Design and Operation of Tankers, 8 -9 June 2011, Athens, Greece

Presentation Back to Contents

SHIP DESIGN FOR MINIMAL FUEL CONSUMPTION IN EVERYDAY USE
G.P.J.J. Hagesteijn and P.M. Hooijmans, MAritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN), Netherlands

SUMMARY

Ships are in general designed to first meet their contract speed, which is most times their trial speed. The ship design
efforts are dominated by the focus to attain this trial speed. The resulting hull lines design philosophy will most likely
not result into the most fuel efficient design in service conditions. Increasing fuel costs and low freight rates, drive the
need to design ships for their service conditions. Its operational draughts and added resistance due to waves that should
be the key drivers for a successful modern ship design. The last years MARIN has tested and expanded its tools and
capacities to support hull form design for minimal fuel consumption in everyday use, minimizing SOx and NOx
emissions. Tools such as viscous flow calculations in an explorer mode, calculating numerous hull form variations
overnight in order to maximize the performance of the vessel, and voyage simulations to determine true service margins
are essential when designing a ship.

developments towards the real ?core of shipping

1. INTRODUCTION
When the first sketch of a new vessel is being made, the
running costs are being defined as well, and with every
additional line that is drawn, they are getting more and
more fixed. The best way to do this is to design the
vessel for the job it is supposed to do in operational
circumstances. In this way the overall running costs will
be as low as possible and the ship will not only be highly
efficient on an ideal trial condition which seldom
occurs in everyday practice.
The definition of the operational circumstances for a ship
requires a thorough understanding of the ships business
targets and related values, and an adequate description of
day-to-day operations, which are qualities of ship
owners, ship managers and traders. The ability to
quantify the relevant aspects of ship behaviour in all of
the hydrodynamic related circumstances is a quality of
the ship designer.
Fuel efficiency and reduction of CO2 emissions are
expected to have a strong influence on the design and
operation of merchant ships in the near future. With the
expected arrival of the Energy Efficiency Design Index
(EEDI) in 2013, the focus will be, more than ever, at
achieving maximum fuel economy in the hydrodynamic
design of hull forms, their appendages and propellers.
Fuel saving strategies such as slow steaming (by design)
and in-service performance optimisation, but also the
possible refitting of energy saving devices to the existing
merchant fleet will be of great interest to operators.
For long, lack of numerical tools to address the relevant
aspects of ship behaviour in all relevant circumstances
proved major obstacles in a quantitative design for
service. This is probably one of the reasons why
operational aspects find limited recognition in new
building specifications and in design optimisations, as
they were hard to put some numbers on. This situation is
changing now; the growing understanding of many
aspects of ship behaviour, the advantage of robust
numerical tools reflecting this insight and the advantage
of powerful tools to obtain a detailed picture of the
operational performance is moving the focus of the
business.
Fuel costs, on-board revenues related to crew comfort,
reliability and an incident free operation are important
aspects of ship operation. The impact of calm water
resistance, which determines a major part of the fuel bill,
scheduling problems (like weather induced delays and
late departures) and the added resistance from wind and
waves are quite accessible nowadays. In particular the
calm-water component of the resistance, including the
effects of non-optimum trim and draught, can be
predicted sufficiently well to account for them in an
optimisation for in-service performance. Aspects of
seakeeping like crew mobility and seasickness and (to
some extent) lashing problems are fairly accessible with
numerical tools, including the performance and drag of
roll stabilisation.
Practical design aspects that are much harder to quantify
are the effects of bow flare and stern slamming in waves
from forward directions and the risk of excessive
behaviour in waves from the stern-quarter. These aspects
materialize in the performance in two ways, first through
crew comfort, lashing problems and involuntary speed
loss and secondly through the delays that are generated
by risk avoiding measures of the master, such as
reducing power or changing course. Voyage scenario
simulations find rapidly increasing application in the
design of ships.

