C-Dragon

A compact container carrier concept for efficiently serving growing markets.

A novel container vessel design concept that addresses regional Asian trades and the trend towards more energy efficient shipping. The new concept is targeting short roundtrips with many port calls and is considered to be competitive against cascading old tonnage.

Container traffic per trade route (million TEU)

250 Other regions Intra-Asia North-bound South-bound West-bound East-bound

Motivation
Intra-Asian trades are becoming more significant due to the continuous growth of regional economies. At the same time, high fuel prices and new IMO regulations call for more energy efficient ships. Taking both trends into account, Germanischer Lloyd (GL) has identified the need for a compact container carrier, optimised for operating on short roundtrips with many port calls and able to compete with cascading older tonnage.

200

150

Asian container trades

100

50

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 (Drewry 2011, GL extrapolation for 2011 to 2016)

Container traffic in Asia is forecast to grow faster than else where in the world up until 2016 (Drewry 2011). It is assumed that this trend will continue despite apparent moderate growth in China. Container traffic encompasses half of all port-to-port container handling, excluding empty containers and tranship ments. Using these figures, GL estimates intra-Asian (regional) container traffic to reach 75 million TEU in 2016, compared to 57 million TEU in 2012.

Average size of container vessels deployed in intra-Asian trades

3,000+ TEU 2,5002,999 TEU 2,0002,499 TEU 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 (Drewry 2011, based on numbers of fixtures, 2010 = 740) 1,5001,999 TEU 1,0001,499 TEU 500999 TEU <500 TEU

Container vessel supply

Intra-Asian container vessels have been relatively small until recently. In 2010, only about 5% of the reported fixtures were for vessels larger than 3,000 TEU (Drewry 2011). Looking at container vessel operators public sailing schedules, we note that even larger vessels were employed in 2012. At the same time, 22% of the mid-size container vessel fleet (3,0005,000 TEU) is older than 15 years and 14% are on order (Fairplay 2012). Mid-size container vessels have also changed significantly. Built-in speed capacity, measured by the design speed provided in public databases, has recently decreased to an average of 20 knots for vessels delivered after 2010 or on order. This change follows a decades-long increase of design speeds. Ships deadweight remained more or less constant on average.

Focus on port efficiency

Sample intra-Asian route scenario

Assuming that larger regional vessels will preferably be employed on longer routes, several existing intra-Asian northsouth route schedules were reviewed to define a typical trading route scenario as follows: roundtrip length 6,900 nm port calls per roundtrip 13 average port stay 15 hrs average transit speed 15.5 knots The low average transit speed necessary to meet the published sailing schedules indicates that sufficient speed reserve is available to make up for delays. It is also noted that published port stays vary from a few hours to more than one day for the routes investigated. Current speeds of mid-size container vessels were checked using AIS data gathered for the Taiwan Strait in April 2012. About two thirds of the recorded vessels steamed at 16 to 20 knots, which means below design speeds but faster than the average transit speed derived from public sailing schedules.

Mid-size (3,0005,000 TEU) container vessels

avg DWT 56,000 54,000 52,000 50,000 48,000 46,000 1981 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2015 (1,087 container vessels, Fairplay 2012) avg speed 25 24 23 22 21 20

Measured speed (knots) over ground for mid-size container vessels

30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5%

Port efficiency
The fastest journey is made in port expresses the fact that a vessel capable of faster port turnaround can benefit from transit speed reductions and the related fuel cost savings, without compromising cargo transport capacity, compared to a competing vessel. This effect is more pronounced for vessels on short routes with many port calls. Apart from favourable stowage planning and adequate container terminal operations as well as smooth piloting and mooring, the vessel layout has an effect on container movement times in port. GL developed prototypical software to demonstrate this effect (Harries et al. 2013) and simulated container movement times for five mid-size container vessel designs.

<14 1416 1618 1820 2022 2224 >24 (AIS data Taiwan Strait, April 2012)

TEU on deck / total TEU (avg over all bays)

65% 60% 55% 50% C-Dragon

CV4250 17 x 13

CV4100 15 x 13

CV3700 13 x 14

CV3700 12 x 15

CV3700 14 x 13

Vessel size: number of 40 bays x number of rows on deck

Variability of deck container slots (stand. dev. TEU on deck per bay)
0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0 CV4250 17 x 13 CV4100 15 x 13 CV3700 13 x14 CV3700 12 x 15 CV3700 14 x 13

The following design layout features are considered to have an effect on container movement times: more TEU on deck, which means less hatch covers need to be removed less bays, which means cranes need to be moved less often low variability of container slots on deck, which means cranes have a more uniform workload The figures show that, compared to the selected reference vessels, C-Dragon has the highest ratio of on-deck TEU to total TEU and the lowest number of bays. In addition, C-Dragon has the second-best uniformity (i.e., a low variability which is measured by the standard deviation of TEU on deck per bay) of deck container slots, giving cranes a better workload distribution. These facts result in favourable container movement times, second only to the CV3700 (14 x 13) design featuring the deckhouse aft (eliminating the need for the crane to move over the deckhouse). It is noted that terminals would need to excel to achieve these high ideal TEU rates which assume that no interruption takes place. The container movement time advantage was predicted using the new simulation tool and running it for many thousand load cases to build a statistically valid database. Taking the mean values from the simulation runs and focusing on 2 to 4 cranes and 800 to 2,000 TEU moved, C-Dragons advantage against the 4,250 TEU Panamax is easily docu mented. The advantage is largest with few cranes employed, which GL assumes would be the case for mid-size container vessels. Building on the port efficiency simulations, the average port stay for C-Dragon was assumed to be reduced from 15 to 14 hours. This facilitated a reduction in average transit speeds from 15.5 knots down to 15 knots. These speeds were used for the concluding economic analysis.

Vessel size: number of 40 bays x number of rows on deck

Simulated TEU movement rate (avg per crane hour)

35 30 25 20

CV4250 CV4100 CV3700 CV3700 CV3700 17 x 13 15 x 13 13 x 14 12 x 15 14 x 13 Vessel size: number of 40 bays x number of rows on deck

Container movement times (per TEU groups)

25 20 Hours 15 10 5 0 800 1200 1600 800 1200 1600 800 1200 1600 1200 1600 2000 1200 1600 2000 1200 1600 2000 2 cranes 3 cranes 4 cranes 4,250 Panamax C-Dragon

The novel concept

Main dimensions: LBP = 211.9 m, B = 37.3 m, D = 19.9 m, Td = 11 m

Capacities: 3,736 TEU, of which 2,364 TEU on deck and 1,372 TEU in hold, DWT = 43,150 t, 2,920 TEU at 14 t

Engines: MAN G60ME-C9 with 15,100 kW, four gensets of 1,750 kW each

C-Dragon the novel concept

To develop the new container vessel design concept, the following targets were set:
EEDI (gCO2 /t*nm) 22 20 18 16 14 12

EEDI of mid-size container vessels

ref line 0.9*ref line 0.8*ref line 0.7*ref line

hull form optimised for lower speeds zero ballast water for most operating conditions high real cargo intake fast port turnaround Combining the design targets into a first concept delivered C-Dragon, a compact container carrier. The goal for zero ballast water in standard operating conditions called for a wide-beam hull, which was optimised for low speeds using FutureShips proven technology. The resulting speed at a design draft with 100% MCR, incl. a sea margin of 10%, is 19.1 knots. At 15 knots, only 50% MCR is required, which gives the vessel sufficient reserve power to make up for delays, particularly between two nearby ports. Further reduction of engine power was considered but dismissed based on first feedback from shipowners and operators, who favour higher power reserves and, with this, higher flexibility. C-Dragon offers competitive design features addressing energy efficiency and cargo intake. Reduction of design speed combined with an optimised hull form delivers in itself a favourable EEDI value, which is even less than the IMO requirement from 2025 onwards. But similarly sized vessels (on order in 2012) promise similar EEDI performance, demonstrating that the EEDI require ment for such container vessels can be met by wide-beam designs with lower speeds.

C-Dragon

40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 DWT 75 vessels on order, Fairplay 2012

EEDI of mid-size container vessels

20 EEDI (gCO2 /t*nm) 18 16 14 12 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 DWT/TEU at 14t 75 vessels on order, Fairplay 2012 C-Dragon 4,250 Panamax

Newbuilding prices (3,6003,800 TEU wide beam)

mUSD 70 60 50 40 30

At the same time, real cargo intake is also a major consideration. C-Dragon offers best-in-class DWT utilisation due to zero ballast water usage in standard operating conditions. For each TEU at 14 t, C-Dragon only needs 14.8 t deadweight, almost 4 t less than the current 4,250 TEU Panamax design. This means that C- Dragon can carry significantly more TEU at 14 t than its competitor (2,920 vs. 2,805), which could yield additional earnings.

Economic performance
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: Clarksons Shipping Intelligence Network

Key economic input data

C-Dragon Newbuild/resale Annuity over 15 years, 5% Operating costs per year 40 3.73 3.03 Panamax 10 0.93 3.36 mUSD mUSD mUSD

The above-mentioned design features and assumptions on the trading route combined with the associated speeds facilitates a comparison of the expected economics of C-Dragon vs. a competitor. We have selected a cascading 4250 TEU Panamax vessel with resale-value-based capital costs as the competitor. The newbuilding price for C-Dragon was estimated to be USD 40 million (Clarksons 2013). The economic analysis assumed a 15-year financial life with 5% interest. Annual operating costs were estimated (Moore Stephens 2010), resulting in a small advantage for a new C-Dragon against an existing 4,250 TEU Panamax. The largest share of the total annual costs is fuel cost which depends on the speed and the specific fuel oil consumption of the vessels. With faster port turnaround, C-Dragon has more operating hours at sea. With the optimised hull form, fuel consumption of C-Dragon is, however, 30% lower than for the slow-steaming 4,250 Panamax vessel. Main reasons for this advantage are lower required power and lower SFOC due to modern main and auxiliary engines. Predicting fuel prices for the next 15 years is always based on many assumptions. For the purpose of the current analysis, we focused on HFO only and assumed that, in 2020, a 0.5% sulphur limit will enter into force which effectively increases the HFO/equivalent fuel price. The estimated average annual fuel price for two five-year periods, starting in 2015, has then been used as the basis for the economic estimate.

Fuel consumption estimate

C-Dragon Total port time Total approaches time Total transit time Port aux. engine power Transit main engine power Port aux. engine SFOC Approaches main engine SFOC Transit main engine SFOC Port FOC Approaches FOC Transit FOC Total FOC 2,417 602 5,718 3,500 7,546 210 175 163 1,776 135 7,208 9,119 Panamax 2,569 587 5,581 3,500 2,227 10,536 220 192 179 1,978 259 10,788 13,025 h/y h/y h/y kW kW kW g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh t/y t/y t/y t/y

Approaches main engine power 1,246

Outlook

The annual costs have been determined using capital costs, operating costs and fuel costs. Although C-Dragon demands higher capital costs, it wins out due to its lower fuel costs. Overall, total annual costs for a newbuild C-Dragon are lower than for a cascading 4250 TEU Panamax vessel. And C-Dragons advantage will increase as fuel prices rise. This demonstrates the advantages of improved ship and port efficiency.

Average annual costs (mUSD)

20152019 HFO at 750 USD/t Fuel costs 15 Operating costs Capital costs 20202024 LSFO at 1,025 USD/t

Outlook
With a focus on ship efficiency, relevant in times of high fuel prices and strict regulations, and an additional focus on port efficiency, important when addressing regional ships on short roundtrips with many port calls, a new design concept for a compact container carrier was developed. C-Dragon appears to be competitive even against cascading older tonnage. We continue to work on the C-Dragon concept, focusing on further optimisation of the hull form, structure and layout using a holistic approach as well as exploring the potential advantages of an air lubrication system to further reduce fuel costs.

9.35
10

13.35

6.38

9.12 3.33 3.36 0.93

Panamax

3.03 3.73

3.73
C-Dragon

3.70 0.93
Panamax

0 C-Dragon

References
Clarksons (2013): Newbuilding prices on Clarksons Shipping Intelligence Network Drewry (2011): Container Market 2011/2012 Annual review and forecast, published 10 October 2011 Fairplay (2012): Maritime Statistics, IHS Fairplay Harries, S.; Dlerud, E.; Sames, P.C. (2013): Port Efficiency Simulations for the Design of Container Carriers, accepted for presentation at COMPIT 2013. Moore Stephens (2010): OpCost 2009 Benchmarking vessel running costs

Acknowledgements
This work was performed by Stefan Harries, Marcus Ihms, Bardo Krebber, Christoph Peickert, Fridtjof Rohde and Pierre C. Sames. Further information can be obtained from Dr Pierre C. Sames, Senior Vice President GL Research and Rule Development Phone: + 49 40 36149-113 pierre.sames@gl-group.com

Region Americas
1155 Dairy Ashford, Suite 315 Houston, TX 77079 United States of America Phone: +1 832 320 4641 Fax: +1 832 320 4654 gl-americas@gl-group.com

Region Europe / Middle East / Africa

Brooktorkai 18 20457 Hamburg Germany Phone: +49 40 36149-8786 Fax: +49 40 36149-4051 gl-ema@gl-group.com

Region Asia / Pacific

381, Huaihai M. Road Room 3209-3220, Shanghai Central Plaza 200020 Shanghai, People's Republic of China Phone: +86 21 6141 6700 Fax: +86 21 6391 5822 gl-asia@gl-group.com

Hamburg

Houston

Shanghai

Germanischer Lloyd SE
Research and Rule Development Brooktorkai 18, 20457 Hamburg, Germany Phone: +49 40 36149-113 Fax: +49 40 36149-7320 research@gl-group.com

www.gl-group.com

0E117 2013-04-01

This brochure was produced with consideration for the environment. It is printed on paper that is 100% recycled and has an FSC accreditation.
The GL Group does not warrant or assume any kind of liability for the accuracy, completeness or quality of the information provided. Liability claims against any member of the GL Group in relation to any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with the use or non-use of information provided, including the use of incorrect or incomplete information, are excluded to the fullest extent permissible by law. All presentations of services and products may be subject to alteration and are non-binding. Each GL Group member expressly reserves the right without notice to change, supplement or delete parts of the pages or the entire presentation of services and products or to stop the publication temporarily or definitively.