..

,.-

SSC-222

CATAMARANS-TECHNOLOGICAL TO SIZE AND APPRAISAL DESIGN INFORMATION

LIMITS

OF STRUCTURAL

AND PROCEDURES

This document for public distribution

has

been and

approved sale; its

release

is unlimited.

SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE 1971

/.

-. ---- ---

..

SHIP

STRUCTURE
AN INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE DEDICATED THE STRUCTURE

COMMITTEE
ADVISORY TO IMPROVING OF SHIPS ADDRESS CORRESPONDENCE
SECRETARY SHIP SIRUCTURE COMMITTEE U.S. COAST GUARD HEADCIUARTERS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20594 20590

MEMBER AGENCIES:
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD NAVAL. SHIP SYSTEMS COMMAND MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND MARITIME ADMINISTRATION AMERICAN BUREAU OF SHIPPING

TO:

SR 192 1971

The Ship Structure Committee has completed a project that assesses the present state of the art for designing Catamarans, large platform, twin hulled ships. The purpose of the project was to collect and analyze design techniques and data presently available and assess their usefulness for catamarans approaching 1000 feet in length. This report contains procedure for the initial design of a large catamaran and indicates where additional tests should be made before the final design stage is completed.

W. l?. REA III Rear Admiral U.S. Coast Guard Chairman, Ship Structure Committee

SSC-222

Final Report on Project SR-192, Catamaran Designs to the Ship Structure Committee

CATAMARANS - TECHNOLOGICAL LIMITS TO SIZE AND APPRAISAL OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES

by Naresh M. Maniar and Wei P. Chiang M. Rosenblatt & Son, Inc.

under Department of the Navy Naval Ship Engineering Center Contract No. NOO024-70-C-5145

This doeuvwnt haz been approved for public ?elease and sale; its distribution is unlimited.

U. S. Coast Guard Headquarters Washington, D. C. 1971

-.

ABSTRACT

Existing United States shipbuilding facilities can handle 1000foot catamarans with up to 140-foot individual hull beams on the premise that the hulls would be joined afloat. Major harbors and channels of the world suggest an overall beam limit of 400 feet and 35-foot draft. Drydocking for catamarans over 140-foot in breadth will require new faciliScantlings of a ties or extensive modification to existing facilities. 1000-foot catamaran cargo liner can be expected to be within current shipbuilding capabilities. The uniqueness of the catamaran design lies in the cross-structure and the important facets of the cross-structure design are the prediction of the wave-induced loads and the method of structural analysis. The primary loads are the transverse vertical bendDesigners have reing moments, axial force, shear, and torsion moment~. lied heavily on model tests to obtain design loads and have used general structures principles and individual ingenuity to perform the structural analysis in the absence of established guidelines. Simple semi-empirical equations are proposed for predicting maximum primary loads. A structural analysis method such as the one proposed by Lankford may be employed for conceptual design purposes. The Lankford method assumes the hulls to be rigid and the cross-structure loads to be absorbed by a group of bulkheads and associated effective deck plating. This procetransverse dure in general should provide an overall conservative design and not necessarily an economic or optimized design. Additional research and development work including systematic model test programs are necessary for accumulating additional knowledge in areas of uncertainty and for the establishment of reliable design methods for catamaran structure.

ii

CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...1 ANALYSIS OF FEATURES THAT MAY IMPOSE SIZE LIMITS . . . . . . . . 2 EXISTING STRUCTURAL DESIGN METHODS 3.1 3.2 3.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

GENERAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 CROSS-STRUCTURE LOADS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 SURVEY OF EXISTING DESIGN METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

MODEL TEST DATA ANALYSIS 4.1 4.2 4.3

TEST BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...17 DATA CONSOLIDATION AND COMPARISON . . . . . . . . . . .21 DISCUSSION OF THE PLOTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

CONDITION FOR MAXIMUM RESPONSE AND RECOMMENDED METHOD FOR DESIGN LOADS ESTIMATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 CONDITION FOR MAXIMUM RESPONSE IN BEAM SEAS DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN LOAD EQUATIONS. . . . COMPARISON OF LOADS CALCULATED BY PROPOSED EQUATIONS AND BY OTHER METHOD . . . . . . . METHOD FOR DESIGN LOADS ESTIMATE. . . . . . . . . . . .27 . . . . . .30 . . . . . .35 . . . . . .35

HULL FLEXIBILITY AND CROSS-STRUCTURE STRESSES.

. . . . . . . . .38

DESIGN SHIP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 7.1 7.2 7.3 PURPOSE. . . . . . . . . DESIGN DESCRIPTION. . . . EXPLANATION FOR EFFECTIVE CROSS-STRUCTURE LOADS AND DESIGN CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . STRUCTURE STRESSES. . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 .43

,43
.45 .45

7.4
7.5

TOPICS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM . . . . . . .47 CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . ., ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. REFERENCES. APPENDICES. 1. 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . , .50

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.

CATAMARAN RESISTANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 REPRODUCTION OF PORTIONS OF REFERENCE (8), THE STRLICTURAL DESIGN OF THE ASR CATAMARAN CROSS-STRUCTURE BY BENJAMINW. LANKFORD, JR. . . . . . . . . . .56 REPRODUCTION OF SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF REF~R: . . ENCE (13), AMETHOD FOR ESTIMATING LOADS ON CATAMARAN CROSS-STRUCTURE BY A. L. DISENBACHER, . . . .62

iii

-,

LIST (IFTABLES Table 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Page CATAMARAN LOAD AND STRUCTURE ANALYSIS . , . . . . . . . . . . 7 PROTOTYPE CHARACTERISTICS OF MODEL TEST VESSELS . . . . . . .19 PARTICULARS OF E. W. THORNTO~l SERIES SHIPS. . . . . . . . .20 PARTICULARS OF ASR SERIES SHIPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 PARTICULARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SERIES SHIPS . . . . .20 RATIOS OF MAXIMUM LOADS IN BEAM SEAS AND OBLIQUE SEAS . . . .25 WAVE-INDUCED TRANSVERSE VERTICAL BENDING MOMENTS IN BEAMSEAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 WAVE-INDUCED SHEAR IN BEAM SEAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 WAVE-INDUCED TORSION MOMENT IN OBLIQUE SEAS . . . . . . . . .36 DESIGN LOAD SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 T-AGOR16 CATAMARAN STRESS SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 DESIGN SHIP PARTICULARS . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 DESIGN SHIP WAVE-INDUCED CROSS-STRUCTURE LOADS. . . . . . . .46 DESIGN SHIP, CROSS-STRUCTURE STRESS SUMMARY . . . . . . . . .47

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

iv

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 2 3 * 4 * 5 F A;; 6 F Ab Zmcw 7 8 9 To/T1 so VERSUS A, BEAM SEAS . . . . . . . . . . . . ...24 VERSUS A, OBLIQUE SEAS.... . . . . . . ...24 VERSUS A, BEAM SEAS . . . . ... . . . . . . ...23 M VERSUS b3 BEAM SEAS . . . . . . . . . . . . ...23 Paae CATAMARAN RESPONSE IN A REGULAR BEAM SEA . . . . . . . . . . 15 M *VERSLIS M VERSUS L, BEAM SEAS . . . . . . . . . . . . ...23 A, BEAM SEAS . . . . . . . . . . . . ...23

VERSUS AL, OBLIQUE SEAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 ADDED MASS FOR SWAY DIRECTION, SERIES 60, FROM REFERENCE ... . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . ...25 CATAMARAN IN BEAM WAVES OF DIFFERENT LENGTH. . . . . . . . . 28 LOADING CONDITION FOR MAXIMUM VERTICAL BENDI!JG MOMENT INBEAMSEAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 T-AGOR16 STRUCTURAL CO!iFIGURATION. . . ... . . . . . . . . . 39 STRUCTURAL MODEL OF T-AGOR16 FOR IBM-1130 STRESSp ROGRAM. . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . .3g DESIGN SHIP PROFILEANDPLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

10 11

12 13

14 15 16

DESIGN SHIP TYPICAL BULKHEAD STRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . ... 42 DESIGN SHIP SECTION MODUL1 . . . , . . . . . . . . . . , . . 44

...

SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE The SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE is constituted to prosecute a research program to imprmm the hull structures of ships by an extension of knowledge pertaining to design, materials and methods of fabrication. RADM W. F. Rea, III, USCG, Chairman Chief, Office ofhlerchant Marine Safety U. S. Coast Guard Headquarters Capt. J. E. Rasmussen, USN Naval Ship Engineering Center Prince Georges Center Capt. L. L. Jackson, USN Maintenance and Repair Officer Military Sealift Command Mr. E. S. Dillon Chief Office of Ship Construction Maritime Administration Mr. K. Morland, Vice President American Bureau of Shipping

SHIP STRUCTURE SUBCOMMITTEE The SHIP STRUCTURE SUBCOMMITTEE acts for the Ship Structure Committee on technical matters by providing technical coordination for the determination of goals and objectives of the program, and by evaluating and interpreting the results in terms of ship structural design, construction and operation. YAVAL SHIP ENGINEERING CENTER Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. P. J. G. H. I. M. Palermo - Chairman B. OBrien - Contract Administrator Sorkin - Member S. Sayre - Alternate Fioriti - Alternate U. S. COAST GUARD LCDR C. S. Loosmore, USCG - Secretary CDR C. R. Thompson, USCG - Member CDR J. W. Kime, USCG -Alternate CDR J. L. Coburn, USCG - Alternate NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES MARITIME ADMINISTRATION Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. F. A. R. R. Da.shnaw- Member Maillar - Member Falls - Alternate F. Coombs - Alternate Mr. R. W. Rumke, Liaison Prof. R. A. Yagle, Liaison SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS & MARINE ENGINEERS Mr. T. M. Buermann, Liaison

AMERICAN BUREAU OF SHIPPING Mr. S. G. Stiansen - Member Mr. F. J. Crum - Member OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH Mr. J. M. Crowley - Member Or. W. G. Rauch - Alternate NAVAL SHIP RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER Mr. A. B. Stavovy - Alternate

BRITISH NAVY STAFF Dr. V. Flint, Liaison CDR P. H. H. Ablett, RCNC, Liaison

WELDING RESEARCH COUNCIL MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND Mr. R. R. Askren - Member Lt. j.g. E. T. Powers, USNR - Member vi Mr. K. H. Koopman, Liaison Mr. C. Larson, Liaison

LIST

OF

SYMBOLS

Where also

equations

are

reproduced

from

references,

definitions

of their

symbols

are

provided.

Each appendix

has its own Definition

list of symbols.

Symbol qh B b Cb Aggregate

horizonta hull

I acceleration

Beam of each Hull Block centerline coefficient

spacing

CLA Cw c

Centerplane Waterplane Oblique

area

coefficient

coefficient wave coefficient

c
Do d d] F Sc

Midship Draft dl-0.65Do Distance Vertical total

coefficient

of cross-structure shear at iuncture cross-structure shear

neutral weight

axis

above

base I ine and hul I due to

of cross-structure

Fsl F so

Maximum Maximum weight

at iuncture

of cross%ructure at iuncture

and

hu I I and hul 1,

waveinduced I ess cross+

shear ructure

of cross-structure

9
H RI/~ HL HR h L Ml

Gravitational Wave height

acceleration

Significant Side Side

wave

height force force on outboard inboard shel I of one hul I shel I

hydrostatic hydrostatic shift

Horizontal Length Maximum and

of center

of buoyancy

between vertical hull

perpendicular bending moment at iuncture of cross-structure

M= M.

Moment Maximum

at iuncture

of

cross-structure bending

and

hul I due

to weight

of weight-

cross-structure wave-induced moment on cross-structure,

1ess cross-structure P Maximum Clear hull axia I force spacing

vii

Symbol

Definition

T1 Tc To t Maximum Maximum Longitudinal Centroid Centroid Total Wave Wave Total torque torque on cross-structure on cross-structure between neutral ship axis abut about LCG its twist its twist and center, center, t # o t = o twist center

distance of HL below

cross-structure

of cross-structure

of HR below neutralaxis of cr~ssstructure

of catamaran above below hulls) stil I waterline still waterline at outboard at inbcard shell shell

width surface surface (both

displacement of both hulls

g x added Wave LCA Mass

mass in sway

length

density wave

of water frequency

Circular

viii

-.

1.

INTRODUCTION

The history it is only resulting in the

of catamarans last decade that

is old, there

references has been

(1) and a revival

(2).

However, interest

in this

century,

of serious

in catamarans

in the construction

of some sixteen

vessels.

Except and pipe-laying

for one

cargo

vessel

for use on the Volgar research to note Duplus for the to tuke I ity

all ships, that

these fishing these

vessels boats,

are

special

purrigs

pose vessels , such as ferries, barges. for two, Also,

oceanographic it is pertinent the 400-foot that mainly

drilling under Kyor 315

ships are

feet

in Iengthl (Russian). were

except It may over

(Dutch)

and

the 425-foot in question, large deck by the

Ogly

be recognized monohulls good

special advantage at low

purposes of the speeds

catamarans area, high catamaran

selected

transverse configuration.

stabi I ity,and

maneuverabi

offered

The question cial sector and the pay for low with taken the density

has been Navy. load . Study

raised, In both

why groups,

not large the

catamarans? is related Maritime

- both

in the

commervessels began has under-

interest the

to high-speed Administration and the Navy (4).

To answer (1)1

this question, by General

Catamaran

performed

Dynamicsr (2),

a comprehensive claim Fisher,

assessment design (7). have trade

of catamaran

technology design

(3) and

Litton ship (~) and ship container

Industries (6), and for the

an actual et al,

of a semi-submerged a preliminary

catamaran

container

prepared

of a catamaran

Trans-Atlantic

A SOI ient of technical proiect tions reported

obstacle here

in assessing to establish

the desirability the structural into design their the

of large requirements. technological and

catamarans limits

has been and

the

lack

information

The purpose to size

of the propor-

was to investigate appraise required existing to insure

of catamarans, knowledge

procedures, structural

determine

the additional

structural

adequacy.

The features cross structure limitations.

examined

that

could

impose problems,

size

limits

were facilities,

powering and

and propulsion, harbor and pier

scant! ings , construction

repair

In order at by least

to estimate cycle other

the than

cross-structure cross-structure

scantl design scantl

ings it was necessary catamaran ings.

to accomplish of a size indicated

the first

of the prel iminary

of a large

considerations

The maior design and of the comparison

effort

of the

proiect model methods

was centered test data for estimate

around into on the

the procedure three parts, viz: on the

for the

structural (b) Struc-

cross-structure. of al I available

The task was divided

(a) Assembly

loads

cross structure; load and (c)

Evaluation ture analysis

of the analytical methods.

of cross-structure

Numbers

in parentheses

refer

to references

I isted.

2
New rnomentf tion axial equat ions are proposed force for the estimate Modifications of wave-induced are proposed vertical to an existing bending equa-

and shear force .

for torsion. The project scope was limited catamarans the influence to conventional surface catamarans . as opposed was to

semi-submersible made to analyze

(column-stabilized of symmetrical of catamarans.

or strut-stabilized) hulls or non-symmetrical

No attempt hulls

on the size

I imit or the cross-structure Of all tion and model important Appendix the aspects

of catamaran work as well

design, as their

resistance correlation.

has received A brief

the most attenprediction on the most in

in the past. aspects 1.

Considerable of catamaran

has been done as gathered

in the areas of theoretical statement from the I iterature

test measurements,

resistance

is provided

Recommendations large catamarans.

are made for the future

research

and development

program

for

2.

ANALYSIS It appears,

OF FEATURES in principle, the design that

THAT that

MAY

IMPOSE

SIZE

LIMITS technical catamaran is no need What considerations in the United that is that research which States. there and if ecowou id

there

are no insoluble of a 1000-foot to build or that there

would

preclude

and construction exist to overcome, to build catamaran, that

This does not imply

the facilities

many ships immediately, for future vessel . is meant and build

wil I not be special

development nomics dertaken force effort strongly without

problems necessary a large

an efficient

favor

the venture

to design

one may be un-

a strong reservation termincltioh

some unknown

technological

problem

the premature The features a.

of the venture. the foregoing conclusion are as follows:

considered

in reaching

Resistance-Powering-Propulsion: Main machinery and propulsion monohull size, system for a large Depending per hull . hull beam that catamaran However, is sufficient, weight does not present very a

,, situation catamarans upper

not found

in large

designs.

on speed and draft,

large

may require to accommodate

more than one propeller assuming

this need not set an and form can be and volume should

limit

to the catamaran

designed

more than one propel Ier.

Machinery

be acceptable. b. Wave Loads, Cross-Structure effect $cantling and Structural Material: consideration clear is, of hul ~ <pacthe wave the have plate

The hydrodynamic cwrse, Design loads. thickness the differential checks With

unique

to catamarans

and of prime with

wave

loading with

on the hul Is to be absorbed 1000-foot catamaran

by the !cross-ktructure. IOO-foot spacing to absorb

for up to approximately cross-structure full transverse inches. estimate bulkheads There

ing show that conservative to be stee 1.

practical flange,

scantl ings can be designed 50-foot steel the maximum that

at approximately

and making would

of effective

(100,000 psi yield)

material

is 1-1/4

is no doubt

the cross-structure

3
c. Drafts: Water approximately d. depths at existing 35 feet. cargo piers around the world suggest draft 1imitation of

Construct ion: Existing United x 200, States drydock Steel facilities cun build under up to approximately at Sparrows construction with Point, in Japan 1050 Maryland and x

140 monohulls. will measure 1200 Northern larger Ireland

Bethlehem

Companys y 1965

new drydack x 329. have technique

One mil I ion ton drydocks dock would depth,

wi II be approximate of the available hul Is afloat. equal with

Catamarans

overal I beam Thornton

than the width

to have the hulls and the centerwas used in the E.W. depth and iust the correct

body assembled construct ion. width,

The latter

Twin docks with

iust the correct

may be an answer,

if available.

e,

Drydocking: Drydocking poses a problem in the previous will if the desired paragraph. catamarans are too large of existing viewpoint, for the dryor use of two

dock sizes mentioned construction floating

Modification From a technical

facilities

of new facilities

be required.

docks may be feasible. One must not underestimate wide Mohole the ingenuity was held k Iatform of shipyards regarding to solve the drydocking when the con-

problem. struction

Evidently of the 250-ft

no serious reservation

drydocking I

was initiated.

