preliminary design of river ship accounting for ice class ... · gorka olaran mateos thesis to...

i

Preliminary design of river ship accounting for ice

class in life-cycle cost

Gorka Olaran Mateos

Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in

Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering

Supervisor: Prof. Pentti Kujala

Co-Supervisor: Prof. Yordan Garbatov

Jury

Chairman: Prof. Carlos Guedes Soares

Co-Supervisor: Prof. Yordan Garbatov

Member: Prof. Manuel Ventura

December 2018

iii

Acknowledgements

The present thesis could be done thanks to all people who were supporting me, not only from the

academy point of view, also for the personal.

First of all, I would like to thank Prof. Pentti Kujala to give me the opportunity to go to Finland and do a

master thesis in something related with my personals interests. Also, I would like to thanks Prof. Fang

Li for the suggestions, advice and feedback during the process.

I also would like to thank all the third parties involves in this thesis. Heli Koukkala (from the Finish

Waterway Association) who help me to understand the actual situation of the Saimaa Canal. Arto

Uuskallio and Mauri Lindholm (from Aker Arctic) who gave me really useful guidelines in ice-class

vessels.

I have to be thankful with the Instituto Superior Técnico. They gave me a chance to increase my

knowledge, discover a new country, learn a new language, meet a lot of new people and start my

professional life (with an internship in a shipyard). Thanks to prof. Yordan Garbatov to coordinate this

Erasmus thesis and for the helpful advice.

I am grateful to my family, especially my mother Rosa Maria, who have provided me with moral and

emotional support in my life. I also would like to thank Amor Navarro, who has always been available to

help me with this thesis.

Finally, I want to dedicate this thesis to all my friends and especially to all people whom I meet in Lisbon

(Marta, Nir, Paolo, Nick, Filipe, Emanuel) because they have supported me along these two years.

iv

Abstract

Transport volumes in the Baltic Sea Region are expected to grow significantly in the next decades.

However, the inland transportation sector in Finland is not sufficiently developed to handle additional

transport volumes due to navigation restrictions as well as weather conditions, like the ice limitations

during the winter resulting in a short navigation season.

To overcome this problem, the Emma project is developed with a principal objective to extend the

navigation season of the rivers and increase the size of the vessel that may operate there. Making the

inland waterway transportation more attractive to the shipping companies and companies.

So, the thesis will analyse the actual situation of the Saimaa canal, starting with the preliminary design

of a river ship (hull, power prediction, stability etc.). The life cycle cost analysis will be performed to

identify the impact of the ice capacity of the vessel.

The Finish Waterways Association and the company Aker Arctic will provide all necessary information

for the development of this thesis.

Keywords: Inland navigation, ship design, ice class, cost analysis, Saimaa canal.

v

Resumo

O transporte de mercadorias na região do mar Báltico é expectável de crescer significativamente nas

próximas décadas.

Contudo, o sector de transporte por vias navegáveis Finlandês não está suficientemente desenvolvido

para abarcar o volume de carga adicional. As restrições de navegação aliadas as condições

climatéricas, como o gelo durante o Inverno, resultam numa época curta para navegação.

Projeto EMMA foi desenvolvido para contornar esta dificuldade e tem como principal objectivo extender

a época de navegação em vias navegáveis. Irá procurar também aumentar o tamanho das

embarcações a operar nas mesmas, tornando este tipo de transporte mais atractivo para expedidores

e empresas.

Esta tese irá analisar a situação actual no canal Saimaa, começando com o design preliminar de um

navio de rio (carena, previsão de potência, estabilidade, etc). Será realizada uma análise de custos do

ciclo de vida para identificar o impacto da capacidade de gelo do navio

A Finish Waterways Association (Associação de Vias Navegáveis Finlandesa), e a Aker Arctic irá

providenciar todas as informações necessárias para o desenvolvimento da tese.

Palavras chave: navegação em vias navegáveis, desenho de navios, classe de gelo, analise de

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1. Inland navigation ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. State of the art .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Inland Navigation in Europe ........................................................................................................... 4

1.4. The Saimaa Canal and lake ......................................................................................................... 4

1.5. Aims and scope of the thesis ........................................................................................................ 6

1.6. Organisation of thesis ................................................................................................................... 7

2. SHIP DESIGN ..................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2. Main dimensions ........................................................................................................................... 9

2.3. Hull offset ...................................................................................................................................... 9

2.4. General arrangement .................................................................................................................. 11

2.5. Power prediction ......................................................................................................................... 16

2.5.1 Appendages resistance ......................................................................................................... 17

2.5.2 Shaft power ........................................................................................................................... 17

2.5.3 Selection of the engine .......................................................................................................... 18

2.6. Midship design ............................................................................................................................ 19

2.6.1 Materials ................................................................................................................................ 21

2.6.2 Scantling verification ............................................................................................................. 21

2.7. Lightweight and endurance ......................................................................................................... 23

2.7.1 Lightweight ............................................................................................................................ 23

2.7.2 Endurance ............................................................................................................................. 28

2.7.3 Cargo capacity, gross and net tonnage ................................................................................ 29

2.8. Stability analysis. ........................................................................................................................ 30

3.COSTS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 39

3.1. Voyage, CAPEX and OPEX ....................................................................................................... 39

3.1.1. Voyage costs ........................................................................................................................ 39

3.1.2. Capital costs ......................................................................................................................... 41

3.1.3 Operational costs .................................................................................................................. 46

3.2 Cost Model ................................................................................................................................... 46

3.2.1 Capital cost model ................................................................................................................. 48

3.2.2 Operating cost model ............................................................................................................ 50

3.2.3 Voyage cost model ................................................................................................................ 52

3.2.4 Profit model and influence of the EMMA project ................................................................... 53

3.2.5 Life cycle costs ...................................................................................................................... 54

4.CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 55

5.REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 56

vii

6.ANNEXES .......................................................................................................................................... 58

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.Neolithic canoe .......................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2.Modal split in the EU from 1995 to 2015 (billions tkm).............................................................. 2 Figure 3.External cost of the different modes of transportation .............................................................. 3 Figure 4.Quarterly transport performance of goods by inland waterways .............................................. 4 Figure 5.Saimaa lake and canal and main ports ..................................................................................... 5 Figure 6.Age of self-propeller dry cargo vessel passing through Russian rivers .................................... 6 Figure 7.Preliminary design steps ........................................................................................................... 8 Figure 8.Vessel´s hull (Rhinoceros) ...................................................................................................... 10 Figure 9.Hull in Maxsurf ......................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 10.Profile of the vessel. .............................................................................................................. 12 Figure 11.Cargo Space Dimensions ..................................................................................................... 12 Figure 12.Bridge visibility ....................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 13.Engine room disposition ........................................................................................................ 13 Figure 14.Propeller clearances ............................................................................................................. 14 Figure 15.Accomodation deck (5m) ...................................................................................................... 15 Figure 16.Captain deck ......................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 17.Midship parameters ............................................................................................................... 20 Figure 18.Minimum grades of steel ....................................................................................................... 21 Figure 19.Local Strength Strakes .......................................................................................................... 21 Figure 20.Local Strength Stiffeners ....................................................................................................... 22 Figure 21.Hull girder strength ................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 22.Ultimate Strength and minimum modulus ............................................................................. 22 Figure 23.Open water and IA variant hull for an OPV vessel................................................................ 41 Figure 24.Lower and upper ice waterlines ............................................................................................ 42 Figure 25. Ice-strengthened regions of the hull. .................................................................................... 42 Figure 26. Ice belts for the different ice classed considered ................................................................. 43 Figure 27.Aker Arctic ice tank 1/03/2018 .............................................................................................. 44 Figure 28.Voyage defined (distances and cargo) ................................................................................. 47

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.Goods transport performance by mode (billions tkm) ................................................................ 2 Table 2.Vessel restrictions on Saimaa canal .......................................................................................... 5 Table 3.New dimensions of Saimaa canal .............................................................................................. 6 Table 4.Concept design parameters ....................................................................................................... 8 Table 5.Saimax vessels ........................................................................................................................... 9 Table 6.Hydrostatics for draft of 4.35 m ................................................................................................ 11 Table 7.Minimum propeller clearances[8] ............................................................................................. 14 Table 8.Holtrop-Mennen range ............................................................................................................. 16 Table 9.Ship resistance ......................................................................................................................... 16 Table 10.Appendages resistance .......................................................................................................... 17 Table 11.Power delivered to the propeller ............................................................................................. 18 Table 12.Engines ................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 13.Spacing ................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 14.Longitudinal continuous steel ................................................................................................. 23 Table 15.Weight per meter in the longitudinal direction of the different sections considered ............... 24 Table 16.Transverse continuous steel .................................................................................................. 25 Table 17.Weight per meter in the transversal direction of the different sections considered .............. 25 Table 18.Integration ............................................................................................................................... 26 Table 19.Local weights of the steel ....................................................................................................... 27 Table 20.Machinery weight and centre of gravity .................................................................................. 28 Table 21.Equipment weights and center of gravity ............................................................................... 28 Table 22.Endurance weights ................................................................................................................. 29 Table 23.Volumes of the ship ................................................................................................................ 30 Table 24.Freeboard and corrections ..................................................................................................... 31 Table 25.Stability requirements ............................................................................................................. 31 Table 26.Full load departure (Saimaa Canal) condition and equilibrium results. .................................. 32 Table 27.Full load departure (Saimaa Canal) IMO criteria check. ........................................................ 32 Table 28. Full Load Arrival (Saimaa Canal) condition and equilibrium results ...................................... 34 Table 29.Full Load Arrival (Saimaa Canal) IMO criteria check ............................................................. 34 Table 30. Ballast Departure (Saimaa Canal) condition and equilibrium results .................................... 35 Table 31.Ballast Departure (Saimaa Canal) IMO criteria check ........................................................... 35 Table 32. Ballast Arrival (Saimaa Canal) condition and equilibrium results .......................................... 36 Table 33.Ballast Arrival (Saimaa Canal) IMO criteria check ................................................................. 36 Table 34. Half tanks (Saimaa canal) condition and equilibrium results ................................................ 37 Table 35. Half tanks (Saimaa canal) IMO criteria check ....................................................................... 37 Table 36.Full Load outside of Saimaa condition and equilibrium results .............................................. 38 Table 37. Full Load outside of Saimaa IMO criteria check .................................................................... 38 Table 38.Canal dues for the different ice classes ................................................................................. 40 Table 39. Capital costs increment within ice class ................................................................................ 41 Table 40.Ice belt scantling and added weights ..................................................................................... 43 Table 41. Increments in power, settling capacity, consumption and additional weight. ........................ 44 Table 42.Coatings for ice-classed vessels ............................................................................................ 45 Table 43.Voyage times .......................................................................................................................... 48 Table 44.Hull steel cost ......................................................................................................................... 49 Table 45.Equipment cost ....................................................................................................................... 49 Table 46.Machinery costs...................................................................................................................... 49 Table 47.Crew costs .............................................................................................................................. 50 Table 48.Supplies and lube oil cost ....................................................................................................... 50 Table 49.Maintenance, repair costs and docking costs ........................................................................ 51 Table 50.Insurance costs ...................................................................................................................... 51 Table 51.Fuel expenses ........................................................................................................................ 52 Table 52.Port costs ................................................................................................................................ 52 Table 53.Canal dues and pilotage costs ............................................................................................... 53

x

Table 54.Profit for around year of operation.......................................................................................... 53 Table 55.Profit for around year of operation with EMMA project .......................................................... 54 Table 56.Final lifecycle results .............................................................................................................. 54

1

1.INTRODUCTION

1.1. Inland navigation

Since the beginning of time, the human being has had a close relationship with the rivers; ancient

civilisations started to modify river ways for irrigation purposes. It was on the Neolithic when the first trip

by inland waterways was made (being considering like the first mode of transportation).

Figure 1.Neolithic canoe

With the fall of the Roman Empire, the trade of goods and the canal building appears to lapse.

Nevertheless, in the 12th century, the development of trades and the growth of the big cities allow river

navigation to be improved. Artificial waterways were developed with the construction of stanches, or

flash locks. During this time the cargo capacity of the vessels used was around 10 to 20 tonnes, and

inland waterways did about 85% of the medieval trades.

The use of steam as a propulsive method in the XIX century contributed to the reduction in transportation

costs, increasing the transportation on the rivers.

Nowadays, inland waterways in Europe extend to more than 3,7000 km, connecting cities and industrial

regions in 21 of the 28 Member states. Volumes of the cargo are increasing, for example in 2016 the

European inland waterways transported 554 tonnes of goods (1% more than the previous year).

However, the distances performed decreased (0.2% less than in 2015). The main cargoes shipping

during 2016 were metal ores (and other mining products), coke and refined petroleum products.

1.2. State of the art

Over the last decades, freight rates have been growing regarding performance. However, this is not

proportional to all modes of transportation. National and regional policies together with economic and

geographical factors determine the type of transport used. On the next graph and table (own

elaboration), it can see the evolution of the different modes of transportation from 1995 to 2015 in

Europe:

2

Figure 2.Modal split in the EU from 1995 to 2015 (billions tkm)

Road Rail IWW Pipelines Sea Air

1995-2015 Total 33.7% 7.6% 20.8% 0.2% 19.5% 44.9%

Per year 1.5% 0.4% 0.9% 0.0% 0.9% 1.9%

2000-2015 Total 14.1% 3.0% 10.2% -9.4% 4.2% 18.3%

Per year 0.9% 0.2% 0.6% -0.7% 0.3% 1.1%

2014-2015 Per year 2.8% 1.6% -2.2% 3.5% -1.1% 0.9%

Table 1.Goods transport performance by mode (billions tkm)

The figure and table above, displays that road and air have increased their shares to the detriment of

others. This situation clashes with the evolution in the oil price over the last two decades. So why not to

use rail or inland waterways when you can ship a more significant amount of cargo with the same fuel.

Three factors can explain the rise of the road [1]:

• Speed. Faster transportation means higher performance. For some goods, the velocity of

shipment is a valuable criterion.

• Flexibility. A truck can provide a single-mode door to door service, while a train or ship involves

transhipment between other modes, adding cost and time.

• Price of the cargo. The American Bureau of Transport Statistics stresses that “as the value per

ton of a shipment rises, the cost of having a valuable cargo tied up in transit increases, so

shipping companies are likely to shift more of their shipments to faster, more expensive modes

like truck and air”, however “as the length of haul (miles per ton travelled) increases, causing

the line-haul transportation cost to become a larger portion of the total, shipping companies are

more likely to shift to lower cost modes like rail and water”

The dependence of oil imports, as well as climate change, have generated concerns about energy

efficiency in the economy. However, the truth is that the shares of efficient transport modes (rail and

water) are decreasing, meaning that they have been moving in the opposite direction. So the EU is

trying to establish a modern transport system, suitable for an economic and social as well as an

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000

2 500

3 000

3 500

4 000

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

Modal split in the EU during 1995 to 2015

Air

Sea

Pipe-lines

IWW

Rail

Road

3

environmental viewpoint. With the aim to achieve this modern transport system, some policies were

established (we will focus on the most important):

• Integration of external costs. Transportation generates an external cost to the society (pollution,

noises, accidents, congestion of roads and infrastructures). The objective of the EU is to

integrate this costs in the final price. Hence, if the external cost were integrated, they would

balance the shares to the least costly modes. On the picture below, there is a comparison of

these external costs.

Figure 3.External cost of the different modes of transportation

• Trans-European transport network. The main task is to strengthen cross-border connections in

all modes of transportation by supervised and financing public projects.

• Marco Polo Projects. The Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI) assigns

grants to the private project which can shift road transportation to another mode.

• Integrating the European rail market. After the Second World War, the European rail market

belonged to national public companies. So, the EU is trying to open a national rail freight market

to new operators.

4

1.3 Inland Navigation in Europe

After the economic crisis in 2008 the shares of the inland waterways have been extraordinarily volatile

like the next graph show [3]:

Figure 4.Quarterly transport performance of goods by inland waterways

Inland navigation activity is very concentrated in Europe. About an 80-85% of the trade is located on the

Rhine countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Germany), regarding the Danube (Bulgaria,

Croatia, Hungary, Austria, Romania and Slovakia) it represents about 10 to 15% of the trade. Hence,

all other countries represent only 0,5%-1% of the goods transported [4].

Regarding Finland, the major waterways are the Saimaa Canal and Vuoksi, having a fairway network

of 7800 km. Most of the cargo transported is raw material for the forest, chemical and construction

material industries.

The quantity of cargo moved on the finish inland waterways is around 2 million tonnes. Like happened

in Europe the value of the cargo shipped is very volatile, for example in 2016 the share of this mode of

transportation in Finland decreased a 20%. This variance is usually linked to the meteorological situation

because Saimaa canals need to be closed from the end of January to the beginning of April because it

is frozen [4].

1.4. The Saimaa Canal and lake

Saimaa Lake is the biggest lake in Finland and the fourth largest natural freshwater lake in Europe (with

an area of approximately 4,400 square kilometres). The lake is connected to the Gulf of Finland by the

Saimaa canal. It is 43 km long with 19.6 km Russian territory and 23.3 km in the Finnish lands.

32,000

34,000

36,000

38,000

40,000

42,000

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Quarterly transport performance of goods in EU-28 - Mio TKm

EU-28 (¹)

5

Figure 5.Saimaa lake and canal and main ports

The maximum vessel size and cargo capacity permitted are shown on the next table:

Length(m) 82.5

Beam(m) 12.6

Draft(m) 4.35

Height of the mast(m) 24.5

DWT(tons) 2500

Table 2.Vessel restrictions on Saimaa canal

Like it was said on the previous point the main problem of the Saimaa canal is the weather conditions.

Depending on the severity of the winter, the waterway can be closed a minimum of two months.

Year-Round navigation is considering to encourage the traffic volume, but it implies an investment of 30

million € and an increase of about 3-4 million in the annual maintenance and upkeep cost (including

icebreaking). So, it is important to study how the traffic will increase, with the year-round navigability, to

evaluate if it is feasible.

The Baltic countries are making their joint voice heard in European politics, though developing the

project EMMA. With an investment of 4.42 mil € they expect [2]:

• Improve competitiveness;

• Strength the future development;

• Identification of possible new services;

• Raise the awareness of the potentials of the inland waterway transportation;

• Better standing of the inland waterways in policy and society.

This project has a significant impact in the Saimaa Canal because they want to extend the operational

season from 300 to 330 days, and also increment the dimensions of the vessel that can pass through

the gates and canals. The new Saimax vessel dimensions are listed on the table below:

6

New dimensions Increment

Length(m) 92 11%

Draft(m) 4.45 10%

DWT(tons) 3100 24%

Table 3.New dimensions of Saimaa canal

1.5. Aims and scope of the thesis

Volumes of cargo on the Baltic Sea region are growing especially between East and West. Rail and

roads infrastructures are starting to be overloaded while river canals and lakes have a considerable

capacity reserve. Besides, the future regulations about polluting gases will limit the use of rail and road

modes of transportation. So, later or sooner the shipping companies will have to look for another mode

of transportation, in this context the inland navigation can get more importance in the modal split in

Europe

The average age of the vessels in Europe inland waterways traffic is very high, meaning that companies

will invest in new vessels. On the graph below are shown the age of the self-propeller dry cargo ships.

Figure 6.Age of self-propeller dry cargo vessel passing through Russian rivers

Investment on new constructions (in the case of Saimaa waterway) is difficult because of the short period

of navigation. Nevertheless, the vessels can operate in another inland waterways during the time that

Saimaa Canal is closed. For example, the ship can move to zones with less ice thickness like the

Swedish Mälaren lake.

In this scenario, the tons of goods transported on inland waterways is supposed to increase, giving the

possibility to new constructions. Also, the EMMA project is expected to attract more ships and

companies to this mode of transportation.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

<10 years 10-20 years 21-30 years 31-40 years >40 years

AGE OF SELF PROPELLER DRY CARGO VESSELS

7

1.6. The organisation of the thesis

The thesis is organised as:

1. Introduction. In this chapter, it will be introduced the actual situation of the transport

modes in Europe, to, later on, focus on the inland waterways. After, it will be explained

how the Saimaa canal is (dimensions, cargo capacity, outgoing projects…). To

conclude the objectives and the organisation of the thesis will be described.

2. Ship design. In this part, the preliminary design of a dry cargo vessel for the Saimaa

canal will be done. Several programs are used for this purpose (Rhinoceros, Excel,

Maxsurf Stability, Maxsurf resistance and MARS 2000). The goal is to create a vessel

able to carry the maximum cargo within the limitations of the Saimaa canal.

3. Cost analysis. It will be studied the leading causes of the cost increment within the ice

class. Later on, a cost analysis model will be created to see how feasible it is to ship in

the Saimaa Canal.

4. Conclusions and future works. In this part, it will be seen which ice class is more

profitable. Also, it will be explained what can be done in the future to improve the actual

thesis.

8

2. SHIP DESIGN

2.1. Introduction

Ship design is a complex, iterative and multifaceted process, influenced by a large number of factors

and players. For the costumer, the Naval Architectures and Marine engineers need to develop the most

cost-efficient ship for a designated task, within the boundaries of national and international rules and

regulations.

The design process has several steps:

• Concept design. On this stage, it will define the ship type, deadweight, type of propulsion,

service speed. For this thesis, it will be:

Type of ship Saimax dry cargo vessel

Classification society Lloyd´s Register

Dimensions(L,B,H) 82.5m,12.5m,7,5m

Deadweight(Saimaa) Approx-2500 tonnes at the draught of 4.35

m

Speed 11 knots at 85%MCR

Propulsion Medium speed engine +gearbox CPP

propeller

Autonomy 20 days

Crew 8

Table 4.Concept design parameters

Although the vessel will be optimised to have the biggest cargo capacity on the Saimaa canal,

it will have a bigger freeboard, to operate in other waterways when the Saimaa canal is closed.

• Preliminary design. Determination of the elements necessary to estimate the shipbuilding and

exploitation costs. In our case the preliminary design will be divided on the next way:

Figure 7.Preliminary design steps

Preliminary design

Hull offsetGeneral

arragementPower

predictionMidship design

Lightweight and endurance

Stability analysis

9

2.2. Main dimensions

A research was done to have an idea of the vessels operating in Saimaa Canal [5].

Table 5.Saimax vessels

From the table above, it can be drawled the idea that the vessels are not designed specifically for the

Saimaa canal. They have been projected to establish a good cargo capacity when sailing through the

canal, in other words, the navigation on the waterway is a load condition.

Almost all the ships have an ice class, being the higher IA. Most of the vessels operating in the Baltic

region during winter have ice class, so it can be concluded that ships without ice class are operating in

this area only during the hottest months of the year.

For this thesis, it will be followed the Noorderlich design. This vessel has been specially designed to

operate in the Saimaa canal, therefore is one of the newest vessels on the database (built in 2010). The

reduced lightweight (1,020 tons) allows the ships to carry the maximum cargo capacity in Saimaa canal

Hence, our ship will have the maximum dimensions of the canal, but the freeboard will be increased to

be able to carry more cargo outside of Saimaa waterway.

2.3. Hull offset

The idea to create a hull from zero differs from the objectives of this thesis. So, the offset will be started

from an existing hull from the program “Delfship”. Using parametric transformations, it will be obtained

a suitable offset will be obtained. To reduce the number of iterations, it´s supposed that the lightweight

of the vessel will be around 1,100 tons, so it will be necessary to obtain a displacement bigger than

3,600 tons.

Finally, the vessel hull looks like:

L(m) Lpp(m) B(m) Depth(m) Draught(m) DWCC(tn) Speed(knots) Power(kw) Aux power(kw) Ice class

BARBAROSSA 82.5 79.25 12.4 7.5 5.25 2950 12.2 1800 225+shaft generator-240 IA

RINALAND 81.86 12.6 6 4.503 2600 11 1185 IB

MAXIMA E 82.5 80.7 12.6 8 5.45 3700 11 1249 IC

MV PRIMA CELINA 82 77.2 11 5.67 4.35 2400 10 750 II

FLINTHORN 82.5 78.9 12.4 6.4 5.3 3200 12 1800 180+shaft generator-240 IA

SUSANNE 82.5 12.5 8 5.34 3500 10.5 750 IC

KELT 82.5 12.5 8 5.46 3500 11 1249 NON

GROOT DESIGN(Outgoing ) 82.5 79.6 12.5 8.15 5.55 3800 10 1252(hybrid) IC

BALTIC MERCHANT 82.5 78.2 12.3 6.65 5.02 3110 11 1360 720 NON

DONA MIMI 82.04 78.2 12.5 6.6 4.914 3015 12 1689 IB

NOORDERLICHT 82.5 80.7 12.5 8 5.34 3670 11.5 1250 312 IC

10

Figure 8.Vessel´s hull (Rhinoceros)

This hull was modelling once again to have an input for program Maxsurf. This model needs to have a

certain accuracy because it will be used for the power prediction and the stability analysis. The

hydrostatics (for a draft of 4.35 meters) and the Maxsurf´s model is presented below:

Figure 9.Hull in Maxsurf[6]

11

Hydrostatics

Draft Amidships m 4.35

Displacement t 3659

Volume (displaced) m3 3658.928

WL Length m 80.897

Beam max extents on WL m 12.497

Wetted Area m^2 1448.56

Waterpl. Area m^2 918.929

Prismatic coeff. (Cp) 0.841

Block coeff. (Cb) 0.832

Max Sect. area coeff. (Cm) 0.99

Waterpl. area coeff. (Cwp) 0.909

LCB from zero pt. (+ve fwd) m 41.785

LCF from zero pt. (+ve fwd) m 40.26

KB m 2.265

BMt m 3.007

BML m 116.172

GMt m 5.272

GML m 118.436

KMt m 5.272

KML m 118.436

Immersion (TPc) tonne/cm 9.189

MTc tonne.m 53.899

RM at 1deg = GMt.Disp.sin(1) tonne.m 336.633

Table 6.Hydrostatics for draft of 4.35 m

2.4. General arrangement

The arrangement of the ship depends on the task that it will perform. For our case, the ship is to carry

the maximum cargo possible within the maximum draught of Saimaa canal. Therefore, the arrangement

of the ship must ensure a maximum draft of 4.35(m) with the maximum cargo capacity when sailing in

the Saimaa area. The general arrangement of the ship can be seen on the on ANNEX I.

On this chapter the subdivision of the ship, the habitation part and the disposition of the engine room

will be explained. Therefore, the visibility of the bridge will be checked. The profile of the vessel and the

different compartmentations can be seen in the next picture:

12

Figure 10.Profile of the vessel.

So looking at the picture the vessel is divided on the next way (with an intermediate frame spacing of

600mm):

Compartment I. From frame -2 to 7. Limited by the fore bulkhead, inside it, will allocate the steering

room and part of the habitation.

Compartment II. Between frame 7 to 27. It´s the place of the engine room, inside there are tanks for

Freshwater, sewage, daily MDO and lube oil (adjacent to the daily tank).

Upper of the engine room there is the main accommodation part. There will be located the common

spaces (galley, mesh room…) and rooms for all the members of the crew, except the captain and who

will be allocated on the first floor of the superstructure.

Compartment III or cargo space. From frame 27 to 120. It´s the biggest space of the ship and will be

divided into two movable bulkheads. A steel pontoon hatch covers will be allocated, they could be

removed by a gantry crane installed on the deck, these solutions provide faster handling of the cargo

when the ship is in port. The ballast tanks have a watertight division of 12 (m) and 7.7(m) for the part

close to the engine room. The dimensions and form of the cargo space can be seen in the next picture:

Figure 11.Cargo Space Dimensions

Compartment IV. Between frames 120 to 124. The storage of the fuel is done in this compartment (the

reasons for allocating this tank on the bow part of the ship will be explained on the stability analysis). To

ensure no fuel spill, the storage tank is surrounded by ballast tanks.

Compartment V. From frame 124 to 127,5. It allocates the bow thruster room.

Compartment VI. Between frame 127.5(collision bulkhead) to 135. The chain locker will be there.

13

In vessel operating in river/coaster zones, the air draft is an important constraint, so the superstructure

needs to ensure the visibility within the maximum air draft. According to Lloyd´s Register and IMO

(resolution A.708), the view of the sea surface from the conning position is not to be obscured by more

than 2L. On the next picture, is show that this criterion is satisfied.

Figure 12.Bridge visibility

Engine room

River coasters ships [7] have a strong limitation regarding the air draft (15.35 meters for this vessel), so

most of them have a reduced height of the engine room (5,2 meters for the Noorderlich). For our vessel,

the height of the engine room will be 5(m) and the length 12 (m). The disposition of the engine room can

be seen in the next picture of the 3D model created for this thesis.

Figure 13.Engine room disposition

Like the picture shows the engine room is divided into two levels. On the first one, the main and auxiliary

engines are located. The second one on the stern will be used to support the PTO, and the higher one

will be to allocate all the necessary equipment on the aft part there is an emergency escape to the main

deck that can be accessed by the first and third floor.

The tanks are modelled with colours, the MDO daily, and the lube oil tanks are on the third level (in

orange and grey). The blue tank allocates the fresh water (symmetrical tank). For the sewage tank is

coloured with brown (symmetrical tank).

The blue pipes and cubes are the sea chests. To avoid the entrance of mud and stones, when the ship

is sailing through shallow waters, two sea inlets are modelled (one in a higher position than the other).

14

The foundations of the main engine and gearbox have been created to have an idea of the shaft height.

Another important parameter in the engine room is the propeller. Looking to the vessels on the database,

it can be seen that most of them have a controllable pitch propeller (to increase the manoeuvrability) [7].

So, CPP will be installed on our ship. The minimum propeller clearances between hull and rudder are

given by the Lloyd´s Register (part 3, chap 6, sec 7) [8], so for a diameter of 2.5 m and a four blades

propeller:

4 Blades

Diameter(m) a(m) b(m) c(m) d(m)

2.5 0.095 0.14 0.3 0.075

Table 7.Minimum propeller clearances [8]

Finally, the distances between the propeller hull and rudder can be seen on the next picture:

Figure 14.Propeller clearances

Habitation

The accommodation spaces will be divided in two [9]. The first one above the engine room (height of

5m) will allocate the “service areas” like galley (and the corresponding provisions store), workshop,

laundry room, mesh room and first aids closet. The steering gear room will be placed on this deck, and

it will have an emergency exit to the main deck. The accommodations are divided into five cabins, two

with a private bathroom (for the two officers) and three with a capacity of two persons and a shared

bathroom for the rest of the crew. This deck can be seen in the next picture:

15

Figure 15.Accommodation deck (5m)

The first tier of the superstructure (main deck 7.5m), will have the cabins for the captain and one for the

pilot or to allocate another officer it´s were necessary. Like the SOLAS establish the emergency group

and the tanks associated will be placed on the main deck as well as a deck store. The next picture

shows this disposition:

Figure 16.Captain deck

Finally, on the bridge will be at the height of 10 meters and it will arrange a toilet.

16

2.5. Power prediction

By using the module Maxsurf Resistance [10], the power necessary will be obtained for the desired

speed of 11 knots (11.5 knots for ballast). The software integrates different approaches to calculate the

resistance, but in this case it will use the Holtrop and Mennen, because or ship is on the range where

this method gives really good results.

Range Vessel

Cp 0.73-0.85 0.841

L/B 5.1-7.1 6.432

B/T 2.4-3.2 2.874

Fn max 0.24 0.2

Table 8.Holtrop-Mennen range

The output given by Maxsurf is shown on the next table:

Table 9.Ship resistance

Apart from the ship, the resistance of the appendages needs to be calculating. On the case of the

aerodynamic, it will be omitted due to the low speed of the ship (11knots)

Speed(knots) Resistance(kN) Power(kW)

5 15.6 40.16

5.5 18.7 52.907

6 22.1 68.109

6.5 25.7 86.062

7 29.8 107.153

7.5 34.2 131.901

8 39.1 161.001

8.5 44.7 195.368

9 51 236.167

9.5 58.3 284.844

10 66.7 343.132

10.5 76.5 413.092

11 87.8 496.903

11.5 101 597.49

12 116.3 718.182

12.5 133.5 858.386

13 153 1023.013

13.5 176.8 1228.192

14 205.1 1477.215

14.5 233.8 1743.966

15 259.9 2005.744

15.5 286.6 2285.467

16 321.1 2642.972

16.5 370 3141.041

17 436.4 3816.691

17.5 516.7 4652.134

18 600.3 5558.427

17

2.5.1 Appendages resistance

Appendages resistance [11] is produced by the rudder and the bow thrusters tunnels and is given by

the next equations:

Where Sapp is the surface of the appendages in square meters, D the diameter of the bow thrusters

tunnels in me, V the speed in m/s, ρ the density of the water in tones/m3 and the rest are coefficients

and constants depending on the type of appendage.

The bow thrusters and rudder resistance can be seen on the next table:

Table 10.Appendages resistance

2.5.2 Shaft power

The final objective of this power prediction is to select an engine. But for this purpose, it´s necessary to

calculate the towing power (accounting for a sea margin of 15%) and the final power delivered to the

propeller(DHP) [11]. The power in the propeller needs to be obtained by using the propulsive factor,

some of them were estimated by empirical formulas and others regarding similar vessel. The results are

listed on the table below:

Components

Rudder

1+k2 1.5

A(m2) 5.62

Bow thrusters

Diameter(m) 1.1

Cbto 0.009

Speed(knots) Resistance(KN)

5 0.236

6 0.339

7 0.461

8 0.601

9 0.759

10 0.936

11 1.132

12 1.345

13 1.578

14 1.828

15 2.097

16 2.384

17 2.69

18 3.014

18

Parameters

Speed(knots) PE(kW) PE 15% margin (KW) DHP(KW)

W (Taylor) 0.3725

5 40.73 46.84 65.03

T (Taylor) 0.2235

5.5 53.71 61.77 85.75

Efficiencies

6 69.26 79.65 110.57

Hull 1.24

6.5 87.26 100.35 139.31

Propeller 0.6

7 108.96 125.31 173.96

Relative 0.98

7.5 133.98 154.08 213.90

Transmission 0.99

8 163.38 187.89 260.83

Quasi propulsive 0.72

8.5 198.41 228.17 316.76

9 239.63 275.57 382.55

9.5 289.03 332.39 461.43

10 347.92 400.11 555.45

10.5 418.77 481.58 668.54

11 507.74 583.90 810.59

11.5 604.79 695.51 965.52

12 726.20 835.14 1159.36

12.5 867.79 997.96 1385.39

13 1033.69 1188.75 1650.25

13.5 1239.58 1425.52 1978.94

14 1490.22 1713.75 2379.07

14.5 1758.49 2022.27 2807.36

15 2021.57 2324.81 3227.36

15.5 2302.97 2648.41 3676.59

16 2662.41 3061.77 4250.42

16.5 3161.93 3636.22 5047.89

17 3839.76 4415.72 6130.01

Table 11.Power delivered to the propeller

2.5.3 Selection of the engine

It was observed that most of this kind of ships use a shaft generator [12] to reduce the power and the

operating hours of the auxiliary engines. Hence, it will be installed an AMG280D4 PTO from the

manufacturer ABB. This shaft generator has a power of 250(kW), with this power it can be satisfied with

the electrical load when the ship is sailing.

Therefore, the power of the engine needs to be enough to provide the speed of 11 knots with the shaft

generator connected. Looking into the internet, some engines were selected to compare their features

19

Speed(knots)

10.5 11 11.5

Engine Power(kW) Weight(tones) Dimensions(mm) MCR MCR MCR

MAN 6L 28/32A 1470 18 5333x1732x3168 0.62 0.72 0.83

MAN 6L 21/31 1290 16 4544x1695x3113 0.71 0.82 0.94

MTU 12V4000

M54 1193 8 2884x1850x2071 0.77 0.89 Overload

WARTSILA 6L

20 1200 9.3 3254x1580x1972 0.77 0.88 Overload

Table 12.Engines

The ideal continuous rating for an engine is between 85-95%, so the two MAN engines are discarded.

Finally, the WARTSILA engine has been selected, because in our case we don´t have a really big

problem of space in the engine room, so there is no sense to install a V engine that is more complex

and expensive than an L engine. Also, the data available (technical papers, drawing, 3D models…) is

too much bigger in the case of WARTSILA.

