TS 4001: Lecture Summary 3

Design Impacts
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 2
Weight and Volume Impacts
Added weight and volume of installing a component or system can be much more than
just that component or system weight and volume.
Support systems.
Added electric and HVAC loads.
Weight of increased volume.
Larger displacement may mean larger engines to make speed.
Second and third-order impacts.
Impact on total ship system may vary greatly depending on the ship.
Excess volume and length tend to hide impacts of new systems.
Intact stability.
Topside length.
Impacts tend to depend on the order changes are applied.
Addition of heavy component may drive up volume .
This additional volume is then free to next change.
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 3
Example: Design Tradeoffs
A Notional Case
FEATURE
Weight Impact
Add 1 knot 200 LT
Add 500nm range 130 LT
Add LAMPS Mk III facilities 400 LT
SPS 48 to SPY 1 radar ` 700 LT
3psi to 7 psi blast overpressure 100 LT
Add level I fragmentation protection 160 LT
Add accommodations for 10 crew members 40 LT
Add a 32 cell VLS 250 LT
Reduce standard margins by 50% - 550 LT
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 4
Weight Impacts
Increased resistance
Decreased endurance
Decreased maximum speed
Change in ship motions
Change in maneuvering characteristics
Degraded damaged stability
Lowered structural reserve
Lowered freeboard
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 5
Weight and Volume Impacts (cont.)
Machinery Step Functions:
Engines and generators come in discrete sizes.
Impact depends on need to increase or decrease capacity.
Impacts are not always linear:
Depend on what other system changes are tripped.
Fuel tankage.
Manning.
Regulatory requirements.
System impacts may cancel when combined.
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 6
Machinery Weight Impacts
Propulsion Engines:
Weight of engines (with fluids).
Reduction gear weight.
Shafting and bearing weight.
Lube oil, seawater, and compressed air systems.
Weight of larger intakes and uptakes.
Weight of larger foundations.
Fuel weight.
Manning weight for operation and maintenance.
Control and other support system weights.
Generators:
Weight of generator and prime mover (with fluids).
Switchgear and cable weight.
Fuel, foundations, support systems, manning weights.
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 7
Machinery Volume Impacts
Propulsion Engines:
Volume for engines with enclosures.
Space for reduction gears.
Shaft alleys.
Intake and uptake volumes.
Fuel tank volume.
Support system volumes.
Manning volume for operation and maintenance.
Generators:
Volume for generators and prime movers.
Intake and uptake volumes for prime movers.
Switchgear volume.
Volume for cable runs.
Fuel, support system, and manning volumes.
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 8
Limits on Displacement
Strength limit: Displacement at which load carrying ability of the
hull will be exceeded. To exceed risks structural failure of the
hull.
Damaged stability limit: Maximum displacement at which ship
can sustain designed level of damage and remain afloat. To
exceed risks loss of ship with lesser level of damage than it was
designed to withstand.
Speed/Endurance limit: Maximum displacement at which ship
can reach designed speed/endurance. To exceed means ship
will go slower or less far than designed.
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 9
Machinery Arrangements
Engine room number and locations.
Start with two main engine rooms, with at least two compartment separation, and
one auxiliary machinery room.
Required volume and trim considerations usually drive engine room location to the
center of the ship vs. near the stern.
Electric drive allows more flexibility in locating engine rooms, although taking
engines out of their normal low hull location increase KG.
Shaft lines and gear locations.
With mechanical drive, shaft lines drive gear and thus engine locations.
Not more than 5 of rake and 2-3 of splay in shafts.
Shaft alley volume.
Electric drive decouples shaft lines from the engine locations.
Engines need to be located with minimum bends in intakes and uptakes to reduce
losses.
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 10
Machinery Arrangements (cont.)
Intakes should be located high enough to preclude water ingestion, and uptakes should
be located so the exhaust plume does not constantly blow into vital electronics or
manned weatherdeck areas.
Survivability considerations:
Separation of machinery components increases survivability.
Each shaft should have its own prime mover(s) in a separate space.
Redundant auxiliary systems should be located in separate spaces.
Important to lay out machinery spaces early in concept design stage.
Soon after powerplant is selected and initial hull form is developed.
Just a block arrangement, not detailed.
This validates propeller locations, shaft lines, and gear and engine placement.
Laying out individual auxiliary components and fluid systems usually not necessary
unless you have specific concerns.
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 11
HM&E Impact on Signatures
Acoustic:
Machinery noise radiates into the water through the structure.
If engines are located above the waterline, their acoustic signature is reduced,
which can be an advantage of electric drive.
Acoustic enclosures reduce noise level in engine rooms as well as reducing
acoustic signature (high volume and arrangement penalty).
Propellers can be noisy, especially if cavitating.
