Yard Patrol From 108' Concept To Delivery

ROGER H. COMPTON, HOWARD A.
CHATTERTON,
GORDON HATCHELL & FRANK K. McGRATH
THE U S . NA VAL ACADEMYS NEW

YARD PATROL CRAFT:
FROM CONCEPT TO DELIVERY
This paper was delivered at the Flagship Section Patrol Boat Symposium 13-14 March 1986, Arlington, Virginia
THE AUTHORS
Roger H. Compton is a Webb graduate who, since 1966, has
been a part of the naval architecturefaculty at the U.S.Naval
Academy. Since accepting the appointment to the Academy,
he has been instrumental in establishing the ABET accredited
major program in naval architecture, in the conceptual design
and operation of the Naval Academy Hydromechanics Laboratory, and in the conceptual design of the 10s-ft yard patrol
craft. Besides hi3 Naval Academy involvement, he serves as an
adjunct professor with Virginia Polytechnic Institute in its
N A VSEA Institute graduate program at Crystal City. He is an
active member of both ASNE and SNAME and has published
technical papers with both societies.
Howard A. Chatterton began his career as a Navy coop student
at the Boston Naval Shipyard in 1960. He received his
bachelors degree in naval architecture and marine engineering
from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1966, and his
masters degree in 1968.
He was employed by the Preliminary Design Division of
BuShips in the submarine design and hydrofoil design groups
until 1972, when he joined the Coast Guards Naval Engineering Division. He remained with the Design Branch until
1981, when he accepted a faculty position at the U.S.Naval
Academy as the research director for the Academys hydromechanics laboratory.
He has recently returned to Coast Guard Headquartersas the
assistant chieJ Naval Architecture Branch, Office of Merchant
Marine Safety.
Gordon HatcheU is a naval architect at the Naval Sea Combat
Systems Engineering Station, Norfolk, Virginia in the Combatant Craft Engineering Department. He served as lead-ship
YP project engineer from its inception to delivery and continues to serve as project coordinator on follow-up ship procurements. He has worked on other boat procurements as well
as serving as weight and stability coordinator. Mr. Hatchell
began his engineering career in the Design Division at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Virginia after receiving a
BS in civil engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University. He is a member of ASNE and SNAME.
Frank K. McGrath holds a bachelor of science degree in naval
architecture and marine engineering from the University of
Michigan, 1964: He subsequently served on active duty in the
U.S.Navy.for thirteen years as an engineering duty officer.
During this period, he received a master of science degree in
mechanical engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School,
1972, specializing in fluid dynamics. While in the Navy, Mr.
McGrath served in various commands ashore at naval shipyards, supervisor of shipbuilding and fleet stafJ He has had sea
duty as main propulsion officer aboard the U.S.S. John F.
Kennedy (CV-67). Subsequent to his naval duty, Mr. McGrath
has been employed at Peterson Builders, Inc. as chief engineer
and program manager, directing the detailed design of the
PGGJI I class aluminum gunboats, ARS-50 class steel rescue/

salvage vessels, the MCM-I class wooden mine countermeasures ships and the YP-676 class patrol boats for the Naval
Academy.
ABSTRACT
The design of the new 108-ft yard patrol craft (YPs) for the
U.S. Naval Academy is described from its beginnings as a
senior midshipman design project, through its preliminary and
contract design development at the U.S. Navys small craft
design team headquarters, Naval Sea Combat Systems
Engineering Station, Norfolk, Virginia (NAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTA-Norfolk). During preliminary and contract
design the Naval Academy Hydromechanics Laboratory
(NAHL) provided experimental data to support NAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTA-Norfolksdesign analyses in powering, seakeeping, and maneuvering. Several tradeoff studies of
interest to patrol craft designers are presented. Major events in
the detail design and construction of the first boat are described
from both the designers and the shipbuilders points of view.
The launching, builders and sea trials of the first boat are
described. A modification to provide an oceanographic
research capability for the Academys Oceanography Department is outlined. The model data acquired at NAHL and the
full scale data acquired during sea trials provide an unusual opportunity for correlation analyses for small patrol craft.
INTRODUCTION
A n important and unique aspect of the U.S. Naval
Academys mission to prepare midshipmen morally,
mentally, and physically to be professional officers in the
naval service requires hands-on, real-life exposure to
the complex, mechanical systems that are the stuff of
which navies are made - ships. Midshipmen obtain
underway seagoing experience through year-round local
operations on small open power launches and small sailing craft, more extensive summer cruises on operational
U.S. Navy ships, and active year-round operation of a
dedicated fleet of twin-screw yard patrol craft (YPs). YPs
are used for training in navigation, ship handling, shipboard command organization, fleet tactical maneuvering
principles, rules of the road, shipboard military procedures, and to gain an appreciation for seagoing.
The on-the-water training is thus technical, sociological,
military, and motivational.
Since 1958, the aforementioned training has been accomplished using a 15-boat fleet of specially designed
80-foot YPs described pictorially in Figure 1, with major
characteristics listed in Table 1 [I]. While some elements
of the YP fleet were built in 1968, most were built between 1958 and 1961. During the 28 years since their
Naval EngineersJournal, January 1987
37
COMPTON/CHATTERTON/HATCHELL/McGRATH
USNA YARD PATROL CRAFT
Figure 1. 80-ft USNA yard patrol craft (YP).
Table 1. 80' USNA YP Characteristics

Length Over-all
Extreme Beam
Draft (light load)
Displacement
Main propulsion
Generator
Propellers
Fuel Oil Capacity
Lubricating Oil Capacity
Fresh water
Maximum Speed
Cruising Speed
Maximum Safe Capacity
80'5"
18'9"
5 4"
69.5 tons
(4) GM-6-71 diesels, 165
horsepower each
(1) 120-volt, 20 kilowatt,
A.C. generator
(2) 3-bladed, 36"-diameter
screws
2,070 gallons
15 gallons
420 gallons
13.5 knots
10 knots
60 people
delivery, the YPs have been modified to meet the changing requirements of Naval Academy (and U.S. Navy)
programs. Major among these changes was the admission
of women to the Academy in 1977. As a result, much of
the after end of the deckhouse was converted from a CIC
(combat information center), to berthing space. This
reduced the navigational training ability of the YPs. In
addition, stores and lifesaving equipment were required
for the increased complement, and this led to adverse
changes in displacement and center of gravity. A postconversion stability analysis of YP-660 indicated that the
margin of safety for offshore operations was minimal at
38
Naval Engineers Journal, January 1987
Rudder angles (twin rudders)

Standard
Full
Heights
Top of mast to boot top
Yard arm to boot top
Radar antenna to boot top
Vertical distance between
sidelights and masthead light
Height of eye (6-foot man)
Main Deck (forward)
Main Deck (aft)
Signal bridge
13%"
25
35"
37' 10"
25 ' 6"
with stadimeter
28'
13'1"
12.8'
11.6'
19.6'
best [2], thus placing a significant geographical limit on

the YPs operational area.
Recognizing the YP fleet was fast approaching the end
of its service life, the Naval Academy superintendent
(then Vice Admiral Kinnard McKee, USN) requested
cost estimates for replacing in-kind the 80-ft wooden
YPs. A $3M per boat cost estimate, coupled with the
restriction to coastal operation for safety, so concerned
Adm. McKee that he requested input from the naval architecture faculty at the Academy. The initial charge to
the "in house" naval architects was to investigate ways to
get a fleet of boats incorporating current design and
equipment concepts less expensively, and without imposing such severe constraints on their operational area.
Adm. McKee wanted blue water experience for the
midshipmen - if the cost could be kept within reason.
Cost savings were expected by considering a structural
material other than wood and by using commercial instead of military electronics.

DESIGN PROBLEM DEFINITION
An in-depth analysis of need and a quantification of
the capabilities needed in a replacement training craft
were initiated by the naval architects of the Department
of Naval Systems Engineering and representatives of the
Department of Seamanship and Navigation. From an
Table 2. Replacement Yard Patrol Craft Operational Requirement (OR) Summary

General
To provide basic realistic professional afloat training to the midshipmen
10-11 month per year operation
Craft to represent current fleet standards
Will be strictly a noncombatant training craft
Instruction to include watch station evolutions, fleet operating procedures, deck seamanship, rules of the road,
practical navigation, piloting, ship handling, tactical steaming, basic engineering, damage control, operations
and communication training, and basic oceanographic training
Inland and open-ocean environments
Maintained and supported at Naval Station, Annapolis, Maryland
Characteristics
Design emphasis on habitability, training space, maneuverability, stability
1,400 NM range at 12 knots
Unrestricted operations in sea state 3; restricted operations in sea state 5
At-sea endurance of 5 days unreplenished
Complement of 24 midshipmen, 2 officers, 4 enlisted personnel
Training and habitability facilities for both male and female midshipmen (12 each assumed)
Reflect, insofar as practical, the configuration and equipment of current Navy destroyer/frigates
underway replenishment capability
- including
Table 3. Replacement Yard Patrol Craft Design Requirements Summary

Limiting dimensions:
L I 120ft
B 5 28 ft
T I 10 ft
A I 120LT
limitation due to berthinghaintenance

at Naval Station, Annapolis, Maryland
Diesel propulsion
Galley seating: 15
Two combat information centers (CIC) with a total of 18 training positions
CIC to be sound isolated from engine noise
Enclosed engineering operating station (EOS)
Pilot house to accommodate 8 persons; ship fully operable by 2 enlisted; 360 visibility; direct access to open
bridge wings
Signal bridge
Walk-in damage control locker
Anchors in hawse pipes
Commercially available, state-of-the-art electronic equipment
Capable of towing or being towed by another YP
No overboard discharges in coastal/inland waters in compliance with current and anticipated federal standards
Operational scenarios
- during academic year: 9 hours per day, 5 days per week for short, repeated training evolutions
- during intercessional period: two 5-week cruises along Atlantic Coast; six 10-day cruises
Speed-time profile
- 0-5 knots (maneuvering) 20%
- 5-12 knots (transits, etc.) 60%
- 2 10 knots (tactics) 20%
Annual operating time: 2,000 hrs per ship
Estimated acquisition cost (1978 dollars) $2.5M per ship
Required upgrading of YP support facilities
39

initial set of requirements drafted in December 1976 to
the formal operational requirement (OR) and final
design requirement document sent by the Superintendent (USNA) to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO)
in December 1978, the details of the requirements
changed very little. The major operational requirements
are shown in Table 2, and those features thought to be
required to accomplish the mission are shown in Table
3. These tables represent a distillation of characteristics
desired by the operator.
Some of the more significant matters considered in
arriving at the OR and design requirements included:
1) The lack of consistently motivational and educational assignments to operating fleets units for midshipmen summer professional training - especially
for third class cruise (between freshman and sophomore year). While a more capable YP fleet would
solve this problem because of total control by the
Naval Academy, it would also reduce real-world,
real-Navy experiences - especially the sociological
and the see the world ones.
2) The unavailability of most naval ships to female midshipmen.
3) The reduction of expense of transporting large numbers of midshipmen to and from many widely separated ports.
4) Optimum YP fleet size - trading off increased
training capability versus operating cost, maintenance procedures, and YP berthing.
5) The preference of both the ship handling instructors
and maintenance personnel for wood hulls in lieu of
steel, aluminum, or glass reinforced plastic - even
though woods high cost of construction was one of
the causes for the design problems existence!
6 ) Maximum YP speed. Seamanship and tactics instructors originally wanted 17 knots, but maintenance
personnel wanted to retain 71-series diesel engines
because of familiarity, dependability, and logistics
simplification. Thus, the model 12V71N and 12
knots (vice a larger bore or turbocharged/intercooled
engine and 17 knots) was ultimately specified for the
new craft. It should be noted that the 12V71 is the
largest of the 71 series engines.
As is so often the case, the problem definition specified characteristics not mandated by stated design constraints. While this was undoubtedly pragmatic - at
least in the near term - it philosophically stifled a
designers creative freedom. For example, in the YP
case, twin-screw propulsion was specified in the OR.
That the ship have at least twin-screw propulsion was
a requirement of the training mission, but why eliminate
the cost-benefit analysis of a triple-screw scheme in
which the centerline screw would be used for single-screw
ship handling training?
Thus, from the first official statement of need to the
complete definition of the problem and its submission
through the chain of command for review, approval,
and funding, something as simple (relative to other
naval ships) as a noncombatant training ship took two
years. Technical, fiscal, and political dialog among
naval architects, operators, maintenance personnel, and
management were required to define this design problem.
40
APPROACHES TO SOLVING
THE Y P DESIGN PROBLEM
The initial approaches to developing a replacement
YP were explored by the naval architecture faculty of
the U.S. Naval Academy beginning in December 1976.
Four possible alternative concepts emerged. They were:
1) Reconfiguration of the 80-ft YP, presently in use at
the Naval Academy, (and at other officer training
establishments) to suit the stated mission (See Figure
1).
2) Reconfiguration of a successful U.S. Navy hull to
suit the stated mission - for example, the 100-ft torpedo weapons retriever (TWR).
3) Reconfiguration of a successful commercially
available hull to suit the stated mission - e.g., an
offshore yacht like MV Silverudo built by Willard
Boat Company [3], or an offshore crew boat/supply
boat like those used to ferry personnel and supplies
to offshore oil rigs.
4) A new design based totally on the developed design
problem statement.
The logical viability of this list of alternative concepts

was established several years later when NAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTA-Norfolk developed independently the same set of alternatives [4]. In early 1977,
the late Cdr. Henry Schmidt, USN, undertook an active
program to study the commercially available hull
alternative. Prof. Roger Compton began study of the
100-ft TWR conversion and acted as faculty advisor for
two teams of midshipman designers (senior students
majoring in naval architecture) who developed original
solutions to the problem directly from the current design
requirements.
MIDSHIPMAN CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS
The YP design problem is ideal for midshipmen to
undertake since the YP is of a size and complexity that
make its conceptual design tractable in a short time frame
(16 weeks) and it is a ship with which midshipmen have
considerable operational experience. Of special concern
to the midshipmen designers were the extreme structural
loads encountered in the seawall bumper drills experienced when students are at the helm. The team of
Midshipmen Ron Miller and Mike Wertz decided to
develop a glass reinforced plastic hull whose shape was a
derivative of Beys Series 63 [ 5 ] round-bilge parent form.
Their design featured twin-screw diesel propulsion, and
accommodation spaces widely separated, but completely
below the main deck. Working from the same design requirements, the team of Midshipmen Corey Glab and
Rich Maurer developed a steel hull/aluminum deckhouse
design featuring triple-screw propulsion (so that both
twin-screw and single-screw ship handling could be
taught) and widely separated accommodation spaces on
and below the main deck. This latter hull was a modified
(beamier) version of the TWR discussed earlier. This
design project was entered in the 1977 American Society
of Engineering Educators (ASEE) National Design
THIINl!lt
CRArT
- TNO
425
SHP ENGIMES
T R A I N I N G C R A F T Y P wltwo 425-HP
DIESELS
T-IT
150
30
ij
STEEL
140
(PAYLOAD
6000 I b l
ze
130
PA RENT'
l.&F:
-
26
120
24
__-__
110
z
5
XLUMIN
.-.-
22
5 :
-am
____
30
__
- --
ZC
25
18
VOLUME
30
25
.z
B
20
5gure 3. Design study sizing plot

(8V71TI engines).
- length versus beam
LJ
.
..
15
Competition and was awarded Second Prize in the

Senior Division.
While providing an ideal problem for fledgling naval
architects to cut their teeth on, the Y P designs produced
as student projects could not replace professionally produced ship designs. The midshipman design teams of the
Class of 1977 were neither the first nor the last to choose
a replacement Y P for their senior design project. During
and after the spring semester of 1977, much technical
Table 4. Alternative #I - 80-ft YP
FY 77 YP673 Series
Length (overall)
Beam ( m a )
Draft ( m a )
Displacement (light)
Displacement (full load)
Speed ( m a )
Range (at 12 knots and full load)
80'-5"
17'-9%"
5 1-41!
57 tons
68 tons
12.6 tons
400 N.M
Structure: - Planked wood hull with aluminum deck

house; round bottom.
Systems: - Engines: Two 12V 71N diesel engines (340
shp) with a reduction of 2: 1 .
Propellers: Two 36" diameter x 24 " pitch.
Generator: One 30kw diesel.
Training Facilities: two independent CICs.
pilot house with flying bridge and
bridge wings over.
Habitability: Crew: 2 officers, 8 midshipmen, shared
washrooms.
Messroom: seating for 5 .
L E N G T H O V E R A L L (11.1
Figure 4. Design study sizing plot - various hull

characteristics versus length (8V71TI engines).
dialog continued within the Naval Academy staff about

the need of replacing the Y P fleet. As a result in January
1979 the CNO issued the operational requirements to
NAVSEA requesting a full-fledged technical study of the
replacement YP. The midshipman projects were treated
as initial conceptual studies for the ultimate designers of
the YP, NAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTA-Norfolk.
NAVSEA PRELIMINARY AND
CONTRACT DESIGNS
NAVSEA PMS 300 authorized NAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTA-Norfolk to begin the concept exploration
phase of the Y P design process in August 1979. The
design team, led by Gordon Hatchell, developed four
feasibility alternatives [4]. Before developing any one of
the concepts, however, those features required by the
OR which primarily impact craft size were identified for
analysis. It soon became apparent that the design would
be volume-limited because of the internal space required
for training functions and habitability.
An analysis of the internal volumes required for major functional spaces (i.e., operational, pedagogical,
habitability, and machinery) was performed to arrive at
an estimate of the total enclosed volume needed to
satisfy the stated operational requirements. When this
41

analysis was performed initially, a maximum speed of
at least 14 knots was specified by the operators. Two
diesel propulsion system configurations were considered
initially - twin turbocharged and intercooled 8V7 1TI
engines, or twin naturally aspirated 16V149 engines.
The former required that the craft have a total enclosed
volume of 23,800 cubic feet and a maximum speed of 14
knots, while the latter resulted in a craft having a total
enclosed volume of 25,000 cubic feet and an estimated
maximum speed of 16 knots. While adequate internal
volume is a necessary measure of size, it is not alone
sufficient. Compartment length and beam minima for
certain systems must also be considered (e.g., machinery
spaces). The foregoing volume analysis was based on extensive experience with similar small craft, as are the
design rules-of-thumb which suggest that, for a given
craft length, there is a minimum beam below which
stability problems are likely. When such fruits of design
experience are combined with the physical and political
constraints unique to the current design problem, plots
like Figures 3 and 4 can be constructed which show
clearly the bounds on certain gross ship characteristics.
Such plots reduce the designers choice of major sizing
parameter values to a more tractable range.
Having the required internal volumes estimated, the
four conceptual solutions to the design problem could
be quantitatively evaluated for feasibility.
OF THE ~O-FT
YP
ALTERNATIVE
#1: RECONFIGURATION
(see Figure 1 and Table 4)
The most recent version of the 80-ft Y P falls short of

