CAPSTONE DESIGN PROJECT : LNG BUNKER SUPPLY VESSEL

TEAM MEMBERS:

Arjun PahwaPraveen DwarkanathDebanjan SahaMehran Zargham

MENTOR:

Dan McGreer

FACULTY ADVISOR:

Dr. Chris McKessonJon Mikkelsen

Agenda•Introduction to LNG

•Mission’s Requirement

•Parametric Study

•Hull Form Development

•General Arrangement

•Tank calculations and insulation selection

•Structural Calculations

•Weight estimation

•Stability

•Estimation of resistance and power

•Decision matrix for propulsion system

•Decision matrix for engine

•Safety Measures in Bunkering

•Cost Estimate

•Future Work

•Questions

Introduction

LNG as a potential fuel in near future

MARPOL tier three regulations

Increasing demand of LNG

SOURCE:https://www.google.ca/search?biw=1600&bih=1129&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=ship+clip+art&oq=SHIP+&gs_l=img.3.0.0l10.11919.13618.0.16167.5.5.0.0.0.0.113.499.2j3.5.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.5.497.gPX_pt4t6_Y#imgrc=Wy9-Ne7mECHa3M%3A

Mission Requirements

Supply LNG Fuel to Ships at Harbour

Carry LNG From Kitimat to Vancouver / Nanaimo

Vessel to be Capable of delivering 4500 cu. m of LNG Cargo

SOURCE:https://www.google.ca/search?biw=1600&bih=1129&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=kitimat+to+vancouver+sea+route&oq=kitimat+to+vancouver+sea+route&gs_l=img.3...2519.3771.0.4128.6.6.0.0.0.0.86.468.6.6.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.0.0.Oj3euJAxNiw#imgdii=8v828t6zR7tcBM%3A%3B8v828t6zR7tcBM%3A%3BVWv4LrlA9gzjCM%3A&imgrc=8v828t6zR7tcBM%3A

Mission Performance Parameters

Service Speed: 13 Knots

Cargo Capacity: 4500 cu.m LNG; 550 cu.m Diesel Oil

Range : 1200 Nautical Miles

Transfer Rate: 300cu.m/hr

Parametric Study

TANKS?

STABILITY?

RESISTANCE?

COST?!!! SOURCE:https://www.google.ca/search?biw=1600&bih=1129&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=DESIGN+SPIRAL&oq=DESIGN+SPIRAL&gs_l=img.3..0j0i30l2j0i5i30l6j0i8i30.154466.162235.1.162476.27.26.0.1.1.0.240.2301.22j3j1.26.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.28.2271.AP2LfE9UGug#imgrc=6_UXZwkTds2CTM%3A

Membrane Tanks – Compact but Complex

SOURCE:https://www.google.ca/search?q=LNG+MEMBRANE+TANKS&tbm=isch&imgil=2iBrVzs-X5XU3M%253A%253B2qnMKvwX3sU1UM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.globalsecurity.org%25252Fmilitary%25252Fsystems%25252Fship%25252Ftanker-lng.htm&source=iu&pf=m&fir=2iBrVzs-X5XU3M%253A%252C2qnMKvwX3sU1UM%252C_&biw=1600&bih=1129&usg=__fP1tFXRrnai3iGP4BXVpXmp58TE%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjRlMLEwLbKAhXDKGMKHayxAhAQyjcIKA&ei=QoCeVtHrBcPRjAOs44qAAQ#imgrc=2iBrVzs-X5XU3M%3A&usg=__fP1tFXRrnai3iGP4BXVpXmp58TE%3D

SOURCE:https://www.google.ca/search?q=LNG+MEMBRANE+TANKS&tbm=isch&imgil=2iBrVzs-X5XU3M%253A%253B2qnMKvwX3sU1UM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.globalsecurity.org%25252Fmilitary%25252Fsystems%25252Fship%25252Ftanker-lng.htm&source=iu&pf=m&fir=2iBrVzs-X5XU3M%253A%252C2qnMKvwX3sU1UM%252C_&biw=1600&bih=1129&usg=__fP1tFXRrnai3iGP4BXVpXmp58TE%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjRlMLEwLbKAhXDKGMKHayxAhAQyjcIKA&ei=QoCeVtHrBcPRjAOs44qAAQ#imgrc=rbuid-c3jB5l5M%3A&usg=__fP1tFXRrnai3iGP4BXVpXmp58TE%3D

Spherical Tanks – Widely Used But BULKY!

SOURCE: https://www.google.ca/search?biw=1600&bih=1129&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=LNG+BUNKER+VESSEL&oq=LNG+BUNKER+VESSEL&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24.261969.265087.0.265330.17.12.0.5.5.0.129.1121.9j3.12.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.17.1131.TJ72wHTxiNU#imgrc=SK4xF8rvmZ4ryM%3A

Cylindrical Type C : Most Common in Smaller Vessels

Tank Type Concept Pressure Dis-Advantage Advantage

Membrane Type

Integrated in hull

<0.7bar • High Boil off• Not gas tight• Very sensitive against

pressure holding• Sloshing

• Can be adapted to hull.

Spherical(Moss)

Independent tank

<0.7 bar • High boil off• Space Requirements

• Very reliable system

Cylindrical Tank

Independentpressure vessel

>2 bar • Space requirements • Very solid design• Easy installation• No leakages

occurred• No maintenance• Flexible Pressure( Can handle up to 10 bar of gas- thus, no need of re-liquefaction plant)

Tank Comparison

SOURCE:SHIP DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION: THOMAS LAMB

Parametric study results – ‘best’ available options

SL.NO. SHIP TYPE LENGTH (m) BEAM (m) DRAFT (m)DEPTH

(m)Cb GM (m) POWER REQ (kW)

Light Ship Weight (tonnes)

(RESIS+MARGIN)

1 MEMBRANE TANK 82.4 15 4.5 9.5 0.69 2.5 4876 2130

2CYLINDRICAL - 1 LONGITUDINAL TANK

99.1 12.7 5.15 11.8 0.68 1.7 3833 2328

3CYLINDRICAL - 2 LONGITUDINAL TANK

96.9 15 5 11.5 0.68 2.3 4538 2565

4CYLINDRICAL - 2 TRANSVERSE TANK

88.1 19.5 4.5 9.5 0.61 4.7 5768 2712

5CYLINDRICAL - 4 HORIZONTAL ( 2*2)

89.1 19.5 4.5 9.5 0.69 3.9 5732 2782

6 CYLINTRICAL - 4 VERTICAL (2*2) 79.5 14 5 10.5 0.68 2.1 5342 2073

7SPHERICAL - 2 LONGITUDINAL TANK

53.1 18 9 18 0.68 2.7 21464 3131

8 SPHERICAL - 4 TANK (Longitudinal) 91.5 15.4 5.5 11.5 0.68 2.3 5606 2557

9 SPHERICAL-1 TANK 34 22 11 22 0.58 4.1 34852 3547

10 SPHERICAL-4 TRANSVERSE 26.5 17.2 4.5 9 0.64 3.5 15003 1821

Hull form Development

• After modeling the vessel and placing the tanks it was found that the ship is a bit slim

• The beam of the vessel was increased to 18 m• With the length being 97 m, it gives us an L/B ratio 5.39• The parent vessels L/B ranges from: 4.7-6.1

Geometric Properties

Parent Vessels

Name of the ship Length Breadth Depth Draft DWTCargo Tank

CapacityDischarge capacity

Design Speed

Gas Consumption

Tank Type

Range

LOA LBP LNG MDO (-/day)

1 Wartsila LNG Bunker WSD59 6.5K 98.8 96.5 19.2 12.7 5.8 6500 550 250 13 9.8 C-type

2 Concept Naval ENR2 120 18 7 3.5 4200 4600 1000 300 C-type

3 Rolls Royce type NVC 604 GT 89.3 87.1 18.4 8.9 4.9 2500 4500 250 13 C-type 1300

4 Kawasaki Concept 120 114 18.8 9.5 5.6 6000 C-type

5 TG LNG Bunker Vessel 98.6 93 14.2 7.6 4 1900 3000 12 C-type

HULL FORM RATIO

Name of the ship L/B B/T B/D T/D

1 Wartsila LNG Bunker WSD59 6.5K 5.1 3.3 1.5 0.4

2 Concept Naval ENR2 6.1 5.1 2.5 0.5

3 Rolls Royce type NVC 604 GT 4.7 3.7 2.0 0.5

4 Kawasaki Concept 6.0 3.3 1.9 0.5

5 TG LNG Bunker Vessel 6.1 3.5 1.8 0.5

Lines Plan

GENERAL ARRANGEMENT

General Arrangement

• For proper space estimation we have tried to model everything 3 dimensionally• We gathered information on the type of machinery that would be required on this vessel and tried to place it on the ship• Based up on our voyage and mission, we fixed the volume of our tanks and tried to place them following the class rules.

General Arrangement

CARGO CONTAINMENT AND PIPELINE SYSTEM

• 2 Bunker manifold• 5 Pipelines running throughout the vessel

General Arrangement

Bottom Platform• All Engine room Tanks

• 2 FW tanks• 2 Fuel Oil Tanks• 1 Bilge Tank• 1 Lube oil tank

• 3 Engines• Auxiliary Pumps

1st Platform• Air System

• Fuel Preparation System• Coolers• Fresh water Preparation Unit• Refrigeration Plant• Sewage System

Engine Room Arrangement

Main deck Accommodation

• Fixed CO2 system• Fixed Foam system• Galley stores• Emergency Generator room• Air conditioning Room• Engine/ Deck crew changing room

• Cargo Handling Equipment• Re-liquefaction Plant• Nitrogen Generator

Second Deck• 8 crew cabins• Hospital• Ships laundry• General stores

Third Deck• Capt/ Chief engineer Cabin

• 4 officers cabins• Owners/spare cabin• Conference room

Accommodation Arrangement

General Arrangement

LNG Tank Design

LNG Tank Thickness Calculations

Based on the Lloyds rules, we came up with three materials for the construction of the tank:

I. AluminiumII. 9Ni-Fe (Invar)III. 36-Fe

For each of the material we calculated the thickness based on the design pressure of 5 bar and inside radius of 6 meters.

Thickness of TankAl 40.9 mm9 Ni 13.6 mm36 Ni- Fe 13.4 mm

• Based on the thickness calculation, we calculated the weight of each tank.• And thus, the cost of each tank.

Based up on our analysis, we concluded 9Ni Iron to be the cheapest material for manufacturing of LNG tanks.

Al 9 Ni 36 Ni FeOuter Radius 6.04 6.01 6.01Inner Radius 6.00 6.00 6.00Volume (m3) 36.82 12.24 12.01Weight (Tonnes) 97947 96206 97543Cost $/ ton 1000 600 5000Approximate Cost ($) 98,000 58,000 490,000

LNG Tank Material Selection

LNG Tank Insulation Selection

We came across three materials used to insulate LNG tanks.

• PU- Foam• Vacuum Perlite• Aerogel Mats

Each of the material has its own thickness requirement for insulation of LNG tanks.

InsulationPU- Foam 260 mm

Vacuum perlite 35 mm

Aerogel mats 165 mm

Based up on the thickness and considering the space requirements, we decided to opt for Vacuum perlite insulation.

Structural Calculations

Framing systems

1. Transverse framing

2. Longitudinal framing

We choose this based upon the ship’s length, and the corresponding hull buckling criteria

Midship Section

Still Water Bending MomentHogging M sWM,H 129133 kN.M

Sagging M sWM,S 113048 kN.M

-200000

-100000

0

100000

200000

0.00 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.75 0.90

kN.M

x/L

Still Water Bending Moment

Hogging Sagging

Results from Lloyds Structural Calculation:

Members Calculated Thickness (mm) Taken Values (mm)

Deck 8.4 10

Bottom Plating Thickness 8.1 10

Bilge Plating 8.1 10

Keel Plate 11.2 12

Side shell above mid depth 6.7 8

Side shell below mid depth 7.3 8

Sheerstrake and gunwale 7.3 10

Inner Hull Plate 6.9 9

Midship drawing

Bilge strake: calculated thickness : 8.08 mmTaken: 10 mm

Shear strake: calculated thickness : 7.3 mmTaken: 10 mm

Keel plate: calculated thickness : 11.2 mmTaken: 12 mm

Weight Estimation

ComponentsNumber of Members Thickness (mm) Length (mm) Area (mm^2)

Volume (mm^3)

Density of steel (tonnes/mm^3) Weight (tonnes)

Total Weight (tonnes)

Longitudinal stiffeners 150 9 1950 1,188 2,316,600 7.8E-09 0.02 2.7Inner hull plating 9 1950 140,400 273,780,000 7.8E-09 2.1 2.1Web frame 1 9 46,320,000 416,880,000 7.8E-09 3.2 3.25Brackets for double bottom 4 10 720,000 7,200,000 7.8E-09 0.05 0.22Brackets for main cargo tank 4 10 720,000 7,200,000 7.8E-09 0.05 0.22Floors 1 10 18000 21,600,000 216,000,000 7.8E-09 1.6 1.68

Center girder 1 9 1950 22,512 43,898,400 7.8E-09 0.3 0.34Side girder 2 8 1950 15,072 29,390,400 7.8E-09 0.2 0.46Deck plating - 8 1950 144,000 280,800,000 7.8E-09 2.1 2.19Bottom + Bilge plating+ side shell - 10 1950 294,800 574,860,000 7.8E-09 4.4 4.48Keel Plate - 12 1950 14,400 28,080,000 7.8E-09 0.2 0.22Sheer strake and gunwale - 10 1950 12,500 24,375,000 7.8E-09 0.1 0.19Thickness of the end bracket plating 12 10 - 1,320,000 13,200,000 7.8E-09 0.1 1.24

19.3Scaled 673

Weight Estimation• We found the thickness of different members as per Lloyd’s rules• Estimated the weight of those members for 3 Frame Spacing i.e. 1950 mm• Scaled that weight to get the total structural weight of the ship

Structural Weight Estimation

Structural Weight Estimation

Mid-Ship 723

Engine Room 390

Forward of Collision Bulkhead 470

Super Structure 112

Total Structural Weight 1,695

List Of Machineries

• Engines: 2 Wartsila 9L20DF and 1 Wartsila 6L20DF

• Z-Drives: Rolls-Royce A02-85 T

• Cranes: Techcrane 6 Ton Capacity, overall range of 26 meters.

• Auxiliary Machineries of different make includes Alpha Laval, Atlas,

Saacke, etc

• Wartsila Re liquefaction Plant

• LNG Cargo Pumps: Each tank to be equipped with two Fixed Vertical

Ebara Custom Pump (Fully Submerged)

Total Lightship Weight Estimated

Different Group Members Weight (Tonnes)

Hull Structure Weight 1581

Super Structure Weight 112

Machinery Weight 512

Outfitting Weight 552

Cargo Tanks weight 180

Light Ship Weight 2,937

STABILITY

Intact Stability

We based our calculations on Lloyd’s rule to meet the following criteria IMO A 749 (18):

We finalized stability analysis of our ship based on three most probable cases in which the ship is going to be:

• For the Lightship condition

• For Partial Load Condition

• For Full Load Condition

KB 1.1 m

KG 5.2 m

GMT 5.6 m

KB 3.4 m

KG 6.4 m

GMT 1.5 m

KB 3.5 m

KG 6.3 m

FSE .65 m

GMT 1.45 m

Results from Maxsurf:

Initial GMt at 0 degrees = 2.21 m for full load condition.Maximum GZ = 1.463m rad at 46.4 degrees for full load condition.

Full load Stability Calculations

Damage Stability

• As per IGC code, gas carriers less than 100 meters in length comes under 2PG category

• 2PG ship is a gas carrier intended to transport LNG or similar products and products are carried in independent tanks type C.

• For 2PG category ships vessel must be able to float with 1 compartment completely flooded

Damage Stability

Engine Room Flooded

Cargo Hold 1 Flooded

Forward Compartment Flooding

POWER/RESISTANCE ESTIMATE

Addition of Bulbous Bow

• For the resistance and power estimation we considered the addition of bulbous bow to our model

• We estimated our results based on Kracht paper and Holtrop analysis

• The Bulbous bow area range was found to be from 11.2 – 21.4 sq meter

Resistance and Power EstimateTo find the resistance, an excel sheet was developed based on Holtrop paper

The Propulsive Horse Power was calculated including the effect of Bulbous bow, it was found that:

Bulb area of 11.2 m^2

Resistance: 153926 N

Power: 1623 Kw

Bulb area: 21.4 m^2

Resistance: 175644 N

Power: 1875 Kw

Without the bulb the following results was obtained:

Resistance: 164477 N

Power:1755 Kw

It was decided to go with the 11.2 m^2 bulb area.

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Speed Vs Power

Speed Vs Power

Decision Matrix for Propeller Selection

Selection of Propeller Importance % Single Screw Azimuth Twin Screw

Manoeuverability 40 0.4 1 5

Space 25 0.25 1 3

Efficiency 25 0.25 3 2

Cost 10 0.1 3 1

Total 8 11

Weighted Total 1.7 3.35

Propeller @ 13 knots

Pitch 2.8 m Kt J DesiredDiameter 2 m 0.189 1.15 Kt = 0.18P/D 1.4 J = 1.2Rpm 140Area Prop 2.12 Sq m Efficiency 0.65

Decision Matrix for Engine SelectionPower Load (kW) Maneuvering Full Ahead Bunkering At Port Anchoring/Drifting

Propulsion Power 2800

Bow Thrusters 250

Service Load 300

Cargo Pumps 600

Re-Liquefaction Plant 200

Nitrogen Generator 150

Total Load for each mode - 3350 3200 1500 550 500

Time spent in each mode in % - 5% 60% 15% 15% 5%

Number of days spent in a year - 18.25 219 54.75 54.75 18.25

Different Available Combinations Wartsila 9L20DF Wartsila 8L20DF Wartsila 6L20DF Wartsila 6L34DF Wartsila 4L20

Power produced (kw) 1665 1480 1110 3000 800

Fuel Used Dual Fuel Dual Fuel Dual Fuel Dual Fuel Diesel

Weight (Tonnes) 11.7 11.1 9.4 13.2 7.2

Combination 2 of 9L20DF + 1 6L20DF

Produces => kw of power 4440

Safety Considerations

• Communications and Monitoring – Use of Radio Communications

• Emergency Shutdown Devices are installed at each bunker manifold and Cargo control room

• Stainless steel Drip trays must be used to contain cryogenic cargo spills below all flanged connection

• Fixed fire fighting system to be installed near the bunker manifold and drip trays

• Manual release of the fixed fire system is easily possible from the accommodation, bunker station and different location on the deck

• Portable fire fighting equipment is placed near the bunker manifold

• Water curtain to be used below the LNG flanges

• Inerting and purging of bunker hoses and other lines has to be carried out before and after bunkering

COST ESTIMATE

SYSTEM NUMBER

TITLE WEIGHT [TON]RATE [MAN HRS/TON]

MAN HOURS MATERIAL Material[$/t]

100 HULL 1696 25 42,410 $1,187,501 700

200 PROPULSION M/C 64 30 1,920 $896,000 14000

300 ELECTRICAL 50 55 2,750 $900,000 18000

400 COMMAND & COMM 25 250 6,250 $875,000 35000

500 AUXILLIARY M/C 382 102 39,015 $3,442,500 9000

600 OUTFIT 552 55 30,381 $3,314,304 6000

600 LNG Tanks - 9 NI FE 177 12 2,126 $106,344 600

800 ENGINEERING 30,682 $10,615,305

900 SUPPORT SERVICES 61,363

SUB-TOTAL LABOR HOURS 216,899

SUB-TOTAL LABOR DOLLARS $ 7,411,838

SUB-TOTAL LABOR & MATERIALS $ 16,133,487

OVERHEAD $ 3,517,694

TOTAL LABOR, MATERIALS AND OVERHEAD $ 19,651,181

MARGIN $ 1,965,118

PROFIT $ 982,559

Approximate Bid Price $ 24,598,859

Cost Estimation• Assuming Labour rate at 30$/hour.• Engineering Skill Labour at 45$/ hour• Overhead Rate of 80%• Margin and profit accounting to 15% of the total cost.

Future Work:

More study can be done for:

• Design of marine systems• CFD analysis of vessels performance• Vessel operating and life cycle cost

SPECIAL THANKS:

Questions?