REVIEW OF ADVANCED MARINE VEHICLES CONCEPTS
Apostolos Papanikolaou, National Technical University of Athens, Ship Design Laboratory, Greece (NTUA-SDL)
SUMMARY
The objective of this paper is to present a review of developments of Advanced Marine Vehicles concepts, with emphasis
on the basic techno-economic efficiency of fast passenger and high-value cargo ship designs. The presented work is
based on the analysis of data of NTUA-SDL’s Fast Marine Vehicles (FMV) techno-economic database. The collected
techno-economic data have been systematically analysed, to assess the transport efficiency of various fast ship concepts
and to conclude on the feasibility and viability of candidate designs for specific operational scenarios.
1.
INTRODUCTION
During the past two decades the maritime community has
witnessed a rapid technological evolution of Fast,
Advanced Marine Vehicles (AMV) for various
applications. In the commercial sector, considerable
effort has been devoted worldwide to the development of
new types of fast passenger and (to a lesser degree) highvalue cargo ships, in an attempt to increase the share of
waterborne transportation against other competing
transportation modes in shortsea operations. Many
operators have until now been reluctant to consider the
introduction of advanced marine vehicles because of the
difficulty in assessing their characteristics, the lack of
proven operational records and last but not least the
dramatic increase of fuel cost, particularly in the last
years. As each AMV concept has its own optimal domain
of application, wrong selection among the proposed
concepts may become disastrous both for the image of
the concept and for the viability of rather small operators.
An overview of developments of the various AMV
concepts on the basis of the prime vehicle’s weight
counterbalance force is shown in the Appendix
(Papanikolaou, 2002, updated). There it is noted that
developments chronologically started from concepts in
the upper left corner area (displacement ships,
Archimedean hydrostatic weight balance force) and
moved towards the right side and downwards with the
introduction of more complex technologies.
A
comprehensive
description
of
technological
developments of AMV’s has been recently issued by an
international group of authorities (Lamb, 2004).
This paper focuses on a review of the basic characteristics
of fast passenger ferry and high-value cargo ship designs,
considering significant developments within and outside
Europe. The technical and economic characteristics of
AMVs, presented in the paper, derive from a recently
developed techno-economic Fast Marine Vehicles
(FMV) database by NTUA-SDL in the framework of an
EU funded project (EFFISES, 2001-2005). The collected
techno-economic data have been systematically analysed,
in order to assess the transport efficiency of various fast
ship concepts with the aim to assist the designer,
shipowner or other interested parties in the evaluation of
candidate technical solutions for specific operational
scenarios. Empirical formulae relating major design
characteristics of various high-speed concepts have been
derived based on regression analysis of the collected data
(Papanikolaou et al, 2001). Emphasis has been placed in
the assessment of two hybrid Air Lubricated Hull (ALH)
EFFISES concepts, currently validated by open sea
experiments of two scaled 9m prototypes (Papanikolaou
et al., 2004). The main characteristics of the investigated
EFFISES concepts are shown in Table 1.
2.
PRESENTATION OF DATA SAMPLE
The NTUA-SDL FMV database considers technoeconomic data of a significant portion of high-speed
vehicles operating worldwide (sample size in June 2005:
657 registered vessels, Froude number over 0.70). The
main source of data is both public domain information
and confidential data of NTUA-SDL deriving from past
and ongoing research in this area. Compared to
commercially available relevant databases, it is
characterized by the availability of a satisfactory set of
data regarding ship weights (displacement, payload,
deadweight and lightship weight) and building costs.
Figures 1 to 5 illustrate the main database menu with
some main features of the database and the repartition of
the collected data with respect to ship type, length, speed,
etc.
