001 PDF

Concept Development, Detailed Design and Construction of the Three
Forty Three – North America's Most Powerful Fireboat

R.G. Allan (FL), Robert Allan Ltd.
K.D. Harford (M), Robert Allan Ltd.
D. Noon, (M), Robert Allan Ltd.
J. Bjerkeset (V), Robert Allan Ltd.
J. Dalton (V), Marine Division, Fire Department of New York
W. Siegel (V), Marine Division, Fire Department of New York
This paper reviews the process of the complete design development, from concept to completion, of the largest and
most capable fireboats in North America, and among the largest in the world, for the Fire Department of New York.
The Three Forty-Three is the first of two new fireboats to this design built at Eastern Shipbuilding Inc. of Panama
City, Florida and delivered in May 2010. The second vessel is due for completion later in the year. As the result of
an international design competition, Robert Allan Ltd. was selected to provide complete engineering and design
services for the new boats, from initial concept through detailed engineering design and a comprehensive value
engineering process. The scope of services also included the support of FDNY through every stage of major
component procurement and the shipbuilding contract award. Robert Allan Ltd.’s shipyard supervisory staff also
acted in the capacity of Owner’s Representatives on-site in the shipyard throughout the entire construction process.
These major, fast response fireboats were designed to specifically address the fire-fighting and rescue needs of the
greater New York harbor, including the New Jersey shore. This includes the capability within the vessel to respond
to any CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear) incident.
The fireboats are designed for a response speed of 17.4 knots, with a low-wake, 12 knot cruising/patrol speed. The
powering, seakeeping, and wake generation characteristics of the semi-displacement hull form were all verified in
an extensive model-testing program. The resulting propulsion system is a unique quadruple screw, CPP
configuration.
The paper focuses on the various initial studies performed to establish the basic design configuration, the model
testing and performance verification process, the value engineering studies performed, the many unique design
features of the fire-fighting and emergency response capability of these vessels and the performance trials results.
Finally, the challenges of managing a major shipbuilding project for a major civic Government Client such as Fire
Department of New York concludes the paper.
KEY WORDS: Fireboat; Design; Model testing; New York; CBRN; fire-fighting
INTRODUCTION: THE NEEDS OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OF NEW YORK (FDNY)

Following the events of September 11, 2001, the City of New York commissioned the firm of McKinsey & Company to evaluate the
status of the City's infrastructure and emergency agencies. An additional evaluation was done by Cornell University. The McKinsey
report recommended an expansion and increase in the capabilities of the Marine Division. Cornell suggested that any new fireboats
provide pumping capacity that "exceeds the capability of the current fleet". The Fire Department's own Strategic Plan would call for an
increase in marine capabilities to respond to the heightened threat environment, and the dramatic increase in water-borne traffic in the
Port of New York/New Jersey.
The economic engine of the Tri-State area relies on an open harbour. At that time (2001) the Port was handling 82 billion dollars worth
of general cargo a year: car carriers delivered vehicles at the rate of 1,600 a day; three million TEUs were being offloaded each year;
and a daily average of six tankers arrived to offload oil to local barges and smaller tankers. The cruise ship industry alone was
pumping fifteen million dollars into the City's economy each week. Each day, eighty thousand people commuted to Manhattan by
ferry. The harbour activity supported over 190,000 direct jobs within the Port of New York/New Jersey. Eighteen million people in
the Tri-State area and ninety million people in a ten state area relied on an open harbour for all their needs.
Fire Department budget cuts over the last two decades had reduced the active fleet from nine boats to three. The age of the three
remaining large boats averaged just over 50 years. The largest boat, at 139 feet, was 63 years old. The newest, at 105 feet, was 40
years old. Slow response speeds and vessel reliability were always a concern and a worry for Incident Commanders. An uncontrolled
fire that might result in the sinking of a vessel in the channel could close the harbour for an extended time. For the City this would be
an economic disaster. The City needed new reliable fireboats and they needed them in a hurry.
At that time there was a "design - build" contract that was about to be awarded for two 85 foot, 10,000 gpm fireboats. The
recommendations of the McKinsey and Cornell reports indicated the need for larger boats with more work area and larger pumping
capacity. The Chief of Department cancelled the 85 foot boat project and established a work group to produce performance
specifications for two new large fire boats.
The new design was to address the need for a fast response vessel that could provide large volumes of water for fires on the waterfront
and inland, up to three miles. The new vessels would need fire-fighting foam capabilities and enough fire stream reach to protect the
steel on the bridges connecting Manhattan to the outer boroughs. As the definition of requirements moved along, a crew transportation
area, a de-con shower and EMS/triage area were added, along with an indoor storage area for tools and equipment. Victim removal
from the water was a major problem with the high gunwales on the older boats, so a dive platform was included in the specifications
along with a shallow draft rescue boat that could be launched from the stern of the fireboat. The design of the pilothouse, crew
quarters, and the EMS station were to include the protection of a CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear) system.
Once the performance specifications were completed, it was decided that the critical first stage would be to select a suitably well-
qualified consultant naval architect to develop the complete design, before the project went out for construction bids. This approach
Concept Development, Detailed Design and Construction of the Three Forty Three – North America's Most Powerful Fireboat
would ensure that the client department would have the opportunity for maximum input into the design process before calling for
construction bids from shipyards. Robert Allan Ltd. of Vancouver, B.C., was selected as the consulting naval architects for this project.
The final design would have to consider all of the above concerns and include many new innovations and new technologies. The
construction bid followed and at the time of writing one boat has been delivered, with the second entering the final stages of
completion.
OWNER'S STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS

The initial Request for Proposal for Design Services contained a brief Statement of Requirements (SOR) describing the required vessel,
a pumping station requirement of 20,000 gpm, and a conceptual General Arrangement drawing (prepared by others), showing a twin Z-
drive propulsion system. It became abundantly obvious, after a short design review, that the length, powering, speed, and draft
constraints expressed therein were mutually incompatible. Therefore our first task, as vessel designers, was to work with the FDNY to
develop a far more comprehensive SOR, and to have the client sign off on that as the basis of all further design development.
Obviously it was expected, as for any complex new ship design, that not all the objectives could be fully achieved in the final design, so
it was also important to establish the priorities of the various and sometimes conflicting objectives.
The following summarizes the primary elements of this formal SOR:
Operational Functions
The vessel was required to conduct the following operations:
 Ship fire-fighting
 Road/bridge fire-fighting
 Oil terminal fires
 Supply water to land-based fire mains or building standpipes
 CBRN incident response
 Function as an Incident Command Centre
 Rescue operations
 Diver support
 VIP tours
 Red, white, and blue water displays
In consideration of the above operational requirements, the following functional needs were identified:
 Year round operations including in freezing temperatures and ice-infested waters
 Ability to supply water to a ship's international shore connection
 Sufficient water pressure for attending a cruise ship fire
 Bow height to match Staten Island Ferry deck height for personnel access, if possible
 Water pressure of 75 psi at 219 feet (bridge height)
 Means of elevating fire-fighters and equipment to ship's decks
 Elevated water stream
 Debris or spill path clearing ahead
 Fire-fighting foam application through monitors
 De-watering
Vessel Facilities/Basic Equipment Requirements

The new fireboats were to be fitted with:
 Live-aboard accommodation /facilities for four mixed gender crew
 Inside seating for additional fire-fighters (three companies; 18 persons in total)
 Areas for survivors: capacity to be based on available space and includes open deck areas; and may include inflatable life rafts
 Outside decontamination shower
 Command Centre with full range of communications
 Easily and rapidly deployable fast rescue boat (minimum 16 foot)
 Low level platform for divers and survivor retrieval
 Basic medical treatment area
 Means to seal ventilation systems to both wheelhouse and command centre, in event of a CBRN incident
 Water fog capability from monitors for self-protection plus fume dispersal
 Haz-mat monitoring equipment; sensors to record internal and external environment
Vessel Performance
The endurance requirements were defined as:
 1 hour sprint to incident site at full power

 24 hours of continuous pumping at maximum fire-fighting capacity
 Return to station at cruising speed
Based on an analysis of their territorial coverage, FDNY determined the new fireboat must be capable of a sustained speed of at least
20 mph (17.4 knots). A 15% service margin on the hull resistance was also specified, to ensure a decent margin over minimum speed
requirements throughout the service life of the boats.
Other aspects of performance included an initial fire-fighting water capacity target of 36,000 gpm (later increased) and minimal
wake/wash generation at normal patrol speeds.
Dimensions
The following were set as initial vessel geometry objectives:
• Length - nominally 130 feet

• Beam - nominally 32 to 36 feet
• Draft - 9 feet
• Air draft - 39 feet
Regulatory/Statutory Requirements
The vessel hull and machinery were specified to be classed by American Bureau of Shipping, and included Ice Class D0 and
periodically unattended machinery space notations. Classification of the fire-fighting system was considered desirable, but not
mandatory.
Fireboats, Worldwide
It is useful to put the requirements of the planned new vessels into the context of other major fireboats built recently in North America
and in the rest of the world. Table 1 (below) lists the principal dimensions and pumping performance of major fireboats built since
1995. This list is comprehensive but may not include every such vessel built. These vessels are at the top end of fireboat capabilities
amongst these major ports.
Year Location Name Length Breadth Pumping Foam

