Carderock Division

Naval Surface Warfare Center

Bethesda, MD 20817-5700
CARDEROCK
SURFACE WARFARE CENTER DIVISION

NSWCCD-20-TR-2003/09 May 2003

Total Ship Systems Directorate

Technology Projection Report

HIGH-SPEED, SMALL NAVAL VESSEL

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Edited by G. Robert Lamb

Unrestricted Distribution
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters services, Directorate for
Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
May 2003 Final
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS
HIGH-SPEED, SMALL NAVAL SHIPS TECHNOLOGY N0001402WX21277 AA
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
6. AUTHOR(S)
G. Robert Lamb
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
Naval Surface Warfare Center REPORT NUMBER
Carderock Division
9500 MacArthur Boulevard NSWCCD-20-TR-2003/09
West Bethesda, MD 20817-5700
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT
ONR, Code 33 NUMBER
800 N. Quincy St., BCT 1
Arlington, VA 22217-5660

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

A
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

A high-speed, small Naval vessel innovation cell project was carried out at the Naval Surface Warfare Center,
Carderock Division from August through December 2002. The project was chartered by ONR to define the
near-term (available in 5 years) technology investments required for 500 to 3,000 ton, high-speed Naval ships.
Extensive use was made of technology projections made in 1997 at the High Speed Sealift Technology Workshop
held at NSWCCD. Those technology projections were made for: Ship/System concepts, Hullforms, Propulsors,
Propulsion Plant, Materials and Ship Structures. This project began by reviewing the high-speed sealift
technologies for applicability to high-speed, small Naval ships. Where appropriate, the state-of-the-art data was
updated to include recent developments. Spreadsheet parametric models for high-speed monohulls, catamarans
and trimarans were used to assess the impact of different technologies on total ship weight and performance.
Capabilities needed from each technology were compared with the current state-of-the -art to determine the
necessary technology enhancements. Estimates of the development time and cost for each technology were
made based on experience with developing similar technologies, engineering estimates, and vendor data. The
goal of this plan is to bring the individual technologies to a level of maturity appropriate for ship design and
construction.
14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES
Small Naval Ships High Speed Technology Needs 122
16. PRICE CODE
Hullform Options Lightweight Structure Propulsion machinery

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF
REPORT THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT ABSTRACT
UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UU
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18
298-102

vi
iii
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3

2.0 Ship Hullform Concepts .......................................................................................... 7

2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Monohull................................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 State-of-the-Art .......................................................................................................... 7
2.2.2 Technology Goals ...................................................................................................... 10
2.2.3 Overview of Development Plan................................................................................. 10
2.3 Catamaran ................................................................................................................ 11
2.3.1 State-of-the-Art .......................................................................................................... 11
2.3.2 Technology Goals ...................................................................................................... 14
2.3.3 Overview of Development Plan................................................................................. 14
2.4 Trimaran................................................................................................................... 15
2.4.1 State-of-the-Art .......................................................................................................... 15
2.4.2 Technology Goals ...................................................................................................... 18
2.4.3 Overview of Development Plan................................................................................. 19
2.5 Surface Effect Ship .................................................................................................. 19
2.5.1 State-of-the-Art .......................................................................................................... 19
2.5.2 Technology Goals ...................................................................................................... 22
2.5.3 Overview of Development Plan................................................................................. 22

3.0 Hydrodynamics ........................................................................................................ 24

3.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 24
3.2 Powering ................................................................................................................... 25
3.2.1 State-of-the-Art .......................................................................................................... 26
3.2.1.1 Displacement Ships………………………………………………………………… 26
3.2.1.2 Surface Effect Ships………………………………………………………………... 31
3.2.1.3 Hydrodynamic Lift Vessels………………………………………………………… 34
3.2.2 Technology Goals ...................................................................................................... 37
3.2.3 Hull/Propulsor Interaction ......................................................................................... 38
3.2.4 Overview of Development Plan................................................................................. 40
3.3 Seakeeping ................................................................................................................ 42
3.3.1 State-of-the-Art .......................................................................................................... 43
3.3.1.1 Displacement Ships………………………………………………………………… 43
3.3.1.2 Surface Effect Ships………………………………………………………………… 44
3.3.2 Technology Goals ...................................................................................................... 47
3.3.3 Overview of Development Plan................................................................................. 47
3.4 Maneuvering............................................................................................................. 48
3.4.1 State-of-the-Art .......................................................................................................... 48
3.4.1.1 Displacement Ships………………………………………………………………… 48
3.4.1.2 Surface Effect Ships………………………………………………………………… 50

ii
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Contents (continued)

3.4.2 Technology Goals ...................................................................................................... 51

3.4.3 Overview of Development Plan................................................................................. 52
3.5 Hydrodynamics References………………………………………………………. 52

4.0 Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures............................ 56

4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 56
4.2 Seaway Loads ........................................................................................................... 58
4.2.1 State-of-the-Art .......................................................................................................... 59
4.2.1.1 Displacement Ships………………………………………………………………… 59
4.2.1.2 Surface Effect Ships................................................................................................... 60
4.2.2 Technology Goals ...................................................................................................... 61
4.2.3 Development Plan for Loads ..................................................................................... 62
4.3 Materials ................................................................................................................... 63
4.3.1 State-of-the-Art .......................................................................................................... 63
4.3.1.1 Composites................................................................................................................. 64
4.3.1.2 Titanium..................................................................................................................... 65
4.3.2 Technology Goals ...................................................................................................... 65
4.3.2.1 Summary of Material Properties................................................................................ 67
4.3.3 Development Plan for Materials ................................................................................ 67
4.4 Structural Concepts ................................................................................................. 69
4.4.1 State-of-the-Art .......................................................................................................... 69
4.4.1.1 Sandwich Metals (LASCOR – laser-welded corrugated core) .................................. 69
4.4.1.2 Composite Structures ................................................................................................. 71
4.4.2 Technology Goals ...................................................................................................... 75
4.4.2.1 LASCOR.................................................................................................................... 75
4.4.2.2 Composite Structures ................................................................................................. 76
4.4.3 Projected Weight Savings .......................................................................................... 77
4.4.4 Development Plan for Structures ............................................................................... 78
4.4.5 Summary of Required Technology Development ..................................................... 79
4.5 Preparation of ABS Guide for High Speed Naval Craft ...................................... 79
4.6 Loads, Materials and Lightweight Structure References……………………... . 80

5.0 Machinery Systems .................................................................................................. 82

5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 82
5.2 Prime Movers ........................................................................................................... 82
5.2.1 State-of-the-Art .......................................................................................................... 82
5.2.2 Technology Goals ...................................................................................................... 84
5.2.3 Overview of Development Plan................................................................................. 84
5.3 Waterjets................................................................................................................... 85
5.3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 85
5.3.2 State-of-the-Art .......................................................................................................... 86
5.3.3 Technology Goals ...................................................................................................... 89

iii
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Contents (continued)

5.3.4 Overview of Development Plan................................................................................. 92

5.4 Reduction Gears....................................................................................................... 92
5.4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 92
5.4.2 State-of-the-Art .......................................................................................................... 93
5.4.3 Technology Goals ...................................................................................................... 94
5.4.4 Overview of Development Plan................................................................................. 95
5.4.4.1 Offset Gear Development .......................................................................................... 97
5.4.4.2 Epicyclic Gear Development ..................................................................................... 98
5.5 SES Lift Fans............................................................................................................ 99
5.5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 99
5.5.2 State-of-the-Art .......................................................................................................... 99
5.5.3 Technology Goals ...................................................................................................... 102
5.5.4 Overview of Development Plan................................................................................. 102
5.6 SES Seals................................................................................................................... 103
5.6.1 State-of-the-Art .......................................................................................................... 103
5.6.2 Technology Goals ...................................................................................................... 104
5.6.3 Overview of Development Plan................................................................................. 105
5.7 Machinery Systems References………………………………………………….. 109

6.0 Other Related Technologies .................................................................................... 110

6.1 Drag Reduction ........................................................................................................ 110
6.2 Composite Shafts...................................................................................................... 110

7.0 Summary................................................................................................................... 113

8.0 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. 117

iv
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
List of Figures

1-1 Small Naval Vessel Study Design Space................................................................... 3

1-2 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Payload Weight and Volume…………………… 4

2.2.1-1 650 mt Swedish Corvette Visby …………………………………………………… 8

2.2.1-2 Corsaire 13000 Ferry NGV Liamone ……………………………………………… 8
2.2.1-3 Monohull Technology................................................................................................ 9
2.2.3-1 Monohull Technology Development Plan ................................................................. 11
2.3.1-1 96 m Catamaran Joint Venture…………………………………………………….. 12
2.3.1-2 126 m Semi-Swath Catamaran Stena Discovery ………………………………….. 12
2.3.1-3 Catamaran Technology .............................................................................................. 13
2.3.3-1 Catamaran Technology Development Plan………………………………………... 15
2.4.1-1 54.5 m Trimaran Ferry Triumphant ……………………………………………….. 16
2.4.1-2 98.7 m Trimaran R.V. Triton ……………………………………………………… 16
2.4.1-3 Slender Monohull With Outriggers Ferry Design Concept ……………………….. 17
2.4.1-4 Trimaran Technology................................................................................................. 17
2.4.3-1 Trimaran Technology Development Plan.................................................................. 19
2.5.1-1 Artist’s Rendering of 140 m Long SES Ferry………………………………… ....... 20
2.5.1-2 SES Technology......................................................................................................... 21
2.5.3-1 SES Technology Development Plan.......................................................................... 23

3.2.1-1 The Three Main Subgroups of Series 64 Hullforms……………………………….. 26

3.2.1-2 Comparison of Total Resistance for a Deep Vee Monohull Scaled to Three
Ship Sizes………………………………………………………………………….. 27
3.2.1-3 Comparison of Resistance per Ton for a Deep Vee Monohull Scaled to
Three Ship Sizes…………………………………………………………………… 28
3.2.1-4 Measured Resistance for Three Types of Displacement Ships…………………….. 29
3.2.1-5 Measured Effective Power for Scaled-Down NSWCCD Trimaran and Its
Center Hull………………………………………………………………………… 29
3.2.1-6 Measured Lift/Drag Ratio for NSWCCD Trimaran and Its Center Hull………….. 30
3.2.1-7 Predicted SES 700 Resistance Hullborne and Cushionborne in Calm Water……… 32
3.2.1-8 Effect of Cushionborne Length-Beam Ratio on Required Propulsion Power
per Ton Cushionborne for 1000-mt SES………………………………………….. 33
3.2.1-9 Effect of Cushionborne Length-Beam Ratio on Required Propulsion Power
per Ton Cushionborne for 2000-mt SES………………………………………….. 33
3.2.1-10 Artist’s Impression of a HYSWAS Patrol Boat………………………………….. 35
3.2.1-11 Drag/Lift Contours for Efficient Planing Hulls as a Function of Volume
Froude Number and Slenderness Ratio…………………………………………… 37
3.2.3-1 Photograph of the Stern of the HSS 1500 Semi-Swath Catamaran Ferry…………. 38
3.2.3-2 Calculated Effect of Waterjet Inlets on External Flow Streamlines and Internal
Coefficient of Pressure ……………………............................................................. 39
3.2.4-1 Hull/Propulsor Integration Technology Development Plan ...................................... 41
3.4.1-1 NSWCCD High-Speed Sealift Ship Design……………………………………….. 49
4.1-1 Seaway Loads ............................................................................................................ 56

v
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
List of Figures (continued)

4.1-2 Structural Weight Fraction versus Deadweight Density............................................ 57

4.1-3 High-Strength/Lightweight Structures Technology Development Plan .................... 58
4.2-1 Hogging Bending Moment ........................................................................................ 58
4.2-2 Green Sea Loading..................................................................................................... 59
4.3.1-1 USS Belknap (CG 26) After Colliding with the John F. Kennedy (CV 67)……….. 63
4.3.1-2 Composite Materials and Processes........................................................................... 64
4.3.2-1 Composite Fabrication Techniques............................................................................ 66
4.4.1-1 LASCOR Technology................................................................................................ 70
4.4.1-2 Proposed LASCOR Applications .............................................................................. 70
4.4.1-3 Composite Applications............................................................................................. 71
4.4.1-4 Composite Fire Protection ......................................................................................... 74
4.4.2-1 Composite Small Combatants.................................................................................... 77

5.2.1-1 WR21 ICR and LM2500 Gas Turbines ..................................................................... 83

5.2.1-2 Marine Gas Turbine Technology ............................................................................... 84
5.2.3-1 Marine Gas Turbine Technology Development Plan ................................................ 85
5.3.2-1 KAMEWA 180 Waterjet ........................................................................................... 87
5.3.2-2 Waterjet Technology.................................................................................................. 89
5.3.4-1 Waterjet Technology Development Plan ................................................................... 91
5.4.3-1 Reduction Gear Technology ...................................................................................... 94
5.4.3-2 Reduction Gear Specific Weight .............................................................................. 95
5.4.4-1 Reduction Gear Development Plan............................................................................ 96
5.5.2-1 Comparison of Non-Dimensional Parameters of Existing Fans ................................ 100
5.5.2-2 Comparison of “Power Density” of Existing and Design Fans ................................. 101
5.5.4-1 SES Lift Fan Technology Development Plan............................................................ 103
5.6.3-1 SES Seal Technology Development Plan .................................................................. 107

6.2-1 State-of-the-Art High-Power, High-Torque Composite Shaft................................... 111

7-1 Comprehensive Technology Development Plan........................................................ 113

7-2 Comprehensive Technology Development Plan for Displacement Hulls ................. 114
7-3 Comprehensive Technology Development Plan for SES Hulls ................................ 115
7-4 RV Triton, Trimaran Hull Technology Demonstrator............................................... 116

List of Tables

4.3.2-1 Material Properties Summary .................................................................................... 68

4.4.1-1 Panels of Equal In-Plane Stiffness............................................................................. 72
4.4.1-2 Panels of Equal In-Plane Strength ............................................................................. 73
4.4.1-3 Panels of Equal Flexural Stiffness ............................................................................. 73
4.4.1-4 Panels of Equal Flexural Strength.............................................................................. 74
4.4.3-1 Summary of Weight Savings (Percent)...................................................................... 78
4.4.5-1 Technology Development Needs............................................................................... 79

vi
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Innovation Cell project conducted at the Naval Surface
Warfare Center, Carderock Division from August 2002 through December 2002 had three main
objectives:
1. Create a consistent database of existing naval and commercial small high-speed
ships in the 500 to 3,000 mt size range;
2. Create spreadsheet parametric models and design relationships for high
speed monohull and multi-hull displacement ships, and conduct trade-off studies
to assess the impact of different technologies on the total ship weight and
performance;
3. Develop a technology roadmap outlining the positive and negative impacts of
technologies at the system level, and the technology investments required to
achieve small Naval ships with burst speeds of 40 to 60 knots.

This document fulfills the technology roadmap objective. In formulating this Technology
Development Plan, extensive use was made of technology projections that had been made in
1997 at the High Speed Sealift Technology Workshop held at NSWCCD. Those technology
projections were made in six key areas; namely: Ship/System Concepts, Hullforms and
Propulsors, Propulsion Plant, Materials and Ship Structures, and Shipbuilding and
Manufacturing. This project began by reviewing the high-speed sealift technologies for
applicability to high-speed, small Naval vessels. Where appropriate, the technology state-of-the-
art data was updated to reflect recent developments.

Then the revised technology projections for structures and materials, gas turbines, reduction
gears, and waterjets were combined selectively into concept ships to examine the whole-ship
implications of the technology. Primary focus was given to technologies classed as near-term
(available in 5 years). Economic considerations were not introduced at this stage since the initial
focus was on determination of technological feasibility and performance enhancement without
regard to cost of development or commercial viability.

The capabilities needed from each of the technologies to produce these designs were compared
with the technical state-of-the-art for those technologies to define the necessary near-term and
far-term technology enhancements. Estimates of the time to develop and rough order of
magnitude development costs were made for each of the technologies based on a variety of
factors including experience with development of similar technologies, engineering estimates,
vendor data, and cost models. The goal of this plan is to bring the individual technologies to a
level of maturity sufficient to lower risk to levels appropriate to ship design and construction.

This development plan is comprehensive, with no allowance for market-driven technology

development that may occur through commercial initiatives. Some technology development in
critical areas is expected to meet anticipated commercial needs for aerospace, industrial, and
commercial marine projects. While such commercial technology development efforts will
potentially reduce the need for Government investment, elimination of this investment is not
expected since there is some risk that the commercial efforts will either not come to fruition or

1
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Executive Summary
the commercially-derived capabilities will fall short of the capabilities needed to meet the more
demanding military missions. Consequently, the potential existence of these commercial efforts
is identified, while the cost reductions that might result have not been shown.

The plans contain some necessary redundancies since the specific need for some of the
technologies depends on other technology choices. The choice of hullform technology has a
particularly large impact on requirements for other technologies. For example, development of
far-term SES hulls requires development of SES-specific lift fan and seal technologies. In
addition, hullform choice and speed requirement will affect what type of reduction gear and
waterjet technology must be developed. Since choices such as these cannot be made with
certainty prior to when a commitment is made to specific near-term objectives, the redundancies
have been identified and retained at the individual technology level. However, it is unlikely that
the full matrix of technologies will be developed.

Year 1 2 3 4 5 Funding ($K)

Hull Form
- Monohull 6,600
- Trimaran 7,900
- Catamaran 4,400
- Surface Effect Ship 6,100
Hull/Propulsor Integration 8,800
Structures & Materials 23,800
Gas Turbines 20,050
Waterjets 14,000
Reduction Gears 7,500
Lift Fans 2,050
Seals 7,000
Funding ($K) 9,200 35,275 42,075 18,750 2,900 108,200

2
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The High-Speed, Small Naval Vessels Innovation Cell project was chartered by ONR to define
the near-term (available in 5 years) technology investments required to enable development of
500 to 3,000 mt, high-speed Naval ships needed for realistic mission requirements. Specific
technology investment selections should be based on detailed design studies, which were beyond
the scope of this project. Instead, the objective was to assess whole-ship implications of
technology in a generic fashion. The required mix of technologies depends on three mission
requirements: speed, range and payload. The design space can be thought of as a three-
dimensional box, as shown in Figure 1-1. Assumed design “burst” speeds varied from 40 to 60
knots. Required transit range at economical speed of 18 to 20 knots was 3,000 to 5,000 n.mi.
Specific payload items are difficult to model, so payload densities were used instead.
Payload Density

e
ng
Ra

Spee
d

Figure 1-1: Small Naval Vessel Study Design Space

Three generic mission categories were developed. Since future payload items were not known,
representative payload weights and volumes for each of the missions were developed for the
appropriate range of ship sizes.

• Combatant – Payload packages of sensors, weapons, and guns totaling 53 mt for a ship
of about 500 mt and 299 mt for a ship of about 3000 mt.

•Air Operations – Payload of unmanned air vehicles and helicopters totaling 85 mt for a
ship of about 500 mt and 128 mt for a ship of about 3000 mt.

• Cargo ship – Payload of material, equipment, and troops totaling 254 mt for a ship of
approximately 1500 mt and 606 mt for a ship of about 3000 mt.

3
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Introduction
Figure 1-2 shows the range of payload weights and volumes considered for the three generic
mission categories for ships displacing between 500 and 3,000 mt. Ships smaller than 1,500 mt
were judged unsuitable for carrying military cargo. The slope of each line is the payload
specific volume (cu. m. per mt), which is the inverse of payload density. As would be expected,
the line for Air Operations payload volume has the steepest slope (14.15 m 3 per mt), which
means this payload density is lowest. The combatant payload line has the most gradual slope
(6.54 m3 per mt), which translates into the highest density. The slope of the cargo payload line is
closer to that for air operations than to the combatant line. Combatant payload densities were
used for all of the technology payoff investigations because it is the densest payload. It follows
that weight reduction is most beneficial for the high-speed combatant mission.

7000

6000

5000
w^
Payload Volume (m 3)

4000

3000

2000 500 mt Combatant

3000 mt Combatant
1500 Cargo Load
1000 3000 Cargo Load
500 UAV Air Ops
3000 Helo Air Ops
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Payload Weight (mt)

Figure 1-2: High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Payload Weight and Volume

It was originally envisioned to have one Excel spreadsheet-based, parametric modeling program
to handle all three hull forms (monohull, catamaran and trimaran), but that was found to be too
technically difficult. Instead, three separate modeling programs were developed.

The trimaran parametric modeling program was the first one developed, because a trimaran
sizing spreadsheet had been created by the High Speed Sealift Innovation Cell. The monohull
parametric modeling program was basically the trimaran program with the side hulls deleted.
The major modules that were modified were structures, hydrodynamics, and powering. The
catamaran model was the most extensively modified from the original trimaran parametric
model. Modules that had to be modified were structures, powering, machinery, and
hydrodynamics. An SES spreadsheet-based modeling program was desired, but it would have
required major effort to develop, and was considered to be beyond the scope of this project.

Monohull, trimaran and catamaran designs were produced for the upper and lower bounds of the
combatant payload. Development of point designs for each of the hullform types to a uniform

4
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Introduction
standard was a priority. Common design standards, margins, manning assumptions, and weight
algorithms were adopted where practical and appropriate. Updated technology projections for
structures and materials, gas turbines, reduction gears, and waterjets were combined with
additional technical information to produce a common basis for these technologies in the
designs.

The main aim of the Innovation Cell was to derive a Technology Development Plan (TDP) on
the basis of demonstrable need and platform performance pay-off. Primary focus was
technologies classed as near-term (available in 5 years). There were also potential spin offs from
the designs developed including technology pointers as to key factors to particular missions,
realistic ship concepts for operational analysis and planning, and creation of a basis for
discussions with other organizations and exploration of their interest in research involvement and
developing technologies.

The capabilities needed from each of the technologies to produce these designs were compared
with the technical state-of-the-art for those technologies to define the necessary near-term
technology enhancements. Estimates of the time to develop and rough-order-of-magnitude
development costs were made for each of the technologies based on a variety of factors including
experience with development of similar technologies, engineering estimates, vendor data, and
cost models. The goal of these plans is to bring the individual technologies to a level of maturity
sufficient to lower risk to levels appropriate to ship design and construction. Technology
development plans for each of the technologies are provided in the following sections of this
report.

These development plans are comprehensive with no allowance for market-driven technology
development that may occur through commercial initiatives. Some technology development in
critical areas is expected to meet anticipated commercial needs. For example, development of
large gas turbine technology is highly likely for aerospace, industrial, and commercial marine
projects. While such commercial technology development efforts will potentially reduce the
need for Government investment, elimination of this investment is not expected since there is
some risk that the commercial efforts will either not come to fruition or the commercially-
derived capabilities will fall short of the capabilities needed to meet the more demanding military
missions. Consequently, the potential existence of these commercial efforts is identified while
the cost reductions that might result have not been shown.

The plans that follow contain some necessary redundancies since the specific need for some of
the technologies depends on other technology choices. The choice of hullform technology has a
particularly large impact on requirements for other technologies. For example, development of
near-term SES hulls requires development of SES-peculiar lift fan and seal technologies. Since
no commitment has been made yet to specific near-term objectives, the redundancies have been
identified and retained at the individual technology level. However, it is unlikely that the full
matrix of technologies will be developed. Choices between alternatives will likely be made to
further focus the technology development effort and reduce cost. Consequently, a representative
comprehensive program is summarized in the last section of this report.

5
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Introduction
References

1. “High-Speed Sealift Technology Development Plan”, Carderock Division Naval Surface

Warfare Center Technology Projection Report NSWCCD-20-TR-2002/06, May 2002.

6
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Ship Hullforms

2.0 SHIP HULLFORM CONCEPTS

2.1 Introduction

This Small High-Speed Ship Technology Development Plan is based on design studies produced
using three displacement hullforms: monohull, catamaran, and trimaran. Technology needs for
one powered lift hullform, the surface effect ship or SES, are also addressed fully. All of these
hullforms are considered viable candidates for high-speed ship missions due to the existence of a
technology base that is suitable to support design and construction of each hull type, although
thus far for lower levels of performance. Proof of concept demonstrations of at least one version
of each hullform has also been achieved through full-scale operational experience including
numerous commercial variants of these hulls, but for somewhat lower speeds. Naval high-speed
(40 to 60 knots) missions require extrapolation beyond current capabilities in critical areas such
as structural loads, resistance and powering, and seakeeping. The necessary technology
development encompasses model test data, development of analysis tools, and development of
design standards and practices such as those required for structural classification.

While the technology extrapolations differ for the different hullforms, the magnitude of the
extension is roughly comparable for monohulls, trimarans and SES. The existence of a mature
catamaran industry that is producing commercial high-speed ferries with similar characteristics
(2,000 to 3,850 mt displacement, 40 knots) indicates that only modest technology evolution is
necessary to produce catamaran designs for small HS ship missions.

The near-term HS Naval ship designs envisioned are faster than existing displacement ships.
Today’s monohull and catamaran fast ferries, with only a few exceptions, have speeds of at most
42 knots. The largest trimaran is the 1,100 mt Triton, which has a service speed of only 20
knots. The largest existing SES is smaller than required, weighing about 1,500 mt, but it is
capable of high speed – 54 knots. However, a 4,000 mt SES with a service speed of 38 knots is
expected to start operating in Japan in 2005. Technical risk in extrapolating the current
displacement hulls to meet the more demanding high-speed missions will be reduced
significantly through design, construction, and technical validation of intermediate-size high-
speed ships which use slender hulls similar to those envisioned for HS roles. While such a
progressive approach to evolution of hullform technology is prohibitively expensive if attempted
for all of the hulls, it is strongly recommended for any hullform(s) chosen for development.

2.2 Monohull

2.2.1 State-of-the-Art

While the U.S. shipbuilding industry has extensive experience designing and building monohulls
of the size required for the HS ship missions, speeds of these ships are generally slower than the
40-60 knots required for HS ship designs. The 72 m Swedish corvette Visby shown in Figure
2.2.1-1 is one example of the current state of the art in Europe. This 650 mt, gas turbine
powered ship has a top speed of 38 knots and incorporates stealth technology.

7
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Ship Hullforms

Figure 2.2.1-1: 650 mt Swedish Corvette Visby

Large, fast monohull ferries ranging between 2,000 and 4,000 mt have been built by shipyards in
France, Italy and Spain for routes in the Mediterranean ocean. Typically, they have deep-Vee
hullforms and have maximum service speeds of 38 to 42 knots. Figure 2.2.1-2 shows the 134 m
long, Corsaire 13000 class ferry built in 2000 by Alstom Leroux Naval in France. This steel-
hulled ship displaces about 3,400 mt and has a service speed of 42 knots.

Figure 2.2.1-2: Corsaire 13000 Ferry NGV Liamone

8
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Ship Hullforms

Only special purpose designs such as the 1,100 mt Italian built yacht Destriero , which crossed
the Atlantic at an average speed of 54 knots, have demonstrated significantly higher speeds.
Even Destriero is much slower, about 43 knots, with a full fuel load.

The size-speed relationship of representative existing monohulls with steel, aluminum and
composite hulls is shown in Figure 2.2.1-3. The figure illustrates that a significant increase in
speed over current capabilities is required for near-term, small HS ship missions

60

50
Guizzo

Corsaire 11000 Alhambra II Corsaire 14000

Destiero Steel Monohulls
40
Visby TMV 114 Jupiter
Corsaire 12000
Speed (knots)

Mestral Pegasus
SAAR 5 Corsaire 10000
30

20
Steel
Aluminum
Composite
10

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Displacement (mt)

Figure 2.2.1-3: Monohull Technology

Achieving the speed and range requirements identified for near-term small Naval monohulls
requires significantly more slender hulls than traditional designs. Limited model testing and
analytical investigation of very slender monohulls was carried out by Kvaerner Masa Yards in
Finland in 1992 and 1993 as part of their EuroExpress project. In Korea, Hyundai Maritime
Research Institute carried out resistance tests on a systematic series of very slender monohulls in
1997. NSWCCD measured the resistance of the very slender center hull of a high speed trimaran
design in 2001. Further expansion of the technology base for advanced, very slender monohulls
is required to allow reliable prediction of vital design characteristics such as sea induced loads,
resistance, powering, seakeeping, and maneuvering. The hydrodynamic integration of high-
power waterjets into these slender hulls is of particular importance to minimize installed power,
minimize fuel consumption, and assure reliable operation in representative sea conditions. The
needed technology includes extension of analytic models and computer programs to address the
slender hulls and higher speeds as well as comprehensive model test data.

Slenderness and high speed also have pronounced effects on structural design and performance.
Low structural weight is a design priority, but high speeds are likely to result in significant slam

9
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Ship Hullforms

loads in Sea State 5 or worse conditions. Because hull girders for the hydrodynamically slender
hulls are also structurally slender, structural loads and reactions to the loads such as slam induced
whipping, both vertical and lateral, are expected to be of critical importance. The resulting high-
frequency, large-amplitude accelerations are expected to have significant effects on cargo, crew,
and hull fatigue life.

2.2.2 Technology Goals

Technology advances for slender high-speed monohulls are needed to reduce the risk associated
with ship sizes of 2,000 – 3,000 mt needed to support expected HS Naval missions. Technology
development is required in the following areas:

Structural loads – determination of the hydrodynamic forces (primary loads and slam-
ming) and other loads that must be resisted by hull structure (covered under section 4.2
Loads).

Resistance and powering – determination of total resistance due to friction, wavemaking,

form drag, etc., added resistance in waves, and the total installed power required to attain
a specified speed in specified sea conditions (covered under section 3.2 Powering).

Propulsion – development of waterjet propulsors to provide the thrust needed to attain

required speeds (covered under section 3.2 Powering and section 5.3 Waterjets).

Hull/propulsor integration – hydrodynamic integration of waterjets and hulls to minimize

power and assure reliable seaway performance (covered under section 3.2.3
Hull/Propulsor Interaction).

Seakeeping – analysis of seaway-induced ship motions and their effect on ship and crew
performance (covered under section 3.3 Seakeeping).

Maneuvering, dynamic stability, and control – analysis of turning capability, stability in

turns, and dynamic control at high speed (covered under section 3.4 Maneuvering).

2.2.3 Overview of Development Plan

Technology development will be required to characterize the structural loads and hydrodynamic
performance of 500 to 3,000 mt slender monohulls operating at high speed in rough water. Test
data will be used to extend and validate analytical design tools and predictive methods, support
development of classification standards, and increase confidence in the capability to produce
successful designs of high-speed monohulls. Technology development efforts will focus on the
development, analysis, and testing of representative slender monohull concepts. The tasks, time
to complete each task, and cost associated with developing the needed monohull technology are
shown in Figure 2.2.3-1.

