Proceedings of the ASME 2014 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2014
June 8-13, 2014, San Francisco, California, USA

OMAE2014-23914

CHALLENGES FOR USING LNG FUELED SHIPS FOR ARCTIC ROUTES

Henrique M. Gaspar Sren Ehlers Vilmar sy

Aalesund University College Norwegian University of Science Aalesund University College
Aalesund, Norway and Technology/ Aalesund Aalesund, Norway
University College
Trondheim/Aalesund,Norway

Sandro Erceg Ocane Balland Hans Petter Hildre

Norwegian University of Science DNV GL Aalesund University College
and Technology Hvik, Norway Aalesund, Norway
Trondheim, Norway

ABSTRACT
The utilization of the Northern Sea Route by commercial
ships is an official fact. Since 2009 the number of international
cargo vessels using the passage has been increasing, and a
continuous raise in these numbers is expected if the route
establishes itself as reliable. The route saves vessels
approximately two weeks time in summer over a route via the
Suez channel, but the increase brings concerns, regarding
environmental impact, safety, and operability on the route.
This paper investigates the current challenges of using
LNG fueled ships for arctic transport routes. A panorama of the
recent conditions and predictions for the arctic environment
regarding ice concentration and seasonal route availability is
presented. The current development of LNG as a commercial
fuel is discussed based on this arctic panorama, approaching
key topics such as infrastructure, economic viability, propulsion
requirements, and environmental impact. Special attention is
given to the performance of LNG propulsion systems under
arctic conditions, focusing on powering and air emissions. We
conclude the paper by proposing the implementation of a
lifecycle model to predict economical and environmental
performance indicators when simulating a fleet of LNG fueled
ships operating under many possible future ice conditions
scenarios.
INTRODUCTION THE ARCTIC AND LNG FUELED
SHIPS
The Russian Federation opened up the Northern Sea Route
(NSR) for foreign traffic in 2009 and thereby a new transport
route connecting Europe to Asia. By July of 2013 the
administrators of the NSR had granted permission to 204 ships
to sail this year (Milne, 2013). Moreover, some activity also
occurred on the Northwest Passage, with the ice-strengthened
bulk carrier Nordic Orion transporting coal from Vancouver to
Finland. Figure 1 provides an overview of the routes in the
arctic (McAlaster, 2013). The implications of the diminishing
Arctic icecap for maritime transport are unclear. On the one
hand, a possible opening of the Northern or Trans-Arctic Sea
route represents about 50% reduction of the sailing distance for
several trading routes. Those vessels that can exploit this
opportunity are likely to improve their competitive position
significantly. On the other hand, the operational challenges in
these waters, and the corresponding risks and uncertainties
involved, are considered very severe. This includes political
factors (Russian territorial waters), environmental concerns
(possible oil spills and air pollution), operational conditions
(harsh environment, distance to nearest land base, rescue time
etc.), ice navigation (possibility of drifting ice), contractual and
insurance issues (increased probability of delays) and the length
of the season that is sufficiently ice free. As a result, arctic
transit is not even considered by most shipowners. However,
DNV (2010) expects 480 container transit voyages across the
Arctic Sea in 2030, primarily using the NSR. Arctic areas are
also very important for marine biomass production, and highly
sensitive to environmental impacts. Therefore, emissions to sea
and air must be kept to a minimum, and care must be taken
when activities expand into these areas. Direct oil spill and air
emissions such as sulfur (SOx), nitric oxides (NOx) and
particulate matter (PM) are the result of burning residual fuels
such as heavy fuel oil. As a consequence, heavy fuel oil is
banned in the Antarctic and coastal waters of Svalbard. In this
context, LNG is now introduced as a very clean alternative fuel,

1 Copyright 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/26/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 reducing emissions to air significantly and also removing the this conclusion by comparing vessels with no ice class up to
risk of severe oil spills. LNG is a pure fuel that burns with 1AS under the assumption that they would all be able to operate
extremely low emissions, and most of the LNG fueled engine along the NSR, if for different operational windows.
concepts will meet the IMO Tier III regulations without exhaust
gas after-treatment systems. High efficiencies and low carbon
content give direct reductions in CO2 of 20% to almost 30%,
which allows merchant vessels to reach their energy efficiency
design index (EEDI) targets. SOx and PM are reduced to zero.
LNG fueled ships have been operating on the coast of
Norway the last 10 years, and now there are more than 50 LNG
fueled ships. The technology challenges are now mainly related
to infrastructure on shore to supply the vessels with fuel, and
further on board fuel systems, which are still limited to relative
low capacities (200-600 m3 tanks). However, LNG market prize
now boost the development of LNG solutions, including
infrastructure and LNG production facilities available in
Melkya and Norway, and further development is planned in
the Russian arctic region.
The Russian Federation has made claims to the ownership
of the route and controls the traffic with their icebreaker fleet as
well as with transit tariffs. Since the Russian Federation first
made its claims, up to 60 vessels have traversed the NSR per
year. The NSR is defining the different fairways going from
Novaya Zemlya in the west to the Bering Strait in the east with
a current draught limitation of 13 m and a width limitation of
30 m. The draught limitation is, however, going to be increased
since recent depth measurements indicate a depth of 17
according to Rosatomflot (2013), which also agrees to escort
ships in mild ice conditions being wider than 30 m. The latter
limitation is primarily a result of the ice breaker width of 30 m, Figure 1. Overview of the arctic routes Northwest Passage
which results only in a slightly wider channel if the ice and Northern Sea Route (The Globe, 2013)
conditions are severe. Furthermore, this width limitation is
subjected to an increase to 32 m with the new nuclear ice Furthermore, there is basically no land-based
breaker due in 2018. It can also be overcome using two infrastructure, such as rescue centers or repair yards, along the
escorting ice breakers; however this incurs an increase in fees. NSR, which the draft limitations of larger vessels makes acute.
The length of the route depends on the ice conditions and the Therefore, insurance companies (Haahjem, 2012) are more or
choice of different stretches of the route, but is generally less requiring ships to use Rosatomflot ice breaker as an escort,
considered to be 2100 to 2900 nautical miles. In the absence of as well as the possible towage of a damaged vessel to a port
ice, shorter high latitude routes can be selected, whereas the outside the NSR. Hence, if accidents happen, towage would
presence of ice increases the route length due to the longer cause a significant delay and financial penalty to the voyage.
near-shore routes as partially shown in Figure 1 (yellow versus Figure 2 summarizes the yearly transits and cargo volumes of
red route). the NSR (based on Rosatomflot, 2013), including a timeline
The current NSR transits benefit from the availability of with the key events since the opening of the route in 2009
the shorter route and the resulting fuel savings. The insurance (based on Milne, 2013 and McAlaster, 2013).
cost for similar vessels has so far been equal to the Suez The next sections present a panorama of the recent
channel route insurance, including a piracy addition for the conditions and predictions for the arctic environment regarding
Gulf of Aden. The current tariff per ton of cargo transported ice concentration and seasonal route availability. The current
can be as low as 5 USD, which is similar to the Suez Canal development of LNG as a commercial fuel is later discussed
(Mahony, 2011). However, the additional hurdle of a fairly based on this arctic panorama, approaching key topics such as
non-transparent process needs to be overcome to enter the infrastructure, economic viability, propulsion requirements, and
NSR. This process has been updated in 2013 with a release of environmental impact. Special attention is given to the
new NSR regulations, now allowing the operation along the performance study of LNG propulsion systems under arctic
NSR even without any ice class, with ice breakers escorting in conditions, focusing on powering and air emissions. We
light ice conditions. Erikstad and Ehlers (2011), however conclude with discussing a lifecycle model, which predicts
indicated that a vessel with ice class 1A is the more economical economical and environmental performance indicators when
choice, since it allows for more operational days. They reached

2 Copyright 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/26/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 simulating a LNG fueled ship operating under many possible
future ice conditions scenarios.
Figure 2. Yearly transit and cargo volume of the NSR since
2009, with timeline of key events
ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT
In the context of sea-based transport and operation the
arctic environment may be defined as a sea area with cold
climate and at least partial ice-coverage for a period of time.
Thus, areas within the Arctic Circle may be considered as such,
but as a sole criterion this does not suffice since areas within
the Barents Sea are ice free on a year round basis while the
Baltic and the Caspian Sea are ice covered during the winter
period. Thus, in addition to the the general presence of ice,
which increases the resistance of the vessel and induces local
loads to the structure, the cold climate represents another
challenge for the vessels structure as well as impacting the
crew. Another element defining the arctic environment is the
constant and potentially rapid change of site-specific
conditions, which are highly unpredictable, such as polar lows
or drifting ice masses. In other words, the knowledge of current
and future ice and metocean conditions at the site in question is
limited. Prediction models are associated with high
uncertainties and the current trend of melting ice caps in the
northern hemisphere represent additional challenges due to the
limited amount of reference points required for better
predictions. Furthermore, besides the lack of good ice condition
models, the visibility is usually very limited in the high north,
since the summer months are typically foggy while the winter
months are without sunlight. Additionally, the distances are
large, thus the periods without supply or the time it takes to
perform rescue manoeuvres is significantly increased compared
to non-arctic environments. In conclusion, the complexity of
3 Copyright 2014 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/26/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
the extremely sensitive arctic environment can be described
only approximately.
Consequently, the introduction of unwanted substances
into the Arctic environment, for example from an oil leak, must
be avoided, as they could cause permanent damage to an
unpredictably large portion of the ecosystem. In other words,
the consensus for any arctic operation today is that accidents
must be avoided at what cost however remains unclear, as is
the required safety level. This leads to the common practice of
minimising expenditure on safety measures, due to pressure to
be economically viable. Thus, all involved stakeholders, i.e.
policy-makers, the oil and gas industry, the shipping sector,
fisheries, tourism, inhabitants of the arctic region, marine
mammals, migrating animals, etc., must have an understanding
that the sensitive arctic environment must be preserved.
Naturally, the range of interests of these stakeholders is fairly
diverse and thus requires widely applicable and mandatory
regulations to ensure sustainable use of the Arctic sea region by
all parties. Where arctic field and maritime operations are
concerned, the costs of complying with the concept of
sustainability may be much higher than currently estimated; at
least it is likely to be for the first concepts, and may be reduced
if these prove to be as safe as required. Hence, defining the
safety level in terms of the safe region will be advisable here,
even if costs seem to be disproportionately high compared to
the rest of the world, where empirical evidence has defined the
safe region over a period of time. The Polar Code (Deggim,
2013) aims to harmonise this in a common regulatory
framework and sums this up with the statement that the safety
level in the arctic regions shall be equal to the non-arctic
regions. The question remains however if this suffices.
Furthermore, the mandatory rules and agreed regulations are
still scarce and typically high-level rules, thus the stakeholders
have to improvise on the basis of experience.
It is important to note that a ship sailing on pure LNG
would significantly reduce the unwanted environmental
consequences of an accident, by first of all removing the risk of
oil spill.
DESIGN ASPECTS OF SHIPS OPERATING IN ARCTIC
ENVIRONMENTS
The industry standard for the design of ice-going vessels
concerning hull strengthening and propulsion in single year ice
is set by the Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules (FSICR, 2008)
for the lower polar, i.e. Baltic sea, ice classes. These rules have
been adopted by all major classification societies. Since, the
low salinity of the Baltic Sea results in strong ice, the
applicability of the rules to various high arctic environments
may be given. However, in doing so, one has to keep the
economical aspect that led to the FSICR in mind, since the
design load level for different ice classes results in different
port fees as part of a winter navigation system. Concerning the
latter, it is however questionable how this complies with the
high north, where the safety of operations shall be the first
priority rather than the capability of a year-round ship-based
export and import market. In general, ice class compliance is
 concerned with the following aspects: hull form, propulsion temperature cooling circuits or steam can be utilized for
machinery, ship systems, stability, navigation and heating. Exhaust heat from LNG fueled engines can also be
communication equipment, as well as supplies and emergency utilized to produce electrical power in a Rankine steam cycle.
facilities. However, the cost efficiency of this technology is limited to
Just as for a multi-purpose vessel, the design will be a large power systems operating on relatively steady high load
compromise between a classical ice-strengthened merchant conditions.
vessel and an icebreaker, where the feasible domain will be
approached by adding ice-features to an existing open-water Table 1. Arctic ship design considerations
concept rather than modifying an existing icebreaker. A good Item Considerations
overview of important ice-related design features can be found Structure (hull, Ice-breaking bow, ice knife at the rudder
forecastle, poop, deckhouse) for conventional rudders, sheltered forecastle
in Sodhi (1995). In any case, the target design must perform to prevent icing, deckhouse allowing a close-
well in two conflicting operating modes, open water and ice- range view
infested water, see also von Bock und Polach et al. (2012). In Crew facilities (crew Additional insulation of the
conclusion, vessel specifications are dependent on the choice of spaces, service spaces, stairs superstructure and crew area, crew spaces
and corridors) located in areas of low vibrations
route, expected ice conditions and operational window Machinery (engine and Inlets for cooling must be placed well
requirements (Table 1). pump rooms, engine casing, stern
funnel, steering and thrusters)
LNG AS CLEANER FUEL OPTION Tanks (fuel oil, lube oil, Additional capacity required, waste- and
water, sewage, ballast, voids) bilgewater-collecting tanks with capacity for
Increasing arctic shipping requires an environmental focus. 30 days or a cleaning system for sewage and
As for traditional residual fuels, they represent a high risk of domestic water. Ballast tank heating system
environmental accidents and a significant contribution of No tanks containing environmental risk
harmful emissions such as SOx, NOx and PM. LNG as fuel located towards outer hull,
Tank heating systems
represents a very clean and safe alternative, but there are still
Comfort systems (air Additional heating
issues related to investment cost and infrastructure. However, condition, water and sewage)
with new international and national emission regulations, the Exterior decks Additional heating
cost issues will be closed in by limitations and restrictions (mooring, lifeboat, etc.)
related to the traditional bunker fuels in emission control areas Cargo spaces Additional heating if needed
Cargo handling Must comply with cold climate to
(ECA) where shipping now has to invest in complex exhaust (hatches, ramps, cranes, prevent icing or fracture
cleaning processes. pumps)
The range of LNG fueled engines have been under Trim and stability Stability must take ice interactions into
development since the late 1980s, and current technology offers account and specific trim requirements must
be met
efficient ship propulsion with low emission values, in which
Resistance Requirements according to target ice
emission legislation, as well as improvement of EEDI, are class to satisfy performance criteria
accomplished. In general the same machinery arrangement can Propulsion Ice class determines propeller design
be applied with LNG fueled engines as for traditional diesel and material as well as main machinery
engines. Gas fueled engines are designed to replace the diesel output
Hull scantlings Strengthening according to ice class
engines, or as retrofit solutions, where the main differences are
related to fuel system. The main question is whether the ship
As stated, besides reduced CO2 and zero SOx emissions,
shall be 100% LNG fueled, or have a dual fuel (DF) solution
one of the clearest environmental benefits of using LNG as fuel
offering full fuel flexibility. DF means that it can be operated
in the arctic is the high reduction of PM. Among PM, Black
on LNG, marine diesel oil (MDO) or heavy fuel oil (HFO) or in
Carbon is identified as having a particularly large effect on the
a combination. DF gives more operational flexibility, while
pure LNG operation is the most environmental friendly solution arctic climate. While IMO does not yet regulate black carbon
emissions, a research agenda including potential control and
(sy et al., 2011). For propulsion machinery systems, we find
reduction of black carbon emission from shipping in the Arctic
LNG engines mainly in three different machinery
was adopted at the 62nd meeting of the Marine Environment
configurations: GasMechanical propulsion, Gas-Electric
Protection Committee (MEPC). There is also a significant
propulsion and Hybrid propulsion systems.
reduction in NOx emissions, mainly due to the lean
LNG fueled engines have very clean exhaust gases
combustion. Premixed lean combustion offers up to 75-90%
compared to traditional marine fuels. In particular the sulfur
reduction of NOx. Table 2 summarizes the emission reduction
content in marine fuels may cause acid corrosion in exhaust
factors for best available technology LNG fuelled engines.
system boilers and heat exchangers if temperature decreases
The main hindrance to using LNG as fuel is still the
below the vapor limit. Therefore, significantly more waste heat
additional installation cost, mainly related to the on-board fuel
can be recovered from exhaust gases from LNG fueled engines.
For Arctic operating ships, several heating systems are required storage tanks and safety systems design. Added cost will vary
both for accommodation, cargo, ballast, and de-icing systems. a lot from ship type to ship type. Few suppliers of LNG storage
tanks and gas handling systems keep the price level high in the
Instead of using electrical heating elements, high- and low-

4 Copyright 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/26/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 maritime market segment. However, a growing market is while another 47 are approved for building (as of 02.01.14).
expected to produce more cost efficient solutions, and more The technology is there but future LNG prices and bunker grip
suppliers will challenge the price levels. Further, the new expansion remain uncertainties. A summary of the drivers,
emission regulations will require significant investment and barriers, and uncertainties for LNG fueled ships is presented in
raise operational costs related to traditional fuels such as HFO Table 3.
and MDO. This factor will level out the additional costs related
to LNG fuel. A possible ban of the use and carriage of HFO in
the Arctic as proposed by several environmental protection
agencies would also drive the use of LNG in the region (IMO,
2013).

Table 2. Best available technology emission reduction in %

compared to MDO
Reduction factors
compared to Pure Gas Dual Fuel* Dual Fuel
diesel LBSI Low pressure High pressure
CO2 25-30% 20-30% 20-26%
NOx 80-90% 75-90% 30-50%
SOx >99% 95-99% 95-97%
Particulates >99% 95-99% 90-95%
* Highest reduction factors for DF obtained with micro pilot ignition

One of the remaining challenges of using LNG as fuel is

the limited infrastructure. LNG bunkering for ships is currently
only available in Norway, Sweden, Korea, and Argentina.
Along the Arctic, the only currently planned bunkering station
is in Hammerfest, Norway (ien, 2009). While a large volume
of LNG is available in the world, as LNG is used to transport
gas when pipelines are not an option, LNG is still not easily Figure 3. Existing and proposed LNG infrastructure in Arctic
accessible as fuel for ships. The missing link is the region (sy et al. 2013)
development of break bulk facilities, small-scale liquefaction
plants and small scale distribution infrastructure. Break bulk Table 3. Drivers, barriers and uncertainties for LNG fueled
facilities are located directly at large scale facilities, which ships
Drivers Barriers Uncertainties
could be either an export or an import terminal. They are
Reduces NOx, SOx, Rate of bunker grid
breaking the large volume of LNG into smaller chunks and High system costs
PM, CO2 expansion
presenting a separate jetty for the non-LNG carrier vessels to be Inadequate LNG
Comply with EEDI Future LNG fuel prices
able to bunker an adequate amount of LNG. An example of bunkering grid
such facilities is the future Gate terminal in Rotterdam Proven and available
Difficult retrofit
solution
(Netherlands). A break bulk facility could be located next to Competitive LNG price Size of fuel tanks
natural gas fields such as Sakhalin (Russia). The other type of
bunkering facility for ships would be small-scale liquefaction
plants. These are similar to large-scale facilities but give access CHALLENGES IN ICE PERFORMANCE IN VIEW OF
to the adequate amount of LNG. An example of such plants is PROPULSION
the small scale LNG plants on the west coast of Norway As LNG becomes an attractive alternative to conventional
(Figure 3). marine fuels (Table 2 and Table 3), in order to justify its usage
A high enough number of bunkering facilities for ships for fueling the arctic ships it is important to identify and
transiting through the artic would reduce the needed LNG tank comprehend the processes contributing to the performance of
size and/or give more flexibility in bunkering patterns and ships in ice. Some of the main issues in the design of ice-going
towards LNG price fluctuations. The worlds bunkering grid is ships include ensuring good ice performance in view of
developing. More than 30 bunkering infrastructures are either performance in open water navigation, sufficient hull
planned or proposed in Europe while 16 may arise in the rest of strengthening, and adequate strength of the propulsion
the world by 2020 (Balland, 2013). But until the bunkering grid machinery elements. Perhaps the most important challenge
around the arctic routes is developed, the lack of bunkering refers to the assessment of ship performance in ice, as well as to
facilities will remain a challenge for using LNG fueled ships. the methods used therein. Ice performance depends mainly on
LNG as fuel for ships is now a proven and available ice resistance in the ice feature in question and ship propulsion
solution. There are currently 45 LNG fueled ships, non-LNG capabilities. Using an appropriate ice resistance formulation
carriers or inland waterway vessels, in operation worldwide (see, e.g. Riska et al., 1998) and the net thrust concept (Juva

5 Copyright 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/26/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 and Riska, 2002), a plot of the attained ship speed in specified
ice conditions at full power, i.e. ice performance curve, can be
generated. However, the scatter of the existing semi-empirical
ice resistance estimation methods is rather large, especially
when evaluating hull shapes and/or sizes different from the
ones for which methods were created. Therefore, the selection
of a method will significantly influence ship performance.
In general, good ice performance can be achieved by
proper design of the hull shape, that is, by reducing ice
resistance, in combination with the adequate arrangement of the
propeller(s) in order to diminish the amount and the size of the
broken ice floes causing ice-propeller interaction (see e.g.
Veitch, 1995). As a result of the interaction, required torque is
increased whereas the propeller produces less thrust, leading to
the decrease of the propulsion efficiency and subsequently to
poorer ice performance. Ice-induced loads acting on the
propeller, along with increased hydrodynamic loads due to the
disturbed wake field, are transmitted to the other elements of
the propulsion machinery system led by the main engine. On
the other hand, the main engine transmits the propulsion power
to the propeller, which clearly represents a coupled behavior.
However, classification societies assume constant propeller
angular velocity, thus neglecting the coupled relationship
between the engine and the propeller. In a recent study, Poli et
al. (2013) developed a model to present the dynamic response
of the propulsion machinery in ice, introducing both uncoupled
and coupled simulation. They concluded that the uncoupled
approach, i.e. the one adopted by the rules, is more
conservative and may lead to an over dimensioned machinery
system.
Another way of improving ship performance in ice is
producing more thrust for the propulsion in order to be able to
overcome ice resistance caused by various ice features
encountered by a ship on a waterway. This requires a more
powerful machinery unit installed onboard, but contributes to
the ability of a ship to avoid getting stuck in ice. However,
ships of high propulsion power compared to their size can, due
to relatively high speed in ice, suffer structural ice-induced
damages. On the other hand, there are minimum propulsion
power requirements given by the classification societies. The
Russian Maritime Register of Shipping (RMRS, 2014) provides
a formula for the minimum required power delivered to the
propeller shaft for ice-strengthened ships (classes Ice2 to Arc9).
This power will depend on ship breadth, displacement, stem
angle, propeller and propulsion plant type, along with
accounting for a bulbous type of bow. In Finnish-Swedish ice
class rules (Trafi, 2010) the engine output is defined as a
maximum output the propulsion machinery can continuously
deliver to the propeller(s). This value must be greater than
determined by the formulation consisting of brash ice resistance
value, propeller diameter, and factors depending on the
propulsion machinery type and number of propellers. FSICR
requires ships to have minimum speed of 5 knots in a brash ice
channel. This speed requirement is based on the maximum
waiting time for icebreaker assistance that is 4 hours. Another
6 Copyright 2014 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/26/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
main set of rules, IACS Polar Class, does not include powering
requirements for navigation in the Arctic whatsoever.
As the FSICR has been used mainly for Baltic ice
navigation, there is a question whether they are fully applicable
to the more demanding, thick multi-year ice conditions found in
the arctic areas. Nevertheless, despite different propeller
designs being considered in the FSICR, Lee (2008) found the
rules to be quite conservative in terms of engine powering
requirements compared to the direct calculations. This is
mainly reflected through the selected FPP design not to being
able to generate enough thrust of ice propulsion, no matter how
high the power provided to the propeller is. In addition, he
presented comparisons of three propulsion designs (fixed pitch,
controllable pitch and ducted propeller) based on FSICR and on
direct calculation. The controllable pitch propeller (CPP) was
shown to have the best overall (both open water and ice)
propulsion performance among the selected designs. Owing to
its controllable pitch, in the more severe ice conditions the CPP
can still generate enough thrust to overcome high ice resistance,
but then again, the CPP mechanism is somewhat more prone to
damage when operating in such ice conditions due to heavy ice
impacts.
Since an ice-going ship never operates solely in ice-
covered waters, both the design of efficient propulsion for open
water and the one for ice conditions must be considered. They
are however, as expected, always in conflict with each other. In
ice-covered waters, a ship operates at lower speeds due to
increased resistance. Hence, depending on the severity of ice
conditions, high propulsive force may be required in order to
thrust a ship at a certain speed, in addition to the fact that it is
very difficult to achieve full propulsion capability. Therefore,
research and development activities related to propulsion
concepts have been quite intense in recent years (e.g. double
acting tanker, podded propulsion, Z-drive, hull equipped with
an ejecting bubbles system, etc.), some of which have become a
regular practice in ice-going ship design of today.
Conclusively, ships operating in arctic waters logically
require good ice navigation and performance capabilities.
However, unlike the emission and design evaluation methods,
methodologies used in ice performance assessment process
produce substantial discrepancies. Therefore, understanding of
this process along with the selection of appropriate methods
presents a great challenge in designing a LNG-fueled ship for
arctic transportation, in order not to abate the initial benefit of
using LNG as a ship fuel.
LIFECYCLE MODEL PROPOSITION FOR LNG
FUELED SHIPS OPERATING IN THE ARCTIC
In the context of the facts presented so far, the challenges
for LNG fueled ships operating in the arctic can be distilled into
the following categories:
Environmental Conditions: Weather and ice conditions, as
well as the consequences to operability caused by icing,
darkness, fog.
 Technology Development: Improvements in performance in terms of design variables, within a range maximum-
in ice, with advancements in hull structure and propulsion; minimum. A design is defined by one of the possible
improvements in maintenance and reliability of LNG combinations of the variables, while the sum of all designs
machinery. defines a design space. In Table 5, each design variable
Infrastructure: LNG bunkering installations along the represents a possible categorical change in the ship, and is used
arctic; support and emergency infrastructure within acceptable as an instrument to map between context parameters and vessel
range/response time, as well as wider ice-breakers available performance. As an example, only 8 designs are considered in
(breadth limitation). the design space.
Policy/Regulations: Future regulations may create a new
ECA; new rules connect to regional agreements, political
factors, or instability.
Market: The market situation can affect both the use of
Arctic routes and LNG fueled ships. A stronger demand would
increase the activity (risky-prone behavior), whilst a weaker
demand would lead to more conservative solutions.
The uncertainty connected to each of the categories leads
to many possible future scenarios, which can be simulated via
the use of epoch-era analysis (EEA). The method is a system
engineering technique that aids the handling of temporal
complexity by decomposing the contextual aspects,
encapsulating it in epochs and eras, thus evaluating the
behavior of a system through its whole lifecycle span (Gaspar
et al. 2011, Ross et al., 2009).
In the EEA methodology, future scenarios are represented Figure 4. Tree diagram representing some of the 336 epochs.
by the discretization of the contextual factors into epoch
variables, within a range that takes into account the Design Attributes are used as one of the criteria to evaluate
uncertainties and expectations. An epoch is defined by one of the performance of a design under an epoch/era. A set of
the possible combinations of the parameters, while the sum of concepts and assumptions is then defined, for the mapping
all epochs defines an epoch space. between the design variables and design behavior. This process
The following presents a simple lifecycle example, for the includes the knowledge intrinsic to the design process. In this
sake of illustration, on how to decompose the uncertainties example, only for illustrative purposes, our KPIs will be
connected to context and design, encapsulating it into a design connected to the machinery and output of it. Only the diesel
space (tradespace) and epoch-era space (future scenarios). mechanic and gas mechanic solutions for machinery are
Table 4 defines epoch variables for the LNG-Arctic compared, as well as four ice classes. A list of the required
illustrative case. Contextual factors are divided into: KPIs is found in Table 6. Air emissions are connected to fuel
environmental conditions (ice conditions), regulations (HFO type, route, and speed. CAPEX is connected to the cost of
ban and ECA), the season when the route opens (months), and installation, while OPEX is connected to the performance of the
level of risk. Each epoch variable represents a possible category ship within a route and its conditions. A lower value is
change in a contextual factor, and is used as an instrument to considered better utility. The final data is normalized, using
the mapping between context parameters and vessel design number five as reference (Figure 5).
performance.
Table 4 Epoch Variables Table 5 Design Variables
Category Epoch Variable Unit Range Steps Design
Category Unit Range Steps
Season Open Months Open months 0-6 7 Variable
Environmental Ice Conditions ice class none - 1C 4 Machinery LNG -
Propulsion Type 2
Regulations HFO Ban no/yes no-yes 2 Type Conventional
Regulations ECA no/yes no-yes 2 Class Ice Class Class none-1C 4
Risk Risk Level level low-high 3 Design space
8 designs
336 (total):
Epoch Space (total)
epochs
Table 6 Design Attributes
The Epoch space contains all the possible epochs that can Attribute Name
be created based on the decomposition of the uncertainties. The CO2
NOX
following tree diagram (Figure 4) presents the epoch space
SOX
based on Table 1, with all 336 epochs. CAPEXMachinery
The next step consists of the decomposition of the OPEXMachinery
structural aspects of an LNG fueled vessel, via a discretization

7 Copyright 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/26/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Assumptions considered for the model are:
Each epoch lasts 6 months.
CAPEX is connected to the type of machinery and ice class
of the design.
OPEX and CAPEX values are normalized to design number
five (ID=5 - non ice-class, conventional diesel mechanic
machinery).
Ice Class is mandatory, and epochs with a higher ice-class
requirement than the vessel will not be considered for
that design.
The price of LNG is considered to be the same as the price
of HFO for equivalent energy content measures.
Risk is connected to the level of uncertainty for NSR. A
higher risk means a higher OPEX.
OPEX is connected to the route. HFO ban and ECA Figure 6. Tree diagram representing the tradespace.
requirements raise OPEX for conventional machinery,
since it requires a cleaner fuel. For the sake of illustration, lets compare all design
Emissions are calculated based on the amount of fuel used performances between Epoch 161 and Epoch 215 (Figure 7).
during the 6 month period. The lifecycle is created via an era construction. An era
represents a full potential lifespan of the system, and it is
Design space contains all the possible designs that can be defined as a time-ordered sequence of contexts. The era space
created based on the decomposition of the design variables. The is created by combining elements of the epoch space in order to
following tree diagram (Figure 5) presents the design space construct long-term scenarios. The epoch sequencing must
based on Table 2, with all 8 designs. At this stage, we are able obey consistency rules in the epoch variables, such as
to calculate the CAPEX of each design. Designs are organized continuity constraints and consistency in the progression of
by the order that they are presented in Table 2. The size of the epoch variables. The possible era space is normally very large,
olive circles at the right is proportional to the CAPEX. and calculating it in its entirety incurs a high computational
cost. This space can be based on a probabilistic distribution
and/or stakeholders preferences (a more risky or conservative
approach, for instance).

Figure 5. Tree diagram representing the design space.

The next step consists of evaluating the whole tradespace

(the span of enumerated design variables) for each of the
epochs (fixed set of epoch variables). This evaluation is made
via modeling and simulation, and provides the attributes,
utilities, and cost of each design for each epoch as output. The
following tree diagram (Figure 6) illustrates the idea that each
epoch will be analyzed for all design space.
The Epoch Analysis deals with the extensive amount of
Figure 7 A single epoch analysis for the designs.
data obtained from the tradespace evaluation. The objective is
to obtain insight from these data, via an analysis of the good
For the sake of illustration, lets describe the eras via
design solutions among the epochs.
storytelling approach (Table 7). Era 1 encloses the winter

8 Copyright 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/26/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 period for 10 years. Every season is composed by 6 months, More advanced multicriteria methods can also be applied
where in the first 6 years the NSR is open for 3 months. For the in this case. The EEA can be combined with a range of
last four years, the NSR is open for 4 months. In the regulatory traditional and emergent techniques to obtain value robustness
field, no regulations for the first 3 years, and HFO is banned during the conceptual phase. For instance, with an optimization
after it. ECA regulations are valid from the 7th year. Ice Class code to obtain a design set based on the probability distribution
1A is required, and the level risk is normal. Table 4 summarizes of future contracts (Gaspar et al., 2012c), or via responsive
the era construction process. Other methods to construct eras systems comparison method (RSC), approaching a whole
can be based on a probabilistic distribution of the uncertainties, design process, from the value driven context definition until
tuned by stakeholders stylistic preferences. Figure 8 represents the lifecycle analysis (Ross et al., 2009; Gaspar et. al., 2012b).
one era.
Table 7 Era Construction CONCLUDING REMARKS
Era Epoch Years This article had as main objective the investigation of the
Era 1 main challenges of using LNG fueled ships in the Arctic. It
Open 3 Months, yes Ice Class, no
HFO/ECA, normal risk
161 3 presented an overview of the current Arctic situation and LNG
Open 3 Months, yes Ice Class, yes HFO, context, pointing out key aspects, such as design aspects of
164 3
no ECA, normal risk ships operating in harsh environments, LNG as cleaner fuel
Open 4 Months, yes Ice Class, yes option and propulsion in ice. At the end, we presented a
215 4
HFO/ECA, normal risk
simplified lifecycle model to tackle these challenges.
Total 10
In spite of the arctic challenges, LNG fuel seems to be an
The last process of the EEA method deals with the analysis
appropriate mean to reduce emissions while being able to
of the design set among selected eras. It includes the
comply with the conditions. We expect that the use of LNG
comparison of solutions, trade-offs, and possible strategies to
fueled ships is an attractive and efficient solution for ships
transform one design into a more value robust one. The output
operating in harsh conditions such as the arctic. However, while
for each lifecycle analysis is similar to the epoch analysis: opex
LNG is a tested and well-proven technology, which presents
and air emissions. Figure 9 represents a bar chart comparing
several benefits, the main barriers to its wide implementation
designs for the lifecycle represented in Era 1.
remain the dimension and important capital cost of the LNG
tanks and the low availability of LNG bunkering for ships
along the trade routes. To allow for a thorough evaluation, the
methodologies used to assess the performance must be sound
and accurate and, especially for ice-going vessels, they may be
less accurate than the emission and design evaluation/support
methods. LNG infrastructure and risk is also just underlined in
the paper, and future research requires a better assessment of
possible disadvantages. What happens with a major
leaking/engine failure? What is expected rescue time?
The lifecycle model presented, although too simplistic,
shows itself a promising alternative for incorporating main
contextual, temporal and structural uncertainties into the
assessment of LNG fueled ships towards future scenarios. EEA
allows the analysis and evaluation of a large set of designs
within many different scenarios, extracting quickly important
information, such as OPEX, CAPEX, and air emissions. In
other words, it is suitable to combine the vast number of
Figure 8. Tree diagram representing an Era.
options in a structured model, providing a foundation for a
quantitative performance evaluation of the alternative designs,
while offering a suitable framework for communicating about
future expectations. The usability, as expected, relies on
obtaining accurate data on the large range of uncertainties able
to feed the model.

Figure 9. Design attributes analyzed for the lifecycle of Era 1.
REFERENCES
Balland, O. 2013. Examining LNG as cleaner fuel option.
DNV GL, Hvik, Norway.
Deggim, H. 2013. Progress towards the development of an
international polar code. IMO, Marine Technology Section.

9 Copyright 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/26/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 DNV (2010). Shipping across the Arctic Ocean. A feasible
option in 2030 - 2050 as a result of global warming? Position
Paper 04-2010, Det Norske Veritas
DNV (2012)
Erikstad, S.O., Ehlers, S. Decision support framework for
exploiting northern sea route transport opportunities. Ship
Technology Research, Volume 59, Issue 2, April 2012, Pages
34-42
Finnish - Swedish ICE CLASS REGULATIONS - FISCR
(2008), 2530/30/2008 C.F.R.
Haahjem, R. (2012). Northern sea route an insurers view.
In Int. Conf. Transit Navigation on the Northern Sea Route,
Murmansk
IACS, 2007: Requirements Concerning Polar Class.
International Association of Classification Societies, 38 p.
IMO, 2013. Development of a mandatory code for ships
operating in polar waters. Sub-committee on ship design and
equipment, DE 57th session 11 January 2013.
Juva, M. and Riska, K., 2002. On the power requirement in
the Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules. Research Report No. 47,
Winter Navigation Research Board, Finland and Sweden.
Lee, S.K., 2008. Combining Ice Class Rules with Direct
Calculations for Design of Arctice LNG Vessel Propulsion.
Gastech conference proceedings 2008.
Lindqvist, G., 1989. A straightforward method for
calculation of ice resistance of ships. Proceedings of 10th
International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under
Arctic Conditions (POAC), Lulea, Sweden.
Mahony, H. (2011). Arctic shipping routes unlikely to be
Suez of the north. http://euobserver.com/882/32483 N.N.
(2008). Data sets. Nat. Snow and Ice Data Center,
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135
Milne, R. 2013. Arctic shipping set to grow as sea ice
melts. Business Day Live www.bdlive.co.za/world/europe/
2013/07/22/arctic-shipping-set-to-grow-as-sea-ice-melts
(accessed Dec. 2013).
Poli, D., Ehlers, S., sy, V., Pedersen, E., 2013.
Propulsion machinery operating in ice a modelling and
simulation approach. 27th European Conference on Modelling
and Simulation, lesund, Norway.
10
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/26/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Riska, K., Wilhelmson, M., Englund, K. and Leivisk T.,
1998. Performance of merchant vessels in ice in the Baltic.
Research Report No. 52, Winter Navigation Research Board,
Helsinki, Finland.
RMRS, Ed. 2014. Rules for the Classification and
Construction of Sea-Going Ships, Vol. 2. Russian Maritime
Register of Shipping, Saint Petersburg.
Rosatomflot. The Navigation on the Northern Sea Route
Today & in the Future. Arctic Marine Logistics and
Infrastructure Forum, 25-26. November 2013, Amsterdam, NL.
Sodhi, D. S., 1995. Nothern Sea Route Reconnaissance
Study - A summary of Icebreaking Technology. ALASKA:
Cold Regions Research & Engineering Laboratory.
McAlaster, T. 2013. Inforgraphic: Navigating the
Northwest Passage. The Globe and Mail.
Trafi 2010: Ice Class Regulations 2010: Finnish-Swedish
Ice Class Rules 2010. Finnish Transport Safety Agency,
23.11.2010 TRAFI/31298/03.04.01/2010, 48 p.
Veitch, B. 1995. Prediction of Ice Contact Forces on a
Marine Screw Propeller During the Propeller-Ice Cutting
Process. PhD thesis, Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica, Finland.
von Bock und Polach R., Janardanan V. and Ehlers, S.,
2012. Ice model tests in context of the investment value of an
offshore vessel. Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering,
OMAE 2012.
sy, V. Einang, P. M., Stenersen, D., Hennie, E. 2011.
LNG-Fuelled engines and fuel systems for medium speed
engines in maritime application. SAE Technical Paper
2011.01.1998, doi:10.4271/2011-01-1998.
sy, V., Stenersen, D. 2013. Low Emission LNG
Fuelled Ships for Environmental Friendly Operations in
Arctic, Proceedings of the 32th International Conference on
Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2013, June 9-
14, 2013, Nantes, France
ien, T. 2009. Coast Guard completes first gas carriers
(Kystvakten ferdigstiller frste gasskip). In Norwegian. Barents
NaturGass, http:// http://www.bng.no/kystvakten-ferdigstiller-f-
rste-gasskip/ (accessed Dec. 2013).
Copyright 2014 by ASME