should take the initiative say this is the method, the tool and how you should use it and provide realistic expectations.”


From Shell’s own research, and the lessons learnt concerning existing ships (LNG carriers), a return to the basics of hydrodynamic performance is advocated: namely mainte- nance of the hull coating and propeller finish. Management of frictional resistance and propeller slip offers far more tangible benefit than pursuit of a potential ‘silver bullet’ ESD in respect to LNGCs. When combined with speed plus trim optimisation, weather routing (trans-ocean passages) and operational techniques such as virtual arrival real opportunity exists to make meaningful improvements (+5%). Mr Connolly acknowl- edges that this view might very well need to be modified as Shell investigates ESD applications to tankers whose hull charac- teristics and operational speeds tend to be more favourable to their functioning.


Shell has embarked on two major projects of its own; Retrofit and the “Ship of the Future” programme.


Retrofit Retrofit is a five-year programme that has examined multiple hydrodynamic practices and their impact on LNG carriers. The project has also included the conduct of Energy Audits, review of crew training and creating full operational profiles of the ships Shell operates. “We have made the full sweep, considering how we improve the vessel’s hydrodynamic performance, coatings, ensuring propulsion systems are operating as designed, reducing auxiliary power demand– everything from top to bottom.”


Perhaps unsurprisingly, this project has revealed that no hydrodynamic device works for us at present, he says. “We have good quality hulls, where attention to flow into the propellers has been given…The hulls may not be the most efficient from an optimal dimensions perspective but the lines are fair.


“Gains through application of ESDs has been marginal 1-2% in the best of cases and detrimental in many.” However, Shell is certainly not giving up the search, and is still investigating one or two technologies.


Ship of the Future Shell is completing the Ship of the Future project, whereby it stripped the design of an LNG carrier back


8 report


to its bare essentials. “We have expended considerable energy in identifying our vision as to what the next generation of LNGC might look like.” In pursuing this ‘Ship of the Future’ Shell has focused upon technologies that are available now (for the purpose of this project Shell placed to one side technologies whose TRL scoring is less than 5). A potential improvement of more than 25% (measured against current best in Class) has been identified. “A simple ‘back to basics’ approach within which we have focused measurement of performance against application of EEOI measurement of emissions has led to a different hull form than otherwise would likely be the case.”


Off-Design considerations Shell has sought to optimise the hull across both the Laden and Ballast conditions utilising route simulation to predict how the vessel will behave for a number of target trade routes. “With equal emphasis given to operations at these two different draughts coupled to performance in waves and realisation that design and actual ship speeds differ, has led us away from adopting amongst other things, a standard bulbous bow design to a design that retains a more constant bow entry angle throughout the draught range.” The improved hull form has been coupled to adoption of the MAN MEGI engine with DSME MEGI-REL system, sophisticated waste heat recovery and careful matching of propellers, rudder plus skeg design to achieve a considerable step change in performance. “There is no singular revolu- tionary idea, merely careful and thoughtful consideration of the basic design principles we are taught as Naval Architects.”


When determining the impact of various designs choices, and indeed when seeking comparison of performance of their concept design(s) with existing ships, Shell has adopted a probabilistic methodology to as- sure themselves that the choices they make are effective in the context of the real world conditions and variations that the design would face in deployment. Although the Ship of the Future may not be seen in reality, the programme has certainly improved the company’s core understanding and knowledge. “It is a continuous process. We are always looking at how we can im- prove, how we can be smarter. And indeed any operating system deteriorates over time. Therefore constant vigilance is neces- sary. In this context performance monitoring is perhaps the key ingredient to the ques- tion of ship efficiency.


“We are trying to save energy because it is good business practice to become more effective. Overall, we need to be smart in what we do.”


Acknowledgement The understanding from which the above thoughts are drawn is the culmination of five years of research within which multiple individuals have contributed both in terms of first principle design plus analysis (Strathclyde University – Department of Naval Architecture) and operations at ship. It draws from the knowledge within the fleet (both superinten- dents, crew and support staff), our commercial colleagues and numerous others. Special acknowledgement is given to the following individuals who have been key contributors to works conducted: Chris Barras, Principal Naval Architect Dr Bernhard Godderidge, Marine Contract Holder Iain Hindshaw, Development Engineer Andrew Salt, Marine Engineer


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24