April 10-11th, 2002

Oskar Levander

Advanced machinery with CRP propulsion for fast RoPax vessels

ABSTRACT
The hydro-dynamical benefits of CRP propulsion have been presented several times in the past years. This paper describes how the propulsion arrangement can be optimist and the machinery configured in RoPax vessels with podded CRP propulsion. Some interesting machinery solutions are also presented. The propulsion efficiency of the CRP arrangement depends on the power split between the propulsors. However, the power split giving the best efficiency does not result in the most cost-effective option when the transmission losses, capital cost and the operating profile are taken into account. The method for reaching the most cost efficient solution is explained. The combined diesel-electric and dieselmechanical machinery (CODED) used with podded CRP propulsion shows great benefits and possibilities for future RoPax vessels. Dual Fuel-engines running on LNG are shown to be an interesting option for environmentally friendly RoPax vessels.

INTRODUCTION
This paper will examine both technical as well as economical aspects for two new machinery and propulsion concepts for fast displacement RoPax vessels. One of the new concepts features a Combined Diesel-Electric and Diesel-mechanical (CODED) machinery in combination with a propulsion configuration based on a mechanically driven propeller in front of an electric pod with a contra-rotating propeller (CRP). Two Wrtsil diesel engines drive the single mechanical CP propeller through a twinin / single-out gearbox, while the electrical pod unit is powered by a diesel-electric power plant type machinery. As an example, two alternative CODED machinery versions have been developed, one for a 30 knot and the other for a 28 knot service speed.

FIGURE 1. Fast RoPax vessel with podded CRP propulsion

Oskar Levander Wrtsil Corporation / Marine Division

Advanced machinery with CRP propulsion for fast RoPax vessels The Motorship Marine Propulsion Conference 2002

April 10-11th, 2002

The other concept is based on dual fuel engines in combination with CRP propulsion. In this concept, both the pod as well as the shaft propeller is electrically driven and the power is provided with a power plant type machinery, which also supplies the hotel load. In this alternative Wrtsils Dual Fuel (DF) gas engines are applied and liquid natural gas (LNG) is used as the primary fuel with marine diesel oil (MDO) as back up fuel. Both machinery concepts are applied to two RoPax vessel design, which have been developed in co-operation between Wrtsil Corporation and Kvaerner Masa-Yards Technology as part of the Finnish research project SEATECH 2000+.

indicated in table 1 and the general arrangement of the long route vessel is shown in figure 2. The superstructure, housing either day facilities for 2000 passengers or overnight facilities for 900 person in 300 cabins, is located in the forward part of the ship leaving the aft end of the upper car deck open. The cargo is transported on the two large RoRo decks. Trailers and trucks are loaded on the main deck, which has 4,8m free height over the entire deck. High vehicles can also be carried on the open part of the upper deck. The enclosed forward part of the upper deck is used solely for private cars due to the restricted free height. The hull sides are flared out to increase the width of the RoRo decks, while keeping the breadth at the waterline level narrow. This makes it possible to increase the number of lanes and thereby the lane meters without impacting on the resistance. The enlarged car decks also makes it possible to carry all cargo on two decks and no lower hold is needed. This allows for faster loading and unloading since no internal ramps are used. The loading and unloading of vehicles is handled over the double level stern ramps directly to both the main and upper deck. The simple and fast cargo-handling concept is in line with the high-speed philosophy of this ship. The short route vessel features an additional bow ramp for drive through loading. The hull is of full-displacement type and features a very long and slender form with a single centreline skeg to offer the lowest possible resistance.

CASE STUDY VESSELS

Vessel Design Totally new ship designs have been developed for the fast RoPax vessel. Two versions will be used in this paper to illustrate the new propulsion and machinery concepts. The first one is intended for a long route with overnight operation. The other is intended for short routes with only daytime transits. This version has a drive-through car deck and is slightly shorter. All three alternative machinery versions, the 28 and 30 knot CODED machinery as well as the 28 knot DF-electric machinery, can been applied to both vessels. The main dimensions are

TABLE 1. Main properties of the vessels

LONG ROUTE L e n g th , o a L e n g th , d w l B e a m , h u ll B eam , dw l D r a u g h t, d w l P a sse n g e rs P a s s e n g e rs c a b in s L a n e m e te rs B u ses P r i v a te c a r s DW T 246 230 30 28 7 900 300 1740 24 200 4200 SH O R T R O U TE 220 205 30 27 7 2000 1500 350 4200 m m m m m p erso ns pcs m pcs pcs to n

Oskar Levander Wrtsil Corporation / Marine Division

Advanced machinery with CRP propulsion for fast RoPax vessels The Motorship Marine Propulsion Conference 2002

April 10-11th, 2002

FIGURE 2. General arrangement of the 30 knot long route RoPax vessel.

Oskar Levander Wrtsil Corporation / Marine Division

Advanced machinery with CRP propulsion for fast RoPax vessels The Motorship Marine Propulsion Conference 2002

April 10-11th, 2002

Itineraries and operating profiles Three example routes have been selected for the case vessels to give a realistic operating profile that can be used in the evaluation of the machinery concept. The same ship concept could of course be used on many other itineraries in other parts of the world. The 30 knot ship is intended to operate on a longer route, in this case between Helsinki in Finland and Rostock in Germany. The distance logged between these cities is 585 nautical miles. This means that one leg takes less than 20 hours with a service speed of 30 knots. The time for manoeuvring, loading and unloading is estimated to take four hours. A one way trip can therefore be covered in less than a day. A return trip takes 48 hours, which enables a single ship to depart every second day at a fixed time. Alternatively, two ships can offer daily departures.

could of course also be operated on a long route. A route between Hanko in Finland and Rostock in Germany is used as an example. This route is about 50 nautical miles shorter, than the Helsinki-Rostock trade which means that the 28 knot ship can maintain the same 48 hours round trip schedule as her faster sister vessel. The operating profiles for the vessels are indicated in figure 4 and 5.

OPERATING PROFILE
HELSINKI - ROSTOCK
90 % 80 % 70 %

Operating time [%]

60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 %

50 n.m.

10 % 0%

535 n.m.

Po rt M an .

10

15

20

25

30
28

585 n.m.

FIGURE 4. Operating profile for the long route.

OPERATING PROFILE
HELSINKI - TALLIN
90 %

FIGURE 3. The three alternative routes used for the case vessels.

80 %

The 28 knot ship is a more suitable choice for a short route where the time in port takes up a larger part of the total time. A crossing over the Gulf of Finland between Helsinki and Tallinn is used as the example for the short route in this study. The leg is about 50 nautical miles so it can be accomplished in roughly 2 hours. A return trip is estimated to take 8 hours, which means that a single ship can offer two daily departures from both cities. The ship has only day facilities for the passengers and no cabins, since it will stay in port during the night. The ship with overnight facilities in combination with the machinery offering a speed of 28 knot
Oskar Levander Wrtsil Corporation / Marine Division

Operating time [%]

70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0%
es t Po rt M an . 10 15 20 25 R M ax

FIGURE 5. Operating profile for the short route.

Advanced machinery with CRP propulsion for fast RoPax vessels The Motorship Marine Propulsion Conference 2002

ax

April 10-11th, 2002

THE PODDED CRP CONCEPT

Both ship versions have a podded CRP propulsion concept with a contra-rotating propeller mounted on an electrical pod located directly behind a single conventional propeller located on the centreline skeg. (This propulsion arrangement will be referred to as the podded CRP concept or just the CRP concept in this text unless otherwise mentioned.) The propeller mounted on the pod is of a fixed pitch (FP) model, while the mechanically driven propeller on the mechanical shaft is of the feathering controllable pitch (CP) type.

The improvement in propulsion efficiency has been quantified with model test by at least two independent model test basins. Both ABB and Blom&Voss have conducted podded CRP tests on RoPax vessels at Marintek and HSVA respectively. Both tests have showed efficiency improvements of over 15% compared to conventional vessels (Jokela 2002) (Praefke et al 2001). The Germans were even able to reach an efficiency improvement of 19 % when specially designed propellers were applied instead of standard stock propellers. The podded CRP drive also offers other beneficial characteristics such as n Excellent manoeuvring performance thanks to the pods ability to turn 360o and thereby direct the thrust in any direction. n Better reversing capabilities. The pod can be turned around 180 degrees, while the propeller still turns in the same optimum direction. Important feature with high skew propellers. n The steering capability should be maintained during crash stops thanks to the electric pod. However, this has not yet been proven by model test. n Better redundancy compared to a single screw or a conventional CRP system. The pod and the mechanical drive are separately driven. The podded CRP concept features proven and reliable components combined into a new configuration. This way mechanical problems associated with the shafting and sealing of conventional mechanically driven CRP systems, which feature an inner shaft rotating inside and hollow outer shaft, are avoided. CRP power ratio optimisation The power split between the electric pod and the mechanical propeller influences many aspects of the design and performance of the ship, such as the hydrodynamic efficiency, the transmission losses and the investment cost. A total approach must be taken when optimising the power split between the pod and the conventional propeller in order to reach the most economical solution. The power split between the two propellers has an influence on the hydrodynamic efficiency of the propulsion and thereby on the delivered shaft

FIGURE 6. A contra rotating pod behind a conventional CP propeller.

Characteristics of the podded CRP concept The podded CRP configuration offers better hydrodynamical efficiency, compared to a conventional vessel with twin screws on long open shafts supported by brackets, due to the following reasons: n The aft propeller takes advantage of the rotative energy left in the slipstream of the forward propeller when it turns in the opposite direction. This improves the rotative efficiency (hR) of the propulsion. n The single skeg hull form offers a more favourable wake than an open shaft line, resulting in better hull efficiency (hH). n The resistance of the single skeg hull form with a single pod is lower than that of a twin screw hull with two open shaft lines. Especially the lack of appendages, such as rudders, shaft brackets, bossings and stern thrusters contributes to the lower resistance of the single skeg hull.

Oskar Levander Wrtsil Corporation / Marine Division

Advanced machinery with CRP propulsion for fast RoPax vessels The Motorship Marine Propulsion Conference 2002

April 10-11th, 2002

power demand. This can be seen in figure 7 where the blue line indicates the delivered shaft power demand at different power ratios. However, there is very little information available on this subject and the source data behind the picture can not be considered reliable for this type of application. Even though the figure does not necessarily give exactly the correct values, it still shows the principal in question. It can be seen that there is an optimum power ratio, which is close to 50/50, in order to achieve the highest efficiency. When the power split is moved in either direction, there will be an increase in the power demand. However, the delivered power at the propeller is not the hole truth when seeking the lowest fuel costs, it is the brake power demand at the diesel engines that determines the fuel consumption. The transmission efficiency must therefore also be taken into account. The losses associated with electrical propulsion are about 8%, which can be compared to about 2-3 % for the mechanical propulsion. The brake power demand at different power ratios is also indicated in figure 7. It can be seen that the increase in brake power is not as rapid as the corresponding increase in shaft power when reducing the power share of the pod from the optimum value (moving to the

left in the graph). The lowest value is still reached at a power-split ratio of about 50 % though. The investment cost must also be included when optimising the machinery configuration for best economical performance. The much higher capital cost of the electrical propulsion part compared to the mechanical propulsion train will have a big impact on the optimum power ratio for lowest total costs. This means that more power should be on the mechanical propeller than on the pod in order to reduce the capital costs and thereby lower the total machinery related cost of the ship. The cost efficiency at different pod power ratios for the RoPax operating the longer route is indicated in figure 8. The most economical point of operation according to this graph is at a power split of 40/60 between the installed power of the pod and the mechanical propeller and not at point where the lowest fuel consumption is reached. The curve is very flat, so the power split could be varied from the optimum without much impact on the total costs, especially by reducing the electrical pod size. This would be interesting, in order to reduce the electrical installations onboard.

CRP EFFICIENCY
FOR DIFFERENT POD POWER RATIOS 120 %

115 %

110 %

Break power

POWER [%]

105 %

100 %

Shaft power
95 %

90 % 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 POWER SPLIT: [%] POD POWER / TOTAL DELIVERED POWER

FIGURE 7. Estimated relative power demand at different power-split ratios between the pod and the mechanical propeller.

Oskar Levander Wrtsil Corporation / Marine Division

Advanced machinery with CRP propulsion for fast RoPax vessels The Motorship Marine Propulsion Conference 2002

April 10-11th, 2002

CRP COST EFFICIENCY FOR THE FAST ROPAX

AT DIFFERENT POD POWER RATIOS LONG ROUTE
120 %

100 %

Total annual cost (incl. operating and capital costs)

ANNUAL COST [%]

80 %

60 %

Annual operating cost (incl. fuel, lube oil, and maintenance costs)

40 %

20 %

Annual capital cost

0% 20 25 35 40 45 50 POWER RATIO: [%] POD POWER / TOTAL INSTALLED PROPULSION POWER 30 55 60

FIGURE 8. Cost efficiency at different pod power ratios for the RoPax operating the longer route.

The operation profile has also a big influence on which power ratio that offers the lowest total costs. This can be seen when comparing figure 8 with figure 9. (It might be worth noticing that these figures show the power ratio of the installed power and not the delivered power as used in figure 7). The first graph showed the costs for the RoPax vessel operating at a long route and spends 6500 hours at sea annually,

while the other graph shows the same values for a short route version that spends only 2500 hours at sea. It can be seen that the optimum power split between the pod and the mechanical propeller has changed a lot and is below 25/75 for the short route vessel. In this case the capital costs contributes to a much larger part of the total costs than for the long route vessel, where the fuel consumption is the largest cost item.

CRP COST EFFICIENCY FOR THE FAST ROPAX

AT DIFFERENT POD POWER RATIOS SHORT ROUTE
120 %

100 %

Total annual cost (incl. operating and capital costs)

ANNUAL COST [%]

80 %

60 %

Annual operating cost (incl. fuel, lube oil, and maintenance costs)

40 %

20 %

Annual capital cost

0% 20 25 40 45 50 POWER RATIO: [%] POD POWER / TOTAL INSTALLED PROPULSION POWER 30 35 55 60

FIGURE 9. Cost efficiency at different pod power ratios for the RoPax operating the short route.
Oskar Levander Wrtsil Corporation / Marine Division Advanced machinery with CRP propulsion for fast RoPax vessels The Motorship Marine Propulsion Conference 2002

April 10-11th, 2002

The conclusion is that the total economy needs to be assessed when selecting the propulsion setup for a vessel with a podded CRP in order to reach the best result. Also the operating profile has a big influence on the correct propulsion configuration. The exact values, for the optimum location of the power splits as indicated in the figures 7-8, can not be relied upon, since there are no reliable figures for the affect that the power ratio has on the hydrodynamic efficiency. However, the graphs do show the principal on how to optimise the propulsion set-up and the trend of the different input values. Wrtsil will conduct more tests in order to get more reliable data. Technical issues regarding the implementation of the podded CRP concept There are still many issues that have to be investigated before a podded CRP can be introduced in full size applications. There are always considerable risks involved with the implementation of new technology, especially when it might have a large impact on the total performance of the complete product. This is certainly the case for a CRP concept. Some issues that might poses problems or need to be further investigated are:
n n n n n n

Cavitation performance of the aft propeller when steering Vibration excitation forces Structural strength in extreme situations Behaviour in extreme situation, such as crash stops Operation with one of the propellers stopped Operation philosophy

Oskar Levander Wrtsil Corporation / Marine Division

Advanced machinery with CRP propulsion for fast RoPax vessels The Motorship Marine Propulsion Conference 2002

April 10-11th, 2002

CODED MACHINERY CONFIGURATIONS

Two alternative Combined Diesel-Electric and Diesel-Mechanical machinery concepts were developed for the fast RoPax vessels. Both machinery solutions feature a diesel mechanical part driving a feathering CP propeller and a diesel electric power plant powering both the electric CRP pod and the entire hotel load. The first concept is aimed to give the vessel a service speed of 30 knots while the other will be able to power the ship with a speed of 28 knots. Machinery concept 30 knot CODED version The total delivered power demand under service conditions is about 47 MW. The installed power split should be around 40/60 between the pod and the mechanical propeller according to the results from the previous chapter. This mean that the optimum installed mechanical power is about 34 MW when transmission losses and an 85% engine margin is applied. The only engine models that are large enough to supply this power through a twin in / single out gear are the Wrtsil 46 and 64 engine series. However, the Wrtsil 64 engine is too large to fit under the car deck and still allow sufficient space for maintenance work. The Wrtsil 46 engine is therefore the only feasible option for this ship.

The best option for this case is therefore two 16V46C engines. Their combined power of 33,6 MW is very close to the optimum power of 34 MW or 60 % of the total propulsion power. The delivered power at the mechanically driven propeller is about 28 MW in service conditions when transmissions losses of 2,5% and a service rating of 85% MCR are taken into account. The power demand for the electrical pod is then 19 MW to be able to coupe with the total delivered power demand of 47 MW. One should also consider that the pod power fits well with the steps in the pod sizes available. If the power demand is just under a certain step and the next larger pod model is much larger, it might be interesting to consider the smaller pod size and larger diesel engines to drive the mechanical propeller instead. The larger pod size increases installation work and might impact on the cargo capacity and handling negatively in a Ro-Ro ship, if the auxiliary machinery for the pod is intruding on the car deck. The total cost curve in figure 8 is very flat to the left of the optimum power ratio, so a smaller pod should not have any negative impact on the total feasibility. However, in this case the load is already very high on the mechanically driven propeller, so it is not motivated to deviate from the optimum pod size in figure 8. The selected pod has therefore a nominal power of 19 MW.

W12V46C 12600 kW W16V46C 16800 kW Hotel consumers: 1,5 - 2,5 MW W6L32

2700 kW

W16V46C 16800 kW W12V46C 12600 kW

LIPS bow thrusters: 2 x 1300 kW DELIVERED POWER : Engine load Electric pod LIPS CP propeller Nominal 19.000 kW 35 % 33.600 kW 65 % Service 17.000 kW 38 % 27.700 kW 62 % INSTALLED POWER : Mechanical power Electrical power 33600 kW 27900 kW

Total shaft power

51.600 kW

44.700 kW

Total installed power

61500 kW

FIGURE 10. CODED machinery configuration for the 30 knot RoPax

Oskar Levander Wrtsil Corporation / Marine Division

Advanced machinery with CRP propulsion for fast RoPax vessels The Motorship Marine Propulsion Conference 2002

April 10-11th, 2002

The pod propulsion power of 19 MW gives an electrical load of 20 MW when the converter, transformer and electrical motor efficiencies are taken into account. The total electrical load is about 22 MW when the hotel load of about 2 MW is added. The total installed break power of the genset engines should then be about 26,5 MW to allow for a service rating of 85% MCR and generator efficiency of 97%. The gensets are configured into a power plant type machinery where the same gensets supplies both the electric propulsion and the hotel load. The combinations of available genset options are numerous and there are many suitable solutions. The large power demand makes it feasible to opt for an engine type with a large power output per cylinder to reduce the total number of cylinders. Therefore the Wrtsil 38 and 46 series are the most suitable engine types. Since the 46 engine is used for the mechanical propulsion, it is beneficial to use the same type for the electrical power plant. However, the power demand in port can be under 2 MW, so there should also be

at least one unit with a power output in the region between 2,5 4 MW to avoid too low loads on the engines. Even though it is possible to run an engine at low loads under 20%, continuous operation at low loads is not recommended. The smallest engine in both the 46 and 38 series have a power output of over 4 MW, so there is no suitable model to create the electricity in port. Therefore, another type of engine must also be brought onboard. In this case, the selected configuration consist of two 12V46 engine and one 6L32 engines, with power outputs of 12600 kW and 2700 kW respectively. This gives a total electrical power generation capacity of 27,9 MW. The large diesel generators with low fuel consumption supply most of the electrical power. The small 6L32 genset is mostly used in port when the only electrical load consists of the hotel load. However, it can also be used for extra power at full speed or to reduce the load jump between the large engines at part load.

FIGURE 11. CODED machinery for the 30 knot ship

Oskar Levander Wrtsil Corporation / Marine Division

Advanced machinery with CRP propulsion for fast RoPax vessels The Motorship Marine Propulsion Conference 2002

April 10-11th, 2002

Machinery concept 28 knot CODED version The machinery for the 28 knot machinery is selected according to the same principal. In this case the optimum power split between the propulsors has moved so that more power should be mechanical and less electrical, since this machinery is intended mostly for short route operation. In this case the capital cost has more impact on the total costs as indicated in figure 9. The mechanical propulsion is powered by two 16V46C engines, the same as for the 30 knot version. The pod size is on the other hand reduced to 14 MW to reflect the lower delivered propulsion power demand of 40-41 MW. The power split between the installed mechanical propeller and the pod power is therefore about 30/70. The electrical generation capacity is matched to the lower power demand and two 8L46 plus one 6L32 genset are selected, with a combined power of 19500 kW. Redundancy The main engines driving the mechanical propeller are located in the aft engine room compartment while the gensets are located in the two compartments forward of that. A watertight

A-60 class bulkhead separates the engine compartments from each other. This prevents fires and flooding to spread from one engine room to the other. This gives a certain degree of safety and redundancy. The engine room is not fully redundant though, since all the electrical generation equipment is in the same compartment and also some of auxiliary systems are not divided into separate compartments. However, the ship should not lose the entire propulsion power even if any one of the compartments is knocked out. The main engines can be configured to run even under a full black out and drive the mechanical propeller. The emergency generator will provide the power needed for the essential equipment to get back to port. The pod is used as a rudder in this case without any driving force. It might be worth to consider increasing the lateral area of the pod to enhance its ability to create side force when acting as a rudder. On the other hand, if the main engines are damage and the gensets are intact, the situation is not as bad. Then the ship can power itself with just the pod back to port. In this case, the passengers would not notice much else than a reduction in speed, since the entire hotel power demand can easily be covered.

W 8L46C 8400 kW W 16V46C 16800 kW

W 6L32 2700 kW

W 16V46C 16800 kW W 8L46C 8400 kW

DELIVERED PROPULSION POWER : Engine load Electric pod LIPS CPP Nominal 14.000 kW 29 % 33.600 kW 71 % Service 13.300 kW 34 % 27.700 kW 66 % INSTALLED ENGINE POWER : Mechanical power Electrical power 33.600 kW 19.500 kW

Total shaft power

47.600 kW

41.000 kW

Total installed power

53.100 kW

FIGURE 12. CODED machinery configuration for the 28 knot RoPax

Oskar Levander Wrtsil Corporation / Marine Division

Advanced machinery with CRP propulsion for fast RoPax vessels The Motorship Marine Propulsion Conference 2002

April 10-11th, 2002

DF-ELECTRIC MACHINERY CONCEPT

The third machinery alternative developed in the SeaTech 2000+ project is also based on the CRP concept. However, this machinery consists of Wrtsils Dual Fuel engines, which run on natural gas and MDO instead of the typical HFO. The machinery is of the totally electric power plant type and both propellers are powered with electrical motors. This ship concept is also aimed at a service speed of 28 knots. Machinery concept 28 knot DF electric version The propulsion power demand is about 40 MW in service conditions. The optimum power split between the propulsors is different than for the CODED version since both propellers are electrically driven. However, there is still a difference in capital cost between a pod and an electrically powered conventional propeller. A large pod size also increases the space demand above the pod, which impacts on the car deck space and can complicate the installation. The pod power is therefore selected to be 17 MW, which is larger than for the CODED. However, most part of the propulsion power, 24 MW, is still on the conventional propeller. The power plant is configured to meet the total power demand from the propulsion and hotel

load. It has four 12V50DF and two 9L32DF gensets giving a total installed engine power of 51,9 MW. The gensets are divided into two separate engine rooms to provided redundancy. Machinery arrangement The machinery is designed according to an Emergency Shutdown (ESD) philosophy. The configurations consist of the following features: n Automatic switch to MDO use or shutdown of one of the engine rooms in case of a gas leak. n Gas detectors in engine rooms n Engines located in two separated engine rooms n Redundant power generation n Low gas pressure (under 10 bar) n Single wall gas piping within the engine room n The gas pipes are enclosed in ducts outside the engine room The natural gas is stored in liquid form (LNG) in special vacuum insulated tanks. The LNG tank space features some special arrangements to comply with the only suitable classification rules to date (DNV 2001): n Thermally isolated from the hull n Venting to safe location n Located inside B/5 n Buffer zone to A class machinery spaces

W 12V50DF 11400 kW

W 12V50DF 11400 kW

W 9L32DF 3150 kW

W 9L32DF 3150 kW

W 12V50DF 11400 kW

W 12V50DF 11400 kW

DELIVERED PROPULSION POWER : Engine load Electric pod LIPS CPP Nominal 17.000 kW 40 % 25.000 kW 60 % Service 17.000 kW 41 % 24.000 kW 59 % INSTALLED ENGINE POWER : Mechanical power Electrical power 0 kW 51.900 kW

Total shaft power

42.000 kW

41.000 kW

Total installed power

51.900 kW

FIGURE 13. DF-electric machinery configuration for the 28 knot RoPax

Oskar Levander Wrtsil Corporation / Marine Division

Advanced machinery with CRP propulsion for fast RoPax vessels The Motorship Marine Propulsion Conference 2002

April 10-11th, 2002

POWER IN FERRIES STATISTICS

The installed propulsion power in existing ferries and RoPax vessels are indicated in figure 14. The ships are divided into different groups according to their service speed. The power of both the 30 and 28 knot version is clearly below the power of the average vessels in their groups. However the difference is not that clear, since most ships in the graph are pure diesel mechanical installations with a certain engine margin applied to the engines. The situation is not the same for a ship with electrical propulsion. There is normally no service rating on electrical propulsion motors, since they can operate at maximum power with very little, if any, side effects. The installed propulsion power of a CODED or diesel-electric ship is therefore lower than for a similar conventional ship with the same resistance.
PROPULSION POWER IN FERRIES
80 000 70 000 60 000 30 kn CRP RoPax

generally somewhat higher in ships without shaft generators than in those with, which can be expected. However, the total electrical production capacity in ship with shaft generators is much higher when the genset and shaft generator capacity is combined. The CODED machinery configurations used in the case vessels are somewhat different in respect to genset capacity. The gensets supply both the pod power and the hotel load. The electrical production capacity can be compared to conventional vessels if the pod power demand (at the generator including losses) is subtracted from the total capacity. It can be seen in figure 15 that the installed auxiliary power of the case vessel is much lower than that of most conventional mechanical vessels and quite in line with that of the pure diesel electric installations. The total installed engine power in ferries and RoPax vessels are indicated in figure 16. This gives a better, however not complete, picture of the actual power demand in different vessels. The installed engine power in the CODED vessels is clearly below that of the average vessels due to the combined beneficial characteristics of the CRP propulsion and the CODED machinery.
TOTAL INSTALLED ENGINE POWER IN FERRIES
80 000

not s

ts kno 33 28-

28 kn CRP RoPax

POWER [kW]

50 000 40 000 30 000 20 000 10 000 0 0

>33 k

knots 24-27

s 20-23 knot

s <19 knot

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

70 000

GROSS TONNAGE [GT]

70 000 60 000

POWER [kW ]

50 000 40 000 30 000 20 000 10 000 0 0

>33 k

FIGURE 14. Propulsion power in ferries.

INSTALLED AUXILIARY POWER IN FERRIES
15 000 Genset + shaft generator power Genset power (in ships without shaft generators) 12 000 Genset power (in ships with shaft generators) Diesel Electric (Genset power - max propulsion load)

not s

ts kno 33 8 2

30 kn CRP RoPax

28 kn CRP RoPax

ots 7 kn 24-2

s 20-23 knot

<19 knots

POWER [kW]

30 kn CRP RoPax (Genset power - max propulsion load) 9 000

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

70 000

GROSS TONNAGE [GT]

6 000

FIGURE 16. Total installed power in ferries

3 000

0 0 10 000 20 000 30 000 40 000 50 000

GROSS TONNAGE [GT]

FIGURE 15. Installed auxiliary power generating capacity in Ferries.

The installed auxiliary power in ferries and RoPax vessels are indicated in figure 15. It can be seen that the installed genset capacity is
Oskar Levander Wrtsil Corporation / Marine Division Advanced machinery with CRP propulsion for fast RoPax vessels The Motorship Marine Propulsion Conference 2002

April 10-11th, 2002

BENCHMARKING
The presented CODED and DF-electric machinery concepts with CRP propulsion are compared with conventional RoPax machinery concepts to quantify the benefits and drawbacks of the new solutions. The 28 knot machinery versions operating the long route between Hanko and Rostock will be used for the comparison. Both a CODED machinery operating on HFO and one operating on MDO will be used to determine the influence that a better quality fuel option will have. The reference will be a typical mechanical RoPax machinery with four Wrtsil 12V46 propulsion engines and three 6L26 gensets. A fully diesel electric alternative with two pods will also be included to broaden the comparison. The alternative machinery options are indicated in figure 18. Fuel consumption The energy consumption and the related fuel cost are indicated in figure 17. The CRP vessels offer the lowest energy consumption due to the lower propulsion power demand. However, the higher price of MDO results in the highest fuel cost despite the lowest consumption for the

CODED (MDO) version. The DF-ship has higher fuel costs than the HFO ships but lower costs than the environmentally friendly MDO version. However, the price of the LNG might vary greatly from one place to another. There is no existing infrastructure to bunker ships with LNG and therefore no existing marine LNG prices when delivered to the ship. The estimated LNG cost can therefore change considerably for other applications. Machinery related costs The total machinery related costs are indicated in figure 19. The CODED (HFO) machinery has the lowest operating costs and only slightly higher capital costs than the diesel-mechanical version. The diesel-electric and the DF-electric alternatives have significantly higher capital costs than the other alternatives due to the expensive electrical propulsion systems. The CODED (HFO) alternative offers the lowest total machinery related costs. The DF-electric alternative has a higher total cost than the ships operating on HFO, but it is lower than that of the ship running on MDO when the SCR related costs are taken into account. This should be included to make the environmental impact of these vessels somewhat more comparable.

NSM=B NQM=B NOM=B NMM=B UM=B SM=B QM=B OM=B M=B aJj~~ J ecl aJb mla ecl `laba `om ecl `laba `om jal acJb `om ikd
Assumed fuel prices: HFO 120 USD/ton MDO 200 USD/ton MGO 220 USD/ton LNG 170 USD/ton

bkbodv `lkprjmqflk

crbi=`lpq

FIGURE 17. Energy consumption and fuel costs for the alternative machinery concepts.

Oskar Levander Wrtsil Corporation / Marine Division

Advanced machinery with CRP propulsion for fast RoPax vessels The Motorship Marine Propulsion Conference 2002

April 10-11th, 2002

Diesel-mechanical (HFO) n Installed power: 55980 kW

W 12V46 12 600 kW

W 12V46 12 600 kW W 6L26 1860 kW W 6L26 1860 kW W 12V46 12 600 kW W 6L26 1860 kW W 12V46 12 600 kW

Diesel-electric (HFO) n Installed power:

53100 kW
W 12V46C 12600 kW W 12V46C 12600 kW

W 6L32

2700 kW

W 12V46C 12600 kW

W 12V46C 12600 kW

CODED (HFO) CODED (MDO) n Installed power:

53100 kW
W 8L46C 8400 kW W 16V46C 16800 kW

W 6L32 2700 kW W 16V46C 16800 kW W 8L46C 8400 kW

DF-electric (LNG/MDO) n Installed power: 51900 kW

W 12V50DF 11400 kW W 12V50DF 11400 kW

W 9L32DF 3150 kW

W 9L32DF 3150 kW

W 12V50DF 11400 kW

W 12V50DF 11400 kW

FIGURE 18. Machinery alternatives for a 28 knot RoPax vessel

Oskar Levander Wrtsil Corporation / Marine Division

Advanced machinery with CRP propulsion for fast RoPax vessels The Motorship Marine Propulsion Conference 2002

April 10-11th, 2002

18 000 16 000

SCR costs
14 000

Annual costs [kUSD]

12 000 10 000 8 000 6 000 4 000 2 000 0 D-Mechanical twin-screw HFO D-Electric POD HFO CODED CRP HFO CODED CRP MDO DF-Electric CRP LNG

Annual capital costs Maintenance costs Lub oil costs

Fuel oil costs

FIGURE 19. Total annual machinery related costs. The capital costs are based on 8% interest rates and a 10-year repayment time.

Emissions The primary exhaust emission levels for the entire machinery including both engines and oil fired boilers (OFB) are compared against the conventional machinery alternative in figure 20. It can be seen that the DF-electric machinery

using LNG as fuel offers by far the lowest emission levels. The second best result is achieved with CODED machinery equipped with a SCR unit and using MDO as fuel. The great benefit of the LNG version is the clear reduction in CO2 emissions, which can not be reached with conventional fossil fuels.

CO2
120 % 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0%
D-Mechanical HFO D-Electric HFO SCR

NOx

SOx

CODED HFO SCR

CODED MDO SCR

DF-Electric LNG-MDO

FIGURE 20. Relative annual exhaust emissions for the entire machinery (engines + OFB).
Oskar Levander Wrtsil Corporation / Marine Division Advanced machinery with CRP propulsion for fast RoPax vessels The Motorship Marine Propulsion Conference 2002

April 10-11th, 2002

SUMMARY
The new CODED machinery with a CRP pod offers most of the benefits associated either with diesel electric or diesel mechanical machinery without their respective downsides. The result is a very competitive solution that provides outstanding technical and economical performance for fast RoPax and RoRo applications. This machinery solution also shows great potential for other twin screw vessels, single screw ships with highly loaded propellers or ships with high manoeuvring demands. The new Wrtsil Dual Fuel engines operating on LNG is an interesting future option that can offer a very environmentally friendly alternative.

9. Levander K., Improving the RoPax Concept With High Tech Solutions, EuroConference on Passenger Ship Design, Operation & Safety, Crete Greece, October 2001 10. Levander O., Combined Diesel-Electric and Diesel Mechanical Propulsion for a RoPax Vessel, Marine News - Wrtsil Customer Magazine nr3 2001, December 2001 11. Levander O., LNG as bunkered fuel, EMPRO seminar, Helsinki Finland, December 2001 12. Levander O., New Machinery Solutions for Fast RoPax vessels, SeaTech 2000+ seminar, Raumo Finland, March 2002 13. Praefke E., Richards J. and Engelskirchen J., Counter rotating propellers without complex shafting for a fast monohull ferry, Presentation at FAST 2001, Southampton UK, September 2001 14. Shuto H. and Dr Yoshida Y. Contrarotating propellers: taking the concept to jumbo containerships, Ship Propulsion Systems 2001 2nd annual international multi-streamed conference - Lloyds List Events, Hamburg Germany, October 2001 15. Sipil H., Machinery Development for RoPax vessels, EMPRO seminar, Helsinki Finland, December 2001 16. Veikonheimo T., CRP Azipod propulsion systems EMPRO seminar, Helsinki Finland; December 2001 17. Wrtsil 46 Project Guide for Marine Applications, Wrtsil Finland Oy, Vaasa, Finland, January 2001 18. Wrtsil 32 Project Guide for Marine Applications, Wrtsil Finland Oy, Vaasa, Finland, August 1998

REFERENCES
1. Backlund A. and Kuuskoski J., The Contra Rotating Propeller (CRP) Concept with a Podded Drive Motor Ship Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, March 28-29 2000 2. Bernardes-Silva P. Natural gas fuelled fast craft - challenges and development, FAST 2001 conference, Southamption UK, September 4-6th, 2001 3. Common Questions about LNGs Use as a Transportation Fuel, LNG Express Annual Directory; 1993-1994 4. DNV - Rules for Classification of Ships Newbuildings - Part 6 Chapter 13 - Gas Fuelled Engine Installations, January 2001 5. EMPRO - Summary Report - Task 3.1.2 Propulsion Drive for a New RoPax Concept, Kvaerner Masa-Yards Technology, Turku Finland; June 2001 6. ESMA - Activity NO. 3.2 Alternative fuels for marine applications, Marintek Sintef Group, March 1999 7. Jokela R., Determining the most efficient propulsion system, Ship Propulsion Systems 2001 2nd annual international multistreamed conference - Lloyds List Events, Hamburg Germany, October 2001 8. Laurilehto M., Gas fuelled engines for marine applications, Marine News, Wrtsil Customer Magazine nr 1 - 2001

Oskar Levander Wrtsil Corporation / Marine Division

Advanced machinery with CRP propulsion for fast RoPax vessels The Motorship Marine Propulsion Conference 2002