You are on page 1of 24

Propulsion of 2,200-2,800 teu

Container Vessel

Content

Introduction.................................................................................................. 5
EEDI and Major Ship and Main Engine Parameters........................................ 6
Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)....................................................... 6
Major propeller and engine parameters..................................................... 7
2,500 teu container vessel....................................................................... 8
Main Engine Operating Costs 20.0 knots.................................................... 9
Fuel consumption and EEDI................................................................... 10
Operating costs..................................................................................... 12
Main Engine Operating Costs 19.0 knots.................................................. 13
Fuel consumption and EEDI................................................................... 13
Operating costs..................................................................................... 15
Retrofit of Existing 7L70ME-C8.2 with EGB-LL for Reduced Ship Speeds.... 16
Exhaust gas bypass Low Load (EGB-LL)............................................. 17
Saving in operating costs and payback time........................................... 17
Summary.................................................................................................... 18

Propulsion of 2,200-2,800 teu Container Vessel

Propulsion of 2,200-2,800 teu Container Vessel

Introduction

propulsion of ships to the widest pos-

in reduced propulsion power utilisation.

The main ship particulars of 2,200-

sible extent at any load.

The design ship speed at Normal Con-

2,800 teu container vessels are nor-

tinuous Rating (NCR), including 15%

mally approximately as follows: the

This also means that the inherent de-

sea margin, used to be as high as 22-

overall ship length is 210 m, breadth 30

sign CO2 index of a new ship, the so-

23 knots. Today, the ship speed may

m and scantling draught 11.4-12.0 m,

called Energy Efficiency Design Index

be expected to be lower, possibly 19-

see Fig. 1.

(EEDI), will be reduced. Based on an

20 knots, or even lower.

average reference of the CO2 emission


Recent development steps have made

from existing earlier built container ves-

A more technically advanced develop-

it possible to offer solutions which will

sels, the CO2 emission from new con-

ment drive is to optimise the aftbody

enable significantly lower transporta-

tainer vessels in gram per dwt per nau-

and hull lines of the ship including bul-

tion costs for larger feeder container

tical mile must be equal to or lower than

bous bow, also considering operation in

vessels as outlined in the following.

the reference emission figures valid for

ballast condition. This makes it possible

the specific container vessel.

to install propellers with a larger pro-

One of the goals in the marine industry

peller diameter and, thereby, obtaining

today is to reduce the impact of CO2

This drive may often result in opera-

higher propeller efficiency, but at a re-

emissions from ships and, therefore,

tion at lower than normal service ship

duced optimum propeller speed, i.e. us-

to reduce the fuel consumption for the

speeds compared to earlier, resulting

ing less power for the same ship speed.

Fig. 1: Large feeder container ship

Propulsion of 2,200-2,800 teu Container Vessel

Furthermore, the wish to reduce fuel

shown in Fig. 2. Also K80 engine types

costs and thereby to reduce the design

were often used.

EEDI and Major Ship and Main Engine


Parameters

19-20 or even lower, may involve lower

On the basis of a case study of a 2,500

Energy Efficiency Design Index

main engine power, but also a demand

teu feeder container vessel in compli-

(EEDI)

to have lower engine speeds.

ance with IMO Tier II emission rules,

The IMO (International Maritime Organi-

ship speed from 22-23 knots to about

rectly coupled with the propeller, the

G60ME-C9.2 engine compared with

quired on all new ships contracted after

introduction of the ultra long stroke

the existing S60ME-C8.2 and the ear-

1 January 2013. The index is used as

G60ME-C9.2 engine with even lower

lier and normally used larger L70ME-

an instrument to fulfil international re-

than usual shaft speed than the exist-

C8.2 engine. The layout ranges of 6

quirements regarding CO2 emissions

ing S60ME-C8.2 will meet this goal.

and 7G60ME-C9.3 engines compared

on ships. EEDI represents the amount

The main dimensions for these engine

with 6 and 7S60ME-C8.2 together with

of CO2 emitted by a ship in relation to

types, and for the existing L70ME-C8

the existing 7L70ME-C8.2 are shown

the transported cargo and is measured

engine, normally used in the past, are

later in Fig. 4.

in gram CO2 per dwt per nautical mile.

11,588

Index (EEDI) is a mandatory index re-

10,738

sation) based Energy Efficiency Design

consumption when choosing the new

1,500

1,262

2,067

1,300

1,990

S60ME-C8.2

4,220

3,980

3,770

2,330

10,418

this paper shows the influence on fuel


As the two-stroke main engine is di-

L70ME-C8.2

Fig. 2: Main dimensions for the new G60ME-C9.2 and existing S60ME-C8.2 engines and the L70ME-C8 applied earlier

Propulsion of 2,200-2,800 teu Container Vessel

G60ME-C9.2

The EEDI value for container ships is

As an example, this is illustrated for a

duced, i.e. the necessary SMCR shaft

calculated on the basis of 70% of the

2,500 teu feeder container ship with

power will increase, see the red curve.

maximum cargo capacity, propulsion

a 5-bladed FP propeller and with a

power, ship speed, SFOC (Specific

service ship speed of 19 knots, see

The red curve also shows that propul-

Fuel Oil Consumption) and fuel type.

the black curve in Fig. 3. The needed

sion-wise it will always be an advantage

Depending on the date of contract,

propulsion SMCR (Specified Maximum

to choose the largest possible propel-

the EEDI is required to be a certain

Continuous Rating) power and speed

ler diameter, even though the optimum

percentage lower than an IMO defined

is shown for a given optimum propeller

pitch/diameter ratio would involve a

reference value depending on the type

diameter d and p/d ratio.

too low propeller speed (in relation to

and capacity of the ship.

the required main engine speed). Thus,


According to the black curve, the ex-

when using a somewhat lower pitch/

The main engines 75% SMCR (Speci-

isting propeller diameter of 6.8 m may

diameter ratio, compared with the op-

fied Maximum Continuous Rating) fig-

have the optimum pitch/diameter ratio

timum ratio, the propeller/engine speed

ure is as standard applied in the cal-

of 0.95, and the lowest possible SMCR

may be increased and will only cause a

culation of the EEDI figure, in which

shaft power of about 12,540 kW at

minor extra power increase.

also the CO2 emission from the auxiliary

about 97 r/min.

engines of the ship is included. How-

The efficiency of a two-stroke main en-

ever, certain correction factors are ap-

The black curve shows that if a bigger

gine particularly depends on the ratio of

plicable, e.g. for installed waste heat

propeller diameter of 7.2 m is possible,

the maximum (firing) pressure and the

recovery systems.

the necessary SMCR shaft power will be

mean effective pressure. The higher the

reduced to about 12,280 kW at about

ratio, the higher the engine efficiency,

According to the rules finally decided

87 r/min, i.e. the bigger the propeller,

i.e. the lower the Specific Fuel Oil Con-

on 15 July 2011, the EEDI of a new ship

the lower the optimum propeller speed.

sumption (SFOC).

to a reference value. Thus, a ship built

If the pitch for this diameter is changed,

Furthermore, the higher the stroke/bore

after 2025 is required to have a 30%

the propulsive efficiency will be re-

ratio of a two-stroke engine, the higher

is reduced to a certain factor compared

lower EEDI than the 2013 reference figure, see later in Figs. 8 and 14.
Major propeller and engine parameters
In general, the highest possible propulsive efficiency required to provide a
given ship speed is obtained with the

Propulsion
SMCR power
kW
5-bladed FP-propellers
13,500
d = Propeller diameter
p/d = Pitch/diameter ratio
Design Ship Speed = 19.0 kn
Design Draught
= 10.0 m
13,000
SMCR power and speed are inclusive of:
15% sea margin
10% engine margin
5% propeller light running
12,500

largest possible propeller diameter d,

1.20

in combination with the corresponding,


optimum pitch/diameter ratio p/d.

12,000

S60ME-C8.2
d

6.8 m
0.95

7.2 m
1.10
7.6 m

p/d

p/d
0.80

0.90

0.98

1.01

G60ME-C9.2

A lower number of propeller blades, for

11,500

Power and speed curve for


various propeller diameters (d)
with optimum p/d ratio

example when going from 5 to 4 blades


if possible, means approximately 10%
higher optimum propeller speed, and

Power and speed curve for


the given propeller diameter
d = 7.2 m with different p/d ratios

11,000
60

70

80

90

100
110 r/min
Engine/propeller speed at SMCR

the propeller efficiency will be slightly


increased, and vice versa when going

Fig. 3: Influence of propeller diameter and pitch/diameter ratio on SMCR for a 2,500 teu feeder container

from 5 to 6 blades, see later in Fig. 4.

vessel operating at 19.0 knots

Propulsion of 2,200-2,800 teu Container Vessel

the engine efficiency. This means, for

the same or a slightly lower propeller

Hence, with such a propeller type,

example, that an ultra long stroke en-

speed.

the advantage of the new low speed

gine type, as the G60ME-C9.2, may

G60ME-C9.2 engine can be utilised

have a higher efficiency compared with

This is valid for propellers with Kappel

also in case a correspondingly larger

a shorter stroke engine type, like a

technology available at MAN Diesel &

propeller cannot be accommodated.

super long stroke S60ME-C8.2 and a

Turbo, Frederikshavn, Denmark.


2,500 teu container vessel

long stroke L70ME-C8.2.


Furthermore, due to lower emitted

For a new 2,500 teu feeder container

The application of new propeller design

pressure impulses, the kappel propel-

ship, the following case study illus-

technologies may also motivate use of

ler requires less tip clearance that can

trates the potential for reducing fuel

main engines with lower rpm. Thus, for

be utilised for installing an even larger

consumption by reduced ship speed

the same propeller diameter, these pro-

propeller diameter, resulting in a further

and by increasing the propeller diam-

peller types can demonstrate an up to

increase of the propeller efficiency.

eter and introducing the G60ME-C9.2

4% improved overall efficiency gain at

as main engine.
Existing
7.0 m 6

Propulsion
SMCR power
kW
30,000

Dprop = Nblade:

Future
7.6 m 5

4, 5 and 6-bladed FP-propellers


constant ship speed coefcient = 0.19

25,000

20,000

8 L7

Tdes = 10.0 m

0ME

-C8

10,000

9.2
M E- C
7G 6 0 M6
9.2
ME- C M4
6G6 0
M5

22.0 kn

6 L7 0

M5

7S6 0
M3 M2

M4
M3
M2

M E- C

6 S 6 0M
M1

M E- C

21.0 kn

8.2

20.0 kn

8.2
M1

E-C 8.2

19.0 kn
18.0 kn

7.6 m 4 7.2 m 4

6.8 m 4

5,000

23.0 kn

.2
E- C 8

60

70

80

Existing
6.8 m 5

.2

7 L7 0

15,000

Existing
7.2 m 5

MM

SMCR power and speed are inclusive of:


15% sea margin
10% engine margin
5% light running

23.0 kn (for EEDI calculations)


23.0 kn, 7.0 m 6
MM = 26,160 kW 108 r/min (8L70ME-C8.2)

105 r/min
97 r/min

90

100

108 r/min

110

22.0 kn
22.0 kn, 7.1 m 5
M = 21,780 kW 108 r/min (7L70ME-C8.2)
20.0 kn
20.0 kn, 6.7 m 5
M1 = 15,200 kW 105 r/min (7S60ME-C8.2)
20.0 kn, 7.0 m 5
M2 = 14,970 kW 97 r/min (7S60ME-C8.2)
20.0 kn, 7.0 m 5
M3 = 14,970 kW 97 r/min (6G60ME-C9.2)
20.0 kn, 7.4 m 5
M4 = 14,730 kW 89 r/min (6G60ME-C9.2)
20.0 kn, 7.4 m 5
M5 = 14,730 kW 89 r/min (7G60ME-C9.2)
20.0 kn, 7.6 m 5
M6 = 14,570 kW 84 r/min (7G60ME-C9.2)
19.0 kn
19.0 kn, 6.7 m 5
M1 = 12,570 kW 98 r/min (6S60ME-C8.2)
19.0 kn, 7.0 m 5
M2 = 12,420 kW 92 r/min (6S60ME-C8.2)
19.0 kn, 7.0 m 5
M3 = 12,420 kW 92 r/min (6G60ME-C9.2)
19.0 kn, 7.4 m 5
M4 = 12,180 kW 83 r/min (6G60ME-C9.2)
19.0 kn, 7.6 m 5
M5 = 12,070 kW 79 r/min (6G60ME-C9.2)

120
130
140 r/min
Engine and propeller speed at SMCR

Fig. 4: Different main engine and propeller layouts and SMCR possibilities (M1, M2, M3, etc. for 20.0 knots and M1, M2, M3, etc. for 19.0 knots) for a 2,500
teu container ship operating at 20.0 knots and 19.0 knots, respectively

Propulsion of 2,200-2,800 teu Container Vessel

The ship particulars assumed are as

relatively high ship speed of 22.0 kn. This

follows:

engine type is also included in the main

Main Engine
20.0 knots

engine comparisons when operating at

The calculated main engine examples

20.0 and 19.0 knots, respectively.

are as follows:

Deadweight, scantling dwt


Scantling draught

34,800

11.4

dwt

27,700

Design draught

10.0

Length overall

203.0

G60ME-C9.2 and the existing S60ME-

197.0

C8.2 and L70ME-C8.2 therefore is of

Deadweight, design

comparison

between

the

new

Length between pp

Breadth

m 30.0

Sea margin

15

Engine margin

10

It should be noted that for the S60ME-

Design ship speed kn (22) 20.0 and 19.0

C8.2 and the G60ME-C9.2, the ship

Type of propeller

FPP

speed stated refers to normal continu-

ous rating NCR = 90% SMCR includ-

target

ing 15% sea margin. If based on calm

No. of propeller blades


Propeller diameter

major interest in this paper.

weather, i.e. without sea margin, the


Based on the above-stated average

obtainable ship speed at NCR = 90%

ship particulars assumed, we have

SMCR will be about 0.8 knots higher

made a power prediction calculation

than the design ship speed.

(Holtrop & Mennens Method) for dif-

Operating

Costs

20.0 kn
1 Dprop = 6.7 m 5
M1 = 15,200 kW 105 r/min
7S60ME-C8.2
2 Dprop = 7.0 m 5
M2 = 14,970 kW 97 r/min
7S60ME-C8.2
3 Dprop = 7.0 m 5
M3 = 14,970 kW 97 r/min
6G60ME-C9.2
4 Dprop = 7.4 m 5
M4 = 14,730 kW 89 r/min
6G60ME-C9.2
5 Dprop = 7.4 m 5
M5 = 14,730 kW 89 r/min
7G60ME-C9.2

ferent design ship speeds and propel-

If based on 75% SMCR and 70% of

ler diameters, and the corresponding

maximum dwt., as applied for calcula-

6 Dprop = 7.6 m 5

SMCR power and speed, point M,

tion of the EEDI, the ship speed will be

M6 = 14,570 kW 84 r/min

for propulsion of the container ship is

about 0.2 knots higher than the design

found, see Fig. 4. The propeller diame-

ship speed, still based on calm weather

ter change corresponds approximately

conditions, i.e. without any sea margin.

22.0 kn

As the existing L70ME-C8.2 has a rela-

tively high SMCR power, where NCR

7L70ME-C8.2

to the constant ship speed factor =


0.19 [ref. PM2 = PM1 (n2/n1).

7G60ME-C9.2

1 Dprop = 7.1 m 5
M = 21,780 kW 108 r/min

Referring to the two reduced ship

= 90% refers to the high design ship

speeds of 20.0 knots and 19.0 knots,

speed of 22.0 knots, the corresponding

The selected main engine examples,

respectively, three potential main engine

NCR at 20.0 and 19.0 knots is lower

among others, make it possible to see

types, pertaining layout diagrams and

than 90% SMCR, namely 61.7% and

the influence of the propeller diameter,

SMCR points have been drawn-in in Fig.

51.0% SMCR, respectively.

installation of one extra cylinder and engine type.

4, and the main engine operating costs


have been calculated and described.

Referring to an existing 2,500 teu


container ship earlier designed for

The main engine fuel consumption and

For the reduced ship speeds, but with-

22.0 knots and with the main engine

operating costs at N = NCR = 90%

out increasing the propeller diameter,

7L70ME-C8.2 installed, a retrofit solu-

SMCR, but N = 61.7% SMCR for the

the old S60ME-C8.2 may be relevant.

tion of the main engine is also described

existing 7L70ME-C8.2, have been cal-

later for operation at 19.0 knots.

culated for the above seven main en-

The existing L70ME-C engine type (108

gine/propeller cases operating on the

r/min) has often been used in the past as

reduced ship speed of 20.0 knots, as

prime movers in the existing 2,200-2,800

often used today. Furthermore, the cor-

teu large feeder container ships with a

responding EEDI has been calculated

Propulsion of 2,200-2,800 teu Container Vessel

Propulsion power
demand at N = NCR
kW
16,000
14,000

Relative power
reduction
%
8

Including a 15% sea margin

13,680 kW

13,473 kW

13,473 kW

13,257 kW

13,257 kW

13,113 kW

13,428 kW

12,000

10,000

4.1%

8,000

4,000

3.1%

3.1%

6,000

1.8%

1.5%

1.5%

2,000
0

0%

7S60ME-C8.2
N1
Dprop:
6.7 m 5

7S60ME-C8.2 6G60ME-C9.2 6G60ME-C9.2 7G60ME-C9.2 7G60ME-C9.2


N2
N3
N4
N5
N6
7.0 m 5
7.0 m 5
7.4 m 5
7.4 m 5
7.6 m 5

7L70ME-C8.2
N
7.1 m 5

Fig. 5: Expected propulsion power demand at N=NCR = 90% SMCR for 20.0 knots (N = 61.7% SMCR for 7L70ME-C8.2)

on the basis of the 75% SMCR-related

When multiplying the propulsion power

total reduction of fuel consumption of

figures for 70% of max. dwt. (without

demand at N (Fig. 5) with the SFOC (Fig.

the new 7G60ME-C9.2 at N6 is about

sea margin).

6), the daily fuel consumption is found

5.6% (see also the above-mentioned

and is shown in Fig. 7. Compared with

savings of 4.1% and 1.5% stated in

N1 for the existing 7S60ME-C8.2, the

Figs. 5 and 6).

Fuel consumption and EEDI


Fig. 5 shows the influence of the propeller diameter with five propeller
blades when going from about 6.7 m to
7.6 m. Thus, N6 for the 7G60ME-C8.2
with a 7.6 m propeller diameter has a
propulsion power demand that is about

SFOC
g/kWh
176
175
173
172
170

basis valid for the 7S60ME-C8.2. with a

169

Fig. 6 shows the influence on the main


engine efficiency, indicated by the Specific Fuel Oil Consumption, SFOC, for

167
N2

165

N
N4

164

N1

M3 6G60ME-C9.2 7.0 m x 5
(M) 7L70ME-C8.2 7.1 m x 5
M6 7G60ME-C9.2 7.6 m x 5

163

N3

M5 7G60ME-C9.2 7.4 m x 5

162

N6

161

used as basis with the 7S60ME-C8.2

159

N5

Basis

0.9%

157

1.5%

156
25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

7L70ME-C8.2 SFOC is 165.4 g/kWh.

65

70

75

80

For 7L70ME-C8.2

In N5, the SFOC is about 2.3% lower

10 Propulsion of 2,200-2,800 teu Container Vessel

-1.1%
-0.7%
-0.4%
0.0%

158

g/kWh and for N = 61.7% M with

compared with N1.

M4 6G60ME-C9.2 7.4 m x 5
M1 7S60ME-C8.2 6.7 m x 5 Basis

166

160

M5 with 7G60ME-C8.2 SFOC is 160.5

D prop

M2 7S60ME-C8.2 7.0 m x 5

168

the seven cases. For N1 = 90% M1


SFOC is 164.2 g/kWh, for N5 = 90%

Standard high-load
optimised engines

171

4.1% lower compared with N1 used as


propeller diameter of about 6.7 m.

IMO Tier ll
ISO ambient conditions
LCV = 42,700 kJ/kg

174

Fig. 6: Expected SFOC for 20.0 knots

85

90 95 100% SMCR
Engine shaft power

N = NCR M = SMCR
61.7%
68.6%

2.3%

Savings in SFOC

The reference and the actual EEDI

knots, the actual EEDI figures are rela-

For information, the calculated EEDI

figures have been calculated and are

tively low with the lowest EEDI (60%)

valid for the old cases 7L70ME-C8.2 (22

shown in Fig. 8 (EEDIref = 174.22 x max.

for cases 5 and 6 with 7G60ME-C9.2.

kn.) and 8L70ME-C8.2 (23 kn.) is also

dwt -0.201, 15 July 2011). As can be seen

All these cases may also meet the

shown in Fig. 8. The old 8L70ME-C8.2

for all six cases with S60ME-C8.2 and

stricter EEDI reference figure valid after

(23 kn.) is more or less the reason for the

G60ME-C9.2 and layouted for 20.0

2025.

100% EEDI reference figure used today.


IMO Tier ll
ISO ambient conditions
LCV = 42,700 kJ/kg

Fuel consumption
of main engine
t/24h
70
60

53.91
t/24h

53.68
t/24h

52.63
t/24h

52.42
t/24h

Relative saving of
fuel consumption
%
14
51.06
t/24h

50

53.30
t/24h

50.90
t/24h

10

40

30

5.3%

20

0%

7S60ME-C8.2
N1
Dprop: 6.7 m 5

5.6%

6
4

2.8%

2.4%

10
0

12

1.1%

0.4%
7S60ME-C8.2
N2
7.0 m 5

6G60ME-C9.2
N3
7.0 m 5

6G60ME-C9.2
N4
7.4 m 5

7G60ME-C9.2
N5
7.4 m 5

7G60ME-C9.2
N6
7.6 m 5

7L70ME-C8.2
N
7.1 m 5

2
0

Fig. 7: Expected fuel consumption at N = NCR = 90% SMCR for 20.0 knots (N = 61.7% SMCR for 7L70ME-C8.2)

Reference and actual EEDI


CO2 emissions
gram per dwt/n mile
75% SMCR and 70% of max dwt: 20.2 kn without sea margin
25
EEDI reference (21.29/100%)

Actual/Reference EEDI %
110

EEDI actual
20.44

20
17.69
83%

15

13.49

13.43

13.19

63%

13.13

63%

62%

62%

12.81
60%

96%

12.76
60%

Year
100 2013
90
80

2015 Contract date


before 1 January
2020

70

2025

60
50

10

40
30
5

20
10

7S60ME-C8.2 7S60ME-C8.2 6G60ME-C9.2 6G60ME-C9.2 7G60ME-C9.2 7G60ME-C9.2 7L70ME-C8.2 8L70ME-C8.2


N1
N2
N3
N4
N5
N6
N
NN
Dprop: 6.7 m 5
7.0 m 5
7.0 m 5
7.4 m 5
7.4 m 5
7.6 m 5
7.1 m 5
7.0 m 5
(22.0 kn)
(23.0 kn)

Fig. 8: Reference and actual Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for 20.0 knots

Propulsion of 2,200-2,800 teu Container Vessel 11

IMO Tier ll
ISO ambient conditions
250 days/year
NCR = 90% SMCR (61.7% for 7L70ME-C8.2)
Fuel price: 700 USD/t

Annual operating costs


Million USD/Year

Relative saving
in operating costs
%

10.0

10 Maintenance

9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0
5.1%

5.0

Lubricating oil
Fuel oil

5.4%

5
4

4.0
3.0

2.5%

2.9%

2.0
1.0

0.4%

0%

0.0

2
0.8%

7S60ME-C8.2 7S60ME-C8.2 6G60ME-C9.2 6G60ME-C9.2 7G60ME-C9.2 7G60ME-C9.2 7L70ME-C8.2


N1
N2
N3
N4
N5
N6
N
7.0 m 5
7.0 m 5
7.4 m 5
7.4 m 5
7.6 m 5
7.1 m 5
Dprop: 6.7 m 5
Fig. 9: Total annual main engine operating costs for 20.0 knots

Operating costs

Saving in operating costs (Net Present Value)


Million USD
11

The total main engine operating costs


N6: 7.6 m 5
7G60ME-C9.2

IMO Tier ll
ISO ambient conditions
N = NCR = 90% SMCR (61.7% for 7L70ME-C8.2)
250 days/year
Fuel price: 700 USD/t
Rate of interest and discount: 6% p.a.
Rate of ination: 3% p.a.

10
9
8
7

N5: 7.4 m 5
7G60ME-C9.2

per year, 250 days/year, and fuel price


of 700 USD/t, are shown in Fig. 9. The
lube oil and maintenance costs are
shown too. As can be seen, the major
operating costs originate from the fuel
costs about 96%.

N4: 7.4 m 5
6G60ME-C9.2
N3: 7.0 m 5
6G60ME-C9.2

5
4

After some years in service, the relative savings in operating costs in Net
Present Value (NPV), see Fig. 10, with
the existing 7S60ME-C8.2 used as

basis N1 with the propeller diameter

2
1
0
0

10

15

20

25

Fig. 10: Relative saving in main engine operating costs (NPV) for 20.0 knots

12 Propulsion of 2,200-2,800 teu Container Vessel

N:7.1 m 5
7L70ME-C8.2
N2: 7.0 m 5
7S60ME-C8.2
N1: 6.7 m 5
7S60ME-C8.2

30 Years
Lifetime

of about 6.7 m, indicates an NPV saving for the new 7G60ME-C9.2 engine.
After 25 years in operation, the saving
is about 8.7 million USD for N5 with
7G60ME-C9.2 with the SMCR speed
of 89.0 r/min and propeller diameter of
about 7.4 m.

Main Engine Operating Costs


19.0 knots
The calculated main engine examples

Propulsion power
demand at N = NCR
kW
14,000
12,000

are as follows:

11,313 kW

Including a 15% sea margin


11,178 kW

11,178 kW

10,962 kW

10,863 kW

11,117 kW

10,000

19.0 kn

3 Dprop = 7.0 m 5
M3 = 12,420 kW 92 r/min
6G60ME-C9.2
4 Dprop = 7.4 m 5
M4 = 12,180 kW 83 r/min
6G60ME-C9.2
5 Dprop = 7.6 m 5
M5 = 12,070 kW 79 r/min
6G60ME-C9.2

1.2%

2,000

0%

6S60ME-C8.2 6S60ME-C8.2 6G60ME-C9.2 6G60ME-C9.2 6G60ME-C9.2 7L70ME-C8.2


N1
N2
N3
N4
N5
N
Dprop: 6.7 m 5
7.0 m 5
7.0 m 5
7.4 m 5
7.6 m 5
7.1 m 5

for 7L70ME-C8.2)
SFOC
g/kWh
176
175
174
173

IMO Tier ll
ISO ambient conditions
LCV = 42,700 kJ/kg

172
171
170

Standard high-load
optimised engines

169
N
N2

166

M = 21,780 kW 108 r/min

7L70ME-C8.2

operating costs at N = NCR = 90%

165

lated for the above six main engine/pro-

D prop
7.0 m x 5

M1 6S60ME-C8.2
(M) 7L70ME-C8.2

6.7 m x 5 Basis
7.1 m x 5

M5 6G60ME-C9.2 7.6 m x 5
M4 6G60ME-C9.2 7.4 m x 5

164
163

N4

161
160

M3 6G60ME-C9.2 7.0 m x 5
Basis

0.0%

N3
1.6%

158
157
156

-1.3%
-0.9%

N5

162

Savings
in SFOC

2.2%
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100% SMCR
Engine shaft power

SMCR, but N = 51% SMCR for the existing 7L70ME-C8.2, have been calcu-

M2 6S60ME-C8.2

N1

159

The main engine fuel consumption and

Fig. 11: Expected propulsion power demand at N = NCR = 90% SMCR for 19.0 knots (N = 51% SMCR

167

1 Dprop = 7.1 m 5

1.2%

168

22.0 kn

1.7%

4,000

3.1%

6,000

2 Dprop = 7.0 m 5
M2 = 12,420 kW 92 r/min
6S60ME-C8.2

6
5

4.0%

8,000

1 Dprop = 6.7 m 5
M1 = 12,570 kW 98 r/min
6S60ME-C8.2

Relative power
reduction
%
7

For 7L70ME-C8.2

3.6%

N = NCR M = SMCR
51.0%
56.7%

Fig. 12: Expected SFOC for 19.0 knots

peller cases operating on the reduced


ship speed of 19.0 knots, which is prob-

a propulsion power demand that is

for N3 of about 3.6%. For N = 51.0%

ably going to be a more normal choice

about 4.0% lower compared with the

M with 7L70ME-C8.2 SFOC is 167.3

in the future. Furthermore, the EEDI has

N1 used as basis for the 6S60ME-C8.2

g/kWh, i.e. an SFOC increase of about

been calculated on the basis of the 75%

with an about 6.7 m propeller diameter.

1.3%.

Fig. 12 shows the influence on the main

The daily fuel consumption is found by

SMCR-related figures for 70% of max.


dwt. (without sea margin).

engine efficiency, indicated by the Spe-

multiplying the propulsion power de-

Fuel consumption and EEDI

cific Fuel Oil Consumption, SFOC, for

mand at N (Fig. 11) with the SFOC (Fig.

Fig. 11 shows the influence of the pro-

the six cases. For N1 = 90% M1 with

12), see Fig. 13. The total reduction of

peller diameter with five propeller blades

the 6S60ME-C8.2 used as basis SFOC

fuel consumption of the new 6G60ME-

when going from about 6.7 m to 7.6 m.

is 165.1 g/kWh compared with the

C9.2, N5 with propeller diameter 7.6

Thus, N5 for the 6G60ME-C9.2 with

159.2 g/kWh for N3 = 90% M3 for the

m, is about 5.5% compared with N1

an about 7.6 m propeller diameter has

6G60ME-C9.2, i.e. an SFOC reduction

for the existing 6S60ME-C8.2.

Propulsion of 2,200-2,800 teu Container Vessel 13

The reference and the actual EEDI


figures have been calculated and are
shown in Fig. 14 (EEDIref = 174.22
max. dwt

-0.201

IMO Tier ll
ISO ambient conditions
LCV = 42,700 kJ/kg

Fuel consumption
of main engine
t/24h

Relative saving of
fuel consumption
%

70

14

60

12

, 15 July 2011). As can

be seen for all five cases with 6S60MEC8.2 and 6G60ME-C9.2 and layouted
for 19.0 knots, the actual EEDI figures
are much lower than the reference figure because of the relatively low ship
speed of 19.0 knots.

50

44.83
t/24h

44.69
t/24h

42.72
t/24h

42.36
t/24h

44.64
t/24h

40

10
8

30

All these cases may also meet the

42.46
t/24h

4.7%

5.3%

5.5%

20

stricter EEDI reference figure valid after


2025.

10

0%
As for the earlier stated cases based
on 20 knots, the EEDI for the old cases

0.4%

0.3%

6S60ME-C8.2 6S60ME-C8.2 6G60ME-C9.2 6G60ME-C9.2 6G60ME-C9.2 7L70ME-C8.2


N1
N2
N3
N4
N5
N
Dprop: 6.7 m 5
7.0 m 5
7.0 m 5
7.4 m 5
7.6 m 5
7.1 m 5

2
0

7L70ME-C8.2 (22 kn.) and 8L70MEC8.2 (23 kn.) is also shown in Fig. 14

Fig. 13: Expected fuel consumption at N = NCR = 90% SMCR for 19.0 knots (N = 51% SMCR for

for information.

7L70ME-C8.2)

Reference and actual EEDI


CO2 emissions
gram per dwt/n mile
75% SMCR and 70% of max dwt: 19.2 kn without sea margin
25
EEDI reference (21.29/100%)

Actual/Reference
EEDI %
110

EEDI actual
20.44

20
17.69
83%

96%

15

10

Year
100 2013
90 2015 Contract date
80 2020
70 2025

11.86

11.82

56%

56%

11.33

11.26

53%

53%

11.23
53%

60
50
40
30

20
10

6S60ME-C8.2 6S60ME-C8.2 6G60ME-C9.2 6G60ME-C9.2 6G60ME-C9.2 7L70ME-C8.2 8L70ME-C8.2


NN
N
N5
N4
N3
N2
N1
7.0 m 5
7.1 m 5
7.6 m 5
7.4 m 5
7.0 m 5
7.0 m 5
Dprop: 6.7 m 5
(23.0 kn)
(22.0 kn)

Fig. 14: Reference and actual Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for 19.0 knots

14 Propulsion of 2,200-2,800 teu Container Vessel

before 1 January

IMO Tier ll
ISO ambient conditions
250 days/year
NCR = 90% SMCR (51.0% for 7L70ME-C8.2)
Fuel price: 700 USD/t

Annual operating costs


Million USD/Year

9.0

Relative saving
in operating costs
%

8.0

7.0

6.0
5.1%

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

1
0%

0.3%

-1.0
Dprop:

6S60ME-C8.2
N1
6.7 m 5

Fuel oil

5.4%

4.5%

0.0

Maintenance
Lubricating oil

-0.3%

6S60ME-C8.2
N2
7.0 m 5

6G60ME-C9.2
N3
7.0 m 5

6G60ME-C9.2
N4
7.4 m 5

6G60ME-C9.2
N5
7.6 m 5

7L70ME-C8.2
N
7.1 m 5

-1

Fig. 15: Total annual main engine operating costs for 19.0 knots

Saving in operating costs (Net Present Value)


Million USD
9
IMO Tier ll
ISO ambient conditions
N = NCR = 90% SMCR (51.0% for 7L70ME-C8.2)
250 days/year
Fuel price: 700 USD/t
Rate of interest and discount: 6% p.a.
Rate of ination: 3% p.a.

8
7
6

Operating costs
The total main engine operating costs
N5: 7.6 m 5
6G60ME-C9.2

per year, 250 days/year, and fuel price

N4: 7.4 m 5
6G60ME-C9.2

of 700 USD/t, are shown in Fig. 15.

N3: 7.0 m 5
6G60ME-C9.2

Lube oil and maintenance costs are


also shown at the top of each column.
As can be seen, the major operating
costs originate from the fuel costs

about 96%.

After some years in service, the relative

savings in operating costs in Net Pre-

existing 6S60ME-C8.2 with the propel-

sent Value, NPV, see Fig. 16, with the

N2: 7.0 m 5
6S60ME-C8.2
N1: 6.7 m 5 Basis
6S60ME-C8.2
N:7.1 m 5
7L70ME-C8.2

0
1
0

10

15

20

25

Fig. 16: Relative saving in main engine operating costs (NPV) for 19.0 knots

30 Years
Lifetime

ler diameter of about 6.7 m used as basis, indicates an NPV saving after some
years in service for the new 6G60MEC9.2 engine. After 25 years in operation, the saving is about 7.3 million USD
for N4 with the 6G60ME-C9.2 with the
SMCR speed of 83.0 r/min and propeller diameter of about 7.4 m.

Propulsion of 2,200-2,800 teu Container Vessel 15

Retrofit of Existing 7L70ME-C8.2 with


LL-EGB for Reduced Ship Speeds
As mentioned earlier in this paper, the
as
t G ld
us ifo
ha an
Ex M

container ships built a few years ago

Expansion Joint
(Compensator)

were designed for sailing in service at

Pipe Support
(Slide Point)

relatively high ship speeds, which at

Pipe Support
(Fix Point)

that time was beneficial due to the high

Expansion Joint
(Compensator)

freight rates and low fuel prices.

EGB-Valve

r
ve
ei
ec ine
t R ng
us E
ha ain
Ex M

Today, the high fuel prices, low freight


rates, and stricter EEDI demands have

Yard
Supply

Orice
MAN B&W
Supply

forced the shipowners to sail with a


relatively low ship speed compared to
what was originally intended, i.e. to operate the main engine continuously at

Exhaust Gas Bypass, EGB open and closed EGB (for guidance only) ME/ME-C

reduced main engine loads.

Closed

Partly open

60

70

Low-Load (LL)

Open

80

Engine load

90

100% SMCR

Fig. 17: Exhaust gas bypass for Low Load tuning (LL-EGB)

Retrot
7L70ME-C8.2 with LL-EGB
SMCR = 21,780 kW 108 r/min

SFOC
g/kWh
176
175

IMO Tier ll
ISO ambient conditions
LCV = 42,700 kJ/kg

174
173

New average
service

172
171
170

LL-EGB

168.7

169

HL-Standard

168

167
166
165

163.7

164

163
162
161
160
159

Case A: 7L70ME-C8.2 HL-standard tuned (Existing)


Case B: 7L70ME-C8.2 with LL-EGB (Retrot)

158
157
156
25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95 100% SMCR

Fig. 18: SFOC reduction for 7L70ME-C8.2 with LL-EGB operating at 45% SMCR at reduced ship speed

16 Propulsion of 2,200-2,800 teu Container Vessel

Fuel consumption
of main engine
t/24h
70

IMO Tier ll
ISO ambient conditions
LCV = 42,700 kJ/kg
Retrot
7L70ME-C8.2 with LL-EGB
SMCR = 21,780 kW 108 r/min

60
50

39.67
t/24h

40

Relative saving of
fuel consumption
%
7
6
5

38.50
t/24h

3.0%

30

Exhaust Gas Bypass Low Load


(LL-EGB)
A reduction of SFOC when operating at
low loads is possible but is limited by
NOx regulations on two-stroke engines.
Thus, NOx emission will increase if the
SFOC is reduced and vice versa.

Compared to a standard high load op-

20

timised ME-C engine, an SFOC reduc-

10

0%

7L70ME-C8.2
HL-Standard
A

7L70ME-C8.2
LL-EGB
B

tion of 5g/kWh at low load is possible,


but at the expense of a higher SFOC in
the high-load range without exceeding
the IMO NOx limit.
This is possible by means of an exhaust
gas bypass, low load optimised, see Fig.

Fig. 19: Expected fuel consumption in average service on 45% SMCR

17. The corresponding SFOC curve for


a 7L70ME-C8.2 with SMCR = 21,780
kW x 108 r/min is shown in Fig. 18.
Relative saving
in operating costs
%

Annual operating costs


Million USD/Year

10.0
9.0
8.0

Retrot
7L70ME-C8.2 with LL-EGB
SMCR = 21,780 kW 108 r/min
250 days/year
Fuel price: 700 USD/t

Maintenance
Lubricating oil

2.9%

6.0

4.0
3.0

timised 7L70ME-C8.2 with SMCR =


speed of 22.0 knots has been used as
basis.

been calculated valid for the new average engine service load of 45% SMCR
which more or less corresponds to

2.0

0.0

The existing standard high load op-

The SFOC and fuel consumptions have

5.0

1.0

back time

21,780 kW x 108 r/min and design ship


Fuel oil

7.0

Saving in operating costs and pay-

the reduced average ship speed of 19


knots, case A, see Figs. 18 and 19.

0%
7L70ME-C8.2
HL-Standard
A

7L70ME-C8.2
LL-EGB
B

The corresponding SFOC and fuel


consumptions valid for LL-EGB, case
B, is also shown in Figs. 18 and 19.
The LL-EGB case B has an about 3%

Fig. 20: Total annual main engine operating costs in average service on 45% SMCR

lower fuel consumption than for the HLstandard tuned engine, case A.
The annual operating costs are shown
in Fig. 20, and the saving in operating

Propulsion of 2,200-2,800 teu Container Vessel 17

and investment costs (net present value)

Summary

Container ships with lower ship speeds

is shown in Fig. 21. However, the total

Traditionally, short and long stroke K80

are indeed compatible with propellers

extra investment costs needed for ret-

and L70 engines, with relatively high en-

with larger propeller diameters than the

rofit with LL-EGB and indicated in Fig.

gine speeds, have been applied as prime

current designs, and thus high propel-

21, depend very much on the existing

movers in large feeder container vessels.

ler efficiencies following an adaptation

turbochargers as some turbocharger

of the aft hull design to accommodate

layouts may need more comprehensive

Following the efficiency optimisation

the larger propeller, together with opti-

modifications than others. Each retrofit

trends in the market, including reduced

mised hull lines and bulbous bow, con-

project, therefore, has to be checked

ship speeds, the possibility of using

sidering operation in ballast conditions.

individually from case to case.

even larger propellers has been thoroughly evaluated with a view to using

Even in cases where an increased size

In general, the payback time of the LL-

engines with even lower speeds for

of the propeller is limited, the use of

EGB modification may be about 2 years.

propulsion.

propellers based on the new propeller


technology will be an advantage.

Saving in operating and investment costs (Net Present Value)


Million USD
4.0

7L70ME-C8.2
LL-EGB

IMO Tier ll
ISO ambient conditions
250 days/year
Fuel price: 700 USD/t
Rate of interest and discount: 6% p.a.
Rate of ination: 3% p.a.

3.5
3.0

The new and ultra long stroke G60MEC9.2 engine type meets this trend in
the large feeder container market. This
paper indicates, depending on the propeller diameter used, an overall efficiency increase of up to 5-6% when using
G60ME-C9.2, compared with the existing main engine type S60ME-C8.2.

2.5
2.0

The Energy Efficiency Design Index

1.5

ing the G60ME-C9.2. However, the use

(EEDI) will also be reduced when usof lower design ship speed may by it-

1.0

self reduce the EEDI involving that the


stricter EEDI demands in the future may

0.5

always be met.
7L70ME-C8.2
HL-Standard

0
0.5

For existing container ships designed


for high ship speeds, the retrofit of the
main engine with a LL-EGB may reduce

1.0
0

10

15

20

25

30 Years
Lifetime

the operating costs with about 3%


when sailing at reduced ship speeds.
The payback time may be about 2

Fig. 21: Relative saving in Net Pressent Value costs in average service on 45% SMCR

years, but depends on the existing turbocharger configuration.

18 Propulsion of 2,200-2,800 teu Container Vessel

All data provided in this document is non-binding. This data serves informational
purposes only and is especially not guaranteed in any way. Depending on the
subsequent specific individual projects, the relevant data may be subject to
changes and will be assessed and determined individually for each project. This
will depend on the particular characteristics of each individual project, especially
specific site and operational conditions. CopyrightMAN Diesel & Turbo.
5510-0145-00ppr Oct 2013 Printed in Denmark

MAN Diesel & Turbo


Teglholmsgade 41
2450 Copenhagen SV, Denmark
Phone +45 33 85 11 00
Fax
+45 33 85 10 30
info-cph@mandieselturbo.com
www.mandieselturbo.com

MAN Diesel & Turbo a member of the MAN Group