2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

 Design and Operation of Tankers, 8 -9 June 2011, Athens, Greece

2. HULL LINES DEVELOPMENT FOR alternatives could be used to assess the operating costs
CALM WATER OPERATIONAL and earning power against the new building price.
CONDITIONS
2.2 H
ULL LINES OPTIMIZATION
2.1 SELECTION OF MAIN PARTICULARS
Once the main dimensions have been set, the design and
The interest to understand the relation between a hull optimisation process starts, using powerful numerical
form and fuel consumption is a classic topic in ship flow simulation tools such as MARINs RAPID potential
design [7]. Before drawing the first lines of a new vessel, flow code. For instance the RAPID Explorer tool for
its initial main particulars are to be defined. In these defining and analysing systematic variations of hull
preliminary design studies a well known practical tool is forms. Employing the RAPID Explorer Deformation Box
MARINs Holtrop-Mennen method for the empirical Tool, the shape of the bulbous bow can for example be
speed-power predictions. In the next example this altered in three dimensions and a matrix of 125 bulbous
method is used for a large tanker with an initial design bow variants can be created. Next for each variant the
speed of 16 knots. The design study is started with an wave pattern and pressure distribution over the hull is
exploration of the influence of only a few main automatically calculated by RAPID.
parameters such as length, beam, and block coefficient. In the last decade, most hull forms have been designed
The next variants have been explored: with the aid of CFD tools, which in most cases were
potential flow codes. This has resulted that nowadays
ID Lpp B T V Cb hull forms have a significant lower fuel consumption for
[m] [m] [m] [m3] [-] their design condition. The use of CFD tools has lead to
A 287 45.0 18.2 201840 0.86 the exploration of out of the box designs which
B 297 45.0 18.2 201840 0.83 sometimes have shown remarkable results. One example
C 287 45.0 18.2 195042 0.83 of hull form optimisation for a VLCC to demonstrate the
D 297 45.0 18.2 208875 0.86 capabilities of CFD in the classic design approach will be
E 287 48.0 18.2 208875 0.83 discussed briefly. The main particulars of the ship are
F 287 48.0 18.2 201840 0.86 given in Table 2.
Table 1: Overview of hull variants
Length between 320.000 m
The effect of increasing the length has been investigated, perpendiculars
the effect of increasing displacement as well as an
increase of beam. Figure 1 shows the power predictions Breadth moulded 60.00 m
for the different variants as a function of speed. Design draught moulded 20.50/20.50 m
103
Displacement volume 322151.5 m3
moulded
102

101
Table 2: Main particulars of the ship
100

99
Shaft power[%]

A
B
98
C
D
97
E
F
96

95

94

93
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Shipspeed[knots]

Figure 1: Effect of change in parameter on shaft power

Based on these speed power predictions, it can be seen
that at low speeds the longer vessel (D) requires 1 per
cent more power than the original vessel (A), but that
variant D has about 3.5 per cent more displacement thus
can take more cargo. On the other hand, variant C shows
that with a reduction of 3.5 per cent in displacement a
power reduction of 6 per cent can be reached. An
increase of the beam while keeping the displacement,
variant E, shows a 4.5 per cent power reduction, while
variant F shows a similar performance as variant A while
having a 3.5% more displacement. The above design