Thornton
I

by spacer

I The Livingston Shipbuildi~g Company has Chydockdd the 10~-fi wide E.W. o n a single floating dry~ck split into two longitudinal hlalv$s held together I beams. \~ ;
i I
11

It is beli~ved smal I catamarans !, f .~ Cargo

tha~ the Rus~ians have a scheme and repairs. 1

for maintenance H6ndlirig

for dismantling 1

their

relatively

1:11
)

and Piers: \

,,

,,
solved,

The problems of cargo handling and piers are economic probllems. They can be I at a p~ice, if the ecolnornicsof catamarans we r e so attractive~. Use of twin o~ cargo offshore and Harbors: have possibi I ities.

piers or di+chqrge

9.
I
world 1
1, !

Channels Certain

,,
ur!publ ishe~ st~dies claim 1000 x 400
,1

that the maiority

I
,!

of maior
I

harbors around 1
1:

the

c~n ~cckpt

ca~@narans.
I 1

!,

h . Economics:
I

1
I

/,
,

The General nomics of catamarans most marginal . Captain

Dynami ~s study (1 )and certairl

1

,.

unpublished

studies findings

claim that the ecoor at the (3) to date

as compared M.

to economics Jr.

of mbnohul Is are unfavorable on the Navys

-Eckhart,

reporting

4 states No multihull compelling or catamaran reason is yet in sight for a general . shift from the monohull to the

configuration

3.

EXISTING 3.1

STRUCTURAL

DESIGN

METHODS

General The coverage of existing hulls design procedures have been treated is I imited to the cross-structure since

withou~

exception Neither

individual

as monohul Is. agencies have estab-

the classification or guidelines the Navy Construction Loads engineering

societies

nor the governmental

lished design general Research

criteria

for cross-structure

design and designers

must follow Design of

structural

techniques.

In the case of the T-AGOR (8) as guidance.

16 Catamaran

Ship design

did suggest the use of the paper by Lankford

The Structural

the ASR Catamaran 3.2

Cross-Structure

As for any structure, the determination The lads A.

there are two phases to the cross-structure of the structure are: weight to alxorb

design,

namely,

of the loads and the design experienced water

the loads.

by the cross-structure

Calm weight)

load due to the weight

(lightship

and dead-

of the cross-structure. loads due to differential wave loads on the indi-

B.

Wave-induced vidual i . hulls.

Transverse vertical as iust the Bending Moment.

Bending Moment I

Moment,

usual I y referred

to

or sometimes

even as the Rol I

ii.

Vertical Force.

Shear Force,

usual Iy referred

to as iust the Shear

C1--p3
!

t1

iii.

Torsion Moment, Moment.

sometimes

referred

to as the Pitch

iv.

Transverse

in-plane

Horizontal

Force or Side Force ,

v.

Horizontal

in-plane

Moments

or Yaw

Moment.

vi.

Longitudinal

in-plane

Force.

vii.

Water

impact

loads.

c.

Grounding

and Docking

Loads

The controlling numbered sidered dividual i, ii, and iii, criteria) a design hulls. Side forces bending tion. model moments Earlier designers

loads in the cross-structure grounding and docking water loads and the calm loads.

design Impact bottom

are the wave-induced and docking inboard shell loads are treated and

loads is con-

(if grounding

as local of the in-

loads and require

reinforcement

of the cross-structure

which tended

appear

to be instrumental them and only the side forces

in causing

the maximum

vertical

are of sufficient unpublished)

magnitude were

to be included

in the direct

stress calculacatamaran

to neglect

in one conventional measured.

test (9) (report

Loads (v) and (vi)

cause negligible

stresses. is devoted

The rest of this section sign methods. investigators likely to give load estimate However, conclusions appear

to the survey of the existing

to point respect out that method with

structural

de-

at this point

it may be desirable

the proiect *hat are for design

as to the vessel positions response 5.

to the waves

rise to the muximum in Section

and the recommended

Table 1 - Catamaran Load and Structure Analysis

Areas of Contribution

c-s
Steel Groundi ng Loads Bendi ng Mom. .

Wave

Loads

Wt
Ref. . R . Scott B.W. H .A. A.L Lankford, Schade . Dinsenbacher Thomas Jr. Est.

Shear
Force

Torsion
Moment

Strwc~ure Analysis
Bending Shear Torsion

10 8
12&13 13 4 14
-1--

-+ + +
+

i+

+
1-

G. O.

1+

J .L. Glaeser C .W. Livingston Michel

and W.H. W,H.

15

Description

of E i W.

Thornton

Structure

Michel

Description

of Univ.

of Miami

Catamaran

Design

Structure

3.3

Survey of Existing
Table

Design

Methods analysts actual Model and their Iy built test data published relied analysis structure contributions. heavily analyst methods on model in Secin listed is covered It

1 lists load and structure designers of catamarans for wave any 5. the numbers Howeverf

is emphasized tests to provide tion 4. Table 1 follow.

that

have

loads.

Brief description

and discussion

on the work of each performed compare model

calculations These tables

to assess their presented

are incalculations

cluded in tables of Section

by existing methods 3.3.1

test predictions,

and calculations R. SCOTT While still a Naval

by new equations

in this report.

Architectural

student

at the University bending

of Michigan, of a cata-

Scott proposed maran

expressions (10).

for the stresses due to torque They are as fol lows:

and transverse

cross-structure Torsion:

To obtain vessel was poised obliquely

the torsional on a trochoidal

bending wuve,

moment, a fine-1 ined 300-foot 170 x 1(3 . The crest coincided

long with

8
the forward quarter point of one hull (Scott and the aft quarter has not provided high wave. ) point additional Under of the other information this attitude hull, with

the trough at the extremities. vessel or the basis for selecting the center percent of buoyancy torque Where of the length.

on the of the vessel, to 4 per

a 10-foot

of The hulls moved toward Thus, each on the cross-structure ,A = Total

the crest by an amount of O .04L by T = O .04LA

equal

hul I had a torque

times the displacement

hull and the total

was given

displacement

of catamaran tube in tor-

Assuming sion, the stress, S, was given

the wing structure by

as a thin wal led rectangular

S.-L
2 At where A = t = Area of the tube and

Tube thickness to obtain test results in all the total in Table other torque 9. moment, as simple as it may

The approach be, have where tive has merit for application with been compared the test value estimates. Little catamarans as a single have tube. Transverse Bending: model

in early

stages of the design. cases,

Torque as given would

by O .04LA conserva-

Except O .04LlJ

in the case of one vessel provide

is 16\0 higher,

application

can be found for the stress expression cross-structure which

as al I known

longitudinally

discontinuous

can not be idealized

[t was assumed that during can become partially emerged where one-half cantilevered from the end of the cross-structure. cross-structure is expressed as

severe

rolling

in beam seas one of the hulls displacement of one hul I is the stress orI the

of the entire Under

this assumption

Hull Stress =

separation

x 1/2

displacement

of one hull on centerline

Section

modulus of cross-structure

(W-2 Section

B)~/4 modulus

s6/4
Sect ion modu I us

A portion S2 than /4 SL with /4 available while model for other

of Table vessels S L

7 is

a comparison

of bending

moments given

by

test results.

[t shows that the test value for ASR is higher /4 is higher than the test values.

(Note:

Here

S = clear

hull spacing)

..

Even though higher than the model relationship ship-wave generates

Scott s assumption the maximum bending

provides

bending

moment

values of the dis-

tests it is questionable for maximum

whether bending moment

the particular moment. appears

assumption 5.

A more detailed in Section

cussion on the condition

3.3.2

B.W.

LANKFORD, well-known

JR. and valuable paper, The Structural Design

Lankfords of ASR Catamaran i. ii.

Cross-Structure Analytical Distribution Drydocking Structural

(8) includes

the fol lowing: prediction

approach

to sea lwd

of the design sea loads and grounding configuration loads

. ..
11[.

iv. v.

of the ASR

The design procedure The design wave-induced vertical wave bending spectrum moments were obtained used response amplitude derived (Great from data on 12 Britain), and wave

by making operators frequency most severe

a long term prediction. provided by model storms at the National occurrence in the North The ~rt

The prediction ocean lnst itute At[antic. which

calculations

tests (1 1),

of Oceanography

of the paper

covers points (ii) in Appendix

through

(v) mentioned

above,

together

with

the references Lankford

, is reproduced

2 of this report. criteria weight is than where . in

uses drydocking

and grounding or grounded at station values docking = 0.175

loads as design with maximum 4 and the other

Based on the assumption such a manner aft at station considered wave no buoyancy induced 18,

that the vessel is docked forward torque is given

that one hul I is supported the design conservative is available flexibility

is supported

by bd/4 9.

LA .

This criteria condition Further,

overly

and it gives torque can occur during

which

are much higher

torque support

as can be seen in Table

The assumed loading only .

one must the keel

assume that the hull down to the blocks.

is not such that the vessel weight

can force

The Lankford designers for two reasons, i. ii. viz:

method

of cross-structure

ana Iysis is likely

to attract

It is neatly

stated and simple

and quick which

to apply. has been applied to 16,

It is the only available vessels actually built,

method namely

the ASR and the T+GOR

10
acceptance questionable However, the readers must be cautioned against of this method as it appears to oversimplify the structure assumptions. Further, the method does not assure rotation The primary assumption at the iunction oversimplification the unreserved and make some nor a conThe ,pri -

an economic between

servat ive structure. mary questionable the cross-structure

is that the hulls are rigid.

is that there

is no relative

the hul Is and

of the hul Is and the cross-structure.

3.3.3

H.A.

SCHADE

and A.L.

DINSENBACHER works (12) and ( 13) are considered to develop reported equations for axial develfrom paraof numin of methods here benefited The fol lowing to-

.Schades and Dinsenbachers gether forces, since the methods employed moment, and style directly The Ship Structure vertical shear and torsion of presentation

by Dinsenbacher Committee

moment are refinements proiect in these two references. and Analysis section methods,

oped by Schade. the information graphs are taken the methods. equations Appendix

from the Introduction

of Dinsenbachers include the

paper and they state the refinements developed are reproduced

made to Schades in Appendix

and the assumption which (The reference are also included

The Summary and Discussion refer to the references

(from the same paper) 3 of this report. which in the paper

bers in the quotation 3.) In

1965 Professor H .A. catamaran in which loads (1).

Schade

made a feasibility were developed waves. showed

study of an oceanfor estimating the

going

equations The author

cross-structure forms acted

assumed the hulls to be prismutic It was decided Schades test. to compare to results from a model Also, test of an method It method

upon by vertical (2). height

Iy fronted

the loads resulting ASR catamaran what relates higher wave

from this method The comparison only

loads to be someSchades length.

than those found from the model to ship dimensions, used in his study. waves. wave The wave Imds. to optimize design to employ Iy fronted

and not to wave Sinusoidal lengths Also, are simple

was thus decided but to modify for the vertical dimensions related

many of the general

aspects of Schades are related

the waves

waves are substituted to the ship are and to the amplitudes

in an effort

the wave relationship

to the current

height-length model.

loads measured The resulting to employ. shape, tudinal

on the ASR catamaran empirical design equations wave

devised

herein

and quick wave

They are founded

on a combination height-length evaluations primary

of a more realistic relationship of current

the current strength,

used for longisurfacemodel from the

model and full-scale design Imds, for estimating

ship hull girder in waves.

and loads measured

on a catamaran

A procedure

stresses resulting

gross loads is also included. Assumptions: (Quotation

Continued) in a manner similar to that of Schade, . The longitudinal the ship is idealby a disand transverse

For this study, rectangular

ized as two rectangular

prisms (representing

the hul Is) connected

box (the cross-structure)

11
tributions structure. tation necting weightr of weight are taken beam, as uniform draft, in the hulls and in the crossof the prismatic hulls. location hul Is), density width, represenThe intercondepth, of neutral axis in

The length,

and weight

of the hulls are taken clearance above

as those of the actual (span between , The fluid and vertical

box has t-he same length cross-structure is modified however, loads. vertical acceleration

stil I water,

as does the actual tion of vertical displaced putation fluid

used for the computafor the difference hull forms as

forces between

here to compensate density

the rectangular the fluid Also, accelerations

blocks and the actual is not modified

was done by Schade; of transverse produce forms which tion. maxima Inertia

in the com-

the drafts are found for the prismatic of ~0 .4g, of * 0.4g (3) . and these acceleraidealizarather Slamming posicrossThere, are not unrealistic waves loads. that relative the highest the loads on the prismatic life Sinusoidal

tions and drafts are used in computing These heave to expect for the ships service waves are used. It is further work will

amplitudes

than vertically and whipping tions of wave structure fore,

fronted

Pressures are assumed hydrostatic. in calculating produced assumed herein

forces on the ship mass are included are ignored. and ship similar to those which result

loads in Schades

in the worst conditions. 1 and 2 will

only the loading

conditions

shown in Figures 3.

be considered

Figures

1 and 2 are included on the equations

in Appendix developed

Comments

and their

associated

assumptions

fol low:

Axial

Force: The equation for axial force in beam seas does not account acceleration, conditions which for the pos,

sible

force

contribution Detailed

due to the horizontal discussion

can be substantial loads as

on the prohble analysis

for maximum is covered

concluded

from some independent

and available

test data

in Section

5.

Bendina

Moment i.

and Shear: not stated specifically the bending moment equations vertical acon of Loading

Although maximum 3,

development celeration Condition both hulls

assume that 1 (see Appendix is the same. ii.

side hydrostatic for the relative 1).

force and maximum wave and ship position

occur at the same time

Figure

Alsa that the sense of the acceleration

The second term on the right by relating

side of equation

(75),

AppenRMS

dix 3, values

for maximum in 40-knot

shear is obtained

the shear and bending

moment

wind

beam seas for the ASR catamaran.

the assumption

that shear and moment moment. The validity

Intrinsic to this operation IS are in phase or that the particular shear is the re-

sult of the particular

of the foregoing behind

two assumptions equations will

is doubted. be found

The two bendin Sec-

assumptions tion 5.

do play a very

irnportan~

part in the resulting

for maximum

ing moments and shear.

The reasoning

the objections

12
Torque,:, Equation occurs in oblique seas) about TO = (79) Appendix the twist center 3, developed for maximum is torque (which

of the cross-structure +

SCbg

BAL 2/2~

0.14

hAQ

t/s

The first term on the right while tained with sion. ter of gmvity, weightless which

represents

the .tcmsion about Iy heave

the center

of gravity through

of the ship,

the second term represents by relating the maximum

the torsion

due to shear acting the hulls. bending which wave

the ships centerm is ob(for a catamaran torbending of center moment of

tends to differential

The latter moment

shear to the maximum in the same oblique also. unless Attention

cross-structure)

causes the maximum to the fact is large.

This assumption is not I ikely

is the same as the second assumption is doubted to be large tr the distance

I isted under from center

and shear and its validity in question gravity

is drawn

that the term

of the ship to the center

of twist of the cross-structure, equation

The development ferred without ployed over Scotts beginning

of the first term in the torsion expression with for torque. the fundamental

is found to be logical in as many details

and preas possible

It seems to take equations 4).

of motions.

The first term is em-

to nondimensional

ize :he test data (Section

3.3.4

G.O. G.0.

THOMAS Thomas delivered a lecture (4) entitled Techniques strike in September criteria Structural 1970. platform Analysis

of Catamarans Analysis eralized siderable lecture design

as one prt bed

of a short course on Modern of California design and design

of Ship Structural [t was a genfor which con-

and Design

at the University on the conceptual

of a naval

information

was collected on design

developed. by

The m@erial Dinsenkmcher and discussed earlier

load derivation

was as presented

in this report. the design criteria for aircraft carriers, National Thomas was Physical Center. LakraThe secclearance

[n developing able tories to refer to some very recent design criteria (unpublished)

work performed selection

at the British formulas

and at the Naval

Ship Research contained

and Development in general clearance .

tion on structural and slamming

for cross-structure

loads which

are applicable formula

to catamarans

Thomas

for cross-structure

above

load waterline

is

C=3+ The clearance ance the University to note that designed as calculated Thornton of Miami the forward

1.1

{~)

but C<20 compared quite closely to the actual clearb

by this formula

for the E .W.

and the ASR but it gave and the Ridgely

much higher

values

than actual

design

Warfield.

in this respect

it is pertinent

end of the Ridgel y Warfields cross-structure is lmw shaped and It is suspected that for very large catamarans the crossfor low cl *rance.

13
structure additional clearance clearance may be controlled hul Is. Also, by the minimum is I ikely depth and freelward to pay some penalty are within requirements in terms of 0.15 for the individual the designer

if the ends of the cross-structure

approxirrwtely

of the ends of the hulls. Thomas provides cross-structure as local The following slamming. discussion He elects areas since they are of minor directly a fairly to treat lengthy discussion on the design criteria weight. to as for

the relatively

smal I forward -cmd-aft middle areas (referred

areas

importance lecture

to the overal I cross-structure notes ( 4). area of cross-structure flume. since Imttom

on the slamming from Thomas

loads on the large

Region 2) is quoted

In Region 2,

slamming

of the largest

platright

ing was assumed to be caused on top of a wave strictly Wave oratory quarter slamming the easer buildup aft. but lacking

by the descent specific

of the cross-structure it was taken it primarily with

passing through the tunnel

the catamaran information, report was neglected

This may not be to be so. effects Labpilewater

within

A second unpublished anti-pitching

by the National.

