Design of Catamaran EU-MOP units for efficient oil spill confrontation

Boulougouris E.(1), Papanikolaou A.(1), Ghozlan F.(2), Turan O.(3), Kakalis N.(4),
Fritsch D.(5)
(1) National Technical University of Athens (SDL), (2) SIREHNA, (3) Universities of Strathclyde &
Glasgow (SSRC), (4) Oxford University, (5) Fraunhofer Gesell. z. Frderung der angew. Forschung (IPA)

ABSTRACT: The paper presents the design of an autonomous oil-skimming catamaran

unit developed within the EU-MOP (Elimination Units for Marine Oil Pollution)
Research Project funded by the European Commission (FP6). The design was based on
the requirements and specifications produced through the research in EU-MOP. The
special operational features required for the units in order to fulfil adequately their
missions resulted in designs with unique hullform properties, outside ordinary catamaran
hull forms. The general arrangement, the energy source, the propulsion system, the
artificial intelligence package, the robotics and the oil processing systems of the units are
presented in the paper. Additionally, the performance characteristics with respect to the
resistance, seakeeping and manoeuvring capabilities are outlined. The ultimate aim is the
development of efficient, practicable and feasible designs that ensure adequate oil
confronting records for the proposed units.

1.

INTRODUCTION

EU-MOP is the acronym for Elimination Units for Marine Oil Pollution project,
supported by the European Commission under the Sustainable Development, Global
Change and Ecosystems thematic area, Sustainable Surface Transport Programme of the
6th Framework Programme. The aim of the project is the design and proof of concept of
autonomous EU-MOPs, capable of mitigating and eliminating the threat arising from oil
spill incidents. The end-result will be the conceptual development and validation of low
cost, possibly recyclable, autonomous vessels/drones that will be released in the oil spill
area, will track the oil concentration specifics of the spill using proper sensors and will
apply mechanical countermeasures locally. The confrontation of the entire spill requires a
swarm of such units. In order to handle the variety of locations where oil spills could
occur (ranging from open ocean to harbour or coastal areas), different sizes of such units
are designed. The complete integrated system, including communication, logistical
support and response management is analysed and assessed.
The successful design of the EU-MOP units is a decisive part of the overall EU-MOP
concept development. The ambition is to develop the best feasible Elimination Units
within the design space defined by the requirements and the constraints of the EU-MOP
concept. In this context, an initial feasibility study of various sizes and concepts and a
first preliminary design loop has been performed. A second preliminary design loop is
currently underway and finally, the selection of the most promising concept for

materializing the EU-MOP concept is going to be made. In this paper the results of the
first preliminary design loop will be presented.

2.

BACKGROUND

Given the unique design challenges posed by the requirements of the EU-MOP concept,
the following design scheme shown in Figure 1 was used.
Marine Oil Pollution Status State of artMission identification for EU-MOP Units

Oil Spill Scenarios-Operational & Technical

Requirements for EU-MOP Units

DESIGN OF EU-MOP UNITS

Energy&
Propulsion System

Robotics

Oil Processing
Scheme

EU-MOP UNIT (TECHNICAL STAGE)

Cost& Benefit
Assessment

Logistics

EU-MOP UNIT FINAL DESIGN

Figure 1. EU-MOP unit(s) design scheme [1].

The EU-MOP design requirements were defined by its mission targets, namely the
confrontation of seawater oil spills. These have been defined by formulating appropriate
oil spill scenarios. In the context of the EU-MOP units, they have been classified in three
groups [1]. The corresponding scenario characteristics are summarised as follows:
Type of sea area: Open ocean area (sea type I), enclosed seas (sea type II,
including the Mediterranean Sea with the possible exception of the sea area
between Sardegna, France and the Balearic Islands, Baltic Sea and Black Sea) and
shallow water areas (type III, estuaries, rivers, lakes, ambers, inlets).
Quantity: Small spills (less than 7 tons of oil), medium size spills (7 to 700 tons)
and large spills (>700 tons).

Type of oil: Two basic types of oil were being examined: light oils (non persistent
like diesel oil) and persistent oils (heavy fuel oil or crude oil).
Meteorological conditions: The variations on the wave height have been taken
into account in the type of sea area. A working hypothesis for the EU-MOPs is to
be operational 50% of the time on the winter season, which roughly represents
75% of the time year round, is used.
Using the available statistical wave data different seas around Europe three sea
areas have been identified [1]:
- Sea type I, considering three different areas in Atlantic Ocean, namely north
of Ireland, English Channel and Baltic Sea. From the data on the Baltic Sea
(highest annual mean value of significant wave height is approximately 1.4 m,
similar to the Mediterranean values) we considered this area as sea type II. For
the English Channel the highest annual mean value of significant wave height
exceeds 1.7 m whilst for the open Ocean area the mean value reaches 3.6 m
(minimum value is 1.3 m).
- Sea type II, considering the Mediterranean Sea where the annual mean value
of wind speed does not exceed 7.5 m/s and 8 m/s in the winter season. In the
entire basin the highest annual mean value of significant wave height
corresponds to the Gulf of Gascogne in France and is approximately 1.4 m
and 2 m for the winter season.
- Sea type III was considered as an area with no large waves (significant wave
height less than 0.5 m). However, this type of sea area may be subject to
strong tidal currents. It is stated that differences in the water temperature may
also have significant effects on the spreading rate and weathering of the oil
spill but it would be impossible to study all cases.
Working hypothesis: Considering the above classification oil spill conditions,
three working hypotheses have identified for the size of EU-MOPs:
- small model (S) for a response area of type III designed to operate in very
shallow waters
- medium model (M) for sea type II, that has the approximate size of a skimmer
head
- larger model (L) for open ocean type I, with assumed operational limits wave
height <2m, wind speed 25 knots (force 6B)
The available technical solutions for a number of candidate units subsystems were
analysed, namely:
- hull geometries
- oil processing and storage
- electronics
- energy source systems
- energy source systems
- construction materials

