Consequences by installation ultra low speed propulsion diesel engines direct coupled with the propeller. The Engineering Essay (Econ. Aspect)

(1)

L'E

,!?

;`.

-CONSEQUENCES MY IN

ULTRA LOW SPEED PROPULSION DIESEL ENGINES

DIRECT-COUPLED, WITH THE PROPELLER

The Engineering Essay "ECONOMICAL ASPECT"

By:

I. Petroulakis

he

Professor: Prof.Dr.Ing. C. Gallin

The Mentor: Jr. H.J, Westers

University of Technology Delft

Department of Marine Technology Panel of Ship Design

July 1984

(2)

Preface

'This paper is the Engineer Essay and it is the second part that deals

mainly with the Economical Consideration of the consequences by

Installation of the New Type Two Stroke Diesel Propulsion Engines with

4- or 5-cylinders of the series RTA-Sulzer and GB/GEE, MC/MCE of MAN B&W;

the so-called Ultra Low Speed Diesel Engines.

I am grateful to Prof.Dr.Ing.. C. Gallin as my graduation 'Professor- and

Ir. H.J. Westers as mentor for their valuable suggestions, criticism and

guidance offered for this work. Also, I am pleased to give my recognition

Dutch Shipping Company, "Nedlloyd" and to shipyard

"Van Per Gissen Be Noord" for their assistance and helpful informations,,

Finally, I wish to express. my deep appreciation and memories to

Drs. C.H.D. Steinmetz,

of

'Technische Natuurkunde TUB, for his help during

my preparation to study In IT.Dc without wham this work might never have

been written,

see

(3)

3 INDEX

1/

Page 1. Introduction 4 . 2. Technical Consequences 6 Economical Consideration 11 Economical Estimations 14 Conclusions 17 References

Appendix I The engineer written work

1 Necessary power. for ballast condition

2 Consequences of Alternative A5 with 4- and 5-bladed

propeller

3 Extra cargo space due

- shorter engine room and shorter fuel bunker

deeptank at the forecastle

4 Vibration balancing resonance frequencies andeconomical

data for the balancing

5 Shaft and propeller weight and cost

6 Investment for the pumps and cooler

7.1 Investment for the start system 7.2 Exhaust boiler; HFO consumption

8 Steel modification

9 Cylinder oil consumption

10 Daily operating expenties of the basis ship

(4)

1. Introduction

V

4

After the oil crisis of the year 1973, the whole cost analysis of the

engine designing changed again: fuel saving became the most significant

part of operating costs because it influences deeply the cost factor

balance of

a

vessel-Naturally, it is everybody's concern nowadays to save as much energy as

possible by getting the most out of every drop of fuel.

In regarding with the propulsion Engine, fuel oil saving can be achieved

by:

Reducing RPM by which the efficiency coefficient increases

respectively the Power decreases

Cutting down the Specific Fuel Oil Consumption (SFOC)

45'kt /PO

Theseipitep, - 4 L80 CBE

f_

-

5 RTA 68 - 5 L70 MCE - 4 RTA 76 - 4 L80 MCE

Room is at the after body of the ship.

It seems that the 4- an 5-cylinder New Type Engines combine the

requirements for low power very low shaft speed and offered a low fuel

oil consumption.

But also are engines: - Short e_e7.-- ze-oeft'-` 7;-e-7

Breadth Heighth Heavier

The above characteristics of these Engines have a series of Geometric and

. Economic Consequences by installation of them in the Engine Room of the

Ship.

In the 5th Year Work, were found among the available New Type Motor of the two manufacturers RTA and MAN-B&W, five suitable alternatives.

Then, their Technical Consequences with a detailed analysis discussed. In

order to have clear their consequences installed the alternatives one by

one in the Conventional Engine Room of the "M.S. Maassluis". Its Engine

(5)

-5-.

The basic hull form of the ship is, a good one and therefore has been used

as the actual example. She is a 38000 tdw Panamax of a group of 4 Product

Chemical Tanker owned by Nedlloyd's Ship Company Rotterdam and built in

the year 1982 by "Van der Gissen De Noord" .Krimpen aid IJssel Holland.

The Tanker is 164 in long (1...P.P.). with a moulded

beam of

32.24 m* a,

moulded depth of 16.60 m, and a draught of 11.622 in (max summer),.,

The coefficient LIB is 5,09 at the low side and it is choice of the

owners in order to reduce the building costs.

The engine is a B&W GL67 GFCA two stroke diesel with output 11.100 bhp by

123 RPM. The loaded ship's speed 15,47 knots and 16,37 knots in ballast,

kept constant for all the alternatives as results of the NSMB.

Figure 1 shows the main, characteristics of the ship, while figures 2 and

3s

are the section of the Engine Room.

In figure 4 are the combination of Dp X RPM, the efficiency coefficient

YiD and the corresponding Pa.

Figure 5 is the BHP=PRM diagram showing the equal speed limo of NCR and

the recommended working area of the available diesel engines of 4 and 5.

cylinders of the group RTA.

The intersection of the MGR line and recommended working area gives. there

the Alternatives of the group, namely A2 and A4,

From the BHPRPM figure 5, for the Alternatives as specified working point

is chosen the most 'Right"' of the interection line, so that the Motor is

protected from any possibility of overloading during operation.

In Table 1 are the Data of the working point of the five AlternativeS,

there also are the corresponding propeller diameter of them:

After a short description of the conclusions of the 5th Year work,, this

paper also provides the economical consideration of the Alternatives and

in so an economical competitive process, that less favourable. alternatives due their technical of physical consequences e.g. piston overhauling space, dr resonance phenomena, they have a chance for installation.

These achieved by extra investment, in order to reestablish these problems or by correction of the Alternative's working point.

After that, studied their economical result in saving UFO, or gain in

transport extra cargo weight.

(6)

2. Technical consequences

The start point to install a New Type Engine in the Engine Room of the

Basis ship are:

the lower SFOC

if

the necessary lower Power for same v.e1,43t4-ty

not difference in the Engine Room arrangement.

In the First Part (5th Year work) the goal was, to choose the technical

best, among the five Alternatives.

These Technical Consequences by Installation one New Type Engine in the

Engine Room of the Basis ship are given in blocks in tfigure 6. _

After application of known design principles and experiences for the ship

construction came number of results in the form of conclusions for these

consequences.

With known the Geometric and vibration consequences, then the

considerations that will support a choice are

trend towards lower engine and propeller speed .

- better propulsion efficiency respectively HFO consumption

minimum installation modifications:

6

no (great) modifications to the original ship hull form no modification in the Engine Room arrangement due length, breadth or height of the Alternatives operating facilities for the Alternatives such as

sufficient space for the engine inspection and reparation

maximum extra cargo dead weight due: HID saving

- extra weight

(2.6.1e-efd;A_

-

extra shaft and propeller weight

extra steel weight for the eventual modifications

(-_

- maximum extra cargo space due

shorter engine room, because of shorter Alternatives length

shorter fore peak because of the lower fuel oil

consumption during the voyage; at the fore peak there is the bunker deep tank of 1123 t fuel

--

(7)

7

-It seems in relation with the afore that the one element influences the

other. So that not a single type of engine was found that could satisfy

all the requirements for the optimum of all directions. But also was found

that all the Alternatives satisfied to a number of consequences or are in

the limits of the technical requirements or restrictions.

Briefly the. conclusions of these consequences for the five Alternatives

are:

None of the Alternatives require cargo space for the Extra Ballast.

The restriction of IMO for the minimum Draught APP of the larger

propeller and minimum trim 2.46 m, in the ballast condition can

easily be achieved with the existent ballast tanks. Alternatives A4

and A5 only require a certain modification at the Forecastle.

There is no cavitation problem or vibration phenomena due cavitation. The coefficient BIT for the larger propeller of Dp 7,30 m is 0,63.

The propeller clearances in the aperture and the propeller tip

pressure, insignificant influences the after ship hull form. So that

the displacement and therefore the cargo weight being not less than

0,16% (55 tons) for the 'larger propeller of 7.30 m.

The shifting of LCB forwards ship, insignificant influences the

necessary power it increases only (0.1% or 12 HP) while the trim by

load condition remains maximum 0.30 m by stern.

In relation with the dimension parameters of the five Alternatives,

they all offer a gain in length of the engine room (except Al) of

about 2 or 3 frameS76istance (1.60 - 2.40 m).

The breadth of the Alternatives has no big influence for the length

position of them; it comes because the water line 2m at the rear

side of the motor is quite breadth.