2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Design and Operation of Tankers, 8 -9 June 2011, Athens, Greece
For a conventional hull lines plan, a CFD calculation,
using MARINs potential flow code was carried out for
the design condition, being a design draught of 20.5m
and design speed of 16.5 knots. The results of these
calculations are shown in left side of figure 2.
Figure 2: CFD results for a VLCC
Next the hull form was optimised for the same condition
and with some drastic modifications in the bow shape of
the vessel, the performance improved as can be seen on
the right side of figure 2. The under water part of the bow
was stretched and attention was paid to the reduction of
the fore shoulder volume. For both hull forms model
tests were carried out and the propulsion tests learned
that the modified hull form reached a speed of 16.6
knots for the design condition, while the original hull
form reached a speed of 16.4 knots. However the
propulsion test results of the ballast condition, which is
commonly a 50% loading condition, showed that the
modified hull form reached an 0.2 knots lower operation
speed, 17.7 instead of 17.9 knots. The improvement in
performance of this modified hull form can seriously be
questioned for operational conditions when the ballast
loading condition is taken into account. This kind of
results underline the need to design the hull form for
different operational conditions, being different draughts
but also different speeds.
2.3 RESISTANCE COMPONENTS
The major components of the resistance of a ship are for
more than 95 per cent of hydrodynamic origin. Of these
components the designer can minimize the wave
resistance and the pressure resistance of viscous origin.
The influence on the other components for given
dimensions is zero or extremely small. In order to
optimise a hull form, the fundamental knowledge of the
different resistance components and their typical
2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
distribution?? for the subject tanker should be known in
order to undertake a successful optimisation course. In
figure 3 the typical distribution of the different resistance
components for an Afra-Max tanker with a design speed
of 15 knots is shown.
Distributionofdifferentresistancecomponents
100
90
80
70
AIR
60
TRANSOM
50 BULB
40 WAVE
30 APPENDAGES
20 1+K1
10 FRICTION
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Vs[knots]
Figure 3: Distribution of resistance components for a
tanker
Frictional resistance is with 60 to 70 per cent
contribution the dominating factor in the total resistance
of the vessel. Hence drag reduction will have large
effects on this type of vessels. The form factor (K1), bulb
and transom resistance are resistance components that are
primary of viscous nature, accounting for about 25 per
cent of the total resistance at the design speed of 15
knots. As can be seen, the wave making resistance is
limited, assuming a well optimised hull form. This wave
making resistance can easily be optimised using potential
flow codes. The viscous resistance however, is of a more
complex nature and needs special attention.
2.4 USE OF VISCOUS FLOW CODES FOR
HULL FORM OPTIMIZATION
The last few years have seen a rapid growth of practical
applications of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD).
At MARIN, the application of CFD on issues of hull
form optimisation from the viewpoint of powering
performance and the determination of propeller wake
flows have become daily activities. By RANS
calculations the viscous flow around the hull and the
scale effects on the wake flow can be computed. These
codes are nowadays applied routinely in practical ship
design, thus providing valuable information of the
viscous flow around the ship hull, with and without the
presence of an operating propeller [6]. Analysing these
results provides possibilities to improve the hull form
design, provided that an understanding of the basic flow
physics and their relation to the hull form is available [8].
An interesting application of CFD lies in propulsor-hull
interaction and the calculation of the performance of
 Design and Operation of Tankers, 8 -9 June 2011, Athens, Greece
energy saving devices. By using model experiments the
results of the CFD calculations have been validated and
improved and the calculated results have been confirmed
experimentally.
However, issues as numerical accuracy, computation
times and parameter definition of the hull form delay the
widespread introduction of fully automatic optimisation
in ship design. Reasons for these are:
Variations of the hull form need to be defined by
parameters. Various parametric descriptions have
been applied, but often they provide very limited
freedom, give basic or unrealistic hull form
changes, require many parameters to allow a
relevant change, and have no clear relation with
physical effects.
Most RANS codes require large computation times,
which makes optimisation, with hundreds or
thousands of calculations, impractically time-
consuming.
A very large numerical accuracy of the evaluation
of the object functions (e.g. resistance) is required,
as otherwise the predicted trends are polluted or
spoiled by numerical errors.
In the European project VIRTUE, an EC-funded project
under the 6th Framework program, procedures for multi-
objective optimisation of ship hulls were developed by
various participants. A first application of these
procedures was done using a common initial hull form
design, with object functions as the ship resistance and
wake field quality at model scale.
Since the combination of resistance and the quality of the
wake are directly related to the required power to sail a
given speed, it becomes clear that final evaluation can
only be done when a propeller model is being taken into
account, in order to evaluate the thrust deduction.
To overcome these drawbacks, van der Ploeg and
Raven proposed the use of alternative object functions.
One of these is an estimate of the power delivered to the
propulsor, and to perform optimisations directly at full
scale, to avoid inaccuracy due to scale effects.
At MARIN, the best experiences are achieved using an
optimisation strategy that simply uses systematic
variations of interpolation and extrapolations of a limited
number of parent hull forms. . The advantages of such a
strategy are among others that the computations for each
variant are independent of each other, which makes the
process more robust: the process does not stop if for
some reason a RANS computation of one of the variants
fails. In addition, it allows distributing the computation
over several processors. Another advantage is that
systematic variations provide a clear view of the physical
trends, and thus of possibilities for further improvements.
Figure 4: Systematic variation of hull forms
On the other hand, systematic variations are only feasible
when a limited number of hull form characteristics is
varied simultaneously, since otherwise analysing the
results will at a certain point overtake the calculation
time. This makes it essential to use hull form variation
techniques which are defined by few, physically relevant,
and ship-specific parameters. The relevance of these
parameters is improved if existing design experience can
be built in, resulting into a improvement of the
effectiveness of the optimisation process.
2.5 EVALUATION OF THE PROPELLER