Cavitation in struts, rudders, and sonar domes produces noise.
Infrared:
Hot stack gasses and hot metal of stack shine brightly in IR spectrum.
Eductors mix ambient air with exhaust gases to cool the plume.
Use of air to cool rings at the top of stacks, reducing visibility of hot metal.
Insulation around uptakes and over engine rooms reduces IR signature.
Wake:
Hull and particularly bow shape.
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 12
Impacts of Increased Length
Length is a very expensive dimension (building).
Length helps powering.
Less power required to make speed requirement could reduce cost if it means
a smaller engine or fewer engines.
Less power required at cruise speed means less fuel, which translates to
reduced volume, weight, acquisition cost, and annual O&S cost.
Length tends to improve seakeeping.
Greater hull bending moment means larger scantlings and higher structural
weight and increased cost.
Longer runs for cables, pipes, ducting, fiberoptics, and shafting mean higher
weight and increased cost.
Volume (especially at the ends) becomes less arrangeable because of
narrower beam and finer entrance angle, driving up total volume and cost.
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 13
Impact Example
Basic performance
BHP at specified conditions.
Noise level at engine bedplates
without isolation mounts.
MTBF/MTTR in factory
environment.
Ship performance impact
EHP delivered into the water.
Ships radiated noise signature.
Propulsion plant availability (A
o
).
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 14
Sonar Impact Example
Weight Percentage
Direct 60 tons 10%
Indirect (1st Order)
Structure 173 29%
Support Systems 23 4%
Manning 32 6%
Space 90 15%
Indirect (2nd Order)
Fuel 150 25%
Other 66 11%
TOTAL 594 tons 100%
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 15
Signature Considerations
Hull
Radar Cross Section
Wake
Acoustic
Magnetic
Combat Systems
Radar Cross Section
RF Emissions
Active Sonar
Propulsion
Infrared (IR)
Wake
Acoustic
Magnetic
Auxiliaries
IR
Acoustic
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 16
HM&E Impact on Signatures
Acoustic:
Machinery noise radiates into the water through the
structure.
If engines are located above the waterline, their acoustic
signature is reduced, which can be an advantage of electric
drive.
Acoustic enclosures reduce noise level in engine rooms as
well as reducing acoustic signature (high volume and
arrangement penalty).
Cavitation in propellers, struts, rudders, and sonar domes
produces noise.
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 17
HM&E Impact on Signatures (cont.)
Infrared:
Hot stack gasses and hot metal of stack shine brightly in IR
spectrum.
Eductors mix ambient air with exhaust gases to cool the plume.
BLISS caps use air to cool rings at the top of stacks, reducing
visibility of hot metal.
Insulation around uptakes and over engine rooms reduces IR
signature.
Wake.
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 18
Ship Synthesis Models
Design tools which model iterative nature of ship design
Spreadsheet models
Warship-21 and other preliminary design tools
Parametric weight, volume, electric load, manning and cost estimates
Some calculations (powering, endurance fuel, etc.)
Minimum inputs, quick response, but low fidelity
Advanced Surface Ship Evaluation Tool (ASSET)
Flagship of NAVSEA preliminary design
Originally based in DD07 destroyer design code
Surface combatants, amphibs and auxiliary ships, and now carriers
More input to run, but can achieve higher fidelity
More first principle calculations vs. parametric estimates
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 19
Propulsion Plant Selection
Payload-limited and Power-limited approaches
Payload-limited fixes the payload and selects smallest plant to carry payload at
required speed
Power-limited fixes the plant size and adds as much payload as possible while still
making required speed
Transmission type and number of shafts
Based on operational profile, survivability, and operator desires
Engine selection approach
Make a guess at required power
Choose type of engine (GT or diesel)
Based on required power, type of transmission, and number of shafts, choose
number of engines and engine size
Estimate weight and volume of ship with selected plant
Check required power and resize plant as needed
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 20
Generator Selection
Estimated electric loads
Parametric scaling from similar ships
Known system loads
HVAC and lighting calculations
Electric power margins
20% design and construction margin
20% future growth margin
90% generator loading
Always one generator in reserve
Size of generators and type of prime movers
Discrete generator sizes (500kW, 1000kW, 1500kW, 2000kW, 2500kW)
Based on generator size, choose prime mover type
Manufacturers offer specific prime movers matched to generating capability
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 21
Definition of Hull Coefficients
Displacement-Length Ratio.
For displacement in long tons and length in feet, ratio equals
Combatants usually range from 40 to 100.
Prismatic Coefficient.
For Max Section Area (A
X
) in square feet and length in feet:
Combatants usually range from 0.60 to 0.68.
Length-to-Beam Ratio.
Combatants usually range from 7.0 to 10.0.
Beam-to-Draft Ratio.
Ratio of waterline beam to hull draft (i.e. without appendages).
Combatants usually range from about 2.5 to 3.5
Maximum Section Coefficient.
For A
X
in square feet and beam and draft in feet:
Normal range is 0.60 (corvettes) to 0.99 (CVs).

