because of the vast amount of weight located aft of the vessel, then the vessel does actually trim aft by around 0.750. However, this can easily be solved by placing some ballast under the floor in the forward compartment in the form of lead ingots. This would not be an issue, as currently the boat is under weight as can be seen in the weights and centres spreadsheet in Appendix 30. Page | 51 Critical Analysis of the Project In this section, the project will be critically analysed and any thoughts as to what may have been done differently and why will be discussed. With respect to the overall design of the vessel, it is felt that a different hull shape will benefit more from the use of a deflector than the current one. Although the vessel is already very slender as compared to other similar craft, a more slender design still would increase the effectiveness of the deflector. As well as a slender hull shape, that of a longer hull would also be of much greater benefit than one of only 17 metres. The machinery installed onboard the ship is chosen because of its size, although the Scania engine can be customised for waterjet applications, which suggests that it should in fact be one of the most efficient. The waterjets installed on the vessel are suited to the design, with the correct absorption power and size length. It could be the case that the power requirement of the waterjet could drop closer to the 809kW that the engine produces, however this may lead to maintenance issues for the owner if the waterjets are on at close to threshold constantly. In the way of engine room space, there could be more space built into the design by raising the deck of the vessel up. This would mean that the deadrise angle would have to be much less than the current 22.50. The tank testing of the vessel could have produced more consistent results, as the results were, on the whole, very scattered. Most likely this problem will have stemmed from the fact that the model is of such a small size, doing relatively high speeds. Therefore, if the model were of a larger scale, then higher forces would have been measured, and thus more accurate results produced. Page | 52 Conclusion On the whole, the project was an insight into all the considerations that have to be made when designing a vessel, whether it be commercial, pleasure, motor or sailing. This provided the platform for the exploration of new technology and ideas that could revolutionise the way in which vessels are designed. Where the deflector was installed and designed, although the initial set up did not provide the desired results, it is thought that with refining and changes made to the design, the deflector can be a useful tool to be installed on a vessel in order to reduce the vertical motions that affect the crew. However, this would not have been achievable in the time frame set out, but work that could improve on the design can continue to be done. It should be noted that in order for the vessel to comply with the Lloyds SSC rules, there needed to be much more testing completed. This included the testing of the vessel in beam, stern and quartering seas. This would not have been achievable with the facilities available. The aim of the project was to comprehensively design the systems onboard, and it is felt that all the considerations into the design of the systems have been fully taken into account and detailed suitably throughout the report. Any choices that had to be made have been justified. Where the human design philosophy was a key part of the Client’s requirements, the fact that there is a minimum height of over 1.9 metres in the open space of the vessel is a huge bonus, as the crew should not have to worry about hitting their heads on the ceiling when passing through the cabin or wheelhouse. This also helps to create a large interior volume. The working of the vessel is also very ergonomic, with large windows giving excellent all-round visibility in the wheelhouse and a well laid out console for both the navigators and coxswain respectively. The location of the berths is around amidships so as to keep the motion effects of the sea down to a minimum. In summary, it is believed that the vessel has been designed, tested and fitted out to meet with all of the Client’s initial requirements and thus an efficient, well laid out and aesthetic commercial vessel has been created. Page | 53 References Aims and Objectives [01] - Lloyds Register, Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Special Service Craft, Volume 3, July 2014 - Abbreviation Henceforth: LR SSC [02] - MGN280 (M), Small Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport, Pleasure, Workboats and Pilot Boats, Part 11, Intact Stability, 2005 Research Undertaken and Design of the Vessel [03] - Camarc Design - http://www.camarc.com/ [04] - MacDuff Ship Design, Naval Architects and Marine Consultants - http://www.macduffshipdesign.com/ [05] - Alusafe Workboats - http://maritime-partner.com/ [06] - Baltic Workboats Shipyard - http://www.balticworkboats.ee/ [07] - Marine Alutech - http://www.marinealutech.com/ [08] - Design and Development of the NH1816, J.E. Nieboer, RINA SURV 8 International Conference March 2013 [09] - Advanced Hull forms, Warship Technology, October 2014 [10] - Naviform Consulting and Research LTD - http://www.naviform.com/ Area of Operation [11] - Admiralty Chart 2724, North Channel and Firth of Lorn - http://www.gpsnauticalcharts.com/main/2724_0-north-channel-to- the-firth-of-lorn-nautical-chart.html Structural Theory [12] - LR SSC, Parts 5, Design and Load Criteria and Part 7, Hull construction in Aluminium [13] - LR SSC, Part 7, Chapter 3, Section 3 [14] - LR SSC, Part 5, Chapter 3, Section 2 [15] - LR SSC, Part 5, Chapter 2, Section 5 [16] - LR SSC, Part 7, Chapter 3, Section 1 [17] - LR SSC, Part 2, Chapter 8, Section 1 [18] - The Elements of Boat Strength, Dave Gerr, 2000 [19] - LR SSC, Part 7, Chapter 5, Section 2 [20] - LR SSC, Part 3, Chapter 2, Section 4 [21] - LR SSC, Part 5, Chapter 2, Section 2 [22] - LR SSC, Part 3, Chapter 4, Section 7 Tank Testing [23] - MonsterCAM Modelling - http://monstercam.co.uk/ [24] - SP Gurit, Ampreg 22, Epoxy Resin Laminte Matrix - http://www.gurit.com/ampreg-22-1.aspx http://www.camarc.com/ http://www.macduffshipdesign.com/ http://maritime-partner.com/ http://www.balticworkboats.ee/ http://www.marinealutech.com/ http://www.naviform.com/ http://www.gpsnauticalcharts.com/main/2724_0-north-channel-to-the-firth-of-lorn-nautical-chart.html http://www.gpsnauticalcharts.com/main/2724_0-north-channel-to-the-firth-of-lorn-nautical-chart.html http://monstercam.co.uk/ http://www.gurit.com/ampreg-22-1.aspx Page | 54 [25] - Kapci 2k High Finish Primer (625) - http://www.kapci.com/Products/CarRefinish/KAPCI/FillersSealers/tab id/663/language/en-US/Default.aspx [26] - Weather Buoy Report (M2) - http://www.met.ie/latest/buoy.asp [27] - Malin Marine Weather Forecast - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/marine-shipping- forecast#malin [28] - CODECOGS, Pierson and Moskowitz Wave Spectra, July 2014 - http://www.codecogs.com/library/engineering/fluid_mechanics/wave s/spectra/pierson_moskowitz.php [29] - On The Structural Design of Planing Craft, S.R. Heller and N.H. Jasper, 1961 [30] - SensorKineticsPro iPhone Application [31] - ITTC – Recommended Procedures, Performance Prediction Method, 1999 - http://ittc.info/downloads/Archive%20of%20recommended%20procedu res/2002%20Recommended%20Procedures/7.5-02-03-01.4.pdf [32] - ITTC – Recommended Procedures, Testing and Extrapolation Methods, 2002 - http://ittc.info/downloads/Archive%20of%20recommended%20procedu res/2002%20Recommended%20Procedures/7.5-02-03-01.1.pdf [33] - Acceleration of Blackout Point, Hyper Textbook, Glenn Elert, 2001 - http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/PhillipAndriyevsky.shtml [34] - LR SSC, Part 5, Chapter 1, Section 3 Machinery and Systems Installed Onboard [35] - Scania DI-16076M - http://scania.com/_system/img/doc/engines/m/DI16076M_809kW.pdf [36] - Rolls Royce Kamewa A3-36 - http://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls- Royce/documents/customers/marine/waterjets.pdf [37] - Scania DI-16 manual, Scania Corportaion - https://til.scania.com/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&RevisionSelection Method=LatestReleased&Rendition=web&noSaveAs=1&dDocName=OPM _0000460_01 [38] - MTU M84L 8V2000 Data Sheet - https://mtu.cwshops.com/media/files_public/86e36f70ac0624c42131d 7257ba94613/3234091_MTU_Marine_spec_8V2000M84_L_1D.pdf [39] - ZF Marine 2050 Medium Duty Gearbox Datasheet - http://marine.zf.com/matran/#/dataSheet/196 [40] - Benfiting from the New Kamewa Waterjet Designs, J. Adamsson and R. Aartojärvi, Rolls Royce Marine, High Speed marine Vessels, 3rd March 2011 [41] - Spicer Compound Angle Vibration and Size Technical Article, Dana Corporation, 2005 [42] - Boat Mechanical Systems Handbook, Dave Gerr, 2009 [43] - Scania Technical Data Issue, Marine Engines, DI-16 - http://www.scania.com.au/Images/Technical_Data_Issue_12_tcm51- 411869.pdf [44] - Delta “T” Systems 11inch Marine Axial Fan - http://www.deltatsystems.com/specs/Ignition_Protected_DC_Axial_F ans.html [45] - Delta “T” Systems 9 inch Marine Axial Fan - http://www.deltatsystems.com/specs/Ignition_Protected_DC_Axial_F ans.html http://www.kapci.com/Products/CarRefinish/KAPCI/FillersSealers/tabid/663/language/en-US/Default.aspx http://www.kapci.com/Products/CarRefinish/KAPCI/FillersSealers/tabid/663/language/en-US/Default.aspx http://www.met.ie/latest/buoy.asp http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/marine-shipping-forecast#malin http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/marine-shipping-forecast#malin http://www.codecogs.com/library/engineering/fluid_mechanics/waves/spectra/pierson_moskowitz.php http://www.codecogs.com/library/engineering/fluid_mechanics/waves/spectra/pierson_moskowitz.php http://ittc.info/downloads/Archive%20of%20recommended%20procedures/2002%20Recommended%20Procedures/7.5-02-03-01.4.pdf http://ittc.info/downloads/Archive%20of%20recommended%20procedures/2002%20Recommended%20Procedures/7.5-02-03-01.4.pdf http://ittc.info/downloads/Archive%20of%20recommended%20procedures/2002%20Recommended%20Procedures/7.5-02-03-01.1.pdf http://ittc.info/downloads/Archive%20of%20recommended%20procedures/2002%20Recommended%20Procedures/7.5-02-03-01.1.pdf http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/PhillipAndriyevsky.shtml http://scania.com/_system/img/doc/engines/m/DI16076M_809kW.pdf http://www.rolls-royce.com/%7E/media/Files/R/Rolls-Royce/documents/customers/marine/waterjets.pdf http://www.rolls-royce.com/%7E/media/Files/R/Rolls-Royce/documents/customers/marine/waterjets.pdf https://til.scania.com/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased&Rendition=web&noSaveAs=1&dDocName=OPM_0000460_01 https://til.scania.com/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased&Rendition=web&noSaveAs=1&dDocName=OPM_0000460_01 https://til.scania.com/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased&Rendition=web&noSaveAs=1&dDocName=OPM_0000460_01 https://mtu.cwshops.com/media/files_public/86e36f70ac0624c42131d7257ba94613/3234091_MTU_Marine_spec_8V2000M84_L_1D.pdf https://mtu.cwshops.com/media/files_public/86e36f70ac0624c42131d7257ba94613/3234091_MTU_Marine_spec_8V2000M84_L_1D.pdf http://marine.zf.com/matran/#/dataSheet/196 http://www.scania.com.au/Images/Technical_Data_Issue_12_tcm51-411869.pdf http://www.scania.com.au/Images/Technical_Data_Issue_12_tcm51-411869.pdf http://www.deltatsystems.com/specs/Ignition_Protected_DC_Axial_Fans.html http://www.deltatsystems.com/specs/Ignition_Protected_DC_Axial_Fans.html http://www.deltatsystems.com/specs/Ignition_Protected_DC_Axial_Fans.html http://www.deltatsystems.com/specs/Ignition_Protected_DC_Axial_Fans.html Page | 55 [46] - Munters DF2500 Mist Eliminator Datasheet - https://www.munters.com/globalassets/inriver/resources/products/ mist-eliminators/me_prodsheet_df2500.pdf [47] - Delta “T” Systems 15inch A/C Premium Axial Fans - http://www.deltatsystems.com/specs/AC_Axial_Fans.html [48] - Paroc A60 Fireproof Aluminium Bulkhead Datasheet - http://www.paroc.com/solutions-and-products/solutions/marine-and- offshore/a60-aluminium-bulkhead [49] - Scania Technical Innovations, XPI Fuel injection, October 2007 - https://www.sae.org/ohmag/techinnovations/10-2007/11-15-7-6.pdf [50] - Wasp-HPS-WP-10 Fuel Polisher Datasheet - http://www.wasp-pfs.com/products/w-pfs/w-pfs-010 [51] - IMO MARPOL Annex VI Tier I, II and III Regulation Datasheet - http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/A irPollution/Pages/Nitrogen-oxides-(NOx)-%E2%80%93-Regulation- 13.aspx [52] - EU Stage IIIA Emission StandardDataSheet - https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/eu/nonroad.php [53] - EPA Tier II Emission Standard Datasheet - https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016- 03/documents/420b16022.pdf [54] - MAN D2842 LE410 Datasheet - http://www.manrollo.com/wp-content/uploads/D2842-medium- duty.pdf [55] - MTU 12v2000 M70 Datasheet - http://www.transdiesel.com/app_docs/MTU%2012V&16V2000M70.pdf [56] - UltraJet 525 Datasheet - http://www.marinejetpower.com/assets/upload/files/1508%20MJP%2 0Ultrajet%20525_web.pdf [57] - HamJet HM461 Datasheet - http://www.hamjet.co.nz/global/hm-series General Arrangement [58] - LR SSC, Part 3, Chapter 5, Sections 2-6 [59] - Eno Marine Open Sea Cooker - http://service.eno-marine.fr/categorie.php?id=MjQ= [60] - Penguin Frigo, Vitrifrigo C40L - http://www.penguinfrigo.co.uk/shop/product/405/ [61] - Lee Sanitation, LeeSan LS40 Stainless Steel Toilet - http://www.leesan.com/index.asp?m=3&cat1=4&cat2=168&p=329&t=L eeSan+LS40%2C+12v+DC [62] - Penguin Engineering LTD, D180 Shower - http://www.penguineng.com/TapsShowers/Showers- StraightShowerHandles/D180PenguinTap.php [63] - Ullyman Dynamics Webpage, Biscaya Jockey Seats - http://ullmandynamics.com/suspension-seats/jockey-seats/jockey- seat-biscaya Stability [64] - LR SSC, Part 1, Chapter 2, Section 3 https://www.munters.com/globalassets/inriver/resources/products/mist-eliminators/me_prodsheet_df2500.pdf https://www.munters.com/globalassets/inriver/resources/products/mist-eliminators/me_prodsheet_df2500.pdf http://www.deltatsystems.com/specs/AC_Axial_Fans.html http://www.paroc.com/solutions-and-products/solutions/marine-and-offshore/a60-aluminium-bulkhead http://www.paroc.com/solutions-and-products/solutions/marine-and-offshore/a60-aluminium-bulkhead https://www.sae.org/ohmag/techinnovations/10-2007/11-15-7-6.pdf http://www.wasp-pfs.com/products/w-pfs/w-pfs-010 http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Nitrogen-oxides-(NOx)-%E2%80%93-Regulation-13.aspx http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Nitrogen-oxides-(NOx)-%E2%80%93-Regulation-13.aspx http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Nitrogen-oxides-(NOx)-%E2%80%93-Regulation-13.aspx https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/eu/nonroad.php https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/420b16022.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/420b16022.pdf http://www.manrollo.com/wp-content/uploads/D2842-medium-duty.pdf http://www.manrollo.com/wp-content/uploads/D2842-medium-duty.pdf http://www.transdiesel.com/app_docs/MTU%2012V&16V2000M70.pdf http://www.marinejetpower.com/assets/upload/files/1508%20MJP%20Ultrajet%20525_web.pdf http://www.marinejetpower.com/assets/upload/files/1508%20MJP%20Ultrajet%20525_web.pdf http://www.hamjet.co.nz/global/hm-series http://service.eno-marine.fr/categorie.php?id=MjQ http://www.penguinfrigo.co.uk/shop/product/405/ http://www.leesan.com/index.asp?m=3&cat1=4&cat2=168&p=329&t=LeeSan+LS40%2C+12v+DC http://www.leesan.com/index.asp?m=3&cat1=4&cat2=168&p=329&t=LeeSan+LS40%2C+12v+DC http://www.penguineng.com/TapsShowers/Showers-StraightShowerHandles/D180PenguinTap.php http://www.penguineng.com/TapsShowers/Showers-StraightShowerHandles/D180PenguinTap.php http://ullmandynamics.com/suspension-seats/jockey-seats/jockey-seat-biscaya http://ullmandynamics.com/suspension-seats/jockey-seats/jockey-seat-biscaya Page | 56 Appendices Section Appendix 1: Acceleration formula used in the calculation of the impact pressure Appendix 2: Limiting coefficients in accordance to the panel/stiffener fixity type Page | 57 Appendix 3 - Laminate Log for the building of the model Hit Number Work Completed Problems Discovered Resolutions Image Representation of Work Prep Model brushed to remove any excess glass bubbles from the surface. Model laminated with 120gm-2 satin weave woven roving Fibre cut to shape of the bottom, top sides and transom with a 10mm overlap allowance Ampreg 22 [24] resin matrix mixed with a 25:7 ratio There was some damage to the model, with knicks on the transom and aft part of the keel The bow section was damaged where the polystyrene foam bubble size was too large to fit with the curvature The topsides bow section had not been cut, where the curvature was too complex for the machine. Knicks presented no significant problem as the area would be glassed over Bow section would be artificially shaped using foam moulded blocs to shape the laminate The topside bow’s lack of shape was manually shaped using a pen knife 1 Bottom sides laminated with two layers of the fibre cloth Layer of Resin laid down first to ensure good bond between the fibre and the model Fibre overlapped at the keel join where the underbody shape was consistent Forward of this, fibre clamped together at the centreline join Fibre allowed to drape over chine in order to create a join with the topsides in ‘Hit 2’ Where the keel was clamped together, the fibre hadn’t bonded closely enough to the model shape. This left areas of open laminate that would need to be resolved There was a large bubble in the laminate in the forward section of the bow Epoxy would be ran over the laminate join edge and then sanded down to rejoin to the edge and match the curvature shape The bubble in the laminate was to be cut out, and the area left would be filled with filler and then correspondingly shaped to match the curvature of the hull. 2 Previous day’s laminate overlap trimmed to match the extremities of the model Topsides laminated with two layers of fibre cloth Layer of resin laid down to ensure good bond between the model and fibre Fibre draped over chine edge to create join Bow section clamped Bow ledge cut and overlapped for the bow section Tow post attachment plate (12mm wood board) glued into the recessed hull with epoxy mixed with glass bubbles to thicken the mixture Bubble formed in topside laminate No action taken 3 Previous Hit’s laminate trimmed to model Transom to be laminated Layer of resin laid down to ensure good bond 2 layers of cloth laminated Keel at the bow also glued at this stage as previously discussed (Hit 1) No significant problems No action required Page | 58 Hit Number Work Completed Problems Discovered Resolutions Image Representation of Work 4 6 coats of Kapci 2k high finish primer [25] added, thus creating a smooth surface after a mixture of wet and dry sanding No significant problems No action required 5 Model’s deflector glued onto the model using epoxy resin matrix and filleted to the model to ensure there would be a smooth runoff of water both on top, and underneath the deflector Deflector covered with epoxy to ensure no damage and because the primer is corrosive to the polystyrene and the foam deflector The deflector was damaged in the application of the glue Damages filled and faired using epoxy resin with glass bubbles 6 6 coats of Kapci 2k high finish primer added, thus creating a smooth surface after a mixture of wet and dry sanding Some of the bottom Kapci Primer had been damaged in the gluing of the deflector. Kapci was reapplied to these problem areas and subsequently sanded down to match in with the surrounding finish Page | 59 Appendices 4-7 – Screenshots of Excel tables and results calculated for the testing without and with the deflector respectively Appendix 4: Model scale results without the deflector Appendix 5: Model scale results with the deflector Appendix 6: Full scale results without the deflector Appendix 7: Full scale results with the deflector Page | 60 Appendix 8: Accelerations measured for Run 1 Wave Condition 1 at 2.00ms-1 without the deflector Appendix 9: Accelerations measured for Run 2 Wave Condition 1 at 2.71ms-1 without the deflector Appendix 10: Accelerations measured for Run 3 Wave Condition 2 at 1.00ms-1 without the deflector Page | 61 Appendix 11: Accelerations measured for Run 4 Wave Condition 2 at 1.00ms-1 without the deflector Appendix 12: Accelerations measured for Run 5 Wave Condition 2 at 0.50ms-1 without the deflector Appendix 13: Accelerations measured for Run 6 Wave Condition 1 at 3.20ms-1 without the deflector Appendix 14: Accelerations measured for Run 7 Wave Condition 1 at 1.62ms-1 without the deflector Page | 62 Appendix 15: Accelerations measured for Run 8 Wave Condition 1 at 2.00ms-1 with the deflector Appendix 16: Accelerations measured for Run 9 Wave Condition 1 at 2.71ms-1 with the deflector Appendix 17: Accelerations measured for Run 10 Wave Condition 1 at 1.81ms-1 with the deflector Appendix 18: Accelerations measured for Run 11 Wave Condition 2 at 1.00ms-1 with the deflector Page | 63 Appendix 19: Accelerations measured for Run 12 Wave Condition 2 at 1.00ms-1 with the deflector Appendix 20: Accelerations measured for Run 14 Wave Condition 2 at 0.50ms-1 with the deflector Appendix 21: Accelerations measured for Run 15 Wave Condition 1 at 1.62ms-1 with the deflector Appendix 22: Accelerations measured for Run 16 Wave Condition 1 at 2.23ms-1 with the deflector Page | 64 Appendix 23: Accelerations measured for Run 17 Wave Condition 1 at 1.42ms-1 with the deflector Appendix 24: Accelerations measured for Run 18 Wave Condition 2 at 1.00ms-1 with the deflector Appendix 25: Accelerations measured for Run 19 Wave Condition 3 at 0.50ms-1 with the deflector Appendix 26: Accelerations measured for Run 20 Wave Condition 3 at 1.00ms-1 with the deflector Page | 65 Appendix 27: Full measurement of all acceleration data Page | 66 Appendix 28 – Weights and Centres Analysis Spreadsheet LCG +ve from stern fwd [mm] VCG +ve from DWL up [mm] Displacement [kg] 6660.8 478.8 25870.0 Part Abbreviation Units Aluminium Temper and Grade Extrusion Type Plate Thickness and Extrusion Dimensions [mm] Individual Unit Weight [kg] LCG +ve from stern fwd [mm] VCG +ve from DWL up [mm] Total Line Weight [kg] Longitudinal Moment [kg.mm] Vertical Moment [kg.mm] Bottom Shell HB-P 2 5083 - H111 Plate 10 825.5 7711.3 -473.7 1651 12731356.3 -782078.7 Topsides Shell HTS-P 2 5083 - H111 Plate 10 684.5 8226 734.4 1369 11261394 1005393.6 Chine HC-P 2 5083 - H111 Plate 16 25.3 6293.3 -40.4 50.6 318440.98 -2044.24 Deflector DEF-P 2 5083 - H111 Plate 12 150.0 14813 220.4 300 4443900 66120 Wheelhouse WH-P 2 5083 - H111 Plate 6 554.4 5426.3 2822.12 1108.8 6016681.44 3129166.656 Transom HT-P 1 5083 - H111 Plate 18 300.0 16558.9 417.6 300 4967670 125280 Line Totals 8314.7 741.1 4779.4 39739442.7 3541837.3 Weather Deck and Wheelhouse WD-P 1 5083 - H111 Plate 6 518.5 7206 1468.4 518.5 3736311 761365.4 Main Cabin and Saloon CBN-FLR 1 5083 - H111 Plate 6 168.9 9532.4 -520 168.9 1610022.36 -87828 Machinery Floor ER-FLR 1 5083 - H111 Plate 6 85.0 4760 -312.3 85 404600 -26545.5 Line Totals 7445.5 837.6 772.4 5750933.4 646991.9 Ring Frame 790 RF-00790 1 6082 - T6 Ring frame (with flange) 180X8/90X11 61.8 790.0 209.9 61.8 48822 12971.82 Rng Frame 1745 RF-01745 1 6082 - T6 Ring frame (with flange) 180X8/90X11 62.0 1745.0 204.8 62 108190 12697.6 Ring Frame 2455 RF-02455 1 6082 - T6 Ring frame (with flange) 180X8/90X11 62.1 2455.0 204.5 62.1 152455.5 12699.45 Ring Frame 4205 RF-04205 1 6082 - T6 Ring frame (with flange) 180X8/90X11 48.3 4205.0 229 48.3 203101.5 11060.7 Ring Frame 5255 RF-05255 1 6082 - T6 Ring frame (with flange) 180X8/90X11 48.2 5255.0 231 48.2 253291 11134.2 Ring Frame 7355 RF-07355 1 6082 - T6 Ring frame (with flange) 180X8/90X11 51.4 7355.0 463.4 51.4 378047 23818.76 Ring Frame 8405 RF-08405 1 6082 - T6 Ring frame (with flange) 180X8/90X11 37.9 8405.0 400.1 37.9 318549.5 15163.79 Ring Frame 9455 RF-09455 1 6082 - T6 Ring frame (with flange) 180X8/90X11 36.7 9455.0 420.6 36.7 346998.5 15436.02 Ring Frame 11555 RF-11555 1 6082 - T6 Ring frame (with flange) 180X8/90X11 31.7 11555.0 483.8 31.7 366293.5 15336.46 Ring Frame 12605 RF-12605 1 6082 - T6 Ring frame (with flange) 180X8/90X11 28.0 12605.0 515.6 28 352940 14436.8 Ring Frame 14705 RF-14705 1 6082 - T6 Ring frame (with flange) 180X8/90X11 19.5 14705.0 604.7 19.5 286747.5 11791.65 Ring Frame 15755 RF-15755 1 6082 - T6 Ring frame (with flange) 180X8/90X11 15.8 15755.0 593 15.8 248929 9369.4 Wheelhouse Ring Frame 5255 RF-05255 1 6082 - T6 Ring frame (with flange) 120x8/40x10 38.3 5255.0 1831.2 38.3 201266.5 70134.96 Wheelhouse Ring Frame 7355 RF-07355 1 6082 - T6 Ring frame (with flange) 120x8/40x10 38.3 7355.0 1831.2 38.3 281696.5 70134.96 Wheelhouse Ring Frame 8405 RF-08405 1 6082 - T6 Ring frame (with flange) 120x8/40x10 37.4 8405.0 1832.1 37.4 314347 68520.54 Wheelhouse Ring Frame 9455 RF-09455 1 6082 - T6 Ring frame (with flange) 120x8/40x10 34.8 9455.0 1793.3 34.8 329034 62406.84 Line Totals 6425.5 670.2 652.2 4190709.0 437114.0 Bulkhead 3155 BH-03155 1 5083 - H111 Plate 10 208.4 5000.0 480 208.4 1042000 100032 Bulkhead 6305 BH-06305 1 5083 - H111 Plate 10 206.8 12000.0 483.1 206.8 2481600 99905.08 Bulkhead 10505 BH-10505 1 5083 - H111 Plate 10 175.9 25625.0 518.2 175.9 4507437.5 91151.38 Bulkhead 13655 BH-13655 1 5083 - H111 Plate 10 107.7 34000.0 570.4 107.7 3661800 61432.08 Line Totals 16732.7 504.5 698.8 11692837.5 352520.5 Central Keel Girder HB-CKG-0000 1 6082 - T6 Plate 15 277.3 8687.5 -760.8 277.3 2409043.75 -210969.84 Engine Girder 550 HB-EG-0550 2 6082 - T6 Plate (with flange) 14/70x12 209.4 4086.6 -244.5 418.8 1711468.08 -102396.6 Engine Girder 1450 HB-EG-1450 2 6082 - T6 Plate (with flange) 14/70x12 126.5 4086.6 -59.8 253 1033909.8 -15129.4 Wheelhouse Roof Main Girder 450 WHR-MG-0450 2 6082 - T6 Tee 50x6/50x6 18.6 7125.5 3397.4 37.2 265068.6 126383.28 Wheelhouse Roof Main Girder 1015 WHR-MG-1015 2 6082 - T6 Tee 50x6/50x6 13.5 7082.3 3489.4 27 191222.1 94213.8 Line Totals 5537.1 -106.5 1013.3 5610712.3 -107898.8 Summary of Weights and Centres Analysis Pl at in g Bu lk he ad s Fr am es Pr im ar y St iff en er s Fl oo rs Machinery and Tankage Consumables Fixtures and Allowances Structure Weight Distribution Page | 67 Part Abbreviation Units Aluminium Temper and Grade Extrusion Type Plate Thickness and Extrusion Dimensions [mm] Individual Unit Weight [kg] LCG +ve from stern fwd [mm] VCG +ve from DWL up [mm] Total Line Weight [kg] Longitudinal Moment [kg.mm] Vertical Moment [kg.mm] Hull Bottom Flat Bar 400 HB-FB-0400 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 80x8 26.1 8270.3 -716 52.2 431709.66 -37375.2 Hull Bottom Flat Bar 705 HB-FB-0705 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 80x8 26.1 8274 -518 52.2 431902.8 -27039.6 Hull Bottom Flat Bar 1010 HB-FB-1010 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 80x8 26.1 8280.9 -446.4 52.2 432262.98 -23302.08 Hull Bottom Flat Bar 1315 HB-FB-1315 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 80x8 26.2 8290.7 -310.4 52.4 434432.68 -16264.96 Hull Bottom Flat Bar 1620 HB-FB-1620 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 80x8 27.5 7949.7 -176.8 55 437233.5 -9724 Hull Bottom Flat Bar 1925 HB-FB-1925 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 80x8 27.6 7964.9 -39.5 55.2 439662.48 -2180.4 Deflector Girder 0000 DEF-LG-0000 1 6082 - T6 Plate 8 15.0 15200 225.1 15 228000 3376.5 Deflector Girder 0350 DEF-LG-0350 2 6082 - T6 Plate 8 10.0 14856 219.7 20 297120 4394 Deflector Girder 0700 DEF-LG-0700 2 6082 - T6 Plate 8 7.5 14705 216.8 15 220575 3252 Deflector Girder 1050 DEF-LG-1050 2 6082 - T6 Plate 8 2.5 14223 210.4 5 71115 1052 Hull Topsides Flat Bar 295 HTS-FB-0295 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 80x8 27.7 7981.2 293.7 55.4 442158.48 16270.98 Hull Topsides Flat Bar 565 HTS-FB-0565 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 80x8 27.7 7948.5 564.5 55.4 440346.9 31273.3 Hull Topsides Flat Bar 835 HTS-FB-0835 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 80x8 27.7 7988.3 834.8 55.4 442551.82 46247.92 Hull Topsides Flat Bar 1100 HTS-FB-1100 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 80x8 27.7 7992.4 1104.6 55.4 442778.96 61194.84 Weather Deck Flat Bar 0000 WD-FB-0000 1 6082 - T6 Flat bar 80x8 27.3 7910.3 1428.7 27.3 215951.19 39003.51 Weather Deck Flat Bar 0250 WD-FB-0250 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 60x8 27.3 7910.3 1428.7 54.6 431902.38 78007.02 Weather Deck Flat Bar 0500 WD-FB-0500 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 60x8 27.3 7910.3 1428.7 54.6 431902.38 78007.02 Weather Deck Flat Bar 0750 WD-FB-0750 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 60x8 25.4 7384.2 1428.7 50.8 375117.36 72577.96 Weather Deck Flat Bar 1000 WD-FB-1000 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 60x8 25.4 7384.2 1428.7 50.8 375117.36 72577.96 Weather Deck Flat Bar 1250 WD-FB-1250 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 60x8 23.6 7258.1 1428.7 47.2 342582.32 67434.64 Weather Deck Flat Bar 1500 WD-FB-1500 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 60x8 21.8 6332 1428.7 43.6 276075.2 62291.32 Weather Deck Flat Bar 1750 WD-FB-1750 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 60x8 20.0 5806 1428.7 40 232240 57148 Weather Deck Flat Bar 2000 WD-FB-2000 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 60x8 18.2 5280 1428.7 36.4 192192 52004.68 Wheelhouse Side Flat Bar 1880 WHS-FB-1880 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 30x6 2.9 5901 1880 5.8 34225.8 10904 Wheelhouse Side Flat Bar 2280 WHS-FB-2280 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 30x6 2.9 5901 2280 5.8 34225.8 13224 Wheelhouse Side Flat Bar 2680 WHS-FB-2680 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 30x6 2.9 5901 2680 5.8 34225.8 15544 Wheelhouse Side Flat Bar 3710 WHS-FB-3710 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 30x6 2.9 5901 3710 5.8 34225.8 21518 Wheelhouse Roof Flat Bar 450 WHR-FB-0450 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 30x6 2.9 5482.6 3990.8 5.8 31799.08 23146.64 Wheelhouse Roof Flat Bar 1315 WHR-FB-1315 2 6082 - T6 Flat bar 30x6 2.9 5482.4 3990.8 5.8 31797.92 23146.64 Line Totals 7979.0 712.1 1035.9 8265430.7 737710.7 Part Line Weight [kg] Weld Allowance Weight [kg] LCG +ve from stern fwd [mm] VCG +ve from DWL up [mm] Longitudinal Moment [kg.mm] Vertical Moment [kg.mm] Plating 4779.4 802.9 8314.7 741.1 6676226.4 595028.7 Floors 772.4 129.8 7445.5 837.6 966156.8 108694.6 Frames 652.2 109.6 6425.5 670.2 704039.1 73435.1 Bulkheads 698.8 117.4 16732.7 504.5 1964396.7 59223.5 Primary Stiffeners 1013.3 170.2 5537.1 -106.5 942599.7 -18127.0 Secondary Stiffeners 1035.9 174.0 7979.0 712.1 1388592.3 123935.4 Line Totals 1503.9 8406.0 626.5 12642011.0 942190.3 Part Line Weight [kg] Units Total Weight [kg] LCG +ve from stern fwd [mm] VCG +ve from DWL up [mm] Longitudinal Moment [kg.mm] Vertical Moment [kg.mm] Engine 1660 2 3320 4990.0 53.0 16566800.0 175960.0 Gearbox 342 2 684 4150.0 20.0 2838600.0 13680.0 Waterjet 770 2 1540 1230.0 -240.0 1894200.0 -369600.0 Fuel Tanks 1770 2 3540 6948.0 435.0 24595920.0 1539900.0 Fresh Water Tank 400 1 400 9600.0 -600.0 3840000.0 -240000.0 Grey Water Tank 450 1 450 7800.0 -600.0 3510000.0 -270000.0 Allowance for Fixtures and Piping 600 1 600 4500.0 100.0 2700000.0 60000.0 Line Totals 10534 5310.9 86.4 55945520.0 909940.0 Food Stores 100 1 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Crew Stores 200 1 200 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bed Stores 20 1 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Above Deck Stowage 800 1 800 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Crew 85 6 510 7031.2 2910.9 3585912.0 1484559.0 Survivors 85 4 340 4297.8 3000.0 1461252.0 1020000.0 Line Totals 1970 2562.0 1271.3 5047164.0 2504559.0 Jockey Seats 21 6 126 7031.2 2010.0 885931.2 253260.0 Bench Seating 30 2 60 4297.3 2180.0 257838.0 130800.0 Radar 50 1 50 3927.5 4330.2 196375.0 216510.0 Galley 300 1 300 10816.0 250.0 3244800.0 75000.0 Furniture Outfit Below Deck 400 1 400 11492.0 50.0 4596800.0 20000.0 Head and WC 200 1 200 8619.0 -23.0 1723800.0 -4600.0 Glass Windows 550 1 550 7255.9 3146.8 3990745.0 1730740.0 Additional Allowance for Overbuild and miscellaneous weight 1224.1 1 1224.1 6971.9 0.0 8534302.8 0.0 Line Totals 2910.1 8051.5 832.2 23430592.0 2421710.0 M ac hi ne ry a nd Ta nk ag e Co ns um ab le s Fi xt ur es a nd A llo w an ce W el d Al lo w an ce Se co nd ar y St iff en er s Page | 68 Visual Representations This section aims to give the reader a better interpretation of what the design of the project looks like and portrays the boat in the form of renders from the Rhinoceros 3D modelling programme. Plate 1: Exterior view of the vessel, looking from the bow aft Plate 2: Exterior view of the vessel, in profile view Page | 69 Plate 3: Exterior view of the vessel, looking down on the rook in profile/plan Plate 4: Exterior view of the vessel, looking from the stern forward Page | 70 Plate 5: Interior view of the wheelhouse layout Plate 6: How the boat sat in the water, viewed from the bow aft Page | 71 Plate 7: How the boat sat in the water, viewed from the stern forward Plate 8: Representation of how the ballast weights were distributed around the hull DWL BL-3 BL-4 BL-5 BL-6 BL-7 BL-8 BL-9 BL-10 WL-1 WL-2 WL-3 WL-4 WL-5 WL-6 BL-1 BL-2 B L-3 B L-4 B L-5 B L-6 B L-7 B L-8 B L-9 B L-1 0 B L-1 B L-2 012345679AP FP8 Technical Particulars Measurement Value Units Length Waterline 16.90 metres Length Overall 17.60 metres Beam Waterline 4.25 metres Beam Overall 5.66 metres Draft 0.96 metres Displacement 25870 kilograms Volumetric Displacement 25.24 metres³ Longitudinal Centre of Floatation 41.38 % forward of stern Longitudinal Centre of Gravity 41.00 % forward of stern Length Beam Ratio 3.97 n/a Slenderness Ratio 5.75 n/a Righting Moment @ 1° 1021.98 kilogram.metre Grid Particulars Station (Number) Offset from AP [m] Buttock Line (BL) Offset from CL [m] Waterline (WL) Offset from DWL [m] FP 16.850 BL-1 0.207 WL-1 -0.800 0 16.400 BL-2 0.414 WL-2 -0.600 1 15.165 BL-3 0.621 WL-3 -0.400 2 13.480 BL-4 0.828 WL-4 -0.200 3 11.795 BL-5 1.035 DWL 0.000 4 10.110 BL-6 1.242 WL-5 0.600 5 8.425 BL-7 1.449 WL-6 1.200 6 6.740 BL-8 1.656 7 5.055 BL-9 1.863 8 3.370 BL-10 2.070 9 1.685 AP 0.000 REVISION TABLE Editon Revision Date Subject Revised 22 01/10/2015 Chine Edited 23 04/10/2015 Chine Edited 24 08/10/2015 Forefoot Lowered 25 15/10/2015 Hull lines changed 26 28/10/2015 Drawing Finalised Drawing title: Lines Plan Drawing number: 001 Edition: 26 Issue date: 28/10/2015 Drawn by: ADPM Scale: 1:70 Units: mm Page Number: 72 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 3160 3160 4210 3160 WATERJET COMPARTMENT ENGINE ROOM COMPARTMENT MAIN CABIN GALLEY / SALOON FORWARD STOWAGE / ANCHOR LOCKER 400 305 305 305 305 305 400 305 305 305 900 900 AP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 790 825 840 700 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 FP 1160 R F-0 0 7 9 0 R F-0 1 6 1 5 R F-0 2 4 5 5 B H -0 3 1 5 5 R F-0 4 2 0 5 R F-0 5 2 5 5 B H -0 6 3 0 5 R F-0 7 3 5 5 R F-0 8 4 0 5 R F-0 9 4 5 5 B H -1 0 5 0 5 R F-1 1 5 5 5 R F-1 2 6 0 5 B H -1 3 6 5 5 R F-1 4 7 0 5 R F-1 5 7 5 5 3250 HB-FB-1925 WD-FB-2000 WD-FB-1750 WD-FB-1500 WD-FB-1250 WD-FB-1000 WD-FB-0750 WD-FB-0500 WD-FB-0250250 250 550 550 HB-FB-0705 HB-FB-1010 HB-FB-1315 HB-FB-1620 HB-FB-1925 HB-FB-0400 WD-FB-2000 WD-FB-1750 WD-FB-1500 WD-FB-1250 WD-FB-1000 WD-FB-0750 WD-FB-0500 WD-FB-0250 WD-FB-0000 HB-CKG-0000 HB-EG-0550 HB-EG-1450 CL CL CL CL * DEFLECTOR STRUCTURAL DETAIL NOT INCLUDED FOR CLARITY. SEE DRAWING 005 Structural General Arrangement, Plan View 305 305 HB-FB-0705 HB-FB-1010 HB-FB-1315 HB-FB-1620 HB-FB-0400 MS8 1050 REVISION TABLE Editon Revision Date Subject Revised 2 26/11/2015 General Update 3 20/01/2016 General Update 4 19/03/2016 Drawing Finalised DRAWING KEY Denotes stringers start and end DRAWING LEGEND Reference Code Reference Component Description HB-FB-XXXX 80x8 Flat Bar in the Hull Bottom with offset from CL HB-CKG-XXXX Central Keel Girder in the Hull Bottom with offset from CL HB-EG-XXXX 80x8 Engine Bed Girder in the Hull Bottom with offset from CL WD-FB-XXXX 60x8 Flat Bar in the Weather Deck with offset from CL RF/BH-XXXXX Denotes Ring Frame (RF) or Bulkhead (BH) with offset from AP Drawing title: Structural Layout, Plan View Drawing number: 002 Edition: 4 Issue date: 19/03/2016 Drawn by: ADPM Scale: 1:50 Units: mm Page Number: 73 285 285 285 HTS-FB-0835 HTS-FB-1100 HTS-FB-0565 HTS-FB-0295 HTS-EG-0095 HTS-CKG- -585 3160 3160 4210 3160 WATERJET COMPARTMENT ENGINE ROOM COMPARTMENT MAIN CABIN GALLEY / SALOON FORWARD STOWAGE / ANCHOR LOCKER 3250 * WHEELHOUSE STRUCTURAL DETAIL NOT INCLUDED FOR CLARITY. SEE DRAWING 006 DWL DWL R F-0 0 7 9 0 R F-0 1 6 1 5 R F-0 2 4 5 5 B H -0 3 1 5 5 R F-0 4 2 0 5 R F-0 5 2 5 5 B H -0 6 3 0 5 R F-0 7 3 5 5 R F-0 8 4 0 5 R F-0 9 4 5 5 B H -1 0 5 0 5 R F-1 1 5 5 5 R F-1 2 6 0 5 B H -1 3 6 5 5 R F-1 4 7 0 5 R F-1 5 7 5 5 DWL DWL Structural General Arrangement, Profile View AP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MS8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 790 825 840 700 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 FP 1160 REVISION TABLE Editon Revision Date Subject Revised 1 28/10/2015 Initial Outlay 2 20/01/2016 General Update 3 19/03/2016 Drawing Finalised DRAWING KEY Denotes stringers start and end DRAWING LEGEND Reference Code Reference Component Description HTS-FB-XXXX 80x8 Flat Bar in the Hull Topsides with offset from DWL HTS-CKG-XXXX Central Keel Girder in the Hull Topsides with offset from DWL HTS-EG-XXXX Engine Bed Girder in the Hull Topsides with offset from DWL RF/BH-XXXXX Denotes Ring Frame (RF) or Bulkhead (BH) with offset from AP Drawing title: Structural Layout, Profile View Drawing number: 003 Edition: 3 Issue date: 19/03/2016 Drawn by: ADPM Scale: 1:50 Units: mm Page Number: 74 WHS-FB-3710 WHS-FB-1880 WHS-FB-2280 WHS-FB-2680 WHR-FB-1315 WHR-MG-1015 WHR-MG-0450 WHR-FB-0000 WHR-FB-1315 WHR-MG-1015 WHR-MG-0450 AP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 790 955 710 700 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 Wheelhouse Structural General Arrangement, Plan and Profile View MS8 1050 REVISION TABLE Editon Revision Date Subject Revised 2 08/01/2016 Change of Layout 3 25/02/2016 General Update 4 19/03/2016 Drawing Finalised DRAWING KEY Denotes stringers start and end DRAWING LEGEND Reference Code Reference Component Description WHS-FB-XXXX 30x6 Flat Bar in the Wheelhouse Sides with offset from DWL WHR-FB-XXXX 30x6 Flat Bar in the Wheelhouse Roof with offset from CL WHR-MG-XXXX Main Girders in the Wheelhouse Roof with offset from CL RF/BH-XXXXX Denotes Ring Frame (RF) or Bulkhead (BH) with offset from AP Wheelhouse Structural General Arrangement RF-05255 Detail, Body Plan View WHS-FB-1880 W H R -F B -1 3 1 5 W H R -M G -1 0 1 5 W H R -M G -0 4 5 0 W H R -F B -0 0 0 0 WHS-FB-2280 WHS-FB-2680 WHS-FB-3710 W H R -F B -1 3 1 5 W H R -M G -1 0 1 5 W H R -M G -0 4 5 0 Scale 1:35 Wheelhouse Stiffener and Cutout Detail Scale 1:3 Plate Representation Line WHR/WHS-FB-XXXX WHR-MG-XXXX Drawing title: Wheelhouse Structural Design Drawing number: 006 Edition: 4 Issue date: 19/03/2016 Drawn by: ADPM Scale: 1:50 Units: mm Page Number: 77 008-C DRAWING LEGEND Code Definition 008-A Inlet Louvre Grill 008-B Delta-T LIL' Champ 11" Fan (Inlet) 008-C Delta-T LIL' Champ 9" Fan (Inlet) 008-D Outlet Louvre Grill 008-E Delta-T A/C Axial 15" Fan (Outlet) REVISION TABLE Editon Revision Date Subject Revised 1 05/01/2016 Drawing Outlay 2 22/01/2016 Ventilation Requirement up 3 30/03/2016 Drawing Finalised Drawing title: Representation of the Ventilation Design Drawing number: 008 Edition: 3 Issue date: 02/04/2016 Drawn by: ADPM Scale: 1:50 Units: mm Page Number: 79 DRAWING LEGEND Code Definition 009-A Dry Riser 009-B Wet Exhaust 009-C Water Injection Point 009-D Sea Cock 009-E Mechanical Sea Water Pump REVISION TABLE Editon Revision Date Subject Revised 1 05/01/2016 Drawing Outlay 2 22/01/2016 Headroom Increased 3 04/04/2016 Drawing Finalised DRAWING LEGEND CONT. 009-F Heat Exchanger Drawing title: Representation Cooling and Exhaust Design Drawing number: 009 Edition: 3 Issue date: 04/04/2016 Drawn by: ADPM Scale: 1:50 Units: mm Page Number: 80 011-A 011-A 011-E 011-B 011-B 011-C 011-C 011-C 011-D 011-D 011-D DRAWING LEGEND Code Definition 008-A Engine Room Door 008-B Engine Room Hatch 008-C Jet Compartment Door 008-D Jet Compartment Hatch 008-E Wheelhouse Main Door REVISION TABLE Editon Revision Date Subject Revised 1 05/01/2016 Drawing Outlay 2 22/01/2016 General Update 3 30/03/2016 Drawing Finalised Drawing title: Access To and Egress From the Machinery Spaces Drawing number: 011 Edition: 3 Issue date: 02/04/2016 Drawn by: ADPM Scale: 1:50 Units: mm Page Number: 82 4240 EXTERIOR GENERAL ARRANGEMENT, BODY PLAN VIEW 956 INTERIOR GENERAL ARRANGEMENT, BODY PLAN VIEW 956 4100 REVISION TABLE Editon Revision Date Subject Revised 1 21/02/2016 Drawing Outlay 2 02/03/2016 General Update 3 20/03/2016 General Update 4 26/03/2016 Drawing Finalised Drawing number: 013 Issue date: 26/03/2016 Drawn by: ADPM Edition: 4 Units: mm Scale: 1:50 Drawing title: General Arrangement, Section View Page Number: 84 EXTERIOR GENERAL ARRANGEMENT PROFILE VIEW AND WHEELHOUSE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT PLAN VIEW RESCUE ZONE CL CL VESSEL PARTICULARS Length Overall 17.60 metres Length Waterline 16.90 metres Beam Overall 5.66 metres Beam Waterline 4.24 metres Draft 0.96 metres Displacement 25870 kilograms REVISION TABLE Editon Revision Date Subject Revised 1 05/01/2016 Drawing Outlay 2 20/01/2016 General Update 3 02/02/2016 Stairs to Below Deck Move 4 21/02/2016 Rescue Zone Move 5 02/04/2016 Drawing Finalised Drawing title: Exterior General Arrangement Drawing number: 014 Edition: 5 Issue date: 02/04/2016 Drawn by: ADPM Scale: 1:50 Units: mm Page Number: 85 Alec_MacLean_Dissertation Binder3 Cover Page Project Abstract Table of Contents Binder3.pdf Project Brief -} Area of Operation Structure Tank Testing Binder3 Tank Testing Alec_MacLean_Dissertation Binder3.pdf Machinery and Systems Installed Onboard General Arrangement Binder3 Stability Critical Analysis and Conclusion References Appendices Laminate Log Appendix for Excel Tank Testing Appendices w+c Visual Representations 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014