18 views

Uploaded by Ardi Manalu

initial Design

- Cauvier Understanding the Pivot Point
- BMTDSL-Landing-Craft-Conpaper-MAST-Nov08.pdf
- Ballast Water Management - Accumulated Experience on Exchange Methods
- class 1 oral
- And They Thought We Wouldnt
- Patrik MossbergTransit Navigation on the Northern Sea Route
- Liability and Compensation for Pollution Damage
- Marine Survey Practice_ Intermediate and Periodical Survey
- BMTDSL Aegir Conpaper Pacific Jan06
- UPS for Marine Use
- Wave Making Resistance - MarineWiki
- IBIA MFM SOP for Surveyor Final Copy 2
- Barge Ballasting
- roman ships
- ASSEGAF
- Calculation and Assignment of Freeboard
- Nr467partbvol01 Si
- Chaterjee 1
- Posidonia 2018 Íewsletter Issue 01
- Death Toll Surpasses 100 as Sewol Search Speeds Up

You are on page 1of 37

MunroSmith (1975)-1995

SHIP KNOWLEDGE, A Modern

Ansiklopedia, K. Von Dokkum, 2003

PRACTICAL SHIP DESIGN, D.G.M.

Watson, 1998

Ship Design and Performance for Masters

and Mates, Dr C.B. Barrass, 2004

Ship Design for Efficiency and Economy,

H. Schneekluth and V. Bertram, 1998

The fact that there are six dimensional

relationships linking the four main ship

dimensions of L, B, D and T and that it is

necessary to use three of these to solve

either the weight or volume equations has

already been noted (Watson, 1998). The

relationships are:

B =f(L) D =f(L)

D =f(B) T=f(L)

T =f(D) T =f(B)

Barrass, 2004

1. Ship length is controlled normally by the space available at

the quayside.

2. Ship breadth is controlled by stability or canal width.

3. Ship depth is controlled by a combination of draft and

freeboard.

4. Ship draft is controlled by the depth of water at the Ports

where the ship will be visiting. Exceptions to this are the

ULCCs and the Supertankers.

They off-load their cargo at single point moorings located at

the approaches to Ports.

CD (Barrass, 2004)

CD will depend on the ship type being

considered. Table 1.1 shows typical values

for Merchant ships when fully loaded up to

their Summer Loaded Waterline (SLWL)

(Draft Mld).

The ratio of length and beam can differ quite darmaticly

depending on the type of vessel. Common values:

Passenger ships

: 6-8

Freighters

: 5-7

Tug boats

: 3-5

for manoeuvrability.

(Barrass, 2004)

From a study of a large number of Merchant

ships, it has been shown that in modern ship

design practice, the parameters L and B can

be linked as follows:

By 1975, when Fig. 3.7 was originally presented,

ships of more than about 130 m in length were

almost invariably being built with an L/B ratio of

6.5; ships of up to 30 m in length, such as fishing

boats, usually had an L/B ratio of 4; whilst vessels

whose length lay in the range between 30 and 130

m followed a linear interpolation pattern between

L/B values of 4 and 6.5.

A low L/B ratio that is undesirable as such

but the fact that a short length and therefore

a high Froude number for a given

displacement are an unavoidable results of

having a large beam.

B/D ratia varies between 1.3 and 2. If this value

becomes larger, it will have an unfavourable

effect on the stability (because the deck will be

flooded when the vessel has an inclination) and

on the strength.

This relationship is closely related to stability since KG is a

function of depth and KM is largely a function of beam.

Figure 3.9, which was originally presented in the 1975 paper,

reverts to lines of constant B/D and shows a plot of depth

against beam for a number of ship types. It was found that there

were two distinct groups. The first group consisted of

deadweight carriers comprising coasters, tankers and bulk

carriers had an B/D ratio of about 1.9. The second group

consisted of volume carriers comprising fishing vessels and

cargo ships whose depth was limited by stability considerations

and which had a B/D ratio of about 1.65.

The 1991 plot included in Fig 3.8 largely confirms these

groupings with tankers and bulk carriers again averaging at a

B/D of 1.9.

The second group brought container ships and refrigerated

cargo ships together at the slightly increased B/D value of

1.7. The higher B/D value (1.7 vs 1.65) for volume carriers in

1991 may be a consequence of the need to limit the depth of

these ships because of the stability inferences of making

provision for the carriage of containers on deck.

Factors which in general may require an increased

B/D value include: higher standards of stability for

whatever reason these may be needed; the carriage

of deck cargo; reductions in machinery weight

raising the lightship KG; and the finer lines needed

for high speeds giving reduced KM for a given

beam.