Physical

shows that high-impact point.

pressures aft for a catamaran fins were a little

up and without

less than at the forward

Loads from slamming divided cally into two kinds: in the lateral duration

on the cross-structure (a) short-term for ~nels

bottom

in Region 2 can be pressures acting bottom lo-

high-impact

direction for lower

and on the edges of floors and as for flat dis-

(b) longer

pressures used for cross-structure bottom gril Iage design. slamming appearance

bent and overall The highest bottom tortion bottom

cross-structure

pressures for short-term This can be iustified which could

can be taken

impact. plating

by considering

that welding

can cause a s! ightl y concave used for flat-battom p =4.5V

to the cross-structure crests as a flat bottom.

then slam on wave slamming 64/62.4 pressure

The equation

is from Chuang*

where

p is the flat 64/62.4

bottom converts

slamming

in pounds per square in feet per second, motion impact was taken velocities

inch, and at

V is the relative the value O .46L occur were tively for sea water. forward when ksed

motion

between

ship and fluid for relative impact motion. to fluid. to affect

pressures from those for fresh water station and, since pitch of hull

to those

The slamming of amidships

pressures are assumed to Pressures greater as transients However, interface the design than those

the ship descends on design maximum slamming deadrise localized insufficient angles

on top of the wav~,

from flat-bottom shallow are usual Iy very sumed to carry

can be experienced to the water-structure momentum

for relathese pressures and were as-

of the plating.

*Chuang, (March

S. L., 1966)

Experiments

on Flat-Bottom

Slamming,

Journal

of Ship Research

_. .-

14 The
first mentioned severity unpublished NPL report model reduced showed that raising the cross-structure a given Pritchett** NSRDC. able short-term, on a catamaran the freque~cy of slams of at

but did not reduce concensus slamming

the intensity

when they did occur. testing most prob-

has confirmed The general high-impact regardless reason). (within

this conclusion

in more recent

so far is that for the higher

sea conditions 120 psi,

(Beaufort

6 in one case and State

7 sea in another), of the crossequation

pressures can be assumed to be between pressures from the Chuang of the series. over single of to design

80 and
structure fell

of the size of the ship or height Slamming catamarans

within

this range

for all

High panels tanks, against

impact

flat-bottom plating .

slamming which

pressures were applied longitudinal girders

of bottom local

were then designed bottom

as for boundaries

and to floors and double collapse

Following structure, given

the initial

slam on the bottom plating ? is the mass density

of the crossto that i .e., of sea water,

the pressure can be assumed to drop very rapidly ~ V2 where P=

by 1/2

0.994V2
pressure in pounds per square foot and V ship and fluid velocity velocity might in feet per second . ship and fluid in the wave the crest These presbelow

where

P is the flat

bottom

is the relative

motion

between

For this relationship can be taken since of the wave. sures were design.

the relative the orbital bottom

between

to include

of particles ranged

the cross-structure

now be well

Pressures from this equation

from 600 to 900 bottom grit Iage

pounds per square foot for the catamaran then applied

series studied.

to the overal I cross-structure

Thomas has also developed of a catamaran but its application design on aircraft limitations carrier L. is extremely carriers. for the conceptual to its acknowledged plying

a weight

equation

for the cross-structure

restricted. Actual Iy, it was developed llm equation is not presented here due of involving large errors when ap-

and high prokbility type structure. GLAESER Institute

it to nonaircraft 3.3.5

JOHN While

at the Webb

of Naval

Architecture,

Glaeser (14).

preThe

pared an undergraduate of a Calamaran on his theory, model son. ** Pritchettr Structure, (January C., Naval 1970). Model responses considered Glaeser

thesis entitled were heave, calculated

A Theoretical Moments

Investigation bending

Into the Motions moment. As a check them with the

and the Shear and Bending

on its Cross-Structure

rol 1, shear and vertical

the responses for the ASR and compared

test results (1 1) . Figure

1 (taken

from the summary of the thesis) shows the compari-

Studies of ASR-Catamaran

Impact Center

Pressures on Between T&E Report 340-H-01

Hull

Ship Research and Development

15

HEAVE R E5PohJ5~

Ill

,2

,4

,6

,5

1,0

, \/

1,2

1.4

l.~

1.t3 Z,O

ROLL

~E5mhJsE

THEOL?Y (V= O RT5) MODELTEST (V=\5 KTS)

.2

,4
5TIWCT

.Co
U IZE

.6

1.0

l-z

1.4

l-~

1.8

2.0

FREQ~EtJCY

(~ADjsEc)

CF.055

13EMDI MG MOMENT
(V= TEST T O KTS) ( V=O W5)

E5T

(V 15 KT5)

~,,,,

1
.2

1
.4

,6 FREQti8EhIcJ

1.4

1.6

1.8

I , 2.0

~RAd j3Ecj
100
~FT)

]000

W%;OE LE !dG?I!
Catamaran Response

.50

Fig.

1 -

In

a Regular

Beam Sea (Reproduced

from

Ref.

14)

16
To permit ing a catamaran maximum sumptions roll and vertical of the theory Motion the most basic analysis to occur the prablem cosine wave. in beam seas. WS simplified Other primary by takas as-

at zero speed in a two-dimensional moments appear are as follows:

T his is reasonable

Calculations: The hulls are thin enough, the wave sides. height The catamaran and the roll small enough of a hull sided. and inertial of each hul 1. is no cross coupling forces act so that

1.

at the center is wall

is the same as at the

2.

All

the hydrodynamic, a point

hydrostatic

through 3.

on the centerline is not pitching heave

The catamaran effect between

and there

and rol 1.

Shear and Bending

Moment

Calculations: and hydrostatic forces act through the center

1.

All

hydrodynamic

of buoyancy 2.

of each

hull as it moves. is weightless (in accordance with the model

The cross-structure test),

3.

The catamaran

rolls about

its center

of gravity

and is wall

sided.

First, and rol 1. were tions. Grims Then knowing calculated, coefficients. Comments and Model

Gltieser being

wrote

and solved

the differential

equations individual differential

far heave hull equausing

the motions of the vessel, those which added

the forces on each were

the forces

made up the original mass and damping

The constants

of proportionality,

calculated

on the Comparison

of Theoretical

Calculation

Test Results for the ASR See Figure 1. Although motion the shear response thesis. comparison. are verY respectable except that the 2 hull centerline spacing) while the 2 overall width). It is suspected that the influence that force acts comparison However, is not in-

eluded parison

in the summary, is nearly identical

it is included to the roll

in the principle

the shear com-

theoretical experimental through theory

maximum

The rol I and shear correlations 1.2(>= occurs at @ ~ occurs at @ z 1 ( A ~

maximum point.

this i$ due to the simplification

that *he hulls are thin and that the vertical in magnitude at least, leads one to conclude parametem the principle

a single

The agreement in identifying,

has succeeded

which

rol I m~tion

and shear force.

. .

17 Figure valuable test curve when roll, quencies. The bending theory. static As Glaeser himself and hydrodynamic moment correlation is poor casting that a doubt on the both the hydroof maximums in which 1 does not show the model heave curve height is approximately test heave. In this respect the Thornton unity it is model

to note that the theoretical heave/wave shear and bending

is very much like and approximately

zero at that wave

frequency at low fre-

moment are maximum

suspected

it is most likely It will

due to neglecting locations

side forces.

be observed

are the same as for roll motion.

4.

MODEL

TEST DATA earlier

ANALYSIS model tests have assisted greatly of catamarans. of confidence What (which to do so until theoretical in the estimation is more important and semi-empirical takes time). mode[ test data on the loads of the various are enumerated. between the loads of waveto recogmethods

As mentioned induced nize

loads on the cross-structure continue to a high degree consolidates

is that they will

have been proven This section imposed

and compares

the available

by sea waves on the catamaran

cross-structure.

Limitations comparison

test programs and the consequent The purpose of the comparison and the major parameters 4.1 Test Back~round 4.1.1 Test Vessels The prototype were available to this project, the data plots appearing

1imitat ions of the data

was to determine

the gross relationship

of the catamaran

design and waves.

characteristics

of the vessels whose model 2. It will be observed marked ~Undisclosed catamaran. around .

test data that within

are provided test report

in Table

in the report

are data points

Series.

These are from an unpublished

of a conventional

The bulk of the analysis and the ASR whose test programs data, as reported, are amenable extrapolation was most valuable The portion submersible dition . platforms included

has been centered a large range

the Thornton and the to catamarans. semitow con-

of sea conditions

to extrapolation as it was helpful of the Mohole

and comparison in estimating

The amenability

loads on large 6-column

and the Livingston were the data

test data which

were useable

for the ocean

In this condition the water hul Is and the vessels are essentially Research 4.1.2 Vessel

lines are below the top of the lower longitudinal surface catamarans. Test program for the University I imited .

of Miami

Design was quite

Loads Compared The loads compared were the two moment and one force viz: measured

in each

test with

model

at zero

speed,

18

0 Vertical e Vertical

Bending

Moment in Oblique

in Beam Seas Seas are the malor test only. a meaningful cause of the maximum acceleration . comparison

Shear Force

in Beam Seas

aI Torsion Moment The crucial vertical data moment were measured for the various

side forces which in the Livingston to attempt

The reported

tests are inadequate

4.1.3 a.

Pertinent All radii

Notes

on the Tests the total body. weight, None centers and gy -

the test models simulated of the catamaran the structural

as a rigid rigidities

of the models or the cross

simulated members. b.

of the centerbody

The ASR report energy. The other oratory However, only.

(11) provides

random operators

wave

test results

(only)

in

terms of response amplitude

and response spectral

tests which the random

were all wave

performed

at the Davidson

Lab-

reports

both regular

wave

and random wave

test results.

test results are in terms of averages

c.

The all various

important

information

on phase relationship are available

between

the

loads and the wave tests only.

for the Mohole

and the

Livingston d.

Each test was performed ing condition only.

for a specific

configuration

and one load-

e.

Load measurement mounted measure loads.

system:

The ASR test used four strain bars, one forward

gages

on two rigid

aluminum

and one aft to

The Davidson mometers portional rangement which are I i near variable have a core mounted dynamometers

Laboratory differential between

used Schaevitz transformers Although

force

measurement loads.

dyna(The is proarpara-

to measure

two springs and the VOI tage output the actual test, instrumentation the fol lowing Laboratory

to the displacement

of the core.) Report (17) connected

was not the same for every

Davidson

graph from the Thornton The hulls were fixed

is informative by a rigid

of the principle structure

of the system. was a was

bridge

which

part of the force and dynamometers frames which inches forward

moments measuring hul 1.

system. to linear

The bridge force

to the port hul I and was connected in the starboard spanned and

measurement12 was

The bridge

wws made up of three and at two points

the hulls at the L.C .G.

aft of the L. C.G.

The frame at the L .C .G.

19
Table 2 - Prototype Characteristics of Model Test Vessels

Reference Test Facility

Number

15,

17

11,18 NSRDC Unsym

16,

19

20,21
Davidson Sym 390-0 * 355! -Oil 250-0 35-0 215-0 180-0 28 -7 16,800 0.75 1.0 1.0 T

22 IMvidson Sym 260 -0

Davidson U nsym

Davidson Unsym 1~1+11

Hul I Symmetry Length Length Overall Bet. Perp, W B b s L

255-0

z~ol-o~l 86141 241-011 621-011 *1-O,,

136-6 501-511 16-10 331-7 16-10 91-5,1 T 695 T 0.56

Beam Overall, Beam Each Hull, Hull~, Clear Spacing, Hull

105 -0 371 @ 681+,1 311-ofl 171 -oil 6700 T 0.73

Cw CLA

200 -0 361-011 1641-011 128-0 161-OU 7700 0.90 1.0 1.0 1,220 16.25 2.25 7.22 0.820 0.78 T

Spacing, Do

Test Draft, Total

18-0 2797 0.54 0.737 0.92 3.37 11.67 1.33 8.75 0.721 0.51

Displacementfb Cb Coef, Coef,

Block Coef, Waterplane Centerplane L/b L/D. B/Do L/B b/W Oblique

0.84 0.92 3.75 15.00 2.18 6.89 0.648

4.063 14.44 1.78 8.13 0.667 0.46

1.163 13.64 1.24 11.14 0.860 0.77

Wave

Coef,

CA

0.47

* Assumed vu Iue

20
Table 3 Particulars of E. W. Thornton
SERIES SHIPS

Series

Ships

TABLE 3 -PARTICULARS

OF E. W.

THORNTON

Ship A Scale
LBP, L 1,2.3S3 607.47 250.22 88.17 73.87 162.05 40.51

m
1,2 510.0 210.0 74.0 42.0 12.5.0 34.0 53, LOOT 44.0 272.0

Ship C
1,1 .27a 325.89 134.19 47.29 39.62 86.9 21.73 14,000T 2a.12 173.8

E.W.

Thornton 1,1

255.0
105.0 37.0 31.0 s3 .0 170

BeamOverall, W
Beam Each Hull, Hull Hull~ Draft, B

Spacing, s Spacing, b
DO

Displacement,A
d 2 (W-B) =2b

90,800 T
52.43 324.10

6r7@l T 22.0 124.0

Table

4 -

Particulars
PARTICULARSG+

of

ASR Series
SERIES SHIPS

Ships

TABLE 4-

ASR

m
Scale LBP, L 1!3.19 669.90 274.34 76.56 121.22

&!.!&
1:2.675 561.75 230.05 .64.20 110.65 165.85! 4$..15 T 53,600 73.65 331.70 T

YES
1:1.71 359.1 147.06 41.04 64.98 106.02 30.7a 14,000T 50 .27s 212.04

ASR 1,1 210.0 86.0 24.0 33.0 62.0 1s .0 2,797T 29,4 124.0

8e.m Ovemll, W Ekm Each Hull, B Hull Spacing, S Hull ~Spacing, Draft, Do Displacement, A d 2 (W-B) =2b b

197.73 57.42 90,800 93.79 395.54

Table

5 -

Particulars

of

the

University
OFMIAMI

of

Miami

Series

Ships

5- PARTICULAR50F TABLE

THEuNtVER51w

SERIESSt+IPs

Univ. of Miami
M Sc.alc LBP, L Beam Over. [1, VI B,nm Each Hull, Hull Spucing, S Hull~ ila?t, Spacing, DO A b B I;5. IXO 693.# 256.0 B5.3 85.3 170.7 48.0 91,1139T 106.2 341.4 45.7 = 1,3.339 455.8 168.3 56.1, 56,1 112.2 31.5 25,827 T 69.8 224.4 30.0 Ship C 1:1,143 156.0
57.b

Ships 1:1 136.5, 50.4 16.8 16.8 33.6 9,45 495 T 20.9 67<2 9.0

19.2 19.2, 3.4 10,81 1,042T 23.9 76.8 10.3

Displacement, d 2 (W-B) = 2b Signijicnnt HI T

Wave Ht,

21

attached other terline tive

to two dynamometers plane of the starlmard

spaced hull .

three All

inches apart

whi Ie the two on the centhe relaof

frames were attached

to single

dynamometers moment, registered

located gave

dynamometers while relative

shear force and the relative

pitch

the outputs

the two dynamometers

at the L .C .G.

rol I moments.

It should be clarified tical bending moments , i .e. , primary Laboratory whereas 4.2 the Ikvidson Data

that

the ASR System measured primary bending

the total

ver-

moments and secondary

moments due to shear, moments only.

System measured

Consolidation

and Comparison the data analysis is centered around the Thornton displaceprovided data. It in

As mentioned and the ASR tests. prototypes ment. amplitude were expanded were

previously

To accomplish

data extrapolation,

the Thornton The wave

and the ASR loads response wave

into a series of geometric the particulars R. A.O. expanded by Froude sealing. S were s picked = 30)

ships up to 90,800-ton The ASR test report

Tables 3 and 4 provide operators while

of the series.

the R. A. O.S*

the Thornton condition. = 10), spectrum

based on the regular from the report

should be clarified of two runs for each

sea

that the ASR R .A .0. sea state

were the mean values = 50) using

The response of each 7 (E 1/3 represented

ship in the series was obtained

state 5

(~ 1/3

and sea state 8 (~1/3

the pierson-Moskowitz

as fol lows:

33.56 S (W), ft2 sec2 = ~8

W5 Area under curve of S (w) vs ti equals ~ ,/3/2 .832 @ R1/3 ti4

The University deduce response amplitude to three sponse information it was expanded lent to ticulars 10.3 feet

of Miami operators. prototype

Research

Vessel

design

test data

was too I imited

to

is reported (sea. state 5),

For the one random wave test, the wave and rein terms of averages only . To make the most of the data, ships which feet 5. had test significant 7) and 45.7 wave feet height equivaParin the 30.0 (sea state (sea state 8).

of these ships appeur

in Table

The Undisclosed

Series was devel~ped

same manner. The semi-submersible platform data was used as is.

All the test data assembled are for zero speed. In case of the ASR model tests (1 1),. the load measurements were made in forward speeds up to 20 knots and it was found that the maximum cable to all craft, loads occurred very at zero speed. This finding need not be appliparticularly high speed craft ,

* Response Amplitude

Operators

22

There is general
induced moment relation available, equal bending occur between in oblique

agreement

among

the different in barn

test data that seas while

maximum

wavetorsion corS are

moments and shear force seas (45 to 60 the Thornton y 1 .8 to 2.0

occur

the maximum A significant R. A.O. with

off 0 or 180 heading).

moment and shear occur

and the A5R tests, bending times the overal

the two tests for which in waves

is that the maximum

length

to approximate

I beam.
plots:

Non-dimensional

ized

data

is presented

in the fol lowing

Figure

2:

Max.

vert.

bend.

mom.,

d(A+A,
Max. vert. bend.

)/2
mom.

Versus A

, km

SWS

Figure

3:

Versus L,

Beam Seas

d(A+At)/2 Max. vert. d(A+A1 Max. shear force A/2

Figure

4:

bend.

mom.

Versus b,

Beam Seas

)/2

Figure

5:

Versus A , Ekam Seas

Figure

6:

Max. Abc Tvw

Max.

shear force

Versus A , Beam S,eas

Figure

7:

torsion mom. T1

Versus A

, Oblique

Seas

Figure

8:

Max.

torsion

mom.

Versus AL,

Oblique

Seas

T1
Each fiaure includes data from all the tests in three sea states. The symlmls used in the

plots fo~ the vurious

tests are as fallows: Thornton . . . . . .

