Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

Ship displacement x 10 -3 [ton]

Ship displacement x 10 - 3 [ton] as I mentioned in the previous number of SSPa

as I mentioned in the previous number of SSPa highlights I see the chal- lenge of optimising the complex system of ship- ping through, among other things, the technical and operational solutions.

In this edition of SSPa

highlights we present three different operations.

The first one tackles the increasingly important problem of trim optimisa- tion. and I can only agree with the author’s, Mr

Merritt Boytim, statement that trim optimisation pro- vides many tangible ben- efits both economical and environmental. The second opera- tion I am convinced will enrich all stakeholders in the artic environment. In close cooperation with Transatlantic our staff members, mainly Mr Björn Forsman, Mr Johannes hüffmeier and Mr Jim Sandkvist, have developed

a riskbased decision sup-

port tool, a toolbox, for offshore operations in the arctic. In the third Mr Björn allenström and Mr Peter Ottosson describe the quite new insights and their importance developed through a profound study on shallow waters which our joint industry partners and SSPa have conducted. Thus the traditional mathe- matical models are actually too simple and the reality more complicated. I am sure that all three

operations will be of great use in different sectors and I can promise that SSPa has more of that kind to introduce in the future. susanne abrahamsson

Trim Optimisation – Sustainable Savings

In today’s uncertain financial times, amidst volatile fuel prices and increasingly stringent environmental regula- tions, many shipowners are finding themselves under pressure to do more with less. IMO is contributing to these pressures by continuing to implement new emis- sions regulations, such as the MARPOL Annex VI NOx and SOx limits, that could require eventual modification of existing ship’s systems. All of this activity has left many shipowners scrambling to find ways to cut both their operating expenses and emissions. Often these are tasks that can appear inherently opposed.

Do any low-cost solutions for reducing both operating

costs and emissions exist? Yes. One option is to oper- ate the ship in a trim optimised condition. This provides the same operating performance at lower power levels and can immediately translate to fuel savings.Thanks to lower propulsion power requirements, optimising trim can generate significant additional savings in the areas of main and auxiliary machinery wear, maintenance, usage of spares, and machinery life. By burning less fuel and oper- ating at lower power levels, the owner can also expect a reduced environmental footprint for their vessels includ- ing lower levels of emissions, less waste, and reduced overall energy and fuel consumption.

What is trim optimised?

Defined simply, the optimum trim is the trim angle at a given condition (displacement and speed) where the required propulsion power is lower than for any other trim angle at that condition. a trim optimisation study seeks to find the optimum trim angles by investigating a range of normal operating conditions for a particular ship or class of ships. These investigations usually include four displace-

ments and four to five trim angles per displacement at four to five speeds.The results are used to develop a map over the desired range of operating trims and dis- placements in order to provide the shipowner with the information necessary to ensure that the ship is always trimmed to the optimum angle and thus operating trim optimised.

Full-scale trials vs. Model testing

There are two common methods for performing trim optimisation studies: full-scale shipboard trials and model tests. Full-scale trials are a much discussed option, but not always very practical or reliable.This is because full-scale trial data must be normalised using accurate wind, wave, and swell information which is difficult to measure from the ship. Instead, the magnitude and direction of each are estimated which can make the study’s results very subjec- tive and quite difficult to repeat. Model testing, on the other hand, is a quick, objec- tive, and repeatable process which can be easily tailored to the vessel’s current or desired operating profile. Furthermore, all powering predictions are based directly on model test measurements performed under control-

led conditions. For these reasons, our experience has demonstrated that model testing is almost always the most effective and reliable method for performing trim optimisation studies.

Backed by a wide range of experience

Trim optimisation studies are most often requested dur- ing periods of extended economic turmoil and recession, such as the 1973 Oil crisis and the current international slump that began in the early 2000s. These events lead many owners to seek quick, inexpensive methods of relief from high fuel prices and slimmer operating budgets. To date SSPa has performed approximately 50 trim optimisation studies on all variety of ships, including lNg carriers, tankers, bulkers, rO/rOs, PcTcs, containerships, and special purpose ships, such as reefer vessels. as fol- low-on testing to several trim optimisation studies, SSPa has also performed manoeuvring simulations, seakeeping tests, and full-scale verification tests of study results. For those vessels included, the manoeuvring simulation results verified that the manoeuvring performance in a trim optimised condition would differ from normal opera- tions. however, those differences were not found to be as substantial as initially feared by seafarers nor were they deemed to add any significant risk or danger to the ves- sels’ operations.

V s = Constant

example trim optimisation study results in the form of a contour map covering the complete range of tested operating conditions. Each contour curve represents a line of constant deliv- ered power (P D ) as a function of the ship’s trim and displacement. For reference, each contour line denotes a 0.2MW step in power with blue being the lower end of the power spectrum and red the higher.

with blue being the lower end of the power spectrum and red the higher. Trim [m]

Trim [m] aft trim < 0, forward trim > 0

47/2009 Trim Optimisation – Sustainable Savings Not only for the ‘gas guzzlers’ The most immediately


Trim Optimisation – Sustainable Savings

47/2009 Trim Optimisation – Sustainable Savings Not only for the ‘gas guzzlers’ The most immediately obvious
47/2009 Trim Optimisation – Sustainable Savings Not only for the ‘gas guzzlers’ The most immediately obvious

Not only for the ‘gas guzzlers’

The most immediately obvious beneficiaries of trim optimisation studies are those vessels with higher fuel consumptions and those that operate on long-haul trades such as: containerships, PcTcs, rO/rOs, and lNg carriers. These, however, are by no means the only ves- sels that have found significant savings by operating at a trim optimised condition. SSPa has shown that vessels such as Vlccs and product carriers have the potential to reduce their powering requirements over a standard operating range of trims by as much as 10% to 15% in ballast and 5% to 8% in full load. While not every ship will realise savings of this mag- nitude, a single ship with an average power saving of just 1.25% (0.5% in full load and 2% in ballast) can save enough fuel to cover the cost of a trim optimisation study in less than a year of operation. For a fleet of sister ships, the payback time will be even shorter.

Gaining the most from the study results

When the time comes to implement the results of the trim optimisation study into your day-to-day operations, SSPa is there to help by offering education and training services for both sailors and technical operations staff alike. SSPa can also offer various analysis and implemen- tation tools to assist the ship’s operators when seeking to find that optimum trim. Trim optimisation provides many tangible benefits both economic and environmental and offers a low risk near- and long-term cost savings solution. If you would like to learn more and receive a cost-benefit calculation for your vessels, please contact SSPa. Merritt boytim

for your vessels, please contact SSPa. Merritt boytim M erritt Boytim, Project Manager, received his B.Sc.

Merritt Boytim, Project Manager, received his B.Sc. in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering from Webb Institute of Naval Archi- tecture in 2002 and a M.Sc. in Naval Architecture from Chalmers University of Tech- nology in 2004. Merritt then began working for ConocoPhil- lips and Qatargas followed by BG LNG. His work was prima- rily focused on ship acquisition projects and LNG transport. He joined SSPA in 2009 and works in the Ship Design department with hull design, computational fluid dynamics, and model testing. Telephone: +46-31 772 9047 E-mail:

example test matrix showing the various conditions included within the trim optimisation model test program. Each test point (trim and displacement) is de- noted by a small circle.The bow and stern profiles are plotted for reference with the stern in blue and the bow in red (bulb point- ing down). Lines of constant displacement are those with the right hand end pointing southeast and lines of constant trim have right hand end pointing northeast.

Some trim optimisation study results have also been tested in different wave conditions and found to have the same optimisation trends in moderate sea states as in calm water. and, in rare cases where reliable full-scale trim optimisation trial data could be obtained, the results corroborated those of the model tests.

annual estimated fuel and emis- sions savings based on a conservative power reduction of 1.25% for 1-, 5-, and 10-ship fleets operating in a trim optimised condition. On average the trim optimisation study will pay for itself in less than a year for a single ship and even faster for a fleet of sister ships. (Fuel prices from May 2009.)


Fleet Size


Ship Type

1 Ship

5 Ships

10 Ships



$ 688,000 2,000 mT-FO 6,300 mT-cO 2

$ 1,377,000 4,000 mT-FO 12,700 mT-cO 2



1,270 mT-cO 2

Aframax Tanker (105kDWT)

$ 71,000

$ 353,000

$ 706,000



1,000 mT-FO

2,000 mT-FO


mT-cO 2

3,200 mT-cO 2

6,500 mT-cO 2

6,500 TEU Containership

$ 221,000


$ 2,207,000 6,300 mT-FO 20,300 mT-cO 2



3,200 mT-FO 10,100 mT-cO 2

2,000 mT-cO 2

145,000m 3 LNGC (Steam)

$ 266,700


$ 2,667,000 7,600 mT-FO 24,500 mT-cO 2



3,800 mT-FO 12,200 mT-cO 2

2,500 mT-cO 2

6,700-car PCTC

$ 71,000

$ 355,000

$ 710,000



1,000 mT-FO

2,000 mT-FO


mT-cO 2

3,300 mT-cO 2

6,500 mT-cO 2

RO/RO (46,000m 2 )


$ 500,000

$ 999,000



1,400 mT-FO

2,900 mT-FO


mT-cO 2

4,600 mT-cO 2

9,200 mT-cO 2