10
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Ship Hullforms
Year 1 2 3 4 5 Est. Cost ($K)
Develop Hull Concepts 300

Technology Development
- Resistance & Powering
Build powering model 400
Test 500
Extend tools 800
- Loads & Seakeeping
Build dynamics model 525
Test 1,425
Extend tools 1,200
- Maneuvering & Control
Test 600
Extend tools 400

Design Validation 450

Funding ($K) 850 2,000 1,525 1,825 400 6,600

Figure 2.2.3-1: Monohull Technology Development Plan

Two stages of hullform development, model testing, and analysis are shown to address variations
in hullform expected and evolution of advanced hullform concepts. Costs shown are engineering
estimates, based on expected scope of testing and facilities required. This hullform specific
program will provide essential data to other technology development efforts such as powering
(section 3.2), seakeeping (section 3.3), maneuvering (section 3.4), loads (section 4.2), structural
concepts (section 4.4), ABS HSS Guide (section 4.5), and waterjets (section 5.3). Similarity
between monohulls and trimaran centerhulls will result in technology developed being applicable
to both hull types.

2.3 Catamaran

2.3.1 State-of-the-Art

High-speed aluminum catamarans are widely used as vehicle and passenger ferries. Many
designs are in service with displacements ranging from a few hundred tons to about 3,850 mt
with speeds of 35-40 knots. Some small catamarans have pushed the speed envelope above 50
knots, although generally only in sheltered waters. Virtually all of the aluminum catamaran
ferries larger than 1,000 mt have been designed and built outside the United States. However, in
2003 Nichols Brothers Boat Builders will begin construction of an approximately 1100-mt, 50-
knot aluminum catamaran for the Office of Naval Research. Figure 2.3.1-1 is a photo of the 96
m, 38-knot Incat catamaran Joint Venture, which displaces about 1,700 mt and was leased by the
Navy in 2001.

11
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Ship Hullforms

Figure 2.3.1-1: 96 m Catamaran Joint Venture

The largest aluminum catamaran, Stena’s HSS 1500, is shown in Figure 2.3.1-2. Three of these
3,850 mt ferries, which transit at 40 knots fully loaded, are in service out of U.K. ports. Range
of even the largest high-performance ferries is generally a few (200-400) hundred n. miles.

Figure 2.3.1-2: 126 m Semi-Swath Catamaran Stena Discovery

A number of small aluminum catamaran ferries have been built in the U.S. These vessels are
generally foreign designs built under license. The fastest is the 53-knot Patricia Olivia II, which
displaces 202 mt.

In addition, large steel catamarans displacing 3-5,000 tonnes with speeds below 20 knots were
designed and built in the U.S. during the late 1960s for Navy missions. Significant technology
was developed for these slow, open-ocean ships addressing critical issues such as seakeeping,
maneuvering, loads, and structural design. More recently, two classes of SWATH ships (T-
AGOS 19 and T-AGOS 23), a specialized variant of the catamaran form, were also built for

12
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Ship Hullforms

Navy missions. The largest steel twin-hull ship is the 11,750 mt Radisson Diamond, a SWATH
cruise ship built in Finland in 1992. Service speed of this 131 m long ship is 12.5 knots.

The size-speed relationship of representative steel and aluminum catamaran ships up to 4,000 mt
is compared in Figure 2.3.1-3. The figure shows that only a moderate increase in speed is
required for near-term HS combatant missions.

60
S u n fl o w e r

50
Aluminum Catamarans
HSS 1500
In c a t 8 6 Austal 86
40
In c a t 9 8
Speed (knots)

30

20 S te e l c atam ar an s H aye s

A l u m i n i u m c atam ar an s S W A TH T- A G O S 1 9
10
Steel Catamarans
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
D is p lac e m e n t (m t)

Figure 2.3.1-3: Catamaran Technology

In view of this domestic experience, the existence of a mature international high-speed

catamaran industry, and the existence of partnering agreements between U.S. shipyards and
foreign catamaran designers/builders assures availability of the catamaran technology needed to
build near-term Naval catamarans. Resolution of remaining technical issues such as
development of designs to ABS High-Speed Craft Rules at the sizes of interest, completion of
training and technology transfer efforts between foreign builders and their U.S. partners, and
adaptation of DNV High-Speed Light Craft Rules-based high-speed ferry designs to meet the
more stringent military requirements should result from ongoing commercial development.

Although less investment in catamaran technology is needed, a model test program should be
undertaken to create a comprehensive database on at least one state-of-the-art catamaran
configuration. Little public information is available on the performance of the semi-swath type
of catamaran. In addition, improvements are needed in current hydrodynamic analysis and
prediction tools, which have significant deficiencies. Beyond that, future catamarans will benefit
from generic technology development in structures and materials, gas turbines, reduction gears,
and waterjets.

13
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Ship Hullforms

2.3.2 Technology Goals

Technology advances for state-of-the-art, high-speed catamarans are needed to reduce the risk
associated with scaling models to the 2,000–3,000 mt displacements needed to support HS Naval
missions. Technology development is required in the following areas:

Structural loads – determination of the hydrodynamic forces (primary loads and slam-
ming) and other loads that must be resisted by hull structure (covered under section 4.2
Loads).

Resistance and powering – determination of total resistance due to friction, wavemaking,

form drag, etc., added resistance in waves, and the total installed power required to attain
a specified speed in specified sea conditions (covered under section 3.2 Powering).

Propulsion – development of waterjet propulsors to provide the thrust needed to attain

required speeds (covered under section 3.2 Powering and section 5.3 Waterjets).

Hull/propulsor integration – hydrodynamic integration of waterjets and hulls to minimize

power and assure reliable seaway performance (covered under section 3.2.3
Hull/Propulsor Interaction).

Seakeeping – analysis of seaway-induced ship motions and their effect on ship and crew
performance (covered under section 3.3 Seakeeping).

Maneuvering, dynamic stability, and control – analysis of turning capability, stability in

turns, and dynamic control at high speed (covered under section 3.4 Maneuvering).

2.3.3 Overview of Development Plan

Technology development will be required to characterize the structural loads and hydrodynamic
performance of 2,000 to 3,000 mt catamarans operating at high speed in rough water. Test data
will be used to extend and validate analytical design tools and predictive methods, support
development of classification standards, and increase confidence in the capability to produce
successful designs of high-speed catamarans. Technology development efforts will focus on the
development, analysis, and testing of two representative state-of-the-art catamaran concepts,
including a semi-Swath. The tasks, time to complete each task, and cost associated with
developing the needed catamaran technology are shown in Figure 2.3.3-1.

A single stage of hullform development, model testing, and analysis is thought to be sufficient to
fully characterize the technology of a state-of-the-art catamaran hullform. Costs shown are
engineering estimates, based on expected scope of testing and facilities required. This hullform
specific program will provide essential data to other technology development efforts such as
powering (section 3.2), seakeeping (section 3.3), maneuvering (section 3.4), loads (section 4.2),
structural concepts (section 4.4), ABS HSS Guide (section 4.5), and waterjets (section 5.3).

14
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Ship Hullforms

Year 1 2 3 4 5 Est. Cost ($K)

Develop Hull Concepts 150

Technology Development
- Resistance & Powering
Build powering model 200
Test 250
Extend tools 150
- Loads & Seakeeping
Build dynamics model 300
Test 700
Extend tools 600
- Maneuvering & Control
Test 300
Extend tools 100

Design Validation 150

Funding ($K) 825 1,825 1,150 600 4,400

Figure 2.3.3-1: Catamaran Technology Development Plan

2.4 Trimaran

2.4.1 State-of-the-Art

Although a few small trimarans have been built as pleasure craft in the U.S., our domestic
shipbuilding industry has little experience designing and building trimarans of the size and speed
required for the HS ship missions. The only sizeable high-speed trimaran now in service
anywhere is the 40-knot, 250-mt North West Bay ferry Triumphant. This aluminum vessel,
shown underway in Figure 2.4.1-1, was completed in Australia in 2001.

In addition, technology from model tests, full-scale trials, and design analysis has been produced
under the UK/US trimaran joint trials program for the 1,300-mt, 20-knot trimaran RV Triton,
shown in Figure 2.4.1-2. Built of steel in the U.K., this is the world’s first and currently the only
trimaran larger than 1,000 mt.

Limited design and model test experience with representative HS trimaran hullforms has also
resulted from commercial efforts such as those of BGV Development International, which has
carried out model testing and developed designs for 40 to 45 knot trimarans ranging between 600
and 2,000 mt. Kvaerner Masa Marine has also developed designs and carried out resistance
optimization studies for trimarans of 30,000 mt with speeds up to 60 knots. This corresponds to
a design speed of 41 knots (Froude number = 0.53) when scaled down to 3,000 mt size. Side
hull sizes representing 4%, 7%, 10% and 14% of total ship displaced volume (for the pair of

15
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Ship Hullforms

hulls) were investigated. Resistance was predicted for Froude numbers between 0.30 and 0.55.
The optimum side hull displacement percentage was found to vary with design Froude number.
For Froude numbers above 0.50, values of 8 to 10% were selected.

Figure 2.4.1-1: 54.5 m Trimaran Ferry Triumpnant

Figure 2.4.1-2: 98.7 m Trimaran R.V. Triton

Figure 2.4.1-3 is an artist’s concept of Kvaerner Masa’s “slender monohull with outriggers ferry
design”. Nigel Gee & Associates have explored slender monohull with outrigger designs for
ships displacing up to 20,000 mt. In 2002 extensive model testing was carried out on a trimaran
with very small outer hulls designed by NSWCCD as a 27,000 mt high-speed sealift ship (see
Figure 3.4.1-1). Nominal transit speed of this 323 m long design is 52 knots (Fn = 0.48), but

16
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Ship Hullforms

Figure 2.4.1-3: Slender Monohull with Outriggers Ferry Design Concept

resistance was measured up to 100 knots. The two 51 m long outer hulls contributed about 2 %
of total ship displacement. The size-speed relationship of HS ship near-term trimarans is
compared with representative conventional ships in Figure 2.4.1-4. Unlike the monohull case,

60

50
Aluminum Trimarans
North West Bay Ships
40
Speed (knots)

30

Cable & Wireless Triton

20

Steel
10 Aluminum
Aluminum (design)
Composite
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000
Displacement (mt)

Figure 2.4.1-4: Trimaran Technology

17
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Ship Hullforms

the size and speed requirements for near-term HS Naval trimarans are a significant increase over
demonstrated capability.

Most of the Naval HS trimaran hullforms investigated are essentially slender monohulls with
small sidehulls added to provide buoyant roll stabilization. The pair of sidehulls typically
provide from 2% to 15% of total buoyancy. While the sidehulls add complexity, most technical
aspects of trimaran center hulls may be viewed as essentially indistinguishable from the slender
monohulls discussed in section 2.2. Consequently, the extensive monohull technology base is
also applicable to trimaran center hulls. Similarly, the technology extensions resulting from
increased slenderness of HS monohulls are also required for trimarans. Additional trimaran
specific extensions are required to address sidehull related issues such as resistance, flow
characteristics, seakeeping, loads, structural response, and maneuvering and control of the
mainhull-plus-side hulls combination. While these trimaran-specific technology requirements
add complexity, just a modest increase in R & D effort overall is required beyond that needed for
slender monohulls.

2.4.2 Technology Goals

Technology advances for slender high-speed trimarans are needed to reduce the risk associated
with scaling small designs or models to the 2-3,000 mt displacements needed to support HS
Naval ship missions. Technology development is required in the following areas:

Structural loads – determination of the hydrodynamic forces (primary loads and slam-
ming) and other loads that must be resisted by hull structure (centerhull, sidehull, and
cross-structure) (covered under section 4.2 Loads).

Resistance and powering – determination of total resistance due to friction, wavemaking,

form drag, etc., added resistance in waves, and the total installed power required to attain
a specified speed in specified sea conditions (covered under section 3.2 Powering).

Propulsion – development of waterjet propulsors to provide the thrust needed to attain

required speeds (covered under section 5.3 Waterjets).

Hull/propulsor integration – hydrodynamic integration of waterjets and hulls to minimize

power and assure reliable seaway performance (covered under section 3.2.3 Hull/ Pro-
pulsor Interaction).

Seakeeping – analysis of seaway-induced ship motions and their effect on ship and crew
performance (covered under section 3.3 Seakeeping).

Maneuvering, dynamic stability, and control – analysis of turning capability, stability in

turns, and dynamic control at high speed (covered under section 3.4 Maneuvering)

18
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Ship Hullforms

2.4.3 Overview of Development Plan

Technology development will be required to characterize the structural loads and performance of
large slender trimarans operating at high speed in rough water. Test data will be used to extend
and validate analytical design tools and predictive methods, support development of classifica-
tion standards, and increase confidence in the capability to produce successful designs of these
large trimarans. Technology development efforts will focus on the development, analysis, and
testing of representative slender trimaran concepts selected to bridge the gap between the
hullforms in the current technology base and HS, small Naval ship designs. The tasks, time to
complete each task, and cost associated with developing the needed trimaran technology are
shown in Figure 2.4.3-1. Two stages of hullform development, model testing, and analysis are
shown to address expected variations in hullform and evolution of hullform concepts. Costs
shown are estimates based on expected scope of testing and facilities required. This hullform
specific program will provide essential data to other technology development efforts such as
powering (section 3.2), seakeeping (section 3.3), maneuvering (section 3.4), loads (section 4.2),
structural concepts (section 4.4), ABS HS Naval Craft Guide (section 4.5), and waterjets (section
5.3). Similarity between trimaran centerhulls and slender monohulls will result in technology
developed being applicable to both hull types.

Year 1 2 3 4 5 Est. Cost ($K)

Develop Hull Concepts 300

Technology Development
- Resistance & Powering
Build powering model 400
Test 500
Extend tools 800
- Loads & Seakeeping
Build dynamics model 575
Test 1,475
Extend tools 1,600
- Maneuvering & Control
Test 1,000
Extend tools 800

Design Validation 450

Funding ($K) 975 2,425 1,700 2,300 500 7,900

Figure 2.4.3-1: Trimaran Technology Development Plan

2.5 SES

2.5.1 State-of-the-Art

The SES has approximately 40 years of developmental and operational experience in the U.S.
and abroad. Several hundred SES have been built and operated. By the late 1970s the U.S.
Navy had completed a design and intended to construct a high-speed (80-knot), transoceanic

19
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Ship Hullforms

3,000-ton SES (3KSES) with a cushion length/beam (L/B) ratio of 2.6. This aggressive
acquisition program evolved from a technology base that included model tests, analysis, and
operation and testing of a series of small manned test craft. Two approximately 100-ton test
craft, SES 100A and SES 100B, were built and evaluated in trials at speeds approaching 90 knots
to reduce program risk. While the 3KSES program was terminated prior to the construction
phase in 1979, a firm SES technology base had been established. Closely related technology was
also developed as part of air cushion vehicle (ACV) programs, exemplified by the U.S. Navy’s
Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC), of which 91 have been built.

In 1978 the 110 Mk1 SES demonstrator was launched and began testing by commercial interests
as well as the U.S. Coast Guard. The Navy purchased the SES demonstrator in 1980. In 1981
the U.S. Coast Guard purchased three 152-mt, 30-knot SES 110 Seabird class vessels, which
were delivered in 1982 and 1983 and operated out of Key West to intercept drug runners. At
about this time the Navy converted the SES demonstrator to the 205-mt SES-200 by adding a
15.4 m “plug” section. This resulted in a SES with a L/B of 4.25 and a maximum speed of 28
knots. Subsequently, in 1990, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers let a contract to modify the
SES 200 by replacing the propellers with waterjets and increasing the total propulsion power by
80 percent These modifications increased the craft’s maximum speed to 40-knots and extensive
trials were carried out with the vessel.

In the mid-1980’s the Federal Republic of Germany, in cooperation with the U.S. Navy,
undertook detailed development of a 700-mt SES test craft with the highest L/B thus far (4.7)
and a speed of 50 knots in calm water, but it was never built. In 1990, the Soviet Union
commissioned the largest SES to that time, the 1,000-mt Dergach, with a speed of 45 knots. In
1993 the Oskoy, the first of nine 370-mt, 20 knot SES craft for mine hunting and minesweeping
was delivered to the Royal Norwegian Navy. The SES size boundary was extended further in
1994 when the 54-knot Japanese Techno-Superliner TSL-A70 Hisho (renamed Kibo) was built,
with a displacement of 1,500 mt. The 74 m long Hisho/Kibo is the largest operational SES. A
major new development occurred in Jan. 2003 when a Japanese company signed a contract with
Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Co. to build a 140 m SES passenger/cargo ferry with a beam
of 29.8 m and a full load displacement of about 4,000 mt. An artist’s rendering is shown in
Figure 2.5.1-1. This outgrowth of the Techno-Superliner program will have a service speed of

Figure 2.5.1-1: Artist’s Rendering of 140 m Long SES Ferry

20
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Ship Hullforms

38 knots and a cruising range of 1,200 n. mi. Design payload is 725 passengers plus 210 mt of
cargo. The 140 m SES is scheduled to begin service in 2005. Also noteworthy is the Skjold, a
stealthy, waterjet propelled 270-mt, 45 knot SES patrol boat built of composites that was
completed for the Norwegian Navy in late 1998.

As shown in Figure 2.5.1-2, all of the relatively large SES, except for the 3K SES, have medium
to high L/B ratios. A low L/B was chosen for the 3K SES to satisfy the speed goal of 80 knots,
but this resulted in high drag at speeds between 15 and 50 knots. Higher L/B ratio SES designs
decrease the drag “hump” at moderate speeds, but usually have higher drag than a low L/B SES
above 40 knots. Even the high L/B SES 700 design has a substantial drag hump at 12 to 20
knots. While the SES concept is well suited to providing high “burst” speeds in this size range,
with the commonly used design approaches it is difficult to also provide substantial transit range
capabilities and good seakeeping at moderate speeds.

5
SES 700
Techno Superliner
SES 200

Oskoy
4

Dergach Hishu/Kibo
Cushion Length /Beam Ratio

Skjold

3
B-H 110 3K SES

100 B
2
100 A
Existing SES
Designs

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Displacement (m. t.)

Figure 2.5.1-2: SES Technology

Going “off cushion” or “hullborne” will decrease powering requirements at speeds below 20
knots but in this operating mode the wet deck clearance is greatly reduced and rough sea
capabilities will be severely limited. Partial-cushion operation is also possible, which provides
intermediate levels of powering and seakeeping performance.

In the early 1980s investigators at NSWCCD carried out theoretical and limited model testing of
a surface effect catamaran concept that they called SECAT. In effect, SECAT allows use of a

21
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Ship Hullforms

pair of high L/B cushions within a low L/B vessel planform. These investigations showed that it
was more feasible to design a SECAT for low drag over a greater range of speeds. For this
reason, SECAT may merit further investigation for small Naval ships with two required
operating speeds. Another related concept that has been proposed by a French company is a
hybrid trimaran in which a pair of air cushions is separated by a slender displacement type center
hull.

2.5.2 Technology Goals

Technology advances are needed for high-speed SES hulls of 1,000 – 3,000 mt that also have
reasonable powering performance at 15 to 20 knots to enable long range transits. Twin-cushion
or hybrid, cushion-assisted displacement hull concepts appear to have potential but are still in the
exploratory stage of development. Technology development is required in the following areas:

Structural loads – determination of the hydrodynamic forces (primary loads and slam-
ming) and other loads that must be resisted by hull structure (covered under section 4.2
Loads).

Resistance and powering – determination of total resistance due to friction, wavemaking,

form drag, etc., added resistance in waves, and the total installed power required to attain
a specified speed in specified sea conditions (covered under section 3.2 Powering).

Propulsion – development of waterjet propulsors to provide the thrust needed to attain

required speeds (covered under section 5.3 Waterjets).

Hull/propulsor integration – hydrodynamic integration of waterjets and hulls to minimize

power and assure reliable seaway performance (covered under section 3.2.3
Hull/Propulsor Interaction).

Seakeeping – analysis of seaway-induced ship motions and their effect on ship and crew
performance (covered under section 3.3 Seakeeping).

Maneuvering, dynamic stability, and control – analysis of turning capability, stability in

turns, and dynamic control at high speed (covered under section 3.4 Maneuvering).

Additional SES-specific systems level technology development is addressed in section 5.5 SES
Lift Fans and 5.6 SES Seals.

2.5.3 Overview of Development Plan

Technology development will be required to characterize the structural loads and hydrodynamic
performance of large, high-L/B SES operating at high speed in rough water. Test data will be
used to extend and validate analytical design tools and predictive methods, support development
of classification standards, and increase confidence in the capability to produce successful

22
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Ship Hullforms

designs of these large SES. Technology development efforts will focus on the development,
analysis, and testing of two representative high-L/B SES designs selected to bridge the gap
between the hullforms in the current technology base and HS ship hulls. The tasks, time to
complete each task, and cost associated with developing the needed SES technology are shown
in Figure 2.5.3-1. Costs shown are estimates based on expected scope of testing and facilities
required. This hullform specific program will provide essential data to other technology
development efforts such as powering (section 3.2), seakeeping (section 3.3), maneuvering
(section 3.4), loads (section 4.2), structural concepts (section 4.4), ABS HSS Guide (section 4.5),
waterjets (section 5.3), lift fans (section 5.5), and seals (section 5.6).

Year 1 2 3 4 5 Est. Cost ($K)

Technology Development
- Resistance & Powering 900
- Loads 1,900
- Maneuvering & Dynamic Stability 800
- Seakeeping 2,500
Funding ($K) 825 2,100 2,500 675 0 6,100

Figure 2.5.3-1: SES Technology Development Plan

23
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
3.0 HYDRODYNAMICS

3.1 Introduction

A variety of hullforms potentially can be used to satisfy mission speed, range and other
requirements for naval ships with full load weights between 500 and 3,000 mt. For purposes of
discussing the current state of the art and technology needs it is helpful to identify areas of
commonality between the hullform types as well as key differences. Most fundamental is the
method of supporting most of the ship’s weight at high speeds on the ocean surface:

(a) buoyancy
(b) aerostatic lift, or
(c) hydrodynamic lift.

Speed-power performance of hydrodynamic lift vessels (hydrofoils and planing boats) is

addressed in this section for the sake of completeness. Vessels relying on hydrodynamic lift are
rarely as large as 500 mt.

Buoyant Support. The great majority of surface ships operating today are supported by the
buoyancy of the water displaced by their hull(s). Most of these displacement ships, particularly
those designed for moderate speeds, are monohulls. Twin-hull ships, or catamarans, are widely
used for fast ferries. Consequently, extensive technology bases currently exist for relatively
high-speed monohulls and catamarans. Research and development efforts on high speed
trimarans are relatively recent, so the technology base is relatively small.

Aerostatic Lift. Air cushion vehicles, or hovercraft, are wholly supported by a cushion of air
supplied by fans and held in by flexible fabric skirts, or seals. ACVs are judged not to be a valid
design option for open ocean capable naval vessels in excess of 500 mt because, when operating
over water, ACVs have high fan power requirements due to air leakage.

Surface effect ships, or SES, differ from pure hovercraft in having rigid sidehulls. As a result, an
SES has less seal leakage and markedly less fan power is required to maintain their air cushion.
The first Navy testcraft had thin sidehulls and were designed to operate on cushion most of the
time. Beginning with the BH-110, built in 1978, wider sidehulls have been adopted. These
provide sufficient buoyancy to support all of the craft’s weight, as well as keep the cross-
structure out of the water, when the fans are turned off. In this operating mode, an SES is
essentially a catamaran with a relatively small amount of wet deck clearance. All oceangoing
SES are now designed with fully buoyant sidehulls. Moreover, even when operating at design
on-cushion draft, a non-negligible part of the weight of a modern SES is supported by sidehull
buoyancy. For example, the German Navy’s SES-700 design had 83% cushion support and 17%
buoyant support. From this standpoint a modern SES has evolved into a hybrid ship concept.
The 4,000 mt. Japanese Techno Superliner SES scheduled to begin service in 2005 will have
greater than 25% buoyant support. The hydrodynamics technology base for SES is extensive,
but there are areas where further technology development is needed. This is partly due to the
wide range of possible SES hull form configurations.

24
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
Hydrodynamic Lift. Planing boats are supported largely by hydrodynamic lift at high speeds,
and have a mature technology base. In fact, planing boats are by far the most numerous type of
high-speed surface craft. They are the dominant hullform for small military patrol boats as well
as recreational vessels. Most planing vessels are considerably smaller than 500 mt. Probably
the largest planing vessel is the 1070-mt aluminum hulled Destriero, which is 67.7 m long and
successfully crossed the Atlantic ocean in 1992 at an average speed of 53.1 knots. Hydrofoils
also have a quite mature technology base except for those with catamaran hulls, a fairly recent
development. The largest hydrofoil built to date is the US Navy’s Plainview, which had a full
load weight of 320 mt. However, designs exist for naval hydrofoils as large as 2,000 mt.

3.2 Powering

The need for “burst” speeds, which could be as high as 60 knots, is one requirement shared by
many of the designs that are being evaluated for future small naval ships. In order to provide a
ship capable of such speeds, the designer must place priority on high-speed efficiency when
selecting the hull form and propulsion system. The importance of efficiency is magnified by the
weight implications of the large quantities of fuel consumed at high speeds. Hull form selection
for a burst speed requirement is relatively well understood.

A major complication is that most naval missions also require good powering performance and
fuel efficiency at moderate transit speeds (15 to 20 knots) to provide a substantial range. Not
only must the selected hull form have good resistance characteristics at both moderate and high
speed but, in addition, the propulsors must have reasonably good efficiency in both speed
regimes. It is, therefore, of critical importance that powering estimates and speed predictions be
accurate for each type of high-speed hull form being evaluated.

The purpose of this effort is to extend resistance and powering prediction techniques to address
the most efficient hullforms and provide a validated basis for sizing and selecting appropriate
propulsion systems. A major objective is to validate these analytic models as design tools to
support development of superior high-speed naval ships.

The approach to be used to develop powering technology will be based on the following:

• develop hull designs that meet representative requirements using existing data and
state-of-the-art analytical tools (e.g. Computation Fluid Dynamics methods).
• predict ship resistance and powering performance and flow about the hulls with
appropriate analytic and empirical tools.
• plan and conduct tow tank tests to verify predictions. The models will be designed to
represent hull geometries and waterjet propulsors appropriate to HS small Naval ship
missions and will be tested for a range of operating conditions, speeds, and sea states.
• correlate test data with predictions to extend and validate predictive techniques.

25
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
3.2.1 State-of-the-Art

3.2.1.1 Displacement Ships

Resistance estimates for high-speed monohull and catamaran designs have relied heavily on
systematic series model test data such as Series 64, the NPL High Speed Round Bilge Series, and
the NSMB High Speed Displacement Hull series. Series 64 consists of resistance data for a
family of 27 models divided into the three principal groups shown below. NSWCCD carried out
resistance tests on these models in the early 1960s (Yeh, 1965). All of the models are rounded
bilge, high- speed forms with relatively large transom sterns. Resistance was measured at
Froude numbers (V/√gL) up to 1.50. The models have slenderness ratio (Hull Length/Displaced
Vol.1/3) between 8.0 and 12.4. Hullforms with a S.R of 12.4 are considered very slender. In
general, those hullforms in the intermediates shape group are of most interest for small HS Naval
ships because of the need to fit propulsion machinery into the hulls. Measured resistance data
for the Series 64 hullforms was used as the basis for this project’s spreadsheet estimates of
required propulsion power for the various ship sizing studies that were carried out to evaluate
technology tradeoffs.

V-S hape Intermediate U-S hape

S hape

Figure 3.2.1-1: The Three Main Subgroups of Series 64 Hullforms

The actual hullform geometry of many modern high speed monohull vessels differ from these
standard series hulls in several ways (section shapes, transom size, bow shape, etc.). Tabulated
model resistance data on a family of modern deep Vee hullforms was presented by
Grigoropoulos at the annual meeting of The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers in
Sept. 2002. These deep Vee monohull forms are similar to those for existing European high
speed ferries between 500 and 4,000 mt. Resistance data for the most slender of the tested deep
Vee hullforms was scaled up to ship displacements of 750, 1500 and 3,000 mt. Predicted total
resistance for these three ship sizes over the speed range from 16 to 60 knots is compared in
Figure 3.2.1-2.

26
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures

400

350
3,000 mt

300
RESISTANCE / 1000, (lbs)

1,500 mt
250

750 mt
200

150

100

50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SPEED, knots

Figure 3.2.1-2: Comparison of Total Resistance for a Deep Vee Monohull

Scaled to Three Ship Sizes

While the 3,000 mt ship has the highest resistance at all speeds above 25 knots, as would be
expected, the resistance of the 1,500-mt ship is only 10% lower. This comparison illustrates the
fact that larger ships are usually more efficient in terms of powering performance. It follows that
the required power per ton of displacement to drive a 3,000-mt ship at 40 knots will be
significantly lower than for a 1,500 or 750-mt ship with the same hullform. Conversely, the
smaller ship requires significantly more installed power per ton of displacement to go 40 knots
than the 3,000-mt ship, as is shown in Figure 3.2.1-3. Consequently, the designer of a small
high-speed ship must allocate a higher fraction of the ship’s total weight and volume to
propulsion systems.

The deep Vee monohull chosen for these comparisons has a Slenderness Ratio value of 7.7.
This is similar to the slenderness ratio values of traditional monohull warships. In the quest for
higher speeds there has been growing interest in very slender monohulls. In 1992 and 1993
Kvaerner Masa Yards, in Finland, carried out limited resistance model testing and other
investigations of monohull designs with slenderness ratio values as high as 12. Hyundai
Maritime Research Institute, in Korea, conducted resistance tests on a systematic series of very
slender monohulls in 1997. NSWCCD published a report in 2002 on measured resistance of a
model of a 26,600 mt monohull with a slenderness ratio of 10.8. Speeds tested ranged from 25
to 100 knots. Scaled down to a 3,000 mt ship, the speed range tested was 12 to 48 knots.

27
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures

0.20

750 mt

0.15
RESISTANCE / DISPL.

0.10
1,500 mt

0.05

3,000 mt

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SPEED, knots

Figure 3.2.1-3: Comparison of Resistance per Ton for a Deep Vee Monohull
Scaled to Three Ship Sizes

Over the past 5 or 6 years researchers have published model test data for a couple of systematic
series for fairly representative catamaran hullforms (Molland, 1995 and 1997). In many cases,
resistance tests were carried out for the actual catamaran and trimaran ships now in service, but
this data is proprietary and not generally available. Trimaran configurations have a large number
of parameters, so a systematic model test series is problematic. However, model resistance data
was published by NSWCCD in 2002 for a 27,000 mt Trimaran design using the center hull with
a slenderness ratio of 10.8 and two small side hulls (see Figure 3.4.1-1).

