(1999) Wijnolst Et Al MALACCA MAX-The Ultimate Container Carrier

MALACCA-MAX THE UL TIMATE CONTAINER CARRIER

Design innovation in container shipping

2443 625 8

Bibliotheek TU Delft

. IIIII I IIII I II III II II III 1111 I I 11111

C 0003815611

DELFT MARINE TECHNOLOGY SERIES

1 . Analysis of the Containership Charter Market 1983-1992

2 . Innovation in Forest Products Shipping

3. Innovation in Shortsea Shipping : Self-Ioading and Unloading Ship systems

4. Nederlandse Maritieme Sektor: Economische Structuur en Betekenis

5. Innovation in Chemical Shipping: Port and Slops Management

6. Multimodal Shortsea shipping

7. De Toekomst van de Nederlandse Zeevaartsector : Economische Impact

Studie (EIS) en Beleidsanalyse

8. Innovatie in de Containerbinnenvaart: Geautomatiseerd Overslagsysteem

9. Analysis of the Panamax bulk Carrier Charter Market 1989-1994: In

relation to the Design Characteristics

10. Analysis of the Competitive Position of Short Sea Shipping: Development

of Policy Measures

11. Design Innovation in Shipping

12. Shipping

13. Shipping Industry Structure

14. Malacca-max: The Ultimate Container Carrier

For more information about these publications, see : http://www-mt.wbmt.tudelft .nl/rederijkunde/index.htm

MALACCA-MAX THE ULTIMATE CONTAINER CARRIER

Niko Wijnolst Marco Scholtens

DELFT UNIVERSITY PRESS 1999

Frans Waals

Published and distributed by:

Delft University Press P.O. Box 98 2600 MG Delft The Netherlands

Tel: +31-15-2783254 Fax: +31-15-2781661 E-mail: [email protected]

CIP-DATA KONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK, Tp1X

Niko Wijnolst, Marco Scholtens, Frans Waals

Shipping Industry Structure/Wijnolst, N.; Scholtens, M; Waals, F.A .J . Delft: Delft University Press. - 111. Lit. ISBN 90-407-1947-0 NUGI834 Keywords: Container ship, Design innovation, Suez Canal Copyright <tl 1999 by N. Wijnolst, M . Scholtens, F.A .J. Waals

All rights reserved . No part of the material protected by th is copyright may be reproduced or utilised in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission of the publisher: Delft University Press, Prometheusplein 1, 2628 Delft, The Netherlands

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7

2. THE ADVENT OF POST-PANAMAX CONTAINER SHIPS ............. 16 2.1 The development of post-Panamax container ships . .. .... .... 16 2.2 Ship size developments ........ .. ... .. . . ... . . . ... . ... 17

3. HISTORICAL DEVElOPMENTS IN lIQUID AND DRY BULK SHIPPING . . . , 20 3.1 Development of large oil tankers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 3.2 ULCCs, an overshoot in upscaling .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 3.3 Dry bulk shipping .................................. 23 3.4 Conclusions .. ... .. ... . . . ... . .......... . ........ . . 24

4. CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT OF AN ULTRA LARGE CONTAINER SHIP . ... 25 4 .1 Main dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4 .2 Concept development ....................... . ....... 26

4 .2.1 Propulsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26 4.2.2 Hatch covers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27 4.2.3 Layout options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27

4.3 Conclusions............... . . .. ............. . ..... 28

5. SIMPLE CONCEPT OF A SUEZMAX CONTAINER SHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5.1 Concept... . . . ..... . .. . ....................... .. 30 5.2 Main dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5.3 Huil form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31 5.4 General plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5.5 Propulsion .................. . . . . .. ..... .. ........ 31 5.6 Stability............. . ......... .. ................ 32 5.7 Conclusions........ . . .. .................. . . . .. ... 33

6. PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF A MALACCA-MAX CONTAINER SHIP ..... . 34 6.1 Introduction...... . .. . . . .................. . .. . . .. . 34 6.2 Adaptations to original concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34 6.3 Main dimensions and characteristics .................... . 34

6.3.1 Huil form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 6.3.2 General arrangement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 6.3.3 Propulsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 6.3.4 Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 6.3.5 Container support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38

6.4 Light ship weight estimate ............................ 39

5

Malacca-max: The Ultimate Container Carrier

6.4.1 Method Westers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39 6.4.2 Method Sneekluth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 6.4.3 Light Ship Weight according to Vossnack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 6.4.4 Midship extrapolation ... . . . .. . .. . . ... . .......... 40 6.4.5 Accuracy of the methods used .. . . .. . ............ . 41

6.5 Loading and discharging a Malacca-max container ship . . . . . . . . . 42

7. STRENGTH ASSESSMENT MAlACCA-MAX CONTAINER SHIP . ...... . 45 7.1 Introduction..... . ...................... ...... .. .. 45 7 .2 Approach . ................. . .. . .......... . ..... . . 45 7 .3 Preliminary des ign of midship section . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. 45

7 .3.1 Concept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45 7 .3.2 Minimum scantlings (Lloyds rules) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47

7.4 Direct calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47 7.4.1 Longitudinal strength .. . .. .. ... . .. . . .. . : . . . . . . . . . 47 7.4.2 Transverse strength . . ....... . ... . ...... . ..... .. 48 7.4.3 Torsion stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 7.4.4 Transverse beam bending .... . . ..... .... ... . .... . 51

7.5 Calculations in SafeHuIl ............. .. ... . ... .. .... .. 52 7.6 Conclusions . .. . . ...... . . ....... ... ... .. ......... . 53

8. ECONOMIC EVAlUATION OF THE DESIGN . ................... . 54 8.1 Introduction...... . ... .. . ... . ... . .... . ..... .. ..... 54 8.2 Cost elements ...... . ..... .... .. .. .. .. . . ..... .. .. . 54 8.3 Calculation model .. . ........... . ... ..... . ..... . .... 54 8.4 Assumptions ... ..... ...... . ........ . . . . .... . ..... 56 8.5 Economies of scale of large container ships . . ...... ... . .... 62

9. COST ESTIMATE FOR THE DREDGING OF THE SUEZ CANAl ...... . .. 64 9.1 Introduction .. ... . ...................... .. . . ..... . 64 9 .2 History of the Suez Canal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64 9.3 Current dimensions of the Canal ..... .. .. .. . ....... . . . .. 66 9.4 Future expansion plans . ........... . .......... . . ... . . 69 9.5 Suez Canal dues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 9.6 Possible cooperation of Rotterdam and/or Singapore ... ....... 71

10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........ . ... . ...... 74

CHAPTER NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76

6

Introduction

1 . INTRODUCTION

Container shipping has become the fastest growing segment in world shipping over the last 35 years. This has fac ilitated the growth in size of container ships. For almost 25 years the size was restricted to Panamax-dimensions. Since 1988 this hurdle has been taken and the largest ships of today are on their way to take the next geographical constraint relevant for the shipping industry: the Suez Canal. The design limit of this Canal will be reached within the next couple of years. "Where will this increase in container ship size end?", is a question that preoccupies many port authorities, terminal operators and of course shipowners.

In this book the answer to that question is provided: the Malacca-max container carrier, a ship of just over 18,000 TEU. We have given it the name of the third major design parameter in the world, af ter the Panama Canal locks, the Suez Canal draught and width: the Strait of Malacca draught of 21 metres.

The VLCC fleet of oil tankers has a draught th at allows them to pass the Strait on their way to Japan . So it is argued in this book th at the ultimate draught for container ships will become 21 metres just as the VLCC fleet . On the basis of this design parameter a conceptual design of a container ship has been made. The ship is meant to be used in a simple shuttle operation between for example the ports of Rotterdam and Singapore, alt hough it could be extended to other ports as weil, provided they have sufficient draught.

One bottleneck standing in the way of this huge container ship is the Suez Canal. The draught and width of the Canal is a moving target since it is getting deeper all the time by the continuous work of the Suez Canal Authority dredgers. It is expected to reach the 21-metre draught in the year 2009 from its current 17 metres (1999). Ten years seems a very long time but in order to adapt the port infrastructure to the advent of the Malacca-max container ship it is already tight .

Why should shipowners invest in these large ships, while they do not make a decent return on investment on the current container ships? The driving force is the creation of a competitve advantage through economies of scale. The Malacca-max design has an overall lower cost level of approximately 16 per cent over the current largest container ships of 8,000 TEU . In a world of cutthroat competition , 16 per cent can make a decisive difference.

The conceptval design and feasibility study in this book are the result of a master thesis project from - Marco Scholtens - at the Delft University of Technology . There are many aspects in this study th at can be criticised, but the reader should keep in mind th at the objective of the thesis-work and the book is to show the world some

7

""M'· "


direction in container ship development. It is an exploratory study and not a detailed design of a ship, nor of a liner schedule with all its complicating variables . The perspective on the future is urgently required since tremendous amounts of money are today invested in quays, cranes and harbours which could become a waste of capital if the wrong design dimensions are used. For example the current gantries have a maximum outreach of 60 m. The Malacca-max carrier requires an outreach of 74 m. And it can be done as, crane-specialist Huisman-Itrec demonstrates with the design shown in Figure 1.

Figuur 1: Gantry design with 74-metre outreach

Given the lifetime ot a crane of 25 years, the planning horizon of terminals should include the advent of the Malacca-max ship with its length of 400 m, breadth of 60 mand draught of 21 m. Figure 2 shows the general arrangement of the conta iner ship.

Ship size and company size

There is a clear tendency within the container shipping industry towards an increase in company size . In the book "Shipping Industry Structure" the increase in the size of container companies is shown tor two years: 1996 and 1998 (Figure 3)

8

Introduction

Figuur 2: Malacca-max container ship design

Two opposing farces drive this trend:

~ The economy of scale of large ships requires major investments th at cannot be financed by small companies;

~ The dis-economy of scale when growing from small scale operations to a large scale and world-wide network, which requires huge investments in information technology and local offices.

These two farces are feeding on each other. And the end of it is not in sight. It will be reinforeed by the Malacca-max container ship since the investment in one ship will be substantial, probably more than the equity of most of the second tier container shipping companies.

Design innovation in shipping methodology.

Marco Scholtens has used a special design methodology in his study: Design Innovation in Shipping (DIS) methodology. DIS has been developed at the Delft University of Technology in order to incorporate, in an academie way, triggers for innovation in the standard design cycle. In the book "Design Innovation In Shipping" this methodology is explained, and it should be read in conjunction with the baak on "Shipping Industry Structure", which contains a brief developmental history of each of the major shipping markets.

9


100% .-.--.----.--.----r--,---,--,----,--,---,--,-,

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

1996 1998

Corrpanies

1996 1998

Nuniler of ships

category

Figuur 3: Development of container company size

1996 1998

Deadweight

0 >20

m 11 -20

.6-10

03-5

02

~1

___ ',,1111'

The underlying philosophy of the DIS-approach is that most of the ship designs in the world are related to a number of triggers, ranging from physical law triggers to geographical conditions triggers, from regulations triggers to economie parameters triggers, and of course not to forget technological triggers. By systematically analysing the environment - in the widest sense - in which a ship operates, the designer is able to identify, through benchmarking and S-curve analysis, potential shifts. Economie parameters triggers, such as the stevedoring cost and port time of ships, triggered deepsea container shipping in the first place, see "Design Innovation in Shipping". Later on, the geographical conditions triggers became the stepping stone for change. As mentioned before, the Panama Canal was the most important hurdle th at had to be taken. The growth of the Panamax and post-Panamax container ship capacity, shown in Figure 4, illustrates the distinct shift in container ship size over the last decade.

10

Introduction

30,0%

25,0%

20,0% ., :;;

..c: lil 15,0% ~ ... :;; :E 10,0%

5,0%

0,0%

~

~ .I ~ Panama

/ ~

/ /' ~.

~ V Post-Pan max

Q.

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

Figuur 4: Shift in container ship size

Based on the current study and several other similar projects, we are confident to postulate that within the next decade another major shift will occur, towards the Malacca-max container carrier. Shipowners would be foolish to invest in tonnage of alesser capacity, for example based on the current restrietions of the Suez Canal, since the draught of the Canal is constantly increased. There are of course many container routes in the world that do not permit to operate ships with a draught of 21 m . But, it is our firm believe that eventually owners will push the design envelope to the max, Malacca-max! The DIS-methodology is a useful tooi for shipowners and ship designers and the interested reader is invited to have a look at this textbook, which is used at the Marine Technology Faculty.

Feasibility

A new ship design may be technically perfect, but th at does not necessarily mean that the owner will be able to make a decent return on investment. In order to establish the latter, the shipowner makes investment and voyage calculations. The students at the Faculty learn the basics of the economie evaluation methods used in shipping , which are summed up in the textbook "Shipping". On the basis of a number of facts and assumptions, the Malacca-max container ship is compared with th ree other container ship sizes: the Panamax ship of approximately 4,500 TEU, the current largest container ship of 8,000 TEU, and the Suex-max ship of 12,000 TEU. The results are shown in Figure 5.

11


12

10

8

~ ~ r--..t..

> lil

"t:I

:3 6 w t: <I> Cf)

-. Slot cos ts

--.ti 0 0 0 0

::::I 4 n Time Ch ar ~ r Equiva lent

2

o o 5000 10000

TEU capacity

Figuur 5:Slot costs and TCE of large container ships

15000 20000

Although there are not many dots in the graph, it is demonstrated that the Malaccamax ship offers economies of scale of approximately 30 per cent over a Panamax ship and 16 per cent over the current largest ship of 8,000 TEU. Although these figures should be treated with care, they warrant further serious study into this subject.

Suez Canal

The first objective of the study was to establish the conceptual design and the approximate feasibility of the Malacca-max container ship. A second objective was to create a lasting competitive advantage for the port of Rotterdam. Let us explain the reasoning behind this objective. In Northwestern Europe the access channels to the major container ports pose severe draught restrictions. Only by major dredging operations and "riding the tide" the ports of Hamburg, Bremerhaven, Felixstowe and Antwerp w ill be ultimately accessible for ships up to a 1 5-metre draught. An increase in draught of container ships like the Malacca-max to 21 m will eliminate these ports as competitors from the important Europe - Far East trade route . Rotterdam is the only major container port in NW-Europe th at is able to accommodate the VLCC-size ships. Therefore the port of Rotterdam has a very important strategie reason for stimulating shipowners to invest in ships of Malaccamax dimensions. The sooner th is development happens, the better it is for Rotterdam.

12

Introduction

Since the Suez Canal is currently a major bottleneck in draught terms for the Malacca-max ship, Marco Scholtens visited the Suez Canal Authority in order to find out about the current and future dredging programmes. The information provided by the SCA (Suez Canal Authority) was used to calculate the amount of dredging work and the cost involved. The Canal profile development since 1869 (year of inauguration) is shown in Figure 6. The enlargement has been very impressive over the last 130 years.

Area Max. draught Max.dwt

1869 ...... ;;:> 310 m2 6.76 m 7,000 dwt

1900 ......... ;;:::> 460 m2 7,80 m 10,000 dwt

1908 oc::::::::: ::;:::>" 680 m2 8.53 m 14,000 dwt

1912 ............... ::::;;::0'" 720 m2 8.53m 14,000 dwt

1914 ---- ---- 870 m2 8.84 m 16,000 dwt

1935 oe::::::::::::: :::wsttin2 10.06 m 28,000 dwt

1954 --- ~m2 10.67 m 32,000 dwt

1961 --- 1600 ~ ___ ~1.28 m 45,000 dwt

1964 ---- 1!iÖÖ ~ -----'~ .58 m 65,000 dwt

1980 ------ 3700m2 16.16 m~Odwt

2010 --=:::::::::::: 280.000d~

Figuur 6: Suez Canal profile development

The deepening to a 21-metre draught will take approximately ten years, if SCA uses its own modern dredging equipment. The process can be speeded up significantly if additional dredging capacity is used. We propose to do just that. The ports of Rotterdam and Singapore should both provide the financing to SCA in order to achieve the 21-metre mark within the next five years. A rough guess puts the additional capital dredging at US$ 400 million. The interest on on th is amount is approximately US$ 24 million per annum, if divided by both ports, only US$ 12 million per port. Small money compared to wh at is at stake on a competitive level between ports in Northwest Europe, but also in Southeast Asia.

13


Approach

The study started with a review of the developments of container ships and shipping until now in an attempt to find parallels with developments in liquid and dry bulk shipping . Also other factors th at might influence the design parameters of the vessel, such as operational demands of owners, characteristics of waterways and design characteristics of recent large container ships, have been examined.

The main research questions were:

~ Is it attractive for liner companies to operate with 18,000 TEU container vessels (is it technically feasible and economically attractive)?

~ What are the necessary adaptations to the Suez Canal, wh at will it cost and should Rotterdam and/or Singapore financially support this project?

Some other questions require further research, but these are bevond the purview of this study. The most important ones are :

~ How to increase container handling in port? ~ Are ports able to facilitate the through transport of the highly irregular

container flows? ~ How must the sailing schedules be adapted to optimise productivity with

these big ships?

The approach followed in this study is shown in Figure 7

Sponsors

The study has been supported by several companies, which all have an interest in the potentialof the Malacca-max development. These are :

~ American Bureau of Shipping Europe, London office (Classification society);

~ Port Authority of Rotterdam; ~ Royal Boskalis (dredging); ~ P&O Nedlloyd, Rotterdam office; ~ Huisman-Itrec (crane manufacturer) ; ~ Marin (ship laboratory) .

Although these companies helped us with the project, they are in no way responsible for the report or its conclusions. We are very grateful for their trust and support. And hopefully it proves to be a good investment!

14

, , , , , .------ -)[-- ----: Adaptations to : the Iogistical : chain (not a part 1 of this study)

----------------

Estimation with use of SafeHuti software in fina l stage

Feasibility Malaccamax concept

Choice for a preliminary design aJternative

Preliminary design Malaccamax container carrier'

Adaptations 10 harbour basins/cranes etc. (not a part ot this study)

---- - - -~ ----------

Cost analysÎs and comparison with cost levels of current vessels '

Figuur 7: Approach followed in the Malacca-max project

Introduction

15


2. THE ADVENT OF POST -PANAMAX CONTAINER SHIPS

2.1 The development of post-Panamax container ships

The Panama Canal is one of the most important waterways in the world. Every year several thousands of ships pass th is canal. The dimensions of the locks in the Panama Canal have a large influence on the design of ships. Many ships have been designed to be just able to pass the locks in the Canal. These so called "Panamax" ships have been optimised throughout the years, to accommodate more cargo within the same main dimensions. Especially in container shipping, the Panamax design has become very popular. Over the past decades the liner companies have significantly increased the scale of their operations. Important reasons for th is are the substantial growth in th is sector as weil as the very tough competition in the liner shipping industry, forcing companies to cut costs almost continuously. Larger vessels can generally transport containers in a cheaper, more efficient way than smaller ships. This development can be visualised as an S-curve development: The S-curve consists of an initial start-up period followed by a period of strong growth, which eventually reaches a ceiling level. This development is illustrated in Figure 8.

5 w ~ ~ 'u .. Co .. .., Co :c VI

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500 r-

2000

1500

1965

~

~ ..... ~

~.&: .. -.. • ~ ~ .. ".":. ~ . ~ ~ .. .... ....

........ ./" .... . ... -~ '. • • • ... .~ • - .... •• • •

•• .. • • 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Vear of construction

Figuur 8: S-curve development in Panamax container ships

16

2005

The advent of post-Panamax container ships

In the late 1 980s American President Lines was the first liner operator to abandon the Panamax design. Their C-1 0 class container ships were the first to have a wider breadth than the locks in the Panama Canal could accommodate. Since these ships were to sail on the Pacific only, it was not essential for them to be able to pass the Panama Canal.

Within a few years other operators followed APL's example . Many liner companies added a large number of so ca lied "post-Panamax" ships to their fleet, though there are still operators who are staving with Panamax designs . They feel the larger flexibility of Panamax ships is more important than scale advantages that may be achieved by larger post-Panamax ships .

Abandoning the limitations of the Panama Canal means that ships with a significant larger capacity can be built. This results in economies of scale, which can cause significant cost reductions for the liner operators. Although the first post-Panamax ships had a capacity smaller than that of an optimised Panamax design, the most recent designs are significantly larger. At the moment the Maersk S-class is the largest ship so far, with an official capacity of 6,600 TEU (but is able to carry about 8700 if container weights allows it), against a maximum of about 4,500 TEU for an optimised Panamax ship.

It seems that Panamax ships have reached the peak of their market share, while the share of post-Panamax ships is rapidly increasing. Expectations on the optimum size of post-Panamax ships are divided. Maersk and P&O Nedlloyd clearly opt for a large increase in size, with ships of 6,500 TEU and over, while other operators, such as COSCO, NYK and Evergreen choose to limit the size of their ships to about 5,500 TEU (see Table 1).

2.2 Ship size developments

Considerations th at influence the choice in ship size are, for instance, the handling time in port, the cargo volumes on specific routes and draught restrictions in harbours. The size development of post-Panamax ships is shown in Figure 9 .

17


President Adams 1988 4,340 24.20 273.10 Nedlloyd Normandie 1991 4,427 24 .00 275.70 Hyunday Baron 1992 4,469 24 .50 275.10 NYK Altair 1994 4,743 23.50 300.00 Hyunday Federal 1994 4,411 24.50 275 .00 Nedlloyd Hongkong 1994 4,112 24.00 279.10

California 1995 4,960 24.60 276 .00 1995 4,832 24.50 276.30 1995 4,800 24.00 300.00

K-class 1996 6,418 25.00 318 .20 Hyunday Indep. 1996 5,551 25.60 276.00 Ever Ultra 1996 5,364 25.00 285 .00 Hanjin London 1996 5,302 25.60 279 .00 NYK Anteres 1997 5,798 24.00 299.90 Maersk S-class 1997 7,040 25.00 346.70 Luhe 1997 5,250 24.50 280.00

Tabel 1: Overview of characteristic post-Panamax ships

5 w t:. ~ '(3

'" c.

'" " c. :2 en

7500

7000

6500

6000

5500

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

1986

~

1988

~

---~ 1990 1992 1994

Year of construction

39.40 37.10 37 .20 37.10 37 .20 37.80 40 .00 40 .00 37.10 42.80 40.00 40.00 40 .30 40 .00 42.00 39.80

•

• ~ V" •

• •

1996

Figuur 9: Size development of post-Panamax container ship

41,882 38,235 49,324 42,978 49,324 40,653 48,618 48,824 43,828 54,882 54,794 48,618 54,794 60,419 61,000 43,088

1998

It remains to be seen how far the sealing-up of container ships will continue. For now, the limiting factors are predominantly logistic rather than physical restraints in

18

The advent of post-Panamax container ships

shipbuilding or waterways. As ships grow in size, their time in port is bound to increase. More and heavier cranes are needed to handle these ships. The arrival of a large container ship means a lot of containers have to be hand led in a short period of time. This can cause problems with the through transport of the containers.

The next physical restraint, excluding the depth of harbour basins, is the Suez Canal. Although all container ships built so far can easily pass the Suez Canal, a further size increase will reach the limit of th is Canal as weil. A simple concept for a Suezmax container carrier is described later. This shows th at the maximum capacity of such a ship is around 12,000 TEU. There are indications th at Suezmax vessels are already being planned by and on the drawing boards of the world's largest container ship owner, Maersk. To allow larger ships to pass the Suez Canal; it has to be deepened and widened considerably. The voyage around the Cape of Good Hope, which is not unusual for crude carriers, is not feasible for container ships. The longer voyage time will ruin the ship's competitive position.

19


3. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN UaUID AND DRY BULK SHIPPING

In order to make predictions on the still growing container ship markets, it is interesting to look at previous developments in similar markets. The crude tanker and dry bulk markets are mature markets in the shipping industry, which have seen a similar increase in ship size as container vessels. In bulk and oil shipping these developments took place several decades ago, and the long-term effects of these developments can therefore be more readily assessed than for container shipping.

3.1 Development of large oil tankers

With the emergence of the Middle East as the major oil-exporting reg ion in the world in the fifties and sixties, the development of oil tankers took large steps forward. The total world production of oil sharply increased. As the oil mainly originated in the Persian Gulf, this also caused an increase in the average distance in sea transport from 4,000 nm (transatlantic) to 8,000 nm, or even 12,000 nm for transport around the Cape of Good Hope .

The closure of the Suez Canal in the aftermath of the Six-Day war between Israel and the Arab-speaking world, was an event that served as a further trigger for innovation in oil shipping. The necessity of shipping oil around the Cape of Good Hope resulted in the development of ever-Iarger tankers . The maximum size of crude oil tankers quickly grew from 85,000 DWT in 1968 to 260,000 DWT in 1972 and to 560,000 DWT in 1976. Even designs of 1,000,000 DWT tankers were made.

The high rates of return in crude oil shipping in the early seventies caused a massive newbuilding wave of supertankers which were all entering the market in a very short period of time. This is sometimes referred to as the "suckers rally" . It created a large overcapacity th at coincided with a political event which was to have a large impact on the oil markets, the 1973 oil crisis. This radical change, which happened virtually overnight, caused major shifts in the profitability of cru de oil tankers . The 500,000 DWT Ultra Large Crude Carriers (ULCC) were no longer profitable under the new market circumstances of low freight rat es and high fuel costs. Their very limited flexibility rende red their design obsolete. Consequently, very few tankers were built in the ten years af ter 1975, and no ULCCs have been ordered since 1975.

By now the oil tanker market is a mature market, which has developed into clearly defined sectors. The optimum size of the ships is determined by the boundary conditions of the market they operate in . The smallest category of crude tankers is

20

Historical developments in liquid and dry bulk shipping

now the Aframax (around 100,000 DWT), followed by the Suezmax (around 150,000 DWT), VLCCs (250,000 to 300,000 DWT) and some remaining ULCCs of over 400,000 DWT. While a large spread of tonnage existed in the seventies, the market is now divided into segments, each with a very narrow tonnage margin. See Figure 10.

500000 -r----,-----,---~.,_.- .. -.. -.---,_.---~--,__--,__-__,

450000 -t---+----Hl~~-

400000 +---}--~~~~~--~-----+----~----~--~

~ 350000 t----t--~~<1-f_~__t--_t_--+_-__t--___1 e.

1:' 300000 ~==~~~Ii~~::t~~,~~~~r:~~~ '1250000 + ~ 200000 t----t----t-:---:.-r--+--=--+---+---+------j f/)

150000 +---+---4!;

100000 +-__ ..2...+------,.-....1

• • 50000 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+------j

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Year of constructIon

1995

Figuur 10: Development of market segments in crude oil carriers.

2000 2005

The most important change that took place over the past years is the large-scale introduction of the double huil tanker. Again, this development was caused not by technological advances, but by an external factor, the OPA90 legislation .

3.2 ULCCs, an overshoot in upscaling

"Anything th at gets too large gets extinct ." A rule th at has been known to biologists for same time, was discovered by the shipping community in the mid-seventies . The collapse of the oil transport markets called an abrupt halt to the growth of oil tanker size.

With a totally reversed market situation the new breed of supertankers , the 500,000 DWT Ultra Large Crude Carriers were no langer profitable, and became instantly obsolete . The ULCCs could, and can, only enter a very limited number of ports

21


around the world . This greatly reduces their flexibility and deteriorates their competitive position. The economies of scale that can be achieved by these mammoths is limited. This is clearly shown in Figure 11, where the installed engine power per DWT is shown as a function of ship size. Although the fuel savings per DWT are initially quite significant with increasing ship size, this effect is considerably less for ships larger than VLCCs . The very small economies of scale do not offset the very limited flexibility these ships have.

Nowadays, the largest ships that are being constructed are around 300,000 DWT ships. They are capable of entering significantly larger number of ports, as weil as passing the relatively shallow Malacca Straits.

0,350

~ 0,300

0 i ~

0,250

.. ti ~ 0,200 8-ti c 0,150 "61 c ti

"t:I 0,100 .! E 111 .5 0,050

o 100.000 200.000 300.000 400.000 500.000 600.000

Ship capacity (CWT)

Figuur 11: Fuel consumption as a function of ship size, crude oil tankers .

The history of the Ultra Large Crude Carriers povides a clear message for other shipping market segments. Sealing-up the size of cargo ships is determined not only by technological boundaries, but much more by market requirements and restrietions in infrastructure.

22

Historical developments in liquid and dry bulk shipping

1cxxxx:l

o 1965

• • • •

1970

• •

•

~

•• # •

1975

~

•

•• • • • ••• •

• ••• •• ~

1980 1985 1990 1995 2CCO

Vear of construction

Figuur 12: Size developments maximum size new crude carriers.

3.3 Dry bulk shipping

2005

A similar increase in ship size happened in dry bulk shipping. In the late sixties the size of the largest bulk carriers started to increase dramatically. This ultimately led to the construction of giants such as the 360,000 DWT Berge Stahl, in 1986. Unlike the oil shipping market however, there was no great collapse in bulk shipping. The market fluctuates violently with a period of about ten years, but very large ships are still occasionally being built. However, the vast majority of post-Panamax and Capesize bulk carriers has a deadweight between 150,000 and 175,000 DWT. A small market continues to exist for larger bulk carriers. These Very Large Bulk Carriers (VLBCs) usually have a deadweight between 200,000 and 250,000 DWT. They operate on a very limited market, mainly transporting iron ore and coal from Australia and Brazil to Japan and Rotterdam. The size development of Capesize bulk carriers is shown in Figure 13.

23


400000~----------------~----~----~------~----~--~

• 350000+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+_----+_----+_--_4

• !i 300000 Q

~ 250000 +-----~----~----.+----~~~~~----~----+_----1 'ü til

~ 200000 +-----~----~-----+~~~ .. ~~~~~~~--+_--_4 Q.

:ë I/) 150000 t------::t=::3~!d~_r,

100000 +-----~~~~~~~~~-4----~~----~----+_--_4

50000 +-----~----~-----+-----4------~----~----+_--~ 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Vear of conslruction

Figuur 13: Size development of new Capesize bulk carriers

3.4 Conclusions

Lessons that can be learned from experiences in oil and dry bulk shipping are:

~ Economies of scale for very large ships need to be significant in order to offset their limited flexibility;

~ Ship design should take the volatile nature of shipping markets, and indeed the whole world economy, into account;

~ Maximum ship size is determined by infrastructure limitations and market demands rather than by technical limitations;

~ The optimum ship size in dry bulk and tanker shipping is maximised to 250,000 and 300,000 dwt. This is probably also the maximum size of container ships.

An important differences between bulk and container shipping is th at bulk shipping is predominantly a tramp sector. This makes the flexibility of the ship essential. Container ships usually operate on a fixed line schedule for a long period of time, which makes Flexibility less essential.

24

Concept development of an Ultra large Container Ship

4. CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT OF AN ULTRA LARGE CONTAINER SHIP

This chapter describes the design of a Ultra large Container Ship. Some basic decisions are made on the conceptual design of the ship . On basis of this design more detailed designs of a Suezmax and Malacca-max container ship are developed.

4.1 Main dimensions

Three different concepts have been developed, based on variation in the location of superstructure and engine room . All three concepts are based on the same huil. The breadth of the design is chosen equal to th at of the widest Very Large Crude Carriers , which is based on the width of the Suez Canal. A larger breadth would require an extra widening of the Canal for only a small group of container ships. The maximum breadth is between 55 and 60 metres. Maximum length is primarily determined by manoeuvrability in narrow waters and port basins. An over all length of 400 metres is acceptable. These lengths have been surpassed by ULCCs in the seventies, so no insurmountable problems are expected. Strength calculations are not considered at this stage. Due to the large dimensions and high speed of the ship, the required propulsive power cannot be placed on one shaft. A twin propeller installation is necessary. A service speed of 25 knots is chosen, which is equal to the service speed of the present largest container vessels. The huil form is based on th at of a large Panamax container schip and transformed to its new dimensions . The form was mainly selected because it was the only twin propeller huil form that is readily available in the transformation software used. For all three concepts the huil has the following main dimensions:

Lo. = 400 m Cb 0 .625 Lpp 380 m Hdouble bottom 2.00 m B 55 m Bdouble s kin 3.00 m D 35 m

The following characteristics are identical for all designs:

~ Propulsive power is generated by two slow speed diesel engines, with ma in dimensions : LxBxH = 22x8x11 m

~ Gross volume needed for the stowage of containers is set at 15.00 m in length (for one block of 40 ft containers). 2.70 m wide, en 2.60 m high .

~ There are six tiers of containers stowed on deck and thirteen bel ow deck level.

25

"

------------~~


These assumptions will not vet lead to an optimum design, but only serve to compare the layout options with each other. A more accurate design is made at a later stage, after the best design concept has been selected.

4.2 Concept development

Figure 14 illustrates the major choices that have to be made in the design of a container vessel.

Figuur 14: Overview major concept options

4.2.1 Propulsion

When direct propusion is applied the space required for the main engines is limited. Direct propulsion on two shafts is technically very weil feasible and is the cheapest solution. Although the power could theoretically be delivered by one propeller, there is no engine available that can deliver anywhere near the required power. It would require a complicated, heavy and especially expensive gear box to transmit the power of two large engines on one shaft.

26

Concept development of an Ultra Large Container Ship

Space savings can be achieved by using diesel-electric propulsion, but these are very small. The extra container capacity will not offset the higher investment costs and lower propulsion efficiency (a capacity increase of about 0.5 %). Furthermore, the power th at would have to be transmitted by one shaft is very large (about 50 MW) and must be transferred by a heavy and extremely expensive gearbox.

4.2.2 Hatch covers

Although most large container ships to date have been built with hatch covers, there is a number of arguments in favour of an open hatch construction. Some pros and cons of open hatch constructions are given in Table 2 (derived from unpublished work done by ir. E. Vossnack) .

Disadvantages: Advantages: - Container planning complicated + Less complicated container planning

Many shiltings/handlings of hatch covers + Few shiftings, no handling ol hatch covers Many lashings + Much less lashings needed Construction problems due to large torsion + Above mentioned advantages lead to lower displacement of hatch coamings handling osts and shorter time in port

Advantages : Disadvantages: + More flexibility in 20 It/40 It distribution - Bent top ol guides by container bumping + Lower GT (Iower port and canal dues) can block ce lis + Lower centre ol gravity light ship weight - Sea spray on tank top can cause corrosion

(allows more deck containers) - Ice and snow can block cell guides - Guides more susceptible to corrosion

Very limited Ilexibility between 20 It /40 ft containers

Tabel 2: Pros and cons of hatchcoverless container ships.

An open hatch construction is selected to reduce the already critical port time of large container vessels .

4.2.3 Layout options

The three alternatives th at have been studied are:

~ Bridge forward, combined with diesel-electric propulsion. Due to the forward placement of the bridge this ship has a good visibility and more containers can be stowed on deck. The motions on the bow may become excessive.

27

dlIQIIfUUili i' i ii"" hl iI


~ Bridge forward , combined with twin propeller direct propulsion w ith slow speed diesel engines. This alternative is for a large part the same as alternative 1. But, due to the aft placement of the engine room the distance between the accommodation and the engine room is very large

~ Conventional solution for large container ships . Accommodation is placed % to the aft of the ship, with the main engines directly underneath the bridge. The required line of sight of 375 metres over the bow can only be achieved by removing some deck containers. Also, the deckhouse needs to be higher, which leads to larger horizontal accelerations due to rolling of the ship.

The three conceptual designs are shown in Figure 15.

Concep t 1

~IIIIIIIIIIIIII~ <

Figuur 15: Different conceptual designs

4.3 Conclusions

28

Concept development of an Ultra Large Container Ship

The extra container capacity due to placing the bridge forward are very significant. No slot capacity has to be sacrificed due to visibility requirements. The total gain is about 700 TEU. The extra capacity due to installation of diesel electric propulsion is marginal. The installation of large diesel-generator sets in the bow section of the ship leads to a significant space loss, which largely offsets the gains th at are made in the aft section. Maximum container capacity of the three concept designs is given in Table 3.

FEU TEU I 6,485 I 6,450 I 6,134

12,970 12,900 12,268

Tabel 3: Container capacity different design concepts

Due to the very limited advantages of diesel-electric propulsion, concept 2 is selected. This concept promises to be the most cost-effective design, and is developed in further detail. A design which is capable of transiting the Suez Canal only needs to be slightly smaller, while a Malacca-max ship can achieve a significantly larger capacity.

29


5. SIMPLE CONCEPT OF A SUEZMAX CONTAINER SHIP

For comparison purposes a Suezmax as weil as a Malacca-max container ship have been designed. The simple Suezmax design was made according to the current maximum dimensions allowed within the Suez Canal today, and is described in th is chapter. A more elaborate design of a Malacca-max vessel is described in the following chapters. The design is based on concept 2 (Figure 15) as described in the previous chapter.

5.1 Concept

The layouts of the Suezmax and Malacca-max ship have been chosen identical. The bridge is placed on the bow, because of forward visibility. The holds are all located aft of the bridge and form an uninterrupted cargo area . The holds are of the open hatch design. It is not possible to place all propulsive power on one shaft, therefore two shafts are used, both propelled by a slow speed diesel engine and direct drive.

5.2 Main dimensions

The Suezmax ship has been designed to be just able to pass the current Suez Canal dimensions. The limitations are both in breadth and draught. For ships with a breadth of over 48.16 m the maximum draught is 58 ft (17.67 m). The relation between maximum draught, maximum breadth and the submerged volume of the ship at a block coefficient of 0.62 and a length of 390 metres are given in Table 4.

17.67 17.04 16 .20 15.47

<48 .16 50.00 52.50 55 .00

Tabel 4: submerged volume at several draughts

205,769 206,014 205,651 205,735

The table shows that at increasing breadth the draught allowed decreases quickly. There is an optimum, at which the maximum deadweight can be carried. This optimum is at a breadth of 50.00 metres. The over all length chosen is 400 metres, the same as with the Malacca-max concept. The main characteristics of th is ship are:

30

Simple concept of a Suezmax container ship

La. 400.00 m

Lw' 390.00 m Lpp 380.00 m B 50.00 m T 17.04 m 0 30.00 m Cb 0.62 Displ. 212,194 tonnes DWT 157,935 tonnes Vship 25.00 kno Capacity 11,989 TEU

An estimate for the steel weight is made using the method of Westers. Since the software does not provide a direct option for the calculation of steel weight of container ships, an approximation has been made by calculating the weight of a single deck ship of identical dimensions. The bulkheads, double skin construction and strengthened double bottom have been added to the weight estimate . Also, a rough approximation for the weight of the cell guides has been made.

5.3 Huil form

The huil form was made by transforming an existing huil form using the method Versluis. This method is used in the integrated ship design program PIAS (Program for Integrated Approach to Shipdesign). The chosen block coefficient is 0.62. The huil has a pram shaped stern, which both increases the container stowage capacity and facilitates the placement of two propellers.

5.4 General plan

The containers are stowed in 25 blocks of 40 ft containers . Under deck containers are stowed 17 containers wide, on deck 19. This gives a total capacity of almost 12,000 TEU. To resist torsion loads, a double skin width of 3.00 m is applied. Two longitudinal beams with a depth of 3.00 mand width of 0.75 mare placed over the width of the cargo hold. These beams support the transverse bulkheads and the cell guides in the middle of the hold, which would otherwise have a very large span.

5.5 Propulsion

The service speed of the ship is 25 knots. This is a common speed for the current generation of post-Panamax ships. A higher speed would lead to excessive high fuel costs, and so invalidate the entire purpose of the upscaling, cost savings.

31

L11 1


The Holtrop & Mennen resistance prediction method has been used to estimate the required propulsive power. The results of this calculation are given in Table 5. Two 5-blade propellers of the Wageningen S-series, with a diameter of 8,600 mm are èhosen. Setter propeller designs may be available but optimising the propellers goes bevond the scope of th is study. Engines th at can deliver the required power usuallY run at a speed of about 100 revolutions per minute.

17 21,269 24,460 27,177 18 25,101 28,866 32,074 19 29,422 33,835 37,594 20 34,294 39,438 43 ,820 21 39,977 45 ,974 51 ,082 22 46,451 53,419 59,354 23 53,802 61,872 68,747

~: 62,151 71,474 79,416 71,638 82,384 91,537

26 82,376 94,732 105,258 27 94,441 108,607 120,674

Tabel 5: Propulsive power Suezmax container ship.

With a specific fuel oil consumption of 166 grams/kWh, the consumption is 328 tonnes per dav, at the service speed of 25 knots. Only few main engines can deliver the required power (45,768 kW per engine). Some options are given in Table 6 .

Tabel 6: Possible ma in engines Suezmax container ship

The required auxiliary power will not be calculated at this stage since it primarily depends on the amount of reefer plugs installed.

5.6 Stability

A decisive factor for the capacity of a container ship its stability, because this mainly determines the number of containers stowed on deck. In th is stage a simple GM estimate is sufficient to to get a f irst impression of the ship's stability.

32

Simple concept of a Suezmax container ship

The weight prediction method of Westers also estimates the centre of gravity. The software also contains a module for the estimate of equipment weight. The engine room weight has been estimated by multiplying the weight of the main engines by 1.35 for the weight of other machinery equipment (pumps, generators, heaters, etc.) Supplies suffice for 40 days, which is enough for a roundtrip trom Rotterdam to Singapore, with reserves. The average container weight has been estimated at 12 tonnes per TEU. This is comparable to the DWT/TEU va lues of most post-Panamax container vessels. In Table 7 the containers are considered loaded homogenously, which leads to a pessimistic estimate of the stability. It is normal to load the heavier containers lower in the ship, so the actual stability will probably be better.

W lteel

Equipment Machinery Supplies Container load

Tabel 7: First stability check Suezmax design

This GM calculated is 0.31 metres, which is rather smal I. A larger GM, and probably more realistic value, is expected for other load distributions. Table 8 shows stability in case the bottom half of the containers consists of 14 tonnes/TEU containers and the top half consists of 10 tonnes/TEU units.

12 tonnes homogenous 11,989 24.07 0 .31 1 2 tonnes homogenous 11 ,723 23 .28 1.10 Mix 14/10 ton 11 ,989 23 .05 1.33 14 tonnes homoaenous 10281 22 .22 2 .16

Tabel 8: GM value at different load conditions.

5.7 Conclusions

The Suezmax container ship has a maximum capacity of 12,000 TEU, based on the current dimensions of the critical sections of the Suez Canal.

33


6. PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF A MALACCA-MAX CONTAINER SHIP

6.1 Introduction

The bridge of the Malacca-max container carrier is placed forward . Twin propeller propulsion is required to deliver sufficient power. The ship is of all open hatch construction, to facilitate faster loading and unloading, as weil as preventing torsion displacement problems in hatch covers.

6.2 Adaptations to original concept

Although the design is based on concept 2 (Figure 15). a number of major changes are made to develop a true Malacca-max design with optimum container capacity:

~ Breadth is increased to 60 metres, which is the maximum acceptable width due to Suez Canal limitations;

~ Height of double bottom is increased to 2.75 metres, which is the minimum required by classification rules;

~ Container blocks are placed closer to each other (14.0 m instead of 15.0). which allows one extra block of containers;

~ Stacking is increased trom 19 to 21 tiers.

6.3 Main dimensions and characteristics

The main dimensions of the Malacca-max ship are as follows:

Lo. Lw' Lpp

B T D Cb

Displ. DWT Capacity V.chip

34

400.00 m 390.00 m 380.00 m

60.00 m 21 .00 m 35.00 m

0.62 313,571 tonnes

= 242,800 tonnes 18,154 TEU

25.00kn. (at 90% MCR)

Preliminary design of a Malacca-max container ship

The general arrangement of the Malacca-max container ship is shown in Figure 16

111

•

Figuur 16: General arrangement Malacca-max container ship

35


6.3.1 Huil form

The huil form has been determined by transformation of a standard huil within the PIAS design software. The huil has a pram-shaped stern, which both increases container ca pa city as weil as facilitates the placement of two propellers.

The block coefficient is 0.62 . According to some formulae (Ayre, Silverleaf & Dawson, etc.) the block coefficient can be chosen considerably higher, since the speed of the ship is relatively low compared to its length (Fn = 0.208). However, because many other large container ships have block coefficients that are considerably lower than advised by these approximation formulae, these formulae have not been applied in this case.

6.3.2 General arrangement

The ship has 26 blocks of 40 ft containers. Under deck 20 containers are stowed abreast, above deck there are 24 rows. This gives a total stowage capacity of 18,154 TEU at with 8 tiers of deck containers. Because of the very large torsion loads on the huil, the double side width is 5.00 metres. Transverse bulkheads are placed at an interval of two 40-ft blocks. The deck containers have to be supported by special chocks to prevent excessive stack weight. These chocks are supported by either the transverse bulkheads, or directly by the cell guides when they are located midway down the hold. A more detailed structural design of the midship section is described later.

6.3.3 Propulsion

The service speed of the ship is 25 knots. This is a common service speed for the current generation of post-Panamax container vessels. A higher service speed causes a sharp increase in fuel costs, therewith negating the entire purpose of the design, which is cost reduction.

Aresistanee prediction was made using the Holtrop & Mennen resistance prediction method. Two 5-blade propellers of the Wageningen B-series have been selected to calculate propeller efficiency. This propeller is probably not the best design available for this speed, but its characteristics are readily available in the software that has been used.

Engines that provide the required power output run at a speed of about 100 rpm. A propeller with a diameter of 8,600 mm was selected. This provides optimum performance at this speed and power output. The results of the resistance and

36


propulsion calculations are shown in Table 9. The engines operate at 90% MeR in service condition.

17 25,700 29 ,555 32,83 9 18 30,362 34,916 38,796 19 3 5,770 4 1, 13 5 4 5,706 20 42,034 48 ,3 27 53,696 21 4 9,211 56 ,593 62,88 1 22 57,505 66 , 13 1 73,479 23 67,106 77,172 8 5,746 24 78,251 89,989 99,98 7 2 5 91 ,243 104,929 116,588 26 106,405 122,366 135,962 27 123,954 142,548 158,386

Tabel 9 : Propulsive power Malacca-max container ship

At a specific consumption of 166 grams/kWh., the fuel consumption is 430 tonnes per dav at the service speed of 25 knots. Only few engines are available th at can deliver the required power output. These are shown in Table 10. Both engines can also be delivered in a 12-cylinder version, so possibly shaft generators can be fitted to deliver auxiliary power.

Sulzer RTA96C·1 1 MAN/B&W K98MC-C

60,390 62810

Tabel 10: Engines capable of required power output Malacca-max.

6.3.4 Stability

One of the decisive factors for the container capacity of the ship is stabil ity. The number of deck containers is mainly determined by stability demands, which means th at the maximum capacity cannot always be loaded. Stability calculations are limited to determining initial GM values for a series of loading conditions. Table 11 shows the initial GM for a cargo of homogenous 12-tonne containers . In th is case the GM value is negative and therefore not acceptable. Table 12 shows some cases in which it is possible to load the maximum number of containers.

37


64295 17.69 188.2 1.14E+06 1.21E + 07 1373 32.5 236.7 4.46E+04 3.25E+05 5103 10 80 5.10E+04 4.08E + 05

20000 17 3.40E+05 2.40E+06 35 .21

Tabel 11: Initial stability check malacca-max design

12 tonnes homogenous 18,154 29.95 0.84-12 tonnes homogenous 17,482 28.11 1.00 Mix 14/10 tonnes 18,154 28 .09 1.02 14 tonnes homogenous 15,930 28 .13 0.98

Tabel 12: GM value at different laad conditions

6.3.5 Container support

Due to the absence of hatch covers, measures have to be taken to prevent excessive stack loads. Therefore a support system has to be fitted for the deck containers. Figure 13 shows a possible solution.

Figuur 17: Support mechanism deck containers

38


6.4 Light ship weight estimate

Several methods are available for estimating the steel weight of the ship. However, since this ship is so different from any existing ship, ordinary extrapolation methods may not be suitable. Their accuracy has to be evaluated first. before it can be used to determine the steel weight of the Malacca-max. To do this four methods are used and the results are compared to the real weights of th ree existings ships. The results are given in Table 13.

6.4.1 Method Westers

The best method available at the moment for the steel weight. is the method of Westers. It uses a single deck ship as the basis. Specific container ships are not available in the software. Therefore, stringers, double skin and bulkheads have to be added separately, to enhance accuracy. Since the method originates from 1962, some assumptions might not be valid anymore. The method has been checked with more recent ships, although only few these large container ships were available.

For the Malacca-max the following results are obtained::

Wst

Wequip.

Wmach .

64,295 tonnes 1,373 tonnes = > loS.W. 5,103 tonnes /

The following modifications were made:

70,771 tonnes.

• Weight has been added for the cell guides. This weight is estimated at 0.33 tonnes/TEU;

• Machinery weight is estimated by multiplying ma in engine weight by 1.35.

The modified method of Gallin has been used for the equipment weight. Boonstra and van Keimpema modified the graphs used in order to take account of more recent developments in ship design.

6.4.2 Method Sneekluth

The method of Schneekluth uses less input variables than the previous method, and is probably less accurate. There is, however a special set of input values for container ships available.

39

i lil. ii


The modified method of Gallin has been used for the equipment weight, and the machinery weight is again estimated at 1.35 x main engine weight .

6.4.3 light Ship Weight according to Vossnack

Vossnack uses a single formula for estimating the weight of conta iner ships. This formula is:

LSW = 97.5 * LWI * B * H (kg)

This produces a steel weight which is almost linear with ship volume . This denies every possibility of economies of scale in construction weight. This method must therefore be regarded as a very rough rule of thumb formula, which is only applicable in a very limited size range.

6.4.4 Midship extrapolation

The last method used is based on extrapolation of the weight of the midschip section. ABS's SafeHuil program provides the weight of one hold in the midship section . With this result an average steel weight per metre midship section can be calculated. This weight can then be integrated over the length of the ship using the weight distribution shown in Figure 18.

Wst (= 133.1 tonne/m) a 1.0

b 0.8

0 0.25 0.75 1.0 Loa

~

Figuur 18: Steel weight distribution over ship length

With a steel weight of 133.1 tonnes/metre in the midship section, the huil steel weight is 50,588 tonnes. Some extra items must be added, such as f orecastle, bridge , funnel and fenders. Their weight is derived from the method of Westers . Again the weight of the cell guides is estimated on 0.33 tonnes/TEU. According to this method the steel weight of the Malacca-max is 60,432 tonnes.

40


6.4.5 Accuracy of the methods used

To get an indication of the reliability of the different methods, also the light ship weight of some recently built container ships has been estimated using these methods. The actual light ship weight of these vessels is known, and can be used to compare. The following modifications/assumptions apply:

~ Weight of cell guides is estimated at 0.33 tonnes/TEU in method Westers; ~ Equipment weight has been calculated using the modified method of Gallin; ~ Weight of hatch covers is estimated at 0 .31 *Loa *8 tonnes; ~ Weight of machinery is: bare engine weight* 1.35 tonnes.

The results are given in Table 13.

Equipment 1,373 1,373

Machinery 5,103 5,103

Total ??? 70,771 71,716 79,852

Maersk K-class Steel 26,032 26,420



Total 34,130 33,545 33,933 31,176

P&O NI. South . Steel 20,621 22,864



Total 28,500 28,209 30,452 29,649

Hyunday Admiral Steel 15,095 15,870



Total 22,000 21,436 22,211 21,193

Tabel 13: Light ship weight calculated with varios methods

The results of the method Westers are surprisingly accurate. The difference between the weight estimate and the actual ship weight is in all cases under 2.5% . The Sneekluth method also provides reasonably accurate results, with an accuracy between 0.9% and 6.8%. This is quite good, since the method only uses eight input variables . The linear formula of Vossnack also performs reasonably weil for the

41

al , i"


checked ships, but its accuracy outs ide the range of currently built ships is doubtful. Extrapolating the midship section weight for the Malacca-max ship also gives a value which more or less corresponds with the other methods. The method of Westers se ems to be the most accurate, which is not really surprising, since it takes many more factors into account than the other methods. The method of Westers is expected to give the best steel weight estimate of the Malacca-max. Therefore, in the rest of the calculations a light ship weight of 70,771 tonnes is assumed.

6.5 Loading and discharging a Malacca-max container ship

Using conventional cranes, the time in port of an 18,000 TEU vessel becomes unacceptably long. Loading and unloading the entire vessel, using six era nes, would take more than six days. A new crane concept is needed to boost the loading speed. Crane builder Huisman-Itrec has developed a crane concept capable of doing 70 moves per hour. The container is unloaded in three steps :

~ Vertically out of the hold. A manned crane with a conventional spreader picks up the container and hoists it straight up.

~ Horizontally to the quayside . The container is placed on an automatic trolley, which then transports the container to the quay.

~ Vertically down to the quay. The container is moved from the trolley into an elevator, which automatically transports the container down and places it at the bottom of the crane.

The crane base also has a small container storage buffer, which can smooth the movement of containers away from the quay. A drawing of this crane, with an outreach of 74 metres, is shown in Figures 19,20.

42


r '-7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Figuur 19: Malacca-max container crane (1)

43


I

/!'\ I \ I

'- (" / \

~ , , ~

~ , I , ~

~ , .

~

~ I

~

~

~

~

I ~

I

Figuur 20: Malacca-max container crane (2)

44

Strength assessment Malacca-max container ship

7. STRENGTH ASSESSMENT MALACCA-MAX CONTAINER SHIP

7.1 Introduction

The Malacca-max container ship is much larger than any container ship built to date . Structural difficulties that arise in recent large container ships are likely to become even more important for th is larger ship. Therefore, an analysis of the strength requirements and construction is essential to prove the technical feasibility of the concept. Furthermore, to make economical calculations about the cost savings that can be achieved, construction costs of the vessel need to be determined. The steel weight has a major impact on the construction cost, so an estimated accurate weight is essential to determine the required investment costs of the vessel.

7.2 Approach

First the layout of the midship construction is chosen, then the minimum dimensions of the construction elements are calculated. Estimated steel weights of fore and aft sections will be extrapolated on the basis of weight distributions of existing ships. The program SafeHuIl, developed by the American Bureau of Shipping, was used to check the scantlings against the minimum requirements for the strength of the midship section. Use of this program is mandatory for the design of large container vessels th at are classed with ABS. For an effective use of the program, arealistic design of a midship section is required as starting point. A preliminary design of the midship is made by manual and spreadsheet assisted calculations. The minimum scantlings are determined with help of the Lloyd's rules for container ships. Direct calculations are made for some critical elements, such as longitudinal strength , torsion strength and transversal loading. These calculations resulted in a preliminary design for a midship section, which was then analysed with SafeHuil.

7.3 Preliminary design of midship section

7.3.1 Concept

The concept chosen for the midship section of the ship is comparable to the construction of other large container ships . The main elements are:

45


Double bottom

The double bottom is longitudinally stiffened at both bottom and tanktop. Longitudinal girders, placed at the container corners support the container weight. These girders connect to plate floors at the corners of containers, and to transverse girders in the middle of containers (i .e., every 10ft).

Double sides

The width of the double sides has been increased compared to the initial concept design. Longitudinal strength and torsion stiffness requirements make a large double huil essential. Double side width is chosen at 5.00 metres, or two containers wide. Under deck the containers are placed 20 containers wide, on deck 24 containers. The double sides are longitudinally framed, with large vertical web frames at every 10ft, coinciding with the location of the plate floors and transverse girders in the double bottom. These web frames extend over the full width of the double sides. Longitudinally framed stringers are located at 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 metres above the keel. The stringer at 30 metres is part of a strength box used to give extra longitudinal and torsion warping strength. The upper part of the construction is made from high tensile steel (steel 40), to increase the allowed stress es in the material sufficiently to enable acceptable plate thickness. The double bottom is also constructed with high tensile steel (steel 32), as tensions here reach very high levels due to longitudinal bending as weil.

Bulkheads

In order to assure adequate transverse strength, bulkheads have been applied at every second bay of 40 ft containers. In order to prevent buckling of the bulkheads under compressive stress deep stiffeners are applied to the bulkheads. These bulkheads offer direct support for the container cell guides. The bulkheads are stiffened by transversal stiffeners, which are supported by vertical web frames. These web frames are placed every 2.50 metres, and are in the same vertical plane as the double bottom si de girders. Longitudinal beams, which connected the bulkheads in the outline design have been removed. The risk of buckling in these elements makes their useful application questionable.

Cargo support

In order to support the container cell guides, as weil as assist in the transverse strength, transverse beams have been placed midway in each hold. These beams are stiffened like the uppermost part of the bulkheads. Since these beams have to carry the weight of a large number of containers, their strength will be manually checked through direct calculations .

46


7.3.2 Minimum scantlings (Lloyds rules)

For an estimate of the minimum scantlings of the construction elements the rules for constructing container ships by Lloyd's register of Shipping have been applied. In many cases, the formulae have been simplified to speed up the calculation process. In every case, approximations have been made to be on the safe side. In most cases, especially in the case of required plate thickness, the minimum scantlings are far less than used to support the ma in huil loads such as bending and torsion. All used construction elements have been checked to comply with the minimum scantlings as given by the rules.

7.4 Direct calculations

7.4.1 Longitudinal strength

Longitudinal bending is probably the most critica I loading condition of the ship. The limited deck width, combined with a very large length results in high loads on the construction. Heavy plates and stiffeners will need to be used to cope with the stresses placed on it.

For the purpose of this calculation, the ship is considered to be a slender beam. Vertical shear deflections are considered to be negligible . This means that the entire loading and deformation of the ship is considered to be due to bending .

The strength requirements have been determined with the Lloyd's regulations for container ships . A simplified approach for the calculation of the bending moments has been used. Lloyd's regulations require a combined stress diagram over the entire length of the ship. Since in this stage the interest is primarily focussed on the bending moments in the midship the maximum value of the load will occur.

The total bending load is considered to consist of the following elements:

~ Still water bending moment. This has been calculated for a range of different loading conditions using design software. Several unfavourable loading conditions result in very high stresses;

~ Vertical wave bending moment. The Lloyd's rules formula for VWBM (P4,Ch.8,Sec.1.5) has been used;

~ Horizontal wave bending moment. The Lloyd's rules formula for HWBM (P4,Ch.8,Sec.1.5) has been used;

~ Hydrodynamic torque warping stress. Again using Lloyd's rules as a guideline;

47


~ Cargo torque warping stress. Several loading conditions have been taken into account. The formula used by Lloyd's results in a limited warping stress, negligible compared to other elements. Manual calculations of unfavourable loading conditions result in significantly higher stresses.

The construction elements participating in the longitudinal strength are calculated using an Excel-spreadsheet. This way it is easy to determine the section modulus and moment of inertia of the cross-section of the ship and to vary the dimensions of the elements. The resultant stresses due to longitudinal bending are given in Table 14.

As can be seen in the tabie, unfavourable loading of the ship quickly results in very high stresses in the construction. It is therefore essential to make a careful loading plan in order to avoid these situations. The loading condition considered to be normative for the longitudinal strength is a fully loaded ship in oblique waves. This condition represents the heaviest unavoidable load of the ship.

7.4.2 Transverse strength

Due the large breadth of the ship, combined with the very open construction of the deck, transverse strength is going to be of significant importance to the design. Some major simplifications have been made to make some quick calculations of the resulting stresses in the construction:

~ The transverse construction of the ship is considered to be cut loose from the rest of the ship, so transferred forces and moments from sections fore and aft of the considered block are neglected.

~ Stress es in the considered section are calculated through the use of the theory of slender beams. The construction, with a BID ratio of less then 2, is not very slender.

~ Out of plane bending of the bulkheads and double bottom due to transverse moments are neglected, as weil as the risk of buckling.

These very rough approximations are made to simplify the calculations to a level suitable for manual calculations. The accuracy of these calculations is therefore low.

The transverse strength has been calculated for two extreme conditions:

1. Fully loaded hold, lowest point of wave. (sagging) See also Figure 21 a. 2. Empty hold, wave top. (hogging) See also Figure 21 b.

48


SWBM: See sheet

VWBM sagging : -1.267E +07

VWBM hogging: 9 .135E +06

Mt (rules): 1.759E+06

Mtc (rules) : 2.204E+05

Yield stress HTS

Yield stress MS

Fuilload (18,150 TEU) ;

Max hogging load 111111 Max hogging empty bunkers

Max torsion load (below deck)

Max torsion load (IUII deck)

Max torsion load empty bunkers

Max sagging load

L-KI ______ 0_.6l :7---1"1 IHWBM induced stress : 40.88

Fully loaded Bottom: 73 .96

Hogging 2 .562E + 07 Deck : 217.48 Bottom: 131 .71

Hogging empty bunk 2.899E + 07 Deck : 246.10 Bottom: 149.04

Sagging -8. 132E+06 Deck: 131.06 69.04-Bottom: 88.00 41.81-

Fullyloaded 2.352E+07 Deck: 233.83 199.68 Bottom: 137.00 120.93

Hogging 3.475E+07 Deck: 233 .83 295.04 Bottom: 137.00 178.68

Hogging empty bunk -2.081 E+07 Deck: 233.83 176.62-Bo 137.00 106.97-

" " , " , " .' ' .. ' .. ' •••• r •••• Fully loaded 2 .185E+07 Deck: 233.83 226.34 Bottom : 157.00 153.20

Hogging 3.308E +07 Deck: 233.83 321.70 Bottom: 157.00 210.95

Sagging -1 .772E+07 Deck: 233.83 191.27-Bottom: 157.00 131 .96-

Torsion hall loaded 2.676E + 07 Deck: 233.83 268 .04 Bottom: 157.00 178.46

Torsion, deck 10':ld 3.568E+07 Deck: 233.83 343 .80 Bottom: 157.00 224 .34

Torsion empty bunk. 3.994E+07 Deck: 233.83 379.95 Bottom : 157.00 246.23

" " ,"" .••. ' .,', •• , '. ",c' ••••• :: Fully loaded oblique 2.185E + 07 Deck : 233.83 226.34 Bottom: 157.00 153.20

Tabel 14: Longitudinal bending stresses in midship section

87 .87-53.95-

34.21-21.46-

109.97-67 .34-

146.12-89.23-

49


A: Sagging condition B: Hogging condition

Figuur 21 : Transverse strength

The calculations have been made in Excel, and are shown in Table 15.

Hw.v. Weight hold cont. Weight deck cont. Layers on deck B

Bs ides

L"cld

T

," tITEl

Mwave bottom Mwave sides Msteel weight Mcont . hold Mcont. deck Total :

Sagging Hogging -2 .100E+09 -3.412E + 09 Nm 2 .126E+08 5.615E+08 Nm 1.043E + 09 1.043E+09Nm 8.927E + 08 O.OOOE+OO Nm 7.9 11 E + 08 O.OOOE + 00 Nm 8.399E + 08 -1 .807E+09 Nm

Inertia transversal 626 .78 m4 Mimffiöij) iUis$i$;li):tliO$vêîi1iaaîiatt Neutral axis transv. 11 .03 Bottom press. hogg . 2.614E+05 N/m2 Bottom press . sagg. 1 .609E + 05 N/m2

T

Sigma deck Sigma bottom

Tabel 15: Stress es due to transverse bending

50

Sagging Hogging 32 .12 69 .11 - MP 14.78- 31 .80 MP

Strength assessrnent Malacca-rnax container ship

7.4.3 Torsion stiffness

Hydrodynamic torque caused by oblique waves can cause high stresses in a large container ship. Sufficient measures will have to be taken to ensure sufficient resistance to these loads. The main stress component will be the torsion warping stresses. These can be manually calculated for a prismatic cross-section of the ship, but th is is quite a complicated calculation. The warping stresses have to be included in the longitudinal stress calculation, and in this case the approximation formulae for warping stress given by Lloyd's in the longitudinal strength calculation have been used .

The values given by Lloyd's, however, are based on ships of a conventional layout, with the superstructure in the aft part of the ship. This results in a large closed (;onstruction, which can limit warping. The Malacca-max design has a deeptank in front of the engine room, which will provide the required warping resistance. Still, the length of the unsupported cargo hold is very large, so the approximation formula has to be considered with caution.

The shear stresses due to torsion can be estimated through the use of a simple formula.

Shear flow (=T*tplate) = Mt/20, (first formula of Bredt) with:

T = maximum shear stress tp1ate = plate thickness at this location Mt = Torque moment (Lloyd's rules) o = surface closed by the double huil and bottom

This results in a maximum shear stress of T = 92.6 Mpa. Taken separately, th is is acceptable, but it remains to be seen how other stresses influence on the total stress distribution . It is obvious th at torsion loads need to be examined further to see how they interact with the other loads placed on the huil.

7.4.4 Transverse bearn bending

The transverse deck beams have to support the deck containers, and so they must be able to carry a considerable load. The bending moment of th is beam has been calculated by assuming the maximum load of deck containers being equally distributed over the length of the beam. Furthermore, the beam is considered to be simply supported at both sides. This is slightly pessimistic, but necessary, in case of partial deck loads being concentrated in one section of the beam .

With dimensions of the beam, the stress es can be calculated:

51


0bending = 0.292 * (Lspan )2 MPa

If stresses must remain below aa/kl (high tensile steel factor) = 131 MPa, it is necessary to place at least two columns to support the beam. This would result in a beam span of about 16.50 m.

The resulting bending tensions then become:

0beam.max = 79.5 MPa .

An alternative solution is to support weight of the deck containers by the cell guides. The loads th at result are not easily predictabie by manual calculation. It is likely that the limiting factor will be buckling strength.

A drawings of a longitudinal cross-section of the ship is shown in Figure 22.

Figuur 22: Longitudinal cross-section midship section Malacca-max

7.5 Calculations in SafeHuIl

All calculations vet have been 2-0 approximations of 3-0 stress situations . 3-0 calculations must be made using a finite element method. For this purpose ABS'

52


SafeHuIl strength assessment software is used . This program evaluates the dimensions of the structural elements against the requirements of ABS rules .

Within the framework of this study, a full finite element analysis of the construction is too compl icated and time consuming. Since the goal of the strength calculation is to demonstrate the technical feasibility, a very detailed constructive design is not really necessary.

Due to software limitations some limited simplifications had to be made, but they have no real effect on the final result. SafeHuIl calculations show th at a considerable reduction in minimum scantlings can be achieved compared to the manual calculation. The maximum steel thickness is 70 mm of HT 40 steel in the sheerstrake and upper deck.

7.6 Conclusions

Calculations show it is technically feasible to construct a Malacca-max container ship. The midship section, with a 2.75 metres high double bottom and a 5.00 metres wide double huil is theoretically capable of resisting all the individual loads placed on it.

Longitudinal bending stresses are the dominant factor of loads placed on the ship structure . The weight distribution of the containers needs to be planned with some care. Concentrating the heavy containers at both ends of the ship will result in extreme stresses in a hogging condition .

There are still several uncertainties in this design. Therefore , it is not possible to determine the final dimensions of the construction without a lot of further work. Finite element calculations may demonstrate the need for heavier (or maybe lighter) construction elements. It mayalso be necessary to make fundamental changes to the construction if problems arise that cannot be readily solved by an increase of existing plate thickness.

53


8. ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE DESIGN

8.1 Introduction

The most important reason tor constructing ever larger container vessels has always been the prospect ot relative cost reductions. Generally, larger ships can carry cargo in a more efficient way and theretore cheaper. The teasibility ot Malacca-max container ships is theretore dependent on the validity ot th is trend tor even larger ships. To determine the economie teasibility ot Malaccamax container carriers a cost calculation model has been made. It compares the cost level of a Malacca-max container ship with the cost level of several large container vessels, notably the Panamax, Maersk S-class, and Suezmax.

8.2 Cost elements

Usually the sea leg accounts tor only a minor portion of the total cost. The majority ot the costs involve terminal handling, overhead, through transport, containerchartering , etc. Cost reductions that can be achieved in deepsea transport should not lead to increases in other parts of the chain. It is very weil possible th at larger container ships lead to increases in transhipment cost due to larger and more expensive cranes and higher loading speed. This would negate the scale advantages of larger ships. Unfortunately, turther research is needed on the etfects on the rest of the transport chain. The calculations in this study are limited to cost savings th at can be achieved in the deepsea transport legs.

The costs tor operating a large container vessel are divided into the following groups:

~ Capital cost; ~ Operational cost; ~ Voyage cost; ~ Miscellaneous cost; ~ Terminal handling charges can be included.

8.3 Calculation model

The cost levels between several large container vessels are compared using a spreadsheet model in Microsoft Excel. All direct ship-related cost elements are calculated both tor a single roundtrip as weil as per year of operation.

54

Economie evaluation of the design

Capital cost is calculated as a sum of depreciation and interest. Parameters relating to the loan can be entered into the model, such as interest rate, running period and percentage of equity. The interest paid during construction of the ship is also taken into account. The loan is considered to be on an annuity basis, with constant payments taking place each year.

Operating cost comprises the following items:

~ Manning; ~ Repair & maintenance; ~ Insurance; ~ Nautical management cost; ~ Lube oils, paint, stores; ~ Survey reservation.

Manning is calculated by multiplying the number of crew with the leave factor and ave rage wages (all inclusive). Repair & maintenance, insurance, nautical management costs and the yearly survey reservation are considered to be dependent on the value of the ship. Lubricating oils and stores are considered to be dependent on the main engine power and the average running hours of the engine.

A yearly cost increase (due to inflation or other developments) can be entered for all the separate cost elements.

Voyage cost includes the following items: ~ Fuel cost; ~ Harbour costs; ~ Canal dues.

Fuel costs are calculated using the speed sailed during the voyage, instead of the consumption at maximum service speed. Container ships are not scheduled to sail at their maximum service speed all the time. During normal operations their fuel consumption will therefore be significantly lower than it is at maximum service speed. Fuel prices can be entered into the sheet manually.

Port costs are divided into items such as pilotage, towage, tonnage dues, agency costs etc. Canal dues in this case are the Suez Canal dues. The Suez Canal net tonnage, on which the dues are based, must be entered in the model. This tonnage differs considerably from the net tonnage of the ship since the Suez Canal Authority have their own system of tonnage calculation.

Miscellaneous costs can be added, like cost tor repositioning empty containers. (Repositioning costs are the terminal handling charges of empty containers)

55


If desired Terminal handling charges can be added to the total cost. This gives an impression of the very significant impact of terminal handling costs to the total transport costs.

All the cost items are added up over the length of one round voyage and these are used to calculate a required time charter rate as weil as a required freight rate. It takes factors into account such as user specified fuel price, west- and eastbound load factor, and expected return on investment.

A life cycle profitability analysis can be made with the model as weil. All cost levels are estimated over the life cycle of the ship, as weil as income predictions. There is a separate sheet where expected market developments can be entered. An expected return on investment over the life cycle of the ship can then be calculated.

8.4 Assumptions

For the quantitative assessment of the cost involved in operating the Malacca-max container ship the following assumptions have been made, based on a roundtrip between the hubs of Rotterdam and Singapore, via the Suez Canal:

Capital costs:

~ 100% of the ship is financed with a bank loan; ~ The loan has a running period of 25 years (equal to the life of the vessel); ~ Repayment of the loan is in the form of annuity payments; ~ The loan has an interest rate of 6%; ~ The building cost of the ship is considered to be linearly dependent on light

ship weight (this makes an honest comparison between building prices of all used ships possible);

~ The ship is both financed and paid for in US dollars; ~ Depreciation of the ship is linear over a period of 25 years; ~ Residual value is 5% of new value.

An attempt has been made to obtain an average ship price per light weight tonne. Due to the very limited availability of construction weight data and the cyclic nature of shipbuilding prices th is does not produce reliable data. The best is to assume a linear relationship between light ship weight and newbuilding price. The Maersk K-class has been used as a benchmark for price, since it is a very recent series of ships, the largest design to date and apparently built at a very competitive price . Since there are a large number of these ships, development costs have a relatively low impact on building costs. This might lead to an underestimate of the newbuilding price, but the effect is the same on the cost levels of all the reviewed ships.

56


Dperational costs:

.. The crew consists of European officers and Asian enlisted ratings;

.. Ship insurance, maintenance & repair and nautical management costs are considered to be linearly dependent on ship value, causing a 0.75% of newbuilding value yearly expense each;

.. Cost of lubricating oils is based on main engine power (kW) multiplied by the yearly running hours multiplied by 0.15;

.. Survey reservations are made each year for all special surveys and are equal to 0.5% of newbuilding value each year;

.. Cost escalation for all items are 2.5% annually;

Voyage costs:

.. Fuel costs are calculated using the speed required for a six week round voyage. This is about 20 knots, which is slightly lower than usual for large container ships. A five week schedule would require a service speed of about 24 knots, which cannot be maintained in rough conditions;

.. The fuel price is estimated at 75 US$/tonne, for Heavy Fuel Dil, 130 US$/tonne for Marine Diesel Dil;

.. 5 % of occupied slots is considered to be active reefer containers, both westbound and eastbound;

.. Suez Canal net tonnage is estimated at 90% of gross tonnage;

.. Harbour costs are based on the system of port dues as it is applied in Rotterdam.

Miscellaneous costs:

.. Brokerage costs can be included, but in th is case of very large ships in liner operations they are excluded;

.. The repositioning of empty containers due to the trade imbalance between Europe and Asia can be included in the costs . In this case however, the westbound and eastbound load factor are considered to be equal.

Recent studies indicate an average westbound occupancy level of 71 % while eastbound occupancy is 68%. This is based on all ships. However, the largest ships tend to attract the majority of the cargo, and therefore have a higher load factor. Furthermore, since this calculation assumes a hub-feeder operation instead of multiporting, the occupancy level of the ship is always at its maximum level. Therefore, a load factor of 90% is assumed for both east- and westbound legs. Although the above mentioned assumptions might not be accurate, these errors have no significant effect on the end result. Absolute costs may change, but since the major assumptions are equal for all ships, the relative cost levels stay the same. The model for the Malacca-max ship is shown on the following pages, the results are discussed in the following section.

57


MAIN n'lUIc .. ,c,n .. ,c

Loa (m) Lwl (m) Lpp (m) B (m)

D (m) T(m) Cb

INVEST. SUM Building costs

Initial costs Working capital

Finance sum

Share capital Subsidies Total equity

Total liab and

58

-ix US$ 1000\ 181 ,500

4911

0

186411

0

0 186411 186411

Speed (kn .) Main engine power SFOC main engine (gr./kWh.)

Shaft generator on? SFOC aux . generators (gr./kWh.)

Equity Liabilities Total liabilities and eq.

Labilities over years

Start redemption Balloon last year Interest over liabilities

US$/NLG. exchange Loan in US$ Mortgage (xUS$1 000) Yearly annuity (xUS$ Project years Yearly

Interest 546 370 537 728

2730


RUNNING COSTS IN

Crew Expenses (wages, costs, victualing)

Insurance (H&M, P&I)

Maintenance & Repair

Management costs

Lub. oils, pa int,

Other costs

Survey reservation

Running days per year normal Running days per year docking &special Number of dockings / special surveys Mean running costs per year (US$x 1000,-) Mean running costs per running day (US$)

2001

Crew: 25

Value: 175,000

Factor

2

%

Value: % 175,000 Q~76WJ I Value :

175,000

3 Crew/year

n.···· äöööön· ••••• •

Power: Hours Factor 1 20000 !t§QQ I

Value: factor: 175 ,000 Q~5Q%. I

Running costs break-up

Surwy resel'\Eltion 12%

Other costs 1%

Lub. oils , paint, stores 18%

Management costs 18%

Crew Expenses (wages. costs ,

\4ctualing) 16%

17%

M~lIntpn"nr,p &

Total Escalation

per year per year %

1200

1312.5

1312 .5

1312 .5

7463 20535

2.5%

59


max:

60

25

Conto

2001 y

75

factor westbound(%)

More ton nes

Surcharge

Fee

120000

21

90% 90% 0%

y

150 75%

5% 5%

44000

430850

60319

535169

Shi Particular.

Loa {mi

B {mi T{ml

Speed {kn .1 OWT {toni GT {toni TEU capacity

Cargo capacity (containers)

Crew no.

Building pric. {x US$ 1000.-1 Engine power (kW.I

Suez canal

dues

52%

Malacca Max

400 60

21

25 243.800 208 .000

18 .154 11.346

25

181 .500 120.000

Singapore

FueJ costs

151 .190

1.070.338

30.370

12.500

62 .400

119.990

Economic evaluation of the design

Fuel coats

At sea (max sp. ) In port

HFO consumpt./day {toni 5 13

MOO consumpt./day {toni --------'--------....... "'-1 T otal consumpt/day {toni 513

Trip costs (USS)

HFO 697.553 MOO

Tot. cost.' conaum t.

57

729.132

Coat. e, TEU

Slot casts {US$/TEU/d.1

TCE {US$/TEU/dayl

Cost/s lot/mile {US$/TEU/milel

Trans ort cost lEU

Round trip cosh

Capital costs

Operational costs

Voyage costs

Terminal handJing charges

Miscellaneous costs

Total casts (US$I

Cash IUS$)

Ye costs at thi. route

Capital costs at COO

Operational costs

Voyage costs

Terminal handling charges

Mis ce llaneous costs

T otal costs I vaar

T otal cash expenditure

Unit capacity (lEU/year)

Trans orted car a er ear

36

Trip eons. Itonl

9.301

9.544

7.31

4.29

0.019

153

IUS$I

2.079 .406

861.972

2.070.650

0

0

5 .012.028

5 .012.028

xU 1000 -

18.082

7.495

18.006

0

0

43.583

43 .583

3 15.719

284. 147

Voyage cost break-up Miscellan

eaus casts

0%

Cost division

1% Agency

0%

Fuel 35 %

Pilotage

3%

Tonnage dues

8%

Terminal handling

charges

al casts 21%

61


8.5 Economies of scale of large container ships

A number of recently built large container ships has been evaluated for their over all cast level, sa a comparison can be made with the expected cast level of a Malaccamax ship. This gives an indication of the cast savings th at can be achieved with these large ships (Tabie 16).

okyo Senator 3,017 215.60 32.20 12,517 Hannover Express 4,407 294.00 32 .25 20,870 Hyunday Admiral 4,411 275 .. 00 37.10 22,003 Hanjin london 5,302 279 .00 40.30 25,832 P&O Nedll. Southampton 6,674 299 .90 42 .80 28 ,500 Maersk K-class 7,400 318.60 42.80 34,134

S-Class 8,400 348.00 42 .80 37,550 design 11,989 400.00 50.00 54,259

1 154 60.

Tabel 16: Container ships used for cast comparison

The development of slot casts versus ship size is shown in Figure 26. Larger ships can achieve significant economies of scale on total slot casts. This effect is less evident when the time charter equivalent rate is used as a benchmark. It can be concluded th at major savings are achieved due to reduced fuel consumption per TEU and lower Suez Canal dues (which make up the bulk of the voyage cast). Construction casts per TEU are less influenced by increasing ship size.

Figure 27 shows the development of cast levels versus ship size. Note that this is only the cast of the deep-sea transport leg. Transshipment cast and through transport, which constitute up to 80% of the total casts, are not included.

The graph shows that significant cast reductions are achieved through upscaling of ship size. Savings for the Malacca-max design amount to anywhere between a 16% (Maersk S-Class) and 30% (Panamax design) over all cast reduction . These cast savings sound quite spectacular and attractive. However, these cast savings are calculated over the deepsea leg only. If the cast savings are calculated over the total container transport cast, cast savings are somewhere between 3% and 6%. Therefore, it is essential that the savings that can be made through the employment of larger ships are not offset by higher casts on share.

62


12

10 ~

8 ~ r---..!...

> ca ~ "tl

3 6 w t: ... IJ)

Slot cast

~o 0 u 0

:::J 4 n Time Char ter Equivalent

2

o o 5000 10000 15000

TEU capacity

Figuur 26: Slot casts and TeE of large container ships

240

220

200

:::J 180 w t-~ IJ) 160 :::J

140

120

100

o

~. ~ ~ Panama x

~ lVIaersk S-class ~

Suezmax lVIa~x

5000 10000 15000

TEU capacity

20000

20000

Figuur 27: Transport cast between Rotterdam and Singapore (deepsea only)

63


9. COST ESTIMATE FOR THE DREDGING OF THE SUEZ CANAL

9.1 Introduction

The idea of creating a Canal linking the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea dates back to 4000 years, when the Ancient Egyptians thought of linking the two seas using the river Nile and its branches. It was this very old idea th at led to the digging of the present Suez Canal which is historically the first man-made canal ever dug in service of world trade and is, so far, the biggest navigational canal between East and West.

Between Port Said harbour and the Gulf of Suez, the Canal runs through soils which vary according to the region. At Port Said and the surrounding area, the soil is composed of thousands of years of silt and clay sedimentation deposited by the Nile waters drifted by the Damietta branch. This formation extends to Oantara, 40 km to the south of Port Said, where the silt mixes with sand. The central region of the Canal between Oantara and Kabret consists of fine to coarse sands, while the southern reg ion contains dispersed layers of rocks, varying in texture from soft and stone to calcium rocks .

The Suez Canal is a sea level canal and the height of the tide va ri es slightly as it is 50 cm high in the north and 2 m high in the south. The banks of the Canal are protected against the wash generated by the transit of ships, using revetments of hard stones and steel piles corresponding to the nature of the soil in every area . On both sides of the Canal, there are mooring bollards every 125 m, for the mooring of vessels in case of emergency, and kilometric sign posts for locating the position of ships in the waterway. The navigable channel is bordered by light and reflecting buoys as a navigational aid to night traffic.

There are eleven signal stations along the western bank of the Canal for tracking the traffic, about 10 km apart from each other. This is in addition to a traffic control office in Port Said, another one in Port Tawfik and the main office in Ismailia. These offices control traffic and facilitate pilotage operations.

9.2 History of the Suez Canal

The ancient Egyptians were the first ones to recognise the importance of a canal linking the Mediterranean with the Red Sea. During the reign of Pharaoh Senausret 111 a canal was dug between the river Nile and the Red Sea . It reportedly opened in

64

'I

Cost estimate for the dredging ofthe Suez Canal

1874 BC and could only be used by small river ships. This canal had to be abandoned due to silting, but was reopened several times:

~ The canal of Seti I (1310 BC.) ~ The canal of Nkhaw (610 BC .) ~ The canal of Darius I (510 BC.) ~ The canal of the Romans (Emperor Trajanus, 117 BC .) ~ The canal of Amir EI Moemeneen (640 AD.), this canal remained open for

approximately 150 years.

The idea of digging a canal in Egypt was revitalised by Napoleon Bonaparte during his conquest of Egypt in 1803. The idea was abandoned because his engineers mistakenly calculated a difference in water level between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, amistake th at was only discovered half a century later. The Suez Canal in its present form, running from Port Said to Suez was opened on the 17'h of November 1869. It was the result of the efforts made by Ferdinand de Lesseps, the one time French Consul to Egypt .

The Suez Canal Company, a joint British/French operation, which remained in charge for 87 years, ran the Canal. In 1956 Egyptian president Nasser nationalised the Canal, sparking a vigorous reaction by the French and Brit ish who sent an invasion force to retake the Canal. Under serious United Nations pressure the French and British had to back down and leave Egypt. The Canal is now run by the Egyptian government through the Suez Canal Authority.

Economie impact

The Suez Canal is one of the most important waterways in the world and has had a significant impact on shipping and indeed on the whole world economy. It significantly reduces the sailed distance between Europe and Asia. As an example : sailing from Jeddah in Saudi Arabia to Constanza in the Black Sea is 1,698 miles through the Suez Canal, compared to a huge 11,771 miles via the Cape of Good Hope.

Dredging

Throughout its existence, the Suez Canal has u~dergone a nearly continuous series of improvements. The first bucket dredger, the Dredger 9, arrived in the Suez Canal in 1888. It was propelled by a reciprocating slow speed steam engine, fire tube steam boilers and open steam circuits. The dredger used coal as fuel and could dredge up to a depth of 14 metres. This first ship was followed by a long line of dredgers of various designs, used to maintain and upgrade the channel. The majority of the more recent dredgers consists of hopper trailing suction dredgers, wich are used to dredge the northern parts of the Canal. The southern part, which consists of rocks, has been dredged by cutter

65


suction dredgers, some of which were operated by foreign dredging companies. The Suez Canal Authority has a couple of cutter suction dredgers. Most notabie is the csd Mashour, built by IHC in the Netherlands in 1996. This is the largest cutter suction dredger in the world .

9.3 Current dimensions of the Canal

The Canal is undergoing a constant expansion process, so the maximum dimensions of the Canal are gradually increasing. At the moment. the maximum allowable draught is 58 ft (17.63 m) .

The width of the Canal is three times the breadth of the largest expected vessel at that draught. VLCCs, which usually transit in ballast, have the largest breadth, but when empty they do not have the largest draught. Therefore, at some places of the required channel width of 180 m, the depth is only 11 m The width of the Canal at maximum depth is at least 133 m. Since the cross-section varies along the length of the Canal, it is not possible to give one typical cross-section. The dimensions depend, among others, on tidal conditions and progress in dredging. The type of soil involved determines bank steepness. Figure 28 shows a cross-section of the Canal at one of the narrowest points, the deep channel of the Deversoir bypass.

~ 2~Om .. ~~~--~~~--------------------------~77~----------~~ ~______ (-5.om.) ;7

100.0m.

~--------~:::-;~;---------~ 'OO.Om. 1 ,00.Om. I

133.0m.

Figuur 28: Suez Canal at the Deversoir By-Pass.

As can be seen in the figure, the banks of the Canal allow further expansion, without any need for building new embankments. The Canal can be dredged to a navigable depth of 68 ft within the existing banks.

The Suez Canal Authority expects to reach an allowed draught of 62 ft (18.85 m) by the year 2000. This would mean a water depth of at least 22 m, not taking into account tidal and seasonal influences. Tidal and seasonal influences vary throughout the length of the Canal.

66

Cost estimate for the dredging ofthe Suez Canal

The minimum required depth of the Canal is calculated taking the following factors into account:

~ Maximum accepted ship draught; ~ Squat (estimated at maximum 3.5 ft); ~ Dynamic trim (max. 0.5 ft); ~ Keel clearance (1.0 mI; ~ Dredging tolerance (3.0 ft); ~ Tidal range; ~ Seasonal influences (water level in the Bitter lakes varies throughout the year).

Depth measurements of the deep channel of the Suez Canal have been carried out on board the P&O Nedlloyd Kowloon during the visit of Marco Sholtens to the SCA in February 1999. These were made using the echo sounding device under the ship's keel. The measurements have been corrected for squat, dynamic trim, season effe cts and tidal variations. Figure 29. shows the depth profile relative to mean sea level, as it was during the time of transit (13'h February 1999).

The following corrections were made to the measured depth under the keel:

A tidal correction based on the tidal level at the time of measurement, with the local amplitude and tidal phase and time lag due to position in the Canal. The following formula was used:

Z'ide = Zampl * cos(((S - Sol/V. + (S - SO)/8'ide + (tentry - thw.llT'ide)*2*n)

where: Zampl Tidal amplitude on dav of measurement S Current location So Location at start of measurement V. Ship speed 8'ide Tidal phase correction ten'ry Time of entry of Canal thw = Time of High water at Port Said T'ide = Period of main ti dal motion

An equivalent formula was used to determine the tidal levels in the southern section of the Canal .

Also, a seasonal correction has been applied to the water level. The water level in the Bitter lakes was 30 cm above mean sea water level due to slower vaporisation in winter times. A linear decrease of this rise has been applied to the sections of the Canal outside the bitter lakes.

67


Figure 29 shows th at the required depth for ships with a 62 ft draught is al ready present in most sections of the Canal. There are a few "bumps" th at need to be removed. However, some of these bumps are located in the southern section of the Canal, where the soil consists of stones and rock layers. Same dredging experts believe this will prevent the SCA from achieving the 62 ft level in the year 2000. There is one hump around kilpmetre 100, which is above the 58ft mark. This is in the anchorage area, and not in the Canal itself .

Kilometre 30 45 70 87 118 136,5 152

1 5,000- -,-,-,n-r-rrrTTT..,-,-,.,....,...,..,....,...,..,......,...,.....-n-n-r-rrrTTT..,.,...,..,...,....r-rr,..,....,...,..,......,.".."rrrrrr.,...,...,...,...,..,-rrrrn

17,000-

19,000-

§. 21,000-.t: ... c.

23 ,000-al c

25 ,000- ~=f========w=========::t~=:::t=1

27,000- +----------I-------------------=j

29,000- L-________________________ ---'

-rotal depth -- - -Nomina158ft. - - - - - Nomina162ft. --Nominal72 ft.

Figuur 29 : Depth of Suez Canal , actual measurements

The results have to be considered with same caution. The measurements have been made with the echo sounding device on board the P&O Nedlloyd Kowloon. This device only records the depth straight under the keel. Conditions on either side of the ship, but within the navigable channel, could vary .

Bank steepness varies along the length of the Canal. The most northern 60 km have a bank steepness of 4/1 (for each 4 metres horizontally, depth increases by a metre) . This is because this section is mostly made up of silt and fine sand . Further south the bank steepness is 3/1, where coarser sand and rocks farm the soil.

The Suez Canal Authority gives an estimate of about 500 million cu bic metres of soil th at has to be dredged to go from a depth of 58 ft to a depth of 72 ft By cam paring with the actual depth of the Canal along its length, an estimate can be made of the amount th at really has to be dredged.

68

Cost estimate tor the dredging ofthe Suez Canal

9.4 Future expansion plans

The Suez Canal Authority plans to achieve a maximum permissible draught of 62 ft throughout the Canal by the year 2000. Further deepening is planned, but is not considered urgent. Somewhere between 2010 and 2013 the SCA expects to achieve a 72 ft draught . It is not considered to be necessary to achieve th is any sooner. Traffic statistics do not warrant expansion of the Canal at this time. The SCA has calculated that the extra income that can be generated from the larger ships th at now sail around the Cape of Good Hope does not offset the costs of dredging under the current circumstances. They expect oil exports from the Persian Gulf to rise af ter the year 2010, because of dwindling supplies in the North Sea and the Caribbean. Traffic volumes might th en increase sufficiently to generate sufficient income. It is not considered necessary to increase the number of bypasses in the Canal, since the capacity in numbers of ships is more than adequate at the moment. Due to the increasing ship sizes the number of ships is actually decreasing, to about 38 ships per dav on average in 1998. The total capacity amounts to 75 ships per dav, so large investments in doubling sections or even the whole Canal are not necessary.

An estimate for the cost of dredging the Canal to 72 ft can be made using the measurements of the actual depth of the Canal. The following assumptions have been made:

~ The depth measured under the keel of the ship is assumed to extend over the full breadth of the bottom at maximum depth;

~ The required dimensions after expansion of the Canal are calculated using existing bank slopes and a navigable channel with a width of 180 metres at maximum depth;

~ Since no measurements have been done at sea, it is assumed that the approaches to the Canal now have a navigable depth of 62 ft;

~ The Canal is divided in different sections, each with a dominant soil type. This soil type determines the estimated dredging cost per cu bic metre;

~ The dredged cross-section is considered to be linearly dependent on the depth.

To determine the required amount of dredging still to be done, the measurements have been subtracted from the required depth to estimate the local shortfall. This has been integrated over the full length of the Canal using trapezium rule approximation.

The Canal is divided in the following sections:

69


~ North 1, km 0 to 40. Silt (2 US$/m3);

~ North 2, km 40 to 80. Silt/fine sand (3 US$/m3);

~ Lake Timsah/Deversoir, km 80 to 100. Coarse sand (5 US$/m3);

• Great Bitter lakes, km 100 to 130. Coarse sand/stones (10 US$/m3);

~ South, km 130 to 160. Coarse sand/stones/soft rock (15 US$/m3).

Inside the Canal proper, the total amount of soil to be dredged is 198 million cubic metres. With dredging costs per cubic metre varying from US$ 2 for the silt in the northern sector to US$ 15 in the south, this amounts to a total cost of US$ 1,468 million.

The approaches to the Canal must be dredged as weil, especially in Port Said. This will require approximately 66 million m3 of soil, at a cost of US$ 160 million . Including some dredging work th at needs to be done at the anchorages, the total required investment for achieving an allowed draught of 72 ft amounts to US$ 1,650 million.

9.5 Suez Canal dues

The payable dues in the Suez Canal are a significant cost element for shipowners. Very large container ships can face a transit due of up to US$ 300,000 for a single voyage. At the same time, they are a considerable souree of income for the Egyptian government. In 1998, the Suez Canal received an estimated US$ 2,900 million in dues, of which only about 15% is needed for the maintenance and daily operation of the Canal.

Transit dues are based on the Suez Canal net tonnage. This is determined by taking the Gross Tonnage of the ship, minus enclosed spaces for machinery, equipment, crewand void spaces. Additional dues have to be paid for pilotage and if necessary, tug assistance. Container ships pay an additional surcharge for deck containers, which can go up to a 14% charge in case of six or more tiers on deck. An overview of Suez Canal dues in 1998 is given in Table 17.

The levels are determined by calculating the cost for the owners for sailing around the Cape of Good Hope on a yearly basis . Tonnage dues are set accordingly . Crude oil tankers whose routing around the Cape of Good Hope would only mean a marginal increase in distance (ships bound for West Africa for instanee) are entitled to considerable discounts from the Suez Canal Authority in order to keep the Canal competitive .

70

Cast estimate for the dredging ofthe Suez Canal

5.52 3 .77 3.08 3.43 2.77 1.93 1.19 1.93 1.19 1.93 1.19

5 .75 3 .77 3 .21 3.43 2.92 2.42 2 .06 2.42 2 .06 2.42 2.06

Dry bulk 7.21 6.13 4.14 3.52 2 .97 2.53 1.05 0 .9 0 .85 1 0 .85 (US$/tonne)

Container 7.21 6 .13 4 .1 3.49 3 .37 2.87 2.42 2 .06 2.42 2.06 1.83 1.56 (US$/tonne)

Tabel 17: Suez Canal dues in 1998

Larger ships pay less per net tonne. This is because economies of scale in shipping make it relatively cheaper for large ships to sail around the Cape of Good Hope. These lower rates for large ships also explain the lower income of the SCA over the previous years, despite increasing trade volumes. 1997 recorded a 3.9% increase in transiting net tonnage, while net income dropped by about 2 %. The average size of the transiting ships has increased however, especially container vessels, where a sizeable number of large post-Panamax ships has entered service in the past few years.

9.6 Possible cooperation of Rotterdam and/or Singapore

Under current economie conditions, the Suez Canal Authority does not plan to dredge the Canal to 72 ft before the year 2010. Estimated additional income due to the passage of fully loaded VLCCs does not warrant a fast dredging program. To make an estimate of the necessary financial support, an estimation is needed of the additional generated income and of the cost to dredge the Canal.

If all VLCCs that currently use the route around the Cape of Good Hope would use the Suez Canal instead, and current price levels in sea transport remain the same, additional income to the SCA is calculated, with the following assumptions :

~ Dil transport around Cape of Good Hope stays at the level of 1995. (168 Million. tonnes);

~ Transport takes place in VLCCs with a deadweight of 275,000 tonnes, and a Suez Canal net tonnage of 120,000 tonnes;

71


~ Suez Canal dues are maintained at their current level (likely to be the case if the costs of shipping stay the same);

~ Increased dry bulk traffic is neglected, since the fleet of post-Suezmax bulk carriers is relatively small « 1 00). Most of these ships have a maximum draught of little over 18 metres (60 ft), and will be allowed to pass fully loaded from the year 2000 onwards. The number of ships with a draught larger than 62 ft is under twenty and they mainly trade on other routes anyway;

~ No discounts in Suez Canal dues are awarded to VLCCs; ~ The gradual increase in depth of the Suez Canal over the project duration is

not taken into account. That means th at a sudden jump in allowed draught from 62 ft to 72 ft is assumed;

~ No additional traffic is generated due to taking over market share from the Suez-Mediterranean pipeline;

~ Dredging is financed by issuing government bonds with a 5% interest ra te and repayable in the year of completion.

These assumptions lead to a conservative estimate of the additional income, since shipping prices, and therefore Suez Canal dues are at a very low level, and the oil market is low as weil. There will be 611 VLCC northbound passages each year, generating US$ 130.4 million annually. If it is assumed th at the SCA is planning to arrive at a draught of 72 ft in 2010 anyway, a calculation can be made for the allowed cost of hiring foreign contractors to speed up the work. The net present value of the income is calculated for each year the project is completed before 2010. See Table 18. All additional expenditures required are to be furnished by Rotterdam and/or Singapore.

Input data : Interest ra te 5 % Million US$ Yearly income 130.4 Million US$ Project cost 1650

2000 1,057.5 1,650.0 592.5 Million US$ 2001 927 .1 1,449.6 522.6 Million US$ 2002 802.8 1,258.1 455.3 Million US$ 2003 684.5 1,075.1 390.5 Million US$ 2004 571.9 900.1 328.2 Million US$ 2005 464.6 732.8 268 .2 Million US$ 2006 362.4 572.9 210.5 Million US$ 2007 265 .0 419.9 154.9 Million US$ 2008 172.4 273.7 101.3 Million US$ 2009 84.1 133.8 49.7 Million US$ 2010 0.0 0.0 0.0 Million US$

Tabel 18: Net present value of fast dredging project

72

Cast estimate tor the dredging ofthe Suez Canal

The taster the project has to be completed, the higher the cost will beo This is mainly because of the amount of work th at needs to be done by foreign contractors. If the whole project is to be executed by foreign contractors, it will roughly cost 1.65 billion US$. If all the work is done by the SCA dredgers, the costs are assumed to be zero . This is of course not the case, but since only extra income is calculated, only the extra costs need to be taken into account .

The amount of dredging that must be done by contractors is assumed to decrease linearly over the required finishing date of the project, with 100% of the work in 2000, and 0% in 2010. The Net Present Value of the investment is calculated using the same interest rate as th at used for the income.

By subtracting the additional income trom the investment cost the required sum to be paid by Rotterdam/Singapore can be obtained, see table 18.

73


10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A number of research questions has been examined, and the answers to these questions are briefly presented in this chapter, as weil as some recommendations for further study.

"Is it technica/ly and economica/ly feasible to construct container ships with a capacity of 18,000 TEUr

The study shows th at it is technically feasible to construct a container vessel with a capacity of over 18,000 TEU. Such a vessel can be constructed with currently available technology. With a twin propeller propulsion the ship can be powered by existing diesel engines . The huil can be constructed with commercially available steel qualities, while plate thickness can be kept at acceptable levels. Significant economies of scale can be achieved with the Malacca-max design. A total cost reduction of at least 16% compared to the most cost-effective ship built to date can be achieved. For the most part these cost savings are in fuel and Suez Canal dues. This cost reduction, however, only accounts with the direct ship related costs. Terminal handling and other transport costs have not been studied and must be examined further.

"What are the necessary adaptations to the Suez Canal, what wilf this cost and can Rotterdam and/or Singapore assist in financing this project?"

To accommodate VLCCs and 18,000 TEU container ships a total of 1,534 million cubic metres of soil needs to be removed at an estimated cost of US$ 1,650 million. If the Suez Canal Authority's fleet is employed to dredge the Canal these costs can be considerably lower since these ships has already been paid for by the Egyptian government, and the only extra cost lies in personnel and maintenance . Under the current economical circumstances the Suez Canal Authority thinks it is not commercially attractive to increase the depth of the Canal. The extra income due to increased traffic is not sufficient to pay for dredging operations. Financial support by the ports of Rotterdam and Singapore can make it commercially attractive for the SCA to speed up their dredging scheme.

A research project often raises more new questions than it answers . A number of questions which merit further study are:

74

~ How can terminal . handling be brought to a higher speed? The loading/unloading speed has to be at least doubled to arrive at an acceptable

Conclusions and recommendations

time in port. A crane design with sufficient speed is available, but how can the containers be moved to the stacks more quickly?

~ What is the expected extra income for the port of Rotterdam due to its increased hub function? This determines whether it is attractive to financially assist the Suez Canal Authority in a dredging scheme 1.

~ What are the effe cts of the introduction of these mammoth ships to the rest of the transport chain? Increased costs in other parts of the chain might negate the ship related cost savings.

, The differences in value added for the port of Rotterdam between a multiporting and hub-feeder container ship operation have been studied in the framework of another master thesis project at the Delft University of Technology by F.D. Bello, called "Multiparting versus Hub & Feedering: A quantitative evalutian of the feeder concept"

75


CHAPTER NOTES

1. Introduction

"Shipping industry structure", Wijnolst, N., Waals, F.A.J., Delft University Press, 1999

"Shipping", Wijnolst, Prof.Dr.lr. N., Wergeland, ass. Prof . T., Delft University Press, 1996

"Design Innovation in Shipping", Wijnolst, N., Delft University Press, 1995

"Fairplay Shipping Encyclopedia ", Fairplay Publications, 1998 and 1999

2. The advent of post-Panamax container ships

"Hyunday Admiral: a powerful container ship", Significant ships, 1992

"Future container ships - The bigger the better?", Poehis, Pr.Dr.lng. H., Proceedings Regional Maritime Conference Indonesia, 1995

"APL China: increasing capacity on Trans-Pacific routes", Significant ships, 1995

"Neptune Sardonyx: highest capacity Panamax container ship ", Significant ships, 1995

"NYK Procyon: Post-Panamax container liner for Far East/Europe routes ", Significant ships, 1995

"OOCL Califomia: largest container ship vet completed", Significant ships, 1995

"Pros and cons of large container ships", Lloyd's Shipping Economist, March 1996

"Post-Panamax container ships, 6000 TEU and beyond", Drewry Shipping consultants, 1996

"Two slots for the price of one", Phillips, F., Containerisation International, September 1 996

"Luhe: Introducing a COSCO post-Panamax sextet, " Significant ships, 1997

76

Conclusions and recommendations

"Post-Panamax passion ", Fossey, J., Containerisation International, February 1997

"The pros and cons of post-Panamax container ships", Kai, S., Dan, Y., Asian shipping, November 1997

"Container ships, going for growth", ABS Surveyor, December 1997

"Das wachstum der Jumbos", HANSA, March 1998

"Fairplay Shipping Encyclopedia ", Fairplay Publications, 1998

"The container ship register 1998 ", Clarkson Research Studies Ltd., 1998

"Shipping industry structure", Wijnolst, N., Waals, F.A.J., Delft University Press, 1999

3. Previous developments in liquid and dry bulk shipping

"Liquid gold ships - A history of the tanker 1859-1984 ", Ratcliffe, M., 1985

"Fairplay Shipping Encyclopedia ", Fairplay Publications, 1998

"Wor/d bulk trades 1997", Fearnresearch, 1998

"Shipping industry structure", Wijnolst. N., Waals, F.A.J., Delft University Press, 1999

4. Concept development Malacca-max container ship

"A tlantic Lady: a novel hatchcover/ess container ship ", Significant ships, 1992

"Nedlloyd Hong Kong: largest hatchcover/ess container ship ", Significant ships, 1994

"Norasia Hong Kong: continuing the hatchcover/ess theme ", Significant ships, 1994

"The first open top container ship from HDW", Ships & Ports, September 1994

"Design Innovation in Shipping", Wijnolst, Prof.Dr.lr. N., Delft University Press, 1995

"Mega ships and ro-ro feeders - Container ships of the future", Payer, Dr.H., Asian Shipping, May 1997

"Design and operation of container ships", RINA Conference Papers, 1999

77


5. Sketch design of a Suezmax container ship

"Suez Cana/- Ru/es of navigation", Shipping Guides, 1995

"Marine Power Systems 1999", Wärtsilä NSD corporation, 1999

6. Preliminary design of a Malacca-max container ship

No literature used

7. Strength assessment and steel weight estimate

"Ru/es and regu/ations for the construction and c/assification of ships ", L1oyd's Register, 1992

"ABS Ru/es, vesse/s intended to carry containers ", American Bureau of Shipping, 1998

8. Economie evaluation of the design

"Maritime Economics", Stopford, M., 1991

"G/oba/ container markets", Drewry shipping consultants, 1996

"Shipping", Wijnolst, Prof.Dr.lr. N., Wergeland, ass. Prof. T., Delft University Press, 1996

"Conferences, het begin van het einde?", Roest, M., 1997

9. Cost estimate for dredging the Suez Canal

"The Suez Cana/ ru/es of Navigation ", Suez Canal Authority, 1995

"Sumed achieves record throughput in 1995", L1oyd's Shipping Economist, April 1998

10. Conclusions and recommendations

"Mu/tiporting versus Hub & Feedering: A quantitative eva/ution of the feeder concept" , F.D. Bello, Delft University of Technology, 1999

78

mo •• uu"' •• ouo.u,mo •• uulil "U, """"'" I

Documents

(1999) Wijnolst Et Al MALACCA MAX-The Ultimate Container Carrier