Economic Benefits of Hybrid Drive Propulsion for
Naval Ships
Gene Castles,Member, IEEE and Greg Reed
DRS Power Technology, Inc
Fitchburg, MA USA
AbstractThe typical operating profile for destroyers and other
marine vessels includes a significant amount of time loitering or
other low-speed activity. Low-speed operation is accompanied
by propulsion system inefficiency, as the propulsion turbines are
operating off-design. Low speeds are further enabled by
propeller pitch variation, which exacerbates system inefficiency.
A practical hybrid electric drive system will be proposed that
complements the ships existing mechanical propulsion and
electrical plants. Electrical power generated by the ship service
turbine-generators (SSTGs) is used to drive large permanent
magnet motors. The motors then drive the propeller shafts
during low speed operation. This scheme allows the propulsion
turbines to be shut down and the SSTGs to run closer to design
point, resulting in fuel savings. Additional savings are possible
at higher speeds by operating the motor(s) in generation mode,
enabling SSTG shut down and propulsion turbine performance
optimization. This paper describes in detail the concept of
hybrid drive operation and demonstrates the economic
justification for such a system using the DDG-51 class of
destroyers as an example platform.
I. INTRODUCTION
The US Navys fleet of DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class
destroyers exemplifies the successful application of gas
turbines to marine duty. The DDG-51 Class ship uses seven
gas turbines, four General Electric LM2500 units for
propulsion and three Rolls-Royce 501K units for electric
power generation.
USS Arleigh Burke, the first of this class, was
commissioned in 1991 and will be de-commissioned in 2026,
so it is about halfway through its service life. Table I breaks
Table 1. DDG51 fleet summary
Number of Commissioning De-Commissioning
Ships Dates Dates
Flight I 21 1991-1997 2026-2032
Flight II 7 1998-1999 2033-2034
Flight IIA 34 2000- 2034-
978-1-4244-3439-8/09/$25.00 2009 IEEE 515
Ashish Bendre, Member, IEEE and Robert Pitsch,
Member, IEEE
DRS Power and Control Technologies, Inc
Milwaukee, WI USA
down the fleet size and life span.
Flights I and II use the same gas turbines. Flight IIA is a
larger ship, longer by five to eight feet (1.4 2.4 meters) and
displacing 9,200 tons (8,346 tonnes) versus 8,300 tons (7,530
tonnes) for Flight I. During Flight IIA production, the power
rating of the SSTG was increased due to increased electrical
load. Most Flight IIA ships have the higher-rated SSTG. The
RR 501-K ship service turbine generator for Flight IIA is rated
at 3000 kW, versus 2500 kW for Flights I and II.
More recent ship design efforts have focused on the all-
electric ship, in part due to the performance improvements and
fuel savings that can be realized. Reference [1] describes the
concept and benefits of the all-electric ship in great detail.
Reference [2] discusses gas turbine (GT) application for the
all-electric ship. A key element of the all-electric ship is the
use of electric motors, rather than direct mechanical drive, for
propulsion. In the DDG-51 class ships, the propellers are
driven, through a reduction gear, by the LM2500 GTs.
Variable-pitch propellers are used for speed control at low
speeds.
Complete conversion of DDG-51 Class ships from
mechanical drive to electric propulsion is unrealistic. While
the fuel savings potential is enormous, the implementation
cost would overwhelm the savings. However, a hybrid drive
system, combining electric and mechanical drive options, can
be developed to enable substantial fuel savings for a relatively
low implementation cost. The ideal hybrid drive system is
one that can not only be installed on new DDG-51 ships, but
that can also be retro-fit into ships in the fleet.
II. DISCUSSION
At a very high level, hybrid electric drive for marine
vessels is similar to its counterpart in the automotive industry.
While this analogy is useful for generating interest and
conveying the benefits to a general audience, the actual
systems differ considerably.
Gas turbine efficiency is a function of load, and part-load,
or off-design, performance is significantly lower than at full
load. Fig. 1 shows specific fuel consumption (SFC) for the
GE LM2500 as a function of load. Fig. 2 shows SFC vs. load
for the Rolls-Royce 501-K gas turbine. Its clear that a single
gas turbine operating close to the design point is more
economical than multiple gas turbines operating at low load.
Trail shaft operation, with a single propulsion gas turbine
operating a single propeller, is one example of fuel-efficient
operation. Observations in [3] show that the typical ship
spends more than 90% of its life below 60% load. This
loading profile suggests a significant opportunity for savings.