Figure 1
FMV Database
NTUA-SDL
June 2005
Cargo Vessels
0,0%
REPARTITION
" High Speed Passenger Vessels "
Passenger / Car
Vessels
35,6%
Total : 657 ships
Passenger Vessels
64,4%
Passenger Vessels
Passenger / Car Vessels
Cargo Vessels
Figure 2
SWATH
1,2%
ACVAS
0,2%
FMV Database
NTUA-SDL
June 2005
Semi SWATH
1,4%
Planing Monohull
22,1%
REPARTITION
"All Vessels"
Wave Piercer
Catamaran
10,6%
entional Hydrofoil
8,1%
Total : 653 ships
Catamaran
34.1%
SES
6,6%
Wave Piercer Catamaran
Conventional Hydrofoil
Semi SWATH
Catamaran
ACV
Unknown
SES
ACVAS
Planing Monohull
SWATH
Figure 3
FMV Database
NTUA-SDL
June 2005
REPARTITION
" Distribution of Analysed
Ships acc. to Loa"
Above 90m
16,8%
Total : 648 ships
Below 50m
62,2%
50m - 90m
21,0%
Below 50m
TRANSPORT EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS
The Transport Efficiency of a marine vehicle may be
defined in various ways and a series of researchers have
addressed this in the past. In the following, a review of
past work is attempted and complemented by recent
work of the author.
The Transport Efficiency may be defined as a function of
the vessel’s deadweight Wd (t), service speed Vs (kn) and
total installed power P (kW) and is presented for a
sample of AMVs in Figure 6.
E1 =
Unknown
0,5%
ACV
2,0%
3.
50m - 90m
Above 90m
Figure 4
Wd ⋅ VS
P
(1)
The Transport Efficiency may be also defined with
respect to the vessel’s payload Wp (t) instead of
deadweight, and is presented in Figure 7.
W p ⋅ Vs
E2 =
(2)
P
Comparing the transport efficiency of marine vehicles
with that of alternative modes of transport (land- and
airborne), it is very useful to employ the well known v.
Karman-Gabrielli transport efficiency diagram. Akagi
(1991) has re-plotted the original Karman-Gabrielli
diagram, in terms of the reciprocal Transport Efficiency
as a function of the total installed power P (PS),
displacement W (t) and maximum speed V (km/h):
1
P
=
E3 W ⋅ V
(3)
and Akagi–Morishita (2001) added more recent
developments of various transport vehicles. Figure 8
presents the reciprocal Transport Efficiency once more
updated by sample data of the NTUA-SDL database,
whereas Figure 9 is focusing on the performance of the
marine vehicles only.
The reciprocal Transport Efficiency (specific power),
may be based also on payload Wp (t):
1
P
(4)
=
E4 W p ⋅ V 2
and is presented in Figure 10.
Above 45 kn
8,3%
FMV Database
NTUA-SDL
June 2005
Below 30 kn
12,9%
REPARTITION
" Distribution of Analysed Ships
acc. to Service Speed "
40 - 45 kn
20,9%
Total : 611 ships
30 - 35 kn
32,2%
35 - 40 kn
25,5%
Below 30 kn
30 - 35 kn
35 - 40 kn
Figure 5
40 - 45 kn
Above 45 kn
Akagi (1991) plotted the payload ratio (Wp/W) of various
transport vehicles against their maximum speed (in
km/h). This plot has been updated in Figure 11 by
additions of the FMV-NTUA database. Akagi and
Morishita (2001) also analyzed the Specific Power 1/E2
as:
P
P
W Wd
(5)
=
⋅
⋅
W p ⋅ V W ⋅ V Wd W p
and plotted each term separately. The deadweight and
payload ratios against V, W and volumetric Froude
number F∇ are plotted in Figures 12 – 20, as updated by
the FMV-NTUA sample data.
Wright’s results, amended by FMV-NTUA data are
presented in Figures 27 and 28.
TF =
K2 ⋅W
SHPTI /( K 1 ⋅ VK )
(6)
where K2 is a constant (K2= 2240 lb/LT), W is ship’s
displacement in LT, SHPTI is the total installed power in
HP, K1 is a constant (K1= 1.6878/550 HP/lb-kn) and Vk is
the design speed in kn. Figure 21 presents Kenell’s
transport factor vs. speed updated with the relevant
FMV-NTUA database data.
Following Kennell’s approach, the displacement and
transport factor are decomposed as follows:
W=Wship+Wcargo+Wfuel
TF=TFship+TFcargo+TFfuel
(7)
(8)
Where Wship, Wcargo, Wfuel are the lightship, cargo and fuel
oil weight respectively (in LT), and TFship, TFcargo, TFfuel
are the transport factors, calculated for each weight
group.
