JPS59206292A - Wide-bottom half-underwater boat - Google Patents

Abstract

(57) [Summary] This bulletin contains application data before electronic filing, so abstract data is not recorded.

Description

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION The present invention relates to a semi-submerged abort having a novel arrangement of buoyant pontoons or footings, stability columns, and decks to provide ships with improved stability characteristics. be. Vessels constructed in accordance with the invention are also particularly suitable for use in ice-filled waters.

Conventional hemihydrolysis is a product of design advancement. During the early offshore exploration and production of hydrocarbons, drilling techniques were based on near-shore experience. Offshore support platforms were either fixed structures or towers built on pilework, or purges or caissons floated to an offshore location and then submerged to rest on the seabed. As exploration drilled wells further away from the seaweed, the increased water depth required improved structures. Purge or caisson attempts evolved into floating structures with submerged buoyant H-sonnes or footings, stabilization columns extending upward through the water surface, and non-buoyant decks on top of the stabilization columns. The deck provided a trench, drilling rig and other exploration equipment. To minimize vertical movement of the drilling rig.

The cross-sectional area of the stable column was minimized at the waterline.

As a group, the resulting vessels are called half-water vessels.

As offshore support structure configurations evolved to accommodate deeper waters, well locations also expanded to more demanding environments. The first underwater wells were drilled in protected waters near the coast. During storms, workers evacuated until the danger passed. However, the underwater drilling front now exists far away from the coast.

The distance from the coast makes quick evacuation impossible in stormy weather, and offshore platforms are exposed to increasingly severe storms as the water is no longer protected by the land itself.

Because the conventional design of semi-aquatic abortions is the product of evolution through conditions different from those experienced today in remote and often hostile locations, the stability of offshore platforms is critical to operating in such remote environments. does not fit well with the conditions imposed on ships by

Conventional semi-submersible systems are deballasted when adverse weather conditions create a sufficient air gap between the waves and the bottom of the deck structure and increase the height of the working platform. However, such deballasting exposes more surface to wind and waves, while actually raising the center of gravity and lowering the metacenter height.

There are three aspects of stability phenomena: initial, large angle, and damaged ship's initial stability is the familiar concept of metacenter height (GM). . That's 5
It describes the resistance of a ship to heeling over a range from 10° to 10° and is essentially a characteristic of the ship's waterline. The technique for quantifying large angle stability is different from the measurement of GM. To measure this stability, the ship's right arm is calculated over a range of tilt angles. The area under the curved edge obtained by t' represents the energy that can be absorbed. Finally, stability under damage (dama
ged stability) is a measure of a ship's ability to withstand flooding of tanks and compartments. Although subordinate to other aspects of stability, a thorough analysis represents the ship's ability to survive within the design criteria.

Conventional fishing rod underwater vessels lose their initial stability when deballasted.

Since the ballast water is low in the pontoon, the ship's vertical center of gravity (VCG) rises when pumping water and the GM falls. The rationale behind such treatment during inclement weather is that large angle stability provides more reserve buoyancy to withstand large angle inclinations and downflooding during inebriation (
This is achieved by increasing the angle at which the ship can list before downfbooding occurs. Also, when the operator wishes to move the semi-submerged abort, the draft is reduced until the pontoon is above the water. Intermediate conditions, before the waterline increases dramatically with the advent of pontoons, often present a situation where it remains barely stable.

An extremely simplistic answer to this problem is to increase the ship's beam until the minimum GM is acceptable. Unfortunately, too much initial stability is also detrimental. Acceleration resulting from extreme GM at working draft
rations) to degrate the crew' (aeg
rade) L and requires additional steel throughout the structure to handle the inertial loads. Additionally, the entire deck structure itself is increased due to the wider span resulting in a stable carafe.

Another problem arises when exploring offshore ice-packed areas where ice packs continually form during certain periods of the year.

These ice masses often contain sheets of ice eight feet (2,4 m) or more thick, which are substantially thicker [Pressure Ridge J (pres.
sure ridge) t. These ice masses are not stationary and may move hundreds of feet per day under the influence of surface winds and currents. Clearly, these moving ice masses exert substantial force, which may be destructive to objects in the ice mass's path.

In accordance with the present invention, a deck, a plurality of stability columns extending downwardly and outwardly from the deck, means for connecting to the lower end of the stability columns to provide a wide buoyant base, and a parallax for raising and lowering the draft of the ship. A wide bottom consisting of means for putting in and taking out (w
A semi-submersible supply of ide-bosed) is provided.

The present invention solves stability problems by angulating stability columns outboard from the deck structure to a wider support base, making the deck structure itself watertight and effective at large angles or when damaged. It is something to be solved. The wide effective beam at shallow drafts provides a larger CM i, while the angularity of the column limits stability at deep drafts and eliminates the need for additional deck steel. The buoyant deck structure contributes to high angular stability when submerged and provides extreme buoyancy in the event of catastrophic failure or loss of stability columns.

The resulting wide bottom semi-submersible feed is superior to conventional designs of semi-submersible feeds. CM over a draft range can be optimized so that stability never deteriorates below a minimum value. Similarly,
The angularity of the column prevents GM from becoming excessive. In all cases, the high angular stability of this wide-bottom semi-water line exceeds that of conventional vertical leg configurations. In the event of damage, the wide-bottom semi-submersible supply withstands flooding better and has a greater total residual restoring energy and less risk of downflooding. It is contemplated that the angularity of the column with respect to the vertical can range from greater than 0° to less than 90°.