G

+-+i- .~e.%

Series Series

. ...*

ASRSeries Univ. of Mimmi Catamaran

Undisclosed Mohole Livingston Series Platform Platform

6 @
G

. .. . . . .. *.**
. . . . . .

bwso

*A

I
Fia. . 2 - Max. Vertical
d(A+Al )/2

\ \

G4=t0

B.hl.

vs.

A.

Beam Seas Fig. 3 - Max. Vertical

d(A+A1

B.M.

vs.

L,

)/2

Beam Seas-

03

J,,.,. ,%
A
ma t.?o m

,60

m,
.

2b

b,

Fr

Fig.

4 -

Flax.

Vertical
d(A+A1 )/2

B.M.

vs.

b,

Beam Seas

Fig. 5 -

Max Shear Beam Seas

Force/$

vs.

A,

The plots are for loads in terms of maximum fol lows: Thornton and A5R: Average

single

amplitudes

where

maximum

is taken

as

of the 1/1 000 highest spectrum.

calculated

for

the Pierson Moskowitz All Other Tests: Maximum (obtained erage measured

or average

1/1 000 highest highest av-

from significant whichever

or 1/10 is greater.

values),

24

;7e&=:*. ke:

+
---@ --

., ~c5___+_+ ___
-0

H4=2&a

\ \

e.___+_/&ae, SEASTATE 8

Fig. 6 - Max. Shear Force

vs.

A,

Beam

Seas

Fig. 7 - Max. Torsion Tl

Oblique Seas

Moment

vs.

A,

=,,

=-

Fig. 8 - Max. Torsion Moment vs. AxL, TI Oblique Seas

25
The reported column follows: a Maximum e Maximum e Maximum e Maximum shear 90 side force yaw torsion out of phase with in phase with 90 180 bending moment bending moment moment platform phase relationships (in towing condition) between cross-structure loads for Levingstcm as oblique 6-

in both beam seas as well

seas are as

bending

moment bending

moment

out of phase with

moment

out of phase with

,;=f=ll
o
0,2 044 0,6 0,8 .

(Q)H
9
Fig, 9 Added Series Mass For 60 (Ref. Swa Di recti 23 Y on,

Table and oblique able in deducing

6 gives

the ratios

of maximum Table 10.

magnitude

of each Platform,

load

in beam seas They were valu-

seas for the Thornton, the load schedule,

ASR and the Livingston

Table 6 - Ratios of Maximum Loads in Beam Seas and Oblique

Thornton Bending Moment, Oblique Seas 0.54 ASR 0.36

Seas

Livingston 0.55

Mean 0.48

Beam Seas

Shear,

Oblique

Seers 0.52 0.55 0.53 0.53

Beam Seas

Torsion

Moment,

Beam Seas Oblique Seas

0.55

0.36

0.55

0.49

It. was real ized to the vertical tailed material added bending

that

added for each

mass (

l/g)

wasa n important Also, vessel a I iterature was futile.

term contributing would search not permit defor reference of this it by Eda

moments.

However,

the scope of the proiect

mgss calculation to calculate

test vessel .

on the added

mass in sway of unsymmetrical the added mass tused 9 here. in Figure

In view provided

was decided and Crane

on Series 60 coefficients

(23) and reproduced

26

4.3

Discussion 4.3.1

of the Plots Vertical a. Bending Moments that can be made of the plots series, inaccuracies and centerline distribution . with the imIt is that the the difalone. hull spac-

The first observation are consistently higher not to be attributed The plots of coefficient

ASR series coefficients ferences are large

than the Thornton to experimental against length the data

and that

enough b.

ing in addition

to displacement c.

do not help to explain that in plotting

It is recognized of secondary is in accordance

ASR test data together the bending maximum Platform bending

other plying

test data,

it is assumed that shear is 90 with

out of phase with the Livingston

moment

that the contribution This assumption be pointed

moments to the total Platform

moment spaced

is zero. should

tests results.

out that the Livingston

hul Is are much more widely

than the ASR hulls (see Table 2), and that this assumption may be inaccurate for the ASR. Further, that the inaccuracy of this assumption may be one of the reasons why the ASR bending moment d. coefficients it is not possible the first power. e. cant wave enced height. There is a plausible in waves with sels represented shifts to longer crease The bending moments are non-linear increases Maximum with with respect to significoefficient The data is much higher is too insufficient representation than for other to deduce ships. of form to

the influence

on the difference to develop

noted abve a better

or the general

trends.

For the same reason

of size than iust displacement

Also that the non-linearity explanation A for this trend. Now,

decrease

in vessel size. for vesenergy

bending

moments are experito 548 feet spectral

= 1 .8 to 2 .OW (2 W range height

from 100 feet A=l

on the plot) . waves and wave 1y resulting

as the sea state rises, for waves with

the maximum

.8 to 2.0 W does not in-

proportional

in the non-1 i near load response.

4.3.2

Shear Force Discussions of items (a), (d), and (e) under Vertical Bending Mo-

ments apply

to shear force also. The purpose of using both ~

and $

to nondimensionalize of MAX Fso/ /2 and that coefvery wide

force

was in the hope of explaining platforms. could vessels which spacing,

the reason for the high values The apparent differe~ces coefficients, influence

for the semisubmersible the other hull centerline the introduction ficients

between Cw.

the platform It is realized

particularly

the shear force are their

b, and high vmterplane

of Cw tends to increase sea states.

the differences

in the ASR and Thornton

in the higher

27 4.3.3
the ASR series, the opposite Torsion Moment a. whereas, is true. b. ments are no nlinear with c. representing Thornton the University than the other ships, and ASR, Just as the vertical respect to significant explanation bending wave moment and shear, height, the torsion moThe Thornton series torsion moment bending coefficients moment are higher than

in the case of the vertical

and shear force,

but not to the same degree. as to why the data similar point

No apparent of Miami

is available

design and the Undisclosed

design are much higher to the

although

they are both conventional

catamarans

d. tween moment coefficient approaches

At the upper end of the series is good. implying unity

and

A L scale

the correlation

beize the

the ASR and Thornton is most promising

Further, torsion

in sea state 8 the torsion used to nondimensional moments.

moment

that the expression maximum

to estimate

5.

CONDITION METHOD

FOR MAXIMUM FOR DESIGN LOADS

RESPONSE ESTIMATE

AND

RECOMMENDED

tion (ii)

The purpose of this section is (i), in which the maximum catamaran develop simple load equations equation to concentrate 3). Condition Figure for Maximum

to determine the probble motions and cross-structure suggest a design

wave and ship posiloads are caused, ]t is init is proposed (Apsince

and (iii)

load schedule.

tended pendix

on the beam sea condition in nearly

in items (i) and (ii)

to use the torsion

the same form as developed

by Dinsenbacher

5.1

Res~onse in Beam Seas poised equals in several 10-III, locations in three length different in Figure

10 depicts length

a catamaran length 2b,

waves. 1O-II, be several

In Figure the wave

1O-I , the wave equals than b.

b, the centerline the wave

hul I spacing;

and in Figure

is supposed to

times bigger By inspection

it can be seen that when

A=

b, the wave-induced loading

forces and magni-

(hy-

drostatic, tude. dition should

inertial

and damping) the Imds

on both the hulls have the same direction are due to the differential Intuitively,

Since the loads on the cross-structure the cross-structure loading

on the con-

two hulls (besides

due to the mass of the cross-structure), should be small . small . than the catamaran

in this particular the heave

magnification

be high and roll magnification When wave should length loading

is much bigger Also,

width,

as in Figure the crossshould be

10-III, structure roughly

the differential loading unity.

on the hulls should be small and consequently the roll and heave magnification

be smal 1.

L=

v= VELOCITY

ACCf=LEEAT\ON k? t1
I

{1
I

MA%

& MAX I

MAY * MAY V

II
A=2b
I

Fig.

10-

Catamaran

in

Beam Waves

of

Different

Length

29

Waves other erating ever, sible, in the trough

of

>

zz 2b, loading

Figure

1O-II,

have the potential When one hull vertical force acceleration would When

for generating of opposite inducing bending

condisense genlarge catahow-

tions for high differential high shear force The velocity it is believed

on the hulls. maximum (damping)

is orI the crest and the

they experience dependent

on the cross-structure If the wave centerline),

and at the same time induce is considered they

maran roll .

moment,

to be small .

to be of highest maximum result

steepness posand oppo moment on

then the rol I and shear should on the catamaran both hydrostatic Further,

be maximum,

the hulls are at the nodes (with equal in maximum

crest or trough si~e side forces,

experience which

and hydrodynamic,

the cross-structure. juncture terline valuable

when the crest is on the centerline and the hul Is due to side forces whereas sense. Figure

the moment at the have the same sense as the is on the cen2b because 1O-I I makes another ~ =

of the cross-structure the particular suggestion; wave

moment due to the weight

of the cross-structure, heave

when the trough

two moments have opposite that a catamaran

should

be smal I when

the vertical

force on the hulls cancel

one another.

In the foregoing
wave and ship locations results wi I I be inspected The principal maximum response i.

paragmphs,

tentative

conclusions

were reached Now

as to the test

in which

maximum

response are caused.

the model

for the same purpose. clues from the model test results regarding the conditions for

in beam seas are as follows: agreement forward among the different bending test results that moment with > occur ~ 1,8

There is general maximum with width

rol 1, shear force and vertical width. and the Livingston as wel I as other roll and bending

vessel at zero to 2.0

speed in beam wave

ii.

[n both the Thornton heave waves was measured waves, when shear, of regular

Platform

test,

where range in zero

responses in a wide approached moment

it was found that heave

were maximum.

iti.

Phase data follows:

from the Livingston

Platform

test in beam seas is as

Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum

shear 90 side force

out of phase with in phase with 90

bending

moment bending bend-

bending

moment

yaw moment torsion

out of phase with 180

moment moment out of phase with ing moment This implies by vertical ing moment, forces since that maximum heave bending moments are caused in waves which bending maximum by side forces and not cause maximum moment. bend-

is minimum

or zero

and shear is 90

out of phase with

.-

30
It on the ksis vided ment, axial

can be stated that there is good agreement between the conclusions reached of the model test results and the visual inspection. This agreement proto set up simple to reach equations for maximum follow. is limited. vertical Indeed, bending moforce and shear force, whose presentation the conclusions it is admitted

the encouragement

that the test data available

5.2

Development 5.2.1

of Design

Load Equations Maximum Transverse 11) Vertical

Equation Moments

for Estimating and Axial

Force

(See Figure

Assumptions: e Wave s Wave

G

is sinusoidal length height = = twice >/1 hull o centerline space, > = 2b

Wave

(3.

Fig.

11

Loading

Condition

for

Maximum

Vertical

Bending

Moment

in

Beam Seas

31

G G

Trough at centerline Vertical Magnitude acceleration half weight equals

of catamaran is lg (displacement of catamaran) of side hydrostatic constant force per as at transverse secof one hull

and distribution remain maximum magnitude the dynamic

foot of length tion with c The aggregate causing acceleration

G G

beam of the horizontal side force 1/4 draft above equals keel shel I of hul Is particles acceleration the intact wave of

at a point weight extends

beam off the centerline distributed inboard

each hull and 0.65 Cross-structure Cross-structure and the t Velocity

is evenly between

ends are built in.

forces and impact of wuter

dependent

on the hulls are negligible.

Maximum

Vertical

Bending

Moment:

M.

Wave-induced over the breadth

bending

moment

for a weightless

cross-structure,

constant

of cross-structure force - couple due to the horizontal + side inertia force moment moment shift in

M.

Side hydrostatic center

of buoyancy

MO

(HLVL-HR

VR)-+h+(A2:A

)ahd

. . . .. .. .

(El)

~gL

(DO+

YL)2

Side hydrostatic

force

on outkard

shell

VL

d]-$

(D.

+ YL)

Centroid

of HL below

neutral

axis of

cross-structure

Y~

cos(lT*)

= Wave surface above

board shel I

still

waterline

at out-

HR

qgL

(D. -

. Y~)2 = Side hydrostatic force on inboard shel I

VR=

dl-~(t)o

YR)

Centroid structure

of HR below

neutral

axis of cross-

.-

32
YR = ;C05(TT+)
c.

Wave

surface

below still

waterline

at in-

board shell

BE --23

2 (Do + YL) + (D.

(DO

YR)

flDo+yL -. [1
[
B

+ YL) + (D.

- YR)

1
shift

;3

= Horizontal

in center

of buoyancy

Al 27
ah d Mc

Added

mass of one hul 1 in horizontal

direction

= =

Aggregate d] -0,65 Moment

horizontal Do = lever

acceleration cwm for inertia force

at ends due to weight

of cross=structure

Ml =

-n-

Wc s

**,..,,.,.. ...................
vertical bending and hul I *a. **n**** @*,.**.*,*.** *.. * moment at iuncture of

(E 2)

Maximum

cross-structure Ml Maximum = A&+MG *..

(E 3)

Side

Force
comp~e~ion

P
P

=
=

Maximum axial
HL-HR+

A+A1 2g

ah

. . . . . . . . . ..

(E 4)

Due to the symmetry t~ set down the equations centerline. Ml Ml Ml = = = (HLvL Maximum vertical

of the assumed wave of moment and axial

and vessel ~ it is possiblel force for the condition

by intuition crest at

of wave

bending

moment at the iuncture

of cross-structure

and hull

- HRVR)-

h + (~

+ ~)

hd

I T

Wc s

Muximum

axial

tension=

HL-HR_k~

()

A+A1
ah

It is important for trough

to note that absolute

values

are signified

since symbols refer

to figure

II

at center! lne.

33

It should be recognized will Mc result and P. in the higher However, force

that whether

crest at centerline it was found that

or trough at cepterl for existing catamarans weight

ine

direct

stress wil I depend

on th~ relative

size of stress due to (or local

by rough checks, was greater

stress due to axial

loads),

than stress due to cross-structure

5.2.2

Equation
According

for EsFirnating

Maximum

Shear Force of this section, in opposite maximum ]n to direction

to the analysis maximum

at the beginning acceleration

shear occurs, this position one another.

probably, Again,

when one hull accordin~

is on the crest and the other vertical maximum

in the trough.

the hulls experience shear, Combination

to the analysis,

roll should occur at the same

time as maximum

of vertical equation his

acceleration

and rol I will in the case

not permit

an imbendan

mediate

writing

of a shear force force, shear.

as it WS possible

of vertical

ing moment and axial expression al ized for maximum shear coefficient

It is proposed

to resort to the model by picking

test data 6.

to obtain

is done simply

the highest

nondimension-

for a weightless lg acceleration ~

cross-structure only. hen,

from Figure sense,

Since the verti-

cal wave-induced

acceleration

on the hulls are of opposite

the cross-structure

can be assumed fo have Fso = 0.41 +

Cw

, . . . . . ..s. . ..**...,.
weightless

(E 5)

Wave

induced

shear at ends,

cross structure Fsd

-T
Maximum and hull

Wc

*.*,,,,.*,

........ ..

(E6)

FSc F~l

= =

Shear at ends due to cross-structure

weight

shear at iuncture

of cross-structure

Fsl

Fw

+ Fsc

  

G 

(E 7)

5,2.3

Equation

for Estimating torsion

Maximum moment

Torsion Moment which is also reproduced

Dinsenbachers in Appendix Tc = 3 is Torque about Torque about shear acting Tc = center center through ~L2

equation

of twist

of cross-structure of ship + torque of gravity 0.14 Mqt/S due to

of gravity

the ships center \2~ +

$Cbg

BO.6

34

Torsion values with the model test results, importance. for the ASR model . term of secondary

as provided

by the first item, 7, since t was relatively

T1, small

can be compared was zero except making the second

as was done in Figure

t for model

Even for the ASR model,

It can be seen from Figure placed by O.7 then of Miami wave height T1 would model provide torsion in an irregular University nificant sea with 50-foot significant

7 that

if the constant

O.6

in T1 was redue to the sigfor severe selected the use of test

values wave

at least as large test is neglected. that

as any test value A 50-foot

height

if the data scatter sufficiently Dinsenbacher Even though in light

test and the undisclosed to point

represents

sea state 8 and it is considered out at this time of torsion moments.

design purposes.

It is pertinent

O.6 to suit the ASR long term prediction O.7 may overestimate data and the many simplifications It is proposed raised to it in Section of maximum that shear and torsion are out of phase, 53 percent is half would shar it would It is conjectured be

torsion , conservativeness

is iustified

of the limited

that had to be made to derive to replace the second to the

the equation. of the obiection maximum

term in light model

3 of this report.

According

test results,

and maximum

shear in oblique

seas is approximately cross-structure.) torsion equation

in beam seas. be conservative Then,

(This applies

to a weightless

to assume that shear in phase with the torsion

of maximum

shear.

using the symbols of this report,

Tc
Tc =

$Cbg 0.7

L2/~n

II

I- (t)
(t)

(0.53 0.11

x0.5xmax $ +

shear in beam seas) Cw

$c~ I

0.7

JXL2/2~

[1 +

If

Longitudinal

distance

from ship LCG

to cross-structure

twist

center

= O

then T = To = $Cbg 0.7~ L2/2~1

5.2.4

Comments

on the Proposed

Equations in nature. of water They par-

s The equations neglect ticles

G

are quasi-dynamic dependent

and semi-empirical

velocity

forces as well

as the impact

on the hulls. any other assumption would would form does deform wave hydrostatic presented than that wave form remains intac~ as it is

Although

it passes the catamaran seen that wave that forces or larger

G

be difficult between

to handlel the hut Is.

in reality,

it is conjectured dependent intact. assoremains derivation

the deformed

not cause higher than a wave

acceleration which

loadings

The new equations ciated with them.

do not have any lmck-up

35

The procedure used by Schade The use of ~ with the model possible

for calculating

side hydrostatic (12) and (13).

force

is the same as

and Dinsenlmcher

= 2b in beam sea condition test results which is sacrificed suggest to sustain

is not quite ~= 1 .8W symmetry

in accordance to 2 .OW. The and simplicity.

refinement

The method

does not account

for unsymmetrical there the added This should

hulls and form of hulls. information hul I as if they can constrain true in waves do not on added and for on

As far as it can be determined, the added were mass in the horizontal to consider sway motion. hul Is is quite it is satisfactory independent one anothers with AS

is no published mass of each

direction questionable

for catamarans. since they

Whether

be particularly

2b where the horizontal

acceleration

of the two hulls have

opposite sense. Unfortunately, have sway results to evaluate mass in sway at low frequencies unsymmetrical Figure 9, wil I have to suffice.

model test results gathered this. Until new information (wave encounter estimates

frequencies)

hulls is forthcoming,

using Series 60 data,

It is suspected very frequency H =2W/10

that for sma I I catamarans the bending of the critical

the proposed wave with ~x

method

could that

much overestimate of occurrence is likely

moment.

