Concept Report

ALASKA REGION RESEARCH VESSEL
CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION
This concept design was completed under the auspices of a joint University of Alaska
and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Oversight Committee. This committee
consists of the following individuals:
The University of Alaska Fairbanks

Vera Alexander, Chair
Robert Elsner
Thomas Smith
Terry Whitledge
Thomas Weingartner
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Richard Pittenger
Robertson Dinsmore
Joe Coburn
An Advisory Committee consisting of the following individuals undertook a wider

project review function:
Mike Reeve, National Science Foundation

E.R. Dolly Dieter, National Science Foundation
Knut Aagaard, Polar Science Center, University of Washington
Larry Atkinson, Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography,
Old Dominion University
John Christensen, Bigelow Laboratory
George Hunt, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,
University of California Irvine
Suzanne Strom, Western Washington University
James Meehan, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA
Mike Prince, UNOLS
The vessel described herein is a replacement vessel for the R/V Alpha Helix which was
built in 1965 and is approaching the end of its useful life. This vessel was originally
designed as a biological research vessel for Scripps Institution of Oceanography and was
not intended for the rugged service demanded by year-round operations in the Bering
Sea. It is a tribute to the vessel operators that they have been able to extend the useful
life of this vessel well beyond a normal life expectancy.
The replacement vessel is larger and more capable than the Alpha Helix as it must be
for extended year-round operations in high latitudes. In addition to meeting the
Scientific Mission Requirements (SMR) first developed in January 1999 by the
interested science community, safety and operational considerations have been prime
drivers of the design.
Alaska Region Research Vessel The Glosten Associates, Inc.

Concept Design Report 1 File No. 00100, 8 August 2001
The design process that is being followed for this vessel seeks to optimize the interaction
between the design team and the Design Oversight Committee. Concept design is the
first step in a design cycle that will consist of:
• Concept Design
• Preliminary Design
• Contract Design
One of the primary goals of concept design is to ascertain whether all the desirable
features and requirements, as outlined in the scientific mission requirements (SMR),
can be attained within the anticipated principal dimensions. It is not the intent at the
concept level to show every detail of arrangement.
Overall considerations of weight and displacement, basic hull form concepts, speed and
endurance, and, in the case of this vessel, limited ice operating capabilities are explored
in the concept design cycle. The arrangement of blocks of spaces and their relationships
with each other are also considered at this stage of design; e.g., is the block of labs
conveniently arranged with regard to exterior and interior access, are the science
storage spaces convenient to the labs and working deck, are the crew and scientist
accommodation areas in generally convenient locations, etc.
Details of specific space arrangements, fine-tuning of deck arrangements, and the like
are normally considered in the next cycle: preliminary design.
2. SUMMARY SPECIFICATIONS
In accordance with discussions at the 12 March 2001 review meeting and as a result of
the seakeeping analysis (see Appendix F) we have arrived at the following principal
dimensions for the concept design:
Length, overall 226'-0"

Length, design waterline 200'-0"
Beam, maximum w/o reamer 48'-0"
Beam, maximum w/ reamer 52'-0"
Draft, at design waterline 18'-0"
Depth, at amidships to main deck 29'-0"
Displacement, at design waterline 2,800 LTSW
Note that length has increased to 226 feet versus the maximum 220 feet discussed at
the design review meeting. It became necessary to lengthen the vessel in order to
accommodate the estimated fuel load needed for the 45-day endurance requirement.
The main capacities and capabilities of the vessel follow:
Fuel capacity 148,000 gallons

Ballast capacity 200,000 gallons
Fresh water capacity 4,300 gallons
Range 18,000 n.m. @ 12 knots
Endurance – overall 45 days
Provisions and human support consumable endurance 60 days

Level ice performance 2.17 feet @ 2 knots
Variable scientific equipment capacity 100 LT
Trial speed 14 knots
Cruising speed 12 knots
Installed power 5000 HP
The principal machinery for the current design concept consists of a raft-mounted
diesel-electric power plant with twin azipod main propulsion thrusters and a bow
thruster. The installed power is determined by the minimum American Bureau of
Shipping (ABS) requirements for A1 Ice Class and will be refined during model tests.
Science outfit is described in the Arrangements section below.
3. SCIENTIFIC MISSION REQUIREMENTS
The concept design process has allowed considerable interaction with the Design
Oversight Committee, which has resulted in continuous consideration of the
consequences of complying with the SMR. As with any design cycle, some requirements
have needed to be reconsidered in light of information gained during the design
processes.
Key modifications of the SMR requirements have come about primarily due to a
realization of the size of vessel required to meet the combined requirements of ABS Ice
Class, Endurance, and Canadian Arctic Pollution Prevention Regulations (CASPPR)
requirement for double hull construction. As a consequence of these conflicting
requirements, the Design Oversight Committee, after considerable discussion over the
course of several review meetings, agreed to the following changes (see Appendix H for
meeting minutes and project memorandums):
• Relaxing the dimensional constraints on draft (15 ft) and length (210 ft) (12 March
review meeting)
Given the desire to maintain the 45-day endurance requirement it was soon realized
that the vessel principal dimensions anticipated by the original SMR were
inconsistent with the desired mission profile.
Additionally, the Committee decided after discussion with potential vessel users
that the original constraint on draft was not critical and that a relaxation to 18 feet
would not impair the ability to perform science operations. Also considered was the
ability of the workboat carried on board to perform science operations in very
shallow conditions.
One positive aspect of the increase in draft is an increase in ice operability that
results from deeper submergence of the propellers.
• Elimination of the requirement to meet the International Council for the

Exploration of the Sea (ICES) noise criterion (27 July review meeting)
It became apparent early in the design cycle that meeting the ICES criterion with a
twin screw, azimuthing propeller and an ice capable hull form would be very

difficult. After consultation with our acoustic engineering subconsultants, Noise
Control Engineering, and our propeller design consultant, Terry Brockett, it was
determined that the criterion could not be met, even at a reduced speed. To meet
the criterion the hull form and propulsion system must be optimized around the
acoustic radiation limits. There are only a few research vessels in the world that
meet this criterion and they are characterized by radically cut-away stern volume
and single, large diameter, slow turning propellers driven by DC electric propulsion.
• Increasing the freeboard to 10 feet (12 March review meeting)

The originally required freeboard of 4 to 6 feet was determined to be inappropriate
given the relatively high sea states of the proposed operating area.
• Setting the required variable science deadweight to 100 long tons (12 March review
meeting)
No requirement was given in the original SMR. The 100 LT was seen as an
appropriate requirement given the possibility of expeditionary type science missions.
“Fixed” science outfit such as: deck cranes: CTD and hydro winches; trawl winch,
etc. are considered as part as of the vessel’s lightship weight.
• Setting the trial speed at 14 knots and cruising speed of 12 knots (12 March review
meeting)
Considerable debate has been centered on the required maximum and cruising
speeds. Operations in the Eastern Arctic have potentially long transit runs that
make a high transit speed desirable.
• Revising the speed requirement in level ice to 2 knots (12 March review meeting)
Section 16 of this report contains the full text of the scientific mission requirements as
of 28 March 2001. Note that this revision to the scientific mission requirements does
not reflect all of the changes accepted during the review meetings.
4. ARRANGEMENTS
Section 15 of this report contains the concept arrangement drawings. The space matrix
in Appendix A compares the concept arrangement with the scientific mission
requirements. The main features for consideration are as follows:
Decks/Access
• The basic arrangement is a focsle deck vessel with main deck 10 feet above the
waterline.
• A centerline trunk containing a stairwell and personnel/equipment elevator provides
the main interior vertical access. Forward of this trunk are the main vertical
ventilation trunk and the transducer centerboard well.

• Handicap access has been considered in the concept design. All main passageways
are 48 inches wide allowing adequate clearances between handrails for a wheelchair.
Elevator access to all public decks is provided, including the bridge deck where bird
observation areas will be located. One science stateroom, on the 03 level will be
arranged for handicap access, with larger washroom facility and other attributes.
This stateroom is located directly adjacent to the elevator.
• The machinery casing and machinery space ventilation trunks are located at the aft
end of the superstructure on the port side. This is typical for UNOLS research
vessels as it provides for efficient arrangement of science spaces and good visibility
along the starboard, working, side of the vessel.
Science Spaces
• A 48 inch wide central longitudinal passageway serves all labs.
• All science labs are located on the main deck.
• The wet lab has direct access to the Baltic room and the main deck through the
Baltic room.
• Lab sizes are in accordance with the SMR.
• The science office is located on the main deck forward portside.
• The science freezers are located directly athwartship of the wet lab room, providing
easy access for sample preservation.
• The climate control chamber is located on the 1st platform. Access is via elevator or
stairway.
• A large science storeroom is located on the main deck forward starboard side,
providing easy access to the labs.
• The science hold is located adjacent to an additional science stores area on the 1st
platform aft. The hold is capable of stowing up to two containers if required.
Science Outfit
• Two main trawl winches (removable) are located on the after part of the main deck.
Trawl blocks will be supported by removable gallows or by gallows attached to the
A-frame.
• A trawl ramp, trawlway and A-frame with dimensions as specified for the NOAA
FRV-40:
9 Trawl ramp Width: 13 feet
Angle: 37 degrees
9 Trawlway Width: 13 feet
Length: 48 feet
9 A-frame Clear width: 17 feet
Clear height: 20 feet
Reach outboard: 12 feet aft of transom
Reach inboard: 7 feet forward of top of ramp
• A removable dual net reel is located on the 01 deck, aft.

• The main deep-water science winch (shown as a Markey traction winch) is located in
the winch room on the 1st platform (below the main deck), starboard side. Two

storage drums are located forward of the winch. Wire is led via large diameter
sheaves to a flag block above the main deck located on the aft corner of the hangar.
The flag block will allow cable to be led either astern to the A-frame or over the
starboard side.
• The CTD and hydro winches are located on the 1st platform just below the Baltic
room. Wire from these winches will be led to the extendable boom in the overhead of
the Baltic room or aft to the extendable hydro-boom in the hangar.
• A 20,000-pound capacity crane is shown on the port aft deck with operating cab at
the 01 deck level. This crane is capable of reaching all parts of the aft main working
deck and is also capable of loading/offloading 20-foot vans as required by the SMR.
• The smaller removable, 1-ton capacity, knuckle-boom crane will be located on the aft
main deck, starboard side, and on the foredeck at the 01 level.
• The winch, crane and scientific control room is located on the aft end of the 01 deck,
starboard side. The control room will provide excellent visibility of all areas of the
aft main deck as well as the starboard side of the vessel. Visibility into the Baltic
room is also provided.
• Two locations are provided for transducers in accordance with the SMR.
Transducers are arranged forward on the centerboard and aft in a trunk.
Machinery Spaces
• The main machinery space is located amidships on two levels: the 1st and 2nd
platforms.
• The main machinery control room is located forward of the machinery space on the
1st platform level, port side.
• The main propulsor room is located aft at the 1st platform level. Currently an
azipod drive configuration is shown.
• A thruster room is located forward at the 2nd platform level. The current
arrangement shows an Elliot White-Gill type thruster, although a conventional
tunnel thruster could also be configured in the available space.
Accommodations
• All accommodations are located above the main deck with the majority of the crew
and science accommodations in double cabins located on the 01 deck.
• Captain, chief engineer, mates, first and second engineer, chief scientist and
handicap science accommodations single cabins are located on the 02 deck.
5. HULL FORM
The challenge presented to the design team in regard to hull form was to arrive at the
appropriate compromise between open water performance and ice operability. In the
case of this vessel it is anticipated that a majority of mission time will be in open water.
However, the vessel must also be able to function efficiently in limited ice conditions so
that year-round operations can be achieved in the Bering Sea and limited missions to
the Chukchi and Beaufort can be undertaken.

The Glosten Associates retained Dr. Arno Keinonen of AKAC, Inc. as a hull form and
propulsion consultant on ice operations. Dr. Keinonen has extensive experience with
modern ice-capable vessel design and performance evaluation. It should be emphasized
that the hull form currently proposed for this vessel has moderate ice-breaking features
appropriate to the limited nature of the ice mission. Additionally the incorporation of
features such as azimuthing propellers, moderate reamers and ice wedge, have benefits
in both ice operations and open water operations. The azimuthing propellers provide
superior maneuverability and station-keeping in open water while contributing
significantly to the vessel’s ability to navigate in ice. Features such as the reamers and
ice wedge, while increasing the vessel’s open water resistance, provide additional
damping which will contribute to the vessel’s sea-keeping ability.
The main hull form features desirable for open-water performance and ice capability are
listed below as main bullet items. Sub-bullets describe the reasoning behind the
features and discuss actual hull parameters achieved in the present design where
deviations occur. Reports by AKAC Inc., our icebreaking subconsultant, can be found in
Appendix C.
• Moderate icebreaking buttock angles of 23 degrees forward and 25 degrees aft.
➢ Stern buttock angle of 28 degrees reflects a design compromise to minimize

overall vessel length and still maintain thruster coverage with the hull. A slight
reduction in backing performance is expected.
➢ The moderate angles tend to push thicker ice to the side rather than under the
vessel giving a high percentage of operation in the ice margin where the vessel is
likely to experience broken floes thicker than the nominal icebreaking capability
of the vessel.
➢ Other benefits include lower probability of getting stuck in ice, improved

tracking in open water and moderated slamming.
➢ Consequence: 10% reduction in level ice performance relative to hull forms with
shallower angles.
• Propulsion plateau angled 5 degrees transversely and 3 degrees longitudinally.
➢ Transverse angle reduced to 3 degrees in line with azipod manufacturer’s

recommendations.
➢ Longitudinal cant improves inflow into propeller and permits steeper buttock
flow from baseline.
➢ Icebreaking and ice removal using the propulsion unit wake for over-the-side
work.
➢ Clears ice from wake for over-the-transom work.