2.6. Midship design

The scantling and selection of bulb profiles are performed based on Lloyds Class Society “Rules and

Regulations for the Classification of General Cargo Ships July 2018” [8].

The design of the midship section will be done in two steps. First, it will be calculated the scantling of

plates and profiles by using a spreadsheet in Excel. Later on, it will be checked with the program

MARS2000. For more information about the characteristics of the plates and profiles, the plan of the

midship section can be consulted in ANNEX I.

The main aim of this chapter is to obtain a midship section to, later on, calculate the weight of the steel

by using the method of D.S. Aldwinckle.

Before starting any scantling, it will be defined some parameters:

• Double bottom height. Using the formula given by MARPOL, the height of the double bottom is:

𝐻𝑚𝑖𝑛 =𝐵

15=

12500

15= 833 (𝑚𝑚)

A height of 1000(mm) was chosen to increase the ballast capacity. From the construction point

of view, this value facilitates the works (welding, piping, block manufacturing) inside the double

bottom.

• Double side width. By MARPOL, the minimum beam of the double side is:

𝑊𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.5 +𝐷𝑊𝑇

20000= 0.5 +

2500

20000= 0.675 (𝑚)

20

Like for the bottom, the beam of the double side will be 1000(mm).

• Minimum width of the keel. On Lloyd’s rules (part 4 chapter 1 section 5) there is a formula for

the minimum beam of this plate:

𝑏𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 70𝐵 = 70 ∗ 12.5 = 875(𝑚𝑚)

A keel plate of 1250 (mm) was selected.

• Spacing. The spacing of the different elements is listed on the table below:

Element Spacing(mm)

Web frames 2400

Intermediate frames 600

Hatch coaming stays 1200

Double bottom side girders 3000/2232

Table 13.Spacing

• Inner bottom. Regarding similar vessels, it was observed that most of the dry/general cargo

used on Saimaa, have a bottom strengthen for the carriage of heavy cargo. Hence, our ship will

be able to carry this kind of cargo too (according to the table 7.8.1in the sec 8 chap 7 part 4).

• Hatches. According to the Lloyd´s Register (the pt3 ch 11 sec 5.2) [8], the minimum height of

the hatches is 600 mm, also is mandatory to locate a horizontal reinforcement on the top of the

hatch (with a minimum width of 180 mm). For our ship, the height of the hatch is 1000 mm, and

the horizontal reinforcement has a beam of 300 m. On the mid-span of the hatch beam, it was

allocated a bulb profile, like the classification society, establish for beams bigger than 900 mm.

All the parameters described above can be seen on the next picture.

Figure 17.Midship parameters

21

2.6.1 Materials

The minimum grade of steel used in the function of the thickness is shown on the table below (Lloyd´s

Register table 2.2.2).

Figure 18.Minimum grades of steel[8]

In our case the maximum thickness is located on the inner bottom (13 mm), so steel of grade A will be

selected( with an elastic limit of 235 N/mm2 and Young´s modulus of 206 kN/mm2).

2.6.2 Scantling verification

Once the calculations on Excel are finished, an input to enter in the software MARS2000 is created.

After several iterations on the design, the final midship section analysed looks like:

Figure 19.Local Strength Strakes

22

Figure 20.Local Strength Stiffeners

Figure 21.Hull girder strength

Figure 22.Ultimate Strength and minimum modulus

The pink line represents the moments applied to the structure, and the red line gives the capacity to

withstand that´s moments. So, it can be seen that there is a certain margin between the moment applied

and the maximum that the structure can resists. This margin is bigger for the hogging condition since

the modulus of the bottom is bigger than in the deck.

23

2.7. Lightweight and endurance

The weight is a key factor on this project. Biggers weights imply less cargo capacity for the desired draft,

so it´s important to calculate all these parameters with a certain grade of precision.

2.7.1 Lightweight

Steel weight

It can be divided in two: the first one is the weight of the continuous steel (transverse and longitudinal

structure) and the second one is referring to the local weights (bulkheads, superstructure, additional

reinforcement on the engine room…). The density of the steel used was 7.85 tonnes/m3.

Continuous steel. To calculate this weight, it was used the D.S. Aldwinckle method [13] [14]. This

consists in calculate the unitary weight of a one-meter slide section (in this case the midship section) for

the longitudinal and transverse direction. Later on, using the area or perimeter of the section, it can be

extrapolated the unitary weight of the midship to the rest of the sections. Finally, by integration, the total

weight can be obtained.

Longitudinal continuous steel. The unitary weight of the midship section in the longitudinal direction is:

Table 14.Longitudinal continuous steel

24

The weight per meter of all the sections in the longitudinal direction can be obtained using the next

formula:

𝑊𝐿𝑖 = 𝐺𝑖𝑚𝑖

∗ 𝑊𝐿𝑀𝑆

Where Gi is the quotient between the perimeter of the section considered and the midship section, mi

is a constant use in the method and Wlms is the weight per meter of the midship section.

And the results:

Table 15. Weight per meter in the longitudinal direction of the different sections considered

Plate Number b(m) t(m) A(m2) W(t/m)

KEEL 1 1.25 0.012 0.015 0.118

2 2.15 0.01 0.022 0.169

3 2.15 0.01 0.022 0.169

BILGE 4 2.15 0.01 0.022 0.169

5 2.15 0.01 0.022 0.169

6 2.15 0.01 0.022 0.169

7 1.728 0.01 0.017 0.136

DECK 8 1.25 0.01 0.013 0.098

9 1.864 0.013 0.024 0.190

10 2.15 0.013 0.028 0.219

11 2.15 0.013 0.028 0.219

12 1.027 0.01 0.010 0.081

13 2.15 0.01 0.022 0.169

14 2.15 0.01 0.022 0.169

15 2.15 0.01 0.022 0.169

16 1 0.012 0.012 0.094

17 1 0.012 0.012 0.094

18 0.973 0.011 0.011 0.084

19 1 0.01 0.010 0.079

20 1 0.012 0.012 0.094

21 0.3 0.012 0.004 0.028

22 0.15 0.012 0.002 0.014

23 0.973 0.01 0.010 0.076

24 1 0.008 0.008 0.063

BILGE BAR 25 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.008

Quantity W(t/m)

HP200X9 20 0.371

HP180X9 6 0.097

HP140X10 10 0.131

HP140X7 2 0.020

HP120X8 2 0.018

TOTAL 3.683

PLATES

BOTTOM

SIDE

INNER

BOTTOM

FLOORS

BULBS

INNER SIDE

GIRDERS

HATCH

Section x(m) Perimiter(m) G(i) m(i) W(tn/m)

0 0.00 5.35 0.40 3.45 0.16

1 4.02 9.76 0.73 5.39 0.68

2 8.04 10.53 0.79 4.88 1.15

3 12.06 11.57 0.87 3.68 2.17

4 16.08 12.35 0.93 2.48 3.04

5 20.10 12.88 0.96 2.05 3.42

6 24.12 13.13 0.98 1.61 3.58

7 28.14 13.26 0.99 1.00 3.66

8 32.16 13.32 1.00 1.00 3.67

9 36.18 13.35 1.00 1.00 3.68

10 40.20 13.35 1.00 1.00 3.68

11 44.22 13.35 1.00 1.00 3.68

12 48.24 13.35 1.00 1.00 3.68

13 52.26 13.35 1.00 1.91 3.68

14 56.28 13.35 1.00 2.22 3.68

15 60.30 13.34 1.00 2.80 3.67

16 64.32 13.28 0.99 3.39 3.61

17 68.34 12.95 0.97 3.33 3.33

18 72.36 12.02 0.90 3.27 2.61

19 76.38 10.21 0.76 3.44 1.46

20 80.40 3.49 0.26 2.61 0.11

25

Transverse steel. In this case, the spacing of the transversal elements is not the same. The unitary

weight is listed on the table below:

Table 16.Transverse continuous steel

To obtain the weight per meter of all the sections in the transversal direction, it will be used the next

equation:

𝑊𝑇𝑖 = 𝑄𝑖𝑝𝑖

∗ 𝑊𝑇𝑀𝑆

Where the Qi is quotient between the area of the section considered and the midship area, pi is a

constant for the method and Wtms the weight per meter in the transversal direction of the midship

section.

Table 17. Weight per meter in the transversal direction of the different sections considered

Spacing(m) Element Position t(m) A(m2) W(t/m)

FRAME 2 BOTTOM 0.01 1.999 0.065

FRAME 3 BOTTOM 0.01 1.617 0.053

FRAME 4 SIDE 0.01 2.149 0.070

FRAME 5 SIDE 0.01 2.376 0.078

BARS FOR HOLES SIDE-BOTTOM 0.008 2.255 0.059

1.2 HACTH BEAM HATCH 0.01 0.219 0.014

BILGE FRAME BILGE 0.01 0.610 0.080

TOP BRACKET 1 DECK 0.01 0.090 0.012

TOP BRACKET 2 DECK 0.01 0.072 0.009

BILGE BRACKET BOTTOM 0.01 0.386 0.051

GIRDER BRACKETS BOTTOM 0.01 0.040 0.021

GIRDER BARS BOTTOM 0.01 0.150 0.039

TOTAL 0.212

2.4

0.6

Section x(m) A(m2) Q(i) pi W(tn/m)

0 0.00 7.73 0.17 0.50 0.22

1 4.02 23.51 0.50 0.65 0.35

2 8.04 34.50 0.74 0.78 0.44

3 12.06 41.20 0.88 0.88 0.49

4 16.08 44.37 0.95 0.94 0.53

5 20.10 45.75 0.98 0.99 0.54

6 24.12 46.27 0.99 1.00 0.55

7 28.14 46.45 1.00 1.00 0.55

8 32.16 46.52 1.00 1.00 0.55

9 36.18 46.56 1.00 1.00 0.55

10 40.20 46.56 1.00 1.00 0.55

11 44.22 46.56 1.00 1.00 0.55

12 48.24 46.56 1.00 1.00 0.55

13 52.26 46.56 1.00 1.00 0.55

14 56.28 46.56 1.00 1.00 0.55

15 60.30 46.56 1.00 0.99 0.55

16 64.32 46.45 1.00 0.94 0.55

17 68.34 45.01 0.97 0.88 0.54

18 72.36 40.71 0.87 0.78 0.50

19 76.38 30.51 0.66 0.65 0.42

20 80.40 24.19 0.52 0.50 0.40

26

Now, it’s time for the integration. For this purpose, it was used the Simpsons method, and the results

are presented on the next table:

Table 18.Integration

With the integration done, the weight of the continuous steel and its centre of gravity is obtained with

the next formulas [13]:

𝑊𝑇 =ℎ

3∑ 𝐹 ∗ 𝑊 =

4.02

3∗ 411.944 = 552 (𝑡𝑛)

𝑋𝐺 =ℎ

3

∑ 𝐹 ∗ 𝑊 ∗ 𝑋𝐺

𝑊=

4.02

3∗

17389.89

552= 42.21(𝑚)

𝑍𝐺 =ℎ

3

∑ 𝐹 ∗ 𝑊 ∗ 𝑍𝐺

𝑊=

4.02

3∗

1461

552= 3.54(𝑚)

Section Xg(m) Zg(m) Wlong(t/m) Wtrans(t/m) Wtotal(t/m) S.Factor F*W F*W*X F*W*Z

0 0 6.26 0.157 0.225 0.382 1 0.382 0.000 2.389

1 4.02 5.12 0.679 0.353 1.032 4 4.129 16.599 21.129

2 8.04 4.46 1.154 0.436 1.590 2 3.180 25.564 14.175

3 12.06 4.09 2.170 0.495 2.665 4 10.659 128.553 43.597

4 16.08 3.90 3.036 0.527 3.563 2 7.126 114.593 27.793

5 20.1 3.80 3.420 0.542 3.962 4 15.847 318.522 60.218

6 24.12 3.70 3.585 0.548 4.133 2 8.265 199.361 30.582

7 28.14 3.70 3.656 0.550 4.206 4 16.824 473.414 62.247

8 32.16 3.08 3.674 0.551 4.225 2 8.450 271.746 26.025

9 36.18 3.08 3.682 0.551 4.233 4 16.931 612.567 52.148

10 40.2 3.08 3.683 0.551 4.234 2 8.468 340.431 26.083

11 44.22 3.08 3.683 0.551 4.234 4 16.937 748.948 52.166

12 48.24 3.08 3.683 0.551 4.234 2 8.468 408.490 26.081

13 52.26 3.08 3.682 0.551 4.233 4 16.933 884.900 52.153

14 56.28 3.08 3.679 0.551 4.231 2 8.461 476.190 26.060

15 60.3 3.76 3.671 0.551 4.222 4 16.887 1018.315 63.497

16 64.32 3.76 3.612 0.550 4.161 2 8.323 535.334 31.294

17 68.34 3.77 3.329 0.535 3.864 4 15.457 1056.315 58.272

18 72.36 3.79 2.608 0.496 3.105 2 6.210 449.321 23.534

19 76.38 3.88 1.463 0.419 1.882 4 7.527 574.928 29.213

20 80.4 4.22 0.111 0.397 0.508 1 0.508 40.857 2.145

TOTAL 411.944 17389.898 1461.600

27

Local weights of the steel. The formulas used to belong to [13]. The components and the values are

summarised on the next table:

Element

Weight

(tones) Xg (m) Zg (m)

Engine room reinforcements 8.320 10.253 2.924

Superstructure 24.680 7.650 11.000

Bulkheads 52.226 44.151 3.995

Peaks 1.104 0.600 6.400

Table 19.Local weights of the steel

Machinery weight

The most precise way to obtain these weights will be to size all the elements, but the process will be

long and it´s not the main scope of this paper. So it will be using some empirical formulas [13]. Hence,

the machinery weight is:

• Weights of the engines. It´s the sum of the main engine and the auxiliary in a base of similar

vessels. It will be installed two auxiliary groups of Caterpillar (model C7.1 with a power of 118

kW). So the final weight is:

𝑊𝐸𝑁𝐺𝐼𝑁𝐸𝑆 = 𝑊𝑀𝐸 + 𝑊𝐴𝑈𝑋 = 9.3 + 3 = 12.3(𝑡𝑛)

• The weight of the propulsion equipment. Given by the next formulation

𝑊𝑃.𝐸 = 𝐾𝑚 ∗ (𝑀𝐶𝑂)0.7 = 0.56 ∗ (1287)0.7 = 84.11(𝑡𝑛)

Where:𝐾𝑚=coefficient function of the kind of vessel

𝑀𝐶𝑂=power of the main engine in horse power

• The weight of other equipment on the engine room. This refers to all the elements like pipes,

pumps, isolation, electrical cables…The next formula gives a good approximation for this kind

of elements.

𝑊𝑂.𝐸 = 0.0217 ∗ 𝑉𝐸𝑅 = 0.0217 ∗ 520 = 11.284 (𝑡𝑛)

Where:𝑉𝐸𝑅=volume of the engine room

• The weight of the shaft. It is given by the next formula:

𝑊𝑆𝐻𝐴𝐹𝑇 = 𝐿𝑆𝐻𝐴𝐹𝑇 ∗ (5 + 0.0164 ∗ 𝐿𝑝𝑝) = 4.8 ∗ (5 + 0.0164 ∗ 80.4) = 30.33(𝑡𝑛)

Finally, the machinery weights and the centre of gravity is:

28

Machinery Weight

Value (tones) 139

Xg (m) 12

Zg (m) 2.5

Table 20.Machinery weight and centre of gravity

Equipment weight

There are many formulas to calculate the weight of the equipment. However, the values given are high

compared with real ships. So it will be calculated the weight of the individual components [13]. Hence,

the equipment weights are shown on the next table:

Weight

(tones) Xg (m) Zg (m)

Mooring 11 79.2 7.5

Navigation equipment 2 7.615 13.9

Rudder 13 0 4

Rescue 6.8 2 11.25

Fire fighting 2.3 10.2 2.924

Stairs, doors, windows 14.88 41.3 7

Paint 1.176 41.3 7

Anodes 5.8 41.3 5

Bow thrusters 4.2 75.4 2

Hatch 114 43.5 8

TOTAL 175.156 40.545701 7.46

Table 21.Equipment weights and centre of gravity

Accommodation weights

The weight of the accommodation can be calculated in function of the area of the different habitation

decks. The formula used belongs to the reference. [13] and looks like:

𝑊𝐴 = 0.16 ∗ 𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑀𝑀𝑂𝐷𝐴𝑇𝐼𝑂𝑁 𝐷𝐸𝐶𝐾𝑆 = 0.16 ∗ 300 = 48 (𝑡𝑛)

2.7.2 Endurance

Looking for vessels operating in the Saimaa zone, it can be seen that most of them have an autonomy

of 20 to 30 days and a crew between 6 to 8 people. For this thesis, a crew of 8 people and autonomy of

20 days (approx. 5000 miles at 11 knots) was chosen. The next capacities and weights were calculating

[13]:

• Fresh water. Assuming 130 litres per person and day, and with a margin of 10% to ensure the

arrival at the port, the fresh water capacity is:

29

𝑉𝐹𝑅𝐸𝑆𝐻 𝑊𝐴𝑇𝐸𝑅 = 130 ∗ 8 ∗ 1.1 = 22880 (𝑙) = 22.8(𝑚3)

• Fuel oil. The quantity of MDO is given by the consumption (0.192 kg/Kw*h) and power (1200

kW) of the main engine. A margin of 10% for port and 5% for the consumption, were applied:

𝑉𝑀𝐷𝑂 = 0.192 ∗ 20 ∗ 24 ∗ 1200 ∗ 1.15 = 127.8 (𝑡𝑛) = 145 (𝑚3)

• Lube oil. The rate of the engine is 0.5(g/kW*h) so the volume needed for the full trip:

𝑉𝐿𝑂.𝑀𝐸 = 0.5 ∗ 1200 ∗ 20 ∗ 24 = 0.32 (𝑚3)

The main engine is not the only consumer of lube oil in the ship, another element like a shaft,

gearbox, aux engines, bearings…will also need some lubrication. So at the end, it was decided

to enlarge the lube oil capacity:

𝑉𝐹𝑂 = 2(𝑚3)

• Sewage. In this case, the sewage tank was obtained looking at similar vessels, so the final

volume is:

𝑉𝑆𝐸𝑊𝐴𝐺𝐸 = 11(𝑚3)

• Crew, provisions and spares. It was supposed weight of 225 kg per person and 10 tons for the

spares. Hence this weight has a value of:

𝑊𝐶𝑅𝐸𝑊 𝐴𝑁𝐷 𝑆𝑃𝐴𝑅𝐸𝑆 = 225 ∗ 8 + 10000 = 11800(𝑘𝑔)

In summary, the weights are shown in the next table:

Element Weight (tones)

Fresh Water 23

MDO 129

Lube oil 1.84

Sewage 11

Crew 1.8

Spares 10

TOTAL 176.64

Table 22.Endurance weights

2.7.3 Cargo capacity, gross and net tonnage

Once all the weights have been calculated the cargo capacity can be estimated by:

𝐶𝐴𝑅𝐺𝑂 𝐶𝐴𝑃𝐴𝐶𝐼𝑇𝑌 = ∆ − 𝐿𝑊𝑇 − 𝐸𝑁𝐷𝑈𝑅𝐴𝑁𝐶𝐸 = 3659 − 1040 − 176 = 2443(𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑠)

Knowing that the maximum capacity for the Saimaa canal is 2500 tones, there is only a very small

difference between this value and the one obtained for our ship.

When developing a cost model, it is important to have a value of the net and gross tonnage of the ship,

because most of the ports and canals apply their tariffs in function of these two parameters. So, the net

tonnage is obtained in the next way [13]:

30

𝑁𝑇 = 𝑉𝐶 ∗ 𝐾2 (4 ∗ 𝐷

3 ∗ 𝐻)

2

= 3754 ∗ 0.2714 ∗ 1 = 1019.31

Where:

𝑉𝐶=volume of the cargo space

𝐾2 = 0.2 + 0.02 ∗ log10 𝑉𝐶

(4∗𝐷

3∗𝐻)

2

=relation between draught and height (never bigger than 1)

The gross tonnage takes into account all the volumes above and below the main deck. For our ship

these volumes are:

V. Under the main deck(m3) 6649

V. Below hatches(m3) 578

V. Forecastle(m3) 78.5

V. Superstructure of the main

deck(m3)

204

V. Bridge (m3) 122

Total volume(m3) 7632

Table 23.Volumes of the ship

So the gross tonnage can be calculated using the next formula [13]:

𝐺𝑇 = 𝐾1 ∗ 𝑉𝑇 = 0.277 ∗ 7631.06 = 2118

Where:

𝑉𝑇=total volume of the ship

𝐾1 = 0.2 + 0.02 ∗ log10 𝑉1

2.8. Stability analysis.

The stability analysis has big importance on the design of this kind of vessels. It is needed to ensure

that the draft in all cargo situations is smaller than the maximum allowed for the Saimaa canal. In other

words, the design of the ship is mainly dependent on the stability.

The first step of this analysis is to calculate the freeboard [13]. Knowing that our ship is a type B, the

values of the corrections and the final freeboard are shown on the next table

Tabular freeboard(mm) 902.264

Correction for ships with L<100 m (factor) 7.63

Correction by block coefficient (mm) 1.12

Correction by depth(mm) 372

Correction by superstructure(mm) -45.1

31

Correction by sheer(mm) 317

FINAL FREEBOARD 1163

Table 24.Freeboard and corrections

Hence, the maximum draft of the ship (outside the Saimaa canal) is 5.9 (m).

For the vessel studied, five cargo conditions were created:

• Full load departure (Saimaa Canal). Load condition at the start of the voyage (2440 tons of

cargo,100% of MDO, fresh water and lube oil,10% sewage).

• Full load arrival (Saimaa canal). Load condition at the end of the voyage (2440 tons of

cargo,10% of MDO, fresh water and lube oil,100%sewage).

• Ballast departure (Saimaa canal). Load condition with no cargo at the start of the voyage (no

cargo, 100% MDO, fresh water and lube oil,10%sewage).

• Ballast arrival (Saimaa canal). Load condition with no cargo at the end of the voyage (no

cargo,10% MDO, fresh water and lube oil,100%sewage)

• Half tanks (Saimaa canal). Load condition with the tank half filled (2440 tons of cargo, 50% of

MDO, fresh water and lube oil,50%sewage). This condition is done to see how the free surfaces

affect the stability of the ship.

• Full load departure outside Saimaa canal. Load condition at sea (3754 tons of cargo,100%

of MDO, fresh water and lube oil,10% sewage).

It has been established some requirements for this load conditions, to ensure good navigability and

longitudinal resistance. They are shown on the next table:

MAXIMUM DRAUGHT AT SAIMAA 4.35 m

MAXIMUM DRAUGHT OUTSIDE SAIMAA 5.9 m

MINIMUM DRAUGHT FORE(propeller diameter plus 10% more) 2.8 m

MINIMUM DRAUGHT AFT(0.025*Lpp) 2 m

Table 25.Stability requirements

Once the cargo conditions are defined, it will be presented the equilibrium condition and the GZ curves

for all the cargo conditions. Later on, it will be checked that the IMO criteria are satisfy for the intact

stability of the ship (resolution A.749(18), ch 3.1).

The following pages will expose the different results for every cargo condition considered [15].

32

Full load departure (Saimaa Canal)

Table 26.Full load departure (Saimaa Canal) condition and equilibrium results.

Table 27.Full load departure (Saimaa Canal) IMO criteria check.

