2011-2012 DR. JAMES A.

LISNYK STUDENT SHIP DESIGN COMPETITION 8520 TEU Dual Fuel Container Ship for the Far East Mediterranean Trade Route

State University of New York Maritime College Chieh Ho David Okafor Jeff DeGregory Nicholas Tontarski Timothy Storey Zhen Lin
1

Preface
This report could not have been done without the help and support from the gracious people in the maritime industry, the professors at SUNY Maritime College, and the seniors and classmates who inspired us on a constant basis. We would like to thank all of them, as well as to thank each other for the hard work during this past year. First of all, we would like to thank SNAME and the respected judges for the opportunity to present our work. It was a meaningful experience for all of us, and we certainly gained a lot from it. Much appreciation also goes to Evergreen Marine, Wartsila, MAN B&W, IHI, and all of the other companies that shared their information and valuable insights with us. Wed like to thank the Chair of Engineering Department, Dr. Burke, and the wonderful faculty and staff, especially Prof. C. Munsch, Prof. I. McCurdy, and Prof. M. Mandich of our Naval Architecture program at SUNY Maritime; our seniors, Tyler Hall and Florian Herzog, who helped along and guided us through the countless nights in the CAD lab; our classmates and comrades since the sweaty indoctrination - Kyle Keenan, Adam Keegan, and Siu Shing Tsui - for their help with the LNG control system. At last but certainly not least, the design team wants to thank each other for the impressive display of hard work and contribution, despite the extreme credit load at SUNY Maritime!

Our sincere thanks and appreciation,

Chieh Ho David Okafor Jeff DeGregory Nicholas Tontarski Timothy Storey Zhen Lin

Table of Contents
Preface Concept Selection Design Principles Process Flow Components and Functions of Ship Model Generator Construction of Ship Model Generator Length Prediction Based on Regression Analysis Gross Tonnage Predictor Based on Regression Analysis Initial Lightship Weight Estimation Criteria and Constraints Trade Route Analyses Load Factor Cargo Deadweight Design Speed and TEU Capacity Number of ships in the fleet and its effects on potential profitability Single island versus twin island configuration LNG Tank selection Principal Characteristics Hull Form Development Methodology Initial Design Cargo Hold Development Final Design Curves of Form and Floodable Length Hydrostatics Curves and Curves of Form Floodable Length Volume and Tankage Summary Structural Design Methodology 3 2 11 11 11 13 15 15 16 17 19 20 20 22 23 28 29 30 31 32 32 32 32 33 34 34 37 38 41 41

Material Selection Material Location Midship Section Modulus Initial Midship Design Still-water Bending Moment Final Midship Design Summary of Results Framing Plate Sizing Deck Longitudinal Stiffeners Summary of Weights Propulsion Plant Propulsion plant Trade Off Study Large Low Speed Diesel Steam Plant Diesel Electric Propulsion Final Propulsion Plant Analysis LNG System Compressor Room Propulsor Method of propulsor sizing Propeller selection Electrical Plant Wrtsil 34DF GenSet Electrical Load Analysis Ship Service Generator Emergency Generator Major HVAC, Mechanical, Electrical Systems Electrical Load Distribution Exhaust Gas Boiler 4

41 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 45 45 46 47 47 47 47 47 48 50 50 52 52 55 57 57 58 59 59 61 61 61

Emissions Control System SOX Reducer Nox Reducer Fire Fighting Systems Introduction Fire Main Engine room space Anchor Handling and Mooring Anchor Handling Equipment Mooring System & Deck Machinery Life Boats and Emergency Equipment Sewage and Ballast Management Major Mission-Related Systems Container Securing System Lashing Bridge Loose Fittings on Deck and In Holds Weight Estimate Lightship Condition 100% Cargo, 100% Consumables 100% Cargo, 50% Consumables 100% Cargo, 10% Consumables 70% Cargo, 100% Consumables 70% Cargo, 50% Consumables 70% Cargo, 10% Consumables Trim and Intanct Stability Analysis Damaged Stability Analysis Probabilistic Damage Stability Speed and Power Analysis Endurance Seakeeping Analysis Analysis 1 - Head seas heave, pitch, and roll RAOs 5

62 62 63 64 64 64 64 65 65 65 66 66 67 67 67 67 68 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 91 91 92 95 99 99

Analysis 2 Operating limits in various sea states and headings Manning Economic Analysis Building cost Labor Cost

104 112 113 114 114

Material cost
Building cost result Annual recovery factor Operating cost Estimated required freight rate Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Bow Slamming Deck Wetness House Vibrations Hatch Coaming Warping LNG Risks Major References Appendix Final Owners Requirements Design Statement Trade Route Principle Cargo Types Container Access Limiting Particulars Speed and Range Classification Registry Complement Special Design Considerations Applicable Regulations 6

115
117 117 117 117 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 121 122 123 123 123 124 124 124 125 125 125 125 125 125

Detail List of Electical Load Components Drawings

126 130

List of Tables and Figures

Figure 1.1 Process Flow Chart 12 Figure 1.2 Inter-related components of the model generator 14 Figure 1.3 Cubic Number vs. TEU Regression Plot 15 Figure 1.4 Gross Tonnage Predictor Regression 16 Figure 1.5 Hull Weight Estimation Formulae 17 Figure 1.6 Testing of Quadricubic Number 18 Figure 1.7 Lightship estimation reducing variation 19 Table 1.1 Container Port Characteristics 19 Table 1.2 Dimensional Ratios from Ship Datebase 20 Table 1.3 Load Factor Determination 21 Table 1.4 Ten Year Statistical Weight Per TEU 22 Figure 1.8 Normal Probability Plot for Average Container Weight Per TEU 22 Figure 1.9 Design Vessel Nominal TEU vs. Actual Loaded TEU and Design Cargo Deadweeight 23 Table 1.5 Particulars of U ype Container Vessels 24 Table 1.6 Evergreen Marine Trade Route Port List and Distance 24 Table 1.7 Recorded Vessel Speeds 25 Table 1.8 Evergreen Marine Trade Route (FEM) Calculations 26 Figure 1.10 Typical Gantry Crane Arrangements 26 Table 1.9 Ten Ship Calculations for New Design Vessel 27 Table 1.10 Economic Comparison of Hull Forms Depending on Fleet Size 28 Table 1.11 Comparison of Single and Twin Island Configurations 29 Figure 1.12 Advantages of IHI SPB Tank Include Its Volumetic Efficiency, On-deck Stowage Options, and Freedom of Loading Level 30 Figure 1.11 Cut-Away View of the IHI SPB Tank 30 Table 2.1 Principle Characteristics 31 Figure 3.2 Initial Hull Form with Cargo Holds 32 Figure 3.1 Initial Hull Form 32 Figure 3.3 Refined Hull with the Original Cargo Holds and the Added House 33 Figure 3.5 Refined Hull with Original Holds and Tanks 33 Figure 3.6 Refined Hull with Refined Holds and Tanks 33 Figure 3.4 Detailing of the Stern was Possible with the New 12-Surface Model 33 Figure 4.1 Displacement, Midship Section Area, Wetted Area, Waterplance Area 34 Figure 4.2 LCB, LCF, KB 34 Figure 4.3 Longitudinal and Transverse KM 35 Figure 4.4 Immersion and Moment to Trim 35 Figure 4.5 Curves of Form 36 Figure 4.6 Floodable Length Curve 37 Table 5.2 Tensile Properties of Higher-Strength Hull Structural Steel 41 Table 5.1 Tensile Properties of Mild Strength Steel 41 Table 5.3 Summary of Midship Section Design and Midship Section Modulus Requirements 43 Figure 5.1 Framing Design in Workshop Pro 44 Table 5.4 Minimum Plating Thickness 44 Figure 5.2 Deckin g and Framing Design in Workshop Pro 45 Table 5.5 Minimum Deck Thickness 45 Table 5.6 Hull Weights Summary 46 Figure 6.1 9S90ME-C8.2-TII Specifications and Dimensions 48 Figure 6.2 9S90ME-C8.2-GI-TII Fuel Data 49 Figure 6.3 9S90ME-C8.2-GI-TII Load Condition 50 Figure 6.4 Typical LNG Compressor 50 Figure 6.5 LNG Flow Diagram 51 Figure 6.6 Sample Propellor Chart 53 Table 6.1 Sample Efficiency Matrix of 4-Bladed Propellor at 74 RPM 54 Figure 6.7 Propellor Chart for Waginengen B-5-63 55 Figure 6.8 Total Shaft Power vs. Engine Power 56 Table 7.1 Wrtsil 34DF GenSet Specifications 57 Table 7.2 Wrtsil 34DF GenSet Rated Power 57 Figure 7.1 Wrtsil 34DF GenSet 57

Table 7.3 Wrtsil 34DF GenSet Dimensions Table 7.4 Electrical Load Summary Table 7.5 Generator Sizing Calculation Table 7.6 Emergency Diesel Generator Ratings and Dimensions Figure 7.2 Armstrong Emergency Diesel Generator Table 7.7 Emergency Electrical Load Summary Figure 8.1 Electrical Distribution Bus Figure 8.2 Aalborg AV-6N Exhaust Gas Boiler Specifications Figure 8.3 Typical Fresh Water Scrubber Figure 8.5 MARPOL-recommended NOX Reducer Operating Range Figure 8.4 Typical NOX Reducer Figure 8.6 NOX Reducer directly connected to GenSets Table 8.2 Strength Requirements for Mooring Lines and Chains Table 8.4 Bow Thrusters Table 8.3 Mooring Winches Table 8.1 Anchor Calculations Figure 9.2 Container Securing in Holds Figure 9.1 Lashing Bridge Figure 9.3 Loose Fittings Table 10.1 Summary of Loadcases Table 10.2 Weight Summary of Lightship Loadcase Figure 10.1 Loading Curves - Lightship Loadcase Figure 10.2 Shear and Moment Curves - Lightship Loadcase Table 10.3 Weight Summary of 100% Cargo, 100% Consumables Loadcase Figure 10.3 Loading Curves - 100% Cargo, 100% Consumables Loadcase Figure 10.4 Shear and Moment Curves - 100% Cargo, 100% Consumables Loadcase Table 10.4 Weight Summary of 100% Cargo, 50% Consumables Loadcase Figure 10.5 Loading Curves - 100% Cargo, 50% Consumables Loadcase Figure 10.6 Shear and Moment Curves - 100% Cargo, 50% Consumables Loadcase Table 10.5 Weight Summary of 100% Cargo, 10% Consumables Loadcase Figure 10.7 Loading Curves - 100% Cargo, 10% Consumables Loadcase Figure 10.8 Shear and Moment Curves - 100% Cargo, 10% Consumables Loadcase Table 10.6 Weight Summary of 70% Cargo, 100% Consumables Loadcase Figure 10.9 Loading Curves - 70% Cargo, 100% Consumables Loadcase Figure 10.10 Shear and Moment Curves - 70% Cargo, 100% Consumables Loadcase Table 10.7 Weight Summary of 70% Cargo, 50% Consumables Loadcase Figure 10.11 Loading Curves - 70% Cargo, 50% Consumables Loadcase Figure 10.12 Shear and Moment Curves - 70% Cargo, 50% Consumables Loadcase Table 10.6 Weight Summary of 70% Cargo, 10% Consumables Loadcase Figure 10.13 Loading Curves - 70% Cargo, 10% Consumables Loadcase Figure 10.14 Shear and Moment Curves - 70% Cargo, 10% Consumables Loadcase Table 11.1 Summary of Loadcases Figure 11.1 Righting Arm Curve for Lightship Figure 11.2 Righting Arm Curve for 100% Cargo, 100% Consumables Figure 11.3 Righting Arm Curve for 100% Cargo, 50% Consumables Figure 11.4 Righting Arm Curve for 100% Cargo, 10% Consumables Figure 11.5 Righting Arm Curve for 70% Cargo, 100% Consumables Figure 11.6 Righting Arm Curve for 70% Cargo, 50% Consumables Figure 11.7 Righting Arm Curve for 70% Cargo, 10% Consumables Table 12.1 Damaged Stability Loadcase 1 Table 12.2 Damaged Stability Loadcase 2 Table 12.3 Damaged Stability Loadcase 3 Figure 13.1 Hull Information for Speed and Power Analysis Figure 13.2 Total Effective Power vs. Speed Figure 13.3 Total Shaft Power vs. Speed Table 13.1 Summary of Speed and Powering Analysis Table 14.1 Specific Gravity Assumptions Table 14.2 Lower Heating Value Corrections Table 14.3 100% HFO Table 14.4 80% HFO, 20% Diesel

58 58 59 59 59 60 61 62 63 63 63 64 65 65 65 65 67 67 67 68 69 70 70 71 72 72 73 74 74 75 76 76 77 78 78 79 80 80 81 82 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 91 91 92 93 93 94 95 95 96 96

Table 14.5 80% HFO, 19.8% LNG, 0.2% Diesel Table 14.6 Generators - 100% Diesel Table 14.7 Generators - 80% HFO, 20% Diesel Table 14.8 Generators - 80% HFO, 19.8% LNG, 0.2% Diesel Table 14.9 Endurance Summary - LNG Mode Table 14.10 Endurance Summary - Normal Operation Table 15.1 Loading Conditions Tested Table 15.2 Sea States for Seakeeping Analyses Figure 15.1 Full Load Heave, Pitch, and Roll RAOs at 21.2 knots Figure 15.2 Full Load Heave, Pitch, and Roll RAOs at 14.2 knots Figure 15.3 70% Load Heave, Pitch, and Roll RAOs at 21.2 knots Figure 15.4 70% Load Heave, Pitch, and Roll RAOs at 14.2 knots Table 15.3 General NORDFORSK Criteria Table 15.3 NORDFORSK Criteria for vessel Table 15.4 Remote Locations for Analysis Figure 15.5 RMS Accelerations at Full Load, 21.2 knots Figure 15.6 RMS Accelerations at Full Load, 14.2 knots Figure 15.7 RMS Roll at Full Load for both 21.2 and 14.2 knots Figure 15.8 RMS Accelerations at 70% Load, 21.2 knots Figure 15.9 RMS Accelerations at 70% Load, 14.2 knots Figure 15.11 RMS Roll at 70% Load for both 21.2 and 14.2 knots Table 16.1 Manning Summary Table 16.2 Sample Watch Bill Figure 17.1 Cost Analysis Hierarchy Table 17.1 CGT Coefficients Figure 17.2 Series Effect Table 17.2 Labor Cost for 10 Ships Table 17.3 Carreyette Method for Material Cost Calculation Table 17.4 Annual Operating Cost Calculations for Normal and LNG Modes Table 17.5 Cost and Required Freight Rate Summary for Single Ship Table 17.6 Market Average Freight Rates per TEU in 3 major trade routes

96 97 97 97 98 98 99 99 100 101 102 103 104 104 104 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 112 113 114 115 115 116 117 118 118

10

Concept Selection
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
This design work took the form of the so-called design spiral, where a higher precision was progressively achieved at each cycle. In the concept selection and initial sizing stage, the sequence started with the construction of a design generator, which transformed a set of given parameters into a domain of possible design solutions. Each solution had its determination of the principal dimensions, followed by the ships speed and power requirement and its estimated construction costs and required freight rate. By means of adjusting the parameters and applying conditional constraints, the number of possible solutions was narrowed down to just a few alternatives. The design team then chose a base-line design on the merits of the lowest required freight rate, and proceeded with the outline of the ship characteristics to the next cycle of the design spiral.