Wship and Wfuel are obtained from the following equations:
Wship =W- Wcargo- Wfuel
W fuel = SFC avg ⋅ K SHP ⋅ SHPTI
(9)
R
K S ⋅V K
(10)
where SFCavg is the average effective fuel consumption
rate, KSHP is the endurance power to design power ratio,
R the range (in n.m.), KS the endurance speed to design
speed ratio.
Figures 22 to 25 show the fuel transport factor vs. range
and the trends of transport factors and various fractions
thereof, as plotted by Kennell and updated by the FMVNTUA database ships.
Hearn et al. (2001) used Kennell’s transport factor to
compare current technology catamarans, semi-SWATHs
and wave-piercers against a defined Technology Barrier.
Figure 26 shows an update of Hearn’s diagram by data of
the FMV-NTUA database ships.
Finally Wright (1990) examined the relation between
BHP/Passenger and speed/length ratios for passenger
crafts of about 200 passengers and calculated the
Transport Efficiency of various high speed crafts.
Wright’s Transport Efficiency is defined as:
4.
CONCLUSIONS
The present state of the art of technological
developments of Advanced Marine Vehicles allows the
consideration of a wide variety of fast marine vehicle
concepts, for various applications. The transport
efficiency of the various investigated concepts clearly
depends
on
design
speed,
route
length,
payload/displacement ratio and absolute vessel’s size.
When considering commercial applications the selection
of the optimal concept presumes the specification of an
accurately defined operational scenario, following a
market research with respect to the transport volume,
market shares and the performance of alternative
transport vehicles (speed and cost), including
conventional vessels and, if applicable, airborne and land
vehicles.
For the specified operational scenario alternative
candidate AMV concepts may be assessed with respect
to a variety of cost merit functions and design
constraints. This assessment should include, along with
the calm water performance of candidate concepts, their
performance at service speed under the selected
operational seaway conditions, characterizing the area of
operation.
The Transport Efficiency analysis of the envisaged Air
Lubricated Hull EFFISES prototype designs appears
quite competitive compared to other types and modes of
fast transport. If the preliminary design results of the
EFFISES prototypes are confirmed by the planned open
sea tests, it is believed that the envisaged ALH hybrid
designs will represent an attractive alternative for the fast
transportation of passengers and high-value cargo.
Transport Efficiency vs. Service Speed
E1 = Wd x Vs/P
5,0
4,0
E40-1-55
E40-2-55
2,0
E125-1-60
E40-2-70
1,0
E125-2-60
E125-1-50
E125-2-50
0,0
25
E5 =
(Wmax − LW ) ⋅ VC ,0 / 0
(10)
PC
where Wmax is the maximum displacement in t, LW the
lightweight in t, Vc,0/0 the cruise speed in kn at 0/0
conditions (calm water, no wind) full load and Pc the
cruise power in kW.
E40-1-70
3,0
1/E1
Kenell (1998) introduced a transport factor:
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
SERVICE SPEED (knots)
Catamaran
EFFISES Design
Log. (Wave Piercer Catamaran)
Planing Monohull
Linear (Catamaran)
Figure 6
Wave Piercer Catamaran
Linear (Planing Monohull)
75
ACV
E40-1-55
Transport Efficiency vs. Service Speed
E2=Wp x Vs/P
0,1
Catamaran
E40-2-55
10,0
E40-1-70
9,0
E40-2-70
Hydrofoil
NTUA Database
NTUA-SDL
Helicopter
8,0
[PS/t(km/h)^2]
E40-1-70
6,0
E40-1-55
5,0
E40-2-55
4,0
E40-2-70
2,0
1/E4=P/WpV^2
3,0
E125-1-60
E125-1-50
1,0
E125-2-60
E125-2-50
0,0
20
30
40
50
60
70
Planing Monohull
SES
Power (Planing Monohull)
Linear (SES)
E125-1-50
WPC
Lift- Support
E125-1-60
SWATH
E125-2-50
0,01
E125-2-60
0.005
Semi-SWATH
Car
Passenger
ship
Turboprop
Conv entional
Monohull
NTUA-SDL
Bus
BuoyancySupport
0.002
Jet
Rails
Truck
0,001
LandSupport
Cargoship
B747F
0.0005
SERVICE SPEED (knots)
Catamaran
Hydrofoil
Power (Catamaran)
Expon. (Hydrofoil)
SES
ACV
0.02
7,0
1/E2
Conv entional
Hy drof oil
Planing Monohull
0.05
Bulk
carrier
Wave Piercer Catamaran
EFFISES Design
Linear (Wave Piercer Catamaran)
0.0002
Tanker
0,0001
20
10
Figure 7
30
50
200
100
300
500
1000
Speed V [Km/h]
Figure 10
10
V= 10000m3
E125-1-50
V= 100000m3
E40-1-70
Helicopte
1
E125-2-50
[PS/t(Km/h)]
5 E40-2-55
Cargo
Jet
(Latest)
B747SR
Buoyancy
Support
0,6
E125-1-60
MAGLEV
Truck
E125-2-60
TGV-A
Passenger
Boat
5
Rail
ICE
ACV
Battleship
3
Land Support
Ship
Shinkansen
LIner
Bulk
0,01
Conv entional Hy drof oil
FMV Database
NTUA-SDL
Cargo
WPC
Land-Support
E125-1-60
Air Cargo
Car
Passenger
E125-1-50
Jet
0,2
SST
Passenger ship
Propeller
Hy drof oil
Rails
E40-2-70
0
20
10 E40-2-55
Conv entional Monohull
NTUA-SDL
Buoy ancy
Support
E125-2-60
E125-2-50
(Latest)
2
WPC
Heli
Planing Monohull
Ship
3
SES
Truck
ACV Bus
SES
Tanker
Planing Monohull
Cargo/Pass
ship
Carrier
5
Conv entional Hy drof oil
Container
0,4
Catamaran
Container
2
Catamaran
Liner
Bus
Cruiser
2
B767
Car
150000 ton
81000 ton
62000 ton
47000 ton
33000 ton
0,8
B707
3 E40-1-55
ACV
Tanker,
Bulkcarrier
Jet
(Early)
B727
Prop.
Destroyer
0,1
1/E3=P/WV
Hydrofoil
1
Karman's Limit (1950)
B737
Hovercraft
FMV Database
NTUA-SDL
Lift-Support
E40-2-70
W p /W
2
V= 1000m3
V= 100m3
Submersible Cube
(Lewis' Limit)
50
E40-1-55
Lif t-Support
200
100
E40-1-70
500
1000
2000
5000
10000
Speed V [Km/h]
0,001
20
10
50
200
100
1000 2000
500
5000
10000
Figure 11
Speed V [Km /h]
Figure 8
1
Monohull
Twinhull
Monohull
Twinhull
E40-1-55
FMV Database
NTUA - SDL
M.Morishita
S.Akagi
FAST 2001
Lift-supporting
E125-2-50
Jetfoil
Twinhull
E40-2-55
H/C
Wave
piercerSES 1000
0.5
[PS/t(km/h)]
0.2
TSL-A
E40-2-70
0,5
Tw inhull
Monohull
E40-2-55
E40-2-70
Submersible cube
Lew is' Limit
E125-1-60
E125-1-60
V =1000m3
E125-1-50
E125-2-60
SRN4 (II)
V =100m3
E125-2-50
Cruiser
Buoyancysupporting
E40-1-70
V =10000m3
Karman-Gabrielli (1950)
0.05
Battle ship
SL7
V =100000m3
Catamaran
Liner
0.02
FMV Database
NTUA-SDL
Bulk
carrier
0,01
Conv entional Hy drof oil
Planing Monohull
SES
WPC
S.Akagi-M. Morishita
FAST 2001
0.002
50
60
70
80
90
WPC