Furthermore, the steep increase in SFC with reduced load
indicates that the small inefficiencies of electrical machines
can easily be tolerated. Electric motors and generators are
typically well over 95% efficient. Any calculation of fuel
savings should take electric machine efficiency into account,
but it will have only a small effect on the outcome.
Hybrid drive systems for the DDG-51 ships can be split
into two categories: motoring-only and motoring-generating.
The motoring-only concept is simpler, but offers limited
payback. In contrast the motoring-generating concept is more
complex, but also has greater payback potential.
Motoring-only operation is shown conceptually in Fig. 3.
In this configuration, electric power from the SSTGs is used to
drive a motor. The motor, in turn, drives the propeller shaft
and the propulsion gas turbine is shut down.
Power from the SSTGs is converted by a power electronic
conversion device known as a drive which does the actual
control of the motors shaft velocity and torque output. The
drive allows for smooth, precise control of the motor from
zero shaft speed up to the maximum motoring speed. In
motoring-only operation the drive and motor do not return
energy back to the ships ac bus.
Motoring-only operation is limited by 1) the amount of
electric power available, and 2) the available space for an
electric motor. The former limit would favor study of hybrid
drive for application first of Flight IIA ships, as the SSTGs are
capable of producing more power (3000 kW vice 2500 kW as
noted above). More power means, of course, a larger
operational envelope for hybrid drive application, and hence
greater fuel savings. The basis for analysis, then, will be the
Flight IIA ships.
GE LM2500 Specific Fuel Consumption
1.4
Poor GT
1.2
Efficiency
1
SFC [lb/HP-hr]
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Engine Shaft horsepower
Figure1. Representative LM2500 SFC
RR 501-K34 Specific Fuel Consumption
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60 Poor
Efficiency
0.50
0.40
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
E ng i ne Shaf t Po w er ( hp )
Figure 2. Representative 501-K34 SFC
The latter limit is the key to a viable retro-fit design and is
further constrained by the selection of motor interfaces. The
most important interface, of course, is that between the motor
output shaft and the propulsion drive train. Reference [4]
discusses this interface and observes that the best options are
direct shaft drive and geared drive.
The geared drive option can be further separated into an
option that uses the existing main reduction gear (MRG) and
an option that includes its own reduction gear. The geared
drive option enables use of a higher speed motor, which is
smaller in size and easier to install than a lower speed motor
of the same power rating. This size savings is offset by the
need for an additional gearbox unless the motor is integrated
with the MRG. Integration of the motor with the MRG also
simplifies the lubrication needs of the geared drive system.
Integration of the motor with the MRG raises, justifiably, the
concern over MRG modification and re-qualification to
several military specifications. While the details of the
integration are beyond the scope of this paper, there are
methods for motor-MRG integration that leave the MRG and
its installation unaffected. The geared drive option studied
assumes integration with the MRG. It is also simpler to
implement than the direct drive option and is the only option
covered in this paper.
A direct approach is favored in determining available
space for the hybrid drive motor. While rules-based CAD
models are an available option, the value of an on-board
physical ship check cannot be over-estimated. A physical ship
25000 30000
Figure 3. Hybrid motoring CONOPS at slow speeds
516
check aboard a DDG-51 Flight IIA ship was conducted to
determine the available space for an electric motor. The ship
check explored various locations and options for motor
installation.
As motor power rating is limited by motor size, and hence
by the available space, motor power density becomes very
important. In unconstrained space, motor size is irrelevant and
low cost becomes the key factor in selecting a motor
technology. However, in tight quarters, the importance of
power density increases and a balance must be struck between
low cost and motor compactness. Space considerations also
increase the importance of reliability and technology
readiness, as both cost and duration of a repair will increase
when the motor is in a confined space.
When the competing requirements of low cost, high power
density and technology readiness are considered, permanent
magnet synchronous motors emerge as the leading candidate
for use in hybrid drive applications. While not the lowest-cost
