P. 1
F - Design Considerations for Coal Burning Ships Up to Panamax Size - British Shipbuilders - 1980.

F - Design Considerations for Coal Burning Ships Up to Panamax Size - British Shipbuilders - 1980.

|Views: 15|Likes:
Published by CoalFiredShipTech
In the first part of the paper, the total economics of operation of a range of coal burning ships is examined and compared with similar diesel powered vessels.
In the first part of the paper, the total economics of operation of a range of coal burning ships is examined and compared with similar diesel powered vessels.

More info:

Published by: CoalFiredShipTech on Jul 19, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/13/2014

pdf

text

original

DESIGN .

CQNSIDERATIONS· FOR COAL BURNING SHIPS UP TO
PANAMAX SIZE

Marshall Meek
British Shipbuilders, U. K.

Summary IN THE first part of the paper, the total economics of operation of a range of coal burning ships is examined and compared with similar diesel powered vessels. It is concluded that on present day costings, there is a small but definite economic advantage to coal firing. For the smaller sizes of ships such advantages do not occur with longer steaming ranges. When life cycle costings are considered, with the future price of coal and oil diverging and coal price rising more slowly than oil price, the coal fired ship is seen to enjoy a much more substantial economic advantage. The second part of the paper presents two case studies. Firstly a design for a coal fired 75,900 tonne dwt Panamax bulk carrier and secondly a 10,500 dwt general cargo ship. Part A. 1. Economic considerations Introduction

The case for the larger long haul, coal carrying, coal fired ship on dedicated routes has been made adequately by various authorities in recent studies and published papers. The case for smaller ships engaged on more general trading is more open. In bulk trading, the diesel driven Panamax sized ship has long been popular and the vast majority of diesel driven bulk carriers in use today are panamax or smaller. From its existing portfolio of diesel carrier designs, British Shipbuilders has looked at the economics of adapting some of these for the special requirements of coal firing. In the following analysis, coal fired bulk carriers of 75,900 (Panamax), 60,000, 31,000 and 16,000 tonnes dwt have been examined for a variety of speeds, routes and minor variations in design and then compared with the most up to date diesel powered vessels.

2.

Method of economic assessment and comparison

Because of the large number of variables sUch as ship size, r.ange, speed etc. it was decided to use a comprehensive preliminary ship design program to first optimise both diesel and coal burning ships to the particular route under consideration. The data from the 'best' ships of each type was then used as input for an economic assessment program based on (a) present day or (b) life cycle costs when using Required Freight Rate (RFR) as the arbiter of economic worth. 2.1 Basic assumptions

The full input list for the four ship sizes used is given in Appendix I. The general philosophy of the comparison between the diesel and coal burners, has been to take conservatively designed coal burners and compare them with 'state of the art' diesel powered ships. In the case of the latter this meant using the was known and assuming a power plant based upon charged diesel, derated to achieve minimum specific efficiency. Full use of waste heat recovery methods 2.2 Main variables These are: deadweight range speed fuel cost 16,600 tonnes to 75,900 tonnes 4,000 to 20,000 n. miles 11 to 18 knots Fuel oil U.S. S180/tonne Coal U.S. S 45/tonne (See notes for escalation rates) latest hull forms for which operational data the latest long stroke constant pressure fuel consumption with high propulsive has been assumed.

All other variables such as ship dimensions, ship cost and so on evolve from the above .. Basic transport theory dictates that to maximise profits in any ship operation, speed should be adjusted so that fuel cost is half total cost. Thus, a high cost fuel such as oil would suggest a lower operating speed and the converse would be true for a lower cost fuel, e.g. coal .. However, if significant variations in speed are required to be examined, then access to basic ship design programs became essential. Clearly we cannot use the same hull form between say 11 and 18 knots if optimum efficiency is to be approached. Higher speeds mean a finer ship and hence smaller CB. This implies longer length of ship for given deadweight which in turn raises the cost which reflects back as increased capital charge on the total operating economics. All these points, therefore, 3. have been taken into account when running the assessment.

r--

Main results of economic assessment

a) The main conclusions are that for each ship type studied, when compared on present day operation there is a small percentage advantage for each coal fired ship over the respective diesel ship. For the smaller ships this advantage changes to deficit for the longer ranges. b) If whole life cycle costings are considered, however, the picture alters dramatically. It has been assumed that the price of coal in future years follows the general level of inflation and that fuel oil will escalate between 2%% per annum and 5% per annum above the general inflation rate. It is seen qu ite clearly that the coal fired ship enjoys considerable advantage in monetary terms over a similar diesel powered vessel.

