allows for a low-elevation bridge located above and slightly behind the bow, with containers stacked to well above the height of the bridge.
A ship built to such configuration could sail through severe wave conditions across the North Atlantic to a transhipment terminal such as Quebec City or Halifax, where the upper levels of containers would be removed for transhipment. The ship would rise in the water to shallower sailing draft and telescopic air intakes retracted to allow the vessel to sail under the Bayonne Bridge into Port of Newark, under the Arthur Ravenel Bridge at Port of Charleston, under the Dames Point Bridge at Port of Jacksonville (JaxPort) and under bridges located between Ports of Montreal and Quebec City.
SHIP STRESSES
Traditional ship bows built with the conventional bow configuration tend to pitch when sailing into waves. Comparison sailing in identical severe wave conditions involving a ship built with a conventional bow and the other with the X-bow revealed that the X-bow responds with less slamming while the deflector built high above the bow redirects water spray away from a forward bridge. A vessel built with the combination of X-stern and X-bow offers reduced pitching when sailing at near steady cruising speed through severe wave conditions, in turn potentially reducing wave induced structural stresses along the vessel hull.
Stress induced by vessel pitching motions when sailing through severe wave conditions is one of the factors that restricts ship length. Depending on the amount by which the combination of X-bow and X-stern reduces pitching induced structural stresses, there may be scope to slightly extend vessel length and slightly increase the number of containers that it could carry. Further research would be required to determine possible lengthening of future container ships built with the combination of X-bow and X-tern, compared to
vessels built with conventional bow and stern.
MONTREAL CONFIGURATION
The maximum size of ship allowed to sail to Port of Montreal would measure 44-m beam by 294-m length. By comparison, the older generation Panamax ships that sailed to Montreal were built to 32-m beam. A container ship of 44-m beam by 294-m length and 10-m draft at part load may be built with combination X-bow and low level forward bridge, with upward extending telescopic air intakes at the stern area. When sailing on the ocean, it would sail at greater draft with containers stacked higher than the bridge, to be partially offloaded at Quebec City container terminal.
After being partially unloaded, sailing draft would decrease to 10-m with top level of bridge at same height as earlier generation Panamax ships. Air intakes would be retracted so as to allow vessel to sail to Montreal, carrying 17-container widths across its hull compared to 12-container widths of the earlier ship. A ship of such configuration could carry an additional 40 percent more containers to Port of Montreal compared to earlier Panamax ships.
SUEZ CONFIGURATION
The future navigation dimensions along Suez Canal parallel channels would likely allow for 1-TEU additional sailing draft, up to 3-TEU additional widths, 2-TEU additional height above water with forward bridge and 4-TEU additional length. The air draft restriction imposed by the bridge across the Suez Canal enhances future prospects for future mega-size container ships built with a low-level forward bridge, enhancing prospects to consider X-bow. The need to maximize container carrying capacity aboard future container ships enhances prospects to research whether combining X-bow with X-stern would sufficiently reduce pitch motion induced structural stresses to allow for ship lengthening.
Future trade between Asia and North America is likely to recover and increase, with larger container ships sailing via the Suez Canal and Western Mediterranean transhipments ports to North American east coast ports. The future operational success of container transfer technology at Halifax transhipment extended terminal would be essential for supersize
container ships built with low-level forward control bridge to partially offload containers prior to sailing to Port of Newark. Interline ships would then carry the containers from Halifax to Boston, Portland, also Philadelphia and Baltimore via Delaware Bay along with ports located along the St. Lawrence Seaway.
SHORT SEA SHIP
Shipbuilder Ulstein of Norway has undertaken research into developing a short-sea X-bow container ship of under 10,000-TEU capacity. However, they have not yet undertaken any research into larger X-bow container ships. The forward placement of the bridge of the short-sea X-bow concept container ship allows for partial offloading of containers from the upper levels at one port, to allow the partially loaded vessel to sail through shallower water and under bridges to a second port, as would be the situation along the Lower St. Lawrence River between Montreal and Quebec City.
The short-sea X-bow container ship with its low-level forward bridge provides the basis by which to develop a future version of 7,000 to 9,000-TEU capable of sailing the trans-North Atlantic service between European transhipment terminals and container terminals located along the Lower St. Lawrence River. Successful development of a trans- North Atlantic version of the short- sea X-bow container ship would subsequently provide the basis by which to develop larger versions of the ship.
CONCLUSIONS
The premium route for an X-bow container ship with forward control bridge carrying under 10,000-TEU would be the future Europe – Montreal service and involve partial ship offloading at Port of Laurentia. Future supersize container ships built with forward bridge roof built below the top level of containers would sail along a future twin-channel, deeper- draft Suez Canal while carrying 28,000 to 34,000-TEU. The layout with forward low-level bridge makes the X-bow an option for future container ships that will sail via an enlarged Suez Canal. Future research would determine the suitability for the X-bow to supersize container ships.
The Report • June 2021 • Issue 96 | 53
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 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136