Factors which may permit a reduction in B/D include

the provision of a large ballast capacity in the double

bottom; absence of deck cargo; relatively light

superstructure and cargo handling gear; absence of

sheer and/or camber; and lines designed to provide a

particularly high KM value.

The high freeboard that this low ratio indicates

shows the concern for seaworthiness that is so

necessary a feature of the design of these

ships.

L/D varies between 10 and 15. This

relationship plays a role in the determination

of freeboard and longitudinal strength

In deadweight carriers, stability is generally in

excess of rule requirements and depth and

breadth are therefore independent variables. For

these ships, control of the value of D is

exercised more by the ratio L/D which is

significant in relation to the structural strength

of the ship and in particular to the deflection of

the hull girder under the bending moment

imposed by waves and cargo distribution.

The largest L/D ratios were formerly used on

tankers whose A type freeboard needed a

comparatively small depth for the required draft

and whose favourable structural arrangements

with longitudinal framing on bottom, deck, ship

sides and longitudinal bulkheads together with

the fact that this type of ship has minimum

hatch openings meant that the steel-weight

penalty for an unfavourable L/D value was

minimised.

This is essentially a secondary relationship

resulting from either of the following

combinations of relationships:

T =f(D) or T=f(D)

and D =f(L) and D =f(B) and B =f(L)

The B/T ratio, varies between 2.3 and 4.5.

A larger beam in relation to the draft (a

larger B/T value) gives a greater initial

stability.

This is again a secondary relationship,

resulting in this case from either of the

following combinations of relationships:

T =f(D) or T=f(D)

and D =f(B)

and D =f(L) and B =f(L)

CB (Watson, 1998)

The last factor required to complete the equation linking

dimensions and displacement is the block coefficient. A

first principles approach to the determination of the

optimum block coefficient for a ship would involve a

trade-off calculation in which the increment in building

cost resulting from the increased dimensions required for a

fine block coefficient is compared with the saving in

operational cost obtained as a result of the reduction in

power which fining the lines achieves. This is a major

exercise but fortunately it is rarely necessary to adopt such

an approach, the more general procedure being the use of

an empirical relationship between block coefficient and the

Froude number (Fn), which represents the state of the art.

CB (Watson, 1998)

CB (Barrass, 2004)

The slope m varies with each ship type, as

shown in Figure 1.1. However, only parts of

the shown straight sloping lines are of use

to the Naval Architect. This is because each

ship type will have, in practice, a typical

design service speed.

CB (Barrass, 2004)

(Barrass, 2004)

Optimisation of the Main Dimensions and CB

Early in the design stages, the Naval Architect may have to

slightly increase the displacement. To achieve this, the

question then arises, which parameter to increase, LBP,

Breadth Mld, depth, draft or CB?

Increase of L

This is the most expensive way to increase the displacement.

It increases the first cost mainly because of longitudinal

strength considerations. However, and this has been proven

with ship surgery, there will be a reduction in the power

required within the engine room. An option to this would be

that for a similar input of power, there would be an acceptable

increase in speed.

(Barrass, 2004)

Increase in B

Increases cost, but less proportionately than L. Facilitates an

increase in depth by improving the transverse stability, i.e. the GMT

value. Increases power and cost within the machinery spaces.

Increases in Depth Mld and Draft Mld

These are the cheapest dimensions to increase. Strengthens ship to

resist hogging and sagging motions. Reduces power required in the

Engine Room.

(Barrass, 2004)

Increase in CB

This is the cheapest way to simultaneously increase the

displacement and the deadweight. Increases the power required in

the machinery spaces, especially for ships with high service speeds.

Obviously, the fuller the hullform

the greater will be the running costs. The Naval Architect must

design the Main Dimensions for a new ship to

correspond with the specified dwt. Mistakes have occurred. In most

ship contracts there is a severe financial penalty clause for any

deficiency in the final dwt value.

