OPTIMISATION OF THE SEAKEEPING AND PERFORMANCE OF A 40 KNOT

PENTAMARAN CONTAINER VESSEL

Edward Dudson, Nigel Gee and Associates Ltd, UK

Nigel Gee, Nigel Gee and Associates Ltd, UK

SUMMARY

This papers details the preliminary design of a 40 knot transatlantic pentamaran containership for ADX Services. The
vessel has been designed to carry up to 8000 tonnes of payload in standard 40 ft containers, stowed in open top holds.
The paper concentrates primarily on the performance and seakeeping qualities of the vessel which has been extensively
model tested and optimised over the last eighteen months.

AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY the vessel at speeds up to 41 knots. A computer

rendering of the vessel is shown in Figure 1.
Nigel Gee is Managing Director of Nigel Gee and
Associates Ltd, which since 1986 has undertaken designs
for over 120 built fast vessels. These vessel designs
range from 10m, 30 knot crew boats, to 200m, 25 knots
fast container ships. In the field of fast ferries, the
company has produced designs for a number of SES and
catamaran designs including two 36 knot ferries
introduced into service in New York Harbour in 1997,
and a 55 knot vessel which entered service in Argentina
in January 1999. A number of designs have been
produced for fast car and passenger ferries and fast
freight vessels. Design is in progress for a fast car ferry
due for delivery in mid 2002 and ten vessels have been
constructed to the company’s design for a 25 knot fast Figure 1 : Computer Rendering
feeder container vessel. Further designs for fast freight
vessels with speeds from 30-60 knots are in progress. The principal particulars for the vessel are shown in
Table 1. The vessel design consists of a very slender
Before founding Nigel Gee and Associates Ltd, he spent unstable central hull (L/B = 14.74) stabilized by four
15 years in the fast passenger ferry design and build small sponsons. All cargo holds with the exception of
industry the two forward holds are open topped, allowing easy
and quick loading and unloading with conventional
Nigel Gee is a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Naval cranes. The crane outreach required is 31m to lift the
Architects and a Member of the Society of Naval most outboard container, well within the capability of a
Architects and Marine Engineers. modern port.

Ed Dudson graduated from the University of The vessel has been designed with collaboration from
Southampton in 1990 and joined Nigel Gee and both Det Norske Veritas and Germanischer Lloyd who
Associates the same year where he has worked worked closely with NGA to define the design loads for
continuously with the exception of a year’s sabattical in the vessel. The level of work undertaken in this project
Marintek. He is current Head of the Concept Design gives NGA confidence that not only can the vessel
department and project managed the preliminary design achieve the performance outlined in this paper but also
stage of the ADX Express vessel. Ed Dudson is a that the structure designed will be capable of being built
Chartered Engineer and Member of the Royal Institute of for the calculated weights.
Naval Architects.

1. INTRODUCTION

ADX Express has been designed to carry both high value

Sea Freight and cargo currently sent by Air Freight on a
transatlantic route. The requirements of ADX Express
are for a vessel to maintain a four-day crossing schedule
throughout the year. The vessel will be constructed from
high tensile steel and utilises proven machinery to propel
 Prior to model tests an extensive parametric investigation
Length Overall 287.0 m was performed, to determine the principal particulars of
Length Waterline 280.0 m the vessel. In order to perform the investigation both
Beam Central Hull 25.0 m standard series and data from previous NGA model tests
Beam Overall 45.5 m were used. Resistance predictions using standard series
Draught (Design) 9.0 m data tended to over estimate the resistance prediction,
Displacement (Design) 23500 tonnes NGA calculations predicted resistance some 28% lower
Payload (Design) 6145 tonnes than an optimised design based on the Taylor-Gertler
Deadweight (Design) 8740 tonnes standard series and some 35% better than an optimised
Payload (Max) 8013 tonnes Series 64 hull form. Figure 3 shows the predicted
optimum resistance curve, based on model test data,
Deadweight (Max) 10740 tonnes
superimposed on Figure 3 are the bands of speed
Main Engines 4 x Pielstick PC 4.2B
indicating the optimum L/B ratio.
4 x 23850 kW
Waterjets 4 x Kamewa 225 SII 5000.00
TMB Tank Tests L/B=10
4500.00 HHST Tank Tests L/B=20
Full Load Speed 40.0 knots NGA : Optimum Design Line
4000.00 HOLTROP / Taylor Gertler
Speed (Max Load) 37.0 knots

