UNOLS Small Research Vessel

Compendium
2004

INTRODUCTION
Jack Bash

The Oceanographic community, as represented by University National Oceanographic

Laboratory System (UNOLS), has provided myriad documents on research vessels. The Fleet
Improvement Committee (FIC) has investigated new ship designs and developed Science
Mission Requirements (SMRs) for ship classes I through IV. Missing in the FIC studies has been
a comprehensive look at “small” research vessels. It is difficult to develop mission requirements
that would fit all or even most cases because small vessels are most often designed for a specific
mission or are designed peculiar to a specific area. Recognizing this, the UNOLS Research
Vessel Operators’ Committee (RVOC) took on the challenge to write a compendium for small
research vessels. This compendium or primer is provided in the papers that follow.

The authors of the papers contained herein were volunteers from the marine industry and
academic oceanographic community. They represent hundreds of years of experience in research
vessel operations and provide a broad perspective on vessel design, construction, safety,
outfitting, and operations.

The opening paper titled Requirements and Capabilities sets the stage for this primer providing
the procedure for small vessel designs. Regulatory requirements, an important consideration in
building and operating a small research vessel, follows. Small boat safety followed by a
comprehensive treatise on marine insurance and liability, by Dennis Nixon, provides a legal
perspective to small vessel operations.

One paper on stability and one on sea-keeping for small research vessels provide an in-depth
study on these subjects. Vessels of 30 feet to over 100 feet in length are addressed in the
conversion paper. A generous listing of successful conversions to research vessels is provided. A
list of outfitting for small research vessels, divided into three sizes of boats follows. A paper on
propulsion systems for small research vessels is next.

The following three papers deal with various hull forms for small research vessels. These include
monohull, small SWATH vessels and small catamaran R/V designs. The final paper is a study of
research vessel procurement.
Each paper stands on its own. Together they comprise a broad spectrum of information about
small research vessels. This primer is provided as a resource for the entire oceanographic
community and is posted on the UNOLS web site to permit access for all interested persons.

You can access the inventory of Small Research Vessels at UNOLS Institutions on the UNOLS
Website, by searching “UNOLS Small Research Vessel Inventory” in the Document Search
Feature.

Section Title
Author
Introduction
Jack Bash
I. Requirements and Capabilities
Robertson Dinsmore
II. Regulatory
George Ireland
III. Safety
Tom Smith
IV. Insurance
Dennis Nixon
V. Stability
James Yagle
VI. Sea-keeping
John Waterhouse
VII. Conversion vs. New Construction
Steve Rabalais
VIII. Outfitting and Equipment
William Hahn
IX. Propulsion
Brian King
X. Monohulls
Douglas Wolff
XI. SWATH
Robertson Dinsmore
XII. Multihulls-Catamarans
John Van Leer
XIII. Selected New Design
Roger Long
XIII a. Monohull Research Vessel Motion and Comfort
Roger Long
 SECTION 1
Robertson P. Dinsmore
REQUIREMENTS AND CAPABILITIES

The requirements (and capabilities) for a research vessel usually are set out in two general categories: Platform
Requirements and Scientific Requirements. The former category includes size, speed, accommodations, habitability,
construction, propulsion, endurance, electronics, regulatory factors, and so on. Science requirements often overlap with
platform requirements but go on to include mission definitions, laboratories, work decks, deck equipment,
instrumentation, etc. Often not explicitly stated but of driving importance is cost, both construction and operating cost.
This discussion will be concerned chiefly with science mission requirements and will address platform requirements
only where they are affected by science requirements.

Whereas the science mission requirements for larger seagoing research vessels generally are similar, the requirements
for small vessels can differ considerably due to varying coastal environments and specific priorities of the operating lab
(training, disciplines and scope of operations).

In planning for a new (or conversion) research vessel, the usual sequence of events is as follows:
• Mission Definition
• Mission Requirements
• Concept Design
• Preliminary Design
• Final (Contract) Design

The "Mission Definition" and "Mission Requirements" should be prepared by the prospective operator in conjunction
with user scientists. The design phases should be undertaken by a qualified naval architect with oversight by a
committee of intended users.

Mission Definition

The Mission Definition or Profile is a brief statement setting out the principal use (or uses) of the proposed vessel,
intended area of operations (and environment), scientific disciplines, operating capabilities and scientific
accommodations.

An example of a Mission Profile is that prepared by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution for a small SWATH
coastal research vessel.

• Operational capability during all seasons off the Northeast Coast, making short cruises of up to ten days and
distances no further than Bermuda (650 miles).
• Coastal science studies in bays and gulfs including multi-anchor moored stations. Open sea operations in all
science disciplines including net tows, deep sampling, ROVs, diving support, seismics, coring and buoy work.
• Equipment and instrument testing during development stage needing platform capability (size and stability)
simulating larger ships where equipment ultimately will be used
• Student training and practicum.
• Rapid response to oceanographic and atmospheric " events " possibly involving heavy weather transits at
reasonable speed
• High flexibility in science outfitting -all winches, cranes, .frames, etc. to be totally portable through the use of
deck boltdowns.
• Seakeeping of paramount importance and performance on-stations (including dynamic positioning) -stopped or
slow speed- being more important than cruising. Lab and berthing accommodations to support J 2 science
personnel.
• Total science payload (may reach 20 Ltons) highly variable and may include winches, vans, ROVs, cranes, and
itinerant deck I~ such as buoy moorings.
The Mission Definition is the starting point in the development of the vessel requirements. It is a brief but important
statement. If the subsequent design development proves too costly or incongruous to the intended vessel, design review
should include the mission profiles and be amended accordingly. The next step in the design process is Mission
Requirements.

Mission Requirements

Following the mission definition, the Mission Requirements become the guidelines for directing the design (or
conversion) of a research vessel. The science requirements define vessel and shipboard needs for operational
capabilities, working environment, science accommodations, and outfitting. From the requirements can be deduced the
size, speed, endurance, and overall capability .Additional aspects -habitability , safety , and cost are important factors
and can have a significant impact on ship design, but these are either mandatory or statutory and usually are defined
elsewhere

The UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee has established a standard format for presenting science mission
requirements. It includes the following categories:

• General • Laboratories
• Size • Special
• Endurance • Science Facilities
• Accommodations • Vans
• Speed • Workboats
• Seakeeping • Science Storage
• Station Keeping • Acoustical Systems
• Ice Strengthening • Navigation! Positioning
• Deck Working Area • Internal Communications
• Cranes • Exterior Communications
• Winches • Ship Control
• Overside Handling • Instrumentation
• Towing

In order to suit any particular application, these categories may be expanded or reduced. This is especially true in the
case of smaller vessels where many of the categories may not be applicable, and special needs may dictate others.

Each of these categories is discussed briefly in the following sections:

General -This is a restatement of the Mission Profile along with any other design requirements. For smaller day, or
short cruise, vessels, the educational use is often important and should be emphasized here or in a separate category.

Size -Although size ultimately is determined by the requirements, the prospective operator may consider it important to
state a limiting size either in length, draft, or tonnage, or all three. Regulatory aspects often are a factor in a size
limitation.
Endurance -This is based upon scope of intended cruising and nature of operations. The endurance formula should
include a percentage of cruising and on-station work. The cruising range can be stated here.

Accommodations Here are stated the intended number of scientific personnel and provision for berthing
arrangements. The current trend is for two person staterooms with a common WC between two staterooms. Crew size
usually is an outgrowth of the design and or regulatory factors, but may be stated here as a limiting number.

Speed -Speed can be a scientific requirement when the duration (and cost) of a cruise becomes an important factor.
There are current instances where higher speeds (greater than 20 knots) have been a major design requirement. An
optimum speed can be calculated using cruise costs (fuel, etc.) vs. "time" consumed. It comes, however, at an
additional "price". The design often results in a narrow beam, uncomfortable vessel not otherwise suited to work or
cruising in a seaway. In heavy seas such hulls cannot make the intended speed and the greater cost and engine size is
wasted. Furthermore, experience has shown that most research vessels carry greater loads with deeper drafts than the
naval architect designed for with the result that the design speed cannot be achieved
Careful attention should be given to all factors when a high cruising speed is considered.

Seakeeping -There is almost full agreement by seagoing scientists that seakeeping, both underway and on-station is
one of the most important of requirements. Seakeeping is often misnamed "stability". The latter is a safety tenn and not
necessarily a measure of a stable environment for which seakeeping is a preferred term. A stiff vessel, i.e. one which
rolls rapidly with high accelerations, can have high stability but afford poor seakeeping.

Seakeeping is important to ensure that work can be carried out safely, effectively, and continuously, both on deck and
in the lab. This is especially true in smaller vessels on short cruises where excessive motion can render the entire cruise
unproductive.

A reasonable seakeeping goal for a research vessel of 80-100 ft. is to maintain headway and/or science operations in
sea state 4 (4-8 ft. seas) and limited work in higher sea states. (See Appendix B) In new construction, seakeeping
should be a principal consideration of the naval architect. Improvements in conversions can be achieved by ballasting,
larger rolling chocks (bilge keels) and other roll suppression systems such as anti-roll tanks, active fins, and paravanes
(flopper-stoppers).

Station-keeping -Although related to seakeeping, station-keeping includes the added element of ship control at the
best, or desired, heading on station or along a given track line. This is a function of the maneuverability of the vessel
including propulsors and control systems. On smaller vessels this traditionally has been accomplished manually using
the screws and bow thruster (if available) by the mate on watch. Success usually depends upon the skill of the operator,
twin screws, and the effectiveness of the bow thruster.

A typical station keeping requirement is to maintain station at best heading in 25 knot wind, sea state 4, and one-knot
current.

A bow-thruster is desirable but not without controversy. The two chief uses, mooring and station keeping can dictate
different installations and power. For the former, a simple tunnel thruster with 50-100 hp itinerant operations usually
is adequate. For station keeping, twice the power with continuous operation and an azimuthing thruster may be needed.
Experience has shown that on a small vessel a bow thruster is noisy, is located close to the sleeping quarters, and
generally is not used. In order to be effective, a bow thruster should be readily available. When better station heading is
needed (e.g. bow thruster), starting it from the conn should be available so it is not neccessary to wake up the engineer
to start another generator to place the bow thruster on line.

Dynamic positioning, becoming more common on larger vessels, is now getting attention by small vessel operators.
Here the added requirement for excursions no greater than 50 meters and plus/minus 5 degree heading, requires
automatic propulsion control systems with input from GPS or acoustical beacons. Experience has shown that dynamic
positioning without a stern thruster or azmuthing propellers is unsuccessful, and that the quick response of smaller
hulls is difficult to control. Until more experience is gained using dynamic positioning on smaller vessels, a
requirement for its use should be viewed with caution. A stem thruster, however, might be well considered even to the
exclusion of a bow thruster. Norwegian vessels frequently have stern-thrusters only and report good results especially
in acoustics where a bow thruster may be a chronic problem for echo sounding.

Ice Strengthening -This is a matter of regional consideration and inclusion as a requirement should stem from the
mission definition. If ice strengthening is considered necessary, the various ice classes defined by the American
Bureau of Shipping should be consulted. If work in ice (and cold weather) is a requirement, then additional
requirements for protecting personnel and work on deck should be considered.

Deck Working Area -The layout of the science work deck is extremely important in the design of any research vessel.
In a small vessel, the tradeoffs between deckhouse and open deck area must be carefully considered. As a general rule,
one-third of the main deck area should be given over to science work. This usually is the stern area although several
successful R/V's have had the work area in the waist or forward area. However, in view of lesser vertical accelerations
in the after area, and towing requirements, a stern work deck is preferable. Important requirements for the work deck
include"
• .It should be as uncluttered as possible; hatches should be flush; equipment such as capstans, bitts, cranes,
frames, winches, etc should be portable.
• .Deck should be flat or have minimum camber.
• There should be bulwarks with cleats and tiedowns at frequent intervals. Pipe railings should be avoided.
Several (if not all) bulwark sections should be removable.
• .One inch threaded boltdown sockets should be installed on a 2-ft. grid pattern for the installation of portable
equipment.
• The stern quarters should be as square as possible in order to provide maximum railing and workspace.
• All workdeck(s) should have multiple access for power, fresh & sea water, air, and hydraulics, and cableways
for data & communication lines.

Cranes -A crane (or cranes) is an essential item of R/V shipboard outfit. It should be specified to match the vessel size
and anticipated uses. A typical installation is a main crane located at the forward end of the work deck or on the 01
deck overlooking the work deck and able to reach most of the work deck. It should be able to handle weights up to,
say, 5,000 lbs over the side and 1,000 lbs. fully extended over the stem.
Cranes can be either telescoping or articulated with the choice usually at the operator's preference. A telescoping crane
usually has a greater capacity and reach for its weight, but an r ~ articulated crane is more versatile and eliminates the
danger of pendulous weights when working at sea. A telescoping crane when properly braced can be used for
fairleading overside wires and towing equipment. Such work will shorten the life of an articulated crane and/or damage
it.

In addition to the main crane, a smaller auxiliary crane is useful -usually as a portable articulated type able to be placed
at several locations on the work deck or even forward.

Winches -Oceanographic winches are the primary tools of a research vessel. The kind and sizes of winches along with
the installed wires and cables determine the ships basic capability for work at sea. Science requirements should state
the type, number, and size of winches to be installed. Common terminology used in describing oceanographic winches
and wire includes:
• Hydrographic Winch -A winch carrying mechanical wire, usually 3/16" or 1/4", used chiefly for sampling in
the vertical water column with Nansen or Nisken bottles. Also for small net tows or bottom sampling grabs-
• CTD Winch -A winch usually similar or identical to the Hydro Winch but equipped with conducting cable
usually 1/4" or 5/16" (0.322) used for electrical or electronic instruments connected to deck units via the
conducting cable and slip rings. These include crus, rosettes, small sampling nets, thermal probes, etc. CTD
winches and Hydro winches often are interchangeable.
• Trawl Winch -A heavier winch used for trawling, dredging, or coring and equipped with mechanical wire
usually 3/8" to 1/2 (or 9/16" on larger vessels). As the use of electronic instrumentation becomes more
prevalent, many operators elect to carry conducting cable on the Trawl winch for use with large controllable
 nets (MOCNESS) and towed vehicles. Larger vessels are now outfitted with dual storage drums so that either
wire can be used on the same winch. On some vessels the heavier winch by tradition is termed Coring Winch.

The foregoing comprises the basic suite of winches common to most research vessels. This, of course, can be varied
widely according to the mission profile and special needs of the users. A key element in any small research vessel is
flexibility where portable winches can be brought on and off depending on cruise needs. Important here are the deck
boltdowns and power sources.

Two common types of winches are Traction Winches and Drum Winches. The former have tandem driving wheels and
the wire or cable is led to separate storage drums. A drum winch both pulls and stores the wire on the same drum.
Traction winches usually have better control and the cable is not stored under heavy tension. They are, however larger
and more expensive than drum winches and are seldom applied to small vessels. Drum winches are more common on
small R/V's. When selecting the appropriate winch for a small R/V .The following factors should be considered:
• Winch Size -The common hydro/CTD winch found on large R/V's usually has a capacity for 10,000 meters of
5/16" cable and 75 to 100 hp. The trawl winch is rated for 10,000 meters of 9/16 wire rope or 8,000 meters of
0.68" electromechanical cable. These sizes usually are excessive for a small R/V unless there is a compelling
requirement for deep sea capability .A more typical winch arrangement for a coastal research vessel of 75-90 ft.
might be two similar hydro/CTD winches carrying 2,000 meters of 3/16- 1/4" wire rope on one winch and
2,000 meters of l/4-5/16" conducting cable on the other; and a trawl winch with 1,500 meters of 3/8-1/2" wire
rope or conducting cable. Flexibility can be achieved by having interchangeable drums.
• Electric V5. hydraulic power -Either can be suitable depending on the vessel's power system. Hydraulic
power is the more common in smaller vessels. The power source can be an electro-hydraulic power unit or
power takeoffs (PTO) from an engine, or both.
• Level Winding -For winches spooling more than 500 meters of wire, a level winding device is essential. The
most common is a diamond thread; others are available-
• Wire Monitoring -This includes metering devices to measure and display the wire out, line speed, and tension.
Wire out metering is mandatory in all winches. Others are desirable but not essential on a small R/V .
• Winch Controls -On small vessels, the winches usually are controlled from deck stations at or near the winch.
There is an increasing requirement that the winch also be controlled from the lab. This capability should be
included in all new vessels.

Additional, and important information is contained in the publication Handbook of Oceanographic Winch, Wire and
Cable Technology, 2nd Edition, NSF/ONR, 1989.

Overside Handling -Various frames, davits and other handling gear are required to launch and retrieve overside
instrumentation, and are an essential adjunct to the winch arrangement. The most common installations are the
overstern A-frame and A- or J-frames for side lowerings. The size and capacity of the frames should match the wires
and cables in use. The frames should be ram operated and special attention should be given to adequate inboard and
outboard reaches, and to the horizontal and vertical clearances.
It is important that the ultimate strength of overside handling equipment be greater that the breaking strength of the
wires or cables in use.

Towing -Net tows and dredging are traditional requirements for a small coastal R/V. More recent requirements that
should be planned for include Multiple Opening and Closing nets (MOCNESS), side scan acoustic imagers, and towed
vehicles. These and other new equipment require special handling arrangements, deck space, and fine winch speed and
ship speed controls.

Laboratories -Along with the work deck and winches, shipboard scientific laboratories are the objects that set
research vessels apart from others. Planning for a lab should include the following elements:
• Good Location with suitable access to the work deck and other labs. The Main Lab preferably should be on the
Main Deck with direct access to the work deck and to the Wet Lab.
• Size should be determined by the mission profile taking into consideration the number of scientific personnel,
anticipated cruise duration, and work use. A typical 90-ft general purpose R/V would have a 400 sq.ft. main lab
and a 150 sq. ft. wet lab. Use of the lab as a fore & aft passageway should be avoided; experience has shown
that when a lab is used as a passageway, 25% of the available space may be lost.
 • Environment including Air Conditioning, Ventilation, lighting, noise levels, and vibration suppression should
be carefully planned.
• Flexibility should be planned for including moving benches, cabinetry , sinks and instrumentation on and off
from cruise to cruise-
• Cabinetry should be of the highest quality .Experience shows that cheap metal cabinetry deteriorates quickly.
• Electrical Outlets both ships service and clean power should be abundantly located.
• Sink Drains should not go to the ship's sanitary system but should go to a separate neutralizing tank and/or
directly overboard.
• Cleanliness should be ensured through the use of suitable materials.

Special Science Facilities -Equipment or installations to support specialized projects as recommended by and agreed
upon prospective users should be made part of the Mission Requirements Phase. Examples of these are:
• Science workshop.
• Centerwell .
• Scuba support facility .
• Aquaria
• ROV and AUV support
• Incubators
• Photo Lab.
• Meteorological tower .
• Stern Ramp.
• Coring facility

Vans -Vans can be viewed as a specialized science facility (i.e. "clean lab", scuba support, etc) or can be treated as
regular shipboard outfit used as a lab annex, storage, or extra science berthing. They are widely used on larger R/V's
and have limited adaptability to smaller vessels, if weight and space are available. If vans are intended for use, they
should be explicitly stated as a mission requirement and not become an afterthought. The traditional van is an 8x20 ft.
container van converted for shipboard use: insulation, interior sheathing, power outlets, HVAC, cabinetry, etc. They
must have at least two exits and must meet other safety standards.

Berthing vans are now required to be approved by Coast Guard. As a general rule, berthing vans should not be carried
on the Main Deck.

Workboats -In most cases, a science workboat will be required, if not as part of the permanent outfit, then as
requirement for selected cruises (SCUBA support, beach landings) and therefore should be considered in the mission
requirements. Stowage location and launching & recovery are the major elements although motor & gas stowage and
communications should be included. The rigid hull inflatable (RIB) is the most popular boat in use today although the
straight inflatable often may be more appropriate for smaller vessels.

Science Storage -Adequate stowage of scientific equipment and samples is one of the greatest deficiencies in small
R/V designs. Storage space in small vessels takes away from other much needed space and usually receives a low
priority. It should, however, be included as a mission requirement. The amount of storage space depends on the size of
the vessel and average cruise duration. As a general rule the need can be equated to 10% of the laboratory space. A
requirement by users for refrigerated storage can be expected.

Acoustical Systems -The provision for science echo sounding and any other acoustical systems should be included in
the Mission Requirements. All small R/V's should carry a survey grade echo sounder. A dual channel 12/50 kHz
instrument with a paper recorder is frequently used. To this can be added additional systems recommended by
prospective users. These include:
• Precision Depth Recorders which may require additional transducer(s) and lab space. Ordinarily on small
vessels these should be carried only as part of a cruise project.
• Sub-Bottom Profller usually a 3.5 kHz system. Experience has shown that such 0! Q systems are not very
successful on smaller vessels. If required, a towed transducer is recommended.
 • Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) again has not proven successful when installed in shallow draft,
light displacement vessels. Some small vessels have used a portable ADCP extended downward over the side
while stopped or towed slowly.
• Shallow Water Multi-Beam System is a current requirement for small survey vessels. It is, however,
expensive and requires elaborate transducer mounts and specially trained operators and data processors.
• Side Scan Sonar has proven highly successful as a towed system on small vessels.

• Color Fish Finders are popular in the pilot house and are finding increasing use during science work.

Acoustical systems are greatly affected by ship generated noise and bubble sweepdown along the hull. As such,
machinery types and mounts, the placement of transducers, and bow shape can be an important factor, and the naval
architect should be accordingly cautioned.

Planning should include one or more spare transducer openings in the hull to accommodate new and special project
instrumentation.

Navigation/ Positioning -The primary requirement here is for accurate navigation data as an input to the various data
systems and to ship control processors. To do this a dedicated GPS is required to be integral with the science
navigation system. The advent of the three dimension GPS attitude ("e.g. Ashtech") system can provide stabilized
platform reference for multi-beam and ADCP systems. Other advances in electronic navigation may pose
requirements in this area. Also, acoustic navigation systems for precise positioning and AUV/ROV tracking may be
recommended.

Internal Communications An adequate internal communication system should be provided for commensurate with
the size of the vessel. This includes:
• High quality voice communication s throughout all science spaces and working areas.
• Data transmission, monitoring, and recording system available throughout science spaces.
• Closed circuit television monitoring of outside working areas including subsurface performance of equipment.
• Monitoring of all ship control, navigation, environmental parameters, science and equipment performance.

Exterior Communications -A suitable communication system is required for communications with shore stations
(including home lab) and other vessels. Depending on the size of vessel and operating areas, this can be accomplished
by UHF, VHF, and satellite communications as well as cellular phones. Provision also should be available for
facsimile communications and hard copy text. The need for high-speed communication links to shore stations and
other vessels should be examined.

Ship Control -A chief requirement is maximum visibility of deck work areas and adjacent sea surface during science
operations both from the pilot house and from science control stations (winches, cranes, ROV's, etc).

The functions, communications, and layout of the ship control station(s) should be designed to enhance the interaction
of ship and science operations. For example, course, speed, and positioning will often be integrated with scientific
operations which require control to be exercised from a laboratory or deck station.

Instrumentation -The science outfit which a small R/V should te prepared to carry and handle should be examined to
ensure that there are provisions to install, operate, maintain, and stow the equipment. This applies both to
instrumentation carried on board permanently or portable instruments used as needed for a cruise. These include, but
are not limited to, the following:
Permanently Installed
• Echo sounders
• CTD System
• Water sampling bottles
• Rosette system
• Expendable bathythermograph
• Surface thermosalinograph
• Fume hood(s)
• Salinometer
• R/O distilled water maker Autoclave
• Water deionizer
• Meteorological system

Portable
• XBT probes
• Gravity corers
• Piston corers
• Bottom dredges
• Sampling nets
• Pingers

A description of equipment to be carried on a research vessel is important in arriving at a suitable design. There is a
long history of naval architects not being aware of the full extent of equipment ultimately brought on board, with the
result that the vessel is more heavy, deeper, slower, and more cluttered than planned for.
Sample Requirements

The UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee has compiled a set of scienctific mission requirements for various types
and sizes of research vessels. In Appendix A, following, the requirements for a small general purpose research ship are
reproduced.

Priorities

In any statement of requirements an ordering of priorities is important for the guidance of follow on activities leading
to the design phases. In the case of research vessels, the UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee made a
comprehensive survey of the relative importance of mission requirements. The views of many practicing investigators
from all disciplines were solicited. The following is the majority viewpoint.
 Priorities for Research Vessel Requirements

• Seakeeping
Stationkeeping
• Work Environment
Lab Spaces and Arrangements
Deck Working Area: overside handling, winches & wire
Flexibility
• Endurance
Cruising Range
Days at Sea
• Science Complement
• Operating Economy
• Acoustical Characteristics
• Speed
Ship Control
• Payload
Science Storage
Weight Handling

Most respondents agreed that seakeeping, particularly on station, and work environment were the two top priorities.
But the remaining requirements were ranked so closely together that they become of equal importance. The stated
requirements then become threshold levels, and any characteristic that falls below the threshold becomes a high
priority. For example, speed which is ranked relatively low, above, would become a high priority if a proposed vessel
showed a design speed below the required, or threshold, level.

This emphasizes the importance of assigning genuine, realistic requirements. The acceptance of a design characteristic
less than the original requirement signifies either that the original requirement was flawed, or that the vessel will not
measure up to its intended service.

Concept Design

The concept design stage is the first step in translating the stated requirements into the actual design process. It is a
technical and engineering effort done by a qualified naval architect to develop the hull form, machinery, and general
arrangements that integrate the various scientific requirements, combining laboratory arrangements, deck handling,
outfit, storage and ship control into a single shipboard system. Here the requirements of the regulatory agencies
(USCG & ABS) are defined. From the concept design, the prospective operator and users can evaluate whether the
vessel thus described is what was really intended.

The scope of a concept design includes:

• Technical description of the design.

• Discussion of the vessel design and its responsiveness to the requirements.
• Summary of vessel specifications
• General arrangement plans.
• Inboard and outboard profile plans.
• Scientific arrangement.
• Machinery arrangement.
• Operating characteristics, including costs.
• Estimated construction cost.
• Artists concept drawing.
The concept design provides the opportunity for feedback into the requirements and the testing of the comments and
suggestions that ought to be forthcoming at, this stage of the design. It is doubtful whether the next stage of the design
process, the preliminary design, will closely resemble the concept design, but the concept design will have served its
purpose if it has tested the requirements and permits the next stage to start with any reasonable degree of confidence.

Summary

The foregoing descriptions of the Mission Definition, Science Mission Requirements, and Concept Design are the key
elements in the initial planning phases of a research vessel design for new construction or conversion. Because of the
greater diversity of missions and sizes of small coastal research vessels, much of this information may not be applicable
or may require modification, and additional material may need to be inserted. The main thrust of what is presented,
however, has been developed by numerous experienced seagoing investigators and has produced many successful
designs.

Attachments
Appendix A
Scientific Mission Requirements for Small General-Purpose Oceanographic Research Ship", UNOLS
1988
Appendix B
Sea State Table
 Appendix A

July 1988

Research Scientific Mission Requirements

for
Small General-Purpose Oceanographic Ship

General: This monohull ship will serve as a general-purpose research vessel with limited endurance and maximum
flexibility of operations. It is fully capable of continuous 24-hour operations. The primary design requirement is to
combine multi-disciplinary capability with small size and cost effectiveness. Vessels of this size often serve educational
programs in addition to their research work. For this vessel, endurance and cruising speed are secondary to broad
operational capabilities and seakeeping qualities.

Size: LOA = less than 150 ft.; BEAM = not less than 30 ft.; DISPLACEMENT = 500 to 650 tons; GROSS TONNAGE
= <300 tons; DRAFI' = 7 to lOft.

Endurance: 21 days. Endurance formula should include 50% cruising and 50% on-station. RANGE = 5,000 nautical
miles.

Accommodations: 12 to 16 scientific personnel in two-person cabins, under research cruise I conditions. Expandable
to 24 with a van. Up to 40 personnel on day trip basis. Crew size < 10.

Speed: 12-13 knots cruising~ sustain 10 knots through sea state 4. Maximum speed = 14 knots. Speed control
plus/minus .1 knot in speed range from i 0 to 6 knots. Design trade-offs should favor seakeeping over speed.

Seakeeping: Maintain science operations at these speeds and sea states:

9 knots in sea state 4
7 knots in sea state 5
4 knots in sea state 6

Station-keeping: Maintain station and over-the-side vertical operdtions in sea state 4, without dynamic positioning.
Bow thruster.

Ice Strengthening: ABS Class C (ability to transit loose pack ice) may be desirable for one or more vessels of this
class, but distinct from a dedicated, ice-strengthened, high-latitude research vessel.

Deck Working Area: Approximately 1500 sq. ft. with contiguous work area along starboard waist = 8 ft. x 20 ft.
minimum for CTD and rosette sampler handling. Deck loading at 15001bs./sq.ft."

Heavy duty hold-downs on 2-ft. cente~. Able to accommodate at least one (preferably two) 8 ft. by 20 ft. van yet
retaining clear access to stem and waist work areas. Removable bulwarks with hinged freeing ports to provide dry deck
conditions in beam or quartering seas.

All working decks with multiple access for power, fresh and salt water, air and cableways for data and voice
communications lines. Low freeboard at fantail (3to 5 ft.). No stem ramp.

Cranes: -One articulated crane to handle large and heavy (up to 8,000 lbs.) gear over both sides, on station and
underway, with lateral motion damping, and an outboard reach of 14 ft. on one side. This crane also capable of
reaching all working deck arras for-loading and off-loading of equipment (including empty van). Man-rated for launch
and recovery of small submersibles. A second, smaller crane with re-location sites forward, midships and aft;
articulated for work at deck level and at the sea surface, with weights up to I4,000 Ibs., also usable as over-the-side,
cable fairlead for vertical work and light towing
Winches: Two modem winches with state-of-the-art controls providing fine control (0.5 m/min); constant tensioning or
with tension accumulator. Wire monitoring systems on both winches, with readouts on laboratory panels and shipboard
recording systems, as well as on the bridge. Local and remote control boards. Winches to be re-locatable (in port) to
allow reconfiguration of deck layout. Capable of transferring winch drums at sea.

Hydrowinch with interchangeable drums capable of handling up to 30,000 ft. of wire rope, synthetic line or
electromechanical cables having diameters from 1/4" to 3/8" or 11 mm standard ( e.g. Markey DESSS-5 or equivalent).
Slip rings with six conductors.

Trawling winch capable of handling 20,000 ft. of 1/2" trawling or coring wire or 20,000 ft. of 0.68" electromechanical
cable (up to 10 KV A power transmission) or fiber optics cable. Can be operated with interchangeable drums. Slip rings
with six conductors. A traction winch. is a possible alternative.

All weather winch control station(s) located for optimum operator visibility of work area and overside gear, with fail-
safe communications to deck level, laboratories, and bridge A-frame controls included.

Overside Handling: Various frames, davits and other handling gear to accommodate wire, cable and free-launched
arrays. Matched to work with winch and crane locations, and with moveable capstans, but able to be relocated as
necessary.

Stem A-frame to have 15-ft. throat (horizontal width at deck level and up to 15 ft. off deck) and 20-ft. vertical
clearance, 12-ft. inboard and outboard reaches. Man-rated for launch and recovery of small submersibles. Safe working
load of 20,000 lbs. Controls to be located at A-frame and at winch control station.

Towing: Capable of towing midwater and benthic gear at speeds up to 4 knots with line tensions of 20,000 lbs.

Laboratories : Minimum of 1,000 sq. ft. of laboratory space allocated: 75% main lab (including separate electronics
lab capability), and re configuration into smaller specialized labs. Wet lab to be located contiguous to sampling areas;
main lab with temperature and humidity precisely controlled.

Labs to be located so that none serve as general passageways. Access between labs to be convenient. Dry lab and
electronics lab areas with door sills to keep water out. Main lab access to be large enough to accommodate transfer of
large equipment items.

Labs to be fabricated using uncontaminated and "clean" materials and constructed so they can be easily maintained in
an uncontaminated condition.

Furnishings, HVAC, doors, hatches, cab1e runs, plumbing, and fittings to be planned for maximum lab cleanliness.

Fume hood to be installed permanently in wet lab. Main lab to have provision for temporary installation of fume hood.
Hood flues able to withstand acid fumes and situated so no fumes can be drawn back to occupied areas inside or on
deck.

Cabinetry shall be of high-grade laboratory quality including flexibility through the use of unistruts and deck boltdowns
on 1 ft. centers.

Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HV AC) capabilities as follows: labs shall maintain temperature of 70- 75° F
in all weather conditions; 25% relative humidity; and 9-11 air changes per hour. Each lab area to have a separate
electrical circuit on a clean bus with continuous delivery capability of at least 40-volt amperes per square foot of lab
deck area. Labs to be furnished with 110 v and 220 v AC. Maximum estimated laboratory power demand is 50 KV A.
Uncontaminated sea water supply to wet and dry labs, and deck areas (including anywhere on the fantail). Compressed
air supply to all labs and deck area; supply to be clean and oil free, with lOO Ibs. Service pressure at outlets.

Special Science Facilities: Science shop with workbench, vise, and basic hand and power tools.
Scientific freezer space = 36 cubic ft. @ -20° C, and 50 cubic ft. @ -5° C.

SCUBA support facilities- compressor, water entry platform and ladder, tank storage racks.

Space and capability for setting up an operating station for a small ROY; with deck space for cable payout and coiling,
launch and recovery .ROY control center with video monitor, recording gear and communications in the main al b or on
the bridge.

Undisturbed air-flow at bow for air-sea interaction studies

Van: Capable of handling and carrying at least one standard 8 ft. by 20 ft. portable deck van, which may be laboratory ,
berthing, storage or other specialized use. Hookup provision for power, HV AC, fresh water, uncontaminated sea water,
compressed air, drains, communications, data and shipboard monitoring systems. Van should have close, if not direct
access to ship's interior. Ship should be capable of loading and offloading empty van using its own crane at dockside.

Workboats: One 16 ft. rigid hull boat with inboard or outboard power, and at least one 12 !0 16 ft. inflatable boat with
outboard power .

Science Storage: Readily accessible 1250 cubic ft. minimum for operator's science support gear and resident
technician's stores. Accessible safe storage for chemical reagents and hazardous (non-radioactive) materials.

Acoustical Systems: Ship to be as acoustically quiet as possible in the choice of all shipboard systems and their
location and installation. Ship to have conventional 12 kHz, and 3.5 kHz echo sounding systems and provision for
additional systems as needed. Transducers to be mounted so as to provide clean transmission and reception from both
lateral (tracking) and vertical signals. Three transducer wells with at sea access for servicing and installation.

Navigation/ Positioning: Differential Global Positional System (DGPS) and Loran C with appropriate interfaces to
data systems in lab and ship control processors.

Short baseline acoustic navigation system,

Internal Communications : Internal communication system providing high quality voice communications throughout
all science spaces and working areas.

Data transmission, monitoring, and recording system available throughout science space including van and key
working areas.

Closed circuit television monitoring of all outside working areas including subsurface performance of equipment and
its handling.

Monitors for all ship control, environmental parameters, science and overside equipment performance to be available in
all, or most, science spaces.

Exterior Communications: Reliable voice channels for continuous communications to shore stations (including home
laboratories), other ships, boats and aircraft. This includes satellite, VHF and UHF .

Facsimile communications to transmit high-speed graphics and hard-copy text on regular schedules.

High speed data communications links to shore labs and other ships on a continuous basis.

Capability to receive real-time satellite imagery.

Ship Control: Chief requirement is maximum visibility of deck work areas and adjacent sea surface, during science
operations and especially during deployment and retrieval of equipment.

The functions, communications, and layout of the ship control station should be carefully designed to enhance the
interaction of ship and science operations. For example, ship course, speed, attitude, and positioning will often be
integrated with scientific operations requiring control to be exercised
from a laboratory or deck working area.

Appendix B
 SECTION 2
George Ireland
Regulatory Scheme

30 March 1998

Introduction

The purpose of these notes is to describe the regulatory scheme administered by the
Coast Guard that applies to small Oceanographic Research Vessels (ORVs). In general, these
regulatory standards address safety, pollution prevention and pollution response. The safety
blanket covers safety of persons as well as seaworthiness of vessels.

Background

Regulatory standards are contained in U.S. law (US Code) and regulation (Code of
Federal Regulations) and are found in Titles 33 (Navigation) and 46 (Shipping). In general,
congress provides enabling legislation for executive branch agencies to implement specific
regulations. Therefore, nearly all regulatory standards of concern to a marine manager can be
found in the Code of Federal Regulations. While the Coast Guard is the primary agency that
deals with Navigation and Shipping, there are about 15 other agencies that enter this arena from
time to time. Examples are FCC for communications, HHS for drug testing, EPA for spill
response, and NOAA for marine sanctuaries.

The Safety System

Safety standards apply to vessels, crew and marine environment and in this regard can be
viewed as a system. Each element is important; failure of any one element can result in failure of
the system. For this reason the regulatory scheme addresses each of these three elements.
Historically, the Coast Guard has concentrated on design and equipment of vessels and paid less
attention to crews. More recently however that emphasis has changed course and competency of
crews is receiving much more regulatory attention than before.

Where Do Standards Come From ?

Regulatory standards of concern to marine managers (other than standards for

recreational vessels) flow from three sources; international conventions (treaties), lessons learned
from casualties, and advances in technology. In every case the regulatory agency must have
authority to implement new regulations.
 International agreements

There are several international agreements that impact U.S. regulation. A short list
(names are abbreviated) of relevant international agreements includes the following:

SOLAS 74 (includes the ISM Code)

MARPOL 73/78
LOAD LINE, 1966
STCW 95
TONNAGE MEASUREMENT OF SHIPS, 1969

The International Maritime Organization, a specialized agency of the United Nations, is the
international agency that deals with marine matters. The international agreements listed above
were brought about by diplomatic conventions that were ratified by a sufficient number of
countries representing enough of the world’s tonnage to bring those standards into force.
Technical work is constantly done under the auspices of IMO to enhance implementation and
upgrade conventions. The Coast Guard, together with representatives from industry and other
government agencies, provides technical representation for the US on several delegations to IMO
committee meetings.

Lessons learned from casualties

There is always an urge to react and prevent reoccurrence of a serious marine casualty.
That is why investigations are conducted. Perhaps the best example of reaction to a marine
casualty is the regulatory impact resulting from the oil spill from EXXON VALDEZ. That
casualty resulted in over 40 regulatory projects initiated by the Coast Guard. Other agencies had
their fair share. Loss of several commercial fishing vessels in the 80’s, and a number of more
recent casualties involving the towing industry have caused the Coast Guard to address those
sectors of our industry through the regulatory process.

Advances in technology

Perhaps the greatest change due to technological advances is in the area of satellite
communications. The Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS), agreed upon
internationally, is structured around world-wide satellite communications, has replaced use of
Morse code on 500 KC and is nearing full implementation. Immersion suits, inflatable life rafts,
fire detection devices, and non-combustible materials are other examples of technology that have
enhanced regulatory standards.

How are standards administered?

Implementation of new federal regulations must follow procedures set forth in the
Administrative Procedures Act. Elements of these procedures include:

2
 • Publishing Proposed Regulations in the Federal Register along with appropriate
economic and environmental impact statements.
• Solicitation of comments from the public as well as impacted industry.
• Consideration of comments by the agency.
• Publishing Final Rules in the Federal Register along with agency response to
comments and rationale for decision-making.

The Federal Register is published daily by the National Archives and Records Administration.
Final rules published in the Federal Register are incorporated into the texts of the Code of
Federal Regulations when those volumes are reprinted each year. For that reason, it is important
to keep the most recent issue on hand. Of historical note, agency explanations that accompany
printing of proposed and final rules in the Federal Register get left behind - only the regulatory text
is printed in the CFRs. The Federal Register can be accessed on line via
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Who is responsible for Enforcement?

Ship owners, operators, Masters and others are ultimately responsible for compliance
with regulatory standards. The Coast Guard is the primary agency in the United States charged
with regulatory enforcement of navigation and shipping regulations. Some states have recently
extended their marine law enforcement jurisdiction from recreational boating to commercial
vessels - these efforts are generally related to the transportation of oil.

The Coast Guard will routinely board ‘inspected’ vessels during drydockings and when a
Certificate of Inspection is due for renewal. Coast Guard personnel will also board commercial
vessels to examine compliance with oil transfer regulations, various pollution standards, and
navigation safety regulations. Because the regulatory scheme applies to inspected and
uninspected vessels, the Coast Guard boards vessels from all sectors of the industry, including
foreign flag vessels where there is jurisdiction.

Non-compliance is addressed by the Coast Guard in at least three ways: action against the license
or Merchant Mariner’s Document (MMD) held by a person alleged to be at fault, a civil penalty
against the company/operator of the vessel, or criminal charges. When action against a person’s
license of MMD is deemed appropriate, the Coast Guard presents the case before an
Administrative Law Judge who hears evidence, the mariner’s response, and then renders a
decision and order.

Traditionally, non-compliance involving safety equipment aboard an inspected vessel results in

issuance of a Coast Guard form CG-835 that sets forth the deficiency and provides a date when
compliance must be achieved.

3
Much of the Coast Guard’s inspection efforts for inspected vessels, particularly in technical areas,
is now done by the American Bureau of Shipping per a Memorandum of Understanding between
the two entities.

What is an inspected vessel?

Certain vessels are required by law and regulation to be ‘inspected’ and thus must
conform to exact standards regarding vessel construction, stability, safety equipment, manning,
and operation. Such vessels are issued a Certificate of Inspection that is usually valid for two
years. Factors that determine whether a vessel is subject to inspection are size (measured in gross
tons), route (inland or oceans for example), cargo (all oil tankers are inspected), and risk to
personnel (vessels that carry more than 6 passengers are inspected).

There is now less distinction between inspected and uninspected vessels than just 10 years ago.
Some vessel types have sections of the CFR dedicated to them yet they remain ‘uninspected’.
Commercial fishing vessels and towing vessels are in this category. Subchapter C of the CFR
which addressees uninspected vessels, has 46 pages dedicated to commercial fishing vessels.
Uninspected towing vessels are in the process of receiving similar attention.

Where do SMALL Oceanographic Research Vessels (ORVs) fit in this regulatory

scheme?

An ORV, unlike any other vessel, must be designated as an ORV by the Coast Guard.
Criteria and procedures are set forth in 46 CFR 3.05-3 and 3.10-1 which state among other
things that the vessel must be employed ‘exclusively in oceanographic instruction, limnologic
instruction, oceanographic research, or limnologic research. Once satisfied the vessel is used for
that purpose, the Coast Guard (Marine Safety Office) issues a Letter of Designation to an
uninspected ORV that is valid for 2 years.

Seagoing Oceanographic Research Vessels over 300 gross tons are subject to inspection by the
Coast Guard in accordance with Subchapter U (46 CFR 188-196). This assumes the vessel is
propelled by motor (not steam). Seagoing means the vessel would navigate on the high seas i.e.
beyond the Boundary Line.

ORVs of less than 300 gross tons are not subject to inspection but like other uninspected vessels
must conform to several other regulatory standards such as load lines, admeasurement, and
qualifications for certain members of the crew.

ORVs are unique in that they take scientists to sea. Scientists are neither crew nor passengers
and therefore ORVs are treated separately by the regulatory scheme. Where this treatment is
most apparent is with regard to fire protection. The fire protection standards for ORVs is a blend
of technical standards for passenger vessels and cargo vessels. Obviously, those who constructed

4
these standards took account that scientists are active persons with some knowledge and
experience regarding ships, more than passengers, and perhaps less than some professional
merchant mariners. The Letter of Designation is evidence the Coast Guard acknowledges the
vessel carries scientists and not passengers.

Some significant ‘breakpoints’ for application of regulatory standards include:

• SOLAS 74 applies to vessels of 500 gross tons and more.

• MARPOL 73/78 has several tonnage threshold values, the lowest being 400 gross
tons.

• Breakpoints, or thresholds, occur at 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 and 1600 gross tons.,
Conformance is required with whatever standard is required for vessels of that
greater size. Tonnage values for ships are often 99, 198, etc for this reason.

• Load Line regulations are applicable to vessels over 79’ in length. This is one of the
few standards where length of a vessel is an important determinant.

• Manning. The subject of manning is complicated and application of manning statutes

are difficult to interpret. A decision by the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit in 1981
decided that “..for purposes of manning statutes, definition of merchant vessels
encompasses oceanographic research vessels. The court took account of the fact
that the vessels involved were not carrying freight or passengers for hire (my words).
Decided were that 65% of the deck crew must be qualified as AB, a 3 watch system
was required, and persons were subject to certain qualification standards. Simply
put, this court in 1981 decided that manning standards for merchant vessels apply to
oceanographic research vessels. The question that I believe remains today is whether
that decision should be interpreted broadly or narrowly.

• Documentation. 46 CFR 188.05-10 contains a provision stating that in effect says

regulations within Subchapter U that apply to vessels on an international voyage do
not apply to a vessel that is numbered in accordance with the Federal Boat Safety
Act.. As a consequence many oceanographic research vessels are numbered by
states rather than being documented under the federal system. I’m uncertain what
benefits accrue from this exemption today.

• In my opinion, the greatest challenge facing operators of smaller oceanographic

vessels today is compliance with STCW. STCW applies to any seagoing vessel (that
goes seaward of the Boundary Line) regardless of size. The Coast Guard has
administratively exempted certain US vessels of less than 200 gross tons from STCW
because of their domestic routes and participation in equivalent programs such as
AWO’s Responsible Carrier Program. I don’t know any reason why an ORV of

5
 less than 200 gross tons that makes an international voyage would be exempt from
the provisions of STCW.

Summary

Oceanographic research vessels are unique vessels in many ways, including their fit in the
regulatory scheme. The role of scientists is particularly unique in this industry.

Manning standards are complicated. Perhaps they shouldn’t be, but they are. If you are
uncertain about compliance, take time to insure your vessel is properly manned. Routes, gross
tonnage, and length of voyage can influence manning requirements. .

Finally, implementation of STCW applies to many oceanographic research vessels. While

implying more work, improving the qualifications of seafarers usually makes sense.

6
 SECTION 3
Tom Smith
Small Boat Safety

I. General

Small boat safety covers a wide variety of boats. A small boat can range in size from a vessel of just less
than 100 gross tons to a small open boat propelled by an outboard engine. Because of this variance, the
safety regulations that apply to small boats also widely differ. To accurately determine what safety
regulations apply to a specific boat, the vessel's size and/or its employment needs to be established. If
the vessel is documented, its documentation papers will cite the employment
(fishing, small passenger vessel, tanker, etc.) in which it is authorized to work. If it is not documented,
then the regulations governing uninspected vessels will most likely apply.

II. Types of Small Boats

Motor Vessel. A vessel more than 65 feet in length that is equipped with propulsion machinery .

Motorboat. Motorboats are classified as: Class A -less than 16 ft.; Class 1 -16 to 26 ft.; Class 2 -26 to 40
ft.; and Class 3 -40 to 65 ft. Most undocumented boats, defined as small boats by this manual, will be
this type of vessel.

Documented Vessel. A vessel greater than 5 net tons which is registered, enrolled or licensed as a vessel
of the United States. This is a requirement for a vessel that will engage in trade or commerce. UNOLS
research vessels are not engaged in trade or commerce but commercial vessels ordinarily are. Charter
vessels, other than motor boats, would normally be a documented vessel.

Undocumented Vessel. Any vessel which is not required to, and does not have a marine document
issued by the USCG.

Inspected Vessels. One inspected and certificated by the USCG. Motor vessels, tank vessels, passenger
vessels and most vessels over 300 gross tons are required to be inspected.

Uninspected Vessel. A vessel not certified under the inspection laws or subjected to regular inspections
by the USCG. Most motor boats, fishing boats and oceanographic research vessels under 300 gross tons
will be this type vessel. Uninspected vessels, however, are still subject to the rules for safety cited in
section III below that apply and, in some cases, the rules for licensed personnel.

Oceanographic Research Vessel. A vessel which the USCG determines is exclusively employed in
instruction in oceanography or in oceanographic research.

1
Numbered Vessel. A vessel is numbered under the provisions of the Federal Boat Safety Act of
1971. Oceanographic research vessels not engaged in commerce are not required to be
documented and may be a numbered vessel (except if owned by a State or the Federal
Government). All undocumented motorboats are numbered unless owned by the State or
Federal Government.

Public Vessel. A vessel which is owned, or chartered, and operated by the US Government and
not engaged in commerce. (e.g. USCG & NOAA vessels)

III. Applicable Regulations

Based on the type of boat, its size and/or its employment, some or all of the below federal
regulations will apply.

The Motor Boat Act of 1940. This law covers many aspects of safety for small crafts. This
would include powered rafts and inflatables, small skiffs and other uninspected vessels 65 feet
or less in length.

The Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971. This act sets forth certain safety and documentation
requirements for small crafts. The regulations to carry out the intent of this Act and the Motor
Boat Act, cited above, are found in 46CFR24 (Subchapter C -Uninspected Vessels). Most but
not all motor boats will be governed by the provisions of this chapter.

Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Act of 1988. This was enacted to stem the high accident and
loss of life experienced aboard fishing vessels, and fishing support vessels. A vessel
documented as a fishing vessel will be required to adhere to these regulations. The regulations
to carry out this act are found in 46CFR188.

Passenger Carrying Vessel. A vessel whose documentation cites its employment as a passenger
vessel will be required to adhere to the regulations contained in 46CFR175-187 (Subchapter T -
Small Passenger Vessels Under 100 gross tons).

Research Vessel. A vessel whose documentation cites its employment as a research vessel will
be required to adhere 46CFRl88-196 (Subchapter U -Oceanographic Research Vessels).

2
IV. Safety Requireme nts

All boats used for research by UNOLS institutions will comply with the US Coast Guard Regulations
that are applicable to the vessel's size and employment.

Small boats that will be used by UNOLS institutions will have either a current US Coast Guard safety
inspection or be inspected by the institute ' s marine staff to insure that the vessel does meet the
required safety regulations. A marine staff s inspection will not be accepted as a substitute for an
"inspected vessel's" mandated US Coast Guard inspection.

Small boats that are chartered by UNOLS institutions will also meet the requirements of section 17 of
the Research Vessel Safety Standards. Chartered boats will be either documented or numbered except
for a chartered vessel that is classed as a public vessel.

All personnel aboard open boats (boats with no cabins) or when working on deck with over the side
equipment will wear personnel flotation devices, work vests, exposure suits or float coats. The type of
flotation will be dictated by the work environment.

Personnel engaged in launching/retrieving over the side equipment or moving weights on deck by
cranes, booms, winches, davits, etc. will wear hard hats.

All science parties using a boat will prepare a float or cruise plan. This plan will be prepared by the
person in charge of the science party and disseminated prior to departure. The plan will consist of at
least the following;
1. Names of all personnel embarked on the vessel.
2. A brief statement of the work being performed.
3. The location of the research area and a brief description of the tracks the vessel intends to follow to
and from the research area.
4. The estimated time of the boat to;
• depart the dock enroute the research area,
• reach the research area,
• depart the research area enroute back to the dock, and return to the dock.
5. The type of communications devices aboard and the frequencies monitored or cell phone number.
6. The float plan will be disseminated to the Institute's marine staff and to a person ashore who will be
responsible for monitoring the cruise's progress and alerting the science parties home institution, the US
Coast Guard, harbor master or other marine safety organizations if the boat is more than 2 hours
overdue from its estimated return to the dock.

3
-

7. The person in charge of the science party will communicate to the above individual any major changes
(more than 1 hour) in its estimated return time, major breakdowns in propulsion equipment, emergencies,
or change to the planned research work area. They shall also notify this person when they return ashore.

Vessels operating north of 32 Degrees North or South latitude in the Atlantic or between 35 Degrees
North or South latitude in other waters will have an immersion suit aboard for each person embarked on
the vessel(33CFR192.41).

Unless required to carry immersion suits, all boats will carry a US Coast Guard approved personal
flotation device (PFD) for each person aboard. The specific type of PFD will be determined by the
regulations applicable to the vessel (See 46CFR28.l05 for specific requirements).

All PFDs, life rings, inflatable rafts, and life floats will be marked with the vessel' s name (46CFR28.135).

Life ring, personal flotation devices, life rafts, and life floats carried aboard a vessel will have retro-
reflective tape applied as specified in Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 1-87 (Published by US
Coast Guard).

A1l vessels operating beyond the coastal waters (3 miles offshore), will carry an EPIRB (46CFR28.150,
46CFR25.26).

All inboard gasoline engines will be equipped with a flame arrestor (46CFR25).

Engines fueled with gasoline require extra precaution. Prior to fueling gasoline-powered boats which have
built in fuel tanks, bilges should be first checked for the presence of gasoline fumes and then ventilation
blowers run. When fueling portable gasoline tanks, insure the fueling nozzle is in contact with the tank's
fill port prior to starting and during the pumping of fuel. This will prevent a static electricity charge from
being generated during fueling.

Vessel operators must be qualified as competent to operate the vessel. This is best met by requiring the
operator to hold a current US Coast Guard license for a deck officer and for such license to be of
sufficient tonnage to meet or exceed the gross tonnage of the vessel being operated. Institutions, however,
may certify an operator is qualified to operate a small boat if the institution is satisfied that the operator
has demonstrated sufficient experience to safely operate the boat.

The operator of a vessel will not operate a vessel for more than 12 hours in anyone day. To exceed this
limit, a second qualified operator is required to be aboard.

4
.

The manning of any vessel w]l be sufficient to insure safe, efficient operations for the size vessel being
operated and the type work being performed. The institution should make this determination prior to any
voyage. A US Coast Guard inspected vessel (inspected under Subchapter T) must comply with the
manning requirements listed on its Certificate of Inspection.

Personnel aboard a vessel should not exceed its passenger carrying capacity. .This can be difficult to
determine. Most motorboats will have a plate attached to the hull by the manufacturer that states the
maximum number of people that the vessel can safely carry .A passenger carrying vessel, that carries
more than six passengers for hire, will be inspected by the US Coast Guard and the number of
passengers it can carry will be listed on its Certificate of Inspection. Un-inspected vessels cannot legally
carry more than six passengers. Under 46CFR188.05-33 (Subchapter U), members of a science party are
considered as "persons" and not counted as crew or passengers. This ruling, however, applies only to a
vessel whose employment is as an oceanographic research vessel. If a vessel's documents do not list its
employment as an oceanographic vessel then the science party is viewed as passengers. This limits the
number of people aboard any uninspected, non- research vessels to six people or less. A problem exists
with a vessel that is uninspected, does not have a manufacture's plate that states the maximum number
of people it can carry, and its employment is shown as oceanographic vessel. Because the science party
is not considered as either crew or passengers, a definite limit for personnel aboard cannot be
established. Under such a situation, the limit must be logically established. The capacity of the vessel's
life rafts, the number of personal flotation devices, the number of built in berths, and the carrying
capacity of similar size vessels should all be considered to determine the vessel's carrying capacity .

All small boats are required to carry the below types of USCG approved distress signals (pyrotechnics).
The expiration date stamped on the pyrotechnics will not be exceeded during the voyage.
(46CFR28.145)
Area Q.f Operations Signals Required
More than 50 miles offshore Parachute Flares -3 ea.
Hand Flares -6 ea.
Smoke Signals -3 ea.

Between 3 and 50 miles offshore Parachute Flares -3 ea.

Hand Flares -3 ea.
Smoke Signals -3 ea.

Inside of 3 miles from shore Electric distress light or 3 flares

Distress Flag or 3 smoke signals

Vessels will carry at least the below fire extinguishing equipment (46CFR25.30);

5
Vessel Length No. of BI Tvpe Fire Extinguishers
Uninspected Vessel
Under 16 feet One
16 feet but less than 26 feet One
26 feet but less then 40 feet Two but only 1 if fixed system in engine room.
40 feet to 65 feet Three but only 2 if fixed system in engine room.
Over 65 feet See Subchapter T and 46CFR25.30.
Inspected Vessel Listed on Certificate of Inspection

All vessels 26 feet or more in length are required to post an oil pollution and garbage placard. A vessel
40 or more feet that is deployed on an ocean voyage (12 miles offshore) must have a written solid waste
disposal plan (33CFR151.155).

All installed marine toilet facilities must be a US Coast Guard approved Marine Sanitation Device
(MSD) (33CFR159).

If a vessel has Coast Guard licensed personnel aboard, the Master must notify the US Coast Guard if
any casualty listed in 46CFR4.05 occurs. This includes groundings which cause a hazard to navigation,
the environment or vessel safety, loss of maneuvering capability, injury rendering a person unfit for
duty, or an occurrence resulting in property damage in excess of $25,000. If a vessel is involved in a
serious marine incident, it must be reported to the US Coast Guard whether licensed personnel are
aboard or not. A serious marine incident consists of death, injury requiring professional medical
treatment, property damage in excess of $100,000, an oil discharge into the water of 10,000 gallons or
more, or the discharge of a
hazardous substance into the water. All personnel involved in a serious marine incident are subject to
drug testing.

The regulations that require a vessel to carry a survival raft (life raft or boat) varies widely with the area
of operation, type of employment, type of environment, and the number of people aboard. See
46CFR28.120 for the correct requirements.

At least one throwable flotation device is required aboard all vessels 16 feet and longer. See
46CFR28.115 for the correct requirements for a specific vessel.

Vessels operating outside the boundary line, as defined in 46CFR Part 7, that is to seaward of the
coastline or entrances to small bays, inlets or rivers, must meet the following additional requirements;
A documented fishing boat or one with 16 or more people aboard, that has ammonia refrigerant,
must carry a fireman's outfit and two self contained breathing apparatuses (46CFR28.200).

6
 All vessels will carry charts, a first aid kit, navigational publications and charts for their operating
area, an anchor, a radar reflector, a compass, a general alarm system, a high water alarm, and a
bilge pumping system (46CFR28.210-255).
Vessels over 79 feet or having their keel laid after September 15, 1991 or undergoing major
structural changes since September 15, 1991, should possess either a load line certificate or a
current US Coast Guard Stability letter.

All boats will be equipped with a communications device that is of sufficient power to permit it to
communicate ashore from the maximum distance offshore where the boat will operate. This can be
satisfied by cell phone, portable VHF, SSB radio, etc. as long as the device's range will communicate
from the maximum offshore distance that the vessel will reach. Vessels operating outside the boundary
line will also comply with the communications regulations governing its type of vessel (46CFR28.245,
28.375; 33CFR26.03; 47CFR80).

All vessels 79 feet or longer must be equipped with an electronic positioning device (i.e. SATNAV, GPS,
LORAN, OMEGA or RDF) ( 48CFR28.260). All vessels operating outside the boundary line will be so
equipped.

A vessel less than 12 meters in length must carry an efficient sound signal. If more than 12 meters in
length, a bell and whistle are required. All vessel will also have aboard the proper navigational lights and
shapes required for the type of boat (33CFR81).

7
 SECTION 4
Dennis Nixon
Marine Insurance
Marine Insurance, Dennis Nixon, UNOLS Risk Manager and Legal Advisor

Small research vessels present the same liability and risk issues as the biggest
vessels in the fleet: equipment can be lost or damaged, the vessel may need the services
of a salvor, and crew and scientists aboard can be injured or killed. Depending on the
type of coverage purchased, each of the above risks may be covered.
There are two principal types of marine insurance policies: (1) hull, and (2)
protection and indemnity (P&I). Very simply, the hull policy generally protects the value
of the property itself, while the P&I policy covers damage done to others by the vessel
and its operators. In the research vessel community, the purchase of hull insurance
depends upon the legal status of the vessel in question. If it is owned by the federal
government and operated under charter by an academic institution, the operator may not
purchase hull insurance using federal funds. Why? The federal government, as a matter
of policy, has chosen to self-insure all property risks. If the vessel is privately owned but
federally funded for operations, the hull insurance may be paid as an overhead expense
(if approved by federal auditors). The government's rationale is that it can afford to self-
insure. P&I insurance, on the other hand, is required of all small research vessels funded
by NSF in the amount of $15 million, with a minimum deductible of $10,000. With that
as a general introduction, each policy will now be examined in more detail.
The Hull Policy
It is a brave soul who has attempted to read his vessel's hull insurance policy. It
has been variously described as "obscurity itself" by a noted admiralty scholar, and a
"labyrinth of verbiage" by a federal circuit court judge. An important point to realize is
that a hull policy is not an "all risk" insurance contract; rather, it only insures against loss
from a list of "named perils." Another critical issue is that courts consider the contract of
marine insurance to be uberrimae fidei -- a little bit of Latin for "of utmost good faith."
That means that the court expects full and honest disclosure of all material facts related to
the condition of the vessel. If you are not completely up front when the vessel is first
insured, the contract can be voided if the material misstatement leads to a loss. In one
reported case, a vessel owner "forgot" to notify his insurance carrier that he had begun to
store gasoline for a tender in one of the ship's water tanks. When the tank leaked and the
vessel burned, the contract was invalidated because the owner had failed to reveal this
significant change.
The subject of valuation on a hull policy can be problematic. A new vessel is
commonly insured for its construction cost. After a few years, however, as the vessel
ages, the owner and underwriter must come to an "agreed value" which will be paid if the
vessel is lost. The reason for this depreciated "agreed value" is to eliminate what is
known in marine insurance as a "moral hazard" when the owner would actually benefit
more by sinking his vessel than selling it.
After the hull value is agreed upon, navigation limits will be specified. If one's
plans do not include extensive voyaging, seek relatively confined navigation limits (say,
no more than 25-50 miles from a safe harbor), and your premium will be lower. The
rate charged is expressed as a percentage of the vessel's agreed market value. Previous
claims on the vessel and the size of the deductible have a large part in the pricing decision
as well.
The heart of any hull policy is the so-called "Perils Clause." It commonly reads:
Touching the Adventures and Perils which the Underwriters are contented
to bear and take upon themselves, they are of the Waters named herein,
Fire, Lightning, Earthquake, Assailing Thieves, Jettisons, Barratry of the
Master and Mariners and all other like Perils that shall come to the Hurt,
Detriment, or Damage of the Vessel.

That language is lifted from a policy first used on the good ship Tiger in 1613. (This is a
business very slow to change.) The first category mentioned, perils of the seas, is the
most important in the policy. Generally, courts have found that perils of the seas are of
an extraordinary nature or arise from irresistible force or overwhelming power and cannot
be guarded against by the ordinary exertions of human skill and prudence. This is the
classic "heavy weather" loss. Damage caused through natural decay, worms, or ordinary
wear and tear would not be covered under this clause. The concepts of fire, lightning,
and earthquakes causing damage are easily understood; the term "Assailing Thieves"
covers losses occasioned by the criminal acts of those who gain access to the vessel by
force. "Jettison" refers to the intentional act of throwing some part of the vessel or its
cargo overboard for a sound reason. For example, if a primary winch broke free and was
crashing around the deck causing collateral damage and could not be secured without

2
risking injury to the crew, it could be allowed to slide overboard and be a compensable
loss. "Barratry" has been defined to mean any unlawful act committed by the master or
crew, contrary to their duty to the vessel's owner, whereby the latter suffers injury.
In subsequent years, an "Additional Perils" clause was added to include losses
from latent defects and the negligence of the crew -- as long as the owner has used "due
diligence" to provide a seaworthy vessel. Undermanning and the failure to follow up on a
surveyor's list of required changes are examples of cases where courts have found a
failure of the due diligence requirement.
The collision clause is unusual in that it applies to the damage caused to another
vessel in a collision for which the insured vessel is found liable. (Damages to the insured
vessel are covered in the Perils clause discussed above). The amount of coverage is
limited to the agreed value of the insured vessel. It does not extend to loss of life,
personal injury, or damage to shoreside structures -- that liability is picked up in the P&I
policy. Vessels normally purchase "Excess Collision" insurance as well for those instances
when the physical damages caused are in excess of the valued hull policy. Another
alternative, particularly if the vessel is government owned and cannot purchase hull
insurance, is to transfer all collision liability to the P&I policy.
The war risk clause is designed to exclude coverage for damage as a result of
wars, strikes, or other civil commotions. War risks are broadly defined to include
everything from seizure of the vessel to damage sustained from torpedoes and mines
dragged from the bottom. Since much of a research vessel's time is spent dragging
equipment across the bottom, it is important to add a war risk rider to the basic hull
policy.
Finally, the hull policy also contains the closely related "Salvage" and "Sue and
Labor" clauses. The Salvage clause simply states that the underwriters will be responsible
for salvage charges incurred to preserve the insured property. The purpose of the Sue
and Labor clause is to encourage the assured to take all reasonable steps that a prudent
uninsured owner would take to protect the insured property. If only P&I insurance is
purchased because the vessel is owned by the federal government, both of these clauses
can be added to the P&I policy.

The Protection and Indemnity Policy

The traditional name given to the insurance of third-party liabilities which arise in
connection with the operation of a vessel is protection and indemnity (P&I) insurance. It
is a much more recent type of insurance, dating from the mid-19th century, and thus the
basic language and concepts are much easier to understand than the hull policy.
Five categories of loss are covered under the P&I policy. The first category is by
far the most important and the principal reason this type of policy was first developed:
compensation and medical expenses for the injuries or death of the crew, scientific party,
or other individuals aboard the vessel. Members of the crew are entitled to what has
become known as "the blessed trinity" of remedies: maintenance and cure, the Jones
Act, and the unseaworthiness doctrine. Maintenance and cure is ancient legal remedy
provided to seamen, defined as the legal obligation of the vessel owner to "maintain and
cure" a seaman injured or taken ill in the service of the vessel. Congress recognized the
limitations of this concept in 1920, when it passed the Jones Act, giving seamen injured

3
through the negligence of their vessel owner the right to sue the vessel owner in federal
court for damages. Today, however, the most important legal remedy for an injured
seaman or scientist is the doctrine of unseaworthiness, which allows recovery against the
vessel if the injury was caused by an unseaworthy condition of the vessel, its equipment,
or crew. This is true whether or not the unseaworthy condition is caused by the
negligence of the vessel owner, the standard required under the Jones Act. Under the
terms of the Oceanographic Research Vessel Act of 1965, members of the scientific party
may not sue under the terms of the Jones Act, but courts have held that they may recover
using the powerful doctrine of unseaworthiness.
The second category of loss under the P&I policy involves damage caused by the
vessel to "any fixed or movable object or property of whatever nature." The language
includes damage to docks and piers from collision, excessive wakes, and even damage to
stationary fishing gear.
The third category is known as "wreck removal" and covers the expenses of
removing the vessel if that removal is required by law -- typically when sunk in shallow
water or in a channel.
The fourth category involves fines levied against the vessel by any state, federal, or
foreign government as the result of some violation of laws, but this clause will not apply
if they result "directly or indirectly from the failure, neglect, or default of the assured ... to
exercise the highest degree of diligence to prevent a violation of any such laws." Thus, a
fine for negligent operation would be paid if the assured had no knowledge that his crew
was negligent or reckless and had made every effort to find crew members who were
competent and qualified.
Finally, the last category is for the costs of investigating and/or defending claims
arising out of a liability of the assured covered by the P&I policy. This is of tremendous
importance in the area of crew injuries, where the costs of defending against such claims
can be substantial.

Conclusion
The operation of a small research vessel involves most of the same risks as the
operation of a large, blue-water vessel, and thus the operator must seek protection with
an appropriate level of insurance. If the vessel is privately owned, both hull and P&I
insurance should be acquired. If owned by the federal government, hull insurance may
not be purchased, but most charter agreements require the purchase of at least $15
million in P&I coverage with a minimum deductible of $10,000. Proof of adequate
insurance must be provided to NSF or ONR on an annual basis.
Like a good survey, adequate insurance cover can provide a vessel owner with at
least some peace of mind when the vessel goes to sea. Since insurance is typically a
vessel's third largest operating expense (after crew and fuel), it pays to know just what
one is paying for.

4
 SECTION 5
Jim Yagle
Stability

Jim Yagle graduated from the University of Michigan in 1988 with a B.S.E. degree in Naval
Architecture and Marine Engineering. He worked for Elliott Bay Design Group for 9 years as a
naval architect and is now with Delta Marine Industries. Mr. Yagle's area of expertise is vessel
stability. He has performed inclining experiments and stability analyses on a variety of vessels
including the 76’ oceanographic vessel for the University of Connecticut, a 100’ fisheries vessel for
the National Biological Service, and fishing boats from 70' longliners to 270’ factory trawlers.

The stability of a vessel refers to its ability to float upright and is governed primarily
by the two major forces exerted on any floating object: buoyancy and weight. As
long as the buoyancy is greater than the weight, the vessel will float. How well it
floats, i.e. how resistant it is to tipping over (its stability), is dictated by where these
two basic forces act on the vessel.

Buoyancy
The buoyancy o f a vessel is determined by the shape of the immersed hull form. The
larger the hull, the more weight it can support. Stability, however, is dictated by the
distribution of that hull volume. For example, beam has a much larger impact on
stability than length. As a general rule, the wider the vessel, the more stable it is. A
deeper hull will also be more stable than a shallow one. The center of buoyancy is the
point at which all the vectors of the floating forces of the vessel can be said to act
vertically upward.

The designer usually has a great deal of control of a vessel's stability characteristics
while it is still being designed. Good practice includes designing a stability margin into
the hull before the vessel is built. Unfortunately, features that make a vessel more
stable are often in direct conflict with the other aspects of the design. While it may be
tempting to simply enlarge the beam to increase stability, this will also increase
construction cost as well as increase the propulsion resis tance of the hull. Increased
resistance in turn drives up fuel consumption and operating costs over the life of the
vessel. As with all good designs, a balance between the design criteria and
operational requirements must be reached.

Weight
The hull, machinery, outfitting, and cargo load determine vessel weight. As vessel
cargo load is increased, the hull will settle deeper in the water until the buoyancy
equals the weight. While this may intuitively seem to increase stability, adequate

ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 6 Stability.doc Page 1

December 19, 2000
freeboard is also essential. Freeboard is the distance between the water and the
working deck of the vessel. If the deck edge goes under water when the vessel heels,
the danger of capsizing is increased. An overloaded vessel will have too low a
freeboard, and the deck may submerge with even a light heel.

Equally important to the overall weight of the loaded vessel is how that weight is
distributed. The center of gravity is the point at which the vector of the whole weight
of the vessel can be said to act vertically downward. As a general rule, a lower center
of gravity means a more stable vessel. A vessel with a high center of gravity is said to
be "top heavy." When a vessel lists or heels to one side, the center of gravity pushes
down in the direction of the lis t.

The designer also has a great deal of control of a vessel's weight characteristics during
the design phase. A detailed weight estimate is an essential part of any design
package. The equipment selection and arrangements must be constantly monitored to
ensure that the vessel stays close to its target weight and center of gravity. Margins
on weight and center of gravity should also be included in the calculations to account
for the inevitable overlooked objects or estimating errors.

Unlike the buoyant volume of the hull, the vessel weight and center of gravity change
constantly as vessel loading changes. For example, a heavy object placed high on a
deck will produce a higher center of gravity - and less stability - than a load stored
below deck. Similarly, removing a load from low in the vessel, such as burning fuel oil,
will cause an increase in the vessel's center of gravity, thus reducing stability.

Additionally, vessels gain weight over their lifetimes as equipment is added or other
changes are made to the arrangements. A good design will allow for some weight
growth, but careful attention must be paid to modifications to the vessel to ensure that
it continues to meet the applicable stability requirements.

Stability
Stability is one of the more quantitative aspects of how a floating object behaves in
water. There are a number of calculated values that together determine the stability of
a vessel.

Initial stability concerns a vessel's initial resistance to being pushed over. The GM, or
metacentric height, is the term used to measure initial stability. GM is measured in
meters or feet; a larger value indicates greater stability. A "stiff boat" has a higher GM
than a "slow roller." Too little GM results in a vessel with a long, slow roll that, while
comfortable, could lead to capsizing. Excessive GM, however, results in a vessel with
uncomfortable, snappy, motions in heavy seas that contributes to seasickness and can

ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 6 Stability.doc Page 2

December 19, 2000
actually damage equipment as it "whips" the vessel upright after being pushed over
by a wave.

Righting energy is the term used to describe a vessel's ability to right itself after being
heeled over. As the vessel heels, the vertical vector of the center of buoyancy moves
away from that of the center of gravity. The distance between vectors, called the
righting arm or GZ, varies as the vessel heels and is measured in meters or feet.
Typically, righting arms are plotted on the vertical axis of a graph with the heel angle
on the horizontal axis. The area under the curve so generated represents the amount
of righting energy. A properly-loaded vessel should have positive righting energy to
a heel of at least 50 degrees. The magnitude of the largest righting arm is also an
indication of a vessel's stability.

Because of the relationship between weight and buoyancy of a given hull shape, both
GM and righting energy vary significantly with the weight and center of gravity of the
loaded vessel. This means that how a vessel is loaded has the largest impact on the
stability of the vessel.

The previous paragraphs have discussed vessel stability characteristics in the intact
state. They also apply to a damaged vessel. However, the buoyant force and center
of buoyancy of the damaged hull will differ significantly from that of the intact hull,
depending on hull compartmentation as well as the location and extent of damage.

Stability Regulations
A variety of stability criteria have been developed to answer the question "how much
stability is enough?" Which criteria apply depends upon the regulatory environment
of the vessel - there are different criteria for passenger vessels, tugs, barges, and
tankers, to name a few. Research vessels also have their own regulations. The
applicable stability criteria are also dependent on the vessel size and location of
operations. It is common for a vessel to have to meet separate criteria for rough seas,
high winds, towing a trawl or other submerged object, and for crane lifting operations.

Effects of Operations on Stability

Many of the daily operations of a vessel have significant impacts on its stability.

An area of particular concern in operations is the free surface effect. When a vessel
with full tanks heels over, the contents of the tank do not shift. The tank's center of
gravity does not change, so it does not affect the vessel's stability. In a partially filled
tank or fish hold, the contents will shift with the movement of the boat. The center of
gravity moves over to the side, making the vessel less stable. This "free surface
effect" reduces stability and increases the danger of capsizing. Good initial vessel

ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 6 Stability.doc Page 3

December 19, 2000
design can minimize this effect by avoiding large, wide tanks. Good operational
practice can minimize this effect by keeping the number of slack tanks and holds to an
absolute minimum.

Loading and unloading operations have a dramatic effect on stability. For example,
when a heavy load is lifted clear of the water it has the same effect on the vessel's
center of gravity as if the weight were located at the tip of the boom. The vessel will
also heel. Good design and operational guidance should include crane or boom load
limits.

Heavy icing due to weather will also seriously affect stability by adding weight high
on the vessel superstructure and masts. In severe conditions, it is very dangerous and
it may be necessary to either remove the ice or head downwind to reduce the
accumulation.

Stability Guidance
Proper operational guidance to the Master is critical to ensure the vessel maintains
adequate stability. This guidance can take several forms. A Stability Letter listing the
basic operational limits and guidance in a few pages is common for smaller vessels and
is typically posted in the wheelhouse. A Trim and Stability Booklet contains more
detailed instructions and includes forms for the Master to actually calculate the weight
and center of gravity of the vessel. Curves of the maximum allowable center of gravity
are then used to determine if the loaded condition meets the required criteria.

Conclusions
Proper application of both weight and buoyancy margins throughout the design
phase, coupled with close monitoring of weight growth once the vessel is in operation,
will help a vessel maintain adequate stability throughout its life. Ensuring adequate
stability in a vessel is a combination of many factors including recognizing the loading
limits of a given hull form and operating within those limits at all times. Stability
considerations must always take precedence over operational requirements to ensure
the safety of the crew and passengers and to prevent the loss of the vessel and cargo.

ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 6 Stability.doc Page 4

December 19, 2000
Figure 1.

ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 6 Stability.doc Page 5

December 19, 2000
Figure 2.

ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 6 Stability.doc Page 6

December 19, 2000
Figure 3.

ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 6 Stability.doc Page 7

December 19, 2000
Figure 4.

ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 6 Stability.doc Page 8

December 19, 2000
Figure 5.

ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 6 Stability.doc Page 9

December 19, 2000
 SECTION 6
John W. Waterhouse
Seakeeping

John W. Waterhouse, P.E. received his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from U.C. Berkeley in 1979 and his
M.S. in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering from M.I.T. in 1984. Before forming EBDG, John worked
for Nickum & Spaulding Associates as part of their preliminary design group. Mr. Waterhouse's research vessel
experience includes preparing the preliminary design for a 67m research vessel for the Taiwan Fisheries
Research Institute. The vessel was designed to China Registry of Shipping regulations. He was also a member
of the project design team for a 200-foot sailing research vessel for pelagic physical oceanography.

Seakeeping refers to motions of a vessel in waves. "Sea kindliness" is a characteristic sought after for
research vessels. A sea kindly vessel is easy on its crew and easy on its gear. Trying to define seakindly
is difficult. The deep sea mariner may use qualitative descriptions such as "an easy roll" or "a wet boat".
The vessel designer and marine scientist must look for quantitative descriptions.

There are six degrees of motion in a vessel, three are linear (surge, heave, and sway) three are rotational
(pitch, roll, and yaw). See Fig.1. Each of these degrees of motion has associated values of amplitude,
velocity, and acceleration. For example, a vessel in a beam sea can be rolling up to 30 degrees
(amplitude). The associated acceleration could be 0.5 g or 1 g. To a designer, the accelerations are
usually the key value since they translate into forces on equipment and people. Motion sickness is a
function of acceleration levels and periodicity. See Fig. 2 for the ASTM standards motion sickness graph.

The energy input for motions comes from waves. There are several terms that need to be considered.
Each distinct wave has a height (distance between trough and crest) and a period (time between
succeeding crests). The sea is a spectrum of waves, that is a variety of waves of different heights and
periods. The spectrum can be characterized by two terms, the significant wave height and the modal
period. If we collect a thousand observations of wave heights and periods we can produce a graph
similar to Fig. 3. If we take the average height of the one third highest waves that number represents the
significant wave height. This method quantifies what people have historically observed qualitatively. The
modal period is determined by finding the average value of the wave periods.

Other factors that affect waves are the fetch and the water depth. Fetch is the distance of open water
available for a wave system to develop. A protected bay has little fetch and waves cannot fully develop,
regardless of the wind strength. Water depth can produce larger waves, especially when the depth of
water is less than 1/2 the wavelength. A good example of this occurs at harbor entrances where a bar or
local shallowing can develop. Such a bar can produce larger than ordinary waves as the wave energy is
compressed by the rising ocean bottom.

ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 7 Seakeeping.doc Page 1

November 2, 2000
In extreme seas two other characteristics come into play. These are deck wetness and slamming. Deck
wetness refers to the presence of green water on deck, not just spray. Having waves board the vessel
clearly limits the crew's ability to handle equipment or to safely move around. Deck wetness can be used
as a good criteria for limiting operation.
Slamming is more serious. A vessel slams when the bow area is struck by or comes down on a wave.
Slamming is characterized by zones of high pressure on the hull and associated shaking of the vessel.
When slamming occurs the operator must reduce speed in order to prevent structural damage to the hull.

Mariners have long known that if the wind begins to blow on a open, calm sea, after a while waves will
develop and build until an equilibrium condition is reached. This phenomena was categorized by the 19th
century English sailor, Beaufort. This so called Beaufort scale matches wind velocities to wave conditions
or Sea States as shown in Fig. 4. This terminology has been adopted to define design conditions for
vessels.

For the designer of the vessel the sea kindliness or ride quality must be expressed as a set of standards.
Because of the varying nature of winds, operating areas, seasons of the year, resistance to motion
sickness, etc. this usually means that statistics must be used. To say that a vessel has to work through sea
state 3 and survive a sea state 5 is not precise. Before defining the governing sea state one must consider
where the vessel is to operate, what kinds of seas are prevalent at what times of the year, and what type
of work will be done with the vessel. For example a vessel handling a plankton net over the side can
operate in higher sea states than one that will be handling an ROV. The designer and the scientists must
both understand the mission and the vessel's limitations.

Having looked at the environment which provides the energy input to cause vessel motions, we next look
at the vessel responses. The vessel system can be modelled as a linear mass spring system with a
dampener. See Fig. 5. The vessel is the mass, the spring is buoyancy to restore the vessel to its
equilibrium position as the waves passes under it, and the dampener is the sum of friction, turbulence, and
drag. The equation of a linear system takes the form of F(t) = mg + mA + cV + kD where:

F(t) = force varying over time

m = mass
g = acceleration due to gravity
A = acceleration of the vessel
c = damping coefficient
V = velocity of the vessel
k = buoyancy
D = distance the vessel moves

Note that the vessel mass is a key factor in the equation. For a given wave height a heavy vessel will have
lower accelerations, or move less, than a light weight vessel. Another factor is the damping coefficient.
For example adding bilge keels to a vessel increases the drag and turbulence when a vessel rolls, and
hence reduces the motion.
Finally, the buoyancy constant is proportional to the amount of waterplane area of the vessel. A slender
spar buoy will move less than a fat can buoy.

ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 7 Seakeeping.doc Page 2

November 2, 2000
This equation applies to each of the six degrees of freedom. Given the difficulties in solving 6 simultaneous
differential equations some standard simplifications are used. First, surge and sway are typically ignored
since their magnitudes are usually small compared to the other motions. Yaw can be assumed to be
countered by rudder steering forces. This leaves roll, pitch, and heave as the primary motions of concern.
There are some differences between these motions and the above equation. For example in roll the
"spring" is the vessel righting arm. A low center of gravity due to weight in the form of ballast will produce
a different ride from the same weight carried as deck cargo. Whether the ride will be better or worse will
depend on factors such as hull shape, the wave spectrum, and how the weight is distributed. For the latter
consider an ice skater spinning around. By changing the position of the arms the speed of the spinning can
be altered, with the arms tucked in close to the body causing the highest rate of rotation. Similarly, the
distribution of weight on a vessel can affect the pitch and roll performance.

Many different approaches have been tried to improve seakeeping, from fundamental differences in hull
shape to active or passive appendages. A brief discussion of each of these follows:

SWATH Hull - This type of vessel, a Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull, has excellent seakeeping
characteristics. The design consists of two submerged hulls with slender struts rising through the water's
surface to support a cross-structure. Because the buoyant hulls are well below the water's surface and by
keeping the struts as slender as possible there is little opportunity for the waves to act on the vessel. The
main vulnerability is slamming on the cross structure when the waves get large enough.

Catamaran Hull - This type of vessel has some limits for seakeeping imposed by the hull design. If the
wave period is twice the spacing of the hulls then the natural frequency in roll creates a resonant condition
and extreme motions. Further, the cross structure is vulnerable to slamming if the wave heights are large
enough. Finally, due to the relatively short hull length for the displacement, catamarans can experience
significant pitch motions.

Monohull - The traditional monohull has been the subject of much investigation for seakeeping. What we
have learned is that long slender hulls have less pitching behavior while short fat hulls are typically better in
roll and heave. Deck wetness can be limited through good bow shape and hull flare. A round bilge hull
will have less roll dampening than a hard chined hull. Hard chine boats can be subject to slamming in the
bow area depending on the wave height and the vessel's forward speed.

Anti-roll tank - To combat vessel rolling people have used different designs of tanks holding water ballast.
By placing such tanks up high on a vessel and by tuning them to the vessel's natural roll period, significant
improvement in motions can be achieved. The disadvantage of such tanks is that they need to be located
in prime parts of the ship to be effective. A particular advantage of such tanks is that they are effective at
a range of vessel speeds.

ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 7 Seakeeping.doc Page 3

November 2, 2000
Fin Stabilizers - By using airfoil shaped fins mounted low in the hull amidships, significant roll reduction can
be achieved when the vessel is underway. Such fin stabilizers use a motion sensing controller that signals
the fin to change its angle of attack to the water, thus producing a countering force to the wave motion.
Fin stabilizers typically are electro-hydraulic units and are more effective the faster the vessel is moving.

Centerboards - Some research vessels have tried using centerboards with good effect. These boards are
typically of an airfoil shape with a mechanism allowing them to be retracted into the hull. Placed at
approximately 30% of the waterline length back from the bow they dampen rolling motion and incidentally
allow sonar transducers to be placed well away from noise sources in the hull.

Bilge keels - These passive devices have typically been used to add damping in roll. A fixed plate running
approximately 40% of the vessel's length along either side of the hull the bilge keel must be placed to
maximize hydrodynamic drag in roll and minimize hydrodynamic drag while underway. A drawback of
bilge keel is that gear being worked over the side can potentially foul on the bilge keels.

Active Rudders - Similar to the fin stabilizers, an active rudder system will turn the rudders to generate a
counter force to vessel roll. This allows the use of existing equipment but obviously suffers in efficiency
with comparison to fin stabilizers.

Bulbous bows - These were originally developed as a means of reducing vessel resistance. Later,
researchers observed that depending on the bulb's size and shape it could improve pitch resistance.
However, in extreme seas when the forefoot of the vessel emerges, an improperly designed bulb can
contribute to slamming.

ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 7 Seakeeping.doc Page 4

November 2, 2000
 Section 7
Steve Rabalais
Conversions VS New Construction
It is only within the last century that vessels have been designed and built as oceanographic research platforms. Up
until this time all research vessels were converted from some other service. The H.M.S. Challenger like its
predecessor the H.M.S. Beagle was built as a warship for the English Navy. The Beagle was a 10 gun brig
belonging to a class of vessels nicknamed the "coffin brig" because it was more likely to sink then complete 2
successful circumnavigation's of the earth.

Modem interest in exploring the world's oceans has generated the need for more specialized, and safer platforms
and forever changed the practice of modifying existing vessels to meet the needs of ocean scientists. Still there are
many converted trawlers, US Government T -boats and oil field supply vessels in use today as R/V's and most
perform well. The majority of these vessels are < 100' LOA and are typically used in coastal or near-shore
habitats. They are used to support all types of ocean science and education on both coasts, the Great Lakes and the
Gulf of Mexico.

How these vessels found lives as R/V's is varied. Some were built as R/V's from designs that were already in
production as commercial or pleasure craft. Many were convened into R/V's after they were declared surplus by
the federal government or after they had ended useful lives as fishing vessels, oil field service vessels, or in many
cases legitimate commercial vessels convened to drug runners. :

The relative advantages to converting an existing vessel or vessel design to a R/V depends on many factors not the
least of which are the type and age of vessel being convened and the intended service after conversion. Shallow
draft oilfield crew boats are easily convened to inshore and near coastal day boats. US Army T- Boats have been
used by many institutions to meet the scientific needs in near coastal waters on extended cruises of up to 8 days. It
should be noted that some vessels are difficult to convert to R/V's and special consideration should be given before
convening these boats. For example, high speed military craft, river gun boats, USCG cutters, landing craft, etc.
are available through federal surplus, but these are very specialized vessels with characteristic that are often
incompatible with most marine science requirements. But these are the exception and most vessel types in
common use today can be convened to RN's.

Converting an existing vessel or vessel design is almost always cheaper than building a new boat Architectural
fees, design costs, certification and classification, and testing fees have already been paid. These costs can account
for as much as 25% of the final costs of a new vessel, and if the vessel is U.S.C.G. Inspected or built to a
classification standard (American Bureau of Shipping, Lloyds, Veritas, etc.) these costs will increase significantly

Convening an existing vessel allows the buyer to benefit from material cost at the time of construction as opposed
to the inflated cost associated with a new build. Indirect costs associated with the normal maintenance of design
and construction facilities are avoided when purchasing a used vessel.
I
The cost savings associated with a conversion can not be understated and typically allow buyers to stretch their
dollar and buy-up into larger, more capable vessels. For example, Bermuda Biological Station for Research, Inc.
purchased the Weatherbird II in 1989 for $375,000. The vessel, at the time of purchase would have exceeded
$3,000,000.
The time lapse between deciding to build a new vessel and delivery is significant when compared to conversion.
During periods of vessel surpluses the prospective owner of a converted R/V can be operational in a matter of
months; whereas, new builds generally take years from the point of conceptual design to finished product. Once
again, the type of vessel and in the case of a new build the decision to meet regulatory standards can have a major
impact on the amount of time required to build or convert a vessel. In most cases vessels could begin work as an
RN after the addition of a few simple pieces of deck equipment and minor changes to the interior of the vessel to
accommodate scientists and there needs for on-board laboratories. In other cases, like the Weatherbird II,
extensive modifications were made before the vessel was capable of supporting the demands of ocean science.

The buyer of used stock vessels also benefits more directly from the experiences of the builder and previous
owners. The right match between propulsion machinery and hull designs are sometimes gained only through trial
and error. Over the years of production, boat builders will modify their vessel designs to achieve maximum
benefits from their product and these improved will become apparent in later versions of a stock hull.

Conversions are almost always cheaper up front, but there are hidden costs that must be taken into consideration
when making the decision to buy a used boat. Obsolete or discontinued machinery may drive up maintenance
costs on older vessels. The presence of asbestos products in insulation, overhead and bulkhead sheathing, and deck
coverings and, PCB's in transformers and fluorescent lighting fixtures can made repairs and modifications
expensive. A thorough survey by a competent marine surveyor should always be conducted before purchasing a
used vessel.

Used vessels are available from a number of sources. Marine brokers are available to assist prospective buyers, but
there are costs associated with their services. Commercial publications like National Fisherman , and Boats and
Harbors carry extensive listing of boats for sale. Vessels are also available through government surplus and are
often advertised for auction through the various agencies surplus services.

Following is a list of the most common R/V conversions in use today. This is by no means a complete list and
anyone interested in converting a vessel to an R/V would benefit by contacting the operators of the vessels listed
before making a decision to convert a particular type of vessel for use as an R/V.

Oil Field Service Vessels

These vessels are used to service the offshore oil production industry. Built to haul passenger, supplies, or
consumables (water, fuel, liquid mud, etc.) these vessels typically are not equipped with any deck gear or load
handling equipment. They are generally built in Gulf of Mexico yards to some regulatory standard, such as
American Bureau of Shipping or United States Coast Guard. These vessels were available in large numbers after
the collapse of the oil industry in the Gulf of Mexico in the early 1980's. During this time oil field service vessels,
in good condition were available for pennies on the dollar. The revitalization of the oil industry in the Gulf has
created a shortage of vessels and good buys no longer exist.

Two types of oil field service vessels are in common use as converted R/V's. Work boats, which are usually > 100'
LOA and inland crew boats. General characteristics of these vessels and how they have been converted follows:
Work Boat

Sometimes referred to as a supply vessel, utility boat, or standby boat (Fig. I). The term utility boat and supply
vessel can be used interchangeably to describe vessels used to service offshore production facilities. A standby
boat is identical to the other 2 categories with the exception that is usually smaller, does not make routine voyages
back to port for the purpose of transporting personnel or supplies and is equipped with a fire monitor. A standby
boat is usually deployed to an offshore production field and remains on location for weeks and in some cases
months. During these periods it is available to respond to emergencies i.e. fight fires, or occasionally make routine
personnel transfers between production pla tforms in the field.

Characteristics
-Hard chine displacement hulls.
-Usually larger than 100' LOA I Standby boats for near shore fields may be <100" LOA)
-Typically all steel construction
-May be built to some regulatory standard, usually Americ an Bureau of Shipping but typically operated as un-
inspected vessels.
-Wheel house forward and slightly above foc'sle deck which houses some berthing, galley and mess/lounge area.
-Large back deck and deck loading capacity
-Beamy, > 4: 1 length width ratio.
-Large below deck tankage for transporting fuel, water, and drilling mud. Some vessels are equipped with "P"
tanks (pressure tanks) for transporting pressurized cargo, i.e. dry cement.
-Limited or no deck equipment. Some vessels may have large anchor handling winches, and capstans for anchor
handling.
-Always with at least 2 main propulsion engines w/direct drive transmissions, typically OM in older smaller
vessels or EMD or Caterpillar in larger vessels.
-Generator packages are typically small and capable of accommodating the limited demands for lighting, climate
control in the habitable spaces, and low amperage service equipment. Typically without power take off options for
hydraulics or other ancillary power supply equipment.
-Bow thrusters, or controllable pitch propeller are not common on these vessels -To enhance the loading capacity
on the vessels the rear cargo deck are low to the water.
-These vessels were available in large numbers and in good condition prior to the mid 1990's. Now most are back
in service in the oil field and it is difficult to find boats in good condition that are for sale.

Conversions

The Robert Gordon Sproul from Scripps Institute of Oceanography and the Weatherbird II from Bermuda
Biological Station for research are both examples of work boats that have successfully been convened into
research vessels. The Sproul is 125' x 32' and was built in 1981 and convened to an R/V in 1984. She can
accommodate 12 scientists and has an endurance of about 14 days. A dry lab, wet lab, science staterooms, a'1d
mess and galley are located on the main deck with crew quarters and wheel house on the upper deck (Fig 2).

The Weatherbird II is 115' x 28' and was built in 1982 in Alabama at Bosarge Marine. The vessel was bought in
1989 for $375,000 and converted to an RN at Quality Shipyard in Houma, La. at a cost of $500,000. At this time
new ships electronics, an aft A frame and side gallows, a cm winch (donated from Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institute, a new hydraulic system and a 20' lab van were added (Fig. 3). A second "conversion" was accomplished
in 1993 to increase the scientific capabilities of the vessel. This effort that included the addition of a 02 deck,
installation of a bow thruster, an increase in berthing space and modifications to deck equipment and the addition
of a CTD garage cost about $1,000,000. Following is a comprehensive list of modifications made to the vessel
during the 1993 "conversion" (Fig. 4):

-Add 02 deck to include wheel house and aft control station

-Convert forward ballast tanks into bow thruster room and install omni-directional bow thruster
-Remove 2 fuel tanks to add six bunks and 1 head -Convert 1 main deck cabin into 1 dry lab -Install main lab on
main deck
-Install CTD garage on main deck and relocated side gallows -Add 4 bunks on 01 deck
-Add damage control locker on 01 deck
-Replace all wooden walls in vessel with metal studs and fire-retardant panels -Install chilled water HV AC
system.
-Remove 2-50 KW generators and install 2-75 KW generators -Replaced crane and power pack
-Installed deck grating and additional deck tie -downs -Installed new DUSH-5 CTD winch

These conversions increased significantly the scientific complement of the vessel by the removal of fuel tanks and
addition of science staterooms and increased the station keeping capabilities by the addition of a bow thruster. The
loss in endurance was not significant given that the vessel typically operates within a few days steam from her
home port. Total cost for the acquisition and all modifications to the vessel (<$2M) is significantly less than the
original construction cost of a vessel of this type and allowed the operating Institution to meet the needs of her
scientific clientele without the lengthy delays associated with design and construction of a new vessel.

Crew Boats

There are 2 class of crew boats, larger vessels 85' -120' (Fig. 5) that are used to transport personnel and supplies to
offshore facilities (beyond barrier islands) and smaller inshore vessels typically 45'-65' LOA (Fig. 6). Both types
are designed and built for speed and are therefore not as economical to operate as the slower deeper draft work for.
In addition they are not very sea-kindly and are not designed for carrying heavy loads and handling gear over the
side. For these reasons offshore crew boat do not make good oceanographic R/V's. lnland crew boats on the other
hand have been converted to high speed inshore research vessel with very good results. Therefore, the offshore
crew boats will not be addressed in this discussion.

Characteristics
-Hard chine planing hulls without keel. Exposed shaft, hanger, propeller, and unsupported rudder. The exposed
running gear typical on these vessel limits their utility where shallow drafts are needed. Although they are used
extensively in the bays and shallow estuaries of Louisiana, but the bottoms in these areas are typically soft mud
which accommodates routine groundings.
-Usually 45'-65' LOA
-Typically all aluminum construction but some all steel vessels are in use today. Wooden (plywood) vessels were
typical prior to 1950 but most of these boats are out of service or have been converted to inshore fishing vessel
(trawlers). -Average speed 15-25 kts.
-Most of these vessels are built to USGC Sub-Chapter T requirements for passenger carrying vessels within 100
miles of the coast.
-Cabin forward located above the foc'sle which may house limited berthing (2-4 persons) and galley space.
-Aft cabin usually fitted with bus style setting and in some cases tables and benches.
-Back decks open with pipe railings around the perimeters. Access to engine room and rudder rooms are usually
located on the back deck. These hatches limit the area available for locating deck gear and loading scientific
packages. -No tankage for transporting fluids as with work boats.
-These vessels are usually used for short day runs to oil field facilities in local bays and sounds and therefore do
not have large fuel or fresh water tanks.
-Usually 2 engines and gear drive transmission. Most with GM, but some later models may be equipped with
Caterpillars, or Cummins. -Limited wheel house electronics
-Small (20kW) generators sets with no power take-offs and no hydraulic systems available on the boat.
-Older aluminum vessels may suffer from extensive corrosion caused by.improperly grounded electric systems. A
competent marine surveyor familiar. With aluminum vessels should be consulted before purchasing any
alul1llnum vessel.

Conversions

The 52' steel hulled Orion and the 65' aluminum Aquarius (Fig. 7), both owned and operated by the University of
Maryland, Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies are typical of inland crew boat convened to R/V's.

The Orion was built by Sewart Seacraft in Berwick, LA in 1965 using their stock design for a 50' Hawk Class
crew boat. The design was stretched 2' before construction in order to increase aft deck space. Cabinets, lab
counters, and a galley were added in the aft section of the cabin, and passenger seating was removed. An engine-
mounted power take-off and hydraulic pump were added to power a double drum trawl winch on the main deck.
The hydraulic system, winch, and mast and double boom arrangement for deploying scientific equipment were
cross-decked from another University of Maryla nd vessel. The vessel was completed in February 1965 for a total
cost of $61,755.

The Aquarius was also built by Sewart Seacraft After she was launched in 1964 the vessel was operated as a crew
boat in the Gulf of Mexico until it was purchased by the University in 1972. Prior to departing Louisiana,
structural modifications were made to strengthen the aft deck to allow for the installation of a trawl winch, mast
and double boom. A "round-down" was welded to the transom to facilitate the handling of bottom and mid-water
trawls. In Maryland the University personnel removed passenger seats and installed a galley and laboratory in the
after section of the cabin and installed a new mast and double boom arrangement, double drum trawl winch and a
hydraulic power system.

The University purchased the vessel for $69,500 in 1972 and spent approximately $7,000 at Teledyne Seacraft to
accomplish the structural and aft deck modifications. Approximately $8,500 was spent for the materials to
complete the modifications performed in Maryland. Total costs for the vessel and modifications, exclusive of
labor costs associated with the Maryland conversions was $85,000. Aquarius was fully equipped and ready for
service approximately 6 months after it was acquired by the University.

The speed, shallow draft, maneuverability and general configuration, of the crew boat design allow them to adapt
into versatile research platforms. They are especially well suited for use as RN's in the protected shallow water
environments of bays, estuaries, and sounds. The Orion has been in service as a research vessel for 33 years and
the Aquarius is nearly 33 years old. Both vessels are still in service.

Commercial Fishing Vessels

Fishing vessels come in many sizes, shapes, and configurations. But, as with work boats they can be grouped into
2 general classes, large offshore displacement hull vessels (trawlers) and fast inshore planning and semi
displacement hull vessels. In general fishing vessel are not built to any regulatory standards and as with many
large steel hulled trawlers are built at small yards with poor quality control. But fishing vessels are designed for
handling over the side packages and for this reason are sometimes easily convel1ed to research vessels.

Trawlers
Trawlers or bottom draggers are the most common fishing vessel used in the R/V fleet. These craft are typically >
50' LOA and almost always< 100' LOA. Most of the trawlers converted to R/V's were built and operated as shrimp
trawlers along the Gulf and South Atlantic coasts. They are used in most instances to meet the need of scientists
working inside of the shelf break and inshore water deep enough to accommodate deep draft displacement hulled
vessels. Some R/V's were built using stock designs as is the case with R/V Katy but other are convened from
operating commercial vessels. Typically these vessels are confiscated drug runners that are acquired from the
federal government and convened into R/V's, as is the case with the R/V Edgerton at the Massachusetts Maritime
Academy.

Characteristics
-Displacement hulls > 50' LOA and < 100' LOA round bottom except steel vessels which usually are hard chined
-Constructed of wood, fiberglass, or steel but never aluminum
-Gulf shrimp trawler most common design. These vessels are equipped with large "outriggers" or "booms" that are
used to deploy nets and stabilizers. These vessels are equipped with a single double drum winch which fairleads
through blocks at the ends of the booms. This arrangement is not suitable for anything other than
trawling and some other accommodation must be made for deploying typical scientific gear. North Atlantic
trawlers however are usually equipped to deploy gear over the stern and in some cases are equipped with stern
ramps. Winches on these vessels are not equipped with slip rings and winches to handle electromechanical cable
should be included in conversion.
-Single slow turning diesel engine. Some larger Gulf trawlers are equipped with two engines and in some cases
tunnels which allow the vessels to operate in shallower water and nozzles which increase efficiency and enhance
thrust.
-Generators typically undersized in comparison with similar-sized research vessels.
-Older vessels may lack HV AC systems and heads. Household or recreational vehicle type AC units common.
-Fire control systems are rare on these vessels.
-Hydraulics systems are available to power trawl winch -No bow thrusters.
-Many of these vessels are one-off or home built vessels and the workmanship in these boats can be very poor.
Some companies do specialize in the construction of Gulf trawlers and have built reputation for quality. Diesel
Engines Sales Co. (DESCO) of St. Augustine, Fla. were a major producer of Gulf trawlers and some of these
wooden and fiberglass vessels are still in existence.
-Stability criteria for these vessels are unknown and in most cases plans and blueprints do not exist
-wiring may be substandard
-Sewage treatment systems substandard or non-existent
-High freeboards with dry decks
-All living quarters on main deck. Engine room, ice hold, and rope lockers below decks. Ice holds have been
convened to staterooms or laboratories with some success.

Conversions
The 68' R/V Edgerton at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy is typical of a Gulf trawler converted to an R/V.
This DESCO vessel, built in the late 1960's is a good example if the earlier fiberglass vessels built at this St
Augustine shipyard. She was convel1ed from a Gulf trawler to a stem trawler after she was seized for running
drugs. A stem ramp was added along with a hydraulic net real and a 3/4 Yankee trawl. The vessel is equipped with
a small (10' x 15') laboratory and galley. Unlike most Gulf trawlers which are powered by a single OM 671 NA
diesel this boat has a 365 HP Cummins main engine. But, like most of the early built fiberglass DESCO boat she
is too lightly built and rolls badly.

The 72' Blue Fin (Fig. 8) at the Skidaway Institute of Oceanography was designed as a yacht but is similar in
many ways to a other wooden trawlers in use in the commercial fleet. She was built in 1972 as a trawler yacht and
converted to a research vessel in 1974. To increase space below decks for staterooms the engine was removed
from its original bed amid ships and moved further aft. This required the installation of a z drive unit which was
later replaced with a hydraulic drive unit. This system has been difficult to maintain. For this reason and the fact
that the wooden hull is aging and difficult to maintain plans are under away to replace the Blue Fin with a new
$2,000,000 custom-built fiberglass vessel.

The R/V Katy a 57' fiberglass boat built by Thompson Trawlers of Titusvile, Ronda is another example of a
commercial trawler hull converted to pleasure yacht and operated as a research vessel. Unlike the Blue Fin, the
Katy was built to spec for the University of Texas Marine Science Institute- Problems associated with convel1ing
an existing hull were avoided and the vessel has become an integral part of the research programs in the shallow
bays and estuaries along the south Texas coast. The vessel sleeps 6 in below deck staterooms and is equipped with
a stern A frame and a semi-sheltered lab on the main deck.

Planing and Semi-displacement Hulls

Smaller planing or semi-displacement hulled fishing vessels < 50" LOA are common among the fleet of R/V's at
most marine institutions. Because of their size and the need to limit weight in order to maintain speed
characteristics these vessels do not have large cabin or heavy lift equipment. Typical among this type of vessel is
the New England lobster boat and the Gulf of Mexico Lafitte skiff.

Characteristics
-Typically < 50' LOA
-Hard chined, shallow draft vessels with no keel and exposed running gear.
-Single high speed diesel engine
-Almost always fiberglass construction. Hull may be solid fiberglass, laminate fiberglass/balsa wood, or
combination of both, and occasionally plywood covered with fiberglass. Fiberglass over plywood is often used in
the decks and cabins. Improperly sealed penetrations and failures in the fiberglass weather coating can allow water
damage to plywood or other laminate materials. Care should be taken to seal these areas and buyers should be
cautioned to conduct surveys to determine if vessels have been maintained against this type of failure. -Usually not
built to regulatory standards.
-Deck gear limited to hydraulic pot haulers on lobster boats and D.C. electric and sometime hydraulic powered
trawl winches and cat heads on Lafitte skiffs.
-Usually with a small cabin forward and large open aft deck with raised gunwales.
-Small generators with hydraulics packages usually available on lobster boats.
Conversions The most common high-speed lobster type vessel in the research fleet are vessel built by Bruno and
Stillman. These small, 30'-45' are used by many institution to support science in inshore waters where speed is
critical. The 35' Bruno and Stillman at Moss Landing Marine Lab has been in service since 1978 and plans are to
continue operating the vessel for local (within 15-20nm) service.

The University of Texas in Port Aransas, TX maintains a fleet of small high-speed vessels 3 of which are Lafitte
skiffs built by Jefferson Fiberglass in New Orleans, La.. The smaller (21 ') vessel is powered by a 140 hp
outboard and the larger boats (24' and 32') a7re powered by Cobra inboard/outboards. Only the laI.ger boat is
equipped with a cabin and A.C. power.
Government Surplus Vessel
These are government built vessels available through the federal surplus system surplus. As indicated above most
of these are specialized vessels and do not lend themselves to conversion to general purpose research vessel The
exception is the US Army T -Boat The T -Boat is the quintessential government surplus vesseV convened to an
RV. The first T Boats were wooden and built between 1940 and 1951. Steel T -Boats replaced wood vessels in
1951 and continued in production until 1953 when the last steel T -Boat was launched. During this time 110 steel
T boats were constructed to be used as personnel transports, and harbor towing and lightening vessels. Three yards
built steel T Boats, Missouri Valley Steel located in Leavenworth, Kansas, National Steel and Shipbuilding Corp.,
in San Diego, California, and Higgins Co. in Louisiana.

These vessels were given to Universities to use as research vessels but ownership resided with the US Army. A
number of these vessel are still in service including the Tirsiops at the Florida Institute of Technology, the U Conn
operated by the University of Connecticut, the NOAA ship Benthos, and the Linwood Holton at Old Dominion.
The Hilton is still in use, the U CO1ll1 is being replace by a new vessel built as an RN and the Benthos has just
been acquired by NOAA and is in the process of conversion to a research vessel.

Characteristics
-65' LOA 18.5' beam, 7' draft steel construction
-cabin aft with forward cargo hold and for'scle containing 4 berths and galley with diesel stove and DC refrigerator
-seating for 24 passengers in cabin with 1 berth in wheelhouse
-Main engine either Caterpillar D 375 or Budda 1878 4 cylinder -Generator 5 kW DC and Hercules fire pump -All
electrical in vessel DC
-48" x 36" three blade prop with 3-1/2" shaft
-Head, shower, and sink in main cabin and below decks
-2-700 gal fuel tanks
-Designed to carry 30 tons of cargo
-Well built, frames all continuously welded

Conversions
Typical of T boats converted to research vessels are the U CONN and the Linwood Holton. The U CONN was
built in San Diego in 1953 and leased to Scripps Institute where it was used for seismic surveys in southern
California and the Gulf of Mexico. This vessel was unique in that it was never used by the military or moth balled,
it was built and immediately leased to Scripps. The Budda main engine was removed and a Caterpillar D 375 was
installed" The vessel is equipped with 2-20kw 110V DC generators and 2-AC generators. The Cargo hold was
converted to a berthing area and 8 bunks were added. On the main deck the seating area behind the wheel house
was converted to a 110 sq., ft. laboratory with running seawater. The U CONN is used for coastal and offshore
research in Long Island Sound.

The Linwood Holton was built at Higgins in New Orleans, La and was acquired by Old Dominion in 1970. The
Budda main engine was removed and a OM 12- 71 was added. The DC power system was removed and AC was
provided via a 30 KW generator driven by a OM 371. As with the U CONN the seating area on the main deck was
convened to a lab and the cargo area below deck was convened into an 8 person berthing area. Deck equipment
includes a Tyco 1500 lb. capacity crane, 2 hydro winches and a small boat davit. The crane is used to deploy over
the side equipment including trawls and box corers.

In general, the US Army T -Boat has served science well. These vessels were built to high standards and have
lasted beyond the normal life expectancy of vessels of this type. They are very seaworthy although they do have a
tendency to roll in heavy seas. Given the age of this class it is unlikely that new conversions will be accomplished
in the future.
 PRIMER ON SMALL RESEARCH VESSELS
OUTFITTING AND EQUIPMENT
Outfitting Items Below 65 Feet 65 - 85 Feet 86 - 105 Feet
Laboratories (wet and dry area) 50 - 100 sq. ft. 100 - 400 sq. ft. 400 - 700 sq. ft.
Benches 5-10 feet 10-15 feet 15-20 feet
Fume Hood Optional Yes Yes
Sink Yes Yes Yes (2)
Refrigerator Yes Yes Yes
Freezer In Refrigerator 5-10 cubic feet 10-18 cubic feet
Running Sea Water Yes Yes Yes
Uncontaminated Sea Water Optional Yes Yes
Hot and Cold Fresh Water Yes Yes Yes
Compressed Air Optional Optional Yes
Intraship Communications Yes Yes Yes
Hold Downs and Unistrut Optional Yes Yes
Navigation Equipment (for science)
DGPS w/ Charting Yes Yes Yes
Gyroscope Yes Yes Yes
Depth Sounder Yes Yes Yes
Speed Log Optional Yes Yes
RDF for Mooring Beacons Yes Yes Yes
Scientific Instrumentation
Scientific Data Logger (SAIL) Yes Yes Yes
Meteorological System Wind, Temp, BP, SST + RH, Light +RH, Light
CTD Internally Recording Standard Standard
Transmissometer Yes Yes Yes
Flouorometer Yes Yes Yes
ADCP Optional Optional Yes
Water Sampling Bottles Yes Yes Yes
Rosette System Optional Yes Yes
Salinometer Optional Yes Yes
Pinger(s) Optional Yes Yes
Plankton Net, gravity corer Yes Yes Yes
Outfitting Items Below 65 Feet 65 - 85 Feet 86 - 105 Feet

Winches (minimum requirements)

Hydrographic 500 meters 3/16" 1500 meters 3/16" 3000 meters 1/4"
CTD Optional 2000 meter .322" 3000 meters .322"
Trawl N/A 2000 meters 3/8" 3000 meters 1/2"
Capstan Optional Yes Yes
Line Monitoring Optional Yes Yes
Frames and Cranes
Side Frame/Davit Yes Yes Yes
Stern Frame Optional Yes Yes
Deck Crane N/A Optional Yes
Communications (for science)
Cellular w/Fax Yes Yes Yes
Msat Satellite Phone N/A Optional Yes
INMARSAT Standard C N/A Optional Yes
INMARSAT A, B, or M N/A N/A Optional
Electrical Power
115 VAC 15 - 25 amps 25-35 amps 35 - 50 amps
208/220 VAC 10 amps 20 amps 30 amps
208/220/480 VAC 3 phase 10 amps 20 amps 30 amps
12/24 VDC 5 amps 10 amps 15 amps
Clean/Uninterrruptable Power 1.5 kVA 1.5-3 kVA 3-7 kVA
Miscellaneous
Van Capability N/A Optional Yes
SCUBA Platform Yes Optional Optional
Inflatable/Work Boat & Motor Yes Yes Yes
Science Berthing 5 -7 8 - 10 10 - 12
Endurance (days) 5 10 15
Bow Thruster N/A Optional Yes
Weather Deck Working Area 100 - 250 sq. ft. 250 - 450 sq. ft. 450 - 600 sq. ft.
 SECTION 9
Brian W. King
Propulsion Systems
Brian W. King, P.E. graduated from the United States Merchant Marine Academy in 1981 with a B.S. degree in
Marine Engineering. He worked as an operating marine engineer aboard ships, primarily the solid rocket booster
retrieval and research ships home ported at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. He joined Elliott Bay Design
Group in 1988 and currently is their Chief Marine Engineer. He is a U.S. Coast Guard licensed Chief Engineer of
Motor Vessels of any Horsepower and Third Assistant Engineer of Steam Vessels of any Horsepower. He is also a
Professional Engineer of Mechanical Engineering, and Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering registered in
Washington.

THE THRUST END

Disregarding the possibility of paddlewheels or sail, the only practical alternatives for putting
thrust to the water are propellers and waterjets. Each have their inherent strengths and
weaknesses. The best choice for the small research vessel depends largely on the intended
mission profile. Generally, waterjet drives have found the most applications on semi planing or
planing boats intended to go over 25 knots. Propellers are more often applied to slower speed
vessels with displacement or semi planing hulls.

To understand when each is used, one must understand a little about their principles of operation.
The propeller screws its way through the water. As propeller RPM varies, so does propeller
thrust and vessel speed. The jet drive is an axial flow or mixed flow pump. The amount of
thrust it develops is independent of the waterjet drive RPM. The distinguishing characteristics of
a propeller-driven vessel at the propeller are large diameter, large propulsion system momentum,
large water flow, low flow velocity, and low propeller RPM. Propellers are very good at
maintaining a relatively constant vessel speed when the vessel is being slammed by waves and
gusting winds. As hull speeds increase, the shaft support and rudder appendages cause
increasing drag and the propulsive efficiency goes down. The distinguishing characteristics of a
waterjet-driven vessel at the waterjet are small diameter, small propulsion system momentum,
low water flow, high flow velocity, and high waterjet RPM. Waterjet drives are much more
sensitive to varying wave and wind forces. As hull load varies due to wind and wave forces,
waterjet thrust varies and a constant vessel speed is harder to maintain. Waterjet drives have
little or no appendages, so as vessel speed increases, there is no increasing appendage drag
affecting propulsive efficiency.

Conventional Shaft and Propeller

A conventional, fixed-pitch propeller, when driven by a high speed diesel engine with reversing
reduction gear and shaft, is perhaps the most economical and mechanically least complex of the
small research vessel’s propulsion system options. (Illustration 1). The conventional system is
well proven and reliable. Most shipyards have experience installing a conventional propulsion
system and can do it without a high degree of technical sophistication, not necessarily true of the
other propulsion system options. Repair parts and technical support for the major equipment are,
for the most part, readily available throughout the world. Over a fairly narrow designed speed
range, the conventional propulsion system provides the highest overall propulsive efficiency of

ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 10 PROPUL.doc Page 1

April 1, 1998
all propulsion systems available to the small vessel operator. The hull form for a conventional
propeller with rudder may be configured so that the vessel is suitable for shallow draft operation
or at least presents no delicate appendages below the bottom of the vessel.

When a propeller has been selected to provide the best cruising characteristics, it will not allow
the vessel to go slow without constant attention from the operator. An 1800 RPM rated engine
may have an idle RPM of 650. This corresponds proportionally to thrust at the propeller. This
lack of ability to go slow may present a significant problem for some research vessel operational
requirements. Another significant disadvantage is the propellers and the requisite rudder’s
ability, even talent, at fouling any lines or umbilicals that may be hanging over the side. The
conventional propulsion system does not lend itself readily to dynamic positioning.

There are variations of the conventional propulsion system that make it more suited to the small
research vessel operational needs. First to consider is use of a controllable pitch propeller
system. It adds complexity and a higher initial cost, but it does provide the operator almost
infinite speed variation from nearly zero thrust right up to the vessel’s rated speed. The
reduction gear is simpler because no reversing gear and clutch is required. A controllable pitch
propeller system lends itself more readily to dynamic positioning, provided there is also a
thruster and, it too, is part of the dynamic positioning system. Many small vessel controllable
pitch propeller systems are well-proven, very reliable, and do not significantly increase
operational costs or maintenance requirements. Other options to overcome the fixed pitch
propellers lacking low speed control are slipping clutch systems or two-speed reduction gears.

Placing a propeller in a nozzle will generally increase low speed thrust. This may be important if
the vessel operational requirements include towing. Over 10 to 12 knots, nozzles increase drag
and will likely decrease the cruising performance. Nozzles have the added advantage of
protecting the propeller and rudder from impacts and may reduce the probability of a propeller
fouling with lines.

Waterjet Propulsion
Once waterjets were used exclusively for small, high-speed boats. They, in fact, are more
efficient than conventional propellers when speeds are over 25 knots. (Illustration 2). Waterjets
now are being built for work boats that need to go slow. Like the conventional fixed-pitch
propeller, they lack very-low-speed thrust modulation. Unlike the propeller though, they can
moderate their thrust by partially engaging reversing buckets so that they do have the ability to
go very slow. Depending upon the configuration, the waterjet drive usually includes a clutch but
often does not require a reduction gear. Occasionally a reversing reduction gear is installed to
allow back flushing of the waterjet.

Waterjet propulsion lends itself to shallow water operation. Boats can generally be beached or
sit on the bottom without damage to the propulsion system. Waterjet propulsion is safer to
divers than any of the other propulsion options and is least likely to foul lines and umbilicals.

ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 10 PROPUL.doc Page 2

April 1, 1998
Z-Drives
Z-drives are so named because of their drive shaft configuration, horizontal off the engine,
vertical through the hull, and horizontal again at the propeller hub. (Illustration 3). Modern Z-
drives are proving themselves robust and reliable and are now the preferred propulsion system
for most ship-assist and line-haul tugs. Initial cost and operational maintenance costs are higher
than either the conventional propeller or the waterjet propulsion systems. Z-drives are available
in fixed-pitch or controllable-pitch propeller versions and with open propellers or in nozzles. Z-
drives may vector their thrust in any direction, making the vessels in which they are installed
extremely maneuverable. Rudders are not used with Z-drive installations. Of all propulsion
systems available, they are the system most suited for dynamic positioning.

For Z-drives to work effectively, they need to extend below the hull on a small vessel so their
thrust is not blocked. This gives the vessel a comparatively deep draft and vulnerable
appendages making the Z-drives unsuited to shallow draft work. As with a tug, Z-drives may be
tucked under the stern, giving them some protection against bottom impacts, but this does reduce
their all-around thrust vectoring capability.

Cycloidal Drives
Cycloidal drives orient their propeller blades vertically and generate lift over them much as an
airplane wing does. (Illustration 4). Like Z-drive propulsion installations, cycloidal drives may
vector their thrust in any direction and do not use rudders. Cycloidal drives are installed with a
docking platform built under them and a skeg around which the vessel pivots, this allows some
protection from bottom impacts. Cycloidal-drive vessels have comparatively deep drafts; they
are less suitable for shallow water than some other forms of propulsion. Only recently,
proportional electro-mechanical control systems have been developed for cycloidal drives
making them suitable for interfacing with dynamic positioning systems and autopilots.
Cycloidal drives have a higher initial cost and higher operating maintenance costs than the other
propulsion system options described here. Cycloidal drive systems have generally proven
themselves to be extremely robust and reliable.

Steerable Thrusters
Steerable thruster systems are available and are entirely flush with the hull. They work by
ducting in water, either through ports in the bottom or in the side of the hull, increasing its
velocity pressure through an impeller and then discharging it out through the bottom through a
directable nozzle or steering vane assembly. (Illustration 5). They are well-suited to shallow
water work and work where divers, lines and umbilicals may be in near proximity to the vessel.
They are well-suited for dynamic positioning systems.

Steerable thrusters should be considered as auxiliary propulsion and take-home propulsion as

they are too slow and inefficient to be effective main propulsion. By themselves, steerable
thrusters may be suitable for propelling the vessel up to about 6 knots cruising speed.

THE PRIME MOVER END

ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 10 PROPUL.doc Page 3

April 1, 1998
At the end opposite the thrust end in the propulsion system, is a diesel engine, gas turbine, or
electric motor. Due to its very good power-to-weight ratio, the gas turbine has found application
on high-speed vessels particularly in combination with a waterjet. The gas turbine has found
little application on vessel projects wherein high power-to-weight ratio is not a driving criteria
and low cost is a driving criteria. Thus, they are not typically found on the small research vessel.
More typical for the small research vessel, and discussed here, are diesel- and diesel-electric
drive installations.

Diesel Drive
The most common propulsion installation is the direct diesel drive. (Illustration 1). As used
herein, this is a diesel engine coupled to a reversing reduction gear, coupled to a shaft that drives
a fixed-pitch propeller. Ahead or astern thrust is determined by the propeller rotation which is
changed by which clutch and portion of the gears are engaged in the reduction gear. Changing
the speed signal to the diesel engine governor controls propeller thrust and vessel speed. The
diesel engine, the reduction gear, and the shaft supports are all typically bolted to the vessel's
primary structure (the engine girder).

The direct drive diesel engine/reduction gear installation is comparatively low-cost, simple to
install, and is reliable and simple to operate. As discussed previously, it has some disadvantages
for low-speed operation. Most often the speed control of the direct diesel drive is enhanced by
the use of a controllable-pitch propeller. With a controllable- pitch propeller, direction of thrust
is controlled by reversing the propeller blade pitch, not by reversing the direction of rotation of
the propeller; thus the reversing clutch and gear portion of the reduction gear may be eliminated.
Instead, a hydraulic and mechanical means of propeller pitch control is added to the installation.
With a controllable-pitch propeller system, the propeller thrust and vessel speed are controlled by
combination of changing the speed signal to the engine governor and by varying the propeller
blade pitch.

The direct-drive diesel engine, when rigidly coupled to the reduction gear and shaft, must
maintain near-perfect alignment between each of the main components, or premature failure of
the equipment will occur. Alignment is maintained by bolting the equipment to the engine
girder. The engine girder extends under the engine and reduction gear and often is integral with
structure supporting the shaft bearings, stern tube, propeller strut bearing and the rudder. It is
massive and rigid, and part of the vessel's primary structure. The engine girder, in part, is
designed to maintain alignment between the propulsion system equipment even with the hull
flexing in a seaway and, in part, it supports and spreads the propulsion system static and dynamic
loads to the vessel's other structure. This direct attachment of the equipment to each other and to
the vessel structure also means though that the equipment vibrations, torsional and otherwise,
have a method of transmission to each other and throughout the vessel's structure. If not
carefully considered in the design and selection of equipment, these vibrations may have a
detrimental (sometimes dramatic and catastrophic) effect to the well-being of the other
equipment.
Additionally, the vibrations will be felt and heard as structural-borne noise, both within the ship
and in the surrounding sea. A research vessel which must keep habitable working and living
conditions for its crew and scientists, and a minimally intrusive profile in the marine
environment, must have designed-in measures to reduce the propulsion system's noise. An

ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 10 PROPUL.doc Page 4

April 1, 1998
effective way to dramatically reduce structural-borne noise is by resiliently mounting the engine
and reduction gear to the engine girder and by putting a coupling able to take a certain amount of
motion between the reduction gear and shaft. Other methods of reducing noise include sound
insulation, and proper design and selection of equipment for the vessel's systems. Resiliently-
mounted engines add considerable cost and complexity to the direct-drive diesel installation.

Diesel-Electric Drive
The diesel-electric drive propulsion system is a favored approach for larger research vessels with
shaft horsepower of 1000 and more. (Illustration 6). In the past, the diesel-electric drive system
complexity and cost has generally precluded their application for smaller vessels. Recent
technological advances, however, have lowered the size of vessel for which it is a practical
alternative. The electrical connection between the diesel generator and the propulsion motor
offers design flexibility not possible with the direct-diesel drive. The typical installation is to
have several diesel-driven generators providing power to an electrical bus which provides both
ship's service power and propulsion electrical power. The propulsion prime mover in such an
installation is then an electric motor. Propulsion motors may either be alternating current or
direct-current, with direct-current motors being much more common on smaller installations.
With either motor, propeller thrust is controlled by varying the motor RPM. Thrust direction is
controlled by reversing motor direction. In the direct-current motor installation, speed is
controlled by altering the motor voltage. In an alternating-current motor installation, speed is
controlled by altering the frequency to the motor. With either motor type, speed is continuously
variable from zero RPM to the rated RPM of the motor. More than any other attribute, it is the
fine speed control of the diesel-electric system that makes it popular for research vessels. Unlike
the direct-drive diesel system, there is little need for controllable-pitch propellers or reversing
reduction gears with a diesel-electric drive system, although reduction gears with no reversing
function are often installed between the motor and shaft to allow use of a smaller, high-speed
motor.

In a modern installation, power converters are used to change the constant frequency output of
the diesel generator to the direct current used by the direct-current motor or the changeable
frequency for the alternating-current motor. The power converters introduce harmonic currents
to the otherwise clean sine wave of alternating current on the electrical bus. These harmonic
currents are notoriously damaging to the sensitive electronic equipment found in the laboratory
or in the wheelhouse.

A diesel-electric vessel must either split the propulsion electrical bus from the ship’s service
power electrical bus, or it must include equipment that isolates and filters the harmonic currents
from the clean power sine wave. In a split bus configuration, separate diesel generators are
connected to the propulsion bus and to the ship’s service power bus with no electrical connection
between the two busses.

ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 10 PROPUL.doc Page 5

April 1, 1998
ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 10 PROPUL.doc Page 6

April 1, 1998
ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 10 PROPUL.doc Page 7

April 1, 1998
ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 10 PROPUL.doc Page 8

April 1, 1998
ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP Contribution 10 PROPUL.doc Page 9

April 1, 1998
 SECTION 10
Douglas Wolff
Monohull Design and Construction

Monohulls as research vessels have represented the stock-in-trade from the fifteenth
century European voyages of exploration until the late twentieth century. Even now, the
monohull concept has significant advantages over other hullforms in many applications.
Although the SWATH, catamaran, and other "modern" hull forms are increasingly
common, the versatility and economy of the monohull design ensure that it will continue
to play a major role in the fleet of small research vessels.

Significant advantages of the monohull as compared to SWATH and multihull designs

include:
• Low acquisition cost
• Efficient use of enclosed volume
• Propulsion system flexibility
• Excellent maneuverability
• Low relative maintenance

Acquisition Costs
Addition of a new vessel to the fleet requires a careful analysis to determine if the
market will support the capital and operating costs. Without delving into the "demand
side" issues, it is clear that a lower capital investment will enable the operator to be
more price competitive in a slow (buyer's) market, and to recoup the investment faster in
an active (seller's) market. Monohulls offer lower cost per unit volume than other hull
configurations. This is due to the relationship between hull surface area and volume.
This ratio is minimized in the case of a monohull, thereby reducing the quantity of
materials and the amount of labor required to assemble the hull. In addition, machinery
costs are increased in the case of a multihull due to the redundancy required for
multiple propulsion and ballast systems, and are difficulty involved in machinery
installation in cramped spaces.

Hull Volume Utilization

Because the enclosed volume is in a single hull, the monohull offers excellent flexibility
in layout of machinery and accommodations spaces located below deck. For example,
the machinery space can be located aft to reduce shafting length, or forward to permit
accommodations or laboratories amidships where the ride is more comfortable. If a
cargo hold is required, a monohull has maximum usable volume for an amidships or aft
hold.

Propulsion Flexibility
With regard to propulsion machinery, the monohull allows the choice of either single or
twin propulsors. Each option has advantages: a single propulsor occupies less space
and will be lighter and less expensive; twin propulsors provide better maneuverability as
well as take-home power in the event of a propulsor failure. Only the monohull design
allows for the advantages a single propulsor offers.
Dynamic Positioning
Dynamic positioning (DP) has become commonplace in monohull will typically be fitted
with forward and aft jet thrusters for 360o directional control. A twin propulsor vessel
may be able to dispense with the aft thruster, working the two propulsors against each
other as required to obtain the required thrust in conjunction with the forward thrusters.
In either case, DP control is available to suit the mission requirements.

Maneuverability, Access and Maintenance

The relatively narrow beam and large waterplane area of the monohull vessel also offer
advantages. Many areas served by small research vessels have limited port and repair
facilities; the narrow beam allows access into smaller marinas, marine railways and dry-
docks that may be accessible to multihulls vessels. Maintenance is reduced due to
reduces wetted surface areas and fewer sea chests installed in a monohull.

Large waterplane area can be advantageous in that the vessel draft will be less affected
by weight growth than will the draft of a vessel with less waterplane area; i.e. a
monohull will be less weight sensitive than a multihull of comparable length.

Having discussed the advantages of the monohull design, it is now appropriate to touch
on the disadvantages, which are:
• Seakeeping
• Deck area
• Perception

Seakeeping
The relatively large waterplane area, an advantage when considering weight growth, is
a negative factor when considering the issue of seakeeping. Greatly simplified, we can
generalize that a vessel will react to the dynamic input of swells and waves proportional
to the waterplane area - increased area will result in increased ship motions. Methods
for reducing motion are well established and include both active and passive systems.
Active systems include fin stabilizers and rudder control, both of which are controlled by
sensors measuring and responding to vessel motions. These active systems are very
effective when the vessel is operating at speed, but the effectiveness is greatly reduced
as vessel speeds are reduced. The complexity and cost of active roll reduction systems
have generally precluded their use in small research vessels.

Passive roll reduction systems include bilge keels, a deep centerline keel, a centerboard
or daggerboard, flopper-stoppers and anti-roll tank. Bilge keels (also called rolling
chocks) are widely used because of their simplicity, low cost and effectiveness at all
vessels speeds. Properly designed bilge keels create minimal drag and increase roll
period while reducing roll amplitude; poorly designed bilge keels can reduce vessel
speed while providing little reduction in roll amplitude. At the cost of reduced
effectiveness, bilge keels can be made discontinuous in way of over-the-side launching
operations to minimize the risk of fouling.
A deep centerline keel is very inexpensive, but is somewhat less effective in than bilge
keels and increases in draft, a problem for shallow water operations. Course keeping is
enhanced while maneuverability is reduced; increased resistance to transverse forces
by wind and waves may enhance dynamic positioning.

Centerboards and daggerboards offer great flexibility and effectiveness in roll reduction
and draft control. They also provide an excellent location for transducers well below
boundary layer flow. The major disadvantages of high cost and impact on interior
arrangements make these systems generally unacceptable on smaller vessels.

Flopper-stoppers are common on small fishing vessels and are very effective for roll
reduction at minimal cost. Their use on research vessels is usually impractical due to
the requirement for over-the-side booms, entailing a complicated mast and rigging
arrangement, along with the increased potential for fouling scientific equipment on the
in-the-water units.

Anti-roll tanks are probably the most effective method for passive roll reduction, but the
expense, weight, and space requirements prohibit their use on small vessels.

Deck Area
Working deck area and laboratory space are the premier commodities on any research
vessel. For equal length vessels, multihulls have a clear advantage, often up to 30%, in
working deck area and lab space.

Perception
Despite their numerous advantages, monohulls suffer from the perseption that multihulls
represent the state-of-the-art and are therefore inherently safer, more comfortable,
faster or just plain better. Perceptions, true or not, play an important role in completely
marketing a vessel; monohull operators must work harder to convince the market of the
advantages of their vessel for the proposed operations.

Conclusions
There is no optimum hull form for small research vessels. Viewed as a platform for
conducting research, the hull will be subject to numerous compromises affecting cost,
range, seakeeping, payload, complement, maneuverability, data collection and analysis,
capability, even esthetics. It is incumbent upon the vessel design and selection
committee to become educated in these areas so that rational decisions can be made,
resulting in the acquisition of a vessel best suited for the intended operations budget.
 SECTION 11
Robertson Dinsmore
Small SWATH Research Vessels

The application of SWATH technology for small research vessels should be considered during
the planning phase of new or replacement ships. The Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull
(SWATH), or semi-submerged ship, is a relatively recent development in ship design. Although
patents employing this concept show up in 1905, 1932, and 1946, it was not until 1972 that an
89-foot prototype model was built. The principle of the SWATH ship is that submerged hulls do
not follow surface wave motion, and struts supporting an above water platform have a small
cross-section (waterplane) which result in longer natural periods and reduced buoyancy force
changes. Hull fins further dampen motions and provide dynamic stabilization when underway.
The result of all this is that SWATH ships, both in theory and performance, demonstrate a
remarkably stable environment and platform configuration which is highly attractive for science
and engineering operations at sea. Flexibility of SWATH technology size and configuration
allow a wide range of applications both in open ocean and coastal regimes. It is time that the
oceanographic community takes a hard look at what a SWATH can offer.

The design concept of SWATH ships consists of two hulls or pontoons submerged beneath the
water's surface and connected to the upper hulls by thin single or tandem struts. A cross
structure connects the struts above the upper hulls and supports the superstructure (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 - SWATH Configuration and Nomenclature

Substantially all the buoyancy for the vessel is provided by the two submerged pontoons with
reserve buoyancy maintained in the upper hulls. Draft, for operations at sea, can be 50 percent of
the total displacement volume typically is in the lower hulls and the remainder in the submerged
section of the vertical struts. This configuration results in dramatically reduced motions because
it tends to decouple the ship from surface waves. The two submerged lower hulls do not follow
surface wave motion; and the waterplane area (that is, the cross-sectional area of the thin struts at
the waterline) is small. Conversely, a monohull of equal size has much larger waterplane area
and no benefit to deeply sunken hulls to reduce buoyancy force changes. Monohull vessels are
characterized by seasickness, slamming, shipping of green water, and degraded performance in
developed seaways due to large pitch and roll motions and with high accelerations. Monohull
vessels must avoid beam and quartering seas minimize these effects which is not always possible
on science missions. However, the pitch and roll motions of SWATH vessels are low in both
magnitude and acceleration. They can maintain course and speed in higher sea states than a
monohull or catamaran of comparable or larger size.

In addition to providing an extremely steady platform, the SWATH offers highly usable and
flexible deck working space and laboratory arrangements. At the present time (2000), there are
about 50 SWATH ships worldwide in operation or under construction. Of these, about 12 are
under 100-ft. in length and in use as yachts, ferries, pilot boats, workboats, and research vessels.

Performance

As noted, the chief attribute of SWATH is its seakeeping performance. The flexibility of
SWATH geometry allows a selection of hull forms having natural periods which shift ship
responses away from the wave frequencies likely to be encountered. SWATH vessels are
characterized by small waterplane areas and relatively long natural periods of motion. If the
natural periods of a ship are substantially longer than the prevailing ocean waves, then the ship
will experience little motion during the station keeping operations which are required for
oceanographic work. SWATH configurations provide the most feasible means of obtaining the
desired long heave, pitch and roll periods in a relatively small ship.

Both in operating experience and in comparative tests, the superiority of SWATH ships over
monohull vessels has been amply demonstrated. Side-by-side tests in an open seaway were
carried out with the 89-ft. SWATH Kaimalino, a 378-ft. USCG cutter and a 95-ft. cutter. The
results over a three-day period showed that the motion of the SWATH in terms of roll, pitch,
heave, and accelerations compared favorably with larger monohulls. This is shown on the
following graphs.

Fig. 2 - Comparative Performance of SWATH and Larger Monohulls

These results have been borne out repeatedly in the use of the Kaimalino by practicing
oceanographic investigators.
In other areas of performance, SWATH ships have been found to be more acoustically quiet and
vibration-free than equivalent monohulls or catamarans.

SWATH Configuration and Variations

The nature of SWATH geometry permit a wide range of hull form and strut configurations.
Unlike conventional hulls, changes in the SWATH waterplane area curve do not impact the
entire design. The struts and the lower hulls can, to some extent, be designed independently and
modifications in one will not necessarily require modifications in the other. Since the waterplane
area is relatively small and can be distributed in many ways, relatively small changes in the
waterplane result in relatively large changes in the heave and pitch natural periods and the
response characteristics. Consequently, this gives the designer a flexibility to meet other design
requirements so that a hull form with good seakeeping characteristics can be selected.

Perhaps the greatest variation in generic SWATH design is in the single strut and tandem strut
configurations. This has resulted in no little controversy over which has the superior
performance. For on the station (or stopped) work, theory favors tandem strut designs.
However, the single strut per side designs are the most frequently used version, especially for
applications where the primary mission is carried out when underway. Structurally, the single
strut version may be simpler, although the tandem version is preferred if a large center well is
required. Model tests and analyses indicate that the drag of optimized single and tandem strut
versions are about the same, although the tandem versions tend to require more hull shaping.
Also, tandem strut SWATHs generally have a shorter turn radius than single-strut versions. In
summary, it appears that the selection of single or tandem struts per side depends upon the
particular application
since neither is inherently better than the other for all situations. Some of the factors governing
strut selection can be seen in the following table.

PARAMETER SINGLE TANDEM

Resistance Simple Complex

Beam Smaller Larger
Length Longer Shorter
Waterplane Area Larger Smaller
Deck Loading Better Worse
Pitch Loading Worse Better
Overside Loading Better Worse
Length/Beam Ratio 2.1 to 2.6 1.8 to 2.1
At Rest Motions Worse Better
Stationkeeping Drag Worse Better

Examples of both designs are shown by the concept designs of a 90-ft. SWATH research vessel
in Figs. 3 and 4.
Single Strut Design

Fig. 3 - SAIC Maritime Services, Alexandria, VA

Fig. 4 - BSM Joint Venture, Houston, TX

A highly attractive variation in semi-submersible applications is the variable draft SWATH.

Here the ship is designed for sufficient ballast transfer to enable it to vary its draft under all load
conditions. This permits the ship to transit at reduced draft for better propulsion efficiency or
enter shallow harbors where traditional deep draft SWATH ships are excluded. Ballasting down
gives steadiest platform for on-station or slow speed operations in moderate to high sea states. It
also places the main deck at optimum height for overside handling. For coastal zone research,
the variable draft SWATH should be especially attractive. It provides a steady platform for
offshore work but allows operations in shallow bays and estuaries where it is even possible to
ballast down and bring the ship to rest on a shallow sea floor. A design for a 90-ft. variable draft
R/V with operating drafts from 8 to 13.5 ft. is shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 5 - 93-ft. Variable Draft SWATH R/V (Blue Sea Corp.)

A unique approach is that which is utilized by NAVATEK Ships, Inc. The carrier vessel and
superstructure are two independent ship structural components.

Fig. 6 - SWATH Carrier Vessel Concept

The carrier vessel is comprised of the lower hulls, the water-piercing canted struts, sponson and
cross-structure, and accommodates all hydrostatic hydrodynamic loadings exerted on the vessel.
The superstructure is added to the carrier vessel and does not contribute to the overall structural
integrity of the vessel. By use of this configuration, the carrier vessel can accommodate a wide
variety of superstructures with little or no modification.

It is common in smaller SWATHs (under 40m meters) to carry active motion control systems in
the fins and canards. These provide further reductions in pitch and roll chiefly at higher speeds.
The larger and more boxlike hulls in the variable draft SWATH design provide sufficient
damping without resorting to fins.

Other design factors when considering a SWATH ship for oceanographic research are the broad
beam, high freeboard, interferences from the lower hulls for overside operations, motion
dampening, and maneuverability.

The wide boxlike upper hull and superstructure is highly adaptable to the deck working area and
laboratories. A typical SWATH R/V can accommodate science spaces equivalent to a monohull
twice its length. The beam and general SWATH configuration allows for a center well of usable
size. Experience has shown that science work through a SWATH center well results in smaller
wire angles because the wire overboards at the point of least motion. Further, the overboard wire
actually is at a greater distance from the hulls than in overside work. This results in reduced
interference with the hulls and significantly less sample contamination.

SWATH Ships as Small R/Vs

Of the SWATH vessels which have been operated as R/Vs, the size range 60-70 ft. appears to be
a threshold for achieving the full effectiveness attributed to SWATH designs. Hull sizes less
than this will tend to become wave followers with reduced seakeeping. Weight sensitivity would
be more pronounced, even intolerable. Engine spaces would obstruct deck area and the
propulsion drive train becomes cumbersome.

The deep draft, inherent with SWATH design, is a disadvantage for operations in bays and
estuaries where shallow draft is needed. This can be overcome by the variable draft design
which permits the hulls to be deballasted to a draft almost half of the deep water draft. Operating
in this mode allows access to shallow regions and harbors.

Advantages and disadvantages of SWATH ships can be summarized by the following.

Advantages:

Steadiness in a disturbed seaway. It is well confirmed that a properly designed and built
SWATH ship will substantially reduce motions induced by moderate to high wave
conditions. SWATH ships can be designed to suffer only one-half to one-fifth of the
heave, pitch, and roll motions of a monohull of equal displacement in seas driven by
wind speeds over 20 knots. Furthermore, SWATH ships can be configured such that
motions are nearly independent of wave direction relative to the heading of the ship, both
underway and deadin-the-water.

More useable enclosed volume and deck space. The most advantageous SWATH hull form is
such that its greater beam leads to large deck area and usable volume in respect to total
displacement.

Ability to maintain speed in high sea states. The amelioration of slamming by high waves allows
SWATH ships to steam at speeds not possible in comparable monohulls. The submerged
hulls running below wave motion, and the main hull elevated by the slender small
 waterplane columns (struts), together with some other design tradeoffs can make
moderate size vessels relatively immune to slamming.

Disadvantages:

Excessive draft. Since the chief benefit of SWATH designs depends on having their buoyancy
compartments well below the disturbed sea surface, a deeper draft is required for similar
sized monohulls. This can be lessened by the variable draft design.

High propulsion power. The greater wetted surface of the submerged hulls causes greater
frictional resistance and total drag at low and moderate speeds. At higher speeds, the
lower wave-making drag of a properly designed SWATH lessens this disadvantage.

Weight sensitivity. Because of the small waterplane area and wide separation of its buoyancy
compartments, a SWATH design will tend to have larger trim and heel excursions than
will have a monohull. The SWATH ship also will experience greater draft changes
(about four times greater) than an equivalent monohull. SWATH vessels have a very
limited ability to accept a wide variety of science mission loadings. Since such wide
variation in mission equipment is characteristic of oceanography, this limitation may be a
significant disadvantage.

Science Mission Requirements

As part of an overall effort to examine and improve research vessel capabilities, the University-National
Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) developed a set of Science Mission Requirements for small
SWATH vessels. These are reproduced as Appendix A. Although not necessarily applicable to every
size or operating region, it serves as guidelines for developing SWATH concepts to meet specific mission
objectives.

Selected Designs

The following three sheets illustrates concept, and in some cases actual, designs of small SWATH R/Vs
ranging from 60-ft. to 100-ft. Both single and tandem strut designs are included as well as variable draft.
For further information, contact the design firm listed.
Fig.7

Fig. 8 100 ft. single strut

50 ft. beam, 12 ft. draft
15 knot cruise
Fig.10
Fig.11
Conclusion

For applications to meet the mission requirements of small oceanographic research vessels, the
advantages stated above outweigh the disadvantages. Improved seakeeping is the primary
advantage of the SWATH hull form. The motions of SWATH vessels can be equivalent to those
of monohulls many times larger. Increased interior volume and clear deck space make SWATH
designs highly attractive for small and intermediate research vessels. Adverse characteristics
inherent in SWATH design such as weight sensitivity, draft, and trim moments can be overcome
by a prudent selection of design technology. Increased experience as new SWATH vessels are
launched and operated will further the technology. The demand by the scientific community for
access to high performance, yet reasonable sized vessels, should cause strong consideration of
SWATH technology.
 REFERENCES

1. Lang, T. G., 1969, "A New Look at Semi-submerged Ships for the Navy", Naval Undersea
Center Technical Note 251, 1969.
2. Lang, T. G., 1972, ,S3 - New Type of High Performance Semi-submerged Ship", Journal
of Engineering for Industry, November 1992.
3. Lang, T. G., Hightower, J. D., and Strickland, A. T., 1974, "Design and Development of
the 190-Ton Stable Semi-submerged Platform (SSP)", Journal of Basic Engineering, Trans.
ASME, November 1974.
4. Hightower, J. D. and Seiple, R. L., 1978. "Operational Experience with SWATH Ship SSP
Kaimalino", AIAA/SNAME Advanced Marine Vehicles Conference, April 1978.
5. Numata, E., 198 1, "Predicting Hydrodynamic Behavior of Small-Waterplane-Area Twin
Hull Ships", Marine Technology, SNAME, Vol. 18, Jan. 1981.
6. Narita, H., et al, 1982, "Design and Full Scale Test Results of Semi-Submerged Catamaran
(SSC) Vessels", IMSDC London, April 1982.
7. Gore, J. L., 1985, "SWATH Ships, Chap. III, Naval Engineers Journal, February 1985.
8. Kennel, C., 1985, "SWATH Ship Design Trends, RINA Conference, London, April 1985.
9. Kaharl, V., 1985, "SWATH, Calm Seas for Oceanography", EOS Vol. 66, No. 36,
September 1985.
10. UNOLS Fleet Replacement Committee, 1986, "A Plan for Improved Capability of the
University Oceanographic Research Fleet", June 1986.
11. Dinsmore, R. P., and Lang, T. G., 1986, "Replacement of the University Research Fleet
and a 2,500-Ton SWATH Ship Candidate", AIAA Conference, Sept. 1986.
12. Lamb, G. R., 1987, "Influence of Seakeeping Requirements on SWATH Ship Geometry",
Chesapeake Section SNAME, June 1987.
13. McCreight, K. K., 1987, "Assessing the Seaworthiness of SWATH Ships", Trans.
SNAME, November 1987.
14. Lamb, G. R. 1988, "Some Guidance for Hull Form Selection for SWATH Ships", Marine
Technology, SNAME, Vol. 25, October 1988.
15. Lang, T. G., Bishop, C. B., and Sturgeon, W. J., 1988, "SWATH Ship Design for
Oceanographic Research", Proceedings Oceans '88, November 1988.
16. Kennel, C., 1992, "SWATH Ships", Technical & Research Bulletin No. 7-5, SNAME
Panel SD-5, 1992.
17. Seidl, L. H., et al, 1993, "Design and Operational Experience of the SWATH Ship Navatek
I, Marine Technology, SNAME, Vol. 30, July 1993.
18. Sandison, J., and DeVeny, J., 1993, "Report on the Performance of the SWATH Ship
Victorious (T-AGOS 19) as related to Oceanographic Work", Proceedings of Oceans '93,
October 1993.
19. Van Orden, M. D., and Gaul, R. D., 1994, "Variable Draft SWATH Ships", Proceedings of
U.S. Naval Institute, April 1994.
20. Chatterton, P. A., and Paquette, R. G., 1994, "The Sea Shadow”, Naval Engineers Journal,
May 1994.
21. Hollaway, D. M. A., Gaul, R. D., and Dinsmore, R. P., 1994, "Waves and the Future:
SWATH for Ocean Science", Proceedings of Oceans '94, 1994.
 Scientific Requirements for Small
General-purpose Oceanographic Research Ship,
Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull (SWATH)

General: The general aim of this study is to design a SWATH vessel that will provide a
more stable platform in higher sea states and have a higher cruising speed (15
knots in sea state 5). On the other hand, this SWATH will be weight-limited; its
payload will only be 50 LT including winches, cranes, and frames, but not fuel.

Size: The size is determined by the requirements for a 15-knot cruising speed and a
2,000 mile range. It is expected that the size of the "box" will be approximately
100 ft long.

Endurance: 7 days; 2000 mile range.

Accommo- 12 scientific personnel.

dations:

Speed: 18 knots in sea state 4; 15 knots cruising; sustainable through sea state 5; fine
speed control between 0-6 knots.

Station Maintain station and work through sea state 5; limited work in SS 6.
Keeping:

Ice None
Strengthening:

Deck Spacious work area - 2,000 sq ft minimum with contiguous waist work
Working area along one side 12 x 50 ft minimum. Provide for deck loading up to
Area: 1,200 lbs/sq ft in selected areas and an aggregate total of 50 tons. A 15 x 25 ft
centerwell to be provided.

Holddowns on 2-ft centers. Highly flexible to accommodate large but not

necessarily heavy equipment A deck at the bottom of the centerwell to be 10 ft or
less above waterline.

All working decks accessible for power, water, air, and data and voice
communication ports.

Cranes: A modem crane to handle heavy and large equipment capable of reaching
working deck areas and offload vans and heavy equipment up to 8,000 lbs to 20
ft. Crane to have servo controls and motion compensation and be usable as
overside cable fairleads at sea.
Winches: New generation of oceanographic winch systems providing fine control
(0.5 m/min); constant tensioning and constant parameter. Wire monitoring
systems with inputs to laboratory panels and shipboard recording system. Local
and remote controls.

Removable general purpose winches will include:

Hydrowinch with interchangeable drums capable of handling 30,000 ft of wire

rope, Kevlar synthetic line or electromechanical cables having diameters from
3/16" to 5/16" (Markey DESS-3 or equivalent) weight with wire 5 tons.

Capable of loading and using portable winches such as a double drum winch with
15,000 ft of 1/2" trawling wire on each drum for large mid-water net towing.

Portable shelters available to winch work areas for instrument adjustments and
repairs. Two winch control stations located for optimum operator visibility with
reliable communications to laboratories and ship control stations.

Overside Various frames and other handling gear and more versatile than present to
Handling: accommodate wire, cable and free launched arrays. Matched to work with winch
and crane locations but able to be relocated as necessary.

Stem A-frame to have 15-ft minimum horizontal and 20-ft vertical clearance; 15-
ft inboard and outboard reaches.

Provision to carry additional overside handling rigs along working decks from
bow to stern.

Control station(s) to give operator protection and operations monitoring and be

located to provide maximum visibility of overside work.

Laboratories: Approximately 1,200 sq ft of laboratory space including: Main lab area (700 sq ft)
flexible for subdivision providing smaller specialized labs; Wet lab (300 sq ft)
both located contiguous to sampling areas; plus Electronics/Computer lab and
associated users space (300 sq ft); and freezer (100 sq ft).

Access between labs should be convenient.

Labs to be fabricated using uncontaminated and "clean" materials and constructed

to be maintained as such. Furnishings, HVAC, doors, hatches, cable runs, and
fittings to be planned for maximum lab cleanliness.

Cabinetry shall be laboratory grade including flexibility through the use of

unistruts and deck boltdowns.

HVAC: Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning appropriate to laboratories, vans, and
 other science spaces being served. Laboratories shall maintain temperature of 70-
75 deg F, 50% relative humidity, and 9-11 air changes per hour.

Power: Each lab area to have a separate electrical circuit on a clean bus with continuous delivery
capability of at least 40-volt amperes per square foot of lab deck area. Labs to be
furnished with 110 v and 220 v AC. Total estimated laboratory power demand is
40 KVA.

Sea water: Uncontaminated sea water supply to most laboratories and deck areas.

Vans: To carry one or two standardized 8 ft by 20 ft portable vans which may be

laboratory, berthing, storage, or other specialized use. Hookup provision for
power, fresh water, drains, communications, data and shipboard monitoring
systems.

Workboats: One 16-ft inflatable (or semirigid) boat located for ease of launching and
recovery.

Science Science storage space should be provided as feasible.

storage:

Acoustical Ship to be as acoustically quiet as practical.

Systems: Ship to have 12 kHz and 3.5 kHz echo sounding systems and provision for
additional systems.

Navigation/ Global positioning System (GPS) with appropriate interfaces to data

Positioning: systems and ship control processors. Short baseline acoustic navigation system.

Internal
Communi- Internal communication system providing high-quality voice
cations: communications throughout all science spaces and working areas.

Data transmission, monitoring, and recording system available throughout science

space including vans and key working areas.

Closed-circuit television monitoring and recording of all working areas including

subsurface performance of equipment and its handling.

Monitors for all ship control, environmental parameters, science and overside
equipment performance to be available in all, or most, science spaces.

External Reliable voice channels for continuous communications to shore stations

Communi- (including home laboratories), other ships, boats, and aircraft. This
cations: includes satellite, VHF and UHF.

Facsimile communications to transmit high-speed graphics and hard-copy text on

 regular schedules.

High-speed data communications (56 K Baud) links to shore labs and other ships
on a continuous basis.

Capability to receive realtime or near realtime satellite imagery.

Ship Control: Chief requirement is maximum visibility of deck work areas during science
operations and especially during deployment and retrieval of equipment.

The functions, communications, and layout of the ship control station should be
carefully designed to enhance the interaction of ship and science operations. For
example, ship course, speed, altitude, and positioning will often be integrated with
scientific operations requiring control to be exercised from a laboratory area.

Sea State Height

Description Feet Meters
0 Calm-glassy 0 0
1 Calm-rippled 0 to 0.5 0 to 0.1
2 Smooth-wavelets 0.5 to 1.5 0.1 to 0.5
3 Slight 1.5 to 4 0.5 to 1.25
4 Moderate 4 to 8 1.25 to 2.5
5 Rough 8 to 13 2.5 to 4
6 Very rough 13 to 20 4 to 6
7 High 20 to 30 6 to 9
8 Very high 30 to 45 9 to 17
9 Phenomenal Over 45 Over 14
 SECTION 12
John Van Leer
Small Catamaran Research Vessels
Commercial catamaran vessels have been steadily evolving over the last 35 to 40 years, with the guidance
and the continuing evolution of Det Norske Veritas rules. Hundreds of commercial catamarans have been
built, and continue to be built world wide under these rules primarily in Norway, France and Australia
progressing through several generations of ever lighter, ever stronger, ever faster catamarans. Down
through the centuries, catamaran users have realized that catamarans make poor freighters. As a result,
recent design directions have stressed either high speed, semi- planing, passenger ferries, which are
refueled daily, or displacement motor/sailing passenger vessels for longer duration cruising. Both of these
applications stress enhanced sea keeping over cargo hauling with two distinctly different approaches. The
UNOLS fleet includes about two dozen single hulled ships well suited to carrying substantial freight. Thus
we will not discuss the duplication of this capability in a catamaran hull here.
In the first part of this chapter, a brief discussion of catamaran history is presented. Secondly, a general
discussion of the most significant characteristics and tradeoffs in catamaran design parameters is set forth.
Thirdly, a design for a catamaran research vessel optimized around a center well is presented to illustrate
one set of logically consistent choices. Lastly, this conceptual catamaran is applied to supporting four
innovative motion isolation systems well suited to remote sensing and direct sensing observations. These
motion isolation systems and a number of applications give a preview of how the author thinks a 21st
century robotic ship might look and work.

Early Background -The Polynesian Period

The catamaran vessels of today are the direct descendants of the highly evolved Polynesian sailing
vessels. These vessels were used to colonize every habitable island in the vast area of the tropical and
subtropical Pacific and Indian oceans, referred to as Oceania (see Canoes of Oceania by Hadden &
Hornell 1936, 1937 & 1938). The colonization of this region started about three thousand year ago from
Asia and was essentially completed in Hawaii about one thousand years ago. In 1774 Capt. James Cook
had the lines taken off a 108' long catamaran (Brown 1938). Catamarans may seem new and exotic to
many in the western oceanographic community, but they are traditional in the other half of the world.

Western Catamaran Developments During the last 350 years

Early western attempts at building Catamarans include Sir William Petty's Double Bottom in 1662
(Brown 1938). She beat all comers in a race in Dublin establishing the speed potential of catamarans in
the Western Hemisphere. Most early steamboats including Fulton's 1812 ferry boat Jersey were
catamarans where the paddle wheel was protected between the hulls (Brown 1938). The connecting
structure between the hulls was used for navigation and became known as "the bridge". The first steam
powered war ship, the 156' Demologos, was a double-hulled steamer built for the war of 1812. Steam
catamarans remained popular in America, Europe, and
Australia until the screw propeller replaced the paddle wheel around the time of the
American Civil War. In all, Brown lists about 130 large western catamarans before 1938.

Western Perception of Catamarans Shaped by Yachting

The brilliant naval architect Nathaniel Green Herreshoff designed at least 7 catamarans
including the Amaryllis which beat all comers at the New York Yacht Club's Centennial
Regatta in 1876. This victory lead to catamarans being classified as freaks by the yachting
establishment and thus excluded from "proper yacht" racing for about a century.
Since Dennis Connors successfully defended the America's Cup in a catamaran, against a
mono-hull twice her size, catamarans have become more accepted in the U.S.A. In last
year's Miami in Water Sail Boat Show, multi-hull cruising vessels outnumbered
conventional cruising vessels for the first time. Similar growth is beginning to be seen in
powered catamaran yachts. This explosive growth has also led to a number of poorly
designed vessels by inexperienced multi-hull designers getting in on the trend. Thus a
considerable shakedown period will be needed.
In the United States only limited commercial catamaran use has occurred during the last
decade. The commercial trends overseas suggest that the time for building a catamaran
research vessel optimized to take advantage of the catamaran's positive attributes has
arrived. However, past mistakes, like the heavy designs of the R/V Ridgely Warfield (106'
LOA and 162 L T displacement) and R/V Hayes 35 years ago, have made the
oceanographic community understandably wary of catamaran research vessels.
Western interest, materials and technologies have expanded the possible catamaran design
envelope. The most significant progress has followed the evolution of modern metals,
resins, and fibers, post World War II. The experience of most marine scientists has been
limited to the capabilities of mono-hulled vessels designed in the western cargo/fishing
traditions with very limited experience with multihulled vessels. This accounts for the
above mistakes by past ship design committees. (see VanLeer 1982). Catamaran research
vessels are potentially among the most useful but frequently misapplied vessels for
research at sea.

Catamaran Research Vessels

The design of any vessel is a series of compromises which trade off one property for
another. Catamarans are particularly appropriate in the size range from 45 to 170 feet,
where they offer many of the advantages o f considerably longer conventional vessels in a
shorter, wider, shallower draft, fuel efficient package. The R/V Sunbird (46 feet LOA)
operated out of Lizard Island, Australia, has been an effective, comfortable, rugged vessel
for use on the Great Barrier Reef and Coral Sea. In order to gain the greatest research
benefit from the catamaran hull form, we will first examine those applications where
modern catamarans have enjoyed the greatest commercial success.
High-speed passenger ferry and tourist catamarans have become dominant in many
overseas commercial markets. These applications take advantage of shallow draft, large
deck areas, high propulsion efficiencies, excellent seakeeping and maneuverability afforded
by slender, widely separated hulls and propulsion. These applications clearly stress
excellent seakeeping rather than freight hauling applications. Most of the passenger ferries
have relatively short ranges with fuel readily available on a daily basis. This reduces fuel
loading and permits cruising speeds of 15 to
50 knots with semi-planing or wave piercing hull forms. High speeds doppler shift the
encounter frequency of surface gravity waves above natural pitching resonance
dramatically smoothing out the ride.
However, for long range oceanographic vessels, fuel loads increase so that slender
displacement hull shapes are favored and water plane area must be reduced to improve
seakeeping at low speed. Oceanographic vessels spend a lot of time on station near zero
speed and thus can't benefit from the above doppler shift. The 73 foot D MB pearl fishing
catamaran (Crowther Design #73) stays out for two weeks and spends most of its working
life at anchor on station, so it's design is based upon a slender displacement hull form
evolved for sailing. This vessel carries 13 long tons (LT) of pearl shells and seawater with a
range of 1350 nautical miles at 9 to 10 knots and is described in Crowther (1982).
Designing and using modern catamarans is lot like designing and using aircraft where
strength/weight considerations are crucial. Weight control is essential for good and safe
performance offshore. Blind application of monohull design ideas has lead to the creation
of a number of needlessly heavy (and thus expensive) catamarans with poor seakeeping.
Fuel load takes the place o f science cargo as the primary weight to be hauled, which in
turn requires larger engines to achieve the design speed and range, which requires more
fuel and so on. The design spiral then diverges from well-proven wholesome, catamaran
design practice. The resulting vessel has a semi- planing hull but insufficient power to "get
over the hump" and plane. See Harris (1998) and Band Lewis (1999).

Multihulls or Fundamentally Different in Stability from Monohulls

In monohull design, the form of the hull is essential in determining the stability of the
vessel so that there are strong limits on the fineness ratio (hull length/hull beam at the
waterline). Destroyers, for example, are near the upper fineness ratio limit in order to gain a
greater hull speed and fuel economy, but suffer poor roll stability and are thus notoriously
uncomfortable in rough conditions. Twin hulled vessels gain their essential stability by two
widely spaced hulls and to a lesser degree by the shape of the individual hulls. The most
essential decisions the catamaran designer must make are the fineness ratio of the
individual hulls and the overall weight (including all permanent science equipment, science
cargo, fuel, machinery, finishings, fire protection etc.).
Many commercial catamaran hulls have a fineness ratio of 20 without significant stability
problems. In fact, some SW A TH vessels (.Small WAterplane Twin Hulled vessels) have
fineness ratios well beyond 20, trading almost all of the high inherent catamaran stability in
favor of enhanced seakeeping in moderate sea states. However, SWATH vessels are deeply
rooted in the water and might become dangerous in extremely large, breaking seas if the
vessel loses power and becomes aligned with the wave crests. A large breaking sea striking
such a disabled SW A TH vessel a'beam could overcome the vessels modest stability. By
contrast, light displacement, shallow draft catamarans will slide sideways rather than
capsize under the same conditions as clearly demonstrated in Crowther catamaran Model
Testing films simulating hurricane conditions.
At the other extreme, some heavy displacement catamarans have been built with a fineness
ratio of less than 7 to gain greater capacity to carry cargo. While such a vessel is somewhat
dryer on deck, this choice results in a very rough ride due to excessive stability giving rise
to unpleasant snap rolling and pitching motions. This was demonstrated by Harris (1998)
and (1999) Band Levis model test series with accelerations approaching one g in 4 to 8'
head seas measured at the bow. Hull fineness ratios near 12 seem to offer the best
compromise, retaining both good seakeeping and reasonable cargo carrying capabilities as
demonstrated by the successful operation of DMB (Crowther 1983). A semi-circular,
immersed hull form is frequently used to reduce wetted surface and its attendant skin
friction losses in slender displacement hulls. Such a hull form also provides reasonably
shallow draft with modest skegs (with grounding shoes as seen in figure 3) for extreme
shallow water operation and reasonable puncture protection.

Catamarans Have Large Deck Areas Which Invite Overloading

Because the area between the hulls can be used for science, unusually large deck areas and
laboratory spaces are potentially available. There is a natural temptation to fill the entire
area between the hulls with solid decking. However, weight in the ends of the vessel
increases its moment of inertia about the pitch axis and increases the tendency of the vessel
to develop a violent pitching motion as above. If the vessel hulls are nearly symmetrical
about the pitch axis, as in the R/V Hayes, the tendency toward large amplitude synchronous
pitching is aggravated. Therefore, the R/V Hayes was retrofitted with an immersed foil
between the hulls well forward of the pitch axis to damp this tendency. Large areas of solid
foredecks not only increase the pitching and slamming tendencies, but also act as scoops
for boarding head seas in heavy weather, and thus should be avoided for safety reasons (see
Band Lavis 1999). Excessive superstructure height can have much the same effect. Large
weights like engines and tankage should be carried as near the pitch axis as convenient, and
low in the hulls. Amidships weight in the hulls tends to lengthen the roll period which is
usually a benefit. State rooms are often placed in the hulls above the tankage to make more
space on the working deck for labs, open decks, center wells and common areas like the
galley/mess.

Under Wing Clearance and Space Between the Hulls

Wave motion on the sea surface between the hulls contains not only natural surface gravity
waves, but also the wake emerging from the bow of each individual hull. Consequently, the
space between the hulls should be adequate for wave passage without colliding the
underside of the connecting structure between the hulls (slamming). The intersecting bow
wave patterns produce humps and valleys in the sea surface between the hulls which move
aft as speed increases, leading to significant variations in
the propulsion power as a function of increasing speed from the expected square law
dependence. So, for a given hull shape and spacing, there may be preferred operation speed
ranges where enhanced efficiency is possible. Bows which extend beyond the
superstructure by about 30% of the ship's length, allow the vessel to rise to an oncoming
sea before it encounters the wing structure (see Band Lavis, 1999). Bulbous bows have
been used by Crowther and others to suppress bow waves and damp pitching motions.
If each hull is symmetrical about its center line, the space between the hulls becomes
progressively narrower aft of the bow, creating a convergent channel which will amplify
waves approaching from the bow. This undesirable effect becomes more pronounced as the
hull fineness ratio is reduced. In some extreme cases, the space between the hulls is less
than each hull beam measured at the waterline resulting in more than doubling of
oncoming wave amplitudes. Unless such a vessel is slowed dramatically in head seas, it
will slam frequently (see Band Lavis 1999). Most offshore catamarans employ netting
between the hulls forward of the main connecting structure so that breaking wave crests
can pass through without overloading and depressing the bow from above or slamming
from below.
Adequate underwing clearance will reduce the chance of slamming. Five percent of the
catamaran's length is considered minimum clearance in the fully loaded condition with full
fuel. Overloading will not only increase vessel stresses, but reduce the underwing
clearance, and reduce propulsion efficiencies (see Band Lavis 1999). In a monohull,
maximum load is frequently limited by reduced stability. However, a catamaran becomes
more stable with load. Clearly, common sense is required when loading a catamaran, by
conforming to the designed full load specification (see Band Lavis 1999). With today's
easy shipment of containerized cargo, it is no longer necessary to carry everything which
will be used on a multi-legged cruise for the duration of the cruise. In coastal regions with
reasonable fuel availability, it is likewise not required to carry fuel for an entire multi-
legged cruise.

The Center Well Option - A Primary Reason to Choose a Catamaran

It is possible to arrange a catamaran to permit a true center well at the pitch and roll center
of the vessel without cutting into the ship's bottom. This location is at the point of
minimum motion and acceleration and is useful for drilling, coring and general purpose
wire lowered instrumentation. The catamaran R/V Lu Lu operated by W.H.O.I. for many
years had a makeshift hull design based upon two extraordinarily heavy pontoons available
from Navy surplus, but it did have a fully functional center well with an elevator to launch
the deep submersible, Alvin. The author had the pleasure of using this center well to
launch and recover instrumentation in rough conditions while Alvin was on a dive. The
convenience and safety of the center well was so great it lead the author to wonder why all
catamaran research vessels didn't launch their gear through true center wells. The R/V
Hayes deploys an extremely large and complex acoustic array through its ample center
well, with excellent results. Clearly, there is a compelling reason why all deep sea drilling
vessels have center wells. In a catamaran with widely spaced hulls, a large center well is
more practical because it avoids problems with surge common within hull
piercing center wells, and the added parasitic drag of a large opening in the bottom of the
hull.

To test the dynamic response of wire lowered gear in center wells, the author built a center
well in his 36' catamaran, straddled by a tripod which had a turning block located near the
pitch and roll center of the vessel. This general arrangement, included a self breaking, air
driven winch, permitted the safe launching/recovery of 660 lb. anchors from this 4,000
pound vessel in 4 to 6 foot seas. The motion of the anchor was s o gentle that restraining
lines were scarcely needed. This is a stark contrast to the danger of handling such a weight
over the side or stern of a conventional vessel of similar size in 4 to 6 foot seas.

An Optimized Catamaran Research Vessel Designed by Crowther

Until Hubble, astronomers had to settle for blurred images seen through a turbulent
attenuating atmosphere. Oceanographers and meteorologists have begun to image the ocean
and the atmosphere from ships through a variety of sensor systems. They too have had to
cope with turbulent attenuating media, but the motion of their observing platform, the ship,
has had far greater noise producing effects than typical satellite or aircraft platforms.
Described here is a catamaran ship designed by Crowther Multihulls to accommodate a set
of four related motion reduction techniques for a frontal attack on ship motion induced
errors, stresses and hazards.
This vessel relies on four distinct techniques to reduce motion. The large scale of these
devices also makes them useful for direct sensing of the ocean, atmosphere, and bottom.
Manipulators of appropriate size are suggested to bring the maximum capabilities of the
ship to bear on projects, while isolating undesirable effects of ship motion. This will
enhance the quality of observations, while introducing a whole new level of safety as
scientific personnel are removed from "hero platforms" and replaced by robotic devices.
Simultaneous stabilized measurements can be made above and below the sea surface from
a common motion stabilized pendulum.
These devices are: (1) A Motion Compensated Pendulum (MCP) deployed through the
center well at the pitch and roll center of the vessel (Figure 2). (2) A motion compensated
A-Frame Mast (Figure 1). (3) A system of 4 spuds for stable shallow water anchoring as
(Figure 2 and 3). (4) A Motion Control System with four inboard control fins to reduce
pitching and heaving motions about 50% while underway. The four systems described here
will complement and/or enhance the performance o f most sensing and sampling systems.
The A-Frame Mast can also support a significant sail plan for passive motion damping,
silent operation underway, and increased range.

The proposed motion compensation devices will support existing technology and provide a
platform which is easily adapted to emerging technologies which might otherwise go
unsupported in seagoing applications. The motion compensation properties, desired to gain
the greatest advantage from modern oceanographic and meteorological remote sensing and
direct sensing instrumentation, are a result of the entire system
designed from the hull upward including the four new systems described here.

An Optimized Catamaran Ship

The 22 meter catamaran vessel used to support these motion isolation devices was designed
by Crowther Multihulls in Australia and is presented with Brett Crowther's permission
(Crowther Design # 247B). The Crowther design shown in figures 1, 2, and 3 was scaled
up from the pearl fishing catamaran DMB which has a fineness ratio of 11.68 and a flared
hull shape. This true displacement type hull shape was evolved for sailing to minimize
excessive motion which otherwise would disturb the air flow over the sails. This reduction
of motion was a result of reduced water plane area, bulbous bows, and relatively broad
transoms. This design maximizes usable cabin space within the hull and reduces the
tendency toward pitch or roll resonance. Clearly the hull shape will be the first stage of our
motion compensation approach. The computer modeling work such as that performed by
Marine Dynamics discussed in section four below would aid the naval architect to
inexpensively test seakeeping alternatives.

Layout Dictated by Center Well

Most ship designs are adapted from other uses with observation techniques adapted to an
existing hull. By contrast, our general arrangement has been optimized for robotic, remote,
and direct sensing requirements. In effect, our layout has been built around the observation
techniques. Thus, the sweetest spot, the pitch and roll center, has been dedicated to a true
center well and the robotic devices to be operated there. Like other research vessels, there
are reinforced spots for crane, winch, and A-frame foundations. On our vessel design there
are an additional four reinforced areas at the corners of the catamaran's central box
structure for spud and/or davit foundations (seen in figures 2, and 3) and two reinforced
supports for a central A frame or motion compensated pendulum described below. Ten
scientist/crew bunks are located within each hull forward of the engine room which are
accessed by two sets of stairs from the main deck. By putting accommodations within the
hulls, the main deck is reserved for laboratory space over the central accommodations and
engine room. The working deck aft is continuous with the center well deck under the
bridge with vertical clearance for a standard 20' shipping container under the raised aft
bridge and fore and aft 50' deep.
The raised aft bridge is located overlooking the two principal work areas; the deck, aft, and
the center deck. Thus only one set of controls is required for navigation. Winch, center well
hatch cover, spud, motion compensated pendulum (MCP), and motion compensated A-
Frame Mast controls are located on the bridge. In this way, crew scientists and technicians
are remote from gear launching dangers and winch and wire accidents. If roller furling sails
are deployed from the A-frame/mast, the bridge is in the perfect location to observe their
trim and function. Both winches and the crane are located on the 02 deck for safety and
visibility from the bridge.
Straight piping and wiring ways are located in the joint between the working deck and the hull from stem to stern with direct access to all parts
of the ship including deck areas, labs, state rooms and engine rooms (seen in figure 3). An additional wireway connects the individual wire ways
in each hull (through the bridge deck) for power, signals, and the main electric control panel can be located on the bridge. A second connecting
duct passes through the main deck between engine rooms for hydraulic and other plumbing.
Galley and mess areas are on the main deck ahead of the center deck and between the wet and dry lab spaces (Figure 2). The aft sections of the
wet or dry lab can be configured for handicapped access stateroom when needed, with wheelchair access to the main deck. Stairs down through
each transom give easy diver access to the water.
The Crowther design described here will meet all the UNOLS requirements for a Small Expeditionary Vessel as defined at the Fleet
Improvement Committee Meeting on Coastal Oceanography in Williamsburg in early 1993. See table I below:
Table 1

Specifications for Crowther Design #247JB

Length over all 79'

Extreme Beam 34 ,
Hull Beam @ Waterline Approximately 6.5'
Draft 4 to 4.5' Depending on Load
Full Load Displacement 62 Long Tons
Science Cargo 10 Long Tons
2 Winches Crane & Aft Frame 2 Long Tons
Center Well @ Pitch & Roll Center 8' Wide x 10.8' Long
Under Deck Clearance to Waterline 4' Minimum @ Full Load
Scientists 16
Crew 4
Range 1,250n Miles @ 12 Knots
Duration 2 Weeks
Spud Mounting Strong Points Set of 4 as Show in Figures 2&3
(For Lifting Vessel or Anchoring) (In 4-15' Depths in up to 3' waves)
Marine Grade Aluminum 5083 H116 Scantlings per Det Norke Veritas
Bottom Plate Thickness 3/8"
Deck Tie Downs 1/2" NC bolt Holes on 2' Centers
Speed (Maximum) 13 Knots Power Only 20 Plus Motor Sailing
Power Twin Diesels
Propellers (2) Controllable Pitch
Working Deck Area Aft 450 Square Feet
Center Deck Including Well 350 Square Feet
Lab Space 640 Square Feet in Wet & Dry Labs
Optional Center Lab Module 350 Square Feet
Mooring Weights Up to 5,000 lbs. At Stern or Center Well
Drilling and Coring Through Center Well
Figure 1. Profile of 79' Crowther catamaran research vessel. A-frame mast pivots about base from 20° aft to horizontal forward. In aft position
A-frame may be supported by a compression strut (dashed) to the bridge top to form a tripod for heavy loads 50' over center well. In horizontal
position, A-frame reaches 10 meters ahead of the vessel to deploy sensors or a conductor wire over bow for 500 lb. loads. A-frame may be
hydraulically controlled in a+ 15° sector to suppress pitching motion. Top of pendulum is seen in raised position (dashed) and lowered position
solid. Note clean forward hull profile for minimum interference with A-frame or pendulum deployed sensor systems.
1) Motion Compensated Pendulum for Pitch. Roll & Heave

The pendulum system will motion compensate remote sensing devices of up to 1,000
pounds in the atmosphere, high enough to look over the forward elements of the vessel
superstructure, and up to 5,000 pounds below the hulls of the vessel. Our object is to reduce
the pendulum's pitch, roll, and heave motions to less than 10 percent of those experienced
by the ship as a whole while operating in 4' to 8' seas. A wide variety of science missions
are described below which are enhanced by the pendulum. These include: a high frequency
swath mapping transducer array, side scan sonar, atmospheric radar and acoustic gear, and
a small scientific drilling rig for carbonate sampling in shallow water. Conventional wire
lowered instrumentation such as CTD's will also produce data with higher signal/noise and
with less chance of damage or loss when handled from the pendulum.

A variety of oceanographic and meteorological sensing systems may be attached to the

upper and lower ends of a motion compensated pendulum. This pendulum is located at the
pitch and roll center of the conceptual catamaran. The pendulum pivots about two axes on
gimbals located about 20' above the water at the 02 deck level (as seen in Figure 2). The
vertical distribution of weight is such that the pendulum remains stable in a nearly vertical
position when operated in a passive condition. There are mechanical stops at about +1-30
degrees in roll and +45 degrees (for towing) and -30 degrees in pitch. The pendulum will
be actively controlled by hydraulic cylinders acting through the gimbal set to maintain the
pendulum in a preset position in a near vertical attitude as the ship pitches and rolls around
it. Pendulum inertia increases its own stability.

Pendulum Reference Data Needed for Attitude and Heave Control

A GPS Attitude Determination Unit such as the ADU2, produced by ASHTECH Inc., can
allow us to measure the attitude (pitch and roll to + .08° and azimuth to +.04°) of the
catamaran at least twice per second. These measurements are derived entirely from
differential GPS data thus they are independent of the accelerations being experienced by
the ship. These data are a required input to the motion compensated pendulum system and
are now available for less than $20K. Such GPS systems have many uses, including the
continuous calibration of the conventional gyro and magnetic compass systems, and precise
location of other general purpose data. We also require the real time differential feature
needed to determine position with +1 meter accuracy and velocity to +.l knots for ADCP
corrections.
Angle resolvers mounted on the gimbals can continuously measure the attitude of the
pendulum relative to the ship to within about one tenth of a degree, and are combined with
ADU2 data to develop the error signals required to hydraulically maintain the pendulum in
a stable vertical or inclined attitude. The addition of an accelerometer aligned with the
pendulum axis allows us to develop an error signal required to hydraulically attenuate
heave motion. The ADU2 is provided with a 1 meter square antenna array which is small
enough to be mounted atop the A-frame mast so that it will be the highest object on the
ship to avoid structural interference with satellite signals.
Trunnion Carriage
The two part (port and starboard) structure which supports the outer set of gimbal bearings
is called the trunnion carriage. This carriage structurally supports a large pair of self-
aligning bearings with spherical shells that hold the trunnion stubs. These stubs protrude
from the port and starboard side of the outermost gimbal to permit motions about the pitch
axis. It reduces the unsupported span across the center well deck so the gimbals can be
smaller. An individual trunnion carriage will be needed to mount the MCP in each
individual ship, or a set of adapter plates/fixtures will be required to transfer loads into the
structure of each individual ship surrounding its center well or moon pool. In cases like the
prototype catamaran, the trunnion carriage structure is minimized by building supporting
structures into the bulkheads and decks surrounding the center well. The bulk of the
carriage and gimbals are located on the 02 deck to keep the working deck clear of
hardware and moving machinery. This built-in structure could alternatively support a
conventional A-frame which spans this well mounted on the 02 deck, giving a 25 foot
vertical working deck clearance.
The second function of the trunnion carriage is to anchor the double-acting hydraulic
cylinders which move the gimbals to compensate for ship motion, friction, and
hydrodynamic drag of wind or water. Control valves, hydraulic hoses, compressed air,
power and signal connections, will be protected by conduits within the carriage structure
with appropriate quick disconnects for easy installation/removal. Lastly when the MCP i s
removed from the ship, by dock crane, the trunnion carriage then becomes a storage stand
simply by locking the gimbal set and the pendulum.

Other Uses for the Motion Compensated Pendulum

A lift capacity of 5,000 pounds is set for the motion compensated pendulum in order to
conform to the UNOLS small expeditionary vessel heavy lifting specification. This new
pendulum device is the subject of a separate patent application with the University of
Miami. Since the pitch and roll center has the minimum motion on the vessel this is the
ideal location to handle the heaviest loads.
A) Drilling and Coring Through the Center Well
The center well is also needed for the optimum placement of a small scientific drilling rig
like the one operated by Dr. Richard Fairbanks at Lamont. His commercially produced
Acker Bush Master rig has already demonstrated an additional heave compensation system
(designed at Lamont) in 10' seas. His system can drill 2" diameter cores about 40 meters
into carbonate sediments in water depths of 100 meters. All successful seagoing drill rigs
either jack up, or are semi-submersible and/or have a true center well drilling capability.
Twenty-one foot standard lengths of drill string may be lifted from a pipe stand under the
elevated aft bridge and hoisted at the top with a crown block hung at the apex of the tripod
(Figure I). A system of up to four spuds is used to anchor the conceptual vessel in calm
water of depths up to 5 meters, which are commonly found on the Bahama Banks and in
Florida Bay and Biscayne Bay. The MCP system can support the Acker Rig and its motion
compensating system, thus reducing heaving motions another order of magnitude. A
bottom plate bolted onto the pendulum base can be placed directly on the bottom in very
shallow water and act as a drilling template and at the same time support the rig on the sea
bed with compression loads through the pendulum body. The ship is constrained
horizontally by spuds and the drill rig is free to move vertically within the gimbal sleeve.
In deeper water a four anchor spread, or dynamic positioning could be implemented.

B) Five-beam Bi-Static ADCP

A downward oriented narrow beam acoustic transducer mounted at the base of a motion
stabilized pendulum will make it possible to measure vertical velocities in shallow water
from a moving ship. Such observations would be beneficial to a wide range of physical
oceanographic, geological and biological process studies.
The advantages of the vertical transmitter beam and bi-static receiver geometry are (1)
clean measurements of the vertical velocity w down to the bottom with minimal
contamination from side lobes and (2) the ability to estimate the Reynolds stress ( <u'w'>,
<v'w'> ) if the turbulent velocity (u', v', w') can be resolved. Only the vertical beam allows
observations o f wand backscatter strength (related to suspended sediment and/or
zooplankton) of the entire benthic boundary layer. Observations of coherent structures such
as Langmuir cells, in the surface and benthic boundary layers become feasible with a bi-
static ADCP. Other applications include the study of secondary circulation's related to
varying bathymetry and observations of organized turbulence (Viekman et al 1994).
Because vertical velocities tend to be small, their measurement by an ADCP mounted on a
moving vessel is difficult. Even small deviations from vertical orientation of the ADCP can
induce an unacceptably large bias in the sensed w. This bias changes with the trim of the
ship. A catamaran with a stabilized pendulum in the center well and a GPS-based attitude
system will allow monitoring the orientation of the ADCP to fractions of a degree and
make shipborne observations of small w feasible. Residual vertical velocity errors can be
corrected with the vertical accelerometer data above or bottom reflection information.
Mounting an ADCP in the center well of a catamaran has additional benefits. There is less
flow distortion than with ADCP's mounted on the bottom of the hull, there is less of a
problem with bubble clouds obstructing the sound transmission, and there is minimum
heave. ADCP data would clearly have much better signal/noise under rough conditions.
The transducers can also be located at a shallow depth between the hulls such that
measurements can reach closer to the surface than in a conventional mount or be lowered
below surface bubble clouds.

C) CTD/Rossette and Other Wire Lowered Applications

Wire lowered sensors, such as CTD systems, would benefit from these motion isolation
features. We can motion compensate conventional winch systems by mounting a turning
block atop the pendulum with a long
horizontal run of wire on the 02 deck to assure small fleeting angles. Vertical motions of
the MCP produce minimal changes in long horizontal wire runs. The wire is then lead
down through the center of the MCP to the CTD below. Vertical resolution would
improve, mixing effects would be reduced and launching damage and personnel safety
problems would be virtually eliminated. During launch/retrieval the CTD is snugged up
against a compliant spring/shock absorber mounted on the base of the MCP. A
conventional A-frame can be mounted on the MCP foundations, when the MCP system is
not in use. Three or more restraining lines, from all sides can hold the CTD from swinging,
when it is launched through the center well.
D) Diver, AUV and ROV Support Applications
Dive support platforms can be lowered by cable from the pendulum and held nearly
motionless near the bottom while supplying ship resources. Examples include: two tons of
steady lift, electric power, compressed air, hydraulic power and fiber optic cable for TV
monitors control signals and data transmissions. Such a system would be particularly
convenient to handle loads safely during underwater construction projects, which have
been marginally safe in rough conditions with conventional vessels and cranes. Shark
cages, decompression chambers for bell diving with decompression later on deck or other
bulky safety devices could be stabilized at depths convenient to the divers mission. ROV's
or AUV's could be launched through the surface under complete pendulum control (in a
clamping fixture) and released at a depth of 25 feet and lowered by wire to greater depth.
Retrieval is also under full pendulum control.
As an example of past problems, caused by a lack of motion compensation, both Peter
Weibe and Bob Ballard of WHOI have lost ROV equipment either due to excessive wave
induced strains on the tether system or collision with the ship. Sensor systems or ROV's
can be held in a fixture at the base of the pendulum, until well below keel depth where
wave orbital velocities are reduced and thus should escape damage. Numerous
oceanographic sensors, such as CTD's, have been damaged by colliding with the hull at
high velocity during launching. In order to prevent such damage, scientists, technicians and
students frequently stand in harms way on a "hero platform" or under suspended loads
while hanging over the side. A serious winch and wire accident involving serious inquiry
has occurred in South Florida on average every 5 years.
Launching gear from the bottom of the pendulum is a robotic rather than human activity,
thus personnel are remote from gear failures and gear/hull collisions. Hull/wire or
wire/propeller interactions are also avoided. There will be a host of pendulum accessories,
for different missions, including those yet to be conceived.
A simple pipe flange is welded to the bottom of the pendulum where the largest loads are
handled. A similar bolt on flange at the top is used where atmospheric sensors can be
mounted each with the same standard bolt pattern.
E) Examples of Accessories to be Developed
A water damped shock absorber/grabber, to gently capture wire lowered devices, like
CTD's/Rossettes. This device would be similar to water damped mooring stops used for
years on Cyclesonde moorings.

Large box cores or large diameter piston cores, for water depths 10 meters or less can be
directly mounted on the MCP. These devices are pushed into the bottom, with a force
supplied by the rack and pinion mechanism, which moves the pendulum vertically or a
hydraulic cylinder.

F) Meteorological Pendulum Applications

The MCP would provide a unique capacity for atmospheric remote sensing. Albrecht's
group currently operates a 915Mhz wind profiler and a 94GHz Doppler radar for cloud and
boundary layer studies on land. Both of these systems require stabilization for ship-board
applications. The 915Mhz profiler has a phased array antenna, that forms a vertical-
pointing beam and two beams pointing 15° off the vertical. Winds from near the surface to
3-4 km are obtained from Doppler velocities measured along these beams. Since ship
movements contaminate these velocities, stabilization is needed to ensure proper operation
on a ship. The 94GHz Doppler radar is used in a vertically-pointed mode, to study cloud
properties using reflectivity and the Doppler spectrum. It too requires stabilization for ship
operations, since the relatively strong horizontal wind components can easily contaminate
the vertical velocities, as the radar points off vertical. The MCP would have more than
adequate capacity to handle these remote-sensing systems.

2) A Frame Mast for Forward Instrument Deployment -Pitch Stabilized

As part of the suite of motion compensation capabilities, an A-Frame Mast system is

proposed for our conceptual catamaran ship. This system will enhance: meteorological
observation, remote surface sensing, geological sampling, line of sight communication,
chemical/optical sampling, acoustic noise abatement, near reef piloting, propulsion
efficiency, speed and sea keeping capabilities of our conceptual vessel. Like other
catamaran enhancements, the A-Frame Mast is removable. The structures to support this
A-Frame Mast system are the forward spud foundations. When inclined forward, to the
horizontal position, a pair o f hydraulic cylinders, bearing on the foredecks, may be
controlled to remove about 90% of the pitching motion while the vessel is at rest in 4 to 8
foot seas
A) Meteorological instrument readings are adversely influenced by a ship's structure, by its
disturbance of the wind field. Instruments are typically placed high on a mast to reduce
these influences, but even in this case, significant corrections are often required and ship
motions are amplified. Needless to say, an aft bridge location will greatly improve both
direct and remote sensing meteorological of our conceptual ship. An A-Frame Mast is an
extremely tall A-Frame, extending to heights of 20 meters above the water. Very narrow
instrument towers can be supported from the apex, since the tower does not need to support
compression loads. An A-Frame Mast, minimally obstructs the view dead ahead or above,
for the bridge or for remote sensing transducer mounted on the motion
compensated pendulum system. Like ordinary A-Frames, this mast is equipped with
pivots, where the legs meet the deck and can be moved by hydraulic cylinders fore and aft.
The legs are pivoted on the same type large self-aligning, bearings used on the gimbals.
The same type of angle resolvers and double-acting hydraulic cylinder control the A-Frame
Mast. A vertical sensor mast could be suspended in tension from above and lowered down
to the sea surface or even below the surface. A-Frame Masts can have sufficient structural
strength that they can be used without the complication and interference of stabilizing
shrouds associated with conventional masts.

B) Additional Applications for a Pitch-Controlled A-Frame Mast

The use of a tall A-frame gives the flexibility of extending the measuring point well ahead
of the ship and its disturbance to both atmospheric and oceanic boundary layers. Air-sea
interaction measurements involve the accurate resolution of wave properties and
turbulence on both sides of the interface. On conventional ships the problems (in this
regard) are of two types: a) contamination o f measurements due to the motion of the ship
(e.g., Katsaros et al., 1993); b) disturbance of the flow past the ship. The motion-
compensated A-frame concept greatly reduces the severity of these problems, by moving
the measuring point well ahead of the ship and compensating for heave and pitch of the
ship.

Some of the air-sea interaction measurements that will be greatly facilitated by this
motion-compensated A-frame are:
a) Wave directional spectra using an array of remote (laser) ranging devices (Donelan et
al., 1996).
b) Momentum, heat and mass fluxes across the interface.
c) Infra-red sensing of the surface skin.
d) Wave breaking statistics.
e) Turbulence structure on both sides of the interface +/- 5 m (Terray et al., 1996).

C) Geological Sampling Uses of an A-Frame Mast

In the aft position, the apex of the A-Frame Mast would be directly over the center well
and could be used to support a crown block to hoist standard 21' sections of drill string for
Fairbank's heave compensated drill rig. For heavier loads, like vibra-coring, a compression
strut could be installed from the top of the bridge deck to join the A-Frame to form a very
rigid tripod. (see Figure 1) The greater mast height could provide exceptionally long core
capability in soft sediment environments (up to 2 O meters or more) when the vessel is
spudded in place.

D) A Third Wire Deployed Forward for Chemistry and Optics

In a forward position, a third wire for loads up to 500 pounds could be rigged through a
block at the A-Frame's apex. This would permit the deployment of wire lowered sensors 10
meters ahead of the ship's influence. This would reduce ship shadow for effects optical
sensors such as those deployed by Rod Zika or Ken Voss. If the forward section of the ship
is primarily netting rather than solid structure, there will be even less
influence by the ships shadow. This third wire conforms to a small expeditionary vessel
specification by UNOLS to be able to deploy up to three, widely separated, wires
simultaneously for independent experiments. In this way three independent groups with
different wire requirements could make complementary measurements without
interference. One wire i s deployed over the stern A-frame, the second wire is deployed
through the center well, and the third wire is deployed over the bow supported by the A-
Frame mast. This would give about IS to 20 meters separation between the wires. The A-
Frame Mast would be much simpler to use than conventional outriggers since it is little
more than an oversized A-Frame. These wire-lowered sensors would also be stabilized in
pitch ahead of the vessel.

E) Navigational. Propulsion and Seakeeping With an A-Frame Mast

In the horizontal position, the A-Frame Mast can pass under low bridges. A pivoting crows
nest, can support an observer ahead of the ship when navigating coral strewn waters to
look downward for obstructions without critical angle of reflection problems typically
experienced from the bridge. At night, underwater lights looking forward from the bulbous
bows of each hull, will provide illumination at a time when ships are typically blind
underwater.
The upper crows nest would provide a convenient mount for instruments and a convenient
platform to service: the crown block, upper bearings for roller furling gear, and scientific
instruments. A tensile member is located along the aft edge of each mast extrusion (not
shown in Figure I) to support the mast in its extreme forward position. Compressive struts
between the tensile member and the mast will be spaced at convenient intervals to form
steps to climb the A-Frame Mast, with a track for a clip-on safety harness to protect
workers aloft.
When not in use for remote sensing, the A-Frame Mast could support a significant sail
plan. This offers a capability of taking acoustic data with complete silence from rotating
machinery. Seismic or bio-acoustic uses are possible with minimum noise while underway.
This would be a unique capability in the entire UNOLS fleet. Sails will result in greatly
improved catamaran seakeeping, which will be invaluable when crossing or working in the
Gulf Stream during strong North winds. Comfort and range will be improved while
making long transit legs to or from the Caribbean Sea across the trade-winds, or crossing
from Key West to Cuba after it opens up. John Adams, President of Motion Dynamics Inc.,
believes Catamaran motion reduction by sails is a re-emerging technology, which may
prove more effective than computer controlled fins at low speed (personal
communication). Motion Dynamics can do computerized sea keeping model runs including
sails to demonstrate their effectiveness quantitatively. Intelligent use of sails while motor
sailing will improve speed (about 50% under favorable conditions) and increase the range
of the vessel, without burdening the catamaran with added tonnage of fuel.
Recently, a mono-hulled concept boat "Amoco Procyon", has demonstrated a similar full
height bi-pod mast. This reduced weight aloft by 25% and windage aloft by taking
advantage of carbon fiber in a system designed, built and patented by Eric and Ben Hall at
Hall Spars. This
system can be raised and lowered, to allow a 30 meter mast to be lowered to 20 feet above
the water, to permit passage under low fixed bridges. This bi-pod mast permits hydraulic
roller furled sails for both jib and mainsail for ease of short handed sailing on this 65' long
high performance boat. Hydraulic roller furling on all sails greatly reduces crewing
requirements on motor sailing vessels, so that they are about the same as powered vessels.
The Procyon carries 40% more sail area than comparable boats and has greater mainsail
efficiency because it is not in the turbulent wake of a conventional mast. The above
improvements are calculated to increase boat speed about 10% compared to other ULDB
boats.
The advantage of motor sailing would be far greater on a catamaran with 34 foot beam for
a wider A-Frame Mast foundation plus much wider sheeting angles. The righting moment
is calculated to be a 2 million + ft-lb. and a much higher 25 + knots hull speed. See Van
Leer (1982) for a more detailed discussion of Sailing Catamaran Research Vessels.

3) Shallow Water Motion Stabilization With Spuds - A Proven Technique

Barge-like hulls have been traditionally used in shallow water to minimize draft and
maximize payload. As long as the footprint of the barge is large enough to span several
wave lengths of the dominant gravity waves, the motion response of this platform will be
minimal. The ultimate improvement in shallow water barge motion can be had by jacking-
up the barge so that the hull is raised completely above the gravity wave crests. This
approach has been successfully used at RSMAS by Dr. R.N. Ginsburg and others to drill
on the Bahama Banks in the self-propelled Jack-up Mobile Platform (JUMP). However the
maintenance of this specialized platform, or the marshaling costs to bring such a vessel
from Louisiana prior to each use, precludes ownership or use, except by a large scale
project with enough recurring use to keep the platform employed nearly full time. See Van
Leer (1985) for other jack-up catamaran ideas.
In Biscayne Bay, construction barges are anchored by using two or more spuds. These
spuds are typically long steel pipes, deployed through a clear hole in the deck, lined with a
larger internal diameter pipe, which passes through the barge and out the bottom. A central
crane on the barge, lifts each spud clear of the bottom so it may be locked in the up
position before the barge is moved to a new position by tug boat. We describe a similar
spud system to anchor our catamaran below.
Spud Anchoring System for Shallow Water Motion Stabilization
Our concept of a shallow water anchoring system, consists of a set of two or more spuds,
carried within fixtures which bolt on any or all o f the four corners of the catamarans rigid
central structure, as seen in Figures 2 and 3. A simple sleeve style bolt on fixture can be
designed to transfer the load from each spud into the catamaran structure. Each spud is
equipped with a rack and pinion drive to move the spud up and down. Hydraulic controls
may be located on the bridge and/or directly next to spud mount, on the 02 deck. The
pinion drives a rack which is welded to the side of the spud. In this way, a crane and
operator is not needed, to deploy or recover the spud, since a crew of two may be called
upon to operate our vessel.
For the first generation system described here, we will use standard design small sized
jack-up platform legs, made of aluminum, with a single standard hydraulic planetary gear
drive and locking mechanism. The wall thickness of the tubular spud, will be chosen, so
that it will bend or break before damaging the vessel's structure. A small water pipe can be
built into the center of each spud, to break any vacuum which might prevent the spud from
being extracted, or to bury the spud end to a depth of a foot or two. We suggest bolting on
these spuds to:
a) prevent a bent spud from jamming in a hole through the deck, since it may be unbolted
and removed by crane,
b) completely remove spuds when not in use, to reduce the science cargo in favor of other
instrumentation or equipment,
c) install other devices like: air gun davits, large outriggers, folding antenna's for OSCR
(Ocean Surface Current Radar), king posts for trawling, or large acoustic transducer
mounts could be temporarily installed. The same NATO/UNOLS standard 2' square bolt
pattern will be built into the side of the vessel's main box structure as are found on working
decks. We envision using spuds in protected waters, or in conditions where wave heights
are less than 3 feet and water depths are less than 5 meters. If four spuds with rack and
pinion drives are installed, the vessel could be jacked up for maintenance or operations in
calm conditions. Most large catamaran and swath vessels have four reinforced strong
points so they may be lifted by slings for launching. There are frequently width limits in
marine railways and ready availability of large cranes in most seaports.
4) Controlled Fins as an Active Part of a Motion Isolation S):stem
SWATH style vessels are widely regarded as having the best seakeeping properties. It
should be noted that seakeeping on most SWATH vessels, while underway, is improved
significantly by four or more stabilizing fins. These fins are hydraulically actuated and
computer controlled, such as those used the Monterey Bay Aquarium SWATH. Such
systems are designed commercially by Maritime Dynamics Inc. in Maryland. About 50
systems, delivered by Maritime Dynamics, were installed on conventional high-speed
catamarans, where their computer modeling is highly evolved. Heave and pitch motions are
said to be reduced by about 50%. Costs for systems appropriate for catamarans in our size
and speed range vary between $250K and $350K. Such a fin system should be considered
for extensive high speed underway surveying applications. We suggest the installation of
such a system in our conceptual catamaran vessel. The computer modeling part and design
o f this system is essential to the design of the remaining 3 motion isolation systems. Since
the hardware is well proven, the structure needed to mount the fins can be built in at
reasonable cost with additional funding later for complete installation. Response of our
chosen hull form, to random wave excitation, will need to be modeled on five
representative courses relative to the dominant wave direction. These response functions
will be essential to the design of the MCP and A-Frame Mast control systems as their first
stage of motion compensation. These response functions will also help us plan operations
in ways that take the greatest advantage of what a well- designed catamaran has to offer.
Ultimately after the fins are installed, data from their controller will be available to our
controllers through the
LAN. At speeds of a few knots, the fins become ineffective aside from a little passive
damping.
Acknowledgements
Sponsorship for this work at RSMAS was provided by the Nason Foundation and the U.S.
Coast Guard under the auspices of the Oil Pollution Research Center (OPRC). RSMAS
Faculty members Drs. Bruce Albrecht, Hartmut Peters and Mark Donelan made
contributions to the scientific application sections.

REFERENCES

Band, Lavis & Associates: Resistance and seakeeping tests of a model of a 96 foot coastal
research vessel working paper 585-4, February 1999.

Brown, A.C., Twin Ships, Notes on the chronological History of the use of Multiple Hulled
Vessels, Museum Publication No.5, The Mariners Museum Newport News, Virginia 1939.

Clothiaux, E.E., M.A. Miller, B.A. Albrecht, T.P. Ackerman, j. Verlinde, D.M. Babb, R.M.
Peters and W.j. Syrett, 1995: An evaluation of a 94- GHz radar for remote sensing of cloud
properties. J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 12, 201-229.
Crowther, L., 1982: D MB, Professional Fisherman, December, Australia, 32-33.
Crowther, L., 1982: Sail Powered Pearl Fishing Catamaran, 8(3), May/June.
Crowther, L., 1983: The commercial sail pearl fishing catamaran. Multihulls Magazine,
9(2).
Crowther, L., 1990: Comparative Seaworthness and Seakeeping Test of Powered Model
Catamaran in Simulated Hurricane Conditions. Videotape.
Donelan, M.A., W .M. Drennan and A.K. Magnusson, 1996: Non- stationary analysis of
the directional properties of Propagating waves. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 26, 1901-1914.

Gargett, A.E., 1994: Observing turbulence with a modified acoustic Doppler current
profiler. J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech., 11, 1592-1610.

Gargett, A.E. and j.N. Mourn, 1995: Mixing efficiencies in turbulent tidal fronts: Results
from direct and indirect measurements of density flux. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 25, 2583-2608.

Hadden, A.C. and j. Hornell, 1975: Canoes of Oceania, Special Publication 27 (1936), 28
(1937) and 29 (1938) Bishop Museum Press. Reprinted as a single volume.

Harris, N.A., 1998: Effective horsepower and seakeeping tests on a catamaran research
vessel. Report EW-13-98, Division of Engineering and Weapons, U.S. Naval Academy,
December.

Katsaros, K.B., M.A. Donelan and W .M. Drennan, 1993: Flux measurements from a
SWATH ship in SWADE. J. Mar. Sys., 4, 117- 132.

Monismith, S., 1996: Reported at the 1996 Ocean Science Meeting and AGU Fall Meeting.
Stacy, M., 1996: "Turbulent Mixing and Residual Circulation in a Partially Stratified
Estuary". Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.
Terray, E.A., M.A. Donelan, Y. Agrawal, W .M. Drennan, K.K. Kahma, A.j. Williams III,
P.A. Hwang and S.A. Kitaigorodskii, 1996:
Estimates of kinetic energy dissipation under breaking waves. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 26, 793-
807.
Van Leer, J., 1982: Sailing catamaran research vessels for the 80's and 90's. Oceanus, 25.
Spring 1982 Special Issue on Research Vessels.
Van Leer, J., 1985: A practical motor sailing research platform. EOS, 1, January.
" ~ ".
Figure 3. Mid Ship Cross Section. Note aft bridge has clearance for a standard 20' shipping container
underneath. Three bolt on mounting brackets are shown for each spud/davit. Aft lab over the engine
room has extra head room. In hull accommodations are under the lab with standard head room.
Protective skegs/keel coolers, guard hull, propellers and tankage from grounding damage. Four 2' I.D.
transducer wells are located inboard of the skegs, permitting bi-static ADCP geometry.
 SECTION 13
Roger Long
RESEARCH VESSEL PROCUREMENT STUDY

Resource Materials for Selection of Basic Vessel Type

This report contains materials intended to assist the Skidaway Institute of Oceanography in making a decision about
the basic type of vessel that will best serve as a replacement for the "R/V Bluefin". These materials were prepared to
be specifically relevant to the situation of this single institution and are not intended for use by other organizations or
to be a general guide to ORV selection.

This analysis assumes a budget for vessel procurement of $1,500,000. It describes four different vessel concepts.
Budget numbers are obviously quite rough at this stage of vessel definition. There is a reasonable expectation that a
vessel similar to any of the four described could be
obtained for the budget figure. It is less certain that the vessel would have the quality, features, and equipment
ultimately desired. This report incorporates a great deal
of author's judgment to keep many invisible factors roughly equivalent so that a type choice made at this point will
remain valid even though size, budget, and configuration may be adjusted later in the design process.

This report considers only monohull vessels. Exotic types such as Swaths and catamarans will probably become an
important part of the research vessel fleet -eventually. Their successful use will depend as much on changing the way
that research is conducted as on tinkering with the design
of the vessels themselves. Many problems with these vessels are yet to be solved. Given the importance of outside
investigators, whose equipment and methods are adapted to standard vessels, development of a new type does not
appear to be an appropriate path for Skidaway.

The influence of speed on vessel configuration is so great that: a decision about: basic vessel type is primarily one of
the speed regime in which it will operate. The hydrodynamics of hulls of the same shape and different size are
equ1valant only If the ratios of square root of waterline length to speed are the same. The appropriate hull
configurations for various speed length ratios do not change in a smooth fashion with increasing speed but in fairly
abrupt jumps at: a few points. This produces three genera of vessels, each of which is described here; with two
alternative powering methods for one of them. Dollars per unit weight tends to be the best predictor of vessel cost at
this stage of analysis. Weight, at this point in the design process, is roughly estimated according to the product of a
proposed vessel's overall dimensions .

'C-192 Report No. 1 to Skidway Institute of Oceanography Resource Materials for Selection of Basic Vessel Type

This makes the weight method generally equivalent to the "cubic" method often used. Figure 1, on page 3, is a graph
of dollars per pound vs. the non-dimensionalized ratio of speed / length. It will be no surprise that speed is expensive
but the magnitude of the difference may be. Note the line labeled "Limit for displacement vessels". This is a practical
speed limit for vessels of the hull form typical of fishing draggers, offshore supply, and most research vessels.
Operation at higher speeds requires, not just additional power, but significant changes in hull shape and weight to
direct the power into increased speed and not just increases in trim angle and wake size.

There is a large jump in cost in the region labeled "Transition Zone", due primarily to the need for aluminum or other
exotic construction. Design of a vessel in this region would be a poor option. First, operation in the transition from
semi-displacement to full planing tends produce a wallowing, struggling, motion as well as the poorest trade-offs
between fuel consumption and distance covered. Second, a vessel configured to operate in this reg1on with
reasonable power and fuel consumption will have already paid most of the costs of higher speed. Little but sufficient
horsepower will be necessary to gain the benefits of fast operation. The additional expense of larger engines will not
be a significant percentage of the total vessel cost.

Figure 2 on page 4 shows a graph with the speed/length ratio on the horizontal axis and a non-dimensionalized ratio
of weight to length on the vertical axis. The design lane drawn on this graph is a prediction of how on-station
seakeeping and similar requirements would influence a design. Three concept design points are marked on the graph.
From these two pages it is possible, given a budgetary cost assumption, to determine a weight and length for each of
the concepts. Hereafter, the three concepts will be referred to as "Slow", "Medium", and "Fast". A waterjet drive
version of the "Fast" concept will be referred to as "Jet".
'C-192 Report. No. to Skidaway Institute of Oceanography Resource Materials for Selection of
Basic Vessel Type

The appendix contains sketches of the four vessel concepts. These are not conceptual proposals
for each vessel but scale "cartoons" that illustrate the general volumes, areas, and characteristics
obtainable in each type. A spreadsheet of the principal characteristics of each vessel type will be
found on the following page. When comparing lab, deck, and accommodations areas It should be
remembered that these areas can be apportioned in different ways. The figures given are the
author's estimate of the proportions that would be chosen in a fully developed design. Comparisons
of the overall capacity of each type will be more accurate than comparisons of lab or
accommodations area alone. Berth numbers can also be varied according to the degree of comfort
and privacy desired.

The "Installed Horsepower" numbers are based on Detroit Diesel DDEC engines which are
currently the best choice for a research vessel. DDEC engines are much like modern automotive
engines in that sensors work through a computer to adjust several aspects of engine operation
rather than a single component such as an injector rack or throttle plate. Each cylinder is operated
separately with independent control of air and fuel. The result is a very clean burning engine that is
able to tolerate the long periods of low power operation typical of research vessel operation. DDEC
engines can idle at about half the RPM of a mechanically governed engine due to the
instantaneous response of the computer. Fuel/air ratio and other factors can be nearly optimum
through out the power range rather than just at a single point as in the normal diesel. The "wet
stacking" and carbon production problems of diesels run for long periods at low power output are
considerably reduced. Other manufacturers will catch up on this technology within a few years but,
for now, the choice of engine supplier is an easy one.

The engines for the Slow and Medium concepts would be rated for "Continuous" operation,
permitting top speed to be maintained 24 hours a day. The Fast vessel would have engines
operating at the higher power output of an "Intermittent" rating. Operation at full power would be
limited to about an hour. At the higher speeds, and in the type of mission profile that would favor
selection of the fast vessel type, an hour of operation can be significant. The planing vessel in a
seaway also needs the power reserves to push through patches of rougher water and get back over
the hump into full planing mode. The Jet concept engines would be rated at the s1ightly higher
" Intermittent-Maximum" rating since jets are less stressful to the engines than are props.
C-192 SKIDAWAY INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY
RESEARCH VESSEL SPEED TYPE COMPARISON
$1.5 MILLION DOLLAR VESSELS
SLOW MEDIUM FAST JET
POTENTIAL SPEED LENGTH RATIO 1.35 2.00 > 3.00 > 3.00
DISPLACEMENT LENGTH RATIO 385 240 210 210
DOLLARS / LB. DISPLACEMENT $5.25 $8.00 $16.00 $16.00
LENGTH OVERALL 76.50 75.75 63.50 63.5
LENGTH ON DWL 69.96 70.39 58.42 58.42
BEAM 26.00 21.00 20.00 20.00
HULL DEPTH 10.50 8.50 8.00 8.00
KEEL DRAFT 8.50 8.00 6.25 4.00
LIGHT SHIP DISP. (LT) 131.80 83.71 41.85 41.85

CREW & EFFECTS 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75

SCIENCE PAYLOAD 15.00 10.00 5.00 5.00

FUEL OIL 19.00 16.00 7.00 6.00

FRESH WATER 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50

READY FOR SEA DISPLACEMENT 167.80 111.71 55.10 54.10

HALF LOAD DISPLACEMENT 149.80 97.71 48.48 47.98

INSTALLED HORSEPOWER 840 1680 2120 3540

TOP SPEED (@ HALF LOAD) 11.25 16.00 23.00 27.50

SPEED LENGTH RATIO 1.35 1.91 3.01 3.6

CRUISING SPEED 10.50 14.50 19.50 24.50

GAL/MILE @ TOP SPEED 4.31 5.81 5.21 5.58

GAL/MILE @ CRUISING SPEED 4.00 5.51 4.94 5.06

RANGE @ CRUISING SPEED 1300 800 400 340

HULL MATERIAL STEEL STEEL ALUMINUM ALUMINUM

LABORATORY AREA 340 210 100 100

ACCOMMODATIONS AREA 630 550 280 280

TOTAL DECK AREA 800 580 600 600

NUMBER OF BERTHS 11 10 10 10
C-192 Report No. 1 to Skidaway Institute of Oceanography Resource Materials for Selection of Basic
Vessel Type

Descriptions of the four vessel concepts follow:

Slow Vessel Concept

The sketch for the slow vessel concept shows a burdensome vessel optimized for seakeeping.
Additional weight can be easily accommodated and there is little fuel penalty in carrying it. The vessel
can therefore carry large superstructure, payload, and positioning thrusters. The thrusters shown
should be able to hold the vessel sideways in a 25 knot wind and provide back up propulsion at a
speed of about four knots. The vessel would be designed to create the optimum on-station motion
characteristics for handling of heavy objects on deck and minimizing breakage of deep wires. A
byproduct of this hull type is tremendous stability and lifting capacity. This vessel could be equipped
to safely lift greater weights with its A-frame than it would be prudent or practical to manage once they
were on deck. This vessel should be capable of occasional offshore trips as far as Bermuda.

There are separate wet and dry lab areas and vans could be set up to serve as extensions of the wet
lab. The sleeping accommodations are in the middle of the vessel, the area of least motion. A vessel
of this type could maneuver in any attitude with no exposed, rotating, underwater machinery. The
thrusters shown have very low suction head and present little hazard to divers or ROV tethers.

Medium Speed Concept

The medium speed vessel would be of similar length but the hull shape changes necessary to
operate at the higher speeds would require a significant reduction in hull volume, and thus, weight.
The weight would be saved in two areas, superstructure and machinery. Thrusters, other than low
power docking aids, are probably not feasible in this type of vessel so twin screws become
mandatory. Use of aluminum could save a good deal of weight but would increase cost and reduce
the overall size of the vessel in this comparison.

The twin screw configuration requires that the accommodations be forward of the engine room.
Motion will be greater in the forward location and the higher speed of the vessel would create greater
pitching forces.

The motion characteristics of this vessel would probably not be as good, as the slow concept but the
differences would not be significant. Lifting capacity would be similarly reduced but still in excess of
any normal requirement for a vessel of this class.
C-192 Report No. 1 to Skidaway Institute of Oceanography Resource Materials for Selection of
Basic Vessel Type

Fast Vessel Concept

The fast vessel concept shows rather starkly the cost of speed. However the additional lab and
accommodations space of the slower concepts is advantageous only if it is consistently used. All
else being equal, the faster vessel will do more science and produce better data in synoptic studies.
If the capacity of the fast boat is close to what you would generally utilize in the slower types, it can
provide significant schedule flexibility.

Operation of a 50 foot vessel of this type by the University of New Hampshire has been very
successful and the boat has proven itself an excellent platform for deployment of oceanographic
moorings weighing up to four tons. The concept shown is three times the displacement and should
be able to lift weights of well over 10,000 pounds.

The number of berths is similar to the other vessels but most berths would be in common areas
rather than in staterooms as in the other concepts. The lab and galley areas would be adjacent so
that the galley could serve as additional lab area on short trips. This has worked well on the UNH
boat.

Jet Boat Concept

This concept would differ from the fast concept primarily in the propulsion system. Waterjets would
provide significantly reduced draft and increased maneuverability. Jets are most efficient at speeds
over 25 knots so higher horsepower would be installed to gain the maximum benefit from the fast
vessel concept. Three engines would be installed. The center engine would be a non-steering
booster that would not provide propulsion while on station or at slow speeds. This engine would be
used to provide hydraulic and, possibly, electric power while on station.

Operational Analysis Materials

The fast vessel concept operates at the greatest economic advantage on trips of twelve hours or
less duration. Coast Guard regulations require additional licensed crew for longer trips. The
savings in salary on short trips can be very significant. The following pages show map of the area
that can be covered in a twelve hour day by vessels of various speeds .
C-1.92 Report. No. 1 to Skidaway Inst1tute of Oceanography Resource Materials for Selection of
Basic Vessel Type

The following five pages show a map with distances from Skidaway and sheets giving time and fuel
consumption figures for the four vessel concepts.

The primary objective of a research vessel is to provide on-station time, i.e. time spent e1ther
motionless or at speeds under five knots. This is the productive time so it is instructive to look at fuel
consumption as a function of hours on station. Spreadsheets on page 19 and 20 show the fuel
consumption figures for the four concepts. Annual operation is considered as one big trip with a total
number of station hours and a total length of cruise track.
Figures for six combinations are given. Within the range of probable operations, fuel consumption
can be seen to be a not particularly significant issue.

The most significant numbers on pages 19 and 20 are the

total operating hours. A small institution with just one boat crew on salary can expect about 2000
hours of work from that crew. The difference between this number and the total operating hours is
the time available for this crew to perform maintenance and other shoreside duties. This is where the
best rational for trading speed for overall space and capacity may be found.
C-192 SKIDAWAY INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY

SLOW VESSEL WITH 16V-92 ENGINE

TOP SPEED = 11.25 GAL./MILE = 4.31

CRUISING SPEED = 10.50 GAL./MILE = 4.00

TOP SPEED CRUISING SPEED

RADIUS HOURS GALLONS HOURS GALLONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20 3.56 172.40 3.81 160.00

40 7.11 344.80 7.62 320.00

60 10.67 517.20 11.43 480.00

80 14.22 689.60 15.24 640.00

100 17.78 862.00 19.05 800.00

120 21.33 1034.40 22.86 960.00

140 24.89 1206.80 26.67 1120.00

160 28.44 1379.20 30.48 1280.00

180 32.00 1551.60 34.29 1440.00

200 35.56 1724.00 38.10 1600.00

220 39.11 1896.40 41.90 1760.00

240 42.67 2068.80 45.71 1920.00

260 46.22 2241.20 49.52 2080.00

280 49.78 2413.60 53.33 2240.00

300 53.33 2586.00 57.14 2400.00

310 55.11 2672.20 59.05 2480.00

320 56.89 2758.40 60.95 2560.00

340 60.44 2930.80 64.76 2720.00

360 64.00 3103.20 68.57 2880.00

380 67.56 3275.60 72.38 3040.00

400 71.11 3448.00 76.19 3200.00

410 72.89 3534.20 78.10 3280.00

 TOP SPEED CRUISING SPEED
RADIUS HOURS GALLONS HOURS GALLONS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

420 74.67 3620.40 80.00 3360.00

440 78.22 3792.80 83.81 3520.00

460 81.78 3965.20 87.62 3680.00

480 85.33 4137.60 91.43 3840.00

500 88.89 4310.00 95.24 4000.00

Note:
.All figures are for round trip.
-16

C-192 SKIDAWAY INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY

MEDIUM SPEED VESSEL WITH TWO 16V-92 ENGINES

TOP SPEED = 16.00 GAL./MILE = 5.81

CRUISING SPEED = 14.50 GAL./MILE = 5.51

TOP SPEED CRUISING SPEED

RADIUS HOURS GALLONS HOURS GALLONS :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20 2.50 232.40 2.76 220.40

40 5.00 464.80 5.52 440.80

60 7.50 697.20 8.28 661.20

80 10.00 929.60 11.03 881.60

100 12.50 1162.00 13.79 1102.00

120 15.00 1394.40 16.55 1322.40

140 17.50 1626.80 19.31 1542.80

160 20.00 1859.20 22.07 1763.20

180 22.50 2091.60 24.83 1983.60

200 25.00 2324.00 27.59 2204.00

220 27.50 2556.40 30.34 2424.40

240 30.00 2788.80 33.10 2644.80

260 32.50 3021.20 35.86 2865.20

280 35.00 3253.60 38.62 3085.60

300 37.50 3486.00 41.38 3306.00

310 38.75 3602.20 42.76 3416.20

320 40.00 3718.40 44.14 3526.40

340 42.50 3950.80 46.90 3746.80

360 45.00 4183.20 49.66 3967.20

380 47.50 4415.60 52.41 4187.60

400 50.00 4648.00 55.17 4408.00

410 51.25 4764.20 56.55 4518.20

 TOP SPEED CRUISING SPEED
RADIUS HOURS GALLONS HOURS GALLONS :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

420 52.50 4880.40 57.93 4628.40

440 55.00 5112.80 60.69 4848.80

460 57.50 5345.20 63.45 5069.20

480 60.00 5577.60 66.21 5289.60

500 62.50 5810.00 68.97 5510.00

Note:
All figures are for round trip
17

C-192 SKIDAWAY INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY

FAST VESSEL WITH TWO 16V-92 ENGINES

TOP SPEED = 23.00 GAL./MILE = 5.21

CRUISING SPEED = 19.50 GAL./MILE = 4.94

TOP SPEED CRUISING SPEED

RADIUS HOURS GALLONS HOURS GALLONS :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
20 1.74 208.40 2.05 197.60

40 4.10 395.20

60 6.15 592.80

80 8.21 790.40

100 10.26 988.00

120 12.31 1185.60

160 16.41 1580.80

180 18.46 1778.40

200 20.51 1976.00

220 22.56 2173.60

240
260
280
300
310
320
340
360
380
400
410
420
440
460
480
500

Note: All figures are for round trip

-18

C-192 SKIDAWAY INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY

JET VESSEL WITH THREE 12V-92 ENGINES

TOP SPEED = 27.50 GAL./MILE = 5.58

CRUISING SPEED = 24.50 GAL./MILE = 5.53

TOP SPEED CRUISING SPEED

RADIUS HOURS GALLONS HOURS GALLONS :

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20 1.45 223.20 1.63 221.20

40 3.27 442.40

60 4.90 663.60

80 6.53 884.80

100 8.16 1106.00

120 9.80 1327.20

140 11.43 1548.40

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

310

320

340

360 -500

Note:
All figures are for round trip.
C-192 SKIDAWAY INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY

GALLONS PER STATION HOUR $1.5 MILLON VESSELS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VESSEL TYPE SLOW MEDIUM FAST JET
LENGTH ON DWL 69.96 70.39 58.42 58.42
DISPLACEMENT (HALF LOAD) 149.80 97.71 48.48 47.98
PROPULSION (1) PROP (2) PROP (2) PROP (3) JETS

NUMBER OF ENGINES 1 2 2 3
ENGINE TYPE 16V-92 16V-92 16V-92 12V-92
RATING CONT. CONT. INTERM. INT.-MAX
HORSEPOWER (CRUISING) 700 700 849 739
GALLONS PER HOUR (CRUISE ) 38.00 38.00 46.20 40.00

TOTAL HORSEPOWER (CRUISE) 700 1400 1698 2217

TOTAL GALLONS PER HOUR 42.00 80.00 96.40 124.00

SPEED 10.50 14.50 19.50 24.50

SPEED I LENGTH RATIO 1.26 1.73 2.55 3.21
GALLONS PER MILE 4.00 5.52 4.94 5.06
GPH ON STATION 14.00 10.00 8.00 8.00
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TIME ON STATION = 1000 HOURS (ANNUAL TOTAL)

CRUISE TRACK = 10000 NAUTICAL MILES (ANNUAL TOTAL)

TOTAL TRANSIT TIME 952 690 513 408

TOTAL OPERATING HOURS 1952 1690 1513 1408
TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION 54000 65172 57436 58612
GALLONS / HOURS ON STATION 54.00 65.17 57.44 58.61
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TIME ON STATION = 1500 HOURS (ANNUAL TOTAL)

CRUISE TRACK = 10000 NAUTICAL MILES (ANNUAL TOTAL)

TOTAL TRANSIT TIME 952 690 513 408

TOTAL OPERATING HOURS 2452 2190 2013 1908
TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION 61000 70172 61436 62612
GALLONS ; ~OURS ON STATION 40.67 46.78 40.96 41.74
-20-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VESSEL TYPE SLOW MEDIUM FAST JET

TIME ON STATION = 1000 HOURS (ANNUAL TOTAL)

CRUISE TRACK = 15000 NAUTICAL MILES (ANNUAL TOTAL)

TOTAL TRANSIT TIME 1429 1034 769 612

TOTAL OPERATING HOURS 2429 2034 1769 1612
TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION 74000 92759 82154 83918
GALLONS / HOURS ON STATION 74.00 92.76 82.15 83.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TIME ON STATION = 1500 HOURS (ANNUAL TOTAL)

CRUISE TRACK = 15000 NAUTICAL MILES (ANNUAL TOTAL)

TOTAL TRANSIT TIME 1429 1034 769 612

TOTAL OPERATING HOURS 2929 2534 2269 2112
TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION 81000 97759 86154 87918
GALLONS / HOURS ON STATION 54.00 65.17 57.44 58.61
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TIME ON STATION = 1000 HOURS (ANNUAL TOTAL)

CRUISE TRACK = 20000 NAUTICAL MILES (ANNUAL TOTAL)

TOTAL TRANSIT TIME 1905 1379 1026 816

TOTAL OPERATING HOURS 2905 2379 2026 1816
TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION 94000 120345 106872 109224
GALLONS / HOURS ON STATION 94.00 120.34 106.87 109.22

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TIME ON STATION = 1500 HOURS (ANNUAL TOTAL)

CRUISE TRACK = 20000 NAUTICAL MILES (ANNUAL TOTAL)

TOTAL TRANSIT TIME 1905 1379 1026 816

TOTAL OPERATING HOURS 3405 2879 2526 2316
TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION 101000 125345 110872 113224
GALLONS; HOURS ON STATION 67.33 83.56 73.91 75.48
C-192 Report No.1 to Skidaway Institute of Oceanography Resource Materials for Selection of
Basic Vessel Type

Page 21

Appendix
Author’s Note:

It would nice if studies like this one could be timeless documents. This paper
is dated nearly half a decade ago, however. A 55 foot vessel of the general
configuration shown for the fast vessel concept is now in the final contracting
stages at a cost 25% greater than this paper would indicate. I do not have
current date to determine if this proportion would be the same for the slow and
medium speed types.

For reasons that are inexplicable to me now, the cost of the "fast" and "jet"
concepts is shown as being the same. Incorporation of jet drives in this type
of vessel will add about 15% to the cost.

The text shows numerous artifacts from the OCR scanning process but they should
not effect comprehension.

This paper should be read as a guide to a suggested methodology with some

insights into vessel characteristics. It should not currently be relied on for
initial cost estimates.
 Monohull Research Vessel Motion and Comfort

Roger Long

The comfort of vessels is a complex subject because subjective human

experience and reporting will determine a vessel's reputation more than
technical analysis. A vessel that operates from an island location where there
is an almost immediate transition to open ocean conditions will be considered
less comfortable than the same vessel which makes a gradual transition through
river, harbor, and coastal waters. A new vessel with capabilities that bring an
institution more into the mainstream of research will become less comfortable as
she attracts investigators who compare her with larger ones. The perception of
motion can be effected by factors such as the arrangement of windows and the
location of mess areas. People will focus most on motion while eating and their
experience in this one part of the ship will heavily influence their overall
impression.

Larger vessels are more comfortable than smaller ones of similar configuration
for the simple reason that the waves become relatively smaller. There has been
a lot of interest over the last decade in catamarans, SWATH, and other "magic
bullet" solutions to the comfort and motion issue. Motion of these vessels can
unquestionably be better than that of similarly sized monohulls. They are
expensive craft to build however. The question which seldom gets asked is
how their motions would compare with a low tech monohull of the same cost.
The monohull could be significantly larger which wwould increase its comfort
as well as its capacity.

The initial stability of a vessel is a measure of how far it will heel either under
the influence of a gust of wind or moving a heavy weight around on deck.
Basic to any discussion of seakeeping is the fact that, all else being equal, a
vessel's roll period will correspond to its initial stability. The greater the
stability, the faster the vessel will roll. A vessel with dangerously low stability
will feel very comfortable, a counterintuitive fact which causes the deaths of
several fishermen each year. Monohull design has traditionally focused on
determining the minimal acceptable initial stability in order to achieve the
slowest possible roll period. Deep hulls of modest beam are thus usually
associated with comfort and the ability to work in heavier sea conditions.

Waterplane, the part of the hull intersected by the water's surface, is a primary
determinant of motion. As the waves pass the hull, the buoyancy of the hull
below the water remains the same. The change in volume at the waterline, as
the ocean surface moves up and down, creates forces that move the hull. The
more waterplane, the more motion excitation. Minimizing this area is the rational
for the SWATH ship. Traditional ships have low waterplane areas relative to
their mass and depth for the same reason.

Once an excitation has occurred and passed, the waterplane takes on a different
role. The vessel will continue to move due to it's inertia and the waterplane
now contributes to damping out that motion. If a single wave passes a low
waterplane vessel, the hull will tend to make a small motion and then continue
rolling and moving for some time after. The large waterplane vessel will tend to
have a single, larger, response which stops quickly. Single waves are rare
however and the response to the repeated periodic input of waves is the
second primary factor in ship motion.

Safety and other design constraints make roll periods longer than 8 - 10
seconds impractical for mid size monohulls. If they are ballasted to a degree of
stability that produces roll periods under six, the fast roll, combined with low
damping from the waterplane, produces fast, deep, uncomfortable rolling.
There is a fixed relationship between the length and period of waves and longer
waves tend to be larger. Longer and larger waves are created by higher winds.
The traditional hull will have a natural rolling period that tends to be the same
as the period of waves developed by winds in the 20 to 30 knot range. The
motion of the hull can carry over from each wave excitation so rhythmic rolling
can develop and this will tend to happen in the conditions that will define the
upper weather envelope for most oceanographic operations. Motions can
become very large in these conditions and all sorts of devices such as bilge
keels, and anti roll tanks have been employed to reduce the amplitude of rolling.

The development of the offshore supply vessel began to open designers' eyes
in the 1970's to the possibilities of generous waterplane area monohulls
(GWASH) with degrees of initial stability that would be unthinkable in
traditional vessels. The rolling period of this type of vessel will be in the 4 to 6
second range which corresponds to the smaller waves generated in fair
weather. The large waterplane damps motion quickly so it is harder for
rhythmic rolling to develop. As the wind rises into the 20 to 30 knot range,
wave periods will be unlikely to match the ships natural roll period. Vessels of
this type tend to exhibit their rhythmic rolling behavior in small waves that do
not produce large motions.

Anything which impedes the transverse flow of water around a hull will tend to
reduce the amplitude, or angle, of rolling while leaving the period unaffected.
Accelerations at any point removed from the rolling center are a function of
both period and amplitude. This is the rational for installing bilge keels. The
GWASH hull typically has hard chines which are similarly resistant to
transverse flow and bilge keels are often installed as well. The large amount of
damping due to hull shape, combined with that provided by the generous
waterplane, keeps the amplitude of the rolling low enough to comp ensate for
the shorter period. Deck edge accelerations remain tolerable.

The drawback to the GWASH hull form is that its large waterplane makes it
more reactive to waves. This is most objectionable in confused and irregular
sea states when many individual waves will be felt as a short and unpredictable
motions. This type of hull will be at its best in regular and consistent seas
where the high damping will minimize the addition of any rhythmic motion to
that of the waves. The traditional hull will do better in the confused and
irregular sea as it's immediate response will be less and the lack of consistency
in wave period will minimize resonant responses. Waves often run as sets and,
in the irregular sea, the traditional hull may encounter patches of waves that
correspond to its roll period. These will set off episodes of deep rolling. The
GWASH hull will also encounter waves that correspond to its roll period but
they will tend to be smaller and the hull damping will restrict the reaction. In the
confused and random sea, the motion of the traditional hull could be
characterized as generally easy but occasionally extreme. The GWASH hull can
be described as generally jerky but seldom, if ever, extreme.

The high stability and damping of the GWASH hull work to greatest advantage
when the waves become large enough for the vessel to sit entirely on the face
of a single wave. The physics of wave surface acceleration are such that
"down" will always be perpendicular to the water's surface. Thus, a vessel
which follows the motion of the wave, wave profiling, will seem to the observer
to be rolling very little. The angle of the deck to the horizon will change greatly
but an object hanging from an A-frame will tend to remain pointing at the same
spot on the deck. The more traditional hull, by reacting slower to the changing
slope of the wave, and then having a motion which may carry on beyond the
wave slope, will have its "down" shift around more dramatically. This can make
it harder to work with heavy suspended objects in large seas.

In theory, it is possible for a person in the interior of a vessel that is perfectly

wave profiling to be unaware of any rolling motion at all if deprived of an
outside reference. If this observer were to look out a window, the horizon
would seem to tilt as the vessel remained level. Conversely, a vessel with so
little stability that it did not respond to the wave might move up and down with
out any roll motion at all. The observer of the horizon would see it remain
parallel with the deck as the wave passed. "Down" however would move from
side to side and an object hanging from an A-frame would swing. Seasickness
is a response to lack of agreement between visual and inner ear cues. The
comfort of these two ideal vessels would be perceived very differently
depending upon whether the horizon was visible. No vessel will wave profile
perfectly but the GWASH will come closer to this type of motion than the
traditional vessel when the waves are of sufficient size.

Objects in space rotate around their centers of gravity and vessels attempt to
do this as well. The motion is modified by the hydrodynamic forces on the hull
so that the rolling center will appear to be between the center of gravity and the
waterline. The traditional hull will typically have a center of gravity close to the
waterline and thus, a fairly low rolling center. This type of hull will generally
need higher freeboard to produce the reserve stability necessary to comply
with stability requirements. The result is larger side to side motion at the level
of the main deck as the vessel rolls. The center of gravity of the GWASH will
be well above the waterline and can even be above the main deck. The rolling
center will be higher reducing side to side movement at deck level. Standing
and moving around are easier and objects placed on deck tend not to slide
around. I should note that the exact location of roll center for purposes of
rigorous analysis does not correspond to this simple explanation but the two
vessel types will generally appear to behave as described.

Since accelerations due to vessel motion are a function of both distance and
time, comfort will decrease as you move out from the vessel's center of gravity.
Upper decks will be less comfortable than the main deck. The main deck of the
GWASH vessel be more comfortable, at least from the oceanographic and
equipment handling perspective, than the main deck on a traditional vessel. On
the 01 deck levels, the motion advantage of the wider hull is reduced or
eliminated. The importance of the equipment handling aspect of motion
qualities is also insignificant on upper levels in most vessel arrangements.
Above the 01 level, the motion of the GWASH will generally be more
objectionable than in the traditional hull.

The high center of gravity of the GWASH has a further advantage. Deck loads
are closer to the overall center of gravity so they raise it less. These vessels
have initial stability that is considerably in excess of any regulatory or safety
requirement and deck loads will degrade it only slightly. The result is a vessel
that is a tremendous load carrier. They can be designed to carry deckloads well
in excess of anything that would be necessary in ORV service.

Your opinion of which vessel type may depend on your tasks. If your primary
job is to wrestle with awkward objects hanging from the A-frame, you will
probably favor the motion of the wider and more heavily damped GWASH hull
form. Although the motion may be more jerky and less predictable, it doesn't
translate into large impulses and heel angles that send equipment sliding across
the deck. If you spend most of your time inside; especially seated, you will
probably prefer the smoother and more predictable motion of the traditional
hull. Your preference may also be influenced by your past. In many years of
listening to people comment about different boats, I've developed an
impression that people new to the seagoing experience react more favorably to
the highly damped hulls, at least when they are out of the galley/mess areas,
than experienced sailors who have learned how to walk and work with the long
rolls of traditional hulls.

A critical aspect of research vessel motion is the effect of rolling on side

deployed gear such as CTD's. Loss of gear on long wires is usually the result
of the vessel rolling down faster than the gear can sink causing slack in the
wire. The dynamics of the slack being snapped out on the return roll will often
break the wire. The highly damped GWASH hull form will be less likely than
the traditional hull to experience the occasional large roll excursions that can
exceed the natural wire stretch and terminal sink velocity of the instrument
package.

GWASH hulls tend to have pitching periods that are very close to their roll
period and this can have an adverse effect on comfort. If the periods are very
close, it is possible for pitch and roll to become coupled. Pitch energy is then
converted into roll. A corkscrew motion can also be produced that will
challenge the most hardened stomachs. The effect of this will be most
noticeable in the bow. The need to put labs and other mission critical functions
in the middle of the vessel tends to push galley and mess areas forward. This is
the least comfortable place in any vessel, especially one with close pitch and
roll periods. Even in the absence of pitch/roll coupling, the observer deprived
of horizon reference may interpret the pitch motion to be part of the roll if
occurs at the same time. Since vertical pitch motions near the ends of the
vessel can be very large, this may give the appearance of an extreme roll.

The GWASH vessel tends to have a great deal of waterplane aft. This moves
the center of pitch aft as well so pitch motions are reduced at the stern which is
an advantage for handling gear. They are correspondingly increased at the
bow which, in combination with the typical galley/mess location, makes for
poor interior habitability. Crew comfort has not been a significant design
requirement in the supply vessel class that make up the bulk of GWASH craft
so little attention has been paid to pitch reduction or pitch/roll coupling.
Conversions of these vessels are well represented in the ORV fleet but their
perceived level of motion comfort does not necessarily reflect what could be
achieved in new designs based on this concept.

It is tempting to contemplate a compromise vessel but this approach will be

more likely to lead to a craft with the worst features of each type. The resonant
nature of reaction to waves require a design commitment to one side or the
other of a middle ground. The choice is similar to that of car suspensions. You
can have the firm, responsive suspension of the sports car which is less
comfortable but better adapted to the job at hand or, you can have the soft,
mushy motion of the American highway yacht with some sacrifice of the
primary mission requirement.

Consider though a hypothetical middle ground vessel with a given mass of

structure. The choice is to increase hull depth to produce a traditional hull type
or to increase beam to produce a GWASH. A 15% increase in beam will
translate directly into a 15% increase in deck space and interior accommodation.
A 15% increase in hull depth however, will not be large enough to add an
additional deck. It will only contribute to increased headroom or tankage,
desirable characteristics but not ones that have a significant impact on mission
capability. For a given amount of basic structure, which closely corresponds to
cost, the GWASH will have more deck and accommodation space. It can also
have shallower draft which is an advantage for vessels working in coastal
waters.

The supply vessel conversions currently in the fleet appear to be doing a good
job in their primary role of providing good working platforms for deployment of
gear and avoiding loss of long wire instrument packages. The anecdotal
reports on their motion comfort generally derive from interior habitability issues
secondary to the research mission. If the primary function of the research
vessel was the transport of passengers in interior spaces, the traditional hull
might be a better choice. However, the current supply vessel conversions have
not been able to utilize the proportions and features such as bow bulbs that can
mitigate pitch. Their galley/mess locations are typically inherited from the
original supply vessel with its short superstructure. It should be possible to
develop new designs based on this model that are more comfortable in the
interior spaces without sacrifice of other desirable motion characteristics. Even
if no significant improvement could be gained, the qualities of the GWASH hull
type as a working platform and the economics of space utilization make them a
compelling starting point for new research vessel design.
 Section XIV: Vessel Inventory

To see the latest inventory of Small Research Vessels, visit the following web page:

https://www.unols.org/document/unols-small-research-vessel-inventory