2.1K views

Uploaded by api-27176519

- 201508198-Piper-inspection-report.pdf
- mech syllabus
- DNV Ice Rules
- MEO Class I Orals
- PS Model Tutorial
- Liquid Bulk Terminal
- Understanding Design of Ship Propeller
- Thrust Blocks[1]
- CESC Training
- MARC Steam Turbines
- ABS 2014 Steel Vessel Rules - Propellers , SVR_Part_4_e-Feb14
- Suzuki OBM Propellers
- Asphalt Pump 5 26
- 3Q_2006_7F
- USA Experimental Model Basin
- Air Bottle or Air Receiver on Board Ship
- Miller Fan Filters
- The Adventures of Robinson Crusoe
- Cost Benefits of a Cycling Analysis on a Combined Cycle Unit
- Gear Ratio

You are on page 1of 23

This technical paper is embargoed until March 12, 2008 as it will be presented that morning at

Technical Session 10, “LNG Shipping: Development, Technology, Crewing, Operations and

Trends” during the Gastech 2008 Conference. If you wish to use this material, you must

acknowledge it comes from a Gastech 2008 conference paper.

DESIGN OF ARCTIC LNG VESSEL PROPULSION

Sing-Kwan Lee

ABSTRACT

Ships navigating in ice areas perform quite differently due to ice resistance as compared to their open sea

operations. It is a challenge for ship designers to find a design solution which not only optimizes the

propulsion performance in open sea but also provides the ship with good ice performance. Traditionally,

many ship designers have used rule formulae in Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules (FSICR) to estimate

the required engine power. While the use of these formulae have proven to be satisfactory thus far,

recently increased growth in the activities in oil and gas production in the Arctic area call into question the

continued applicability of these Rules for a very obvious reason. The transportation of these oil and gas

products requires ice tankers and ice LNG ships to operate in ice conditions much thicker than those

previously assumed in FSICR.

In such cases, more and more ship designers are turning to direct calculations and model tests for

propulsion designs. In this paper, the two most critical design issues in ice ship propulsion will be

discussed, namely engine powering and propulsor performance. Comparisons of propulsion designs

based on FSICR and on direct calculation are presented for different propulsors. These include fixed pitch,

controllable pitch, and ducted propellers for their performance in ice operation.

1. INTRODUCTION

Approximate estimates indicate about one third of the world’s known, though not yet developed, reserves

of natural gas are in Russia. The overwhelming majority of these reserves are in Artic and Subarctic

areas. Russia is not alone in having large natural gas reserves located in Arctic areas, but other

countries like Canada and the USA share the same situation with having natural gas reserves in harsh,

ice-covered sea environments. As a consequence, the LNG ship technology is moving towards Arctic

LNG carriers. New developments in ice navigation and the winterization issues are generating a new

challenge for shipping and shipbuilding industries all over the world.

The economics of LNG transportation by ships from the Arctic are dependent on the efficiency of

operation in two areas-- the efficiency of the ship when traveling through the difficult ice conditions and its

efficiency in open sea transit. Of special note is the fact that on a direct route from the Arctic to Europe or

North America the vessel will spend more than 90% of the time in open sea. In other words, if direct

transportation operation is adopted whereby the LNG is loaded on a carrier and transported all the way

from the Arctic to its destination, an Arctic LNG vessel is not allowed to sacrifice too much of its open sea

performance in order to fulfill its good ice performance. However, designing efficient open sea propulsion

and designing good ice propulsion are always in contradiction to each other. In the resistance-propulsion

point of view, the contradiction is mainly caused by the fact that high resistance is encountered while

operating in low ship speed in ice condition. In such an operation, a propulsor has difficulty performing

with its full propulsion capability and efficiency, yet the extreme resistance created by the harsh ice

conditions demands that a large thrust be generated enabling the ship to break through the ice.

There are many innovative designs proposed to solve this design dilemma, for example, DAT (Double

Acting Tanker), podded propulsion, and hull air bubble ejection, to name some of them. Indeed, new

design experience continues to grow in industry. Research and development activities have been quite

active in recent years in the area of new ice propulsion design. In this study, however, we put more focus

on the traditional propulsion concepts such as CPP (Controllable Pitch Propeller) and ducted propeller

(nozzle propulsor) instead of the edge-cutting design concepts, while trying to explore more of their

potentials in ice propulsion.

In ice going ship design, the strengthening of the hull, rudder, propellers, shafts and gears is clearly

related to the safety of navigation in ice. In principle, all parts of the hull and the propulsion machinery

exposed to ice loads have to be ice-strengthened. Hence, an ice propulsion design cannot be successful

with just the use of the propulsion capability, but should include both the thrust and the propulsion power.

A comprehensive design should include strength design of the propulsor under ice load. In addition,

propeller cavitation and its induced vibration must also be considered. It should be noted that an ice-

Lee 1

strengthened blade design makes it much easier to trigger cavitation problems due to its increased

thickness as compared to a non-ice propeller design.

For blade strength assessment, finite element analysis is usually requested to be performed based on the

ice loads and failure criteria proposed in IACS Polar class rules (IACS, 2008; Lee, 2007). Analyses of

cavitation for propeller blade and its induced hull vibration are relied upon more in the direct calculation

approach. For more details of the issues refer to (Lee, 2006).

Generally, FSICR (Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rule) is the accepted Rules used for vessels trading in the

Northern Baltic Sea in winter. The Rules primarily address matters directly relevant to the capability of

ships to advance in ice. Ships are required to have a certain speed, 5 knots, in a brash ice channel in

order to ensure the smooth progress of traffic in ice conditions. The required minimum speed, 5 knots, is

based on the maximum waiting time, 4 hours, for icebreaker assistance.

According to Section 3 in FSICR (2002), for ships entitled to ice class IA Super, IA, IB, or IC, the engine

output is to be not less than determined by the following formula.

( RCH / 1000)3 / 2

P = KC (1)

Dp

where, KC is a propeller-related constant factor, Dp is propeller diameter and RCH is resistance, which can

be calculated by the following rule formula.

3

RCH = C1 + C2 + C3 C (HF + HM)2(B + CØHF) + C4LPARHF2 + C5 ⎡ LT ⎤ AWL (2)

⎢ 2⎥

⎣B ⎦ L

Detailed meanings of the symbols used in the formula can be found in Section 3.2.2 of FSICR and are not

repeated here. When using equation 2, the following restriction is to apply:

3

⎡ LT ⎤

20 ≥ ⎢ 2 ⎥ ≥ 5

⎣B ⎦

where L is length of perpendiculars, B is maximum breadth, and T is draught. In fact, this restriction

constrains the use of the engine output formulae for large size ship.

