Very large semi displacement ships

[ceccherini]

I was wondering why among the many projects of military and civilian ships both very large and very fast no one seems to employ some semi planing hull design. The basic concept seems to be well understood from the second part of the XIX century and it was applied to quite large ships like the Freedom LCS and the Tirrenia Jupiter class ferries. So why there has never been any concept for a semiplaning battleship, aircraft carrier or ocean liner or at least destroyer? Is it realistic to assume that had large surface warships and passenger ships continued to evolve toward greater speed they would have adopted a semi displacement monohull design or are there some intrinsic limitations in scaling the concept to a very large size (say 50000 ton+)? It is possible in other way to built some sort of Queen Mary sized Destriero or Yamato sized Freedom?

 

[Hanse]

Speed costs money.

 

[ceccherini]

Speed costs money.

That is exactly my point. Take for example the Malglaive-Hardy 1937 project for a 37 knots liner, 1350 foot in length and well over 100k ton in both displacement and GRT. It required 400k hp on 6 propellers. Or the BB-65 8 study, on the same scale but related to a military vessel. Wouldn't equivalent semi displacement designs reached the same speed with less horsepower? I'm not talking about building such a thing but dream for dream why not a planing design? What was the inherent drawback?

 

[apparition13]

There have been. The RN's Black Swan sloop design from a few years ago had a semi planing hull design, but that was smaller than Freedom. Fastship was a company that proposed some cargo ships that could cross the Atlantic at 35kn full load. I believe at least one of the designs was in the neighborhood of 265 meters length. Global security has some info.

FastShip

www.globalsecurity.org

Here's a wiki article on the company.

FastShip, Inc. - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There were also some youtube videos, but I can't find them right now.

I think these are pretty interesting designs. They wind up with a wider beam than present warships, more along the lines of battleships, which would mean more deckspace for things like vls cells. Add that to increased speed, and improved sea keeping according to some studies, and they look interesting to me. But the only way to validate the theory would be to build a full size hull and test it out, and no one has been willing to spend the money to do that research.

 

[Nigelhg]

Semi displacement boats aren't nearly as efficient at high speeds compared to planing hull type boats but generally have a softer ride. The waterline length of the displacement type hull determine their top speed which with most naval boats being large isn't really an issue. The current trend in design is towards very slim wave piercing designs for high speed, efficient and seaworthy designs- the Zumwalt DDG1000 is one of the first large vessels of this type.

 

[Nik]

Didn't a bunch of such 'fast ship' concepts 'crash & burn' during 'Oil Crisis' ? Suddenly, fuel economy was 'in'...

IIRC, the same pricing change made those big cross-Channel hover-ferries uneconomical...

( Rode one, once. IIRC, it took a short-cut across 'Goodwin Sands' during 'inclement' weather, wave-heights such that you could glimpse beige banks in the troughs. The unfortunate 'Trolley Dollies' and incautious passengers went totally airborne during each mega-lollop when air-cushion blew out. Our family was sat fairly near C/L & C/G, but still took a hammering. End of that season, seat-belts were retro-fitted... )

 

[ILikeTanks]

Didn't a bunch of such 'fast ship' concepts 'crash & burn' during 'Oil Crisis' ? Suddenly, fuel economy was 'in'...

IIRC, the same pricing change made those big cross-Channel hover-ferries uneconomical...

( Rode one, once. IIRC, it took a short-cut across 'Goodwin Sands' during 'inclement' weather, wave-heights such that you could glimpse beige banks in the troughs. The unfortunate 'Trolley Dollies' and incautious passengers went totally airborne during each mega-lollop when air-cushion blew out. Our family was sat fairly near C/L & C/G, but still took a hammering. End of that season, seat-belts were retro-fitted...

Doesn't planing hulls and other hydrodynamic lift methods for ships reduce fuel consumption for given speed in theory?

 

[Nik]

Yes, but...
'Fast Ship' economics just don't work for a zillion-TEU box-ship, car-carrier or VLCC. Especially, eg a gas-carrier that is partly fuelling engine from boil-off.

If you want to move small-ish cargo fast, is cheaper by Jumbo Jet. Likewise, people.

Cruise ships are exactly as fast as they want to be: Leave hydrofoils etc as 'local' ferries and river-boats...

In effort to squeeze a few more percent efficiency from big ships, they're sprouting sails, kites, 'Flettner rotors', fancy propellers, fancier propellers with in-flow shapers and/or shrouds. Even prop-hub stator 'proplets', akin to aircraft winglets and for same reasons.

Also, air-bubble 'skinning', where air bubbles released under hull suppress turbulence, reduce friction. Even with compressor and plumbing costs, there's a significant fuel saving of 5-7%. Or use same fuel and go a few knots faster, deliver a 'tide' sooner...

World Maritime News

www.offshore-energy.biz

 

[ILikeTanks]

Yes, but...
'Fast Ship' economics just don't work for a zillion-TEU box-ship, car-carrier or VLCC. Especially, eg a gas-carrier that is partly fuelling engine from boil-off.

If you want to move small-ish cargo fast, is cheaper by Jumbo Jet. Likewise, people.

Cruise ships are exactly as fast as they want to be: Leave hydrofoils etc as 'local' ferries and river-boats...

In effort to squeeze a few more percent efficiency from big ships, they're sprouting sails, kites, 'Flettner rotors', fancy propellers, fancier propellers with in-flow shapers and/or shrouds. Even prop-hub stator 'proplets', akin to aircraft winglets and for same reasons.

Also, air-bubble 'skinning', where air bubbles released under hull suppress turbulence, reduce friction. Even with compressor and plumbing costs, there's a significant fuel saving of 5-7%. Or use same fuel and go a few knots faster, deliver a 'tide' sooner...

World Maritime News

www.offshore-energy.biz

Supercavitation?

 

[Nik]

" Supercavitation ?"

No. The props are 'ordinary', but CFD-optimised.
Bubbles Just provide displacement-hull Lubrication and turbulence suppression.

KCC to equip new ship quartet with Silvestream's air lubrication tech

Norwegian shipowner Klaveness Combination Carriers (KCC) has decided to retrofit four additional vessels with the air lubrication technology developed by UK's cleantech company Silverstream Technologies.

www.offshore-energy.biz

Kumiai Navigation to retrofit LPG tanker with air lubrication

Kumiai Navigation (PTE) has decided to retrofit one of its LPG tankers with Alfa Laval OceanGlide fluidic air lubrication.

www.offshore-energy.biz

Latter has real-neat diagram of bubble screen beneath hull...

Though there's also a possibility that such bubble-screens mitigate fouling, that's only my surmise...

 

[ILikeTanks]

Can this be also used on aircraft travelling through the air, instead with air bubbles?

" Supercavitation ?"

No. The props are 'ordinary', but CFD-optimised.
Bubbles Just provide displacement-hull Lubrication and turbulence suppression.

KCC to equip new ship quartet with Silvestream's air lubrication tech

Norwegian shipowner Klaveness Combination Carriers (KCC) has decided to retrofit four additional vessels with the air lubrication technology developed by UK's cleantech company Silverstream Technologies.

www.offshore-energy.biz

Kumiai Navigation to retrofit LPG tanker with air lubrication

Kumiai Navigation (PTE) has decided to retrofit one of its LPG tankers with Alfa Laval OceanGlide fluidic air lubrication.

www.offshore-energy.biz

Latter has real-neat diagram of bubble screen beneath hull...

Though there's also a possibility that such bubble-screens mitigate fouling, that's only my surmise...

 

[Nik]

Um, 'Blown Flaps' ? And 'Boundary Layer Control' ? And the 'porous wing' thing where stagnant air / potential detachment is sucked into structure ? Snag is the 'suction' stuff's tiny perforations soon get 'blocked & blinded' by dirt, ice etc, while 'blow' stuff needs hefty ducting.

Honourable exception, IIRC, for eg Harrier 'Jump Jet' with its compressor-bleed wing-tip 'puffers' for low-speed control: Think of them as equivalent to 'attitude thrusters' on space-craft...

Two physical problems: Water is minimally compressible compared to air, and their significant density difference...

Uh, IIRC, 'Urban Legend' holds that, in addition to munging radar profile, some aircraft use an electrically generated plasma sheath to mitigate hypersonic friction and thus heat transfer. Your mileage MACH may vary...

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yes, but...
'Fast Ship' economics just don't work for a zillion-TEU box-ship, car-carrier or VLCC. Especially, eg a gas-carrier that is partly fuelling engine from boil-off.

If you want to move small-ish cargo fast, is cheaper by Jumbo Jet. Likewise, people.

Cruise ships are exactly as fast as they want to be: Leave hydrofoils etc as 'local' ferries and river-boats...

About the farthest I'd expect hydrofoil ferries to go is across the Baltic. Poland to Finland or Sweden, for example. And that's as a daily ferry kind of thing, not hourly like the Seattle area ferries.

In effort to squeeze a few more percent efficiency from big ships, they're sprouting sails, kites, 'Flettner rotors', fancy propellers, fancier propellers with in-flow shapers and/or shrouds. Even prop-hub stator 'proplets', akin to aircraft winglets and for same reasons.

Also, air-bubble 'skinning', where air bubbles released under hull suppress turbulence, reduce friction. Even with compressor and plumbing costs, there's a significant fuel saving of 5-7%. Or use same fuel and go a few knots faster, deliver a 'tide' sooner...

World Maritime News

www.offshore-energy.biz

I foresee a lot of ships getting retrofitted with air bubble skinning and prop boss cap fins on their next drydocking. 5-7% is huge in fuel savings, and the PBCF do that by themselves. The two together should get down to about 90% of the fuel consumed without them.

 

[Nik]

Nice discussion of PBCF etc, plus interesting graphics / links etc

What's this Gadget?

I saw this on Facebook today, and thought it might be a fun general thread for Engineering to post pics of things that made you stop and think about what they were designed for. I had to click into the FB post to see if my intuition was right on this one. Thoughts on this one? Do you have...

www.physicsforums.com