Capacity Capacity
1995 Hong Kong Fireboat 2 98'-5" 21'-4" 6, 300 gpm 1850 gallons
1997 Hong Kong Fireboat 5 114'-10" 24'-3" 8, 000 gpm 1850 gallons
1997 Shenzhen, China Shen Xiao Yi Hau 118'-1" 25'-7" 12,000 gpm 3700 gallons
1997 Shenzhen, China Shen Xiao Er Hau 118'-1" 25'-7" 12,000 gpm 3700 gallons
1998 Hong Kong Fireboat 3 90'-10" 19'-8" 5,300 gpm 1050 gallons
2001 Hong Kong Elite 139'-5" 31'-6" 31,700 gpm 8000 gallons
2004 Hong Kong Excellence 137'-9" 32'-10" 31,700 gpm 8000 gallons
2005 Los Angeles Warner L Lawrence 105'-0" 29'-0" 31,000 gpm 6000 gallons
2007 Philadelphia Independence 66'-2" 19'-8" 5,500 gpm 230 gallons
2007 Baltimore John R. Frazier 85'-0" 22'-0" 7,000 gpm 1000 gallons
2007 Dongguan, China Guan Xiao Yi Hao 127'-7" 29'-6" 13,200 gpm 4000 gallons
2007 Seattle Leschi 108'-0" 26'-10" 24,000 gpm 6000 gallons
2009 Portland, Maine City of Portland 65'-0" 16'-5" 3,000 gpm 160 gallons
2009 Tampa Patriot 69'-0" 21'-7" 13,500 gpm 500 gallons
2010 New York Three Forty Three 140'-0" 36'-0" 50, 000 gpm 3300 gallons
2010 New York Firefighter II 140'-0" 36'-0" 50, 000 gpm 3300 gallons
Under Kuwait tbd 128'-3" 44'-3" 37,000 gpm 10,000 gallons
construction
Under Chicago tbd 90'-0" 25'-0" 15,000 gpm 1000 gallons
construction
Under Dongguan, China tbd 152'-3" 38'-4" 47,500 gpm 16,000 gallons
construction
Under Massport tbd 79'-1" 22'-2" 6,000 gpm 520 gallons
construction
TABLE 1: Characteristics of Recent Major Fireboats Worldwide
INITIAL DESIGN STUDIES

After formal agreement on the SOR, the earliest stages of the new fireboat design consisted of the typical initial estimates of vessel
size, weight, displacement and powering, all based on the various objectives and restrictions as defined in the SOR. From these basic
studies, the first iteration of a vessel configuration (General Arrangement) was defined for client review and acceptance as the basis for
moving forward with the design in the traditional design spiral process.
The major conceptual level studies performed at this juncture were the following:
 Hull form development

 Powering analysis and propulsion machinery configuration
 Fire-fighting system configuration
FDNY FAST RESPONSE FIREBOAT, JANUARY

2006
Hull Form Development
Design Spiral
Design Review
The speed requirements for this vessel led obviously to the choice of a
General
Kick off
semi-displacement hull form. Whether that hull should have a round
Meeting bilge or hard chine form would later be established, based on an
Arrangement
evaluation of the characteristics of resistance and construction cost.
Final Design The initial hull form proposed for the new boats originated with a
Propulsion & recently completed fireboat built for Dongguan Fire Services in China,
Pumping Systems Hull Design
Design
also designed by Robert Allan Ltd. The Guan Xiao Yi Hao (Figure 2)
is a semi-displacement vessel of 127 feet LOA, with a service speed of
Ro b e r t A lla n Lt d .
V a n c o u v e r, B C www.ral.bc.ca
15 knots, and significantly, a shallow draft of 7'-2". The early hull form
concept was based on this design and included twin propellers in
Fig.1: Design Spiral Process shallow tunnels.
Initial weight estimates and centres of gravity for model testing were derived from the Chinese fireboat and from the Warner J.
Lawrence, the 105 foot, Voith-propelled Los Angeles fireboat (Fig. 3) (Allan, R.G. et al., 2003)
Fig. 2: Dongguan Fire Services: Guan Xiao Yi Hao Fig. 3: Los Angeles Fireboat - Warner J. Lawrence
The characteristics of these two primary reference vessels are summarized in Table 2 below:
Table 2: Reference Fireboat Characteristics

Particulars
Warner J. Guan Xiao Yi Main Machinery Design Considerations
Lawrence Hao
Length, overall 105'–0" 127'–7"
The main machinery choices were defined by three discrete but
interrelated power requirements, -namely;
Length, waterline 98'–0" 118'–3"  the power delivered to the propellers to achieve the response
Beam, moulded 29'–0" 29'–6" speed,
 the power required to hold station while fire-fighting at maximum
Depth, moulded 13'–4" 14'–7"
monitor output, and
Maximum draft 15'–2" 7'–2"  the total fire-fighting power demand.
Fuel capacity 16,230 gallons 8,690 gallons
All analyses were based on the characteristics of readily available,
Potable water capacity 500 gallons 1,420 gallons North American-supported, high-speed (1,600–2,000 rpm) engines.
Fire-fighting foam This limitation was an obvious one due to the desirable power-to-
6,000 gallons 4,000 gallons weight ratio, and more favourable cost per unit power of high speed
capacity
Response speed 13 knots 15 knots engines. Because there were engines available that matched the
output requirements for all the options to be considered, the
Power 2 x 1,800 hp 2 x 1,500 hp CAT3500 series engines were used as the basis of all initial
31,000 gpm @ 13,200 gpm @ evaluations. Typically the engine power ratings used were those for
Fire-fighting capacity very intermittent load and low annual hours duty. Using one brand
150 psi 150 psi
for this stage of the trade-off studies also ensured consistent pricing.
Free Running Design Case
Initial powering estimates for the estimated size and mass of the fireboat indicated that the power delivered to the propellers to achieve
the response speed of 17.4 knot should be no less than 6,900 bhp. With the added defined service margin this increased to 8,100 bhp.
The mass of the vessel used in this estimate was based on the lightest machinery configuration option considered at that stage of the
design. Options that increased the vessel weight would obviously require more power to achieve the design speed.
Station-Keeping Design Case
The station-keeping requirement assumes maximum pump output, with monitors trained athwartships in the direction which produces
the maximum turning moment. Monitor forces must be countered by the combined effects of the propellers, rudders, and any
supplementary transverse thrusters fitted. In addition, any longitudinal forces generated by these components must similarly cancel
each other out, and the combined turning moment of all forces about the centre of lateral resistance must be zero. Preliminary analyses
indicated that the power required to satisfy the free running design case would be adequate for the station-keeping design case,
provided the propulsion system is capable of effectively using the installed power at zero boat speed (bollard pull condition).
Pumping Power Requirements

The pumping power requirement to provide the initially prescribed capacity of 36,000 gpm as set out in the owner’s SOR is
approximately 5500 hp. At a later stage in the design, the Owners elected to increase this output to closer to 50,000 gpm to satisfy a
broader range of missions, which obviously impacted on total boat weight and configuration. In either case, there are many ways to
deliver the pumping power, as described later.
Propeller Demand Scenarios

The free running design case and the station keeping design case have significantly different propeller demand power characteristics.
As illustrated in Figure 4, an open fixed pitch propeller selected to create a propeller load of 2000 kW at 1800 engine rpm and 17.4
knots will create the same load of 2000 kW at only 1400 engine rpm at zero boat speed. The propulsion system must be designed to
effectively cope with these significantly different propeller demand conditions.
Propeller Demand vs Engine Performance

2200
2000 Prop Demand - Free
Running - GB…
1800
1600
1400
Engine Power (bhp)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Engine Speed (rpm)
Fig. 4 Propeller Demand: Station-Keeping vs. Free-Running (for a fixed pitch open prop.)
Electronic Diesel Engine Power Limitations

It was critical, at this juncture, to be mindful of the power characteristics of modern, electronically-controlled diesel engines when
being called upon to operate at both full boat speed and then at a "bollard" condition such as station-keeping with the fire pumps
running.
Historically, with naturally aspirated or two-cycle diesel engines with blowers, the propeller would be selected for the design speed and
due to the availability of ample torque at lower engine speeds there could be enough power to cope with the increased propeller load of
a fixed pitch propeller at lower boat speeds. However, as the engine-rated power has increased due to the enhancements provided by
turbo-charging, the power available at the lower engine speeds has not increased proportionally. Without the benefit of the turbo boost
at the lower engine speeds, the power available is much the same as the traditional naturally aspirated power. Hence a fixed pitch
propeller selected to take advantage of a highly turbocharged engine rating at full boat speed may overload the engine at low boat
speed. Before the advent of electronically controlled diesels, even at low engine speed the engine’s mechanical governor would respond
and provide fuel to match the full rated power, and in most applications, still pick up the load at low engine speeds. This resulted in a
lot of black smoke as there was insufficient air for the fuel supplied. With the evolution of electronic fuel systems for low-emission
diesel engines, the air/fuel ratio is matched over the entire engine speed curve to eliminate black smoke. The result however can be
insufficient power at low engine speeds, particularly when an open, fixed pitch propeller is selected for high boat speeds. The
increased propeller loading at low boat speeds can exceed the capability of the engine, causing the engine to stall. Therefore the choice
of propulsion system must ensure that the engine is capable of providing sufficient power for both the response speed (free running)
and the stationkeeping (bollard pull, zero boat speed).
PROPULSION MACHINERY OPTIONS

Various different propulsion systems were considered in detail, in order to assess their capability to deliver the required power in all
operating conditions. The options evaluated included:
Fixed Pitch Propellers, Fixed Gear Ratio, standard engine rating

As illustrated in Figure 5, the demand curve of a fixed-pitch propeller in station-keeping is almost identical to the typical high speed
engine power output at a very low engine speed, causing the engine to be overloaded during acceleration. The engine speed won’t get
above roughly 900 rpm unless the boat is able to move forward and reduce the propeller demand. This configuration cannot provide
the power necessary for the stationkeeping operations.

2200
3512B 2012 bhp - C Rating : Maximum Limit
2000 Prop Demand - Free Running - GB Ratio 3.4
Prop Demand - Station Keeping - GB Ratio 3.4

1800
1600
1400
Engine Power (bhp)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Engine Speed (rpm )
Fig. 5 Fixed Pitch Propeller versus Engine Power Output
Fixed Pitch Propellers, Fixed Gear Ratio, WOSR engine rating:

One solution to the engine overloading problem illustrated in Figure 5 is to obtain an engine with a Wide Operating Speed Range at full
power, (referred to by Caterpillar as a WOSR rating). This engine power characteristic satisfies both the free running and station-
keeping propeller demand requirements.
2200
3516B 2000 bhp - WOSR A Rating : Maximum Limit
1800
1600
1400
Engine Power (bhp)

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Engine Speed (rpm )
Fig. 6: Fixed Pitch Propeller versus Engine Power Output, with WOSR rating
Controllable Pitch (CP) Propellers

The most obvious solution to match the propeller demand to the engine capability is to use controllable pitch propellers so that the
propeller demand curve is always below the engine output curve, as illustrated in Figure 7.

2200

2000
1800
1600
1400
Engine Power (bhp)
1200
Controlable Pitch Prop -

1000 Variable Demand Region
800
600
400
200
0
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Engine Speed (rpm )
Fig. 7: Controllable Pitch Propeller, Variable Demand
Two-Speed Gearboxes
Another option to solve the overload problem is to use a fixed pitch propeller, but add a two-speed gearbox to enable selection of the
ratio most appropriate to either station-keeping or fast response. The resulting characteristics are shown in Figure 8. This option
requires careful operator control of the gear ratio selection for the anticipated operating condition as generally the ratio cannot be
changed without stopping the propeller.
2200

1800
1600
1400
Engine Power (bhp)

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Engine Speed (rpm )
Fig. 8: Fixed Pitch Propeller with Two-Speed Gearbox Results
Water-Jets
Water-jets provide a very similar load to the engine in both free running and station-keeping modes, and thus were a potential solution
to this problem. For this application, operating well below the speed range where water-jets might typically be used, they also provide
a distinct advantage where operation in shallow water is important. However, to achieve good low speed thrust efficiency, the water-
jets need to be very large and thus are rather expensive and/or inefficient compared to conventional propellers.

2400
2200 Waterjet Demand - Free Running
2000
Waterjet Demand - Station Keeping
1800
1600
Engine Power (bhp)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Engine Speed (rpm )
Fig. 9: Water-Jet Application
Powering and Pumping Configurations

Based on the free-running, station-keeping, and pumping considerations described above, and given the initial estimates of total
required power for free running and pumping, a wide range of engine and drive configurations were postulated, including options in
which the pump engines were independent of the propulsion engines, and others where the duties of propulsion and pumping were
shared. The weight of each option affects the resistance and thus either the power required or the speed that can be achieved. In some
instances the resistance and thus the power/speed characteristics are influenced by the need to achieve the draft limitation (i.e.. small
props and/or tunnels affect the thrust performance and/or the hull resistance). All these factors were considered in the options
summarized and illustrated below:
Option 1: Twin Z-Drives/Twin Independent Pump
Engines (RFP Reference Configuration)
• Major Machinery Weight = 163,000 lbs.
• Total pump capacity = 37,000 gpm at 160 psi
• Total installed power = 8,660 bhp
• Predicted service speed = 14.3 knots
Note: The draft constraint limits the size/power of the Z-drive.
Fig. 10: Twin Z-Drives/Twin Independent Pump Engines
Option 2: Twin Z-Drives and CL Booster

Propeller/Pump Engine:
• Total pump capacity = 35,000 gpm at 160
psi
Note: The draft constraint limits the size/power of the Z-drive.
Fig. 11: Twin Z-Drives and CL Booster Propeller/Pump Engine
Option 3: Twin CP Propellers

psi
Fig. 12: Twin CP Propellers
Option 4A: Quad FP Propellers/WOSR Rated
Engines
psi
Fig. 13: Quad FP Propellers/WOSR Rated Engines
Option 4B: Quad CP Propellers

psi
Fig. 14: Quad CP Propellers
Option 4C: Quad FP Propellers with Two-Speed

Gearboxes
psi
Fig. 15 Quad FP Propellers with Two-Speed Gearboxes
Option 4D: Quad Water-Jets
psi
Fig. 16: Quad Water-Jets
Option 5: Diesel Electric Version of 4A

The possibility of a diesel-electric option was also considered, however a quick initial analysis indicated that this would be
considerably heavier and more costly than any of the diesel-mechanical options. The load profile also did not fit well with the attributes
of a diesel-electric installation. Accordingly this option was discounted early in the design process.
Summary of Propulsion Options

At the conclusion of this detailed investigation a technical solution for the total power plant began to emerge. It was obvious that the
originally defined twin Z-drive installation was not feasible, due to draft limitations and also the high resistance of Z-drives at high
speed, nor was any conventional twin-screw configuration due to the draft limitation. Table 3 summarizes the information from all the
previous Figures, with the addition of initial equipment cost estimates.
Figure 17 illustrates the initial estimates of the thrust characteristics of the various propulsion systems described above, in concert with
the estimated resistance characteristics of the proposed hull. Only options 4A, 4B, and 4C satisfied the speed objectives.
Hull Resistance vs Delivered Thrust Option 4B was considered as the most viable option at this juncture
100000
and was taken into the pre-selection process, as the availability of
the WOSR diesel option was still in question. This option did not
Option 4 A/B/C
90000
80000 Option 4D meet the pumping target of 36,000 gpm however, therefore at the
70000
Option 3
suggestion of the Client, front PTO-driven pumps were added to the
Resistance / Delivered Thrust (lbs)
Option 2
outboard engines increasing the total potential pumping capacity to
60000
137' Hull
In Service
64,000 gpm at 160 psi. Final equipment selection reduced the
50000
Option 3 & 4D Option 4 A/B/C pumping capacity to 12,500 gpm per pump for a total of 50,000
Predicted Predicted
40000
Speed
~17.3 knots
Speed
~17.8 knots
gpm, well in excess of the 20,000 gpm required by the design RFP.
30000
Option 1 Of course all 4 pumps could only be used if none of the engines
were required for station-keeping. In such circumstances the
20000 Option 1
Predicted
Speed
Option 2
Predicted
Speed
fireboat would have to be securely anchored or secured to a pier as
10000 ~14.3 knots ~16.9 knots
it would be when supplying water to the shore based operations.
0 This 4 pump solution added significantly to the operational
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Vessel Speed (knots) redundancy of the vessel allowing the vessel to be capable of
exceeding the design SOR target of 36,000 gpm even with one
Fig. 17: Thrust Characteristics of Various Propulsion Options pumping system (engine, pump, or gearbox) out of service.
Table 3: Summary of Propulsion System Options
Option Description Total Relative cost Relative weight Speed Pumping

Power Capacity
US$ lbs knots
bhp at 160 psi
1 Twin Z-Drives/Twin 8,660 $2,590,000 163,000 14.3 37,000
Independent pump engines
2 Twin Z-Drives and CL booster 9,835 $2,910,000 172,000 16.9 35,000
engine
3 Twin CP propellers/Twin 13,070 $3,330,000 141,000 17.3 37,000
Independent pump engines
4A Quad FP propellers/WOSR 8,000 $2,880,000 150,000 17.8 32,000
Engines
4B Quad CP propellers 8,048 $2,930,000 152,000 17.8 32,000

4C Quad FP propellers with two 8,048 $2,960,000 154,000 17.8 32,000
speed gearboxes
4D Quad waterjets 8,800 $3,090,000 145,000 17.3 32,000
INITIAL DESIGN CONCEPT

After completion of the initial powering analysis and other trade-off studies, and working on the then agreed proposition that this would
be a quadruple-screw vessel, a conceptual General Arrangement was developed (Figure 19), setting out the basic hull and deckhouse
geometry, and the critical positioning of the major fire-fighting monitors. The nominated principal particulars at this stage were as
follows:
• Length Overall - 130 feet

• Beam, Moulded - 36 feet
• Depth, Moulded - 13.75 feet
• Load Draft - 9 feet
The main deck was devoted primarily to fire-fighting equipment and triage spaces. The lower deck spaces primarily to crew quarters,
and the control centres and wheelhouse were in the upper house.
Fig. 18: Concept General Arrangement
MODEL TESTING AND PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION
The design contract required that scale model tests be performed in order to verify resistance, powering, and seakeeping characteristics
of the proposed design. A set of preliminary tests were performed in October 2005 in Vancouver at the Vizon-Scitec ship model basin
at the University of British Columbia, a teaching and publicly used facility which sadly no longer exists. These preliminary
assessments were for basic resistance, trim effect, and LCG optimization tests, conducted on a 1:20 scale model, illustrated in Figures
19 and 20. These tests were conducted at a very early stage of the design process and were based on a geosim of an existing fireboat
design. This testing was done in order to verify initial analytical estimates, but as the vessel was going to be well outside of the range
of existing available trials data it was deemed prudent to conduct these initial tests to establish a better baseline. The hull was a simple
hard chine form, with multiple spray chines in the upper flare which also facilitated construction by avoiding the need for compound
plate curvature in the bow region. The bow height was set to match the Staten Island Ferry deck level, a prerequisite of the SOR.
Fig. 19: Initial 1:20 Scale Test Model Fig. 20: Test Model at Speed of 18 Knots
To reduce deck wetness, the original concept was modified by increasing foredeck height and widening the spray chines. The issue of
bow height for access to the Staten Island Ferry main deck was resolved by using the forepeak as a ballast tank, thus enabling the bow
to be lowered to the ferry deck height when necessary.
The seakeeping tests clearly indicated that the relatively low bow
resulted in excessive deck wetness (Figure 21) in even a moderate sea
state.
To reduce deck wetness, the original concept was modified by

increasing foredeck height and widening the spray chines. The issue
of bow height for access to the Staten Island Ferry main deck was
resolved by using the forepeak as a ballast tank, thus enabling the
bow to be lowered to the ferry deck height when necessary.
Fig. 21: Deck Wetness in 6.5 foot Significant Wave Height
Based on these preliminary model test results, a new quadruple propeller, semi-displacement parent hull form was designed for further
development. To produce the most reliable propulsion test results, the next round of testing, comprising self-propulsion, resistance, and
wake tests were conducted on a larger 1:10 scale model at the Vienna Model Basin (VMB) using stock propellers.
Initial VMB self-propulsion, resistance, and wake-wash tests were conducted on the new hull form. Further tests were then conducted
to optimize this hull. For the quadruple propeller arrangement tested, it was necessary to analyze the inner pair of propellers and the
outer pair of propellers separately to obtain the thrust deduction, wake, and efficiencies, and to determine optimum rotations.
A photograph of the VMB model is shown in Figure 22.
Fig. 22: 1:10 Scale Model Ready for Testing at Vienna Model Basin
The resistance and propulsion tests were conducted over a speed range from 16.5 to 18.5 knots with the hull as designed. The model
was then modified and retested to determine the optimum propeller rotation and after-body configuration at 17.5 knots. These tests
showed that the optimum configuration required 10% less power than the original concept. This optimum configuration included a
wedge at the transom, with the inner propellers rotating outwards and outer propellers rotating inwards.
The wake wash of this optimized configuration showed a 13% reduction at 17.5 knots, compared to the initial hull form, with a double
amplitude wake height of 4.5 feet with the optimum hull configuration. The test model with the optimum configuration, running at
17.5 knots, is shown inFigure 23.
Using the same standard procedures, resistance, self-propulsion,

and wake wash tests were then conducted over the speed range of
16 to 18.5 knots with the optimum configuration determined from
the previous initial tests.
The original hull lines for the fireboat were developed in October
2005. As the design developed through the preliminary, value
engineering and contract design phases there were a number of
changes to the vessel that resulted in a significant increase in the
Fig. 23: Modified Model with Optimized Hull Configuration
lightship weight. Specifically the selection of a four fire-pump
configuration with increased total pump output increased lightship
weight by approximately 32 long tons (or 7.4 %) with the attendant loss of buoyancy due to the addition of two more seachests. With
the increased weight, for certain conditions the draft would exceed the 9 foot contract draft limitation. Accordingly the hull lines were
adjusted to add the required additional buoyancy and also to shift the LCB aft. The resulting changes to the lines are illustrated in
Figure 24, following page.
Fig. 24: Comparison of Final (Rev.B) vs. Bid Stage (Rev.4) Hull Lines
The initial VMB model tests were performed in December of 2005 based on the Rev. 4 Lines Plan. As part of the design check
performed in April, 2008, a review of the speed and powering was done to determine if the subsequent changes made to the lines (Rev.
B lines) and the added displacement would jeopardize the requirement for the vessel to meet the contract design speed of 17.4 knots
(with 15% service margin included).
After a review of the 2005 model test results and the design status as of April 2008, the following was determined:
 The increase in displacement for the trials condition was approximately 32 long tons (7.4 %)
 The increase in hull wetted surface (for the trials condition) was approximately 7%
 The changes to the lines were significant enough that there was some doubt that the results of the 2005 model tests could be
accurately correlated to the Rev. B lines
 It was determined that the best course of action was to do a second round of model testing to confirm that there was still
sufficient installed power to meet the contract requirements. A second round of model tests was therefore performed at VMB
in May 2008. The model was adjusted to address the modified lines and increased displacement. The effects of different
wedge configurations and varying LCG were also tested.
The results of these latest model tests showed that the revised hull form (Rev. B lines) performed well. The addition of a wedge to the
Rev B lines improved the performance, and as expected vessel performance was sensitive to position of the LCG / running trim. The
self-propulsion tests were performed for the bare hull model with rudders, shafts and stock propellers. The model tests results did not
provide any allowance for the bow thrusters tunnel and sea chests, model-full scale correlation, windage, sea-state or design margins;
these were added by direct calculation.
The results of the final model tests showed that with a 0 degree wedge (and with 15% service margin) the required power for 17.4 knots
varied from 7,988 bhp to 8,178 bhp depending on the position of the LCG. However, with a 5 degree wedge added to the Rev B lines
(and still with the 15% service margin) the required power for 17.4 knots varied from 7,374 bhp to 7,616 bhp, again depending on the
position of the LCG. The power saving offered by the 5 degree wedge was attractive, but it carried greater risks of creating directional
instability if excessive bow trim were to occur. The decision was then made to proceed with a 3 degree wedge since it was difficult to
correlate the running trim from the model test to the actual hull form, and there were real risks that the LCG could creep forward during
construction.
The 2008 VMB trials were conducted for an estimated trials displacement of 487 long tons with the LCG varying from 3.4 ft to 5.4 feet
aft of midships. The actual inclined lightship weight was 432.6 long tons with the LCG 4.62 feet aft of midships. This correlates to a
trials displacement of 473 long tons and a trials LCG of 4.06 feet.
Later, the sea trials of the first vessel, were conducted with an actual deadweight slightly more than the required trials deadweight
resulting in an average displacement of 491 long tons, during the trial, with the LCG 3.9 ft aft of midships. In addition, the seastate,
currents and wind during trials, were far from calm water conditions and fouling of hull and props that may have occurred during the
lengthy final outfitting, adversely affected the performance.
The average engine power delivered during the maximum speed

trials was 2037 bhp (total 8,150 bhp) . With this power a trials speed
of 18 knots was achieved. The speed vs power characteristics of the
vessel corrected to match the measured maximum speed
performance in these adverse conditions are shown in Figure 25.
The power to achieve the contract speed of 17.4 knots in these
conditions is indicated as 6900 bhp (1725 bhp per engine). For
reasons discussed later, the rated power of the installed main
engines was 2253 bhp per engine for a total of 9012 bhp, or 130%
of the power required to achieve the contract speed. This extra
power provides ample reserve to accommodate more than a 15%
increase in resistance during the life of the vessel. In the meantime,
to reduce unnecessary fuel consumption, the CP pitch controls have
been set to limit the absorbed power to 2037 bhp per engine (8150
bhp total according to the trials data), or 118% of the power
required to achieve the contract speed.
Fig. 25: Speed and Power Curve
The trials data confirm that despite the significant growth in the mission capabilities and thus vessel displacement as the design
developed from concept to completion, the power requirement of ~8100 bhp estimated at the concept stages proved adequate to achieve
the performance requirements of the design contract. This was possible in large part due to experienced judgement in the choice of the
factors to cover the unknowns in the incubation stages of the project, the rigorous model testing to control the hull resistance during the
design development, and effective weight control during the detailed design and build phases of the project.
PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND VALUE ENGINEERING

The New York City Office of Management and Budget (OMB) compiled a group of industry experts to review the preliminary design
and evaluate whether the design at this stage represented good value for the FDNY and the City. The group comprised Naval
Architects, Marine Engineers, a former FDNY Captain and an independent Cost Estimator who were tasked with generating a list of
creative ideas and alternative arrangements that may not have been considered by the designers or that may represent better value over
the assumed 25 year life of the vessel.
The Value Engineering (VE) process started with FDNY presenting their final Statement of Requirements and the intended operations
of the vessel. The design team then presented the results of the initial design studies and evaluations (model testing, propulsion, and
fire-fighting evaluations) and the resulting preliminary design concept. The Value Engineering group then generated approximately
120 ideas of which 28 were deemed worthy of further consideration. These 28 ideas were further developed with sketches,
calculations, and cost estimates. Finally, the VE group presented these suggestions to FDNY, OMB and the designers as
recommendations for further consideration in the ongoing design development.
Overall, the process was very positive and resulted in several improvements that were ultimately carried through to completion of the
vessels. It should be noted that the ideas were not restricted to design; a number of suggestions related to contractual matters. The
following are some of the more significant recommendations and subsequent implementations that arose from the VE process:
 Move command centre to the level just below wheelhouse (was initially located on main deck)
 Substitute Ni-Cad batteries for specified lead acid
 Add fire-fighting capability (monitor) to crane basket
 Drive the bow thruster with electric motor rather than by diesel
 Arrange CBRN system for continuous use in lieu of separate normal and protected systems
 Move fuel oil day tanks inboard of hull side
 Procure two vessels in a single bid in lieu of one plus one to follow at a later date
The only disappointing result of the VE exercise was the estimation of construction cost. Completely independent of each other, the
designers and the VE consultants arrived at construction cost estimates that were within 4% of each other. In spite of this independent
corroboration of the initial cost estimate, the market conditions at the time the project was tendered were such that the lowest bid was
more than 40% above the agreed estimated value!
MACHINERY SELECTION PROCESS

One of the major challenges of a front-line fireboat design is that it is virtually impossible to design this type of vessel around
assumptions of generic propulsion and pumping machinery. The entire vessel configuration and its performance hinge around the main
engine and pump engine configuration selected, and of course the weight and geometry of those components. Accordingly, it is this
design team's specific practice for major fireboats to advise clients that it is absolutely essential to pre-select (if not pre-purchase) at
least the following major machinery components:
 Main engines
 Gearboxes
 CP propellers
 Fire-fighting pumps and monitors
 Generator sets
This approach enables the design to be completed to the "Class approval" stage with a high degree of confidence that all the major
systems will fit properly within the defined spaces, that the structure is appropriate for sea chest locations, etc., and that the weight
targets are achievable. This process however presents procedural challenges; many civil governments are not well set-up for such
purchases which frequently have to be based on a combination of many factors other than just low price, such as reliability, weight,
size, etc.
A major benefit to the Fire Department however, in pre-selecting equipment is to have their voice in choosing key components that
have desirable features and good support (e.g. service, parts) in their operational area. A shipyard winning the contract may not have
included in their bid the equipment preferred by the Owner, and it is difficult within the bid process not to include the ubiquitous "or
equal" clause. Accordingly, a separate, competitive, bid process was conducted to pre-select all major equipment. The results of this
process were then communicated to the shipyards bidding the project, removing major variables in shipyard proposals.
The following main machinery components were pre-selected as the equipment to be installed in the vessels:
Main Engines - MTU 12V4000M70, 2253 bhp at 2000 rpm

Gearboxes - Hundested CPG 120, vertical (2) and horizontal (2) offset, Rated: 2253 bhp at 2000 input rpm,
Ratio= 4.12:1
CP Propeller System - Hundested MP 600HP, Rated 2253 bhp at 485 rpm, Fi-Fi Pumps, Monitors,
Controls - Fire Fighting Systems (FFS), ENM 350-550 pumps, FFS3600, FFS1200 and FFS600 monitors
Generators - Northern Lights Model No. M1276A1, 235 ekW
Deck Crane - Allied Marine Systems TC 20-50
The rated power of the engines selected was greater than the power estimated to be required to achieve the contract requirements at that
stage of the project. However, due to the limited number of Tier 2 emissions certified ratings available, this rating was determined to
be the best choice of the engines offered during this pre-selection process. The components of the drive train were all rated for the full
rated engine power so that if more engine power is required at some point in the future, the complete propulsion system would be
capable of using the full engine rated power. However, as the engine fuel consumption and power related wear and tear on all the
propulsion system components would increase significantly with increased propeller load, and this extra power would primarily be
consumed in generating higher waves with little increase in boat speed, the propeller was designed for optimum performance at 17.4
knots, and the pitch was limited to absorb approximately 2000 bhp.
CONTRACT DESIGN PACKAGE
Basic Vessel Arrangement
At the conclusion and approval of the preliminary design phase, work then proceeded with the development of the final "Contract
Design" package. This constituted the document set used for soliciting shipyard bids, and also for obtaining Class approvals for the
design. The General Arrangement for the vessel at this juncture is shown in Figure 26:
The arrangement remained remarkably true to the original concept, with obvious alterations to reflect the final dimensions and
equipment details. The key elements of the design and arrangement are as follows
 Wheelhouse; An excellent all-round view with a commanding outlook over the vessel fore and aft working decks is afforded
from the main control centre. Individual control stations are configured for the vessel operator (Pilot), the Engineer, and
Officer. All necessary controls and monitoring information are provided at the operator and engineer stations for complete
control of the vessel and systems, particularly important in a CBRN event.
 Command Centre; This space immediately below the Wheelhouse enables the vessel to function as a mobile incident
command centre with communications, internet, and video displays to receive and disperse information on any incident.
Radio communications include 800 MHz (for interagency), FDNY department radios, marine radios, and interoperable radio
enabling various forms of communication to be patched together (for example, a cell phone and a handheld transceiver).
Camera displays and controls are fitted for the Bosch Extreme camera (36x zoom with image stabilization) and a FLIR
thermal imaging/night vision camera. There is a vessel-wide Closed Circuit TV (CCTV) system, and emergency backup sat-
ellite voice and data communications.
 Transport Room; This is a multi-functional space, the uses of which include transport of additional fire-fighters, as a briefing
room, as an expanded triage area (with seats pulled out to accommodate stretchers), as a survivor seating and recovery area, as
storage space for lifejackets and survival suits, storing racks for SCBA cylinders, and as seating space for VIP trips
 Triage Room; This critical space is arranged for comprehensive first aid emergency treatment of victims with a medical table,
supply storage, drug refrigerator, recovery area seating with plumbed-in oxygen, and a full range of emergency treatments in-
cluding defibrillator, suction unit, and telemetry equipment
 Decontamination Corridor; As a critical part of the CBRN system, this wash-down area is provided for treatment of
contaminated victims, and is equipped with fixed shower heads and a fold-up bench for non-ambulatory (stretcher-borne)
victims with a hand shower wand. The drain water from this space can be captured in a 150 gallon tank or diverted overboard
in large scale operations. The water supply is from freshwater tanks with secondary raw water supply. Further in from the
shower area is the assessment area where survivors are scanned for contaminants and wait for air to be swept or purged prior
to continuing into protected areas
 Fire Equipment Room; This is, in effect, a "garage" space fitted with hose racks, shelves, and bins to store all manner of fire-
fighting equipment such as poles, axes, tools, fittings, hoses, etc., all readily accessible through an 8 foot wide stainless steel
roll-up door which opens directly onto the aft deck. Over 3,500 feet of hose in a range of sizes, from 1-3/4" hand lines to 5"
shore supply lines are stowed in flat racks, readily accessible from the open door
 Accommodation Spaces; Enough space is provided in the fireboat for a live-aboard mixed gender crew of four with basic
amenities. This space also serves as a rest and recovery area for extended operations and can be used to accommodate
additional victims if necessary.
 Gasoline Locker; a well-ventilated separate deck locker is provided for the storage of gasoline-powered equipment such as
salvage pumps, chain saws, and portable fans.
Figure 26 Contract Design General Arrangement
Fire-Fighting System Design
The fire-fighting system was arranged to provide flexibility and redundancy without complexity. Four pumps feed a ring main so a
single pump can serve any monitor, hydrant, or dewatering eductor. Valves are fitted to enable the system to be divided into port and
starboard sectors served by either or both port or starboard pumps.
The system was further segregated such that any pump can be further isolated to a quadrant. This allows for different elements of the
system to be operated at different pressures, or a damaged section to be isolated without loss of the entire system.
Figure 27 illustrates the system arrangement:
Fig. 27: Fire-Fighting System Configuration
The principal features of the fire-fighting system are:
a. The entire system is remotely controlled from the wheelhouse via a touch-screen interface with the exception of the crane
monitor, which is controlled at the local turret platform. All valves (except hydrant and foam manifold valves) can be remotely
controlled. All remote functions can also be locally, manually operated. There are no automated functions; it is necessary to
select the desired configuration each time, which was preferable as the operator is then always aware of how the system needs to
be configured to achieve a desired result. In the event of a control system failure, the operator then knows which valve needs to
be manually controlled and in which sequence for the same result.
b. All the fire pumps are identical, each driven off a main engine power take-off via a clutch and speed-reducing gearbox,
producing 10,000 gpm at 203 psi or 12, 500 gpm at 150 psi. Each pump absorbs approximately 1,460 hp when pumping. The
engines are restricted to operate in either "pumping" or "propulsion" configuration as a matter of control; the fire-fighting system
operator can freely control the pump engines without affecting the vessel's propulsion and vice versa. In pumping mode the
engines are operated with a speed/pressure controller. The speed controller can be used to provide a desired flow rate, or the
pressure controller can be used to maintain a desired pressure as the flow to different monitors and hoses changes. The fire main
is constructed from a combination of galvanized, painted steel pipe and fibreglass piping. Treated steel pipe was used above the
main deck and in way of bulkhead penetrations for ease of sealing and to provide system support. The fibreglass was selected
for smooth bore (low pressure loss), light weight, and corrosion resistance, hence lower long term maintenance.
c. Hydrant manifolds are arranged on deck and located in each "quarter". Each manifold is fitted with 4 x 3" connections for hand
lines as well as a single 8" connection for shore supply. The port aft manifold also has a 12" Victaulic fitting outlet to provide
large flow capacities to shore.
d. Twelve fire monitors are fitted: four 2,000 gpm water monitors located in each quarter, six 5,200 gpm water with a reduced
setting of 1,300 gpm water/foam monitors on deckhouse, one 17,000 gpm monitor on foredeck and a 1,500 gpm under the crane
bucket. No deluge system is fitted; the 2,000 gpm quarter monitors can, in a fog setting, be rotated to douse the superstructure.
e. 3,300 gallons of foam concentrate (3% mix ratio) is stowed in two tanks in the compartment aft of the engine room. Additional
portable foam tanks, i.e. totes, can be loaded and secured on deck for large- scale operations. Electrically-driven foam pumps
are used to inject foam into the water stream for individual monitors or hydrants, rather than on a system-wide basis. Foam
proportioners are fitted at the foam injection points to sense the water pressure/flow and adjust the foam concentrate flow to suit.
The foam used is flouropolydol, an alcohol-resistant product that requires air mixing prior to discharge from the monitor. The
six house monitors are fitted with barrel extensions to induce air into the water/foam concentrate stream to aspirate the foam
product.
f. A separate system is fitted and piped to the forward and aft house monitors to inject dye for patriotic and publicity displays.
g. Pairs of 250 gpm dewatering eductors are fitted in the engine room, port and starboard, to enable the fire-fighting pumps to also
serve for pumping out flooded vessels.
CBRN Configuration
It was a requirement of FDNY to incorporate a CBRN capability into this vessel, given the broad operational mandate of the vessel.
Such capabilities are quite unusual in modern fireboats, although less so in the post-9/11 world. Accordingly, NAVSEA was brought
into the project in the latter stages of design as a sub-consultant to tap into their expertise in the design of this type of protection
systems as provided on naval vessels. While general CBRN protection concepts are readily grasped, there is much "devil in the
details". As a life support system, it is essential that the best available expertise ensures that these details are properly addressed from
design to commissioning and training.
CBRN protection features consist of the following elements:
Citadel: The "Citadel" comprises the vessel spaces and compartments enclosed by a fume-tight boundary that protects personnel
within it by a 2" of water (IWG) over-pressurization, relative to atmosphere. When the decision is made to go into "protected"
mode, several things occur; various normally running exhaust fans and dampers shut off and close, forcing all air flow through air
sweep ports in an air lock egress chamber, and a decontamination ingress route. The control of two high pressure, high
performance fans is shifted from "normal" to "protected" mode, allowing variable frequency drive controllers to adjust speed to
maintain the citadel overpressure. Make-up air is forced through mil-spec M98 filter cartridges, that include combination
particulate (HEPA), and chemical/gas filters. Fresh air enters through a pre-heater system to maximize filter life. The monitoring
and alarm display system is then shifted to "protected" mode.
Ingress/Egress: When shifted to "protected" mode, there is only one access to and one egress from the Citadel. Both routes
marshal personnel through a red/green light indicating system which is controlled by door limit switches and time delays, based on
providing an acceptable number of air changes via the air sweeps. The egress comprises a single air lock compartment, through
which personnel, suitably outfitted with hazard gear, exit to the main deck exterior. The ingress comprises two adjacent
compartments before entering the Citadel. The first compartment contains high flow decontamination showers and wands, where
FDNY personnel and victims would strip down and perform a decontamination wash-down. After wash-down, they enter the next
compartment, the hazardous materials assessment space. In this compartment, affected persons would be examined and assessed
before entrance into the triage room, which is within the Citadel, where they would be medically assessed and treated accordingly.
Monitoring/Alarm/Control: Upon shifting to "protected" mode, the following actions occur:

 Exhaust fans and dampers shutdown so that air flows only through the ingress/egress air sweep ports
 The supply fans VFD controllers regulate the speed to maintain 2 IWG Citadel overpressure
 A visual light indicating system activates to inform personnel not to open Citadel doors and to dog them down, as well as
showing a red/green light system which marshals personnel through the ingress and egress in an acceptable manner after a
prescribed number of air sweep change-outs have occurred
 The monitor/alarm panels display status and audible various alarms such as "open doors/ hatches/dampers", "Citadel
over/under pressure", "filter high differential pressure", "system fault", etc.
DESIGN FEATURES
A fireboat should be as versatile as possible to deal with any emergency situation that may arise. Such situations are not prescribed or
predicted, and hence require the vessel to be as flexible and adaptable as possible. The vessel needs to have redundancy to ensure
reliability (one cannot call 911 in the event of failure!) and the redundancy must be simple and obvious, given that the crew are
operating in emergency and potentially life-threatening conditions. The following are aspects of the design that are considered
noteworthy in terms of achieving the Statement of Requirements and the performance objectives:
Hull form: The fireboat has a unique quadruple screw design, providing the high power required within the relatively shallow draft
constraints. The hull form provides for generous working deck areas and a low level rescue platform aft. The hull shape was also
refined to ensure a relatively low wake signature at cruising speed. The combination of wide spray chines forward, bow flare and
raised bow height result in a dry foredeck in the moderate to heavy seas experienced to date.
Basic Design considerations: A major aspect of any fireboat design is safe and ready access to all working and equipment storage
spaces for the crew. Hence the overall access routes were considered carefully, generous walkways are provided along the house sides,
all doors are at least 30" wide, and clear heights of ceilings of at least 7' are provided throughout to accommodate typical large stature
fire-fighters in full protective gear. Careful consideration was also given to runs for hose deployment, with easy access to connection
points and manifolds.
Propulsion and Control system: To ensure maximum redundancy and controllability, each of the four drive trains is wholly
independent, and does not rely on gen-set power or other services for basic operations. Steering pumps are driven by gearbox power
takeoffs to ensure integrity of the drive train. The engine controls are arranged without pitch matching throughout the entire speed
range but with two fixed settings: "normal" (80%) and "full speed" (100%). The wheelhouse engine controls can be operated
independently or can be "synchronized" in port and starboard pairs.
Steering: The steering system is arranged with port and starboard
(P&S) rudder pairs, each pair joined by mechanical tie-rods. The
P&S pairs are then controlled with independent steering via full
follow-up jog levers, and all four rudders are synchronized up to the
main helm station. Emergency P&S non-follow-up levers are also
provided at the starboard helm. (The practicality of having four
independently controlled rudders was considered and dismissed as
too complex for the operators.) Figure 28 illustrates the installed
propellers and rudder system. The propellers were painted prior to
launch to inhibit fouling growth with the boat at dockside during the
expected five to six month long period before trials would take
place.
Deck machinery: The fireboat is equipped with bow and stern

anchors to provide the ability for the vessel to securely anchor for
extended dive operation or fire-fighting. A towline reel and bollard
are provided aft for emergency towing of any disabled or burning
Fig. 28: Quadruple Propeller Installation of Three Forty Three vessel. The fireboat is served by a large crane which is a
multifunctional tool used as either a 3,000 lb. capacity, 50 foot
extension crane, a fire-fighting personnel or equipment transfer device, or to enable the removal of casualties from a ship. The crane
basket is fitted with a water hydrant, a fire monitor, electrical outlets, floodlighting, and a video camera. All these can be used at high
level or can be directed onto a vessel in distress.
Rescue Operations and Dive Support: Water rescue and dive support services are a major aspect of the vessel operations. The design
therefore incorporates a full width stern platform arranged for ease of victim recovery and to support dive operations. An inflatable,
easy access water ramp is provided for a mass personnel boarding, e.g. from a downed aircraft. Wide access steps allow for stretcher
bearers to conveniently carry victims from the stern platform to treatment areas. A 17 foot rescue boat, with a 90 hp outboard is fitted
in a cradle designed for rapid deployment. The forepeak tank is set up as a ballast tank, piped directly to the hydrant manifold to allow
rapid filling and enable the vessel bow to be lowered to the deck height of Staten Island Ferry or pier, another major design requisite.
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
After the bidding process, a fixed price contract for construction and delivery of the two fireboats was awarded to Eastern Shipbuilding
Group on December 28, 2007.
The Fire Department manned up the construction oversight effort with an on-site project engineer and two inspectors (marine
engineer/fire-fighter and electrical) provided by Robert Allan Ltd. The project was fortunate to have Joe Stark, a retired marine
engineer/fire-fighter as part of the Robert Allan Ltd. inspection services team. His insight and understanding specific to fireboat
operations were invaluable. The New York office of AMSEC LLC was also retained by FDNY for additional periodic inspections and
independent advice.
The boats were built in three discrete modules; steel stern and bow modules and an aluminium superstructure module. The steel
modules were built inverted, with the main decks fabricated on jigs, frames and bulkheads erected, longitudinals installed, and then hull
plating applied. The aluminium superstructure module was fabricated in subassemblies by deck level. After all modules were com-
pleted, the superstructure was landed on the main deck and the bi-metallic Detacouple joints were welded out. Some piping and
electrical module pre-outfitting was done, but most of these installations were done after the structure was complete.
A combination of thermal insulation, structural insulation and anti-condensate and noise coatings were used where appropriate
throughout the boats. After all insulation, coatings, mechanical and electrical installations were complete, the boat was finished off
with stylish, lightweight, aluminium skinned, honeycombed joiner lining and bulkhead panels.
The building process was tracked regularly with photographs and posted on a web site, http://www.nycfireboat.com/.
PERFORMANCE RESULTS
Preliminary Trials on Three Forty Three began in January 2010, but unfortunately a fire pump gearbox failure caused an appreciable
delay in moving to vessel acceptance trials. That process was ultimately concluded in late March/early April 2010, just at the time the
second vessel of the duo, Firefighter II was launched.
With all systems finally in full working order, the first fireboat achieved the following results on acceptance trials:
• Free running speed at 2037 bhp per engine: - 18 knots

