T-AKE UNREP Ship

USS Hokie
Michael Fetsch
Jen Sickmund
Tobey Coombe
Joshua Hammond
Conrad Cooper
Design Overview

Optimization
Hull design
Resistance and Propulsion
Arrangements
Structures
Weights and Stability
Mission Need
To replace current Combat Logistics Force
Speed: 20 Kts
Range: 14000 NM
Capacity to carry a combination of:
Dry stores
Refrigerated stores
Ammunition
Cargo fuel
Design Parameters for
Optimization
Genetic Optimization
of design using
regression data
analysis
Design variables
Measures of
Performance
Values of Performance
Total Ownership Cost
Optimization
USS Hokie
Satisfies all Mission need requirements
Hull Design
USS Hokie AE36 Parent Hull
LWL 680 ft CB - . Single shaft,
577 similar design
B 99 ft CP - . speed, Kilauea
592 Class UNREP ship
D 69 ft
T 38 ft
Disp 42288.7 lton
Resistance and Propulsion
IPS power plant
Holtrop-Mennen
Resistance
calculations
Full Electric Load
analysis and Fuel
consumption done
in spreadsheet
Fixed Pitch Propeller
optimization
Optimized Propeller
Characteristics
5 Blade, B-
Series

EAR = 0.710,
P = 25.1 ft,
D = 24 ft,
eff. = 0.7131

Design Speed
of 20 kts
Arrangements
Cargo flow and efficiency were of the
utmost importance throughout this
stage of design
Hull Arrangements
Main Machinery
Arrangements
Main Engine Arrangements
2 LM2500 gas
turbine marine
generator sets
Centerline
bulkhead separates
gen-sets
Auxiliary engine is
a 2000kW diesel
generator
Motor Arrangements
2 21MW propulsion
motors w/
converters
Centerline
bulkhead also
separates motors
Deckhouse Arrangements
MSC Standards 136 Crew
Structure
ABS were used to find initial scantlings
Full Ship Maestro Model was used for
further structural analysis
Cargo Oil & Midship
Sections
Structural Adequacy
Hull Subdivision
Subdivision optimized as a Passive
Defense Capability
Weights and Stability

Weight distribution by SWBS designations

Distributions calculated for Lightship, Full

Load, and 60% full cargo loading cases

Intact and Damage Stability cases were

examined for several loading conditions and
damage cases using HECSALV software
Weights Distribution
Lightship Weight Distribution (lton)

1276.40

2097.77
SWBS 100
103.20
SWBS 200
433.94 SWBS 300
SWBS 400
1358.95
SWBS 500
10744.00 SWBS 600

Full Load Weight Distribution (lton)

87.204
1521.88
1400

7283.26 Lightship Weight

16014.26 Fuel Oil
Cargo Oil
Dry Cargo
Ammunition
Refer Cargo
Other Loads
9778

5895
Hydrostatics

Lightship Weight 16014.26 lton

VCG 34.84 ft above BL
LCG 406.90 ft aft FP

Full Load Weight 42205.26 lton

VCG 27.74 ft above BL
LCG 340.87 ft aft FP

LCF 341.11 ft aft FP

Intact Stability
Stability analysis for Arrival, 60%, and Full Load conditions
respectively
Full Load Damaged Stability
Using 15% LBP Criteria (Approx: 102 ft.)
There were three worst case scenarios
a: Starboard Cargo Oil 6, Cargo 1, Cargo
2
b: Forepeak, Foretank, Starboard Cargo
Oil 2 and Cargo Oil 4
c: Cargo 4, Starboard Cargo 6 and ER 2
Full Load Damaged Stability
Worst case scenarios
a:

b:
Full Load Damaged Stability
Worst case
scenarios
c:
Continuing Analysis

Seakeeping
Structural Improvement
Questions?