(1999) Wijnolst Et Al MALACCA MAX-The Ultimate Container Carrier

MALACCA-MAX
THE UL TIMATE CONTAINER CARRIER

Design innovation in container shipping
2443
625
8
Bibliotheek TU Delft
. IIIII I IIII I II III II II III 1111 I I 11111
C 0003815611
DELFT MARINE TECHNOLOGY SERIES
1 . Analysis of the Containership Charter Market 1983-1992
2. Innovation in Forest Products Shipping
3. Innovation in Shortsea Shipping: Self-Ioading and Unloading Ship systems
4. Nederlandse Maritieme Sektor: Economische Structuur en Betekenis
5. Innovation in Chemical Shipping: Port and Slops Management
6. Multimodal Shortsea shipping
7. De Toekomst van de Nederlandse Zeevaartsector : Economische Impact
Studie (EIS) en Beleidsanalyse
8. Innovatie in de Containerbinnenvaart: Geautomatiseerd Overslagsysteem
9. Analysis of the Panamax bulk Carrier Charter Market 1989-1994: In
relation to the Design Characteristics
10. Analysis of the Competitive Position of Short Sea Shipping: Development
of Policy Measures
11. Design Innovation in Shipping
12. Shipping
13. Shipping Industry Structure
14. Malacca-max: The Ultimate Container Carrier
For more information about these publications, see:
http://www-mt.wbmt.tudelft .nl/rederijkunde/index.htm
MALACCA-MAX
THE ULTIMATE CONTAINER CARRIER
Niko Wijnolst Marco Scholtens
DELFT UNIVERSITY PRESS
1999
Frans Waals
Published and distributed by:
Delft University Press
P.O. Box 98
2600 MG Delft
The Netherlands
Tel: +31-15-2783254
Fax: +31-15-2781661
E-mail: DUP@DUP.TUDelft.nl
CIP-DATA KONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK, Tp1X
Niko Wijnolst, Marco Scholtens, Frans Waals
Shipping Industry Structure/Wijnolst, N.; Scholtens, M; Waals, F.A.J .
Delft: Delft University Press. - 111. Lit.
ISBN 90-407-1947-0
NUGI834
Keywords: Container ship, Design innovation, Suez Canal
Copyright <tl 1999 by N. Wijnolst, M. Scholtens, F.A.J. Waals
All rights reserved.
No part of the material protected by th is copyright may be reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission of
the publisher: Delft University Press, Prometheusplein 1, 2628 Delft, The
Netherlands
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
2. THE ADVENT OF POST-PANAMAX CONTAINER SHIPS ............. 16
2.1 The development of post-Panamax container ships . .. .... .... 16
2.2 Ship size developments ........ .. ... .. . . ... . . . ... . ... 17
3. HISTORICAL DEVElOPMENTS IN lIQUID AND DRY BULK SHIPPING . . . , 20
3.1 Development of large oil tankers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20
3.2 ULCCs, an overshoot in upscaling .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21
3.3 Dry bulk shipping .................................. 23
3.4 Conclusions .. ... .. ... . . . ... . .......... . ........ . . 24
4. CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT OF AN ULTRA LARGE CONTAINER SHIP . ... 25
4. 1 Main dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.2 Concept development ....................... . ....... 26
4.2.1 Propulsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26
4.2.2 Hatch covers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
4.2.3 Layout options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
4.3 Conclusions............... . . .. ............. . ..... 28
5. SIMPLE CONCEPT OF A SUEZMAX CONTAINER SHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1 Concept... . . . ..... . .. . ....................... .. 30
5.2 Main dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.3 Huil form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31
5.4 General plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.5 Propulsion .................. . . . . .. ..... .. ........ 31
5.6 Stability............. . ......... .. ................ 32
5.7 Conclusions........ . . .. .................. . . . .. ... 33
6. PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF A MALACCA-MAX CONTAINER SHIP ..... . 34
6.1 Introduction...... . .. . . . .................. . .. . . .. . 34
6.2 Adaptations to original concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34
6.3 Main dimensions and characteristics .................... . 34
6.3.1 Huil form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36
6.3.2 General arrangement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36
6.3.3 Propulsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36
6.3.4 Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.3.5 Container support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38
6.4 Light ship weight estimate ............................ 39
5
Malacca-max: The Ultimate Container Carrier
6.4.1 Method Westers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39
6.4.2 Method Sneekluth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.4.3 Light Ship Weight according to Vossnack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.4.4 Midship extrapolation ... . . . .. . .. . . ... . .......... 40
6.4.5 Accuracy of the methods used .. . . .. . ............ . 41
6.5 Loading and discharging a Malacca-max container ship . . . . . . . . . 42
7. STRENGTH ASSESSMENT MAlACCA-MAX CONTAINER SHIP . ...... . 45
7.1 Introduction..... . ...................... ...... .. .. 45
7.2 Approach . ................. . .. . .......... . ..... . . 45
7.3 Preliminary design of midship section . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. 45
7.3.1 Concept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45
7.3.2 Minimum scantlings (Lloyds rules) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47
7.4 Direct calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47
7.4. 1 Longitudinal strength .. . .. .. ... . .. . . .. . : . . . . . . . . . 47
7.4.2 Transverse strength . . ....... . ... . ...... . ..... .. 48
7.4.3 Torsion stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
7.4.4 Transverse beam bending .... . . ..... .... ... . .... . 51
7.5 Calculations in SafeHuIl ............. .. ... . ... .. .... .. 52
7.6 Conclusions . .. . . ...... . . ....... ... ... .. ......... . 53
8. ECONOMIC EVAlUATION OF THE DESIGN . ................... . 54
8.1 Introduction...... . ... .. . ... . ... . .... . ..... .. ..... 54
8.2 Cost elements ...... . ..... .... .. .. .. .. . . ..... .. .. . 54
8.3 Calculation model .. . ........... . ... ..... . ..... . .... 54
8.4 Assumptions ... ..... ...... . ........ . . . . .... . ..... 56
8.5 Economies of scale of large container ships . . ...... ... . .... 62
9. COST ESTIMATE FOR THE DREDGING OF THE SUEZ CANAl ...... . .. 64
9.1 Introduction .. ... . ...................... .. . . ..... . 64
9.2 History of the Suez Canal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64
9.3 Current dimensions of the Canal ..... .. .. .. . ....... . . . .. 66
9.4 Future expansion plans . ........... . .......... . . ... . . 69
9.5 Suez Canal dues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
9.6 Possible cooperation of Rotterdam and/or Singapore ... ....... 71
10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........ . ... . ...... 74
CHAPTER NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76
6
Introduction
1 . INTRODUCTION
Container shipping has become the fastest growing segment in world shipping over
the last 35 years. This has facilitated the growth in size of container ships. For
almost 25 years the size was restricted to Panamax-dimensions. Since 1988 this
hurdle has been taken and the largest ships of today are on their way to take the
next geographical constraint relevant for the shipping industry: the Suez Canal.
The design limit of this Canal will be reached within the next couple of years.
"Where will this increase in container ship size end?", is a question that preoccupies
many port authorities, terminal operators and of course shipowners.
In this book the answer to that question is provided: the Malacca-max container
carrier, a ship of just over 18,000 TEU. We have given it the name of the third major
design parameter in the world, af ter the Panama Canal locks, the Suez Canal draught
and width: the Strait of Malacca draught of 21 metres.
The VLCC fleet of oil tankers has a draught th at allows them to pass the Strait on
their way to Japan. So it is argued in this book th at the ultimate draught for
container ships will become 21 metres just as the VLCC fleet . On the basis of this
design parameter a conceptual design of a container ship has been made. The ship
is meant to be used in a simple shuttle operation between for example the ports of
Rotterdam and Singapore, al t hough it could be extended to other ports as weil,
provided they have sufficient draught.
One bottleneck standing in the way of this huge container ship is the Suez Canal.
The draught and width of the Canal is a moving target since it is getting deeper all
the time by the continuous work of the Suez Canal Authority dredgers. It is expected
to reach the 21-metre draught in the year 2009 from its current 17 metres (1999).
Ten years seems a very long time but in order to adapt the port infrastructure to the
advent of the Malacca-max container ship it is already tight .
Why should shipowners invest in these large ships, while they do not make a decent
return on investment on the current container ships? The driving force is the creation
of a competitve advantage through economies of scale. The Malacca-max design has
an overall lower cost level of approximately 16 per cent over the current largest
container ships of 8,000 TEU. In a world of cutthroat competition, 16 per cent can
make a decisive difference.
The conceptval design and feasibility study in this book are the result of a master
thesis project from - Marco Scholtens - at the Delft University of Technology . There
are many aspects in this study th at can be criticised, but the reader should keep in
mind th at the objective of the thesis-work and the book is to show the world some
7
""M'
"
direction in container ship development. It is an exploratory study and not a detailed
design of a ship, nor of a liner schedule with all its complicating variables .
The perspective on the future is urgently required since tremendous amounts of
money are today invested in quays, cranes and harbours which could become a
waste of capital if the wrong design dimensions are used. For example the current
gantries have a maximum outreach of 60 m. The Malacca-max carrier requires an
outreach of 74 m. And it can be done as, crane-specialist Huisman-Itrec
demonstrates with the design shown in Figure 1.
Figuur 1: Gantry design with 74-metre outreach
Given the lifetime ot a crane of 25 years, the planning horizon of terminals should
include the advent of the Malacca-max ship with its length of 400 m, breadth of 60
mand draught of 21 m. Figure 2 shows the general arrangement of the container
ship.
Ship size and company size
There is a clear tendency within the container shipping industry towards an increase
in company size. In the book "Shipping Industry Structure" the increase in the size
of container companies is shown tor two years: 1996 and 1998 (Figure 3)
8
Introduction
Figuur 2: Malacca-max container ship design
Two opposing farces drive this trend:
The economy of scale of large ships requires major investments th at cannot
be financed by small companies;
The dis-economy of scale when growing from small scale operations to a large
scale and world-wide network, which requires huge investments in
information technology and local offices.
These two farces are feeding on each other. And the end of it is not in sight. It will
be reinforeed by the Malacca-max container ship since the investment in one ship
will be substantial, probably more than the equity of most of the second tier
container shipping companies.
Design innovation in shipping methodology.
Marco Scholtens has used a special design methodology in his study: Design
Innovation in Shipping (DIS) methodology. DIS has been developed at the Delft
University of Technology in order to incorporate, in an academie way, triggers for
innovation in the standard design cycle.
In the book "Design Innovation In Shipping" this methodology is explained, and it
should be read in conjunction with the baak on "Shipping Industry Structure", which
contains a brief developmental history of each of the major shipping markets.
9
100% .-.--.----.--.----r--,---,--,----,--,---,--,-,
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1996 1998
Corrpanies
1996 1998
Nuniler of ships
category
Figuur 3: Development of container company size
1996 1998
Deadweight
0 >20
m 11-20
.6-10
03-5
02
~
___ ',,1111'
The underlying philosophy of the DIS-approach is that most of the ship designs in
the world are related to a number of triggers, ranging from physical law triggers to
geographical conditions triggers, from regulations triggers to economie parameters
triggers, and of course not to forget technological triggers.
By systematically analysing the environment - in the widest sense - in which a ship
operates, the designer is able to identify, through benchmarking and S-curve
analysis, potential shifts.
Economie parameters triggers, such as the stevedoring cost and port time of ships,
triggered deepsea container shipping in the first place, see "Design Innovation in
Shipping". Later on, the geographical conditions triggers became the stepping stone
for change. As mentioned before, the Panama Canal was the most important hurdle
th at had to be taken. The growth of the Panamax and post-Panamax container ship
capacity, shown in Figure 4, illustrates the distinct shift in container ship size over
the last decade.
10
Introduction
30,0%
25,0%
20,0%
.,
:;;
..c:
lil
15,0%
~
...
:;;
:E
10,0%
5,0%
0,0%
~
~
.I
Panama
/
~
/
/'
~
~
V Post-Pan max
Q.
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
Figuur 4: Shift in container ship size
Based on the current study and several other similar projects, we are confident to
postulate that within the next decade another major shift will occur, towards the
Malacca-max container carrier. Shipowners would be foolish to invest in tonnage of
alesser capacity, for example based on the current restrietions of the Suez Canal,
since the draught of the Canal is constantly increased.
There are of course many container routes in the world that do not permit to operate
ships with a draught of 21 m. But, it is our firm believe that eventually owners will
push the design envelope to the max, Malacca-max!
The DIS-methodology is a useful tooi for shipowners and ship designers and the
interested reader is invited to have a look at this textbook, which is used at the
Marine Technology Faculty.
Feasibility
A new ship design may be technically perfect, but th at does not necessarily mean
that the owner will be able to make a decent return on investment. In order to
establish the latter, the shipowner makes investment and voyage calculations. The
students at the Faculty learn the basics of the economie evaluation methods used
in shipping, which are summed up in the textbook "Shipping".
On the basis of a number of facts and assumptions, the Malacca-max container ship
is compared with th ree other container ship sizes: the Panamax ship of
approximately 4,500 TEU, the current largest container ship of 8,000 TEU, and the
Suex-max ship of 12,000 TEU. The results are shown in Figure 5.
11
12
10
8
~
~
r--..t..
>
lil
"t:I
:3
6
w
t:
<I>
Cf)
-.
Slot cos ts
--.ti 0
0
0
0
::::I
4
n
Time Char ~ Equi valent
2
o
o 5000 10000
TEU capacity
Figuur 5:Slot costs and TCE of large container ships
15000 20000
Although there are not many dots in the graph, it is demonstrated that the Malacca-
max ship offers economies of scale of approximately 30 per cent over a Panamax
ship and 16 per cent over the current largest ship of 8,000 TEU. Although these
figures should be treated with care, they warrant further serious study into this
subject.
Suez Canal
The first objective of the study was to establish the conceptual design and the
approximate feasibility of the Malacca-max container ship. A second objective was
to create a lasting competitive advantage for the port of Rotterdam. Let us explain
the reasoning behind this objective.
In Northwestern Europe the access channels to the major container ports pose
severe draught restrictions. Only by major dredging operations and "riding the tide"
the ports of Hamburg, Bremerhaven, Felixstowe and Antwerp will be ultimately
accessible for ships up to a 1 5-metre draught.
An increase in draught of container ships like the Malacca-max to 21 m will eliminate
these ports as competitors from the important Europe - Far East trade route.
Rotterdam is the only major container port in NW-Europe th at is able to
accommodate the VLCC-size ships. Therefore the port of Rotterdam has a very
important strategie reason for stimulating shipowners to invest in ships of Malacca-
max dimensions. The sooner th is development happens, the better it is for
Rotterdam.
12
Introduction
Since the Suez Canal is currently a major bottleneck in draught terms for the
Malacca-max ship, Marco Scholtens visited the Suez Canal Authority in order to find
out about the current and future dredging programmes. The information provided by
the SCA (Suez Canal Authority) was used to calculate the amount of dredging work
and the cost involved. The Canal profile development since 1869 (year of
inauguration) is shown in Figure 6. The enlargement has been very impressive over
the last 130 years.
Area
Max. draught Max.dwt
1869
......
;;:> 310 m2 6.76 m
7,000 dwt
1900 ......... ;;:::> 460 m2
7,80 m 10,000 dwt
1908
oc::::::::: ::;:::>" 680 m2 8.53 m
14,000 dwt
1912
...............
::::;;::0'" 720 m2 8.53m
14,000 dwt
1914
---- ----
870 m2 8.84 m
16,000 dwt
1935
oe::::::::::::: :::wsttin2 10.06 m
28,000 dwt
1954
---
10.67 m
32,000 dwt
1961
---
1600 ___ m 45,000 dwt
1964
----
1!i m
65,000 dwt
1980
------
3700m2
2010
--=::::::::::::

Figuur 6: Suez Canal profile development
The deepening to a 21-metre draught will take approximately ten years, if SCA uses
its own modern dredging equipment. The process can be speeded up significantly
if additional dredging capacity is used.
We propose to do just that. The ports of Rotterdam and Singapore should both
provide the financing to SCA in order to achieve the 21-metre mark within the next
five years. A rough guess puts the additional capital dredging at US$ 400 million.
The interest on on th is amount is approximately US$ 24 million per annum, if divided
by both ports, only US$ 12 million per port. Small money compared to wh at is at
stake on a competitive level between ports in Northwest Europe, but also in
Southeast Asia.
13
Approach
The study started with a review of the developments of container ships and shipping
until now in an attempt to find parallels with developments in liquid and dry bulk
shipping. Also other factors th at might influence the design parameters of the vessel,
such as operational demands of owners, characteristics of waterways and design
characteristics of recent large container ships, have been examined.
The main research questions were:
Is it attractive for liner companies to operate with 18,000 TEU container
vessels (is it technically feasible and economically attractive)?
What are the necessary adaptations to the Suez Canal, wh at will it cost and
should Rotterdam and/or Singapore financially support this project?
Some other questions require further research, but these are bevond the purview of
this study. The most important ones are:
How to increase container handling in port?
Are ports able to facilitate the through transport of the highly irregular
container flows?
How must the sailing schedules be adapted to optimise productivity with
these big ships?
The approach followed in this study is shown in Figure 7
Sponsors
The study has been supported by several companies, which all have an interest in
the potentialof the Malacca-max development. These are:
American Bureau of Shipping Europe, London office (Classification
society);
Port Authority of Rotterdam;
Royal Boskalis (dredging);
P&O Nedlloyd, Rotterdam office;
Huisman-Itrec (crane manufacturer) ;
Marin (ship laboratory) .
Although these companies helped us with the project, they are in no way responsible
for the report or its conclusions. We are very grateful for their trust and support.
And hopefully it proves to be a good investment!
14
,
,
,
,
,
.------ -)[-- ----
: Adaptations to
: the Iogistical
: chain (not a part
1 of this study)
----------------
Estimation with
use of SafeHuti
software in final
stage
Feasibility Malacca-
max concept
Choice for a
prelimi nary
design
aJternative
Preliminary
design Malacca-
max container
carrier'
Adaptations 10
harbour
basins/cranes etc.
(not a part ot this
study)
--- ~ ----------
Cost analyss and
comparison with
cost levels of
current vessels '
Figuur 7: Approach followed in the Malacca-max project
Introduction
15
2. THE ADVENT OF POST -PANAMAX CONTAINER SHIPS
2.1 The development of post-Panamax container ships
The Panama Canal is one of the most important waterways in the world. Every year
several thousands of ships pass th is canal. The dimensions of the locks in the
Panama Canal have a large influence on the design of ships. Many ships have been
designed to be just able to pass the locks in the Canal. These so called "Panamax"
ships have been optimised throughout the years, to accommodate more cargo within
the same main dimensions. Especially in container shipping, the Panamax design has
become very popular. Over the past decades the liner companies have significantly
increased the scale of their operations. Important reasons for th is are the substantial
growth in th is sector as weil as the very tough competition in the liner shipping
industry, forcing companies to cut costs almost continuously. Larger vessels can
generally transport containers in a cheaper, more efficient way than smaller ships.
This development can be visualised as an S-curve development: The S-curve
consists of an initial start-up period followed by a period of strong growth, which
eventually reaches a ceiling level. This development is illustrated in Figure 8.
5
w
~
~
'u
..
Co
..
..,
Co
:c
VI
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
r-
2000
1500
1965
~
~
.....
~ . :
..
-
..
~ ~
..
".":.
.

~ ..
....
....
........
./"
.... .
...
-
~
'.

...
~
-
....

..

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Vear of construction
Figuur 8: S-curve development in Panamax container ships
16
2005
The advent of post-Panamax container ships
In the late 1 980s American President Lines was the first liner operator to abandon
the Panamax design. Their C-1 0 class container ships were the first to have a wider
breadth than the locks in the Panama Canal could accommodate. Since these ships
were to sail on the Pacific only, it was not essential for them to be able to pass the
Panama Canal.
Within a few years other operators followed APL's example. Many liner companies
added a large number of so ca lied "post-Panamax" ships to their fleet, though there
are still operators who are staving with Panamax designs. They feel the larger
flexibility of Panamax ships is more important than scale advantages that may be
achieved by larger post-Panamax ships.
Abandoning the limitations of the Panama Canal means that ships with a significant
larger capacity can be built. This results in economies of scale, which can cause
significant cost reductions for the liner operators. Although the first post-Panamax
ships had a capacity smaller than that of an optimised Panamax design, the most
recent designs are significantly larger. At the moment the Maersk S-class is the
largest ship so far, with an official capacity of 6,600 TEU (but is able to carry about
8700 if container weights allows it), against a maximum of about 4,500 TEU for an
optimised Panamax ship.
It seems that Panamax ships have reached the peak of their market share, while the
share of post-Panamax ships is rapidly increasing. Expectations on the optimum size
of post-Panamax ships are divided. Maersk and P&O Nedlloyd clearly opt for a large
increase in size, with ships of 6,500 TEU and over, while other operators, such as
COSCO, NYK and Evergreen choose to limit the size of their ships to about 5,500
TEU (see Table 1).
2.2 Ship size developments
Considerations th at influence the choice in ship size are, for instance, the handling
time in port, the cargo volumes on specific routes and draught restrictions in
harbours. The size development of post-Panamax ships is shown in Figure 9.
17
President Adams 1988 4,340 24.20 273.10
Nedlloyd Normandie 1991 4,427 24.00 275.70
Hyunday Baron 1992 4,469 24.50 275.10
NYK Altair 1994 4,743 23.50 300.00
Hyunday Federal 1994 4,411 24.50 275.00
Nedlloyd Hongkong 1994 4,112 24.00 279.10
California 1995 4,960 24.60 276.00
1995 4,832 24.50 276.30
1995 4,800 24.00 300.00
K-class 1996 6,418 25.00 318 .20
Hyunday Indep. 1996 5,551 25.60 276.00
Ever Ultra 1996 5,364 25.00 285.00
Hanjin London 1996 5,302 25.60 279.00
NYK Anteres 1997 5,798 24.00 299.90
Maersk S-class 1997 7,040 25.00 346.70
Luhe 1997 5,250 24.50 280.00
Tabel 1: Overview of characteristic post-Panamax ships
5
w
t:.

'(3
'"
c.
'"
"
c.
:2
en
7500
7000
6500
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
1986

1988

---

1990 1992 1994
Year of construction
39.40
37. 10
37.20
37.10
37.20
37.80
40.00
40.00
37.10
42.80
40.00
40.00
40.30
40.00
42.00
39.80

V"

1996
Figuur 9: Size development of post-Panamax container ship
41,882
38,235
49,324
42,978
49,324
40,653
48,618
48,824
43,828
54,882
54,794
48,618
54,794
60,419
61,000
43,088
1998
It remains to be seen how far the sealing-up of container ships will continue. For
now, the limiting factors are predominantly logistic rather than physical restraints in
18
The advent of post-Panamax container ships
shipbuilding or waterways. As ships grow in size, their time in port is bound to
increase. More and heavier cranes are needed to handle these ships. The arrival of
a large container ship means a lot of containers have to be hand led in a short period
of time. This can cause problems with the through transport of the containers.
The next physical restraint, excluding the depth of harbour basins, is the Suez Canal.
Although all container ships built so far can easily pass the Suez Canal, a further size
increase will reach the limit of th is Canal as weil. A simple concept for a Suezmax
container carrier is described later. This shows th at the maximum capacity of such
a ship is around 12,000 TEU. There are indications th at Suezmax vessels are already
being planned by and on the drawing boards of the world's largest container ship
owner, Maersk.
To allow larger ships to pass the Suez Canal; it has to be deepened and widened
considerably. The voyage around the Cape of Good Hope, which is not unusual for
crude carriers, is not feasible for container ships. The longer voyage time will ruin
the ship's competitive position.
19
3. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN UaUID AND DRY BULK
SHIPPING
In order to make predictions on the still growing container ship markets, it is
interesting to look at previous developments in similar markets. The crude tanker and
dry bulk markets are mature markets in the shipping industry, which have seen a
similar increase in ship size as container vessels. In bulk and oil shipping these
developments took place several decades ago, and the long-term effects of these
developments can therefore be more readily assessed than for container shipping.
3.1 Development of large oil tankers
With the emergence of the Middle East as the major oil-exporting reg ion in the world
in the fifties and sixties, the development of oil tankers took large steps forward.
The total world production of oil sharply increased. As the oil mainly originated in
the Persian Gulf, this also caused an increase in the average distance in sea
transport from 4,000 nm (transatlantic) to 8,000 nm, or even 12,000 nm for
transport around the Cape of Good Hope.
The closure of the Suez Canal in the aftermath of the Six-Day war between Israel
and the Arab-speaking world, was an event that served as a further trigger for
innovation in oil shipping. The necessity of shipping oil around the Cape of Good
Hope resulted in the development of ever-Iarger tankers. The maximum size of crude
oil tankers quickly grew from 85,000 DWT in 1968 to 260,000 DWT in 1972 and
to 560,000 DWT in 1976. Even designs of 1,000,000 DWT tankers were made.
The high rates of return in crude oil shipping in the early seventies caused a massive
newbuilding wave of supertankers which were all entering the market in a very short
period of time. This is sometimes referred to as the "suckers rally" . It created a large
overcapacity th at coincided with a political event which was to have a large impact
on the oil markets, the 1973 oil crisis.
This radical change, which happened virtually overnight, caused major shifts in the
profitability of cru de oil tankers. The 500,000 DWT Ultra Large Crude Carriers
(ULCC) were no longer profitable under the new market circumstances of low freight
rat es and high fuel costs. Their very limited flexibility rende red their design obsolete.
Consequently, very few tankers were built in the ten years af ter 1975, and no
ULCCs have been ordered since 1975.
By now the oil tanker market is a mature market, which has developed into clearly
defined sectors. The optimum size of the ships is determined by the boundary
conditions of the market they operate in. The smallest category of crude tankers is
20
Historical developments in liquid and dry bulk shipping
now the Aframax (around 100,000 DWT), followed by the Suezmax (around
150,000 DWT), VLCCs (250,000 to 300,000 DWT) and some remaining ULCCs of
over 400,000 DWT. While a large spread of tonnage existed in the seventies, the
market is now divided into segments, each with a very narrow tonnage margin. See
Figure 10.
500000 .. -..
450000

350000
e.
1:' 300000
'1250000 +
200000 t----t----t-:---:.-r--+--=--+---+---+------j
f/)
150000 +---+---4!;
100000 +-__ ..2...+------,.-....1

50000 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+------j
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Year of constructIon
1995
Figuur 10: Development of market segments in crude oil carriers.
2000 2005
The most important change that took place over the past years is the large-scale
introduction of the double huil tanker. Again, this development was caused not by
technological advances, but by an external factor, the OPA90 legislation.
3.2 ULCCs, an overshoot in upscaling
"Anything th at gets too large gets extinct ." A rule th at has been known to biologists
for same time, was discovered by the shipping community in the mid-seventies. The
collapse of the oil transport markets called an abrupt halt to the growth of oil tanker
size.
With a totally reversed market situation the new breed of supertankers, the 500,000
DWT Ultra Large Crude Carriers were no langer profitable, and became instantly
obsolete. The ULCCs could, and can, only enter a very limited number of ports
21
around the world . This greatly reduces their flexibility and deteriorates their
competitive position.
The economies of scale that can be achieved by these mammoths is limited. This is
clearly shown in Figure 11, where the installed engine power per DWT is shown as
a function of ship size. Although the fuel savings per DWT are initially quite
significant with increasing ship size, this effect is considerably less for ships larger
than VLCCs . The very small economies of scale do not offset the very limited
flexibility these ships have.
Nowadays, the largest ships that are being constructed are around 300,000 DWT
ships. They are capable of entering significantly larger number of ports, as weil as
passing the relatively shallow Malacca Straits.
0,350

0,300
0
i

0,250
..
ti
0,200
8-
ti
c
0,150
"61
c
ti
"t:I
0,100
.!
E
111
.5
0,050
o 100.000 200.000 300.000 400.000 500.000 600.000
Ship capacity (CWT)
Figuur 11: Fuel consumption as a function of ship size, crude oil tankers .
The history of the Ultra Large Crude Carriers povides a clear message for other
shipping market segments. Sealing-up the size of cargo ships is determined not only
by technological boundaries, but much more by market requirements and restrietions
in infrastructure.
22
Historical developments in liquid and dry bulk shipping
1cxxxx:l
o
1965

1970

#

1975

1980 1985 1990 1995 2CCO
Vear of construction
Figuur 12: Size developments maximum size new crude carriers.
3.3 Dry bulk shipping
2005
A similar increase in ship size happened in dry bulk shipping. In the late sixties the
size of the largest bulk carriers started to increase dramatically. This ultimately led
to the construction of giants such as the 360,000 DWT Berge Stahl, in 1986. Unlike
the oil shipping market however, there was no great collapse in bulk shipping. The
market fluctuates violently with a period of about ten years, but very large ships are
still occasionally being built.
However, the vast majority of post-Panamax and Capesize bulk carriers has a
deadweight between 150,000 and 175,000 DWT. A small market continues to exist
for larger bulk carriers. These Very Large Bulk Carriers (VLBCs) usually have a
deadweight between 200,000 and 250,000 DWT. They operate on a very limited
market, mainly transporting iron ore and coal from Australia and Brazil to Japan and
Rotterdam. The size development of Capesize bulk carriers is shown in Figure 13.
23

350000+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+_----+_----+_--_4

!i 300000
Q

'
til
..
Q.
:
I/) 150000
100000
50000
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Vear of conslruction
Figuur 13: Size development of new Capesize bulk carriers
3.4 Conclusions
Lessons that can be learned from experiences in oil and dry bulk shipping are:
Economies of scale for very large ships need to be significant in order to
offset their limited flexibility;
Ship design should take the volatile nature of shipping markets, and indeed
the whole world economy, into account;
Maximum ship size is determined by infrastructure limitations and market
demands rather than by technical limitations;
The optimum ship size in dry bulk and tanker shipping is maximised to
250,000 and 300,000 dwt. This is probably also the maximum size of
container ships.
An important differences between bulk and container shipping is th at bulk shipping
is predominantly a tramp sector. This makes the flexibility of the ship essential.
Container ships usually operate on a fixed line schedule for a long period of time,
which makes Flexibility less essential.
24
Concept development of an Ultra large Container Ship
4. CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT OF AN ULTRA LARGE CONTAINER
SHIP
This chapter describes the design of a Ultra large Container Ship. Some basic
decisions are made on the conceptual design of the ship. On basis of this design
more detailed designs of a Suezmax and Malacca-max container ship are developed.
4.1 Main dimensions
Three different concepts have been developed, based on variation in the location of
superstructure and engine room. All three concepts are based on the same huil.
The breadth of the design is chosen equal to th at of the widest Very Large Crude
Carriers, which is based on the width of the Suez Canal. A larger breadth would
require an extra widening of the Canal for only a small group of container ships. The
maximum breadth is between 55 and 60 metres.
Maximum length is primarily determined by manoeuvrability in narrow waters and
port basins. An over all length of 400 metres is acceptable. These lengths have been
surpassed by ULCCs in the seventies, so no insurmountable problems are expected.
Strength calculations are not considered at this stage.
Due to the large dimensions and high speed of the ship, the required propulsive
power cannot be placed on one shaft. A twin propeller installation is necessary. A
service speed of 25 knots is chosen, which is equal to the service speed of the
present largest container vessels.
The huil form is based on th at of a large Panamax container schip and transformed
to its new dimensions. The form was mainly selected because it was the only twin
propeller huil form that is readily available in the transformation software used. For
all three concepts the huil has the following main dimensions:
Lo.
= 400 m C
b
0.625
Lpp 380 m
Hdouble bottom
2.00 m
B 55 m
Bdouble s kin
3.00 m
D 35 m
The following characteristics are identical for all designs:
~ Propulsive power is generated by two slow speed diesel engines, with ma in
dimensions: LxBxH = 22x8x11 m
~ Gross volume needed for the stowage of containers is set at 15.00 m in
length (for one block of 40 ft containers). 2.70 m wide, en 2.60 m high.
~ There are six tiers of containers stowed on deck and thirteen bel ow deck
level.
25
"
~ ~
These assumptions will not vet lead to an optimum design, but only serve to
compare the layout options with each other. A more accurate design is made at a
later stage, after the best design concept has been selected.
4.2 Concept development
Figure 14 illustrates the major choices that have to be made in the design of a
container vessel.
Figuur 14: Overview major concept options
4.2.1 Propulsion
When direct propusion is applied the space required for the main engines is limited.
Direct propulsion on two shafts is technically very weil feasible and is the cheapest
solution. Although the power could theoretically be delivered by one propeller, there
is no engine available that can deliver anywhere near the required power. It would
require a complicated, heavy and especially expensive gear box to transmit the
power of two large engines on one shaft.
26
Concept development of an Ultra Large Container Ship
Space savings can be achieved by using diesel-electric propulsion, but these are very
small. The extra container capacity will not offset the higher investment costs and
lower propulsion efficiency (a capacity increase of about 0.5 %). Furthermore, the
power th at would have to be transmitted by one shaft is very large (about 50 MW)
and must be transferred by a heavy and extremely expensive gearbox.
4.2.2 Hatch covers
Although most large container ships to date have been built with hatch covers, there
is a number of arguments in favour of an open hatch construction. Some pros and
cons of open hatch constructions are given in Table 2 (derived from unpublished
work done by ir. E. Vossnack) .
Disadvantages: Advantages:
- Container planning complicated
+
Less complicated container planning
Many shiltings/handlings of hatch covers
+
Few shiftings, no handling ol hatch covers
Many lashings
+
Much less lashings needed
Construction problems due to large torsion +
Above mentioned advantages lead to lower
displacement of hatch coamings handling osts and shorter time in port
Advantages: Disadvantages:
+
More flexibility in 20 It/40 It distribution - Bent top ol guides by container bumping
+
Lower GT (Iower port and canal dues) can block ce lis
+
Lower centre ol gravity light ship weight - Sea spray on tank top can cause corrosion
(allows more deck containers) - Ice and snow can block cell guides
- Guides more susceptible to corrosion
Very limited Ilexibility between 20 It /40 ft
containers
Tabel 2: Pros and cons of hatchcoverless container ships.
An open hatch construction is selected to reduce the already critical port time of
large container vessels .
4.2.3 Layout options
The three alternatives th at have been studied are:
Bridge forward, combined with diesel-electric propulsion. Due to the forward
placement of the bridge this ship has a good visibility and more containers can
be stowed on deck. The motions on the bow may become excessive.
27
dlIQIIfUUili i' i ii"" hl iI
~ Bridge forward, combined with twin propeller direct propulsion with slow
speed diesel engines. This alternative is for a large part the same as
alternative 1. But, due to the aft placement of the engine room the distance
between the accommodation and the engine room is very large
~ Conventional solution for large container ships. Accommodation is placed %
to the aft of the ship, with the main engines directly underneath the bridge.
The required line of sight of 375 metres over the bow can only be achieved
by removing some deck containers. Also, the deckhouse needs to be higher,
which leads to larger horizontal accelerations due to rolling of the ship.
The three conceptual designs are shown in Figure 15.
Concep t 1
~ ~ <
Figuur 15: Different conceptual designs
4.3 Conclusions
28
Concept development of an Ultra Large Container Ship
The extra container capacity due to placing the bridge forward are very significant.
No slot capacity has to be sacrificed due to visibility requirements. The total gain is
about 700 TEU.
The extra capacity due to installation of diesel electric propulsion is marginal. The
installation of large diesel-generator sets in the bow section of the ship leads to a
significant space loss, which largely offsets the gains th at are made in the aft
section. Maximum container capacity of the three concept designs is given in Table
3.
FEU
TEU
I
6,485 I 6,450 I 6,134
12,970 12,900 12,268
Tabel 3: Container capacity different design concepts
Due to the very limited advantages of diesel-electric propulsion, concept 2 is
selected. This concept promises to be the most cost-effective design, and is
developed in further detail. A design which is capable of transiting the Suez Canal
only needs to be slightly smaller, while a Malacca-max ship can achieve a
significantly larger capacity.
29
5. SIMPLE CONCEPT OF A SUEZMAX CONTAINER SHIP
For comparison purposes a Suezmax as weil as a Malacca-max container ship have
been designed. The simple Suezmax design was made according to the current
maximum dimensions allowed within the Suez Canal today, and is described in th is
chapter. A more elaborate design of a Malacca-max vessel is described in the
following chapters. The design is based on concept 2 (Figure 15) as described in the
previous chapter.
5.1 Concept
The layouts of the Suezmax and Malacca-max ship have been chosen identical. The
bridge is placed on the bow, because of forward visibility. The holds are all located
aft of the bridge and form an uninterrupted cargo area. The holds are of the open
hatch design. It is not possible to place all propulsive power on one shaft, therefore
two shafts are used, both propelled by a slow speed diesel engine and direct drive.
5.2 Main dimensions
The Suezmax ship has been designed to be just able to pass the current Suez Canal
dimensions. The limitations are both in breadth and draught. For ships with a breadth
of over 48.16 m the maximum draught is 58 ft (17.67 m). The relation between
maximum draught, maximum breadth and the submerged volume of the ship at a
block coefficient of 0.62 and a length of 390 metres are given in Table 4.
17.67
17.04
16.20
15.47
<48.16
50.00
52.50
55.00
Tabel 4: submerged volume at several draughts
205,769
206,014
205,651
205,735
The table shows that at increasing breadth the draught allowed decreases quickly.
There is an optimum, at which the maximum deadweight can be carried. This
optimum is at a breadth of 50.00 metres. The over all length chosen is 400 metres,
the same as with the Malacca-max concept. The main characteristics of th is ship
are:
30
Simple concept of a Suezmax container ship
La.
400.00 m
Lw'
390.00 m
Lpp
380.00 m
B 50.00 m
T 17.04 m
0 30.00 m
C
b
0.62
Displ. 212,194 tonnes
DWT 157,935 tonnes
V
ship
25.00 kno
Capacity 11,989 TEU
An estimate for the steel weight is made using the method of Westers. Since the
software does not provide a direct option for the calculation of steel weight of
container ships, an approximation has been made by calculating the weight of a
single deck ship of identical dimensions. The bulkheads, double skin construction
and strengthened double bottom have been added to the weight estimate. Also, a
rough approximation for the weight of the cell guides has been made.
5.3 Huil form
The huil form was made by transforming an existing huil form using the method
Versluis. This method is used in the integrated ship design program PIAS (Program
for Integrated Approach to Shipdesign). The chosen block coefficient is 0.62. The
huil has a pram shaped stern, which both increases the container stowage capacity
and facilitates the placement of two propellers.
5.4 General plan
The containers are stowed in 25 blocks of 40 ft containers . Under deck containers
are stowed 17 containers wide, on deck 19. This gives a total capacity of almost
12,000 TEU. To resist torsion loads, a double skin width of 3.00 m is applied. Two
longitudinal beams with a depth of 3.00 mand width of 0.75 mare placed over the
width of the cargo hold. These beams support the transverse bulkheads and the cell
guides in the middle of the hold, which would otherwise have a very large span.
5.5 Propulsion
The service speed of the ship is 25 knots. This is a common speed for the current
generation of post-Panamax ships. A higher speed would lead to excessive high fuel
costs, and so invalidate the entire purpose of the upscaling, cost savings.
31
L11 1
The Holtrop & Mennen resistance prediction method has been used to estimate the
required propulsive power. The results of this calculation are given in Table 5. Two
5-blade propellers of the Wageningen S-series, with a diameter of 8,600 mm are
hosen. Setter propeller designs may be available but optimising the propellers goes
bevond the scope of th is study. Engines th at can deliver the required power usuallY
run at a speed of about 100 revolutions per minute.
17 21,269 24,460 27,177
18 25,101 28,866 32,074
19 29,422 33,835 37,594
20 34,294 39,438 43,820
21 39,977 45, 974 51 ,082
22 46,451 53,419 59,354
23 53,802 61,872 68,747
~
62,151 71,474 79,416
71,638 82,384 91,537
26 82,376 94,732 105,258
27 94,441 108,607 120,674
Tabel 5: Propulsive power Suezmax container ship.
With a specific fuel oil consumption of 166 grams/kWh, the consumption is 328
tonnes per dav, at the service speed of 25 knots. Only few main engines can deliver
the required power (45,768 kW per engine). Some options are given in Table 6.
Tabel 6: Possible ma in engines Suezmax container ship
The required auxiliary power will not be calculated at this stage since it primarily
depends on the amount of reefer plugs installed.
5.6 Stability
A decisive factor for the capacity of a container ship its stability, because this mainly
determines the number of containers stowed on deck. In th is stage a simple GM
estimate is sufficient to to get a f irst impression of the ship's stability.
32
Simple concept of a Suezmax container ship
The weight prediction method of Westers also estimates the centre of gravity. The
software also contains a module for the estimate of equipment weight. The engine
room weight has been estimated by multiplying the weight of the main engines by
1.35 for the weight of other machinery equipment (pumps, generators, heaters, etc.)
Supplies suffice for 40 days, which is enough for a roundtrip trom Rotterdam to
Singapore, with reserves.
The average container weight has been estimated at 12 tonnes per TEU. This is
comparable to the DWT/TEU va lues of most post-Panamax container vessels. In
Table 7 the containers are considered loaded homogenously, which leads to a
pessimistic estimate of the stability. It is normal to load the heavier containers lower
in the ship, so the actual stability will probably be better.
W lteel
Equipment
Machinery
Supplies
Container load
Tabel 7: First stability check Suezmax design
This GM calculated is 0.31 metres, which is rather smal I. A larger GM, and probably
more realistic value, is expected for other load distributions. Table 8 shows stability
in case the bottom half of the containers consists of 14 tonnes/TEU containers and
the top half consists of 10 tonnes/TEU units.
12 tonnes homogenous 11,989 24.07 0.31
1 2 tonnes homogenous 11 , 723 23.28 1.10
Mix 14/10 ton 11 , 989 23.05 1.33
14 tonnes homoaenous 10281 22.22 2.16
Tabel 8: GM value at different load conditions.
5.7 Conclusions
The Suezmax container ship has a maximum capacity of 12,000 TEU, based on the
current dimensions of the critical sections of the Suez Canal.
33
6. PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF A MALACCA-MAX CONTAINER
SHIP
6.1 Introduction
The bridge of the Malacca-max container carrier is placed forward . Twin propeller
propulsion is required to deliver sufficient power. The ship is of all open hatch
construction, to facilitate faster loading and unloading, as weil as preventing torsion
displacement problems in hatch covers.
6.2 Adaptations to original concept
Although the design is based on concept 2 (Figure 15). a number of major changes
are made to develop a true Malacca-max design with optimum container capacity:
Breadth is increased to 60 metres, which is the maximum acceptable width
due to Suez Canal limitations;
Height of double bottom is increased to 2.75 metres, which is the minimum
required by classification rules;
Container blocks are placed closer to each other (14.0 m instead of 15.0).
which allows one extra block of containers;
Stacking is increased trom 19 to 21 tiers.
6.3 Main dimensions and characteristics
The main dimensions of the Malacca-max ship are as follows:
Lo.
Lw'
Lpp
B
T
D
C
b
Displ.
DWT
Capacity
V.
chip
34
400.00 m
390.00 m
380.00 m
60.00 m
21 .00 m
35.00 m
0.62
313,571 tonnes
= 242,800 tonnes
18,154 TEU
25.00kn. (at 90% MCR)
Preliminary design of a Malacca-max container ship
The general arrangement of the Malacca-max container ship is shown in Figure 16
111

Figuur 16: General arrangement Malacca-max container ship
35
6.3.1 Huil form
The huil form has been determined by transformation of a standard huil within the
PIAS design software. The huil has a pram-shaped stern, which both increases
container ca pa city as weil as facilitates the placement of two propellers.
The block coefficient is 0.62. According to some formulae (Ayre, Silverleaf &
Dawson, etc.) the block coefficient can be chosen considerably higher, since the
speed of the ship is relatively low compared to its length (Fn = 0.208). However,
because many other large container ships have block coefficients that are
considerably lower than advised by these approximation formulae, these formulae
have not been applied in this case.
6.3.2 General arrangement
The ship has 26 blocks of 40 ft containers. Under deck 20 containers are stowed
abreast, above deck there are 24 rows. This gives a total stowage capacity of
18,154 TEU at with 8 tiers of deck containers.
Because of the very large torsion loads on the huil, the double side width is 5.00
metres. Transverse bulkheads are placed at an interval of two 40-ft blocks.
The deck containers have to be supported by special chocks to prevent excessive
stack weight. These chocks are supported by either the transverse bulkheads, or
directly by the cell guides when they are located midway down the hold. A more
detailed structural design of the midship section is described later.
6.3.3 Propulsion
The service speed of the ship is 25 knots. This is a common service speed for the
current generation of post-Panamax container vessels. A higher service speed causes
a sharp increase in fuel costs, therewith negating the entire purpose of the design,
which is cost reduction.
Aresistanee prediction was made using the Holtrop & Mennen resistance prediction
method. Two 5-blade propellers of the Wageningen B-series have been selected to
calculate propeller efficiency. This propeller is probably not the best design available
for this speed, but its characteristics are readily available in the software that has
been used.
Engines that provide the required power output run at a speed of about 100 rpm. A
propeller with a diameter of 8,600 mm was selected. This provides optimum
performance at this speed and power output. The results of the resistance and
36
propulsion calculations are shown in Table 9. The engines operate at 90% MeR in
service condition.
17 25,700 29, 555 32, 839
18 30,362 34, 916 38,796
19 35, 770 4 1, 135 45,706
20 42,034 48,327 53, 696
21 49,211 56, 593 62,88 1
22 57,505 66, 131 73,479
23 67,106 77, 172 85,746
24 78,251 89,989 99, 987
25 91 ,243 104,929 116, 588
26 106,405 122, 366 135, 962
27 123,954 142, 548 158, 386
Tabel 9: Propulsive power Malacca-max container ship
At a specific consumption of 166 grams/kWh., the fuel consumption is 430 tonnes
per dav at the service speed of 25 knots. Only few engines are available th at can
deliver the required power output. These are shown in Table 10. Both engines can
also be delivered in a 12-cylinder version, so possibly shaft generators can be fitted
to deliver auxiliary power.
Sulzer RTA96C1 1
MAN/B&W K98MC-C
60,390
62810
Tabel 10: Engines capable of required power output Malacca-max.
6.3.4 Stability
One of the decisive factors for the container capacity of the ship is stabil ity. The
number of deck containers is mainly determined by stability demands, which means
th at the maximum capacity cannot always be loaded. Stability calculations are
limited to determining initial GM values for a series of loading conditions. Table 11
shows the initial GM for a cargo of homogenous 12-tonne containers . In th is case
the GM value is negative and therefore not acceptable. Table 12 shows some cases
in which it is possible to load the maximum number of containers.
37
64295 17.69 188.2 1.14E+06 1.21E + 07
1373 32.5 236.7 4.46E+04 3.25E+05
5103 10 80 5.10E+04 4.08E + 05
20000 17 3.40E+05 2.40E+06
35.21
Tabel 11: Initial stability check malacca-max design
12 tonnes homogenous 18, 154 29.95 0.84-
12 tonnes homogenous 17,482 28.11 1.00
Mix 14/10 tonnes 18,154 28.09 1.02
14 tonnes homogenous 15, 930 28. 13 0.98
Tabel 12: GM value at different laad conditions
6.3.5 Container support
Due to the absence of hatch covers, measures have to be taken to prevent
excessive stack loads. Therefore a support system has to be fitted for the deck
containers. Figure 13 shows a possible solution.
Figuur 17: Support mechanism deck containers
38
6.4 Light ship weight estimate
Several methods are available for estimating the steel weight of the ship. However,
since this ship is so different from any existing ship, ordinary extrapolation methods
may not be suitable. Their accuracy has to be evaluated first. before it can be used
to determine the steel weight of the Malacca-max. To do this four methods are used
and the results are compared to the real weights of th ree existings ships. The results
are given in Table 13.
6.4.1 Method Westers
The best method available at the moment for the steel weight. is the method of
Westers. It uses a single deck ship as the basis. Specific container ships are not
available in the software. Therefore, stringers, double skin and bulkheads have to
be added separately, to enhance accuracy. Since the method originates from 1962,
some assumptions might not be valid anymore. The method has been checked with
more recent ships, although only few these large container ships were available.
For the Malacca-max the following results are obtained::
W
st
Wequip.
W
mach
.
64,295 tonnes
1,373 tonnes = > loS.W.
5,103 tonnes /
The following modifications were made:
70,771 tonnes.
Weight has been added for the cell guides. This weight is estimated at 0.33
tonnes/TEU;
Machinery weight is estimated by multiplying ma in engine weight by 1.35.
The modified method of Gallin has been used for the equipment weight. Boonstra
and van Keimpema modified the graphs used in order to take account of more recent
developments in ship design.
6.4.2 Method Sneekluth
The method of Schneekluth uses less input variables than the previous method, and
is probably less accurate. There is, however a special set of input values for
container ships available.
39
i lil. ii
The modified method of Gallin has been used for the equipment weight , and the
machinery weight is again estimated at 1.35 x main engine weight .
6.4.3 light Ship Weight according to Vossnack
Vossnack uses a single formula for estimating the weight of container ships. This
formula is:
LSW = 97.5 * LWI * B * H (kg)
This produces a steel weight which is almost linear with ship volume. This denies
every possibility of economies of scale in construction weight. This method must
therefore be regarded as a very rough rule of thumb formula, which is only
applicable in a very limited size range.
6.4.4 Midship extrapolation
The last method used is based on extrapolation of the weight of the midschip
section. ABS's SafeHuil program provides the weight of one hold in the midship
section. With this result an average steel weight per metre midship section can be
calculated. This weight can then be integrated over the length of the ship using the
weight distribution shown in Figure 18.
Wst (= 133.1 tonne/m)
a 1.0
b 0.8
0 0.25 0.75 1.0 Loa

Figuur 18: Steel weight distribution over ship length
With a steel weight of 133.1 tonnes/metre in the midship section, the huil steel
weight is 50,588 tonnes. Some extra items must be added, such as f orecastle,
bridge, funnel and fenders. Their weight is derived from the method of Westers.
Again the weight of the cell guides is estimated on 0.33 tonnes/TEU. According to
this method the steel weight of the Malacca-max is 60,432 tonnes.
40
6.4.5 Accuracy of the methods used
To get an indication of the reliability of the different methods, also the light ship
weight of some recently built container ships has been estimated using these
methods. The actual light ship weight of these vessels is known, and can be used
to compare. The following modifications/assumptions apply:
Weight of cell guides is estimated at 0.33 tonnes/TEU in method Westers;
Equipment weight has been calculated using the modified method of Gallin;
Weight of hatch covers is estimated at 0 .31 *L
oa
*8 tonnes;
Weight of machinery is: bare engine weight* 1.35 tonnes.
The results are given in Table 13.
Equipment 1,373 1,373
Machinery 5,103 5,103
Total ??? 70,771 71,716 79,852
Maersk K-class Steel 26,032 26,420
Total 34,130 33,545 33,933 31,176
P&O NI. South. Steel 20,621 22,864
Total 28,500 28,209 30,452 29,649
Hyunday Admiral Steel 15,095 15,870
Total 22,000 21,436 22,211 21,193
Tabel 13: Light ship weight calculated with varios methods
The results of the method Westers are surprisingly accurate. The difference between
the weight estimate and the actual ship weight is in all cases under 2.5%. The
Sneekluth method also provides reasonably accurate results, with an accuracy
between 0.9% and 6.8%. This is quite good, since the method only uses eight input
variables . The linear formula of Vossnack also performs reasonably weil for the
41
al , i"
checked ships, but its accuracy outside the range of currently built ships is doubtful.
Extrapolating the midship section weight for the Malacca-max ship also gives a value
which more or less corresponds with the other methods.
The method of Westers se ems to be the most accurate, which is not really
surprising, since it takes many more factors into account than the other methods.
The method of Westers is expected to give the best steel weight estimate of the
Malacca-max. Therefore, in the rest of the calculations a light ship weight of 70,771
tonnes is assumed.
6.5 Loading and discharging a Malacca-max container ship
Using conventional cranes, the time in port of an 18,000 TEU vessel becomes
unacceptably long. Loading and unloading the entire vessel, using six era nes, would
take more than six days. A new crane concept is needed to boost the loading speed.
Crane builder Huisman-Itrec has developed a crane concept capable of doing 70
moves per hour. The container is unloaded in three steps:
Vertically out of the hold. A manned crane with a conventional spreader picks
up the container and hoists it straight up.
Horizontally to the quayside. The container is placed on an automatic trolley,
which then transports the container to the quay.
Vertically down to the quay. The container is moved from the trolley into an
elevator, which automatically transports the container down and places it at
the bottom of the crane.
The crane base also has a small container storage buffer, which can smooth the
movement of containers away from the quay. A drawing of this crane, with an
outreach of 74 metres, is shown in Figures 19,20.
42
r
'-7
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
Figuur 19: Malacca-max container crane (1)
43
I
/!'\
I
\ I
'- ("
/
\

,
,

,
I
,

, .

I

I

I
Figuur 20: Malacca-max container crane (2)
44
Strength assessment Malacca-max container ship
7. STRENGTH ASSESSMENT MALACCA-MAX CONTAINER SHIP
7.1 Introduction
The Malacca-max container ship is much larger than any container ship built to date.
Structural difficulties that arise in recent large container ships are likely to become
even more important for th is larger ship. Therefore, an analysis of the strength
requirements and construction is essential to prove the technical feasibility of the
concept .
Furthermore, to make economical calculations about the cost savings that can be
achieved, construction costs of the vessel need to be determined. The steel weight
has a major impact on the construction cost, so an estimated accurate weight is
essential to determine the required investment costs of the vessel.
7.2 Approach
Fi rst the layout of the midship construction is chosen, then the minimum dimensions
of the construction elements are calculated. Estimated steel weights of fore and aft
sections will be extrapolated on the basis of weight distributions of existing ships.
The program SafeHuIl, developed by the American Bureau of Shipping, was used to
check the scantlings against the minimum requirements for the strength of the
midship section. Use of this program is mandatory for the design of large container
vessels th at are classed with ABS. For an effective use of the program, arealistic
design of a midship section is required as starting point .
A preliminary design of the midship is made by manual and spreadsheet assisted
calculations. The minimum scantlings are determined with help of the Lloyd's rules
for container ships. Direct calculations are made for some critical elements, such as
longitudinal strength, torsion strength and transversal loading. These calculations
resulted in a preliminary design for a midship section, which was then analysed with
SafeHuil.
7.3 Preliminary design of midship section
7.3.1 Concept
The concept chosen for the midship section of the ship is comparable to the
construction of other large container ships. The main elements are:
45
Double bottom
The double bottom is longitudinally stiffened at both bottom and tanktop.
Longitudinal girders, placed at the container corners support the container weight.
These girders connect to plate floors at the corners of containers, and to transverse
girders in the middle of containers (i .e., every 10ft).
Double sides
The width of the double sides has been increased compared to the initial concept
design. Longitudinal strength and torsion stiffness requirements make a large double
huil essential.
Double side width is chosen at 5.00 metres, or two containers wide. Under deck the
containers are placed 20 containers wide, on deck 24 containers. The double sides
are longitudinally framed, with large vertical web frames at every 10ft, coinciding
with the location of the plate floors and transverse girders in the double bottom.
These web frames extend over the full width of the double sides.
Longitudinally framed stringers are located at 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 metres above
the keel. The stringer at 30 metres is part of a strength box used to give extra
longitudinal and torsion warping strength.
The upper part of the construction is made from high tensile steel (steel 40), to
increase the allowed stress es in the material sufficiently to enable acceptable plate
thickness. The double bottom is also constructed with high tensile steel (steel 32),
as tensions here reach very high levels due to longitudinal bending as weil.
Bulkheads
In order to assure adequate transverse strength, bulkheads have been applied at
every second bay of 40 ft containers. In order to prevent buckling of the bulkheads
under compressive stress deep stiffeners are applied to the bulkheads. These
bulkheads offer direct support for the container cell guides.
The bulkheads are stiffened by transversal stiffeners, which are supported by vertical
web frames. These web frames are placed every 2.50 metres, and are in the same
vertical plane as the double bottom si de girders.
Longitudinal beams, which connected the bulkheads in the outline design have been
removed. The risk of buckling in these elements makes their useful application
questionable.
Cargo support
In order to support the container cell guides, as weil as assist in the transverse
strength, transverse beams have been placed midway in each hold. These beams are
stiffened like the uppermost part of the bulkheads. Since these beams have to carry
the weight of a large number of containers, their strength will be manually checked
through direct calculations.
46
7.3.2 Minimum scantlings (Lloyds rules)
For an estimate of the minimum scantlings of the construction elements the rules
for constructing container ships by Lloyd's register of Shipping have been applied.
In many cases, the formulae have been simplified to speed up the calculation
process. In every case, approximations have been made to be on the safe side.
In most cases, especially in the case of required plate thickness, the minimum
scantlings are far less than used to support the ma in huil loads such as bending and
torsion. All used construction elements have been checked to comply with the
minimum scantlings as given by the rules.
7.4 Direct calculations
7.4.1 Longitudinal strength
Longitudinal bending is probably the most critica I loading condition of the ship. The
limited deck width, combined with a very large length results in high loads on the
construction. Heavy plates and stiffeners will need to be used to cope with the
stresses placed on it.
For the purpose of this calculation, the ship is considered to be a slender beam.
Vertical shear deflections are considered to be negligible. This means that the entire
loading and deformation of the ship is considered to be due to bending.
The strength requirements have been determined with the Lloyd's regulations for
container ships. A simplified approach for the calculation of the bending moments
has been used. Lloyd's regulations require a combined stress diagram over the entire
length of the ship. Since in this stage the interest is primarily focussed on the
bending moments in the midship the maximum value of the load will occur.
The total bending load is considered to consist of the following elements:
Still water bending moment. This has been calculated for a range of different
loading conditions using design software. Several unfavourable loading
conditions result in very high stresses;
Vertical wave bending moment. The Lloyd's rules formula for VWBM
(P4,Ch.8,Sec.1.5) has been used;
Horizontal wave bending moment. The Lloyd's rules formula for HWBM
(P4,Ch.8,Sec.1.5) has been used;
Hydrodynamic torque warping stress. Again using Lloyd's rules as a guideline;
47
Cargo torque warping stress. Several loading conditions have been taken into
account. The formula used by Lloyd's results in a limited warping stress,
negligible compared to other elements. Manual calculations of unfavourable
loading conditions result in significantly higher stresses.
The construction elements participating in the longitudinal strength are calculated
using an Excel-spreadsheet. This way it is easy to determine the section modulus
and moment of inertia of the cross-section of the ship and to vary the dimensions
of the elements. The resultant stresses due to longitudinal bending are given in Table
14.
As can be seen in the tabie, unfavourable loading of the ship quickly results in very
high stresses in the construction. It is therefore essential to make a careful loading
plan in order to avoid these situations. The loading condition considered to be
normative for the longitudinal strength is a fully loaded ship in oblique waves. This
condition represents the heaviest unavoidable load of the ship.
7.4.2 Transverse strength
Due the large breadth of the ship, combined with the very open construction of the
deck, transverse strength is going to be of significant importance to the design.
Some major simplifications have been made to make some quick calculations of the
resulting stresses in the construction:
The transverse construction of the ship is considered to be cut loose from the
rest of the ship, so transferred forces and moments from sections fore and aft
of the considered block are neglected.
Stress es in the considered section are calculated through the use of the
theory of slender beams. The construction, with a BID ratio of less then 2, is
not very slender.
Out of plane bending of the bulkheads and double bottom due to transverse
moments are neglected, as weil as the risk of buckling.
These very rough approximations are made to simplify the calculations to a level
suitable for manual calculations. The accuracy of these calculations is therefore low.
The transverse strength has been calculated for two extreme conditions:
1. Fully loaded hold, lowest point of wave. (sagging) See also Figure 21 a.
2. Empty hold, wave top. (hogging) See also Figure 21 b.
48
SWBM: See sheet
VWBM sagging : -1.267E +07
VWBM hogging: 9. 135E +06
Mt (rules): 1.759E+06
Mtc (rules) : 2.204E+05
Yield stress HTS
Yield stress MS
Fuilload (18,150 TEU) ;
Max hogging load 111111
Max hogging empty bunkers
Max torsion load (below deck)
Max torsion load (IUII deck)
Max torsion load empty bunkers
Max sagging load
L-KI ______ 0_ .6l :7---1"1 IHWBM induced stress: 40.88
Fully loaded
Bottom: 73.96
Hogging 2.562E + 07 Deck: 217.48
Bottom: 131 .71
Hogging empty bunk 2.899E + 07 Deck: 246.10
Bottom: 149.04
Sagging -8. 132E+06 Deck: 131.06 69.04-
Bottom: 88.00 41.81-
Fullyloaded 2.352E+07 Deck: 233.83 199.68
Bottom: 137.00 120.93
Hogging 3.475E+07 Deck: 233.83 295.04
Bottom: 137.00 178.68
Hogging empty bunk -2. 081 E+07 Deck: 233.83 176.62-
Bo 137.00 106.97-
" " , " , " .' ' .. ' .. ' r Fully loaded
2.185E+07 Deck: 233.83 226.34
Bottom: 157.00 153.20
Hogging 3.308E +07 Deck: 233.83 321.70
Bottom: 157.00 210.95
Sagging -1 .772E+07 Deck: 233.83 191.27-
Bottom: 157.00 131 .96-
Torsion hall loaded 2.676E + 07 Deck: 233.83 268.04
Bottom: 157.00 178.46
Torsion, deck 10':ld 3.568E+07 Deck: 233.83 343.80
Bottom: 157.00 224.34
Torsion empty bunk. 3.994E+07 Deck: 233.83 379.95
Bottom: 157.00 246.23
" " ,"" .. ' .,', , '. ",c' :: Fully loaded oblique
2.185E + 07 Deck: 233.83 226.34
Bottom: 157.00 153.20
Tabel 14: Longitudinal bending stresses in midship section
87.87-
53.95-
34.21-
21.46-
109.97-
67.34-
146. 12-
89.23-
49
A: Sagging condition B: Hogging condition
Figuur 21 : Transverse strength
The calculations have been made in Excel, and are shown in Table 15.
Hw.v.
Weight hold cont.
Weight deck cont.
Layers on deck
B
B
s ides
L"cld
T
,"
tITEl
Mwave bottom
Mwave sides
Msteel weight
Mcont . hold
Mcont. deck
Total :
Sagging Hogging
-2.100E+09 -3.412E + 09 Nm
2.126E+08 5.615E+08 Nm
1.043E + 09 1.043E+09Nm
8.927E + 08 O.OOOE+OO Nm
7.9 11 E + 08 O.OOOE + 00 Nm
8.399E + 08 -1 .807E+09 Nm
Inertia transversal 626.78 m4 Mimffiij) iUis$i$;li):tliO$vi1iaaiatt
Neutral axis transv. 11 .03
Bottom press. hogg . 2.614E+05 N/m2
Bottom press. sagg. 1 .609E + 05 N/m2
T
Sigma deck
Sigma bottom
Tabel 15: Stress es due to transverse bending
50
Sagging Hogging
32.12 69.11 - MP
14.78- 31 .80 MP
Strength assessrnent Malacca-rnax container ship
7.4.3 Torsion stiffness
Hydrodynamic torque caused by oblique waves can cause high stresses in a large
container ship. Sufficient measures will have to be taken to ensure sufficient
resistance to these loads.
The main stress component will be the torsion warping stresses. These can be
manually calculated for a prismatic cross-section of the ship, but th is is quite a
complicated calculation. The warping stresses have to be included in the longitudinal
stress calculation, and in this case the approximation formulae for warping stress
given by Lloyd's in the longitudinal strength calculation have been used.
The values given by Lloyd's, however, are based on ships of a conventional layout,
with the superstructure in the aft part of the ship. This results in a large closed
(;onstruction, which can limit warping. The Malacca-max design has a deeptank in
front of the engine room, which will provide the required warping resistance. Still,
the length of the unsupported cargo hold is very large, so the approximation formula
has to be considered with caution.
The shear stresses due to torsion can be estimated through the use of a simple
formula.
Shear flow (=T*tplate) = Mt/20, (first formula of Bredt) with:
T = maximum shear stress
t
p1ate
= plate thickness at this location
Mt = Torque moment (Lloyd's rules)
o = surface closed by the double huil and bottom
This results in a maximum shear stress of T = 92.6 Mpa. Taken separately, th is is
acceptable, but it remains to be seen how other stresses influence on the total stress
distribution. It is obvious th at torsion loads need to be examined further to see how
they interact with the other loads placed on the huil.
7.4.4 Transverse bearn bending
The transverse deck beams have to support the deck containers, and so they must
be able to carry a considerable load. The bending moment of th is beam has been
calculated by assuming the maximum load of deck containers being equally
distributed over the length of the beam. Furthermore, the beam is considered to be
simply supported at both sides. This is slightly pessimistic, but necessary, in case
of partial deck loads being concentrated in one section of the beam.
With dimensions of the beam, the stress es can be calculated:
51
0bending = 0.292 * (L
span
)2 MPa
If stresses must remain below aa/kl (high tensile steel factor) = 131 MPa, it is
necessary to place at least two columns to support the beam. This would result in
a beam span of about 16.50 m.
The resulting bending tensions then become:
0beam.max = 79. 5 MPa.
An alternative solution is to support weight of the deck containers by the cell guides.
The loads th at result are not easily predictabie by manual calculation. It is likely that
the limiting factor will be buckling strength.
A drawings of a longitudinal cross-section of the ship is shown in Figure 22.
Figuur 22: Longitudinal cross-section midship section Malacca-max
7.5 Calculations in SafeHuIl
All calculations vet have been 2-0 approximations of 3-0 stress situations. 3-0
calculations must be made using a finite element method. For this purpose ABS'
52
SafeHuIl strength assessment software is used. This program evaluates the
dimensions of the structural elements against the requirements of ABS rules.
Within the framework of this study, a full finite element analysis of the construction
is too compl icated and time consuming. Since the goal of the strength calculation
is to demonstrate the technical feasibility, a very detailed constructive design is not
really necessary.
Due to software limitations some limited simplifications had to be made, but they
have no real effect on the final result. SafeHuIl calculations show th at a considerable
reduction in minimum scantlings can be achieved compared to t he manual
calculation. The maximum steel thickness is 70 mm of HT 40 steel in the sheerstrake
and upper deck.
7.6 Conclusions
Calculations show it is technically feasible to construct a Malacca-max container
ship. The midship section, with a 2.75 metres high double bottom and a 5.00 metres
wide double huil is theoretically capable of resisting all the individual loads placed
on it.
Longitudinal bending stresses are the dominant factor of loads placed on the ship
structure. The weight distribution of the containers needs to be planned with some
care. Concentrating the heavy containers at both ends of the ship will result in
extreme stresses in a hogging condition.
There are still several uncertainties in this design. Therefore, it is not possible to
determine the final dimensions of the construction without a lot of further work.
Finite element calculations may demonstrate the need for heavier (or maybe lighter)
construction elements. It mayalso be necessary to make fundamental changes to
the construction if problems arise that cannot be readily solved by an increase of
existing plate thickness.
53
8. ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE DESIGN
8.1 Introduction
The most important reason tor constructing ever larger container vessels has always
been the prospect ot relative cost reductions. Generally, larger ships can carry cargo
in a more efficient way and theretore cheaper.
The teasibility ot Malacca-max container ships is theretore dependent on the validity
ot th is trend tor even larger ships. To determine the economie teasibility ot Malacca-
max container carriers a cost calculation model has been made. It compares the cost
level of a Malacca-max container ship with the cost level of several large container
vessels, notably the Panamax, Maersk S-class, and Suezmax.
8.2 Cost elements
Usually the sea leg accounts tor only a minor portion of the total cost. The majority
ot the costs involve terminal handling, overhead, through transport, container-
chartering, etc. Cost reductions that can be achieved in deepsea transport should
not lead to increases in other parts of the chain. It is very weil possible th at larger
container ships lead to increases in transhipment cost due to larger and more
expensive cranes and higher loading speed. This would negate the scale advantages
of larger ships. Unfortunately, turther research is needed on the etfects on the rest
of the transport chain. The calculations in this study are limited to cost savings th at
can be achieved in the deepsea transport legs.
The costs tor operating a large container vessel are divided into the following
groups:
Capital cost;
Operational cost;
Voyage cost;
Miscellaneous cost;
Terminal handling charges can be included.
8.3 Calculation model
The cost levels between several large container vessels are compared using a
spreadsheet model in Microsoft Excel. All direct ship-related cost elements are
calculated both tor a single roundtrip as weil as per year of operation.
54
Economie evaluation of the design
Capital cost is calculated as a sum of depreciation and interest. Parameters relating
to the loan can be entered into the model, such as interest rate, running period and
percentage of equity. The interest paid during construction of the ship is also taken
into account. The loan is considered to be on an annuity basis, with constant
payments taking place each year.
Operating cost comprises the following items:
Manning;
Repair & maintenance;
Insurance;
Nautical management cost;
Lube oils, paint, stores;
Survey reservation.
Manning is calculated by multiplying the number of crew with the leave factor and
ave rage wages (all inclusive). Repair & maintenance, insurance, nautical
management costs and the yearly survey reservation are considered to be dependent
on the value of the ship. Lubricating oils and stores are considered to be dependent
on the main engine power and the average running hours of the engine.
A yearly cost increase (due to inflation or other developments) can be entered for
all the separate cost elements.
Voyage cost includes the following items:
Fuel cost;
Harbour costs;
Canal dues.
Fuel costs are calculated using the speed sailed during the voyage, instead of the
consumption at maximum service speed. Container ships are not scheduled to sail
at their maximum service speed all the time. During normal operations their fuel
consumption will therefore be significantly lower than it is at maximum service
speed. Fuel prices can be entered into the sheet manually.
Port costs are divided into items such as pilotage, towage, tonnage dues, agency
costs etc.
Canal dues in this case are the Suez Canal dues. The Suez Canal net tonnage, on
which the dues are based, must be entered in the model. This tonnage differs
considerably from the net tonnage of the ship since the Suez Canal Authority have
their own system of tonnage calculation.
Miscellaneous costs can be added, like cost tor repositioning empty containers.
(Repositioning costs are the terminal handling charges of empty containers)
55
If desired Terminal handling charges can be added to the total cost. This gives an
impression of the very significant impact of terminal handling costs to the total
transport costs.
All the cost items are added up over the length of one round voyage and these are
used to calculate a required time charter rate as weil as a required freight rate. It
takes factors into account such as user specified fuel price, west- and eastbound
load factor, and expected return on investment.
A life cycle profitability analysis can be made with the model as weil. All cost levels
are estimated over the life cycle of the ship, as weil as income predictions. There is
a separate sheet where expected market developments can be entered. An expected
return on investment over the life cycle of the ship can then be calculated.
8.4 Assumptions
For the quantitative assessment of the cost involved in operating the Malacca-max
container ship the following assumptions have been made, based on a roundtrip
between the hubs of Rotterdam and Singapore, via the Suez Canal:
Capital costs:
100% of the ship is financed with a bank loan;
The loan has a running period of 25 years (equal to the life of the vessel);
Repayment of the loan is in the form of annuity payments;
The loan has an interest rate of 6%;
The building cost of the ship is considered to be linearly dependent on light
ship weight (this makes an honest comparison between building prices of all
used ships possible);
The ship is both financed and paid for in US dollars;
Depreciation of the ship is linear over a period of 25 years;
Residual value is 5% of new value.
An attempt has been made to obtain an average ship price per light weight tonne.
Due to the very limited availability of construction weight data and the cyclic nature
of shipbuilding prices th is does not produce reliable data.
The best is to assume a linear relationship between light ship weight and
newbuilding price. The Maersk K-class has been used as a benchmark for price,
since it is a very recent series of ships, the largest design to date and apparently
built at a very competitive price.
Since there are a large number of these ships, development costs have a relatively
low impact on building costs. This might lead to an underestimate of the newbuilding
price, but the effect is the same on the cost levels of all the reviewed ships.
56
Dperational costs:
.. The crew consists of European officers and Asian enlisted ratings;
.. Ship insurance, maintenance & repair and nautical management costs are
considered to be linearly dependent on ship value, causing a 0.75% of
newbuilding value yearly expense each;
.. Cost of lubricating oils is based on main engine power (kW) multiplied by the
yearly running hours multiplied by 0.15;
.. Survey reservations are made each year for all special surveys and are equal
to 0.5% of newbuilding value each year;
.. Cost escalation for all items are 2.5% annually;
Voyage costs:
.. Fuel costs are calculated using the speed required for a six week round
voyage. This is about 20 knots, which is slightly lower than usual for large
container ships. A five week schedule would require a service speed of about
24 knots, which cannot be maintained in rough conditions;
.. The fuel price is estimated at 75 US$/tonne, for Heavy Fuel Dil, 130
US$/tonne for Marine Diesel Dil;
.. 5 % of occupied slots is considered to be active reefer containers, both
westbound and eastbound;
.. Suez Canal net tonnage is estimated at 90% of gross tonnage;
.. Harbour costs are based on the system of port dues as it is applied in
Rotterdam.
Miscellaneous costs:
.. Brokerage costs can be included, but in th is case of very large ships in liner
operations they are excluded;
.. The repositioning of empty containers due to the trade imbalance between
Europe and Asia can be included in the costs . In this case however, the
westbound and eastbound load factor are considered to be equal.
Recent studies indicate an average westbound occupancy level of 71 % while
eastbound occupancy is 68%. This is based on all ships. However, the largest ships
tend to attract the majority of the cargo, and therefore have a higher load factor.
Furthermore, since this calculation assumes a hub-feeder operation instead of
multiporting, the occupancy level of the ship is always at its maximum level.
Therefore, a load factor of 90% is assumed for both east- and westbound legs.
Although the above mentioned assumptions might not be accurate, these errors have
no significant effect on the end result. Absolute costs may change, but since the
major assumptions are equal for all ships, the relative cost levels stay the same. The
model for the Malacca-max ship is shown on the following pages, the results are
discussed in the following section.
57
MAIN n'lUIc .. ,c,n .. ,c
Loa (m)
Lwl (m)
Lpp (m)
B (m)
D (m)
T(m)
Cb
INVEST. SUM
Building costs
Initial costs
Working capital
Finance sum
Share capital
Subsidies
Total equity
Total liab and
58
-ix US$ 1000\
181 , 500
4911
0
186411
0
0
186411
186411
Speed (kn.)
Main engine power
SFOC main engine (gr./kWh.)
Shaft generator on?
SFOC aux. generators (gr./kWh.)
Equity
Liabilities
Total liabilities and eq.
Labilities over years
Start redemption
Balloon last year
Interest over liabilities
US$/NLG. exchange
Loan in US$
Mortgage (xUS$1 000)
Yearly annuity (xUS$
Project years
Yearly
Interest
546
370
537
728
2730
RUNNING COSTS IN
Crew Expenses (wages, costs, victualing)
Insurance (H&M, P&I)
Maintenance & Repair
Management costs
Lub. oils, pa int,
Other costs
Survey reservation
Running days per year normal
Running days per year docking &special
Number of dockings / special surveys
Mean running costs per year (US$x 1000,-)
Mean running costs per running day (US$)
2001
Crew:
25
Value:
175,000
Factor
2
%
Value: %

Value:
175,000
3
Crew/ year
n. n
Power: Hours Factor
1 20000 !tQQI
Value: factor:

Running costs break-up
Surwy resel'\Eltion
12%
Other costs
1%
Lub. oils, paint,
stores
18%
Management costs
18%
Crew Expenses
(wages. costs,
\4ctualing)
16%
17%
&
Total Escalation
per year per year %
1200
1312.5
1312.5
1312.5
7463
20535
2.5%
59
max:
60
25
Conto
2001
y
75
factor westbound(%)
More ton nes
Surcharge
Fee
120000
21
90%
90%
0%
y
150
75%
5%
5%
44000
430850
60319
535169
Shi Particular.
Loa {mi
B {mi
T{ml
Speed {kn.1
OWT {toni
GT {toni
TEU capacity
Cargo capacity (containers)
Crew no.
Building pric. {x US$ 1000.-1
Engine power (kW.I
Suez canal
dues
52%
Malacca Max
400
60
21
25
243.800
208.000
18.154
11.346
25
181 .500
120.000
Singapore
FueJ costs
151 .190
1.070.338
30.370
12.500
62.400
119.990
Economic evaluation of the design
Fuel coats
At sea (max sp. ) In port
HFO consumpt./day {toni 513
MOO consumpt ./day {toni --------'--------....... "'-1
T otal consumpt/day {toni 513
Trip costs (USS)
HFO 697.553
MOO
Tot. cost.' conaum t.
57
729.132
Coat. e, TEU
Slot casts {US$/TEU/d.1
TCE {US$/TEU/dayl
Cost/slot/mile {US$/TEU/milel
Trans ort cost lEU
Round trip cosh
Capital costs
Operational costs
Voyage costs
Terminal handJing charges
Miscellaneous costs
Total casts (US$I
Cash IUS$)
Ye costs at thi. route
Capital costs at COO
Operational costs
Voyage costs
Terminal handling charges
Mis cell aneous costs
T otal costs I vaar
T otal cash expenditure
Unit capacity (lEU/ year)
Trans orted car a er ear
36
Trip eons. Itonl
9.301
9. 544
7.31
4.29
0.019
153
IUS$I
2.079 .406
861.972
2.070.650
0
0
5.012.028
5.012.028
xU 1000 -
18.082
7.495
18.006
0
0
43.583
43.583
3 15.719
284. 147
Voyage cost break-up
Miscellan
eaus
casts
0%
Cost division
1%
Agency
0%
Fuel
35%
Pilotage
3%
Tonnage dues
8%
Terminal
handling
charges
al casts
21%
61
8.5 Economies of scale of large container ships
A number of recently built large container ships has been evaluated for their over all
cast level, sa a comparison can be made with the expected cast level of a Malacca-
max ship. This gives an indication of the cast savings th at can be achieved with
these large ships (Tabie 16).
okyo Senator 3,017 215.60 32.20 12,517
Hannover Express 4,407 294.00 32.25 20,870
Hyunday Admiral 4,411 275 .. 00 37.10 22,003
Hanjin london 5,302 279.00 40.30 25,832
P&O Nedll. Southampton 6,674 299.90 42.80 28,500
Maersk K-class 7,400 318.60 42.80 34, 134
S-Class 8,400 348.00 42.80 37,550
design 11,989 400.00 50.00 54,259
1 154 60.
Tabel 16: Container ships used for cast comparison
The development of slot casts versus ship size is shown in Figure 26. Larger ships
can achieve significant economies of scale on total slot casts. This effect is less
evident when the time charter equivalent rate is used as a benchmark. It can be
concluded th at major savings are achieved due to reduced fuel consumption per TEU
and lower Suez Canal dues (which make up the bulk of the voyage cast).
Construction casts per TEU are less influenced by increasing ship size.
Figure 27 shows the development of cast levels versus ship size. Note that this is
only the cast of the deep-sea transport leg. Transshipment cast and through
transport, which constitute up to 80% of the total casts, are not included.
The graph shows that significant cast reductions are achieved through upscaling of
ship size. Savings for the Malacca-max design amount to anywhere between a 16%
(Maersk S-Class) and 30% (Panamax design) over all cast reduction .
These cast savings sound quite spectacular and attractive. However, these cast
savings are calculated over the deepsea leg only. If the cast savings are calculated
over the total container transport cast, cast savings are somewhere between 3%
and 6%. Therefore, it is essential that the savings that can be made through the
employment of larger ships are not offset by higher casts on share.
62
12
10

8

r---..!...
>
ca
"tl
3
6
w
t:
...
IJ)
Slot cast

0
u
0
:::J
4
n
Time Char ter Equivalent
2
o
o 5000 10000 15000
TEU capacity
Figuur 26: Slot casts and TeE of large container ships
240
220
200
:::J 180
w
t-

IJ) 160
:::J
140
120
100
o

Panamax

lVIaersk S-class

Suezmax

5000 10000 15000
TEU capacity
20000
20000
Figuur 27: Transport cast between Rotterdam and Singapore (deepsea only)
63
9. COST ESTIMATE FOR THE DREDGING OF THE SUEZ CANAL
9.1 Introduction
The idea of creating a Canal linking the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea dates
back to 4000 years, when the Ancient Egyptians thought of linking the two seas
using the river Nile and its branches. It was this very old idea th at led to the digging
of the present Suez Canal which is historically the first man-made canal ever dug in
service of world trade and is, so far, the biggest navigational canal between East and
West.
Between Port Said harbour and the Gulf of Suez, the Canal runs through soils which
vary according to the region. At Port Said and the surrounding area, the soil is
composed of thousands of years of silt and clay sedimentation deposited by the Nile
waters drifted by the Damietta branch. This formation extends to Oantara, 40 km
to the south of Port Said, where the silt mixes with sand. The central region of the
Canal between Oantara and Kabret consists of fine to coarse sands, while the
southern reg ion contains dispersed layers of rocks, varying in texture from soft and
stone to calcium rocks.
The Suez Canal is a sea level canal and the height of the tide va ri es slightly as it is
50 cm high in the north and 2 m high in the south. The banks of the Canal are
protected against the wash generated by the transit of ships, using revetments of
hard stones and steel piles corresponding to the nature of the soil in every area. On
both sides of the Canal, there are mooring bollards every 125 m, for the mooring of
vessels in case of emergency, and kilometric sign posts for locating the position of
ships in the waterway. The navigable channel is bordered by light and reflecting
buoys as a navigational aid to night traffic.
There are eleven signal stations along the western bank of the Canal for tracking the
traffic, about 10 km apart from each other. This is in addition to a traffic control
office in Port Said, another one in Port Tawfik and the main office in Ismailia. These
offices control traffic and facilitate pilotage operations.
9.2 History of the Suez Canal
The ancient Egyptians were the first ones to recognise the importance of a canal
linking the Mediterranean with the Red Sea. During the reign of Pharaoh Senausret
111 a canal was dug between the river Nile and the Red Sea. It reportedly opened in
64
'I
Cost estimate for the dredging ofthe Suez Canal
1874 BC and could only be used by small river ships. This canal had to be
abandoned due to silting, but was reopened several times:
The canal of Seti I (1310 BC.)
The canal of Nkhaw (610 BC.)
The canal of Darius I (510 BC.)
The canal of the Romans (Emperor Trajanus, 117 BC.)
The canal of Amir EI Moemeneen (640 AD.), this canal remained open for
approximately 150 years.
The idea of digging a canal in Egypt was revitalised by Napoleon Bonaparte during
his conquest of Egypt in 1803. The idea was abandoned because his engineers
mistakenly calculated a difference in water level between the Mediterranean and the
Red Sea, amistake th at was only discovered half a century later.
The Suez Canal in its present form, running from Port Said to Suez was opened on
the 17'h of November 1869. It was the result of the efforts made by Ferdinand de
Lesseps, the one time French Consul to Egypt .
The Suez Canal Company, a joint British/French operation, which remained in charge
for 87 years, ran the Canal. In 1956 Egyptian president Nasser nationalised the
Canal, sparking a vigorous reaction by the French and Brit ish who sent an invasion
force to retake the Canal. Under serious United Nations pressure the French and
British had to back down and leave Egypt. The Canal is now run by the Egyptian
government through the Suez Canal Authority.
Economie impact
The Suez Canal is one of the most important waterways in the world and has had
a significant impact on shipping and indeed on the whole world economy. It
significantly reduces the sailed distance between Europe and Asia. As an example:
sailing from Jeddah in Saudi Arabia to Constanza in the Black Sea is 1,698 miles
through the Suez Canal, compared to a huge 11,771 miles via the Cape of Good
Hope.
Dredging
Throughout its existence, the Suez Canal has a nearly continuous series
of improvements. The first bucket dredger, the Dredger 9, arrived in the Suez Canal
in 1888. It was propelled by a reciprocating slow speed steam engine, fire tube
steam boilers and open steam circuits. The dredger used coal as fuel and could
dredge up to a depth of 14 metres.
This first ship was followed by a long line of dredgers of various designs, used to
maintain and upgrade the channel. The majority of the more recent dredgers consists
of hopper trailing suction dredgers, wich are used to dredge the northern parts of the
Canal. The southern part, which consists of rocks, has been dredged by cutter
65
suction dredgers, some of which were operated by foreign dredging companies. The
Suez Canal Authority has a couple of cutter suction dredgers. Most notabie is the
csd Mashour, built by IHC in the Netherlands in 1996. This is the largest cutter
suction dredger in the world.
9.3 Current dimensions of the Canal
The Canal is undergoing a constant expansion process, so the maximum dimensions
of the Canal are gradually increasing. At the moment. the maximum allowable
draught is 58 ft (17.63 m) .
The width of the Canal is three times the breadth of the largest expected vessel at
that draught. VLCCs, which usually transit in ballast, have the largest breadth, but
when empty they do not have the largest draught. Therefore, at some places of the
required channel width of 180 m, the depth is only 11 m The width of the Canal at
maximum depth is at least 133 m.
Since the cross-section varies along the length of the Canal, it is not possible to give
one typical cross-section. The dimensions depend, among others, on tidal conditions
and progress in dredging. The type of soil involved determines bank steepness.
Figure 28 shows a cross-section of the Canal at one of the narrowest points, the
deep channel of the Deversoir bypass.
..

(-5.om.) ;7
100.0m.

'OO.Om. 1 ,00.Om. I
133.0m.
Figuur 28: Suez Canal at the Deversoir By-Pass.
As can be seen in the figure, the banks of the Canal allow further expansion,
without any need for building new embankments. The Canal can be dredged to a
navigable depth of 68 ft within the existing banks.
The Suez Canal Authority expects to reach an allowed draught of 62 ft (18.85 m)
by the year 2000. This would mean a water depth of at least 22 m, not taking into
account tidal and seasonal influences. Tidal and seasonal influences vary throughout
the length of the Canal.
66
Cost estimate for the dredging ofthe Suez Canal
The minimum required depth of the Canal is calculated taking the following factors
into account:
Maximum accepted ship draught;
Squat (estimated at maximum 3.5 ft);
Dynamic trim (max. 0.5 ft);
Keel clearance (1.0 mI;
Dredging tolerance (3.0 ft);
Tidal range;
Seasonal influences (water level in the Bitter lakes varies throughout the year).
Depth measurements of the deep channel of the Suez Canal have been carried out
on board the P&O Nedlloyd Kowloon during the visit of Marco Sholtens to the SCA
in February 1999. These were made using the echo sounding device under the
ship's keel. The measurements have been corrected for squat, dynamic trim, season
effe cts and tidal variations. Figure 29. shows the depth profile relative to mean sea
level, as it was during the time of transit (13'h February 1999).
The following corrections were made to the measured depth under the keel:
A tidal correction based on the tidal level at the time of measurement, with the local
amplitude and tidal phase and time lag due to position in the Canal. The following
formula was used:
Z'ide = Zampl * cos(((S - Sol/V. + (S - SO)/8'ide + (tentry - t
hw
.llT'ide)*2*n)
where:
Zampl Tidal amplitude on dav of measurement
S Current location
So Location at start of measurement
V. Ship speed
8'ide Tidal phase correction
ten'ry Time of entry of Canal
thw = Time of High water at Port Said
T'ide = Period of main ti dal motion
An equivalent formula was used to determine the tidal levels in the southern section
of the Canal .
Also, a seasonal correction has been applied to the water level. The water level in
the Bitter lakes was 30 cm above mean sea water level due to slower vaporisation
in winter times. A linear decrease of this rise has been applied to the sections of the
Canal outside the bitter lakes.
67
Figure 29 shows th at the required depth for ships with a 62 ft draught is al ready
present in most sections of the Canal. There are a few "bumps" th at need to be
removed. However, some of these bumps are located in the southern section of the
Canal, where the soil consists of stones and rock layers. Same dredging experts
believe this will prevent the SCA from achieving the 62 ft level in the year 2000.
There is one hump around kilpmetre 100, which is above the 58ft mark. This is in
the anchorage area, and not in the Canal itself .
Kilometre 30 45 70 87 118 136,5 152
1 5,000- -,-,-,n-r-rrrTTT..,-,-,.,....,...,..,....,...,..,......,...,.....-n-n-r-rrrTTT..,.,...,..,...,....r-rr,..,....,...,..,......,.".."rrrrrr.,...,...,...,...,..,-rrrrn
17,000-
19,000-
.
21,000-
.t:
...
c.
23,000- al
c
25,000- ~ = f = = = = = = = = w = = = = = = = = = : : t ~ = : : : t =
27,000- +----------I-------------------=j
29,000- L-________________________ ---'
-rotal depth -- - -Nomina158ft. - - - - - Nomina162ft. --Nominal72 ft.
Figuur 29: Depth of Suez Canal , actual measurements
The results have to be considered with same caution. The measurements have been
made with the echo sounding device on board the P&O Nedlloyd Kowloon. This
device only records the depth straight under the keel. Conditions on either side of
the ship, but within the navigable channel, could vary.
Bank steepness varies along the length of the Canal. The most northern 60 km have
a bank steepness of 4/1 (for each 4 metres horizontally, depth increases by a metre) .
This is because this section is mostly made up of silt and fine sand . Further south
the bank steepness is 3/1, where coarser sand and rocks farm the soil.
The Suez Canal Authority gives an estimate of about 500 million cu bic metres of soil
th at has to be dredged to go from a depth of 58 ft to a depth of 72 ft By cam paring
with the actual depth of the Canal along its length, an estimate can be made of the
amount th at really has to be dredged.
68
Cost estimate tor the dredging ofthe Suez Canal
9.4 Future expansion plans
The Suez Canal Authority plans to achieve a maximum permissible draught of 62 ft
throughout the Canal by the year 2000. Further deepening is planned, but is not
considered urgent . Somewhere between 2010 and 2013 the SCA expects to achieve
a 72 ft draught . It is not considered to be necessary to achieve th is any sooner.
Traffic statistics do not warrant expansion of the Canal at this time.
The SCA has calculated that the extra income that can be generated from the larger
ships th at now sail around the Cape of Good Hope does not offset the costs of
dredging under the current circumstances. They expect oil exports from the Persian
Gulf to rise af ter the year 2010, because of dwindling supplies in the North Sea and
the Caribbean. Traffic volumes might th en increase sufficiently to generate sufficient
income.
It is not considered necessary to increase the number of bypasses in the Canal, since
the capacity in numbers of ships is more than adequate at the moment. Due to the
increasing ship sizes the number of ships is actually decreasing, to about 38 ships
per dav on average in 1998. The total capacity amounts to 75 ships per dav, so
large investments in doubling sections or even the whole Canal are not necessary.
An estimate for the cost of dredging the Canal to 72 ft can be made using the
measurements of the actual depth of the Canal. The following assumptions have
been made:
The depth measured under the keel of the ship is assumed to extend over the
full breadth of the bottom at maximum depth;
The required dimensions after expansion of the Canal are calculated using
existing bank slopes and a navigable channel with a width of 180 metres at
maximum depth;
Since no measurements have been done at sea, it is assumed that the
approaches to the Canal now have a navigable depth of 62 ft;
The Canal is divided in different sections, each with a dominant soil type. This
soil type determines the estimated dredging cost per cu bic metre;
The dredged cross-section is considered to be linearly dependent on the
depth.
To determine the required amount of dredging still to be done, the measurements
have been subtracted from the required depth to estimate the local shortfall. This
has been integrated over the full length of the Canal using trapezium rule
approximation.
The Canal is divided in the following sections:
69
North 1, km 0 to 40. Silt (2 US$/m
3
);
North 2, km 40 to 80. Silt/fine sand (3 US$/m
3
);
Lake Timsah/Deversoir, km 80 to 100. Coarse sand (5 US$/m
3
);
Great Bitter lakes, km 100 to 130. Coarse sand/stones (10 US$/m
3
);
South, km 130 to 160. Coarse sand/stones/soft rock (15 US$/m
3
).
Inside the Canal proper, the total amount of soil to be dredged is 198 million cubic
metres. With dredging costs per cubic metre varying from US$ 2 for the silt in the
northern sector to US$ 15 in the south, this amounts to a total cost of US$ 1,468
million.
The approaches to the Canal must be dredged as weil, especially in Port Said. This
will require approximately 66 million m
3
of soil, at a cost of US$ 160 million.
Including some dredging work th at needs to be done at the anchorages, the total
required investment for achieving an allowed draught of 72 ft amounts to US$ 1,650
million.
9.5 Suez Canal dues
The payable dues in the Suez Canal are a significant cost element for shipowners.
Very large container ships can face a transit due of up to US$ 300,000 for a single
voyage. At the same time, they are a considerable souree of income for the Egyptian
government. In 1998, the Suez Canal received an estimated US$ 2,900 million in
dues, of which only about 15% is needed for the maintenance and daily operation
of the Canal.
Transit dues are based on the Suez Canal net tonnage. This is determined by taking
the Gross Tonnage of the ship, minus enclosed spaces for machinery, equipment,
crewand void spaces.
Additional dues have to be paid for pilotage and if necessary, tug assistance.
Container ships pay an additional surcharge for deck containers, which can go up
to a 14% charge in case of six or more tiers on deck. An overview of Suez Canal
dues in 1998 is given in Table 17.
The levels are determined by calculating the cost for the owners for sailing around
the Cape of Good Hope on a yearly basis. Tonnage dues are set accordingly.
Crude oil tankers whose routing around the Cape of Good Hope would only mean
a marginal increase in distance (ships bound for West Africa for instanee) are entitled
to considerable discounts from the Suez Canal Authority in order to keep the Canal
competitive.
70
Cast estimate for the dredging ofthe Suez Canal
5.52 3.77 3.08 3.43 2.77 1.93 1.19 1.93 1.19 1.93 1.19
5.75 3.77 3.21 3.43 2.92 2.42 2 .06 2.42 2 .06 2.42 2.06
Dry bulk 7.21 6.13 4.14 3.52 2.97 2.53 1.05 0.9 0 .85 1 0 .85
(US$/tonne)
Container 7.21 6 . 13 4 .1 3.49 3 .37 2.87 2.42 2.06 2.42 2.06 1.83 1.56
(US$/tonne)
Tabel 17: Suez Canal dues in 1998
Larger ships pay less per net tonne. This is because economies of scale in shipping
make it relatively cheaper for large ships to sail around the Cape of Good Hope.
These lower rates for large ships also explain the lower income of the SCA over the
previous years, despite increasing trade volumes. 1997 recorded a 3.9% increase
in transiting net tonnage, while net income dropped by about 2 %. The average size
of the transiting ships has increased however, especially container vessels, where
a sizeable number of large post-Panamax ships has entered service in the past few
years.
9.6 Possible cooperation of Rotterdam and/or Singapore
Under current economie conditions, the Suez Canal Authority does not plan to
dredge the Canal to 72 ft before the year 2010. Estimated additional income due to
the passage of fully loaded VLCCs does not warrant a fast dredging program. To
make an estimate of the necessary financial support, an estimation is needed of the
additional generated income and of the cost to dredge the Canal.
If all VLCCs that currently use the route around the Cape of Good Hope would use
the Suez Canal instead, and current price levels in sea transport remain the same,
additional income to the SCA is calculated, with the following assumptions:
Dil transport around Cape of Good Hope stays at the level of 1995. (168
Million. tonnes);
Transport takes place in VLCCs with a deadweight of 275,000 tonnes, and
a Suez Canal net tonnage of 120,000 tonnes;
71
Suez Canal dues are maintained at their current level (likely to be the case if
the costs of shipping stay the same);
Increased dry bulk traffic is neglected, since the fleet of post-Suezmax bulk
carriers is relatively small 1 00). Most of these ships have a maximum
draught of little over 18 metres (60 ft), and will be allowed to pass fully
loaded from the year 2000 onwards. The number of ships with a draught
larger than 62 ft is under twenty and they mainly trade on other routes
anyway;
No discounts in Suez Canal dues are awarded to VLCCs;
The gradual increase in depth of the Suez Canal over the project duration is
not taken into account. That means th at a sudden jump in allowed draught
from 62 ft to 72 ft is assumed;
No additional traffic is generated due to taking over market share from the
Suez-Mediterranean pipeline;
Dredging is financed by issuing government bonds with a 5% interest ra te and
repayable in the year of completion.
These assumptions lead to a conservative estimate of the additional income, since
shipping prices, and therefore Suez Canal dues are at a very low level, and the oil
market is low as weil. There will be 611 VLCC northbound passages each year,
generating US$ 130.4 million annually.
If it is assumed th at the SCA is planning to arrive at a draught of 72 ft in 2010
anyway, a calculation can be made for the allowed cost of hiring foreign contractors
to speed up the work. The net present value of the income is calculated for each
year the project is completed before 2010. See Table 18. All additional expenditures
required are to be furnished by Rotterdam and/or Singapore.
Input data:
Interest ra te 5 % Million US$
Yearly income 130.4 Million US$
Project cost 1650
2000 1,057.5 1,650.0 592.5 Million US$
2001 927.1 1,449.6 522.6 Million US$
2002 802.8 1,258.1 455.3 Million US$
2003 684.5 1,075.1 390.5 Million US$
2004 571.9 900.1 328.2 Million US$
2005 464.6 732.8 268.2 Million US$
2006 362.4 572.9 210.5 Million US$
2007 265.0 419.9 154.9 Million US$
2008 172.4 273.7 101.3 Million US$
2009 84.1 133.8 49.7 Million US$
2010 0.0 0.0 0.0 Million US$
Tabel 18: Net present value of fast dredging project
72
Cast estimate tor the dredging ofthe Suez Canal
The taster the project has to be completed, the higher the cost will beo This is mainly
because of the amount of work th at needs to be done by foreign contractors. If the
whole project is to be executed by foreign contractors, it will roughly cost 1.65
billion US$. If all the work is done by the SCA dredgers, the costs are assumed to
be zero . This is of course not the case, but since only extra income is calculated,
only the extra costs need to be taken into account .
The amount of dredging that must be done by contractors is assumed to decrease
linearly over the required finishing date of the project, with 100% of the work in
2000, and 0% in 2010. The Net Present Value of the investment is calculated using
the same interest rate as th at used for the income.
By subtracting the additional income trom the investment cost the required sum to
be paid by Rotterdam/Singapore can be obtained, see table 18.
73
10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A number of research questions has been examined, and the answers to these
questions are briefly presented in this chapter, as weil as some recommendations for
further study.
"Is it technica/ly and economica/ly feasible to construct container ships with a
capacity of 18,000 TEUr
The study shows th at it is technically feasible to construct a container vessel with
a capacity of over 18,000 TEU. Such a vessel can be constructed with currently
available technology. With a twin propeller propulsion the ship can be powered by
existing diesel engines. The huil can be constructed with commercially available steel
qualities, while plate thickness can be kept at acceptable levels.
Significant economies of scale can be achieved with the Malacca-max design. A total
cost reduction of at least 16% compared to the most cost-effective ship built to date
can be achieved. For the most part these cost savings are in fuel and Suez Canal
dues.
This cost reduction, however, only accounts with the direct ship related costs.
Terminal handling and other transport costs have not been studied and must be
examined further.
"What are the necessary adaptations to the Suez Canal, what wilf this cost and can
Rotterdam and/or Singapore assist in financing this project?"
To accommodate VLCCs and 18,000 TEU container ships a total of 1,534 million
cubic metres of soil needs to be removed at an estimated cost of US$ 1,650 million.
If the Suez Canal Authority's fleet is employed to dredge the Canal these costs can
be considerably lower since these ships has already been paid for by the Egyptian
government, and the only extra cost lies in personnel and maintenance.
Under the current economical circumstances the Suez Canal Authority thinks it is not
commercially attractive to increase the depth of the Canal. The extra income due to
increased traffic is not sufficient to pay for dredging operations. Financial support
by the ports of Rotterdam and Singapore can make it commercially attractive for the
SCA to speed up their dredging scheme.
A research project often raises more new questions than it answers. A number of
questions which merit further study are:
74
How can terminal . handling be brought to a higher speed? The
loading/unloading speed has to be at least doubled to arrive at an acceptable
Conclusions and recommendations
time in port. A crane design with sufficient speed is available, but how can
the containers be moved to the stacks more quickly?
What is the expected extra income for the port of Rotterdam due to its
increased hub function? This determines whether it is attractive to financially
assist the Suez Canal Authority in a dredging scheme 1.
What are the effe cts of the introduction of these mammoth ships to the rest
of the transport chain? Increased costs in other parts of the chain might
negate the ship related cost savings.
, The differences in value added for the port of Rotterdam between a multiporting and hub-feeder
container ship operation have been studied in the framework of another master thesis project at the Delft
University of Technology by F.D. Bello, called "Multiparting versus Hub & Feedering: A quantitative evalutian
of the feeder concept"
75
CHAPTER NOTES
1. Introduction
"Shipping industry structure", Wijnolst, N., Waals, F.A.J., Delft University Press,
1999
"Shipping", Wijnolst, Prof .Dr.lr. N., Wergeland, ass. Prof . T., Delft University Press,
1996
"Design Innovation in Shipping", Wijnolst, N., Delft University Press, 1995
"Fairplay Shipping Encyclopedia ", Fairplay Publications, 1998 and 1999
2. The advent of post-Panamax container ships
"Hyunday Admiral: a powerful container ship", Significant ships, 1992
"Future container ships - The bigger the better?", Poehis, Pr.Dr.lng. H., Proceedings
Regional Maritime Conference Indonesia, 1995
"APL China: increasing capacity on Trans-Pacific routes", Significant ships, 1995
"Neptune Sardonyx: highest capacity Panamax container ship ", Significant ships,
1995
"NYK Procyon: Post-Panamax container liner for Far East/Europe routes ", Significant
ships, 1995
"OOCL Califomia: largest container ship vet completed", Significant ships, 1995
"Pros and cons of large container ships", Lloyd's Shipping Economist, March 1996
"Post-Panamax container ships, 6000 TEU and beyond", Drewry Shipping
consultants, 1996
"Two slots for the price of one", Phillips, F., Containerisation International,
September 1 996
"Luhe: Introducing a COSCO post-Panamax sextet, " Significant ships, 1997
76
Conclusions and recommendations
"Post-Panamax passion ", Fossey, J., Containerisation International, February 1997
"The pros and cons of post-Panamax container ships", Kai, S., Dan, Y., Asian
shipping, November 1997
"Container ships, going for growth", ABS Surveyor, December 1997
"Das wachstum der Jumbos", HANSA, March 1998
"Fairplay Shipping Encyclopedia ", Fairplay Publications, 1998
"The container ship register 1998 ", Clarkson Research Studies Ltd., 1998
"Shipping industry structure", Wijnolst, N., Waals, F.A.J., Delft University Press,
1999
3. Previous developments in liquid and dry bulk shipping
"Liquid gold ships - A history of the tanker 1859-1984 ", Ratcliffe, M., 1985
"Fairplay Shipping Encyclopedia ", Fairplay Publications, 1998
"Wor/d bulk trades 1997", Fearnresearch, 1998
"Shipping industry structure", Wijnolst. N., Waals, F.A.J., Delft University Press,
1999
4. Concept development Malacca-max container ship
"A tlantic Lady: a novel hatchcover/ess container ship ", Significant ships, 1992
"Nedlloyd Hong Kong: largest hatchcover/ess container ship ", Significant ships,
1994
"Norasia Hong Kong: continuing the hatchcover/ess theme ", Significant ships, 1994
"The first open top container ship from HDW", Ships & Ports, September 1994
"Design Innovation in Shipping", Wijnolst, Prof.Dr.lr. N., Delft University Press, 1995
"Mega ships and ro-ro feeders - Container ships of the future", Payer, Dr.H., Asian
Shipping, May 1997
"Design and operation of container ships", RINA Conference Papers, 1999
77
5. Sketch design of a Suezmax container ship
"Suez Cana/- Ru/es of navigation", Shipping Guides, 1995
"Marine Power Systems 1999", Wrtsil NSD corporation, 1999
6. Preliminary design of a Malacca-max container ship
No literature used
7. Strength assessment and steel weight estimate
"Ru/es and regu/ations for the construction and c/assification of ships ", L1oyd's
Register, 1992
"ABS Ru/es, vesse/s intended to carry containers ", American Bureau of Shipping,
1998
8. Economie evaluation of the design
"Maritime Economics", Stopford, M., 1991
"G/oba/ container markets", Drewry shipping consultants, 1996
"Shipping", Wijnolst, Prof.Dr.lr. N., Wergeland, ass. Prof. T., Delft University Press,
1996
"Conferences, het begin van het einde?", Roest, M., 1997
9. Cost estimate for dredging the Suez Canal
"The Suez Cana/ ru/es of Navigation ", Suez Canal Authority, 1995
"Sumed achieves record throughput in 1995", L1oyd's Shipping Economist, April
1998
10. Conclusions and recommendations
"Mu/tiporting versus Hub & Feedering: A quantitative eva/ution of the feeder
concept" , F.D. Bello, Delft University of Technology, 1999
78
mo uu"' ouo.u,mo uulil "U, """"'" I

(1999) Wijnolst Et Al MALACCA MAX-The Ultimate Container Carrier

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

(1999) Wijnolst Et Al MALACCA MAX-The Ultimate Container Carrier

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

MALACCA-MAX

THE UL TIMATE CONTAINER CARRIER

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen