Proceedings of ASME 2011 5th International Conference on Energy Sustainability ES2011 August 7-10, 2011 Washington DC, USA

ES2011-54475
SHAFT MOTOR-GENERATOR DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR INCREASED OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY IN CONTAINER SHIPS

Benjamin H. Gully, MSME The University of Texas Austin, Texas, USA

Dr. Michael E. Webber The University of Texas Austin, Texas, USA

Dr. Carolyn C. Seepersad The University of Texas Austin, Texas, USA

ABSTRACT Fuel costs are the single most important driver of marginal costs for commercial marine transportation and account for almost 50% of total voyage costs for typical configurations. Hence, there has developed a desire among operators and manufacturers of all classes of ships to embrace innovative ways to reduce the demand for fuels. This research investigates the fuel consumption of a standard container ship architecture based on different scenarios of operation. The approach is to first model fuel consumption from the main propulsion engines and the auxiliary engines based on standard propulsion modes, with a configuration known as a Power Take Off (PTO) system. These preliminary results are then analyzed to identify opportunities for retrofitting this configuration by utilizing the same engine combination, but augmenting the PTO system into a modernized shaft motor-generator system, or Auxiliary Power System (APS). The APS enables electrification, which can potentially decrease system fuel consumption. Lastly, the potential for these fuel savings is evaluated for multiple scales of the APS. INTRODUCTION With fuel costs rising and environmental concerns growing, energy consumption has been the target of increasing scrutiny. Although land transportation systems are the current focus of many policies and research efforts, over 90% of the worlds freight is transported by ship, a segment of the marine industry that consumes over 23 billion barrels of fuel each year (nearly 2% of global petroleum consumption) [1]. These concerns are compounded by the fact that grades of common marine diesel fuel have 30-100 times more sulfur content

compared to land-use diesel fuels. In addition, an estimated 645 million metric tonnes per year of CO2 is emitted from all marine vessels, along with other pollutants such as nitrogen-oxides (NOx) and particulate-matter (PM) [2]. Fuel costs are the single most important driver of marginal costs for marine transportation, and account for almost 50% of total voyage costs for most vessels. These environmental and economic factors are expected to grow because of projections that maritime trade will continue to increase into the future [3] . Analyses have indicated that total fuel consumption from oceanic shipping might increase to 2-3 times its present level by 2050 [4]. In addition, an increasing amount of cargo is being shipped by way of container, growing from only 7.4% in 1985 to 24% in 2006. At the same time, containerized cargo represents the most energy intensive form of shipping [4]. The powertrains that meet these and other shipping demands are comprised primarily of single diesel engines directly driving a propeller, with a separate set of diesel generators providing ship service electric loads [4]. Some of these ships also utilize a shaft generation system to produce electric power from the main engine under cruise conditions. These systems, commonly referred to as Power Take Off (PTO) systems, mechanically link an electric generator to the drive shaft, thus placing additional loading on the main engine to create electricity to offset some dependence on the auxiliary engines. Although these systems have existed for decades, their functionality has historically been technologically limited due to shaft speed variation and the inability to design power electronics capable of operating the electric machine as both a motor and a generator. The motivation here is to assess the fuel economy

Copyright 2011 by ASME

benefits that can be achieved without these limitations, as allowed by modern developments in electric machinery. This analysis examines the potential system performance benefits of using the same engine sets but with an enhanced PTO system for retrofit configurations. To conduct this analysis, a representative model of pertinent container ship parameters was developed to derive requirements for the power system and to clarify the baseline powertrain architecture. Performance, in terms of the fuel consumption of main and auxiliary engines, is assessed for standard operating modes for a container class of ship. The performance potential for this powertrain is then assessed with the larger, bidirectional Auxiliary Power System (APS) in place of the PTO. Results and conclusions focus on design methodology and are drawn based on the ability of such a system to successfully reduce fuel consumption for the specified operational modes. CONTAINER SHIP MODEL The most fundamental step in ship modeling is defining the power profile for specific speeds. Bernoullis relation indicates that power is proportional to the cube of the velocity. This relationship can be extended by introducing a geometrically based drag coefficient. Additionally, in seeking to define drive propulsion power requirements, we must also take into account aspects such as propeller efficiency (as well as its variation), gearbox efficiency, wake formation, sea-state, cargo loading, etc. However, analytical approximation of these aspects tends to yield highly erroneous values as they represent highly coupled nonlinear interactions. In practice, hull designs are often based on existing experimental evidence or experience. Accordingly, this analysis utilizes empirical data in the form of a non-dimensional brake power coefficient, CBP. This coefficient is a speed-dependent value that integrates the many aforementioned factors. This analysis will focus on a container ship; specifically a large scale container ship of 6690 TEU (Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit, a standard container size). The corresponding brake power coefficient data is presented in Figure 1. This data are defined, as well as utilized, by the relation shown below in Equation 1 for brake power, where is the density of water, is displacement (in terms of mass, representing buoyancy), and vs is ship speed [5]. Thus, the mechanical shaft power required for propulsion can be calculated as a function of speed as shown in Figure 2. This particular vessel definition is typical of one operating along the East trade lines. It is assumed to operate in a 20% sea-margin (representing the oceanic weather conditions), which yields a service speed of 22.1 kts at 90% Max Continuous Rating (MCR) with PTO in operation. PTO describes ships that have a generator geared to the driveshaft capable of providing electrical energy for service loads from the main propulsion engines. This concept is very central to the analysis at hand and will be discussed in greater detail subsequently [5]. = 1/3 2/3 3 Eq 1

Figure 1. Brake power coefficient for a 6690 TEU, 111,825 ton container ship in sea-margin of 20%, with PTO disabled [5].

70

Propulsion Power Reqd (MW)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 5 10 15 Speed (knots) 20 25

Figure 2. Shaft power required for propulsion increases cubically as a function of speed as derived from brake power coefficient.

These propulsion power demands are met by a single diesel engine driving a Fixed Pitch Propeller (FPP). The engine is assumed to be a Sulzer 12RTA96C, producing a maximum of 65.8 MW with a nominal speed of 100 rpm. Fuel consumption performance is derived through the Mossel computer program which utilizes several fit factors to calculate consumption variation as a function of speed and load variation, as shown below. = ( + + ( )2 ) ( + + ( )2 ) =
0

Here, P0, n0 and FC0 refer to the power, speed and fuel consumption at MCR, or full load [5]. For the Sulzer engine, these values are 65,880 kW, 100 rpm and 11,625 kg/hr, respectively. Constant speed operation of the engine is assume because steady state modal operation will be evaluated (to be discussed later). The parameters a, b, c, d, e and f are extrapolated from experimentally determined operating points. In addition to this propulsion engine, or Main Engine (ME), several Auxiliary Engines (AE) are required purely to provide electrical energy for ship service loads. This architecture uses four MaK M32 diesel generators, each producing 3600 kW at

, =

, =

Eq 3

Eq 2

Copyright 2011 by ASME

600 rpm. The configuration is illustrated in Figure 3. Fuel consumption for these auxiliary engines is derived using the same method of nonlinear speed and power fit factors as described above [5]. Here we can also see the interconnection of the PTO system, providing limited electric power from the propeller shaft.

Figure 4. Vessel speeds within the Houston Ship Channel in knots, for 2007 [6].

Figure 3. Base ship powertrain configuration with one ME for propulsion, PTO system and 4 AEs for electric service loads.

SHIP LOAD PROFILE AND BASE PERFORMANCE Once the ship powertrain architecture has been identified, a loading profile must be defined to ascertain fuel consumption characteristics. Ocean going cargo vessels (such as container ships) have a very simple operational profile. They load up at a port, set out to sea, traverse at a relatively constant speed, then enter another port, unload/reload, and repeat. The complication arises from the speed limitations that begin, and vary, once a vessel passes the outermost sea buoy when approaching port. Each port is very spatially different, based on local geography. However, most ports have common speed zones characteristics or operational requirements. For instance, Figure 4 illustrates the speed zones for vessels approaching the Port of Houston: as a vessel enters from the South-East, it must slow to 9.5-12.5 kts. As it approaches further, speed is reduced to 3-6 kts, as indicated nearer to shore.

These values correspond very well with average port requirements as identified by the ICF [7]. This report cites 9-12 kts average for areas identified as Reduced Speed Zone (RSZ, the region from pilot pick-up to breakwater), and 3-8 kts when Maneuvering (MAN, the region from breakwater to berth). Thus, two dominant intermediate zones of interest have been identified, which comprise two of the specific operational scenarios defining the ships load profile. The two other scenarios are simply cruise (at sea, at design/service speed) and hotel (the time spent at berth with propulsion engine off). The relevant parameters for these four operating modes are summarized in Table 1. Within the ranges identified here, only a minute difference was found between the minimum and maximum values so average values were used, shown in the table. Using these speed constraints, the propulsion power requirements and ME (main engine) fuel consumption can be derived. However, it is also necessary to define AE (auxiliary engine) loading and fuel consumption. Ships do not use their full installed AE capacity in any operating mode, and rarely is the loading of these engines constant. While in the Hotel mode, AEs are used to provide power for lighting, HVAC, communications, computers, cranes, pumps, and reefers (refrigerated containers). Maneuvering typically has the highest demand for AE use as these systems are required to be available to power bow thrusters, whose use in such conditions is sporadic. Open sea transit frequently has the lowest AE demand, as maneuvering systems are not in use and many ships utilize PTO systems to further reduce electrical demand, as mentioned before. For specification, it is useful to consider AE systems in terms of the total power available, as well as in terms of average load percent. Given the sporadic AE operation characterized in some modes, average load percent is the most useful metric for identifying fuel consumption, as this indicates the average power generated. Table 1 represents a statistical compilation of two sources (Browning and Aldrete) containing this data for similar ships. As shown, the two sources show a high degree of correlation. The final values

Copyright 2011 by ASME

used in the analysis are shown in the bottom two rows of the table. It was clear that the Aldrete report had a single set of AE load factors applied to all classes of ships for each mode, and was thus assumed to be non-ship-specific and therefore less exact than the alternative. Additionally, the Browning report contained a RSZ term that aligned with the more explicit speed profile data, indicating the most relevant representation of inport speed profile. In addition to operating speed and average AE loading, consideration must be made for the amount of AE power that is required in the case of demand spikes. The ship specifications [5] indicate that the vessel under consideration keeps all 4 AEs on when in port. It is further assumed that the load factors must be constant and equal for all engines in all modes, because load distribution must be constant between machines to meet electric bus synchronization requirements.
Table 1. Different operating conditions (Cruise, Reduced Speed Zone, MANeuvering, and Hotel) require different levels of propulsion and auxiliary power. (*defined by ship design) Parameter Avg AE Load (Browning) Avg AE Load (Aldrete) Speed, kts (Browning) Speed, kts (Aldrete) AE Load Speed, kts Cruise 13% 16% 22.1* 22.1* 13% 22.1 RSZ 25% (no data) 9-12 9.5-12 25% 10.75 MAN 50% 55% 3-8 3-6 50% 4.5 Hotel 17% 16% 0 0 17% 0

Fuel Consumption (kg/hr)

12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Cruise 530 9324 RSZ 826 1682 MAN 1446 1019 Hotel 629 0

Aux Engines Main Engine

Figure 5. Fuel consumption rates calculated for an existing 6690 TEU container ship, indicating consumption of the main propulsion engine and auxiliary engines.

In addition, the PTO is a salient pole generator coupled to the main propeller shaft. In this steady state analysis, it simply reduces the mechanical power on the drive shaft by its maximum value, 3.5 MW, when the ship is in cruise mode. The literature typically assumes ideal conversion in the sense that this operation simply provides 3.5 MW of electric power for the ship service load. Thus, fuel consumption from the ME is increased in cruise mode (from 8741 kg/hr without PTO operation to 9324 kg/hr with the PTO system operating), as is the effective total available auxiliary power. The next task is to assess the potential benefit of revamping this PTO system for increased functionality and efficiency. POWERTRAIN DESIGN CONCEPT ASSESSMENT In the powertrain architecture studied thus far, the PTO operates by supplying additional electrical power to the ship service bus during cruise. The primary objective here is to analyze the capability of a similar system of larger scale to further offset various engine uses. Approaching this problem requires first utilizing the powertrain analysis conducted earlier to identify net values for power demands. These values are shown in Table 2. It should be noted that average electric load (as well as total available) during cruise includes 3.5 MW from the existing PTO system, but it is not included as a load in the propulsion system power requirement.
Table 2. Total container ship power demands by mode. Cruise Propulsion (kW) Electric Load Avg (kW) Electric Load Avail (kW) 51170 5372 17900 RSZ 5556 3600 14400 MAN 904 7200 14400 Hotel 0 2448 14400

Combined with the ship performance formulation in the previous section, these load profile specifications allow us to fully define operation, thus fuel consumption behavior, in each mode. The results of this system analysis are presented in Figure 5. Here it can be seen that the fuel consumption rate within each mode is utilized as a performance indicator as opposed to net fuel consumption. Overall fuel consumption is most heavily influenced by those modes in which the system spends the majority of its time, namely cruise; however, system design for performance in that mode is a very straightforward affair. Cruise performance should still be regarded as the primary factor in any decision that might have an impact on it, but a rate-based approach has several advantages: Alleviation of the large uncertainty that exists regarding time spent in each mode, which varies greatly Greater focus on port modes, which most directly addresses the issues of in-port emissions, the dominant aspect of environmental regulation Defining non-cruise mode performance as more than just an afterthought in design process

Augmenting the PTO scale and changing the hardware to allow both motor and generator operation typically leads to classification of the device as an Auxiliary Power System (APS). This capability is the result of numerous modern developments in electronic power system technologies and

Copyright 2011 by ASME

presents more than sufficient design options to warrant an indepth study of its own. Key features for consideration are: variable speed motor operation, motor technology selection, output power quality, mechanical fixture or gearing, all of which have been evaluated to a high degree and at greater depth than will be done here [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]. Instead, here we seek to quantify the benefits of such a system for fuel consumption reduction and identify the most appropriate APS system scale and operation. Functionally, the most apparent potential capabilities of such an APS system are to: (1) run the APS as a generator allowing one or more of the AEs to be shut down, and (2) run the APS as a motor to reduce loading on the ME, nominally at slow speeds. The impact of these two concepts is assessed below. 1. Run APS as a generator to shut down one AE If a single 3.6 MW AE is shut down in cruise mode, then the APS must then provide this amount of power in addition to the previous PTO load of 3.5 MW, totalling 7.1 MW of electric power to the bus. This power ultimately comes from the driveshaft, and thus adds to the propulsion load of 51.1, now totalling 58.2 MW. Additionally, generating 7.1 MW of service power with the APS is greater than the average required 5.3 MW, suggesting the remaining AEs are not needed. However, running the ME at 58.2 MW results in a consumption of 9,914 kg/hr this is in comparison to the previous total of 9,854 kg/hr, which is the total consumption from the ME operating with the PTO system online and AE providing service power. Thus, fuel consumption has effectively been increased. Furthermore, this new, higher consumption value is not taking into account the additional consumption of the idling AEs, which are nominally consuming 8% of their max fuel consumption rate each. 2. Run the APS as a drive motor to displace ME operation Here we target the maneuver operating mode, as it has the most accessible propulsion demand requirement. It is proposed to produce 100% of the propeller shaft propulsion power from the AE sets and subsequently shut off the ME, which was previously providing the drive shaft with 0.9 MW. Thus, we are assuming that there is at least 1 MW of leeway between peak maneuver service load and total available auxiliary power. This manner of operation increases the total AE set power demand from 7.2 MW to 8.1 MW. This load is divided equally among all four online AEs, as is required of all generator devices providing synchronized power on a common bus. Each AE unit now consumes 401 kg/hr, totaling 1,602 kg/hr. This level of consumption is in comparison to the previous net system (ME + AE) consumption of 2,465 kg/hr a reduction of 35% the previous fuel consumption rate. These two results indicate the fundamental performance trend that should be pursued in an effort to reduce operational fuel consumption. The large, low speed 65 MW Sulzer is great for providing the full power demand in a single unit, and more simply integrated for direct shaft operation, however it is

simply not as efficient as its small scale, high-speed diesel counterparts. This correlation is shown very clearly in Figure 6, below. Here we see a distinct difference in the two high power, low speed Sulzer diesel machines, and the lower power, high speed MaK units. The smaller diesels have almost equivalent performance, being almost indiscernible at the given scale. Inspecting the fuel consumption around the upper threshold of these units (~4MW) shows that fuel consumption is about half what it would be for a 65 MW Sulzer in providing the same amount of power. The solid black trend line also reveals the performance advantage of the other slightly smaller Sulzer engine, producing large scale power significantly more efficiently. The previously presented calculations offer evidence that these consumption differences constitute the basis for decision making alternatives both in propulsion system design as well as operationally. The results suggest that APS system sizing and operation should aim to alleviate loading from the ME as much as possible, strongly favoring the AE systems.
4000 3500

Fuel consumption (kg/hr)

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Sulzer 12RTA96C Sulzer 8RTA72C MaK M32 MaK 32-8 MaK 32-6 0 5 10 15 Power (MW) 20 25

Figure 6. Fuel consumption comparison of high power, low speed diesels (Sulzer) and the more efficient low power, high speed diesels (MaK) [5].

APS PERFORMANCE POTENTIAL This section will now briefly assess the performance potential of the design and operation objectives identified in APS utilization. The previous section clearly illustrated the design directive to shift loads from the ME to the AE set. However, it also identified the primary limiting factor with regard to that objective: lack of knowledge regarding the fluctuation and peak values of ship service demands on the AE sets in each operating mode. Given limitations on the expected values of these loads, we could safely identify thresholds that allow the AE set to adopt specified levels of propulsion demands. However, these data are not available and so it is assumed that any available, idle AE power not being used for ship service loads may be directed to the APS to relieve ME propulsion loads. To do so, the power electronics and

Copyright 2011 by ASME

components must be able to react fast enough to respond as necessary to variation in ship service power demand. The net result of this is that, on average, the power margin in excess of the power factors required as defined in Table 1 will be able to be used by the APS to relieve ME propulsion loading. This fact suggests the available power factors are equal to the mathematical inverse of those in Table 1. In reality it is more likely that this margin will be hard to track exactly, and that doing so would cause dynamic variation that triggers undesirable inefficiencies and/or excessive component wear. However these considerations are minute in comparison to the net power being transferred. Given the above assumptions for available APS power, in both maneuver and RSZ modes this value is greater than the required propulsion power. This surplus suggests the potential to turn off and decouple the ME; however, slow start up times mean that capability is not likely to occur unless a significant margin exists between expected load and available AE power. Thus, for this study it is assumed that this power must be online and require the ME to idle, such that it consumes its minimal amount of fuel but is still able to react in emergency situations. Assuming the engine idles at the same max speed, fuel consumption is approximately 8% of peak fuel consumption rates here, resulting in 901 kg/hr [5]. Thus operational functionality for the APS architecture in each of the 4 modes is redefined as follows: Cruise: Transfer PTO 3500 kW load to the AE set, and apply up to 12.6 MW of AE power to driving the APS. RSZ: AE set matches propulsion and ship service loads (leaving an available 5.2 MW buffer), ME idles, consuming 901 kg/hr. Maneuver: As with RSZ, AE set matches propulsion and ship service loads (here, leaving 6.3 MW as a buffer) and ME idles. Hotel: No change from base scenario. The above scenario was assessed initially with no limit to APS sizing (resulting in a useful max of 12.6 MW of APS power), as well as a more reasonable subsequent analysis where APS power scale was selected to be the same as the existing PTO system of 3.5 MW. Electric power generation from the given diesel engines, and any other subsequent electrical conversion efficiencies, are assumed to be static and are based on a multipole permanent magnet synchronous machine with motor efficiency of 95.2% and generating efficiency of 97.5% [10]. The results of the performance of these APS configurations in comparison to the base scenario are shown in Figure 7.

Fuel Consumption (kg/hr)

12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Cruise 9854 9431 9911 9431 RSZ 2508 2733 2619 1832 MAN 2465 2511 2511 1610 Hotel 629 629 629 629

Base 12.5 MW APS 3.5 MW APS 12.5 MW APS, no idle

Figure 7. Fuel consumption results for the base configuration, with a 12.5 MW APS, with a 3.5 MW APS, as well as results for the 12.5 MW system if the ME is not required to idle.

First, sizing the APS to take advantage of the entire free leftover AE power capacity does give the ability to significantly reduce fuel consumption rates when at sea in cruise mode. As previously discussed, reductions in consumption for cruise mode has the largest impact on net system performance. This effect is a simple demonstration of the efficiency gain of generating power with the AE units over the ME. However, the dominant result is the impact of requiring the ME to idle coupled with the added electric conversion losses. The combination of these two effects renders the powertrain modes that utilize APS systems less efficient than the base scenario upon which they are built (the middle two scenarios in Figure 7 compared to Base). Only in the case where we have a large enough propulsion load (cruise) is the 12.5 MW APS able to provide enough efficiency benefit (including conversion losses) that it overcomes the handicap of wasted ME idle consumption. In the scenario where only a 3.5 MW APS system is used it is simply unable to provide enough benefit to overcome the ME idle consumption. For reference, it is useful to indicate the scale of this ME idle fuel consumption rate. When the base configuration is maneuvering, the propulsion system consumes 1019 kg/hr and contributes 904 kW, as opposed to under APS operation when it consumes 901 kg/hr and contributes 0 kW. Offsetting the ME is not a practical solution unless it is designed to idle efficiently, or preferably, is able to be turned off. This type of operation could be done intelligently through the implementation of accurate data regarding expected maneuver and ship service loads. The resulting fuel consumption from successful implementation of this concept is shown as the fourth data set in Figure 7 (12.5 MW APS, no idle). The two APS systems performance is presented in greater detail below to illustrate the impact of ME idling consumption.

Copyright 2011 by ASME

12000 Fuel Consumption (kg/hr) 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Cruise RSZ MAN Hotel Cruise RSZ MAN Hotel 12.5 MW APS Main Engine 3.5 MW APS

augment the ability of the AE system to offset propulsion loads, thus further decreasing fuel consumption. A system that is able to operate without the ME online idling has the potential to reduce both fuel consumption rates as well as emission rates by 4.3%, 27.0% or 34.7% for the operating modes Cruise, RSZ and MAN, respectively. REFERENCES [1] Hayman, C., Managing Director of Seatrade; Seatrade Middle East Maritime 2008 at Dubai International Convention and Exhibition Centre, December 14-16, 2008. [2] Kassinger, R. Marine Fuels Intertanko Petroleum Services Inc. March 25, 2007. [3] EIA, Measuring Energy Efficiency in the United States Economy: A Beginning Energy Consumption Series, October, 1995. [4] Endresen, ., The environmental impacts of increased international maritime shipping Past trends and future perspectives, Det Norske Veritas Research and Innovation, 2008. [5] Brussen, P., et al. CO2-emissions of various ship types, simulated in an operational year profile Centrum voor Mechanische en Maritieme Constructies, Van Mourik Broekmanweg, TNO-rapport, 2006. [6] Aldrete, G., et al., 2007 Goods Movement Air Emissions Inventory at the Port of Houston prepared by Starcrest Consulting, LLC for Port of Houston Authority, 2009. [7] Browning, L., Bailey, K., Current Methodologies and Best Practices for Preparing Port Emission Inventories, ICF International and U.S. EPA, 2006. [8] Alexander, D., et al., Hybrid Electric Drive Evaluation for CG47 Class Guided Missile Cruisers Naval Engineers Journal, 2010. [9] Dalton, T., et al., LHD 8 - A Step Toward the All Electric Warship Naval Engineers Journal, Volume 114, Issue 3, pages 7475, July 2002. [10] Fernandez, A., et al., Potential of hybrid systems with permanent magnet motors for propulsion improvement on surface longliners International Symposium on Fishing Vessel Energy Efficiency; E-Fishing, Vigo, Spain. May 2010. [11] Clegg, B., et al., The application of drives and generator technology to a modern container ship IEEE Electrical Machines and Drives Conf, Publ. No. 468, 1999. [12] Castles, G., et al, Economic Benefits of Hybrid Drive Propulsion for Naval Ships IEEE. Electric Ship Technologies Symposium, April 20-22, 2009. [13] Prousalis, J., et al, Studying ship electric energy systems with shaft generator IEEE Electric Ship Technologies Symposium, 2005. [14] Nishikata, S., et al., Performance Analysis of Shaft Generator Systems Electrical Engineering in Japan, Vol. 131, No. 3, 2000.

Auxiliary Engines 2634 1832 1610 629 1720 1413 1610 629 6797 901 901 0 8191 1206 901 0 Figure 8. Fuel consumption breakdown illustrating ME and AE consumption for each of the APS scenarios.

Relative to the base configuration the no-idle setup shows very significant savings in each of the propulsion modes: 4.3% in cruise, 27.0% in the RSZ, and 34.7% in MAN. For steady state operation, these reductions in the rate of fuel use also correspond to reductions in the rate of emissions release. Thus, the rate of CO2, NOX and SOX would also be reduced by 4.3%, 27.0% or 34.7%, depending on the mode of operation [5]. CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH From a powertrain design standpoint, many important conclusions have been reached. For one, optimized design of ship propulsion systems requires data about peak load variation in port, or simply the required available ship service power for a given mode of operation. This data will augment the ability to size and operate systems in accordance with use profiles. With respect to system component selection, it was shown that fuel consumption performance depends greatly on the basic fuel consumption characteristics of the machine. Smaller, highspeed diesels are more efficient, and initial design investigations suggest leaning towards powertrain architectures making more use of these units over low speed, high power units. However, these notions are counterbalanced by the need for implementation and practical volumetric consideration. These results suggest the potential for other ship scales and propulsion system configurations, which are highly recommended for future study. The primary results from this study are that retrofitting an existing merchant ship powertrain with a hybrid system such as an APS, will not inherently provide for better system performance. The capability of such a system to perform is highly dependent on power availability requirements, and in the situation that power availability necessitates idling of the single ME, its fuel consumption is more than enough to offset any achievable benefit. However, additional potential pathways exist for providing the required auxiliary power in a given mode without requiring the ME to idle. One straightforward option is to introduce an additional AE such that the net electric power available is increased to be able to generate both propulsion and service loads as well as provide enough capacity for peak maneuvering demands. Such a concept would also

Copyright 2011 by ASME