Your Partner in Consulting Date: 6 th March 2013 Presenter : Khorshed Alam FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 1
A Introduction Table of contents B Where to Start C Design Optimization D Operation Optimization FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 2
FutureShip Consulting four dedicated practices covering the entire maritime value chain Strategy Help clients taking the right strategic decisions Services lines comprise fleet and portfolio strategy, business performance optimization, organization development and transaction support Design Help clients designing commercially and technically state of the art vessels, considering its life cycle cost and value Fully independent position, free of commercial interest in ship design and construction itself Operations Help clients achieving best-in-class operational vessel performance and elevating energy efficiency Holistic energy management consulting complemented with specific technical solutions for energy monitoring and trim optimization Compliance Help clients to comply with all relevant regulations in the vessel/ fleet specific most cost efficient way Support positioning towards forthcoming societal and business demands and regulations a compliance strategy Source: FutureShip FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 3
FutureShip Advanced Engineering Services Fluid Dynamics & Engineering Structural Engineering Mechanical Engineering Risk Assessment Measurements CFD analyses and solutions Performance analysis, hull shape and propulsion optimisation Seakeeping analysis, design loads incl. impact loads Air flows, fire and smoke propagation Offshore applications Strength & Fatigue, ise & Vibration, Collision & Shock Strength assessment & life time predictions Collision simulations, fluid-structure interaction Vibration and noise predictions Underwater explosion and shock simulations Understand and improve complex assets Strength analyses of equipment, fatigue & fracture mechanics Reliability & life time extension Pipeline & piping analyses Energy efficiency services, monitoring tool, EEDI technical files,... Equivalency analyses, FMEA, collision risk Risk assessment and analyses, safety and reliability assessment Equivalence analyses Safe return to port assessment and evacuation analyses Navigational risk analyses Experimental investigations and trouble-shooting Sea trials Speed & power assessment ise & vibration measurements Trouble-shooting FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 4
Significant fuel savings can be secured in the design and the operations phase Ship design Ship in operation Auxiliary engines, power generation, power distribution Position Routing Cargo heating, cargo operations Wind Wave height Speed Total resistance Propeller (pitch, RPM, fouling...) Engine performance Water depth Ballast Draft/trim Current Hull condition High fuel savings potential, as many degrees of freedom are still available to optimize hull, engine and systems to intended operating conditions Potential for immediate investment cost savings, e.g. through reduced engine power High fuel savings potential, especially if related to change in speed patterns or to hull resistance Very short payback time, as measures typically address operating practices that can be changed without cost or require minimum investment for measuring equipment only Source: FutureShip FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 5
A Introduction Table of contents B Where to Start C Design Optimization D Operation Optimization FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 6
Energy costs account for 30-60% of total shipping costs, up to 3 times as much as capital costs Ship operating costs incl. capital costs, example 1 Total ship costs 100 Voyage related Fixed operating ~ 60 ~ 11 Fuel Cost of passage Cost in port Lubricants/consumables Maintenance & repair Crew On-shore admin Insurance Classification ~ 42 ~ 12 ~ 3 ~ 3 Others ~ 1 ~ 4 ~ 4 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 Others ~ 1 CONTAINER, 19 KNOTS Share of bunker cost strongly depends on speed 24 knots ca. 60% 19 knots ca. 42% 14 knots ca. 26% Capital cost ~ 29 Share of capital cost strongly depends on speed 24 knots ca. 19% 19 knots ca. 29% 14 knots ca. 37% Currently the operator of a 4,250 TEU container vessel pays about 20,000 USD charter but about 50,000 USD bunker per day 1 4,250 TEU container vessel, Far East Europe trade 32 MW, 700 USD/ton bunker, 1 EUR = 1,37 USD, 2011 FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 7 Source: FutureShip container cost model
profitable scrapping/ lay up operating costs Technology and costs current market rate Profit required capacity capacity FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 8