• Speed from monitor reactions alone: - 7 knots
• Turning Circle at 12 knots - 600 feet diameter
• Stopping Distance - 300 feet
Low noise and vibration levels were observed throughout the operating speed range, and throughout the entire vessel; the boat handled
and manoeuvred very well and smoothly.
PROJECT CHALLENGES
Numerous challenges are bound to occur when embarking on a project as ambitious and unique as this. Many engineering and
construction facets of these types of vessels are not regularly encountered by shipyards. These unique features include: the CBRN
protective systems and decontamination washdown utilities, triage room, fire equipment room, command centre, the vast array of
internal and external communications systems (radios, cellular, satellite, specialized camera systems, etc.), the quadruple combination
propulsion/fire-fighting pumping arrangements, the intensive wheelhouse outfit of electronics, the integrated engine and ship-wide
monitoring, alarm, and control systems (normally unmanned machinery space), extensive fire-fighting controls and screen displays,
extensive communications and camera monitors, navigational equipment, etc. These vessels literally have all the up to date amenities
and features required to deal with their extensive emergency response mandate.
Other challenges involved the international nature of the various pieces of equipment. Components from all over the world presented
logistical challenges regarding delivery shipping/scheduling, currency exchange rates, systems integration, and sometimes
communications issues, both verbal and written. This was exacerbated by the worldwide boom in shipbuilding extant at the time.
One major technical challenge was to accommodate the vast array of antennae associated with the navigation and communications
systems on board. One of the ways in which congestion was reduced (although it is still very busy up there!) was the use of tri-band,
multi frequency antennae. Each tri-band antenna, affectionately referred to as a "Christmas tree" antenna, takes the place of three
independent stick antennas, and allows for simultaneous transmissions on three radios. Other than that, it was simply a case of
following the manufacturer's vertical/horizontal separation guidelines, based on the various radio frequencies, as best as possible.
Other challenges in the arrangement were avoiding forward radar interferences with large antennas and vessel structure, handrail
interferences with various radio antennae, and the need to make all the antennae fold down without hitting one another to meet the air
draft restriction. In order to accommodate the fire-fighting streams, all monitors had physical limit stops which were adjusted and set
on site to ensure that things like windows and antennae could not be hit and blown out.
With the large number of equipment suppliers and subcontractors required on a project of this size and nature, logistical, scheduling,
coordination, control, and other issues are bound to arise, and this project was no exception.
The initial challenge for any fire department which operates older vessels is to understand the ship design process and how to go about
the process of procuring a new customized vessel. It is most likely that no one in the department will have any experience in either the
design or building process for new vessels. Designers are comfortable starting with the proverbial "blank sheet of paper" but for the
inexperienced this can be an intimidating and unsettling task. Technology advances is another huge obstacle: imagine, in the case of
the original Firefighter vs. the Three Forty-Three, a 1938 Chevrolet compared to a 2010 Chevrolet Equinox featuring all-wheel drive
and modern electronics.
Education is also key: designers need to "understand the problem" and have a firm grasp on what the fire department does and intends
to do, and how they execute their critical operations. This information is necessary as the design process moves along when facing
issues that require compromise or developing problem-solving ideas that best meet the needs. The fire department also needs to
understand how the design process works. A clear Statement of Requirements must be developed and formally accepted as a clearly
defined starting point. An explanation of the design spiral to the client is effective: starting with defining the concepts of hull,
propulsion, etc., and then winding around the spiral gradually, becoming more and more detailed, with each iteration. The process is an
arranged marriage, of sorts, and requires both parties to work together in an open and honest manner. The Three Forty Three and
Firefighter II are examples of what is possible when the Owners, designers and shipbuilders work closely together with the goal of
producing the best possible boat.
SUMMARY
The Three Forty Three is named in honour of the 343 fire-fighters and FDNY emergency personnel who lost their lives on September
11, 2001. The Firefighter II is named in honour of all fire-fighters. The nameplates for both vessels were cut from salvaged steel from
the New York World Trade Center towers. The emotions invoked by the events of September 11 and the pivotal role of FDNY in that
incident have had a big impact on all aspects of this very special project. Accordingly, from an early stage and throughout the building
period, a tremendous spirit of cooperation has existed among the Owners, Designers and the Shipyard. FDNY, Robert Allan Ltd., and
Eastern Shipbuilding Group all clearly understood they were involved in something special and all worked very hard to make these
world-class fireboats a success, as milestone vessels of which all involved could be extremely proud.
REFERENCES:
[1] Allan, Robert G., Harford, Kenneth D., Moore, Douglas, City of Los Angeles Fire Department, The Planning, Design, and
Construction of a Major Fireboat for the Port of Los Angeles, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Spring
Meeting, Seattle, WA, March 7, 2003.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Gow P.A., Hagemann E.C., The Seattle Harbor Craft: A Case Study of the Design Process
Marine Technology, Volume 21, No.1, January 1984
Allan, Robert G., Hatfield, Peter S., Pamplin, Donald J., The Planning, Design, and Construction of Fast Response Fireboats for the
Port of Vancouver, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Pacific Northwest Section, February 1993.
Table of Figures and Tables
Table 1: Characteristics of Recent Major Fireboats Worldwide

Figure 1: Design Spiral Process
Figure 2: Guan Xiao Yi Hao
Figure 3: Warner J. Lawrence
Table 2: Reference Fireboat Characteristics
Figure 4: Propeller Demand: Station-Keeping vs. Free-Running (for a fixed pitch, open prop.)
Figure 5: Fixed Pitch Propeller versus Engine Power Output
Figure 6: Fixed Pitch Propeller versus Engine Power Output / WOSR rating
Figure 7: Controllable Pitch Propeller, Variable Demand
Figure 8: Fixed Pitch Propeller with Two-Speed Gearbox Results
Figure 9: Water-Jet Application
Figure 10: Twin Z-Drives/Twin Independent Pump Engines
Figure 11: Twin Z-Drives and CL Booster Propeller/Pump Engine
Figure 12: Twin CP Propellers
Figure 13: Quad FP Propellers / WOSR Rated Engines
Figure 14: Quad CP Propellers
Figure 15: Quad FP Propellers with Two-Speed Gearboxes
Figure 16: Quad Water-Jets
Figure 17: Thrust Characteristics of Various Propulsion Options
Table 3: Summary of Propulsion System Options
Figure 18: Concept General Arrangement
Figure 19: Initial 1:20 Scale Test Model
Figure 20: Test Model at Speed of 18 Knots
Figure 21: Deck Wetness in 6.5 foot Significant Wave Height
Figure 22: 1:10 Scale Model Ready for Testing at Vienna Model Basin
Figure 23: Modified Model with Optimized Hull Configuration
Figure 24: Comparison of Final (Rev.B) vs. Bid Stage (Rev. 4) Hull Lines
Figure 25: Speed and Power Curve
Figure 26: Contract Design General Arrangement
Figure 27: Fire-Fighting System Configuration
Figure 28: Quadruple Propeller Installation of Three Forty Three
Discussion
Richard C. Rodi, Fellow
Read by John C. Daidola, Fellow
The authors are to be congratulated for providing a thorough presentation on the process that led to the design and construction of these
fireboats. Moreover, they are to be congratulated for the design of these superb boats themselves.
AMSEC has had the privilege of working with the New York Fire Department (FDNY) since 1998 when this project started out as the
development of performance specifications for a 100 ft fireboat to replace the existing large fireboats. By 2004, the design had
become the 130 ft boat with length, beam and draft restrictions and separate Caterpillar engines for propulsion and pumping, which was
the basis for the Owner’s Statement of Requirements (SOR) for the subject design. The paper ably describes the process of essentially
partnering with the FDNY and asking the hard questions to refine the SOR, provide alternatives, model test the unusual hull, vet the
design through value engineering and pre-select equipment that has resulted in the two 140 ft fireboats that FDNY has today. The
quadruple MTU engines with controllable pitch propellers, capable of either propulsion or pumping, is a far cry from anything
imagined 12 years ago.
Having provided Owner’s Representative Services to the FDNY in this program and being thoroughly familiar with the boats, it is hard
to for me to find fault with or critique the design. I do have a few comments on the paper and the design and acquisition process:
 The paper would be enhanced by larger, more detailed plans for the machinery space and wheelhouse, with the major equipment
identified. These are dense spaces and the arrangements would be of interest to naval architects and marine engineers. A structural
midship section would add to the value of the paper, particularly in this design, where weight is critical.
 Table 3 appears to lack data for the final selected Option 4B, Quad CP Propellers with Four Fire Pumps. The weight and cost of
increasing pumping capacity and achieving redundancy would be of interest.
 The process of pre-selecting major equipment has the distinct advantage of giving the owner the equipment he wants, purchased
from the vendor who will be responsible for servicing the equipment for the life of the vessel. The downside is that the shipyard
takes no responsibility for the selection. When deliveries are delayed, the shipyard had less leverage and simply states, “Well, you
selected the vendor.”
 The importance of listening to the owner to determine how he does his business and wants the vessel to function cannot be over
emphasized. Despite RAL’s vast experience in the design of fireboats, and the fact that the FDNY had not designed or purchased a
new large fireboat in 50 years, RAL probed the FDNY requirements and listened to the answers: How was the boat and crew to
function internally? What functions would be performed on deck? What were the desired firefighting and rescue capabilities?
What communication capabilities were required? How do we achieve a 50-year service life? The answers to these questions
resulted in the one-of-a-kind fireboats we see here today.
 The dedication and enthusiasm of the management and staff of Eastern Shipbuilding Group in developing and executing the design
deserves mention. They wanted to build these boats! Despite a few “bumps” along the way, their pride in their work shows in the
high level of quality built into the boats. The boats meet or exceed all the specification requirements and the fit and finish are
extraordinary.
AMSEC is proud to have played a part in this program. Through the cooperation of all, the Fire Department of New York has acquired
fireboats that will be showpieces for many years to come. The authors are to be congratulated on the design and construction of these
unique vessels.
Joseph H. Comer, Fellow

