Delta Marin Report - Study of Hydraulic and Electric Driven Deepwell Cargo Pump Options 190407

STUDY OF HYDRAULIC AND ELECTRIC
DRIVEN DEEPWELL CARGO PUMP

OPTIONS

Deltamarin Ltd
19.4.2007

REPORT

REPORT FOR PROJECT 1046

STUDY OF HYDRAULIC AND ELECTRIC DRIVEN DEEPWELL CARGO PUMP
OPTIONS

CLIENT: HAMWORTHY SVANEHJ
PREPARED BY: DELTAMARIN / JM
DATE: 19.4.2007

DELTAMARIN LTD.

Date Initials
DESIGNED: 19.4.2007 JM
CHECKED: 19.4.2007 JN
APPROVED: 19.4.2007 JN

DELTAMARIN LTD
Purokatu 1
FIN-21200 RAISIO
Tel. +358-2-4336 300
Fax. +358-2-4380 378
Email: info@deltamarin.com

File: Study of cargo pump options.doc
DELTAMARIN LTD. 19.4.2007

STUDY OF HYDRAULIC AND ELECTRIC DRIVEN DEEPWELL CARGO PUMP OPTIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
0. INTRODUCTION................................................................................... 1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................... 2
2. BASIS OF THE STUDY.......................................................................... 5
2.1 Cargo handling system review.................................................................. 5
2.2 Ship parameters ......................................................................................... 6
2.3 Power demands .......................................................................................... 8
2.4 Operating profiles...................................................................................... 9
3. TECHNICAL COMPARISONS............................................................. 11
3.1 General arrangements............................................................................. 11
3.2 Weight ....................................................................................................... 12
3.3 Noise .......................................................................................................... 13
3.4 Control ...................................................................................................... 13
3.5 Emergency pumping................................................................................ 14
3.6 Stripping ................................................................................................... 14
3.7 Redundancy.............................................................................................. 15
3.8 Maintenance ............................................................................................. 16
3.9 Structure................................................................................................... 16
3.10 Contamination of cargo........................................................................... 17
3.11 Environmental aspects ............................................................................ 18
3.12 Summary................................................................................................... 19
4. ECONOMICAL COMPARISONS......................................................... 21
4.1 Initial costs................................................................................................ 21
4.2 Operating costs......................................................................................... 23
4.3 Total economy .......................................................................................... 25
4.4 Sensitivity analysis ................................................................................... 26
5. APPENDICES....................................................................................... 27

DELTAMARIN LTD. - 1 - 19.4.2007


0. INTRODUCTION
Purpose of this study is to compare two cargo handling arrangements on small
chemical and oil products carriers. Neither alternative arrangement contains a pump
room, but both arrangements contain individual pumps for each cargo tank. The
compared cargo pump arrangements are the following
Hydraulic submersible cargo pumps (one per cargo tank). The pumps are
powered by common electric motor driven power packs. This alternative is
referred to as the hydraulic system.
Electric deepwell cargo pumps (one per cargo tank). The pumps are
individually controlled by frequency converters, one converter per one pump.
This alternative is referred to as the electric system.
This study contains comparative analysis on three different reference vessels. These
reference vessels represent typical small chemical and oil products carriers in sizes of
approximately 6 000 ton, 13 000 ton and 45 000 ton in deadweight. Both systems
technical and economical aspects are taken into consideration and compared head to
head in all of the three reference vessels.
Economical and technical comparison data presented in this study is that of collected
by Deltamarin. Where applicable and possible, source of data is expressed. Some of
the information contained in this study is based on the experiences of owners that
operate both electric and hydraulic systems onboard their fleet of tankers.
Aim of this is to provide a transparent comparison with enough background
information given in order for the reader to objectively compare the two
arrangements.



1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In this study two alternative cargo handling solutions for small chemical and oil
products tankers have been examined. The first alternative is submerged hydraulic
pumps with electric motor driven hydraulic powerpacks. The second alternative is
frequency converter controlled electric deepwell pumps. Neither alternative contains
a pump room.
Both of these systems are applied to three reference vessels and their technical and
economical aspects have been compared. The three reference vessels represent sizes
of approximately 6 000 ton (vessel A), 13 000 ton (vessel B) and 45 000 ton in
deadweight (vessel C).
Technical comparison of the two systems reveals the following differences:
The electric system uses energy more efficiently and therefore requires less fuel
to operate than the hydraulic system. In reference vessels the fuel savings for
cargo handling range from 11% to 17%.
The electric system requires less space outside the cargo area. In reference
vessels A and B approximately 20 m2 of machinery space is saved, in reference
vessel C approximately 60 m2 of machinery space is saved.
There are some variations in weights of the systems. In vessel A the electrical
system weights 6 tons less, in vessel B it weights 13 tons less, and in vessel C it
weights 3 tons less.
Electrical system has no noise problems, while hydraulic system is known for its
high-pitched noise.
Pumps of both systems have individual and independent stepless control. In both
systems the nominal torque is available in a wide enough pump speed range to
enable effective pumping of all relevant cargoes.
Due to electric drive, there are no limits onboard a diesel-electric ship to the
number of pumps being operated concurrently. Size of powerpacks limits the
number of hydraulic pumps being operated concurrently.
Pumps in the hydraulic system have shorter shaftlines than in the electric system.
This has no effect in normal or abnormal operation of the cargo pumps. The only
drawback from long shaftline is its increased sensitivity to torsional vibrations,
but this issue can adequately be dealt with good design.
In both systems the cargo is protected in a similar manner against possible
contamination from hydraulic or lubricating oil.
Both systems have about the same amount of redundancy. If need be, the electric
systems redundancy can be more easily enhanced.


Emergency pumping can be arranged as easily in both of the systems. There are
instances, however, when emergency pumping is not possible with the hydraulic
system.
Hydraulic system requires more maintenance than the electric system. However,
this increased need of constant maintenance does not translate into a need of a
bigger crew.
Claims of environmental friendliness over the other system cannot be
substantiated in the hydraulic systems case. More environmentally friendly
operational aspects clearly favour the electric system over the hydraulic system.
In economical comparison the initial cost is divided in two parts. Purchase cost is the
money paid to the supplier of the system and installation cost is the shipyards cost of
installing the system. In cost calculations labour costs and efficiency figures
applicable to South Korean shipyards have been used.
In this case vessels A and B, respectively 6.000 ton and 13.000 ton, are equipped
with one frequency converter per each cargo pump. The 45.000 ton vessel C is
equipped with one frequency converter per each two pumps. However, also in
vessels A and B it is possible to make a less expensive arrangement with two to four
cargo pumps being controlled by a single converter
1
. In this case the purchase price
will lower by 12 to 15% from the figures stated in this report. This also slightly
reduces the space requirements and weight of the electric system, but not to a very
significant degree.

1
Matrix Swichboard System, see http://www.hamworthy.com/docGallery/212.PDF



Annual costs are also divided in two parts, in costs incurred by producing power for
the pump system and in costs directly incurred by the pumping system. Table 1
summarises all of these costs.
Table 1 Summary of costs (all figures in USD, rounded)

Initial costs can be regarded as annual capital costs during the vessels economic
lifetime. The total annual costs are calculated with assuming 20 years of economic
lifetime and interest rate of 8% for the capital costs.
hydraulic electric hydraulic electric hydraulic electric
Initial costs
purchase 96 209 > 545 034 > 1 326 13 > 908 390 > 2 891 311 > 1 68 010 >
installation 126 621 > 58 804 > 149 155 > 61 01 > 233 85 > 101 68 >
total initial costs 922 830 $ 603 838 $ J 47S 292 $ 969 407 $ 3 J2S 096 $ J 788 778 $
Difference -3J8 992 $ -S0S 88S $ -J 336 3J9 $
Annual operating costs
lO or power plant 2 618 > 24 304 > 26 899 > 24 015 > 85 851 > 1 231 >
LO or power plant 64 > 593 > 65 > 586 > 2 096 > 1 39 >
maintenance o power plant 2 10 > 1 910 > 2 114 > 1 88 > 6 4 > 5 598 >
pumping system 53 99 > 11 126 > 39 439 > 14 908 > 101 25 > 42 580 >
total operating costs 84 262 $ 37 933 $ 69 J09 $ 4J 396 $ J9S 9SJ $ J2J J49 $
Difference -46 329 $ -27 7J3 $ -74 802 $
annual capital costs 93 992 > 61 502 > 150 262 > 98 36 > 318 298 > 182 191 >
annual operating costs 84 262 > 3 933 > 69 109 > 41 396 > 195 951 > 121 149 >
total annual costs J78 2S4 $ 99 43S $ 2J9 37J $ J40 J32 $ SJ4 249 $ 303 340 $
Difference -78 8J9 $ -79 239 $ -2J0 909 $
vessel A vessel B vessel C