The reason

being

2W and

to be slim.

Com~arison and by Other Tables bending moment, posed equation for bending

of Loads Calcu Iated Method

by , Pro~osed !

Eauations

7, 8 and 9 provide shear, and torsion methods.

for the catamarans moment respectively,

listed

in Table

2,

the vertical

as calculated

by the pro-

and other

moment and torsion,

Other methods include model tests, Scotts method an d Lankfords method for torsion moment due to weightless cross-structure since

grounding. Al I calculations are for catamarans with model tests results are for weightless cross-structure. As a matter and Livingston assuming were obtained 5.4 Platform load/wave of interest, remains shear and bending constant.

moment with

for the Thornton, ~ load/wave

$SR, height

were also calculated

for a wave The values

= 2b and H = ~\~10

height

of maximum

from the test reports. for Design Loads Estimate 10 presents seas as given a recommended 5.2 in Table 6. design load schedule which load is kased on the in the beam seas

Method Table

equations

developed

in Section

and the ratios of the maximum

and the oblique

.-

36 Table 7 - Wave-Induced Transverse Vertical Bending Moment in Beam Seas

Nntm[ Al I ~uluw m nlnulo ampl Itudm In foot tom andfor walght Imncronl-ntructu; E,W, Thnrntm $hlb A A5R ASR M U, of Mldml Ship A I ,020,000 Mohole Platform 729,000 Lavlnnmtun PlatfOrm 199,206

E.W,

Thornton

(2)**Calc.1/1000Hl@h-it In SW S!at* 8 (3) SR 192 M,thod SA,4

33.24o

1,045,244

32,547

3,091 ,9a2

50.4sa

1,426,323

40,518

4,195,741

4,325,545

220,764

(4)

51,925

1,947,,Brn

756,000

(Scbttli Mmthod)
1/2 54,040 0,459 0,440 0,933 0,443 55,051 0.803 1.255 0.734 63,300 0.737 0.421 0,936 0,944

244,400

Note: All values are single amplitudes in foot tons and for
weightless cross-

(5) ~(%o)

200,407 0.903 O,aob I ,100

structure

(6) (1)/(3) 0, (2)/(3) (7I (~)/(4) or W(4) (q (3)/(5) (9)*** lonu

TermPradlotlon of Maximum

k ** ***

Max. or I/1000 hlghc~t, wh Iahavm Ii grater RAO from model ban?n End ma ntate dadhd ~ Plwio~-Moikowltz From R*fOrOnce @)

5peatrum

Table 8 - Wave-Induced Shear in Beam Seas

Nata: All valumI are tln~le ~mplltuda 1~ foot iom and for wrnlgk Im crom-~tructure

E .W.

E.W. Thornton (1)

Thornton sh!p A

ASR ASR w

U ,oF Mlaml Ship A 6,450 .

Maholo Platform 2,4ao .

Lovlng!ton Platform 1,190 .

Note: All values are single amplitude in foot tons and for weightless cross-structure

(2)

**culc# 1/1000 Hl#hmt In Sea slate 8 0.41 (A /2)&W) (Cw) SR192 M*thOd ~O(2b/10)1/2
(1)/(3) or (2)/(3)

551

6,9M

2.02

9,134

(3)

749

10,110

304

9,880

2,9&3

I ,40U

(4) (5)

605
0.726

.
O.&b

349
I ,0

. 0.923

. .

. 0.837

090 0.850

MEX. or l/1000 hl~hmt. whlchovor It oraatar

Table 9 - Wave-Induced Torsion

Moment

in

Oblique

Seas

****
Therntcm Ew. (1) KModel Tait lvidx. [n S* State 8 (2)** Cal,, l/1000 Hltih01! In s-a Stato 8 (3) *** Sk 192 Mnth.d Thornton ~ M A5R J!!!& U OFMlqml Ship A Moholo Platform . 193,452 L@vln@ItOfi Platform 93,304

5a,545 1,044,577 9,536 009,401

1,625,000
-

Note:
192,000 99,500

All

41,400

I,ao,ooo

1B,810

\ ,090,000

1,35,000

(4)0.04LA
(Scotti Molh.d) (5) 0.175 LA (Grbmdlna)

4a,240

2,206,BB
9,455,092 0.02 0,47

23,495
102,790 0.5! 0,44

2,433,077
10,444,711 0.74 0.33

2,526,971 11,055,502
I .2b 0.64

2S,560 I ,043,no
1.01 0.81

eo,mo 350,350
0.94 1.16

values are single amplitude in foot tons and for weightless cross-structure

2~195B 0.95 0.86

(6) (1)/(3) or (2)/(3)

(n (1)/(4)0,(2)/(4)

*
** +** *w.

bx. or 1/1000 high.tt, whlahmvw II orutmr RAO from modal tmnraEnd UE Bmt. d#narlb*d b pl@rmn-Malk*wlt~ $Cb~Bx0,7~ L2/21Y A~,~*d L = LBP. 5 H

sP=ttum

37
Table 10 - Design Load Schedule

Loading for Direci Stressat Midspan of cross-Structurs Load Axial Force

Moment, Weightless Cross-Structure

Beam Waves P from (E4) M. from (El)

Oblique Seus 0.48 of P from (E4) O.& of M. from (E 1)

LOCQILoad (CrossStructure Weight)

Wc

Wc

Loading for Direct Stressat Juncture of Cross-Structure and Hul I Axial Force Moment, Weightless Cross-Structure Local Locsd(CrossStructuresweight) Torsion P from (E4) M. from (E 1) 0,48 of P from (E4) 0.48 of M. from (E 1)

WG
0,49 of Tc from (Es)

Wc
Tc from (E8)

Loading for Shear at Juncture of Cross-Structure and Hul 1, Acting Concurrently with Moment Torsion Locol Load 0,49 of TG from (E8) Tc from (E8)

Wc

Wc

Loading for Shear at Juncture of Cross-Structure and Hull, Acting Out of Phase with Moment Shear Local Load Fso from (E 5) 0.53 of F~o from (E5)

The method

is considered

satisfactory

for conceptual

designs.

It will schedule. to estimate obiects ~ested weight and that and In the water

be noted opinion depth.

that

the grounding to vessel

and speed,

docking torsion shape,

loads loads size

are are and are

not

included

in the

of the authors, AS

grounding

nearly strength concerned

impossible of striking it is sug-

as they are so subjective

far as torsion loads due to docking

consider oblique docking with . appropriate to his vessel

individual real istic

designer support

most likely

docking

points

..

.,.

.. .

38
6. HULL FLEXIBILITY AND CROSS-5 TRUCTURE of the project STRESSES that in order to attempt a suitable method catamaran, the estabfor the once the

It was apparent lishment preliminary critical of catamaran structural loads were

at the beginning size limits analysis

it was necessary

to select

of the cross-structure

of a large

estimated. discussed as mentioned at their in Section previously, and there junction. method 3 and detailed it appeared Hence, in Appendix to have rotation 2, was readily weakthe to find

Lankfords available. nesses. a method structural

method,

However,

two maior desirable

It assumes the hulls to be rigid which

is no relative

between

hul Is and the cross-structure calculations

it was deemed

did not have these weaknesses using Lankfords

and to try it out on a vessel were available. attraction Catamaran

for which

The method tural tioned tudinal calculations direction

of space frame analysis based on Lankfords were simulated

had an immediate Research method were available

and it was decided for which strucIt must be menin the longi-

to try it out on the T-AGOR

16 Oceanographic bending

in-house.

at once that only the hull advantages:

flexibility

and shear deformation model .

in the mathematical

The space frame analysis

had the fol lowing

s Representation the method . on the influence fluence transition

G

of structure of hull

partially

by its flexibility indicative and the relative hull

is inherent numerical rotation structure

to values

It should provide, flexibility

at least,

between in the

the hul 1s and the cross-structure of the cross-structure area . is computerized analysis different which

on the cross-structure, on the individual

and the in-

The method proiect

could

be a great

asset later ships.

in the

if structural

was necessary

for several

[t can assume several quick changes

types of loading configuration. of structure

at once and permits

in the structural maximum model . handle amount

It can include mary mathematical

effective

in taking

pri-

and secondary

loads by employing

progressively

more detailed

[t can conveniently steel and aluminum.

structure

with

more than one material,

say

Figure

12 shows the bare model Stress program.

outline

of the T-AGOR

structure

and Figure which

13 delineemployed

ates its mathematical the IBM- 1130

incorporated

in the space frame analysis

The analysis used the original T-AGOR 16 design loads. The loadings which control led the primary members of the cross-structure were the grounding loads and the transverse suggested necessary vertical bending to reflect moments in beam seas. were obtained principal different The former were obtained as (with by Lankford modification and the latter from the ASR load estimates characteristics).

39 / (
LENGTH KT,

/ / Yl A I 11 ~1 ~;
7Z

1
< Sz < 37 t! 23

L
% PE12!7

04

L
o

BEAMoVEEALL BEAM EA HULL HULL h 5PACING

,$. o~~
24- o

22:

51-d

HULL CLEAR5PACING DE DEPTH TOMNW, AT51 WiTH OFCR055ST F?(KT, AT~

?7~o 34-Od zl~d 19-6

Fig. 12 - T-AGOR16 Structural Configuration

5---

-NEUWU NOTE

MI>

OF THE

HULL

: Cli?CLED FIGuEEE.AEE ME14Mt2 NUMM%5, LWCIECLM?%UEE5 AEEmtiTNUMBEFC3.

HULL AT AXIS

LOA!25 JOINTS OF THE

INTRODUCED ALONG THE NWTKAL HULL%

Fig.

13 -

Structural Stress

Model Program

of

T-AGOR16

For IBM- 1130

The resulting condition Table 11. Other

moments and shear forces in the beam sea condition from the Stress program conditions are omitted. output less critical

and grounding in

for the cross-structure

are provided

stresses in the six cross-structure as calculated structural in the T-AGOR other Stresses in the structures can not be calculated From the tabulation, flexibility
G

The flexural stresses and shear members based on the stress program output and those Design are also tabulated for comparison. since the stresses are not tabulated,

16 Structural

than the cross-structure

design for those members were readily. the following stresses:

Imsed on American

Bureau Rule and their

conclusions

can be drawn

with

respect

to hull

and cross-structure The flexural analysis

stresses calculated with those taken method.

Imsed on the structural from the T-AGOR

model

are in

good agreement

16 structural

using Lankfords

. The shear stresses for grounding Those for beam condition stresses are less critical the discrepancy

conditian

are in fair agreement. m e n t. Since the shear

show less a g rep than flexural

stresses in beam sea condition, important.

in shear stresses is not considered

..

40

a It appears, duction the hulls @ Since greatly structure have In light of a cat~maran method, the same time ccmsider,in transverse

admittedly

bed

on this limited flexibility not affect rigid

check

onlyr

that which

the introinfluence assumes

of the longitudinal to be rigid would

of the hulls the scantlings

has small selection. model i e,,

on the stress in cross-structure,

i .e. ~ the simplification

the hul Is can be assumed simplified, bulkheads

the mathematical study, similar,

can be crosstheyall etc. analysis and about should as the hull directions

For a prel iminury modulus,

al I the transverse shear area,

can be assumed structurally moment

the same section

of inertia~ that

of the last two conclusions, cross-structure requirement to hull method, with

it may be stated handled about

the preliminary a conventional in results, analysis response in various design

can be conveniently frame

with

such as Lank fords addition

the same accuracy Detail deformation such structure

as the space longitudinal deformation, (decks,

analysis.

flexibility cross-structure

~nd torsional structure

and component

bulkheads,

etc. ) deformation,

Table 11 - T-AGOR16 Catamaran Stress Summary

Section Modulus Shear Area Bend. Mom. Shear Strew, Klps/ln2 $Wesn Program Design Calca Shear Flexur91 Shear Flexural

Bhd

Mmmber

[n2 ~~

ln2

m
Beam

KiJ&
Secl Condlfion

96 84 72 52 z

6&7 15&16 24 &25 32 &33 41 &42 50 &51

650.0 833.3 632,9 784.6 633,0 B53.0

105.0 102,0 82.5 94.9 102,0 120.0

16,900 19,244 19,749 24,951 21,901 20,471

74 67 M 55 74 70

24.6 23.1 31.2 31,8 26.3 24.0

0.7 0.7 0.0 0,5 0.7 0,7

23.6 23.9 24,1 26.5 23.9 26,5

3.3 3.1 2,8 2.8 3.1 3.2

Grounding

Condlflon

94 84 72 52 37 23

647 15 & 16 24 &25 32 & 33 41 &42 50 &51

650.0 833.3 632.9 784.6 8330 853.0

105.0 102,0 82.5 94.9 102,0 120.0

13(619 9,216 4,187 2,535 10,999 15,780

952 506 116 24 554 1,114

21.0 11.0 6.6 1$; 18,5

9.1 5,0 1,4 0.3 5.4 9,3

21,4 11,5 8.1 4.2 10,B 8.9

10.5 7.7 4.6 3.6 7,6 10.8

7.

DESIGN 7.1

SHIP

Purpose The analysis of the features U .S. shipbuilding that 1000-foot on whether . Hence, that may impose facilities length once catamaran handle be built scantling size limits, Section2, 1000and probof

indicated [oined able

that

existing crfloat, were

could should

approximately in a drydock

foot catamarans together upper limit

on the premise Whether practical was dependent

individual

hul Is would

be proposed

as a present for cross-

the necessary were

size and the weight the logical catamaran. be any, next step Also,

the cross-structure structure believed able

the available evaluated, 1000-foot

methods

loads predictio~ that

and structural design

analysis

was to make a preliminary structural design

of an approximately would become

it is

in the course of the design, information

the inadequacies, apparent.

if there

of the avail-

41

Table 12 - Design Ship Particulars

Hull

Symmetry Bet. Perp., W B b (corresponding Spacing, Deck S at Side to ~ b -0.21) Hull, L

Length

Symmetrical 9421- oil

Beam Overall, Beam Each Hull Clear Depth Depth Length Draft Cross-Structure Displacement Block Midship Prismatic Waterplane Service Coefficient, ~Space, Hull to Upper

of Cross-Structure of Cross-Structure Clearance from Waterline

300- o 100- o 200- o 100- o 106- O 45 -0,, 8oo1- oli 31 - o

301 -011 Tons 90,800

Cb CR Cp Cw to v FL 0.24) -

0.54 0.952

Coefficient, Coefficient, Coefficient,

0.572 0.701
25 Knots 150,000 52, L87 Tons 28,439 5,598 1,150

Speed

(corresponding

Instal I Shaft Lightship

Horsepower

Weight

Hu I I Structure Cross-Structure Electric Propulsion Communication Auxiliary Outfit Margin, Deadweight Container Container Container Capacity Capacity Capacity & Controls Plant

Systems & Furnishings 10%

2r&o 280 5,950 3,800 4,790

38,113 Tons Containers Containers

@ 11 Tons/Container @ 15 Tons/Container on Upper Deck, 8 x 8 x 20

3, 10 I Containers 2,247 3,136

LBP

= 942-0

WIDTH F 30~ DISPLACEMENT

~T

I?EPTH = 90,800

= 10~ToN5

D!5AFT =

31-0

Fig. 14 - Design Ship Profile and Plan

200
100I o I I

o
I
100 - a 1

100-0

I
AVEt?AGE HULL BHD F&6 s .62% sHIP 4

I
SYMBOL (HIT,)= FOE 3TEEL1
ylELD

MINIMuM 100 000FSl 5TRE NGTH E%EEL

(M.5.)

(B, H,) = AM GRADE B.H. SKEL = MILD STEEL

Fig.

15

Design

Ship

Typical

Bulkhead

Structure

43 7.2
The readers suitability bulkhead able Design Description design presented here is not optimized (or recycled) by far.

The preliminary can expect to provide

no more defense the limited

from the authors for the design other than for its The selected shape coefficient, information desired. assumed framing system, etc., can all absorb consider-

and deck arrangements,

improvement. It is assumed that the vessel would be a container to monohulls ship since it would it is well accepted

that

if large

catamarans . Table

are at all

found superior

be as high-speed, properties and vari-

payload

carriers areas.

12 lists the design

particulars

and Figure

14 shows the profile

and plan views. ous plating

A rough set of lines were

made to obtain

hydrostatic

It wil I be observed terline 0.4 spacing to ship length and O.3 respectively, for Froude speed would to ship length was considered

that the designs ratio of 0.21 would would .

Froude

number of 0.24 characteristics . To design

and the hull of 0.3 (see Appendix It was felt of 314 feet

cento 1). that

do not correspond require

to the values

suggested render

for good resistance uneconomical require hull

To design a 36-knot spacing which

number of 0.35 ratio of 0.3

a speed of 36 knots. centerline spacing

the design

for hul I centerline

impractical

The 100 x 800 cross-structure

ing the upper deck

is composed

of four structural

decks,

includ-

and the bottoml and seventeen identical full structural transverse bulk The cross-structure is assumed to be fixed at the inboard shel I heads spoced at 50 feet. of the hulls. full transverse structure. In order to validate bulkheads Figure 15 depicts this assumption, four of the decks and seventeen with decks and bulkheads at a bulkhead. of the in the hulls are aligned the catamaran of the cross-

structure

Figure calculated American section

16 provides . moduli

the information It includes rules.

on the section section modulus

modul i of the individual structures, bsed on for the hulls

hulls and the cross-structure Bureau of Shipping in a section

sketches

of the assumed effective

and the required

the

scant lings result clearance 7.3 above

It will be noted that the minimum permissible modulus considerably in excess of that required. This is to a monohul 1 to have sufficient cross-structure

due to the increased

depth as compared

the waterline. for Effective is warranted Structure for the structure question assumed effective in bending in cross-structure

Explanation Explanation

bending. tional head. following vertical

On the face of it an immediate the deck plating strength method, with analysis axial calculation Appendix effective plating

may come to the mind of the reader; iust as in the convenwith each bulkloads, was performed are absorbed beams between by reference iust 24-foot method, breadth all

why should all

be considered , rather 2. (as distinct

effective than

longitudinal The structural Lankfords bending

from the design In Lankfords plating

load estimate)

the principle

moment, together

force , shear as well deck breadth

as the torsion acting

moment,

by the bulkheads the two hulls.

as fixed-end

The effective

deck

of 24 feet was calculated

44

--AK+=%= Y-J--+*
Main Hul I Section Modulus ln2 Required =198,500 Section Ft per Hull

by ABS

,,,:,

Modulus,

Including

10% for

Longitudinal: Deck: 269,000 266,090 ln2 Ft In2 Ft

~;

k- --

0.50 ,.

Dk

0.75

Bottom:

Main

Hulls

T7----~ al -1 -f~y

F::ETe k H)
/ Q_-

Cross. Structure ) Effective 5/8 X 24 Section ,n3 Modulus ln2 148,800 Piating

~12x6-l/2x27# 0.625 (BH)

l/T

(H..

Bhd PI (H. T.)

Four Decks

1-1/4 x 10
130,056

Shear Area,

300
923

300
803

I
~*v0

~--,...
G

j! . _,~ -, 0.50 Bhd PI ..! (MS) BH)

Axial Load Area [n2

Symbol Bhd PI (H..j (H. T.) (B. H.) (M. S.)

for S*eel: = Minimum Strength = ABS Grade =Mild Steel 100,000 Steel B.H . Meel psi yield

s.

J---AL

0.625

(H. T.) Cross-Structure

Fig.

16 -

Design

Ship

Section

Modul i

45 to the wel l-known considered 50 feet between paper webs. (24) on }he subject Among the various by Professor $chade. with length combinations ends. The bulkheads were of

as multiple

webs for each deck

of 100 feet and plating of load and end fixity in question,

width viz:

consid- equal maior (see

ered by Professor Schade, j [mding is due to equal

two were appl icable load and fixed at

to the structure

moment at both ends or uniform moment the smal I er effective discussion and with side shell breadth. as double

Even though combination

the structures

bothends, the latter

that

was used as it gave bulkhead is 9710. web, Figure for

Using the same reference, paper) webs, the effective breadth

Professor Adams proved no centerline plating of the deck

to Professor Schades

for a monohul I with

The 20-inch 16, was reached this is provided Figure be considered proximately plate;

effective

web plating 2.

at top and Imttom of the outer

of the center webs.

by taking by Lankford,

one-sixth Appendix

of the length

The reasoning

16 also shows that if arbitrarily 1-1/4 be quite inch plate conservative. modulus as available

a 10-foot would with

deck

plating

width

were

to ap-

effective,

thickness

be necessary

to provide effective

the same section

5\8-inch

x 24-foot

10 feet should

interpretation integrated to derive

Although 24-foot effective breadth was arrived at with prolmbly adequate that the structure in question is real I y of the structural i t is acknowledged box structures. Further, directly that there is insufficient test data on box girders employed. structure in i ieu of the method

effective

7.4

Cross-structure The wave-induced

Loads and Stresses design Section 4, loads as deduced by Dinsenbachers are summarized from the method (13) method in Table 13. loadings (labeled SR-192) are

proposed Thornton equations. steel .

in Section in Table

5 of this report, 14 were

and from the The stresses which predicted psi yield strength by SR-192

and ASR Series,

summarized

calculated

by using maximum

The stresses are within

the allowable

stresses for 100,000

calculated

Although grounding is not considered a design criteria, for the grounding condition and are included in Table as a design criteria lb/in2. the selected scantl ing would

stresses were also 14. If grounding was be quite inadequate

to be considered

as the shear stress is 47,280 7.5 Design a. Conclusions

Direct

stresses are higher

in beam seas than seas than

in oblique

seas.

Shear stress is higher Required largest

in oblique

in beam seas. much dependent plating. 1-1/4 inch, based of is this

deck plating related

thickness

is very

on the assumptions b. The required 100,000 true only psi, largest

to value

of effective

scantling

of approximately assumption today.

on a hopeful Iy conservative for the particular

and steel yield configuration

strength

are common to shipbuilding structural

Of course, employed.

.. .

46

c.

If grounding structure

wws to be considered be quite

a design

criteria

the assumed

would

inadequate. the continuity of structural members

d.

The imperative (17 bulkheads cal,

need to sustain and four decks)

of the cross-structure configuration monohull

into the main to be uneconomirequire 50-

hulls causes the main hul Is structural e .g. , unlikely bulkhead that a 1000-foot spacing. foot main

would

Table 13 - Design Ship, Wave-Induced Cross-Structure Loads BEAM SEAS: MAXIMUM TRANSVERSE VERTICAL BENDING
Amplitude in Foot Tons Method SR-192 Weightless Constant with Cross-Structure Weight, ?,427,439 At ends of Cross-Structure BEAM 3,966,364 At Midspan Cross-Structure, :,061,106 Dinsenbacher 1,658,464 71-- .... L-.. r !-. Inornron ~erlea 2,048,785
At?nHJR . >eHes

MOMENTS

Single

2,869,346

SEAS:

MAXIMUM SHEAR AT ENDS

Amplitude 8,M6 30,646 MAXIMUM Amplitude * 52,367 AXIAL in Tons 33,074 in Tons 5,636 36,411 FORCE 5,9ia 8,032

Single weightless With Cross-Structure Weight

Cross-Structure

BEAM SEAS:
Single

OBLIQUE

SEAS: Sinale

MAXIMUM Amplitude >,948,449

TORSION in FOO~ Tons

MOMENTS

***
2,527,242 2,403,794 2,188,600

* Used for Structural Analysis ** Assumed Cross-structure Weight *** Assumed LCG of Ship Coincides

= Steel with

+ Ships Longitudinal

Deadweight Location of

Cross-Structure

Twist Center

47

8.

TOPICS FOR FUTURE

Researchers (1), (2),

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

(4), (8) and (13), future research design

PROGRAM
catumaran program. technology A significant now a numadopting if a large

who h~ve appraised and development catamaran structure method information would

have generally and the topics conclusion conservative would b bY conducting

reached

very similar

conclusions

as to the deficiencies

in the technology

for the desirable model approach heavy. tests, .

of this proiect

is that a safe large using existing However, Also, .by nature

can be designed the resulting

and generally

of the design

structure

unduly

such an approach

be unacceptable

Table

14 -

Design Ship,
Modulus Load Area

Cross-Structure = = = 148,800 300 923

Stress Ins ln2 ln2

Summary

Section Axial

(See Figure

16)

Shear Area

BEAM SEA CONDITION Total Loading Vertical Local Axial on Cross Structure: Bending Moment = 0.53 Without Weight)

(Trough

at Centerline)

Cross-Structure Seas

Weight

3,061,106 1,562,000 43,960 52,367

Ft Tons Tons Tons Tons

Torsion Moment L~d

x Max.

in Oblique

Load (Cross-Structure

Stress on End Bulkheads: Primary Bending Bending Bending due to Shear due to Torsion due to Local Load Subtotal Axial Compression 32,527 5,535 3,893 34,169 7,473 Lb/ln2 Lb/]n2 Lb/ln2 Lb/]n2 Lb/ln2

Tota I Stress Shear Acting Concurrently with Bending and Torsion:

41,642

Lb/ln2

Shear due to Torsion Shear due to Local Total Shear Shear Stress Shear Shear Shear Stress Out of Phase with Bending and Torsion Load

1,371 2,897 4,268 14,230

Kips Kips Kips Lb/ln2

4,039 13,463

K ips Lb/ln2

-.

48

Table

14 -

Design

Ship,

Cross-Structure

Stress

Summary,

(Centd)

OBLIQUE

SEA CONDITION

Total

Loading Vertical 0.48 Local Axial

on Cross-Structure: Bending xMax. Moment Without Cross-Structure Weight 1,469,331 2,948,449 Weight) in Beam Seas 43,960 25,136 x Max. Ft Tons Ft Tons Tons Tons in Beam Seas

Torsion Moment Load (Cross-Structure Load, 0.48

Stress on End Bulkh~ds: Primary Bending Bending Bending due to Shear due to Torsion due to Local Loads Subtota I Axial Total Tension Stress Concurrently with Bending and Torsion: 2,587 Load 2,897 5,484 18,280 Kips Kips Kips Kips 15,613 10,430 3,893 29,936 2,587 26,349 Lb/ln2 Lb/ln2 Lb/In* Lb/ln~ Lb/InZ Lb/#

Shear Acting

Shear due to Torsion Shear due to Local Total Shear

Shear Stress

GROUNDING For Reference Tots I 1.oading Local on Cross Structure: Only

CONDITIONS - Not Used as a Design Criteria

Torsion Moment Load

12,850,000 43,970

Ft Tons Tons

Stress on End Bulkheads: Bending due to Shear due to Torsion Bending due to Local Total Stress Load 45,500 3,893 49,393 11,288 Load 2,897 14,185 47,280 Lb/ln2 Lb/ln2 Lb/ln2 Kips Kips Kips Lb/ln2

Shear due to Torsion Shear due to Local Total Shear

Shear Stress

49 ber of vessels were ensure the availability which would a. contemplated. is prepared systematic [n view design of this conclusion, to develop a following catamaran comprehentechnology, structure and

sive list of study topics

to close the major gaps in catamaran information

tend towards

the optimum. location and frequency of local of hydrodynamic or the on the cen impacts loads

The nature, centerbody; terbody programs. Model m

magnitude, magnitude

on the hul Is; the distribution and the hul Is.

of loads in ~he cross-structure wave theoretical

and location

These wi 1I require

and experimental

Test Program: would include of hull symmetrical spacing; extent and unsymmvariations in lo-

Series tests which etrical vertical cating hull location;

forms; range .

longitudinal

and longitudinal

of centerbody

~
G

Series suitable Model least

for ships from 100 feet to 1000 which can simulate distribution. program.

feet. at

test methods its weight

the centerbody,

and weight

b.

FIJI I sca [e centerbody acceptable gathered. structure ) It would

load measurement technique be prudent simple to select

(Necessary once

to develop is

measurement is relatively

and data analysis a catamaran to clean vibratory

the data

whose crossanalysis. modes. in a seainstallation of sym(indifor .

and amenable in various

c. d.

Dynarni cs of structural Hull way. form and spacing Hull form,

response

for minimum

resistance

and ship motions for multi-screw

particularly

unsymmetrical,

e.

Added metrical vidually

mass and mass moment of inertia and unsymmetrical and as catamarans) motion . Added

for the horizontal encounter

motion

bodies at wave bodies.

frequencies

mass and mass moment of inertia

the vertical f. Damaged

of unsymmetrical and compartmentation to minimize Drydocking

stability

requirements. (ship-

9.

Construction

techniques

need for new facilities facilities. strength

yard responsibilities). h. Cofitribution vessel . i. Behavior loads. of Imx girders

by cross-structure

to the longitudinal

of the

under combined

bending,

torsion

and shear

i.

Stress concentrate ion at the hul I and cross-structure and extent of necessary reinforcement and structural

juncture. detai Is.

Nature

50
9. CONCLUSIONS

1.

The maior individual facilities. Existing be joined bors. problem

constraints shipyard

to catamaran construction

size wit I be imposed ckydock

by economics, facilities and pier

capabilities,

United with .

States yard hulls afloat; Discharge

facilities 35-foot

can handle draft

individual

hul Is of apwould facilities have to harwill

proxinmtely New .

1050 ft x 140 ft. drydocking facilities

The hulls and the centerbody

is acceptable and modified or new pier

in most maior remove the pier

be essential

of cargo

in the streams could

2,

Existing design is iust adequate loads on large

information to provide catamarans.

for the estimation guidance to make

of loads on the cross-structure prel iminary prediction of

With respect to scantl ings, a 1000-foot

hulls, imply 3. 100-foot hull spacing and 31 -foot

long catamaran draft is feasible.

with

100-foot

beam

This does not

thafthe structural configuration willnecessarily be attractive.

model test data for predicting cross-structure loads are not developed

The ava i Iable sufficient to provide

and the existing great confidence have

analytical in either.

methods are not adequately

4.

Model

tests to date

been performed

for specific

designs only and have

had the drawback 5. Additional optimum

of not simulating and development structure.

the centerbody. work including systematic design model methods test for

research catamaran

programs are necessary

for the establishment

of reliable

To ability special their Friede

an appreciable

degree,

the accomplishment belonging

of the proiect

is due to the availIn this respectl for lnc. and to design for sup-

of unpublished acknowledgement and Goldman permission

model test data

to private

companies.

is due to the Reading model through .

& Bates Offshore

Dril I ing Company THORNTON, Friede

to use the complete lnc. for permission

test data orI the E .W.

whom the tests were contracted. to use the model drilling platform

and Goldman Company

are also to be thanked for the University providing plied the model

test data on their design. Mr.

catamaran

of Miami

Thanks are due to the Livingston for their was appreciated.

Shipbuilding

test data

John L. Glaeser

a copy of his senior thesis which

51

The authors Ship Design proiect.

wish

to thank M.

Messrs.

Sam T.

Tsui and

N . K . K . with

Raman several

of the

Basic

Division,

Rosenblatt

& Son,

Inc .,

w ho assisted

tasks of the

Nippon ten descriptions ciated.

Kaiii

Kyokai,

Germanischer approach

Lloyd

and

Det

Norske

Veritas

provided were

writappre-

of their

general

to catamaran

design

review

which

Mr. cussions

Walter

H.

Michel

and

Dr.

Haruzo

Eda willingly the authors Design

contributed are grateful

with .

informal

dis-

of some aspects

of the proiect from

for which

Appendix Structure Journal, pages

2 is quoted W. 625-635,

The Structural Jr.,

of the ASR Catamaran 1967, Naval Society of Naval

CrossEngineers

by Beniamin

Lankford, by permission

published

in August

of the American

Engineers.

Appendix Structure Vol . 7, Marine No. 4,

3 is quoted pages

from

A Method by permission

for Estimating in October of The

Loads 1970

on Catamaran Marine Architects

Cross and

by Alfred

L . Dinsenbacher 477-489,

published

Technology,

Society

of Naval

Engineers.

Last, Group and practical

but not least, Structural guidance

acknowledgements Design, Ship proiect.

are

due

to al I the who

members provided

of the Advisory enthusiastic

11, Ship

Research

Committee

to the

52

REFERENCES

1.

General 30 April

Dynamics 1969.

(Quincy

Division), Maritime Technical

Catamaran Administration Information

Study prepared under Service Contract Publications

fm- U.S. No. MA-4318, Number

Department PB 183787 2. Bond,

of Commerce, National to PB 183793. Catamarans June

John R.,

- Dream

or Reality,

American

Society

of Naval

Engineers 30 Eckhart, American 4. Thomas,

Journal, M. Jr.,

1970 on ASNE Engineers Notes and Paper, Journal, Catamarans August - Dream or Real ity,

Comment of Naval O.,

Society Geoffrey

1970 Structural n167, Analysis July 1970 of

Outline

for Lecture Development

Entitled

Catamarans, 5. Leopold,

Naval

Ship Research A New

Center,

Reuven A., 1969

Hul I Form for High-Speed of Naval Architects

Volume-Limited and Marine Engineers,

Displacement-Type Spring Meeting, 6. Litton January 70 Fisher, Gulf 8.

Ships, Society

lndus tries Twin-Hu[l 15, Peter 1970 A.; Praught,

Ship,

Maritime

Reporter

and Engineering

News,

Michael 18,

W.; 1969

$oden, of Naval

James E.; Architects

A Catamaran and Marine

ContainerEngineers,

ship for Trans-Atlantic Section Meeting, W.,

Trade, April Jr.,

Society

Lankford, Structure,

Beniamin American Naresh M.,

The Structural of Naval

Design

of i-he ASR Catamaran August 1967

Cross-

Society Motions Davidson

Engineers

Journal,

9.

Maniar,

and Structural Laboratory

Loading

of a 106-Foot January

Catamaran 1965.

in Irregular

Waves,

Report LR-8231

10.

Scott,

Robert,

Catamaran Evaluation

Structure: of Novel

Strength

and Hu I I Weight, Volume Daniel S.;

Appendix 70, 1962

4 to

A Comparative of Naval

Ship Types, by Philip Transactions, N.; Pincus, 1967

Mandel,

Society

Architects Alfred

and Marine L.;

Engineers John

11.

Dinsenlmcher, Determination and Development

Andrews,

Model

Test

of Sea Loads on Catamaran Center Feasibility Report 2378, May

Cross Structure,

Naval

Ship Research

120

Schade,

H .A.,

Study for Ocean-Going Company, California,

Catamaran, June

Prepared

for

the Crowley

Launch

and Tugboat

1965

53

i3.

Dinsenkcher, Structure,

Alfred

L.,

A Method

for Estimating 7, No. 4,

Lwds

on Catamaran 1970

Cross-

Marine John L.,

Technology, A Theoretical Bending

Volume

October

14.

Glaeser, Webb

Investigation May H ., 1968

Into the Motions

of a Catamaran Thesisr

and the Shear and Institute

Moments

on its Cross- Structure,

Senior

of Naval

Architecture, Walter of Naval 1966

15.

Livingston, E -W. Section

C.W.

and Michel, February H.,

The Catamaran and Marine

Drill

Ship Gulf

Thornton, Meeting, Walter

The Society

Architects

Engineers,

16.

Michel, Feasibility,

The Sea-Going of Naval 1961 Model 1052,

Catamaran Architects

Ship,

Its Features Engineers,

and

Its Sec-

The Society April M.,

and Marine

Gulf

tion Meeting, 17. Maniar, oratory 18. Meier,

Naresh Letter Herbert

Test of a Catamaran January 1965

Dril]ing

Ship, Davidson

Lab-

Report A.,

Preliminary

Design 5,

of a Catamaran No. 1, January Seakeeping

Submarine 1968

Rescue Ship

(ASR), Marine 19. Chey, Loading Young H., April

Technology, Model 1962

Volume

Tests to Evaluate
ocemograph

Qua] ities and Structural La boratow Letter

of a Catamaran

ic Vessel,

Davidson

Report 891,

20.

Numata Davidson

E.,

1/100-Scale Letter

Model Report

Tests of Mohole 1084, January

Drilling 1967 Mohole

Platform

in Waves,

Laboratory Alan of Naval C.,

21.

McClure, Society 1965.

Development

of the Proiect Engineers,

Drilling

Platform, Volume

73,

Architects

and Marine

Transactions

22.

Numata Davidson

E.,

Model

Test of a 6-Column Letter Report 1234 C. Lincoln,

Semi-Submersible

Drilling

Vessel,

Laboratory

23.

Edaf

Haruzo

and Crane, 73r 1965

Jr.;

Steering

Characteristics and Marine

of Ships Tran-

in Calm sactions 24. Schade, Volume

Water, Volume

The Society

of Naval

Architects

Engineers,

H .A.,
59, 1951

The Effective of Naval

Breadth of Stiffened Architects and Marine

Plating

Under

Bending Transactions,

Loads, The Society

Engineers,

-.

54

APPENDIX CATAMARAN

RESISTANCE

Of al 1 the tion. Considerable and model

aspects of catamaran
work has been done, as well valuable

design,
as their

resistance
correlation. information

has received References on the subiect.

the most attenprediction listed at the end

both in the areas of theoretical

test measurements represent

of this appendix

published

The main reason for the interest under certain conditions, net resistance tal resistance of the two hul Is considered to general practice by other

in resistance of catamarans singly.

is because

it has been shown that than the to-

can be made smaller

According rated making Contributions

, it is assumed here that resistance frictional , including phenomena the influence

can be sepaof wave-

into two independent to resistance on viscous resistance, Frictional resistance and,

components , namely, are relatively is a function

or viscous and wave-making. in this discussion. degree of surface rough-

small and are omitted of the wetted it is equal surface,

ness and speed, tance

for the catamarans, hulls. wave-making effects given

to the sum of the frictional

resis-

of the individual Catamaran

calm water

resistance between the level frequency 180. theory hull

is a function

of the Froude

number to

(V/~L), theoretical reduce pattern in isolation.

hull

form and hull spacing. wave

Eggers (references

1 and 2) has demonstrated favorably to the two hulls running of the combined wave

IY that the wave-making This is possible where

the hulls can interfere appropriate components

the catamatun

drag to below

are out of phase by approximately There is general can occur agreement between Beneficial of course,

and model test data that 0.3<

the beneficial V/~< 0.4, to center optimay

interference irrespective spacing mum spacing

in the Froude number appears

range of approximately separation

of hull separation. varies with with speed.

in terms of the center Further, for resistance

as a ratio

of the ship~s length

to be in the order of 0.3. may be beneficial

what

not be compatible

the rest of the design. discussion is to show that range of Froude benefit beneficial wave-pattern to

The purpose of the foregoing interference constrain effects are obtained viewpoint From a practical design

in a narrow narrow

number and hull separation. has to be appreciable number and hul I separation.

the net resistance

the design within

the above

range of Froude

15%

The conclusion reached on the hsis of data available to date is that no more than net reduction in total resistance of large catamarans should be expected in ideal
when com~red the increase to the total resistance of two hulls running 15A. independently. At is not expected to be more than

conditions

the same time,

55

REFERENCES
1.
General for U .S. Contract 2. Eggers, Dynamics Department No. K ., (Quincy Division), 30 April Conditions Ca~amaran Study prepared Maritime Administration under

of Commerce,

MA-4318, Resistance

1969 of Two-Body Ships, BSRA von Zweikorperschiffen,

Translation

1860 (Uber

Widerstandsverhaltnisse (1 955)).

J . Schiffkutech 3. Eggers, Bd. 9, 4. Everett, K., 1962 J . T.,

Gesellschaft

Uber

die Ermittlung

des Wel Ienwiderstandes

eines

Schiffsmodells

durch Analyse

Seines Wellensystems,

Schiffstechnik

Some Research led Vessels

on the Hydrodynamics North Transactions 1967-1968 of Large

of Catamarans Institution

and Multi-Hul of Engineers 5. Turner, Society 1968

in Calm Water,

East Coast

and Shipbuilders, Taplin, A.,

H. and

The

Resistance

Powered

Catamarans, Volume

76,

of Naval

Architects

and Marine

Engineers

Transactionsr

.-

56
APPENDIX 2

This is a reproduction maran Cross-Structure is devoted this ships hull to the description

of reference W.

(8),

The Structural Jr.,

Design

of the ASR

Cata-

by Ben]amin

Lankford,

excluding

the first part which the response of

of the statistical beyond

methods used to predict of model tests.

to sea condition

the capabilities

SHEAR FORCES The foregoing beam sea condition. The shear force tons. discussion There has only value described the bending sea heading, moment resulting from a mo600 will

is, however, design value.

a SI ight shear force The shear force

in the beam sea condition, but the associated

is of a higher

in the quarter problem

ment results in a negligible Shear becomes be described in another

used is appro:{imately

more of a design paragraph.

from loads of other sources which

Shear or any other design men~ in the foregoing sponse amplitude discussion. operators

response can be determined All the designer test.

in the same way as the more-

needs to do is to use the proper

from the model

DISTRIBUTION The final by the weight The dead the effect cluding 55,000 bending moment

OF THE DESIGN predicted a dead of 63,300

SEA LOADS foot tons represents moment assuming the total mo-

ment on one side of the ship. of the structure, load moment the dead foot tons.

Since

this moment

is independent

of any bending

caused since in-

load bending

must be added this ship in still The total

to this moment. water moment

for the ASR was calculated is 72,000

of any sea waves has already load effect in the upward

been determined. foot tons (nearest direction

maximum

1000 foot tons) . maior

Since dead member

load opposes the sea forces was ba$ed on a ratio loads were distributed each bulkhead will

the design of each

load is less, or about cross-structure member. The shear

The distribution as a ratio be given

of this moment to each of assumed web areas. paragraph.

of the assumed moments of inertia in a later

A summary of the sea loads for

OTHER As a separate the maximum the fol lowing condition, torsional were

LOADS

CONSIDERED was designed for what was considered these loads,

the cross-structure considered:

possible

load on the cross-structure.

To determine

conditions

a.

The ship could starboard of plane. hull

be drydccked

with

the port hull or the keel

blocks and could be out

blocks out of plane

57

b.

The ship may possibly

run aground. on one hul I forward (Sta-

For these conditions torsional loaded

the ship was assumed to be supported hull aft (Station bulkhead 18). in the cross-structure

tion 4) and on the other moment to each distance bulkhead. of the linear

The load distribution

of the applied in each

is assumed to be a function deflection

from the center

of torsion and the vertical

STRUCTURAL The ASR is a 251 foot LOA foot wide bulkheads ber. hulls) and full between cross~ection

CONFIGURATION catamaran with

OF THE ASR an 86 foot maximum tons. Figure breadth 9 carrying arrangement for the A5R. breadth (26

load displacement with similar 8.

of 3600

9 shows a typical The transverse as the memLocations commenand the for rescue of plating the loads. for structure the imds forward

of one of the transverse flanges is considered

support bulkhmds an effective to Figure The the primary

the two hul Is along

upper and lower of these bulkheads significance surate with girders three

supporting

cross-structural

There are six of these bulkheads other than that compartment it provides

are shown on Figure

use of

six bulkheads

has no special into the hull

a satisfactory

and access requirements deckhouses

and distributes The three

through bulkheads

scantl ings of norms I dimension. aft form two separate

bulkheads

with an open wel I between

operations.

~la

I-Y+T,..4

Fig.

8 -

Forces Caused by the

Settlement of Supports

SKETC.H FOR CAWJLATIOf~ OF 5tlEAR LOADS (DOWIFJG.G.ROL)ND ING)

58

==- .....1
Fig. 9 - Typical Transverse Bulkhead for ASR

THE DESIGN The calculation dock condition Assumptions 1. The algebraic torsion sum of moments akut

PROCEDURE to each bulkhead from the grounding-

of the load distribution (See Figure 8):

is as follows

the center

of torsion

= O, where

center a-.

of

is assumed to be the centroidal

axis of the assumed bulkhead (EQUATION 1)

Ad
Torque = ~

Where: A= d P Xn 2* = = = Total ship displacement Station (both hulls) 4 to Station 18 n.

Distance

Shear Load on Bulkhead Distance to Bulkhead n.

Deflectionin each bulkhead isdirectlyproportional to the linear

from center of torsion.

distance

(Xn)

bn
C=y n Where: c$n C = = Deflection Tangent of Bulkhead of the Angle n. (for smal I angles)

59 In order to evaluate stants, spring constant. forces in the bulkheads it is convenient to compute spring conto

Kn , due to support settlement.

the spring

Bending and shear strains were included in the It was assumed that the torsional strength of the hul i is large compared constants.

&n . &
Kn 1 KIX1 2 . K2X2 + r or=

hen.e:

& KnXn
(EQUATION 2)

..-

Pn KnXn

3.

The cross-structure settlement

bu Ikheads

are assumed to be fixed

ended

beams undergoing

of the support.

(See Figure

8)

Calculations Equating (Equation 1) the external Torque = ~ Iy applied = ~ forces and internal resisting forces -

Where: Y=+d

[1
A T
From Equation 2: P1X2K2 2 = K,x,

Plxl

P2X2

. . . . . Pnxn

p3=

P1X3K3

KnXnPl

..... Pn =
KIX1

K]X1

(EQUATION

3)

[+IY =1 [xl +-2+ .-K-I

The equation Equation 3. is solved far P] . All other Pn values From the shear loads (Pn), bending moments Moment = PnLn ~

EQAT0N4)

can now be obtained from in the bulkheads are attained

Where: Ln = Span of cross-structure between the hulls (Figure 8).

60

The final lated represent an initial

moments and shear values condition values selection

for each

bulkhead

in the cross-structure below

calcuand

by the foregoing the actual scantling

and the predicted

sea forces are recorded

used for the ASR design. has been made the design

It must be noted however that after loads were re-cycled and checked to those assumed originally. condition and aft of loads orI in depth from

for the new inertias

and web areas obtained

as opposed

As can be seen from the resulting gives the highest bulkhead Bulkhead the other especial combination Iy the web plating from the fact

loads above,

the docking-grounding governs The large height the forward variance

of shear and moment which to resist buckling. that there was a deck

21 resulted bulkheads.

difference

Calculated Predicted Moment Ft. Frame 21 Frame 37 Frame 49 Frame 84 Frame 86 Frame Total The resisting designed outer tire similar flange web. 110 Tons Sea Loads Shear Tons 80 104 104 104 104 104 600 bulkheads (21, 37, 49, Docking-Grounding Moment Ft. Tons Loads Shear Tons 305 342 230 244 406 596 2,173 been the

4,600 11,600 13,200 13,200 14,700 14,700 72,000 cross-structure 1/6

5,180 6,650 3,900 4,150 6,900 10,200 36,980 84,

86 and 110) have plate

to transverse

bents on aircraft of the depth force 1/6

carriers.

Of the total

girder,

plus about The total For stability, 2/3

of the web assumed to entirely

resist the bendto the enthe while girder is concen-

ing moment. the necessary the remaining strength theory trated equal

shearing

was assumed to be equally portion strength, whichever .

distributed was worse, plate girder

the outer

of the web was sized to develop to develop a shear buckling

shear or compressing portion to the shearing yield

buckling

of the web was designed tests indicating

stress of the material that the moment

The above in a plate

is based on actual in the flanges

line distribution actual moment.

used generally Reference above,

but drops off rapidly toward the neutral axis, unlike the straight . As a result, the center portion of the web cannot be The 1/6 web depth used is an approximate value covering the (8) describes this method and test results. form a flange or effective for the maior breadth consid-

assumed to contribute.

As mentioned cross-structure ered in the design Approximately heads as an effective with fore, stiffened decided

the upper and lower The ac~ual somewhat width

levels

bulkheads.

of plating,

is probably

conservative. deck plating is considered however, and bending box girders to act with the bulk -

four feet of normal breadth. Although is effective,

The cross-structure, under torsional test data of large between

is more of a box girder loads it is assumed that is limited. It was, therefactor an additional

plating. to consider

much more plating

The plating

bulkheads

to provide

61

of safety model precise fective, considered

rather effective

than

including With

it in the design at this time . on box structures the assumption that plating

It is hoped that structural to determine bulkheads only a more is inefbetween problem With

tests can be conducted breadth . the design

in the near future box girder

is then reduced breadthf

from a torsional

to one of bulkfour feet the neces-

heads resisting sary section

the loads imposed through

pure bending

and shear . 9.

for the effective

it was necessary shown on Figure

to use inserts to provide

modulus for the structure between

The joint area . Additional to reduce shell acting plate

the cross-structure was added

and main hull

was considered There

a most critical bulkheads was also a prob-

web plating

in the cross-structure

and main hull

the nominal could

stress resulting

from stress concentrations. versa . To solve

lem of plate

delamination. delaminate, flange

If the cross-structure and vice of the cross-structure shell and second so plate

was made intercostal this problem, plating was carried bulkhead continuously

to the hul 1, the the insert plate through the incontinuwas carried failure.

as the lower into the

board shell highly

second deck and the transverse

deck . delamination presented would

ously through

the inboard

This provides

an interlacing

of the

stressed structure Since

not lead to a maior

the cross-structure longitudinal

most of the problems, loads. Design a visit

and is the basis for this The hulls are designed for local hydroplating rig, was for the shell stiffening

paper., static inboard E .W. badly

little

has been said about

the main hull and local calculations. . During effect

using standard

strength

of structure

loads is similar and bottom Thornton, damaged

to that found on conventional of the cross structure of Mexico, of the pocketing no effect

ships except

to the catamaran that shell

drilling

in the Gulf as a result However,

it was discovered resembled stiffening

of seas between the effect could

the two hul 1s while found by the model by the rig, the shell inThe drilling rig had throughout

the ship was moored. test for the ASR. model test.

These farces somewhat on local

be predicted

AS a result of the local damage found on the drilling board on the ASR was designed for 1500 pounds per square foot. members intermittently welded . These welds suffered welding of the ship. For the ASR, continuous

framing

cracking

the length

is specified.

CONCLUSION The primary simple approach purpose of tlis paper of the problems forms and spacings ariulytical Thornton, to the solution hull has been to provide encountered before with the ship design engineer hull structure to conduct solution with more

some basic knowledge tests on various and attempt maran

catamaran

and a can be

of these problems.

It wil I be necessary analytical

a completely with full

developed. ltwillthen become important

to correlate ship E .W. designed, the commercial now being along

to instrument

these hul Is once they are built scale ship tests. for future The ASR and catadesigns. research

predictions valuable

with a new oceanographic information

wil I provide

62

REFERENCES

(1)

A.L. 1966.

Dinsenbacher,

J . Andrews

and

D.

Pincus,

Model

Test Determination

of

Sea Loads on Catamaran

Cross Structure

(Prel iminaty), of Bending

DTMB

Report of Sept.

(2) (3)

J . Williamson, Cross Structure, Moskowitz, Sept. 1963.

Long Term Distribution Webb Institute Estimates of the Power

Moment 1966.

on ASR Catamaran Seas for Wind

Report dated Spectra York University

14 Ott. for Fully

Developed

Speeds of 20 to 40 Knots, New

Technical Distributions dated July Distribution Tekniska

Report to ONR, of Wave-Induced 1966. of Wave-Induced dated Aug. Bend-

(4) (5)

R .H . Compton, ing Moment Nils 1963. Midship Nordenstrom, Bending et al,

The Prediction An

of Long-Term Reportl of Long-Term

from Model Moments Report

Tests, Webb Estimation

on Ships, Chalmers of Committee July 1964. and Steepness

Hogskola,

(6)

Warnsinck

1 on Environmental of Seawaves Force,

Conditions, in the North T.

ISSC ProAtlantic and

ceedi rigs, Vol . 1, dated (n H .U . Rol 1, Height, Dimensions No. (8) (9) (lo) L.$. 354.3, Samuel W.J 1-19, Beedle dated Dec. of Seawaves and others, University, Jr.,

Length 1958.

as Functions Structural dated

of Wind Steel

SNAME

& R. Bul Ietin, Report York No. 1964. :

Design, 1962.

Fritz

Engineering Press Co.,

Lehigh . Pierson,

Spring

B. Richmond,

Statistical and Others,

Analysis Practical Spectra

2nd Ediold Method

New

for Observing

and Forecasting

Ocean Waves by lyleans of Wave Iication No. 603-1958.

and Statistics, Wa~e and the 3 VOIS.,

I

(11)

L. Moskowitz, Records Obtained York I I University ,

!,

W .J.

Pierson,

and E. Mehr, Explorer

Hydrographic Office PubI I I I Spect~a Estimated fr~m Wtws 0W5 Nov~ Weather 1962, Mar.
I

by OWS Technical

Weather

Repo,rter, New 1943,

I

Report to ONR,

June 1965.
1
I

II
I

I 1 1

,, I

I
I

63 APPENDIX 3

This is a reproduction ciated nomenclature Cross-Structure

of the $ummary (1 3),

and Discussion

section

with

the asso-

for reference

A Method

for Estimating

Loads on Catamaran

by A . L. Dinsenbacher.

