A259374 Wet Tow Evaluation

AD-A259 374
iII~llhIIIII~llh~jljll/ll I);/iII/IHIt
CR 92.014
October 1992
Contract Report
An Investigation Conducted by Karl A. Stambach

Consulting Naval Architect
DEPLOYABLE WATERFRONT WET TOW EVALUATION
This report presents the results of a feasibility study of towing Abstract pontoon barges on their own buoyancy. A review of the specifications and the operation requirements of the pontoon barges, a survey of towing assets and techniques, as well as an evaluation of the critical environmental parameters are conducted to identify the requirements for wet tow operation. Hydrodynamic and seakeeping characteristics of the hull form are evaluated to assess the suitability of the pontoon barges for ocean towing. A parametric analysis is presented of alternatives and modifications required to achieve the operational requirements where deficiencies exist. Design criteria required to implement the modifications are recommended.
DTIC
*
~LEECTE DEC17 1992
92-31514
NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY PORT HUENEME CALIFORNIA 93043-4328

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
92 12-. It")
-e
.5 -r
:e
.0
.a
ON
ON
Os
E1
~
-
).i ~ ~
CC?
c4,
":
4,
-M
0
I .m-,,. E
gaIg
~~
ihi
0i
*~i~i*I'g*I'Iz e.2s~
IE
EI
17
E
2IiIiii iiaE.aas
EI ~ EtIIIIil
.2
- _miiaEall" E
EE 'I
S 9
I'
I'
EI-,""
5s
en s
LSIE
C~
l0
nnn
-R-
kE
-0
E E E-===
ZR
a! o
to
ccf
-WaC
In
enIf to(0 0O
*-
,'4
,.o-
ILc
..
Publc wotng burdien kv this collection of kIbrmaton is esthitaed to aveauge 1hour pe epone Incigthe ttne Sm ruvmn Iweuialn.sinhn xsin t o gathering and mnaintaining the data nee d and c~ondeng anvWd rsvtgthecoflectionat inbfnatlon Sendo~wnewif oegaing Othi etnaeor any athif spect of this osdn@ collection Itnbetion. includIng suggesftons for @Micl this burtion, to Washington lHesdoorienp ServliceII",Okectorst Inmm lnbon end Reports. 1215 Jelefison Davis HigthesV. Suite 1204. Arlington. VA 22202-432. and to the Offioe Ma Unagemlent andl Budget. Papework Redction P (070440168). Wasfuingon. DC 20503.
~cl
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave tianic)
L. MIGHT DATE IOctober
3. REOR TYPE AM DAM3
COVERED
1992
Final; 1 January 1992 -20 March 1992

&. FUNDIUONG UR
4. T1712 AND Suummts
DEPLOYABLE WATERFRONT WET TOW

________________________________________
PE
C
62233N
N61533-90-D-0027
AUYNOR"WU Karl A. Stamnbaugh/

7. PERRNPOINI OPGAIUZA11OU HAWN AND AOOUE11IM&
- DN669041
L. PERFOR11111111 ORGAIUZA11OU1
Consulting Naval Architect 794 Creek View Road Severna Park, MD 21146
a. SPONWRINO.UOU0111TORING
AGENCY NANIEI AND ADOMMES8E
~NME
CR 92.014
10. SPONUORNGINUON1TORINO AGENCY WE~fMKiSER
Chief of Naval Research /Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory Office of Naval Technology Amphibious Systems Division 800 No. Quincy Street Code L65 Arlington. VA 22217-5000 Port Huenemne, CA 93043-4328
11. 9UPPLEMEWARY lE
12.. 0111RNSUITIOWAVASLUUT
STATEMENT
ia* ND1TMUUIS1
CODE
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.I

13. A11111TRACT (Uaxbnma, 200Wa
This report presents the results of a feasibility study of towing pontoon barges on their own buoyancy. A review of the specifications and the operation requirements of the pontoon barges, a survey of towing assets and techniques, as well as an evaluation of the critical environmental parameters are conducted to identify the requirements for wet tow operation. Hydrodynamic and seakeeping characteristics of the hull form are evaluated to assess the suitability of the pontoon barges for ocean towing. A parametric analysis is presented of alternatives and modifications required to achieve the operational requirements where deficiencies exist. Design criteria required to implement the modifications are recommended.
14. 1111AMET wing11111
IL
NUMER OF PAGES
Pontoon barges, wet tow feasibility, operational requirement, environmental parameters

I&
17. SECURITY CL.A8WIACAiIM OF FREPORT 11IL SECILHI CLAGNPICA1IO Or TIESPAG UC
80
CODE
I&IS SECURITY
CLAGINACATSOO OF A1118UACT
20LUNPTAT11OU1 OF ASIRACT
Unclassified
NSN 7540401-2804560
Unclassified
Unclassified
UL
Stiandar Formu 2f6 (Reav 24-W Pvuabed by ANSI Ste& 239-18 20111-102
Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................. ..................... 1.1 Background ............. ................... 1.2 Sunmary .................... ..................... WET TOW OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS .... ........... 2.1 Tow Speed .............. .................... 2.2 Environmental Conditions ....... ............ TOW ASSETS AND TECHNIQUES ......... .............. 1-i 1-1 1-2 2-1 2-1 2-2 3-1
..
2.0
3.0
3.1 3.2 4.0
Towing Assets .......... Towing Techniques ........
.................. ................
.. ..
3-1 3-4 4-1 4-1 4-3 4-3 4-6

4-6 5-1
DWF DESIGN EVALUATION ......... ................ 4.1 Hull Proportions ......... ................ 4.2 Arrangement . ............. ........... 4.3 Hydrodynamics .......... ................ 4.4 Structural Considerations .... ............
4.5 Seakeeping ............... ................... ........... CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..... REFERENCES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C DWF HYDRODYNAMIC CALCULATIONS DWF STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS DWF SEAKEEPING CALCULATIONS
..... . . ..
5.0
Accesion For NTIS CRA&I DTIC TAB Unannounced Justification By ............... Distribution I Availability Codes Dist Avail a;,dIor Special
A.i
List of Figures
Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 Figure 3-4
Barge Deck Hardware Required for Towing ........ Christmas Tree Towing Rig ..... Tandem Towing Rig ......... ............
3-6 .. 3-7 .. 3-8 .. 3-9
................
Deck Layout for an Ocean Going Barge ........
ii
Table of Tables
Table 2-1 Table 3-1 Table 3-1 Table 4-1 Table 4-2 Table 4-3 Table 4-4 Table 4-5
Environmental Conditions for Offshore Platform .. 2-3 .................... Transports ............. Navy Towing Ship Characteristics ............ Commercial Tugboat Characteristics ........... Characteristics of Ocean Going Barges ...... Relative Resistance of Barge Hull Forms ....... DWF Tow Route Analysis Results .... .......... ... 3-2 .. 3-3 4- .. 4-4 .. 4-7 .. 4-9 .. 4-10
Parameters Used in Seakeeping Analysis ......... Results of DWF Seakeeping Analysis .........
iii
1.0
INTRODUCTION The Navy is engaged in a program to define and demonstrate Deployable Waterfronts (DWF) that will provide world wide logistics support for our forces in the Continental United The DWF concept consists of States (CONUS) and overseas. floating modules to provide pier and rapidly deployed, logistics facilities. The DWF must be transported to the site of operation and disassembled and moved to other sites if Towing the Deployable Waterfronts to the site of required. operation has been proposed; however, the wet tow option has not been evaluated and the impact on the DWF design is not known. The objectives of this evaluation are to review the wet tow operational requirements and assess their impact on the DWF design. 1.1 Background The five specified scenarios for utilizing the DWF, from References 1, 2 and 3 are: "* U.S. Navy port "* Developed overseas port "* Advanced logistics support base "* Advanced Base "* Pre-positioned material base In all scenarios, deployment to the site of operation. The modules required to construct a required 1200 ft waterfront consists of 4-300 ft or 3-400 ft modules. Nominal characteristics are: *
Length Beam Draft
-
taken
the port must be prepared for rapid
300 i00ft 7 ft
ft
1-1
Displacement
5000 LT
General
design criteria and 3.
for
the DWF are presented
in
References 1, 2,
These references provide design
requirements for DWF operation after installation. Environmental conditions are presented for survival of the DWF design after it is installed: * * *
Wave height Wave period Wind Current 5 ft 6 sec 85 knots 4 knots
A test plan has been developed (4) to demonstrate the DWF The modules chosen are 2-400 ft deck cargo concept. The modules are to be barges, available commercially. towed to the site using a 9000 hp tugboat. A coastal tow route is planned from the U.S. west coast to Alaska or to Baha, Mexico, 1.2 Summary The DWF wet tow evaluation included a review of operational requirements, survey of towing assets and of the DWF design and evaluation techniques configuration. A review of the current DWF operational requirements for deployment is presented to characterize the critical parameters of the tow environment and duration required to conduct a concept level evaluation of the DWF design. Government and commercial requirements used for similar wet tows are identified. Military and commercial assets available for the wet tow are presented to highlight the limitations, availability and arrangements required to make these assets available for set up and demonstration.
1-2
This includes a summary of asset to the government. capabilities and limitations relative to the wet tow Approaches and techniques used for wet requirements. tows of similar requirements are presented and their Design criteria impact on the DWF design is considered. resulting from the applicable towing techniques are identified. A concept level evaluation of the baseline configuration is presented to assess performance in light of the identified. assets and requirements operational of the Hydrodynamic and seakeeping characteristics A parametric baseline configuration are evaluated. analyses is presented of alternatives and modifications required to achieve the operational requirements where to required Design criteria exist. deficiencies Criteria implement the modifications are recommended. and seakeeping hydrodynamic, arrangement, a-Mresses structural implications of the wet tow.
The following report presents the results of the DWF evaluation followed by conclusions and reccrnrendations to to support continued required develop technologies development and design of the DWF.
1-3
2.0
WET TOW OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS The transport time frame (speed) and environmental conditions expected along the route are critical parameters required to assess the DWF design requirements. The DWF requirements documents were reviewed to identify the critical parameters. 2.1 Tow Speed Review of the requirements documents (References 1, 2 and 3) do not specify a transport time frame; therefore, no speed requirements for the tow can be inferred. A review of Navy and commercial practice does indicate the towing speeds attainable. Also, the DWF heavy lift transport provides a speed for comparative purposes. The Navy towing ships (described later) routinely tow barges of similar dimensions to the DWF at 6 to 10 knots. Reference 5 provides an example of a 300 ft x 80 ft x 10 ft housing barge tow at 10 knots using a TATF. Commercial towing speeds range from 6 to 8 knots. References 6 and 7 provide examples of drilling jackets being transported on offshore barges as deck cargo. The DWF heavy lift transport is capable of 12 knots average speed as described in Reference 8. Tow speed potential depends on barge characteristics, power, size of tow hawser, tow winch, tow gear, weather expected along the route. These factors tug and are
examined below to determine the feasibility of towing the DWF at speeds comparable to Navy or commercial practice.
2-1
2.2
Environmental Conditions The expected environmental conditions influence the size of tug required, tow speed and DWF design. Navy practice relies on the Fleet Numerical Weather Center for route historical data and forecasts prior to the tow. Pointto-point towing of ocean going barges is routine in commercial practice and environmental criteria are presented by Det Norske Veritas (9) and Noble Denton (10) for maintaining headway during bad weather encountered during ocean towing. Sophisticated route analysis is required for special non-routine transports where cargo is carried on transport barges and ships. Tow route analyses are performed for towing offshore drilling jackets to the site of installation as done in the recent example presented by Exxon (11). Wijsmuller (8) performed a route analysis for the DWF heavy lift transport. Wet tows of deck cargo barges are routine and, designed as ocean going barges, the commercial criteria provide adequate levels of safety for wet tows. if
The environmental
criteria and route analysis used for
DWF transport study are summarized in Table 2-1. The environmental criteria presented in Table 2-1 for ocean towing are more severe than the design re4uirements for survival when deployed on site as presented above from References 1,2 and 3. The DWF will not be suitable for ocean towing if designed according to the on site survival requirements. Design requirements presented in References 1,2 and 3 should include requirements for wet tow and heavy lift transports. The transport requirements for deployment, redeployment and survival on site are not mutually exclusive. If the design
2-2
Table 2-1 Environmental Conditions for Offshore Platform Transports

