Ultra-large containership

Ultra Large Energy Efficient Container ShipThomas GoatlyChristina YugayKonstantinos GymnopoulosVasileios Chrysinas

MSc in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering Ship Design ExerciseUniversity College London, 2013

Ship CharacteristicsRole:Transport of containerized cargo between Europe and Far East around the Cape of Good Hope

Carrying Capacity31,284 TEUShip Characteristics:Maximum speed19 knotsCruising speed18 knotsEndurance32 daysEnvironmental regulationsCompliant with IMO Tier III Capital cost575 million USDShip Features:Deep displacement476,361 teStandard displacement133,560 teLength overall522 mLBP481 mExtreme beam73 mDeep draught16 mDepth of hull34 mCp0.849Cm0.974Complement:Crew13Additional accommodations7Machinery:Main engines2 MAN B&W 8 cylinder S90ME-C9GIEngine output (each)46.48 MWType of fuelLNG, pilot fuelPropellerstwin screw, 5 bladesTurbochargers2 MAN TCA88-21Generators2 DF MAN B&W 8 MWDesign RequirementsItemSpecificationRoleVessel to compete in containerized cargo shippingPrimary tasksTransport a large number of containers (2-3 times the carrying capacity of The Emma Maersk)Area of operationEurope to North America or Europe to AsiaSupportClassification society requirements for docking. Annual refit and special survey every 4 yearsShips life30 years with major mid-life refitComplement and accommodationsMinimum complement necessaryClassification standardsRegistered in the UK. Comply with LRSPortsShould be capable of operating from Thames GatewayA study of port facilities should be madeEnvironmental regulationsEEDI to be less than of that of The Emma MaerskEmissions to comply with the existing and anticipated regulationsCapable of operating in extreme conditionsCold ironingMust be capable of cold-ironing when alongsideRoute Selection

Figure 2.1: Major container shipping routes (from Rodrigue and Hesse, 2007)Figure 2.1 compares the traffic flows along the worlds major shipping routes. It can be seen that although the shipping traffic from Asia to USA is by far the busiest, the flow of cargo from USA back to Asia is significantly smaller. The traffic flow between USA and Europe is not significant enough to merit an investment into the construction of an ultra-large containership. At the same time, the cargo flow between Europe and Asia is both sufficiently large and of similar volume in both directions. Route SelectionPortMaximum Draught (m)Maximum Length (m)Maximum Beam (m)Other limitsTEU Movements per year (millions) [2005]Shanghai, China18.010000No limitNone18.00Shenzhen, China16.03750No limitNone7.35Qingdao, China17.53400No limitNone5.14Singapore, Singapore16.03585No limitNone23.20Busan, South Korea16.01500No limitNone11.80Table 2.1: Far Eastern ports capable of receiving the design shipRoute Selection

Route SelectionRouteOverall distance (nautical miles)AdvantagesDisadvantagesVia the Suez Canal10,480Safe and establishedFairly short travel time and fast turnaroundMust meet canals constraints (longer, more expensive ship, possible stability problems)Canal transit feesPiracyAround the Cape of Good Hope13,820No size constraints except for draughtNo canal transit feesSafe and establishedLonger travel timeGreater fuel consumptionNorthern Sea Route6,480No size constraintsShortest travel time and fastest turnaroundNo canal feesUncertainLarge initial investmentsIncreased ship sizeIncreased fuel consumptionPossible convoy expensesTable 2.3: Route options for the design containership Route Selection

Figure 2.5: Annual fuel costs and capital costs for three ship design options

Figure 2.6: Annual revenue and net profit comparison for three ship design optionsRoute Selection

Figure 2.7: Annual net profit as a function of carrying capacity

Figure 2.8: Annual net profit as a function of the number of roundtripsRoute Selection

Figure 2.3: Suggested Itinerary for the design shipHull Form

Figure 2.15: Effective power requirements for various hull forms*All hull forms are for a 30,000 TEU containership with the displacement of 456,950 m3Hull Form

Figure 3.2: Effective power as a function of Cp/Cm

Figure 3.3: Effective power for different combinations of Cp/Cm for the cruising speed of 18 knotsHull Form

Figure 3.4: The relationships between length, beam and draught for fixed values of draught, block coefficient and volumetric displacementT = 17 m, Cb = 0.76 and volumetric displacement of 450,000 m3Hull FormParameterValueLength472 mBeam73 mCm0.95Cp0.80Cb0.76Table 3.2: Final selection of hull form parameters based on the results of the parametric survey

General Arrangement

Airbus A380 and CMA Marco Polo For Scale Comparison

General Arrangement

Figure 6.5: Superstructure general arrangementAccess Routes

Figure 6.10:Access routes profile

Figure 6.11:Access routes planAccess Routes

Figure 6.12:The ships global access routesAccess Routes

Figure 6.15: Escape route from the engine room.Figure 6.16: Escape route from the superstructure.Weight and Volume

Figure 4.2: Volume breakdown (m3)Weight and Volume

Figure 4.3: Weight breakdown (te)Intact Stability

Deep ShipPort Side LoadingBallast ConditionDeep ShipBallast ConditionKMt (m)36.750.8KG (m)27.015.4GM (m)9.735.4PASSPASSPASS*IMO 2008 IS Code 2.2

Damaged Stability

Deep Ship Midship FloodingBallast Condition Midship FloodingPASSPASS*SOLAS Regulations 1997 2 Compartments

Resistance and PropulsionParameterNotationValuePropeller typefixed pitchNumber of screws2Diameter (m)D12.15Axis depth (m)h9.72Number of blades3rpmN80Propeller pitch ratioP/D0.55Blade area ratioBAR0.40Propeller advance coefficientJ0.426Thrust coefficientKt0.0647Torque coefficientKq0.008025Open water efficiency00.55Table 8.4: Final propeller selectionResistance and Propulsion

Figure 8.2: Parametric survey of open water efficiency. D=12.15 m, 3 and 5 blades

a) 3 bladesb) 5 bladesResistance and Propulsion

Figure 8.3: Open water efficiency optimization for the required RPM. A 3-blade propeller of 12.15 m diameterResistance and Propulsion

Figure 8.4: Kt, Kq and open water efficiency for a 3-blade propeller of D=12.15 m and BAR=0.4Resistance and Propulsion

Figure 8.6: Propeller clearanceSeakeeping

Figure 9.1: Bretschneider wave spectrum for the design wave. Wave height - 15 m, wave period = 13 sSeakeeping

a) Heave RAOb) Pitch RAOFigure 9.2: Heave and pitch RAOsSeakeeping

a) RMS heave displacementb) RMS pitch angleFigure 9.3: RMS heave and pitch displacementSeakeeping

Figure 9.4: Absolute and relative motions along ships lengthSeakeepingLimiting criteriaRecommended ValueDesign ValueVertical acceleration RMS0.215 g0.05 gSlamming1 slam per 100 pitches2.5 slams per 100 pitchesDeck wetness8-9 per 100 pitches0Propeller emergence50 per hour0.57 per hourPitch angle1.5 deg0.37 degSubjective magnitude121.5Motion sickness incidence10% in 2 hours3.5 % in 2 hoursTable 9.6: Limiting criteria and designs seakeeping performanceSeakeepingCriteria for slammingBenchmarkRelative motionIs criterion met?Relative motion exceeds local effective draught Dke12 m4 mNoRelative velocity at impact exceeds r3 crit6.7 m/s0.65 m/sNoTable 9.5: Ochi criteria for slammingSeakeeping

Figure 9.7: Added resistance due to air drag and head windsManoeuvringDerivativeDeep conditionBallast conditionClarke et alInoue et alClarke et alInoue et alY'v-7.41E-03-8.51E-04-3.87E-03-4.00E-04Y'r1.64E-032.81E-068.78E-049.72E-07N'v-1.69E-03-3.92E-07-6.10E-04-1.74E-07N'r-1.03E-03-9.70E-05-5.15E-04-3.73E-05m'6.53E-036.53E-033.87E-033.87E-03Stability Index-6.29E-078.00E-081.68E-071.42E-08Table 10.2: Bare hull derivativesManoeuvring

Figure 10.1: Stability Index as a function of speedManoeuvringTable 10.3:Rudder propertiesStructure QSWB Loads

+

Deep Ship Hogging WaveDeep Ship WeightDeep Ship Shear ForceDeep Ship Bending MomentItemValueDesign Shear Load (MN)438Design Hogging Moment (GNm)86.1Design Sagging Moment (GNm)61.1Bending Moment Range (GNm)138Design LoadsHull Structure

Equivalent Thickness317mm95mm63mmPlate bucklingpasspasspassInterframe collapsepasspasspassShear buckling of platepasspasspassShear bucling of grillagepasspasspassBuckling Checks

317mm63mm95mmEstimated hulls structure weight 163,168 te, compared to 96,000 te from initial sizingSignificantly overweightWeight EstimateConstruction Cost

Figure 12.1: Containership construction costs by countryValues obtained via Carreyette method and present day material cost and hourly rate data.Cost: AnnualCostValue in million USDWages and allowances 1.27Subsistence 0.039Stores, supplies and equipment0.617Maintenance and Repair 1.70Insurance 1.93Fuel costs 60.9Port charges and cargo handling 42.2Other operational expenses30.3Capital cost 33.4Tonnage Tax 0.027Total expenses per year 172Table 12.2: Annual cost breakdown

Cost: Whole LifeItemValue (millions USD)Building expenses575Design cost57Port charges20Cargo handling2204Fuel costs3207Maintenance79Crew costs58Insurance88Interest on loan121Disposal 1Subsistence2Stores, supplies and equipment25Tonnage tax1Total 6439Table 12.5: Whole life cost

Conclusion: Requirements vs DesignItemRequirementHas requirement been met?DesignRoleVessel to compete in very large containership sectorYESCarrying capacityAt least 30,000 TEUYES31,284 TEUArea of operationEurope to North America or Europe to AsiaYESSupportClassification society requirements for docking. Annual refit and special survey every 4 yearsYESShips life30 years with major mid-life refitYESComplement and accommodationMinimum complement necessaryYES13Classification standardsRegistered in UK. Comply with LRSYESPortsShould be capable of operating from Thames GatewayYESEnvironmental regulationsEEDI to be less than 25% that of Emma MaerskNO48%Emissions to comply with existing and anticipated regulationsYESCapable of operating in extreme conditionsYESCold ironingMust be capable of cold-ironing when alongsideYESConclusion: Requirements vs Design

Figure 8.7: Comparison of propulsive power requirements2.97 kW per TEUConclusion: Requirements vs Design

Figure 8.10: Comparison of the speed selection restrictorsConclusion: profitability

Figure 12.4: Required freight rate evolution with varying levels of utilisationTo achieve the useful life of 30 years the containerships owners would either have to operate it at 95% utilisation at all times or else charge the freight rate of 3,000 USD equivalent to 87% of the current rate. Conclusion: overall performanceAppreciable power savings can be achieved through a combination of speed reduction, carrying capacity increase and use of LNG.

The use of LNG will also give the ship a stronger competitive edge in the future when the prices of bunker fuel will increase and pollution regulations will become more stringent.

Excellent intact and damaged stabilities

Good seakeeping

Directional stability

Can compete successfully in the shipping market, although under the right set of conditions. Further WorkA new hull form compliant with the parametric surveys initial findings for the optimal block coefficientReassessment of the ships parameters in view of the substantial weight increase due to structural designA new approach to the economics of the unit procurementTorsional analysisLateral bendingDocking and launchingAvailability of current shipbuilding technologyShips behaviour in oblique waves. Added resistance of the hull due to waves Power requirements Investigation of the ships routing to take advantage of the aerodynamic resistance of the above-water portion of the hull, cargo on deck and superstructure