You are on page 1of 40

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN

SOME NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN

NORASIA - FRIBOURG CLASS VESSEL

NIGEL GEE
MANAGING DIRECTOR

NIGEL GEE AND ASSOCIATES Ltd

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN

SUMMARY

REQUIREMENT FOR FAST FEEDERS NEED FOR FAST SHIPS TO OPERATE AT SENSIBLE FREIGHT RATES THE 30 Knot CONTAINER SHIP THE 25 Knot FAST FEEDER A NEW CONCEPT A NEW DESIGN WITH 10 VESSELS UNDER CONSTRUCTION

COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE NEW DESIGNS AND CONVENTIONAL SOLUTIONS FUTURE LIKELY DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS OF NEW FAST CONCEPTS

SOME NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


by Nigel Gee Managing Director NIGEL GEE AND ASSOCIATES LTD

1.

INTRODUCTION Thriving markets lead rapidly to global expansion, drive down costs and encourage economies of scale, to enable those operating the market to continue to be profitable. There are countless examples in the transport field, from the early passenger liners, where faster and larger vessels were able to cope with demand and provide for profitable services at moderate costs, to modern aviation where wide bodied jets took over from smaller earlier models and will soon give way to even larger airliners. The same trend has been seen with oil tankers, and more recently, with container ships. The huge increase in global container traffic and the container shipbuilding boom, which has followed in its wake, have driven freight rates, particularly on longer routes, to levels which are scarcely sustainable. Operators can only remain profitable by building ever larger ships to benefit from economies of scale, in terms of powering, fuel consumption and crewing. This growth in container ship size, to 8000TEU capacity and beyond, has led quickly to the development of hub or mega-hub ports. These regional ports must be capable of handling the great draft of the new giant ships, and also having container handling equipment, capable of spanning the great beam of the new ships, and linked to a distribution system to enable a quick turn-around for a large number of containers. Inevitably, these developments are leading to a rapidly increasing demand for feeder vessels, and in the minds of many industry commentators, to a requirement for feeder ships which are much faster than those currently available (Figure 1). This apparent requirement for faster container vessels has been enthusiastically embraced by the design and build industry, and new designs for high speed vessels appear in the technical press monthly, or even weekly. A typical selection of such designs is shown in Figure 2. The first two vessels shown, are developed directly from fast car ferries. Since 1990, and the advent of the aluminium wave-piercing Catamaran car ferry, there has been a rapid growth in light weight, high speed, car and passenger carrying vessels, such that today, over 120 vessels capable of carrying cars and passengers at over 30 knots are operating, mainly in Northern and Mediterranean Europe. Having developed this technology, a logical development would seem to be to substitute freight for the passengers and cars, and many designs of this type have been published. The fast Monohull and fast Catamaran designs shown in Figure 2, are typical, and indicate the power levels required to propel these

quite small vessels at relatively high speeds. It is recognised by the developers of these vessels, that the high power level and consequent fuel consumption is a significant deterrent to the adoption of these vessels, where freight rates are fixed at low levels. In comparison, the car and passenger business rates have been maintained at phenomenally high levels for many years. Recognising this problem, the Japanese government has financed a huge development programme, leading to the development of a Technosuperliner, which should be capable of moving small parcels of freight over relatively small distances quickly, but whilst using moderate power levels. Several design solutions have evolved, but their favoured solution is for an air cushion assisted Catamaran, shown as TSLA127 in Figure 2. Recognition that the majority of the new fast designs were too small for the majority of container trade routes, a new concept known as Fast-ship was developed in the early 1990s. The design of this vessel is based on a semiplaning monohull, well known in many small vessel applications. The ocean going Fast-ship is capable of carrying a large payload, but only by using a prodigious level of installed power. Recognising all these factors, Norasia Services SA, of Fribourg, Switzerland, set about finding a new approach to the design of a moderate or large vessel that would achieve higher speeds than currently possible, but without the expenditure on installed power and fuel, which would make operation uneconomic when bearing in mind current freight rates. Norasias objective was to find a design of fast feeder container ship, capable of carrying a total payload of 13,000 tonnes at 30 knots, whilst not using more than 33 MW of installed power. This specification was drawn up with a detailed commercial knowledge of what fuel burn could be tolerated in order to remain profitable. 2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW DESIGN CONCEPT Form follows function is often cited by engineers to explain their methodology when evolving designs, and also to distance themselves from mere fashion. However, in practice, in many of the long established traditional engineering disciplines form follows form may be nearer the truth. New designs tend to be the supposedly logical developments of existing vessels, and this approach is usually quite valid when making small technological advances. However, faced with a requirement for a quantum jump in the relationship between vessel size, speed and power, a more lateral approach to the problem is required. In trying to solve this problem, the approach taken has been to return to first principles, and try to determine if it would be scientifically possible to achieve the set requirements, whilst initially ignoring most practical considerations,

such as existing shipbuilding techniques and materials, and even temporarily putting to one side such aspects as stability. An initial parametric study was undertaken to determine whether it was physically possible to achieve ship resistance values that would permit the low level of installed power requested by Norasia. An overview of the parametric study is shown in Figure 3. Vessels with one, two and three main hull elements were investigated, and the effects of adding bulbous appendages, lifting foils and air cushions, also studied. The study showed, that for the mass, volume and speed required by Norasia, a Monohull vessel with a length/beam ratio of approximately 10 to 1, with a slender, low, block coefficient hull form and bulbous bow and stern appendages, could have resistance value which would allow power levels in the region of those specified by Norasia. Such a vessel would, however, be profoundly unstable when laden with containers, and the hull shape (particularly the midship shape) would present challenges in structural design and the stowage of containers. An investigation into the effects of stabilising the Monohull with small sponson outriggers showed that if very low displacement, slender outrigger sponsons were used, then the total drag of the vessel would be very little more than that for the unstable Monohull. A summary of the results of this initial parametric study are shown in Figure 4, which indicated that an optimum stabilised monohull (Trimaran configuration) would achieve the target 30 knots with an installed power of approximately 37 MW. A preliminary concept sketch for such a vessel is shown in Figure 5. The ship owner was sufficiently encouraged by these results to commission a series of tank tests to determine whether the theoretical numbers could be achieved in practice. The ship hull form, shown in Figure 6, was tested at the Norwegian Ship Research Institute in Trondheim, Norway. A series of main hulls having length/beam ratios up to 12 were tested with a variety of different bulbous bow and stern appendages. During the tank tests, the lateral and longitudinal position of the stabilising sponsons was varied to determine the optimum position of sponsons relative to the main hull. Initial tank tests were with the main, central hull alone, and yielded very positive results. At the required speed and displacement, in excess of 80% of the resistance of the main hull was viscous (frictional) resistance, with only 20% being due to wave-making effects. This virtually waveless form was, therefore, having a resistance very close to the minimum that could possibly be achieved without changing the physical properties of the water through which it was moving. However, the resistance values for the vessel with stabilising sponsons added were very disappointing. The short, fat sponsons exhibited drag levels much higher than had been predicted. Drag predictions had been made on the basis that wave-making effects between the main hull and the sponsons would be made to cancel by correct positioning of the sponsons. This theory proved to be correct in practice, but the almost total absence of wave-making from the main hull meant that this effect was small. Clearly, a different sponson design was required. Figure 7 shows the results of the tank tests, indicating a required power for the central hull alone at 30 knots of just over 35 MW, but increased by 14% due to sponson drag.

Designer and owner were still encouraged by these results and a design brain-storming session (Figure 8) was held to determine methods by which sponson drag might be reduced whilst still maintaining stability. Since it was also clear that the ship owner was now thinking in terms of moving from a theoretical design exercise towards a possible practical vessel, other problems needed to be addressed at this stage. They were: a) The ability to dock the ship parallel to a quay - This would be difficult with the existing short stabilising sponsons. Damaged stability problems - The existing design was such that if a sponson was lost, the ship would be lost. Torsional strength problems - The long, slender, open top ship would be likely to suffer high torsional strains, and the input of all the stabilising moment in one local position near the stern would aggravate this problem.

b)

c)

One solution addressing all of these requirements is shown in Figure 9. This concept, known as a Pentamaran (worldwide patents applied for under INT.PAT.APP.PCT/GB96/02313) features a long, slender, potentially unstable monohull, stabilised by the addition of two pairs of sponsons. The aftermost sponsons are configured such that, at the normal design load waterline, they provide all the initial stability required by the vessel. The sponsons have a slender form and shallow immersion in order to limit their resistance. The forward pair of sponsons are totally independent from the aft sponsons, and are positioned such that their keel lines are above the normal ship load waterline. These sponsons only have a stabilising effect when the ship rolls or pitches. The use of two pairs of sponsons solves a number of problems: 1. If one sponson is lost, the ship is designed to remain stable and meet all international requirements. Sponson resistance is minimised by having the forward pair clear of the water, except in rough conditions. Torsional restoring moments are distributed over two regions of the ships structure. The use of two pairs of sponsons makes parallel docking automatic.

2.

3.

4.

Figure 10 shows how the roll stabilisation of the vessel is achieved. In the upright condition, the partially immersed aft sponsons provide initial stability and metacentric height, as normally required by container ships of this type. As the vessel heels, one of the aft sponsons emerges from the water at quite a small heel angle. This would normally have the effect of immediately halving the slope of the stability righting lever curve. However, in this case, with two further sponsons forward, one forward sponson enters the water just

before one of the aft sponsons leaves the water. In this way the slope of the stability righting lever can be controlled, as required by the designer. A tank test model of the proposed Pentamaran was built and tested, both for resistance and propulsion, in a towing tank and free running in a manoeuvring basin. The results of these tests are summarised in Figure 11. The results showed that the vessel could achieve the specified performance, when using only 33 MW of installed power, provided high efficiency contra-rotating propellers were installed. A more practical installation of a single controllable pitch propeller would result in an installed power of 36 MW, still extremely close to the original target. Tests in waves on the manoeuvring basin, showed a low level of vessel acceleration and motions, and an ability to maintain a high speed of 28.3 knots in a moderate to rough sea condition, having a significant wave height of 6 metres. Sponson structural loads, when measured during these tests, were found to be low. Following the completion of the test programme, a preliminary ship design exercise was carried out, involving preliminary structural design, machinery arrangement, weights analysis and the drawing up of a detailed specification. The general arrangement of the resulting ship, known as PEBOS (Pentamaran Box Ship) is shown in Figure 12, and a computer rendering of the vessel as it might appear at sea, in Figure 13. A comparison of transport efficiency for PEBOS and other fast vessel concepts is shown in Figure 14. The preliminary design package for Project PEBOS was offered to a number of shipbuilders for quotation purposes, but these preliminary quotations were disappointingly high, due to the premiums required by shipbuilders to build what they regarded as a ship with a higher technical risk than normally encountered in this form of shipbuilding. As a result of this, development work continues on Project PEBOS with a view to presenting a sufficiently detailed package of information to shipbuilders, such that realistic quotations can be obtained. In parallel with this work, higher speed and load combinations are also being investigated. 3. THE SIMPLIFIED FAST FEEDER SHIP CONCEPT Convinced of the demand for fast feeder vessels, and impatient not to wait for the fully developed form of PEBOS, Norasia asked Nigel Gee and Associates, in 1996, to consider a simplified vessel capable of achieving slightly more modest targets. These are summarised in Figure 15. Norasia foresaw demand for a significant fleet of vessels, capable of 25 knots whilst carrying up to 10,000 tonnes of cargo, and to achieve economic operation, to be capable of achieving the 25 knots with less than 20 MW of shaft power. It was also required that this simplified ship should be developed around an unstabilised Monohull (no sponsons), and should also be designed for a high reefer capacity. NGAa response to this requirement, was to use the slender, low block coefficient hull lines developed for PEBOS, but with a length/beam ratio limited to between 7 and 8, in order to avoid the use of stabilising sponsons. To limit resistance, and hence, powering, the vessel was to have no bilge keels and to use single screw propulsion. To limit the weight of the

vessel, a relatively high tensile steel was to be used in construction, and the vessel was to be propelled by lightweight, medium speed diesel engines. The resulting ship design is shown in Figure 16. The vessels hull is a geosym of the PEBOS central hull, but having a lower length/beam ratio, such that it is self stable without sponsons. The vessel is configured as an open topped container ship, carrying 1,185 TEU in the open topped holds, and a further 126 TEU in two closed holds forward. An additional 76 TEU can be carried on the closed hold hatch tops. Cargo weight is maximised by careful control of the lightship weight. All longitudinal material in the vessel is high tensile steel (AH36) with the transverse material and the superstructure constructed in mild steel. Further economies could be made by constructing the superstructure in aluminium, but this approach was not favoured by the shipbuilder for the first ships of this design. Propulsion is by a pair of Sulzer ZA50, medium speed diesels, each rated at 12 MW and driving a single LIPS controllable pitch, 7 metre diameter propeller, capable of absorbing the full 24 MW. In the 25 knot trial condition, shaft power will be 19 MW. Steering and control is by a Becker rudder and a bow tunnel thruster. Minimising resistance, and therefore, installed power and fuel consumption, was an important design driver on this vessel and so no bilge keels have been fitted. Roll damping on this vessel is achieved by an on-board Intering stability tank. As well as dangerous goods, the vessel is capable of carrying a total of 300 x 40 ft reefer containers. Five ships to this design were ordered from Jiangnan Shipyard in Shanghai in December 1996, and a further five ships from HDW in Kiel, Germany in April of 1997. The first ship from HDW will be delivered in June 1998 with all five German ships in service by the end of 1998. The five Chinese ships will be delivered by the end of 1999. Orders for a further five ships are under consideration. The key feature of the FFB design is its fuel efficiency. Figure 17 shows a comparison between the FFB design and a 25 knot fast feeder ship of conventional hull form. Efficiency is measured by dividing the work capacity of the vessel (payload x speed) by the installed power; the higher this number, the more power and fuel efficient is the ship. The efficiency factor is a direct measure of how much useful work the vessel can do for a given installed power. It can be seen that the FFB vessel is some 30% more efficient than a conventional hulled ship. Figure 18 is a general arrangement drawing of the five ships on order from Jiangnan Shipyard in China. The five German ships from HDW are almost identical. The unconventional midship section shape can be clearly seen. Figure 19 is a midship section drawing for the vessel, highlighting some of the structural design problems which have to be solved in a vessel of this unusual form. A full package of Classification Society drawings has already been approved by Lloyds Register of Shipping for the Chinese ships, and by Germanischer Lloyd for the German ships. Structural design for the Lloyds Register classed Chinese vessels was undertaken by Nigel Gee and Associates Ltd, in conjunction with CETEC Consultancy Ltd, who undertook full finite element modelling of the vessel to provide an analysis tool for evaluating both global and local loads (Figure 20).

The unusual low block coefficient form of these vessels falls outside normal Classification Society form factor limits. A data sheet summarising the FFB design is shown in Figure 21 and a computer rendering of the vessel at sea in Figure 22. Construction of the first vessels is now well underway in China and Germany and Figure 23 shows some of the initial steel work erection on the German ships. This particular ship will be entering service in June 1998. 4. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS The FFB ship is close to the limit of what is possible in terms of designing a low powered, 25 knot fast feeder. The hull form has been optimised to reduce wave-making effects to a minimum and the majority of the resistance is due to viscous contact with the water. It is possible that further power reductions could be made by reducing the viscous effect and research programmes are underway in a number of countries towards finding a solution to the well known goal of air lubrication. No satisfactory practical solution has yet been discovered. Looking to the future, and at possible fast feeders travelling at 30 knots or above, the PEBOS concept offers significant advantages over normal Monohulls, which are limited to length/beam ratios of 7 or 8 for stability reasons and, consequently, suffer from large amounts of wave-making resistance as speed increases. In general, wave-making resistance th increases as the 6 power of speed and any method of reducing this resistance is obviously important. The PEBOS design, which allows hull slenderness to be optimised for the particular load and speed condition, produces an optimum hull in ship resistance terms. Since starting the PEBOS programme two years ago, it has become clear that future demand will not only be for higher speed, but for higher capacity at higher speed. Figure 24 shows predictions based on recent tank tests for larger and faster versions of the PEBOS concept. In particular, a 250 metre PEBOS vessel, capable of carrying in excess of 2,300 TEU, at speeds of between 30 and 34 knots shows a high level of efficiency. The 30 knot ship can be propelled at such low power levels that the efficiency achieved is even higher than the current FFB design even though the ship is 5 knots faster. The 32 knot version of this design achieves almost the same efficiency as FFB whilst being 7 knots faster. A 34 knot version achieves an efficiency at least as high as current conventional 25 knot ships. In general, the PEBOS design concept can be tailored to any payload and speed requirement, and should always result in a ship having a significantly lower power than that for a conventional hull. If these stabilised Monohull ship concepts are translated into a full scale ship operation, then there are a number of implications for ship operators and designers and for equipment suppliers, some of these are summarised in Figure 25.

By their very nature, the stabilised Monohull ships have a wider overall beam than their conventional counterparts, limiting the stacking of containers to the portion of the ship in and on the main central hull. Container volumetric capacity could be significantly increased by stacking containers over the increased width deck, but this would give problems in terms of container unloading in all but the smallest vessels. The current PEBOS Mark 1 vessel has been designed for a container crane outreach of 36 metres such that the vessel could trade not only to major ports in Europe and Asia, but also in the Middle East. The larger Mark 2 PEBOS ships would require container crane outreaches of at least 40 metres, and outreaches to 55 metres if containers were to be stacked over the increased deck width. The alternative would be for these ships to carry their own gear, at least for that portion of the deck cargo on the increased beam deck. The high beam of these vessels also has implications for dry docking and reduces the number of available docks for survey and repair. The use of increased docking periods and in-water surveys would be desirable for these vessels. The vessels are designed to maximise speed for a given installed power and, as such, need to be constructed with the lowest possible lightship weight. This requirement implies high tensile steel construction, presently at the existing perceived shipbuilding limit of AH36, but perhaps higher strength in future. Propulsion is by medium speed rather than slow speed diesels which also yields a significant reduction in lightship weight and an increase in potential payload. Should development of these ships go ahead, it should stimulate the development of higher powered medium speed diesels such as the new Wartsila 64 range. The design of these vessels yields high resistance and propulsive efficiency because of attention to detail in all parts of the ship design, covering form, weight, appendage design etc. These advantages can easily be negated by the incorrect choice of propulsor. Single shaft propulsion will always be preferred to twin screw because of the higher overall propulsive efficiencies available. The very highest propulsive efficiency could be obtained using contra-rotating propellers. At present, the state-of-the-art for contra-rotating propellers is limited to powers of about 20 MW on ships operating at about 15 knots (VLCCs). Theoretical investigations have been undertaken for PEBOS type vessels showing that overall propulsive efficiencies close to 80% might be available. This would represent a power saving of perhaps 10% over existing single screw controllable pitch designs and more over twin screw designs. The development of large fast feeders, operating at very high speeds, will surely stimulate further practical development of contra-rotating propellers and other high efficiency devices. At speeds above 30 knots, appendage drag can become a very significant proportion of total vessel resistance. Great efforts will need to be made in reducing this appendage drag with the deletion of bilge keels, the careful design of bow thrusters and the use of high lift, low drag rudders. Becker and Schilling both currently produce suitable designs and further development should be stimulated. Finally, the design of large, sea-going, multihull vessels, with block coefficients perhaps as low as 0.4 will require a new approach on the part of

Classification Societies. Scantlings determined by direct calculation will need to become the norm rather than the exception since existing rules will certainly not cope with these new vessels. Classification Societies already recognise use of a direct calculation approach for certain existing vessels and the advent of these new designs should encourage a further review of classification methods. Many designers believe that a shift from a rule based approach, to one based on requirements similar to that used in the aviation and automotive industries, would be beneficial to all concerned. The PEBOS ship and the Pentamaran concept were developed to meet the requirements of a particular container ship owner. Having observed the efficiency of this design, Nigel Gee and Associates believe that this technology can be applied to other ship types, as shown in Figures 26 - 29. Technical and commercial discussions are already at an advanced stage towards the construction of both a naval vessel and a fast ro-ro ship, and it is hoped that the advent of the stabilised Monohull container ship will not be far behind.

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 1

OUTLYING PORT

REGIONAL PORT

FAST FEEDER

FAST LINER

OUTLYING PORT

MEGA HUB
FAST FEEDER FAST LINER

REGIONAL PORT

6-8000 TEU SHIPS

FAST FEEDER AND LINERS REQUIRED :

30 - 35 knots 1000 - 1500 TEU HIGH REEFER CAPACITY

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 2

HIGH SPEED FREIGHTERS


Vessel Length
m

Pa yloa d
tonnes

Speed
knots

Power
MW

Efficiency

= PAYLOAD x SPEED POWER

Fast Monohull Fast Catamaran TSL 'A127' FASTSHIP Mk II

125 95 127 236

465 855 1000 9760

38 33 50 37.5

33.9 32.4 87.4 223.8

521 871 572 1635

N ORASIA REQUIREM EN T

13000

30

33.0

11818

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 3

PARAMETRIC STUDY SUMMARY

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 4

INITIAL PARAMETRIC STUDY


120000

110000 MONOHULL CATAMARAN Symmetrical TRIMARAN Asymmetric TRIMARAN

100000

90000

80000

Craft Power (kW)

70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

NORASIA TARGET

20000

10000

0 20 22 24 26 28 Craft Speed (knots) 30 32 34 36

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 5

CONCEPT DESIGN

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 6

TANK TEST LINES

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 7

TANK TEST RESULTS


60

55

Monohull with Fwd & Aft Bulb

50

Trimaran with Fwd & Aft Bulb

45 Installed Power (MW)

40

35

30

13.9% difference @ 30 knots

25

20 28 28.5 29 29.5 30 Craft Speed (Knots) 30.5 31 31.5 32

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 8

DESIGN BRAINSTORMING REDUCE SPONSON DRAG MAINTAIN STABILITY DOCK SHIP PARALLEL TO QUAY DAMAGE STABILITY PROBLEMS TORSIONAL STRENGTH PROBLEMS

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 9

TORSIONAL INPUT TO SHIP SPREAD OVER 2 LOCATIONS

SLENDER SPONSONS FOR LOW DRAG

AFT SPONSONS ONLY IN WATER IN FULL LOAD UPRIGHT CONDITION SHIP MEETS ALL DAMAGED STABILITY REGULATIONS, INCLUDING TOTAL SPONSON LOSS.

PAIR OF SPONSONS ALLOW PARALLEL MOORING

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 10

PENTAMARAN STABILISING CONCEPT


Progressive Heeling
Aft Sponsons Forward Sponsons

Upright - Zero Heel Angle

Small Heel Angle

Larger Heel Angles

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 11

RESULTS OF TANK TESTS


SPEED 28.3 Knots RMS BRIDGE VERTICAL ACCN 0.075g HEAD SEAS RMS ROLL 5O BEAM SEAS RMS PITCH 1.1O HEAD SEAS 6m SIGT WAVES 11m MAX HEIGHT

RMS BOW VERTICAL ACCN 0.094g HEAD SEAS

36 MW CPP

33 MW CRP

MAXIMUM SPONSON LOADS EQUAL TO FULL IMMERSION HYDROSTATIC LOAD

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 12

PEBOS - GENERAL ARRANGEMENT

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 13

COMPUTER RENDERING OF PENTAMARAN CONTAINERSHIP

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 14

PLOT OF VESSEL TRANSPORT EFFICIENCY vs SPEED

12

P EB OS

10

Transport Efficiency (DWT. Vs/Pd*1000)

B&V-FM157 8

Lim it of E x is ting Conce pts

SUPERFAST 1 4 KVY-OUTRIGGER

B&V-FM130 W ESTAMARIN FINNJET FASTSHIP

FASTSHIP MK II INCAT 122 IHI 200 SPS SAMSUNG TSL - A127 50

0 25 30 35 V e sse l Spe e d (k nots) 40 45

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 15

PROJECT FFB
NORASIA REQUIREMENTS

DESIGN CONCEPT

25 KNOTS

HULL LINES FROM PEBOS CONCEPT

10,000 TONNES CARGO

MAXIMISE L/B RATIO (7-8)

300 PLUG REEFER CAPACITY

NO BILGE KEELS

LESS THAN 20 MW POWER

SINGLE SCREW

MONOHULL (NO SPONSONS)

H.T STEEL STRUCTURE

MEDIUM SPEED DIESELS

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 16

THE FFB DESIGN

1185 TEU IN OPEN TOP HOLDS

MIDSHIP SECTION DEPTH INCREASED TO OPTIMISE STRUCTURAL STRENGTH

126 DANGEROUS GOODS TEU IN CLOSED HOLDS

AERODYNAMIC BOW SHELTER 76 TEU ON HATCH COVERS

LIPS 7.0m CPP BECKER 650 RUDDER

2 x SULZER ZA40 24 MW TOTAL

MAIN HULL SHAPE FROM PEBOS DESIGN

SLENDER BULBOUS BOW

FFB - 216m x 26.6m x 9.5m 25 knots at 19 MW 1387 TEU ; 300 REEFER PLUGS

10 SHIPS ORDERED

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 17

FAST FEEDER SHIPS COMPARED

FFB

CONVENTIONAL 25 Kt SHIP

LENGTH O.A BEAM O.A DRAUGHT POWER SPEED PAYLOAD

217.10 m 26.66 m 8.70 m 19.0 MW 25.0 Kts 9,009 t

160.00 m 25.00 m 8.50 m 25.4 MW 24.2 Kts 9,500 t

EFFICIENCY = PAYLOAD x SPEED POWER

11,854

9,051

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 18

FFB GENERAL ARRANGEMENT

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 19

FFB MIDSHIP SECTION

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 20

FFB FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 21

Project FFB

1400 TEU Open-Top Containership

MAIN PARTICULARS Length Overall Length Between Perps. Breadth Moulded Depth Moulded Draught (design) Moulded Deadweight (design) Draught (max) Moulded Deadweight (max) Service Speed (on design Draught) Cruising Range Class 217.1 m 198.74 m 26.66 m 21.95 m 8.7 m 11190 tonnes 9.4 m 14190 tonnes 25 knots

CONTAINER CAPACITIES In closed Holds On hatch covers In open-top holds 9th tier in open-top holds Total Max. capacity of 9.3 t/TEU containers homogeneously loaded Max. capacity of 14 t/TEU containers homogeneously loaded Electric Plugs for Reefers 845 126 76 1034 151 1387 1258 TEU TEU TEU TEU TEU TEU TEU

MAIN ENGINE Make Type MCR Fuel Cons. Wartsila NSD 16V ZA V 40S 2 x 12000 kW 93 t/day (ISO, 90% MCR)

ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY 1 x 2500 kVA Shaft Generator

TEU 2 x 1500 kVA Diesel Generator

6000 nm

300 ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY 1 x electro-hydraulic steering gear 1 x bow thruster with cp propeller 1855 120 100 4765 m m m m
3 3 3 3

100 A1 Containership Hatch Covers Ommitted in Hold Nos 3-7 *I.W,S. L.M.C. U.M.S. L.I. NAV 1
CONTAINER CAPACITIES

Complement

8 Officers 11 Crew 6 Others Total 25 Persons

Heavy Oil Diesel Oil Fresh Water Ballast Water

2 x combined windlasses and mooring winches 5 x mooring winches, traction force 15t each 1 x enclosed free-fall lifeboat, capacity 25 persons

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 22

COMPUTER RENDERING OF FFB CONTAINERSHIP

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 23

FFB IN BUILD

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 24

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS PEBOS Mk II

LENGTH m 220 230 240

TEU

PAYLOAD tonnes 10476 13617 17037

SPEED knots 30 30 30

POWER MW 36.1 40.5 43.5

EFFICIENCY

= PAYLOAD x SPEED POWER

1164 1513 1893

8706 10087 11750

250 250 250

2309 2309 2309

20781 20781 20781

30 32 34

47.0 58.0 75.0

13264 11476 9421

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 25

IMPLICATIONS OF NEW DESIGNS

1. WIDE BEAM SHIPS

- OWN GEAR - BIGGER CRANES with OUTREACH TO 50m - DOCKING REQUIREMENTS - HIGH POWER MEDIUM SPEED DIESELS - WARTSILA 64 RANGE etc. - CONTRA ROTATING PROPELLERS - 30 - 35 Knots AND 30 - 50 MW - BECKER - SCHILLING

2. LIGHTWEIGHT MACHINERY

3. HIGH EFFICIENCY PROPULSION

4. HIGH LIFT LOW DRAG RUDDERS

5. STRUCTURAL DESIGN DEVELOPMENT - NEW CLASSIFICATION APPROACH

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 26

OTHER PENTAMARAN APPLICATIONS

HIGH SPEED CAR / PASSENGER FERRY FAST WARSHIP CRUISE LINER REEFER SHIP FAST RO-RO / NAVY LOGISTICS

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 27

RO-RO APPLICATION

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 28

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTAINER VESSEL DESIGN


Figure 29

HIGH SPEED PASSENGER/CAR FERRY APPLICATION