3.1

For the sake of brevity only the main results are shown:

Graph No. 1 Deadweight vs Range This indicates that for short range coal fired ships (4,000 n.m.) there seems little point in going above 60,000 dwt and even for the longer range (.12,000 n.m.) the reduction in RFR over an 80,000 dwt is quite small. . Graph No.2, 3, 4, 5 arid 6 Changes in Required Freight Rate vs Speed Present Day Costings

Graph No. 2 3 4 5 6

Owt
(tonnes)

Range n.m. 4,000 4,000 8,000 4,000 12,000

Block Coefficient (CB) 0.75 0.826 0.79,0.83 0.79,0.83 0.79,0.83

16,600 31,000 60,000 75,900 75,900

These graphs, taken as a representative sample from the full analysis shown the small but finite reductions in R F R attainable by the coal fired ship over the diesel ship for various ranges and deadweights. The changes in RFR are in the order of 1% to 4% which may seem rather small. The significance, however, shows up when the amount of cargo and the freight rate is considered. A 75,900 dwt bulk carrier with a range of 12,000 miles shows an improvement of about 3%% in RF R for coal fired over diesel. This ship will move about 500,000 tonnes of cargo per year at a basic R F R of £8.07/tonne so a 3%% improvement, would mean extra profit to the owner of about £140,000 (U.S. S3oo,000) per annum for the coal fired version. Graph Nos. 7 and 8 Changes in Required Freight Rate vs Speed, Life Cycle Costings with Fuel Cost Escalations

Graph No. 7 8

Dwt
(tonnes)

Range n.m. 12,000 4,000

Block Coefficient 0.79,0.83 0.75

75,900 16,600

These show the remarkable reduction in RFR attainable by a coal fired ship when fuel oil is escalated at 2%% per annum above the level of inflation, whilst coal is reckoned to keep pace with general cost inflation. The larger ship (75,900 tonnes dwt), as might be expected for the best range of 12,000 miles effects the largest improvement of the order of 19% for coal over diesel. Two different block coefficients are shown, the smaller CB of 0.79 being used as the ship was made faster. Finer ships at higher speeds were tried but the overall advantage of these became less than those shown in graph no. 7. .

For the smaller ship considered (16,600 tonnes dwt), again the improvement is remarkable for its optimum range which is 4,000 miles. For the present day cost the improvement was only of the order of 0.3% (graph no. 2) but on life cycle costing the improvement in RFR for coal firing increases to just over 15%. It can also be seen that the most economic steaming speed increased from 13% knots in the diesel to about 16 knots in the steam version of the 16,600 dwt ship. This has implications for any operator planning say a fleet of colliers to move a specified amount of cargo per annum from port A to port B: With faster coal burning ships fewer units may be needed with obvious effects on the total economics of the operation. In other words, the benefit of lower fuel cost brings back the potential from increased speed. Part B Ship descriptions Case 1 Two particular ships are described in some detail to show design concepts. These are, in Case 1 the 75,900 dwt bulk carrier used in section A and Case 2 a more specialised and smaller general cargo vessel of 10,500 dwt which has not, however, been included in the economic calculations of Part A. 76,000 dwt standard Panamax bulk carrier This design has been developed by Sunderland Shipbuilders Ltd. as a coal fired version. of their successful series built diesel powered Panamax bulk carriers. Of the diesel version, 2 are building at present and 13 of the first generation types are in service. All the economies of series building and the advantages of using a well proven hull form have been retained in the steam version. 4.1 Main particulars Deadweight Service speed with turbines delivering 12,000 shaft horse power Length O.A. Length B.P. Breadth mid. Depth mid. Summer Load Draught 4.2 Approximate capacities Cargo holds including hatchways Coal bunkers Diesel oil Fresh and distilled water Water ballast, including no. 4 hold Range at service speed of 13% knots about about about about 81,000 cubic metres 6,200 tonnes 200 tonnes 300tonnes 34,500 tonnes 13,000 miles about about about 76,000 tonnes 13% knots 230.00 m 219.50 m 32.23 m 20.15 m 14.80 m

Estimated coal consumption at normal load based on Australian coal with an las fired' gross calorific value of 21,830 kJ/kg and 14.8% ash = 150 tonnes per 24 hours subject to a tolerance of +5%. . Cargo deadweight about 71,000 tonnes with cargo at 1.255 cubic metres per tonne (45 cubic feet per ton) and full bunkers on draught of about 14.16 metres. The general arrangement 4.3 Machinery arrangements is shown in Fig. 1.

