Seakeeping Assessment of Large Trimaran For Naval Aircraft Operations

Seakeeping Assessment of Large
Seakeeping Assessment of Large Trimaran

Trimaran
for
Naval
Aircraft
Operations
for Naval Aircraft Operations
Presented by Mr. Boyden Williams, Mr. Lars Henriksen (Viking Systems),

Dr. Igor Mizine (CSC/Advanced Marine Center), and Dr. Nils Salvesen (Viking Systems)
1
ASNE High Speed Craft Conference, Annapolis, Jan 24, 2007
Trimaran Assessment Presentation Topics:

1.
Development of Tool for Motions and Structural Loading Assessment
2.
Design of Hulls by Advanced Fully 3D Hydrodynamic Assessment
3.
Application to HALSS Trimaran Concept for Sealift Missions
4.
Evaluation to NATO Seakeeping Criteria for Naval Aircraft Operations
5.
Evaluation to NATO Seakeeping Criteria for Sealift Transit Operations
6.
Presentation of Trimaran Systematic Series Seakeeping Results
7.
Interesting Findings, Conclusions, and Future Studies
Sponsored by CCDOTT 1999-2006 High Speed

Trimaran Technology Development Program
Background of Selected Vessel - HALSS

HALSS helps Early Insertion & Logistic Support:
Deploys at High Speed (35 Knots)
Operate fixed wing aircraft between advanced base and sea base
HALSS helps Force Deployment:
Operate fixed wing aircraft for theater operations
Arrange and Configure military loads in preparation for early entry
to the Theater operations
Heavy Air Lift Sea Basing Ship (HALSS)
3
HALSS Principal Characteristics

Flight Deck Length
Flight Deck Width / Docking Hull Beam
Draft
Depth
Payload:
Combat forces sustainment
Aircraft Fuel Supply
Fixed Wing Aircraft
Stowage Factor
Main (Flight) Deck
II Cargo Deck
III (Crossover) & IV Decks
HALSS Stowage Factor
1,100 FT
274 FT / 180 FT
37.9 FT
100 FT
8,900 ST
2,650 ST
Six C-130J
185,900 SQFT
141,000 SQFT
51,100 SQFT
46.7 SQFT/MT
Unrefueled Range of Sea Voyage - CONUS to Advanced Base or to JOA

10,000 NM at 35 knots
>15,000 NM at 25 knots
Followed by 10 days endurance in JOA
4
High Speed Trimaran Seakeeping Study - Objectives
Establish Reliable Trimaran Analysis Procedure:
Displacement, Velocities, Accelerations;
Relative Motions for Slamming and Emergence;
Hull Girder Loads and Local Pressures;
Interaction between Main and Side Hulls.
Determine Criteria for Assessment:
Naval Air Operations (NATO STANAG 4154, 1997)
Transit (NATO Generic Frigate)
Assess Motion, Slamming, Emergence & Hull Girder Loads:
Sea States 4 through 7;
Vessel Speeds of 15, 25, 35 knots;
Vessel Headings of 0, 45, 90, 135, 180 degrees;
Multiple Hull Configurations

5
Design Variables - Trimaran Synthesis Model

LOASH
MS SH
Stagger =
(LOAMH LOASH )
L*sidehull
X* (sidehull)
MSSH - Distance from AP to Midship of Side Hull

LOASH Overall Length of the Side Hull
LOAMH Overall Length of the Main Hull
Y (centerhull) Y* (sidehull)
X (Centerhull)
Separation =
b
Clearance
Beam MH
Clearance - Distance between the Outside of

the Main Hull and the Inside of the Outer Hull
at the waterline
BeamMH - Maximum Beam of the Main Hull
Lcenterhull
Stagger of side hulls 0.00, 0.24, 0.40 & 0.80
Separation of side hulls 0.36, 0.75, 1.25

Overall vessel size 150m, 200m, 250m & 300m
6
Method and Software - Selection Criteria :
Ability to Handle Trimaran Type Hull
Time-Domain Hydrodynamic Analysis
Transformation to Frequency Domain for RAOs / Scaling
Non-Linear Capability for Detailed Investigation
Ability to Assess NATO Criteria
Extendable to FEA Structural Analysis
Ability to Rapidly Model Geometric Variations
Ability to Work with Existing Software
7
Selection of Hydrodynamic Software

Codes Considered
LAMP (SAIC)
SWAN (MIT)
WASIM (DNV implementation of SWAN)
WASIM is Chosen as Project Software

