MARITIME

Future development of ultra large container ships

Where are the limits?

Jost Bergmann
2014-04-08

1 DNV GL © 2013 Version 1

2014-04-08 SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER
Future development of container ships

 Driving factors
 Main particulars
– Length
– Beam
– Draft
– Depth
– Air draft
 Other factors
– Propulsion concepts
– LNG fuel
 Conclusion

2 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Future development of container ships

 Driving factors
 Main particulars
– Length
– Beam
– Draft
– Depth
– Air draft
 Other factors
– Propulsion concepts
– LNG fuel
 Conclusion

3 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

 The evolution of the container ship 1960-2015
UASC, MSC, CSCL 18k+

MAERSK triple-E

MAERSK E-series

TEU
MAERSK S-series

Year build

4 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

The largest container ships 2006-2015

5 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Container Ship Matrix of Bay & Row
Bay
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Row
13 3,500 TEU 3,500 TEU 3,650 TEU 4,300 TEU 4,900 TEU 5,060 TEU
(32.25 m) (212 m) (225.5 m) (254 m) (262 m) (275 m) (283 m) Panamax
14 4,250 TEU 4,500 TEU
(35.0 m) (253.4 m) (268.5 m)
15 3,600 TEU 4,500 TEU 4,600 TEU 4,900 TEU
(37.5 m) (219 m) (249 m) (254.7 m) (269.2 m)
16 5,500 TEU 5,900 TEU 6,800 TEU
(40.0 m) (257.4 m) (273.45 m) (300 m)
17 7,090 TEU 8,063 TEU 8,600 TEU
(42.8 m) (300 m) (323 m) (334 m)
18 8000 TEU 9,000 TEU 9,200 TEU 10,000 TEU
(45.6 m) (300 m) (320 m) (336.7 m) (349.7 m)
19 8,800 TEU 11,500 TEU 12,600 TEU
(48.2 m) New (300 m) (349.7 m) (366 m)
20
(51.2 m)
Panamax 13,300 TEU 14,000 TEU
(366 m) (383 m)
21 14,800 TEU 16,000 TEU
(54.0 m) (383 m) (399 m)
22 Emma M CMA CGM
(56.2 m) (397m) (396 m)
23 19,000 TEU
(59.0 m) (396 m)

6 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Economy of scale – where is the end?

 Economy of scale exist even for the step from 18k to 21k TEU
 What else could be the limiting factors?
7 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08
Future development of container ships

 Driving factors
 Main particulars
– Length
– Beam
– Draft
– Depth
– Air draft
 Other factors
– Propulsion concepts
– LNG fuel
 Conclusion

8 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Length

 Ship length has large influence on ship strength

 delta length has a square effect
 delta length is approximately 14,60 m (one bay)
 delta width has a linear effect
 delta width is approximately 2,50 m
 Other aspects related to ship length
– Harbour restrictions
– Turning basin diameter
– Quay length etc.

9 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Hull girder of ULCS

 Plate thickness up to 100 mm in upper part

 Benefit of EH 47 steel is only 3 mm compared to EH 40
 BUT: Strength in bottom structure becoming critical as well!
10 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08
18k max - One hold more?
 L = 429,2 m (26 bays)
 B = 58,6 m (23 rows)
 Hold
An even number of 40´bays is
needed between the engine room
and deck house area due to
damage stability requirements!

– Tiers = 11
– Rows = 21 (19 in lower tier)
 Deck
– Tiers = 11
– Rows = 25 (23 in upper tier)
 Nominal TEU = about 20.760

11 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Beam
 Basically aligned with container raster
 Limitations
– Ship design and operation
– Strength
– Transverse strength
– TBHD deflection
– Stability
– Transverse accelerations
– Other
– Harbour/ crane outreach
– Seaways
– Suez Canal
– B = 58,6 m – T max = 16,13 m
– B = 61,2 m – T max = 15,44 m HISTORY…
– B = 63,8 m – T max = 14,81 m

12 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

18k ULCS – One or two rows wider?
 L = 400 m  L = 400 m
 B = 61,2 m (24 rows)  B = 63,8 m (25 rows)
 TEU = about 20.750  TEU = about 21.700

13 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Draft
 ULCV’s normally have
– T design about 14,5 m
– T scantling about 16,0 m
 Scantling draft seldom fully utilized
– Average weight of containers
– Most relevant for last loading & first
discharge port (can be adapted)
 Draft restrictions
– Harbours/ terminals
– Seaways
– Rivers
– Canals

14 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Depth
 High cube design
 Max. tier(9’6”/8’6”): 10 tiers / 11 30200 H S

tiers 25580
H S
H S
 ISO container is the limiting factor
H S
 Max. depth around 30,40 m 2910 H
S
10 tiers 11 tiers
S
H
S
Passage way 481 970 H
S
Pipe Tunnel 10 tiers H S H – 9’6”
H S S – 8’6”
166
H S
2300

15 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Terminal restriction: Air draft
 Air draught during loading and unloading
 Emma Maersk in
Kobe 2006

16 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Air draught of selected bridges
Air draught
Port needed draught
from water level
Bayonne Bridge 46,00 m 19,90 m
Gerald Desmond Bridge- POLB 47,55 m 18,35 m
Osaka Bay Bridge 47,30 m 18,60 m
Chiwan Bridge – Hong Kong 53,00 m 12,90 m
Koehlbrand Bridge 53,00 m 12,90 m

 Maximum height is based on

 10 tiers high cube in the cargo hold
 10 tier high cube on the hatch cover
 Telescope type radar
 1 meter margin
 Golden Gate and Oakland Bridge have a
sufficient air draught at US ports

17 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Future development of container ships

 Driving factors
 Main particulars
– Length
– Beam
– Draft
– Depth
– Air draft
 Other factors
– Propulsion concepts
– LNG fuel
 Conclusion

18 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

 Single or twin main engine /screw concept
 Both concepts could be realized for wide beam ships
 Maximum speed requirement of about 22 kn is no limiting factor
 Propeller dimension for single engine concept reasonable /
realistic still
 Needed power is no limiting factor to built larger container ships

 MAN B&W 11(12) S90-ME9.2  MAN B&W 7(8) S80-ME9.2

(63,910/69,720kW x 84rpm) (31,570/36,080kW x 78rpm)
 Wartsila 11(12) X92  Wartsila 7(8) RT-flex82T
(64,350/70,200kW x 80rpm) (31,640/36,160kW x 80rpm)
19 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08
Influence of fuel on the principal dimensions
 Dual fuel main engine and auxiliaries

40 days range on HFO 33 days range on HFO 7 days range on HFO

7 days range on LNG 33 days range on LNG

20 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Influence of LNG as fuel for largest Container
ships
 LNG tanks require more space than HFO
 For larger LNG volumes prismatic tanks are more suitable
 Enlarged ship length due to LNG tanks to keep the same nominal
capacity will maybe occur?

21 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Future development of container ships

 Driving factors
 Main particulars
– Length
– Beam
– Draft
– Depth
– Air draft
 Other factors
– Propulsion concepts
– LNG fuel
 Conclusion

22 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Even larger container ships?

23 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

 Container Ship Matrix of Bay & Row
Bay
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Row
13 3,500 TEU 3,500 TEU 3,650 TEU 4,300 TEU 4,900 TEU 5,060 TEU

(32.25 m) (212 m) (225.5 m) (254 m) (262 m) (275 m) (283 m) Panamax

14 4,250 TEU 4,500 TEU

(35.0 m) (253.4 m) (268.5 m)

15 3,600 TEU 4,500 TEU 4,600 TEU 4,900 TEU

(37.5 m) (219 m) (249 m) (254.7 m) (269.2 m)

16 5,500 TEU 5,900 TEU 6,800 TEU

(40.0 m) (257.4 m) (273.45 m) (300 m)

17 7,090 TEU 8,063 TEU 8,600 TEU

(42.8 m) (300 m) (323 m) (334 m)

18 8000 TEU 9,000 TEU 9,200 TEU 10,000 TEU

(45.6 m) (300 m) (320 m) (336.7 m) (349.7 m)

19 8,800 TEU 11,500 TEU 12,600 TEU

(48.2 m) New (300 m) (349.7 m) (366 m)

20
Panamax 13,300 TEU 14,000 TEU

(51.2 m) (366 m) (383 m)

21 14,800 TEU 16,000 TEU

(54.0 m) (383 m) (399 m)

22 Emma M CMA CGM

(56.2 m) (397m) (399 m)

23 19,000 TEU 20,800 TEU

(58.6 m) (396 m) (429 m)

24 20,750 TEU

(61.2 m) (396 m)

25 21,700 TEU 22,750 TEU

(63,8 m) (396 m) (429 m)

24 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

18k ULCS- one hold longer & two rows wider?
 L = 429,2 m (26 bays)
 B = 63,8 m (25 rows)
 Hold
– Tiers = 11
– Rows = 23 (21 in lower tier)
 Deck
– Tiers = 11
– Rows = 25 (23 in upper tier)
 Nominal TEU = about 22.750

25 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Summary
 Economy of scale is reducing transportation costs per TEU
provided sufficient utilization
 Hull structural design has several limiting factors considering
present typical layouts
 More easy to increase beam compared with increasing length
 Wide beam designs have to cope with increased acceleration and
GM values
 Single or twin main engine / propeller concepts are realized at
present and LNG will be a typical fuel in the future
 Most harbors could serve large container ships but air draft/ under
crane clearance could be critical for intermediate loading
conditions

Unprotected
Opening
43
00
o o

26 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Have we overlooked any other factors?

Evolution of Large Crude Carriers in the 1970’s

Size levelled out at

about 320.000 DWT

Could this happen to the container

ship segment as well?

Source: Malaccamax report

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

27
Future development of container ships

Jost Bergmann, Business director container ships

jost.bergmann@dnvgl.com
+49 151 4066 9182

www.dnvgl.com

SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER

28 DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08