Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is a prime example of such a fuel source. ..... empathizing more on the voyage trip itself than the transport aspect. ..... combustion chamber by utilizing injection pumps. ..... of the Dual fuel engine cooling water expansion tank is similar to ventilation of the gas pipe or the ...... Harbor Structures (0.6).
LNG APPLICATION ON CRUISE SHIPS
Group 3 Arntit Ampazai Efthymios Barliakos Allistor Goveia Spyridon Orfanos Manan Patel
: 201666235 : 201684515 : 201690513 : 201684329 : 201778735
Abstract During the last few decades, the need of finding alternative fuel sources was created. There has been a drive by the whole world to convert to more environmentally friendly fuel sources. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is a prime example of such a fuel source. In general, it has many advantages over the standard fuel sources used in the marine industry. Over the years, many investigations have been carried out and multiple reports have been published by respectable organizations for the effects of the application of LNG to a variety of ship types. Unfortunately, the material available for the application of LNG of cruise ships is severely lacking. The overall aim of this Group Project is check the degree off which LNG is applicable and profitable when applied to the Cruise ship industry. With the ever increasing strict pollution regulations, LNG seems like the correct option for the time being. When we compared the price and emissions between HFO and LNG the latter is the clear winner. From inspecting the results from studies carried out, it was observed that dual fuel 4 stroke engines and Aeroderivative gas turbines that were utilizing waste heat recovery systems were very efficient and showed great promise for the future. For the time being, pure gas engines are not a very practical option for cruise ship application. Even though, the most common, IMO approved, option for LNG storage has been the C-type tanks, prismatic tanks have been drawing attention to them, mainly due to their significantly smaller required installation space.
2|Page
Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Energy consumption ............................................................................................................................... 6 Propulsion ............................................................................................................................................. 28 Case study ............................................................................................................................................. 37 Risk Assessment on Cruise Ships ......................................................................................................... 40 Financial assessment ............................................................................................................................. 50 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 58 References ............................................................................................................................................. 59 Appendix ............................................................................................................................................... 62 Stability Calculation...................................................................................................................... 66 Stability Calculation...................................................................................................................... 69 Stability Calculation...................................................................................................................... 73 Stability Calculation...................................................................................................................... 77 Stability Calculation...................................................................................................................... 85 Stability Calculation...................................................................................................................... 89 Stability calculation ...................................................................................................................... 93 Stability Calculation...................................................................................................................... 97 Stability Calculation.................................................................................................................... 102 Event Tree Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 111
3|Page
Introduction The extent of emissions produced by the usage of traditional energy sources are now a global concern. The greenhouse gases produced greatly affect our everyday life. In general, these gases increase the temperature of our planet. As one can imagine, in the long run they are harmful to human wellbeing and the multiple ecosystems. With today's advances in technology, in most cases it is possible to reduce significantly all these emissions. All the air regulations in different zones and how the vessel should operate in these areas give the opportunity to lower all type of emissions, recovering the oxygen in the areas that are crowded, creating a greater atmosphere and reducing Earth’s greenhouse effect. (Table 1 – Appendix) Over the past few decades a lot of research has been carried out and a lot of reports have been published on the potential on the usage and the successful implementation of LNG for marine usage. Studies have been carried out for many different ship types, examples being LNG carriers, containerships and even fishing boats. All the studies came to the same conclusion, LNG is extremely beneficial mostly for environmental reasons. On the economic aspect of this venture, the economic feasibility is not always clear. The results greatly vary. If we want a more accurate view of the situation, every case should be assessed individually. In our project we will present and analyses the feasibility and application of LNG on a cruise ship of our design. The first step is to carry out a feasibility study for the future of LNG in the particular field. Due to the particularity of the cruise industry, a new technology application might not gain that much won’t be that popular. The first thing that comes to mind is the cost that comes with the conversion of such a vessel. Furthermore, with the usage of new technologies more costs appear such as crew training and even infrastructure. Evolution shipping Throughout history sailing has been instrumental in the development of civilization, affording humanity greater mobility than travel over land, whether for trade, transport or warfare, and the capacity for fishing. The earliest representation of a ship under sail appears on a painted disc found in Kuwait dating to the late 5th millennium BC. The first boats were canoes made from wood and driven by simple paddles. Advanced shipbuilding technology came later on and was innovated by the Egyptians. Ships, approximately in 2650 BC, were powered by sails. The next stage came with the introduction of the steam engine to shipping back in 1783. The steam engine helped advance trading over a long distance significantly. Goods could now be transferred faster and more efficient than before. Soon after that shipping underwent another change, the diesel engine replaced the steam engine after the Second World War and helped shipping reach new levels. What can be clearly be seen is that each change throughout history has allowed the shipping
4|Page
industry to grow and become more efficient. With the help of industrialization and the continuous development and innovation of engines, shipping quickly became one of the main transportation methods for humanity. Importance To fully grasp how important shipping transport is in our lives today, we can take a closer look at the large variety of goods we are using on an everyday basis. With world trade we have everything in our disposal. From wearing clothes, using electronics, consuming fuel, everything was imported from places all around the world. Close to 90% of those goods have been transported by ships or were made with parts transported by ships. Due to its lower cost, lower environmental impact and its versatility, transport by ship is favored more than other methods of transport. (ICS-SHIPPING) Cost From an economical point of view, shipping is regarded the most efficient means of transport due to its low maintenance and operation cost. When thinking of the distance that has to be covered and the volume of good that have to be transported, transport by ship is, in most cases, more economically practical than the other options. Shipping by air or transporting by land isn’t as an efficient means of transferring cargo. With shipping having been established centuries ago, a large number of ports and sea routes already exist and still in use today. Environment impact Even though ships have the lowest fuel consumption, when considering amount of cargo carried and the distance travelled to deliver the goods, it’s also the biggest producer of emissions overall in the transport sector. That is mainly due to sheer size of the marine industry. It was estimated in 2015 that the world’s merchant fleet is consisted by more than 50,000 merchant ships trading internationally. Cruise shipping As aforementioned, the majority of the ocean0going vessels are primarily transporting cargo. There is another category that is mainly concerned with carrying passengers, cruise shipping. Cruise shipping started as early as the 1800s. One of the pioneers in the industry was the Black Ball Line company, based of New York. The first trips made were services, mainly, from the United States to England. By the time the 1830s rolled in, steamships were taking over the market. The great benefit of speed made the trips shorter and cheaper at the same time. Cruise shipping companies started to multiply. This development of cruise shipping also helped with mail correspondence. Due to the large bulk of number of cruise vessels to multiple destinations, mail could be corresponded to the other side of the world in a matter of a few days or weeks.
5|Page
In the start of the 20th century major innovations were made in Germany. The concept of the “superliner” was introduced. Cruise ships were now capable of providing luxurious accommodation, compared to the one provided by hotels on shore. With no doubt, after that point, cruise shipping was never the same again. With the major drawback of passenger discomfort out of the way, the cruise shipping market bloomed once gain. As a result, the competition between cruising companies became even more ferocious. The main focus of the companies now lied in passenger comfort and how to take it a step further than their competitors. Fast forward a few decades later, in the 1960s we can witness the beginning of the cruise industry as we now know it. Multiple companies offered a wide range of vacation package trips for everyone interested. Nowadays some of the most popular destinations in the world are: Antarctica, Galapagos, Caribbean and even the Fjords of Norway. This new attraction, attracted many passengers who in the past would have never had the chance to travel to these exotic destinations in their entire life. Cruise ships created a casual, fun environment provident extensive on-board entertainment and great passenger comfort. Cruise ships ended up empathizing more on the voyage trip itself than the transport aspect.
Energy consumption Not all countries have the capability of utilizing their natural resources, either because the infrastructure isn’t there, since they don’t have any or because they don’t have the knowledge/expertise to do it. Therefore all the countries they are importing energy sources from other countries that have the capability of high energy exports and multiple countries are really dependent on importing energy. Energy consumption in Europe When taking a look across the board, we can see that the majority of EU countries imported way more energy than they exported since 2014.
6|Page
Figure 1: Imported energy from EU countries over the year
United Kingdom Today, the UK is consuming way less energy than it did in the 1990s. The majority of the energy consumed is provided from renewable sources. With the rapid decline in the North Sea oil and gas production, UK’s dependence on importing energy has increased.
Figure 2: Consumption of oil
7|Page
Figure 3: Percentage of renewable energies
The energy decrease from 1998 to 2015 is close to 17%. As we can observe, it keeps on decreasing at a rapid pace. There are many ways that this can be interpreted. First, it could be a result from the development of energy efficient technologies that are being used in households all around the country. As we know every company is trying to come up with new products and patents (?!) to reduce the cost. Another reason could be from all the new policies that were created in order to reduce energy consumption and protect the environment. (LINK OF THE LAW EXAMPLE). Last but not least, unfortunately there has been a decline of UK manufacturing. Many industries either relocate abroad, in order to find cheaper wages and manage their cost or they just shut down (shut down? Not nice word) for good. As it can be observed from the second figure, the energy usage provided from renewable sources also keeps increasing. In 2015, the most popular imported types of fuel were mainly crude oil, natural gas and a wide range of petroleum products. (ONS, 2016)
Figure 4: Highest imports of fuel
8|Page
We can get a rough idea on the dependence of each energy source. Crude oil specifically accounts for close to 1 third of the country’s total fuel imports. The UK mainly imports crude oil from Scandinavian countries, specifically Norway. Norway is a major contributor the importing of crude oil not just in the UK but the entirety of Europe. This is because of the very developed pipeline network that runs between Norway and the UK. In 2016, the portion of crude oil imported from Norway has dropped. The UK has found a new importer in the face of OPEC, which is an organization comprised of a number of country members that import mostly natural resources.
Figure 5: Highest imports of crude oil
As mentioned before, most of the gas is provided through the very developed pipeline system beneath the sea bed between the two countries. More than 60% imported from Norway in 2015. When it comes to the natural gas imported from Qatar, it is usually transferred with the help of LNG carriers. Methods of Bunkering Truck-to-ship Among the various methods for in-port bunkering of LNG-fueled ships, Truck-to-Ship (TTS) transfer is currently one of the most popular. With TTS, the LNG truck is connected to the ship on the quayside, with the use of a flexible hose. Due to the lack of proper infrastructure and the really low investment cost, TTS is without a doubt one of the most effective bunkering solutions. Since there is still relative limited demand in the LNG refueling market, due to the low number of LNG powered vessels, it’s a great provisional solution. It is worth to mention that in Norway, more than 50% of the ferries were running on LNG. They were all supplied with the use of tanker trucks. One of the main advantages of truck-to-ship bunkering is the limited investment costs for operators. The trucks can also be used for LNG distribution for other purposes. Unfortunately, the main drawback of LNG bunkering by utilizing TTS is the limited capacity of trucks. The current capacity of such a truck is approximately 40-80 m3.
9|Page
TTS is effective for bunkering quantities less than 50 tonnes. This means that only small or medium sized LNG vessels can be properly bunkered. One other major drawback is the limited transfer flow rate. Bunkering can take up more than hour since it can transfer up to a maximum of 1,000 l/min. The whole ordeal of the bunkering process can sometimes hinder the quayside activities of the vessel, usually it’s not that detrimental. It is worth to mention that for TTS to actually be a viable solution, a road connection from a bunkering station to the port must be present. Safety is our first priority when dealing with LNG so all effective precaution measures must be taken to ensure that. (Nauticor, 2017) Cryogenic tanks LNG has a temperature of -162 C and in order to store this cryogenic liquid without the aid of refrigeration, the storing vessel needs almost no heat transfer from the atmosphere. This is done so that the liquid can be stored for a number of days without any BOG loss. Cryogenic containers work similar to a thermos flask. They are double walled, pressured vessels. In this tanks, to reduce the convective heat loss the annular space is evacuated to a vacuum level close to 10^3 mbar. Usually to reduce the radiative heat loss radiation shield made from aluminum foils are used. The vessels are usually filled with perlite, a form of volcanic glass with great insulation properties. Any potential conduction losses are minimized by using a wide range of special insulated materials. This way the heat transfer from outside ti the inner vessel is minimized. Austenitic Stainless steel of grade 304 is used for tor the construction of the inner pressure vessel. The high Nickel percentage (9% ) really helps with the containment of the LNG. The vacuum jacket is usually made from normal carbon steel. The inner vessel is designed to operate between a pressure of 7 to 12 Bars. The pressure is highly depended on the mode of unloading to a bunkering station or the vessel that wants to get bunkered. (Petrofed, 2015) All cryogenic vessels and tanks are manufactured following international standards. Examples being ISO 20421 which lists all the requirements for the safe construction and conduct of large transportable vacuum-insulated vessels or CGA 341 which covers the specifications for insulated cargo tanks.
10 | P a g e
Figure 6: A typical cryogenic vessel Source:www.petrofed.org
Vessel to vessel bunkering Ship to ship bunkering is currently one of the most common and most widespread methods used for the successful bunkering of vessels. It is normally used for the bunkering of HFO or MGO. They require the bunkering vessel to be moored alongside the ship that needs bunkering. The aforementioned bunkering vessels have a wide range of different fuel capacities. Normally they range between 1,000 to 10,000 m3. Due to their flexibility in size, smaller sized bunkering vessels they can be used in smaller ports where some size limitations are imposed. When we compare it to the other available bunkering methods the advantages of the Ship-to-ship method are clear. They have high flexibility and can provide bunkering options even in the most difficult locations. They are suitable for almost all types of vessels. It is widely perceived that this will become the favorite bunkering method for larger vessels such as containerships and bulk carrier in the future. One other advantage is that in some cases, when they are used for LNG bunkering, simultaneous cargo handling is possible if the whole process is complying with the port regulations and it is approved by the port authorities. Unfortunately, due to the safety implications this is rarely the case. These kind of vessels are really popular in big European ports, such as Rotterdam and Antwerp. Even though it’s a great way of handling the bunkering needs, it comes with some great requirements. Generally, the construction and operation cost of such a vessel is fairly high. The industry has been holding back on investing on these vessels on a high scale mainly due to the cost. Since the vessels have somewhat limited operation capabilities and cannot really be utilized outside of the bunkering procedures, the investors see them as a very volatile investment. LNG bunkering vessels are considered as vessels carrying dangerous cargo, as one might imagine this creates some difficulties in entering ports where Non-Petroleum regulations are imposed. They would have to be authorized in advance and ensure
that
they
comply
with
all
the
port
regulations.
(LNGBUNKERING,
2017)
11 | P a g e
Shore to ship Another bunkering, but not so widespread, method is Shore to ship. The LNG is bunkered from a terminal tank or a station that is located relative close to the vessel. In the scenario that the tank or the station is not located near the vessel, LNG has to be transferred through pipelines from the terminal to the location that LNG is required. Bunkering utilizing a piping system has been utilized on a larger scale in Norway for a number of years. It is one of the most cost effective bunkering methods for smaller sized vessels. Under the LNG Master Plan bunkering terminals mainly targeting island shipping are to be built in Antwerp and other ports in the near future. This particular bunkering method is a great option for ports that are expected to have a higher than normal bunkering demands. Even though, the bunkering rate could be a limited factor, a solution would be to install larger sized hoses that could increase the bunkering rate up to 3,000 l/minute. As one can imagine, since the bunkering times will be decreased, the port would be able to accommodate a larger number of vessels in need of bunkering. Unfortunately, for the time being, this method won’t be that successful for larger sized LNG vessels. It won’t be easy for these vessels to reach the location of a bunkering terminal, especially when they are in numbers. Port berth could be a significant limiting factor. (ABS, 2014) Bunkering scenarios In the appendix different bunkering scenarios are presented. They have been constructed after reviewing LNG bunkering procedure, practices and regulations. It’s important to mention that these bunkering scenarios will not be 100% accurate for every port in existence. Some steps will differ depending on the port’s local conditions. Examples of such conditions that might affect these scenarios could be: local coast guard, fire protection measures, local and national regulations. (Figure 7 & 8)
12 | P a g e
Truck to ship bunkering scenario
Figure 7: Possible scenario of TTS bunkering
Ship to ship scenario
Figure 8: Possible scenario of SSS bunkering
Checklists greatly improve the safety of the bunkering scenarios. But in order to promote safety even further by reducing the risk some additional safeguards can be implemented during the bunkering procedures. These have been created by ABS and so far has been greatly successful at prevent accidents during LNG bunkering procedures. (ABS, 2015)
13 | P a g e
Figure 9: Possible scenario of SSS bunkering Source: ABS
Figure 10: Prevention Safeguards Source: ABS
14 | P a g e
Figure 11: Prevention Characteristics Source: ABS
Figure 12: Mitigation Safeguards Source: ABS
Cruise ship route For our project we have chosen an appropriate route which will accommodate the vessel’s LNG bunkering needs. The selected route is: Southampton – Lisbon – Barcelona – Marseille – Majorca – Gibraltar – Southampton The refueling will occur in the ports of Southampton and Marseille. Both these ports are already able to provide LNG bunkering with a plethora of methods. The port of Marseille in particular is experiencing a rapid growth over the past few years. By 2018 more than 400 million euros will have been invested in the port’s growth and development. (Battedou, 2014) 15 | P a g e
Figure 13: Selected operating route
Benefits and disadvantages of switching to LNG as a ship fuel The machinery system of a vessel is required to cover the different energy needs of the said vessel. From ship propulsion to general operating needs and in the case of a cruise ship even hotel energy needs. As one can imagine, the requirements for safety are very high, they should be carefully analyzed and studied to ensure safety. Even though a technology might be really effective what really "makes it or breaks it" is the cost. If a business venture of that magnitude, such as the conversion of an entire vessel, is not profitable at the end of the day for the ship-owner then it's not worth it. That's why a cost benefit analysis will be carried out in order to assess the cost effectiveness of the conversion. Many different options and solutions will be analyzed and the cheapest option will be chosen. (Table 2 – Appendix) Options The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of technologies which can assist the ship-owner to the abovementioned environmental criteria in the most cost-effective manner. The conventional choices such as exhaust scrubbing and burning low Sulphur fuel as well as more innovative solutions such as fuel cells are considered. (Table 3 –Appendix) Natural gas has been used for many years in land-based power plants. It is considered more of a novel fuel source for marine applications. For a fuel to be truly successful for marine use it has to have a good balance between price, energy, density, safety and global availability. As far as price is concerned, it will be covered later on in the report. The aim of this chapter is to explore the suitability of LNG in all the other aspects. (Table 4 – Appendix)
16 | P a g e
When compared, natural gas and Liquid natural gas are both mixtures of gases, with the prevalent component to be methane. LNG has a higher heating value, this is because all of the non-combustive components were removed during the liquefaction process. It is a "purer" energy source. Energy density Cruise ships have to be self-sufficient for their energy needs for many days at a time. As one can imagine energy density of fuel plays a very important role. With a high density fuel, we can gain more space that can be used for other purposes. As seen from table 7, a liter of LNG contains significantly less energy than an equivalent volume of diesel. It is still the best available energy solution at the moment. When it comes to hydrogen, it contains only a quarter of the energy when compared to diesel. LPG unfortunately emits more CO2due to its longer carbon chains. (Table 5 – Appendix) Safety When it comes to safety, LNG is safer when compared to other fuel sources. LNG by its nature is nontoxic and has a relative low flammability range, the only mixtures prone to combustion are the ones between the 5%-15% range. Since it’s stored in extremely low temperatures there is a possibility of embrittlement if LNG comes in contact with constructs made of mild steel. Also, since it’s an odorless gas in case of leakage it could lead to asphyxiation incidents. LNG-compatible prime movers LNG can be utilized by three types of reciprocating engines as well as by gas turbines. The current chapter focuses on identifying which of these designs are best suitable for our application.(Table 6 – Appendix). Gas turbines Gas turbines don’t have a good track record in the cruise ship industry. In the beginning of the new millennia many companies made huge investments for the installation of the turbines on many vessels. Later on, after a significant rise in the fuel prices, turbines were just not as cost effective as before. The investors were not happy after this unsuccessful business venture. Over the past 5 years, big technological advancements have been made for gas turbines in general. A good example is the General Electric LM2500 aeroderivative models. So far they have been installed on more than 20 vessels. They offer higher thermal efficiency when compared to medium speed dual fuel engines, 38% to 48%. The high temperature exhaust gases that are produced are typically used as input for secondary installed turbines which don’t let that energy be wasted. In some recorded cases, the system efficiency could reach 60%
17 | P a g e
When it comes to Gas turbines, they are a viable option. They provide reduced vibrations and a somewhat cleaner exhaust gas when compared to traditional diesel engines. They can run on multiple fuels, such as natural gas, biodiesel and even MGO. Due to their design, they have significantly reduced weight and required installation space. The less required space can be utilized for other things, an example being extra storage space. Unfortunately, they are not very popular due to their high cost. Typically they can be up to 20% more expensive than a traditional system. The 2-stroke diesel engines are considered the most popular and efficient engines in the industry. It’s not surprising that the design of the Gas diesel engines has been heavily based on the same design as two strokes. For this type of engine, gas is injected into the combustion chamber, typically at really high pressures. Due to the high produced NOx emissions, unfortunately, they are not able to comply with the new IMO Tier III regulations. In order to comply with the regulations, expensive exhaust treatment systems would be needed. Examples being the EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) or even SCR (selective catalytic reduction). The cost is currently too high for what it actually offers. Maybe in the future it would be more economically viable for these systems to be used on a larger scale. Typically the direct drive diesel setup is used. A haft generator is used to cover any electricity needs. In case of higher energy demands, normal auxiliary engines could be used to provide the required extra energy. According to studies that have carried out, even though they provided high efficiency, stable combustion and almost nonexistent methane slip they had major issues with the gas supply system Due to its extremely high pressure, typically around 300 bar, the system was really prone to leaks and other issues. As the name suggests, these engines operate only on gas. The engine operated following the principles of the Otto cycle. The combustion is triggered by using a conventional spark plug ignition. The gas is usually injected at a low pressure. Due to how extremely “lean” the air fuel mixtures are, we typically have lower combustion temperatures and reduced NOX emissions In the past gas engines were mainly used to cover the energy needs of land based operations. Similar concepts of these engines have been developed for marine application. They are very popular for LNG vessels operating in Norway. When it comes to safety, since these engines operate solely on gas, they have to meet the Safe Return to Port (SRtP) requirements. Typically they have a backup fuel system in case the main system fails.
18 | P a g e
Four-stroke dual-fuel engine These particular engines can run in 2 different modes, gas or diesel. The working concept behind these engines is the lean-burn Otto principle while operating in gas mode. The mixture instead of being ignited by a convention spark plug is now ignited by injecting a small amount of diesel fuel in the combustion chamber.
In diesel mode, as one can imagine, the engine operates according to the
principles of the normal diesel cycle. We have diesel fuel injections at high pressure inside the combustion chamber by utilizing injection pumps. Although the engine does not use any gas in diesel mode, in the event that either the gas or diesel supply suddenly stops, the engine can easily revert to the alternative fuel for the production of power and we can use either MGO or MDO. Energy system concept The average cruise ship is usually diesel-electric. Medium speed diesel engines are used for the production of electricity of the vessel. In order to achieve energy redundancy, there are typically installed 4 to 6 engines, usually of the same model. With this particular setup, rerouting power to cover needs for particular activities on the vessel, be it maintenance or safety related, is not a major issue. This is achieved through the use of switchboards (Figure 14)
Figure 14: Energy system concept
As aforementioned, the industry has been considering alternatives to convention marine fuels for a long time. LNG brings to the table operational flexibility and reduced fuel costs. As it is, many changes have to be made to the existing fuel system if we want to ensure the overall safe operation of the vessel. As things stand, the most efficient and cost-effective way of storing gas is in cryogenic tanks, in liquid form. By design, these tanks required very efficient insulation and in general, high pressure tolerance. The pressure might depend on the type of the tank. (Figure 15)
19 | P a g e
Figure 15: Type of tank
For the transportation of the fuel to and from the tank is also a fairly complicated matter. In order to ensure the safety of the whole ordeal, additional measures have to be taken in order to reduce the risk of accidents occurring. Additional insulation and second or partial barriers are some of the ways this is ensured. Fuel containment The layout of LNG tanks contains usually a main barrier, second barrier, supporting structures as well as a thermal insulation. In this chapter we will analyze the available designs and will summarize the most efficient tank type. Tank types These systems can be completely independent, meaning that they are self-supported without interacting with the ship’s hull, or can be integral by transferring the LNG load on the hull of the ship. All the tank types comply with the IMO regulations for carrying LNG. IMO describe the tanks by the type according the IGF and IGC code, the carrying/loading capacity and the shape that have been developed from well-known in the industry manufacturers who have to be contacted when a similar project could be undertaken. A-type This type of tank was the first ever built for carrying LNG. It is weak on crack propagations which make necessary requirements for a high steel resistant second barrier constructed to withstand the low temperatures. Commonly as a second barrier it is considered the hull of the ship or double layer arrangement around the tank which increases though the weight and the cost. These types of tank are rarely installed nowadays (Figure 16)
20 | P a g e
Figure 16: LNG carrier with type A tanks Source: Torgy
B-type This type of tank is by far the most feasible economically as it could work without a second barrier but instead it’s sufficient to use a dip tray that has high resistance efficiency on the low temperatures. This type of tank are characterized for their reliability and their simple inspection methods. (Figure 17)
Figure 17: B-typespherical tank Source: ABS
With B-type prismatic tank we have better utilization of space, better maneuverability and they are lighter than the other types which allows smaller ships to use it. The disadvantages of the prismatic tanks are that are costly and have more complicate to install. The last decades have been new development on the designing that could be used for bunkering ships, LNG vessels and containerships. (Figure 18)
21 | P a g e
Figure18: B-type prismatic tank2 Source: NLI
C-type This type of tanks is the most common used for gas fuelled projects as it is referred as the safest for high pressured and cryogenic products, thus it has small possibility of any leakage. This type of tank can be also produced as tri-lobe or bi-lobe with double shell vacuum or single shell foam. The disadvantages compare to the type of LNG tanks is that have higher weight and low volumetric efficiency. We can find operation of C-type tanks from 3 up to 10 bars which allows the bunkering of LNG with higher temperature and better boil-off utilization even though it is not the best solution on space point of view.(Figure 19 & 20)
Figure 19: C-type tank with a gas valve unit Source: LNG Worlds
22 | P a g e
Figure 20: C-type bi-lobe design Source: TGE
Boil-off The boil-off by definition is the phase where the liquid becomes in gas phase. By the term boil-off term we are referring to the boil-off per time (usually take values around 0.8% per day), which is high dependent to the condition of the fuel and tank’s temperature, the tank’s surface area and heat conductivity. Methods we can apply to handle to boil-off is to increase tank’s pressure, by liquefying the gas or burning the boil-off. We are assuming that our cruise ship is designed for 8 days cruise in normal sea condition and normal operation procedures. We assume that safety wise will not have issues of the boiloff although a better utilization by secondary method (Gas boilers that could be used as unit for combustion of the gas) and tertiary method (Gas venting by vertical ventilation system on the side shell or over the main deck) should be considered. Calculation for Tank Size and Fuel Consumption: For 75% Load Operation: LNG Characteristics at 350C: Density = 250 kg/m3 Specific Gas Consumption= 156.0 kg/hr =
156.0 = 0.624 m3/hr 250
Number of Engines= 6
23 | P a g e
Total gas fuel consumption = 6 x 0.624 = 3.72 m3/hr Our cruise ship package is for 8 days, hence we calculate the total gas fuel consumption for approximately 192 hours. Therefore, total gas fuel consumption = 3.72 m3/hr x 192 hours = 714.24m3 For our tank calculation we assume the diameter and length of the tank as: D = 5.0m and L= 21m
Tank Area =
2 D = 5.02 4 4
=19.63 m2 ≈ 20 m2 Volume of the Tank= Tank Area x Length = 20 x 21 = 420 m3 Our fuel consumption is 714.24 m3 for 8days journey,and we want to split this consumption in two tanks. Therefore approximately around 357.12m3 per tank Based on our calculation of tank size, Wartsila has developed a complete LNG gas handling system known as LNG Pac 440 having the following dimensions: -
Length = 23.8m
-
Diameter = 5.6m
-
Net Volume(90%) = 396 m3 per tank
Hence we chose the Wärtsilä LNG Pac 440 for our cruise ship. Tank arrangement The LNG fuel tanks will require more space than the fuel tanks and the location where we can place them is very limited by rule requirements (Figure 21a). The recent indicate projects locate the LNG Ctype tanks above or below the main deck and require few changes in the machinery room and the designing. Examining the IGF code, IMO and Flag State regulations we are coming in a conclusion that the tanks should be located within:
24 | P a g e
•
B/5 or 11.5 m from the side shell, whichever is less
•
B/15 or 2.0 m from of the bottom shell plating, whichever is less,
•
Tanks should be close to the centerline of the ship
•
Cofferdam on the gas storage should be at least 900mm
Figure 21a: Tank Location on the cruise vessel
Regulatory framework Gas is considered a non-traditional fuel and is additional regulations are required. Although the requirements are yet to be finalized, sufficient guidance is provided through various publications by the classification society, interim guidelines and other bodies as well. Interim guidelines IGF code and: If the vessels sails in international water, it must meet IMO Maritime Safety Committee resolution MSC.285 - the Interim Guidelines on Safety for Natural Gas-Fueled Engine Installations in Ships. The only IMO resolution which is regulating gas-fueled ship other than gas carriers (MSC.285, Resolution). On January 1, 2017 the IMO International Code of Safety for Ships Using Gases or Other Low Flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code) will suppress this resolution. Classification society guidelines Major class authorities (such as DNV GL, and ABS have published guidelines which can be utilized for the design of LNG machinery systems. Their recommendations are the result of consultation with the relevant regulatory bodies and can safely be used as guidance. Published documents can provide assistance in the project planning, implementation and operation (ABS,2015& DNVGL,2014)
25 | P a g e
Design considerations Machinery spaces, it is necessary to follow one of two approaches – “gas-safe” or “ESD- protected”. The first one aims to avoid any fuel gas release and the second one eliminates any possible sources of ignition. Furthermore the machinery spaces around the engine that power the vessel should be divided. Requirement for a Gas-only fuel systems are to be redundant. Additionally, it is not permitted to have gas piping within 800mm from the ship side, air locks must be provided in certain hazardous areas and gas detection in machinery spaces and accommodations. New measures have to be taken for safe bunkering as well. Certain areas where fuel gas travels are not being permitted for passengers and additional safety equipment must be installed. A water curtain shall be created on the side of the hull to quickly evaporate any LNG spills. During bunkering a stainless steel tray is installed under the bunkering connection to collect any spilled LNG and let it evaporate so as to not damage any part of the deck. Following the regulations and in order to avoid any reduction on the capacity of the vessels which will cause economical loss for the ship-owner, the Fuel Tanks 1& 2 will retrofit from diesel fuel in an empty space which will have a material which in case of explosion will reduce the forces that could destroy the bottom of the vessel and the new LNG C-Type tanks will be install on the above double bottom. That will have a minor effect on the GZ of the vessel. The new tank room will be excluded for passenger access. Regarding the venting pipe from the tank room, instead of taking a straight pipe-line to the top deck, it is more convenient to locate it on the aft of the ship where the mooring lines of the ship are located. This is an area that it is allowed only to the crew of the vessel and safety guidelines are followed accordingly. (Figure 21b& 21c)
Figure 21b: Tank Location on the cruise vessel
26 | P a g e
Figure 21c: Tank Location on the cruise vessel
Summary Many practical designs are built for safely carrying the LNG. The first one to be built was the type-A but due the more economical type-B tank, tank-A have now been suppressed. The type B tanks, which are of spherical and prismatic design, have been installed on LNG carriers but not as fuel tanks. These tanks require high initial cost expenditure but more efficient the space utilization might more valuable it could be. The type C tank is currently preferred by industry for gas fueled ships. It offers safety at the cost of low volumetric efficiency. The membrane tank is a feasible alternative but far less popular, much like the B-type. In the following report C-type tank designs are considered as viable alternatives.
Table 9: LNG tank comparison
27 | P a g e
Propulsion Properties of LNG: LNG is a colorless, non-toxic and tasteless liquid. Natural gas is purified and liquefied at -162oC and contains 90% CH4 as main composition having density of 430kg/m3 to 470kg/m3. (Chao Meng, 2016) LNG Extraction: Two very distinct gas types are made depending on the extraction method of LNG. •
Natural Boil-off gas: This gas is created at the top of the LNG tank and contains high amount of methane and some amount of nitrogen as well. This type of extraction is used for LNG tankers for fuelling the propulsion.
•
Forced Boil-off gas: LNG is extracted from the tank and evaporated using a vaporizer. This type of method is used when LNG is the main source of fuel for propulsion and is a very popular method for shipping. (Bakas, 2015)
Types of Marine LNG engines: There are mainly 3 types of LNG engines used in the marine industry. Spark ignited LNG can be used as fuel when sailing in SECA. And switched back to normal fuel oil when sailing out of SECA areas or in areas where there is no proper LNG infrastructure. The principle of operation is based on the Otto and diesel cycle combination when running in gas mode and regular fuel oil mode respectively. During Gas mode for igniting the LNG fuel, "pilot fuel", is injected and due to combustion pressure and compression the heat that is developed ignites this mixture. (Dr Evangelos K. Boulougouris, 2015) Diesel Ignited The technology of this engine implements gas injected at high pressure (about 300 bar) with "pilot Fuel". This machine can only use fuel oil or a mixture of gas and oil. (Dr Evangelos K. Boulougouris, 2015) Single fuel gas engines Operation mode of this engine is based on Otto/Miler cycle. Rather that pilot fuel a gas mixture which is very rich is ignited in the combustion antechamber, which forms a strong ignition source for the very poor mixture in the cylinder. This technology ensures high efficiency and low emissions, but does not allow flexibility of oil use. (Dr Evangelos K. Boulougouris, 2015)
28 | P a g e
Duel fuel engine operation :
Figure 22: Basic dual fuel operation
In the dual fuel engine, LNG is premixed with air in the inlet stream. LNG is injected with a pressure of 0.5-0.6Mpa (5-6bar). LNG flow is controlled by an electronic control. The amount of LNG admitted into the intake air stream is dependent on the engine load and speed. The mixture is compressed and a small amount of diesel fuel is injected near the end of compression stroke to initiate combustion. The major advantages of the dual fuel LNG-diesel engine are reduction in NOx and PM emissions as well as reduced fuel cost due to significantly low cost of LNG compared to diesel. Other advantages are increased thermal efficiency which depends on load, and reduced fuel transport cost if LNG is available locally (ease of bunkering). After conversion the maintenance cost remains almost the same since majority of the engine components are the same. Since considerable amount diesel is replaced by LNG, 70% of carbonization is reduced. Therefore, overhauling and decarbonisation of the engine is reduced. While running in dual fuel mode, the switch between LNG-Diesel modes can be done with ease while the engine is running and without changing the load. If shortage of LNG, then the electric control unit stops the supply of LNG and automatically shifts to diesel mode, and works as a convectional diesel engine. (Dr Evangelos K. Boulougouris, 2015) Duel fuel Engine vs. Diesel Engine: The difference between the combustion processes is that the process takes place in five stages for a dual fuel engine whereas it takes place only in four stages for a diesel only engine.
29 | P a g e
Figure 23: Pressure vs. crank angle for diesel only (source: (Anyne) )
Figure 24: Pressure vs. Crank Angle for Dual fuel (source: (Anyne))
For diesel engine A-B: Period of ignition delay
B-C: Premixed combustion period
C-D: Controlled combustion
D-E: Late Combustion
For Dual Fuel Engine: A-B: Ignition delay of Pilot fuel B-C: Premixed Combustion C-D: Controlled Combustion
D-E: Primary fuel Rapid combustion
E-F: Diffusion Combustion Studies show that reduction in NOx emission by 85% when the operating mode is changed from diesel to dual fuel. The CO2 emissions are also reduced by 25% in average while running in dual fuel mode due to the fact that natural gas having low carbon to hydrogen ratio compared to the diesel fuel. The sulphur emission is almost zero due to the use of pilot fuel. Greater reduction at engine load higher than 70% is obtained due to greater efficiency difference between diesel and dual fuel mode. Hence, engine environmental impact is much lower when the engine operates at Dual Fuel mode (Anyne) Characteristics of dual fuel engine: Low pressure Engines: •
Low pressure gas supply
•
Greater energy efficiency at high load
•
Low energy efficiency at low load
•
Lowered emission of NOx, SOx to meet IMO tier III
•
Fuel flexibility
30 | P a g e
Propulsion Specification: Engine Specification Before Conversion: Engine type- 6 x 12V46C at 12600kW @ 514Rpm driving 6 generators Total Power- 75,624kW Engine Specification After ConversionEngine type- 6 x 12V50DF at 11700kW @ 514Rpm driving 6 generators Total Power- 70,200kW 3 azimuth drives at 150Rpm connected to electric motors of 14,000kW Modification/Retrofitting of the engine For the purpose of this project we have converted the Wartsila medium speed diesel engine 12V/46C to a DF 12V/50DF.The Wärtsilä engine 12V50DF is used for the cruise ship, which is a 4-stroke, nonreversible, turbocharged and intercooled DF engine. There are 6 units onboard. The engine consists of twelve cylinders arranged in ‘V’ format. This type of engine is widely used due to its high power output as well as fuel flexibility, low emission rates, high efficiency and reliability. We preferred to convert to this engine type since Wärtsilä has already developed the 50DF engines, and the spares required for the conversion would be easily available. For the modification the bore diameter is increased from 46cm to 50cm. Engine-wise, essentially all components of the combustion chamber and their attachments are to be replaced that is the cylinder liner including water cooling jacket, pistons, piston rings and cylinder head. This is due to the increase in cylinder bore of 46 cm to 50 cm. Furthermore, injection
components will be replaced or added. The pilot oil system necessary for gas operation will be completely rebuilt. To allow for the changed ignition timing with a 12V/50DF engine, new valve cams and a new turbocharger rotor assembly are supplied. (Wessels)
Figure 25: Cross section of a V- Engine (Source: Wartsila W46C product guide)
31 | P a g e
Engine main components to be exchanged for dual fuel operation: Injection Valve: The engine will have a twin needle injection valve. The twin injection valve is a combined main fuel oil injection and pilot fuel oil injection valve, which is centrally located in the cylinder head. The larger needle is operated when the engine is running on fuel oil mode. Whereas, the smaller needle is operated when the engine is running on gas mode for pilot fuel oil injection. Pilot fuel is controlled electronically and the main fuel is controlled hydro-mechanically. The pilot fuel injection is individually controlled by a solenoid valve for optimum timing and interval of pilot fuel injected into every cylinder when operating in gas mode. A spring loaded needle design is given for the main fuel oil injection. (Wartsila, 2016) (Wartsila, 2017)
Figure 26: Twin Injection valve (Source: Professor Zhou Dual Fuel Lecture Notes)
Figure 27: Cut-section of the Valve (Source: Professor Zhou Dual Fuel Lecture Notes)
32 | P a g e
Piston: The piston is made of a combination of design with nodular cast iron skirt and steel crown. The skirt is pressure lubricated; ensuring the oil flow to cylinder liner is well controlled during all operating conditions. Through the connecting rod, oil is fed which reaches the cooling spaces of the piston. The piston ring grooves located in the top of the piston are hardened for increasing the resistance. (Wartsila, 2016)
Piston Rings: In a reciprocating engine, most of the frictional losses take place from the piston rings. The piston ring set in the Wärtsilä 50DF is optimal with respect to both functionality and efficiency. It has an oil ring and two compression rings and is located in the piston crown. Every ring is dimensioned and profiled for its task. (Wartsila, 2017) Cylinder head: Wärtsilä has introduced a new four-screw technology which is incorporated in the cylinder head. Maintenance is easier and more reliable system. In addition, the most efficient air inlet and exhaust gas channels can be configured with this type of cylinder head. The exhaust valve and the twin needle injection valve are cooled by an optimized cooling water flow. This assures a sufficiently low exhaust valve temperature and minimizes the thermal stresses. Rotators are fitted on both the inlet and
exhaust valve for uniform distribution of load during thermal and mechanical loading. (Wartsila, 2017) Turbocharger: The turbocharger is modified in order to operate in dual fuel mode. Connecting Rod: Upper part of the connecting rod is to be replaced due to new piston heads which are going to be installed having a bigger gudgeon pin diameter which is used to connect them piston head with the connecting rod small end. Components to be added on the engine for duel fuel operation: Gas Rail Pipe: Running along the engine will be a double-wall common rail gas pipe supplying the LNG to the engine through the flexible feed pipe which is connected to the gas admission valves. The gas piping structure on the engine fulfills the requirements placed by classification society. When stopping the operation on gas, the gas pipes in the GVU, to and on the engine are ventilated. Before any maintenance the system must be purged with inert gas, typically nitrogen. (Hinks.Wartsila)
33 | P a g e
Gas admission valve: The gas admission valves will be fitted for each cylinder. These valves are controlled electronically and actuated so that each cylinder is fed with the correct amount of gas. These valves are controlled by the engine control system to adjust the engine power and speed. Since it is a V-engine, the valves will be located on top of the piston head. The valve is a solenoid valve which is directly actuated. The opening and closing of the valve is done with a spring which is electronically controlled. The engine control system makes it possible to regulate the quantity of gas fed to each cylinder for balancing the load on the engine, while the engine is running. (Wartsila, 2016)
Figure 27: Gas Admission valve [7] Wartsila 50DF Engine Technology)
Figure 28: Valve in Closed mode (Source: (Source: Professor Zhou Dual Fuel Lecture Notes)
Figure 29: Valve in Open mode (Source: Professor Zhou Dual Fuel Lecture Notes)
Pilot fuel oil pump: The pilot fuel pump is mounted in the free end of the engine. The delivered fuel Pressure is controlled by the engine control system and is approximately 100 MPa.Pressurized pilot fuel is delivered from the pump unit into a small diameter common rail pipe.The common rail pipe delivers pilot fuel to each injection valve and acts as a pressureAccumulator against pressure pulses. (Wartsila, 2016)
Pilot fuel oil filter: The pilot fuel filter is a unitwhich prevents the impurities preventing impurities entering the pilot fuel system.The fineness of the filter is 10 μm. (Wartsila, 2016)
34 | P a g e
Figure 30: Components added on the engine (Source: (Hinks.Wartsila))
Ventilation and Safety of Machinery Spaces: Engine Room Arrangement: The engine room is gas-safe other than the fact that there might be small concentration of fuel gas inside the crankcase. The oil mist in the crankcase is more explosive than the fuel gas. Even if the concentration of gas exceeds the lower explosive limit inside the crankcase, the amount of gas that had leaked would be very small because of low pressure of the gas, and the concentration would immediately drop due to dilution. When converted to a dual fuel engine, the control system would raise an alarm and stop the engine in case the pressure would rise. Any leaking crankcase or camshaft doors etc are visually detected due to dirty appearance. Gas detector alarms are permanently installed in the engine room. The safety can further be increased operationally by regular checks with portable gas detectors around the engine. (Hinks.Wartsila) There are no special requirements as to the location of auxiliary systems in the room, except for the Gas Valve Unit, which has single-wall gas piping, and must be installed in a dedicated compartment or enclosure. The master gas fuel valve should also be installed outside the engine room. Ventilation of certain Dual Fuel Engine Systems: Gas pipe ventilation: After the DF engine gas operation ends, i.e. during pilot trip, gas trip,shutdown or stop in gas operating mod,shifting to diesel operating mode,the engine gas pipe is ventilated. All of a sudden if the load of the vessel is decrease. For a very short period of time, the vent valves are opened occasionally to reduce the gas pressure. The gas supply pipes are filled with fuel gas before starting the engine in gas mode.
35 | P a g e
The gas vent piping periodically removes the gas fuel or inert gas from the gas supply manifold which is on the engine and transfers to a suitable place.The gas manifolds vent lines of different engines cannot be connected to a common header nor can the vent lines from the GVU of various engines be connected. This is done to prevent the gas during maintenance that could be ventilated to other engine. However, same engine vent lines can be connected to the same header. (Hinks.Wartsila) Crankcase ventilation: The crankcase of the gas engines will contain some fuel gas. Therefore, crankcase ventilation has to be done in the same way as that of the pipe ventilation. The ventilation pipes of the crankcase must be taken separately to the final destination. A nitrogen purging connection is built on the engine to purge the crankcase with inert gas before carrying out any maintenance.After purging of the crankcase with nitrogen, it is kept opened to the atmosphere as long as possible to ensure the atmosphere inside is breathable and made safe for human entry. Lloyd’s registers has a requirement for crankcase detection which can be met by installing a Lloyd’s register approved gas detector in the vent pipe of the crankcase. This detector is to be protected from oil mist contamination. The gas detector measures the gas concentration during purging from the crankcase, to make sure that no gas is detected to make it safe for entering the crankcase. (Hinks.Wartsila) Breathing of the Cooling water expansion tank: Due to certain faults in the engine,small amounts of gas fuel may enter the dual fuel engine water cooling system. The separation of gas takes place in the cooling water system and then released into the cooling water expansion tank. Therefore, expansion tank has to be closed from the top side. The venting of the Dual fuel engine cooling water expansion tank is similar to ventilation of the gas pipe or the crankcase.The cooling water expansion tank openings into air have to be either of closed type or that does not allow the gas fuel to exit the tank. The breathing pipes of the cooling water expansion tanks of the engine located in the same engine room can be combined. The structure and arrangement of cooling water expansion tank may need to be approved by Classification Society specifically. (Hinks.Wartsila) Gas Detection in engine room and GVU compartment: The engine room has a gas detector minimum one, which is of continuous monitoring type placed above each engine, which gives an alarm without automatic shutdown of the system, and one in the ventilation outlet of the engine room typically the engine casing. Additionally Lloyd’s Register requires a gas detector at the air intake into the double walled gas piping annular space, for each engine. In case density of fuel gas is higher than air density in the engine room, additional gas detection system has to be fitted where accumulation of gas will take place, including the vicinity of the bilge wells and also in the engine room exhaust duct. (Hinks.Wartsila)
36 | P a g e
Case study The machinery concepts considered are compared in economic terms. The first subchapter contains the vessel’s characteristics. Followed by a description of the cases that are being compared. Remaining of the subchapter gives an insight into the cost of various components. And it is finalised with calculation of Net Present Value (NPV) to determine whether it is feasible to do LNG powered ship conversion.
Ship characteristics The cruise vessel that we are examined is an average size with the following main particulars: • Gross tonnage
154,000 ton
• • • • •
339 m 38.5 m 8.3 m 36 MW 36 MW
Length overall Breadth, moulded Draft Propulsion load up to Hotel load up to
Design The lines plan handling of a cruise ship will help us to calculate the intact and damage stability after conversion of the fuel tanks to LNG tanks. We have use rhinoceros software to generate the lines plans from hard copy to the electronic the lines plan.(Figure 31)
Figure 31: Body Plan
We generated the 3D model of the cruise from the lines plan and we insert the model into MaxSurf to calculate the intact stability after the conversion the ship. (Figure 32&33)
37 | P a g e
Figure 32: Cruise 3D model
In MaxSurf we insert the main particulars, tank capacity and passenger capacity of the existing cruise vessel. (Table 1). The regulations that must be followed are IMO A.749. We have two different conditions that are examining are, while the ship departing from the port and when arriving: Departure Case -
Fuel and fresh water tanks been 90% of the total capacity
-
Grey Water and black water 20% the total capacity
-
Passenger Load 100%
Arrival Case -
Fuel and fresh water tanks been 30% of the total capacity
-
Grey Water and black water 80% the total capacity
-
Passenger Load 100%
Figure 33: Cruise Ship in Maxsurf
We can see that converting the fuel tank to LNG C-type has minor effect on the GZ of the vessel (Figure 34). The sloshing of the C-Type tank doesn’t affect slope of the vessel while it takes varioys heeling angles. (Intact Stability Booklet – Appendix). The Fuel tank that will remain to provide fuel
38 | P a g e
on the engine for combustion, should either minimize the size of them or insert two bulkheads which reduce the free surface inside the tanks. The selected criteria for Intact Stability are the regulations of IMO A. 749 Chapter 3 – Applicable design criteria for all ships. 21
Max GZ = 20.425 m at 108.2 deg.
GZ 8.2.3.3: Passenger crowding heeling arm 8.2.3.3: Launching heeling moment 8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt GM at 0.0 deg = 7.293 m 3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium 3.2.2: Severe wind and rolling Wind Heeling (steady) 3.2.2: Severe wind and rolling Wind Heeling (gust) Max GZ = 20.425 m at 108.2 deg.
18
15 12
GZ m
Stability
9 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt GM at 0.0 deg = 7.293 m 6 3
0 -3
3.2.2: Severe wind and rolling Wind Heeling (gust) 3.2.2: Severe wind and rolling Wind Heeling (steady) 8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium 8.2.3.3: Passenger Launching 3.1.2.5: Passenger heeling crowding moment heeling crowding: arm angle of equilibrium
-25
0
25
50 75 100 125 Heel to Starboard deg.
150
175
Figure 34: Stability on Departure Condition
For the Damage stability we take various cases for compartment that will damage. We are taking combination of the different compartments to examine if the flooding of these compartments can cause an angle of non-return, which means that ship will sink. (Damage Stability Booklet – Appendix)
**************** Damage Cases
We are taking as criteria the update regulations of SOLAS, except from the probabilistic criteria which are applicable for constructions after 2009. Having the LNG tanks inside of the hull makes it necessary to ventilate the whole room that tanks are located. The venting pipe should be considered in a location with minor flammability (usually areas where passenger have no access). After running the longitudinal strength calculation it is noticeable that on the sections that we are locating the LNG tanks we higher moments and shear forces (Longitudinal Strength – Appendix). In order to reduce the loads a closer study for reinforcement of the deck which support the LNG tanks 39 | P a g e
should be considered, by installing longitudinal and vertical frames where the base of the tanks is placed.
Risk Assessment on Cruise Ships Modern cruising, as it is known in the present day, emerged in the 1960s when lines began marketing cruise holidays to the general public and promoting the holiday as the destination rather than focusing on the transportation element. Current cruise industry statistics show this vacation type has achieved more than 2,100% growth since 1970, with more and more cruise passengers becoming lifelong loyal customers of the major brand lines and companies. The cruise line industry growth is reflected mainly in expanding passenger capacity. Statistical data shows that nearly 40 new cruise ships were built in the 80s, 80 debuted during the 90s and more than 100 have been introduced since 2000 and the statistics also show that the market will expand even further. (Cruises, 2012) Life at sea exposes people to hazards similar to those that are presented in normal work ashore. Cruise crew therefore, must be in constant awareness regarding actions that can harm themselves or their fellow crew members or even the passengers in order to minimize the potential risk of human error which is the most usual cause for a casualty. Most accidents happen during the travelling of passengers towards or from the ship since they haven’t been informed on the safety procedures. Furthermore, travellers from international flights and different time zones must be let resting time in order for them to be able to follow the rules with clarity.The hazards that are generated from the conversion of a typical diesel engine to a dual-fuel engine are the purpose of this risk assessment. In addition, Fleet at Risk The world fleet of cruise ships is divided in two categories (20,000-60,000 GRT and >60,000 GRT) as presented on the figure below and also the number of Passengers that have travelled with cruise ships during the period 1990-2014 is also included in the same figure. The data are drawn from Lloyd’s List Intelligence data (Vidmar, et al., 2015)
40 | P a g e
20,000-60,000 GRT
>60,000 GRT
Passengers
350
2.50E+07
300
2.00E+07
250 200
1.50E+07
150
1.00E+07
100 5.00E+06
50
0.00E+00
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0
Figure 35: World fleet and passenger demand during the period 1990-2014 (Vidmar, et al., 2015)
From this figure the conclusion that it is derived is that the >60,000 GRT that the team is interested in are increasing in a very high rate over the last few years. The same occurs with the passenger demand since it is clear that the passengers carried each year increased four times since 1990. This increase proves the point made that cruise trips as a holiday have increased over the last few years and that it will expand even more in the recent years. Furthermore, due to the increase of the fleet of cruise vessels and the passengers carried each year over the world it is common sense that the frequency of accidents has increased also. In table 4, details for the frequency of accidents occurred on cruise ships over 20,000 GRT, during the period 2000-2012, are established. Hazard Identification A Hazard Identification (HAZID) is the first step of the risk assessment and presents the identification and prioritization of the most important scenarios for possible hazards on cruise ships. The purpose is achieved using standard techniques to identify hazards which can contribute to accidents, and by screening these hazards using a combination of available data and judgment. The major hazards are represented by five casualties: ➢ Collision ➢ Hull Machinery ➢ Contact ➢ Fire/Explosion ➢ Wrecked 41 | P a g e
Ranking of hazards In previous FSAs, the research teams create the FSA by performing a risk analysis on all hazards and rating them. In this section we are going to present the tables used for rating hazards and discriminate them into the three basic categories: Frequency, Severity and Risk. Risk is defined as a combination of Severity and Frequency, ( SAFEDOR, 2007) 𝑅 =𝐹∗𝑆 Which can be expressed logarithmically as RI=FI+SI where, RI refers to Risk Index, FI to Frequency Index and SI to Severity Index. Due to their logarithmic nature, increasing an index by one (i.e. from 1E-03 to 1E-02) is equivalent to an increase by an order of magnitude of the associated quantity. The 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 . 𝐹𝑙𝑒𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑡 𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘
index is coming from
Fleet at Risk is the total fleet of container ships today multiplied by
the average age of the fleet. Frequency Index The frequency index is defined as an integer indicating how often a specific hazardous event or scenario is expected:
Τable 1: Harmonized table of frequencies (International Maritime Organisation, 1994)
Severity Index The Severity Index is defined as an integer indicating the severity of the failure’s effect, i.e. how severe the consequences of a specific hazardous event are expected.
42 | P a g e
Table 2: Harmonized table of severities (International Maritime Organization)
Risk Matrix Risk is the combination of frequency and severity tables, which translates as the sum of FI and SI as it was stated previously. The results are presented in the following table:
Table 3: Risk Matrix (International Maritime Organization)
The purpose of establishing this Risk Matrix was for identifying any potential hazards and their severity in a potential casualty. As we indicate previously the last category was introduced in the case of a catastrophic event, which is very possible with the huge increase in size and capacity nowadays. During the SAFEDOR project, need for classification of the risk criteria was born and a figure separating the incidents in three categories was established. The ALARP will be explained analytically in the results section below.
43 | P a g e
Results Table 4: Frequency - Fatalities
2000-2012
Collision
Contact
Hull/Machinery
Fire/Explosion
Wrecked
Frequency per Accident
4.90E-03
5.20E-03
2.90E-02
6.00E-03
5.20E-03
Total Losses
0.00E+00
2.38E-04
0.00E+00
4.77E-04
2.38E-04
Fatalities per ship year
0.00E+00
8.53E-03
7.15E-04
4.77E-04
4.77E-04
Frequency per Accident
Total Losses
Fatalities per shipyear
Collision
Hull/Machinery Fire/Explosion
3.50E-02 3.00E-02 2.50E-02 2.00E-02 1.50E-02 1.00E-02 5.00E-03 0.00E+00 Contact
Wrecked
Figure 16: Frequency, Total Losses and Fatalities per ship year
In addition, accidents per Vessel Agetable are produced during the period 2000-2012 (Eliopoulou, et al., 2016): Table 5: Accidents per Vessel Age
Accidents per Vessel Age Vessel Age
Frequency
Fatalities
Less than 5
6.97E-02
9.99E-04
6 to 10
5.00E-02
3.34E-02
11 to 15
3.70E-02
0.00E+00
16 to 20
5.12E-02
4.26E-03
Above 20
4.92E-02
8.38E-03
44 | P a g e
Accidents per Vessel Age
8.00E-02 7.00E-02 6.00E-02 5.00E-02 4.00E-02
Frequency
3.00E-02
Fatalities
2.00E-02 1.00E-02 0.00E+00 Less than 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 20
Above 20
Figure 37: Accidents per Vessel Age
Risk Matrix As explained on previous sections the Risk Matrix is the combination of frequency and severity tables, which translates as the sum of FI and SI for each casualty type that was examined as presented on the table below: Table 6: Risk Matrix
Risk Matrix Casualty Type
FI
SI
RI
Collision
2
1
3
Contact
2
1
3
Fire/Explosion
2
2
4
Hull/Machinery
3
1
4
Wrecked
2
1
3
F-N Curves and ALARP Region F-N Curves for collision, contact and fire explosion casualties are established and event trees for each one of them is created (Appendix). The purpose of them is to establish the ALARP region and conclude if the risk is acceptable. Collision As fatal incidents we take from the event tree that is produced in the Appendix the cases with fatalities percentages. For collision casualties these cases are for rapid capsize of a ship both when the cruise vessel is being struck and is the striking vessel. The passengers that our vessel is able to carry are 4500 and the crew 1200. Therefore, the total number of people on board is 5700.
45 | P a g e
The Individual Risk and the Potential Loss of Life for the Collision Casualties is presented on the table below: Fatality
Individual
Collision
Frequency Factor
Fatalities Risk
PLL
Capsize (Struck)1
1.74E-05
0.4
2280
6.96E-06
3.97E-02
Capsize (Struck)2
5.22E-05
0.8
4560
4.18E-05
2.38E-01
Capsize (Struck)3
1.74E-05
1
5700
1.74E-05
9.92E-02
Capsize (Striking)1
3.86E-07
0.4
2280
1.54E-07
8.80E-04
Capsize (Striking)2
1.16E-06
0.8
4560
9.28E-07
5.29E-03
Capsize (Striking)3
3.86E-07
1
5700
3.86E-07
2.20E-03
SUM
6.76E-05
3.85E-01
Table 7: Individual Risk and Potential Loss of Life
In order to establish the F-N curve for the collision casualties we need to establish the cumulative frequency. Therefore, Table 8: F-N
N
F
5700
1.74E-05
5700
1.78E-05
4560
7.00E-05
4560
7.11E-05
2280
8.85E-05
2280
8.89E-05
F-N Curve Collision 1.00E-04 9.00E-05 8.00E-05 7.00E-05 6.00E-05 5.00E-05 4.00E-05 3.00E-05 2.00E-05 1.00E-05 0.00E+00 0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Figure 38: F-N Curve Collision
46 | P a g e
Contact The table below is presenting the individual risk and the Potential Loss of Life for Contact Casualties. It also needs to be noted that the fatalities are noticed in the same category as on the collision casualties, which is the rapid capsize on icebergs and offshore structures categories: Fatality
Individual
Contact
Frequency Factor
Fatalities Risk
PLL
Capsize (Struck)1
1.30E-06
0.4
2280
5.20E-07
2.96E-03
Capsize (Struck)2
3.90E-06
0.8
4560
3.12E-06
1.78E-02
Capsize (Struck)3
1.30E-06
1
5700
1.30E-06
7.41E-03
Capsize (Striking)1
2.08E-06
0.4
2280
8.32E-07
4.74E-03
Capsize (Striking)2
6.24E-06
0.8
4560
4.99E-06
2.85E-02
Capsize (Striking)3
2.08E-06
1
5700
2.08E-06
1.19E-02
SUM
1.28E-05
7.32E-02
Table 9: Individual Risk and Potential Loss of Life for Contact
In order to establish the F-N curve for the contact casualties we need to establish the cumulative frequency. Therefore, Table 10: F-N for Contact
N
F
5700
1.30E-06
5700
3.38E-06
4560
7.28E-06
4560
1.35E-05
2280
1.48E-05
2280
1.69E-05
47 | P a g e
F-N Curve Contact 1.80E-05 1.60E-05 1.40E-05 1.20E-05 1.00E-05 8.00E-06 6.00E-06 4.00E-06 2.00E-06 0.00E+00 0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Figure 39: F-N Curve Contact
Fire/Explosion For the Fire/Explosion Casualty fatalities are expected on the inside the fire zone section with 100% fatality on the high density category and 0.05% fatality on low and medium density categories. Therefore, the individual risk and the potential loss of life are presented on the following table:
Fatality
Fatalities
Individual
Fire/Explosion
Frequency
Low Density
7.20E-05
0.05
285
3.60E-06
2.05E-02
Medium Density
5.40E-04
0.05
285
2.70E-05
1.54E-01
High Density
5.40E-05
1
5700
5.40E-05
3.08E-01
SUM
8.46E-05
4.82E-01
Factor
Risk
PLL
Table 11: Individual Risk and Potential Loss of Life on Fire/Explosion Casualty
In order to establish the F-N curve for the Fire/Explosion casualties we need to establish the cumulative frequency. Therefore, Table 12: F-N Fire/Explosion
N
F
5700
5.40E-05
285
5.94E-04
285
6.66E-04
48 | P a g e
F-N Curve Fire/Explosion 7.00E-04 6.00E-04 5.00E-04 4.00E-04 3.00E-04 2.00E-04 1.00E-04 0.00E+00 0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Figure 40: F-N Curve Fire/Explosion
ALARP Region In order to create the ALARP Region, the upper and lower limits of the region need to be established. For the Upper Limits we will take Frequencies from 1.00E+00 to 1.00E-04 with fatalities until 10,000 people. For the Lower Limit we will take Frequencies from 1.00E-02 to 1.00E-06 with fatalities until 10,000 people. By finding the cumulative frequency of every fatality category that was established in the previous sections we reach to the following figure:
ALARP
1.00E+00
Frequencies (F)
1.00E-01
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
1.00E-05 1
10
100
1000
10000
Fatalities (N) Figure 41: ALARP Region
49 | P a g e
As it is represented on the figure above the curve with green is the result of our study and it is well within the ALARP acceptable limits. It needs to be noted that if the curve was above the upper limit it will be unacceptable and if it was below the lower limit it would be considered negligible.
Financial assessment The investment cost required for the conversion can be broken down into two different categories. Mainly the CAPEX and OPEX, which includes the cost of retrofit and cost additional equipment like scrubbers and SCR system. In addition to the cost of the systems, the cost of having the ship off-hire needs to be taken into consideration. On the other hand, there is a reduction in the yearly operational expenses and an additional decrease in revenue and profit from the reduction of the number of cabins if the scrubbers are used along with the SCR system as there is no adequate room for both systems to be installed. The CAPEX includes all the capital costs that are incurred for the retrofitting process. The cost of the LNG tanks (LNG-PAC system from Wartsila), Gas supply system, cost of retrofit of engines, modification of the machinery space and engine room modifications calculations. These costs are incurred only for the first year, the other costs which incur annually to the company. The OPEX is the operating expenses of the cruise ship incurred by the company. The cost of lubricants, Gas supply system, Engine maintenance checks, LNG supply system maintenance, Fuel cost of LNG and savings due to the change in engine modifications. An additional cost, one often not considered, is the income lost due to the footprint of additional machinery systems. Cost components Scrubbers Compatible fuel is expensive and scrubbers can be an attractive alternative. The initial investment was estimated at $13 M by a ship design engineer. The price was corroborated by consultation with a representative of a known scrubber manufacturer. According to a third party report, the average price of a hybrid scrubber system for our vessel would be $ 12.7M (including equipment, installation, engineering and training). Scrubbers increases consumers to the electrical system and restrict the exhaust gas flow. Thereby it leads to an increase in overall fuel consumption by 0.5%-1% for closed loop and 1-2% for open loop operation. For the closed loop operation, the system also requires NaOH equivalent of 8% of overall consumption, the cost of which is estimated at 350 $/ton (Program). The scrubber operational costs are presented below.
50 | P a g e
For closed loop operation, vessel is consuming 11.5 tons of NaOH and produces 2.6 tons of sludge per day. But the open loop operation only 0.4 tons of sludge production is present and no NaOH is consumed. The rate of production of sludge was assumed to be 3.7 L/MWh and for open loop 0.5 L/MWh was assumed (OY). The estimation of Sludge disposal cost was made at 290 $/ ton. According to manufacture information, the total system would have a wet weight of 80 tons and will occupy around 1500 m3 of space. The estimation of annual additional cost of scrubber system is to be $ 0.41M. LNG Estimates Estimates for LNG price in Europe To reasonably estimate the price of LNG in UK and other proposed ports, a Henry Hub linked pricing model was utilized. The HH price used in the below calculations is 3.0 $/MMBtu(dollars per million British thermal units). () The method is based on the price model of William M. Wicker, CEO of Venture Global LNG - a U.S.based LNG production and export company. The estimation of transport costs is 3 $/MMBtu and estimation of liquefaction cost was 2.25 – 3 $/MMBtu. According to the current HH price forecast, the most likely range of 8.42 – 9.17 $/MMBtu is quoted. By adding the additional delivery cost would roughly get this figure to 9-9.5 $/MMBtu. (LNG) A further price point by David Schultz from LNG America: “Regarding pricing at today’s Henry Hub Price a number in the $13 to $14 USD per MMBtu delivered in South Florida at 2,000 m3 once a week is a good budgetary number for the first vessel. As the number
51 | P a g e
of vessels or bunkering events increase to a high utilization rate on the bunker barge or shore based facility you could expect that number to drop to the high single digits - $9 +/- per MMBtu.” Most of the ships operating globally will be compelled to either run on fuel which contains 0.5% Sulphur maximum or use alternative means to follow the equivalent emission results. In SECAs, the limit remains at 0.1%. Selective catalytic reduction The Tier II and the Tier III limits of our engine is 10.1 g/kWh and 2.5g/kWh respectively (Organization) (Wärtsilä). When in diesel mode the vessel would follow the global Tier II limits. The vessel will require to either operate on gas or on diesel with the exhaust gas running through SCR wherever Tier III applies (Mediterranean and North Sea ECAs for our selected itinerary) (Wärtsilä). SCR technology growth and development have been seen in stationary power plants where industrial SCR systems are similar to marine diesel systems. Over time , use of industrial SCR technology has reduced the capital costs. Moreover, stabilization cost of materials with increase in demand will lead to increase in SCR suppliers, which develops competition in the market, driving technology innovation and decreases overall capital cost. This results in a reasonable cost and high availability of SCR. The International Association for Catalytic Control of Ship Emissions to Air (IACCSEA) developed a model for cost estimation of installation and operation of SCR. Application of the model provides a sample calculation that is indicative of the ranges of costs and benefits anticipated for marine SCR applications. Some case studies show that the main operational costs required to meet IMO Tier III from an IMO Tier II baseline NOx would range from 2 to 5 million depending upon urea cost, so we are using the catalyst system which requires around 50%-60% less maintenance cost. The cost of operating marine SCR systems is expected to fall. Evidence can be found in the cost trends for the NOx emission control technology. Due to instability, ammonia based reagents costs has stabilized over the past 5 years while in the United States the cost of decreased in unit price between 1980 and 2005 by a factor of five and is projected to remain stable through 2015 for new and decrease slightly for regenerated catalysts. Expected lifespan has increased to ten years, contributing to the decrease in O&M costs for SCR systems. From the mid-1980s to 2000 as the capacity of SCR doubled for stationary coal-fired power sources, capital costs decreased to 86% and the management and operation costs decreased to 58% of their original values. In Future, projections for retrofitting SCR is estimated to even further reduce by 7.4% in capital cost and 15.8% in O&M costs by 2020. In this analysis changes in the cost of SCR technology reflects on the impact of technological advancement and also as a market competition linked to environmental standards as a motivation for innovation. This phenomenon has been established for SOx reduction technologies and also for SCR
52 | P a g e
signifying that implementation of international regulations and standards will drive further reductions in cost over time. The capital cost for the SCR arrangement has been quoted by one source at $2.0-4.1M and by another at $0.81M and by an industry specialist at $2.3M. (Wärtsilä) (Solutions) The urea consumption was estimated to be in the range of 15-20 t/MWh and would costs around 280340 $/ton (Solutions). This makes the annual cost of urea is between $1.6-2.0M. In another report total OPEX was estimated at 7$/MWh. Assuming the average load of 30MW for the ship, the yearly costs would fall under previous estimate at 1.76 M. A single unit requires 2.8m3 of space and weighs 7.2 tons. A day’s supply weighs 14.44 tons. Since the unit’s operating temperature range of 300-5000C, it is installed between the turbo charger and economizer (AB). The estimation of initial costs is at $2.3 M and yearly costs at $ 0.25M. For LSFO it is assumed that it will be operated during 15% of total time. Fuel costs The costs of 3%S HFO and 0.1%S MDO was used from a current published numbers (Bun). The estimated cost of 0.5%S HFO was based on past published price information (CIMAC). The fuel costs are presented below.
It is assumed that ship is to operate for 52 weeks per year. The average annual ship exposure is estimated to be 20% in SECAs and 80% in Tier III NECAs. The specific energy of HFO is 40.26 GJ/t, that of LNG as 53.6 GJ/t and that of MGO as 42.7 GJ/t was assumed. (CIMAC)
53 | P a g e
Other machinery items Costs and dimensions of the main machinery items were obtained from online sources, company materials and industry partners. NPV comparison The net present value is an established method for calculating the investment decisions. The method compares cash flow from the investment considered resulting from a constant interest rate for the entire investment period. This results in the present value for each investment showing the expected profit or loss if chosen. For this study, it was found that 10% is a suitable interest rate. The profit period of the investment is expected to be in 20 years. As we only consider costs of machinery operation of the cruise ship and no actual profits, all NPV values are negative, just to a varying degree. Therefore, to present in an acceptable format, all the NPV values are normalised to the case of ship operation on low sulphur oil. Any positive NPV values show that the case considered gives higher return than the ones operating ship on low sulphur fuel. NPV = R1/(1 + i)1 + R2/(1 + i)2 + R3/(1 + i)3+ . . . − Initial Investment Cash flows = R1,R2,R3,….. IRR = [ CF1/(1+r)1 + CF2 /(1+r)2 + CF3/(1+r)3 + …] – Initial investment =0 Net Cash flows = CF1+ CF2 + CF3 +…. ; R is the internal rate of return; Initial investment and loss of space All the three cases are a compared. These comparisons require the capital investment and cost of conversion. The capital cost of LNG is less compared to that of the other two concepts. The calculations are shown in the Appendix. The use of low sulphur fuel needs the least initial cost. The cost of engines and the SCR units were considered thereby increasing the difference in the initial costs. Comparing the scrubber initial and 54 | P a g e
operational costs with those of the LNG concept, it is evident that they are very close. But it would be more costly to run scrubbers than LNG.
NPV The LNG is still perceived as a little risky concept and not a best option for the old cruise ships. The recent changes in crude sector have not significantly affected the price of LNG. The NPV of the considered cases are calculated.
55 | P a g e
The calculations were done assuming the price of the crude fuels will remain at current levels and will have no additional costs emergence. This would provide 24 million dollars of profit in comparison with the LSFO case by the end of lifecycle of the ship. The NPV calculations were calculated without considering the revenue from other sources and tickets. Assuming that both the cases will be yielding equal revenues, it seems that scrubbers is a better option than LNG concept but we are not considering the marketing and advertising which is caused due the reductions in the ship emissions.
Sensitivity analysis The sensitivity analysis will give an insight into the fragility of the obtained results and provides a tool for decision making. This will be used to study the effects of fuel price and ECA ratio on the NPV. Sensitivity to fuel ratio Current prices of fuel are tending to be more stable. The HFO prices are lower than LNG but the LNG market is far more stable. It is seen that the crude prices will always be increasing, also the operating costs of operating on liquid fuels is far more expensive than LNG. If the HFO costs come around 350400, LNG would be more profitable to the shipping companies.
56 | P a g e
Sensitivity to ECA ratio The following chart assumes HFO price as 280$/t. The ECA ratio of operation has an important effect on the profitability of the case. The difference in OPEX is a direct result of the cost premium of low sulphur distillates. It can be seen that a scrubber is always a more economical option than using LSFO. The LNG case is feasible as our ECA operating region is around 80%.
57 | P a g e
Conclusion It is clear that this project is very much economically feasible after the NPV calculations which provide promising returns. Even though we didn’t consider the scrubbers as it is not possible to accommodate both SCR and scrubbers in the engine room. This was made clear by an experienced marine services consultant. A 25% rise in the prices of the crude oil prices will make the LNG powered concepts much more profitable then now. For operation in ECA areas, LNG would be preferred for its low emissions than running on low sulphur oil. Conversion of cruise vessels from HFO to LNG propulsion has been only adopt by Royal Caribbean by longitude the ship from amidship, increasing the length and installing the LNG tanks. Although it is not applicable for all cruise vessels as it does affect the hull and it makes it more weak to the longitudinal strength and the hull can’t handle these stresses. All the vessels that have LNG tanks are new built, but with our case approach we are indicating some difficulties on the design part that depends on vessel’s current space layout. The IGF regulations that have been implemented 2015, allow the location of the tanks to be either inside of the hull either outside. Although closer view on the HAZID should taken under consideration
58 | P a g e
References SAFEDOR. 2007. FSA - container vessels. Denmark : IMO, 2007. MSC 83/INF.8. AB, D.E.C. Marine. 2013. WP3 - Exhaust Gas Cleaning. EffShip : Gothenburg, 2013. ABS. 2015. [Online] http://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/publications/2015/LNG_Bunkering%20Advisory.pdf.
2015.
—. 2014. Bunkering of LNG. [Online] http://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/publications/2014/LNG%20Bunkering.pdf.
2014.
Administration, U.S. Energy Information. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm.
Natural
Gas
Prices.
[Online]
Anyne, E. Energy Efficiency Via Engine Improvements: A Review of Dual Fuel Engine Development. [Online] http://www.lowcarbonshipping.co.uk/files/Ben_Howett/SCC2015/ENERGY_EFFICIENCY_VIA_E NGINE_IMPROVEMENTS_A_REVIEW_OF_DUAL_FUEL_ENGINE_DEVELOPMENT.pdf. Bakas, Ioannis. 2015. Propulsion and Power Generation of LNG driven Vessels . [Online] September 2015. http://www.onthemosway.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Marine-Engines-running-on-LNGfor-submission-Ioannis-Bakas.pdf. Battedou, Claire. 2014. Marseille-port. [Online] 2014. http://www.marseilleport.fr/en/Content/Documents/Presse/2014/News%20from%20Marseille%20Fos%20december%2020 14.pdf. Bunkerworld. [Online] http://www.bunkerworld.com/prices/. Chao Meng, Jing-ping Si, Ge-xi Liang, Jia-hua Niu. 2016. Scientific. The Technical Modification and Performance Analysis of Diesel / LNG. [Online] 2016. https://www.scientific.net/AMR.724725.1383.pdf. CIMAC. Guideline for the Operation of Marine Engines on Low Sulphur Diesel. [Online] http://www.cimac.com/cms/upload/workinggroups/WG7/CIMAC_SG1_Guideline_Low_Sulphur_Di esel.pdf. Cruises, Repositioning. 2012. Repositioning Cruises. http://www.repositioncruises.com/cruiseindustry/#statistics. [Online] 2012. http://www.repositioncruises.com/cruise-industry/#statistics. Dr Evangelos K. Boulougouris, Mr Leonidas E. Chrysinas. 2015. LNG Fueled Vessels Design. [Online] July 2015. http://www.onthemosway.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Lecture-Notes.pdf. Eliopoulou, Eleftheria, Papanikolaou, Apostolos and Voulgarellis, Markos. 2016. Statistical Analysis of Ship Accidents and Review of Safety Level. Athens : National Technical University of Athens, Greece, 2016. FSA_Cruise_ships. 2008. I:\MSC\85\INF-2. Kopenhagen : IMO, 2008. 59 | P a g e
Hinks.Wartsila, Karl. Dual Fuel Engine Safety for Gas Fuelled Applications. [Online] Hyo Kim, Jae-Sun Koh, Theofanius G. Theofanous. 2004. Risk Assessment of Membrane Type LNG Storage Tanks in Korea-based on Fault Tree Analysis. Seoul : University of Seoul, University of California, 2004. ICS-SHIPPING. ics-shipping. International Chamber of Shipping. [Online] http://www.icsshipping.org/shipping-facts/shipping-and-world-trade. International Maritime Organisation. 1994. Interim Guidelines for Open-Top Containerships. London : MSC/Circ. 608 Rev. 1, 1994. International Maritime Organisation. Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule making process. [PDF] London : IMO. MSC/Cir.1023 (MEPC/Circ.392). LNG, Venture Global. Venture Global LNG sees Henry Hub-linked pricing. [Online] http://venturegloballng.com/in-the-news/. LNGBUNKERING. 2017. LNGBUNKERING. WPCI. http://www.lngbunkering.org/lng/bunkering/bunkering-practice/ship-to-ship.
[Online]
2017.
Nauticor. 2017. LNG value chain. Nauticor. [Online] 2017. https://nauticor.de/lng-value-chain-truck. ONS. 2016. Office for National Statistics. Visual.ons.gov.uk. [Online] Augst 15, 2016. http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-energy-how-much-what-type-and-where-from/. Organization, International Maritime. 2017. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) - Regulation 13. [Online] 2017. http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Nitrogenoxides-(NOx)-%E2%80%93-Regulation-13.aspx. OY, Wärtsilä. 2014. A Glance at CAPEX & OPEX for Compliance with Forthcoming Enivronmental Regulations. [Online] 2014. https://www.marinemoney.com/sites/all/themes/marinemoney/forums/GR14/presentations/1220%20T omas%20Aminoff.pdf. Petrofed. 2015. [Online] 02May15/JP%20Misra.pdf.
2015.
http://www.petrofed.org/attachments/30Apr-
Program, Ship Operations Cooperative. 2015. Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Selection Guide. s.l. : Glosten, 2015. Solutions, Wilhelmsen Technical. SCR www.baltic.org/files/1893/BSR_InnoShip_Turku.pdf.
-
walking
the
talk.
[Online]
Vidmar, Peter and Perkovic, Marko. 2015. Methodological approach for safety assessment of cruise ship in port. Portoroz : University of Ljubjiana, Slovenia, 2015. Wartsila. 2016. Wartsila 50DF Product Guide. [Online] November 2016. http://cdn.wartsila.com/docs/default-source/product-files/engines/df-engine/product-guide-o-ew50df.pdf?sfvrsn=9. —. 2017. Wartsila. [Online] 2017. http://cdn.wartsila.com/docs/default-source/productfiles/engines/df-engine/wartsila-o-e-w-50df-tr.pdf?sfvrsn=6. 60 | P a g e
Wärtsilä. 2014. Wärtsilä 46F Product Guide. Wärtsilä Finland OY, Vaasa : s.n., 2014. —. Wärtsilä Low NOx Solutions. [Online] http://blueoceansoln.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/12/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Wet-Package-2008-1.pdf. Wessels. "WES AMILE" First Container Ship to be Converted to LNG. [Online] Wessels Reederei GmbH & Co. KG. http://www.wessels.de/cms/media/basisprojekt/upload/201510/2239_2015_10_28_presskit_eng.pdf.
DNV GL, "Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Bunkering Study," Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A.), Inc., 2014. ABS, "Bunkering of Liquefied Natural Gas-fueled Marine Vessels in North America," ABS, 2015
61 | P a g e
Appendix Tables
62 | P a g e
63 | P a g e
64 | P a g e
65 | P a g e
Intact Stability Stability Calculation
24 Max GZ = 22.27 m at 107.3 deg. 21 18
GZ m
15 12
Stability GZ 8.2.3.3: Passenger crowding heeling arm 8.2.3.3: Launching heeling moment 8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt GM at 0.0 deg = 8.701 m 3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium 3.2.2: Severe wind and rolling Wind Heeling (steady) 3.2.2: Severe wind and rolling Wind Heeling (gust) Max GZ = 22.27 m at 107.3 deg.
3.1.2.4: Initial GMt GM at 0.0 deg = 8.701 m
9 6 3 0 -3
3.2.2: Severe wind and rolling Wind Heeling (gust) 3.2.2: Severe wind and rolling Wind Heeling (steady) 8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium 8.2.3.3: Passenger Launching 3.1.2.5: Passenger heeling crowding moment heeling crowding: arm angle of equilibrium
-25
0
25
50 75 100 125 Heel to Starboard deg.
150
175
67 | P a g e
68 | P a g e
Stability Calculation
69 | P a g e
70 | P a g e
24
Stability Max GZ = 21.287 m at 108.2 deg.
21 18
GZ m
15 12
GZ 8.2.3.3: Passenger crowding heeling arm 8.2.3.3: Launching heeling moment 8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt GM at 0.0 deg = 6.789 m 3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium 3.2.2: Severe wind and rolling Wind Heeling (steady) 3.2.2: Severe wind and rolling Wind Heeling (gust) Max GZ = 21.287 m at 108.2 deg.
9 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt GM at 0.0 deg = 6.789 m 6 3 0 -3
3.2.2: Severe wind and rolling Wind Heeling (gust) 3.2.2: Severe wind and rolling Wind Heeling (steady) 8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium 8.2.3.3: Passenger Launching 3.1.2.5: Passenger heeling crowding moment heeling crowding: arm angle of equilibrium
-25
0
25
50 75 100 125 Heel to Starboard deg.
150
175
71 | P a g e
72 | P a g e
Stability Calculation
73 | P a g e
74 | P a g e
24
Stability Max GZ = 21.047 m at 108.2 deg.
21 18
GZ m
15 12
GZ 8.2.3.3: Passenger crowding heeling arm 8.2.3.3: Launching heeling moment 8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt GM at 0.0 deg = 6.767 m 3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium 3.2.2: Severe wind and rolling Wind Heeling (steady) 3.2.2: Severe wind and rolling Wind Heeling (gust) Max GZ = 21.047 m at 108.2 deg.
9 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt GM at 0.0 deg = 6.767 m 6 3 0 -3
3.2.2: Severe wind and rolling Wind Heeling (gust) 3.2.2: Severe wind and rolling Wind Heeling (steady) 8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium 8.2.3.3: Passenger Launching 3.1.2.5: Passenger heeling crowding moment heeling crowding: arm angle of equilibrium
-25
0
25
50 75 100 125 Heel to Starboard deg.
150
175
75 | P a g e
76 | P a g e
Stability Calculation
77 | P a g e
Item Name
Quantit y
Total Volume m^3 138.000 138.000 178.008 178.008 162.749 162.749 957.514
Long. Arm m 111.500 111.500 217.492 217.492 217.418 217.418 193.683
Trans. Arm m -2.500 2.500 -2.968 2.968 -8.817 8.817 0.000
Vert. Arm Total FSM FSM Type m tonne.m
30% 30% 50% 50% 50% 50% 43.49%
Unit Mass Total Mass Unit tonne tonne Volume m^3 276.000 82.800 460.000 276.000 82.800 460.000 299.053 149.527 356.016 299.053 149.527 356.016 273.419 136.709 325.499 273.419 136.709 325.499 1696.944 738.072 2283.029
Fuel No1 P Fuel No1 S Fuel No3 P Fuel No3 S Fuel No4 P Fuel No4 S Total Fuel
4.600 4.600 1.033 1.033 1.276 1.276 1.923
221.364 143.750 349.207 226.800 342.992 226.800 1510.913
Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum
FW No1 P FW No1 S FW No2 P FW No2 S FW No3 P FW No3 S FW No4 P FW No4 S Total Fresh Water
30% 30% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 10.05%
476.636 476.636 451.773 451.773 400.087 400.087 329.374 329.374 3315.738
142.991 142.991 9.035 9.035 8.002 8.002 6.587 6.587 333.231
476.636 476.636 451.773 451.773 400.087 400.087 329.374 329.374 3315.738
142.991 142.991 9.035 9.035 8.002 8.002 6.587 6.587 333.231
145.022 145.022 145.148 145.148 238.085 238.085 236.569 236.569 153.118
-2.972 2.972 -7.418 7.418 -1.854 1.854 -6.933 6.933 0.000
0.624 0.624 0.202 0.202 0.090 0.090 0.407 0.407 0.567
554.321 360.000 554.321 101.351 471.160 172.645 384.822 26.765 2625.385
Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum
Black Water No1 P Black Water No1 S Black Water No2 P Black Water No2 S Grey Water No1 P Grey Water No1 S Grey Water No2 P Grey Water No2 S Total Black & Grey Water
80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%
488.990 488.990 462.108 462.108 488.152 488.152 457.470 457.470 3793.440
391.192 391.192 369.686 369.686 390.522 390.522 365.976 365.976 3034.752
477.064 477.064 450.837 450.837 476.246 476.246 446.312 446.312 3700.917
381.651 381.651 360.669 360.669 380.997 380.997 357.049 357.049 2960.734
169.998 169.998 169.991 169.991 194.996 194.996 194.972 194.972 182.453
-2.988 2.988 -8.928 8.928 -2.986 2.986 -8.919 8.919 0.000
1.615 1.615 1.743 1.743 1.619 1.619 1.765 1.765 1.683
568.179 369.000 568.179 369.000 568.179 369.000 568.179 369.000 3748.716
Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum
Lube Oil Hyd Oil
50% 50%
5.185 5.185
2.592 2.592
5.636 5.636
2.818 2.818
94.018 94.018
0.999 -0.999
0.943 0.943
1.227 1.227
Maximum Maximum
Mid pool Aft Pool
80% 80%
746.040 500.337
596.832 400.270
746.040 500.337
596.832 400.270
153.535 90.868
0.000 0.000
54.248 54.232
28956.127 Maximum 18151.335 Maximum
Lap Pool Solarium Pool
80% 80%
187.430 118.476
149.944 94.781
187.430 118.476
149.944 94.781
53.125 15.959
0.000 -0.935
33.739 33.600
1248.937 932.325
Lightship & Cargo
1
53042.400 53042.400
159.051
0.000
14.941
0.000
159.637
-0.002
14.754 0.979
57176.191
Total Loadcase FS correction
58395.466
10863.239
5498.941
Maximum Maximum
78 | P a g e
Item Name
Quantit y
Unit Mass Total Mass Unit tonne tonne Volume m^3
Total Volume m^3
VCG fluid
Trans. Arm m
Vert. Arm Total FSM FSM Type m tonne.m 15.733
24
Stability Max GZ = 21.047 m at 108.2 deg.
21 18 15
GZ m
Long. Arm m
12
GZ 8.2.3.3: Passenger crowding heeling arm 8.2.3.3: Launching heeling moment 8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt GM at 0.0 deg = 6.767 m 3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium 3.2.2: Severe wind and rolling Wind Heeling (steady) 3.2.2: Severe wind and rolling Wind Heeling (gust) Max GZ = 21.047 m at 108.2 deg.
9 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt GM at 0.0 deg = 6.767 m 6 3 0 -3
3.2.2: Severe wind and rolling Wind Heeling (gust) 3.2.2: Severe wind and rolling Wind Heeling (steady) 8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium 8.2.3.3: Passenger Launching 3.1.2.5: Passenger heeling crowding moment heeling crowding: arm angle of equilibrium
-25
0
25
50 75 100 125 Heel to Starboard deg.
150
175
79 | P a g e
Key point
Type Immersion angle deg Margin Line (immersion pos = 16.123 m) 12.4 Deck Edge (immersion pos = 16.123 m) 12.8
Emergence angle deg n/a n/a
80 | P a g e
81 | P a g e
82 | P a g e
24
Stability Max GZ = 21.307 m at 108.2 deg.
21 18
GZ 8.2.3.3: Passenger crowding heeling arm 8.2.3.3: Launching heeling moment 8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 8.6.1 Residual GM with symmetrical flooding GM at 0.0 deg = 6.726 m Max GZ = 21.307 m at 108.2 deg.
GZ m
15 12 9
8.6.1 Residual GM with symmetrical flooding GM at 0.0 deg = 6.726 m 6 3 0 -3
8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 8.2.3.3: 8.2.3.3: Passenger Launching crowding heeling moment
-25
0
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 Heel to Starboard deg.
83 | P a g e
84 | P a g e
Stability Calculation
Theater Copart Fully flooded 100 Forepeak Fully flooded 100 D1 Fwd Fully flooded 100 Bulb copart Fully flooded 100 Bow thruster Copart Fully flooded Double Bottom Fwd Fully flooded Fluid analysis method: Use corrected VCG
100 100
85 | P a g e
86 | P a g e
24
Stability Max GZ = 21.341 m at 108.2 deg.
21 18
GZ 8.2.3.3: Passenger crowding heeling arm 8.2.3.3: Launching heeling moment 8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 8.6.1 Residual GM with symmetrical flooding GM at 0.0 deg = 5.176 m Max GZ = 21.341 m at 108.2 deg.
GZ m
15 12 9
6 symmetrical flooding GM at 0.0 deg = 5.176 m 8.6.1 Residual GM with 3 0 -3
8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 8.2.3.3: 8.2.3.3: Passenger Launching crowding heeling moment
-25
0
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 Heel to Starboard deg.
87 | P a g e
88 | P a g e
Stability Calculation
89 | P a g e
90 | P a g e
24
Stability Max GZ = 21.325 m at 107.3 deg.
21 18
GZ 8.2.3.3: Passenger crowding heeling arm 8.2.3.3: Launching heeling moment 8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 8.6.1 Residual GM with symmetrical flooding GM at 0.0 deg = 13.530 m Max GZ = 21.325 m at 107.3 deg.
15 8.6.1 Residual GM with symmetrical flooding GM at 0.0 deg = 13.530 m
GZ m
12 9 6 3 0
8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 8.2.3.3: 8.2.3.3: Passenger Launching crowding heeling heeling moment arm
-3 -6
-25
0
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 Heel to Starboard deg.
91 | P a g e
92 | P a g e
Stability calculation
93 | P a g e
94 | P a g e
24
Stability Max GZ = 21.066 m at 108.2 deg.
21 18
GZ 8.2.3.3: Passenger crowding heeling arm 8.2.3.3: Launching heeling moment 8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 8.6.1 Residual GM with symmetrical flooding GM at 0.0 deg = 6.523 m Max GZ = 21.066 m at 108.2 deg.
GZ m
15 12 9
8.6.1 Residual GM with symmetrical flooding GM at 0.0 deg = 6.523 m 6 3 0 -3
8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 8.2.3.3: 8.2.3.3: Passenger Launching crowding heeling moment
-25
0
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 Heel to Starboard deg.
95 | P a g e
96 | P a g e
Stability Calculation
97 | P a g e
98 | P a g e
24
Stability Max GZ = 21.096 m at 108.2 deg.
21 18
GZ 8.2.3.3: Passenger crowding heeling arm 8.2.3.3: Launching heeling moment 8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 8.6.1 Residual GM with symmetrical flooding GM at 0.0 deg = 4.664 m Max GZ = 21.096 m at 108.2 deg.
GZ m
15 12 9
6 8.6.1 Residual GM with symmetrical flooding GM at 0.0 deg = 4.664 m 3 0 -3
8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 8.2.3.3: 8.2.3.3: Passenger Launching crowding heeling moment
-25
0
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 Heel to Starboard deg.
99 | P a g e
100 | P a g e
101 | P a g e
StabilityCalculation
102 | P a g e
103 | P a g e
24
Stability Max GZ = 21.075 m at 107.3 deg.
21 18
GZ 8.2.3.3: Passenger crowding heeling arm 8.2.3.3: Launching heeling moment 8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 8.6.1 Residual GM with symmetrical flooding GM at 0.0 deg = 13.150 m Max GZ = 21.075 m at 107.3 deg.
15 8.6.1 Residual GM with symmetrical flooding GM at 0.0 deg = 13.150 m
GZ m
12 9 6 3 0
8.2.3.3: Wind heeling arm 8.2.3.3: 8.2.3.3: Passenger Launching crowding heeling heeling moment arm
-3 -6
-25
0
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 Heel to Starboard deg.
104 | P a g e
105 | P a g e
Longitudinal Strength Calculation
106 | P a g e
107 | P a g e
6
30000
400
5
25000
4
20000
3
15000
2
10000
200 100 0
Shear x10^3 tonne
Moment x10^3 tonne.m
300
1 0
Load t/m
500
-2
-10000
-3
-15000
-4
-20000
-400
-5
-25000
-500
-6
-30000 -40
-300
Mass Grounding Damage/NBV Net Load Buoyancy
0 -5000
-200
Mass Buoyancy Grounding Damage/NBV Net Load Shear Moment
5000
-1
-100
Longitudinal Strength
Shear 5.509 Moment 443.558
0
40
80
120 160 200 Long. Pos. m
240
280
320
360
108 | P a g e
109 | P a g e
110 | P a g e
Event Tree Analysis Collision Collision Per ship year
Probabilities
1.32E-03
2.70E-01
5.94E-04
1.21E-01
1.22E-04
2.48E-02
6.53E-04
1.33E-01
1.55E-04
3.15E-02
40% fatalities(0.2)
1.74E-05
3.55E-03
80% fatalities(0.6) 100% fatalities(0.2)
5.22E-05 1.74E-05
1.06E-02 3.55E-03
8.05E-05
1.64E-02
7.51E-05 2.33E-05
1.53E-02 4.75E-03
1.26E-03
2.58E-01
2.58E-04
5.27E-02
7.87E-05
1.61E-02
Minor Damage (0.27) Non fatal Impact(0.83) Impact Only(0.4) Fatal Impact(0.17) Remains afloat(0.73)
Collision 4.90E-03
Slow Sinking(0.64)
Flooding (0.5) Struck Ship(0.5)
Sinking (0.27) Rapid Capsize(0.36)
Fire (0.1) Collision (0.73)
Minor Damage (0.45) Major Damage(0.42) Total Loss(0.13) Non fatal Impact(0.83)
Impact Only(0.85) Fatal Impact(0.17) Remains afloat(0.88)
Slow Sinking(0.82)
Flooding (0.05) Stricking Ship(0.5)
1.80E-03
40% fatalities(0.2)
3.86E-07
7.88E-05
80% fatalities(0.6) 100% fatalities(0.2)
1.16E-06 3.86E-07
2.37E-04 7.88E-05
8.05E-05
1.64E-02
7.51E-05 2.33E-05 4.90E-03
1.53E-02 4.75E-03 1.00E+00
Sinking(0.12) Rapid Capsize(0.18)
Fire (0.1) Level 1
8.80E-06
Level 2
Minor Damage(0.45) Major Damage(0.42) Total Loss (0.13) Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
112 | P a g e
Contact Contact Per shipyear
Probabilities
1.30E-04 9.10E-05 3.25E-05
2.50E-02 1.75E-02 6.25E-03
40% fatalities (0.2)
1.30E-06
2.50E-04
80% fatalities (0.6)
3.90E-06
7.50E-04
100% fatalities (0.2)
1.30E-06
2.50E-04
1.04E-03
2.00E-01
1.82E-04 6.76E-05
3.50E-02 1.30E-02
40% fatalities (0.2)
2.08E-06
4.00E-04
80% fatalities (0.6) 100% fatalities (0.2)
6.24E-06 2.08E-06
1.20E-03 4.00E-04
Remains afloat (0.9) Slow sinking (0.09) Rapid Capsize (0.01)
4.68E-04 4.68E-05 4.68E-06 5.20E-07
9.00E-02 9.00E-03 9.00E-04 1.00E-04
Remains afloat (0.9) Slow sinking (0.09) Rapid Capsize (0.01) Level 3
2.81E-03 2.81E-04 2.81E-05 3.12E-06 5.20E-03
5.40E-01 5.40E-02 5.40E-03 6.00E-04 1.00E+00
No Flooding (0.5) Icebergs (0.05)
Remains afloat (0.7) Slow sinking (0.25) Flooding (0.5) Rapid Capsize (0.05) No Flooding (0.8)
Offshore Structures (0.25)
Remains afloat (0.7) Slow sinking (0.26) Flooding (0.2) Rapid Capsize (0.04)
Contact 5.20E-03
No Flooding (0.9) Bridges (0.1) Flooding (0.1) No Flooding (0.9) Harbor Structures (0.6) Flooding (0.1) Level 1
Level 2
Level 4
Fire/Explosion 113 | P a g e
Compartment of ignition (0.9)
Rapid Extinguishing (0.9) Slow Extinguishing (0.1) Rapid Extinguishing (0.8)
Adjacent compartments (0.06) Slow Extinguishing (0.2) Fire/Exp 6.00E-03 Contained within fire zone (0.03)
Escalation beyond fire zone(0.01) Level 1
restrained (0.8) total loss (0.2) Level 2
People inside (0.7) No people inside (0.3) People inside (0.6) No people inside (0.4) Low density of people (0.4) Med density of people (0.2) High density of people (0.4) Low density of people (0.4) Med density of people (0.3) High density of people (0.3) Low density of people (0.4) Med density of people (0.3) High density of people (0.3)
Level 3
Fire/Exp per Ship year 3.40E-03 1.46E-03 3.24E-04 2.16E-04 1.15E-04 5.76E-05 1.15E-04 2.88E-05 2.16E-05 2.16E-05 7.20E-05 5.40E-05 5.40E-05 4.80E-05 1.20E-05 6.00E-03
Probabilities 5.67E-01 2.43E-01 5.40E-02 3.60E-02 1.92E-02 9.60E-03 1.92E-02 4.80E-03 3.60E-03 3.60E-03 1.20E-02 9.00E-03 9.00E-03 8.00E-03 2.00E-03 1.00E+00
114 | P a g e
