ENERGY SAVING IN SHIPS

Markku Kanerva
Deltamarin Ltd
Meriliikenne ja Ympäristö
8.-9.12.2005 Hanasaari, Espoo
 ENERGY SAVING IN SHIPS

Fuel & energy consumption can be divided in three main

categories:
z HYDRODYNAMICS AND PROPULSION

z ENERGY PRODUCTION

z SHIP SYSTEMS

This presentation concentrates mainly on hydrodynamics

and propulsion.
Other areas will be covered briefly.
ENERGY SAVING – KEY WORDS
The following principles should be followed:
z Clarification of state of the art.
z Set objectives for required propulsion power and energy
consumption.
z Use organisations with known, good references.
z Ask for third party reviews.
z Utilise references and modern tools.
z Avoid sub-optimisation.
z Study alternative solutions.

OPTIMISE BUT REMEMBER: OPTIMUM IS NOT YET

REACHED!
 IMPROVED PERFORMANCE -
HYDRODYNAMICS
Typical rate for improvements 5% per 5 years.
However, sometimes quantum leaps are taken, 10-15%.
How is this possible?
z Growing interest in hull form development.
z Extended model test series, not just trial speed.
z Use of CFD, potential and most recently viscous (RANSE code).
z Better understanding of actual flow and wave making.
z Better specifications.

POTENTIAL SAVINGS
ENERGY SAVING - FERRIES
Fast full displacement ferries
z Mega Express 1, delivered 2000
LWL 160 m
B 24.8 m
T 6.25 m
Displacement 14,910 m3
27 knots with 28,300 kW
z Ferry delivered in 1996
LWL 165,2 m
B 24 m
T 6.25 m
Displacement 14,860 m3
27 knots with 32,000 kW

DIFFERENCE OF 13%
ENERGY SAVING – CRUISE SHIPS

Speed-power curves of two cruise ships

1. Panamax cruise ship designed 7 years ago, 81,000 grt.
2. Postpanamax cruise ship of today, 118,000 grt.
13,800 tons of additional displacement but same performance.
ENERGY SAVING – STATE OF THE ART

Easily comparable coefficients, first check

Such as Power Coefficient, Admiralty Coefficient,
Heickel Coefficient
∇ 1/ 3
K =( ) xVs
PB

∇ displacement in m3
PB engine power in kW
Vs ship trail speed in m/s
ENERGY SAVING – STATE OF THE ART

’Mega Express’ is the third curve from the right.

ENERGY SAVING – STATE OF THE ART

Froude number Vs
Fn =
gL

g = 9.81 m/s2
L = waterline length

Curves on left for conventional ferries, speed 20-22 knots.

Curves on right for fast full displacement ferries, speed 25-
30 knots.
 ENERGY SAVING – MAIN
CHARACTERISTICS
Example – Ferries

Fast full displacement ferries, Fn above 0.30

z Length over beam not less than 6.
z Block coefficient 0.57-0.63.
z Midship section coefficient 0.950-0.99, the shorter the
vessel, the lower the figure.
z Longitudinal centre of buoyancy, LCB, between –2.6% to
–3.6% of Lpp aft of midships.
Froude number pushed towards Fn 0.40.
 ENERGY SAVING – HULL FORM

Possible features and characteristics to improve

performance of newbuildings and existing ships in all
prevailing service conditions.
z Trial speed
z Service speed in moderate and high seas
z Shallow water
z Operatational modes
 MAIN FEATURES
z Ducktail; typical potential 5…10%
z Interceptor configuration/trim wedge; typical potential 5…10%
z Ducktail & interceptor configuration/trim wedge together; typical outcome
10…15%
z Bulb & stem modification, so-called surface piercing bulb with soft stem;
typical gain 3…7%
z Stabilizer fin box modification; typical potential 3…10%
z Rudder head-box & rudder design modification; typical gain 2…5% plus
improved manoeuvrability & course stability (better course stability means
smaller fuel consumption)
z Shaft line modifications (long water lubricated shaft & modern brackets);
typical gain 2…4% plus reduced vibrations
z New propeller blades; typical gain 1…3% plus reduced noise & vibrations
Above modifications may have an interaction and combined improvement may
not be sum of above figures.
 Added Ducktail, Saving 8.5%
Original aft body (Costa Classica) Modified aft body

5m

No interceptor
 ADDED DUCKTAIL, SAVING 13%
Original stern (Ferry) modified stern (wedge 4 deg.)
Interceptor Plate with fairing
in Ducktail
 Interceptor Development
Optimisation of interceptor configuration with viscous CFD tool
Fluent prior to model testing
Interceptor Plate with fairing
Interceptor plate’s influence on calm water
performance

10%

7%
Modern Stem and Bulbous Bow

Surface piercing bulbous bow with soft stem.

 Surface Wave Comparison Between
Two Versions of Panamax Size Cruiser
(Calculated with the old program, waves strongly amplified)
Modified Bulb and Stem, Saving 8%
Original Bow (Costa Classica) Modified Bow

~3m

~5m

Combined improvement of Added

Ducktail with Modified Bulb
and Soft Stem 16,5%!
 MODIFIED BULB, SAVING 5%
Original Bow (Ferry, no bow ramp) Modified Bow
 SMALLER FEATURES

z Sea chest modifications; scallops & properly

oriented grids
z Thruster tunnels; scallops & properly oriented grids
z Zinc anodes; removal from high flow speed areas
(like rudders), aligning with local flow direction
z Bilge keels; removal, resizing & better aligning
z All hull openings in general; proper grids & scallops
z Potential saving with all the a/m together is up to
several percentages
Tunnel Thruster Location &
Grid Alignment
Bow Thruster Tunnel Optimisation

Pressure distribution
and turbulence around
thruster tunnels

Shows area for

improvement
Bow thruster tunnels

Alignment of tunnel positions to streamlines

Scallop design

Grid alignment/design

Look for evidence of stagnation pressures

Signs of turbulence generators
FERRY REFERENCE

Bow thrusters & AST, front view

 FERRY REFERENCE

Grid on the foremost tunnel and scallop fairing behind the backmost tunnel
Stabfin recess (including stabfin)
Depth of scallop
Design of stabfin for minimised drag (while not
in-use)
Other stagnation pressures and turbulence
generators
Control of swirling eddy
Most recent study shows drag coefficient
variation of 15% for different designs
FERRY REFERENCE

Fin stabilizer on port side looking aft.

FERRY REFERENCE

Proposed modification for the fin stabilizers

FERRY REFERENCE

Use of fin stabilizers

Sea Chest grills

A single sea-chest opening has a small

contribution to total drag (circ 0.02%) -
but numerous!

Alignment of opening positions

Alignment of opening grillages

Grillage density

Large variations (circa 50%) in drag

coefficient with grill alignments
 Sea Chest Optimisation
Typical, without scallop

Optimised, with scallop

HULL & PROPELLER SURFACE
z Better anti-fouling & better hull surface smoothness;
potential up to 6…7%
z Regular underwater hull cleaning; typical potential
1…3%
z Regular underwater propeller polishing; typical gain
1…2%
z Propeller coating; not tried yet, but very promising
product available today (with guarantees?); potential
2…4%, plus reduced noise & vibrations
z Grinding off the welding seams; potential 3…4%
 RUDDER MODIFICATIONS

z Improved low and high speed manoeuvrability

z Improved, better balanced profile, e.g. NACA 600
profiles
z Improved, non-cavitating performance
z Twisted profile as needed
z End plates, simple, easy to install
z Most efficient combinations depending on required
performance
ROUTE PLANNING & OPERATIONAL
POLICIES
z Route optimisation (scenario simulations & weather
statistics) for current, water depth, waves, wind
direction etc.
z Speed management, minimize the speed variation,
together with route optimisation minimize the required
average speed, minimize the time spent in harbours
etc.
z Better autopilot control (better adaptation for
prevailing conditions); big potential on podded ships
z Better fin stabilizer control & proper instructions (no
idle use)
z Trim optimisation as a function of draft & speed
 Comparison of Different Trims
for a Cruiser
Trim -1m
Trim -0.5m
Even keel
105.00 Trim 0.5m
Trim 1m
104.00
Ct (% of even keel)

103.00
102.00
101.00
100.00
99.00
98.00 T=8.1m
19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5 24
V (kn)
z At speeds higher than 20 knots the trim of 0.5m by stern
seems to be the optimum at that draught
z At all speeds the bow trims should be avoided
Auto-Pilot Optimisation
Container Vessel Auto-Pilot
Optimisation (Part of large project
addressing rudder fatigue for
container vessel)

Average yearly fuel-losses due to

course-deviations and rudder drag
calculated for typical vessel voyage

Full range of auto-pilot settings

considered.

Most efficient auto-pilot settings for

wave direction and sea state
recommended to owner.
 SHALLOW WATER

OPERATION IN SHALLOW WATER

In shallow water the hull resistance and required propulsion
power increases rapidly as the water depth decreases (at
constant speed). Three essential phenomena happen:

z relative water flow under the vessel bottom increases

z vessel sinks and trims more
z aft ship wave pattern is magnified!
 SHALLOW WATER

OPERATION IN SHALLOW WATER

z Shallow water has big increasing influence on propulsion
power.
z At critical speed and water depth any increase of
propulsion power only increases dynamic sinkage, trim
and wave height. No speed increase is gained.
z Hull form and propeller configuration has an influence on
shallow water performance.
 SHALLOW WATER

Model test results of two ferries in deep and shallow water.

HEAVY SEAS PERFORMANCE

z Extreme deck area requirement

z Extreme bow flare
z High wave induced impacts
z High accelerations
z Noise and whipping vibrations
z Involuntary speed loss
z Voluntary speed loss, delays
z Structural damages
 BOW FLARE

Good rule of thumb

Minimum bow flare angle towards waterline

z 50 degrees for unlimited service
z 45 degrees for limited service
z No large flat shapes
z Outwards bent section shape
 Bow flare estimator - BFE

z Simple tool for bow shape design verification.

z BFE = X / Lpp / tan α
z X = distance from midships
z Lpp = perpendicular length
z α = smallest angle at station x against waterplane
Bow flare estimator
 Bow flare - sustained speed

z Two cruise ships compared: Oriana and Victoria.

z Flare angle difference at maximum 4-6 degrees.
z Both vessels sailing from Southampton to Madeira and to
Mediterranean
z Big difference in operability.
Figures 8 & 9
Bow flare - sustained speed
 Bow flare - sustained speed
Cruise liner comparison
in bow quartering seas
Downtime analysis bow flare impacts with 100 kN criterion

Version I Version II
Flare angle (minimum) 38.2º 43.6º
Downtime
20 knots 80 5
16 knots 68 4
12 knots 49 2
8 knots 39 0

Figures of average downtime exceeding the criterion 1/1000 of time.

Difference between the two versions being 94-96%!

Version II practically has no problem with this criterion.

 Bow flare - sustained speed
CRUISE LINER COMPARISON
In bow quartering seas
Downtime analysis
Combined criteria sustained speed and bow flare impacts, criterion 100
kN (noise and vibration)

Version I Bow flare impacts are limiting

=> Voluntary speed loss

Version II Sustained speed is limiting

=> Sea margin can be fully used
 OPERATION

How to combine all above into a simple straight forward

every day use, to take into account:
z Wind

z Current

z Shallow water

z Engine modes

z Trim

z Other possible operational features

Reliable, simple to use system on bridge required helping in

all required calculations on line!
 NAPA POWER

Software for:
1. Planning routes, voyages and schedules
z Voyage planning
z Immediate cost estimate of the plan
z Planning routes and itineraries

2. Optimizing the operation of the ship taking into account weather,

currents, loading condition etc.
z Finds the theoretical optimum operation of the ship in the given
conditions
z Follows the optimal plan using speed pilot interface
z Immediate comparison of the plan with the minimum cost plan
3. Keeping the schedule by speed / ETA pilot
 NAPA POWER includes
Accurate hydrostatics
Accurate calm water resistance
Influence of wind forces and
moments
Influence of added resistance in
waves
Shallow water effects
Influence of drag due to drift and
turning
Calculation of steering forces
Accurate propulsion system model
Main engine specific fuel consumption
envelopes
Office analysis tools
Examples from the ship installations
 6 weeks comparison excluding hotel load, saving 7.3%

(Average Speed 22.6 knots)

Average saving with NAPA Power 7.3% (13.8ton)

210
200
190
Ton(HFO)

180
170
160
150
1 2 3 4 5 6
2004 206,45 195,05 184,85 183,45 180,55 178,75
2005 184,65 182,75 180,25 179,15 160,65 158,95
Weeks
SPONSON-DUCKTAIL MODIFICATIONS FOR
IMPROVED STABILITY AND DEADWEIGHT
z Sponson-ducktail is the most efficient external method
to improve stability of a vessel
z Buoyancy – weight ratio is positive, additional
deadweight can be gained
z Aft ship sponson is very sensitive for proper
hydrodynamic design
z Worst case design can lead to 30% increase in
required propulsion power meaning loss of two (2)
knots in speed
z Good sponson design is a compromise between
stability, deadweight and speed, and takes into account
structural integrity, construction and installation
 SPONSON-DUCKTAIL /
BULBOUS BOW
Typical good design has the following main features:

z Stability improvement in both stability lever and range

z Additional deadweight gained from 150 tons up to 450
tons.
z No reduction in speed, best references with speed
improvement up to 1 knot
z Improved behaviour in rough seas
z Improved performance in shallow water
z Reduced propeller induced noise and vibrations
 ‘PRINSESSE RAGNHILD’
Stockholm Agreement and Solas-90 conversion

Owner:
Color Line AS

Main dimensions:
LPP 181.60 m Passengers 1875
B 26.60 m Trailers 43
T 6.10 m Cars 700
 ‘PRINSESSE RAGNHILD’
Commission:
z Stockholm Agreement & Solas
90
z Internal and external
modifications
z CFD calculations
z Model tests at Marin and
Marintek (seakeeping)
z Cooperation of numerical
simulations and model tests at
SSRC, Strathclyde University
z New bulbous bow
 ‘PRINSESSE RAGNHILD’

Benefits:
z Increased displacement and improved deadweight
z Reduced ballast in fore ship
z Better trimming capabilities
z Optimised performance on the route in deep and shallow water
z Check of performance in heavy sea states, no slamming risks
z Reduced noise in aft ship
 ‘PRINSESSE RAGNHILD’

Performance comparison in model tests

New bulbous bow and open sea ducktail

Speed Original ship Deep water Shallow water (20m)
18 100 95,6 96,5
19 100 95,5 93,8
20 100 95,4 93,2
21 100 95,7 94,7
22 100 96,1 97,0

Figures in percentage of propulsion power, 100 % original

ship.
 ‘PRINSESSE RAGNHILD’

Influence of modifications

Deep water Shallow water

Bulbous bow Power reduction Power reduction
Sponson-ducktail Small power increase Small power reduction
TOTAL Power reduction Power reduction

Investment in model test well paid.

Both bulbous bow and sponson-ducktail installed.
 All energy is in fuel
Reviewing overall power balance
Both mechanical and heat power
originates from fuel. Thus fuel saving
means:
CRUISE SHIP; MEASURED AT SEA

25000
• Focusing on both energy production
21291
and consumption
POWER DEMAND IN kW

20000 18617

15000
12552
• Avoiding system or device operation
10000
at low efficiency modes
5000
5217 4994

1790
• Running devices only when needed
860 810
• Active overhauling
0 0 310 65 0 20 0
0
PASSENGER ELECT RIC SAFET Y PROPULSION ENERGY
COM FORT PRODUCT ION SYST EM S

M ECHANICAL HEAT
PRODUCT ION PRODUCT ION

COOL
• Improving existing systems to meet
ships actual operation modes
 All energy is in fuel
Reviewing overall power balance
To prepare a proper energy balance we have to look all energy flows including
not only mechanical, but also heating and cooling energy.
We have also to approach the topic from two sides; How the energy is produced
and how it is consumed.
On a cruise vessel the major power consumption is concentrated on three main
groups as seen on the graph which is based on actual measurements on one
vessel:
Passenger comfort includes items like air conditioning and fresh water
production. There we need considerable amount of heat for fresh water
production and mechanical and cooling power on cooling process with
compressor cycle.
Energy production includes mainly power plant engines and here the cooling
power is clear single topic.
Already this graph gives an idea that cooling power from energy production
group should be used with maximum efficiency on heating purposes on
passenger comfort group, and that there should be possibilities to avoid burning
oil fired boilers.
Power analysis is only half of the truth
and weak basis for energy evaluations
ELECT RIC POWER DEM AND ON ROPAX

z Calculation shows power, but not

Auxiliary machinery for
propulsion
Auxiliary machinery for ship
15 %
2%
18 % energy
HVAC
4%

Galley, laundry and

workshops
13 %
z When rated propulsion power is
Cargo, deck, hull

Lighting
4% also included, it tends to overrule
Navigation, radio,
44 %
decision making process
automation

ELECT RIC POWER DEM AND ON CRUISE SHIP

z Definition of energy efficiency
Auxiliary machinery for
propulsion 15 %
1% 8% calls for real operation profile
4%
Auxiliary machinery for ship

HVAC 5%

Galley, laundry and

workshops
Cargo, deck, hull 14 %

Lighting
53 %
Navigation, radio,
automation
Power analysis is only half of the truth
and weak basis for energy evaluations
Electric load analysis, as carried out for each project, gives a good hint for
energy flows. However the weakness is that this calculation considers only
power, not energy.
Electric load analysis shows how the power demand matches with power
production, but nothing about energy efficiency. The missing parameter is actual
operation profile which affects heavily on propulsion side but much less on other
groups on electric load analysis.
But if we remember all this, the analysis can be used when searching for most
potential consumer groups for energy saving.
These graphs are average values based on 15 cruise vessels and 15 ro-pax
ferries.
We can see two groups which proportional share is very similar on both vessel
types; Lighting and air conditioning, whereof air conditioning is clearly
dominating.
So it is worthwhile to dig this group deeper by basing the survey on actual
measurements.
 Energy is Power x Time
Measured fuel consumption on Caribbean cruise ship
MEASURED FOR WHOLE CRUISE

33 %

Regarding energy
67 %
consumption,
propulsion other HVAC is as important topic
MEASURED FOR WHOLE CRUISE as propulsion.
33 % 33 %

34 %
propulsion HVAC other
 Energy is Power x Time
Measured fuel consumption on Caribbean cruise ship

It is the port time which changes the whole picture since all the other
consumption is pretty constant, but propulsion is missing.
These measurements were done for two complete cruises and covering totally
12 days with measuring interval of two hours.
When whole cruise is considered, including also port operations, we can see that
there are two consumption groups which are equally important; Propulsion and
air conditioning.
The graph shows that air conditioning consumes equal amount of fuel than
propulsion.
One could assume that considerable fuel saving can be achieved by putting
similar focus on air conditioning power consumption than what is put on
propulsion and model testing
 Optimising chiller operation

COM PRESSOR RELAT IVE EFFICIENCY

Optimum operation sequence of
100
turbo and screw compressor is not
similar.
RELATIVE EFFICIENCY (%

90

80
Missing this feature can generate
70 annual fuel cost penalty of about $90
000 on a cruise vessel.
60

50
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 But is this considered in automation
ELELCTRICAL LOADING (%) and control system design ?
TURBO SCREW
 Optimising chiller operation
Running a device far from optimum point is typical area where energy is easily
lost.
Good example is ac-compressor. There are two dominating compressor types,
screw and centrifugal.
Both have about equal efficiency but the shape of efficiency curve is totally
different. So load sharing with these two compressor types must be different in
order to avoid energy loss in parallel operation.
However, if designer does not know this difference, he might select similar load
control logics for both compressor types. Or if operator has experience from ship
having one type of compressor and he runs other type in similar way it is easy to
cause remarkable increase in fuel bill.
Same applies in general in many systems onboard; Full load operation is not
problematic, but real losses occurs when the system has to be operated at part
load.
Shape of the graph gives also a hint to consider one additional small compressor
or sw heat exchanger for operation in cold waters.
 Auditing – Evaluating - Improving

Steam Consumption versus Engine Power

for production of 2x400 t/d of Distillate No heat is waste heat on cruise
(Engine Load Distribution acc. to DELTAMARIN
Recommendations) vessel.
12

11
Old System 2x400 t/d
10
New System 2x400 t/d
Even small improvements on
9
existing systems can generate
Steam Consumption (t/h)

7
considerable fuel savings due to
6 reduced use of oil fired boilers.
5

3
$ 50 000 at annual basis on this
2 case
1

0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Electrical Power (MW )
 Auditing – Evaluating - Improving
Waste heat is wrong wording on cruise ship. All heat is valuable and
should be recovered effectively.
However, since systems are typically designed for full power operation
they seldom work effectively at part load. Same applies on heat recovery.
If too high power demand and engine loading is assumed at design phase,
the heat recovery installation is often too small at actual operation.
Here is good real example, where an energy audit indicated, that oil fired
boilers were needed almost continuously to cover the heat demand of
evaportors.
On the other hand engines delivered excess heat which was dumped on
central coolers.
On this example small improvements in diesel heat recovery circuit
reduced boiler running hours considerably and allowed annual fuel savings
worth 50 000 $.
 Some examples on HVAC systems
Cruise vessel and todays fuel price

z COP reduction from 4.5 to 4.4 cost 30 000 $/a

z 1 degC increase in condencer temperature cost 30 000 $/a

z 15 % reduced SW flow through condencer cost 30 000 $/a

z 100 kW lighting bulbs on air conditioned area cost 50 000 $/a

However, there is always a risk to draw false conclusions in

energy saving evaluations if right ”control area” is missed.
Some examples on HVAC systems
Cruise vessel and todays fuel price
There are numerous examples where clear savings can be achieved easily just
by focusing on right areas
One decimal change in chiller efficiency happens very easily but the cost
implication is seldom realised.
Condensing temperature is easily increased due to dirty tubes. Already one
degree increase cost 30 000 $ annually due to reduced COP. 4-5 degrees is
typical for dirty condenser.
Worn-out impeller on sea water pump reduces condenser capacity. Already 15%
reduction cost again same 30 000 $ at annual basis.
Efficient way to save energy is to reduce heat load. 100 kw incandescent lamp
load cost 50 000 $ annually both in direct electric cost and indirectly in cooling
cost. Attention should be paid on bulb ratings and shutting down lights on
unoccupied areas.
The clue is to reduce heat sources, design systems for flexible loading and let
them work at optimum areas and well maintained.
Most important issue on energy saving evaluations is to consider right control
area. It is not saving if temperature on one area is rised in order to save cooling
energy but simultaneously heat is transferred to adjacent area and to be treated
from there.
Training is the clue to see the big picture
Fuel saving needs a continuous
process:

AUDITING 1. Auditing of actual energy

consumption flows and main consumers

2. Evaluation of operation modes of

TRAINING EVALUATION these key consumers

3. Improving running and operation

practises and system design

IMPROVEMENT 4. Training to understand how the single

devices affect on whole system
performance
Training is the clue to see the big picture

Understanding the big picture is crucial when evaluating energy

flows and fuel saving potential.

When the crew, and all other involved, are trained for this, it is
easier for them to carry out energy audits, evaluate continuously
system operation performance, understand the importance to keep
the sensitive systems in good condition, improve the onboard
solutions and bring general energy thinking into all activities
onboard.