Semi-submersible water supplies are particularly suitable for use in ice-filled water. The strength of the ice mass during compression is substantially greater than at the time of opening. According to one aspect of the invention, when desired, the ballast is discharged or withdrawn to bring the stable column into contact with the ice mass. The surface exerts an upward or bending force on ice blocks located on the outside of the ship to break this type of lump; conversely, lowering the ship forces the inner surface of the column to exert a downward force on the ice located below deck. The ballast may be continuously taken in and out to periodically raise and lower the ship when ice conditions are severe.

FIG. 1 shows a side elevation of a semi-submersible supply constructed in accordance with the invention; FIG. 2 shows a top plan view of the vessel of FIG. 1; FIG. Figure 4 is a schematic side elevation of a baseline ship with vertical stabilization columns; Figure 5 is an end elevation of the ship of Figure 4; ;Figure 6 is the 4th
Figure 7 is a top plan view of the ship shown in Figure 7;
FIG. 8 is an end elevation of an embodiment of the invention in which the stability column is at a 15° angle; FIG. Figure 9 is an end elevation view of an embodiment of the invention in which the stability column is at a 20° angle; Figure 10 is an end elevation view of an embodiment of the invention in which the stability column is at a 30° angle. Figure 11 shows the curves representing the characteristics of ships with different stability column angles; Figures 12A-12F show the restoring arm for the upright baseline ship as well as the wide-bottomed semi-submersible supply structure according to the invention; Figures 12-23 show examples of typical semi-submersible vessels that can be modified in accordance with the present invention to provide a wide buoyancy base and thereby improve the stability of vessels of this type.

Referring to FIGS. 1-3, a wide-bottomed semi-submersible awning is shown having a waterproof floating deck 101c supported on three stabilizing columns 20, the columns extending from the bottom of each side of the deck 10. It extends continuously downward and outward. Three stabilizing columns 20 on each side of the ship are connected with respective elongated pontoons 30 to give the ship 30 a wide floating base.

As shown in FIG. 3, an exemplary structural truss assembly 40 is provided between each of the three opposing pairs of stability columns 20 and the bottom of the deck 10 to ensure the structural integrity of the ship. Each of the three structural truss assemblies 40 includes a cross member 42 interconnecting a respective set of opposing pairs of stabilizing columns 20, a vertical member 44 extending upwardly from the center of the cross member 42 to the bottom 46 of the deck 10. It also has a pair of diagonal members 48,50 extending from the center of the transverse member 42 to the bottom 46 of the deck 10. The structural truss assembly may take any form or shape that maintains the integrity of the vessel.

The deck 10 has a transverse center portion 52 and sponson portions 54,56 extending downwardly from either side of the center portion 52 of the deck 10. Inside surface 5 of each of the sponsons 54.56
8.60 extend downwardly and outwardly from the center portion 52 of the deck 10 at an angle corresponding to the downwardly and outwardly extending stability columns on each side of the ship.

The bottom 46 of the deck 10 is constructed to be structurally sufficient to withstand "wave strike" loads from the sea.

The entire deck is augmented to be structurally waterproof up to the level of the main deck or deck 62.

Seawater ballast, fuel oil, and drilling water are located in each of the floating pontoons in tanks 64 and stabilization columns 2.
0 within a tank 64. Space for propulsion motor and shaft system, thruster-1
is placed at the lower part of the floating pontoon 3o. Stable column 2 for dry bulk storage for drilling mud and cement
o may be placed in the upper tank 68 and deck 10 of the ship. Machine rooms, storage rooms, workshops, and living facilities are also located on deck 1o.

The main or open deck 62 provides additional storage space.

May be used for equipment such as pipe racks, excavation lidders and other excavation equipment and machinery, additional facilities, service or specialized stores and fire suppression.

The stability column 20 is inclined from the vertical at an angle specifically chosen to enhance the stability characteristics of the ship, which can range from greater than 0° to less than 90°. At the normal working waterline 80, the ship's effective beam (effec
tfve beam), thus the stability of the ship is increased without increasing the span and weight of the deck structure.

The increased effective beam increases the stability of the ship. If you want to lengthen the entire length of the ballast, use a floating pontoon of 3 o's! The low position of the ballast water in tank 64 lowers the ship's gravity,
Even if the ship's effective beam is reduced, the ship's stability is not compromised.

As shown in FIG. 3, paired sponsons 54,
560 arrangement is that the sponson 5 is connected to the bottom 46 of the deck 10.
Form an inverted ■ character between 4 and 56. Bottom 46 of deck 1o
This configuration allows the ship to withstand the impact of a single wave when there are many ballasters, and on the other hand, the deck 1 at the working draft
Improves the ship's ability to minimize harmful interference. Furthermore, because the deck 1o is generally waterproof, the buoyancy of the deck 10 prevents it from being flooded or otherwise involved in the event of a catastrophic failure.

The following are the results of studies conducted to demonstrate the advantages of the present invention.

Constraints The semi-submersible hull form used to examine the effectiveness of the proposed configuration is based on the MSV FI ○LAIR.The ``l0LAIR'' supports six stabilizing columns below the floating deck. It consists of twin pontoons.The pontoons are ``ship-shaped'' in that they have a bow shaped to suit the design and a stern of the dock that supports the ducted boat. The stable column has a rectangular cross section with rounded corners.

