1706-0009 - D2.7 Report - v2 Redacted

D2.
7 Vessel Performance
Final Report (Q1-Q6)
Report for: HDV Marine Flettner Vessel Performance Monitoring, Data

Analysis and System Modelling Project
Name of company: ETI
Report no: 1706-0009 - D2.7 Report – v2
21 October 2019
Report summary
The following is the final report of the Maersk Pelican performance for the data parameters that are available at the
time of writing.
The Maersk Pelican is currently operating with the Flettner Rotor System (FRS) fitted. Data from 13 March 2018 up to
01 September 2019 is reviewed. Through this period, the vessel operated in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia.
Data from the period includes a reference condition for the vessel, and with the FRS active. This information has
been filtered to remove anomalies and validated against the requirements of ISO1930-2:2016 [4].
The table below summarises the number of days of operational data that has been processed to date and the
average wind conditions experienced by the vessel.
Baseline Reference With Rotor

Without Rotor
Assessment Period 13/03/2018 to 27/8/2018 1/9/2018 up to 01/09/2019

167 days 365 days
No. of days sailing (>4 kn STW) 114 days 228 days
No. of days Flettner Operational* - 94 days
Average True Wind Speed 5.6 m/s 5.4 m/s
Dominant Relative Wind directions

150o and 315o
(0o from bow)
* Flettner defined as operational when rotation speed greater than 50 RPM for both rotors
The following table presents a summary of the FRS performance derived from the 94 days of operational data. The
percentages shown are the reductions in overall power (shaft power + FRS power) required to propel the ship for the
given condition. Performance figures highlighted in black mean more power is required to propel the ship with a FRS
fitted. Insufficient data is available for true wind speeds above 10.0m/s in the 11.5 to 15.5m draught loading
condition to report a performance trend. Also shown is the percentage of time the vessel has sailed at each speed
range from 13 March 2018 up to 01 September 2019.
LOG Draught 7.0-10.5m Draught 11.5-15.5m Total
Speed True Wind Speed (m/s) True Wind Speed (m/s) LOG
(knots) 0 to 5 5 to 10 >10 0 to 5 5 to 10 >10 Speed
8 10% 24% 47% 10% -4% 1%
9 10% 23% 43% 10% 0% 8%
10 10% 23% 40% 9% 3% 11%
11 10% 23% 36% 9% 6% 5%
12 10% 22% 33% 8% 9% 24%
13 10% 22% 30% 7% 11% 38%
14 10% 22% 27% 7% 13% 8%
15 10% 22% 24% 7% 15% 3%
The following table presents the reductions in overall power (shaft power + FRS power) in kilowatts, required to
propel the ship for the given condition. Also shown is the percentage of time the vessel has sailed at each speed
range from 13 March 2018 up to 01 September 2019.
Report no: 1706-0009 - D2.7 Report – v2 Page 2 of 140

Date: 21 October 2019 ©Lloyd’s Register 2019
Power saving (kW)
LOG Draught 7.0-10.5m Draught 11.5-15.5m Total
Speed True Wind Speed (m/s) True Wind Speed (m/s) LOG
(knots) 0 to 5 5 to 10 >10 0 to 5 5 to 10 >10 Speed
8 126 408 1445 194 -76 1%
9 182 563 1720 248 -4 8%
10 252 751 1985 307 112 11%
11 338 975 2232 371 281 5%
12 443 1236 2452 439 510 24%
13 567 1538 2636 511 808 38%
14 713 1883 2775 585 1182 8%
15 882 2272 2860 661 1642 3%
Several observations can be made from the measured performance data:
• For a given apparent wind speed and vessel speed, the absolute propulsion benefit from the FRS increases with
increasing apparent wind angle relative to the bow.
• There is reasonable symmetry between propulsion benefit for apparent winds from port and starboard
• The trial data predicts that the FRS may have an increased benefit with winds from behind, 165° to195°, than
estimated. In relation to this finding the number of data points has been investigated. It is found that the wind
from behind case is relatively well populated suggesting the findings are repeatable.
The aggregated total fuel saved for the subject vessel for the whole operating profile of the Maersk Pelican, trade
routes, weather experienced and when the FRS is operational and off since the 01 September 2018 to 01 September
2019 has been calculated in the following table. Increasing savings are predicted with higher wind speeds. Larger
percentage savings are predicted in a lighter vessel loading condition. It has been found that 449.4 te has been saved
which is an 8.2% saving. This is for the entire period since 01 September 2018 including when the FRS is providing
thrust and when it is not. As the vessel has been underway for 228 days this is equal to 1.97 te/day.
Reference baseline Trial Saving Saving
wind speed
7.0-10.5m 11.5-15.5m 7.0-10.5m 11.5-15.5m 7.0-10.5m 11.5-15.5m 7.0-10.5m 11.5-15.5m
m/s te te te te te te % %
0-5 1062.3 1602.9 1000.8 1510.0 61.4 92.9 5.8% 5.8%
5-10 1176.3 1229.1 1046.1 1132.9 130.2 96.2 11.1% 7.8%
over 10 286.3 144.7 233.3 128.9 53.0 15.7 18.5% 10.9%
Total 2524.9 2976.7 2280.3 2771.9 244.6 204.8 9.7% 6.9%
Overall total 5501.6 5052.2 449.4 8.2%
Written by: Approved by:

Andrew Hurford BEng MSc CEng (MRINA) Chris Craddock BEng (Hons), PhD
Signature: Signature:
Designation: Designation:
Senior Consultant Technical Advisory & Ship Performance Manager
Date of approval:
21/10/2019
Lloyd’s Register and variants of it are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Lloyd’s Register EMEA (Reg. no. 29592 R) is an Industrial and Provident
Society registered in England and Wales. Registered office: 71 Fenchurch Street, London, EC3M 4BS, UK. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group.
Lloyd's Register Group Limited, its affiliates and subsidiaries and their respective officers, employees or agents are, individually and collectively, referred to in this clause as 'Lloyd's
Register'. Lloyd's Register assumes no responsibility and shall not be liable to any person for any loss, damage or expense caused by reliance on the information or advice in this
document or howsoever provided, unless that person has signed a contract with the relevant Lloyd's Register entity for the provision of this information or advice and in that case any
responsibility or liability is exclusively on the terms and conditions set out in that contract.

Contents
1. Introduction ...........................................................................................6
2. Data collection and analysis .....................................................................6

2.1. Wind analysis ............................................................................................................. 9
2.2. Comparison of hindcast and anemometer data ................................................... 13
2.3. Data acquisition and vessel underway information.............................................. 17
2.4. Vessel speed profile................................................................................................. 20
2.5. Effect of the ISO19030 filtering process ................................................................. 21
3. CFD modelling of the Maersk Pelican ...................................................... 23
4. Correction for environmental conditions ................................................ 23
5. Correction for percentage speed loss ...................................................... 24
6. Analysis by vessel load condition............................................................ 26

6.1. Derivation of vessel load condition ........................................................................ 26
6.2. Analysis by wind speed ........................................................................................... 27
6.3. Speed vs. Power analysis by wind speed and wind angle .................................... 35
7. Norsepower estimated values ................................................................ 35

7.1. Rotor force and force direction estimation presentation ..................................... 35
7.2. Rotor propulsion power estimation ....................................................................... 37
8. Polar plot presentation of total rotor propulsion power ........................... 40
9. Total fuel saved .................................................................................... 44
10. Fuel saved by route ............................................................................... 46
11. Conclusions .......................................................................................... 48
12. References ........................................................................................... 49
13. Figures ................................................................................................. 50
14. Tables ................................................................................................ 113
Appendix A LR System interfaces with vessel systems & FRS

Appendix B Hindcast data
Appendix C CFD Modelling

1. Introduction
The following provides the final report of the Maersk Pelican performance for the data parameters
that are available at the time of writing.
The Maersk Pelican is currently operating with the Flettner Rotor System (FRS) fitted. Data from 13
March 2018 up to 01 September 2019 is reviewed. The vessel operated in Europe, the Middle East,
Africa and Asia. Data from the period includes a reference condition for the vessel and with the FRS
active.
2. Data collection and analysis

As described in reference [1] and [2], the Maersk Pelican is fitted with a LR performance monitoring
system. This system is used to gather and record information from multiple vessel’s sensors. The
acquired data from this system is used to determine the vessel’s performance.
The Maersk Pelican initially traded without the FRS. Data logging was paused at the end of
27 August 2018 as the FRS was installed (see Figure 1 for position and rotor numbering
nomenclature). Data logging was initiated again at the beginning of 31 August 2018 with the FRS. It
is therefore possible to assess the vessel with the FRS against the reference condition.
The parameters to be recorded from the vessel during the trial, and those currently active, are
described in Appendix A. In addition, hindcast data, described in Appendix B, has been procured
for the previous locations of the vessel. Norsepower (NP) have provided estimations, from modelling
tools, of each rotor force and each rotor force direction as well as the power saved. At the time of
writing, hindcast data has been received for the period 13 March 2018 to 01 September 2019.
The data recorded was from the regions of Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia, Figure 2, Figure
3 and Figure 4.
Rotor 2 Rotor 1
Figure 1 - Position and nomenclature of rotors

05 May 2018 &
31 Aug 2018 - 09 Sept 2018
17 Nov 2018
02 Apr 2018
09 Jul 2018
02 Aug 2018
14 Oct 2018
29 Oct 2018
17 Mar 2018
Figure 2 - GPS track for the Maersk Pelican from 13 March 2018 to 19 November 2018
22 Nov 2018
29 Nov 2018
14 Jan 2019
7 Jan 2019 &
26 Apr 2019 3 Feb 2019
2 Apr 2019 &

14 Mar 2019 12 May 2019
19 Dec 2018
Figure 3 - GPS track for the Maersk Pelican from 19 November 2018 up to 13 May 2019

22 May 2019
& 11 Aug 2019 to 01 Sep 2019
21 Jun 2019 to 8 Jul 2019

25 May 2019
& 31 Jul 2019
13 May 2019
& 3 Jun 2019
Figure 4 - GPS track for the Maersk Pelican from 13 May 2019 up to 01 September 2019
Figure 5 illustrates the sign conventions for ISO19030-2:2016. These sign conventions are used in
this report.
Figure 5 - ISO19030-2:2016 Sign conventions
Where:
𝜓𝑤𝑡 is the true wind direction (°)
𝜓𝑤𝑟 is the relative wind direction (°)
Vwt is the true wind velocity (m/s)

Vwr is the relative wind velocity (m/s)
Vg is the vessel speed over ground (m/s)
2.1. Wind analysis
The true wind distribution from hindcast data (in % of time) during the sailing time of the
measurement period is shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7 (the time spent at port is excluded). The true
wind is the sustained wind speed at 10m above the (sea) surface and associated direction. Wind
direction is defined as “coming from”. “Sustained” means averaged over 1 hour. The true wind
direction is distributed into 24 sectors. The true wind speed is distributed into 25 sectors.
Figure 6 – True wind speed at 10m histogram 13 March 2018 up to 01 September 2019

Figure 7 - True wind direction histogram 13 March 2018 up to 01 September 2019
The true wind is further expressed as an angle relative to the bow in Table 15 and Figure 8. Table
16, Table 17 and Table 18 display the true wind as an angle relative to the bow since the activation
of the Norsepower system 02 September 2018 for hindcast, Norsepower mast 1 and Norsepower
mast 2 respectively.
Figure 9 is a wind rose for the true wind speed and true wind angle relative to the bow. The colours
represent the true wind speed. The radial distribution is the percentage of total data points the true
wind angle and wind speed represent of the complete data set. There is a larger number of
occurrences of wind onto the bow (0°/360°) or onto the stern (180°) than onto the beam (90°/270°).
The average true wind speed Figure 10 is the average wind speed at each wind angle relative to the
bow.

Figure 8 - True wind angle relative to vessel bow
0°
0-1
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
6-7
7-8
8-9
9 - 10
10 - 11
11 - 12
12 - 13
13 - 14
14 - 15
15 - 16
16 - 17
17 - 18
18 - 19
270° 5.0% 2.5% 90°
19 - 20
20 - 21
21 - 22
22 - 23
23 - 24
24 - 25
180°
Figure 9 - True wind angle relative to vessel bow and true wind speed “wind rose”

Figure 10 - True wind angle relative to vessel bow and true wind speed statistics
The relative apparent wind distribution (in % of time) during the sailing time of the measurement
period is shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12 (the time spent at port is excluded). This is the wind
conditions experienced by the vessel which is a function of the vessel and true wind velocity. The
data is from measurements onboard the vessel using Norsepower anemometers activated
02 September 2018 and is recorded up to 01 September 2019. Wind direction is defined relative to
the bow. The relative apparent wind direction is distributed into 24 sectors. The relative apparent
wind speed is distributed into 25 sectors.
Based on the theoretical performance of the FRS, relative apparent wind angles onto the bow are
not favourable for the performance of the FRS. Preferred relative apparent wind angles would be
around the beam (60° to 120° or 300° to 240°). The combination of the true wind direction and
forward motion of the vessel typical results in the relative apparent wind direction moving towards
the bow.
When the ship speed increases for a given true wind speed and direction, the apparent wind speed
will increase and apparent wind angle decreases. Even though the apparent wind angle becomes
less favourable (moves towards the bow) with regards to the FRS performance, the absolute mass of
fuel saved will increase assuming the FRS remains in its functional apparent wind angle range.
However, since the main engine powering requirement for the higher ship speed increases at a
faster rate than the power savings from the FRS, the net result is a relatively reduced percentage
saving in fuel at high vessel speeds.
Changes to the vessel heading and speed could be considered as a result of the subsequent analysis
so the relative apparent wind angle results in increased benefit from the FRS. Increased voyage
distances, duration, the associated fuel use and FRS performance would need to be accounted for if
there is to be a net benefit.

Figure 11 – Relative apparent wind speed histogram 02 September 2018 up to 01 September 2019
Figure 12 – Relative apparent wind direction histogram 02 September 2018 up to 01 September 2019
2.2. Comparison of hindcast and anemometer data
The true wind speed at 10 m above the sea surface measured by the Norsepower anemometers was
calculated using the method in ISO19030:
1
𝑍𝑟𝑒𝑓 7
𝑉𝑤𝑡,𝑟𝑒𝑓 = 𝑉𝑤𝑡 ( 𝑍𝑎
) [1]

Vwt,ref is the true wind velocity at reference height (m/s)
Vwt is the true wind velocity at anemometer height (m/s)
Zref is the reference height above sea level (10m)
Za is the anemometer height above current sea level (34m1 – vessel draught (m))
A comparison has been undertaken between the hindcast data and the Norsepower anemometers
on board the vessel for data from 01 September 2018 to 01 September 2019, Figure 13 and Figure
14. The true wind speed at 10 m above the sea surface measured by the anemometers is typically
slightly higher than the hindcast data; the true wind direction is in relatively good agreement, Table
1.
Mean True wind speed at 10m height Mean True wind direction
Source
(m/s) (°)
NP mast 1 5.80 183.5
NP mast 2 5.83 183.7
Hindcast 5.38 188.5
Table 1 – Comparison of the average hindcast and anemometer data
Figure 13 – True wind speed at 10m height, hindcast and Norsepower distribution comparison
1
The height of the anemometers is approximately 34 meters from vessel baseline.
Figure 14 - True wind direction, hindcast and Norsepower distribution comparison
A comparison between hindcast and Norsepower anemometers of true wind speed at 10m height
above sea level is made by ship relative true wind direction, Table 2 and Figure 15. The hindcast
data is not impacted by the presence of the ship but the data from the Norsepower anemometers
could be. However, there is good agreement for winds from both the bow (0o) and the stern (180o).
Any potential shadowing would be most significant from the stern. The similar comparative trends
for bow and stern data suggests little, if any, effect of shadowing for the Norsepower anemometers.
The agreement is reduced for beam winds, where anemometer shadowing from the
accommodation block is not a risk, the data is generally less than 1 m/s different.
The correlation suggests that analysis using filtering by either source of wind data will result in
similar conclusions.

Ship Relative True Wind Direction Ship Relative True Wind Speed at 10m height
Lower Bounday (°) Upper Bounday (°) Wind mid-point (°) NP mast 1 (m/s) NP mast 2 (m/s) Hindcast (m/s)
352.5 7.5 0.0 6.19 6.15 5.95
7.5 22.5 15.0 6.20 6.26 5.82
22.5 37.5 30.0 6.27 6.29 5.63
37.5 52.5 45.0 5.36 5.51 4.72
52.5 67.5 60.0 5.72 5.72 4.94
67.5 82.5 75.0 6.20 6.08 5.17
82.5 97.5 90.0 6.00 5.91 5.14
97.5 112.5 105.0 5.40 5.68 5.37
112.5 127.5 120.0 4.80 5.25 5.21
127.5 142.5 135.0 5.09 5.40 5.02
142.5 157.5 150.0 6.06 5.99 5.74
157.5 172.5 165.0 5.35 5.34 5.06
172.5 187.5 180.0 5.22 5.28 5.43
187.5 202.5 195.0 5.34 5.34 5.42
202.5 217.5 210.0 4.73 4.71 5.01
217.5 232.5 225.0 4.70 4.45 4.65
232.5 247.5 240.0 5.10 4.83 4.32
247.5 262.5 255.0 5.41 5.19 5.02
262.5 277.5 270.0 6.18 5.99 4.54
277.5 292.5 285.0 6.98 6.98 5.91
292.5 307.5 300.0 7.67 7.58 5.88
307.5 322.5 315.0 7.12 7.37 7.37
322.5 337.5 330.0 5.72 5.81 5.79
337.5 352.5 345.0 6.10 6.16 5.34
Table 2 - True wind speed comparison by ship relative true wind direction
Figure 15 - True wind speed comparison by ship relative true wind direction

2.3. Data acquisition and vessel underway information
As previously described in [3], the data is processed according to ISO19030-2:2016 [4]. This standard
defines a method for analysing long term sea trial data. It is applicable to commercial displacement
ship types driven by a conventional fixed pitch propeller. The data from the vessel is referred to by
the following:
1. Retrieved data set;

a. Unfiltered data collected from the vessel.
2. Validated data set;
a. Invalid data excluded from the retrieved data set.
3. Corrected data set.
a. Validated data set refined according to defined parameter threshold values.
The data is compiled into a tabular format and sorted sequentially based on the time stamp of the
on-board LR performance monitoring system. The time stamp of the primary parameter data serves
as a unique identifier (UI). The combination of a UI and a complete set of data from all signals are
referred to as a “data point”. The complete set of retrieved data points is referred to as the
“retrieved data set”. The time history of the retrieved data set is shown in Figure 45 to Figure 64.
Clockwise FRS rotation is shown as positive values and anticlockwise is shown as negative values,
Figure 51. This data is unfiltered and represents each data point, recorded at 0.2 Hz, from 13 March
2018 up to 01 September 2019. The distribution of data points is shown in Figure 16 and totals
9,167,000 rows of data.
From approximately 17 June 2019 to 03 July 2019 the vessel torque sensor was unavailable. Data
from this period has been excluded from further FRS power saving analysis. The vessel was
predominately stationary during this period.
The FRS was inoperable from approximately 30 June 2019 up to the end of the reporting period 31
August 2019.
Over 537 days, the vessel sailed above 4 knots, for approximately days as shown in Figure 17.
Four knots was chosen to identify when the vessel was underway or when it was stationary allowing
for the effect of currents and tidal flow which is measured by the vessel speed LOG sensor when the
vessel is moored.

Figure 16 – Number of rows of data acquired from 13 March 2018 up to 01 September 2019
This part of the report has been classified
Figure 17 – 537 Day sailing time distribution

The utilisation of the FRS is assessed in Figure 18 and Figure 19. Since the 01 September 2018 the
ship has been underway, above 4 knots, for 228 days. The Flettner rotors have been active, (either
above 50 RPM or below -50rpm), for 94 days. The analysis excludes when only a single Flettner rotor
is active. The proportion of utilisation was initially lower in September, after the initial installation
and commissioning, than subsequently.
Figure 18 – Total FRS activity, when underway, since 01 September 2018
Figure 19 - FRS activity, when underway, by month since 01 September 2018 up to 01 September 2019
The retrieved data set is then filtered and validated. Outliers and missing values are marked invalid.
To this end in consecutive, non-overlapping blocks spanning 10 minutes, data for every parameter is
filtered according to Chauvenet’s criterion2. If the data for one parameter is identified as an outlier,
2
Chauvenet's criterion finds a probability band, centred on the mean of a normal distribution, which should
reasonably contain all n samples of a data set. Any data points from the n samples that lie outside this
probability band are considered to be outliers and removed from the data set.
the complete data point is marked as invalid. If data for one or more parameters is missing for a
data point, this data point is marked as invalid.
Furthermore, the mean, the standard deviation, the maximum and the minimum value for every
parameter is computed. This blocked data set is used in the validation procedures and all data
points for invalid blocks with data are marked as invalid.
The validation criteria are as follows (Annex J of ISO1930-2:2016 [4]); if the standard error of the
mean of any of the parameters is larger than the below specified thresholds the 10 minute block is
invalid for all parameters:
1. Shaft speed RPM: 3 min−1;

2. LOG Speed through water: 0.5 knots;
3. GPS Speed over ground: 0.5 knots;
4. Rudder angle: 1°.
The data set where all invalid data are excluded is referred to as the “validated data set”. The means
of the consecutive, non-overlapping blocks spanning 10 minutes, for the validated data set are
shown in Figure 65 to Figure 84.
2.4. Vessel speed profile
From the validated data set, the overall speed profile above 4 knots is shown in Figure 20. The
vessel predominately sails between 12.0 knots to 13.0 knots.
Figure 20 - LOG Speed histogram above 4 knots (validated data set)
From the retrieved data set, the overall speed profile above 4 knots is shown in Figure 21. The
vessel predominately sails between 12.0 knots to 13.0 knots. The retrieved data includes outliers
and is sampled at 0.2 Hz whereas the validated data set is filtered according to Chauvenet’s criterion
and the data is averaged as consecutive non-overlapping 10 minute blocks.
The predominant sailing speeds are the same between Figure 20 and Figure 21.

Figure 21 - LOG Speed histogram above 4 knots (retrieved data set)
2.5. Effect of the ISO19030 filtering process
At the time of writing, Figure 22 to Figure 24 displays the trial data collected at all vessel loading
conditions in single charts. The display intensity of a single point has been reduced to demonstrate
clusters of data. The higher intensities reflect the peaks in the LOG speed histogram, Figure 20.
Figure 22 shows LOG speed vs. shaft power data. The retrieved data set3 and the 10 minute means
from the validated data set4 are shown. The effect of the validation, filtering and averaging process
can be seen as the retrieved data is reduced by filtering and averaging to the validated data.
From the validated data, Figure 23 is produced; this shows the resultant LOG speed vs. shaft power
curve with a line of best fit.
Further analysis of the validated data set is provided in Figure 24 for LOG speed vs. total fuel flow.
The total fuel flow is recorded by a single flow meter; the value includes the usage by the main
engine and up to three auxiliary engines. The auxiliary engine consumption is typically relatively
steady at all vessel speeds and is approximately kg/hr on average. This value can be seen at
0 kts ship speed. The vessel stated an SFOC of g/kWh at the typical auxilary engine loading. The
FRS requires approximately 12 kg/hr for both rotors to be on (2 x 30 kW). This is approximately 8% of
the auxilary engine consumption.
3
All unfiltered, raw data, collected from the vessel. Nomenclature as defined by ISO19030 [4].
4
ISO19030 filtered and processed data. Nomenclature as defined by ISO19030 [4].
Figure 22 - Retrieved trial data (red), validated 10 minute means (blue), LOG speed vs. calculated shaft
power, 13 March 2018 up to 01 September 2019
Figure 23 – Validated (ISO19030 filtered and processed data), 10 minute means, LOG speed vs.
calculated shaft power
Figure 24 - Validated, 10 minute means, LOG speed vs. total fuel use (includes auxiliary FOC), 13 March
2018 up to 01 September 2019
3. CFD modelling of the Maersk Pelican

ISO1930-2:2016 [4] requires speed-power data to be available for the Maersk Pelican. This may
originate from CFD. The speed-power data covers the operational speed-power range and
operational loading conditions (draught, trim) of the Maersk Pelican derived from the data in
section 2.
For the correction of wind resistance, as detailed in ISO1930-2:2016 [4], wind resistance coefficients
shall be used. Vessel geometry with and without the FRS has been used to model the FRS drag when
the rotors are installed. These are calculated from CFD for the Maersk Pelican and applied in section
4.
The CFD speed-power data is used to compare the speed during the trial in a measured
displacement against a comparative speed at a reference condition. This is to help assess any speed
loss due to aspects such as fouling and is applied in section 5.
Appendix C contains all details of the CFD aerodynamic and hydrodynamic modelling carried out for
this project.
4. Correction for environmental conditions

Delivered power, PD, is approximated based on calculations of shaft power, Ps, according to
ISO1930-2:2016 [4]. Delivered power entries are corrected for wind resistance by subtracting the
wind resistance correction, ∆𝑃𝑊 , according to:
𝑃𝐷,𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟 = 𝑃𝐷 − ∆𝑃𝑊 [2]
The CFD aerodynamic modelling of the Maersk Pelican is used as the basis for the correction, the
modelling is described in section 3. The CFD model has calculated the wind resistance of the vessel,

using the vessel geometry with and without the FRS, at a range of wind angles. The wind resistance
correction was therefore computed following:
(𝑅𝑟𝑤 − 𝑅0𝑤 ). 𝑉
∆𝑃𝑊 = [3]
𝜂𝐷0
Where:
∆𝑃𝑊 is the wind correction (W).
𝑅𝑟𝑤 is the wind resistance due to relative wind (N).
𝑅0𝑤 is the air resistance in no-wind condition (N).
V is the ship speed (m/s).
𝜂𝐷0 is the propulsive efficiency coefficient in calm condition (assumed to be 0.7).
Figure 25 shows the wind corrected data set. Validated data is corrected for the period hindcast
data is currently available. At the time of writing, this is from the start of the trial period, 13 March
2018 to 01 September 2019. The wind corrected validated data is referred to as the, “corrected data
set”. The data presented in Section 5 is calculated for the reference condition and when the FRS is
switched off.
Figure 25 – Validated and wind corrected shaft power
5. Correction for percentage speed loss

A correction for percentage speed loss, due to fouling or potentially loss in mechanical efficiencies,
has been calculated and applied. ISO19030-2:2016 [4] requires that the percentage speed loss, Vd, is
calculated as the relative difference in percent between the measured vessel speed through water,
Vm, and an expected speed through water, Ve, for every data point.

𝑉𝑚 − 𝑉𝑒
𝑉𝑑 = 100 . [4]
𝑉𝑒
The expected speed through water is read from the speed-power reference curve at the corrected
delivered power and at the measured draught and trim using the CFD data, Appendix C. There are
separate reference curves for the vessel without the rotors fitted and with the rotors fitted but off.
Both curves were derived from CFD simulations. The vessel loading condition is taken from the
static draught and trim.
The variation of the percentage speed loss is shown in Figure 26. The data has been filtered as
follows:
• True wind speed between 0 m/s and 3.3 m/s (Beaufort 2) to minimise the propulsion
contribution from the FRS. The shaft power in these wind conditions is corrected by the
method in section 4.
• FRS turned off.
• Speed through the water greater than 4 knots to determine the percentage speed loss when
the vessel is underway.
Figure 26 - Variation in percentage speed loss with time
It has been assumed that the percentage speed loss, Vd, should be 0% when the vessel left dry dock
in January 2018. The corrected speed through water, Vm corrected, is calculated as follows:
Acquisition start time = End of dry docking date (15 January 2018)
Time since acquisition start time = Time – Acquisition start time
% Speed loss = Time since start . % speed loss per day (0.007)

% 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠
𝑉𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 𝑉𝑚 + 𝑉𝑚 . [5]
100
The following points are taken from the data set for illustration, Table 3:
UTC Speed loss Vm Vm corrected

dd/mm/yyyy
% kts kts
hh:mm:ss
16/03/2018
0.4 9.33 9.37
09:10:00
05/02/2019
2.5 10.03 10.30
01:50:01
11/05/2019
2.9 12.64 13.06
03:10:03
26/08/2019
4.1 9.19 9.57
11:50:01
Table 3 - % Speed loss
6. Analysis by vessel load condition

The corrected data was filtered into a reference condition from 13 March 2018 to 01 September
2018. Data recorded after 01 September 2018 up to 01 September 2019 was then available to
observe the FRS performance.
The net effect of the FRS is assessed by considering comparisons of shaft power including the
additional power needed for the FRS5. As the data is grouped into similar environmental conditions
the corrected shaft power described in section 4 is not used. Rather direct comparisons of like
conditions are relied upon. Any potential unknowns associated with correction techniques
described in section 4 do not impact the investigation into the FRS by this method.
The corrected speed through the water, section 5, has been used.
6.1. Derivation of vessel load condition
The range of load conditions since the FRS installation 01 September 2018 were determined, Figure
27. Associated reference periods were then found to make a comparison. The reference period
range of loading conditions are of limited duration and therefore data. To maximise the number of
data points in each range, and to allow a vessel loading condition to be further filtered by both true
wind speed and true wind direction, the load condition was filtered as 7.0-10.5 m mean stationary
draught and 11.5 – 15.5 m mean stationary draught.
A draught range is given for filtering purposes although most of the data is within 1m mean draught
with and without the FRS. This draught range equates to a variation at 12.5 knots of 167kW in the
lighter draught (3% of 5,702 kW shaft power at 12.5 knots) or 335kW in the deeper draught range
(5% of 6,893kW shaft power at 12.5 knots).
The vessel sails at similar trim within each range of stationary draught. The trim is approximately
2.5m by the stern for 7.0-10.5m and 0.5m by the stern for 11.5 – 15.5m mean stationary draught.
5
The FRS typically consumes 30kW per rotor to turn at 114RPM.
FRS Installation
Figure 27 - Draught data
6.2. Analysis by wind speed
Predictions of power for a range of vessel LOG speeds are made by using the coefficients derived
from the curve fits to the data. As the data set from the trial increases, the coefficients will change at
each quarterly report as the speed/power curves are further defined. The difference between the
reference and FRS speed/power curves will therefore change effecting the prediction of FRS
propulsion power. For each ‘case’ of filtering the following applies:
• “Case”, is the filtered data being considered, such as when the trial data is filtered for only
7.0-10.5m draught and 0-5m/s true wind speed.
• The “Reference Predicted Power”, derived from a curve fit, is the reference data collected
before the FRS was installed and filtered for the compared case e.g. for only 7.0-10.5m
draught and 0-5m/s true wind speed.
• The, “Case Predicted (Power + NP Power)”, derived from a curve fit, is the data collected
after the FRS was installed.
• The “NP Equivalent”, is the case predictions subtracted from the reference to determine the
saving.
• “Case/Reference”, is the percentage difference between the case before the FRS installed
and after the FRS is installed.
The reference period, filtered by true wind speed, was compared to data with the FRS filtered by true
wind speed measured onboard by the Norsepower anemometers (all wind directions included) for 7.0-
10.5m draught, Figure 28 to Figure 30, and 11.5-15.5m draught, Figure 31 to Figure 33. The data
recorded typically shows that on average overall there are savings when the FRS is active.
Table 4 to Table 6 are examples of deriving average values from the best fit line coefficients in Figure
28 to Figure 30. The reliability of the results is a function of the amount of trial data collected with the
FRS.

For the data collected in Table 4 to Table 6 the equivalent power from the FRS increases with ship
speed. This is a larger proportion of the propulsive reference power at lower ship speeds. When wind
speed is over 10m/s, the predicted difference between the reference period and the case predicted
data (collected with the FRS), when expressed as a percentage, typically reduces with increased ship
speed as propulsive power increases in 7.0-10.5m draught.
For the data collected, an increase in equivalent power of the FRS is found with higher wind speeds,
Table 4 to Table 6, noting that the data presented includes all wind angles.
Less data with the FRS has been collected in a range of vessel speeds in the 11.5-15.5m draught data.
Insufficient data across a range of ship speeds is available for true wind speeds above 10.0m/s in this
loading condition to derive trends, Figure 33.
Table 7 and Table 8 are derived from the best fit line coefficients in Figure 31 and Figure 32. Some
increasing benefit is shown for increases in wind speed for this case.
Table 7 and Table 8 show increasing FRS equivalent power with vessel speed. For 5-10m/s wind speed
the difference between the reference period and the case with the FRS increases slightly when
expressed by a percentage difference suggesting a small improvement with vessel speed. This is
contrary to 0-5m/s and the lighter condition and may be because there is proportionally less data in
the deeper condition and therefore the curves in the deeper condition are not as well defined.
Hypothetically there could be an increase in performance of the FRS between ballast and loaded
vessel draught due to an increase in height in the lighter loading conditions. A 5m change in height
may account for a 10% increase in wind speed using the ISO19030 correction formula [1]. Note that
there would also be additional aerodynamic load on the whole vessel which may be detrimental. From
the data collected within the true wind speed boundaries it is not clear if the 5m increase in height,
results in a consistent change in the percentage reduction in powering requirement. There is up to
2.6%, at 14.0 knots ship speed, FRS equivalent power improvement in the lighter condition for the low
wind speed condition (true wind speed 0-5m/s) comparing Table 4 and Table 7.
Similarly there is consistently improved performance of the FRS in the lighter condition for wind
speeds between 5-10m/s. Note that there is less validated data available for the medium wind speed
so a greater uncertainty in the result.
Table 10 expresses the results as a saving and summarises the findings of Table 4 to Table 8. The
variation in predicted savings with true wind speed and vessel speed are shown. The savings are
relatively larger in the lighter load condition where the power from the FRS is a larger component of
the overall propulsive need of the vessel. The reliability of the findings is a function of the amount of
trial data.
Table 11 expresses the results as a saving, in terms of kilowatts, and summarises the findings of Table
4 to Table 8. The variation in predicted savings with true wind speed and vessel speed are shown. The
reliability of the findings is again a function of the amount of trial data.

Figure 28 – Corrected LOG Speed vs (Calculated Shaft Power + NP Rotor Power), 7.0-10.5m mean
stationary draught, Flettner Rotors above/below ±50 RPM rotational speed 0-5m/s true wind speed
stationary draught, Flettner Rotors above/below ±50 RPM rotational speed, 5-10m/s true wind speed

stationary draught, Flettner Rotors above/below ±50 RPM rotational speed, greater 10m/s true wind
speed
Case Predicted
Reference NP Equivalent Case /
LOG (Power + NP
Predicted Power Power Reference
Speed Power)
0-5m/s 0-5m/s 0-5m/s
0-5m/s
kts kW kW kW %
8.0 1283 1156 126 90.2%
9.0 1858 1676 182 90.2%
10.0 2588 2336 252 90.3%
11.0 3493 3154 338 90.3%
12.0 4592 4150 443 90.4%
13.0 5907 5340 567 90.4%
14.0 7458 6745 713 90.4%
Table 4 - Predicted (Calculated Shaft Power + NP Rotor Power), 7.0-10.5m mean stationary draught,
true wind speed 0-5m/s, Flettner Rotors above/below ±50 RPM rotational speed

Case Predicted
LOG (Power + NP
Speed Power)
5-10m/s 5-10m/s 5-10m/s
5-10m/s
kts kW kW kW %
8.0 1732 1324 408 76.4%
9.0 2423 1860 563 76.8%
10.0 3273 2521 751 77.0%
11.0 4295 3320 975 77.3%
12.0 5504 4268 1236 77.5%
13.0 6915 5377 1538 77.8%
14.0 8542 6660 1883 78.0%
Case Predicted
LOG (Power + NP
Speed Power)
Over 10m/s Over 10m/s Over 10m/s
Over 10m/s
kts kW kW kW %
8.0 3061 1616 1445 52.8%
9.0 3959 2239 1720 56.6%
10.0 4983 2998 1985 60.2%
11.0 6135 3903 2232 63.6%
12.0 7418 4967 2452 67.0%
13.0 8835 6199 2636 70.2%
14.0 10386 7611 2775 73.3%
true wind speed over 10m/s, Flettner Rotors above/below ±50 RPM rotational speed


Case Predicted
LOG (Power + NP
Speed Power)
0-5m/s 0-5m/s 0-5m/s
0-5m/s
kts kW kW kW %
8.0 1855 1662 194 89.6%
9.0 2544 2296 248 90.3%
10.0 3374 3067 307 90.9%
11.0 4356 3984 371 91.5%
12.0 5499 5060 439 92.0%
13.0 6815 6304 511 92.5%
14.0 8311 7727 585 93.0%

Case Predicted
LOG (Power + NP
Speed Power)
5-10m/s 5-10m/s 5-10m/s
5-10m/s
kts kW kW kW %
8.0 1848 1924 -76 104.1%
9.0 2568 2572 -4 100.2%
10.0 3447 3334 112 96.7%
11.0 4498 4217 281 93.8%
12.0 5737 5227 510 91.1%
13.0 7174 6367 808 88.7%
14.0 8825 7643 1182 86.6%
Case Predicted
LOG (Power + NP
Speed Power)
Over 10m/s Over 10m/s Over 10m/s
Over 10m/s
kts kW kW kW %
8.0 3877 - - -
9.0 4563 - - -
10.0 5280 - - -
11.0 6024 - - -
12.0 6795 - - -
13.0 7591 - - -
14.0 8411 - - -
true wind speed over 10m/s, Flettner Rotors above/below ±50 RPM rotational speed
LOG Draught 7.0-10.5m Draught 11.5-15.5m

Speed True Wind Speed (m/s) True Wind Speed (m/s)
(knots) 0 to 5 5 to 10 >10 0 to 5 5 to 10 >10
8 10% 24% 47% 10% -4%
9 10% 23% 43% 10% 0%
10 10% 23% 40% 9% 3%
11 10% 23% 36% 9% 6%
12 10% 22% 33% 8% 9%
13 10% 22% 30% 7% 11%
14 10% 22% 27% 7% 13%
15 10% 22% 24% 7% 15%
Table 10 - Summary of predicted savings

LOG Draught 7.0-10.5m Draught 11.5-15.5m
Speed True Wind Speed (m/s) True Wind Speed (m/s)
(knots) 0 to 5 5 to 10 >10 0 to 5 5 to 10 >10
8 126 408 1445 194 -76
9 182 563 1720 248 -4
10 252 751 1985 307 112
11 338 975 2232 371 281
12 443 1236 2452 439 510
13 567 1538 2636 511 808
14 713 1883 2775 585 1182
15 882 2272 2860 661 1642
Table 11 - Summary of predicted savings (kilowatts)
6.3. Speed vs. Power analysis by wind speed and wind angle
The trial data was filtered by true wind speed, ship relative true wind angle and vessel loading
condition. The wind angle and wind speed filter was applied to both the reference line data and the
trial data with the FRS. The 7.0-10.5m mean stationary draught data is shown in Figure 85 to Figure
96. Figure 97 to Figure 108 provide similarly filtered data for the 11.5-15.5m mean stationary
draught data. The best fit line coefficients, Table 19, are presented to allow similar calculations as
provided in Table 4 to Table 8.
Care should be taken when using the best fit line coefficients as the definition of some curves is
currently poor due to the amount of trial data available. The quality of the fit can be assessed from
the associated figure.
The FRS rotational speed does not typically exceed ±50RPM when the true wind angle is 345° to15°
(wind onto the bow). The system is considered switched off. This is reflected in the data in Figure 85
and Figure 97.
Generally, savings from the FRS are predicted as the true wind angle relative to the ship’s bow
increases.
Only limited data is available across a range of ship speeds, load condition, wind speed and wind
angles to fully define all speed vs. power lines in the reference and trial conditions. This limits the
current conclusions from this technique for such discretisation.
7. Norsepower estimated values

7.1. Rotor force and force direction estimation presentation
Norsepower provided estimates of the force and force direction for each rotor from 10 September
2018 to 29 August 2019. Separate data files were combined and erroneous data was dealt with in the
raw data. The data was filtered for outliers using Chauvenet’s criterion, Figure 109 and Figure 110.
The sampling rate was 0.2 Hz and 10 minute means were found from the filtered data. The data was
then appended to the trial data.
The predominate force and force direction was found for when the vessel was underway above
4 knots LOG speed. The resultant estimations and variation is presented in Figure 34 and Figure 35.
Similar estimations are shown for each rotor. The force is predominately between 0-200kN. 61% of
the estimations are between 0-50kN. The average force for rotor 1 was 50 kN and rotor 2 was also
51 kN. The predominate predicted force direction is 75° to90° and 270° to 285°.

Figure 34 – Norsepower estimated rotor force distribution
Figure 35 – Norsepower estimated rotor force direction distribution

7.2. Rotor propulsion power estimation
Norsepower provided estimates of the calculated main engine-equivalent power saving caused by
the rotor sail forward thrust, in kW, for each rotor from 10 September 2018 to 28 August 2019.
Separate data files are combined and erroneous data was dealt with in the raw data. The data was
filtered for outliers using Chauvenet’s criterion, Figure 111 and Figure 112. The data was collected
at 0.2 Hz and 10 minute means were found. The data was then appended to the trial data.
The trial data power for each ten minute average point was processed to determine the equivalent
power saving. Comparisons can then be made for each point in time between the estimations and
trial data.
To determine the trial data power saved the following process was applied:
1. Data was filtered for the following:
a. Stationary mean draught between 7.0-10.5 m and 11.5-15.5m.
b. Speed through the water > 4 knots.
i. Corrected log speed was used, section 5.
c. FRS > ±50 RPM.
2. The measured FRS power was added to the shaft power to determine the overall benefit of
the system.
3. The baseline speed power curve coefficients, Figure 28 to Figure 33, were used to
determine a reference line for the trial data in discrete wind speed boundaries.
4. The trial data total power saving, for two rotors, was determined from the difference
between the reference line and the measured combined FRS power and shaft power.
a. If the FRS results in a power saving the measured data will be less than the reference
line.
5. The trial data total power saving was divided by two to allow a comparison for each rotor.
Figure 36 and Figure 37 show the estimates compared to the trial data for rotor 1, Figure 38 and
Figure 39 show the estimates for rotor 2. When considering a specific 10 minute point of data, it is
likely that the negative power savings of 500 kW and more is unreliable scatter in results from the
algorithm used by Norsepower rather than a rotor drag of that magnitude. Most of the data and
therefore the average result is in line with overall results from the measurements of shaft power.
Drawing conclusions from the average of all the data is considered more reliable.
The estimates give more observations closer to low rotor power than the measured data and there
is less spread. For rotor 1, it is estimated that 61% of the data is between 0-300kW. The trial data
suggests that 31% of the data is between 0-300kW. There are typically more readings from the trial
data giving 600kW or more rotor power than compared to the estimates. The average predicted
power for rotor 1 is 264 kW and the average trial data for rotor 1 is 337 kW. Similar trends are shown
for rotor 2. The average predicted power for rotor 2 is 230 kW and the average trial data for rotor 2 is
338 kW.
Generally, the trial data and estimated data is relatively similar between 200-800kW with differences
typically less than 3%.

Figure 36 – Norsepower estimated equivalent power rotor 1
Figure 37 – Norsepower estimated equivalent power rotor 1 distribution

Figure 38 – Norsepower estimated equivalent power rotor 2
Figure 39 – Norsepower estimated equivalent power rotor 2 distribution

8. Polar plot presentation of total rotor propulsion power
Norsepower provided estimates of the rotor propulsion power (kW) for the Maersk Pelican with two
30 x 5 m rotors as a function of true wind speed (m/s), true wind angle relative to the bow, speed
through the water of 12.5 knots, and using an efficiency of 0.7, Table 20. This data has been
interpolated with a 6th order quadratic to match the discretisation of the trial data and reference
lines (true wind speed of 0-5, 5-10, >10 m/s and mean stationary draught 7.0-10.5m and 11.5-15.5m),
Table 21.
The trial data was filtered to provide comparable data points, comparisons can then be made. The
following process was applied:
1. Data was filtered for the following:
a. Stationary mean draught between 7.0-10.5 m and 11.5-15.5m.
b. Speed through the water > 11.5 knots and < 13.5 knots.
i. Corrected log speed was used, section 5.
c. FRS > ±50 RPM.
d. True wind speeds were discretised into 2.5m/s bins between 0-25m/s and 30° angles
between 0-360° (relative to the ship bow). This provided 120 wind bins.
2. The measured FRS power was added to the shaft power to determine the overall benefit of
the system.
3. The baseline speed power curve coefficients, Figure 28 to Figure 33, were used to
determine a reference line for the trial data in discrete wind speed boundaries.
4. The average trial data total power saving, for two rotors, was determined from the
difference between the reference line and the measured combined FRS power and corrected
shaft power.
a. If the FRS results in a power saving the measured data will be less than the reference
line.
Most of the trial data is collected between 11.5 – 13.5 knots ship speed and therefore 12.5 knots
speed was chosen to investigate the polar diagrams. From the 94 days of trial data with the FRS
active, some bins of the discretisation, are relatively poorly populated. The bins are created as
follows: 2 loading conditions x 10 wind speeds x 12 wind angles = 240 bins at 11.5-13.5knots.
The resultant measurements and comparisons are shown in Figure 40, Figure 41 and Table 22. The
percentage difference between the trial data and estimated data is shown in Table 23. The trial data
and estimations are on average within 203 kW overall. Approximately 40% of the valid bins are
within 400kW between the trial data and estimations.
Increasing propulsion power from the rotors is typically found from the trial data from between true
wind angles of 105°-165° and 255°-195°. This matches the estimated data. There is some reduction in
benefit from the FRS predicted between 15°-45° and 315°-345° as wind speed increases. The
estimations predict a similar trend at relatively smaller angles to the bow from 345°-15°. There is
also some symmetry in the trial data between 105°-165° compared with 255°-195° as predicted.
Typically, at an average wind speeds of 6.25 m/s the predictions agree best between 60°-120° and
270°-240°. The trial data suggests that the FRS may have an increased benefit with winds from
behind, 165°-195°, than estimated. The comparisons of the FRS to the reference period are both
based on the same accommodation block arrangement therefore differences could be a result of the
FRS. No valid data was found in wind angles between 345°to 15°, this is partly because the FRS
rotational speed is reduced below 50 RPM. There is only limited data from the higher wind speeds,
10.0m/s and above, for each wind angle to draw conclusions from. The closest agreement, 0%
difference, comes from 240° / 11.25m/s.
The largest deviation, expressed as a percentage difference, between estimated results and the trial
data is for the 0.0-2.5m/s case. The trial data suggests a relatively larger benefit from the FRS while
the estimations predicts a negative effect. The absolute value of the propulsion power from the trial
is relatively small over these wind speeds.
The number of data points used to determine the Norsepower estimated vs. trial equivalent
propulsion power saving polar diagrams, Figure 41, was investigated. Table 12 displays the number
of 10 minute data points which were used for each resultant point of the propulsion power saving
polar diagrams. The number of data points is displayed in Figure 42. Most of the data points are
between 2.5 m/s to 7.5 m/s true wind speed.
The potential increased benefit from the FRS with winds from behind, 165° to 195°, is shown to not
be the least populated bins. Suggesting the findings are relatively repeatable. The comparison of
wind data in section 2.2 showed that the anemometers are consistent with hindcast data for these
wind angles.
This trial data could be useful for further analysis of the Norsepower theory used to derive
performance predications. An understanding of the differences between predictions and
measurements could be developed; particularly for winds from the stern.
The net performance of the FRS observed by measurement of the propeller shaft power, could be
confirmed by strain gauge measurement of force on each Flettner rotor. If each Flettner rotor were
instrumented, then a method would be available of verifying the results from the shaft power
measurements and determining if the polar plots between rotors differ. This could be used to
investigate further the impact of any potential shadowing. As noted in section 7.1 such
measurements are not available for the Maersk Pelican.

Figure 40 – Trial data propulsion saving polar diagrams, angle relative to the bow (kW)

Figure 41 – Norsepower estimated vs. trial equivalent total propulsion power saving polar diagrams,
angle relative to the bow (kW)

Table 12 – Number of 10 minute data points
Figure 42 - Summary of 10-minute data points by wind angle relative to the bow
9. Total fuel saved

The aggregated fuel saving for the subject vessel over the specific operating profile, trade routes
and weather experienced during the trial has been calculated. The total fuel saved (tonnes) since
the installation of the FRS was determined from the shaft power savings and the power needed for
the FRS for each measured data point.
The difference between the fuel use calculated using the SFOC curve of the main engine for the
recorded shaft power (plus the FRS system power) and the vessel baseline was found for each data
point. These values were then integrated to provide the total fuel saved for the conditions the
Maersk Pelican has experienced. This is for the entire period including when the FRS is providing
thrust and when it is not. The small number of removed data points from the trial record due to the
ISO19030 filtering, section 2, was determined and the result scaled to obtain the total fuel saved for
the vessel underway.
The fuel saving was calculated using the following equation:

𝐸𝐹𝑅𝑆 .𝑆𝐹𝑂𝐶𝑀𝐸 .𝑇𝑠
= 𝑀𝑅 [6]
1.106

𝐸𝐹𝑅𝑆 , Energy saved by the FRS, kWh
𝑆𝐹𝑂𝐶𝑀𝐸 , Specific fuel oil consumption, g/kWh, Figure 43
𝑇𝑠 , ship operating time, hrs
𝑀𝑅 , Mass of fuel saved, te
Where:
𝐸𝐹𝑅𝑆 = (𝑃𝑀𝐸 − 𝑃𝐹𝑅𝑆 ). 𝑇𝐹𝑅𝑆 [7]
𝑃𝑀𝐸 , Power supplied by the main engine at baseline thrust, kW (without FRS)
𝑃𝐹𝑅𝑆 , Power supplied by the main engine to maintain desired thrust, kW (with FRS)
𝑇𝐹𝑅𝑆 , Operating time for the FRS
Figure 43 – Maersk Pelican M/E SFOC curve
The M/E fuel savings were calculated for when the corrected vessel speed through the water was
greater than 4.0 knots, Figure 44. For the majority of the trial period with the FRS the reference fuel
(“baseline”) use is higher than the actual fuel use showing a saving. There are short periods, such as
17-18 October 2018, 26-27 November 2018 and 25-26 March 2019, where the trial fuel use is higher
than the baseline.
The cumulative results are as follows from 01 September 2018 to 01 September 2019, Table 13.
Increasing savings are predicted with higher wind speeds. Larger percentage savings are predicted
in a lighter vessel loading condition. This could be because the power from the FRS is a larger
proportion of the overall powering needs in the lighter loading condition. The total saving of
449.4 te is equal to 1.97 te/day as the vessel has been underway for 228 days, Figure 18.

Reference baseline Trial Saving Saving
wind speed
7.0-10.5m 11.5-15.5m 7.0-10.5m 11.5-15.5m 7.0-10.5m 11.5-15.5m 7.0-10.5m 11.5-15.5m
m/s te te te te te te % %
0-5 1062.3 1602.9 1000.8 1510.0 61.4 92.9 5.8% 5.8%
5-10 1176.3 1229.1 1046.1 1132.9 130.2 96.2 11.1% 7.8%
over 10 286.3 144.7 233.3 128.9 53.0 15.7 18.5% 10.9%
Total 2524.9 2976.7 2280.3 2771.9 244.6 204.8 9.7% 6.9%
Overall total 5501.6 5052.2 449.4 8.2%
Table 13 – Cumulative trial fuel saving
Figure 44 – Maersk Pelican M/E Fuel use, reference baseline and trial data (actual), 01 September 2018
up to 01 September 2019
10. Fuel saved by route

The aggregated fuel saving for the subject vessel over a specific trade route incorporating the
associated operating profile and wind experienced during the trial has been calculated, Figure 113
to Figure 130. Wind data is from the Norsepower anemometers. The total fuel saved was
determined from the shaft power savings and the power needed for the FRS for each measured data
point by the method described in section 9.The routes chosen are as Table 14.
The true wind speed and ship relative true wind angle vary between routes. There is also variation in
the fuel saving for a route.
For the repeat route of United Arab Emirates to Malaysia / Singapore, route 2 and route 4, the
average wind speed was similar, but the wind direction changed from predominately to port to
predominately starboard. The data shown in Figure 41 does not show clear differences between
port and starboard wind in FRS equivalent propulsion power. Variations in the resultant fuel saving
could be due to variation in vessel speed, rotor utilisation and specific strength of wind at different
directions.

Figure 118, route 2, shows that from approximately 21 January 2019 to 26 January 2019 the
propeller shaft speed was increased from approximately 80 RPM to 90 RPM but the ship speed
remained steady. This coincides with an increase in wind speed. Therefore, the fuel use will be
relatively increased compared to maintaining the same ship speed at lower shaft speed.
Furthermore, the head wind direction from approximately 12:00 23 January 2019 to 12:00 24
January 2019 meant the FRS was turned off. Figure 124, route 4, shows a relatively lower propeller
shaft speed to maintain a similar ship speed for route 4 when compared to route 2. There are also
less periods of head winds. Route 2 has a lower fuel saving than route 4 which may be because of the
combination of higher shaft speed to maintain ship speed and the FRS turned off.
Route 7 removes the trial data with the FRS from 01 September 2018 up to 01 November 2018 to
account for initial commissioning. The resultant fuel savings are predicted to be 8.9%. which is
higher than the 8.2%, predicted in section 9 for the whole acquisition period with the FRS.
As the FRS has been inoperable in July 2019 and August 2019 and therefore no benefit from the
system has been realised. The predicted savings compared to the baseline if the commissioning
period and the inoperable period is removed was investigated and found to be 9.4%.
Average True Wind Fuel

Duration
Route Start (UTC) End (UTC) Start End Velocity at 10m Saving
(days)
(m/s) (%)
Kozmino, Ashburton,
Route 1 24/11/2018 19/12/2018 25 7.24 10.9%
Russia Australia
Fujairah, Tanjung
Route 2 14/01/2019 26/01/2019 12 United Arab Pelepas, 5.47 1.4%
Emirates Malaysia
Fujairah,
Singapore,
Route 3 09/04/2019 24/04/2019 15 United Arab 5.40 7.2%
Singapore
Emirates
Fujairah,
Singapore,
Route 4 01/05/2019 13/05/2019 12 United Arab 5.27 12.2%
Singapore
Emirates
Singapore, Yeosu, South
Route 5 13/05/2019 22/05/2019 9 5.65 12.3%
Singapore Korea
Tokuyamakud Singapore,
Route 6 25/05/2019 03/06/2019 9 6.24 10.8%
amatsu, Japan Singapore
Whole trial without

Route 7 01/11/2018 01/09/2019 304 6.23 8.9%
commissioning
Whole trial without
Route 8 01/11/2018 30/06/2019 241 commissioning and July & 6.31 9.4%
August 2019 inoperable FRS
Table 14 - Fuel savings by vessel route

11. Conclusions6
Data from an in-service period for the Maersk Pelican has been analysed. This information has been
filtered to remove anomalies and validated against the requirements of ISO1930-2:2016 [4].
CFD modelling has been undertaken to determine the speed power relationship of the Maersk
Pelican for a range of draughts and trims over the operational speed-power range.
CFD modelling has been completed to determine the wind resistance coefficients for the correction
of wind resistance.
The trial data is corrected for environmental conditions and speed loss due to fouling or potentially
loss in mechanical efficiencies.
Speed power curves have been produced for the in-service period. From the dataset, the FRS has
shown net shaft power reductions with associated total fuel savings. The range of values derived
from the data collected from the vessel loading condition, wind speed, wind direction and ship
speed is presented in section 6. The data recorded typically shows overall that there are savings
when the FRS is active.
Estimations of the force from the rotors and the force direction have been presented. It is predicted
that 61% of the force per rotor is between 0 to 50kN, the predominate direction is 75° to 90° and 270°
to 285°.
Estimations of the calculated main engine-equivalent power saving caused by the rotor sail forward
thrust have been presented and compared to the trial data. Typically, the estimations give more
observations closer to low rotor power than the measured data although similar values are found.
Several observations can be made from the measured performance data:
• For a given apparent wind speed and vessel speed, the absolute propulsion benefit from the
FRS increases with increasing apparent wind angle relative to the bow.
• There is reasonable symmetry between propulsion benefit from apparent winds from port
and starboard
• The trial data predicts that the FRS may have an increased benefit with winds from behind,
165° to 195°, than estimated. In relation to this finding the number of data points has been
investigated. It is found that the wind from behind case is relatively well populated
suggesting the findings are repeatable.
The aggregated total fuel saved for the subject vessel for the whole operating profile of the Maersk
Pelican, trade routes, weather experienced and when the FRS is operational and off since the 01
September 2018 has been calculated. It has been found that 449.4 te has been saved which is an
8.2% saving. This is for the entire period since 01 September 2018 to 01 September 2019 including
when the FRS is providing thrust and when it is not. As the vessel has been underway for 228 days
this is equal to 1.97 te/day.
6
Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates and their respective officers, employees or
agents are, individually and collectively, referred to in this clause as ‘Lloyd’s Register’. Lloyd’s Register
assumes no responsibility and shall not be liable to any person for any loss, damage or expense caused by
reliance on the information or advice in this document or howsoever provided, unless that person has signed
a contract with the relevant Lloyd’s Register entity for the provision of this information or advice and in that
case any responsibility or liability is exclusively on the terms and conditions set out in that contract.
12. References
[1] Hurford, A. “HDV Marine Flettner Vessel Performance Monitoring, Data Analysis and System
Modelling Project, D1.3 System Equipment – System Report”, Lloyd’s Register, 1706-0009 – D1.3
Report – v2, February 2018.
Modelling Project, D1.5 System Equipment - Interfaces with the Vessel”, Lloyd’s Register, 1706-0009
– D1.5 Report – v2, February 2018.
Modelling Project, D2.1 Vessel Performance – Quarterly Report (Q1)”, Lloyd’s Register, 1706-0009 –
D2.1 Report – v1, April 2018.
[4] “Ships and marine technology – Measurement of changes in hull and propeller performance.
Part 2: Default Method”, BSI, BS ISO 19030-2:2016(E) First edition, November 2015.
D2.3 Report – v2, September 2018.
D2.3 Report – v2, January 2019.
[7] Paakkari, V. Norsepower Oy Ltd, “RE: Maersk Pelican, Strain gauge force data”, e-mail to
Hurford, A. Lloyd’s Register. Available e-mail: ville.paakkari@norespower.com, 09 August 2019.

13. Figures
Figure 45 - Retrieved data set 13 March 2018 to 18 April 2018 (unfiltered data)

Figure 46 - Retrieved data set 13 March 2018 to 18 April 2018 (unfiltered data)

Figure 47 - Retrieved data set 18 April 2018 to 9 July 2018 (unfiltered data)

Figure 48 - Retrieved data set 18 April 2018 to 9 July 2018 (unfiltered data)

Figure 49 - Retrieved data set 10 July 2018 to 19 November 2018 (unfiltered data)




Figure 53 - Retrieved data set 19 November 2018 up to 9 February 2019 (unfiltered data)




Figure 57 - Retrieved data set 9 February 2019 up to 13 May 2019 (unfiltered data)




Figure 61 - Retrieved data set 13 May 2019 up to 01 September 2019 (unfiltered data)




Figure 65 - Validated data set, 10 minute means, 13 March 2018 to 18 April 2018 (filtered data)

Figure 66 - Validated data set, 10 minute means, 13 March 2018 to 18 April 2018 (filtered data)

Figure 67 - Validated data set, 10 minute means, 18 April 2018 to 9 July 2018 (filtered data)

Figure 68 - Validated data set, 10 minute means, 18 April 2018 to 9 July 2018 (filtered data)

Figure 69 - Validated data set, 10 minute means, 10 July 2018 to 19 November 2018 (filtered data)




Figure 73 - Validated data set, 10 minute means, 19 November 2018 up to 9 February 2019 (filtered data)




Figure 77 - Validated data set, 10 minute means, 9 February 2019 up to 13 May 2019 (filtered data)




Figure 81 - Validated data set, 10 minute means, 13 May 2019 up to 01 September 2019 (filtered data)




Figure 85 – Corrected LOG Speed vs (Shaft Power + NP Rotor Power), 7.0-10.5m mean stationary
draught, Flettner Rotors above/below ±50 RPM rotational speed, 345°-15° ship relative true wind angle












Figure 109 – Norsepower estimated rotor force 1 Chauvenet’s filter
Figure 110 – Norsepower estimated rotor force 2 Chauvenet’s filter

Figure 111 – Norsepower estimated propulsion power 1 Chauvenet’s filter
Figure 112 – Norsepower estimated propulsion power 2 Chauvenet’s filter

Figure 113 – Route 1, Russia to Australia, 24/11/2018-19/12/2018
Figure 114 – Route 1, Russia to Australia, 24/11/2018-19/12/2018, Fuel usage

Figure 115 - Route 1 ship, FRS speed and true wind
Figure 116 – Route 2, UAE to Singapore, 14/01/2019-26/01/2019

Figure 117 – Route 2, UAE to Singapore, 14/01/2019-26/01/2019, Fuel usage

Figure 119 – Route 3, Singapore to UAE, 09/04/2019-24/04/2019
Figure 120 – Route 3, Singapore to UAE, 09/04/2019-24/04/2019, Fuel usage

Figure 122 – Route 4, UAE to Singapore, 01/05/2019-13/05/2019

Figure 123 – Route 4, UAE to Singapore, 01/05/2019-13/05/2019, Fuel usage

Figure 125 – Route 5, Singapore to South Korea, 13/05/2019-22/05/2019
Figure 126 – Route 5, Singapore to South Korea, 13/05/2019-22/05/2019, Fuel usage

Figure 128 – Route 6, Japan to Singapore, 22/05/2019-03/06/2019

Figure 129 – Route 6, Japan to Singapore, 22/05/2019-03/06/2019, Fuel usage

14. Tables
Table 15 – Hindcast true wind speed, ship relative true wind angle, 13 March 2018 up to 01 September 2019

Table 16 – Hindcast true wind speed, ship relative true wind angle, 2 September 2018 up to 01 September 2019

Table 17 – NP mast 1 true wind speed at 10m, ship relative true wind angle, 2 September 2018 up to 01 September 2019

Table 18 – NP mast 2 true wind speed at 10m, ship relative true wind angle, 2 September 2018 up to 01 September 2019

Table 19 – Best fit curve coefficients, 13 November 2018 up to 01 September 2019, corrected LOG speed vs. (shaft power + NP rotor power), y = A.xB

Table 20 – Norsepower Maersk Pelican prediction of rotor propulsion power (kW) with 2 x 30 x 5 m rotor sail, true wind speed, true wind angle relative to
ship bow, ship speed through the water 12.5 knots, EFF = 0.7
Table 21 – Norsepower Maersk Pelican prediction of rotor propulsion power (kW) with 2 x 30 x 5 m rotor sail, true wind speed, true wind angle relative to
ship bow, ship speed through the water 12.5 knots, EFF = 0.7, interpolated to match trial data bins

Table 22 – Trial data propulsion saving power (kW) with 2 x 30 x 5 m rotor sail, true wind speed, true wind angle relative to ship bow, ship speed through
the water 12.5 knots
Table 23 – % difference between prediction and trial data propulsion saving power with 2 x 30 x 5 m rotor sail, true wind speed, ship speed through the
water 12.5 knots (Trial data / Estimated data)

Appendix A LR System interfaces with vessel systems & FRS
Channel Units,
LR manually
LR Sensitivities, Signal type Cable Cable Cable Sub
Provider SHIP Data Connect to measured value
CH Max, Min, (from ship) Mark Number pair number
in China / Dubai
Resolution
Main engine shaft 4-20mA = Engine

1 Maersk kNm LR-FR 1 1 4mA
torque 0-1600KNm control room
+/- 10V =
-150 -
Main engine shaft 150RPM /
2 Maersk RPM Bridge LR-FR 8 1 0V
speed (possibly -
120 - 120
RPM)
Fuel meter for

4- 20mA =
the total fuel
3 Maersk kg/hr 0-3,000 Purifier room LR-FR 3 1 4mA
supply line - main
kg/hr
engine
not
4 not used not used not used not used not used not used not used not used
used
$GPRMC,095025.
00,A,2501.0338,
N,05502.8024,E,
5 Maersk Time and date UTC NMEA Chart table LR-FR 5 1 0.0,332.6,210218
,2.0,E,A,S*4D /
09:50:25
21/02/18
Bridge $VDVHW,337.6,T
Speed through
6 Maersk Knots NMEA convertor LR-FR 6 - ,,M,0.06,N,0.11,K
water - ship log
room *6E / 0.06 knots

Channel Units,
LR manually
in China / Dubai
Resolution
$GPRMC,095025.
00,A,2501.0338,
Speed over
N,05502.8024,E,
7 Maersk ground - digital Knots NMEA Chart table LR-FR 5 1
0.0,332.6,210218
GPS
,2.0,E,A,S*4D /
0.0 knots
$GPRMC,095025.
00,A,2501.0338,
Vessel heading N,05502.8024,E,
8 Maersk Degrees NMEA Chart table LR-FR 5 1
(GPS) 0.0,332.6,210218
,2.0,E,A,S*4D /
COG 332.6°
6 $VDVHW,337.6,T
Vessel heading -
8.1 Maersk Degrees NMEA Bridge LR-FR (previous ,,M,0.06,N,0.11,K
(gyro) (previous 2)
5) *6E / 337.6°
$GPRMC,095025.
00,A,2501.0338,
N,05502.8024,E,
Position
0.0,332.6,210218
(Longitude &
9 Maersk Lat/Long NMEA Chart table LR-FR 5 1 ,2.0,E,A,S*4D /
Latitude) - digital
2501.0338
GPS
latitude,
05502.8024
longitude

Channel Units,
LR manually
in China / Dubai
Resolution
Bridge $SDDBT,0021.7,f,
control 0006.6,M,003.6,F
10 Maersk Water depth. Meters NMEA LR-FR 10 -
console after *07 / 6.6m
starboard
Not active – will

be calculated and
confirmed
11 Maersk Yaw rate Degrees NMEA Bridge LR-FR 5 2
against
measurement
number 11.1
$NPRMN,hhmms
s.ss,ddmmyy,Sha
Norsepower ftRPM,InputPow
11 Norsepower Input power limit kW NMEA equipment LR-FR NP 1 erLimit,SOG,HDG
bridge ,LAT,<N/S>,LON,
<E/W>*checksu
m$L$R
11.1 Maersk Yaw rate Degrees +/- 10V Bridge LR-FR 8 3 0V
Foam room,
4-20mA =
12 Maersk Draught (fwd) Meters SF cabinet LR-FR 12 1 4mA
0-25M
no.3

Channel Units,
LR manually
in China / Dubai
Resolution
Foam room,
4-20mA =
13 Maersk Draught (aft) Meters SF cabinet LR-FR 12 2 3mA
0-25M
no.3
7.63V=35deg
14 Maersk Rudder angle Degrees +/- 10V Bridge LR-FR 14 - stbd / -0.609V=4
deg port
For M/E
Main engine Engine
15 Maersk kW 4-20mA = 0- LR-FR 1 2 4mA
output power control room
20,000KW
For each
A/E
auxiliaries output Engine
15.1 Maersk kW -2 - 20mA = LR-FR 15 1 0mA
power (AE1) control room
-100 -
1,000KW
For each
A/E
-100 -
1,000KW
For each
A/E
-100 -
1,000KW

Channel Units,
LR manually
in China / Dubai
Resolution
Spare Maersk Spare Spare Spare Spare LR-FR 2 - Spare
Bridge Intern
Inclinometer A
16 LR Degrees ±5V = ±30° convertor al to - - 0V
(roll)
room LR box
Bridge Intern
Inclinometer B
17 LR Degrees ±5V = ±30° convertor al to - - 0V
(pitch)
room LR box
$NPWEA1,AWA1,
Air -52…+60 °C, Norsepower
NorsePower AWS1,AirTemp1,
18 temperature – deg C resolution equipment LR-FR NP 1
Equipment AirPressure1*che
from met mast 1 0.1°C bridge
cksum$L$R
600…1100h $NPWEA1,AWA1,
Atmospheric Norsepower
NorsePower Pa, AWS1,AirTemp1,
19 pressure – from hPa equipment LR-FR NP 1
Equipment resolution AirPressure1*che
met mast 1 bridge
0.1hPa cksum$L$R
$NPWEA2,AWA2,
Air -52…+60 °C, Norsepower
20 temperature – deg C resolution equipment LR-FR NP 1
from met mast 2 0.1°C bridge
cksum$L$R
600…1100h $NPWEA2,AWA2,
Atmospheric Norsepower
NorsePower Pa, AWS2,AirTemp2,
21 pressure – from hPa equipment LR-FR NP 1
Equipment resolution AirPressure2*che
met mast 2 bridge
0.1hPa cksum$L$R

Channel Units,
LR manually
in China / Dubai
Resolution
0-180rpm,
resolution
$NPROT1,Rotor1
0.1 rpm,
Rotor 1 rotational Norsepower Speed,Rotor1Dir
NorsePower rotation
22 speed of FRS – RPM equipment LR-FR NP 1 ection,Rotor1Po
Equipment direction:
Rotor 1 bridge wer*checksum$L
0=clockwise
$R
, 1= counter
clockwise
$NPROT1,Rotor1
Rotor 1 rotational 0 – 360°, Norsepower Speed,Rotor1Dir
NorsePower
23 direction of FRS– Degrees resolution equipment LR-FR NP 1 ection,Rotor1Po
Equipment
Rotor 1 1° bridge wer*checksum$L
$R
0-180rpm,
resolution
$NPROT2,Rotor2
0.1 rpm,
Rotor 2 rotational Norsepower Speed,Rotor2Dir
NorsePower rotation
24 speed of FRS – RPM equipment LR-FR NP 1 ection,Rotor2Po
Equipment direction:
Rotor 2 bridge wer*checksum$L
0=clockwise
$R
, 1= counter
clockwise
$NPROT2,Rotor2
Rotor 2 rotational 0 – 360°, Norsepower Speed,Rotor2Dir
NorsePower
25 direction of FRS– Degrees resolution equipment LR-FR NP 1 ection,Rotor2Po
Equipment
Rotor 2 1° bridge wer*checksum$L
$R

Channel Units,
LR manually
in China / Dubai
Resolution
$NPROT1,Rotor1
-100kW
Power Norsepower Speed,Rotor1Dir
NorsePower …100kW,
26 consumption of kW equipment LR-FR NP 1 ection,Rotor1Po
Equipment resolution
the FRS – Rotor1 bridge wer*checksum$L
0.1kW
$R
$NPROT2,Rotor2
-100kW
Power Norsepower Speed,Rotor2Dir
NorsePower …100kW,
27 consumption of kW equipment LR-FR NP 1 ection,Rotor2Po
Equipment resolution
the FRS – Rotor2 bridge wer*checksum$L
0.1kW
$R
0-60 m/s,
Calculated True Wind Speed Calculated
28 m/s resolution - - - Calculated
by LR Bow mast 1 by LR
0.1 m/s
$NPWEA1,AWA1,
Apparent Wind 0-60 m/s, Norsepower
29 Speed Bow mast m/s resolution equipment LR-FR NP 1
1 0.1 m/s bridge
cksum$L$R
0 – 360°,
Calculated True Wind Angle Calculated
30 Degrees resolution - - - Calculated
1°
$NPWEA1,AWA1,
1 – 360°, Norsepower
NorsePower Apparent Wind AWS1,AirTemp1,
31 Degrees resolution equipment LR-FR NP 1
Equipment Angle Bow mast 1 AirPressure1*che
1° bridge
cksum$L$R

Channel Units,
LR manually
in China / Dubai
Resolution
0-60 m/s,
Calculated True Wind Speed Calculated
32 m/s resolution - - - Calculated
0.1 m/s
$NPWEA2,AWA2,
Apparent Wind 0-60 m/s, Norsepower
33 Speed Bow mast m/s resolution equipment LR-FR NP 1
2 0.1 m/s bridge
cksum$L$R
0 – 360°,
Calculated True Wind Angle Calculated
34 Degrees resolution - - - Calculated
1°
$NPWEA2,AWA2,
1 – 360°, Norsepower
NorsePower Apparent Wind AWS2,AirTemp2,
35 Degrees resolution equipment LR-FR NP 1
Equipment Angle Bow mast 2 AirPressure2*che
1° bridge
cksum$L$R
$NPRMN,hhmms
s.ss,ddmmyy,Sha
Norsepower
NorsePower Main engine shaft ft1RPM,Shaft2RP
36 RPM NMEA equipment LR-FR NP 1
Equipment speed M,SOG,HDG,LAT,
bridge
<N/S>,LON,<E/W
>*checksum$L$R
$NPRMN,hhmms
s.ss,ddmmyy,Sha
Norsepower
NorsePower ft1RPM,Shaft2RP
37 Time and date UTC NMEA equipment LR-FR NP 1
Equipment M,SOG,HDG,LAT,
bridge
<N/S>,LON,<E/W
>*checksum$L$R

Channel Units,
LR manually
in China / Dubai
Resolution
$NPRMN,hhmms
s.ss,ddmmyy,Sha
Speed over Norsepower
NorsePower ft1RPM,Shaft2RP
38 ground - digital Knots NMEA equipment LR-FR NP 1
Equipment M,SOG,HDG,LAT,
GPS bridge
<N/S>,LON,<E/W
>*checksum$L$R
$NPRMN,hhmms
s.ss,ddmmyy,Sha
Norsepower
NorsePower Vessel heading ft1RPM,Shaft2RP
39 Degrees NMEA equipment LR-FR NP 1
Equipment (GPS) M,SOG,HDG,LAT,
bridge
<N/S>,LON,<E/W
>*checksum$L$R
$NPRMN,hhmms
Position s.ss,ddmmyy,Sha
Norsepower
NorsePower (Longitude & ft1RPM,Shaft2RP
40 Lat/Long NMEA equipment LR-FR NP 1
Equipment Latitude) - digital M,SOG,HDG,LAT,
bridge
GPS <N/S>,LON,<E/W
>*checksum$L$R

Appendix B Hindcast data
LR shall procure data from BMT ARGOSS the following:
1. wave model (WVV3), grid resolution depending on the area of interest, including:
a. wind speed (1-hour sustained at 10m above surface) and direction (CFSR);
b. integrated wave parameters for the total sea state and for wind sea and swell separately:
i. significant wave height (Hs) and direction; zero-crossing wave period (Tz), energy
wave period (Tm), peak wave period (Tp);
ii. peak wave direction (Pd); and
iii. iv. mean directional spread in degrees {spreadd), directional spread at the peak
frequency in degrees (spreadp);
c. sea floor model depth;
2. atmospheric parameters:
a. pressure at mean sea level;
b. air temperature at 2m;
c. relative humidity at 2m; and
d. sea surface temperature;
3. ocean current model (Mercator):
a. ocean surface current speed and direction; and
b. sea water salinity at the surface;
c. tidal model (BMTA Tidal), including tidal surface current speed and direction.
LR shall provide to BMT ARGOSS following the end of each month the GPS track of the Vessel for that month.
BMT ARGOSS will then be able to process and provide the required data.

Appendix C CFD Modelling










Contact person
Andrew Hurford
Consultant
Lloyd’s Register EMEA

Lloyd’s Register Global Technology Centre
Southampton Boldrewood Innovation Campus
Burgess Road, Southampton, SO16 7QF, UK
Registered name Lloyd’s Register EMEA
t: +44(0) 7813 002858

e: andrew.hurford@lr.org
w: lr.org/en/marine/consulting/
Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates and their respective officers, employees or agents are, individually and collectively, referred
to in this clause as ‘Lloyd’s Register’. Lloyd’s Register assumes no responsibility and shall not be liable to any person for any loss, damage or expense
caused by reliance on the information or advice in this document or howsoever provided, unless that person has signed a contract with the relevant
Lloyd’s Register entity for the provision of this information or advice and in that case any responsibility or liability is exclusively on the terms and
conditions set out in that contract.
Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public,
adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
Enquiries should be addressed to Lloyd’s Register, 71 Fenchurch Street, London, EC3M 4BS.
©Lloyd’s Register 2019.

1706-0009 - D2.7 Report - v2 Redacted

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

1706-0009 - D2.7 Report - v2 Redacted

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1706-0009 - D2.7 Report - v2 Redacted

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

D2.

Report for: HDV Marine Flettner Vessel Performance Monitoring, Data

Baseline Reference With Rotor

Assessment Period 13/03/2018 to 27/8/2018 1/9/2018 up to 01/09/2019

No. of days sailing (>4 kn STW) 114 days 228 days

No. of days Flettner Operational* - 94 days

Average True Wind Speed 5.6 m/s 5.4 m/s

Dominant Relative Wind directions

Report no: 1706-0009 - D2.7 Report – v2 Page 2 of 140

Written by: Approved by:

Report no: 1706-0009 - D2.7 Report – v2 Page 3 of 140

2. Data collection and analysis .....................................................................6

3. CFD modelling of the Maersk Pelican ...................................................... 23

4. Correction for environmental conditions ................................................ 23

5. Correction for percentage speed loss ...................................................... 24

6. Analysis by vessel load condition............................................................ 26

7. Norsepower estimated values ................................................................ 35

8. Polar plot presentation of total rotor propulsion power ........................... 40

9. Total fuel saved .................................................................................... 44

10. Fuel saved by route ............................................................................... 46

11. Conclusions .......................................................................................... 48

12. References ........................................................................................... 49

13. Figures ................................................................................................. 50

14. Tables ................................................................................................ 113

Appendix A LR System interfaces with vessel systems & FRS

Report no: 1706-0009 - D2.7 Report – v2 Page 4 of 140

Appendix C CFD Modelling

Report no: 1706-0009 - D2.7 Report – v2 Page 5 of 140

2. Data collection and analysis

Figure 1 - Position and nomenclature of rotors

Report no: 1706-0009 - D2.7 Report – v2 Page 6 of 140

2 Apr 2019 &

Report no: 1706-0009 - D2.7 Report – v2 Page 7 of 140

21 Jun 2019 to 8 Jul 2019

Figure 5 - ISO19030-2:2016 Sign conventions

𝜓𝑤𝑡 is the true wind direction (°)

𝜓𝑤𝑟 is the relative wind direction (°)

Vwt is the true wind velocity (m/s)

Vg is the vessel speed over ground (m/s)

2.1. Wind analysis

Report no: 1706-0009 - D2.7 Report – v2 Page 9 of 140

Report no: 1706-0009 - D2.7 Report – v2 Page 10 of 140

Report no: 1706-0009 - D2.7 Report – v2 Page 11 of 140

Report no: 1706-0009 - D2.7 Report – v2 Page 12 of 140

2.2. Comparison of hindcast and anemometer data

Report no: 1706-0009 - D2.7 Report – v2 Page 13 of 140

Vwt is the true wind velocity at anemometer height (m/s)

Zref is the reference height above sea level (10m)

Table 1 – Comparison of the average hindcast and anemometer data

Report no: 1706-0009 - D2.7 Report – v2 Page 15 of 140

Report no: 1706-0009 - D2.7 Report – v2 Page 16 of 140

1. Retrieved data set;

Report no: 1706-0009 - D2.7 Report – v2 Page 17 of 140

This part of the report has been classified

Figure 17 – 537 Day sailing time distribution

Report no: 1706-0009 - D2.7 Report – v2 Page 18 of 140

Figure 18 – Total FRS activity, when underway, since 01 September 2018

1. Shaft speed RPM: 3 min−1;