The relative great-height C of the motor (C = height from the

motor basis to the centrum of motor shaft) influences in cases Al, A2

and A4 the draught APP. Because case Al has a propeller bodem

clearance about 0,625 m can be used for the rudder supporting a sole

piece. Cases A3 and AS require a higher DB in the engine room or an

elevation (0,330 max) of the foundation. They both have a small

engine height C. .6)

(8)

8

In A4 and AS Alternatives the total engine height and therefore the

necessary total height for the piston overhauling requires to use a

jib-crane or to dismalt the piston-stud during the piston inspection.

Then a modification of the accomondation along the traject of the

crane,lis not more needed and this is an important consequence.

But HFO consumption remains the stronger criterium, to use a

superlongstroke Engine.

Among the Alternatives. AS has the relative lower consumption of

9,3 t less tons fuel per day or 20.4% relative to basis engine while

A3 Alternatives has 7,7 t less daily or 16.9%.

Another criterium is the gained cargo weight. This is the sum of:

less HFO consumption weight Main Engine of the body

shaft propeller

elevation or higher DB in ER weight

The gained cargo weight competes in the economical area with the HFO

consumption. A3 Alternatives has the better gain in cargo weight. It

comes about 0.49% or 172 t per voyage.

Here is added that all the Alternatives can load the extra cargo in

the existent cargo space.

An exemption is for the very light cargo sorts like Nafta (SG 0.64

t/m3)

So that, the profit also depends (directly) on the cargo sort that

"mostly" transported.

11) Finally, the vibration raises problem as expected because of the low

RPM; usually the ships have resonance problems in this RPM

range. The lst/2nd unbalanced moments of all the Alternatives (if

needed) can easy reduced with thevell known balancing rotating mass

systems of RTA and MAN-B&W.

But Alternative AS has resonance problem with the 4-blade propeller

frequency. It happens for the range 83.5 to 70.5 RPM. (see appendix

2.1)

(9)

-RPM.

For the velocity it means: 70.5

15,47 x 80.5 . 13.54 knots or

4=y19.

13.51

15.47 x 100% 87.6% of the Nominal V locity.

Alternative Al runs with 266 BHP ?ess. Therefore it comes'

down to 15.39 knots.

But both with A2, that runs with 102.6 RPM, are in the

critical frequency of 4N-vert* for the load condition of

102.6 RPM. So that a further lowering of Al to 102.5 has a

big probability. The corresponding velocity then is

15'47

102.5

14.96 knots. 106

So that two Alternatives remain over to competitive away of

vibration problem, namely A3 and A4.

Between them A3 is better because:

uses daily less HFO: 36.0 t instead of 36.3

t.-gains more cargo with the existent cargo weight 172 t instead of 144 t result of the extra weight difference and HFO consumption.

not requires extra attention for the piston overhauling free space.

it can take the necessary extra ballast in the existent

ear

ballast tanks.

^ 9

The vibration consequences impact with the corresponding very

important consequences of HFO. So that:

Although Alternative AS shows the best HFO results of 20,4%

. lower consumption, it has resonance problem with the 3-4 and

5 nature frequency of the hull (vertical eventual horizontal)

and its propeller frequency RPM x 4-blades. In such cases

lowering of RPM introduced.

For this Alternative the RPM "is forced" to come down at 70.5

(10)

---

10-Against for this choice is that:

it is a 5-cylinder Engine, therefore relatively higher maintenance costs.

it needs an elevation for the motor foundation or a higher DB in the Engine Room.

in case of shorter Engine Room due to Engine length, it

gains 2 frames distance (1.60 m) or 530 m3 instead of

3 frames (2.40 m) or 800 m3 of A4.

In the second part of this study introduced economical considerations.

There, Alternative AS runs with a 5-blades propeller, therefore away of

the critical frequencies but followed with all the Technical and

(11)

4. Economical Consideration

When a ship owner builds a ship, he expects a profit from the invested

capital.

The primary Economical Considerations of an engine for an investment in

this study are:

The Basis price

- Any additional cost needed for modification from the standard basic

condition and

?

- The saving of HFO consumption, that will give back the investment

From the above the main Engine First Cost, is data from the manufactureP-v

RTA and MAN-B&W.

The additional investment consists of the costs for.:. vibration balancing

shaft.

- propeller

- Aux machineries necessary for the normal operation of the Alternative

Foundation modification of the New engine

The key element in operating costs is of course the Fuel Oil. The relative

extra first cost and extra investment return from the saving of the fuel

oil and depends on its current price; at the time $180/ton.

Additional,

with

the

lower

fuel

consumption

the New Type Engines have less

Kg/h of exhaust gasses. These gasses have also lower temperature: 265 oC

instead of 335 °C. So that the exhaust gas boiler capacity in KW

decreases and therefore will occur extra operation costs' during the

.voyages with cargoes sort that need preheating.

On the other hand the Alternatives consume more lubricating cylinder oil

($1600/ton).

In order to have a better picture of the "total saving" the above

cr.)4(

consumptions are added and in a table 4r-a their economical results.

The freight income from shipping and especially for Chem. Tankers, varies

enormously and at this moment the future trend is difficult to forecast.

At the moment is $10,8/tdw.

(12)

4,-The Economical Estimation of the Alternatives are in groups of the

corresponding manufactures. RTA and MAN-B&W and represented in the

tables 5 to 16. Their derives are referred in each table.

There are three economical criteria that used:

The Pay Out Period (POP)

V

The POP is the time in which the extra investment (P) is recovered by

the fuel saving or returns (R). It gives the answer to the question

"how long does it take to get my investment back?". By uniform returns the POP is found:

(CRF)N

where i = interest rate = 10% N = the POP

The Net Present Value (NPV)

Where the total saving of fuel of the entire period of operation of the

ship corrected and take a present value which substracted from the

initial investment.

Without inflation or further increases of oil prices the formula is:

-

12-i

NPV = (UPWF)N - R - P

where i = interest =1O%

N = operation time of the ship = 15 years 1

(UPWF) Uniform serie Present Worth Factor

(CRF)N

1

= 0.1315 = 7.605

R saving fuel oil $/year

extra investment

3) The Equated Internal Rate of Return (EIRR)

This is the fictitious rate or the internal rate by which the extra

'investment comes back from the saved fuel oil of the entire period of

operation of the ship, without suffering a loss. Therefore the NPV is equal zero.

EIRR 0 (UPWF)N * R P or (cRF)N

ziv-

_{/16cXe, /Zt 4.4}

.1)

=

2)

a' = =

(13)

13 -In

order to have also the economical influencing of the Geometric

Consequences of the Alternatives and then to introduce the relative most

economic of them, considered for the two manufacture groups three

conditions:

1st condition: where studied the saved

gm

per year against the total

extra investment.

2nd condition: the extra investment judged with the gained cargo DW due

to weights' difference. Here the annually saved HFO

includes an approximated HFO amount necessary for the cargo

preheating; also is added the annual extra cost of the

cylinder oil.

3rd condition: as in the 2nd condition but with shorter Engine Room and

Forecastle (if it is possible) for light cargoes sorts as

Nafta.

The referred conditions applied to four competitive groups formed from the Alternatives

- BS, Al, A3, A5 MAN

-MAN

- A2, A4 SULZER - SULZER

- Al, A3, A5/5-bladed, A5/4-bladed MAN - MAN

- BS, A2, A4 SULZER - BS

where the first engine of each group has been taken the reference engine;

the others are plotted against this.

The two first groups are these of the manufactures as introduced in

appendix I. The third group referred to the New Type Motor of the MAN-B&W

and contains the A5 - 4-bladed propeller. So that also

the

Alternative

with the lower HFO consumption should be discussed.

In the fourth group the RTA's unorthodoxally studied with the BS. This is

added only as indication of the RTA's in relation to a conventional slow

running Diesel Engine.

he NPV results of the 2nd conditj.on of every group, as more realistic,

are plotted in th(:N7-TIM (y-a..rs :decision diagrams 1 to 4. ,

In these diagrams are taken into account.the--ictra Investment of the

-Alternatives and the annual Total Income on the 10% interest rate.

(

,s:

The reference engine of the group follows the horizontal

ifs.

These

diagrams give simple' and rapid comparisons; also show interest-cross-over

points during the life time of the Alternatives. .d)

(14)

-

14

-Economical Estimations 1,/

Table 1 shows the technical characteristics of the specified NCR Power,

,RPM, SFOC, Heavy Fuel oil consumption and Propeller Diameter.

As will be Aloted the load velocity of the Alternative Al is 15.39 knots

>instead of 15.47 knots because it has 266 BHP lower than the required.

The Alternative A5 uses a 5-blades propeller. This is in order to avoid

the 3-4 and 5 resonance frequencies. With the 5-blade propeller AS has a

daily HFO consumption of 37.2 t .instead of 36.3 t with the 4-blades. That

means a 2.5% increase of the fuel consumption. In appendix 2 are the

synoptic consequences of AS for 4- and 5-blades propeller.

The Ballast Power by approximation is 85% of the specified NCR for BS, A2

and A3 and 86% for Alternatives Al, A4 and AS This simplification

justified in

appendix 1.

_

Table 2 summarizes the calculated light ship weights and the gained cargo

weight due of the difference of the referred weights and HFO consumption

during a voyage. The best results

of

0.49% has A3.

From the RTA's the Alternative AZ is better but its gain is insignificant

of 12 t.

Table 3 shows the estimated time required for one voyage. It is assumed

that fuel will be taken on at each end of the voyage. So that the length

of the Round Voyage is 55.5 days; the time division comes in accordance to

full bunker consumption of 1894 t for the Basis Ship. This has been done

in order to achieve the Economical Comparison of the gained Cargo

Deadweight due to difference of tIle Alternatives weight and Heavy Fuel Oil

Consumption from table 2. The year's days (365) and the % division of it,

is from Nedlloyd.

-The annual Round Voyages are 6.40 but for Alternative Al, because of its

lower load velocity, is 6.37. That costs 1,28 days per year or 1,28 x

38882 49770 tdw less transport capacity per year.

Table 4 shows the estimates of invested costs, required for the Normal

Operation of the Alternatives. It will be noted that Alternative A.5,

except its high first cost, has also the other components relatively

higher. From the RTA's there is no wide difference in the investment or

A4 has $59.000 less installation costs than A2, equal to 1,7% of the total investment.

(15)

-

15-The use of a sole piece for the rudder supporting decreases the investment of BS and Al about $27000. or 0,9% for the total investment of Al.

Appendix 3.3 to. 9 show in detail the estimated costs for each of the five

Aliel7/,:a;;;;;;T:ow

these costs are distributed.

Table 5 shows the results of the basic economic components of the group

r_________

MAN-B&W. Alternative AS has the best HFO. saving per year of $400.000,

while A3 of '$372.000. The relative high extra investment of AS of

$628.006 equal 22%. of the BS total investment results for an EIRR of

63,6%. Respectively the extra investment of A3 is $151.000 and the

corresponding EIRR of 247%. The NPV of both $2.678.000 and $2.412.000 is

quite high- The POP of 5 months for A3 is very attractive while the 1 year, and 10 months for AS is not relatively long.

Table 6 summarizes the influence of the gained cargo due weight difference

that given in table 2. Here the saving of HFO includes the extra

consumption for the cargo preheating due to lower KW of the exhaust

gasses. Also in this table referred the (higher) cylinder oil consumption

of the New Type Engines.

The economical results of these additions not difference, in order those

of the 1st condition of table S. For the NPV, there is a decreasing of 6%

for A3 and 9% for AS respectively $167.000 and $218.000.

Table 7 shows the economical results of the greater cargo space. Appendix

3.1 has the derives of it. Alternative A3 has the best results of $50.000

I

per year more income due cargo while AS also gains $40.500 annually. The

H

Yextra

investment cost is about $18.500 for every frames distance (800 mm)

of the shorter engine room. The NPV increasing (relative to 1st condition)

for AS is $76.000 or 2,8% and for AS is $16,000 or

Mt

Under the afore mentioned three combinations of circumstance's Alternative

AS has the best results, so that without doubt it should be chosen. The

above is clear at the decision diagram 1. There a cross-point Of Al and AS appeared at about 5 years operation time.,

Tables 8. to 10 show the economical study of the RTIOs group which consists

of A2 and A4. Alternative A2, a 5-cylinder engine, has a difference for

She first

cost of $100.000 Or 3,5% more engine cost. But A4 requires

higher total installation cost (table 2). So that the total difference

comes down and the total installation costs of A4 are $59.000 less or 1,7%

of those for A2. With the 300 t saving FIFO' (2,9%) of $54.000 profit per

(16)

16

-The 2nd condition of the loss of 147 t cargo capacity per year, not at all

influences the choice of A4. On the other hand A4 is a 4-cylinder engine

and therefore better balanced' for free moment if appeared resonance

problem.

Table 11 to 13 show the study of MAN-B&W group including the Alternative

AS with the 4-bladed propeller.

The reference engine is the Al, so that the competition takes place

absolute among the New Type Engines of MAN-B&W.

The main economic characteristics of this group is that Al and AS use

balancing reductions(' system of extra investment $83.000 respectively

$104.000 or 2,7% and 3,0% of their total investment. Al might use a sole

piece; that reduces its investment $27.000 or 0,9%.

The annual HFO saving 878 t (8,3%) of $158.000 for AS results its best NPV

of $888.000 while for A3 it comes up to $843.000 or an increase for A5 of

$45.000 (5,3%). This difference in the 2nd condition of cargo gain due

weight (table 12), is getting down only to $7.000 while in the 3rd

condition for greater cargo space (table 13), A3 is better about $18.000;

but then the total investment increases at $37.000 for every alternative

or 1,2% relative to A3 and it is necessary for the engine room shorting

(derives in appendix 3.3). At the decision diagrams 2 and 3 (1st and 2nd

cond.) it seems the cross-over point between 12 to 14 years. So that

A5/4-bladed is only better of A3 at the last operation years of the ship.

This result and that A3 not requests extra investment relative to Al come

to support the choice of A3 as introduced for the MAN-B&W group even if A5 has not its blade's resomnreT'problem.

Table 14 to 16 and the decision diagram 4 are only to make an emphasis for 11m-cho1ce of Alternative A4 against A2 as introduced in the PTA's group.

Taking into consideration that the installation investment of the BS may

remain at the same nveau as for a conventional 6-cylinder Sulzer Slow

Diesel _{Engine, then the advantage of $354.000 due 1965 t (16,2%) less FIFO}

consumption per year with the acceptable pay out period of 1 year and 7

months for the $498.000 _{extra investment (17,2% relative to BS) and the}

71% EIRR relative too high with the current bank rate, make the decision_,,,1

(17)

Conclusions

17

-In these contex the basic question tias to introduce for both the two

manufactures the economical best Alternative. a-e---..6 `-

-1--e

Under the three economical conditions or

circugences

and investment for

the basic installation requirements as stated afore, it seems that for the group MAN-B&W A3 is the best Alternative and for the RTA's group A4.

- fEconomic conclusions related with the number of cylinder or cylinder's

diameter is difficult to draw out. But it is clear that so lower of RPM so

.... _

-better economic result because of the IWO saving and propeller efficiency.

( The installation investment of MAN-B&W increases by lower RPM and it is

independeat1of the type LGB or LCM. For the RTA's the number of cylinders

influences the investment; hut there are not final

conclusionAntil

to

, . .

________

consider the overall installation investment; this is shown from the

Alternatives A2 and A4 where the first cost extra investment of A2 _reduced

due to the rest installation costs.

Also from economical point of view the resonance phenomena influences

K

deeply any choice. If for instance AS required no extra balanci g costs,

,

d2--e4

then the economical results Of this group should be others. _/

₍

Finally, as principal economical conclusions by the installation one New

Type Engine are:

Oil is the most interesting factor to cover the extra investment. Should

fuel price rise further, then the investment would be more profitable.

The economical results strongly depend on the available economical data.

The investment applied to the balancing reduction and to aux. machineries

will vary from case to case. So that an economical study required to

introduce the optimum solution.

As result comes that is not necessarily the technical best Alternative

1\

also the correct solution as in case of AS and A5/4-bladed, therefore

economic is not necessarily synonymous with lowest fuel consumption.

A rather high rate of return is expected due to relative high UFO saving

, of the New Type Engine.

(18)

18

-For the MAN-B&W the annual profit (of Al), relative to BS is above $260.000.

This is equivalent to an EIRR of about 170% on the $154.000 extra

investment with a pay-back period of about 8 months._

The additional investment is worthwhile. So that the shipcompany owned the

ship with a New Type Engine is more competitive in the market because it

could accept a voyage charter rate of cargo lower than this of the basis

ship for the same daily profit, or could be asking CA'.i'jar rate higher

than normal on account of the less fuel costs which the charterer would

have to pay.