In order to highlight the effect of the wide-bottom semi-submersible supply structure, some simplifications are made as shown in Figure 4-6.
' applied to the type. First, all elements, pontoons 92 and stability columns 94, were assumed to be rectangular with no rounding in cross-section, and all six stability columns 94 were of the same size. Furthermore, the bow and stern ends of pontoon 92 were stubby without any shaping. The bow column was thought to be a vertical cut-off towards the bow, and the stern column was located in the same way relative to the stern. The dimensions of both pontoon 92 and stabilization column 94 were chosen to be 36 feet x 24 feet (10.8 m x 7.2 m). The columns 94 were arranged vertically with their long dimensions in the bow and stern, and the pontoons 92 were arranged with their short dimensions vertical. The centerline of column 94 was in line with the center of each pontoon. The buoyancy of the truss (not shown) between the ° columns 940 was ignored. Around the top of the stability column 94 there is a "
A close-fitting box beam 9o of the same depth as the deck structure of the ``LAIR'' ran, forming a gold floating cull. Although not sufficient to support the entire weight of the ship, this smallest gold The offset buoyancy was purposely chosen to understate the effect of the floating deck without overcoming the contribution of the angular columns.In the final design, the entire deck should be waterproof.

The main points of the baseline ships in Figures 4 to 6 are:
Adapted from l0LA IR'. Both pontoon 92 and main deck 900 (they are flat at each end)
The length of the beam was 99.9'7 m (328 ft) and the beam on the top plate 90 was 47.55 m (156 ft). The depth of the ship remains constant at 30.48 m (100 ft), with floating deck 9o at the top of 4.88 m.
(16 feet).

Starting from the vertical-legged baseline ship of Figures 4-6, in this study a range of 300 noms from The angle of the column was changed over the course of the experiment. In this way, the deck area and all other major dimensions were kept constant.

Since the stability column is angled outward, it will not be off-centered.
set) Ir: adjusted to maintain a constant cross section perpendicular to the axis of the column. This angulation increased the effective width of the column, thus reducing the outboard offset while keeping the outboard offset 9 constant. The pontoons were not rotated with the stabilizing column, but were positioned further apart to maintain alignment with the outboard edge of the column.

A design displacement of 20,000 rot is chosen for the vertical leg baseline vessel resulting in a nominal 15.24 (50 ft) design draft. However, because the column was angled outward, the displacement increased somewhat. To match, the design displacement for the wide-angle configuration was increased to maintain the design draft.

The ship's VCG at design displacement was maintained at 13.71 m (45 feet) above baseline for all conditions considered. Where other drafts were considered74, differences in displacement were adjusted by addition or removal of salt water ballast. In all sounds, the ballast is l
From the volume within the songtoon, a VCG of 3.6 (5 m (12 ft)) was extracted or added. Therefore, the VCG of the ship at each draft considered.
was calculated and incorporated into the evaluation. The resulting deviation in VCG is large over the considered range and therefore significant.

The effect of consumption of reserves and supplies is to reduce top weight and thus increase stability. Therefore, alternative loading conditions were not considered. Fuel consumption can be compensated by adding ballast within the pontoon, which does not change the stability, or alternatively by raising the ship out of the water, which is the same as the calculated de-ballasting situation. be.

Wide-bottomed semi-submersible configurations with stability columns of 10°, 15°, 20° and 30° angles are shown in Figures 7-9 and 10, respectively.

However, the exact angle of the stability column is consistent with the nominal figure for a 30° wide-bottomed hemihydrous abort.

For configurations with intermediate angles, the actual angle will differ somewhat from the nominal. Since the characteristics closer to the expected optimum for ships with columns are of greater importance, the compensation chosen is chosen to be more realistic, ie as a round number. The resulting column angle was rounded to the nominal angle. In both cases the difference is quite small, less than 1°.

The hydrostatics of a ship with stable columns at angles of 0°, 20°, and 30° are shown in Example I.

Initial Stability Figure 11 shows the initial stability of the wide-bottom semi-submersible supply. This diagram corresponded to the draft along the vertical axis. 7 GM along the horizontal axis. Various curves range from 0° to 30°
It shows the characteristics of ships with various stability angles over a range of .

As can be seen at the 50 light design draft, the stability decreases from 1 to 1 as the column angle increases.
．． From a GM of 37II+ (4,5 ft), g at 30° increases rapidly to 45 m (,31 ft).

If the draft is fairly light, the stability will vary over a wider range. For ships smaller than about 10°, stability actually decreases, while ships with larger angles increase stability. In very light conditions in front of the pontoon surface, a vertical leg baseline vessel will experience negative CM, whereas a 30° wide-bottomed semi-submersible feed will have a CM of 30.4
It has a GMft that can reach 8m (100ft).

These characteristics do not diverge significantly at drafts deeper than 15.24 m (50 ft). All ships have stability columns at the same point, the bottom of the floating deck.

9, so their waterline planes are more similar to when a ship is ballasted.

When the bottom of the floating deck is about to be immersed in the trench, the slight difference in stability is due to slight variations in the loaded ballast, giving a slightly different vCG″f:. The total number of GMs considered in all forms is approximately 4.
57 to 5.18 m (15 to 17 feet).

GM used the hydrostatics shown in Drawings 4 through 100 and Appendix I to determine 7.32 m (24 ft) and 25 ft.
．． 60 m (84 ft), calculated at the waterline just before the pontoon breaches the surface and the waterline just before the floating deck is immersed. For the other waterlines calculated, the GM was obtained from the restoring arm curves described in the following sections for ships with column angles of 0°, 20° and 300°. For angles intermediate between 1σ and 1♂, the GM is 762 m and 15.24 m (
The remainder of the curve was obtained by fairing the gland between the fully calculated cases.

FIG. 11 does not show CM: for the conditions in which Bonts, , -/ are exposed or the floating deck is submerged. Stability in these crowds far exceeds values in the suggested draft ranges, rendering comparisons meaningless. However, Appendix ■ presents calculations of the restoring arm in which CM is verified in these ranges.

The conclusion to be drawn from Figure 11 is that a rational choice of stable collar wide angle will produce a wide bottom semi-submersible supply with improved GM over the entire working range of draft. From this initial consideration, an angle of about 10° to about 20° is preferred.

Large-angle stability restoration arm (GZ) versus heel angle curves were calculated for a vertical-legged baseline vessel and a wide-bottom semi-submersible configuration with stability columns at 20° and 30° angles. Details of the calculations are shown in Appendix H. The results are shown in Figures 12A-12F. To aid in the comparison of the various configurations considered, each of Figures 12'A through 12F shows results for three ships at a particular draft. The draft used was 241 feet, with the pontoons mostly submerged, and 48 feet, with the floating deck mostly washed out.

Changes to Each of Figures 12A-12F shows an angle along the vertical axis (1,2k) corresponding to the angle of heel of the ship along the horizontal axis.

In each case tested, the large-angle stability increased with increasing stable wide-angle stability. Additionally, i/in, the maximum restoring arm and the area under the curve, i.e. the restoring energy, varies inversely to the draft. All configurations possessed greater restoring energy at shallow drafts than when deepening the ballast.

From this part of the discussion, it should be concluded that any angle of the stability column is advantageous, with the greater the angle, the greater the advantage.

Another σ) important observation to be gleaned from this part of the inspection concerns wind-induced tilt. Egon
P+D+13Jerregaared and 5ven
n B15chov's [Wind overturning effect on semi-aquatic supply]
0TCR-Par 3063, (10tb Anna],
offshore TechnologyGonfe
rence, Hyuston, Texas, 1978
May 8-11, 2016) presents the wind-induced tilting moment ``lever k'' for ``MSVIIIOLAIR'' calculated by the ABS method.The information given is approximately wind-dependent for the form of this study. The heeling arm was used to reveal the gland.The resulting heeling arm
Let's plot it on diagram F. These figures show how large a heel a vertical-legged baseline ship can make at 17° when the ship has a nominal draft of 15.24 m (50 ft) in winds of 51.44 m/s (100 knots). It shows.

However, the wide-bottomed semi-submersible supply structure that was studied was
The slope is less than . This large difference indicates the ship's sensitivity performance to small differences in GM and configuration, and is attributable to the relationship between the righting arm and tilting arm angles.

Damage Stability This study includes a brief discussion of the damage stability of a vertical leg baseline vessel and a wide bottom semi-submersible supply with a 30° angle stability column. Two conditions were considered. The first is the flooding of one forward stability column between the top of the pontoon and the bottom of the floating deck; the second is the flooding of the first 76 feet of the pontoon in the same column; It is.

These cases were chosen to represent catastrophic disasters and ignored the considerable subdivisions that would actually be expected in the final design.

The results of the analysis show that for all damage levels, the wide-bottomed semi-submersible vessel retains greater restoring energy and is less flooded than the baseline vessel.

For the purposes of this discussion, the relative performance of the two configurations considered is important, not the absolute numbers. The simplified hull form chosen has only a waterproof ring around the main deck, rather than an entire floating structure, and is designed to reduce tilt and trim.
The final measurement of im) is exaggerated. The final design has an entirely floating deck structure. For comparison, the following table therefore shows the results of the two conditions considered.

Details of the damage stability calculations are shown in Appendix ■.

Conclusion The proposed concept of wide-bottomed hemi-water aborts has emerged with excellent properties in all areas of stability.

For that ship size and proportion O chosen as the baseline, the preferred angle for the stable column is 100
There is a VC between 20' and 20', but it is excellent! Mochitiuo
Thicker than °: Shown next to the stable column angle up to io0. The exact form depends on the desired cane characteristics - the long floating deck structure is very difficult to use at large heel angles
It is advantageous in a magnified condition) and is preferably incorporated into the design.

Although the foregoing description and examination specified a more specific semi-submersible supply with an elongated deck and parallel pontoons connected to this deck by stabilizing columns such as those shown in FIG. We also have in mind a reasonable number of stability columns, and the possibility of attaching the stability columns at an angle to the outside of the ship from any of the many semi-submerged deck structures shown in Figures 14-23. thinking.

FIG. 14 shows a pentagonal arrangement of stability columns 96 and footings 97. Each of FIGS. 13 and 14 also shows a drilling rig 100, 101 and means 102, 101 for propelling the respective vessel. The present invention angles the stability columns 96 and foundations 97 radially outward to improve the stability of the illustrated pentagonal vessel.