• Rounded stern lines with stopper.
➢ Improved backing performance.
➢ Vertical appendage above the propulsion plateau serving to stop the vessel when
backing into thick ice.
• Propulsion units located at minimum separation distance recommended by

manufacturer to maximize protection from ice.
• Propeller tip clearance equals level ice-thickness plus snow margin.
➢ Achieved propeller tip clearance is approximately 2'-5", whereas the estimated

level ice performance is about 2'-9". The tip clearance assumes a 9'-6" diameter
propeller and could be increased if a smaller diameter is feasible.
• Skeg for open water roll damping and docking.
• Ice wedge.
➢ Pushes ice sheets to side of vessel. The minimum length of the frame from the
waterline to the forward end of the wedge is equal to the half-breadth.
➢ Consequence: 10% increase in open water resistance.
➢ Some portion of the forward edge of the ice wedge should be vertical to serve as a
bow stopper.
➢ Provides location for bow thruster.
• Reamer each side (two feet) or midship flare 10 degrees. Reamer design has
advanced considerably since the early days of Beaufort Sea oil exploration/support.
Their effectiveness in ice continues to improve and their detrimental effect on open
water resistance has been reduced.
➢ Reduces hull pressure when beset in ice.
➢ Prevents wedging hull into thick ice by ramming.
➢ Allows vessel to turn efficiently in ice.
➢ Consequence of reamer: 10% increase in open water resistance.
Three candidate hull forms were developed in the course of this concept design using the
guidance above. The lines plan of the initial hull form (ARRV_1) is presented in the
figure below to illustrate some of the hull form features described above. The lines
drawing for the current hull form (ARRV_3) is included with the other concept drawings
in Section 15 of this report. Several changes to the current lines recommended by
AKAC Inc. will be incorporated in the preliminary design phase:
• The reamers should not be vertical as shown, but should have a minimum slope of
seven degrees.

• The ice wedge is too wide for optimum ice resistance and open water performance.
The depth of the ice wedge could also be reduced by half; however, it would be less
effective at splitting ice floes.
• The fore and aft chines of the reamer should be rounded off to reduce open water
resistance.
• The propeller tip clearance should be increased to about 3.5 feet in order to avoid ice/
propeller inaction and cavitation associated with presence of ice.
• A softening piece should be added to the ice wedge so that the leading edge is not
vertical near the hull.
Propulsion Plateau
Stopper Reamers
Ice Wedge
Figure 1
Ice Features – ARRV_1
6. RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION
Speed and power estimates have been performed for the current hull form and are
shown in the figures below. Included in the following discussion are the resistance
estimates for the original (ARRV_1) hull form, the alternate (ARRV_2) hull, and the
current hull form (ARRV_3) with and without reamers.
The ARRV_2 and ARRV_3 represent open water based, ice-capable hull forms, which
fall within the applicable regression parameters of the Holtrop statistical resistance
prediction method. Therefore, resistance estimates for the ARRV_2 and ARRV_3 use
the Holtrop method as implemented in the NavCad software.

On the other hand, the ARRV_1 hull form reflects contemporary icebreaking hulls and
presents a challenge for accurate resistance prediction. Two data points exist that can
be used to assess the resistance for the ARRV_1: the model tests for the ARV (Arctic
Research Vessel) and the model tests for the GLIB (Great Lakes Icebreaker). The
ARRV_1 utilizes most of the icebreaking hull form features found on the ARV; however,
the ARRV_1 is a much shallower draft concept. The GLIB closely resembles the
ARRV_1 in principal dimensions. Correlation of the model tests to the ARRV_1 hull
results in resistance estimates much higher than the Holtrop method prediction for the
ARRV_1, as expected. See Figure 2. This comparison provides a rough approximation
of the resistance penalty for icebreaking features. The current best estimate for the
resistance of the ARRV_1 candidate hull form is based on the GLIB model tests with
reamers added. Note that the ARRV_1 does not make the 14 knot design speed with an
installed power of 3730 kW (5000 HP).
AR RV_1 P o w e r Es tim a te s
(Assu m ed over a ll pr opu lsive coefficien t = 0.5)
7000
GLIB In st a lled P ower = 6260 kW

6000
5000
Brake Power, PB [kW]
4000
ARRV In st a lled P ower = 3730 kW ARRV_1 (ARV)
ARRV_1 (GLIB w/ r ea m er s)
ARRV_1 (GLIB)
3000 ARRV_1 (H olt r op)
2000
1000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
S p e e d [k ts ]
Figure 2
Original Hull Form (ARRV_1) Power Estimates
Contemporary icebreakers utilize reamers to reduce ice resistance, improve

maneuverability in ice, and direct ice away from the propellers. The open water
resistance penalty applied to the hull variants for the addition of reamers and the ice
wedge is 20 percent.
Figure 3 summarizes the predicted power required for the various hull forms. The
results presented for the ARRV_1 and ARRV_2 assume an overall propulsive coefficient
of 0.5 applied to total resistance. The results for the ARRV_3 represent a later stage in
design progression and consist of a more rigorous propulsion estimate. An overall
propulsive coefficient of about 0.60 was achieved using wake fraction, thrust deduction

and relative rotative efficiency estimates based on Holtrop. Mechanical efficiencies of
99 percent and 91 percent were assumed for the shafting and diesel-electric propulsion
system, respectively. One cautionary note: the power estimates are based on the
methods of Holtrop, which may not be conservative for the hull form with reamers. The
resistance penalty for the reamers will need further evaluation during model testing.
Figure 3
P ow er vs. Speed
Ca n d id a te Hu ll F o rm Co m p a ris o n
6000
5000
In st a lled P ower +15% = 4290 kW
4000
In st a lled P ower = 3730 kW
Brake Power, PB [kW]
ARRV_1
3000 ARRV_2
ARRV_3
ARRV_3 w/ Rea m er s
2000
1000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
S p e e d [k ts ]
Speed and Power Estimates
Note that at current estimates of installed power (5,000 BHP or 3,750 kW) a maximum
calm water speed of approximately 15.5 knots is estimated for the current hull without
reamers. This drops to about 14.5 knots with the reamer. The speed and power
estimates for the ARRV are comparable to similar research vessels and icebreakers as
shown in Appendix B.
Additional power, on the order of 15%, will benefit the ice performance of this vessel.
The inevitable propeller-ice interaction that will occasionally take place will require the
extra horsepower from the propulsors so that loss of propulsive efficiency does not occur
as soon as ice enters the propellers. This added horsepower would also benefit open
water speed.
The availability of propulsors has been investigated to the extent possible in this phase
of the design. Our contacts with the three producers of podded propulsion units has
revealed only one manufacturer willing to build units in our size range. This

manufacturer is ABB, who built the units on the Finnish icebreaker Botnica. However,
our contacts with ABB have been less than satisfactory. They eventually responded to
repeated requests for basic information, e.g., unit size, weights and cost. See
Appendix G for their delayed response. Additionally, ABB does not seem receptive to
producing a unit that has any special noise considerations and they have not shown a
willingness to produce any radiated noise information on their own.
Although the communications have not been good, it was felt that the technology has
enough merit that we should, at least for the time being, proceed with the azipod
arrangement in the preliminary design phase. Azimuthing thrusters, either azipods or
Z-drives, have been demonstrated to greatly improve ice operability and safety. They
enhance available thrust astern and they enable breaking and clearing of ice with the
propeller wash. They also greatly improve maneuvering in ice and open water. The
option of Z-drives will also be kept open. The impact to hull form between these two
options is not significant.
7. SEAKEEPING
The following table summarizes a variety of seakeeping criteria in the literature and
identifies the criteria selected to use for the ARRV seakeeping evaluation.
Table 1
Seakeeping Criteria
Proposed Seakeeping Criteria for Alaska Region Research Vessel

(to be met at Sea State 5, wave height 8-13 feet)
Description Criteria Comments Reference
[RMS
values]
Vertical Acceleration
Work of more demanding type 0.10g Long term tolerable for crew Payne 1976
Heavy manual work 0.15g Limits in fishing vessels Payne 1976
Maximum vertical acceleration 0.20g 8 ft Hs from 0-11 knot & 13 NOAA FRV-40
ft Hs from 0-4 knots
Main Lab 0.10g Stern trawler Nordforsk
SNAME PNA 1.40g Trawler Aertssen 1968,1972
MERV, SMP data 0.165g* MP - centerline – main deck MT Paper 1987
The Criteria to Use: 0.20g SMR
Roll
Light manual work 4.0 Personnel effectiveness Comstock 1980
Demanding work 3.0 Personnel effectiveness Hosada 1985
Maximum RMS roll angle 4.0 8 ft Hs from 0-11 knot & 13 NOAA FRV-40
Main lab 3.0 Stern trawler Nordforsk
SNAME PNA 4.0 Naval Monohull Comstock 1980
MERV, SMP data 9.47* MT Paper 1987
The Criteria to Use: 3.0 Hosada 1985,

Proposed Seakeeping Criteria for Alaska Region Research Vessel
(to be met at Sea State 5, wave height 8-13 feet)
Description Criteria Comments Reference
[RMS
values]
Nordforsk
Pitch
Light manual work 2.0 Personnel effectiveness Hosada 1985
Demanding work 1.5 Personnel effectiveness Hosada 1985
Maximum RMS pitch angle 2.3 8 ft Hs from 0-11 knot & 13 NOAA FRV-40
SNAME PNA 1.5 Naval Monohull Comstock 1980
MERV, SMP data 3.68* MT Paper 1987
The Criteria to Use: 1.5 Hosada 1985,
Comstock
Horizontal Acceleration
Passenger on a ferry 0.025g 1-2 Hz frequency. General ISO 2631/1
public
Navy crew 0.050g Non-passenger and navy
ship
Standing passenger 0.07g* 99% will keep balance Hoberock 1976
without need of holding
Maximum RMS lateral 0.10g 8 ft Hs from 0-11 knot & 13 NOAA FRV-40
acceleration ft Hs from 0-4 knots
Main Lab 0.05g Stern Trawler Nordforsk
SNAME PNA 0.10g Naval Monohull Comstock 1980
MERV, SMP data 0.056g* MT Paper 1987
The Criteria to Use: 0.10g SMR
Note: * = Maximum value
Given the importance of seakeeping in SMR, special consideration was given to the hull
proportions with regard to developing good seakeeping qualities. Previous design and
model test work on the 1988 Medium-Endurance Research Vessel (MERV) and the 1992
Arctic Research Vessel (ARV) indicated that a wide shallow hull, i.e. a high beam-to-
draft ratio, results in good seakeeping qualities. Accordingly, the initial design efforts
selected hull proportions with a high B/T ratio. ARRV_1 had a beam of 55 feet and a
draft of 15 feet, resulting in a beam-to-draft ratio of 3.68. A second hull variant was
developed with more conventional proportions in an effort to reduce the open water
resistance and to explore an alternative design space. ARRV_2 had a beam of 43 feet
and a draft of 18.75 feet, resulting in a beam-to-draft ratio of 2.29.
The anticipated advantages of the high beam-to-draft ratio hull form were not realized
in the initial seakeeping studies. While ARRV_1 did show some advantage over
ARRV_2 in terms of vertical accelerations at headings near head seas, the RMS vessel
coordinate lateral acceleration in the main laboratory for ARRV_1 in high sea state 5 is
0.238 g which compares with 0.148 g for ARRV_2. Consequently, further investigations
were undertaken to determine if achievable design changes could improve performance

and to better understand the motion responses that were being predicted. These further
investigations included:
• Investigating a broad range of variations of vertical center-of-gravity and

physical roll gyradius for ARRV_1 and ARRV_2 hull forms.
• Investigating the lateral acceleration performance of a systematic seakeeping

series characterized by constant displacement and beam-to-draft ratios varying
from 2.0 to 5.0.
• Expanding the analytical seakeeping models to incorporate U-tube anti-roll

tanks and investigating the benefits of such tanks for ARRV_1 and ARRV_2.
For an in-depth discussion of the seakeeping results, see Appendix F – Seakeeping

Studies and Roll Investigations. Based on the results of the B/T series investigations,
the widest hull form consistent with operating near the stability limit (relatively low
GM) results in the lowest lateral acceleration at all locations above the waterline.
Accordingly, the ARRV proportions were selected toward this optimization. The current
design includes a 70 LT allowance for installation of an anti-roll tank. Based on
Figure 30 in Appendix F, a reduction in lateral acceleration on the order of 20% can be
expected from an anti-roll tank.
The current hull form shows much improved seakeeping behavior over the original hull
form and compares very favorably with the R/V Knorr. One very important measure of
seakeeping behavior is the magnitude of lateral (sway) acceleration in a given sea state.
This characteristic influences vessel operability in terms of the effectiveness and
comfort of personnel. Figure 4 compares values of sway acceleration versus height
above the waterline for: the original hull form, ARRV1; the alternative hull form,
ARRV2; and the current hull form, designated in the figure as ARRV3.
Note that values are given for each vessel with and without anti-roll tank; and, in the
case of the current design (ARRV3), values with bilge keels are shown – although at this
time we are not considering bilge keels due to their vulnerability in ice. Further design
cycles should include consideration of “ice-friendly” bilge keels.

RMS Sway Acceleration in Vessel Coordinates
100
80
60
40
Elevation, Rz (feet)
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
ARRV1 With 250 L.T. Anti-Roll Tank

-20 ARRV1 Without Anti-Roll Tank
ARRV2 Without Anti-Roll Tank
-40 ARRV3 Without Anti-Roll Tank
ARRV3 With Bilge Keels
-60
RMS Sway Acceleration in Vessel Coordinates (ft/sec^2)
File 00100 3-May-01
FIGURE 4
Lateral Acceleration in Vessel Coordinates as a Function of Elevation
We have also developed polar plots showing the behavior of the vessel in upper Sea
State 5, the maximum sea state in which science operations are to take place in
accordance with the SMR. Two characteristics of particular interest, in addition to the
lateral acceleration characteristics described above, are the vertical acceleration and roll
angle. These are shown below superimposed on estimated values for the R/V Knorr for
comparison purposes.
Vertical acceleration affects operability due to its influence on personnel efficiency and
seasickness. Roll angle does not affect personnel effectiveness as much as acceleration
characteristics, but it influences over-side operations.
The following figures compare the predicted seakeeping performance of the ARRV and
R/V Knorr at 9 knots with the seakeeping criteria identified in this section. Note that
while the criteria are difficult to meet in high Sea State 5 (13.2 foot significant wave
height), the ARRV compares favorably to the Knorr in terms of lateral acceleration and
roll angle. The ARRV exhibits slightly more pitch angle than the Knorr, as expected
due to the shorter length. The only seakeeping criterion that is met by both the ARRV
and the Knorr is vertical acceleration.

RMS Ve rtic al Ac c e le ra tio n (g %) vs . Ve s s e l He a d in g
Ma in Deck, Cen ter lin e, Midsh ips
(9 knot s, H s=13.12 ft , Wor st P er iod)
0
345 20 15
330 18 30
16
315 45
14
12
300 10 60
8
6
285 75
4
2 ARRV
270 0 90 Kn or r
Cr it er ion
255 105
240 120
225 135
210 150
195 165
180
Figure 5
RMS Vertical Acceleration
RMS Ro ll An g le (d e gre e s ) v s . Ve s s e l He a d in g
0
345 10 15
330 9 30
8
315 45
7
6
300 5 60
4
3
285 75
2
1
ARRV
270 0 90 Kn or r
Cr it er ia
255 105
240 120
225 135
210 150
195 165
180
Figure 6
RMS Roll Angle

RMS P itc h An gle (d e g re e s ) v s . Ve s s e l He ad in g
0
345 3.0 15
330 30
2.5
315 45
2.0
300 1.5 60
1.0
285 75
0.5
ARRV
270 0.0 90 Kn or r
Cr it er ia
255 105
240 120
225 135
210 150
195 165
180
Figure 7
RMS Pitch Angle
RMS La te ra l Ac c e le rati on (g %) vs . Ve s s e l He a d in g
Ma in Deck, Cen ter lin e, Midsh ips
0
345 20 15
330 18 30
16
315 45
14
12
300 10 60
8
6
285 75
4
2 ARRV
270 0 90 Kn or r
Cr it er ia
255 105
240 120
225 135
210 150
195 165
180
Figure 8
RMS Lateral Acceleration

R MS Ve rt ic al Ac c e le ra tio n (g %) vs . Ve s s e l He a d in g
Ma in Deck, Cen ter lin e, Tr a n som
0
345 20 15
330 18 30
16
315 45
14
12
300 10 60
8
6
285 75
4
2 ARRV
270 0 90 Kn orr
Cr it er ia
255 105
240 120
225 135
210 150
195 165
180
Figure 9
RMS Vertical Acceleration at Transom
8. RANGE AND ENDURANCE
Several mission profiles were developed based upon the scientific mission
requirements (SMR) for the design of this vessel, guidance from the review meeting
on 3/12/01, and the NOAA Fisheries Research Vessel (FRV) Statement of
Requirements. The SMR for this vessel requires a 45-day endurance with 20 to
25 percent of ship time in ice.
Because we assume that ice operations absorb 90 percent of full power, the mission
profiles including ice operations tend to drive the design fuel requirements. The
tables below summarize the mission profiles evaluated. Note that the NOAA mission
profiles were scaled from a 40-day endurance to 45 days.

Table 2
Ice Cruise Mission Profiles
ICE CRUISE TYPE

Mission Element Typical Meeting Meeting
Example – A Example- B
Transit Ice-free 168 hours at 12 240 hours at 240 hours at
knots 12 knots 12 knots
Ice 240 hours at 90% 240 hours at 240 hours at
power 90% power 90% power
On Station Ice-free 672 hours at 6.0 not 300 hours at
knots applicable 6.0 knots
Between Stations not applicable 600 hours at 300 hours at
6.0 knots 12 knots
Total Hours 1080 1080 1080
Table 3
Scaled NOAA FRV Mission Profiles
NOAA CRUISE TYPE

Mission Marine Bottom Trawl MOCNESS Hydroacoustic/
Element Mammal Survey Pelagic Trawl
Observation
Transit not applicable 135 hours at 13.5 458 hours at 13.5 90 hours at 13.5
knots knots knots
On Station 1035 hours at not applicable 588 hours Towing 585 hours at 11.0
10.0 knots 17.8 kN knots
Resistance at 1.5
knots
Between not applicable 405 hours at 12.0 not applicable 45 hours at 12.0
Stations knots knots
Drift/Anchor 45 hours at 0 not applicable not applicable not applicable
knots
Trawling with not applicable 405 hours at 4.0 not applicable 315 hours at 5.0
160 kN knots knots
Resistance Net
Ocean not applicable 135 hours at 0 34 hours at 0 45 hours at 0
Research knots knots knots
Total Hours 1080 1080 1080 1080
Table 4 summarizes the required fuel capacities and the associated ranges for the
mission profiles outlined above. The fuel capacities are calculated assuming calm
conditions, a 2% tail pipe factor, a 15% reserve fuel allowance and a specific fuel

consumption of 0.36 pounds per horsepower-hour. All results include a 45-day hotel
load of 790 HP. Stationkeeping power includes 540 HP for the bow thruster and
associated auxiliaries.
The table presents the required capacities for the ARRV with reamers and an ice
wedge. The total fuel capacity required for the ARRV without the icebreaking
features is not appreciably lower, because the low-speed, full-power ice mission
elements drive the fuel capacity. These estimates will be refined as the design
progresses and ice resistance estimates become available.
Table 4
Fuel Capacity and Range
Mission Profiles Summary – ARRV w/ reamers & ice wedge

Cruise Type Fuel Capacity Range at Full Fuel
@ 98% 12 knots Power consumption
[gallons] [n.m.] Days [gal/day]
Ice Cruises -
Meeting Example 3/12/01 - A 149334 18490 21 2836
Meeting Example 3/12/01 – B* 166694 20640 24 3166
Typical 145328 17994 21 2760
NOAA Cruises -
Marine Mammal Observation 97851 12116 14 1859
Bottom Trawl 132686 16429 19 2520
MOCNESS Survey 146894 18188 21 2790
Hydroacoustic / Pelagic Trawl 124396 15403 18 2363
Current Design** 148320 18300 21
Fuel consumption at full power 5952
Notes: *Not achievable at current design draft.
**Limited by displacement at the 18'-0" draft.
Fuel consumption values assume a specific fuel consumption of 0.36 lbs. / HP-hr
An additional fuel capacity of approximately 20,000 gallons is required in order to

meet the SMR requirement for a 60-day hotel load. This fuel load corresponds to a
draft increase of about 3 inches. An additional draft increase of about 4 inches is
required in order to carry enough fuel for Mission Profile B.
9. STABILITY
Subdivision
A one-compartment flooding standard is required by 46 CFR 173.075 and 46 CFR
171.070. Canadian Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations (CASPPR)
require that all vessels, other than vessels operated solely as icebreakers, meet a two-
compartment standard of flooding. In addition to the subdivision requirement, all
tanks containing pollutants or waste are held a minimum of 2.5 feet inside of the hull
per the requirements of CASPPR. Although we are not strictly required to conform to

this regulation since this requirement is for “class” type ice-breaking vessels, it seems
a reasonable requirement in light of the biological sensitivity of some operating areas.
The one-compartment damage stability requirements will be met by the arrangement
of several transverse watertight bulkheads below the main deck. Access through
some of these bulkheads will be provided by automatically closing watertight doors
actuated from the bridge. The extent of damage for the two-compartment standard of
flooding in the CASPPR regulations allows credit for the double bottom and double
side. Therefore, the current arrangement should meet two-compartment flooding in
accordance with CASPPR.
Stability
The fairly full waterplane of the vessel will provide adequate intact stability. We
expect that any or all of the required 100 tons of variable science deadweight can be
carried on the main deck or the 01 deck if required.
10. NOISE
An acoustics subconsultant, Noise Control Engineering, Inc. (NCE), was tasked with
investigating the feasibility of achieving the ICES radiated underwater noise
standard for this vessel. Appendix D contains NCE’s full report. The main points are
summarized here and discussed in the context of design impact.
In summary, NCE states that:

“If the ICES radiated noise goal is specified, the High Latitude Research Vessel
would need to be as quiet as the quietest research vessels afloat today. Extensive
noise and vibration controls will be required. The most critical single component
will be the design of a quiet propulsor. The hull form (wake) and propeller speed
and diameter will determine the success of the propeller design.”
A quiet ship design consists of two main components: a cavitation-free propeller and a
propulsion plant with extensive noise control measures. Each of these components is
addressed in turn below.
As discussed in the propeller section below, achieving a cavitation-free propeller at

11 knots is simply not feasible within the current design constraints. Note that a
single 14 foot diameter propeller was required on the NOAA FRV to achieve a
cavitation-free propeller at 11 knots. Accommodating a 6-foot increase in diameter
would require an increase in hull depth and a drastic change in hull form. The
general character of the NOAA FRV hull form with its extremely fine stern is not
suitable for ice operations. The propellers need to be located deeper in the water to
avoid ice debris and need greater tip clearance to pass ice chunks. Changing to a
single screw configuration abandons the maneuvering and icebreaking advantages of
azimuthing twin screw drives.
NCE believes that a diesel-electric plant represents the only viable approach to
achieving the ICES underwater noise requirements. Raft mounting of the diesel
generators will be required to minimize propulsion engine hull radiated noise. Raft

mounting and the other noise control measures enumerated in the NCE report carry
significant weight and cost penalties.
The current design incorporated azipod units for a perceived acoustic benefit over
standard Z-drive units. Azipod units are advantageous in providing good inflow to the
propeller, but they place the propulsion motor in the water where sound attenuation
is difficult. NCE does not believe azipods units provide an acoustic advantage over
standard fixed pitch or Z-drive systems.
NCE suggests two different and complementary approaches to relaxing the ICES
requirements.
1) Limit the frequency range for applying the ICES requirements to between 10 Hz
and 50 kHz. There are inherent difficulties in controlling and/or measuring
underwater sound outside this range.
2) Accept a lower ship speed. Lower ship speeds have lower horsepower require-
ments, making isolation easier. NCE notes that an azipod system may not
benefit, since motor noise could actually increase at lower speeds.
The picture that NCE paints for meeting the ICES standard is bleak at best. Many of
the design requirements for quiet operation and icebreaking are mutually exclusive.
However, meeting the noise requirement at a lower speed may be possible, if it has
benefits to the science community. The cost and benefit of attempting to meet a noise
standard should be carefully weighed before proceeding with the next design phase.
Some nominal noise control measures, such as incorporating isolation mounted diesel
generators and developing a cavitation free propeller, will be included, regardless of
whether the vessel meets the published ICES noise standard at any speed.
11. PROPELLER DESIGN
A propeller design expert, Dr. Terry Brockett, who has many years of experience in
designing quiet propellers, was also tasked with investigating the feasibility of
achieving the ICES noise standard for this vessel. Initial estimates indicate that a
propeller design of similar character to the NOAA-FRV propeller is feasible. The
hydrodynamic design point for the propeller will be 11 knots in order to minimize
noise levels due to cavitation. Degradation in propulsive efficiency can be expected at
speeds off the design point.
The radiated propeller noise is governed largely by cavitation. Noise reductions are
obtained by delaying tip vortex cavitation inception. Preliminary calculations
indicate that designing the ARRV propellers with vortex inception at 11 knots will
result in an unacceptable propulsive efficiency of about 50 percent. Vortex inception
occurs at 9 to 10 knots for propeller designs with reasonable propulsive efficiency in
the 60 to 65 percent range.
A five-bladed propeller is recommended for advantages in efficiency, cavitation, and
possible blade-rate vibration. An 8.2 foot diameter was selected in order to provide
adequate tip clearance for operations in ice. The table below compares results for
five-bladed propellers with a blade area ratio of 0.65 operating at different speeds.