2. BASIS OF THE STUDY
2.1 Cargo handling system review
The two cargo handling systems compared in this study are electric deepwell pump
system and hydraulic submersible pumps system. Both of these systems comprises
cargo pumps that are located in cargo tanks (one cargo pump per tank)
The hydraulic submersible pumps are powered by electric motor driven hydraulic
powerpacks. The Powerpack Room is located away from the cargo area and in
machinery spaces. Hydraulic power for the pumps is provided via a pressure
pipeline, in which the hydraulic fluid is pressurised to over 250 bar. Hydraulic motor
itself is located down in the tank, some half to two meters above the tank bottom.
Hydraulic fluid is returned to the Powerpack Room by a return pipeline, in which a
pressure of around 10 bars is upheld.
Respectively, the deepwell pumps are powered by the frequency converter controlled
electric motors. Electric power is provided through the Converter Room, which is
located away from the cargo area and in machinery spaces. Electric power is led
from Converter Room to the pumps via cables and pumps electric motors speed is
controlled by frequency converter. Impeller inside the pump head at the bottom of a
tank is driven by the electric motor on main deck via a shaftline though the tank.

Figure 1. Electric deepwell pump system (left) and hydraulic submersible pump
system (right)


2.2 Ship parameters
For the purpose of this study, three reference vessels have been selected. The three
vessels represent typical small chemical and oil products carriers. These kinds of
vessels typically do not contain a pump room, but individual pumps for each cargo
tank. Table 2 presents main characteristics of the three reference vessels.
Table 2 Main characteristics of reference vessels
vessel A
Bow Master
vessel B
Silver River
vessel C
Podravina
deadweight 6 046 ton 13 300 ton 44 577 ton
length over all 103,40 m 145,61 m 178,30 m
breadth 16,60 m 19,60 m 32,00 m
depth to main deck 9,40 m 10,65 m 17,95 m
design draught 7,10 m 8,00 m 11,00 m
number of cargo tanks 14 tanks 10 tanks 18 tanks
cargo tank capacity 7 039 m
3
14 957 m
3
54 652 m
3

service speed 14,3 knots 13,6 knots 15,1 knots
cargoes carried Oil products,
IMO II chem.
Oil products,
IMO II chem.
Oil products,
IMO II chem.

All the main characteristics of the reference vessels are equal to those of the actual
vessels indicated in the table above. For reference, details and arrangement drawings
of the three actual vessels can be found in Significant Ships of 1998 (Bow Master)
and in Significant Ships of 1999 (Silver River and Podravina).
For the purpose of correctly and similarly dimensioning the cargo handling
arrangements, dimensioning criteria have been applied. Table 3 shows the criteria,
according to which the cargo handling arrangements are made and comparisons
based on.


Table 3 Dimensioning criteria of cargo handling arrangements
capacity of each cargo pump 200 m
3
/h 230 m
3
/h 500 m
3
/h
total simultaneous capacity 1 400 m
3
/h 1 380 m
3
/h 3 000 m
3
/h
minimum unloading time 5,0 hours 10,8 hours 18,2 hours

The main items of cargo pump systems compared in this study are also presented in
the following table 4.

Table 4 The main items of cargo pump systems reviewed in this study
Vessel A Vessel B Vessel C Item
el-pumps hyd-
pumps
el-pumps hyd-pumps el-pumps hyd-pumps
Cargo
pumps
14 pcs
located
within cargo
tanks
14 pcs
located
within
cargo tanks
10 pcs
located within
cargo tanks
10 pcs
located
within
cargo tanks
18 pcs
located
within
cargo tanks
18 pcs
located within
cargo tanks
Cargo pump
e-motors /
hyd-motors
14 pcs
located above
cargo tanks
14 pcs
located
within
cargo tanks
10 pcs
located above
cargo tanks
10 pcs
located
within
cargo tanks
18 pcs
located
above cargo
tanks
18 pcs
located within
cargo tanks
Power
control
of cargo
pumps
14 converters
&
switchboard
Powerpacks 10 converters
&
switchboard
Powerpacks 9 converters
&
switchboard
Powerpacks
Power
transmission
of cargo
pumps
Cabling Hydraulic
piping
Cabling Hydraulic
piping
Cabling Hydraulic
piping



2.3 Power demands
Selection of cargo handling arrangement between the two alternatives does not
influence the hull form. Some minor variations in ships lightweight and/or trim do
take place, but they are small enough not to affect the ships resistance. Propulsion
power requirement is thus equal for both of the alternative arrangements and can
therefore be discarded from further analysis and comparison.
Power required for cargo handling differs in the two alternatives. Typical specific
energy consumption of a hydraulic system is around 0,48 kWh/m
3
and for electric
system it is around 0,41 kWh/m
3
. This fact can easily be substantiated from system
suppliers own data by comparing the electric power requirements and maximum
simultaneous discard rates.
Difference in the specific energy consumption is quite easy to understand, when the
operating concepts are compared. In a hydraulic system the electrical power is first
transformed into mechanical power in a form of pressurised fluid. This pressurised
fluid is then directed via a pressure pipeline to operate the pump.
In an electric system on the other hand the transformation of electrical power into
mechanical power takes place in the electric motor running the pump. Losses in
electric motor and in shaftline are smaller than the losses in pressurising the
hydraulic oil and in transferring the pressurised fluid. Figure 1 presents different
parts of the two cargo handling systems.
HYDRAULIC ELECTRIC

Figure 1 Different parts of the two cargo handling systems



Partial efficiencies of the two systems (generator efficiency, electric motor
efficiency, hydraulic fluid transfer efficiency etc.) vary from installation to
installation, but the average difference in systems over-all efficiencies is
indisputable. Table 5 shows different power requirements for the three reference
vessels. Propulsion and hotel power requirements are presented for reference only.
Table 5 Power requirements, generator power
diesel-electrical propulsion,
approximately

3 540 kW

4 050 kW

8 860 kW
hotel and other consumers,
approximately

300 kW

430 kW

430 kW
cargo handling system,
hydraulic version

668 kW

659 kW

1 432 kW
cargo handling system,
electric version

588 kW

588 kW

1 188 kW

It is assumed, that all the reference vessels incorporate diesel-electrical propulsion. In
a diesel-electric vessel the generators are big enough not to be disturbed by activating
of short-circuit electric motors of the hydraulic version. For this reason the electrical
installation onboard a diesel-electric vessel with hydraulic system does not need to
be over-dimensioned.
However, if the reference vessels would be diesel-mechanical, the electrical power
required by the hydraulic cargo handling system would represent majority of the total
electric power required. Therefore starting of hydraulic systems electric motors
could possibly require an installation of a bigger power plant. This is of course
always a case-by-case situation based on the actual power required and power output
of the generator sets available. In any case such a problem does not exist in the case
of frequency converter controlled electric motors, as such a system is a smooth
starter.
One benefit of selection a diesel-electrical propulsion is, that it enables use of very
high unloading rate in the electric cargo handling version. If the shore installation
can receive, and if piping arrangements onboard allow it, all the electric deepwell
pumps can be operated simultaneously at full power. In all three reference vessels the
diesel-electrical power plant can provide the required amount of electric power.
2.4 Operating profiles
Individual operating profiles are compiled for all three reference vessels. The profiles
are not routes of any particular ship, but examples of routes these kinds of vessels
could quite typically sail. As a result estimations on the annual pumping hours for all
three reference vessels are reached.


