4. Deck Container Firefighting Fuel Future Slow Steaming

8/10/2019 4. Deck Container Firefighting Fuel Future Slow Steaming

1/28

ABS Experience in Containerships

March 2011

System, Fuel of the Future &

Slow SteamingPeter Tang-JensenSenior Vice President Technology

1


2/28

Deck Container Fire Case

The M.V. Hyundai Fortune, a 64,054 gt.,

exploded and burned near the Gulf of Aden

on a west bound voyage from Singapore toAmsterdam and other European ports.

The vessel was carrying approximately 3,250loaded intermodal containers, including 7

.

Because of the intensity of the initialexplosion, original speculation that the fireoriginated in the bays where the fireworkswere stored has been discounted in somecircles.

,gas or fuel tank explosion, arson, terrorism,or mine strike. The explosion caused manycontainers to be blown into the sea.

2


3/28

Deck Container Fire: Salvage Companys View

3


4/28

Issues

Uncertainty of the nature of fire (chemical fire, etc.)

As a result, uncertainty of the choice of firefighting

media

Difficulty in reaching the source of fire

Timely detection of fire may be a problem

Fire spread into cargo hold if hatch cover collapse

Ship is not prepared for chemical fires

4


5/28

Strategies

Principle of containment, if not extinguishable by

means of:

Fixed water curtain/deluge arrangements such that fire will not

spread beyond one cargo block (i.e., cargo area betweenadjacent lashing bridges) under fire

Hatch cover cooling by copious amount of water to prevent

collapsePossible additional measures:

Early detection of fire by fixed infrared detectors

Desi nate fore end car o area desi nated for hazardouscargos. Provide remotely operated foam monitors.

The above is not re uired b Rules and Re ulations but mi ht

5

be worthwhile to consider further?


6/28

How Can ABS Assist?

ABS can assist in designing deck container fire

fighting system, especially through:

Fire analysis for determination of effective watercurtain/deluge system

Human factors engineering

6


7/28

7


8/28


9/28

Low Sulfur Fuel Regulations

Regulation CoverageApplication

Date% Comments

MARPOL AnnexVI Global Current 4.5

Global 1 Jan 2012 3.5 .

ECA 1 Jul 2010 1.0Baltic/North Sea/EnglishChannel

US/Canadaug .

ECA 1 Jan 2015 0.1Baltic/North Sea/EnglishChannel/US/Canada

EU ports atEU Directive1999/32/EC

berthand at anchor 1 Jan 2010 0.1

CARB

California

waters 1 Jul 2009 0.5

Marine Diesel Oil (ISO

8217, DMB Grade)

Californiawaters 1 Jul 2009 1.5

Marine Gas Oil (ISO8217, DMA Grade)

CaliforniaMDO (ISO 8217, DMBGrade), MGO (ISO 8217,

9

waters 1 Jan 2012 0.1 DMA Grade)


10/28

NOx Regulations

Ship Constructed Application of

Requirements

Emission

Limits

Compliance at engines

delivery except as below

1 January 1990

(Retroactive to existing

Engine size

> 5000 kW and

1st IAPP Renewal Survey

12 mo after IMO advised

by Party of availability

of upgrade kit

1 January 2000

(Existing) > 130 kW ----

1 January 2011Tier II

1 January 2016

Ships 24m L or totalpropulsion power

Operation outside of ECA

RPM

Total Weight of NO2 Emission (g/kWh) Relative

NO2 Reduction< 130 130 n < 2000 2000rom er

Tier I 17.0 45.0*n(-0.2) 9.8 Current

* (-0.23) -

10

Tier III 3.40 9*n(-0.2)

1.96 80%


11/28

GHG Reduction: IMO Approaches

Three Approaches by IMO

Ship Design

Interim Guidelines for Energy Efficiency Design Index. .

Operational

Indicator (EEOI) MEPC.1 Circ. 684 Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP)

MEPC.1 Circ. 683

Market-Based Measures

Global emission trading scheme

11


12/28


13/28

Gas Fueled Engine: GHG Performance

Gross Calorific ValuesHFO 41.2 MJ/KgLNG 55.5 MJ/Kg

Gross Calorific ValuesHFO 41.2 MJ/KgLNG 55.5 MJ/K

CO2-Kg/Fuel-Kg Conversion Factor

and

Density

and

HFO 3.11LNG 2.75

LNG 464 Kg/m3

For the same energy input, LNG produce35% less CO

2than HFO does.