Based on the performed analysis, the applicability of two different hull geometries had
been identified:
- a monocat hull concept presented in [2]
- a catamaran concept that is presented herein
Unfortunately, it proved unfeasible the design of a small size catamaran autonomous unit
within the given constraints (draught, air draft, autonomy, carrying capacity). Therefore
only 2 sizes of catamaran units were designed, that is large and medium.

3.

GENERAL ARCHITECTURE

3.1

Large Unit

Using the final set of requirements ([3] & [4]) the first loop of the preliminary design
initiated. The critical issues identified were:
- The constraints imposed by the operational constraint to transfer the units using
20 or 40 containers standard size impacts significant the design.
- The main dimensions (length, beam, total height) had to be optimised.
- The speed requirement resulted in a high Froude number (Fn) for the range of
lengths considered and consequently to higher propulsion power requirements.
- The required recovered oil capacity together with the limited dimensions and the
high energy requirements resulted in unusually high block coefficients for this
type of hullforms
- The installation of the oil skimming device high on units deck and the limitation
on its total breadth required maximization of the water plane area in order to
insure that the unit has sufficient stability in all loading conditions.
Assuming a length of 3 meters and taking into account the operational requirement for a
transit maximum speed of 5 knots, the resulting Froude number Fn is about 0.47. This
means that the unit is called to operate as a fast displacement catamaran around the
strongly undesirable last hump of wave resistance (Fn0.5) [5]. Additionally, the high
demihull block coefficient is well beyond typical catamaran applications, ranging from
0.45 to 0.55 [6]. Therefore the dimensions and the hullform of the unit should be
carefully studied.
For simplicity in the exploration of the various design parameters, a symmetrical twin
hull configuration was selected for the initial design, noting however that theoretical
wave resistance predictions for WIGLEY type twin-hulls suggest that for Fn in the region
0.35-0.5 the asymmetrical configuration with the flat outside could be superior to the
symmetrical one [7]. Theoretical and experimental evidence for symmetrical demihulls
indicate that wave interference effect becomes significant at Fn-values around 0.2.
Maximum beneficial effects on wave resistance occur at Fn around 0.32, whereas adverse
effects are most pronounced around Fn 0.4 [5].
The above information underlined the importance of performing a trade-off analysis for
the selection of the main dimensions of the demihull. Several combinations of length,

demihull breadth and resulting demihull clearance, for given draught and displacement
were considered and compared on the basis of the resulting resistance and effective horse
power characteristics. The resistance of each demihull at this preliminary design stage
was first estimated using Holtrops method ([8], [9]). Using the general particulars of the
best candidate and considering that the hullforms of high-speed multihulls are simple
shapes [6], a set of lines was generated by NAPA [10] with a limited number of points.
This permitted the easy iteration of the hulls geometry until the target properties (e.g.
volumes, volume centres etc.) were achieved. The main particulars of the Large
Catamaran Unit are given in Table 1. In Figure 2 a 3D wireframe of various cross
sections and waterlines sketches the hull surface.
Table 1. Main Particulars of Large Catamaran Unit
MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VESSEL
Length overall, Loa

3.20

Breadth, B (moulded)

2.30

Demihull Breadth, b (moulded)

Design draught

0.675 m
0.93

X-coord. of aft end of DWL

0.00

X-coord. of fore end of DWL

3.16

DISP

3.563 t

DISP moulded

3.490 t

VOLM moulded

3.405 m3

LCB (ref. A.P.)

1.375 m

KMT

1.261 m

CB

0.4975

CB,demihull

0.858

CM

0.584

CW

0.525

Hull Separation, SC

1.625 m

Tunnel breadth, ST

0.950 m

Initially, an asymmetrical arrangement of main equipment was considered, with a single

diesel generator identical to the one selected for the monocat alternative [11]. Its weight
and dimensions prohibited however its installation on the deck. Therefore it had to be
placed inside one of the demihulls. This resulted to a requirement for a proper ballasting
system to counterbalance any asymmetric loading condition.
In order to avoid a complicated ballasting system and an increase of the total
displacement (that would result to a higher resistance and increased energy
requirements), it was decided to replace the single diesel generator with two smaller
gensets. This would also:

Increase the reliability of the whole system

Increase the redundancy
Increase the operational flexibility
Minimize the full displacement
Minimize the propulsion power requirements

For the two genset configuration, two options were available:

1. Using two KOHLER 14EOZ marine diesel generators with a total weight of 602
kg [11]
2. Using two SOLOMON TECHNOLOGIES STPU 17kW generators, with a total
weight of 522 kg [12]
Given the weight savings (-80 kg) of the second solution, it was decided to design the
symmetric configuration around the latter option. This is shown in Figure 3.
Using the 3D General Arrangement Model, a detailed weight breakdown was created,
which permitted the exact weight allocation and the check of the adequacy of space for
all parts. The convergence of this process provided the final layout of the unit.

