High speed coastal transport emergence in the US

High Speed Coastal Transport

U*S.

Dr. Robert Latorre’

Capt. Robert Foley, USCG-Ret.2

Emergence

in

the

Photo courtesy of Port of New Orleans, Photographer Dorm Young

ABSTRACT

Over the past decade, high-speed passenger ferry craj? have displaced conventional ferryboats. Their limited range and payload has restricted their use as high-speed cargo vessels. Nevertheless, they have opened the concept of high-speed cargo ships. This paper focwes on the emergence of cargo vessel designs, worldwide research and development on commercial and ntilita?y transport crafi, improvements in U.S. shipyards, and the idea of agile port development. Preliminary economic analysis indicates there is a savings porn using 28-30 kt. Ro-Ro ships to carry trucks on Gulf Coast routes. The introduction of high-speed cargo ships will create many opportunities for jiaure commercial and defense related support activities,

%rofessorof NavafArchitecture and Marine Engineering, University of New Orleans ‘Assistant Dean of Engineering, University of SOUUIAlabama

INTRODUCTION surface effect ships. Recent, advances in computers, material science, and software, have enabled naval Nearly three decades ago, high-speed passenger architects to design 35-50 knot catamarans. These hydrofoil vessels began operation on the Soviet Union’s high-speed craft operate at Froude numbers Fn.>0.35 as rivers and the US Boeing Jetfoil was marketed shown in Figure 1. They can be competitive with worldwide. These hydrofoils were followed by a helicopters and aircraft over 100 to lMO km routes. [1] number of passenger carrying air cushion vehicles and

I

. CATSSO Oambxa (19Xj

150 _., E ,*:. 5 HIOH-WEED FERRIES (iIam - loaa -1 ,.. Im . .+. .: J .1 . WIG o 10’20’30’40’50’ 60’ 70’80 CM WATER SERVICE SPEEO KNOTS

Fig.1 Comparison of ship length versus speed for passenger ferries 1991-1998

In 1998, the InCat catamarans Catalonia and Cat-Link V-built in Australia crossed the Atlantic (2,972 nautical miles-New York to Tarifa) at record speeds of 38.85 and 41.28 knots. These speed records were set by a 91.3 m long aluminum catamaran hull, powered by quad 1000 hp waterjet units. The vessels have 800 passengers, 225 cars or a combination of cars and four large buses. [2] The InCat performance comes from an emphasis on a lightweight, strong structure coupled with a compact and efficient propulsion system.

From the viewpoint of ocean transport, the growing range and capacity of these high-speed passenger crafts are part of the transition to high-sptwd cargo vessels. Presently worldwide research and development is being performed for high-speed trans-ocean commercial and

Nomenclature

B Beam, overall

b Demi-hull beam

BHP Propulsion brake horsepower Cb Block Coefficient

military transport crafts. These crafts with the capability of carrying 5,000 tons of cargo for 5,000 miles at 40-70 knots will create another cargo-transport revolution similar to the container ship in the 1960’s and 1970’s. This paper focuses on the emergence of cargo vessel designs, worldwide research and development on commercial and military transport craft, and the idea of agile port development. Preliminary economic analysis indicates there is a savings from using 28-30 kt Ro-Ro ships to carry trucks on Gulf Coast routes. The introduction of high-speed cargo ships will create many opportunities for future commercial and defense related support activities.

Cpt,

Acceleration due to gravity k Speed coefficient

Ko Non-dimensionalizing constant

L Length

Q Power coefficient

s Catamaran separation distance SHP Total installed power for propulsion

T Draft

v

w Full-load weight of ship

A Displacement

EMERGENCE OF HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER- 1. High-Speed Container Ships using Displacement

CARGO CRAFT hulls at 25-28 kts.

2. High-Speed Ships Catamarans, Surface Effect The emergence of high-speed passenger-cargo craft Ships at 30-35 kts as shown in Figure 2.

is being developed along two lines:

Length (m)

Fig. 2 Vessel Speed versus Length for High-Speed Passenger Ferry Data Base HSF-1

Recently the APL announced it offers fixed day Chile to Port Everglades, Florida and 18 day transit (25 weekly container service to 24 ports in South America, kts.) from Norfolk, Virginia to Santos, Brazil as well as five in Central America and five in the Caribbean. APL a 23 day transit from Callao, Peru to Tokyo, Japan. [3] offers a 17 day transit (25 kts. ) from San Antonio,

There has been a parallel development in 30-40 high-speed ship (HSS-1 ) database have been introduced knts car-passenger ferry vessels. The 24 crafts in the in the 1990’s. Figure 3 shows 7 (30~0) of the vessels

operate at 40 knts or above[4]. 60.0 50,0 40,0 10.0 0.0 Length (m )

Fig. 3 Vessel Speed versus Vessel Length for High-Speed Car-Passenger Data Base HSS-1

This represents a performance breakthrough which can The performance line of 1970 has been broken by be visualized by comparing the sate-of-the-art in 1970 the current designs as shown in Fig. 4. The lower 1995 and 1995 high speed craft plotted on the basis ofi performance line shows a signitlcant improvement in both power and the speed coefficient. This

Power Coefficient: performance improvement can be traced to the high

speed craft designer following the Technology Cross:

0.148.BHP

Q= ~v

s

(1)

[5]

I. Use of strong lightweight materials. II. Rational estimation of loads and

design of an optimum structure

Speed coefficient: III. Adoption of low drag, seakeeping and

maneuverable form. (2)

IV. Use of efficient propuk3ion/ maneuvering systems.

0.148H-w

Go=

~~

Fig. 4 Comparison of 1970 and 1995 Performance [5]

Ferry Name L B T Speed Displacement Passengers Car Engine Builder m) W) m roots) mm

catamaran 32 10 1.5 32 100 150-300 - 2 Diesel swift ships Engines

“E-Cat” 45 11,6 1.3 35 - 250-400 - Diesel or Halter Marine Group

Gas turbine

Passenger Car 67 11.7 2.4 35 650 250 40 2 Diesel Halter Marine Group

Ferry HSM 150 Engines

Passenger Car 91.5 15 2.4 35 1200 450 85 4 Diesel Halter Marine Group

Ferry HSM 280 Engines

Trinity Sea Flight 116 31.5 4.2 35 2000 400-1500 100- Gas turbine Halter Marine Group

Fast Passenger 300 Water Jet

Car Ferry

High Super 150 30 5 33 3300 900 216 2Gas Halter Marine Group

Slender Trimaran turbines

HST 630

High Super 165 30 5 31 1200 288 2Gas Halter Marine Group

Slender Trimaran turbines

HST 800

High Super 185 35 5 31 5000 1500 360 2 Gas Halter Marine Group

Slender Trimaran turbines

HST 850

Transatlantic 60 6 Gas Halter Marine Group

Pentamaran Turbines * U.S. Licensee

Water Jet Source: Swift Ships

Halter MarineGroup, Inc

In the United States a number of high-speed dwt) is shown as a fimction of speed for high-speed passenger-car ferry designs are behg manufactured. catamarans. The range of this plot is expected to be Table 1 summarizes a number of U.S. shipyard reduced as more vessels enter the service. Presently the marketed high-speed passenger-cargo vessel designs. average value is 0.12mil. $ /Dwt.

