Contribution Towards Determination of the Optimal Ship

Speed
John E. Kokarakis1), Vaya Hatziyanni2), Cpt. George Dienis2),
Cpt. George Vasilakis2), Michael Adamis2)
1)

Bureau Veritas, Greece, john.kokarakis@gr.bureauveritas.com

2)
OSG Ship Management, Greece

Abstract
The present status of the global economy dictates
that shipping companies apply operational measures to
cope. In that context, the study presents the method
applied to solve the optimal speed problem. The
critical paths of the method are analyzed along with
best practices for more accurate evaluation. The
results of the study can be either the speed which will
yield the highest financial benefit or the friendliest to
the environment or a combination of both criteria.

Keywords
Optimal; speed; resistance; fuel consumption;
power; freight rate.

1. Introduction
In times of skyrocketing bunker fuel prices and
demands for emission control through reduced power
consumption the issue of the determination of optimal
speed becomes of paramount importance. In addition
slumping freight rates dictate the same course of
action. Calls for power and cost savings through speed
reductions, need to be accompanied by a technoeconomic study to determine the speed which will
yield either maximum profits for the fleet or it will
result to the minimum amount of emissions.
Fuel consumption typically varies with the cube
of the speed. This means that very fast ships are
guzzling away a lot of money. The last extra knots of
speed are achieved at considerable fuel cost. If speed
is essential and the shippers are prepared to pay for it,
it doesnt matter too much. But at a time of huge
volatility in fuel prices the shipowner faces a dilemma.
If he tries to pass on the cost of the extra fuel to the
customers, he might face the resistance of the shippers
and the competition of other shipping companies. He
could also opt to slow down his ship to reduce the
consumption of fuel. The cube of the speed
calculation shows that while the voyage might be a bit
longer, the fuel savings will yield net savings on the
voyage costs. The objective is to determine the
optimum speed which will yield the maximum profit
for the voyage. The downside, especially in a fast liner
trading operation, is that the shippers might object to
their longer passage times. If N vessels are slowed

down to carry the same amount of cargo, it might be

necessary to put an extra ship(s) on the route. So the
fuel savings will have to be deduced from the
global/fleet optimization problem.
Furthermore,
easing off the throttle can reduce the amount of
harmful emissions particularly greenhouse gases. For
ship operators the decision to slow down is a
balancing act or to put it in mathematical terms, an
optimization problem. Going at full throttle is not
economically or ecologically optimal.
Optimal speed, from an economical point of view,
is defined as the speed that maximises the difference
between income and expenses per time unit. Such
models for determination of optimal speed of a ship
can be found in (Ronen, 1982), (Psaraftis et al 2009).
If the optimal speed from an economical point of view
is close to the maximum speed of the ship, the ship
owner will normally select a "minimum time" strategy
for the ship. The ship will be operated at highest
possible speed only limited by technical and safety
factors. Limit on the ship speed, from an ecological
point of view, can only be achieved by means of lawimposed speed limitations or penalty tax in relation to
a high fuel consumption level. If the optimal speed of
the ship is lower than the maximum speed of the ship,
the ship owner may select a "Just in time" or "Slow
Steaming" strategy in case the transport capacity is
high in relation to the available cargoes.
Fuel savings may be achieved through routing
techniques. Such techniques require the utilization of a
reliable weather and current forecast. Main parameters
for the choice of a route are safety, avoidance of cargo
damage, comfort of crew and passengers, limitation on
time of arrival, maintenance work and economy.
Ocean currents may also have significant impact on
the fuel consumption. A study conservatively
estimates that exploiting currents in the routing could
reduce the annual fuel costs of the world commercial
fleet on trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific routes by $80
million (Lo, McCord, 1992).
The current study was motivated by the need of
OSG Ship Management Co to develop an in-house
tool to determine the optimal speed as defined above.
At the same time, faithful to the modern doctrines of
green shipping, it was required to include in the
objective function the capabilty of optimization with
respect to the emitted GH gases.

Of course, there may be consequences if the

service speed is reduced. Marine engines are generally
optimized for 85% of maximum RPM. Above that
level, specific fuel consumption increases rapidly.
Much below that level (slow-steamers operate at 70%
MCR) there is a significant drop in combustion
efficieny. The heat recovery systems will be less
effective. The propeller may also be less efficient
when operating at a less than optimum speed. Fouling
from marine growth may increase as the ship dawdles
along instead of speeding through the oceans. There
may be increased lubricating oil consumption, even
vibration and increased sooting in the exhaust gases
channel.
Reduction in engine load below the design value
will result in a reduction in the exhaust gas
temperature and an increasing risk of sulphur induced
cold corrosion in the upper levels of the exhaust gas
trunk. It can also result in insufficient temperatures at
the exhaust gas boiler inlet, necessitating a change
over to fuel oil firing to raise the steam required to
supply the various engine room systems and hotel
loads.
Low loading can result in degraded injection
performance and hence incomplete combustion, which
may be evident as visible smoke or invisible
particulate emissions. The tendency to poor
combustion combined with reduced gas flow rates
results in accumulation of carbonaceous material in
the exhaust system. This deposition enhances the risk
of uptake fires. It is thus important to ensure that
injection performance is maintained hence nozzles
maintained in good order and preheat temperature
controlled to the required viscosity. Good practice
requires that load is increased periodically in order to
flush through the system to limit this accumulation.
The cleaning frequency of the turbocharger must be
such as to keep the turbine blades free of deposits.
To ensure reliable operation from engines
designed to run optimally at higher outputs, closer
surveillance of engine performance and operating
parameters, fuel quality, lube oil consumption and
power-speed conditions are required. For ships
operating permanently at slow speed, engine
modifications or de-rating may be employed as a
viable solution.

(b) Economic parameters such as personnel, store,

maintenance, repair, insurance and overhead costs
remain constant.
The derived optimal speed must be above the
minimal speed for the safe operation of the ship.
Traditionally commercial departments in shipping
companies evaluate the financial return of a vessel by
the so called Time Charter Equivalent (TCE). The
TCE rate achieved on a given voyage is expressed in
US dollars per day and is calculated by subtracting
voyage expenses, including bunkers and port charges,
from voyage revenue and dividing the net amount by
the round trip voyage duration. Then TCE (daily Time
Charter Equivalent) is given as a function of speed, v,
by the expression:

TCE

FRv
d

cR

pF ( P, v)

(1)

Where FR is the Freight Rate/revenue for the

whole voyage, d is the trip distance in miles including
the ballast leg, v the speed (miles/day), cR the running
costs per day, p the price of bunker/ton and F(P,v) the
specific bunker consumption (per day) for a particular
power P. Power P is determined as a function of
speed, v, from the resistance and propulsion study of
the particular vessel. The optimal speed is defined as
the one which maximizes the daily TCE of the
voyage. The inter-dependence of power and specific
fuel consumption has been determined by the shop
trial measurements. It is depicted on Fig. 1. The main
engine is a MAN B&W 6S50MC-C with a Maximum
Continuous Rating (M.C.R.) of 12,900 BHP at 127
RPM. The specific fuel consumption is minimum at
about 71% of M.C.R. as expected and so depicted on
Consumption
Fig. 1.
Fuel Consumption (g/bhp/h)

2. Consequencies of Speed Reduction

135
134
133
132
y = -1E-16x 4 - 1E-11x 3 + 4E-07x 2 - 0.0045x + 144.54

131
130
129
128
3200

6700

10200

13700

Engine Power (HP)

3. Basis of Mathematical Model

The problem is defined as the maximization of the
difference between income and expenses. The main
assumptions in our analysis are:
(a) Fuel consumption depends on speed in a
known way. This function is defined from the shop
trials of the main engine and can be verified by the
crew.

Fig. 1: Specific Fuel Consumption Versus Power

Reported measurements of fuel consumption

indicate that there is no significant deviation from the
shop trial data.
The relationship between speed and fuel
consumption can be taken as the third power of the
speed. The specific fuel consumption of a wellmaintained engine will normally not change much
during its service life. Consequently, the functional

dependence of the specific fuel consumption from

speed constitutes a sanity test for the validity of the
utilized power versus speed and fuel consumption
versus power models. Resulting dependencies of fuel
consumption from speed are depicted on Figures 2 and
3 for drafts 12 and 7 meters respectively. The
variation of the fuel consumption is very close to a
cubic for both drafts. Furthermore it can be shown that
we obtain about 1.5 knots more for the lower draft, for
the same fuel consumption.

The mathematical model can be extended to

include environmental considerations. Optimization
with respect to environmental considerations can be
implemented by minimization a CO2 performance
parameter defined as:

PCO2

F (v, P)mCO2
Wv

(2)

Where F (v, P) is the fuel consumed during the

trip dependent on Power and speed, mCO2 is the
emitted CO2 per ton of consumed fuel, W is the
transported cargo and v is the ship speed. The CO2
emission factor mCO2, although is varying with the
type of fuel in general, might be taken equal to 3.13.
Relevant discussion can be found in (Kontovas,
Psaraftis, 2009). In other words there is going to be
3.17 t of CO2 emitted per ton of fuel burned.
This type of objective function will also
emphasize the time element in order to determine a
speed other than the trivial. It is quite obvious that
performance parameter increases with speed. In other
words, it is obvious that the less the quantity of fuel
the lower the amount of CO2 emitted, i.e. the obvious
solution is slow steaming. In general, a combined
optimization problem needs to be defined as the
maximization of the following objective function:
Fig. 2: Fuel consumption at 12 m draft.

OF
Optimum speed may be different for an empty
and a full leg of the same round trip. It is thus
beneficial to analyze the speed for each voyage leg
separately.

W f NTCE

Where N TCE and

WCO2
N PCO2

(3)

N PCO2 are the normalized cost

functions reflecting respectively the Time Charter

Equivalent for the trip and the CO 2 performance
parameter. W f and WCO2 are weight factors
regulating the gravity of cost and environmental
considerations in the optimization model. The weight
factors can be time variant following the market
changes and reflecting the fact that in a slump market,
optimum is shifted towards reduced speeds. In
booming markets ships will need to run faster to
service the increased demand.

4. Measurements

Fig. 3: Fuel consumption at 7 m draft.

Optimum speed may be different for an empty

and a full leg of the same round trip. It is thus
beneficial to analyze the speed for each voyage leg
separately.

Evidently, the most critical element of the

problem is the Power-Speed model. In essence this
model is at least of tri-modal nature due to variation
with the draft. It is also known that trim will have an
effect on the required power. Although, the
importance of trim is recognized, it was not
considered in this study. The resistance and propulsion
model can be determined by various methods. More
specifically:
a)
Consideration of sea trial data with
appropriate correction for fouling and probable engine
deterioration. Given that sea trials are performed at

one, mostly two drafts, the model needs to be

extrapolated to be valid for all drafts.
b)
Model
generation
from
actual
measurements from the ships. Given that the
measurements will be performed for a finite number
of loading conditions, it is also necessary to
extrapolate the model for all drafts.
c)
Analytical determination of resistance
and required power as a function of speed and draft.
The validity of a model such as the one in the first
option is a strong function of the condition of the hull
and engine. It also involves a lot of uncertainties. It
was thus chosen to pursue the second and third options
for the generation of the resistance and propulsion
model.
One of the most critical parameters needed to be
measured for the generation of the model is the speed
of the ship. The speed of the ship is measured with
respect to some earth based reference system. The
speed based on these measurements is equal to the
speed through the water only if there is no current. It
is necessary to conduct at least one additional run on a
reverse heading. Two opposite direction runs are
needed if the current is constant; five runs are needed
in the most common situation when the current speed
varies with the cubic power of time (MARIN, 2006).
In the commercial setting of the ship, the vessels are
admonished to take the measurements under mild
weather conditions without the influence of currents if
possible.
At sea, speed may be measured relative to either
the seabed (ground-tracking or ground reference
speed) or to the water flowing past the hull (watertracking or water reference speed). The speed relative
to the water needs to be utilized in the resistance and
propulsion model.
The phenomenon of Doppler-frequency-shift is
utilized to measure the speed of a moving object.
Modern speed logs use this principle to measure the
vessel speed with respect to the seabed with an
accuracy approaching 0.1%. The accuracy of the
measurement is subject to the environmental problems
affecting the propagation of an acoustic wave in salt
water. It may use more than one transducer
arrangement, like for example one at the bow and
another at the stern to catch vessel movement during
turning manoeuvres.
Speed measurements are affected by the trim and
the list of the ship. If the vessel is not in correct trim
(or pitching in heavy weather) the longitudinal
parameters will change and the speed indicated will be
in error. To counteract this effect to some extent, two
acoustic beams are transmitted, one ahead and one
astern. The transducer assembly used for this type of
transmission is called a Janus configuration after the
Roman god who reputedly possessed two faces and
was able to see into both the future and the past.
Figure 4 shows the Janus assembly.

Fig. 4: Janus configuration of transmitters.

A speed log measures velocity relative to multiple

thermocline layers several meters down in the water.
If these layers are moving in opposite directions to the
surface water, an error may be introduced. This effect
is prevalent in areas with strong tides or ocean
currents. Following seas may result in a change in the
speed indication in the fore/aft and/or port/ starboard
line depending upon the vector sum of the
approaching sea relative to the ships axis.
The Doppler Log can measure both the speed
over the water and the speed over the ground. The
later speed can be also measured by the GPS receiver.
The GPS produces the speed over the ground, which
needs to be corrected.
In addition to the ship speed, it is necessary to
measure the wind speed. The wind speed is measured
by the onboard anemometer. It must be corrected for
over-speed effects due to the nearby superstructure
and also corrected to the reference height of the
Beaufort wind scale. Wind speed calculation is
critical, because it is utilized for wave height
estimation, if wave radar is not available. The
significant wave height can be estimated from the
measured
wind
speed
based
on
ITTC
recommendations as:

Vw 10 H s

2/3

(4)

Where the wind speed, Vw, is expressed in knots

and the significant wave height Hs in meters.

5. Resistance and Propulsion

The most critical element in the analysis is the
resistance and propulsion model. This model yields
the ship power for a given speed. It can be generated
on the basis of full scale measurements. On the other
hand an analytical model is necessary in order to be
able to account for the influence of weather effects
such as wind and waves on the resistance. The still
water resistance has been estimated by the well known
Holtrop and Mennen model (Holtrop, Mennen, 1982).
The additional resistance due to wind and waves has
been then estimated from simple formulations and

added to the one from the Holtrop and Mennen model

(Journee, Meijers, 1980).
The still water resistance of the ship consists of
three main parts, namely the viscous or frictional, the
residual and the model-ship correlation resistance.
Viscous resistance is related to the skin friction
between the hull and the water. The viscous
resistance, R, is defined as:

CV

Sv2

(5)

Where is the water density, v is the ship speed

and S is the wetted surface of the hull.
Viscous/frictional resistance represents a considerable
part of the ships resistance, often some 70-90% of the
ships total resistance for low speed ships (bulk
carriers and tankers), and sometimes less than 40% for
high speed ships (cruise liners and passenger ships).
Residual resistance includes wave, spray and air
resistance. Wave resistance refers to the energy loss
caused by waves generated by the vessel during her
propulsion through the water It includes the loss
caused by flow separation, which creates eddies,
particularly at the aft end of the ship. At Froude
number of less than 0.2, residual resistance is of minor
importance. The residual resistance normally
represents 8-25% of the total resistance for low speed
ships, and up to 40-60% for high speed ships.
Correlation resistance represents primarily the
effect of the hull roughness and the still-air resistance.
Assuming that the still water resistance is
proportional to the third order root of the volume of
displacement squared (a mathematical equivalent to
the wetted surface); an estimation can be made for
other loading conditions. It is noted though, that for
high breadth-draught ratios, as found in gas tankers
and ships in ballast condition, this assumption yields
less accurate results. Assuming the viscous resistance
to be the dominant contributor, the resistance and
consequently the power are proportional to the wetted
surface. In that case, for constant power the
relationship between ship speed and wetted surface
will be:

V1
V2

S2

S1

S1
S2

0.64hW B 2CB / L

(8)

Where hW is the wave height in meters, is the

specific weight of the water (N/m3) and L is the length
of the ship in meters.
The added resistance due to waves consists of
two parts. The first part is the added resistance due to
the motions of the vessel induced by the waves. This
part can be calculated on the basis of the theory of
Maruo (Maruo, 1960). The second part is the
resistance due to the reflection of waves against the
ship. It can be calculated using the method in (Fujii,
Takahashi, 1975). The two regions of wave resistance
are depicted in Fig. 5 depending on the wave to ship
length ratio.

(6)

Where V1, S1 are the speed and wetted surface

corresponding to draft T1 and V2, S2 the similar pair
corresponding to draft T2. The relationship above can
be utilized to correspond the triad (P, V1, T1) to the
triad (P, V2, T2). Equivalently, on the basis of the
power being equal to the product of resistance times
the ship speed the relationship between powers and
wetted surfaces is:

P1
P2

The resistance values should be corrected for

environmental influences and effects such as wind,
waves (ITTC, 2005). Although methods are proposed
to correct for effects such as water density, steeringand drifting effects, such corrections
may not have significant influence on the final
estimate of resistance. The relative motions of a ship
also cause an additional resistance.
Theoretical
computations agree with experimental estimation for
head and beam regular waves. In quartering and
following waves, however, the agreement is rather
poor, probably as a result of inaccurate values for
added mass and damping at low frequencies. The
added resistance varies with the wave amplitude
squared.
A simple formula to estimate the resistance
increase in waves of heights up to 1,5 to 2 m from the
bow is given by (Kreitner, 1939):

Fig. 5: Wave Induced Resistance

Added wave resistance is maximum for wave

length equal to the ship length. A more detailed
development can be found in (MARIN, 2005) and
(MARIN, 2006). It was chosen to utilize the Kreitner
formulation in (7), which produces acceptable results.

(7)

Utilization of the above relation can yield the

correspondence between (P1, V, T1) to the triad (P2, V,
T2), keeping the speed constant.

Fouling of the ships hull can also cause a

considerable increase in the ship resistance. The extent
of fouling depends on the sailing routes and the time
during which the ship will sail in areas with large
fouling effects. As fouling is a biological process,
depending on the Resistance
paint used,
it is not easy to give
for 11.8m draft
accurate mean values for all ships, seasons and areas.
800.00
700.00

Fig. 6: fw coefficient versus deadweight

A simple formulation was also presented by Japan

in the 58th MEPC (MEPC, 2008). According to this
formulation the speed loss in waves is found by
multiplication with a coefficient fw, determined
through detailed calculations (Tsujimoto et al, 2008).
fw is a non-dimensional coefficient indicating the
decrease of speed in representative sea conditions of
wave height, frequency and wind speed. The red spots
on Fig. 6 represent the calculated fw values of
individual existing ships of Japanese shipping
companies. The blue line was proposed as provisional
standard fw curve.
Air resistance is of relatively minor importance
for conventional merchant ships. The resistance
increase due to wind is calculated from the relation:

RW

VW R C AA AXV

(9)

Where CAA is the wind resistance coefficient, AXV

is the area of the maximum transverse section exposed
to the wind, VWR is the relative wind velocity and A is
the mass density of air.
The wind resistance
coefficient can be assumed to be 0.9 for head and
following wind. A wide range of statistical data
concerning wind resistance coefficients of various
ships are given by (Blendermann, 1996).
Application of the Holtrop and Mennen method
with the addition of wave and air resistance for the
specific conditions of relatively mild weather
prevailing at the time of full scale measurements,
yields the results depicted in Figures 7 and 8 for the
Resistance for 6.9m draft
ballast and full load conditions.
600.00

Resistance (KN)

500.00
400.00

Total Resistance

Resistance (KN)

600.00
500.00

Total Resistance
Hull Resistance Holt/Men

400.00

Wind Resistance

300.00

Wave Resistance

200.00
100.00
0.00
12.7

13.8

15.4

15.9

Speed (knots)

Fig. 8: Resistance at 12 m draft.

The effect of fouling depends on the docking

period and the time since the last docking of the ship.
Fouling will affect the viscous resistance. Aertsen
(Aertsen, 1969) carried out full-scale experiments to
investigate the problem of fouling. He found that for a
ship sailing on the Atlantic route, the effect of fouling
will be in the order of:

R
R

3.6 ya
100

0.4 yd
1 2 ya

(10)

In which y is the age of the ship in years and yd

are the years since last dry-docking. The increase of
the viscous/frictional resistance for a ship with an age
of five years and a time since last docking of three
years is for example estimated by the above
formulation to be about 30%. The effect of fouling is
much larger for tankers than for container ships.
The resistance due to fouling of the hull and
propeller can vary between 6% and up to 80% in the
worst cases, being a function of the average hull
roughness. The type of coating has a pronounced
influence on the development of the added resistance.
It is not only a question of type of coating, it is also
important that the coating is applied in correct
thickness, and that the dissolution speed or, for selfpolishing paint the polishing speed, is carefully
adjusted to the service speed and operational patterns
of the ship.

Hull Resistance Holt/Men

300.00

Wind Resistance
Wave Resistance

200.00
100.00
0.00
13.2

14.7

15

Speed (knots)

Fig. 7: Resistance at 7 m draft.

15.8

6. Resistance & Propulsion Model from

Measurements.
A reasonable relationship to be expected for
estimations in the normal ship speed range is of the
form:

P cvn

(11)

Where:
n=4.5 for large high speed ships like
container vessels,
n=4.0 for medium sized, medium speed ships
like feeder ships, reefers, Ro-Ro ships,
n=3.5 for low speed ships like tankers and
bulk carriers.
Utilization of either relation (6) or the simpler one
(7) can generate pairs of power versus speed for the
same draft. All measurements reported by a fleet of
sister vessels can be utilized that way. In case of
differences, data points can be averaged before the
generation of a trend-line and curve fitting.
The measurements reported among a certain class
of OSG tankers included both the GPS and the Speed
Log speeds. It was decided to evaluate the power
using both monitors in order to assess which one
should be used in general. The resulting regression
equation, including the effect of draft and using both
the GPS and Doppler Log speed data is:

0.9652 [1 0.0633 (T

basis of (12), (13) and the theoretical method based on

the Holltrop Mennen corrected for weather effects.

Fig. 10: Viscous-to-Total resistance ratio.

6.9)]v3.27 (12)

Where T is the draft of the vessel in meters and v

is her speed in knots. P is connected with the effective
horse power through the propulsion coefficient (ISO,
2002). The relationship is depicted graphically in
Figure 9.

Fig. 11: BHP computed by various methods at 11 m

draft.

Fig. 9: EHP, DHP Relationship.

The regression equation if only the Doppler Log

speeds are used is given by:

0.633[1 0.0633 (T

6.9)]v3.478 (13)

It is observed that the later equation (13) has an

exponential relationship which is amazingly close to
the expected from experience.
The scaling on the basis of a relationship of the
type of (6) or (7) is of acceptable accuracy given the
high ratio of viscous to total resistance as evidenced
by Fig. 10.
The validity of the formulation is assessed by
comparison with the sea trial results. The results are
shown on Figures 11 and 12 for predictions on the

Fig. 12: BHP computed by various methods at 7 m

draft.

Voyage Income per Speed order for a range of Bunker prices - 12m Draft

$400 000.00
$100.00
$300 000.00

$200.00
$300.00
$400.00

$200 000.00

$500.00

Voyage Income ($)

The power prediction results are shown for the

full load and the ballast draft. It appears from Figures
11 and 12 that the most accurate method is the one
based on the Doppler Log data. Accuracy achieved by
the Holtrop Mennen formulation is also acceptable for
a technique which has strictly and solely a theoretical
basis. This relatively good agreement can be attributed
to the fact that the measurements were performed
under relatively mild weather conditions according to
the instructions. A more formal assessment of
accuracy can be performed through evaluation of the
goodness of fit by the summation for example of the
squares of the deviations and comparing the sums. On
the other hand, at this stage, it is difficult to pinpoint
the basis around which to perform the comparison.
Sea trial data might not be applicable at this phase of
the vessels life.

$600.00

$100 000.00

$700.00

$0.00
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

-$100 000.00

-$200 000.00

-$300 000.00

-$400 000.00

Speed (Knots)

Fig. 14: TCE versus speed and cost of bunker at 12 m draft

Voyage Income per Speed order for a range of Bunker prices - 7m Draft
$100.00

$400 000
$200.00

$300 000

$300.00
$400.00

Voyage Income ($)

$200 000

$500.00

$100 000
$600.00

$0
13

14

15

16

$700.00

17

-$100 000

18

End of
torsional
vibration

-$200 000

-$300 000

-$400 000

Speed (Knots)

Fig. 15: TCE versus

speed and cost of bunker at 7 m draft
Voyage Income per Speed order for a range of Bunker prices - 9m Draft

Fig. 13: BHP computed by various methods.

$400 000

7. Optimization Results
The generated propulsion models are coupled
within an objective function, which involves
the economics depicted by relation (1). Cost of

Voyage Income ($)

$100.00

The results for the full draft case from sea trials,
equation (12) prediction/GPS-Log, equation (13)
prediction/Log-Speed and program QSTAP are plotted
in Figure 13. QSTAP stands for Quaestor Sea Trial
Analysis Program, an application developed for and
by MARIN (MARIN, 2006). It is used to analyze
power-speed performance from sea trials. QSTAP
development was funded by a joint industry project
and it is ideally suited to assess the validity of data in
the current study. The results for the power-speed
pairs as predicted by QSTAP are above from the sea
trials as it would be expected. In that respect the
results on the basis of the Doppler Log measurements
are closer to the QSTAP predictions. Likewise the
results on the basis of the Doppler Log-GPS data
points are closer to the sea trial performance curve.

$300 000

$200.00

$200 000

$300.00
$400.00

$100 000

$500.00

$0
12

13

14

15

16

$600.00
18

17

-$100 000

$700.00

-$200 000

End of
torsional
vibration

-$300 000
-$400 000
Speed (Knots)

Fig. 16: TCE versus speed and cost of bunker at 9 m draft

bunker fuel was a variable input, as well as the freight

rate and the length of the promulgated voyage. The
analysis was performed with the aid of an EXCEL
spreadsheet due to its simplicity and ease of
programming. It was desirable to study the effect of
draft, i.e. the transported cargo on the optimum speed.
Thus the analysis was performed for various draft

values with realistic input data for the length of trip,

freight rate and cost of bunker. Results for draft equal
to 12, 7 and 9 meters are depicted on Figures 14, 15
and 16 respectively. It is observed that for a daily
charter rate of 15,000 USD/day there is an optimum
speed (resulting to maximum TCE) only for the lower
drafts and for the lower bunker cost. The cost of
bunker has a profound effect on the optimum speed.
At high bunker cost, as expected, the lowest speed
yields the maximum profit. Similarly at low bunker
cost the optimum is moved towards highest speeds.
The optimum speed decreases from lower drafts
towards higher ones.

type of behavior is depicted on Fig. 18. In this case the

results reflect a booming market condition where the
freight rate has been quadrupled from the value
utilized before.

Voyage Income per Speed order for a range of Bunker prices - 12m Draft
$300.00
$400.00

$700 000

$500.00
$600.00

$600 000

$700.00
$800.00

Voyage Income ($)

$500 000

$900.00

Fig. 19: Optimum Speed as a function of freight Rate and Bunker

price.

$400 000
$300 000
$200 000
$100 000
$0
-$100 000

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

-$200 000

Speed (Knots)

Fig. 17: TCE versus speed and cost of bunker at 12 m draft

and increased bunker prices.

The impact of bunker price variation was also

utilized in order to evaluate the validity of the
algorithm. At full draft and increased cost of bunker,
optimum speeds are the shifting towards lowest ones
as indicated on Fig. 17. In the plot of Fig. 17 the
per Speed
order for a range
Bunker prices
Draft
freight rate Voyage
has Income
been
doubled
in of order
to- 12mavoid
operation at a loss (negative TCE).
$1 500 000

Voyage Income ($)

$1 400 000
$100.00

$1 300 000

$200.00
$300.00

$1 200 000

$400.00
$500.00

$1 100 000

$600.00
$700.00

$1 000 000
$900 000
$800 000
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Speed (Knots)

Fig. 18: TCE versus speed and cost of bunker at 12 m draft

and increased freight rate.

If the time element is amplified, through an increase

of the freight rate, the optimum is shifted towards
highest speeds, especially at the lowest bunker cost as
expected. At higher bunker cost there are distinct
optima which are shifted towards lower speeds. This

The combined effect of bunker price and freight rates

on optimum speed is depicted on Fig. 19 for the full
load draft. The curves depict the optimum speeds
computed via the algorithm described for two bunker
prices, namely 300 and 600 USD/t for a variety of
freight rates. It can be concluded that at lower bunker
prices the optimum speed has slower variation in
relation to the freight rates. At lower freight rates
(slump markets) the bunker price has less effect on
optimum speed than in booming markets.

8. Conclusions
The optimal speed of a ship can be determined for
a specific trip under certain financial conditions.
Necessary inputs to the problem are fuel consumptionpower and speed-power models. These models can be
generated on the basis full scale measurements or
from theoretical formulations. It appears that data
based on the Doppler Speed Log recording the speed
over water are more appropriate for the determination
of the functional relationship between speed and
power. The optimal speed of the ship is highly
sensitive on the financial input data as opposed to
operational data such as for example the length of the
voyage under consideration.
The method can be applied to determine the
optimal speed with respect to the highest financial
benefit from the ship, minimum impact on the
environment or a combination of both. It is noted that
a voyage can be split to various legs of somewhat
uniform weather conditions and an optimal speed can
be determined for each leg.

9. References
Kreitner A. J., 1939, Heave, Pitch and
Resistance of Ships in a Seaway,
Transactions of INA.

Maruo H., 1960, On the increase of the

resistance of a ship in rough seas (2nd
report), Journal of SNAJ, Vol. 108.
Aertsen G., 1969, Service Performance and
Trials at Sea, Report of Performance
Committee 12th ITTC, Rome.
Fujii, H., Takahashi, T., 1975, Experimental
study on the resistance increase of a large
full ship in regular oblique waves, Journal
of SNAJ, Vol. 137.
J. Journe, J. Meijers, 1980, Ship Routeing
for Optimum Performance, Transactions
IME, Conference on Operation of Ships in
Rough Weather.
Holtrop, J., Mennen, G.G.J., 1982, An
Approximate Power Prediction Method,
International Shipbuilding
Progress,Vol.29,pp.166-170.
Ronen D., 1982, The Effect of Oil Price on
the Optimal Speed of Ships, Journal of the
Operational Research Society 33, 1035-1040.
H.K. Lo, M.R. McCord, C.K. Wall, 1992,
Value of Ocean Current Information for
Strategic Routing, European Journal of
Operational Research 55, 124-135.
Blendermann, W., 1996, Wind Loading on
Ships, Institut fr Schiffbau der Universitt
Hamburg, Report 574.
ISO 15016, 2002, Ships and marine
technology Guidelines for the assessment
of speed and power performance by analysis
of speed trial data.
ITTC Recommended Procedures and
Guidelines, 2005, Full Scale Measurements,
Speed and Power Trials. Analysis of
Speed/Power Trial Data, Report No 7.5-0401-01.2.
MARIN, 2005, Sea Trial Analysis Joint
Industry Project, Correction Method for
Waves, Report No 18200-3-TM.
MARIN, 2006, Sea Trial Analysis Joint
Industry Project, Recommended Practice for
Speed Trials, Report No 18200-2-TM.
MEPC 58th Session, 2008, Technical
Information for the Simulation of Ship
Performance to Obtain the Coefficient fw
in the New Ship Design CO2 Index,
Submitted by Japan, MEPC 58/4/28.
Tsujimoto K. et al, 2008, A practical
Correction Method for Added Resistance in
Waves , Journal of SNAJ, Vol. 8.
Psaraftis H. N., Kontovas C. A., Kakalis M. P.,
2009, Speed Reduction as an Emissions
reduction Measure for fast Ships, 10th
International Conference on Fast Sea
Transportation FAST 2009, Athens.
Kontovas C. A., Psaraftis H. N., 2009, An
Online Ship Emissions calculator as a
Decision-making Aid and Policy Evaluation
Tool, 13th IMAM Congress, Turkey.

10