See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285236760

Design of a 33-Knot Aluminum Catamaran Ferry

Article  in  Marine Technology · April 2000

DOI: 10.5957/mt1.2000.37.2.88

CITATIONS READS
5 5,023

2 authors, including:

Robert Latorre
University of New Orleans
133 PUBLICATIONS   590 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

UNO R&D View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert Latorre on 01 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Marine Technology, Vol. 37, No. 2, Spring 2000, pp. 88-99

Design of a 33-Knot Aluminum Catamaran Ferry

R. G, L a t o r r e 1 a n d P, D. H e r r i n g t o n 2

This paper presents the results of an investigation on the suitability of using hull panels with alternating
fixed and floating frames for a 30-40 knot aluminum catamaran ferry. A prototype 4.6 m x 1.8 m bottom
hull panel with alternating frames is analyzed numerically and physically tested. The corresponding finite-
element analyses and test results are in good agreement. The results show that the floating frame hull
panel design is a feasible structure for an aluminum catamaran. The floating frame structure was then used
for a 33-knot, 250-passenger aluminum catamaran ferry designed to meet the ABS High Speed Craft rules.
A midship section of the catamaran hull was analyzed using the finite-element method. Catamaran weight
estimates, heave and pitch motions, and powering estimates are also provided. The results show that the
alternating floating frame structure was within the ABS rules stress allowables.

Introduction
OVERTHE PASTDECADE,ferry speeds have increased to 35-50
knots. A n u m b e r of these high-speed ferries built under li-
cense have begun successful operations in New York and the
Pacific Northwest. It has been pointed out that one of the key
elements of these designs is the utilization of a lightweight,
high-strength hull structure, typically constructed of alumi-
n u m [1,2].
The development of the Gulf of Mexico oilfields required a
large n u m b e r of a l u m i n u m crew-supply boats. These alumi-
n u m crew boats [3,4] successfully utilized a framing system
with alternate fixed and floating frames (frames welded on
top of longitudinals). This hull structure design enables a
significant reduction in fabrication man-hours.
This paper presents the results of a two-part study on the
suitability of using the floating frame hull structure for high-
speed a l u m i n u m catamarans. In the first study, a 4.6 m × 1.8
m prototype hull panel with floating frames was tested and
the results were compared with a corresponding finite-
element analysis. In the second study, the design of a 33-
knot, 31-m a l u m i n u m catamaran was completed that incor-
porated the floating frame hull structure. The results of both
studies show the possibility of utilizing a hull structure with
floating frames for high-speed ferryboats.
Development of prototype panel for study I
Studies I and II were performed in the sequence summa-
rized in Table 1. Since the American Bureau of Shipping
(ABS) rules [5] were still under development at that time, a n
initial design of a 40-45 knot catamaran satisfying the Det
Norske Veritas (DNV) High Speed Craft Rules [6] was per-
formed. Using the DNV rules, it was possible to clarify the
design loads acting on the structure. The particulars of the
catamaran design "A" are summarized in Table 2. A sum-
mary of the panel design is given in Table 3. A partial check
of the DNV rules for the plating and stiffeners is given in
Table 4.
The DNV rules indicated that for a 40-m length and 40-45
1 Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of New
Orleans.
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of New Or-
leans.
Manuscript received at SNAME headquarters October 19, 1998.
knot speed, the bottom uniform pressure is 138 kN/m 2 (20
psi). After several iterations, the a l u m i n u m hull panel stiff-
ened with alternating floating frames was developed. This
floating frame panel (4.6 m × 1.8 m) is shown in Fig. 1. The
prototype panel, as well as a conventional panel with fixed
frames, was also analyzed n u m e r i c a l l y u s i n g the finite-
element method (Fig. 2).
Results of the finite-element analyses are shown in Figs. 3
and 4 [7]. Boundary conditions for the analysis were simple
supports for all edges. Figure 3 shows a contour plot of the
out-of-plane displacement field, w, for the panel with fixed
frames under a uniform pressure of 138 kN/m 2 (20 psi). For
the coarse mesh shown, the m a x i m u m displacement occurs
along the center of the plate, in between transverse stiffen-
ers, and has a value of 0.39 cm (0.154 in.). Figure 4 is a
contour plot of the w-displacement field for the floating frame
structure for the same uniform pressure load. In this case,
the m a x i m u m displacement along the center of the plate is
0.43 cm (0.169 in.), an increase of 9.7%. It is clear that the
conventional fixed frame system, while more costly from a
manufacturing standpoint, has an advantage of being a more
rigid hull panel, with smaller deflections.
Prototype panel test
A prototype a l u m i n u m test panel, as shown in Fig. 5, was
manufactured at the Swiftships Inc., shipyard. It was de-
signed such that the center area would have minimal influ-
ence from the edge conditions. The edges were rounded to
allow a series of tests in the structural test frame as well as
future tests using a vacuum bag technique to obtain test
pressures of 62-69 MPa (9-10 psi).
The panel was i n s t r u m e n t e d with strain gages as shown in
Fig. 6. The strain gage locations are summarized in Table 5.
A distribution plate was used to distribute the actuator load
to two bars aligned over the mid-span of the two center lon-
gitudinal stiffeners. This a r r a n g e m e n t is shown in the sec-
tion view of the test given in Fig. 7. The tests were performed
in the UNO Structural Test Frame as shown in Fig. 8 [8].
Line loads were applied slowly up to a total of 26.7 kN
(6000 lb). Repeated tests showed a m a x i m u m deflection of
0.18 cm (0.071 in.), which is in close agreement with the 0.21
cm (0.084 in.) mid-area deflection predicted by the finite-
element analysis. This is considered a very good correlation
for this type of test and thus verifies that the finite-element
model is an excellent predictor of actual behavior. This small
difference in results may be due to several factors: (1) bound-