WASIM is advanced fully 3-D ship motion assessment tool
Assessment in Time Domain
Capable of Non-Linear Hydrostatics
WASIM previously used for trimaran type hull (M/V Triton)
Viking Systems has extensive experience with DNV Software
WASIM is integrated with SAGA Software
8
Seakeeping Criteria Naval Air Operations

NATO STANAG 4154 (Edition 3, 1997)
Single Amplitude RMS Values:
Governing Factors
Aircraft Handling
Sink off bow and OLS
limits
Ramp Clearance
Landing Line-up
Performance Limitations
Motion
Limit
Location
Period > 20s, 1 Deg.;
Roll
Period > 20s, 1.5 Deg
Period > 10s, 0.5 Deg.;
Pitch
Period > 15s, 1 Deg
Vertical
Stern Ramp at
0.8 m
Displacement
Flight Deck
Stern Ramp at
Lateral
2.3 m
Flight Deck
Displacement
Landing Gear
Vertical Velocity
Crosswinds and Landing

loads
Relative Wind
0.7 m/sec
Touchdown Point
35 to 40 knots envelope,
+/- 15 degrees from the bow
9
Wind Speed Over Deck for Flight Operations

60
50
Wind Speed (Kno
Naval Air
Operations
Environment
Conditions
Wind Speed
Minimum Required Speed Over Deck
Maximum Required Speed Over Deck
40
30
Wind - Vessel
20
Wind - Sea State
10
0
0
Sea State
Sea State
0
1
2
3
4
5
5.5
6
7
Wind Speed
(Knots)
0.0
3.0
8.5
13.5
19.0
24.5
30.0
37.5
51.5
Minimum Vessel Maximum Vessel

Speed
Speed
(Knots)
(Knots)
35.0
40.0
32.0
37.0
26.5
31.5
21.5
26.5
16.0
21.0
10.5
15.5
5.0
10.0
-2.5
2.5
-16.5
-11.5
Using Wind Speed Criteria:

The wind associated with a
Sea State defines the required
vessel speed to maintain 35 40 knot apparent wind speed
over flight deck
Head Sea Cases used for Analysis

Insufficient Forward Speed to Maintain Maneuverability
10
Seakeeping Criteria - Transit

NATO Generic Frigate Criteria (Pattison & Sheridan, 2004)
Single Amplitude RMS Values:
Parameter
Roll Angle
Pitch Angle
Vertical Acceleration
Lateral Acceleration
Bottom Slamming Index
Propeller Emergence Index
Limit Value
4.0 deg
1.5 deg
0.2 g
0.1 g
20 per hour
90 per hour
Comparison to Rule Hull Girder Loads

11
Hydrodynamic Analysis
Define Vessel and Incoming Waves
Panel and Mass Models defined to Represent Vessel
Wave Elevation for Time Domain Analysis as Fourier Series
of Cosine Waves with Amplitude According to PM Spectrum
Recording Output & Results

Time Series Recorded for 6 DOF Motions, Velocities & Accelerations
Relative Wave Elevations Recorded for Series of 30 Locations Along
the Length of Main and Side Hulls
Hull Girder Shear Force & Bending Moments Recorded at Stations
12
Result Processing - Time vs. Frequency

Hydrodynamic Analysis is Performed in the Time Domain,
Results can be Transformed into Frequency Domain.
Result Processing in the Time Domain - Benefits
Statistical Analysis of Time Series for Result Variables
Ability to Track Occurrence of Individual Phenomenon
Unique Analysis Run for Each Sea State, Heading & Speed
Result Processing in the Frequency Domain - Benefits

Results Transformed into Response Amplitude Operators (RAO)
Response to Unit Wave (RAO) Combined with Sea Spectrum
Requires Fewer Analysis Runs Saves Computational Time
Results can be Scaled for Vessels of Varying Length
Reliable and Repeatable Post-Processing of Data is Essential

13
Result Processing Method Validation

HALSS is evaluated in both Time and Frequency Domains
Roll Motion Results Compared for Sea State 5, 6 & 7
Pitch Motion Results Compared for Sea State 5, 6 & 7
15 Knot Roll Angle
15 Knot Pitch Angle

Head Sea
H ead Sea
12
2.5
10
315
315
45
1.5
0.5
270
225
45
2
90
135
270
225
90
135
Following Sea
Following Sea
Time & Frequency Domain Calculations Provide Nearly Identical Results

14
Result Processing - Time vs. Frequency

Frequency Domain Analysis using RAOs possible for Motion,
Velocity, Acceleration, Shear and Bending Loads saves
calculation time
Time Domain Analysis needed for Slamming and Emergence
Assessment Head Sea Governs saves calculation time
3
5
Wave Spectrum - SS6
4.5
4
2.5
Amplitud
Frequency Domain:
3.5
Pitch RAO - L = 300m
1.5
1
3
2.5
1.5
Time Domain:
1
0.5
0.5
Pitch & Roll Motion

Heave & Sway Acceleration
Vertical Bending Moment
Vertical Shear Force
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Frequency (Rad/s)
0
1.2
1.4
Slamming Occurrence Center Hull

Slamming Occurrence Side Hull
Bridge Deck Slamming Occurrence
Propeller Emergence Occurrence
15
Results Summary for HALSS

HALSS Trimaran Hull Configuration 35 knots in SS7 Head Seas
16

Comparison of Hydrodynamic Results to NATO Criteria for
Naval Air Operations
Pitch Motion
Vertical Displacement at Stern
1.2
1.4
RMS Response
10.0
Displacement Limit
Pitch Angle (Degree
Vert. Displacement (
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
RMS Response
0.8
Pitch Limit
0.6
10.0
0.4
15.5
15.5
0.2
31.5
26.5
0.2
31.5
21.0
21.0
4
5
Sea State
(Vessel Speed Shown in Labels)
3
4
5
Sea State
Vertical Acceleration at Bridge
Vertical Velocity at Touchdown Point

0.8
2.5
10.0
0.7
0.6
Vert. Acceleration (m/s^
RMS Response
Vert. Velocity (m/
26.5
Velocity Limit
0.5
0.4
0.3
15.5
0.2
RMS Response
Acceleration Limit
1.5
0.5
0.1
31.5
26.5
21.0
10.0
15.5
31.5
26.5
21.0
0
0
Sea State
3
4
5
Sea State
17

Comparison of Results to NATO Criteria for Transit
Polar Plots to Facilitate Comparisons, 150 m vs. 300 m:
RMS Roll Angle
150 m Trimaran
Separation = 0.36
Stagger = 0.24
Speed = 10.6 Kts
RMS Pitch Angle

300 m Trimaran
Separation = 0.36
Stagger = 0.24
Speed = 15.0 Kts
Head Sea
24
19
315
150 m Trimaran
Separation = 0.36
Stagger = 0.24
Speed = 10.6 Kts
45
315
Head Sea
4
3.5
300 m Trimaran
Separation = 0.36
Stagger = 0.24
Speed = 15.0 Kts
45
2.5
14
Roll Criteria
1.5
1
SS 5
270
SS 6
-1
SS 7
SS 5
SS 6
SS 7
SS 5
90
270
SS 6
SS 5
0.5
0
SS 7
90
SS 6
SS 7
Pitch Criteria
225
135
225
135
Follow ing Sea
Following Sea
Results for 150 m Vessel Created by Length Scaling RAOs

18

Center Hull Propellers
Side Hull Propellers
Center Hull Propeller Emergence - 25 Knot Vessel Speed

400
Side Hull Propeller Emergence - 25 Knot Vessel Speed

700
SS4 - 25Knots
SS5 - 25Knots
350
SS4 - 25Knots
SS5 - 25Knots
600
SS6 - 25Knots
300
SS7 - 25Knots
250
Criteria
Emergences Per Hour
Emergences Per Hour
SS6 - 25Knots
200
150
100
SS7 - 25Knots
500
Criteria
400
300
200
100
50
0
45
90
135
180
45
Wave Heading
Center Hull Propeller Emergence - 35 Knot Vessel Speed

400
SS5 - 35Knots
350
SS6 - 35Knots
180
Side Hull Propeller Emergence - 35 Knot Vessel Speed

SS4 - 35Knots
SS5 - 35Knots
350
SS6 - 35Knots
300
SS7 - 35Knots
300
135
400
SS4 - 35Knots
Emergences Per Hour
Emergences Per Hour
450
90
Wave Heading
Criteria
250
200
150
Criteria
200
150
100
100
50
50
SS7 - 35Knots
250
45
90
Wave Heading
135
180
45
90
135
180
Wave Heading
19
HALSS Transit Slamming and Hull Girder Loads

Comparison of Results to NATO Transit Criteria and ABS Rule Loads
Vertical Shear Force Envelope - All Directions - 35 Knots
Center Hull Bottom Slamming
300
4.50E+07
SS7 - 15Knots
4.00E+07
SS7 - 25Knots
3.50E+07
SS7 - 35Knots
200
Shear Force (N)
Emergences Per Hour
250
Criteria
150
100
3.00E+07
2.50E+07
2.00E+07
1.50E+07
1.00E+07
5.00E+06
50
0.00E+00
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Longitudinal Location (m)
0
0
45
90
135
180
SeaState4
SeaState5
SeaState6
SeaState7
ABS Rule Shear
Wave Heading
No Slamming below Sea State 7
ABS Rule Shear for equivalent

monohull = 4.18 x 107 N
4.50E+09
4.00E+09
Bending Moment (N-m)
Head Sea is the worst wave heading

for slamming
Vertical Bending Moment Envelope - All Directions - 35 Knots

5.00E+09
3.50E+09
3.00E+09
2.50E+09
2.00E+09
1.50E+09
1.00E+09
5.00E+08
ABS Rule Bending Moment for

equivalent monohull = 4.60 x 109 N-m
0.00E+00
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Longitudinal Location (m )
SeaState4
SeaState5
SeaState6
SeaState7
ABS Rule Bending
20
HALSS Transit Acceleration Results

35 Knot Vertical Acceleration
Acceleration at
Max Beam
Head Sea
6
35 Knot Horizontal Acceleration
Acceleration
at CL
SS7 - Bow
Acceleration at
Max Beam
Acceleration
at CL
Head Sea
1
SS7 - Bow
SS6 - Bow
SS6 - Bow
SS5 - Bow
315
45
315
0.8
SS5 - Bow
45
SS4 - Bow
Criteria
SS4 - Bow
Criteria
0.6
SS7 - MidShips
SS7 - MidShips
SS7 - Stern
SS7 - Stern
0.4
SS6 - MidShips
SS6 - MidShips
SS6 - Stern
SS6 - Stern
SS5 - MidShips
SS5 - MidShips
0.2
SS5 - Stern
SS4 - MidShips
270
0
90
Vertical
Acceleration
Criteria
SS5 - Stern
SS4 - MidShips
270
0
SS4 - Stern
SS7 - Bow
SS7 - MidShips
SS7 - MidShips
SS7 - Stern
SS7 - Stern
SS6 - Bow
SS6 - Bow
SS6 - MidShips
SS6 - MidShips
SS6 - Stern
SS6 - Stern
SS5 - Bow
SS5 - Stern
135
SS5 - Bow
Horizontal
Acceleration
225
SS5 - MidShips
135
SS4 - Bow
SS5 - Stern
SS4 - Bow
SS4 - MidShips
SS4 - MidShips
SS4 - Stern
Following Sea
SS4 - Stern
SS7 - Bow
SS5 - MidShips
225
90
SS4 - Stern
Following Sea
Trimaran meets vertical acceleration criteria up to sea state 6

Trimaran meets horizontal acceleration criteria up to sea state 7
21
Result Highlights for Other Hull Configurations

Result Data Sheet for Each Stagger, Separation, Length, Speed & Sea State
22
Stagger Influence
15 knots Maximum Response from All Headings
Roll Angle
Pitch Angle
10
2.5
Stagger = 0.00
Stagger = 0.24
Stagger = 0.40
Stagger = 0.80
1.5
Stagger = 0.00
Stagger = 0.24
Stagger = 0.40
Stagger = 0.80
6
5
4
3
2
0.5
SS4
SS5
SS6
SS4
SS7
1.4
SS7
3
Stagger = 0.00
Stagger = 0.00
Stagger = 0.24
1.6
SS6
Vertical Acceleration at Bow - Centerline
Vertical Acceleration at Stern - Centerline

2
1.8
SS5
2.5
Stagger = 0.40
Stagger = 0.24
Stagger = 0.40
Stagger = 0.80
Stagger = 0.80
1.2
1
1.5
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.2
0
SS4
SS5
SS6
SS7
SS4
SS5
SS6
SS7
23
Separation Influence
15 knots Maximum Response from All Headings
Roll Angle
Pitch Angle
9
2.5
Separation = 0.36
Separation = 0.75
Separation = 0.36
Separation = 0.75
Separation = 1.25
Separation = 1.25
6
1.5
5
4
1
3
2
0.5
1
0
0
SS4
SS5
SS6
SS4
SS7
SS6
SS7
Vertical Acceleration at Bow - Centerline
Vertical Acceleration at Stern - Centerline

2
1.8
Separation = 0.36
1.6
Separation = 0.75
1.4
SS5
Separation = 0.36
2.5
Separation = 0.75
Separation = 1.25
Separation = 1.25
1.2
1.5
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.2
0
SS4
SS5
SS6
SS7
SS4
SS5
SS6
SS7
24
Wave Train Interaction vs. Trimaran Configuration

Effect of Stagger along the Center Hull
The wave train interaction between the hulls

increases the amplitude of the standing wave
along the length of the center hull for certain
hull configurations. This amplification of center
hull waves leads to additional bending moment
in the hull girder loads and a wave trough in
way of the props, which can induce excessive
amounts of propeller emergences.
Effect of Separation along the Center Hull
Wave Train Interaction can have

large impact on trimarans performance
Phenomenon can guide the choice
of trimaran hull configuration
More studies are needed to fully
comprehend the impact on design
25
Wave Train Interaction Phenomenon

Vessel Configuration with 0.8 Stagger Ratio / 0.75 Separation Ratio
35 knots in Sea State 5
26
Structural Design as a Criteria for

Seakeeping Assessment
The impact of the vessel configurations and hydrodynamic loads
on the structural requirements of the vessel are considered in the
selection of the optimal design
27
Structural Optimization Ongoing Work

The design pressures and accelerations developed with the
hydrodynamic analysis can be translated directly to Finite
Element Analysis (FEA) models.
FEA provides a direct assessment of the variations in
motions and loads on the structural requirements of the vessel.
Based on present results, a structural optimization routine is

being developed
28
Conclusions
Systematic Seakeeping Database Established for Trimarans
Valuable for synthesis level of design
Useful as concept evaluation tools
Will be expanded with future work to include structural optimization
WASIM / SAGA is a reliable and expandable design tool
Strong Wave Train Interaction Phenomenon Identified

Early detection allows problem to be addressed at the hull form
development stage
HALSS Provides Favorable Seakeeping Performance

Side hull propeller emergence limiting factor
29

Seakeeping Assessment of Large Trimaran For Naval Aircraft Operations

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Seakeeping Assessment of Large Trimaran For Naval Aircraft Operations

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Seakeeping Assessment of Large

Seakeeping Assessment of Large Trimaran

Presented by Mr. Boyden Williams, Mr. Lars Henriksen (Viking Systems),

Trimaran Assessment Presentation Topics:

Development of Tool for Motions and Structural Loading Assessment

Design of Hulls by Advanced Fully 3D Hydrodynamic Assessment

Application to HALSS Trimaran Concept for Sealift Missions

Evaluation to NATO Seakeeping Criteria for Naval Aircraft Operations

Evaluation to NATO Seakeeping Criteria for Sealift Transit Operations

Presentation of Trimaran Systematic Series Seakeeping Results

Interesting Findings, Conclusions, and Future Studies

Sponsored by CCDOTT 1999-2006 High Speed

Background of Selected Vessel - HALSS

Heavy Air Lift Sea Basing Ship (HALSS)

HALSS Principal Characteristics

Unrefueled Range of Sea Voyage - CONUS to Advanced Base or to JOA

High Speed Trimaran Seakeeping Study - Objectives

Establish Reliable Trimaran Analysis Procedure:

Displacement, Velocities, Accelerations;

Relative Motions for Slamming and Emergence;

Hull Girder Loads and Local Pressures;

Interaction between Main and Side Hulls.

Determine Criteria for Assessment:

Naval Air Operations (NATO STANAG 4154, 1997)

Transit (NATO Generic Frigate)

Assess Motion, Slamming, Emergence & Hull Girder Loads:

Sea States 4 through 7;

Vessel Speeds of 15, 25, 35 knots;

Vessel Headings of 0, 45, 90, 135, 180 degrees;

Multiple Hull Configurations

Design Variables - Trimaran Synthesis Model

MSSH - Distance from AP to Midship of Side Hull

Clearance - Distance between the Outside of

Stagger of side hulls 0.00, 0.24, 0.40 & 0.80

Separation of side hulls 0.36, 0.75, 1.25

Method and Software - Selection Criteria :

Ability to Handle Trimaran Type Hull

Time-Domain Hydrodynamic Analysis

Transformation to Frequency Domain for RAOs / Scaling

Non-Linear Capability for Detailed Investigation

Ability to Assess NATO Criteria

Extendable to FEA Structural Analysis

Ability to Rapidly Model Geometric Variations

Ability to Work with Existing Software

Selection of Hydrodynamic Software

WASIM is Chosen as Project Software

Seakeeping Criteria Naval Air Operations

Crosswinds and Landing

ASNE High Speed Craft Conference, Annapolis, Jan 24, 2007

Wind Speed Over Deck for Flight Operations

Wind - Sea State

Minimum Vessel Maximum Vessel

Using Wind Speed Criteria:

Head Sea Cases used for Analysis

Seakeeping Criteria - Transit

Comparison to Rule Hull Girder Loads

Recording Output & Results

Result Processing - Time vs. Frequency

Result Processing in the Frequency Domain - Benefits

Reliable and Repeatable Post-Processing of Data is Essential

Result Processing Method Validation

15 Knot Pitch Angle

Time & Frequency Domain Calculations Provide Nearly Identical Results