My Own Passenger Liner Design

Discussion in 'Boat Design' started by OceanLinerFan, Oct 18, 2015.

  1. TANSL
    Joined: Sep 2011
    Posts: 7,369
    Likes: 699, Points: 123, Legacy Rep: 300
    Location: Spain

    TANSL Senior Member

    No needed any software if you have two hands, paper and a pencil.
    By the way, curious way to calculate the weight. Now you know how mucht weighs the boat but do not have the foggiest idea if what the boat should bring fits into it.
    If you do not want to waste your time and don´t wat us to waste our, start by drawing a GA.
     
  2. OceanLinerFan
    Joined: Jan 2012
    Posts: 29
    Likes: 0, Points: 1, Legacy Rep: 4
    Location: Melissa, Texas

    OceanLinerFan Junior Member

    TANSL,

    Well I do have a general understanding what would constitute the displacement weight of a passenger ship, since I'm quite interested in the old passenger liners as well as modern cruise ships. Granted, I will perhaps hold off on this thread until I get into my program and make a preliminary GA to get a better idea of where everything goes, especially since SOLAS rules will play heavily into her layout.
     
  3. TANSL
    Joined: Sep 2011
    Posts: 7,369
    Likes: 699, Points: 123, Legacy Rep: 300
    Location: Spain

    TANSL Senior Member

    OK, I'll wait till that. Keep abreast of your progress. I too like passenger ships early last century and have worked extensively in modern passenger ship. Good luck.
     
  4. gonzo
    Joined: Aug 2002
    Posts: 16,790
    Likes: 1,714, Points: 123, Legacy Rep: 2031
    Location: Milwaukee, WI

    gonzo Senior Member

    If you have a maximum weight, but have already drawn an elaborate interior, you only choice may be using exotic light weight materials.
     
  5. OceanLinerFan
    Joined: Jan 2012
    Posts: 29
    Likes: 0, Points: 1, Legacy Rep: 4
    Location: Melissa, Texas

    OceanLinerFan Junior Member

    gonzo,

    On the materials front, I was thinking of possibly incorporating a composite superstructure to lessen topweight of the ship, but I'm not sure on the implications for joining it to the steel hull below. As of right now, it's only an idea until I get far enough along in my studies to look at it in more detail.

    Thanks for the interest in my ship though :)
     
  6. JSL
    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 811
    Likes: 64, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 41
    Location: Delta BC

    JSL Senior Member

    I you are thinking of FRP (GRP), could be a flammability issue. Stick with tried & true (and accepted) .... aluminum
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2016
  7. TANSL
    Joined: Sep 2011
    Posts: 7,369
    Likes: 699, Points: 123, Legacy Rep: 300
    Location: Spain

    TANSL Senior Member

    You are quite right, the GRP can not be used in the resistant structure of large passenger ships because, among other things, it is impossible to get the "A-60, A-0, B- ..." class required by SOLAS.
    What are the "exotic" materials Gonzo is thinking about ?. Will Comply them with SOLAS, the International Labour Ordinance and similar regulations?. Qui lo sa?. Should we change all current safety and fire fighting regulations to use them?
     
  8. mydauphin
    Joined: Apr 2007
    Posts: 2,161
    Likes: 53, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 575
    Location: Florida

    mydauphin Senior Member

    If I was designing a new revolutionary cruise ship I would go with one very large catamaran. Imagine a cat 600 feet long, 400 feet wide. Not so easy to flip. Very large deck areas, and many other advantages. Of course ship would save on docking fees on ports since it won't be able to fit. It would have a marina in between now hulls to pick passengers with its own fleet of shuttles. Two heliports, one on each bow would allow totally awesome accessibility for those affluent few. Because it so large and stable a huge mast 400 feet tall will serve as wind power. Oh btw the superstructure would look similar to the luxor pyramid. Making boat self righting... well I hope zi have you something different to think about.
     
  9. fredrosse
    Joined: Jan 2005
    Posts: 439
    Likes: 81, Points: 38, Legacy Rep: 56
    Location: Philadelphia PA

    fredrosse USACE Steam

    Molten Salt Reactor?

    It looks like a very ambitious reactor plant, and in fact very difficult to get 37% efficiency you have listed.

    I have spent hundreds of hours working on the ITER project, and lesser time working on the TERRA Power liquid metal breeder reactor, and can state with confidence that these advanced high performance reactors are far off in the future. Same for a molten salt reactor. Experience with the simple low temperature light water reactors that dominate the world's nuclear power can barely manage 30% efficiency, even tho they are several times larger than your proposed plant. The few actual seagoing nuclear power plants can only manage about 15% efficiency. Not to mention the big dangers associated with hundreds or thousands of passengers on board, a few bent on making terrorist actions.
     
  10. TANSL
    Joined: Sep 2011
    Posts: 7,369
    Likes: 699, Points: 123, Legacy Rep: 300
    Location: Spain

    TANSL Senior Member

    As far as I know only has been built one boat, not military, nuclear propulsion, "Savanah", and that more than 50 years ago. Either everyone is stupid or nuclear propulsion is not suitable for commercial vessels, and less, of course, for passenger ships.
    The only advantage that apparently had this system was the possibility of not refuel in a long time.
    Speaking today of nuclear propulsion for passenger ships, it seems very outdated.
     
  11. mydauphin
    Joined: Apr 2007
    Posts: 2,161
    Likes: 53, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 575
    Location: Florida

    mydauphin Senior Member

    Nuclear propulsion efficient or not is possible but very expensive to build and more importantly maintain. And as mentioned a few bad terrorists will make unthinkable.

    Consider sail.... most cruise ships actually run at much below top speed because they simply don't want to get there too fast.

    One thing to remember design the boat for comfort in really heavy seas. One time I was in a crossing on a large cruise ship behind another large cruise ship in what look like 60 foot seas, and I can tell you both ships handled it amazingly well.
     
  12. gonzo
    Joined: Aug 2002
    Posts: 16,790
    Likes: 1,714, Points: 123, Legacy Rep: 2031
    Location: Milwaukee, WI

    gonzo Senior Member

    I can't think of any country that would give a permit for a civilian passenger ship for a nuclear power plant.
     
  13. TANSL
    Joined: Sep 2011
    Posts: 7,369
    Likes: 699, Points: 123, Legacy Rep: 300
    Location: Spain

    TANSL Senior Member

    However there are many countries that allow nuclear plants very close to populations, including countries where earthquakes, or tsunamis, are not uncommon occurrences.
    I do not know what is worse, the failure of a floating nuclear plant or damage to a facility on land.
     
  14. OceanLinerFan
    Joined: Jan 2012
    Posts: 29
    Likes: 0, Points: 1, Legacy Rep: 4
    Location: Melissa, Texas

    OceanLinerFan Junior Member

    LNG Potential?

    Hey guys,

    So I noticed that my proposed nuclear plant for my ship raised some very good points of discussion. I'm still not sure on it myself, but I'm also looking at possibly using LNG as a substitute fuel, since many cruise ship newbuilds from this year on will have engines powered by this fuel (such as the new Costa and MSC ships).

    I attached a rendering of the new 180,000 GT Costa newbuilds that are to be powered exclusively with LNG. However, I still wonder whether the proposed horsepower of my ship (144,000 SHP) would still be achievable with such engines.
     

    Attached Files:


  15. mydauphin
    Joined: Apr 2007
    Posts: 2,161
    Likes: 53, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 575
    Location: Florida

    mydauphin Senior Member

    It is a problem of economics, as far as I know bunker Fuel oil is just cheaper to burn than anything else. Sure you can scrub the exhaust. Look at the numbers below.

    Most ships produce their electricity using diesel engines. Others use gas turbine engines to generate electricity. Still others use a combination of the two.

    Diesel engines use heavy fuel oil (“HFO”) while gas turbine engines use marine gas oil (“MGO”), which is similar to the fuel used in jet airplanes.

    Queen Mary 2, currently the fastest passenger ship in service, consumes 261 tons of HFO and 237 tons of MGO a day when traveling at full spreed.

    Queen Mary 2 Fuel Capacity - The Queen Mary 2 (QM2) is currently the fastest ocean liner in the world. It weighs 151,400 tons and has a fuel capacity of 4,381 metric tons, which equates to 41 feet per gallon. Still, at a clip of 32.5 knots, the QM2 can sail for 10 days on a full tank.

    Norwegian Spirit Fuel Capacity - In contrast, the Norwegian Spirit is its fleet's smallest ship. It weighs in at just 76,000 tons and has a fuel capacity of 1,150 metric tons. This converts to 354,144 gallons.

    Freedom of the Seas Fuel Capacity - The fuel capacity for Freedom of the Seas, as well as all the Freedom class ships, is 3,533 metric tons - more than three times the capacity of Norwegian Spirit. It is also much larger. Freedom of the Seas has a gross tonnage of 160,000 tons. Clearly, a ship this size will burn fuel faster than smaller vessels, thus impacting any possible routes.

    Cruise Ship Fuel Usage - Size is key to fuel consumption and efficiency. A smaller ship will use less fuel than a large ship to travel the same distance. Both size and the average speed a cruise ship travels impact how much fuel it uses. On average, ships use 140-150 tons of fuel per day, which works out to roughly 30 to 50 gallons per mile. Similar to a car, traveling at higher speeds means an increase in aerodynamic drag, which directly impacts fuel use. Given that most cruise ships travel at 21-24 knots, this isn't often an issue.



    Queen Mary 2 Fuel Usage - In the QM2's case, the ship is huge at 1,132 feet long and a weight of 151,400 tons. This storied passenger liner is built for speed and is capable of a cruising speed of 29 knots and a top speed of 32.5 knots. Compare this to most cruise ships, which travel at 21-24 knots, and you can see that the QM2 is a water rocket. It travels at a brisk clip that requires more fuel. According to Cruise Ship Engine Power, Propulsion, Fuel by Chavdar Chanev, the QM2 averages uses six tons of marine fuel per hour.

    The Norwegian Spirit - At a petite 878 feet long and 75,500 tons this ship is much more fuel efficient. When sailing, the Spirit chugs along at an average speed of 24 knots and burns approximately 1,100 gallons per hour. Thus, it can conceivably remain at sea for 12 days without refueling.

    Freedom of the Seas - Freedom class ships are all 1,112 feet long with an average speed of 21.6 knots. The are rumored to have a standard fuel consumption of 2,800 gallons of fuel per hour. Their propulsion systems are state of the art, providing a 10 to 15 percent fuel savings overall.
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.