检索结果-内蒙古大学图书馆

THE IMPACT OF DESIGN PRACTICES ON SHIP SIZE AND COST

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1982年第2期94卷 68-86页

作者： KEHOE, JW BROWER, KS MEIER, HA Capt. James W. Kehoe Jr. USN(Ret.):who is recently retired from 36 years of naval service is well known for his recent work in conducting comparative engineering analyses of U.S. and foreign warship design practices at the Naval Sea Systems Command Washington D.C. He is currently a partner in Spectrum Associates Inc. Falls Church Virginia where he is engaged in ship design and weapon system engineering analysis. Commissioned in 1952 his sea duty aboard three destroyers and three aircraft carriers included command of theUSS John R. Pierce (DD-753)and engineer officer of theUSS Wasp (CVS-18).Ashore he has had duty in nuclear weapons the POLARIS missile program and instructing in project management. He holds a BS in mathematics from Stonehill College Massachusetts (1952) and an MA in education from San Diego State College (1959). A frequent contributor to theNaval Engineers Journaland theU.S. Naval Institute Proceedingshe has published a number of articles on U.S. Soviet and other foreign warship design practices and on U.S. and Soviet aircraft tank missile and electronic design practices. Kenneth S. Brower:is a partner in Spectrum Associates Inc. Falls Church Virginia which he founded in June 1978. He graduated from the University of Michigan in 1965 with a Bachelor's Degree in Naval Architecture. Mr. Brower has contributed to the design and construction of numerous merchant ships and warships the latter of which include the CG-47 project Arapaho the FDL and DX projects the new NATO frigate for the ‘90s DDGX and FFX projects as well as several frigates developed for Foreign Military Sales. Since 1972 he has actively supported the Naval Sea Systems Command's Comparative Naval Architecture Program. During this period Mr. Brower has contributed to or been the author of numerous widely distributed technical reports on international ship design practices. Recently Mr. Brower has contributed as an analyst editor and author of an extensive assessment of the engineering design practices o

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

PRE-ACQUISITION PLANNING

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1982年第6期94卷 31-38页

作者： OHARA, F SCHMIDT, AW Frank O'Hara:earned a B.A. in Philosophy from Chapman College in Orange California a M.S. in International Affairs from the George Washington University in Washington D.C. and attended the Naval War College. He is presently employed as a Senior Staff Advisor to Native American Consultants Inc. in Washington D.C. He served as a Marine Corps Aviator from 1942–1966 was awarded three Distinguished Flying Crosses and eight Air Medals during World War II and the Korean War and retired as a LCol. He is a member of the Marine Corps Aviation Association the Marine Corps Association and the American Society of Naval Engineers. Since retiring from the Marine Corps he has been engaged in Naval Analysis and Engineering as part of a contractor team and as an independent consultant. In 1978 he co-authored a Technical Paper “From Operational Needs to Notional Ships — A New Look.” The paper was presented at the Association of Scientists and Engineers Technical Symposium. Arthur W. Schmidt:received his B.S. in 1948 from Webb Institute of Naval Architecture his M.S. in Mathematics from Adelphi College in 1958 and an M.P.A. from the American University in 1970. Mr. Schmidt retired from Naval Sea Systems Command in 1980. While there he worked for twelve years in preliminary design and for twenty years in R&D management. After leaving NAVSEA Mr. Schmidt went to work for Gibbs & Cox Inc. where he is still employed today working on survivability CONFORM and ship cost models Mr. Schmidt has presented three papers at ASE technical symposia and has contributed a chapter to a book on technological forecasting. He is a past program chairman of the District of Columbia Society of Professional Engineers and a member of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers the American Society of Naval Engineers the American Society of Engineering and Armed Services Technical Information Agency.

It is the aim of the authors to propose improved ship and ship subsystem acquisition by the adoption of a simple routine management system which has for its focus, the initial planning phase. The proposed management system follows the guidance of the Office of management and Budget Circular A-109 and the Chief of Naval Operations. A clear articulation of operational needs aids the task of prioritizing resource allocations and also promotes earlier integration of ship and subsystem design and development schedules. More precise resource allocation and earlier integration should decrease acquisition time and increase ship subsystem capabilities. The worth of the proposed concept has been demonstrated by a pilot program and can readily be implemented within the constraints of the current Planning, programming, and Budget System.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

COMBAT systems-engineering AND THE TOP LEVEL REQUIREMENT

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1981年第2期93卷 97-100页

作者： TRUXALL, CW is a Senior Program Engineer with Systems Consultants Inc. Washington D.C. serving as Project Manager for the DD 963 Combat System Engineering Program. Prior to his retirement from the U.S. Navy in 1978 he served in the AEGIS Project Office Naval Sea Systems Command as ASW Systems Manager and Combat Systems/Ship Design Coordinator. His previous assignments involved service in ten ships including engineering duty in Carriers and Submarines and two Destroyer commands. He is a 1957 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy holds Master's degrees in Business Administration and Systems Management and attended the Program Managers Course at the Defense System Management College Fort Belvoir Va. He is a member of the American Defense Preparedness Association and has been a member of ASNE since 1958 having previously served on the ASNE Audit Committee and presently as the Chairman of the ASNE Membership Committee.

The Top Level Requirement (TLR) is a document that is required by the Chief of Naval Operations to be developed for new ship designs. This document describes in some detail the requirements levied on the ship designers for characteristics of the ship and its combat system. The Combat System engineering program has been developed in the Naval Sea systems Command (NAVSEA) to provide a disciplined approach to the engineering of upgrades and modernizations to current surface ship complex combat systems. One of the axioms of this systemized approach is that “top down” engineering must take place. That is, the rationale for the upgrade for the new elements being included in the system, and for the way the integration of those elements takes place, must be based upon a set of operational requirements. In order to systems engineer the developments of modernizations properly, the Author proposes that TLRs be developed for each combatant ship class without a TLR that is a candidate for a major modernization or upgrade. The primary focus would be on the combat system requirements, but also there is concern for the other ship operational characteristics as well. The TLR should be contained in a document of about twenty-five pages. As with the current TLRs, a Working Group of representatives from the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV), Naval Material Command (NAVMAT)/Naval Sea systems Command (NAVSEA), and other activities would be the developers of the new TLR. Because of the numbers of individuals with some responsibility in current Fleet ships, closer coordination between NAVMAT/NAVSEA and OPNAV is required. The process which this paper describes may well support significant cost savings in future-year combat system upgrades, and the Combat System engineering Community will have a basis for combat system design.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

DESIGN BUDGETING - A BOLD NEW SHIP ACQUISITION STRATEGY ... NOW A PROVEN CONCEPT

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1981年第2期93卷 67-74页

作者： JARVIS, PS KAZAL, JD CAMPBELL, DB HAFF, MW Mr. Paul S. Jarvis:graduated from Virginia Polytechnic Institute from which he received his B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering in 1962 and later he received his M.S. degree in Administration from The George Washington University in 1967. He has been in the AEGIS Shipbuilding Program since July 1971 and has served as Ship Systems Engineering Manager for CG 47 since 1977. Mr. Jarvis is a member of Tau Beta Pi and Pi Tau Sigma Engineering Fraternities and the Phi Kappa Phi National Scholastic Society. Mr. J. David Kazal:graduated from Colorado A&M from which he received his B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering in 1951. Currently he is employed by the Ingalls Shipbuilding Division Litton Systems as a Project Engineer on the CG 47 Class Ship Program. During World War II he served in the U.S. Navy in Submarines. Mr. Kazal is a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Mr. Donald B. Campbell Jr.: received his B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from North Carolina State University in 1961. He has over twenty-three years of professional experience in Ship Electronics System Engineering and was formerly a member of the Electrical Design Division at Newport News Shipbuilding. Additionally he was involved in quantification and evaluation of contractor shipbuilding claims against the U.S. Navy while he was employed by Booz-Allen Applied Research. Currently he is a Senior Member of the Engineering Staff at RCA providing program and engineering coordination for the AEGIS Program. Mr. Maurice W. Haff:received his B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from Oklahoma State University in 1970. His advanced degrees which he received from The George Washington University are an M.S. degree in Management Engineering (1975) and an M.B.A. degree in International Business (1980). He has eleven years of engineering and management experience gained in a wide range of Navy Programs. While he was involved with “Design Budgeting” for the CG 47 from the beginning of the program as a Project Engineer Mr.

Traditional ship acquisition practices no longer support the requirements of today's shipbuilding programs. These practices require development of major combat and ship systems to be essentially complete prior to issuance by the government of the Request For Proposal (RFP) for ship detail design and construction. With the need for timely delivery of warships equipped with the most modern weapon systems possible, and maximum remaining years of functional effectiveness after delivery becoming increasingly important, new acquisition strategies are essential. “Design Budgeting,” an innovative new Navy acquisition and design strategy, is now a proven concept. Developed and implemented by the AEGIS Shipbuilding Project, it has been explored in depth with the Shipbuilding Industry as an alternative acquisition process that enables Combat System development and ship acquisition to proceed concurrently. Applied for the first time in the acquisition of Ticonderoga (CG-47), its use permitted development of major portions of the AEGIS Combat System (later to be Government Furnished Equipment to the shipbuilder) to continue well into ship detail design and construction without impact on overall schedules. Hundreds of changes to the ship engineering baseline which resulted from continued development and test of Combat System, were incorporated into the shipbuilding contract with no cost increase or delay and disruption of the shipbuilding schedule. Proven, adaptable, and available now, “Design Budgeting” is an acquisition and design strategy than can satisfy the requirements of current and future shipbuilding programs.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

MACHINERY ARRANGEMENT DESIGN - A PERSPECTIVE

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1981年第3期93卷 133-141页

作者： RESNER, ME KLOMPARENS, SH LYNCH, JP Mr. Michael E. Resner:received an Engineering Degree from Texas A&M University in 1966 and has done graduate work in management at American University. He is Director Machinery Arrangements/Control Systems and Industrial Facilities Division (SEA 525) at the Naval Sea Systems Command. His previous positions have included Program Manager Solar Total Energy Program at the Department of Energy and Branch Chief Machinery Control Systems Branch at the Naval Ship Engineering Center. Mr. Stephen H. Klomparens:is a Naval Architect at Designers & Planners Inc. and is engaged in development of computer aids for ship design. He received his B.S.E. degree in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering from the University of Michigan in 1973 and his M.S. degree in Computer Science from the Johns Hopkins University. Mr. Kolmparens began his professional career at Hydronautics Inc. in 1974 where he was involved in the use of marine laboratory facilities for test and development of conventional and advanced marine craft. Since 1977 he has been involved with naval and commercial ship design and with development of computer-aided ship design tools. Mr. John P. Lynch:is a Principal Marine Engineer with Hydronautics Inc. He was previously employed in the auxiliary machinery and computer-aided design divisions of the David W. Taylor Naval Ship R&D Center the machinery design division of the New York Naval Shipyard and the machinery arrangement code of the Bureau of Ships. His active naval service was as a ship superintendent in the production department of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. Mr. Lynch received his B. S. degree in Marine Engineering from the New York State Maritime College and his M.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from Columbia University. He is a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of New York and a member of ASNE.

The machinery arrangement design process has remained relatively unchanged over the years. Recently, external demands have been placed on both the product and the producers that call for changes to this process. This paper cites these external demands and traces the evolution of the process changes from the rule-of-thumb machinery box sizing routines up to the current automated procedures. The machinery arrangement design practice is presented, and existing analytic and graphics aids are discussed. The user requirements for improved design aids are presented, with implementation guidelines and hardware/software alternatives.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

THE AGE OF SAIL - IS IT OVER

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1981年第2期93卷 145-153页

作者： MORISSEAU, KC THE AUTHOR:: graudated from the New York State Maritime College in 1956 receiving his B.S. degree in Marine Engineering. He then reported to the Navy's Bureau of Ships where he was assigned to the Hull Mechanical Section (Code 447) in the Hull Design Branch (Code 440). During this period he was involved in the contract design of various materials handling features of naval ships including vehicle and cargo handling for Amphibious Ships electronics equipment handling and replenishment at sea and in addition management of the Design Division's computer installation. In 1964 he became the Hull Project Coordinator for the AOR 1 Class AO(J) 51 Class and the AOE 3 Class ships and after completing their contract designs was transferred to the Auxiliary Type Desk and reassigned as AE 26 Class Project Engineer. From 1965 until 1974 he was the Program Manager for the FAST System and the Missile/Cargo STREAM System in the Underway Replenishment Project Office (PMS-390) Underway Replenishment Division (SHIPS-490) and its organizational predecessors. In April 1974 when SHIPS-490 and SHIPS-427 were merged he became Head of the Underway Replenishment Improvement Branch in the Amphibious and Combat Support Ship Logistics Division (SEA 941) Naval Sea Systems Command. In July 1979 he was transferred along with the management of the Underway Replenishment Improvement Program to the Deck and Replenishment Systems Division as Head of the Underway Replenishment Systems Branch (SEA 5124) the position he now holds in NA VSEA.

This paper explores the history, current trends and recent studies, experiments, and initiatives in the area of wind propulsion. The recent history of the development of sail as a means of ship propulsion is reviewed with regard to both sail and hull type. Studies and experiments are discussed such as evaluation for the U.S. Navy in 1956 of the use of ladder type hydrofoils with Marconi sails; a surface penetrating foil design, called an aerohydrofoil, developed in the early 1960s and recently successfully built and tested by its inventor; and the German Dynaship concept which uses an updated square rig sail configuration. Potential uses of sail for naval and commercial applications are presented, involving various sail forms such as air-foils, the Dynaship concept, the Flettner rotor, and Marconi rigs, and hull designs such as SWATH, Hydrofoil and Displacement. The paper also discusses some of the characteristics of wind over the world's oceans and their impact on the use of sail in naval and commercial service. The need for auxiliary fossil-fuel propulsion systems also is reviewed. An economic comparison of the cost of building and operating various sized sail-powered ships on selected routes is provided.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

SESSION NO 1 KEYNOTE ADDRESS - THE CHALLENGE OF DESIGN

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1981年第3期93卷 75-87页

作者： LISANBY, JW was born in Princeton Kentucky on 31 January 1928. He was commissioned Ensign in the U.S. Navy after graduation from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1950 and received his Advanced degree in Naval Engineering (Architecture) from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1956. More recently he received additional training in the Harvard Business School's Management Training Program. He is an Engineering Duty Officer (ED) with wide and varied experience both at sea and in shore assignments. He has had sea duty aboard the USS Mississippi (AG-128) from 1950 to 1952 LST-887 from 1952 to 1953 and USS Antietam (CVS-36) from 1959 to 1961. Ashore he served as Ship Superintendent at the Charleston Naval Shipyard from 1956 to 1959 and as Assistant for Ship Material on the Staff of the Commander-in-Chief U.S. Atlantic Fleet from 1961 to 1963. In Washington DC he was Assistant for New Construction in the Cruiser and Destroyer Branch Naval Ship Systems Command from 1963 to 1965 and Head of the Procurement and Production Branch Fast Deployment Logistic Ship Project Office from 1965 to 1968. From 1968 to 1969 he was Director of Industrial Engineering in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Logistics) and from 1969 to 1970 he served as Executive Assistant to the Commander Naval Ship Systems Command. In 1970 he reported as Supervisor of Shipbuilding at Pascagoula Miss. with contract administration responsibilities for both the DD 963 and the LHA 1 ship acquisitions. Returning to Washington in 1973 he completed a brief tour as Assistant for Ship Design in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and then served as Project Manager for the LHA Class Amphibious Assault Ships with Headquarters in Washington DC from April 1974 until June 1977 at which time he assumed command of the Naval Ship Engineering Center (NA VSEC). With the merger of NA VSEC with its parent command the Naval Sea Systems Command on 1 October 1979 he assumed the duties of Deputy Commander for Ship Design and In

This paper provides a critical analysis of the U.S. Navy's ability to design effective warships relative to the threat we face. Influencing our ability to design are resources, organizational, and philosophical issues. The Russian Fleet is, by any standard, a formidable opponent dedicated to achieving naval superiority. In addition to the well documented differences in design philosophies, there exist fundamental dissimilarities in Russian innovation and their ability to introduce new technologies into an operational environment in comparison to our own conservative, often lengthy, process. We need to reevaluate. In the limit, our collective deteriorating will to design and build effective naval ships is adversely affecting our ability to accomplish the goals we need to achieve. A strengthening of our design resources must be coupled with a reassertion of will and strong technical leadership to revitalize the ship design process.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

USE OF COMMERCIAL SPECIFICATIONS IN THE SHIPBUILDING PROCESS

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1981年第1期93卷 77-84页

作者： LISANBY, JW HAAS, J Rear Admiral James W. Lisanby USN: graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1950 at which time he received his B.S. degree and his commission as Ensign. Subseqeuntly he was ordered to Massachusetts Institute of Technology from which he received his advanced degree in Naval Engineering (Architecture) in 1956 and more recently additional training in the Harvard Business School's Management Training Program. An Engineering Duty Officer (ED) he has had wide experience in various assignments both afloat and ashore. From 1950 to 1952 he served in the USS Mississippi (AG-128) from 1952 to 1953 in the USS LST-887 and from 1959 to 1961 in the USS Antietam (CVS-36). Shore duty assignments have included Ship Superintendent at the Charleston Naval Shipyard (1956-59) Ship Material Officer Staff of Commander-in-Chief U.S. Atlantic Fleet (1961-63) Assistant for New Con struction in the Cruiser and Destroyer Branch (1963-65) at the former Naval Ship Systems Command (NA VSHIPS) Head of the Procurement and Production Branch Fast Deployment Logistic Ship Project Office (1965-68) Director of Industrial Engineering Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy-Installations and Logistics (1968-69) and Executive Assistant to the Commander NAVSHIPS (1969-70). He then reported as Supervisor of Shipbuilding at Pascagoula Miss. with contract administration responsibilities for both the DD 963 and LHA 1 Class ship acquisitions. Returning to Wash ington in 1973 he completed a brief tour as Assistant for Ship Design in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and then served as Project Manager for the LHA Class of Amphibious Assault Ships (with headquarters in Washington D.C.) from 1974 until June 1977 at which time he assumed command of the former Naval Ship Engineering Center (NA VSEC). With the merger ofNA VSEC on 1 October 1979 with its parent com mand the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) he as sumed his present duties as Deputy Commander for Ship Design and Integration NA VSEA. Rear Admiral Lisanby has been activ

This paper describes the method used by the Navy in the acquisition of ships, with particular reference to the some 2,500 documents referenced directly in the process. For such documents, initially mostly military, a concerted effort is underway to substitute “commercial specifications” where feasible. A comparison is made between the processing of military documents and industry standards. The paper then goes into details of available Industry Documents for materials and small items, noting the general absence for large items of machinery and equipment (and a possible solution). The use of “off-the-shelf” equipment also is discussed as well as advantages and disadvantages of both methods of specifying requirements. Finally, the paper summarizes the alternatives: maximum use of industry standards (either directly or indirectly); use of Commercial Item Descriptions where feasible; and retention of military documents where necessary (mission-critical systems, where marine ruggedness is required, and for truly military applications).

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

COMBAT SYSTEM TEST-FACTORY THROUGH SHIPBOARD

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1980年第5期92卷 49-58页

作者： GALLAHUE, JS THE AUTHOR is the Department Manager of Combat Systems Engineering at Litton Industries. Data Systems Division. Prior to joining Litton Industries he was associated with UNIVAC. Since joining the Combat Systems Community in 1959. his assignments have included operational computer programming field engineering systems engineering equipment design proposal management test engineering. and programs management. In these varied roles he supported the NTDS R&D Program NTDS Service Test Program Interim Fleet Programming Center Pacific Anti-Submarine Warfare Ship Command and Control Systems SQS-26/NTDS/UBFCS Interface Design DD 963 Class LHA 1 Class. and the DDG 993 Class.

The required configuration management and the necessary control of the Surface Ship Combat System elements demand that they be considered as integrated and tested in accordance with an integrated test plan utilizing an integrated test organization. The sometimes used approach of implementing a combat system test program based upon the individual combat system elements being independent, has proven to be less than satisfactory. Then is no question that some of the early testing at the unit, subsystem, and subprogram levels can be planned and conducted independent of a specific “end-item” combat System. This paper addresses the planning and implementing of combat system test with the emphases being upon the integrated phase of test and primarily the lead ship of a class. Information is presented to facilitate planning and implementing a combat system test program including use of shore facilities and integrating these activities with shipboard activities; when to form the test organization and what types of expertise are required; what are the key technical management tools; the proofing of test documentation; the need for detailed “step-by-step” procedures and traceability of the specified requirements; how to assist Ships Force; planning and stat using the conduct of the tests; integrating computer program and special testing into the test program; and the significance of early decisions on administrative and contractual arrangements.

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

CABLE BURIAL IN THE DEEP OCEAN-FLOOR

引用

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL 1980年第2期92卷 218-230页

作者： ROCKWELL, PK ENGEL, JH PIERCY, WB Mr. Philip K. Rockwell joined the Ocean Engineering Department at the Civil Engineering Laboratory (CEL) in 1969 after receiving his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Engineering from the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and in 1973 won the WEPCOSE Scholarship which took him to the University of Washington for postgraduate studies in Fluid Power Control Systems. Since joining CEL he has specialized in Underwater Manipulator and Diver Tool Systems has been the Project Engineer and Navy certified submersible operator for the manned submersible NEMO and has been responsible for the design test and evaluation of submersible fluid power and fluid power control systems. His most recent efforts have been on the Deep Ocean Cable Burial System for which he has been responsible for concept development program management validation testing. and coordination and planning for the total system design and fabrication. Mr. Rockwell is an Engineer-in-Training (EIT) in the state of California and in 1979 was awarded the Meritorious Civil Service Award for his outstanding performance. Mr. John H. Engel Jr. is a Mechanical Engineer in the Construction Systems Division Ocean Engineering Department. of the Civil Engineering Laboratory. He is a graduate of Oregon State University for which he received both his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Mechanical Engineering. Prior to joining CEL in 1975 he was involved with the design and development of remote oceanographic devices for the School of Oceanography at Oregon State University. At CEL he has worked in the areas of Underwater Gas Generation and Buoyant Lift Systems and at the present time is responsible for the mechanical design of the shallow water mooring for the initial ocean tests of the Current Measurement System. Mr. Engle also is a registered Engineer-in-Training in the state of Oregon. Mr. William Bruce Piercy at the present time is a student at the University of California at Berkeley where he is studying for his M.S. degree in Engineering having received his B.S. degr

Bottom fishing equipment employed by scallopers and trawlers routinely damage or break important Navy Oceanographic cables resulting in substantial repair coats and unacceptable system interruption. The Civil engineering Laboratory (CEL), sponsored by the Naval Facilities engineering Command (NAVFACENGCOM), has been developing and validating an engineering concept for a Deep Ocean Cable Burial (DOCB) System. This DOCB System will providethe Navy with an efficient, effective and reliable means of burying cables 3-feet deap in ocean mediments, at speeds not less than one knot, to water depths of 6,000 feet. The DOCB System b a remotely controlled machine which underruns and buries existing (previously laid) cables. It is powered and controlled from a surface ship via an electromechanical umbilica cable. The machine is self-propelled by ducted thrusters and supported on water lubricated skids. The excavation system computer an orbital vibrating plowshareand a vertical waterjet. Full-scale field testing at CEL baa keyed on three areas: •. Quantifying the reduction in drawbar force achieved by applying orbital vibration to an upward cutting plowshare. •. Evaluating a Vertically impinging jet nozzle for depth of a cut M a function of jet operating parameters. •. Demonstrating the effect on the soil drag of a flat-bottomed skid due to forcing a thin layer of water between the skid and the seafloor. The field teats of an orbital vibratory plow were performed in a 1 to 2 psi clay simllar to that found on the ocean floor. The results showed that a 70% reduction in drawbar force was achieved by applying an elliptical orbital vibration. It was also shown that the vibration feature would split or push aside buried rocks which would have stalled a conventional stationary plow. The water jet tests demonstrated that a 2 1/2-in. nozzle cuts 36-in. deep in 1 to 2 psi clay. The nozzle pressure was 75 psi and flow was 1,200 gpm. The water jet did not produce a clearly defined trench, b

关键词：

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

建议与咨询留下您的常用邮箱和电话号码，以便我们向您反馈解决方案和替代方法

时间限定

文献类型

馆藏选择

核心期刊

语言

文献类型

帮助

文字说明：

检索规则说明：

检索范例：

分类表

所选分类

限定检索结果

文献类型

馆藏范围

日期分布

学科分类号

主题

机构

作者

语言

请选择保存的检索档案：

请选择收藏分类：

通借通还

建议与咨询 留下您的常用邮箱和电话号码，以便我们向您反馈解决方案和替代方法

时间限定

文献类型

馆藏选择

核心期刊

语言

文献类型

帮助

文字说明：

检索规则说明：

检索范例：

分类表

所选分类

限定检索结果

文献类型

馆藏范围

日期分布

学科分类号

主题

机构

作者

语言

请选择保存的检索档案： 新增检索档案 确定 取消

请选择收藏分类： 新增自定义分类 确定 取消

通借通还

建议与咨询留下您的常用邮箱和电话号码，以便我们向您反馈解决方案和替代方法

请选择保存的检索档案：

请选择收藏分类：