For Arctic ships, although IACS Polar Rule for Machinery Requirement, URI3, will soon be published

(IACS, 2008), the powering for Arctic navigation is not included.

Difficulties in using FSICR for a rational design of propulsion power are learned by shipyards and

classification society such as ABS when applying FSICR to large ships (Bezinovic, 2005, Kim et al., 2005,

Lee, 2006). For a FPP (Fixed Pitch Propeller) design for an Aframax IA ice class tanker, it is found that

the engine power can be largely reduced based on a more accurate direct calculation for propulsor thrust

and model test results for ice resistance. To illustrate the general idea of the conservativeness of FSICR,

Figure 1 shows a comparison done by an engine manufacturer (MAN B&W, 2002, 2006) for the non-ice

class tankers’ engine powering and FSICR requested engine powering for ice tankers. As seen, the Rule

requests an Aframax size IA ice class tanker to install the engine power with a non-ice VLCC tanker. It

not only causes the extensive increase in cost in building the ice tanker but also creates an extremely

difficult situation in trying to fit the huge engine into an Aframax-size engine room.

In fact, in determining the ice propulsion powering, ice resistance and propulsor performance are two

dominant factors, which are related to the coefficients, RCH and KC in FSICR (see the formula (1)). The

Lee 2

coefficients are empirically estimated based on average ice resistance and propeller performance in

FSICR. With the continuously, ever-increasing introduction of new ice ship designs such as the new hull

and bow forms designed to reduce ice resistance as well as more efficient propellers, FSICR ice

powering formulae have come into a questionable review on the current validity of the rationale..

Furthermore, in the case of these Arctic ships, it has not been verified that the ice resistance and ice

powering formulae in FSICR are applicably suited to meet the demands of thicker multi-year ice

propulsion.

1a) Engine power demand for non-ice tankers 1b) Engine power demand for Finnish/Swedish ice

classed vessels – based on FSICR calculations

Figure 1 Ice and non-ice tanker engine power comparison

A comprehensive design for ship ice propulsion involves many different elements such as hull resistance,

propulsor design, engine character, shafting/gear/bearing lubrication and friction loss, CP mechanism

operation, and sometimes propeller cavitation induced by machinery vibration etc.. Although all of them

are more or less influencing the finial ice propulsion performance, ice resistance, propulsor performance

and engine character are the three most critical areas in ice powering determination. They are addressed

briefly in the following sections.

3.1 Resistance

In addition to the concern of open sea resistance when working on ice propulsion design, ice resistance is

another factor to be considered for power determination. Ship resistances in ice and open sea can be

estimated by numerical simulation or model test measurement. As CFD simulations have become more

and more practical for the study of open sea resistance in recent years (MARNET, 2002), it is anticipated

that these simulations will play an increasingly more important role in resistance prediction. However, in

the current stage, CFD is still state-of-the-art and used as a compromising method with model test results

for resistance prediction. For ice resistance simulation, some progress has been made in numerical

simulation for level ice resistance (Valato, 2001) but the brash ice resistance under waterline is still not

certain and needs to use the semi-empirical model of Lindqvist (1989).

In general, model tests are recommended by the Guidelines of FSICR (2005) for ice resistance

assessment, especially when vessel displacement is greater than 70,000 tonnes. As model test

uncertainty is always an issue, it should be noted that the difference in ice modeling and measurement

procedure may come up with a large discrepancy on ice resistance. To assist designers in performing ice

model test, some aspects of the ice model tests such as the geometry of the ice channel, ice friction

coefficient, determination of the propulsion power in full scale, and model test documentation are

Lee 3

addressed in the Guidelines of FSICR (Appendix 4). Ice resistance can usually be expressed as a

quadratic curve.

where Rice is ice resistance, VS is ship speed and d0, d1, and d2 are curve fitting constants.

Resistance tests usually are performed based on experiences and calibrations in different towing tanks.

ITTC also recommends some standard procedures for resistance test and performance prediction method

(ITTC, 2000 and 1999). If open sea resistance for designed speed is obtained, resistance at other

speeds can be calculated based on cubic law as follows:

where ROW is open sea resistance, VS is ship speed and c1, c2, and c3 are curve fitting constants, which

can be determined based on resistance and ship speed measured in model tests.

Figure 2 is the typical outlook of Rice and Row curves. As seen, ice resistance usually has higher value

than open sea resistance under the same ship speed. However, the increasing rate of the ice resistance

curve is smaller than the open sea resistance curve. It is also the reason behind the use of a quadratic

curve for ice resistance instead of a cubic curve.

As is well known, propeller thrust and torque are dependent on its geometry and operating condition (rpm

and inflow velocity toward propeller). They can be expressed as non-dimensional forms as follows:

K T = a1 + a 2 J + a3 J 2 + a 4 J 3 (5a)

K Q = b1 + b2 J + b3 J + b4 J

2 3

(5b)

Lee 4

where KT is thrust coefficient defined as T/ρn2D4 and KQ is torque coefficient as Q/ρn2D5, in which T and

Q are thrust and torque. J is advanced coefficient defined as V/nD; ρ, n, V, and D are fluid density,

propeller rps, inflow velocity, and diameter. For a specific design, {a1 a2 a3 a4} and {b1 b2 b3 b4} are

constant vectors. In additional to propeller open water model test, KT and KQ curves can also be

constructed by CFD simulation (Chen and Stern, 1999, Chen and Lee, 2005) or regression formulae (for

standard series propellers, see Oosterveld and Ossanen, 1975).

In general, equations 5a and 5b can be extended to any higher degree polynomial based on the propeller

open water measurement data, however, around the range [0, 1] of J, third order polynomial usually

provides sufficient accuracy for KT and KQ values. This can be seen obviously from the typical pattern of

KT and KQ curves shown in Figure 3 for both model and full scale Reynolds number Rn.

Propeller absorbing power (see propeller demand curve shown in Fig. 4) is usually limited by engine

power curve (see torque limit line in Fig. 4). For an appropriately designed propeller, it should absorb all

engine power at MCR rpm when advancing with the design ship speed.

For Controllable Pitch Propeller CPP), it can adjust its pitch to keep its original hydrodynamic

performance at different ship speed. Thus, CPP can approximately maintain its rpm as the MCR engine

speed and absorb the MCR engine power at different ship speed. However, for Fixed Pitch Propeller

(FPP), when ship speed becomes slower (operating in ice condition), in order to maintain the rpm as

MCR speed, the propeller needs to be supplied with more power from the engine to overcome the higher

hydrodynamic torque on the blade compared to the original ship speed condition. This leads to the

original propeller demand curve ‘shifting up’ to curve A as shown in Fig. 4.

