1. Innovative Ship Design with Less Ballast Water and Less GHG
TANKER STRUCTURE COOPERATIVE FORUM　 2016 Shipbuilders Meeting
Innovative Ship Design with Less Ballast Water and Less GHG
株式会社 名村造船所
夏城　力
October 27th, 2016
Riki Kashiro
Namura Shipbuilding Co., Ltd

2. Introductory Part
The growing demand to reduce the impact of ballast water movement and GHG emissions from shipping
One of the solutions: An Innovative Ship Design that uses Less Ballast Water, Less Fuel and emits Less Green House Gases
The Design is based on the Concept of MIBS

3. MAIN POINTS What is MIBS? Can MIBS be realized?
Aiming at Better Design

4. Draught & Trim in Ballast Cond. 2. Reduced Bow Draught /Greater Trim
1. What is MIBS?
Concept
Feature in
Feature
Effect-1
in case
Effect-2
Effect-3
As a results
MInimal Ballast
water
Ship =
MIBS
Midship Section
1. Large Rise of Floor
less
Girth Length
Full
less Wetted Surface Area
Resistance lever off
①Fuel consumption
and GHG emissions can greatly reduced at ballast, may goes up or down slightly in full
load . Therefore, the averages do decrease. ②Ballast water needed can be also reduced drastically.
Ballast
less Resistance
Less
Sectional Area
equivalent*
Displacement
same Cargo Deadweight
less Displacement
less Ballast Water needed
Draught & Trim in Ballast Cond.
2. Reduced Bow Draught /Greater Trim
Girth Length
less Resistance
less Sectional Area
less Ballast

5. 2. Reduced Bow Draught /Greater Trim
2 Main Features
MInimal
Ballast
water
Ship =
(MIBS)
Midship Section
1. Large Rise of Floor
Draught
& Trim
in Ballast Cond.
2. Reduced Bow Draught /Greater Trim

6. Feature 1
Midship Section 1.
Large Rise of Floor
(RF)

7. Reduced Bow Draught (df ) /Greater Trim
Feature 2
Draught &
Trim in
Ballast Cond. 2.
Reduced Bow Draught
(df )
/Greater Trim df
df0

8. Girth Length (Lg)and Sectional Area(Am) under waterline corresponding to a given draught

9. Comparison of Girth Length and Sectional Area
For same B & d, Lg, Am: MIBS < Conv.
To maintain equivalent full, Am: MIBS ≒Conv. (with greater d) Lg: MIBS < Conv. (with above d)

10. More about Feature 1 Rise of Floor
Effect-1
in case
Effect-2
Effect-3
1. Large Rise of Floor
less
Girth Length
Full
less Wetted Surface Area
Resistance lever off
Ballast
less Resistance
less Sectional Area
equivalent*
Displacement
same Cargo Deadweight
less Ballast
Water needed ?

11. More about Feature 2 Reduced Bow Draught
Effect-1
in case
Effect-2
Effect-3
2. Reduced Bow Draught /Greater Trim
less Girth Length
Ballast
less Wetted Surface Area
less Resistance
less Sectional Area
less Displacement
less Ballast

12. Some Footnotes extensions of d
What change does Rise of Floor make? Relationship of Dimensions: Displacement ∇= L x B x d x Cb Using Cb=Cm x Cp, leads to Displacement ∇ = L x (B x d x Cm) x Cp where Cb: block coefficien Cm: midship section coefficient Cp: prismatic coefficient A midship section with rise of floor has smaller sectional area, Cm, and Cb than a conventional midship section with same B and d, therefore a ship with this midship section has less displacement. From the above formulas, extensions of L, B, d, and/or Cp can be adopted to recover lost displacement due to rise of floor.
extensions of d

13. Some Footnotes
What change does Rise of Floor make? Relationships: Sw~Lｇ and ∇ ~Am Approximately, wetted surface area, Sw : ∝ ship Length (L) x midship girth length (Lg) displacement, ∇ : ∝ ship Length (L) x midship sectional area (Am) Hence Sw and ∇ decrease with Lg and Am, respectively, from the conventional values.

14. Some Footnotes
Why does Resistance decrease ? Resistance(R): = ( {Cf(1+K)+dCf} xSw + rw x∇2/3 ) x V2 = ( C1xSw + C2x∇2/3 )xV2 1st term(viscous drag) >> 2nd term(wave-making drag) 1st term > 80%, for bulkers and Tankers. Cf, dCf: const. K, rw : differ C1: differs slightly between a MIBS and a nearly same size conventional ship, can be approximately taken as const. Thus R is dominated by Sw. Since Sw is approximately proportional to girth (Lg) ,
thus, in general, R decreases if girth Lg goes less.

15. Effect of MIBS
Concept
Feature in
Feature
Effect-1
in case
Effect-2
Effect-3
As a results
MInimal Ballast
water
Ship
MIBS
Midship Section
1. Large Rise of Floor
less Girth Length
Full
less Wetted Surface Area
Resistance lever off
①Fuel consumption and GHG emissions can be greatly reduced at ballast, may goes up or down slightly in full load. Therefore, the averages do decrease. ②Ballast water and relevant system needed can be drastically
reduced.
Ballast
less Resistance
Sectional Area
equivalent*
Displacement
same Cargo Deadweight
less Displacement
less Ballast Water needed
Draught & Trim in Ballast Cond.
2. Reduced Bow Draught /Greater Trim
less Resistance
less Sectional Area
less Ballast

16. Previous Research Result based on Model Test
VLCC
Conventional Ship
MIBS
Case a
Case b
Case c
Case d
Length, bp (Lpp, m)
324
Breadth (B, m) 60
Depth (D, m) 29 30 31
Design Draught (d, m)
20.5
21.5
Height of Rise of Floor (Hr, m)
8.5
Bow Draught in Ballast Condition (d, m) 7 4 3
Deadweight (DWT, t)
Ballast Water （BW, t)
85 000
40 000
31 000
30 000
29 000
BW Reduction 0%
52%
64%
65%
66%
Fuel/GHG Reduction
(Full / Ballast)
-1%
/ 11%
/ 16% 3%
/ 17% 4%
/ 20%
GHG Reduction(Average) 5% 8%
10%
12%

17. More friendly to the environment ! and More economical for customers !
Advantages of MIBS
1. Total ballast water usage can be reduced more than 60% , and the corresponding pumping/treatment system can be scaled down Therefore installation space, electric power, initial cost, maintenance cost, etc., can be cut down, and the ballast water movement is greatly decreased The averaged fuel consumption and GHG emissions
in full load condition and ballast condition can be reduced more than % .
The design can mitigate environmental pollution and save your money! It is
More friendly to the environment ! and
More economical for customers !

18. 2. Can MIBS be realized?
Is this design compliant with the rules and the regulations?
Can this kind of ships be operated?
Can this kind of ships be built? in viewpoint of
Performances
Safety

19. Is this design compliant with the rules and the regulations?
Dimensions and hull forms LCSR/B > B/D < Cb > 0.6
Tank arrangements and capacities dm ≥ L trim ≤ L full immersion of the propeller
Bridge visibility Blind distance ≤ min(2xLoa, 500m)

20. Is this design compliant with the rules and the regulations?
Structure and Midship Section Shape VLCC: Bilge Hopper, L.BHD, Double Bottom, Double Hull BWT, COT
Other Ship Type Examples:

21. Structure of Bilge Hopper

22. Structure of Web Section

23. Is this design compliant with the rules and the regulations?
Ship Motion Slamming & Bow Draught(df) Rolling & Bilge Keel

24. Is this design compliant with the rules and the regulations?
ClassNK (NIPPON KAIJI KYOKAI) had reviewed the basic design including stability calculation and main structural drawings of our VLCC with the MIBS Concept, and granted AIP (Approval in Principle) to it on 25 February 2013.

25. Is this design compliant with the rules and the regulations?

26. Can this kind of ships be operated?
Tug pushing
Mooring
Motion
Operational Cost

27. Can this kind of ships be built?
Mooring
Docking block arrangement
Initial Cost

28. Does Cost rise? material cost related to BWTS about 50%
Initial Cost:
There is increase or decrease in hull construction cost.
However, the total cost (initial and/or operational) is cut down because the reduction of BWTS/fuel related cost is prominent.
Increased Cost:
man hours due to more complicated structural shape
Increased or Decreased Cost ?
hull construction material cost
Decreased Cost:
material cost related to BWTS about 50%
Operational Cost:
Decreased Cost:
operational cost related to fuel
>10%
operational cost related to BWTS
>50%

29. 3. Aiming at Better Design
Part 1. Optimization of
Principal Dimensions : L, B, d, D, Cb Midship Section: Hr, etc.
Trim: df, etc.
Part 2. Sensitivity Analyses of
Reduction rates to Hr Reduction rates to df

30. Part 1. Optimization Typical Cases
Bow
draught
df- or Conv.
Midship RF or Conventional
Extension of Dimensions
Reduction Rate
Ini. Hull Const.Cost d B L
DWT
Fuel or GHG
Fuel or GHG* BW
Base
Conv.(df=7)
Conv.(Hr=0)
20.5 60
324
C1 /RF &df-
df-4=3
Hr=8 6%
13% 7%
69%
- -
C2 /RF d+&df-
d+1=21.5
12%
71% -
C3 /RF B+&df-
B+4=64 1% 9% 8%
+ +
C4 /RF L+&df-
L+16=340
68% +
C5 / df- 3%
39%
C6 /RF d+
32%
( *: For C1 & C3, “reduction rate of GHG - reduction rate of deadweight” is used instead as “relative” or “net” reduction rate Deadweights in other cases are kept the same as the base case. )

31. Summary Result for Typical Cases
GHG R*
7%*
12%
8%* 9% 3% 6%
BW R
69%
71%
68%
39%
32%
(*: For C1 & C3, “reduction rate of GHG - reduction rate of deadweight” is used instead as “relative” reduction rate. Deadweights in other cases are kept the same as the base case. )

32. Sensitivities of Reduction Rates to Hr
Various Heights of
Rise of Floor
Sensitivities

33. Sensitivities of Reduction Rates to df
Various Bow Draughts
in ballast condition
Sensitivities df
df0

34. Larger RF and shallower df ?
Lager rise of floor, or shallower bow draught in ballast condition has better reduction effects.
However, there are pros and cons to everything. As we have discussed, too large rise of floor or too shallow bow draught may cause problems in operation and/or construction of a ship.
What should we do?

35. Concluding Part
Based on the above studies, I would like to propose a realistic, step by step application of the innovative design philosophy, i.e.,
reduced df only at a first stage
smaller RF additionally at the second stage
and then large RF at the third stage

36. Innovative Ship Design with Less Ballast Water and Less GHG
Thank you
Innovative Ship Design with Less Ballast Water and Less GHG
株式会社 名村造船所
夏城　力
October 27th, 2016
Riki Kashiro