PROCESS FLOW
The main theme of this stage was the construction of the ship model generator, which was effectively a combined spreadsheet of early stage estimation formulae, regression analyses, assumptions, and constraints. Many of the formulae could be found in the various publications available to the academia and working professionals, and would not be discussed in detail in this report. However, several important design parameters associated with containerships and their specific trade routes would have to be analyzed to ensure greater design precision at this stage. Accurate and sound upstream design decisions were always appreciated from the perspective of the downstream processes. Fig. 1.1 was a simple process flow chart of this stage. The design team used this flow chart as a guide line, and went through several loops at this stage, where a previously generated solution could be refined, examined, or modified before going into the model generator for a second or third time.

11

Figure 1.1 Process Flow Chart

12

COMPONENTS AND FUNCTIONS OF SHIP MODEL GENERATOR

The ultimate goal of the ship model generator was to yield analytical solutions, feasible and realistic in the most practical sense, which could be used as the blue print or base line model for the teams final design product. The method of the model generator, depending on the number and type of inputs and constraints, may not be the same every time, but was always by means of iteration. The iteration stopped when the following principle condition was met:

The iteration monitored the ship displacement - which was mainly a function of the length, beam, draft, and block coefficient - and compared it to the total ship weight, which was the summation of various weight groups and was the result of many factors. Theoretically speaking, there would be an infinite amount of solutions in an unconstrained generator, and this was solved by applying conditional constraints and criterion, such as physical constraints limited by the proposed visiting ports, freeboard, and stability requirement. These were further discussed in the Criteria and constraints section.

13

Figure 1.2 Inter-related components of the model generator

14

CONSTRUCTION OF SHIP MODEL GENERATOR

As previously mentioned, many of the early design estimation formulae could either be found in popular publications in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, or in some of the papers listed in the Bibliography section, and would not be discussed in detail in this report. Therefore, this section would limit its scope to the following sub-sections: 1. Length predictor based on Regression Analysis 2.Gross tonnage predictor based on Regression Analysis 3.Initial Lightship weight estimation 4.Criteria and constraints 5.Trade Route Analysis

Length Prediction Based on Regression Analysis

The length predictor formula was found by a regression analysis on 68 existing containerships having the TEU capacity of 5000 and above. Due to the inherently limited beam of smaller Panamax size ships currently in service, the design team believed that the operational concerns of these ships would differ from that of the Post-Panamax, and the overall geometry of the hulls would also tend to differ. This was the reason that only ships larger than 5000 TEU with a beam of greater than 33 meters were included in the analysis.

Figure 1.3 Cubic Number vs. TEU Regression Plot

15

As shown in Fig 1.3, the regression line yielded an equation based on total nominal TEU capacity; the predicted value was Cubic Number (CN), and was defined as L*B*D (length times beam times depth of the hull). The equation had an adjusted R square value of 97.2%. Although seen as a Cubic Number prediction, the length could be easily estimated using this regression formula, for that the beam and depth of the PostPanamax containerships were usually predictable, also, by the TEU capacity. In most cases, the beam of existing ships tended to stay fixed through a range of certain TEU capacity; starting with 5000 TEU to 7000 TEUs, most ships within this category had a beam of 40 meters, which suggested 16 rows of containers across the deck. This was believed to be the result of most owners desire for agility of serving smaller ports. As it could be observed from the containership database, once a TEU capacity was picked, the beam could also be secured. It was also similar in the case of the depth of the hull; observation showed that vessels with under 9000 TEUs had depths which fluctuated with only a small variance. This was believed to be the result of similar container stacks (height-wise) in hold on these ships. The double bottom height requirement would, of course, have to be satisfied first, and along with the addition of 9 stacks in hold would explained the depth of the hull. The height of the hatch coaming would differ from ship to ship, and create some variation to the depth, but the variation remained relative small. Concluding the above points, the depth of the hull would be allowed to iterate only within a small range, and likely to go into the second loop of the model generator with a fixed value.

Gross Tonnage Predictor Based on Regression Analysis

The gross tonnage (GT) did not directly involve in the iteration process of the ship model generator, but was an important factor determining the profitability and required freight rate (RFR). It was used to calculate the compensated gross tonnage (CGT), which was the dictator of the labor cost calculations for the ship to be built. The regression analysis involving multiple inputs was shown in Fig. 1.4. The gross tonnage would be estimated with the inputs of deadweight, CN, LPP, beam, draft, depth, and TEU. The adjusted R square value was at 99.06%, and there were a total of 72 ships used from the Containership Database.

Figure 1.4 Gross Tonnage Predictor Regression

Once the gross tonnage was estimated for a ship, the CGT could be calculated by the following formula for container ships (CGT 2007):

The CGT was then used for labor cost estimation, along with the values for man-hour per CGT (in a given yard or region), and wage per man-hour. This method approximated the total man hours required to complete a ship, multiplying by the average wage and overhead it gave a rather realistic picture for the associated labor costs, with all aspects in shipbuilding technologies, management practices, and productivity already taken into consideration. 16

Other than the CGT, the conventional method proposed by Carreyette in 1977 was used for the material costs. Along with the annual transport capacity determined, the required freight rate per TEU could be approximated at the early stage. The design team was then able to choose the more profitable solution over the others, based on the merit of economic advantages.

Initial Lightship Weight Estimation

Because the ship model generators results would depend on the condition in which the displacement and total ship weight matched each other, as explained before, the initial lightship weight estimation became extremely important. Estimations with low precision would impact the generators end condition, resulting in inaccurate solutions, which might compound themselves during the design processes, if not addressed properly. The ship model generators lightship weight estimation, as seen from Fig. 1.2 Interrelated components of the model generator, incorporated the conventional Equipment Numbers which required all the main ship characteristics and the perspective coefficients for the hull group and outfit. While the outfit coefficient stayed stable for many containerships built, the hull coefficient was given as a range even for containerships. Using the low value or high value would sometimes result in several thousand tons of hull weight difference, and this issue had to be solved.

Figure 1.5 Hull Weight Estimation Formulae

17

The design team therefore looked into a solution, which used other hull weight estimation methods, not as an alternative, but as an aid to confine the variation into acceptable numbers. Fig. 1.5 Hull weight estimation formulae showed four different hull weight estimation formulae which were tested for Total Lightship weight instead of the intended hull weight only. This was done so because no existing hull weight data were accessible by the team. As seen from the table, one could easily realize that these formulae were intended to be used with a parent ship in mind. To test these formulae against existing containerships would require the block coefficient and the actual lightship weight to be known beforehand. The Containership Database, however, did not have the necessary information to allow such test to be conducted. The design team looked into all the major container liner companies websites, and found only one company which had the deadweight and displacement listed. This would allow for the calculation of the lightship weight, as well as an estimated block coefficient, for that the length, beam, draft, and displacement were all given. Figure. 1.6 showed a sample testing of the Quadricubic Number (Marsich, Genoa) which yielded the best result of all, when all of which were used for unintended purposes. The vessel names were replaced by Ship A and Ship B to conceal the identity of the liner company.

Figure 1.6 Testing of Quadricubic Number

As seen from Figure 1.6, the Quadricubic Number (Marsich, Genoa) method yielded extremely satisfactory results, while some of the other methods tested had rather large differences between the calculated lightship weight and the actual. Again, these formulae were hoped to support the Equipment Number method, and were used for their unintended purposes, due to the fact that no hull weight data were available to the design team. The Quadricubic Number method and the coefficient k were tested for 26 other containerships with very accurate results. This method was used to confine the results from the Equipment Number in the model generator, and lightship weight accuracy was significantly improved. Figure 1.7 showed the principle of this combined method. 18

Figure 1.7 Lightship estimation reducing variation

Criteria and Constraints

The following major criteria and constraints were applied to the model generator: 1. Draft limit 2. Air draft limit 3. Transverse stability 4. Freeboard requirement 5. Dimension ratios In assessing the limiting draft, the most logical place to start was the visiting ports which were specified in the Owners requirement; the port characteristics of the container terminals were shown in Table. 1.1. The limiting draft was determined to be 15 meters, while the upper limit of the ship length was also found in the same table.

Table 1.1 Container Port Characteristics

19

The limiting air draft was not found since no obvious restrictions were present at any of the ports in question. It was found that several bridges crossed the Suez Canal, but these were of the lifting bridge type, and would allow for vessel passage. The transverse stability criteria used estimation formulae to approximate the key factors which influenced the transverse stability; These formulae received inputs from the main ship characteristics and hull form coefficients, yielding the estimated KM, which deducted the estimated VCG from the weight groups, and returned the output GM. The GM, of course, would have to be at least positive, but a user specified value could also be applied. The freeboard requirement used the standard freeboard table, with corrections, to define a required freeboard based on the inputs. This requirement would be added upon the design draft, specifying the minimum depth of the hull, which must be met. The dimension ratios criteria confined the boundary of the main ship characteristics. It drew the statistics from the Containership database, and confined the new design to be within one standard deviation away from the mean value of the existing ships dimension ratios. It did not constraint Table 1.2 Dimensional Ratios from Ship Datebase specifically the length or the beam, but the overall relationships of such characteristics. This criteria was meant to reduce the risk of unrealistic design solutions from the model generator. Table 1.2 showed the statistics which were used as the criteria.

Trade Route Analyses

The analyses presented in this section were performed to determine the following key components and design parameters of the new design: 1. Load factor 2. Cargo deadweight 3. Design speed 4. TEU capacity The first two components were determined by observing statistical data, which were used to simulate the conditions of the owners proposed trade route. Number 3 and 4 were determined by observing a similar existing trade route, and solved for with certain asumptions made.

LOAD FACTOR
The load factor for the owners proposed trade route was determined to be 0.845, and was the ratio of average loaded TEUs over the designed nominal TEU capacity of the vessel. As seen in Table 1.3, the data was drawn from the port of Genoa statistical department, which recorded all the container traffic at the port. The 20

assumption that this traffic data represented the Far East to Mediterranean trade route was made due to the limited access of world wide statistical documents. Nevertheless this assumption should reflect well the loading conditions coming to and going out of the Mediterranean area, by comparing the data of the key ports on the trade route. The second assumption made regarding the load factor calculation was that a vessel should be fully loaded from the Far East to Mediterranean; based on this assumption, along with the traffic data, the returning trip from Mediterranean was determined to be 69% of the incoming traffic, and therefore had a 0.69 load factor. The average loading factor then was calculated to be 0.845 for the round trip. The third assumption, since lacking the owners customer profile, was that the liners market share had an negligible effect on load factor.

Table 1.3 Load Factor Determination

21

CARGO DEADWEIGHT
The cargo deadweight was defined as a function of the average weight per TEU multiplied by the nominal TEU capacity of the vessel. The average weight per TEU was determined, also, by observing the statistics of the port of Genoa. As seen in Table 1.4, the 10-year statistics of weight per TEU was derived. Taking into account the yearly fluctuation, the average weight per TEU was selected at 99% CDF, at 10.58 tons/TEU from FE to Med, and at 11.47 tons/TEU from Med to FE. The average TEU weight at the 99% cumulative density function was used as the basis to construct a cargo deadweight formula for this specific trade route; the model took the design nominal ship TEU and multiply it by the average weight per TEU, and returned the cargo deadweight value.

Table 1.4 Ten Year Statistical Weight Per TEU

Figure 1.8 Normal Probability Plot for Average Container Weight Per TEU

22

The cargo deadweight formula for the designed vessel was then determeined to be 10.58* Nominal TEUs (FE to Med condition), since this value would be greater, taking into account the load factor, than that of the Med to FE condition. Figure 1.9 showed the relationship between the design cargo deadweight, nominal ship TEUs, and actual TEU loaded for the round trip voyage.

Figure 1.9 Design Vessel Nominal TEU vs. Actual Loaded TEU and Design Cargo Deadweeight

DESIGN SPEED AND TEU CAPACITY

The design speed and design TEU capacity usually influenced each other, and therefore must be determine simultaneously. The primary reason that these two characteristics were mutually influential was because the owners target annual transportation capacity stayed the same. The target transportation capacity was determined based on the various internal factors on the part of the owner; excess capacity over the target meant the risk of not acquiring enough containers, thus losing profit. Not meeting the target capacity meant the risk of losing potential customers, and also losing profit. Therefore, the design speed and design TEU capacity must be tuned together to yield the most profitable number of round trips per year, while meeting the target capacity. These characteristics also influenced the decision of how many ships to be built, and how much fuel would be burned. To determine the proper combination of speed and capacity, a comprehensive trade route analysis must inevitably be performed. This was done by studying a currently existing trade route, which shared similarity with the owners proposed route. The Far East to Mediterranean service (FEM) of Evergreen Marine was selected for this purpose, with permission from the company to include the name. Currently there were nine (9) Evergreen ships running in this route. The uniform vessel type made it easier to construct the analysis. There were 21 ports of call, and a round trip took 63 days total; each ship arrived at the same port of call with a one week interval. It was assumed that the schedule was optimized. All 9 ships were of the U type container ships with the following particulars (Table 1.5):

23

Table 1.5 Particulars of U ype Container Vessels

The first step of the analysis was to obtain the overall range of the round; shown in the following Table 1.6 were the distances in nautical miles between each port, and the total distance.