88 SPRING2000 0025-331612000/3702-0088500.49/0 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 Table 1 Project tasks for development of catamaran hull with floating frames
Stud~ Task Description
I 1.1 Development of structural test frame - (6.1-m x 3.05-m x 3.05-m with six lxl04 kN
hydraulic actuators)
1.2 Design and fabrication of a 4.6-m x 1.8-m aluminum hull panel for initial catamaran
1.3 Structural tests: strain gage and displacement measurements
1.4 Finite element analysis of panel and comparison with test data
1.5 Optimization of panel elements for minimum weight
II II. 1 Preliminary design of the 33-knot catamaran
II.2 Development of hull with floating frame
II.3 Check of scanting with ABS high speed rules
II.4 Finite element analysis of hull structure with floating frames

Table 2 High-speed catamaran design "A"
Length 40 m
Beam llm
Draft lm
Displacement 160 - 200 tons
Speed 40 - 45 knots
Material Aluminum
ary conditions around the panel edges, not acting as knife-
edge supports, (2) differences in the test panel geometry, and
(3) thickness variations between the computer model and the
test specimen.
Strain gage data were recorded throughout the loading
cycle and an additional test was performed to check for re-
peatability of results. The applied load and resulting strain
for these tests are shown in Fig. 9, along with the correspond-
ing finite-element predictions. The strain data shown are the
average longitudinal strain as read from gages 1 through 4.
The differences between predicted and experimental deflec-
tions and strains indicate the validity of the finite-element
method for predicting the prototype panel with floating
frame behavior.
Study II: 33-knot a l u m i n u m c a t a m a r a n ferry
d e s i g n w i t h f l o a t i n g frame hull s t r u c t u r e
Following the good results obtained in Study I, the struc-
tural model was extended to a 33-knot a l u m i n u m c a t a m a r a n
ferry. In order to perform the structural analysis, the basic
design of the ferry was completed. The particulars for the
a l u m i n u m ferry are summarized in Table 6.
Body plan and general arrangement
The midship section used for structural calculations is
shown in Fig. 10. This hull form, as shown in Fig. 11, incor-
porates a surface-piercing bow. Figure 12 shows the deck
a r r a n g e m e n t to accommodate 250 passengers. The m a i n
deck has enclosed seating for 198 passengers, a snack bar,
and passenger toilets. The second deck, shown as the boat
deck, has enclosed seating for 62 passengers as well as over-
night accommodations for the crew. The third deck, shown as
the upper deck in Fig. 12, has open air seating for 24 pas-
sengers. The pilothouse with the catamaran controls and
electronics is on this deck level, forward of the open deck. The
seating a r r a n g e m e n t is designed for rapid passenger board-
ing and landing. The inflatable life rafts are arranged on the
main deck to enable the passengers to easily disembark dur-
ing a n emergency.
Catamaran weight estimates
Table 7 summarizes the hull weight groups. The 145-ton
full load represents 250 passengers with 4000 gal of fuel
aboard. This 43-ton payload represents 37.4% of the vessel
weight. This structural weight is comparable to the 31.4-ton
a l u m i n u m structure (27.3% of total). These values reinforce
the observation of the need to develop strong lightweight hull
structures for high-speed craft.
Hull calculations
Using the c a t a m a r a n hull lines, it was possible to complete
the hydrostatic calculations and initial stability calculations
(Table 6). The c a t a m a r a n design was checked to insure that
it met USCG Regulations 46CFR170.170 (weather) 170.173
(righting energy) and 170.050 (passenger vessel heel), as well
as the SOLAS 90 for damaged stability.
The c a t a m a r a n heave and pitch motions in head seas were
also estimated as shown in Figs. 13 and 14.
Powering estimates
The effective horsepower (EHP) and shaft horsepower
(SHP) were calculated using the procedure given by Couser
[9]. In Couser's procedure, the c a t a m a r a n resistance is de-
termined using the form factor, k, which falls within a range
of 1.2 and 1.35 for high-speed catamaran hulls. For the cata-
m a r a n hull considered here, the form factor was k = 1.26.
The resistance calculations were completed for the catama-
r a n r u n n i n g in calm seawater at 15°C. The propulsion sys-
tem has an overall propulsive coefficient (OPC) = 0.55. This
gives the SHP as
SHP = EHP/OPC
The results from Fig. 15 show that at 4000 SHP the catama-
r a n will have a speed of 33 knots.
Finite-element analysis
A structural analysis of the midship section of the catama-
r a n was performed using a three-dimensional finite-element

Table 3 Prototype bottom hull panel for design "A"

Plating material Aluminum 5086-H 116

Stiffener material Aluminum 5086-H 111
Panellength 4.572m(15 ~)
Panel width 1.829m(6 ~)
Plate thickness .794 cm (.3125 in)
Longitudinal stiffeners 4 - 7.62 cm (3" x 1.96 lb/ft 1 A1 I-beam
Span between longitudinal stiffeners .3048 m (12 in)
Span between transverse stiffeners .762 m (30 in)
Transverse stiffeners 5 - 17.78 cm (7" x 5.8 Ib/ft) AI I-beam

SPRING 2000 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 89

 Table 4 DNV rules compliance check for plating and stiffeners for design "A"
DNV Rule, Part 3, Ch. 3 Item Required Actual
5. B 101 Plating thickness 0.62 em (0.244 in) 0.79 cm (0.3125 in)
5. B 202 Plating thickness 0.62 em (0.244 in) 0.79 cm (0.3125 in)
5. B 302 Platin~ thickness 0.53 cm (0.208 in) 0.79 cm (0.3125 in)
5. C 101 Stiffener modulus 24.89 em 3 (1.519 in 3) 27.5 cm 3 (1.68 in 3)
5. C 201 Stiffener modulus 18.05 em 3 (1.104 in~) 27.5 cm 3 (1.68 in s)

............................................................................
i~.................
~ ..............
iJi'I.............._....._............"......................................
.... "..................................... A
.................................... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.................................. !. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .; ..................................... , ...................................... E

iH ii ii i
....................................................................... • .¢: .................................. .~..................................... .~................................... r,*. ...................................... E

..................................... i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ...................................... ~-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i .......................................

---AH STD 3XL96 ib/F±

~
I L, I I- I
hAM. STD. 7x692 (b/£±

Fig. 1 Floating frame test panel

ANSYS 5.3
DEC 18 1996
11:15:13
PLOT NO. i
ELEMENTS
TYPE N U M
XV =I
YV =I
ZV =I
DIST=97
XF =30
YF =90
ZF =6
Z-BUFFER
EDGE

Fig. 2 Finite-element model of floating frame

90 SPRING 2000 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 A N S Y S 5.1 ~ 8
NOV21 lgg~
10:50:O3
PLOT NO. 1
N O O A L S O L U T I ON
STEpll
SUB = I
TIME=I
UZ
TOP
R SYS,,,0
O MX =. 15426
SEPCm18,174
SP,/~ ~.11542(~
0
.01714
•03423
,00142
•0 0 8 6 0
,0857
• 10284
.11GQ8
.13712
.10420

Fixed frame

Fig. :3 Contour plot of fixed frame under a uniform pressure load

A h l S Y S ¢.1
NOV21 I ~
11:58:2@
PLOT NO. I
NODAL SOLUTION
STEpI1
SUB - I
TIME=I
UZ
TOP
RSYS--0
DMX 1. l~Q2B2
SEPC=18.771
SMX 1. I ~ 5 1

i .018807
O

•037614
.05~42
] 075227
,0~1034
] .11~41
.13tS47
] .1504~)4

floating frame

Fig. 4 Contour plot of floating frame under a uniform pressure load

model. The catamaran hull was constructed using an assem-
bly of floating frame hull panels. The objective of the finite-
element analysis was to investigate the feasibility of using
the floating frame structure. A number of finite-element
models and loading conditions were analyzed to investigate
the structural response of the hull and to verify that the
catamaran design met classification society rules.
Finite-element analyses of the midship catamaran cross
section was performed using the ANSYS ® finite-element code
[10]. The program is a general-purpose analysis tool with a
large library of element types, as well as extensive pre-
processing and post-processing capabilities. The analysis fol-
lowed the guidelines published by the Ship Structure Com-
mittee for effective use of the finite-element method for
typical ship structures [8].
The various models developed all contained elements that
have six degrees of freedom (three translations and three
rotations) at each node. The models were of a scale appropri-
ate to investigate the intermediate and local response of the
midship section. Global hull response was not investigated

SPRING 2000 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 91

 Line Loods

1 1
I, ]< ]c x x ,I

Fig. 7 Experimental setup, section view

Fig. 5 Prototype 4.6-by-1.8-m aluminum hull panel with alternating floating

frames

C2nter L,ne

'1 ,I
' I I

.e ' ' ~ i~ Pcr,n Fig. 8 Photo of 6.1-by-3.05-by-3.05-m frame used for structural tests
Trcnsve~'se Center ~ne
F P O-m£> I [ 9sGell ! ' I ~i
152c~
' I
j t
i co,9e 600
I
! 500 [
i

•~ 400
m
Fig. 6 Strain gage locations 300
.o
o
200
since the ABS and DNV classification societies require a local
strength analysis for vessels of the length being considered 100
here (less t h a n 50 m).
o-
The objective of this analysis is to study the structural 4.45 8.9 13.35 17.8 22.25 26.7
response of the midship structure of a 34 m a l u m i n u m cata- kN
maran. For the final design, it is necessary to analyze the Fig. 9 Comparison of test data and finite-element prediction
hull bottom and side floating and fixed frames as a complete
system. Therefore, the extent of the finite-element model is
such that the hull structures between two watertight trans- analysis of a c a t a m a r a n cross section. The critical load cases
verse bulkheads are considered. Outer shell plating, longitu- are the transverse vertical bending moment, the torsional
dinal girders and stiffeners, as well as fixed and floating moment, and vertical shear force, as shown in Fig. 17. The
transverse frames are modeled. Since the vessel is symmetri- ABS rules for high-speed craft give guidelines for calculating
cal along its longitudinal axis, only one-half of the cross sec- the magnitudes of each load case [5]. Once these magnitudes
tion was modeled. Figure 15 shows the finite-element model were calculated, an equivalent pressure was applied to the
of the hull, which corresponds to the dimensions of the actual bottom hull of the model.
structure. Figure 15 is a n oblique view of the model in which Uniform pressure loading was applied to determine the
the outer shell plating is shown, and the bulkheads and ele- cross section structural response. Bottom pressure loading
m e n t outlines are not included. Figure 16 shows the bottom was used to simulate the result from a wave-induced trans-
hull structure magnified to view the element edges of the verse bending moment and vertical shear force. To simulate
shell plating, longitudinal girders and stiffeners, and trans- a wave-induced torsional moment, a positive pressure was
verse frames. The material used for the plating, girders, and applied at the fore end of the model and an equal magnitude,
transverse frames is a l u m i n u m 5086-Hl16, while the longi- but negative pressure, was applied at the aft end of the
tudinal stiffener material is extruded a l u m i n u m 5086-Hl11. model. Figure 18 illustrates the applied loading required to
In addition to the static sea pressure, three critical load model a torsional moment.
cases need to be considered when performing a structural In addition to the three load cases considered above, three

Table 5 Sensor locations

Quantity Sensor Type Sensor Location

2 Strain gage (rosette) Center shell plating
Strain gage Center longitudinals
Strain gage Center fixed transverse frame
Strain gage Center floating transverse frame

92 SPRING 2000 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 Table 6 High-speed passenger catamaran design particulars and hydrostatics at design draft
Particular Symbol Units Value
Overall Length L m/ft 33.00/108.27
Breadth B m/ft 10.84/35.56
Breadth of Demihull B demihull rrgft 7.95/26.09
Depth Depth m/ft 5.03/16.49
Draft (Full Load) Draft m/fl 1.33/4.36
Volume (Full Load) Vol m3/fl3 114.00/4025.98
Displacement (Full Load) Mtons/tons 115.00
Wetted Surface S mZlft2 227.0612444.05
Longitudinal Center of Buoyancy LCB m/ft 19.24/63.11
Transverse Center of Buoyancy TCB m/ft 0.00
Vertical Center of Buoyancy VCB mJfl 0.81/2.65
Waterplane Area Aw m21fi2 118.0411270.57
Tons per Inch of Immersion TPI Mton/cm/ton/in 1.17/3.02
Moment of Inertia Ixx m4/ft4 7,663.79/887,940.51
Transverse Moment of Inertia Iyy m4/ft4 1,842.46/213,471.2
Length of Waterline Lwl m/ft 33.00/108.27
Breadth of Waterline Bwl rrdft 10.36/33.99
Longitudinal Metacenter KM1 m/ft 68.03/223.2
Longitudinal Metracentric Height GMI rn/ft 65.03/213.36
Transverse Metacenter KMt m/ft 16.97/55.67
Transverse Metacenter Height GMt m/ft 13.97/45.83
Length-to-Beam Ratio Lwl/Bwl 3.18
Length-to-Draft Ratio Lwl/Draft 24.86
Beam-to-Draft Ratio Bwl/Draft 7.81
Block Coefficient Cb 0.2512
Block Coefficient of Midships Cm (midships) 0.3927
Prismatic Coefficient Cp 0.6395
Vertical Prismatic Coefficient Cvp 0.7276
Waterplane Prismatic Coefficient Cwp 0.3452
Service Speed V knots 33
Hull Resistance at Service Speed Rt N 1%0412.08
Effective Horsepower EHP Hp 2,000
Shaft Horsepower SHP Hp 3,600
Brake Horsepower BHP Hp 3,800
Maximum Engine Rating MCR Hp 2x2,0~

ABS rules for high-speed craft. Two other slamming cases

were examined, one that assumed the pressure was applied
from the hull centerline to vessel centerline, and the other
that assumed the pressure was applied from the hull center
line to the outside edge of the vessel. From these two load
// , / cases the effect of wave-induced transverse or side forces was
investigated. In all loading cases, the pressure load was ap-
plied to the face of the shell elements representing the outer
plating. The direction was normal to the shell face and was
Fig. 10 Hull midship contour used in structural calculations
assigned a magnitude that corresponded to the various pres-
sures as outlined by the ABS classification society.
To model the base plating, bulkheads, and framing webs,
ANSYS Shell63 quadrilateral elements were used, having
both bending and membrane capabilities along with six de-
grees of freedom at each of the four corner nodes, namely, Ux~
Uy, Uz, O~ 0., and Oz. The element is designed for linear
analysis of Fat, or warped, thin shell structures. A linear
displacement shape exists between nodes in both in-plane
directions.
Several models created to simulate the catamaran cross
structure varied mainly in their representation of the longi-
tudinal and transverse frames and stiffeners. Initial models
iT-iitLI ¸ ILl incorporated b e a m elements to represent the stiffeners.
Fig. 11 Outboard profile ANSYS Beam44 elements, a three-dimensional elastic beam
element, were used to model the stiffeners. This element, like
the shell elements used for the plating, also has three trans-
slamming cases were examined. The first case considered lational and three rotational degrees of freedom at each node,
slamming pressure to be applied to the bottom, sides, and and has tension, compression, torsion, and bending capabili-
t u n n e l sections of the hull. The magnitude of the tapered ties. Progressively finer meshes were evaluated until the re-
pressure along the sides of the hull was calculated using the sults converged to like solutions. For the model shown in Fig.

SPRING 2000 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 93

 CL
MAIH OECK ( l g a PA'&"~ENCEi~3)

20 19 IB 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 B 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
I 1 I I I I f I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I

UPP£R OtCg

rJ~ Ne~

k ¸

11 10 9 B 7
I 1 I I I
BOil1 0E,CK ( 6 2 P~S3ENK3[~ CR[W OUART[I~J PILO| HOUSE

Fig. 12 Deck arrangements

Table 7 Weight summary of 33-knot aluminum catamaran ferry

Group De~fiption Wei~tLTSW Percent of Total

1 S~c~c 31.4 27.3
2 Propulsion 23 20
3 Electrical 3.5 3
4 Electronics 0.7 0.6
5 Auxiliaries 2.4 2.1
6 Outfitting 9.6
7 Loads (including250 passenscrsand fuel) 43 37.4
Total 115 I00

3 . . . . . . . i

2.5 .~r \

2 //

1.5
/ \
/
1

0.5
!
0 0.5 1.5 2 2,5
Fig. 13 Heave response to ratio of wavelength X to catamaran length L (k/L) (catamaran heave: L = 31 m, displacement = 115 tons; calculation includes trim and
sinkage correlation)

18, t h e r e a r e 14 532 e l e m e n t s , 14 762 n o d e s , a n d 63 597 de- i n g p r e s s u r e . I n Fig. 19, t h e d a s h e d l i n e s r e p r e s e n t t h e origi-

g r e e s of f r e e d o m .
Results--structural response
R e s u l t s of t h e f i n i t e - e l e m e n t a n a l y s e s a r e s h o w n i n Figs.
19 t h r o u g h 23. To p r o v i d e a c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n of t h e d e f o r m e d
s h a p e , c o n t o u r plots a r e s h o w n w i t h t h e deflection s c a l e d u p
b y a factor of 20. F i g u r e 19 s h o w s t h e f r o n t view of t h e de-
f o r m e d g e o m e t r y of t h e m o d e l u n d e r a u n i f o r m b o t t o m load-
n a l g e o m e t r y . I t is c l e a r t h a t t h e h u l l h a s r o t a t e d w i t h i n its
v e r t i c a l p l a n e . W h i l e d e f l e c t i o n m a g n i t u d e s a r e n o t con-
t r o l l e d b y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n societies, t h e y s h o u l d be i n v e s t i g a t e d
to e n s u r e t h a t a u x i l i a r y e q u i p m e n t s u c h as piping, t a n k s ,
doors a r e n o t affected.
F i g u r e 20 s h o w s t h e n o d a l s t r e s s c o n t o u r s o n t h e o u t e r
shell plating, isolated from the other structural elements.
T h e s t r e s s e s o b t a i n e d r e s u l t f r o m t h e full s l a m m i n g p r e s s u r e
l o a d i n g case. T h e m a x i m u m e q u i v a l e n t s t r e s s is 52.5 M P a

94 SPRING 2000 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 2,

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8 | l l m w
m m m m ~
mmvAmmm
0.6 m~. m m m m
~ m m m m

0.4 !

0.2

0-
0 0.5 1.5 2.5
Fig. 14 Pitch response to ratio of wavelength k to catamaran length L (k/L) (catamaran pitch: L = 31 m, displacement = 115 tons; calculation includes sinkage and trim
correlation)

1. T r a n s v e r s e B e n d i n g M o m e n t
2. T o r s i o n a l M o m e n t
3. S h e a r Force

Fig. 17 Catamaran critical load cases

Fig. 15 Finite-element model of midship section

Fig. 18 Torsional loading case

Fig. 16 Detail view of midship section model
(7616 psi) and is located at the intersection of the shell plat-
ing and the forward bulkhead. Other locations of relatively
high stresses are evident along the hull bottom, which is
exposed to the m a x i m u m pressure, and at the intersections of
the fixed t r a n s v e r s e frames and the shell plating.
Figure 21 shows the equivalent stress contours for the
t r a n s v e r s e framing system u n d e r an inboard slamming pres-
sure load. In this case, a t a p e r e d pressure load is applied
from the bottom of the hull to the wet deck vessel centerline.
The figure shows t h a t the fixed frames support a majority of
the load.

SPRING 2000 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 95

 smaller area and over short time duration. While it may ap-
pear that loading the finite-element model over a large area
is overly conservative, this may not be the case. Considering
that slamming sea pressure is a dynamic load and the model
load is applied as a static load, the model does not appear
overly conservative. F u t u r e structural analyses that include
the effect of a time-dependent slamming pressure load versus
a statically applied load would be extremely helpful to de-
signers and classification societies.
F u t u r e studies should include design details and their ef-
fect on structural performance. One critical detail is the end
connection of stiffeners to transverse frames. These details
should be evaluated in terms of both structural performance
and overall cost.

Fig. 19 Deflected shape--bottom slamming pressure loading

Figures 22 and 23 show the fixed and floating transverse
frames, respectively. The m a x i m u m nodal stress for the fixed
frame is 74.85 MPa (10 854 psi), and for the floating frame
64.89 MPa (9412 psi). In both cases, the m a x i m u m occurs on
the interior edge of the frames, n e a r the connection of the
cross structure to the hull. Similar results were found for the
load cases of outboard slamming and full slamming.
A s u m m a r y of results from all load cases is given in Table
8, where the m a x i m u m stress is the von Mises equivalent
stress. As seen from Table 8, the most critical load is the full
slamming load case. While u n d e r the given load, the result-
ing stresses are acceptable. The locations of m a x i m u m stress
are potential sites for crack initiation and propagation. Fu-
ture studies involving the fatigue response of the floating
frame structure are warranted.
It should be noted that the slamming pressures were ap-
plied over the entire length of the model. However, in actual
sea conditions, the s l a m m i n g pressure acts over a much
Concluding remarks
This paper has presented the results of a two-part study on
the development of a 33-knot a l u m i n u m c a t a m a r a n ferry. In
the first study, a prototype hull panel with alternating fixed
and floating frames was designed and fabricated. Finite-
element analyses of both this panel and a conventional de-
sign with fixed frames showed the floating frame design had
a 10% larger deflection due to its lower rigidity. Comparison
of the finite-element analysis and tests performed on the ac-
tual panel indicated that the finite-element models provide
good predictions of the panel behavior.
In the second study, the design of a 33-knot a l u m i n u m
c a t a m a r a n ferry is presented. The preliminary design in-
cluded development of hull lines, hydrostatic, resistance, sea-
keeping, and powering calculations. The c a t a m a r a n hull
structure was designed with alternating fixed and floating
frames and examined for compliance with the ABS high-
speed rules. A finite-element analysis of the midship section
was then developed to study the hull response u n d e r a vari-
ety of service loads.

A ~ 5.3
9 ¢ 998
13:13:17
P L O T ~IO. 8
}rODAL S O L O T I Or!
STEP--1
S~ -i
TIME~I
SEQV (AVG)
TOP
D~ -.45564
Sle~ "50. 787
SMX -7616
SM~B--100 92
50.787
m~ 891.366
1732
2573
3413
~ 4254
50 94
5935
6775
7616

Stress - F u l l Slamming Pressure

Fig. 20 Equivalent stress contours for outer shell--full slamming pressure loading

96 SPRING 2000 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 A~YS 5.3
MAR 6 1998
16:45:51
PLOT HO. 4
HODAL S OLUTIC~!
STEP--1
S U B --I
TIME- 1
SEQV (AVG)
TOP
D I ~ f ~ --. 9396~,6
SM~; - 4 1 . 6 1 9
S M X --i08 54
SMXB--II 6 4 5
41.619
1243
2444
3646
4847
6049
7250
8451
9653
10854

Stre~ -- Inside Slamming Pres=ure

Fig. 21 Equivalent stress contours for transverse members--inboard slamming pressure

A~SYS 5.3
MAR 6 1998
16:46:30
PLOT ~O. 5
H O D A L S OLUTIO~T
STEP--1
SUB ml
TIME--I
S~V (AVG)
D~ -.339676
SMUT --85. 0 7 7
S M ~ --10854
SM~11645
85.077
1282
2478
3675
4871
6068
7264
84 61
9657
10854

;treas - Z~side S l ~ i n ~ Pzeasure

Fig. 22 Equivalent stress contours for fixed transverse frames--inboard slamming pressure

Acknowledgments This project was completed under the Manufacturing Tech-

The authors are grateful for the assistance of Mr. Malcolm
Willis, Swiftships Inc., throughout this study and particu-
larly in the design and fabrication of the prototype aluminum
panel.
The authors are also grateful to the late Dale Rome, Naval
Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, and Dr. John
N. Crisp and Dr. William S. Vorus, Gulf Coast Region Mari-
time Technology Center, for their support of this project.
nology Program of the Office of Naval Research.
Disclaimer
The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors,
who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data
presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the
official views or policies of the Gulf Coast Region Maritime
Technology Center (GCRMTC) or its Sites, the States of Loui-

SPRING 2000 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 97

 AHSYS 5. 3
MAR 6 1 99~
16".47:01
PLOT HO. 6
t'T ( : ~ 3~T.,. S O L U T I O H
STEP'1
SUB -I
TIME--1
SEQ'I (AVG)
TOP
DPEK - - . 3 3 9 6 7 6
S ~ ' T --41. 6 1 9
S~ --9412
S~B=I0014
41.619
~ lOS3
2124
3165
4206
~ 524S
6289
7330
i 83"71
9412

Stress -- Inside Slamming Pressure

Fig. 23 Equivalent stress contours for floating frames--inboard slamming pressure

Table 8 Summary of finite-element results

Full Slamming Load Mmdmum Stress Location of Maximum Stress

Shell Plating
Lonsitudianl Girders and Stiffeners
Floating Transverse Frames
Fixed Transverse Frames
Inboard Slamming Load
Shell Plating
Longitudinal Girders and Stiffeners
Floating Transverse Frames
Fixed Transverse Frames
Outboard SlammingLoad
Shell Plaling
Longitudinal Girders and Stiffeners
Floating Transverse Frames
Fixed Transverse Frames
Bottom Slamming Load
Shell Plating
Longitudinal Girders and Stiffeners
Floating Transverse Frames
Fixed Transverse Frames
Torsion Loading
Shell Plating
Lonsitudinal Girders and Stiffeners
! Floating Transverse Frames
Fixed Transverse Frames
Mpa (ks~
52.5 (7.6) Intersection with bulkhead and with floating
frame members; bottom of hull
80.7 (11.7) Intersections with floatin6 frame members
84.5 (12.3) Interior lower edge of frame
102.0 (14.8) Interior lower edge of frame
39.9 (5.8) Intersection with bulkhead and with floating
frame members; bottom of hull
56.5 (8.2) Intersections with floating frame members
64.8 (9.4) Upper interior edge, inside of hull centerline
74.4 (10.8) Upper interior edge~inside of hull centerlinc
65.5 (9.5) Intersection with bulkhead and with floating
frame members; bottom of hull
100.7 (14.6) Intersections with floalin~ frame members
104.8 (15.2) Lower interior edge, outside of hull centefline
104.8 (15.2) Lower interior edge, outside of hull centerline
66.9 (9.7) Intersection with bulkhead and with floating
frame members
102.7 (14.9) Intersections with floafin8 frame members
69.6 (10.1) Upper interior edge, near intersection with
cross structure and hull
102.0 (14.8) Upper interior edge, near intersection with
i cross structure and hull
37.2 (5.4) Bottom of hull
58.6 (8.5) Intersections with floating frame members
40.7 (5.9) Lower interior edge of frame
37.2 (5.4) Lower interior edge of frame

s i a n a or Texas, the U.S. Navy, or appropriate f u n d i n g
agency. This report does not constitute a standard, specifica-
tion, or regulation. The GCRMTC does not endorse products,
equipment, or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturer
names appear herein only because they are considered es-
sential to the object of this report.
References
1. Lee, Y.W., Paik, J. K., Thayamballi, A.K., and Currey, R., "A
Novel Concept for Structural Design and Construction of V e s s e l s - - U s i n g
A l u m i n u m Honeycomb Sandwich Panels," Trans. SNAME, Vol. 105,
1996, pp. 285-302.
2. Kennel, C , Lavis, D. R., and Templeman, M. T., "High Speed Sea-
lift Technology," MARINE TECHNOLOGY,Vol. 3, 1998, pp. 135-150.
3. Spencer, J. S., "Structural Design of A l u m i n u m Crewboats," MA-
RINE TECHNOLOGY,Vol. 12, No. 3, J u l y 1975, pp. 267-274.
4. Henrickson, W. A. and Spencer, J. S., "A Synthesis of A l u m i n u m
Crewboat Structural Design," MARINE TECHNOLOGY,Vo1. 19, No. 1, Jan.
1982, pp. 52-72.
5. Guide for Building and Classing High-Speed Craft, American Bu-
r e a u of Shipping, 1997.

98 SPRING 2000 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 6. Rules and Classification of High Speed and Light Craft, Det
Norske Veritas, 1994.
7. Herrington, P. D. and Latorre, R. G., "Development of an Alumi-
num Hull Panel for High-Speed Craft," Marine Structures, Vo]. 11, Nos.
1-2, 1998, pp. 47-71.
8. Latorre, R., Herrington, P. D., and Folse, M. D., "UNO-Swiftships
Development of A Cost Effective Aluminum Catamaran Structure,"
GCRMTC Final Report, Project No. 95-10, Jan. 1997.
SPRING 2000
View publication stats
9. Couser, P., Molland, A. F., Armstrong, N., and Utamz, I. K., "Calm
Water Powering Prediction for High-Speed Catamarans," Fast '97,
Fourth International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, Sydney,
Vol. 2, 1997, pp. 765-774.
10. A N S Y S User's Guide, Revision 5.3, Swanson Analysis Systems,
1996.
11. Basu, R.I., Kirkhope, K.J., and Srinivasan, J., Guidelines for
Evaluation of Ship Structural Finite Element Analysis, Ship Structure
Committee, SSC-387, 1996.
MARINE TECHNOLOGY 99