The general design philosophy of the engineering system has been to maintain simplicity and use proven technology at acceptable first cost and running cost. The ship is intended, in normal operation, to operate on coal at all times including manoeuvring and in port. No fuel oil is carried, the 300 tonnes of diesel oil being used for initial boiler start up, emergency boiler steaming and stand by diesel alternator operation. The machinery outline is shown in figs. 2, 3 and 4. Main turbine This is a single cylinder machine of G.E.C. design with a parallel shaft triple reduction gearbox to give a propeller speed of 98 R.P.M. The propeller is solid, reversing being effected by an astern turbine, a provision being made to dump excess steam flow to the main condenser if required when manoeuvring. Steam conditions Pressure Temp. Feed Temp. are: 63 bar 5150C 1380C (Superheater (Superheater outlet) outlet)

The modest feed system utilises low pressure bled steam to the feed heater and in addition a steam deaerator and steam air heater have been adopted. Boilers Two boilers are fitted, each to supply half the total steam demand. The boilers are of marine radiant type, stoker fired with moderate steam conditions. The boilers have been designed initially for operation on Australian Queensland coal. Operation of the installation on other grades may require boiler modifications but it is felt that these can easily be accommodated in the space available. The main data, for each boiler are: Coal fired Maximum evaporation Maximum superheated steam: Normal evaporation Normal super heated steam Superheated Superheated steam outlet pressure steam outlet temperature kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr bar g. °C 25,500 21,250 21,250 63 515 Oil fired 25,500 21,250 63 515

Coal fired Feed water inlet temperature Ambient air temperature Design pressure Excess air Funnel temperature Unburned losses Radiation and unaccounted Efficiency (on GCV) Fuel consumption, Fuel consumption,
@

Oil fired

°C °C bar g. % oC % losses % % kg/hr kg/hr oC

138 38 73 30 163 4.2 1.5 83.7 3,948 3,224 121

138

20

normal

maximum normal

1,875 1,559

Steam airheater air outlet temperature Firing equipment Effective area of grate Number of coal feeders Turn down range (coal firing) Accumulated ash/24 hrs. maximum

10.22 3 4/1 tonnes 13 2

Number of oil burners Main auxiliaries Electrical power at 440 v, 60Hz is provided by two turbo alternator and a diesel alternator of 900 kw.

sets of 850kw each

Emergency power is provided in the event of one boiler and/or main turbine failure by clutching in an auxiliary turbine mounted aft of the primary pinion. This auxiliary turbine is a simple and robust machine rated at 3000 hp with correspondingly reduced speed to match the propeller law of the fixed pitch propeller. It is estimated that 6% to 7 knots will be attainable in the emergency mode. 4.4 Bunkering and coal transfer

The main coal bunker is situated just for'd of amidships in order to reduce trim and stress problems with the large amount of coal bunkers (6,200 tonnes) to be carried. The coal bunker could have been sited nearer to the boilers but the large quantity of ballast water necessary to maintain trim between the bunker full and bunker empty states was deemed to. be unacceptable. Many coal handling systems, both mechanical and pneumatic, were studied having regard to the likely coal size, presence of foreign material, capital cost, running cost and power requirement, ease of installation and maintenance and prior experience. It was decided that a totally enclosed mechanical conveying system was the most appropriate for use in this context. The coal bunker is completely divided by a longitudinal bulkhead. Each side has twelve outlets feeding into four transverse conveyors in groups of three. The transverse conveyors fill an inboard fore and aft conveyor which transports the coal to an elevator whence it is lifted to the

deck house arranged aft of the coaling hatches. This deck house contains the changeover arrangements and drive motors for the on deck transverse conveyors. Thus each bunker can supply either or both port and starboard conveyor's on deck as required, The deckhouse also serves as a protected repair and maintenance base for the conveyors and associated plant. The longitudinal conveyors running down the length of the deck are split approximately half way to reduce imposed loads on the internal chain due to ship deflections and also to reduce the tension in the chain and the driving motor size. A transverse conveyor at the aft end allows coal from either side to be fed into either hopper. The throughput of the conveyors of about 7 tonnes/hour means that coal transfer will normally take place during a normal working day only. In the event of total failure of one conveyor the other can handle the full boiler demand for coal. The totally enclosed conveyor on deck measures 250mm wide by 200 deep and so takes up minimal space. Apart from the very low power consumption the main advantages seen are the ability to handle tramp iron and large coal lumps, low capital cost and the long times between replacement of the main parts. The entire system is arranged for remote and automatic operation as required.

Case 2 5. 10,500 Dwt general cargo ship

This design has been developed to meet a client's specific requirements for a particular trade and route. Many features are incorporated which are standard on sophisticated diesel powered vessels of the same type and it can be seen that with the adoption of coal burning such features can still be retained. The design developed to owner's initial requirements is described first. An alternative design aimed at reducing first cost is then shown. The ship is a tween deck general cargo ship of 8,500 tonnes cargo deadweight having approximately 12,000m3 cargo space plus a 600 tonnes vegetable oil tank. The general arrangement Main particulars are: Length b.p. Breadth mid. Depth to U. Ok. Draught (design) Containers (under deck) (above deck) Total Service speed Endurance Cargo gear 125.0m 20.0m 11.25m 8.25m 147 120 267 14.5 knots 25 days on coal 20 days on H.F.O. 22 tonnes swinging derricks at each hatch with one hatch served by 40 tonne lift. is shown in Fig. 5.

5.1

Machinery installation The main propulsion
(i) (ii)

machinery package comprises the foltowing:

2 main boilers geared steam turbine controllable pitch propeller and associated hydraulic system.

(iii)

Becauseof the relatively low power levels serious consideration was given to the use of steam reciprocating machinery but this was rejected on the grounds of higher steam consumption rate and higher maintenance load vis-a-vis the turbine. . The engineroom Main Boilers Largely as a result of owner preference two boilers have been used in the initial proposal. They are stoker fired radiant boilers capable of firing coal or oil and similar in design to the boilers described for the Panamax vessel although about half the output. The main data are: Normal evaporation Maximum evaporation Super heater outlet pressure Super heater outlet temp. Feed water inlet temp. Efficiency (on GCV) @ NCR The ship operational requirement means that some methods of protecting in excess of 12 hours when using H.F.O. the form of bricks laid temporarily over two stack arrangement to accommodate Main Turbine This is a simple single cylinder machine with plane reduction gearing. An underslung condenser is shown in Fig. 6. Because of limitations on engineroom length an axial condenser could not be accommodated. The feed system is conventional and modest. Bled steam is supplied for the deaerator, boiler air heater and evaporator. The two main feed pumps are electrically driven. Main turbine data are: Design power Steam conditions at Turbine Stop Valve Non-bled steam rate Turbine staging 4800 shp @ 6000 RPM 31 bar (abs.) @ 4000C 7.65 Ib/shp - hr Curtis + 9 impulse 12.6 tonnes/hr 15.25 tonnes/hr 32 bar ·4020C 1160C 85.5% to operate for long periods on coal or heavy fuel oil the grate will probably be required for steaming periods At the present time it seems as though this will be in the grate. As shown, it has been necessary to adopt a two very large boilers in a confined engineroom space. arrangements are shown in Figs. 6 and 7.

Electrical power generation Many options are open in a plant of this size with regard to generating the electrical power requirements. The 'at sea' load is quite high for such a small ship at 720kw because of a number of large consumers such as main feed pumps, boiler fans, main circulating pumps, coal transfer compressors and cargo refrigeration. Various combinations
(0

of:

(ii) (iii)

Turbo generators Diesel alternators Shaft alternators

were considered from the point of view of capital cost, running cost and total cost having regard to the operational pattern of the vessel. For this design two 750kw turbo generators and a 400kw port use diesel alternator have been chosen. Another configuration is shown in option 1 following. 5.2 Coal and ashhandlirig

Because of trim and stress considerations and the extended steaming range the coal bunker has been arranged approximately amidships. A further owner request has been the adoption of a dual coal bunker/container hold. Thus whilst the two wing bunkers shown in Fig. 5 are dedicated for coal use, the large centre hold is to be used for bunkers only when on long voyage steaming.

..

A dense phase pneumatic coal transfer system has been used, primarily because the coal conveying pipes can easily be negotiated around the matches and accommodation block. The coal feeds into each of a large number of pressure vessels situated in the space below each bunker and is transported through n.b. 125mm pipes up through two trunkings at the aft end of No.3 hold. Five pipes each side then run aft to enter the casing aft of the accommodation block. By the use of suitable valve arrangements any Denseveyor unit can supply any pipe and thus blockages in pipes or non-operation of any unit can be dealt with, without the necessity to stop coal transfer entirely. Sufficient space has been left around the coal transfer pipes and pressure vessels to allow easy access for maintenance and repair. The ash handling and disposal systems employ an ash holding tank situated below the main boilers to take ash from the top of the moving grates, from between the grate bars and fly ash from below the economiser and the final dust collector. The tank is sized such that one day's full power production plus five days ash in port can be accommodated. The ash is transmitted and discharged overboard by a hydrovactor unit producing a vacuum in the upstream system, discharging the ash overboard in the form of a slurry. 5.3 Control and instrumentation

The general philosophy has been to design for operation of the entire machinery and associated plant from a Centralised Control Station with bridge control of the main engine. As a result of owners preferences, the ship as designed, incorporates many features for enhanced operational flexibility that would not be required on a simpler ship. The opportunity has been taken, within the same hull envelope, to develop alternative machinery designs that fulfill the same operational requirements but are not restricted as to form or layout. It has been found that the option is generally cheapter in capital cost for the total machinery system.

6.

Option 1

The main change has been to adopt one boiler instead of two. Installation problems are eased considerably by this alteration. The main implication for the rest of the machinery plant is that a separate form of emergency propulsion has to be provided. This is effected by utilizing a gearbox driven alternator as a power input from an attached diesel enqine, The c.p. propeller is retained so that the power/speed relationship is not compromised when using the auxiliary diesel. A diagrammatic. arrangement of the system is shown in Fig. 8. In the 'at sea' mode the full electrical load is generated from the attached alternator which is connected via clutch and flexible coupling to the 2nd reduction pinion on the main gearbox. Bus bar frequency is maintained by the c.p. propeller and electrical trimming.

When the vessel approaches port the diesel is started and connects to the alternator via the overrun clutch. The clutch between gearbox and alternator is then disconnected and propeller speed can be reduced as required for manoeuvring, full electrical load being supplied via the diesel. It is considered that, particularly for smaller ships, the one boiler concept is both feasible and economically sensible, when linked to emergency propulsion described above. The machinery arrangements are shown in Figs. 9, 10 and 11.
Acknowledgement The authors are grateful to British Shipbuilders for permission to publish these findings ..

APPENDIX
1.0

Design Programs
Input List

1. 2. 3.

Freight/Deadweight No. of ships in fleet No. of ships in fleet No. of ships in fleet

trigger max min no. of variants min max no. of variants min max no. of variants min max no. of variants min max no. of variants min max No. of variants 2000 10000 5 varies with ship varies with ship varies with ship varies with ship 0.75 0.85 5 varies with ship min max no. of variants varies with ship varies with ship varies with ship 15% varies with ship varies with ship varies with ship varies with ship 300/340 varies with ship 1000 to 4000 800 to 2000 varies with ship 15% 50% load port only Oil US$180/tonne Coal US$45/tonne 16000 76000 5 11 18 8

4.
5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. .36. 37.

Speed, load service (knots) Speed. load service (knots) Speed, load service (knots) Total or cargo deadweight (tonnes) Total or cargo deadweight (tonnas) Total or cargo deadweight (tonnes) Voyage distance one way (n.m.) Voyage distance one way (n.m.) Voyage distance one way (n.m.) Fixed service draught. mid (m) Draught loaded dep. mid. (rn) Draught loaded dep. mid. (rn] Draught loaded dep. mid. (m) Block Coefficient

Fixed beam mid. (m) Length breadth ratio Length breadth ratio Length breadth ratio Service power margin factor Propeller Speed (RPM) Freeboard Trigger Classification Trigger High Tensile Steel Trigger Steel Yield Stress (MPA) Steelweight correlation factor Av. cargo loading rate (tonne/hr) Av. cargo disch. rate (tonnes/hr) Capital Cost Correlation factor Capital recovery factor Cargo load factor Bunkering trigger Fuel cost (£/hr) at loading port

38.

-239. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Fuel cost (£/hour) at discharge port Calorific value of coal (MJ/kg) Av. Port expenses/port stay Number of crew (poop 1 + Fcsle/length Ratio) Type of Bulkheads trigger Max. no. of designs allowed Coal US$45/tonne 21 to 27 Av. 24.0 varies with ship varies with ship varies with ship varies with ship varies with ship

Shortened form of output No. of Ships in Fleet Length B.P. Breadth Mid. Depth Mid. Summer Draught B.K. Service Draught B.K. Service Speed (Knots) Engine Power mcr (KW) (B.H.P. Metric) Prop. Diam. Eng. RPM Max. Cont. CBSlwl Ratio LIB Ratio LID Ratio BIT Slwl Ratio T/D Slwl Length of Aft-end Length of engine room Length of holds Length of fore-end Hold Capacity (M3) St. Rate Slwl (M3/T) Masses:Mass of steel Mass of outfit Mass of machinery Mass of margin Ship Lightweight Mass of O. F. & Lub. O. Mass of F & Feed Water Mass of Stores & Crew Displacement Slwl Deadweight Slwl Cargo Deadweight Slwl Cargo Deadweight Service KMSlwl GMSlwl Ship Cost Round Trips/Annum Costs inc. Cap. Ch. Pa. Total freight/year Req. freight rate Freight Rate Ratio

-32.0
1. 2. 3.

Economic Appraisal Programs
Input List Deadweight (tonnes) Payload Life of ship Type of charter Period of Charter Details of second charter Freight rate escalation Load factor Ship cost Owners initial costs £ stg. Disposal value Speed (knots) All purpose consumption Port consumption Discount rate Tax Credit details Build time Depreciation Crew cost and escalation £ stg. Upkeep cost and escalation £ stg. Other costs, insurance etc. and escalation £ Fuel cost and escalation Port cost/round trip and escalation £ stg. Cargo handling cost/tonne and escalation £ stg. Varies with ship type Varies with ship type '15 years Voyage 8 years with 1st charter 7 years with 2nd charter See footnotes 50% Varies with ship type Between £77 000 and £350 000 About 10% of ship cost 11 to 18 Varies with ship type Varies with ship type 12% 52% 80% for 8Y:.years at 7Y:.% Varies with ship type Free About £24 OOO/man Varies per ship Between £350 000 and £500 000 Between £200 000 and £300 000 Oil US$180/tonne Coal $45ltonne (see notes) £8000 to £30 000 £0.2/tonne

4.
5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. NOTES:

rr>

General level of cost escalation of various items has been fixed about 8 - 10%. For coal price this has been assumed to follow the general levet Oil fuel, however, has been assumed to vary on a dual basis:(a) (b) escalation 2Y:.% p.a. above the general level of inflation and escalation of 5% p.a. above the general level of inflation

The principal information from the output of this program is the net present value of the cash flows over the ships life and the Required Freight Rate for each voyage. Additionally an indication of the sensitivity of various parameters to incremental changes is given.

GRAPH N~ 1. VARIATION OF REQUIRED FREIGHT RATE WITH DWT FOR COAL POWERED SHIPS (EACH SHIP OPERATING AT MOST ECONOMIC SPEED.). ------RANGE 4000 MILES. ----RANGE 12000 HILES. S
'.

4S

z· .:z 3
·0
.

_w·

. ,....
.

___ ~
~ ~
c:(

w3

-0:

. a::

. u..'

_"""

.

<,

<,

<,

<,

<,

-,

1

"",

" ~~._---,_.---- ~--....._

.--._

.

10,000

20,000

.30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

70,000 80,000

90,000 \OOJooo nO,OOQ 420,000

nWT

{TnNNr:~\

,
COMPARISON BETWEEN DIESEL AND COAl POWERED· 16-6 K. OWl BULK· CARRIER RANGE 4.000 HILES. GRAPH N~

2.

z
52
:;:)

----

DIESEL Ca 0-75 COAL Ca 0-75

IU
~

o L&J
ex
~

iii ...

a:

:r \:J iii

...
a:

"-

.~

a
a:

0.+7- . LI.I

I

I

"" =

z.

-

n-o I

12-0-

13-0

SPEED (I( NOTS ).

15-0

COMPARISON

BETWEEN DIESEL AND COAL POWERED BULK CARRIER. RANGE 4JJOO HILES.

31 K OWT

GRAPH N!
-_

3.

------

DIESEL Ca 0-826
COAL Ca 0-826

u.i+'

!C ~

-~+

.a: .., \:J

-I

"'&AI

o

......

S..sd
z+6-

-

"" a:

-

12-0

a-o
SPEED. (KNOTS

15-0

J

COMPARISON BETWEEN DIESEl AND COAL POWERED 60K. OWT
BULK CARRIER. RANGE. 8 000 HI LES.· .

GRAPH ~

4.

-_.- c. cr79
--

----_ •• Ca 0·79 DIESEL
COAL.
Ca. 0-83 DIESEL CI 0·83 COAL

--:--

UJ .. ~

3-

ex

% L&J

... .fifo

!2
0 ~

a:...
w
d ...,

...-

"-_.._

-.-...

-.........

~

---" ........- ......-- ....-...................-.....

$ ..6

z Z
r--

c::: ... 7-0

""
'-0

:r
~ 0

U""-

-e

11-0

12-0 SPEED

13-0 (KNOTS).

14-0

15-0

% SAVING IN R f. R. OF COAL D.VER DIESEL.

...
• o

N

o

~

.
tit

z
...~
0 0

~

C\

Z
X7 ~

m

:0

0
."
", _f:b

",

c:
::0

;08

0

~

-4

:z:
~

. -

z

>

'" % ,... - ...
~ V' ... N
0 '0

c;l

...
»'

-<
0

""
CD

n

» ,...
::c ,.,
",

." 0 ~ 0

.. 0' 0

.....

~

0

?'
C ,... ~

0

to

n

_0 0 0
CD \II

N

C\

"" .
::0
:;IJ

» ::0

~ ~

Z

+

,.0

.~

COMPARISON BETWEEN DIESEL AND COAL POWERED 7S·9K DWT

CARRIER. RANGE 4.000 HILES.

au LX

GRAPH N\ ••• ---·z

5~_

-o
t=

-.----

Ca 0-79 . Ca 0 83
0

Ca 0·79 DieSEL C. 0·83 DIESEL
COAL

COAL

u :::)

o
.,

.

/~

............................... ... .

.

.

.

~

..--

..••••.......••...-

12-0

. 13·0
SPEED. (KNOTS)

14-0

15-0

COMPARISON BETWEEN DIESEl AND COAL POWERED 75-91<. OWT .

BULK CARRIER.

RANGE:----.-------

12,000 HILES.

Ca 0·79 DIESEL Ca Q·83 DIESEL C& 0·79 COAL
Ca 0·83 COAL.

GRAPH

m 6.

~-~ .. ---__.--.,_- ..... -~--_.....- -- .-----~--o
au
::J
_""CTlI.

_- .-'

e +8·0 a:::.
% ...

e +1

,.0

-0

-12-0

13·0 SPEED ( KNOTS).

14·0

15-0

COMPARISON OF COAL WITH FUEL OIL ESCALATING AT 21J2%p.a. ABOVE GENERAL LEVEL OF INFLATION. GRAPH N~ 7. 75,9000WT BULK CARRIER.

-

o
DIESEL
a: ... 10!;{
&&.i

. ~'- \:J

:z:

..... If
9:
ex

a .....20
:z

fa

CI= 0·79

COAL

z
~

2

:::J
~~

- ~°

11-0

12·0

13-0

14·0 15-0 SPEED (KNOTS ).

16-0

17-0

18-0

COMPARISON· OF COAL "WffH -Ft;JEL1l1L"ESCAlATING ABOVE GENERAL LEVEL OF IN FLATrON. 16,6000WT BULK .CAR:RIER.

AT 2'12°kp.CL

GRAPH N~

8~:

DIESEL

-.

"" !i
a:
~ :l: ~ ~

10

C-DAL
2 .-

a:
LI-

0

::;)

"" a:
d au

0 .tU
::;)

z 30z

ex

i

a:

t&J

0

I
i
.

I
, ,

i

,

'If.
4

o
11-0 12·0 1],0 14·0 15-016-0 '-"0
SPEED (KNOTS).

1&-0

__,..

..-; .....

..

II) I(

IoJ J

0 ID 0 W
t-

0
W
I[

1: ..J
I[

...
..J

w
I[ I(

VI

I: 0 ..J

...
:>

U

.. ..
II
J

0 U

II
IL

....

I

1:
VI

::l III

~
II.

0

..J I:

...
0

.. .. .. ...
I

2

I:

..
X

-_-

VI

..
Z

1:
IoJ

....
U)

Z

:J
I/)

z m
I[

w

-

:J
I-

"

;

-----_.!_.+--

I

I
.J_ ._ •._

D D DD D D D " D
~

.. ... "0 1'1 n

0 0 III fI 0 III 0 III
III

E£ffE

...

0

N

• ...
%
Q

<
%

0

...


%
I-

.:

Ii I
% 0
I..J II
j

II .j

"•"
'!!> ZZ -'

< II

.. • ~ .. «
:r
3
0 I:

1

.• .. Z
Z
0
I-

0 0 0

.• ..
I-

::l 0

.. .. ..
a

• c
:r

.,..
0
LL

» c

0

0

I

.,

e:,Oll..tAS

.!

~..IC.II..l...AA.'1

EGW.P_~T.

------

...

~--~

7._-.

"w.

!_ ..
~E.Jt

t

,___ ~_~-+

....... _"':r~~". _ .... ..., -r
__

I

i~-n
.T~

-~-------------------~-------~I4-~~~~

~

"•
":
",

1"7
; ., ~.:: :-:.

U
:

~

i-.

;:-

-

..

FIG

3.

t;l

.~C!1]

illiO

00

FIG: 4.
PLAN AT 10·25m FLAT.

I

'"
I

r i

--~;r ..
"

---=~_ ",. ........
\;:

lW'I.TIOft .::

4QoC ... c.

t

~p

'ttl IIrjjg'

FIG:6

I

~

r •
\

~
I

~

I ;:
r

r

1 t,
t~,

"

FIG.: 7.

~-~~

.-£.

o· %0
0

• ...
%

ei

.z

.

!

~

D- t
iI) &It

••

~r---+-.J ~ .,

• •

-€)

~.. ..
a.

%a:

.~ .
~

l
.

.~

:

I
• •

· ·

Ll
~

• •

T •

_.i

I
g"~ o..,~
.. 0

-.:;
D

...
to
0

lit

CO u..

0.., .
)0%-

~

~

til

,~~

H
l
~ ~ ~

t.5

tT

~

r
i

~<!

-<

~

H

C)--

tr

I

8

~ ~ ~ ~ !
i

I

c-~.
/'

lj f

f.

Ii
r I
i

INOUCEQ /'"

ORltUCaHT'

_i

/

I
1
!

I ,

r

I

I

;

;.

i I

- ·t:
!
IQ

,

;

I"

..

! •,
••

nEVRII0N

l,OC)f([NGr

RI ¢. OF 10 ·PORT:

SHIP

FIG :9.

FIG:

10.

SECTION AT MJOLENGTH.

lOO KING AFT.

&II

c:

.

~

%0

LaJ

z
~

<

-

-z ~o
Xu

REVERSING GEARBOX·. PRIMARY REVERSING EPICYCLIC. SECONDARY PARALLEL SHAFT WITH POWER TAKE - OfF.
IMT£ltM CDlATI

SHUT Wt(1. DIK. _

'-4-

-------""1

A &.

I

II

613r.~o_

S38 r.Jl" ASTQM.

II
OUTPUT SI'IEO.

II I I

INPuT SPE£O. 6000r.~.m.

AHlAo
ASTERN

'8r:t-'
~I'-IJI.

GEAR
PINIO" P.C.OIA:
FAC£WtDTH.

PARTICULARS.
POWER. II10 PINION.

PAUL. .. iL SMA'T SEe~

T

.un.

314·55

Zl33·o

114·244
114·244 + 100

NOttr.t"'"

MoDU~l.

_ ....

"1'1\.

391·8+ 8
30

100 ~AP.

8
30

'Ieux
G£AR RATIO. LL.oYo~

6·783
MN/"''l.

u- 245
,

t<.

Z·"2
055 M13.
6"'-440

2·43'
6SSM 13
eH&~

MAT'IUA~_

CHa~

IH 6G

THEORETIC

AL tllLOING
AHEAD
ASTEf(N &UI(E

TORQUES F OR BRAKES
MIft. NJit.

:A:& "B~

&RAK~ 'A: 68338

'a'.

5Z315

FIG,

17

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->