- Cauvier Understanding the Pivot PointUploaded byJonathan Ross
- BMTDSL-Landing-Craft-Conpaper-MAST-Nov08.pdfUploaded byJOSE PRASOBH..J
- Ballast Water Management - Accumulated Experience on Exchange MethodsUploaded byTwentyseventh Van Buuren
- class 1 oralUploaded byclinthen
- And They Thought We WouldntUploaded byNuwnu Astutie
- Liability and Compensation for Pollution DamageUploaded byjbloggs2007
- Marine Survey Practice_ Intermediate and Periodical SurveyUploaded byJym Genson
- Wave Making Resistance - MarineWikiUploaded byMessi Elmissery
- Patrik MossbergTransit Navigation on the Northern Sea RouteUploaded byDnv Bailey
- BMTDSL Aegir Conpaper Pacific Jan06Uploaded byDUNCAN0420
- IBIA MFM SOP for Surveyor Final Copy 2Uploaded byPaul Brea
- Barge BallastingUploaded byyuvraj koshti
- UPS for Marine UseUploaded byGamatronic
- roman shipsUploaded byapi-344996216
- ASSEGAFUploaded byMuhammad Assegaf
- Calculation and Assignment of FreeboardUploaded byMahmud Hasan
- Nr467partbvol01 SiUploaded byJurun_Bidanshi
- Chaterjee 1Uploaded byHarish Kumar
- Posidonia 2018 Íewsletter Issue 01Uploaded byAnonymous OFwyjaMy
- Death Toll Surpasses 100 as Sewol Search Speeds UpUploaded byLydda Cadiente
- ITTC Trials AnalysisUploaded bypapaki2
- Guidance Cas 2Uploaded byAdi Nggambang Suling
- Helicopters Sent to Rescue 1,300 Passengers From Cruise Ship Off NorwayUploaded byScribbbb
- MSC Chitra2003Uploaded bymailonsneha_12
- publist_tcm4-10019Uploaded bySugu Kumar
- UntitledUploaded byeurolex
- A Computer Simulation Model for Oil Transport and Storage ProblemUploaded byjaherlo19
- My CV 3.docxUploaded byAmmar Naeem
- just for checkUploaded bykishore kumar
- IFR_II_s1Uploaded byprofaderomana

- ipi421247.pdfUploaded byArdi Manalu
- Playing Digimon TamersUploaded byArdi Manalu
- Ahp Matrix TemplateUploaded byronald
- troi gUploaded byArdi Manalu
- Goal 9_ Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure _ UNDPUploaded byArdi Manalu
- 2222Uploaded byArdi Manalu
- LTandSOFUploaded bySaikumar Sela
- Vessel RimelineUploaded byArdi Manalu
- Kebocoran Kamar Mesin Incident ReportUploaded byArdi Manalu
- Performance SimulationUploaded byArdi Manalu
- 85Uploaded byArdi Manalu
- Materi Freefall DavitsUploaded byArdi Manalu
- Marine Electrical KnowledgeUploaded bytempmail604
- WIS Plate ExeUploaded byArdi Manalu
- hhUploaded byArdi Manalu
- nspes-10bUploaded byArdi Manalu
- ns2_medialintas_co_id_ajax_info_dataregister3_php_nr=17299Uploaded byArdi Manalu
- Creating a Hull Lines Plan With RhinoUploaded byNadia Ordoñez
- _patchlistUploaded byArdi Manalu

- Ship Arrival Procedure Rule Without WindowUploaded byMohamed Salah El Din
- History of Maersk CompanyUploaded byDmcLyn Untal
- Eyres Ship Construction PDFUploaded byChris
- Contour Wetted Surface CoefficientUploaded bywasita wadari
- Specification of 2200 TEU container vesselUploaded byMahdi
- Crane VesselUploaded byjiokoijiko
- Intellian General BrochureUploaded bytariktunad
- TGN-D-04 Distortion Control in ShipbuildingUploaded byKomkamol Chongbunwatana
- Examination of the intact stability and the seakeeping behaviour of container vessels within the ballast conditionUploaded byPriscila KIm
- OSV Part 4Uploaded bydevbsl123
- Chap 5Uploaded byClarence Pietersz
- Ship clippingsUploaded byIke Mastah
- Model Shipways - MS2003 Dapper Tom InstructionsUploaded byCarlos Jiménez Silva
- Mayflower Chuck Pass AroUploaded byLucian
- Ing. Dzcilik. KisaltmalarUploaded byKaptan Sakin Türk
- Life Sling 3 ManualUploaded bynaumare
- Tramping ShipsUploaded byLuisPazPerdomo
- Datasheet Tshd2500 Vostalmg f3Uploaded byLenin Valerio
- ICING ALLOWANCESUploaded bymanindarkumar
- Report on Governance and Risk Management of the Fast Ferry ProjectUploaded byBob Mackin
- Challenger DeepUploaded byJohn
- Oil Carrier Design-sampleUploaded byMahdi
- IMO_Pilot_2009Uploaded byzebega
- Metacentric HeightUploaded bySuleman Azhar
- Ship Load LinesUploaded byUtpal Saha
- Gpa 654 Psv SeriesUploaded byzpoker49417
- 37th Annual Silver Bell Awards Dinner JournalUploaded byThe Seamen's Church Institute
- L3 ELAC Nautik Newsletter 2009 2010Uploaded bybujor2000aja
- challenges-07-00020 (1)Uploaded byJulio Guerrero
- Wartsila Propulsion Training ShipyardsUploaded byHaridas Palakulangara