# Container Ship Gains 300 Slots by Removing Engine Room



## Geoff Gower

GTT, CMA CGM and DNV GL have released the technical feasibility study for a new 20,000 TEU container ship that doesn’t have an engine room. The vessel is LNG-fuelled, powered by a combined gas (COGAS) and steam turbine and is electrically driven. With the gas and steam turbines integrated at deck level within the same deck house as the LNG tanks, the space normally occupied by a conventional engine room can be used to increase cargo capacity by approximately 300 container slots compared to a heavy fuel oil-fuelled ship. The result is achieved despite LNG tanks requiring more space than traditional fuel oil tanks. The two 10,960 m³ LNG fuel tanks are located below the deck house, giving the vessel enough fuel capacity for an Asia/Europe round trip.The Piston Engine Room Free Efficient Containership (PERFECt) concept vessel thereby generates greater revenues and reduces the payback time for the additional CAPEX required, says DNV GL. The design is claimed to have the potential for better efficiency and flexibility than current 20,000 TEU two-stroke diesel engine driven ultra large container ships. The dissociation of electric power generation from electric propulsion allows the electric power plant to be moved away from the main propulsion system, giving a great deal of design flexibility. The three electric main motors, which are arranged on one common shaft, can be run fully independently of each other providing increased redundancy and reliability and a high level of safety. 
With gas turbine-driven power production and electric propulsion, the ship’s machinery systems will be simplified and much more robust. This approach is also expected to lead to new maintenance strategies that are already common practice in the aviation industry. Such strategies would enable shipping companies to reduce the ship’s engine crew dramatically and save costs.
Gerd Würsig, Business Director for LNG-fuelled ships at DNV GL – Maritime, says a modern, land-based combined cycle LNG-fuelled power plant will reach fuel-to-power efficiency ratios of up to 60 percent, which is higher than conventional diesel engines, which can achieve up to 52 percent. In addition, the power density by volume and weight is much higher for a COGAS system. The study suggests that optimizing the power plant through minimizing the steam turbine size, reducing power capacities, condenser cooling and using a two-stage pressure steam turbine and steam generator will increase the system’s efficiency further. “Gas turbines associated with steam turbines in co-generation mode are ideal for the efficient utilization of LNG as a fuel,” says Arthur Barret, LNG Bunkering Program Director at GTT. “This new design combines the exceptional volumetric efficiency of membrane containment technology with flexible electric propulsion to save even more cargo space compared to a conventional design.”The next phase of the design process aims to optimize the propulsion system and ship design to attain even greater efficiency and increased cargo capacity.


----------



## Coastie

Blimey! What can one say? Is this the future?


----------



## Farmer John

I bet Alfred Holt would have run his ruler over this. That is, if he hadn't been in there first.

If it works, it will be done.


----------



## Kaiser Bill

Does this mean the end of "ginger beers" ?


----------



## D1566

Still need to have space for all the other ancillaries though?


----------



## A.D.FROST

What next a electrical pic-up on the sea bed


----------



## Barrie Youde

What next? A ten lane motorway from Shanghai to Calais.


----------



## surfaceblow

The Chevron Tankers built between 1975 and 1976 also had no engine room they were 39,842 dead weight ton product tankers were an advanced design with double hulls and a 10,500 horsepower General Electric gas turbine for main propulsion. The ships were 650 feet in length with a 96 foot beam and could make 15 knots. Chevron tried to have the tankers classed has a self propelled barge since they did not have an engine room but the USCG ruled that the vessels were tankers and gave Chevron a required manning. 

Joe


----------



## Varley

Joe, very interesting. Can you tell us the type and configuration of the gas turbine.

The Seatrain GTVs (Euro class 2 x 20 K SHP aeroderivative power packs each geared to a shaft with VPP). Still fairly conventional shape only much shorter engine room with similarly stunted accommodation above so the lot took up only one slot. I don't know how Class went but the BoT required the usual tickets to be combined steam and motor.


----------



## surfaceblow

The ships were powered by a GE Frame 3 gas turbine for the main propulsion system and a Ruston TB3000 gas turbine for auxiliary propulsion. The five ship series were powered by a 12,000 HP main gas turbine (MGT) driving a 4160-volt generator. Propulsion is provided by a 4160-volt 10,000 HP synchronous AC electric motor coupled directly to a controllable pitch propeller. 

You can download a PDF file at the link that follows the paper is about the replacing the main gas turbine control system and propulsion controls on the oil tanker Chevron Colorado in the spring of 1993, both the main and auxiliary turbine and propulsion controls have been replaced on each of the other four (4) tankers. 

http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleID=2130172

Joe


----------



## Basil

Pardon my ignorance, but aren't they just moving the engine room from one location to another?


----------



## surfaceblow

That is what the USCG determined when Chervon tried to have the ships classed has a self propelled barge. The finding was it did not matter what the plans called the spaces it was still machinery spaces. 

Joe


----------



## Varley

Joe, Many thanks. I have seen something of the progress from the analogue (Hamilton Standard) used on the Pratt and Whitney FT4 "power packs" and later PLC technology on industrial sets. I guess, without reading, that the retrofit followed one or other ideas for redundancy (which never seem to quite cover all the eventualities they should).

With respect to the electrical link and starting - much like the T2?


----------



## chadburn

Kaiser Bill said:


> Does this mean the end of "ginger beers" ?


Willy Grays used a similiar idea of increasing cargo space by shifting the Boilers to Deck Level above the Engineroom in a series of vessel's they built.
If R.R. have their own way there will be no Crew at all in around 10 years time. 
I read Mearsk are going to do Trials using the Oil/Water emulsion 'Fuel' in some of their vessels if the Bunkering facilities get the go ahead at Gib.


----------



## Basil

chadburn said:


> Oil/Water emulsion 'Fuel'


An internal combustion steam engine?


----------



## surfaceblow

chadburn said:


> Willy Grays used a similiar idea of increasing cargo space by shifting the Boilers to Deck Level above the Engineroom in a series of vessel's they built.
> If R.R. have their own way there will be no Crew at all in around 10 years time.
> I read Mearsk are going to do Trials using the Oil/Water emulsion 'Fuel' in some of their vessels if the Bunkering facilities get the go ahead at Gib.


I was on a vessel that did a study using a Oil Water emulsion fuel with boilers in the late 80's. The concept was that it was to reduce fuel consumption. I can say that the daily fuel consumption was a bit lower but if you take the almost daily flame outs and boiler shut downs it was a bit of a wash. 

Joe


----------



## chadburn

Kaiser Bill said:


> Does this mean the end of "ginger beers" ?


There will always be a requirement for Engineers especially if they start putting 'Emulsion' through engines(Thumb)


----------



## China hand

Basil said:


> An internal combustion steam engine?


Come back Dolias, all is forgiven


----------



## Varley

Dolius! That wrong spelling has caused me much inefficient Googling to find the Scott-Still engine. Full away on diesel, manoeuvring on steam.

Don't mock the repeated attempts at emulsion technology. Rome wasn't burned overnight. It does make some sense, as with atomising steam in boiler burners. A tiny explosive water droplet to spiflicate the ****t so it will burn better, flashing off when first introduced into the hot cylinder. This was the last of many steps before burning (hopefully) ****t in aeroderivative gas turbines.


----------



## China hand

My apologies, Varley. Put it down to my lousy spelling. There were two Blue Flu Scott Stills (Eurybates rings a bell). I am an ex rock dodger who used to be called an "engineers old man" 'cos I always thought that the gingerbeers kept the heap running; but I still get childish glee when I wander on to Scott-Stills and even good engineers think I am bull****ting.


----------



## Varley

My, my, an Engineers' Old Man!

How many up is that from Engineers' lookout?

(Sorry, OM, couldn't resist it).


----------



## John Jarman

Varley said:


> Dolius! That wrong spelling has caused me much inefficient Googling to find the Scott-Still engine. Full away on diesel, manoeuvring on steam.
> 
> Don't mock the repeated attempts at emulsion technology. Rome wasn't burned overnight. It does make some sense, as with atomising steam in boiler burners. A tiny explosive water droplet to spiflicate the ****t so it will burn better, flashing off when first introduced into the hot cylinder. This was the last of many steps before burning (hopefully) ****t in aeroderivative gas turbines.


Just speaking from 'experience', DV......just experience......for what it's worth.

JJ.


----------



## Varley

JJ, Mine is all vicarious, leckie didn't often need to get that nasty oily stuff on his boiler suit (mine were imaginatively dyed to look as if I had been working).

It was said that power stations did offer another 'home' for steam men. I had assumed you had a similar disregard for water. If not perhaps taking advantage of it for atomising especially with no annoying cylinder oil problems that might interfere. I do know that the water generally found in bunkers is highly saline (whether starting off like that or ONLY taking it from the product I don't know) this is because one of the other steps in burning ****t in aercraft engines was in washing the salt out of the fuel with water which ended up more saline than seawater.

I think we should move off the bridge. We might distract the watchkeeper.


----------



## Engine Serang

And imaginatively embroidered with a big black analogue Avometer with a black and a red lead coming off it.
The gullibility of ones shipmates!


----------



## Varley

No, no. The AVO was real - it was the shifter that was Mother's crochet work. We really must leave the bridge with this jolly plumbing chat. I know I don't leave oily marks but the same can't be said for you!


----------



## chadburn

Varley said:


> Dolius! That wrong spelling has caused me much inefficient Googling to find the Scott-Still engine. Full away on diesel, manoeuvring on steam.
> 
> Don't mock the repeated attempts at emulsion technology. Rome wasn't burned overnight. It does make some sense, as with atomising steam in boiler burners. A tiny explosive water droplet to spiflicate the ****t so it will burn better, flashing off when first introduced into the hot cylinder. This was the last of many steps before burning (hopefully) ****t in aeroderivative gas turbines.


Certainly adding water to the burn is not new, this version was used on a few coal burners including a couple of Vancouver Ferries.


----------

