Trans RINA, Vol 156, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan –Dec 2014
performance than existing fast vessel catamaran and monohull platforms in short seas. It also has a lower specific resistance with respect to a monohull fast ferry having a comparable mission profile. Combined with unrestricted initial transverse stability needs due to splitting the displacement into more hulls providing more opportunities for optimising the hull depth/weight ratio. A market and competitors analysis identified the target scenario of the vessel to be typical short in limited fetch seas, such as the Mediterranean or the Northern Sea, competing with passenger and ro-ro fast ferries. The Mediterranean sea offers many different routes between Greece, Italy and from mainland to all the islands. Some routes, such as Napoli-Palermo, could be competitive because the crossing time is much shorter than the car or train journey, as is the case for Scandinavia [5]. On the basis of the these considerations for the CLF, it was critical to quantify potential market volumes in terms of logistics, public transport and ultra-luxury cruising to inform concept design. In order to optimise the GA and superstructure to maximise competitiveness and economical success. In a previous CLF project [2] a steel structure was used. The basis of the preliminary design concept presented in this paper was to use aluminium to facilitate two extra decks for a similar displacement.
2. SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND DESIGN
The need for enhanced safety in the navigation of large high speed vessels is critical. It could be achieved through the use of port controlled navigation to ensure the human error issues are reduced. Bruno and Lutzhoft [6] suggest that the issue of remote pilotage is best discussed not in the context of technology drivers but in the context of control. They proposed that by defining piloting as control of a complex system, fundamental and technology-independent problems become apparent and these
problems have to be mitigated in any
implementation of remote pilotage. The implication being that higher degrees of mitigation would be required with more extensive implementations, such as the CLF. They outlined possible solutions based on control theory and the results of an empirical study which identified two of the main problems as lack of trust between ships and VTS
operators and the lack of standardized
communication routines, which have been addressed in the aviation industry. There is an analogy between shipping and practices in the aviation industry. As air traffic operates successfully under ground-based control, it should also be possible to safely and efficiently control maritime traffic from the shore. A study made by the Swedish Maritime Administration to examine whether experiences from aviation could be applied to shipping, found that the domains had little of
relevance in
common. The most significant difference being the much higher degree of global standardization within commercial aviation.
Formal international standards
govern the layout and design of airports and navigational procedures in aviation. A consequence of this is that flight crew generally do not need specific knowledge of
3.
AUTOMOTIVE CRASH MODELLING SIMULATION AND OCCUPANT/ PEDESTRIAN INJURY EVALUATION
Accidents such as the Costa Concordia highlight the issues of structural damage due to crash impacts, either through grounding or involving other vessels. In such accidents the structural features, such as bulk heads are insufficient to mitigate the loss of hydrostatic stability due to structural buckling and failure. Vessel structural loading conditions are
primarily in which
hydrodynamic loading in a range of sea states. Due to the significantly higher speed of road vehicles compared to conventional design,
marine vessels, automotive structural nonlinear FEA has been
local conditions. Whereas, in shipping, no two fairways are the same and local conditions vary significantly between ports. Furthermore, ships are by necessity navigated in much closer proximity to obstacles than aircraft [6]. Another consideration is the separation of the vessel docking system from other infrastructure through using a floating structure to align with the vessel, bring the vessel further from other vessels and port structures in order to minimise the risk of high speed crash.
Operating with a faster platform has two key
requirements, structural optimisation to mitigate the risk of injury to passengers during crash and advanced e- navigation technology to ensure safety of high speed vessels
in busy shipping lanes and ports. A critical
infrastructure requirement to facilitate the MoS project is achieving the EU emissions target will be the storage and bunkering of LNG. There is
currently a significant
amount of research and implementation of LNG infrastructure across the EU funded by MOS and other initiatives. As a replacement for diesel fuel, LNG in the maritime sector offers large advantages in air pollutant emissions, and it is likely
to be able to meet the
requirements of Tier III and CCNR IV, which become mandatory in 2016 [7]. Having a large high pressure container of LNG with the potential
risk of explosion
during crash, requires significant consideration as an integral part of the structural development.
The CLF is a high speed craft of significant displacement travelling at
40knots. To enhance the passenger
survivability of a collision it will require FEA crash analysis to optimise structures and safety systems. This paper reports on the preliminary work to develop an optimised structure through crash modelling with occupant evaluation. In terms of navigation safety to avoid the potential for collision, there may be potential for transfer of innovation from air traffic control in the development of more sophisticated VTS solutions, required to support the remote pilotage for the CLF proposal. Bruno and Lutzhoft
[6] recommend the
inclusion the users of the system, that is, the ships and the crews that are subject to piloting in the development of these new systems.
determined from well
C-138
©2014: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188