Table 6 shows the operating profiles as cumulative annual hours in different
operating modes. Interested readers will find more detailed route information and
calculation into the presented figures in Appendix 1.
Table 6 Annual hours in different operating modes
at sea at full power 6 890 h 6 979 h 6 359 h
closing port,
manoeuvring
152 h 103 h 221 h
loading cargo 685 h 656 h 736 h
unloading cargo 913 h 902 h 1 324 h
off-hire 120 h 120 h 120 h
total annual hours 8 760 h 8 760 h 8 760 h



3. TECHNICAL COMPARISONS
Technical implications of cargo pump selection can be divided into four main
categories. These are the selections impact on ship design, operational aspects,
structural aspects and environmental aspects.
Impact on ship design can be further divided to include three aspects: difference in
energy consumption (already discussed in the preceding chapter), space requirements
and systems weights. Operational aspects studied in this report include noise,
control, emergency pumping, stripping, redundancy and maintenance requirements.
Structural aspects include structural evaluation of different components of the
pumping system as well as possibility of cargo being contaminated. Last, but not
least, are the environmental aspects of cargo handling system selection.
3.1 General arrangements
The selection of cargo handling arrangement has some impact on general
arrangements. There is no difference in positioning of the pumps in the cargo area,
but some variations in space requirements outside the cargo area. Both systems need
a Cargo Control Room to operate, but there are no significant differences in space
requirements between the two systems.
Besides the Cargo Control Room, the hydraulic version requires the following three
spaces outside cargo area:
Powerpack Room with sufficient space for the hydraulic powerpacks. From this
room hydraulic oil is pumped into the cargo pumps.
Hydraulic Oil Storage Tank with a volume equal to the total volume of hydraulic
oil inside the hydraulic system. This tank is installed for the sake of redundancy
of operation. In case the hydraulic oil is contaminated or leaking, oil can be
changed or added immediately where ever the vessel happens to be sailing
without extensive off-hire.
Hydraulic Oil Waste Tank with a volume of at least the total volume of hydraulic
oil inside the hydraulic system. This tank is required, so that contaminated and/or
removed hydraulic oil is not dumped overboard.
Besides the Cargo Control Room, the electric version requires the following space
outside cargo area:
Converter Room which houses the frequency converters.
When the required spaces have been identified, it is possible to compare the areas
they require. Table 7 shows space requirements for the above mentioned spaces


assuming a deck height of 2 800 mm. For volume figures of the two hydraulic oil
tanks, please see Appendix 1.
Table 7 Space requirement
powerpack room 33,0 m
2
33,0 m
2
75,0 m
2

HO storage tank 1,6 m
2
1,6 m
2
2,2 m
2

HO waste tank 1,7 m
2
1,8 m
2
2,5 m
2

hydraulic version approx 36 m
2
approx 36 m
2
approx 80 m
2

converter room 17 m
2
13 m
2
30 m
2

In the two smaller reference vessels difference in the space required is around 20 m
2
.
Although not a big space saving, this nevertheless opens up some possibilities in
arranging the lay-out of machinery spaces.
As the cargo handling power requirements are bigger, as in reference vessel C, the
difference in space requirements becomes more obvious. A space saving of 50 m
2
in
a 45 000 ton ship is big enough space to be usefully utilised. How this extra space is
best utilised depends on the specific ship project, of course.
3.2 Weight
Difference in the two cargo handling systems weights can be evaluated by
calculating weights of all sub-parts of the two systems. Weights of major
components are available, as well as specific weights of pipes, cables and cable trays.
Please note, that the hydraulic system requires some cabling, as electric power needs
to be transmitted from generators to the Powerpack Room. Similarly, electric system
needs some amount of hydraulic piping for the portable emergency pump.
Table 8 shows results of weight calculations. A more detailed break-down of weights
as well as used specific weights can be found from Appendix 2.
Table 8 Weight comparison (all weights in kg, rounded)
hydr. electric hydr. electric hydr. electric
hydraulic piping 3 220 130 3 880 170 5 630 250
designated spaces 11 700 4 390 11 750 3 350 23 900 7 740
cabling 250 5 430 250 4 780 250 12 180
pumping 22 300 21 720 21 540 16 200 49 710 58 010
total 37 460 31 670 37 420 24 510 79 480 75 080



3.3 Noise
Hydraulic cargo handling system is notorious for its loud noises. Especially the old
hydraulic systems generated a lot of most unpleasant noise when operated. Older
vessels with hydraulic cargo handling systems are therefore known to have been
subject to operating restrictions in some ports, especially in those where there are
settled areas near the port.
However, there has been a lot of progress made in combating the noise problem.
Noise levels of modern hydraulic systems are significantly lower than those of the
old ones. Unfortunately though, there is very little objective and quantitative
comparison data available on the noise levels of the two systems. This makes
quantitative comparison based on hard figures impossible.
On the other hand there are lots of qualitative and subjective data as well as a range
of opinions available on the hydraulic systems sound levels. This would suggest,
that a modern hydraulic system still makes a lot less pleasant noise when operated
than its electric counterpart. Even if a hydraulic systems noise would be at a sound
level comparable to that of an electric system, it is more high pitched and therefore
usually considered to be more annoying.
3.4 Control
Old electric systems with two speed electric motors had problems in control of flow
and pressure. As there were only two speeds the motor and the pump could be
operated on, flow control was not optimal or sufficient. From technical point of view
the electric motor itself had to be over-dimensioned in normal use, to be able to
pump the cargoes with high specific gravity or the speed had to be reduced to a
dramatically low speed.
Nowadays those problems have been solved, as the modern electric system uses a
frequency converter to control the motor, in a stepless control of the pumps
rotational speed. Because of the variable speed it is possible to optimize motor and
pump in a cargo system, that is able to handle cargoes within the range of specific
gravity at maximum load without having an over-dimensioned motor.
Due to the frequency converter, the 50 Hz or 60 Hz networks do not limit the speed.
The pump speed can alter between 0 RPM and the pump maximum rotational speed
up to 3600 RPM.
With respect to control, one additional benefit of having frequency converters to
control the motor is that it can be programmed to be a smooth starter. This means,
that electric motor and pump can be started from zero speed and gradually increased.
This reduces wear and tear of all systems component as well as reduces generator
ratings onboard diesel-mechanical ships.


The cargo system is designed to handle different specific gravity, typically ranging
from 0,5 to 2,5 ton/m
3
. This means that the pump can handle equally efficiently all
cargoes. The limitations in the discharge situation are the nominal motor power, the
rated pressure of the pipe system, and the maximum pressure for the land
installations.
One issue related to control is the number of pumps, which can be operated
concurrently. In a diesel-electric ship there is enough power available to operate all
pumps, while the number of hydraulic pumps being operated concurrently is limited
by size of the power pack. However, the number of simultaneously operated pumps
is also dependent on piping and segregation arrangements onboard.
As a conclusion it can be said, that the individual stepless control of each pump is
possible in both systems. Nominal torque is available in a range sufficient to
effectively pump all cargoes.
3.5 Emergency pumping
In case there is a failure of a single pump leading to inability to empty a tank, there
really are no differences in operation in between the two systems. If one pump fails,
it does not effect operation of other pumps. As a part of both systems there needs to
be a hydraulic operated submersible portable pump, which can be lowered down to
the cargo and used to empty the tank.
In a hydraulic system the hydraulic power is provided by the pressure pipeline and
the portable pump is connected to the pipeline by hoses. In the electric systems case
there needs to be a small emergency hydraulic powerpack onboard with a fixed
emergency pressure pipeline to provide the hydraulic power to any of the tanks. The
emergency pumping operation itself does not differ from one system to the other.
The emergency hydraulic power pack as well as the portable pump are parts of a
standard scope of supply of an electric system.
In case the entire pumping system fails, due to damage of powerpack or converter
room or due to damage of power providing network (pressure pipeline or electric
cabling), there are differences between the two systems. In hydraulic systems case
emergency pumping is not possible, as the emergency pump requires both the
powerpack and the pressure pipeline to be operational. Emergency pumping in
electric system is not dependant on the main pumping system, as it is a complete
stand-alone pumping system. Both the converter room and electric cabling can be
completely destroyed and emergency pumping can still be done.
3.6 Stripping
Stripping procedure of cargo pumps is important especially in chemical carriers.
However, it really is not a feature related to hydraulic or electric drive, but to the
overall pump and impeller design. If stripping procedures of typical hydraulic and
electric pumps are evaluated, significant differences are not found. It can be quite


