..

,.-

SSC-222

CATAMARANS-TECHNOLOGICAL LIMITS
TO SIZE AND APPRAISAL OF STRUCTURAL
DESIGN INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES

This document has been approved

for public release and sale; its
distribution is unlimited.

SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE

1971

/.

. -.---- --- - ..
 SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE
AN INTERAGENCY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE DEDICATED TO IMPROVING
THE STRUCTURE OF SHIPS

MEMBER AGENCIES: ADDRESS CORRESPONDENCE TO:

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD SECRETARY
NAVAL. SHIP SYSTEMS COMMAND SHIP SIRUCTURE COMMITTEE
MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND U.S. COAST GUARD HEADCIUARTERS
MARITIME ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20594 20590
AMERICAN BUREAU OF SHIPPING

SR 192
1971

The Ship Structure Committee has completed a project that

assesses the present state of the art for designing Catamarans,
large platform, twin hulled ships. The purpose of the project
was to collect and analyze design techniques and data presently
available and assess their usefulness for catamarans approaching
1000 feet in length.

This report contains procedure for the initial design of a large

catamaran and indicates where additional tests should be made
before the final design stage is completed.

W. l?. REA III

Rear Admiral U.S. Coast Guard
Chairman, Ship Structure Committee

.
 SSC-222

Final Report

on

Project SR-192, Catamaran Designs

to the

Ship Structure Committee

CATAMARANS - TECHNOLOGICAL LIMITS TO

SIZE AND APPRAISAL OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN
INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES

by

Naresh M. Maniar and Wei P. Chiang

M. Rosenblatt & Son, Inc.

under

Department of the Navy

Naval Ship Engineering Center
Contract No. NOO024-70-C-5145

This doeuvwnt haz been approved for public ?elease and

sale; its distribution is unlimited.

U. S. Coast Guard Headquarters

Washington, D. C.
1971

-.
 ABSTRACT

Existing United States shipbuilding facilities can handle 1000-

foot catamarans with up to 140-foot individual hull beams on the premise
that the hulls would be joined afloat. Major harbors and channels of the
world suggest an overall beam limit of 400 feet and 35-foot draft. Dry-
docking for catamarans over 140-foot in breadth will require new facili-
ties or extensive modification to existing facilities. Scantlings of a
1000-foot catamaran cargo liner can be expected to be within current
shipbuilding capabilities. The uniqueness of the catamaran design lies
in the cross-structure and the important facets of the cross-structure
design are the prediction of the wave-induced loads and the method of
structural analysis. The primary loads are the transverse vertical bend-
ing moments, axial force, shear, and torsion moment~. Designers have re-
lied heavily on model tests to obtain design loads and have used general
structures principles and individual ingenuity to perform the structural
analysis in the absence of established guidelines. Simple semi-empirical
equations are proposed for predicting maximum primary loads. A structur-
al analysis method such as the one proposed by Lankford may be employed
for conceptual design purposes. The Lankford method assumes the hulls to
be rigid and the cross-structure loads to be absorbed by a group of
transverse bulkheads and associated effective deck plating. This proce-
dure in general should provide an overall conservative design and not
necessarily an economic or optimized design. Additional research and de-
velopment work including systematic model test programs are necessary for
accumulating additional knowledge in areas of uncertainty and for the es-
tablishment of reliable design methods for catamaran structure.

ii
 CONTENTS
Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...1
ANALYSIS OF FEATURES THAT MAY IMPOSE SIZE LIMITS . . . . . . . . 2
EXISTING STRUCTURAL DESIGN METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1 GENERAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
3.2 CROSS-STRUCTURE LOADS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3 SURVEY OF EXISTING DESIGN METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . 7
MODEL TEST DATA ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
4.1 TEST BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...17
4.2 DATA CONSOLIDATION AND COMPARISON . . . . . . . . . . .21
4.3 DISCUSSION OF THE PLOTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
CONDITION FOR MAXIMUM RESPONSE AND RECOMMENDED
METHOD FOR DESIGN LOADS ESTIMATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
5.1 CONDITION FOR MAXIMUM RESPONSE IN BEAM SEAS . . . . . .27
5.2 DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN LOAD EQUATIONS. . . . . . . . . .30
5.3 COMPARISON OF LOADS CALCULATED BY PROPOSED
EQUATIONS AND BY OTHER METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
5.4 METHOD FOR DESIGN LOADS ESTIMATE. . . . . . . . . . . .35
HULL FLEXIBILITY AND CROSS-STRUCTURE STRESSES. . . . . . . . . .38
DESIGN SHIP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
7.1 PURPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
7.2 DESIGN DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .43
7.3 EXPLANATION FOR EFFECTIVE STRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . ,43
7.4 CROSS-STRUCTURE LOADS AND STRESSES. . . . . . . . . . .45
7.5 DESIGN CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
TOPICS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM . . . . . . .47
CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . , .50
REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. CATAMARAN RESISTANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
2. REPRODUCTION OF PORTIONS OF REFERENCE (8), THE STRLIC-
TURAL DESIGN OF THE ASR CATAMARAN CROSS-STRUCTURE
BY BENJAMINW. LANKFORD, JR. . . . . . . . . . .56
3. REPRODUCTION OF SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF REF~R: . .
ENCE (13), AMETHOD FOR ESTIMATING LOADS ON
CATAMARAN CROSS-STRUCTURE BY A. L. DISENBACHER, . . . .62

iii

-,
 LIST (IFTABLES

Table Page

1 CATAMARAN LOAD AND STRUCTURE ANALYSIS . , . . . . . . . . . . 7

2 PROTOTYPE CHARACTERISTICS OF MODEL TEST VESSELS . . . . . . .19

3 PARTICULARS OF E. W. THORNTO~l SERIES SHIPS. . . . . . . . .20

4 PARTICULARS OF ASR SERIES SHIPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

5 PARTICULARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SERIES SHIPS . . . . .20

6 RATIOS OF MAXIMUM LOADS IN BEAM SEAS AND OBLIQUE SEAS . . . .25

7 WAVE-INDUCED TRANSVERSE VERTICAL BENDING MOMENTS IN

BEAMSEAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

8 WAVE-INDUCED SHEAR IN BEAM SEAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

9 WAVE-INDUCED TORSION MOMENT IN OBLIQUE SEAS . . . . . . . . .36

10 DESIGN LOAD SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

11 T-AGOR16 CATAMARAN STRESS SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

12 DESIGN SHIP PARTICULARS . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

13 DESIGN SHIP WAVE-INDUCED CROSS-STRUCTURE LOADS. . . . . . . .46

14 DESIGN SHIP, CROSS-STRUCTURE STRESS SUMMARY . . . . . . . . .47

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Paae

1 CATAMARAN RESPONSE IN A REGULAR BEAM SEA . . . . . . . . . . 15

M
2
*VERSLIS A, BEAM SEAS . . . . . . . . . . . . ...23
M
3
* VERSUS L, BEAM SEAS . . . . . . . . . . . . ...23
M
4
* VERSUS b3 BEAM SEAS . . . . . . . . . . . . ...23
F
5
A;; VERSUS A, BEAM SEAS . . . . ... . . . . . . ...23
F
6 so
Ab
VERSUS A, BEAM SEAS . . . . . . . . . . . . ...24
Zmcw

7 To/T1 VERSUS A, OBLIQUE SEAS.... . . . . . . ...24

8 VERSUS AL, OBLIQUE SEAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

9 ADDED MASS FOR SWAY DIRECTION, SERIES 60, FROM

REFERENCE ... . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . ...25

10 CATAMARAN IN BEAM WAVES OF DIFFERENT LENGTH. . . . . . . . . 28

11 LOADING CONDITION FOR MAXIMUM VERTICAL BENDI!JG

MOMENT INBEAMSEAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

12 T-AGOR16 STRUCTURAL CO!iFIGURATION. . . ... . . . . . . . . . 39

13 STRUCTURAL MODEL OF T-AGOR16 FOR IBM-1130

STRESSpROGRAM. . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . .3g

14 DESIGN SHIP PROFILEANDPLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

15 DESIGN SHIP TYPICAL BULKHEAD STRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . ... 42

16 DESIGN SHIP SECTION MODUL1 . . . , . . . . . . . . . . , . . 44

...
 SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE

The SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE is constituted to prosecute a research

program to imprmm the hull structures of ships by an extension of knowledge
pertaining to design, materials and methods of fabrication.

RADM W. F. Rea, III, USCG, Chairman

Chief, Office ofhlerchant Marine Safety
U. S. Coast Guard Headquarters

Capt. J. E. Rasmussen, USN Mr. E. S. Dillon

Naval Ship Engineering Center Chief
Prince Georges Center Office of Ship Construction
Maritime Administration
Capt. L. L. Jackson, USN
Maintenance and Repair Officer Mr. K. Morland, Vice President
Military Sealift Command American Bureau of Shipping

SHIP STRUCTURE SUBCOMMITTEE

The SHIP STRUCTURE SUBCOMMITTEE acts for the Ship Structure Committee
on technical matters by providing technical coordination for the determination
of goals and objectives of the program, and by evaluating and interpreting the
results in terms of ship structural design, construction and operation.

YAVAL SHIP ENGINEERING CENTER U. S. COAST GUARD

Mr. P. M. Palermo - Chairman LCDR C. S. Loosmore, USCG - Secretary

Mr. J. B. OBrien - Contract Administrator CDR C. R. Thompson, USCG - Member
Mr. G. Sorkin - Member CDR J. W. Kime, USCG -Alternate
Mr. H. S. Sayre - Alternate CDR J. L. Coburn, USCG - Alternate
Mr. I. Fioriti - Alternate
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
Mr. R. W. Rumke, Liaison
Mr. F. Da.shnaw- Member Prof. R. A. Yagle, Liaison
Mr. A. Maillar - Member
Mr. R. Falls - Alternate SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS & MARINE
Mr. R. F. Coombs - Alternate ENGINEERS

AMERICAN BUREAU OF SHIPPING Mr. T. M. Buermann, Liaison

Mr. S. G. Stiansen - Member

Mr. F. J. Crum - Member

OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH

BRITISH NAVY STAFF
Mr. J. M. Crowley - Member
Or. W. G. Rauch - Alternate Dr. V. Flint, Liaison
CDR P. H. H. Ablett, RCNC, Liaison
NAVAL SHIP RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER

Mr. A. B. Stavovy - Alternate

WELDING RESEARCH COUNCIL
MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND
Mr. R. R. Askren - Member Mr. K. H. Koopman, Liaison
Lt. j.g. E. T. Powers, USNR - Member vi Mr. C. Larson, Liaison
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

Where equations are reproduced from references, definitions of their symbols are
also provided. Each appendix has its own list of symbols.

Symbol Definition

qh Aggregate horizonta I acceleration

B Beam of each hull
b Hull centerline spacing
Cb Block coefficient
CLA Centerplane area coefficient
Cw Waterplane coefficient
c Oblique wave coefficient

c Midship coefficient
Do Draft
d dl-0.65Do
d] Distance of cross-structure neutral axis above base I ine
F Sc Vertical shear at iuncture of cross-structure and hul I due to
total cross-structure weight
Fsl Maximum shear at iuncture of cross%ructure and hu I I
F so Maximum waveinduced shear at iuncture of cross-structure and hul 1,
weight I ess cross+ ructure
9 Gravitational acceleration
H Wave height
RI/~ Significant wave height
HL Side hydrostatic force on outboard shel I
HR Side hydrostatic force inboard shel I
h Horizontal shift of center of buoyancy of one hul I
L Length between perpendicular
Ml Maximum vertical bending moment at iuncture of cross-structure
and hull
M= Moment at iuncture of cross-structure and hul I due to weight of
cross-structure
M. Maximum wave-induced bending moment on cross-structure, weight-
1ess cross-structure
P Maximum axia I force
s Clear hull spacing

vii
Symbol Definition

T1

Tc Maximum torque on cross-structure abut its twist center, t # o

To Maximum torque on cross-structure about its twist center, t = o
t Longitudinal distance between ship LCG and cross-structure twist center
Centroid of HL below neutral axis of cross-structure
Centroid of HR below neutralaxis of cr~ssstructure
Total width of catamaran
Wave surface above stil I waterline at outboard shell
Wave surface below still waterline at inbcard shell
Total (both hulls) displacement
g x added mass in sway of both hulls
Wave length
LCA
Mass density of water
Circular wave frequency

viii

. -.
1. INTRODUCTION

The history of catamarans is old, references (1) and (2). However, in this century,
it is only in the last decade that there has been a revival of serious interest in catamarans
resulting in the construction of some sixteen vessels.

Except for one cargo vessel for use on the Volgar all these vessels are special pur-
pose vessels , such as ferries, oceanographic research ships, fishing boats, drilling rigs
and pipe-laying barges. Also, it is pertinent to note that these ships are under 315 feet
in Iengthl except for two, the 400-foot Duplus (Dutch) and the 425-foot Kyor Ogly
(Russian). It may be recognized that for the special purposes in question, catamarans
were selected over monohulls mainly to tuke advantage of the large deck area, high
transverse stabi I ity,and good maneuverabi I ity at low speeds offered by the catamaran
configuration.

The question has been raised, why not large catamarans? - both in the commer-
cial sector and the Navy. In both groups, the interest is related to high-speed vessels
for low density pay load . To answer this question, the Maritime Administration began
with the Catamaran Study (1)1 performed by General Dynamicsr and the Navy has under-
taken a comprehensive assessment of catamaran technology (2), (3) and (4). Litton
Industries claim an actual design of a semi-submerged catamaran container ship (~) and
(6), and Fisher, et al, have prepared a preliminary design of a catamaran container ship
for the Trans-Atlantic trade (7).

A SOI ient obstacle in assessing the desirability of large catamarans has been the lack
of technical information to establish the structural requirements. The purpose of the
proiect reported here was to investigate into the technological limits to size and propor-
tions of catamarans, appraise existing design procedures, and determine the additional
structural knowledge required to insure their structural adequacy.

The features examined that could impose size limits were powering and propulsion,
cross structure scant! ings , construction problems, repair facilities, and harbor and pier
limitations.

In order to estimate the cross-structure scantl ings it was necessary to accomplish

at least the first cycle of the prel iminary design of a large catamaran of a size indicated
by considerations other than cross-structure scantl ings.

The maior effort of the proiect was centered around the procedure for the structural
design of the cross-structure. The task was divided into three parts, viz: (a) Assembly
and comparison of al I available model test data on the loads on the cross structure; (b)
Evaluation of the analytical methods for estimate of cross-structure load and (c) Struc-
ture analysis methods.

Numbers in parentheses refer to references I isted.

 2

New equat ions are proposed for the estimate of wave-induced vertical bending
rnomentf axial force and shear force . Modifications are proposed to an existing equa-
tion for torsion.

The project scope was limited to conventional surface catamarans as opposed to

semi-submersible catamarans (column-stabilized or strut-stabilized) . No attempt was
made to analyze the influence of symmetrical hulls or non-symmetrical hulls on the size
I imit or the cross-structure of catamarans.

Of all the aspects of catamaran design, resistance has received the most atten-
tion in the past. Considerable work has been done in the areas of theoretical prediction
and model test measurements, as well as their correlation. A brief statement on the most
important aspects of catamaran resistance as gathered from the I iterature is provided in
Appendix 1.

Recommendations are made for the future research and development program for
large catamarans.

2. ANALYSIS OF FEATURES THAT MAY IMPOSE SIZE LIMITS

It appears, in principle, that there are no insoluble technical considerations which

would preclude the design and construction of a 1000-foot catamaran in the United States.
This does not imply that the facilities exist to build many ships immediately, that there
wil I not be special problems to overcome, or that there is no need for future research and
development effort necessary to build an efficient vessel . What is meant is that if eco-
nomics strongly favor a large catamaran, the venture to design and build one may be un-
dertaken without a strong reservation that some unknown technological problem wou id
force the premature termincltioh of the venture.

The features considered in reaching the foregoing conclusion are as follows:

a. Resistance-Powering-Propulsion:

,, Main machinery and propulsion system for a large catamaran does not present a
situation not found in large monohull designs. Depending on speed and draft, very large
catamarans may require more than one propeller per hull . However, this need not set an
upper limit to the catamaran size, assuming that hull beam is sufficient, and form can be
designed to accommodate more than one propel Ier. Machinery weight and volume should
be acceptable.

b. Wave Loads, Cross-Structure $cantling and Structural Material:

The hydrodynamic effect unique to catamarans and of prime consideration is, of

cwrse, the differential wave loading on the hul Is to be absorbed by the !cross-ktructure.
Design checks for up to approximately 1000-foot catamaran with IOO-foot clear hul ~ <pac-
ing show that cross-structure with practical scantl ings can be designed to absorb the wave
loads. With full transverse bulkheads at approximately 50-foot spacing and making the
conservative estimate of effective flange, the maximum steel (100,000 psi yield) plate
thickness is 1-1/4 inches. There is no doubt that the cross-structure material would have
to be stee 1.
 3

c. Drafts:

Water depths at existing cargo piers around the world suggest draft 1imitation of
approximately 35 feet.

d. Construct ion:

Existing United States drydock facilities cun build up to approximately 1050 x

140 monohulls. Bethlehem Steel Companys new drydack at Sparrows Point, Maryland
will measure 1200 x 200, One mil I ion ton drydocks under construction in Japan and
Northern Ireland wi II be approximate y 1965 x 329. Catamarans with overal I beam
larger than the width of the available dock would have to have the hulls and the center-
body assembled with hul Is afloat. The latter technique was used in the E.W. Thornton
construct ion. Twin docks with equal depth, iust the correct depth and iust the correct
width, may be an answer, if available.

e, Drydocking:

Drydocking poses a problem if the desired catamarans are too large for the dry-
dock sizes mentioned in the previous paragraph. Modification of existing facilities or
construction of new facilities will be required. From a technical viewpoint, use of two
floating docks may be feasible.