DNV 16.4 38.8
_ _
_ __
Noble Denton 116.9 . 40

_ _ _ _ _
Exxon Transpac 16.0
s
40.0 1 9.2 - 11.4 72.7
Wavet
Heightod Period
.. 50
_ _ _ _ _
Wind
Speed
kts
Current
*Heavy lift
'Speed 1.94 1 kts I _ ship transport listed for comparison.
2-3
requirements for deployment (e.g. transport and operation in coastal and ocean environments) are considered realistically, the DWF design will be transport mode independent and more functional. Environmental criteria for wet towing are route specific; however, the DNV criteria presented in Table 2-1 is recommended for DWF design development.
2-4
3.0
TOW ASSETS AND TECHNIQUES

Candidate towing assets and techniques used to tow the DWF are presented. The assets include Navy towing ships (fleet tugs) and commercial tugs available for charter to the Navy.
3.1
Towing Assets The Navy and MSC operate a number of ocean going tugboats that are used for salvage and ocean towing. Navy tugs (ships) perform multi-scenario towing and special projects. Fleet or Task Force standby duty and rescue towing services as well as point-to-point tows are generally assigned to the Fleet Tug (ATF) and the Rescue Salvage Ship (ARS) and the Salvage Tug (ATS) classes. The MSC-operates Fleet Tugs (T-ATF) that also perform these tasks. These Navy tugs are designed for salvage and ocean towing missions. They have towing winches and machines specifically designed for ocean tows. Characteristics of these tugs are shown in Table 3-1. Tow line pull characteristics for Navy tugs are shown in Appendix A. The Navy engages in charter of commercial tugboats for point-to-point ocean towing. There are literally hundreds of tugs available for hire throughout the world. Examples of those used by the Navy for towing are summarized in Table 3-2. The commercial tugboats are optimized beautifully for point-to-point towing. Tow line pull characteristics for commercial tugs are presented in Appendix A. routinely
3-1
Table 3-1 Navy Towing Ship Characteristics
Characteristics Length (ft) Beam (ft)

Draft (ft) Displacement (Full-Load LT) Cruising Range (am @ kts) Speed. Mat Sustained (kts) Shaft Horsepower Propuision, Main and Screws
Fuel Consumption (gal/day)
Navy US 7 251.5 43
19.5 2400 8400/10.0 14.9 3000 Diesel-elec 1 screw
2 engines -
Navy ATF 76 205 38.5

15.5 1675 10000/15.0 15.5 3000 Diesel-elec j 1 screw
2 engines -
Navy ATS 1 282.7 30

18.0 3117 10000/13.0 16.0 6000 4 Diesel 1 screw
2 engines -
Navy IRS 6
213.5 39
13 1750 9400/12.5 14.8 3000 4 Diesei 2 screws
2 engines -
at Normal Cruising Speed

2100 GPD (est)

4 engines -
2000 GPD
3 engines -
3000 GPD
4 engines -
2300 GPD
4 engines -
with all Engines
4100 (est)
3400 GPD
4 engines -
4200 CPD
3500 - 4000
GPD
Complement Bow Thruster?
95 No
4100 GPD 85 No
102 + 20 tran. Yes
B5 No
Characteristics
Length (ft) Beam (ft) Draft (ft) Displacement (Full-Load LT) Cruising Range (nm @ kts) Speed, Max Sustained (kts) Shaft Horsepower Propulsion, Main and Screws Fuel Consumption (gal/day) at Normal Cruising Speed
Navy AIS 38
213.5 43 16 1900 9400/12.5 14.5 3000 4 Diesel-elec 2 screws 2 engines 2300 GPD
4 engines -
50 Navy WIR
(166 Class)
255.0 52 17.5 3282 8000/8.0 15.0 4200 4 Diesel 2 screws 2 engines 2100 GPD (est)
4 engines -
225 42 15 2260 10000/13.0 15.0 7200 2 Diesel 2 screws I engine 4149 (est)
2 engines -
with all Engines Complement Bow Thruster?
3500 - 4000 GPD
4100 GPD (est) 94 + 16 tran. Yes
8300 (est) 20 + 20 tran. Yes
(from reference
5)
3-2
Table 3-2 Commercial Tugboat Characteristics
Zarte
ane Zee 1163 Toning/
Atlatic
1975 1951914 Towing/
Sait
Singapore Salage/
heptue
1975 Suca
_1988
Otto
1996 Candies
Invader
TowingToin
Type
Sal vage
Salvage
Salvage ocehor luldlinq 255, 246'6S 51'5" 1 21, 4833
Salvrage
FT) Beam (FT) I Draft (FT) Displacement (LT) Ihne (11) lorsepower I" up Dollard P11l (TOE) Kai. Speed (K"S) Propellers Iork Boats
254'3, 40-6'" 18'10" 2619 14,000 9,000 IlP Est. 6,000 BIP
208' 47'03* 21,
140' 42' 18,
150' 44' i5'
43'T" 20
14,000 16,000 IMP Est. 10,000 BPI 135 17 2 CPP v/nonzles 2 CUP v/nozzles 2
38
10,000 23,000 INP 22,000 IKP 20,000 BDP Est. IBP 18,000 Est. 189 160 5850 BIP 9000 liP 150 16 2 CUP v/nozzle 2 1 2 1
16
v/nazzles
0
14
2
26
Accomodatins
3-3
Discussions with commercial towing companies confirm the availability of tugboats on quick response and long term charter arrangements. Normally, to obtain a commercial tow, the tow planner Navy appropriate tow from the the request will Operational Surface Force Commander who will arrange for If neither is available, the tow a U.S. Navy or MSC tow. should be arranged through the local supply agent. The Navy has harbor tugs, commonly referred to as yard The YTBs are used tugs (YTB), used for berthing ships. overseas operating bases and at major naval bases, The YTBs would be useful in setting up the shipyards. DWF modules where DWF facilities are deployed in CONUS and where existing pier facilities are damaged. However, transporting the YTBs to the site of DWF operation is a Preliminary work has been logistics effort in itself. conducted to solve this logistics effort for the heavy lift ship transport option (Reference 12). The towing tugs described earlier, while not designed for harbor work, are capable of maneuvering the DWF modules into position. Most towing tugs have twin screws and bow "thrusters that will provide sufficient maneuverability when DWF modules are towed close in or in breasted tows. 3.2 Towing Techniques Selection of the tow rig is best if based on similar tow Towing operations and needs of the particular tow. techniques for barges similar to the DWF are well established as indicated in References 5, 13 and 14. 3-4
Example tow rigs are shown in Figures 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 the Christmas tree, Generally, from Reference 5. Honolulu and Tandem rigs are used for Navy and commercial tows of multiple barges. Hardware required for towing DWF modules includes padeyes at both forward corners and bitts in the center for a Additional bitts and chocks must be retrieving line. sides and stern of the DWF for located along the transiting the Panama Canal and towing and maneuvering Panama chock requirements for barges between close in. 300 ft and 400 ft include fairleads and bitts that must be located between 40 ft and 100 ft from the bow and between 50 ft and 110 ft from the stern. layout for an ocean going barge is Typical deck shown in Figure 3-4.
Ocean going barges must also have navigational lights and batteries; however, these items do not have a significant The presence of a riding crew impact on DWF design. increases the requirements for safety considerations such as fire fighting and lifesaving equipment in addition to Generally, riding crews are riding crew accommodations. not required for the DWF tow nor are they desirable because the additional requirements and unnecessary cost.
After the tow plan is completed with all hardware surveyed for is thoroughly identified, the barge suitability of towing prior to acceptance of the tow by the towing master.
3-5
TOW WIRE TOW SHACKLE PLATE OR SAFETY SHACKLE FLOUNDER PLATEPLAN U. DETAIL U o PLATE SHACKLE-.......... PLAN
0
TOW PENDANT: 1 5/8' 0. X 75' LEG
~PLATE
SHACKLE-PLAN
PLATE SHACKLE-':LAN 10
UNDERRIDER: 1 5/8' 0. X 600' LEG
TOW PENOANT:l 6/8' STUD-LINK CHAIN

-
X 75'LEG.
FLOUNDER PLATEPLAN 8. DETAILS
PLATE SHACKLES-PLAN 10
1-0. RETRIEVING WIRE
NOTE SIZE AND LENGTH OF CHAIN TO 9E DETERMINED IN EACH CASE BY: 0 SIZE AND WIEIGHT OF TOW 0 EAM OF TOW *01STANCE TO BE TOWED OrYPE OF WEATHER EXPECTED 0EXTEN4T Of CHAFING
PLATE SHACKLE PORT AND STARBOARD PLAN 10ABU
Figure 3-1
Barge Deck Hardware Required for Towing (from reference 5) 3-6
TOW WIRE-
TOW SHACKLE -PLATE OR SAFETY SHACKLE .1 418 CHAIN PENDANT. 46 LEG. (OPTIONAL)
FLOUNDER PLATE -PLAN a. DETAIL 3 PLATE SHACKLES -PLAN 10 1 618" CHAIN PENDANT. 45 FLOUNDER PLATE DETAIL -PLAN 1 518' CHAIN PENDANT. 458 8 5. LEG. LEG. (OPTIONAL)
PENDANT CHAIN BRIDLE -PLAN
1 I
m
-PLAN SO0" 2PLATE SHACKLES 1 58"6 ""'e.UNDERRIDER: FLOUNDER PLATE
1 0 LEG
PLATE SHACKLE
-LN Ii -P1AN
U. DETAILSB 2 PLATE SHACKLES -PLAN 1 0
5/8' CHAIN PENDANT. 48" LEG. (OPTIONAL)
YC OR YCV
Figure 3-2 Christmas Tree Towing Rig (from reference 5) 3-7
JAUXILIARY TOW WIRE
PLATE SHACKLE -PLAN 1 1
PLAT PLANTOW SHAKLE

PLATE SHACKLE -PLAN 10
PENDANT:
1 5/8'0. a75S
S x 37. WIRE ROPE.
LEG.
FLOUNDER PLATE
-PLAN S. DETAIL 8 CHAIN BRIDLE -PLAN I
YC TOW WIRE TOW SHACKLE -PLATE SHACKLE OR SAFETYSHCL SHACKLE OftSAFETY
'
,TOW
PENDANT: I S/8D. x 75' LEG 6 x 37. WIRE ROPE
FLOUNDER PLATE -PLAN 8. DETAIL A
CHAIN BRIDLE -PLAN
Figure 3-3 Tandem Towing Rig (from reference 5) 3-8
0 *
'0
\
0
C0
.0. go.-,-
* 1-P0 .
cc
o
*
01
0'.0 0U 0
a
0
, a
.0
0
Z "
'
a I
I, U"
o
*
.I
.F4
00
I-
t ,
S*
a a.
OF 0
I-.
I <ao 0
,e
Oro ,l
010
'-
3L9
3-9
4.0
DWF DESIGN EVALUATION The nominal DWF design configuration described above is in The basic configuration has not early stages of development. been evaluated for suitability for ocean towing in light of the tow requirements, assets and techniques identified above. The evaluation presented here includes a review of hull and structure hydrodynamics, arrangement, proportions, seakeeping considerations. 4.1 Hull Proportions The DWF configuration is within range of hull parameters
Table 4-1 presents charactypical ocean going barges. teristics of ocean going barges published in the open literature (References 6, 15 and 16). The length to beam ratio for the 300 ft DWF is 3: however, 4 or more is more DWF beam should be no greater than 106 ft to common. Draft of 7 ft is light; permit use of the Panama Canal. however, seakeeping analysis is presented to evaluate the seakeeping and slamming characteristics of this hull form. The DWF freeboard is 18ft, more than adequate to keep cargo and deck structure dry. Skegs are often added to barges to improve the directional stability during towing. Generally, deck cargo barges used for offshore all. none at skeg or have a single transports Directional stability of barges without skegs is achieved by trimming the barge by the stern approximately one percent.
4-1
Table 4-1 Characteristics of Ocean Going Barges
P A
Ta
O1pS. LTaos
OWT
L/68
ST
BID
T/D
-
umE
Internec 650 M1copr i M44 H109 MIN376 Hilo i tevmc 400 eftl"Ic 93
I.
Ft 198.12 650.0 190.0 623.0 183.0 600.0 176.8 580.0 160.0 525.0 152.4 50.0 137.16 450.0
.L
Ft 51.82 170.0 50.0 164.0 47.2 155.0 48.8 160.0 42.1 138.0 36.58 120.0 31.70 104.0
1L
Ft 12.19 40.0 11.4 37.4 11.6 38.0 11.0 36.0 107 35.1 10.06 33.4 9.14 30.0
L.
Ft
M.. T.
tl'a7 3.82 3.8
4.25 4.4 5.0 6.06 5.6 4.8 4.6 4.4 39 3.6 3.5 .81 .73 .70 .75
9.4 30.8 8.06 26.42 7.5 24.6 7.66 25.13
75920 74700 84226 82900 49570 48790 41790 41130
57300 56398 66680 65630 39550 39320 31730 31230
3.9 3.6 3.8 4.2 432
MR 398 0dM 10 WI 267 Isturmc 500 US 319 Godiat 6 BAS 362 AgwnO MI 396 Inutunc 400 GONI 3 MR 271 Internc 250
121.9 400.0 121.92 400.0 115.82 380.0 106.68 350.0 101.19 332.0 100.0 328.0 91.44 300.0 89.92 29S.0 92.35 303.0 91.44 300.0 77.42 254.0 76.2 250.0 73.15 240.0
31.94 104.8 30.48 100.0 30.48 100.0 24.38 80.0 27.43 90.0 27.0 88.6 27.43 90.0 29.87 98.0 27.43 90.0 27.43 90.0 24.0 78.8 21.9S 72.0 21.95 72.0 L-Length
7.62 25.0 9.14 30.0 7.62 25.0 7.62 25.0 6.10 20.0 7.0 23.0 6.10 20.0 7.01 23.0 6.70 22.0 6.55 21.5 6.19 20.3 4.88 16.0 5.23 17.16
8.87 29.1 7.27 23.85 5.29 17.36 5.12 16.79 5.18 17.01 5.55 18.25 4.66 15.29 4.Ml 16.0 5.42 17.8 4.82 15.8 5.0 16.3 3.63 11.92 4.21 13.82
2760S 27170 24600 24212 17607 17330 12294 12100 13930 13711 13868 13650 11176 11000
IS281 15040 20400 20079 12456 12260 94499300 11308 11130 13868 13650 8636 8500
3.8 4.0 3.8 4.4 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.01
5.5 4.2 5.8 4.76 5.3 4.85 5.9 6.13 5.1 5.7 4.83 6.04 5.2
4.2 3.3 4.0 3.2 4.S 3.85 4.5 4.26 4.1 4.19 3.88 4.5 4.3
.76 .80 .69 .69 .85 .79 .77 .70 .81 .74 .80 .75 .805
12635 12436 10818 10648 9754 9600 6195 6095 6248 6150 D-Depth
10626 10459 8941 8800 8230 8100 S15 5075 5263 5180
3.4 3.33 3.22 3.5 3.3
3-Dsam
T-Draft
Disp-Displacement
DWT-Deadweight
(from reference 7) 4-2
4.2
Arrangement Arrangement of the deck and interior structure and machinery on DWF must be centered about the barge midships for proper trim. Space is required for towing Deck space must hardware shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-4. be allocated for chocks, tow pads and fairleads. The hardware does not require a significant amount of deck area; however, deck area should be provided for handling lines and tow gear.
4.3
Hydrodynamics DWF hulls are currently configured as box shaped modules with square bow, sides and stern. This shape will be unsuitable for long distance wet towing because the hydrodynamic resistance is significant. The tow speed will be less than four knots and fuel consumption will be unnecessarily high. Shallow draft barges have been built with raked bows and square sterns but they are used for short distance tows. Generally, ocean going barges have raked ends at the bow and stern, as shown in Figure 3-4, if they are used for distance towing. This configuration than the square stern barges. Table 4-2 presents the relative resistance of different barge hull forms. As indicated above, the most significant reduction raked ends. Minor relatively little in resistance is adjustments are achieved using possible with Ship shape has 20% less resistance
reduction in
resistance.
hulls were used many years ago when tugboat engine power was relatively low and hull resistance even more critical; however, with newer, higher powered tugboats available, barges with raked ends provide the required resistance characteristics as described next.
4-3
Table 4-2 Relative Resistance of Barge Hull Forms
Vh/- AA 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 AB 1.00 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.12 1.12 1.10 1.09 1.06 AC 0.83 0.79 0.83 0.89 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91
BARGE SHAPE AD 1.17 1.00 1.08 1.06 1.08 1.12 1.11 1.22 1.11 BA 0.83 0.71 0.75 0.83 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.84 0.83 CA 1.33 1.14 1.08 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.06 1.06 CB 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.94 0.96 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.03 CC 1.17 1.00 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.90
Take AA shape barge as standard barge.
V-Speed
L-Length
AA__
ADS
ACA
AD 0 C C0
(from reference 18) 4-4
The resistance and towing speed of a typical DWF module with raked ends is estimated using an approach for commercial barges described in References 17 and 18 and then compared to commercial towing assets. The approach presented in Reference 5 is used to estimate barge resistance for comparison to Navy towing assets. The two approaches are fundamentally the same and produce similar results; however, they are not interchangeable. The calculations are presented in Appendix A. The resistance calculations speeds range between 6 and indicate DWF module tow 8.5 knots with 10 knots
possible. Reference 5 presents an example where a berthing barge with dimensions similar to the DWF is towed at 10 knots by a TATF. Two scenarios were developed to illustrate the time frame required to transport the DWF by wet tow: 1) From Norfolk to Southeast Asia through the Panama Canal, 2) Pre-position the DWF in Diego Garcia and have the tug transit free route and pick up the DWF for tow to the mideast. The calculations for the route analysis are presented in Appendix A. Results of the analysis are shown in Table 4-3. The tow duration for each scenario is reasonable given the assets identified above. To illustrate the difference on stern shape for the scenarios above, a 20% increase in resistance will slow the tow to 5 knots and require 14 more days and 166,000 more gallons of fuel. This increase is significant given the modest cost required to provide raked ends.
4-5
A 400ft long by 100ft wide DWF module with a 7ft draft was analyzed as part of the hydrodynamic evaluation. With all else equal, no increase in resistance resulted. The effects of reducing wave making and increasing frictional resistance offset each other. The hydrodynamic evaluation and results presented in Table 4-3 indicates that up to three DWF modules with raked ends can be towed at reasonable speeds. If four or more modules are to be towed, multiple tows will be required. Alternatively, barge train ocean towing technology should be reviewed for applicability to the DWF wet tow. 4.4 Structural Considerations The DWF modules must be designed to withstand the rigors of ocean towing. Generally, ocean going barges are built to commercial standards such as ABS rules for offshore barges (19). ABS rules require .Sin bottom plating on a 300ft barge. For comparison, ABS rules for inland barges (20) require .475in bottom plating for barges 300ft in length. Navy standards (Ref. 5) recommend .475in bottom plating. As can be seen from the examples given, little is saved by designing the DWF with reduced scantlings because it is intended to operate in a limited survival condition. The supporting structural presented in Appendix B. 4.5 Seakeeping Seakeeping characteristics of the DWF are reviewed where they influence DWF design. calculations are
4-6
Table 4-3 DWF Tow Route Analysis Results
Norfolk to Southeast Asia
Asset Tow TowAsset_ ARS-50

TPITF
(8000 hp
[
No. Barges
No._
arges_
Speed
(kts)
Duration
(days)
3 3
2 1
6 7
8.5 10
78 67
55 47
Com. Tug)
Diego Garcia to Mid-East
3
TATF (8000 hp Com. Tug) 2 1
7
8.5 10
13 10
West Pac to Diego Garcia TATF

8000 hp Com. Tug
0
0
13.5
15
17
15
4-7
Sophisticated seakeeping analyses are often performed for towing large cargo (e.g., offshore drilling jackets) as described in References 21 and 22 and in Reference 8 when the DWF is transported as deck cargo. Using the route data from these sources (presented in Table 2-1), a preliminary seakeeping analysis was performed to determine suitability of the platform motions and data for designing the DWF. Seakeeping calculations were performed using SHIPMO-PC seakeeping program described in Reference 23. SHIPMO-PC is comparable to the Navy's Ship Motions Program (SMP). Although the DWF proportions fall outside of the parameters considered in the development of strip theory programs, they have been used with success by others for predicting barge motions for offshore rig transports. The investigated are presented in Table 4-4. Results of the seakeeping analysis is parameters
presented
in
Appendix C. The seakeeping results are summarized in Table 4-5. Data for motion predictions and model tests of barges fromReference 24 indicates the results of the seakeeping calculations presented here are reasonable. However, a validation effort would be useful for future DWF design efforts. The results are within acceptable ranges of requirements for wet tows provided in Reference with the possible exception of slamming character7 istics. Shallow draft barges have a tendency to slam at higher speeds; however, if considered in DWF design, no adverse affects result. A ballasting capability (e.g. tanks that are filled prior to departure and pumped upon arrival using pumps on the tug or portable pumps) may be worth consideration to increase draft and reduce slamming. 4-8
Table 4-4 Parameters Used in DWF Seakeeping Analysis
DWF Length Beam Draft Trim Speed

Headings
300 ft 100 ft 7 ft, 6,

1800,
15 ft 10 kts
3 ft aft 8,
1350, 900
Wave Heights Periods 5.0 ft, 5.0 sec, 16.9 ft 10.2 sec
4-9
Table 4-5
Results of DWF Seakeeping Analysis Significant Single Amplitude
Speed 8 knots, Heading 900, Wave ht. 16.9 ft. Predicted Predited_(ref.
Roll 6.4 deg.
Model Tests
24) 8.5 deg.
-
Criteria
(ref. 7) 20 - 25 deg.
Heave
.196 g Speed 8 knots, Heading 1800,
2g 16.9 ft. Criteria (ref. 7) 12.5 - 15 deg.

g
Wave ht.
Predicted Pitch
Heave
Model Test (ref. 24) 3.46 deg.

-_2
14.8 deg.
.96 g
Slams/hr
927
4-10
5.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DWF the in presented criteria design Environmental requirements (References 1,2 and 3) do not address the wet tow. The DWF will be unsuitable for ocean towing if designed using the environmental conditions for on s.ite operation. Accordingly, the DWF design requirements should be reviewed and modified if the DWF wet tow option is to be pursued. The DWF Towing assets are available to tow the DWF modules. modules should have raked ends to achieve reasonable towing speeds of 8-10 knots with one to three modules in one tow. Wet tows of four DWF modules will require special hull Alternatively, barge modifications to reduce resistance. is it train towing techniques should be investigated if desirable to tow four modules using one tugboat. DWF hull parameters of 300ft in length by 100ft wide are suitable for ocean towing; however, a ballasting capability is recommended to increase draft and reduce bottom slamming. The use of strip theory motion programs should be validated for DWF proportion modules. Commercial structural design criteria for ocean going barges or the Navy equivalent should be used if the DWF is to operate at sites other than inland waterways.
5-1
References
1.
Unidentified, "System Requirements and Design Criteria for Floating Deployable Waterfront Facilities on Exposed Coastlines," December 1988. MAR, Inc., "Deployable Waterfront Transportability Study Using Lift Submersible Ships," Final Report NCEL CR 88.004. Giannotti & Associates, Inc., "Mission Requirements Analysis Report Deployable Waterfront Facilities," for NCEL, June 1987. Giannotti & Associates, NCEL, August 1991. NAVSEA, "U.S. Inc., "DWF Demonstration Plan," SL740-AA-MAN-010, for
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Navy Towing Manual,"
1988.
Hofferber, J.E., "Loadout, Transportation and Installation of the Harmony and Heritage Jackets," OTC 6688, 1991. Szajberg, R., Greiner, W., Chen, H., Rawstrom, P., "Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance in Offshore Transportation and Launching Operations," SNAME Trans., 1980. Van Horn, Modules," P., "Transport Manual for Deployable Water for NCEL, Report CR90.012, July 1990. Front
8. 9.
Det Norske Veritas, "Towing Operations Recommendations for Barge Transportation," Maritime Advisory Services, 1978.
Guidelines and Ship Division,
10.
Noble Denton, "General Guidelines for Transport of Modules on Barges in Northern European Waters," Noble Denton Report L6410/NDA/SPK. Vermersh, J.A., 6684, 1991. "Transpacific Tow Oceanographic Criteria," OTC
11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
Stambaugh, K., Edinberg, D., "Concept Definition of a Buoyant Load Out Cradle (BLOC)," for DTRC, Report SD-CR-09/90. NSTM Chapter 19C7. Brady, 1979. "Tugs, 9250, "Towing Gear," NAVSHIPS 0901-250-0001,
Towboats and Towing,"
Cornell Maritime Press, for
Cohen, S., "Tables of Residuary Resistance Coefficient Barges With and Without Notches," SNAME T9R 1-42, 1983. R-1
16.
Developments F. , "Recent R. ; Ashcroft, Latorre, Design, Towing, and Pushing," Maritime Technology, January 1981.
Barge in 18, Vol.
17
Blight, G.J., Dai, Y.T., "Resistance of Offshore Barges With Required Tug Horse Power," OTC 3320, 1978. "Offshore construction J.L., Hwang, Chen, Y.N., Dai, Y.T., Barge Performance in Towage Operations," OTC 4164, 1981. "ABS Rules for Building American Bureau of Shipping, Service," 1973. offshore for Steel Barges Classing American Bureau of Shipping, "ABS Rules and Intra-Coastal Waterways," 1980. and
18.
19.
20.
for Service on Rivers
21.
Hutchison, B.L., "Risk and Operability Analysis in Environment," SNAME Transactions, 1981.
the Marine
22.
Pajouhi, K., "Reliability Analysis of Offshore Structures in Towing Operations," OTC 4162, 1981. Seakeeping "Shipmo-PC, Software for Sable Maritime LTD, Predictions," User Manual, Version 1.02, October 1981. Kinra, R., "Seakeeping Model Tests of a Platform Jacket Tow," OTC 3840, 1980.
23.
24.
R-2
Appendix A DWF Hydrodynami c Calculations
KARL
STAMBAUGH 21146
Project Analyst 1.'
Consulting Naval Architects 794 Creek View Rd

Severna Park MD
(301)
544-9553
Sheet
of
-D4,
I~~o" r . , , ..
P, I t.4.. .
.. . ...
..
3.. . . . . ....
. . . ..
. . .. . ...
.. .... . .... . ;"
" . ..
. .......
.. . . .. . .. . .
. .. . .
. .
.' .
M: . I.
" O t .Z : " .
KARL A STAMBAUGH Consulting Naval Architects 794 Creek View Rd
Project
Severna Park MD
(301) 544-9553
21146
Analyst
Sheet
.-... of ?-Q
-'
,r. ' " ". -_ , . ,... .J .. . .
..
.... .. ...
... .... .. ....
: ..' .. i..
:........... ...... .. . .... .. ... . .

S
.v/ - is,:............. ...
...
.. . .
KARL
STAMBAUGH 21146
Project Analyst
Sheet

Severna Park MD
(301) 544-9553
"
. of f
"
.. .
I.
Z~h
ri V 5,L'i1:9,o
. '
K
T0
,002.
"3
,l,13;
.7
. ... ,
......
..... :.... . 7, .. .. (3)3 ...
..........
..... . ...
. ..........
.. .
.. S.
. . . ;
. . .. . . . . . .
KARL
STAMBAUGH
Project Analyst
Consulting Naval Architects 794 Creek View Rd Severna Park MD 21146
(301) 544-9553
Sheet
-=-Of .2......
.. . .
..
-,.
. .
. .
..
. .
-f
Z-FkJ
4,(z
. . .. . . .. . . .. . .
4 0-5
KARL
STAMBAUGH
Project
Consulting Naval Architects 794 Creek View Rd 21146 Severna Park MD (301) 544-9553
Analyst .... of Sheet
*I
--
.... :134
3 ... ... .f 5 .. q~. ... 7I3
-7. 4_ 5l
7 o7
....
.1 ./ ... ... ..
S~.......
.. ........
l l o O .. ...
........... ......
... .
:5
. .. .......
..
.-. .. . . .. .
. . .
KARL
STAMBAUGH
Project
Consulting Naval Architects

794 Creek View Rd Severna Park MD 21146 Analyst -.
_
(301)
544-9553
Sheet
-. =_ of
-..
l7
.;.
t ' . .... :. . .. 7.A
S..
. .
. . .
. . .
...
. . ..
........
..
~~
S.
. . .
.... ~
. . .
~ / o~
... ........ .':

. -. . . . . . . . . -. .,
:
. . . . . . .. . . . . . . ..
......
. .. . . . .
. .. . . ........ i i . ........ ..
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . .i . .
....
.. "". . . . .. . .. . .
3.
... .. .. . .
.. ..
.. ..
.. ... . . .
... .. . .. . .. , , ?...
. ..... . .. ......... ". .. .. . ..
KARL A STAMBAUGH Consulting Naval Architects 794 Creek View Rd Severna Park MD 21146 (301) 544-9553
Project Analyst &% "I Sheet __.of 2.
.... . . .. ... ...
..i ! .... .. ... ... ! .. . .. i.

- "... .. .
.. -. , ..J.. :; :i :....... !'.:: : .-..... . ...... .... .... . ., , . .... S. z . .. . ... . .... ... ... , . . .. ..,,< ;. : i. .... . "..
. . .. .. .o . ... . .... i ... .. .... . ... ..

W ... .. ..... .... ...
.. . ...... . . 3 .
~~~~.
" ' .. ... .....
. . . ............ ...... ... . .. . . . .. ... .. Cl- , 3o . .... .. .. . ." ....
KARL
A STAMBAUGH 21146

Severna Park MD
Project Analyst
-,J .
(301)
544-9553
Sheet
_of
2._
574 ..
...
... ...
. .... ... j.. .3f. .
. .. .... 40 .10. . ' : : ;.. : .i .".............. .... . . . . ........ : ..
.... .... ..
l.'
.
lO~~~~~... ? .. .5 ...
. .. .. .. . ... .. . . . .. . .
5"
. .. . . . . .
5
. .. .
... .. . . . . . .
. . . . _ . .. ..
S.
. .
.i
S. . .. .
. .
. .
. .. . ..
KARL
STAMBAUGH
Project
Analyst 'L-5 .__.. of Sheet
2A
V
d,,3 '
V31
[3 (4.?.. .... ...
.5. ...
.. . .. .. .. . . . ..
.. . .. .
z.. ... . ... .i ~~ ".......... . ...
. .... .t 9~~~~~ " "/ ... " .. ,a ,, . ........
KARL
STAMBAUGH
Project
~4 ~ .J..of Z.(a---
Consulting Naval Architects 794 Creek View Rd 21146 Severna Park MD

(301) 544-9553
Analyst
Sheet

Severna Park MD (301) 544-9553 21146
Project "W
Analyst Sheet
______"____,__
JI
of
.-.
Z%
..
2
...
. . .
-.
. .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .
. .
. .
.
. .
. .. ... i .. . ... i i . . i . i , ... ...... . . . . . . . . ..... . . .. ...... .. ... ..

. .
S... . .
... .: . .. .. .. 7.. .. -- !
..
"?~~.
.... . . . .
I
3 'tW
..........
. .. .. . .. .... . .. 3..
cZ.
... ....
..
~~~. .. .. I0... .... ......... .. //
.~ ...... .. . . ........... .... .

Severna Park MD 21146
Project'I"
Analyst
(301)
544-9553
Sheet
r'. JL
/d
of
.... .
..... .... .. ._ . . .. .. .. ..-. ..
. .. . .. .. .......... ...... ..
S...
..
S.. ,.. ..
. . .
"a .. . .. ... ...

- ,
.. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . .
.
. . 7 .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .
.
. .
:- - .
. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . -, . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
",
S~........
.. .. .
'" -, .% i
. .
..... .
. . .... . .. .
).... ......
.. . .. . . . .
.~~..
. . ..
.~ ~
~ ~
~...
.... ... . .:, :...
... . .....
. ... . .. ..
. .
. . -... ...... .... . .... ", i-.. i .. i. ' .... . . !. .. .... .:.. . .. . ......
. .. .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... .. .. . .
KARL A STAM4BAUGH Consulting Naval Architects 794 Creek View Rd 21146 Severna Park MD (301) 544-9553
Project
-, Analyst -. _2_of Sheet
,JJi,.-,O
A
(4,-,,
. . ; .... .
Li
jw7 e~ ..... .. ., ."....... ...
....... ..
.. .... ... ... ., ~.. .

"
'
.
1.;
...
Z...
.....-
il i ~~~~.. 7! Z r.. - . ........ ~:

. 3 V7
iii~ii~ . i. ..:....
. .... . ...
..........
. . .. .... ..... . ... ... . .

"...
. . . . . .
. . . ....
~.
7~ ~
. ..... ........ ...
.iu, ~ .... ~
....
. . . . . .. ........ ........
... " . ,-. . ... . .. .

... 04I f
rii .ii :i~ i~ i ii~iiii . .. ...... ..... .. ... .
KARL
STAMBAUGH 21146
Project Analyst
-P

Severna Park MD
-'
(301)
544-9553
Sheet
.of
15'j
3)Ti~Z- 3 31
::... ..... .Z:.. 7~~~~~~~~~
?.,
5-..7.y .. 0e4 ....

i45* L. 3.
L-105
42-lq
'OZ6Z
..
.. .... . .
. ....
. .
: .
...
S..:.
....
. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .: ..
KARL A STAM4BAUGH Consulting Naval Architects 794 Creek View Rd
Project
Severna Park MD (301) 544-9553
21146
Analyst Sheet
'I- of 'Zi.........
qI
.. . .. .. .. .. . ..
KARL
STAMBAUGH
Project
"-..,"
Consulting Naval Architects 794 Creek View Rd Severna Park MD 21146 (301) 544-9553
Analyst Sheet
". of
Lc ,
.
... .. . .. . . .
..,:t
.
/33
, '. . .
.. . .. . .... .. . . .... . . . ..
:: q i .. . . .. ... :... ..i.. '.... .. ... ....

...... ......
!,... ,.. ...... :... .. :. .
,;" S: ! tO .~.... ... " .. ,f .. :
/ l. " " :
..... .... ...
. .. . .. 3..
. ... . . .. .
KARL
STAMBAUGH
Project
"
Consulting Naval Architects 794 Creek View Rd 21146 Severna Park MD 544-9553 (301)
Analyst Sheet
'1 of
'I/li'
24
LL
, ... .. . , ,
.. .. . ." . ... ...
~.. . ...
.. .. ...... ...
... . .. ..
. . .. ... . . . . ..
"
.. .. .. ., ..
..
. ..... .. . . :... .. . .: . .. . . . . .. ... . : i, . .
..
..
. . .
..
..
,..
. 3, .. ...........
.. .. .. ....
. . .. .. . . . .. .
. . . . ..
. . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . .
.,
KARL
STAMBAUGH
Consulting Naval Architects 794 Creek View Rd Severna Park MD 21146 (301) 544-9553
Project
L-AJ
Analyst Sheet
'$
' of 0.
,,.
. , F.2
~~~~~. .. ... .
Z7
. .. -... . ..........
?.. ". . .
.,l . 1~$14 .
.. .. .. t.: I4~~~; ., .. .I.:. '
.0: ...... ',
. ......
.. .
. . . . . . . . . .]
. ...
.lm
.li
.i.i.i. . . .. .i.
ni
KARL A STAMBAUGH Consulting Naval Architects 794 Creek View Rd 21146 Severna Park MD (301) 544-9553
Project Analyst Sheet
/,' ?-(
iof
3l5,f?
2[-
?.2.3I
}3
:.3'7
7(.4/3
31 I('7 3
33.-
17?I1
Z33SZ
S7 4
"l . (, 5a S Y ...... /o .. "3 v..? i.........,......:3i~ ....... ... ....
-Ad
-. of
CrIwr
ute'.--
..
. .! . . . .. .
. ...
, , :.t.,
t
.. ....... ...
u
i.
. .. . . . ..
KARL A STAMBAUGH
Project
Analyst . Sheet
-o
J-
i e
. . . .. . .
.. . .. . ....
. . . S... . . ... .
. .
... . . .
...
. .
. .. . ... .....
... . .. . .. . ..
;.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. ........
..
..
-'
2.7-.of
:/I
200.000.
150.000
___
___
11-c,5
6AI
z
W100.000 *+
ATS
0.00
4.00
8.00120 OtEEDAK NOIS)___________________
.0
Available Tow Tension vs. Ship's Speed for U.S. Navy Towing Ships.
KAJRL A STA14BAUGH Consulting Naval Architects 794 Creek View Rd Severna Park H.D 21146 (301) 544-9553
... Lof
--
100
-90
__TWIN
SCREW
S~SINGLE SCREW
C
70
00
AO6
0O
1 TL J-fp
~ 'O~6P TUG
TO30SEE
THUTOUSWITH 8PH"
KS
IEDPTH RPEL
KARL
STAMBAUGH
Project
Analyst -?of Sheet
/E
::i... ::.. . : .. ... f.].:.. .:: ii~' . ..... :..u .. e. i Is..:.i ..:-- .
.7
*'O ... rr:.......: -
. .. .......... o - .- t.. . .. . .. .
. .. ......... .... .... :
'IZ,~
S....
. ...... ,. ... . .. ... .:. . . .. ..... TA~h c 4A- .3.5'-F"
.... ... ... ....- ... .. 0 ... .0 .. . ... .. .... .. ..

T #
..
. ...
'7.... -y
. .. .... ... . .
KARL
STAMBAUGH
Project
d-J
/// "' Analyst " -=of Sheet
.. . f.
. ...
s~~d.
.~~
."~fSrn
..................
....
...... :...... :
.... . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .... ..
. .. ... i
. .. .... ... ....
S. ..
. .! , . , ,...... :.. 0
. . . . . ... . .. ... . .,,,. . .. .. .. .... ...... .

do........
~...... ..... 10 .. ... ..
. :.:........ ,p
KARL A STAMBAUGH Consulting Naval Architects 794 Creek View Rd Severna Park MD 21146
(301) 544-9553
Project Analyst
Sheet
-,J . of
' 4
.. .. . . .... .....
., ...... ..
,... . . ... . ......
...... ... .. . .
'; , O . .-., = ,-..
.. ......-.. ..... ... .. .. -:. :.,. .... ... ..... o .. . ....... .. .

S
..... .: ..: ... . .. . .. . .......... ... . . ..
.. .......
... .. . ... i. .. .. . .. . ... . . .
S. . .. ~ . . . ~~~~.. . . :
-m. . . .. . . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. .
.....
. . . . .. . . .
.. . . ........ .
.....
.... .
. . . . . . ..
Appendix B DWF Structural Calculations
KARL A STAMBAUGH
Project
Analyst Sheet ..
F
qlaj/ _ of
ThI-
.z,4Z :
T: : 4! (i-L~
: i~e
o ia i
:; 'I:. . - S.
n .:
. cfa' 'd ,"

.. .
;/ iz
.. . . . .. . . ..
. ....., 7 k:
. .. .. ...
.. .
.. .]. : '3 . .. . .
I
. .. . :
. . .. . ... .. . . .. . . .. . . . ..
.. .
i .... .-pc :.~ :~ :
: ' : .. " .... ":.... . . .I IfV1I ... .....LLlc. :... ~~~~L~ S:.U sJ
. . . ...
J ..7
GJ
KAkRL
A STAMBAUGH
Project
Analyst
Sheet
~ ... of
..
-C.145 IA1"5ic~eA
. ... ...
.. .
KARL
STAMBAUGH
Project

794 Creek View Rd
Severna Park MD
21146
Analyst s
(301)
544-9553
Sheet
I. of
L.
L-=-Soo
M
".... ..............
-.. 7 0- 1 ... .. t-.06: .
. . . . . . : . i,: .... % ...... t .... . . ................ !i... .....
. ..............
... ..... .. ... . .5 :Z .. ........ .. ..
uj, A ] . ., ..i i i :. r ~~~~~~~~~.. ".-.. -,. 4" . -,,I...
.. . .. . . ,,..
3 - .ir f . ... .o .
.. ... .. . ...... ...
..... " .,.
...
U~e
KARL
STAMBAUGH
Project
AJF

(301) 544-9553
Analyst
Sheet
,i
0of
L.
eCM .,,C 1A CI "
30, ,
; . ... i ... i .. -.. ... , o . ... : ... . .... .. .
.. . i . .. ... .
.. .. ...i...:. . . ;.
.= ' : :,'. .. .
S.....
.. . . . ....... : .. ......
...... . . ,... , .. . .. ... .. .... . . .i] .. .
: ................... s. .
..s . .:
. . . .. . .. .. . , ,........ .....
..
Project
"AJ-
Severna Park MD (301) 544-9553
21146
Analyst Sheet
-,
5of .
C7=
1,30
(.
'
..
.. . .. ..
... ...
........ .. ..... .... .............
..... : i7x
4x...121Ov1
" , ........ : o ,, r "

.
.I . . . ..
..... .. .
.
. .
.. ... . ..
... .
KARL
STAMBAUGH 21146
Project Analyst
Sheet

Severna Park MD
(301) 544-9553
'
.
]
j. of
~fri ~~~~~~~ ,t.= ....
r
-, ar Z.:.,,_
.. .1.. i
.....
. .......
h...... .
,. .... .... r: % ...... t...
.. -- .... .... . . ... . .
.....
. ..
.... a
~~~~.
.. ..
" -t.o<iw.%
a;;% .u
6L--
=,
--
Tpt-
AA
',1" --
KARL A STAMBAUGH Consulting Naval Architects 794 Creek View Rd 21146 Severna Park MD
Project Analyst
'
544-9553. (301)
Sh...t
..... ...
~.... f
.. L........
.A.. . .
. . . .
.. .. d . .. . ..
... ... . . .
KARL
STAMBAUGH
Project

Severna Park MD 21146 Analyst
_ ___-
(301) 544-9553
Sheet
_.. of
'.
... ~ ~
L .- ......... ~ '
...
0...
... .. ....
"~.
.I
"
"
. .
..
..
..
. . . .. .....
,K
-I
U")
5CAS(k
wd
tF tn
,Qo&am.Y5$.IC
W)lyl Z. ....
..
..- ... i .O ..... .3 - 1 .! . .. .... .. . .......;.. i. ......... . . . . . .
KARL A STAMBAUGH
Project k]

794 Creek View Rd
Severna Park MD
(301) 544-9553
21146
Analyst
Sheet
of
i',
'
.='o
. ........
..... .
../...: .=
........
...........
S..
: GSOO{a- Ce.
" '
"
"
SL740-AA-MAN-010
--,0
(o
TABLE 4-1. Minimum Plate Thickness for Forward One-Fifth of Barge Bottom.
Barge Length 24 in.
Frame Spacing
Frame Spacing
27 in.
30 in.
24 in.
27 in.
30 in.
100 ft.
0.340
0.361
0.382
0.361
0.382
0.403
120 ft.
0.359
0.380
0.401
0.380
0.401
0.422
140 ft.
0.378
0.399
0.420
0.400
0.421
0.442
160 ft.
0.398
0.419
0.440
0.419
0.440
0.461
180 ft.
0.417
0.438
0.459
0.438
0.459
0.480
200 ft.
0.437
0.458
0.479
0.457
0.478
0.499
220 ft.
0.456
0.477
0.498
0.477
0.498
0.519
240 ft.
0.475
0.496
0.517
0.496
0.517
0.538
NOTE Intermediate values may be obtained by interpolation. Above thicknesses are for new plates as shown on plans. Shoring is needed when plates are 25% thinner than those listed above.
4-10
KARL
STAMBAUGH
Project -3 q'~ Ps Analyst ... 0...Of 'It.............. Sheet
iy"i
Aro o
o
s-7
ru~
...
L~
4?
14
...
~~.... .........
KARL
STAMBAUGH
Project
Analyst Sheet
14 .. ItLof If
~iyVs
fraKl S
A"
SaS
.......
( iI.
4GVN -
e '
I O. VIid
,:O'
..
":.........
......
...................................
-.. :..
-.. ......
.............
. . . . . . . . . ... .... . . .. ... .,.,.... .. .t : ,. :-t.. .,, ., .. . ! . .. ... . .. - ,. ,.....,

. .. . .. . ... .. S... . ......
PI:
. .... .
. . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . .
Appendix C DWF Seakeeping Calculations

Severna
Project-"JJ
(301)
Park MD 544-9553
21146
Analyst
__---_
Sheet
4..of
WAVE DATA
PROCESSING Time
:
INFORMATION
21:29:41
Date
Title:
1991/11/
1
DWF 300x1OOx7
SEAWAY SPECTRAL PARAMETERS Wave Frequency (rad/sec): : .200 Minimum 2.000 : Maximum
Increment: Seaway Spectrum
.200
: BRETSCHNEIDER
SEA DIRECTIONS (degrees) - - --- - - - ---
....
..
. ....... .
:..........
.....
90.0
135.0
180.0
............. ... ... ... :.:..
CORRECTION PARAMETERS Dynamic Swell-up: NO : NO wave Profile
OUTPUT CONTROL PARAMETERS Regular Response Print-out Roll Damping Print-out

: NO : NO
...........
FILE STORAGE PARAMETERS Freq. Response and RMS Motions Stored: Name:dwf File YES
GENERAL PARAMETERS Motions Computed for: Method SALT WATER CLOSE-FIT
KARL
STAMBAUGN
t Project
,----
Analyst . Sheet
of
RMS MOTIONS
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS
6.0 KNOTS 'PEED = .103 FROUDE NO = 4 = STATE sEA 5.0000 FT SIG WAVE HT = 5.0000 SEC WAVE PERIOD =
HEADING DEG 90.0
SURGE FT .010
SWAY ACC G .03
HEAVE FT 1.099
HEAVE ACC G .057
135.0 180.0
HEADING DEG
.070 .112
ROLL DEG
.004 .000
1.361 3.501
YAW DEG
.158 .604
RUDDER DEG FIN/TANK DEG
PITCH DEG
90.0 135.0 180.0

.
1.184 .301 .000

. . .. . . ..
.428 2.374 .980

.
.109 .101 .000

. . . . ..
.000 .000 .000
.000 .000 .000
RMS MOTIONS
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS
SPEED = b.O KNOTS .103 FROUDE NO =

SEA STATE = 6
SIG WAVE HT = 16.9000 FT WAVE PERIOD = 10.2000 SEC
HEADING DEG 90.0
SURGE FT .038
SWAY ACC G .157
HEAVE FT 4.060
HEAVE ACC G .110
135.0 180.0
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 i80.0
2.886 3.178
ROLL DEG 3.231 1.939 .000
.041 .000
PITCH DG 1.346 3.242 5.240
3.913 11.518
YAW DEG 2.707 1.921 .000
.196 .707
RUDDER DEG .000 .000 .000 FIN/TANK DEG .000 .000 .000
KARL
STAMBAUGH
Project

Severna Park MD (301) 544-9553 21146
Analyst Sheet
of
RMS MOTIONS SPEED =

FROUDE NO
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS
8.0 KNOTS
= .138
SEA STATE = 4 SIG WAVE HT = WAVE PERIOD =
5.0000 FT 5.0000 SEC HEAVE ACC G .057 .128 .308
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0
SURGE FT .010 .062 .095
SWAY ACC G .02 .004 .000
HEAVE FT .995 .860 2.687
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0
ROLL DEG 1.183 .453 .000
PITCH DEG .394 .394 3.877
YAW DEG .119 .118 .000
RUDDER DEG .000 .000 .000
FIN/TANK DEG .000 .000 .000
RMS MOTIONS
8.0 SPEED = FROUDE NO = SEA STATE =
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
KNOTS .138 6
= =
SEAS
SIG WAVE HT WAVE PERIOD
16.9000 FT 10.2000 SEC
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0
SURGE FT .038 2.665 2.865
SWAY ACC G .152 .037 .000
HEAVE FT 3.756 5.202 6.324
HEAVE ACC G .098 .197 .480
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0
ROLL DEG 3.208 1.978 .000
PITCH DEG .981 1.422 7.498
YAW DEG 3.016 1.696 .000
RUDDER DEG .000 .000 .000
FIN/TANK DEG .000 .000 .000
KARL
STAMBAUGH
Project

(301) 544-9553
Analyst
Sheet __
of
_
RMS MOTIONS
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS
5PEED = 10.0 KNOTS .172 1ROUDE NO = ',EA STATE = 4 5.0000 FT SIG WAVE HT = 5.0000 SEC WAVE PERIOD =
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0
SURGE FT .010 .056 .081
SWAY ACC G .023 .004 .000
HEAVE FT .941 .(89 6.285
HEAVE ACC G .057 .086 1.013
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0
ROLL DEG 1.182 .303 .000
PITCH DEG .420 .537 1.511
YAW DEG .128 .087 .000
RUDDER DEG .000 .000 .000
FIN/TANK DEG .000 .000 .000
RMS MOTIONS
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS
SPEED = 10.0 KNOTS .172 FROUDE NO =

SEA STATE = 6 SIG WAVE HT = WAVE PERIOD =
16.9000 FT 10.2000 SEC
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0
SURGE FT .038 2.469 2.596
SWAY ACC G .144 .041 .000
HEAVE FT 3.604 9.150 9.615
HEAVE ACC G .092 .312 1.323
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0
ROLL DEG 3.179 1.415 .000
PITCH DEG .790 3.690 :.709
YAW DEG 3.273 1.478 .000
RUDDER DEG .000 .000 .000
FIN/TANK DEG .000 .000 .000
Project-ThI Analyst Sheet - _o
"'MS MOTIONS IN UNIDIRECTIONAL SEAS

2,DPEED= 10.0 KNOTS .172 :ROUDE NO = 6 = $EA STATE :IG WAVE HT = 16.9000 FT WAVE PERIOD = 10.2000 SEC
STATION = 1.24 Z = 1.00 FT
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0 HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0 MOT FT 3.410 6.004 10.405 VEL FT/SEC 3.226 6.150 18.813
HEAVE ACC G .126 .259 1.275
VRQI REL MOT FT 3.121 6.896 8.431 REL VEL FT/SEC 3.934 8.040 17.343
.141 .285 1.334
SWAY ACC G .231 .104 .000
KEEL EMERGENCE PER PROB .1744 .6993 .7871 126.0 467.1 927.7
SLAMMING PRESSURE EXTREME MOSTPROB PSI PSI .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
SLAMMING FORCE EXTREME MOSTPROB .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
RMS MOTIONS
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS
-PEED = 10.0 KNOTS .172 FROUDE NO = SEA STATE = 4 5.0000 FT SIG WAVE HT = 5.0000 SEC WAVE PERIOD =
STATION = 1.00
Z =
1.24 FT HEAVE ACC G .108 .178 .998 VRQI REL MOT FT 2.123 1.581 5.573 REL VEL FT/SEC 3.043 3.787 12.863 SWAY ACC G .023 .018 .000
iEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0 ;iEADING DEG 90.0 J35.0 1,3 .0 MOT FT 1.419 1.112 5.890 VEL FT/SEC 2.163 2.449 13.526
.120 .185 1.036
KEEL EMERGENCE PER PROB .0230 .0011 .5782 18.9 1.5 764.7
SLAMMING PRESSURE EXTREME MOSTPROB PSI PSI .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
SLAMMING FORCE EXTREME MOSTPROB .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
KARL
A STAMBAUGH
Project

