3AFV6045766 ABB Aboa Mare Azipod Vessel Handling PDF

Risto Gyldn, ABB Oy Marine and Cranes; Magnus Winberg, Aboa Mare
15.8.2013
Vessel handling with Azipod Propulsion

Techno-economical and simulator -pedagogical
observations from high-level cruise ship captain training
Content
Terminology, abbreviations and acronyms ........................................................................................ 4
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 5
1
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6
1.1
Background and motivation ............................................................................................... 6
1.2
Objectives and scope of the study ...................................................................................... 7
Simulator-pedagogical study ...................................................................................................... 8

2.1
Using simulators for learning ..................................................................................................... 9

3.1
Definition of simulation...................................................................................................... 9
3.2
Use of simulator in DEC 30 workshop training and research ............................................... 9
3.3
Aboa Mare simulator centers Turku and Espoo ................................................................ 10
STCW requirements for ship officers and applying MRM .......................................................... 12

4.1
STCW ............................................................................................................................... 12
4.1.1
STCW and the bridge team ....................................................................................... 12
4.1.2
Observations on STCW teamwork requirements during the workshop...................... 13
4.2
The objectives and legal framework ................................................................................... 8
Bridge Resource Management MRM / Swedish Club Academy ..................................... 13
4.2.1
MRM description ...................................................................................................... 14
4.2.2
MRM / BRM training and the DEC30 workshop ......................................................... 14
4.2.3
MRM procedures and principles during the workshop .............................................. 14
4.2.4
Observations on MRM procedures and principles during the workshop .................... 14
Learning, unlearning and relearning......................................................................................... 15

5.1
Assessing the basic skills for establishing a baseline ......................................................... 15
5.2
Retention ......................................................................................................................... 15
5.3
Observations on the types of bridge teams and the learning process ............................... 17
Briefing and debriefing ............................................................................................................ 18

6.1
Briefing and debriefing at Aboa Mare ............................................................................... 18
6.2
Aboa Mare standard form for briefing and debriefing ...................................................... 18
6.3
Azipod workshop briefing and debriefing ......................................................................... 18
6.4
Observations on the briefing and debriefing during the workshop.................................... 20
Research method..................................................................................................................... 21
7.1
Simulator and vessel model.............................................................................................. 21

2
ABB and Aboa Mare. Printed copies are uncontrolled copies. This version is current as of August 2013.
Document name: Vessel handling with Azipod propulsion Techno-economical and simulator-pedagogical observations from high-level cruise ship captain training.
ABB Document number 3AFV6045766.
7.2
Operational area and environment .................................................................................. 21
7.3
Bridge resource management .......................................................................................... 22
7.4
Data collection ................................................................................................................. 22
Techno-economical study ........................................................................................................ 26

8.1
Collected data .................................................................................................................. 26
8.1.1
Variables .................................................................................................................. 26
8.1.2
Number of test runs ................................................................................................. 27
8.2
Analysis method............................................................................................................... 27
8.3
Pre- and Post-course performance ................................................................................... 28
8.3.1
Pre-course performance ........................................................................................... 28
8.3.2
Post-course performance ......................................................................................... 30
8.4
9
Comparison of pre-course and post-course results ........................................................... 33
Findings ................................................................................................................................... 35
9.1
Effects on life-cycle cost ................................................................................................... 35
9.2
Time-to-berth vs. propulsion power ................................................................................. 35
9.3
Bow thruster use .............................................................................................................. 36
9.4
Sequencing of harbor maneuver phases ........................................................................... 36
9.5
Learning results................................................................................................................ 36
10
Future development ............................................................................................................ 38
10.1
RoPax vessel harbor operations........................................................................................ 38
10.2
HMI development (VICO, EMMA and IMI) ........................................................................ 38
10.3
Standard Azipod-vessel harbor maneuver phases............................................................. 39
10.4
Retention and refreshment .............................................................................................. 39
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................... 40
3
Terminology, abbreviations and acronyms

Term/abbreviation Explanation
Azipod
Azimuthing podded electrical propulsion produced by ABB Marine.
Azipod is a registered trademark of ABB Oy Marine and
Turbocharging. In an Azipod, the electric propulsion motor is located in
a submerged pod outside the ship hull. The pod can freely rotate
around its vertical axis to give thrust to any direction. Separate long
shaft line, rudders or stern thrusters are not needed.
BRM
Bridge Resource Management: command bridge resource allocation
according to requirements of STCW 2010. See also MRM.
BT
Bow thruster
COG
Vessel course over ground
cSt
Centistoke 1 cSt = 10-6 m2/s. Unit of kinetic viscosity, i.e. dynamic
viscosity divided by the density of the fluid.
CSV
Comma-separated-file text file format.
Decimal separator In this study comma (,) separates decimals: e.g. 1.234,56
Heading
Compass direction were vessel bow points
HFO
Heavy fuel oil. Residual fuel oil with viscosity generally over 380 cSt /
50C. HFO can have low or normal sulfur content.
HMI
Human Machine Interface; The user interface in a process control
system, for example command bridge controls used for controlling
vessel motion.
IMO
International Maritime Organization, 4 Albert Enbankment, London
SE1 7SR, UK.
kW
Kilowatt, 1000 watts, unit for output of power of engines
kWh
Kilowatt-hour, unit for energy consumption
Maneuvering mode Standard Azipod propulsion operating mode for maneuvers in harbor:
limited propulsion power (usually 50-60%) and unlimited 360 degree
steering angle. (See also Open Sea Mode.)
MW
Megawatt, 1000 kilowatts
MRM
Bridge Resource Management: command bridge resource allocation
according to requirements of STCW 2010. See also BRB.
Open Sea Mode
Standard Azipod propulsion operating mode for sea and pilot voyage:
unlimited power and limited 35 degree steering angle. (See also
Maneuvering Mode.)
RoPax
Roll on/roll off passenger: vessel for transportation of freight on
wheels, and with passenger accommodation.
ROT
Rate of turn, i.e. rate at which vessel heading is changing, usually
deg/min.
SFOC
Specific Fuel Oil Consumption. In this study a generic value of 220
g/kWh is used.
SOG
Vessel speed over ground
STCW
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers. IMO 2010.
Steering angle
In this presentation: azimuthing angle of an Azipod unit: 0-180
degrees, i.e. 360 degrees unlimited. Also Rudder Angle.
4
Abstract
Power requirement and power fluctuations can be reduced by up-to 30% and 40%
respectively, on Azipod-vessels, by utilizing good methods of ship handling. At the same
time passenger comfort can be improved, time-to-berth reduced, and wear-and-tear on
propulsion system and diesel power plant reduced.
ABB Oy Marine has conducted a study in cooperation with Aboa Mare maritime simulator
center on the effect of maneuvering methods on time-to-berth, power required by Azipod
units and bow thrusters and energy consumption during harbor maneuvers. The study was
conducted as part of high-level cruise-ship captain training workshops. Transas Navi-Trainer
5000 simulator was used for gathering data.
The interest in the study was in determining the possibilities of Azipod propulsion on
minimizing unfavorable effects of maneuvering power requests by the vessel master on the
propulsion system, and especially on the diesel electric power plant. This approach allows
for a statistical approach using peak values as well as averages and standard deviations
over time.
The results show a significant change in the ship handling methods when compared before
and after the workshop. As the methods improved, average propulsion power required
decreased from 5,72,3 MW to 4,11,0 MW. Peak power demands decreased on average
by 7,0 MW (42%) from 16,8 MW to 9,8 MW. Bow thruster use could be optimized, in this
study the reduction was 90%.
These observed improvements result in reduced wear-and-tear, improved time-to-berth,
improved passenger comfort, increased safety margins as well as reduced fuel consumption.
5
1 Introduction
1.1
Background and motivation
ABB Marine has produced and delivered azimuthing, electrical propulsion systems, i.e.
Azipod-units since early 1990s. In an Azipod, the electric propulsion motor is located in a
submerged pod outside the ship hull. The pod can freely rotate around its vertical axis to
give thrust to any direction. Separate long shaft line, rudders or stern thrusters are not
needed.
In 1990s the idea of using azimuthing propulsion on large cruise and cargo vessels was new
and exciting, and no experience on the handling of this size of vessels existed. The
operators turned to maritime training providers to improve their deck officer competences.
With more and more vessels entering traffic, the operators developed their in-house best
practices, and shared these within their organizations, each operator having own methods,
terminology and human-machine interface HMI, according to their best knowledge. This lead
to a situation where azimuthing propulsion methods were not standardized and best
practices not shared within the industry.
In 2009 ABB Marine decided to conduct a study on how the situation could be improved. The
study proceeded on two tracks: one with customers, and one with Aboa Mare, leading
maritime training provider in Finland.
Aboa Mare has extensive experience in utilizing simulators in deck officer and engineer
training. They have simulator centers in Turku and Espoo, suburb of Helsinki, Finland.
During the study, the Espoo simulator center was improved to suit high-level deck officer
training. The simulator itself was technically at a good level, but some modifications in HMI
and ship models were required. In the ship model development the simulator manufacturer,
Transas International, had an important role.
Major customers, representing different kinds of operators with various ship types, were also
approached. Their experiences from both different electrical podded thrusters and
mechanical thrusters were gathered. Several top captains visited Aboa Mare simulator
center to demonstrate their own, individual methods. Customer premises were also visited
for discussions with selected captains. The results from these meetings were analyzed, and
a set of best practices in line with Azipod vessel Operation Guidelines1 were compiled.
Based on these best practices, a new, one-week training course was developed, aimed at
improving the ship handling competences, as well as standardization of methods,
terminology and HMI development. The initial course structure and content were audited by
representatives from several customer organizations, and their recommendations were
incorporated into the final product, the DEC30 workshop: Management level (STCW)
workshop on twin-Azipod cruise vessel operation and handling covering normal operation,
malfunctions and bridge communication.
Azipod Operating Guidelines, ABB Marine document 3AFV6000799

6
1.2
Objectives and scope of the study
During the development of the above mentioned DEC30-training arose the question of
assessing changes in participant competence before and after the workshop. This
assessment required definition of the levels of knowledge, understanding and proficiency of
twin-Azipod-ship handling at Management level, as defined in STCW 2010 code 2.
From techno-economical perspective the objectives of the study were to compare the actual
maneuvering commands, and the resulting propulsion variables. Performing these
observations in a state-of-the-art simulator provide data where environmental variables, e.g.
wind, current and other vessel traffic, are controlled. The only significant variable is the
Master at the controls. This data can also be gathered on ships in operation, in which case
the environment is in continuous change, setting extra demands on data analysis.
The solution used was to have the workshop participants perform a certain standard
approach to a Baltic cruise terminal with no wind, current or other traffic. This harbor
approach was performed in the simulator before and after the training.
The simulator-pedagogical part of the study aims at describing, discussing, and, perhaps,
understanding the learning process by which improvement was achieved. This part of the
study thus describes and discusses the procedures and methods used during the entire
workshop.
IMO 2010.
7
Simulator-pedagogical study
Describing and discussing the individual and group learning, pedagogical, aspects is one of
the aims of the study. The background and existing regulations are described and some
observations and thoughts on the learning process are presented. The study is by no means
exhaustive, does not aspire to present absolute scientific truths and should be treated as
informative only. However, some potential exists for continuing the study in the future and by
deepening and developing the study methods interesting results should be obtainable.
2.1
The objectives and legal framework
As mentioned in chapter 1.1 Background and motivation, the goal of the DEC30 workshop is
to improve the competence, standardize methods and terminology and develop the HMI
using a ship simulator environment.
Pedagogically, the primary objective is to assess the baseline knowledge and skill level of
the participant officers and use the learning, unlearning and relearning principle for
achieving the aims of the workshop.
Secondly, to achieve maximum performance within the legal framework of the IMO STCW
code, the STCW code rules and regulations have to be observed and implemented during
the workshop.
Thirdly, the STCW code requirements for teamwork and resource management leads to
using MRM (Maritime Resource Management) principles for managing the bridge teamwork.
8
Using simulators for learning
Today, simulators are used extensively in many different contexts, perhaps the most wellknown being the flight simulators used in airline pilot training. However, simulators are used
in many other contexts as well, for example power plants, forest harvesting, medical and,
most important in the present context, ship operations.
3.1
Definition of simulation
Simulation can be defined in many ways, such as acting out or mimicking an actual or
probable real life condition, event or situation to find a cause of a past occurrence, or to
forecast future effects of assumed circumstances or factors 3 or the act or process of
simulating 4.
For the purpose of this study the best definition could perhaps be the imitation of the
operation of a real world process or system over time. 5 Although this is a Wikipedia quote
and, as such should be treated carefully, it is quite close to the definition needed in a ship
operations context.
In the following discussion simulation is limited to the use of computer-based equipment in
specific setups being then named simulators
3.2
Use of simulator in DEC 30 workshop training and research
In the DEC 30 workshop, the ship simulator was used for two different purposes; primarily to
train officers in the use of Azipod propulsion but secondarily, to, simultaneously, collect data
for research purposes.
Generally, simulators are, at least in the shipping industry, regarded as training-oriented
equipment, but the dual use of simulators in training and research is not a new concept.
Perhaps one of the most significant early use of simulators in this way was in the US X-15
research rocket plane program in the 1950s and 1960s. The X -15 program used simulators
for the dual purpose of training the pilots and other personnel involved and also for
research purposes, mainly in predicting the behavior of the airplane at speeds and altitudes
never before attained. The simulators were also used for troubleshooting and correcting
equipment malfunctions.
Thus, the X-15 program depended heavily on the simulators and it has been argued that the
program would not have succeeded without the use of simulators, or, at least, would have
been significantly less efficient. As X-15 pilot Milton Thompson said:
Businessdictionary.com
Merriam-Webster.com
5
Wikipedia
4
9
We were able to avoid many pitfalls because of the simulation. It really paid off. I
personally do not believe we could have successfully flown the aircraft without a
simulation 6.
This quote is a good description of the reasons why the DEC 30 workshop can be
considered very significant training. Avoiding pitfalls, using training to gain significant payoffs and developing operations successfully is, or should be, vital to each and every
responsible ship owner.
3.3
Aboa Mare simulator centers Turku and Espoo
The DEC30 workshop was run at Aboa Mare Simulation Center in Espoo, Finland. Aboa
Mare, the leading maritime training provider in Finland, runs two simulator centers, one in
Turku and one in Espoo, and is, additionally, co-owner of Giga Mare Inc., which runs a
simulator center in Subic Bay, the Philippines.
Aboa Mare Simulator Center Espoo uses Transas Navi-Trainer 5000 software being run on
three simulator bridges, of which two were used in the DEC30 workshop, as described in
chapter 7.1. Simulator center layout and bridges are presented in Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3
and Figure 4.
Figure 1 Aboa Mare Espoo simulator layout
Thompson 1992,p 70
10
Figure 2 Aboa Mare Espoo simulator exterior view
Figure 3 Bridge 1
Figure 4 Bridge 2
11
STCW requirements for ship officers and applying MRM
The STCW convention requires specific skills from the officers. The STCW convention has
developed over the years and the regulations in force today have some special applications
that are of interest in the DEC30 workshop. Some of the STCW regulations in the workshop
are met by using Swedish Club Academy MRM workshop methods.
4.1
STCW
The IMO STCW convention came into existence for the first time in 1978, being then named
STCW 78. It was extensively revised in 1995, becoming known as STCW -95. Smaller
revisions were done over the years, with a major revision in 2010, which became known as
the Manila amendments, which is the version now in force. At the same time IMO dropped
the year marking, making the designation STCW 1978 Convention as amended 7.
4.1.1 STCW and the bridge team
In the DEC30 workshop bridge team context, the most important point is the implementation
of the teamwork and resource management principles as mandatory requirements in the
amended STCW convention. Simply put, this means that, at all times, the entire bridge team
has to be involved in the bridge operations, and also, in the wider context, that the entire
ships crew has to work as a team. Before the Manila amendments it was, in the extreme
case, possible to run a one man show on the bridge, meaning that the master has control
of all aspects of the operations and does all the decisions and operations himself. Today,
this is simply not allowed. The entire bridge team has to share the same mental model of the
situation, communicate efficiently and use all available resources for the safe operation of
the ship.
The specific requirements in the STCW Code regarding the bridge team for team work and
resource management are 8
Operational level : Table A-II/1 Bridge resource management and Application of

leadership and teamworking skills
Management level : Table A II/2 Use of leadership and managerial skill
The abovementioned STCW principles need to be implemented during the workshop. It was
decided to use the three-persons approach explained in closer detail in chapter 7.3, Bridge
Resource Management. This approach is the most representative model for modern cruise
ship bridge operations
The STCW Code also specifies the use of simulators in training 9. As the DEC30 workshop
type training is not mandatory under STCW, these requirements as such does not need to
IMO, International Maritime Organization

IMO STCW Code A II
9
IMO STCW Code A-I/12
8
12
be fulfilled. Nevertheless, it is important to follow the STCW requirements as closely as

possible also during this workshop.
Additionally, the STCW code includes guidance regarding additional training for masters
and chief mates of large ships and ships with unusual maneuvering characteristics 10. It can
be argued that an Azipod ship is a ship with unusual maneuvering characteristics and thus
falls under this guidance rule. According to this rule the master and chief mate should have
sufficient and appropriate experience maneuvering the ship OR have attended an
approved ship handling simulator workshop on an installation capable of simulating the
maneuvering characteristics of such a ship.
This can arguably be interpreted as a strong recommendation for attending a workshop such
as the DEC30 workshop.
However, it has to be noted that the B-section of the STCW-code is intended as guidance
only and is thus not mandatory. It can nevertheless be argued that a modern shipping
company should consider also IMO guidance relevant and strive to employ this guidance in
their procedures.
4.1.2 Observations on STCW teamwork requirements during the workshop
During the workshop, it was observed that the participants were reasonably adept at
employing teamwork procedures, but the variations were also quite large. Some team
constellations worked very well, the communication being mostly clear and shared well.
Other teams worked reasonably well during nominal procedures but reverted to more one
man show operation as the demands increased due to environmental conditions or
technical malfunctions. In some cases, the overall teamwork remained very limited and in
these cases usually only a change in team composition improved the situation. The different
team compositions are discussed in more detail in chapter 5.3
4.2
Bridge Resource Management MRM / Swedish Club Academy
During the workshop, implementing Bridge Resource Management -type procedures and
communication is important. Bridge Resource Management (BRM) is a generic concept
widely used in the shipping community and also adopted as a concept by IMO (see chapter
4.1.1.) BRM training is offered by many service providers, with somewhat different contents
and methods of realization.
For the DEC30-course, it was decided to implement specifically the Maritime Resource
Management concept by the Swedish Club Academy. Aboa Mare is a licensed Swedish
Club Academy MRM training provider.
The Swedish Club Academy MRM training is certified (as of February 14th, 2012) by the
Swedish Maritime Authority as fulfilling the (non technical) STCW requirements as
mentioned above 11.
10
11
STCW Code section B-V/a*

15
,
The Swedish Club Academy
13
4.2.1 MRM description

MRM is described by the Swedish Club Academy as:
The MRM workshop is designed to minimize the risk of incidents by encouraging
safe and responsible behavior. It aims to foster positive attitudes favoring good
personal communication, excellence in leadership skills and compliance with
operating procedures12.
4.2.2 MRM / BRM training and the DEC30 workshop
Because the workshop principles are largely centered on MRM methods and concepts, it
would be beneficial if the participants had attended an MRM/BRM workshop prior to
attending the DEC30 workshop. Unfortunately, so far quite few of the participants have
attended an MRM/BRM workshop, making the implementation of these principles somewhat
more demanding. As teamwork training, leadership training and management skills are
becoming mandatory for all seafarers in the next few years, this problem should resolve itself
in the next five years.
4.2.3 MRM procedures and principles during the workshop
As a consequence of the sometimes limited BRM/MRM knowledge, it was decided to
implement a modified version of the BRM/MRM principles and procedures as described in
Chapter 7.3 Bridge resource management.
4.2.4 Observations on MRM procedures and principles during the workshop
During the workshop, the modified procedures concerning mainly teamwork and
communication were used. Mostly they worked satisfactorily. The participants usually had
earlier participated in some type of Bridge Team Training, arranged by their own company,
centered on implementing their own company SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) and
ISM (International Safety Management) procedures. Thus, the participants were reasonably
adept at working using clear communication and standardized procedures.
14
5 Learning, unlearning and relearning

In the DEC30 workshop, the most important objective is to establish the most efficient and
safe Azipod operation procedures. The participants in the workshop are generally very
experienced cruise ship captains with a long career in their baggage. Nevertheless, their
knowledge about Azipod operations can vary from very thorough to very limited. Some of
the participants are younger and less experienced officers, mainly staff captains and safety
officers, their knowledge about Azipod operations also varying greatly.
The participants need to learn new things and acquire new skills but also, to a varying
degree, unlearn previously acquired skills and procedures and relearn the skills and
procedures needed for safe and efficient Azipod operation.
As a fairly well-known quote by Alvin Toffler states:
The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but
those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn 13.
This quote can be used to symbolize one of the main challenges of the DEC30 workshop.
Learning, unlearning and relearning is done during the entire workshop.
5.1
Assessing the basic skills for establishing a baseline
During the workshop a great deal of effort was put into establishing the type of knowledge
and skills each officer /trainee possesses, that is, establishing a baseline, and consequently
modifying the objectives, learning goals, individually. This was done by one of the instructors
acting as an observer during the initial lessons and presentations during the first day. By
observing the behavior of each individual officer, especially during the introductions of each
officer individually, and by observing the individual behavior during the first familiarization
runs in the simulator, it was possible to do a rough estimate of each officers type according
to MRM behavioral type classifications. This estimate was used and modified as the
workshop progressed. Naturally, the instructor doing this assessment needs to be a certified
MRM workshop leader.
5.2
Retention
In all training, it is important to observe the theory of retention, which started out with a
study by Hermann Ebbinghaus in the 19th century 14. Ebbinghaus argued that the facts
learned during a training session are forgotten at an alarming rate, as can be seen in Figure
5 Forgetting curve 15. The forgetting rate is high, as an example, after 1 hour only
approximately 50% remains and after 6 days no more than 20%.
13
Alvintoffler.net
Ebbinghaus, 1885.
15
Paul, 1996.
14
15
Figure 5 Forgetting curve
This forgetting problem can be counteracted by refreshing /reviewing the material learned
regularly. As can be seen in Figure 6 16, periodical review increases the amount of facts
remembered. For practical reasons, this reviewing could be made in specific intervals such
as e.g. one hour, one day, one week, one month and, arguably, one year.
Figure 6 Forgetting curve with periodical review
In the workshop, this periodical reviewing was achieved by the debriefing after each
exercise, the repetition each day of basic facts learned the previous day and the postworkshop simulator session, in which most of the facts learned during the previous four days
were needed and used.
16
Paul, 1996.
16
In this way, the one-hour, one-day and one-week periods were covered. The one-year
refreshment is, unfortunately, not included in this model, but can be achieved by introducing
periodical refreshment workshops at regular intervals following the main workshop.
5.3
Observations on the types of bridge teams and the learning process
The setup of the bridge teams is determined by using the rough estimates of the behavioral
types discussed in chapter 5.1, according to the objectives of each training session. During
the workshop, it was observed that the bridge teams can be divided into five main types,
each with their own typical learning style and systematics.
The first team is composed of one experienced Azipod master with a good understanding of
Azipod maneuvering principles combined with two less experienced officers. In this case the
master is directly teaching or mentoring the officers. This setup requires the master to be
completely Azipod-minded and thus will not entail unlearning and relearning but only
learning. This setup does not require a large input from the instructors
The next team composition observed consisted of three less or none Azipod experienced
officers handling the bridge operations. This setup is pure peer-coaching training, which can
be very demanding but also quite effective, the officers all being susceptible to learning and
also not involving much unlearning and relearning. The required instructor input might be
fairly high.
Thirdly, a setup of three experienced Azipod masters was observed to exist. In this case all
masters were able to operate efficiently, not involving unlearning and relearning, only
learning. In these cases the main objective will turn towards exploring and defining the limits
of the maneuvering envelope and can be quite satisfying. The instructor input can be very
low.
A more demanding team setup was one experienced shaftline master, with little or no Azipod
experience, and two less experienced officers. This team requires unlearning and relearning
from the master, which can have a detrimental effect on the learning process of the officers
and requiring a very high instructor input.
The last main team composition was two or three experienced Azipod or shaftline masters
and one or none less experienced officer. This is also a demanding setup, the masters going
easily into competition mode, showing off their skills. Unlearning and relearning has to take
place, requiring high instructor input. It is not recommendable to involve one officer in this
setup at all because of detrimental effects on the officers learning experience. Even running
one bridge team with two masters and the other with four officers can be a better option.
These five main team compositions can at times vary slightly, and it is, of course, possible
that some other main types will still emerge. Some special cases were also observed at
times, but it was decided not to discuss those in this study.
Overall, by learning, unlearning and relearning, to a varying degree, the skill level was
observed to increase but also to a varying degree. The possible correlations were not
resolved in this study.
17
6 Briefing and debriefing

In simulator training, the procedure of using briefing- training session- debriefing methods is
the commonly used method.
6.1
Briefing and debriefing at Aboa Mare
Aboa Mare has, over many years, made a big effort of developing methods for running
simulator exercises in the most efficient manner possible. According to Westil and Vuorio, a
simulator training session is composed of briefing, simulator exercise and debriefing. All
three elements are crucial to enabling the learning process in a simulator environment 17.
6.2
Aboa Mare standard form for briefing and debriefing
According to Westil and Vuorio 18 the standard Aboa Mare form for briefing and debriefing is
to start the exercise session with a short briefing session including the following items:
The objectives and main scenario of the exercise, the composition and roles of the
bridge teams, exercise date and time, weather conditions including wind force and
direction, wave height and direction, water temperature, visibility and speed and direction
of the sea current, ship type and specification , passage plan and external and internal
communications.
After completing the simulator session, the debriefing session is run, discussing at least the
following items:
Events during the exercise and reflections from real-life operations in order to verify
correct transfer. What did we learn from our possible mistakes and which things went
well? What were the strengths and weaknesses in the exercise and, finally, were the
objectives reached?
6.3
Azipod workshop briefing and debriefing
In the DEC30 workshop the briefing and debriefing was conducted according to a model
using the main points from the Aboa Mare principles above. Some modifications and
amendments/omissions from the standard form were made due to the specialized type of
training conducted.
Table 1 DEC30 briefing and debriefing model
All simulator sessions are conducted according to the same model described
below.
17
18
Westil & Vuorio 2011, p.1.

Westil & Vuorio 2011, p. 48-49.
18
1 Simulator session starts at the indicated time with a short briefing, which includes:
-forming two bridge teams (Team 1 and Team 2) consisting of three persons each.
Each group consists of one navigator (NAV), one co-navigator (CONAV) and one
operations director (OPSDIR), with separate tasks. (addressed in Azipod
Resource Management)
- the participants receiving a short written description of the session, mainly
addressing the objectives of the session, session specific restraints, ship type,
port area and environmental conditions. The same description will be presented
by an instructor
2 The participants then proceed to their appropriate bridges ( Team 1/ Bridge 1 and
Team2/Bridge 2) and do their planning for the task as requested in the instructions
(abt 10 mins)
3 Session commences when the bridge team informs the instructor they are ready.
4 Session terminates when the instructor informs.
5 After session termination, the team discusses their performance between
themselves for about 10 minutes. The OPSDIR notes on the observation form the
teams thoughts about the following two points:
Alpha: What went well? And why?
Bravo: What could be improved? And how?
6 Both teams and the instructors are requested to assemble in the debriefing room
for exercise debriefing at the indicated time.
7 Both teams are, in turn, requested to present their conclusions on the above two
questions. The operations director (OPSDIR) presents the main points and the
navigator and co-navigator can amend if necessary.
8 Finally the session will, usually, be presented on replay screen for further analysis
and discussion
9 The things learned and observed in the session are usually needed in the next
session, as indicated by the Kolb cycle of learning principle (Figure 7).
19
Concrete
experience,
doing
Active
experimentation,
Reflective
observation,
planning
thinking
Abstract
conceptualisation,
theorizing
Figure 7 Kolb cycle of learning
6.4
Observations on the briefing and debriefing during the workshop
In the DEC30 workshop the concept of briefing and debriefing as the central points of a
simulator exercise session was utilized fully. The majority of the participant officers were
familiar with the concept and were able to work using these principles. Most officers have at
some point in their career attended simulator workshops in which the briefing/debriefing
method is employed. The system worked especially well regarding the post-exercise team
discussion and consecutive presentation by OPSDIR. Usually, the team report was quite
well done and presented.
However, quite frequently, the discussion moved away from the exact exercise topic being
debriefed, and , at times, the other team members stepped into the discussion somewhat
unexpectedly and assertively, requiring the input of the instructor to redirect the discussion.
However, this kind of diverting from the main topic can also be productive and in some cases
the discussion was allowed to flow freely for some time.
It was also observed that the initial exercise planning proceeded quite well at the beginning
of the workshop, but usually started deteriorating later on, requiring instructor input to
redirect the planning effort to the desired track.
The one aspect that mostly functioned poorly or not at all was the ability of the participants to
direct their timing for the briefing, exercise and debriefing starts as indicated. Mostly, the
instructors had to gather the participants personally.
As a whole, the Briefing/exercise/debriefing principle worked very well during the workshops
conducted.
20
7 Research method
7.1
Simulator and vessel model
Modern vessel simulators are capable of high accuracy simulation of vessel motion,
environmental forces, and machinery variables. The simulator used in this research was
Transas Navigational simulator Navi-Trainer Professional 5000 (NTPRO 5000) 19. Two full
mission command bridges, Bridge 1 and Bridge 2, were used, both with Azipod-control
levers, and viewing angles of 220 and 110 degrees, respectively. Bridges are equipped with
standard Transas bridges with generic conning, machinery, ECDIS and radar displays.
Azimuthing levers were Kwant Controls RSCU-Mk3 on Bridge 1, and RSCU-H96 on Bridge
2.
The model utilized was ABB Azipod Cruiser, a twin-Azipod, panamax-size cruise ship
developed to represent a large number of similar size vessel. The model behavior has been
tested and judged by experienced cruise ship captains to closely resemble existing vessels,
for example a long series of ships from Fincantieri Cantiere navale di Marghera. Vessel
dimensions are presented in Table 2 ABB Azipod Cruiser particulars.
Table 2 ABB Azipod Cruiser particulars
LOA
B
Propulsion system
Propulsion power
Bow thruster power
Maximum speed
7.2
294 m
32,5 m
Diesel-electric Azipod
2 x 17,6 MW
7,08 MW
24 kn
Operational area and environment
The operational area used was Port of Helsinki, west harbor, from north of Katajaluoto island
to Hernesaari cruise terminal. This area is particularly well modeled in the Aboa Mare
simulator, as the unit is responsible for modeling Finnish fairways for pilot tests. An example
run in the area is presented in Figure 8 Typical Helsinki approach; pre-course run (11-1729).
Environmental variables were kept to minimum, i.e. there was no wind or current. Visibility
was always good, and no other vessel traffic was present.
19
Navi-Trainer 5000 enables simulator training and certification of watch officers, chief officers, captains and
pilots serving on commercial ships. It complies with requirements of IMO STCW 2010 Convention and IMO
Model Courses 7.01 and 7.03.
21
7.3
Bridge resource management
Bridge teams consisting of two or three persons were used. In case of three persons, the
roles were Navigator (Nav), Co-Navigator (Co-Nav) and operations director (OpDir). With
only two participants on the bridge, just Nav and Co-Nav were used. Each person wore a
vest indicating his/her role, i.e. Nav: green vest; Co-Nav: yellow vest and OpDir: red vest.
This method has proven efficient in helping the participants to focus on their dedicated role.
The different roles have been described in more detail in Table 3 BRM roles. This BRM
approach for Azipod-ships has been developed to assist operators to meet STCW 2010
requirements on bridge resource management, as required in the STCW code 20.
The bridges used were standard Transas simulator bridges with azimuthing control levers
from Kwant. As the equipment do not exactly represent bridges in use on participant ships,
the role of Co-Nav was important in verifying that the Navigator had always the required
information of vessel motion and propulsion system variables.
Table 3 BRM roles
BRM role
Navigator
Tasks
Responsible for vessel motion
Shares information with co-navigator
Co-Navigator
Monitors and verifies navigators situational awareness
Supplies navigator with essential additional information
Stand-by for navigator in case of emergency
Operations Director Monitors co-navigators situational awareness
Supplies co-navigator with essential additional information
Stand-by for co-navigator in case of emergency
7.4
Data collection
A number of DEC30-training courses were arranged during years 2010-2012. Participants

performed a standard approach to Port of Helsinki West Harbor from north of Katajaluoto
island to entrance to Hernesaari basin. Initial vessel speed was 15 knots, and each run was
terminated when vessel stern reached a marker line extending west from Hernesaari
southern end. Exercise description in Table 4 is from the actual participant document, as
well as the additional exercise information in Table 5.
Table 4 Exercise description
Prepare
Prepare to berth at Hernesaari cruise terminal, PS side to berth, heading 208.

Plan your approach utilizing Azipod units, bow thrusters and other means
necessary.
Observe Speed limits:
12 knots at Koirakari
20
STCW Code, Part A, Chapter II
22
10 knots at second red buoy east of Melkki island

8 knots at second green buoy west of Pihlajasaari island
Table 5 Exercise information

Vessel
Wind
Current
Waves
Initial position
Initial heading
Vessel speed
Lever position
Operational mode
Twin-Azipod cruise vessel. LOA 294 m, 2x17,6 MW Azipod

No wind
No current
No waves
Approaching Helsinki. Mid fairway, 1 NM south of Pihlajasaari island.
000 deg
15 knots
6
Maneuvering mode, asynchronous steering
Port of Helsinki was a familiar harbor to most of the participants. In case the area was
unfamiliar, the participants were given sufficient time to familiarize themselves with the area
as well as plan an appropriate approach to berth. No guidance on how to maneuver the
vessel was supplied as the participants were to utilize their own capabilities.
The actual task given to participants was to perform two runs:
1. Using methods commonly used on Azipod-vessels, i.e. pre-course status (Figure 8)
2. Using methods studied during the training, i.e. post-course status (Figure 9)
Data collecting methods improved during the course of time. Initially both pre-course and
post-course runs were actually performed at the end of the one-week course. The
participants were first asked to perform a pre-course run as well as possible, i.e. as you
would have approached Helsinki last season, not using the methods acquired during the
training. Later the same day, they were asked to perform a post-course run, utilizing all
knowledge and proficiency acquired during the week. In reality the participants did not fully
follow the instructions, and used new methods partially also in the simulated pre-curse runs.
During later courses the pre-course runs were performed as part of the simulator
familiarization on the first course day. Post-course runs were performed on the last simulator
day.
What is described above has had an effect on the results of this study: if more realistic precourse test runs had always been performed, the effects of operator training on vessel
handling would have been more dramatic, i.e. the findings of this study have been affected
by certain degree of dampening. Therefore it can be argued that the results presented in this
paper are conservative, and in reality the potential changes can be greater.
23
Figure 8 Typical Helsinki approach; pre-course run (11-17-29)
24
Figure 9 Typical Helsinki approach; post-course run (14-17-12)
25
8 Techno-economical study
8.1
Collected data
8.1.1 Variables
NTPRO 5000 simulator automatically records a large number of variables from each
performed exercise. Data recording takes place by default at one second intervals. A
selection of variables can be exported using built-in Ship Diagram and Export functions. For
this study the data was exported into comma-separated-file CSV -format to be imported into
Microsoft Excel for statistical analysis.
Thirteen variables were exported, as presented in Table 6 Exported variables from NTPRO
5000. Of these 13, five were used as primary data for statistical analysis, and eight as
secondary, support information.
Table 6 Exported variables from NTPRO 5000
Variable
Azipod power PS
Azipod power SB
Port RPM
Starboard RPM
Bow Thruster gained power
Port rudder angle
Starboard rudder angle
Course Over Ground COG
Speed Over Ground SOG
Heading
Longitudinal speed through the water
Rate of turn ROT
Drift angle
Unit
[kW]
[kW]
Use
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
[%]
Primary
[]
Secondary
[]
Secondary
[]
Secondary
[knt]
Secondary
[]
Secondary
[knt]
Secondary
[deg/min] Secondary
[]
Secondary
The primary variables were also used in MS Excel to extract additional information from the
data in form of 7 derived variables, presented in Table 7 Derived variables.
Table 7 Derived variables
Variable
Total power PS+SB+BT
Azipod power PS+SB
Bow thruster power
Energy consumption PS
Energy consumption SB
Bow thruster power
Energy cons. BT
Unit
[kW]
[kW]
[kW]
[kWh]
[kWh]
[kW]
[kWh]
26
8.1.2 Number of test runs

As mentioned earlier in chapter 7.4, data collection methods improved in course of time. As
the method used was new to the parties involved, the methods were not optimal initially.
After initial observation on the individual runs it was possible to determine which runs were
suitable for this study. All runs had been documented and commented during the actual
exercises, and this information was used to evaluate individual runs. Runs which differed
from the norm in duration, or during which exceptional operating methods had been used,
were discarded.
The total number of test runs used in the study was 32. Considering the professional level of
the participants and the consistent environmental conditions, this number can be considered
to large enough for reliable statistical study.
8.2
Analysis method
The interest of this study was in utilizing the full capacity of Azipod propulsion in minimizing
unfavorable effects of maneuvering power requests by the vessel master on the propulsion
system, and especially on the diesel electric power plant. This approach allows for a
statistical approach using peak values as well as averages and standard deviations over
time.
Collected data consists of time histories of the variables described in chapter 8.1.1. The
duration of individual runs ranged from 17:28 minutes to 36:46 minutes, with average of
23:54 minutes. As data points were recorded every second, the number of individual data
points ranged between 17.816 and 37.502 points per run. This corresponds on average to
24.378 data points. With 32 runs, total number of collected data points was approximately
780.000.
Raw time histories were imported into MS Excel. The initial observations of the time histories
revealed that in the beginning of the runs, the Navigators tended to change the RPM setting
during the first straight, northerly stretch towards the narrows between the islands of Melkki
and Pihlajasaari. This was probably due to wanting to get a feeling for the behavior of the
vessel before entering the narrows. RPM changes both up and down from the initial 15-knotsetting caused significant fluctuations in the propulsion power. To consistently limit the
observations to the approach to harbor turning basin, maneuvers in the basin, and approach
to berth, three (3) minutes from the beginning of each run was discarded from the statistical
study.
27
8.3
Pre- and Post-course performance
8.3.1 Pre-course performance

A typical pre-course run propulsion power time histories are presented in Figure 10 Typical
pre-course time history (11-17-29). This is the same run that is presented as a chart in
Figure 8 Typical Helsinki approach; pre-course run (11-17-29).
The approach plan in this case has been to turn the vessel PS counter-clockwise with
normal, conventional use of bow thruster. During the initial northerly approach, engine power
is low and fluctuations small, as the vessel is slowly turned to SB. During the second phase,
the vessel is almost stopped, and turned to PS with bow thrusters at continuous 100% to PS
(i.e. 7,08 MW), and Azipod power between 10-15 MW, i.e. 50-75% of available power in
Maneuvering Mode. Total power requirement from propulsion equipment to the diesel
electric power plant was between 17-22 MW.
Following operational phases can be identified:
-
3-10 minutes: initial approach through the narrows to turning basin (see time stamps
also in Figure 8)
o Vessel speed decreasing
o Steering with synchronously turning Azipod units (Open Sea Mode)
10-20 minutes: turning the vessel PS counter-clockwise using Azipod units (red line)
and bow thrusters (green line)
o Vessel speed low between 0-3 knots
o Azipod operation in asynchronous mode (Maneuvering mode)
20-23 minutes: running astern towards berth
o Vessel speed increases to 3 knots
25000
20000
15000
Total PS+SB+BT [kW]
10000
Azipod power PS+SB (kW)

Bow thruster power (kW)
5000
0:03:00
0:04:04
0:05:08
0:06:12
0:07:16
0:08:20
0:09:24
0:10:28
0:11:32
0:12:36
0:13:40
0:14:44
0:15:48
0:16:52
0:17:56
0:19:00
0:20:04
0:21:08
0:22:12
0:23:16
Figure 10 Typical pre-course time history (11-17-29)
28
Table 8 shows that pre-course runs were performed on average in 23:54 minutes, while the
fastest 1/3 of the runs performed time-to-berth in 21:45, and slowest 1/3 in 26:43 minutes.
Average total power (combined PS and SB Azipod and bow thrusters) for all runs was 5,726
MW with standard deviation of 4,671 kW. This can be presented 21 as 5,726 (4,671 / 2) MW
= 5,72,3 MW with two digit accuracy. In the fastest and slowest runs the propulsion power
was 6,32,6 MW and 5,02,0 MW, respectively.
Table 8 Pre-course: Time-to-berth, Total power averages and deviations
Averages
Pre-course
Fastest 1/3
Slowest 1/3
All runs
Total power [MW]

Time-to-berth [hh:mm:ss] Average Deviation
0:21:45
6,310
5,218
0:26:43
4,986
3,993
0:23:54
5,726
4,671
Average total peak propulsion power usage was 16,8 MW. Fast runs were peaking at 18,5
MW, and slow ones at 15,2 MW, see Table 9. On average total Azipod peak power was 12,0
MW and bow thrusters 6,5 MW, corresponding to 60% of available Azipod total power in
maneuvering mode, and to 92% of available bow thruster power.
NOTE: The total peak power is not the sum of the Azipod and bow thruster peak powers, as
the two individual peaks do not necessarily take place simultaneously.
Table 9 Pre-course: Peak power
Averages
Pre-course
Fastest 1/3
Slowest 1/3
All runs
Peak power [MW]

Total peak Peak Azipod units
18,515
13,186
15,167
10,895
16,796
11,992
Peak BTs
6,638
6,416
6,453
Energy consumption during maneuvering was calculated from the power time histories by
multiplying run times by average run power consumptions. The average energy consumed
during all runs was 2,2 megawatt-hours, of which 73% was consumed by Azipod units, and
27% by bow thrusters. Fast runs consumed 2,3, and slow ones 2,2 MWh, respectively, Table
10.
21
In this study the observed values are assumed to follow normal distribution.
29
Table 10 Pre-course: Energy consumption

Averages
Pre-course
Fastest 1/3
Slowest 1/3
All runs
Energy [MWh]
Total Azipod units
2,287 1,575
2,170 1,661
2,237 1,642
BT
0,712
0,509
0,595
This energy consumption can be converted to equivalent heavy fuel oil tons using specific
fuel oil consumption of 220 grams per kilowatt-hour, or 0,22 tons per megawatt-hour. The
result in tons is presented in Table 11.
Table 11 Pre-course: HFO consumption
Averages
Pre-course
Fastest 1/3
Slowest 1/3
All runs
HFO [t]
Total
0,50
0,48
0,49
Azipod units
0,35
0,37
0,36
Bow thrusters
0,16
0,11
0,13
8.3.2 Post-course performance

An example of the post-course run propulsion power time histories are presented in Figure
11. This is the same run that is presented as a chart in Figure 9.
In the post-course approaches the initial plan has been to turn the vessel SB clockwise
without bow thruster use. During the initial approach, engine power is relative low with some
fluctuations. As Navigator initiates the turn to SB, ROT was adjusted with RPM adjustments
as well as steering commands. During the second phase, vessel speed over ground SOG is
maintained, utilizing kinetic energy in the vessel system, so-called old-speed. During the
run Azipod power was between 2.0-10.0 MW, i.e. 10-50% of available power in Maneuvering
Mode. As bow thruster use was minimal, this was also the total power requirement from
propulsion equipment to the diesel electric power plant. Recommended methods practiced
during the training workshop were utilized effectively.
30
Following operational phases can be identified:

-
3-10 minutes: initial approach through the narrows to turning basin (see time stamps
also in Figure 9)
o Vessel speed decreases
10-20 minutes: turning the vessel SB clockwise using only Azipod units (red line), i.e.
bow thrusters were not used (green line)
o SOG continuous 1-1,5 knots
o Azipod operation in asynchronous mode
o Continuous RPM
o Thrust directed to one side with steering angles of PS Azipod 60 out and SB
Azipod 120 in
the change from turning to running astern required no change in Azipod power, and
therefore running astern cannot be detected as a separate maneuver phase in the
time histories
o both Azipod units rotated to 180
o SOG increases to 3 knots
o steering as required
o continuous RPM
25000
20000
15000
Total PS+SB+BT [kW]
10000
Azipod power PS+SB (kW)

Bow thruster power (kW)
5000
0:03:00
0:03:53
0:04:46
0:05:39
0:06:32
0:07:25
0:08:18
0:09:11
0:10:04
0:10:57
0:11:50
0:12:43
0:13:36
0:14:29
0:15:22
0:16:15
0:17:08
0:18:01
0:18:54
0:19:47
Figure 11 Typical post-course run (14-17-12)

Table 12 shows post-course run durations on average 23:03 minutes, with fastest 1/3
performed in 20:32, and slowest in 25:23 minutes. Average total power for all runs was
4,094 MW with standard deviation of 2,056 MW, i.e. following the convention presented
above with two digit accuracy: 4,11,0 MW. In the fastest and slowest runs the propulsion
power was 4,71,2 MW and 3,70,9 MW, respectively.
31
Table 12 Post-course: Time-to-berth, Total power averages and deviations

Averages
Post-course
Fastest 1/3
Slowest 1/3
All runs
Over all Power [MW]

Time-to-berth [hh:mm:ss] Average Deviation
0:20:32
4,676
2,330
0:25:23
3,703
1,749
0:23:03
4,094
2,056
During the post-course runs, average total peak propulsion power was 9,8 MW. Fast runs
were peaking at 10,6 MW, and slow ones at 9,2 MW, see Table 13. On average total Azipod
peak power was 9,6 MW and bow thrusters 0,6 MW, corresponding to 48% of available
Azipod total power in maneuvering mode, and to 9% of available bow thruster power 22.
Table 13 Post-course: Peak power
Averages
Post-course
Fastest 1/3
Slowest 1/3
All runs
Peak power [MW]

10,631
10,631
9,151
9,031
9,778
9,649
Peak BTs
0,221
0,664
0,627
The average energy consumed during all post-course runs was 1,5 MWh, of which more
than 99% was consumed by Azipod units, and less than 1% by bow thrusters, see Table 14.
Fast runs consumed 1,53 MWh with no energy consumption in the bow thrusters within
accuracy 23. Slow runs consumed on average 1,46 MWh, with only 0,015 MWh in bow
thrusters.
Table 14 Post-course: Energy consumption
Averages
Post-course
Fastest 1/3
Slowest 1/3
All runs
Energy [MWh]
Total Azipod units
1,529 1,529
1,478 1,463
1,481 1,470
BT
0,0
0,015
0,011
22
Reduction of the total peak power is not the sum of the reduction in Azipod and bow thruster peak powers, as
23
Please note that in Table 13 BT peak power is present. However, duration of BT use has been too short for
energy consumption (power multiplied by time) to be detected within given accuracy.
32
Energy consumption in HFO-tons is presented in Table 15.

Table 15 Post-course: HFO consumption
Averages
Post-course
Fastest 1/3
Slowest 1/3
All runs
8.4
HFO [t]
Total
0,34
0,33
0,33
Azipod units
0,34
0,32
0,32
Bow thrusters
0,00
0,00
0,00
Comparison of pre-course and post-course results
Comparison of pre-course and post-course performance is presented in Table 16, Table 17,
Table 18 and Table 19.
Time-to-berth improved on average by 51 seconds, corresponding to 3,5%, while at the
corresponding average total power decreased by 1,6 MW (29%), and total power deviation
decreased by 2,6 MW (56%).
Table 16 Comparison: Time-to-berth, Total power average and deviation
Difference
Post-course - Pre-course
Fastest 1/3
Slowest 1/3
All runs
Total power [MW]

Time-to-berth Average Deviation
0:01:13
-1,634
-2,888
0:01:20
-1,283
-2,244
0:00:51
-1,632
-2,615
Peak power demands decreased on average 7,0 MW (-42%). This reduction took place
mostly in the peak bow thruster power, as it dropped on average 5,8 MW (-90%). Total
Azipod power (PS+SB) was reduced by 2,3 MW (-20%)24.
Table 17 Comparison: Peak power
Difference
Fastest 1/3
Slowest 1/3
All runs
Peak power [MW]

-7,884
-2,554
-6,016
-1,864
-7,017
-2,343
Peak BTs
-6,416
-5,753
-5,826
24
Reduction of the total peak power is not the sum of the reduction in Azipod and bow thruster peak powers, as
33
The average energy consumed during post-course runs was 0,76 MWh (-34%) less than
during pre-course runs. Azipod consumption dropped by 0,17 MWh (-10%) while bow
thruster consumption reduction was 0,58 (-98%).
Table 18 Comparison: Energy consumption

Difference
Fastest 1/3
Slowest 1/3
All runs
Energy [MWh]
Total Azipod units
-0,758 -0,046
-0,692 -0,198
-0,755 -0,172
BT
-0,712
-0,494
-0,584
As HFO consumption is calculated from megawatt-hours, the reduction is similar: HFO

consumption was reduced by 0,17 tons (-34%), Azipod consumption by 0,04 tons (-10%)
and bow thruster consumption by 0,13 ton (-98%).
Table 19 Comparison: HFO consumption
Difference
Fastest 1/3
Slowest 1/3
All runs
HFO [t]
Total Azipod units
-0,17 -0,01
-0,15 -0,04
-0,17 -0,04
Bow thrusters
-0,16
-0,11
-0,13
34
9 Findings
In the study the environmental variables were kept to a minimum, i.e. no wind, current or
other traffic was present. This allowed for the impact of the vessel master to be the
determining factor on the results.
Regardless of the optimal environmental conditions, we argue that the findings of this study
are generic in their nature, and as such can be applied to real Azipod vessel handling.
Naturally the Master cannot always use optimal handling methods, but even in less favorable
conditions a competent Master will be able to perform in an efficient manner optimizing
passenger comfort and wear and tear to machinery. If a whole fleet of vessels is observed,
the natural environmental variables, sometimes more favorable, sometimes less so,
compensate each other, and the statistical results of good ship handling will appear.
9.1
Effects on life-cycle cost
Operation with higher power results in higher load profile for crucial components, such as
power plant diesels, Azipod steering gear and shaft line bearings. Based on the findings of
this study it can be argued that a significant potential exists to extend the life time of these
components by correct methods of operation.
Thus, the benefits of correct methods of Azipod vessel handling also include improved
reliability performance of the power plant and propulsion systems. As is well known, better
reliability always reduces cost of maintenance as well as failure related risks.
Especially in some vessel segments, i.e. cruise ships, roros and ropaxes, related
unavailability costs may have tremendous impact on the vessel life cycle cost and profit.
From this perspective these findings should be taken into account as a part of overall life
cycle cost and risk management.
9.2
Time-to-berth vs. propulsion power
It was found that when operated utilizing standard handling methods developed for DEC30
workshops, Azipod ship time-to-berth can be reduced, and simultaneously decrease
propulsion power need by 29% and, most importantly, combined Azipod units and bow
thruster peak propulsion power requirement by 42%.
Safety margins are improved with reduced power requirements. In many cases Azipod
power can be reduced with good, standard methods, leaving a significant margin available
for unexpected events. This study demonstrated the possibility to reduce bow thruster
usage. Also this enhances safety margins, or leaves more margin available as
environmental variables change for the worse.
As harbor maneuvers are short in duration, the energy consumption is not very significant
and direct savings are marginal considering the total vessel fuel consumption. However,
these savings are marginal only relatively speaking. When the savings observed in the study
35
are multiplied by the total number of arrivals and departures in a year, the figure is
significant.
In case of a cruise vessel, time-to-berth is not the most critical factor in ship operation, but
any minute saved in harbor operations can be used to lower sea voyage average speed,
thus lowering fuel consumption significantly.
RoPax-vessels are a different story, as turn-around-time is a critical factor for successful
operation. In this study we found that a cruise ship can perform harbor maneuvers in
reduced time with significantly reduced power needs. Based on this observation, we argue
that a RoPax could perform harbor maneuvers in significantly reduced time, using the full
capacity of installed Azipod units.
9.3
Bow thruster use
Bow thrusters are a major source of passenger discomfort: when arriving early in the day,
using bow thrusters is a guaranteed way of waking up numerous passengers. From
technical perspective, bow thruster power demand on cruise ships is unfavorable, as with a
small push of the control lever, several megawatts can be added to power plant loading.
In this study we found that with proper Azipod handling methods, bow thruster usage can be
significantly reduced, up to 90%, while maintaining or improving time to berth. This is not
true in all conditions and every port, but gives a good indication to what a competent master
can achieve with modern propulsion systems.
On a twin-Azipod vessel, Azipod units can be used to swing the stern while keeping the bow
stationary, i.e. pivot point more-or-less under the bridge. Good rate of turn can be achieved
while no bow thrusters are used, and changes to Azipod controls are kept to a minimum with
continuous RPM and only minor adjustments to steering angle. This method leaves the
master free to focus on control of vessel motion, as his attention to the azimuthing levers is
minimized.
9.4
Sequencing of harbor maneuver phases
With increasing demand on vessel safety and efficient operation standardization of vessel
handling methods offers one solution. Most ship maneuvers occur time after time more or
less in a standard format. These maneuvers include, for example, reducing vessel speed,
turning the vessel in harbor basin 90 to 180 degrees, running astern, etc. Fleet-wide
differences in ship performance, caused by different handling methods, can be reduced by
presenting Masters with tried and tested set of these standard maneuvers. This in turn will
improve vessel safety margin and over-all efficiency and economy.
9.5
Learning results
As we can see in the techno-economical part of this report, significant improvement could be
observed during the workshop, as clarified by the ability of the officers to make the postworkshop run with significantly lower usage of engine power and rpm variation but still doing
the maneuver in the same or even less time. However, the variation between the individual
officers was quite large and some officers were not able to improve their performance
36
significantly. In most cases all officers eventually succeeded in doing the post-workshop run
satisfactorily regarding engine power usage and rpm variation, but in some cases at the
expense of significantly longer maneuvering times.
The reasons for these variations cannot be clearly assessed in this study. A significantly
larger research input would be required to assess the individual performances in detail and
also some kind of overall ability/skill check would be necessary. It is unclear whether the
overall maneuvering skills had a significant impact on the results.
It also became clear that the younger and less experienced officers were more susceptible
to learning and using the Azipod maneuvering methods and they, usually, became quite
adept at maneuvering the ship as recommended, but it was also seen that their overall lower
experience level in maneuvering degraded their performance somewhat.
The more experienced officers/masters could be divided roughly into two groups. One group
consisted of those officers who were quick on the uptake and were able to use
recommended Azipod maneuvering methods, resulting in some of the best results achieved.
The other group consisted of those officers (usually masters) who were reluctant to change
their behavior and these generally tried to do a nice maneuver but reverted to old habits at
some point in the exercise and thus were not as successful at achieving better performance.
The study clearly shows that usually the skill level increased and results improved, in some
cases to a fairly high extent. It also became clear that the individual performance varied
greatly, both in absolute performance and in relative, individual performance. Some
participants were able to unlearn and relearn very nicely, as others managed the process
with somewhat less improvement. This is typical in most training and the DEC30 learning
results do not, in principle, differ from other types of training. The learning results were, as
such, at the level that could be expected from this type of training.
37
10 Future development
This study opened several paths for further research. In this study the approach was simply
to determine the effect of training of cruise ship captains on propulsion power related
variables of propulsion machinery.
10.1 RoPax vessel harbor operations

In the given timeframe it was not possible to perform the logical following step: if Azipod
propulsion is utilized with higher relative power, how much time can be saved in harbor
maneuvers?
This question is especially relevant to ferry and ropax-operators with tight schedules and
short turn-around times. In this traffic time is literally money: every minute saved in port can
be used on sea voyage either to lower voyage speed, or to compensate for inevitable
delays.
ABB Marine gathers real time operational data on modern RoPax vessels. Comparing this
information with simulator studies of similar size RoPax vessel with Azipod propulsion would
provide significant new knowledge on the differences of conventional and azimuthing
propulsion on vessel efficiency.
10.2 HMI development (VICO, EMMA and IMI)

Another topic for future research could be the possibilities of improving vessel HMI by
approaching from system dynamics perspective. By combining behavioral and technical
information from a simulator with advanced advisory systems, the bridge HMI could in future
anticipate the actions of the Master (Intent recognition), and in real-time support him/her in
the demanding task of modern vessel operation. This would offer new potential for improving
vessel efficiency in difficult conditions, for example in ice operation. Advisory system
recognizing operator intentions could, for example estimate required peak propulsion power
based on the past data, naturally considering that the environmental variables are more-or-less
continuous.
ABB Marine internal report on HMI development for azimuthing propulsion systems indicates
that testing and training are of high importance when it comes to adaptation of high-end
systems into everyday use 25.
25
Chapter 4.6. INNOPOD Subproject 7.
38
Tervo presents in his doctoral thesis 26 a new approach to human-machine system control
with the objective of improving the performance of human operated machine, e.g. a ship. His
approach focuses on a HMI which takes into account individual skills and preferences of the
operator, i.e. Master. Performance differences between operators, such as required peak
power demand, time-to-berth or fuel efficiency, can be analyzed automatically by the
machines information system and the results used to supply feedback for example in visual
or verbal form, or even to adjust propulsion system parameters, manually or automatically.
Intent recognition, skill evaluation, human operator modeling, intelligent coaching and skill
adaptivity are topics described in his work, and should be included in the focus of future ship
bridge system development.
10.3 Standard Azipod-vessel harbor maneuver phases

Certain harbor maneuvers are repeated regardless of the port and environmental conditions.
Which maneuver to execute, and which method to use for the maneuver, naturally depends
on the Master.
However, it can be argued that standardization of these methods would improve vessel and
fleet operational efficiency as well as safety margins. Recommended methods for repeating
maneuvers would assist the Masters to utilize Azipod propulsion to its full potential. The first
steps into this direction have already been taken during the simulator workshops used for
the data gathering for this study.
10.4 Retention and refreshment

The workshop and this study show that this type of training is efficient and yields good
results. However, it has to be remembered that the retention in learning is highly dependent
on regular refreshment (see chapter 6.2) and thus the participants should be offered the
possibility to refresh their new or improved skills regularly. A refreshment workshop should
thus be developed.
26
Tervo, K. 2010.
39
Bibliography
Aboa Mare. http://www.aboamare.fi/. 2013, downloaded 3.8.2013.
Azipod Operating Guidelines, revision E. ABB Marine document 3AFV6000799. ABB Oy Marine
& Turbocharging. Helsinki, Finland. 2008.
Businessdictionary. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/simulation.html. 2013,
downloaded 25.8.2013.
Ebbinghaus, Hermann. Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology ,
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Ebbinghaus. 1885, downloaded 30.8.2013.
INNOPOD Subproject 7: User feedback on Azipod User Interface solutions. ABB Marine
internal, confidential report. ABB Oy Marine & Turbocharging. Helsinki, Finland. 2008.
Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simulation, 2013,Error!
Hyperlink reference not valid. 3.8.2013.
Paul, Kevin. Study Smarter-Not Harder. Self Counsel Press, North Vancouver, Canada. 1996.
STCW International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers, 2011 edition. International Maritime Organization. London, United
Kingdom. 2011.
Tervo, Kalevi. Human adaptive mechatronics methods for mobile working machines. Doctoral
dissertation. ISBN (pdf) 978-952-60-3530-7.
http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2010/isbn9789526035307/isbn9789526035307.pdf. Aalto
University, School of science and technology, Department of Automation and Systems
Technology. Espoo, Finland. 2010.
The Swedish Club Academy. http://www.tscacademy.com, downloaded 3.8.2013.
Thompson, Milton. At the edge of space. Smithsonian Institution Press. 1992.
Toffler, Alvin. http://www.alvintoffler.net. 2013, downloaded 28.7.2013.
Westil, Ossi; Vuorio, Micael. Briefing and debriefing of the simulation exercise, unpublished
thesis for Bachelor of Marine Technology degree, Novia University of Applied Sciences,
Degree Programme in Maritime Studies, Turku. 2011.
40

3AFV6045766 ABB Aboa Mare Azipod Vessel Handling PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

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

3AFV6045766 ABB Aboa Mare Azipod Vessel Handling PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Risto Gyldn, ABB Oy Marine and Cranes; Magnus Winberg, Aboa Mare

Vessel handling with Azipod Propulsion

Background and motivation ............................................................................................... 6

Objectives and scope of the study ...................................................................................... 7

Simulator-pedagogical study ...................................................................................................... 8

Using simulators for learning ..................................................................................................... 9

Use of simulator in DEC 30 workshop training and research ............................................... 9

Aboa Mare simulator centers Turku and Espoo ................................................................ 10

STCW requirements for ship officers and applying MRM .......................................................... 12

STCW and the bridge team ....................................................................................... 12

Observations on STCW teamwork requirements during the workshop...................... 13

The objectives and legal framework ................................................................................... 8

Bridge Resource Management MRM / Swedish Club Academy ..................................... 13

MRM description ...................................................................................................... 14

MRM / BRM training and the DEC30 workshop ......................................................... 14

MRM procedures and principles during the workshop .............................................. 14

Observations on MRM procedures and principles during the workshop .................... 14

Learning, unlearning and relearning......................................................................................... 15

Assessing the basic skills for establishing a baseline ......................................................... 15

Briefing and debriefing ............................................................................................................ 18

Briefing and debriefing at Aboa Mare ............................................................................... 18

Aboa Mare standard form for briefing and debriefing ...................................................... 18

Azipod workshop briefing and debriefing ......................................................................... 18

Observations on the briefing and debriefing during the workshop.................................... 20

Simulator and vessel model.............................................................................................. 21

Operational area and environment .................................................................................. 21

Bridge resource management .......................................................................................... 22

Data collection ................................................................................................................. 22

Techno-economical study ........................................................................................................ 26

Collected data .................................................................................................................. 26

Number of test runs ................................................................................................. 27

Pre- and Post-course performance ................................................................................... 28

Pre-course performance ........................................................................................... 28

Post-course performance ......................................................................................... 30

Comparison of pre-course and post-course results ........................................................... 33

Effects on life-cycle cost ................................................................................................... 35

Time-to-berth vs. propulsion power ................................................................................. 35

Bow thruster use .............................................................................................................. 36

Sequencing of harbor maneuver phases ........................................................................... 36

Future development ............................................................................................................ 38

RoPax vessel harbor operations........................................................................................ 38

HMI development (VICO, EMMA and IMI) ........................................................................ 38

Standard Azipod-vessel harbor maneuver phases............................................................. 39

Retention and refreshment .............................................................................................. 39

Terminology, abbreviations and acronyms

Background and motivation

Azipod Operating Guidelines, ABB Marine document 3AFV6000799

Objectives and scope of the study

The objectives and legal framework

Using simulators for learning

Use of simulator in DEC 30 workshop training and research

Aboa Mare simulator centers Turku and Espoo

Figure 1 Aboa Mare Espoo simulator layout

Figure 2 Aboa Mare Espoo simulator exterior view

STCW requirements for ship officers and applying MRM

Operational level : Table A-II/1 Bridge resource management and Application of

IMO, International Maritime Organization

be fulfilled. Nevertheless, it is important to follow the STCW requirements as closely as

Bridge Resource Management MRM / Swedish Club Academy

STCW Code section B-V/a*

4.2.1 MRM description

5 Learning, unlearning and relearning

Assessing the basic skills for establishing a baseline