0
Technical Brief

First Step Toward the Codesign of Planing Craft and Active Control Systems

[+] Author and Article Information
Esteban L. Castro-Feliciano

Department of Naval Architecture and
Marine Engineering,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
e-mail: eslucafe@umich.edu

Jing Sun

Department of Naval Architecture and
Marine Engineering,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
e-mail: jingsun@umich.edu

Armin W. Troesch

Department of Naval Architecture and
Marine Engineering,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
e-mail: troesch@umich.edu

Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received July 22, 2015; final manuscript received August 25, 2016; published online November 29, 2016. Editor: Solomon Yim.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 139(1), 014501 (Nov 29, 2016) (8 pages) Paper No: OMAE-15-1073; doi: 10.1115/1.4034761 History: Received July 22, 2015; Revised August 25, 2016

This paper takes a novel approach to the design of planing craft with active control systems (ACS) by codesigning the longitudinal center of gravity (lcg) and ACS, and compares its performance with a vessel where the lcg and ACS are designed sequentially (traditional approach). The vessels investigated are prismatic in shape. The ACS are modeled as forces on the vessel. The ACS controller is a linear quadratic regulator (LQR) designed using a reduced-order model of the vessel. In the design, only the calm-water drag is optimized. The simulated codesigned vessel had 10% lower calm water and mean seaway drag than the sequentially designed vessel. However, the codesigned vessel's seakeeping was poorer—vertical acceleration doses 25% higher. Results indicate that the traditional sequential design approach does not fully exploit the synergy between a planing craft and its ACS; as a first step, the stability constraints should be relaxed in the design exploration, and the ACS should be considered early in the design stage.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Prismatic planing craft

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Calm-water L/D for Cv = 4.5 and β = 5 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Lift-to-drag contour from Faltinsen method results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Relative change in lift-to-drag, controllability index, and trim from traditional to codesigned vessel (Faltinsen method)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Closed-loop nonlinear results for Cv = 4 and β = 10 deg (Faltinsen method)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Lift-to-drag contour from POWERSEA method results and relative change in lift-to-drag

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Seakeeping POWERSEA results

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In