One must not underestimate the ingenuity of shipyards to solve the drydocking
problem. Evidently no serious reservation was held regarding drydocking when the con-
struction of the 250-ft wide Mohole k Iatform was initiated.
~ I I
The Livingston Shipbuildi~g Company has Chydockdd the 10~-fi wide E.W.
Thornton o n a single floating dry~ck split into two longitudinal hlalv$s held together
by spacer beams. \~ ; I
I
i I 11 I I I
I
It is beli~ved tha~ the Rus~ians have a scheme for dismantling their relatively
smal I catamarans for maintenance and repairs. 1
1 1:11
!,
)

f .~ Cargo H6ndlirig and Piers: \ ,,

,, I

The problems of cargo handling and piers are economic probllems. They can be
I
solved, at a p~ice, if the ecolnornicsof catamarans we r e so attractive~. Use of twin
piers or di+chqrge o~ cargo offshore have possibi I ities.

9. Channels and Harbors:

,,
I I
Certain ur!publ ishe~ st~dies claim that the maiority of maior harbors around the
I
world c~n ~cckpt 1000 x 400 ca~@narans. ,! 1
1, ! ,1
I 1 I 1:
I !,
I
I
1 h . Economics: 1
I /,
I ,

The General Dynami ~s study (1 )and certairl unpublished studies claim that the eco-
1 ,.
nomics of catamarans as compared to economics of mbnohul Is are unfavorable or at the
most marginal . Captain M. -Eckhart, Jr. reporting on the Navys findings to date (3)
 4

states No compelling reason is yet in sight for a general shift from the monohull to the
multihull or catamaran configuration .

3. EXISTING STRUCTURAL DESIGN METHODS

3.1 General

The coverage of existing design procedures is I imited to the cross-structure since

withou~ exception individual hulls have been treated as monohul Is.

Neither the classification societies nor the governmental agencies have estab-
lished design criteria or guidelines for cross-structure design and designers must follow
general structural engineering techniques. In the case of the T-AGOR 16 Catamaran
Research Ship design the Navy did suggest the use of the paper The Structural Design of
the ASR Catamaran Construction by Lankford (8) as guidance.

3.2 Cross-Structure Loads

As for any structure, there are two phases to the cross-structure design, namely,
the determination of the loads and the design of the structure to alxorb the loads.

The lads experienced by the cross-structure are:

A. Calm water load due to the weight (lightship weight and dead-
weight) of the cross-structure.

B. Wave-induced loads due to differential wave loads on the indi-

vidual hulls.

i . Transverse vertical Bending Moment, usual I y referred to

as iust the Bending Moment or sometimes even as the Rol I
Moment.
I

ii. Vertical Shear Force, usual Iy referred to as iust the Shear

Force.

t1
C1--p3! I
 5

iii. Torsion Moment, sometimes referred to as the Pitch

Moment.

iv. Transverse in-plane Horizontal Force or Side Force ,

v. Horizontal in-plane Moments or Yaw Moment.

I I
 b

vi. Longitudinal in-plane Force.

vii. Water impact loads.

c. Grounding and Docking Loads

The controlling loads in the cross-structure design are the wave-induced loads
numbered i, ii, and iii, grounding and docking loads (if grounding and docking is con-
sidered a design criteria) and the calm water loads. Impact loads are treated as local
loads and require reinforcement of the cross-structure bottom and inboard shell of the in-
dividual hulls.

Side forces which appear to be instrumental in causing the maximum vertical

bending moments are of sufficient magnitude to be included in the direct stress calcula-
tion. Earlier designers tended to neglect them and only in one conventional catamaran
model test (9) (report unpublished) were the side forces measured. Loads (v) and (vi)
cause negligible stresses.

The rest of this section is devoted to the survey of the existing structural de-
sign methods. However, at this point it may be desirable to point out that the proiect
investigators conclusions as to the vessel positions with respect to the waves *hat are
likely to give rise to the muximum response and the recommended method for design
load estimate appear in Section 5.
 7

Table 1 - Catamaran Load and Structure Analysis

Areas of Contribution
c-s Wave Loads
Steel Ground- Bend-
Wt i ng i ng Shear Torsion Strwc~ure
Analysis
Ref. Est. Loads Mom. Force Moment Bending Shear Torsion
. .

R . Scott 10

B.W. Lankford, Jr. 8 -1--

H .A. Schade 12&13 -+ i- +

A.L . Dinsenbacher 13 + + 1-

G. O. Thomas 4 + 1- + +

J .L. Glaeser 14 + +

C .W. Livingston
15 Description of E i W. Thornton Structure
and W.H. Michel

W,H. Michel Description of Univ. of Miami Catamaran Design Structure

3.3 Survey of Existing Design Methods

Table 1 lists load and structure analysts and their published contributions. It
is emphasized that designers of catamarans actual Iy built have relied heavily on model
tests to provide the numbers for wave loads. Model test data analysis is covered in Sec-
tion 4. Brief description and discussion on the work of each structure analyst listed in
Table 1 follow. Howeverf any calculations performed to assess their methods are in-
cluded in tables of Section 5. These tables compare model test predictions, calculations
by existing methods and calculations by new equations presented in this report.

3.3.1 R. SCOTT

While still a Naval Architectural student at the University of Michigan,

Scott proposed expressions for the stresses due to torque and transverse bending of a cata-
maran cross-structure (10). They are as fol lows:

Torsion:

To obtain the torsional bending moment, a fine-1 ined 300-foot long

vessel was poised obliquely on a trochoidal wuve, 170 x 1(3 . The crest coincided with
 8

the forward quarter point of one hull and the aft quarter point of the other hull, with
the trough at the extremities. (Scott has not provided additional information on the
vessel or the basis for selecting a 10-foot high wave. ) Under this attitude of the vessel,
the center of buoyancy of The hulls moved toward the crest by an amount equal to 4
percent of the length. Thus, each hul I had a torque of O .04L times the displacement per
hull and the total torque on the cross-structure was given by T = O .04LA

Where ,A = Total displacement of catamaran

Assuming the wing structure as a thin wal led rectangular tube in tor-
sion, the stress, S, was given by

S.-L
2 At

where A = Area of the tube and

t = Tube thickness

The approach to obtain the total torque moment, as simple as it may

be, has merit for application in early stages of the design. Torque as given by O .04LA
have been compared with model test results in Table 9. Except in the case of one vessel
where the test value is 16\0 higher, in all other cases, O .04LlJ would provide conserva-
tive estimates.

Little application can be found for the stress expression as al I known

catamarans have longitudinally discontinuous cross-structure which can not be idealized
as a single tube.

Transverse Bending:

[t was assumed that during severe rolling in beam seas one of the hulls
can become partially emerged where one-half of the entire displacement of one hul I is
cantilevered from the end of the cross-structure. Under this assumption the stress orI the
cross-structure is expressed as

Hull separation x 1/2 displacement of one hull

Stress =
Section modulus of cross-structure on centerline

(W-2 B)~/4 = s6/4

Section modulus Sect ion modu I us

A portion of Table 7 is a comparison of bending moments given by

S2 /4 with available model test results. [t shows that the test value for ASR is higher
than SL /4 while for other vessels S L /4 is higher than the test values.

(Note: Here S = clear hull spacing)

..
 9

Even though Scott s assumption provides bending moment values

higher than the model tests it is questionable whether the particular assumption of the
ship-wave relationship generates the maximum bending moment. A more detailed dis-
cussion on the condition for maximum bending moment appears in Section 5.

3.3.2 B.W. LANKFORD, JR.

Lankfords well-known and valuable paper, The Structural Design

of ASR Catamaran Cross-Structure (8) includes the fol lowing:

i. Analytical approach to sea lwd prediction

ii. Distribution of the design sea loads

. ..
11[. Drydocking and grounding loads

iv. Structural configuration of the ASR

v. The design procedure

The design wave-induced vertical bending moments were obtained

by making a long term prediction. The prediction calculations used response amplitude
operators provided by model tests (1 1), ocean wave spectrum derived from data on 12
most severe storms at the National lnst itute of Oceanography (Great Britain), and wave
frequency occurrence in the North At[antic.

The ~rt of the paper which covers points (ii) through (v) mentioned
above, together with the references , is reproduced in Appendix 2 of this report.

Lankford uses drydocking and grounding loads as design criteria .

Based on the assumption that the vessel is docked or grounded with maximum weight in
such a manner that one hul I is supported forward at station 4 and the other is supported
aft at station 18, the design torque is given by bd/4 = 0.175 LA . This criteria is
considered overly conservative and it gives torque values which are much higher than
wave induced torque as can be seen in Table 9. The assumed loading condition where
no buoyancy support is available can occur during docking only . Further, one must
assume that the hull flexibility is not such that the vessel weight can force the keel
down to the blocks.

The Lankford method of cross-structure ana Iysis is likely to attract

designers for two reasons, viz:

i. It is neatly stated and simple and quick to apply.

ii. It is the only available method which has been applied to

vessels actually built, namely the ASR and the T+GOR 16,
 10
However, the readers must be cautioned against the unreserved
acceptance of this method as it appears to oversimplify the structure and make some
questionable assumptions. Further, the method does not assure an economic nor a con-
servat ive structure. The primary oversimplification is that the hulls are rigid. The ,pri -
mary questionable assumption is that there is no relative rotation between the hul Is and
the cross-structure at the iunction of the hul Is and the cross-structure.

3.3.3 H.A. SCHADE and A.L. DINSENBACHER

.Schades and Dinsenbachers works (12) and ( 13) are considered to-
gether since the methods employed by Dinsenbacher to develop equations for axial
forces, vertical moment, shear and torsion moment are refinements of methods devel-
oped by Schade. The Ship Structure Committee proiect reported here benefited from
the information and style of presentation in these two references. The fol lowing para-
graphs are taken directly from the Introduction and Analysis section of Dinsenbachers
paper and they state the refinements made to Schades methods, and the assumption of
the methods. The Summary and Discussion (from the same paper) which include the
equations developed are reproduced in Appendix 3 of this report. (The reference num-
bers in the quotation refer to the references in the paper which are also included in
Appendix 3.)

In 1965 Professor H .A. Schade made a feasibility study of an ocean-

going catamaran in which equations were developed for estimating the
cross-structure loads (1). The author assumed the hulls to be prismutic
forms acted upon by vertical Iy fronted waves. It was decided to compare
the loads resulting from this method to results from a model test of an
ASR catamaran (2). The comparison showed Schades loads to be some-
what higher than those found from the model test. Also, Schades method
relates wave height only to ship dimensions, and not to wave length. It
was thus decided to employ many of the general aspects of Schades method
but to modify the waves used in his study. Sinusoidal waves are substituted
for the vertical Iy fronted waves. The wave lengths are related to the ship
dimensions in an effort to optimize Imds. Also, the wave amplitudes are
related to the current design wave height-length relationship and to the
loads measured on the ASR catamaran model.

The resulting empirical equations devised herein are simple and quick
to employ. They are founded on a combination of a more realistic wave
shape, the current design wave height-length relationship used for longi-
tudinal strength, model and full-scale evaluations of current surface-
ship hull girder design Imds, and loads measured on a catamaran model
in waves. A procedure for estimating primary stresses resulting from the
gross loads is also included.

Assumptions: (Quotation Continued)

For this study, in a manner similar to that of Schade, the ship is ideal-
ized as two rectangular prisms (representing the hul Is) connected by a
rectangular box (the cross-structure) . The longitudinal and transverse dis-
 11

tributions of weight are taken as uniform in the hulls and in the cross-
structure. The length, beam, draft, and weight of the prismatic represen-
tation of the hulls are taken as those of the actual hulls. The intercon-
necting box has t-he same length (span between hul Is), width, depth,
weightr clearance above stil I water, and vertical location of neutral axis
as does the actual cross-structure , The fluid density used for the computa-
tion of vertical forces is modified here to compensate for the difference in
displaced fluid between the rectangular blocks and the actual hull forms as
was done by Schade; however, the fluid density is not modified in the com-
putation of transverse loads. Also, the drafts are found for the prismatic
forms which produce vertical accelerations of ~0 .4g, and these accelera-
tions and drafts are used in computing the loads on the prismatic idealiza-
tion. These heave acceleration amplitudes of * 0.4g are not unrealistic
maxima to expect for the ships service life (3) . Sinusoidal waves rather
than vertically fronted waves are used. Pressures are assumed hydrostatic.
Inertia forces on the ship mass are included in calculating loads. Slamming
and whipping are ignored. It is further assumed herein that relative posi-
tions of wave and ship similar to those which produced the highest cross-
structure loads in Schades work will result in the worst conditions. There-
fore, only the loading conditions shown in Figures 1 and 2 will be considered ,

Figures 1 and 2 are included in Appendix 3.

Comments on the equations developed and their associated assumptions fol low:

Axial Force:

The equation for axial force in beam seas does not account for the pos-
sible force contribution due to the horizontal acceleration, which can be substantial ,

Detailed discussion on the prohble conditions for maximum loads as

concluded from some independent analysis and available test data is covered in Section 5.

Bendina Moment and Shear:

i. Although not stated specifically the bending moment equations

development assume that maximum side hydrostatic force and maximum vertical ac-
celeration occur at the same time for the relative wave and ship position of Loading
Condition 1 (see Appendix 3, Figure 1). Alsa that the sense of the acceleration on
both hulls is the same.

ii. The second term on the right side of equation (75), Appen-
dix 3, for maximum shear is obtained by relating the shear and bending moment RMS
values in 40-knot wind beam seas for the ASR catamaran. Intrinsic to this operation IS
the assumption that shear and moment are in phase or that the particular shear is the re-
sult of the particular moment.

The validity of the foregoing two assumptions is doubted. The two

assumptions do play a very irnportan~ part in the resulting equations for maximum bend-
ing moments and shear. The reasoning behind the objections will be found in Sec-
tion 5.
 12

Torque,:,

Equation (79) Appendix 3, developed for maximum torque (which

occurs in oblique seas) about the twist center of the cross-structure is

TO = SCbg BAL 2/2~ +

I0.14 hAQ t/s

The first term on the right represents the .tcmsion about the center of gravity of the ship,
while the second term represents the torsion due to shear acting through the ships cen-
ter of gmvity, which tends to differential Iy heave the hulls. The latter term is ob-
tained by relating the maximum shear to the maximum bending moment (for a catamaran
with weightless cross-structure) in the same oblique wave which causes the maximum tor-
sion. This assumption is the same as the second assumption I isted under bending moment
and shear and its validity is doubted also. Attention is drawn to the fact that the term
in question is not I ikely to be large unless tr the distance from center of center of
gravity of the ship to the center of twist of the cross-structure, is large.

The development of the first term in the torsion equation is found to be logical and pre-
ferred over Scotts expression for torque. It seems to take in as many details as possible
without beginning with the fundamental equations of motions. The first term is em-
ployed to nondimensional ize :he test data (Section 4).

3.3.4 G.O. THOMAS

G.0. Thomas delivered a lecture (4) entitled Structural Analysis

of Catamarans as one prt of a short course on Modern Techniques of Ship Structural
Analysis and Design at the University of California in September 1970. [t was a gen-
eralized lecture bed on the conceptual design of a naval strike platform for which con-
siderable design information was collected and design criteria developed.

The m@erial on design load derivation was as presented by

Dinsenkmcher and discussed earlier in this report.

[n developing the design criteria for aircraft carriers, Thomas was

able to refer to some very recent work performed at the British National Physical Lakra-
tories (unpublished) and at the Naval Ship Research and Development Center. The sec-
tion on structural design criteria selection contained formulas for cross-structure clearance
and slamming loads which are applicable to catamarans in general .

Thomas formula for cross-structure clearance above load waterline is

C=3+ 1.1 {~) but C<20

The clearance as calculated by this formula compared quite closely to the actual clear-
ance for the E .W. Thornton and the ASR but it gave much higher values than actual b
the University of Miami design and the Ridgely Warfield. in this respect it is pertinent
to note that the forwardend of the Ridgel y Warfields cross-structure is lmw shaped and
designed for low cl *rance. It is suspected that for very large catamarans the cross-
 13

structure clearance may be controlled by the minimum depth and freelward requirements
for the individual hul Is. Also, the designer is I ikely to pay some penalty in terms of
additional clearance if the ends of the cross-structure are within approxirrwtely 0.15 L
of the ends of the hulls.

Thomas provides a fairly lengthy discussion on the design criteria for

cross-structure slamming. He elects to treat the relatively smal I forward -cmd-aft areas
as local areas since they are of minor importance to the overal I cross-structure weight.
The following discussion on the slamming loads on the large middle areas (referred to as
Region 2) is quoted directly from Thomas lecture notes ( 4).

In Region 2, slamming of the largest area of cross-structure Imttom plat-

ing was assumed to be caused by the descent of the cross-structure right
on top of a wave passing through the catamaran flume. This may not be
strictly the easer but lacking specific information, it was taken to be so.
Wave buildup within the tunnel was neglected since it primarily effects
slamming aft. A second unpublished report by the National. Physical Lab-
oratory shows that high-impact pressures aft for a catamaran with water pile-
up and without anti-pitching fins were a little less than at the forward
quarter point.

Loads from slamming on the cross-structure bottom in Region 2 can be

divided into two kinds: (a) short-term high-impact pressures acting lo-
cally in the lateral direction for ~nels and on the edges of floors and
(b) longer duration for lower pressures used for cross-structure bottom
bent and overall cross-structure bottom gril Iage design.

The highest pressures for short-term slamming can be taken as for flat
bottom impact. This can be iustified by considering that welding dis-
tortion can cause a s! ightl y concave appearance to the cross-structure
bottom plating which could then slam on wave crests as a flat bottom.
The equation used for flat-battom slamming is from Chuang*

p =4.5V 64/62.4

where p is the flat bottom slamming pressure in pounds per square inch,
V is the relative motion between ship and fluid in feet per second, and
the value 64/62.4 converts pressures from those for fresh water to those
for sea water. The slamming station for relative motion was taken at
O .46L forward of amidships and, since impact pressures are assumed to
occur when the ship descends on top of the wav~, impact velocities
were ksed on design maximum pitch motion. Pressures greater than those
from flat-bottom slamming can be experienced as transients for rela-
tively shallow deadrise angles of hull to fluid. However, these pressures
are usual Iy very localized to the water-structure interface and were as-
sumed to carry insufficient momentum to affect the design of the plating.

*Chuang, S. L., Experiments on Flat-Bottom Slamming, Journal of Ship Research

(March 1966)

_. .-
 14
The first mentioned unpublished NPL report showed that raising the
cross-structure on a catamaran model reduced the freque~cy of slams of
a given severity but did not reduce the intensity when they did occur.
Pritchett** has confirmed this conclusion in more recent testing at
NSRDC. The general concensus so far is that for the higher most prob-
able sea conditions (Beaufort 6 in one case and State 7 sea in another),
short-term, high-impact slamming pressures can be assumed to be between
80 and 120 psi, regardless of the size of the ship or height of the cross-
structure (within reason). Slamming pressures from the Chuang equation
fell within this range for all catamarans of the series.

High impact flat-bottom slamming pressures were applied over single

panels of bottom plating which were then designed as for boundaries of
tanks, and to floors and double bottom longitudinal girders to design
against local collapse .

Following the initial slam on the bottom plating of the cross-

structure, the pressure can be assumed to drop very rapidly to that
given by 1/2 ~ V2 where ? is the mass density of sea water, i .e.,

P= 0.994V2
where P is the flat bottom pressure in pounds per square foot and V
is the relative motion between ship and fluid in feet per second .

For this relationship the relative velocity between ship and fluid
can be taken to include the orbital velocity of particles in the wave
since the cross-structure bottom might now be well below the crest
of the wave. Pressures from this equation ranged from 600 to 900
pounds per square foot for the catamaran series studied. These pres-
sures were then applied to the overal I cross-structure bottom grit Iage
design.

Thomas has also developed a weight equation for the cross-structure

of a catamaran but its application is extremely restricted. Actual Iy, it was developed
for the conceptual design on aircraft carriers. llm equation is not presented here due
to its acknowledged limitations and high prokbility of involving large errors when ap-
plying it to nonaircraft carrier type structure.

3.3.5 JOHN L. GLAESER

While at the Webb Institute of Naval Architecture, Glaeser pre-

pared an undergraduate thesis entitled A Theoretical Investigation Into the Motions
of a Calamaran and the Shear and Bending Moments on its Cross-Structure (14). The
responses considered were heave, rol 1, shear and vertical bending moment. As a check
on his theory, Glaeser calculated the responses for the ASR and compared them with the
model test results (1 1) . Figure 1 (taken from the summary of the thesis) shows the compari-
son.

** Pritchettr C., Model Studies of ASR-Catamaran Impact Pressures on Between Hull

Structure, Naval Ship Research and Development Center T&E Report 340-H-01
(January 1970).
 15

HEAVE R E5PohJ5~

Ill
s I I I I I 1 , \/ I 1 1 1

,2 ,4 ,6 ,5 1,0 1,2 1.4 l.~ 1.t3 Z,O

4 THEOL?Y (V= O RT5)

ROLL ~E5mhJsE
MODELTEST (V=\5 KTS)

1 I I I i 1 1 1 I I

.2 ,4 .Co .6 1.0 l-z 1.4 l-~ 1.8 2.0

FREQ~EtJCY (~ADjsEc)

CF.055 5TIWCT U IZE

13EMDI MG MOMENT
(V= O KTS)
TEST ( V=O W5)
T E5T (V 15 KT5)

~,,,, 1 1 I I 1 I 1 ! 1 ,I
.2 .4 ,6 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
FREQti8EhIcJ ~RAd j3Ecj

]000 100 .50

W%;OE
LE !dG?I! ~FT)

Fig. 1 - Catamaran Response In a Regular Beam Sea

(Reproduced from Ref. 14)

.
 16

To permit the most basic analysis the prablem WS simplified by tak-

ing a catamaran at zero speed in a two-dimensional cosine wave. T his is reasonable as
maximum roll and vertical moments appear to occur in beam seas. Other primary as-
sumptions of the theory are as follows:

Motion Calculations:

1. The hulls are thin enough, and the roll small enough so that
the wave height at the center of a hull is the same as at the
sides. The catamaran is wall sided.

2. All the hydrodynamic, hydrostatic and inertial forces act

through a point on the centerline of each hul 1.

3. The catamaran is not pitching and there is no cross coupling

effect between heave and rol 1.

Shear and Bending Moment Calculations:

1. All hydrodynamic and hydrostatic forces act through the center

of buoyancy of each hull as it moves.

2. The cross-structure is weightless (in accordance with the model

test),

3. The catamaran rolls about its center of gravity and is wall sided.

First, Gltieser wrote and solved the differential equations far heave
and rol 1. Then knowing the motions of the vessel, the forces on each individual hull
were calculated, the forces being those which made up the original differential equa-
tions. The constants of proportionality, added mass and damping were calculated using
Grims coefficients.

Comments on the Comparison of Theoretical Calculation

and Model Test Results for the ASR

See Figure 1. Although the shear response comparison is not in-

eluded in the summary, it is included in the principle thesis. However, the shear com-
parison is nearly identical to the roll motion comparison.

The rol I and shear correlations are verY respectable except that the
theoretical maximum occurs at @ ~ 1.2(>= 2 hull centerline spacing) while the
experimental maximum occurs at @ z 1 ( A ~ 2 overall width). It is suspected that
this i$ due to the simplification that *he hulls are thin and that the vertical force acts
through a single point. The agreement in magnitude leads one to conclude that the
theory has succeeded in identifying, at least, the principle parametem which influence
rol I m~tion and shear force.

. .
 17

Figure 1 does not show the model test heave. In this respect it is
valuable to note that the theoretical heave curve is very much like the Thornton model
test curve in which heave/wave height is approximately zero at that wave frequency
when roll, shear and bending moment are maximum and approximately unity at low fre-
quencies.

The bending moment correlation is poor casting a doubt on the

theory. As Glaeser himself suspected it is most likely due to neglecting both the hydro-
static and hydrodynamic side forces. It will be observed that locations of maximums
are the same as for roll motion.

4. MODEL TEST DATA ANALYSIS

As mentioned earlier model tests have assisted greatly in the estimation of wave-
induced loads on the cross-structure of catamarans. What is more important to recog-
nize is that they will continue to do so until theoretical and semi-empirical methods
have been proven to a high degree of confidence (which takes time).

This section consolidates and compares the available mode[ test data on the loads
imposed by sea waves on the catamaran cross-structure. Limitations of the various
test programs and the consequent 1imitat ions of the data comparison are enumerated.
The purpose of the comparison was to determine the gross relationship between the loads
and the major parameters of the catamaran design and waves.

4.1 Test Back~round

4.1.1 Test Vessels

The prototype characteristics of the vessels whose model test data

were available to this project, are provided in Table 2. It will be observed that within
the data plots appearing in the report are data points marked ~Undisclosed Series.
These are from an unpublished test report of a conventional catamaran.

The bulk of the analysis has been centered around the Thornton
and the ASR whose test programs included a large range of sea conditions and the
data, as reported, are amenable to extrapolation and comparison . The amenability to
extrapolation was most valuable as it was helpful in estimating loads on large catamarans.

The portion of the Mohole and the Livingston 6-column semi-

submersible platforms test data which were useable were the data for the ocean tow con-
dition .
In this condition the water lines are below the top of the lower longitudinal
hul Is and the vessels are essentially surface catamarans. Test program for the University
of Miami Research Vessel Design was quite I imited .

4.1.2 Loads Compared

The loads compared were the two moment and one force measured
in each test with model at zero speed, viz:
 18

0 Vertical Bending Moment in Beam Seas

e Vertical Shear Force in Beam Seas
aI Torsion Moment in Oblique Seas

The crucial side forces which are the malor cause of the maximum
vertical moment were measured in the Livingston test only. The reported acceleration
data for the various tests are inadequate to attempt a meaningful comparison .

4.1.3 Pertinent Notes on the Tests

a. All the test models simulated the total weight, centers and gy -
radii of the catamaran as a rigid body. None of the models
simulated the structural rigidities of the centerbody or the cross
members.

b. The ASR report (11) provides random wave test results (only) in
terms of response amplitude operators and response spectral
energy.

The other tests which were all performed at the Davidson Lab-
oratory reports both regular wave and random wave test results.
However, the random wave test results are in terms of averages
only.

c. The all important information on phase relationship between the

various loads and the wave are available for the Mohole and the
Livingston tests only.

d. Each test was performed for a specific configuration and one load-
ing condition only.

e. Load measurement system: The ASR test used four strain gages
mounted on two rigid aluminum bars, one forward and one aft to
measure loads.

The Davidson Laboratory used Schaevitz force measurement dyna-

mometers which are I i near variable differential transformers to measure loads. (The
dynamometers have a core mounted between two springs and the VOI tage output is pro-
portional to the displacement of the core.) Although the actual instrumentation ar-
rangement was not the same for every Davidson Laboratory test, the fol lowing para-
graph from the Thornton Report (17) is informative of the principle of the system.

The hulls were connected by a rigid bridge structure which was a

part of the force and moments measuring system. The bridge was
fixed to the port hul I and was connected to linear force measurement-
dynamometers in the starboard hul 1. The bridge wws made up of three
frames which spanned the hulls at the L.C .G. and at two points 12
inches forward and aft of the L. C.G. The frame at the L .C .G. was
 19

Table 2 - Prototype Characteristics of Model Test Vessels

Reference Number 15, 17 11,18 16, 19 20,21 22

Test Facility Davidson NSRDC Davidson Davidson IMvidson

Hul I Symmetry U nsym Unsym Unsym Sym Sym

1~1+11 390-0 260 -0
Length Overall

z~ol-o~l 136-6 * 355! -Oil

Length Bet. Perp, L 255-0

Beam Overall, W 105-0 86141 501-511 250-0 200 -0

Beam Each Hull, B 371@ 241-011 16-10 35-0 361-011

Hull~, Spacing, b 681+,1 621-011 331-7 215-0 1641-011

Clear Hull Spacing, s 311-ofl *1-O,,

16-10 180-0 128-0

Test Draft, Do 171-oil 18-0 91-5,1 28 -7 161-OU

Total Displacementfb 6700 T 2797 T 695 T 16,800 T 7700 T

Block Coef, Cb 0.73 0.54 0.56 0.75 0.90

Waterplane Coef, Cw 0.84 0.737 1.0 1.0

Centerplane Coef, CLA 0.92 0.92 1.0 1.0

L/b 3.75 3.37 4.063 1.163 1,220

L/D. 15.00 11.67 14.44 13.64 16.25

B/Do 2.18 1.33 1.78 1.24 2.25

L/B 6.89 8.75 8.13 11.14 7.22

b/W 0.648 0.721 0.667 0.860 0.820

Oblique Wave Coef, CA 0.47 0.51 0.46 0.77 0.78

* Assumed vu Iue

.
 20
Table 3 - Particulars of E. W. Thornton Series Ships

TABLE 3 -PARTICULARS OF E. W. THORNTON SERIES SHIPS

Ship A m Ship C E.W. Thornton

Scale 1,2.3S3 1,2 1,1 .27a 1,1

LBP, L 607.47 510.0 325.89 255.0

BeamOverall, W 250.22 210.0 134.19 105.0

Beam Each Hull, B 88.17 74.0 47.29 37.0

Hull Spacing, s 73.87 42.0 39.62 31.0

Hull~ Spacing, b 162.05 12.5.0 86.9 s3 .0

Draft, DO 40.51 34.0 21.73 17- 0

Displacement,A 90,800 T 53, LOOT 14,000T 6r7@l T

d 52.43 44.0 2a.12 22.0

2 (W-B) =2b 324.10 272.0 173.8 124.0

Table 4 - Particulars of ASR Series Ships

TABLE 4- PARTICULARSG+ ASR SERIES SHIPS

m &!.!& YES ASR

Scale 1!3.19 1:2.675 1:1.71 1,1

LBP, L 669.90 561.75 359.1 210.0

8e.m Ovemll, W 274.34 230.05 147.06 86.0

Ekm Each Hull, B 76.56 .64.20 41.04 24.0

Hull Spacing, S 121.22 110.65 64.98 33.0

Hull ~Spacing, b 197.73 165.85! 106.02 62.0

Draft, Do 57.42 4$..15 30.7a 1s .0

Displacement, A 90,800 T 53,600 T 14,000T 2,797T

d 93.79 73.65 50 .27s 29,4

2 (W-B) =2b 395.54 331.70 212.04 124.0

Table 5 - Particulars of the University of Miami Series Ships

TABLE
5- PARTICULAR50F THEuNtVER51w OFMIAMI SERIESSt+IPs

Univ. of Miami
M = Ship C Ships

Sc.alc I;5. IXO 1,3.339 1:1,143 1:1

LBP, L 693.# 455.8 156.0 136.5,

Beam Over. [1, VI 256.0 168.3 57.b 50.4

B,nm Each Hull, B B5.3 56.1, 19.2 16.8

Hull Spucing, S 85.3 56,1 19.2, 16.8

Hull~ Spacing, b 170.7 112.2 3.4 33.6

ila?t, DO 48.0 31.5 10,81 9,45

Displacement, A 91,1139T 25,827 T 1,042T 495 T

d 106.2 69.8 23.9 20.9

2 (W-B) = 2b 341.4 224.4 76.8 67<2

Signijicnnt Wave Ht, 45.7 30.0 10.3 9.0

HI
T
 21

attached to two dynamometers spaced three inches apart whi Ie the two
other frames were attached to single dynamometers located on the cen-
terline plane of the starlmard hull . All dynamometers gave the rela-
tive shear force and the relative pitch moment, while the outputs of
the two dynamometers at the L .C .G. registered relative rol I moments.

It should be clarified that the ASR System measured the total ver-
tical bending moments , i .e. , primary moments and secondary moments due to shear,
whereas the Ikvidson Laboratory System measured primary bending moments only.

4.2 Data Consolidation and Comparison

As mentioned previously the data analysis is centered around the Thornton

and the ASR tests. To accomplish data extrapolation, the Thornton and the ASR
prototypes were expanded into a series of geometric ships up to 90,800-ton displace-
ment. Tables 3 and 4 provide the particulars of the series. The wave loads response
amplitude operators were expanded by Froude sealing. The ASR test report provided
the R. A. O.S* while the Thornton R. A.O. S were based on the regular wave data. It
should be clarified that the ASR R .A .0. s picked from the report were the mean values
of two runs for each condition. The response of each ship in the series was obtained in
sea state 5 (~ 1/3 = 10), sea state 7 (E 1/3 = 30) and sea state 8 (~1/3 = 50) using
the pierson-Moskowitz spectrum represented as fol lows:

33.56
S (W), ft2 sec2 = ~8 @ R1/3 ti4
W5

Area under curve of S (w) vs ti equals ~ ,/3/2 .832

The University of Miami Research Vessel design test data was too I imited to
deduce response amplitude operators. For the one random wave test, the wave and re-
sponse information is reported in terms of averages only . To make the most of the data,
it was expanded to three prototype ships which had test significant wave height equiva-
lent to 10.3 feet (sea. state 5), 30.0 feet (sea state 7) and 45.7 feet (sea state 8). Par-
ticulars of these ships appeur in Table 5. The Undisclosed Series was devel~ped in the
same manner.

The semi-submersible platform data was used as is.

All the test data assembled are for zero speed. In case of the ASR model
tests (1 1),. the load measurements were made in forward speeds up to 20 knots and it was
found that the maximum loads occurred at zero speed. This finding need not be appli-
cable to all craft, particularly very high speed craft ,

* Response Amplitude Operators

 22

There is general agreement among the different test data that maximum wave-
induced bending moments and shear force occur in barn seas while the maximum torsion
moment occur in oblique seas (45 to 60 off 0 or 180 heading). A significant cor-
relation between the Thornton and the A5R tests, the two tests for which R. A.O. S are
available, is that the maximum bending moment and shear occur in waves with length
equal to approximate y 1 .8 to 2.0 times the overal I beam.

Non-dimensional ized data is presented in the fol lowing plots:

Max. vert. bend. mom.,

Figure 2: Versus A , km SWS
d(A+A, )/2

Max. vert. bend. mom. Versus L,

Figure 3: Beam Seas
d(A+At)/2

Max. vert. bend. mom.

Figure 4: Versus b, Beam Seas
d(A+A1 )/2

Max. shear force

Figure 5: Versus A , Ekam Seas
A/2

Max. shear force

Figure 6: Versus A , Beam S,eas
Abc
Tvw

Max. torsion mom.

Figure 7: Versus A , Oblique Seas
T1

Max. torsion mom. Versus AL, Oblique Seas

Figure 8:
T1

Each fiaure includes data from all the tests in three sea states. The symlmls used in the
plots fo~ the vurious tests are as fallows:

Thornton Series
+-+i-
.~e.% . . . . . . ASRSeries
. ...* Univ. of Mimmi Catamaran Series
. .. . . . Undisclosed Series
6
.. *.** Mohole Platform
@

. . . . . . Livingston Platform
 bwso *A

I \
\
\
\
G4=t0

Fia.. 2 - Max. Vertical B.hl. vs. A.

d(A+Al )/2
Beam Seas -

Fig. 3 - Max. Vertical B.M. vs. L,

d(A+A1 )/2
Beam Seas-

03
i

J,,.,. ,% A
b, Fr
ma t.?o m ,60 m,
.
2b

Fig. 4 - Flax. Vertical B.M. vs. b,

d(A+A1 )/2
Beam Seas Fig. 5 - Max Shear Force/$ vs. A,
Beam Seas

The plots are for loads in terms of maximum single amplitudes where maximum is taken as
fol lows:

Thornton and A5R: Average of the 1/1 000 highest calculated for
the Pierson Moskowitz spectrum.

All Other Tests: Maximum measured or average 1/1 000 highest

(obtained from significant or 1/10 highest av-
erage values), whichever is greater.
 24

;7e&=:*. .,
+ ~c5___+_+
ke-
H4=2&a ----
--

SEASTATE8 e.___+_/&ae,
:

\
@ ___
\ -0

Fig. 6 - Max. Shear Force vs. A, Beam Seas

Fig. 7 - Max. Torsion Moment vs. A,

Tl
Oblique Seas

o =,, =-

Fig. 8 - Max. Torsion Moment vs. AxL,

TI
Oblique Seas
 25

The reported phase relationships between cross-structure loads for Levingstcm 6-

column platform (in towing condition) in both beam seas as well as oblique seas are as
follows:

a Maximum shear 90 out of phase with bending moment

e Maximum side force in phase with bending moment
e Maximum yaw moment 90 out of phase with bending moment
e Maximum torsion moment 180 out of phase with bending moment

~ ,;=f=ll
o 0,2 044 0,6 0,8 .

(Q)H
9

Fig, 9 - Added Mass For Swa Di recti on,

Series 60 (Ref. 23 Y

Table 6 gives the ratios of maximum magnitude of each load in beam seas
and oblique seas for the Thornton, ASR and the Livingston Platform, They were valu-
able in deducing the load schedule, Table 10.

Table 6 - Ratios of Maximum Loads in Beam Seas and Oblique Seas

Thornton ASR Livingston Mean

Oblique Seas
Bending Moment, 0.54 0.36 0.55 0.48
Beam Seas

Oblique Seers
Shear, 0.52 0.55 0.53 0.53
Beam Seas

Beam Seas
Torsion Moment, 0.55 0.36 0.55 0.49
Oblique Seas

It. was real ized that added mass ( l/g) wasa n important term contributing
to the vertical bending moments. However, the scope of the proiect would not permit de-
tailed added mgss calculation for each test vessel . Also, a I iterature search for reference
material on the added mass in sway of unsymmetrical vessel was futile. In view of this it
was decided to calculate the added mass tused on Series 60 coefficients provided by Eda
and Crane (23) and reproduced in Figure 9 here.
 26

4.3 Discussion of the Plots

4.3.1 Vertical Bending Moments

a. The first observation that can be made of the plots is that the
ASR series coefficients are consistently higher than the Thornton series, and that the dif-
ferences are large enough not to be attributed to experimental inaccuracies alone.

b. The plots of coefficient against length and centerline hull spac-

ing in addition to displacement do not help to explain the data distribution .

c. It is recognized that in plotting ASR test data together with the

other test data, it is assumed that shear is 90 out of phase with the bending moment im-
plying that the contribution of secondary moments to the total maximum bending moment
is zero. This assumption is in accordance with the Livingston Platform tests results. It
should be pointed out that the Livingston Platform hul Is are much more widely spaced
than the ASR hulls (see Table 2), and that this assumption may be inaccurate for the
ASR. Further, that the inaccuracy of this assumption may be one of the reasons why
the ASR bending moment coefficient is much higher than for other ships.

d. The data is too insufficient to deduce the influence of form

coefficients on the difference noted abve or the general trends. For the same reason
it is not possible to develop a better representation of size than iust displacement to
the first power.

e. The bending moments are non-linear with respect to signifi-

cant wave height. Also that the non-linearity increases with decrease in vessel size.
There is a plausible explanation for this trend. Maximum bending moments are experi-
enced in waves with A = 1 .8 to 2 .OW (2 W range from 100 feet to 548 feet for ves-
sels represented on the plot) . Now, as the sea state rises, the maximum spectral energy
shifts to longer waves and wave height for waves with A=l .8 to 2.0 W does not in-
crease proportional 1y resulting in the non-1 i near load response.

4.3.2 Shear Force

Discussions of items (a), (d), and (e) under Vertical Bending Mo-
ments apply to shear force also.

A to nondimensionalize
The purpose of using both ~ and $ ~

force was in the hope of explaining the reason for the high values of MAX Fso/ /2
for the semisubmersible platforms. The apparent differe~ces between the platform and
the other vessels which could particularly influence the shear force are their very wide
hull centerline spacing, b, and high vmterplane coefficients, Cw. It is realized that
the introduction of Cw tends to increase the differences in the ASR and Thornton coef-
ficients in the higher sea states.
 27
4.3.3 Torsion Moment

a. The Thornton series torsion moment coefficients are higher than

the ASR series, whereas, in the case of the vertical bending moment and shear force,
the opposite is true.

b. Just as the vertical bending moment and shear, the torsion mo-
ments are no nlinear with respect to significant wave height, but not to the same degree.

c. No apparent explanation is available as to why the data point

representing the University of Miami design and the Undisclosed design are much higher
than the other ships, although they are both conventional catamarans similar to the
Thornton and ASR,

d. At the upper end of the A and A L scale the correlation be-

tween the ASR and Thornton series is good. Further, in sea state 8 the torsion moment
coefficient approaches unity implying that the expression used to nondimensional ize the
moment is most promising to estimate maximum torsion moments.

5. CONDITION FOR MAXIMUM RESPONSE AND RECOMMENDED

METHOD FOR DESIGN LOADS ESTIMATE

The purpose of this section is (i), to determine the probble wave and ship posi-
tion in which the maximum catamaran motions and cross-structure loads are caused,
(ii) develop simple load equations and (iii) suggest a design load schedule. ]t is in-
tended to concentrate on the beam sea condition in items (i) and (ii) since it is proposed
to use the torsion equation in nearly the same form as developed by Dinsenbacher (Ap-
pendix 3).

5.1 Condition for Maximum Res~onse in Beam Seas

Figure 10 depicts a catamaran poised in several locations in three different

waves. In Figure 1O-I , the wave length equals b, the centerline hul I spacing; in Figure
1O-II, the wave length equals 2b, and in Figure 10-III, the wave length is supposed to
be several times bigger than b.

By inspection it can be seen that when A= b, the wave-induced forces (hy-

drostatic, inertial and damping) on both the hulls have the same direction and magni-
tude. Since the loads on the cross-structure are due to the differential loading on the
two hulls (besides the Imds due to the mass of the cross-structure), in this particular con-
dition the cross-structure loading should be small . Intuitively, the heave magnification
should be high and roll magnification small .

When wave length is much bigger than the catamaran width, as in Figure
10-III, the differential loading on the hulls should be small and consequently the cross-
structure loading should be smal 1. Also, the roll and heave magnification should be
roughly unity.
L= ACCf=LEEAT\ON
v= VELOCITY k?
1t- {1
I I

L MA%
MAX
&
V
t
MAY *
MAY V
I

II
A=2b

Fig. 10- Catamaran in Beam Waves of Different Length

 29

Waves of > zz 2b, Figure 1O-II, have the potential for generating condi-
tions for high differential loading on the hulls. When one hull is orI the crest and the
other in the trough they experience maximum vertical acceleration of opposite sense gen-
erating high shear force on the cross-structure and at the same time inducing large cata-
maran roll . The velocity dependent (damping) force would induce bending moment, how-
ever, it is believed to be small . If the wave is considered to be of highest steepness pos-
sible, then the rol I and shear should be maximum, When the hulls are at the nodes (with
crest or trough on the catamaran centerline), they experience maximum equal and oppo -
si~e side forces, both hydrostatic and hydrodynamic, which result in maximum moment on
the cross-structure. Further, when the crest is on the centerline the moment at the
juncture of the cross-structure and the hul Is due to side forces have the same sense as the
moment due to the weight of the cross-structure, whereas when the trough is on the cen-
terline the particular two moments have opposite sense. Figure 1O-I I makes another
valuable suggestion; that a catamaran heave should be smal I when ~ = 2b because
the vertical wave force on the hulls cancel one another.

In the foregoing paragmphs, tentative conclusions were reached as to the

wave and ship locations in which maximum response are caused. Now the model test
results wi I I be inspected for the same purpose.

The principal clues from the model test results regarding the conditions for
maximum response in beam seas are as follows:

i. There is general agreement among the different test results that

maximum rol 1, shear force and vertical bending moment occur
with vessel at zero forward speed in beam wave with > ~ 1,8
width to 2.0 width.

ii. [n both the Thornton and the Livingston Platform test, where
heave was measured as wel I as other responses in a wide range
of regular waves, it was found that heave approached zero in
waves when shear, roll and bending moment were maximum.

iti. Phase data from the Livingston Platform test in beam seas is as
follows:

Maximum shear 90 out of phase with bending moment

Maximum side force in phase with bending moment
Maximum yaw moment 90 out of phase with bending
moment
Maximum torsion moment 180 out of phase with bend-
ing moment

This implies that maximum bending moments are caused by side forces and not
by vertical forces since heave is minimum or zero in waves which cause maximum bend-
ing moment, and shear is 90 out of phase with maximum bending moment.

.-
 30

It can be stated that there is good agreement between the conclusions reached
on the ksis of the model test results and the visual inspection. This agreement pro-
vided the encouragement to set up simple equations for maximum vertical bending mo-
ment, axial force and shear force, whose presentation follow. Indeed, it is admitted
that the test data available to reach the conclusions is limited.

5.2 Development of Design Load Equations

5.2.1 Equation for Estimating Maximum Transverse Vertical

Moments and Axial Force (See Figure 11)

Assumptions:

e Wave is sinusoidal
s Wave length = twice hull centerline space, > = 2b
Wave height = >/1 o

(3.

Fig. 11 - Loading Condition for Maximum Vertical Bending Moment in Beam Seas
 31

Trough at centerline of catamaran

Vertical acceleration is lg (displacement of one hull
equals half weight of catamaran)
Magnitude and distribution of side hydrostatic force per
foot of length remain constant as at transverse sec-
tion with maximum beam
c The aggregate magnitude of the horizontal acceleration
causing the dynamic side force equals the intact wave
acceleration at a point 1/4 beam off the centerline of
each hull and 0.65 draft above keel
Cross-structure weight is evenly distributed
Cross-structure extends between inboard shel I of hul Is
and the ends are built in.
t Velocity dependent forces and impact of wuter particles
on the hulls are negligible.

Maximum Vertical Bending Moment:

M. = Wave-induced bending moment for a weightless cross-structure, constant

over the breadth of cross-structure

M. = Side hydrostatic force moment - couple due to the horizontal shift in

center of buoyancy + side inertia force moment

MO = (HLVL-HR VR)-+h+(A2:A )ahd . . . .. .. . (El)

= ~gL (DO+ YL)2 = Side hydrostatic force on outkard shell

L 2

VL = d]-$ (D. + YL) = Centroid of HL below neutral axis of

cross-structure

Y~ = } cos(lT*) = Wave surface above still waterline at out-

board shel I

(D. . Y~)2
HR = qgL - = Side hydrostatic force on inboard shel I

VR= dl-~(t)o YR) = Centroid of HR below neutral axis of cross-

structure

.-
 32

YR = ;C05(TT+) = Wave surface below still waterline at in-

c.
board shell

BE
1
2 (Do + YL) + YR)
h = --- (DO -

23 (D. + YL) + (D. - YR)

flDo+yL

[

h = -.[1
;3
B
~ = Horizontal shift in center of buoyancy

Al . Added mass of one hul 1 in horizontal direction

27

ah = Aggregate horizontal acceleration

d = d] -0,65 Do = lever cwm for inertia force

Mc = Moment at ends due to weight of cross=structure

Wc s
- -n- **,..,,.,.. ................... (E 2)

Ml = Maximum vertical bending moment at iuncture of

cross-structure and hul I

Ml = A&+MG *.. *a. **n**** @*,.**.*,*.** *.. * (E 3)

Maximum Side Force

P = Maximum axial comp~e~ion

A+A1
P = HL-HR+ ah . . . . . . . . . .. (E 4)
2g

Due to the symmetry of the assumed wave and vessel ~ it is possiblel by intuition
t~ set down the equations of moment and axial force for the condition of wave crest at
centerline.

Ml = Maximum vertical bending moment at the iuncture of cross-structure and hull

Ml =
Wc s
Ml =
I
(HLvL - HRVR)- $ h + (~ + ~) hd
I T
A+A1
P = Muximum axial tension=
I HL-HR_k~
() ah

It is important to note that absolute values are signified since symbols refer to figure II
for trough at center! lne.
 33

It should be recognized that whether crest at centerline or trough at cepterl ine

will result in the higher direct stress wil I depend on th~ relative size of stress due to
Mc and P. However, by rough checks, it was found that for existing catamarans
stress due to axial force was greater than stress due to cross-structure weight (or local
loads),

5.2.2 Equation for EsFirnating Maximum Shear Force

According to the analysis at the beginning of this section, maximum

shear occurs, probably, when one hull is on the crest and the other in the trough. ]n
this position the hulls experience maximum vertical acceleration in opposite direction to
one another. Again, accordin~ to the analysis, maximum roll should occur at the same
time as maximum shear,

Combination of vertical acceleration and rol I will not permit an im-

mediate writing of a shear force equation as it WS possible in the case of vertical bend-
ing moment and axial force, It is proposed to resort to the model test data to obtain an
expression for maximum shear. his is done simply by picking the highest nondimension-
al ized shear coefficient for a weightless cross-structure from Figure 6. Since the verti-
cal wave-induced acceleration on the hulls are of opposite sense, the cross-structure
can be assumed fo have lg acceleration only. hen,

Fso = 0.41 + ~
w
Cw , . . . . . ..s. . ..**...,. (E 5)

= Wave induced shear at ends, weightless

cross structure

Wc (E6)
Fsd *.*,,,,.*, ........ ..
=
-T
FSc = Shear at ends due to cross-structure weight

F~l = Maximum shear at iuncture of cross-structure

and hull

Fsl = Fw + Fsc (E 7)

5,2.3 Equation for Estimating Maximum Torsion Moment

Dinsenbachers torsion moment equation which is also reproduced

in Appendix 3 is

Tc = Torque about center of twist of cross-structure

= Torque about center of gravity of ship + torque due to

shear acting through the ships center of gravity

Tc =
I$Cbg BO.6 ~L2 \2~ + 0.14 Mqt/S
 34

Torsion values as provided by the first item, T1, can be compared

with the model test results, as was done in Figure 7, since t for model was zero except
for the ASR model . Even for the ASR model, t was relatively small making the second
term of secondary importance.

It can be seen from Figure 7 that if the constant O.6 in T1 was re-
placed by O.7 then T1 would provide torsion values at least as large as any test value
in an irregular sea with 50-foot significant wave height if the data scatter due to the
University of Miami model test and the undisclosed test is neglected. A 50-foot sig-
nificant wave height represents sea state 8 and it is considered sufficiently severe for
design purposes. It is pertinent to point out at this time that Dinsenbacher selected
O.6 to suit the ASR long term prediction of torsion moments. Even though the use of
O.7 may overestimate torsion , conservativeness is iustified in light of the limited test
data and the many simplifications that had to be made to derive the equation.

It is proposed to replace the second term in light of the obiection

raised to it in Section 3 of this report. According to the model test results, maximum
shear and torsion are out of phase, and maximum shear in oblique seas is approximately
53 percent of maximum shar in beam seas. (This applies to a weightless cross-structure.)
It is conjectured that it would be conservative to assume that shear in phase with torsion
is half of maximum shear. Then, using the symbols of this report, the torsion equation
would be

Tc $Cbg 0.7 ~ L2/~n I- (t) (0.53 x0.5xmax shear in beam seas)

II
Tc = $c~ 0.7 JXL2/2~
[1 + (t) 0.11 $ + Cw
I
If t = Longitudinal distance from ship LCG to cross-structure twist center = O

then

T = To = $Cbg 0.7~ L2/2~1

5.2.4 Comments on the Proposed Equations

s The equations are quasi-dynamic and semi-empirical in nature. They

neglect velocity dependent forces as well as the impact of water par-
ticles on the hulls.

Although any other assumption than that wave form remains intac~ as
it passes the catamaran would be difficult to handlel in reality, it is
seen that wave form does deform between the hut Is. it is conjectured
that the deformed wave would not cause higher acceleration dependent
forces or larger hydrostatic loadings than a wave which remains intact.

The new equations presented do not have any lmck-up derivation asso-
ciated with them.
 35

The procedure for calculating side hydrostatic force is the same as

used by Schade and Dinsenlmcher (12) and (13).

The use of ~ = 2b in beam sea condition is not quite in accordance

with the model test results which suggest ~= 1 .8W to 2 .OW. The
possible refinement is sacrificed to sustain symmetry and simplicity.

The method does not account for unsymmetrical hulls and form of hulls.

As far as it can be determined, there is no published information on

the added mass in the horizontal direction for catamarans. Whether
it is satisfactory to consider the added mass of each hul I as if they
were independent hul Is is quite questionable since they can constrain
one anothers sway motion. This should be particularly true in waves
with AS 2b where the horizontal acceleration of the two hulls have
opposite sense. Unfortunately, model test results gathered do not
have sway results to evaluate this. Until new information on added
mass in sway at low frequencies (wave encounter frequencies) and for
unsymmetrical hulls is forthcoming, estimates using Series 60 data,
Figure 9, wil I have to suffice.

It is suspected that for sma I I catamarans the proposed method could

very much overestimate the bending moment. The reason being that
frequency of occurrence of the critical wave with ~x 2W and
H =2W/10 is likely to be slim.

Com~arison of Loads Calcu Iated by

, Pro~osed
!
Eauations
and by Other Method

Tables 7, 8 and 9 provide for the catamarans listed in Table 2, the vertical
bending moment, shear, and torsion moment respectively, as calculated by the pro-
posed equation and other methods. Other methods include model tests, Scotts method
for bending moment and torsion, an d Lankfords method for torsion moment due to
grounding. Al I calculations are for catamarans with weightless cross-structure since
model tests results are for weightless cross-structure.

As a matter of interest, shear and bending moment for the Thornton, $SR,
and Livingston Platform were also calculated for a wave with ~ = 2b and H = ~\~10
assuming load/wave height remains constant. The values of maximum load/wave height
were obtained from the test reports.

5.4 Method for Design Loads Estimate

Table 10 presents a recommended design load schedule which is kased on the

equations developed in Section 5.2 and the ratios of the maximum load in the beam seas
and the oblique seas as given in Table 6.

.-
 36
Table 7 - Wave-Induced Transverse Vertical
Bending Moment in Beam Seas
Nntm[ Al I ~uluw m nlnulo ampl Itudm In foot tom andfor walght Imncronl-ntructu;

E,W, Thnrntm A5R U, of Mldml Mohole Lavlnnmtun

E.W, Thornton $hlb A ASR M Ship A Platform
PlatfOrm

I ,020,000 729,000 199,206

(2)**Calc.1/1000Hl@h- 33.24o 1,045,244 32,547 3,091 ,9a2

-it In SW S!at* 8
Note: All values are sin-
(3) SR 192 M,thod 50.4sa 1,426,323 40,518 4,195,741 4,325,545 220,764
gle amplitudes in
(4)
SA,4
51,925 1,947,,Brn 756,000 244,400
foot tons and for
(Scbttli
Mmthod) weightless cross-
(5) ~(%o) 1/2 54,040 55,051 200,407 structure
(6) (1)/(3) 0, (2)/(3) 0,459 0,443 0.803 0.737 0.421 0.903

(7I (~)/(4) or W(4) 0,440 1.255 0,936 0,944 O,aob

(q (3)/(5) 0,933 0.734 I ,100

(9)*** lonu TermPradlotlon 63,300

of Maximum
k Max. or I/1000 hlghc~t, wh Iahavm Ii grater
** RAO from model ban?nEnd ma ntate dadhd ~ Plwio~-Moikowltz 5peatrum
*** From R*fOrOnce @)

Table 8 - Wave-Induced Shear in Beam Seas

Nata: All valumI are tln~le ~mplltuda 1~ foot iom and for wrnlgk Im crom-~tructure

E .W. Thornton ASR U ,oF Mlaml Maholo Lovlng!ton

E.W. Thornton sh!p A ASR
w Ship A Platform Platform

(1) 6,450 2,4ao 1,190

Note: All values are

**culc# 1/1000 551 6,9M 2.02 9,134 . . .
single amplitude (2)
Hl#hmt In Sea
in foot tons and slate 8
for weightless (3) 0.41 (A /2)&W) (Cw) 749 10,110 304 9,880 . 2,9&3 I ,40U
cross-structure SR192 M*thOd

(4) ~O(2b/10)1/2 605 . 349 . . . 090

(5) (1)/(3) or (2)/(3) 0.726 O.&b I ,0 0.923 . 0.837 0.850

* MEX. or l/1000 hl~hmt. whlchovor It oraatar

Table 9 - Wave-Induced Torsion Moment in Oblique Seas

****
Therntcm A5R U OFMlqml Moholo L@vln@ItOfi
Ship A Platform
. Platform
Ew. Thornton ~ M J!!!&

(1) KModel Tait lvidx. - 1,625,000 193,452 93,304

[n S* State 8
009,401 -
Note: All values are
5a,545 1,044,577 9,536
(2)** Cal,, l/1000 Hltih-
01! In s-a Stato 8
single amplitude
(3) *** Sk 192 Mnth.d 41,400 I,ao,ooo 1B,810 \ ,090,000 1,35,000 192,000 99,500 in foot tons and
for weightless
4a,240 2,206,BB 23,495 2,433,077 2,526,971 2S,560 eo,mo cross-structure
(4)0.04LA
(Scotti Molh.d)

(5) 0.175 LA (Grbmdlna) 2~195B 9,455,092 102,790 10,444,711 11,055,502 I ,043,no 350,350

(6) (1)/(3) or (2)/(3) 0.95 0.02 0.5! 0.74 I .2b 1.01 0.94

0.86 0,47 0,44 0.33 0.64 0.81 1.16

(n (1)/(4)0,(2)/(4)

* bx. or 1/1000 high.tt, whlahmvw II orutmr

** RAO from modal tmnraEnd UE Bmt. d#narlb*d b pl@rmn-Malk*wlt~ sP=ttum
+** $Cb~Bx0,7~ L2/21Y
*w. A~,~*d L = LBP. 5 H

 37

Table 10 - Design Load Schedule

Loading for Direci Stressat Midspan of cross-Structurs

Load Beam Waves Oblique Seus

Axial Force P from (E4) 0.48 of P from (E4)

Moment, Weightless M. from (El) O.& of M. from (E 1)

Cross-Structure

LOCQILoad (Cross- Wc Wc
Structure Weight)

Loading for Direct Stressat Juncture of Cross-Structure and Hul I

Axial Force P from (E4) 0,48 of P from (E4)

Moment, Weightless M. from (E 1) 0.48 of M. from (E 1)

Cross-Structure

Local Locsd(Cross- WG Wc
Structuresweight)

Torsion 0,49 of Tc from (Es) Tc from (E8)

Loading for Shear at Juncture of Cross-Structure and Hul 1,

Acting Concurrently with Moment

Torsion 0,49 of TG from (E8) Tc from (E8)

Locol Load Wc Wc
Loading for Shear at Juncture of Cross-Structure and Hull,
Acting Out of Phase with Moment

Shear Fso from (E 5) 0.53 of F~o from (E5)

Local Load

The method is considered satisfactory for conceptual designs.

It will be noted that the grounding and docking loads are not included in the
schedule. In the opinion of the authors, grounding torsion loads are nearly impossible
to estimate as they are so subjective to vessel speed, shape, size and strength of striking
obiects and water depth. AS far as torsion loads due to docking are concerned it is sug-
~ested that individual designer consider oblique docking with most likely docking
weight and real istic support points appropriate to his vessel .

.. .,. .. .
 38

6. HULL FLEXIBILITY AND CROSS-5 TRUCTURE STRESSES

It was apparent at the beginning of the project that in order to attempt the estab-
lishment of catamaran size limits it was necessary to select a suitable method for the
preliminary structural analysis of the cross-structure of a large catamaran, once the
critical loads were estimated.

Lankfords method, discussed in Section 3 and detailed in Appendix 2, was readily

available. However, as mentioned previously, it appeared to have two maior weak-
nesses. It assumes the hulls to be rigid and there is no relative rotation between the
hul Is and the cross-structure at their junction. Hence, it was deemed desirable to find
a method which did not have these weaknesses and to try it out on a vessel for which
structural calculations using Lankfords method were available.

The method of space frame analysis had an immediate attraction and it was decided
to try it out on the T-AGOR 16 Oceanographic Research Catamaran for which struc-
tural calculations based on Lankfords method were available in-house. It must be men-
tioned at once that only the hull bending flexibility and shear deformation in the longi-
tudinal direction were simulated in the mathematical model . The space frame analysis
had the fol lowing advantages:

s Representation of structure partially by its flexibility is inherent to

the method . It should provide, at least, indicative numerical values
on the influence of hull flexibility and the relative rotation between
the hul 1s and the cross-structure on the cross-structure, and the in-
fluence of the cross-structure on the individual hull structure in the
transition area .

The method is computerized which could be a great asset later in the

proiect if structural analysis was necessary for several ships.

[t can assume several different types of loading at once and permits

quick changes in the structural configuration.

It can include maximum amount of structure effective in taking pri-

mary and secondary loads by employing progressively more detailed
mathematical model .

[t can conveniently handle structure with more than one material, say
steel and aluminum.

Figure 12 shows the bare outline of the T-AGOR structure and Figure 13 deline-
ates its mathematical model incorporated in the space frame analysis which employed
the IBM- 1130 Stress program.

The analysis used the original T-AGOR 16 design loads. The loadings which
control led the primary members of the cross-structure were the grounding loads and
the transverse vertical bending moments in beam seas. The former were obtained as
suggested by Lankford and the latter were obtained from the ASR load estimates (with
necessary modification to reflect different principal characteristics).

 39
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
Yl A
( I 11 1
L L ~1 ~; < < t!
% 04 7Z Sz 37 23

LENGTH KT, PE12!7 22: o HULL CLEAR5PACING ?7~o

BEAMoVEEALL ,$. o~~ DEPTHTOMNW, AT51DE 34-Od
BEAMEA HULL 24- o WiTH OFCR055STF?(KT,
AT~ zl~d
HULLh 5PACING 51-d 19-6
Fig. 12 - T-AGOR16 Structural Configuration

5---

2 -NEUWU MI> OF THE HULL

NOTE : Cli?CLED FIGuEEE.AEE ME14Mt2 NUMM%5,

LWCIECLM?%UEE5 AEEmtiTNUMBEFC3.
HULL LOA!25 INTRODUCED
AT JOINTS ALONG THE NWTKAL
AXIS OF THE HULL%

Fig. 13 - Structural Model of T-AGOR16 For IBM- 1130

Stress Program

The resulting moments and shear forces in the beam sea condition and grounding
condition for the cross-structure from the Stress program output are provided in
Table 11. Other less critical conditions are omitted.
The flexural stresses and shear
stresses in the six cross-structure members based on the stress program output and those
as calculated in the T-AGOR 16 Structural Design are also tabulated for comparison.
Stresses in the structures other than the cross-structure are not tabulated, since the
structural design for those members were Imsed on American Bureau Rule and their stresses
can not be calculated readily.

From the tabulation, the following conclusions can be drawn with respect to hull
flexibility and cross-structure stresses:

The flexural stresses calculated Imsed on the structural model are in

good agreement with those taken from the T-AGOR 16 structural
analysis using Lankfords method.

. The shear stresses for grounding conditian are in fair agreement.

Those for beam condition show less a g rep m e n t. Since the shear
stresses are less critical than flexural stresses in beam sea condition,
the discrepancy in shear stresses is not considered important.

.. .
 40

a It appears, admittedly bed on this limited check onlyr that the intro-
duction of the longitudinal flexibility of the hulls has small influence
on the stress in cross-structure, i .e. ~ the simplification which assumes
the hulls to be rigid would not affect the scantlings selection.

@ Since the hul Is can be assumed rigid the mathematical model can be
greatly simplified, For a prel iminury study, al I the transverse cross-
structure bulkheads can be assumed structurally similar, i e,, theyall
have the same section modulus, moment of inertia~ shear area, etc.

In light of the last two conclusions, it may be stated that the preliminary analysis
of a cat~maran cross-structure can be conveniently handled with a conventional
method, such as Lank fords method, with about the same accuracy in results, and about
the same time requirement as the space frame analysis. Detail design analysis should
ccmsider,in addition to hull longitudinal flexibility such structure response as the hull
transverse ~nd torsional deformation, cross-structure deformation in various directions
and component structure (decks, bulkheads, etc. ) deformation,

Table 11 - T-AGOR16 Catamaran Stress Summary

Section Shear Bend. Strew, Klps/ln2
Modulus Area Mom. Shear $Wesn Program Design Calca
Bhd Mmmber [n2 ~~ ln2 KiJ& Flexural Shear Flexur91 Shear
. m

Beam Secl Condlfion

96 6&7 650.0 105.0 16,900 74 24.6 0.7 23.6 3.3

84 15&16 833.3 102,0 19,244 67 23.1 0.7 23.9 3.1
72 24 &25 632,9 82.5 19,749 M 31.2 0.0 24,1 2,8
52 32 &33 784.6 94.9 24,951 55 31,8 0,5 26.5 2.8
41 &42 633,0 102,0 21,901 74 26.3 0.7 23.9 3.1
z 50 &51 B53.0 120.0 20,471 70 24.0 0,7 26,5 3.2

Grounding Condlflon

94 647 650.0 105.0 13(619 952 21.0 9.1 21,4 10.5

84 15 & 16 833.3 102,0 9,216 506 11.0 5,0 11,5 7.7
72 24 &25 632.9 82.5 4,187 116 6.6 1,4 8.1 4.6
52 32 & 33 784.6 94.9 2,535 24 0.3 4.2 3.6
37 41 &42 8330 102,0 10,999 554 1$; 5.4 10,B 7,6
23 50 &51 853.0 120.0 15,780 1,114 18,5 9,3 8.9 10.8

7. DESIGN SHIP

7.1 Purpose

The analysis of the features that may impose catamaran size limits, Section2,
indicated that existing U .S. shipbuilding facilities could handle approximately 1000-
foot catamarans on the premise that individual hul Is would be built in a drydock and
[oined together crfloat, Whether 1000-foot length should be proposed as a present prob-
able upper limit was dependent on whether the necessary scantling size and the weight of
the cross-structure were practical . Hence, once the available methods for cross-
structure loads predictio~ and structural analysis were evaluated, the logical next step
was to make a preliminary design of an approximately 1000-foot catamaran. Also, it is
believed that in the course of the design, the inadequacies, if there be any, of the avail-
able structural design information would become apparent.
 41

Table 12 - Design Ship Particulars

Hull Symmetry Symmetrical

Length Bet. Perp., L 9421- oil

Beam Overall, W 300- o

Beam Each Hull, B 100- o
Hull ~Space, b (corresponding to ~ b
-0.21) 200- o
Clear Hull Spacing, S 100- o
Depth to Upper Deck at Side 106- O
Depth of Cross-Structure 45 -0,,
Length of Cross-Structure 8oo1- oli
Draft 31 - o
Cross-Structure Clearance from Waterline 301 -011

Displacement 90,800 Tons

Block Coefficient, Cb 0.54

Midship Coefficient, CR 0.952
Prismatic Coefficient, Cp 0.572
Waterplane Coefficient, Cw 0.701

Service Speed (corresponding to v - 0.24) 25 Knots

Instal I Shaft Horsepower FL 150,000

Lightship Weight 52, L87 Tons

Hu I I Structure 28,439
Cross-Structure 5,598
Electric Plant 1,150
Propulsion 2r&o
Communication & Controls 280
Auxiliary Systems 5,950
Outfit & Furnishings 3,800
Margin, 10% 4,790

Deadweight 38,113 Tons

Container Capacity @ 11 Tons/Container 3, 10 I Containers
Container Capacity @ 15 Tons/Container 2,247 Containers
Container Capacity on Upper Deck, 8 x 8 x 20 3,136 Containers
I I?EPTH = 10~- 0 I
LBP = 942-0 WIDTH F 30~ ~T
D!5AFT = 31-0 DISPLACEMENT = 90,800 ToN5

Fig. 14 - Design Ship Profile and Plan

200 -
o
100- o I 100-0 I 100 - a
I I 1

I I
AVEt?AGE HULL BHD F&6 s .62% sHIP SYMBOL FOE 3TEEL1
4
(HIT,)= MINIMuM 100 000FSl ylELD
5TRE NGTH E%EEL
(B, H,) = AM GRADE B.H. SKEL
(M.5.) = MILD STEEL

Fig. 15 - Design Ship - Typical Bulkhead Structure

 43

7.2 Design Description

The preliminary design presented here is not optimized (or recycled) by far.
The readers can expect no more defense from the authors for the design other than for its
suitability to provide the limited information desired. The selected shape coefficient,
bulkhead and deck arrangements, assumed framing system, etc., can all absorb consider-
able improvement.

It is assumed that the vessel would be a container ship since it is well accepted
that if large catamarans are at all found superior to monohulls it would be as high-speed,
payload carriers . Table 12 lists the design particulars and Figure 14 shows the profile
and plan views. A rough set of lines were made to obtain hydrostatic properties and vari-
ous plating areas.

It wil I be observed that the designs Froude number of 0.24 and the hull cen-
terline spacing to ship length ratio of 0.21 do not correspond to the values of 0.3 to
0.4 and O.3 respectively, suggested for good resistance characteristics (see Appendix 1).
To design for Froude number of 0.35 would require a speed of 36 knots. It was felt that
a 36-knot speed would render the design uneconomical . To design for hul I centerline
spacing to ship length ratio of 0.3 would require hull centerline spacing of 314 feet
which was considered impractical .

The 100 x 800 cross-structure is composed of four structural decks, includ-

ing the upper deck and the bottoml and seventeen identical full structural transverse bulk -
heads spoced at 50 feet. The cross-structure is assumed to be fixed at the inboard shel I
of the hulls. In order to validate this assumption, four of the decks and seventeen of the
full transverse bulkheads in the hulls are aligned with decks and bulkheads of the cross-
structure. Figure 15 depicts the catamaran structure at a bulkhead.

Figure 16 provides the information on the section modul i of the individual

hulls and the cross-structure . It includes sketches of the assumed effective structures,
calculated section moduli and the required section modulus for the hulls bsed on the
American Bureau of Shipping rules. It will be noted that the minimum permissible
scant lings result in a section modulus considerably in excess of that required. This is
due to the increased depth as compared to a monohul 1 to have sufficient cross-structure
clearance above the waterline.

7.3 Explanation for Effective Structure

Explanation is warranted for the structure assumed effective in cross-structure

bending. On the face of it an immediate question may come to the mind of the reader;
why should all the deck plating be considered effective in bending iust as in the conven-
tional longitudinal strength calculation , rather than iust 24-foot breadth with each bulk-
head. The structural analysis (as distinct from the design load estimate) was performed
following Lankfords method, Appendix 2. In Lankfords method, all the principle loads,
vertical bending moment, axial force , shear as well as the torsion moment, are absorbed
by the bulkheads together with effective deck plating acting as fixed-end beams between
the two hulls. The effective deck plating breadth of 24 feet was calculated by reference
 44

--AK+=%=
;Y-J--+*
Section
=198,500
Main

Modulus
ln2
Hul I

Required
Ft per Hull
by ABS

,,,:, Section Modulus,

Longitudinal:
Including 10% for

~; Deck: 269,000 ln2 Ft

k-
-- I 0.50
,. Dk 0.75 Bottom: 266,090 In2 Ft

Main Hulls

T7----~
F::ETe
kH) Cross. Structure

al
-1
P/
~12x6-l/2x27#

Q_- 0.625 Bhd PI (H. T.)

l/T (H.. ) Effective Piating
Four Decks
5/8 X 24 1-1/4 x 10
-f~y (BH)

Section Modulus 148,800 130,056

,n3

Shear Area, ln2 300 300

Axial Load Area 923 803

I
j! . _,~ -, 0.50 Bhd PI [n2
~--,... ..!
(MS)

~*v- L BH) Symbol for S*eel:

s.
0

J---AL
1 0.625 Bhd PI (H..j

(H. T.)
(H. T.)

(B. H.)
= Minimum
Strength
= ABS Grade
Steel
100,000

B.H . Meel
psi yield

(M. S.) =Mild Steel

Cross-Structure

Fig. 16 - Design Ship Section Modul i

 45

to the wel l-known paper (24) on }he subject by Professor $chade. The bulkheads were
considered as multiple webs for each deck with length of 100 feet and plating width of
50 feet between webs. Among the various combinations of load and end fixity consid-
ered by Professor Schade, two were appl icable to the structure in question, viz: - equal
moment at both ends or uniform load and fixed ends. Even though the structures maior
j
[mding is due to equal moment at bothends, the latter combination was used as it gave
the smal I er effective breadth. Using the same reference, Professor Adams proved (see
discussion to Professor Schades paper) that for a monohul I with no centerline bulkhead
and with side shell as double webs, the effective breadth of the deck plating is 9710.

The 20-inch effective web plating at top and Imttom of the center web, Figure
16, was reached by taking one-sixth of the length of the outer webs. The reasoning for
this is provided by Lankford, Appendix 2.

Figure 16 also shows that if arbitrarily a 10-foot deck plating width were to
be considered effective, 1-1/4 inch plate thickness would be necessary to provide ap-
proximately the same section modulus as available with 5\8-inch x 24-foot effective
plate; 10 feet should be quite conservative.

Although 24-foot effective breadth was arrived at with prolmbly adequate

interpretation of the structural i t is acknowledged that the structure in question is real I y
integrated box structures. Further, that there is insufficient test data on box girders
to derive effective structure directly in i ieu of the method employed.

7.4 Cross-structure Loads and Stresses

The wave-induced design loads as deduced from the method (labeled SR-192)
proposed in Section 5 of this report, by Dinsenbachers (13) method and from the
Thornton and ASR Series, Section 4, are summarized in Table 13. The stresses which are
summarized in Table 14 were calculated by using maximum loadings predicted by SR-192
equations. The stresses are within the allowable stresses for 100,000 psi yield strength
steel .

Although grounding is not considered a design criteria, stresses were also

calculated for the grounding condition and are included in Table 14. If grounding was
to be considered as a design criteria the selected scantl ing would be quite inadequate
as the shear stress is 47,280 lb/in2.

7.5 Design Conclusions

a. Direct stresses are higher in beam seas than in oblique seas.

Shear stress is higher in oblique seas than in beam seas.

Required largest deck plating thickness is very much dependent

on the assumptions related to value of effective plating.

b. The required largest scantling of approximately 1-1/4 inch, based

on a hopeful Iy conservative assumption and steel yield strength of
100,000 psi, are common to shipbuilding today. Of course, this is
true only for the particular structural configuration employed.

.. .
 46

c. If grounding wws to be considered a design criteria the assumed

structure would be quite inadequate.

d. The imperative need to sustain the continuity of structural members

(17 bulkheads and four decks) of the cross-structure into the main
hulls causes the main hul Is structural configuration to be uneconomi-
cal, e .g. , unlikely that a 1000-foot monohull would require 50-
foot main bulkhead spacing.

Table 13 - Design Ship, Wave-Induced Cross-Structure Loads

BEAM SEAS: MAXIMUM TRANSVERSE VERTICAL BENDING MOMENTS

Single Amplitude in Foot Tons

Method
71-- .... L-.. r !-. At?n- .
SR-192 Dinsenbacher Inornron ~erlea HJR >eHes

Weightless Cross-Structure, :,061,106 1,658,464 2,048,785 2,869,346

Constant

with Cross-Structure Weight, ?,427,439 3,966,364

At ends of At Midspan
Cross-Structure

BEAM SEAS: MAXIMUM SHEAR AT ENDS

Single Amplitude in Tons

weightless Cross-Structure 8,M6 5,636 5,9ia 8,032

With Cross-Structure Weight 30,646 36,411

BEAM SEAS: MAXIMUM AXIAL FORCE

Single Amplitude in Tons
*
52,367 33,074

OBLIQUE SEAS: MAXIMUM TORSION MOMENTS

Sinale Amplitude in FOO~ Tons
***
>,948,449 2,527,242 2,403,794 2,188,600

* Used for Structural Analysis

** Assumed Cross-structure Weight = Steel + Ships Deadweight
*** Assumed LCG of Ship Coincides with Longitudinal Location of
Cross-Structure Twist Center
 47

8. TOPICS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Researchers (1), (2), (4), (8) and (13), who h~ve appraised catumaran technology
have generally reached very similar conclusions as to the deficiencies in the technology
and the topics for the desirable future research and development program. A significant
conclusion of this proiect is that a safe large catamaran structure can be designed now
bY conducting model tests, using existing design information and generally adopting a
conservative approach . However, .by nature of the design method the resulting structure
would b unduly heavy. Also, such an approach would be unacceptable if a large num-

Table 14 - Design Ship, Cross-Structure Stress Summary

Section Modulus = 148,800 Ins (See Figure 16)

Shear Area = 300 ln2
Axial Load Area = 923 ln2

BEAM SEA CONDITION (Trough at Centerline)

Total Loading on Cross Structure:

Vertical Bending Moment Without Cross-Structure Weight 3,061,106 Ft Tons
Torsion Moment = 0.53 x Max. in Oblique Seas 1,562,000 Tons
Local Load (Cross-Structure Weight) 43,960 Tons
Axial L~d 52,367 Tons

Stress on End Bulkheads:

Primary Bending 32,527 Lb/ln2
Bending due to Shear due to Torsion 5,535 Lb/]n2
Bending due to Local Load - 3,893 Lb/ln2

Subtotal 34,169 Lb/]n2

Axial Compression 7,473 Lb/ln2

Tota I Stress 41,642 Lb/ln2

Shear Acting Concurrently with Bending and Torsion:

Shear due to Torsion 1,371 Kips

Shear due to Local Load 2,897 Kips
Total Shear 4,268 Kips
Shear Stress 14,230 Lb/ln2

Shear Out of Phase with Bending and Torsion

Shear 4,039 K ips

Shear Stress 13,463 Lb/ln2

. -. .
 48

Table 14 - Design Ship, Cross-Structure Stress Summary, (Centd)

OBLIQUE SEA CONDITION

Total Loading on Cross-Structure:

Vertical Bending Moment Without Cross-Structure Weight 1,469,331 Ft Tons
0.48 xMax. in Beam Seas
Torsion Moment 2,948,449 Ft Tons
Local Load (Cross-Structure Weight) 43,960 Tons
Axial Load, 0.48 x Max. in Beam Seas 25,136 Tons

Stress on End Bulkh~ds:

Primary Bending 15,613 Lb/ln2
Bending due to Shear due to Torsion 10,430 Lb/ln2
Bending due to Local Loads 3,893 Lb/In*

Subtota I 29,936 Lb/ln~

Axial Tension - 2,587 Lb/InZ

Total Stress 26,349 Lb/#

Shear Acting Concurrently with Bending and Torsion:

Shear due to Torsion 2,587 Kips

Shear due to Local Load 2,897 Kips

Total Shear 5,484 Kips

Shear Stress 18,280 Kips

GROUNDING CONDITIONS

For Reference Only - Not Used as a Design Criteria

Tots I 1.oading on Cross Structure:

Torsion Moment 12,850,000 Ft Tons
Local Load 43,970 Tons

Stress on End Bulkheads:

Bending due to Shear due to Torsion 45,500 Lb/ln2
Bending due to Local Load 3,893 Lb/ln2

Total Stress 49,393 Lb/ln2

Shear due to Torsion 11,288 Kips

Shear due to Local Load 2,897 Kips
Total Shear 14,185 Kips
Shear Stress 47,280 Lb/ln2
 49

ber of vessels were contemplated. [n view of this conclusion, a following comprehen-

sive list of study topics is prepared to close the major gaps in catamaran technology, and
ensure the availability systematic design information to develop catamaran structure
which would tend towards the optimum.

a. The nature, magnitude, location and frequency of hydrodynamic loads

on the hul Is; the distribution of loads in ~he cross-structure or the
centerbody; magnitude and location of local wave impacts on the cen -
terbody and the hul Is. These wi 1I require theoretical and experimental
programs.

Model Test Program:

m Series tests which would include symmetrical and unsymm-

etrical hull forms; range of hull spacing; variations in
vertical location; longitudinal extent and longitudinal lo-
cating of centerbody .

~ Series suitable for ships from 100 feet to 1000 feet.

Model test methods which can simulate the centerbody, at

least its weight and weight distribution.

b. FIJI I sca [e centerbody load measurement program. (Necessary to develop

acceptable measurement technique and data analysis once the data is
gathered. ) It would be prudent to select a catamaran whose cross-
structure is relatively simple and amenable to clean analysis.

c. Dynarni cs of structural response in various vibratory modes.

d. Hull form and spacing for minimum resistance and ship motions in a sea-
way. Hull form, particularly unsymmetrical, for multi-screw installation .

e. Added mass and mass moment of inertia for the horizontal motion of sym-
metrical and unsymmetrical bodies at wave encounter frequencies (indi-
vidually and as catamarans) . Added mass and mass moment of inertia for
the vertical motion of unsymmetrical bodies.

f. Damaged stability and compartmentation requirements.

9. Construction techniques to minimize need for new facilities (ship-

yard responsibilities). Drydocking facilities.

h. Cofitribution by cross-structure to the longitudinal strength of the

vessel .

i. Behavior of Imx girders under combined bending, torsion and shear

loads.

i. Stress concentrate ion at the hul I and cross-structure juncture. Nature

and extent of necessary reinforcement and structural detai Is.
 50

9. CONCLUSIONS

1. The maior constraints to catamaran size wit I be imposed by economics,

individual shipyard construction capabilities, ckydock facilities and pier
facilities.

Existing United States yard facilities can handle individual hul Is of ap-
proxinmtely 1050 ft x 140 ft. The hulls and the centerbody would have to
be joined with hulls afloat; 35-foot draft is acceptable in most maior har-
bors. New drydocking facilities and modified or new pier facilities will
be essential . Discharge of cargo in the streams could remove the pier
problem .

2, Existing design information for the estimation of loads on the cross-structure

is iust adequate to provide guidance to make prel iminary prediction of
loads on large catamarans.

With respectto scantl

ings, a 1000-foot long catamaran with 100-foot beam
hulls, 100-foot hull spacing and 31 -foot draft is feasible. This does not
imply thafthe structural
configuration
willnecessarily
be attractive.

3. The ava i Iable model test data for predicting cross-structure loads are not
sufficient and the existing analytical methods are not adequately developed
to provide great confidence in either.

4. Model tests to date have been performed for specific designs only and have
had the drawback of not simulating the centerbody.

5. Additional research and development work including systematic model test

programs are necessary for the establishment of reliable design methods for
optimum catamaran structure.

To an appreciable degree, the accomplishment of the proiect is due to the avail-

ability of unpublished model test data belonging to private companies. In this respectl
special acknowledgement is due to the Reading & Bates Offshore Dril I ing Company for
their permission to use the complete model test data orI the E .W. THORNTON, and to
Friede and Goldman lnc. through whom the tests were contracted. Friede and Goldman lnc.
are also to be thanked for permission to use the model test data on their catamaran design
for the University of Miami . Thanks are due to the Livingston Shipbuilding Company for
providing the model test data for their drilling platform design. Mr. John L. Glaeser sup-
plied a copy of his senior thesis which was appreciated.
 51

The authors wish to thank Messrs. Sam T. Tsui and N . K . K . Raman of the Basic
Ship Design Division, M. Rosenblatt & Son, Inc ., w ho assisted with several tasks of the
proiect.

Nippon Kaiii Kyokai, Germanischer Lloyd and Det Norske Veritas provided writ-
ten descriptions of their general approach to catamaran design review which were appre-
ciated.

Mr. Walter H. Michel and Dr. Haruzo Eda willingly contributed with informal dis-
cussions of some aspects of the proiect for which the authors are grateful .

Appendix 2 is quoted from The Structural Design of the ASR Catamaran Cross-
Structure by Beniamin W. Lankford, Jr., published in August 1967, Naval Engineers
Journal, pages 625-635, by permission of the American Society of Naval Engineers.

Appendix 3 is quoted from A Method for Estimating Loads on Catamaran Cross

Structure by Alfred L . Dinsenbacher published in October 1970 Marine Technology,
Vol . 7, No. 4, pages 477-489, by permission of The Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers.

Last, but not least, acknowledgements are due to al I the members of the Advisory
Group 11, Ship Structural Design, Ship Research Committee who provided enthusiastic
and practical guidance to the proiect.
 52

REFERENCES

1. General Dynamics (Quincy Division), Catamaran Study prepared fm- U.S.

Department of Commerce, Maritime Administration under Contract No. MA-4318,
30 April 1969. National Technical Information Service Publications Number
PB 183787 to PB 183793.

2. Bond, John R., Catamarans - Dream or Reality, American Society of Naval

Engineers Journal, June 1970

30 Eckhart, M. Jr., Comment on ASNE Paper, Catamarans - Dream or Real ity,

American Society of Naval Engineers Journal, August 1970

4. Thomas, Geoffrey O., Outline Notes for Lecture Entitled Structural Analysis of
Catamarans, Naval Ship Research and Development Center, n167, July 1970

5. Leopold, Reuven A., A New Hul I Form for High-Speed Volume-Limited

Displacement-Type Ships, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers,
Spring Meeting, 1969

6. Litton lndus tries Twin-Hu[l Ship, Maritime Reporter and Engineering News,
January 15, 1970

70 Fisher, Peter A.; Praught, Michael W.; $oden, James E.; A Catamaran Container-
ship for Trans-Atlantic Trade, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers,
Gulf Section Meeting, April 18, 1969

8. Lankford, Beniamin W., Jr., The Structural Design of i-he ASR Catamaran Cross-
Structure, American Society of Naval Engineers Journal, August 1967

9. Maniar, Naresh M., Motions and Structural Loading of a 106-Foot Catamaran

in Irregular Waves, Davidson Laboratory Report LR-8231 January 1965.

10. Scott, Robert, Catamaran Structure: Strength and Hu I I Weight, Appendix 4 to

A Comparative Evaluation of Novel Ship Types, by Philip Mandel, Society
of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers Transactions, Volume 70, 1962

11. Dinsenlmcher, Alfred L.; Andrews, John N.; Pincus, Daniel S.; Model Test
Determination of Sea Loads on Catamaran Cross Structure, Naval Ship Research
and Development Center Report 2378, May 1967

120 Schade, H .A., Feasibility Study for Ocean-Going Catamaran, Prepared for
the Crowley Launch and Tugboat Company, California, June 1965
 53

i3. Dinsenkcher, Alfred L., A Method for Estimating Lwds on Catamaran Cross-
Structure, Marine Technology, Volume 7, No. 4, October 1970

14. Glaeser, John L., A Theoretical Investigation Into the Motions of a Catamaran
and the Shear and Bending Moments on its Cross- Structure, Senior Thesisr
Webb Institute of Naval Architecture, May 1968

15. Livingston, C.W. and Michel, Walter H ., The Catamaran Drill Ship -
E -W. Thornton, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Gulf
Section Meeting, February 1966

16. Michel, Walter H., The Sea-Going Catamaran Ship, Its Features and Its
Feasibility, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Gulf Sec-
tion Meeting, April 1961

17. Maniar, Naresh M., Model Test of a Catamaran Dril]ing Ship, Davidson Lab-
oratory Letter Report 1052, January 1965

18. Meier, Herbert A., Preliminary Design of a Catamaran Submarine Rescue Ship
(ASR), Marine Technology, Volume 5, No. 1, January 1968

19. Chey, Young H., Model Tests to Evaluate Seakeeping Qua] ities and Structural
Loading of a Catamaran ocemograph ic Vessel, Davidson La boratow Letter
Report 891, April 1962

20. Numata E., 1/100-Scale Model Tests of Mohole Drilling Platform in Waves,
Davidson Laboratory Letter Report 1084, January 1967

21. McClure, Alan C., Development of the Proiect Mohole Drilling Platform,
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Transactions Volume 73,
1965.

22. Numata E., Model Test of a 6-Column Semi-Submersible Drilling Vessel,

Davidson Laboratory Letter Report 1234

23. Edaf Haruzo and Crane, Jr.; C. Lincoln, Steering Characteristics of Ships
in Calm Water, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Tran-
sactions Volume 73r 1965

24. Schade, H .A., The Effective Breadth of Stiffened Plating Under Bending
Loads, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Transactions,
Volume 59, 1951

-.
 54

APPENDIX 1

CATAMARAN RESISTANCE

Of al 1 the aspects of catamaran design, resistance has received the most atten-
tion. Considerable work has been done, both in the areas of theoretical prediction
and model test measurements as well as their correlation. References listed at the end
of this appendix represent valuable published information on the subiect.

The main reason for the interest in resistance is because it has been shown that
under certain conditions, net resistance of catamarans can be made smaller than the to-
tal resistance of the two hul Is considered singly.

According to general practice , it is assumed here that resistance can be sepa-

rated into two independent components , namely, frictional or viscous and wave-making.
Contributions to resistance by other phenomena , including the influence of wave-
making on viscous resistance, are relatively small and are omitted in this discussion.

Frictional resistance is a function of the wetted surface, degree of surface rough-

ness and speed, and, for the catamarans, it is equal to the sum of the frictional resis-
tance of the individual hulls.

Catamaran calm water wave-making resistance is a function of the Froude number

(V/~L), hull form and hull spacing. Eggers (references 1 and 2) has demonstrated
theoretical IY that the wave-making effects between the hulls can interfere favorably to
reduce the catamatun wave drag to below the level appropriate to the two hulls running
in isolation. This is possible where given frequency components of the combined wave
pattern are out of phase by approximately 180.

There is general agreement between theory and model test data that the beneficial
interference can occur in the Froude number range of approximately 0.3< V/~< 0.4,
irrespective of hull separation. Beneficial hull separation in terms of the center to center
spacing as a ratio of the ship~s length appears to be in the order of 0.3. Further, opti-
mum spacing varies with speed. of course, what may be beneficial for resistance may
not be compatible with the rest of the design.

The purpose of the foregoing discussion is to show that beneficial wave-pattern

interference effects are obtained in a narrow range of Froude number and hull separation.
From a practical design viewpoint the net resistance benefit has to be appreciable to
constrain the design within the above narrow range of Froude number and hul I separation.

The conclusion reached on the hsis of data available to date is that no more than
15% net reductionin total resistance of large catamarans should be expected in ideal
conditions when com~red to the total resistance of two hulls running independently. At
the same time, the increase is not expected to be more than 15A.
 55

REFERENCES

1. General Dynamics (Quincy Division), Ca~amaran Study prepared

for U .S. Department of Commerce, Maritime Administration under
Contract No. MA-4318, 30 April 1969

2. Eggers, K ., Resistance Conditions of Two-Body Ships, BSRA

Translation 1860 (Uber Widerstandsverhaltnisse von Zweikorperschiffen,
J . Schiffkutech Gesellschaft (1 955)).

3. Eggers, K., Uber die Ermittlung des Wel Ienwiderstandes eines

Schiffsmodells durch Analyse Seines Wellensystems, Schiffstechnik
Bd. 9, 1962

4. Everett, J . T., Some Research on the Hydrodynamics of Catamarans

and Multi-Hul led Vessels in Calm Water, North East Coast Institution
of Engineers and Shipbuilders, Transactions 1967-1968

5. Turner, H. and Taplin, A., The Resistance of Large Powered Catamarans,

Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers Transactionsr Volume 76,
1968

.-
 56

APPENDIX 2

This is a reproduction of reference (8), The Structural Design of the ASR Cata-
maran Cross-Structure by Ben]amin W. Lankford, Jr., excluding the first part which
is devoted to the description of the statistical methods used to predict the response of
this ships hull to sea condition beyond the capabilities of model tests.

SHEAR FORCES

The foregoing discussion has only described the bending moment resulting from a
beam sea condition. There is, however, a SI ight shear force in the beam sea condition,
The shear force is of a higher value in the quarter sea heading, but the associated mo-
ment results in a negligible design value. The shear force used is appro:{imately 600
tons. Shear becomes more of a design problem from loads of other sources which will
be described in another paragraph.

Shear or any other design response can be determined in the same way as the mo-
men~ in the foregoing discussion. All the designer needs to do is to use the proper re-
sponse amplitude operators from the model test.

DISTRIBUTION OF THE DESIGN SEA LOADS

The final bending moment predicted of 63,300 foot tons represents the total mo-
ment on one side of the ship. Since this moment is independent of any bending caused
by the weight of the structure, a dead load bending moment must be added to this moment.
The dead load moment for the ASR was calculated assuming this ship in still water since
the effect of any sea waves has already been determined. The total maximum moment in-
cluding the dead load effect is 72,000 foot tons (nearest 1000 foot tons) . Since dead
load opposes the sea forces in the upward direction the design load is less, or about
55,000 foot tons. The distribution of this moment to each maior cross-structure member
was ba$ed on a ratio of the assumed moments of inertia of each member. The shear
loads were distributed as a ratio of assumed web areas. A summary of the sea loads for
each bulkhead will be given in a later paragraph.

OTHER LOADS CONSIDERED

As a separate condition, the cross-structure was designed for what was considered
the maximum possible torsional load on the cross-structure. To determine these loads,
the fol lowing conditions were considered:

a. The ship could be drydccked with the port hull blocks and
starboard hull blocks out of plane or the keel could be out
of plane.
 57

b. The ship may possibly run aground.

For these conditions the ship was assumed to be supported on one hul I forward (Sta-
tion 4) and on the other hull aft (Station 18). The load distribution of the applied
torsional moment to each bulkhead in the cross-structure is assumed to be a function
of the linear distance from the center of torsion and the vertical deflection in each
loaded bulkhead.

STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATION OF THE ASR

The ASR is a 251 foot LOA catamaran with an 86 foot maximum breadth (26
foot wide hulls) and full load displacement of 3600 tons. Figure 9 shows a typical
cross~ection of one of the transverse support bulkhmds for the A5R. The transverse
bulkheads between the two hul Is along with an effective breadth of plating as the
upper and lower flanges is considered the primary supporting cross-structural mem-
ber. There are six of these bulkheads similar to Figure 9 carrying the loads. Locations
of these bulkheads are shown on Figure 8. The use of six bulkheads has no special
significance other than that it provides a satisfactory arrangement for structure commen-
surate with compartment and access requirements and distributes the imds into the hull
girders through scantl ings of norms I dimension. The three bulkheads forward and the
three bulkheads aft form two separate deckhouses with an open wel I between for rescue
operations.

~la , I-Y+T,..4 Fig. 8 - Forces Caused by the

Settlement of Supports
SKETC.H FOR
CAWJLATIOf~ OF 5tlEAR LOADS
(DOWIFJG.G.ROL)ND ING)

P 8
 58

==- .....1
Fig. 9 - Typical Transverse
Bulkhead for ASR

THE DESIGN PROCEDURE

The calculation of the load distribution to each bulkhead from the grounding-
dock condition is as follows (See Figure 8):

Assumptions

1. The algebraic sum of moments akut the center of torsion = O, where center of
torsion is assumed to be the centroidal axis of the assumed bulkhead a-.

Ad
Torque = ~ (EQUATION 1)

Where:

A= Total ship displacement (both hulls)

d = Distance Station 4 to Station 18

P = Shear Load on Bulkhead n.

Xn = Distance to Bulkhead n.

2* Deflectionin each bulkhead isdirectlyproportionalto the linear distance (Xn)

from center of torsion.
bn
C=y
n

Where:

c$n = Deflection of Bulkhead n.

C = Tangent of the Angle (for smal I angles)

 59

In order to evaluate forces in the bulkheads it is convenient to compute spring con-

stants, Kn , due to support settlement. Bending and shear strains were included in the
spring constant. It was assumed that the torsional strength of the hul i is large compared to
the spring constants.

&n . & hen.e: c . &

Kn r KnXn

1 2 + Pn
or= . ..-
KIX1 (EQUATION 2)
K2X2 KnXn

3. The cross-structure bu Ikheads are assumed to be fixed ended beams undergoing a

settlement of the support. (See Figure 8)

Calculations

Equating the external Iy applied forces and internal resisting forces -

(Equation 1) Torque = ~ = ~

Where:
Y=+d

[1
A
y = Plxl + P2X2 + . . . . . Pnxn
T

From Equation 2:

P1X2K2 P1X3K3 KnXnPl

p3= ..... Pn = (EQUATION 3)
2 = K,x, f K]X1
KIX1

[+IY=1 [xl+-2+ .-K-I EQAT0N4)

The equation is solved far P] . All other Pn values can now be obtained from
Equation 3. From the shear loads (Pn), bending moments in the bulkheads are attained

PnLn
Moment = ~

Where:

Ln = Span of cross-structure between the hulls (Figure 8).

 60

The final moments and shear values for each bulkhead in the cross-structure calcu-
lated by the foregoing condition and the predicted sea forces are recorded below and
represent the actual values used for the ASR design. It must be noted however that after
an initial scantling selection has been made the design loads were re-cycled and checked
for the new inertias and web areas obtained as opposed to those assumed originally.

As can be seen from the resulting loads above, the docking-grounding condition
gives the highest combination of shear and moment which governs the forward and aft
bulkhead especial Iy the web plating to resist buckling. The large variance of loads orI
Bulkhead 21 resulted from the fact that there was a deck height difference in depth from
the other bulkheads.

Calculated
Predicted Sea Loads Docking-Grounding Loads
Moment Shear Moment Shear
Ft. Tons Tons Ft. Tons Tons

Frame 21 4,600 80 5,180 305

Frame 37 11,600 104 6,650 342
Frame 49 13,200 104 3,900 230
Frame 84 13,200 104 4,150 244
Frame 86 14,700 104 6,900 406
Frame 110 14,700 104 10,200 596

Total 72,000 600 36,980 2,173

The resisting cross-structure bulkheads (21, 37, 49, 84, 86 and 110) have been
designed similar to transverse bents on aircraft carriers. Of the total plate girder, the
outer flange plus about 1/6 of the depth of the web assumed to entirely resist the bend-
ing moment. The total shearing force was assumed to be equally distributed to the en-
tire web. For stability, the outer 1/6 portion of the web was sized to develop the
the necessary shear or compressing buckling strength, whichever was worse, while
the remaining 2/3 portion of the web was designed to develop a shear buckling
strength equal to the shearing yield stress of the material . The above plate girder
theory is based on actual tests indicating that the moment in a plate girder is concen-
trated in the flanges but drops off rapidly toward the neutral axis, unlike the straight
line distribution used generally . As a result, the center portion of the web cannot be
assumed to contribute. The 1/6 web depth used is an approximate value covering the
actual moment. Reference (8) describes this method and test results.

As mentioned above, the upper and lower levels form a flange for the maior
cross-structure bulkheads. The ac~ual width of plating, or effective breadth consid-
ered in the design is probably somewhat conservative.

Approximately four feet of normal deck plating is considered to act with the bulk -
heads as an effective breadth. The cross-structure, however, is more of a box girder
with stiffened plating. Although under torsional and bending loads it is assumed that
much more plating is effective, test data of large box girders is limited. It was, there-
fore, decided to consider The plating between bulkheads to provide an additional factor
 61

of safety rather than including it in the design at this time . It is hoped that structural
model tests can be conducted on box structures in the near future to determine a more
precise effective breadth . With the assumption that plating between bulkheads is inef-
fective, the design is then reduced from a torsional box girder problem to one of bulk-
heads resisting the loads imposed through pure bending and shear . With only four feet
considered for the effective breadthf it was necessary to use inserts to provide the neces-
sary section modulus for the structure shown on Figure 9.

The joint between the cross-structure and main hull was considered a most critical
area . Additional web plating was added in the cross-structure and main hull bulkheads
to reduce the nominal stress resulting from stress concentrations. There was also a prob-
lem of plate delamination. If the cross-structure was made intercostal to the hul 1, the
shell plate could delaminate, and vice versa . To solve this problem, the insert plate
acting as the lower flange of the cross-structure was carried continuously through the in-
board shell into the second deck and the transverse bulkhead plating was carried continu-
ously through the inboard shell and second deck . This provides an interlacing of the
highly stressed structure so plate delamination would not lead to a maior failure.

Since the cross-structure presented most of the problems, and is the basis for this
paper., little has been said about the main hull and local loads. The hulls are designed
using standard longitudinal strength calculations. Design of structure for local hydro-
static loads is similar to that found on conventional ships except for the shell plating
inboard and bottom of the cross structure . During a visit to the catamaran drilling rig,
E .W. Thornton, in the Gulf of Mexico, it was discovered that shell stiffening was
badly damaged as a result of the pocketing effect of seas between the two hul 1s while
the ship was moored. These farces somewhat resembled the effect found by the model
test for the ASR. However, no effect on local stiffening could be predicted by the
model test.
AS a result of the local damage found on the drilling rig, the shell in-
board on the ASR was designed for 1500 pounds per square foot. The drilling rig had
framing members intermittently welded . These welds suffered cracking throughout
the length of the ship. For the ASR, continuous welding is specified.

CONCLUSION

The primary purpose of tlis paper has been to provide the ship design engineer with
some basic knowledge of the problems encountered with catamaran hull structure and a
simple approach to the solution of these problems. It wil I be necessary to conduct more
tests on various hull forms and spacings before a completely analytical solution can be
developed. ltwillthen become important to instrument these hul Is once they are built
and attempt to correlate ariulytical predictions with full scale ship tests. The ASR and
the commercial ship E .W. Thornton, along with a new oceanographic research cata-
maran now being designed, wil I provide valuable information for future designs.
 62

REFERENCES

(1) A.L. Dinsenbacher, J . Andrews and D. Pincus, Model Test Determination of

Sea Loads on Catamaran Cross Structure (Prel iminaty), DTMB Report of Sept.
1966.
(2) J . Williamson, Long Term Distribution of Bending Moment on ASR Catamaran
Cross Structure, Webb Institute Report dated 14 Ott. 1966.
(3) Moskowitz, Estimates of the Power Spectra for Fully Developed Seas for Wind
Speeds of 20 to 40 Knots, New York University Technical Report to ONR,
Sept. 1963.
(4) R .H . Compton, The Prediction of Long-Term Distributions of Wave-Induced Bend-
ing Moment from Model Tests, Webb Reportl dated July 1966.
(5) Nils Nordenstrom, An Estimation of Long-Term Distribution of Wave-Induced
Midship Bending Moments on Ships, Chalmers Tekniska Hogskola, dated Aug.
1963.
(6) Warnsinck et al, Report of Committee 1 on Environmental Conditions, ISSC Pro-
ceedi rigs, Vol . 1, dated July 1964.
(n H .U . Rol 1, Height, Length and Steepness of Seawaves in the North Atlantic and
Dimensions of Seawaves as Functions of Wind Force, SNAME T. & R. Bul Ietin,
No. 1-19, dated Dec. 1958.
(8) L.$. Beedle and others, Structural Steel Design, Fritz Engineering Report No.
354.3, Lehigh University, dated Spring 1962.
(9) Samuel B. Richmond, Statistical Analysis 2nd Ediold Press Co., New York 1964.
(lo) W.J . Pierson, Jr., and Others, Practical Method for Observing and Forecasting :
Ocean Waves by lyleans of Wave Spectra and Statistics, Hydrographic Office Pub-
Iication No. 603-1958. I I
I I
(11) L. Moskowitz, W .J. Pierson, and E. Mehr, Wa~e Spect~a Estimated fr~m Wtws
Records Obtained by OWS Weather Explorer and the 0W5 Weather Repo,rter, New
York University Technical Report to ONR, 3 VOIS., Nov~ 1962, Mar. 1943, June 1965.
, I
I !, I I 1
I

I ,,
II I 1
I I
I
I
I 1 I
I
 63

APPENDIX 3

This is a reproduction of the $ummary and Discussion section with the asso-
ciated nomenclature for reference (1 3), A Method for Estimating Loads on Catamaran
Cross-Structure by A . L. Dinsenbacher.

NOMENCLATURE

(For Appendix 3 Only)

A wave amplitude
Ab wave amplitude for computing bending load
At wave amplitude for computing torque load
B beam of one hull
b half beam of entire ship
c center of twist of cross-structure
D instantaneous mean draft
Do st i I Iwater draft
d distance from top of cross-structure down to neutral axis of cross-structure
G center of gravity of ship
9 gravitational acceleration
HI depth (keel to top of cross-structure)
HL horizontal hydrostatic force on outboard side of a hul I
HR horizontal hydrostatic force on inboard side of a hull
L ship length (LBp)
Lw wave length
m(y) cross structure bending moment at transverse coordinate y
M (0) = bending moment at midspan of cross-structure
MQ = moment at iunction of cross-structwre and hull, not including effects of
weight and mass of ~ross-stru cture I
P= transverse axia I load on cross-structure
= horiz~ntal hydrostatic ~ressure
P
Q= vertical shear force
s = clea~ span between hulls
Tc = torque on cross-structure about its twist center
t = horizontal distance (positive forward) from cross-structure twist center to
ships CG
VL = dista~ce from keel to center of pressure of horizontal hydrostatic force on
dutbourd side of a hull
R =
distance from keel to clenter of pressure of horizontal hydrostatic force on
inboard side of a hull
w= ship weight
Wc ,= weight of cro,ss-structure
x,y, ~ = coordinate system fix~d on ship representation with origin at center of
1 gravity!
B ,= half the clear span between hulls
A = instantaneous displacement or buoyancy
?= density of water
distance, positive downward, from mean surface elevation to wuve surface
5=
 64

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The equations obtained thus br for estimating cross-structure loads wil 1 now be
summarized. The symbols have been defined in the Nomenclature, and some are illus-
trated in Figs. 1 and 2. In several of the equations given in the following, the term
(1 ~ O .4) appears; the positive sign indicates the ship accelerating upward, the negative
sign corresponds to downward acceleration. Also, we have now substituted S/2 for~
and (S/2) + B for b in the equations developed previously in the text.

For Ioadi ng condition 1, the waves are approaching from the beam and are as-
sumed to produce the greatest axial , vertical bending and shear loads. The directions
of positive loads are shown in Fig. 3.

The wave length and amplitude, A (wave height = 2 A I ), for this loading case
are taken to be

Lw
= 2(S + B) (70)

A=Ab=-~ (71)

The axial load on the cross-structure is

llB
P = -2ggLA (1 t 0.4) Do sin (72)
2(S+B)

The moment at the transverse mid-span of the cross-structure is

iTB
M(0)= -qg LAsin 2D0 (1 ~0.4) (HI -d)
2(S + B)
~2
[
+ W(S+B)A
- D02 (1 ~ 0.4)2 - ~ sin2 2(su+BB)
1
TTB
211Do

w sin B
[ 2(S+B) Cos _
1
+(1
~o.4)
WC(S + 2B)
8
(73)

where A is given in (71) . The sign of A is positive for a wave trough between the hulls,
and negative for a crest.

The moment at the junction of cross-structure and hull is

M
()
~ + = M(o) -(1 0.4) WcSfi (74)

where M (0) is obtained from (73). Whichever sign is chosen in the term of (1 ~ O .4)
in (72), the same sign must be employed in that same term in (73) and (74).
 65

NOTES: View Iooki ng rorward rrom s~ern

Coordintite S)sLCM fixed on ship with origin acc.?nter or gravily (G) o~ship
\Yave leng[h, & . ?(fi+~) = 2(S+B)
A is wa!,e amplitude (if A negntive, crest be[.wecn hulls)

-b -B I P b

L-+A---LB-J--J

I I
MEAN 5URFACE ELEVATION

i i
Dis heighL or wave surrace above keel atcenter plane ofl?uil (als.odis.
tance from keel to mean surrace elevation)

~(~)is}ertical location orwavesurrace from mearielevntion, attrans,erse

coordinateij (~ positive in trough)

Forwwesurracr: leL<(~). Acos~

(b+t3

Immcrsionorhul! at~.D-~(~)=D-Aco5u-
(b+~)

Fig. 1 - Loading Condition 1

The estimate for maximum shear, in beam waves, at the junction of crws-structure
and hull, is

Q=(l (75)

in which

MQ = M(0) -(1~0.4)Wc (S+2B)/8 (76)

M (0) in (76) is obtained from (73). Again, the choice of sign in (1 ~ 0.4) must be kept
consistent throughout (73-76).

It is important , in estimating the shear and moment acting on the cross-structural

that the various combinations resulting froim the choices of +- A and (1 ~ O .4) be comp uted.
This is to insure that the maximum loads are found.

-
 66

6 = tan-g

L S+R
~ . 2( S+B)sind .
@#7h~

M point p (on port hull centerplane), disknce kom mean surface elevation to wave
surface is

,=- 0s(+%9= co%

But, up = : Xp Cose
()
%7x
so $ .,4 sin P
L

girt
and immersion . D - fp . D- .-l sin+

Fig. 2 - Loading Condition 2

For loading condition 2 (for maximum torsion), the wave advances obliquely as
as shown in Fig. 2. The wwve length and amplitude are

~ = L(S+B)/j~ (77)

A = A+=0.6~ (78)

The reader is reminded that the wave heighf is twice the magnitude of the amplitude.

The estimate for maximum torsional load in waves is

@bg BAL2 /217 + O. 14Mqt/S (79)

 67

Table 1 - Loading Schedule A - For Direct Stress at

Mid-Span of Cross-Structure

Load Beam Waves Quartering Waves

Axial Force P from (72) O.4 of P from (72)

Moment M (0) from (73) O.4 of M (0) from (73)

Shear Not Applicable (N. A.) N.A.

Torsion N.A. N.A.

Table 2 - Loading Schedule B - For Direct Stress at

Junction of Cross-Structure and Hull

Load Beam Waves Quartering Waves

Axial Force P from (72) O.4 of P from (72)

Moment M ( &~) from (74) 0.40fM(- + ~)

s from (74)

Shear N.A. N.A.

Torsion 0.40fT=from (79) TC from (79)

Table 3 - Loading Schedule C - For Shear Stress at

Junction of Cross-Structure and Hull

Load Beam Waves Quartering Waves

Axial Force N, *A . N.A.

Moment N.A. N.A.

Shear Q from (75) O.4 of Q from (75)

Torsion O.4 -of T= from (79) Tc from (79)

..
 68

F
-lM
P
~ INTERNALLOADS
II)
Q
G y

HL
R
WEW LOOKING FORWARD
FROM STERN
111111 -=r
r

Fig. 3 - Positive Internal Loads

in which A is defined by (78), MQ is computed from (76), and T= is the magnitude of the
torque about *he center of twist of the cross-structure.

To estimate the maximum stresses on the cross-structure it is necessary to apply si-

multaneous y, in certain proportions, the loads found in the foregoing. As has been
stated in the text, the model test results showed moments and shears in quartering seas to
be about O.4 of their magnitude in beam waves. Also the torque in beam seas was
found to be about O.4 of its value in quartering waves. Therefore, to obtain estimates
of maximum stresses, it is suggested that the loads should be applied in accordance with
the loading schedules in Tables 1, 2 and 3. Each loading schedule is for a specific
stress, and for the ship operating in both beam and oblique waves. For each case the
stresses of interest, which are produced by the loads in the Load column, are cal cu-
Iated and summed. The equation to use to obtain a particular load is indicated in the
row in which that load is designated.

It may be observed in Loading Schedule B, Table 2, that torsion loads are used in
computing the direct stresses at the I unction of the cross-structure and hul Is. The reason
for this is that the torsional load can produce bending moments on the ends of the trans-
verse bulkheads spanning the hul Is (2, 9).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

An attempt has been made herein to develop simple expressions for estimating gross
Iwds on the structure linking the hul Is of a catamamn. Although several gross assump-
tions and approximations have been made , some compensation for these has been intro-
duced by relating, albeit empirically and/or heuristically, to model test results and
current design practices for longitudinal strength.

REFERENCES

1. H .A. Schade, Feasibility Study for an Ocean-Going Catamaran, prepared for

the Crowley Launch and Tugboat Company, California, June 1965.

2. A .L. Dinsenbucher, J. N. Andrews, and D. S. Pincus, Model Test Determination

of Sea Loads on Catamatan Cross Structure, Naval Ship Research and Develop-
ment Center (NSRDC) Report 2378, May 1967.

.
 69

3. J .T. Birmingham and A.L . Dinsenbacher, Stresses and Motions of a Liberty Ship
in Random Seasr David Taylor Model Basin (DTMB) Report2081, November 1965.

4. M. St. Denis, On the Structural Design of the Midship Section, DTMB Report
C-555, October 1954.

5. J . N. Andrews and A .L. Dinsenbacher, Structural Response of a Carrier Model in

Regular and Random Waves, NSRDC Report 2177, April 1966.

6. G. O. Thomas, An Extended Static Balance Approach to Longitudinal Strength,

Trans. SNAME, VOI. 76, 1968.

7. J . N. Andrews and A.L. Dinsenbacher, Agreement of Model and Prototype

Response Amplitude Operators and Whipping Response, NSRDC Report 2351,
April 1967.

8. N.H. Jasperl et al . Statistical Presentation of Motions and Hul I Bending

Moments of Essex-Class Aircraft Carriers, DTMB Report 1251, June 1960.

9. B .W. Lankford, The Structural Design of the ASR Catamaran Cross- Structure,
Naval Engineers Journal, August 1967.
 UNCLASSIFIED
Security Classification

DOCIJMENT CONTROL DATA - R & D

,Smwify clas$; (frta [ion of titfc, lx,dy of .?b. frart and iflue,vlnp ,JnnofaricJn mu.1 be entered when rhe Oversll rcporf is Classified)

ORIGINATING ACTIVITY (Corporate authorJ 2a. REPORT 5ECu R1TY CLASSIFICATION

Unclassified
M. Rosenblatt & Son, Inc. >h. GROUP

REPORT TITLE

Catamarans - Technological Limits to Size and Appraisal

of Structural Design information and Procedures

DE SC R[PT!VE NOTE5 (TyP, Of ,e)mrt ad ;nctllvie dsfes)

Final Report
AU THOR(SI (Fi@t rwme, middle rnit!al, last name)

Naresh M. Maniar, Wei P. Chiang

REPORT DATE ra. TOTAL NO. OF PAGEs 7b. NO. OF REFs

Sept. 1971 69 24
a, CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. >a. ORIGINATOR-5 REPoRT t.IuM8ERlS)

NOO024-70-C-5145
h. PROJECT NO. MR&S 2000-1
F35422306, Task 2022, SR-192
c. ah.
OTHER REPORT No IS) (Any othernwmbem thalnmy be assiped
this report)
NAVSHIPS No. 0911-001-1010
d,
SSC-222
O. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

Distribution of this document is unlimited.

!. 5Up PLEMEMTARV NOTES !2. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY

Naval Ship Systems Command

s,AB5 TRACT

Existing United States shipbuilding facilities can handle 1000-foot catamarans with
up to 140-foot individual hull beams on the premise that the hulls would be joined a-
float. Major harbors and channels of the world suggest an overall beam limit of 400-
feet and 35-foot draft. Drydocking for catamarans over 140-foot in breadth will re-
quire new facilities or extensive modification to existing facilities. Scantlings of
a 1000-foot catamaran cargo liner can be expected to be within current shipbuilding
capabilities. The uniqueness of the catamaran design lies in the cross-structure and
the important facets of the cross-structure design are the prediction of the wave-in-
duced loads and the method of structural analysis. The primary loads are the trans-
verse vertical bending moments, axial force, shear, and torsion moments. Designers
have relied heavily on model tests to obtain design loads and have used general struc-
tures principles and individual ingenuity to perform the structural analysis in the
absence of established guidelines. Simple semi-empirical equations are proposed for
predicting maximum primary loads. A structural analysis method such as the one pro-
posed by Lankford may be employed for conceptual design purposes. The Lankford method
assumes the hulls to be rigid and the cross-structure loads to be absorbed by a group
of transverse bulkheads and associated effective deck plating. This procedure in gen-
eral should provide an overall conservative design and not necessarily an economic or
optimized design. Additional research and development work including systematic model
test programs are necessary for accumulating additional knowledge in areas of uncer-
tainty and for the establishment of reliable design methods for catamaran structure.

)D:W551473 () UNCLASSIFIED
.. .-,. ......
3ecurlTV ~LasslrlcarlOn
S/N 0101.807-6801
 UNCLASSIFIED
Security Classification
4. LINK A LINK B LINK c
KEY WORDS
ROLE WT ROLE WT ROLE WT

Catamaran

Size Limits

Design Procedures

DD,F:%51473 (BACK) UNCLASSIFIED

GPO 919.4g2
(PAGE 2) Security Classification
 SHIP RESEARCH COMMITTEE
Maritime Transportation Research Board
National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council

The Ship Research Committee has technical cognizance of the inter-agency

Ship Structure Committees research program:

PROF. R. A. YAGLE, Chairman, Prof. of Naval Axvhiteeture, Univ. of Miehigan

DR. H. N. ABRAMSON, Di~eetioz+
Dept. of Meelz.Seieneez, Southuest Research Institute
MR. W. H. BUCKLEY, Chief, S-LmeLu.raZCrike~ia and Loads, Be21 .&rosystems Co.
MR. E. L. CRISCUOLO, Sen. l!Ton-Desti~uetive
Test. Spa., l!laval
Ordnance Lab.
DR. W. D. DOTY, Swio~ Research Consultant, U.S. Steel Co~po~atiion
PROF. J. E, GOLDBERG, School of Engineering, ~rdue Univemitg
PROF. W. J. HALL, Prof. of CiUi2 Enginee~{ng, Univ. of Illinois
MR. J. E. HERZ, Chief StruetiuraZDes. Engineer, Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock CO.
MR. G. E. KAMPSCHAEFER, JR., Manage~, Appzieation Enginee~ingJ ARMCO Stce~ CoYp.
MR. R. C. STRASSER, Di~eetio~of Resecweh, Newport lVewsShipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.
CDR R. M. WHITE, USCG, Chief, AppZied Engineering Sec., U.S. Coast ~uard Academy
MR. R. W. RUMKE, Exeeutive Seeratary, Ship Research Committee

Advisory Group II, Ship Structural Design prepared the prcject prospectus
and evaluated the proposals for this project:

MR. J. E. HERZ, Chairman, Chiaf Strue. Des. Eng~., Sun Shipbuilding z Dq Dock Co.
MR. C. M. COX, Asst. iVavaZArch., Hu~l Des. Div., lVewpo~tNews Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.
MR. C. R. CUSHING, ~esident, Cushing & flordst~om,Inc.
PROF. J. E. GOLDBERG, SehooZ of Engineering, Purdue Un<versiby
PROF. J. R. PAULLING, JR., Prof. & Chair. ofDept. ofiVav. AYch., U. of Ca2ifomia
MR. D. P. ROSEMAN, NavaZ Arehiteek, Ilydronau.ties,
Inc.
.;
CDR R. M. WHITE, USCG, Chief, AppZiedEngineeringi5ee.,
U.S. Coast GuardAcademy
 SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE PUBLICATIONS

These documents are distributed by the National Technical

Information Sexwiee, Springfield, Va. 22151. These doc-
uments have been announced in the Clearinghouse journal
U.S. Govwnment Research & Development Reports (USGRDR)
under the indicated AD numbexw.

SSC-209, Results from FulZ-Scale Measwements of Midship Bending Stresses on

Y7wee Dry Cargo Skips by 1. J. Walters and F. C. Bailey. 1970
All 712183.

SSC-21O, Analysis of Skmming Data f~om the S. S. Wolverine Staterby ~. W.

Wheaton, C. H. Kane, P. T. Diamant, and F. C. Bailey. 1970.
AD 713196.

SSC-211, Design and Installation of a Ship Response In.stwmentation System

Aboard the Containe~ Vessel S. S. Boston by R. A. Fain, J. Q.
Cragin and B. H. Schofield. (To be published).

SSC-212, Ship Response Instw.mentation Aboard the Containe? Vessel S. S.

Boston: Results from the 1st Operational Season in North Atlantic
Semiee by R. A. Fain, J. Q. Cragin, and B. H. Schofield. 1970.
AD 712186.

SSC-213, A Guide for Ultrasonic Tasting and Evaluation of Weld Flaw by R. A.

Youshaw. 1970. AD 713202.

SSC-214, Ship Response Instrumentation Aboa~d the Container Vessel S. S.

Boston: Results f?om Two OpeYationaZ Seasons in North Atlantic
Service by J. Q. Cragin. 1970. AD 712187.

SSC-215, A Guide fop the Synthesis of Ship Structures Pa?t One - The Midship
Hold of a Transve~sely-Fmmed Dry Caz=goShip by Manley St. IleniS.
1970. AD 717357.

SSC-216, (To be published).

\
SSC-217, Comp~essive Strength of Ship Hull Girde~s - Part I - Unstiffened
plates by H. Becker, R. Goldman, and J. Pozerycki. 1971. AD 717590.

SSC-218, Design Considerations fop Aluminum Hull Structures: Study of

Aluminum Bulk Carriers by C. J. Altenburg and R. d. Scott. 1971.

SSC-219, c~ack propagation and Arrest in Ship and Other SteeZ.sby G. T. Hahn,
R. G. Hoagland, P. N. Mincer, A. l?.Rosenfield, and N. Sarrate. 1971.

SSC-220, A Limited Survey of Ship Structu~al Dmage by S. Hawkins, G. H.

Levine, and R. Taggart. 1971.

SSC-221, Response of the Delta Test toSpecimen Variables by L. J. McGeady.

1971.

. . .-