Item Qty Unit Mass(tn) Total Mass(tn) Unit Vol.(m^3) Total Vol.(m^3) Long.Arm(m) Trans.Arm(m) Vert.Arm(m) Total FMS(tn.m)

Steel 1 686 686 38 0 3.58 0

Equipment 1 175.156 175.156 40 0 7.5 0

Acommodation 1 48 48 10 0 8 0

E.Room 1 138 138 12 0 2.5 0

TOTAL 1047.156 33.625 0 4.296 0

MDO 100% 123.904 123.904 147.504 147.504 73.182 0 4.746 0

MDO DAYLY 100% 5.04 5.04 6 6 15.8 0.5 4 0

TOTAL 100% 128.944 128.944 153.504 153.504 70.939 0.02 4.717 0

FW SB 100% 11.511 11.511 11.511 11.511 13.41 5.182 3.322 0

FW PS 100% 11.511 11.511 11.511 11.511 13.41 -5.182 3.322 0

TOTAL 100% 23.023 23.023 23.023 23.023 13.41 0 3.322 0

LO 100% 0.92 0.92 1 1 15.8 -1.75 4 0

LO 100% 0.92 0.92 1 1 15.8 -1.25 4 0

TOTAL 100% 1.84 1.84 2 2 15.8 -1.5 4 0

SEWAGE PS 10% 5.711 0.571 5.711 0.571 8.361 -2.888 1.52 2.447

SEWAGE SB 10% 5.711 0.571 5.711 0.571 8.361 2.888 1.52 2.447

TOTAL 10% 11.423 1.142 11.423 1.142 8.361 0 1.52 4.895

CARGO 100% 2440.451 2440.451 3754.54 3754.54 44.027 0 4.25 0

TOTAL 100% 2440.451 2440.451 3754.54 3754.54 44.027 0 4.25 0

B.FRONT PEAK 0% 98.125 0 98.125 0 76.603 0 0.031 0

B.DEEP TANK PS 0% 24.352 0 24.352 0 74.444 -2.675 1.5 0

B.DEEP TANK SB 0% 24.352 0 24.352 0 74.444 2.675 1.5 0

B.MDO bottom 0% 19.832 0 19.832 0 72.053 0 0 0

B.MDO 0% 47.862 0 47.862 0 72.053 0 1 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 A 0% 23.099 0 23.099 0 16.344 0.722 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 A 0% 23.099 0 23.099 0 16.344 -0.722 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 A 0% 16.127 0 16.127 0 18.269 -2.02 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 A 0% 2.611 0 2.611 0 23.956 -3.488 0.071 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 B 0% 36 0 36 0 24.068 1 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 A 0% 16.127 0 16.127 0 18.269 2.02 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 A 0% 2.611 0 2.611 0 23.956 3.488 0.071 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 B 0% 36 0 36 0 24.068 -1 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 B 0% 26.615 0 26.615 0 24.068 -2.094 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 B 0% 8.725 0 8.725 0 33.029 -4.309 0.027 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 E 0% 35.999 0 35.999 0 60.068 -1 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 B 0% 26.615 0 26.615 0 24.068 2.094 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 B 0% 8.725 0 8.725 0 33.029 4.309 0.027 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 C 0% 36 0 36 0 36.068 -1 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 D 0% 26.672 0 26.672 0 48.068 2.159 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 D 0% 9.499 0 9.499 0 48.078 5.183 0.027 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 C 0% 26.677 0 26.677 0 36.068 -2.156 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 C 0% 9.532 0 9.532 0 36.208 -4.554 0.026 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 C 0% 36 0 36 0 36.068 1 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 C 0% 26.677 0 26.677 0 36.068 2.156 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 C 0% 9.532 0 9.532 0 36.208 4.554 0.026 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 D 0% 36 0 36 0 48.068 -0.998 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 D 0% 26.672 0 26.672 0 48.068 -2.159 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 D 0% 9.499 0 9.499 0 48.078 -5.183 0.027 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 D 0% 36 0 36 0 48.068 0.998 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 E 0% 6.418 0 6.418 0 60.068 -3.489 0.029 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 E 0% 25.937 0 25.937 0 60.068 -2.151 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 E 0% 6.418 0 6.418 0 60.068 3.489 0.029 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 E 0% 35.999 0 35.999 0 60.068 1 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 E 0% 25.937 0 25.937 0 60.068 2.151 0 0

B.SIDE SB B 0% 77.932 0 77.932 0 24.068 -3.778 1 0

B.SIDE PS A 0% 50.731 0 50.731 0 16.344 3.37 1 0

B.SIDE SB A 0% 50.73 0 50.73 0 16.344 -3.37 1 0

B.SIDE PS B 0% 77.932 0 77.932 0 24.068 3.778 1 0

B.SIDE SB C 0% 78.161 0 78.161 0 36.068 -3.81 1 0

B.SIDE PS C 0% 78.161 0 78.161 0 36.068 3.81 1 0

B.SIDE SB D 0% 78.312 0 78.312 0 48.068 -3.811 1 0

B.SIDE PS D 0% 78.312 0 78.312 0 48.068 3.811 1 0

B.SIDE SB E 0% 80.333 0 80.333 0 60.068 -3.81 1 0

B.SIDE PS E 0% 80.333 0 80.333 0 60.068 3.81 1 0

B.AFT PEAK 0% 27.635 0 27.635 0 0 0 2.5 0

TOTAL 0% 1624.919 0 1624.919 0 0 0 0 0

Total Loadcase 3642.555 5569.409 3934.209 41.77 0 4.273 4.895

FS correction 0.001

VCG fluid 4.274

LOAD CONDITION


Displacement t 3643

Volume (displaced) m^3 3642.5

Heel deg 0

Draft at FP m 4.325

Draft at AP m 4.34

Draft at LCF m 4.332

Trim (+ve by stern) m 0.015

WL Length m 80.88










KB m 2.256

KG fluid m 4.274

BMt m 3.019

BML m 116.58

GMt corrected m 1

GML m 114.56

KMt m 5.274

KML m 118.84


MTc tonne.m 51.902


Max deck inclination deg 0.0109

Trim angle (+ve by stern) deg 0.0109

Equilibrium Results

33

Rule Actual Margin(%)

3.1513 9.3408 196

5.1566 17.466 238

1.7189 8.1258 372.73

0.2 0.877 388.5

25 41.8 67.27

0.15 1 566

10 0 100

10 0 100

16 0.9 94.24

80 3.42 95.72

100 396.76 297.76

3.1.2.3 Angle of maximum GZ ,not less than(deg)

3.1.2.1 Area 0 to 30º ,not less than(m*deg)


3.1.2.1 Area 30 to 40 º, not less than(m*deg)

3.1.2.2 Max GZ at 30º or greater,not less than(m)

3.1.2.4 Initial GMt,not less than(m)

3.1.2.5 Passanger crowding angle of equilibrium,shall not be grater than(deg)

3.1.2.6 Turn:angle of equilibrium not greater than(deg)

3.2.2 Severe wind and rolling:

angle of steady hell,not greater than(m)

angle of steady hell/deck edge ,not greater than(%)

area 1/area 2 ,not less than(%)

Criteria

34

Full load arrival (Saimaa canal)

Table 28. Full Load Arrival (Saimaa Canal) condition and equilibrium results

Table 29. Full Load Arrival (Saimaa Canal) IMO criteria check


Steel 1 686 686 38 0 3.58 0

Equipment 1 175.156 175.156 40 0 7.5 0


E.Room 1 138 138 12 0 2.5 0

TOTAL 1047.156 33.625 0 4.296 0

MDO DAYLY 10% 5.04 0.504 6 0.6 15.8 0.5 3.1 1.89

MDO 10% 123.904 12.39 147.504 14.75 73.18 0 1.375 93.045

TOTAL 10% 128.944 12.894 153.504 15.35 70.937 0.02 1.442 94.935

LO 10% 0.92 0.092 1 0.1 15.8 -1.75 3.1 0.01

LO 10% 0.92 0.092 1 0.1 15.8 -1.25 3.1 0.01

TOTAL 10% 1.84 0.184 2 0.2 15.8 -1.5 3.1 0.019

FW SB 10% 11.511 1.151 11.511 1.151 13.528 4.835 1.474 0.953

FW PS 10% 11.511 1.151 11.511 1.151 13.528 -4.835 1.474 0.953

TOTAL 10% 23.023 2.302 23.023 2.302 13.528 0 1.474 1.906

SEWAGE PS 100% 5.711 5.711 5.711 5.711 7.699 -3.257 2.415 0

SEWAGE SB 100% 5.711 5.711 5.711 5.711 7.699 3.257 2.415 0

TOTAL 100% 11.423 11.423 11.423 11.423 7.699 0 2.415 0

CARGO 100% 2440.451 2440.451 3754.54 3754.54 44.027 0 4.25 0

TOTAL 100% 2440.451 2440.451 3754.54 3754.54 44.027 0 4.25 0

B.AFT PEAK 0% 27.635 0 27.635 0 0 0 2.5 0

B.FRONT PEAK 100% 98.125 98.125 98.125 98.125 77.781 0 3.735 0

B.DEEP TANK PS 0% 24.352 0 24.352 0 74.444 -2.675 1.5 0

B.DEEP TANK SB 0% 24.352 0 24.352 0 74.444 2.675 1.5 0

B.MDO bottom 0% 19.832 0 19.832 0 72.053 0 0 0

B.MDO 0% 47.862 0 47.862 0 72.053 0 1 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 A 0% 23.099 0 23.099 0 16.344 -0.722 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 A 0% 16.127 0 16.127 0 18.269 -2.02 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 A 100% 2.611 2.611 2.611 2.611 21.299 -5.523 0.677 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 A 0% 23.099 0 23.099 0 16.344 0.722 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 A 0% 16.127 0 16.127 0 18.269 2.02 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 A 100% 2.611 2.611 2.611 2.611 21.299 5.523 0.677 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 B 0% 36 0 36 0 24.068 -1 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 B 0% 26.615 0 26.615 0 24.068 -2.094 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 B 100% 8.725 8.725 8.725 8.725 30.25 -5.639 0.584 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 B 0% 36 0 36 0 24.068 1 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 B 0% 26.615 0 26.615 0 24.068 2.094 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 B 100% 8.725 8.725 8.725 8.725 30.25 5.639 0.584 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 C 0% 36 0 36 0 36.068 -1 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 C 0% 26.677 0 26.677 0 36.068 -2.156 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 C 0% 9.532 0 9.532 0 36.208 -4.554 0.026 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 C 0% 36 0 36 0 36.068 1 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 C 0% 26.677 0 26.677 0 36.068 2.156 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 C 0% 9.532 0 9.532 0 36.208 4.554 0.026 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 D 0% 36 0 36 0 48.068 -0.998 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 D 0% 26.672 0 26.672 0 48.068 -2.159 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 D 0% 9.499 0 9.499 0 48.078 -5.183 0.027 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 D 0% 36 0 36 0 48.068 0.998 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 D 0% 26.672 0 26.672 0 48.068 2.159 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 D 0% 9.499 0 9.499 0 48.078 5.183 0.027 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 E 0% 35.999 0 35.999 0 60.068 -1 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 E 0% 25.937 0 25.937 0 60.068 -2.151 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 E 0% 6.418 0 6.418 0 60.068 -3.489 0.029 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 E 0% 35.999 0 35.999 0 60.068 1 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 E 0% 25.937 0 25.937 0 60.068 2.151 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 E 0% 6.418 0 6.418 0 60.068 3.489 0.029 0

B.SIDE PS A 0% 50.731 0 50.731 0 16.344 3.37 1 0

B.SIDE SB A 0% 50.73 0 50.73 0 16.344 -3.37 1 0

B.SIDE PS B 0% 77.932 0 77.932 0 24.068 3.778 1 0

B.SIDE SB B 0% 77.932 0 77.932 0 24.068 -3.778 1 0

B.SIDE PS C 0% 78.161 0 78.161 0 36.068 3.81 1 0

B.SIDE SB C 0% 78.161 0 78.161 0 36.068 -3.81 1 0

B.SIDE PS D 0% 78.312 0 78.312 0 48.068 3.811 1 0

B.SIDE SB D 0% 78.312 0 78.312 0 48.068 -3.811 1 0

B.SIDE PS E 0% 80.333 0 80.333 0 60.068 3.81 1 0

B.SIDE SB E 0% 80.333 0 80.333 0 60.068 -3.81 1 0

TOTAL 7.43% 1624.919 120.798 1624.919 120.798 68.473 0 3.147 0

Total Loadcase 3635.208 5569.409 3904.613 41.803 0 4.209 96.86

FS correction 0.027

VCG fluid 4.236

LOAD CONDITION


Displacement t 3635


Heel deg 0

Draft at FP m 4.327

Draft at AP m 4.321


Trim (+ve by stern) m -0.006

WL Length m 80.861










KB m 2.251

KG fluid m 4.236

BMt m 3.024

BML m 116.69

GMt corrected m 1.039

GML m 114.71

KMt m 5.275

KML m 118.95


MTc tonne.m 51.865



Trim angle (+ve by stern) deg -0.0041

Equilibrium Results


3.1513 8.6134 173

5.1566 14.447 180

1.7189 5.8337 239

0.2 0.591 195

25 37.3 49.9

0.15 1.002 568

10 0 100

10 0 100

16 0.6 96

80 3.19 96

100 318.38 218.38










Criteria




35

Ballast departure (Saimaa canal)

Table 30. Ballast Departure (Saimaa Canal) condition and equilibrium results

Table 31. Ballast Departure (Saimaa Canal) IMO criteria check


Steel 1 686 686 38 0 3.58 0

Equipment 1 175.156 175.156 40 0 7.5 0


E.Room 1 138 138 12 0 2.5 0

TOTAL 1047.156 33.625 0 4.296 0

MDO 100% 123.904 123.904 147.504 147.504 73.182 0 4.746 0

MDO DAYLY 100% 5.04 5.04 6 6 15.8 0.5 4 0

TOTAL 100% 128.944 128.944 153.504 153.504 70.939 0.02 4.717 0

LO 100% 0.92 0.92 1 1 15.8 -1.75 4 0

LO 100% 0.92 0.92 1 1 15.8 -1.25 4 0

TOTAL 100% 1.84 1.84 2 2 15.8 -1.5 4 0

FW SB 100% 11.511 11.511 11.511 11.511 13.41 5.182 3.322 0

FW PS 100% 11.511 11.511 11.511 11.511 13.41 -5.182 3.322 0

TOTAL 100% 23.023 23.023 23.023 23.023 13.41 0 3.322 0

SEWAGE PS 10% 5.711 0.571 5.711 0.571 8.361 -2.888 1.52 2.447

SEWAGE SB 10% 5.711 0.571 5.711 0.571 8.361 2.888 1.52 2.447

TOTAL 10% 11.423 1.142 11.423 1.142 8.361 0 1.52 4.895

CARGO 0% 2440.451 0 3754.54 0 17.019 0 1 0

TOTAL 0% 2440.451 0 3754.54 0 0 0 0 0

B.FRONT PEAK 100% 98.125 98.125 98.125 98.125 77.781 0 3.735 0

B.AFT PEAK 100% 27.635 27.635 27.635 27.635 2.143 0 4.171 0

B.DEEP TANK PS 100% 24.352 24.352 24.352 24.352 75.352 -3.379 3.891 0

B.DEEP TANK SB 100% 24.352 24.352 24.352 24.352 75.352 3.379 3.891 0

B.MDO bottom 100% 19.832 19.832 19.832 19.832 73.142 0 0.537 0

B.MDO 100% 47.862 47.862 47.862 47.862 73.193 0 5.145 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 A 100% 23.099 23.099 23.099 23.099 20.15 1.5 0.5 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 A 100% 23.099 23.099 23.099 23.099 20.15 -1.5 0.5 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 A 100% 16.127 16.127 16.127 16.127 20.267 -4.072 0.525 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 A 100% 2.611 2.611 2.611 2.611 21.299 -5.523 0.677 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 A 100% 16.127 16.127 16.127 16.127 20.267 4.072 0.525 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 A 100% 2.611 2.611 2.611 2.611 21.299 5.523 0.677 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 B 100% 36 36 36 36 30 1.5 0.5 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 B 100% 36 36 36 36 30 -1.5 0.5 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 B 100% 26.615 26.615 26.615 26.615 30.007 -4.111 0.503 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 B 100% 8.725 8.725 8.725 8.725 30.25 -5.639 0.584 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 B 100% 26.615 26.615 26.615 26.615 30.007 4.111 0.503 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 B 100% 8.725 8.725 8.725 8.725 30.25 5.639 0.584 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 C 100% 36 36 36 36 42 -1.5 0.5 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 C 100% 26.677 26.677 26.677 26.677 42 -4.113 0.502 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 C 100% 9.532 9.532 9.532 9.532 42.003 -5.662 0.568 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 C 100% 36 36 36 36 42 1.5 0.5 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 C 100% 26.677 26.677 26.677 26.677 42 4.113 0.502 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 C 100% 9.532 9.532 9.532 9.532 42.003 5.662 0.568 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 D 100% 26.672 26.672 26.672 26.672 54 4.113 0.502 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 D 0% 9.499 0 9.499 0 48.078 5.183 0.027 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 D 100% 36 36 36 36 54 -1.5 0.5 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 D 100% 26.672 26.672 26.672 26.672 54 -4.113 0.502 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 D 0% 9.499 0 9.499 0 48.078 -5.183 0.027 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 D 100% 36 36 36 36 54 1.5 0.5 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 E 0% 35.999 0 35.999 0 60.068 -1 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 E 0% 6.418 0 6.418 0 60.068 -3.489 0.029 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 E 0% 25.937 0 25.937 0 60.068 -2.151 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 E 0% 6.418 0 6.418 0 60.068 3.489 0.029 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 E 0% 35.999 0 35.999 0 60.068 1 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 E 0% 25.937 0 25.937 0 60.068 2.151 0 0

B.SIDE PS A 100% 50.731 50.731 50.731 50.731 20.017 5.67 4.359 0

B.SIDE SB A 100% 50.73 50.73 50.73 50.73 20.017 -5.67 4.359 0

B.SIDE SB B 100% 77.932 77.932 77.932 77.932 30.009 -5.732 4.268 0

B.SIDE PS B 100% 77.932 77.932 77.932 77.932 30.009 5.732 4.268 0

B.SIDE SB C 0% 78.161 0 78.161 0 36.068 -3.81 1 0

B.SIDE PS C 0% 78.161 0 78.161 0 36.068 3.81 1 0

B.SIDE SB D 0% 78.312 0 78.312 0 48.068 -3.811 1 0

B.SIDE PS D 0% 78.312 0 78.312 0 48.068 3.811 1 0

B.SIDE SB E 100% 80.333 80.333 80.333 80.333 66.197 -5.563 4.309 0

B.SIDE PS E 100% 80.333 80.333 80.333 80.333 66.197 5.563 4.309 0

TOTAL 71.16% 1624.919 1156.267 1624.919 1156.267 45.382 0 2.578 0

Total Loadcase 2358.371 5569.409 1335.936 41.206 0 3.466 4.895

FS correction 0.002

VCG fluid 3.468

LOAD CONDITION


Displacement t 2358


Heel deg 0

Draft at FP m 2.621

Draft at AP m 3.204



WL Length m 78.837










KB m 1.514

KG fluid m 3.468

BMt m 4.44

BML m 161.72


GML m 159.77

KMt m 5.954

KML m 163.23


MTc tonne.m 46.865




Equilibrium Results


3.1513 20.947 564.72

5.1566 37.259 622.55

1.7189 16.312 848.97

0.2 1.849 824

25 47.3 89.09

0.15 2.486 1557.33

10 0 100.02

10 0 100.02

16 0.8 94.88

80 2.13 97.34

100 360.64 260.64













Criteria

36

Ballast arrival (Saimaa canal)

Table 32. Ballast Arrival (Saimaa Canal) condition and equilibrium results

Table 33. Ballast Arrival (Saimaa Canal) IMO criteria check


Steel 1 686 686 38 0 3.58 0

Equipment 1 175.156 175.156 40 0 7.5 0


E.Room 1 138 138 12 0 2.5 0

TOTAL 1047.156 33.625 0 4.296 0

MDO 10% 123.904 12.39 147.504 14.75 73.18 0 1.375 93.045

MDO DAYLY 10% 5.04 0.504 6 0.6 15.8 0.5 3.1 1.89

TOTAL 10% 128.944 12.894 153.504 15.35 70.937 0.02 1.442 94.935

LO 10% 0.92 0.092 1 0.1 15.8 -1.75 3.1 0.01

LO 10% 0.92 0.092 1 0.1 15.8 -1.25 3.1 0.01

TOTAL 10% 1.84 0.184 2 0.2 15.8 -1.5 3.1 0.019

FW SB 10% 11.511 1.151 11.511 1.151 13.528 4.835 1.474 0.953

FW PS 10% 11.511 1.151 11.511 1.151 13.528 -4.835 1.474 0.953

TOTAL 10% 23.023 2.302 23.023 2.302 13.528 0 1.474 1.906

SEWAGE PS 100% 5.711 5.711 5.711 5.711 7.699 -3.257 2.415 0

SEWAGE SB 100% 5.711 5.711 5.711 5.711 7.699 3.257 2.415 0

TOTAL 100% 11.423 11.423 11.423 11.423 7.699 0 2.415 0

CARGO 0% 2440.451 0 3754.54 0 17.019 0 1 0

TOTAL 0% 2440.451 0 3754.54 0 0 0 0 0

B.AFT PEAK 100% 27.635 27.635 27.635 27.635 2.143 0 4.171 0

B.FRONT PEAK 100% 98.125 98.125 98.125 98.125 77.781 0 3.735 0

B.DEEP TANK PS 100% 24.352 24.352 24.352 24.352 75.352 -3.379 3.891 0

B.DEEP TANK SB 100% 24.352 24.352 24.352 24.352 75.352 3.379 3.891 0

B.MDO bottom 100% 19.832 19.832 19.832 19.832 73.142 0 0.537 0

B.MDO 100% 47.862 47.862 47.862 47.862 73.193 0 5.145 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 A 100% 23.099 23.099 23.099 23.099 20.15 -1.5 0.5 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 A 100% 16.127 16.127 16.127 16.127 20.267 -4.072 0.525 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 A 100% 2.611 2.611 2.611 2.611 21.299 -5.523 0.677 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 A 100% 23.099 23.099 23.099 23.099 20.15 1.5 0.5 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 A 100% 16.127 16.127 16.127 16.127 20.267 4.072 0.525 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 A 100% 2.611 2.611 2.611 2.611 21.299 5.523 0.677 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 B 100% 36 36 36 36 30 -1.5 0.5 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 B 100% 26.615 26.615 26.615 26.615 30.007 -4.111 0.503 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 B 100% 8.725 8.725 8.725 8.725 30.25 -5.639 0.584 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 B 100% 36 36 36 36 30 1.5 0.5 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 B 100% 26.615 26.615 26.615 26.615 30.007 4.111 0.503 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 B 100% 8.725 8.725 8.725 8.725 30.25 5.639 0.584 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 C 100% 36 36 36 36 42 -1.5 0.5 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 C 100% 26.677 26.677 26.677 26.677 42 -4.113 0.502 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 C 100% 9.532 9.532 9.532 9.532 42.003 -5.662 0.568 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 C 100% 36 36 36 36 42 1.5 0.5 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 C 100% 26.677 26.677 26.677 26.677 42 4.113 0.502 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 C 100% 9.532 9.532 9.532 9.532 42.003 5.662 0.568 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 D 0% 36 0 36 0 48.068 -0.998 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 D 0% 26.672 0 26.672 0 48.068 -2.159 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 D 0% 9.499 0 9.499 0 48.078 -5.183 0.027 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 D 0% 36 0 36 0 48.068 0.998 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 D 0% 26.672 0 26.672 0 48.068 2.159 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 D 0% 9.499 0 9.499 0 48.078 5.183 0.027 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 E 100% 35.999 35.999 35.999 35.999 66 -1.5 0.5 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 E 100% 25.937 25.937 25.937 25.937 65.871 -4.093 0.512 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 E 100% 6.418 6.418 6.418 6.418 64.428 -5.605 0.6 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 E 100% 35.999 35.999 35.999 35.999 66 1.5 0.5 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 E 100% 25.937 25.937 25.937 25.937 65.871 4.093 0.512 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 E 100% 6.418 6.418 6.418 6.418 64.428 5.605 0.6 0