The required EEDI for vessel newbuilding will be reduced stepwise by about one third over the coming years g CO2 / (t*nm) 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Reference line - 2013 Phase 1-2015 Phase 2-2020 Phase 3-2025 Vessel of low fuel efficiency Vessel of high fuel efficiency EEDI 10% above reference line means additional bunker costs of ~ EUR 1.6 mn p.a. 1 EXAMPLE CONTAINER 0 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 Cut off 400 GT DWT ~ 4,600 TEU ~ 9,000 TEU ~ 13,000 TEU 1 4,250 TEU container vessel, 30 MW, 700 USD/ton bunker, 1 EUR = 1,41 USD, 250 days operation / year, 2011 Source: GL strategic Research & Development FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 9
Container Chartered fleet shows better energy efficiency compared to owned fleet Container EEDI in g CO2/tnm 30,00 25,00 20,00 15,00 10,00 Difference of 18% implies fuel costs of 9.1 MM USD/a* MEPC.203(62) MEPC 62: 2015 MEPC 62: 2020 MEPC 62: 2025 Hanjin fleet owned Hanjin fleet chartered 5,00 0,00 0 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 EEDI attained EEDI required P = ME 0.75 C = 174.22 DWT F Deadweight in t 0.201 ( P 0.025+ 250) SFCME + ME DWT 0.70 v ref C F SFC AE * 68520 kw, 180 g/kwh, 6000 h/a, 700 USD/t FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 10
Marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) - 2012, fuel 700 USD/t 4,600 TEU, 30 MW, 6,000 h/a, 180 g/kwh, fuel 32,400 t/a Abatement costs USD/t CO 2 550 500 NB design levers FiS operational lever Fuel cells 450 150 100 50 0-50 -100 Waste heat recovery Main engine retrofit Power control (controlled steaming) Abatement* Reefer improvement -150-200 -250 Trim/draft Design optimization Propeller cleaning Voyage execution Propulsion improvement devices Hull form optimization Weather routeing Hull coatings and maintenanc Speed control e pumps and fans Energy Management Hull openings 10% Emission reduction Emission abatement of 24% compared to business as usual development possible implies 5.4 MM USD/a cost savings Source: GL strategic Research & Development FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 11 *all data claimed by manufacturer, have to be approved through simulation
A Introduction Table of contents B Where to Start C Design Optimization D Operation Optimization FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 12
Hull shape design Same Purpose same Speed same optimized hull??? FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 13
Hull lines development traditional way Ø Open drawer Ø Select similar ship Ø Adjust dimensions Ø Some selected CFD Ø Modeltesting Ø Done! Ø Bossing Ø Rudder configuration Ø Propeller position Variations looked at < 10 FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 14
What is best? Measure of Merit x 2 x 1 1 p + µ ( u + 3 u ( u)) + ρf = ρ( + t u u) 2 FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 15
Hull Optimization - Exploration of design space Point of Contract CV 9000 TEU 100% Displacement Limit Each single red cross represents a full hull design and analysis approx. 20.000 valid designs Lower Resistance - >>10% FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 16
Hull Optimization- 9000TEU Container Vessel Client Example Basic Data Lpp: 288m Speed: 22,2kn Installed Power: 54.180kW Results Yearly Fuel Consumption / Yearly Fuel Costs 47.286 to 23,6 M t Optimized -19% Tank Test Results 38.528 to 19,3 M Optimized Pd [kw] 55.000 50.000 45.000 40.000 35.000 optimized 30.000 not optimized 25.000 20.000 Speed [kn] 18 19 20 21 22 23 Base Line Modell Post Modell FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 17
Offshore Tug Ship Offshore Tug Total Lpp / B / T m 80m Speed kn 19,5 Description 200 mt BP Installed power kw 17000 power ratio for required speed % 85% Required power kw 14450 Time at sea days/year 100 h/year 2400 best guess values Baseline Optimized Engine Fuel type IFO380 Specific fuel consumption kg/kwh 0,175 Cylinder liner feed rate g/kwh 0,65 Sludge % 1,5% Savings per vessel Savings % 20,0% Fuel oil savings t/day 12,320 Fuel savings t/year 1232,0 Lubrication oil t/year 4,51 Fuel oil price $/t 465 Lube oil price $/t 2700 Annual operational savings per vessel $/year 585.056 585.056 Accumulated savings per vessel after 25 years, 6% interest rate Net present value per vessel after 25 years, 6% interest rate USD per hour 244 per day 5.851 per week 40.954 per month 175.517 per year 2.106.201..of operation time at 19,5kn improvement confirmed in model test $ 32.098.808 32.098.808 $ 7.478.978 7.478.978 Emmisions saved per year (approx.) Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) t/year 4.065,6 4.065,6 SO 2 t/year 98,56 98,56 NOx t/year 104,04 104,04 Break even in calendar days after investment USD Break even / d one vessel 1 101250 62 fleet of two vessels 2 121500 37 fleet of three vessels 3 141750 29 fleet of four vessels 4 170100 26 fleet of five vessels 5 198450 24 FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 18
Global optimization operational profile Vessel speed Loading condition *) analysis of operational data provided by Hamburg Sud FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 19
A Introduction Table of contents B Where to Start C Design Optimization D Operation Optimization FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 20
TRIM OPTIMIZATION - Trim impacts on overall resistance, thus fuel consumption Even keel is for operation in design draft at design speed 3 principal trim modes Implications Even keel Even keel if minimal draft is required (e.g., rivers) To bow enhances effectiveness of bulbous bow To stern enhances propulsion effectiveness To bow è Optimal trim difficult to assess Existing tables often refer to design draft and design speed To stern rmally, crews apply stiff rules as learned in nautical studies, e.g. 2-3 feet to the stern Company wide habit established, load planners by default adhere to such common rules FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 21
Eco-Assistant Required Power (constant speed surfaces) FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 22
The ECO-Assistant leading-edge hydrodynamic simulations The ECO-Assistant provides ship crews with readily implementable trim-rules Extensive simulations to find best trim in various operational conditions Individual ship body is transferred into electronic model Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is used to assess thousands of conditions in terms of overall resistance in water Complex calculations that take several days of grid computing User Interface for ship personnel Data for speed, draft and water depth are entered Optimal trim and daily savings are indicated by tool Preview impact of ballast water operations rmal trim: intense colors indicate high resistance Optimized trim: less intense colors, i.e. less fuel FutureShip Consulting 14/03/13. 23
To assess impact of trim on power settings and fuel consumption a 44 hours test was conducted Traditional trimming versus proposal from ECO Assistant Initial trim Optimal trim Trim data recorded from installed measurement equipment Test period: optimal trim for 44 hours Initial trim of ship was +0.75m by stern Trimming of ship to optimum During test voyage the ship crew held optimal trim exactly to indications from ECO-Assistant for 44 hours End of test phase and trimming to +1m by stern Test set-up A Measurement of shaft power: Torsion of shaft was measured using an Axom telemetry system with HBM strain gauges (accuracy of 1.5%) and electronically recorded as average values over 1 second B Measurement of trim: Actual trim was measured with 2 independent devices (gyro, Seika inclinometer) that delivered identical results (confidence interval: 95% within +/-0.03 ) at an inclinometer accuracy of 0.01 C Measurement of other data: Temperature Air pressure Wind direction & speed Heading Speed (ground/water)
Fuel saving of 3% verified Power measurement data (similar draft, trim, weather) Trim at normal operations ECO-Assistant optimised trim minal propeller-curve Average 48.0 46.5-3% Ø Engine power could be reduced by 3% after trim was optimized Ø This translates to fuel savings of 3%, equal to 270t HFO or $130,000 per year Test conditions RPM@speed: 82 (~78%) @ ~15 kn Data: In test (blue 2010-05-26,16-24h), after test phase (red 2010-05-28, 14-22h) Displacement: 39,500 to MCR: Main Engine Maximum Continuous Rating FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 25
After installation of ECO-Assistant, fuel consumption decreased by 140 tons in 5 months Bulker of 70.000 CDWT Results 6.7% savings (from 103.99 kg/nm to 96.99 kg/nm) 140 Consumption, Ballast Voyages Jan-Oct [kg/nm] 130 Ballast condition Performance speed went up by 0.55 kn to 14.83 kn 120 110 103.99 100 96.99 3.4% savings (from 111.14 kg/nm to 107.33 kg/nm) 90 80 Installation of ECO Assistant (02/05/2010) Consumption developments, laden voyages Jan-Oct 2010 Consumption [kg/nm] AVG pre ECO 130 125 Consumption Ballast [kg/nm] AVG Compared to pre-eco- Assistant installation, vessel saved approx. 142 t HFO or USD 64 k per year compared to previous operating conditions Laden condition Average consumption per 24 hours decreased from 34.3 t/24 h to 31.5 t/24 h, while performance speed remained constant (13.43 kn, resp. 13.44 kn) 120 115 111.28 110 105 100 95 90 Installation of ECO Assistant (02/05/2010) 107.77 Source: FutureShip FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 26
ECO-Assistant has payback times of typically less than 6 months Initial efforts Ø Build electronic model Ø Simulation of thousands of operational conditions (CFD) Ø Confirmation of on-board tool Ø Installation and trainings on ship Benefits depend on actual situation and fuel costs Ø Fuel price: 475 USD/to Ø Rated power: 13.3 MW Operating days on sea 2% savings 5% savings Engine Shaft Power (%SMCR) Usually we see payback between 40-80 days on sea, i. e. 3-6 months FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 27
Thank you for your kind attention! For further information on energy efficiency and FutureShip s products and services please contact Khorshed Alam Managing Director FutureShip Singapore Pte Ltd (GL Group) Khorshed.Alam@gl-group.com FutureShip Singapore Consulting Status Review 14/03/13. 28