Table 1.6 Evergreen Marine Trade Route Port List and Distance

Then, the average speeds of the nine vessels were obtained through four (4) random but periodic recordings, which were found on Marinetraffic.com. Table 1.7 shows these recordings, and the average vessel speed was found to be 15.85 knots, with a standard deviation of 3.02. 24

Table 1.7 Recorded Vessel Speeds

The total distance and average speed of the FEM trade route were then used, along with several previously acquired data and assumptions, to construct an overall time profile, which ultimately could be used to derive the new vessels design speed and TEU capacity. The time profile calculation used the following equation to determine the ratio of time spent for the round trip:

(Table 1.8) Where T T was the total time per round trip in days, TS was the total time at sea, TP was the time in port for loading and unloading, and T W was the time waiting. Since T T was known from data to be 63 days, TS was determined to be 52.2 days for the average vessel speed of 15.85 knots (which differed from the design vessel speed of 25 knots; data from Marinetrafic.com), TP +T W together was determined to be about 10.8 days. The average time waiting in each port (waiting for inspections, tides, slow maneuvering, bunkering of fuel and gas, and etc.) was assumed to be 3.5 hours per port, though with more realistic data this number could be different, for 21 ports the total waiting time TW was calculated to be 3.1 days. Total time loading and unloading in port, TP, was thus calculated by the relationship of TP+T W=10.8 to be 7.7 days. Once TP was determined, the average container handling rate could be found. The average container handling rate was supposed by the following equation:

Where L was the loading factor, N was the vessel nominal TEUs, TP was the time in port, the constant of 24 represented 24 hours a day, and the constant of 2 implied that each container carried must go through at least two handling movements loading and unloading. The result was calculated to be 49.1 TEUs per hour, which was logical in the sense that a gantry crane usually operated 20 to 30 TEUs per hour, and the calculated rate represented on average 2 to 3 of these cranes working simultaneously on the vessel. This rate represented the average handling rate, while the fluctuation from port to port, time to time, could vary a lot, as seen in Fig. 1.10. 25

Table 1.8 Evergreen Marine Trade Route (FEM) Calculations

Figure 1.10 Typical Gantry Crane Arrangements

It was assumed that the handling rate would largely depend on the length of the vessel being handled, since only one gantry crane could be assigned to a specific longitudinal location to go across the beam, while the number of crane assignment could certainly be increased when the ship length increased. With this point in mind, the new design vessels handling rate would be adjusted accordingly, based on the length overall. 26

Table. 1.9 showed the calculations for a 10 sister ship fleet of the new design vessel. This calculation drew the average container handling rate obtained before, and magnified it by a ratio of 340 over 285 (the new design vessel had a preliminary overall length of 340 meters, comparing to the 285 meter U-type). The new handling rate was determined to be 58.6 TEUs/ hour. It could be seen from the calculations that a 10-ship fleet with weekly service (hence 70 days per round trip) would meet the target annual fleet transport capacity of 720 k TEUs, which was desired by the owner. The design TEU capacity of each ship was determined to be 8520 TEUs, with an average speed of 14.18 knots. The design speed was determined by selecting the 99% CDF value, at 21.2 knots, based on a mean value of 14.18, and a standard deviation of 3.02 (found on the Utype vessels).

Table 1.9 Ten Ship Calculations for New Design Vessel

27

NUMBER OF SHIPS IN THE FLEET AND ITS EFFECTS ON POTENTIAL PROFITABILITY

It was understood that the number of sister ships to be built would not only affect the liners utilization of the fleet, but also greatly impact the various characteristics of the vessel to be designed. Demonstrated in Table 1.10, using the trade route analyses previously described, the nominal TEU, average speed, design speed, and round trips per year were determined for the fleets each having 8, 9, or 10 sister ships. Along with the load factor and the single ship annual transport capacity, the fleet annual capacity were determined all to be around 720,000 TEUs for the three fleet sizes. It was realized, after the results of the first round of the ship model generator, that a single base-line model having a length of 340 m, a beam of 42.8 m, and a block coefficient of 0.7 could be sculptured into any one of the three configurations required by the fleets of 8, 9, or 10 ships. Although the hull forms would vary, therefore affecting the block coefficient, depending on how the container holds were to be fitted, at this stage such details must be overlooked to allow for a simple but reasonable comparison of the different configurations. Thus the required design speed became a major dictator of the economic feasibility while the hull forms remained largely the same. The lowest design speed of 21.2 knots for the 10 ship-fleet required only an estimated 43,000 kW engine power; its lowest machinery and fuel cost estimates put the 8520 TEU hull in favor of the other two. The detailed economic analysis was explained in the Economic Analysis section of this report, and during the initial sizing stage it served as a major input in the decision making process. The results of the analysis showed that, while the total building cost increased 1.6% from the 8 ship to the 10 ship-fleet, the required freight rate decreased 5.5%. A quick calculation suggested that the extra building cost of the 10 ship-fleet could be recovered in 4 to 5 years of service time, if the rates were charged at that required by the 8 ship-fleet. This justified the design teams decision to go with the 8520 TEU hull, which was to form the backbone of the 10 ship-fleet, and to fulfill its duty on the seas.

Table 1.10 Economic Comparison of Hull Forms Depending on Fleet Size

28

SINGLE ISLAND VERSUS TWIN ISLAND CONFIGURATION

Traditionally, the design of containerships had remained relatively unchanged since its maturity; some newer large containerships, however, started to employ the so-called Twin Island configuration, where the deck house were moved forward to achieve greater visibility and flexibility in on-deck stowage. The team decided to go with the more traditional form of single island configuration, because of its overall well-proven design. Table 1.11 below summarized some of the risks considered in the decision making process.

Table 1.11 Comparison of Single and Twin Island Configurations

29

LNG TANK SELECTION

The ABS published Propulsion and Auxiliary Systems for Gas Fueled Ships (May 2011) was used as a major reference, and was adhered to in terms of the selection, installation, and associated operations of the Liquefied Natural Gas tank. Upon reviewing the guide, it was arguable that the IMO Type C (pressurized vessel) LNG tank had the least restriction and hence the greatest flexibility for installation location. This type of tank, while probably most suitable for short sea feeder vessels, could not match the space efficiency offered by the Membrane or Type B (cryogenic insulation systems) tanks. In selecting the most suitable tank for the containership, two factors were believed to be of the most importance: Space utilization, and freedom of loading level. The first factor was easily understood in the container shipping business, and the freedom of loading level was a major concern since the design vessel intended to carry LNG as a fuel, rather than a cargo. Some of the tanks were designed for the LNG carrier business, lacking the strength for sloshing load, and could only be either full or empty. With the above two criteria in mind, the IHI (Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industry) SPB (Self-supported Prismatic Type B) tank was considered the best fit of all. This type of tank was originally designed for the LNG trade in the North Pacific, which required the tank to have much resistance against sloshing in the heavy weather. It also was the most space efficient tank for this project, since it had the highest volumetic utilization, and the entire tank could be placed below the main deck, preserving space for on-deck stowage options. In addition to the above advantages, the IHI SPB tank could be manufactured into different shapes according to customer needs, giving the option of a mid-bay arrangement below deck and lowering the risk of collision related explosion.

Figure 1.11 Cut-Away View of the IHI SPB Tank

Figure 1.12 Advantages of IHI SPB Tank Include Its Volumetic Efficiency, On-deck Stowage Options, and Freedom of Loading Level

30

Principal Characteristics

Table 2.1 Principle Characteristics

31

Hull Form Development

METHODOLOGY
Throughout the design process many changes were made to the initial hull to the final hull. These changes were made in order to follow the owners requirements and be economically efficient. The team followed a mission-based design method. For this method, a hull form was essentially designed around the cargo hold sizes that were needed in order to achieve the proper TEU capacity. As the holds, LNG, and engine spaces were finalized, the hull form itself was further and further refined.

INITIAL DESIGN
The initial designs dimensions were determined from the ship model generator mentioned in the concept selection section. With the principal characteristics selected the model was created in the Maxsurf Pro software. The Maxsurf software was a powerful three-dimensional surface modeling system which provided an environment to create and refine a vessel design. When the initial hull was created it was slowly refined in order to fit 8,520 TEUs. With the hull shell completed the cargo holds were inputted into the hull.

CARGO HOLD DEVELOPMENT

Figure 3.1 Initial Hull Form

The cargo holds which were also created in Maxsurf gave a picture of what the holds would look like on the vessel. Also having cargo holds as internal structure made fitting the tanks easier. When creating the holds it was important to leave space for the LNG tank. An opening for the engine and LNG compressor rooms and space for the house were taken into the consideration. When an optimal amount of holds was created to suffice the 8,520 TEUs requirement the hull was ready to be optimize further.

Figure 3.2 Initial Hull Form with Cargo Holds

32

FINAL DESIGN
The new, refined hull was created around the original holds which could hold the 8520 TEUs. On a technical note, further refinement of the hull called for a completely new method of modeling in the Maxsurf software. In order to create a more perfect bulbous bow and stern tube coaming, it was decided to switch to a 12-surface hull with bonded edges. This gave the team an enormous advantage over the 3-surface hull that had been used previously. Once the original holds were in place, the new hull was literally shaped around them. The detailing of the new hull was made possible with the increased flexibility of the added surfaces. The final design, of course, was nothing less than a lengthy process which involved aspects of
Figure 3.3 Refined Hull with the Original Cargo Holds and the Added House

the resistance and powering, trim and stability, and tank volume requirement. Small adjustments were made every so often, as one aspect would affect the rest. Other sections of this report, such as the weight estimate, volume summary, and trim and stability were closely associated with the hull form development. The design team made every effort to ensure the consistency was maintained. To visually check the tanks, bulkheads and construction lines were set up to align every detail which could have easily been neglected otherwise.

Figure 3.4 Detailing of the Stern was Possible with the New 12-Surface Model

Figure 3.5 Refined Hull with Original Holds and Tanks

Figure 3.6 Refined Hull with Refined Holds and Tanks

33

Curves of Form and Floodable Length

HYDROSTATICS CURVES AND CURVES OF FORM
These curves showed various characteristics of the hull, through a wide range of drafts, in the simplest way. In the following figures, the curves and their values were obtained in Hydromax, which parametrically tested the finalized 3-D hull model presented in the Hull Form Development section.

Figure 4.1 Displacement, Midship Section Area, Wetted Area, Waterplance Area

Figure 4.2 LCB, LCF, KB

34

Figure 4.3 Longitudinal and Transverse KM

Figure 4.4 Immersion and Moment to Trim

35

Figure 4.5 Curves of Form

36

FLOODABLE LENGTH
A floodable length curve was formed in Hydromax in order to analyze the placement of the vessels water-tight compartments. The floodable length curve showed the value that would have to be obtained to submerge the margin line of the vessel, based on the length of the compartment and its permeability. The arrangement of the design vessels water-tight compartments enabled it to have dual flooding compartments and still meet the requirement throughout the ship. The water-tight bulkheads were placed strategically at every other hatch (or every hold) and in the machinery space, separating the shaft alley form the engine room (with water-tight door for access). In between the holds, not one but two water-tight bulkheads formed an enclosed space which would be used as deep tanks for the fuel oil. Figure 4.6 shows the floodable length curve of the design vessel under full load condition.

Figure 4.6 Floodable Length Curve

37

Volume and Tankage Summary

38

39

40

Structural Design
METHODOLOGY
The initial structural design for the container ship fulfilled the Steel vessel Rules 2012 issued by ABS. By using the SVR an estimate to the midship section was created using HecSalv. HecSalvs section modulus editor allowed a user to develop the beam cross-section properties required for strength analyses of a ships sections in intact conditions. By using this program it was able to give a rough example on what plate thicknesses and stiffeners to use. With the midship done a structural design was made in Workshop Pro. Workshop, a structure modeling program, allowed a user to model the primary structure using a Maxsurf surface model. With the plates, frames, decks, and stiffeners inputted into Workshop a lightship weight was given. Using the lightship weight from Workshop Pro with the machinery weight the section modulus was calculated using the still water bending moment and highest wave-induced bending moment.

MATERIAL SELECTION
Using ABS rules it was determined that high strength steel was to be used throughout the length of the ship.

Table 5.1 Tensile Properties of Mild Strength Steel

Table 5.2 Tensile Properties of Higher-Strength Hull Structural Steel

Based on the two tables above high strength steel had a higher tensile strength than that of mild steel. The use of mild steel would have caused the thicknesses of the plates to be too great which would have added unnecessary weight to the superstructure.

MATERIAL LOCATION
For the initial material selection AH 32 grade steel was used for all structure under the main deck. AH 32 provided a stronger support than mild steel without adding additional weight. The main deck of the ship used AH 36 while the hatch combing used AH 40. The hatch coaming needed stronger steel since it needed to withstand the highest stress since it was the farthest from the neutral axis. For the final structural design in some spots the AH32 steel was upgraded to AH 36 grade steel. This was done for the box girder in order to handle the added stress due to the still water and wave-induced bending moment. Other alternatives to changing the grade steel would have been to increase the thickness of the steel. This would have changed increased the weight and the price would be expensive for such thick pieces of steel.

MIDSHIP SECTION MODULUS

Structural design began with completing a midship section. The most important thing about a midship section was to satisfy the required section modulus. The midship section was subject to the highest bending moment so finding the wave-induced bending moment and the still-water bending moments were required. The wave-induced bending moment calculation was preformed according to ABS rules 3-2-1/3.5.1 in Steel Vessel Rules. 41

Besides sagging and hogging bending moment the hull girder section modulus, given by SVR 3-2-1/3.7.1 (a), must also account for the still water bending moment. The still water bending moment was calculated after finding the light ships for the vessel. ABS used these equations to stimulate the extreme wave heights based on the North Atlantic wave data. Since the ship was going to be unrestricted of the geographical area of operation; the ABS rules must be met.

INITIAL MIDSHIP DESIGN

(b). In order to find a still water bending moment an initial midship section was made using SVR 3-2-1/3.7.1

Since the top and bottom of the hull girder were constructed of higher-strength material the section modulus may be reduced by a given factor. In SVR 3-2-1/5.5 for AH 32 grade steel the section modulus was multiplied by 0.78.

With the section modulus done the midship structural arrangement was done by observing several other container ships. By using a ratio from the reference ships a general layout of the midship was created for the vessel. With the plates and stiffeners designed the thicknesses were gradually increased until the minimum section modulus was achieved for both the top and bottom of the midship. When making the midship section it was important to know where to place the side girders. The side girders locations were determined in order to withstand and strengthen the inner bottom where the containers would be placed. Another consideration made was the height of the second deck. The second deck for the vessel had to have enough clearance to allow personal access to the rest of the vessel. The overhead of the second deck also needed to be able to hold the piping, hvac and electrical systems. Since the vessel has a longitudinal hatch coaming, it was accounted in the structure design. A longitudinal hatch coaming meant that the hatch coming was continuous throughout the vessel and added to the section modulus. In order to get the minimum thickness required SVR 5C-5-4/17.1 was used. The calculated thickness came out to 18.3 mm. In order to finalize the midship design, Workshop Pro was used in order to find the superstructure lightships. Using the lightships an estimate to the weight could be calculated.