solution, permanent magnet motors offer superior power
density. Furthermore, permanent magnet motors have
demonstrated their durability and reliability under harsh
operating conditions, e.g., oil & gas drilling. Both axial-flux
and radial-flux permanent magnet motors can be considered
for this application. Fig. 4 shows the DRS Model PA44, an
axial-flux permanent magnet motor. The choice of permanent
magnet motors means that available motor space can be
translated into available power using technology curves and
preliminary calculations.
If the permanent magnet motor is mechanically driven it
can also be run as a generator, enabling motoring-generating
operation. The motoring potion of motoring-generating
operation is the same as the motoring-only operation described
above. At some point, however, the available excess
electrical power is insufficient to propel the ship at the desired
speed. At this point, one or more of the mechanical drive
LM2500s are needed for propulsion. However, as the SFC
curve in Fig. 1 reveals, the SFC at the transition point is likely
to be quite poor. Furthermore, with electric power no longer
needed for propulsion, the SSTG SFC deteriorates, as Fig. 2
illustrates.
Figure 4. DRS PA44 axial-flux permanent magnet motor
517
During generating operation, the propulsion turbines also
power the motor-turned-generator, which is connected to the
ships service electrical system, or grid through the drive. The
drive regulates the amount of power that is generated from the
motor-generator and converts it to the proper voltage and
phase relationship to allow power flow into the ships grid. If
the LM2500s are used for electric power generation in
addition to propulsion, they can run closer to design point,
with improved SFC. The additional power generated makes it
possible to shut down one of the SSTGs and, as with the
motoring case, fuel savings results. Fig. 5 shows,
conceptually, one of the generating schemes that are possible.
An added benefit of the generating mode is the ability to
add capacity to the ships electrical plant due to the addition of
the motor-generators through propulsion derived ship service
power. An example of this is shown in Fig. 6.
The operating profile for the DDG-51 can be split into trail
shaft, split plant, and full plant operations. In trail shaft mode,
only one propulsion GT is operating. In split plant mode, two
are operating. In full plant mode, all four propulsion GTs are
operating. A profile of operating mode vs. speed is shown in
Fig. 7 [4].
Operating profile is necessary, but not sufficient, to
determine fuel savings. The relative amount of time spent at
each speed must also be known, as well as the total number of
operating hours per year. Reference [5] reports on DDG-51
operating profiles and gives the time spent at particular
speeds, including design speed profiles as well as some actual
operating profiles. It was found that the ships, on average,
spend more time at lower speeds than forecasted by the design
profile. This results in yet more opportunity for fuel savings if
a hybrid drive system is deployed. Fig. 8 shows an average
speed distribution, developed using the 1998 deployment data
for the USS Arleigh Burke and USS Curtis Wilbur.
The average total number of operating hours per ship per
year can be estimated, since the exact number is forever
changing. With operating profile fixed, fuel savings is a linear
function of total operating hours, so re-calculation of fuel
savings for annual operating hours other than the assumed
value is a trivial exercise. The ship is assumed to be underway
one-third of the time, or 2912 hours per year.
Figure 5. Hybrid generating CONOPS (split plant)
 electrical distribution system and power electronics are
estimated, also with some conservatism, at 6%, bringing the
overall hybrid drive system efficiency to 91.1%. Ship service
power requirements are estimated at 30% of the total power
available, or 2700 kW.
Another assumption that is required in order to complete
the analysis is the speed at which motoring operation is no
longer feasible. This is a function of motor size and excess
power availability. From the ship check described above, it
was determined that there is space available near each MRG to
accommodate a 1200 kW motor. This allows for motoring
operation up to 12 knots. Above 12 knots, the hybrid system
Figure 6. Possible additional generating capacity is in generating mode, and one of the SSTGs is shut down.
Fuel savings is reported on the basis of barrels of fuel
saved per year per ship. Fuel used for hybrid drive operations
DDG-51 Class Operating Profile is compared to the baseline, i.e., the annual fuel usage of the
average current DDG-51 ship. Barrel size is 42 gallons. F-76
100%
fuel is assumed.
90%

80%
While a 1200 kW motor is feasible, it is also of interest to
70%
understand the effect of motor size on fuel savings. If the bulk
of the savings is due to low-speed motoring operation, for
Time in Mode

60%
Full Plant example, it may be more cost-effective to deploy a smaller,
50% Split Plant
Trail Shaft
lower-cost, system and forfeit fuel savings at higher speeds.
40%
Fig. 9 shows the fuel savings, in barrels/year, as a function of
30% motor size for motoring-only hybrid operation. The results
20% show not only the benefit of the simple hybrid drive system,
10% but also the increasing benefit with increased motor size.
0%
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26+ The motoring-generating system requires a somewhat
Speed [knots] more complex motor drive, but is otherwise similar to the
motoring-only system. The benefits of the motoring-
generating hybrid drive system are shown in Fig. 10. The
Figure 7. Propulsion mode of operation as a function of speed
addition of generating capability greatly increases the potential
fuel savings, as expected.

Composite DDG-51 Speed Distribution

The true test of concept viability is the return on
investment (ROI), which is a topic for future study. An
18
accurate ROI calculation requires knowledge of both material
16 and installation costs for the motor and drive, as well as the
14 price of fuel. Preliminary estimates, though, show a very
% Time at Each Speed

12 favorable ROI. Future fuel costs will likely rise as technology

10 developments bring down the cost of motors and associated
8

6 Hybrid Drive Fuel Savings vs. Machine Rating

Motoring-Only Configuration
4 9000
2912 +10% hours - Motoring only
2 8000 2912 hours - Motoring only
2912-10% hours - Motoring only
Fuel Savings per Ship [barrels/year]

0 7000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

Speed [knots] 6000 16 Knots

5000

Figure 8. Speed distribution based on 1998 deploymwent data for two 4000 13 Knots

ships 3000 11 Knots

2000
9 Knots
8 Knots
1000 6 Knots

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Electrical machine (motor or generator) efficiency is Motor Size [kW]

estimated at 97%, consistent with DRS permanent magnet

motor experience, but with some conservatism. Losses in the Figure 9. Fuel savings per ship for motoring-only operation

518
 Annual Operating Time Reduction vs. Machine Rating
Hybrid Drive Fuel Savings vs. Machine Rating
Motoring-Generating Configuration Motoring-Only Configuration
12,000
2912 + 10% hours - M & G 1800
2912 hours - M & G
10,000 1600
Fuel Savings per Ship [barrels/year]

2912 -10% hours - M & G

Reduction in Hours per LM2500

16 Knots 1400
8,000
1200
13 Knots
1000
6,000
11 Knots
800
9 Knots
4,000
8 Knots
600
6 Knots
400
2,000
200

0
-
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Motor Size [kW] Motor Size [kW]

Figure 10. Fuel savings per ship for motoring-generating operation Figure 11. Reduction in annual propulsion GT operating hours per
ship for motoring-only operation

electronics, which will yield an attractive ROI. multiplied by the number of SSTGs on line. For this study,
two SSTGs are required to be online to support the ship
A secondary, but still important, consideration is the service loads with the present operation protocols (a minimum
benefit of hybrid drive operation on gas turbine maintenance. of two sources of supply are required). The baseline operating
Hybrid operation enables reduced gas turbine operation which, hours and the reduction in operating hours associated with a
in turn, means less frequent on-condition maintenance. An hybrid system capable of motoring and generating is shown in
indication of maintenance trends can be inferred from the Fig. 12. For the motoring-only option, there is no reduction in
mean-time-to-removal (MTTR) and mean-time-between- SSTG operational hours compared to the baseline case. Based
failures (MTBF) data for the propulsion and ship service gas on the assumed annual steaming hours, a 12-knot system will
turbines. The MTTR for the LM2500 fleet has been reported reduce the propulsion GT operational hours by 1,310 hours or
as 22,075 hours [6]. Likewise, the MTTR and MTBF for the 22.5%. These reductions translate into an extension in the
501-K34 have been reported as 17,657 and 645 hours, MTTR from the baseline 9.6 years to 12.4 years.
respectively [7]. These times are, of course, measured in
service hours, not elapsed time. Assuming that MTTR is No attempt is made here to quantify, in dollars, the benefit
relatively constant, a reduction in annual operating hours of increased elapsed time between engine maintenance.
translates to an increase in elapsed time between engine However, on-condition maintenance events correlate to
removal or maintenance. For example, if an LM2500 is operating hours. A reduction in annual gas turbine operating
operated an average of 1,592 hours/year (present usage based hours should correspond directly to a reduction in annual
on assumed annual steaming), the average elapsed time maintenance events and maintenance costs. Based on the
between removals is approximately 13.9 years. If the above data, maintenance events are expected to be reduced by
LM2500 operating hours are reduced by 20%, the elapsed 17% for the LM2500 fleet and 22.5% for the 501K-34 fleet.
time between removals increased to about 17.3 years.
Reduced engine operation translates directly into reduced Annual Operating Time Reduction vs. Machine Rating
annual maintenance needs. Motoring-Only Configuration

Fig. 11 shows the reduction in total annual LM2500 1800

operating hours per ship with respect to the baseline hours for 1600
Reduction in Hours per LM2500

both the motoring-only option. It should be noted that the 1400

operating hour reduction is the same for a motoring-only 1200
solution and the motoring and generating system solution
1000
because having the generating capability does not further
reduce the need to run the propulsion turbines. The generating 800

capability only serves to reduce the ship service turbine hours. 600

Assuming motoring operation up to a speed of 12 knots and 400

annual steaming hours of 2,912 hours/year, the reduction in 200
annual operating hours on the propulsion turbines is 1,080
0
hours or 270 hours per LM2500, or approximately 17%. This 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
translates to a MTTR of approximately 16.7 years. Motor Size [kW]

The addition of generating capability enables a reduction

in annual 501-K34 gas turbine generator (SSTG) operating Figure 12. Reduction in annual engine operating hours per ship
motoring-generating operation
hours over the baseline case. For the baseline, the total
number of hours is simply the number of steaming hours

519
 III. SUMMARY
A hybrid electric drive system offers tangible benefits to
the DDG-51 fleet of ships. A motoring-only system offers
significant fuel savings and enables reduced annual
maintenance of the propulsion gas turbines. The slightly more
complex motoring-generating system offers vastly increased
fuel savings and the additional benefit of reduced annual
maintenance of the SSTGs. It also has the potential to
increase total electrical capacity through propulsion derived
ship service power. Assuming a 12-knot system and the
operating profile used in this study, fuel savings are estimated
at 4800 barrels per ship per year for the motoring-only case
and 8900 barrels per ship per year for the motoring-generating
case. Annual maintenance costs reductions of 17% for the
LM2500 fleet and 22.5% for the 501K-34 fleet are expected.
Considering the competing requirements of low cost, high
power density, and technology readiness, permanent magnet
motors are the first choice for use in hybrid drive applications.
520
REFERENCES
[1] G. Boughner, A., 2003, A new approach to gas turbine systems in the
all electric warship era, ASME Paper Number GT2003-38666, ASME
Turbo Expo, Atlanta, Georgia
[2] Willett, F.T., and Patel, M., 2006, LM500 packaged power for the
all-electric ship, ASME Paper Number GT2006-90252, ASME Turbo
Expo, Barcelona, Spain
[3] Nickens, A., An overview of electric warship technologies,
proceedings of ShipTech 2004 (NSRP Shipbuilding Technologies
Conference), January 27-28, 2004, Biloxi, MS
[4] McCoy, T.J., et al., Hybrid electric drive for DDG 51 class
destroyers, ANSE 2007 Symposium: Fuel Tank to Target: Building
the Electric Fighting Ship, June 25-26, 2007, Arlington, VA
[5] Porche, I., Willis, H., and Ruszkowski, M., 2004, Framework for
quantifying uncertainty in electric ship design, ONR Report DB-407-
ONR
[6] Driscoll, M., and Picozzi, J., 2004, Resultant benefits of standardized
overhaul packages for LM2500 propulsion gas turbine engines in U.S.
Navy applications, ASME Paper Number GT2004-53456, ASME
Turbo Expo, Vienna, Austria
[7] Russom, D., Mummaw, K. and Pineiro, I., 2004, Managing reliability
improvement in the U.S. Navys marine gas turbine generator sets,
ASME Paper Number GT2004-54122, ASME Turbo Expo, Vienna,
Austria