Alternative Powering For High Speed Ships

Interim Progress Report
On the
Economic Analysis Of
Alternative Powering Concepts
For High Speed Sealift Ships
5 November 2001
Prepared For:
Center for Commercial Development of Transportation Technology
6300 State University Drive, Suite 332
Long Beach, California 90815
Submitted by:
John J. McMullen Associates, Inc.
4300 King Street, Suite 400
Alexandria Virginia 22302
703-418-0100
The material presented in this report is based on conceptual design information of an advanced propulsion system that is
currently under limited development. Use of the engineering and design information developed herein is highly preliminary and
intended only to derive a baseline economic comparison between this system, such as it might exist after full-scale development
in 10+ years hence, and a more conventional state-of-the-art powering alternative for the unique requirements of a high speed
cross-ocean commercial ship application.
i
Alternative Powering for High Speed Ships 11/05/01
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This interim report was developed to document the in-process status of this project as of the end of Phase I. The
original proposal, the tasking and funding breakdowns, and overall project scope were not structured to support a
clean break between Phase I and II, therefore this interim report represent a “snap-shot” in the project’s progress.
As such this report documents progress to date, technical and safety issues that were identified during the original
reactor design, the current analysis of these issues, and the current Phase II approach to resolve these issues.
This project’s original goal was to prepare a concepts for conventionally and nuclear powered FastShip Atlantic
vessels, and to develop a detailed economic analysis of these concepts to determine the viability of commercially
operating a nuclear-powered variant. JJMA originally submitted a proposal to perform this project as a single,
seamless effort. The proposed team included JJMA as the prime and lead for the ship designs and economic
analysis, Fastship Atlantic as a sub-contractor for the ship concept, and General Atomics for all work related to the
reactor design and operations. Due to the timing of the annual Research and Development cycles, CCDOTT split
the tasking for this project into two specific efforts, Phase I provided for with FY00 funding, and Phase II provided
for with FY02 funding.
Status ~ As of this interim report, the Team has completed the originally planned requirements analysis and initial
reactor and ship sizing designs. The Requirements have been documented under separate correspondence, and the
key findings of the reactor and ship concept designs are provided in this report.
During the development of the initial tasks, and the review of the results of these tasks by JJMA and CCDOTT and
their representatives, a total of 11 technical and safety issues related to the reactor design were identified. A
summary of these issues include:
1. An assessment of the reactor’s ability to maintain sub-criticality while experience progressive seawater
flooding at all conditions of operations and shut-down is required.
2. An assessment of the reactor component’s ability to withstand the thermal shock anticipated from the
progressive flooding envisioned in item #1 is required.
3. An assessment of the reactor’s control rod, reactor control, and reactor structural sub-systems ability to
accommodate ship motions is required.
4. A fuel element failure history is required to be provided, along with threshold and goal requirements, and a
plan to ensure the threshold can be achieved through design and testing.
5. Provide assurance that the current land-based containment systems are suitable for a marine environment.
6. Provide assurances that the assumption that the assumption that a turbine blade casualty will not breach the
reactor primary system is valid.
7. Investigate the assumption that analysis of reactor operations at full-power conditions adequately accounts
for the variations in operating conditions routinely experienced by a commercial vessel.
8. Investigate the reactor’s ability to accommodate rapid changes in operating loads that would be
experienced during periods of vessel maneuvering operations.
9. It is necessary to determine the rationale start-up/shut-down times that should be anticipated for the reactor
given the anticipated marine Op-Tempo, and the reactor characteristics (e.g., the graphite walls)
10. The selection of re-fueling intervals used in the economic analysis must be based on rationale, feasible fuel
purity levels. Changes to current limits and regulations should be investigated for feasibility.
11. A more complete description of the Reactor’s auxiliary systems are required.
Phase II Approach ~ Adequately addressing the 11 identified issues is critical to successful completion of this
study. As of the development of this interim report, an initial response to these issues has been developed, and the
Phase II proposed work-scope has been adjusted to provide for the effort required to address the issues. A Revised
Phase II approach has been defined that increases the focus on addressing the identified technical issues.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................................................II
1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................1
1.1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................1
1.1.1. Technical Guidance ...............................................................................................................................1
1.1.2. Economic Guidance...............................................................................................................................2
1.1.3. Operating Issues Guidance...................................................................................................................3
1.1.4. Regulatory Issues Guidance ..................................................................................................................3
1.2. PURPOSE OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................4
2. OVERVIEW OF GT-MHR REACTOR ...........................................................................................................6
2.1. GT-MHR SAFETY FEATURES .........................................................................................................................8
3. MODIFICATION OF GT-MHR FOR MARINE APPLICATION ..............................................................10
3.1. REACTOR DESIGN DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................10
3.1.1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................................10
3.1.2. Design Configuration ..........................................................................................................................10
3.1.3. System Design and Arrangement .........................................................................................................11
3.1.4. Shielding Design..................................................................................................................................12
3.1.5. System Weights ....................................................................................................................................15
3.2. REACTOR MARINIZATION ISSUES AND RESOLUTION ....................................................................................16
4. REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................................20
4.1. ECONOMIC ....................................................................................................................................................20
4.2. MISSION AND OPERATING PROFILE ..............................................................................................................20
4.3. OVERALL TECHNICAL AND PROGRAMMATIC REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................20
4.3.1. Conventional Variant Design Criteria.................................................................................................20
5. ATLANTIC VARIANT – CONVENTIONAL POWERING (FASTSHIP) .................................................22
5.1. NAVAL ARCHITECTURE &MARINE ENGINEERING DESIGN ISSUES ...............................................................22
5.1.1. Hull Sizing and Configuration .............................................................................................................22
5.2. DESIGN INTEGRATION FOR CONVENTIONALLY POWERED ATLANTIC VARIANT ...........................................23
5.2.1. Propulsion Plant Design......................................................................................................................23
5.2.2. Machinery Arrangement ......................................................................................................................23
5.2.3. Manning...............................................................................................................................................23
5.3. PROPULSION PLANT COST ............................................................................................................................23
5.3.1. Acquisition ...........................................................................................................................................23
5.3.2. Operational and Support Costs ...........................................................................................................23
5.3.3. System Disposal Costs .........................................................................................................................23
6. NUCLEAR POWERED VARIANT ................................................................................................................24
6.1. NAVAL ARCHITECTURE & MARINE ENGINEERING .........................................................................................24
6.1.1. Hull Sizing and Configuration .............................................................................................................24
6.2. DESIGN INTEGRATION FOR NUCLEAR VARIANT ...........................................................................................25
6.2.1. Propulsion Plant Design......................................................................................................................25
6.2.2. Machinery Arrangement ......................................................................................................................25
6.2.3. Manning...............................................................................................................................................25
6.3. PROPULSION PLANT COST ............................................................................................................................25
6.3.1. Acquisition ...........................................................................................................................................26
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
7. PACIFIC VARIANT - CONVENTIONAL POWERING DESCRIPTION................................................27

7.1. NAVAL ARCHITECTURE & MARINE ENGINEERING .........................................................................................27
7.2. DESIGN INTEGRATION ..................................................................................................................................29
7.3. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................................29
7.3.1. Acquisition ...........................................................................................................................................29
8. REMAINING WORK SCOPE.........................................................................................................................31
8.1. ALTERNATIVE POWERING FOR HIGH SPEED SHIPS .......................................................................................31
9. SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................................32
iv
1. INTRODUCTION
This project was commissioned by the California State University at Long Beach (CSULB), Center for
the Commercial Deployment of Transportation Technologies (CCDoTT) to evaluate the projected
economic feasibility of an alternative nuclear powering concept for high speed cargo ship application.
This report is an interim deliverable that addresses the original Program Plan and identifies the team’s
current findings. Specific attention in this report is directed towards the identification of a number of
technical and safety issues and the definition of a plan to respond to these issues. These issues are
discussed in Section 3.2 of this report; the plan is outlined in Section 7, and is detailed in the Phase II
Proposal provided to CCDOTT separately.
1.1. BACKGROUND
The USN High Speed Sealift Ship Technology Workshop in 1997 identified that high-speed sealift ships
are technically feasible. The Workshop showed that it is possible to build ships with speeds above 30
knots and useful weight fractions. The Workshop also demonstrated that as the range requirement for
such ships increases, the resulting growth in the weight of fuel rapidly diminishes the sealift capacity of
the platform. Indeed, studies have shown that at some range the ship becomes incapable of carrying
cargo, having all of its lift capacity taken up by own-ship’s fuel.
Concurrent with the efforts of the Sealift Workshop, the Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers (SNAME) formed an ad hoc technical panel (Ad hoc Panel #10) to evaluate technical
alternatives for high speed propulsion of marine vehicles. This panel recognized that the two most
promising technologies, Nuclear power and fuel cells, offered different benefit trade-offs and therefore
were likely to be applied to separate ship types.
In addition, it is recognized that alternative power sources may prove an economically desirable option
for ranges of 5,000-10,000 nautical miles when fuel costs and/or freight rates reach certain levels.
Conventional pressurized water reactor plants are large and heavy, and have not proven to be
economically viable for commercial marine propulsion. There are, however, new alternative nuclear
power systems that potentially offer higher power-to-weight ratios and smaller volume requirements,
which have not been previously examined for these applications. Assuming their demonstration of
technical feasibility through further engineering development, these higher power-to-weight ratios offer
the promise of achieving a nuclear-favorable situation.
1.1.1. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
To make an evaluation of the feasibility of using nuclear power to provide propulsion for high speed
commercial containerships, an economic comparison to conventionally powered containerships was
1
deemed necessary for both Atlantic and Pacific trade routes. A matrix of ship configurations to be
assessed is presented below.
Conventionally Powered Nuclear Powered

Atlantic Service Based on the FASTSHIP Atlantic Atlantic Service Conventional Powered
Design, Modified for the Route Ship used as a baseline, modified for the
nuclear propulsion plan.
Details provided in Section 5 of this Details provided in Section 6 of this

report. report.
Pacific Service Atlantic Service Conventional Same design as that used for the Atlantic
Powered Ship used as a baseline, Service.
modified for the Pacific non-stop
route.
Details provided in Section 7 of this Details provided in Section 6 of this

report. report.
As a baseline ship configuration the FASTSHIP Atlantic conventionally powered high speed
containerized cargo ship was used (and herein referred to as “FASTSHIP”). Since this variant was
initially designed for the shorter distance transatlantic service it does not have the range required for
trading between the US and Pacific ports such as Hong Kong and Singapore. For comparison of
transpacific economic alternatives, a lengthened FASTSHIP design was developed. Because of the
efficiencies offered by using a non-conventional power source, the nuclear powered design alternative
remains the same for both Atlantic and Pacific service. Thus, in all, three ship configurations will be
evaluated as part of this project in support of the economic analysis.
1.1.2. ECONOMIC GUIDANCE
The ultimate objective of this study is to perform an economic analysis of the alternative powering of
high-speed ships. This analysis will use a two-step approach to insure that all relevant cost and
economic considerations properly evaluated. First, feasible engineering solutions to the Atlantic and
Pacific variant will be developed. Then an economic assessment of the different variants will be
performed. The economic analysis will include consideration of all potential life cycle costs
including operating costs (e.g., crew, fuel, and consumables) as well as revenues (e.g., price structures
and anticipated revenues), but will exclude the extensive non-recurring development costs associated
with both the nuclear and conventionally powered alternatives. The results will be presented in a Net
Present Value (NPV) calculation to determine the relative results of each variant. Certain
assumptions will be used in the NPV calculation included:
• Relevant costs will include “nth of-a-kind” ship acquisition and all associated operating
expenses (including nuclear fuel reloading and disposal).
2
• Relevant revenues will include fares and other significant revenue sources.
• A cost of capital equal to the current Federal Government bond interest rates will be used
• A series of timelines will analyzed, including 1 year, 5 year, and 10 year operations.
• Cargo weight is constant between all variants.
• Economic analysis will be preformed on all four alternatives and will include project
operations tempo, manning, life cycle costs, acquisition costs, disposal costs, and cargo
capacity.
• Economic studies will be based upon the information available for the Baseline
FASTSHIP Atlantic program.
• The Pacific variant economic studies will be extrapolated from the Baseline FASTSHIP
Atlantic program.
1.1.3. OPERATING ISSUES GUIDANCE
For the purposes of this study, operating profiles were based on the known FASTSHIP Atlantic
concept and extrapolations of those concepts for Pacific routes. Critical assumptions include:
• Cargo capacity and handling systems will remain the same for all study variants
• Port infrastructure requirements and capabilities will remain constant
• Operating profiles, routes, and usage will be identical for both the conventionally and
nuclear powered FASTSHIP alternatives, amended only if required for nuclear refueling
requirements
Primary importance was given to maintaining the integrity of the known FASTSHIP market analysis
for Atlantic service. This requirement meant that speed and cargo weight capacities were assumed
constant between the known conventionally powered FASTSHIP and the proposed nuclear powered
variant. For the Transpacific studies, the nature of the nuclear power system permits the ship size to
be the same as for the Atlantic study. The conventionally powered Pacific variant was sized to
include additional fuel while maintaining cargo weight capacity.
It is recognized that the proposed use of nuclear technology as a propulsion system for cargo ships
presents a number of major technical, safety, social and geo-political considerations. This report does
not address these latter two issues. To the extent appropriate, certain important safety issues have
been addressed commensurate with good design practice and both historic and anticipated technical
and regulatory considerations.
1.1.4. REGULATORY ISSUES GUIDANCE
It is well recognized that nuclear power is not presently a viable alternative for commercial maritime
applications. While there were some nuclear powered commercial ships constructed in the past 50
years, they have either been uneconomical to operate --N.S. SAVANNAH (USA) and OTTO HAHN
3
(FRG) demonstration ships-- or have been government-owned and used for public service (several
Soviet nuclear icebreakers). Because of this, there is not a significant body of currently applicable
regulatory material upon which to base any proposed design or installation. In fact, the United States
Coast Guard deleted all references to commercial nuclear propulsion applications from the Code of
Federal Regulations in 1995. Thus, for the purposes of this study, existing (or the most recent version
of the previously existing) regulations have been considered and applied where appropriate. Where
the regulations are no longer in force or may not be appropriate to the state of the art in ship design,
assumptions have been made concerning how regulations might be developed or applied. This report
does not offer any definitive proposals for regulations nor does it necessarily take into account all
regulatory aspects, which might come into play. These efforts would be properly addressed during
the extensive engineering development, design and rulemaking process inherent with the application
of any new technology to the marine industry. Instead, the present project considers only the
economic aspect of the application. Indeed, the reasoning behind this division of effort is that only if
there is economic incentive does it make sense to open and resolve what will assuredly be extensive
and expensive regulatory issues.
In addition to the pre-1995 USCG rules, the most recent American Bureau of Shipping rules
pertaining to nuclear propulsion systems is dated 1968. To support these two sources, research was
conducted into relevant nuclear standards for other nations including Japan. The reactor design in
this project (provided by General Atomics) was based on the appropriate sections of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) since it a system intended for land-based power
production. These guidelines were augmented by JJMA guidance to General Atomics concerning
“good maritime design practice” for the installation of mechanical systems aboard ships.
1.2. PURPOSE OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The original plan for this study was to perform an economic analysis of the feasibility of nuclear
power as a powering alternative for high-speed ships. This study would have been accomplished via
the development of an engineering concept design for the ship using conventional and nuclear
propulsion systems. These designs would have been followed by a detailed cost estimate for the ship
and nuclear component acquisition, operation and support and disposal costs.
During the initial phase of the study, the engineering concept design for the nuclear variant surfaced a
number of technical issues. These issues are listed in section 2.1.1 and focus on the technical
operation, safety and marine viability of the nuclear variant. Since the importance of these issues
may well determine the basic technical feasibility of the concept a redirection of this study was
required. In conjunction with CCDOTT, it was decided that additional engineering effort would be
focused on the development of responses to the engineering issues. The development of the solutions
to these issues would insure that the variants in this study were conceptually feasible at least on a
first-level basis (i.e.-no clearly apparent “Fatal Flaws”). It should be noted that these changes to the
study’s scope were planned within the initial cost cap for the overall study; thus the increased focus
4
on the technical issues resulted in a reduction in the economic analysis detail. The final analysis will
still analyze the economic potential of each variant, however that analysis is not contained in this
report.
5
2. OVERVIEW OF GT-MHR REACTOR
The power plant for this study is based on the Gas Turbine – Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR)
developed by General Atomics of San Diego, California. The GT-MHR is an advanced nuclear
power system that, assuming considerable further engineering development and resolution of some
basic issues relating to nuclear safety, may be well suited to shipboard application by virtue of its
compact size, high thermal efficiency, certain inherent safety features and environmental advantages.
The concept was originally developed by General Atomics under U.S. Department of Energy funding
for stationary power production, and is still under development. Thus, there a number of major
considerations involving its adaptation to shipboard propulsion that will require further engineering
analysis and development specifically related to a marine application. These issues are identified in
Section 3.
The GT-MHR couples a helium-cooled modular

helium reactor, contained in one vessel, with a high
efficiency Brayton cycle gas turbine Power
Conversion System (PCS), contained in an adjacent
vessel. The stationary GT-MHR module, as shown in
Figure 2-1 is designed to be located below ground in
a concrete silo with both vessels in a vertical
arrangement. However, the vessel dimensions and
orientation of the PCS vessel can be altered to fit the
specific marine application.
Figure 2-2 shows the GT-MHR system diagram with

seawater cooling. Helium coolant is heated in the
reactor by flowing through coolant channels in
graphite fuel elements. The heated coolant flows
through the cross-vessel, which connects the reactor
vessel with the PCS vessel where the helium it is Figure 2-1. GT-MHR Cross-Section
expanded through a gas turbine to drive the electric

generators and compressors. From the turbine exhaust, the helium flows through the hot side of the
recuperator transferring residual heat energy to helium on the recuperator cold side returning to the
reactor. From the recuperator, the helium flows through the precooler and then passes through low
and high-pressure compressors. From the compressor outlet, the helium flows through the cold, high-
pressure side of the recuperator where it is heated for return to the reactor.
An intermediate cooling loop is used as a safety buffer between the primary cooling helium and the
external heat sink (e.g., seawater). This provides a double barrier (precooler and intermediate heat
exchanger) against possible release of any radioactive material to the environment. The intermediate
cooling loop also provides essential cooling to the generator.
6
The PCS incorporates an integral electric generator on the same shaft as the gas turbine. The generator
produces electrical power at constant frequency independent of the gas turbine output power. Thus the
generation of electrical power enables the use of electrical motors to power the waterjets. In order to
provide the very high power levels required of the drive motors, their weight and volume is significant.
As of this interim report, our analysis has used homo-polar permanent magnet motors to support
development of the weight estimate, ship and ship system sizing, and associated analyses. Electric motors
were selected as the logical counter-part to take advantage of the electrical power generators integral to
our baseline GT-MHR design. The final Phase I study report will further investigate the prime mover
selection, including execution of a top-level prime mover trade-off study.
Intermediate
HX
Intermediate
Loop Pump
Recuperator Precooler
Seawater
Intake
REACTOR
Helium Generator
Turbine
Intermediate Compressors
Loop Water
Seawater
Figure 2-2. GT-MHR System Diagram
7
2.1. GT-MHR SAFETY FEATURES
One of the most important characteristics of any nuclear powered concept for commercial shipboard
application is safety. The GT-MHR concept offers the potential of a number of inherent safety features.
Safety is achieved through a combination of characteristics and design selections that take maximum
advantage of the inherent characteristics. These characteristics include:
• Use of Helium coolant ~ in its use as a single phase coolant, its “nobility” or inertness,
has no reactivity effects
• Graphite Core ~ selection of graphite provides a core with high heat capacity, slow
thermal response, and structural stability at very high temperatures
• Refractory coated particle fuel ~ selected coating system is designed to retain fission
products at temperature much higher than the GT-MHR normal operating parameters
• Negative temperature coefficient of reactivity ~ the GT-MHR design concept provides
stability during power excursions by automatically lowering neutron flux levels with
increasing core temperatures
• Redundant Cooling Systems ~ the designed of a low power density core in an un-
insulated steel reactor vessel surrounded by a reactor cavity cooling system (RCCS)
provides layered cooling systems
The large heat capacity of graphite core structure is an important inherent characteristic that significantly
contributes to maintaining safe fuel temperatures. The thermal mass retains excursions in the fuel below
their damage limits during the high temperatures experienced during loss of cooling, or coolant, events.
A substantial time (on the order of days vs minutes for other reactors) is available for operators to take
corrective actions to mitigate abnormal events and to restore the reactor to normal operations before fuel
element damage would occur in the absence of cooling.
The reactor fuel particles are composed of radionuclides contained within a multi-layered refractory
coating. The purposes of these coating are to provide space and protection surrounding the fuel particle.
One of these layers is to provide gaseous expansion space for the byproducts of fission. Another layer
serves as physical protection to the fuel particles. The use of these coating provides for fuel element
containment and protection without the intervention of system operators.
The reactor core concept design described herein features a high negative temperature coefficient of
reactivity. This feature, which is an inherent property of the uranium fuel and graphite moderator, adds a
large amount of negative reactivity in the event that the core temperature rises above the normal operating
temperature. Thus, any rise in core temperature reduces the reactor’s thermal power level, and vice-versa.
This is an important feature in basic reactor safety and a very desirable feature in load following
applications such as marine propulsion.
8
The redundant cooling systems include the two active systems, the PCS and the shutdown cooling system
shown in Figure 2-1, and the RCCS. The RCCS independently provides for the removal of core decay
heat from the reactor vessel in a passive manner. For passive removal of decay heat, the core power
density and the annular core configuration are designed such that the decay heat can be removed by heat
conduction, thermal radiation and natural convection without exceeding the fuel particle accident
temperature design limit. Core decay heat from the fuel elements is conducted to the pressure vessel and
then transferred by radiation from the vessel to the normally operating RCCS. The RCCS is composed of
a cooling flow of exterior ambient air circulated within the reactor annular core space via convection.
The combination of these safety characteristics and design features result in a reactor that should be able
to withstand loss of coolant circulation or even loss of coolant inventory and maintain fuel temperatures
below damage limits and protect the environment. Further design development of the reactor and
associated auxiliary systems is necessary to analyze and support this claim. Additional design activities
in these areas are contained in the Phase II Proposal to begin this analysis.
9
3. MODIFICATION OF GT-MHR FOR MARINE APPLICATION
During the execution of the initial elements of this project, a number of “first order” technical and
operational issues surfaced with respect to the marinization of the advanced GT-MHR system. Since the
GT-MHR is currently under development for land-based application the design concept was reviewed
against the additional design considerations that can affect a marine reactor. A list of the considerations
was developed and the JJMA Team is currently focusing our effort on the preparation of responses to
these items.
Our initial review of these issues did not appear to identify any that pose a fatal flaw to the technical
feasibility of this system, although in a number of cases, their final resolution will only be achievable in
further applications-oriented engineering development. Additional specific responses to these issues will
be provided in the final report documenting the results of this project.
3.1. REACTOR DESIGN DESCRIPTION
3.1.1. INTRODUCTION
Initially, two GT-MHR reactors, each with a nominal power generation of 125MWe have been
investigated this application. The reactor power level matches that necessary to support the 37.5-knot
FASTSHIP speed. The design was prepared to meet the identified requirements for construction and
operation of a marine reactor within a cargo vessel. These led to the following initial design changes
from the 280 MWe GT-MHR land based system configuration:
• The reactor core comprises of standard graphite blocks stacked 4 blocks high.
• Additional shielding was required due to the confined space and need for normal
maintenance/refueling operations.
• The power conversion system was placed in a horizontal configuration and divided into two
vessels, separating the heat exchanger components from the remaining components.
• Helium coolant inventory control was incorporated to allow 1% per second power increase in
FASTSHIP design.
3.1.2. DESIGN CONFIGURATION
Physical parameters of the cargo ship, reactor vessels and components, are presented in the attached
AutoCAD drawings. As shown, the reactor vessels are located below the third deck. The ship will be
powered through an integrated electric drive system, with the 250 MWe produced by the two reactors’
gas turbine generators driving five advanced technology electric motors. Our current design development
has identified a change to a single reactor with two gas turbines as a better design choice. Additional
design development of this single reactor will be included in the final study report.
10
3.1.3. SYSTEM DESIGN AND ARRANGEMENT
The basic system arrangement is shown in Figure 3.1.3-1. No inter-cooling was used in order to simplify
the cycle. This trade-off significantly simplifies the plants’ auxiliary support systems at only a small loss
of over-all plant efficiency. The compressor is designed to operate on the same shaft as the turbine. A
nominal temperature of 65°F is used as a coolant for the pre-cooler system. Thermal hydraulic analysis
was performed on the 125MWe GT-MHR design using a previously developed spreadsheet program.
Results from this are also shown in Figure 3-1. Key thermal hydraulic parameters are given in Table 3-1.
Drawings of the shipboard installation are shown in Appendix A to this report.
9 4 7 O F (5 0 8 O C )
7 .1 3 M P a (1 0 3 5 p s ia )
G E N E R A T O R (1 2 5 M W e )
9 7 6 O F (5 2 5 O C )
G T -M H R 2 .6 2 M P a (3 8 0 p s ia )
(2 8 0 M W t)
T U R B IN E
1 6 0 7 O F (8 7 5 O C )
7 .1 3 M P a (1 0 3 3 p s ia )
RECUPERATOR
4 2 4 O F (2 1 8 O C )
2 .6 M P a (3 7 7 p s ia )
PREC O O LER
FROM HEAT
S IN K
3 9 5 O F (2 0 2 O C ) 7 4 O F (2 3 O C )
7 .2 2 M P a (1 0 4 7 p s ia ) 2 .5 9 M P a (3 7 6 p s ia )
COMPRESSOR
Figure 3-1. FASTSHIP Power Unit Flow Schematic
11
Table 3-1
Key Thermal Hydraulic Parameters
Number of Power Units........................................................................................ 2

Reactor Thermal Power Per Power Unit .................................................280 MWt
Net Electrical Power Per Power Unit ..................................................... 125 MWe
Total Power Produced ............................................................................ 250 MWe
Net Plant Efficiency ....................................................................................... 45%
Core Inlet Pressure ..................................................................................1035 psia
Core Inlet Temperature .................................................................. 947 8F/508 8C
Core Outlet Temperature.............................................................. 1607 8F/875 8C
Turbine Outlet Pressure.............................................................................380 psia

Turbine Inlet Temperature............................................................ 1286 8F/696 8C
Turbine Outlet Temperature........................................................... 976 8F/525 8C
Turbine Expansion Ratio................................................................................... 1.7
Recuperator Effectiveness................................................................................. .95

Recuperator LP Outlet Temperature .............................................. 424 8F/218 8C
Compressor Inlet Temperature ........................................................... 74 8F/23 8C

Compressor Outlet Pressure ....................................................................1047 psia
Compressor Pressure Ratio ............................................................................. 2.79
3.1.4. SHIELDING DESIGN
The identified requirement is “unlimited” access in the cargo area above the reactor, which amounts to the
tissue dose criteria as shown in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2
Dose Criteria
Position Maximum Tissue Dose (cSv/hr)
Top Deck 0.001
Bottom of Vessel 0.020
1600 cm from center of reactor (radius) 0.001
2-D shielding calculations have been performed to calculate the radial, top, and bottom thickness using a
variety of material layers to meet the dose criteria. Tables 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5 summarize these results.
Table 3-6 estimates the cumulative weights, excluding the balance of plant components.
12
Table 3-3
Radial Shield
Radius (cm) Thickness (cm) Material Weight (MT)
415.7<r<425.7 10 Pb 351.1
425.7<r<435.7 10 CH2 31.1
435.7<r<437.7 2 B4C 15.8
437.7<r<452.7 15 CH2 48.3
452.7<r<454.7 2 B4C 32.7
454.7<r<456.7 2 Pb 76.1
Total 39 - 555.1
Table 3-4
Top Axial Shield
Z-bounds (cm) Thick (cm) R-bounds (cm) Material WEIGHT (MT)
335<z<360 25 0<r<240 DU/Pb 223.3
360<z<400 40 0<r<456.7 CH2 26.2
400<z<410 10 0<r<456.7 B4C 16.4
410<z<415 5 0<r<456.7 Pb 37.8
415<z<443 28 0<r<456.7 CH2 18.3
443<z<453 10 0<r<456.7 B4C 16.4
453<z<460 7 0<r<456.7 Pb 53.0
Total 125 - -
391.4
Table 3-5
Bottom Axial Shield
Z-bounds (cm) Thick (cm) R-bounds (cm) Material Weight (MT)
335<z<355 20 0<r<456.7 Pb 151.3
355<z<430 75 0<r<456.7 (70%CH2/30%B4C) 71.3
430<z<442 12 0<r<456.7 CH2 90.8
Total 107 - - 313.4
Table 3-6
Summary of Estimated Weights for Twin 250 MW Plants
Component One Reactor (MT) Two Reactors (MT)
Reactor 453 906
Radial Shield 551 1102
Axial Shield (top) 391 782
Axial (bottom) 313 626
Total 1708 3416
13
Conclusions have been made from plots of radial tissue dose from different sides of the reactors. It was
found that in some regions, the limit of 0.001 cSv/hr is not met. These results are plotted in the following
figures. For the purposes of estimating the weights, the current calculations should be adequate since
equipment and coolants will provide additional shielding.
Vessel Twin GT-MHR Driven

Radial Tissue Dose Profile Across Top
Shi ld
4.50E-03
4.00E-03
3.50E-03
neutrons
gammas
total
3.00E-03
tis
su 2.50E-03
e
do
se
(c 2.00E-03
Sv
/hr
)
1.50E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
0.00E+00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
radius (cm)
Figure 3-2. Radial Tissue Dose Profile Across Top Shield
Vessel Twin GT- MHR Driven

Radial Tissue Dose at Bottom of Vessel
3.50E-02
3.00E-02
2.50E-02
neutrons
gammas
total
2.00E-02
1.50E-02
1.00E-02
5.00E-03
0.00E+00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
radius (cm)
Figure 3-3. Radial Tissue Dose At Bottom of Vessel
14
3.1.5. SYSTEM WEIGHTS
A summary of the overall weights of the power system is given in the Table 3-7. The weight summary
includes the two reactor power units, associated shielding, five electric motors for powering the water jet
propulsion units, and an allowance for electrical conversion equipment.
Table 3-7
System Weight Summary
Total for
Power Unit Weight Data, MT Single two
Power Unit Power Units
Total Reactor Assembly 450 900
Radial shield 550 1,100

Top shield 390 780
Bottom shield 310 620
Total Shield Assembly 1,250 2,500
Rotating machinery vessel 210 420

Rotating machine internals 230 460
Total Rotating Mach. Assembly 440 880
Heat exchanger vessel 210 420

Recuperator 100 200
Precooler 50 100
Total Heat Exchanger Assembly 360 720
Total Power Unit 2,500 5,000
HomoPolar Electric Drive Motors

Motor Power, MW 50
No. of Motors 5
Motor OD, m 3.18
Motor Length, m 4.53
Motor Weight, MT 160
Total Motor Weight, MT 800
Electrical support equip allowance, MT 200
Total Power Units + Motor Weight, MT 6,000
Note – As discussed in Section 2.1 of this report, the Homo-Polar electric motors were selected to act as a
weight and physical dimension “reservation” to support ship and auxiliary system sizing. A top-level
prime mover trade-off analysis will be performed and documented in the final summary report.
15
3.2. REACTOR MARINIZATION ISSUES AND RESOLUTION
As discussed previously, our design development efforts included a technical and safety review of the
concept. This review identified a number of issues for further investigation during this project. Each of
these issues is described in the following paragraphs along with our initial responses.
Issue #1 ~ It is necessary to provide assurance that the current core design can reach and will maintain
sub-criticality while experiencing progressive flooding by seawater at all initial conditions of reactor
operations and shutdown; this analysis should reflect progressive flooding into a very hot, massive core
with copious steam blanketing of the fuel elements for a defined period of time—thereby affecting both
nuclear reactivity and pressure within the 'contained' system itself. Describe, assuming the worst
hypothetical condition, how high does reactor power level go before being reduced from a combination of
control rod insertion and/or steam vapor dissipation to the liquid phase?
Position ~ Reactivity effect of moisture ingress within the 450 MW(t) land-based reactor has
been examined. Similar results are assumed to reasonably scale down to a 280 MW(t) core
design. Two basic scenarios were considered: water ingress during power operation; and water
ingress during shutdown. During power operation, moisture ingress into the active core would
vaporize into steam. If this was to continue, the hypothetical upper limit of steam ingress into the
active core was calculated at 677 kg. The upper limit of steam would cause a positive reactivity
insertion of 3.4% ∆p. With all control rods inserted, the shutdown margin would still be met by
several percent. During cold shutdown or refueling, moisture ingress into the active core would
contain very little vapor. Two-dimensional GAUGE calculations were performed to determine K-
eff as a function of mass flow of water into the core at various times during the cycle. Worst-case
scenario performed occurs at beginning of equilibrium cycle with the control rods fully inserted
and full nuclide decay. As seen in the attached Figure 3-22, criticality could occur with 1400 kg
of water homogenized in the core, with a maximum K-eff of 1.06 for 6000 kg full density water
(about 38% maximum water allowable in core). Note that these numbers are conservative due to
the GAUGE calculations not taking into account reactivity feedback effect of a temperature
increase from the increased power. Calculations in the past have also proved that a fully flooded
core is subcritical. Although this does not provide a complete answer to the question, it
contributes to understanding which scenarios to concentrate more on during a later phase of the
"marinization" process.
Issue #2 ~ Provide assurance of the ability of the major reactor components and pressure containment
systems in withstanding the thermal shocks attendant to progressive immersion by cold seawater (35°F)
without loss of structural integrity.
Position ~ The design has not progressed to the point that analyses are available that demonstrate
maintenance of structural integrity during progressive emersion by cold seawater (35°F),
especially since this is not a design requirement imposed on the land-based GT-MHR. To the
16
extent that it is shown to be necessary, structural integrity will be maintained during emersion by
cold seawater.
Issue #3 ~ Provide assurance of the ability of the current control rod drive sub-system, the power
conversion sub-system and primary reactor system structural elements (including the core and reflectors)
to accommodate the loads and attitudes attendant to both 'normal ' design ship operating conditions of
roll, pitch, heave, etc. as well as 'abnormal' events such as collision, high speed grounding, and capsize.
Please include a description of the current control rod drive system.
Position ~ The control rod drive systems in past modular-helium reactors were gravity driven.
Obviously this system is inappropriate for vessels in a marine environment. However, a design
developed for the OKBM Project control rod drive system design is rack and pinion driven, and
would most likely be applied for our application. The land-based GT-MHR has been designed to
comply with specific structural requirements relating to earthquake operability and lateral/vertical
stability. Continued investigations on the impacts of ships motions and the resulting accelerations
will be performed.
Issue #4 ~ Provide fuel element failure history in conjunction with current 'threshold' (maximum or
worst) and 'objective ' design goals; provide assurance that the threshold design goal will be achieved
through a defined program of testing, plus related estimates of various accident releases and maintenance
issues at this threshold failure rate level in the system;
Position ~ Coated particle fuel has been used in the U.S. at Peach Bottom, UHTREX, and Fort
St. Vrain and in other reactors in Great Britain, Germany, Japan and China. About 33,400 kg of
coated particle fuel was manufactured for Fort St. Vrain with a defect fraction from burn/leach
testing of less than 3x10-3. The defect fraction objective for the GT-MHR is less than 6x10-5.
Test fuel meeting this design goal has been manufactured both in Germany and the U.S.
Additional irradiation and accident heating tests are planned for the GT-MHR fuel.
Issue #5 ~ Provide persuasive assurance of the suitability of the current land based containment system
design for the marine environment; provide plot of temperature gradient during depressurized cool-down
from fuel to "reactor compartment" with ship in both normal and abnormal attitudes (stranding
conditions); conduct thermal analysis of average temperatures in adjacent compartments and alternative
design approaches to limit these temperatures to those suitable for shipboard environment.
Position ~ The land-based containment concept of a vented low-pressure containment (VLPC)

should be suitable for the marine environment. The VLPC may require operational restrictions on
the reactor when it is near or in port. Thermal analysis of the depressurized conduction cooldown
for the marinized GT-MHR has not been completed but would be similar to the analysis
presented in the 1994 safety assessment report.
17
Issue #6 ~ If its assumed that loss of turbine blade casualty will not breech the primary system. What
analysis and/or reviews of similar prior incidents have been conducted to provide assurance that this
assumption is completely valid, even for a "Maximum Hypothetical Accident"?
Position ~ Reviews of gas turbine failures have been conducted and the design of the casing for
the turbomachine will restrain a loss of turbine blade accident and prevent any damage to the
primary coolant pressure boundary.
Issue #7 ~ Most of the events analyzed assume that the reactor is at full power conditions, with the
caveat that analysis outside of those conditions was beyond the scope of the analysis. Recall that as a
propulsion system, a marine variant will often be operating under varying conditions—and for an
application such as FASTSHIP the "All-Stop " condition underway will only require about 10% of full
reactor power to accommodate the ship 's regular hotel loads.
Position ~ While the events analyzed did assume the reactor is at full power, a complete safety
analysis would include partial load and shutdown conditions as required for either a land-based or
marine propulsion system.
Issue #8 ~ All ships maneuver. Thus, the ability of the reference design to accommodate "rapid" changes
in reactor power levels (compared to central power plants) continuously over many cycles is a definite
requirement.
Position ~ Rapid changes in power is a design feature of the land-based GT-MHR and
requirements for rapid changes in power would also be incorporated into a marine propulsion
system. The limits, rates, and number of cycles required over the ship's lifetime shall be agreed to
in the design of the marinized GT-MHR.
Issue #9 ~ A marine propulsion reactor system will probably experience a significantly higher number of
complete shutdowns and start-ups during its life cycle versus that of a central station plant. Many of these
will be made to and from 'cold iron ' conditions. Because of the mass of graphite involved and the very
high temperatures to be reached in arriving at plant operating conditions, some 'acceptable' start-up/warm-
up and shutdown/cool-down rates (i.e. times) and cycles need to be developed.
Position ~ The mass of the graphite imposes a time constraint of 4-6 hours on startup from cold
conditions. The operation and life cycle of the marine propulsion system would accommodate
agreed upon startup and shutdown rates and cycles between either cold or hot shutdown and
partial or full-power operation.
Issue #10 ~ The selection of the refueling intervals must be addressed accordingly. If indeed a five-year
core lifetime can only be effected through using a higher enrichment level than current non-proliferation
limits allow, the possibility of changing the current requirement must be addressed by some discussion
18
with appropriate sources. If relaxation of the current requirement is deemed infeasible, the longest batch
load lifetime (or shuffle if that yields a longer core access interval) just below the limit must be calculated
and used in the economic analysis—understand that this will be likely to the significant prejudice of the
nuclear ship alternative
Position ~ The need of a five-year core lifetime can be achieved through one possible option -
increase the enrichment level above 20%. The problem encountered here, besides the current non-
proliferation limit, lies in the fact that no feasible enrichment facility available exists. If this
option is deemed infeasible, the longest batch load lifetime, in conjunction with increasing the
burnable poison loading, would need to be examined from detailed 3-dimensional depletion
calculations.
Issue #11 ~ A more complete description of the auxiliary systems associated with a marine variant of the
GT-MHR system, including one- line diagrams of the pre-cooler cooling water system and any other
'systems' required for reactor compartment, generator, etc. cooling is necessary to support further design
development.
Position ~ More complete descriptions of the auxiliary systems including one-line diagrams will
be provided in the final report.
19
4. REQUIREMENTS
4.1. ECONOMIC
For the purposes of this study, analysis of a nominal route for each the Atlantic and Pacific was planned.
This decision was a logical outgrowth of the original FASTSHIP business model, which is heavily
dependent on specific cargo support capabilities within destination ports to facilitate rapid on-load and
off-load of cargo.
FASTSHIP is planned to operate between Philadelphia PA and Cherbourg France. Each of these two
ports is projected to have dedicated facilities to support on-load and off-load operations. The FASTSHIP
route, vessel speed, cargo capacity, rate structure are supported by a detailed economic study. For the
purposes of evaluating the economic impact of the alternatives, it was decided that maintaining the known
operating parameters of the FASTSHIP concept clearly offers the best method for maintaining
commonality in the study.
The decision to maintain ship design speed is supported by the assumption that the fast container
transport market is supported mostly by high-value time-sensitive cargo. Measuring the sensitivity of the
performance of a nuclear variant using similar cargo capacity, speed and revenue while limiting variables
to added ship length and associated acquisition and maintenance costs was deemed far more reliable than
measuring the same sensitivity in terms of different cargo capacity and vessel speeds.
4.2. MISSION AND OPERATING PROFILE
The Atlantic Ocean operating profiles were based the known planned operating schedule for the
FASTSHIP Atlantic (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA to Cherbourg, France). This is a non-stop route,
and endurance calculations for fuel and consumables for this route were estimated for as such.
For the Pacific Ocean, an un-refueled transit distance of 8,500 nautical miles was assumed based upon a
San Francisco to Singapore transit with reserve. This is a non-stop route, and endurance calculations for
fuel and consumables for this route were estimated as such.
4.3. OVERALL TECHNICAL AND PROGRAMMATIC REQUIREMENTS
4.3.1. CONVENTIONAL VARIANT DESIGN CRITERIA
The initial phase of the study focused on the identification of relevant design criteria for the performance
of the analysis. The following list is the summary of the identified requirements:
• The existing FASTSHIP hull shall be used.

• No impacts will occur to the cargo weight and volume used in the FASTHIP design.
20
• Weights, moments, space, speed, and operating profile will be scaled as appropriate to reflect
design changes necessary for the nuclear powered variant.
• All FASTSHIP cargo arrangement critical design and operations features will be retained.
• The Nuclear powered design will replicate the speed requirements of FASTSHIP.
• Any increase in lightship weight due to the installation of a nuclear power plant will be offset
by an increase in ship length to recover the necessary buoyancy.
21
5. ATLANTIC VARIANT – CONVENTIONAL POWERING (FASTSHIP)
5.1. NAVAL ARCHITECTURE &MARINE ENGINEERING DESIGN ISSUES
FASTHIP is a paper ship, albeit one with regulatory body approval, contract level design drawings, a
specification and various other design documents. This wealth of design detail enables our feasibility
design of each variant to be based upon a known, accepted design.
5.1.1. HULL SIZING AND CONFIGURATION
FASTSHIP design documents used for this study represent a contract level package and include
arrangement drawings, weight report to 3-digit SWBS level, machinery powering estimates, and ship
construction specification.
Ship Particulars & Basic Performance Characteristics

Metric English
Length Overall m(ft) 263.0 862.9
Length on Waterline m(ft) 229.0 751.3
Beam, max on WL, m(ft) 35.8 117.5
Depth to Main Deck, m(ft) 32.0 105.0
Draft to keel, m(ft) 10.6 34.8
Displacement, Full Load mt(LT) 33, 497.5 32,970.0
Installed Shaft Horsepower 335,000 HP
Ship’s Speed, Sustained 37+ Knots Sustained
Endurance 4,250 nm @ Max Continuous Power
with 12% Fuel Reserve
Conventional Variant Weight Summary

Group Weight VCG
(metric tons) (m)
1 Hull Structure 13,171.0 17.3
2 Propulsion Plant 2,005.0 12.6
3 Electric Plant 226.0 35.0
4 Comm & Surveil 22.0 32.2
5 Aux Systems 679.5 19.3
6 Outfit & Furn 956.0 24.9
7 Armament 0.0 0.0
8 Variable Loads 16,438.0 20.4
Full Load 33, 497.5 18.9
22
Major Equipment List
5 50 MW (67,000 hp) Rolls-
Royce Gas Turbines
5 KeMeWa Waterjets
Ships Complement
3 Officers
18 Crew
5.2. DESIGN INTEGRATION FOR CONVENTIONALLY POWERED ATLANTIC VARIANT
Per the plan developed in the Phase I Proposal, integration of the propulsion systems into the design, and
execution of the economic analysis, was to be developed in the Phase II effort. As such, the follow
paragraphs for design integration are To Be Developed in Phase II.
5.2.1. PROPULSION PLANT DESIGN
To Be Developed in Phase II.
5.2.2. MACHINERY ARRANGEMENT
5.2.3. MANNING
5.3. PROPULSION PLANT COST
5.3.1. ACQUISITION
5.3.2. OPERATIONAL AND SUPPORT COSTS
5.3.3. SYSTEM DISPOSAL COSTS
23
6. NUCLEAR POWERED VARIANT
6.1. NAVAL ARCHITECTURE & MARINE ENGINEERING
For this study, a nuclear powered variant will be developed to compare with the FASTSHIP concepts. As
stated in the assumption section, the FASTSHIP design speed and power were maintained. Any increase
in lightship weight due to the installation of a nuclear power plant will be offset by an increase in ship
length to recover the necessary displacement.
6.1.1. HULL SIZING AND CONFIGURATION
The configuration of the nuclear variant is similar to that of FASTSHIP. Cargo volumes and engine
spaces have remained relatively unchanged although slight alteration to the longitudinal extents of the
cargo hold may need to be adjusted to balance trim and resistance against cargo handling requirements.
Ship Particulars
Metric English
Length Overall m(ft) 268.0 879
Length on Waterline m(ft) 232.0 761
Beam, max on WL, m(ft) 35.8 117
Depth to Main Deck, m(ft) 32.0 105
Draft to keel, m(ft) 11.2 37
Displacement, Full Load mt(LT) 35,316 34,759.8
Ships Speed 37+ knots sustained
Endurance Not Applicable – No Fuel Limit
Nuclear Variant Weight Summary

Group Weight VCG
(metric tons) (m)
3 Electric Plant 6,002.1 9.0
6 Outfit & Furniture 964.8 24.9
7 Armament 0.0 0.0
Full Load 35,316.0 17.1
24
2 GT-MHR Reactors, Generators, and
Associated Equipment
5 67,000 HP Perm Magnet Motors
5 KeMeWa Waterjets
Ships Complement
Officers 4
Crew 21
6.2. DESIGN INTEGRATION FOR NUCLEAR VARIANT
Characteristics of the nuclear variant are presented in the following. A fuel weight increase of 4,229.2
tonnes was needed to support the increased range of the pacific trading route. To support this weight
increase and maintain design speed an additional 15m of hull was added to the baseline design. Weight
associated with this length increase is based on parametric scaling of the baseline design.
The large amount of fuel which was added to the pacific ship concept resulted in a decrease of
approximately.3m to the ships overall KG. This additional added fuel weight also resulted in a shift in
the vessels longitudinal center of gravity of approximately 2%. This shift while not insignificant can be
dealt with through adjustments to the ships center of buoyancy, and can be decreased by reallocating
tankage volume, and is therefore not believed to significantly impact resistance.
6.2.1. PROPULSION PLANT DESIGN
6.2.2. MACHINERY ARRANGEMENT
6.2.3. MANNING
6.3. PROPULSION PLANT COST
The objective here is to support identification of the economic characteristics for the candidate vessels
within each of the alternatives. The final report will follow a two step approach for conducting this
analysis. This will include operating costs (e.g., crew, fuel, and consumables).
25
The second portion of this analysis will focus on performing a Net Present Value calculation to determine
which options represent the best value. Assumptions that will be used in the NPV calculation will
include:
• Relevant costs will include ship acquisition and all relevant operating expenses of an “Nth of-
a-kind” ship (excluding non-recurring of reactor, propulsion machinery and lead ship, but
including nuclear fuel reloading and disposal).
• Relevant revenues will include fares and other significant revenue sources.
• A cost of capital equal to the current Federal Government bond interest rates will be used
• A series of timelines will analyzed, including 1 year, 5 year, and 10 year operations.
6.3.1. ACQUISITION
26
7. PACIFIC VARIANT - CONVENTIONAL POWERING DESCRIPTION
This section describes the ship sizing analyses performed to date to develop a non-stop San Francisco to
Singapore vessel. The following discussion focuses on the conventional powered variant; as indicated in
the introduction to this report, as of this report the nuclear powered ships were the same for the Atlantic
and Pacific Variants.
7.1. NAVAL ARCHITECTURE & MARINE ENGINEERING
Several assumptions were made to support development of Pacific Variants that can be accurately
compared to our Atlantic Ocean conventional and the nuclear variants. For the purposes of this
investigation it was assumed that the baseline design speed and powering, as used in the Atlantic
conventional variant, would be maintained for the Pacific Variant. The decision to maintain the design
speed constant is supported by the assumption that the fast container transport market is composed of
mostly high-value time sensitive cargo. This market exists only long as the ability to move cargo at a
speed of two or three times the rate of traditional container ships is maintained. Measuring the sensitivity
of the performance of the pacific variant in terms of the naval architecture impacts costs was deemed far
more reliable than measuring the same sensitivity in terms of changes to market share and viability.
The assumption to maintain speed and the associated propulsion power requirements is driven by two
factors, 1) the complexity of adding power to the baseline design and 2) the discrete increments in which
it can be added. Adding power to the baseline design would require the enlarging of water-jets, or
addition of auxiliary or additional jets. Adding water-jets also means the addition of more prime movers
and their associated support equipment. Finding space for additional prime movers and water-jets within
the existing baseline design will be a challenge.
Enlarging the jets during the early design stages would be possible, however, enlarging associated gas
turbines would present a major challenge and will add significantly to the procurement cost if special
development and certification of higher power engines is needed just for the Pacific Variant.
Incrementally adding another prime mover has its own challenges. Not only will additional space be
needed, but additional costs will be incurred supporting prime movers of various types, a draw back of
any split plant configuration. Therefore, it has been assumed that the additional power needs of the
pacific variant will be meet through the addition of another prime mover including the gas turbine and
associated water jet.
Scaling of the Atlantic Conventional Concept to a Pacific variant has been accomplished through changes
in length only. Changes in length are considered to have the least possible impact on the baseline design
and its cargo handling systems. Beam and depth of the baseline design are assumed only to change with
significant changes in KG (ship vertical center of gravity (VCG)), to maintain adequate stability.
27
Changes in draft have been kept to a minimum, however small changes have been allowed in lieu of
changes to hull coefficients. Changes to the vessels running trim are anticipated as a result of
modification to the baseline ship concept discussed in this section, most significantly the addition of more
propulsion components. Further refinement of hull form will be necessary in Phase II of this study to
optimize hull form coefficients, running trim and resistance.
Although increases in ship length in some cases would enable the ship a greater cargo carrying capacity,
the baseline cargo capacity has been maintained, for the economic analysis issues discussed above. All
additional displacement was utilized for the necessary fuel to complete the pacific trade routes.
The conventionally powered Pacific Variant requires additional fuel to support the increased range of the
pacific trading route. To support this weight increase and maintain design speed an additional 15m of
hull was added to the baseline design. Weight associated with this length increase is based on parametric
scaling of the baseline design.
The large amount of fuel which was added to the pacific ship concept resulted in a decrease of
approximately.3m to the ships overall KG. This additional added fuel weight also resulted in a shift in
the vessels longitudinal center of gravity of approximately 2%. This shift while not insignificant can be
dealt with through adjustments to the ships center of buoyancy, and can be decreased by reallocating
tankage volume, and is therefore not believed to significantly impact resistance.
Ship Particulars
Metric English
Length Overall m (ft) 278.0 912.1
Length on Waterline m (ft) 244.0 800.5
Beam, max on WL, m (ft) 35.8 117.5
Depth to Main Deck, m (ft) 32.0 105.0
Draft to keel, m (ft) 11.6 38.0
Displacement, Full Load mt (LT) 38,673 38,064
28
Conventional Variant Weight Summary
Group Weight VCG
(metric tons) (m)
3 Electric Plant 229.9 36.1
6 Outfit & Furn 999.4 24.8
7 Armament 0.0 0.0
Full Load 38,673.2 18.6

6 67,000 HP Perm Magnet Motors
6 KeMeWa Waterjets
2 1,500 kWe Ship Service Generators
Ships Complement
3 Officers
18 Crew
Vessel Performance Characteristics

Ships Speed 37+ knots sustained
Endurance Not calculated at this time
7.2. DESIGN INTEGRATION
Per the plan developed in the Phase I Proposal, integration of the propulsion systems into the design, and
execution of the economic analysis, was to be developed in the Phase II effort. As such, the follow
paragraphs for design integration are To Be Developed in Phase II.
7.3. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
7.3.1. ACQUISITION
29
30
8. REMAINING WORK SCOPE
8.1. ALTERNATIVE POWERING FOR HIGH SPEED SHIPS
The following Work Task Descriptions (WTD) summarize JJMA’s Phase II Proposed work scope for the
efforts necessary to accomplish the next Phase of this study. The proposal, provided under separate
cover, describes the work to be performed, its schedule for completion and the cost to complete. The
major focus of the Phase II effort will be to further develop the technical design of a shipboard GT-MHR
concept. The technical and safety issues identified in this report will be reviewed in increasing detail to
ascertain the feasibility of the technical solution. The reactor and its associated cooling and auxiliary
systems will be further developed along with the electrical power generation and conversion systems.
Building upon this technical review and development effort, an economic analysis will be performed.
The results of this completed study will be documented in a final technical report, which contains the
responses to the technical issues, the design development and the economic analysis.
TABLE 7-1
PROGRAM ELEMENT DELIVERABLES
WTD Deliverable Title & Description Start (weeks Finish (weeks Cost
Number after contract) after contract)
13 Ground rules 0 2 $5,000
14 Requirements 0 4 $15,000
15 Ship Concept Design 2 8 $55,000
16 Propulsion & Aux. System Design 4 12 $60,000
17 Technical Issue Resolution 2 8 $75,000
19 Design Integration 4 14 $15,000
21 Final Report 8 18 $25,000
Sub-Total $250,000
Options
18 Reactor System Design 2 16 $100,000
20 Cost Estimate 8 12 $50,000
31
9. SUMMARY
This progress report reflects the Phase I progress, which focused on technical feasibility of the ship and
propulsion variants, and positioning for performing the design integration and economic analyses. This
interim report presented the overall study approach and fundamental guiding decisions that have been
made in the development of the project. The report has also summarized the issues that have been
identified during Phase I regarding reactor system design for marine application.
This progress report focuses on the initial reactor concept and the marine engineering performed during
Phase i. Further effort to integrate the completed efforts and to further develop the reactor technical and
safety issues related to the assessment of the concept’s feasibility remains to be done, and are included in
the Phase II Proposal. The project is now poised to move forward to complete the technical and
economic assessments upon receipt of follow-on funding.
32
Interim Progress Report - Appendices
APPENDIX A
CONCEPT DIAGRAMS
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8

Alternative Powering For High Speed Ships

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Alternative Powering For High Speed Ships

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Interim Progress Report

7. PACIFIC VARIANT - CONVENTIONAL POWERING DESCRIPTION................................................27

1.1.1. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE

Conventionally Powered Nuclear Powered

Details provided in Section 5 of this Details provided in Section 6 of this

Details provided in Section 7 of this Details provided in Section 6 of this

1.1.2. ECONOMIC GUIDANCE

1.1.3. OPERATING ISSUES GUIDANCE

1.1.4. REGULATORY ISSUES GUIDANCE

1.2. PURPOSE OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The GT-MHR couples a helium-cooled modular

Figure 2-2 shows the GT-MHR system diagram with

expanded through a gas turbine to drive the electric

Figure 2-2. GT-MHR System Diagram

3.1. REACTOR DESIGN DESCRIPTION

3.1.2. DESIGN CONFIGURATION

Figure 3-1. FASTSHIP Power Unit Flow Schematic

Number of Power Units........................................................................................ 2

Turbine Outlet Pressure.............................................................................380 psia

Recuperator Effectiveness................................................................................. .95

Compressor Inlet Temperature ........................................................... 74 8F/23 8C

3.1.4. SHIELDING DESIGN

Vessel Twin GT-MHR Driven

Figure 3-2. Radial Tissue Dose Profile Across Top Shield

Vessel Twin GT- MHR Driven

Figure 3-3. Radial Tissue Dose At Bottom of Vessel

3.1.5. SYSTEM WEIGHTS

Total Reactor Assembly 450 900

Radial shield 550 1,100

Rotating machinery vessel 210 420

Heat exchanger vessel 210 420

HomoPolar Electric Drive Motors

Electrical support equip allowance, MT 200

Total Power Units + Motor Weight, MT 6,000

Position ~ The land-based containment concept of a vented low-pressure containment (VLPC)

4.2. MISSION AND OPERATING PROFILE

4.3. OVERALL TECHNICAL AND PROGRAMMATIC REQUIREMENTS

4.3.1. CONVENTIONAL VARIANT DESIGN CRITERIA

• The existing FASTSHIP hull shall be used.

5.1. NAVAL ARCHITECTURE &MARINE ENGINEERING DESIGN ISSUES

5.1.1. HULL SIZING AND CONFIGURATION

Ship Particulars & Basic Performance Characteristics

Conventional Variant Weight Summary

5.2. DESIGN INTEGRATION FOR CONVENTIONALLY POWERED ATLANTIC VARIANT

5.2.1. PROPULSION PLANT DESIGN

To Be Developed in Phase II.

5.2.2. MACHINERY ARRANGEMENT

To Be Developed in Phase II.

To Be Developed in Phase II.

5.3. PROPULSION PLANT COST

To Be Developed in Phase II.

To Be Developed in Phase II.

5.3.2. OPERATIONAL AND SUPPORT COSTS

To Be Developed in Phase II.

5.3.3. SYSTEM DISPOSAL COSTS

To Be Developed in Phase II.

6.1. NAVAL ARCHITECTURE & MARINE ENGINEERING

6.1.1. HULL SIZING AND CONFIGURATION

Nuclear Variant Weight Summary

6.2. DESIGN INTEGRATION FOR NUCLEAR VARIANT

6.2.1. PROPULSION PLANT DESIGN

To Be Developed in Phase II.