There are a number of factors contributing to the design of these vessels. In Fig. 5, the cost/ ton (roil $ /

‘ 30 ‘ 31 ‘31.5’ 33 ’36’ 30 ‘ 36 ‘ 36’36.4’ 37 “ 37 ‘ 37’ 37 ‘37.5’ 38’38.7’42 ‘43.6’ 44 49 49

Speed (kta)

Figure 5. Cost Dwt vs. Speed for High Speed Car-Passenger Database HSS-1

HIGH SPEED SEALIFT TECHNOLOGY AND ● _{Low wakedesign}

AGILE PORT DEVELOPMENT . Dragreduction coatings

In fall of 1997 the Naval Surface Warfare Center/ Carderock Division hosted a High Speed Sealift Technology Workshop that was jointly sponsored by USTRANSCOM, the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy and the Center for Commercial Deployment of Transportation Technology[6]. The workshop focused discussions on five technology areas identified as critical technologies for emerging high speed sealift requirements:

● _{Hullforms and Propulsory} ● Propulsion Plant

Q Cargo Onload/Offload and Stowage

● Materials and Ship Structures

. Shipbuilding/Manufacturing

Subsequently, construction and marketing projects have identified the following areas requiring additional research areas to improve commercial feasibility:

Kennell [6] summarized the current high speed technology related to future military sealift mission requirements as:

5(K)< cargo <5,000 short tons 500< range< 10,000 nautical miles 40c speed c 100knots

The vessel performance data was based on the quantitative assessment using the Transport Factor TF.

Transport Factoc

TF= KoW (3)

m v

Figure 6 presents graphically, the transport factor for a number of cargo carrying vessels. The solid

symbols represent actual designs, while the open active R&D areas. It was reported that adopting an symbols are current designs presented at the Aluminum Honeycomb Sandwich hull panel for a

workshop. 347 ton 80-m, car-carrying, catamaran would result

This review highlighted the need to focus on two in a5?10reduction in structural weight. This reduction

areas needed to create a ship capable of achieving the could enable the extension of the vessel range at 45 maximum mission requirements- advanced knots[7].

propulsion and hull materi~s. ‘u---1 llcsc ‘--”’-’--UJlll.llluc ““cm

I

Legend ~ TFtrand

Solid symbols are aciuaj ships ~ open symbols are designs ~

,. _{.—. ..} M-1 * : ... .. i . . i ..

Ii!!

Semi Planing Mrwmhulls

Planing Mcmchulls

Catamaran SES ~=~~~~~ ACV

VcrWication points from C3S Chtliem

u i

“35 45 \_ AY~52p, 65 75 85 95 . ...

Ship Speed, kt

Fig. 6 Transport Factor vs. Ship Speed [6]

The parallel development is the agile port concept to enable marine terminals to quickly accommodate military cargo, as well as improve the ability of the terminals to accommodate different ship types such as the high-speed sealift. This requires an integration of material and cargo-handling technologies with tagging, tracking and information management systems. The TrAMS installation (Transportation Automated measurement System [8] was developed to support the Agile Port and the required integration of the information technology. The equipment is measured at its origin and then it is scanned at the port to record its receipt and loading on the high-speed ship.

HIGH SPEED CARGO

CRAET

MANUFACTURING CAPABILITY

A 1996 Joint Staff study concluded that advances in technology had reached the point where building a

commercial, militarily usefid high speed ship at a reasonable price is achievable. Given sufficient investment and lead time, shipbuilding/manufacturing processes will be able to support production of all high speed sealift ships envisioned. U. S. shipyards must continue to make the transition to world-class manufacturing facilities to compete in this market. [9] Speeds up to 60 knots in ships with transatlantic range, are feasible using existing materials, machinery and propulsory. There are indications of commercial demand for such vessels that will be capable of transporting relatively large consignments of freight across the Atlantic in two days.[1 O] There is strong recent evidence that new high speed marine markets can be stimulated by the introduction of high speed cargo craft even when the market demand is unknown. When operated on suitable routes they are actually less expensive to operate than conventional steel monohull designs.

Although representing only a small segment of the manufacturing sector, the U.S. shipbuilding industry is considered critical to the country’s defense industrial base. Since the late 1980’s, significant progress has been made in improving the competitiveness of U.S. shipyards. Most programs have been government directed and focused on dual-use technology. Many shipyards are now investing more of their own resources towards improving U.S. commercial shipbuilding world-class competitiveness. Our research showed that a strong case can be made that given the designs, tools, culture, and repeat business, U.S. yards can be competitive. This is based upon the success of several smaller U.S. yards which compete in the international market for tankers, drill rigs, supply vessels, yachts, etc. With ship borne commerce increasing and the world fleet aging, new ship demand should be robust in the near future especially in the U. S. domestic market.

The Role of Maritech

The Maritech program was established in 1993 as an element of the Presidential initiative Strengthening America’s Shipyards: A Plan for Competing in the Internatwnal Market. Maritech was initially established as a five-year plan which concluded in 1998.[11] The Maritech Program began principally to encourage the U.S. shipbuilding industry to expand into the commercial sector, thereby expanding its customer base to balance defense budget reductions. The following five Maritech objectives focus on the pursuit of commercial competitiveness in the shipbuilding sector are

● Encourage and support proactive market

analysis and product development

● _{Develop a portfolio of U.S. designs}

e _{Develop innovative design and production} processes and technology

● _{Facilitate government and industry}

technology transfer activities

● _{Encourage formation of consortia for short}

and long-term technology investment strategies.

The scope of the Maritech program encompassed over 65 projects involving 18 shipyards and over 100 related companies operating in over 40 states. This included 34 ship design development projects and 18 advanced technology development projects funded by industry-government cost sharing.[12]

After six years it is clear that the Maritech program has helped the U.S. shipbuilding industry start the path to international competitiveness. Maritech appears to have had a major impact on inroads made recently by U.S. shipbuilders in the commercial market. As of April

1998, there were 21 commercial ships on U.S. order books, each of which were developed under Maritech with a total contract value of approximately $1 billion. A tour of U.S. shipyards reveals basic facility improvements, commercial design developments, as well as information technology implementation. The spectilc accomplishments from Maritech projects include [13] ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Shipyard product development capability

es-~blished at numerous shipy~ds

Over 30 commercial ship designs developed Competitive build strategies developed

implemented

Average reduction in construction cycle-time: months

Average reduction in lalmr man-hours: 20% Facility modernization plans developed for

yards

Over $500 million invested in new facilities

and

8-12

most

Industry wide electronic infrastructure partially established

13 commercial ships under construction (three for export) versus zero in 1993

Follow-on Initiative: Maritech ASE

Based on progress of the Maritech program, in the spring of 1997 a follow-on effort was begun to establish a consortium of U.S. shipbuilders with the purpose of developing and executing a shipbuilding R&D program. This follow-on program differs from the original Maritech in that the shipyards will work together with their supply chain in a cooperative, collaborative manner. This new program titled the Maritech Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise (ASE) is a mix of strategic outlook, business plan, investment porl.folio, and R&D roadmap designed to guide the cost-effective, goal-oriented investment of an estimated $400 million govermnent-industry program over a five-year period. It is focused orx [13]

● Future technology needs

. Consolidation of government progmms

● Networking of entire shipbuilding enterprise

● Introduction of product portfolio development and

management methodology

Given sufficient investment and lead time, shipbuilding and manufacturing processes will be able to support production of all high speed sealift ships envisioned including high speed cargo ships displacing tens of thousands of tons with trans-oceanic range and speeds above 40 knots. The quest for competitive advantage promises that this push for ever increasing

speeds and cargo capacity at an affordable price will continue as economies allow. Financial risks will have to be considered. Maritech programs which have improved the economic effectiveness of shipyards will ultimately have a beneficial effect in minimizing the financial risk involved in any future high speed sealift ship construction. Gulf Coast companies for instance have already developed an impressive portfolio of fast and high speed ferry design as evidenced by Table 1. Barriers to Construction of Advanced High Speed Sealift Systems

More emphasis must be placed on business and construction processes and training and education aimed at resolving terminology differences in these processes. Most ships constructed in U.S. yards are custom designed. At the start of a contract the vessel is assumed to be delivered within cost and schedule. This assumption is often wrong because the manufacturing process is difficult to model. Available tools and technology now allow control of these business processes. Worker/supervisor skills and training are necessary to integrate these tools and technology into the shipyard.

It is essential that product and process technology be developed and cooperatively used in among clients, shipbuilders, workers, suppliers and regulators. In this manner customers work with the designer who during the design and estimating process selects all subcontractors. The integration of design and production starts at the beginning. The time required for traditional competitive bidding is reduced.[14] Even the U.S. Navy is transitioning to this approach as with award of a $641M contract to an Avondale Industries lead team was for design and construction of the first LPD- 17 Amphibious Assault Ship.

Unless ship design innovation has a direct impact on shipbuilding technology it is irrelevant to shipbuilding competitiveness.[ 15] Recent design have emphasized areas that will have little impact on shipbuilding technologies such as smaller crew sizes, increased use of electronics and automation and improved cargo handling methods. The high speed sealift program and its designs hold the potential for being the platform to usher revolutionary shipbuilding technologies. Proposed light weight materials, associated fabrication techniques, advanced hull designs and the drive for economic market share will dictate that the industry incorporate the latest available technologies.

Lack of access or availability of technology is not the reason for slow improvement in shipyard productivity. Segments of each shipyard have been extensively involved in development and application of new technologies i.e. computer aided design- To be effectively implemented in a Computer Integrated

Manufacturing environment technological change must be introduced in management, production marketing and engineering in a systematic and not piecewise manner. Even after introduction of technology care must be exercised to manage the soft skills required to implement technology. New process technologies are not always effectively operated and investments in very expensive Computer Aided Manufacturing technologies, such as self-adaptive robotic welding etc. can never achieve their goals if not served by appropriate data. A barrier to Computer Integrated Manufacturing is the lack of electronic shipbuilding data in standard communication formats being shared by customers and suppliers. This data must be used and developed within the ship design process to facilitate product model data in a neutral and standardizwl structure. It will also replace customer-vendor paperwork and helps industry maintain close relationships with their suppliers and customers.

Consortium members of the MariSTEP program have made progress in the electronic exchange of shipbuilding data among diverse shipbuilding environments. In August of 1998 a successful demonstration of data exchange was conducted between shipbuilders and Computer Aided Design Systems developers. The exchange was conducted using prototype translators based on the Standard for the Exchange of Product model data (STEP) developed within the International Standards Organization. Application areas included ship molded forms, ship arrangements and ship piping. Each of the members enhanced their internal systems’ product model data to support the export and import of this shipbuilding data. The goal of the consortium is to complete translators for the exchange of ship structures data by the summer of 1999. The implementation of this technology will have significant impact on the entire U.S. shipbuilding industry and will permit radical advances in Computer Integrated Manufacturing processes. Electronic customer and supplier interaction, closer collaboration and teamwork between different companies will become the norm.

Ship manufacturing must become an information process where machine instructions stored in computers will describe how a piece of material should be rolled, cut, fastened or painted. Fewer and fewer human beings are actually involved in the production process. Instead, most workers in manufacturing should be involved in producing services. They should be involved in the manufacturing overhead processes to ensure that the right products are produced and that the proper materials are readily available they administer and control the operatiou they develop plans and strategies; and they design the products and services they have determined the customer desires.

CASE STUDY OF COASTAL ROUTES IN THE U.S. GULF - MODAL SHIFT FROM ROAD TO COASTAL HIGH SPEED RO-RO

Truck operations in the US are based on distance. For short hauls, a trucker typically operates within a 100-mile radius and returns to the starting point within 12 consecutive hours. A driver must not drive more than 10 hours during a 12-hour period. For long hauls, each trucker must maintain a daily log denoting:

a) Total mileage driven,

b) Truck-trailers registration numbers;

c)Co-Drivev

d)Record of 24 hours broken down as to: i) HourS off-duty

ii) Hours in sleeper berth iii) Hours driving no more than

10 hours without an 8-hour est. (To complete a run a 12-hour stretch may be allowed.)

iv) Hours on duty-not driving

Fig. 7 The U.S. Gulf Coast

This has resulted in driver teams with large sleeper cabs being used for long haul routes. The independent owner-operator working this way has a large investment for the sleeper truck to cover compared with a more conventional short-haul truck ($200-300,000 compared to $150,000-175,000). Trucking rates quoted on inland route across the Gulf States were typically around US$2.00 per mile. The main Gulf Coast truck route is I-10, which has a posted speed limit of 65 mph. This route crosses 5 states (Texas, Louisiana,

Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida). At each state line the trucks must enter a weigh station for road taxes and inspection thus further adding to costs and delays. Figure 7 shows the Gulf Coast routes. The case study examines three specific routes: Houston-Mobde, Houston-Tamp& and New Orleans-Tampa. Truck rates are typically $2.00 - $2.25/mile for 17.5 - 18 tons (40m,000 lbs) trailer running on 88-96 kph (55-60 mph) maximum speed highway.. The field data of the road distances are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 Summary of US highway distance and truck rates

Fast and High Speed Ro-Ro Options a 40 knot high-speed RORO craft designed by Austal For the case study two representative vessels are Ships of Henderso~ West Australia.[16] General compared. a 28 knot fast Ro-Ro vessel (denoted as particulars of the ships are summarized in Table 3. Fastship) designed by Blohm + Voss of Hamburg, and

FASTSHIP HIGH-SPEED SHIF

Shipbuilder Blohm & Voss, Hamburg Austal Shi s, HemWson.WA I

Vessel type FM-147 monohull ,40 l-r -!-m..

Length 161.7m 1 Beam 26.4m 2 Draft 7.Om ~Q Gross Tonnage 17,247 .G Deadweight 4,000 4 Constn ‘“’- ‘--’- “-’ -1--, Capacil lane memx --- . .. . . --ICI G vamllm[arl I !5.Om 1 i,938 I,405

ucl~onma~enal sIeel aluminium

v 100 trailers 44 trailers --- _{1,460 644} passengers 100 48 n--- .+4/.ie 40 knots brt3w 14/19 ‘

Service speed 28 knots kgas 1

Main engines 2 diesel 45,000

Power 33,6000Kw water J

Propulsion Propeller 9.9 @h

Fuel consumption 6.2 tph 350-50U IIII I

I

n ‘-- turbine

)Kw

lets

Table 3 Fastship and High-Speed ROROferry technical data [17]

The ‘Fastship’ is a ROROvessel capable of carrying 100 standard trailers at speeds of up to 28 knots. The

Fastship is a monohull, and diesel driven with propeller propulsion. The ‘High-Speed’ craft is also a ROROship,

capable of 40 knots, but being of aluminium

construction and limited deadweight its payload is rather less at 44 standard trailers. The High-speed craft would have gas turbines and water jet propulsion.

Projected Savings from Coastal Fast Ferry

The results of the case study is summarized in

Table4 . Between Houston-Mobile the trucking rate is US$950 per trailer. By fastship the door-door rate would fall by US$ 150 to US$800. On the Houston-Tampa route, the fastship would save the trucker US$350, and between New Orleans and Tarnpa, a saving in the region of US$250 might be expected. The fastship offers truckers potentird savings of Ixxween

15-19% on each door-door trailer movement [17].

Truck Rate Fastship IDifference High-speed IDifference

us $ 950 US$ 800 -150 US$ 1200 +250

2,000 1,650 -350 2,400 +400

1,300 1,050 -250 1,500 +200

Table 4 Comparisonof door-door freight ratesbetween sea and road in US GuMU6]

The high-speed RoRo, in contrast, would need to charge a sigrdtlcant price premium over and above the current road-trucking rate to be viable. On the three

routes considered, high-speed freight rates would exceed trucking rates by between US$200-400 per trailer. In essence door-door trucking rates would need to be increased by 25910 across the board for the high-speed service to be commercially viable. Nevertheless this case study illustrates the feasibility of savings from increased ship speed.

A logicaJ step for commercial shipping companies is to develop the freight markets and apply high speed vessels concepts to the cargo industry. A niche market is required. Markets that have sufficient volume of cargo moving both ways, and at the same time present numerous obstacles that prevent timely movement of cargo are essential. U.S. coastal routes and the Gulf Coast-Central America bridge meet this criteria. At first, time sensitive cargoes should be considered, however the added value of short transit time frames

New developments in fast ferry technology and a number of recent successful and highly publicized construction projects of new high speed vessels have signaled the &ginning of a new wave of U.S. fast ferry projects. Recent market trends show fast ferries replacing older vessels on existing routes and being placed into service on new routes now made profitable by high speed, high payload, low wash technologies. To play a role in this emerging market, U.S. shipbuilding must continue to transform itself into a commercially viable, world class, competitive industry offering the latest in product and process technology.

Action Plan 2000-2004

It can be shown that the three necessary elements: cargo transport cost savings, an economic vessel desig~ and shipyard construction capability are present. It is a logical step for commercial shipping companies to apply high speed ships to the cargo industry. Time

=

Task

Concept Evaluation Phased Development Plan

Demonstrator Design Demonstrator Production

ResearchPlan HSS1 Design HSS1 Production

sensitive cargoes should be considered first, however the added value of improved transit times will soon attract attention from the entire industry serving as evidence that new high speed marine markets for present truck and air cargo will be stimulated by the advent of new fast vessel designs.

In addition to the survey and economic studies the current project developed a comprehensive multi-phase, eight year plan (1999-2006). The plan encouraged the first-phase acquisition of a demonstrator vessel with appropriate instrumentation for service evaluation of a number of enabling technologies including composite materials, ship structure details, drag reduction coatings, low wake design, and life cycle costs which will lead to the development of the larger oceangoing vessel in the second phase. The multi-phase plan with demonstrator acquisition and research activity is summarized in Figure 8.

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

I

I

I

I

I

2006

Fig. 8 Multi-Phase High Speed Sealift Development Plan

This development plan is being organized to sealift vessel which can meet the IMO High Speed maximize the &mefits ‘from linking technical and regulations as well as the classification society rules. engineering R&D activities. This organization is

shown schematically by the fishbone diagrams in Figs. 9, 10 and 11. Figs. 9 and 10 show the research linkage needed to develop the required lightweight, high strength ship structure. Figure 9 covers the initial structural design followed by operational load-structure response data collection aboard the demonstrator. Fig.

10 illustrates the global plan for achieving a high speed

This goal requires participation of the design group, shipyard and classification society from the project onset. Finally Fig. 11 provides an overview of the technical-economic integration which has been identifkd as a critical path for obtaining an economically viable demonstrator and its use in developing the larger high speed sealift vessel HSS in Fig. 8

Primary Secondary Promising Technology Seaway Seaway And Industry

Loads Loads Benchmarking

dd

Tools Tests

r-

Fig. 9 Materials Research Lhdcages

Design Materials Structure

II

Tank Load Fatigue Regulations Automation Test Analysis Tests

Fig. 10 Hull Forms Research Linkages

Transport Factor

(Payload, Speed, Range) Platform Technology Evaluation

Technological Platform

scaling

Feasihilitv Characterinition Factnr

Concluding Remarks

With the growth in U.S. interstate freight, there is an opportunity to employ high speed truck carrying Ro-Ro vesseis aiong the U.S. Gulf Coast. In addition to providing cost-effective transfer, the proposed service can be used to develop enabling technologies and gain experience in high speed coastal operations. The main Conclusions are

1. There is pacailel development in vessel design, manufacture and truck cargo movement which can be merged into a high speed coastal service.

2. The economic study indicates that over distances of 150-600 miles tmnspont savings can be reaiized by moving trades on Gulf Coast Ro-Ro vessels.

3. The next step is the commercialization of this service which can be facilitated by a smail demonstrator vessel. Introduction of this demonstrator would follow a comprehensive plan including vessel instrumentation, operational data collection, as well as transport eeonomics and life cycle costs.

In closing, it is clear from the author’s research that, in the short term, the high speed cargo transport will emerge in the U.S. in parallel to the Gulf Coast, East Coast and West Coast roadways.

REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Trillo, R.L. “High Speed Over Water, Ideas ffom the Past, Present and for the Future,” Proceedings FAST’91, vol. 1, 1991.

Hynds, R., “S/M InCat Wavepiercers,” Speed at Sea, Vol. 4, No, 5, 1998 pp13-16

Annon., “APL Blankets Latin America Market with 34 Regionai Ports,” Maritime Week, VO1.2, No. 22, June, 1998 p. 9

Latorre, R., “High Speed Ocean Cargo-Past, Present and Future, The Next Frontier of High-Speed Craft,” Proceedings SOBENA’98 Annuai Meeting of Society of Brazilian Naval Architects, MO, 1998 pp.1-12.

Basin M, Latorre, R., “Development of High Speed Craft with Aero-Hydrodynamic Support,” Proceedings FAST’97, Vol. 1, 1997 pp. 85-89. Kennel, C. Lavis, D., Templeman, M., “High-Speed Seaiift Technology,” Marine Technology, Vol. 35, No.3, 1998 pp. 135-150.

Lee, Y., Paik, J. Thayamballi, A., Curry, R., “A Novel Concept for Structural Design and Construction of Vessels-Using Aluminum Honeycomb Sandwich Panels,” Transactions SNAME, Vol. 105,1997 pp191-220.

8. Wylke, K. et rd. “High Speed Sealift/Agile Port Operational Concept Document,” CcDOT,

California State University, Long Beach 1997 p 7. 9. “Move Faster - Strategic Mobility in the 21”

Century”, Land Power Essay Series, Army After Next Move Faster Panel, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, August 4, 1998,

10. Gee, N. ‘The Economically Viable Fast Freighter”, Paper presented at the International Conference on Fast Freight Transportation by Sea, London, Deeemtxr 1, 1998.

11. “Clinton Unveils his Strategy for U.S. Shipyard Competitiveness”, Marine Log, November 1993, p. 19.

12. Maritech Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise Strategic Investment Plan, June 1, 1998, Sponsored by the Executive Control Board of the Nationai Shipbuilding Research Program.

13. Maritech Program Impacts on Globai Competitiveness of the U.S. Shipbuilding Industry and Navy Ship Construction, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, July 1, 1998.

14. Frisch, Franz A.P., “Design /production Integration and the Industrial Structure”, Journal of Ship Production, Volume 10, Number 2, May 1994. 15. Wade, Michael and Karaszewski, Zbigniew J.,

“Infrastructure Study in Shipbuilding: A Systems Anaiysis if U.S. Commercial Shipbuilding Practices”, Journal of Ship Production, Volume 8, Number 2, May 1992.

16. Baird, A and Martin, E. “Fast Freight Ferries as an Instrument of Modai Shift from Road to Sea,” RINA Conference on Fast Freight Transportation by Sea, Londou 1998, Paper 1.

17. Latorre, R., Vasconcellos, J.M., Pires, F.C..M, Baird, A.J., “Analysis of Fast and High Speed Ro-Ro Coastal Transport in Brazil and the US Guif,” RINA Conference on Fast Freight Transportation by Sea, London 1998, Paper 4