Severna Park MD
/J
--
(301)
21146
544-9553
Analyst
Sheet
_._of o
RMS MOTIONS
SPEED =
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS
8.0 KNOTS JROUDE NO = .138 &EA STATE = 6 ,,IG WAVE HT = 16.9000 FT WAVE PERIOD = 10.2000 SEC STATION 1.00
-
1.24
FT
HEADING DEG )0.0 ,35.0 180.0 HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0 MOT FT 3.385 5.865 16.380 VEL FT/SEC 3.125 5.595 27.881
HEAVE ACC G .116 .197 1.555
.131 .2-22 1.690
SWAY ACC C .225 .096 .000
KEEL EMERGENCE PROB PER .1977 .4632 .9259 137.6 301.8 948.3
SLAMMING PRESSURE MOSTPROB EXTREME PSI PSI .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
SLAMMING FORCE MOSTPROB EXTREME .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
RMS MOTIONS
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS
3.PEED = 8.0 KNOTS FROUDE NO = .138 -EA STATE = 4 SIG WAVE HT = 5.0000 FT WAVE PERIOD = 5.0000 SEC ,STATION = 1.00
=
1.24
FT
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0 HEADING DEG 90.0 35.0 180.0 MOT FT 1.307 .744 9.167 VEL FT/SEC 1.931 1.512 16.758
HEAVE ACC G .094 .i10 .968
.105 .114 1.047
SWAY ACC G .023 .015 .000
KEEL EMERGENCE PROS PER .0175 .0000 .8062 14.1 .0 846.1
SLAMMING PRESSURE MOSTPROB EXTREME PSI PSI .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .u
SLAMMING FORCE MOSTPROB EXTREME .0 .0 .0 .0 .3
KARL
STAMBAUGH
Project
-o-/
--
Consulting Naval Architects Severna Park MD (301) 544-9553

794 Creek View Rd
21146
Analyst Sheet
->
...
of .. 4
IMS MOTIONS
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS
:,PEED = b.0 KNOTS VRO.JDE NO = .103 ', EA STATE = 4 SIG WAVE HT - 5.0000 FT WAVE PERIOD = 5.0000 SEC
STATION
=
1.00
1.24 FT iEADING DEG MOT FT VEL FT/SE: 1.707 10.441 6.374 HEAVE ACC 6 .080 .598 .496 VRQI REL MOT FT
2.047
-00.0
-35.0 180.0 -iEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0
1.205
5.678 2.713
5.319 2.527
REL VEL FT/SEC 2.83-3 9.884 5.951
SWAY ACC
U
.090 .648 .510
.02 .014 .000
KEEL EMERGENCE PROB PER .0172 .54E1 .06 j7 13.7 583.5 94.0
SLAMMING FORCE MOSTPRO8 EXTREME .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
RMS MOTIONS
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS
'..,PEED = 6.0 :\NOTS ?ROUDE NO = .103 LEA STATE = 6 SIG WAVE HT = 16.9000 WAVE PERIOD = 10.2000 TAYION = 1.00 = 1.24 FT HEADING DEG 90.0 -15.0 .80.0 rEADING DEG ?0.0 MOT FT 3.398 8.756 6.785
FT SEC
VEL FT/SEC 3.066 13.352 8.751
HEAVE ACC G .108 .724 .530
.121 .786 .556
SWAY ACC G .216 .091 .000
KEEL EMERGENCE PROB PER .2942 .7236

3
193.5 L28.7
2'
SLAMMING PRESSURE MOSTPROB EXTREME PSI PSI .0 .0 .0

iie
SLAMMING FORCE MOSTPROB EXTREME .0 .0

i
.0
II17
KARL A STAMBAUGH Consulting Naval Architects 794 Creek View Rd<

Severna Park MD 21146
Project
Analyst
________
(301) 544-9553
Sheet
~of
.... ...
KARL
STAMBAUGH
Project
./J

(301) 544-9553
Analyst
Sheet off
-
RMS MOTIONS
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS
6.0 KNOTS SPEED = .103 FROUDE NO = SEA STATE = 4
SIG WAVE HT = WAVE PERIOD =
5.0000 FT 5.0000 SEC
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0
SURGE FT .003 .034 .054
SWAY ACC G .019 .002 .000
HEAVE FT .650 1.190 2.125
HEAVE ACC G .040 .062 .563
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0
ROLL DEG .510 .106 .000
PITCH DEG .206 .820 2.586
YAW DEG .114 .191 .000
RUDDER DEG .000 .000 .000
FIN/TANK DEG .000 .000 .000
RMS MOTIONS SPEED =

FROUDE NO SEA STATE
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS
6.0 KNOTS
.103 = = 6
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0
SURGE FT .015 1.631 1.816
SWAY ACC G .061 .024 .000
HEAVE FT 2.858 4.573 4.546
HEAVE ACC G .060 .193 .543
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0
ROLL DEG 1.139 .622 .000
PITCH DEG .385 2.838 3.086
YAW DEG .434 .951 .000
RUDDER DEG .000 .000 .000
FIN/TANK DEG .000 .000 .000
KARL
STAMBAUGH

Severna Park MD
Project
-!/-
(301)
544-9553
21146
Analyst
-c
Sheet
,_2of
RMS MOTIONS
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS
SPEED = 8.0 KNOTS FROUDE NO = .138

SEA STATE = 4
5.0000 FT 5.0000 SEC
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0
SURGE FT .003 .030 .045
SWAY ACC G .019 .002 .000
HEAVE FT .659 1.169 .776
HEAVE ACC G .040 .081 .162
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0
ROLL DEG .511 .111 .000
PITCH DEG .212 .930 .880
YAW DEG .129 .183 .000
RUDDER DEG .000 .000 .000
FIN/TANK DEG .000 .000 .000
RMS MOTIONS
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS

SEA STATE = 6
SIG WAVE HT = 16.9000 FT WAVE PERIOD = 10.2000 SEC HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0
SURGE FT .015 1.507 1.638
SWAY ACC G .060 .028 .000
HEAVE FT 2.877 4.557 5.520
HEAVE ACC G .061 .215 .254
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0
ROLL DEG 1.147 .642 .000
PITCH DEG .429 3.613 5.804
YAW DEG .500 .912 .000
RUDDER DEG .000 .000 .000
FIN/TANK DEG .000 .000 .000
KARL
STAMBAUGH
Project 7>

Severna Park MD
(301)
544-9553
21146
Analyst
Sheet
Lof
RMS MOTIONS
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS
SPEED = 10.0 KNOTS FROUDE NO = .172 SEA STATE = 4 .DIG WAVE HT = 5.0000 FT WAVE PERIOD = 5.0000 SEC
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0
SURGE FT .003 .027 .039
SWAY ACC G .019 .002 .000
HEAVE FT .671 .454 2.992
HEAVE ACC G .041 .072 ,1.017
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0
ROLL DEG .512 .104 .000
PITCH DEG .211 .511 3.256
YAW DEG .142 .117 .000
RUDDER DEG .000 .000 .000
FIN/TANK DEG .000 .000 .000
RMS MOTIONS
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS
SPEED = 10.0 KNOTS FROUDE NO = .172 SEA STATE = 6 SIG WAVE HT = 16.9000 FT WAVE PERIOD = 10.2000 SEC
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0
SURGE FT .015 1.397 1.485
SWAY ACC G .058 .033 .000
HEAVE FT 2.906 4.360 15.377
HEAVE ACC G .062 .153 1.144
HEADING DEG ,0.0 135.0 180.0
ROLL DEG 1.158 .719 .000
PITCH DEG .469 3.910 12.977
YAW DEG .562 .721 .000
RUDDER DEG .000 .000 .000
FIN/TANK DEG .000 .000 .000
KARL A STAMBAUGH Consulting Naval Architects

794 Creek View Rd Severna Park MD
Project
Analyst
AJ-
(301)
544-9553
21146
Sheet
__.of
RMS MOTIONS
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS

SEA STATE = 4

STATION
= =
5.0000 FT 5.0000 SEC
1.00
1.19 FT HEAVE ACC G .045 .142 1.701 VRQI REL MOT FT 1.669 2.734 5.755 REL VEL FT/SEC 2.346 4.133 18.018 SWAY ACC G .026 .020 .000
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0 HEADING DEG MOT FT .824 2.461 5.408 VEL FT/SEC 1.085 3.230 17.037
.052 .161 1.696
KEEL EMERGENCE PROB PER
90.0 135.0 180.0
.0000 .0000 .0556
SLAMMING PRESSURE MOSTPROB EXTREME PSI PSI
SLAMMING FORCE MOSTPROB EXTREME
.0 .0 99.8
.0 .0 .0
.0 .0 .0
.0 .0 .0
.0 .0 .0
RMS MOTIONS
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS
SPEED = 6.0 KNOTS FROUDE NO = .103 SEA STATE = 6 DIG WAVE HT = 16.9000 FT WAVE PERIOD = 10.2000 SEC
STATION = 1.00 Z = 1.19 FT
HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0 HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0 MOT FT 2.828 8.793 7.133 VEL FT/SEC 2.219 10.398 16.232
HEAVE ACC G .069 .398 1.534
.078 .464 1.534
SWAY ACC G .03 .077 .000
KEEL EMERGENCE PROB PER .0000 .2571 .0907 .0 184.5 138.3
SLAMMING PRESSURE MOSTPROB EXTREME PSI PSI .C .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
KARL
STAMBAUGH
Project
..--
Analyst Sheet
of
RMS MOTIONS
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS
SPEED = 8.0 KNOTS .138 FROUDE NO =

SEA STATE = 4

STATION = 1.00 Z = 1.19 FT
5.0000 FT 5.0000 SEC
HEADING DEG 90.0 MOT FT .828 VEL FT/SEC 1.088
HEAVE ACC G .045
VRQI REL MOT FT 1.652 REL VEL FT/SEC 2.323
.052
SWAY ACC G .026
135.0 i8O.0
HEADING DEG
1.222 1.972
1.822 4.972
.095 .441
1.276 2.294
2.629 5.423
.1Q4 .445
.022 .000
KEEL EMERGENCE PER PROS
SLAMMING PRESSURE EXTREME MOSTPRO8 PSI PSI
SLAMMING FORCE EXTREME MOSTPROB
90.0 135.0 180.0
.0000 .0000 .0000
.0 .0 .0
.0 .0 .0
.0 .0 .0
.0 .0 .0
.0 .0 .0
VMS
MOTIONS
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS

SEA STATE = 6

STATION = 1.00 Z = 1.19 FT
HEADING DEG 90.0 35.0 180.0 HEADING DEG )0.0 MOT FT 2.812 5.611 13.599 VEL FT/SEC 2.218 6.208 15.200
HEAVE ACC G .069 .238 .649
.078 .274 .727
SWAY ACC G .085 .085 .000
KEEL EMERGENCE PROS PER .0000 .0053

.5309
-54.7
.0 3.8
SLAMMING PRESSURE MOSTPROB EXTREME PSI PSI .0 .0 .0 .0

.0 .0
SLAMMING FORCE MOSTPROB EXTREME .0 .0

.0
.0 .0
.0
L80.0
KARL A STAMBAUGH Consulting Naval Architects

794 Creek View Rd
Project-V Analyst
Sheet
Severna Park MD
(301) 544-9553
21146
RMS MOTIONS
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS
SPEED = 10.0 KNOTS FROUDE NO = .172 SEA STATE = 4

STATION = Z = 1.19 1.00 FT
5.0000 FT 5.0000 SEC
HEADING DEG 90.0 i35.0 180.0 HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0 MOT FT .820 1.042. 6.879 VEL FT/SEC 1.076 1.809 23.321
HEAVE ACC G .045 .131 2.516
.051 .135 2.488
SWAY ACC G .027 .01.5 .000
KEEL EMERGENCE PROS PER .0000 .0000 .1032 .0 .0 201.5
SLAMMING PRESSURE MOSTPRO8 EXTREME PSI PSI .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
RMS MOTIONS
SPEED =
IN UNIDIRECTIONAL
SEAS
FROUDE
SEA
10.0 KNOTS NO = .172

=
STATE
SIG WAVE HT = 16.9000 FT WAVE PERIOD = 10.2000 SEC STATION = 1.00 7= 1.19 FT HEADING DEG 90.0 135.0 180.0 HEADING DEG '0 .0 .25.O 180.u MOT FT 2.801 9.242 33.388 VEL FT/SEC 2.211 9.832 43.201 HEAVE ACC G .069 .352 2.702 VRQI REL MOT FT 3.080 8.640 31.983 REL VEL FT/SEC 3.476 9.675 41.307 SWAY ACC G .086 .066 .000
.078 .409 2.813
KEEL EMERGENCE PROS PER .0000 .C/776 .9107 .0 178.1 673.9
DISTRIBUTION L.IST
ARMY / HQDA (DAEN-ZCM), WASHINGTON, DC CNA / TECH LIB, ALEXANDRIA, VA CNO / DCNO, LOGS, OP-0424C, WASHINGTON, M: COMNAVBEACHGRU ONE / CO, SAN DIEGO, CA COMNAVBEACHGRU TWO / CO, NORFOLK, VA NAVFACENGCOM / CO, ALEXANDRIA, VA NAVFACENGCOK / CODE 03T, ALEXANDRIA, VA NAVFACENGCOM / CODE 04A3C, ALEXANDRIA, VA NAVFACENGCOM / CODE 06, ALEXANDRIA, VA NSWC / CODE 1235, BETHESDA, MD ONT / CODE 226, ARLINGTON, VA
DISTRIBUTION QUESTIONNAIRE The Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory is revising its primary distribution lists. SUBJECT CATEGORIES 1 SHORE FACIUTIES 1A Construction methods and materials (including corrosion control, coatings) I B Waterfront structures (maintenance/deterioration control) 1C Utilities (including power conditioning) 1D Explosives safety 1E Aviation Engineering Test Facilities IF Fire prevention and control 1G Antenna technology 1H Structural analysis and design (including numerical and computer techniques) 1J Protective construction (including hardened shelters, shock and vibration studies) 1K Soil/rock mechanics 1L Airfields and pavements 1M Physical security 2 ADVANCED BASE AND AMPHIBIOUS FACILITIES 2A Base facilities (including shelters, power generation, water supplies) 25 Expedient roads/airfields/bridges 2C Over-the-beach operations (including breakwaters, wave forces) 2D POL storage, transfer, and distribution 2E Polar engineering 3 ENERGY/POWER GENERATION 3A Thermal conservation (thermal engineering of buildings, HVAC systems, energy loss measurement, power generation) 3B Controls and electrical conservation (electrical systems, energy monitoring and control systems) 3C Fuel flexibility (liquid fuels, coal utilization, energy from solid waste) 3D Alternate energy source (geothermal power, photovoltaic power systems, solar systems, wind systems, energy storage systems) 3E Site data and systems integration (energy resource data, Integrating energy systems) 3F EMCS design 4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 4A Solid waste management 4B Hazardouuitoxlc materials management 4C Waterwaste management and sanitary engineering 40 011 pollution removal and recovery 4E Air pollution 4F Noise abatement 5 OCEAN ENGINEERING SA Seafloor soils and foundations 5B Seafloor construction systems and operations (including diver and manipulator tools) 5C Undersea structures and materials 5D Anchors and moorings SE Undersea power systems, electromechanical cables, and connectors 5F Pressure vessel facilities 5G Physical environment (including site surveying) 5H Ocsan-basod concrete structures 5J Hyperbaric chambers 5K Undersea cable dynamics ARMY FEAP BOG Shore Facilities NRG Energy ENV EnvironmentallNatural Responses MGT Management PRR Pavements/Rallroads
TYPES OF DOCUMENTS
D - Techdata Sheets; R - Technical Reports and Technical Notes; G - NCEL Guides and Abstracts; I - Index to TDS; U - User
Guides;
C0 None - remove my name
Old Address:
New Address:
Telephone No.:
Telephone No.:
INSTRUCTIONS
The Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory has revised its primary distrlution lists. To help us verify our records and update our data base, please do the following:
"* "* "* "* "*
Add - crcle number on list Remove my name from all your lists - check box on list Change my address - line out incorrect line and write in correction (DO NOT REMOVE LABEL). Number of copies should be entered after the title of the subject categories you select. Are we sending you the correct type of document? Itnot, circle the type(s) of document(s) you want to receive listed on the back of this card.
Fold on line, staple, and drop in mail.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory 560 Laboratory Drive Port Hueneme CA 93043-4328
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, S300
FIRST CLASS
REPLY CARD BUSINESS PERMIT NO. 12503 WASH D.C.
NOEPOSSAGE
- MAILED
STATES I
POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE
COMMANDING OFFICER CODE L34

560 LABORATORY DRIVE
NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY

PORT HUENEME CA 93043-4328
NCEL DOCUMENT EVALUATION

You are number one with us; how do we rate with you?
We at NCEL want to provide you our customer the best possible reports but we need your help. Therefore, I ask you to please take the time from your busy schedule to fill out this questionnaire. Your response will assist us in providing the best reports possible for our users. I wish to thank you in advance for your assistance. I assure you that the information you provide will help us to be more responsive to your future needs.
R. N. STORER, Ph.D. P.E. Technical Director

DOCUMENT NO. TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
Date: Name: Phone:
Respondent Organization: Activity Code: Grade/Rank:
Category (please check): Sponsor User Proponent Other (Specify)
Please answer on your behalf only; not on your organization's. Please check (use an X) only the block that most closely describes your attitude or feeling toward that statement: SA Strongly Agree A Agree 0 Neutral D Disagree SD Strongly Disagree
SA A N D SD 1. The technical quality of the report is comparable to most of my other sources of technical information, 2. The report will make significant improvements in the cost and or performance of my operation. 3. The report acknowledges related work accomplished by others. 4. 5. The report is well formatted. The report is clearly written. (0 () () () () 6. The conclusions and recomimendations are clear and directly supported by the contents of the report. 7. The graphics, tables, and photographs are well done. () () () () () () () () () () () () ()
SA A N D SD () ( ) () (
() () () () () () () () ()
Do you wish to continue getting NEL reports?
' YES NO
Please add any comments (e.g., in what ways can we improve the quality of our reports?) on the back of this form.
Comments:
Fold on line, staple, and drop in Mal.
________________11111 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory 560 Laboratory Drive Port Hueneme CA 93043-4328
'"
Official Business Penalty for Private Use,
I NO POSTAGE
I __IF ' ' INECESSARY MAILED [ IN THE
S300
BUSINESS REPLY CARD

FIRST CLASS PERMIT NO. 12503 WASH D.C. POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE
LUITE
II/
STATES
COMMANDING OFFICER CODE L03 560 LABORATORY DRIVE NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY PORT HUENEME CA 93043-4328

A259374 Wet Tow Evaluation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A259374 Wet Tow Evaluation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AD-A259 374

An Investigation Conducted by Karl A. Stambach

DEPLOYABLE WATERFRONT WET TOW EVALUATION

~LEECTE DEC17 1992

NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY PORT HUENEME CALIFORNIA 93043-4328

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave tianic)

L. MIGHT DATE IOctober

3. REOR TYPE AM DAM3

Final; 1 January 1992 -20 March 1992

4. T1712 AND Suummts

DEPLOYABLE WATERFRONT WET TOW

AUYNOR"WU Karl A. Stamnbaugh/

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.I

14. 1111AMET wing11111

Pontoon barges, wet tow feasibility, operational requirement, environmental parameters

3.1 3.2 4.0

Towing Assets .......... Towing Techniques ........

3-1 3-4 4-1 4-1 4-3 4-3 4-6

Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 Figure 3-4

3-6 .. 3-7 .. 3-8 .. 3-9

Deck Layout for an Ocean Going Barge ........

the port must be prepared for rapid

design criteria and 3.

the DWF are presented

These references provide design

criteria and route analysis used for

Table 2-1 Environmental Conditions for Offshore Platform Transports

Noble Denton 116.9 . 40

Exxon Transpac 16.0

'Speed 1.94 1 kts I _ ship transport listed for comparison.

TOW ASSETS AND TECHNIQUES

Table 3-1 Navy Towing Ship Characteristics

Characteristics Length (ft) Beam (ft)

Navy ATF 76 205 38.5

Navy ATS 1 282.7 30

at Normal Cruising Speed

2100 GPD (est)

with all Engines

Complement Bow Thruster?

102 + 20 tran. Yes

with all Engines Complement Bow Thruster?

3500 - 4000 GPD

4100 GPD (est) 94 + 16 tran. Yes

8300 (est) 20 + 20 tran. Yes

Table 3-2 Commercial Tugboat Characteristics

Salvage ocehor luldlinq 255, 246'6S 51'5" 1 21, 4833

208' 47'03* 21,

140' 42' 18,

150' 44' i5'

TOW PENDANT: 1 5/8' 0. X 75' LEG

UNDERRIDER: 1 5/8' 0. X 600' LEG

TOW PENOANT:l 6/8' STUD-LINK CHAIN

FLOUNDER PLATEPLAN 8. DETAILS

1-0. RETRIEVING WIRE

PLATE SHACKLE PORT AND STARBOARD PLAN 10ABU

Barge Deck Hardware Required for Towing (from reference 5) 3-6

PENDANT CHAIN BRIDLE -PLAN

-PLAN SO0" 2PLATE SHACKLES 1 58"6 ""'e.UNDERRIDER: FLOUNDER PLATE

U. DETAILSB 2 PLATE SHACKLES -PLAN 1 0

5/8' CHAIN PENDANT. 48" LEG. (OPTIONAL)

Figure 3-2 Christmas Tree Towing Rig (from reference 5) 3-7

JAUXILIARY TOW WIRE