Central Hull Resistance (kN)

Series 64
3500.00
Table 1 : Principal Particulars
3000.00

2500.00
Propulsion is provided by four Pielstick 18V PC 4.2B
2000.00
medium diesel engines burning heavy oil, providing
significant cost benefits over gas turbines both in terms 1500.00

of specific fuel consumption and fuel cost. 1000.00

500.00
L/B 10 L/B 11 L/B 12 L/B 13 L/B 14 L/B 15 L/B 16
Average fuel burn for a transatlantic crossing in all 0.00
20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00
seasons and all weathers is 1350 tonnes of heavy diesel Vessel Speed (knots)
fuel. This figure compares extremely favourably with all
other fast ship concepts. It is estimated that the ADX Figure 3 : Predicted Resistance
Express can provide part of a service transporting cargo
door-to-door in a similar time to air freight, but at less The parametric study revealed a vessel with a waterline
than ¼ of the cost, and at only a marginal cost increase length of 260 m and an L/B ratio for the central hull of
over conventional ocean freight which traditionally takes 14.8, the displacement of the vessel was predicted to be
three times as long. It is anticipated that the contract to 17400 tonnes, based on a rule calculated bending
build the first large Pentamaran freight vessel will be moment. The powering levels indicated that waterjets
placed before the end of 2001. were likely to be the only realistic type of propulsor due
to the limited draught of the vessel, this of course leads
A general arrangement for the vessel is presented in to the requirement to have an immersed transom stern
Figure 2. which is not particularly efficient at this Froude number.

2.2 RESISTANCE

An extensive series of model tests were undertaken to

determine the minimum resistance of the central hull. To
confirm the parametric studies, tests were performed on
three models with different L/B ratios based on an
identical geometric parent form. A comparison in the
resistance of the three models is presented in Figure 4.

Figure 2 : General Arrangement

2. HULL DEVELOPMENT

2.1 PARAMETRICS
 4000.0
A detailed discussion concerning the force and moment
measurements from the model test can be found in ref(3).
3500.0
Practically, the immersion of the transom is controlled by
Resistance (kN)

3000.0 the requirements of the waterjets to prime, furthermore

ventilation of the waterjets is of concern when the intakes
2500.0 are positioned close to the static LWL. The transom area
of the vessel was minimised by lifting the central two
2000.0 waterjets, whilst lowering the wing jets, the design of the
transom is shown in Figure 6.
1500.0
34 36 38 40 42 44
Vessel Speed (knots)
M 2 4 4 4 L/ B 14 . 5 M 2 4 4 5 L / B 16
M 2 4 4 6 L/ B 13 P r e di c t e d R t

Figure 4 : Effect of L/B Ratio on Resistance

The resistance of the L/B 13 model was approximately

10% higher than that of the L/B 14.5 model, whilst the Figure 6 : Transom Design
L/B 16 model had a resistance 3% lower than the L/B
14.5 model at 39 knots and a similar resistance at 35 The changes in the transom design as well as the
knots. The resistance levels for the L/B 14.5 model were improvements in the forebody design yielded resistance
approximately 17% higher than the predicted resistance values some 5% better than originally predicted for the
taken from the Optimum Design Line in Figure 3. At central hull and 40% lower than predicted by Series 64.
this stage it was decided to proceed with the optimisation The sponson design for the vessel is based on the
of the L/B 14.5 hull (rather than the L/B 16 hull) for the patented Pentamaran principle allowing very low
following reasons :- sponson draught, whilst maintaining excellent static and
dynamic stability. The additional increase in resistance
· At the typical operating speed of 37 knots there was due to the sponsons is 5.5% at 37 knots and only 2.0% at
only 2% difference in resistance. 41 knots.
· Reduced structural risk associated with the L/B 14.5
hull.
· CR values were higher for the L/B 14.5 and 2.3 SEAKEEPING
therefore there was a higher likelihood of further
resistance reduction by optimising. The requirements of the design to maintain the highest
possible speeds in waves, required careful design of the
· The L/B 16 hull would require larger sidehulls for
forebody to eliminate the possibility of slamming whilst
stability and therefore higher sidehull resistance.
maintaining a dry deck. Previous tests with a 30 knot
pentamaran (PEBOS) in the ocean basin had confirmed
It was clear from the tests that substantial reductions in
low speed loss, however operability of the vessel was
resistance could be obtained by minimising the immersed
reduced due to high lateral accelerations in the
transom area and optimising the forebody design. The
wheelhouse as a result of an exceptionally stiff vessel
effect on resistance of changing the immersed transom
particularly at large heel angles.
area on the L/B 14.5 model is demonstrated in Figure 5.
One unique feature of a Pentamaran is the ability to
4000.0 modify the shape of the GZ curve at any angle with only
small changes in sponson geometry. The sponson
3500.0 geometry was designed to meet all the stability
Resistance (kN)

requirements of SOLAS whilst improving the motions of

3000.0 the vessel by increasing the roll period and reducing the
magnitude of the righting arm at moderate to high heel
2500.0
angles. A comparison between the righting arms of the
2000.0 ADX Express and PEBOS are shown in Figure 7.

1500.0
34 36 38 40 42 44
Vessel Speed (knots)
M 2 4 4 4 L/ B 14 . 5 P r edic t ed Rt
M 24 44 Ha lf Ar e a M 2 4 4 4 Low A r e a

Figure 5 : Effect of Transom Area on Resistance

 4.5
4.0 PEBOS
ADX Express
3.5
Righting Lever (m)

3.0

2.5
2.0

1.5
1.0

0.5
0.0 Figure 8 – Ocean Basin Model
0 10 20 30 40 50
Angle of Heel (degrees) The results of these tests demonstrated the ability of the
vessel to operate in high sea states with low speed loss
and reasonable motions. However, a number of problem
areas were highlighted which required further
Figure 7 : Righting Arm Comparison
investigation namely:
The roll period on PEBOS was 19 seconds compared to
· Waterjet Ventilation
around 25 seconds for ADX Express. The effect of the
changes in righting arm and roll period was to · Directional Stability
significantly reduce the lateral accelerations at the bridge · Yaw-Roll Coupling
in comparison to PEBOS and thereby improve the
operability of the vessel.
2.4 WATERJET VENTILATION
A large series of ocean basin tests were undertaken at the
Marintek Ocean Basin in Trondheim. The model was at Analysis of the waterjet rpm time trace revealed spikes in
a scale of 1:37.5, approximately 7.3m in length. The seas in excess of 4m significant and above. These spikes
centre hull of the pentamaran was fitted with four model were a result of air ingestion into the waterjet, due to the
waterjets provided with controllable nozzles for steering wing waterjets sucking air from the free surface into the
and buckets for stopping. All the sea keeping tests were waterjet inlet duct. Waterjet ventilation can have a
done with a fixed power setting, i.e. impeller revolutions serious impact on not only the life of the waterjet
corresponding to a calm water speed of 41 knots. During impeller, but also the whole propulsion train. An
the sea keeping tests, the model was free running immediate solution would have been to increase the
controlled by an autopilot in the online mode. The model transom immersion thereby increasing the distance
had three transverse splits for the measurement of forces between the waterjet inlet and the free surface. However,
and moments in 6 DOF, the sponsons were connected to the effect on vessel resistance would have reduced the
the central hull by means of force transducers. Model speed capability of the vessel considerably. In order to
tests were performed in two regular waves of both 3m solve the ventilation issue without significantly affecting
and 6m heights with periods ranging from 7 to 17 the resistance of the vessel, a series of seakeeping tests
seconds at five headings. In addition tests were were performed in head seas with an underwater camera
performed in 5 irregular spectra ranging from 2m recording the occurrence of ventilation. Of particular
significant to 14.5 m significant. A photograph of the interest was the fact that even though the two centreline
model is shown in Figure 8. waterjets were the closest to the static waterline, no
ventilation occurrences were observed in the centre
waterjets during the tests.

The ventilation issue was overcome by a further lowering

of the wing waterjets in combination with a fence placed
just outboard of the wing waterjet inlet ducts. A fence
was chosen in preference to a scoop since the fence has
the added advantage of improving the directional control
of the vessel.

2.5 DIRECTIONAL CONTROL/COUPLING

EFFECT OF ROLL AND YAW
The yaw angles observed during the model tests were
higher than expected particularly in bow quartering and 2.6 RESULTS OF MODIFICATION
stern quartering seas. Comparisons with the PEBOS
model tests showed a large increase in the yaw motions. The model was modified to incorporate the waterjet
See Figure 9. fences in addition to the high speed rudders and
interceptor plates, and further testing in irregular seas in
the Marintek Ocean Basin was performed. Significant
3.5
improvements in ventilation, motions and speed loss
were recorded.
3

2.6 (a) Waterjet Ventilation

2.5
RMS Yaw Angle (degrees)

The occurrence of ventilation recorded during the second

2 series of model tests was sub-divided into “aeration” and
“emergence” as defined by Kamewa (Ref 1). An
1.5 aeration event is deemed to occur when the torque drops
by less than half the mean torque value on the shaft.
1 Emergence occurs when the shaft torque drops more than
50% of its mean value. Kamewa have confirmed that the
0.5 design limit for a twenty year fatigue life on the impeller
is 140,000 torque drops of 100%. In performing a
0 statistical analysis to predict the number of ventilation
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 and emergence events NGA chose to set the design limit
Signif icant Wave Ht (m) at 140,000 events, greater than 50% torque drop. The
modifications made to the stern of the model eliminated
PEBOS 0 Degs PEBOS 45 Degs PEBOS 90 Degs
ventilation in 4m significant waves, and no ventilation
ADX 0 degs ADX 45 degs ADX 90 degs
events were observed in 6m head or following seas.
Figure 9 : Comparison of RMS Yaw Response Figure 10 is a time history of the port wing waterjet
revolutions, this time segment has been extracted from
The yaw motions induced roll motions, since the large the model tests in 6m head seas, the improvement in
yaw angles large waterjet nozzle angles to correct the ventilation is clearly demonstrated by the lack of spikes
yaw, these nozzle angles introduced roll motions further in the rpm plot.
increasing the yaw angles. The reasons for the
directional instability were two-fold: firstly, the design of 5.5
the central hull with a very shallow after body combined
with the deep forebody; secondly, the steering deadzone
associated with the waterjet steering nozzles, where small
nozzle angles provide little or no side force, resulted in a 5
delay in the time taken for the vessel to correct its course,
this time delay meant larger yaw angles.
rps

The fences designed to eliminate waterjet ventilation 4.5

have an added benefit of significantly improving the

directional stability of the vessel. Additional
improvements in the course control were made by the
4
introduction of small high speed flap rudders attached to 0 50 100 150
time (s)
the aft end of the anti-ventilation fences. These rudders
have a total lateral area of only 7.4m2 which is equivalent Original version Modified version

to 0.45% of the total lateral area of the vessel. With the Figure 10 : Occurrence of Waterjet Ventilation
high speed rudders the course correction force is applied
immediately the vessel deviates from the intended The waterjet ventilation analysis was performed using
direction. data from Global Wave Statistics (Ref 2), this of course
takes no account of the benefits of weather routing that
The roll motions were reduced further by the addition of the vessel would typically use in order to maintain
interceptor plates on the aft sponsons. This technology is schedule, and as a result is a pessimistic prediction. The
used frequently in fast ferries to reduce pitch, heave and predicted number of emergences (>50% torque drop) in
roll motions. The high speed of ADX Express makes the the 20 year life of the impeller is 55000, or
technology particularly applicable for the control of roll approximately 40% of the Kamewa design value.
motions. Furthermore Pielstick, MAAG and Centa have confirmed
the frequency of ventilation is sufficiently low to avoid
possible fatigue problems in the shaft, gearbox, or main Maximum Response
engine. Pielstick have performed a torsion and vibration

Significant Wave Height (m)

analysis in the “time domain” to investigate the effect of
a ventilation occurrence on the main engines. Figure 11 8.0

details the impact of a 40% torque drop due to ventilation

on the main engine revolutions and fuel rack. 6.0
Immediately following the torque drop the main engine
revolutions start to increase, the engine control system
reduces the fuel to the main engine, limiting the engine 4.0

revolutions. As the torque increases to its normal level

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
the fuel rack increases again resulting in only a small
Yaw (Deg)
drop in main engine revolutions. Some small oscillations
in the fuel rack and shaft torque are present after the Original Modified

ventilation event.
Figure 13 : Max Yaw Response in Bow Quartering Seas

100.00
RMS Response

90.00 Significant Wave Height (m)

8.0
PERCENTAGE

80.00
6.0

70.00 RACK 4.0

SPEED
ENGINE TORQUE
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
60.00
TIME(s) Yaw (Deg)
Original Modified
Figure 11 – Effect of Ventilation on Main Engine
Figure 14 : RMS Yaw Response in Stern Quartering Seas

2.6 (b) Vessel Motions Maximum Response

Significant Wave Height (m)

The yaw motions in all headings were substantially

8.0
reduced, with rms yaw reduced by 50% in seas forward
of the beam and by around 30% for seas aft of the beam.
Maximum yaw angles were reduced by approximately 6.0
50% in all headings. The rms yaw response in bow
quartering seas is presented in Figures 12 & 13, the yaw 4.0
response in stern quartering seas is presented in Figures
14 & 15. 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00

Yaw (Deg)

RMS Response Original Modified

Significant Wave Height (m)

8.0 Figure 15 : Max Yaw Response in Stern Quartering Seas

Roll motions in all head sea conditions were substantially

6.0
reduced see Figures 16 & 17. However, the benefit from
the interceptor plates in stern seas was small and as a
4.0 result the roll motions in stern seas were similar to the
original test series.
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

Yaw (Deg)
Original Modified

Figure 12 – RMS Yaw Response in Bow Quartering Seas

 RMS Response
Significant Wave Height (m)

8
8.0

Significant Wave Height (m)

6
6.0

4
4.0

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 2

Roll (Deg)
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Original Modified
Speed Loss (knots)
Figure 16 : RMS Roll Response in Bow Quartering Seas
Original Modified

Maximum Response Figure 19 : Speed Loss in Bow Quartering Seas

Significant Wave Height (m)

8.0

Significant Wave Height (m)

6.0

4.0

4
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

Roll (Deg)
2
Original Modified

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Figure 17 : Max Roll Response in Bow Quartering Seas Speed Loss (knots)

Original Modified
The improvements in roll and particularly yaw angle
resulted in greatly reduced speed loss. The vessel when Figure 20 : Speed Loss in Stern Quartering Seas
powered for a calm water speed of 41 knots loses just 4.5
knots in 8m significant heads seas. The average speed The improvements in yaw motion reducing the required
loss in 8m waves of all directions is just 3.6 knots. A deflection angles on the waterjet steering nozzles had a
comparison of the speed loss for the vessel operating in significant secondary effect in reducing the horizontal
various sea conditions and headings is presented in bending moment measured in the model tests. A
Figures 18-20. comparison showing the maximum measured horizontal
bending moment in 6m bow quartering seas is presented
in Figure 21.

8 1000
Significant Wave Height (m)

Measured max and min [MNm

750
6 500
250
4 0
-250

2 -500
-750
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 -1000
Speed Loss (knots) 0 2 4 6 8 10
Significant w ave height [m]
Original Modified
Original 45° Modified 45°
Figure 18 : Speed Loss in Head Seas
Figure 21 : Maximum Horizontal BM Split 2
3. OPERABILITY WRI - Winter Route - 3533nm
Probability of Achievement
Original Modified
As mentioned in the opening paragraph, the ability of the VMax (knots) - Calm Water Condition 41 41 39 38
vessel to maintain a schedule is of paramount importance Required Average
to the operators. NGA have assessed the operability of Transit Time Speed Required

the vessel based on a North Atlantic crossing between 96 36.8 81% 100% 77% 47%

New York and Zeebrugge. 97 36.4 84% 100% 86% 60%

98 36.1 87% 100% 92% 69%
Weather Routing Inc (WRI), who specialise in weather 99 35.7 89% 100% 98% 80%

routing information for ships, provided wave data for the 100 35.3 92% 100% 100% 88%

North Atlantic. WRI provided NGA with the expected 101 35.0 94% 100% 100% 94%

distribution of wave heights for summer and winter 102 34.6 96% 100% 100% 99%

crossings of the North Atlantic. The winter crossing

length was slightly longer than the summer crossing in Table 2 : Ability to Meet Schedule
order to avoid the worst wave conditions. Figure 22
shows the typical expected routes during winter and The column denoted “Original” refers to the speed loss
summer seasons; the wave height distribution associated data measured prior to the modifications to the stern.
with those routes is presented in Figure 23. Clearly, the improvement in vessel speed has a
significant effect on the ability of the vessel to meet its
intended schedule. In fact, in the winter crossings the
calm water speed capability could be reduced by two
knots and the vessel would still meet 100% of crossings
based on a 100 hour schedule.

NGA have also performed a detailed study using the

wave data provided by WRI, and the speed loss data
from the model tests, to define the likely operating
profile for the main machinery. The vessel has a calm
water speed capability of 41 knots. However in order to
achieve the required crossing period of 96 hours in the
summer the required speed is 34.3 knots. Figure 24
shows the expected cumulative distribution of main
Figure 22 : Typical Route in Winter and Summer
engine rating through a years operation on the North
Atlantic.
English Channel to New York
35
100% 100% 100% 100%
30 100%

90%
of Operating Hours

25 "New Analysis 96/100

78%
80% hr Crossing"
Percentage

20
Cumulative Frequency

70%
15
60%
51%
10 50%

5 40% 35%

30% 24%
0
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 >5
20%
12%
Significant Wave Heights (mtrs)
10% 4%
Summer Route (3047nm) Winter Route (3290nm) 1% 0%
0%
LE
0%

IE 0%
55 %

60 0%

65 5%

70 0%

75 5%

80 0%

85 5%

90 0%
95 95%

B
5

EA
<5

0
-5

-6

-6

-7

-7

-8

-8

-9

Figure 23 : Expected Wave Heights

AC - 1
-

V
50

H
N

%MCR Required
Assuming equal distribution of wave directions and using
U

the speed loss data gathered from the model test program Figure 24 : Cumulative Distribution of Main
NGA were able to calculate the ability of the vessel to Engine Rating
meet a certain scheduled crossing time, these results are
shown in Table 2. The ratings of the main engine exceed 85% on only 12%
of crossings and exceed 95% on only 1% of crossings.
All main propulsion machinery suppliers have analysed
the expected power profile and have confirmed that the
ratings are well within standard operating profiles and 3 EDWARD DUDSON; OYVIND PETTERSEN;
maintenance schedules remain at normal time intervals. HANS JORGEN RAMBECH; MIGKANG WU.,
“Determination of Wave Bending Loads on a 40 Knot,
Long Slender Open Topped Containership Through
4. CONCLUSION Model Tests and Hydrodynamic Calculations with
Particular Reference to The Effects of Non-Linear Spring
The extensive design work undertaken on the ADX on the Hull Girder”, Fast 2001, 2001.
Express in collaboration with Marintek, DNV and
Germanischer Lloyd has not only established the
feasibility of building a large steel 40 knot container
ship, but has demonstrated that the long slender stabilised
monohull form of the Pentamaran provides additional
seakeeping and performance benefits. A critical issue for
fast freight vessels is their ability to maintain speed in
adverse sea conditions. Many fast vessel designs are
‘motions and accelerations’ limited rather than ‘power’
limited, and have to reduce power and speed in high sea
conditions. The extensive series of model tests carried
out at Marintek have demonstrated that in all conditions
up to sea state 6 (a significant wave height of 6m), speed
loss will be limited by power only, and will amount to an
average of 2.7 knots. It is anticipated that with the use of
advanced modern weather routing systems it should
never be necessary to operate the vessel in sea state 6 and
above, except for very limited periods in the Western
approaches to the English Channel through the top of the
Bay of Biscay. It should be noted that, of course, the
ship has been designed to operate safely in seas up to
15m significant wave height should this become
necessary in unusual circumstances.

The ability of the vessel to utilise conventional

commercial main propulsion engines (the 18V PC 4.2B
having well over 200,000 hours in marine service)
standard marine gears and waterjets considerably reduces
the risk associated with this design.

As mentioned earlier in this paper, the ADX Express has

been designed to load and unload using conventional
container cranes and will therefore require no significant
port investment prior to commencement of operations.
Furthermore the route of the vessel can be transferred to
alternative destinations without any difficulty.

The work undertaken by DNV and Germanischer Lloyd

has confirmed in principal the structure of the vessel
meets both ultimate strength and 20 year fatigue life
requirements based on an unlimited operating profile of
7000 hours per annum.

5. REFERENCES

1. CHRISTEN HAGER, GUNNAR STYRUD., “The

KaMeWa Waterjet 325, The World’s Largest Waterjet”,
High Speed 2000 & Beyond, 2000.

2. “British Maritime Technology Limited”, Global Wave

Statistics, 1986.