3afv6045766-abb-aboa-mare-azipod-vessel-handling.pdf

Risto Gyldén, ABB Oy Marine and Cranes; Magnus Winberg, Aboa Mare 15.8.2013

Vessel handling with Azipod® Propulsion Techno-economical and simulator -pedagogical observations from high-level cruise ship captain training

2 © ABB and Aboa Mare. Printed copies are uncontrolled copies. This version is current as of August 2013. Document name: Vessel handling with Azipod propulsion – Techno-economical and simulator-pedagogical observations from high-level cruise ship captain training. ABB Document number 3AFV6045766.

Content

Terminology, abbreviations and acronyms ........................................................................................ 4

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 5

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6

1.1 Background and motivation ............................................................................................... 6

1.2 Objectives and scope of the study ...................................................................................... 7

2 Simulator-pedagogical study ...................................................................................................... 8

2.1 The objectives and legal framework ................................................................................... 8

3 Using simulators for learning ..................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Definition of simulation ...................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Use of simulator in DEC 30 workshop training and research ............................................... 9

3.3 Aboa Mare simulator centers Turku and Espoo ................................................................ 10

4 STCW requirements for ship officers and applying MRM .......................................................... 12

4.1 STCW ............................................................................................................................... 12

4.1.1 STCW and the bridge team ....................................................................................... 12

4.1.2 Observations on STCW teamwork requirements during the workshop...................... 13

4.2 Bridge Resource Management – MRM / Swedish Club Academy ..................................... 13

4.2.1 MRM description ...................................................................................................... 14

4.2.2 MRM / BRM training and the DEC30 workshop ......................................................... 14

4.2.3 MRM procedures and principles during the workshop .............................................. 14

4.2.4 Observations on MRM procedures and principles during the workshop .................... 14

5 Learning, unlearning and relearning ......................................................................................... 15

5.1 Assessing the basic skills for establishing a baseline ......................................................... 15

5.2 Retention ......................................................................................................................... 15

5.3 Observations on the types of bridge teams and the learning process ............................... 17

6 Briefing and debriefing ............................................................................................................ 18

6.1 Briefing and debriefing at Aboa Mare ............................................................................... 18

6.2 Aboa Mare standard form for briefing and debriefing ...................................................... 18

6.3 Azipod workshop briefing and debriefing ......................................................................... 18

6.4 Observations on the briefing and debriefing during the workshop.................................... 20

7 Research method ..................................................................................................................... 21

7.1 Simulator and vessel model .............................................................................................. 21


7.2 Operational area and environment .................................................................................. 21

7.3 Bridge resource management .......................................................................................... 22

7.4 Data collection ................................................................................................................. 22

8 Techno-economical study ........................................................................................................ 26

8.1 Collected data .................................................................................................................. 26

8.1.1 Variables .................................................................................................................. 26

8.1.2 Number of test runs ................................................................................................. 27

8.2 Analysis method ............................................................................................................... 27

8.3 Pre- and Post-course performance ................................................................................... 28

8.3.1 Pre-course performance ........................................................................................... 28

8.3.2 Post-course performance ......................................................................................... 30

8.4 Comparison of pre-course and post-course results ........................................................... 33

9 Findings ................................................................................................................................... 35

9.1 Effects on life-cycle cost ................................................................................................... 35

9.2 Time-to-berth vs. propulsion power ................................................................................. 35

9.3 Bow thruster use .............................................................................................................. 36

9.4 Sequencing of harbor maneuver phases ........................................................................... 36

9.5 Learning results ................................................................................................................ 36

10 Future development ............................................................................................................ 38

10.1 RoPax vessel harbor operations........................................................................................ 38

10.2 HMI development (VICO, EMMA and IMI) ........................................................................ 38

10.3 Standard Azipod-vessel harbor maneuver phases ............................................................. 39

10.4 Retention and refreshment .............................................................................................. 39

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................... 40


Terminology, abbreviations and acronyms

Term/abbreviation Explanation Azipod® Azimuthing podded electrical propulsion produced by ABB Marine.

Azipod® is a registered trademark of ABB Oy Marine and Turbocharging. In an Azipod, the electric propulsion motor is located in a submerged pod outside the ship hull. The pod can freely rotate around its vertical axis to give thrust to any direction. Separate long shaft line, rudders or stern thrusters are not needed.

BRM Bridge Resource Management: command bridge resource allocation according to requirements of STCW 2010. See also MRM.

BT Bow thruster COG Vessel course over ground cSt Centistoke 1 cSt = 10-6 m2/s. Unit of kinetic viscosity, i.e. dynamic

viscosity divided by the density of the fluid. CSV Comma-separated-file text file format. Decimal separator In this study comma (,) separates decimals: e.g. 1.234,56 Heading Compass direction were vessel bow points HFO Heavy fuel oil. Residual fuel oil with viscosity generally over 380 cSt /

50°C. HFO can have low or normal sulfur content. HMI Human Machine Interface; The user interface in a process control

system, for example command bridge controls used for controlling vessel motion.

IMO International Maritime Organization, 4 Albert Enbankment, London SE1 7SR, UK.

kW Kilowatt, 1000 watts, unit for output of power of engines kWh Kilowatt-hour, unit for energy consumption Maneuvering mode Standard Azipod propulsion operating mode for maneuvers in harbor:

limited propulsion power (usually 50-60%) and unlimited 360 degree steering angle. (See also Open Sea Mode.)

MW Megawatt, 1000 kilowatts MRM Bridge Resource Management: command bridge resource allocation

according to requirements of STCW 2010. See also BRB. Open Sea Mode Standard Azipod propulsion operating mode for sea and pilot voyage:

unlimited power and limited ±35 degree steering angle. (See also Maneuvering Mode.)

RoPax Roll on/roll off passenger: vessel for transportation of freight on wheels, and with passenger accommodation.

ROT Rate of turn, i.e. rate at which vessel heading is changing, usually deg/min.

SFOC Specific Fuel Oil Consumption. In this study a generic value of 220 g/kWh is used.

SOG Vessel speed over ground STCW International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and

Watchkeeping for Seafarers. IMO 2010. Steering angle In this presentation: azimuthing angle of an Azipod unit: ±0-180

degrees, i.e. 360 degrees unlimited. Also Rudder Angle.


Abstract

Power requirement and power fluctuations can be reduced by up-to 30% and 40% respectively, on Azipod-vessels, by utilizing good methods of ship handling. At the same time passenger comfort can be improved, time-to-berth reduced, and wear-and-tear on propulsion system and diesel power plant reduced.

ABB Oy Marine has conducted a study in cooperation with Aboa Mare maritime simulator center on the effect of maneuvering methods on time-to-berth, power required by Azipod units and bow thrusters and energy consumption during harbor maneuvers. The study was conducted as part of high-level cruise-ship captain training workshops. Transas Navi-Trainer 5000 simulator was used for gathering data.

The interest in the study was in determining the possibilities of Azipod propulsion on minimizing unfavorable effects of maneuvering power requests by the vessel master on the propulsion system, and especially on the diesel electric power plant. This approach allows for a statistical approach using peak values as well as averages and standard deviations over time.

The results show a significant change in the ship handling methods when compared before and after the workshop. As the methods improved, average propulsion power required decreased from 5,7±2,3 MW to 4,1±1,0 MW. Peak power demands decreased on average by 7,0 MW (42%) from 16,8 MW to 9,8 MW. Bow thruster use could be optimized, in this study the reduction was 90%.

These observed improvements result in reduced wear-and-tear, improved time-to-berth, improved passenger comfort, increased safety margins as well as reduced fuel consumption.


1 Introduction

1.1 Background and motivation

ABB Marine has produced and delivered azimuthing, electrical propulsion systems, i.e. Azipod-units since early 1990s. In an Azipod, the electric propulsion motor is located in a submerged pod outside the ship hull. The pod can freely rotate around its vertical axis to give thrust to any direction. Separate long shaft line, rudders or stern thrusters are not needed.

In 1990s the idea of using azimuthing propulsion on large cruise and cargo vessels was new and exciting, and no experience on the handling of this size of vessels existed. The operators turned to maritime training providers to improve their deck officer competences. With more and more vessels entering traffic, the operators developed their in-house best practices, and shared these within their organizations, each operator having own methods, terminology and human-machine interface HMI, according to their best knowledge. This lead to a situation where azimuthing propulsion methods were not standardized and best practices not shared within the industry.

In 2009 ABB Marine decided to conduct a study on how the situation could be improved. The study proceeded on two tracks: one with customers, and one with Aboa Mare, leading maritime training provider in Finland.

Aboa Mare has extensive experience in utilizing simulators in deck officer and engineer training. They have simulator centers in Turku and Espoo, suburb of Helsinki, Finland. During the study, the Espoo simulator center was improved to suit high-level deck officer training. The simulator itself was technically at a good level, but some modifications in HMI and ship models were required. In the ship model development the simulator manufacturer, Transas International, had an important role.

Major customers, representing different kinds of operators with various ship types, were also approached. Their experiences from both different electrical podded thrusters and mechanical thrusters were gathered. Several top captains visited Aboa Mare simulator center to demonstrate their own, individual methods. Customer premises were also visited for discussions with selected captains. The results from these meetings were analyzed, and a set of best practices in line with Azipod vessel Operation Guidelines1 were compiled.

Based on these best practices, a new, one-week training course was developed, aimed at improving the ship handling competences, as well as standardization of methods, terminology and HMI development. The initial course structure and content were audited by representatives from several customer organizations, and their recommendations were incorporated into the final product, the DEC30 workshop: Management level (STCW) workshop on twin-Azipod cruise vessel operation and handling covering normal operation, malfunctions and bridge communication.

1 Azipod Operating Guidelines, ABB Marine document 3AFV6000799


1.2 Objectives and scope of the study

During the development of the above mentioned DEC30-training arose the question of assessing changes in participant competence before and after the workshop. This assessment required definition of the levels of knowledge, understanding and proficiency of twin-Azipod-ship handling at Management level, as defined in STCW 2010 code2.

From techno-economical perspective the objectives of the study were to compare the actual maneuvering commands, and the resulting propulsion variables. Performing these observations in a state-of-the-art simulator provide data where environmental variables, e.g. wind, current and other vessel traffic, are controlled. The only significant variable is the Master at the controls. This data can also be gathered on ships in operation, in which case the environment is in continuous change, setting extra demands on data analysis.

The solution used was to have the workshop participants perform a certain standard approach to a Baltic cruise terminal with no wind, current or other traffic. This harbor approach was performed in the simulator before and after the training.

The simulator-pedagogical part of the study aims at describing, discussing, and, perhaps, understanding the learning process by which improvement was achieved. This part of the study thus describes and discusses the procedures and methods used during the entire workshop.

2 IMO 2010.


2 Simulator-pedagogical study Describing and discussing the individual and group learning, pedagogical, aspects is one of the aims of the study. The background and existing regulations are described and some observations and thoughts on the learning process are presented. The study is by no means exhaustive, does not aspire to present absolute scientific truths and should be treated as informative only. However, some potential exists for continuing the study in the future and by deepening and developing the study methods interesting results should be obtainable.

2.1 The objectives and legal framework

As mentioned in chapter 1.1 Background and motivation, the goal of the DEC30 workshop is to improve the competence, standardize methods and terminology and develop the HMI using a ship simulator environment.

Pedagogically, the primary objective is to assess the baseline knowledge and skill level of the participant officers and use the “learning, unlearning and relearning” principle for achieving the aims of the workshop.

Secondly, to achieve maximum performance within the legal framework of the IMO STCW code, the STCW code rules and regulations have to be observed and implemented during the workshop.

Thirdly, the STCW code requirements for teamwork and resource management leads to using MRM (Maritime Resource Management) principles for managing the bridge teamwork.


3 Using simulators for learning Today, simulators are used extensively in many different contexts, perhaps the most well-known being the flight simulators used in airline pilot training. However, simulators are used in many other contexts as well, for example power plants, forest harvesting, medical and, most important in the present context, ship operations.

3.1 Definition of simulation Simulation can be defined in many ways, such as “acting out or mimicking an actual or probable real life condition, event or situation to find a cause of a past occurrence, or to forecast future effects of assumed circumstances or factors” 3 or “the act or process of simulating”4.

For the purpose of this study the best definition could perhaps be “the imitation of the operation of a real –world process or system over time”.5 Although this is a Wikipedia quote and, as such should be treated carefully, it is quite close to the definition needed in a ship operations context.

In the following discussion “simulation” is limited to the use of computer-based equipment in specific setups being then named “simulators”

3.2 Use of simulator in DEC 30 workshop training and research

In the DEC 30 workshop, the ship simulator was used for two different purposes; primarily to train officers in the use of Azipod propulsion but secondarily, to, simultaneously, collect data for research purposes.

Generally, simulators are, at least in the shipping industry, regarded as training-oriented equipment, but the dual use of simulators in training and research is not a new concept.

Perhaps one of the most significant early use of simulators in this way was in the US X-15 research rocket plane program in the 1950s and 1960s. The X -15 program used simulators for the dual purpose of training the pilots and other personnel involved and also for research purposes, mainly in predicting the behavior of the airplane at speeds and altitudes never before attained. The simulators were also used for troubleshooting and correcting equipment malfunctions.

Thus, the X-15 program depended heavily on the simulators and it has been argued that the program would not have succeeded without the use of simulators, or, at least, would have been significantly less efficient. As X-15 pilot Milton Thompson said:

3 Businessdictionary.com 4 Merriam-Webster.com 5 Wikipedia


“We were able to avoid many pitfalls because of the simulation. It really paid off. I personally do not believe we could have successfully flown the aircraft without a simulation”6.

This quote is a good description of the reasons why the DEC 30 workshop can be considered very significant training. Avoiding pitfalls, using training to gain significant pay-offs and developing operations successfully is, or should be, vital to each and every responsible ship owner.

3.3 Aboa Mare simulator centers Turku and Espoo

The DEC30 workshop was run at Aboa Mare Simulation Center in Espoo, Finland. Aboa Mare, the leading maritime training provider in Finland, runs two simulator centers, one in Turku and one in Espoo, and is, additionally, co-owner of Giga Mare Inc., which runs a simulator center in Subic Bay, the Philippines.

Aboa Mare Simulator Center Espoo uses Transas Navi-Trainer 5000 software being run on three simulator bridges, of which two were used in the DEC30 workshop, as described in chapter 7.1. Simulator center layout and bridges are presented in Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4.

Figure 1 Aboa Mare Espoo simulator layout

6 Thompson 1992,p 70


Figure 2 Aboa Mare Espoo simulator exterior view

Figure 3 Bridge 1

Figure 4 Bridge 2


4 STCW requirements for ship officers and applying MRM The STCW convention requires specific skills from the officers. The STCW convention has developed over the years and the regulations in force today have some special applications that are of interest in the DEC30 workshop. Some of the STCW regulations in the workshop are met by using Swedish Club Academy MRM workshop methods.

4.1 STCW

The IMO STCW convention came into existence for the first time in 1978, being then named STCW – 78. It was extensively revised in 1995, becoming known as STCW -95. Smaller revisions were done over the years, with a major revision in 2010, which became known as the “Manila amendments”, which is the version now in force. At the same time IMO dropped the year marking, making the designation “STCW 1978 Convention as amended”7.

4.1.1 STCW and the bridge team In the DEC30 workshop bridge team context, the most important point is the implementation of the teamwork and resource management principles as mandatory requirements in the amended STCW convention. Simply put, this means that, at all times, the entire bridge team has to be involved in the bridge operations, and also, in the wider context, that the entire ship´s crew has to work as a team. Before the “Manila amendments” it was, in the extreme case, possible to run a “one man show” on the bridge, meaning that the master has control of all aspects of the operations and does all the decisions and operations himself. Today, this is simply not allowed. The entire bridge team has to share the same mental model of the situation, communicate efficiently and use all available resources for the safe operation of the ship.

The specific requirements in the STCW Code regarding the bridge team for team work and resource management are8

• Operational level : Table A-II/1 Bridge resource management and Application of leadership and teamworking skills

• Management level : Table A –II/2 Use of leadership and managerial skill

The abovementioned STCW principles need to be implemented during the workshop. It was decided to use the three-persons approach explained in closer detail in chapter 7.3, Bridge Resource Management. This approach is the most representative model for modern cruise ship bridge operations

The STCW Code also specifies the use of simulators in training9. As the DEC30 workshop type training is not mandatory under STCW, these requirements as such does not need to

7 IMO, International Maritime Organization 8 IMO STCW Code A II 9 IMO STCW Code A-I/12


be fulfilled. Nevertheless, it is important to follow the STCW requirements as closely as possible also during this workshop.

Additionally, the STCW code includes “guidance regarding additional training for masters and chief mates of large ships and ships with unusual maneuvering characteristics”10. It can be argued that an Azipod ship is a ship with unusual maneuvering characteristics and thus falls under this guidance rule. According to this rule the master and chief mate should have “sufficient and appropriate experience maneuvering the ship” OR “have attended an approved ship handling simulator workshop on an installation capable of simulating the maneuvering characteristics of such a ship.”

This can arguably be interpreted as a strong recommendation for attending a workshop such as the DEC30 workshop.

However, it has to be noted that the B-section of the STCW-code is intended as guidance only and is thus not mandatory. It can nevertheless be argued that a modern shipping company should consider also IMO guidance relevant and strive to employ this guidance in their procedures.

4.1.2 Observations on STCW teamwork requirements during the workshop During the workshop, it was observed that the participants were reasonably adept at employing teamwork procedures, but the variations were also quite large. Some team constellations worked very well, the communication being mostly clear and shared well. Other teams worked reasonably well during nominal procedures but reverted to more “one man show” operation as the demands increased due to environmental conditions or technical malfunctions. In some cases, the overall teamwork remained very limited and in these cases usually only a change in team composition improved the situation. The different team compositions are discussed in more detail in chapter 5.3

4.2 Bridge Resource Management – MRM / Swedish Club Academy

During the workshop, implementing Bridge Resource Management -type procedures and communication is important. Bridge Resource Management (BRM) is a generic concept widely used in the shipping community and also adopted as a concept by IMO (see chapter 4.1.1.) BRM training is offered by many service providers, with somewhat different contents and methods of realization.

For the DEC30-course, it was decided to implement specifically the Maritime Resource Management concept by the Swedish Club Academy. Aboa Mare is a licensed Swedish Club Academy MRM training provider.

The Swedish Club Academy MRM training is certified (as of February 14th, 2012) by the Swedish Maritime Authority as fulfilling the (non –technical) STCW requirements as mentioned above11.

10 STCW Code section B-V/a* 11 , 15 The Swedish Club Academy


4.2.1 MRM description MRM is described by the Swedish Club Academy as:

“The MRM workshop is designed to minimize the risk of incidents by encouraging safe and responsible behavior. It aims to foster positive attitudes favoring good personal communication, excellence in leadership skills and compliance with operating procedures12.

4.2.2 MRM / BRM training and the DEC30 workshop Because the workshop principles are largely centered on MRM methods and concepts, it would be beneficial if the participants had attended an MRM/BRM workshop prior to attending the DEC30 workshop. Unfortunately, so far quite few of the participants have attended an MRM/BRM workshop, making the implementation of these principles somewhat more demanding. As teamwork training, leadership training and management skills are becoming mandatory for all seafarers in the next few years, this problem should resolve itself in the next five years.

4.2.3 MRM procedures and principles during the workshop As a consequence of the sometimes limited BRM/MRM knowledge, it was decided to implement a modified version of the BRM/MRM principles and procedures as described in Chapter 7.3 Bridge resource management.

4.2.4 Observations on MRM procedures and principles during the workshop During the workshop, the modified procedures concerning mainly teamwork and communication were used. Mostly they worked satisfactorily. The participants usually had earlier participated in some type of Bridge Team Training, arranged by their own company, centered on implementing their own company SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) and ISM (International Safety Management) procedures. Thus, the participants were reasonably adept at working using clear communication and standardized procedures.


5 Learning, unlearning and relearning In the DEC30 workshop, the most important objective is to establish the most efficient and safe Azipod operation procedures. The participants in the workshop are generally very experienced cruise ship captains with a long career in their baggage. Nevertheless, their knowledge about Azipod operations can vary from very thorough to very limited. Some of the participants are younger and less experienced officers, mainly staff captains and safety officers, their knowledge about Azipod operations also varying greatly.

The participants need to learn new things and acquire new skills but also, to a varying degree, unlearn previously acquired skills and procedures and relearn the skills and procedures needed for safe and efficient Azipod operation.

As a fairly well-known quote by Alvin Toffler states:

“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn”13.

This quote can be used to symbolize one of the main challenges of the DEC30 workshop. Learning, unlearning and relearning is done during the entire workshop.

5.1 Assessing the basic skills for establishing a baseline

During the workshop a great deal of effort was put into establishing the type of knowledge and skills each officer /trainee possesses, that is, establishing a baseline, and consequently modifying the objectives, learning goals, individually. This was done by one of the instructors acting as an observer during the initial lessons and presentations during the first day. By observing the behavior of each individual officer, especially during the introductions of each officer individually, and by observing the individual behavior during the first familiarization runs in the simulator, it was possible to do a rough estimate of each officers “type” according to MRM behavioral type classifications. This estimate was used and modified as the workshop progressed. Naturally, the instructor doing this assessment needs to be a certified MRM workshop leader.

5.2 Retention

In all training, it is important to observe the theory of retention, which started out with a study by Hermann Ebbinghaus in the 19th century14. Ebbinghaus argued that the facts learned during a training session are forgotten at an alarming rate, as can be seen in Figure 5 Forgetting curve15. The forgetting rate is high, as an example, after 1 hour only approximately 50% remains and after 6 days no more than 20%.

13 Alvintoffler.net 14 Ebbinghaus, 1885. 15 Paul, 1996.


Figure 5 Forgetting curve

This forgetting problem can be counteracted by refreshing /reviewing the material learned regularly. As can be seen in Figure 616, periodical review increases the amount of facts remembered. For practical reasons, this reviewing could be made in specific intervals such as e.g. one hour, one day, one week, one month and, arguably, one year.

Figure 6 Forgetting curve with periodical review

In the workshop, this periodical reviewing was achieved by the debriefing after each exercise, the repetition each day of basic facts learned the previous day and the post-workshop simulator session, in which most of the facts learned during the previous four days were needed and used.

16 Paul, 1996.


In this way, the one-hour, one-day and one-week periods were covered. The one-year refreshment is, unfortunately, not included in this model, but can be achieved by introducing periodical refreshment workshops at regular intervals following the main workshop.

5.3 Observations on the types of bridge teams and the learning process

The setup of the bridge teams is determined by using the rough estimates of the behavioral types discussed in chapter 5.1, according to the objectives of each training session. During the workshop, it was observed that the bridge teams can be divided into five main types, each with their own typical learning style and systematics.

The first team is composed of one experienced Azipod master with a good understanding of Azipod maneuvering principles combined with two less experienced officers. In this case the master is directly teaching or mentoring the officers. This setup requires the master to be completely Azipod-minded and thus will not entail unlearning and relearning but only learning. This setup does not require a large input from the instructors

The next team composition observed consisted of three less or none Azipod experienced officers handling the bridge operations. This setup is pure peer-coaching training, which can be very demanding but also quite effective, the officers all being susceptible to learning and also not involving much unlearning and relearning. The required instructor input might be fairly high.

Thirdly, a setup of three experienced Azipod masters was observed to exist. In this case all masters were able to operate efficiently, not involving unlearning and relearning, only learning. In these cases the main objective will turn towards exploring and defining the limits of the maneuvering envelope and can be quite satisfying. The instructor input can be very low.

A more demanding team setup was one experienced shaftline master, with little or no Azipod experience, and two less experienced officers. This team requires unlearning and relearning from the master, which can have a detrimental effect on the learning process of the officers and requiring a very high instructor input.

The last main team composition was two or three experienced Azipod or shaftline masters and one or none less experienced officer. This is also a demanding setup, the masters going easily into “competition mode”, showing off their skills. Unlearning and relearning has to take place, requiring high instructor input. It is not recommendable to involve one officer in this setup at all because of detrimental effects on the officers learning experience. Even running one bridge team with two masters and the other with four officers can be a better option.

These five main team compositions can at times vary slightly, and it is, of course, possible that some other main types will still emerge. Some special cases were also observed at times, but it was decided not to discuss those in this study.

Overall, by learning, unlearning and relearning, to a varying degree, the skill level was observed to increase but also to a varying degree. The possible correlations were not resolved in this study.


6 Briefing and debriefing In simulator training, the procedure of using briefing- training session- debriefing methods is the commonly used method.

6.1 Briefing and debriefing at Aboa Mare

Aboa Mare has, over many years, made a big effort of developing methods for running simulator exercises in the most efficient manner possible. According to Westilä and Vuorio, a simulator training session is composed of briefing, simulator exercise and debriefing. All three elements are crucial to enabling the learning process in a simulator environment17.

6.2 Aboa Mare standard form for briefing and debriefing According to Westilä and Vuorio18 the standard Aboa Mare form for briefing and debriefing is to start the exercise session with a short briefing session including the following items:

The objectives and main scenario of the exercise, the composition and roles of the bridge teams, exercise date and time, weather conditions including wind force and direction, wave height and direction, water temperature, visibility and speed and direction of the sea current, ship type and specification , passage plan and external and internal communications.

After completing the simulator session, the debriefing session is run, discussing at least the following items:

Events during the exercise and reflections from real-life operations in order to verify correct transfer. What did we learn from our possible mistakes and which things went well? What were the strengths and weaknesses in the exercise and, finally, were the objectives reached?

6.3 Azipod workshop briefing and debriefing

In the DEC30 workshop the briefing and debriefing was conducted according to a model using the main points from the Aboa Mare principles above. Some modifications and amendments/omissions from the standard form were made due to the specialized type of training conducted.

Table 1 DEC30 briefing and debriefing model

All simulator sessions are conducted according to the same model described below.

17 Westilä & Vuorio 2011, p.1. 18 Westilä & Vuorio 2011, p. 48-49.


1 Simulator session starts at the indicated time with a short briefing, which includes: -forming two bridge teams (Team 1 and Team 2) consisting of three persons each. Each group consists of one navigator (NAV), one co-navigator (CONAV) and one operations director (OPSDIR), with separate tasks. (addressed in “Azipod Resource Management”)

- the participants receiving a short written description of the session, mainly addressing the objectives of the session, session specific restraints, ship type, port area and environmental conditions. The same description will be presented by an instructor

2 The participants then proceed to their appropriate bridges ( Team 1/ Bridge 1 and Team2/Bridge 2) and do their planning for the task as requested in the instructions (abt 10 mins)

3 Session commences when the bridge team informs the instructor they are ready.

4 Session terminates when the instructor informs.

5 After session termination, the team discusses their performance between themselves for about 10 minutes. The OPSDIR notes on the observation form the team´s thoughts about the following two points:

Alpha: What went well? And why?

Bravo: What could be improved? And how?

6 Both teams and the instructors are requested to assemble in the debriefing room for exercise debriefing at the indicated time.

7 Both teams are, in turn, requested to present their conclusions on the above two questions. The operations director (OPSDIR) presents the main points and the navigator and co-navigator can amend if necessary.

8 Finally the session will, usually, be presented on replay screen for further analysis and discussion

9 The things learned and observed in the session are usually needed in the next session, as indicated by the Kolb cycle of learning principle (Figure 7).


Figure 7 Kolb cycle of learning

6.4 Observations on the briefing and debriefing during the workshop

In the DEC30 workshop the concept of briefing and debriefing as the central points of a simulator exercise session was utilized fully. The majority of the participant officers were familiar with the concept and were able to work using these principles. Most officers have at some point in their career attended simulator workshops in which the briefing/debriefing method is employed. The system worked especially well regarding the post-exercise team discussion and consecutive presentation by OPSDIR. Usually, the team report was quite well done and presented.

However, quite frequently, the discussion moved away from the exact exercise topic being debriefed, and , at times, the other team members stepped into the discussion somewhat unexpectedly and assertively, requiring the input of the instructor to redirect the discussion. However, this kind of diverting from the main topic can also be productive and in some cases the discussion was allowed to flow freely for some time.

It was also observed that the initial exercise planning proceeded quite well at the beginning of the workshop, but usually started deteriorating later on, requiring instructor input to redirect the planning effort to the desired track.

The one aspect that mostly functioned poorly or not at all was the ability of the participants to direct their timing for the briefing, exercise and debriefing starts as indicated. Mostly, the instructors had to gather the participants personally.

As a whole, the Briefing/exercise/debriefing principle worked very well during the workshops conducted.

Abstract conceptualisation,

”theorizing”

Active experimentation,

”planning”

Reflective observation,

”thinking”

Concrete experience,

”doing”


7 Research method

7.1 Simulator and vessel model

Modern vessel simulators are capable of high accuracy simulation of vessel motion, environmental forces, and machinery variables. The simulator used in this research was Transas Navigational simulator Navi-Trainer Professional 5000 (NTPRO 5000)19. Two full mission command bridges, Bridge 1 and Bridge 2, were used, both with Azipod-control levers, and viewing angles of 220 and 110 degrees, respectively. Bridges are equipped with standard Transas bridges with generic conning, machinery, ECDIS and radar displays. Azimuthing levers were Kwant Controls RSCU-Mk3 on Bridge 1, and RSCU-H96 on Bridge 2.

The model utilized was ABB Azipod Cruiser, a twin-Azipod, panamax-size cruise ship developed to represent a large number of similar size vessel. The model behavior has been tested and judged by experienced cruise ship captains to closely resemble existing vessels, for example a long series of ships from Fincantieri Cantiere navale di Marghera. Vessel dimensions are presented in Table 2 ABB Azipod Cruiser particulars.

Table 2 ABB Azipod Cruiser particulars

LOA 294 m B 32,5 m Propulsion system Diesel-electric Azipod Propulsion power 2 x 17,6 MW Bow thruster power 7,08 MW Maximum speed 24 kn

7.2 Operational area and environment

The operational area used was Port of Helsinki, west harbor, from north of Katajaluoto island to Hernesaari cruise terminal. This area is particularly well modeled in the Aboa Mare simulator, as the unit is responsible for modeling Finnish fairways for pilot tests. An example run in the area is presented in Figure 8 Typical Helsinki approach; pre-course run (11-17-29).

Environmental variables were kept to minimum, i.e. there was no wind or current. Visibility was always good, and no other vessel traffic was present.

19 Navi-Trainer 5000 enables simulator training and certification of watch officers, chief officers, captains and pilots serving on commercial ships. It complies with requirements of IMO STCW 2010 Convention and IMO Model Courses 7.01 and 7.03.


7.3 Bridge resource management

Bridge teams consisting of two or three persons were used. In case of three persons, the roles were Navigator (Nav), Co-Navigator (Co-Nav) and operations director (OpDir). With only two participants on the bridge, just Nav and Co-Nav were used. Each person wore a vest indicating his/her role, i.e. Nav: green vest; Co-Nav: yellow vest and OpDir: red vest. This method has proven efficient in helping the participants to focus on their dedicated role. The different roles have been described in more detail in Table 3 BRM roles. This BRM approach for Azipod-ships has been developed to assist operators to meet STCW 2010 requirements on bridge resource management, as required in the STCW code20.

The bridges used were standard Transas simulator bridges with azimuthing control levers from Kwant. As the equipment do not exactly represent bridges in use on participant ships, the role of Co-Nav was important in verifying that the Navigator had always the required information of vessel motion and propulsion system variables.

Table 3 BRM roles

BRM role Tasks Navigator Responsible for vessel motion

Shares information with co-navigator Co-Navigator Monitors and verifies navigator’s situational awareness

Supplies navigator with essential additional information Stand-by for navigator in case of emergency

Operations Director Monitors co-navigator’s situational awareness Supplies co-navigator with essential additional information Stand-by for co-navigator in case of emergency

7.4 Data collection

A number of DEC30-training courses were arranged during years 2010-2012. Participants performed a standard approach to Port of Helsinki West Harbor from north of Katajaluoto island to entrance to Hernesaari basin. Initial vessel speed was 15 knots, and each run was terminated when vessel stern reached a marker line extending west from Hernesaari southern end. Exercise description in Table 4 is from the actual participant document, as well as the additional exercise information in Table 5.

Table 4 Exercise description

Prepare Prepare to berth at Hernesaari cruise terminal, PS side to berth, heading 208. Plan your approach utilizing Azipod units, bow thrusters and other means necessary.

Observe Speed limits: 12 knots at Koirakari

20 STCW Code, Part A, Chapter II


10 knots at second red buoy east of Melkki island 8 knots at second green buoy west of Pihlajasaari island

Table 5 Exercise information

Vessel Twin-Azipod cruise vessel. LOA 294 m, 2x17,6 MW Azipod Wind No wind Current No current Waves No waves Initial position Approaching Helsinki. Mid fairway, 1 NM south of Pihlajasaari island. Initial heading 000 deg Vessel speed 15 knots Lever position 6 Operational mode Maneuvering mode, asynchronous steering

Port of Helsinki was a familiar harbor to most of the participants. In case the area was unfamiliar, the participants were given sufficient time to familiarize themselves with the area as well as plan an appropriate approach to berth. No guidance on how to maneuver the vessel was supplied as the participants were to utilize their own capabilities.

The actual task given to participants was to perform two runs:

1. Using methods commonly used on Azipod-vessels, i.e. pre-course status (Figure 8) 2. Using methods studied during the training, i.e. post-course status (Figure 9)

Data collecting methods improved during the course of time. Initially both pre-course and post-course runs were actually performed at the end of the one-week course. The participants were first asked to perform a pre-course run as well as possible, i.e. “as you would have approached Helsinki last season”, not using the methods acquired during the training. Later the same day, they were asked to perform a post-course run, utilizing all knowledge and proficiency acquired during the week. In reality the participants did not fully follow the instructions, and used new methods partially also in the simulated pre-curse runs.

During later courses the pre-course runs were performed as part of the simulator familiarization on the first course day. Post-course runs were performed on the last simulator day.

What is described above has had an effect on the results of this study: if more realistic pre-course test runs had always been performed, the effects of operator training on vessel handling would have been more dramatic, i.e. the findings of this study have been affected by certain degree of dampening. Therefore it can be argued that the results presented in this paper are conservative, and in reality the potential changes can be greater.


Figure 8 Typical Helsinki approach; pre-course run (11-17-29)


Figure 9 Typical Helsinki approach; post-course run (14-17-12)


8 Techno-economical study

8.1 Collected data

8.1.1 Variables NTPRO 5000 simulator automatically records a large number of variables from each performed exercise. Data recording takes place by default at one second intervals. A selection of variables can be exported using built-in Ship Diagram and Export –functions. For this study the data was exported into comma-separated-file CSV -format to be imported into Microsoft Excel for statistical analysis.

Thirteen variables were exported, as presented in Table 6 Exported variables from NTPRO 5000. Of these 13, five were used as primary data for statistical analysis, and eight as secondary, support information.

Table 6 Exported variables from NTPRO 5000

Variable Unit Use Azipod power PS [kW] Primary Azipod power SB [kW] Primary Port RPM Primary Starboard RPM Primary Bow Thruster gained power [%] Primary Port rudder angle [°] Secondary Starboard rudder angle [°] Secondary Course Over Ground COG [°] Secondary Speed Over Ground SOG [knt] Secondary Heading [°] Secondary Longitudinal speed through the water [knt] Secondary Rate of turn ROT [deg/min] Secondary Drift angle [°] Secondary

The primary variables were also used in MS Excel to extract additional information from the data in form of 7 derived variables, presented in Table 7 Derived variables.

Table 7 Derived variables

Variable Unit Total power PS+SB+BT [kW] Azipod power PS+SB [kW] Bow thruster power [kW] Energy consumption PS [kWh] Energy consumption SB [kWh] Bow thruster power [kW] Energy cons. BT [kWh]


8.1.2 Number of test runs As mentioned earlier in chapter 7.4, data collection methods improved in course of time. As the method used was new to the parties involved, the methods were not optimal initially.

After initial observation on the individual runs it was possible to determine which runs were suitable for this study. All runs had been documented and commented during the actual exercises, and this information was used to evaluate individual runs. Runs which differed from the norm in duration, or during which exceptional operating methods had been used, were discarded.

The total number of test runs used in the study was 32. Considering the professional level of the participants and the consistent environmental conditions, this number can be considered to large enough for reliable statistical study.

8.2 Analysis method

The interest of this study was in utilizing the full capacity of Azipod propulsion in minimizing unfavorable effects of maneuvering power requests by the vessel master on the propulsion system, and especially on the diesel electric power plant. This approach allows for a statistical approach using peak values as well as averages and standard deviations over time.

Collected data consists of time histories of the variables described in chapter 8.1.1. The duration of individual runs ranged from 17:28 minutes to 36:46 minutes, with average of 23:54 minutes. As data points were recorded every second, the number of individual data points ranged between 17.816 and 37.502 points per run. This corresponds on average to 24.378 data points. With 32 runs, total number of collected data points was approximately 780.000.

Raw time histories were imported into MS Excel. The initial observations of the time histories revealed that in the beginning of the runs, the Navigators tended to change the RPM setting during the first straight, northerly stretch towards the narrows between the islands of Melkki and Pihlajasaari. This was probably due to wanting to get a feeling for the behavior of the vessel before entering the narrows. RPM changes both up and down from the initial 15-knot-setting caused significant fluctuations in the propulsion power. To consistently limit the observations to the approach to harbor turning basin, maneuvers in the basin, and approach to berth, three (3) minutes from the beginning of each run was discarded from the statistical study.


8.3 Pre- and Post-course performance

8.3.1 Pre-course performance A typical pre-course run propulsion power time histories are presented in Figure 10 Typical pre-course time history (11-17-29). This is the same run that is presented as a chart in Figure 8 Typical Helsinki approach; pre-course run (11-17-29).

The approach plan in this case has been to turn the vessel PS counter-clockwise with normal, conventional use of bow thruster. During the initial northerly approach, engine power is low and fluctuations small, as the vessel is slowly turned to SB. During the second phase, the vessel is almost stopped, and turned to PS with bow thrusters at continuous 100% to PS (i.e. 7,08 MW), and Azipod power between 10-15 MW, i.e. 50-75% of available power in Maneuvering Mode. Total power requirement from propulsion equipment to the diesel electric power plant was between 17-22 MW.

Following operational phases can be identified:

- 3-10 minutes: initial approach through the narrows to turning basin (see time stamps also in Figure 8)

o Vessel speed decreasing o Steering with synchronously turning Azipod units (Open Sea Mode)

- 10-20 minutes: turning the vessel PS counter-clockwise using Azipod units (red line) and bow thrusters (green line)

o Vessel speed low between 0-3 knots o Azipod operation in asynchronous mode (Maneuvering mode)

- 20-23 minutes: running astern towards berth o Vessel speed increases to 3 knots o Azipod operation in asynchronous mode (Maneuvering mode)

Figure 10 Typical pre-course time history (11-17-29)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0:03

:00

0:04

:04

0:05

:08

0:06

:12

0:07

:16

0:08

:20

0:09

:24

0:10

:28

0:11

:32

0:12

:36

0:13

:40

0:14

:44

0:15

:48

0:16

:52

0:17

:56

0:19

:00

0:20

:04

0:21

:08

0:22

:12

0:23

:16

Total PS+SB+BT [kW]

Azipod power PS+SB (kW)

Bow thruster power (kW)


Table 8 shows that pre-course runs were performed on average in 23:54 minutes, while the fastest 1/3 of the runs performed time-to-berth in 21:45, and slowest 1/3 in 26:43 minutes. Average total power (combined PS and SB Azipod and bow thrusters) for all runs was 5,726 MW with standard deviation of 4,671 kW. This can be presented21 as 5,726 ± (4,671 / 2) MW = 5,7±2,3 MW with two digit accuracy. In the fastest and slowest runs the propulsion power was 6,3±2,6 MW and 5,0±2,0 MW, respectively.

Table 8 Pre-course: Time-to-berth, Total power averages and deviations

Averages Total power [MW] Pre-course Time-to-berth [hh:mm:ss] Average Deviation Fastest 1/3 0:21:45 6,310 5,218 Slowest 1/3 0:26:43 4,986 3,993 All runs 0:23:54 5,726 4,671

Average total peak propulsion power usage was 16,8 MW. Fast runs were peaking at 18,5 MW, and slow ones at 15,2 MW, see Table 9. On average total Azipod peak power was 12,0 MW and bow thrusters 6,5 MW, corresponding to 60% of available Azipod total power in maneuvering mode, and to 92% of available bow thruster power.

NOTE: The total peak power is not the sum of the Azipod and bow thruster peak powers, as the two individual peaks do not necessarily take place simultaneously.

Table 9 Pre-course: Peak power

Averages Peak power [MW] Pre-course Total peak Peak Azipod units Peak BTs Fastest 1/3 18,515 13,186 6,638 Slowest 1/3 15,167 10,895 6,416 All runs 16,796 11,992 6,453

Energy consumption during maneuvering was calculated from the power time histories by multiplying run times by average run power consumptions. The average energy consumed during all runs was 2,2 megawatt-hours, of which 73% was consumed by Azipod units, and 27% by bow thrusters. Fast runs consumed 2,3, and slow ones 2,2 MWh, respectively, Table 10.

21 In this study the observed values are assumed to follow normal distribution.


Table 10 Pre-course: Energy consumption

Averages Energy [MWh] Pre-course Total Azipod units BT Fastest 1/3 2,287 1,575 0,712 Slowest 1/3 2,170 1,661 0,509 All runs 2,237 1,642 0,595

This energy consumption can be converted to equivalent heavy fuel oil tons using specific fuel oil consumption of 220 grams per kilowatt-hour, or 0,22 tons per megawatt-hour. The result in tons is presented in Table 11.

Table 11 Pre-course: HFO consumption

Averages HFO [t] Pre-course Total Azipod units Bow thrusters Fastest 1/3 0,50 0,35 0,16 Slowest 1/3 0,48 0,37 0,11 All runs 0,49 0,36 0,13

8.3.2 Post-course performance An example of the post-course run propulsion power time histories are presented in Figure 11. This is the same run that is presented as a chart in Figure 9.

In the post-course approaches the initial plan has been to turn the vessel SB clockwise without bow thruster use. During the initial approach, engine power is relative low with some fluctuations. As Navigator initiates the turn to SB, ROT was adjusted with RPM adjustments as well as steering commands. During the second phase, vessel speed over ground SOG is maintained, utilizing kinetic energy in the vessel system, so-called “old-speed”. During the run Azipod power was between 2.0-10.0 MW, i.e. 10-50% of available power in Maneuvering Mode. As bow thruster use was minimal, this was also the total power requirement from propulsion equipment to the diesel electric power plant. Recommended methods practiced during the training workshop were utilized effectively.


Following operational phases can be identified:

- 3-10 minutes: initial approach through the narrows to turning basin (see time stamps also in Figure 9)

o Vessel speed decreases o Azipod operation in asynchronous mode (Maneuvering mode)

- 10-20 minutes: turning the vessel SB clockwise using only Azipod units (red line), i.e. bow thrusters were not used (green line)

o SOG continuous 1-1,5 knots o Azipod operation in asynchronous mode o Continuous RPM o Thrust directed to one side with steering angles of PS Azipod 60° out and SB

Azipod 120° in - the change from turning to running astern required no change in Azipod power, and

therefore running astern cannot be detected as a separate maneuver phase in the time histories

o both Azipod units rotated to 180° o SOG increases to 3 knots o steering as required o continuous RPM

Figure 11 Typical post-course run (14-17-12)

Table 12 shows post-course run durations on average 23:03 minutes, with fastest 1/3 performed in 20:32, and slowest in 25:23 minutes. Average total power for all runs was 4,094 MW with standard deviation of 2,056 MW, i.e. following the convention presented above with two digit accuracy: 4,1±1,0 MW. In the fastest and slowest runs the propulsion power was 4,7±1,2 MW and 3,7±0,9 MW, respectively.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0:03

:00

0:03

:53

0:04

:46

0:05

:39

0:06

:32

0:07

:25

0:08

:18

0:09

:11

0:10

:04

0:10

:57

0:11

:50

0:12

:43

0:13

:36

0:14

:29

0:15

:22

0:16

:15

0:17

:08

0:18

:01

0:18

:54

0:19

:47

Total PS+SB+BT [kW]

Azipod power PS+SB (kW)

Bow thruster power (kW)


Table 12 Post-course: Time-to-berth, Total power averages and deviations

Averages Over all Power [MW] Post-course Time-to-berth [hh:mm:ss] Average Deviation Fastest 1/3 0:20:32 4,676 2,330 Slowest 1/3 0:25:23 3,703 1,749 All runs 0:23:03 4,094 2,056

During the post-course runs, average total peak propulsion power was 9,8 MW. Fast runs were peaking at 10,6 MW, and slow ones at 9,2 MW, see Table 13. On average total Azipod peak power was 9,6 MW and bow thrusters 0,6 MW, corresponding to 48% of available Azipod total power in maneuvering mode, and to 9% of available bow thruster power22.

Table 13 Post-course: Peak power

Averages Peak power [MW] Post-course Total peak Peak Azipod units Peak BTs Fastest 1/3 10,631 10,631 0,221 Slowest 1/3 9,151 9,031 0,664 All runs 9,778 9,649 0,627

The average energy consumed during all post-course runs was 1,5 MWh, of which more than 99% was consumed by Azipod units, and less than 1% by bow thrusters, see Table 14. Fast runs consumed 1,53 MWh with no energy consumption in the bow thrusters within accuracy23. Slow runs consumed on average 1,46 MWh, with only 0,015 MWh in bow thrusters.

Table 14 Post-course: Energy consumption

Averages Energy [MWh] Post-course Total Azipod units BT Fastest 1/3 1,529 1,529 0,0 Slowest 1/3 1,478 1,463 0,015 All runs 1,481 1,470 0,011

22 Reduction of the total peak power is not the sum of the reduction in Azipod and bow thruster peak powers, as the two individual peaks do not necessarily take place simultaneously. 23 Please note that in Table 13 BT peak power is present. However, duration of BT use has been too short for energy consumption (power multiplied by time) to be detected within given accuracy.


Energy consumption in HFO-tons is presented in Table 15.

Table 15 Post-course: HFO consumption

Averages HFO [t] Post-course Total Azipod units Bow thrusters Fastest 1/3 0,34 0,34 0,00 Slowest 1/3 0,33 0,32 0,00 All runs 0,33 0,32 0,00

8.4 Comparison of pre-course and post-course results Comparison of pre-course and post-course performance is presented in Table 16, Table 17, Table 18 and Table 19.

Time-to-berth improved on average by 51 seconds, corresponding to 3,5%, while at the corresponding average total power decreased by 1,6 MW (29%), and total power deviation decreased by 2,6 MW (56%).

Table 16 Comparison: Time-to-berth, Total power average and deviation

Difference Total power [MW] Post-course - Pre-course Time-to-berth Average Deviation Fastest 1/3 0:01:13 -1,634 -2,888 Slowest 1/3 0:01:20 -1,283 -2,244 All runs 0:00:51 -1,632 -2,615

Peak power demands decreased on average 7,0 MW (-42%). This reduction took place mostly in the peak bow thruster power, as it dropped on average 5,8 MW (-90%). Total Azipod power (PS+SB) was reduced by 2,3 MW (-20%)24.

Table 17 Comparison: Peak power

Difference Peak power [MW] Post-course - Pre-course Total peak Peak Azipod units Peak BTs Fastest 1/3 -7,884 -2,554 -6,416 Slowest 1/3 -6,016 -1,864 -5,753 All runs -7,017 -2,343 -5,826

24 Reduction of the total peak power is not the sum of the reduction in Azipod and bow thruster peak powers, as the two individual peaks do not necessarily take place simultaneously.


The average energy consumed during post-course runs was 0,76 MWh (-34%) less than during pre-course runs. Azipod consumption dropped by 0,17 MWh (-10%) while bow thruster consumption reduction was 0,58 (-98%).

Table 18 Comparison: Energy consumption

Difference Energy [MWh] Post-course - Pre-course Total Azipod units BT Fastest 1/3 -0,758 -0,046 -0,712 Slowest 1/3 -0,692 -0,198 -0,494 All runs -0,755 -0,172 -0,584

As HFO consumption is calculated from megawatt-hours, the reduction is similar: HFO consumption was reduced by 0,17 tons (-34%), Azipod consumption by 0,04 tons (-10%) and bow thruster consumption by 0,13 ton (-98%).

Table 19 Comparison: HFO consumption

Difference HFO [t] Post-course - Pre-course Total Azipod units Bow thrusters Fastest 1/3 -0,17 -0,01 -0,16 Slowest 1/3 -0,15 -0,04 -0,11 All runs -0,17 -0,04 -0,13


9 Findings In the study the environmental variables were kept to a minimum, i.e. no wind, current or other traffic was present. This allowed for the impact of the vessel master to be the determining factor on the results.

Regardless of the optimal environmental conditions, we argue that the findings of this study are generic in their nature, and as such can be applied to real Azipod vessel handling. Naturally the Master cannot always use optimal handling methods, but even in less favorable conditions a competent Master will be able to perform in an efficient manner optimizing passenger comfort and wear and tear to machinery. If a whole fleet of vessels is observed, the natural environmental variables, sometimes more favorable, sometimes less so, compensate each other, and the statistical results of good ship handling will appear.

9.1 Effects on life-cycle cost

Operation with higher power results in higher load profile for crucial components, such as power plant diesels, Azipod steering gear and shaft line bearings. Based on the findings of this study it can be argued that a significant potential exists to extend the life time of these components by correct methods of operation.

Thus, the benefits of correct methods of Azipod vessel handling also include improved reliability performance of the power plant and propulsion systems. As is well known, better reliability always reduces cost of maintenance as well as failure related risks.

Especially in some vessel segments, i.e. cruise ships, roros and ropaxes, related unavailability costs may have tremendous impact on the vessel life cycle cost and profit. From this perspective these findings should be taken into account as a part of overall life cycle cost and risk management.

9.2 Time-to-berth vs. propulsion power

It was found that when operated utilizing standard handling methods developed for DEC30 workshops, Azipod ship time-to-berth can be reduced, and simultaneously decrease propulsion power need by 29% and, most importantly, combined Azipod units and bow thruster peak propulsion power requirement by 42%.

Safety margins are improved with reduced power requirements. In many cases Azipod power can be reduced with good, standard methods, leaving a significant margin available for unexpected events. This study demonstrated the possibility to reduce bow thruster usage. Also this enhances safety margins, or leaves more margin available as environmental variables change for the worse.

As harbor maneuvers are short in duration, the energy consumption is not very significant and direct savings are marginal considering the total vessel fuel consumption. However, these savings are marginal only relatively speaking. When the savings observed in the study


are multiplied by the total number of arrivals and departures in a year, the figure is significant.

In case of a cruise vessel, time-to-berth is not the most critical factor in ship operation, but any minute saved in harbor operations can be used to lower sea voyage average speed, thus lowering fuel consumption significantly.

RoPax-vessels are a different story, as turn-around-time is a critical factor for successful operation. In this study we found that a cruise ship can perform harbor maneuvers in reduced time with significantly reduced power needs. Based on this observation, we argue that a RoPax could perform harbor maneuvers in significantly reduced time, using the full capacity of installed Azipod units.

9.3 Bow thruster use

Bow thrusters are a major source of passenger discomfort: when arriving early in the day, using bow thrusters is a guaranteed way of waking up numerous passengers. From technical perspective, bow thruster power demand on cruise ships is unfavorable, as with a small push of the control lever, several megawatts can be added to power plant loading.

In this study we found that with proper Azipod handling methods, bow thruster usage can be significantly reduced, up to 90%, while maintaining or improving time to berth. This is not true in all conditions and every port, but gives a good indication to what a competent master can achieve with modern propulsion systems.

On a twin-Azipod vessel, Azipod units can be used to swing the stern while keeping the bow stationary, i.e. pivot point more-or-less under the bridge. Good rate of turn can be achieved while no bow thrusters are used, and changes to Azipod controls are kept to a minimum with continuous RPM and only minor adjustments to steering angle. This method leaves the master free to focus on control of vessel motion, as his attention to the azimuthing levers is minimized.

9.4 Sequencing of harbor maneuver phases

With increasing demand on vessel safety and efficient operation standardization of vessel handling methods offers one solution. Most ship maneuvers occur time after time more or less in a standard format. These maneuvers include, for example, reducing vessel speed, turning the vessel in harbor basin 90 to 180 degrees, running astern, etc. Fleet-wide differences in ship performance, caused by different handling methods, can be reduced by presenting Masters with tried and tested set of these standard maneuvers. This in turn will improve vessel safety margin and over-all efficiency and economy.

9.5 Learning results

As we can see in the techno-economical part of this report, significant improvement could be observed during the workshop, as clarified by the ability of the officers to make the post-workshop run with significantly lower usage of engine power and rpm variation but still doing the maneuver in the same or even less time. However, the variation between the individual officers was quite large and some officers were not able to improve their performance


significantly. In most cases all officers eventually succeeded in doing the post-workshop run satisfactorily regarding engine power usage and rpm variation, but in some cases at the expense of significantly longer maneuvering times.

The reasons for these variations cannot be clearly assessed in this study. A significantly larger research input would be required to assess the individual performances in detail and also some kind of overall ability/skill check would be necessary. It is unclear whether the overall maneuvering skills had a significant impact on the results.

It also became clear that the younger and less experienced officers were more susceptible to learning and using the Azipod maneuvering methods and they, usually, became quite adept at maneuvering the ship as recommended, but it was also seen that their overall lower experience level in maneuvering degraded their performance somewhat.

The more experienced officers/masters could be divided roughly into two groups. One group consisted of those officers who were quick on the uptake and were able to use recommended Azipod maneuvering methods, resulting in some of the best results achieved. The other group consisted of those officers (usually masters) who were reluctant to change their behavior and these generally tried to do a nice maneuver but reverted to old habits at some point in the exercise and thus were not as successful at achieving better performance.

The study clearly shows that usually the skill level increased and results improved, in some cases to a fairly high extent. It also became clear that the individual performance varied greatly, both in absolute performance and in relative, individual performance. Some participants were able to unlearn and relearn very nicely, as others managed the process with somewhat less improvement. This is typical in most training and the DEC30 learning results do not, in principle, differ from other types of training. The learning results were, as such, at the level that could be expected from this type of training.


10 Future development This study opened several paths for further research. In this study the approach was simply to determine the effect of training of cruise ship captains on propulsion power related variables of propulsion machinery.

10.1 RoPax vessel harbor operations

In the given timeframe it was not possible to perform the logical following step: if Azipod propulsion is utilized with higher relative power, how much time can be saved in harbor maneuvers?

This question is especially relevant to ferry and ropax-operators with tight schedules and short turn-around times. In this traffic time is literally money: every minute saved in port can be used on sea voyage either to lower voyage speed, or to compensate for inevitable delays.

ABB Marine gathers real time operational data on modern RoPax vessels. Comparing this information with simulator studies of similar size RoPax vessel with Azipod propulsion would provide significant new knowledge on the differences of conventional and azimuthing propulsion on vessel efficiency.

10.2 HMI development (VICO, EMMA and IMI)

Another topic for future research could be the possibilities of improving vessel HMI by approaching from system dynamics perspective. By combining behavioral and technical information from a simulator with advanced advisory systems, the bridge HMI could in future anticipate the actions of the Master (Intent recognition), and in real-time support him/her in the demanding task of modern vessel operation. This would offer new potential for improving vessel efficiency in difficult conditions, for example in ice operation. Advisory system recognizing operator intentions could, for example estimate required peak propulsion power based on the past data, naturally considering that the environmental variables are more-or-less continuous.

ABB Marine internal report on HMI development for azimuthing propulsion systems indicates that testing and training are of high importance when it comes to adaptation of high-end systems into everyday use25.

25 Chapter 4.6. INNOPOD Subproject 7.


Tervo presents in his doctoral thesis26 a new approach to human-machine system control with the objective of improving the performance of human operated machine, e.g. a ship. His approach focuses on a HMI which takes into account individual skills and preferences of the operator, i.e. Master. Performance differences between operators, such as required peak power demand, time-to-berth or fuel efficiency, can be analyzed automatically by the machine’s information system and the results used to supply feedback for example in visual or verbal form, or even to adjust propulsion system parameters, manually or automatically. Intent recognition, skill evaluation, human operator modeling, intelligent coaching and skill adaptivity are topics described in his work, and should be included in the focus of future ship bridge system development.

10.3 Standard Azipod-vessel harbor maneuver phases

Certain harbor maneuvers are repeated regardless of the port and environmental conditions. Which maneuver to execute, and which method to use for the maneuver, naturally depends on the Master.

However, it can be argued that standardization of these methods would improve vessel and fleet operational efficiency as well as safety margins. Recommended methods for repeating maneuvers would assist the Masters to utilize Azipod propulsion to its full potential. The first steps into this direction have already been taken during the simulator workshops used for the data gathering for this study.

10.4 Retention and refreshment

The workshop and this study show that this type of training is efficient and yields good results. However, it has to be remembered that the retention in learning is highly dependent on regular refreshment (see chapter 6.2) and thus the participants should be offered the possibility to refresh their new or improved skills regularly. A refreshment workshop should thus be developed.

26 Tervo, K. 2010.


Bibliography

Aboa Mare. http://www.aboamare.fi/. 2013, downloaded 3.8.2013. Azipod Operating Guidelines, revision E. ABB Marine document 3AFV6000799. ABB Oy Marine

& Turbocharging. Helsinki, Finland. 2008. Businessdictionary. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/simulation.html. 2013,

downloaded 25.8.2013. Ebbinghaus, Hermann. Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology ,

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Ebbinghaus. 1885, downloaded 30.8.2013.

INNOPOD Subproject 7: User feedback on Azipod User Interface solutions. ABB Marine internal, confidential report. ABB Oy Marine & Turbocharging. Helsinki, Finland. 2008.

Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simulation, 2013,Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. 3.8.2013.

Paul, Kevin. Study Smarter-Not Harder. Self Counsel Press, North Vancouver, Canada. 1996.

STCW International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 2011 edition. International Maritime Organization. London, United Kingdom. 2011.

Tervo, Kalevi. Human adaptive mechatronics methods for mobile working machines. Doctoral dissertation. ISBN (pdf) 978-952-60-3530-7. http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2010/isbn9789526035307/isbn9789526035307.pdf. Aalto University, School of science and technology, Department of Automation and Systems Technology. Espoo, Finland. 2010.

The Swedish Club Academy. http://www.tscacademy.com, downloaded 3.8.2013. Thompson, Milton. At the edge of space. Smithsonian Institution Press. 1992.

Toffler, Alvin. http://www.alvintoffler.net. 2013, downloaded 28.7.2013.

Westilä, Ossi; Vuorio, Micael. Briefing and debriefing of the simulation exercise, unpublished thesis for Bachelor of Marine Technology degree, Novia University of Applied Sciences, Degree Programme in Maritime Studies, Turku. 2011.

3afv6045766-abb-aboa-mare-azipod-vessel-handling.pdf

Documents

workshop training

mrm procedures

mrm brm training

mrm description

simulatorpedagogical

use of simulator

dec30 workshop

stcw requirements