RINA10 JBpaper

Paper presented at the RINA Ship Design and Operation for Ship Environmental Sustainability Conference,
in March.
Author: John Buckingham BSc MSc, CEng, MIMechE,

BMT Defence Services Limited, UK
Finding the Right Technologies to Reduce Fuel Consumption
The world's navies increasingly recognise the importance of reduced fuel consumption to:
• Reduce the logistic cost of afloat fuel support;
• Achieve reduced fuel costs.
Increasingly they also seek to reduce engine emissions both for climate change and pollution
legislation reasons. With the continuing upward trend of fuel and logistics costs, any means by
which fuel consumption in the fleet can be reduced needs consideration
This paper presents a range of energy saving technologies and shows how they might be
applied to achieve the required fuel savings with the best match to the operating profile. The
general impact of such technologies on the ship design is identified along with the
consequential propulsion performance.
The paper concludes with a comparison of the benefit of the set of technologies compared to
their through-life fuel consumption benefits onboard. This approach demonstrates how the
choice of an energy saving solution needs to be considered in conjunction with the ship’s
overall design and its operating role.
© BMT Defence Services Ltd.

This document contains proprietary and confidential information which may not be used or
reproduced in whole or in part, or communicated to a third party without prior written consent
of BMT Defence Services Ltd.
The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and are not those of BMT Defence
Services Limited or other third parties. The author does acknowledge the opportunity provided
to the author by his Company to present this work. The contribution from the several
companies who has assisted with the study work behind this paper is acknowledged with
thanks.
Author’s Biography
John Buckingham is the Chief Mechanical Engineer at BMT Defence Services, Bath, UK. He
joined BMT in 1992 after 8 years with Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited, Bath.
John has a BSc in Engineering with French and an MSc by research in hydraulics and
simulation; both at the University of Bath.
John leads the development of tools, information and methods for mechanical engineering
aspects within the Company and has published papers on a range of subjects from waterjet
modelling, biofuels and rail-gun cooling through to the analysis of warship and submarine
power and propulsion systems. He has recently been working on the identification and
assessment of technologies for energy efficient ships for the European Defence Agency and a
number of shipping companies.
March 2010 © BMT Defence Services Limited

1
in March.
1 INTRODUCTION
Scope
The improvement of military capability is often best achieved by adopting innovative

approaches to emerging requirements. The current emerging requirement for a number of
reasons is now one of energy conservation. The concepts presented here to achieve this are
based on the assessment of a set of relevant emerging technologies.
For the past few years BMT Defence Services has conducted a series of studies for a wide
range of clients in the field of energy conservation. BMT has a database of over 100
technologies of varying degree of maturity and these are applied to a given platform and its
operating profile to identify those which have the most merit. BMT can then identify those with
the greatest savings in terms of fuel and emisisons.
Context
For shipping as a whole, the price of fuel and its usage is likely to continue to rise due to the
triple pressures of:
a. Public and regulatory pressure on environmental emissions
b. Peak oil is/will lead to higher fuel prices
c. Rising world demand for energy.
With the world's fossil fuel reserves dwindling, future prices will rise in real terms due to the
anticipated future growth in real demand. However, rising fuel prices are nothing new: Figure
1.1 shows the situation in the 1970's.
Figure 1.1 - Past Fuel Price Hikes

2
in March.
Energy Demands
The UK has set itself a carbon reduction target which it is struggling to meet, see Figure 1.2.
Clearly significant action is to be taken now if this shortfall in performance is to be recovered.
Figure 1.2 - UK CO2 Target Reductions & Performance ref. 1990
Alternative fuels may be much discussed, but liquid fuel and specifically oil will still be the most
important fuel in 2020 especially in transport due to the limited substitution options.
IMO
The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has considered the issue of GHG (MEPC 58) and
has issued the following guidance for designs and operators:
a. Energy Efficiency Design Index;
b. Energy Efficiency Operational Index.
Commercial Shipping
Although sea shipping is relatively "climate friendly" compared to other modes of transport
when measured in g.CO2/tonne-nm, in consumption terms, it is a considerable consumer of
fuel and a significant source of air pollutants of all types.
In Europe GHG emissions from land-based sources have decreased in the last 20 years, but
emissions of GHG from sea shipping have been rising due to the increase in the global trading
of goods.
With unchanged legislation, fuel usage and emissions from international shipping will “more
than double by 2020” within the European Union.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions
The shipping industry is increasingly expected to share in the burden of reducing global
emissions of CO2. The IMO is currently debating what measures could be introduced to limit or
reduce shipping's emissions of CO2. Therefore, the world’s navies need to act now to take
responsibility for their share of the GHG burden.

3
in March.
Figure 1.3 - CO2 Emissions Breakdown
Figure 1.3 shows how worldwide naval CO2 emissions are estimated to be of the order of
0.15% of the total or 30 million tonnes pa. The best estimate of the annual CO2 emisions from
the Royal Navy is 687,000 tonnes in 2005, [Ref. i] which is 0.12% of the national emission
burden, or 3.6% of the estimate UK national shipping burden.
Military Operational Aspect
From the naval perspective, the provision of fuel to front-line warships has the following
issues:
a. Security of supply: need to make limited fuel go further;
b. Longer lines of supply…;
c. …due to World-wide operations.
For such reasons, it is important to reduce energy demand, to make best use of the embarked
fuel. Liquid petroleum fuel is going to be the continuing basis for future naval operations. The
fuel itself could be a consolidated fuel:
a. JP-5 (F-44) or another derivative
b. Synthetic fuels offer low sulphur to:
(i) increase “engine” options
(ii) decrease pollution
UK Fleet
There are many auxiliary ships at sea today. They comprise a major consumer and provider of
fuel: up to 55% of RN fuel onbaord warships is taken by Replenishment At Sea (RAS) from UK
or NATO fleet tankers and one third of the RN/RFA fuel bill is for the RFA.
The Fleet will continue to need to use liquid fuels for some time to come as liquids are easier to
pump and handle. However they are still costly to get to the warship at sea: the fully
burdened logistical cost of fuel to a warship at sea is many multiples the spot-price. Fuel to
the full F-76 fuel grade which is designed for a long storage life is also scarce due to its
production at a limited number of refineries: it therefore needs to be used effectively and to
best effect.

4
in March.
Shipboard
Fleet tankers and support tankers, due to their large size, all consume significant quantities of
fuel and so a fleet tanker design is used in this study as a basis for exploring energy
conserving technologies.
Machinery
Improvements to inboard machinery may offer the following benefits:
a. Reduced Fuel Usage;
b. Increase endurance;
c. Additional fuel for training;
d. Reduced machinery maintenance burden;
e. Less frequent fuel replenishment;
f. Potential for reduced heat stress in the machinery spaces;
g. Reduced water consumption (steam systems);
h. Fuel consumption now being measured and recorded: savings are accredited;
i. Helps save the environment.
However to save energy, extra and/or more complex machinery is often required. There is
therefore a real ship impact of new-to-ship technology: the basic demands are footprint,
insertion and removal routes, maintenance access as well as the added complexity: interfaces,
controls and interfaces to the ships control systems.
There may also be additional demands on the ships services and a need for the provision of
heat management. Thus these demands will detract from the full benefits of the original
energy saving measure.
Specifically additional any weight from the machinery and its supporting structure increases
displacement and hence resistance, unless carry-on fuel is reduced accordingly. There may
also be stability aspects due to the location of the weight and the additional structure.
The opportunity for change is a challenge as scheduled refits focus on payload updates.
The changes to the baseline machinery lead to:
a. Operating and support (upkeep) changes
b. An increase in the manning and training burden.
All these issues affect the cost-benefit balance and so many of these financial impacts are
factored into the assessment.
Making It Pay
The cost of change and its impact on the return on investment is always an issue when
decision on whether to proceed with the introduction of an energy conservation technology.
The size of the benefits needs to be significant therefore to make the effort worthwhile
although the need for a low-risk short-payback period often dominates the decision making
assessment.

5
in March.
Cost assessments of manning and training needs are complex but the main financial benefit is
reduced fuel consumption. The efforts to simply reduce emissions measures do allow for a
green image to be presented when in foreign waters, but it is fuel reduction that saves the
money and allows for the savings to recover the outlay costs. The main criterion used in the
study was the balance of through life fuel savings to the estimated up front costs.

6
in March.
2 CANDIDATE SHIP
Description
The study ship is the Aegir-26 naval fleet tanker of 26,000 tonnes displacement designed by
BMT Defence Services [Ref. ii]. It has a top speed of 16 knots and is driven by two 7,500kW
medium speed diesel engines which drive two Controllable Pitch Propellers through a reduction
gearbox. There are four Diesel generating sets (Diesel gensets) to supply the ships electrical
power demand of 2,000kW.
Figure 2.1 - Aegir ® Fleet Tanker
Operating Profile
The assumed operating profile for the fleet tanker is shown in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2 - Fleet Tanker Operating Profile

7
in March.
The Replenishment At Sea (RAS) speed is 12 knots.
Technologies
Whole Set
A set of over 100 technologies were analysed to identify a sub-set which were most applicable
to the ship under study. The benefits for each technology were identified using first principles
energy-based assessments together with a consideration of the ship impact and increases in
the upkeep burden.
Fleet Tanker
The Fleet Tanker was used to assess the benefits of the technologies identified in Table 2.1
Drag Propulsors Drives & Auxiliaries

Reduction Power
Sources
Micro-bubbles Contra Magnomatics Wind Turbines

or Rotating gearbox
Propeller
Transom
Flaps
Foul-release Boss Cap with Novel motors Hybrid Solid
coatings Fins and Oxide Fuel
converters Cells
Wing-sails Large Organic LED Lighting

Skysails diameter Rankine Cycle
propeller Or
Exhaust Gas
Waste Heat
Economiser
Flettner Rotor PTO Genset Photo-voltaic
solar panels
Table 2.1 - Fleet Tanker Merit Set
A number of these technologies are described in detail below.
Figure 2.3 shows how the ship's energy is distributed from the fuel source through to its use as
work or waste heat. The figure therefore shows the energy flows with no additional energy
saving measures.

8
Paper presented at the RINA Ship Design and Operation for Ship Environmental Sustainability Conference, in March.
Figure 2.3 - Baseline Arrangement

9
Paper presented at the RINA Ship Design and Operation for Ship Environmental Sustainability Conference, in March.
Figure 2.4 - Developed Arrangement

10
Paper presented at the RINA Ship Design and Operation for Ship Environmental
Sustainability Conference, in March.
Figure 2.4 shows the developed arrangement with a number of energy saving
measures installed. Both figures show the flow and destination of the original
energy in the fuel supplies to the main and auxiliary engines and thence to the
consumers.
3 MICROBUBBLE DRAG REDUCTION
Microbubble Drag Reduction involves the injection of very small air bubbles into
the boundary layer of ships to reduce friction drag. Since 1973 [Ref. iii],
extensive studies on drag reduction using micro-bubbles have allowed their
effectiveness to be assessed [Ref. iv]. The detailed research and methods used
were addressed in a previous BMT paper [Ref. v].
Figure 3.1 shows how the resistance varies with speed after microbubbles have
been introduced. The rate of air supply is proportional to the ship’s speed and the
application area by a factor 1e-4 in accordance with the guidance of Kodama
[Ref. vi].
Figure 3.1 - Resistance Reduction
Figure 3.1 shows the benefit of microbubbles for an air supply provided at the
stated rate of 60m3/min at a pressure of 1 barg. The benefit is up to 11% at 11
knots with a 360kW shaft power reduction. The power for the air compressor
would go some way to offset resistance power saving. Therefore a microbubble
solution is best suited to a ship which has a surplus of compressed air.
Figure 3.1 also shows the benefit of the other resistance reduction technologies,
specifically transom flaps.

11
4 TRANSOM FLAPS
Transom flaps (also known as stern wedges) have been used by the USN [Ref.
vii, viii, ix & x] and currently by the UK Royal Navy to reduce the resistance of
warships. The modification is an extension of a hull bottom surface at the rear of
a vessel. Research by Salas [Ref. xi] has indicated and quantified their benefits.
Trials on a US Navy destroyer have shown a reduction in required power up to

14% resulting in a projected annual fuel saving of 4,400 barrels per ship. This
equates to approximately $240,000 per year in fuel savings, as well as a 0.75
knot increase in speed.
The US Navy's CG-47/DD-963 Stern Flap R&D Team has received a US

Environmental Protection Committee award. It was singled out for "Technical
Breakthroughs in Ship Energy Efficiency" demonstrating powering improvements
and significant fuel savings deriving from installation of new stern flaps on Navy
ships. The UK have retro-fitted the stern flaps to their Type 23 frigates [Ref. xii]
and found similar benefits.
5 FLETTNER ROTORS
Flettner rotors use the Magnus effect to provide a lateral thrust from a spinning
vertical cylinder placed in a moving air stream. The effect was first used in the
1920’s to propel a ship [Ref. xiii]. Three 15m tall cylinders of 1.1m diameter
were designed to act as Flettner rotors and their performance calculated from
first principles for a range of wind speeds to make an estimate of their effect.
6 PHOTO-VOLTAIC SOLAR PANELS
Photo-voltaic solar panels have already been fitted to ships to provide auxiliary
power. This is an area of fast-moving technical development with the latest
efficiency figures exceeding 13%. A 10% efficiency figure with an annual solar
radiation of 900kWh/sq.m/year has been used to derive the average power
supply from the onboard installation using 40% of the weather deck area.
7 WIND TURBINES
To quantify the scope for harvesting useful energy from the wind that strikes the
port and starboard sides, a 2m by 2m wind turbine design was developed. The
unit provides a modest average power of 0.5kW when wind speed variations and
ship’s heading factors have been factored in. This is considered to be a
conservative yield with plenty of scope for further efficiency improvements.
8 SKY SAILS
Sky Sails from the German company of the same name are simple, light and
relatively low expense. Real benefits have already been realised but the
performance is clearly dependent on the ship’s heading relative to the wind and
for a military vessel, there are potential issues with radar cross-section. At 15
knots with the wind aft the savings can be as much as 10%. For faster vessels
the ship speed may exceed the wind speed and the benefits will be much lower.
9 WING SAILS
The latest version of the original Walker wing-sail from Shadotec has been
assessed to seek to identify the kind of performance that might be achieved with
North Atlantic wind spectra for a range of ship speeds. The wind speed and ship

12
heading was used to identify the average thrust from the wing-sails for each ship
speed.
10 CONTRA-ROTATING PROPELLERS
A contra-rotating propeller (CRP) system is a propulsion system in which the

second propeller rotates contrary to, and is mounted behind and on the same
concentric axis, as the first. The energy of rotating flow generated by the first
propeller (hitherto lost) is recovered by the second propeller (where their
respective vortexes are offset). In addition, the two propellers reduce their
respective loads on each other because each bears a share of the propulsive
thrust, thereby enhancing propeller efficiency.
The use of CRP in actual ship usage is reported to achieve a reduced energy
consumption of between 6 and 13%. Generic non-dimensional Kt-Kq curves for
CRP have been used to assess their performance. The propeller characteristic for
a CRP shows a maximum potential efficiency of just over 80%. In practice the
loading will be such that the efficiency achieved is between 70% and 80% as
shown in Figure 10.1.
Figure 10.1 shows how the CRP has a clear efficiency benefit across the speed
range. It is clear from the figure that at most speeds the propeller efficiency
benefits are close to 10%. The gearbox for a CRP needs to be able to drive both
the inner and the outer shaft. This is likely to employ an epicyclic gearbox which
has space and weight benefits over a conventional design.
The use of CRP with electric drive has been addressed by Dutton [Ref. xiv] for
submarines: he found no weight or volume benefits. In his analysis the reduction
in weight due to the lower rated power plant was offset by the extra weight of the
CRP design. Fuel savings were not an issue in this case.
Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries (IHI) of Japan have developed and

implemented an electric drive which is now marketed by Wartsila [Ref. xv]. It
was reported that on the sea trials in comparison with those of the conventional
ship the fuel consumption decreased by more than 10 %.
The modern CRP design allows a compact arrangement with the motor converters
located on the deck above the machinery space.
Figure 10.1 shows how the CRP offer a consistent efficiency benefit across the
speed range. The plot also shows how a lighter loaded propeller with transom
flaps and microbubles leads to a better propeller efficiency.

13
Figure 10.1 - CRP: Propulsor Efficiency
Since 1983, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) has been carrying out research
and development for the practical application of the CRP propulsion system on
large ships. MHI succeeded in replacing the propeller system on the 'Toyofuji
No.5,' a 4200GT car carrier, with the 'Mitsubishi CRP system’. With CRP, the
maximum output of the main engine decreased from 4,413kW at 198rpm to
3,972kW at 185rpm with a voyaging speed of 15.6 knots at normal output.
11 MAGNETIC GEARS
Magnetic gears offer significant potential advantages compared with mechanical

gears, such as reduced maintenance and improved reliability, inherent overload
protection, and physical isolation between the input and output shafts. However,
to date they have received relatively little attention, probably due to the relatively
poor torque transmission capability of the magnetic circuit topologies which have
been proposed.
Magnomatics Ltd has developed a new magnetic gear topology which combines a
highly competitive torque transmission capability and an efficiency which is better
than a mechanical design [Ref. xvi].

14
12 EXHAUST GAS WASTE HEAT RECOVERY
Exhaust gas waste heat recovery (EGWHR), is an energy recovery method

whereby the heat in the engine exhaust is used to create steam which can then
be used for:
a. Space heating;
b. A feed to a steam turbine generator to produce electrical power.
c. A feed to an absorption chiller to reduce the load on the chilled

water plant.
An EGWHR can allow for the effective use of fuel into the engine to be increased
by 12% or so. This technology is widely used in ships such as the Queen Mary 2
and in offshore applications. As of the order of 35% of the engine’s waste heat is
in the exhaust gas this is an obvious source of recoverable energy.
The MAN Thermo Efficiency System [Ref. xvii] is one example of a modern means
of saving energy from a two-stroke design. A fraction of the exhaust gas is
bypassed from the turbochargers and fed directly to a turbine driving an
alternator. This turbine is combined on a shaft with the steam turbine with a
reduction gear and over-speed clutch between the high speed exhaust gas
turbine and the slower steam turbine. This system claims to save between 8 and
10% energy. Energy savings using first principles and considering the
effectiveness of heat exchangers and the efficiency of the Rankine cycle has been
used in this study.
The engine exhaust gas temperature and the exhaust mass flow are both low at
slow ship speeds and the operation of the steam generator facility may not be
feasible or indeed viable. As the ship’s speed increases, the increasing load on
the engines allows more heat to be available for steam and hence electrical power
generation. The power generated is a bonus even though the Rankine cycle is
only about 30% efficient.
An Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) driven by the exhaust gases may allow for
higher efficiencies but the working fluid is usualy thermal oil which is usually too
flammable for use in naval machinery spaces: new fluids are being developed
which are more acceptable. There are also likley to be capacity issues with the
use of an ORC type generator.

15
Figure 12.1 - Steam Generator Fuel Benefit
The steam turbo genset provides a steady stream of savings over the ship’s
speed. As shown in Figure 12.1, the useful return on capital must be tempered by
the need to provide support and upkeep for the steam and main feed water
systems.
13 ISOENGINE
An Isoengine operates in much the same way as a standard combustion engine.

However, within the Isoengine there is an isothermal compressor which is
injected with atomized water. This offers a large surface area for convective
cooling and is based around the theory that an isothermal compression cycle
requires less work input than an isentropic compression cycle.
Due to the compressed air being at a lower temperature, it is then possible to use
the heat generated by the processes to raise the temperature, to that required
for combustion, where as before this heat would be rejected. This results in an
engine which has a higher thermal efficiency than the standard diesel engine due
to there being a lower amount of heat rejected overall, whilst the work required
to be put into the system is reduced due to the lower temperature at which the
gas is compressed.
RWE Innogy PLC has explored the possibilities of exploiting Isoengines for marine
applications since 1992. When compared with a standard engine emissions, an
Isoengine will reduce emissions carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide. This is due to
its 10% higher cycle efficiency achieved through using an Isoengine, as opposed
to a typical combustion engine which is partly caused by the recovery of the heat
from the system.

16
Whilst there is a need for more components, when compared with a typical diesel
engine, such as a recuperator and separator which are likely to be expensive, the
costs saved throughout the life of the engine, through better fuel consumption,
are likely to be more substantial.
The Isoengine has a poor volumetric performance compared to a diesel engine:

11kW/m3 v. 175kW/m3. The greater Isoengine efficiency makes for smaller fuel
consumption, after 44 day period the total volume of engine and fuel for the 3MW
Isoengine is the same as the equivalent diesel engine at 700m3.
Since 1992, research into the use of Isoengines in marine applications has been
completed by companies such including RWE Innogy. In 2003 RWE Innogy
signed a contract with Mitsui Engineering and Shipbuilding with regards to testing
and development of an Isoengine. Mitsui Engineering has since purchased the
rights to the Isoengine from RWE Innogy.
14 PTO GENSET
A Power Take-Off generating set (PTO Genset) allows the main engine to provide
ship’s power via a variable speed generator on the PTO shaft of the gearbox. The
variable frequency supply is rectified and then fed to a static frequency converter
which provides a supply to the main switchboards. The commercial availability,
the quality of supply and the reliability of such devices is now such that two PTO
gensets can be used to replace two of the four Diesel gensets onboard.
The larger main engines operate at a better specific fuel consumption than the
smaller higher speed Diesel gensets and thus the electrical power is provided with
greater fuel economy.

17
15 COMPOSITE OF TECHNOLOGIES
The ship impact of a technology can be measured in terms of the volume it

requires and the reduction in fuel required to be embarked. Figure 15.1 shows
how all the options save fuel but some also save volume: the Isoengine and the
use of the PTO Genset. Others options require more space for energy saving
equipment.
Figure 15.1 - Fuel and Machinery Differences
Figure 15.1 shows the embarked fuel benefits of each technology on the left
hand-side and the increased machinery space demands on the right-hand side.

18
Figure 15.2 - Annual Fuel Consumption Benefits
Figure 15.2 shows how the Isoengine and steam generator with turbo genset are
a significant source of fuel savings with the SkySails also offering a benefit.
Figure 15.3 shows how the CRP offers a consistent benefit at all speeds. The
fluctuations in efficiency are due to changes in the use of main and auxiliary
engines across the speed range: i.e. the ship trails a shaft up to 13 knots and has
an additional electrical load at 12 knots due to its RAS activity.
It is not possible to categorise a reduction in resistance as efficiency but the

baseline resistance has been set as 100% efficient and improvements are allowed
to show an efficiency over 100% by simple division.

19
Figure 15.3 - Overall Efficiency
Table 15.1 shows the annual fuel and the time-weighted efficiency benefit for the
set of technologies considered in this study.
Description Annual Fuel Efficiency

Benefit % Benefit %
Microbubbles 1.6 3.3
Transom Flaps 6.7 2.3
Contra Rotating Propellers 3.4 6.6
EGWHR + SG 14.4 1.4
Isoengine 21 2.3
Skysails 0.2
Flettner Rotor 2.5 1.8
Wind Turbine 6.1 2.3
Photo-Voltaic Solar Panels 1.5 0.6
PTO Genset 3.6 7.1
ORC Genset 3.4 1.0
Magnomatics gearbox 1.4 3.355
Wing-sails 0.9 5.4
Table 15.1 – Technology Benefits

20
Equivalent Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Using standard equivalent emission rates of carbon dioxide for naval fuel [Ref. i],
the annual carbon dioxide emissions were identified and compared with the
baseline as shown in Figure 15.4
Figure 15.4 - Carbon Dioxide Emission Comparison
Figure 15.4 shows the same profile as the fuel figure (Figure 15.2) due to the use
of fuel grade F76 for all the options considered.
If all options could be combined then an annual fuel saving of 30 to 40% would
be achieved. In practise some technologies are not mutually compatible:
transom flaps cannot effectively be used with a hullform designed to make the
best use of the microbubbles technology.
16 CONCLUSIONS
The greatest scope for fuel saving onbaord a ship is usually with the Power and
Propulsion system: here there is more scope to render the main engine and the
propellers more efficient to yield significant fuel savings.
The adoption of Isoengine technology, the contra-rotating propeller and exhaust

gas waste heat recovery steam generator together offer scope for significant fuel
savings and a much reduced carbon footprint in a naval fleet tanker design.
However each candidate technology needs to be considered with the operaitng

profile of the ship and the method used by BMT allows changes of ships loads and
usage to be assessed quickly to yield information on the comparative benefits.

21
17 REFERENCES
i “UK Navy Surface Warships Engines Exhaust Emissions Study 1988-

2006”. J Olivier Lt Cdr RCN
http://www.jneweb.com/entityfiles/5/2623/jnepaperfilename/v44b2p13
a.pdf
ii BMT Defence Services Limited Aegir Fleet tanker design.

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/?/309/865/
iii McCormick, M.E., Bhattacharyya, R., 1973, “Drag Reduction of a

Submersible Hull by Electrolysis”, Naval Engineers Journal, Vol.85,
No.2, pp. 11-16.
iv “The Influence of the Type of Gas on the Reduction of Skin Friction

Drag by Microbubble Injection,” Fontaine, A.A., et al., Experiments in
Fluids, Springer-Verlag, vol. 13, No. 2/3, pp. 128-136, 1992.
v “Energy Conservation: Matching Technologies to the Platform”

Buckingham J E. MAST Sep. 2009. Stockholm.
vi “Practical application of microbubbles to ships - large scale model

experiments and a new full scale experiment”. Y Kodama et al. 6th
International Symposium on Smart Control of Turbulence, Tokyo, March
2005.
vii “Energy Savings and Environmental Benefits of Stern Flaps” Marine

Environmental Stewardship for the 21st Century Symposium. Dominic
Cusanelli, Gabor Karafiath
viii Maritime Reporter and Engineering News, v 61 n 2, Feb 1999, p 56 [2

p, 2 fig]
ix “Effect of Stern Wedges on Ship Powering Performance”. Karafiath G.,

Fisher S. C. Naval Engineers Journal ISSN 0028-1425 1987, vol. 99, n
3, pp. 27-38 (12 ref.)
x “Stern Wedges and Stern Flaps for Improved Powering U. S. Navy

Experience” SNAME Transactions Volume 107, 1999. Gabor Karafiath,
Dominic Cusanelli, Cheng Wen Lin
xi “Hydrodynamic analysis of the performance of stern flaps in a semi-

displacement hull”. M. Salas et al. Latin American Applied Research.
34:275-284 (2004).
xii “Retrofit Of Transom Flaps To Royal Navy Warships”. M Williamson.

Journal of Naval Engineering. Vol 43. Book 3, Paper 5.
xiii “A Sailing Ship Without Sails: New Wonder of the Seas” G B Seybold.
Popular Science Monthly (February 1925).
http://www.rexresearch.com/flettner/flettner.htm
xiv “Contrarotating electric drive for attack submarines”. J L Dutton. Naval
Engineers Journal. March 1994

22
xv Japanese Institute of Marine Engineering, Year Book 2007: Progress of

Marine Engineering Technology in the year 2006
xvi “Design, analysis and realisation of a high-performance magnetic gear”

Atallah, K.et al Dept. of Electron. & Electr. Eng., Univ. of Sheffield, UK;
This paper appears in: Electric Power Applications, IEE Proceedings -
Publication Date: Mar 2004 Volume: 151, Issue: 2 On page(s): 135-
143 ISSN: 1350-2352.
xvii Thermo Efficiency System (TES) for reduction of Fuel Consumption and
CO2 emissions. 2005.
http://www.manbw.com/files/news/filesof5055/P3339161.pdf

23

RINA10 JBpaper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

RINA10 JBpaper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paper presented at the RINA Ship Design and Operation for Ship Environmental Sustainability Conference,

Author: John Buckingham BSc MSc, CEng, MIMechE,

Finding the Right Technologies to Reduce Fuel Consumption

© BMT Defence Services Ltd.

March 2010 © BMT Defence Services Limited

The improvement of military capability is often best achieved by adopting innovative

a. Public and regulatory pressure on environmental emissions

b. Peak oil is/will lead to higher fuel prices

c. Rising world demand for energy.

Figure 1.1 - Past Fuel Price Hikes

March 2010 © BMT Defence Services Limited

Figure 1.2 - UK CO2 Target Reductions & Performance ref. 1990

a. Energy Efficiency Design Index;

b. Energy Efficiency Operational Index.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

March 2010 © BMT Defence Services Limited

Figure 1.3 - CO2 Emissions Breakdown

Military Operational Aspect

a. Security of supply: need to make limited fuel go further;

b. Longer lines of supply…;

c. …due to World-wide operations.

a. JP-5 (F-44) or another derivative

b. Synthetic fuels offer low sulphur to:

(i) increase “engine” options

(ii) decrease pollution

March 2010 © BMT Defence Services Limited

Improvements to inboard machinery may offer the following benefits:

a. Reduced Fuel Usage;

c. Additional fuel for training;

d. Reduced machinery maintenance burden;

e. Less frequent fuel replenishment;

f. Potential for reduced heat stress in the machinery spaces;

g. Reduced water consumption (steam systems);

i. Helps save the environment.

The changes to the baseline machinery lead to:

a. Operating and support (upkeep) changes

b. An increase in the manning and training burden.

March 2010 © BMT Defence Services Limited

March 2010 © BMT Defence Services Limited

Figure 2.1 - Aegir ® Fleet Tanker

Figure 2.2 - Fleet Tanker Operating Profile

March 2010 © BMT Defence Services Limited

The Replenishment At Sea (RAS) speed is 12 knots.

Drag Propulsors Drives & Auxiliaries

Micro-bubbles Contra Magnomatics Wind Turbines

Wing-sails Large Organic LED Lighting

Table 2.1 - Fleet Tanker Merit Set

A number of these technologies are described in detail below.

March 2010 © BMT Defence Services Limited

Figure 2.3 - Baseline Arrangement

March 2010 © BMT Defence Services Limited

Figure 2.4 - Developed Arrangement

March 2010 © BMT Defence Services Limited

3 MICROBUBBLE DRAG REDUCTION

Figure 3.1 - Resistance Reduction

March 2010 © BMT Defence Services Limited

Trials on a US Navy destroyer have shown a reduction in required power up to

The US Navy's CG-47/DD-963 Stern Flap R&D Team has received a US

6 PHOTO-VOLTAIC SOLAR PANELS

March 2010 © BMT Defence Services Limited

A contra-rotating propeller (CRP) system is a propulsion system in which the

Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries (IHI) of Japan have developed and