NOMENCLATURE (For Appendix 3 Only)

A Ab At B b c D Do d G 9 HI HL HR L Lw m(y)

wave wave wave half

amplitude amplitude amplitude for computing for computing ship bending torque load load

beam of one hull beam of entire center of twist of cross-structure mean draft down to neutral axis of cross-structure draft from top of cross-structure of gravity (keel of ship acceleration to top of cross-structure) hydrostatic hydrostatic (LBp) bending moment at transverse coordinate y effects of force on outboard side of a hul I side of a hull force on inboard

instantaneous st i I Iwater distance center depth

gravitational horizontal horizontal ship length wave length

cross structure bending moment

M (0) = MQ =
P= P =

moment at midspan of cross-structure at iunction of cross-structwre and hull, not including I and mass of ~ross-stru cture axia I load on cross-structure hydrostatic shear force hulls about its twist center twist center force force to on on (positive to center forward) from cross-structure on cross-structure distance from keel from keel ~ressure

weight transverse horiz~ntal vertical

Q= s
Tc t
VL

=
= =

clea~ span between torque horizontal dista~ce distance

ships CG
=

of pressure of horizontal

hydrostatic hydrostatic

dutbourd
R =

side of a hull to clenter of pressure of horizontal side of a hull

inboard

w= Wc
x,y,

ship weight

,= ~ =

weight 1 half

of cro,ss-structure system fix~d on ship representation hulls or buoyancy from mean surface elevation to wuve surface with origin at center of

coordinate gravity!

,=

the clear

span between displacement downward,

A ?= 5=

instantaneous density distance,

of water positive

64

SUMMARY The equations summarized. trated in Figs. obtained thus br

AND

DISCUSSION
cross-structure given we have loads wil 1 now be and some are illusthe term upward,

for estimating

The symbols have 1 and 2. the positive to downward

been defined sign indicates

in the Nomenclature, the ship accelerating Also, previously

In several

of the equations

in the following, now substituted

(1 ~ O .4) appears; sign corresponds and (S/2)

the negative
S/2 for~

acceleration. developed

+ B for b in the equations

in the text. from the beam and are asThe directions

For Ioadi ng condition sumed to produce of positive the greatest

1, the waves are approaching axial , vertical 3. A (wave height = 2 bending

and shear loads.

loads are shown in Fig. length

The wave are taken to be

and amplitude,

A I ),

for this loading

case

Lw

2(S + B)

(70)

A=Ab=-~
The axial load on the cross-structure
is

(71)

P = -2ggLA (1 t 0.4) Do sin

llB

(72)

2(S+B)
of the cross-structure (HI -d) is

The moment at the transverse M(0)= -qg iTB LAsin 2(S + B) ~2 - ~

mid-span 2D0 [

(1 ~0.4)

- D02

(1 ~ 0.4)2

sin2
B 2(S+B)

2(su+BB)

W(S+B)A 211Do

w [

sin

TTB Cos _

1
(73)
for a wave trough between the hulls,

+(1 ~o.4)
where A
is given

WC(S + 2B) 8

in

(71) .

The sign of A is positive

and negative

for a crest. of cross-structure and hull is

The moment at the junction

()
~

M(o) -(1 0.4)

WcSfi

(74)

where in (72),

M (0) is obtained

from (73).

Whichever

sign is chosen in the term of (1 ~ O .4)

the same sign must be employed

in that same term in (73) and (74).

65

NOTES:

View Iooki ng rorward rrom s~ern Coordintite

\Yave leng[h, S)sLCM fixed & . ?(fi+~) on ship with origin = 2(S+B) crest be[.wecn hulls) acc.?nter or gravily (G) o~ship

A is wa!,e amplitude

(if A negntive,

-b

-B

L-+A---LB-J--J

MEAN 5URFACE

ELEVATION

I
i

I
i
above keel atcenter elevation) from mearielevntion, attrans,erse plane ofl?uil (als.odis. surrace

Dis
tance

heighL or wave surrace from keel to mean location (~ positive

~(~)is}ertical coordinateij Forwwesurracr:

orwavesurrace in trough) Acos~ (b+t3

leL<(~).

Immcrsionorhul!

at~.D-~(~)=D-Aco5u-

(b+~)

Fig. 1 - Loading Condition 1

The estimate and hull, is

for maximum

shear,

in beam waves,

at the junction

of crws-structure

Q=(l

(75)

in which

MQ

= M(0) -(1~0.4)Wc
from (73).

(S+2B)/8
Again, the choice

(76)
of sign in (1 ~ 0.4) must be kept

M (0) in (76) is obtained

consistent throughout

(73-76). , in estimating the shear and moment acting froim the choices loads are found. on the cross-structural

It is important that the various

combinations

resulting

of + - A and (1 ~ O .4) be comp uted.

This is to insure that the maximum

66

6 =

tan- g
.

. 2( S+B)sind

L S+R @#7h~

M point p (on port hull centerplane), surface is

disknce

kom mean surface

elevation

to wave

,=-

0s(+%9=

co%

But, up = : Xp Cose () so %7x $ .,4 sin P L girt

and immersion . D - fp . D- .-l sin+

Fig. 2 - Loading

Condition

For loading as shown in Fig.

condition 2.

2 (for maximum

torsion),

the wave are

advances

obliquely

as

The wwve length

and amplitude

L(S+B)/j~ A = A+=0.6~

(77) (78) is twice the magnitude is of the amplitude.

heighf

The reader

is reminded

that the wave

The estimate

for maximum @bg

torsional +

load

in waves

BAL2 /217

O. 14Mqt/S

(79)

67

Table 1 - Loading Schedule A - For Direct Stress at

Mid-Span of Cross-Structure
Quartering Waves

Load Axial Moment Shear Torsion Force

Beam Waves P from (72) M (0) from (73) Not Applicable N.A.

O.4 of P from (72) O.4 of M (0) from (73)

(N. A.)

N.A.
N.A.

Table 2 - Loading Schedule B - For Direct Stress at Junction of Cross-Structure and Hull

Load Axial Force

Beam Waves P from (72)

Quartering Waves O.4 of P from (72)

Moment

M ( &~)

from (74)

0.40fM(-

+ ~) s

from (74)

Shear Torsion

N.A. 0.40fT=from (79)

N.A. TC from (79)

Table 3 - Loading Schedule C - For Shear Stress at Junction of Cross-Structure and Hull Load
Axial Force

Beam Waves
N, *A . N.A. Q from (75) O.4 -of T= from (79)

Quartering

Waves

N.A.
N.A. O.4 of Q from (75) Tc from (79)

Moment
Shear Torsion

..

68

-lM
P

II)
Q G HL R 111111 -=r r
G

INTERNALLOADS

WEW LOOKING FORWARD FROM STERN

Fig. 3 - Positive Internal Loads

in which torque

A is defined *he center

by (78),

MQ

is computed

from (76),

and T= is the magnitude

of the

about

of twist of the cross-structure. stresses on the cross-structure the loads found it is necessary to apply si-

To estimate multaneous y,

the maximum

in certain

proportions,

in the foregoing.

As has been

stated in the text, the model test results showed moments and shears in quartering seas to be about O.4 of their magnitude in beam waves. Also the torque in beam seas was found to be about of maximum the loading O.4 of its value it is suggested in Tables in quartering that waves. Therefore, schedule waves. to obtain estimates with stresses, schedules the loads should be applied Each loading in accordance is for a specific For each column, case the are cal cuin the

1, 2 and 3.

stress, and for the ship operating stresses of interest, Iated and summed. that row in which which The equation

in both beam and oblique to use to obtain

are produced

by the loads in the Load a particular

load is indicated

load is designated. in Loading Schedule B, Table bending 2, that torsion

It may be observed computing the direct for this is that the torsional verse bulkheads spanning

loads are used in

The reason

stresses at the I unction load can produce 9). the hul Is (2,

of the cross-structure

and hul Is.

moments on the ends of the trans-

CONCLUDING An attempt Iwds duced current has been made herein linking

REMARKS simple expressions Although for estimating gross

to develop

on the structure by relating, design

the hul Is of a catamamn. and/or heuristically,

several

gross assump-

tions and approximations albeit practices

have been made , some compensation empirically for longitudinal strength.

for these has been introto model test results and

REFERENCES

1.

H .A.

Schade,

Feasibility Launch

Study for an Ocean-Going Company, California,

Catamaran, June Model 1965.

prepared

for

the Crowley 2. A .L.

and Tugboat J. N.

Dinsenbucher, (NSRDC)

Andrews,

and D. S. Pincus, Naval 1967. May

Test Determination and Develop-

of Sea Loads on Catamatan ment Center

Cross Structure,

Ship Research

Report 2378,

69

3.

J .T.

Birmingham

and A.L David

. Dinsenbacher, Taylor Model

Stresses and Motions

of a Liberty

Ship

in Random Seasr 4. M. St. Denis, October Andrews On

Basin

(DTMB) Report 2081, November 1965.

Section, DTMB Report

the Structural

Design of the Midship

C-555, 5. J . N.

1954. and A .L. Dinsenbacher, NSRDC Static Structural Report 2177, Balance Response of a Carrier April 1966. to Longitudinal Strength, Model in

Regular 6. G. O. Trans. 7. J . N. April 8. N.H.

and Random Waves, Thomas, SNAME, An Extended VOI. 76,

Approach

1968. Dinsenbacher, Agreement of Model and Prototype Report 2351,

Andrews 1967. Jasperl

and A.L.

Response Amplitude

Operators

and Whipping

Response, NSRDC

et al .

Statistical Aircraft Structural August

Presentation Carriers, Design 1967.

of Motions

and Hul I Bending June 1960.

Moments

of Essex-Class The

DTMB

Report 1251,

9.

B .W. Naval

Lankford, Engineers

of the ASR Catamaran

Cross- Structure,

Journal,

UNCLASSIFIED
Security Classification

DOCIJMENT CONTROL DATA - R & D

,Smwify clas$; (frta [ion of titfc,

lx,dy

of

.?b. frart

and

iflue,vlnp

,JnnofaricJn

mu.1

be entered

when

rhe

Oversll

rcporf

is

Classified)

ORIGINATING

ACTIVITY

(Corporate

authorJ

2a. REPORT

5ECu

R1TY

CLASSIFICATION

Unclassified M. Rosenblatt & Son,

REPORT TITLE

Inc.

>h.

GROUP

Catamarans - Technological Limits to Size and Appraisal and Procedures of Structural Design information
DE SC R[PT!VE NOTE5 (TyP,
Of ,e)mrt ad ;nctllvie

dsfes)

Final Report
AU THOR(SI (Fi@t rwme, middle rnit!al, last name)

Naresh M. Maniar, Wei P. Chiang

REPORT DATE
ra. TOTAL NO.

OF

PAGEs

7b.

NO.

OF

REFs

Sept. 1971
a,
CONTRACT OR GRANT NO.
>a.

69
ORIGINATOR-5 REPoRT t.IuM8ERlS)

24

NOO024-70-C-5145 h. PROJECT
c.

NO.

MR&S 2000-1
OTHER ah. this REPORT report) No IS) (Any othernwmbem thalnmy be assiped

F35422306, Task 2022, SR-192 NAVSHIPS No. 0911-001-1010

d, O. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

SSC-222
Distribution of this document is unlimited.

!.

5Up

PLEMEMTARV

NOTES

!2.

SPONSORING

MILITARY

ACTIVITY

Naval Ship Systems Command

AB5 s, TRACT

Existing United States shipbuilding facilities can handle 1000-foot catamarans with up to 140-foot individual hull beams on the premise that the hulls would be joined afloat. Major harbors and channels of the world suggest an overall beam limit of 400feet and 35-foot draft. Drydocking for catamarans over 140-foot in breadth will require new facilities or extensive modification to existing facilities. Scantlings of a 1000-foot catamaran cargo liner can be expected to be within current shipbuilding capabilities. The uniqueness of the catamaran design lies in the cross-structure and the important facets of the cross-structure design are the prediction of the wave-induced loads and the method of structural analysis. The primary loads are the transverse vertical bending moments, axial force, shear, and torsion moments. Designers have relied heavily on model tests to obtain design loads and have used general structures principles and individual ingenuity to perform the structural analysis in the absence of established guidelines. Simple semi-empirical equations are proposed for predicting maximum primary loads. A structural analysis method such as the one proposed by Lankford may be employed for conceptual design purposes. The Lankford method assumes the hulls to be rigid and the cross-structure loads to be absorbed by a group of transverse bulkheads and associated effective deck plating. This procedure in general should provide an overall conservative design and not necessarily an economic or optimized design. Additional research and development work including systematic model test programs are necessary for accumulating additional knowledge in areas of uncertainty and for the establishment of reliable design methods for catamaran structure.

)D:W551473
S/N 0101.807-6801

()

UNCLASSIFIED .. .-,. . . ... . 3ecurlTV ~LasslrlcarlOn

UNCLASSIFIED
Security
4. KEY WORDS
ROLE

Classification
LINK
A

LINK WT

B WT

LINK ROLE

c
WT

ROLE

Catamaran Size Limits Design Procedures

DD,F:%51473
(PAGE 2)
GPO

(BACK)
919.4g2

UNCLASSIFIED
Security Classification

SHIP RESEARCH COMMITTEE Maritime Transportation Research Board National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council

The Ship Research Committee has technical cognizance of the inter-agency Ship Structure Committees research program:

PROF. R. A. YAGLE, Chairman, Prof. of Naval Axvhiteeture, Univ. of Miehigan DR. H. N. ABRAMSON, Di~eetioz+ Dept. of Meelz.Seieneez, Southuest Research Institute MR. W. H. BUCKLEY, Chief, S-LmeLu.raZ Crike~ia and Loads, Be21 .&rosystems Co. MR. E. L. CRISCUOLO, Sen. l!Ton-Desti~uetive Test. Spa., DR. W. D. DOTY, Swio~

l!laval Ordnance Lab.

Research Consultant, U.S. Steel Co~po~atiion Univemitg

PROF. J. E, GOLDBERG, School of Engineering, ~rdue

PROF. W. J. HALL, Prof. of CiUi2 Enginee~{ng, Univ. of Illinois MR. J. E. HERZ, Chief StruetiuraZ Des. Engineer, Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock CO. MR. G. E. KAMPSCHAEFER, JR., Manage~, Appzieation Enginee~ingJ ARMCO Stce~ CoYp. MR. R. C. STRASSER, Di~eetio~ of Resecweh, Newport lVewsShipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. CDR R. M. WHITE, USCG, Chief, AppZied Engineering Sec., U.S. Coast ~uard Academy MR. R. W. RUMKE, Exeeutive Seeratary, Ship Research Committee

Advisory Group II, Ship Structural Design prepared the prcject prospectus
and evaluated the proposals for this project:

MR. J. E. HERZ, Chairman, Chiaf Strue. Des. Eng~., Sun Shipbuilding z Dq MR. C. M. COX, Asst. iVavaZ Arch., Hu~l Des. Div.,

Dock Co.

lVewpo~t News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.

MR. C. R. CUSHING, ~esident, Cushing & flordst~om, Inc.

PROF. J. E. GOLDBERG, SehooZ of Engineering, Purdue Un<versiby PROF. J. R. PAULLING, JR., Prof. & Chair. ofDept. ofiVav.

AYch., U. of Ca2ifomia

MR. D. P. ROSEMAN, NavaZ Arehiteek, Ilydronau.ties, Inc.

.;

CDR R. M. WHITE, USCG, Chief, AppZiedEngineering i5ee., U.S. Coast GuardAcademy

SHIP

STRUCTURE

COMMITTEE

PUBLICATIONS

These documents are distributed by the National Technical Information Sexwiee, Springfield, Va. 22151. These documents have been announced in the Clearinghouse journal U.S. Govwnment Research & Development Reports (USGRDR) under the indicated AD numbexw. SSC-209, Results from FulZ-Scale Measwements of Midship Bending Stresses on Y7wee Dry Cargo Skips by 1. J. Walters and F. C. Bailey. 1970
All 712183. SSC-21O, Analysis of Skmming Data f~om the S. S. Wolverine Staterby ~. W. Wheaton, C. H. Kane, P. T. Diamant, and F. C. Bailey. 1970. AD 713196. SSC-211, Design and Installation of a Ship Response In.stwmentation System Aboard the Containe~ Vessel S. S. Boston by R. A. Fain, J. Q. Cragin and B. H. Schofield. (To be published). SSC-212, Ship Response Instw.mentation Aboard the Containe? Vessel S. S.

Boston: Results from the 1st Operational Season in North Atlantic Semiee by R. A. Fain, J. Q. Cragin, and B. H. Schofield. 1970.
AD 712186. SSC-213, A Guide for Ultrasonic Tasting and Evaluation of Weld Flaw Youshaw. 1970. AD 713202.

by R. A.

SSC-214, Ship Response Instrumentation Aboa~d the Container Vessel S. S.

Boston: Results f?om Two OpeYationaZ Seasons in North Atlantic AD 712187. Service by J. Q. Cragin. 1970.
SSC-215, A Guide fop the Synthesis of Ship Structures Pa?t One - The Midship

Hold of 1970.
SSC-216, (To
be

Transve~sely-Fmmed Dry Caz=go Ship by Manley St.

IleniS.

AD 717357. published).

SSC-217, Comp~essive Strength of Ship Hull Girde~s - Part I - Unstiffened plates by H. Becker, R. Goldman, and J. Pozerycki. 1971. AD 717590. SSC-218, Design Considerations fop Aluminum Hull Structures: Study of Aluminum Bulk Carriers by C. J. Altenburg and R. d. Scott. 1971. SSC-219, c~ack propagation and Arrest in Ship and Other SteeZ.sby G. T. Hahn, R. G. Hoagland, P. N. Mincer, A. l?.Rosenfield, and N. Sarrate. 1971. SSC-220, A Limited Survey of Ship Structu~al Dmage Levine, and R. Taggart. 1971. SSC-221, Response of 1971. by S. Hawkins, G. H.

the Delta Test toSpecimen Variables by L. J. McGeady.

. -