Similarly, FIG. 15 shows a triangular arrangement of stability columns 104 and foundations 105, such stability columns and foundations being angled radially outward as indicated by the dashed lines. The semi-submersible supply form shown in Figs. 16-23 is the ring shown in Fig. 16,
A-shape in Figure 17, Y-shape in Figure 18, V-shape in Figure 19, raft shape in Figure 20, angle raft shape in Figure 21, three-hulled raft in Figure 22, and figure 23 It is shown as a lattice type.

A semi-submersible supply constructed according to the invention is particularly suitable for operation in ice-filled waters. For example, referring to Figure 3,
The ship is shown in a location where a drilling rig is drilling a seabed hole through the deck 10 via a conduit or moon pool 551. When it is desired to break the overboard ice block as shown at 61, K raises the ship by pumping the seawater ballast in the ballast tank 66 overboard by means of pumps 57, 59 and 57, 59, so that the column 20 is directed upward towards the ice block 61. Set it to 1 so that you can use your bending force to break the ice.

Deck 10 like an ice block shown at 63y (inverted)
When it is desirable to break the ice block below the ballast l
Pumps 57 and 59 draw water from the surrounding water into the ballast tank 56 to deepen the ballast and cause the ship to sink into the water, causing the stabilizing column 20 to move downward to the ice mass 63 and break it.

Semi-submersible supplies as contemplated by the present invention not only find use in excavation, as shown in Figure 3, but also in production at subsea sites, as well as general utility in offshore installations such as rescue vessels. Find a use. In this way, it is thought that a semi-submersible vessel used for commercial purposes could work as an icebreaker to protect offshore facilities.

Appendix l Hydrostatic mechanics 1 Baseline form ii 'WBSS 20' form g iti WBS830° form it Restoration arm curve 1 Baseline form ii 'WBSS 20° form IN WBSS 3Q° form iv VCG baseline form V, VCG2Q° form vi VCG 30° Form 1 Baseline Form LOG 0.000 Tilt Angle RA Displacement 0.00 0.0000 16,200,000.5
7. 0.2544 16,200,005.00
2.3639 16,200.001O,OO4,86
4016,199,9915,007,t1514s,
16,200.0020.00 10.771,5
16,200.0025.00 14.5310 1
6,199.9930.00 22.2991 16,
200.0035.00 35.0381 16,20
0.0040.00 40.8731 16,200.
00 Construction Conditions 4 Draft 30.000 Displacement 17,000.00 KG 50.820 LC'G O,000 Inclination Angle F(A Displacement o,oo O,000017,000,000,5
70,002517,000,005,000,429
116,999,9910,002,796616,9
99,9915,005,496516,999,99
20,00, 8,606716,999°9925.0
0 12.3051 17,000.0030.0
0 2],,0474 17,000.00LCB
Draft Draft each phase fj action 0.000 24
．． 044 (1,00020,00024,4:U7 0.Oo O20,00027,71'1.
1 0.000 2-0.000 :H, 46
:((+,000 20.000 35.:333
rl, 00(+20.000 39.3
8! i (+,000 20.000 43.
711 0.00('l 20.000 47
．． 431 (+,000 40.000 48
．． 045+1.000 30.000 47.2
97 (+, +1(to 3LCB
Draft Draft difference Interaction -〇,000 29
．． 442 (1()O(12-0,00029,4
42! (1, (+001-〇,000 30.011
0000 4-0.000 33. ．． 171
0. [104o, ooo 37.28Fi
O,00030,00041,3:U3 (
1,0(102o,ooo 45.65(i'
O (Monday) 020.000 49. [)l 1
0.0 Ofl 40.00 0.000
0. 18. QOo, 00 -0.0000.57
0.0138 18.000. OOO,00
05,000,132717,999,99-0,00
010,000,773017,999,99-0,0
0015,003,234517,999,990,0
0030,0019,819118,000,000,
00035,0032,84191s,ooo,oo
o, oo.

4 TIOO36,782918pOO,000,00
0 Design Condition 6 Draft 44.000 Displacement 19,000.00 KG 46.740 LC:G O,000 Inclination Angle RA Displacement LCBO
,000,000019,000,000,0000,
570,027619,ooO,00,0,0005,
000,252218,999,990,00010,
000,572419,000,00-0,00015
,001,574018,999,99-0,0002
0,004,323518,999,99-0,000
25,008,273519,000,000,000
:30.00 ts, c+55m 18,999
．． 99 0.00035.00 30.9297
19. OOO, OOO, 00040, 0033, 4
67219, OOO, OO-0,000 draft Draft difference interaction 36.1 Ri・I (1,000, 236j':
) 4 (1, OI) 0 136.1! +4
0.000 136.84] 0.0
Of) 440.12i 0.000
443.956 0.000 448.
159 0.000 450.894'
0.000 452.606 0.000
3 56.529. 0. OOO4 Draft Draft difference Interaction 429・15 o, oOo 242.94.
5 0.000 142.945 0.000
1 42.945 0.000 1 43.777 0.000 4 4.7.049 0.000 450.808
0.000 3 52.723 0.000 3 55.075 0.000 3 60.6:3:3 0. (1004 o,oo O,000020,000,000,
570,043420,000,005,000,38
9419,999,9910,000,842320,
000,0015,001,4,27220,000,
0020,002,946919,999,9925,
007,567520,000,0030,0018,
434919,999,9935,0028,6557
20,000,0040,0030,285320,0
00,00 Design Condition 8 Draft 70.000 LCG O,000 0,570,100123,000,005,000,
881923,QOO,0O10,001,81492
3,000,0015,003,767823,000
,0020,006,403122,999,9925
,009,609722,999,9930,0017
,136622,999,9935,0020,896
922,999,9940,0021,721722,
999,99o,oo.

O,00049,6970,0001 -0,0004,9J597' 0.000
10.000 49.697 0.000
]0.000 49.697 0.
000 10.000 50.840 0.
000 4-0.000 53.467'
0.000 2o, ooo 54. ! 5
97 0.000 3-0.000 57
．． 502 0.000 3-0.000
64.1.28 (1,0(1040,000(
i9.952 0.000 10.000
69.952 0.000 10.00
0 69.952 0.000 10.
000 68.028 0.000 4
o, ooo 64.9+6 0.000
4o, oo.

o, oo.

o, oo.

o, ooo 73.984 0.000 4
Design conditions 10 83392 0.000 3 74,. 490, O,OOo, 471.
168 0.000 '468.265
0.000 468.411 0J)On
3711.118 (1,000481,7
9: Ofl 00 4ii WBSS
20° form KG 48.830 ■JCG0.000 Inclination angle RA Displacement amount o, oo O,00018,150,000,5
70,25018,150,o.

5.00 2.200 18.149.9910
．． 00 5.904 18.149.9915.
00 11.093 18.149.9920.0
0 16.257 18,149.9925.00
24.804 18,150.0030.00
4.3. O1818,150,0035,0051,
70418,150,0040,0051,61418
, 150,00 Design Condition 6 Draft 44,000 Displacement 19,200.00 KCr 46.800 LCI? , 0. ('l 005.00
1.927 19,200.0020.00 1
2.619 19.199.9940.00 46
．． 837. 19.200.0OLCB Draft Draft difference Reciprocal action 0.000 36.399
0. Ofl (+2-0.000 36
．． 402 001 2-〇, 000 36.
631 0.000 20.000 3ri,
1 ] 3 0. (+00 4-0.000
44.2 (180, (H)0 40.000
49.937 0. (1003-0,00055,
2:3 G flo 00 4-0.000
53.12: (0, (lflo 3o, o
oo 62.220 (1, (10(14o,
ooo 69.481 (1,000, 5LC
B draft u:4! Water difference interaction 0.0
00 43. (H'+,'i 0[+[)(12
0,00043,0581++ll 20.0
00 4:3.280o, 10 20.000
43.9+)! + ()f)(to
20.000 47.428 (
1,00040,00052,8290,(1004-
0,00057,227+1.000 40.0
00 60.24:3 0. (10,030,000
66,3711)0(1040,00075,(105
0,0005 Design line Note 7 LOG, 0.000 Inclination angle RA Displacement amount 0.00 0.000 20,250.000;
57 0.195, 20,250,005.
00 1.719 20,250.0010.0
0 3.523 20,250.0015.00
5.532 20,249.9920.00
9.605 20,250.0025.00
21. ．． 087 20,250.0030.00
36.873 20,249.9935.00 4
1.772 20,250.0040.00 42
．． 165 20,250.00 Design condition draft 7 (1,000 displacement 23,450.00 KG40.500 LOG 0.000 5.00 ], 405 23,450.001
0.00 2.887 23,450,0015.
00 6.081 23,4500035, (10
28,77923,449,9940,0029,53
323,449,99LCB Draft Draft difference Interaction 0.000 '49.710 0.
000 2-0.000 49.713 0
．． 000 20.000 4ri! 329 0
．． 00(+20.000 50.597
0,000 20.000 5], 798
0.00'(140,00056,1ri8 0.0
00 40.000 5ri, 221 0. (
)oo 3-0.000 62.353
0. ([1030,000G !19, i 2 0
．． 0 (f(140,00079,2930,of)
fl 5LCB Draft Draft difference Interaction 0.000 69. ! 1!34 0
．． 00 (12Q, o□o 69.9!17 0
．． (10020,0007(1,1412(1,00(
12o, ooo 70.7155 (1,0
00, 40,00069,089 (+, 000
40.000 66.6:shi6 0. OI) 0
30.000 (i 5.61i 9
0. (l OO40,0007r), 1!13 0.
00(140,00079,073(1,(10(14)
0,00089,8:39 (+, ooo
40.57 0.219 25,600.00
0.0005.00 2.647 25,
600.00 0.00010.00 5.73
3 25,600.00 0.00015.00
9.318 25,599.99. 0.
0002n, 00 13.574 25,59
9.99 0.00025.00 17.709
25,599.99 0.00030.00
20.609 25,599.99 0.
00035.00 22.059 25,59
9.99 0.00040.00 22.711
25,599.99 0.000 Design conditions 10 Draft 84.100 Displacement 26,000.00 KG 37.700 40, OC, 21,61,225,999,990,0
00 Draft Draft Difference Interaction 83.62:3, (1, (H)'0, 2
83.485 0.000 380.922
(+,000 478.10a O,0
004 75,3490,0004 72,6830,0004 717950,0004 77,68Fi , 0,000 486,:
399 0,000 497]57 0.0
00 4 11y4 water draft difference interaction 811 ports) il O, (H) 0 284
．． 440 0,0f) 0 3820 fl 5
(1,0004 79',] 8 fi O,000476,422
0,0004 73,878(1,0004 73,5660,00(13 79,3250,0004 87,934(1,00(14 98,65(1(1,(1(10' 4iii WB
SS30° form +1 1 (G53.960 LOG 0.000 0 (0,571,24616,199,99 (5,0010
,35316,200,00(10,0019,410
16,199,99 (15,0027,48716,1
99,99 (20,0034,85216,200゜0
0 (25,0045,26816,200,00
(30,0063,09216,200,00(35,
0064,25316,199,99 (40,0058
,62916,199,99 (Design condition 4 Draft 30.000 Displacement 17,300.00 K(1,51,290)9-( )9(25,0040,73217,300(LCB
Draft Draft difference interaction), 000 24.0
Knee S, li O, (1(Hl 2), 0
00 24.619 (IJ)00 2)
, 000 2c), 4z8 f+, 0ff (12
), 000 35.184 a, ()00
2), 000 4], :363 +1JlOf
1 21.000 48. (175o, (10
031,00054,5660J) 00 5)
, 000 5G, 1.99 tl, 1l (1(1
3), 000 5 ], 4. :37 (1,
00+1 4), 000 43.236
0.000 5), 000 31), 4
73 0. (1002+, 000 32.138
(1,00(14LC:G O
,000 Tilt Angle RA Displacement 0.00 -0.000 18.400,000.
57 0.433 18,400,005.00
3.808 18,399.991000
9.662 18.399.9915.00 1
6.662 18,399.9920, On 2
3.197 18.400.0025.00 37
．． 117 18.400.0O30,0056,76
918,400,0035,0062,40718,4
00, o.