shortly concluded, that there are no relevant differences in stripping between the two
technologies.
3.7 Redundancy
It is possible to assess redundancy of a system by highlighting critical components
and spaces in which a damage would cause reduced operating capability or inability
to operate. Other part of reliability and redundancy assessment, likelihood of a given
inability causing incident taking place, is not discussed here.
First critical space is the room, from which power is delivered to the pumping
system. In hydraulic systems case this is the Powerpack Room and in electric
systems case it is the Converter Room. These spaces do not differ in the sense, that
if the space itself is damaged, the pumping system cannot be operated.
In bigger ships, like in reference vessel C, it could be useful to divide the converter
room into two separate spaces. In such a case typically port and starboard side pumps
are operated by separated converter rooms. This of course adds to the redundancy of
operation in case of one converter room being damaged. However, if one converter
room is damaged, pumps connected to this room cannot be operated from the other
side, unless this has been prepared for at the building phase. But if seen necessary,
very redundant arrangements can quite easily be built with the electric system.
It should also be possible to divide hydraulic systems Powerpack Room, when
nesessary. This requires extra piping and valve arrangements, so that both Powerpack
Rooms still provide power to the same pressure pipeline. In case one Powerpack
Room is damaged, there needs to be valve and piping arrangements so that the room
can be isolated from the common pressure piping. Usually hydraulic ships are
equipped with one Powerpack Room and one powerpack in it, so dividing the
powerpack into two separate units will most likely add to the cost of installation.
Redundant two-room arrangement is thus more complicated to arrange than in
electric systems case, but still a possible alternative.
It is also possible, that one single power providing component, a powerpack or a
converter, fails. In hydraulic systems case, if one of a typically two to four hydraulic
pumps fails, it leads to reduced pumping capacity. All the pumps can be operated,
even simultaneously, but as the nominal flow is not available, at a reduced capacity.
If a converter fails, the pump connected to the converter cannot be operated. It can be
operated by another converter, typically the converter next to the failed one. When a
converter dimensioned for one pump is operating more than just a one pump,
reduced capacity is available. In this respect the situation does not differ from the
hydraulic systems case.
The next critical component is the means of transmitting power to the pumps. In
hydraulic system this is by a common pressure pipeline, in electric system this is
achieved by cabling on a common cable tray. In case the pipeline or the cabling is


damaged, the system can not be used. It is of course possible to enhance redundancy
by building alternative pressure pipeline or cabling, but there are no differences in
the two systems in this respect.
3.8 Maintenance
As the basic concepts in the two systems are different, there obviously are great
differences in the maintenance requirements. It can easily be argued, that the
hydraulic system is more mechanical in nature. Power distribution is by means of
distributing mechanical power in form of pressurised fluid. The structure required to
pressurise and distribute the hydraulic oil is comprised of mechanical components
including pressure pumps, pipelines and valves.
Electric system on the other hand can easily be considered as less mechanical. Power
is distributed by means of electric cabling and all in all there are very few mechanical
parts in the system. The only mechanical part of the system is the power transmission
from electric motor to impeller via a shaftline.
As a result of a more complicated basic concept, hydraulic system requires more
maintenance than electric system. There is a difference in the amount of continuous
maintenance required, but this difference is really not relevant from the shipowners
perspective. Differences in the need for continuous maintenance are not big enough
to require a bigger crew, so the theoretical difference does not come with any actual
extra labour costs.
What is important from a shipowners perspective, is both the amount of
unscheduled off-hire days due to failure of cargo system and required spare part
costs. These are the two maintenance-related factors which are relevant and which
directly contribute to the bottom line as reduced revenues and added costs. These
items are analysed, estimated and discussed in chapter 4.2.
It can also be argued, that reduced continuous maintenance requirement of the
electric system enables more preventive maintenance to be done. Hard economical
figures of such a benefit are difficult to present, but the fact is nevertheless worth
taking into account.
3.9 Structure
Structural solutions in the two pump concepts differ somewhat. In hydraulic system
the pump head and the motor running it are both submerged at the bottom of the
tank. In electric system the electric motor is located on main deck and the pump head
is driven by a long shaft.
Hydraulic pumps only structural benefit is, that its motor is located very near the
pump head. The shaft driving the pump head is only a half to two meters long and
therefore not subject to excessive alignment requirements for example. The hydraulic
motor is driven by high pressure hydraulic oil in 250+ bar, and lubricated by the


return hydraulic oil. All parts of a hydraulic pump needing lubricating are actually
lubricated by the hydraulic oil.
Electric pumps motor on the other hand rests on the main deck and the pump head,
at the bottom of the tank, is driven by a shaft. Shafts bearings are lubricated by
pumps own oil reservoir. The oil used to lubricate the bearings is actually the same
kind of oil as the one used in the hydraulic system as the hydraulic oil. So just as in
the hydraulic system, all lubricating needing parts of the system are lubricated by a
designated lubricating oil.
Electric systems structural drawback when compared to the hydraulic system is in
its long shaft. In reference vessels the shafts are 8 100, 9 100 and 15 300 mm in
length. They are all supported by one intermediate support to the ships structures,
while the longest of the three shaftlines has two such supports. The only drawback in
having a long shaft is increased possibility of torsional vibrations. However, with
good design this can be avoided.
The long shaft will not make any problems during normal or abnormal operation. In
the event that the pump head is being damaged, the long shaftline behaves in an
identical manner to the short one. The long shaft is supported by bearings at the top
of pump head and connected to a short shaft driving the impeller. In case the impeller
inside the pump head becomes damaged and unevenly balanced, resulting is a
vibrating mass at the end of a short shaft in both cases. In such a case the hot spots
would be the top of the pump head and the connection of pump and main deck. Also
in this case the only difference between the two systems lies in torsional vibrations.
On the other hand, damaged pump motor is more easily repaired in the electric
systems case. As the hydraulic motor is located down in the tank, the electric
systems pump motor is conveniently on main deck, where it is more easily
accessible.
3.10 Contamination of cargo
Protection against contamination of cargo has been taken care of identically in both
of the systems. In hydraulic system the high pressure hydraulic oil pipe is surrounded
in the tank by the lower pressure return pipeline up to the main deck. In electric
system the shaftline is surrounded by lubricating oil. The only difference is, that
electric systems oil is not pressurised, where hydraulic systems oil is under about
10 bar pressure.
In both systems there is a contaminating preventing cofferdam surrounding the
lubricating/hydraulic oil and separating it from the cargo tank. Operating manuals of
both systems require purging of the cofferdam once during each trip, for that possible
leakage is detected.
It is of course also possible, that lubricating or hydraulic oil is contaminated by
cargo. In electric systems case only one pumps bearings and shaftline would be