The authors are to be congratulated on a very complete synopsis of the design process to achieve owner requirements. It is especially
interesting to understand the background of what the owner requires and then the detailed explanation of the requirements themselves.
Often there is no time to develop design trade-offs in the commercial world due to the immediate needs of the owner to get the vessel in
service. This creates compromises in the design that do not always satisfy owner requirements and could be avoided if only a little
more time was allocated to the design process.
The construction part of the paper was brief, and much of the paper focused on the interesting engineering aspect of design tradeoffs.
Because so much time spent developing the design, it might be interesting if the authors could expand a little on the following:
1. The transition design process that took the contract design through the planning, material acquisition, and detailed-design process.
2. Was 3D-modeling used? If so, how did it help to achieve the intended owner requirements?
NOTE: The following discussions were collected during the presentation of the paper and summarized for inclusion here.
John Waterhouse, Fellow

Mr. Waterhouse asked about the design of the piping system and, in particular, what provisions were taken to deal with potential water
hammer.
Bruce Whittemore, Fellow

Mr. Whittemore suggested that the lower station on the main deck appears to be vulnerable, and would like to see the details on
windows and superstructure protection.
Matthew Smith, Member

Mr. Smith asked if there were provisions for SCBA recharging and pointed out that there was no discussion of off-vessel firefighting
capabilities.
Authors’ Closure
The authors thank Mr. Rodi for his informed discussion. As one who has been involved in this project from the embryo stages through
Value Engineering review to commissioning, Mr. Rodi has certainly observed the entire evolution of these vessels. The question of the
weight and cost of increasing pumping capacity and achieving redundancy by fitting pumps on the front end of all 4 propulsion systems
arose at the end of the propulsion configuration process in the Concept Design phase. This was before the final hull lines, boat length,
and propeller selection were fixed. For the 2 pump option, the capacity of each pump was 16,000 gpm at 160 psi for a total of 32,000
gpm. The 16,000 gpm pumps were very large and very heavy. The net additional weight to reduce each pump to 12,500 US GPM at
160 psi, but to fit 4 of them for a total capacity of 50,000 gpm was estimated to be approximately 10,000 pounds/shipset extra weight.
The engine options had sufficient reserve power to carry the additional weight and still achieve the design speed of 20 mph. Some
engine options did not have sufficient power available at the free end of the crankshaft and the 2 pump choice may have resulted in a
sole source for the main engines. The extra cost for the extra pumps was estimated to be approximately $200,000 in a budget price of
approximately $18,000,000 for the entire boat at the time. Fitting the 2 extra pumps increased the capability by 57% for a cost increase
of less than 2%, and ensured a competition between major engine vendors for the main engines. The Value Engineering review
endorsed this approach, and the design was completed on that basis.
As Mr. Rodi points out, the process of pre-selecting major equipment is not without some difficulties. The shipyard can argue that they
have less contract responsibility in such instances; however, with careful drafting of the contractual obligations, that issue can be
addressed. With reputable shipbuilders, it is generally in the best interest of the project to deal with issues, like delivery delays,
realistically, without resorting to legal contracts, and get the right boat, built right. The benefits derived from giving the owner the best
equipment, purchased from the vendor who will be servicing the equipment for the life of the vessel, makes it worth dealing with such
issues during the build. Done correctly, the vessel only needs to be built once. The owner and crew must live and work with the as-
built vessel for the life of the vessel, so they should get the equipment they want and that they can service and maintain locally.
Mr. Comer has pointed out one of the shortcomings of the compromises necessary when condensing 6 years of work into a summary
paper. Although we always strive to bring innovation and collaboration to all our designs, the fireboat projects seem to present a
special opportunity for a thorough design process. But as Mr. Comer points out, there is a lot more work to do between the contract
design and the finished boat. The shipyard took on the task of translating the design documents into production documents covering all
aspects of planning, procurement, facility upgrades, human resources, management and scheduling. The shipyard employed a
combination of in-house personnel and outside contractors to perform this work. Throughout this process, the on-site presence of Mr.
Jody Bjerkeset, P.E., in constant liaison with the design team from Robert Allan Ltd. provided the link to ensure the integrity of the
design was being interpreted and maintained throughout the production engineering, construction, and trials. During the development
of the design, 3D modelling was used to evaluate sight lines and to illustrate special relationships and the overall appearance of the boat
to the owners (see Fig. 1). During the construction phase, 3D modelling was used extensively for lofting and piping arrangements.
Figure 1: 3-D modelling was used to evaluate sight lines and to illustrate special relationships and the overall appearance of the boat.
Mr. Waterhouse raises a major design issue in fire fighting piping systems that is unfortunately forgotten on occasion. In this case,
the piping systems were conservatively designed with relatively low velocities and generous pipe strength based on the centrifugal
pump cut-off pressure such that pressure relief valves were unnecessary. To prevent potential damage from the transient shock of
water hammer, several precautions were taken in the design of the system:
1. There is an interlock preventing the pump engagement unless the discharge valve is closed.
2. There is a bypass (filling) line around the pump discharge valve (always open) to allow the system to fill slowly, independent of
pump speed.
3. There are operational procedures requiring that the system be filled before the pump discharge valve is opened.
4. Once the system is fully charged, the pump speed is gradually increased with the valve fully opened.
5. The remote and manual valve operators are selected to prevent rapid opening or closing, even in the manual mode.
All these measures are designed to achieve gradual changes in flow velocity thereby mitigating the risk of water hammer and the
resulting transient shock pressures in the system.
In answer to Mr. Whittemore, this fireboat was designed primarily for harbour service, but despite that role, the windows and
superstructure were designed to be fully compliant with load line requirements as assessed by ABS.
Finally, we thank Mr. Smith for his question. It was a conscious decision by the FDNY design team in the design development to not
fit the vessel with SCBA recharging capability. FDNY has a large, shore-based capability for charging SCBA bottles, including highly
qualified personnel to man and maintain the air quality in those facilities. They chose to rely on the ability of the logistic supply
capability that is already in place rather than marinizing and maintaining a dedicated facility on each vessel. Resupply of SCBA bottles
for an incident is a part of the strategic plan for a marine response.
Off-vessel firefighting capabilities provided by this vessel are numerous, including:
1. The ability to use all 4 pumps to feed up to 50,000 gpm to shore-based companies using the portable piping systems.
2. The ability to connect to the standpipe systems on the major bridges to provide water to fight fires at these high elevations.
3. The ability to connect to the international shore connection to supplement the fire fighting systems on ships.
4. Dewatering facilities using both portable and fixed eductor systems.
5. Small hand lines for marina and small boat fires.
6. Use of the crane to lift equipment and firefighters to upper decks of ships.
7. Space to carry a company of firefighters to the scene of a fire, be it on a ship or on land.

001 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

001 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

001 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Concept Development, Detailed Design and Construction of the Three

Forty Three – North America's Most Powerful Fireboat

INTRODUCTION: THE NEEDS OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OF NEW YORK (FDNY)

OWNER'S STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS

The following summarizes the primary elements of this formal SOR:

Vessel Facilities/Basic Equipment Requirements

 1 hour sprint to incident site at full power

• Length - nominally 130 feet

Year Location Name Length Breadth Pumping Foam

TABLE 1: Characteristics of Recent Major Fireboats Worldwide

INITIAL DESIGN STUDIES

 Hull form development

FDNY FAST RESPONSE FIREBOAT, JANUARY

Table 2: Reference Fireboat Characteristics

Station-Keeping Design Case

Pumping Power Requirements

Propeller Demand Scenarios

Propeller Demand vs Engine Performance

Electronic Diesel Engine Power Limitations

PROPULSION MACHINERY OPTIONS

Fixed Pitch Propellers, Fixed Gear Ratio, standard engine rating

Propeller Demand vs Engine Performance

Prop Demand - Station Keeping - GB Ratio 3.4

Fig. 5 Fixed Pitch Propeller versus Engine Power Output

Fixed Pitch Propellers, Fixed Gear Ratio, WOSR engine rating:

Engine Power (bhp)

Controllable Pitch (CP) Propellers

Propeller Demand vs Engine Performance

3512B 2012 bhp - C Rating : Maximum Limit

Controlable Pitch Prop -

Fig. 7: Controllable Pitch Propeller, Variable Demand

Prop Demand - Station Keeping - GB Ratio 3.9

Engine Power (bhp)

Fig. 8: Fixed Pitch Propeller with Two-Speed Gearbox Results

Propeller Demand vs Engine Performance

Fig. 9: Water-Jet Application

Powering and Pumping Configurations

Note: The draft constraint limits the size/power of the Z-drive.

Fig. 10: Twin Z-Drives/Twin Independent Pump Engines

Option 2: Twin Z-Drives and CL Booster

Note: The draft constraint limits the size/power of the Z-drive.

Fig. 11: Twin Z-Drives and CL Booster Propeller/Pump Engine

Option 3: Twin CP Propellers

Fig. 12: Twin CP Propellers

Fig. 13: Quad FP Propellers/WOSR Rated Engines

Option 4B: Quad CP Propellers

Fig. 14: Quad CP Propellers

Option 4C: Quad FP Propellers with Two-Speed

Fig. 15 Quad FP Propellers with Two-Speed Gearboxes

Fig. 16: Quad Water-Jets

Option 5: Diesel Electric Version of 4A

Summary of Propulsion Options

Option Description Total Relative cost Relative weight Speed Pumping

4B Quad CP propellers 8,048 $2,930,000 152,000 17.8 32,000

INITIAL DESIGN CONCEPT

• Length Overall - 130 feet

To reduce deck wetness, the original concept was modified by

Fig. 21: Deck Wetness in 6.5 foot Significant Wave Height

Using the same standard procedures, resistance, self-propulsion,