40.00 61386 18,400.00 Design Condition 6 Draft 44.000 Displacement 19.500.00 KG 46.860 LOG 0.000 Inclination Angle RA Displacement 0.00 0.000 19,500,000.
57 0.367 19.499.995.00
3.222 19,499.9910.00
6:559 19.499.9915.00
12.360 19.499.9920.00 1
8.488 19.500.0025.00 34
．． 237 19.500.0030.00 52.
5+3 1'9.500. o035.00 56.
438 19.500. o.

40.00 56.157 19.500. n0L
CB Draft Draft difference Interaction 0.000
36. [10,0(102-0,00036,9(1
fi (LOOLl 20.000 37
．． 304 00 (102-0,00040,7n'
/ (1(l[) 4-0.000 4
6.725 00 il 0 30.00
0 53.467 tL (10020,000
58,662tl(l O(140,0006), 81
4. 11 (Hlfl 30.000 6
6.87'/0. [[) 40.0
00 73.40 = 0000
FiLCB Draft Draft difference Interaction 0.0
00 43.333 (1,00020,0004
3,338() Jloo 20.000 43
．． 720 (1,00020,000449060
,0(104 -0,00049,799f),000 40.
000 56.28 ] (1,00040,00
060,549,0,(10040,00064,51
90, (10030,00072,2,760,000
50,00081,7780,0005 KG 45.000 LCG (1000 1 rotation angle RA displacement 0.00 0.000 20,600,000.
57 0.313 20,600,005.00
2.748 20,600.0010.00
5.596 20.599.9915.00
9.001 20,599.9920.00 1
5.259 20,600.0025.00 31
．． 848 20,599.9930.00 47.
767 20,600.0035.00 50.5
48 20.600.0040.00 50.58
0 20,600.00 Design condition 8 Draft 70.000 Displacement 24,000.0 [)KG
40.33.

LCCr '0.000 0.57 0.208 ' 24,000,005
．． 00 1.82823,999.9910.00
3.752 24,000.0015.00
? ,859 24,000.0020.00 13
．． 762 24.000. n025.00 25.
944 24,000.0030.00 32.5
92 23,999.993s, 00 34.5(
'16 23,999.9940.00 35.1
77 23,999.99LCB Draft
Draft difference interaction 0.000 49.765 0. O
I) 0 2-0.000 49.770 0.
0(1020,00(15(month 36(1,000)
20,0005], 271 +), (1(lf)
20.000 53.678 0. (100
40,0(') 0 59.146 (1,(10
040,000623790,0004 0,00067,J,62 0. (1(to
40.000 76. :389 fl, [l 0
0 50.000 87.075 Fl, 0
0o 5LCB Draft Draft difference
Interaction 0.00(] (3'J6:I70.(
10020,0006, 651 (), (100
20,000fi 9967 fl, (1(l O
20,00070,! 1 (110, (1004o, oo
o 69.1i18 0. (10,040,000
67, (i89 0.000 30.000
68.721 0. (l 00 40.00
0 75.860 0.000 40.00
0 86.275' (1, (10040,00
098,7160,0005 Tilt angle RA Displacement amount LCBO,0
00,00026,199,990,0000,570
,17826,199,990,0005,002,6
5326,200000,00010,Or)
6.202 26,20000 0.00015.
00 10.559 26,199,99 0.
0002o,oo 16. +10026.199,
99 0.00025.00 21.873 2
6,199,99 0.00030.00 24.
812 26,199,99 0.00!135.
00 26.374 26,199,99 0.
00040.00 27.062 26,199,
99 0.000 Design conditions 10 Draft 84.100 Displacement 26,700.00 K('r 37.460LCGOO00 0,570,60326,700,000,0005,
003,29626,700,000,00010,0
06,83926,700,000,00015,00
11,16026,700,000,00020,00
16,33726,699,990,00025,00
20,78926,699,990,00030,00
23,29826,699,990,00035,00
24,77426,699,990,00040,00
25,46826,699,990,000 draft
Draft difference interaction 82, F112 0.000 282.515
0.000 2 80, Fi21 (1,0004 779130,0004 75,482 (1,0004 73,3550,0004 74,6(l I O,00(1482,7'0
] 0.000 493.0250.00
0 4 +05.442 011 [104 Draft - Draft difference interaction 84.3:', H(1, (1002 84,22)i (1,0003 8]Ji , 15 Fl, 0 [)0 47'
1. ], lH1,0,(1004 76,72fl (10003 74,7750,000, 4 76,4/I(i 0.00(14 84, /147 0.0(104 94, fi 88 0.000 ' 4H17 ，
(1510,0004 1v VCG Baseline Form VC: G=45' Design Displacement 200 Old) In Longton (LT).