As seen in Fig. 4, due to the limitation of the engine torque limit curve, when the propeller operates off its

design condition (design ship speed along with MCR rpm), the engine can only provide the power along

the torque limit curve and accordingly the propeller will rotate slower (see point x of curve A in Fig. 4). At

point x, engine power P is equal to propeller absorbing power, i.e., Pp = 2πnKQ ρn2D5. Using equation 5b

and definition of J, we have

Lee 5

2 3

V ⎛V ⎞ ⎛V ⎞ (6)

P = 2πρD [b1 n + b2 n 2 + b3 ⎜ ⎟ n + b4 ⎜ ⎟ ]

5 3

D ⎝D⎠ ⎝D⎠

Usually, engine power along the torque limit line follows the following relationship with rpm (MAN B&W,

1994):

P ∝ rpm2 (7a)

or more precisely

n

P = PMCR ( )2 (7b)

nMCR

where

PMCR = engine power corresponding to MCR rotation speed nMCR

Based on (7b) and (6), if propeller rotation speed n at off design operating condition is given, the engine

MCR power can be determined by the following equation.

2

⎛ n ⎞

2 3

⎟⎟ = 2πρD 5 [b1 n 3 + b2 n 2 + b3 ⎛⎜ ⎞⎟ n + b4 ⎛⎜ ⎞⎟ ]

V V V

PMCR ⎜⎜ (8)

⎝ n MCR ⎠ D ⎝D⎠ ⎝D⎠

For ship under ice operating condition, the determination of actual propeller rotation speed n in equation

(8) is related to the balance between propulsor thrust and ice resistance. Details are given in the

following.

Lee 6

When the ship operates in ice condition, the propeller thrust generated should be used to overcome both

hydrodynamic resistance (or open sea resistance) and ice resistance, i.e., T ≥ ROW + Ri = Rice, where T is

propeller thrust, ROW is open sea resistance, and Ri is net ice resistance, and Rice is the total resistance

under ice navigation. In other words, T should be large enough to overcome the total resistance, Rice.

Accordingly, we have

T ≥ Rice ⇒ ρn 2 D 4 K T ≥ d 0 + d 1V S + d 2V S2

V V V (9)

⇒ ρn 2 D 4 [a1 + a 2 + a 3 ( ) 2 + a 4 ( ) 3 ] ≥ d 0 + d 1V S + d 2V S2

nD nD nD

It should be noted that V and VS in equation (9) represent different physical meanings. The former is the

actual velocity toward the propeller and VS is the ship speed. Usually, V can be roughly estimated as VS

(1-w), where w is a wake fraction due to hull boundary layer effect. In equation (9), the thrust reduction

effect is not considered as it becomes smaller when the ship is in slow speed.

Based on equation (9), if total resistance Rice, ship velocity VS, wake fraction w, are given, the actual

propeller speed n under ice condition can be calculated.

In summary, the overall procedure for determining required engine power is as follows:

Perform model test and measure the open sea resistance at design ship speed

Construct total resistance curve – equation (3) based on ice resistance model test results

Construct propeller KT and KQ curves – equations (5a) and (5b)

For FPP, use equation (9) to determine the actual propeller rotation speed n; for CPP, n is same as the

engine MCR rotation speed but propeller performance curves (KT and KQ) will be based on those at

new turning position (more details for CPP will be illustrated in the Case Study section).

Use equation (8) to determine the required engine MCR power.

4. CASE STUDY

The aforementioned powering determination procedure is used in this section for an Arctic LNG carrier.

Different propulsor designs, namely FPP, CPP, and ducted propeller, are compared for their propulsion

powers for this LNG carrier in Baltic ice sea and Arctic sea operations.

LNG ships have traditionally been a single screw ship driven by a steam turbine. The size of the steam

turbine plant is relatively large and the turbine is expensive both to manufacture and to maintain.

Therefore, a twin steam turbine design has not been an attractive solution. New and improved

techniques have resulted in more efficient reliquefication plants to take care of the LNG boil off and more

efficient dual fuel engines. The expansive steam turbine is no longer the only choice for the LNG ship.

An Arctic LNG Shuttle with twin screws (Figure 5) and the following design parameters are selected for

this propulsion power comparison study. In this study, the selected LNG ship is assumed to be driven by

two Diesel engines.

Length = 200 m

Breadth (water line) = 28 m

Draft (max.) = 9 m

Cargo capability = 40, 000 m3

Lee 7

Figure 5 A twin screw Arctic LNG Shuttle (after http://www.hoegh.com)

According to the information posted in the internet site (http://www.hoegh.com), the LNG shuttle is

designed to transport LNG through areas with severe ice, such as the Russian Arctic. It has the

capability to operate independently (without ice breaker escort) in up to 3.0 meter nominal ice thickness.

Model tests for ice resistance and open sea resistance are conducted for this shuttle. The ice thickness

range for ice resistance is from 0.6 m to 2.4 m with ship speed range between 0 to 18 knots. The

resistance curves are reproduced in Figure 6. Later, these resistance curves will be used to estimate the

requested engine power and propulsor operation conditions such as rpm for FPP and turning angle for

CPP under different ice conditions.

In Figure 6, Baltic ice classes – IA, IB and IC are indicated as the curves corresponding to the ice

thickness Hice = 0.6m, 0.8m and 1.0m. Due to the limited data releasing in the public internet site, the ice

thickness for the ice resistance curves is only up to Hice = 2.4m although the ship is designed to operate

with ice thickness up to 3 m. It is noted that ice resistance increases rapidly with the ice thickness and

compared to the open sea resistance ROW, the net ice resistance Ri dominates the total resistance Rice.

To have a general idea of percentage for different resistances, the comparison among ROW (open sea

Lee 8

resistance), Ri = Rice – ROW (net ice resistance), and Rice (total resistance) under ship speed 5 knots is

summarized as follows:

Ice thickness Ship speed Open sea Resis. Total Resistance Net ice Resistance

Hice VS Row Rice Ri = Rice – ROW

0.6 m (IC class) 5 knots 157.0kN 1214.4 kN 1057.4 kN (87% of Rice)

2.0 m 5 knots 157.0 kN 5000.0 kN 4843.0 kN (97% of Rice)

As explained in section 3, in determining the engine power for ice navigation a sequence of calculations

needs to be performed based on the information of ice/open sea resistance, propulsor performance and

engine character. To initiate this calculation procedure, propeller diameter and its design rpm need to be

determined first. For the selected LNG carrier, a propeller (including FPP, CPP and Ducted propeller)

with 6 m diameter and 102 rpm is a reasonable choice. For rotation rpm = 102, one option of the engine

can be the following.

Cylinder. number MCR power in kW

5 5825

6 6990

7 8155

8 9320

Table 1 A example engine for MCR rpm = 102

In order to compare the engine power requested due to the performance of FPP and CPP, the same

propeller geometry – AU-CP 4 blades EAR = 55% – is used for both FPP and CPP cases. Figure 7 is an

outline plot of the propeller blade with two different EAR 55% and 70%.

Figure 7 AU-CP Propeller geometry - 4 blades with EAR 55% and 70%

Lee 9

4.2.1.1 Propeller curves – Kt and Kq

In FPP case calculation, although the propeller is a CPP design, propeller turning angle is fixed as θ = 0o,

which is corresponding to the pitch ratio P/D = 1.0. The propeller performance curves, KT , KQ, and

efficiency η, can be found from the pervious model test results (Yazaki, 1964, Yazaki and Sugai, 1966).

For design pitch ratio P/D = 1.0 under θ = 0o position, the KT and KQ curves (Figure 8) can be expressed

as follows:

10 K q = 0.69 − 0.46 J − 0.137 J 2 + 0.0012 J 3 (11)

Under 5 knots speed (FSICR requirement), the ice resistances for IA, IB and IC class can be estimated

using the model test results shown in Figure 6. The following table summarizes the results of the total

ice resistance curves (based on 2 order curve fitting) and the value of Rice at ship speed Vs = 5 knots.

IA: Hice = 1.0 m Rice = 1114 .8 + 191 .1V S + 3.5V S

2 2157.8 kN

2 1669.55 kN

2 1214.4 kN

Lee 10

To determine the actual rpm for the FPP under ice operation, equation (9) is used for the three scenarios

of IA, IB and IC ice resistance. Since a twin screw design is used, the balance of one propeller thrust

should be equal to half of the Rice, i.e., 0.5Rice = ρn2D4Kt. Therefore, we have (see also Figure 9)

1

IA: 2157.8 / 2. = 1078.9 = 0.369[0.47 n 2 − 7.49n − 68.24 + 364.01 ] (12a)

n

1

IB: 1669.55 = 834.775 = 0.369[0.47 n 2 − 7.49n − 68.24 + 364.01 ] (12b)

n

1

IC: 1214.4 = 607.2 = 0369[0.47 n 2 − 7.49n − 68.24 + 364.01 ] (12c)

n

By solving the equations (12a), (12b) and (12c), the rpms for the AU-CP FPP under IA, IB and IC ice

conditions are obtained as follows:

IA 1078.9 kN 88.0

IB 834.7 kN 79.0

IC 607.2 kN 69.0

Table 3 Actual rpm of FPP

Once the actual propeller rpms under the ice operations are known, the engine power needed to reserve

in MCR speed can be calculated based on equation (8). For the MCR rpm = 102, the requested engine

powers for IA, IB and IC classes are 11.98 MW, 10.48 MW and 8.82 MW. The details of the calculations

for these engine power values are summarized in the following table.

Lee 11

n Propeller absorbing power nMCR= 102 rpm

Class J 10Kq (eq. 11)

actual rpm P = 2πρn3D5KQ (nMCR /n)2 PMCR (eq. 8)

IA 88.0 0.25 0.566 8.942 MW 1.34 11.982 MW

IB 79.0 0.28 0.550 6.287 MW 1.667 10.48 MW

IC 69.0 0.32 0.530 4.036MW 2.185 8.819 MW

Table 4 Engine powers for IA, IB and IC classes

It is also interesting to compare these direct calculation results with FSICR calculations to see how much

reduction can be obtained based on the current approach. In FSICR, the engine power is calculated

based on equation 1. For the FPP twin case, Kc is taken as 1.6. The following is a table summarizing the

comparison.

Class Rch FSICR Power

IA 2157.8 kN 26.729 MW

IB 1669.55 kN 18.191 MW

IC 1214.4 kN 11.285 MW

Table 5 FSICR requirement for engine powers for IA, IB and IC classes

Through this comparison, it is found the engine powers requested in FSICR for this FPP case are 223%

of the power from the direct calculation for IA class, 174% for IB class and 128% for IC class.

To ensure this FPP and engine powering combination to be suitable for open sea operation, the propeller

performance needs to be checked at the MCR condition in open sea. In this study, the MCR condition

assumes that a full speed of the LNG is 17 knots under a propeller rotation speed = 102 rpm.

Under the 17 knots speed, the flow velocity in front of the FP propeller is estimated to be 14.57 knots.

Here, the wake factor is taken as 0.143 (Manen and Oossanen, 1988) based on the LNG ship block

coefficient range, 0.7 ~ 0.8. Accordingly, the advance coefficient J is calculated to be 0.73 for rpm = 102.

From Figure 8 (propeller performance curves), we notice the FPP selected is operated in good efficiency

(see the η curve). The Kt and Kq values under the J = 0.73 can be obtained from equations (10) and (11).

Based on the Kt and Kq values calculated, the thrust, T, and propeller absorbing power, P, can be

determined. The details are summarized in the following table:

102 0.73 0.16 0.0278 614.24 kN 640.36 kNm 6.840 MW

Table 6 Propeller thrust and absorbing power at open sea operation

Based on the propeller thrust value, the twin propulsion thrust is 1228.48 kN. In open sea operation, the

resistance R at 17 knots can be calculated by the following equation. It is about 1192.55 kN.

In summary, the selected FP propeller can generate enough thrust to propel the LNG ship with 17 knots

speed. The requested engine power is in the level for the ship operating in 5 knots in IB class ice

condition (see table 4). Basically, the engine powers (IA, IB and IC classes) requested to reserve in MCR

condition are large enough for open sea condition (see Table 4).

Unlike FPP, CPP can change its pitch by turning the blade in certain angle Δθ (Figure 10) to obtain more

thrust for propulsion. Usually the propeller rpm can be maintained as the MCR speed even at low ship

speed in ice navigation. These advantages make CPP more capable and efficient in ice operation.

Lee 12

Figure 10 Turning angle Δθ for CPP to adjust its pitch

To determine what θ should be turned for the blade to generate enough thrust to overcome ice resistance,

propeller performance (Kt and Kq) curves at different turning angles should be obtained first. Figure 11

shows the thrust, torque and efficiency curves for the AU-CP propeller at different blade turning angles

(Yazaki, 1964).

Figure 11 Thrust, torque and efficiency curves for the AU-CP propeller at different θ

To interpolate the turning angle value from the above J-θ-Kt curves, the operation point (J-Cice) for ice

resistance should be determined first. Here Cice is the ice resistance coefficient non-dimensionalized by

2ρn2 D4; here factor 2 is taken for twin screw propulsion consideration. For the three Baltic ice classes, IA,

IB and IC, their values are given in the following table. In Cice calculation, the ice resistance formulae in

Table 2 are used for the ice resistance Rice calculations. The J is calculated based on inflow velocity in

front of the propeller which takes into account the wake factor w = 0.143.

IA 1078.9 kN 0.281

IB 102 0.216 834.8 kN 0.217

IC 607.2 kN 0.158

Table 7 Cice values for IA, IB, and IC ice classes

Lee 13

12a J-Cice points for IA, IB and IC classes 12b Kq values for IA, IB and IC classes

Figure 12 CPP turning angle interpolations

In Figure 12a, the J-Cice points for IA, IB and IC classes are plotted in the J-θ-Kt curves. Through

interpolating the Cice values into the Kt values, the turning angles θ can be calculated. They are -5.09o for

IA class, -8.27o for IB class, and -11.48o for IC class. Based on these θ values, Kq values corresponding

to the θs are calculated and plotted in Figure 12b.

The engine powers required for the ice classes, which are equal to the propeller absorbing powers, are

calculated based on the Kq values obtained, i.e. P = 2πρn3D5Kq. They are summarized as follows:

Class J θ 10Kq

CPP rpm P = 2πρn3D5KQ

IA -4.18o 0.38372 8.632 MW

o

IB 102.0 0.216 -7.44 0.2685 6.040 MW

IC -10.72o 0.17615 3.963 MW

Table 8 Engine required powers for IA, IB and IC classes for CPP designs

As done in the pervious FPP design case, FSICR formulae are used to check the Rule required engine

powers for this CPP design. For a twin CPP propeller, Kc value is taken as 1.44 for equation 1.

Comparisons between FSICR and the direct calculations are given in the following table.

% the ratio of FSICR power

to direct calculation power

IA 2157.8 kN 24.056 MW 279 %

IB 1669.55 kN 16.372 MW 271 %

IC 1214.4 kN 10.156 MW 256 %

Table 9 Power comparison between FSICR and direct calculations

For open sea operation, since the design is same as the FPP case, the engine power for the LNG

operates in 17 knots is with the same value as in the table 6, i.e. 6.84 MW, which is 79.2% of the IA class

engine power in this CPP design.

It is well-known that a ducted propulsor has better propulsion capability when operating in slow speed

compared to an open propeller. This is not only due to the better design of the propeller at low J

operation but also due to the contribution of the thrust generated by the duct (see Figure 13).

Lee 14

Figure 13 Thrust coefficients of duct and propeller for a ducted propeller.

As seen in Figure 13, a typical thrust generated by the duct is more than half of the propeller thrust at low

J condition (J = 0.1). However, it also needs to be noted that a duct will become a disadvantage when a

vessel navigates in high speed. As seen in Figure 13, thrust over J = 0.6 from the duct becomes negative,

i.e. extra resistance is generated by the duct. Later, in this case study it will be shown that the use of the

ducted propeller can create the problem whereby the LNG carrier cannot reach a 17-knots speed in open

sea operation although it does reduce quite a lot of the engine power required for ice propulsion.

A fixed pitch ducted propeller selected in this study is a standard design of a 19A nozzle with a Ka 4-70

propeller (4 blade with EAR = 70%). In order to compare the final engine power results with the pervious

open propellers under an approximate base, the same propeller diameter, 6 m, as the open propeller is

adopted to this ducted propeller. Figure 14 shows the outline of the 19A Ka-4-70 ducted propeller (blade

and nozzle profile).

Lee 15

Figure 15 Kt, Kq and η for 19A Ka 4-70 ducted propeller (4 blade, EAR = 70%)

The propeller performance curves of this ducted propeller are available from the well-known model tests

done by van Gent and Oosterveld (1983). Figure 15 shows the performance curves. It should be noted

that the Kt curve represents the total thrust from propeller and duct. Similar to the pervious open propeller,

the Kt and Kq curves can be expressed as cubic curves. Their mathematical forms are as follows:

10 K q = 0.443 − 0.0124 J − 0.285J 2 − 0.116 J 3 (15)

Since this ducted propeller is a fixed pitch design, propeller rotation speed at ice operation will be

dropped due to the heavy loading condition encountered. Based on the thrust-ice resistance balance

principle (equation 9), the ice operation rpms for IA, IB and IC class can be determined through the

similar procedure as the FPP case. The solutions are summarized in the following table.

IA 1078.9 kN 87.0

IB 834.7 kN 78.0

IC 607.2 kN 68.5

Table 10 Actual rpm of ducted propeller

To crosscheck the solutions, a plot for the ice resistances (IA, IB, and IC classes) and the ducted

propeller thrust curve is drawn (Figure 16). The intersection points of the thrust curve and the ice

resistance lines provide the actual rpm values. As seen, the rpm values of the intersection points are

close to the values in the Table 10.

Lee 16

Figure 16 Thrust and Rice curves

Based on the actual rpms in table 10, the engine powers needed to reserve for MCR condition can be

determined based on the equation (8). The details are summarized in the following table.

Class J 10Kq (eq. 15)

actual rpm P = 2πρn3D5KQ (nMCR /n)2 PMCR (eq. 8)

IA 87 0.255 0.419 6.397 MW 1.37 8.764 MW

IB 78 0.285 0.413 4.544 MW 1.71 7.770 MW

IC 68.5 0.324 0.404 3.010 MW 2.22 6.682 MW

Table11 Engine powers for IA, IB and IC classes

Similar to the FPP case, a comparison of these direct calculations with FSICR calculation is preformed.

In FSICR, engine power is calculated based on equation 1. For a FPP twin screw, Kc is taken as 1.6. For

a ducted propeller, a further 70% reduction from the open propeller result can be applied according to the

‘Guidelines for the Application of FSICR’. The following is a table summarizing the comparison.

Open propeller 70% power of open propeller

IA 2157.8 kN 26.729 MW 18.71 MW

IB 1669.55 kN 18.191 MW 12.73 MW

IC 1214.4 kN 11.285 MW 7.90 MW

Table 12 FSICR requirement for engine powers for IA, IB and IC classes

From Table 11 and Table 12, it is found that FSICR requests 213% engine power of the value from direct

calculation for IA class; 164% for IB class; and 118% for IC class.

Lee 17

4.2.3.5 Open sea performance

Although the ducted propeller has good performance in ice operations, since its performance is usually

bad in fast speed, a crosscheck of its open sea performance is necessary. Assuming that 17 knots is the

design full speed and 102 rpm engine is used same as before, the thrust and the engine power can be

calculated based on the approach used in the open FPP case. Table 13 summarizes the details of the

calculations.

102 0.73 0.08 0.02366 337.8 kN 555.0 kNm 5.821 MW

Table 13 Propeller thrust and absorbing power at open sea operation

As known earlier, at 17 knots speed, the ship resistance is 1192.55 kN. From Table 13, the twin screw

propulsion from this ducted propeller design is 675.6 kN which is almost 50% smaller than the requested

thrust. In other words, the LNG ship can not reach the 17 knots speed by this propulsor design. It should

be noted that the problem is not from the engine power but mainly due to the available thrust at the full

speed operation. In fact, the engine requested power in this case is smaller than the open FPP case.

To estimate the ship speed for this ducted propeller design, the thrust curve for 102 rpm rotation speed

based on 2×Kt curve (2.0 × equation 14 – a twin crew propulsion) and the open sea resistance curve

(equation 13) are plotted in a same diagram (Figure 17). At the intersection point of the two curves, the

propeller thrust becomes equal to the open sea resistance and the ship speed at the point is 12.5 knots.

For this speed, the engine power requested is about 8.394 MW for each ducted propeller. Details of the

calculations are summarized in the following table.

Rpm Vs Thrust per propeller Torque per propeller Power per propeller

102 12.25 knots 620 kN 785.82 kN-m 8.394 MW

Table 14 Thrust, torque and power for open sea operation

To illustrate how the ice powering rapidly increases with the ice resistance, the powering for Arctic ice,

which is with thicker ice thickness than Baltic ice class, is also studied. As the ice resistances in thick ice

conditions are extremely high and if the FSICR ship speed 5 knots is used, it may come up that the ice

powering is irrationally high to select a reasonable size engine to fit into an engine room. Hence, in

determining the Arctic ice powering, a slower speed 2.5 knots is used as the operating speed for the

Arctic ship design. Basically, all the calculations are the same as that were previously performed for the

Lee 18

FPP, the CPP and the ducted propeller. The final results for the FPP, the CPP and the ducted propeller

for the ice thickness range from 1.2 m to 2.4 m are summarized in the following tables.

(m) (kN) rpm power (MW) (nMCR/n)2 PMCR (MW)

1.2 1994.69 80.25 7.465 1.62 12.093

1.4 2456.41 88.6 10.142 1.33 13.489

1.6 2905.26 95.7 12.883 1.14 14.629

1.8 3400. 103.3 Required propeller rpm > 102; this cause the engine

3950. being overloaded to generate the thrusts for 2.5

2.0 111.0

knots propulsion in 1.8 m upper ice thickness..

2.2 4450. 117.6

2.4 5000. 124.2

Table 15 Engine power for 2.5 knot Arctic sea navigation – FPP design

Hice (m) Total Rice (kN) CPP turning θ nMCR = 102 rpm; PMCR (MW)

o

1.2 1994.69 -7.9 7.001

o

1.4 2456.41 -5.0 9.399

o

1.6 2905.26 -2.4 12.685

o

1.8 3400. 0.5 16.554

o

2.0 3950. 3.9 21.946

o

2.2 4450. 6.9 27.964

o

2.4 5000. 10.2 35.208

Table 16 Engine power for 2.5 knot Arctic sea navigation – CPP design

2

(m) (kN) rpm power (MW) (n MCR/n) PMCR (MW)

1.2 1994.69 77.98 4.782 1.71 8.177

1.4 2456.41 85.77 6.378 1.41 8.993

1.6 2905.26 92.74 8.081 1.21 9.778

1.8 3400. 99.82 10.1 1.04 10.50

2.0 3950. 107.11 Required propeller rpm > 102; this cause the engine

4450. 113.22 being overloaded to generate the thrusts for 2.5

2.2

knots propulsion for 2.0 m upper ice thickness

2.4 5000. 119.73

Table 17 Engine power for 2.5 knot Arctic sea navigation – Ducted propeller design

According to these case studies, it has been found that the ducted propeller is the most energy-saving

design for ice operations for Arctic sea propulsion in the high ice resistance (Hice = 1.4 – 1.8 m ).

However, due to the limitation of its fixed pitch design, the ducted propeller cannot operate in the

condition with ice thickness thicker than 2 m. For the CPP design, although the power-saving capability is

not as good as the ducted propeller, the propulsion capability in ice is unlimited for any ice thickness

providing that enough power can be supplied. As expected, the FPP design has the worst performance

in ice navigation as it needs the largest amount of power among the other designs for the same ice

thickness, and it becomes unable to operate in the ice thickness equal to 1.8 m and upwards no matter if

the engine power continues to increase. However, it should be noted that for the open propeller design,

both CPP and FPP, the open sea performance is much better than the ducted propeller.

5. CONCLUDING REMARKS

Driven by the large reserves of oil and natural gas and their exploitation in Arctic and sub-arctic areas,

ship propulsion in ice-covered sea becomes a critical concern. The design dilemma of ice propulsion

Lee 19

performance against open-water performance makes ice going ship design more challenging. In this

paper, commonly used propulsors, namely FPP, CPP, and the ducted propeller, were investigated to

compare their performance in ice propulsion conditions. A detailed procedure based on direct calculation

for determining propulsion thrust and powering was documented. To illustrate how to process the

calculation procedure to obtain the required engine MCR power, an Arctic LNG carrier with ice resistance

information available was used as an illustrative example. The overall results of powering for the FPP,

the CPP and the ducted propeller for the LNG vessel are summarized again in the following table to

highlight the findings in this study.

Hice (m) Open IB IC IA 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4

sea 0.6 0.8 1.0

Resistance

1192.6 1214.4 1669.5 2157.8 1994.7 2456.4 2905.3 3400.0 3950.0 4450.0 5000.0

(kN)

PMCR 6.8 8.8 10.5 12.00 12.1 13.5 14.6 x x x x

FPP Pio NA 4.0 6.3 8.9 7.5 10.1 12.9 x x x x

Power

(MW) rpm 69 79 88 80 89 96 103 111 118 124

PFSICR NA 11.3 18.2 26.7 23.8 32.5 41.8 52.9 66.2 79.2 94.3

PMCR 6.8 4.0 6.0 8.6 7.0 9.4 12.7 16.6 21.9 28.0 35.2

CPP Pio NA 4.0 6.0 8.6 7.0 9.4 12.7 16.6 21.9 28.0 35.2

Power o o o o o o o o o o

(MW) θ -11.5 -8.3 -5.1 -6.9 -3.9 -1.1 2.1 5.6 8.8 12.2

PFSICR NA 10.2 16.4 24.1 21.4 29.3 37.6 47.6 59.6 71.3 84.9

PMCR x 6.7 7.8 8.8 8.2 9.0 9.8 10.5 x x x

Nozzle Pio NA 3.0 4.5 6.4 4.8 6.4 8.1 10.1 x x x

Power

(MW) rpm 69 78 87 78 86 93 100 107 113 120

PFSICR NA 7.9 12.73 18.7 16.7 22.8 29.3 37.0 46.3 55.4 66.0

Table 18 Comparison of powering for FPP, CPP, and Ducted propeller based on FSICR and direct

calculation

In the Table 18, both the direct calculations and FSICR calculations are included. PMCR represents the

final engine power required to be installed; Pio is the power required under different ice operation

conditions, for instance, ice operation conditions of IC class are ship speed 5 knots and 0.6 m first year

ice; PFSICR is the power calculated based on the FSICR. The FSICR calculations are extended to higher

ice condition beyond the FSICR classes, in which ice thickness is 1.0m. In principle, FSICR can be

applied if ice resistance and propeller size (diameter) and type are known (see equation 1). The rpms

provided in the table for the FPP and the nozzle (the ducted propeller) are the propeller rotation speed at

ice operation. For the value θ, it is the turning position of the CPP blade at ice propulsion. As well-known,

the CPP can maintain its MCR rotation speed even in high load condition under ice operation. The

symbol “x” means the propeller design cannot be applied. For example, “x” in the table for PMCR of the

ducted propeller (nozzle) means the open sea speed 17 knots cannot be fulfilled due to the shortage of

the thrust generated by the ducted propeller. And “x” in the FPP for Pio means no 102 rpm engine can be

used to fulfill the ice propulsion for the ice conditions – Hice > 1.8 m, due to the rpms requested are higher

than 102 in that ice condition.

From Table 18, the concluding remarks of this study are summarized as follows:

Design dilemma of ice propulsion against open sea propulsion is obvious in the FPP design. As seen,

despite the good performance in open sea for the FPP (the propeller fulfills the full speed and is

operated in high efficiency), its ice propulsion is not satisfactory. First, it requires quite high power to

reserve in the engine in order to perform the ice propulsion at low ship speed and low propeller rpm.

Second, for more severe ice conditions (Hice > 1.8m), no matter how large the engine power provided,

the FPP still cannot generate enough thrust to propel the ship at the requested speed (2.5 knots).

The ducted propeller has the best performance for ice propulsion in severe ice conditions (see Hice =

1.4 ~ 1.6m) but its open sea operation is the worst. If the CPP design is further applied to the ducted

Lee 20

propeller, its engine power PMCR will be the value of Pio and becomes much smaller compared to open

CPP for ice operation (see Pio for Nozzle and Pio for CPP in the table). In fact, there are more

advantages associated with a ducted CPP in Arctic ice propulsion. For instance, in the strength point

of view, the use of a duct to protect propeller blades will make the CPP mechanism safer in ice

operation.

The CPP has the best overall propulsion performance among the designs. It fulfills the open sea

operation well and its ice performance is also good. As seen in Table 18, its required engine power is

the smallest among the other designs for the Hice 0.6m ~ 1,2m range. The biggest advantage of CPP

is noted when the ice condition becomes more severe. The CPP design can still generate enough

thrust (by changing its pitch through turning blade position) to propel the ship to overcome the large

ice resistance. However, it should be noted that the strength of CPP is a serious design concern as

the large ice impact can easily damage the CPP mechanism.

Compared to the direct calculation for ice propulsion power determination, FSICR is quite

conservative. Although FSICR did consider the differences of propeller designs through using

different Kc values for FPP and CPP (single, twin and triple propellers), it seems the Rule is still quite

conservative for engine powering. Even more, FSICR cannot identify the limitation of a FPP design

for high ice resistance condition. At high resistance, in some FPP designs such as the one selected,

no matter how great the amount of engine power that can be provided to a propeller, the propeller

still cannot generate enough thrust for ice propulsion.

REFERENCES

Bezinovic, D. 2005, ‘Design of an AFRAMAX tanker Baltic ice class IA acc. to new Swedish-Finnish rules

2002 and model testing results – basic hydrodynamics problem’ Marine Transportation and Explotation of

Ocean and Coastal Resources, 2005.

Chen, H.C. and Lee, S.K., “Time-Domain Simulation of Four-Quadrant Propeller Flows by a Chimera

Moving Grid Approach”, Proc. COE VI Conference, Baltimore, MD, Oct., 2005.

Chen, B. and Stern, F., “Computational Fluid Dynamics of Four-Quardrant Marine-Porpulsor Flow”,

Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 43, No. 4, 1999.

Finnish Maritime Administration and Swedish Maritime Administration, “Guidelines for the Application of

the Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rule’, 2005.

Finnish Maritime Administration, ‘Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rule’, FMA Bulletin No., 2002 (www.fma.fi).

IACS, 2008, URI3 Machinery requirement for Polar class ships

ITTC, “Testing and Extrapolation Methods Resistance – Resistance Test”, ITTC Recommended

Procedures, 2002.

ITTC, “Performance, Propulsion 1978 ITTC Performance Prediction Method”, ITTC Recommended

Procedures, 1999.

Kim, H.S., Ha, M.I., Ahn, D., Kim, S.H., Park, J.W., 2005, ‘Development of 115K tanker adopting Baltic Ice

Class IA’, the 15th ISOPE, Seoul, Korea, June 16-24, 2005.

Lee, S.K., 2007, ‘Engineering practice on ice propeller strength assessment based on IACS polar ice rule

– URI3’, pp. 1337-1345, PRADS 2007, Oct.1-5, 2007, Houston, Texas, USA.

Lee, S.K., 2006, ‘Rational approach to integrate the design of propulsion power and propeller strength for

ice ships’, IceTech 2006, July 16-19, Banff, Canada.

Lindqvist, G., “A Straightforward Method for Calculation of Ice Resistance of Ships”, Proc. 10th Int.

Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Condition (POAC), Lulea, Sweden, 1989.

MAN B&W, “S70MC Project Guide”, 1994

MAN B&W, “Propulsion Trends in Tankers”, 2002.

Lee 21

MAN B&W 'Diesel Facts', pp 14-15, 2006 Feb.

Manen, J.D. van and Oossanen, P. van, “Principles of Naval Architecture”, Vol. II, Chapter 6, Propulsion,

1988.

MARNET-CFD Thematic Network, “Best Practice Guidelines for Marine Applications of Computation Fluid

Dynamics”, 2002.

Oosterveld, M.W.C and Ossannen, P. van, “Further computer-analyzed Data of the Wageningen B-Screw

Series”, ISP, 22, July, 1975

Valanto, P., “The Resistance of Ship in Level Ice”, SNAME Transaction, vol. 109, 2001

van Gent, W. and van Oossanen, P, 1983, ‘Ducted propeller systems and energy saving’, NSMB

publication no. 756a.

Yazaki, A. and Sugai, N., 1966, ‘Further model testa on four-blade controllable-pitch propellers’, Ship

Research Institute, Paper no. 16

Yazaki, A., 1964, ‘Model testa on four-blade controllable-pitch propellers’, Ship Research Institute, Paper

no. 1

Lee 22

- 201508198-Piper-inspection-report.pdfUploaded bysujinlong
- mech syllabusUploaded byKaran Gulati
- DNV Ice RulesUploaded byashokbenjamin
- MEO Class I OralsUploaded byGurvindar
- PS Model TutorialUploaded byibnu
- Liquid Bulk TerminalUploaded byEsewGembul
- Understanding Design of Ship PropellerUploaded bybahrul
- Thrust Blocks[1]Uploaded bywesprit
- CESC TrainingUploaded byShangarab Bera
- MARC Steam TurbinesUploaded byMANIU RADU-GEORGIAN
- ABS 2014 Steel Vessel Rules - Propellers , SVR_Part_4_e-Feb14Uploaded bycupidkhh
- Suzuki OBM PropellersUploaded byRomie Harie
- Asphalt Pump 5 26Uploaded bypietrofracassi
- 3Q_2006_7FUploaded byHeryanto Syam
- USA Experimental Model BasinUploaded bySérgio Roberto Dalha Valhe
- Air Bottle or Air Receiver on Board ShipUploaded byGabriel Azuren
- Miller Fan FiltersUploaded byJeff Anderson Collins
- The Adventures of Robinson CrusoeUploaded bypetruluci82
- Cost Benefits of a Cycling Analysis on a Combined Cycle UnitUploaded bysevero97
- Gear RatioUploaded byRachel Erica Guillero Buesing
- TurbineUploaded bydiby israel
- Turbo_CS_13Uploaded byChad Hunt
- 8m0114085r.pdfUploaded byDanny woods
- Propulsion Trends in TankersUploaded byAlexandruSeverin
- Question_Bank_BCMUploaded byamsk24_24
- Electric WarshipUploaded byGip Cong
- Presentation MarintekUploaded bynhsosx
- Frequently Asked Question_Chemical_Final _24 Sep 18 .pdfUploaded byNaveen Diggai
- Wärtsilä Alignment and Measurement ServicesUploaded byyoungfp
- Mechanical engineering SyllabusUploaded bynaveen kumar

- Unconventional PropulsionUploaded byapi-27176519
- Seppo Liukkonen GLUploaded byapi-27176519
- Ice Class TankerUploaded byapi-27176519
- Ice Class TankerUploaded byapi-27176519
- Squat 3Uploaded byapi-27176519
- marprop_output_radanUploaded bysathi111
- capacity and trimUploaded byapi-27176519
- NotationUploaded byapi-27176519
- Submarine DesignUploaded byapi-27176519
- Safety in Shipyard (Electrical Sys)Uploaded byapi-27176519
- Basics of Ship ResistanceUploaded byapi-27176519
- x Ray TestingUploaded byapi-27176519
- Compliant Offshore StructureUploaded byapi-27176519
- Compliant Offshore StructureUploaded byapi-27176519
- RuleUploaded byapi-27176519
- 0427-ISP-76Uploaded byapi-27176519
- IntroductionUploaded byapi-27176519
- Ice Strengthened ShipsUploaded byapi-27176519
- Densities of Oil ProductsUploaded byReza Babri
- Double Acting Ice Class TankerUploaded byapi-27176519
- MidshipUploaded byapi-27176519
- Ice Briefing 20190404Uploaded byapi-27176519
- Empirical FormulaUploaded byapi-27176519
- Res PropulsionUploaded byapi-27176519
- ice cassaUploaded byapi-27176519
- Concept ReportUploaded byapi-27176519
- StabilityUploaded byapi-27176519
- StabilityUploaded byapi-27176519
- oullineUploaded byapi-27176519

- CV Ahmad Yani.pdfUploaded byAhmad Yani
- 3Q 2015Uploaded byjosephtaiwo
- 2014 ARI Saket Centre Course Schedule (Jul - Dec).pdfUploaded byLuke Mccoy
- Tugboat Comet -General SpecificationUploaded byFachrul Madrapriya
- abs vessel rulesUploaded byharikrishnanpd3327
- Maneouvering Booklet SampleUploaded byEmrah Yesiltas
- 70000dwt Vasily DinkovUploaded byxingang
- BosunUploaded bynavigator1977
- Pma Urs31 Iacsdubai VancouverUploaded byZlatan Ibrahimovic
- mcUploaded byasdqwe123dsa
- Emergency ResponseUploaded bysabeer
- Hahn MethodUploaded byLucian
- 4Uploaded byfariskongrockefeller
- Beaufort Scale for KayakersUploaded by10141014
- Shipbuilding in BermudaUploaded bypaul_belford
- The International Milling Company v. Brown Steamship Company, the Great Lakes Towing Company, the Wayne Steamship Co., Inc., 261 F.2d 133, 2d Cir. (1958)Uploaded byScribd Government Docs
- 38 1 English BrochureUploaded byozer7
- RudderUploaded byPrince Abanid
- 7 5-04-01-01.2 Analysis of speed power trial data.pdfUploaded byNestor Gómez Rojas
- Francisco ProfileUploaded bypontolo
- Introduction to Ship-Shaped Offshore StructureUploaded byMohamad Faeze
- ROR+Q&AUploaded byArun Singh
- Anchor & MooringUploaded byMahmud Hasan
- AHTS Propulsion - For Swire Pacific OffshoreUploaded byManh Pham
- t8-1-tavakoli.pdfUploaded by917435001
- Bp QuestionnaireUploaded byprasadcshetty
- Using Pyrotechnics OnboardUploaded byalive2flirt
- 01 Flat Bottom BoatsUploaded byAlex Woto
- Ch2 Licensing and Registration Handbook 2015Uploaded bymanju
- Relthoza Updated Guide April 2016Uploaded byatler