Archipelago - High Speed Catamaran Ferry for the Greek Isles by Andreas Tsokos Pappas

archipelago high speed catamaran ferry for the greek isles

"Archipelago" High Speed Catamaran Ferry for the Greek Isles

Thesis, March 2018 Master's Degree in Yacht and Cruising Vessel Design University of Genoa - Dipartment of Architecture and Design Polytecnic of Milan Andreas Tsokos Pappas Supervisor: Prof. Mario Ivan Zignego Assistant supervisors: Prof. Thomas P. Mazarakos, Tommaso Spadolini

Contents 6

Introduction

The place

13 15 18

Island trasportation overview

Problem identification

Project scenario definition

Project size

Project hull typology

Competitors

Design brief

43 44 45

Base hull

Base hull modelling and adaptation

Foil study

Propulsion system

63 64 65 65 66

Exterior design

69 73 74 175

Interior design

177

Project Tehnical Characteristics

Aegean Sea ferry routes analysis Ionian Sea ferry routes analysis

Australian multihull shipbuilding industry Thesis project base hull

Preliminary profile sketches Passenger- vehicle distribution Project profile study Exterior renders

GA Plan Sections - Bow and stern views Interior renders

Appendix 1 - Original hull hydrostatics

Appendix 2 - Original hull Holtrop analysis

101

Appendix 3 - Hull hydrostatics at design speed

113

Appendix 4 - Hull Holtrop analysis at design speed

120

References

121

Aknowledgments

Introduction

The subject of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Archipelagoâ&#x20AC;? thesis project is the research and design of a highspeed catamaran ferry for the Greek Islands. The scope of this thesis project is to propose an alternative solution regarding the transportation needs of the residents and tourists of the Greek Islands, both in the Aegean and the Ionian Sea. Since, as far as the bigger and more populated islands are concerned, their transportation needs are adequately met all year round, because of the bigger traffic and the more dense ferry and airplane schedules, we choose to focus on the case of the smaller less populated islands and their particular needs regarding, healthcare, everyday consumer goods refurbishment and many more. Afterwards, we examine the existing ferry timetables on this type of islands, the types of vessels serving them and their performance and fitness for the role. According to them and the above-mentioned needs of the islands, we decide on the type of vessel for the project, and embark on a more focused research on the existing vessels of this type serving the islands. Next, we define the main project characteristics and settle upon the base hull, on which the ferry will be designed. After we have established the base hull, we investigate the implementation of a foils system, designed to reduce the resistance of the vessel during navigation and thus reduce the operation costs. Consequently, we decide upon the propulsion system to be implemented in the project and define its characteristics. After the propulsion system and its layout is defined, we proceed to the exterior design study of the project, that responds in the best possible way to the design characteristics already defined, as well as investigating upon a different and innovative design language. The next and final step is the research and definition of the GA plan of the project, as well as an interior design study that focuses both on serving the operational needs of the ferry, as well as on creating a pleasant and welcoming ambience for the users of this vessel.

The place

The place General geographic definition

Greece is geographically placed on the tip of the Balkan Peninsula, between the Aegean and Ionian Sea. As a result of this, and the particular geographical distribution of the islands in these two archipelago, Greece has an extensive island population and a very important relationship with its islands, regarding both social and economic factors, as well as geopolitical ones.

The Aegean Sea

The Aegean Sea has an area of 214.000 km2 and its main characteristic is its division in many island groups scattered across it. The total number of the islands is about 7.500, but the majority of them are small uninhabited islets, while only about 100 of them are inhabited all year long. Of them, 2 islands, Imbros or Gรถkรงeada and Tenedos or Bozcaada belong to the Turkey, with all the others belong to Greece.

Administrational division of the Aegean Islands

They are administratively divided in the Northern Aegean Region, with its main islands being Samothraki, Aghios Efstratios, Lesvos, Psara, Chios, Samos, Ikaria and Fournoi, and the Southern Aegean Region, containing the islands of Cyclades and Dodecanese. Furthermore, in the Aegean Sea are located the Saronic Gulf and Kythera Islands and the Sporades Islands, part of the Attica and Thessalia Region respectively. The Cythera Islands are often considered as being in the Ionian Sea, while they are actually located right in the threshold between the Aegean and Ionian Seas.

Map 1: Greece surrounded by the Aegean Sea on the east, and the Ionian Sea on the West

The place For this project, we are taking into account both the administrational situation of the islands as well as they having no ferry or other transport connection to the western part of the country, as opposed to the rest of the Ionian Islands, and we regard them as part of the Aegean Sea. Population figures in the Aegean Sea

The Ionian Sea

The population of the Aegean islands according to the last national census in 2011 is 564.560 residents, divided respectively in: Northern Aegean - 199.231 residents, Dodecanese – 190.989 residents, Cyclades – 117.982 residents, Attica Islands (Saronic and Kythera island groups) – 39.566 residents, Sporades – 16.792 residents. The Ionian Sea is smaller than the Aegean, having an area of 169.000 km, and is home to much less islands. Although the Ionian Sea is surrounded by Greece, Albania and Italy, all of its islands are located next to the Greek mainland and are part of Greece. Their number is a lot lower that those of the Aegean Sea, at 65, with the main inhabited ones being 7, thus the Greek name of the islands, Eptanisa (meaning Seven Islands). They form the autonomous administrational of Ionian Islands and have a population of 207.855 residents, divided respectively in: Corfu – 104.371 residents, Zante – 40.759 residents, Cefalonia – 35.801 residents, Leucas (Lefkada) – 23.693 residents, Ithaca – 3.231 residents.

Sporades

Northern Aegean Islands 199.231 residents

16.792 residents

Ionian Islands

207.855 residents

Saronic Gulf Islands and Cythera 39.566 residents

Cyclades

117.982 residents

Dodecanese

190.989 residents

Map 2: Adminstrational and population division in the Greek Islands according to the 2011 census

Island transportation overview

Island trasportation overview Air routes

The air travel connections in the Aegean and Ionian Islands generally have a secondary role within the wider transport set, as airports exist only in 27 of the about 100 inhabited islands. The main origin airport is the Athens International Airport, which also works as an air transport hub, with fewer flights to the islands taking off from the Thessaloniki International Airport and the airports in Crete. The main reasons why air transport does not contribute as much as ferry transport are the vicinity of the majority of the islands to the mainland, making air travel less cost effective, the inherent low cargo capacity of the airplane as opposed to ships, the seasonal characteristics of the majority of the air connections to the islands, both form Greece and from other countries, and most of all, the absence of airports in the majority of the islands, especially the smaller ones.

Air routes categories

The island air routes can be divided in three categories. First, the open market routes, serving the main and bigger islands with the largest populations, that can also support the traffic needed to make a profit. Secondly, the non-profit or subsidised routes, supported by the state so as to guarantee connections between the islands and to islands with lower populations. And thirdly, the seasonal charter routes, mainly originating from European countries to the most touristic islands, that contribute almost nothing to the transportation needs of the residents of the islands. Finally, it has to be noted that the seasonal aspect exists on the open market routes as well, having as a result fewer connections outside the busy summer months.

Connections per week Map 3: Low season weekly airplane itineraries in the Aegean Islands

Island trasportation overview Ferry traffic statistics in Greece

Main departure ports

According to the Hellenic Statistical Authority (ELSTAT) and the Greek Association of Passenger Shipping Companies (ΣΕΕΝ), Greece is home to 15% of the annual ferry traffic in Europe, while featuring the 2,13 % of the total European population. This means that in 2016 some 31,6 million passengers, 8,3 million cars and 1,3 million commercial vehicles were transported by ferry in Greek waters, while the number of tourists transported reached 10 million in the Aegean and Ionian Sea for the same year. It can therefore be concluded that the majority of the passenger traffic and the whole of the cars and cargo traffic to and from the islands is by ferry. For the Aegean Islands, the main port of reference is Piraeus in Athens, while the Ionian Islands are served by the Western Greece ports respectively nearer to them.

Aegean Ferry Routes Analysis Main departure ports in the Aegean

Regarding the Aegean Sea, the main port of reference for the majority of the islands is Piraeus, with the port of Rafina and Lavrio offering additional connections to islands nearer to them.

Aegean ferry routes objectives

The object of the ferry routes in the Aegean Sea is double. First, connect the islands with the mainland, and therefore the rest of the country. This aspect is of paramount importance, as because of the allocation of half of Greece’s population in its capital, Athens, there is an extremely high grade of centralization regarding all the aspects of a state, from the administrational services to the economic transactions. Thus, Athens, its ports and its airport are the central transportation hub of the country, with the majority of passengers and cargo passing form the hub on the way to or out of the islands to other destinations, in and out of the country. Furthermore, for the majority of the needs that cannot be met in the islands themselves because of the limited infrastructure there, whether them being commercial, healthcare or administration ones, the residents there have to travel to Athens.

Aegean ferry routes organization

Therefore, the ferry routes to and from Piraeus predominately and Rafina and Lavrio secondarily take up the majority of the ferry routes in the Aegean Sea and are operated by large, fast and modern ferries. From these mainland ports, therefore, depart daily the vessels on a number of routes that connect the capital with a number of islands, with itinerary frequencies lower in the winter and higher in the summer months, in order to cater for the tourist traffic to and from the islands.

Aegean ferry routes analysis

The islands with more residents and as a result more traffic are adequately served all year long by large ferries, with the routes often organised in the way that they often serve more than one island at a time. For example, the main cities of Crete, Chania and Heraklion, are served by direct night connections with jumbo ferries, however the other two cities of the Island, Rethymnon, Agios Nicolaos and Sitia, either do not have a ferry connection, and are served by the nearest one, or have a connection two times a week. The Piraeus – Chios – Mitilini route, with various combinations and extensions during the year, serves mainly the islands of the Northern Aegean, with at least 4 departures weekly during the winter and almost 10 in the summer. The Dodecanese Islands are served by the Piraeus – Kos – Rhodes route, again with various combinations of island calls before and after the bigger islands and with as much as daily departures in the summer. The Cyclades, on the other hand, because of the geographical characteristics of the islands, namely the large number of them and the almost equal vicinity to one another, have a number of main routes serving them. The busiest are the Piraeus – Paros – Naxos – Santorini route, serving the central and southern Cyclades with al low as daily departures in the winter and as much as 4 departures daily in the summer, the Piraeus – Syros – Tinos – Mykonos route, serving the central, northern Cyclades and the Region’s administration centre, Syros, with as low as daily departures in the winter and as much as 3 departures daily in the summer, the Piraeus – Kythnos – Serifos – Sifnos – Milos route, serving the southern Cyclades with as low as 5 departures weekly in the winter and as much as 3 departures daily in the summer, and Rafina – Andros – Tinos – Mykonos route, serving the northern Cyclades, with as low as 2 departures daily in the winter and as much as 7 departures daily in the summer. The Sporades Islands are served by the mainland ports of Volos and Aghios Konstantinos, with as low as 4 itineraries weekly in the winter and as much as 10 in the summer.

Island trasportation overview

Connections per week Map 4: Low season weekly ferry itineraries in the Aegean Islands

Main Aegean islandsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ferry connections evaluation

Therefore, because of the ferry routes organisation mentioned above, the main islands of the Aegean Sea are adequately served all year long, with the scheduled itineraries ensuring almost daily connections both between one another as well as with Athens, resulting in an adequate flow of goods and services for the residents all year long, as well as a large influx of tourists in the summer, and as a result a strong tourism industry.

Subsidized ferry services in the Aegean

The other object of the ferry routes in the Aegean Sea is to connect the islands farthest from the mainland and the ones with few residents, both with the nearest bigger islands and the mainland, as well as with one another. These routes are usually subsidized and as a result regulated by the state, and feature in general less frequent itineraries than the main ferry routes, often as low as one weekly, but with good quality vessels usually, as their characteristics are controlled by the state at the time of the competition for the routes. They serve islands like the Lesser Cyclades complex, a number of small islands near Naxos that have population in the lower hundreds each, Amorgos, Astypalea, Kimolos, Folegandros, Sikinos, Anafi in the Cyclades, Tilos, Kalymnos, Karpathos, Kasos, Chalki, and Symi in the Dodecanese, Aghios Efstratios, Psara and Limnos in the Northern Aegean and Kythera and Antikythera. These are low traffic islands, with low populations

Island trasportation overview

Image 1: The Blue Star Linesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ferry Blue Star Naxos approaching the port of Ano Koufonisi in August 2016, during service in the Piraeus - Lesser Cyclades Islands subsidized line

and as a result low traffic even in the summer. With the one or two weekly ferry calls from and to Piraeus or Lavrio therefore, the residents in these islands face many challenges regarding their everyday life and needs such as fresh bread, milk, grocery and other everyday goods. Furthermore, the situation in the winter often gets worse, as it is not uncommon for the ferry routes to be suspended for days as a result of bad weather. Intra-island ferry connections

Apart from the ferry itineraries between the islands and the mainland, there is also a small number of intra-island ferry connections, almost all subsidized by the state. They are found mainly in the Dodecanese Islands, offering daily connections to Rhodes, and the Cyclades, offering round itineraries departing from and arriving to the island of Syros, after passing from the majority of Cyclades, but with disappointing weekly frequencies, exacerbating in this way the transport problems of the smaller islands. The main reason for the low number of intra-island connections is the above-mentioned centralization of goods and services in the capital, and the resulting non-competitiveness of these routes.

Image 2: The Hellenic Seawaysâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (then leased to ANEK Lines) ferry Artemis in Anafi Port in July 2009, during service in the intraisland ferry itineraries in the Cyclades, based on the island of Syros Image credits: Ilias Nokas

Island trasportation overview Seasonal high - speed ferry itineraries in the Aegean

Another aspect of the ferry transport system in the Aegean Sea, is the seasonal employment of large high-speed RO - PAX ferries, mainly catamarans, during the high-traffic summer months. They supplement the standard ferry routes with additional itineraries both in service of the regular passenger flows, as in the main ferry routes in the Cyclades, as well as dedicated tourist â&#x20AC;&#x201C; targeted itineraries, with the most successful being the seasonal ferry connection between Heraklion in Crete, Santorini and Mykonos. Even though they are highly profitable and successful, they are only deployed a few months every year, thus not contributing to the transport needs of the residents of the islands during the rest of the year. They also usually feature increased ticket prices, as a result of their higher operation costs.

Image 3: The Hellenic Seawasysâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; high speed RoPax catamaran Highspeed 7, in service in the seasonal Heraklion (Crete) - Cyclades route Photo credits: Hellenic Seaways

Ionian Ferry Routes Analysis Differences between Aegean and Ionia ferry routes

Ferry routes in the Ionia Sea overview

The Ionian Islands have a different ferry transport template, for a number of reasons. The main one is the vicinity of the islands to the Greek mainland, and at the same time the greater distance between them. This has the result of the islands being served not by a specific port like Piraeus in the Aegean, but by the nearest to each one port of Western Greece. The three main ports serving the Ionian Islands are Igoumenitsa in the north, serving Corfu, Paxos and Antipaxos Islands with a large number of daily connections both with closed and open-type ferries, Patras in the northern Peloponnese, serving Cephalonia and Ithaca with daily itineraries, and Kilini at the western part of Peloponnese, serving Cephalonia and Zante, with as low as six daily itineraries to each island in the winter and as many as ten in the summer. The smaller islands found between Leucas Island and the shores of Etolakarnania ar served by subsidized daily sea taxi services from the ports of Astakos and Myticas.

Island trasportation overview

Image 4: Levante Ferries' Fior di Levante docked at Poros Port on the island of Cephalonia, during service in the Ionian Sea. Photo credits: Ionian Group Ionian islands ferry route analysis and problematics

It can be therefore concluded that the Ionian Islands have an efficient and adequate ferry transport infrastructure as far as the connection to the mainland is concerned, but the one regarding the connections between the islands is almost inexistent. The only examples of such connections are a number of weekly itineraries between Leucas, Cephalonia and Ithaca with open-type ferries, the daily connections between Corfu and Paxos, which, while in the summer cater for the islandersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and touristsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; transportation needs adequately, in the winter months and the reduction in itineraries frequencies that they come along with, can be described as inadequate.

Problem identification

Problem identification Insufficient ferry itineraries frequencies in remote islands

According to the above research, one can easily understand that, with this transport system, a significant number of islands face a serious transport problem, which cannot be remedied with the higher itinerary frequencies in the summer.

Everyday life problems the residents of remote Greek islands are facing

An interesting insight on the problems the residents on these islands face, that a mainland resident often could not even imagine, gives an an online article by the Greek Journalist Giorgos Mylonas, titled “Iraklia. Three students surrounded by the sea”, published by oneman.gr. It tells the story of the just 3 students and the sole teacher of the elementary school of Iraklia, a small island that is part of the Lesser Cyclades complex in the Aegean Sea, 1,5 hours by ferry from the nearest main island that is Naxos, with a population of 151 residents. While Iraklia has a heliport and fresh water all year long, there is no fuel station on the island, no bank and no ATM and no bakery. Everything is delivered to the island with the daily local ferry service to Naxos, or the ferry from Piraeus that calls on the island’s port three times a week. As quoted from the article, “Simply, in Iraklia nothing is for granted. You have to order the things you need before you have a need for them, because there is not a store open anytime, that can cater for them”. This is typical not only of the other islands of the Lesser Cyclades complex next to Iraklia (Schinousa, Donousa, and Koufonisi), but also of a large number of islands of the same size with the difficulties growing as the remoteness and the distance to the mainland increases. As a result of these profound difficulties the population faces in these islands, their population is declining, with the younger parts of it moving to the mainland and mainly Athens, in the quest of a way of life the island cannot provide. The only connection with the mainland and other islands, the only provider for daily goods and services, the only means of transport and generally the only means of maintaining life on these islands, therefore, is the ferry calling in their ports.

Relationship between the islanders and the ferry crews

As a result, it is no wonder the residents of the smaller islands form a special relationship not only with the vessels themselves, but with their crews as well. They usually know each other by name, both islanders and ferry crews, giving in this way a surprising personal aspect to the operation of these vessels. Moreover, and in accordance to the sense of duty the crews and the companies feel towards the islanders, it is often the case that the ferry, although stuck at the departure port as a result of foul weather, in case of medical emergency, it departs empty in treacherous conditions in order to reach the island where the medical emergency has come up, receive the patient and transport him to the nearest medical facility, whether in another island or the mainland. This is just an example of the mutual respect between the islanders and the ferry crews, respect founded mainly on the importance of these ferry routes for the residents of the remote islands and their wellbeing and prosperity.

Image 5: Captain Mitsos (Dimitris) Skopelitis onboard his boat in Naxos port in the 1950’s Credits: Small Cylades Lines

Problem identification The case of the Skopelitis family

There is no better example o this unusual type of connection between the residents of the islands, the crew and the vessel herself, than the case of the Skopelitis family. Their small familyowned company, Small Cyclades Lines, has one ship, Express Skopelitis, 45 meter ferry. The passenger capacity is 340 persons, while its parking capacity is 11-12 cars. The ship serves the non-profit line of the Small Cyclades with 6 services per week (Katapola, Aigiali, Donousa, Koufonisi, Schoinousa, Irakleia, Naxos), as well as 1 service for Ios and Santorini. The company was founded by Captain Dimitris Skopelitis in 1956 and connected Naxos and Amorgos islands with the Lesser Cyclades complex. After a succession of 10 wooden and iron vessels used on the part of the company, and three generations of captains and company directors in the family, nowadays Express Skpelitis connects the Lesser Cyclades with the main Cyclades islands all year long, often regardless of weather conditions, and it has become the transport backbone of the residents of Lesser Cyclades Islands and Amorgos, offering consistent connections with Naxos, the nearest main island and administrational centre, everyday supply in basic consumer goods and transport in case of medical emergencies, therefore becoming an integral part of the life of the residents of these islands.

Image 6: Small Cyclades Linesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ferry Express Skopelitis on course form Ano Koufonisi to Donousa in the Lesser Cyclades, seen from Ano Koufonisi and with the uninhabited island of Keros in the background Credits: Small Cylades Lines

Project scenario definition

Project scenario definition Thesis project function and role

As a response to the afore mentioned problems regarding both generally the transport system in the Greek islands, and the particular transport needs of the remote and less populated islands, we settled on the design of a ferry unit suitable for this environment. We envisioned the project as fast, sea worthy and efficient vessel, able to transport mainly passengers as well as vehicles, designed to serve both the transportation needs of the more remote islands, as well as contribute to the transport infrastructure of larger islands or islands closer to the mainland, offering a more efficient way of moving between the administrational and services centres and the islands.

Project size Vessel size as a principal factor

We begin with the definition of the basic characteristic of the project, the vesselâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s size. In the Greek Seas can be found ferries of various dimensions, from small water taxis to jumbo ferries more than 200 m long, with each size serving the specific to their routes traffic. We identify as the biggest restriction for the size of the project the island ports, and mainly the restricted dimensions that many feature, often in conjunction with exposure to the prevailing winds and sea state and severely restricted and badly maintained port infrastructure.

Spatial and infrastructure restrictions in the project environment

Since many of the islands the project is designed to serve are small and remote, it is no wonder they feature harbours that are restricted and very difficult to reach. For example, the port of Schinousa, part of the Lesser Cyclades island complex is located at the deep end of a tight gulf, not more than 100 meters wide, and features a single jetty, with the capacity to serve one ferry at a time. These extreme spatial aspects are common among the more remote islands, and in combination with the strong nortern meltemi winds in the summer and the southern winds in the winter, often make port calls a challenge.

Image 7: Blue Star Naxos during the approach to Schinousa port in August 2016, reversing her way towards the jetty as a result of the confined bay dimensions

Project scenario definition

Lesser Cyclades ports overview Clockwise from up left: Image 8 - Iraklia port navigation chart, Image 9 - Donousa port navigation chart, Image 10 -Schinousa port navigation chart, Image 11 -Ano Koufonisi port navigation chart Thesis project size definition

For these reasons, we decided to define the target size of the project as 50 meters, as we believe a vessel of these dimensions hits the perfect compromise between the outright capacity, propulsion power and sea keeping capabilities of the larger vessels, and the maneuverability, lower crew and maintenance requirements, and lower profit thresholds that enable positive turnarounds with higher itinerary frequencies of the smaller vessels.

Project hull typology

Project hull typology Weather conditions in the Greek Seas as a factor in hull selection

The next step is to define the hull typology for the project, according to the size restrictions mentioned above, as well as the often-challenging weather conditions to be found in the Greek Seas. Especially in the Aegean Sea, with the powerful meltemi nortern summer wind, there are often problems and interruptions in the ferry services in the high-traffic summer months, while the winter storms with their usual southern winds often last weeks, creating additional problems as the majority of the islands’ ports are positioned in locations protected from the prevailing northern winds.These environment characteristics point out to the necessity of using a seaworthy hull typology, that enables year-round navigation and reduces the unpleasant vessel motion in foul weather. At the same time, it should adhere both to the above-mentioned length restriction of 50 meters, as well as guarantee the maximum possible space for passengers and cargo.

Traditional displacement monohull ferries

The first hull typology candidate is the traditional displacement monohull. Examples of Greek ferries in the project’s size category are few, with the majority of small monohull displacement ferries featuring more than 80 meters of length, in order to provide the necessary space for the transportation of trucks and commercial vehicles.

Image 12: Blue Star Ferries’ 2012 built Blue Star Patmos, a typical example of displacement Ro-Pax ferries deployed in Greece, 146 meters long, with service speed of 25 knots and passenger capacity of 2000 and 600 lanemeters of garage. Photo credits: Attica Group High speed catamaran passenger ferries

The lower length category of ferries in Greek waters, the one between 30 and 60 meters, features almost in its entirety catamaran hulls made by aluminium and powered by waterjets, which have a service speed in the range of 30 knots. They have an average passenger capacity of 300, with very few combining the passenger transportation with a dedicated car garage, and usually are in service all year long, with day itineraries in the winter and double itineraries in the summer.

Image 13: Hellenic Seaways’ 1999 built Flyingcat 4, a typical example of high speed passenger catamaran ferry deployed in Greece, 55 meters long, with service speed of 40 knots and passenger capacity of 441. Photo credits: Hellenic Seaways Hydrofoils

A special sub-category of Greek ferries in the 30-60 meter size range are the flying dolphin hydrofoils. They were originally designed for use in the rivers of the Soviet Union, and after being sold to Greek passenger ship owners, arrived in Greek waters in the 1980’s, reached their peak in the late 1990’s – early 2000’s, and have by now seen their fleet size reduce to less than 5. They appear in the fleets of Hellenic Seaways and Aegean Flying Dolphins, serving the islands of the Saronic Gulf , Sporades islands and the Dodecanese.

Project hull typology

Image 14: Hellenic Seawaysâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 1991 built Flying Dolphin 29, a typical example of passenger foilcat deployed in Greece, 34.5 meters long, with service speed of 33 knots and passenger capacity of 141. Photo credits: Hellenic Seaways Advantages and disadvantages of hydrofoils

Their main advantages are the high service speed, low operation costs as a result of their mechanical simplicity and low consumption and high manoeuvrability. On the other hand, their particular foil structure that extends beyond the hull beam make them vulnerable to impacts during mooring, while their foils feature extensive titanium parts that are expensive to maintain and repair in case of grounding. Thirdly, their inherent naval architecture characteristics result in their foils extending deep in the water. Additionally, the fragile nature of their foil layout and the limited displacement make them unsuitable for operations in high seas, as expressed by their actual deployment in ferry itineraries in protected waters. And finally, their biggest flaw is their age, as the earlier ones have been put out of service years ago, and the newer ones still in service were constructed in the late 1980â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. They therefore have mechanical problems that put them out of service very often, sometimes more than once a month, resulting in significant disruption in the ferry connections of the islands they serve, with their age making eventual mechanical and refitting investments unprofitable.

Project hull typology Project hull definition

After the definition of the available hull typologies, the analysis of their advantages and disadvantages and their suitability to the project size, we decided on the use of a wave piercing catamaran hull typology in combination with a foil structure that will lower the hull resistance in service speed, and therefore the consumption and operating costs, increasing the profitability of the unit, as the best possible solution.

Selected hull typology justification

After the research on the relative advantages and disadvantages of the three hull typologies already in use by ferries, we settle in the use of the catamaran type of hull, for a number of reasons. Firstly, the catamaran hull offers, relative to monohull types, increased stability, through the increased righting arm present on these hulls during rolling motion, a feature we believe can both be beneficial to the passenger comfort, as well as result in more stable navigation characteristics, improving the sea keeping qualities of the vessel. Secondly, the catamaran hulls generally feature less draft than the similarly sized monohulls, generating therefore less drag, which in turn leads to lower consumption, while at the same time enabling the ferry to approach remote ports with shallow waters, or use alternative approaches to moor in case of challenging weather. Finally, the increased beam of the catamaran hull allows to the placement of the propulsors in greater distance from each other, helping this way achieve better maneuverability through greater momentum arm, an aspect we define as important, considering the often difficult ports in the Greek islands . We have to point out that the above advantages are valid for the trimaran hull as well, but the fact that the side pontoons on this typology usually house little to no living spaces and the combination of a central hull narrower than an equivalent monohull, let alone a catamaran vessel, leads us to conclude that the most favorable hull typology for our project is the catamaran. Regarding the foil layout, we believe that it is a compromise between the respective advantages of catamarans and flying dolphins that, implemented in the right way will result in the optimization of the naval design characteristics of the catamaran hull, without the disadvantages of a pure foil hull, while at the same time reducing the operation costs of the vessel throughout the reduced hull resistance in design speed.

Competitors

Competitors Companies with small high speed catamarans

The four passenger shipping companies featuring catamaran ferries in the 50 meter category in their fleets are Hellenic Seaways, Seajets, Golden Star Ferries and Dodekanisos Seaways.

Hellenic Seaways Hellenic Seaways is one of the biggest Greek passenger shipping companies, with a fleet of 18 vessels and services to the majority of the Aegean Islands. The company uses the Flying Cat brand name for their small passenger catamarans. The fleet comprises of the vessels Flyingcat 3, Flyingcat 4, Flyingcat 5 and Flyingcat 6. Vessel Type

Launched

Country of origin

Length O.A.

Max. Beam

Service Speed

Pax Count

Flyingcat 3

Catamaran / Pax

1998

England

47,70 m

11,80 m

40 knots

342

Flyingcat 4

Catamaran / Pax

1999

England

55,07 m

13,00 m

40 knots

441

Flyingcat 5

Catamaran / Pax

1996

Norway

40,00 m

10,00 m

30 knots

339

Flyingcat 6

Catamaran / Pax

1997

Singapore

40,00 m

10,10 m

30 knots

337

Flyingcat 3

Flyingcat 4

Flyingcat 5

Images 14,15, 16, 17: Hellenic Seaways Flyingcat fleet Photo credits: Hellenic Seaways

Flyingcat 6

Competitors Seajets Seajets is an Greek shipping company founded on the concept of high speed ferry connections in the Aegean Sea, which, after a rapid expansion the previous years, has a fleet of 17 active vessels, of which 3 are traditional ferries, and the rest are high speed catamaran vessels. The competitors in the fleet feature the passenger catamarans Supejet, Seajet 2 and Sifnos Jet. Vessel Type

Launched

Country of origin

Length O.A.

Max. Beam

Service Speed

Pax Count

Super Jet

Catamaran / Pax

1995

Finland

42,00 m

11,80 m

38 knots

394

Seajet 2

Catamaran / Pax

1998

Norway

42,00 m

13,00 m

38 knots

386

Sifnos Jet

Catamaran / Pax

1999

Australia

40,00 m

52,40 m

38 knots

500

Super Jet

Sea Jet 2

Images 18, 19, 20: Seajets passenger catamaran fleet Photo credits: Nikolas A./ Mateo Paraskevas/ Austal

Sifnos Jet (ex Betico)

Competitors Dodekanisos Seaways Dodekanisos Seaways is a small local Shipping company based in the island of Rhodes, with a route network exclusively in the Dodecanese Islands. The fleet features a traditional Ro – Pax ferry and a couple of 40 m catamaran sister ships built to the 40 m Sea Lord standard, able to transport both passengers and cars, as well as medical aid in case of need. These two vessels are the only examples of Ro – Pax catamaran ferries in the project’s size category, and are the main competitors references, especially as they were designed and constructed with similar specifications and intended use Vessel Type

Launched

Country of origin

Length O.A.

Max. Beam

Service Speed

Pax Count

Car Capacity

Dodekanisos Express

Catamaran / Ro-Pax

2000

Norway

40,05 m

11,20 m

31 knots

341

Dodekanisos Pride

Catamaran / Ro-Pax

2005

Norway

40,05 m

11,46 m

32 knots

280

Dodekanisos Express

Images 20, 21: Dodekanisos Seaways Ro-Pax catamaran fleet Photo credits: ferriesingreece.com

Dodekanisos Pride

Competitors Golden Star Ferries Golden Star Ferries is a relatively small Greek shipping company based in the island of Andros, that started its business in 2011 with the purchase of a well known and proved ferry, and is in the process of expansion in new markets and routes in the Aegean Sea. The company recently purchased the passenger catamaran Supercat from Estonia and the passenger trimaran Superspeed from Croatia that will begin service in the companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Aegean routes in the summer of 2018. Superspeed is the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first trimaran ferry, the first trimaran passenger vessel to be acquired by a Greek shipping company and the first to commence service in the Greek Seas Vessel Type

Launched

Country of origin

Length O.A.

Max. Beam

Service Speed

Pax Count

Supercat

Catamaran / Pax

2000

Australia

45,00 m

12,32 m

37 knots

353

Superspeed

Trimaran / Pax

2001

Australia

54,50 m

15,20 m

40 knots

473

Supercat (ex Karolin)

Images 22, 23: Golden Star Ferries passenger multihull fleet Photo credits: Kaspar Kask, Dubrovnic Travel Corner

Superspeed (ex Krilo Eclipse)

Design brief

Design brief Project design brief

According to the project environment analysis, problem identification, project size and hull definitions and analysis of the competitors, we then embark on the definition of the design brief for the project vessel. We consider the project unit as a combined High Speed Ro â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Pax Foiled Catamaran Day Ferry, powered by a set of gensets via a pair of thrusters under each hull.

High design speed

The first characteristic, her high service speed, we think is important in order to reduce the travel times, bringing in a sense the small and remote islands closer to the administrational and services centers of the mainland or the principal islands. Furthermore, a high service speed enables the vessel to reach further distances during the day, serving in this way more islands or reaching islands further from the departure port. We therefore set the design speed of the project at 30 knots, limited by the maximum speed permitted by the fastest available azimuthing thrusters at this time, but still sufficient for the route profiles we consider for the project. We also consider the vessel with a two-day double-shift autonomy, in order to give her operators the freedom to organize her route without the obligation of daily fuel bunkering.

Ro - Pax design, passenger capacity and interior layout

Service Speed

Autonomy

Range

30 knots

32 hours (2 days x 2 shifts x 8 hours)

960 nautical miles

The second characteristic, the capacity to transport both passengers and vehicles, we believe is an integral part of the project, as it enables the vessel to use her garage space either as a normal car transport space for the passengers, or as transport space intended for cargo, delivery vans or medical vehicles. In this way we believe the vessel has the flexibility to serve the varying needs of the residents of the smaller and more remote islands, reducing the delivery times for general goods, enabling more frequent supply schedule and providing emergency transport of medical equipment, personnel and patients to and from the islands, improving this way their standard of living. We therefore define the passenger count as 290, divided in two decks of airplane â&#x20AC;&#x201C; type seats and in combination with a reception desk on the entrance and a bar. Although we are aware that a more austere exclusively seating configuration would increase the passenger count, we regard the increased comfort, functionality and provisions granted by the additional reception and bar configurations as an important part of a project designed around the needs of sensitive parts of the population. Regarding the vehicle garage, and taking into consideration both the spatial restrictions of the project as well as the compromise around the need to transport mainly passengers but vehicles as well, we assign the vehicle garage with tree load lines able to transport a combination of two medical vehicles / commercial vans and 4 cars with length that exceeds 5 meters, in response to the general increase in car dimensions the last decade. As far as the height requirements for garage are concerned, we set the free height in the garage as 2,4 meters, able to accommodate an ambulance, and the resulting vertical distance between the Main and Upper Deck as 2,6 meters.

Passenger Count

Garage capacity

290

2 light commercial vehicles + 4 cars

Foil implementation as a way of reducing operation costs

We choose the third characteristic, the implementation of a foil layout as an additional to the traditional catamaran hull typology feature, as an effective and innovational way to improve the efficiency of the project hull throughout the reduction of the hull resistance in the design speed, reducing in this way the consumption of the vessel and enabling the installment of less powerful and more fuel efficient propulsion motors.

Project definition as day ferry

The next aspect of the project, the definition of the vessel as a day ferry, is a choice dictated by the fact that the size of the vessel and its hull layout do not leave enough space in order to combine crew and passenger overnight cabins with the necessary passenger and vehicle count. In this way, in accordance as well to the competitors, the project ferry is designed to commence

Design brief operation upon the crew’s arrival and stop once her routes for the day have been completed and the crew has returned to their land bases. Propulsion system definition

Finally, we decided to employ an electro-mechanical propulsion system on the project, comprised by the appropriate number of generator sets that provide the necessary electrical power to achieve the design speed and support all the other operations of the vessel. The electrical power then is transported to a pair of propulsors that provide the necessary propulsion for the ferry operation.

Advantages of electromechanical propulsion systems

The reason we decided to employ a genset configuration as opposed to the engine - waterjet combination usually found in vessels of this type and size, is a result of their better efficiency throughout the optimization of the thermal engine operation, the layout flexibility that is the result of the de-coupling of the engine from the propulsor and the simplification of the whole power system of the vessel throughout the unification of the main power units and the electrical generators.

Azimuthing thrusters as project propulsors

Regarding the use of azimuthing thruster as propulsion units, we came along the necessity to combine a constant propulsion efficiency in different draft situations during the vessel’s operation, because of the lift generated by the foils. This aspect abolished the scenario of using waterjets, as the requirement of this type of propulsion of a constant waterline position in order to work effectively is in direct conflict with the concept of foils and lift we intend to employ. On the other hand, the traditional propeller driven layout would require a steep propeller angle in order to cope with the varying draft during navigation, reducing in this way the vessel’s efficiency. We therefore settled into the use of azimuthing thrusters as the best possible solution to the propulsion requirements for the project.

Propulsor type

Variable waterline positions during operation support

0 degrees propulsion angle •

Waterjet Screw Drive

•

Azimuthing Thruster

•

Base hull

Base hull Already existing hull as the base for the project

After defining the basic characteristics and specifications for the project vessel, we proceeded with the research for an already existing hull to form the basis for the thesis project, with the main design requirement being overall length no more than 50 meters, maximum beam 12 meters and design speed of at least 30 knots.

Australia as the leader in multihull vessel construction

We found out that a considerable amount on information and designs regarding vessels of this category and size comes from a number of Australian shipyards, as the Australian shipbuilding industry is the leader in multihull vessels. The two largest shipyards in the region are Incat Australia Pty Ltd, based in Hobart, Tasmania, and Austal, based in Henderson, Western Australia.

Incat Australia Pty Ltd

Incat traces its roots as a shipbuilding company in the 1970’s, but it wasn’t until 1977 and the collaboration between its founder Bob Clifford and naval architect Philip Hercus, and the plans they produced for the first large wave piercing catamaran in the world, that it was established as a shipyard with expertise in fast multihull vessels. Its portfolio of vessels includes mainly large catamaran vessels of more than 70 meters in length, in use in both commercial and military roles. The main design characteristic of the vessels produced by Incat is the Centre Bow, a v-shaped structure between the two hulls of the catamaran in the bow, designed to reduce the craft’s pithing motion during wave encounters.

Image 24: Molslinjen’s Express 3, built by Incat Australia in 2017 as Hull 088 for service in Denmark, during her sea trials. The Centre Bow concept is visible in the vessel’s bow Photo credits: Incat Autralia

Base hull

Austal

Austal is a relatively larger ship building company and defense prime contractor, with over 260 vessels designed and constructed for commercial and defense uses as of 2017, and began operations in 1988 in Perth, Western Australia. The main difference with the other large Australian multihull shipbuilding company Incat is the fact that the portfolio of constructed vessels contains, apart from large Ro-Pax catamaran ferries, a high number of smaller passenger catamaran ferries in the 50 meter length category that is of interest to this project.

Image 25: Hellenic Seawaysâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Highspeed 4, built by Austal in 2000, approaching Ano Koufonisi Port in August 2016

Thesis Project Base Hull After studying the material available for the projects realized by the two Australian Shipyards, we settled on the Austal Hull 48 as the base for the Archipelagos thesis project. Austal Hull 48 description

Pages 48 - 49: Austal Hull 48 specifications, photos and plans. Source: Austal

The Hull 48 project, that resulted in seven built vessels for New World First Ferry and Turbojet Shipping companies in Hong Kong with respective hull numbers 144, 145 and 146 built in 2002, 148 and 150 built in 2004 and 401 and 402 built in 2008, features a modern catamaran hull with bow-piercing bows and designed for semi-planing navigation in her design speed, while serving routes in Hong Kong. Her main dimensions are Overall Length 47,5 meters, Waterline Length 44 meters, Moulded Beam 11,8 meters, Individual Hulls Beam 3,4 meters, Hull Depth 3,8 meters and Maximum Hull Draft 1,4 meters. She features a full no-frills passenger layout, with and a crew of 8 and a passenger count of 418 passengers divided in the main passenger hall in the Main Deck and a smaller one in the Upper Deck. The lower decks in the twin hulls feature the main propulsion system and auxiliary mechanical components, while her navigation bridge is positioned in a mezzanine deck elevated from the Upper deck over the central part of the vessel. Regarding her main naval design and mechanical characteristics, she has a maximum deadweight of 55,7 tones, fuel capacity of 20.000 litres, while her propulsion system comprises of four MTU 16V 4000 M70 main engines producing 2.320 kW each, driving 4 KaMeWa 63 SII waterjets through 4 Reintjes VLJ 930 Gearboxes. This mechanical layout enables the vessel to reach a service speed of 44,1 knots in 95% MCR, with approximate fuel consumption of 1,87 tones/hour.

Base hull

Base hull modelling and adaptation

Base hull modelling and adaptation After we settled on the base hull for the project, we proceeded with the three-dimensional reproduction of the hull and its adaptation to the intended use as an island ferry for the Greek isles. As the base hull features a relatively shallow central part between the hulls that would create problems in the often adverse sea conditions found in the Greek Seas, we decided to raise the central part of the hull by 550 mm, but lower the main deck structure thickness by 150 mm, bringing the construction height of the vessel to 4,2 meters.

Austal Hull 48 threedimensional reproduction and adaptation

Original and raised project hull comparison

DWL

CL -2

Scale 1:500

-1

0 CL

DWL

CL -2

-1

0 CL

Project Hull Lines Scale 1:500

Right, next page: Images 27, 27, 28: Hull Model Views

-2

-1

Base hull modelling and adaptation

Foil study

Foil study As mentioned in the design brief for the project we decided to implement a foil structure to reduce the hull resistance at design speed, and as a result, the vessel’s consumption and operation costs. Karl-Günther W. Hoppe patent

In search of a way to combine the project hull with a suitable foil layout, we used as a design reference the United States Patent no 4.606.291 by the South-African naval architect KarlGünther W. Hoppe. It discloses the combination of an either planning of semi-planning catamaran hull with a layout of two hydrofoils between the two hulls that provide lift and trim control. More specifically, the main foil is the larger one positioned right fore of the hulls LCG, providing the lift to the vessel and extending along the whole of the available beam between the two catamaran hulls. The much smaller aft foil or series of foils are positioned as close to the transom as possible according to the hull design, and while they are not designed to contribute to the lift produced by the layout, their movable along the horizontal axis ability is designed to control the vessel’s pitch, either the one produced by the changing LCG as the speed increases and the lift produced by the main foil fore increases as well, or to counteract eventual pitching motions cause by wave encounters during the vessel’s navigation. Although the patent was developed with smaller planning boats as the main object, we found the semi-displacement version (image 29, fig 17-18) philosophy as suitable to the thesis project, as the patent’s principles for this type of hulls suits perfectly our target for the vessel’s operation.

Image 29: United States Patent no 4.606.291 Patent main idea

The main idea behind the reference patent is that, as opposed to pure hydrofoil crafts that “fly” out of the water, the hydrofoils in this layout develop lift forces which take over only part of the ship’s displacement. Thereby, the hulls of a catamaran ferry are lifted partly out of the water to reduce the hull resistance, with the hull carrying the full shipweight at rest or low speed by buoyancy forces, and at higher speeds partly by buoyancy forces, partly by dynamic hull forces (planing forces) and by the hydrofoil lift forces.

Foil study Alternative hull versions performance study

Project foil configuration

Down - Table 1: Candidate hulls performance

Hull

V1 V1 +150 mm V1 + 200 mm

Hull as designed

V1 + 253 mm V2 V2 + 200 mm

Hull with + 100 mm draft and raised stern

V2 + 300 mm V3 V3 + 350 mm

Hull with +100 mm and considerably deeper chimes

According to this principle, we then designed two more versions of the base hull, in order to better investigate the possible combinations of hull geometries and foil dimensions, and their respective effect on the hull resistance values and effective propulsion power, results we calculated with the Orca3D plugin to the Rhinoceros 3D modeling software according to the Holtrop prediction method for displacement hulls. As standard foil profile for the main central hydrofoil of the project, we selected the NACA 2412, which features a good combination of lift and drag coefficients, at 0,25 and 0,01 respectively, positioned with 0 degrees angle of attack, in order to minimze the drag coefficient and as a result the added resistance, relatively high stall angles, producing the maximum lift during wave encounters in navigation, and, finally, a relatively simple geometry, reducing the manufacturing costs. As the foil is nested between the two hulls of the catamaran, we regard the foil length as fixed to 5.220 mm, the distance between the two hulls around the LCG. With the foil thickness set to 12% of the foil chord according to the foil definition, the only foil dimension that we could change in order to obtain the right amount of lift is the foil chord. We then positioned the foils in 30 degree swept towards the stern configuration and with a 15 degree rotation around the x-x axis. With this configuration we reduce the foilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sudden vertical movements and structure stress during its encounters of wave formations by allowing it to cut into the water volume, while permitting its positioning further lower in the water, reducing the performance degradation near the waterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s surface.he manufacturing costs.

Displacement

Hull Reistance in 30 kn

Effective Power in 30 kn

Difference form Original draft

Difference from Original hull

Difference in Displacement

Lift

NACA 2412 Foil Chord at 15 deg 5220 mm Length

218,92 ton

198,19 kN

3058 kW

181,9 ton

170,11 kN

2625.3 kW

-432.7 kW

-37.02 ton

377.2567 kN

2.4 m

169,55 ton

161,14 kN

2487 kW

-571 kW

-49.37 ton

502.7249 kN

3.16 m

156,23 ton

151,74 kN

2341.9 kW

-716.1 kW

-62.69 ton

614.9978 kN

4.00 m

234,19 ton

259,34 kN

4002.5 kW

+944.5 kW

180,01 ton

188,72 kN

2912.6 kW

-1089.9 kW

-145.4 kW

-54.18 ton

531.5 kN

3.5 m

155,83 ton

162.73 kN

2511.5 kW

-1491 kW

-546.5 kW

-71.46 ton

701.02 kN

4.83 m

283,09 ton

329.99 kN

5092.8 kW

+2034.8 kW

196,52 ton

202.41 kN

3123.8 kW

-1969 kW

+65.8 kW

-86.57 ton

849.25 kN

5.85 m

Image 30: Project Hull with Foil Configuration

Foil study

Profilo non simmetrico

Dimensionamento delle Strutture

Image 31: NACA 2412 airfoil curves

DWL

CL -2

-1

0 CL

Image 32: Project hull lines with foil configuration

-2

-1

Scale 1:500

DWL DWL @ 30 knots CL

-2

-1

-2

-1

Image 32: Project hull lines LCBs and Foil Centre of Lift Not to scale

Hull LCB at V=0

Hull LCB at V=30 knots

Main Foil Centre of Pressure

Foil study

Image 33, 34, 35: Project hull renders

Propulsion system

Propulsion system Power requirements for the project

According to the lift-resistance-power study, we defined the effective power of the project vessel at the design speed of 30 knots as 2341,9 kW (see Table 1), which with a propulsion efficiency of 65% results in an total requested propulsion power of 3603 kW. To this number, we add the necessary power for the electrical supply of the operations of the vessel, that would normally be provided by the onbard electric generator. According to a report of the Environmental Protection Department of the Government of Hong Kong, the Cotai Water Jet, an evolution of the Austal 48 project, uses a 326 kW auxiliary electrical generator, so we decided to use this number of electrical power needs for the project vessel as well. As, however, we already employ generator sets as the main propulsion motors of the vessel, we add the requested number to the total requested propulsion power, to arrive to the overall power requirement total of 3929 kW.

Power units division and type

After the definition of the required amount of power, we then proceeded with the research for the specific genset models for the project. In order to minimize the size of the genset, as a result of the space restrictions in the lower deck hulls inherent to the catamaran hull typology, we decided to divide the gensets into 4 units, thereby enabling in this way both versatility in the use and operation profiles of the power units to achieve various navigation speeds, as well as increased reliability and dependability as a result of the use of 4 independent power units. In this way, the requested power figure for every genset is at least 982, 25 kW. Having this number as a guide, we examined the cases of three Genset models, the Watsila 6L20DF, the MAN 12V175D and the Cummins G-Drive KTA50G8 based C1400.

Table 2: Candidate Gensets specifications

Genset Model

kWe PRP

RPM

Frequency

Length

Width

Height

Weight

Consumption

Wartsila 6L20DF

1065

1200

60 Hz

5.325 mm

2.070 mm

2.731 mm

16.9 ton

BSEC 8390 kJ/ kWh

MAN 12V175D

1376

1500

50 Hz

5.530 mm

1.641 mm

2.365 mm

15.9 ton

SFOC 192 at 100 % MCR

Cummins C1400

1120

1500

50 Hz

5.700 mm

1.650 mm

2.300 mm

12 ton

289 L/ph at 100% MCR

The Wartsila model was excluded because its dimensions do not make it possible to fit in the engine bays in the hulls of the catamaran, as its width of 2.070 mm in combination of access corridors on both sides of at least 500 mm and a structure thickness of 250 mm exceed the available beam of 3.400 mm. The MAN model, although it features compact enough dimensions, has a relatively high unit weight, whereas the Cummins model has both compact dimensions, enough available power and relatively low weight, maximizing in this way the deadweight of the vessel. We therefore select the Cummins C.1400 as the propulsion genset for the thesis project.

Image 36: Cummins C1400 Genset Source: Ital NRG

Propulsion system Table 3: Project fuel consuption and fuel tank capacity

Service Speed

Autonomy

30 knots

Number of Individual Genset Gensets employed Fuel Consuption

Range

32 hours (2 960 nautical days x 2 shifts miles x 8 hours)

Fuel Tank Capacity

289 L/ph

36.992 L

Once we defined the propulsor typology, we embarked on a research for a unit that can provide the required design speed, and we selected the Azipull Carbon series of Rolls Royce Marine, and more specifically the AZP C65 Steerable Thruster model designed for use in fast yachts of passenger vessels, as it is the only propulsor in the market that, with its 30 knots of maximum design speed, meets our operation requirements. Since the thruster results in an increased draught of 2,1 meters, we also place a pair of skegs under each hull, in order to protect the thrusters in case of grounding, as well as increase the directional stability of the vessel.

Propulsor definition

AZP C65 Steerable Thruster

Table 4: Rolls Royce AZP C65 specifications

Power Rating

2.000 kW

Continuous Service Speed

up to 30 knots

Dry wt Complete

2,8 ton

Azimuth Angle

+/- 35 degrees

Class

RINA

Typical Draught of Vessel

Right - Image 37: Rolls Royce AZP C65 steerable thruster Down - Lower Deck Plan, Engine and Technical Room Layout Scale 1:300

AFT PEAK

PROPULSION MOTOR

CUMMINS C1400 GENSET

PORT ANCHOR

TECHNICAL SPACE

PORT F/O TANK

FORE PEAK

A/C UNIT

CL -2

-1

AFT PEAK

F/W TANK SBD F/O TANK PROPULSION MOTOR CUMMINS C1400 GENSET

CUMMINS C1400 GENSET

TECHNICAL SPACE

STARBOARD ANCHOR

FORE PEAK

LOWER DECK

Exterior Design

Exterior design

Preliminary profile sketches

Exterior design

Passenger - Vehicle distribution

Project profile study

Exterior design

Exterior Renders

Exterior design

Exterior Renders

Interior design

Interior design Garage - Passenger space division

According to the design brief, and its requirements for a garage space for 4 cars and 2 light commercial vehicles, we design the aft part of the Main Deck of the project as the garage space of the ferry, measurung 13,3 meters length form the stern doors to the bulkhead. The position of the garage on the aft part of the vessel was dictated by the default mooring system used in the Greek Islands (see next chapter). The internal garage beam of 9,25 meters allows for three 2,35 meter vehicle lanes and two 1 meters wide passages on the sides. Right fore of the garage bulkhead start the Main Deck passenger quarters, extending towards the bow mooring deck.

SIDE ENTRANCE

LUGGAGE

EMERGENCY EXIT

LUGGAGE

DISABLED WC RECEPTION

GARAGE

CL -2

-1

BAR

MAIN DECK - 156 AIR SEATS 9

LUGGAGE LUGGAGE

Main Deck - Garage location in the project Not to scale Boarding layout

Up - Image 38: Side Mooring in the Greek Islands -Passenger Catamaran Flyingcat 4 at Mykonos Port Image credits: www.myships.org Down - Image 39: Mediterranean style mooring in the Greek Islands - Ro-Pax ferry Superferry 2 at Paros Port in August 2016

WC LUGGAGE

SIDE ENTRANCE

EMERGENCY EXIT

MAIN DECK

One of the basic background factors to the project was the mooring methods used in the Greek islands, and therefore the mooring positions the project vessel should be designed according to. Furthermore, the mooring positions dictate the boarding layout as well, according to the port infrastructure in the islands. The most used mooring style used , and the only one used in the case of Ro - Pax ferries with vehicle capacity, is the Mediterranean one, with the vessel docking stern - only and access provided by a layout of built-in stern ramps for passenger and vehicles, often combined. The other case of mooring system used is the parallel mooring, used only by passenger ferries with side entrances, this way liberating valuable mediterranean mooring positions for the larger ferries in the often small and cramped island ports.

Interior design Project entrances layout

According to this input, we therefore organized the vehicle and passenger entrances to the vessel mainly according to the stern - mooring mediterranean style, with a main vehcle stern ramp in the centreline and two narrower passenger ramps on the sides. In this way, we can employ only one heavy duty telescopic ramp mechanism for the vehicle ramp, while the two considerably lighter passenger ramps can be equiped with lighter opening mechanisms. Furthermore, we placed a pair of side passenger-only entrances on the Main Deck with direct access to the reception, so that the project, in case of L -type mooring can direct the passenger access from the side entrances, while the vehicle access remains from the stern ramps, reducing this way the passenger - vehicle interraction during boarding, and the resulting dangers as well.

SIDE ENTRANCE

LUGGAGE

EMERGENCY EXIT

LUGGAGE

DISABLED WC RECEPTION

GARAGE

CL -2

-1

BAR

MAIN DECK - 156 AIR SEATS 9

LUGGAGE LUGGAGE

Main Deck - Ramps layout Not to scale

WC LUGGAGE

SIDE ENTRANCE

EMERGENCY EXIT

MAIN DECK

Stern ramps layout

Interior design Vertical movement in the project

Emergency exit layout

Since the entrances to the vessel are located in the Main Deck, we organized the vertical movement axis to the Upper Deck throughout a main double staircase in fornt of the reception, in order to recieve the passenger flow entering the ferry and direct it to the Upper Deck without having to pass through the Main Deck passenger spaces, for better flow division Regarding the emergency exits of the project, apart form the main entrances through the stern ramps and the side stairs, we also positioned a pair of emergency exits on the no each side on the fore part of the passenger quarters. As far as the life-saving devices on the project, we employed four 55 passenger capable inflatable life rafts on the sides of the garage, with four more of 37 passenger capacity on the Main and Upper deck fore, next to the adjacent emergency exits.

EMERGENCY EXIT

OPEN DECK

NAVIGATION BRIDGE

MAIN DECK - 138 AIR SEATS

CL -2

-1

EMERGENCY EXIT

UPPER DECK

SIDE ENTRANCE

LUGGAGE

EMERGENCY EXIT

LUGGAGE

DISABLED WC RECEPTION

GARAGE

CL -2

-1

BAR

MAIN DECK - 156 AIR SEATS 9

LUGGAGE

Main, Upper Deck Passenger Flows and Emergency Exit Access Not to scale

Luggage storing

LUGGAGE

WC LUGGAGE

SIDE ENTRANCE

EMERGENCY EXIT

MAIN DECK

As far as the passenger luggage storing is concerned, apart from the dedicated luggage racks throughout the project, we also designed the passenger quarter ceilings with airplane-style luggage bins, in order to evade the often eperienced in this type of ferries in the high-traffic season insuffucient and insecure luggage storing in the passenger, garage spaces or even on the outside open decks.

Interior design

GA Plan Scale 1:400

DWL WL AT 30 KNOTS CL -2

-1

PROFILE

CL -2

TOP VIEW

EMERGENCY EXIT

OPEN DECK

NAVIGATION BRIDGE

MAIN DECK - 138 AIR SEATS

CL -2

-1

EMERGENCY EXIT

UPPER DECK

SIDE ENTRANCE

LUGGAGE

EMERGENCY EXIT

LUGGAGE

DISABLED WC RECEPTION

GARAGE

CL -2

-1

BAR

MAIN DECK - 156 AIR SEATS 9

LUGGAGE LUGGAGE

WC EMERGENCY EXIT

SIDE ENTRANCE

LUGGAGE

MAIN DECK

AFT PEAK

PROPULSION MOTOR

CUMMINS C1400 GENSET

FORE PEAK

PORT ANCHOR

TECHNICAL SPACE

PORT F/O TANK

A/C UNIT

CL -2

-1

AFT PEAK

F/W TANK SBD F/O TANK PROPULSION MOTOR CUMMINS C1400 GENSET

CUMMINS C1400 GENSET

TECHNICAL SPACE

STARBOARD ANCHOR

FORE PEAK

LOWER DECK

Interior design

Sections - Bow and Stern Views Scale 1:400

DWL

WL AT 30 KNOTS

STERN VIEW

BOW VIEW

CUMMINS C1400 GENSET

DWL

WL AT 30 KNOTS

SECTION ON FRAME 10 21

SECTION ON FRAME 7 21

FORE PEAK

ANCHOR

AFT PEAK

PROPULSION MOTOR

F/O TANK

A/C UNIT

CUMMINS C1400 GENSET

TECHNICAL SPACE

CUMMINS C1400 GENSET

DWL WL AT 30 KNOTS CL -2

-1

SECTION ON HULL CENTERLINE

EMERGENCY GENERATOR

DWL WL AT 30 KNOTS CL -2

-1

SECTION ON CENTERLINE

Interior design

Interior Renders

Main Deck Air Seats

Reception

Interior design

Interior Renders

Main Deck - Bar

Upper Deck Air Seats

"Archipelago" Project Technical Characteristics Length O.A.

47 m

Length W.L.

43, 8 m

Max. Beam

12,4 m

Depth

4,2 m

Design Draft

2,4 m

Displacement Passengers

218 ton 294

Cars

Crew

Propulsion Service Speed Autonomy

4x Gensets Cummins C1400 30 knots 960 nautical miles

Appendix 1 Original Hull Hydrostatics

Original hull hydrostatics

Condition Summary Load Condition Parameters Condition

Weight / Sinkage

LCG / Trim

TCG / Heel

VCG (m)

Load Case 15 Load Case 14

-1.400 m -1.300 m

0.000 deg 0.000 deg

None available None available

Load Case 13

-1.200 m

0.000 deg

None available

Load Case 12 Load Case 11

-1.100 m -1.000 m

0.000 deg 0.000 deg

None available None available

Load Case 10

-0.900 m

0.000 deg

None available

Load Case 9 Load Case 8

-0.800 m -0.700 m

0.000 deg 0.000 deg

None available None available

Load Case 7

-0.600 m

0.000 deg

None available

Load Case 6 Load Case 5

-0.500 m -0.400 m

0.000 deg 0.000 deg

None available None available

Load Case 4

-0.300 m

0.000 deg

None available

Load Case 3

-0.200 m

0.000 deg

None available

Load Case 2

-0.100 m

0.000 deg

None available

Load Case 1

0.000 m

0.000 deg

None available

Resulting Model Attitude and Hydrostatic Properties

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 1 of 83

Original hull hydrostatics

Default Project Hydrostatics & Stability Analysis Default Company Report Time: 02 March 2018, 23:32:26 Model Name: D:\Documents\Unispezia\Documents\Diploma Project\Hull\Research\Austal 48_Closed Model_Rhino 4_Meters.3dm Condition

Sinkage (m)

Trim(deg)

Heel(deg)

Ax(m^2)

Load Case 15

-1.400

0.000

0.00

Load Case 14

-1.300

0.000

0.06

Load Case 13 Load Case 12

-1.200 -1.100

0.000 0.000

0.24 0.52

Load Case 11

-1.000

0.000

0.89

Load Case 10

-0.900

0.000

1.34

Load Case 9

-0.800

0.000

1.86

Load Case 8

-0.700

0.000

2.46

Load Case 7 Load Case 6

-0.600 -0.500

0.000 0.000

3.11 3.79

Load Case 5

-0.400

0.000

4.46

Load Case 4 Load Case 3

-0.300 -0.200

0.000 0.000

5.13 5.81

Load Case 2

-0.100

0.000

6.48

Load Case 1

0.000

7.15

Condition

Displacement Weight (kgf)

LCB(m)

TCB(m)

VCB(m)

Wet Area (m^2)

Load Case 15 Load Case 14

0.000 706.120

0.000 22.743

0.000 0.000

-1.400 -1.330

0.000 16.900

Load Case 13

3463.048

22.736

0.000

-1.261

40.932

Load Case 12 Load Case 11

8594.670 16207.056

22.706 22.615

0.000 0.000

-1.192 -1.124

67.203 94.859

Load Case 10

26360.989

22.456

0.000

-1.056

123.793

Load Case 9 Load Case 8

39128.294 54684.351

22.226 21.896

0.000 0.000

-0.988 -0.920

154.354 188.481

Load Case 7

73655.177

21.355

0.000

-0.850

233.448

Load Case 6 Load Case 5

96280.521 120375.785

20.600 20.046

0.000 0.000

-0.779 -0.713

272.432 292.015

Load Case 4

144789.262

19.709

0.000

-0.652

310.809

Load Case 3 Load Case 2

169403.800 194134.648

19.490 19.339

0.000 0.000

-0.594 -0.537

329.321 347.688

Load Case 1

218921.841

19.229

0.000

-0.482

365.996

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 2 of 83

Original hull hydrostatics

Awp(m^2)

LCF(m)

VCF(m)

Load Case 15

0.000

-1.400

Load Case 14

15.956

22.740

0.000

-1.300

Load Case 13 Load Case 12

38.195 61.974

22.734 22.646

0.000 0.000

-1.200 -1.100

Load Case 11

86.457

22.404

0.000

-1.000

Load Case 10

111.510

22.031

0.000

-0.900

Load Case 9

137.501

21.486

0.000

-0.800

Load Case 8

166.536

20.623

0.000

-0.700

Load Case 7 Load Case 6

204.734 232.570

18.854 17.713

0.000 0.000

-0.600 -0.500

Load Case 5

236.706

17.950

0.000

-0.400

Load Case 4 Load Case 3

239.161 240.641

18.133 18.258

0.000 0.000

-0.300 -0.200

Load Case 2

241.438

18.339

0.000

-0.100

Load Case 1

241.744

18.386

0.000

Condition

BMt(m)

BMl(m)

GMt(m)

GMl(m)

Load Case 15

0.000

None available

Load Case 14 Load Case 13

413.340 202.352

436.747 365.222

None available None available

Load Case 12

132.835

322.163

None available

Load Case 11 Load Case 10

98.759 78.760

292.538 270.925

None available None available

Load Case 9

65.847

255.488

None available

Load Case 8 Load Case 7

57.459 52.722

252.369 290.078

None available None available

Load Case 6

46.129

287.127

None available

Load Case 5 Load Case 4

37.566 31.555

238.846 204.121

None available None available

Load Case 3

27.135

177.931

None available

Load Case 2 Load Case 1

23.753 21.086

157.420 140.828

None available None available

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

TCF(m)

Page 3 of 83

Original hull hydrostatics

Cwp

Cws

Cvp

Load Case 15

0.000

Load Case 14

0.040

0.557

0.092

0.071

4.650

0.431

Load Case 13 Load Case 12

0.070 0.096

0.554 0.555

0.159 0.213

0.127 0.173

4.455 4.318

0.442 0.451

Load Case 11

0.117

0.554

0.257

0.212

4.213

0.457

Load Case 10

0.136

0.552

0.294

0.246

4.138

0.461

Load Case 9

0.153

0.555

0.330

0.275

4.111

0.462

Load Case 8

0.166

0.550

0.362

0.301

4.108

0.457

Load Case 7 Load Case 6

0.175 0.203

0.532 0.571

0.399 0.453

0.329 0.356

4.187 4.269

0.438 0.448

Load Case 5

0.228

0.605

0.460

0.377

4.089

0.496

Load Case 4 Load Case 3

0.249 0.266

0.631 0.652

0.464 0.466

0.394 0.409

3.964 3.879

0.536 0.572

Load Case 2

0.281

0.668

0.466

0.421

3.822

0.603

Load Case 1

0.294

0.682

0.466

0.431

3.785

0.631

Notes 1. Locations such as the center of buoyancy and center of flotation are measured from the origin in the Rhinoceros world coordinate system. 2. The orientation of the model for an Orca3D hydrostatics solution is defined in terms of “sinkage,” “trim,” and “heel.” The sinkage value represents the depth of the body origin (i.e. the Rhino world origin) below the resultant flotation plane, and is sometimes referred to as "origin depth." Heel and trim represent angular rotations about the Rhino longitudinal and transverse axes, respectively, and are taken in that order. For a more detailed description of these terms see the Orca3D documentation. 3. Hull form coefficients are non-dimensionalized by the waterline length. 4. Calculation of Cp and Cx use Orca sections to determine Ax. If no Orca sections are defined, these values will be reported as zero.

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 4 of 83

Original hull hydrostatics

Volumetric Properties 3

-1 LCB (10^1) TCB (10^0) -2 0.000

0.400

VCB (10^0)

0.800

Displacement (10^5)

1.200

1.600

2.000

Draft (m)

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 5 of 83

Original hull hydrostatics

Area Properties 4

0 LCF (10^1) -1 0.000

0.400

TCF (10^0) 0.800

Awp (10^2) 1.200

S (10^2) 1.600

2.000

Draft (m)

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 6 of 83

Original hull hydrostatics

Hull Form Coefficients 0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2 Cb (10^0) Cp (10^0) 0 0.000

0.400

Cwp (10^0) Cx (10^0) 0.800

Cws (10^-1)

1.200

Cvp (10^0)

1.600

2.000

Draft (m)

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 7 of 83

Original hull hydrostatics

FixedFlotationPlane

Up Direction = Positive_Z Fwd Direction = Negative_X

Surface Meshing Parameters Density Maximum angle Maximum aspect ratio Minimum initial grid quads Refine mesh

1 0 0 0 True

Minimum edge length Maximum edge length Max distance, edge to surf. Jagged seams Simple planes

0.0001 m 0m 0m False True

Load Condition Parameters Model Sinkage Model Trim Model Heel VCG Fluid Type Fluid Density Mirror Geometry

0.000 0.000 0.000 None available Seawater 1025.900 False

m deg deg m kg/m^3

Resultant Model Attitude Heel Angle Trim Angle

0.000 deg 0.000 deg

Sinkage

0.000 m

Overall Dimensions Length Overall, LOA Beam Overall, Boa Depth Overall, D

45.000 m 11.840 m

Loa / Boa Boa / D

3.801 2.631

4.500 m

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 79 of 83

Original hull hydrostatics

43.819 m

Lwl / Bwl

3.701

Waterline Beam, Bwl

11.840 m

Bwl / T

8.457

Navigational Draft, T

1.400 m

D/T

3.214

Volumetric Values Displacement Weight Volume LCB TCB VCB Wetted Surface Area Moment To Trim

218921.841 213.395 19.229 0.000

kgf m^3 m m

Displ-Length Ratio

72.516

FB/Lwl 0.439 TCB / Bwl

AB/Lwl

FF/Lwl 0.420 TCF / Lwl

AF/Lwl

0.561 0.000

-0.482 m 365.996 m^2 7035.855 kgf-m/cm

Waterplane Values Waterplane Area, Awp LCF TCF Weight To Immerse

241.744 m^2 18.386 m 0.000 m 2480.047 kgf/cm

0.580 0.000

Sectional Parameters Ax Ax Location

7.146 m^2 18.590 m

Ax Location / Lwl

0.424

Hull Form Coefficients Cb Cp Cvp

0.294 0.682 0.631

Cx Cwp Cws

0.431 0.466 3.785

Static Stability Parameters Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 80 of 83

Original hull hydrostatics

4499.740 m^4 21.086 m None available m 20.604 m

Location (m)

I(longitudinal) BMl GMl Ml

Immersed Area (m^2)

30052.075 140.828 None available 140.346

m^4 m m m

Immersed Girth (m)

0.000

4.052

8.987

1.000

3.972

8.893

2.000

3.996

8.844

3.000

4.086

8.829

4.000

4.205

8.833

5.000

4.355

8.855

6.000

4.557

8.901

7.000

4.828

8.978

8.000

5.159

9.089

9.000

5.515

9.227

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 81 of 83

Original hull hydrostatics

Immersed Area (m^2) 10.000

5.858

9.382

11.000

6.166

9.540

12.000

6.432

9.687

13.000

6.650

9.806

14.000

6.821

9.888

15.000

6.948

9.938

16.000

7.041

9.967

17.000

7.105

9.981

18.000

7.140

9.982

19.000

7.143

9.966

20.000

7.112

9.929

21.000

7.047

9.870

22.000

6.952

9.787

23.000

6.826

9.677

24.000

6.672

9.540

25.000

6.487

9.377

26.000

6.271

9.192

27.000

6.025

8.984

28.000

5.752

8.755

29.000

5.453

8.506

30.000

5.132

8.238

31.000

4.798

7.956

32.000

4.456

7.664

33.000

4.114

7.368

34.000

3.769

7.064

35.000

3.414

6.748

36.000

3.047

6.414

37.000

2.670

6.060

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Immersed Girth (m)

Page 82 of 83

Original hull hydrostatics

Immersed Area (m^2)

Immersed Girth (m)

38.000

2.286

5.688

39.000

1.888

5.288

40.000

1.480

4.861

41.000

1.083

4.424

42.000

0.703

3.983

43.000

0.290

3.427

44.000

0.000

45.000

0.000

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 83 of 83

Appendix 2 Original Hull Holtrop Analysis

Original hull Holtrop analysis

Default Project Displacement Hull Resistance Default Company Report Time: 02 March 2018, 23:40:08 Model Name: D:\Documents\Unispezia\Documents\Diploma Project\Hull\Research\Austal 48_Closed Model_Rhino 4_Meters.3dm Prediction Parameter Method

Value

Vessel Data

Value

Holtrop 1984 (mod)

LengthWL

43.819 m

BeamWL

11.84 m

SpeedCheck HullCheck

Check

DesignMarginPercent

MaxMoldedDraft

1.4 m

DisplacementBare

2.1892E+05 kgf

DesignSpeed

30 kt

WettedSurface

WaterType

Salt

MaxSectionArea

7.146 m^2

1025.9 kg/m3

WaterplaneArea

241.74 m^2

1.1883E-06 m2/s

LCBFwdTransom

25.771 m

WaterDensity WaterViscosity FormFactor

1.3977

CorrAllowance

BulbAreaAtFP

0.00046615

Propulsive Efficiency

366 m^2

0 m^2

BulbCentroidBelowWL

65 %

TransomArea

4.051 m^2

HalfEntranceAngle

8.212 deg

SternTypeCoef Parameter Check

Value

Minimum

Maximum

Type

0.74451

0.30221

Computed

0.68

0.55

0.85

Computed

LwlBwlRatio

3.7009

3.9

14.9

Computed

LambdaCoef

0.87

0.99

Computed

BwlDraftRatio

8.46

2.1

Computed

FnMax PrismaticCoef

Speed (kt)

Cf (x 1000)

Cr (x 1000)

Rbare (N)

PEtotal (kW)

Rtotal (N)

1.000

0.025

2.692

3.240

317.9

0.2

317.9

2.000

0.050

2.410

3.010

1169.8

1.2

1169.8

3.000

0.074

2.264

2.841

2491.5

3.8

2491.5

4.000

0.099

2.169

2.694

4236.5

8.7

4236.5

5.000

0.124

2.099

2.555

6360.0

16.4

6360.0

6.000

0.149

2.045

2.423

8825.9

27.2

8825.9

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 1 of 6

Original hull Holtrop analysis

0.174

2.000

2.309

11626.5

41.9

11626.5

8.000

0.199

1.963

2.223

14792.8

60.9

14792.8

9.000

0.223

1.931

2.174

18397.0

85.2

18397.0

10.000

0.248

1.903

2.170

22550.9

116.0

22550.9

11.000

0.273

1.878

2.196

27294.2

154.5

27294.2

12.000

0.298

1.856

2.343

33374.1

206.0

33374.1

13.000

0.323

1.836

2.470

40064.4

267.9

40064.4

14.000

0.347

1.817

2.436

45955.6

331.0

45955.6

15.000

0.372

1.800

2.421

52399.4

404.3

52399.4

16.000

0.397

1.785

2.566

61270.3

504.3

61270.3

17.000

0.422

1.771

2.813

72505.3

634.1

72505.3

18.000

0.447

1.757

3.050

84886.3

786.0

84886.3

19.000

0.472

1.745

3.237

97705.4

955.0

97705.4

20.000

0.496

1.733

3.346

110208.2

1133.9

110208.2

21.000

0.521

1.722

3.386

122131.5

1319.4

122131.5

22.000

0.546

1.711

3.411

134387.0

1521.0

134387.0

23.000

0.571

1.701

3.344

144853.3

1713.9

144853.3

24.000

0.596

1.692

3.214

153735.3

1898.1

153735.3

25.000

0.620

1.683

3.053

161552.0

2077.7

161552.0

26.000

0.645

1.674

2.885

168799.0

2257.8

168799.0

27.000

0.670

1.666

2.723

175857.1

2442.7

175857.1

28.000

0.695

1.658

2.573

182987.3

2635.8

182987.3

29.000

0.720

1.651

2.439

190354.1

2839.9

190354.1

30.000

0.745

1.644

2.319

198052.5

3056.6

198052.5

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 2 of 6

Original hull Holtrop analysis

Rbare (N)

PEtotal (kW)

Prediction Check

1.000

0.067

317.9

0.2

0.3

2.000

0.134

1169.8

1.2

1.9

3.000

0.202

2491.5

3.8

5.9

4.000

0.269

4236.5

8.7

13.4

5.000

0.336

6360.0

16.4

25.2

6.000

0.403

8825.9

27.2

41.9

7.000

0.470

11626.5

41.9

64.4

8.000

0.538

14792.8

60.9

93.7

9.000

0.605

18397.0

85.2

131.0

10.000

0.672

22550.9

116.0

178.5

11.000

0.739

27294.2

154.5

237.6

12.000

0.806

33374.1

206.0

317.0

13.000

0.874

40064.4

267.9

412.2

Check=2

14.000

0.941

45955.6

331.0

509.2

Check=2

15.000

1.008

52399.4

404.3

622.1

Check=2

16.000

1.075

61270.3

504.3

775.9

Check=2

17.000

1.142

72505.3

634.1

975.5

Check=2,3

18.000

1.210

84886.3

786.0

1209.3

Check=2,3

19.000

1.277

97705.4

955.0

1469.3

Check=2,3

20.000

1.344

110208.2

1133.9

1744.5

Check=2,3

21.000

1.411

122131.5

1319.4

2029.9

Check=2,3

22.000

1.478

134387.0

1521.0

2339.9

Check=2,3

23.000

1.546

144853.3

1713.9

2636.8

Check=2,3

24.000

1.613

153735.3

1898.1

2920.2

Check=2,3

25.000

1.680

161552.0

2077.7

3196.5

Check=2,3

26.000

1.747

168799.0

2257.8

3473.5

Check=2,3

27.000

1.814

175857.1

2442.7

3757.9

Check=2,3

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

PPtotal (kW)

Page 3 of 6

Original hull Holtrop analysis

1.882

182987.3

2635.8

4055.1

Check=2,3

29.000

1.949

190354.1

2839.9

4369.0

Check=2,3

30.000

2.016

198052.5

3056.6

4702.5

Check=2,3

Sensitivity Analysis

Index

To Reduce Drag

Max section area

2.1422

Increase

Waterplane area

0.40457

Decrease

Immersed transom area

0.38728

Increase

LCB forward of transom

0.13906

Increase

Prediction Checks 1. The Holtrop prediction method has a defined upper limit of 0.80 for the length-based Froude number (Fn). Extrapolating speed beyond this value is not recommended. 2. The Holtrop prediction method contains a calculation parameter (Lambda) that is used to estimate the humps and hollows in the drag curve. Anecdotal experience and testing by HydroComp have identified combinations of parameters that can produce significant errors with the Holtrop method. The relationship between Lambda and length-based Froude number (Fn) has proven to be one such indicator of potential errors. The prediction results may be unreliable for speeds that exceed this Lambda-Fn relationship. 3. The Holtrop prediction method is based on a variety of hull forms, including collections of transomstern round-bilge hulls. As part of a broader evaluation of prediction methods for high-speed round-bilge hulls, HydroComp has identified a combination of parameters pertaining to the effect of stern geometry that is an indicator of potential errors. The prediction results may be unreliable for speeds that exceed this indicator. Notes A Sensitivity index with a higher value has a greater influence on drag. Sensitivity values greater than 1.0 are considered significant.

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 4 of 6

Original hull Holtrop analysis

150000 100000 50000 0

3 2

5 4

7 6

9 8

11 10

13 12

15 14

17 16

19 18

21 20

23 22

25 24

27 26

29 28

Speed (kt)

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 5 of 6

Original hull Holtrop analysis

Cr Cf 1

3 2

5 4

7 6

9 8

11 10

13 12

15 14

17 16

19 18

21 20

23 22

25 24

27 26

29 28

Speed (kt)

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 6 of 6

100

Appendix 3 Hull hydrostatics at design speed

101

Hull hydrostatics at design speed

Condition Summary Load Condition Parameters Condition Load Case 1

Weight / Sinkage

LCG / Trim

-253.438 mm

TCG / Heel

0.000 deg

VCG (mm)

0.000 deg

None available

Resulting Model Attitude and Hydrostatic Properties Condition

Sinkage (mm)

Load Case 1 Condition

-253.438

Condition

239.950

Load Case 1

BMl(mm)

29339.781 Cb 0.257

191074.261

Cp 0.641

Cwp 0.465

Wet Area (m^2)

-624.594

319.453

TCF(mm)

18197.903

BMt(mm)

5.45

VCB(mm)

0.000

LCF(mm)

Ax(m^2)

0.000

TCB(mm)

19596.151

Awp(m^2)

Load Case 1 Condition

LCB(mm)

156231.618

Load Case 1

Heel(deg)

0.000

Displacement Weight (kgf)

Load Case 1 Condition

Trim(deg)

VCF(mm)

0.000

-253.438

GMt(mm)

GMl(mm)

None available

Cx 0.401

Cws

Cvp

3.920

0.554

102

Page 1 of 10

Hull hydrostatics at design speed

Volumetric Properties 2

-2

-4

-6 LCB (10^4) TCB (10^0)

VCB (10^2)

-8 1146.000

Displacement (10^5)

1147.000 Draft (mm)

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 2 of 10

103

Hull hydrostatics at design speed

Area Properties 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

LCF (10^4)

TCF (10^0)

-0.5 1146.000

Awp (10^2)

S (10^2) 1147.000

Draft (mm)

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

104

Page 3 of 10

Hull hydrostatics at design speed

Hull Form Coefficients 0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2 Cb (10^0) Cp (10^0)

Cwp (10^0) Cx (10^0)

0 1146.000

Cws (10^-1) Cvp (10^0) 1147.000

Draft (mm)

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 4 of 10

105

Hull hydrostatics at design speed

Default Project Hydrostatics & Stability Analysis Default Company Report Time: 16 March 2018, 22:45:23 Model Name: D:\Documents\Unispezia\Documents\Diploma Project\Hull\Research\Austal 48_Updated_Symmetrical_Orca3d Calculation_Rhino 4.3dm Object Type polysurface

Name Unnamed Rhino Object

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

106

ID {108af47b-bd59-42f1-a599-1ebbea363f73}

Page 5 of 10

Hull hydrostatics at design speed

FixedFlotationPlane

Up Direction = Positive_Z Fwd Direction = Negative_X

Surface Meshing Parameters Density Maximum angle Maximum aspect ratio Minimum initial grid quads Refine mesh

1 0 0 0 True

Minimum edge length Maximum edge length Max distance, edge to surf. Jagged seams Simple planes

0.0001 mm 0 mm 0 mm False True

Load Condition Parameters Model Sinkage Model Trim Model Heel VCG Fluid Type Fluid Density Mirror Geometry

-253.438 0.000 0.000 None available Seawater 1025.900 False

mm deg deg mm kg/m^3

Resultant Model Attitude Heel Angle Trim Angle

0.000 deg 0.000 deg

Sinkage

-253.438 mm

Overall Dimensions Length Overall, LOA Beam Overall, Boa Depth Overall, D

45000.000 mm 11840.000 mm

Loa / Boa Boa / D

3.801 2.631

4500.000 mm

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 6 of 10

107

Hull hydrostatics at design speed

43603.742 mm

Lwl / Bwl

Waterline Beam, Bwl

11840.000 mm

Bwl / T

Navigational Draft, T

1146.562 mm

3.683

D/T

10.327 3.925

Displ-Length Ratio

52.520

Volumetric Values Displacement Weight Volume LCB TCB VCB Wetted Surface Area Moment To Trim

156231.618 152.287 19596.151 0.000

kgf m^3 mm mm

FB/Lwl 0.449 TCB / Bwl

AB/Lwl

FF/Lwl 0.417 TCF / Lwl

AF/Lwl

0.551 0.000

-624.594 mm 319.453 m^2 6846.165 kgf-m/cm

Waterplane Values Waterplane Area, Awp LCF TCF Weight To Immerse

239.950 m^2 18197.903 mm 0.000 mm 2461.646 kgf/cm

0.583 0.000

Sectional Parameters Ax Ax Location

5.447 m^2 18860.878 mm

Ax Location / Lwl

0.433

Hull Form Coefficients Cb Cp Cvp

0.257 0.641 0.554

Cx Cwp Cws

0.401 0.465 3.920

Static Stability Parameters Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

108

Page 7 of 10

Hull hydrostatics at design speed

4468.078 m^4 29339.781 mm None available mm 28968.625 mm

Location (mm)

I(longitudinal) BMl GMl Ml

Immersed Area (m^2)

29098.198 191074.261 None available 190703.105

m^4 mm mm mm

Immersed Girth (mm)

0.000

2.328

7973.376

1000.000

2.249

7879.119

2000.000

2.273

7830.468

3000.000

2.362

7814.931

4000.000

2.482

7818.865

5000.000

2.632

7840.851

6000.000

2.834

7886.964

7000.000

3.105

7964.612

8000.000

3.436

8075.636

9000.000

3.791

8213.564

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 8 of 10

109

Hull hydrostatics at design speed

Immersed Area (m^2)

10000.000

4.135

8368.260

11000.000

4.443

8526.536

12000.000

4.709

8673.158

13000.000

4.928

8792.421

14000.000

5.100

8873.999

15000.000

5.230

8924.263

16000.000

5.326

8952.819

17000.000

5.394

8967.499

18000.000

5.435

8967.976

19000.000

5.447

8951.305

20000.000

5.427

8914.688

21000.000

5.376

8855.528

22000.000

5.296

8771.559

23000.000

5.190

8661.044

24000.000

5.058

8523.997

25000.000

4.900

8361.958

26000.000

4.715

8176.456

27000.000

4.506

7968.756

28000.000

4.274

7739.809

29000.000

4.022

7490.493

30000.000

3.754

7222.435

31000.000

3.476

6940.203

32000.000

3.197

6626.299

33000.000

2.925

6313.376

34000.000

2.657

6002.478

35000.000

2.387

5685.083

36000.000

2.112

5354.423

37000.000

1.832

5007.493

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

110

Immersed Girth (mm)

Page 9 of 10

Hull hydrostatics at design speed

Immersed Area (m^2)

Immersed Girth (mm)

38000.000

1.546

4640.085

39000.000

1.252

4243.870

40000.000

0.958

3820.443

41000.000

0.682

3390.094

42000.000

0.426

2955.849

43000.000

0.151

2402.474

44000.000

0.000

45000.000

0.000

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 10 of 10

111

112

Appendix 4 Hull Holtrop analysis at design speed

113

Hull Holtrop analysis at design speed

Default Project Displacement Hull Resistance Default Company Report Time: 16 March 2018, 22:47:56 Model Name: D:\Documents\Unispezia\Documents\Diploma Project\Hull\Research\Austal 48_Updated_Symmetrical_Orca3d Calculation_Rhino 4.3dm Prediction Parameter Method

Value

Vessel Data

Value

Holtrop 1984 (mod)

LengthWL

43604 mm

BeamWL

11840 mm

MaxMoldedDraft

1146.6 mm

SpeedCheck HullCheck

Check

DesignMarginPercent

DisplacementBare

1.5623E+05 kgf

DesignSpeed

30 kt

WettedSurface

319.45 m^2

WaterType

Salt

MaxSectionArea

5.447 m^2

1025.9 kg/m3

WaterplaneArea

239.95 m^2

1.1883E-06 m2/s

LCBFwdTransom

25404 mm

WaterDensity WaterViscosity FormFactor

1.3764

CorrAllowance

0.00046674

Propulsive Efficiency

65 %

BulbAreaAtFP

0 m^2

BulbCentroidBelowWL

0 mm

TransomArea

2.3283 m^2

HalfEntranceAngle

7.788 deg

SternTypeCoef Parameter Check

Value

Minimum

Maximum

Type

0.74634

0.39108

Computed

0.64

0.55

0.85

Computed

LwlBwlRatio

3.6827

3.9

14.9

Computed

LambdaCoef

0.82

0.99

Computed

BwlDraftRatio

10.33

2.1

Computed

FnMax PrismaticCoef

Speed (kt)

Cf (x 1000)

Cr (x 1000)

Rbare (N)

PEtotal (kW)

Rtotal (N)

1.000

0.025

2.694

2.438

242.8

0.1

242.8

2.000

0.050

2.411

2.229

885.9

0.9

885.9

3.000

0.075

2.266

2.077

1877.4

2.9

1877.4

4.000

0.100

2.171

1.946

3180.3

6.5

3180.3

5.000

0.124

2.101

1.823

4760.0

12.2

4760.0

6.000

0.149

2.046

1.708

6589.5

20.3

6589.5

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

114

Page 1 of 6

Hull Holtrop analysis at design speed

0.174

2.002

1.610

8667.5

31.2

8667.5

8.000

0.199

1.964

1.541

11025.3

45.4

11025.3

9.000

0.224

1.932

1.510

13730.5

63.6

13730.5

10.000

0.249

1.904

1.514

16849.5

86.7

16849.5

11.000

0.274

1.879

1.571

20553.5

116.3

20553.5

12.000

0.299

1.857

1.711

25195.0

155.5

25195.0

13.000

0.323

1.837

1.768

29844.4

199.6

29844.4

14.000

0.348

1.818

1.752

34317.0

247.2

34317.0

15.000

0.373

1.802

1.818

39870.7

307.7

39870.7

16.000

0.398

1.786

2.070

47990.8

395.0

47990.8

17.000

0.423

1.772

2.379

57866.5

506.1

57866.5

18.000

0.448

1.758

2.562

67265.5

622.9

67265.5

19.000

0.473

1.746

2.656

76210.6

744.9

76210.6

20.000

0.498

1.734

2.681

84680.7

871.3

84680.7

21.000

0.522

1.723

2.656

92665.4

1001.1

92665.4

22.000

0.547

1.712

2.593

100157.2

1133.6

100157.2

23.000

0.572

1.702

2.501

107136.5

1267.7

107136.5

24.000

0.597

1.693

2.386

113536.9

1401.8

113536.9

25.000

0.622

1.684

2.264

119645.0

1538.8

119645.0

26.000

0.647

1.675

2.146

125695.5

1681.2

125695.5

27.000

0.672

1.667

2.037

131849.7

1831.4

131849.7

28.000

0.697

1.659

1.939

138208.7

1990.8

138208.7

29.000

0.721

1.652

1.853

144830.4

2160.7

144830.4

30.000

0.746

1.645

1.777

151744.5

2341.9

151744.5

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 2 of 6

115

Hull Holtrop analysis at design speed

Rbare (N)

PEtotal (kW)

Prediction Check

1.000

0.071

242.8

0.1

0.2

2.000

0.142

885.9

0.9

1.4

3.000

0.213

1877.4

2.9

4.5

4.000

0.284

3180.3

6.5

10.1

5.000

0.355

4760.0

12.2

18.8

6.000

0.427

6589.5

20.3

31.3

7.000

0.498

8667.5

31.2

48.0

8.000

0.569

11025.3

45.4

69.8

9.000

0.640

13730.5

63.6

97.8

10.000

0.711

16849.5

86.7

133.4

11.000

0.782

20553.5

116.3

178.9

12.000

0.853

25195.0

155.5

239.3

13.000

0.924

29844.4

199.6

307.1

14.000

0.995

34317.0

247.2

380.2

15.000

1.066

39870.7

307.7

473.3

16.000

1.137

47990.8

395.0

607.7

Check=2

17.000

1.209

57866.5

506.1

778.6

Check=2,3

18.000

1.280

67265.5

622.9

958.3

Check=2,3

19.000

1.351

76210.6

744.9

1146.0

Check=2,3

20.000

1.422

84680.7

871.3

1340.4

Check=2,3

21.000

1.493

92665.4

1001.1

1540.1

Check=2,3

22.000

1.564

100157.2

1133.6

1743.9

Check=2,3

23.000

1.635

107136.5

1267.7

1950.3

Check=2,3

24.000

1.706

113536.9

1401.8

2156.6

Check=2,3

25.000

1.777

119645.0

1538.8

2367.3

Check=2,3

26.000

1.848

125695.5

1681.2

2586.5

Check=2,3

27.000

1.919

131849.7

1831.4

2817.5

Check=2,3

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

116

PPtotal (kW)

Page 3 of 6

Hull Holtrop analysis at design speed

1.990

138208.7

1990.8

3062.8

Check=2,3

29.000

2.062

144830.4

2160.7

3324.2

Check=2,3

30.000

2.133

151744.5

2341.9

3603.0

Check=2,3

Sensitivity Analysis

Index

To Reduce Drag

Max section area

2.0572

Increase

Waterplane area

0.47363

Decrease

Immersed transom area

0.21407

Increase

LCB forward of transom

0.14731

Increase

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

Page 4 of 6

117

Hull Holtrop analysis at design speed

150000 100000 50000 0

3 2

5 4

7 6

9 8

11 10

13 12

15 14

17 16

19 18

21 20

23 22

25 24

27 26

29 28

Speed (kt)

Orca3D - Marine Design Plug-in for Rhinoceros

118

Page 5 of 6

119

References Yacht Design, (2009). Musio Sale M., Tecniche Nuove Materiali per il Design, (2008). Del Curto B., Marano C, Casa Editrice Ambrosiana Aero-hydrodynamics of Sailing, (2000). Marchaj C. A., Adlard Coles Nautical Ship Production, (1988). Storch R., Hammon C., Bunch H., Moore, R.C., Cornell Maritime Press. Ship Construction sketches and notes, (1997). Kemp and Young, Butterworth Heinemann. Ship Design and Construction, (2007) .Lamb, S.N.A.M.E. Ship construction, (2007). Eyres, D.J., 6th Ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam. Production Engineering Technology, (1974).Radford, J.D. and Richardson, D., 3rd Ed., London. Ship Construction for Marine Students (1995). Stokoe, E.A., Reedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Marine Engineering Series, Vol. 5. Principles of Naval Architecture Volume II: Resistance, Propulsion and Vibration, (1988). Edward V. Lewis, S.N.A.M.E US Patent 06492703, (1983). W. Hoppe K. marinetraffic.com hellenicseaways.gr ioniangroup.com smallcycladeslines.gr atticagroup.gr ferriesingreece.com Incat Australia Austal Ital NRG Rolls Royce Marine

120

Aknowledgments This thesis was carried out during the years 2017-2018 at the Master's Degree in Yact and Cruising Vessel Design, of the Polo Universitario di La Spezia, a course realised by the collaboration between the Polytecnic School of the University of Genoa and the Politecnic of Milan. I want to express my gratitude to my supervisor Professor Mario Ivan Zignego, of the Design and Architecture Department of the University of Genoa. Without his continuous support, enthusiasm, encouragement and ideas this study would hardly have been completed. Furthermore, I am deeply grateful to Professor Thomas P. Mazarakos, of the Department of Naval Architecture in the Technological Educational Institute of Athens, Greece, for his invaluable input regarding all the material regarding naval architecture, as without his guidance and tutorship it would have been impossible support the naval engineering part of the study. I also owe my deepest gratitude to Arch. Tommaso Spadolini for the constant and continuous support and mentorship throughout the project, as well as the invaluable design input, ideas and practical solutions he contributed into the project. Lastly, I would like to thank my dear friends Tommaso Cigliana, Jovana Maricic and Dimitra Agapitou, for the limitless support and creative input and ideas for this project. And, finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Nearida Museum and the John. S. Latsis Public Benefit Foundation, for providing me and investing in me with a scholarship for the Master's Degree in Yacht and Crusing Vessel Design, with which I was able to significantly improve the quality of my studies, and as a result this investment for my future.

121

122

123

124

125