25000 5000 6(1(100
96000038,4023000300036000
93600040,7(+200(100090000
0450019000-1ooo-120
008880 (104,6,7418000-2000
-2400087600048,6717000-30
00-3600086400050,821,6200
-3800-4500085440052,74160
00-4000-'48000 852000
53.2515501) -45000-540
008460005458■ ■C020° form VGC, = 45' Design displacement 20,250 long tons (
In LT).

26000 5750 69000
980250 37.7025600 5350
64200 975450
38.1023450 3200 38400
949650 40.5020250
0', 0
911250 4513019200-1050
-12600 898650 46
．． 801st5o-2tno-252008
s6o5o 48.8217100-3150
-37800 873450 51
．． 0816200-4050 -48600
862650 53.2516000-4
250 -51000 8602
50 53.7615500-4750 -5
7000 854250 55.11■
I VCo 30° form VCG = 45'well water flow rate 20.00 (at 10 tons (LT)).

Displacement volume De-ballast De-ballast moment Total moment) KGLT LT f
t-LT ft-]L'r ft26
700 6100 73200 100
0200 37.4626200 5600
67200 994200 37.952
410 3400 40800 96
7800 4 (1,222060000927000
45,0019500-,1,100'-13
20091380046,8618400-2200-
264 (1090060048,9!'1・17300
-3300 -39600 88740
0 51.24) 162 (10-4400-5280
087420053,9616000-4600-55
20087180054,4,915500-5100
-6120086580055,86 Appendix ■ Damaged stability 1 Baseline configuration iii WBSS 30° configuration

[Brief explanation of drawings]

1 is a side elevational view of a semi-submersible water supply constructed in accordance with the present invention; FIG. 2 is a top plan view of the vessel of FIG. 1; FIG. 3 is a side elevational view of the vessel of FIG. Figure 4 is a schematic side view of a baseline barb with vertical stabilizing columns; Figure 5 is an end elevation view of the vessel of Figure 4; Figure 6 is 4
Figure 7 is an end elevation view of an embodiment of the invention in which the stability column angle is 10'; Figure 10 is an end elevation of an embodiment of the invention in which the stabilization column angle is 20'; Figure 11 is an end elevation view of an embodiment of the invention in which the stability column angle is 30°; Figure 11 is a curve I diagram showing the characteristics of ships with various stability column angles; m12A Figure 12F shows the restoring arm versus heel angle curve for a vertical legged baseline vessel and a wide bottom semi-submersible supply according to the invention; and Figures 13 to 23 are modified according to the invention to provide a wide floating base. It shows an example of a typical semi-water abort configuration, thereby improving the stability of this type of vessel. Patent Applicant: Mobil 0 Oil @ Corporation (5 others) t=i6. 12-C FIG +2-D FIG, +2-E FIG +2-F

Claims (1)

Claims: 1. A deck, a plurality of stability columns extending downwardly and outwardly from the deck, means connected to the lower end of the stability columns to provide a wide floating base, and a ballast I.
A wide-bottomed semi-submersible supply consisting of f means for loading and unloading. 2. A ship according to claim 1, wherein the base providing means consists of a pair of longitudinally elongated pontoons connected to the lower ends of the stabilizing columns on each side of the ship. 3. A ship according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the base providing means consists of a footing connected to the lower end of each of the stabilizing columns. 4. The deck includes longitudinally extending sponsons extending downwardly from each of its port and starboard sides, the inner surface of each sponson extending downwardly and outwardly from the bottom of the deck. A ship according to claim 2. 5. The ship of claim 4, wherein the inner surface of each sponson extends downwardly and outwardly from the bottom of the deck at the same angle as the column extends downwardly and outwardly. 6. Claim 1, wherein the column extends downward and outward at an angle of 90 degrees less than 00.
Ships listed in paragraph. 7. The above column extends downward and outward from the vertical at an angle greater than 06 and less than 30°. A ship according to claim 6. 8. A wide-bottomed semi-submersible supply consisting of a deck, a plurality of stabilizing columns extending downwardly and outwardly from the deck, and means connected to the lower end of the stabilizing columns to provide a wide floating platform. 1. A method of breaking an ice block by means of a ship, the method comprising the step of loading and unloading ballast to bring the stability column into contact with the ice block. 9. The method according to claim 8, wherein the buoyancy of the ship is continuously changed to raise and sink the ship.