meeting the OR in many areas. It would require an increase in volume of 2,925 cubic feet to fulfill mission requirements. Much of this added volume and its associated weight would be above the main deck with a portion above deck house level. Any increase in the vertical
center of gravity of the existing craft would result in loss
of seakeeping/stability characteristics which are presently marginal [2] and is, therefore, unacceptable.
ALTERNATIVE
#2: A MODIFICATTON
OF THE 1 0 0 - TWR
~~
The 100-ft TWR hull structure and propulsion plant
would satisfy the OR; however, its hull length and shape
would severely restrict arrangement, habitability and
operating spaces. The mission of the TWR required
potable water and consumables for a complement of 15
men. To accomplish the longer duration cruises, and
larger mixed complement required of the YP, additional
storage, berthing, and sanitary spaces would result in the
need for about 2,700 cubic feet of added internal volume. Major modification of the bow would be necessary
to accommodate hawsepipes for anchor handling. The
TWR has adequate stability (without ballast) to just
satisfy an 80-knot beam wind criterion with its full load
of torpedoes and its present sail area. It does not have
margin to allow for growth. Use of the TWR hull for a
YP would require an increase in sail area. This increased
sail area and the requirement to satisfy an 80-knot beam
wind criterion precluded the use of the TWR as a new
42
YP. Also, on the basis of operational experience, the
100-ft TWR greatly exceeds recommended maximum roll
amplitudes for new designs. Considering the above, the
TWR modification was eliminated as a viable alternative.
ALTERNATIVE
#3: A MODIFICATION
OF A
SUITABLE
COMMERCIALLY
AVAILABLE
HULL
Several commercially available hulls having lengths in
the 85-120-ft range were considered. At least one example of a steel hull, aluminum hull, fiberglass hull, and
wooden hull were studied. Both diesel and gas turbine
engines were included. When evaluated in light of the
OR, those listed in Table 5 [4] had adequate internal
volume, but did not meet the U.S. Navys intact and
damaged stability criteria for coastal operation. All of
the hulls would require extensive internal rearrangement
- including changes in structural bulkheads - to meet
the requirements in the OR.
Structural adequacy with the revised bulkhead locations was not investigated. The anchoring systems would
require modification to more closely resemble Navy
operations. Full electronic installations would be required for mission and training requirements and an
underway replenishment kingpost added. Also, engines
currently used have not been service approved. As with
any stock design of the size required, these hulls are not
off the shelf, but are built to customer needs and options. The hull forms studied are listed in Table 5 . Of
these, the most likely candidate seemed to be the Willard Companys MV Silverado. However, this approach
was considered to possess the highest technical risk of
all commercially available hulls because it was, at the
time, the only large fiberglass craft constructed in the
United States and it was untested with respect to the effects of impacts likely to occur in YP operations.
ALTERNATNE
#4: AN ORIGINAL
DESIGN
The development of a new design allowed for the most
efficient incorporation of all the capabilities and characteristics spelled out in the OR. NAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTA-Norfolk began the development of the
new design by undertaking a study to determine which of
the four most popular structural materials - steel,
aluminum, fiberglass, or wood - would be most
suitable. By the nature of its intended use, this craft
would have to withstand repeated impact loadings resulting from bumper drills.
The bow sections and transom corners would have to
be reinforced and properly fendered. In selecting the
material one had to consider these drills, the requirement
for minimum care as it relates to appearance, repairability, weight, and cost. The results of a careful engineering
analysis of the relative merits of the four major structural
materials considered are summarized in Table 6.
NAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTA-Norfolk recommended that a steel hull with aluminum superstructure be used for this new craft. The order of priority for
the remaining materials was fiberglass, aluminum, and
wood.
---
i ___
I
Figure 7. 108-ft steel hull, hard chine YP design - main deck.
Figure 5. 108-ft steel hull, hard chine YP design - outboard

profile.
engines (425 SHP each) giving a maximum speed, with a

steel hull, of 13 knots. The 16V149engines are four times
heavier and twice as long as the smaller 8V71TI engines,
but the latter are more complex due to turbocharging
and intercooling.
After evaluation of the data and maximum speeds of
each available option, the design based on using two
8V71TI engines in a twin-screw, twin-rudder configuration was considered most acceptable. This was based on a
decision by operating personnel (USNA) that a cruise
speed of 12 knots would be satisfactory.
With these two major systems decisions made, the
hard-chined steel hulled design shown in Figures 5
through 7 and Table 7, was developed. This 108-ft "optimum " steel, twin 8V71TI powered craft was recommended to NAVSEA PMS 300 as the best alternative to
develop further. At this point in time, a major review of
the project was conducted by the Acquisition Review
Committee (ARC). NAVSEA and USNA representatives
igure 6. 108-ft steel hull, hard chine YP design - platform

deck.
The next major decision was configuration of the propulsion system. Two approaches were taken. The first involved the use of two 16V149 diesel engines (880 SHP
each), giving a maximum speed, with a steel hull, of 16
knots. The second involved the use of two 8V71TI diesel
Table 5. Commercial Hulls Examined for Alternative 3
Manufacturer (Model)
Designed Use
Material
Length
Beam
Displacement
(Full Load)
220 Tons
(W/Minesweep gear)
127 Tons (Gross)
86 Tons (Net)
172 Tons (Gross)*
117 Tons (Net)*
Designed
Conditions
Speed
(Max)
Draft
8.65' F.L.
7.6' L.L.
9 ' -0"
9 ' -0''
10 ' -0"
Peterson (P.B.I.) (MSI-15)
Minesweeper
Wood
111'9"
23'""
St. Augustine Trawlers
Shrimp trawler
Wood
88'-0"
22'""
Steiners Fabricators
Trawler
Steel
97'"''
24'""
Tacoma Boatbuilding Co.

(PBMM)
Feadship America
Patrol Boat
Yacht
Alum.
Alum.
116'-0"
105'-8"
114'""
120'-2"
Yacht
Patrol/Comm'l
Patrol/Comm'l.
115'-3"
120'
116'-0"
112'-148'
112'-0"
Steel
961-7"
Alum.
991-9''
Alum.
125"O"
Alum.
Fiberglass 122' -0"
105 ' -10"
Alum.
Alum.
125'-0"
21"
21'4''
22'""
24'-2"
26'-0"
22' - 10"
26'""
26'""
22'"''
27'""
varies
28""
19J-4"
221-9''
24'""
25 ' - 1 K "
23 ' -9"
23 '-3"
125 Tons
136 Tons*
147 Tons*
153 Tons*
88 Tons*
114 Tons*
126 Tons*
123 Tons*
138 Tons*
140 Tons*
varies
154 Tons*
120 Tons
127 Tons*
156 Tons*
165 Tons
101 Tons
140.6 Tons
51-31'
varies
7 ' -6"
5 ' -4"
6"-0"
6'4"
8'4"
7'-0-1/8"
8'-2%"
Crew/Supply
Steel
26'-0"
156 Tons*
8 -0"
Progressive Shipbuilders
& Fabricators, Inc.
Blount Marine Corp.

Rockport Yacht & Supply
Burger Boat Co., Inc.
Willard Boat Works, Inc.
Swiftships, Inc.
Halter Marine, Inc.
*Approximate
Party fishing
Crew/Supply
Crew/Supply
Patrol boat
Crew/Supply
Mini cruise ship
Passenger ships
Crew/Supply
Yacht
Alum.
Alum.
Alum.
Alum.
Alum.
Alum.
90'-0"
100' -9"
110'-0"
110'-0"
7"-0"
14
13*
13'
8 ' -2"
37
13.2
6'-7"
7 ' -2"
14
14
3 '-6"
17*
18*
16*
32
16*
17'
16*
18
14
16
18
18
24
14
16*
43
Table 6. Summary of Hull Material Properties

Attribute
FRP
Steel
Aluminum
Wood
-Relative Cost
of Material
Least Expensive.
More expensive than steel.
About same as wood.
Most expensive.
-Formability
Shaped using light metal

working machinery.
Molded to any shape, relatively simple tooling required.
Shaped using light metal

working machinery.
Can be made to conform to

most surfaces.
-Appearance
Smooth finish obtainable;

some distortion possible
during welding.
Smooth surface finish when

made in a well finished
female mold.
Smooth finish; distortion

during welding likely.
Smooth finish with sanding

and glazing.
-Effect of
Minor Impacts
Little or none.
Minor surface cracking

(crazing)
Denting.
Minor cracking
-Effect of
Major Impacts
Denting.
Penetration and breaking

away of material.
Severe denting and

possible support
member distortion.
Shell penetration and

cracking of support members.
-Abrasion
Characteristics
Resists abrasion. Coating

system requires renewal.
Abrasion will severely

damage.
Moderately resistant to
abrasion.
Abrasion will severely

damage.
-*Weatherability
Coating requires careful

maintenance to limit corrosion.
Excellent weather resistance, minimal maintenance

required.
Good weather resistance,

no coating system required
above waterline.
Poor resistance to weather

effects, requires continual
maintenance.
-Fire Resistance
Essentially fireproof.
Fire retardant resins, will

burn with heat source but
self-extinguishing.
Distorts and melts at relatively low temperatures.
Poor fire resistance.
*If coating is applied for cosmetic appearance of the craft, then all hull materials will require some amount of maintenance time.
presented the ARC with the technical and cost tradeoffs

developed in alternatives one through four recom-
Table 7. Original NAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTANorfolk Design Characteristics for Replacement YP

Optimum
Minimum
Length Overall
108 ft
102 ft
101 ft
95 ft
Length on DWL
24 ft
23 ft
Beam
7 ft 3 in
Draft (Navigational)
7 ft 9 in
Steel Hull
Aluminum Deckhouse
Hard-Chine Hullform
Propulsion - Twin-screw fixed pitch propellers driven
by 8V71TI engines
Electrical - Two diesel generators; 24V batteries
Berths - 30 (4 crew12 officer14 six-person spaces for
midshipmen)
Messroom Seating - 16
Sanitary Spaces - Isolated unisex spaces with 4 WC, 4
lav, 4 shwrs; holding tanks
HVAC for living spaces, messroom, galley, passageways, waterclosets, CIC, EOS
44
mending the original design described in Figures 5

through 7 and in Table 7. However, representing the
ultimate users and maintainers of a new YP, the USNA
attendees expressed their preference for wood as a hull
material. To the surprise of both NAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTA-Norfolk and USNA naval architects, the
ARC recommended to the CNO that a new design (alternative four) - 108 feet in length, soft chined, conventionally planked wooden hull, twin screw powered by
12V71 diesel engines, with an economical cruising
speed of 12 knots - would be the best solution to the
Naval Academys Y P problem. NAVSEA was directed
to proceed with such a design in April 1981. Responding
quickly t o this unexpected direction, NAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTA-Norfolk presented a 112-ft
wooden hull design to NAVSEA PMS 300 for review.
The increase in length from 108 feet to 112 feet was considered necessary to compensate for the internal volume
lost due to wooden construction. Arguing on the basis of
increased cost for the added length, NAVSEA PMS 300
rejected the longer design in favor of a wooden hull of
the original optimum length of 108 feet, which was
within the size and cost constraints approved by the
ARC. The rationale behind this decision is still unclear
since a 3.5% increase in length should result in a minimal
Figure 8. Abbreviated lines sketch of 108-ft yard patrol craft (YP-676).
increase in hull cost (which only represents about 17% of

the craft cost).
An interesting, if esoteric, interpretation of the YP
lines drawing eased the internal volume problem: the
molded lines were taken to represent the outside of the
frames (inside of the wood planking) as would be done
for steel hulls.
The controversial selection of wood as the hull material despite its high cost (the impetus for the design
problem in the first place) can be attributed to several
factors. Among them are:
1) Preference of existing small craft maintenance facility
personnel.
2) Consideration of bumper drill problems. Wooden
hull cosmetic repairs are tractable and the damage
done to the seawall from impacts by wooden hulls will
be less severe than from steel hulls.
3) Perhaps OPNAV wanted to preserve and strengthen
the capability of U.S. builders to produce wooden
craft with an eye toward rebuilding the Navys mine
warfare fleet. This is purely conjecture.
The decision to specify the 12V71 naturally aspirated

diesel engines instead of 8V71TI engines was influenced
strongly by maintenance concerns over the added
mechanical complexity of turbocharged/intercooled
machinery. The operators satisfaction with a 12 knot
maximum economical speed also favored the 12V71.
The major factors that dictated hull form configuration were speed, seakeeping, stability, training requirements and hull material. Seakeeping required operational
capabilities in sea state 3 and survival in sea state 5. The
governing stability criteria were an 80-knot beam wind
and the ability to survive two-compartment flooding.
A model testing program, jointly developed by NAHL
and NAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTA-Norfolk, pro-
vided insights to the design team as to which hull

characteristics best satisfied the major design goals.
Original lines were developed based on achieving roll reduction at low speed. This called for a deep-vee shape, a
small bilge radius and a large skeg. The resulting deep
transom immersion created a serious powering penalty in
the YPs operating speed range. This powering penalty,
intuitively logical, was borne out by the model testing
program.
Although the large skeg provided excellent directional
stability, good maneuverability was also a requirement.
Radio controlled model tests of the new design and full
scale trials of the 80-ft YP were used by the Norfolk
designers to select a twin-rudder configuration which
would provide good maneuverability in the tight areas of
the Severn River [6,7]. Planked wood construction made
hull producibility difficult for a deep-vee craft with as
small a bilge radius a.4 was desirable for roll damping.
Based on the above considerations and NAVSEA independent design review board comments, the original
lines were revised. Deadrise at amidship was reduced to
15 degrees, transom immersion was greatly reduced and
bilge radius was increased. Model tests indicated that at
the design speed, the 108-ft Y P transom would be dry i.e., separation of flow will occur as desired. The molded
hull form which emerged after both preliminary and contract design is shown on the lines drawing, Figure 8.
Hydrostatic analysis of the hull form defined by the
lines was accomplished using the Navys Ship Hull
Characteristics Program (SHCP).
A wave profile based on model tests showed that, as
designed, the anchor had the potential to be in the bow
wave at the design speed of 12 knots. The anchor housing was consequently modified to reduce this possibility.
The tapering of the trailing edge of the skeg was also a
result of model test analysis. Powering estimates to evalNaval Engineers Journal, January 1987
45
400 SHP @ 2100 RPM, 437 SHP @ 2100 RPM, and 480
Figure 9. YP-676Structural midship section.
uate the adequacy of the selected engine configuration

were extensive. Both analytical estimates and model tests
results were considered.
The ARC decision was to build the boat out of wood,
conventionally constructed, in lieu of using the woodepoxy-saturation-technique system. Once wood was
established as the hull material, various studies were conducted from which it was decided that Lloyds Rules
would be used for designing the basic wood structure.
Material was selected for various structural components using Lloyds Rules and Wood: A Manual for its
use as a Shipbuilding Material (NA VSHIPS 250-336).
Primary members of laminated white oak are the keel,
stem, trans erse frames, floors, clamp, shelf and hull
longitudina and deck girders. White oak is used for the
plank sheer, sheer strake, doublers and sheer blocks.
Bilge stringers, midguard backing, deck beams and bulkhead stiffeners are of Douglas fir. The inner planking is
Alaska yellow cedar (AYC) for its superior rot resistance
due to fresh water in the bilges. Long leaf yellow pine
(LLYP) was selected for outer planking because of its
superior abrasion resistance and resistance to splitting.
During construction, the planking material had to be
changed due to material availability problems. Outer
planking was changed to dense grain, Douglas fir. Silicon
bronze hogging straps were provided. Using Lloyds, a
frame spacing of 18 inches was selected with a total
planking thickness of 294 inches. The general configuration of the hull structure can be seen in the midship
section in Figure 9. The material for the deck house was
chosen as aluminum, 5086-H116/H117 for plating and
5086 H l l l for stiffeners. Design loads were: front 1.74
psi, sides 1.04 psi, and top 1.39 psi.
Hull structural ruggedness has been verified in the
short time since delivery. During an unexpected
bumper drill, when a screw had backed off the gear
linkage, YP-676 hit a pier head-on and crashed through
four feetof pier before hitting a cement wall. The only
damage to the hull was a slight dent in the CRES sheathing which wraps around the stem.
The 12V-71 dieselengine and the 514 marine gear have
both seen considerable application in Navy craft and
have proven to be a durable combination. They are fully
supported by the U.S. Navy Supply System. The engine
is available at four power levels: 340 SHP @ 1800 RPM,
46
SHP @ 2300 RPM. These power levels are determined by

injector selection and engine timing adjustment. This
flexibility provides means for upgrading the crafts performance to meet future requirements. The performance
curves for the 12V-71N with N65 injectors and the 437
SHP at 2,100 RPM rating selected for the 108-ft YP are
shown in Figure 10.
Propeller selection was based on achieving the best efficiency at the 12 knot operating speed in a sea state 3
with an engine RPM of 2,100. The largest propeller
which could fit the stern without extending below the
skeg and which satisfied a 20% clearance criteria with the
hull was chosen. The K d J 2 method [7] of selecting the
pitch/diameter ratio (P/D) was employed using standard
propeller.series data of Gawn-Burrill[8] and Hankley [9].
This method has the advantage of eliminating propeller
RPM from the early stages of analysis. The choice of
propeller RPM was made by selecting a reduction gear
ratio which optimized efficiency while providing maximum gear life and minimum torsional vibration. The
selected propeller/gear system included a set of 52-in.
diameter, 3 bladed, outboard turning propellers with a
P/D of 1.05 and an expanded area ratio (EAR) of 0.65.
The reduction ratio was 5.16: 1.
Both propulsion engines and diesel generators exhaust
through the side of the hull just above the waterline.
Both are wet exhaust systems featuring stainless steel
mufflers designed to meet a silencing requirement of 85
dBA at 20 feet. The fuel system consists of two
aluminum 3,500 gallon tanks, one 25 gallon stripping
tank, supply and return manifolds, knife edge strainers,
secondary filters, water separators and emergency fuel
shutoff valves. All fuel system piping is steel. A fuel oil
440
400
360
320
280
240
L.
4
200
LGO
120
28
so
24
20
16
g
.
5
-1
12
2
Y
I I I ( I I l l l l l l 1 1 l l l I l I I l I l I
1200
FIGURE 17:
liou
1600
Is00
2000
E N C I m SPEED - R P h l
YP676 Diesel Engine Performance Curves
Figure 10. YP-676 model 12V-71N diesel engine performance

curves.
cooler is provided for each engine and a solenoid valve
is provided on each engine to prevent fuel leaking into
the engine cylinders when the engines are shut down.
The electrical system consists of two 50 kva, 45Ov,
60hz diesel driven generators with transformers to provide the 12Ov, 60 hz, power, two battery charging rectifiers to supply 28 vdc, and one 400 hz converter. The
estimated electrical load, as indicated by the load analysis
is 57 kva for cruising, 49 kva for functional loading, 52
kva at anchor or pierside and 43 kva while cruising and
not preparing meals. Further, the 3-71 engines were
selected because of commonality with propulsion
engines. The 60 amp battery charging rectifier was
selected over engine driven alternators because of reduced maintenance requirements. The 400 hz static inverter
was selected over a motor generator set because of its
small size, light weight and longer mean time between
failures.
The electric plant is configured to allow for three
modes of operation:
Single generator operation with one generator in
standby
Parallel operation (primarily used for transfer of load
from one generator to the other)
Split-plant operation (both generators running with
each carrying a portion of the total load).
Each generator has a lo%, 2 hour overload rating

that will satisfy peak loading conditions. Each generator
has an 8% growth margin with one generator carrying
the total load and the other in standby. Because of
weight and space limitations, it is considered that selection of two 50 kW (62.5 kva) generators was the best
engineering compromise.
The electric plant is designed to be controlled and
monitored from the EOS. The generator engines can be
monitored from the pilot house. The distribution system
consists of an electric plant control panel (EPCP)
located in the EOS, Navy type circuit breaker distribution panels fed from the vital and non-vital bus of the
EPCP, transformer banks for 12Ov power, and isolated
receptacle circuits. All vital auxiliaries for the propulsion plant and navigation are supplied from the 24 vdc
system via the emergency supply battery bank. The
shore power hookup provides for 440 volt 3 phase
power input only.
Command, control and communications equipment
and facilities consist of the items listed in Table 8.
The EPSCO electronic plotter and tracking system
was selected to replace the extremely expensive geardriven dead reckoning tracers (DRT). The plotter has the
capability of receiving data from either Loran or SATVAV and provides various navigation displays in addition to serving as a DRT plotter.
Equipment required for both YP operation and for
training evolutions is listed in Table 9.
The heating, air conditioning and ventilation (HVAC)
system was designed utilizing the criteria and guidance of
A Guidance Manual for Designing Heating,
Mechanical Cooling and Ventilation Systems on Small
Craft of the U.S. Navy, of January 18, 1978, with the

exception that the criteria for cooling the galley is 90F
vice 105F. The heating/air conditioning system is a reverse cycle system which is divided into discrete temperature controlled zones. The reverse cycle cooling/heating system was chosen over a chilled/heated water system after a tradeoff study was conducted. The pilot
house has its own %-ton cooling/heating unit. The
heating cycle receives thermal energy, with the raw
water loop closed, either from the generator jacket cooling water or from immersion heaters.
At the present there are only three approved marine
sanitation (MSD) systems. The GATX system was
chosen and has proven to be satisfactory in service. The
system has facilities to discharge sewage to port and
starboard deck connections and overboard in non-restricted waters. Provisions are made to permit use of a
vacuum system to remove sewage from the holding
tank. One commode is arranged to permit flushing
directly overboard for emergency operation.
The potable water system provides for onboard storage, onboard production and shore side supply of potable water. The system is arranged to allow selective
water heating and distribution depending on cruise
length and space occupancy. The onboard storage is
sized to provide 25 gallons per day per man for 2 days
for a 30 man crew. Onboard production of fresh water
is provided by a 1,OOO GPD reverse osmosis (RO) desalinator. Chemical treatment is accomplished in the storage tanks by a recirculating bromination system of the
cartridge type.
Table 8. C3 Equipment and Facilities
Radio Navigation Suite
- Loran C
- 2 Electronic plotters and tracking systems
- SATNAVIOmega
Depth sounder
MK 27 gyrocompass with 7 repeaters
lMC/6MC announcing system with 22 speakers,
announcing system with collision, general and
chemical alarms, and a loud hailer. The master
control will be located in the pilot house with
talkback capability from all speakers.
21MC intercommunication system
HF/VHF AN/URC-94 transceiver
VHF bridge-to-bridge radio
AN/SPS-64 surface search radar with 2 repeaters
lJV, JW, 21JS and J X sound powered telephone
system
Electrical alarms, safety and warning
Yard-arm blinkers
Air horn with integral compressor
Voice tubes between bridge wing stations and helmsman and between pilot
The master SATNAV/Omega is located near the
chart table with remote readout in the chartroom at
each plotter. The master Loran is located in the pilot
house with remote readouts provided at the plotters.
The Loran is provided with filtering for operations in
and around Annapolis.
UHF AN/ARC-159 transceiver
Bilge alarm panels connected to the 24 vdc electrical
system, are provided in the EOS and in the pilot
house.
47
Table 9. YP-676 Equipment List
Pilot House
Integrated console (similar to those on on new USN
ships):
Helm
Steering jog valve
Navigation and exterior lighting controls
Siren and navigation horn actuators
Engine RPM indicators
Master gyro compass
Magnetic compass
Rudder angle indicator
Engine controls for operation by permanent crew

Engine order telegraph
Radar (master unit)
Radio HF/VHF and radio UHF
Radio VHF (bridge-to-bridge)
Satellite navigation receiver
Loran C
Fathometer display
Chart table
Sound powered phone circuit
Remote Halon release/alarm panel
Anemometer display
Voice tubes
List and trim clinometers
Intercom station
Gyro compass repeater
Quartermasters desk
Remote diesel engine gauges and alarm panel (main engines and generators)
Clock
Port and Starboard Bridge Wings
Gyro repeater with pelorus

Sound powered phone circuits
Voice tubes
Rudder angle indicators
CIC Chart Room
Plotting and tracking systems (2)

Radar repeaters (2)
HF/VHF/UHF radio transceivers remotes (2)
Plotting tables (2)
Gyro Repeaters (2)
Status boards (edge - lighted) (2)
Sound powered phone circuits (2)
Intercom stations (2)
Speed indicators (2)
Fathometer displays, remote (2)
Clocks (2)
Seawater for engine cooling is supplied to each pair of

propulsion and generator engines through port and starboard sea suction fittings and strainers. Seawater is discharged from the propulsion engines through a piping
network which divides the seawater between overboard
discharge fittings, the shaft logs for bearing lubrication,
and the muffler for cooling and noise abatement. Seawater is discharged from the diesel generators through a
piping network which divides the flow between over48
Damage Control Locker
Oxygen breathing apparatus

DC Equipment
Shoring and patching material
Signal Bridge
Double banked flagboard

Sound powered phone circuits
Voice tubes
Signal search lights
Intercom station
Forecastle
(2) Independent windlasses (directional and 2 speed

with deadman controls)
(2) Anchors
Fittings required for being towed
Sound powered phone
Intercom station
Fantail
Towing bollard
Sound powered phone
Underway Replenishment Station
Kingpost
Suitable unrep equipment for transfer of 50# load
between YPs only (no requirement for personnel
transfer)
Sound powered phone
Miscellaneous
Standard watertight fittings

Fire main system
Halon system in engine room and fuel tank space
Connections and sufficient hose sections to dewater
itself or another YP tied alongside with P-250 pump
board discharge fittings and the muffler. Each diesel

generator is equipped with a heat exchanger which extracts waste heat for use by the heating system during
cold weather.
The Wagner steering system was selected due to its
reliability and current use on other similar boats. It consists of a ram system with two electric motor driven
pumps, helm pump, manual pump for emergency steering (same as helm pump), jog valve, 30 gallon tank and
Figure 11. YP-676 inboard profile and 01 level.
Figure 12. YP-676 main deck and platform deck.
associated valves. The system will move the rudder

from 35"s to 35"P in 6 seconds with either motor-driven
pump. Normal steering requires one motor-driven
pump (other pump is standby). The jog valve has the
same normal steering capabilities as the helm pump.
The automatic changeover valve (located on the ram)
shifts to manual upon loss of hydraulic pressure.
The bilge system is designed to dewater the craft with a
system of pick-up strainers, piping, manifold and bilge
pump. A pick-up strainer is located in each watertight
compartment except the forepeak. The forepeak is
drained into the adjacent compartment through a bulkhead valve. Bilge alarms are provided in each space and
are monitored from the EOS. The P-250 pump can be
used for back-up service.
The fire fighting systems provide both water and automatic Halon capability. The water fire stations are
located on the main deck and the engine room. Each
station has a Navy all purpose nozzle and a foam applicator. Firemain pressure is provided by a 180 GPM
pump which is belt driven from a clutched power takeoff unit on the starboard engine. The Halon system provides protection in the engine room and fuel tank spaces
only and can be controlled from the EOS or the pilot
house in either the automatic or the manual mode. The
automatic mode is activated by sensors located in the
engine room and fuel tank space. Audible alarms are
provided at both the EOS and pilot house consoles.
Audible and visual alarms are provided in the engineroom. The EOS console has a fire detector test
capability. The Halon system can be manually activated
by mechanical pull handles located in the EOS and at

the.engine room access.
Due to the fact that the berthing and messing facilities
would generally not be used, and, when used, would be
used for 5 days or less, minimum habitability standards
were considered to be satisfactory. One 12-person bunkroom and two 6-person bunkrooms were selected to accommodate the midshipmen. A 2-person stateroom was
provided for the officer instructors and a 4-person
bunkroom was provided for the crew. Two unisex washrooms are on the platform deck, each with one shower,
one watercloset and one lavoratory. An additional
washroom was provided on the main deck adjacent to
the officer-instructor stateroom which is close to the
chart room and pilot house.
The messing facilities provide for the food to be prepared at the Naval Academy mess, frozen and placed in
the craft refrigerators, defrosted and reheated and served
family style as required. Seating for 15 persons was requested but, due to compromises that included an inclined ladder into the engine room, seating space for only 14
was provided.
Two 25-man Mark-6 inflatable life boats with manual
and hydrostatic release modes are provided. Four liferings outfitted with light reflective tape, beepers and
float lights are also provided.
The anchors were originally requested to be recessed
into the hull. However, with the decision to construct a
Halon Cvllndern
..........
...............
.... ..._...
Figure 13. YP-676 outboard profile.
---'
Figure 14. YP-676 machnery arrangement.

49
EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES IN
SUPPORT OF DESIGN
OO
L
a
m
>H/P SPaD (/Gvors)
/z
/a
Figure 15. YP81-1with and without skeg and bilge keels.
wooden hull, it was the consensus that this requirement

was not practical. Two 300-pound Navy lightweight anchors are provided.
A damage control stowage locker is provided on the
main deck. Figures 11 through 14 show the final configuration of the 108-ft YP.
Both the Naval Academy Hydromechanics Laboratory

(NAHL) and the David Taylor Naval Ship Research and
Development Center (DTNSRDC), Carderock, MD provides support to NAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTANorfolk in the form of experimental results relating to
powering, seakeeping, and maneuvering performance.
As early as the spring of 1977, NAHL evaluated the
resistance characteristics of one of the possible commercial hull forms [lo].
The major experimental contribution of NAHL to the
YP design effort was borne of the designers' need to be
able to improve early-stage powering estimates for
patrol-type craft in the 100-ft length range at sub-planing
and semi-planing speeds. The idea of a small systematic
series of transom stern hulls in which certain major shape
and operational parameters would be varied was proposed to NAHL by Donald Blount and Gordon Hatchell of
NAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTA-Norfolk in August
1980. The resulting series covered the following ranges of
parameters and evaluated their effects on still water
resistance:
Figure 16. Soft and hard chine EHP and running trim comparison
50
Section Shape: Hard vs. Soft Chine
Slenderness:
4.0 ILpp/B I5.2
Loading:
105
OIL)^
I150
-0.13 ILCG/Lpp I-0.02

(aft of amidship)
Speed:
0.35
0.30
IV/JLWL I2 . 0
IF NI
~ 1.50
The lines for the series hulls were developed to represent realistic shapes, not optimum resistance shapes.
Model size (nominal 5-ft length) was chosen to suit
NAHL facilities. The six series models were built by
Alfred Seebode. The first model to arrive at NAHL was
the soft-chined hull having the middle of three slenderness ratios. This model (later designated YP81-1) was
extensively tested at the midrange loading to establish
the turbulence stimulation methods to be used o n the
series. The resulting configuration, consisting of three
vertical rows of cylindrical studs, was selected for all
members of the series. Resistance tests of this first hull
included the bare hull configuration and appended configurations in which a centerline skeg (square ended
version and tapered version) and bilge keels were added.
Typical results are shown in Figure 15.
When the corresponding hard-chine hull (having the
same slenderness ratio) was delivered, it was ballasted to
the same condition as YP81-1 and tested to assess the effect of section shape on resistance. Typical results are
shown in Figure 16. These two models were then tested
in long crested beam seas at zero forward speed to
answer questions relating to how section shape would affect rolling behavior - all other things being equal. The
results, for one loading condition, are summarized [ 111 in
Figure 17. These results while intuitively reasonable,
raised many questions, the answers to which await performing similar tests on the entire six hull series with
variation in loading (displacement, height of center of
gravity, and roll gyradius).
As the other models of the series arrived from the
model maker, they were outfitted for testing. Since each
of the six models was to be tested over the entire speed
range at three displacements at three longitudinal weight
distributions (a total of 54 tests), it took several months
to complete the series. Although intermediate results
were available to the designer as described earlier, the
report summarizing the entire test series [12] was not
published until after several of the new Y P class had
been delivered to the Naval Academy.
After the ARC had provided program direction and
the NAVSEA independent design review committee had
presented its recommendations, NAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTA-Norfolk developed the hull lines shown
in Figure 8. These lines were used to build a seventh
5-ft model for testing (YP81-7). This model, outfitted as
were the six series models except that it had an integral
external keel/skeg, was tested at three displacements in

still water for speed-resistance performance [13]. This
series of tests provided the powering estimates used to
select the propulsion engines. An example of the effective horsepower variation with speed for the selected
hull is shown in Figure 18. Engineering estimates of appendage resistance, service allowance, and propulsive
coefficient were made at that time and Table 10 is a
sample of the powering estimates provided by NAHL.
Also provided [13] for the selected hull are a wave-hull
intersection estimate at 12 knots, a streamline prediction
in way of the proposed bilge keels, and a rough estimate
of the added power needed to achieve 12 knots in a sea
state 2.
Table 10. Shaft Horsepower (SHP)Estimates
for YP81-7at 162 Long Tons (Faired Trailing
Edge on Skeg) (30% Service Allowance)
Ship Speed (V, [knots])
Effective horsepower (EHP)
for bare hull
Appendage allowance: for
bilge keels, shafts, struts
and bossings; assume 10%
of EHP
Barehull
Roughness, fouling, and
weather allowance; assume
30% of EHP
Barehull
10
12
14
125
271
562
12.5
27.1
56.2
37.5
81.3
168.6
Total effective horsepower

(EHP)
Total
175.0
379.4
786.8
Estimated shaft horsepower

SHP @ P.C. = 0.50
P.C. = 0.55
P.C. = 0.60
350.0
318.2
291.7
758.8
689.8
632.3
1573.6
1430.5
1311.3
While this activity was underway on the 5-ft model at

the Naval Academy, a 1/6 scale model (about 18-ft
long) was constructed for radio controlled maneuvering
testing at the Maneuvering and Seakeeping Basin
(MASK) at DTNSRDC. As with the Y P series, the results obtained [7] should be of value to the small craft
designer in general - not just the YP designer. The effects of rudder size, hull displacement and trim on directional stability, maneuverability, and roll caused by rudder action were determined, and rudder size was based
on these tests. When the radio controlled testing programs was completed at DTNSRDC, the 18-foot model
was sent to NAHL for subsequent use.
The availability of test models of the new YP at
NAHL caused great interest among the naval architecture students of the Brigade. In the senior course, Experimental Naval Architecture, the models (5' and 18')
of the new YP have been put through more tests than
any small craft designer could afford. The resistance
results reported by Compton [ 131 have been validated
repeatedly by midshipmen. The midshipmen have extended the experimental investigations to include:
51
COMPTON/CHATTERTON/HATCHELL/M&RATH
Figure 18. EHP versus speed for 108-ft YP expanded from 5-ft
model data (YP81-7).
52
1) Shallow water resistance (Figure 19). The increase is

dramatic as critical speed [14] is approached. These
findings have operational significance since more
than 75% of the Chesapeake Bay is less than 10-ft
deep.
2) Beam sea rolling. Studies with varying center of
gravity heights and with the addition of paravane roll
stabilizers (made of threaded rods and coffee jar
tops) have been performed in still water to obtain the
coefficients for the damped equation of free roll motion - and in long crested beam seas. See Figures 20
and 21.
3) Motion responses in long crested head seas. Pitch,
heave, and relative bow motion (at station 1) have
been measured at various speeds using both the 5
and the 18 models. Correlation has been excellent as
can be seen from the motion response amplitude
operators (RAOs) shown in Figure 22. The RAOs
when combined with irregular sea spectra via the
principle of linear superposition [ 141 have been used
to predict (statistically) the YPs responses in more
realistic seaways of varying severity. See Figure 23
for example.
4) Open water propeller performance. Figure 24 shows
the open water propeller curves for the three bladed
propeller used to run self propelled tests on the 18-ft
model in the 380-ft tank of NAHL.
5 ) Propeller-hull interaction. A self-powered test has
been conducted over the oDerating meed range to determine the quasi-propulsive coefficient, QPC. The
results for the tests run by the Class of 1986 are
shown in Figure 25.
Figure 19, YP performance in shallow water estimated from

model tests.
igure 21. Roll RAO for YP at zero speed in beam seas based
on 5-ft model tests.
'0
Figure 20. Curves of declining roll angles for 5-ft YP models.

6) Open water rudder performance. Rudders built to
1/6 scale by Don Bunker of the NAHL staff were
tested in the circulating water channel. The results
shown in Figure 26 are at least qualitatively reasonable.
7) Overall intact transverse stability. Experimental determinations of the curves of statical stability (righting arm versus angle of heel for fixed displacement
3 K75)
Figure 22. Head seas RAOs of pitch and heave in long crested
regular waves.
53
Pd
Figure 23. Short term responses to long crested head seas.
Figure 25. SHP test results for 108-ft based on 18-ft model
tests.
ADVANCE GEFF/C/~NT;
J
igure24. Open water performance curves for model YP propeller.

and weight distribution) have been performed during
laboratory exercises in the ship stability course under
the direction of Professor Bruce Nehrling. Such
curves, showing the effect of section shape, are given
in Figure 27.
During the spring semester of 1986, an interesting

study was performed by Midn. Matthew Ware, USN, in
which he compared the performance and cost characteristics of streamlined versus the as installed externally
stiffened flat plate rudders. While the peak lift-to-drag
ratios were as much as 2.5 to 3.0 times higher for the
streamlined (NACA 0015) rudder at an angle of attack
54
ANqLE
O f ATTACK
(DE~RSS)
Figure 26. YP rudder characteristics in open flow.
of 5 , the obvious hydrodynamic advantage of the

streamlined rudder must be weighed against the estimated $8,000 increase in acquisition cost for the streamlined rudder. Fuel savings, improvement in turning
~~~~~
Figure 27. Experimentally determined curves of intact static

stability for YP hull forms.
ability and differences in maintainability over the crafts

operational life must be traded off against the higher
up-front cost.
LEAD SHIP DETAIL DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION, LAUNCHING, AND
BUILDERS TRIALS
With the completion of contract design, NAVSEA
issued requests for proposals from shipbuilders who had
been identified as possible lead yards for the new YP
class. The first seven boats were to be built by the lead
yard with the remaining thirteen to be built under a
separate, subsequent contract. Peterson Builders, Inc.
(PBI) of Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin, emerged from a field
of six responding shipbuilders as the winner of the lead
yard contract.
As can be expected from any lead ship of her class, the
YP-676 detail design had its fair share of engineering problems. In the case of outer planking lumber, a problem
was encountered due to the fact that the species called
for by the specifications (long leaf yellow pine) was not
available. A change to Douglas fir outer planking was
agreed upon. However, since Douglas fir is less dense
than long leaf yellow pine, the total planking thickness
had to be increased from 2 inches to 2% inches to satisfy
Lloyds Rules and Regulations for the Classification of
Yachts and Small Craft, which were imposed by the
specification. This problem was further complicated by
the question of whether the outer planks should be milled with flat grain or vertical grain. Traditional wood
shipbuilding practice calls for flat grain (grain runs
parallel with the width of the plank as viewed from the
end), being that it is more conformant to the ships
curves and has less tendency to split. Vertical grain (grain
runs parallel with the thickness of the plank as viewed
from the end) planking on the other hand is stiffer and
holds paint better although its cost is higher and is harder
to work with. It was finally decided to go with the flat
grain.
The specifications called for an analysis of the new
YP-676 airborne and structureborne noise levels and a
report outlining the predicted levels as compared to the

specified allowable levels. The report revealed that
specified maximum noise levels would be exceeded in
almost every compartment. Recommended solutions to
the problem ranged from adding insulation to the boundaries of compartments to extensive structural and
machinery changes. To fully meet the noise specification
would have been extremely expensive and disruptive to
the design and construction schedule, involving such
treatments as floating the deckhouse and constructing
special high transmission loss areas into the hull in way of
the propellers. These treatments would also add to the
crafts weight. Intensive trade-off discussions were held
between all parties concerned. The final decision was that
the most cost and schedule effective noise reduction
measures would be employed, even if the maximum
specified noise levels were exceeded slightly. This
amounted to adding and/or changing insulation, adding
mass loaded (lead vinyl) noise barriers, and vibration
isolation of the main engines and diesel generator sets. As
it turned out, the treatments were highly efficient and the
end results well justified the decisions made during the
fast paced tradeoff efforts.
One problem encountered was bolting of the keel at its
deepest section. The contract design called for two keel
bolts to be driven side by side at each frame through the
keel, frame and keelson, which totals over 5 feet deep in
places. At those depths, the drill bit has a tendency to
wander and exit the side of the keel. As a solution to this
problem, windows were cut into the keel just below
the connection where the bolts were terminated. After
nuts were installed, blocks were fitted and glued into
place for a watertight seal, as shown in Figure 28.
Hull construction was performed indoors and, during
the heating season, special measures had to be taken to
prevent excessive drying, shrinkage, and checking of the
wood. For this reason, a humidification system was
maintained in the construction building to keep the ambient humidity at an acceptable level. The deckhouse,
being of all aluminum construction, was fabricated and
partially outfitted as a separate module and then installed
on the hull just before launch. All components were
lofted and cut using numerically controlled equipment.
Control of warpage was an ongoing problem, requiring
constant attention to welding procedures and sequencing.
Launching proved to be a challenge. The YP in
launch condition was too heavy for the yard cranes to
sling launch, and the launching ways were occupied at
the time by other construction. A plan was subsequently
devised whereby the YP was rolled on aircraft wheel
dollies onto a barge which transported it to a neighboring shipyard. There, a gantry crane lifted it off the
barge and set it in the water. The launch was entirely
successful, but follow-on launches were accomplished
directly off the dock at the contractors yard.
Once in the water, propeller shafts were aligned and
the vessel inclined. The inclining experiment verified
previous predictions that the new Y P would be a very
stable boat.
Builders trials were held on 15 August 1984, and acceptance trials were held one week later. Propeller trials
and fuel consumption tests were run in conjunction with
55
3 x 6 Access Windows
Plugged & Sealed
After Nuts Installed
Original
Profile
Face
I
inging.
CHARRCTERISTICS FOR 108 FOOT YP 676
TURNING
Figure 28. Modifiid keel bolting arrangement.
builders trials. The propeller trials showed that the propellers were not absorbing full torque of the main
engines at rated rpm and would require repitching from
54.6 to 58. As a further complication, it was discovered during trials that the propellers were singing
over a 400-500 engine RPM band. The problem was
analyzed and a recommendation was made to grind the
trailing edges of the blades to a sharp chisel edge as
shown in Figure 29. This was done and the problem was
solved. Another major problem that surfaced during
builders trials was that the port rudder would not
achieve full 35 travel during full power turns. This was
traced to flexing of the rudder stock and remedied by
the addition of a bearing at the top of the stock. A second acceptance trial was run in November to demonstrate correction of these discrepancies. During these
trials, the Y P was highly maneuverable and stable.
.
m
20
10
I0
RUOOER ANGLE - OEGREES

TACTICAL DIANETER AS A FUNCTION
OF RUDDER ANGLE AND SPEED
LiFT
DThISRDC
M43K
u,.
igure 30. Model-full scale power and RPM correlation plot.
20
RIGHT-
MODL D A T A (-A=&
AClLli-Y
/6Z L r
7 K r
Figure 31. Model-full scale maneuvering correlation plots; a)

Trial data, b) Model data.
YP-676 departed on her delivery trip via the St. Lawrence Seaway on 14 November 1984. This was a true test
of her seaworthiness, having encountered 20-foot seas
in the North Atlantic off Nova Scotia. Although the
boat rolled as much as 45" and took solid waves over the
bow, the only ill effect suffered was to some copper ice
sheathing which came loose from the hull. This was
later replaced, and the follow hulls' attachment method
was modified to prevent a recurrence of the problem.
ternally stiffened rudders. In Figure 31(b), the indicated

interpolation refers to linear interpolation on speed to
match the 7-knot condition modeled at DTNSRDC.
It is hoped that the correlation of model data with fullscale trial data can be the subject of several technical
reports yet to be written by authors from both
NAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTA-Norfolkand NAHL.
IMPACT ON SUPPORT FACILITIES
Among the first departments at the Naval Academy

to ponder a special modification to the 108' YP was the
Oceanography Department. The present research vessel
is an 8O-foot YP (YP-654) modified to carry oceanographic equipment. The modification is constrained to
installations which can be removed on short notice to
allow the ship to be used for seamanship and navigation
training. There are additional constraints of deck space
and electrical power which limit the usefulness of the
80-ft YP.
A design study [16, 171 completed in 1974, proposed a
modified offshore supply boat to meet the mobile
laboratory needs of the Naval Academy. Although this
concept went no further than the design report, certain
information collected for that effort has found use in
the present 108-ft YP design process.
The procurement of the replacement YP provided a
potential opportunity to improve oceanographic
research vessel capability by either:
a. extensive modification of an existing 80-ft YP for
use as a dedicated resource for oceanography.
b. building an enhanced capability into one of the
108-ft Y Ps.
The first option was thoroughly explored. The existing
craft are old, but are very well maintained.
However, in spite of many advantages, the 80-ft YP
has one serious flaw. The wind heel stability of the vessel
is less than 50 knots in any of the proposed configurations. This makes the vessel unsuitable for training up
to 200 miles offshore. No combination of proposed arrangement and equipment could solve this deficiency.
The potential use of a new YP is being explored by the
Oceanography Department, starting with a list of support equipments, as shown in Table 11. One possible arrangement, shown in Figure 32 was found to present
some difficulties. The new vessel is provided with equipment removal soft patches which inhibit the location of
major deck equipment. The standard oceanographic
winches require a mix of single and three-phase power.
The winches could be modified (at an unspecified price),
but the electrical load would still exceed the installed
generating capacity. Finally, the new craft are twin
engine, without hydraulic or air systems installed. Use of
a power takeoff from the main engines would make it
difficult to maintain precise maneuvering RPM while
handling the varying pressures and flow demands of
various pieces of oceanographic gear.
The Small Craft Facility of the U.S. Naval Station,

Annapolis, whose job it is to maintain and dock the new
class of YPs, faced as acute problem with the decision to
acquire a fleet of 20 108-ft YPs, since only 15 were
formerly supported. The new craft were of conventionally planked wooden construction to prevent any major
skills shift among Naval Station civilian and military
workers, but the major impacts on workload, berthing
slips, craft handling systems, and shops could not be
avoided.
Major improvements to accommodate the larger fleet
include:
Reconstruction of YP convenience berthing facilities
and upgrading of shore-to-ship utilities.
Construction of a repair berth.
Acquiring a IargeTravelift and a new repair building in
which major work can be accomplished under roof.
Construction of finger piers to support the Travelift
during lifting and launching operations.
Upgrading of supporting shops space and equipment.
Naval Station military personnel increases will be required because the complement of the 108-ft Y P is four
(one more than 80-ft YP) and there are to be additional
craft. Civilian personnel increases are expected to number between 10 and 15.
MODEL-FULL SCALE CORRELATIONS
The first set of full scale data from trials conducted by
NAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTA-Norfolkon YP-676
became available in March 1986. These included power,
maneuvering, and seakeeping trials. YP-676 was instrumented with torque and RPM meters and ran a measured course to develop a SHP versus speed curve.
These data (identified by square plot symbols) are compared to the one-sixth scale model SHP test data (identified by solid circle plot symbols), collected by midshipman naval architects during the fall of 1985, in Figure
30. The degree of correlation is encouraging. At the design speed of 12 knots, model predicted DHP exceeds
trial SHP by 4% while model predicted engine RPM (assuming installed gear ratio of 5 : 16: 1) is about 3 % lower
than the trial RPM. Figure 31 shows how the radio-controlled model test maneuvering data, acquired in the
large rectangular basin in the Harold Saunders facility,
correlates with the NAVSEA trial data. It should be
noted that the model was fitted with streamlined rudders while the full scale Y P was fitted with flat plate, ex-
SPECIAL SERVICE MODIFICATIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the many people
whose dedicated efforts made the transition from con57
REFERENCES
_-Figure 32. 108-ft YP oceanographic configuration.
cept to operating patrol craft a reality. With genuine

apologies to contributors whose names are not listed, we
thank most sincerely, Superintendents McKee and Lawrence and Cdr. Henry Schmidt, USN (deceased) from
the Naval Academy; Don Bunker, Steve Enzinger, John
Hill, Jeff Hough, John Hoyt, and John Yashin of the
NAHL staff; Jack Reynolds from the U.S. Naval Station, Annapolis; Don Blount, Robert Hamilton, and Bill
Reynolds from NAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTANorfolk; Ken Hum from NAVSEA PMS 300; Leo Gardner from Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Sturgeon Bay, WI;
Tom Soik and Dick Wilcox from Peterson Builders,
Inc.; Helen Wanbaugh, Mary Palombo, and Sandy
Whitcher for invaluable assistance in readying this report
for presentation.
Table 11. Proposed YP-676 Modification
Desk Area Weight Height
Sq. Ft.
Lbs.
Ft.
Bow Thruster
Deck Equipment
Deck Shelter
Crane
Deck Winch
Portable Towing System
Salinity-Temp-Depth Rig
U-Frame (Deck-Edge)
A-Frame (Deck-Edge)
Stage (Deck-Edge)
Hydrographic Winch
9
10.2
9
6
6
4000
2000
2000
1400
4000
2000
8
18
5
3
4
16
8
2000
9OOO
Lab Equipment
Laser Range Finder
Miniranger and Raydist
Capability
Satellite Navigation
G .O.E. S. Receiver
Data Reduction Computer and
Plotter
Geological Sparker
58
Loran C
Omega
Lab benches and sink
Current meter
Depth recorder
Rosette Sampler
(11 Henderson, R. and B. Dunbar, Sail and Power, U.S.

Naval Institute, Annapolis, MD, 1967.
[2] Compton, R., S. Enzinger, R. Miller, and B. Nehrling,
An Intact Hydrostatic Analysis of YP-660, U.S. Naval
Academy Division of Engineering and Weapons Report
EW-6-77, July, 1977.
[3] Wilson, T., MV Silverado, Marine Technology, Vol.
15, No. 2, April, 1978.
[4] Hatchell, E. and R. Hamilton, Afloat Training Craft
for the U.S. Naval Academy, NAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTA-Norfolk Report No. 6660-7 Jan. 1981.
[S] Beys, P., Series 63 Round Bottom Boats, Davidson
Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology, Report 949,
April, 1963.
[6] Spangler, P., Turning and Maneuvering Characteristics
for the 80-ft YP - Full Scale Trial Results, NAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTA-Norfolk Report No. 6660-94,
August, 1982.
[7] Rossignol, G., Maneuvering Characteristics of the
YP-676 Class Seamanship Training Craft as Represented
by Radio-Controlled Model 9022, DTNSRDUSPD1082-01, April, 1983.
[8] Blount, D. and D. Fox, Small-Craft Power Prediction, Marine Technology, Vol. 13, No. 1, January, 1976.
[9] Hankley - Unpublished data on a series of commercial
propellers.
[ 101 Watkins, R., Experimental Prediction of EHP Requirements for a Proposed YP Hull Design, U.S. Naval
Academy Division of Engineering and Weapons Report
EW-7-78, March, 1978.
[ l l ] Compton, R., J. Hoyt, and J. Hough, USNA YP Replacement Model Test Program: Zero Speed Beam Seas
Rolling Tests, U.S. Naval Academy Division of Engineering and Weapons Report EW-3-81, March, 1981.
[I21 Compton, R., The Resistance of a Systematic Series of
Semi-planing Transom Stern Hulls, SNAME Hampton
Roads Section Paper, October, 1985.
[13] Compton, R., USNA YP Replacement Model Test Program: Effective Horsepower Tests for YP81-7, U.S.
Naval Academy Division of Engineering and Weapons
Report EW-20-82, July, 1982.
[ 141 Comstock, J. (editor), Principles of Naval Architecture,
SNAME, New York, 1967.
[ 151 Blount, D., Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics of
a Round Bottom Boat, DTMB Hydromechanics Laboratory R & D Report No. 2000, March, 1963.
[I61 Compton, R., A Mobile Marine Laboratory System for
the U.S. Naval Academy: Analysis of Need and Specification of Requirements, U.S. Naval Academy Division
of Engineering and Weapons Report EW-5-74, July, 1974.
[17] Compton, R., A Mobile Marine Laboratory System for
the U.S. Naval Academy: Conceptual Design Study,
U.S. Naval Academy Division of Engineering and Weapons Report EW-6-74, July, 1974.

Yard Patrol From 108' Concept To Delivery

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yard Patrol From 108' Concept To Delivery

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROGER H. COMPTON, HOWARD A.

THE U S . NA VAL ACADEMYS NEW

PGGJI I class aluminum gunboats, ARS-50 class steel rescue/

USNA YARD PATROL CRAFT

Figure 1. 80-ft USNA yard patrol craft (YP).

Table 1. 80' USNA YP Characteristics

Naval Engineers Journal, January 1987

Rudder angles (twin rudders)

best [2], thus placing a significant geographical limit on

USNA YARD PATROL CRAFT

Table 2. Replacement Yard Patrol Craft Operational Requirement (OR) Summary

Table 3. Replacement Yard Patrol Craft Design Requirements Summary

limitation due to berthinghaintenance

USNA YARD PATROL CRAFT

Naval Engineers Journal, January 1987

The logical viability of this list of alternative concepts

USNA YARD PATROL CRAFT

5gure 3. Design study sizing plot

- length versus beam

Competition and was awarded Second Prize in the

Structure: - Planked wood hull with aluminum deck

Figure 4. Design study sizing plot - various hull

dialog continued within the Naval Academy staff about

USNA YARD PATROL CRAFT

The most recent version of the 80-ft Y P falls short of

Naval Engineers Journal, January 1987

USNA YARD PATROL CRAFT

Figure 7. 108-ft steel hull, hard chine YP design - main deck.

Figure 5. 108-ft steel hull, hard chine YP design - outboard

engines (425 SHP each) giving a maximum speed, with a

igure 6. 108-ft steel hull, hard chine YP design - platform

Table 5. Commercial Hulls Examined for Alternative 3

Peterson (P.B.I.) (MSI-15)

St. Augustine Trawlers

Tacoma Boatbuilding Co.

Blount Marine Corp.

Naval Engineers Journal, January 1987

USNA YARD PATROL CRAFT

Table 6. Summary of Hull Material Properties

More expensive than steel.

About same as wood.

Shaped using light metal

Molded to any shape, relatively simple tooling required.

Shaped using light metal

Can be made to conform to

Smooth finish obtainable;

Smooth surface finish when

Smooth finish; distortion

Smooth finish with sanding

Minor surface cracking

Penetration and breaking

Severe denting and

Shell penetration and

Resists abrasion. Coating

Abrasion will severely

Abrasion will severely

Coating requires careful

Excellent weather resistance, minimal maintenance

Good weather resistance,

Poor resistance to weather

Fire retardant resins, will

Distorts and melts at relatively low temperatures.

Poor fire resistance.