For the same energy input, LNG need1.6 times more space to store

Tankers: no penalty by on-deck storage

Possibly more opportunity for optimizingEEDI

Potential to Improve EEOI

May satisfy international and regional SOx

Containerships: less cargo carrying capacity

Type-B LNG tankWill be most spaceEfficient

No filling restriction

13


14/28

Comparison

Option-1: DFD electrical propulsion

Lower fuel cost

Significant reduction of EEDI and EEOI Larger efficiency loss by generator, motor, transformer and AC Drive (8-9%) More components involved means more things can go wrong Complex maintenance and shorter service intervals LNG handling expertise needed

- -

Lower fuel cost Significant reduction of EEDI and EEOI New technical challenges, but manageable an ng exper se nee e

Option-3: Conventional slow speed diesel direct drive with SOx scrubber

Well proven service Scrubber is simple and can be very reliable No risk-taking

14

-

High fuel cost


15/28

Gas Fueled Power Plants

ABS Conducted:

2007 HAZID with SHI/MAN B&W (reciprocating gas compressor)

2008 HAZID with DSME (HP liquid pump + vaporizer)

2010 HAZID with DSME (HP liquid pump + vaporizer)

BOG disposal option evaluation

Reliability/availability study

15


16/28

HFO: LNG Operational Costs Comparison

Transportation Cost Fuel ex enses LNG, ilot

Future market price??

Current market price

HFO, MDO) Manning

Consumables Re air and maintenance

ionc

ost Capital expenses annual

financing

HFOHFO

ranspor

tat

Equilibrium point

T

One recent case study on 14,000 TEU containership transportation cost saving of $9 mil/yr, excluding the loss of

16

container space for LNG fuel storage which will lessen the benefit.


17/28

ME-GI Engine Propulsion: Slow Steaming

MARPOL Annex VI Regulation-4 allows natural gas fuel (with oil,

is comparably low

in ECA

Below 20% load, gas fuel cannot be used. A portion voyage in

ECA may necessitate the use of LSFO. This apparentshortcoming need to be gauged against the benefits LNG fuelwill brin about low EEDIlow EEOI, total fuelcost-saving, carbon credit).

Latest research indicate 20% limitmay be substantially lower.

17

20% load


18/28

Rules & Regulations

IMO Interim Guidelines on Safety For Natural Gas-FueledEngine Installations in Ships (IMO Res. MSC.285(86)

,

IMO International Code for Safety For Gas-Fueled Ships)

ABS Guide for Propulsion Systems for Gas Carriers(including GCU and Reliquefaction plant)

ABS Guidance Notes on Review andApproval of Novel Concepts

ona requ remen s may e mposeby Flag Administration (e.g. USCG)

ABS draft guide on gas fuelled ships(non-gas carriers)

18


19/28

How Can ABS Assist if Gas FuelledPropulsion is Selected?

ABS has experience and can lead risk based design,

ABS will facilitate acceptance by the flag

ABS Corporate Technology office has high level ofana y ca capa es n con a nmen sys em

19


20/28

20


21/28

Current Trends

Containership operating speed

23-25 knots average speed, widely used be ore the last globalfinancial crisis

High fuel cost and oversupply of containership, slow steaming(20-22 knots) becomes favor, particularly on the long-haul Europe/

Asia routes

Extra slow steaming 17-19 knots

Super slow steaming 14 -16 knots

21Source: Maersk Line


22/28

Technical Aspects: Engine

Engine damage caused by

concerned before, but

According to report GoingSeas at Risk, 2010, currentexperiences show for 2-stroke engines the limit could

Low load optimization

be set to about 40% without

the needs of retrofit measures

Wartsila and MAN Diesel offer

load optimization or slowsteaming upgrade kits

installation for low loadengine operations, claim that10% load is OK without undueproblems

22Source: Wartsila and MAN Diesel


23/28


24/28

Technical Aspects: Hull Optimization

Optimization hulls and wave resistances Original hull

Optimize Fr = 0.45

From Fr = 0.45 to Fr = 0.28,

Optimize Fr = 0.28 &

0.45

37% speed drops

Optimize Fr = 0.28 Hull

modification

Source: GCMS 2010, Kim & Yang 24


25/28

Technical Aspects: Propeller

Natural questions for propeller design

Under slow steaming operation, how does the propellerperform worse or better?

,operation?

Hull/propeller performance enhancement technologies.

Use a 8,700 teu CV propeller as an example Design speed 25.0 knots

Consider f.ex. the following slow steaming operations

Slow steaming 20 knots

Super slow steaming 14 knots

25


26/28


27/28

Closing Remarks: Slow Steaming

Slow steaming operation is the simplest measure insaving fuel cost and reducing GHG emission,su s an a y

For a new ship design, to pursue further on fuel,considered:- If the flexibility of high speed for future market change is

a concern:

1. High power engine with low load optimization or slowsteaming upgrade kit installation (high EEDI)

2. Derated engine + full power shafting (low EEDI now)

3. Lower engine power + WHR + shaft motor (low EEDI)

Hull form o timization for a ran e of s eeds instead oftraditional single speed/draft hull optimization

Study the propeller performance margin left for slow

27


28/28

www.eagle.org

28

4. Deck Container Firefighting Fuel Future Slow Steaming

Documents