raptures: resolving the tugboat energy...

14
Amsterdam, The Netherlands Organised by the ABR Company Ltd Day Paper No. 1 INTRODUCTION Tugboat operators are looking for ways to make their vessels more efficient and friendlier to the environment, to reduce costs, meet regulatory requirements, cater to market demands for cleaner operations, or simply to improve ‘green’ credentials. Efficiency improvements that reduce fuel consumption generally reduce operating costs and emissions at the same time, a double bonus. The connection between fuel consumption and greenhouse gases is clear – CO 2 emissions are directly proportional to fuel consumption. But what about other emissions, such as unburned hydrocarbons, NOx, and particulates? For diesel prime movers these depend not only on fuel consumed, but also on how the equipment is operated and the emissions technology built into the engine, or added as off-engine equipment. As always there can be trade-offs to consider if new equipment requires significant capital investment. On tugs, the power directed to propulsion is generally responsible for the bulk of fuel costs and emissions. With the exception of a relatively small number of diesel electric tugs, beginning with Luna (1930) and examples such as the US Navy’s YTB large yard tugs (1940s), the bulk of tugs today continue to be powered by diesel main engines coupled to propellers or, in the case of more modern tugs, azimuthing propulsors (Z-drives), or Voith Schneider Propellers (VSP drives). Electric power for hotel needs and auxiliary equipment is typically supplied by one or more small generator sets. These systems have generally worked well and, until very recently, there has been little incentive to change. But the fuel-price rollercoaster ride and heightened consciousness of the environmental impact of greenhouse gases and other emissions have brought about a re-examination of the status quo, and a new interest in alternative propulsion equipment configurations that offer some potential for improvements in fuel consumption and emissions – and preferably both. Designers and operators of large anchor-handling tugs and other offshore support vessels have been quicker to embrace diesel electric power systems as an alternative to diesel mechanical. This is not only for the purported fuel savings, but also for the flexibility that a common power generation system offers in varying the power distribution between propulsion, dynamic positioning, pumps, and deck equipment loads as operations change. However, for smaller tugs that do not have the same variety of equipment or the need for extended dynamic positioning, any immediate advantages are not as obvious. Furthermore, the time has come to look beyond diesel electric to what is achievable with novel integrations of other commercially available technologies or the applications of more recent ‘alternative power’ technologies, such as alternate fuels or battery hybrids. Along with alternate equipment choices, operators may also achieve cost savings by simply changing how existing equipment is operated. To make the best use of the opportunities alternative tug propulsions may offer, Robert Allan Ltd wanted to be equipped to efficiently and quantifiably answer the following basic questions when designing a new tug: What are the most practical powering options available for the application? How do these options compare in terms of fuel economy and emissions for the intended operations? What is the cost premium or savings? 1 3 RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equation Vince den Hertog, PEng, Ken Harford, PEng, Robin Stapleton, EIT, Robert Allan Ltd, Canada SYNOPSIS With demands on all types of vessels to reduce emissions and fuel consumption, it is often difficult to separate the facts from the sales pitches. Faced with the frequent question of “How best to go green” (and also save some money), Robert Allan Ltd set about to create a tool to analyse a wide range of options for typical harbour tug propulsion systems. RAptures (Robert Allan Ltd: Powering Tugs for Real Energy Savings) is a straightforward analytical tool which can be used for both a high-level system comparison at the very early stages of a new design, and also for the latter design stage comparison of very specific machinery selection options. With basic tug power and an operating profile as input, a direct comparison of diverse propulsion system options is possible, with outputs of fuel consumption, emissions and installed costs.

Upload: dinhdan

Post on 23-Apr-2018

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equationral.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/D1P3-RAptures... · RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equation Vince den Hertog, PEng, Ken Harford,

Amsterdam, The NetherlandsOrganised by the ABR Company Ltd

DayPaper No.

1

iNTRODUCTiONTugboat operators are looking for ways to make their vesselsmoreefficientandfriendliertotheenvironment,toreducecosts,meetregulatoryrequirements,catertomarketdemandsforcleaneroperations,orsimplytoimprove‘green’credentials.Efficiencyimprovementsthatreducefuelconsumptiongenerallyreduceoperatingcostsandemissionsatthesametime,adoublebonus.Theconnectionbetweenfuelconsumptionandgreenhousegasesisclear–CO2emissionsaredirectlyproportionaltofuelconsumption.Butwhataboutotheremissions,suchasunburnedhydrocarbons,NOx,andparticulates?Fordieselprimemoversthesedependnotonlyonfuelconsumed,butalsoonhowtheequipmentisoperatedandtheemissionstechnologybuiltintotheengine,oraddedasoff-engineequipment.Asalwaystherecanbetrade-offstoconsiderifnewequipmentrequiressignificantcapitalinvestment.

Ontugs,thepowerdirectedtopropulsionisgenerallyresponsibleforthebulkoffuelcostsandemissions.Withtheexceptionofarelativelysmallnumberofdieselelectrictugs,beginningwithLuna(1930)andexamplessuchastheUSNavy’sYTBlargeyardtugs(1940s),thebulkoftugstodaycontinuetobepoweredbydieselmainenginescoupledtopropellersor,inthecaseofmore modern tugs, azimuthing propulsors (Z-drives), or VoithSchneiderPropellers(VSPdrives).Electricpowerforhotelneedsandauxiliaryequipmentistypicallysupplied by one or more small generator sets.

These systems have generally worked well and, untilveryrecently,therehasbeenlittleincentivetochange.Butthefuel-pricerollercoasterrideandheightenedconsciousnessoftheenvironmentalimpactofgreenhousegasesandotheremissionshavebroughtaboutare-examinationofthestatus

quo,andanewinterestinalternativepropulsionequipmentconfigurationsthatoffersomepotentialforimprovementsinfuelconsumptionandemissions–andpreferably both.

Designersandoperatorsoflargeanchor-handlingtugs and other offshore support vessels have been quickertoembracedieselelectricpowersystemsasanalternativetodieselmechanical.Thisisnotonlyforthepurportedfuelsavings,butalsofortheflexibilitythatacommonpowergenerationsystemoffersinvarying the power distribution between propulsion, dynamicpositioning,pumps,anddeckequipmentloadsasoperationschange.However,forsmallertugsthatdonothavethesamevarietyofequipmentortheneedforextendeddynamicpositioning,anyimmediateadvantagesarenotasobvious.Furthermore,thetimehascometolookbeyonddieselelectrictowhatisachievablewithnovelintegrationsofothercommerciallyavailabletechnologiesortheapplicationsofmorerecent‘alternativepower’technologies,suchasalternatefuelsorbatteryhybrids.Alongwithalternateequipmentchoices,operatorsmayalsoachievecostsavingsbysimplychanginghowexistingequipmentisoperated.

To make the best use of the opportunities alternative tug propulsions may offer, Robert Allan Ltd wanted to beequippedtoefficientlyandquantifiablyanswerthefollowingbasicquestionswhendesigninganewtug:

• Whatarethemostpracticalpoweringoptionsavailablefortheapplication?

• Howdotheseoptionscompareintermsoffueleconomyandemissionsfortheintendedoperations?

• Whatisthecostpremiumorsavings?

13

RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equation

Vince den Hertog,PEng,Ken Harford,PEng,Robin Stapleton,EIT,Robert Allan Ltd, Canada

SYNOPSiS Withdemandsonalltypesofvesselstoreduceemissionsandfuelconsumption,itisoftendifficulttoseparatethefactsfromthesalespitches.Facedwiththefrequentquestionof“Howbesttogogreen”(andalsosavesomemoney),RobertAllanLtdsetabouttocreateatooltoanalyseawiderangeofoptionsfortypicalharbourtugpropulsionsystems.RAptures (RobertAllanLtd:PoweringTugsforRealEnergySavings)isastraightforwardanalyticaltoolwhichcanbeusedforbothahigh-levelsystemcomparisonattheveryearlystagesofanewdesign,andalsoforthelatterdesignstagecomparisonofveryspecificmachineryselectionoptions.Withbasictugpowerandanoperatingprofileasinput,adirectcomparisonofdiversepropulsionsystemoptionsispossible,withoutputsoffuelconsumption,emissionsandinstalledcosts.

Page 2: RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equationral.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/D1P3-RAptures... · RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equation Vince den Hertog, PEng, Ken Harford,

2

• Ifoperationschange,whatwillbetheimpactonemissionsandfuelconsumption?

To that end, the RAptures programme was developedasatooltomakeeffectivecomparisons,evaluate the trade-offs, and generally zero in onthepoweringconfigurationthatbestfitstherequirementsandgoalsoftheclient.Appreciatingthatwidevariationsinvesselsize,requiredperformance,anddutyprofilemeanthereisno“one-size-fits-all”solution,theprogrammewasdesignedattheoutsettomodeldiverseapplicationsandconfigurations.

This paper gives an overview of the RAptures programmeanddiscussesresultsfromahypotheticalcase-studyforatypicalRobertAllanLtd28mRAmparts 2800tugtoillustratetheprogramme’scapabilitiesandpotential.

TERMS OF REFERENCERAptureswasdevelopedwiththesespecificobjectivesinmind:

• Toproviderealisticestimatesoffueleconomyand emissions that are not based on guesses or supplier promises, but on reliable fuel consumptionandemissionsdatathatspecificallytakesintoaccounttheperformancerequirementsfor the vessel and the day-to-day operational profile;

• To model how the operating points of the machineryarelinkedtotheactivitiesofthevessel, whether it is idling, free-running, operating atBP,andwhatotherpower-consumingequipment,suchaswinchesorpumps,isbeingoperatedatthesametime;

• Torecognisethat,fortugs,bothBPandhullresistancearecriticalaspectsthatdominatethepowerdemand,andprovideameanstopredictBPandfree-runningresistance;

• Toconsiderhowfuelconsumptionandemissionsofeachinstalledprimemovervarieswithoperatingpoint,basedondatafromcertifiedtestresultsorothersources;

• Toallowoperatingprofilestobedefinedthatarerealisticrepresentationsofanoperator’santicipatedday-to-dayusageofthevessel;

Toaccuratelycalculatefuelconsumptionandemissionstotalsforseveralcandidatepoweringconfigurationsoperatingunderthesameoperationalprofilesimultaneously,sothatlike-for-likecomparisonscanbemade;

• Topresentcostcomparisonsthattakeintoaccountequipmentcapitalcosts,andcoststhatvarywiththeoperator’sdutyprofile,includingfuel,equipmentmaintenanceandoverhaul;

• Makeiteasytoquicklyevaluate‘what-if’scenarios.

THE RAptures TOOL The RAptures tool is a software program developed asaspreadsheetformaximumflexibilityandtransparency.Theprogramisorganisedintoseveraltypesofdistinctmodules(Figure 1):propulsion,dutyandpower,poweringconfiguration,andequipment.Thisarchitecturemakesitstraightforwardtoestablishnewconfigurationsandadjustparameters.Ingeneral,eachmodulerequiresinputsregardingdifferentaspectsofthevessel,equipmentorutilisation.Dataforaspecificvesseloritsequipmentdetailscanbeentereddirectly,orstockdatafromapre-enteredlibrarycanbereferenced.

Propulsion moduleAnessentialelementforpredictingfuelconsumptionand emissions at different operation points is a model of how the ‘demand’ for power by the propellersvarieswithrequiredstaticthrust,orfree-running speed. Not only is power important, but alsothecorrespondingrev/minsinceequipmentefficienciesandprimemoverfuelconsumptionandemissions are governed by both.

Iftherelationshipsbetweenthrust,free-runningspeed,shaftpowerandshaftrev/minarealreadyknown, either from model tests or sea trials, this datacanbeentereddirectlyintothedutyandpowermodule(seebelow).Ifunknown,thepropulsionmodulecanbeusedinstead.Themodulecombinesasimplepolynomial-basedpredictionofpropellerandnozzleperformancewithapredictionofvesselresistancederivedfromanexpansionofmodeltestor trials data from similar vessels. These parameters establishthenecessarystaticthrustandself-propulsionrelationships.Withthesoftwarecurrentlyorientedtowardtugs,thepropulsionpredictionsinthemodulearesetupspecificallyformodellingZ-drives with Kaplan-style propellers in 19A nozzles. Othernozzleorpropellermodelscanbebuiltin.

Duty and power moduleWithin the duty and power module, the user first defines a set of different possible ‘operating conditions’whichconstituteallthestatesofsignificantinterestinwhichthetugcanoperate.Avarietyofdifferentconditionscanbedefined.Thesearetypicallyidle,differentfree-runningtransitspeeds,anddifferentstaticthrustlevels.The‘operatingprofile’isthendefinedbyallocatingthepercentageoftimespentateachconditionwithinonestandardoperatingperiod(typicallya24-hourday.)Foreachoperatingcondition,themoduleusesthefree-runningandstaticthrustmodelparametersprovidedbythepropulsionmoduletocalculatepropulsionpowerdemands.Otherloads,includinghotelanddeckmachineryelectricalpower,arealsoentered.Thesepowers,andthedurationsallocatedin the operating profile, are then used by the poweringconfigurationmodule.

Page 3: RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equationral.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/D1P3-RAptures... · RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equation Vince den Hertog, PEng, Ken Harford,

3

Powering configuration modulesThepoweringconfigurationmodulesformtheheartof the software, taking input from the user and other modulestodeterminewhatequipmentoperatesinanygivenconditionandreturningparametersrelatedtofuelconsumption,emissionsandcostsrelatedtothatcondition.Thereisonemoduleforeachpoweringconfigurationofinterest.Allareallfedthesamedatafrom the duty and power module, but return different resultssocomparisonscanbemade.Itisthesameasrunningallconfigurationsthroughthesamevirtualtrials.Themainpurposeofeachpoweringconfigurationmoduleistotakethepowerdemandassociatedwitheachoperatingconditionandtranslateitintocorrespondingoperatingpoints(powerandrev/min)fortheprimemovers,takingtheintermediateefficiencies,losses,andgearreductionsintoaccount.Withthisinformation,thefuelconsumptionandemissionsaredeterminedateachoperationconditionthroughtheequipmentmodules(seebelow)andsummeduponthebasis of the running times.

Intheexampleconsideredinthispaper,RAptures assumesfixedpitchZ-drivesareusedforallpoweringconfigurations,thedifferencesbeingonlyintheequipmentconfigurationsupplyingpowertothem.Mechanicallossesingearsandbearingsaremodelledasfixedpercentagesofpowerwithinthepoweringconfigurationmodule.Thisisinaccordancewithtypicalengineeringpractice,althoughtheprogramisamenabletoaccountingforspeed-dependentorotherlinearornon-lineareffectsifneeded.

Costsarealsocalculatedwithineachpoweringconfigurationmodule.Tomakerealisticandstandardisedcomparisonsbetweenpoweringconfigurations,life-cyclecostsareworkedoutforequipmentpurchase,

maintenanceandfuelfor20years.ANetPresentCost(NPC)iscalculatedforeachconfiguration,whichrepresentshowmuchmoneywouldhavetobeinvestedin the market today at a given rate of return (interest rate) tocreatethecashflowtopayfor20yearsofoperation.Interestandpredictedescalation(inflation)ratesareadjustabletosuittheclient’saccountingpracticesandeconomicprojections.Inthecalculationofequipment-relatedcosts,RApturestakesintoaccounthowthelife-cyclecostsareaffectedbyspecificvesseloperatingprofiles.Feweroperatinghoursonequipmentgenerallytranslatesintolowerannualmaintenancecostsandmoreyears between overhauls.

Capturingthiscost-savingeffectisimportant,particularlywherepoweringconfigurationsallowmachinerytobeshutdownwhenthepowerisnot needed. Operating in this manner, however, couldresultinmorewearandtearontheenginesandstartersduetomorefrequentstartingandstopping, thermal stresses, and wear from start-uplubeoildeficiencies.Generally,theseaspectswouldtypicallyhaveonlyasmalleffect,butshouldbesubjectivelyevaluatedininstanceswherethereareonlysmalldifferencesbetweentwocontendingarrangements.TherearecaseswhereRAptures needs tobesupplementedwithacombinationofoperatingexperience/preferencesfromowners,andintuitiveinput from designers.

Inthecasestudypresentedbelow,RAptures considersthoseitemsrelatedtothesupplyofpowertothemainpropulsionshaftingsuchasdieselengines,marinegears,generators,electricmotors,drivesandancillaries.CostsfortheshaftingitselfandtheZ-drivesarenotincluded,theseitemsbeingassumedmoreorlessequalforallconfigurations.

Figure 1: RAptures Architecture.

Page 4: RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equationral.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/D1P3-RAptures... · RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equation Vince den Hertog, PEng, Ken Harford,

4

Equipment modulesAseparateequipmentmoduleisestablishedforeachspecificmakeandmodelofdieselengine,genset,electricmotororotherequipmentitemsthatareusedwithinthepoweringconfigurations.Dataonfuelconsumption,emissions,andcost(usuallyprovidedbytheequipmentsupplier),isentereddirectlyintoitsmodule.Thisdataisthenmappedwithfittedpolynomialcurvessothatpredictionscanbemadeonthebasisofany given operating point and passed to the powering configuration.Wherespecificdataisnotavailablefromequipmentmanufacturers,genericequipmentmoduleswithtypicalcharacteristicsarecreated.

Inthecasestudypresentedbelow,threeequipmenttypesaredefined:mainengines,VFD-drivenpropulsionmotorsandfixedspeedgeneratorsets.Formainengines,specificfuelconsumptionaswellasspecificemissions(NOx,unburnedhydrocarbonsandparticulate)ing/kWhismappedaccordingtoenginerev/minandoutputpower.Forfixedspeedgensets,dataismappedwithrespecttogensetoutputpoweronly.WiththeVFD-drivenpropulsionmotors,driveandmotorefficiencyismappedformotorspeedandtorque.

CASE STUDY The Robert Allan Ltd RAmparts 2800 (Figure 2) isarelativelyrecent28mdesignwithinthehighlysuccessfulRAmparts series of tugs. To date, all ofthesetugshavebeenpoweredbyconventionaldieselmechanicalpoweringarrangements.Inlightofthepopularityofthistypeoftug,itislogicaltowonderwhetherfutureversionscouldbenefitfromaswitchtodieselelectricorotheralternativepoweringconfigurations.Furthermore,iftherearebenefits,howsensitivearethesetothespecificdutyinwhichthetugwillbeengagedonadailybasis?Toanswerthesekindsofquestions,RAptures is

applied to a notional version of the RAmparts 2800, withtheobjectiveofcomparingdieselmechanicaltothreealternativecandidate-poweringconfigurations.Giventhedependencyoftheoutcomeonthespecific

characteristicsofthecandidateequipmentandassumedtugoperatingprofile,theintentionisnottomake a generalisation on the best arrangement for tugs in general, but rather to show how RApturescanprovideresultstargetedtoaspecificcase.Thesametypeofanalysiscanbeappliedtoanyothervesselsconsideringotherequipmentoroperatingprofiles.

Powering configuration optionsInthecasestudy,fourpoweringconfigurationsareexaminedfortheRAmparts 2800:

• DieselMechanical(DM);• SeriesDieselMechanical/Electrical(SDME);• DieselElectric–RunningStandby(DERS);• DieselElectric–ColdStandby(DECS).

Theoutcomefortwodifferentoperatingprofilesarecompared:

• Harbourduty–Inthisdutythetugisprimarilyengagedinshipberthing/unberthinginaharbourenvironment, where transits are short. Between ship handlingoperations,thevesselspendsasignificantamount of time loitering.

• Shipassistduty–Inadditiontoshipberthing/unberthing,thetugistaskedwithaccompanyingships entering and leaving the harbour over a greaterdistanceforlightescortoperations.Overall,comparedwiththeharbourduty,thetugspendsmore time at higher transit speeds and less time at operationsinvolvinghighstaticthrust.

AllpoweringconfigurationsassumetwinfixedpitchZ-drives.Hotelloadsare80kWandmaximumpeakdeckmachineryloadsare80kW.Alldeckmachineryisassumedtobeelectricalorelectric/hydraulic.Specificequipmentdataisobtainedfromavarietyofspecificmanufacturerspublisheddatasheets.Allenginesarehigh-speeddieselsfromacommonmanufacturerandareEPATierIIrated.Figure 3 (at end of paper) shows thespecificfuelconsumptionoftheprimemoversasafunctionofthepercentratedpower.

TheDieselMechanicalconfiguration(Figure 4, at end ofpaper)hastwo2,000bkWmainenginesmechanicallycoupledtotheZ-drives.Hotelanddeckmachineryloadsaresuppliedbytwo175kWship’sservicegenerator sets arranged for independent operation.

TheSeriesDieselMechanical/Electricalconfiguration(Figure 5, atendofpaper)isanexampleofanalternative arrangement, but one that makes use of fairlyconventionaltechnology.Itincludesthesametwo2,000bkWmainenginesastheDMconfiguration,exceptthatanelectricmotorisnowinstalledbetweeneachofthemainenginesandZ-drivessothatthemotor is in series with the main engines. Power to the Z-drivesisprovidedbyeithertheelectricmotororthemain engines, but not to both at the same time. During Figure 2: RAmparts 2800 built by Cheoy Lee (2008).

Page 5: RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equationral.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/D1P3-RAptures... · RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equation Vince den Hertog, PEng, Ken Harford,

5

loiterorlowspeedtransit,theelectricmotorsdrivetheZ-drivesfromgensetpower;themainenginesaredeclutchedandnotrunning.Whenhigherpowerisrequired,themainenginesarestartedupandclutched-in,andtheelectricmotorsarefree-wheeled.Mainenginepowerispassedthroughtheelectricmotorssothemotorshaftsaresizedaccordingly.

This arrangement is similar to the one used in serieshybridsystems,egFoss’sGreen Assist hybrid tug,exceptthatthemotorsarenotalsogenerators,anddonotcontributetorquetothepropulsionshafting when the main engines are operating. TheelectricmotorsareAC-typecontrolledwithVariableFrequencyDrives(VFDs)ratedfor250kW.Electricpowerforthemotorsandforthevessel’sotherelectricloadsissuppliedbyeitheroneortwogensets, one of 560kWe, the other of 175kWe.

BothDieselElectricconfigurations(Figure 6, at endofpaper)havetwo2,000kWelectricpropulsionmotorsdirectlydrivingtheZ-drives.Electricalpowerisprovidedbyacombinationofthefollowinggensetsconfiguredtoallowstagingandfullloadsharing:2x2,200kWe;1x560kWe;1x175kW.ThetwoDEconfigurationsdifferonlyinhowthegeneratorsareoperated.

IntheDieselElectric–RunningStandby(DERS)configuration,whenBPoperationsareanticipated,the two main generators are started up and paralleled (runningstandby)sothatmaximumpowerisavailableandthesystemcanrespondalmostimmediatelytoanydemandfluctuationscommandedfromthebridge.However,duringlowerspeedtransitsnotinvolvingbollard operations, one or more main gensets are shutdownandthesmallership’sservicegenerator(s)provides power.

IntheDieselElectric–ColdStandby(DECS)configuration,itisassumedthatanygeneratoroperating surplus to the immediate power demand canbeshutdownimmediately,evenduringbollardoperations, and is only started up when needed (coldstandby).WhilethiswouldcertainlyreduceresponsivenesssubstantiallyincomparisontoDERS,especiallyduringbollardoperations,andisofquestionablepracticality,itisincludedforcomparison.

Tug operating profilesTheoperatingprofiles(Figure 7, at end of paper) for both the harbour and ship assist duties are based on a 12-hour daily operation, 360 days per year. On harbour duty,thetugspendsasignificantamountoftimeidlingandtransitingatlowspeeds,mixedwithshortperiodsof high BP operations. On ship assist duty, more timeisspentathigherspeedtransittorendezvous/assist ships, and less time on BP operations. These scenariosareconsideredreasonablyrepresentativeoftypicaldutyforthepurposeofthiscasestudy.

RESULTSResults for the harbour tug are presented in Figures 8-11(atendofpaper).Thenineoperatingconditionsthatcompriseeachoperatingprofile(duty)areshownalongthex-axis.Thewidertranslucentbarsindicatethepercentageoftimeallocatedforeach.ThenarrowersolidbarsarefueloremissionsquantitiesforeachPoweringConfiguration.Totalsaregivenonthe right.

Fuel consumption/CO2 emissions SinceCO2 emissions vary in proportion to fuel consumption,theseaspectsareintrinsicallylinkedincomparingtheconfigurations.Undertheharbourduty,thetwodieselelectricoptionsemergeastheleastfavourable. While there are some savings at lower powers, where the minimally loaded main engines of theDieselMechanicalarrangementsufferfromlowspecificfuelconsumptions,thechartillustratesthatmostofthefuelisstillconsumedduringstaticthrustoperations.Thisisthecasedespitethefactthatmuchmoretimeisactuallyspentloiteringormovingslowly.Atthehigherpoweroperatingpoints,thedieselelectricconfigurationssufferfromelectricalsystemlosses.Overallfuelconsumptionfordieselelectricishigherbyapproximately16percent.

Ofthetwodieselelectricoptions,theRunningStandby(DERS)systemcomesoutworstsinceallgeneratorsarerunningcontinuouslywheneverBPoperationsareexpected.ThisisincontrastwiththeColdStandby(DECS)configurationwheregensetsareonlystartedwhenneededandshutdownagainwhennot.Inreality,operatinggensetsthiswaywouldbeimpracticalformosttypicalharbouroperations,aspowerdemandvariesrapidly where diesel gensets need time to start up and parallel.Neverthelessthecomparisongivesanindicationofthepotentialsavingsinfuel,andunderscoreshowbatteriescanhaveabeneficialroletoplayinprovidingameanstorespondtoshort-termpowerfluctuationwithouttheneedtostartupagenseteachtime.

WiththeSDMEconfiguration,thesituationisbetter.SlightlylessfuelisconsumedthanwiththeDieselMechanicalconfiguration.Thisisasonewouldhope,sincetheSDMEarrangementisintendedtoavoidthepitfallsoftheothers:inthecaseofDieselMechanical,mainenginesoperatingunloadedatlowpoweroperatingpoints;forthetwoDieselElectricconfigurations,comparativelyhighelectricallosses.However,thedifferenceisfairlysmall,only3percentlessfuelthanDieselMechanicaland,onitsownperhaps,notincentiveenoughtomovetothisconfigurationwithouttheprospectofadditionaladvantagesofreducedemissionsorlowercosts,aspectswhicharediscussedbelow.(Figure 8).

NOx, Hydrocarbon (HC) and particulate emissionsWithdieselprimemovers,NOx,HCandparticulateemissionsvarywithequipmentdesign,fuel

Page 6: RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equationral.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/D1P3-RAptures... · RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equation Vince den Hertog, PEng, Ken Harford,

6

management, off-engine measures, rate of power variations, and a host of other operational and environmental parameters. Data is not always easy to comeby,thesourceoftenbeingthesupplier,wherepossiblydatawascollectedtoproveconformancewithregulatoryrequirements.Forthiscasestudy,theemissionsdatawasbasedontypicalpublishedvaluesforthespecificprimemoversusedinthecasestudy.Asthedataisforsteadystateloadconditions,itdoesnotcapturetheeffectsofrapidtransientloadfluctuations.Nevertheless,comparingemissionsonaquasi-steadystatebasisisareasonableapproach.

Acommontrendisseenintheemissionscharts(Figures 9-11, atendofpaper):whereprimemovermachineryisforcedtooperateawayfromitsdesignoperatingpoint,specificemissions(emissionperbrakekW)tendtobecomeworse.Whileimprovementsinemissionstechnologymayreducethissensitivity,itischaracteristicoftoday’smarinemachinery.Forthisreason,atlowpowersthebenchmarkDieselMechanicalconfigurationhastheworstemissionsofallthepoweringconfigurationsduetothemainenginesrunningsofarbelowtheirratedpower.Forthelow-andmid-powersofidleandtransitoperations,dieselelectricconfigurationsfarebetterthanDieselMechanical,asoptimalloadingpointsforsmallergeneratorsarepossible.However,atthehigh-powerBPconditions,dieselelectriclosesitsadvantagesincetheinherentelectro-mechanicalconversionlossesreduceefficiencycomparedwithDieselMechanical.

TheabilityoftheSDMEconfigurationtooperateelectricallyatlowpower,optimallyloadingthegensets,butswitchingovertodirectDieselMechanicalforhigherspeedtransitandBPconditionsgivesittheedgeovertheconventionalDieselMechanicalconfiguration.Asthechartsclearlyindicate,theadvantageissubstantialasaresultofthesignificantpenaltyDieselMechanicalsuffersunderlow-powerloiteringconditions.ThenetresultisthatemissionsfromtheSDMEconfigurationarethelowest overall.

COSTSBarchartsofthecosts(Figure 12, at end of paper) comprisethreecomponents:fuel,equipmentmaintenance,andequipmentpurchase.NetPresentCostsinthisexamplearecalculatedonaninterestrateof5percent,anannualescalationof2percent,atafuelpriceof$0.60/litre.

Itisimmediatelyapparentthatthetwodieselelectricoptionsarethemostexpensiveowingtotherelativelyhighcapitalcostofthefourgensets,plusthecostsforelectricpropulsionmotors,switchgearandVFDs.Thehigherfuelconsumptionisalsoafactor,buttoalesserextent.Asthebreakdowninthechartshows,itisprimarilythepurchasecostofequipmentthatpushesthetotalcostbeyondtheotherarrangements.Maintenancecostsareless,particularlyfortheColdStandbyversion,butnotsufficientlytobringthetotalcostbelowtheDieselMechanicalandSDMEconfigurations.

ThecomparisonofDieselMechanicaltoSDMEisinterestingsincetheSDMEconfigurationcomesoutaslessexpensiveoverallthanDieselMechanical.Thesmalldifferenceinfuelconsumptionreducesfuelcostsbyapproximately3percentbelowDieselMechanical,buttherealsignificanceliesintheequipmentpurchaseandmaintenancecosts.AlthoughtheequipmentpurchasecostisgreaterfortheSDMEconfiguration,aswouldbeexpectedgivenrelativelyhighcostfortheelectricmotors,drivesandgenerators,overtimethisisoffsetbyconsiderablylowerlife-cyclemaintenancecosts.WiththeSDMEarrangement,themainenginesaccumulatefewerrunninghoursandthisisanadvantagesincetheyaremoreexpensivetomaintainand overhaul than the gensets.

ForanoperatorconsideringtheSDMEoption,thefactthatthelowermaintenancecostmorethancompensatesfortheadditionalequipmentpurchasecostisakeyconclusionthatillustrateshowallcostelementsneedtobeconsideredcollectively.Regrettably,makingaccuratepredictionsofperhourmaintenancecosts,timebeforeoverhaul,andtheactualcostofoverhaulcanbeadifficultproposition.Datafromsupplierscanbenotoriouslyvariablegiventhemanyfactorsthatcomeintoplay,includinghowrigorouslytheequipmentisoperated,themaintenanceskillleveloftheoperator,andenvironmentalandlogisticalaspectsthatcanconstrainservicingintervals.Forthiscasestudy,datafromvariousequipmentsupplierswasblendedtoarriveatvaluesconsideredtobereasonablyrepresentativeofequipmentofthetypeunderconsideration.Ofcourse,thebestsourceofdataisfromtherecordsoftheoperatoritselfforsimilarequipmentandoperationalconditions,ifavailable.

Despitetheinherentuncertaintyinmaintenancecostprojections,thisdoesnotdetractfromthekeypointthatthecasestudyresultssuggestthattheSDMEconfigurationcouldhaveasignificantcostadvantageover20yearsbysavingmaintenanceonthemainengines,atleastforthesubjectvesselunderthegivendutyprofile.

COMPARiSON TO SHiP ASSiST DUTY With RAptures,oncetheconfigurationoptionsaredefined,itisamatterofafewkeystrokestoseehowchangingtheoperationalprofileinfluencesfuelconsumption,emissionsandcost.Toillustratethis, results for the same vessel, with the same four poweringconfigurationoptions,arepresentedfortheshipassistdutyasdefinedabove.

Lookingatfuelconsumptionfirst(Figure 13, at end ofpaper),itisimmediatelyclearthat,withmoreoftheworking day spent in transit and less time loitering, fuel consumptionissignificantlyhigherthanwiththeharbourtug duty. Most of the fuel is used for the high-speed transit at 12.5 knots, not during bollard pull, as is the casewiththeharbourduty.

Itisworthnotingthatatthe12.5knottransit,thereiseffectivelylittledifferenceinhowtheDieselMechanical

Page 7: RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equationral.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/D1P3-RAptures... · RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equation Vince den Hertog, PEng, Ken Harford,

7

andSDMEconfigurationsoperate:bothareusingthemainenginesonly,directlycoupledtothepropulsionshafting.ThesingledifferenceissomelossoftheshaftpowerpassingthroughtheinactiveelectricmotorintheSDMEconfiguration.ThesamesituationexistsbetweenthetwoDieselElectricconfigurations:thesamenumberofgeneratorsisrunningineachcase.FortheRunningStandbyversion,thestandbygeneratorsarerunningonlywhenbollardoperationsareanticipated,notfortransit.Thereforetheapproximately12percentgreaterfuelconsumptionoftheDieselElectricconfigurationisattributablemainlytotheloweroverallefficiencyarisingfromelectricalconversionlosses.

Thedominanceofthis12.5knottransitoperatingpointalsocarriesoverintoemissions(Figures 14-16, atendofpaper).Thegeneraltrend,whencomparedto the same results for harbour duty, is that the Diesel ElectricconfigurationscomparelessfavourablytotheDieselMechanicalandSDMEconfigurations.Atthatpowerlevel,theelectro-mechanicalconversionlossesoutweightheefficiencypenaltyinrunningthemainengines at a lower load level.

IncomparingtheDieselMechanicalandSDMEconfigurations,withtheshipassistdutythereisanarrowingofthedifferencesinallareas,includingcosts(Figure 17, atendofpaper).Sincemoretimeand fuel is spent in transit in the ship assist duty, andlesstimeloitering,theSDMElosessomeoftheadvantagesithadinrunningmoreefficientlyandproducinglessemissionsatlowpower.However,overallitremainsanattractiveoption.

SUMMARYForthecasestudyfortheRAmparts 2800 tug there islittlebenefittothetwodieselelectricconfigurations(DERS,DECS)overtheothertwoconfigurationsintermsofcostoremissionsforeitheroperationalprofile.ComparedwiththeconventionalDieselMechanicalconfiguration,SDMEappearstobeaveryattractiveoption,particularlyfortheharbourdutydefined.

CONCLUSiONSThe RAptures program is proving to be a versatile toolforassessingandcomparingthefuel,emissionsandcostperformanceofanyalternativepoweringconfigurationsthatprogressivetugoperatorsmaywanttoconsiderforreducingcostsandemissions.Thespecificresultsfromtheprogramcanbeusedtoverifyoperationalbenefitclaims,andcanpreventinvestmentintechnologiesthatmayprovedisappointing.ItsdevelopmentisdrivenbyRobertAllanLtd’scommitmenttothedesignofcleaner,moreefficientvesselsandrecognitionthat,inweighingthetrade-offsbetweenpoweringconfigurationoptions,thewidelyvariableoperationalprofilesoftugboatspreventanyonesolutionfrom being a universally best one.

Asillustratedbythecasestudy,thistypeofanalysisisessentialtotheprocessofproperlyweighingthepotentialimprovementsagainstthecostsofalternativepoweringconfigurations.WithRAptures as a tool, Robert Allan Ltd isreadytoworkwithclientstoachieverealenergyandemissions savings.

Figure 3: Equipment specific fuel consumption.

Page 8: RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equationral.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/D1P3-RAptures... · RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equation Vince den Hertog, PEng, Ken Harford,

8

Figure 4: Diesel Mechanical (DM) Configuration.

Figure 5: Series Diesel Mechanical/Electrical (SDME) Configuration.

Figure 6: Diesel Electric Configurations (DERS, DECS).

Page 9: RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equationral.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/D1P3-RAptures... · RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equation Vince den Hertog, PEng, Ken Harford,

9

Figure 7: Operational Profiles Duty Cycles.

Figure 8: Fuel consumption – harbour duty.

Page 10: RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equationral.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/D1P3-RAptures... · RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equation Vince den Hertog, PEng, Ken Harford,

10

Figure 9: NOx emissions – harbour duty.

Figure 10: Hydrocarbon emissions – harbour duty.

Page 11: RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equationral.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/D1P3-RAptures... · RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equation Vince den Hertog, PEng, Ken Harford,

11

Figure 11. Particulate emissions – harbour duty.

Figure 12: Costs – harbour duty.

Page 12: RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equationral.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/D1P3-RAptures... · RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equation Vince den Hertog, PEng, Ken Harford,

12

Figure 13: Fuel consumption – ship assist duty.

Figure 14: NOx emissions – Ship Assist Duty.

Page 13: RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equationral.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/D1P3-RAptures... · RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equation Vince den Hertog, PEng, Ken Harford,

13

Figure 15: Hydrocarbon emissions – Ship Assist Duty.

Figure 17: Costs – Ship Assist Duty.

Page 14: RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equationral.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/D1P3-RAptures... · RAptures: Resolving the Tugboat Energy Equation Vince den Hertog, PEng, Ken Harford,

14

Figure 16: Particulate emissions – Ship Assist Duty.