Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

Ship

Performance Indicator

Dr. Panos Deligiannis

NEDA MARITIME AGENCY CO LTD, Tankers Technical department, Piraeus, Greece


Abstract:
Environmental issues call for a more optimized management of the fossil fuel global consumption and
in effect more efficient power utilization. In recent years, the shipping industry and the involved
international organizations (IMO) have been promoting the reduction of marine fuel consumption,
aiming for lesser CO2, NOx, SOx gases emitted to the environment.

An effective monitoring is proposed, utilizing a comprehensive performance indicator of vessel's
systems that depends on readily available, easy to obtain by the crew propulsion parameters.
Keywords and phrases:
Environment, pollution, emissions, green house effect, energy performance monitoring, fuel
consumption, hull resistance, propulsion

1. Introduction:
Merchant shipping remains the largest carrier of freight throughout recorded history due to the
economic advantages involved. Optimum management of the global propulsion power may result in
large cut down of marine fuel grades, which will in turn benefit environment and the economics of
the shipping community. The most important OPEX cost factor is the marine fuel (J.M.J Journee and
J.H.C. Maijers [5]), the price of which affects world trading patterns and modes and frequently is the
fora main topic.

Although, water transport is still the most efficient mode (small ratio of CO2 per cargo ton per mile)
the aim is for vessel's further energy efficiency optimization, bunker minimization and in turn
reduction of CO2, NOx, SOx. An energy efficiency management scheme cannot be sustained unless a
meaningful and practical mode of monitoring is applied. Along these lines, R-J Kariranta [9]
presents the Onboard-NAPA computer software/hardware for on-line collection of data,
assessment of the hydrodynamic situation and the provision of recommendations to crew and the
office.

From the scientific standpoint, vessels sailing is a complex hydrodynamic motion through liquid
(sea water) and atmospheric air medium, affected by the complex wave formation at the
boundaries of the hull with specific characteristics imposing difficulties in accurately simulating the
phenomenon of turbulence and assessing its effect on main engine power requirements. J.M.J
Journee and J.H.C. Maijers [5], recognizing the importance of accurately predicting the power and
speed of the vessel for a given set of meteorological forecast, worked on a computer software to
simulate the effect of added resistance due to rough sea and resulted steering as well as the effect
on the vertical motion resistance due to slamming.

R.L. Townsin and Y.J. Kwon [7] provide approximate relationships for the practical estimation of the
percentage of speed loss as a function of the Beaufort number. Henk van den Boom et al. [3] focus
on the importance of accurate and transparent speed trial methodology and determine the
boundary conditions and the correction methods for deviated parameters to be applied. Means of
obtaining robust benchmarking level, facilitates future practical reference and monitoring of
vessels performance.

Ship Performance Indicator, by Dr. Panos Deligiannis 1

John E. Kokarakis et al. [6], involving financial aspects of shipping, suggest an expression for the
daily Time Charter Equivalent (TCE) as a function of the effective power and the vessel's speed,
which is given as:

TCE =

FRv
cR pb * f ( PE , VS ) ,
d


where FRv is the freight rate, d the voyage distance, cR the daily operating expenses and pb the price
of bunkers. As individual vessel speed trial determines the power versus speed function (Henk van
den Boom et al. [3]), they showed that the abovementioned relationship can provide an optimum
speed for given financial and environmental restrains.

From a different viewpoint, Jack Devanney [4] brought out the uneconomic charter party speed
clause, which todays VLCC market is required to maintain a value in the range of 13 to 13.5 knots.
The implication of such a requirement has an indirect but significant impact on CO2 emissions. As
super slow steaming of about 8 Knots is the point of equilibrium on todays freight rate versus
trading speed plane, only bilateral (charterer Owner) understanding can result in environmental
benefits.

International bodies have attempted to control the matter of energy efficiency by passing relevant
regulation (IMO, MEPC.1 /Circ.683) and guidelines (INTERTANKO [8]) to the international shipping
community, recommending that appropriate procedure is in place for the monitoring of the fuel
consumption and the harmful emissions across the entire fleet, appropriately recorded, aiming for
the mitigation of environmental pollution.

The present study proposes a key performance indicator that without involving complicated
algorithm, it provides the reciprocating interaction between the "Vessel" and the Office (onboard
measurements ashore assessment - onboard control - ashore management).

2. Theory
A key performance indicator (KPI) is devised, that compares the chemical energy of the consumed
fuel with the produced propulsion effect. On the basis of the hydrodynamic fundamentals, a group
of parameters, extracted from a daily "sailing" report, is utilized to provide a unique value, which
satisfies below common practice constrains.

2.1 The KPI requirements:
1. Dimensionless number
2. Unique value for an individual vessel
3. Target value easy and accurately to determine, utilizing common speed trial data
4. Inclusive of the hull resistance effects (wave, wind, swell, current)
5. Statistically constant between characteristic periods of time (dry-docking, major main
engine overhauling, hull & propeller cleaning)
6. Capable of providing diagnosis on the
a. efficient operation of the main engine (inferior quality bunkers, poor combustibility)
and
b. power transmission system (shafting-bearing arrangement)
7. Specific for crew to grasp
8. Measurable, achievable, realistic and timely available

2 Ship Performance Indicator, by Dr. Panos Deligiannis

2.1 The marine propulsion

Propeller throughput water flow is responsible for the applied thrust on the shaft and in turn on the
vessel (MAN Diesel & Turbo [1]), producing a variable degree of wake yielding. This flow strain is
due to hull resistance (J.M.J. Journee and J.H.C. Maijers [5]) as well as the energy loss into dissipated
turbulence and its value is reflected on the slip ratio S (figure 1):

V
S = G
N*p

The slip ratio is based on the actual vessel transporting speed (VG), with which vessel moves from
one position to the other (GPS speed). Vessel navigating speed may be different from its
transporting one, since water current tends to alter vessel's position. Thus, S recapitulates the
required load on the propeller in order for the vessel to maintain constant speed (VG).


Figure 1
Propeller water interaction

2.3 The Propulsion Diagnosis no (PDno)


Application of the steady state energy continuity equation on the reference volume that surrounds
the propeller, determines the power transmission to the water and the resulted thrust. The mean
flow velocity through the propeller disk (VM) is related to the speed of the vessel and the shape and
roughness of the hull; the location and the size of the propeller also affect it.

PDno is defined as the ratio of the effective towing power to the thrust power, which is transmitted
from the propeller to the water,
P
PDno = E . (1)
PT
The fuel input chemical power is given as foc*NCV and the part of the chemical power utilized for
effective towing, excluding external adverse effects, is defined as:
PE = foc * NCV * (1 S ) . (2).

Furthermore, the thrust force applied by the propeller to the water is given as:
Ship Performance Indicator, by Dr. Panos Deligiannis 3


* DP2 * *VM2 . (3)
4
and in effect the thrust power transmitted to the accelerated water is given as:

PT = * DP2 * *VM2 *VS .(4)


4
Based on the above equations (1), (2) and (4)
foc * NCV * (1 S )
PDno =
. (5).

* DP2 * *VM2 *VS


4
Assuming that there is a known linear relationship to describe VM (VM= (N, p) or VM N *p),
equation (5) becomes

T=

!"#!"#(!!!)

= !
!

!!! ! ! !!! !!

............................................... (6)


Hence, for an individual vessel, the dimensionless number can be simplified to


foc * NCV * (1 S )
.............................................. (7)
PDno =
N 2 *VS
The bunker quality is built in the PDno via the net calorific value (NCV) and counts for possible
increase in consumption due to quality of bunkers in use. Other combustibility effects, which are
related to engine performance and are not accounted for, can be diagnosed through the resulted
effect on the fuel consumption and in turn, the drifting of the value of the PDno off its target.

3. The application
A large number of data was extracted from the Neda Maritime Agency fleet (25 tanker and bulk
carrier vessels) daily "noon" archives, covering a time period extending since 2005.

The set of data that is included in the analysis, corresponds to different type and size vessels under
varying external conditions (weather, current, wave formation), loading and trim state (laden,
ballast, even keel, trim by bow or stern). The raw data underwent a coarse filtering processing in
order for the outliers due to erroneous readings, incomplete or short voyages to be excluded. This
way, the bias of the mean value is minimized, allowing a more accurate representation.

Table 1 summarizes the specific information on the vessels that took part in the analysis. There are
four types of vessel with respect to cargo handling and size, namely VLCC (309-320K DWT),
AFRAMAX (105-115K DWT), CAPESIZE (180K DWT) and SUPRAMAX (57K DWT).

Table 1 Vessel characteristic information
Vessel# DWT
LxWxD
Engine Power N at MCR PDno
1
319,180 332.99x60x30.4 39,900
76
1.33
2
319,319 333x60x30.5
38,706
75.3
1.27
3
319,330 333x60x30.5
38,706
75.3
1.26
4
309,287 333.28x58x31.3 34,650
79
1.11
5
309,020 333.28x58x31.3 36,960
76
1.23
6
115,319 249.99x43.96x21 19,380
105
0.34
7
114,829 249.9x44x21
19,500
89
0.46
4 Ship Performance Indicator, by Dr. Panos Deligiannis

8
9
10
11

105,328
105,328
180,000
57,400

248x43x21
248x43x21
292x45x24.7
190x32.26x18.5

19,100
19,100
25,370
12,900

91
91
91
127

0.45
0.44
0.58
0.15


Over 10,000 records were processed in order to allow an accurate estimation of the mean PDno
value for the individual vessel (table 1). Figure 1 shows the regression analysis resulted linear
relationship between PDno and Peng/N2 with correlation coefficient close to unit. This suggests that

PDno is mainly affected by the size of the engine and indirectly, the size of the propeller, as these
"
%
P
are two interrelated quantities $ N 3 eng 5 ' (MAN Diesel & Turbo [1]).
Dp &
#


Figure 1: PDno dependency on Peng/N2
1.40
1.20

PDno

1.00
R = 0.99699

0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0

Peng/N2

4. The analysis

A twofold analysis is attempted, firstly to show that PDno fulfills KPI requirements (paragraph 2.1)
and secondly to demonstrate the ability of the PDno to accurately predict fuel oil consumption as
part of a global performance monitoring tool.

Figure 2 shows a typical representation of the historical values of PDno (vessels#4,5). These are
based on the reported daily "measured" fuel oil consumption. The graph includes data from the
whole range of power and resistance that corresponds to a large variety of encountered weather,
current, wave heights, as well as, draught, interchanging between the two extreme values. These
values correspond to ballast and laden condition, which affect the hull form drag force by almost
100 percent. Nevertheless, a 3-monthly moving average trend-line indicates the tendency of the
PDno to maintain constant value.

Expected deterioration of vessel's performance is depicted in the form of oscillation of the trend-
line between successive milestones due to the drifting over time of the PDno value. This is
attributed to a major alteration of the hydrodynamic state of the hull-propeller system and/or a
significant main engine performance variation.

Ship Performance Indicator, by Dr. Panos Deligiannis 5

The increase of the roughness of the propeller and the hull, is part of the unavoidable evolution
during normal vessel's operation and sailing, and reflects on the boundary layer energy dissipation
and in turn, the value of PDno. In figure 2, a prolonged storage period (idle) of the #4 vessel in 2009
permanently deteriorated hull roughness, which required frequent in-water hull and propeller
cleaning, giving oscillating character to the trend-line. On the other hand, in figure 2B, silicone paint
provides a low roughness height coating that reduces the drag force and therefore, the effective
power.

Energy de-rating, modification and major overhauling equally alter the value of PDno through fuel
consumption (foc). Figure 2B indicates the point where main engine major modification in the form
of turbocharger cut out (isolation of one unit) optimized the slow steaming performance.


Figure 2: PDno historical data

(vessel #4)


1.30$

1.25$

1.20$


1.15$

1.10$

1.05$


1.00$

0.95$

0.90$

09/05$ 07/06$ 04/07$ 02/08$ 12/08$ 10/09$ 08/10$ 06/11$ 04/12$ 01/13$ 11/13$



(vessel#5)

1.50$

hull&propeller)
cleaning)

1.45$
1.40$
1.35$

main)engine)
turbocharger)
cut)out)

1.30$
1.25$
1.20$
1.15$

drydocking2)
silicone)
applica4on)

1.10$
09/11$ 12/11$ 04/12$ 07/12$ 10/12$ 01/13$ 05/13$ 08/13$



The mean value of PDno, for each vessel of table 1, is used for the calculation of the daily fuel oil
consumption, which is then compared with the corresponding "measured" one. Figure 3 displays
the data set of vessel #4 as a representative case for the fleet. The main bulk of the data points lies
within a narrow space surrounding y=x line. The spread is almost zero at the low end, linearly
increasing towards the extreme consumptions. This suggests constant percentage of error in
6 Ship Performance Indicator, by Dr. Panos Deligiannis

estimating foc. Improving data measuring techniques, instrumentation, as well as, crew awareness
can minimize this error.




Figure 3: fuel oil comparison
120"

calculated"

100"
10%"

80"
60"
40"
20"
0"
0"

20"

40"

60"

measured"

80"

100"

120"



Q-Q plot (figure 4) is employed to provide a qualitative verification of the null hypothesis
suggesting that the error in estimating fuel oil consumption follows a normal distribution around a
mean value. This is the case when ranked (ascending) arrangement of the "measured" and
"calculated" values occupies the loci of the y=x line (figure 4, red line). It can be seen that the linear
trend-line passing through these values shows perfect fit with a correlation coefficient of almost a
unity and a slope of the corresponding relationship very close to tan 45o.

Figure 4: Q-Q plot: foc
120"

y"="1.0283x"+"2.0304"
R"="0.9975"

calculated"

100"
80"
60"
40"
20"
0"
0"

20"

40"

60"

80"

100"

120"

measured"



The corresponding PDno probability density function distribution is constructed from the data set
of figure 4 and is shown in figure 5. On the right of the mean lie the data points for which the foc is
underestimated and on the left the overestimated ones. The distribution follows normal mode as is
also suggested by the Q-Q plot, signifying the uniqueness of PDno for individual hull-engine
combinations. Any other value is symmetrically located to the left or right of the mean with
frequency of occurrence indicating a mostly unbiased, random effect.
Ship Performance Indicator, by Dr. Panos Deligiannis 7







Table 5: PDno probability density function
10.00#

pdf#

8.00#
6.00#
4.00#
2.00#
0.00#
0.90# 0.95# 1.00# 1.05# 1.10# 1.15# 1.20# 1.25# 1.30#

PDno#



Figures 6 display three different sets of data coming from three individual vessels (table 1, #
1,5,10). These graphs demonstrate the negligible dependency of PDno on the main navigational
parameters of the slip, fuel oil consumption and main engine power, even at extreme values.

Figures 6

PDno#independent#of#foc#
2.00#
1.50#
1.00#
0.50#
0.00#
0.00#

20.00#

40.00#

60.00#

80.00# 100.00# 120.00# 140.00#

PDno#independent#of#Power#
0.80#
0.60#
0.40#
0.20#
0.00#
0.00#

5000.00#

10000.00# 15000.00# 20000.00# 25000.00#

8 Ship Performance Indicator, by Dr. Panos Deligiannis


PDno#independent#of#%S#
1.50#
1.00#
0.50#
0.00#
&30.00# &20.00# &10.00# 0.00#

10.00#

20.00#

30.00#

5. Conclusion:

40.00#

PDno is a group of parameters that maintains a statistically constant value.


PDno includes the effect of external hull resistance for accurate comparison between different
states (laden, ballast, etc.) of an individual vessel.
PDno can be used for the estimation of vessel's speed and the required bunker consumption for a
set of power and laden input data.
PDno can provide diagnosis on the efficient operation of the main engine and the hull/propeller
heavy fouling.

Acknowledgement: The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the Neda Maritime Agency
Management for allowing the reproduction of the fleet "noon" report data in the preparation of this
paper.

Nomenclature:
foc: Fuel oil consumption rate, Kg per day
NCV: Net calorific value, MJ/kg
: Seawater density, kg/m3
Dp:
VS:
VM:
VG:
N:
p:
S:
T:
PT:
PC:
PE:
Peng:
L:
B:
D:

Propeller diameter, m
Vessel speed through water, nautical miles per hour
Mean flow velocity through propeller disk, nautical miles per hour
Vessel transporting speed measured by the GPS, nautical miles per hour
Main engine revolution rate, s-1
Propeller pitch, m
Slip, vessel's actual speed to propeller advance speed ratio
Propeller thrust force, N
Thrust power, KW
Fuel oil input power, KW
Effective towing power, KW
Main engine maximum continuous power, KW
Vessel overall length, m
Vessel breath, m
Vessel depth, m

Notation:
MCR:
DWT:
IMO:
"Sailing" report:
VLCC:
AFRAMAX:
CAPESIZE:

Main engine maximum continuous rating, KW


Deadweight tonnage, metric tons
International Maritime Organization
24 hr average navigational and machinery parameter values
Tanker 309-320K DWT
Tanker 105-115K DWT
Bulk carrier 180K DWT

Ship Performance Indicator, by Dr. Panos Deligiannis 9


SUPRAMAX: Bulk carrier 57K DWT


OPEX: Daily operating expenses
KPI: Key performance indicator

References:
1. Basic Principles of Ship Propulsion, MAN Diesel & Turbo
2. Sv. Aa. Harvald, Prediction of Power of Ships, Royal Technical University of Denmark,
Department of Ocean Engineering, 2800 Lyngby, Denmark
3. Henk van den Boom, Ivo van der Hout, Maarteen Flikkema, Speed-Power Performance of
Ships during Trials and in Service, MARIN, The Netherlands, H.v.d.Boom@MARIN.nl
4. Jack Devanney, The Impact of Charter Party Speeds on CO2 Emissions, Center for
Tankship Excellence, USA, djw1@c4tx.org
5. J.M.J Journee and J.H.C. Maijers, Ship Routing for Optimum Performance, Delft University
of Technology, Ship Hydromechanics Laboratory, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD Delft, The
Netherlands
6. John E. Kokarakis, Vaya Hatziyanni, Cpt. George Dienis, Cpt. George Vasilakis, Michael
Adamis, Contribution Towards Determination of the Optimal Ship Speed
7. R.L. Townsin and Y.J. Kwon, Approximate Formulae for the Speed Loss Due to Added
Resistance in Wind and Waves, The Royal Institution of Naval Architects, 1982
8. INTERTANKO, Guide for a Tanker Energy Efficiency Management Plan, 1st Edition,
December 2009
9. R-J Kariranta, Implementation of a Tanker Energy Efficiency Management Plan for a
VLCC, The Royal Institute of Naval Architects, Design and Operation of Tankers, 8-9 June
2011, Athens, Greece.

1 Ship Performance Indicator, by Dr. Panos Deligiannis


0