5510 0068 01ppr - Low

Improved Efficiency
and Reduced CO2
Content
Introduction.................................................................................................. 5
Major Propeller and Main Engine Parameters................................................. 5
Propeller.................................................................................................. 6
Main engine............................................................................................. 6
Ship with reduced design ship speed....................................................... 6
Case Study 1................................................................................................ 6
75,000 dwt Panamax Product Tanker....................................................... 6
Basic case............................................................................................... 7
Derating of main engine........................................................................... 8
Increased propeller diameter.................................................................... 8
Reduced fuel consumption per day or per voyage.................................... 8
Case Study 2................................................................................................ 9
4,500 teu Panamax Container Vessel....................................................... 9
5-propeller blades.................................................................................. 10
Reduced fuel consumption per day........................................................ 11
Reduced fuel consumption per voyage................................................... 12
Case Study 3.............................................................................................. 13
8,000 teu Post-Panamax Container Vessel............................................. 13
Propeller diameter of 8.8 m.................................................................... 14
Increased propeller diameter of 9.3 m.................................................... 14
Reduced fuel consumption per day........................................................ 15
Reduced fuel consumption per voyage................................................... 16
Summary.................................................................................................... 17
Improved Efficiency and Reduced CO2
Introduction
All main engines discussed are opti-
One of the future goals in the marine in-
mised/matched in compliance with the
dustry is to reduce the impact of CO2
IMO Tier II emission requirements, even
emissions from ships in order to meet
though an improved fuel consump-
3. 8,000 teu Post-Panamax Container Vessel

at reduced ship speed

Derated
9S90ME-C8
versus
10K98ME7 and 12K98ME-C7
the coming stricter International Mari-
tion usually also means increased NOx
Influence of reduced ship speed
time Organisation (IMO) greenhouse
emissions. Furthermore, all ships have
Influence of increased propeller di-
gas emission requirements.
Fixed Pitch Propeller (FPP) types and
ameter
the (two-stroke) main engines are diTwo CO2 emission indexes are being
rectly coupled with the propeller and,
discussed at IMO, an Energy Efficiency
therefore, have the same speed as the
Major Propeller and Main Engine

Parameters
Design Index (EEDI) and an Energy Ef-
propeller.
In general, the larger the propeller diameter, the higher the propeller efficiency
ficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI).

The EEDI is used to evaluate the engine
In order to improve the overview of the
and the lower the optimum propeller
and vessel design and the EEOI is used
relative changes of the fuel consump-
speed referring to an optimum ratio of
to guide the operator in developing the
tion and CO2 emissions in this Paper,
the propeller pitch and propeller diam-
best practices on board.
relative reduction of figures are stated
eter.
with minus (-) and relative increase of

The goal is to design future ships with
figures are stated with plus (+).
When increasing the propeller pitch

for a given propeller diameter, the cor-
a design index to be stepwise reduced

in the period from 2012 to 2018 to a
The three case studies and main pa-
responding propeller speed may be
maximum level of possibly 70% com-
rameters analysed are:
reduced and the efficiency will also be

slightly reduced, but of course depend-
pared with the 100% design index valid

for average designed ships of today.
1. 75,000 dwt Panamax Product Tanker at
However, it should be emphasised that

neither goal nor indexes are definite yet,
Nominally rated 5S60MC-C8 versus
June 2009.
derated
6S60MC-C8
ing on the degree of the changed pitch.

The same is valid for a reduced pitch,
15.1 knots ship speed

and
but here the propeller speed may increase.
6S60ME-C8
As a reduction in CO2 emission is
Influence of derating of engine
The efficiency of a two-stroke main en-
roughly equivalent to a reduction in fuel
Influence of derating and increased
gine particularly depends on the ratio of
propeller diameter
the maximum (firing) pressure and the
Influence of using electronically con-
mean effective pressure. The higher the
trolled engine
ratio, the higher the engine efficiency,
consumption, the goal for the manufacturers will roughly correspond to a 30%
reduction in fuel consumption per voyage of future ships in normal, average
i.e. the lower the Specific Fuel Oil Con-
service.
2. 4,500 teu Panamax Container Vessel at re-
Based on case studies on three differ-
6S80ME-C9 and 6K80ME-C9 versus
sumption (SFOC).
duced ship speed

Furthermore, the larger the stroke/bore
8K90MC-C6 and 9K90MC-C6
ratio of a two-stroke engine, the high-
ence on fuel consumption of derating
Influence of reduced ship speed
er the engine efficiency. This means,
the main engine in general and using
Influence of changed number of pro-
for example, that a super long-stroke
peller blades
engine type, e.g. an S80ME-C9, may
ent ships, this Paper shows the influ-
electronically controlled engines and,

particularly, of reducing the ships ser-
have a higher efficiency compared
vice speed in combination with selec-
with a short-stroke engine type, e.g. a
tion of the optimum propeller design.
K80ME-C9.
Compared with a camshaft (mechani-
Main engine
Ship with reduced design ship
cally) controlled engine, an electronical-
Increased pmax/pmep pressure ratio in-
speed
ly controlled engine has more param-
volving:
Lower propulsion power demand and
eters which can be adjusted during the
Higher engine efficiency (e.g. by derating)
engine operation in service. This means
Case Study 1
that the ME/ME-C engine types, compared with the MC/MC-C engine types,
Larger stroke/bore ratio involving:
have relatively higher engine efficiency
under low NOx IMO Tier II operation.
75,000 dwt Panamax Product Tanker
Higher engine efficiency (e.g. S-type
Based on a ship with unchanged ship
engines have higher efficiency com-
speed, this case study illustrates the
pared with K-type engines)
potential of reduced fuel consumption
When the design ship speed is reduced, the corresponding propulsion
lower propeller speed.
when derating a main engine and when

Use of electronically controlled engine
using a four-bladed propeller with an
power and propeller speed will also be
instead of camshaft controlled:
increased propeller diameter. Together
reduced, which again may have an in-
fluence on the above-described propel-
Higher engine efficiency (improved
with the main engine types involved,
control of NOx emissions)
the ship particulars in question are as-
ler and main engine parameters.
sumed as follows:
The following is a summary of the major

parameters described:
Main ship particulars assumed:
Propeller
Scantling draught
Design draught
12.6
Length overall
228.6
Length between pp
219.0
Breadth
32.2
Sea margin
15
Engine margin
10
Design ship speed
kn
15.1
Type of propeller
FPP
No. of propeller blades
Larger propeller diameter involving:
Higher propeller efficiency
Lower
optimum
propeller
speed
(rpm)
Lower number of propeller blades involving:
Slightly higher propeller efficiency
Increased optimum propeller speed

(rpm) (from 6 to 5 blades means approximately 10% higher rpm)
Propeller diameter
14.2
target
Propulsion
SMCR power
kW
16,000
14,000
Derating of main engine

Dprop=7.2 m
nblade=4
SMCR power and speed are inclusive of:

15% Sea margin
10% Engine margin
5% Propeller light running coefcient
Dprop=6.8 m
nblade=4
16.0 kn
Dprop=6.95 m
nblade=4
Constant ship speed coefcient = 0.3
=0.3
12,000
6S6
0 MC
ME
C8/
B 8 /
M E
15.5 kn
C8
=0.3
M3/M4
CC
S60M
8 / ME
B 8 / M
M2
15.1 kn
M1
15.0 kn
E C 8
14.5 kn
10,000
14.0 kn
8,000
13.0 kn
=0.3
6,000
M
M1
M2
M3
M4
=
=
=
=
=
SMCR
11,900 kW at 105.0 r/min
11,900 kW at 105.0 r/min
11,680 kW at 98.7 r/min
11,680 kW at 98.7 r/min
105 r/min
5S60MCC8
6S60MCC8
6S60MCC8
6S60MEC8
4,000
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115 r/min
Engine/Propeller speed at SMCR
Fig. 1a: Different main engine and propeller layouts and SMCR possibilities (M1, M2, M3, M4) for a 75,000 dwt Panamax product tanker operating at the same
ship speed of 15.1 knots
Basic case
C8/ME-C8 engine types and the SMCR
As Alt. 1, the basic ship refers to a
points M1, M2, M3 and M4 at 15.1
nominally rated 5S60MC-C8 main en-
knots are also drawn in together with
gine with SMCR = M1 = 11,900 kW x
the propeller curves valid for the three
105.0 r/min and a design ship speed of
different propeller diameters of 6.8 m,
15.1 knots, see Fig. 1a. In this figure the
6.95 m and 7.2 m, each with four pro-
layout diagrams of the 5 and 6S60MC-
peller blades.
Fuel consumption
per day
t/24h
50
Reduced fuel consumption by derating

IMO Tier ll compliance
M1
Alt. 1: 5S60MCC8 nominal (Basis)

SMCR=11,900 kW at 105 r/min
M2
M3
M4
Alt. 2: 6S60MCC8 derated

SMCR=11,900 kW at 105 r/min
45
Alt. 3: 6S60MCC8 derated

SMCR=11,680 kW at 98.7 r/min
Alt. 4: 6S60MEC8 derated
SMCR=11,680 kW at 98.7 r/min
40
Reduction () of fuel consumption:
35
30
Average service load
80% SMCR
25
65
70
75
80
Total
Total
Propeller
t/24h
Engine
%
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.14
2.9
0.0
2.9
1.60
4.1
1.8
2.3
2.39
6.1
1.8
4.3
85
90
95
100 %SMCR
Engine shaft power
Fig. 1b: Relative fuel consumption in normal service of different derated main engines for a 75,000 dwt Panamax product tanker operating at 15.1 knots
Derating of main engine
Increased propeller diameter
Main engine 6S60ME-C8
When installing a 6S60MC-C8 as Alt. 2,
Furthermore, when changing the aft
A further reduction of the fuel con-
i.e. with one extra cylinder, it is possible
body of the ship it may be possible,
sumption is obtained by installing an
to derate this engine to the same SMCR
as Alt. 3, to install a larger propeller di-
electronically controlled main engine
point as the nominally rated 5S60MC-
ameter of 7.2 m with a corresponding
as Alt. 4 with the same SMCR = M4 =
C8, i.e. with SMCR = M2 = M1, and
SMCR = M3 = 11,680 kW x 98.7 r/min
M3. According to Fig. 1b, the total re-
thereby reducing the fuel consumption
valid for a derated 6S60MC-C8.
duction achieved with a 6S60ME-C8
in service at 80% SMCR by -2.9%, see

Fig. 1b.
is -6.1%, i.e. with an extra -2% reducReduced fuel consumption per day
tion in the fuel consumption compared
or per voyage
with the 6S60MC-C8. The reason is
Main engine 6S60MC-C8
that the ME-C type, compared with the
For Alt. 3, Fig. 1b shows a reduction
MC-C IMO NOx Tier II engine type, has
in the fuel consumption of -4.1%, ob-
a higher engine efficiency as a result of
tained by a combination of improved
its improved ability to adapt to the NOx
propeller and main engine efficiencies.
emission requirements of IMO Tier II.
Case Study 2
4,500 teu Panamax Container Vessel
Based on a ship with unchanged propel-
Scantling draught
ler diameter, this case study illustrates

the potential of reduced fuel consumption by lowering the design ship speed
from its original 24.7 knots. The study
focuses on the influence of the number
of propeller blades and the corresponding impact on the selected main engine
types which are able to obtain the design ship speed of 22.0 knots. Together
with the main engine types involved,
13.3
Design draught
12.0
Length overall
286
Length between pp
271
Breadth
32.2
Sea margin
15
Engine margin
10
Type of propeller
Propeller diameter
FPP
m
8.3
target
Design ship speed
kn
target
the ship particulars in question are assumed as follows:
Number of propeller blades changed
Propulsion
SMCR power
kW
50,000
n blade =5
n blade=6

15% Sea margin
10% Engine margin
5% Propeller light running margin
40,000
In
+0.7%
M4
a
c re
se
dp
itc
rm
No
al
ch
pit
= 0.07
9 K 9 0 MC
C6
8K90MC
C6
21.5 kn
6S80ME
C9
8S70MEC8
20,000
No
M1
= 0.07
Constant ship speed coefficient = 0.07

30,000
Dprop=8.3 m
Nor m
n blade =4
ch
al pit
Re du
rm
p
al
itc
h
Re
24.7 kn
du
d
ce
pi
h
tc
25.0 kn
24.5 kn
24.0 kn
M2
23.0 kn
M3
6K80MEC9
22.0 kn
21.0 kn
itch
ed p
78 r/min
104 r/min
M
M1
M2
M3
M4
10,000
= SMCR
= 41,130 kW at 104.0 r/min
= 36,560 kW at 104.0 r/min
= 26,900 kW at 104.0 r/min
= 27,060 kW at 78.0 r/min
24.7 kn
24.0 kn
22.0 kn
22.0 kn
9K90MCC6 (Reference)
8K90MCC6
6K80MEC9
6S80MEC9
0
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110 r/min
Fig. 2a: Different main engine and propeller layouts and SMCR possibilities (M1, M2, M3, M4) for a 4,500 teu Panamax container vessel with different design
ship speeds
5-propeller blades
At 22.0 knots the needed SMCR point
On the latter curve through 22.0 knots,
A nominally rated 9K90MC-C6 with
is approx. 26,800 kW x 90 r/min. The
the SMCR = point M3 = 26,900 kW
SMCR = M1 = 41,130 kW x 104.0 r/
drawn-in layout diagram of an 8S70ME-
x 104.0 r/min is shown. This point is
min, a design ship speed of 24.7 knots
C8 with L1 = 26,160 kW x 91.0 r/min,
placed in the top of the layout diagram
and 5 propeller blades is used as refer-
and still valid for a 5-bladed propeller,
of the 6K80ME-C9 engine.
ence, see Fig. 2a. The optimum (nor-
indicates that the maximum design ship
mal pitch) propeller curve with 5 blades
speed obtainable for this engine type is
6-propeller blades
through M1 indicates the correspond-
approx. 21.8 knots.
The corresponding SMCR = point M4
ing SMCR power and speed point M of
= 27,060 kW x 78.0 r/min for 22.0
the main engine for lower design ship
4-propeller blades
knots with increased propeller pitch is
speeds.
When reducing the number of propeller
also shown, but now valid for the in-
blades from 5 to 4, the corresponding
creased number of propeller blades to
Point M2 = 36,560 kW x 104.0 r/min
optimum SMCR (normal pitch) propeller
be 6, which involves a reduction of the
is valid for a nominally rated 8K90MC-
curve is moved to the right with an ap-
optimum propeller speed. Point M4 is
C6 placed on a propeller curve with re-
prox. 10% higher propeller speed and
equal to the nominal MCR point of the
duced pitch and 5 propeller blades and
is shown together with a similar SMCR
6S80ME-C9 engine.
is able to obtain the design ship speed
propeller curve with reduced propeller
of 24.0 knots.
pitch.
10 Improved Efficiency and Reduced CO2
Fuel consumption per day


kg/24h/teu
t/24h
40
180
38
170
36
160
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
Relative fuel
consumption
per day
%
9K90MCC6
SMCR=41,130kW 104.0 r/min
120
8K90MCC6
150
140
130
6K80MEC9
SMCR=26,900 kW 104.0 r/min
120
6S80MEC9
SMCR=27,060 kW 78.0 r/min
110
% Reference
d
l oa
ic e
v
r
se
CR
ine
SM
E ng
%
0
9
110
80%
100
CR
SM
70%
R
SMC
80
24.7 kn
24.0 kn
20
90
Ship speed
34.7%
34.7%
18
80
Propeller
+0.5%
+0.0%
Engine
2.8%
1.4%
Total:
37.0%
36.0%
14
70
60
22.0 kn
21.5
22.0
22.5
23.00
100
90
Fuel reduction () per day: S80MEC9 K80MEC9
16
130
23.5
24.0
24.5
70
60
50
25.0
25.5 kn
Design ship speed
Fig. 2b: Relative fuel consumption per day of different main engines for different design ship speeds of a 4,500 teu Panamax container vessel
Reduced fuel consumption per day
With 24.7 knots used as a reference
The super long-stroke 6S80ME-C9
The fuel consumption per day for all the
and referring to the service load of
engine with a higher engine efficien-
above four alternative main engine cas-
80% SMCR, the curves show that it is
cy compared with the short-stroke
es has been calculated in compliance
possible to reduce the daily fuel con-
6K80ME-C9 can obtain a higher reduc-
with IMO Tier II emission demands. The
sumption, when going from 24.7 to
tion.
results shown as a function of the de-
22.0 knots, by approx. -36% for the
sign ship speed are shown in Fig. 2b for
6K80ME-C9 engine and by approx.
the engine service loads of 70%, 80%
-37% for the 6S80ME-C9 engine.
and 90% SMCR.
Improved Efficiency and Reduced CO2 11
Fuel consumption per teu per n mile

9K90MCC6
Fuel consumption
per teu per n mile
g/teu/n mile
70
60
50
8K90MCC6
130
120
6K80MEC9
SMCR=26,900 kW 104.0 r/min
6S80MEC9
40
110
ad
vice lo
e ser
R
Engin
C
SM
90%
80%
% Reference
MCR
70% S
30
22.0 kn
21.5
22.0
24.7 kn
23.0
80
70
60
Reduction () of fuel
consumption per voyage:
6K80MEC9:
28%
6S80MEC9:
29%
22.5
100
90
SMCR
24.0 kn
20
Relative fuel
consumption
per teu per
n mile
%
50
23.5
24.0
24.5
40
25.0
25.5 kn
Design ship speed
Fig. 2c: Relative fuel consumption per voyage of different main engines for different design ship speeds of a 4,500 teu Panamax container vessel
Reduced fuel consumption per voyage

Fig. 2c shows the similar fuel consumption per nautical mile, i.e. indicates the
relative fuel consumption needed per
voyage. The result when going from
24.7 knots to 22.0 knots is a total reduction in fuel consumption per voyage
of -28% for the 6K80ME-C9 and -29%
for the 6S80ME-C9.
Case Study 3
8,000 teu Post-Panamax Container
Vessel
Scantling draught
14.5
Based on 6-bladed propeller blades,
Design draught
13.0
Length overall
323
Length between pp
308
Breadth
42.8
Sea margin
15
Engine margin
10
but on different propeller diameter sizes, this case study illustrates the potential of reduced fuel consumption when
reducing the ship speed. The study focuses on the influence of increased propeller diameters at reduced design ship
speeds and the corresponding impact
on the selection of main engine type.
Type of propeller
FPP
6
Propeller diameter
target
Design ship speed
kn
target
The ship particulars in question are:
Propulsion
SMCR power
kW
80,000
Increased propeller diameter

Dprop=8.8 m

15% Sea margin
10% Engine margin
5% Propeller light running margin
70,000
M
M1
M2
M3
= SMCR
= 69,800 kW at 102.1 r/min 26.0 kn
= 60,000 kW at 97.0 r/min 25.0 kn
= 43,100 kW at 78.0 r/min 23.0 kn
= 0.2
12K98MEC7 (Reference)
10K98ME7
9S90MEC8
Dprop=9.2 m
6bladed FPpropellers
Constant ship speed coefficient = 0.2
60,000
Dprop=9.3 m
50,000
40,000
9S9 0
MC C
8 S9 0M
CC8/M
8
10K9
8
12K9
25.0 kn
E C 7
CC7/M
24.0 kn
= 0.2
= 0.2
M3
C8
8 / ME
= 0.2
M2
/ ME 7
MC 7
26.0 kn
M1
2.2%
= 0.2
1.7%
23.0 kn
104 r/min
22.5 kn
E C 8
97 r/min
30,000
65
70
75
78 r/min
80
85
90
95
100
105 r/min
Fig. 3a: Different main engine and propeller layouts and SMCR possibilities (M1, M2, M3) for an 8,000 teu Post-Panamax container vessel with different design
ship speeds
Propeller diameter of 8.8 m
Increased propeller diameter of
The SMCR point M3 referring to the de-
The derated 12K98ME-C7 with SMCR
9.3 m
sign ship speed of 23.0 knots is met by
= M1 = 69,800 kW x 102.1 r/min is used
At the reduced design ship speed of
the derated 9S90ME-C8 main engine.
as reference. The design ship speed is
23.0 knots, but now with an increased
26.0 knots and the 6-bladed propeller
propeller diameter of 9.3 m, corre-
has a diameter of 8.8 m, see Fig. 3a.
sponding to 71.5% of the ships design

draught (approx. the maximum possi-
With an unchanged propeller diameter
ble), the SMCR power and speed will
of 8.8 m, but now with the reduced
be reduced to M3 = 43,100 kW x 78.0
design ship speed of 25.0 knots, the
r/min, see Fig. 3a. This propeller diam-
required SMCR will be M2 = 60,000
eter change corresponds approximately
kW x 97.0 r/min and will be met by a
to the constant ship speed coefficient
10K98ME7 main engine.
= 0.2.
When further reducing the design ship
[ = ln (43,100 kW/44,100 kW) / ln (78.0
speed to 23.0 knots and still with the
r/min/87.5 r/min) = 0.2]
same propeller diameter of 8.8 m, the

required SMCR will be approx. 44,100
kW x 87.5 r/min.

kg/24h/teu
12K98MEC7
t/24h
300
10K98ME7
35
30
25
110
9S90MEC8
20
150
ad
e lo
r v ic
e
s
ine
R
E ng
SMC
90%
R
SMC
80%
R
SMC
70%
% Reference
23.0
23.5
24.00
24.5
80
26.0 kn
Fuel reduction () per day:

25.0 kn
23.0 kn
22.5
100
90
15
100
130
120
250
200
Relative fuel
consumption
per day
%
25.0
Ship speed
37.4%
Propeller
1.3%
Engine
2.3%
Total:
41.0%
25.5
70
60
50
26.0
26.5 kn
Design ship speed
Fig. 3b: Relative fuel consumption per day of different main engines for different design ship speeds of an 8,000 teu Post-Panamax container vessel
Reduced fuel consumption per day
and 26.0 knots with the 9S90ME-C8
The fuel consumption per day of all the
and 23.0 knots .
above three alternative main engine

cases has been calculated in compli-
Of this reduction, the main influence of
ance with IMO Tier II emission require-
-37.4% results from the reduced ship
ments.
speed while -1.3% results from the increased propeller efficiency, and the
The results shown as a function of the
improved engine efficiency of the su-
design ship speed are shown in Fig. 3b
per long-stroke S90ME-C engine type,
for the engine service loads of 70%,
compared with the short-stroke engine
80% and 90% SMCR, respectively.
type K98ME-C, adds another -2.3% of

the total fuel consumption reduction.
With 26.0 knots used as reference and

referring to the average service load
of 80% SMCR, the fuel consumption
curves show that it is possible to reduce
the daily fuel consumption by approx.
-41% when replacing the 12K98ME-C7
Fuel consumption per teu per n mile

Relative fuel
consumption
per teu per
n mile
12K98MEC7
%
130
Fuel consumption
per teu per n mile
g/teu/n mile
60
10K98ME7
120
50
110
d
e l oa
40
9S90MEC8
E ng
e r v ic
ine s
R
SMC
90%
% Reference
90
R
SMC
80%
80
MCR
70% S
26.0 kn
30
25.0 kn
22.5
23.0
23.5
24.00
24.5
70
60
Reduction () of fuel consumption

per voyage: 33%
23.0 kn
20
100
50
25.0
25.5
26.0
26.5 kn
Design ship speed
Fig. 3c: Relative fuel consumption per voyage of different main engines for different design ship speeds of an 8,000 teu Post-Panamax container vessel
Reduced fuel consumption per voyage

Fig. 3c shows the similar fuel consumption per nautical mile, i.e. the relative
fuel consumption needed per voyage.
The result when going from 26.0 knots
to 23.0 knots is a total reduction in fuel
consumption per voyage of -33%.
Summary
Thus, the reliable and high-efficiency su-
The coming political demands for re-
per long-stroke MAN B&W two-stroke
duction of the CO2 emissions for mer-
main engine types such as the S80 and
chant ships may cause many attractive,
S90 normally used for tankers may also
but also more expensive, countermeas-
be attractive solutions for the container
ures on ships, as for example waste
ships of tomorrow, with around 30% re-
heat recovery systems. However, one
duced CO2 emissions per voyage com-
of the major parameters not to for-
pared with the ships of today.
get is the aftbody design of the ship

itself and its propeller in combination
Additionally, the use of liquid natural
with a reduced design ship speed. For
gas (LNG) instead of heavy fuel oil may
example, the combination of a reduced
reduce the CO2 emission by approx.
ship speed and an increased propeller
23% owing to the different chemical
diameter and/or a changed number of
make-up of LNG.
propeller blades may reveal many new

possible main engine selections not
This has already been included in the
normally used for container ships.
formulation of the design index.
All data provided in this document is non-binding. This data serves informational
purposes only and is especially not guaranteed in any way. Depending on the
subsequent specific individual projects, the relevant data may be subject to
changes and will be assessed and determined individually for each project. This
will depend on the particular characteristics of each individual project, especially
specific site and operational conditions. CopyrightMAN Diesel & Turbo.
5510-0068-01ppr Aug 2014 Printed in Denmark
MAN Diesel & Turbo

Teglholmsgade 41
2450 Copenhagen SV, Denmark
Phone +45 33 85 11 00
Fax +45 33 85 10 30
info-cph@mandieselturbo.com
www.mandieselturbo.com
MAN Diesel & Turbo a member of the MAN Group

5510 0068 01ppr - Low

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5510 0068 01ppr - Low

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Improved Efficiency

and Reduced CO2

Improved Efficiency and Reduced CO2

Improved Efficiency and Reduced CO2

All main engines discussed are opti-

One of the future goals in the marine in-

mised/matched in compliance with the

dustry is to reduce the impact of CO2

IMO Tier II emission requirements, even

emissions from ships in order to meet

though an improved fuel consump-

3. 8,000 teu Post-Panamax Container Vessel

10K98ME7 and 12K98ME-C7

the coming stricter International Mari-

tion usually also means increased NOx

Influence of reduced ship speed

time Organisation (IMO) greenhouse

emissions. Furthermore, all ships have

Influence of increased propeller di-

gas emission requirements.

Fixed Pitch Propeller (FPP) types and

rectly coupled with the propeller and,

discussed at IMO, an Energy Efficiency

therefore, have the same speed as the

Major Propeller and Main Engine

Design Index (EEDI) and an Energy Ef-

ficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI).

In order to improve the overview of the

and the lower the optimum propeller

and vessel design and the EEOI is used

relative changes of the fuel consump-

speed referring to an optimum ratio of

to guide the operator in developing the

tion and CO2 emissions in this Paper,

the propeller pitch and propeller diam-

best practices on board.

relative reduction of figures are stated

with minus (-) and relative increase of

figures are stated with plus (+).

When increasing the propeller pitch

a design index to be stepwise reduced

The three case studies and main pa-

responding propeller speed may be

maximum level of possibly 70% com-

rameters analysed are:

reduced and the efficiency will also be

pared with the 100% design index valid

1. 75,000 dwt Panamax Product Tanker at

However, it should be emphasised that

Nominally rated 5S60MC-C8 versus

ing on the degree of the changed pitch.

15.1 knots ship speed

but here the propeller speed may increase.

Influence of derating of engine

The efficiency of a two-stroke main en-

roughly equivalent to a reduction in fuel

Influence of derating and increased

gine particularly depends on the ratio of

the maximum (firing) pressure and the

Influence of using electronically con-

mean effective pressure. The higher the

ratio, the higher the engine efficiency,

reduction in fuel consumption per voyage of future ships in normal, average