STILL-WATER BENDING MOMENT

The still-water bending calculation was needed in order to finalize the midship drawing. By taking the wave-induced bending moment and the minimum section modulus calculated in the initial midship design the max still-water bending moment was found. In order to iterate the still-water bending moment an Excel add-in called Goal Seek was used. Goal Seek, an iteration tool, in Excel used a repeated calculation of a worksheet until a specific numeric condition was met. In the case for this vessel the known values were the 42

wave bending moments and the minimum hull girder section modulus. The unknown was the still-water bending moment. The still-water bending moment came out to be 5,433,000 kN-m or 554,000 ton-m. With the still water bending moment the midship design could be improved to account for the maximum bending moments. Also by finding the still-water bending moment, the maximum load cases were known. Through using Hydromax and inputting a load case a bending moment was calculated and graphed. With the stillwater calculated there was now a maximum weight that the ship cannot go past.

FINAL MIDSHIP DESIGN

To create the final midship design the new section modulus that contained the bending moments had to be calculated. The bending moments were calculated to section modulus by using SVR 3-2-1/3.7.1. In order to calculate Mt, the total bending moment, it required adding together the still-water bending moment with the maximum wave-induced bending moment. For the vessel the maximum wave-induced bending moment was the sagging wave which was at MwSag= -8,290,344 kN-m. The fp in the equation was the nominal permissible bending stresses which are given by ABS as 17.5 kN/cm2. The division between those two numbers resulted in the new section modulus.

Using the AH 32 reduction factor of 0.78 the section modulus was reduced to the following:

With the new section modulus calculated the initial design was modified in order to fulfill it. Since the section modulus was increase by about 30,000 cm2-m the design had to change. There were several different ways to increase the section modulus in the HecSalv design. Either, increase the number of dimensions of stiffeners or increase the number and size of the plates. Since the length of each plate and the number and size of stiffeners were going to stay the same, the only thing to change was the thickness of each plate. In order for the final design to reach the required section modulus, the plate thickness would have to be increased. In order to prevent using thick AH 32 grade steel plates, the box girder was changed to AH 36 grade. The box girder was changed to AH 36 grade steel because at the box girder and at the hatch coaming was where the most of the section modulus top took place. According to SVR 3-2-1/5.5 the reducing factor for AH 36 and AH 40 were 0.72 and 0.68. With the box girder using AH 36 and the hatch coaming using AH 40 grade steel, it was estimated that the reducing factor be 0.75. The section modulus was further reduced to: SM=587,861 cm2-m for a mix between AH32, AH 36, and AH40 Grade Steel The final section modulus calculation was almost the same as the initial section modulus the design had very little change done to it. Appendix Drawings showd the midship design with dimensions and thickness for each part.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Through an initial and later a final design, the midship could be created and was able to fulfill the minimum section modulus required. The results for the midships and section modulus were shown in Table 5.3. This table showed a summary of the calculations for the bending moments. It also showed the success of the design in meeting the requirement of section modulus both from the neutral axis to the top of the hatch coaming and to the keel. 43

Table 5.3 Summary of Midship Section Design and Midship Section Modulus Requirements

Unlike most ships, containerships didnt have a main deck that contributed much to the longitudinal strength. The box girder and hatch coaming were the main contributor to the section modulus top.

FRAMING
The framing design for the vessel was longitudinally framed. The ship was framed this way because of the ability to withstand more stress without having to thicken the side shell plates. Choosing a framing design also depended on the length of the ship. As the size of the vessel increased the significance of hull girder loads increases dramatically. Due to the vessel being 340m the only sensible option was to make it longitudinally framed.

Figure 5.1 Framing Design in Workshop Pro

PLATE SIZING
To calculate the minimum thickness for the plates, it was important to factor in the frame spacing (813mm), and the nominal design corrosion values. The corrosion values for containerships were given in Steel Vessel Rules 2012 Table 4/ 5C-5-2. It was important to add a corrosion factor because of the wear and tear the ship would receive throughout the years.

Table 5.4 Minimum Plating Thickness

44

Using the minimum thicknesses as a starting point, the preliminary midship model could be created using HecSalv. The plate thicknesses were increased in order to fulfill the minimum section modulus required for the vessel. The plates were then formed in Workshop Pro in order to obtain the weight.

Figure 5.2 Deckin g and Framing Design in Workshop Pro

In order to finalize the plate and deck design, the thicknesses were reduced in the bow and stern sections of the vessel. Iterations like that in the framing system were made to the plate thickness in order to find the best weight distribution for the ship.

DECK
For the deck structure, the sizing had to follow the requirements for ABS rules. The rules were given in 3-2-3/ Table 1 and 3-2-3/ Table 2 in Steel Vessel Rules. Using Table 5.5 the minimum thickness for the decks could be found.

Table 5.5 Minimum Deck Thickness

The main deck and the second deck had to have much thicker plating from the minimum, due to the fact that it was part of the box girder and needed to achieve the minimum section modulus.

LONGITUDINAL STIFFENERS
The longitudinal stiffeners were made using similar ships midship sections. By using a ratio, the stiffener thicknesses were increased gradually above and below the neutral axis until the minimum section modulus for the ship was reached. The stiffeners also had to follow ABS rules throughout the ship. Steel Vessel Rules 3-2-6/5.1 explained the minimum section modulus required for the hold stringers. The spacing of the longitudinal was determined to be 864mm in order to achieve the section modulus with the thicknesses determined by the ratio. 45

SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS
Table 5.6 showed the weight in tons for the bare hull. The table was calculated using Workshop Pro. With the weight of the superstructure completed the lightships could then be calculated.

Table 5.6 Hull Weights Summary

46

Propulsion Plant
PROPULSION PLANT TRADE OFF STUDY
The propulsion plant of a vessel provided the required kW load to propel the vessel forward. The ship design team carefully thought about what type of propulsion plant would be best suited for the container vessel. The designed speed for the vessel was 21.2 knots, loaded with a total of 8520 TEUs. The design team must choose a propulsion plant sufficient for the vessel propelling through the water, as well as keeping the operation cost to a minimum. Through the extensive research and many proven designs in the past, the ship team came to a sufficient propulsion plant. The main operational cost would be the fuel consumption per day. In addition, the engine also has to be easy to repair and run for the engineers aboard the vessel. To determine such an engine was difficult because the design team wanted to keep the engine room space small to give the vessel with more space for containers. There were three engine possibilities that were available for the vessel, a large low speed diesel, steam turbine plant, and lastly, the diesel electrical propulsion system.

Large Low Speed Diesel

A large low speed diesel engine was very common on modern day container vessels. It had been proven to be the most efficient form of propulsion. Large low speed diesel engines could run on many different types of fuel to give the operator fuel flexibility. Large Low speed diesel were very cost efficient because of the low rpm they operated at. Unlike steam turbines or electrical propulsion plant, they did not need a reduction gear; they could be easily coupled to the propeller, minimizing costs and optimizing propeller efficiency. Slow speed diesels were much easier to operate, and require fewer engineers to operate; low speed diesel engines could accommodate a large range of power output. Due to th fact that low speed diesels were easy to operate, to find the knowledgably manned crew would be easy.

Steam Plant
Steam plant propulsion was once very common and widely used in shipping. Through the years, use of these forms of propulsion had slowly diminished. This propulsion system required specialized crew that understood how to operate a steam power plant. Most ships designed with steam plant propulsion were not efficient enough to keep the fuel consumption low, and would require a lot more personnel to keep these engine room spaces manned. Contemporarily, steam propulsion plants were still not as efficient compared to that of a diesel propulsion plant.

Diesel Electric Propulsion

Diesel electric propulsion had many advantages for the overall layout of the engine room. Diesel electric propulsion did not require as much space compared to that of low speed diesel propulsion or a steam propulsion power plant. With a smaller engine room, more space could be used to carry containers. On the other hand, the big issue with diesel electric propulsion used on modern container vessel was that they did not produce enough power output to propel a vessel forward. In order to produce the same power output as a large low speed diesel, electric propulsion would require a lot of generator sets, and since generator sets run at a medium speed; they were not as efficient with fuel consumption compared to a large low speed diesel. The set of a diesel electric propulsion drive took extensive design and they end up being much more expensive compared to a large slow speed diesel. These plants had been a relative new design that was becoming more popular with cruise vessels primarily due to its maneuverability. This system can be equipped with Azipods, enabling the operator to easily rotate 360 degrees. Such a propulsion system would require a large number of motors, wiring and generators; and with so much equipment many things could go wrong. The conductors used will drop the efficiency of the plant due to the voltage losses; and manning this type of plant would require a knowledgeable crew. 47

FINAL PROPULSION PLANT ANALYSIS

Through the ship design teams research, it was decided unanimously that the best propulsion plant for the container vessel would be a large low speed diesel engine. This low speed engine would be coupled directly to the shaft connected to the propeller without a reduction gear. In addition, the ship design team also decided on a fixed pitch propeller as opposed to a controllable pitch propeller, because of less moving parts. The low speed diesel engine could be run off of multiple fuels including natural gas to keep the cost down. Heavy fuel oil (HFO) would be the primary fuel. The design team also decided to outfit the vessel with an exhaust gas boiler. The exhaust gas boiler would be used for crew accommodations and other services. Most diesel manufactures recommend continuous rating of 85% load to maximize bhp/sfo consumption ratio. To fulfill all these requirements, the ship design team decided to choose the 9S90ME-C8.2-TII. Benefits of this engine included: Economic fuel consumption Low cylinder oil feed rate Low maintenance and cost Reliable and durable Full compliance with emission regulations Low speed rpm to maximize improve overall vessel efficiency Within 85% load condition for required design vessel speed Gas compatible for reduced operating costs 15% Sea Margin Enough power even when the vessel fouls up

48

Figure 6.1 9S90ME-C8.2-TII Specifications and Dimensions

Figure 6.2 9S90ME-C8.2-GI-TII Fuel Data

49

Figure 6.3 9S90ME-C8.2-GI-TII Load Condition

LNG SYSTEM
In the past couple of years, with the increased cost of fuel, natural gas had grown as an attractive and viable natural source of energy used as a form of propulsion for a vessel. Many companies such as MAN B&W have researched the feasibility to retrofit and design a modern container ship with a form of LNG system. The design team was able to design a modern container vessel with a small SPB prismatic LNG tank to give the owner a better fuel flexibility, and to reduce the cost of operation dramatically. As a result, the ship design team created a LNG system abided to ABS rules and safety requirements.

Compressor Room
Located directly below the containers, the compressor room sits forward of the house and it extended down to the 2nd deck. The compressor room would consist of four low-pressure compressors and two high pressure compressors, four vaporizers, mist-separators and other equipment necessary for proper LNG application. The compressor room was completely sealed from electrical components to prevent an electrical spark that might create an explosion. Through the separate room outside, personnel could easily perform maintenance on the compresFigure 6.4 Typical LNG Compressor sors without igniting the natural gas fumes. The natural gas dome inside the compressor room would be connected onto the main deck and opened to natural ventilation. The ship design team also created a SAMA flow chart and an AutoCad schematic to show the proper operation of LNG machineries. Submerged LNG pumps would be used to transfer LNG to a vaporizer, and from the vaporizer the LNG was changed to a vapor form to be compressed by the usage of the low pressure compressor, to increase it to 0.7bar. From there, the natural gas was sent to another vaporizer to ensure 100% vapor before it could be sent to the generator or to the high pressure compressor before entering the engine at 260 bars. For a detailed operation of the LNG system, reference to Figure 6.5 LNG Flow Diagram on the next page. The operator could choose to send the natural gas to either the engine or the generator sets. Both the generator sets and the engine required pilot fuel to ensure proper fuel atomization.

50

Figure 6.5 LNG Flow Diagram

51

PROPULSOR Method of propulsor sizing

The propulsion plant, with the major components of the prime mover and the propulsor as a whole, took up a large portion in determining the economic feasibility of the ship. In this section, the team used the widely popular Wageningen B-series propeller for the preliminary propulsor design, which was sized in conjunction with a slow speed diesel engine that was able to run on natural gas. The design process involved the use of NavCad by HydroComp and an excel spreadsheet, to ensure the basic design requirements of the vessel were met, and to minimize the shaft power required while maximizing efficiency. To size a propeller, the testing data and regression formulae found in the document Kt, Kq and Efficiency Curves for the Wageningen B-Series Propellers (University of Michigan 1981) was used as a major reference. While the pitch to diameter Ratio (P/D), expanded area ratio (EAR), the number of blades (Z) and the associated propeller charts could be directly used from the reference, the following two parameters were needed: The velocity of advance (VA), and the total thrust required (T). They were defined as the following:

To determine these two parameters, the following values, estimated in NavCad for the design speed of 21.2 knots, were used: VS (ship speed) = 21.2 (knots) = 10.9 (m/s) w (wake fraction) = 0.302 t (thrust deduction factor) = 0.181 R (total resistance) = 2400924 (N) And, the two parameters were determined:

Now, given VA and T, the next step was to find a propeller which had the most suitable combination of n (rps), being the same as the engine speed since directly coupled, Z, P/D, and D (diameter), so as to maximize the open water efficiency 0. To do this, the KT versus J curve charts for the Wageningen B-series were employed; the diameter, an unknown variable, was eliminated from the equation by using the following manipulation:

KT could then be expressed in the following general format, as a function of J, assuming density of water = 1025 kg/ m3.

52

The curve of KT as a function of J, denoted as KT(J), could now be plotted, and the values of J for each combination of P/D, EAR, and Z could be determined by the intersection of KT(J) and KT. The intersection was the operating point for that given combination of parameters, and the corresponding J value would also reflect the open water efficiency, as well as solve for the diameter. The following sample was done by using a 1-pitch to diameter ratio, 0.65-EAR, and 2 bladed B-series propeller to demonstrate the process. (Figure 6.6)

Figure 6.6 Sample Propellor Chart

Using the propeller charts, along with the regression formulae published by the University of Michigan, the design team was able to set up a macro within the Excel spreadsheet, which would obtain the operating efficiency for any whole number Z value from 2 to 7, EAR from 0.30 to 1.05 (in increments of 0.01), and P/D from 0.5 to 1.4 (in increments of 0.1). A matrix graph, shown in (Table 6.1), was set up to visually demonstrate this operation. The green part of the table was the area of high efficiency, while the red part had the lowest efficiency and yellow in between. It was observed that the larger the diameter of the propeller, as well as the lower the speed, the greater the open water efficiency could be achieved. Since the speed at which the propeller rotated was determined by the engine speed at 85% MCR, as specified by the owner, it would be of several options only. The diameter at which the maximum efficiency could be achieved depended on the number of blades; a 4-blade propeller would yield a combination of higher efficiency than a 5-blade propeller, but with a larger diameter and a higher risk of cavitation.

53

Table 6.1 Sample Efficiency Matrix of 4-Bladed Propellor at 74 RPM

54

Propeller selection
After reviewing the available engines, the 78 rpm, 9-cylinder MAN 9S90ME-C8.2-GI-TII engine was selected, coupled with a preliminary B-5-63 (5 blade, 0.63 EAR) propeller at P/D = 0.9. The propeller diameter was at 10.09 meters, yielding an open water efficiency of 0.62 at 21.2 knots. It was made sure that there was enough clearance under the hull for the installation, while preventing the risk of cavitation found on a 4-blade propeller. The propeller chart could be seen in Fig. 6.7 below.

Figure 6.7 Propellor Chart for Waginengen B-5-63

Along with all the other efficiencies associated with the hull, the shaft power and engine power plot could be found in (Figure 6.8), with the main engine under ISO ambient conditions in liquid fuel mode. The designed speed would occur at 85% SMCR, and a certain engine margin would be maintained even with the 5-year rough hull condition as seen in the figure.

55

Figure 6.8 Total Shaft Power vs. Engine Power

56

Electrical Plant
WRTSIL 34DF GENSET
Three diesel gensets would be used to provide sufficient electrical power during Normal Sea operation conditions. The rationale behind the selected WRTSIL GENSET 34DF was the capability to burn natural gas as a source of fuel and to reduce carbon emissions in order to meet IMO requirements.

Figure 7.1 Wrtsil 34DF GenSet

Table 7.1 Wrtsil 34DF GenSet Specifications

Table 7.2 Wrtsil 34DF GenSet Rated Power

57

Table 7.3 Wrtsil 34DF GenSet Dimensions

ELECTRICAL LOAD ANALYSIS

Aboard the vessel, electrical power for both primary and emergency were necessary for proper daily operations and for the safety of the crew. For the completed composition of a vessel, there were many devices such as pumps, motors, and other electrical components which were required to operate a vessel successfully, therefore the electrical requirement must be sized correctly. Table 7.4 below showed the electrical load summary. For a detailed list, please refer to the Appendix section.

58

Table 7.4 Electrical Load Summary

SHIP SERVICE GENERATOR

To determine the required power, the components for the ship must be categorized and sized correctly to the vessel. Once the main propulsion and the general arrangements were available, the ship design team began to size the equipment correctly. The categories for the electrical loading were broken up to: Engine Auxiliaries, Boiler Auxiliaries, Ship Service 1, Deck Machineries, Cargo Equipment, Lighting Etc., Reefer Container, Engine Auxiliaries 2, and Ship Service 2. Once categorized, these components were sized based on the main engine and their intended purposes. The Ship Conditions that the design team broke these components to are: Idle/In Port, Normal Sea Going, Sea Peak, and Maneuvering. The sizing of the generators were based on the Maneuvering load, even though the load was only momentarily, the generators must be sized so as to br able to support such an operation. As seen in Table 7.4, Maneuvering electrical load was approximately 12,000 kW load. We sized our generators to ensure that when the vessel was under normal sea going operation, we can successfully operate it with three generators and one on standby to perform Table 7.5 Generator Sizing Calculation repairs if there was a malfunction. During Idle/In Port condition, the operator might choose to run any of the four generators to provide flexibility if maintenance was required.

EMERGENCY GENERATOR
For a detailed calculation of the required Emergency Power, please refer to Table 7.7. Similar to the sizing of the generator above, the electrical components were categorized to 440V loads, and 120V loads. The emergency generator must be able to support all of the 440V loads including the emergency air compressor, emergency fire pump, emergency fire pump exhaust, steering gear, lube oil pump, and etc. Furthermore, it must be able to carry 120V loads including the general lighting, internal communication and navigation lights, radio equipment, radar, Gyro, and etc. The machineries for emergency loads were regularly fed off of the Figure 7.2 Armstrong Emergency Diesel Generator emergency generator, thus the design team sized the emergency generator to ensure successful kW load. The maximum load which the emergency generator would need to provide was 711 kW, thus the design team sized an emergency generator rated at 827 KW; sufficient for daily operation.

Table 7.6 Emergency Diesel Generator Ratings and Dimensions

59

Table 7.7 Emergency Electrical Load Summary

60

Major HVAC, Mechanical, Electrical Systems

ELECTRICAL LOAD DISTRIBUTION
Electrical load distribution aboard a modern day vessels came in various designs, but the most robust electrical distribution was the ring-loop system. The ring loop system would provide various ways of distributing the power from the generators onto the vessels load. Even though it was an expensive design, it was the strongest system amongst all electrical distribution. The rationale behind the Ring bus with an emergency generator was because the ship design team wanted to make sure that the best possible protection from failure was implemented. During distress, adequate lighting was still provided through the emergency generator. The design team placed the emergency generator on B deck; if the vessel was sinking or if the engine room was submerged in water, the ship could still evacuate the crew to safety. The design team chose a small generator in the upper deck to prevent large vessel stability issues.

Figure 8.1 Electrical Distribution Bus

EXHAUST GAS BOILER

The ship design team chose an Aalborg AV-6 exhaust gas boiler which was a robust, high efficient water tube boiler, designed to improve the diesel plants total efficiency through the recovery of the exhaust gas from the engine. AV-6N was fitted with double gilled fin tubes to provide the optimum solution for high performance heat recovery. There was no gas limit on the AV-6N exhaust gas boiler, and little maintenance was required; and if cleaning was required, AV-6N boilers could be easily cleaned during operation. Through the usage of an exhaust gas boiler, it provided necessary steam aboard the vessel; such services like Heating for HVAC system, domestic heating, and other accommodation services for the crew. The steam required for 61

these services could be adequately provided by the usage of an exhaust gas boiler. Finally, not only would this improve the vessels thermal efficiency, it will help minimize carbon foot print expelled by the vessel.

Figure 8.2 Aalborg AV-6N Exhaust Gas Boiler Specifications

EMISSIONS CONTROL SYSTEM

In the recent years, emissions from vessels had become a main concern. The ship design team had implemented a NOx reducer and SOx reducer scrubber system to reduce emissions in order to comply with future and current emission standards. The ship design team chose a fresh water SOx reducer scrubber system from Wrtsil.

SOX Reducer
Through the usage of a closed-loop fresh water scrubber which NaOH was added, SOx emissions would be reduced. With the fresh water scrubber, it would minimize the operational costs; the owner would have a choice to burn HFO in an environmentally friendly way. The fresh water scrubber would be piped into the main engine exhaust along with the generator sets.

62

Figure 8.3 Typical Fresh Water Scrubber

Nox Reducer
For the Nox reducer, it would be connected directly onto to the diesel generator exhaust as recommended from Marpol. The generator sets would be operating within the range for the Nox reducer, while the main engine could not. With the added NOx reducer and SOx scrubber system, emissions expelled from the vessel would be reduced dramatically.

Figure 8.4 Typical NOX Reducer

Figure 8.5 MARPOL-recommended NOX Reducer Operating Range

63

Figure 8.6 NOX Reducer directly connected to GenSets

FIRE FIGHTING SYSTEMS Introduction

Despite careful measures and precautions to fire safety concerns, fires still occured aboard vessels, thus the vessel must be sufficiently equipped with proper apparatus and gears to fight them. Depending on the location aboard the vessel, various firefighting equipment were used.

Fire Main
The fire main would be designed to meet all requirements as set forth by SOLAS. The ship would utilize its bilge and ballast pumps as its main fire pumps, with a dedicated back up fire pump in shaft alley. Water for fighting fire through the vessel was supplied through a loop system to ensure sufficient flow of water anywhere aboard the vessel. 38mm firefighting hose were used inside the vessel, and 64mm firefighting hose were used outside the accommodation spaces. The hydrant, hose, and other components necessary for a smooth firefighting operation must have the same thread throughout the ship to be interchangeable. There are hose racks outside of the bridge wing, and on the main deck. Automatic sprinkler systems were used in designated hazardous areas in the cargo spaces. Furthermore, there are damage control lockers aboard the vessel to prevent the fire from spreading and for accessing fire damage.

Engine room space

Fixed CO2 fire extinguishing systems were piped to all engine room spaces as a last resort. Semi-portable and portable CO2 bottles were also provided in necessary spaces in the engine room. The stored CO2 cylinders were located on the main deck. In addition, there was also a fixed CO2 firefighting system installed in the compressor rooms. For the bilge and the pump room, fixed foam system were used as an effective means of extinguishing liquid fire and for protecting flammable liquids against re-ignition.

64

ANCHOR HANDLING AND MOORING Anchor Handling Equipment

ABS rules for anchoring and mooring equipment were followed when making a selection for the anchor. This requirement was based on the equipment number that was derived by factoring in the displacement of the vessel, the effective heights of the deck house and the profile area of the hull, superstructure and houses.

This value was used to obtain the required weight of the anchor, the breaking strengths of the mooring lines and the length of the mooring chain.

Table 8.1 Anchor Calculations

Table 8.2 Strength Requirements for Mooring Lines and Chains

Mooring System & Deck Machinery

The vessel would use the standard mooring pattern known in the industry today. This class of vessels, having such high sail area, required a strong mooring system. To begin with the selection the group began with preliminary calculations based on the paper Advance in berthing and mooring of ships and offshore structures. This estimation gave the group a general idea on which the powers of the mooring winches would generally be around. In addition to this estimation for the mooring winches, a research and comparison was done with ships of similar sizes and their deck machinery including the steering gear, winches, the windlass and bow thrusters and a selection was made based on these factors.

Table 8.3 Mooring Winches

Table 8.4 Bow Thrusters

65

LIFE BOATS AND EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT

In accordance with the International Maritime Organizations (IMO) International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), the vessel should be equipped with the following lifesaving appliances: Two compliant, fully enclosed lifeboats, one for each side of the vessel with capacity for at least 20 persons. In the interest of spatial economy, these boats would also meet the requirements for rescue boats as required by SOLAS. A sufficient number of inflatable or rigid liferafts so as to accomodate at least 20 persons on either side of the vessel Not less than one life raft at the forward end of the vessel Not less than 14 lifebuoys Immersion suits of sufficient size for every person aboard the vessel

SEWAGE AND BALLAST MANAGEMENT

An approved sewage and ballast treatment system would be installed aboard the vessel in accordance with IMO regulations.

66

Major Mission-Related Systems

CONTAINER SECURING SYSTEM
When making selections for the container securing, the first step was starting with the positioning and accelerations of the containers calculated using ABS rules and regulations, and examine the container placements in SeaKeeper. The results gave the group accelerations of each container transversely, horizontally and vertically with different wave interactions based on the sea states of the designed sea route. The greater of the values were used in making the selection for the lashing system.

Lashing Bridge
As containers were stacked higher when the ship sizes increased, the lashing bridge was playing a more important role. Estimates of

Figure 9.1 Lashing Bridge

10,000 containers were lost each year which showed why the extra lashing support was necessary. The purpose of the lashing bridge was to increase the effective support of the lashing gear by decreasing the span of the gear. This vessel consisted of three tier lashing bridges that would be used to add additional support to the top of containers on tier three diagonally in both direcFigure 9.2 Container Securing in Holds tions and to the bottom of containers on tier five.

Loose Fittings on Deck and In Holds

The loose fittings of the securing system were the main strength of the securing system. Twist locks on each container were used to resist vertical and horizontal forces on deck. The lashing rods were additional strength that resist racking and absorb a great proportion off the dynamic forces before it affected the container. In each hold there were cell guides used to standardize the location of containers in a uniform order and prevent vertical movement. Loose fittings were not essentially required in holds for FEUs but are used when stowing TEUs to provide additional dynamic resistance.
Figure 9.3 Loose Fittings

67

Weight Estimate
This section investigated seven different loading conditions (or load cases), including the lightship condition, which were expected to be experienced by the vessel on its proposed trade route. In container shipping, containers would come on board with a variety of weights, and would usually be loaded in groups according to their destination. It would be a rather tedious calculation, requiring attention to detail and carefulness for both the office staff and the ships officers. In this report, the design team used simplified load cases, which were summarized in Table. 10.1. They should give a general idea of the weight expected for different conditions. The ballast tanks were filled where and when needed, to minimize trim (all conditions except lightship had a trim of less than 1 m by the bow) while satisfying the maximum allowed still-water bending moment (derived from Structural Design) within 0.4L from the midship.

Table 10.1 Summary of Loadcases

68

LIGHTSHIP CONDITION

Table 10.2 Weight Summary of Lightship Loadcase

69

Figure 10.1 Loading Curves - Lightship Loadcase

Figure 10.2 Shear and Moment Curves - Lightship Loadcase

70

100% CARGO, 100% CONSUMABLES

Table 10.3 Weight Summary of 100% Cargo, 100% Consumables Loadcase

71

Figure 10.3 Loading Curves - 100% Cargo, 100% Consumables Loadcase

Figure 10.4 Shear and Moment Curves - 100% Cargo, 100% Consumables Loadcase

72

100% CARGO, 50% CONSUMABLES

Table 10.4 Weight Summary of 100% Cargo, 50% Consumables Loadcase

73

Figure 10.5 Loading Curves - 100% Cargo, 50% Consumables Loadcase

Figure 10.6 Shear and Moment Curves - 100% Cargo, 50% Consumables Loadcase

74

100% CARGO, 10% CONSUMABLES

75 Table 10.5 Weight Summary of 100% Cargo, 10% Consumables Loadcase

Figure 10.7 Loading Curves - 100% Cargo, 10% Consumables Loadcase

Figure 10.8 Shear and Moment Curves - 100% Cargo, 10% Consumables Loadcase

76

70% CARGO, 100% CONSUMABLES

Table 10.6 Weight Summary of 70% Cargo, 100% Consumables Loadcase

77

Figure 10.9 Loading Curves - 70% Cargo, 100% Consumables Loadcase

Figure 10.10 Shear and Moment Curves - 70% Cargo, 100% Consumables Loadcase

78

70% CARGO, 50% CONSUMABLES

Table 10.7 Weight Summary of 70% Cargo, 50% Consumables Loadcase

79

Figure 10.11 Loading Curves - 70% Cargo, 50% Consumables Loadcase

Figure 10.12 Shear and Moment Curves - 70% Cargo, 50% Consumables Loadcase

80

70% CARGO, 10% CONSUMABLES

Table 10.6 Weight Summary of 70% Cargo, 10% Consumables Loadcase

81

Figure 10.13 Loading Curves - 70% Cargo, 10% Consumables Loadcase

Figure 10.14 Shear and Moment Curves - 70% Cargo, 10% Consumables Loadcase

82

Trim and Intanct Stability Analysis

Stability analyses were carried out to examine seven loading conditions that would cover the possible conditions that the ship would normally be operated under. The trim, righting arm, and longitudinal strength of each case were calculated and examined. The IMO developed an intact stability criteria for container ships in the early ninetys which were later amended and adopted in 2006. These requirements were the standards of our vessel which also certified our vessel to be registered under all major registries of the world. The Requirements were stated below: The area under the righting lever curve should not be less than 0.055 meter-radian up to = 30 degrees and not less than 0.09 meter-radian up to = 40 degrees. The difference of the area under the curve at 30 degrees and 40 degrees must not be less than 0.03 meterradian. The required GZ is 0.2 meters at an angle of 30 degrees or greater. The Maximum righting arm value should occur at an angle of 30 degrees but not less than 25 degrees. The initial metacentric height should not be less than 0.15 m. Once the model was formed in Maxsurf Pro and all structural components were put in with workshop. The files were transferred to Hydromax where each loading condition was created and analyzed. Equilibrium analyses were carried out to produce the values that were required and then compared to the requirements. The loading cases were shown below:

Table 11.1 Summary of Loadcases

83

Figure 11.1 Righting Arm Curve for Lightship

84

Figure 11.2 Righting Arm Curve for 100% Cargo, 100% Consumables

85

Figure 11.3 Righting Arm Curve for 100% Cargo, 50% Consumables

86

Figure 11.4 Righting Arm Curve for 100% Cargo, 10% Consumables

87

Figure 11.5 Righting Arm Curve for 70% Cargo, 100% Consumables

88

Figure 11.6 Righting Arm Curve for 70% Cargo, 50% Consumables

89

Figure 11.7 Righting Arm Curve for 70% Cargo, 10% Consumables

90

Damaged Stability Analysis

Damage Cases were analyzed with each load case. As the results were examined, the group came to the conclusion that the lighter the load cases became the more vulnerable the vessel became to possibly failing the requirements. These results were not based completely on the weight, but due to the permeability of the spaces during each load case. The amount of containers in each hold and the amount of the weight that was held by the all of the containers of that bay (above and below deck) and their lashing forces had to be factored in when calculating the permeability. This resulted in the lighter loads having the lower values for permeability. For the each space the standard permeability was used based on IMO criterias standard permeabilities. Hydromax was the program used to carry out this analysis as well. This vessel was divided into water tight compartments as shown in the Floodable Length Curve section. In each damage case, two adjacent watertight subdivisions were damaged and results were calculated to give the GM, draft, trim and heel of each case. For transverse analysis, the two largest Tanks were damaged on one side to examine the way the vessel would react. These analysis results were examined and met the requirement of the criteria.

Table 12.1 Damaged Stability Loadcase 1

Table 12.2 Damaged Stability Loadcase 2

PROBABILISTIC DAMAGE STABILITY

SOLAS Part B-1 required that each cargo vessel 80 m or greater meet the required requirements based on a Probabilistic study of damages over the past years. Table 12.3 Damaged Stability Loadcase 3 The concept was that the attained subdivision index of the vessel was greater than the required subdivision index given by the IMO.

91

Speed and Power Analysis

For the purpose of speed and powering analysis, the software NavCad 2009 by HydroComp was used. NavCad relied on inputs of the hull geometry to perform the analysis, and the hull information was shown in Figure 13.1.

Figure 13.1 Hull Information for Speed and Power Analysis

The Holtrop 1984 prediction method was chosen, with added drag prediction for the appendages; the prediction method was widely used and believed to yield accurate results for commercial ships. The form factor of 1.1258 was estimated, speed correlation and allowance were applied according to the ITTC-57 friction line, and a roughness allowance was also considered in the prediction. Both the new clean hull and the 5 year rough hull (containerships usually had one periodic dry-docking every 5 years) conditions were applied and tested. (Figure 13.2) showed the total effective power-speed curve.

92

Figure 13.2 Total Effective Power vs. Speed

With the sized propeller and engine (refer to section Propulsion plant), the total shaft power-speed curve was shown in Figure 13.3

Figure 13.3 Total Shaft Power vs. Speed

93

And, the summary of the analytical results were shown in Table 13.1.

Table 13.1 Summary of Speed and Powering Analysis

94

Endurance
The vessel would spend the majority of the time running on HFO, with the exception of the voyage during the Mediterranean Sea, where Low Sulpher Marine Diesel Oil would be required. The auxiliary system of Liquefied Natural Gas could also be used as an preferred alternative during this part of the voyage. To ensure the tankage was sufficiently desgined, it was necessary to perform the endurance calculation, and compare the required tankage to the total available tankage. The calculation used the following assumptions for specific gravity:

Table 14.1 Specific Gravity Assumptions

Where DMZ was the diesel oil, and RMD the HFO used; there specific gravities were specified by ISO 8217 fuel standard (2010 edition). Since the engine and generator manufacturers usually stated their products specific fuel consumption rates based on diesel oil, the proper conversions were necessary when different fuels were used. These conversions were based on the lower heating values of the three types of fuel; diesel oil having a value of unity, while the other two adjusted accordingly, as shown in Table 14.2:

Table 14.2 Lower Heating Value Corrections

It was determined that approximately 20% of the round trip voyage was in the Mediterranean Sea, and this was used as the basis of the endurance calculations. The calculations were divided into two parts: Propulsion and generators, each having three (3) conditions. The first conditions assumed 100% HFO for the propulsion, and 100% Diesel for the generators, as the base calculations for the other conditions. Condiiton 2 for both propulsion and generators assumed 20% Diesel burning in the Mediterranean and the rest was on HFO. Condition 3 assumed 19.8% LNG burning in the Mediterranean, with 0.2% diesel for pilot fuel, and the rest on HFO. The conditions were summarized at the end, and compared to the total available tankage. The results proved sufficient tankage of the vessel.

95

Table 14.3 100% HFO

Table 14.4 80% HFO, 20% Diesel

Table 14.5 80% HFO, 19.8% LNG, 0.2% Diesel

96

Table 14.6 Generators - 100% Diesel

Table 14.7 Generators - 80% HFO, 20% Diesel

Table 14.8 Generators - 80% HFO, 19.8% LNG, 0.2% Diesel

97

Table 14.9 Endurance Summary - LNG Mode

Table 14.10 Endurance Summary - Normal Operation

98

Seakeeping Analysis
The seakeeping analyses examined the seakeeping ability of the vessel under the following conditions:

Table 15.1 Loading Conditions Tested

Two analyses were performed for the purpose, and these were: 1. Head seas dynamic stability Heave, pitch, and roll RAOs were assessed. 2. Operability limits in different sea states and heading angles Nordforsk (1987), along with the slamming and deck wetness criterion, were used. To perform these analyses, the loading conditions afore mentioned were created in Seakeeper. The 1-prameter spectrum (Bretschneider) was used due to the limited access to wave data for the specific trade route. This spectrum needed input of the wave heights only, and assumed the average wave periods generally associated with the specific wave heights. A total of four sea states were created with which the vessel was assessed:

Table 15.2 Sea States for Seakeeping Analyses

ANALYSIS 1 - HEAD SEAS HEAVE, PITCH, AND ROLL RAOS

This analysis examined the vessels response to waves in the head seas. The following graphs showed the comparison of the two loading conditions heave and pitch in head seas. Y-axis used a non-dimensional ratio representing the vessels displacement due to wave displacement in a given direction, and was the socalled Response Amplitude Operator (RAO). X-axis was also a non-dimensional ratio of wave length over ship length, denoted as /L.

99

Figure 15.1 Full Load Heave, Pitch, and Roll RAOs at 21.2 knots

100

Figure 15.2 Full Load Heave, Pitch, and Roll RAOs at 14.2 knots

101

Figure 15.3 70% Load Heave, Pitch, and Roll RAOs at 21.2 knots

102

Figure 15.4 70% Load Heave, Pitch, and Roll RAOs at 14.2 knots

103

ANALYSIS 2 OPERATING LIMITS IN VARIOUS SEA STATES AND HEADINGS

For this analysis, the NORDFORSK (1987) criteria, which defined the operating limits as the following, was used:

Table 15.3 General NORDFORSK Criteria

The column for merchant ships was used. For our vessel specifically, the criteria was translated into:

Table 15.3 NORDFORSK Criteria for vessel

In order to use the criteria, it was necessary to set up locations on the P-8520X, and use testing results obtained from these locations to assess the operating limits in various sea states. The locations were created as the following:

Table 15.4 Remote Locations for Analysis

Testing results, except for slamming and deck wetness probabilities, were directly obtained in Seakeeper from these locations. Slamming and deck wetness probabilities could be calculated using data also gathered from these locations. The probability of slam was computed as the following:

104

Where T was the draft at the slam location; 14.6 m and 13.4 m for the full and 70 % load conditions respectively. , were the mean square relative vertical motion and velocity, respectively, at the slam location. The critical or threshold velocity was defined as the following by Ochi and Motter (1973):

The probability of deck wetness was computed by the following equation:

Where F was the freeboard at the Deck wetness location (75% forward of A.P.), and was the mean square relative vertical motion at the same location. The freeboards were 9.6 m and 10.8 m for the full and 70% load conditions respectively. Mean square relative vertical motion and velocity at various locations were collected and the probabilities computed. This process was performed for various sea states and headings. It was found that all the loading conditions under the various sea states had virtually zero probabilities of slamming and deck wetness, due to the sufficient freeboards and drafts. Now, all the criteria could be assessed, and graphs were plotted for comparisons and references. The following few pages would show the results of vertical and lateral accelerations at various locations, which are assessed with the Nordforsk criteria.

105

Figure 15.5 RMS Accelerations at Full Load, 21.2 knots

106

Figure 15.6 RMS Accelerations at Full Load, 14.2 knots

107

Figure 15.7 RMS Roll at Full Load for both 21.2 and 14.2 knots

108

Figure 15.8 RMS Accelerations at 70% Load, 21.2 knots

109

Figure 15.9 RMS Accelerations at 70% Load, 14.2 knots

110

From the above graphs, one can easily access the operative limits in each sea state and loading condition, and adjust course to avoid dangerous headings. Note that rolling could be a potential danger even in less harsh sea states for the 70% load condition, and 60 degree heading seems to induce the most danger. The high GM of the vessel in the 70% load condition is the cause of large degrees of rolling, and more ballast must be present to reduce the risk of rolling under such heading.

Figure 15.11 RMS Roll at 70% Load for both 21.2 and 14.2 knots

111

Manning
The Vessel was estimated to operate sufficiently with the total of eighteen personnel including the officers. This estimate was created by factoring in the required amount of personnel to stand the required amount of watch and work hours per day, to operate the ship as safely and productive as possible. The number of crew members was also compared to that on ships of similar sizes of the same operation. Table. 16.1 below showed the structure of personnel on board.

Table 16.1 Manning Summary

The design teams manning estimate factored in and met the requirements to the Accommodations of Crew Convention in reference to working and watch hours. The amount of officers and crew on board would be able to maintain a successive watch standing throughout the voyage in their designated departments. The watch standing was split into six daily time blocks, allowing the watch officers to rest, and maintained their required daily hours. (Table. 16. 2) The Chief cook had two stewards, who would assist him with his daily jobs and maintain the housing of the officers and other crew members. The three deck crew members would assist the Bosun on their time-off for maintenance when required, as well as other preparations for shipboard operations.

Table 16.2 Sample Watch Bill

112

Economic Analysis
The economic analysis, which predicted the economic feasibility of the vessel throughout its service life, was among the most difficult tasks. The naval architects not only had to become some sort of masters in the ship owning and operating arts, but had to have a thorough understanding of the fundamental theories of economics, otherwise they could not convince the owner or the people running the ships that the design would be practical. The task was further complicated by the fact that ships were derived products, in other words their values (and building prices) greatly depend upon the market for the product they carry; and the market could never be described as predictable or stable, especially for a period of 20 years or more, as this was generally a ships service life. The design teams attempt was to assume a combination of scenarios or factors which could be seen as acceptable in determining the estimated required freight rate (RFR). This estimate should give an overall feasibility check before the owner decided to carry on the project into the bidding stage. The analysis was broken into the following two major components: Capital cost and Operating cost. With their sub-categories, the total annual cost was estimated and divided over the annual transportation capacity. The series effect of sister ships was taken into account in the calculation for a 10-ship fleet. A hierarchy of this section could be seen in Figure 17.1.

Figure 17.1 Cost Analysis Hierarchy

113

BUILDING COST
The building cost was the price charged to the owner for the construction of the ships. The cost would vary from yard to yard, depending upon the productivity, management and labor practices, wages, facility capacities, overall build strategies, and even the market forecast and the status of the yards order book. The design team simplified the scenario into only two cost components, added by an assumed profit margin. These two major components are Material cost and Labor cost. The material cost was estimated using the Carreyette method 1977 based on steel weight, while the labor associated cost was estimated based on the Compensated Gross Tonnage (CGT) 2007 method.

LABOR COST
The CGT 2007 method was briefly mentioned in the Concept Selection section, where the CGT was estimated by a regression formula. This method was initially proposed as a means to compare productivity between the major shipbuilding countries, and later gained acceptance in labor cost estimation of new construction ships. In this section, the CGT was calculated by the following general formula:

While the coefficients A and B could be used as the following Table 17.1 suggested:

Table 17.1 CGT Coefficients

For the P-8520X containership, the gross tonnage (GT) was found:

Then, the CGT could be calculated: 114

The design team assumed that the ship could be built at a rate of 15 man hours/ CGT, which was found common in modern day Japanese and Korean shipyards. The labor wage per man hour, including overhead, was assumed to be 40 USD/ hour. The total labor cost required to build the ship was then determined to be 26 million USD for a single ship. The series effect would have to be applied accordingly to adjust the average cost for a 10-ship fleet of sister ships. Although reduction in material cost could be found when labor cost reduced as an effect of experience gained during the construction of similar ships, the design team only limited the series effect to the extent of labor cost. This was decided so because the material savings as results of overall building time reduction would not always follow a clear trend. For the series effect calculation, the regression formula shown in Figure 17.2 from the first to 10th ship recommended by CGT 2007 was used.

Figure 17.2 Series Effect

The estimated labor cost for the entire series of 10 ships was summarized below in Table 17.2, and the average labor cost per ship was computed to be 20.2 million USD.

Table 17.2 Labor Cost for 10 Ships

115

MATERIAL COST
The material cost was estimated by the Carreyette method; although it was developed in 1977, the design team believed its material cost component could still be used with certain accuracy, needing only updated constants which were time sensitive. The formulae for determining the steel, outfit, and machinery material costs were defined; material for the LNG tank was also estimated. Steel material cost:

Where CSM = Steel material cost; S = Average steel price per tonne; WS = Net steel mass in tonnes; rS = Steel scrap rate. Aluminum material cost (for LNG tank):

Where CAM = Aluminum material cost; A = Average Aluminum price per tonne; WA = Net aluminum mass in tonnes; rS = Aluminum scrap rate. Outfit material cost:

Where COM = Outfit material cost; D = Outfit cost constant. Machinery material cost:

Where GMM = Machinery material cost; G = Machinery cost constant; P = Service propulsive power (HP). A 10% additional cost was assumed both for the outfit and machinery material, due to the installation of LNG dual-wall piping, sensors and control systems, and other gas-related equipments. The coefficients (cost constants) were updated from the original 1977 paper Preliminary Ship Cost Estimation by Carreyette, to reflect the inflation and currency conversion since then. The calculations and summary of the material cost estimate could be found in Table 17.3 on the right.

Table 17.3 Carreyette Method for Material Cost Calculation

116

BUILDING COST RESULT

The total building cost was then determined, with the assumption of a 10% ship yard profit margin, to be 111.5 million USD per ship.

ANNUAL RECOVERY FACTOR

While the owner reserved the various options to finance the total building cost of the ships, the annual capital charges were determined based on the assumption of a 20 year period with 10% interest rate. The annual recovery factor was determined to be 0.1175, and the annual capital charges per ship were 13.1 million USD.

OPERATING COST
The operating cost, on an annual basis, was made up of the following components: 1. Fuel cost 2. Lube oil cost 3. Port fees 4. Running cost Where the running cost, including the wages of operation and office personnel and other necessary charges, was set to be a percentage of the combined building cost and the first three of the operating costs. This was assumed so because the detailed wages could not be realized, and could vary in its nature. It, however, was observed that the running cost would always be a small percentage in the overall cost picture. Therefore the design team assumed that this percentage was 15% of all the other costs combined. The fuel cost would also be difficult to predict in the long term, and therefore the most recent prices were used in the calculations. The prices were all adjusted to be weight based, and the actual fuel weight requirements from the Endurance Calculations section were used, assuming the extreme case of having to travel at 21.2 knots for the entire round trip voyage. In Table 17.4, the estimated annual operating cost was calculated for both the Normal mode, running on 80% HFO and 20% DO, as well as the LNG mode which ran on 80% HFO, 19.8% LNG, and 0.2% DO as the pilot fuel.

Table 17.4 Annual Operating Cost Calculations for Normal and LNG Modes

ESTIMATED REQUIRED FREIGHT RATE

Once the cost components were all estimated, the required freight rate could be determined. Having a load factor of 0.845, each P-8520X containership had an annual transport capacity of about 72,000 TEU with 5 round trips per year. The required freight rate calculations were shown in Table 17.5. 117

Table 17.5 Cost and Required Freight Rate Summary for Single Ship

It was found that a significant reduction in the RFR could be realized when the ship ran on LNG mode, and the RFR would not suffer even with the increased cost for LNG related equipments, due to the overall lower design speed. This estimate was done assuming the design speed of 21.2 knots was maintained, and in general the RFR could be further lower than that of calculated. To compare this to the actual RFR found on the trade route, Table 17.6 showed the market average freight rate per TEU in 2008 and 2009, published in the United Nations Review of Maritime Transport 2010.

Table 17.6 Market Average Freight Rates per TEU in 3 major trade routes

118

Risk Assessment
RISK ASSESSMENT
The risk assessment showed the breakdown of the biggest concerns that applied to the vessel. With any cargo ship there would be risk. Different scenarios were created in order to address and prevent these risks. These scenarios included: Bow Slamming Deck Wetness House Vibrations Hatch Coaming Warping LNG Risks

BOW SLAMMING
Sea keeping analysis was an important factor in determining the safety of the ship in the open ocean. Shown in the sea keeping analysis, there was no risk of bow slamming in seas up to Sea State 7, granted by the sufficient draft. Further sea keeping should be done for more severe storm scenarios. By knowing what seas would put the vessel in danger, preventive measures could be taken to avoid risks to the vessel and to the crew.

DECK WETNESS
In addition to the slamming probability, the deck wetness probability was solved in the sea keeping analysis. The results showed that the vessel had no risk of deck wetness up to sea state 7, due to the sufficient freeboard. Like the slamming probability, it would be important to know what seas would cause deck wetness. Having water come up onto the deck would put crew and the cargo in danger and would need to be avoided.

HOUSE VIBRATIONS
Previously calculated, in the see keeping analysis, the vertical and lateral acceleration in the bridge were to be accounted for in the risk analysis. Also, the more traditional house design, which incorporated the exhaust stack, was chosen. The overall service experiences gained with the design should lower the risk of local house vibration.

HATCH COAMING WARPING

Discussed in the section on structural design, the hatch coaming was continuous along the deck and contributed to the longitudinal strength. It was important to address that the hatch coaming needed stronger steel since it had to with stand heavy stresses. If the vessels hatch coaming did not have the necessary strength it would warp and eventually break.

LNG RISKS
Carrying LNG, like any other fuel or cargo, would come with risks. Some of the risks are: Sloshing Leaks Overfilling Sloshing would occur in a LNG tank when the ship motions coincided with the natural frequency of the liquid motions in the tanks. When this phenomena happened the buildup of the motion would cause dam119

age in the LNG tank. The IHI SPB Tank was designed to eliminate this phenomenon as much as possible. Leaks from a LNG tank could possibly become ignited and cause a fire or explosion. To avoid the accumulation of leakage when such event were to happen, the gas sensors would stop the LNG operation while enabling the purge of any trapped gas; LNG bilge tanks were also provided, these tanks should be designed so as to prevent the leaks from compromising the structural integrity of the vessel. Overfilling would be a safety hazard to crew and personnel. Also it would cause spills. The IHI SPB Tank was equipped with a chocking device which would prevent overfilling.

120

Major References
Aasen, R. et al, 2010, "Early Stage Weight and COG Estimation Using Parametric Formulas and Regression on Historical Data," Society of Allied Weight Engineers. American Bureau of Shipping, 2011, "Guide for Propulsion and Auxiliary Systems for Gas Fueled Ships," ABS. American Bureau of Shipping, 2010, "Guide for Certification OF Container Securing Systems," ABS. American Bureau of Shipping, 2005, "Guidance Notes on Fire-Fighting Systems," ABS. American Bureau of Shipping, 2011, "Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels 2012," ABS. Australian Government Publishing Services, 1982, "An Estimate of Operating Costs for Bulk, Ro-Ro and Container Ships," Watson Ferguson and CO. Bernitsas, M. M. et al, 1981, "KT, KQ and Efficiency Curves for the Wageningen B-Series Propellers," University of Michigan. Brinkmann, M., 2007, "Vessel & Fleet Technical Management," University of Greenwich. British Petroleum, 2011, "BP Energy Outlook 2030," BP. Burke, D. et al, 2006, "Using KT and KQ for design," MIT OCW, Marine Power and Propulsion. Caracostas, N., 1979, "Containership Economics for Effective Decision-Making Analysis," Marine Technology, Vol. 16 pp. 353-364. Couser, P., "Seakeeping Analysis for Preliminary Design," Formation Design Systems. Cullinane, K. et al, 2000, "Economies of Scale in Large Containerships; Optimal Size and Geographical Implications," Journal of Transport Geography 8 (2000) 181-195. Dolinskaya, I. S. et al, 2009, "Optimal Short-Range Routing of Vessels in a Seaway," Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 121129. Eljardt, G. et al, "Operation-Based Ship Design and Evaluation, Hamburg University of Technology, Germany. Galor, W., 2008, "The Waiting Time of the Ship on Port Entrance at Required Water Level," Maritime University of Szczecin, Poland. Genoa Port Authority, 2010, "Traffic Through the Port of Genoa," Genoa Port Authority Statistics Department. Hightower, M. et al, 2004, "Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill over Water," Sandia National Laboratories. Holtrop, J. et al, 1978, "A Statistical Power Prediction Method," International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol.25, No. 290. Holtrop, J. et al, 1984, "A Statistical Re-Analysis of Resistance and Propulsion Data," International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 31, No.363, pp.272-276. IHI Marine United Inc., 2012, "Outline of SPB System," IHI Marine United Inc.. IHI Marine United Inc., 2009, " IHI (Ishikawajima)s SPB LNG Containemt System for LNG Storage Floaters," IHI Marine United Inc.. ILS International Lashing Systems, 2012, "Container & Cargo Securing Systems," ILS International Lashing Systems. Imai, A. et al, 1999, "The Dynamic Berth Allocation Problem for a Container Port," Transportation Research Part B 35 (2001) 401-417. International Maritime Organization, 1993, "Resolution A.749(18): Code on Intact Stability for All Types of Ships Covered by IMO Instruments," IMO. International Maritime Organization, 2011, "IMO Marine Engine Regulations," IMO. Lamb, T., 1969, "A Ship Design Procedure," Marine Technology. Lamb, T. et al, 2002, "A Shipbuilding Productivity Predictor," Journal of Ship Production, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 7985. Lamb, T. et al, 2003, "Ship Design and Construction," SNAME. Lewis, E. V. et al, 1989, "Principles of Naval Architecture," SNAME. MAN B&W, 2010, "MAN B&W ME-GI/-C-GI-TII Type Engines Engine Selection Guide," MAN B&W. MAN B&W, 2011, "Propulsion of 8,000-10,000 TEU Container Vessel," MAN B&W. Manabe Zoki, 2009, "Hydraulic Deck Machinery," Manabe Zoki, Japan. Maritime Safety Committee, 2006, "Resolution MSC.216(82): Adoption of Amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, As Amended," MSC. Mistree, F. et al, 1990, "Decision-Based Design: A Contemporary Paradigm for Ship Design," SNAME. Nippon Kaiji Kyokai, 2009, "Guidelines for Container Stowage and Securing Arrangements," NK. Notteboom, T. E., 2006, "The Time Factor in Liner Shipping Services," Maritime Economics & Logistics, 2006, 8, (1939). Notteboom, T. E. et al, 2009, "The Effect of High Fuel Costs on Liner Service Configuration in Container Shipping," Journal of Transport Geography 17 (2009) 325337. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2007, "Compensated Gross Ton (CGT) System," Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Council Working Party on Shipbuilding. PACIFIC Exchange Rate Service, 2009, "Foreign Currency Units per 1 U.S. Dollar, 1948-2009," http://fx.sauder.ubc.ca. Ross, J. M., "A Practical Approach for Ship Construction Cost Estimating," Proteus Engineering. Ship`s Equipment Centre Bremen GmbH, 2011, "Products & Services Catalogue," SEC. Storch, R. L. et al, 2007, "Ship Production," SNAME. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2011, "Review of Maritime Transport 2010," UN. Van Tassel, G. W., 2011, "Development of a Short Sea Intermodal LNG Carrier," SNAME. Ventura, M., "Estimation Methods for Basic Ship Design," Instituto Superior Tecnico. Wartsila, 2009, "Ship Power Systems," Wartsila.

121

Appendix
Final Owners Requirements Detail List of Electical Load Components Drawings

122

Final Owners Requirements

DESIGN STATEMENT
Empress State Container Lines (ESCL), a major global container transportation company, is investigating the possibility of a new type of container ship design, which incorporates liquefied natural gas as a fuel source, to be deployed to the Far East - Mediterranean trade route. The owners economics study projected that the container demand for the particular route is likely to rise continuously in the near future; and the company is ready to capture the market segment. Due to the ever-increasing bunker fuel price in the recent decade, compounded inevitably by the more stringent emission control regulations to be imposed by 2016, ESCL has requested the ship design team to perform a preliminary design of a partial LNG container ship. The term partial suggests that the ship has to employ a duel fuel system utilizing LNG fuel, in addition to carrying enough heavy fuel oil for the entire round trip voyage. This seemingly redundant request is justified by the uncertainty of future fuel prices - either conventional or alternative, LNG availability, and related regulations and rules. In other words, the design shall be a pilot to the future series of more dedicated LNG container ships, should such ships be designed. It has been proved difficult to predict long term fuel prices, especially for the liquefied natural gas industry, which is still in a developing stage; in a vessels normal service life of 20 to 25 years, such uncertainty must be taken into account. Generally, a well-designed vessel must possess adaptability under various operational and economic constraints. The owner has projected that the annual transport capacity of the new fleet should come close to 720,000 nominal TEUs per year, and in total a series of up to 10 sister ships are being considered. As a general principle in container shipping, any port should have at least one port call per week; this suggests that the total voyage is around 70 days for a total of 10 ships. The nominal TEU of each ship shall be determined according to the specific load factor of the route, and is left to the design team to decide. The design speed of the vessel shall also be determined accordingly. The beam is restricted primarily by the shore-side gantry crane limitation for the proposed ports on the trade route; but several popular sizes are available for current post-Panamax class container ships: 40, 42.8, and 45.6 meters, corresponding to 16, 17, and 18 container rows, respectively, across the beam. Generally, the beam size is strongly associated with the vessels nominal TEU; while the beam size affects various aspects of a ship, smaller ships are expected to reserve the agility to enter smaller ports with less crane reach, for operational reasons. The draft under the designed load is required to be less than the water depths of the ports proposed. LNG capacity should be large enough to complete the part of voyage in the Mediterranean Sea, as this area is likely to become low emission zone in the future, and LNG burning should comply with the emission regulations.

TRADE ROUTE
The owner has proposed the following trade route: Far East to Mediterranean: Qingdao Shanghai Kaohsiung Hong Kong 123

Tanjun Pelepas Colombo Jeddah Ashdod Genoa Barcelona

Mediterranean to Far East: Barcelona Ashdod Jeddah Colombo Tanjung Pelepas Hong Kong Kaohsiung Qinqdao

A typical round-trip voyage covers about 19,500 nm in 70 days, calling at about 16 ports.

