020322/tal Page 1

Göran Håkansson

H W CARLSEN
UNLOADING SYSTEMS FOR
SELFUNLOADING CEMENT
CARRIERS

A COMPARISON

1
020322/tal Page 2
Göran Håkansson

H W CARLSEN
UNLOADING SYSTEMS FOR SELFUNLOADING CEMENT CARRIERS
A COMPARISON

In principle there are five different types of selfunloader systems marketed by H W

Carlsen today, even if you now and then can see combinations of these basic types as
well as modified versions of the same supplied with additional equipment to meet
market requirements:

1) The Carlsen DR Pump System

Our most wellknown and the basic system for selfunloading cement carriers is
the Carlsen DR (Double Reloader) Pump System. This system is not particularly
new. The principle remains the same as when originally introduced around 40
years ago, only that basically all components and the control system have been
substantially upgraded and more and more refined over the years in order to get
higher unloading rate and less maintenance without investing more money.

With this system the cement is sucked from the holds into one of two “reloader
tanks” by means of vacuum pumps and during the next cycle the cement is
blown ashore to the silos by means of compressors.

This pump system is combined with a unique fluidization system in the holds of
the ships, which by today typically has been copied by most of our competitors
as well, as it without any doubt is the most cost effective way to fluidize the
cement, while it at the same time saves weight.

The characteristic thing for the Carlsen type of hold fluidization system is that
the fabric is laid out directly on the inclined tanktop and fixed to the same by
flatbars and bolts along the sides only instead of adding ordinary heavy box
type open top airslide conveyors, side by side, on top of the inclined bottom.
From the low points in the holds the cement is sucked to the reloader tanks.

By means of automatic valves the two reloader tanks are filled and emptied, one
after the other, making the flow of cement to the silos in principle continuous,
even if of batch type.

2
020322/tal Page 3
Göran Håkansson

The reloader tanks as well as the machines can be installed either on deck
(preferred for conversions as it both saves volume in the holds and is easy to
install) or between bulkheads below deck (preferred for newbuildings as the lost
volume can be compensated by making the ship somewhat longer and because
the deck then becomes clean without any machinery room, hatch covers etc
which in total means a lower cost and less ship maintenance).

The pneumatic Carlsen Pump System can naturally also be completed in various
ways to make it possible to unload the ship mechanically/by gravity over the
ship´s side. Several such ships with combined mechanical/pneumatic unloading
systems of Carlsen design (as well as with combined mechanical/pneumatic
loading systems) are in operation all over the world.

2) The Carlsen Screw Conveyor System

In this type of selfunloading systems we instead of sucking the cement from the
low points in the holds use vertical screw conveyors to bring the cement up
above deck level. These are then in principle replacing the suction pipes of the
DR pump system and standing centric in the holds.

To be able to make maintenance to the screw conveyors these, however, have

to be installed inside vertical ducts (service shells) of approx 2 by 2 mtr going
from tanktop level to deck level, while the suction pipes in a DR system just go
through the holds, as they are, as pipelines naturally do not need any
maintenance or service.

Once on deck each vertical screw conveyor drops its cement into longitudinal
screw conveyors or airslides going along the whole ship for collection of this
cement.

In the centre of the ship the cement finally normally is transferred from this
longitudinal screw conveyor or airslide system into a discharge screw conveyor
installed on an outloading boom for gravity loading of the cement over the
ship´s side onto f.e. a belt conveyor on shore or directly into a bulktruck.

Alternatively if pneumatic unloading is required, a blow tank system is added in

the centre of the ship, either on deck or between bulkheads below deck, into
which the cement is fed by the above screw conveyor system.

Screw conveyor dimensions as well as additional blow tanks and compressor

sizes for the same are designed to match ship size and unloading capacity
requirements mechanically and/or pneumatically.

3
020322/tal Page 4
Göran Håkansson

3) The Fuller Kinyon Pump System

The oldest cement pump system on the market is the Fuller Kinyon Pump
System.This system originally was marketed by our sister company Fuller in the
USA and is in principle the same system as nowadays offered by Claudius
Peters and IBAU.

This type of system is a pure pneumatic selfunloader system, where one as std
uses airslide channels of box type for installation on top of the sloping tanktops
in the holds, for feeding of the cement directly to their respective cement
pumps.

As there is no special cement pick up system from the holds, when using this
kind of pump, normally several pumps have to be spread out at tanktop level
along the centre line of the ship for direct feeding from the airslides in the
holds. Consequently also a big longitudinal triangular-shaped service tunnel
has to be arranged along the centre line throughout the whole ship for
accommodating these pumps as well as the compressed air pipes, the
fluidization blower pipes and cement transportation pipes. The compressors
required for the pumps and the blowers for fluidization can be installed midship
in a deck house alternatively between bulkheads at tanktop level.

For high capacity unloading these systems require several parallel pipelines to
the silos and also several blowers for fluidization, as all pick-up points have to
be fluidized simultaneously. High pressure compressors can not be used either
as this kind of pump can not handle high pressure.

Due to the requirements of the big heavy and costly service tunnel as well as
the use of std box type airslides in the holds and consequent loss of carrying
capacity of the ship, this type of system is in principle never used for
conversions.

On top of that, this type of system requires more energy than other systems on
the market for unloading pneumatically.

For newbuildings the situation is different, as then it is possible to incorporate

the steel structure when calculating the overall strength of the ship. Also the
lost cargo volume then can be compensated by giving the ship some extra
volume.

Although very energy consuming the reliability of this kind of system is very
high. It is a very simple straight forward system easy to understand and
operate, why it still is preferred by some shipowners.

4
020322/tal Page 5
Göran Håkansson

4) The Carlsen CSP System

Naturally H W Carlsen has a pneumatic system of “suction-only” type as well. This

is called the CSP (Continuous Suction Pump) System. Here the cement is sucked
from the fluidized holds into a special filter vessel (the CSP-tank), from where the
cement is discharged mechanically via a special screw conveyor at its bottom
instead of pneumatically as in case of the DR-Pump System described before. This
systems is useful, when there is no requirement to pump the cement onwards to
silos but all cement is unloaded by gravity directly on the quay f.e. into trucks or
onto a belt conveyor.

The CSP-System has been on the market for over 20 years now and is used in
many installations all over the worlds.

For independent shipowners on today´s market a DR-System with some addi-tional

equipment for mechanical discharge, however, must be recommended before a
“suction only” system like the CSP for maximum flexibility and general availability.

5) The Carlsen 3-tank System

The idea with this system is that instead of having ordinary DR-tanks, where each
tank has its own filter, a separate suction tank with the filter inside will be installed
on top of two or more standard blow tanks in the central unloading machinery
room onboard the ship.

This way the suction from the holds can continue all the time at full capacity, while
the blow tanks are filled and emptied independently underneath.

Simultaneously the overall efficiency of the system will be even higher than for an
ordinary DR-Pump System with an even lower power consumption/ton cement
unloaded.

As this 3-tank system requires more height than the DR-System, it is specifically
recommended for big selfunloaders with high unloading rate requirements and
where the tank system can be installed below deck in f.e. a service pump room in
the centre of the ship.

Several systems like this are already in operation in shorebased shipunloading

terminals with excellent results and we have one system under delivery for a 15.000
dwt selfunloader at present as well.

5
020322/tal Page 6
Göran Håkansson

Unloading System Comparison

In order to break down the system evaluation into an easily understandable

comparison I have concentrated the comparison to selfunloaders with pneumatic
unloading capabilities, as this is the general market trend and what customers require
nowadays irrespective of ship sizes.

Just to be able to discharge mechanically over the ship´s side is normally not enough
on today´s market, where most shore terminals just have some silos with packing
equipment at some distance from the port and one or two pipelines between the quay
and silo roof.

This gives a very simple terminal operation with no transportation system to maintain
and worry about, so it is very easy to understand, why it is preferred by many terminal
operators/owners.

So, even if a typical mechanical unloading system is selected by the shipowner, it has
to be combined/completed by a pneumatic pump system for blowing the cement to the
silos.

As the CSP-System is a suction-only system without pneumatic pumping capability,

this system consequently has been left out in this evaluation. So, has the 3-tank
system as this, as a system, is very similar to the DR-tank system but better in all
ways, when it comes to both performance and maintenance, only restricted by its
somewhat bigger height. Consequently it is enough to compare the ordinary DR-Pump
System with the other systems and then all what the DR-Pump System is better at, the
3-tank system is even better at.

So, in principle I will compare three out of above five basic unloading system types.

Furthermore I have restricted the comparisons to newbuildings, as the differences are

minor between newbuildings and conversions for both the DR-Pump System and the
combined screw conveyor/blow tank system, while the original Fuller Kinyon Pump
System can in principle anyway not be considered, when it comes to conversions as
mentioned before.

In order to make the comparison generally valid, it has been split up onto three
different ship sizes (5.000 dwt, 10.000 dwt, 20.000 dwt) covering the most relevant ship
sizes used as selfunloading cement carriers.

Furthermore the nominal unloading rate for all installations for comparison has been
set to 500 t/h over 100 m total pumping distance including 50 m vertical lift at the silo.

For longer distances all systems in principle require the same amount of additional
compressor capacity, so what is relevant at 100 m is relevant also over longer
distances.

6
020322/tal Page 7
Göran Håkansson

System Comparison for Pneumatic Cement Unloading

Std formulas used for power consumption calculations;

Vertical Screw Conveyors: 0,015 x L x t/h

Horizontal Screw Conveyors: 0,007 x L x t/h
Pneumatic Transportation over 100 mtr: 1 kWh/ton

A) 5.000 dwt Newbuildings

List of major equipments required:

1) The Combined Screw Conveyor & Blow Tank System:

4 pcs 10 mtr long, 22 kW 125 t/h vertical screw conveyors in the holds,
2 pcs 25 mtr long, 37 kW 250 t/h horizontal screw conveyors on deck,
1 set double Blow Tank System with feeding hopper on top plus
1 pc 650 kW, 150 m3/min, 3,5 bar compressor for blowing the cement to the silos,
4 pcs 75 kW blowers for fluidization of the holds,
2 pcs 11 kW deckfilters,
1 pc 7,5 kW high pressure compressor for filter cleaning and valve manoeuvring,
fluidization matting, butterfly valves, pinch valves, flow gates, control panel etc.

Total Power Installed: 1140 kW

Average Power Consumption: 825 kW or 1,7 kWh/ton cement
based on 500 t/h unloading rate in one 100 mtr long 14 inch pipeline to the silos

Drawback:
Due to high equipment cost and high energy consumption as std both holds have
to be unloaded in parallel to save on screw diameters, installed power and
investment cost. This way f.e. only one cement quality can be unloaded at full rate.

If instead full capacity is required from one hold at the time, the vertical screw
conveyors become 45 kW each and the horizontal ones 75 kW each. On the other
hand only two 75 kW blowers now are required for fluidization. Therefore in this
case the total power installed becomes 1.160 kW, while the average power
consumption becomes 760 kW or 1,5 kW/ton.

So this way the power consumption becomes lower, while the investment and
installed power, however, become higher.

7
020322/tal Page 8
Göran Håkansson

2) The Fuller Kinyon Pump System:

4 pcs 90 kW cement pumps plus

4 pcs 160 kW, 43 m3/min, 3 bar compressors for blowing the cement to the silos,
4 pcs 75 kW blowers for fluidization of the holds,
2 pcs 11 kW deckfilters,
1 pc 7,5 kW high pressure compressor for filter cleaning and valve manouvr-ing,
fluidization channels for the holds, butterfly valves, pinch valves, flow gates,
control panel etc.

Total Power Installed: 1.325 kW

Average Power Consumption: 1.020 kW or 2,0 kWh/ton cement
based on 4x125 t/h unloading rate in four parallel 100 mtr long 8 inch pipelines to
the silos

Drawback:
Besides the highest power consumption of the three systems the pumps have to
blow in parallel all the way to the silos in four 8 inch pipelines instead of in one
single 14 inch line in order to achieve the total average unloading rate required.
The piping cost for this system therefore is more costly than that for the combined
screw conveyor/blow tank system and Carlsen DR Pump System.

If the ship carries two types of cement does, however, not matter in this case, as
the cement from the different holds anyway is pumped in different pipelines all the
way to the silos as a std.

8
020322/tal Page 9
Göran Håkansson

3) The Carlsen DR Pump System:

1 pc 160 kW vacuum pump for sucking the cement from the holds,
1 set DR-tanks,
1 pc 650 kW, 150 m3/min, 3,5 bar compressor for blowing the cement to the silos,
1 pc 90 kW blower for fluidization of the holds,
2 pcs 11 kW deckfilters,
1 pc 7,5 kW high pressure compressor for filter cleaning and valve manoeuvring,
fluidization matting, butterfly valves, pinch valves, control panel etc.

Total Power Installed: 930 kW

Average Power Consumption: 700 kW or 1,4 kWh/ton cement

Benefits:
Besides having the lowest power consumption of the three systems also as std full
unloading capacity can be achieved from one hold at the time and only one 14 inch
pipeline is required to the silos. No mechanical handling of the cement also means
lowest possible wear and maintenance cost combined with highest possible
availability.

Drawbacks:
None

Summary:
The Carlsen DR Pump System is superior in all respect, when it comes to
pneumatic unloading of 5.000 dwt ships.

9
020322/tal Page 10
Göran Håkansson

B) 10.000 dwt Newbuildings

List of major equipments required:

1) The Combined Screw Conveyor & Blow Tank System:

4 pcs 11,5 mtr high, 30 kW 125 t/h vertical screw conveyors in the holds,
2 pcs 30 mtr long, 45 kW 250 t/h horizontal screw conveyors on deck,
1 set double Blow Tank System with feeding hopper on top plus
1 pc 650 kW, 150 m3/min, 3,5 bar compressor for blowing the cement to the silos,
4 pcs 75 kW blowers for fluidization of the holds,
2 pcs 11 kW deckfilters,
1 pc 7,5 kW high pressure compressor for filter cleaning and valve manoeuvring,
fluidization matting, butterfly valves, pinch valves, flow gates, control panel etc.

Total Power Installed: 1.190 kW

Average Power Consumption: 880 kW or 1,8 kWh/ton cement
based on 500 t/h unloading rate in one 100 mtr long 14 inch pipeline to the silos

Drawback:
Due to high equipment cost and high energy consumption as std both holds have
to be unloaded in parallel to save on screw diameters, installed power and
investment cost. This way f.e. only one cement quality can be unloaded at full rate.

If instead full capacity is required from one hold at the time, the vertical screw
conveyors become 55 kW each and the horizontal ones 75 kW each. On the other
hand only two 75 kW blowers now are required for fluidization. Therefore in this
case the total power installed becomes 1.200 kW, while the average power
consumption becomes 790 kW or 1,6 kW/ton.

So this way the power consumption becomes lower, while the investment and
installed power, however, become higher.

10
020322/tal Page 11
Göran Håkansson

2) The Fuller Kinyon Pump System:

4 pcs 90 kW cement pumps plus

4 pcs 200 kW, 43 m3/min, 3 bar compressors for blowing the cement to the silos,
4 pcs 75 kW blowers for fluidization of the holds,
2 pcs 11 kW deckfilters,
1 pc 7,5 kW high pressure compressor for filter cleaning and valve manouvring,
fluidization channels for the holds, butterfly valves, pinch valves, flow gates,
control panel etc.

Total Power Installed: 1.490 kW

Average Power Consumption: 1.070 kW or 2,1 kWh/ton cement
based on 4x125 t/h unloading rate in four parallel 100 mtr long 8 inch pipelines to
the silos plus in average 15 mtr additional pumping distance onboard

Drawback:
Besides the highest power consumption of the three systems the pumps have to
blow in parallel all the way to the silos in four 8 inch pipelines instead of in one
single 14 inch line in order to achieve the total average unloading rate required.
The piping cost for this system therefore is more costly than that for the combined
screw conveyor/blow tank system and the Carlsen DR Pump System.

If the ship carries two types of cement does not matter in this case, as the cement
from the different holds anyway is pumped in different pipelines all the way to the
silos as a std.

11
020322/tal Page 12
Göran Håkansson

3) The Carlsen DR Pump System

1 pc 200 kW vacuum pump for sucking the cement from the holds,
1 set DR-tanks,
1 pc 650 kW, 150 m3/min, 3,5 bar compressor for blowing the cement to the silos,
1 pc 90 kW blower for fluidization of the holds,
2 pcs 11 kW deckfilters,
1 pc 7,5 kW high pressure compressor for filter cleaning and valve manoeuvring,
fluidization matting, butterfly valves, pinch valves, control panel etc.

Total Power Installed: 970 kW

Average Power Consumption: 730 kW or 1,5 kWh/ton cement

Benefits:
Besides having the lowest power consumption of the three systems also as std full
unloading capacity can be achieved from one hold at the time and only one 14 inch
pipeline is required to the silos. No mechanical handling of the cement also means
lowest possible wear and maintenance cost combined with highest possible
availability.

Drawbacks:
None

Summary:
The Carlsen DR Pump System is superior in all respect, when it comes to
pneumatic unloading of 10.000 dwt ships.

12
020322/tal Page 13
Göran Håkansson

C) 20.000 dwt Newbuildings

List of major equipments required:

1) The Combined Screw Conveyor & Blow Tank System:

4 pcs 13 mtr high, 30 kW 125 t/h vertical screw conveyors in the holds,
2 pcs 35 mtr long, 55 kW 250 t/h horizontal screw conveyors on deck,
1 set double Blow Tank System with feeding hopper on top plus
1 pc 650 kW, 150 m3/min, 3,5 bar compressor for blowing the cement to the silos,
4 pcs 75 kW blowers for fluidization of the holds,
2 pcs 11 kW deckfilters,
1 pc 7,5 kW high pressure compressor for filter cleaning and valve manoeuvring,
fluidization matting, butterfly valves, pinch valves, flow gates, control panel etc.

Total Power Installed: 1.210 kW

Average Power Consumption: 900 kW or 1,8 kWh/ton cement
based on 500 t/h unloading rate in one 100 mtr long 14 inch pipeline to the silos

Drawback:
Due to high equipment cost and high energy consumption as std both holds have
to be unloaded in parallel to save on screw diameters, installed power and
investment cost. This way f.e. only one cement quality can be unloaded at full rate.

If instead full capacity is required from one hold at the time, the vertical screw
conveyors become 55 kW each and the horizontal ones 110 kW each. On the other
hand only two 75 kW blowers now are required for fluidization. Therefore in this
case the total power installed becomes 1.270 kW, while the average power
consumption becomes 810 kW or 1,6 kW/ton.

So this way the power consumption becomes lower, while the investment and
installed power, however, become higher.

13
020322/tal Page 14
Göran Håkansson

2) The Fuller Kinyon Pump System:

4 pcs 110 kW cement pumps plus

4 pcs 200 kW, 43 m3/min, 3 bar compressors for blowing the cement to the silos,
4 pcs 75 kW blowers for fluidization of the holds,
2 pcs 11 kW deckfilters,
1 pc 7,5 kW high pressure compressor for filter cleaning and valve manouvr-ing,
fluidization channels for the holds, butterfly valves, pinch valves, flow gates,
control panel etc.

Total Power Installed: 1.570 kW

Average Power Consumption: 1.120 kW or 2,2 kWh/ton cement
based on 4x125 t/h unloading rate in four parallel 100 mtr long 8 inch pipelines to
the silos plus in average 30 mtr additional pumping distance onboard

Drawback:
Besides the highest power consumption of the three systems the pumps have to
blow in parallel all the way to the silos in four 8 inch pipelines instead of in one
single 14 inch line in order to achieve the total average unloading rate required.
The piping cost for this system therefore is more costly than that for the combined
screw conveyor/blow tank system and the Carlsen DR Pump System.

If the ship carries two types of cement does not matter in this case, as the cement
from the different holds anyway is pumped in different pipelines all the way to the
silos as a std.

14
020322/tal Page 15
Göran Håkansson

3) The Carlsen DR Pump System

1 pc 250 kW vacuum pump for sucking the cement from the holds,
1 set DR-tanks,
1 pc 650 kW, 150 m3/min, 3,5 bar compressor for blowing the cement to the silos,
1 pc 90 kW blower for fluidization of the holds,
2 pcs 11 kW deckfilters,
1 pc 7,5 kW high pressure compressor for filter cleaning and valve manoeuvring,
fluidization matting, butterfly valves, pinch valves, control panel etc.

Total Power Installed: 1.020 kW

Average Power Consumption: 760 kW or 1,5 kWh/ton cement

Benefits:
Besides having the lowest power consumption of the three systems also as std full
unloading capacity can be achieved from one hold at the time and only one 14 inch
pipeline is required to the silos. No mechanical handling of the cement also means
lowest possible wear and maintenance cost combined with highest possible
availability.

Drawbacks:
None

Summary:
The Carlsen DR Pump System is superior in all respect, when it comes to
pneumatic unloading of 20.000 dwt ships.

15
 020322/tal Page 16
Göran Håkansson

TOTAL POWER COMPARISON SUMMARY

(lowest figures in each category marked in bold)

Ship Size 5.000 dwt 10.000 dwt 20.000 dwt

Unloading System Installed Con- Installed Con- Installed Con-

Power sumed Power sumed Power sumed
Power Power Power
Combined Screw 1140 kW 825 kW 1190 kW 880 kW 1210 kW 900 kW
Conveyor & Blow
Tank System

Fuller Kinyon
Type Screw Pump 1325 kW 1020 kW 1490 kW 1070 kW 1570 kW 1120 kW
System

The Carlsen DR 930 kW 700 kW 970 kW 730 kW 1020 kW 760 kW

Pump System

Conclusion:

The Carlsen DR-Pump System has the lowest installed power as well as the lowest
power consumption for all three ship sizes.

Based on the above power consumption comparison it is obvious that it is a wide

spread illusion that mechanical systems should have lower power consumption than
pneumatic ones, when it comes to selfunloading cement carriers.

It is true, when comparing with screw pump systems like the Fuller Kinyon Pump but
definitely not for any size of selfunloader for cement when comparing with a Carlsen
DR Pump System as per above.

If then comparing with a Carlsen 3-tank system, the fully pneumatic solution becomes
even more favourable.

16
020322/tal Page 17
Göran Håkansson

HOW ABOUT OTHER SIZES OF SHIPS, OTHER PUMPING DISTANCES TO THE SILO
AND OTHER UNLOADING RATES THEN?

As all three systems are blowing the cement to the silos with similar compressors and
with optimized flow calculations, the above basic differences will remain. A longer
distance requires bigger compressors for the same rate and vice versa. At the same
time the pipe diameters have to be modified accordingly to minimize the power
consumption.

The pipe diameters can be stepped up on the way from ship to silo in order to optimize
the flow characteristics for the cement transport and thereby minimize the power
consumption further.

The principle changes are the same for all systems though and consequently the effect
on the power requirements and the total equipment prices too.

The same thing happens for the pickup system/cement handling system onboard the
ship, when changing the unloading capacity requirements.

The vacuum pumps for the DR-System then can be varied up and down in
size/capacity as required and the same thing goes for the screw conveyors and Fuller
Kinyon pumps. The principle differences and similarities remain the same for the
systems.

Malmö 2002 03 26
H W CARLSEN AB

Göran Håkansson

17