damaged, whereas in hydraulic systems case the entire hydraulic system would be
contaminated. This would require changing of the entire hydraulic oil and could
damage hydraulic systems components. However, due to existence of a cofferdam
as well as the 10 bar overpressure, such an event is fairly unlikely.
3.11 Environmental aspects
Environmental aspects are nowadays becoming more and more important. Public
awareness of environmental problems has increased and global environmentalism is
commonly considered to be one of the megatrends affecting business and everyday
life in the 21
st
century. Importance of environmentalism is difficult to over-
emphasise.
Arguments of environmental friendliness can be, and usually are based on a variety
of facts. Low energy consumption during manufacturing or operating, use of
recycled or recyclable components, structural arrangements leading to no-spill
accidents or incidents, use of non-toxic materials, lower emissions and so on are all
arguments commonly used.
However truthful, all of these arguments only represent different parts of the
spectrum of environmental concerns. Optimising any one of these aspects is only
sub-optimising in environmental sense. The only counterargument-proof claim can
be, that the product is more environmentally friendly than its competitors from
lifecycle analysis (LCA) point of view. In such an analysis all factors having an
effect on manufacturing, transportation, retail, use, maintenance and disposing of a
product are examined, their environmental impact is assessed and finally calculated
together.
Unfortunately, LCA is very difficult, time consuming and expensive to conduct.
Therefore only a few consumer products have been rated according to it. Thus it
needs to be admitted, that it is impossible to obtain a complete and comprehensive
evaluation of environmental aspects of the two cargo handling systems.
However, having said that, it is still possible and very fruitful to evaluate the two
systems in respect of different environmental aspects individually. In any case this
actually is the way different solutions are evaluated against each other today. As the
big picture is blurred, this is what the arguments are usually based on.
Consumption of energy during operating is clearly favouring the electric system. By
using an electric system the same amount of cargo can be pumped with a lesser
amount of energy consumed. On reference vessels in terms of fuel oil annually, this
translates into savings of 11..17%, from 15 tons in the smallest vessel to 65 tons in
the biggest reference vessel. For details, please see Appendix 1.
Lower emissions during operating are also clearly favouring the electric system.
During normal operation neither system directly emits, but they both require energy
to operate. As the energy is produced in an identical way for both systems, the


amount of emissions per energy consumed is equal. The more energy consuming
system thus also causes more indirect emissions.
Additionally, during abnormal operation the hydraulic system may emit hydraulic
oil. Hydraulic pipelines are located on main deck, where they regularly come into
contact with the salty seawater. As time passes they will slowly rust and start to leak.
Obviously, in a particular ship it is possible to construct the entire pipeline with
stainless steel and to maintain it well enough to prevent it from leaking. But since on
the average the hydraulic systems leak oil into the worlds oceans, from LCAs point
of view these are emissions caused by operating the hydraulic system.
Emissions of hydraulic oil are very inconvenient, especially if they take place in
harbour or near the coast line. Such incidents are never good for business and always
bad publicity. National procedures in case of an oil spill differ somewhat, but as a
ground rule it can be said, that an oil spill in a developed country will irrevocably get
the attention of authorities.
Manufacturing of the two systems does not seem to contain any significant
differences. Both systems include quite similar electric motors and steel and stainless
steel parts. Possible differences lie in frequency converters and in hydraulic
powerpacks and pipes. Without more in-depth knowledge of differences in the
manufacturing processes and transportation needs it is impossible to conclude
anything more definite.
Based on the information available, nothing very definite can be said about disposing
of the systems either. Like in manufacturing, similarities lie in the electric motors
and in steel and stainless steel parts. Differences lie in disposing of frequency
converters, hydraulic powerpacks, pipes and the hydraulic oil.
As a conclusion it can be said, that environmental aspects connected in operating the
system clearly favour the electric system. It can also be concluded, that there are no
environmental aspects favouring the hydraulic system. A claim of hydraulic systems
higher environmental friendliness can thus not be substantiated. On the other hand,
claim of electric systems higher environmental friendliness does have merit.
3.12 Summary
Table 9 summarises and presents results of technical comparison between the two
systems.


Table 9 Summary of technical comparison
hydraulic system electric system
energy consumption requires more energy to
operate
requires less energy to
operate
space requirement
outside cargo area
(excluding cargo control)
36 m
2
in vessel A
36 m
2
in vessel B
80 m
2
in vessel C
17 m
2
in vessel A
13 m
2
in vessel B
18 m
2
in vessel C
weight of system 37 ton in vessel A
37 ton in vessel B
79 ton in vessel C
32 ton in vessel A
25 ton in vessel B
75 ton in vessel C
noise makes high pitched noise no noise problems
control individual stepless control,
nominal torque available
for all cargoes,
number of concurrently
operated pumps limited by
size of powerpack
individual stepless control,
nominal torque available
for all cargoes,
in a diesel-electric ship all
pumps can be concurrently
operated
emergency pumping easily possible in case the
pressure pipeline or
powerpack is not damaged
always easily possible,
even if the entire main
pumping system is
destroyed
redundancy fair redundancy,
can be increased with a
moderate effort
good redundancy,
can be increased with an
easy effort
maintenance requires more
maintenance
requires less maintenance
structure impeller driven by a short
shaftline
pump motor more difficult
to access
long shaft more sensitive
to torsional vibrations
pump motor easily
accessible
contamination of cargo cargo well protected cargo well protected
environmental aspects environmental friendliness
can not be substantiated
more environmentally
friendly due to operational
aspects



4. ECONOMICAL COMPARISONS
This chapter presents the cost calculations. The text itself contains all basis and
initial assumptions used in calculations as well as the final results. An interested
reader will find more detailed calculations and all relevant intermediate results in
Appendix 1.
4.1 Initial costs
Initial costs are best divided in two parts, in purchase costs and in installation costs.
Purchase cost is the amount of money a shipyard or owner has to pay to the system
supplier for a typical scope of supply. Purchase cost includes all required equipment,
but not the installation.
This part of initial cost is of course very much dependant on the market situation and
competition. The estimates of purchase price can therefore somewhat differ from
quotes shipyards and owners receive. On the other hand, this part of cost estimation
is the easiest one to replace in yards/owners own calculations, as the actual purchase
price will be clearly expressed in offers they receive.
Purchase prices of electric systems are the actual offers Hamworthy Svanehj
made for the reference vessels. Purchase prices of hydraulic systems are calculated
based on Deltamarins price data. Table 10 at the end of this subchapter presents all
initial costs in one table.
When estimating installation costs it has been assumed, that the reference vessels
would be built in the Far East. For this reason average labour cost and productivity
figures applicable to South Korea have been used. In the following basis for used
figures are explained, while the figures used can be found in Appendix 1.
Specific price of labour has been calculated by dividing the average monthly
wage in the South Korean manufacturing industry
2
by average monthly working
hours
3
and by adding social costs of 15%
4
. Average South Korean shipyards
overhead cost of 20%, based on Deltamarins own experience, has also been
added to the average hourly wage.
Required length of hydraulic piping is easily calculated when vessels main
dimensions and typical lay-out drawings are known. However, choice of pipe
material is up to the owner. While some owners require all pipes to be made of

2
Principal Economic Indicators, 10. Employment & Wages, National Accounts. Bank of
Korea. Republic of Korea 2005.
3
South Korea, Foreign Labor Trends. California Trade and Commerce Agency. USA 1997.
4
Embassy of Republic of Korea to Finland.


stainless steel, some are satisfied with all pipes being made of steel. To represent
somewhat typical solution the pressure pipes are calculated as steel pipes and the
return pipes as stainless steel pipes.
Pipe installation efficiency is based on Deltamarins own experience. The stated
efficiency for the given average pipe size includes all working phases required,
like installation, connecting, flushing, cleaning and testing. Installation efficiency
of stainless steel pipes is clearly smaller than that of steel pipes.
Required area of Powerpack Rooms is calculated by fitting the required number
of hydraulic power packs into the rooms.
Required area of Converter Rooms is calculated from lay-out drawings of the
converters, supplied by Hamworthy Svanehj.
Required volume of Hydraulic Oil Storage Tank is calculated from volume of the
hydraulic oil system. The Hydraulic Oil Waste Tank is assumed to be 10% bigger
than the storage tank.
Steelwork efficiency is based on Deltamarins own experience for typical steel
structures required to form boundaries for Powerpack and Converter Rooms and
Hydraulic Oil Tanks. Yards specialised in building cargo ships typically achieve
efficiencies as high as 20 to 30 h/ton, but these figures are applicable to only hull
structures with high plate thickness.
Lubricating oil of electric pumps is the same oil as is used as hydraulic oil in the
hydraulic system. Amount of lubricating oil is calculated from Hamworthy
Svanehj service manual and amount of hydraulic oil is calculated from the
volume of the hydraulic system (twice, as the storage tanks needs to be filled as
well). Price of lubricating/hydraulic oil is that of Shell Tellus 46 in March 2007.
Pumping system supplier provides its part of commissioning in a standard scope
of supply. It has been assessed, that there are no differences between the two
systems with respect to yards labour requirements in installing the pumps.
Need for cables and cable trays can be calculated as easily as the need for
hydraulic piping from the vessels lay-out drawings.
Cable installation efficiency is based on Deltamarins own experience and is
expressed as labour required per cable tray length. Approximately a third of the
cost of cable installation comes from installing of cable trays and mechanical
shielding, a third from making connections and a third from cable installation and
packing.
Specific prices of hydraulic piping, shipbuilding steel, cables and cable trays are
those of suppliers of these products.


Table 10 shows the results, when all of the above data is applied to the reference
vessels. All figures are presented in USD and rounded. More detailed figures can be
found from Appendix 1.
Table 10 Initial costs (all figures in USD, rounded)

4.2 Operating costs
Operating costs are best examined, when they are divided into two main parts. The
first part includes running costs associated with power production for the cargo
handling system. These costs can further be divided into fuel oil, lubricating oil and
maintenance costs.
Calculating these costs is quite straight forward, as the annual power consumption is
a direct result of energy consumption and operating profile. Specific fuel and
lubricating oil consumption per power produced are both commonly available and
known figures. The specific maintenance cost of power plant is a figure based on
Deltamarins own experience and includes both spare parts and labour required to
maintain the power plant on an average.
The second part of operating costs consists of costs incurred by the cargo handling
system itself. As already discussed in chapter 3.8, differences in the need of
continuous maintenance are not included in this calculation. Because there are no
differences in crew requirements, neither system comes with any actual extra direct
maintenance related labour costs.
However, from shipowners perspective the amount of unscheduled off-hire days due
to failure of cargo system is very important. Similarly, required spare part costs are
very relevant as well. Both of these directly contribute to the bottom line as reduced
revenues and/or added costs.
Hydraulic systems average spare part costs can be reliably estimated based on
shipowners experience. Dividing annual fleetwide hydraulic systems spare part
costs by theoretical maximum pumping hours (annual pumping hours times number
of pumps) a reliable specific cost figure is obtained. Such a calculation yields
hydraulic systems specific spare part cost, which is presented in Appendix 1. When
Hydraulic piping 73 078 $ J0 686 $ 9S 828 $ J3 92J $ J38 S34 $ 20 22S $
Building of designated spaces 27 767 $ J2 30S $ 27 830 $ 9 4J0 $ S9 922 $ J3 029 $
Installing of pumps 23 7S6 $ 3 032 $ 23 476 $ 2 4J2 $ 33 308 $ S 866 $
Cabling 2 020 $ 32 78J $ 2 020 $ 3S 274 $ 2 020 $ 62 647 $
1otal installation costs J26 62J $ S8 804 $ J49 JSS $ 6J 0J7 $ 233 78S $ J0J 768 $
Purchace cost 796 209 $ S4S 034 $ J 326 J37 $ 908 390 $ 2 89J 3JJ $ J 687 0J0 $
1otal initial Cost J 049 4SJ $ 662 64J $ J 624 447 $ J 030 42S $ 3 3S8 88J $ J 890 S4S $
Difference -386 809 $ -S94 022 $ -J 468 336 $
vessel B vessel C vessel A


this figure is applied to theoretical maximum pumping hours of reference vessels,
estimated annual spare part cost per vessel is achieved.
Electric systems spare part costs can be estimated by analysing servicing intervals of
different parts of the system. In an electric system there are very few servicing or
replacing needing parts. The only regularly replacing needing parts are the shaft seals
of the pumps, which needs to be changed at certain intervals depending on the actual
cargo operating condition of the vessel. In addition to this the shaft lubricating oil
will need to be drained and refilled at the same time. For the purpose of this study, it
is assumed that the shaft sealings will need replacing a total of three times in the
vessels 20 years economical lifetime. No other mechanical parts in the pump system
need replacing. The other wearing mechanical parts are the shaft and electrical motor
bearings and converter cabinet cooling fans. During a normal vessels lifetime none
of these parts is forecasted replacement.
However, it is unrealistic to assume, that electric system would be this trouble free.
In any case there are problematic individual products and unforeseeable events,
which cause spare part costs. Although there have been only few problems with
modern electric motors and although field failure rate of frequency converters is
below 1%, for the sake of a realistic evaluation, unexpected spare part costs have to
be considered.
To be on a safe side, the unexpected spare part costs are best over-estimated. For the
purpose of this study it is assumed, that in all three reference vessels a major failure
of electric system occurs after 20 000 theoretical maximum pumping hours. Lets
further assume, that this major failure is in the magnitude of one frequency converter
or electric motor being completely destroyed and in need of replacing. By assuming
this very high failure rate it is possible to compare electric systems spare part costs
with the actual spare part costs of hydraulic system.
When operated, the pumps consume some lubricating and hydraulic oil. According to
service manual the electric systems pumps shafts lubricating oil needs to be
replaced after 2 000 hours of operation. This oil changing interval has been used to
calculate the pumping systems oil costs.
There is no fixed hydraulic oil changing interval in the hydraulic system. On regular
basis oil samples need to be taken to monitor the oil quality. However, 2 000 hours
of operating is a good average estimate for the hydraulic oil changing interval. Table
11 presents all the relevant annual operating costs.



1able JJ Annual operating costs (all figures in USD, rounded)

Difference in the amount of unscheduled off-hire days due to failure of cargo
handling system is also an important operating related cost. Off-hire is expensive, as
through lost revenues it can directly be seen in the bottom line. Unfortunately
though, reliable and objective data on the average off-hire days is not available.
Average spare part costs, for example, could be used to estimate the difference, but
no such estimations are included in these calculations.
4.3 Total economy
Total economy of the two different cargo handling systems can be calculated, as both
initial and annual operating costs are known. For the purpose of estimating the one-
time initial payment and recurring annual payments, some method needs to be used
to consider both of these costs equally and to account for the time factor and price of
money.
The method used considers the initial one-time payment as a loan. The loan is paid
back in partial payments of similar sizes during the economic lifetime of the vessel.
This partial payment can directly be added to annual operating costs as capital costs
and thus total annual costs are obtained. Table shows results of such a calculation
with assumptions of 8% as the applied interest rate and 20 years as the economic
lifetime of the vessel.
Table 12 Total economy as annual costs (all figures in USD, rounded)

If in a given case the initial cost of one system is higher and operating costs lower
than it rivals, it is possible to calculate a payback time or break-even point. In none
luel oil costs 2 618 > 24 304 > 26 899 > 24 015 > 85 851 > 1 231 >
Lubricating oil costs 64 > 593 > 65 > 586 > 2 096 > 1 39 >
Maintenance costs 2 10 > 1 910 > 2 114 > 1 88 > 6 4 > 5 598 >
1otal power production 30 463 $ 26 807 $ 29 670 $ 26 488 $ 94 694 $ 78 S69 $
Lube,hydraulic oil costs 4 908 > 24 > 4 932 > 196 > 10 069 > 40 >
Spare part costs 48 892 > 10 852 > 34 50 > 14 12 > 91 188 > 42 110 >
1otal pumping system S3 799 $ JJ J26 $ 39 439 $ J4 908 $ J0J 2S7 $ 42 S80 $
Difference -42 674 $ -24 S3J $ -S8 677 $
annual capital costs 93 992 $ 6J S02 $ JS0 262 $ 98 736 $ 3J8 298 $ J82 J9J $
annual operating costs 84 262 $ 37 933 $ 69 J09 $ 4J 396 $ J9S 9SJ $ J2J J49 $
Difference -78 8J9 $ -79 239 $ -2J0 909 $


of the reference vessels this is the case, as the hydraulic system is more expensive in
light of both initial and operating costs.
4.4 Sensitivity analysis
These calculations are of course dependant on the initial assumptions made. By
altering the initial assumptions, or boundary conditions, different results are
obtained. In the following some initial assumptions and significance of altering them
are discussed.
Heavy fuel oil price has an effect on the annual operating costs. Because hydraulic
system needs more fuel, lower fuel price would favour it. Applied fuel price is quite
high historically, but altering it has very little effect on total economy. Even if HFO-
price would be halved, the basic results would not differ.
Alterations in operating profile have impact on all operating costs. As all operating
costs are higher in hydraulic system, the system would benefit from not using it.
However, significance of altering the profiles is quite small. Even if all the pumping
hours would be halved, basic results would not differ.
Price of labour has also influence on the final results. It does not affect the operating
costs, only the installation costs. As installing of hydraulic system requires more
labour, lower price of labour would favour it. But mere labour price change is
unrealistic, since the price of labour is dependant on the ships building country. As
there are great differences is prices of labour among the Far Eastern countries, also
the efficiency of labour is different. As known, low price of labour usually correlates
with low efficiency.
However, to test the influence of change in price of labour, in calculations the price
can be changed without changes in efficiency. By lowering the price of labour even
by 70% from the South Korean actual value, there will be no differences in the final
results.
Interest rate applied in the total economy calculation has no effect on the final
results, even if the rate used would be 0.


5. APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Cost Comparison (five pages)
Appendix 2 Weight comparison (one page)

Deltamarin Ltd.
JM,19.4.200
APPLNDIX J
Cost Comparison - Summary
Initial costs
purchase 96 209 > 545 034 > 1 326 13 > 908 390 > 2 891 311 > 1 68 010 >
installation 126 621 > 58 804 > 149 155 > 61 01 > 233 85 > 101 68 >
total initial costs 922 830 $ 603 838 $ J 47S 292 $ 969 407 $ 3 J2S 096 $ J 788 778 $
Difference -3J8 992 $ -S0S 88S $ -J 336 3J9 $
Annual operating costs
lO or power plant 2 618 > 24 304 > 26 899 > 24 015 > 85 851 > 1 231 >
LO or power plant 64 > 593 > 65 > 586 > 2 096 > 1 39 >
maintenance o power plant 2 10 > 1 910 > 2 114 > 1 88 > 6 4 > 5 598 >
pumping system 53 99 > 11 126 > 39 439 > 14 908 > 101 25 > 42 580 >
Difference -46 329 $ -27 7J3 $ -74 802 $
annual capital costs 93 992 > 61 502 > 150 262 > 98 36 > 318 298 > 182 191 >
annual operating costs 84 262 > 3 933 > 69 109 > 41 396 > 195 951 > 121 149 >
Difference -78 8J9 $ -79 239 $ -2J0 909 $
Break-even point after never never never
8.0 interest rate,
20 years and residual alue o 0 USD
all igures in USD
exchange rates used: 1 DKK ~ 0.140 USD ,5.3.200,
1 LUR ~ 1.29 USD ,5.3.200,
economic lietime o
annual capital cost is calculated assuming
page 1 o 1
Deltamarin Ltd.
JM,19.4.200
APPLNDIX J
Cost Comparison - Installation
Hydraulic piping
length o steel piping 140 m 0 m 16 m 0 m 238 m 0 m
length o stainless steel piping 130 m 0 m 15 m 0 m 228 m 0 m
length o S-steel pilot piping 140 m 15 m 16 m 206 m 238 m 299 m
length o hose piping 22 m 19 m 25 m 21 m 40 m 36 m
purchase cost 40 42 > 4 515 > 49 000 > 5 864 > 0 834 > 8 608 >
installation cost 32 33 > 6 11 > 46 828 > 8 056 > 6 01 > 11 61 >
subtotal 73 078 $ J0 686 $ 9S 828 $ J3 92J $ J38 S34 $ 20 22S $
Building of designated spaces
A o powerpack-room 33 m2 0 m2 33 m2 0 m2 5 m2 0 m2
A o conerter-room 0 m2 1 m2 0 m2 13 m2 0 m2 18 m2
V o hydr. oil storage tank 4.39 m3 0.00 m3 4.46 m3 0.00 m3 6.21 m3 0.00 m3
V o hydr. oil waste tank 4.83 m3 0.00 m3 4.91 m3 0.00 m3 6.83 m3 0.00 m3
cost o powerpack-room 24 022 > 0 > 24 022 > 0 > 54 626 > 0 >
cost o conerter-room 0 > 12 305 > 0 > 9 410 > 0 > 13 029 >
cost o hydraulic oil tanks 3 45 > 0 > 3 808 > 0 > 5 296 > 0 >
subtotal 27 767 $ J2 30S $ 27 830 $ 9 4J0 $ S9 922 $ J3 029 $
Installing of pumps
labour costs 2 254 > 2 254 > 1 610 > 1 610 > 2 898 > 2 898 >
cost o lube,hydraulic oil 21 502 > 8 > 21 86 > 803 > 30 411 > 2 969 >
subtotal 23 7S6 $ 3 032 $ 23 476 $ 2 4J2 $ 33 308 $ S 866 $
Cabling
length o cabling 20 m 53 m 20 m 422 m 20 m 1 288 m
length o cable trays 10 m 140 m 10 m 16 m 10 m 238 m
material costs 1 935 > 30 48 > 1 935 > 33 464 > 1 935 > 5 118 >
installation costs 86 > 2 303 > 86 > 1 811 > 86 > 5 529 >
subtotal 2 020 $ 32 78J $ 2 020 $ 3S 274 $ 2 020 $ 62 647 $
1otal installation costs J26 62J $ S8 804 $ J49 JSS $ 6J 0J7 $ 233 78S $ J0J 768 $
all igures in USD
page 1 o 1
Deltamarin Ltd.
JM,19.4.200
APPLNDIX J
Cost Comparison - Operating
Power generating
Required discard capacity
Ll. power requirement 668 k\ 588 k\ 659 k\ 588 k\ 1 432 k\ 1 188 k\
Annual pumping hours 913 h 913 h 902 h 902 h 1 324 h 1 324 h
Ll. power consumption 610 M\h 53 M\h 594 M\h 530 M\h 1 896 M\h 1 53 M\h
Diesel power consumption 642 M\h 565 M\h 625 M\h 558 M\h 1 996 M\h 1 656 M\h
luel oil consumption 123 ton 108 ton 120 ton 10 ton 383 ton 318 ton
Lubricating oil consumption 321 kg 283 kg 313 kg 29 kg 998 kg 828 kg
luel oil costs 2 618 > 24 304 > 26 899 > 24 015 > 85 851 > 1 231 >
Lubricating oil costs 64 > 593 > 65 > 586 > 2 096 > 1 39 >
Maintenance costs 2 10 > 1 910 > 2 114 > 1 88 > 6 4 > 5 598 >
subtotal 30 463 $ 26 807 $ 29 670 $ 26 488 $ 94 694 $ 78 S69 $
-12.0 -10. -1.0
Cargo handling systems
Maintenance labour costs
Lube,hydraulic oil costs 4 908 > 24 > 4 932 > 196 > 10 069 > 40 >
Spare part costs 48 892 > 10 852 > 34 50 > 14 12 > 91 188 > 42 110 >
subtotal S3 799 $ JJ J26 $ 39 439 $ J4 908 $ J0J 2S7 $ 42 S80 $
unit
0.95
0.43 k\h,m3
192 g,k\h
0.50 g,k\h
224 >,ton
2 100 >,ton
2 450 >,ton
3.38 >,M\h
3.83 >,h,pump
speciic maintenance cost o power plant
speciic spare part cost o hydraulic system
,\artsila NSD 20-series,
,typical,
,Rotterdam 5.3.200,
,Shell 1ellus 46,
,Deltamarin,
,Owner,
price o heay uel oil
vessel C
3 000 m3,h 1 400 m3,h 1 380 m3,h
price o lubricating,hydraulic oil or pumps
vessel A vessel B
speciic energy consumption o hydraulic system
speciic uel oil consumption o power plant
speciic lubricating oil consumption o power plant
irreleant irreleant
quantity
price o lubricating oil or power plant
,calculated,
,typical,
irreleant
source of information
alternator eiciency
page 1 o 1
Deltamarin Ltd.
JM,19.4.200
APPLNDIX J
Cost Comparison - Operating proiles
port of origin
cargo
delivered distance
voyage
time
closing
port
discard
time
loading
time
total
time
Naantali 6.0 h
Norrkoping oil products 228 nm 15.9 h 3.0 h 0.0 h 18.9 h
Copenhagen chem, products 35 nm 26.2 h 0.5 h 3.0 h 3.0 h 32. h
Muuga chem, products 533 nm 3.3 h 0.5 h 2.0 h 0.0 h 39.8 h
Naantali chemicals 159 nm 11.1 h 1.0 h 4.0 h 22.1 h
total 90.6 h 2.0 h J2.0 h 9.0 h JJ3.6 h
Poroo 8.0 h
Gothenburg oil products 14 nm 52.5 h 0.5 h 11.0 h 0.0 h 64.0 h
Amsterdam ballast 465 nm 33.2 h 1.0 h 0.0 h 8.0 h 42.2 h
Poroo chemicals 1 149 nm 84.5 h 1.0 h 11.0 h 104.5 h
total J70.2 h 2.S h 22.0 h J6.0 h 2J0.7 h
Poroo 10.0 h
Norrkoping oil products 32 nm 21. h 0.5 h 6.0 h 0.0 h 28.2 h
Copenhagen oil products 35 nm 24.8 h 1.0 h 6.0 h 0.0 h 31.8 h
Muuga oil products 533 nm 35.3 h 0.5 h 6.0 h 0.0 h 41.8 h
Poroo ballast 0 nm 4.6 h 1.0 h 0.0 h 15.6 h
total 86.4 h 3.0 h J8.0 h J0.0 h JJ7.4 h
voyages per year
at sea at full power
closing port and manoeuvring
loading
unloading
off-hire
total 8 760 h
41.0
6 99 h
103 h
902 h
120 h
8 760 h
6.1
6 890 h
152 h
913 h 1 324 h
120 h 120 h
8 760 h
vessel C
3.6
6 359 h
221 h
685 h 656 h 36 h
v
e
s
s
e
l

A
v
e
s
s
e
l

B
v
e
s
s
e
l

C
vessel B vessel A
page 1 o 1
Deltamarin Ltd.
JM,19.4.200
APPLNDIX J
Cost Comparison - Basic data
Length oer all L
OA
103.40 m 145.61 m 18.30 m
Length between perpendiculars L
BP
9.40 m 138.50 m 15.00 m
Breadth at D\L B
D\L
16.60 m 19.60 m 32.00 m
Depth to main deck D
main
9.40 m 10.65 m 1.95 m
Draught to D\L 1
D\L
.10 m 8.00 m 11.00 m
deadweight 6 046 ton 13 300 ton 44 5 ton
length o cargo area 1.40 m 98.00 m 140.45 m
number o cargo tanks,pumps 14 pumps 10 pumps 18 pumps
quantity unit add. info source
speciic price o labour 10.3 >,hour ,see text,
speciic price o steel 605 >,ton ,supplier,
steelwork eiciency 55 h,ton ,Deltamarin,
speciic price o steel structures 1195 >,ton ,calculated,
speciic price o accommodation 480 >,m
2
,Deltamarin,
speciic weight o accommod. steel 68 kg,m
2
,typical,
speciic weight o accommod. misc. 18 kg,m
2
,typical,
speciic weight o accommod. spaces 86 kg,m
2
,calculated,
speciic cable cost 13.55 >,m ,supplier,
speciic cable tray cost 166.36 >,m ,supplier,
cable installation eiciency 0.40 h,m ,Deltamarin,
speciic price o cable installation 4.29 >,m ,calculated,
steel pipe installation eiciency 4.69 h,m, or a 5 inch pipe ,Deltamarin,
S-steel pipe installation eiciency 14.26 h,m, or a 6 inch pipe ,Deltamarin,
S-steel pilot pipe installation eiciency 3.5 h,m, or a 1 inch pipe ,Deltamarin,
speciic steel pipe installation cost 50.31 >,m ,calculated,
speciic S-steel pipe installation cost 152.98 >,m ,calculated,
speciic S-steel pilot pipe inst. cost 38.33 >,m ,calculated,
speciic steel pipe material cost 109.48 >,m 5 inch pipe ,supplier,
speciic S-steel pipe material cost 164.8 >,m 6 inch pipe ,supplier,
speciic S-steel pilot pipe material cost 26.41 >,m 1 inch pipe ,supplier,
speciic hose pipe material cost 19.91 >,m ,supplier,
page 1 o 1
Deltamarin Ltd.
JM,19.4.200
APPLNDIX 2
\eights
Hydraulic piping
pressure piping 950 kg 0 kg 1 136 kg 0 kg 1 624 kg 0 kg
return piping 2 150 kg 0 kg 2 603 kg 0 kg 3 92 kg 0 kg
pilot piping 103 kg 116 kg 123 kg 152 kg 16 kg 221 kg
hose piping 19 kg 16 kg 21 kg 18 kg 34 kg 31 kg
subtotal 3 222 kg J32 kg 3 883 kg J7J kg S 626 kg 2S2 kg
Designated spaces
powerpack-room 8 562 kg 0 kg 8 562 kg 0 kg 19 41 kg 0 kg
conerter-room 0 kg 4 386 kg 0 kg 3 354 kg 0 kg 4 644 kg
hydraulic oil storage tank 1 492 kg 0 kg 1 51 kg 0 kg 2 110 kg 0 kg
hydraulic oil waste tank 1 641 kg 0 kg 1 669 kg 0 kg 2 321 kg 0 kg
subtotal JJ 69S kg 4 386 kg JJ 749 kg 3 3S4 kg 23 902 kg 4 644 kg
Cabling
cables 156 kg 4 185 kg 156 kg 3 290 kg 156 kg 10 046 kg
cable trays 89 kg 1 24 kg 89 kg 1 491 kg 89 kg 2 131 kg
subtotal 24S kg S 432 kg 24S kg 4 78J kg 24S kg J2 J77 kg
Pumping arrangements
pumps 6 440 kg 10 346 kg 5 900 kg 260 kg 15 930 kg 34 200 kg
electric motors 0 kg 8 820 kg 0 kg 6 900 kg 0 kg 21 600 kg
hydraulic powerpacks 15 661 kg 125 kg 15 43 kg 125 kg 33 558 kg 125 kg
requency conerters 0 kg 2 339 kg 0 kg 1 833 kg 0 kg 3 202 kg
electric starters 84 kg 0 kg 84 kg 0 kg 84 kg 0 kg
hydraulic oil transer unit 25 kg 0 kg 35 kg 0 kg 50 kg 0 kg
accessories, misc. 86 kg 86 kg 86 kg 86 kg 86 kg 86 kg
subtotal 22 296 kg 2J 7J6 kg 2J S42 kg J6 204 kg 49 709 kg S9 2J3 kg
total 37 4S9 kg 3J 666 kg 37 4J9 kg 24 S09 kg 79 482 kg 76 28S kg
-5 93 kg -12 910 kg -3 19 kg
quantity unit source
cable tray 8.9 kg ,m ,supplier,
cable .8 kg ,m ,supplier,
presure pipe 6.8 kg ,m ,supplier,
return pipe 16.6 kg ,m ,supplier,
pilot pipe 0. kg ,m ,supplier,
hose pipe 0.9 kg ,m ,supplier,
page 1 o 1

Delta Marin Report - Study of Hydraulic and Electric Driven Deepwell Cargo Pump Options 190407

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Delta Marin Report - Study of Hydraulic and Electric Driven Deepwell Cargo Pump Options 190407

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

STUDY OF HYDRAULIC AND ELECTRIC

DRIVEN DEEPWELL CARGO PUMP

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen