T ake unrep ship uss hokie
Download
1 / 28

T-AKE UNREP Ship USS Hokie - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 131 Views
  • Uploaded on

Virginia Tech Naval Architecture. T-AKE UNREP Ship USS Hokie. Michael Fetsch Jen Sickmund Tobey Coombe Joshua Hammond Conrad Cooper . Design Overview. Optimization Hull design Resistance and Propulsion Arrangements Structures Weights and Stability. Mission Need.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'T-AKE UNREP Ship USS Hokie' - omer


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
T ake unrep ship uss hokie

Virginia Tech Naval Architecture

T-AKE UNREP Ship

USS Hokie

Michael Fetsch

Jen Sickmund

Tobey Coombe

Joshua Hammond

Conrad Cooper


Design overview
Design Overview

  • Optimization

  • Hull design

  • Resistance and Propulsion

  • Arrangements

  • Structures

  • Weights and Stability


Mission need
Mission Need

  • To replace current Combat Logistics Force

  • Speed: 20 Kts

  • Range: 14000 NM

  • Capacity to carry a combination of:

    • Dry stores

    • Refrigerated stores

    • Ammunition

    • Cargo fuel


Design parameters for optimization
Design Parameters for Optimization

  • Genetic Optimization of design using regression data analysis

  • Design variables

  • Measures of Performance

  • Values of Performance

  • Total Ownership Cost




Hull design

AE36 Parent Hull

Single shaft, similar design speed, Kilauea Class UNREP ship

USS Hokie

LWL – 680 ft CB - .577

B – 99 ft CP - .592

D – 69 ft

T – 38 ft

Disp – 42288.7 lton

Hull Design


Resistance and propulsion

IPS power plant

Holtrop-Mennen Resistance calculations

Full Electric Load analysis and Fuel consumption done in spreadsheet

Fixed Pitch Propeller optimization

Resistance and Propulsion


Optimized propeller characteristics
Optimized Propeller Characteristics

  • 5 Blade, B-Series

  • EAR = 0.710, P = 25.1 ft, D = 24 ft, eff. = 0.7131

  • Design Speed of 20 kts


Arrangements
Arrangements

  • Cargo flow and efficiency were of the utmost importance throughout this stage of design




Main engine arrangements
Main Engine Arrangements

  • 2 LM2500 gas turbine marine generator sets

  • Centerline bulkhead separates gen-sets

  • Auxiliary engine is a 2000kW diesel generator


Motor arrangements
Motor Arrangements

  • 2 21MW propulsion motors w/ converters

  • Centerline bulkhead also separates motors


Deckhouse arrangements
Deckhouse Arrangements

  • MSC Standards – 136 Crew


Structure

ABS were used to find initial scantlings

Full Ship Maestro Model was used for further structural analysis

Structure




Hull subdivision
Hull Subdivision

  • Subdivision optimized as a Passive Defense Capability


Weights and stability
Weights and Stability

  • Weight distribution by SWBS designations

  • Distributions calculated for Lightship, Full Load, and 60% full cargo loading cases

  • Intact and Damage Stability cases were examined for several loading conditions and damage cases using HECSALV software




Intact stability
Intact Stability

  • Stability analysis for Arrival, 60%, and Full Load conditions respectively


Full load damaged stability
Full Load Damaged Stability

Using 15% LBP Criteria (Approx: 102 ft.)

There were three worst case scenarios

a: Starboard Cargo Oil 6, Cargo 1, Cargo 2

b: Forepeak, Foretank, Starboard Cargo Oil 2 and Cargo Oil 4

c: Cargo 4, Starboard Cargo 6 and ER 2


Full load damaged stability1
Full Load Damaged Stability

  • Worst case scenarios

    a:

    b:


Full load damaged stability2
Full Load Damaged Stability

  • Worst case scenarios

    c:


Continuing analysis
Continuing Analysis

  • Seakeeping

  • Structural Improvement



ad