P. 1
Gully ES2011 54475 Final Recon

Gully ES2011 54475 Final Recon

|Views: 12|Likes:
Published by Ben Gully

More info:

Published by: Ben Gully on Aug 23, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





Proceedings of ASME 2011 5th International Conference on Energy Sustainability ES2011 August 7-10, 2011 Washington DC, USA


Benjamin H. Gully, MSME The University of Texas Austin, Texas, USA

Dr. Michael E. Webber The University of Texas Austin, Texas, USA

Dr. Carolyn C. Seepersad The University of Texas Austin, Texas, USA

ABSTRACT Fuel costs are the single most important driver of marginal costs for commercial marine transportation and account for almost 50% of total voyage costs for typical configurations. Hence, there has developed a desire among operators and manufacturers of all classes of ships to embrace innovative ways to reduce the demand for fuels. This research investigates the fuel consumption of a standard container ship architecture based on different scenarios of operation. The approach is to first model fuel consumption from the main propulsion engines and the auxiliary engines based on standard propulsion modes, with a configuration known as a Power Take Off (PTO) system. These preliminary results are then analyzed to identify opportunities for retrofitting this configuration by utilizing the same engine combination, but augmenting the PTO system into a modernized shaft motor-generator system, or Auxiliary Power System (APS). The APS enables electrification, which can potentially decrease system fuel consumption. Lastly, the potential for these fuel savings is evaluated for multiple scales of the APS. INTRODUCTION With fuel costs rising and environmental concerns growing, energy consumption has been the target of increasing scrutiny. Although land transportation systems are the current focus of many policies and research efforts, over 90% of the world’s freight is transported by ship, a segment of the marine industry that consumes over 23 billion barrels of fuel each year (nearly 2% of global petroleum consumption) [1]. These concerns are compounded by the fact that grades of common marine diesel fuel have 30-100 times more sulfur content

compared to land-use diesel fuels. In addition, an estimated 645 million metric tonnes per year of CO2 is emitted from all marine vessels, along with other pollutants such as nitrogen-oxides (NOx) and particulate-matter (PM) [2]. Fuel costs are the single most important driver of marginal costs for marine transportation, and account for almost 50% of total voyage costs for most vessels. These environmental and economic factors are expected to grow because of projections that maritime trade will continue to increase into the future [3] . Analyses have indicated that total fuel consumption from oceanic shipping might increase to 2-3 times its present level by 2050 [4]. In addition, an increasing amount of cargo is being shipped by way of container, growing from only 7.4% in 1985 to 24% in 2006. At the same time, containerized cargo represents the most energy intensive form of shipping [4]. The powertrains that meet these and other shipping demands are comprised primarily of single diesel engines directly driving a propeller, with a separate set of diesel generators providing ship service electric loads [4]. Some of these ships also utilize a shaft generation system to produce electric power from the main engine under cruise conditions. These systems, commonly referred to as Power Take Off (PTO) systems, mechanically link an electric generator to the drive shaft, thus placing additional loading on the main engine to create electricity to offset some dependence on the auxiliary engines. Although these systems have existed for decades, their functionality has historically been technologically limited due to shaft speed variation and the inability to design power electronics capable of operating the electric machine as both a motor and a generator. The motivation here is to assess the fuel economy


Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Performance.825 ton container ship in sea-margin of 20%. The engine is assumed to be a Sulzer 12RTA96C. 𝑛∗ = 𝑛0 𝑛 . several Auxiliary Engines (AE) are required purely to provide electrical energy for ship service loads. sea-state. In practice. as allowed by modern developments in electric machinery. specifically a large scale container ship of 6690 TEU (Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit. PTO describes ships that have a generator geared to the driveshaft capable of providing electrical energy for service loads from the main propulsion engines. This data are defined. n0 and FC0 refer to the power. 𝑃𝐵 = 𝐶𝐵𝑃 𝜌1/3 ∆2/3 𝑣𝑠 3 Eq 1 Figure 1. Shaft power required for propulsion increases cubically as a function of speed as derived from brake power coefficient. P0. cargo loading. This analysis will focus on a container ship. or full load [5]. 70 Propulsion Power Reqd (MW) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 5 10 15 Speed (knots) 20 25 Figure 2. This coefficient is a speed-dependent value that integrates the many aforementioned factors. c. Bernoulli’s relation indicates that power is proportional to the cube of the velocity. The parameters a. gearbox efficiency. CBP. the mechanical shaft power required for propulsion can be calculated as a function of speed as shown in Figure 2. In addition to this propulsion engine. This concept is very central to the analysis at hand and will be discussed in greater detail subsequently [5]. Thus. 111. is assessed for standard operating modes for a container class of ship. To conduct this analysis. 𝐹𝐶 ∗ = (𝑎 + 𝑏 ∙ 𝑃 ∗ + 𝑐 ∙ (𝑃 ∗ )2 ) ∙ (𝑑 + 𝑒 ∙ 𝑛∗ + 𝑓(𝑛∗ )2 ) 𝑃 ∗ = 𝑃0 𝑃 Here. etc. For the Sulzer engine.benefits that can be achieved without these limitations. The performance potential for this powertrain is then assessed with the larger. It is assumed to operate in a 20% sea-margin (representing the oceanic weather conditions). This architecture uses four MaK M32 diesel generators. wake formation. each producing 3600 kW at . as well as utilized. e and f are extrapolated from experimentally determined operating points. speed and fuel consumption at MCR. However. producing a maximum of 65. a representative model of pertinent container ship parameters was developed to derive requirements for the power system and to clarify the baseline powertrain architecture. 100 rpm and 11. hull designs are often based on existing experimental evidence or experience. The corresponding brake power coefficient data is presented in Figure 1. respectively. Constant speed operation of the engine is assume because steady state modal operation will be evaluated (to be discussed later). representing buoyancy). Brake power coefficient for a 6690 TEU. or Main Engine (ME).8 MW with a nominal speed of 100 rpm. CONTAINER SHIP MODEL The most fundamental step in ship modeling is defining the power profile for specific speeds. analytical approximation of these aspects tends to yield highly erroneous values as they represent highly coupled nonlinear interactions. Accordingly. This particular vessel definition is typical of one operating along the East trade lines. by the relation shown below in Equation 1 for brake power. b. d. which yields a service speed of 22.1 kts at 90% Max Continuous Rating (MCR) with PTO in operation. ∆ is displacement (in terms of mass. and vs is ship speed [5]. Additionally. These propulsion power demands are met by a single diesel engine driving a Fixed Pitch Propeller (FPP). we must also take into account aspects such as propeller efficiency (as well as its variation). this analysis utilizes empirical data in the form of a non-dimensional brake power coefficient. 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐹𝐶 ∗ = 𝐹𝐶0 𝐹𝐶 Eq 3 Eq 2 2 Copyright © 2011 by ASME . This analysis examines the potential system performance benefits of using the same engine sets but with an enhanced PTO system for retrofit configurations. as shown below. Results and conclusions focus on design methodology and are drawn based on the ability of such a system to successfully reduce fuel consumption for the specified operational modes.625 kg/hr. in seeking to define drive propulsion power requirements. This relationship can be extended by introducing a geometrically based drag coefficient. a standard container size).880 kW. Fuel consumption performance is derived through the Mossel computer program which utilizes several fit factors to calculate consumption variation as a function of speed and load variation. bidirectional Auxiliary Power System (APS) in place of the PTO. these values are 65. with PTO disabled [5]. where ρ is the density of water. in terms of the fuel consumption of main and auxiliary engines.

Thus. based on local geography. as maneuvering systems are not in use and many ships utilize PTO systems to further reduce electrical demand. HVAC. Table 1 represents a statistical compilation of two sources (Browning and Aldrete) containing this data for similar ships. only a minute difference was found between the minimum and maximum values so average values were used. As it approaches further. Within the ranges identified here. the region from breakwater to berth). Each port is very spatially different. shown in the table. computers. the two sources show a high degree of correlation. The relevant parameters for these four operating modes are summarized in Table 1. as indicated nearer to shore. the region from pilot pick-up to breakwater). and rarely is the loading of these engines constant. Ships do not use their full installed AE capacity in any operating mode. most ports have common speed zones characteristics or operational requirements. These values correspond very well with average port requirements as identified by the ICF [7]. SHIP LOAD PROFILE AND BASE PERFORMANCE Once the ship powertrain architecture has been identified. Open sea transit frequently has the lowest AE demand.5-12. While in the Hotel mode. it is useful to consider AE systems in terms of the total power available. once a vessel passes the outermost sea buoy when approaching port. unload/reload. AEs are used to provide power for lighting. The final values 3 Copyright © 2011 by ASME . Figure 4 illustrates the speed zones for vessels approaching the Port of Houston: as a vessel enters from the South-East. then enter another port. two dominant intermediate zones of interest have been identified. Given the sporadic AE operation characterized in some modes. whose use in such conditions is sporadic. However. Vessel speeds within the Houston Ship Channel in knots. Figure 3. cranes. and reefers (refrigerated containers). the propulsion power requirements and ME (main engine) fuel consumption can be derived. a loading profile must be defined to ascertain fuel consumption characteristics. as mentioned before. and 3-8 kts when Maneuvering (MAN. at design/service speed) and hotel (the time spent at berth with propulsion engine off). which comprise two of the specific operational scenarios defining the ship’s load profile. As shown. and repeat. However. Maneuvering typically has the highest demand for AE use as these systems are required to be available to power bow thrusters. Ocean going cargo vessels (such as container ships) have a very simple operational profile. as well as in terms of average load percent. This report cites 9-12 kts average for areas identified as Reduced Speed Zone (RSZ. PTO system and 4 AEs for electric service loads. Base ship powertrain configuration with one ME for propulsion. The two other scenarios are simply cruise (at sea. They load up at a port.600 rpm. it must slow to 9. set out to sea. and vary. it is also necessary to define AE (auxiliary engine) loading and fuel consumption. average load percent is the most useful metric for identifying fuel consumption. speed is reduced to 3-6 kts. providing limited electric power from the propeller shaft. communications. Fuel consumption for these auxiliary engines is derived using the same method of nonlinear speed and power fit factors as described above [5]. for 2007 [6]. Using these speed constraints. pumps. For specification. traverse at a relatively constant speed.5 kts. For instance. Here we can also see the interconnection of the PTO system. as this indicates the average power generated. The configuration is illustrated in Figure 3. The complication arises from the speed limitations that begin. Figure 4.

Cruise Propulsion (kW) Electric Load Avg (kW) Electric Load Avail (kW) 51170 5372 17900 RSZ 5556 3600 14400 MAN 904 7200 14400 Hotel 0 2448 14400 Combined with the ship performance formulation in the previous section. The ship specifications [5] indicate that the vessel under consideration keeps all 4 AEs on when in port. Different operating conditions (Cruise. the PTO is a salient pole generator coupled to the main propeller shaft. indicating consumption of the main propulsion engine and auxiliary engines. but a rate-based approach has several advantages: Alleviation of the large uncertainty that exists regarding time spent in each mode. and Hotel) require different levels of propulsion and auxiliary power. In this steady state analysis. namely cruise. in each mode. It was clear that the Aldrete report had a single set of AE load factors applied to all classes of ships for each mode. POWERTRAIN DESIGN CONCEPT ASSESSMENT In the powertrain architecture studied thus far.5 Hotel 17% 16% 0 0 17% 0 Fuel Consumption (kg/hr) 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Cruise 530 9324 RSZ 826 1682 MAN 1446 1019 Hotel 629 0 Aux Engines Main Engine Figure 5. Table 2. Approaching this problem requires first utilizing the powertrain analysis conducted earlier to identify net values for power demands. which most directly addresses the issues of in-port emissions.5 MW. consideration must be made for the amount of AE power that is required in the case of demand spikes. as is the effective total available auxiliary power. indicating the most relevant representation of inport speed profile. fuel consumption from the ME is increased in cruise mode (from 8741 kg/hr without PTO operation to 9324 kg/hr with the PTO system operating). and was thus assumed to be non-ship-specific and therefore less exact than the alternative. In addition. The literature typically assumes ideal conversion in the sense that this operation simply provides 3. Here it can be seen that the fuel consumption rate within each mode is utilized as a performance indicator as opposed to net fuel consumption. kts Cruise 13% 16% 22.used in the analysis are shown in the bottom two rows of the table. it simply reduces the mechanical power on the drive shaft by its maximum value. when the ship is in cruise mode. This capability is the result of numerous modern developments in electronic power system technologies and 4 Copyright © 2011 by ASME . The next task is to assess the potential benefit of revamping this PTO system for increased functionality and efficiency.1* 13% 22. Reduced Speed Zone. thus fuel consumption behavior. (*defined by ship design) Parameter Avg AE Load (Browning) Avg AE Load (Aldrete) Speed. Additionally. Thus.75 MAN 50% 55% 3-8 3-6 50% 4. system design for performance in that mode is a very straightforward affair. these load profile specifications allow us to fully define operation. Table 1. Total container ship power demands by mode. which varies greatly Greater focus on port modes. however. Overall fuel consumption is most heavily influenced by those modes in which the system spends the majority of its time. because load distribution must be constant between machines to meet electric bus synchronization requirements. but it is not included as a load in the propulsion system power requirement.5 MW from the existing PTO system. It should be noted that average electric load (as well as total available) during cruise includes 3.1* 22. Cruise performance should still be regarded as the primary factor in any decision that might have an impact on it. kts (Aldrete) AE Load Speed.1 RSZ 25% (no data) 9-12 9. the PTO operates by supplying additional electrical power to the ship service bus during cruise. It is further assumed that the load factors must be constant and equal for all engines in all modes. The results of this system analysis are presented in Figure 5. MANeuvering. Fuel consumption rates calculated for an existing 6690 TEU container ship. the dominant aspect of environmental regulation Defining non-cruise mode performance as more than just an afterthought in design process - Augmenting the PTO scale and changing the hardware to allow both motor and generator operation typically leads to classification of the device as an Auxiliary Power System (APS). 3. The primary objective here is to analyze the capability of a similar system of larger scale to further offset various engine uses. the Browning report contained a RSZ term that aligned with the more explicit speed profile data. In addition to operating speed and average AE loading. These values are shown in Table 2. kts (Browning) Speed.5-12 25% 10.5 MW of electric power for the ship service load.

Thus. output power quality. here we seek to quantify the benefits of such a system for fuel consumption reduction and identify the most appropriate APS system scale and operation. The large. 11. nominally at slow speeds. motor technology selection.465 kg/hr – a reduction of 35% the previous fuel consumption rate. It is proposed to produce 100% of the propeller shaft propulsion power from the AE sets and subsequently shut off the ME. The results suggest that APS system sizing and operation should aim to alleviate loading from the ME as much as possible.1. However. producing large scale power significantly more efficiently. and (2) run the APS as a motor to reduce loading on the ME. Each AE unit now consumes 401 kg/hr. 10. which was previously providing the drive shaft with 0. as it has the most accessible propulsion demand requirement. The previously presented calculations offer evidence that these consumption differences constitute the basis for decision making alternatives both in propulsion system design as well as operationally.1 MW of service power with the APS is greater than the average required 5.2 MW results in a consumption of 9.914 kg/hr – this is in comparison to the previous total of 9. Instead. this new. The solid black trend line also reveals the performance advantage of the other slightly smaller Sulzer engine.602 kg/hr.3 MW. The previous section clearly illustrated the design directive to shift loads from the ME to the AE set. suggesting the remaining AEs are not needed. However. we could safely identify thresholds that allow the AE set to adopt specified levels of propulsion demands. and thus adds to the propulsion load of 51. idle AE power not being used for ship service loads may be directed to the APS to relieve ME propulsion loads. then the APS must then provide this amount of power in addition to the previous PTO load of 3. Inspecting the fuel consumption around the upper threshold of these units (~4MW) shows that fuel consumption is about half what it would be for a 65 MW Sulzer in providing the same amount of power. now totalling 58. below. These two results indicate the fundamental performance trend that should be pursued in an effort to reduce operational fuel consumption. it also identified the primary limiting factor with regard to that objective: lack of knowledge regarding the fluctuation and peak values of ship service demands on the AE sets in each operating mode. The smaller diesels have almost equivalent performance. Given limitations on the expected values of these loads. high speed MaK units. APS PERFORMANCE POTENTIAL This section will now briefly assess the performance potential of the design and operation objectives identified in APS utilization. 4000 3500 Fuel consumption (kg/hr) 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Sulzer 12RTA96C Sulzer 8RTA72C MaK M32 MaK 32-8 MaK 32-6 0 5 10 15 Power (MW) 20 25 Figure 6. This correlation is shown very clearly in Figure 6.854 kg/hr. higher consumption value is not taking into account the additional consumption of the idling AEs. low speed Sulzer diesel machines. This manner of operation increases the total AE set power demand from 7. however it is simply not as efficient as its small scale. 2. Fuel consumption comparison of high power.2 MW. being almost indiscernible at the given scale. Additionally. low speed diesels (Sulzer) and the more efficient low power. Functionally. high-speed diesel counterparts. 1. fuel consumption has effectively been increased. Thus. 14]. and the lower power. as is required of all generator devices providing synchronized power on a common bus. 12. running the ME at 58.1 MW of electric power to the bus. However.1 MW.9 MW. This load is divided equally among all four online AEs. low speed 65 MW Sulzer is great for providing the full power demand in a single unit. which are nominally consuming 8% of their max fuel consumption rate each. the power electronics and 5 Copyright © 2011 by ASME . totalling 7. This power ultimately comes from the driveshaft. Furthermore. the most apparent potential capabilities of such an APS system are to: (1) run the APS as a generator allowing one or more of the AEs to be shut down. Run APS as a generator to shut down one AE If a single 3. and more simply integrated for direct shaft operation. This level of consumption is in comparison to the previous net system (ME + AE) consumption of 2.5 MW. The impact of these two concepts is assessed below. strongly favoring the AE systems.presents more than sufficient design options to warrant an indepth study of its own. mechanical fixture or gearing. Here we see a distinct difference in the two high power. all of which have been evaluated to a high degree and at greater depth than will be done here [8. these data are not available and so it is assumed that any available. To do so.6 MW AE is shut down in cruise mode. which is the total consumption from the ME operating with the PTO system online and AE providing service power.2 MW to 8. Key features for consideration are: variable speed motor operation. 9. totaling 1. high speed diesels (MaK) [5]. 13. Run the APS as a drive motor to displace ME operation Here we target the maneuver operating mode. generating 7. we are assuming that there is at least 1 MW of leeway between peak maneuver service load and total available auxiliary power.

In the scenario where only a 3. 6 Copyright © 2011 by ASME . Thus. AE set matches propulsion and ship service loads (here. with a 12. Given the above assumptions for available APS power. The results of the performance of these APS configurations in comparison to the base scenario are shown in Figure 7. as well as a more reasonable subsequent analysis where APS power scale was selected to be the same as the existing PTO system of 3. ME idles.components must be able to react fast enough to respond as necessary to variation in ship service power demand.5 MW APS.5 MW APS system is used it is simply unable to provide enough benefit to overcome the ME idle consumption. and that doing so would cause dynamic variation that triggers undesirable inefficiencies and/or excessive component wear. in both maneuver and RSZ modes this value is greater than the required propulsion power.5 MW APS. on average. as well as results for the 12. As previously discussed. This effect is a simple demonstration of the efficiency gain of generating power with the AE units over the ME.6 MW of AE power to driving the APS. as opposed to under APS operation when it consumes 901 kg/hr and contributes 0 kW.5% [10]. and apply up to 12. Thus operational functionality for the APS architecture in each of the 4 modes is redefined as follows: Cruise: Transfer PTO 3500 kW load to the AE set.5 MW APS 3. sizing the APS to take advantage of the entire free leftover AE power capacity does give the ability to significantly reduce fuel consumption rates when at sea in cruise mode. This type of operation could be done intelligently through the implementation of accurate data regarding expected maneuver and ship service loads. When the base configuration is maneuvering. leaving 6. First.2% and generating efficiency of 97. consuming 901 kg/hr.6 MW of APS power). resulting in 901 kg/hr [5]. Offsetting the ME is not a practical solution unless it is designed to idle efficiently. or preferably. Fuel consumption results for the base configuration. The above scenario was assessed initially with no limit to APS sizing (resulting in a useful max of 12. Only in the case where we have a large enough propulsion load (cruise) is the 12. Electric power generation from the given diesel engines. slow start up times mean that capability is not likely to occur unless a significant margin exists between expected load and available AE power. This surplus suggests the potential to turn off and decouple the ME. for this study it is assumed that this power must be online and require the ME to idle. Hotel: No change from base scenario. it is useful to indicate the scale of this ME idle fuel consumption rate. In reality it is more likely that this margin will be hard to track exactly. however. For reference. and any other subsequent electrical conversion efficiencies.5 MW system if the ME is not required to idle. Maneuver: As with RSZ. However these considerations are minute in comparison to the net power being transferred.5 MW APS. The two APS systems’ performance is presented in greater detail below to illustrate the impact of ME idling consumption. is able to be turned off. RSZ: AE set matches propulsion and ship service loads (leaving an available 5. with a 3. no idle Figure 7. However.5 MW. the dominant result is the impact of requiring the ME to idle coupled with the added electric conversion losses. Fuel Consumption (kg/hr) 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Cruise 9854 9431 9911 9431 RSZ 2508 2733 2619 1832 MAN 2465 2511 2511 1610 Hotel 629 629 629 629 Base 12.5 MW APS able to provide enough efficiency benefit (including conversion losses) that it overcomes the handicap of wasted ME idle consumption. Assuming the engine idles at the same max speed. the propulsion system consumes 1019 kg/hr and contributes 904 kW. no idle). are assumed to be static and are based on a multipole permanent magnet synchronous machine with motor efficiency of 95. The resulting fuel consumption from successful implementation of this concept is shown as the fourth data set in Figure 7 (12. The net result of this is that. such that it consumes its minimal amount of fuel but is still able to react in emergency situations.5 MW APS 12.3 MW as a buffer) and ME idles. fuel consumption is approximately 8% of peak fuel consumption rates – here. This fact suggests the available power factors are equal to the mathematical inverse of those in Table 1.2 MW ‘buffer’). reductions in consumption for cruise mode has the largest impact on net system performance. the power margin in excess of the power factors required as defined in Table 1 will be able to be used by the APS to relieve ME propulsion loading. The combination of these two effects renders the powertrain modes that utilize APS systems less efficient than the base scenario upon which they are built (the middle two scenarios in Figure 7 compared to Base).5 MW APS.

“CO2-emissions of various ship types. J. 2008. depending on the mode of operation [5].. et al. Seatrade Middle East Maritime 2008 at Dubai International Convention and Exhibition Centre. 131. 2000. D. EPA..0% in the RSZ. “Measuring Energy Efficiency in the United States’ Economy: A Beginning” Energy Consumption Series.. thus further decreasing fuel consumption. Smaller. CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH From a powertrain design standpoint.3%. Bailey. 468. et al. NOX and SOX would also be reduced by 4. “Current Methodologies and Best Practices for Preparing Port Emission Inventories. [3] EIA. Publ.. [2] Kassinger.. et al.. The primary results from this study are that retrofitting an existing merchant ship powertrain with a hybrid system such as an APS. et al. these notions are counterbalanced by the need for implementation and practical volumetric consideration. 2009.. 2010. Auxiliary Engines 2634 1832 1610 629 1720 1413 1610 629 6797 901 901 0 8191 1206 901 0 Figure 8. For steady state operation. and 34.” ICF International and U.. [9] Dalton. “Studying ship electric energy systems with shaft generator” IEEE Electric Ship Technologies Symposium.A Step Toward the All Electric Warship” Naval Engineers Journal. “Marine Fuels” Intertanko Petroleum Services Inc.. [5] Brussen. optimized design of ship propulsion systems requires data about peak load variation in port. December 14-16. Van Mourik Broekmanweg. Vigo. TNO-rapport. the rate of CO2.7% for the operating modes Cruise. [13] Prousalis. L. Managing Director of Seatrade. Thus.3% in cruise. “Hybrid Electric Drive Evaluation for CG47 Class Guided Missile Cruisers” Naval Engineers Journal. April 20-22. B. et al. et al. G. 2005. Ø. For one. will not inherently provide for better system performance.. C.. LLC for Port of Houston Authority. 3.” Det Norske Veritas Research and Innovation. T. [8] Alexander. These results suggest the potential for other ship scales and propulsion system configurations. [11] Clegg. its fuel consumption is more than enough to offset any achievable benefit. “2007 Goods Movement Air Emissions Inventory at the Port of Houston” prepared by Starcrest Consulting. 27. No. K.. 1999. However. March 25. and initial design investigations suggest leaning towards powertrain architectures making more use of these units over low speed. May 2010. “Performance Analysis of Shaft Generator Systems” Electrical Engineering in Japan. “The environmental impacts of increased international maritime shipping –Past trends and future perspectives. et al. and in the situation that power availability necessitates idling of the single ME. Relative to the base configuration the no-idle setup shows very significant savings in each of the propulsion modes: 4. S. G. highspeed diesels are more efficient. July 2002.S. 27. “LHD 8 . 1995.. pages 74–75.. 2008. [6] Aldrete.12000 Fuel Consumption (kg/hr) 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Cruise RSZ MAN Hotel Cruise RSZ MAN Hotel 12. This data will augment the ability to size and operate systems in accordance with use profiles. high power units. et al. Issue 3.7% in MAN. or simply the required available ship service power for a given mode of operation. 2006. [10] Fernandez. A system that is able to operate without the ME online idling has the potential to reduce both fuel consumption rates as well as emission rates by 4.0% or 34. No. “Economic Benefits of Hybrid Drive Propulsion for Naval Ships” IEEE. “The application of drives and generator technology to a modern container ship” IEEE Electrical Machines and Drives Conf.7%. 2009. However. [14] Nishikata. Volume 114. 2006. additional potential pathways exist for providing the required auxiliary power in a given mode without requiring the ME to idle. “Potential of hybrid systems with permanent magnet motors for propulsion improvement on surface longliners” International Symposium on Fishing Vessel Energy Efficiency. Spain. One straightforward option is to introduce an additional AE such that the net electric power available is increased to be able to generate both propulsion and service loads as well as provide enough capacity for peak maneuvering demands. E-Fishing. RSZ and MAN. Fuel consumption breakdown illustrating ME and AE consumption for each of the APS scenarios.. 2007. October. 27. REFERENCES [1] Hayman.3%.5 MW APS Main Engine 3.. The capability of such a system to perform is highly dependent on power availability requirements. R. it was shown that fuel consumption performance depends greatly on the basic fuel consumption characteristics of the machine. [12] Castles. Vol. A. respectively. simulated in an operational year profile” Centrum voor Mechanische en Maritieme Constructies. With respect to system component selection.5 MW APS augment the ability of the AE system to offset propulsion loads.. [7] Browning. many important conclusions have been reached. which are highly recommended for future study. [4] Endresen.. et al. Electric Ship Technologies Symposium.0% or 34. Such a concept would also 7 Copyright © 2011 by ASME . these reductions in the rate of fuel use also correspond to reductions in the rate of emissions release. P..

You're Reading a Free Preview

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