By operating under the same conditions as the Basis ship, additional

off-hire days or additional annual costs, could be tolerated before the

New Type Engine became unprofitable.

(19)

FIGURE

1/

GENERAL 'PARTICULARS

k.s.-mnnssuns'"

SIGNAL. LETTERS: P rRR

PORT OF REGISTRY: ROTTERDAM

OWNERS: NEDLLOYD BULK B.V. RoTTERDAH

.61_111..T2ERS : VAN DES' G/ESSEt-I

- DE

NOORD

KRAfrIPEN A.D. 13 ssEt_ _ $--ioufarlD

-.YARD NONIBER: 9.2.5

PRIti-ICI PSI_ DilIMENSIONS

LENGTH OVER ALL

LENGTH BETW.

;READT1-1 EXTREME_

13READTH MOLILT.5.ED

DEFT}-[MOULDED

M . 5654- I:"

NI r.

533's On/:."

eis 1

105'-105/5"

10E' -

95/1:7

m

s 4

e

/C

=

1eAC

48382 tii2TR.Toti

1084-3 METR.T08

38 035

MET. TON

_

131:3404

_____32.273

164.000 _1G .600

MaLSUMMERDRAUGHT

11422

CORREST".. DISPLACEMENT

SEAW..

WEIGHT OF LIGHT SHIP

DEADWEI4HT

--MAIN ENGINE: 'B.& W. GL 67

C- C

13100 13H? - 1Z3

CLASS: LLOYD'S REGISTER ^I- 100 Al

cr...R--?!= : INC7t,41.-F.-.:', FOR Ts/= CFIRRIAC-= OF Out

Holvi-!_, ELto-IT E!.:ELow Cc"C (CLOSED Cur TEST),

-0-1E1icRz.:- TIAHICE?:. CATIGoTyPf,"5:1"(10,1C0 2) CzNy2E7:riacs 44: 1. 513°7 PXS

CRRaosyps-B-(imco 3) CENTRE TRWKE Fiqo wiHOTo.4K5 IN/

Es5cciATIQN WITH R LIST Or tErisIED CARG.T.ES-C/114C A

TEMP

NOT mcRE" TYR-N165°C)

RU CARGOE..11kt-IKS SUITABCE !FoR ICRQGC2S w.11:14 S.C. or ¶33 MRX.

TOt-IN,RGE

t

GRoSS

NET

1/-4TERNRITIO!-IRL

2 47'34

I

I iS 26

Sp E Z

zc33t3J

I !

25340.89

Z072.i.27

riRR/Rm A

100G1.5%

-M M

3_8'-M.C.R.

R.P.M.

LMC,

(20)

, e w.f.,.fur+, _{__CciescrOtt--_} G 4PC.r.t.T

-

20 -

r---' t L ' I.

-,,

L I 1 ; I coutv . V.00 it.c_r,Att t-PL:1*.*, F-co.t1

LL,

-. r I I 1 : c .c , _/1 ,--_-_-.--- .,_ V-...-....r-..,- -... -....-,..---....A; :,--;

...-..

-...-..- ... - ...4

/

V \

..--'1-'-' I ---.1...--44,

la---, LL

A f --,i1

l'i

h

:- - - e ' -{ t --7?----r1

-Ti=

'

Tair--'

'.--t- L

rj,..=

Fr li

i 0

r

I U / ....I.-2, -__;.::

7

les., _ _ __ 7----1 I; T

. ,

,, 1---i,

f

,-L.

/. 7 :

. -t*--4-7-"J

-u V /-1 !*".. I t t'Atr- rl

\ 7

\

FIG. 2

_{LONG SECTION OF THE M.E. V}

_{SCALE 1:200}

(21)

7 rp?

-.4.it z. 7.71

,

.-Stp.

Crme..7. :14

..Toe floc

7 rrrvc

FIG'. 3

_{CROSS SECTION OF}

_{THE E.R.}

_b/

SCALE, 1:200

[I 'an yr.

21

-f., elf F 441.

(22)

12200

Dp Erin

PB [m]

13000

11800

0.640

70 k

0.60

0.580

0.560 11720,

80.5

4;

80.5

0.627 Z2

-1

AL.).

_RPM

ti./

-

70

I oio

PB

i

A__ I

ioo

90

100

80.5

106 FIG.

4

_{Dp, )2131. PB and APB}

_{- RPM}

_Id/

106

0.591

120

128.3. 13100

120

130

128.3

RPM

VI

12600

12435

212 APB %

5.1 11400

RPM

128.3

A

0.620

L It

110

106 LPBM

-16

60

70

(23)

4 3 a. 20 15 12 KFT 23

BHP-r/min.DLAGRAM

ILi Nris..,

DIESEL ENGINES'

1111111

iii

) .

SI tsotAca

1

..

1 Nig

t

I

, t 1 . 1:2 8014C -.

f

a

7

_.,;. . S.:

IIIIIIIIN

.

-ml

NMI

1 I ,1

I. 1111111111§

I

AMMO

1011rAIMPlir

--

4

RA

7a

. ...-

.

5 'R'A 74 t

c.cP

n -li m 1

IS

_

_lite

.

I

Err

liffAIPPr

Allial

, a

rticilla

i AL SPEED TNT: --

CSR-1

Ed/ I

... ,

i

4 .RTA 5

! : ! , t 1 , .

lir

Pr

if

1 i , , _

Irr 1

11!

TA 7Ee , .. . ! , ,

I

,2-A Or,

I1

, 100

pp

105, a 11411 , , , 1

...

135 1[3, 1 11 135 ...y. 5

-SO .. 65 70 75 5O '76 82 85 SO lac 125, 133 a-0 ,

RTA

"RECOMMENDED1r Pr BHP 003

FIG. 5

ENGINE LAYOUT FIELDS

6 5 5 45 3 23 17 -12L C +1200

12O

5 RTA 84

-I

I

4 RTA 84

5 R A

I

L

. . I 4

(24)

Fig 6 Consequences

by installation one

Superlongstroke

Propultion Engine

DEADWEIGHT

-L.C.G

-TRIM

-STABILITY

_{1-P1ST.01ERH.}

-ACCOM.HEIGT.

STABILITY

-mot

-WEIGHT

1.1

-POWER F.O.CONSUMP DEADWEIGHT

_{1 PROP.EFF.rq.)}

NEW TYPE* ENGINE Ill 1 DIMENSIONS L

-TRIM

-BALLAST

-DB IN E.R

A

PROP.DIAM.

NUMBER OF CYLINDERS --DRATTGIT AIT. ".,;CAVITATION PROP. CLEAR. -HULL AFTER

VIBRATION

A

I

-UNBAL.FORC.1

t-UNBAL.MOM. -WEIGHT

ENS. L.O.G

ON A NODS

1-VIBRATION

SMALL7: E.R

-CARGO SPACE

-F.O. TANKS

-GENERATORS -CARGO PUMPS

-WEIGHT -DB

IN EA

-FRAME CLEAR. -WEIGHT PUMPS

-V.C.G

-L.C.G

-AUX. ROOMS

-STABILITY

-ENS.LENGTB1

POSITION

-TRIM

V.C.G

4-tar__

P . M --AUX.

(25)

TABLE

1

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ALTERNITIVES

UNIT

BS Al A2 A3 A4 AS

ALTERNATIVE

TYPE

5L67GFCA

4 L80 GBE5 RTA 68

5 L70 MCE4 RTA 70

4 L80 MCE

NOMINAL

NCR

POWER

BHP

13/00/2240

13250 12250 13160 12800 RPM 123 106 105 95 95 83

SFOC(HFO)

g/BHP.h

145.1 135.7 . 133.2 130.2 131.8 129.4

SPEED

LOAD KNOTES 15.47 1 15.39 15.47

15.47.

15.47 15.47

BALLAST

16.37

PR0PELL1-IAMETER.

METRES

5.80 6.40 6.50

6.75

6.85 5.05 1

BLADES

NUMBER

4 4 4 4 11 -5

SPECEFIEC

NCR

POWER

BHP

13/00/2240

12352

12/26/2068

11990 RPM 123 10-5 102.6 94.7 92.5 31.2

SFOC(HFO)

g/BHP.h

145.1 135.7

133.2

130.2 131.8 129.4

FUEL CONSM

T/DAY

45.6 39.9 39.5 37.9 38.2 37.2

BALLAST

POWER

BHP

11/36/0526

10499 10307

10378

10311 SFOC(HF0).

g/BHP.h

143 (

,

-

----188.8

130.7 127.9

129.8

127.2

FUEL CONSM

T/DAY

38.2 33.8 32.6 31.6 32.3 31.5

TOTAL

.

FUEL CONSUMPTION

(VOYAGE 55.5 DAYS

1/VOYAGE

1894 1659 1634 1571 1587 1547

T/YEAR

12/22/0568

10458

10054 10157 9901 I -.

(26)

,

TABLE 2

GAINED CARGO WEIGHT DUE DIFFERENCE OF WEIGHTS AND

HFO CONSUMPTION

UNIT BS Al A2 A3 A4 AS

DISPLACEMENT

TON 35029

35029

LESS CARGO DUE

AFTER HULL MODIF

-24 -38

-40 3

MAIN ENGINE

340 450 400 445 450 550

SHAFT

26 ' 28 29 30 31 33

PROPELLER X

2 32 38

sa

41 42 52 6 1

ELEVATION

-9 -6 7

TOTAL WEIGHT

398 516 467 525 523 641 .. 0 u

LESS CARGO

_{DUE WEIGHTS}

1/VOYAGE (398) -142

+235

-(491)

-227 -151

+323

-70 +47 -283 +347 9 i

WIN.HFO CONSUMr

T/ VOYAGE 10

GAIN IN CARGO

T/ VOYAGE 93 172

-23

63 1-3

FROM 5TH YEAR WORK P.

4-5

FROM APPENDIX 5

6

FROM APPENDIX 3

7

SUM OF LINES 3

-6 8 (LINE

2)

-(LINE 7) + 393.

FOR: BS,A1,A3,A5

(LINE 2)

-(LINE 7) +

491

FOR:

A2,A4

9

FROM TABLE

(LINE 9) + (LINE 8)

2

-24

r

1

(27)

27

-VOYAGE EXAMPLE

TABLE -3

TIME DIVISION

%

ACCORDING "NEDLLOYD"

ROUTE

LOAD

NAUTICAL

MILES

TIME

HFO CONSM

(TONS) DAYS %

DURBAN

- AUSTRALIA

GASOIL

3900 10,5 479

AUSTRALIA - SINGAPORE

BALLAST

,2600 6,6 253

SINGAPORE- JAPAN

NAFTA

2900

7,8 356

JAPAN

- CHINA

BALLAST

1050 2,4 104

CHINA

- CALIFORNIA

BENZINE

5700 15,4 702

TOTAL LOADED

12500

33,7 59% 1537

TOTAL BALLAST

3650 9,3 16% 357

AT SEA

16150 43 75/ 1894

IN PORT

12,5 22 %

-TOTAL VOYAGE

55,5 97%

SAILING DAYS PER YEAR

275 75% 12122

PORT DAYS PER YEAR

80 22%

-DOCKING DAYS PER YEAR

10 3%

(28)

V

..._______ , i,

TABLE 4:

V

INVESTMENT OF THE ALTERNATIVE INSTALLATION

vdne_rce

.

sc_e_.

g

ITEM

VIM

BS

Al

AB,

MAIN ENGINE

FIRST COST

1000

HL

H 7300 7600

vu

77 0 ' 8600 8500

VIBRATION

'I. A 250 250 54 343 ,

SHAFT

222 262 252

268

265 292 PROPELLER . 296 346 j 375 381 H 392 483 H PROPELLER SPAR. 296 346 375: 381 392 -483 6

AUX.MACHINERIES

381 403 432 379

H450

434 7. . MODIFICATIONS -(-81) (-81) 9 4 . 12

TOTAL

INVESTMENT

1000 HFL

8664

9126

10334

9118 10157 10547

1000 $

2888 3042 3445-3039 3386 3516 1 2 -3,

4 AND 5

6 7 1 ...,__

PRICE OF MARCH

FROM APPENDIX

1984 4 5

_{6 AND}

l'

8

A2

A3

(29)

-.1 3

LOADED TIME

BALLAST TIME

HARBOUR TIME

TOTAL TIME

ROUND VOYAGE

DELAY

INCOME LOSS

SPECIFIER MOP

FUEL CONSUMPTION

FUEL SAVING

4f-TOTAL

INCOME

DAYS/VOYAGE

1/YEAR

DAYS/YEAR

SEAR

BHP

T/DAY

T VOYAGE

T/YEAR

$/YEAR

29 -6)4

1- 6

VOYAGE EXAMPLE FROM TABLE 3

7

TIME CHARTER AT 10.8$/TDW/MONTH

8-11

FROM TABLE

1

12

FROM LINE 12 RELATIVE TO BS

13

AT 180 $ ONE TON

14

(LINE

7) +

(LINE 13)

15

FROM TABLE

4

16

AT 10 %

INTEREST

17

AT 15

YEAR

OPERATION LIFE

6,37

1.28'

12,5

10568 1554 279720 261800 9,3 372200 399780 :Mals-ox-amovneensw, 31=2.1r37.11,..0.11171112.2%. 372000 399800 628

1 10/12

63.6

2412 5

SUPPL.

INVESTMENT

1000.5 154 151

6

PAY OUT PERIOD

YEARS

8/12 5/1?.

7

INT.RATE OF

RETURN

170 247

8 NET

PRESENT VALUE

1000$

1837 2678

55,5

55,5 6,4 6,4

12/25/1990

37.2

37.9

1571 1547 10054 9901 2068 2221

TABLE

5 ECONOMY

OF MAN-BM BS,A1,A3,A5

(1ST COND.

r-I TEM .

UNIT

BS Al. A3 AS

(-17920)

13/00/2240

45.6 39.9 1894 1659 33,7 33,9

33,7

55,5 55,7 - -2 12122

(30)

-TABLE

6

50

.ECONOMY OF MANB&W: BS,A1,A3,A5 (2ND COND.)

L//

NEIONT

ITEM

UNIT

BS Al . A3 AS

TOTAL GAIN

IN

CARGO D.W.

T/YEAR

592 1101 410

$/YEAR

7104 (-17920) 13310 4920

FUEL SAVING

INCLUDING

CARGO PREHEAT. ,T/YEAR ' 1438 1919 2071

$/YEAR

258840 345420 372780

EXTRA

CYLINDER OIL

T/YEAR

' 1,7 5,4 4,1

$/YEAR

2720 8610

₆₅₆₀

TOTAL INCOME

$/YEAR. 245300 350100 371100

SUPPL. INVESTMENT

1000- $ 154 151 628

1 11/12

PAY OUT PERIOD

INT.

RATE OF RETUF

1-1

NET. PRESENT VAL

YEARS 8/12 6/12 io 159 232 59 1000 $ 1711 2511

2194

1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 FROM APPENDIX 3.2

TABLE 3.2.1

FROM (TABLE ;LINE 12)

(APP TABLE

180 $/TON FIFO

FROM APP.9

LINE 5

1600 $/TON CYL. OIL

(LINE 2)

+ (LINE 4)

(LINE 6)

FROM TABLE 4 LINE 9

AT 10% INTEREST

FOR 15 YEAR OPERATION LIFE

1.2 LINE

7)

-a

-. -.

(31)

-m11;.'

fr

TABLE 7

ECONOMY OF IMAN-8&& BS ,A1,,A3,A5 1(3RD COND) t")

-_---1 A5 t CARGO SPACE) ITEM

UNIT

.. BS Al _ A3 I

TOTAL GAIN'

1/YEAR

L

- 1 841 4173 3328

IN

CARGO D. lit.

$/YEAR

1 10090 -17920) 50080 40540

FUEL SAVING

INCLUDING

CARGO

.PREHEAT.

1/YEAR

" _'1438 1919-2071

$/YEAR

- ₂₅₈₃₄₀ ₃₄₅₄₂₀ ₃₇₂₇₈₀

EXTRA

CYLINDER On

_

T/YEAR

- ---1.7 " 51.4 4.1

S/YEAR

1 2720 8640 6160

TOTAL INCOME

$/YEAR

- 248300 386900 406800

SUPPL

.

INVESTMENT

1000 $

-154 188 665

0

1

PAY OUT PERIOD.

INT. RATE Of RET6

NET. PRESENT VAL.

YEARS

1

-

8/12

_

.6/1-2 1 .11/12' . %

-

.161 205:

--

il 1 61.1 1000 $

-

1734 2754 2428

1

_{FROM APPENDIX 3.2 TABLE 3.2.2}

3

_{FROM (TABLES LINE' 1),}

_{- (APP.TARE 7.2 LINE 71}

4

180 $/TON IWO

5 FROM APP. 9., '.

LINE 5

" -6

1600 $/TON CYL. OIL

(LINE 2)

+ (LINE 4) -,- (LINE 6.)

B

8

_{FROM TABLE 4 LINE 5 AND}

_{APP. 3.3}

9

AT 10% INTEREST

.

10

FOR 15 YEAR OPERATION LIFE."

(32)

31-32

TABLE

8 ECONOMY. OF _SURER.: _{A2,A4 (1ST COND)}

V

c_1\

ITEM

.

'UNIT

_A2

_A4

1

LOADED TIME

_DAYS/VOYAGE

33,7

2

BALLAST TIME

9,3

HARBOUR TIME

V - 12,5

4

TOTAL TIME

V

55,5

5

_{ROUND VOYAGE}

_1/YEAR

6,4

r

3

_DELAY

_DAYS/YEAR

7

INCOME LOSS

_S/YEAR

-8

-SPECIFIED MCR

BHP 12352 12068

9

FUEL CONSUMPTION

_T/DAY

39.5 33.2 10 11

1/VOYAGE

1634 1587

T/YEAR

10458 , 10157

.12

_{FUEL SAVING}

_1/YEAR

( 301,

13

_S/YEAR

₅₄₁₈₀

54200

14

TOTAL

INCOME

_$/YEAR

15 16

SUPPL

.

INVESTMENT

PAY OUT PERIOD

INT.RALTE OF RETURN

NET PRESENT VALUE

1000 S _ 7

YEARS

_ -t1 3/12

17 q

,

01

18 ₁₀₀₀

$ 471

1 6

_{VOYAGE EXAMPLE FROM TABLE 3}

7

_{TIME CHARTER AT 10.8S/TOW/MONTH}

8-11

FROM TABLE

1

12

FROM

_{LINE 12}

_{RELATIVE TO A2}

13

AT 180

$

ONE TON

14

_{(LINE 7)}

_4-

_{(LINE 13)}

15

_{FROM TABLE 4}

V

16

AT 10

_{% INTEREST}

-17

_{AT 15 YEAR OPERATION LIFE}

' I

. 3

(33)

33

-.

V

TABLE 9 ECONOMY OF SULZER: A2,A4(//(2ND COND.)

--(WEIGHT DIFF.) ' ITEM UNIT _A2 A4

TOTAL GAIN

IN CARGO D.'!.,

3/YEAR

T 117

$/YEAR

-

1764_

FUEL SAVING

INCLUDING

CARGO PRDEAT.

T/YEAR

- ₂₉₂

$/YEAR

- -52560

EXTRA

CYLINDER OIL

T/YEAR

_ 5,3

$/YEAR

- 8180

TOTAL INCOME

.. ...----=,=_-_-$/YEAR, - 42300

SUPPL. INVESTMENT

1000 $ - -59

PAY OUT PERIOD

INT. RATE OF RETU

NET. PRESENT VAL

YEARS

--1 7/12

10 ofno

--71.8

11 _{1000 $} - 381

1

FROM APPENDIX 3.2 TABLE

3.2.1

3 .

FROM (TABLE 8 LINE 12)

-

(APP.TABLE 7.2 LINE

7)4

180 $/TON HFO

5 FROM APP. 71

LINE 5

.

6 .

1600 $/TON CYL. OIL

-7

(LINE 2) + (LINE 4)

- (LINE 6)

- 8

FROM TABLE 4 LINE

.

9

AT 10% INTEREST

.

10

FOR 15 YEAR OPERATION LIFE

,

,77 ..r .. L 8 9 4 '

(34)

34

--

TABLE 10

ECONOMY OF SULZER: A2,A4 (3RD COND)

'

-1T7RGO-SPACE)

ITEM

UNIT A2 A4

TOTAL GAIN

IN

CARGO D.W.

J/YEAR

- 132

$/YEAR

1584

FUEL SAVING

INCLUDING

CARGO

Pmamta..

T/YEAR

- 292

$/YEAR

- ₅₂₅₆₀

EXTRA

CYLINDER OIL

T/YEAR

_ -53

$/YEAR

---i

8480

--TOTAL INCOME

S. SPEAR.

-r

-45700 -41 ..

SUPPL. INVESTMENT

1000 $

PAY OUT PERIOD

INT. RATE OF RETUI

NET. PRESENT MI

, - -110

11 1000 $

_{_}

-SSS

1

FROM APPENDIX 3.2

TABLE 3.2.2

3

FROM (TABLES LINE 12)

- (APP.TABLE 7.2 LINE

7)

4

180 $/TON HFO

5

FROM APP.

q

LINE 5

6

1600 5/TON CYL. OIL

7

(LINE 2)

-I-

(LINE 4) --(LINE 6)

8. FROM TABLE

_{4 LINE 9 AND APP.3.3}

9 AT .10

INTEREST

. .

10

FOR 15 YEAR OPERATION LIFE

1

6

7

8

(35)

1- 6

_{VOYAGE EXAMPLE FROM TABLE 3}

7

TIME CHARTER

AT 10.8$/TDW/HONTH

8-11

FROM TABLE

1

12

FROM LINE 12 RELATIVE TO Al

13 AT 180 $ ONE TON

14 (LINE 7:)

4-

(LINE 13)

15 FROM TABLE 4

16

AT 10 % INTEREST

17 AT 15 YEAR OPERATION LIFE

) FROM APPENDIX 2 TABLE

2.2

(2)

PROPELLER 2tx2x1875 = -25000 $

ELEVATION

(310

mm) =

1000 $

INV.DIFF.FRON 5-BLA. = -24030 $

TABLE 11

ECONOMY OF MAN-r5!:

r---- .

Al ,A3,A5

(1ST COND) .. ITEM

UNIT

Al A3 AS 5-BLADED AS (1) 4 BLADED

LOADED TIME

DAYS/VOYAGE.. 33.9 33.1 33..7

BALLAST TIME

9,3

HARBOUR TIME

12,5

TOTAL

TIME

55,5

ROUND VOYAGE

1/YEAR

6,37 6,4

DELAY

DAYS/YEAR

1.28

-_

INCOME LOSS

$/YEAR

-17920

-.

.

-SPECIFIED MCR

BHP

12240

12/26/1990

11723

FUEL CONSUMPTION

_ 1 _

T/DAY

, 39.9 37.9 37.2 36.3 T/ VOYAGE 1659 1571 1547 1514

T/YEAR

10560 10054 9901 9690

FUEL SAVING

-T/YEAR

514 667

878 $/YEAR

-.s..,...K.ii TtiCsnce....1.1.

-92520

07.1...64,1,...7..,1,11.1.X., 110400 120060

150042

.---77-0 I INACIMONCLicaLsTal .---.1s--7--azr

TOTAL INCOME

$/YEAR

138000

176000

SUPPL.

INVESTMENT

.

PAY OUT PERIOD

_

INT.RATE OF

RETURN

]NET

PRESENT VALUE

1000:S - -3 474

YEARS

- 0 4-5712; q , INA.PPLIC. Z8'.4.- 33.8 $

-

843 575 88?) 35 -+

-.

(36)

1 3 4 5 6

--rrtrrrr=c-v

;p.

-

36 - n 0.

TABLE 12 ECONOMY OF MAN-B&W: A1,A3,A5 .( 2NO, GOND)

mk_

i;

.

FROM APPENDIX 3.2

TABLE 3.2.1

FROM (TABLE 11LINE 12)

- (APP.TABLE

_LINT

7)

180 $/TON HFO

FROM APP. 9

:

LINE 5

1600

$/TON

CYt.

OIL

(LINE 2) + (LINE 4) - (LINE 6"

FROM TABLE

4 LINE

0"

Hr:

9

_{AT 10% INTEREST}

la

FOR 15 YEAR OPERATION LIFE

0)

FROM' APPENDIX 2 TABLE 2..2

<2] PROPELCER 2tx2x18752 _{-25000 $}

_t

ELEVATION (310mm) = + 1000- $ INV.DIFF.FROM5-BL,I

= -24000$

'0:

UNIT

Al

:

1 If: A3 AS ,

54L

A5 4-BL(1)*] ....

TOTAL GAIN

IN CARGO DA'.

T/YEAR

" 509 _-182 I -67' $/YEAR' , - ₆₁₀₈ _-2164 --804. ---

FUEL SAVING

INCLUDING

CARGO IF5Da.

.J/YEAR

' --I 1 481 ' , 633 844

$/YEAR

I i ' 865800 113940 151920

-

'EXTRA

CYLINDER OIL

T/YEAR

1 -

_.3,7.

2,4 2,4 H

$/YEAR

--' ₅₉₂₀ - 3840 ' 3840

TOTAL INCOME

$/YEAR

-"777

(

-3 104700

'125800165200

474 IL 11 i 450 (2)1

SUPPC. INVESTMENT

_1000;$

DINT.

PAY

OUT PERIOD

YEARS

_ 01 4_11/12 ₁ _{3 4/12}

INT. RATE Of REM.

of

.0 _ _.-INAPPLIt. . 799 -__ :25:7 ' 483 : 36,3

j

NET. PRESENT VAL

1000.$ -

INOU

3 DI ITEM

-7 8 7.2

(37)

.

37

-1

FROM APPENDIX 3.2 TABLE 3.2.1

3

FROM (TABLE IILINE 12)

-

(APP.TABLE 7.2 LINE 7)

4

180 $/TON

HFO

FROM APP.

9

LINE 5

6

1600 5/TON CYL. OIL

7

(LINE 2)

(LINE

4)

(LINE 6)

8

FROM TABLE

_{4 LINE 9 AND APP. 3.3}

9

AT 10% INTEREST

10

FOR 15 YEAR OPERATION

LIFE

RELATIVE TO Al APPENDIX

2 TABLE 2..2

46,

(2)

PROPELLER 2tx2x1.8752

- 25000 $

3 INV.DIFF.FROM 5-BLAD.I

24000 $

:.

TABLE 13

ECONOMY OF MAN-8&W: A1,A3,A5/A5

. -(3RD COND) . A5 4-BLADED (CARGO SPACE) ITEM

UNIT

Al

A5 5-BLADED A3

TOTAL GAIN

IN

CARGO D.W.

T/YEAR

3332 2487 2487

$/YEAR

(-17920) 39980 29840 29840

FUEL SAVING

-INCLUDING

CARGO PREHEAT.

T/YEAR

_ 481 633 844

$/YEAR

-

86580 113940 151920 'EXTRA

CYLINDER OIL

T/YEAR

_ ,

3,7

2,4

$/YEAR

-

5920 3840 3840

TOTAL INCOME

.5/YEAR

- 138600 157900 195800

SUPPL-. INVESTMENT

1000:5 - 34- 511

_{4 7}

)

.-

...1

- 3

PAY OUT

PERIOD

_.

INT. RATE OF RETU1

-NET. PRESENT VAL

YEARS

-

7/12

.

,

4- 1/12 - a " . 400

30.3

.40

1000.$

-iT .

'

---'

690 1002 ELEVATION (310 mm) = _{1000 $}

-I . (1) + +

(38)

.re CA; '1! . 'TABLE 14 :ECONOMY , ' .. .

'

OF B&W- SULZERT BS,A2,A4 ( 1ST ICOND 4)

. ITEM. _IT -i BS , A2 1 A4 , 1 '

LOADED TIME

DAYS/VOYAGE

_

-.

; _33,7 2

_{BALLAST TIME}

_ - 9,3

3

_{HARBOUR TIM}

II.

, 12,5 4

_{TOTAL TIME}

. 55,5, 5

_{ROUND VOYAGE}

1/YEAR'

6,4 6

_DELAY

, ''

DAYS/YEAR

j f 1 7 ,

INCOME LOSS

_$/YEAR

.

-

_.

8

_{SPECIFIED NCR}

_BHP

13/00/2352

, 12068 9 -.10

FUEL CONSUMPTION

-h

-.

T/DAY(MCR

45.6 39.5 38.2

TiVOYAGE

_1-a

, , _1522_,...,2 10157 M. T./YEAR, _.12122 ₁₀₄₅₈

A2

FUEL, SAVING, ,

T/YEAR

I

_ 1.564 4965 13 H

$/YEAR

- ' 299520 353700 14

---crneaca=c-TOTAL INCOME

_$/YEAR.

seseasse

, 299500 353700

15

_{SUPPL. INVESTMENT}

1

1002$

,

-557 ,

4'S-16

_{PAY OUT PERIOD,}

,

YEARS

-, 2 2/12 U7/12!

17 INT_IRATE OF RETURN

. 53.1 71

18 NET PRESENT VALUE

₁

- ₁₀₀₀₁ _$

-I 1721 219-3.

- 1- 6'

_{VOYAGE EXAMPLE FROM TABLE}

34,

I

.,-TIME CHARTER AT

_{10.8$/TDW/MONTHL}

,

8-11

FROM TABLE 1

12

_{FROM LINE 12 RELATIVE TO J1.5}

13

_{AT 180.$ ONE TON}

14

_(LINE

) + (LINE 13); ;., , . 15

FROM TABLE 4'

-. - -16

_{AT 10 1 INTEREST}

"

17

_{AT 16 YEAR OPERATION}

_LIFE

_

, 1 1 38

-7

(39)

39

-TABLE. 1.5

_{ECONOMY OF BO-SULZER: BS,A2,A4}

_{(2ND CONN}

V.

_{(WEIGHT DIFF.)}

ITEM _UNIT. _BS _AZ _A4

TOTAL GAIN

_T/YEAR

- ₁₆₉₆ ₉₀₁

IN CARGO D.W. ).

_$/YEAR

_- ₂₀₃₅₂ ₁₀₈₁₂

FUEL SAVING

INCLUDING

CARGO FREHW.

T/YEAR

- ₁₅₅₆ ₁₈₄₈

$/YEAR

- ₇₈₀₀₃₀ ₃₃₂₆₄₀ .5

_EXTRA

CYLINDER OIL

T/YEAR

- -2 +3.3

$/YEAR

-+3200 - -5280

j

1 TOTAL INCOME

_$/YEAR

-.

303600 ₃₃₈₂₀₀

[SUPPL.

INVESTMENT

1000 $ - 557 480

9

_{PAY OUT PERIOD}

INT. RATE OF

FL ETU,'

YEARS

2 2/12 1 7/12

30

% _ 54-.4 _70,3

11

_{NET. PRESENT VAL}

_{1000 $}

1752 ₂₀₉₇

1

_{FROM APPENDIX 3.2 TABLE 3.2.1}

3

_{FROM (TABLElq LINE}

12) -

(APP.TABLE 7.2 LINE

4

_{180 $/TON HFO}

5

_{FROM APP. 9- LINE 5}

6

_{1600 $/TON CYL.}

_OIL

'

7

_{(LINE 2) + (LINE 4)}

+ (LINE 6)

8

_{FROM TABLE 4}

_LINE

. .

9

_{AT 10% INTEREST}

.

10

_{FOR 15 YEAR OPERATION}

LIFE . 7) . r

1

2 3 6 8

(40)

40

-TABLE

ta

ECONOMY OF B&W-SULZER : BS,

I

A2, A4 (3RD COND.)

JCARGO SPACE)

:V

ITEM

UNIT

BS A2 A4

TOTAL GAIN

T/YEAR

_ 4173 5018

IN

CARGO OAT,.'..

$/YEAR

_ 50076 60216

FUEL SAVING

INCLUDING

CARGO =EAT.

T/YEAR

- 1556 1848

$/YEAR

280080 332640 -.

EXTRA

CYLINDER OIL

T/YEAR

-2 +3.3 ==E,,.

$/YEAR

_ +3200 -5220 --",

TOTAL INCOME

=as. ---

--7:.=

$/YEAR

,=71::-..-=1, -

---

, 1 333400 387600

---SUPPL. INVESTMENT

1000:$ - ₅₉₄ 535

1--PAY OUT PERIOD

YEARS

_{_} _{2 1/12} _{1 7/12}

10 INT. RATE OF RETUL.

0/

,

- 56 72,4

11

NET. PRESENT VAL

_{1000- $}

- 1941 2412

. 1

FROM APPENDIX 3.2

TABLE 3.2.2

.

3

FROM (TABLE14 LINE 12)

-

(APP.TABLE 7.2 LINE 7)

4

180 $/TON HFO

5 FROM APP. 9. -

LINE 5

6

1600 $/TON CYL. OIL

.

7

(LINE 2)

4

(LINE 4)

+ (LINE 6)

8

FROM TABLE 9

LINE 9 AND APP. 3.3

9

AT 10% INTEREST

10

FOR 15 YEAR OPERATION LIFE

.

(41)

zobo

1000

151

-.154

-400

628 -80

-1 200

r tvr 04

DIAG. _{1 NW OF ALTERNAT I 1. IS} _{All., A3}_,_AS

RELATIVE TO BS' 2ND COND.

_{(TABLE. 61}

V

NPV

41 -3000

2000

1000

(42)

NW

-400

ISO

t74

800

600

400

200

AS -4-I31kDED 5-BLADE) 0 3 10

-200

DLAG. 2 NW OF ALTERNATIVFS:

A3,A5 4-BLD.,A5 S-BLD.

RELATIVE TO 1ST COND.

(TABLE 11)

843

575

800

600

400

200

15 YEARS o o o 806

799

800

600

483

400

AS 4-BLADED

200

-BLADED 10 15 YEARS

-200

DIAG.3

NW

OF ALTERNATIVES:

A3,A5 4-BU). ,A5 5-BLD.

RELATIVE TO

Al

-400

_{2ND COND.}

_{(TABLE 12)}

50

74

(43)

-200

-400

t so

43

-DIAG 4 5 10 NPV OF ALTERNATIVES A2 ,A4 RELATIVE TO BS 2ND CON). (TABLE 15)

2092

1752 0 0 0 1500 1000

500

YEARS

1000

;57

NPV

2000

1500

500

A4 A2 15

(44)

44

-References

Sulzer ETA Superlongstroke:

Two low speed engines to cut fuel costs without cutting reliability MAN-B&W: mini specification for L-MC/MCE

MAN-B&W: mini specification for LGB/GBE B&W Diesel: Diesel Engine Data L G7 GFCA

Installation aspects of the New Sulzer ETA Superlongstroke by P. Schneider. Dec. 1981

Installation aspects of 2-stroke and 4-stroke engines (Sulzer) by P. Schneider. Sept. 1982

Design aspects of the New Sulzer RTA Superlongstroke by M.J. Briner, Dr. G.A. Lustgarten. Dec. 1981

Security in operation: MAN-B&W

Market aspects influencing the L-MC engine series: MAN-B&W

Technical development in the free international market economy:

MAN-B&W

"The Motor Ship" special survey. Dec. 1982

Fuel Economy propulsion efficiency and diesel engine installation by Prof.Dr.ing. C. Gallin

The Length of the engine rooM.:\ a challenge to ship design by:

Prof.Dr-Ing. C. Gallin, Dr.Ing. H.M. Hiersing and M.C. van der Hoe'

Advanced Energy Saving Concepts

by Prof.Dr.Ing. C. Gallin, Delft University of Technology. Jan. 1982 Alternative for Economical Diesel Ship Propulsion by

Prof.Dr.Ing. C. Collin, Ober-Ing. K.H. Siefert and 0. Heiderich 4kri

A second look at measures of merit in ship design by eszy, Benford.

July 1982

Economic criteria for Ship Design optimization by Ir. Th. Oostinjen Kostprijsbcrekening van schepen in het kader van bet ontwerp

College dictaat K28 THD by Ing. J. Rent. Maart 1982

Ontwerpen van schepen : College dictaat K8 and K9 by Dipl.Ing. F.

Hartel and Ir. H.J. Westers. 1972

Rederijkunde Maritiem Operationele'Richting

College dictaat K50 by Prof.ir. N. Dijkshoorn. 1982 2. .3. 7". 11-1%. 20.

(45)

Ii

(4.

APPENDIX

:P NO:

(46)

INDEX

Appendix I The engineer written Work

1 _{Necessary power for ballast condition}

Consequences of Alternative AS with 4- and 5-bladed propeller

Extra cargo space due

- shorter engine room and shorter fuel bunker deeptank at the forecastle

Vibration balancing resonance frequencies and economical data for the balancing

5

_{Shaft and propeller Weight and cost}

6 Investment for the pumps and cooler

7.1 Investment for the start system 7.2 Exhaust boiler; FIFO consumption

8, _{Steel modification}

9 Cylinder oil consumption

10 Daily operating expencies of the basis ship,

2

3

(47)

APPENDIX

OfderWefP: Opgave ingenieurswerk

Geachte leer Petroulakis,

In het Sc jaars kursuswerk heeft u de gescriktheid van de langzaamdraaiende,

langeslag tweetakt dieselmotoren veer de voortstuwingsinsEallatie van een

.tdncproul

aneronderzocht. Daarbij heeft u, naast

de in

het

basisschip "Maassluis geinstalleerde B&W motor, type 61, 67 GFCA, nogyijf.

alternatieven-bestudeerd. Hierbij

word

uitgegaan van de aanname

dat doze

;1TMi1

toegepast zouden worden in nieuw te bouwen schepen van

jJ

oelijke grootte als het basisschip.

Daarbij, waren drie alternatieven met B&W motoren en twee met Sulzer motoren

voorzien. U heeft verschillende aspekten, zzals proPrnerdiameter

en

propeller-efficiency, kavitatie, de noodzakelijke modifikatie van het achterschiPr de

instarlAie maatregelen, trim, .stabiliteit entrimgen_uitvoerig

onder-zocht. Het blijkt dat sommige alternatieven in meerdere of

mindere matt.

-verbetering to zien geven voor den

of meerdere

van doze aspekten.

Voor de reder echter, is naast doze technische aspekten, het ekonomisch

aspekt

het belangrijkst. De ekonomische analyse zal derhalve

de hoofdtaak van uw

increnieurswerk zijn. U wordt verzocht, m.b.v. Rederij

Ned1loyd7-67En

of twee

routes

uit te kiezen, de hetreffende beladingstoestand

_{to berekenen en de}

operationele kosten. Daarbij meet worden

nagegaan welke besparing de

verschillende alternatieven kunnen bieden. De besparingen en de daarbij

behorende noodzakelijke investeringen moeten met ekonomische kriteria als.

P.O.P., N.P.V., E.I.R.R., vergeleken warden.

Bij de investeringskosten moot rekening warden gehoUden met elle maatregeleni

die noodzakelijk zijn am een

cm technische redenen minder geschikt

altcrna-tief, toch eon kans to geven_

_{Bijvoorbeeld als trillingsgevaar entstaat,}

met het veranderen van de keuze van.het bedrijfspunt van de motor. Verder is

de bepaling van de prijs

van de motoren afhankelijk van de verkOopoolitiek van

de betreffende fabrikant of van het land in welke de motor onder licentie worth

gebouwd.

.TECHNISCHE HOGESCHOOL DELFT

Atdeung der Maritieme TechrrF.el

Vakgroep Ontwerpen

De, beer I. Petroulakis

Fahrenheitstraat 349

2561 DX

Den Haag

OnskemnerkDeM.MekeNve02

Datum 984 HyAni _{Dooddesnummer(115)78 2746/}

2087/1.7/84

. ₁₅₅₆ Telex .38,51 BITHD-NL ,Alpemeen terelaannurnmer T.H. (015) 78 91 11

CO': espondonlieacires:Postbus 5035. 2800 GA DELFT IC:542:

Uwkenrnerk Ow brief van

(48)

Ir. B.J. 'Wasters c.c. stud.adm. MT vakgroep Ontwerpen de hoogleraar, _

Prof.Dr.Ing. C. Gallin.

TECHNISCHE HOG [SCHOOL DELFT

Goadresr.eercie Ons kenmerk Datum:

De beer I. Petroulakis HWATB 24.05.1984 2

Den Haag

Om een zo wetenschappelijk mogelijke vergelijking op te stellen,

zal deze

hoofdzakelijk

tussen de motoren van dezelfde fabrikant

moeten warden uitgevocrd, d.w.z. B&W met B&W en Sulzer met Surfer vergelijken. Bij den en dezelfde fabrikant kan dan als konklusie near voren Romen of eon grote boring, een bepaald aantal cylinders of een speciale ekonomische uitvoering, de incest ekonomische is. Samenvattend moot het ingenieursWerk hoofdzakelijk de strategie van de keuze van de incest geschikte voortstuwincisinstallatie op ekonomische grondslag duidelijk naar voren brengen. In

tegen-stelling met de skriptie en het Se

jaars

kursuswerk, die zeer

uitvoeria waren, moet het ingenieurswerk bekbopt zijn om het denkproces heider te presenteren en een beS-lissing te motivcren. Om deze redenen mag het ingenieurswerk, inklusief bijiagen,

maximaal 50 blz. bevatten (figuren en diagramn-len net inbegrepen). Bet most beginnen met een beknopte samenvatting van de konklusies van de skriptie en hat 5e jeers kursuswerk.

Bet ingenieurswerk moet met weinig veranderingen geschikt te maken ziln voor con voordracht en/of publikatie.

Bet wet): wordt geacht te zijn begonnen 01.05.1984 en moet uiterlijk 01.08.1984 ingeleverd worden.