Ship Stability Calculation Software

Ship Stability Calculation Software

Passenger Vessel Operations and Damaged Stability Standards Nonconvention vessels 2007 TP 10943. Ship Stability Calculation Software' title='Ship Stability Calculation Software' />This chapter deals with the determination of the main ship dimensions length, beam, draft, side depth, following the estimation of ships displacement and the. Oct 30, 2016 MAAT Hydro Rev. MAAT Hydro Rev. 8. Tools tab VLines. Innovative software testing solutions tools and services for automated and manual testing of application software, Web sites, middleware, and system software. The Hydrotables. module aimes at the computation and output of tables or diagrams of hydrostatical and stability properties which are related to hull form andor. Wrtsil successfully tests remote control ship operating capability. The technology group Wrtsil has taken a further important step towards developing its Smart Marine capabilities by successfully testing the remote control of ship operations. The testing, which involved driving the vessel through a sequence of manoeuvres using a combination of Dynamic Positioning DP and manual joystick control, was carried out on August 2. North Sea coast of Scotland in collaboration with Gulfmark Offshore, the U. S. based operator who provided the vessel for the project. Although the test vessel was in the North Sea, the remote control navigating was carried out from the Wrtsil office located in San Diego, California, 8. Wrtsils Dynamic Positioning unit developed remote control capabilities in the early part of 2. The vessel, the Highland Chieftain is an 8. Wrtsil Nacos Platinum package for Navigation, Automation and Dynamic Positioning systems, as well as a Wrtsil drives package. For the test, additional software was temporarily added to the DP system in order to route data over the vessels satellite link to the onshore work station in California. Most importantly, the Wrtsil testing was carried out using standard bandwidth onboard satellite communication. No land based technology was used for the communications between the vessel and the remote operator work station. The retrofitting of the DP software was completed within just 3. Wrtsils modular and easily upgradable system. The successful test was conducted over an almost 4 hour period during which time the vessel was driven through a series of manoeuvres at both high and low speeds. All the test procedures carried out went as planned. Wrtsil is committed to developing technologies that enable a Smart Marine future. In the age of digitalisation, the future Smart Marine ecosystem will involve connecting smart vessels with smart ports to enable an even more efficient use of resources. It will also reduce the impact on climate while enhancing safety, says Roger Holm, President, Wrtsil Marine Solutions. Andrea Morgante, Head of Digital, Wrtsil Marine Solutions adds One of the first and most critical hurdles to overcome along the path to the enablement of intelligent shipping is to develop efficient and reliable remote control and monitoring capabilities, taking factors such as bandwidth limitations and cyber security into consideration. This test provides a clear indication that we are well on the way to achieving this. The fact that the ship was enabled for remote operation in only a few hours is a strong endorsement of Wrtsils position at the forefront of marine technology development. At Wrtsil, we are fully engaged in developing intelligent vessels since we consider such technologies to be vital to maintaining a profitable future for our customers. It is anticipated that Wrtsils development of successful remote access to ships will also enable virtual service solutions to customers needing tuning or testing of their DP systems. Furthermore, this solution will be used for other pilot projects, such as automated docking procedures. At Gulfmark Offshore, we believe that it is important to embrace new technologies since they represent the future of our industry. If companies are to remain competitive they must look ahead and take advantage of the tremendous development work being done by companies such as Wrtsil. For this reason, we are most happy to cooperate with Wrtsil in this exciting project, says Ashley Robinson, SVP Operations Gulfmark. Wrtsil has earlier supplied three of Gulfmark Offshores Highland series vessels with various products, systems and solutions, as well as DP systems to several other vessel series within the companys fleet. Watch this video to see more. Link to image. Caption The remote control navigating station was in California while the ship being controlled was off the coast of Scotland. Link to image. Caption Gulfmark Offshores the Highland Chieftain was the vessel used for the test. Media contacts Mr Maik Stoevhase. Director, Automation, Navigation and Control Integrated Systems. Wrtsil Marine Solutions. Tel 4. 9 4. 08. Ms Marit Holmlund Sund. Senior Manager Marketing, Communications, Marine Solutions. Wrtsil Corporation. Tel 3. 58 1. 0 7. Wrtsil in brief Wrtsil is a global leader in advanced technologies and complete lifecycle solutions for the marine and energy markets. By emphasising sustainable innovation and total efficiency, Wrtsil maximises the environmental and economic performance of the vessels and power plants of its customers. In 2. 01. 6, Wrtsils net sales totalled EUR 4. The company has operations in over 2. Wrtsil is listed on Nasdaq Helsinki. Basic Design Atomic Rockets. This section is intended to address some gaps in available information about spacecraft design in the Plausible Mid Future PMF, with an eye towards space warfare. It is not a summary of such information, most of which can be found at Atomic Rockets. The largest gap in current practice comes in the preliminary design phase. A normal method used is to specify the fully loaded mass of a vessel, and then work out the amounts required for remass, tanks, engine, and so on, and then figure out the payload habitat, weapons, sensors, cargo, and so on from there. While there are times this is appropriate engineering practice notably if youre launching the spacecraft from Earth and have a fixed launch mass, in the majority of cases the payload mass should be the starting point. The following equation can be used for such calculations Where P is the payload mass any fixed masses, such as habitats, weapons, sensors, etc., M is the loaded wet mass, R is the mass ratio of the rocket, T is the tank fraction or any mass that scales with reaction mass as a decimal ratio of such mass e. E is any mass that scales with the overall mass of the ship, such as engines or structure, also as a decimal. This equation adequately describes a basic spacecraft with a single propulsion system. It is possible to use the same equation to calculate the mass of a spacecraft with two separate propulsion systems. The terms in this equation are identical to those in the equation above, with R1 and T1 representing the mass ratio and tank fraction for the arbitrary first engine, and R2 and T2 likewise for the second. Calculate both mass ratios based on the fully loaded spacecraft. If both mass ratios approach 2, then the bottom of the equation will come out negative, and the spacecraft obviously cannot be built as specified. Note that when doing delta V calculations to get the mass ratio, each engine is assumed to expend all of its delta V while the tanks for the other engine are still full. In reality, the spacecraft will have more delta V than those calculations would indicate, but solving properly for a more realistic and complicated mission profile requires numerical methods outside the scope of this paper. One design problem that is commonly raised is the matter of artificial gravity. In the setting under discussion, this can only be achieved by spin. The details of this are available elsewhere, but these schemes essentially boil down to either spinning the entire spacecraft or just spinning the hab itself. Both create significant design problems. Spinning the spacecraft involves rating all systems for operations both in free fall and under spin, including tanks, thrusters, and plumbing. The loads imposed by spin are likely to be significantly larger than any thrust loads, which drives up structural mass significantly. This can be minimized by keeping things close to the spin axis, but that is likely to stretch the ship, which imposes its own structural penalties. A spinning hab has to be connected to the rest of the spacecraft, which is not a trivial engineering problem. The connection will have to be low friction, transmit thrust loads, and pass power, fluids, and quite possibly people as well. And it must work 2. All of this trouble with artificial gravity is required to avoid catastrophic health problems on arrival. However, there is a potential alternative. Medical science might someday be able to prevent the negative effects of Zero G on the body, making the life of the spacecraft designer much easier. When this conclusion was put before Rob Herrick, an epidemiologist, he did not think it was feasible. The problem is that they the degenerative effects of zero G are the result of mechanical unloading and natural physiological processes. The muscles dont work as hard, and so they atrophy. The bones dont carry the same dynamic loads, so they demineralize. Both are the result of normal physiological processes whereby the body adapts to the environment, only expending what energy is necessary. The only way to treat that pharmacologically is to block those natural processes, and that opens up a really bad can of worms. All kinds of transporters would have to be knocked out, youd have to monkey with the natural muscle processes, and God knows what else. Essentially, youre talking about chemically overriding lots of homeostasis mechanisms, and we have no idea if said overrides are reversible, or what the consequences of that would be in other tissues. My bet is bad to worse. As the whole field of endocrine disruptors is discovering, messing with natural hormonal processes is very very dangerous. Even if it worked with no off target effects, youd have major issues. Body development would be all kinds of screwed up, so its not something youd want to do for children or young adults. Since peak bone mass is not accrued until early twenties, a lot of your recruits would be in a window where theyre supposed to still be growing, and youre chemically blocking that. Similarly, would you have issues with obesity If your musculature is not functioning normally to prevent atrophy, how will that effect the bodys energy balance What other bodily processes that are interconnected will be effectedThen you get into all the effects of going back into a gravity well. Would you come off the drugs and thus require a washout period before you go downside, and a ramp up period before you could go topside again     Spin and gravity is an engineering headache, but a solvable one. Pharmacologically altering the body to prevent the loss of muscle and bone mass that the body seems surplus to requirements has all kinds of unknowns, off target effects and unintended consequences. Youre going to put people at severe risk for medical complications, some of which could be lifelong or even lethal. This is a compelling case that it is not possible to treat the effects of zero G medically. However, if for story reasons a workaround is needed, medical treatment is no less plausible than many devices used even in relatively hard Sci Fi. The task of designing spacecraft for a sci fi setting is complicated by the need to find out all the things that need to be included, and get numbers for them. The author has created a spreadsheet to automate this task, including an editable sheet of constants to allow the user to customize it to his needs. The numbers there are the authors best guess for Mid PMF settings, but too complicated to duplicate here. Rick Robinsons rule of thumb is that spacecraft will in the sort of setting examined here become broadly comparable to jetliners in cost, at about 1 millionton in current dollars. This is probably fairly accurate for civilian vessels, at least to a factor of 3 or so. Warships are likely to be more expensive, as most of the components that separate warships from civilian ships are very expensive for their mass. Honda Elysion English Manual Transmission. In aircraft terms, an F 1. F 1. 5, while the FA 1. EF Super Hornet is closer to 4 millionton. This is certainly a better approximation than the difference between warships and cargo ships, as spacecraft and aircraft both have relatively expensive structures and engines, unlike naval vessels, where by far the most expensive component of a warship is its electronics. For example, the ships of the Arleigh Burke class of destroyers seem to be averaging between 1. As mentioned in Section 5, some have suggested that the drive would be modular, with the front end of the ship containing weapons, crew, cargo, and the like built separately and attached for various missions. This is somewhat plausible in a commercial context, but has serious problems in a military one. However, the idea of buying a separate drive and payload and mating them together is quite likely, and could see military and civilian vessels sharing drive types. This is not as strange as present experience would lead us to believe.

Ship Stability Calculation Software
© 2017