Table 5
Propeller Noise Estimates
RPM Propulsive Vortex Radiated Noise Estimates @ 11 knots

Coefficient Inception Speed
[knots] 0.1 kHz 1 kHz 10 kHz 40 kHz
200 0.60 10 126 116 104 89
180 0.64 9 125 115 100 85
160 0.67 8 122 113 96 81
Figure 10 compares the propeller noise estimates at 8, 9 and 10 knots with the ICES
criterion. Note that the estimated propeller noise levels are fairly close to the ICES
criterion. We expect that the addition of machinery noise would drive the estimates
well beyond it.
Estimated Propeller Noise

versus
ICES Radiated Noise Limits
160
SPL, dB re 1 micro-Pa @ 1 meter
140
ICES limit
120
200 RPM, Vortex

inception @ 10 kts
100 180 RPM, Vortex
Inception @ 9 kts
160 RPM, Vortex
80 inception @ 8 kts
60
1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Frequency, Hertz
Figure 10
Propeller Noise
Further investigation into the effect of propeller speed on propulsion motor size will
be required as the design progresses, to determine whether the propellers above are
compatible with the azipod concept.

12. MANNING STUDY
The regulatory requirements applicable to manning the research vessel were

reviewed with regard to the ARRV. The ARRV is expected to operate with a reduced
crew complement of 17, assuming that the vessel operates with a periodically
unattended machinery plant and obtains an ACCU designation. Note that during the
initial certification and trial period the required crew complement increases to 20.
Table 6 summarizes the relevant regulations and interpretations.
Common research vessel practice indicates the need for an electrician to serve as a
communication/electronics technician. The electrician could replace the oiler or the
mess assistant to maintain the minimum crew size, since these positions are not
specifically required. Alternatively, electricians can serve as part of the science
complement.
Table 6
Manning Requirements
MANNING STUDY FOR ARRV

POSITION ARRV ALPHA REGULATORY REFERENCES INTERPRETATIONS / ASSUMPTIONS
QUANTITY HELIX
MIN1 MAX2 QUANTITY
Master 1 1 1 46 CFR 15.805(a)(1) & 815(a) 'Every self-propelled, seagoing documented
vessel of 200 gross tons and over.'
Mate 3 3 1 46 CFR 15.810(b)(1) & 815(a) 'Vessels of 1000 gross tons or more - three
licensed mates.'
Able Seaman 4 4 4 46 CFR 15.840 and Marine 65% of deck crew must be AB's. Each
Safety Manual Vol. 3, Chapter watch will have helmsman and lookout
23.D.1 based on mission requirements.
Ordinary 2 2 0 46 CFR 12.25-1 and Marine 65% of deck crew must be AB's, therefore
Seaman Safety Manual Vol. 3, Chapter remaining compliment can be Ordinary
23.D.1 Seamen
Chief 1 1 1 46 CFR 15.820(a)(1) 'Seagoing or Great Lakes vessels of 200
Engineer gross tons and over.'
Assistant 2 3 0 46 CFR 15.825 Licensed Assistant Engineer(s) required;
Engineer OCMI determines quantity based on level of
automation. (over 200 GT)
Oiler (QMED) 1 1 1 Marine Safety Manual Vol. 3, Billet not specifically required by CFR. No
Chapter 23.E.4 unlicensed watchstander required in engine
room with "deadman" alarm.
Wiper 0 1 0 Marine Safety Manual Vol. 3, Billet not specifically required by CFR. No
Chapter 23.E.4 unlicensed watchstander required in engine
room with "deadman" alarm.
Chief 1 1 0 46 CFR 12.25-1 & -2 Billet not specifically required by CFR.
Steward Must be food handler endorsed.
Cook 1 2 1 46 CFR 12.25-1 & -2 Billet not specifically required by CFR.
Must be food handler endorsed.
Mess 1 1 0 46 CFR 12.25-1 & -2 Billet not specifically required by CFR.
Assistant Must be food handler endorsed.
Total Crew 17 20 9
Scientist 243 24 12
1. Minimum crew size based on minimum requirements by regulations and emergency squad capabilities
2. Maximum crew size based on predictions of maintenance and extended mission requirements
3. Two electrician/techs will be part of scientific compliment and will have lifeboatman/MMD certification.

13. COST ESTIMATES
A total acquisition cost of $57 million is estimated for the ARRV project. The daily
rate of the ARRV is estimated to be $15,200 per day. Appendix E discusses in detail
the basis of the acquisition cost and daily rate estimates.
14. DESIGN TRADE-OFF STUDIES
Several design decisions were made as the concept design phase drew to a close. We
list the design trade-offs below and attempt to provide some discussion to document
the decision making process. Note that in most cases qualitative engineering judg-
ment and experience was relied upon rather than quantitative analysis.
• ICES noise versus ice performance
A large part of the discussion in this report focuses on the ICES noise criterion, since
meeting it was a major consideration during the concept design. Satisfying the ICES
noise criterion and improving icebreaking performance push the hull and propulsion
system designs in different directions. At this point we believe the two design goals to
be incompatible.
Abandoning azimuthing propulsion for the sake of noise directly would have reduced
the ice capability of the vessel. Azimuthing propulsion increases maneuverability in
the ice. In addition, the azimuthing units can be oriented to clear the channel of ice
rubble or break ice directly with the thrust. Arno Keinonen comments that vessels
with azimuthing drives are independently operable in perhaps 30 percent thicker ice
than their conventionally propelled counterparts with the same hull and power.
The ability to meet the ICES noise criterion with this vessel was discussed at the
27 July review meeting. Our acoustic sub-consultants, NCE, believe that it is
essentially unachievable with azimuthing drives due to AC motor noise in the case of
azipods and gear noise in the case of Z-drives. In order to meet the ICES criterion the
vessel would need to be amongst the quietest vessels in the world and the hull and
propulsor design would need to be completely optimized to meet this criterion. This is
not compatible with the stated multi-purpose mission of this vessel, particularly the
ice operations. There was agreement to delete the requirement to meet the ICES
noise criterion. The vessel will still be designed to be as quiet as is practical. This
means we will continue with the assumption that all machinery will be acoustically
isolated and diesel electric propulsion will be used. Propellers will be of a “quiet”
design to the extent possible given their required ice class.
• Low open water resistance versus ice capability
As a rough approximation, the ice wedge and reamers each carry a 10% open water
resistance penalty. The resistance combined with the required endurance drives the
size of the vessel. So the design trade-off is not just open water resistance versus ice
capability, but capital cost and operating cost versus ice operability.

The contribution of the ice wedge and reamers to ice operability is not easily
quantifiable. Experience with modern icebreakers shows that these hull form
features improve ice operability significantly by reducing propeller-ice interaction and
by clearing the channel behind the vessel. These features also reduce the probability
of the vessel becoming beset in ice. Arno Keinonen estimates that a vessel with
reamers and ice wedge would be independently operable in 10% thicker ice than a
vessel without these hull features.
After much discussion of ice capability at the 27 July review meeting, it was agreed
that the existing hull form, with modest reamers, wedge and azimuthing drives,
should be retained and refined as we proceed to preliminary design and model testing.
Additional power, on the order of 10-15%, will benefit the ice performance and
increase the open water transit speed of this vessel. The impacts of adding power will
be investigated in the preliminary design phase. The model testing program will
provide an opportunity to optimize the hull form for open water and ice capability. A
full test program could include testing with and without reamers and wedge.
• Seakeeping versus ice capability
In general we expect that the icebreaking hull form features, i.e. the ice wedge and
reamers, will improve the seakeeping performance of the vessel. One important
decision with regard to seakeeping is whether to install bilge keels. Bilge keels
provide substantial roll damping and would result in a much more seakindly vessel.
However, ice operations subject appendages such as bilge keels to a high risk of
damage. Structurally integrating the bilge keels with the hull form has been one
successful solution implemented on some icebreakers, such as the Fennica.
The design includes a transducer “centerboard” as a way of avoiding bubble sweep-

down. The centerboard also provides some roll reduction in a seaway. In the pre-
liminary design phase, we will attempt to quantify this and prepare a comparison of
the centerboard’s roll reduction capability versus bilge keels.
• Range and endurance versus vessel size and cost
The endurance is what drives the size of the ship in conjunction with the assumed
mission profile. If we are to retain the current mission profile, then we must accept
the size of ship that results. Whether or not the mission profile is conservative or
non-conservative could be debated because of the highly variable nature of the
operating environment from place to place and year to year. For design purposes, one
has to make some assumptions, and the profile assumed is realistic for Alaskan
waters. Whether or not the resulting vessel size is a problem will be a point for
discussion.

15. CONCEPT DESIGN DRAWINGS
The Alaska Region Research Vessel concept design drawings include the following:
• Lines Plan, Dwg No. 00100-1
• Outboard Profile, Dwg No. 00100-2, sheet 1 of 4
• Inboard Profile, Dwg No. 00100-2, sheet 2 of 4
• Upper Decks, Dwg No. 00100-2, sheet 3 of 4
• Lower Decks, Dwg No. 00100-2, sheet 4 of 4
• Typical Stateroom, Dwg No. 00100-3

16. SCIENTIFIC MISSION REQUIREMENTS
The Scientific Mission Requirements for an intermediate, ice-strengthened, general

purpose and fisheries oceanography research vessel follow.
Revisions: September 2000 and March 2001


Concept Report

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

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

Concept Report

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ALASKA REGION RESEARCH VESSEL

CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT

The University of Alaska Fairbanks

An Advisory Committee consisting of the following individuals undertook a wider

Mike Reeve, National Science Foundation

Alaska Region Research Vessel The Glosten Associates, Inc.

Length, overall 226'-0"

The main capacities and capabilities of the vessel follow:

Fuel capacity 148,000 gallons

Alaska Region Research Vessel The Glosten Associates, Inc.

3. SCIENTIFIC MISSION REQUIREMENTS

• Elimination of the requirement to meet the International Council for the

Alaska Region Research Vessel The Glosten Associates, Inc.

• Increasing the freeboard to 10 feet (12 March review meeting)

Alaska Region Research Vessel The Glosten Associates, Inc.

• A removable dual net reel is located on the 01 deck, aft.

Alaska Region Research Vessel The Glosten Associates, Inc.

Alaska Region Research Vessel The Glosten Associates, Inc.

• Moderate icebreaking buttock angles of 23 degrees forward and 25 degrees aft.

➢ Stern buttock angle of 28 degrees reflects a design compromise to minimize

➢ Other benefits include lower probability of getting stuck in ice, improved

• Propulsion plateau angled 5 degrees transversely and 3 degrees longitudinally.

➢ Transverse angle reduced to 3 degrees in line with azipod manufacturer’s

➢ Clears ice from wake for over-the-transom work.

Alaska Region Research Vessel The Glosten Associates, Inc.

➢ Improved backing performance.

• Propulsion units located at minimum separation distance recommended by

• Propeller tip clearance equals level ice-thickness plus snow margin.

➢ Achieved propeller tip clearance is approximately 2'-5", whereas the estimated

• Skeg for open water roll damping and docking.

➢ Consequence: 10% increase in open water resistance.

➢ Provides location for bow thruster.

➢ Reduces hull pressure when beset in ice.

➢ Prevents wedging hull into thick ice by ramming.

➢ Allows vessel to turn efficiently in ice.

➢ Consequence of reamer: 10% increase in open water resistance.

Alaska Region Research Vessel The Glosten Associates, Inc.

6. RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION

Alaska Region Research Vessel The Glosten Associates, Inc.

GLIB In st a lled P ower = 6260 kW

Contemporary icebreakers utilize reamers to reduce ice resistance, improve

Alaska Region Research Vessel The Glosten Associates, Inc.

In st a lled P ower +15% = 4290 kW

Speed and Power Estimates

Alaska Region Research Vessel The Glosten Associates, Inc.

Proposed Seakeeping Criteria for Alaska Region Research Vessel

Alaska Region Research Vessel The Glosten Associates, Inc.

Alaska Region Research Vessel The Glosten Associates, Inc.

• Investigating a broad range of variations of vertical center-of-gravity and

• Investigating the lateral acceleration performance of a systematic seakeeping

• Expanding the analytical seakeeping models to incorporate U-tube anti-roll

For an in-depth discussion of the seakeeping results, see Appendix F – Seakeeping

Alaska Region Research Vessel The Glosten Associates, Inc.

ARRV1 With 250 L.T. Anti-Roll Tank

Alaska Region Research Vessel The Glosten Associates, Inc.

Alaska Region Research Vessel The Glosten Associates, Inc.

Alaska Region Research Vessel The Glosten Associates, Inc.

8. RANGE AND ENDURANCE

Alaska Region Research Vessel The Glosten Associates, Inc.

ICE CRUISE TYPE

NOAA CRUISE TYPE

Alaska Region Research Vessel The Glosten Associates, Inc.

Mission Profiles Summary – ARRV w/ reamers & ice wedge