PRINCIPLE CARGO TYPES

Cargo will comprise only containers: ISO standard 20, 40, and 45 foot containers on deck ISO standard 20, 40 foot containers below deck Nominal TEUs of around 8,500 is desired 10% of the containers are reefers

Container Access
Shore side gantry cranes will be able to load and off-load containers simultaneously while the ship is in port. The cranes will be able to handle 20, 40, and 45 foot containers, therefore no deck crane is needed (gearless). The ship will be designed for alongside berthing. In the holds it will have cell guides, which begins at the top of the lashing bridges, for organized container stowage and securing. Lashing bridges will be used above deck to secure the containers. 45 foot containers will be secured on top of the 20 and 40 foot containers, but the lowest point of the 45 foot containers have to be higher than the top of the lashing bridges. The ship shall employ deck covers which the on-deck containers will be stowed upon.

LIMITING PARTICULARS
LOA: Beam: Draft: Air Draft: Reasonable minimum Strongly associated with the nominal TEU size Restricted by the visiting ports water depths No obvious restriction at listed ports; restricted by stability 124

SPEED AND RANGE

Speed: Range: Reasonable for proposed trade route, with sufficient design margin at 85% MCR Capable of covering approximately 19,500 nm on conventional fuel, with 10% reserve in tank; capable of covering the Mediterranean part of the trade route on LNG

CLASSIFICATION
American Bureau of Shipping (class ABS). The owner has established a good relationship with ABS, which provides all-around services and supports the owners world-wide operations.

REGISTRY
Commonwealth of the Bahamas.

COMPLEMENT
Minimum manning is desired, consistent with registry and operational requirements.

SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Duel fuel utilizing LNG Associated machinery and compressor room required LNG fueling is available at some ports on the trade route list; the owner is responsible for negotiating a fuel contract

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
The ships shall meet ABS rules, all regional and international regulations for freeboard requirement, intact stability, damage stability, and other IMO, SOLAS, and MARPOL requirements for lifesaving, firefighting, and environmental regulations.

The ship shall adhere to the future EEDI (Energy Efficient Design Index) and IMO Tier III Emission Control regulations.

125

Detail List of Electical Load Components

126

127

128

129

Drawings

130

BODY PLAN

14.267 m

MAIN DECK

A.P. 18.5

PROFILE PLAN

A.P. 18.5

BREADTH PLAN
PROJECT

COMPANY

8520 TEU CONTAINERSHIP

SUNY MARITIME COLLEGE 3/21/2012 meters
DRAWING NUMBER

Principal Characteristics
LOA = 340 m D = 24.2 m Lpp = 319.2 m Cb = 0.717 Displacement = 150065 tons
A B C

AUTHOR

BOA = 42.8 m T = 14.6 m Bwl = 42.8 m Cp = 0.722

DATE

MODEL UNITS

SCALE

SHEET 1 OF 1

Visibility Line

Visibility Line

(P /S

A.P. WB TK

No. 10 WB (P/S)
9 o.

Fre

sh

TK

/S) (P

FO SET. TK (1)

DWL No.8 WB (P/S) NO.7 WB (P/S) NO.6 WB (P/S) No. 5 WB (P/S) No. 4 WB (P/S) No. 3 WB (P/S) No. 2 WB (P/S)
No.1 WB (P/S)
BOW THRUSTER RM

W B

Stern Tube TK

CYL. O. STORAGE TK (S)

FO SER. TK (S) FO SET. TK (2) ENG. L.O. SUMP TK FWD BILGE TK (P/S) No.3 DB WB TK (P/S) No.7 DB WB TK (P/S) No.6 DB WB TK (P/S) No.5 DB WB TK (P/S) No.4 DB WB TK (P/S) No.3 DB WB TK (P/S)

F.P W.B TK

BILGE TK

AP
OILLY BILGE WATER SEP. TK (P/S)

LNG BILGE TK (P/S)

NO. 8 F.O TK (P/S)

NO. 7 F.O TK (P/S)

NO. 6 F.O TK (P/S)

NO. 5 F.O TK (P/S)

NO. 4 F.O TK (P/S)

NO. 3 F.O TK (P/S)

FP

Baseline

NO. 21 CARGO HATCH

NO. 20 CARGO HATCH

NO. 19 CARGO HATCH

NO. 18 CARGO HATCH

NO. 17 CARGO HATCH

NO. 16 CARGO HATCH

NO. 15 CARGO HATCH

NO. 14 CARGO HATCH

NO. 13 CARGO HATCH

NO. 12 CARGO HATCH

NO. 11 CARGO HATCH

NO. 10 CARGO HATCH

2
NO. 9 CARGO HATCH NO. 8 CARGO HATCH NO. 7 CARGO HATCH NO. 6 CARGO HATCH NO. 5 CARGO HATCH NO. 4 CARGO HATCH NO. 3 CARGO HATCH NO. 2 CARGO HATCH NO. 2 CARGO HATCH

Fresh W TK (P)
CYL. O. STORAGE TK (P)

M/E PURIF. L.O. TK (P)

M/E L.O.STOR. TK (P) DO SER TK (P)
No.8 WB (P)

WO. SER/SETT. TK (P)

OILLY BILGE WATER SEP. TK (P)

(S

Stern Tube TK

BILGE TK

LNG BILGE TK (P) WB DB P) .8 FWD BILGE TK (P) k( No an T G LN ENG. L.O. SUMP TK

) Ta nk

M/E L.O. SETT. TK (P)

NO. 8 F.O TK (P)

NO. 7 F.O TK (P)

NO. 6 F.O TK (P)

NO. 5 F.O TK (P)

NO. 4 F.O TK (P)

TK

(P

No.7 WB (P)

No.6 WB (P)

No.5 WB (P)

No.4 WB (P)

No.3 WB (P)

No.2 WB (P)

NO. 3 F.O TK (P)

No.2 WB (P)

No.1 WB (P)

No.7 DB WB TK (P)

No.6 DB WB TK (P)

No.5 DB WB TK (P)

No.4 DB WB TK (P)

No.3 DB WB TK (P)

NO. 2 Fwd F.O TK(C) NO. 1 Aft F.O. TK(C)

No.7 DB WB TK (S)
NO. 8 F.O TK (S) NO. 7 F.O TK (S)

F.P. W.B. TK

NO. 6 F.O TK (S)

NO. 5 F.O TK (S)

NO. 4 F.O TK (S)

OILLY BILGE WATER SEP. TK (S) CYL. O. SERV. TK (S)

LN

FWD BILGE TK (S)

HFO SET. TK (2) (S)

DB 8 LNG BILGE TK .(S) No

No.8 WB (S)

TK

No.6 DB WB TK (S)

No.5 DB WB TK (S)

No.4 DB WB TK (S)

No.3 DB WB TK (S)

NO. 3 F.O TK (S)

) (S

No.1 WB (S) No.2 WB (S)

No.7 WB (S)

No.6 WB (S)

No.5 WB (S)

No.4 WB (S)

No.3 WB (S)

No.2 WB (S)

CYL. O. STORAGE TK (S)

HFO SET. TK (1)(S) Fresh W TK (S)

HFO SER. TK (S)

No.10 WB (P)

No.9 WB (P)
NO. 9 F.O TK (P)

A.P. WB TK

No

No

.9

.1

.O 0D

D.

TK

TK

(P)

(P

D. O

No

NO. 9 F.O TK (S)

D . 10

TK

.O

TK

(S

(S)

COMPANY

GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
3/21/2012
DRAWING NUMBER

AUTHOR

SUNY MARITIME COLLEGE 1

SCALE

.9

No

DATE

No.10 WB (S)

MODEL UNITS

SHEET 1 OF 1

No.9 WB (S)

A
HOLD 4 HATCH NO. 8 HATCH NO. 7

B
HOLD 3 HATCH NO. 6 HATCH NO. 5 HATCH NO. 4

C
HOLD 2 HATCH NO. 3 HATCH NO. 2 HOLD 1

HATCH NO. 1

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

No 2WB No.4 WB No.4 WB PIPE DUCT No.4 DB WB TK (P) No 3WB PIPE DUCT No.3 DB WB TK PIPE DUCT No 3WB No.3 DB WB TK PIPE DUCT No 2WB VOID PIPE DUCT NO. 2 Fwd F.O TK(C)

No 1 WB NO. 1 Aft F.O. TK(C) VOID PIPE DUCT PIPE DUCT BOW THR

No.4 DB WB TK (P)

HOLD 8 HATCH NO. 16 HATCH NO. 15 HATCH NO. 14

HOLD 7 HATCH NO. 13 HATCH NO. 12

HOLD 6 HATCH NO. 11 HATCH NO. 10

HOLD 5 HATCH NO. 9

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

COMPRESSOR RM

No.8 WB

LNG TK (P)

No.8 WB

No.7 WB

No.7 WB

No.6 WB

No.6 WB

No.5 WB

No.5 WB

LNG BILGE TK(P) PIPE DUCT

No.8 DB TK (P) PIPE DUCT

No.7 DB TK (P) PIPE DUCT

No.7 DB TK (P) PIPE DUCT

No.6 DB TK (P) PIPE DUCT

No.6 DB TK (P) PIPE DUCT

No.5 DB TK (P) PIPE DUCT

No.5 DB TK (P) PIPE DUCT HOLD 9

HOLD 10 HATCH NO. 21 HATCH NO. 20 HATCH NO. 19 HATCH NO. 18

HATCH NO. 17

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

A.P. WB TK

No.10 WB A.P. WB TK No.10 WB No.9 WB BILGE. TK

ENGINE RM

1
BILGE. TK

MACHINERY SP FRESH WATER TK OILLY BILGE WATER SEP. TK

COMPANY

CAPACITY PLAN
3/21/2012
DRAWING NUMBER

AUTHOR

SUNY MARITIME COLLEGE 1

SCALE

DATE

MODEL UNITS

SHEET 1 OF 1

OVERHEAD CRANE PASSAGE

OVERHEAD CRANE PASSAGE

PROJECT

COMPANY

HOUSE ARRANGEMENT
3/21/2012 meters
DRAWING NUMBER

AUTHOR

SUNY MARITIME COLLEGE 1

SCALE

DATE

MODEL UNITS

SHEET 1 OF 1

TANK TOP
C .S .O YL R TO

4TH DECK
(P .O RIF

3RD DECK
1

2ND DECK
9.6358

MAIN DECK
19 20 9 18 17 2 1

E AG

TK

.T

) (P

M/E

/E

/E

1 8 9 7 6 2

8 7 9 1
4

LNG Pipes

E .S

PU

R/S

ET

.L

T.

TK

(P

L.O

.S

T. ET

TK

(P

L.O

.S

TO

R.

TK

(P

DO

SE

TK

(P

5 2 6

7 5

14 13
Stage 1

10
Compressor

15 16 13 12 1110 9 3 4

Stage 1

Compressor

6
4 3

Stage 1

Compressor

Stage 1

11

14

12

Compressor

V. TK

CY

L.

O.

R TO

AG

CYL. O. SER

TK

(S

HF

OS

T T.

K(

2)

(S)

HF

OS

.T ET

K(

S) 1)(
O HF S

(S)

.T ER

(S

LNG Pipes

7 6

PROJECT

COMPANY

MACHINERY ARRANGEMENT
3/21/2012 meters
DRAWING NUMBER

AUTHOR

SUNY MARITIME COLLEGE 1

SCALE

DATE

MODEL UNITS

SHEET 1 OF 1

A
750x75AH40 Coaming Top 250x70AH40 350x70 AH40 Upper Deck
860

75AH36

1650x75AH40

SL-1
754 3806x75 AH36

LS-1
4010x65 AH36 2990x35 2792x45

864

"

4
2nd Deck 50AH36
"

5
" 2842x60 1040

"

7
"

8
"

2
"

3390x40

"

10

10

11
"

11

12
"

12

13
3490x30

13
25
3490x25 2990x17 3390x17

NO.14 S.STR

"

14
1040

14

"

15
"

15

16
"

16

17
3390x25 "

17

18

18

"

19
"

19

20
"

20

2890x25

21

21

"

22
18
1040

22
865x20 " 865x20

864

NO.23 S.STR

DL-24

1
DL-22 DL-21
2940x22 3760x25

2182x25

BL-28

LS-24

27
2290x25

LS-25 26 25 24
20

3700x25

3790x30

3730x35

1745x35

PROJECT

TL-1 LS-26
705 1000 705 1000 2000x40

COMPANY

MIDSHIP SECTION
3/21/2012 millimeters
DRAWING NUMBER

AUTHOR

SUNY MARITIME COLLEGE 1

SCALE

20

20
710

25

3288x25

710

20

23

DATE

23 22 21 SG-20 19 18 SG-17 16 15 SG-14 13 12 SG-11 10 9

3790x30

MODEL UNITS

SHEET 1 OF 1

Base Line

SG-8

SG-5
3730x35

BL-1 C
1745x40

3760x25

3700x30

Controller

PIT
103-1

PIT
104-1

TIT
104-2 104-5

PIT
104-3

TIT
104-4

M EEX M EEX

108-2

To GEN

Hx
104-6

PIT
108-1

HPS

LP VSD VSD Recirc

108-3

111-2

2
B.O.G M EEX

2
107-2

LP
PIT
107-1 107-3

Controller

M EEX VSD HP
111-3

PIT PIT
111-1

Controller

113-1

Controller

113-2

TIT
109-1

PIT
109-2 109-5

TIT
109-3

PIT
109-4

TIT
112-1

PIT
112-2 112-5

TIT
112-3

PIT
112-4

VSD Recirc VSD LNG Tank

Controller
106-3 106-2

PIT
106-1

Hx
109-6

110-2

Hx
112-6

Recirc

Block And Bleed

113-3

PIT
110-1

ME-GI
113-4

Vent

M EEX LP

HPS

HPS

VSD
110-3

Master Valve
113-5

113-6

Purge

TIT
102-1

PIT
102-2 102-5

TIT
102-3

PIT
102-4

M EEX Recirc VSD

105-3 105-2

Exhaust HP

Engine

Engine Sensor
114-1

Controller

PIT
105-1

Hx
102-6 101-3 100-3

HPS

M EEX LP

101-1

TIT

VSD

101-2

100-1

PIT

TIT

VSD

100-2

PIT

Liquid Return Line

PROJECT

COMPANY

PRELIMINARY LNG P&ID

3/21/2012
DRAWING NUMBER

AUTHOR

SUNY MARITIME COLLEGE 1

SCALE

DATE

MODEL UNITS

SHEET 1 OF 1