Ultra Large E nergy E fficient Container Ship

1. Ultra Large Energy Efficient Container Ship Thomas Goatly Christina Yugay KonstantinosGymnopoulos VasileiosChrysinas MSc in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering Ship Design Exercise University College London, 2013

3. Ship Characteristics Role: Transport of containerized cargo between Europe and Far East around the Cape of Good Hope Carrying Capacity 31,284 TEU Ship Characteristics: Maximum speed 19 knots Cruising speed 18 knots Endurance 32 days Environmental regulations Compliant with IMO Tier III Capital cost 575 million USD Ship Features: Deep displacement 476,361 te Standard displacement 133,560 te Length overall 522 m LBP 481 m Extreme beam 73 m Deep draught 16 m Depth of hull 34 m Cp0.849 Cm0.974 Complement: Crew 13 Additional accommodations 7 Machinery: Main engines 2 MAN B&W 8 cylinder S90ME-C9GI Engine output (each) 46.48 MW Type of fuel LNG, pilot fuel Propellers twin screw, 5 blades Turbochargers 2 MAN TCA88-21 Generators 2 DF MAN B&W 8 MW

4. Design Requirements

5. Route Selection • Figure 2.1 compares the traffic flows along the world’s 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. Figure 2.1: Major container shipping routes (from Rodrigue and Hesse, 2007)

6. Route Selection Table 2.1: Far Eastern ports capable of receiving the design ship

7. Route Selection

8. Route Selection Table 2.3: Route options for the design containership

9. Route Selection Figure 2.6: Annual revenue and net profit comparison for three ship design options Figure 2.5: Annual fuel costs and capital costs for three ship design options

10. Route Selection Figure 2.8: Annual net profit as a function of the number of roundtrips Figure 2.7: Annual net profit as a function of carrying capacity

11. Route Selection Figure 2.3: Suggested Itinerary for the design ship

12. Hull 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 m3

13. Hull Form Figure 3.3: Effective power for different combinations of Cp/Cm for the cruising speed of 18 knots Figure 3.2: Effective power as a function of Cp/Cm

14. Hull Form Figure 3.4: The relationships between length, beam and draught for fixed values of draught, block coefficient and volumetric displacement T = 17 m, Cb = 0.76 and volumetric displacement of 450,000 m3

15. Hull Form Table 3.2: Final selection of hull form parameters based on the results of the parametric survey

16. General Arrangement Airbus A380 and CMA Marco Polo – For Scale Comparison

17. General Arrangement Figure 6.5: Superstructure general arrangement

18. Access Routes Figure 6.10:Access routes – profile Figure 6.11:Access routes – plan

19. Access Routes Figure 6.12:The ship’s global access routes

20. Access Routes Figure 6.15: Escape route from the engine room. Figure 6.16: Escape route from the superstructure.

21. Weight and Volume Figure 4.2: Volume breakdown (m3)

22. Weight and Volume Figure 4.3: Weight breakdown (te)

23. Intact Stability PASS PASS PASS Port Side Loading Deep Ship Ballast Condition *IMO 2008 IS Code 2.2

24. Damaged Stability PASS PASS Deep Ship – Midship Flooding Ballast Condition – Midship Flooding *SOLAS Regulations 1997 – 2 Compartments

25. Resistance and Propulsion Table 8.4: Final propeller selection

26. Resistance and Propulsion a) 3 blades b) 5 blades Figure 8.2: Parametric survey of open water efficiency. D=12.15 m, 3 and 5 blades

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

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

29. Resistance and Propulsion Figure 8.6: Propeller clearance

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

31. Seakeeping b) Pitch RAO a) Heave RAO Figure 9.2: Heave and pitch RAOs

32. Seakeeping b) RMS pitch angle a) RMS heave displacement Figure 9.3: RMS heave and pitch displacement

33. Seakeeping Figure 9.4: Absolute and relative motions along ship’s length

34. Seakeeping Table 9.6: Limiting criteria and design’s seakeeping performance

35. Seakeeping Table 9.5: Ochi criteria for slamming

36. Seakeeping Figure 9.7: Added resistance due to air drag and head winds

37. Manoeuvring Table 10.2: Bare hull derivatives

38. Manoeuvring Figure 10.1: Stability Index as a function of speed

39. Manoeuvring Table 10.3:Rudder properties

40. Structure – QSWB Loads Deep Ship – Shear Force Deep Ship – Weight + Deep Ship – Bending Moment Deep Ship – Hogging Wave Design Loads

41. Hull Structure 317mm Buckling Checks 63mm Weight Estimate • Estimated hulls structure weight 163,168 te, compared to 96,000 te from initial sizing • Significantly overweight 95mm

42. Construction Cost Figure 12.1: Containership construction costs by country Values obtained via Carreyette method and present day material cost and hourly rate data.

43. Cost: Annual Table 12.2: Annual cost breakdown

44. Cost: Whole Life Table 12.5: Whole life cost

45. Conclusion: Requirements vs Design

46. Conclusion: Requirements vs Design Figure 8.7: Comparison of propulsive power requirements 2.97 kW per TEU

47. Conclusion: Requirements vs Design Figure 8.10: Comparison of the speed selection restrictors

48. Conclusion: profitability Figure 12.4: Required freight rate evolution with varying levels of utilisation To achieve the useful life of 30 years the containership’s 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.

49. Conclusion: overall performance • Appreciable 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.

50. Further Work • A new hull form compliant with the parametric survey’s initial findings for the optimal block coefficient • Reassessment of the ship’s parameters in view of the substantial weight increase due to structural design • A new approach to the economics of the unit procurement • Torsional analysis • Lateral bending • Docking and launching • Availability of current shipbuilding technology • Ship’s behaviour in oblique waves. • Added resistance of the hull due to waves • Power requirements • Investigation of the ship’s routing to take advantage of the aerodynamic resistance of the above-water portion of the hull, cargo on deck and superstructure