PERFORMANCE
For the calculation of the propeller influence within the
viscous flow, calculations by means of our
PARNASSOS code are combined with a calculation
using a CFD code developed for propellers (PROCAL).
This requires the coupling of a RANS solver and an
unsteady boundary element method [9]. First a RANS
computation is made for the case without propeller. This
provides the resistance and the nominal wake field at the
propeller plane. Then, a first propeller computation is
made using the PROCAL code, for the propeller acting
in this wake field at an estimated rotation rate. This
provides a thrust and loading distribution.
Next the viscous-flow computation is restarted from the
previous solution and the loading distribution is imposed
as a force field acting on the flow, after adjusting it such
that the total thrust balances the resistance force acting
on the hull. This yields a new total wake field, from
which the induced velocities coming from PROCAL are
subtracted to obtain the first estimate of the effective
wake field. From the imbalance between the previous
computed propeller thrust and the last resistance force on
the hull, a correction is deduced on the rotation rate using
the calculated open-water diagram for the propeller.
Then the next PROCAL computation is performed, for
the propeller in the effective wake at this new estimated
rotation rate. Iterations between both methods are
performed until the longitudinal forces balance and the
rotation rate and loading distribution do not change any
2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Design and Operation of Tankers, 8 -9 June 2011, Athens, Greece
more. Finally the matched solution for the self-
propulsion point is obtained.
2.6 PROPULSION HYDRODYNAMICS
The flow through the propeller for a given propeller is
dictated by the power transmitted absorbed? by the
propeller, the diameter and the rate of revolutions of the
propeller. The propeller behind the hull accelerates a
part of the flow over the stern of the ship in order to to
produce thrust. This acceleration changes the pressure
distribution over the stern, which is responsible for an
increase in resistance, the boundary layer thickness and
the velocity distribution in the boundary layer.
The propulsive power of a ship delivered to the
propulsor, PD, is commonly seen as the product of the
resistance R and the speed V, divided by the propulsive
efficiency, D:
RV RV (1 w )
PD = = model test technique, its accuracy and the applicability of
D O (1 t ) R the extrapolation methods for scaling the test results.
The propulsive efficiency, D, is subdivided into the
propeller efficiency in open water, O, the hull efficiency
H (1-t)/(1-w), which is actually an interaction
coefficient, and the relative rotative efficiency R of the
propeller when operating behind the ship.
As neither the propeller can be designed in a way that it
is just working in the part of the flow decelerated by the
friction nor this flow field is uniformly affected, the hull
efficiency H should be understood as the partly
recovered energy lost in the friction of the boundary
layer of the ship. This should, therefore, not mislead
designers to tune up the hull efficiency, as mostly the
penalty on resistance of a ship having a high hull
efficiency counts more than the benefits of high hull
efficiency itself.
The propulsive efficiency can be maximized when the
propulsor is designed in such a way that it captures as
much hull wake (w), as possible, while keeping the thrust
deduction fraction (t) low. In the wake fraction (w)
effects of any pre-rotation are present in a hidden way.
The hull is to be designed such that the wake is
concentrated in the area of the propeller disc. Since non-
uniformity of the wake causes increased angles of attack
of the propeller blades, which can cause higher excitation
levels, this propeller-induced vibration and noise will at
a certain moment limit the potential power savings.
The propeller efficiency, which is the product of the
open-water efficiency and the relative-rotative efficiency,
is to be maximized by choosing the maximum applicable
diameter. This diameter is preferably corresponding to
the optimum for the lowest rotative speed offered or a
smaller than optimum one for an even lower rotative
speed.
2.7 HISTORIC OVERVIEW OF FUEL SAVING
DEVICES
In addition to an optimised hull shape and propeller,
Energy Saving Devices (ESDs), can improve the
2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
performance of a ship. The ESDs can be subdivided into
three categories:
1. Features that improve the flow around the hull,
2. Devices that improve the propeller inflow,
3. Special features in and around propellers.
Their action is to be judged by comparing the claimed
improvement (or the anticipated gains) to an assessment
of the involved energy losses.. Practically only the
overall powering performance of a ship with and without
ESD are tested. This reveals the possible gains in
efficiency by the application of an ESD, however
provides no insight in the constraints for a successful
application of the ESD at full scale, since the flow details
of ship, propeller and ESD have to be taken into account.
Energy saving in ship propulsion has been a major target
of most model test institutions. Correlation by full scale
measurements roughly confirmed the validity of the
Unfortunately, the uncertainty of the full-scale
verification appeared to be a weak link in the
development of special devices. Nevertheless, the
method of design by experience and the model test
procedure to validate the energy saving devices proved to
be successful over the years. Sharply rising prices of
marine fuel in the 1970s have stimulated the quest for
fuel saving devices and this has resulted in all kinds of
novel features, although most novelties were not more
than further developments of earlier findings. Driven by
commercial interests, claims for gaining propulsive
power were published which often reflected rather the
desired maximum achievable gain instead of the realistic
potential of the specific device. Some of these devices
that date from an earlier period, such as e.g. bulbous
bows and ducted propellers, had already become
standard features of those ships where they could
successfully be applied without any doubt about their
achievable reduction in power. There remains, however,
a grey area where fuel gains by special features are
small and extremely difficult to assess not only by full-
scale measurements but also in model test programmes.
The inaccuracy of full-scale testing, or rather the
circumstances not being well under control, together with
the disconcertingly great natural variation between the
performance of sister ships and the presence of severe
viscous scale effects in model experiments on some types
of special devices give the uncertainty of establishing
proper gain figures.
2.7 (a) Review of ESDs
Reviews of energy saving devices have been compiled
by various authors in the past, of which important parts
were incorporated in text books as in PNA compiled by
SNAME [2] and that of Carlton [1]. A very early paper
in this respect is that of Van Lammeren [3] who designed
and investigated the forerunners of nozzles ahead of
propellers as described. Also the work and reports of the
 Design and Operation of Tankers, 8 -9 June 2011, Athens, Greece

International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC) [4] design for calm water and the seakeeping assessment is
dedicated to the hydrodynamics of unconventional simply an evaluation of the magnitude of this added
propulsors and their treatment and scaling in model resistance. Only when the operability or safety of the
experiments that suffer from scale effects are worth to vessel is jeopardized, the seakeeping behaviour of a ship
be revalidated. leads to a modification of the ship design.
In the following we will discuss the most important
Table 3, not complete, reviews early indicated efficiency operational issues for tankers.
improvements over a conventional single propeller. Nos.
1-17 have been taken from Muntjewerf [5] 3.1 INVOLUNTARY SPEED LOSS AND
PROPULSIVE EFFICIENCY IN WIND AND
WAVES
No. Energy saving device Savings in
required The involuntary speed loss and related increase in fuel
power in % consumption due to added resistance are economic
1 Low RPM-large diameter 5-18 issues.
2 Skew or stern tunnel 1-5 The balance of the available and required thrust governs
the involuntary speed loss. The first is determined by the
3 Propeller retrofit 2-10
engine and propeller characteristics. The second is the
4 Propeller with vane wheel 9-12 thrust required to overcome the sum of the resistance in
5 Tip-vortex Free propellers 11-18 calm water, the added resistance in waves and the wind
6 Reaction fin (ducted pre-swirl 4-8 drag.
stator) Regarding the available thrust a well accepted
7 Additional thrusting fins 2-5 assumption is that it is governed largely by the calm-
water characteristics of the propeller [10] and the
8 Asymmetric gondola 5-10 reduction in thrust deduction at decreasing speed due to
9 Asymmetric aft body 5-8 the higher propeller loading. Off course as long as
10 Ducted propeller 5-12 propeller ventilation does not become an issue and the
11 Duct ahead of propeller 2-10 engine torque is not the limiting factor, which is often the
case for tankers.
12 Overlapping twin screws 5-16 Linear theory explains part of the added resistance in
13 Overlapping twin screws of 10-21 waves. Additional elements are related to the motion
low RPM induced changes in the steady bow wave system as a
14 Contra-rotating propellers 4-7 result of changes in bow (bulb) submergence and the
15 Contra-rotating propellers of 11-14 immersion of the blunt upper part of the bow and the
low RPM drift angle from the wave induced transverse force and
16 Flap-type propulsors 5-15 yaw moment in oblique waves. Partly because of the last
17 Polymer-ejection 3-7 two elements, the theoretical predictions are often quite
poor.
18 Tip rake and Kappel 1-6 The propeller blades experience variations in the angle of
propellers attack due to the incident and reflected wave, the ship
19 Rudder bulb, Costa bulbs 2-3 motions and related wave component as well as due to
20 Propeller hub cap fins 2-4 low-frequency variations in speed due to variations in the
21 Ring propellers/Schnitger <0 added resistance. The ability of the engine to absorb the
propellers resulting torque (variations) and the effects of ventilation
22 Air lubrication 5-15 depends on the details of the engine arrangement.
Table 3: Overview of Energy Saving Devices 3.2 VOLUNTARY SPEED LOSS DUE TO
It can be seen that the indicated figures cover a fairly EXCEEDING OF OTHER OPERATIONAL
wide range. It is certainly not clear beforehand if a CRITERIA
typical application will indeed give the promised result.
Neither have the parameters been given that determine Beside the added resistance there are many other issues
the degree of success of the specific feature. that lead to voluntary speed loss. The main issues are:
Crew performance and comfort
3. ADDED RESISTANCE Green water damage
Global structural damage
While the calm water performance is handled with in a Fatigue, damping, springing
relative reliable way in the hull form design, the Plastic deformation of shell plating
inclusion of added resistance would be the next step to Steering problems and broaching
optimise the ship for its service conditions. Traditionally
the added resistance of a ship is a result of the hull form

2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Design and Operation of Tankers, 8 -9 June 2011, Athens, Greece
The occurrence and the effect on down-time can, for
some of these aspects, be explored with voyage scenario
simulations
4. IMPACT OF SEAKEEPING ON FUEL
ECONOMY
4.1 GENERAL
Because the propulsive efficiency changes with propeller
loading and because the available power is mostly
insufficient to compensate the added resistance from
wind and waves, the impact of seakeeping on the
economy materializes in two dimensions: the sustained
speed and related trip duration and the fuel consumption.
4.2 DIESEL DIRECT
Because diesel engines behave to some extent as
constant torque devices directly driven fixed-pitch
propeller systems are generally not capable of
Constant
maintaining full power in the overload situation that
occurs if the ship is slowed down by an additional
resistance [11]. Since no additional torque can be
Resistance
delivered the rpm reduces until equilibrium in torque is
obtained. In first instance the reduction in rpm decreases
the power along the constant mean pressure line in figure
5.
Constant
Mean Pressure
100% Maximum Continuous
Rating
Complete Design Rating
Combustion
Power Maxium acceptable
rpm for continuous
operation
rpm
100%
Figure 5: Typical Power - RPM relation
This decreases and fuel consumption per unit of time and
increases the involuntary speed loss. Off course the
abovementioned changes in propeller and hull efficiency
play a role as well.
With increasing added resistance the rpm drops to a level
where the turbo charger is not capable of delivering a
sufficient volume of air for complete combustion. In this
case the reducing fuel injection brings the available
power further down with dramatic consequences for the
sustained speed or even the ability to maintain position.
The last scenario is typical for low powered ships and a
serious point to be considered when designing a ship for
slow steaming. In the case of a diesel direct drive the
fuel consumption is determined by the trip duration and
absorbed power, albeit that the trip duration is higher and
the absorbed power in bad weather is lower than in the
case with constant power. Furthermore, the use of an
2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
engine off its design point usually results into a relative
high specific fuel consumption.
4.3 MAGNITUDE OF THE SPEED LOSS
Figure 6 shows the nature of the balance between the
available and required thrust. The angle between the
thrust requirements in calm water and the available thrust
is a direct measure for the speed loss in lower waves. The
larger this angle, the smaller the speed loss.
Note that the angle is affected to some extent by the
propulsion system. However, most of this characteristic
is determined by the steepness of the curve with the
required calm water thrust. This quantity depends
strongly on the hull form and the design speed.
A ship with relatively low power (like a tanker) will
suffer more speed loss than a high-powered ship that is
driven way up in the steep part of the curve.
Effective
Thrust
TE [kN] Constant Power
Power D=1
D<1
Added
Constant
Torque
D<1 Calm Water
Resistance
Constant
Eff.Thrust
D=1
Speedloss
Speed [knots]
Figure 6: Typical speed loss due to added resistance
4.4 DEVIATIONS FROM THE SHORTEST
ROUTE
In cases where the seakeeping of the ship becomes
unacceptable, for instance when there is the risk of
damage due to green water on the foredeck or excessive
slamming induced vibrations, engine problems due to
incomplete combustion or propeller racing, excessive
rolling or course keeping problems, the master will
reduce speed and/or change course. In many instances
and in particular if the weather forecast is very bad, the
master will be reluctant to accept the inevitable risks
associated with sailing in bad weather. In these cases he
will take proactive measures by deviating from the
shortest route. This will increase the sailing time and
consequently, the total fuel consumption.
 Design and Operation of Tankers, 8 -9 June 2011, Athens, Greece
5. ADDED RESISTANCE IN THE DESIGN
STAGE
Because the available numerical tools are hardly
adequate to quantify the seakeeping issues as discussed, a
detailed optimisation of the design, looking for a balance
between construction costs and operational revenues, is
still out of reach. In particular the problem of quantifying
slamming and green seas induced flexural vibrations is a
major handicap.
The interaction of the ship motions and the incident
waves underlies numerical methods to predict added
resistance in waves. It yields a peak in the added
resistance in conditions with relatively high pitch
response. Effects that are commonly neglected are the
drift angle due to the transverse drift forces in oblique
waves and the changes in the steady bow wave system
due to non-optimum bulb submergence or the immersion
of relatively blunt parts of the bow. The drift angle may
contribute to the fact that the added resistance in head
waves is usually lower than in waves from oblique
directions. In fact, very similar to the character of the
pitch response and the flexural response, the added
resistance remains relatively high over the entire range of
forward directions. In practice numerical methods to
estimate the added resistance in waves are notoriously
unreliable. Latest developments in the field of estimating
the added resistance seem to improve the accuracy, but
only to some extent. The relatively small quantities of the
waves added resistance are rather sensitive to details in
the schematisations that are used. The added resistance
from the wind is usually calculated from the relative
longitudinal wind velocity and the drag coefficient at the
relative wind direction. As in the case of the waves, the
effects of a steady drift angle due to the transverse wind
force component are usually rightfullyneglected for
tankers.
5.1 VOYAGE SIMULATION IN THE DESIGN
STAGE
Detailed wind and wave climatologys that are nowadays
available from hindcasts provide a basis for a detailed
simulation of ship behaviour, the masters reaction on
circumstances and sustained speed. These scenario
simulations account for the coherence of wind and
waves, the persistence of their severity and direction and
the masters reaction on past, actual and forecasted
weather and ship behaviour.
Scenario simulations find rapidly increasing application
in design. Performance assessments, which aim to
investigate the trade off between speed (reliability) and
crew comfort, the relation between service margin and
reliability on particular routes and the fuel consumption
and scheme-reliability of a tanker.
Present developments in the simulation tools are
incorporating more detail in fuel consumption models by
including a more complete representation of the engine
and propeller characteristics in off-design (over-load)
situations, apart from the effect of additional sailing time
due to tidal and global current.
Of course, the entire operational profile should be
reviewed including weather conditions on the relevant
routes and a balance should be made to optimise the
vessel for the operational profile by means of voyage
simulations.
6. CONCLUSIONS
An important factor in the design of tankers is the shape
of the bow for operational conditions. Important fuel
savings can be obtained by reducing the shoulder volume
and stretching the under water part of the bow. The
above assumes optimum performance in calm water
which requires an efficient stern and propulsion
arrangement. Perhaps the most important
recommendations in this respect are to optimise the aft
body from a point of view of propeller-hull efficiency in
an optimum wake field by performing systematic hull
variations using viscous flow calculations. If the
available knowledge and tools are used, the potential
benefits in this area may be larger than those that can be
achieved in the bow area which has been explored
already more extensive in the past with the longer
available potential flow codes. A good bulb design, with
a good compromise between the ballast and full load
flow, completes the design.
Added resistance in waves can be brought to a minimal
level in the design stage using numerical tools. The
evaluation of the operational performance can be done
with voyage scenario simulations in order to adjust the
design of the tanker for minimum fuel consumption.
A good tanker design with minimum fuel consumption
and carbon footprint takes into account the operational
profile, crew safety and comfort and structural strength.
7. REFERENCES
References should be numbered in the text where they
occur, with the number in square brackets [1] and a
complete list given at the end of the paper.
1. CARLTON, J.S., BUTTERWORTH AND
HEINEMANN, Marine Propellers and
Propulsion", London ,1994
2. VARIOUS AUTHORS, Principles of Naval
Architecture, SNAME, Volume II, 1988
3. LAMMEREN, W.P.A.VAN, Enkele Constructies
ter Verbetering van het Rendement van de
Voortstuwing, (Some Constructions for the
improvement of the Efficiency of the Propulsion),
Schip en Werf, No. 7. , 1949
4. 22nd ITTC, Report of the Specialist Committee on
Unconventional Propulsors, Seoul and Shanghai,
1996
2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Design and Operation of Tankers, 8 -9 June 2011, Athens, Greece

5. MUNTJEWERF, J.J., Fuel saving Propellers and

Devices at Large, Introductory remarks of the

Brain-Wave Session of the 6th Lips Symposium,

1986

6. PLOEG, A. V.D. & RAVEN, H, CFD-Based

Optimization for Minimal Power and Wake Field

Quality, 11th International Symposium on

Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating

Structures, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil, 2010

7. HOOIJMANS, P.M., HOLTROP, J.WINDT, J.,

BOSSCHERS, J., ZONDERVAN, G. Refitting to

Save Fuel and New Approaches in the Design of

Newbuildings, 11th International Symposium on

Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating

Structures, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil, 2010

8. RAVEN AND LARSON, Principles of Naval

Architecture, 2010

9. BRAM STARKE, AUKE VAN DER PLOEG,

Hoyte Raven Viscous free surface flow

computations for self-propulsion conditions using

PARNASSOS, 2010 CFD workshop in

Gothenburg

10. SLUIJS, M.F.VAN, Performance and propeller

load fluctuations of a ship in waves, TNO Report

1963S, 1972

11. MAN design guide, Basic Principles of Ship

Propulsion

8. AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY

Gerco Hagesteijn holds the current position of project

manager at the merchant vessels and workboats division

within the ships department at MARIN. He is responsible

of projects dealing with the calm water performance and

in particular for merchant vessels, workboats and

dredgers. His previous experience is in the field of hull

form optimisation and numerous projects have been

taken care of. Furthermore, he is actively involved in

POD and propeller-ice research in the CRS, and

ventilation research in the EU STREAMLINE project.

Patrick Hooijmans holds the current position of senior

project manager at the ships department at MARIN. He

is the merchant vessels and workboats division

coordinator and is also responsible for projects dealing

with the calm water performance, seakeeping behaviour

and manoeuvring characteristics of merchant vessels and

workboats. His experience includes the hull form

optimisation and model testing of numerous tankers in

recent years.

Presentation Back to Contents

2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects