III Simposio de Diseo e Ingeniera Naval Cotecmar IPIN Captulo Colombia Escuela Naval Almirante Padilla.

ECONOMICAL PATROLLING BY MEANS OF PTO / PTI PROPULSION SYSTEMS, A PRACTICAL APPROACH

Paper presented at : The 3rd Symposium for Naval Design and Naval Engineering August 29 till 31, 2007 Cartagena de Indias, Colombia Authors : Bert Jan ter Riet Director Offshore & Transport department Gorinchem The Netherlands Telephone : +31 183 639 274 Fax : +31 183 639 305 E-mail : offshore @ damen.nl Mr. P.J.C.M. van Rooij Mr. J.A. de Waart Senior Designer Patrol Vessels Project manager Patrol Vessels Damen Shipyards Gorinchem, NL Damen Shipyards Gorinchem, NL

Current extreme increasing fuel prices as well as the continuous improving availability of reliable electrical drive systems, calls for reconsideration of the combined direct / electric drive systems. Particularly for the mid range Offshore Patrol Vessels (60 to 80 meters), such systems may be an interesting alternate option to cost-efficiently enhance durability, reduce fuel consumption and at the same time improve redundancy. Considering todays growing environmental awareness, reducing fuel consumption consequently reflects an equivalent reduction in emissions. With this paper we aim to hand an approach to quickly assess different propulsion options and address the most obvious sensitivities. Offshore Patrol vessels are characterized by their ability to sail on relative high pursuit (chase) speed, while most of the time they sail on reduced patrol / economical speed. Avoiding single direct drive systems and related fouling and fuel inefficiency due to low load operation, may be efficiently arranged by electric PTO-PTI systems as competitive alternative to multiple engine configurations. Keywords: Patrol Vessel propulsion, propulsion systems, Power Take Off Power Take In (PTO-PTI) systems, fuel efficiency.

Abstract

1. Introduction Traditional applications of single engine direct drives as main propulsion for larger high speed Offshore Patrol Vessels led to unavoidable problems with fouling and fuel inefficiency due to endured operation at relative very low loads. An Offshore Patrol Vessels yearly operational profile shows only a very limited amount of time at the highest chasing/pursuit speed and large percentage at slow patrol mode, economical transit mode etc. So for healthy design, emphasise should also be on the partial low load situations. Coping with this issue, first obvious alternatives and still direct driven, resulted in twin engine concepts driving one propeller shaft, father/son installations, and further more advanced CoDoG installations for the larger vessels, corvettes etc.
Fecha <dd/mm/aaaa> Pgina 1 de 11

III Simposio de Diseo e Ingeniera Naval Cotecmar IPIN Captulo Colombia Escuela Naval Almirante Padilla.

Converting to complete Diesel-electrical solutions, as done in many other vessel types, only makes sense when at the same time due to specific operational conditions a relatively large electrical demand exists: e.g. anchor handling or crane operations during DP mode. Enormous disadvantage is that for higher transit speeds one always has to deal with the propulsion efficiency loss over the extra electrical energy conversions, easily aggregated to approx.10 % !. So only in cases where you may be able to win such conversion loss back by a better performance at partial loads, due to the ability to freely distribute loading of the individual generator-sets, such configuration can be effective. For Offshore Patrol Vessels this conversion loss is unacceptable, as the sets would only be used for generating propulsion power. Application would lead to a reduced maximum chase speed (when compared to direct drive with same main engine power) and the fuel efficiency is very poor (when the other way around compared to direct drive with same vessel-speed / shaft-power, as is shown in below comparisons). The continuous improving availability of electrical drive systems as well as power management systems, brings nowadays an interesting alternative in the hybrid PTO-PTI configuration. This paper will show a practical approach to asses the effects of several configurations and their sensitivities, where the hybrid configuration proofs to be an interesting alternative to the twin & father son direct drives. Typical example of such configuration in practice is installed on board the Damen built Barend Biesheuvel a fishery inspection Offshore Patrol Vessel for the Netherlands Coast Guard.

2. Definition of operational profile A crucial starting point for any propulsion analysis for a new design Offshore Patrol Vessel, will be her intended operational profile. The sensitivity of the calculations and the final outcome of a preferred configuration will proof to be largely depending on the definition of this profile. As operator of an existing fleet Patrol Vessels, as well as best familiar with the exact intended patrol activities and the local circumstances in which the vessel is to operate, definition of this profile is a 100% job for the owner/operator. No shipyard can advise on the exact definition of such profile, however by performing numerous of such analyses, we have learned one thing. Most common and crucial error made is the estimated percentage of time at maximum/very high vessel speed. Ask any captain, operator and they will indicate 10 15% of the total operational time (time at sea) is used at highest speed range. Careful analyses by navy/patrol operators of their existing fleet, clearly show this time is most often largely exaggerated. Measuring operators come to the conclusion that only maximum 1- 2% of the total operational time is sailed at chase/pursuit speed and yet a lot of designs are
Fecha <dd/mm/aaaa> Pgina 2 de 11

III Simposio de Diseo e Ingeniera Naval Cotecmar IPIN Captulo Colombia Escuela Naval Almirante Padilla.

solemnly dedicated to that operational moment. Therefore this most common overestimate of maximum speed is also analysed, showing the enormous influence and the possible less optimal final decisions it causes. Most of the operational time is spend on economical speed and/or even slow patrol speed, depending on the vessels duties. The latter is often the case when a vessel is to guard (at station) at e.g. the boundary of a countries economical zone, while the other is more common for e.g. fishery patrol where the vessel transits continuously amongst vessels to be inspected. Both these typical profiles are analysed further. So we have chosen above two typical profiles and thirdly the profile with the most common overestimated maximum speed effect : 1) Profile with dominant slow patrol / station operation 2) Profile with dominant transit / economical speed patrol 3) Profile with overestimated maximum chase/pursuit speed
Chase Patrol speeds : 1. Dominant slow patrol 2. Dominant economic 3. Overestimated pursuit 22 2% 2% 10 % HS patrol 18 3% 3% 10 % Econ patrol 12 20 % 60 % 35 % Slow patrol 5 65 % 25 % 40 % Troll. 5 10 % 10 % 5%

Operational profile 1 (dominant slow patrol speed)

2%
Pursuit / Chase speed (22 kn)

3% 10% 20%

High speed patrol (18 kn) Economic patrol / transit speed (12 kn) Slow patrol/station operation (5 kn)

65%
Trolling/loiter speed (5 kn)

Operational profile 2 (dominant economical speed)

Operational profile 3 (overestimated max/chase speed)

2% 10% 25% 3%

5%

10%

10%

40%
60%

35%

Figure 1: operational profiles

Fecha <dd/mm/aaaa> Pgina 3 de 11

III Simposio de Diseo e Ingeniera Naval Cotecmar IPIN Captulo Colombia Escuela Naval Almirante Padilla.

As can be seen, we have taken the harbour/anchored days out of the operational profile as such are a constant and have no effect on the choice of preferred propulsion configuration (of course for yearly operational costs analyses these have to be taken into account) We prefer to keep analysis as simple as possible for the goal. As our goal is to compare the effects of different propulsion configurations, the harbour/anchor costs have been lifted out of the equation. 3. Definition of Ship propulsion characteristics A most dominant decision and main cost driver of an Offshore Patrol Vessel design is the required maximum chase speed. This definition is defining engine/propulsion power, to a certain degree the ship size and often underestimated the hull form. The more speed, the more power/engine size the more investment costs is logical. But ever so often the hull form is left out of the equation, while especially this might make the difference in fuel consumption performance in partial loads (reduced operational speeds). Two very typical hull forms for Offshore Patrol Vessel designs may be distinguished, depending on choice of required maximum speed. For Offshore Patrol Vessels we prefer the optimised displacement hull form, a form established by years of experience of the MARIN Wageningen model test facilities, based on numerous model tests as well as real life trial data, used to (re)validate and enhance these hull performances. This is the basic (geometric similar and proven) hull form we apply to our Damen Standard range of Offshore Prime advantage, next to the optimized performance at maximum/trial speed, this form does have a largely favourable resistance, hence propulsion efficiency, at partial loads (reduced operating speeds). Consequence however is that due to the displacement hull form the vessel is not able to come a little out of the water : i.e. (semi) planning, at highest speed. Therefore the maximum speed is limited depending on hull waterline length, as the resistance curve indicates a steep curve upwards at hull speed. Such limitation results in a maximum speed for this form of : - Approx. 17-18 knots for a 60 meter OPV - Approx. 18-19 knots for a 70 meter OPV - Approx. 20-21 knots for a 80 meter OPV We have chosen our latest standard Damen Offshore Patrol Vessel 8313 as basis for all profiles and comparing calculations:

Fecha <dd/mm/aaaa> Pgina 4 de 11

III Simposio de Diseo e Ingeniera Naval Cotecmar IPIN Captulo Colombia Escuela Naval Almirante Padilla.

Main particulars : Length waterline 75.60 meter Beam waterline 13.00 meter Draft (even keel) 3.60 meter Displacement Block coefficient Propulsion 1740 tons 0.48

2x High Efficiency Controllable Pitch propellers (Dp 3.0 meter) 2x 4100 skW (shaft kilowatts)

Maximum vessel speed 22 knots In cases were a higher chase speed is required, one needs to rely on semi planning hull forms. Their resistance curve still shows the famous hump before/around hull speed, but allows larger maximum speeds, e.g. 26-28 knots for a 80 meter Patrol vessel. Such higher speed comes however with a cost: a higher resistance at reduced vessel speeds. As partial loads are defined dominant in the most applied operational profiles, one may safely guess what the effects will be on the operational cost comparison.
1.600

1.400

1.200

Hull resistance (kN)

1.000

800

600

400

200

0 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33

Speed (knots)

Figure 2: comparision resistance curves displacement hull / semi-planing hull forms

Find above the typical comparison of both hull forms. Even tough the higher maximum speeds may often be a Navy requirement, we have chosen to base our Damen Range of Offshore Patrol vessels on the proven displacement hull form with restricted maximum chase speed. Non strategic EZ patrol duties (custom / fishery patrol / safety) are often related to the common fleet of freighters, fishing vessels etc. Then approx. 20 knots is sufficient to keep up / overtake such vessels, and there is no need to compare with other high speed patrol vessels, while for Navy / strategic purposes this may often be the case. For cases of higher speed requirements our Damen groups Naval Shipyard Schelde, does have a complete range of corvettes based on semi-planning hull forms. And off course, for the speedlimited OPVs, the on board stationed high speed interceptors (> 35-50 knots) may be deployed for the high speed chases aimed at smugglers, small speedboats etc. if needed.
Fecha <dd/mm/aaaa> Pgina 5 de 11

III Simposio de Diseo e Ingeniera Naval Cotecmar IPIN Captulo Colombia Escuela Naval Almirante Padilla.

4. Definition of propulsion configurations In this paper we aim to hand a simple approach to estimate operational costs comparisons between propulsion configurations and as well as awaking deserved interest for the hybrid PTOPTI installations. We restricted the number of alternatives as shown below which are the most logical and common propulsion configurations: A. B. C. D. 2x single engine direct drive 2x dual engine direct drive (two engines driving each shaft) 2x Electric drive (complete Diesel Electric concept) 2x single engine drive with hybrid PTO/PTI
Case A Single engine, direct drive Steering Gear Generator sets 3 x 425 ekW

G1

G2

G3

Bowthruster

Ship load 300 ekW

Main engines 2 x 4100 bkW

Fecha <dd/mm/aaaa> Pgina 6 de 11

III Simposio de Diseo e Ingeniera Naval Cotecmar IPIN Captulo Colombia Escuela Naval Almirante Padilla.

Case B Dual engine, direct drive Steering Gear Generator sets 3 x 425 ekW

G1

G2

G3

Ship load 300 ekW

Main engines 4 x 2050 bkW

Case C Diesel electric propulsion Steering Gear

Generator sets 5 x 2000 ekW

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

Bowthruster

Ship load 300 ekW

Main E-motors 2 x 4100 ekW

Fecha <dd/mm/aaaa> Pgina 7 de 11

III Simposio de Diseo e Ingeniera Naval Cotecmar IPIN Captulo Colombia Escuela Naval Almirante Padilla.

Case D PTO/PTI arrangement Steering Gear Generator sets 3 x 425 ekW (or 1x 425 and 1x 1200 able to emergency drive one CP)

G1

G2

G3
PTO PTI Electrical Shaft 2x 1200 kW PTO PTI

Bowthruster

Ship load 300 ekW

Main engines 2 x 4100 bkW

Commercially thinking the difference in investments costs need to be earned back with fuel consumption reduction, within a restricted timeframe, e.g. 5 years. We have made rough estimates for the extra investment costs of each configuration concept in relation to the single direct drive option : 1) 2) 3) 4) Single direct drive : Dual engine drive : Electric drive : Hybride PTO-PTI +/+ Euro -- / vessel = base +/+ Euro 1.500.000 / vessel +/+ Euro 1.500.000 / vessel +/+ Euro 1.000.000 / vessel

Again in order to simplify the comparisons we have taken amongst others the maintenance effects out of the equation. Especially a single direct driven engine, which very often endured performing on fractional loads, is heavily fouling requiring more maintenance attention. Due to the relative limited part of maintenance costs in the yearly overall operational costs, dominated by crewing and fuel costs, we have chosen to stick to a fuel cost based comparison only. Even crewing, harbour rates/expenses etc. can be assumed constant when comparison of propulsion configurations is the goal. Finally, an efficient use of fuel, can also be regarded as an intelligent load of propulsion components and as such may also be regarded as a rough first indication for reduced maintenance cost. 5. Results of the fuel cost analyses. Please find below the results of our yearly fuel cost analyses based on above defined operational profiles (200 days at sea / 4800 hours) as well as the effect of the alternate propulsion configurations. For the calculations we carefully adjusted the efficiencies under reduced loading for a.o. the diesel engines, as well as the electric componenets (generators, E-drives, freq.controllers), if applicable. For the main diesel engines, the Caterpillar published manufacturer data of the most modern C 280 engine type has been used. Minor corrections have been implemented for increased mechanical losses on shafting / gearboxes / driven parts, but such is nearly identical for all propulsion configurations. The domestic electrical shipload (hotel load) is taken constant at 300
Fecha <dd/mm/aaaa> Pgina 8 de 11

III Simposio de Diseo e Ingeniera Naval Cotecmar IPIN Captulo Colombia Escuela Naval Almirante Padilla.

kW, and with exception of the complete diesel electric option (C) , this load is assumed to be generated by a dedicated auxiliary engine (Caterpillar C18 type).

Overview fuel consumption (in tons/ year) Profile 1 dominant slow A 2x Single engine direct drive B 2x Dual engine direct drive % improvement compared to case A C 2x Electric drive (DE concept) % improvement compared to case A D 2x Single engine direct + Hybrid % improvement compared to case A 1265 t/yr 1194 t/yr 5.6 % 1327 t/yr - 4.9 % 1212 t/yr 4.2 % Profile 2 dominant patrol 1527 t/yr 1458 t/yr 4.5 % 1634 t/yr - 7.0 % 1484 t/yr 2.9 % Profile 3 Max chase 2074 t/yr 2004 t/yr 3.6 % 2315 t/yr -11.6 % 2030 t/yr 2,2 %

The following conclusions may be presented : As previously already expected, a complete diesel electric propulsion for Offshore patrol vessels is an illogical choice as on all profiles this options has the highest fuel consumption . Compared to the single direct drive (A) the dual engine (B) and Hybrid (D) solution offer advantageous fuel consumption. Compared to each other the dual engine solution (B) remains slightly favourable, but the PTO-PTI alternative (D) comes very close The profile with overestimated chase speed period, profile 3, reduces the necessity to switch to alternate propulsion configurations better adapted to handle partial loading. Especially for Offshore Patrol Vessels at guarding location at the boundaries of an EZ, slow patrol profile 2, this difference is considerable.

Further it was analysed the effect of the displacement hull form versus the semi-planning hull form. Such comparison is somewhat difficult, as the semi-planning does have a far higher speed potential and at 22 knots the semi planning is still not in full speed. We assumed therefore a resistance reduction of about 6 % for the fixed maximum speed of 22 knots in favour of the semi-planning form, based on exact identical available shaft power and displacement.

Overview fuel consumption (in tons/ year) Displacement hull form (max 22 knots) A 2x Single engine direct drive B 2x Dual engine direct drive D 2x Single engine direct + Hybrid
Fecha <dd/mm/aaaa> Pgina 9 de 11

Profile 2 dominant patrol 1527 t/yr 1458 t/yr 1484 t/yr

Profile 3 Max chase 2074 t/yr 2004 t/yr 2030 t/yr

III Simposio de Diseo e Ingeniera Naval Cotecmar IPIN Captulo Colombia Escuela Naval Almirante Padilla.

Semi Displacement hull form (> 24 knots) A 2x Single engine direct drive B 2x Dual engine direct drive D 2x Single engine direct + Hybrid % average increased fuel consumption 1740 t/yr 1658 /yr 1690 t/yr 13.8 % 2230 t/yr 2150 t/yr 2180 t/yr 7.4 %

Clearly the ability to sail at speeds higher then 24 knots comes with a cost, namely increased fuel consumption at given slower patrol speeds. Depending on the exact operational profile, where the discussion about yes or no for a semi-panning hull often coincides with the profiles 2 & 3 with a more dominant demand for higher speeds, it can be concluded that a approx 10 % extra fuel costs are unavoidable.

Finally we have estimated the payback period of the extra investments to achieve alternate propulsion configurations. In case one only takes the fuel cost advantage, the difference in yearly costs is hardly able to bring up the interest costs (5%). A payback period of approximate 15 years, the result when assuming ever increasing fuel prices (8 % indexing / year), is no real reason to invest in fuel reducing alternate propulsion options. However, next to fuel costs only, alternate reasons do make us seriously advice to either apply dual engine direct drives (B) or the slightly cheaper PTO-Hybrid solution (D), both having the enormous advantage to avoid endured under-loading of the main engines and as such excessive fouling and increased maintenance costs. We have taken engine manufacturers data as starting point, but more careful analyses of the endured extreme low load operations might easily reveal far worse fuel consumptions then included in the calculations. Reduced load performances are hardly ever to be guaranteed, manufacturers data apply to new engines (test bed results), while endured low loading leads to excessive fouling and as such increased actual fuel consumption, strengthening our above conclusion. It is therefore recommended to study these endured extreme conditions low load conditions as well as the efficiencies and fuel consumption in order to validate this simple model, to make the outcome/results more reliable. Last but not least, the redundancy advantages of dual engines or PTO-PTI solutions, where even the auxiliary engines may drive the main propulsion in emergencies, may be very valid reasoning to support the alternate propulsion configurations.

Fecha <dd/mm/aaaa> Pgina 10 de 11

III Simposio de Diseo e Ingeniera Naval Cotecmar IPIN Captulo Colombia Escuela Naval Almirante Padilla.

6 .Conclusions and recommendations 1) The above simplified model for comparing effects and sensitivities of propulsion configurations may proof very useful for first selections and sensitivity analyses of different propulsion profiles. 2) Dual engine direct drives (B) as well as the PTO-PTI Hybrid configurations (D) do have an advantage in fuel consumption, are better capable of handling endured low loading situations. 3) Dual engine direct drives (B) as well as the PTO-PTI Hybrid configurations (D) do have an advantage in redundancy. For the hybrid system even the auxiliary engines may be used for emergency propulsion options. 4) Investments for the option with Dual engine direct drives (B) as well as the PTO-PTI Hybrid configurations (D), can hardly be payed back from the fuel costs reduction only. The advantage is then just enough to cover interest costs. 5) It is recommended to further study endured low load operations and the related changes in fuel consumption due to excessive fouling, as those may well be reason to significantly increase the actual/realistic costs differences found (todays lack of detailed info made us use new engine manufacturers data in the calculations).

Fecha <dd/mm/aaaa> Pgina 11 de 11