DI-013_REV_3_SPEED_AND_POWER_REPORT.pdf

DI-013 Speed and Power Report Contract 6913G623P800007

Preliminary/Contract Design of Motor Vessel RANGER IV

Submitted by:

Loch Harbour Group 3060 Williams Drive, Suite 510

Fairfax, Virginia 22031

Preliminary/Contract Design of Motor Vessel RANGER IV

Contract No.: 6913G623P800007

CLIN-00100

DI-013 Speed and Power Report

Revision 3

Date: 04-04-2025

DISTRIBUTION Statement C: Distribution authorized to the U.S. Government agencies and their Contractors. Other request for this document shall be referred to US Department of Transportation Volpe Center.

DATA RIGHTS: This report, drawing, design, concept, and specification are the intellectual property of Loch Harbour Group, LLC, and/or TAI ENGINEERS, L.L.C and contain information which is proprietary. The rights defined below are reserved by Loch Harbour Group, LLC, and/or TAI Engineers, LLC. The United States Government's rights to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose these technical data are unrestricted. Any reproduction of technical data or portions thereof marked with this legend must also reproduce the markings.

Preliminary/Contract Design of Motor Vessel RANGER IV

Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document. 2

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

REVISION TABLE

SUBMISSION SUMMARY

A. INTRODUCTION

B. BACKGROUND

C. METHODOLOGY

D. RESULTS

E. SPEED-POWER CURVES

F. CONCLUSION

G. ATTACHMENTS

H. REFERENCES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document. 3

LIST OF FIGURES

Table 1: Summary of resistance and powering estimates at design speed from model tests Table 2:Vessel Characteristics Table 3: Parameter Designations & Margins Table 4: Parameter designations used in the model testing Table 5: Main hull particulars used in model testing Table 6: Propulsor characteristics Table 7: Design margins Table 8: Powering Results at Full Load Condition Table 9: CFD Powering Results at Full Load Original Hull Form Version 1 Table 10: CFD Powering Results at Full Load Optimized Hull Form Version 2 Table 11: CFD Powering Results at Full Load Optimized Hull Form Version 3 Table 12: Resistance Test Results from model tests for T= 9' draft Table 13: Resistance Test Results from model tests for T= 8'3'' draft Table 14: Resistance results and powering estimates from model tests for T=9' with appendages Table 15: Resistance results and powering estimates from model tests for T=9' without appendages

Figure 1: Pressure Distribution along Hull Form 1, 2, and 3 Figure 2: Streamlines Distribution along Hull Form 1, 2, and 3 Figure 3: Total Resistance vs. Ship Speed Figure 4: Brake Power vs. Ship Speed Figure 5: Total Resistance vs. Ship Speed from model test Figure 6: Brake Power vs. Ship Speed from Model Test

LIST OF TABLES

Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document. 4

ACRONYM DESCRIPTION

TAI TAI Engineers, LLC

DRL Data Requirements List

SOW Statement of Work

DI Data Item

LHG Loch Harbour Group

MCR Maximum Continuous Rating

CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics

PETotal Total effective power

PD Power delivered to propeller

PB Brake power

RTotal Total resistance of ship

LWL Load waterline ηT Total efficiency ηD Propulsion efficiency

CB Block coefficient

CP Prismatic coefficient

CWP Waterplane area coefficient

Rel Rot (ηR) Relative rotative efficiency

QPC Quasi Propulsive Coefficient

CTO Centrum Techniki Okrętowej

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document. 5

REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE AUTHOR

0 Initial submission 09-07-2023 TAI 1 CFD Results were added. 01-08-2023 TAI 2 Model Test Results were added. 05-06-2024 TAI 3 Updated per design changes. 04-04-2025 VOLPE

REVISION TABLE

Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document. 6

A. INTRODUCTION

A speed and power investigation has been carried out with MAXSURF and Star CCM+ software to analyze the performance of the hull forms. As a result of these analysis, the optimized hull form has been selected, and model tests were carried out. In this revision, resistance and powering calculations obtained from the model test are included in sections ‘C.3 and D.3’. Table 1 summarizes the results obtained from the model tests at the required design speed of 14 knots.

Table 1: Summary of resistance and powering estimates at design speed from model tests

Speed

(Knots)

Appended Hull

Resistance RT (kN)

Effective Power

PE (kW)

Effective Horsepower

PE (hp) ηD

PD

(hp)

PB (hp)

90% MCR

14 105.7 762 1021 47.3% 2159 2953

The Ranger IV is capable of a design speed of 14 knots at 90 percent of maximum continuous engine rating (MCR) with selected propulsion system.

This document has been submitted by Loch Harbour Group 3060 Williams Drive, Suite 510 Fairfax, Virginia 22031 to satisfy DI-013 “Speed and Power Report”, Contract No.

6913G623P800007. The purpose of this report is to document and discuss the methodology and results obtained from the Speed and Power analysis of the RANGER IV. The contents of this report consist of the following:

Background/overview of ship propulsion characteristics and parameters used in the calculations.

Discussion of the methodology used for the analysis.

Estimates obtained for the ship’s resistance and power characteristics.

Resistance and powering vs. vessel speed plots.

Discussion of supporting technical data/information

The LHG team recognizes all requirements presented by the government in the Data Item Description under Contract No. 6913G623P800007 - Statement of Work. The RANGER IV is capable of achieving design speed of 14 knots considering a 15% sea margin and at or under 90 percent of maximum continuous engine rating (MCR).

SUBMISSION SUMMARY

Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document. 7

C. METHODOLOGY

The RANGER IV’s propulsion system consists of a twin propulsor integrated diesel-electric arrangement. The power required to achieve the design speed is less than 90% percent of the total installed main engine set MCR. Results from the preliminary speed and power study gave rise to valuable insight necessary for adequately sizing the propulsors of the RANGER IV. Having considered several other areas, such as ice class requirements and propeller clearances for choosing an appropriate propulsion arrangement, twin propulsors have been selected and sized as a controllable pitch propeller (CPP) type with significant consideration to the 90% MCR requirement to sustain a speed of 14 knots.

LHG performed preliminary speed and power estimates using analytical and statistical methods followed by CFD analysis and model test results.

C.1 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The MAXSURF Resistance analysis utilized the Standard Method of Holtrop 1984, also known as "A Statistical Re-analysis of Resistance and Propulsion Data," and used the ITTC-57 friction formula.

The Holtrop 1984 method is a statistical method for the determination of the required propulsive power at the initial design stage of the ship. This method was developed through a regression analysis of model test experiments and full-scale test data.

Main ship particulars of initial hull model and input parameters of the Ranger IV used in the speed and power statistical analysis are defined in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively.

Table 2:Vessel Characteristics

HULL PARAMETER VALUE UNITS

Length on Water Line (LWL) 180 ft

Beam at WL 34.33 ft

Draft 9 ft

Displaced volume 30113.76 ft^3

Wetted Surface area 6380.5 ft^2

Block coeff. (CB) 0.57 -

Prismatic coeff. (CP) 0.629 -

Waterpl. area coeff. (CWP) 0.847 -

B. BACKGROUND

Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document. 8

Table 3: Parameter Designations & Margins.

Analysis Parameters Value Units Gear Loss 5%

Shaft Loss 2%

Sea Margin (all drags) 15% - Design Margin 10%

MCR 90%

Water type Freshwater - Density 35 cu. ft/Long Ton Kinematic viscosity 1.22E-05 ft2/s

C.2 CFD ANALYSIS

A CFD analysis used the initial hull model “TAI-1267_HULL SURFACE MODEL_Rhino 6.3dm” and the vessel characteristics shown in Table 2. After running the analysis with the TAI supplied hull form, CTO optimized the design and re-ran the analysis. The updated hull models are named for version 2 as “modCTO_18-09.igs” for version 3 as “mod_CTO_04-10.igs”.

CTO used Siemens Star CCM+ to run the CFD analysis. Star CCM+ is a computational fluid dynamics software that uses a volumetric mesh and the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes equations to numerically solve fluid flow properties. The CFD program computes a frictional and a pressure component of resistance. The sum of the two components is the total resistance for the bare smooth hull. Additional resistance due to roughness, wind, and appendages is calculated empirically.

CFD analysis was carried out at a speed of 15 knots. Design margins and losses considered in the calculations for CFD resistance results are defined in Table 3.

C.3 MODEL TESTING

The model tests in calm water have been conducted for optimized hull version 3 named “mod_CTO_04-10.igs” by CTO. The most comprehensive assessment of power requirements for a new ship is obtained by conducting experiments with a model hull and propeller in a towing tank.

Test methodology, post-test analyses and extrapolation to full-scale were carried out as per ITTC Recommended Procedures. The following tests and calculations have been performed:

1. Bare hull resistance Effective Horsepower (EHP) tests

2. Bilge keel and propulsion appendage alignment flow tests

3. Appended resistance EHP tests

4. Wake survey tests

5. Stock propulsor self-propulsion Shaft Horsepower (SHP) tests

6. Design propeller open water tests

7. Design propeller self-propulsion SHP tests

Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document. 9

The resistance and self-propulsion model tests have been conducted at two drafts such as for full load condition at 9’ and light load condition at 8’3”, for a speed range of 4 to16 knots. The streamlines and 3D wake tests were performed for a single draft of 9’ and a single speed of 14 knots. The tests were carried out in a deep-water towing tank, with dimensions of approximately 270 m x 12 m x 6 m in length, breadth and depth respectively. The tank is fitted out with a towing carriage capable of a maximum speed of 12 m/s. The full-scale resistance/propulsion predictions are given for fresh water, at 15°C. Parameter designations used in the model testing are given Table 4.

Table 4: Parameter designations used in the model testing

WATER PROPERTIES

FULL SCALE

VALUES

TANK

VALUES

UNITS

Salinity 0 - % Water Temperature 15.0 17.3 ° C Mass Density 999.0 998.6 kg/m3

Kinematic Viscosity 1.139 1.073 10-6 m2/s

CTO performed model tests on a hull scaled 1:8.269. The full-scale resistance was calculated according to the ITTC-78 procedure on the basis of the bare hull measurements. As per data provided by LHG, CTO selected a stock propeller and performed the self-propulsion test. Main hull particulars and propulsor characteristics of the full-scale model are given in Table 5 and Table 6 respectively.

Table 5: Main hull particulars used in model testing

HULL PARAMETERS T=9’ T=8’ 3’’ UNITS

Length on Water Line (LWL) 53.38 53.38 m

Beam at WL 10.47 10.47 m

Draft 2.743 2.515 m

Displaced volume 851 746 m3

Wetted Surface area 623 593 m2

Block coeff. (CB) 0.597 0.571 - Prismatic coeff. (CP) 0.655 0.633 -

Waterpl. area coeff. (CWP) 0.889 0.867 -

Table 6: Propulsor characteristics

CHARACTERISTICS DESCRIPTION

Number and type of propellers 2 Fixed Pitch Propellers

Diameter 1.753 m

Number of blades 5

Expanded blade area ratio 0.764

Design margins and losses considered in the calculations for model test resistance results are defined in Table 7.

Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document. 10

D. RESULTS

Table 7: Design margins

Analysis Parameters Value Gear Loss 2.5% Shaft Loss 2% Sea Margin (all drags) 15%

MCR 90%

D.1 MAXSURF BARE SMOOTH HULL RESULTS

Consolidated results obtained from the analysis are presented below in Table 8. Comprehensive reports of the MAXSURF Resistance results and parameters used (resistance, power, efficiencies, and coefficients) are provided in Attachment A.

The results of the MAXSURF Resistance analysis at full load condition and with service life allowance (SLA) and 15 percent sea state margin (total resistance, total effective power, total efficiency, and brake power) without the hull roughness are provided in the analysis.

Table 8: Powering Results at Full Load Condition

Bare Hull Resistance

(kN)

SS3

Total

PE

Bare (kW)

(kW)

PB

Propulsor

(hp) 90%

MCR

2.00 1.10 0.17 1.27 1.47 2.72 4.60

4.00 4.20 0.63 4.83 11.24 20.81 35.15

6.00 9.00 1.35 10.35 36.11 66.88 112.98

8.00 16.00 2.40 18.40 85.6 158.53 267.81

10.00 27.70 4.16 31.86 185.25 343.07 579.57

12.00 50.10 7.52 57.62 402.07 744.59 1257.89

14.00 85.00 12.75 97.75 795.84 1473.83 2489.84

15.00 102.70 15.41 118.11 1030.24 1907.93 3223.19

D.2 CFD RESULTS

Consolidated results obtained from the CFD analysis are presented below. Comprehensive reports of the resistance results and parameters used (resistance, power, efficiencies, and coefficients) are provided in Attachment B.

Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document. 11

The results of the analysis at full load condition with a 15 percent sea state margin (total resistance, total effective power, total efficiency, and brake power) for the original and optimized hull forms are provided in Table 9, 10 and 11.

The pressure and streamlines distributions for the three (3) hull forms are provided in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Table 9: CFD Powering Results at Full Load Original Hull Form Version 1

PD (hp)

(hp) 90%

MCR

15.00 142.4 21.36 163.76 1,915.6 3,547.6 4,469.2

Table 10: CFD Powering Results at Full Load Optimized Hull Form Version 2

(hp) 90%

15.00 137.2 20.58 157.78 1,845.7 3,418 4,306

Table 11: CFD Powering Results at Full Load Optimized Hull Form Version 3

(hp) 90%

15.00 124.5 18.68 143.18 1,674.8 3,101.7 3,907.4

Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document. 12

Figure 1: Pressure Distribution along Hull Form 1, 2, and 3

Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document. 13

Figure 2: Streamlines Distribution along Hull Form 1, 2, and 3

Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document. 14

D.3 MODEL TEST RESULTS

Resistance test results obtained from the model test are given in Table 12 and Table 13. These results were obtained in calm water with no margins included. Comprehensive reports of the resistance results from model testing with 15% see margin and parameters used (resistance, power, efficiencies, and coefficients) are provided in Attachment C. Estimated powering results at 9’ draft obtained from model test resistance results with appendages and without appendages are given in Table 14 and Table 15.

Table 12: Resistance Test Results from model tests for T= 9' draft

T= 9' draft, Bare hull T= 9' draft, Appended hull

(Knots)

Resistance RT

(kN)

Effective Power

PE (kW)

Resistance RT

(kN) Effective

Power PE (kW)

4 5.1 11 5.6 11 5 8.0 21 8.6 22 6 11.8 36 12.6 39 7 16.5 59 17.6 63 8 22.3 92 24.1 99

10 38.3 197 40.5 208 12 61.9 382 65.9 407 13 81.4 544 85.2 570 14 100.7 725 105.7 762 15 119.8 924 126.2 974

Table 13: Resistance Test Results from model tests for T= 8'3'' draft

T= 8’3” draft, Bare hull T= 8’3” draft, Appended hull

(Knots)

Resistance RT

(kN)

Effective Power

PE (kW)

Resistance RT

(kN) Effective

Power PE (kW)

4 4.4 9 5.0 10 5 6.9 18 7.6 20 6 10.0 31 11.1 34 7 13.9 50 15.2 55 8 18.7 77 20.6 85

10 31.4 162 34.2 176 12 51.3 317 55.2 341 13 67.6 452 71.8 480 14 84.2 606 88.6 638 15 100.8 778 106.9 825

Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document. 15

Table 14: Resistance results and powering estimates from model tests for T=9' with appendages

Appended Hull

RT (kN)

Effective

Power PE (kW)

Effective

PE (HP)

(HP)

PB (HP)

4 5.6 11 15 30 40 5 8.6 22 30 62 84 6 12.6 39 52 108 148 7 17.6 63 85 178 243 8 24.1 99 133 271 370

10 40.5 208 279 583 797 12 65.9 407 545 1140 1560 13 85.2 570 764 1614 2208 14 105.7 762 1020 2159 2953 15 126.2 974 1239 2788 3815

Table 15: Resistance results and powering estimates from model tests for T=9' without appendages

RT (kN)

Effective

Power PE (kW)

Effective

PE (HP)

(HP)

PB (HP)

4 5.1 11 15 27 40 5 8.0 21 28 51 78 6 11.8 36 49 90 138 7 16.5 59 80 147 228 8 22.3 92 123 228 343

10 38.3 197 264 489 754 12 61.9 382 512 948 1466 13 81.4 544 729 1351 2110 14 100.7 725 972 1800 2811 15 119.8 924 1239 2417 3621

Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document. 16

Total resistance (kN) vs. Ship Speed(Kts)

Empirical Maxsurf Analysis

Optimized Hull Rev. 1

Original Hull Form CFD

Optimized Hull CFD Rev. 2

180.00

160.00

140.00 8

120.00 1

100.00

80.00

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00

Ship Speed (Knots)

10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00

A plot of the total vessel resistance developed from Bentley offshore’ MAXSURF Resistance and Star CCM+ is presented below in Figure 3.

163.7

157.7

143.1

118.1

Figure 3: Total Resistance vs. Ship Speed

A speed-power curve created from the brake power estimates is shown in Figure 4.

E. Speed-Power Curves

T ot al R es is ta nc e kN

Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document. 17

Brake Power(hp) vs. Ship Speed(Kts)

Maxsurf Analysis Original Hull Form CFD Optimize Hull Rev. 1 Optimized Hull Rev. 2

5000.00

4500.00 16 .96

4000.00 .38

3500.00 .19

3000.00

2500.00

2000.00

1500.00

1000.00

500.00

0.00

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00

4469.

Figure 4: Brake Power vs. Ship Speed

A plot of the total vessel resistance recorded from model testing is presented below in Figure 5.

B ra ke P ow er hp

Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document. 18

Without Appendages With Appendages

0 2 4 6 8

10 12 14 16

126.2

119.8

Figure 5: Total Resistance vs. Ship Speed from model test

A speed-power curve created the brake power estimates using model testing is shown in Figure 6.

T ot al R es is ta nc e kN

Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document. 19

Brake Power(hp) vs. Ship Speed(Kts)

Without Appendages With Appendages

0 2 4 6 8

Ship Speed (Knots)

10 12 14 16

F. CONCLUSION

Figure 6: Brake Power vs. Ship Speed from Model Test

Results obtained from the speed and powering analysis have been used to adequately size the propulsion system for compliance with all requirements in the Statement of Work.

LHG performed statistical and CFD analysis further supplemented by model tests, to determine the speed and power requirements. Maxsurf software was used for statistical analysis and the results include a 15% sea state margin and a 10% design margin. CFD analysis was carried out by the CTO using the Star CCM+, and resistance results including 15% sea state margin and 10% design margin and alternative hull forms to reduce the total resistance were given. Model tests for the optimized hull form were carried out by CTO. After iterating three (3) hull models, and comparing the speed power curves, it can be established that the current hull form has been optimized as required under the expected operating conditions.

B ra ke P ow er hp

Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document. 20

ATTACHMENT A- MAXSURF Resistance and Propulsion Results.

ATTACHMENT B- Numerical Analyses of Hydromechanical Characteristics.

ATTACHMENT C- Model Test Resistance and Propulsion Results.

DI-023 MODEL TEST REPORT

G. ATTACHMENTS

H. REFERENCES

Preliminary/Contract Design of Motor Vessel RANGER IV

Contract No.: 6913G623P800007

DI-013

Revision (-)

TAI #1267

Submittal Date: 05/06/2024

ATTACHMENT A- MAXSURF Resistance and Propulsion Results.

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT C. Distribution authorized to the U.S. Government agencies and their Contractors. Other request for this document shall be referred to US Department of Transportation Volpe Center.1

DATA RIGHTS: This report, drawing, design, concept, and specification are the intellectual property of Loch Harbour Group, LLC, and/or TAI ENGINEERS, L.L.C and contain information which is proprietary. The rights defined below are reserved by Loch Harbour Group, LLC, and/or TAI Engineers, LLC. The United States Government's rights to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose these technical data are unrestricted. Any reproduction of technical data or portions thereof marked with this legend must also reproduce the markings.

Preliminary/Contract Design of Motor Vessel RANGER IV

LWL 180 ft nO 0.58 Beam 34.33 ft nR 1.00 Draft 9 ft nM 0.98 Displaced volume 30113.76 ft^3 Shaft Loss 2% Wetted area 6380.5 ft^2 Gear Loss 5% Block coeff. (Cb) 0.54 Sea Margin 15.00% Prismatic coeff. (Cp) 0.629 Design Margin 10% Waterpl. area coeff. (Cwp) 0.847 MCR 90.00% Correlation allow. 0.0004 Holtrop kW to HP 1.34 Kinematic viscosity 1.27909E-05 ft^2/s t 0.13 Water Density 34.975 cu.ft/Long Ton Prop Diameter 1.52 m

Total Engine brake Power 3907.38 BHP Number of Engines 2

Brake Power Per Engine (2no.s) 1953.69 BHP

Total Engine brake Power 2622.36 KW Number of Engines 2

Brake Power Per Engine (2no.s) 1311.18 KW

Ranger IV' Main Vessel Charectaristics for Powering Efficiencies

Preliminary/Contract Design of Motor Vessel RANGER IV

Speed (Knots)

Speed (m/s) Froude No.

at LWL Froud No.

by Vol Hull

Efficiency

Bare Hull Resistance

(kN)

SS3

Resistance

(kN)

Total Resistance

(kN) PE (kW) PE (hp)

PE in Gear Loss w/ 5% margin (kW)

PE in Shaft Loss w/ 2% margin (kW) nD PD (kW) PD (hp) PB (kW)

Design margin

10%PB

(kW)

Pb Propulsor

(hp) 90%

MCR

Pb Propulsor

(kw) 90%

MCR

0.50 0.26 0.01 0.03 100% 0.10 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 58% 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.08

1.00 0.51 0.02 0.05 100% 0.30 0.05 0.35 0.20 0.27 0.21 0.22 58% 0.37 0.50 0.38 0.42 0.63 0.47

1.50 0.77 0.03 0.08 100% 0.70 0.11 0.81 0.70 0.94 0.74 0.75 58% 1.30 1.74 1.33 1.47 2.20 1.64

2.00 1.03 0.05 0.11 100% 1.10 0.17 1.27 1.47 1.97 1.55 1.58 58% 2.72 3.65 2.78 3.09 4.60 3.43

2.50 1.29 0.06 0.13 100% 1.70 0.26 1.96 2.84 3.81 2.99 3.05 58% 5.26 7.06 5.37 5.97 8.89 6.63

3.00 1.54 0.07 0.16 100% 2.40 0.36 2.76 4.82 6.46 5.07 5.17 58% 8.92 11.96 9.10 10.11 15.06 11.23

3.50 1.80 0.08 0.19 100% 3.20 0.48 3.68 7.49 10.04 7.88 8.05 58% 13.87 18.60 14.15 15.73 23.43 17.47

4.00 2.06 0.09 0.21 100% 4.20 0.63 4.83 11.24 15.07 11.83 12.07 58% 20.81 27.90 21.23 23.59 35.15 26.21

4.50 2.31 0.10 0.24 100% 5.20 0.78 5.98 15.65 20.99 16.47 16.81 58% 28.98 38.86 29.57 32.86 48.96 36.51

5.00 2.57 0.11 0.27 100% 6.30 0.95 7.25 21.07 28.25 22.18 22.63 58% 39.01 52.32 39.81 44.23 65.91 49.15

5.50 2.83 0.13 0.29 100% 7.60 1.14 8.74 27.95 37.49 29.43 30.03 58% 51.77 69.42 52.83 58.70 87.46 65.22

6.00 3.09 0.14 0.32 100% 9.00 1.35 10.35 36.11 48.43 38.01 38.79 58% 66.88 89.69 68.24 75.83 112.98 84.25

6.50 3.34 0.15 0.35 100% 10.50 1.58 12.08 45.64 61.21 48.05 49.03 58% 84.53 113.35 86.25 95.84 142.80 106.49

7.00 3.60 0.16 0.37 100% 12.10 1.82 13.92 56.64 75.96 59.63 60.84 58% 104.90 140.68 107.04 118.94 177.22 132.15

7.50 3.86 0.17 0.40 100% 13.90 2.09 15.99 69.72 93.50 73.39 74.89 58% 129.11 173.15 131.75 146.39 218.12 162.65

8.00 4.12 0.18 0.43 100% 16.00 2.40 18.40 85.60 114.80 90.11 91.95 58% 158.53 212.59 161.76 179.74 267.81 199.71

8.50 4.37 0.19 0.45 100% 18.30 2.75 21.05 104.03 139.50 109.50 111.74 58% 192.65 258.35 196.58 218.42 325.46 242.69

9.00 4.63 0.21 0.48 100% 21.00 3.15 24.15 126.40 169.50 133.05 135.77 58% 234.08 313.90 238.86 265.40 395.45 294.88

9.50 4.89 0.22 0.51 100% 24.10 3.62 27.72 153.12 205.33 161.17 164.46 58% 283.56 380.26 289.34 321.49 479.03 357.22

10.00 5.14 0.23 0.53 100% 27.70 4.16 31.86 185.25 248.42 195.00 198.98 58% 343.07 460.06 350.07 388.97 579.57 432.18

10.50 5.40 0.24 0.56 100% 31.90 4.79 36.69 224.01 300.40 235.79 240.61 58% 414.84 556.31 423.31 470.34 700.82 522.60

11.00 5.66 0.25 0.59 100% 36.70 5.51 42.21 269.98 362.05 284.19 289.99 58% 499.99 670.49 510.19 566.88 844.66 629.87

11.50 5.92 0.26 0.61 100% 42.60 6.39 48.99 327.63 439.36 344.88 351.91 58% 606.75 813.66 619.13 687.92 1025.02 764.36

12.00 6.17 0.27 0.64 100% 50.10 7.52 57.62 402.07 539.18 423.23 431.86 58% 744.59 998.52 759.79 844.21 1257.89 938.01

12.50 6.43 0.29 0.67 100% 58.90 8.84 67.74 492.38 660.30 518.30 528.88 58% 911.85 1222.82 930.46 1033.85 1540.46 1148.72

13.00 6.69 0.30 0.69 100% 68.10 10.22 78.32 592.06 793.97 623.23 635.94 58% 1096.46 1470.37 1118.83 1243.15 1852.32 1381.27

13.50 6.94 0.31 0.72 100% 76.90 11.54 88.44 694.29 931.05 730.83 745.74 58% 1285.76 1724.23 1312.00 1457.78 2172.12 1619.76

14.00 7.20 0.32 0.75 100% 85.00 12.75 97.75 795.84 1067.24 837.72 854.82 58% 1473.83 1976.44 1503.91 1671.01 2489.84 1856.68

14.50 7.46 0.33 0.77 100% 93.20 13.98 107.18 903.78 1211.99 951.35 970.76 58% 1673.73 2244.50 1707.88 1897.65 2827.54 2108.50

15.00 7.72 0.34 0.80 100% 102.70 15.41 118.11 1030.24 1381.58 1084.47 1106.60 58% 1907.93 2558.57 1946.87 2163.18 3223.19 2403.54

Origninal CFD 15.00 7.72 0.34 0.80 100% 142.40 21.36 163.76 1428.50 1915.64 1503.68 1534.37 58% 2645.46 3547.62 2699.45 2999.39 4469.16 3332.66 Optimized 1 15.00 7.72 0.34 0.80 100% 137.20 20.58 157.78 1376.33 1845.69 1448.77 1478.34 58% 2548.86 3418.07 2600.88 2889.86 4305.96 3210.96 Optimized 2 15.00 7.72 0.34 0.80 100% 124.50 18.68 143.18 1248.93 1674.84 1314.66 1341.49 58% 2312.92 3101.67 2360.12 2622.36 3907.38 2913.73

3223.19

4469.16 4305.96

3907.38

0.00

500.00

1000.00

1500.00

2000.00

2500.00

3000.00

3500.00

4000.00

4500.00

5000.00

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00

B ra ke P ow er hp

Ship Speed (Knots)

Brake Power(hp) vs. Ship Speed(Kts)

Maxsurf Analysis Original Hull Form CFD Optimize Hull Rev. 1 Optimized Hull Rev. 2

118.11

163.76157.78 143.18

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

180.00

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00

T ot al R es is ta nc e kN

Ship Speed (Knots)

Empirical Maxsurf Analysis Original Hull Form CFD Optimized Hull Rev. 1 Optimized Hull CFD Rev. 2

Loch Harbour Group

3060 Williams Drive, Suite 510 Fairfax, Virginia 22031

Contract No.: 6913G623P800007

CLIN-00100

ATTACHMENT-B

Numerical Analyses of Hydromechanical

Characteristics Revision (-)

Submittal Date: 05-06-2024

DISTRIBUTION Statement C: Distribution authorized to the U.S. Government agencies and their Contractors. Other request for this document shall be referred to US Department of Transportation Volpe Center.

DATA RIGHTS: The Government is granted unlimited rights unless distributed to recipient directly by the U.S.

Government. This drawing, design, concept, and specification are the intellectual property of TAI Engineers LLC.

and contain information which is proprietary to TAI Engineers LLC. This information is furnished with the express understanding that the recipient recognizes the proprietary nature of this information and will not copy or alter it in any manner, nor transfer it, use it for manufacture, sell it, or use it in any way to detriment of TAI Engineers LLC.

without the express written consent of this firm. The recipient further agrees not to disclose the information herein to any other party except for the purpose contracted for with TAI Engineers LLC.

PRELIMINARY RESULTS

Ran g e r I V

N U M E R I C AL A N AL Y S E S

O F H Y D R O M E C H A N I C A L

C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S

- C F D F L O W E V A L U A T I O N

- R E S I S T A N C E P R E D I C T I O N

INTRODUCTION

The following report contains results of CFD calculations :

No. Analysis Type

Ship draught [m] Analysis conditions fore aft

0938/2023 CFD flow evaluation 2.743 2.743 Vs =15 knots hull Version 1

0939/2023 CFD flow evaluation 2.743 2.743 Vs =15 knots hull Version 2

0947/2023 CFD flow evaluation 2.743 2.743 Vs =15 knots hull Version 3

The initial hull geometry Version 1 was delivered by the Customer. The Versions 2 and 3 were proposed by CTO in consultation with the Customer. The modification from

Version 1 to Version 2 comprised of :

- Change in the bow area in order to achieve more consistent curvature of the waterline

- Modification of the shape of the aft part incl. deeper immersion of the transom, focused on smoothing the curvature of the buttocks .

The modification to Version 3 comprised of:

- Elongation of the waterline

- Application of a vertical stem

Hull Version Original file name

Version 1 “TAI-1267_HULL SURFACE MODEL_Rhino 6.3dm” received via e-mail dated August 24th

Version 2 “modCTO_18-09.igs” sent via e-mail dated September 18th

Version 3 “mod_CTO_04-10.igs” sent via e-mail dated October 4th

RESULTS OF CFD FLOW EVALUATION

Wave Pattern

The value of 0 corresponds to undisturbed free surface

Fig. 1. Wave pattern, contour map

Version 2

Version 3

Fig. 2. Wave pattern, visualization – forebody view V3

Version 1

Fig. 3. Wave pattern, visualization – afterbody view

Pressure Distribution

The pressure is presented as a non-dimensional coefficient 25.0 VpC p , where: p - hydrodynamic pressure in [Pa],

- water density in [kg/m3], V - hull speed in [m/s].

Fig. 4. Pressure distribution – side view

Fig. 5. Pressure distribution – bottom view

Fig. 6. Pressure distribution – bow view

Fig. 7. Pressure distribution – aft view

Streamlines

Fig. 8. Streamlines – side view

Fig. 9. Streamlines – bottom view (Vs=20kn)

Version 1

Version 2

Fig. 10. Streamlines – bow view

Version 1 Version 2

Fig. 11. Streamlines – aft view

COMPUTATIONAL RESISTANCE PREDICTION

Based on the values of resistance obtained from CFD simulation (RCFD), the total resistance (RT) was calculated according to the method shown in the Appendix A.

Effect of air resistance was added computationally.

PREDICTION BASED ON CFD ANALYSIS

SHIP DATA

name, version Version 1 main particulars [m] CB [-] 0.573

LPP 51.82 B 10.46 T 2.743

appendages none loading design draught fore TF [m] 2.743 aft TA [m] 2.743 length of waterline LWL [m] 51.801 displacement [m3] 852.6 wetted surface S [m2] 592 bilge keel area SBK [m2] 74 frontal windage area AT [m2] 130 shape factor k 0.26 hull roughness ks [10-6m] 150 roughness allowance CF [10-3] 0.857 air resistance coefficient CAA [10-3] 0.219 salinity [%] 3.5 temperature t [C] 15.0 mass density [kg/m3] 1025.9 kinematic viscosity

[10-6 m2/s]

1.188

SMOOTH HULL FORM VERSION

V [kn.] Fr RCFD [kN] CCFD [10-3] Re [108] CF0 [10-3] CR [10-3]

15.0 0.342 118.6 6.558 3.36 1.761 4.340

ROUGH HULL

V [kn.] CT [10-3] RT [kN] PE [kW] zV [m] V []

15.0 7.874 142.4 1099 -0.232 -0.620 name, version Version 2 main particulars [m] CB [-] 0.568

LPP 51.82 B 10.46 T 2.743

appendages none loading design draught fore TF [m] 2.743 aft TA [m] 2.743 length of waterline LWL [m] 51.801 displacement [m3] 844.3 wetted surface S [m2] 601 bilge keel area SBK [m2] 74 frontal windage area AT [m2] 130 shape factor k 0.26 hull roughness ks [10-6m] 150 roughness allowance CF [10-3] 0.857 air resistance coefficient CAA [10-3] 0.216 temperature t [C] 15.0 mass density [kg/m3] 1025.9

15.0 0.342 113.2 6.165 3.36 1.761 3.946

15.0 7.472 137.2 1059 -0.222 -0.505 name, version Version 3 main particulars [m] CB [-] 0.569

LPP 51.82 B 10.46 T 2.743

appendages none loading design draught fore TF [m] 2.743 aft TA [m] 2.743 length of waterline LWL [m] 53.362 displacement [m3] 846.1 wetted surface S [m2] 607 bilge keel area SBK [m2] 74 frontal windage area AT [m2] 130 shape factor k 0.26 hull roughness ks [10-6m] 150 roughness allowance CF [10-3] 0.842 air resistance coefficient CAA [10-3] 0.219 temperature t [C] 15.0 mass density [kg/m3] 1025.9

15.0 0.337 100.6 5.425 3.47 1.754 3.215

15.0 6.714 124.5 961 -0.215 -0.516

APPENDIX A. TOTAL RESISTANCE PREDICTION BASED ON CFD ANALYSES

The standard CFD computations are made for a bare hull. The direct results of the CFD computations are comprised of two components of the hull resistance denoted by CFDR :

Friction component FR (integral of the tangential stress component in the direction of motion over the wetted surface of the hull), Pressure component PR (integral of the pressure force component in the direction of motion over the wetted surface of the hull).

These values are computed for seawater of 3.5% salinity at 15C for smooth hull surface, unless otherwise stated.

In order to obtain the total resistance of the real hull, the following corrections are introduced, based on empirical formulae and available database of model tests results for similar ships:

when bilge keels are present at the real hull the friction component is multiplied by the factor:

S

SS BK

where:

S - is the wetted surface of the hull [m2], BKS - is the additional wetted surface of bilge keels [m2].

the air resistance of the above water part is considered; the air resistance coefficient is calculated from:

S

A

CC D

TA

AAA

where:

ADC - air drag coefficient of the ship above waterline, standard figure: ADC =0.84 TA - transverse projected area of ship above waterline [m2].

- mass density of water [kg/m3].

A - mass density of air [kg/m3], standard figure: A = 1.22 kg/m3.

Additional resistance due to hull roughness is considered. The roughness allowance is calculated from:

1064.0105

WLS

S F L k C where:

Sk - hull surface roughness [m]

WLSL - length of waterline [m].

Thus, the total resistance of the hull without appendages other than bilge keels is obtained from the formula:

AAFP

BK

FTBH CCSVR

S

SS

RR

25.0 [N] where V is the velocity of hull motion, [m/s].

In the case of presence of appendages (other than the bilge keels) the total resistance for the actual appended hull TR is calculated from:

TBHS

TS

TBHT R

R

RR [N]

where: TSR , TBHSR - total and total bare hull resistance of a similar ship respectively, otherwise: TBHT RR .

The effective power EP is calculated as:

TE 10 VRP [kW]

Because of the common practice of using the residuary resistance coefficient (defined by the International Towing Tank Conference standard procedure) as a measure of the hull quality in terms of resistance in calm water, as well as in order to enable reliable prediction of the resistance over a range of speeds with the use of similar ship data, the CFD results are used to evaluate the residuary resistance coefficient RC . It is calculated using form factor k taken from similar ships database:

F0CFDR )1( CkCC where:

SρV

R C

CFD

CFD

2F0 )2(log

075.0

Re C

- kinematic viscosity of water [m2/s].

WLL - length of waterline [m], Other non-dimensional coefficients used in the presentation of the results are defined as follows:

C

T T

C

TBH

TBH

During the CFD analysis the running sinkage at the centre of buoyancy Vz , as well as the running trim angle V are determined:

Vz - running sinkage [m], "-" means increase in draught of the hull, V - running trim angle [], "-" means trim to bow.

Loch Harbour Group

3060 Williams Drive, Suite 510

Fairfax, Virginia 22031

Contract No.: 6913G623P800007

CLIN-00100

ATTACHMENT-C

Model Test Results Revision (-)

Submittal Date: 05-06-2024

DISTRIBUTION Statement C: Distribution authorized to the U.S. Government agencies and their Contractors. Other request for this document shall be referred to US Department of Transportation Volpe Center.

DATA RIGHTS: The Government is granted unlimited rights unless distributed to recipient directly by the U.S.

Government. This drawing, design, concept, and specification are the intellectual property of TAI Engineers LLC.

and contain information which is proprietary to TAI Engineers LLC. This information is furnished with the express understanding that the recipient recognizes the proprietary nature of this information and will not copy or alter it in any manner, nor transfer it, use it for manufacture, sell it, or use it in any way to detriment of TAI Engineers LLC.

without the express written consent of this firm. The recipient further agrees not to disclose the information herein to any other party except for the purpose contracted for with TAI Engineers LLC.

(kn)

Method Vessel Speed (m/s)

Hull Resistance (kN) - Force needed to overcome to go set speed

Effective Power (kW)- No Margin - Power Out of

Propeller

Effective Horse Power - No Margin - Power Out of

Propeller

Introduction of Propulsive Efficiency Propeller Efficiency

2% Shaft Loss 2.5% Gear Loss 15% Sea Margin Minimum Brake Engine

Horsepower to meet 90% MCR req., BHP

4 kts Model Test w/ Appendages 2.06 5.60 11 15 30 30 31 36 40 Model Test w/o Appendages 2.06 5.10 11 15 30 30 31 36 40

5 kts Model Test w/ Appendages 2.57 8.60 22 30 62 63 64 76 84 Model Test w/o Appendages 2.57 8.00 21 28 57 58 60 71 78

6 kts Model Test w/ Appendages 3.09 12.60 39 52 108 110 113 133 148 Model Test w/o Appendages 3.09 11.80 36 49 101 103 106 124 138

7 kts Model Test w/ Appendages 3.60 17.60 63 85 178 181 186 219 243 Model Test w/o Appendages 3.60 16.50 59 80 167 170 174 205 228

8 kts Model Test w/ Appendages 4.12 24.10 99 133 271 276 283 333 370 Model Test w/o Appendages 4.12 22.30 92 123 250 256 262 308 343

10 kts Model Test w/ Appendages 5.14 40.50 208 279 583 595 610 718 797 Model Test w/o Appendages 5.14 38.30 197 264 551 562 577 679 754

12 kts Model Test w/ Appendages 6.17 65.90 407 545 1,140 1,164 1,194 1,404 1,560 Model Test w/o Appendages 6.17 61.90 382 512 1,071 1,093 1,121 1,319 1,466

13 kts Model Test w/ Appendages 6.69 85.20 570 764 1,614 1,647 1,689 1,988 2,208 Model Test w/o Appendages 6.69 81.40 544 729 1,542 1,574 1,614 1,899 2,110

14 kts Model Test w/ Appendages 7.20 105.70 762 1,021 2,159 2,203 2,259 2,658 2,953 Model Test w/o Appendages 7.20 100.70 725 972 2,055 2,097 2,150 2,530 2,811

15 kts Model Test w/ Appendages 7.72 126.20 974 1,305 2,788 2,845 2,918 3,433 3,815 Model Test w/o Appendages 7.72 119.80 924 1,239 2,647 2,701 2,770 3,259 3,621

Gear Loss 2.5% Shaft Loss 2% Propulsive Efficiency @ 14 kn 47% 4

MCR 90% 5

Sea Margin 15% 6

15 46.80%

47.80% 49.10% 47.90% 47.80% 47.20% 47.30%

V [kn] Propulsive Efficiency, ηD

49.80% 48.10% 48.30%