Based on the available model test data, Figure 3.2.1-4 shows a comparison of full-scale effective
power requirements for the NSWCCD trimaran scaled to 1,500 mt, and a representative
catamaran and deep Vee monohull of the same displacement. Waterline length of the monohull
is about 13 % longer than that of the catamaran, but the trimaran is 55% longer. This trimaran
has markedly lower resistance than the monohull or catamaran over the speed range between 20
and 45 knots. At 50 knots the monohull and trimaran require about the same power, while the
catamaran is noticeably less efficient. The catamaran chosen for Figure 3.2.1-4 had hulls with a
slenderness ratio of 8.5, similar to that for the 53-knot, 200 mt Patricia Olivia II. It is likely that
a different catamaran hullform could be designed that would have somewhat lower resistance at
50 knots. No published resistance data could be found for semi-swath hullforms, which have
been utilized for six ferries, including three 40-knot, 3,850-mt ferries operating out of U.K. ports.
The semi-swath hullform povides reduced motions compared with a conventional catamaran in
exchange for a small increase in wetted surface area and frictional resistance.

28
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures

60

Displacement = 1,500 Tons

50
77.3 m Catamaran, 7.8 m Side Hull Beam, 3.1 m Draft
87.6 m Deep Vee Monohull, 12.5 m Beam, 2.8 m Draft
120.0 m Trimaran, 7.2 m Ctr. Hull Beam, 3.24 m Draft
40
Effective Power (Mw)

30

20

10

0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Speed (Knots)

Figure 3.2.1-4: Measured Resistance for Three Types of Displacement Ships

Figure 3.2.1-5 compares the measured resistance of the NSWCCD trimaran scaled to 1,500 mt to
the measured resistance of the center hull alone. Even though the sidehulls of this trimaran
constitute only 2% of total ship buoyancy, the resistance of the trimaran is noticeably higher than
that for the center hull alone above 25 knots. Some of the increase is due to disproportionately
high model-scale spray drag from water hitting the underside of the bridging structure.

50

Displacement = 1,500 mt

40
120.0 m Trimaran, 7.2 m Ctr. Hull Beam, 3.24 m Draft
Effective Power (Mw)

120.0 m Monohull, 7.2 m Hull Beam, 3.24 m Draft

30

20

10

0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Speed (Knots)

Figure 3.2.1-5: Measured Effective Power for Scaled-Down NSWCCD Trimaran

and Its Center Hull

29
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
It can be useful, when comparing displacement ships with other ship types, to present resistance
characteristics in terms of the ratio of lift to drag. This non-dimensional number can be obtained
simply by inverting the calculated resistance per ton of displacement at each speed. Curves of
lift/drag ratio as a function of speed are shown in Figure 3.2.1-6 for the NSWCCD trimaran
scaled to 1,500 mt and for the corresponding center hull alone. The lift/drag trends for the two
hullforms are similar, showing decreasing values as speed increases. The values are also quite
high, since an efficient (high aspect ratio) hydrofoil has a lift/drag ratio of 14 to 16. The 1,500
mt slender monohull has a L/D values above 20 at all speeds up to 40 knots, and the values for
the trimaran are only slightly lower. At the transit speed of 20 knots the hydrodynamic
efficiency of the trimaran is evident from the value of about 70 for its lift-drag ratio.

140

Displacement = 1,500 mt
120
120.0 m Monohull, 7.2 m Beam,3.24 m Draft
120.0 m Trimaran, 7.2 m Ctr. Hull Beam, 3.24 m Draft
LIFT / DRAG RATIO

100

80

60

40

20

0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Speed (knots)

Figure 3.2.1-6: Measured Lift/Drag Ratio for NSWCCD Trimaran and Its Center Hull

Currently, there is no comprehensive publicly available systematic model data base to support
development of monohull or trimaran designs employing such slender hulls. Also lacking is
published model test data on semi-swath type catamarans. Another gap in the model database is
measured resistance of trimarans utilizing one hull of a semi-swath as the center hull. This
alternative trimaran configuration has been proposed by several researchers as potentially
providing a better balance between resistance and seakeeping performance for small ships.

Ship designers can use advanced panel code computational techniques to predict the resistance of
unusual hulls and associated local flow characteristics (waterjet inlets, transoms, streamlines
over hulls, nose bulbs). However, these analytical methods require careful correlation with
physical data to assure accuracy. Absence of this data is a severe obstacle to the development of
mission-specific designs and also hinders generic high-speed hull research and design tool

30
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
development. Also needed by designers is a relatively simple analytic resistance prediction tool
which can handle different combinations of simple component hullform shapes to enable early-
stage design tradeoffs.

3.2.1.2 Surface Effect Ships

The surface effect ship (SES) concept was pioneered by the US Navy in the 1960s. SES are
different from pure hovercraft because they have rigid sidehulls. Generally, flexible fabric bow
and stern skirts, or seals, are employed to hold in the cushion of air generated by lift fans. The
SES concept seeks to obtain a favorable lift/drag ratio by expending a relatively small amount of
fan power to lift most of the hull out of the water, thereby markedly decreasing both frictional
and wavemaking resistance at high speeds. Early US Navy manned testcraft such as the 93.5-mt,
90-knot SES 100B had relatively thin sidehulls. However, wider sidehulls are now preferred.
Current SES have sidehulls designed to support more than 100% of the vessel’s weight when lift
fans are turned off. Such full displacement sidehulls allow an SES to operate as a relatively deep
draft catamaran at low speeds. This is commonly termed “hullborne mode” operation.

The trend towards larger sidehulls was carried further with the German Navy’s SES 700 design,
which was model tested extensively at NSWCCD in the late 1980s. The sidehulls were sized to
support almost 17% of the vessel’s 720-mt fully loaded weight when cushionborne. A maximum
of 83% of the weight would be supported by the air cushion. The SES 700 design has a cushion
length/beam ratio of 4.7 and is 59.5 m long. Predicted maximum speed from a pair of waterjets
is over 50 knots in calm water. Total propulsion power is 22.0 Mw. In addition, the design had
a total of 4 lift fans driven by two 2.0 Mw diesel engines. The 4,000 mt. Japanese Techno
Superliner SES scheduled to begin service in 2005 will have greater than 25% buoyant support
when cushionborne..

Figure 3.2.1-7 shows semi-quantitatively the predicted variation in total resistance over a range
of speeds for the SES 700 for the two limiting operating modes: cushionborne and hullborne.
Estimated resistance in calm water is shown. Above 18 knots, total resistance cushionborne is
lower than hullborne mode resistance. At speeds below 18 knots, on the other hand, there is a
significant hump in the cushionborne resistance curve, due to wavemaking, so there is
significantly lower total resistance hullborne. This design had retractable bow and stern skirts to
minimize resistance when hullborne. These are just the extremes of operation. Intermediate
“partial cushion” operation is also feasible, because the amount of fan lift can be varied quickly
as desired from 0 to 100% of the design value to optimize the performance for each unique
operating condition.

Tools to predict SES resistance and powering requirements have been developed over the past
forty years through a combination of model tests, manned test-craft trials and analytical models.
Through 1979, the major thrust of the SES effort was directed towards high speed (60-100
knots), low length-to-beam (L/B) ratio SES. Following the termination of the 3KSES program in
1979, the U.S. Navy redirected the SES studies to higher L/B ratios and slower speeds (e.g. 25-
55 knots). A comparison of the required propulsion power for two 1000 mt SES, one with a low

31
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures

Figure 3.2.1-7: Predicted SES 700 Resistance Hullborne and Cushionborne

in Calm Water

L/B cushion and the other with a high L/B cushion, is presented in Figure 3.2.1-8. A similar
comparison for 2,000 mt SES is shown in Figure 3.2.1-9. At the 1,000 mt size, an SES with an
L/B of 2.5 is more efficient than an SES with L/B of 6.5 at speeds above 51 knots. However, at
lower speeds the low L/B SES requires more power. At the 2,000 mt size the cross-over speed
increases to about 57 knots. Consequently, in the 2,000 to 3,000 mt size range, SES with a
relatively high L/B cushion ratio are the most efficient. However, for SES designs with L/B
above 5 it is difficult to provide sufficient cushion depth for good seakeeping while ensuring
adequate transverse stability.

Existing analytical models can predict SES performance with sufficient accuracy to support the
design of 2,000 to 3,000 mt ships. However, application of CFD tools to hull/propulsor
integration is as challenging for SES hulls as for displacement hulls. Consequently, a similar
need exists for test data for high-L/B SES hulls at the 40 to 60-knot speeds of interest.

32
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures

Figure 3.2.1-8: Effect of Cushion Length-Beam Ratio on Required Propulsion Power

per Ton Cushionborne for 1000-Ton SES (Eggington, 1975)

GROSS WEIGHT - 2000 TONS

!«/> SEA STATE-3

l/B = 2.5SES

l/B = 6.5SES

SPEED - KNOTS

Figure 3.2.1-9: Effect of Cushion Length-Beam Ratio on Required Propulsion Power

per Ton Cushionborne for 2000-Ton SES (Eggington, 1975)

33
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures

3.2.1.3 Hydrodynamic Lift Vessels

Two different ship concepts rely on hydrodynamic lift: hydrofoils and planing boats. A pure
hydrofoil vessel is almost totally supported by hydrodynamic lift. Usually, a pair of large wing-
like lifting surfaces (i.e., hydrofoils) is utilized to completely lift the hull above the water
surface. Hydrofoils are an old concept, dating back to the late 1880s in the U.S. There are two
general hydrofoil configurations: fully submerged and surface-piercing.

With fully submerged hydrofoil configurations the foils are designed to operate below the water
surface at all times. A submerged foil system effectively decouples the ship from the surface
waves and provides an impressive ability to operate at high speeds in quite rough sea conditions.
For example, the Navy’s six 241-mt PHM class vessels demonstrated the ability to operate at 40
knots in sea state 5 conditions. Design maximum wave height was 5.0 m. Propulsion was by a
pair of waterjets, driven by one LM2500 rated at 13.4 Mw. Maximum speed was 48 knots.
Total foil area was 41.2 sq. m. Generally, a fully submerged hydrofoil will become foilborne at
approximately 50% of its design foilborne speed and will operate well in rough water over the
upper third of its speed range. When a hydrofoil becomes foilborne, there is a marked decrease
in their resistance. Consequently, there is a hump in their speed-power curve.

Fully submerged hydrofoil systems are not self-stabilizing. Means must be provided to vary the
effective angle of attack of the foils to change the lifting force as ship speed and weight change.
Adjustments are also necessary to counter the continually varying apparent angle of attack of the
foils in rough seas. This is generally provided by angular changes of trailing edge flaps driven
by hydraulic actuators and controlled by an automatic control system.

The AGEH-1 Plainview, a 320-mt experimental craft owned by the US Navy, was the largest
fully submerged hydrofoil ever built. Propeller driven and powered by 2 LM 1500 gas turbines
producing a total of 20.9 Mw, Plainview had a cruising foilborne speed of 42 knots, and was
designed to operate in sea state 6. Maximum speed was over 50 knots. Maximum hullborne
speed, utilizing diesels, was 13.5 knots. When fully loaded the design takeoff speed to become
foilborne was 33 knots. Total foil area was 47.4 sq. m.

A fundamental limitation of hydrofoils is imposed by the “square-cube” law. Because the lift
developed by a foil is proportional to the foil area (the square of a linear dimension) whereas the
vessel weight to be supported is proportional to volume (the cube of a linear dimension), as
vessel size increases the foils tend to outgrow the vessel’s beam. Cavitation on hydrofoils
operating relatively near the ocean surface limits the maximum loading of hydrofoils. Speeds of
50 knots or higher will require development work on advanced foil section shapes.

Another problem with hydrofoils for some naval missions is their markedly greater draft than
other hullform types when the vessel is hullborne with the foils down. Plainview, for example,
has a draft of 7.9 m. Fortunately, its foils can be retracted thereby reducing the draft to just 1.9
m. Total foil system weight for Plainview, incuding retracting mechanisms, is 14.9% of the
design full load weight. Considerably larger hydrofoil ships have been designed with retractable
foil systems, including a US Navy hydrofoil combatant of over 2,000 mt. A hypothetical 1,000-

34
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
mt hydrofoil will have a hullborne draft of 10.5 m. Retracting the foils of a large hydrofoil ship
is most easily done by rotating the foils up behind the transom and up over the bow. In addition
to markedly reducing the draft, retracting the foils makes the propulsion gearboxes and foils
accessible for maintenance without drydocking

The HYSWAS (Hydrofoil Small-Waterplane-Area Ship) concept shown in Figure 3.2.1-10 is a

hybrid design that combines foil lift with partial buoyant support. Provided that deep draft at
slow speeds is acceptable, HYSWAS can provide an attractive combination of excellent
seakeeping performance, 40+ knot maximum speed, and substantial range/payload capability. At
least two HYSWAS testcraft have been built. In 1994 Kawasaki Heavy Industries built the
Hayate, a 17.1 m long, one-sixth scale testcraft. Powered by one waterjet driven by a 2835 Kw
gas turbine, Hayate has a maximum speed of 41 knots. Hullborne draft is 3.1 m. In the U.S., the
manned testcraft Quest was completed in 1998 and has been tested extensively for the Navy.

Figure 3.2.1-10: Artist’s Impression of a HYSWAS Patrol Boat

Another hybrid design approach is to add foils to multihull vessels, both catamarans and
trimarans, as a way of overcoming the limitations on foil geometry imposed by monohull
configurations. The wide spacing of a catamaran’s hulls allows use of high aspect ratio foils,
which are the most efficient. A foil with an aspect ratio of 5 or 6 will have a lift/drag ratio of 14
to 16. In general, designs with a foil-assist fraction of less than 50% are better suited to dual-
speed applications than are 80-100% hydrodynamic lift vessels.

Hyundai Heavy Industries relied on 40% foil assist for a 45.5 m long, 35-knot catamaran
passenger ferry built in the mid-1990s. Increased hydrodynamic efficiency and seakeeping
ability were needed for the specified 700 n. mi. range. In 1999 Halter Marine retrofitted its 45 m
long, 175-mt E-cat with a pair of foils supporting a fraction of the E-cat’s weight, and reported a
worthwhile increase in maximum speed. A small Australian builder, North West Bay Ships,
delivered the first foil-assisted trimaran, the 54.5 m long ferry Triumphant, in 2001 (shown in
Figure 2.4.1-1). A pair of foils located near the center of gravity support one-third of the weight

35
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
of this 255-mt, 40-knot aluminum vessel. Three waterjets in the center hull transmit the
propulsive power from 3 diesels totaling about 7 Mw.

Largest proposed foil-assist installation to date is a retrofit of the 70.4 m long K55 catamaran
ferry Juan Patricio with two foils: a 16 m span foil with a chord of about 2 m placed near the
vessel’s center of gravity and a 9 m span foil near the stern. Design full load displacement for
Juan Patricio is about 650 mt. Total weight of the two fixed foils would be about 13 mt.
Estimated performance improvement would be an increase of nearly 7 knots in the vessel’s
maximum speed, from 48 knots to 55 knots. Total propulsion power is 21.5 Mw.

Surface-piercing hydrofoils are not an acceptable option for a naval vessel that must operate in
the open ocean. With a surface-piercing hydrofoil, portions of the foils extend through the
air/sea interface when the vessel is operating. Struts connect the foils to the hull of the ship and
are sufficiently long to support the hull above the water surface at design speeds. When the
vessel encounters a wave, more or less of each foil will be submerged, and the ship will pitch or
heave up or down to bring the weight and lift again into balance. These force changes occur
automatically, so the surface-piercing hydrofoil system is self-stabilizing. However, foil
geometry limits the wave heights in which a surface-piercing hydrofoil can operate safely at high
speeds. In addition, motions of a surface-piercing hydrofoil are greater and ride quality worse in
moderately rough seas than with a fully submerged foil arrangement.

Planing boats comprise the second type of vessel relying on hydrodynamic lift. A planing hull
is designed specifically to achieve relatively high speeds by developing positive hydrodynamic
pressures as speed increases, thus generating dynamic lift. When a planing hull is driven at
speeds above the displacement speed range the hull initially trims down at the stern. As speed is
increased further the hydrodynamic lift increases. Total lift remains equal to the craft’s weight
because the amount of hydrostatic (buoyant) lift decreases as hydrodynamic lift increases. At
fully planing speeds the wavemaking resistance actually decreases as speed increases further.
Before reaching full planing behavior there is a characteristic “hump” in the resistance curve of
planing boats. This hump is evident in Figure 3.2.1-11.

The volume Froude number scale for the x-axis of Figure 3.2.1-11 is used because planing
behavior does not depend upon wavemaking. Nevertheless, the standard Froude number
(V/√gL) is often used to define the speed boundary for full planing. A ship is considered to be
fully planing at speeds above Fn = 0.90. At fully planing speeds for a 44.6 mt size boat, Figure
3.2.1-10 indicates lift/drag (L/D) values are between 7 and 7.5. For a 500-mt vessel, the
minimum speed for full planing is approximately 55 knots. Consequently, semi-planing
hullforms are of more interest for naval ship designs between 500 and 3,000 mt. What is termed
the “semi-planing” or “semi-displacement” regime is bounded by Froude numbers between 0.40
and 0.89. Even the 67 m long, 1,070-mt Destriero operated in the semi-planing mode during its
record-breaking Atlantic crossing at an average speed of 53.1 knots, since the corresponding
Froude number is just 0.63.

36
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures

Figure 3.2.1-11: Drag/Lift Contours for Efficient Planing Hulls as a Function of

Volume Froude Number and Slenderness Ratio (Savitsky, 1985)

3.2.2 Technology Goals

The objective of the displacement ship and SES powering work is to develop a comprehensive
technology base for modern high-speed hulls and validate analytical techniques for prediction of
full-scale resistance and powering for HS ship hulls. The following approach will be used:

• Review and analyze existing data to define extensions to analytical models needed for
the principal types of HS ship hulls.
• Modify and update analytical models.
• Modify and update test techniques for high-speed hulls.
• Conduct comprehensive model tests to produce data to validate HS ship hullforms
and analytical predictions.
• Utilize data from model tests and operational ships to validate predictive techniques
by correlation.

37
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
Comprehensive tests and analyses will be used to extend analytical methods and validate
computer models for slender monohulls (10<L/∇1/3<12), semi-swath catamarans, trimarans, and
high-L/B (L/B of 5 to 6) SES hulls. The approach is to expand current databases and to build
upon proven existing analytical models. Potential performance enhancement for SES using mid-
cushion transverse seal concepts will be assessed.

Hybrid ship concepts, which most often combine buoyant and hydrodynamic lift, are judged to
be a promising area for ships up to about 1,500 mt where further technology development effort
is needed. This would encompass model testing, development of analysis and design tools, and
development of design standards and practices for both intact and dynamic stability.

3.2.3 Hull/Propulsor Integration

Current practice for designing waterjet-propelled hulls is to first design a hull with low drag
followed by the design of waterjets with good propulsive efficiency. Waterjet influence on the
hull design is assumed to consist primarily of geometric requirements for the fit of the machinery
and inlets. Indeed, geometric fit requirements are important, as is evident in Figure 3.2.3-1,
which is a stern photo of the HSS 1500 semi-swath catamaran under construction.

Figure 3.2.3-1: Photograph of the Stern of the HSS 1500 Semi-Swath Catamaran Ferry

For a monohull with a transom stern, operating waterjets have a marked effect on the flow astern
of the inlets. Figure 3.2.3-2 shows results of CFD Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS)
computations of the external streamlines for the flow adjacent to the hull being ingested into twin
inlet openings. In addition, the hull flow influences waterjet duct flow and pump entrance
conditions. The second illustration of Figure 3.2.3-2 shows the calculated contours of the
internal pressure coefficient within the duct of the flush inlet waterjet configuration, simulating
operation at the design condition. Flow irregularities in the waterjet inlet are major factors in
the design of waterjet components such as inlet ducts, stators, and rotors.

38
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures

Figure 3.2.3-2: Calculated Effect of Waterjet Inlets on External Flow Streamlines and
Internal Coefficient of Pressure

Omitted from the hull design process are the changes in hull flow properties resulting from
actual operation of the waterjets. These changes result from alteration of the pressure
distribution near the stern caused by waterjet inlet suction under the hull and exhaust behind the
transom. Resistance, sinkage, trim, and the direction of the streamlines over the hull are
affected. The draw-down of the water surface in the vicinity of the waterjet inlets is of particular
concern since it increases the likelihood of air injestion by the waterjets in a seaway. While
pertinent to the design of all waterjet-powered designs, the importance of these flow changes is
magnified by the slender hulls and high installed power of HS ship concepts. Potential

39
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
consequences of this lack of integration include reduced efficiency of the waterjet, higher fuel
consumption, and operational limitations in waves.

Hull design should reflect an improved understanding of the actual flow requirements of
waterjets. It is common practice to center the waterjet output nozzle at the design waterline.
This practice provides the waterjet with a self-priming capability, but also results in deeper
transom immersion and increased hull resistance. When the ship is at rest, or just getting
underway, self-priming is necessary. However, when the ship operates at moderate to high
speeds the flow along the hull bottom ahead of the waterjet inlets is adequate for efficient
waterjet operation. Consequently, there is no reason why the ship’s control surfaces couldn’t be
used to raise the transom out of the water, thereby decreasing resistance.

3.2.4 Overview of Development Plan

The technology development effort for displacement hulls will extend the existing technology
base to encompass the more slender hulls of high-speed monohulls and trimarans. For
catamarans and trimarans the technology developed will include semi-swath hullforms, which
have potential for improved seakeeping performance. The needed extensions will be produced
using advanced analytic methods, model test data, and available full-scale data. A major
objective is to validate analytic models as design tools to support development of slender high-
speed configurations. Extension of existing design tools, including Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) techniques as well as the model test techniques needed to validate predictions,
is a goal of this plan.

Several modern waterjet powered hullforms, including at least one very slender monohull, will
be developed using available analytic and empirical data. Different hull concepts will be
developed to address key gaps in the existing data base. Resistance, powering, sinkage, trim, and
flow data will be measured at model-scale for these hulls to assess resistance characteristics,
hull/propulsor interactions, and flow properties such as streamlines on the hulls, flow in the
inlets, transom flow, and pressure distribution on the hulls. Comparisons between measured
data, estimates produced to develop the modeled hulls, and post-test analysis will be used to
establish credibility of the design tools, identify and eliminate shortfalls in the technology, and
validate performance of HS ship hulls. Validation will be further enhanced using data for similar
hulls developed by commercial projects where available. The following process will be followed
in this high-speed displacement hull powering effort:

1. Develop hullform, inlets, and propulsion-system design for alternative HS displacement

hulls using analytical methods, model test data, and full-scale data.
2. Prepare model test plans to verify resistance, inlet performance, powering, and perform-
ance.
3. Design and fabricate scale models of the hulls and propulsors.
4. Conduct model tests and reduce data.
5. Analyze test data and correlate with performance predictions.

40
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
Waterjet inlet simulation tests will be conducted to assess the inlet design, arrangement of the
pumps, and hull/propulsor integration. The effects of operation of individual waterjets and
combinations of waterjets will be assessed.

The scheduling and costing plan for resistance and powering technology development is shown
in Figure 2.2.3-1 for monohulls, Figure 2.3.3-1 for catamarans and Figure 2.4.3-1 for trimarans.
The scheduling and costing plan for hull/propulsor integration technology development is shown
in Figure 3.2.4-1 for displacement hulls and SES.

The scheduling and costing plan for SES resistance and powering technology development is
shown in Figure 2.5.3-1. The SES technology development effort will validate SES analytical
design tools for high-L/B HS hulls. L/B for these advanced hulls is 5 to 6. The initial objective
is to correlate analytic predictions, model test data, and full-scale trials data for the SES-200, one
of the highest L/B SES (L/B ~ 4.2) built to date. Model tests of the SES-200 will be conducted
to generate the necessary data. Additional, less meticulous comparisons will also be made using
available data for other SES such as the 1,500 mt Japanese Kibo (L/B of 3.7), Norwegian MCM
(L/B ~4), and commercial lower L/B SES. This will provide the most comprehensive database
of model, full-scale and analytical predictions to validate the design tools in the absence of full-
scale trials of a high-L/B SES .

Year 1 2 3 4 5 Funding ($K)

Hull /Propulsor Analysis
- Geometry definition 800
- Hull /Propulsor Analysis 1,000

Hull /Propulsor Tests

- Monohull 1,250
- Trimaran 1,250
- Catamaran 1,250
- SES 1,250

Design Methodology Validation 2,000

Funding ($K) 400 2,800 3,500 1,600 500 8,800

Figure 3.2.4-1: Hull/Propulsor Integration Technology Development Plan

Extension of this technology base to L/B of 5 to 6 SES hulls requires additional model testing. A
hullform, propulsion system, lift-air supply system, and seal system will be developed reflecting
near-term technology assumptions for the Naval SES. Model tests will be conducted to verify
the performance within the design operational parameters. The purpose of these tests will be to
verify the integrated performance of the hull, propulsion system, and lift system, and to provide
sufficient data for a design database for 2,000 to 3,000 mt high-L/B SES. The following tasks
will be performed to support this high-L/B SES effort:

41
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
1. Develop hullform, seal concept, propulsion-system design, and lift-system design for a
high-L/B HS ship SES using analytical methods, model test data, and full-scale data.
2. Prepare a model test plan to verify powering performance including suitability of trans-
verse seals.
3. Design and fabricate a scale model of the hull, propulsors, and lift system including a
method to isolate seal performance from sidehull effects.
4. Conduct model tests and reduce data.
5. Analyze test data and correlate with performance predictions.

A waterjet inlet simulation test will be conducted to assess the inlet design and arrangement of
the pumps in each side-hull. The effects of operation of individual waterjets and combinations of
waterjets will be assessed.

3.3 Seakeeping

Operational effectiveness of small (500 to 3,000 mt) Naval ships will be affected, and often
degraded, by the motions and accelerations they experience at sea. Probably, the largest body of
full-scale seakeeping data for high speed ships in this size range has been recorded for various
commercial ferries. Most of the commercial ferries have some type of active motion control
system. Unfortunately, only a small fraction of this data has been published. The available data
pertains to catamarans and deep-Vee monohulls of 700 to 4,000 mt operating at 35 to 40 knots.
The demonstrated motion responses and ride quality of these high speed ferries is helpful with
regard to burst speed behavior in moderate wave heights. In most cases, the regulatory bodies
such as DnV have established limits on the maximum permissible operating speed for a given
ferry design as the significant height of the seaway increases. This information provides a useful
yardstick for evaluating analytical ship motion predictions.

In reality, small Naval ships will spend relatively little time operating at speeds close to
maximum speed. For a Naval ship, seakeeping performance while transiting at 18 to 20 knots in
open ocean conditions, and while on station at 1 to 5 knots, is probably more important
operationally. Obviously, there is a great deal of experience with the motion behavior of a
variety of monohull forms of normal proportions at low and moderate speeds. However, there is
little if any data on the motions of very slender monohulls. Hard data on real-world experience
with the motion and acceleration characteristics of high-speed catamaran hullforms at low or
moderate speeds was also scarce prior to recent trials of leased catamarans by the Navy and
Army. With regard to trimarans, the joint UK/USN measurements of motions and accelerations
on the 1,200 mt R.V. Triton provide one excellent set of 20-knot and low speed data.

The seakeeping behavior and ride quality of low and medium-L/B SES with active ride-control
systems installed is known for sizes through 1500 mt. This experience has identified scaling
issues that must be resolved to assess seakeeping performance (motions, ride quality) as well as
to design the lift system for considerably larger high-L/B SES. Current seakeeping simulation
and ride-control system technology has also provided considerable insight regarding SES
cushion dynamics. The “bunching” of SES excitation and resonance frequencies in the

42
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
seasickness range can lead to a variety of development difficulties. Cushion heave dynamics of a
full-scale SES cannot be represented at model-scale due to an inability to scale atmospheric
pressure. Consequently, development of design solutions is complicated by an inability to use
model-scale motions directly. Current ride-control system analysis and design techniques have
demonstrated viable approaches for predicting, evaluating, and controlling cushion dynamics
problems up to SES-200 size ships. However, they must be refined and verified for a 3,000 mt
high-L/B high speed SES.

3.3.1 State-of-the-Art

The current technology base and capabilities for predicting seakeeping performance will be
addressed separately for displacement ships and SES.

3.1.1.1 Displacement Ships

A robust capability for evaluating seakeeping performance of monohull displacement hulls is

currently available. Fundamental to this capability are frequency domain computer models
based on “strip” theory that assess the statistical properties of ship motions. The SMP95 code
was developed in-house by NSWCCD. It predicts 6 degrees of freedom (DOF) absolute motion
amplitudes, velocities and accelerations for a monohull ship advancing at constant speed at any
heading relative to the waves, in both regular waves and irregular seas. A variety of irregular
wave spectra can be chosen. SMP95 predicts relative motions and velocities for specified
locations on the ship and it also calculates probabilities of occurrence for propeller emergence or
slamming events at specified locations on the hull. Strip theory produces reliable predictions at
moderate speeds, but is less accurate at higher speeds.

Three other frequency domain codes available to the Navy are:

• VERES (VEssel RESponse) is a 6-DOF code developed by Marintek in Norway.

VERES employs traditional linearized strip theory for ship speeds up to a Froude
number of 0.30. At higher ship speeds, corresponding to Fn above 0.40, the user
can select a high-speed formulation developed by Faltinsen and Zhao. The high
speed theory accounts for interaction with flow from upstream hull sections.
Effects of motion control devices can also be evaluated. Unlike SMP95, VERES
can make motion predictions for catamarans as well as monohulls. However, low
speed motion predictions for catamarans are less reliable because interaction
effects between the two hulls are not taken into account.

• The 5 degrees of freedom (DOF) linearized, frequency-domain motion simulation

developed by Maritime Dynamics, Inc. can predict motions of an SES hullborne
as well as cushionborne. If dummy input variables are used for the lift fan
characteristics, this code can predict the motions (except surge) of a pure
catamaran. Statistics of vertical plane and lateral plane motions, velocities and
accelerations can be calculated at different locations in a specified random
seaway. A strength of this code is its ability to quantify motion response
reductions from addition of a variety of active or passive motion control devices.

43
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
The ship dynamics are linearized about a mean operating trim specified by the
user.

• PRECAL (PREssure CALculations) is a linearized, three-dimensional frequency

domain panel code developed by MARIN in the Netherlands for members of the
Cooperative Research Group. This code can predict local pressures on the hull as
well as motion responses for catamarans (including SWATH-type) as well as
monohulls. Capabilities include the effects of passive or active fins on motion
responses. A pilot project is underway to extend PRECAL to trimarans.

More complex, time-domain codes are also available for predicting ship motions in a specified
irregular wave system. These programs are well validated for conventional monohulls at
moderate speeds. A detailed assessment of advanced computational methods for predicting ship
motions and loads was published by Beck and Reed (2001). Among the linearized potential
flow, time domain codes is SWAN 2 (Ship Wave ANalysis), which was developed at MIT.
SWAN 2 is a general purpose, three-dimensional Rankine Panel Method code for the solution of
time-domain free surface flows around ships, including high speed monohulls and multihull
vessels. Recently, the capability to analyze heave and pitch motion reductions due to adding a
passive hydrofoil has been incorporated into SWAN 2. The SWAN 4 code is an extension of
SWAN 2 to nonlinear ship motions using the weak scatterer theoretical formulation.

Seakeeping assessments of high-speed displacement catamarans and trimarans are more complex
than for monohulls. While the fundamental physics of multihull vertical motions are the same as
for monohulls, Navy experience with slow-speed conventional catamarans and SWATH ships
has shown that significant extensions to monohull seakeeping technology are required to
accurately model features such as between-hull interactions, differences in damping, and
different above-water geometry. While prediction capability exists for catamarans, extension of
the tools to more accurately model the hull geometry and hydrodynamic effects of semi-swath
catamarans and all types of trimarans is needed. Model seakeeping test data at high Froude
Numbers is needed for representative HS ship hulls, including semi-swath hullforms, to guide
and validate these extensions. Test data at both low and high speeds is also needed for slender
monohulls.

3.3.1.2 Surface Effect Ships

Prediction of seakeeping performance of an SES is more complicated than for displacement

hulls. Hull design is also a consideration in that side-hull hydrodynamics make a major
contribution to ship motions. The early SES test-craft design and development programs
identified a number of key aspects of SES cushion system development, including:

1. SES motions differ from those of conventional ships due to the dynamic nature of the air-
cushion suspension system, the higher frequencies of encounter, and the catamaran hull-
form.
2. SES motions cannot be adequately scaled from tow-tank model test results due to the fact
that an important factor in cushion dynamics is the ratio of absolute cushion pressure to

44
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
atmospheric pressure. This ratio cannot be properly represented in model tests run at
atmospheric pressure.
3. SES cushion systems are subject to a variety of acoustic and structural resonances and
instabilities. These effects can limit available gain on an active ride-control system and
amplify ship motions.

Since control of ambient air pressure and density in large tow-tank facilities is not economically
feasible, SES development programs have adopted the concept of computer program simulation
for all parameters that are affected by cushion compressibility. The motion simulation programs
are applied to predict results of model tests and existing test-craft operations. If good agreement
is achieved, the simulation programs are considered valid for prediction of cushion pressure
variations and motions at full-scale.

Analysis and design efforts under the early test-craft programs recognized the unusual nature of
SES motions and the need for active control systems to improve ride quality and habitability.
The effect of SES motions on crew performance was quantified by applying simulated full-scale
motions (with and without ride-control) to volunteer subjects for extended periods. These tests
confirmed the need for SES ride-control to reduce crew fatigue and motion sickness. Cushion
resonance and instability problems resulted in severe gain limitations and reduced effectiveness
for the initial XR-1, SES-100A and SES-100B ride-control systems.

A digital microprocessor-based ride control system, driving deck-mounted vent valves, was
installed on the SES-200 and an extensive test and evaluation program was conducted during
1983. Ship motions and ride quality data were acquired under a wide variety of operating
conditions. The effectiveness demonstrated by the SES-200 ride-control system during these
tests is illustrated by the fact that r.m.s. cushion pressure variations were reduced by up to 60%
and r.m.s. heave accelerations at the C.G. were reduced by nearly 50% under some conditions.

The largest SES built to date, the TSL-A at 1,500 mt, uses a combination RCS involving both
vent valves and T-foils.

The primary design tools applicable to the SES motions/ride quality/cushion dynamics area
consist of digital computer programs for simulation of SES dynamics. These programs typically
accept input which defines an SES of any size and hull configuration. In addition, input
parameters, or “option” modules, allow selection of alternate lift systems, bow and stern seals,
and ride-control systems. The Navy has a 5 degrees of freedom (DOF) linearized, frequency-
domain SES motion simulation developed by Maritime Dynamics, Inc. under contract. The
program predicts the statistics of vertical plane and lateral plane motions (no surge) for an SES
operating in a random seaway with or without ride-control. The ship dynamics are linearized
about mean operating conditions for each case (trim, draft, cushion fan flow, etc.) that are estab-
lished by operator inputs.
Other programs are currently available, including:

• SES 5-DOF Seakeeping Program (Maritime Dynamics, Inc.) – This design tool is a
linearized, frequency-domain SES motion simulation. SES Finite-Volume Vertical
Plane Motions Program (Maritime Dynamics, Inc.) – This program was developed to

45
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
predict the effects of cushion acoustic and hull modes on active ride-control systems.
The program represents cushion dynamics by a one-dimensional finite-volume model.
Effects of lower frequency longitudinal acoustic modes as well as flow lags in fan and
vent ducts are included. The non-linear character of certain phenomena is retained,
including side-hull leakage flow and vent-valve position limiting. Active ride-control
is simulated as independently-controlled vent valves located at several longitudinal
cushion locations.
• Time-Domain SES Heave Dynamics Program (Band, Lavis & Associates) – As part
of the 1987-1989 SES Hullform Technology Program, BLA developed a time-domain
representation of the heave dynamics of air-cushion supported craft. This representa-
tion allowed the effects of scale, compressibility, associated water mass and side-hull
hydrodynamics to be studied individually. It demonstrated once more that large SES
are very much more prone to heave instability than SES of 200 tons or less, and that
active ride-control will likely be required for large SES.

• 6-DOF SES Motion Simulations (Oceanics, Inc.) – The “6-DOF” program developed
by Aerojet and Oceanics, and used in development of the RMI 3KSES, is a non-
linear, time-domain simulation of SES motion. The program predicts all rigid-body
motions as functions of time from the starting condition. The analytical representa-
tions for hull hydrodynamics, bow and stern seals, lift fans, propulsors, and ride-
control components are non-linear and considerably more complex than those used in
the frequency-domain programs.
• 6-DOF SES Motion Simulations (Textron Marine) – The Textron Marine program is
similar to that of Oceanics, except that bow and stern seal dynamics are based on em-
pirical data rather than analytical modeling. Given a realistic starting condition, this
program is particularly useful for tracking ship motions during discrete wave
encounters and slamming and broaching events.

The existing SES computer simulation tools will require some further development to be
applicable to a 3,000 mt high-L/B SES, but should be capable of providing valuable insights into
the effects of scale, which can more easily be accommodated in computer simulation than in the
model test tank. The fully-developed programs will be applicable for predicting seakeeping and
ride quality of a combatant SES, and for evaluating cushion pressure variations, both statistically
and that resulting from discrete wave encounters. Issues related to cushion dynamics and control
have previously been addressed by Aerojet, Bell, and RMI for the 2K/3KSES, with extensive
simulation support. Notable examples include:
• stern-seal dynamics and flutter
• waterjet air ingestion in waves
• lift-fan drive-train dynamics as driven by wave pumping and fan flow control
Development of routines addressing these effects is needed for insertion into motion prediction
programs.

46
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
To support an integrated approach to SES cushion dynamics, development of “modular”
program(s) is needed which will include simulation of basic SES cushion dynamics and motions
as a framework for related subsystem dynamics evaluation. Program options will allow
emphasis on selected subsystem phenomena and a reasonable level of input complexity when
applied to specific dynamic problems such as those noted. The simulations will also be capable
of evaluating potential corrections and improvements via the control of cushion dynamics.

3.3.2 Technology Goals

Wave-induced motions of high-speed displacement hulls and high-L/B SES hulls will differ from
those of conventional ships. Extensions to the technologies used to predict ship motions for
these hullforms are needed, including sinkage and trim effects, to develop ship designs that can
satisfy mission requirements in representative sea conditions. These predictions are also needed
to design essential subsystems such as motion-control systems, SES lift fans, and SES bow and
stern seals.

A modest extension of displacement monohull seakeeping technology is needed to validate the

accuracy of existing seakeeping predictions for hulls with the greater slenderness and larger
transoms of HS ship hulls.

A more significant extension of seakeeping technology is needed for proposed Naval

catamarans and trimarans. Extensions are needed to reflect the geometric, hydrodynamic, and
mass property characteristics of modern multihulls with a variety of hull section shapes,
including the semi-swath type. Analyses must include trim and sinkage effects due to high
forward speed as well as the beneficial effects of different motion control devices.

The SES seakeeping technology development goals are to extend the capabilities of existing
motions prediction computer programs to address issues critical to a 3,000 mt high-L/B, high
speed SES design including cushion resonance/instability predictions, cushion/water interface
dynamics, and modular simulations for subsystem dynamics. These technology extensions will
allow integrated development of SES hulls, lift systems, seals, and ride-control systems with the
seakeeping performance required for HS ship missions.

3.3.3 Overview of Development Plan

Displacement hull seakeeping technology development includes extension of analytical tools to

address the higher slenderness and large transoms of high speed monohulls as well as
extensionsof other tools to model the hull geometry and hydrodynamic effects of semi-swath
catamarans and all types of trimarans. The software developed will be validated with existing
model test data as well as test data developed as part of this plan. Model seakeeping test data at
high Froude Numbers is needed for representative HS ship hulls, including semi-swath
hullforms, to guide and validate these extensions. Test data at both low and high speeds is also
needed for slender monohulls.

47
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
The scheduling and costing plans for displacement hull seakeeping technology development are
shown in Figure 2.2.3-1 for monohulls, Figure 2.3.3-1 for catamarans and Figure 2.4.3-1 for
trimarans.

SES seakeeping technology development includes development of cushion resonance/instability

predictions, cushion/water interface dynamics predictions, and modular simulations for
subsystem dynamics. Analytical predictions of motions and ride-control performance will be
compared with model test data and full-scale experience. The overall program is broken into
three phases. The first phase will structure the problem and will develop the basic analytical
approaches and routines that can be used to evaluate the feasibility and significance of the
expected result. The second phase will incorporate the analysis into one of the existing SES
motion simulations. Simulation results will be correlated with available test data. Requirements
for experimental validation testing will be established. The third phase will provide experimen-
tal validation and demonstration of the simulation predictions.

The scheduling and costing plan for SES seakeeping technology development is shown in Figure
2.5.3-1.

3.4 Maneuvering

High speed displacement hulls and SES concepts differ from existing ships in several factors that
affect maneuvering, dynamic stability and control. Use of more slender hulls, use of waterjets
with nozzle control for maneuvering, and selective use of small rudders for high-speed
maneuvering all influence initial stability, dynamic stability in waves, and dynamic stability in
turns. Other factors affecting stability in waves and in turns include high forward speed, the
effects of transverse CG shift, roll inertia, and turn rate. The objective of maneuvering and
dynamic stability technology development is to provide assurance that Naval high-speed ships
can operate safely throughout their operational envelopes.

3.4.1 State-of-the-Art

Technology to predict the maneuvering and dynamic stability characteristics of displacement

hulls at low and moderate speeds is well established. The approach used requires solution of
generic equations of motion formulated with empirically or experimentally-derived
hydrodynamic coefficients. The resulting system of equations can then be analyzed to assess
conformity with U.S. Coast Guard, Code of Federal Regulations, IMO, and classification society
requirements. While the equations of motion are general, the hydrodynamic coefficients are
hullform specific. In a typical waterjet propulsion system installation there are no appendages
such as shaft brackets and rudders near the stern of the hull. Absence of these appendages
decreases the ship’s lateral stability.

3.4.1.1 Displacement Ships

Existing regulatory body requirements were developed for slower, less slender monohulls.
Structural requirements and crew ride quality considerations often result in these conventional
ships reducing speed in higher seas. This combination of current standards and operating

48
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
practices results in assurance of adequate maneuvering and control authority to assure safe
operations for the ship loading conditions, speeds, and sea conditions encountered.

However, the higher speed, greater slenderness, draft variations, and control systems envisioned
for high-speed Naval displacement hulls may result in unstable dynamic behavior modes that do
not occur for the more conventionally-designed and operated hulls. Furthermore, the premium
attached to burst speed will encourage maintaining high speeds in high seas. In 1997 the Italian
ferry builder Fincantieri undertook a theoretical and experimental investigation of the
coursekeeping ability of fast deep-V monohulls powered by waterjets (Brizzolara, 1998). Towed
PMM (Planar Motion Mechanism) tests were carried out on a model of the Fincantieri MDV
1200 design without waterjets or waterjet inlets. Lateral force, yawing moment and yaw rates
were first measured for the bare hull. Then, data was obtained with twin anti-roll fins appended
aft of amidship and, alternatively, with twin fixed vertical fins at the transom. A coursekeeping
simulation was developed which added theoretical formulations for the influence of waterjet
inlets and waterjet steering forces to the derivatives of the hydrodynamic forces measured in the
PMM experiments. It was determined that the contribution of waterjet inlets to course stability is
of the same order as that resulting from adding a small vertical fixed fin at the transom. The
waterjet inlet “fin effect” is due to the change in momentum of water entering the inlet with a
certain transverse velocity component and exiting with only a longitudinal velocity component.
A second finding was that placing anti-roll fins at the proper location aft of amidship is important
for acceptable coursekeeping. The paper by Brizzolara also presented limited full-scale data
from spiral maneuvers of the MDV 1200.

Systematic evaluation of significantly more slender, high-speed monohulls to assess the possible
existence of undesirable stability characteristics in calm water and in waves has not been done.
Ensuring that a very slender monohull has adequate intact roll stability in waves may require the
addition of small buoyant outriggers. This approach was taken for the high-speed sealift design
developed by NSWCCD and shown below. The pair of side hulls in this design contribute only
2% of the total ship displaced volume.

Figure 3.4.1-1: NSWCCD High-Speed Sealift Ship Design

49
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
For a trimaran with larger side hulls, turning ability is the key concern, rather than stability or
coursekeeping. This is because the two narrow side hulls of a trimaran act like two fixed fins
when the trimaran maneuvers. Their presence has a positive effect on coursekeeping and a
detrimental effect on turning ability. Results of a pioneering investigation of trimaran
maneuvering was published by researchers at University College London (Zhang and Andrews,
1998). They used a combination of theoretical and experimental methods to quantify the turning
ability of a notional 5400 mt trimaran at 20 and 30 knots. Model tests were carried out for two
longitudinal locations of the side hulls and two different side hull drafts. Moving the side hulls
further aft, or increasing their submergence, was found to increase the trimaran’s turning radius
somewhat. Use of differential propulsion in the side hulls was found to be very efficient in
turning the ship at very low speeds.

While there is a wealth of full-scale experience with high-speed catamaran ferries, relatively
little has been published. Full-scale maneuvering trials of a 45 m long catamaran ferry were
carried out about 4 years ago near Lisbon, Portugal (Soares, 1999). These trials were part of a
European research program. In 1993 Japanese researchers publisher a paper containing rotating
arm model test data and maneuvering simulation results for a “super-slender, twin-hull” ship
design (Ishiguro, 1993). The simulation results were compared with full-scale measurements for
a 30 m long prototype.

Existing Navy displacement hull maneuvering tools are monohull-based and lack the capability
to model catamaran or trimaran geometry and mass properties. Consequently, while the
methodology to analyze maneuvering and control of high speed displacement ships exists, tool
extensions to encompass multihulls, additional measured hydrodynamic coefficient data, and
analyses are needed to assure safe operations of HS ship concepts throughout the operating
envelope.

3.4.1.2 Surface Effect Ships

The capability to predict the dynamic stability and maneuvering characteristics of SES via a
combination of model testing and computer simulation has reached a high level of maturity. A
wealth of test experience has been accumulated over the past forty years, but, until recently, this
has mostly been limited to the characterization of specific designs with little attempt or
opportunity to explore systematically any wide variation in hullform or basic stability
parameters.

In recent years, advances in computer-aided analysis have permitted more extensive procedures
to be developed for treating the non-linear behavior of the SES. With such tools and testing
techniques, SES can be designed to exhibit adequate static and dynamic stability in both the
intact and damage condition while both cushionborne and hullborne. When hullborne, this is due
to the large initial waterplane moment of inertia provided by the wide separation of the side-hulls
and the relatively small clearance of the wet-deck, which results in the cross-structure entering
the water after only a few degrees of list. The resulting increased waterplane limits the impact of
off-center flooding and sinkage; consequently, larger subdivision lengths are acceptable on SES
designs than on equivalent-sized monohulls.

50
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
As SES become larger, for moderate design speeds, the preferred length-to-beam ratio tends to
increase on account of the advantages gained in the form of reduced resistance. High cushion
heights are also desirable for large ocean-going SES to keep the wet-deck clear of large waves.
High wet-deck heights tend to imply high vertical CGs. The combined effect has been to
develop high, narrow ships for which on-cushion dynamic roll stability during turns and in
synchronous beam seas, especially in adverse weather, has become of greater concern.

In recognition of this trend, recent large SES designs have generally featured side-hulls of
relatively larger volume to increase stability and, in addition, they have been able to accommo-
date heavy machinery relatively low within these side-hulls to lower the center of gravity. For
the range of small SES built to date, the side-hulls have generally been too small for the
installation of much machinery, which must instead be located above the level of the cross-
structure wet-deck, which has resulted in a relatively higher vertical center of gravity (VCG). In
addition, for large SES, all the fuel is located in the lower extremities of the side-hulls to help
lower the VCG in the full fuel-load condition.

Important features affecting dynamic stability also include the side-hull length, volume and
deadrise, the types of bow and stern seals, the size and location of skegs, fences and rudders (if
included), the type of propulsion system, the type of maneuvering system, and the ship’s
moments of inertia.

The primary circumstances leading to a risk of unfavorable dynamic behavior include high-speed
turning maneuvers, sudden helm reversal and/or sudden propulsor or steering-system failures at
high speed, running with high winds and synchronous seas on the beam, and operation in very
steep following or quartering seas.

Research conducted in the UK has generated a greatly improved understanding of overall on-
cushion stability requirements to the extent that provisional criteria based on practical and purely
numerical methods have been set. Considerable progress has been made towards a
comprehensive understanding of the dynamic stability of SES. However, areas that have been
identified that would benefit from further examination during the design-development phase.
are:

• Development of improved air flow leakage models, especially over the first 10 degrees
of heel, to improve maneuvering and control simulations.

• Stability in waves when large roll angles cause substantial transverse shifts in payload.
• Stability in turns as affected by ship speed, the turn diameter, and bow-up trim.

3.4.2 Technology Goals

Maneuvering and control characteristics of the large slender displacement hulls and high-L/B
SES hulls needed for HS Naval missions will differ from existing ships. Extensions to the
technologies used to predict maneuvering and control performance for these ships are needed to
develop hull designs that will safely and efficiently transport crew and cargo at high speeds in

51
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
representative sea conditions. These predictions are also needed to design essential subsystems
such as steerable waterjets and high-speed steering rudders.

Modification of existing displacement hull maneuvering analysis tools is required to model

multihull geometry and mass properties and include the effects of large steerable waterjets.
Modest extension of maneuvering technology is needed for monohull and multihull displacement
hulls to generate the hydrodynamic data needed to make predictions for the slender, high-speed
hulls. Analysis and testing of HS hulls are required to identify and eliminate undesirable modes
of transient response in calm water and in high seas.

SES maneuvering technology development goals are to provide the capability to develop SES for
HS Naval missions with adequate maneuverability and controllability in all modes of operation
(on-cushion, off-cushion and partial-cushion) and applicable sea states. Issues to be resolved
include the amount of required steering, reversing capability, and performance in quartering seas.

3.4.3 Overview of Development Plan

Displacement hull maneuvering technology development includes extension of monohull tools to

model hull geometry and mass properties of multihulls as well as generation of hydrodynamic
data for the slender, high-speed hulls. The effort consists of software development that
incorporates existing model test and full-scale data as well as test data developed as part of this
plan. Scheduling and costing plans for displacement hull maneuvering technology development
are shown in Figure 2.2.3-1 for monohulls, Figure 2.3.3-1 for catamarans and Figure 2.4.3-1 for
trimarans.

SES maneuvering technology development consists of extending existing SES capabilities

through a program of design, analysis and model testing. Major issues to be resolved are the
effects of cushion airflow on initial stability, the effects of transverse CG shift, roll inertia, and
forward speed on stability in waves, and the effects of forward speed and rate of turn on stability
in turns. Data from existing craft, including the SES-200, Techno Superliner-A and others, will
be used to validate analytical simulations at larger than model size.

The scheduling and costing plan for SES Maneuvering is shown in Figure 2.5.3-1.

3.5 Hydrodynamics References

1. Grigoropoulos, G. and T. Loukakis, “Resistance and Seakeeping Characteristics of a

Systematic Series in the Pre-Planing Condition (Part I)”, SNAME Annual Meeting, Boston, Sept.
2002).

2. Van Oossanen, P. and J. Pieffers, “NSMB Systematic Series of High-Speed Displacement

Ship Hull Forms”, Workshop on Developments in Hull Form Design, Vol. 1, MARIN Oct.
1985).

52
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
3. Yeh, H.Y., “Series 64 Resistance Experiments on High-Speed Displacement Forms”, Marine
Technology, July 1965.

4. Min, K.S. and S.H. Kang, “Systematic Study on the Hull Form Design and Resistance
Prediction of Displacement-Type Super High-Speed Ships”, Society of Naval Architects of
Japan Journal of Marine Science and Technology, Vol. 3, 1998.

5. Jullumstro, E., J. Leppanen, and J. Sirvio, “Performance and Behavior of the Large Slender
Monohull”, Proceedings of FAST ’93 Conference, Yokohama, Japan, 1993.

6. Karafiath, G., D. Cusanelli, and C. W. Lin, “Stern Wedges and Stern Flaps for Improved
Powering – U.S. Navy Experience”, SNAME Annual Meeting, 1999.

7. Cusanelli, D.S., “Stern Flap Powering Performance of the PC1 Patrol Coastal Class, Full
Scale and Model Experiments”, Proceedings of Patrol ’96 Conference, New Orleans, Dec. 1996.

8. Blount, D., et al., “Sea Trials and Model-Ship Correlation Analysis of the High Speed Gas
Turbine Vessel Destriero”, Intersociety High Performance Marine Vehicles Conference,
Arlington, VA, June 1992.

9. Armstrong, N.A., “From Model Scale to Full Size – Towards and Understanding of the
Scaling of Resistance of High-Speed Craft”, Proceedings of FAST ’99 Conference, Seattle, WA,
Sept. 1999.

10. Armstrong, N.A., “The Correlation of Model Testing and Full Scale Trials Resistance of
High Speed Catamarans”, Hydrodynamics of High Speed Craft Conference, RINA, London,
Nov. 1999.

11. Molland, A. and A. Lee, “An Investigation Into the Effect of Prismatic Coefficient on
Catamaran Resistance”, RINA Transactions, 1997.

12. Molland, et al., “Resistance Experiments on a Systematic Series of High Speed

Displacement Catamaran Forms: Variations of Length-Displacement Ratio and Breadth-Draught
Ratio”, RINA Transactions, 1995.

13. Begovic, E., et al., “High Speed Trimarans: Validation of Numerical Result by Geosim
Tests”, Proceedings of Fast 2001 Conference, Southampton, UK, Sept. 2001.

14. Mizine, I. And E. Amromin, “Large High Speed Trimaran – Concept Optimization”,
Proceedings of FAST ’99 Conference, Seattle, WA, Sept. 1999.

15. Helasharju, H., et al., “Resistance and Seakeeping Characteristics of Fast and Large
Multihull Vessels”, Proceedings of FAST ’95 Conference, Lubeck-Travemunde, Germany, Sept.
1995.

53
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
16. Lindstrom, J., Sirvio, J., and A.Y. Rantala, “Superslender Monohull with Outriggers”,
Proceedings of FAST ’95 Conference, Lubeck-Travemunde, Germany, Sept. 1995.

17. Wilson, M.B. and C.C. Hsu, “Wave Cancellation Multihull Ship Concept”, Intersociety
High Performance Marine Vehicles Conference, Arlington, VA, June 1992.

18. Yang, C., et al., “Practical Hydrodynamic Optimization of a Trimaran”, SNAME

Transactions, Vol. 109, 2001.

19. Doctors, L.J., “On the Use of Pressure Distributions to Model the Hydrodynamics of Air-
Cushion Vehicles and Surface-Effect Ships”, Naval Engineers Journal, March 1993.

20. Butler, E.A., “The Surface Effect Ship, Chapter VI, Naval Engineers Journal Special
Edition, Feb. 1985.

21. Eggington, W.J. and N. Kobitz, “The Domain of the Surface-Effect Ship”, SNAME
Transactions, Vol. 83, 1975.

22. Johnston, R.J., “”Hydrofoils”, Chapter V, Naval Engineers Journal Special Edition, Feb.
1985.

23. Savitsky, D., “Planing Craft”, Chapter IV, Naval Engineers Journal Special Edition, Feb.
1985.

24. Allison, J., Becnel, A., Purnell, J., Gorski, J., Hoyt, J., Wilson, M., and Stricker, J.,
“Research in Waterjet Inlet, Hull, and Jet Interactions,” Proc RINA Waterjet Propulsion III
Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, Feb 2001.

25. Svensson, R., Brizzolara, S. and L. Grossi, “Trial Result Including Wake Measurements
from the World’s Largest Waterjet Installation”, Proceedings of RINA Conference on Waterjet
Propulsion: Latest Developments, Amsterdam, 1998.

26. Grigoropoulos, G.J., and T.A. Loukakis, “Seakeeping Characteristics of a Systematic Series
of Fast Monohulls”, RINA Conference on High Speed Craft Motions & Maneurability, Feb.
1998.

27. Sarioz, K. and E. Narli, “Seakeeping Performance of High Speed Warship Hull Forms: Deep
Vee Versus Round Bilge”, RINA Conference on High Speed Craft Motions & Maneurability,
Feb. 1998.

28. Faltinsen, O. and R. Zhao, “Numerical Predictions of Ship Motions at High Forward Speed”,
Transactions of Royal Philosophical Society, Vol. 334, 1991.

29. Beck, R.F. and A.M. Reed, “Modern Computational Methods for Ships in a Seaway”,
SNAME Transactions, Vol. 109, 2001.

54
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
30. Molland, A.F., et al., “Experimental Investigation of the Seakeeping Characteristics of Fast
Displacement Catamarans in Head and Oblique Seas”, RINA Transactions, 2001.

31. Dudson, E. and J. Roy, “Ocean Transits in a 50m, 45 knot Catamaran – The Minimisation of
Motions and Speed Loss”, RINA International Conference on High Speed Craft Technology and
Operations”, London, Nov. 2002.

32. Hudson, D., et al., “Seakeeping Performance of High Speed Catamaran Vessels in Head and
Oblique Waves”, Proceedings of Fast 2001 Conference, Southampton, UK, Sept. 2001.

33. van ‘t Veer, R., “Analysis of Motions and Loads on a Catamaran Vessel in Waves”,
Proceedings of FAST ’97 Conference, Sydney, Australia, July 1997.

34. Holloway, D.S. and M.R. Davis, “Seakeeping Response of a Family of Semi-Swath Hull
Forms”, Proceedings of FAST ’97 Conference, Sydney, Australia, July 1997.

35. Hadler, J.B., et al., “Ocean Catamaran Seakeeping Design”, SNAME Transactions, Vol. 82,
1974.

36. Steen, S. and G. Strand, “SES Performance Evaluation in Model and Full Scale”,
Proceedings of Fast 2001 Conference, Southampton, UK, Sept. 2001.

37. Kaplan, P., et al., “Dynamics and Hydrodynamics of Surface-Effect Ships”, SNAME
Transactions, Vol. 89, 1981.

38. Swanton, C.R., Haywood, A.J., and B.H. Schaub, “Simulation – An Essential Tool in the
Design of Motion Control Systems”, Proceedings of FAST ’99 Conference, Seattle, WA, Sept.
1999.

39. Eppler, R. and Y.T. Shen, “Wing Sections for Hydrofoils – Part 1: Symmetrical Profiles”,
Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 23, Sept. 1979.

40. Shen, Y.T. and R. Eppler, “Wing Sections for Hydrofoils – Part 2: Nonsymmetrical
Profiles”, Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 25, Sept. 1981.

41. Brizzolara, S.,et al., “Coursekeeping Aspects in the Design of Fast Deep-V Monohulls”,
RINA Conference on High Speed Craft Motions and Manoeuvrability, Feb. 1998.

42. Soares, C.G., et al., ”Full-Scale Measurements of the Manoeuvering Capabilities of a

Catamaran”, Hydrodynamics of High Speed Craft Conference, RINA, London, Nov. 1999.

43. Ishiguro, T., et al., “A Study on the Manoeuvrability of the Super Slender Twin Hull”, FAST
’93 Conference, Yokohama, Japan, Dec. 1993.

44. Zhang, J.W. and D. Andrews, “Manoeuvrability Performance of a Trimaran Ship”, RINA
Conference on High Speed Craft Motions & Manoeuvrability, Feb. 1998.

55
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
4.0 LOADS, MATERIALS, AND HIGH-STRENGTH/LIGHTWEIGHT
STRUCTURES

4.1 Introduction

The operational requirements for proposed small high-speed ships dictate non-conventional hull
forms with very low structural weight fractions that can only be obtained using innovative
structural configurations, materials and manufacturing processes. Unfortunately, because of the
lack of experience with many of the candidate hull forms, structural configurations and
materials, structural loads and response are unknown. An optimum reliable structural design
can, therefore, not be achieved. A coordinated research and development program is necessary
to determine loads and develop structural technologies for near and mid-term, small high-speed
naval ships that meet these goals and ensure structural integrity.

To design a marine vehicle, one must know the seaway and deck loads, as well as the structural
response and the properties of the structural materials. Although a great deal is known about the
seaway loads on conventional ships (Figure 4.1-1) operating at slow to moderate speeds, the
effects of 40-knot speeds are less well understood. Effects of 50 or 60-knot speeds are largely
unknown. Only a small database exists for seaway loads on novel hullforms such as trimarans.

Figure 4.1-1: Seaway Loads

To attempt to design a ship outside of our current experience base, that is, operating at very high
speeds or with a novel hullform, without model tests can lead to two unacceptable results: (1)
under-predicting the loads so that the ship suffers significant (and possibly catastrophic)
structural failure, and (2) applying excessive factors of safety (to cover ignorance levels) leading
to an overly heavy structure.

56
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures

The materials and structure required to resist the seaway loads have historically been dictated by
cost, weight, and producibility considerations. Moderate to large size conventional ships are
built of steel, a relatively low-cost but high-weight material. Smaller, weight-critical craft have
been built out of aluminum or fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) composites since the 1950s. The
lightweight materials can save weight, which can be used to increase the ship's speed, range or
payload. Since the structural weight of a ship is 20% to 40% of its displacement, the potential
payoffs in weight savings are substantial – in the hundreds of tons.

To realize these weight savings, a significant research and development effort is necessary to
resolve a number of issues related to strength, fatigue and fire resistance. Projected weight
savings and corresponding deadweight density increases are shown in Figure 4.1-2 for near-term
small high-speed Naval ships and are compared with that of existing ships and aluminum ferries.

0.50
0.45

0.40
Structural Weight Fraction

0.35
0.30

0.25 Near Term

0.20
0.15
Existing Ships
0.10 FFG 7
Catamaran Ferries
0.05
Monohull Ferries
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
Deadweight Density (lb/ft3)

Figure 4.1-2: Structural Weight Fraction versus Deadweight Density

Numerous research and development issues related to loads, materials, and high-strength/
lightweight structures need to be addressed to realize these weight savings. These issues are
outlined in Figure 4.1-3 with approximate effort levels identified. The individual tasks will be
described in greater detail later in this section.

Ultimately, design procedures for novel hull forms that include innovative structural technology
and material options must be formulated to ensure reliable, predictable performance. It is
probable that the material characteristics, loads and structural response for a selected design may
exhibit more variability than current designs. Consistent design guidelines and procedures must
be developed to ensure comparable reliability levels compared to current designs.

57
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures

Year 1 2 3 4 5 Est. Cost ($K)

Develop structural concepts 600
Identify new/emerging materials 400
Loads Requirements & Design Criteria
- Loads testing (cost included with hull form technology) 0
- Conditioned-based monitoring and inspection 3,000
-Develop design guide 800
Manufacturing and Material development
- Develop reliable, strong, lightweight materials 2,000
- Develop & optimize material ruggedness characteristics 1,000
- Demonstrate manufacturing processes & approaches 8,000
- Determine & optimize structural & fatigue performance 3,000
- Improve joining technology 3,000
- Fire performance 2,000
Funding ($K) 1,800 6,100 9,500 5,400 1,000 23,800

Figure 4.1-3: High-Strength/Lightweight Structures Technology Development Plan

4.2 Seaway Loads

There are two kinds of seaway loads acting on ships: primary and secondary. Primary loads are
bending and torsional moments which flex and twist the hull as if it were a beam or girder. The
interaction of the wave buoyancy forces and the weight of the ship cause bending in the vertical
plane (hogging and sagging); see Figure 4.2-1. Bending in the transverse plane (lateral bending)
and torsional twisting is caused by port to starboard differential buoyancy and rolling in oblique
seas. Transverse plane loads are particularly important for multihulls and SES.

Figure 4.2-1: Hogging Bending Moment

Historically, conventional monohulls have been designed by developing shear and bending
moment diagrams from a static balance of the hull girder on a standard wave. Damage during
sea trials of the CVA 9 Essex in the late 1950s led to a series of full-scale trials and model tests
to define a dynamic component (whipping) from slam impacts that increase the vertical and

58
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
lateral bending moments along the length of the ship. The slam-induced whipping is exacerbated
by speed and, in some cases, can approach the magnitude of the wave-induced moments. All of
the primary hull girder moments increase in proportion to the square of the length of the ship.
Longer, more slender hulls that reduce wavemaking resistance will experience higher primary
wave loads.

Secondary loads consist of the static and dynamic pressures acting on local structure.
Hydrostatic pressures are caused by the head of water from hull submergence and passing waves,
and are functions of ship draft and sea state. At slam impacts, a hydrodynamic pressure is
caused by large bow motions (pressures then act on the bottom of the bow as it re-enters the sea,
when the bow flare is immersed, or when multihull/SES cross-structures are immersed). Wave
slapping pressures can be significant on the hull sides and transom. Green sea loadings occur
when waves crash over the bow, striking the weather deck and front of the deckhouse (see Figure
4.2-2). All of these hydrodynamic pressures are functions of hull geometry and increase with
ship speed and sea state. Several of the large, high-speed ferries have experienced structural
damage in service due to slam loads. Two examples are the Corsaire 13000 monohull (Figure
2.2.1-2) and one of the large semi-swath catamarans (Figure 2.3.1-2).

Figure 4.2-2: Green Sea Loading

4.2.1 State-of-the-Art

4.2.1.1 Displacement Ships

There are a number of analytical tools available for predicting seaway loads for conventional
monohulls. SMP95 is a linear strip theory code in the frequency domain that gives good results
for the vertical wave-induced portion of hull girder bending, but lateral bending moment results
are suspect and the code is not applicable for whipping effects. Other frequency domain codes
that are available are VERES and PRECAL. Although VERES is similar in some ways to SMP,
it includes a high speed formulation and a nonlinear version is available. While PRECAL is

59
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
representative of the state of the art in 3-D frequency domain codes, the U.S. Navy has limited
experience with its use.

With regard to time domain codes, a representative sample includes QLSLAM, DYNRES,
LAMP, and THAFTS. All of these codes can include the effects of slam induced whipping of
the hull girder bending, but have some limitations. Specifically, QSLAM is a quasi-nonlinear
code and DYNRES is limited to 2-D. LAMP and THAFTS are 3-D codes which require a fair
amount of expertise and can be time consuming to run. Of these two codes, NSWCCD has had
experience only with the LAMP code. CMSLAM and SLAM-2D can be used to analyze
hydrodynamic impact problems. Navy experience with both codes is very limited. Either code
can be used to solve both symmetric and asymmetric impact problems, but CMSLAM has been
found to run significantly faster in solving symmetric loading cases.

All of the analytical codes mentioned were originally developed for conventional monohulls.
Some codes have limited validation while others have been extensively validated. The newer
time domain codes have had the least validation. Although most of these codes can be used to
analyze multihull forms, additional enhancements and validation efforts are necessary.
Additional extensions to the technology are required to model geometry and mass properties of
high speed trimarans and catamarans. Model test data is required for small HS displacement hull
concepts to guide development of the analytic models and validate the predictions. They need
further validation (and possibly modification) for applications to novel hullforms.

Model tests can be used to predict primary and secondary loads for conventional and novel
hullforms under extreme sea and operational conditions. The test data are analyzed and
presented in a probabilistic format that can account for such variables as expected lifetime, sea
conditions, and operational parameters.

4.2.1.2 Surface Effect Ships

A 3,000 mt SES would be somewhat smaller than the 140 m long, 38-knot SES for which Mitsui
Engineering & Shipbuilding was awarded a building contract in January, 2003. This 4,000 mt
ship is scheduled to begin service in Japan in 2005. Currently, the largest SES in operation is the
1500 mt, 74 m long Hisho/Kibo, also built by Mitsui. As with displacement hullforms, higher
design speed will increase the magnitude and frequency of slam loads compared to a
conventional ship. In addition, the traditional spread between hull primary response frequency
and the wave encounter frequency will narrow. These factors may result in slamming becoming
a major contributor to the determination of design primary bending moment.

While slamming will contribute to primary design bending moments, it will contribute in a
different way than it does for more traditional hullforms. The bow seal and the cushion protect
the SES hull from slams at speed. However, operation without the bow seal or the cushion at
low speed will still result in slam loads that must be considered in the primary design bending
moment.

Although most full-scale SES experience is limited to hulls of considerably smaller size than the
proposed HS combatants, a large body of experimental, analytical and design data has been

60
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
developed for large SES concepts. In the U.S., comprehensive development of the SES concept
began with the SES-100A and SES-100B programs in 1965. As these programs evolved, a
number of different approaches were explored to develop hydrodynamic design loads for SES.
Initially, because there was no historical experience, a linear, frequency-domain seakeeping
model was used to predict the frequency of bow and wet-deck slams and the associated relative
velocity at impact. This information was used as input to a 6 degree of freedom, time-domain
impact model that used an adaptation of seaplane theory to predict pressure distributions, total
loads, motions and accelerations. Limited full-scale trials of the SES-100A and SES-100B were
used to validate predicted values. Later, during the 2KSES program, bending moments and
stresses were measured during segmented and “grillage” model tests, and a full-scale section of
the wet-deck ramp was tested to determine the stresses that would be experienced during high-
speed impacts. The “grillage” model was built to model the structural elastic characteristics of
the full-scale RMI 2KSES and was tested in the on-cushion and off-cushion models of operation
at all headings to the waves. These tests showed that few wet-deck impacts were experienced in
the on-cushion condition. However, the loads and bending moments experienced from wet-deck
impacts in the low-speed off-cushion condition were found to be considerably higher than the
high-speed on-cushion loads.

4.2.2 Technology Goals

As hullforms are introduced outside of our current experience base, model tests will be required
to determine the proper loads and response. These model tests will expand the experience base,
enhance our analytical capabilities, and lead to a reliable, efficient hull structure. The U.S. Navy
is currently evaluating the performance of high speed ferry catamaran designs for military
applications. The response of the structure is being monitored as part of the evaluation. Ideally,
the loads on the structure will be determined for appropriate operational scenarios, enabling a
more efficient, reliable structural design in the future.

Although model tests are the key to understand the loads and design an optimum structure to
resist the loads, a number of load reduction strategies to reduce the primary and secondary
seaway loads are also being considered to reduce the hull structural weight. For example, hull or
bow forms that reduce slamming and/or primary loads can save structural weight as well as
improve seakeeping and resistance. Often slamming events and the load increase associated with
those events occur only in certain sea conditions and ship directions. If those conditions can be
avoided, extreme and design loads can be reduced, leading to a reduction in structural weight.
Preliminary indications from measurements aboard some of the aluminum, high speed catamaran
designs indicate that slamming occurs in specific sea conditions and ship directions. Trade-off
studies are needed to determine the structural weight reductions achievable if operational
limitations are introduced to avoid these conditions. A reliability based format should be
developed to perform such assessments.

Condition-based monitoring methods are also being utilized and developed to reduce the
structural weight. Implementing real-time wave measurement systems to avoid damaging sea
conditions can reduce primary and secondary loads. Active systems are being investigated to
reduce the whipping component of the hull girder bending moment. In addition, the design
allowable stresses can be relaxed if frequent, focused inspection schedules are conducted,

61
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
automated hull inspection and repair systems and techniques are implemented, and strain gauges
and sensors are used to monitor the hull structural behavior during its operation. Further
research and development in these areas is needed to realize the potential weight savings and the
impact on the structural reliability.

4.2.3 Development Plan for Loads

The structural loads and response of novel hullforms at very high speeds are unknown and need
to be determined to avoid over-design or catastrophic failures. The first phase of determining the
loads on these novel hullforms is beginning with the evaluation of the high speed aluminum
catamaran vessels currently in service. Because of the need for a very low structural weight
fraction, optimal structural performance is required for high-speed Naval missions, making the
determination of these unknown loads very important.

The increased understanding of the structural loads and response leads to the development of
design guidelines, the investigation and implementation of load reduction strategies, and the
development and adoption of active, strain monitoring systems and focused inspection schedules
to provide a reliable and optimum lightweight structure.

The effort needed to develop design guidelines, determine structural loads and response, and
develop load reduction strategies and monitoring procedures and systems to ensure a reliable,
lightweight structure is shown in Figure 4.1-3. This plan includes:

• Investigation of existing commercial, high speed ferry designs to determine loads and
response.
• Model tests of various hull stiffnesses and geometries, speeds and headings to deter-
mine primary and secondary loads for high-speed operations and novel hullforms.
• Analytical code verification and modification.
• Investigation and development of active systems to reduce the whipping component
of the hull girder bending moments.
• Development of wave measurement systems and load avoidance and monitoring
strategies that will reduce hull girder loads and, therefore, structural weight.
• Investigation of structural modifications such as an articulated hullform to reduce the
primary loads.
• Development of automated hull inspection and repair systems, implementation of
focused inspection schedules, and the analysis of their effect on structural weight and
reliability.
• Development of design guidelines, using the results of the various investigations,
optimizing structural reliability and minimizing weight.

62
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
4.3 Materials

4.3.1 State-of-the-Art

Large conventional monohull ships are predominantly constructed of steel, while smaller weight-
critical vessels (under 130 meters) are frequently constructed of aluminum or composites. Most
of the smaller SES constructed to date have used aluminum as their basic structural material.
Exceptions include the Vosper Hovermarine SES (the HM-2 and HM-5 series) that are
constructed principally of glass-reinforced plastic. Weight-critical ships frequently use
aluminum material to reduce weight because it has one-third the density and modulus of steel
and a fatigue allowable stress one-half that of steel. As a first level approximation, for ships
governed by hull girder bending (ships over 130 meters long), aluminum can save one-third of
the structural weight of a steel vessel. There are no technical reasons why large ships cannot be
fabricated from aluminum, but consideration must be given to the relatively low fatigue
characteristics of aluminum, the large deflections that aluminum structures exhibit compared to
steel structures and the cost of aluminum, which is five to eight times more expensive than steel.
The 140 m long, 4,000 mt Japanese SES scheduled to begin service in 2005 will be built of
aluminum.

The U.S. Navy has been reluctant to use aluminum construction on ships intended to go into
harm’s way since the 1975 collision and resulting fire aboard the USS Belknap (CG 26)
following it’s collision with the John F. Kennedy (CV 67) (see Figure 4.3.1-1). In addition to
fire concerns, the U.S. Navy has also documented a significant number of fatigue problems
associated with the use of aluminum in combatant superstructures that has added to its reluctance
to use aluminum despite the potential weight savings offered by the material.

Figure 4.3.1-1: USS Belknap (CG 26) after colliding with the John F. Kennedy (CV 67)

However, the successful use of aluminum as the primary structural material at unprecedented
lengths for aluminum ships (e.g., the 125 m long Alhambra II monohull fast ferry and the 126 m
lomg HSS 1500 Semi-Swath catamaran) is causing the U.S. military to reconsider using
aluminum for some of its particularly weight critical designs.

Many ships are constructed of high-strength steels or use high-strength steels in certain locations.
Some of the high-strength steels are twice as strong (yield strength) as ordinary steel, yet they do
not save much weight in large ships. The reason is that structural details composed of high-
strength steels have almost the same fatigue allowable stresses as ordinary steel, and, hence,

63
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
these ships require just as much material to resist hull girder bending. The extra strength can
only be used to resist secondary loads. High strength steels can be effectively utilized for the
primary structure in small crafts and in secondary structures governed by secondary loads to
reduce structural weight compared to ordinary steel construction. Improvement in the fatigue
characteristics of high-strength steels is necessary to significantly improve the structural weight
fraction of larger vessels.

4.3.1.1 Composites

Composite structures consist of fiber reinforcements (such as E-glass or carbon) encapsulated in

a resin matrix (such as vinyl ester or phenolic). Composite materials can be used to produce
single-skin, stiffened, or sandwich structures; see Figure 4.3.1-2. They have been used for
primary structures on small craft or vessels for many years. They are also applicable for
secondary structures such as decks, foundations, doors, hatch covers, enclosures, deckhouses,
stacks, and masts.

COMPOSITE MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES

FIBERS CORES RESINS

E-Glass Balsa Polyester
S-Glass Divinycell Vinyl Ester
Kevlar Klegecell Epoxy
Spectra Rohacell Phenolic
Graphite/Carbon Nomex Urethane

GEOMETRY

MANUFACTURING PROCESS

HandLay-up ResinImpregnator VA-RTM LowTempPre-Preg

(E-Glass/Polyester) (E-Glass/Polyester) (E-Glass/VinylEster) (E-Glass/VinylEster/Epoxy)
SmallBoat Intermarine/MHC-51 Seemann/TPI/Sunrez Sunrez,DSMItalia,Ciba

Figure 4.3.1-2: Composite Materials and Processes

64
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures

4.3.1.2 Titanium

Titanium has a yield strength higher than most high-strength steels, with a density of only 57
percent that of steel. The potential weight savings exceed that of aluminum and it has much
better fire resistance. Titanium alloys have been used extensively in the aerospace industry in
the United States and have received some attention in the automotive industry. Timetal 10-2-3
(Ti-10V-2Fe-3Al) is used in the main landing gear of the Boeing 777. Timetal 15-3 (Ti-15V-

3Cr-3Sn-3Al) has been used in environmental control system ducting, firefighting bottles, door
springs, and small nut clips. This alloy has good formability and was used for more than one
hundred formed parts on the B1B bomber. The superplastic alloy SP-700 has been used in place
of stainless steel in steam turbine blades, hand tools, and golf club heads.

Titanium has been used for submarine hulls in the former Soviet Union. The biggest issue with
titanium is its cost and availability. Titanium is thirty times more expensive than steel and it
must be imported from Russia. In addition, it is more difficult to weld.

4.3.2 Technology Goals

In the struggle to develop a low-cost, high-strength/lightweight material, several obstacles

remain. Stiffness and fire performance are issues that must be addressed. Effective repair
procedures that ensure structural integrity must also be developed. Material development costs
can be significant and consideration must be given to production-mode acquisition costs. Many
of the materials require strict environmental control during fabrication, requiring significant
capital investments in infrastructure development.

The increased use of aluminum as the primary structural material for larger and larger ships has
improving our understanding of the structural behavior of large aluminum structures. This
evolution has already increased our ability to produce a more efficient and robust design. The
U.S. military is currently evaluating the suitability of some of these commercial designs for
military operations. It appears that significant modifications to local details must be made to
existing, restricted operational commercial designs, and a better understanding of the loads and
the fatigue behavior of the newer aluminum alloys is needed before they can be considered for
unrestricted, military operations.

Conventional composite fabrication processes are critical in quality control. Because of this
issue, new fabrication processes (see Figure 4.3.2-1) such as vacuum-assisted resin transfer
methods (VARTM) have been developed to provide more consistent quality control. However,
variability in material properties continues to be an issue and is highly dependent on the
manufacturing process selected. Worker skill also continues to play a significant role in the
quality and consistency of the resulting composite material. Further research and development is
needed to develop low-temperature, low-cost/high-quality manufacturing processes and
fiber/resin combinations that minimize material property variation and maximize strength and
stiffness characteristics.

65
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures

LOW COST (S5-S4a'lb)

I- N0N-A1.1T0CLAVEPROCESS
- NO MANUAL WETnNG OR
jniLTIPLE CONSOLffiATTON STEPS
- INEXPENSIVE TOOLING

raCH QUALITY
H - HIGH STttENGTH'STIFFNESS TO WEIGHT
H - LOW VOID CONTENT (<l'"o)
H - HIGH FIBER CONTENT (-70"? 6 BY WEIGHT)

VERSATILE
- LARGE MONOCOQUE. SINGLE SKIN
STIFFENED. AND SANDWICH STRUCTURES

EABRICATION TECHNIQUES

HAND LAY-UP

PULTRUSIONS & PREFORMS

VACUUM-ASSISTED RESIN TRANSFER

MOLDING fV'ARTM)

I
-SCRIMP
- RESIN INJECTION RECIRCULATION
MOLDING (RIRM)

L OW- TEMP'ENERG^' CURE PRE-PREG

- FmERTTE/NPC
- COMPOSITE SHIPS/LTC
- UV-CURE RESINS
VACUUM-ASSISTED RESIN TRANSFER MOLDING
OF COMMFRTCAI. ROATHTHT

Figure 4.3.2-1: Composite Fabrication Techniques

Stiffness is not as critical for secondary structures or for primary structures when the ship length
is less than 130 meters. However, when the hull length starts to exceed 130 meters, stiffness
becomes more of a concern for virtually all of the non-steel materials currently under
consideration. For the primary hull structure of large ships, the limited stiffness of non-steel
materials can yield a large hull deflection, which may be problematic for critical alignments.
Maintaining hull girder stiffness may be required to avoid hull resonance issues such as
springing and whipping. In the near-term, E-glass and carbon composites are effective in
reducing weight in secondary structures and they can also be used for the primary structures of
small craft, but they have a low stiffness for the primary hull structure bending in large ships
(over 130 meters).

Fatigue characteristics must be improved with many of the material options. The fatigue
limitations of aluminum and high-strength steels result from their as-welded properties.
Improved welding methods (or eliminating welding by adhesive joining methods) can increase
the fatigue allowable stresses for both aluminum and high-strength steels. For example, flush
ground welding of aluminum increases the fatigue strength to two-thirds that of ordinary steel,
resulting in a fifty-percent structural weight saving. Weight savings for high-strength steels
would be proportional to any increases in fatigue allowable stresses from advanced welding/

66
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
joining techniques. Such advanced welding and joining techniques need to be investigated and
developed, and are certainly possible in the far-term.

The current fatigue database of titanium components is inadequate to ensure a reliable titanium
ship design. Fatigue tests of welded titanium components are needed to develop design criteria
in order to design a titanium ship in the mid to far-term timeframes. Since titanium is non-
magnetic, new non-destructive inspection (NDI) methods must be developed to replace the
common magnetics-based inspection methods currently in use for steel.

4.3.2.1 Summary of Material Properties

A summary of the material properties as they currently exist is shown in Table 4.3.2-1. Relative
stiffness in Table 4.3.2-1 is represented by Young’s Modulus (Modulus of Elasticity).

It is expected that, as composites become more widespread, their unit costs will decrease in the
far-term. The following unit costs are raw material costs only; producibility issues and
fabrication costs are not included in this study. In general, the structural material costs of a steel
ship are very small compared with fabrication, installation, and equipment/machinery costs. The
average costs for cutting, welding, rigging, painting, and material is on the order of $25 to $30
per pound for a steel combatant and half that for a commercial ship. Thus, in the future, the total
fabrication costs would likely be much closer for all of these items than are the material-only
costs of Table 4.3.2-1.

4.3.3 Development Plan for Materials

High-speed Naval ships of 500 to 3,000 mt require the further development of low-cost, high-
strength/ lightweight materials. Several lightweight/relatively low-stiffness materials are already
being used for secondary structures and for the primary structure of ships less than 130 meters in
particularly weight-critical applications. Cost considerations often dictate the use of steel
construction for components that are not weight-critical.

The material of choice for the primary structure, as ship lengths exceed 130 meters, remains
steel. The primary reasons for the selection of steel include cost, stiffness, fatigue performance,
fire performance, property variability of certain other material options, and shipyard experience
with steel.

Initially, all of the material options being considered for high-speed, small Naval ships must be
investigated. Eventually, many of the options will be removed from further consideration
because of insurmountable issues that are discovered during the investigations. The “weeding
out” process is necessary and unpredictable, and will reduce the number of material options
available for certain applications.

67
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures

Table 4.3.2-1: Material Properties Summary

Material Density Yield Young’s Fatigue Fire 1995

Lb/ft3 Strength Modulus Stress Resistance Costs
Ksi Ksi Ksi $/Lb
ABS Grade A steel 491 34 29,600 20 Good 0.29
ABS Grade AH steel 491 55 29,600 20 Good 0.34
Aluminum (5086- 166 16-22 10,000 10 Poor 1.65
H34)
Titanium 280 140 16,500 Fair 10.00
Sandwich Panel- 245- 55 29,600 20 Good
LASCOR 320
(stainless steel)
Composite Resins
- Vinyl Ester 70 11-12 490 Poor 1.74
- Phenolic 72 5 530 Good 1.10
- Epoxy 75 7-11 530 3.90
Composite Fibers
- E-glass 162 500 10,500 1.14
- S-glass 155 665 12,600 5.00
- Carbon-PAN 110 350-700 33-57,000 12.00
- Kevlar 49 90 525 18,000 20.00
Composite Cores
- Balsa 7 1.3 370 N/A Insulator 3.70
- Honeycomb Nx 6 N/A 60 N/A 13.25
HRH-78
Composite Excellent Poor Fire
Laminates 96 20 1,400 fatigue Resistance 2.50
- Solid 90 50 3,000 life – Good 3.50
Glass/Polyester 97 88 8,700 Insulator 10.00
- Solid
Glass/Vinylester
- Solid
Carbon/Epoxy
Composite Sandwich Excellent Poor Fire
- Glass/Poly Balsa 24 fatigue Resistance 4.00
Sandw. 18 life – Good 5.00
- Glass/VinE PVC 9 Insulator 20.00
Sandw.
- Carbon/Epoxy
Nomex

68
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
Although it is often difficult to separate material developmental issues from structural
developmental issues, a summary of the research and development effort was shown earlier in
Figure 4.1-3 and includes:

• The development of improved welding and joining technology for improved ultimate
strength and fatigue performance (all materials).

• The development of cost-effective, structurally-sound repair procedures (all

materials).
• Research to improve material stiffness characteristics (all materials).
• Detailed cost-benefit analysis identifying acquisition and life-cycle trends.
• The development of low-cost methods to meet fire containment and toxicity criteria
(all materials).
• The further development of a reliable, low-temperature, curing process (composite
materials).
• The development of a manufacturing process and material composition that yields
high strength while ensuring consistent material properties (composite materials).
• The development of high-strength/stiffness fibers and resins (composite materials).

4.4 Structural Concepts

4.4.1 State-of-the-Art

Ordinary steel and high-strength steel stiffened panels continue to be the standard for large ship
primary and secondary structures. LASCOR and composites are increasingly being used in
secondary structures to reduce weight when necessary. These technologies are currently under
investigation for use in the primary structures of large vessels.

For ships less than 130 meters in length, aluminum plate-stiffener construction and composite
construction are the choices for the primary and secondary structures when minimum weight
must be achieved. Fatigue strength of the aluminum vessels has been an issue, and careful
monitoring is of importance.

4.4.1.1 Sandwich Metals (LASCOR – laser-welded corrugated core)

Sandwich metal structures consist of two thin face sheets of metal joined together by a
corrugated core; see Figure 4.4.1-1. The separation of the face sheets provides high bending
stiffness at a low weight. Stainless steel LASCOR panels have been used on Navy ships for over
a decade to save weight for platforms, hanger doors, and deckhouse enclosures; see Figure 4.4.1-
2 for past and proposed LASCOR applications.

69
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures

Figure 4.4.1-1: LASCOR Technology

Figure 4.4.1-2: Proposed LASCOR Applications

Sandwich metal structures have a number of advantages over conventional steel construction:

1. Compared to conventional steel structures, metallic sandwich structures have reduced

weight and increased stiffness. They are ideal for secondary structures such as internal
decks, ramps, hatch covers, bulkheads, and deckhouses, with weight savings of 20 to 50
percent over conventional steel construction.
2. They result in reduced fabrication and outfitting costs. LASCOR panels are 20 percent
cheaper to build and install than steel grillages. They have a high dimensional stability
that helps reduce assembly and fit-up costs in the shipyard. Outfitting of distributive
systems and installation of insulation costs are also reduced because of the smooth sur-
faces resulting from the elimination of most of the stiffeners.
3. The elimination of stiffeners on decks and bulkheads increases the usable volume within
the total ship.

70
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
4. Metallic sandwich panels have improved thermal and fire performance. The space within
the core offers inherent thermal insulation and protection against the spread of fires.
5. The high stiffness of sandwich panels reduces vibrations. Panels can also be sound-
isolated from surrounding structures.
6. Laser-welded sandwich panels are ideal applications of automated fabrication techniques.
They can be pre-fabricated as panels at high-efficiency factories before shipboard instal-
lation in the shipyard.

One of the issues with sandwich structures is corrosion protection of the voids within the core.
Stainless steelstructures, currently used in the fleet, are one solution. They have suffered no
corrosion or fatigue damage after a decade of service. Another solution, which has been
successfully tested in the field with ordinary steels (carbon steels), is to fill the void spaces with
foam. Although our experience is limited to steels, sandwich panels can also be made from
corrosion-tolerant metals such as aluminum or titanium. Such lightweight materials can further
reduce structural weight and would be available for the mid to far-term applications.

4.4.1.2 Composite Structures

Composites have been used as the primary structure for small vessels for many years. They have
also been used for secondary components. Below, in Figure 4.4.1-3, is a summary of the
composite applications available.

DISPLACEMENT (TONS)

fD ^ CO

S 8 5^ B

BOATS
/A SMALL
200'
>:
400'
MEDIUM
>] LARGE 1
i
_l_ _1_
OVERALL LENGTH

PRIMARY HULL

INTERNAL DECKS
(WITH INTEGRATED DECK/FOUNDATIONS)

TOPSIDE STRUCTURE
INCLUDING MAST STACK, HANGAR, DECKHOUSE, AND ENCLOSURES)

FOUNDATIONS (EXISTING TECHNOLOGY)

NON-STRUCTURAL (PUMPS, PIPES, HVAC, TANKAGE, RADOMES)

Figure 4.4.1-3: Composite Applications

Composites offer many advantages compared to standard metallic structures:

71
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
1. They are lightweight. Weight reductions of 35 to 50 percent, compared to steel, can
currently be realized for secondary structures made of E-glass composite laminates.
Since secondary structures comprise a significant fraction of the total structural weight,
this translates into a worthwhile savings in total ship weight.
2. Composite structural elements have better dimensional stability than steel elements. This
is an aid to the fit-up and assembly in the shipyard, and results in lower fabrication costs
and better overall dimensional tolerances.
3. They have reduced noise and vibration properties. Composites have inherently better
damping and compliance than metallic structures. They also have the potential to be
adapted into smart structures, i.e., structures that can monitor and/or alter their properties
in service
4. Fires are more easily contained in composite structures because of their low thermal.
conductivity. The cores in composite sandwich panels are good thermal insulators
5. The designer has increased flexibility to tailor the composite structure to the particular
need. Complex geometries can be designed to optimize the strength and stiffness, or to
enhance producibility by minimizing the number or location of joints.
6. Composites have lower life-cycle maintenance costs than steel structures. Fewer inspec-
tions, less painting, and fewer repairs are needed over the life of the ship because of the
non-corrosion and reduced fatigue damage of composites over metallic structures.

Tables 4.4.1-1 through 4.4.1-4 (Reichard, 1988) present the relative weights of panels having
equal stiffness and equal strength under both in-plane (axial) and bending loads. Composites are
more advantageous than steel or aluminum when compared on an equivalent strength basis rather
than on stiffness basis.

Table 4.4.1-1: Panels of Equal In-Plane Stiffness*

Material Skin Thick. Core Thick. Elastic Modulus Weight
(inch) (inch) (ksi) (lb/sqft)
Steel 0.08 0 30,000 3.36
Aluminum 0.25 0 10,000 3.62
E-Glass (0,90) 1.14 0 2,200 9.99
Kevlar (0,90) 0.60 0 4,200 4.49
Carbon (0,90) 0.35 0 7,200 2.87
Uni-E-Glass 0.57 0 4,400 4.99
Uni-Kevlar 0.30 0 8,400 2.24
Uni-Carbon 0.17 0 14,400 1.43
E-Glass/Core (0,90) 0.57 5 2,200 15.15
Kevlar/Core (0,90) 0.30 3 4,200 7.59
Carbon/Core (0,90) 0.17 1.75 7,200 4.68
Uni-E-Glass/Core 0.28 3 4,400 8.09
Uni-Kevlar/Core 0.15 1.5 8,400 3.79
Uni-Carbon/Core 0.09 1 14,400 2.47
* All panels have a stiffness of 2.5 x 106 pounds/inch

72
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures

Table 4.4.1-2: Panels of Equal In-Plane Strength*

Material Skin Thick. Core Thick. Yield Strength Weight
(inch) (inch) (ksi) (lb/sqft)
Steel 0.19 0 80 7.56
Aluminum 0.26 0 58 3.74
E-Glass (0,90) 0.34 0 44 3.00
Kevlar (0,90) 0.25 0 60 1.89
Carbon (0,90) 0.14 0 105 1.18
Uni-E-Glass 0.17 0 88 1.50
Uni-Kevlar 0.13 0 120 0.94
Uni-Carbon 0.07 0 210 0.59
E-Glass/Core (0,90) 0.17 1.75 44 4.80
Kevlar/Core (0,90) 0.13 1.25 60 3.18
Carbon/Core (0,90) 0.07 0.75 105 1.96
Uni-E-Glass/Core 0.09 1 88 2.53
Uni-Kevlar/Core 0.06 0.5 120 1.46
Uni-Carbon/Core 0.04 0.5 210 1.11

* All panels have a maximum strength of 15.0 x 103 lbs/inch width

Table 4.4.1-3: Panels of Equal Flexural Stiffness*

Material Skin Thick. Core Thick. Mom. of Inertia Weight
(inch) (inch) (inch^4) (lbs/sqft)
Steel 0.74 0 0.0335 29.74
Aluminum 1.06 0 0.1004 15.39
E-Glass (0,90) 1.76 0 0.4543 15.46
Kevlar (0,90) 1.42 0 0.2386 10.71
Carbon (0,90) 1.19 0 0.1387 9.80
Uni-E-Glass 1.40 0 0.2262 12.25
Uni-Kevlar 1.13 0 0.1196 8.51
Uni-Carbon 0.94 0 0.0697 7.79
E-Glass/Core (0,90) 0.23 2 0.4539 6.04
Kevlar/Core (0,90) 0.16 1.75 0.2380 4.15
Carbon/Core (0,90) 0.15 1.375 0.1385 3.83
Uni-E-Glass/Core 0.15 1.75 0.2272 4.41
Uni-Kevlar/Core 0.13 1.375 0.1185 3.31
Uni-Carbon/Core 0.11 1.125 0.0692 2.96

* All panels have a stiffness (EI) of 1.0 x 106 pound-inch2

73
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
Table 4.4.1-4: Panels of Equal Flexural Strength*

Material Skin Thick. Core Thick. Yield Strength Weight

(inch) (inch) (ksi) (lbs/sqft)
Steel 0.19 0 80 7.56
Aluminum 0.26 0 58 3.74
E-Glass (0,90) 0.34 0 44 3.00
Kevlar (0,90) 0.88 0 17 6.65
Carbon (0,90) 0.14 0 105 1.18
Uni-E-Glass 0.17 0 88 1.50
Uni-Kevlar 0.44 0 34 3.33
Uni-Carbon 0.07 0 210 0.59
E-Glass/Core (0,90) 0.12 1.25 44 3.47
Kevlar/Core (0,90) 0.20 2 17 5.09
Carbon/Core (0,90) 0.09 0.75 105 2.19
Uni-E-Glass/Core 0.09 0.875 88 2.46
Uni-Kevlar/Core 0.15 1.375 34 3.61
Uni-Carbon/Core 0.05 0.625 210 1.52
* All panels have a maximum moment capacity of 7.5x102 foot*pounds

There are a number of issues associated with composites:

1. Flammability, smoke, and toxicity dangers are the main concerns associated with
composites. They are handled in several ways. For unmanned spaces in secondary
structures not subject to severe fire threat, a thin thermal barrier coating, no coating, or
passive fire protection may be used. For manned spaces in secondary or primary struc-
ture, thermal protective insulation is used (see Figure 4.4.1-4).

Fire-Hardened
Module Test
Thermal Insulation Intumescent
(Structoguard) Mat

Figure 4.4.1-4: Composite Fire Protection

74
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures

2. Composite designs are normally limited by stiffness, not strength. For hybrid
structures, such as a composite deckhouse on a steel hull, the lower stiffness
results in lower stresses and better fatigue performance. However, for the primary
hull structure of large ships, the low hull overall stiffness may be a problem for
deflections limits of conventional propeller shafts. Other propulsors (such as wa-
terjets, electric drive, and podded propulsion) may render this issue moot.

3. There are limited design data and analytical tools. Design data and tools are be-
coming increasingly available for more common materials (e.g., glass polyester or
vinylester) and for structural configurations, joints, and fabrication processes.
However, in most cases, experimental validations are still needed.

4. There is minimal shipyard experience for constructing large composite ships. The
largest composite ship hulls are those of naval minehunters and minesweepers,
with lengths of 50 to 60 meters.

4.4.2 Technology Goals

There are a number of issues that must be explored before LASCOR and composite structural
technologies are considered for primary and secondary structural applications for small high-
speed Naval ships. Obviously, because LASCOR and composite structural concepts have been
demonstrated for secondary applications, the research necessary to implement them for high-
speed combatant secondary applications is not as extensive as for primary structure applications,
and could be accomplished in the near-term. There are several issues to be resolved before either
LASCOR or composites can be considered for primary structural applications, hence, the earliest
they could be available for primary structural consideration would be in the far-term
applications.

4.4.2.1 LASCOR

Although LASCOR has been used in commercial and military secondary structural applications,
several issues need to be addressed before it can be reliably used for secondary and primary
structures of HS combatant ships.

As mentioned earlier, one of the issues with metallic sandwich structures is corrosion protection
of the voids within the core. As discussed, stainless steel has already been used in the fleet to
eliminate this problem in several applications and has suffered no corrosion or fatigue damage
after a decade of service. Another solution, which has been successfully tested in the field with
ordinary steels (carbon steels), is to fill the void spaces with foam. These results have been
promising. Our mid to far-term goal is to develop sandwich panels from lightweight, corrosion-
tolerant metals such as aluminum or titanium and optimize the sandwich panel characteristics
such as structural weight, acquisition costs and life-cycle costs.

75
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
Other issues associated with manufacturing will be resolved as the shipyard experience increases
with metallic sandwich panels. Efficient repair procedures need to be further developed and
optimized. Draft design guides and standards exist, but must be formally documented and
approved by the Navy and regulators for commercial applications. The fatigue performance of
metallic sandwich panels must be further defined and validated for both primary and secondary
loads along with full-scale structural static tests. This will allow a reduction in the factors of
safety now assumed, resulting in lighter and more reliable structures.

In the far-term, techniques to form complex shapes, not just flat or singly-curved panels, must be
developed and optimized. The ability to form hybrid metallic sandwich structures also has far-
term potential for weight and cost reductions.

4.4.2.2 Composite Structures

Similar to LASCOR, composites have been used in commercial and military secondary structural
applications, but several issues need to be addressed before they can be reliably used for primary
structures of high-speed Naval ship.

The Norwegian patrol boat KNM Skjold, and the Swedish combatants Smyge and Visby have
demonstrated composite technological advancements for small high-speed combatant
applications. Advanced composite materials and integrated structural systems were used for
these hullforms, in part, for their ability to improve the signature characteristics and shock
resistance of the structure. In addition, the reduced weight and simplified construction and
outfitting demonstrated during the construction of these small vessels are important attributes in
a small, high-speed naval ship.

The recently-commissioned fast patrol craft KNM Skjold1 (see Figure 4.4.2-1) is an SES hullform
with an overall length of 47 meters and displacement of 260 mt. Fiber-Reinforced Plastics (FRP)
sandwich construction is used throughout the vessel, with vinyl ester or polyester resins and
either a PVC or PMI core material. In locations requiring high stiffness, carbon fibers were
used; otherwise, E-glass was chosen for the laminates.

The Swedish corvette Visby2 (see Figure 4.4.2-1) is also one of the more advanced combatants
using composite technology. With an overall length of 73 meters, the Visby is the largest
commercial or combatant ship hull entirely constructed of Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Plastics
(CFRP). The Visby was built using a vacuum-infused process consisting of sandwich construc-
tion with a PVC foam core and vinyl ester resin.

These small warships demonstrate the flexibility and capability of composite technologies for
small surface combatants. Further research to improve material properties, joints and connec-
tions, and shipyard producibility is necessary before these technologies are matured for primary
hull structures of larger ships.

1
http://www.knmskjold.org/english, 2000.
2
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/visby, 2001.

76
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures

Skjold Viflby

Figure 4.4.2-1: Composite Small Combatants

Research has shown the potential of multi-layered, balsa-cored sandwich structures for
containing fires and preventing structural collapse or excessive deflections. The French surface
combatant La Fayette uses balsa-cored sandwich construction on the deckhouse for this purpose.
Also, the potential use of phenolics and other fire-retardant resins has been demonstrated for
small fires burning for 20 to 30 minutes. These potential fire performance improvements must
be further developed.

Although joining technology is very critical for all composite structural applications, it is
particularly important when considering composite materials for primary structure. There is a
significant reduction in in-plane strength characteristics at the joints of composite structures.
This problem can be eliminated or reduced if a monolithic rather than modular construction
process is adopted. However, for very large ship lengths, it would seem that modular construc-
tion would be required, and a significant research and development effort would be needed to
improve composite joining technology.

There are limited design data and analytical tools available. Design data and tools are becoming
increasingly available for more common materials (e.g., glass polyester or vinylester) and for
structural configurations, joints, and fabrication processes. However, in most cases, further
development and experimental validations are still needed.

Inspection and repair methods are generally available for most composite structures. However,
inspection can become difficult for thick, sandwich structures. Therefore, some of the current
non-destructive evaluation (NDE) methods must be further developed.

4.4.3 Projected Weight Savings

Table 4.4.3-1 is a summary of the projected weight savings for the various materials in the near,
mid, and far-terms. All of the weight savings are relative to ordinary steel (ABS grade A) of
conventional stiffened plate construction. The percentage reductions are applied to the entire
structural weight (SWBS 100) of the ship.

77
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures

Table 4.4.3-1: Summary of Weight Savings (Percent)

Material Near-Term Mid-Term
Aluminum 30 30 - 40
with new alloys
Titanium & High Risk 40 - 55 secondary
Advanced Metals structure, 15 overall
Metal Sandwich 35 - 50 secondary 40 - 55 secondary
(LASCOR) structure, 10 overall structure, 15 overall
(steel) (steel)
Composites 20 - 40 with Glass 30 - 45 with Glass or
(300' ship length) or Carbon fibers Carbon fibers

4.4.4 Development Plan for Structures

Small high-speed Naval ships require not only the further development of low-cost, high-
strength/lightweight materials, but also the most cost and weight efficient structural concepts
that can implement these material enhancements. For secondary structures and for the primary
structure of ships less than 130 meters, several lightweight/relatively low-stiffness materials are
already being used in particularly weight-critical applications. Cost considerations often dictate
the use of steel construction for components that are not weight-critical.

Sandwich metal structures such as LASCOR have been used for non-primary load carrying
structure and have been effective in reducing structural weight. To optimize LASCOR
secondary structures and strength decks for high-speed, small naval ships, additional research
and development would be needed. In the near-term, these efforts would include:

• The development of ways to reduce or eliminate corrosion within the void spaces
such as using alternate lightweight metals as the primary material or filling the void
spaces with foam.
• The further development of efficient repair procedures and inspection techniques.
• The documentation and approval of design guidelines.
• Testing and evaluating primary load carrying capacities and fatigue performance.
• The optimization of cargo decks.

To optimize composite secondary structures and strength decks for high-speed, small Naval
ships, additional research and development would also be needed in addition to the material
developmental effort described earlier. These efforts include:

78
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
• Significant testing, analysis, documentation, development of design tools, and
approval of design guidelines.
• Joint detail development.
• The further development of efficient repair procedures and inspection techniques.
• Testing and evaluating primary load carrying capacities.
• The development of cores and materials for fire containment.
• The optimization of cargo decks.

Although composites have been used for primary structural applications in vessels below 130
meters, there is no experience with its use for large vessels, and a significant development effort
would be required. In addition to the model tests discussed earlier to determine loads, full-scale
demonstrations verifying large-scale joining technologies, manufacturing processes, and at-sea
performance would be needed.

4.4.5 Summary of Required Technology Development

Table 4.4.5-1 is a summary of the technologies to be investigated and developed for use in the
near, and mid-term structures of small high-speed Naval ships.

Table 4.4.5-1: Technology Development Needs

Material Near-Term Mid-Term

Aluminum State-of-the-Art for new alloys with
ship lengths < 300', better fatigue
untried >300' properties
Titanium & no time for multi- define fatigue &
Advanced Metals year R&D effort strength properties
Metal Sandwich approved design validate fatigue
(LASCOR) standards & rules properties & improve
(steel) corrosion resistance
Composites State-of-the-Art for improved &
(300' ship length) ship lengths < 200', validated design
better fire tools
resistance

4.5 Preparation of ABS Guide for High Speed Naval Craft

Classification is the process of verifying that the hull, machinery, and electrical systems and
related components meet technical requirements for fitness, safety, and environmental
soundness. These technical requirements are contained in Rules that are developed by the

79
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
classification society. The vessels are verified to comply with rule requirements in their original
design plans, as constructed, and throughout their operational life. The set of Rules to which a
vessel is designed varies depending on its type of classification and service, as well as any
special notations; for example, many high-speed ferries are Classed under High-Speed Craft
Rules. ABS is currently in the process of developing The ABS Guide for Building and Classing
High Speed Naval Craft and Rules for Building and Classing Naval Vessels for warships and
vessels engaged in military missions. For a Naval ship design to fall under the ABS High Speed
Naval craft rules, the maximum ship speed must correspond to a Froude Number of 0.39, or
greater. In addition, the ship length must be less than 130 m for a monohull, less than 100 m for
a multi-hull, and less than 90 m for an SES.

A process was developed to ensure that lessons from experience would not be lost in the
development of Naval Vessel Rules. This process included a comparison of naval and
commercial standards that led to an initial draft set of standards. These draft standards were then
reviewed and modified by technical committees and industry, but have not been reviewed or
approved by the Navy. Finally, provisions were made for annual updates of the standards.

At the current time, the industry has little experience designing the hullforms being considered
for the high-speed Naval missions. Therefore, to prepare for an initial draft set of standards,
significant research as described previously in loads, materials and high-strength/lightweight
structures development is necessary. Because a set of standards ensuring the fitness, safety, and
environmental soundness for high-speed Naval vessels is the ultimate goal, ABS involvement in
the research and developmental efforts will ensure that they will be provided with all the
necessary information to class the vessels.

4.6 Loads, Materials and Lightweight Structure References

1. Sebastiani, L., et al., “A Thoretical / Experimental Investigation of the Slamming Pressures

on Fast Monohull Vessels”, Proceedings of FAST 2001 Conference, Southampton, UK Sept.
2001.

2. Heggelund, S., et al., “Practical Calculation of Global Design Loads and Load Effects for
Large High Speed Catamarans”, Proceedings of FAST 2001 Conference, Southampton, UK
Sept. 2001.

3. Thomas, G., et al., “Slamming Response of Large High Speed Catamaran”, Proceedings of
FAST 2001 Conference, Southampton, UK Sept. 2001.

4. Heggelund, S., et al., “Global Structural Analysis of Large Catamarans”, Proceedings of

FAST ’99 Conference, Seattle, WA, Sept. 1999.

5. Steinmann, P., et al., “Global and Slamming Loads Acting on an 86 m High Speed Catamaran
Ferry”, Proceedings of FAST ’99 Conference, Seattle, WA, Sept. 1999.

80
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Loads, Materials, and High-Strength/Lightweight Structures
6. Roberts, T., et al., “Evaluation of Sea Loads in High Speed Catamarans”, Proceedings of
FAST ’97, Sydney, Australia, July 1997.

7. Jensen, A., et al., “Structural Design and Results from Full Scale Structural Measurements on
the RNON High Speed SES KNM Skjold”, Proceedings of FAST 2001 Conference,
Southampton, UK Sept. 2001.

8. Kapsenberg, G. and D. McGeorge, “Global Loads on a Large Size Surface Effect Ship”,
Proceedings of FAST ’97, Sydney, Australia, July 1997.

9. Duran, A. and R. Dif, “New Alloy Developments at Pechiney, a New Generation of 5383”,
Proceedings of FAST 2001 Conference, Southampton, UK Sept. 2001.

10. Jackson, J., et al., “Materials Considerations for High Speed Ships”, Proceedings of FAST
’99 Conference, Seattle, WA, Sept. 1999.

11. Reichard, Ronnal, P., "Material Selection for Boats and Ships”, Second International
Conference on Marine Applications of Composite Materials, Florida Institute of Technology,
Melbourne FL, 21-23 March, 1988.

12. Fan, M. and M. Pinchin, “Structural Design of High Speed Craft – a Comparative Study of
Classification Requirements”, Proceedings of FAST ’97, Sydney, Australia, July 1997.

81
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

5.0 MACHINERY SYSTEMS

5.1 Introduction

Significant extension of machinery technology is required for 50 to 60 knot, 3,000- mt naval

ships. Propulsion machinery must be compact, lightweight, and fuel-efficient, yet produce and
transmit very high levels of power.

5.2 Prime Movers

Prime movers for small, high-speed naval ship designs range in power from current technology
turbines producing about 10 MW, to large near-term turbines producing up to 43 MW. Existing
gas turbines with ratings of up to 32 MW are adequate for most high-speed, small combatant
missions. Only the largest and fastest designs show a requirement for a near-term nominal 43
MW turbine. Navy certification testing and, possibly, some technology development will be
required to make either a 32 MW or 43 MW gas turbine a near-term option.

5.2.1 State-of-the-Art

The General Electric LM2500 gas turbine, at a Navy-certified maximum continuous power
rating of 19.6 MW (26,250 HP) at 100oF, is widely used in a large number of U.S. Navy ships.
The LM2500 is an aero-derivative gas turbine that was directly derived from GE's CF6 family of
commercial aircraft engines and GE's TF39 military engine. There are over 800 LM2500 gas
turbines in service in more than 24 international navies.

GE LM2500+ turbines are currently in service powering waterjets in the 42-knot ferry Corsaire
13000 Liamone with the turbine rated at 25 MW. The turbine is also in service in the cruise liner
Millennium in an integrated electric plant. The first military application of the LM2500+ will be
in the LHD Wasp-class large-deck multi-purpose amphibious assault ship. The LM2500+ has
been certified to have a U.S. Navy rating of 26.1 MW (35,000 shp) for the LHD application.

In late 2003 Rolls-Royce will begin delivering Marine Trent 30 gas turbines, which are expected
to have a power rating of about 32 MW (41,500 bhp) at 100 deg. F. The MT30 shares 80 percent
commonality with the Trent 800 aero engine of which more than 500 have been sold or ordered.

Gas turbine R&D advances have resulted in some simple-cycle plants such as the MT30
operating with efficiencies of more than 40 percent at full power, but with significant reductions
in fuel efficiency at part power. Turbines using more complex cycles exploiting intercooling and
recuperation (ICR) technologies reportedly achieve specific fuel consumption rates closely
approaching the very flat curve characteristic of larger diesel engines. Warships may be the first
to benefit from ICR technology in the form of the ICR-based Northrop Grumman/Rolls Royce
25 MW WR21 marine gas turbine, an engine derived from the aero engines (RB211 and Trent)
combined with intercooler and recuperator systems. This engine has successfully completed a
500-hour land-based endurance test in a joint US/UK/France program. The WR21 is more fuel
efficient than simple-cycle gas turbines across its entire power range. A maximum reduction of
about 30 percent is achieved at the bottom of the power range, with savings of about a quarter

82
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

that at full power. The WR21 turbine has been ordered for use in the UK Type 45 destroyer in
2007. The size and complexity of the WR21 ICR gas turbine and the LM2500 turbine are
illustrated in Figure 5.2.1-1.

WR21 ICR LM 2500

Figure 5.2.1-1: WR21 ICR and LM2500 Gas Turbines

GE Marine Engines’ uprated LM6000 aero-derivative industrial gas turbine is another

developmental choice for marine propulsion application. Although the LM6000 is designed for
offshore use, environmental requirements are similar to those of marinized turbines. The major
development issue would be modifications to the control system to be compatible with propulsor
loading requirements. The LM6000 uprated models offer over 40 MW (50,000 shp) with 42
percent ISO thermal efficiency. Currently, there are 115 LM6000s in operation.

The development of the FastShip Atlantic project resulted in a design for a 40-knot, 1420 TEU
commercial vessel powered by five 50 MW (68,000 bhp) gas turbines. Machinery proposals
were submitted by GE and Rolls Royce. GE Marine offered a marine version of its industrial 42
MW (57,100 bhp) LM6000, while Rolls Royce offered the 47.5 MW Marine Trent 50 derived
from its aero 800 Trent turbine. While both are untried in the marine environment, they were
found to be technically acceptable for the project. The Trent 50 was selected to power the
FastShip design, although construction has not begun. Full-power simple-cycle efficiency is 42
percent for the turbine.

The specific fuel consumption rate and power of existing and developmental gas turbines is
presented in Figure 5.2.1-2. The figure shows that near-term goals can be satisfied by marinized
LM6000/Trent 50 engines.

83
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

275

0
50
250

0
sfc ( kg / MW / hr )

0
LM

25
16

+
LM

0
LM

0
25

0
LM

t3
225

en

00

0
Tr

60

t5
en
LM

Tr
200

1
-2
R
W
175

150
0 10 20 30 40 50
Power (MW)

Figure 5.2.1-2: Marine Gas Turbine Technology

5.2.2 Technology Goals

The near-term gas turbine technology goal is development of a marinized 43 MW gas turbine
with SFC of 200 g/kWh, very similar to the turbines required for the FastShip Atlantic project.
Such a gas turbine has essentially the same turbine performance requirements as for the
commercial FastShip Atlantic project. The FastShip Atlantic project experience indicates that
the commercial approach to achieve this objective is to develop marinized versions of the
LM6000 or Rolls Royce Trent industrial turbines. Development of a near-term turbine requires
3-4 years.

5.2.3 Overview of Development Plan

Development of marine gas turbines with the power required for small HS naval ships is simpler
due to the existence of previously-developed industrial, offshore, and aero engines. Existing
engines such as the LM6000, and Rolls Royce Trent produce adequate power for near-term 43
MW turbine requirements, but may require marinization. Market forces such as the FastShip
Atlantic project may lead to commercial development of these marine turbines independent of
military investment. Full-scale fabrication and testing is not required since most of the units
have been installed on land or offshore bases and have many hours of operation. Only the
qualification of these units for Navy use is required.

84
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

The tasks, time to complete each task, and costs associated with developing the needed gas
turbine technology are shown in Figure 5.2.3-1. Costs shown are engineering estimates, based
on the expected scope of testing and facilities required.

Years 1 2 3 4 5 Funding ($K)

Identify Power Concepts 50

Qualify Trent 30 (32.5-34 MW)

- Contract
- Setup Test facility 4,000
- Certification Testing 6,000

Qualify LM6000/Trent 50 (43-50 Mw)

- Engine Marinization
- Contract
- Setup Test facility 4,000
- Certification Testing 6,000
Funding ($K) 50 10,000 10,000 0 0 20,050

Figure 5.2.3-1: Marine Gas Turbine Technology Development Plan

5.3 Waterjets

5.3.1 Introduction

Currently, waterjet propulsion is the preferred propulsion system for high-speed ships above 500
mt. Today’s most powerful waterjets and near-term planned upgrades for commercial interests
are adequate for small high-speed Naval vessels, but the large transom dimensions required to
accommodate the most common type of waterjet may degrade speed-power performance and
seakeeping. Nonetheless, because of current availability and depth of design experience, only
waterjet propulsion is considered for the present technology development plan.

Two other categories of high-speed propulsors that could be considered as viable candidates for
propulsion of 500 to 1,000 mt ships at speeds up to 50 or 60 knots. The two categories are
supercavitating (fully cavitating) propellers and partially submerged (surface-piercing)
propellers.

Supercavitating propellers employ blunt base foil section shapes that develop lift on the blades’
pressure-sides only. These propellers operate best when the blades’ suction-sides are completely
covered by long, stable supercavities that extend from the sharp nose to beyond the trailing edge,
a condition that is achievable only at relatively high speeds. Kruppa (1992) has pointed out that
given the intrinsic characteristics of these propellers, the regime of application is for ship speeds
of 40 knots and above. At low and medium speeds, the blades of this type of propeller will
operate only partially cavitating, with wetted blunt-based blade trailing edges and fluctuating
cavity lengths, and thus with relatively poor propulsion performance. The actual high-speed
performance of fully cavitating propellers can be impressive. Propulsion of the 320-mt Navy

85
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

hydrofoil craft AGEH-1 at a maximum speed of 50 knots was achieved with two 1.58-meter-
diameter supercavitating propellers, each capable of absorbing about 13,000 kW (17,400 hp).
However, the supercavitating propeller is not a good choice for propulsion of Navy ships that
need to operate at a variety of speeds, including cruise and loiter.

Partially submerged propulsors are typically supercavitating propellers that are run at the free
surface so that the blades are continuously entering and exiting through the water surface. The
suction-side blade cavities are ventilated by the flow of air from above the water. Because of the
asymmetric unsteady loading and unloading of the blades of a surface-piercing propeller, there
are potential problems with blade-rate vibratory forces, thrust line eccentricity, and large time-
average lateral forces. Kruppa (1992) has asserted that if there are a large number of blades, the
blade-rate vibration will not be a problem. An important full-scale application of partially
submerged propellers was designed for the SES 100B propulsion system. Two controllable
pitch, six bladed, 1.07-meter-diameter partially submerged propellers were mounted in tunnels in
the vehicle’s sidehulls, each capable of absorbing about 5,000 kW at around 1900 RPM. This
appears to be the largest application of partially submerged propellers ever built. The SES 100B
was able to achieve a maximum speed of 92 knots.

Various configurations of smaller surface-piercing propellers are standard for propulsion of

unlimited hydroplanes, offshore racers, and other types of high-speed recreational boats.

Based on the features of attractive propulsion efficiency demonstrated by the SES 100B and the
possibility of eliminating the shafts and V-strut appendages of normal propeller installations, a
system of partially submerged propellers with subcavitating blade sections was actually
investigated as a candidate propulsion scheme for a large monohull combatant ship, and is
described in a paper by Rains (1981). A study of propulsion issues using surface-piercing
propellers compared with waterjets for one SES ship application was presented by Bjorklund and
Allenstrom (1989).

Despite some appealing characteristics, and selected full-scale success, the partially submerged
propeller has not yet been developed at a size scale or maturity level needed for direct
application in high speed Naval ships.

5.3.2 State-of-the-Art

Large waterjets have basically followed two design approaches; one with mixed-flow and the
other with an axial-inducer type blading design. The two primary makers of large waterjet units
are KaMeWa and John Crane-Lips. Both of these makers have a long background in the waterjet
field and have designs based on non-inducer, mixed-flow type blading.

KaMeWa’s largest operational unit is the size 200, with an impeller inlet diameter of 200
centimeters (6.6 feet). The size 180 unit is shown in Figure 5.3.2-1. The 200 size waterjets can
be powered by an LM2500+ size gas turbine, putting them in the 26 MW power range. Two
steerable units of this size are in service on a Corsaire 14000 monohull ferry built by Alstom
Leroux. The KaMeWa impeller is a mixed-flow design. Mixed-flow waterjets have radial
growth of the blade tip through the impeller and produce a significant radial exit component of

86
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

velocity. The maximum impeller diameter can be as much as 40 percent larger than the impeller
inlet diameter. It is important for sizing the transom width that the exit housing has a bowl shape
beyond this exit blading to accommodate the stator blading and results in installation diameters
that are 65-85 percent larger than the inlet diameter.

Figure 5.3.2-1: KAMEWA 180 Waterjet

KaMeWa has performed design work on a size 325 unit (inlet diameter of 325 centimeters, or
10.66 feet) under contract to meet FastShip Atlantic operating requirements of about 40 knots.
The size 325 unit would absorb power in the range of 49 MW using a Rolls Royce Marine Trent,
but no units have been built to date.

John Crane-Lips has built mixed-flow waterjets that cover up to the 20 MW range. At least four
of the largest size, 6-bladed units are in service. Each MEKO-200 class corvette incorporates
one LJ 210E reversible Lips booster waterjet, which had to meet shock and noise requirements.
Four of these corvettes were built by Blohm + Voss/HDW for the South African Navy.

Rolls Royce/Bird-Johnson is developing the AWJ21 waterjet unit concept. This unit has an
advanced mixed-flow impeller mounted in a nacelle arrangement that would be faired with the
bottom of the ship hull and incorporates an underwater discharge. The waterjet steering/
reversing equipment would be housed within the nacelle for minimum drag impact. This unit is
only in the model development phase, but is intended for up to LM2500 size power applications.
The drag of the nacelle for the AWJ21 waterjet concept would probably limit its application to
speeds of 40 knots and below.

Axial-inducer waterjets have seen fewer large-scale applications compared to mixed-flow

designs. This is due mainly to the significant contraction in the large waterjet market that
followed cancellation of the 3KSES program. Proponents of axial-inducer waterjet technology,
such as Rocketdyne and Aerojet, discontinued their waterjet businesses about this time. In 1987
Rocketdyne sold their axial waterjet technology and manufacturing business to Kawasaki Heavy
Industries. Mixed-flow waterjet manufacturers remained in business by producing smaller units
during this waterjet recession and subsequently were able to develop progressively larger mixed-
flow waterjets as market demand evolved over the following decades. The belief that inducers

87
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

were only applicable to low flow coefficients, and historical data that indicates that the mixed-
flow pumps have a hydraulic efficiency advantage over axial designs, also led to the emphasis on
mixed-flow designs by other waterjet manufacturers. However, the ability of axial-inducer type
pumps to operate over a wider range of flow coefficients has been demonstrated, and any
efficiency differences on design are expected to be slight. The high suction specific speed
operational ability of the inducer type pump and the straight-through flow design results in much
smaller, lighter, and faster turning designs than for other pump types. Consequently, axial-
inducer pumps are more compact systems with lighter gearing. The installation diameter of an
axial-inducer waterjet is only about 20 percent greater than its inlet diameter, while the
installation diameter of a mixed-flow design is 65 to 85 percent greater than its inlet diameter.
The smaller size is particularly important for installation in the restricted transom space available
in the slender hulls of high-speed ships.

Axial-inducer type waterjets have been developed for and used on such ships as the Jetfoil, SES-
100A, and PHM. The Jetfoil waterjets use single-stage axial inducers of 51 cm diameter that
absorbed about 3.2 MW and were developed by Rocketdyne. Since 1987, waterjets for the
Jetfoil have been supplied by Kawasaki Heavy Industries. In 1994 Kawasaki manufactured four
KPJ-169A model single-stage axial flow, flush inlet waterjets rated at 5.24 MW. These waterjets
were installed on the AMD 1500/Kawasaki Jetpiercer catamaran ferry Hayabusa. Kawaski
offers axial flow waterjets with rated inputs up to 20.0 MW, but has not yet built any waterjets
this powerful. The Marine Corps AAAV program uses 58 cm single-stage axial-inducer
waterjets of about 1.0 MW for water propulsion as a current U.S. application of axial-inducer
waterjet technology. These units were developed by Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
Division.

Aerojet Liquid Rocket Company developed the PHM units which had a power rating of 13.4
MW. The design was a two-stage, two-speed axial-inducer waterjet of nearly 117 cm diameter.
The SES-100A also had two Aerojet two-stage, two-speed axial-inducer waterjets rated at 6 MW
each, which gave that vehicle speeds approaching 80 knots. The second stage in each pump
turned at much higher RPM and tip speeds than the initial inducer stage. The headrise produced
by the initial inducer stage permitted running much higher tip speeds on the second stage.
Second stage tip speeds in excess of 90 meters per second were used. The advantages of the
higher speed second stage are that it can be made shorter to save space and weight, and the
operating point for the second stage can be in a more favorable flow coefficient range for stage
hydraulic efficiency. Gearing and shafting is more complicated for two-stage, two-speed pumps.
Aerojet did extensive work for the 3KSES program on developing a 117 cm diameter, two-stage,
single-speed axial-inducer pump of 30 MW intended for speeds of 90 knots. These units had
inducer stage inlet tip speeds as high as 60 meters per second, with the high tip speed enabling
reduced unit size. However, the 3KSES program was discontinued prior to full-scale testing of
the hardware.

The power rating and design speed of existing and developmental waterjets is compared with the
pumps needed for near-term small HS Naval ships in Figure 5.3.2-2. The figure shows that near-
term power goals significantly exceed the power capacity of existing axial-flow waterjets. While
some small HS Naval ship designs are compatible with mixed-flow waterjets, many near-term

88
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

designs require the reduced diameter of single-stage or multi-stage axial pumps to fit machinery
in the slender hulls.

60
FastShip
50
Waterjet Input Power (MW)

Fast Ferries (mixed flow)

Fast Ferries (axial Flow)
40

30 3KSES
Corsaire 13000
Jupiter
20 Near Term
Destriero
HSS-1500 PHM TSLA-70
10 SES 100A
Hayabusa
Jetfoil
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Speed (kts)

Figure 5.3.2-2: Waterjet Technology

5.3.3 Technology Goals

The technology to build waterjets that are matched to the relatively high-power gas turbines and
high speeds of small HS Naval ships needs further development. The preferred configuration for
small HS ships is one gas turbine for each waterjet. While demonstrated technology for mixed-
flow waterjets is 25 to 26 MW, the demonstrated power of axial-flow pumps similar to those
needed for HS ship applications has been limited to 13 MW. However, Kawasaki has a design
for a 20 MW axial-flow waterjet. Moreover, much of the design and manufacturing technology
supporting today’s more powerful mixed-flow pumps is shared by axial-flow pumps. The near-
term goal is to extend the capability to manufacture axial-flow waterjets to ship speeds up to 50
knots with applied powers of as much as 43 MW.

Single-stage axial-flow pumps are expected to be adequate for all displacement-type HS small
Naval ship designs and some of the SES designs. However, two-stage axial inducers will be
required for some SES designs where headrise requirements exceed the headrise ability of a
single stage. This occurs for very high ship speeds and/or very high design point jet velocity
ratios. Although two-speed, two-stage axial-flow waterjets have been built, single-speed two-
stage pumps will be adequate for small HS ships. The additional blade row is expected to be a
somewhat standard design that does not involve any undue mechanical complication. It would
co-rotate with the first-stage inducer and be driven with the same shaft. The two-stage design
reduces required tip speeds compared with a single-stage inducer design since the headrise per
stage is reduced. However, for a comparable design point condition, both must pump a

89
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

comparable flow rate and the two-stage units provide only a slight reduction in inlet diameter.
Thus, the two-stage axial-inducer design is considered an extension of the single-stage design.

Inlet design will require development for 2-3,000 mt, high-speed Naval ships. Inlet design must
be matched to the geometric constraints of the specific hull design that is used. The long slender
hulls favored for high ship speeds would limit the placement of inlets. Revised approaches to
inlet design will need to be developed. Use of a single inlet to feed more than one waterjet is
likely to be needed. The influence of hull boundary layer flow ingestion by the inlet has a large
impact on waterjet performance. Waterjet inlets that maximize the capture of low-momentum
boundary layer flow without adverse effects on ship drag will be favored. The impact of this
low-momentum inlet flow can be as much as a 10-point improvement in the ship’s overall
propulsive performance coefficient. Ingestion of the lower-momentum boundary layer flow on
the hull by the waterjet inlet will enable propulsive coefficients in the 70 percent range for very
high ship design speeds. The nozzle location and orientation can generate additional lift by
acting in a trim-tab like fashion to produce lift forces comparable to the total thrust of the jet.
Understanding these effects and exploiting them to fully integrate hulls and propulsors offers
significant potential for enhancing hydrodynamic performance. Inlet, hull, and jet interactions
and inlet design are best studied and developed through the use of computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) tools combined with model test data.

A better understanding of scaling effects between model and full scale is needed to reliably
produce 2-3,000 mt waterjet-powered ships. Since boundary layers do not directly scale between
model and full scale, the scale effects of hull boundary layers on the waterjet performance need
to be carefully considered. CFD tools and model tests will play major roles in developing these
important scaling relations.

Aeration and/or emergence of the waterjet inlet may result in a sudden and possibly severe drop
in shaft torque that can have a serious impact on propulsion machinery. Hull model tests under
different sea states are needed to predict and minimize aeration and emergence occurrences.
Potential aeration impacts on shafting and the waterjet components and structure need to be
considered in the design. Methods and systems to minimize aeration and/or inlet emergence,
such as ride controls and wave sensors, need to be developed. Careful attention to stresses and
waterjet bearings for these ocean-going Naval ships will be necessary to ensure long life.

If conventional jet deflection techniques are used, the relatively large powers and high ship
speeds involved could require large, heavy steering and reversing structures that can weigh
nearly as much as the waterjet itself. With a multiple waterjet arrangement, not all the units
would require steering and reversing. Reversing may only be required at low speeds and powers,
which would simplify the approach. This operational issue impacts the waterjet design and
depends on the type of ship utilized. Steering can be effectively accomplished by means other
than deflection of the jet, especially at high speeds. For example, high-speed ferries using
“Interceptor” steering, a concept similar to an adjustable trim tab to impact hull flow, have
demonstrated steering performance comparable to or better than that of ships equipped with
steerable waterjets. In addition to reducing maintenance of waterjet steering gear machinery,
alternatives such as Interceptors eliminate the loss of thrust that results from using waterjet

90
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

steering systems. Steering and reversing designs are critical elements of HS waterjet design in
light of expected military mission maneuverability requirements.

Achieving the powering goals of up to 43 Megawatts will require waterjets to be developed that
will absorb more than twice the power of today’s most powerful axial-flow waterjets. This will
require an understanding of the mechanical design and fabrication aspects of large waterjet
designs as well as understanding pump hydrodynamics. Casting limitations on physically large
pumps may make alternate approaches, such as fabrication with separate blades and components,
a more realistic approach.

5.3.4 Overview of Development Plan

The development of waterjet technology is evolutionary in nature. As a result, the plan is

focused initially on advancing the axial waterjet technology from today’s 10-13 MW size pumps
to the 43 MW near-term pumps.

The tasks, time to complete each task, and costs associated with developing the needed waterjet
technology are shown in Figure 5.3.4-1. Two stages of waterjet development, model testing, and
analysis are shown to address both near-term and far-term waterjet technology. Costs shown are
engineering estimates, based on the expected scope of testing and facilities required. This
hullform peculiar program will require essential data from other technology development efforts
such as powering (section 3.2), seakeeping (section 3.3), and maneuvering (section 3.4), as well
as model test data for hullforms of interest (section 2).

Years 1 2 3 4 5 Funding ($K)

Near Term Waterjet
- Design & Analysis 1,500
- Enhance Analytical & Design Tools 600
- CFD Analysis inlet/hull/jet interactions 500
- CFD Scale Effect Predictions 250
- Inlet Design & Analysis 475
- Steering & Reversing Analysis 275
- Manufacturing/Fabrication Studies 150
- Stress Analysis 500
- Model & Component Tests 750
- Full Scale Development & Prototyping 9,000
Funding ($K) 1,375 2,475 5,300 4,850 14,000

Figure 5.3.4-1: Waterjet Technology Development Plan

Larger, higher power axial-inducer waterjets have not received much attention in recent times,
but renewed development of this promising technology has high potential payoff. A near-term
waterjet design for the 43 MW gas turbine is the next step in the state-of-the-art for axial-inducer
waterjets. The technology needed to manufacture a pump optimized for the 40-50 knot design
speed range will be produced. This represents an increase in axial-flow waterjet powering of

91
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

about 3 times the present demonstrated capability, and will result in a unit with an impeller
diameter in the likely range of 2.5 to 3.5 meters, slightly larger than the 2.0 meter impellers
currently being manufactured for mixed-flow pumps. A 4-year development cycle is required to
produce the full-scale near-term pump prototype.

Steps in the development plan for the near-term 43 MW axial-inducer waterjet include:

1. Development would be aimed at a marinized gas turbine in the 40-50 MW power range
that would be the likely power source. This power level favors ship designs having
speeds in the 45-55 knot range and would represent a near-term technology for a very
large waterjet.
2. Enhance analytical and design tools for the near-term speed and power range.
3. CFD analysis and prediction of inlet, hull, and jet interaction effects.
4. CFD development for full-scale design predictions and model to full-scale correlations.
5. Inlet analysis and design studies.
6. Steering and reversing gear analysis and design.
7. Mechanical design studies and manufacturing/fabrication analysis.
8. Scale-model testing to verify performance and cavitation scaling.
9. Full-scale design.
10. Stress analysis of all critical waterjet-related components.
11. Prototype testing on a ship of opportunity or installation on destination ship.

5.4 Reduction Gears

The weight of reduction gears can represent a significant portion of the total ship weight due to
the high installed power required for high burst speeds. Technology development is required, as
simply scaling-up existing designs to the desired power levels results in unacceptably high
weights.

5.4.1 Introduction

HS ship designs use either a type of offset gear known as a locked-train double-reduction gear or
epicyclic gears to transmit power from gas turbines to waterjets. The reduction gears are
generally of the single-input, single-output type. All gears are non-reversing.

Offset gears are the most widely used type of gear for ship propulsion. These gears are well
understood and available from numerous manufacturers. Offset gears are generally the lowest
cost gearboxes due to the relatively simple machining and grinding required to produce the gear.
The epicyclic gearbox, on the other hand, is not widely used at sea. The epicyclic gearbox
provides a very high power density (i.e., it is smaller than the offset gear) and typically weighs
less as well. The primary disadvantage of the epicyclic gear is its increased cost relative to the

92
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

offset gear. This is due primarily to the fact that the epicyclic gear contains more gear meshes
than does the offset gear.

While conventional ships primarily use offset gears, when size and weight are important, as they
are for small high-speed Naval ships, the cost disadvantages of the epicyclic gears become less
of a factor. During the development of the near-term HS ship designs, both types of reduction
gears were used. As a result, requirements for two separate development paths presently exist, as
no gearbox of either type exists that fully satisfies the reduction gear requirements established by
the designs.

5.4.2 State-of-the-Art

High speed ship designs used both offset (parallel shaft) gears and epicyclic gears. Monohull
and trimaran designs used offset gears, SES designs used epicyclic gears, and catamaran designs
used both offsets and epicyclics.

Both offset and epicyclic gears have been built in power levels as large as needed for a 40 to 60
knot Naval ship of 3,000 mt. While the largest power units have not been for marine propulsion,
it is important that the manufacturing facilities already exist for such large units. For marine
propulsion, larger offset gears exist than do for epicyclic gears. Offset gears up to 50 MW per
shaft have seen service, such as those for aircraft carriers. While these designs are significantly
heavier than required for high-speed Naval combatants, Philadelphia Gear has designed a
lightweight offset gear of similar power for FastShip Atlantic that weighs about two-thirds the
weight of the older design. With a weight of about 1.0 kg/kW, this represents the state-of-the-art
for marine offset gears.

Epicyclic gears offer potential for significant size and weight reductions. However, the
additional complexity of these gears translates into higher procurement costs. As a result,
epicyclic gears have not seen widespread use for ship propulsion. The largest marine unit, a 21.3
MW gear made by the Swiss company Maag Gear AG to drive a booster waterjet, will go into
service in early Spring 2003. This gear has a steel housing and weighs about 0.7 kg/kW. The
largest epicyclic gear Maag has made is a 37MW gear for electric power generation at the Milan
airport. Philadelphia Gear built a 90 kW epicyclic gear, with a weight of 0.88 kg/kW, for use in
a hydroelectric plant. Cincinnati Gear designed a 30 MW epicyclic gear for the 3KSES program
that had a weight of just 0.13 kg/kW. More recently, Cincinatti Gear offered a 25 MW epicyclic
gear with a weight of about 0.2 kg/KW. However, Cincinatti Gear is no longer in business and
these units all made significant use of aluminum for the housing. The design lifetime for the
3KSES gear was undoubtedly significantly shorter than that required for a Naval combatant. In
any case, use of aluminum may not be feasible at power levels above about 30 MW. Potential
weight gains due to the low density of aluminum are more than likely to be offset by the
increased amount of material necessary to provide the required stiffness.

The 21.3 MW epicyclic gear built by Maag, with a weight of 0.53 kg/kW, is considered more
appropriate to consider as the state-of-the-art.

93
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

5.4.3 Technology Goals

Near-term goals for both gearbox types are for lightweight designs capable of transmitting
between 45 and 50 MW. Reduction gear weight is heavily influenced by the input power level,
torque and reduction ratio. Figure 5.4.3-1 shows gearbox performance against power level for
existing gears and HS ship designs. Performance is represented as weight per ‘torque’, where
‘torque’ is simply the power divided by the output rpm. The HS ship design points represent
estimated design weights resulting from the final combination of gas turbine input power and
speed and the design speed of the waterjet. Also shown on the curve are estimated trend lines for
both offset and epicyclic gears.

1000
Alum Casing Epicyclic Gears Steel Casing Epicyclic Gears
Existing Offset Gears Offset Designs
Small HS Ship Offset

800
Gear Weight / (Power per RPM) (kg-rpm / kW)

SES 100A

600

Of
fse Near te Fast Ship
400 t rm
CVN 68
PHM
Maag DDG -51
200 Epicyclic
3K SES

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Power (MW)

Figure 5.4.3-1: Reduction Gear Technology

In the near-term, the offset gears have weight per unit torque goals of between 250-400
kg/(kW/rpm), while the epicyclic gears have goals of 200-250 kg/(kW/rpm).

Figure 5.4.3-2 compares existing reduction gears with gears for HS Naval ship designs on the
basis of weight per unit power. Offset gear near-term goals are 0.7-0.9 kg/kW. For epicyclic
gears, the near-term goals are 0.5 -0.65 kg/kW.

94
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

2.5
Alum Casing Epicyclic Gears Existing Offset Gears
Specific Weight (kg/kW)

Steel Casing Epicyclic Gears Offset Designs

2
Small HS Ship Offset
DDG-51
1.5
Fast Ship
1

0.5
Maag
SES 100A 3K SES
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Power (MW)

Figure 5.4.3-2: Reduction Gear Specific Weight

5.4.4 Overview of Development Plan

The principal focus for development for both offset and epicyclic marine gears is reducing the
weight to the target levels. In terms of power output, similarly-sized gears have been built, if not
for marine propulsion, at least for hydroelectric use. However, these existing designs are much
heavier than what high-speed, small Naval ship designs require. Therefore, significant effort,
principally in materials development, is required if the goals are to be met.

Traditionally, commercial ship reduction gear designs have been built with cost as one of the
most important considerations, if not the most important consideration. Size and weight usually
have less priority. Military gears have particular requirements levied on them that make low cost
less important. But in both cases, weight is not usually an overriding factor. However, for small,
fast Naval combatant ships to be technically feasible, the additional cost for lighter gears may be
justified.

Major technology development in gear design optimization for minimum weight and materials
improvements are required to achieve the target weight goals. Both offset and epicyclic gears
will benefit from advances in these areas, although the payoffs may be different for each type.

95
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

Design optimization is principally a matter of investing the effort to make reduced weight the
critical factor. For example, the required lifetime operating duty cycle and environment needs to
be rigorously examined to determine whether design margins can be refined. Materials
improvement relates to the use of stronger and lighter materials as well as the manufacturing
processes required to make use of these materials possible. For example, operating at higher
temperatures reduces cooling and lubrication requirements, but this requires high-strength steels
able to operate continuously at these elevated temperatures.

In the past, improvements in machining accuracy have enabled lighter weight gears to be built.
With more precision machining, tooth contact area is increased, reducing resultant stress levels.
This has been translated into smaller and lighter gear meshes, reducing the overall gear weight.
However, the current ability of gear manufacturers to produce gears of very high dimensional
accuracy and surface tolerance is such that it is unlikely that any significant improvements are
likely without potentially very large investment. Accordingly, the present plan does not account
for any gains in this area.

Figure 5.4.4-1 presents a summary-level plan of technology required to achieve the specified
near-term and far-term goals for both offset and epicyclic gears. Depending on the future Naval
requirements for small high speed ships, it may be sufficient to develop only one type of
reduction gear. There is a great deal of overlap in the development effort required; the primary
differences only come into play when a specific design is being developed.

The plan shows that gears of both types can be available to meet the near-term goals in five
years.

Years 1 2 3 4 5 Funding ($K)

Materials Development
- Investigate High-Strength Steels 600
- Advanced Materials Treatments 500
- Fabricate and test large specimens 0

Offset Gear Development

- Near-Term Design 400
- Near-term Prototype Fabrication and Test 2,500

Epicyclic Gear Development

- Near-term Design 500
- Near-term Prototype Fabrication and Test 3,000
Funding ($K) 500 2,500 2,500 1,500 500 7,500

Figure 5.4.4-1: Reduction Gear Technology Development Plan

Development of advanced high-strength steels and associated post-forging treatments to increase

the overall strength and durability of the materials used for the gear mesh is required. If
successfully applied to large gears, weight reductions approaching 25 percent may be realized.

96
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

Large gears are typically fabricated using 9310 steel. There are several advanced high-strength
steels that are becoming available and are in use for smaller gears. These steels, such as
Carpenter’s Pyrowear 53 and Vasco’s X2-M, provide higher strength and the ability to operate at
higher temperatures. These steels provide the potential for designing large gears that are
inherently stronger than existing gears. Further, the ability to operate at higher temperatures
reduces the requirement for cooling and lubrication, further reducing the overall size and weight
of the gear mesh. This then contributes to reduced size and weight of the gear housing.

Advanced means of surface strengthening and finishing will be developed. Potential benefits
include improved performance (higher strength), increased reliability and reduced costs. One
such process is ausforming, developed by Penn State. Ausform finishing integrates heat
treatment and hard finishing processes into a single phase. The process has been applied to
much smaller gears than are necessary for high-speed Naval combatants, but the results to date
show significant improvements in both final strength and dimensional accuracy. While none of
the individual processes involved with ausforming are in themselves new to the industry, the
integration of these processes into a single operation will require development to be applicable to
large-scale gears. The near-term designs should be able to take advantage of the availability of
reasonably large billets of the advanced high-strength steel.

Both offset and epicyclic reduction gears are being carried forward in this development plan. It
may turn out that only one type of gearbox is ultimately required, but at the present time it is
prudent to show development paths for both gears.

5.4.4.1 Offset Gear Development

The requirements for offset reduction gears may be satisfied by commercial development in the
next few years, at least in terms of the power absorption requirement. If this is the case, it is
likely that the near-term plan described herein will be unnecessary. While the weight of the
commercially-developed gear may not be as low as desired, it may prove more cost effective to
apply the funds targeted for near-term development towards the far-term requirements, where the
weight goals are more critical and more demanding.

Present offset gear designs for large marine use have not been optimized for minimum weight.
Since gear weight does not represent a very significant part of the total displacement, the
shipbuilder will tend to opt for a lower cost gear. This means that the gear manufacturer will not
devote a great deal of time to reducing weight. Doing so requires engineering development and
that adds to the cost to the buyer, who is unlikely to pay for such extravagance. Further, to
minimize life-cycle costs, the gears are typically designed to operate without failure for the life
of the ship. This increases the size and weight of the gear, since design margins will be large to
eliminate problems associated with fatigue.

As the speed of the ship increases, weight becomes more and more critical in every element of
the ship. This allows the costs associated with reducing weight to be more acceptable. Detailed
weight reduction engineering analyses, including comprehensive finite element analyses of the
entire gearbox design, will be performed to identify potential weight savings. The impact of the
lightweight designs on manufacturing costs will be assessed. Design margins will be analyzed to

97
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

determine where they may possibly be relaxed. It may be that reducing the design lifetime will
provide weight savings, although achieving significant weight reductions via this path may
require design lifetimes that are too short to be economically feasible. Further, the operating
loads associated with very large, very fast ships operating in the open ocean will counteract to
some extent the weight reductions available. Weight savings on the order of 20 percent may be
possible through these approaches, with much of the weight reduction coming out of the housing
(which may be as much as 50 percent of the total weight of an offset reduction gear).

The design of a prototype 43 MW gear will be developed. Representative design specifications

(reduction ratio, operational and environmental loads, etc.) will be developed based on small HS
Naval designs. The design effort will incorporate the results of the weight reduction analyses as
well as the use of advanced steels, providing the results of that investigation indicate that
sufficiently large billets of suitable material would be available in time to support the fabrication
schedule.

Using the FastShip Atlantic offset gear as a starting point, it is expected that the combination of
the systematic weight reduction efforts and the possible use of the advanced steel may result in a
weight reduction on the order of 25 percent for near-term offset gears, leading to a weight of
perhaps 0.75 kg/kW.

A prototype 43 MW offset reduction gear will be fabricated and tested under load by the
manufacturer. The test setup will mimic the expected shafting and coupling arrangement
between the turbine and the waterjet. The test will not accurately reproduce the full spectrum of
loads associated with the at-sea application. Comparing strain gage and deflection
measurements with those predicted for the test conditions will permit extrapolation to the
expected at-sea loads. It may be feasible to consider an at-sea test of this gearbox, but this
requires the availability of a ship powered by appropriately-sized turbines and waterjets. This is
unlikely.

5.4.4.2 Epicyclic Gear Development

The development path for epicyclic gears is essentially the same as for offset gears. Therefore,
only important differences between the two paths will be identified.

It is unlikely that commercial development will produce a 43 MW epicyclic gear in the next few
years. Therefore, unlike the offset gear, the cost associated with the near-term epicyclic gear will
need to be funded by the Government.

Much of the weight savings for epicyclic gears achievable through weight reduction design
optimization come from the gear housing. Epicyclic gear housing weight is a smaller fraction of
the total gear weight than for offset gears, so the potential weight savings are proportionately
less. Weight savings for epicyclic gears through optimization are estimated at 15 percent at best.

The design of the 43 MW epicyclic gear assumes the use of the higher strength steels. Overall,
the weight savings achievable in the near-term are expected to be on the order of 20 percent vice

98
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

perhaps 25 percent for offset gears. Epicyclic gears are generally somewhat lighter than offset
gears of similar power, so a target weight of perhaps 0.75 kg/kW appears reasonable.

Prototype fabrication for the near-term epicyclic gear is essentially the same as for the offset
gear. Costs are slightly higher simply due to the increased machining required to produce the
sun and the planets compared to the offset gears.

The scope and effort of the prototype testing will be the same for the epicyclic gear as for the
offset gear.

The gear technology development plan will produce very lightweight marine reduction gears that
satisfy the requirements identified for HS ship designs. It is uncertain whether both or just one
type will ultimately be required, especially with an eye towards the long-term, high-speed trans-
ocean missions. Therefore, plans have been presented for both offset and epicyclic gears, as both
have been identified as necessary to satisfy all of the HS ship designs.

The plan will lead to a high level of confidence in the final products since full-scale gears will be
fabricated and tested. While the test programs stop short of testing installed in a ship, in-shop
testing will permit confident extrapolation to at-sea conditions. Not fabricating and testing the
prototype gears could reduce the total cost of the development plan. This approach is worthy of
consideration principally for the near-term goals, as the weight targets assumed and the advances
incorporated to achieve those goals are less demanding. However, full-scale prototype
fabrication and testing is necessary to meet the more aggressive goals of the far-term gears.
Analysis alone will not be sufficient to reduce risk to an acceptable level due to the combination
of optimized weight designs, new materials, and new materials processing, combined with an
operational scenario for which no previous design data exists.

Near-term commercial development for programs such as the proposed FastShip Atlantic project
may produce offset reduction gears that come close to satisfying the near-term mission power
transmission needs while falling short of weight reduction goals. Should this happen, the near-
term offset gear development effort can be dropped. The additional weight gains achievable in
the near-term would not justify the added expense. The related near-term materials work would
still be required as it is an essential precursor of the far-term gear weight reduction effort

5.5 SES Lift Fans

5.5.1 Introduction

In addition to meeting performance requirements, SES lift fans must have as flat a pressure-flow
characteristic as possible with a mild stall at low flow. These properties are necessary to allow
the ship to benefit to the greatest extent from the SES concept.

5.5.2 State-of-the-Art

Lift fans suitable for a 500 to 3,000 mt SES are state-of-the-art. Fans meeting expected design
pressure and flow requirements are commonly in use for industrial applications worldwide.

99
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

These fans typically have welded steel impellers and housings. In order to minimize weight, the
fan impellers could be fabricated from riveted or bolted aluminum, and the housing could be of
welded aluminum. For marine applications, the shafts would be of stainless steel. Fabrication in
aluminum is available upon request. Advanced composite materials are used in the most recent
SES fan systems and offer considerable advantages.

Lift fans required range from 2,000 KW in size up to 8,200 KW. The Navy’s 3K SES design
had six 2.18 m diameter centrifugal fans rated at 8,200 KW. Existing fans are of steel, but could
be provided in aluminum with a weight savings of approximately 50 percent realized. Figures
5.5.2-1 and 5.5.2-2 compare state-of-the-art fan parameters.

2.00
Industrial Rotary Marine Centrifugal
1.75
Specific Diameter (in)

1.50
1.25
1.00 SES 100B
SES 100A
0.75 JEFF B

0.50 Industrial Fan JEFF A

0.25 Performance

0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Specific Speed (1000s of RPM)

Figure 5.5.2-1. Comparison of Non-Dimensional Parameters of Existing Fans

The requirements for lift fans for SES up to 3,000 mt fall within the state-of-the-art for industrial
centrifugal fans, and possibly for two-stage axial fans. Operation in a marine environment is not
a major consideration for centrifugal fans. Some industrial fans are designed to operate in much
more severe (corrosive) conditions. The use of composite materials for centrifugal lift fans has
been amply demonstrated in a fleet of 9 SES MCM craft in Norway. Although the impeller
diameter of these fans, designed by Band, Lavis & Assoc. in the U.S., was close to one meter,
larger composite fans close to two meters diameter have also been built by UMOE in Norway.
These BLA-designed fans have also been delivered to Finland where they have been installed in
the Aker T2000 military ACV currently undergoing acceptance trials. UMOE states that they
are able to design and build the same design in composite to four meters diameter. The
composite SES fans have thousands of operating hours with perfect reliability and little
maintenance. The UMOE fans incorporate a coating system which has completely protected the
composite blades.

100
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

250

Impeller Tip Speed (m/s) 200 HSS Designs

Existing Al
150 Centrifugal Fans
Existing Composite
Centrifugal Fans
100
Industrial Rotary
Diffuser Fans
50 Existing Steel
Centrifugal

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Lift Power Per Fan (kW)

Figure 5.5.2-2. Comparison of “Power Density” of Existing and Design Fans

Of major concern to all fan manufacturers is the tip speed required to give the pressure required,
which is about 2 m of water gauge, or 20 kPa., combined with the corresponding width of blade
necessary to give the flow required. The combination of high tip speed and wide blade gives rise
to high stresses that are difficult to meet in the structural design, especially when the stresses due
to accelerations and gyroscopic loading from ship motions are added. This may be a limiting
factor for steel and aluminum, or even titanium fans. However, the problem is much less severe
for composite fans due to the lower density of composite materials.

Tip speeds of about 200 m/s appear to represent the state-of-the-art for centrifugal fan design.
Fortunately, one of the most promising industrial fan candidates appears to have the lowest tip
speed. Nonetheless, in this speed range, compressibility must be taken into account due to the
high Mach numbers encountered.

Candidate manufacturers who have been contacted and have supplied information and data
include: ABB, Aerophysics, Barron (a NYB company), and UMOE/BLA. Others who could not
supply suitable fans include Chicago Blower, Howden Buffalo and Northern Blower.
Aerophysics, at present, is able to design RD fans for SES that would then be made by selected
manufacturers on a custom basis.

Fan development will need to focus on reducing weight through the use of lightweight materials
and on marinizing commercial designs as required.

101
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

5.5.3 Technology Goals

The primary technology goal will be to reduce the weight of existing large industrial steel fans
by use of lighter weight materials. A weight reduction goal of 50 percent is required to meet the
weight value utilized in the designs. Prior experience with centrifugal fans has shown no issues
with changing material from steel to aluminum. The manufacturers of the BLA-designed
composite fans for the latest Norwegian SES Minehunter and Finnish ACV state that a carbon
fiber/epoxy 3.7-meter fan is within their capabilities to manufacture. The dynamic blade
loadings of the 3.7-meter design fan are only 80 percent of those of the Norwegian SES fans.

The near-term fan development goals are to refine the preliminary fan designs taking into
account the marine environment. Weight and size of installation would be considered as well as
the number of fans required. Drawings of the complete fan installation would be matched to the
space available in the hull. In particular, the proposed UMOE/BLA composite fan design could
be carried a step further.

Near-term goals are to:

• Seek the best combination of weight, space, power and performance.

• Pursue composite manufacture for very large fans.
• Refine the pressure and flow requirements.
• Study in more detail the fan performance characteristics during start-up and off-
design operation.

In addition to total ship weight savings, lighter weight fans are desirable for reducing the
gyroscopic loads on bearings and support structures and for reducing dynamic torque loads on
the power train.

5.5.4 Overview of Development Plan

Existing commercial centrifugal lift fans can satisfy near-term technology objectives for small,
high-speed Naval ships, but some development is required to decrease weight and improve
reliability in a marine environment.

The primary development need is to investigate and validate the use of high-strength lightweight
material alternatives, principally aluminum and composites. Other important issues to be
investigated include acoustics, blade erosion and corrosion, and stall-free and mild pressure-flow
characteristics at design and off design operations.

The size requirement for near-term fans is well within the state-of-the-art, and minimal
development beyond building and testing a prototype is required.

The development schedule and cost for HS ship SES Lift Fan Technology is shown in Figure
5.5.4-1. Manufacturing costs provided by the fan suppliers are very similar for steel, aluminum,
or composite.

102
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

Years 1 2 3 4 5 Funding ($K)

Near Term Lift Fan Development
- Identify/Analyze Fan Alternatives 200
- Design Adaptation to Marine Environment 250
- Acoustic Studies and Tests 100
Fabricate/Test Near term Lift Fan 1,500
Funding ($K) 200 350 1,500 2,050

Figure 5.5.4-1. SES Lift Fan Technology Development Plan

5.6 SES Seals

Figure 2.5.1-1 compares the size and speed of existing SES with near and far-term HSS designs.
The largest commercial SES built is the 56-knot, 1,500-mt Japanese TechnoSuperLiner (TSL)
HISHO (KIBO) launched in 1994. The largest military SES is the 45-knot Russian Dergach
850-mt missile patrol craft. As is the case for all high-speed craft, both near and far-term HSS
SES designs are substantially larger than vessels produced to date. While SES test craft have
demonstrated higher speeds than those required for HS Naval missions, the combination of high
speeds and larger sizes of the HS Naval designs place heavy demands on seal technology.
Significant development is required to produce the technology needed to manufacture seals for
HS combatant SES concepts.

5.6.1 State-of-the-Art

Through 1979, the emphasis on “high speed” for transoceanic SES such as 3KSES dominated
seal technology development in the U.S. Subsequently, the emphasis has changed with the
redirection of the U.S. Navy’s SES technology studies towards the high L/B, slower craft (i.e.
35-55 knots). Currently, both high and low L/B SES are operating with simplified finger seal
systems at the lower speed regimes with satisfactory results. The finger wear experience has
been good, with over 1,000 hours of operation at speeds up to 55 knots and cushion pressures to
100 psf. The finger elements have always been considered frangible (i.e. remove and replace)
items. Replacing the lower portion of the finger or cuff has proven to be an economic way of
extending finger life. Typically, fingers can be removed and replaced without drydocking these
craft.

European activity in the seal development area for both ACVs and SES has focused on
improving the operational life of the bag and finger seals. Bag and finger seals were used
exclusively by the British Hovercraft Corporation (BHC), one of the world’s foremost
manufacturers of ACVs, on their entire range of vehicles. This system has over 300,000
operational hours of experience since the basic version was introduced in the early sixties. The
basic bag and finger design is also employed on the U.S. Navy’s LCAC and the U.S. Army’s
LACV-30 amphibious lighter. Other versions of the design have been successfully employed on
the SES-100B 100-mt high-speed test craft and on the British Vosper/Hovermarine HM-series of

103
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

SES. There were over 100 HM-series craft built and successfully operated over a wide range of
commercial ferry applications worldwide.

In the mid-nineteen seventies the relationship between high over-water speed (60 to 85+ knots)
and the wear rates of elastomer-coated-fabric fingers was not clear. Several component tests and
full-scale environmental test programs were conducted during this period to obtain wear data.
Full-scale environmental testing was conducted on candidate fingers for the 3KSES to determine
wear rates. The dominant effect of over-water speed on elastomer-coated-fabric wear rates was
readily apparent. While the effects of internal (cushion) pressure on finger wear was not fully
characterized in these tests, the data indicated a lower rate of wear increase as a function of
increased internal pressure as compared with speed induced wear. The overall evaluation of the
bag and finger seal for the high-speed 3KSES application was satisfactory with respect to
dynamic stability and performance, but unacceptable due to the high wear rates of the finger
elements. It should be noted, however, that finger life at the lower speed and cushion pressure
regimes, as clearly demonstrated by the heavy-duty commercial operations across the English
Channel, were well within the acceptable range.

The experience of wear on the LCAC and LACV-30 skirt systems is based upon materials
developed over twenty-two years ago. Understandably, finger wear rates on these craft tend to
be high, primarily due to their abrasive, amphibious operations over concrete ramps, rough
terrain, and ship well-deck transitions. It is noteworthy, however, that a relatively simple
geometry change made to the LCAC skirt with the introduction of the LCAC Deep Skirt has
more than doubled the finger life even though there has been no change to the material used to
construct the skirt fingers. Significant advances have also been made over the past twenty years
in the development of elastomer compounds for applications outside the SES and ACV areas.
New, very lightweight material from a U.S. supplier has recently been tested at the labs at GKN
Westland U.K. and underway on LCAC at ACU 5. Results to date are very encouraging.
Further study of these technology improvements and collection of current operational data would
be an important contribution to the seals design database.

Full-depth finger seals (i.e. the finger component minus the air supply bag) have been employed
successfully on the BH110 series and, more recently, on Scandinavian SES, including the
Norwegian MCM and Patrol Craft, the Norwegian Skjold SES patrol craft (which is capable of
speeds in excess of 60 kts), and the Swedish SMYGE Patrol Craft.

Various SES designs have called for bow and/or stern seal retraction as an operational mode.
Seal retraction is desirable for off-cushion, slow-speed operations to minimize overall craft drag
and protect the seal from excessive hydrodynamic loading. The SES-100A in its original
configuration was also designed for partial-cushion operations (i.e. side-hulls partially immersed)
using retraction mechanisms for both bow and stern seals. Operational testing of this system
aboard the SES-100A was not successful and the concept was abandoned.

5.6.2 Technology Goals

Bag and finger seals have evolved as the most reliable system within the context of current SES
and ACV operations. However, it is recognized that operational parameters cannot be directly

104
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

scaled from current experience to HS Naval ship concepts without further development. With
respect to the SES seals requirement, the major question that needs resolution is the ability of the
seal elastomer-coated-fabric in immediate contact with the water surface to provide adequate
operational life. At present, there is no adequate means of extrapolating seal wear (life)
characteristics from existing data. There is clear evidence of elastomer-coated-fabric finger
deterioration with increased over-water speed. In addition to the moderate to high-speed regime,
the HS Naval mission requires operation at significantly higher cushion pressures. A better
understanding of the effect of increased cushion pressure on finger wear rates is needed. An
alternative seal configuration, such as the TMS seal, may reduce seal/surface flagellation and,
hence, improve seal life. However, additional development of this system is required to resolve
structural design issues before it can be seriously considered as a candidate seal system for the
HS ship mission. The major thrust of the HS ship seals development plan must, therefore, be
directed at resolving the finger wear rates and developing structural seal configurations to obtain
acceptable operational life requirements.

The goal of the seal technology development effort is to produce the technology needed to
manufacture bow, stern, and transverse seals to meet HS Naval SES performance objectives and
provide acceptable reliability and maintainability qualities.

5.6.3 Overview of Development Plan

HS ship seal technology will be developed using a combination of analysis and testing. As the
seals are essentially two-dimensional, the basic cross-section can be evaluated using simple force
balance analysis based upon the defined cushion and seal pressures. Mathematical models of
the primary seal components and their respective load paths will be employed to analyze
maximum stress and load concentrations. Resistance of the system to hydrodynamic drag forces
will be investigated by analytically deforming the seal (i.e. immersion) at maximum speed. The
operating envelope will be evaluated for various combinations of seal components (e.g. the
finger height and width, seal pressure). A key design consideration for the stern seal is rapid
response to waves to minimize cushion leakage at the higher speeds. This requires careful
design of the bag air supply and exhaust system to ensure that when the seal is compressed, the
bag pressure is dissipated and then rapidly replenished to restore the seal to the nominal
deployed position. Alternative designs for the stern seal will be examined.

Small-scale, static models of the seals will be used to verify the geometric proportions of the
design and highlight problems. The scale-model test rig will include an air supply that is a
scaled representation of the design bag and cushion pressure (not necessarily the flow rate).

A retraction system is needed for both bow and stern seals to minimize drag and potential
damage to the seal during off-cushion operations. Retraction also allows for the easy replace-
ment of sacrificial cuffs at the lower portions of the seals that see the greatest wear. Typically,
bow seal retraction is more difficult because the seal (e.g. bag and finger type) is not conducive
to full retraction. However, partial retraction of the seal is relatively straightforward as far as the
multi-lobed bag is concerned. The full-finger seal, however, presents obvious problems with
regard to retraction and requires further development. An operational representation of a
retraction system designed for the 3KSES was employed on the modified SES-100A test craft.

105
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

While this planing seal had significant structural problems, the retraction system stood up quite
well to operations.

Stern seal retraction has been successfully accomplished on several SES for both off-cushion
operation and to increase side-hull immersion for ship pitch control and added waterjet inlet
submergence to minimize air ingestion at certain operating conditions. Design consideration to
account for “snatch” loads due to stern seal motions against the retraction straps in rough sea
conditions is essential.

Applicability of a transverse seal will be determined by speed-power and motions requirements.

If a transverse seal is required, the development process and retraction system would be the same
as for the bow seal. The best transverse seal candidate is a bag and cone arrangement. The seal
could be fed via a boost fan to increase the cushion pressure the required amount. An alternative
seal type for the transverse seal is a full-finger seal.

The best candidate for the HS ship bow seal is a full-depth finger design having an upper and
lower segment. The rationale for this design approach is based upon use of simple identical
modular components that are readily maintainable or replaceable to extend operational life.
Furthermore, there is no air supply required for this type of bow seal. An alternate bow seal
design for HS missions that deserves consideration is the TMS type. The TMS seal requires
further development to solve the problems of transverse modularity and lateral wave contouring.
However, the superior performance characteristics predicted for this type of seal are worth
pursuing further.

The best known stern seal candidate is a multi-lobed bag with wear strips at the seal/water
interface. The stern seal is fed via a boost fan that takes cushion air and increases the pressure
approximately 20 percent. The primary function of the stern seal is to minimize the cushion air
leakage under all operating conditions. Consequently, the seal must be responsive to wave-
forms passing through the cushion. These types of stern seals can be prone to flutter, wherein
the velocity of the air passing under the trailing edge can cause an unsteady state at the surface,
causing the seal to oscillate. Typically, this is more of a problem at model-scale and in steady-
state (calm water) conditions. Flutter can be corrected by adding devices to the wear strip to
break-up the air flow patterns. Alternative designs for the stern seal will be examined.

The plan for developing seal technology for the HS ship bow, stern and transverse (if applicable)
seal systems is presented below. The tasks, time to complete each task, and costs associated with
developing the needed seal technology are summarized in Figure 5.6.3-1. Seal technology
development will focus on structural design, material requirements, maintainability, and
producibility.

106
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

Time to complete (years) 1 2 3 4 5 Funding ($K)

Design & Development 500
Performance Verfication 1,100
Structural Design 500
Material Selection 1,100
Reliability & Maintainability 200
Producibility 200
Operational Verfication 3,400
Funding ($K) 1,400 2,700 2,900 7,000

Figure 5.6.3-1: SES Seal Technology Development Plan

The 3KSES database will be utilized as a foundation for the structural design approach. The
structural design approach will consist of:

• a static loads analysis to define major load paths and stress concentrations of candi-
date seal designs subjected to a range of internal (seal/cushion) pressures and external
hydrodynamic loads.
• a dynamic loads analysis using predictive techniques developed and correlated with
test data under previous SES/ACV programs to analyze the effects of rapid seal rede-
ployment (snap loads) and seal/cushion pressure transients for HS ship seals.
• a bow and stern seal structural design using existing 3KSES data as the basis for the
seal structural design for the HS ship with appropriate selection and scaling of
components and attachments to meet the seal system requirements. The structural
design shall include the retraction mechanisms and all attachment fittings and
hardware.

The material requirements analysis for the HS ship seals will include elastomer-coated-fabrics,
attachment fittings and hardware, and retraction mechanism materials.

Analysis of the elastomer-coated-fabric materials is the most important area of study. Elastomer-
coated-fabric materials technology developed under the 3KSES program will be extended to take
advantage of technology developments over the past ten years.

Material requirements for the attachment fittings and retraction mechanisms are basically state-
of-the-art and can be based upon a large database of previous testing and analysis. Slight
extension of 3KSES technology is required to reflect operational experience with seal attachment
methods and hardware developed under the AALC and LCAC programs and retraction
mechanisms developed for the SES-100A and SES-100B to select materials and systems for HS
ship concepts.

Candidate elastomer-coated-fabrics for HS Naval SES applications will be tested to fully

characterize a seal material including:

107
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

• mechanical properties tests utilizing standard testing procedures (Federal Standard

Methods) to verify the mechanical properties of candidate seal materials.
• small-ship environmental tests to test candidate material samples under simulated HS
ship SES environmental conditions. Small-scale environmental tests are primarily
used for comparison testing (i.e. known control seal material vs. candidate) to select
the best candidates for further evaluation.
• large-scale environmental tests to simulate the full-scale operational environment of
the HS ship SES seals, including internal pressure (cushion/seal) and external
hydrodynamic loading.

Seal system structural design test requirements will be based upon a careful review of existing
full-scale component test data and operational experience with both high-speed test craft and
long-term commercial operations. HS bow and stern seal configurations will be tested aboard a
sub-scale vehicle to verify attachment configurations and functional operation of the system.

Maintainability of the HS ship seals is a major design consideration, which will be addressed
from the outset of this plan both in the design configuration and the structural design of the
system. The seal system will be analyzed with respect to installation and removal of major
components and dock-side repair capabilities. It is essential that maintainability be built into the
seals design. The tasks conducted under this area will include studies of maintenance techniques
and repair philosophy, and evaluation of the candidate seal systems. A Mean Time Between
Failure (MTBF) analysis will be conducted for bow, stern and transverse (if applicable) seal
systems. The analysis will be further broken down into the primary components of the seal (e.g.
bag system, finger system, etc.) to determine failure modes and the overall life expectancy of the
system. MTBF data will be developed from both operational experience (test craft, commercial
experience) and environmental test data from the seal material test and evaluation activity. The
maintenance cost of the seal systems will be a specific focus of attention under this plan. The
need to “dry-dock” the ship for seal maintenance will be considered vs. dockside maintenance
and the ability to maintain the seals internally (i.e. access through the wet-deck and plenum
areas) while in the stowed or retracted position. The analysis will include a time, labor and
services study on specific seal maintenance procedures with projected cost profiles.

Seal producibility is also a vital element in development of high speed SES seal technology. The
capability of producing large runs of the selected HS ship seal materials while maintaining high
standards of quality control will be assessed in an elastomer-coated-fabric produceability
analysis. The processes and techniques of seam bonding will be evaluated with respect to
reliability and cost. Seal attachment fittings producibility, centered on the primary attachments
of the seal to the hull structure and the internal seal module-to-module attachments, will be
analyzed. The candidate designs will be reviewed with respect to minimizing dissimilar
components and for simplicity of manufacture. Finally, retraction mechanisms producibility will
be analyzed to address the ease of manufacture and assembly of retraction mechanism designs
and the integration of retraction systems with ship systems (i.e. power supply, mounting, control,
etc.). As part of the producibility studies, the projected manufacturing cost estimates will be
identified for the major seal subsystems with supporting rationale.

108
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Machinery Systems

5.7 Machinery Systems References

Allison, J., “Marine Waterjet Propulsion”, SNAME Transactions, Vol. 101, 1993.

Kruppa, C.F.L., “Aspects of High-Speed Propulsion,” STG International Symposium on

Propulsors and Cavitation, Hamburg, Germany , June 1992.

Bjorklund, J. and Allenstrom, B., “SES Propulsion – A Choice Between Waterjet and Partially
Submerged Propellers,” Proc. RINA Conference on Warship Propulsion, London, 1989.

Rains, D.A., “Semi-Submerged Propellers for Monohull Displacement Ships,” Proc. SNAME
Propellers ’81 Symposium, Virginia Beach, VA, June 1981.

109
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Other Related Technologies

6.0 OTHER RELATED TECHNOLOGIES

6.1 Drag Reduction

Significant hullform technology development for displacement hulls and Surface Effect Ships
(SES) is required to meet HS small Naval ship speed and range objectives. Displacement hull
powering improvements are obtained through use of very slender hulls to significantly reduce
wavemaking resistance. While wavemaking resistance is reduced, slender hulls have increased
wetted area and increased frictional drag. Unlike lower speed ships, frictional drag of these
slender hulls at 40 to 60 knots usually exceeds wavemaking drag by a considerable amount. This
is not the case with SES, which derive their powering advantages through use of an air cushion
to reduce hull wetted area, and hence frictional drag.

Many technologies have been proposed to reduce the frictional resistance due to the flow of
water over a hull’s surface. Investigations of these technologies have been conducted by many
organizations over the past 30-40 years. While the physics of drag reduction have been
demonstrated, none of the approaches have been found to be suitable for marine applications.
Two of these technologies, which involve injection of drag reducing substances or micro air
bubbles in boundary layers, have demonstrated significant frictional drag reducing potential in
idealized laboratory experiments. Analytic models of the phenomena, backed by test data using
laboratory-scale models (~6m in length) of simple shapes (e.g. flat plates), have been developed.
Very significant frictional drag reduction has been demonstrated in these idealized conditions.
Major technical issues remain such as the effectiveness of these technologies on complex ship-
like shapes at ship scales in a marine environment, the amount of substance needed, and design
of reliable, workable injection systems. Further basic research is needed to fully understand
these technologies. Continued investment from outside the HS small Naval vessel arena is
needed to determine their potential and practicality outside the laboratory.

If these technologies are scaleable to ship-like proportions, their potential for high-speed small
Naval displacement ships is substantial, whether in the form of higher burst speed or a smaller,
lighter and less costly propulsion system. The benefit is less for SES, due to the lower wetted
area of these vessels while on cushion. The High Speed Sealift Technology Workshop experts
concluded that development of suitable frictional drag-reducing systems would require more
than ten years to produce viable ship systems. Consequently, these technologies fall well beyond
near-term technology timeframe.

6.2 Composite Shafts

Power transmission shafts for ships are typically manufactured from steel. Steel shafts are heavy
and require thru-life maintenance to counter galvanic and corrosion effects. While lightweight,
non-metallic composite drive shafts are widely used in the aerospace industry, aerospace
power/torque requirements are much lower than in the marine field. However, there is a limited
marine market for composite shafting, particularly for high-speed ferries and fast patrol craft
where weight is important. Composite shafts are in service in over 100 ships and craft at power

110
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Other Related Technologies

levels below 10 MW. Military applications include the Swedish SES test craft SMYGE (2.6
MW), Norwegian OSKOY class MCMVs (1.4 MW), and Norwegian Skjold (6 MW).
Composite shafts for HS ship concepts must be capable of absorbing much higher power and
torque.

The U.S. Navy has developed a mature technology to design and support fabrication of
composite shafts for the range of powers and torques needed for HS small Naval ships.
Technology development includes design, fabrication, and full-scale land-based tests of a 10 m
long 37 MW/2,500 kNm shaft section including related couplings. By comparison, commercial
state-of-the-art composite shafts are capable of absorbing about one-sixteenth the torque of this
37 MW shaft section. While full-scale at-sea demonstration of this shaft on a large Navy
auxiliary (AOE) was planned in the early 1990s, the plan was not implemented. Development of
high-power, high-torque composite shaft technology has continued to address critical issues such
as shaft/coupling/bearing sleeve joints and shaft strength. These advances have included
fabrication and full-scale land-based testing of additional high-torque shaft systems, Figure 6.2-
1, to validate shaft to coupling joint strength, shaft to bearing sleeve joint strength, load sharing
predictions, and predicted failure modes. However, in-service experience with high-power,
high-torque composite shafts is minimal.

Figure 6.2-1: State-of-the-Art High-Power, High-Torque Composite Shaft

111
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Other Related Technologies

In addition to reduced weight, composite shafts offer a number of potential benefits to ships
including reduced corrosion and galvanic effects, reduced magnetic signature, reduced bearing
loads, increased vibration dampening, and lighter weight. While none of these attributes is
critical to development of HS Naval ships, the significant weight reductions possible with
composite shafts make this technology attractive for HS small Naval ship applications.

Shaft weight is a relatively small percentage of total ship weight in waterjet powered ships.
Consequently, composite shaft technology is not considered essential to the viability of weight-
sensitive HS ships. The relatively mature state of composite shaft technology, combined with
the significant weight reduction possible, make composite shaft technology attractive to reduce
empty ship weight of small HS Naval ships and increase payload capability. However,
operational validation of this technology is needed to reduce risk to acceptable levels. Maximum
power transmission requirements for small HS Naval vessels are approximately 43 MW/1,500
kNm per shaft. At-sea validation of a high-power, high-torque composite shaft is recommended
since such a demonstration would be representative of near-term technology.

112
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Summary

7.0 SUMMARY

This report fulfills one objective of the ONR-chartered High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel
Innovation Cell project, which was to define near-term (available within 5 years) technology
development requirements for 500 to 3,000 mt, high-speed Naval ships needed for realistic
mission requirements. The requirements included burst speeds of 40-60 knots, payloads of 50-
600 mt, and ranges of 3,000-4,000 n. miles at 18 to 20 knots. Since detailed design studies were
considered beyond the scope of this project, whole-ship implications of technologies were
investigated generically. A consistent set of standards was applied to all of the displacement
hullforms considered: monohulls, catamaran, and trimarans. Technology projections for high-
speed, small Naval ships were based mainly on near-term projections from the High-Speed
Sealift Technology Workshop held at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division in
October 1997. Projections for surface effect ships, or SES, were included. Where appropriate,
these projections were updated to reflect recent developments. In addition to advanced
hullforms, other technologies essential to these missions include advanced structures and
materials, lightweight fuel-efficient gas turbines, reduction gears, waterjets, SES seals, and SES
lift fans.

The capabilities needed from each of the technologies to produce HS small ships were compared
with the technical state-of-the-art for those technologies to define the necessary near-term
technology enhancements. Estimates of the time to develop and rough order of magnitude
development costs were made for each of the technologies. The goal of this technology
development effort is to bring the individual technologies to a level of maturity sufficient to
lower risk to levels appropriate to ship design and construction. Technology development plans
for each of the technologies were provided in earlier sections of this report. Figure 7-1 is a
summary of those plans.

Year 1 2 3 4 5 Funding ($K)

Hull Form
- Monohull 6,600
- Trimaran 7,900
- Catamaran 4,400
- Surface Effect Ship 6,100
Hull/Propulsor Integration 8,800
Structures & Materials 23,800
Gas Turbines 20,050
Waterjets 14,000
Reduction Gears 7,500
Lift Fans 2,050
Seals 7,000
Funding ($K) 9,200 35,275 42,075 18,750 2,900 108,200

Figure 7-1: Comprehensive Technology Development Plan

These development plans are comprehensive, with no allowance for market-driven technology
development that may occur through commercial initiatives. Some technology development in

- 113 -
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Summary

critical areas is expected to meet anticipated commercial needs. For example, development of
larger gas turbines is highly likely for industrial, and commercial marine projects. While such
commercial technology development efforts will potentially reduce the need for Government
investment, elimination of this investment is not expected since there is some risk that the
commercial efforts will either not come to fruition or the commercially-derived capabilities will
fall short of the capabilities needed to meet the more demanding military requirements (e.g. duty
cycle, sea state operability and structural loads, ambient air and water temperatures, maintenance
philosophy). Consequently, the potential existence of these commercial efforts is identified,
while the cost reductions that might result have not been shown.

The comprehensive plan shown in Figure 7-1 contains some necessary redundancies since the
specific need for some of the technologies depends on other technology choices. The choice of
hullform technology has a particularly large impact on requirements for other technologies. For
example, development of near-term SES hulls requires development of SES-specific lift fan and
seal technologies. Alternately, monohull and trimaran hulls may require development of
different reduction gear technology than SES or catamarans. Hullform choice may be strongly
influenced by mission parameters other than speed, range, and payload. Other characteristics,
such as length, beam, and draft, vary considerably among the four hullforms considered. While
most of the designs produced were within the required limits, significant military advantage may
result from the differences in proportions of the hullforms. For example, the shallow draft
possible with an SES on-cushion may prove compelling to expand port access. Since such
decisions cannot be made with certainty prior to commitment to specific near-term objectives,
the redundancies have been identified and retained at the individual technology level. However,
it is unlikely that the full matrix of technologies will be developed. Choices between alternatives
will likely be made to further focus the technology development effort and reduce cost. A
hullform-specific plan for displacement hulls (monohull, catamaran and trimaran) is shown in
Figure 7-2, while the SES plan is shown in Figure 7-3.

Year 1 2 3 4 5 Funding ($K)

Hull Form (Displacement Hulls) 18,900
Hull/Propulsor Integration 7,550
Structures & Materials 23,800
Gas Turbines 20,050
Waterjets 14,000
Reduction Gears 7,500
Funding ($K) 6,775 30,125 34,475 17,525 2,900 91,800

Figure 7-2: Comprehensive Technology Development Plan for Displacement Hulls

Several of the plans for development of individual technologies involve significant increases in
scale from current technology levels. For example, near-term waterjets will require absorption
of almost twice the power of today’s largest waterjets. Similarly, near-term trimaran hulls would
displace more than twice as much as the largest existing trimaran ship. Comparable increases in
scale exist for advanced structures, gas turbines, reduction gears, and SES seals. Validation
testing of large-scale specimens of these advanced technologies is included in the individual
plans to validate the technologies, enhance technical credibility, and reduce technical risk to

- 114 -
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Summary

levels suitable for ship construction. This validation testing can be accomplished for most of the
technologies through land-based testing or at-sea testing in suitable existing or specially-

Year 1 2 3 4 5 Funding ($K)

Hull Form (Surface Effect Ship) 6,100
Hull/Propulsor Integration 5,050
Structures & Materials 23,800
Gas Turbines 20,050
Waterjets 14,000
Reduction Gears 7,500
Lift Fans 2,050
Seals 7,000
Funding ($K) 6,550 27,625 35,900 13,475 2,000 85,550

Figure 7-3: Comprehensive Technology Development Plan for SES Hulls

constructed ships. The costs associated with these large-scale tests are high. Costs associated
with fabrication and testing of large-scale test articles accounts for all of the gas turbine costs,
and 73 percent of the gear cost. Insertion of selected technologies such as lightweight structural
components (interior decks, ramps, composite deckhouses), composite shafts, or reduction gears
into design and build projects may reduce the R&D costs of these technologies, albeit at some
increase in acquisition cost and programmatic risk.

The advanced hullform technologies needed to achieve perceived mission requirements can only
be validated through construction and operation of large prototypes of the advanced hulls. Costs
for building and testing advanced hullform demonstrators such as the RV Triton trimaran
demonstrator, Figure 7-4, have not been included in this plan. The Triton project was focused on
de-risking an advanced hullform for a 30-knot, 4,000-mt combatant mission. Validation of the
hullform and structural technology was judged to be required at not less than 0.60 linear scale
ratio and at speeds over 20 knots to reduce risk to acceptable levels. Construction cost of the
1,300-mt RV Triton was about $20,000,000 in 1998, while the two-year trials effort cost an
additional $10,000,000. While not strictly applicable to HS ship technology development
requirements, the Triton example is indicative of the level of effort required to validate hullform
technologies for advanced concepts such as the slender HS displacement hulls or high L/B ratio
SES.

This Technology Development Plan fulfills the goal of the 2002 High-Speed, Small Naval
Vessel Innovation Cell project to define technology investments required to enable near-term
development of 500 to 3,000 mt, high-speed Naval ships. For this project, high speed was
defined as 40 to 60 knots. This Technology Development Plan defines the level of technology
required, as well as the cost and time to develop, for the technologies essential to realization of
high-speed, small Naval ships.

- 115 -
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan
Summary

Figure 7-4: RV Triton, Trimaran Hull Technology Demonstrator

- 116 -
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan

8.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In producing this technology development plan for high-speed, small Naval ships we relied
heavily on the technology projections incorporated into the High Speed Sealift Plan that was
published by NSWCCD last year.

In addition, the NSWCCD engineers listed below made significant contributions to the
descriptions of the current state of the art, and identification of technology shortfalls, in their
particular technical areas:

Dr. Colen Kennell Code 2420

Dave Walden Code 5060
Dr. Michael Wilson Code 5400
Terry Applebee Code 5500
Allen Engle Code 6501
Daniel Bruchman Code 6510
Matthew Stauffer Code 9112
Michael Zekas Code 9322
Thomas Roche Code 9330

- 117 -
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan

INITIAL DISTRIBUTION

ONR, Code 334 (5)

OUSD (AT & L)
Dr. Paris Genalis
John Christian
DTIC (1)
NAVSEA
05D
Howard Fireman
05D1
Jeff Hough
Jeff Kolesser
Susan Rodin
05H
Robin Wright
05P1
Tom Packard
05U
John Leadman
PEO SHIPS
PMS 501 LCS (5)
NSWCCD
Code 20
Seymour Goldstein
Code 23 (5)
Code 24
Jack Templeton
Code 242
Geoff Peters
Dr. Colen Kennell
Robert Lamb
Code 282
Kelly Cooper
Code 5060
Dave Walden
Code 5200
Gabor Karafiath
Code 5400
Dr. Michael Wilson
Code 5500
Terry Applebee
Code 6501
Allen Engle
Code 6510
Jerry Sikora

- 118 -
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan

Dan Bruchman

Code 9110
Glenn Ward
Code 9112
Matthew Stauffer
Code 9322
Mike Zekas
Code 9330
Thomas Roche

Alfred University

California Institute of Technology

California Maritime Academy

California State University at Long Beach

Florida Atlantic University

Florida Institute of Technology

Georgia Institute of Technology

Great Lakes Maritime Academy

Iowa State University

Johns Hopkins University/Applied Physics Laboratory

Lehigh University

Maine Maritime Academy

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Massachusetts Maritime Academy

Mississippi State University

Naval Postgraduate School

Pennsylvania State University/Applied Research Lab

Purdue University

- 119 -
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan

Rensselaer Polytechnic University

Stevens Institute of Technology

SUNY Maritime College

Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University at Galveston

Texas A&M University at Kingsville

University of California at Berkeley

University of California at San Diego

University of California at Santa Barbara

University of Delaware

University of Hawaii

University of Iowa

University of Maine

University of Maryland

University of Michigan

University of Missouri-Rolla

University of New Orleans

University of Rhode Island

University of Tennessee

University of Washington

US Coast Guard Academy

US Merchant Marine Academy

US Naval Academy

- 120 -
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan

Villanova University

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Webb Institute

American Shipbuilding Association

American Society of Naval Engineers

AMSEC LCC, M. Rosenblatt Group

Ansoft Corporation

ARTEC Machine Systems

ATI

Atlantic Marine Holding Co.

Band, Lavis & Assoc.

BMT Designers and Planners

Center for Maritime Leadership, Inc.

Colton Co.

CSC Advanced Marine

Delmia

Elmer-Roland Maritime Consultants

General Dynamics-BIW

General Dynamics-EB

Gibbs & Cox

Glosten Associates

Herbert Engineering Corp.

KNAC

- 121 -
 High-Speed, Small Naval Vessel Technology Development Plan

Kvaerna Masa Marine

John J. McMullen Associates, Inc.

Marinex International, Inc.

Maritime Administration, US Dept. of Transportation

Mooney Co.

MSCL, LLC

NASSCO

Northrup Grumman Litton Ingalls Shipbuilding

Northrup Grumman Newport News

Northrup Grumman Ship Systems

Society of Naval Architects & Marine Engineers

SYNTEK

Textron Marine & Land Systems

York Marine Systems

- 122 -