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.



Sing-Kwan Lee

American Bureau of Shipping


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.

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.

1.1 Design Challenges in Ice Propulsion

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.

1.2 Integrated Design Consideration

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).


2.1 Power Requirement in Ice Rules

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)

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.
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:

⎡ 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.

2.2 Difficulties in the use of FSICR

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

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.

Rice = d0 + d1VS + d2VS2 (3)

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:

ROW = c1VS + c2VS2 + c3VS3 (4)

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.

Figure 2 Typical ice and open sea resistance curves

3.2 Propulsor Performance

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

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.

Figure 3 Typical propeller performance curves (KT and KQ)

3.3 Ship/Engine/Propeller Interaction

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,
P ∝ rpm2 (7a)

or more precisely

P = PMCR ( )2 (7b)

P = engine power corresponding to rotation speed n

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.
⎛ n ⎞
2 3

⎟⎟ = 2πρD 5 [b1 n 3 + b2 n 2 + b3 ⎛⎜ ⎞⎟ n + b4 ⎛⎜ ⎞⎟ ]
PMCR ⎜⎜ (8)
⎝ n MCR ⎠ D ⎝D⎠ ⎝D⎠

Figure 4 Engine and propeller demanded curve

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

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.

3.4 Procedure for Power Determination

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.

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.

4.1 Twin Screw LNG Vessel

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

According to the information posted in the internet site (, 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.

Figure 6 Ice and open sea resistance curves

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)

4.2 Powering for Baltic Ice Sea Navigation

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.

MCR rpm =102

Cylinder. number MCR power in kW
5 5825
6 6990
7 8155
8 9320
Table 1 A example engine for MCR rpm = 102

4.2.1 Fixed Pitch Propeller Design

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 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:

K t = 0.47 − 0.34 J − 0.136 J 2 + 0.034 J 3 (10)

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

Figure 8 Kt, Kq and η for AU-CP propeller (4 blade, EAR = 55%) Ice resistance for IA, IB and IC classes

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.

Ice resistance curve Rice at 5 knot speed

IA: Hice = 1.0 m Rice = 1114 .8 + 191 .1V S + 3.5V S
2 2157.8 kN

IB: Hice = 0.8 m Rice = 846.3 + 143.7V S + 4.19V S

2 1669.55 kN

IC: Hice = 0.6 m Rice = 592.4 + 103.9V S + 4.1V S

2 1214.4 kN

Table 2 Ice resistance for IA, IB and IC classes FPP rpm under ice operations

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)

IA: 2157.8 / 2. = 1078.9 = 0.369[0.47 n 2 − 7.49n − 68.24 + 364.01 ] (12a)
IB: 1669.55 = 834.775 = 0.369[0.47 n 2 − 7.49n − 68.24 + 364.01 ] (12b)
IC: 1214.4 = 607.2 = 0369[0.47 n 2 − 7.49n − 68.24 + 364.01 ] (12c)
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:

Class 0.5 Rice Actual rpm of FPP

IA 1078.9 kN 88.0
IB 834.7 kN 79.0
IC 607.2 kN 69.0
Table 3 Actual rpm of FPP

Figure 9 Thrust and Rice curves Engine power for ice navigation

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
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. Open sea performance

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:

rpm J Kt Kq T = ρn2 D4Kt Q = ρn2 D5Kq P =2πnQ

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.

R = 25.44V + 0.59V 2 + 0.12V 3 (13)

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).

4.2.2 Controllable Pitch Propeller Design

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 Blade turning angles at ice operations

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).

11a) Kt and η at different θ 11b) Kq and η at different θ

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.

Class rpm J Rice/2 Cice

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. Engine power for ice navigation

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:

n Propeller absorbing power

Class J θ 10Kq
CPP rpm P = 2πρn3D5KQ
IA -4.18o 0.38372 8.632 MW
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.

Class Rch FSICR Power

% 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.

4.2.3 Ducted Propeller 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. Ducted propeller 19A Ka-4-70

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).

Figure 14 Geometry of ducted propeller 19A Ka 4-70. Ducted propeller curve – Kt and Kq

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:

K t = 0.526 − 0.599 J + 0.285 J 2 − 0.391J 3 (14)

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

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.

Class 0.5 Rice Actual rpm of FPP

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 Engine power for ice navigation

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.

n Propeller absorbing power nMCR= 102 rpm

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.

Class Rch FSICR Power Power for ducted propeller

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 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

rpm J Kt Kq T = ρn2 D4Kt Q = ρn2 D5Kq P =2πnQ

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

Figure 17 Propeller thrust and open sea resistance curves

4.3 Powering for Arctic Sea Navigation

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.

Hice Total Rice Propeller Propeller absorbing nMCR = 102 rpm

(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)
1.2 1994.69 -7.9 7.001
1.4 2456.41 -5.0 9.399
1.6 2905.26 -2.4 12.685
1.8 3400. 0.5 16.554
2.0 3950. 3.9 21.946
2.2 4450. 6.9 27.964
2.4 5000. 10.2 35.208
Table 16 Engine power for 2.5 knot Arctic sea navigation – CPP design

Hice Total Rice Propeller Propeller absorbing nMCR = 102 rpm

(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
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.

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.

Ship speed Vs 17 kts 5. kts 2.5 kts

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
1192.6 1214.4 1669.5 2157.8 1994.7 2456.4 2905.3 3400.0 3950.0 4450.0 5000.0
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
(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
(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

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

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.

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 (
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,
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