0,001
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Speed V [Km /h]
Figure 9
120
130
140
150
Conv entional Monohull
160
100
V (Km /h)
Catamatan
SWATH/Semi-SWATH
NTUA-SDL
20
E40-1-55
0
Monohull
Tanker
0.005
E125-1-50
ACV
Container ship
1/E3=P/WV
E40-1-70
E125-2-60
ACV
Singlehull
Destroyer
0,1
SES 100A
SRN4
Wd/W
SES 100B
1
Figure 12
110
120
130
1
1
Monohull
E125-2-50
FMV Database
NTUA - SDL
Twinhull
Monohull
E40-2-70
E40-2-55
M.Morishita
S.Akagi
FAST 2001
Twinhull
E125-2-60
Tw inhull
E125-1-60
Wp/Wd
Wd/W
E40-1-55
E125-2
0,5
Monohull
FMV Database
NTUA - SDL
Monohull
Tw inhull
E40-2
Twinhull
M.Morishita
S.Akagi
FAST 2001
Monohull
E125-1
E40-1-70
E125-1-50
0,5
Twinhull
Suzuran
E40-1
0
0,5
Monohull
1,5
2,5
3,5
4,5
Fnv
0
100
1000
10000
100000
Figure 17
Displacem ent
Figure 13
10
Monohul
E40-1-55
E40-1-70
1
Monohull
FMV Database
NTUA - SDL
Monohull
M.Morishita
S.Akagi
FAST 2001
Wd/W
Twinhull
E125-1-60
1
E125-2-50
Monohull
E40-2-55
E125-2-60
0,5
FMV Database
NTUA - SDL
Twinhull
Tw ihull
M.Morishita
S.Akagi
FAST 2001
Monohull
E40-2-70
Monohull
E125-2-60
E125-1-50
E125-2-50
Tw inhul
E40-2-70
E40-2-55
P/WpV
Twinhull
Twinhull
0,1
E125-1-60
50
E40-1-70
60
70
E40-1-55
E125-1-50
1
1,5
2
90
2,5
3
3,5
100
110
120
130
140
V (Km /h)
0
0,5
80
4
4,5
Figure 18
5
Fnv
10
Figure 14
Monohull
FMV Database
NTUA - SDL
Twinhull
E40-1-70
Monohull
E40-1-55
M.Morishita - S.Akagi
FAST 2001
Twinhull
Tw inhull
E40-2-70
E125-2-50
E125-2-60
E125-1-60
E40-2-70
E40-2-55
Wp/Wd
E125-1-50
E125-1-60
P/WpV
1
1
E40-2-55
E125-2-60
E40-1-70
E125-2-50
E40-1-55
0,5
E125-1-50
Monohull
FMV Database
NTUA - SDL
Twinhull
Monohull
0,1
100
M.Morishita
S.Akagi
FAST 2001
Twinhull
1000
60
70
80
90
100
110
10000
100000
Displacem ent
0
50
Monohull
Tw ihull
Monohull
120
130
V (Km /h)
Figure 19
Figure 15
10
E125-1-50
1
E40-1-55
Monohull
E125-2
E40-1-70
E40-1
P/WpV
Wp/Wd
Tw inhull
0,5
E40-2
E40-2-55
1
E125-2-60
E125-2-50
Monohull
Tw ihull
Monohull
Twinhull
Monohull
Twinhull
0
100
1000
10000
Displacem ent
Figure 16
E40-2-70
E125-1-60
E125-1
FMV Database
NTUA - SDL
M.Morishita
S.Akagi
FAST 2001
Monohull
FMV Database
Twinhull
NT UA - SDL
Monohull
M.Morishita
Twinhull
S.Akagi
FAST 2001
0,1
100000
0,5
1,5
2,5
3,5
Fnv
Figure20
4,5
5,5
100
12
TF-TFfuel/V K =0.25
T-AKR 287/SL7
E125-1,2-50
80
10
Transport Factor
Slender
60
E125-1,2-60
89 Sealift
8
TF - TFfuel
Submarine
SS United States
40
SPMH
Hindendurg
E125-1,2-60
20
Ekranoplan
A.90.150
3K SES
E40-1,2-55
E40-1,2-70
6
4
TF-TFfuel/V K =0.05
0
0
50
QUEST
100
200
250
2
Speed in Knots
E40-1,2-70
E125-1,2-50
C atamaran
M onohull
M ono
ACV
WI G
Sub
C at
150
FMV Dat abase NTUA -SDL
H ydrofoil
(sample of 67 ships)
SE S
SE S
H yd
A irs hip
H Y SWA S
P ower (C d=C ons t)
E40-1,2-55
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Speed in Knots
Cat amaran
SES
Figure 21
Hydrof oil
A CV
Monohull
Hyd
FMV Dat abase NTUA -SDL
SES
(sample of 67 ships)
Figure 25
100
Catam aran
SES
Mono
Hydrofoil
Monohull
Airplane
Hydrofoil
SES
Airship
ACV
FMV Dat abase NTUA -SDL
(sample of 67 ships)
FM V D atabas e
Transport Factor
10
E40-2-55
E125-2-50
26
24
WPC
E125-1,2-50
INCAT 104
14
12
E125-1,2-60
E40-1,2-55
E40-1,2-70
Seajet 250
6
4
AMD 2100
25
1000
SES
et.al. (2001)
HSS 1500
18
16
E40-1-55
E40-1-70
Monohull
according to Grant E. Hearn
22
20
E125-2-60
E125-1-60
Hydrofoil
Transpacif ic Container Vessel
10
8
E40-2-70
0,1
100
Catamaran
30
28
DEFINED TECHNOLOGY
BARRIER (HSST W97)
Transport Factor TFfuel
C 130
E125-1-50
ACV
34
32
B 747-400
1
N T U A -SD L
36
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Speed (Kn)
10000
Range in Miles
Figure 26
0,5
60
0,4
50
0,3
40
BHP/Passenger
TFfuel / TF
Figure 22
0,2
E40-1-55,70
E40-2-55,70
0,1
E125-1-50,60
E40-2-70
Hydrofoil
SES
Airship
Monohull
ACV
Catamaran
Hydrofoil
Displacement
Hull
E40-2-55
Proposed curv e
f or
Incat Catamarans
SES
WPC
0
1
2
3
FMV Dat abase NTUA -SDL
4
5
6
SPEED/SQRT(LENGTH)
(sample of 67 ships)
Figure 27
Figure 23
FMV Database
NTUA-SDL
E5=(Max A.U.W.-Light Weight(tonnes)xC ruise Speed (Knots)/C ruise Power(KW)
0,012
ACV
E125-2-50
E125-2-60
C atamaran
1
E125-2-50
P laning M onohull
0,01
E125-1-50
SWA T H
0,9
WP C
ACV
E125-2-60
TRANSPORT EFFICIENCY (E5)
0,008
Wcargo/SHP
Monohull
Semi
Planing
10000
Range in Miles
SES
Hydrofoil
Hy drof oil
Estimated
Swath
0
Catamaran
Mono
Airplane
FMV Database
NTUA-SDL
Hov ercraf t
Planing
Hull
10
1000
E40-1-70
Catamaran
30
20
E125-2-50,60
0
100
E40-1-55
E125-1-60
(TF-TFfuel )/V K
0,006
0 .2 5 0
0 .1 6 7
E40-1-55
0 .1 2 5
E40-1-70
0,004
0 .1 0 0
0 .0 6 7
E40-2-55
0 .0 5 0
0,002
E40-2-70
0,8
Swath
10
Wship/Wcargo
Cat amaran
Hydrof oil
Monohull
SES
SES
Hydrof oil
A irship
A CV
A irplane
Cat amaran
FMV Dat abase NTUA -SDL
(sample of 56 ships)
15
20
SES 200
I nc at
E40-2-55
0,5
SRN4 MK2
Lady Patricia
Seagull
Halcyon
J etfoil
C atamaran- M arinteknik
c
BH 110
0,4
Surfac e P ierc ing H 'Foil
E125-1-60
0,6
E40-2-70
BH 350B
Telford
Capricorn
BH 375
E40-1-55
E40-1-70
AP1-88
0,3
Larus
Kaimalino
0,2
0
10
20
Jetfoil
HM 218
30
40
50
SPEED (Knots)
Figure 24
D is plac ement
SRN4 MK3
HM 527
5
V os per H overmarine
0,7
0
0
Bell H arter SE S
E125-1-50
Figure 28
60
70
80
Ship
Characteristics
LOA
LBP
B
D
Displacement
Lightship
Deadweight
Payload
Fuel
Pass. Capacity
Car Capacity
Truck Capacity
Speed
Total Power
Consumption
(M.E)
Ship
Characteristics
LOA
LBP
B
D
Displacement
Lightship
Deadweight
Payload
Fuel
Pass. Capacity
Car Capacity
Truck Capacity
Speed
Total Power
Consumption
(M.E)
E40-1-55
E40-1-70
E40-2-55
E40-2-70
40 m
36 m
16 m
4.30 m
175 tons
130 tons
45 tons
30 tons
10 tons
225 tons
145 tons
80 tons
57.5 tons
17 tons
247 – 342
0
0
70 Kn
55 Kn
9874 kW
9353 kW
55 Kn
7227 kW
70 Kn
12440 kW
240 gr/kW/h
E125-1-50
E125-1-60
E125-2-50
50 Kn
92000 kW
5125 tons
2900 tons
2225 tons
1900 tons
230 tons
1500
150 – 400
25 – 0
60 Kn
50 Kn
138000 kW
115000 kW
60 Kn
167000 kW
250 gr/kW/h
Table 1
5.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work presented in this paper was partly supported by
the EU-project EFFISES (DG Research, C.N. GRD12000-25847).
6.
KENNELL, C., ‘Design Trends in High-Speed
Transport’, Journal Marine Technology, Vol. 35,
No. 3, (1998).
6.
Lamb, T. (ed.), Ship Design and Construction, Vol.
II, SNAME Publ., (2004).
7.
PAPANIKOLAOU, A., PAPATZANAKIS, G.,
‘Assessment of EFFISES Prototypes Efficiency’,
EFFISES Report WOR – T1.2.3 suppl. – NTUA –
06.04, (2004).
8.
PAPANIKOLAOU, A., GEORGANTZI, N.,
PAPATZANAKIS, G., ‘Regression Analysis and
Assessment of Collected Techno-Economic Data of
Fast Marine Vessels’, EFFISES Report WOR –
T1.2.3 – NTUA – 12.01, (2001).
9.
PAPANIKOLAOU, A., ‘Development and Potential
of Advanced Marine Vehicles Concepts’, Bulletin
of the KANSAI Soc. Of Naval Arch., No 55, pp 50
– 54, (2002).
E125-2-60
125 m
118 m
45 m
12.80 m
4100 tons
2700 tons
1400 tons
1170 tons
150 tons
5.
REFERENCES
1.
AKAGI, S., ‘Synthetic Aspects of Transport
Economy and Transport Vehicle Performance with
Reference to High Speed Marine Vehicles”, FAST
91, (1991).
2.
AKAGI, S., MORISHITA, M., “Transport
Economy – Based Evaluation and Assessment of the
Use of Fast Ships in Passenger – Car Ferry and
Freighter Systems’, FAST 2001, (2001).
3.
EFFISES, Energy Efficient Safe Innovative Ships
and Vehicles, Coordinator: SES Europe, CEC DG
Research, C.N. GRD1-2000-25847, (2001-2005).
4.
HEARN, E.G., VELDHUIS, J.S.I., VANT’ T
VEER, R., STEENBERGEN, J.R., ‘Conceptual
Design Investigations of a Very High Speed
Transpacific Container Vessel’, FAST 2001, (2001).
10. WRIGHT, C., ‘Operation and Cost of High-Speed
Craft’, Journal Marine Technology, Vol. 27, No. 2,
(1990).
APPENDIX A
Comments on Chart of Advanced Marine Vehicles and Explanation of Used Acronyms
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
ACV: Air Cushion Vehicle - Hovercraft, excellent calm water and acceptable seakeeping (limiting wave height), limited payload capacity.
ALH: Air Lubricated Hull, various developed concepts and patents, see type STOLKRAFT.
Deep V: ships with Deep V sections of semi-displacement type acc. to E. Serter (USA) or of more planing type, excellent calm water and payload
characteristics, acceptable to good seakeeping, various concepts AQUASTRADA (RODRIQUEZ, Italy), PEGASUS (FINCANTIERI, Italy), MESTRAL
(BAZAN, Spain), CORSAIR (LEROUX & LOTZ, France).
EFFISES: Hybrid ALH twin hull with powered lift, patented by SES Europe A.S. (Norway)
FOILCAT: Twin hull (catamaran) hydrofoil craft of KVAERNER (Norway), likewise MITSUBISHI (Japan), excellent seakeeping (but limiting wave height)
and calm water characteristics, limited payload.
HYSWAC – X-Craft: Hybrid SWATH with midfoil, prototypes currently tested by US Navy
LWC: Low Wash Catamaran, twin hull superslender semi-displacement catamaran with low wave-wash signature of FBM Marine Ltd. (United Kingdom),
employed for river and closed harbour traffic.
LSBK: Längs Stufen- Bodenkanalboot- Konzept, optimized air-lubricated twin hull with stepped planing demihulls, separated by tunnel, aerodynamically
generated cushion, patented in Germany.
MIDFOIL: Submerged Foil-body and surface piercing twin struts of NAVATEK-LOCKHEED (USA).
MONOSTAB: Semi-planing monohull with fully submerged stern fins of RODRIQUEZ (Italy).
MWATH: Medium Waterplane Area Twin Hull Ship, as type SWATH, however with larger waterplane area, increased payload capacity and reduced
sensitivity to weight changes, worse seakeeping.
PENTAMARAN: Long slender monohull with four outriggers, designs by Nigel Gee and IZAR (Spain).
SES: Surface Effect Ship, Air Cushion Catamaran Ship, similar to ACV type concept, however w/o side skirts, improved seakeeping and payload
characteristics.
SLICE: Staggered quadruple demihulls with twin struts on each side, acc. to NAVATEK-LOCKHEED (USA), currently tested as prototype.
SSTH: Superslender Twin Hull, semi-displacement catamaran with very slender long demihulls of IHI shipyard (Japan), similar to type WAVEPIERCER.
STOLKRAFT: Optimized air-lubricated V-section shape catamaran, with central body, reduced frictional resistance characteristics, limited payload,
questionable seakeeping in open seas, patented by STOLKRAFT (Australia)
Superslender Monohull with Outriggers: Long monohull with two small outriggers in the stern part, EUROEXPRESS concept of KVAERNER-MASA Yards
(Finland), excellent calm water performance and payload characteristics, good seakeeping in head seas.
SWATH Hybrids: SWATH type bow section part and planning catamaran astern section (STENA’s HSS of Finyards, Finland, AUSTAL hybrids, Australia),
derived from original type SWATH & MWATH concepts.
SWATH: Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull Ship, synonym to SSC (Semi-Submerged Catamaran of MITSUI Ltd.), ships with excellent seakeeping
characteristics, especially in short period seas, reduced payload capacity, appreciable calm water performance.
TRICAT: Twin hull semi-displacement catamaran with middle body above SWL of FBM Marine Ltd. (United Kingdom).
TRIMARAN: Long slender monohull with small outriggers at the center, introduced by Prof. D. Andrews - UCL London (United Kingdom), currently tested as
large prototype by the UK Royal Navy (TRITON), similarities to the Superslender Monohull with outriggers concept of KVAERNER-MASA.
TSL-F - SWASH: Techno-Superliner Foil version developed in Japan by shipyard consortium, submerged monohull with foils and surface piercing struts.
V-CAT: Semi-displacement catamaran with V section shaped demihulls of NKK shipyard (Japan), as type WAVEPIERCER.
WAVEPIERCER: Semi-displacement catamaran of INCAT Ltd. (Australia), good seakeeping characteristics in long period seas (swells), good calm water
performance and payload characteristics.
WEINBLUME: Displacement catamaran with staggered demihulls, introduced by Prof. H. Söding (IfS-Hamburg-Germany), very good wave resistance
characteristics, acceptable seakeeping and payload, name to the honor of late Prof. G. Weinblum.
WFK: Wave Forming Keel High Speed Catamaran Craft, employment of stepped planning demihulls, like type LSBK, but additionally introduction of air to
the planning surfaces to form lubricating film of micro-bubbles or sea foam with the effect of reduction of frictional resistance, patented by A. Jones (USA)
WIG: Wing In Ground Effect Craft, various developed concepts and patents, passenger/cargo carrying and naval ship applications, excellent calm water
performance, limited payload capacity, limited operational wave height, most prominent representatives the ECRANOPLANS of former USSR.
Development of Basic Types and Hybrids of Advanced Marine Vehicles