( . ) 0 01
3
L
C
A L
P
X
=

C
A
BT
X
X
=
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 22
Optimum Coefficients
CAPT Saunders published design lanes for optimum displacement-length and
prismatic coefficient which still apply today. Combatants usually range from 40
to 100.
Optimum beam-to-draft is 2.0 (rarely achieved), which implies a semi-circular
midship section and the most efficient surface area for a given volume.
Combatants usually range from 2.5 to 3.5.
Higher length-to-beam tends to be better, since it implies lower resistance, but
could create stability and arrangement problems. Combatants usually range
from 7.0 to 10.0.
For powering, the optimum max section coefficient is 0.785 (or p/r
4
), which
again implies a semi-circular cross section.
For seakeeping, a max section coefficient close to 0.61 is better. Corvettes are
about 0.60, CVs are at 0.99.
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 23
Typical Range
Length vs. Beam
Ticonderoga
Spruance
Belknap
Adams
Perry
Sherman
Gearing
Fletcher
Sumner
Benson
Burke
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Length (feet)
B
e
a
m

(
f
e
e
t
)
L/B = 8.0
L/B = 9.0
L/B = 10.0
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 24
Prismatic Coefficient Design Lanes
These represent
normal and customary
values for
displacement type
hulls.
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 25
Typical Lanes
Captain Saunders Design Lanes
Burke
Benson
Sumner
Fletcher
Gearing
Perry
Spruance
Ticonderoga
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.12 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.40 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.60
Froude Number
P
r
i
s
m
a
t
i
c

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 26
Block Coefficient
Block Coefficient vs. Froude Number
Ticonderoga
Spruance
Belknap
Adams
Perry
Gearing
Fletcher
Sumner
Benson
Burke
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.60
Froude Number
B
l
o
c
k

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 27
Hull Performance Improvements
Bulbous Bows:
Reduce wave and viscous resistance by creating a canceling wave pattern and
altering the flow around the bow.
Generally tuned to a specific speed-length ratio, and can be designed for either high
or moderate speed regimes.
Increased wetted surface tends to increase resistance at low speed.
Bulbous Sterns:
Improve flow to the propellers and reduce energy lost in the wake.
Transom Sterns:
Reduce resistance by postponing separation at the stern.
Stern Wedges:
Direct flow downward as it exits the hull, which brings the stern up and reduces
squat at high speeds. This reduces resistance at those higher speeds, but causes
increased appendage drag at lower speeds.
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 28
Other Hull Form Drivers
Intact Stability Criteria:
General practice is to maintain a GM
T
at least 8-12% of beam.
Depends on mission and type of ballasting.
Will usually drive beam out higher than needed for area/volume.
Area and Volume Requirements:
Sufficient area and volume in hull and deckhouse to enclose what you need to carry.
Tends to preclude use of long and narrow hull forms which are optimum for
powering.
Volume-limited vs. weight-limited designs.
Topside Length and Beam:
Weapons, sensors, pilothouse, stacks, helo deck and hangar, and anchors.
Sufficient beam to enclose guns and magazines forward.
Maximum length and beam constraints.
20 February 2002 Design Impacts 29
Additional Reading
1.3.1 Ship Impact Studies (P. J. Sims)
1.3.2 Power Limited Design Approach for Combatant Ships (D.
A. Rains)
1.3.3 Stealth on the Water (M. Valenti)