Figure 2. Wireframe of Large Catamaran Unit

Figure 3. Large Units Part Assembly of symmetrical configuration

3.2

Medium Unit

Using a similar procedure, the medium size unit was designed. Starting with the
requirements produced by the EU-MOP operational concept for this size of units, a tradeoff analysis was performed for the selection of the main particular. The main
characteristics of the developed hullform are given in Table 2. A wireframe of cross
sections and waterlines is shown in Figure 4. The energy plant is here also symmetrical,
comprised of two KOHLER 8EOZD as proposed in D3.2 [11].
Table 2. Main Characteristics of the medium size catamaran unit
MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VESSEL
Length overall, Loa

3.00 m

Breadth, B (moulded)

1.88 m

Demihull Breadth, b (moulded)

0.60 m

Design draught , T

0.80 m

X-coord. of aft end of DWL

0.00 m

X-coord. of fore end of DWL

2.96 m

DISP

2.582 t

DISP moulded

2.522 t

VOLM moulded

2.460 m3

LCB (ref. A.P.)

KMT

1.299 m
0.980 m

CB

0.545

CB,demihull

0.854

CM

0.635

CW

0.573

Hull Separation, SC

1.28 m

Tunnel breadth, ST

0.68 m

Figure 4. Wireframe of Medium Catamaran Unit

The 3D arrangement of the various parts assembling the medium catamaran unit is shown
in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Medium Units 3D Arrangement

The 3D-modelling allowed the more accurate distribution of the various weights and the
verification of the adequacy of the stability properties of the hull.

The 2 unit sizes can be directly compared in Figure 6. It is important to note that even
though the oil carrying capacity was reduced by 30%, when moving from the large to the
medium size design, the rest of the particulars changed as follows:
- Length
-7%
- Breadth
-18%
- Draught
-14%
- Full Displacement
-28%

Figure 6. Graphical Comparison of the Medium and Large size units

4.

RESISTANCE

The resistance of the various models were calculated by SIREHNA with the software
REVA, which uses a Boundary Elements Method based on Rankine sources. The
resistance calculations were performed for both the fully load and the lightship condition.
The first investigated condition was decisive for sizing the propulsion plant. It proved
that the effective horsepower (EHP) estimated by this method was significantly less than
initially expected [1]. Given the unique characteristics of the catamaran hulls, however,
model tests are currently underway to verify the numerical estimations in a rational way.

4.1

Large unit

The resistance and powering results for speeds from 1 to 5 kts are presented in Table 3.
The wave field of the Large Catamaran at 5 kts is depicted in Figure 7 .
Table 3. Resistance and powering for the Large Catamaran

6
5
4

H
0.223384
0.181611
0.139837
0.0980635
0.05629
0.0145165
-0.027257
-0.0690305
-0.110804
-0.152577
-0.194351
-0.236125
-0.277898
-0.319672
-0.361445

2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4

-5

Figure 7. Wave field of the Large Unit at 5 kts

4.2

Medium unit

Frame 001 22 Aug 2006 REVA

The resistance and powering results for speeds from 1 to 4 kts are presented in Table 4.
The wave field of the Medium Catamaran at 4 kts is depicted in Figure 8.
7

Table 4. Resistance and powering for the Medium Unit

6
5
4

H
0.223384
0.181611
0.139837
0.0980635
0.05629
0.0145165
-0.027257
-0.0690305
-0.110804
-0.152577
-0.194351
-0.236125
-0.277898
-0.319672
-0.361445

2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-5

X
Figure 8. Wave field of the Large Unit at 4 kts

5.

HYDROSTATIC STABILITY

Calculations were performed for 3 loading conditions (1=lightship, 2=50% loaded, and
3=fully loaded) and 2 brush positions (flat or inclined). The hydrostatic characteristics
were investigated by SIREHNA using the software Hublot, a numerical tool developed
by IFREMER for hydrostatic stability calculations. The data outputs are the equilibrium
and associated hydrostatic characteristics: righting arm GZ, hydrostatic curves, etc. These
curves make it possible to calculate stability criteria related to regulation, such as the area
under GZ curve between 0 and 30 deg of heel or the angle of maximum righting arm.

5.1

Large unit

The stability criteria used for the large unit related to regulation are given in Table 5.
Table 5. Stability criteria for the Large Unit
A(0,30) A(0,40) GZmax
(m.rd)
(m.rd)
(m)
Flat
0.152
0.217
0.478
Light
Inclined 0.164
0.238
0.516
Flat
0.118
0.216
0.625
50% loaded
Inclined 0.127
0.233
0.670
Flat
0.096
0.168
0.446
Fully loaded
Inclined 0.103
0.180
0.489
>0.055
>0.09
>0.2
Criteria

Teta
GZmax
(deg)
25
25
40
40
60
60
>25

Hydrostatics data according to NTUAs calculations are presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Hydrostatics data for the Large Catamaran
Catamaran Large unit
Varying Loads cases
Hull form: IGES volumic file
Aft Perpendicular / file origin (m)
Fore Perpendicular / file origin (m)
Base line / file origin (m)
Brush tip position
Weight (kg)
LCG / AP (m)
VCG / base line (m)
delta GM (m) free surface due to oil tank
Trim (m)
FP draft / base line (m)
AP draft / base line (m)

Loading conditions
1
2
3
eumop_L_3.2_3_hullform_w_superstructure2
0
3.2
0
flat
inclined
flat
inclined
flat
inclined
1370
1370
2470
2470
3567
3567
1.31
1.29
1.35
1.34
1.38
1.37
0.96
0.87
0.64
0.57
0.60
0.55
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
-0.03
-0.06
-0.02
-0.05
0.00
-0.02
0.35
0.34
0.64
0.63
0.93
0.92
0.38
0.40
0.66
0.68
0.93
0.94

Table 7. Metacentric height for the Large Catamaran

Flat
Light
Inclined
Flat
50% loaded
Inclined
Flat
Fully loaded
Inclined

GM0 (m)
1.15
1.24
0.79
0.86
0.66
0.71

deltaGM (m)
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04

GM (m)
1.15
1.24
0.74
0.81
0.62
0.67

Table 7 presents the metacentric height (GM0) calculated by Hublot. Hublot does not take
into account the free surface effects. Therefore the deltaGM taken from Table 7 was used
for the free surface corrections. Figure 9 and Figure 10 present the GZ- curve for the
two extreme loading conditions with the brush tip position flat and inclined.
0.6

0.4

GZ (m)

0.2

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Flat
Inclined

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6
Heel angle (deg)

Figure 9. Large unit GZ curve at lightship condition

0.6

0.5

0.4

GZ (m)

0.3
Flat
Inclined

0.2

0.1

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

-0.1

-0.2
Heel angle (deg)

Figure 10. Large unit GZ curve at full loading condition

180

5.2

Medium unit

The stability criteria for the medium unit are presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Stability criteria for the Medium Unit

A(0,30) A(0,40) GZmax
(m.rd) (m.rd)
(m)
Flat
0.085
0.128
0.293
Light
Inclined 0.094
0.144
0.328
Flat
0.075
0.141
0.446
50% loaded
Inclined 0.080
0.150
0.474
Flat
0.067
0.121
0.362
Fully loaded
Inclined 0.071
0.128
0.390
>0.055 >0.09
>0.2
Criteria

Teta
GZmax
(deg)
30
30
45
45
70
70
>25

Table 9 contains the metacentric height (GM0) and the delta GM used for the free surface
corrections.
Table 9. Metacentric height for the Medium Catamaran
Flat
Light
Inclined
Flat
50% loaded
Inclined
Flat
Fully loaded
Inclined

GM0 (m)
0.58
0.65
0.50
0.54
0.46
0.49

deltaGM (m)
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.03

GM (m)
0.58
0.65
0.45
0.49
0.43
0.46

The following figures present the GZ curve for the two extreme loading conditions with
the brush tip position flat and inclined.
0.4

0.3

0.2

GZ (m)

0.1

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4
Heel angle (deg)

Figure 11. Medium unit GZ curve at lightship condition

180

Flat
Inclined

0.5

0.4

GZ (m)

0.3

Flat
Inclined

0.2

0.1

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

-0.1
Heel angle (deg)

Figure 12. Medium unit GZ curve at full loading condition

5.3

Wind and wave effects

The calculations for the wind and wave effects on the EU-MOP units were performed
only at lightship condition because these were identified as the critical conditions;
moreover only inclined brush position is used because at this condition the wind arm
lever is the highest.
The calculations were performed according to the Recommendation of Les Affaires
Maritimes in Appendix 211-1.A.3 (weather criterion) requiring the area b in Figure 13 to
be larger than area a.

Figure 13. Weather criterion for EU-MOP units

The steady wind heeling lever is a function of the wind speed which in this case for
Douglas Scale Sea State 4 was assumed 20 kts.
The ratio b/a for each unit is presented in Table 10.
Table 10. Weather criterion b/a ratio

b/a ratio

Large
1.16

Medium
1.17

Obviously both units satisfy the weather criterion requirement for b/a>1.

6.

SEAKEEPING

Motion transfer functions were calculated at units CoG with the software AQUA+ [13],
which is based on a 3D radiation - diffraction method using Kelvin sources. The criteria
for the behaviour of the units are the limitation of motions for brush efficiency.
Seakeeping calculations grid was:
- Two speeds, 1 and 5 kts for the large units, 1 and 4 kts for the medium units
- Five headings, 0 to 180 deg with 45 deg step
- Three loading cases, departure condition with empty recovered oil tank, 50% load
condition with the recovered oil tank half full and the arrival condition with the
recovered oil tank full
- Two brush positions, flat and inclined.
Statistical values of motions at CoG and relative brush tip position / sea surface were
calculated for 4 sea states (1, 2, 3 and 4).
Sea State (SS)
Hs (m)
Tpeak (s)

1
0.05
2.0

2
0.30
7.5

3
0.88
7.5

4
1.88
8.8

The Tpeak value for sea state 1 was chosen close to the roll period of the unit in order to
have a dimensioning value.
Since inertia (gyration) radius data were not available and since no classical formulas
could be used to estimate their value, relevant data for the EU-MOP units were estimated
using a module of AQUA+ software which assumes that the weight is equally distributed
over the wetted surface of the hulls.
Roll and pitch viscous damping of the hull have been estimated using classical formulas:
B44H=2(I44+A44)*2/Tp

B55H=2(I55+AI55)*2/Tp

where:
= 0.10 empirical value
A44 =Roll added inertia from Aqua+
A55 =Roll added inertia from Aqua+
Tp = roll natural period from Aqua+
Inertia and damping coefficients for the large unit are given in Table 11 while for the
medium unit they are given in Table 12.

Table 11. Inertia and roll and pitch damping for the Large unit
Weight (kg)
I44/G (kg.m)
I55/G (kg.m)
I66/G (kg.m)
B44 (N.m.s/rad) v=1knot
B55 (N.m.s/rad) v=1knot
B44 (N.m.s/rad) v=5 knots
B55 (N.m.s/rad) v=5 knots

Lightship
1370
1.13E+03
1.33E+03
1.33E+03
8.62E+02
1.62E+03
8.62E+02
1.79E+03

50% loaded
2470
1.65E+03
1.94E+03
1.94E+03
1.24E+03
1.97E+03
6.37E+02
2.60E+03

Fully loaded
3567
2.17E+03
2.55E+03
2.55E+03
8.50E+02
2.01E+03
4.55E+02
3.43E+03

Table 12. Inertia and roll and pitch damping for the Medium unit
Weight (kg)
I44/G (kg.m)
I55/G (kg.m)
I66/G (kg.m)
B44 (N.m.s/rad) v=1knot
B55 (N.m.s/rad) v=1knot
B44 (N.m.s/rad) v=4 knots
B55 (N.m.s/rad) v=4 knots

Lightship
1087
1.13E+03
1.33E+03
1.33E+03
8.62E+02
1.62E+03
8.62E+02
1.79E+03

50% loaded
1803
1.65E+03
1.94E+03
1.94E+03
1.24E+03
1.97E+03
6.37E+02
2.60E+03

Fully loaded
2519
2.17E+03
2.55E+03
2.55E+03
8.50E+02
2.01E+03
4.55E+02
3.43E+03

Indicative results for the large and the medium unit are shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15
respectively, whiles a set of results for the motions at CoG of the large unit are given in
Table 13. The analysis for the location of the oil recovering brush tip has shown that:
- For the large unit, the RMS value of the relative position of brush tip to the sea
surface is almost always negative (tip submerged) which ensures the proper function
of the oil recovering device.
- For the medium unit, only in the lightship condition, the brush tip is almost constantly
above sea water. This could pose a problem of the initiation of the oil recovery.
However, this condition is not a real operating condition because the unit has no fuel.
The addition of even a small fuel weight (for few hours operation) will alleviate this
problem.
7

80

70

60
5

Alpha (deg/m)

50
Z (m/m)

40

30
2
20

7
1

10

0
0

0 10

2 12

4 14

6 16

8 18

0deg
45deg
90deg
135deg
10 180 deg20

Figure 14. Heave (left) and Roll (right) RAO for Large unit running at 5kts at full load condition
4

12

14

16

80

4.5

70

4
60
3.5
50
Alpha (deg/m)

Z (m/m)

3
2.5
2

40

30

1.5
20
1

7
10

0.5
0

0
0

0 10

2 12

4 14

6 16

8 18

0deg
45deg
90deg
135deg
1020
180deg

Figure 15. Heave (left) and Roll (right) RAO for Medium unit running at 4 kts at full load condition
Table 13. Motions at CoG for the large unit fully loaded running at 5 knots at sea4 state 4
Wave
Motions at direction
CoG
(deg)
Surge (m)
0
Sway (m)
45
Heave (m)
180
Roll (deg)
90
Pitch (deg)
180
Yaw (deg)
45

7.

RMS
0.64
0.44
0.56
4.72
6.06
1.38

T0
9.23
7.98
3.55
3.35
2.28
6.08

PROPULSION AND STEERING

Amax (1/3)
1.16
0.78
0.84
8.32
10.99
2.46

Amax (6h)
2.63
1.81
2.42
20.41
26.75
5.78

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Evaluation of the propulsion system was made by SSRC [14], considering the initial &
lifecycle costs, system reliability & performance, maintenance & manpower
requirements, as well as vessel arrangement options. The mission profile of EU-MOP
units is closer to a dynamically positioned vessel rather than a conventional sea-going
ship, therefore the design of the EU-MOP unit propulsion system must be made with this
in mind. For such a mission profile, the propulsion system must be able to generate
counter forces against environmental forces such as wind, current and waves.
Environmental forces are omni-directional, therefore, propulsion & steering system or
devices must have the ability to perform station keeping operations under these
conditions. The propulsion system must also be able to generate enough power in
longitudinal direction to move the vessel from location to location.
In many aspects, the design of a propulsion system for dynamic positioning (DP)
applications varies from that of a conventional propulsion system. A conservative design
philosophy must be used. While the design objective for conventional propulsion system

12

14

places peak efficiency on or near the systems maximum continuous rating, a propulsion
system designed for DP service should be selected and sized to meet the absolute survival
requirements, placing the system efficiency based on the anticipated average power level.
The propulsion and energy system requirements for EUMOP units are indicated Table 14.
Propulsion
Hull Weight (kg)
Total Weight (kg)
Volume (m3)
Power at Thrust (kW)

Table 14. Propulsion requirements

Large Unit
150
278
0.40
24.08

Medium Unit
100
180
0.30
5.42

Three types of transmission systems were considered and are compared based on the
point where the drive left the vessel:
1. Mechanical Transmission Drive
2. Hydraulic Transmission Drive
3. Electrical Transmission Drive (Batteries + Engine or Fuel Cell Charging System)
Both the mechanical and the hydraulic transmission systems require a prime mover which
would probably be a small reciprocating diesel powered internal combustion engine. At
this relatively shallow draught, using a diesel engine as a prime mover has a number of
disadvantages compared to a battery driven array. The ongoing need for fuel, running
spares such as filters and lubricating oil and the near presence of seawater that may
ingress into the engine are such distinctive disadvantages. A diesel driven unit would
always find salt getting into the air inlet system. Onshore there would need to be
adequate supplies of fuel, lubricating oil and filters as well as engine component spares
and this cost should be factored into account.
The vessels judging from the performed analysis would require a much larger prime
mover if a hydraulic drive was used. However when electric drives are used the
efficiency increases over that of the hydraulic drive and therefore the electric drive could
be better matched to the specification of power asked at the energy output. There then
begs the question that if we use a generating set to power both the large and the medium
units what the power utilization would be as the diesel engine operates best at 85%MCR
and begins to coke up at 60% MCR. A comparison of the drive systems is shown in
Table 15.
The selected drive system is an electrical drive system, but a hybrid diesel-electrical
system is also under investigation for the next preliminary design loop.

7.1

Propulsion Motors

The propulsion motors for the large unit are 2 Tecnadynes Model 8020 which provides
12.9 kW for each propeller and operates at 150VDC.

RED items
inside/within sea borne
side of thruster
BLACK items above
waterline

Table 15. Drive System Comparison [14]

Mechanical Drive
Hydraulic Drive System
System
Driven by direct drive or
Driven by hydraulic
gearbox off diesel/LPG
power pack off
engine
diesel/LPG engine

Electrical Drive
System
Driven by DC motor
off batteries

REQUIREMENTS
Hub
Column
Thrust Faces
Propeller Hub Bearings
Power Characteristics
Mass Characteristics
Lubrication
Failsafe
Steering
Vertical Drive Shaft
Feedback
C.P.P. Propeller
Controls
Vertical Drive Shaft
Bearings
Horizontal Drive Shaft
Bearings
Position & Flexibility
Hydraulic Pump
Bearings
Hydraulic Hoses
Electrical Motor
Bearings
Electrical Motor

Scaled for Power

Scaled for Mass

On Vessel

Likely

Scaled for Power

Scaled for Mass

Relief Valve
Can be Omitted
N/A
Supply Pressure
N/A
Swash Plate

Scaled for Power

Scaled for Mass
Sealed Unit
Overloads
Can be Omitted
N/A
Line Current
N/A
Varying Voltage

N/A

N/A

Hydraulic Motor

Electric Motor

Likely to be fixed

Movable

Movable

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Main Advantage

Tried and Tested

Easily Adaptable

Main Disadvantage

Too Many Moving Parts

Hydraulic Pressure
Losses and Noise

Does Not Need Prime

Mover
Needs Recharging/
Battery Weight

Figure 16 Tecnadyne's Model 8020 [15]

For the medium unit, 2 Tecnadynes which provide 1.5 kW for each propeller and
operates at 150VDC, were selected.

7.2

Steering

A steering column was used for both the large and the medium unit located outside the
hull. Each of the steering column connection units is universal in design, application and
interchangeable with every thruster, no matter the power or mass of the propulsion
system. It is a resilient and robust steering system that resists propeller upthrust and at the
same time is able to safely support the mass of the unit whilst combating the variation in
propeller load.
Locating the propeller under the after hull in the conventional manner was inappropriate
as experience has shown it is better to initiate a swing transfer of an all-in-one
replacement unit when required and accordingly, in such circumstances, the propeller and
its steering column must be in a position where it can be easily removed.
The propeller and the steering column were located outside the hull thus avoiding hull
penetration(s) under the waterline and this gives two further advantages as follows:
1. Avoidance of taking the boat out of the water to remove the propeller for repair of
replacement
2. Any damage to the propeller hub by collision or rope entwinement will not cause
damage to the hull and leaks or a substantial ingress of water

Figure 17. Bearing location (left) and cross section showing DC motor connection (right) [14]

8.

MANOEUVRING

Current IMO Criteria were applied to assess the manoeuvring characteristics of EUMOPs. Most up-to-date standards for ship manoeuvrability are set by the Resolution
MSC.137(76) while detailed explanatory notes are given by MSC Circular 1053. Based
on these criteria an initial manoeuvrability and directional stability assessment conducted
for both catamaran units.
This was done by computer simulations using a manoeuvring mathematical model to
assess the manoeuvring characteristics of large catamaran EU-MOP unit [16]. Since the
units are not covered by IMO standards, the assessment was made for Lightship + 10%
fuel condition and full weight condition. Environmental parameters such as wind and
current were also investigated, defined according to mission objectives.

8.1

Turning ability

For the turning ability investigation the full nozzle deflection angle of 60 was used in
each manoeuvre. The effect of speed and of the loading condition is shown in Figure 18
and Figure 19 respectively. It is obvious that as the load increases, the directional stability
of the catamaran unit decreases. The existing numerical results have shown that the large
catamaran unit initial turning ability is sufficiently within the IMO criteria.
However it should be noted that the hydrodynamic characteristics of the catamaran unit
were calculated assuming there are no interaction effects for initial design. It is reminded
here that for this assumption to be valid the ratio of hull separation to demihull beam
should be greater than 1.6 and yaw angles should be small [17].
7

5 knots
2 knots
3 knots
1 knot

Effect of Speed (Unloaded + 10% Fuel)

Y/L

0
-1

-1
X/L

Figure 18. Effect of speed to turning ability of large unit at the Unloaded+10% fuel condition [14]

3.5

Effect of Loading Condition (5 knots)

Unloaded + 10% Fuel
Fully Loaded

2.5

Y/L

1.5

0.5

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

-0.5
X/L

Figure 19. Effect of loading condition to turning ability for large units speed of 5 kts [14]

8.2

Yaw checking ability

Yaw checking ability of the large EUMOP unit was tested with different loading
conditions at 5 knots. The performance of the catamaran satisfied the criteria for the
maximum first overshoot is 10 and the maximum second overshoot is 25 for 10/10
Zig-Zag manoeuvre. An indicative result is shown in Figure 20.
15

Catamaran Full

Yaw
NDA
Roll

Yaw, NDA, Roll (degree)

10

0
0

10

-5

-10

-15
Time (sec)

Figure 20. 10/10 Zig-Zag Manoeuvre for large unit at the full load condition [14]

8.3

Course-keeping and Directional Stability in Waves

The course-keeping and the direction stability due to the effects of environment such as
winds, local currents and waves was investigated. The roughest environmental conditions
the EU-MOPs will face apply the large models, therefore the analysis was limited to the
large model only. Time domain motion simulations were made in six degrees of freedom,
assuming a Ka-4-70 propeller series in the Nozzle 19A. The P/D ratio was chosen as
1.230 as a standard off-the-shelf application. A cavitation and efficiency analysis was not
performed.
The directional control system was assumed to be governed by a ProportionalDifferential controller. The tuning of the system is done by Ziegler-Nichols parameters
[18]. Assessment of directional stability for the units was done in both operating speed
and transit speed. The environmental conditions were 19 knots wind speed and an
average speed of 0.8 knots current, which was modelled as a random walk in time, in
differing directions. A one meter significant wave height was selected to observe the
effect of waves on the system operability. The unit was given an initial 30 deviation
from course and the autopilot was commanded to bring the unit back on course to assess
the directional stability in different environmental scenarios. The results for the large unit
running
at 5 kts are shown in Figure 21.
45
40

35

30

Calm Water
Current
Waves
Current & Waves
Current & Wind & Waves

Y/L

25

20

15

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

X/L

Figure 21. Course-keeping Ability of the large unit at 5 kts [14]

The results has shown that although the catamaran unit seemed to be within the
operational limits, the effect of environment on directional stability was significant and a
strategy to overcome these effects must be implemented to the governing mechanism.
Additionally, the effect of the propellers on pitch motion was an issue requiring more
thorough analysis.

9.

ELECTRONICS

Four sensor configurations were investigated for the Large and Medium models. Among
those configurations, one that best comply with the various Artificial Intelligence
Architecture was selected. It is comprised by the following sensors for the Large and
Medium EU-MOP units [19]:
- a DGPS system,
- an obstacle detection and collision avoidance system,
- a depth sensor,
- a compass,
- an oil in water sensor,
- level indicators for the fuel tank and the oil storage tank,
- a radio-based communication system,
- an embedded control processor / computer.

10.

OIL SKIMMING DEVICE

Both large and medium catamaran units are using an Oleophilic belt type oil skimming
device similar to the one shown in Figure 22.

Figure 22. Oleophilic belt type [1]

11.

HULL CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL

Two materials have been identified as applicable for the units; namely FRP and
aluminium. Initially, a detailed analysis for the selection of aluminium alloys was
performed. Different grades of aluminium alloys were identified and total weight and
thickness values were obtained using classification societys rules. The scantling
determination covered two aspects for the selected rounded types aluminium alloys; plate
thickness and addition to hull weight for the each stiffener spacing case, minimum
thickness required for bottom and side shell in the hull and addition to hull weight. The
findings from the analysis can be summarised as follows:

Three types of 5xxx series were chosen, which are regularly used for similar types
of small working boats in the marine industry; Aluminium Alloy Grade 5083,
Aluminium Alloy Grade 5086, Aluminium Alloy Grade 5754.
From the selected grades, Grade 5083 has proven more suitable in terms of total
weight with less thickness within the limits required by classification societies.

In order to identify the required mechanical properties of selected aluminium alloys, the
rules and estimation methods specified by classification societies have been followed. For
this task, Lloyds Registers rules on hull construction in aluminium have been used
(Lloyds Register, 2004).

12.

CONCLUSIONS

The conceptual design of autonomous oil-skimming catamaran units, developed within

the EU-MOP (Elimination Units for Marine Oil Pollution) Research Project funded by
the European Commission (FP6, Contact No. TST4-CT-2004-516221, Duration 20052008), has been presented. In particular, the designs and performance of a large and a
medium size unit that fulfil the set requirements and specifications according to the EUMOP operational concept have been analysed. The systems comprising the units have
been outlined. The present findings suggest that the ultimate goal of this project to
develop efficient, practicable and feasible designs that ensure adequate oil confronting
records for the proposed units is achievable. Currently the second stage of the preliminary
design is underway, along with model experiments to verify the hydrodynamic
performance of the planned units in a rational way.

REFERENCES
[1].
[2].
[3].
[4].

[5].
[6].
[7].

[8].
[9].

Kakalis N.M.P., Ventikos Y.P., Ayaz Z. and Turan O., Deliverable D1.3 Technical
Requirements, document 01-30-RD-2005-09-00-1f from the EU-MOP project, 31-10-2005.
Lemesle P., Kakalis N., Fritsch D. and Turan O., Design of Monohull EUMOP units to
clean oil spills, Small Craft Conference, Bodrum, Turkey, November 2006.
Lemesle P., Le Corre Y. and Ventikos Y.P., Deliverable D2.1 Integrated Design Initial
phase, document 02-10-RD-2005-11-01-1 from the EU-MOP project, 30-11-2005.
Ayaz Z., Armaoglu E., Turan O., Ghozlan F. and Lemesle P., Deliverable D.3.1 EU-MOP
Energy Source and Propulsion-Initial Phase, document 01-20-REP-2005-01-00-0 from the
EU-MOP project, 31-01-2006.
Lewis E.V. (editor), Principles of Naval Architecture, Vol. II, Resistance, Propulsion and
Vibration, 2nd Revision, ISBN 0-939773-01-5, SNAME 1988, pp. 106-108.
Lamb T. (editor), Ship Design and Construction, Vol. II, SNAME 2004, Chapter 45.
Papanikolaou A., Kaklis P., Koskinas C. and Spanos D., Hydrodynamic Optimisation of
Fast-Displacement Catamarans, 21st Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics (ONR), 1997,
pp. 697-714.
Holtrop J. and Mennen G.G.J., An Approximate Power Prediction Method, International
Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 89, 1982.
Holtrop J., A Statistical Reanalysis of Resistance and Propulsion Data, International
Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 31, 1984.

[10]. NAPA Oy (2005), NAPA software, http://www.napa.fi/

[11]. Kakalis N.M.P. and Ventikos Y.P., Deliverable D3.2 Engine Selection, document 03-20RD-2006-09-00-1 from the EU-MOP project, 30-04-2006.
[12]. http://iseek.com/solomontech/newsite/public_html/motordrive.htm, Solomon Technologies
Inc.,
[13]. AQUA+, http://www.ec-nantes.fr/Sirehna/products/products.htm, SIREHNA.
[14]. Armaoglu E., McNair B., Turan O., EU-MOP Energy Source and Propulsion, The
Selection, document 01-20-REP-2005-01-00-0 from the EU-MOP project, 31-08-2006.
[15]. Tecnoval Inc., http://www.tecnadyne.com/thrusters.htm
[16]. Armaoglu E., Ayaz Z., Turan O., Design of EU-MOP Units Integrated Characteristics,
document 01-20-REP-2006-01-00-0 from the EU-MOP project, 01-06-2006.
[17]. Dubrovsky, V. A., Lyakhovitsky, A. A.,Multi-Hull Ships, Backbone Publishing, Fair Lawn,
NJ, 2001.
[18]. Astrom K. J., Hagglund T., PID Controllers: Theory, Design, and Tuning, International
Society for Measurement and Con; 2nd edition, 1995.
[19]. Fritsch D., Cellier N., Doucy O. and Vrhovac M., Artificial Intelligence Structure, rev.1",
document 04-20-RD-2005-13-01-1 from the EU-MOP project, 24-01-2006.