B.SIDE PS A 100% 50.731 50.731 50.731 50.731 20.017 5.67 4.359 0

B.SIDE SB A 100% 50.73 50.73 50.73 50.73 20.017 -5.67 4.359 0

B.SIDE PS B 100% 77.932 77.932 77.932 77.932 30.009 5.732 4.268 0

B.SIDE SB B 100% 77.932 77.932 77.932 77.932 30.009 -5.732 4.268 0

B.SIDE PS C 0% 78.161 0 78.161 0 36.068 3.81 1 0

B.SIDE SB C 0% 78.161 0 78.161 0 36.068 -3.81 1 0

B.SIDE PS D 0% 78.312 0 78.312 0 48.068 3.811 1 0

B.SIDE SB D 0% 78.312 0 78.312 0 48.068 -3.811 1 0

B.SIDE PS E 100% 80.333 80.333 80.333 80.333 66.197 5.563 4.309 0

B.SIDE SB E 100% 80.333 80.333 80.333 80.333 66.197 -5.563 4.309 0

TOTAL 71.86% 1624.919 1167.632 1624.919 1167.632 46.848 0 2.559 0

Total Loadcase 2241.591 5569.409 1196.907 40.573 0 3.362 96.86

FS correction 0.043

VCG fluid 3.406

LOAD CONDITION


Displacement t 2242


Heel deg 0

Draft at FP m 2.338

Draft at AP m 3.228



WL Length m 78.783










KB m 1.451

KG fluid m 3.406

BMt m 4.66

BML m 169.35


GML m 167.4

KMt m 6.11

KML m 170.79


MTc tonne.m 46.675




Equilibrium Results


3.1513 22.514 614

5.1566 39.501 666.03

1.7189 16.988 888.28

0.2 1.919 859

25 48.2 92.7

0.15 2.705 1703

10 0 100

10 0 100

16 0.8 94.89

80 2.12 97.35

100 350.15 250

Criteria













37

Half tanks condition (Saimaa canal)

Table 34. Half tanks (Saimaa canal) condition and equilibrium results

Table 35. Half tanks (Saimaa canal) IMO criteria check


Steel 1 686 686 38 0 3.58 0

Equipment 1 175.156 175.156 40 0 7.5 0


E.Room 1 138 138 12 0 2.5 0

TOTAL 1047.156 33.625 0 4.296 0

MDO 50% 123.904 61.952 147.504 73.752 73.181 0 2.873 93.045

MDO DAYLY 100% 5.04 5.04 6 6 15.8 0.5 4 0

TOTAL 51.95% 128.944 66.992 153.504 79.752 68.864 0.038 2.958 93.045

SEWAGE PS 50% 5.711 2.856 5.711 2.856 7.943 -3.122 2.062 2.447

SEWAGE SB 50% 5.711 2.856 5.711 2.856 7.943 3.122 2.062 2.447

TOTAL 50% 11.423 5.711 11.423 5.711 7.943 0 2.062 4.895

LO 50% 0.92 0.46 1 0.5 15.8 -1.75 3.5 0.01

LO 50% 0.92 0.46 1 0.5 15.8 -1.25 3.5 0.01

TOTAL 50% 1.84 0.92 2 1 15.8 -1.5 3.5 0.019

FW SB 50% 11.511 5.756 11.511 5.756 13.437 5.072 2.426 0.953

FW PS 50% 11.511 5.756 11.511 5.756 13.437 -5.072 2.426 0.953

TOTAL 50% 23.023 11.511 23.023 11.511 13.437 0 2.426 1.906

CARGO 100% 2440.451 2440.451 3754.54 3754.54 44.027 0 4.25 0

TOTAL 100% 2440.451 2440.451 3754.54 3754.54 44.027 0 4.25 0

B.AFT PEAK 0% 27.635 0 27.635 0 0 0 2.5 0

B.FRONT PEAK 0% 98.125 0 98.125 0 76.603 0 0.031 0

B.DEEP TANK PS 0% 24.352 0 24.352 0 75.313 -3.052 1.5 0

B.DEEP TANK SB 0% 24.352 0 24.352 0 75.313 3.052 1.5 0

B.MDO bottom 0% 19.832 0 19.832 0 73.007 0 0 0

B.MDO 100% 47.862 47.862 47.862 47.862 73.193 0 5.145 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 A 0% 23.099 0 23.099 0 20.32 -1.416 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 A 0% 16.127 0 16.127 0 22.599 -3.078 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 A 0% 2.611 0 2.611 0 23.956 -3.488 0.071 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 A 0% 23.099 0 23.099 0 20.32 1.416 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 A 0% 16.127 0 16.127 0 22.599 3.078 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 A 0% 2.611 0 2.611 0 23.956 3.488 0.071 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 B 0% 36 0 36 0 30 -1.5 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 B 0% 26.615 0 26.615 0 30.4 -3.208 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 B 0% 8.725 0 8.725 0 35.78 -4.494 0.027 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 B 0% 36 0 36 0 30 1.5 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 B 0% 26.615 0 26.615 0 30.4 3.208 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 B 0% 8.725 0 8.725 0 35.78 4.494 0.027 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 C 0% 36 0 36 0 41.996 -1.498 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 C 0% 26.677 0 26.677 0 42.029 -3.237 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 C 0% 9.532 0 9.532 0 39.985 -4.364 0.026 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 C 0% 36 0 36 0 41.996 1.498 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 C 0% 26.677 0 26.677 0 42.029 3.237 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 C 0% 9.532 0 9.532 0 39.985 4.364 0.026 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 D 0% 36 0 36 0 54.002 -1.499 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 D 0% 26.672 0 26.672 0 53.937 -3.232 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 D 0% 9.499 0 9.499 0 48.935 -4.979 0.027 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 D 0% 36 0 36 0 54.002 1.499 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 D 0% 26.672 0 26.672 0 53.937 3.232 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 D 0% 9.499 0 9.499 0 48.935 4.979 0.027 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 E 0% 35.999 0 35.999 0 65.819 -1.454 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 E 0% 25.937 0 25.937 0 63.789 -3.198 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 E 0% 6.418 0 6.418 0 60.23 -4.446 0.029 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 E 0% 35.999 0 35.999 0 65.819 1.454 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 E 0% 25.937 0 25.937 0 63.789 3.198 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 E 0% 6.418 0 6.418 0 60.23 4.446 0.029 0

B.SIDE PS A 0% 50.731 0 50.731 0 20.412 5.535 1 0

B.SIDE SB A 0% 50.73 0 50.73 0 20.412 -5.535 1 0

B.SIDE PS B 0% 77.932 0 77.932 0 30.093 5.702 1 0

B.SIDE SB B 0% 77.932 0 77.932 0 30.093 -5.702 1 0

B.SIDE PS C 0% 78.161 0 78.161 0 42.001 5.717 1 0

B.SIDE SB C 0% 78.161 0 78.161 0 42.001 -5.717 1 0

B.SIDE PS D 0% 78.312 0 78.312 0 53.997 5.716 1 0

B.SIDE SB D 0% 78.312 0 78.312 0 53.997 -5.716 1 0

B.SIDE PS E 0% 80.333 0 80.333 0 65.904 5.522 1 0

B.SIDE SB E 0% 80.333 0 80.333 0 65.904 -5.522 1 0

TOTAL 2.95% 1624.919 47.862 1624.919 47.862 73.193 0 5.145 0

Total Loadcase 5169.415 5569.409 4146.98 41.357 0 4.207 4.895

FS correction 0.001

VCG fluid 4.208

LOAD CONDITION


Displacement t 3621


Heel deg 0

Draft at FP m 4.274

Draft at AP m 4.343



WL Length m 80.872










KB m 2.243

KG fluid m 4.269

BMt m 3.036

BML m 117.22


GML m 115.19

KMt m 5.279

KML m 119.46


MTc tonne.m 51.871




Equilibrium Results


3.1513 8.2244 160.9

5.1566 12.236 137.3

1.7189 4.0125 133.4

0.2 0.423 111.5

25 26.4 5.46

0.15 1.122 648

10 0 100

10 0 100

16 0.3 97.82

80 7.18 91.03

100 243.37 143.3

Criteria













38

Full load outside of Saimaa

Table 36.Full Load outside of Saimaa condition and equilibrium results

Table 37. Full Load outside of Saimaa IMO criteria check


Steel 1 686 686 38 0 3.58 0

Equipment 1 175.156 175.156 40 0 7.5 0


E.Room 1 138 138 12 0 2.5 0

TOTAL 1047.156 33.625 0 4.296 0

MDO 100% 123.904 123.904 147.504 147.504 73.182 0 4.746 0

MDO DAYLY 100% 5.04 5.04 6 6 15.8 0.5 4 0

TOTAL 100% 128.944 128.944 153.504 153.504 70.939 0.02 4.717 0

LO 100% 0.92 0.92 1 1 15.8 -1.75 4 0

LO 100% 0.92 0.92 1 1 15.8 -1.25 4 0

TOTAL 100% 1.84 1.84 2 2 15.8 -1.5 4 0

FW SB 100% 11.511 11.511 11.511 11.511 13.41 5.182 3.322 0

FW PS 100% 11.511 11.511 11.511 11.511 13.41 -5.182 3.322 0

TOTAL 100% 23.023 23.023 23.023 23.023 13.41 0 3.322 0

SEWAGE PS 10% 5.711 0.571 5.711 0.571 8.361 -2.888 1.52 2.447

SEWAGE SB 10% 5.711 0.571 5.711 0.571 8.361 2.888 1.52 2.447

TOTAL 10% 11.423 1.142 11.423 1.142 8.361 0 1.52 4.895

CARGO 100% 3754.54 3754.54 3754.54 3754.54 44.027 0 4.25 0

TOTAL 100% 3754.54 3754.54 3754.54 3754.54 44.027 0 4.25 0

B.AFT PEAK 100% 27.635 27.635 27.635 27.635 2.136 0 4.169 0

B.FRONT PEAK 0% 98.125 0 98.125 0 76.603 0 0.031 0

B.DEEP TANK PS 0% 24.352 0 24.352 0 76.356 -2.247 1.5 0

B.DEEP TANK SB 0% 24.352 0 24.352 0 76.356 2.247 1.5 0

B.MDO bottom 0% 19.832 0 19.832 0 74.35 0 0 0

B.MDO 0% 47.862 0 47.862 0 74.348 0 1 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 A 100% 23.099 23.099 23.099 23.099 20.15 -1.5 0.5 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 A 100% 16.127 16.127 16.127 16.127 20.267 -4.072 0.525 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 A 100% 2.611 2.611 2.611 2.611 21.299 -5.523 0.677 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 A 100% 23.099 23.099 23.099 23.099 20.15 1.5 0.5 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 A 100% 16.127 16.127 16.127 16.127 20.267 4.072 0.525 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 A 100% 2.611 2.611 2.611 2.611 21.299 5.523 0.677 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 B 0% 36 0 36 0 35.932 -1 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 B 0% 26.615 0 26.615 0 35.932 -2.156 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 B 0% 8.725 0 8.725 0 35.932 -3.489 0.027 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 B 0% 36 0 36 0 35.932 1 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 B 0% 26.615 0 26.615 0 35.932 2.156 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 B 0% 8.725 0 8.725 0 35.932 3.489 0.027 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 C 0% 36 0 36 0 47.932 -0.998 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 C 0% 26.677 0 26.677 0 47.932 -2.159 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 C 0% 9.532 0 9.532 0 47.932 -3.489 0.026 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 C 0% 36 0 36 0 47.932 0.998 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 C 0% 26.677 0 26.677 0 47.932 2.159 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 C 0% 9.532 0 9.532 0 47.932 3.489 0.026 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 D 0% 36 0 36 0 59.932 -1 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 D 0% 26.672 0 26.672 0 59.932 -2.151 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 D 0% 9.499 0 9.499 0 59.844 -4.804 0.027 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 D 0% 36 0 36 0 59.932 1 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 D 0% 26.672 0 26.672 0 59.932 2.151 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 D 0% 9.499 0 9.499 0 59.844 4.804 0.027 0

B.BOTTOM PS 1 E 0% 35.999 0 35.999 0 71.932 -0.744 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 2 E 0% 25.937 0 25.937 0 70.414 -2.5 0 0

B.BOTTOM PS 3 E 0% 6.418 0 6.418 0 61.827 -4.254 0.029 0

B.BOTTOM SB 1 E 0% 35.999 0 35.999 0 71.932 0.744 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 2 E 0% 25.937 0 25.937 0 70.414 2.5 0 0

B.BOTTOM SB 3 E 0% 6.418 0 6.418 0 61.827 4.254 0.029 0

B.SIDE PS A 100% 50.731 50.731 50.731 50.731 20.017 5.67 4.359 0

B.SIDE SB A 100% 50.73 50.73 50.73 50.73 20.017 -5.67 4.359 0

B.SIDE PS B 0% 77.932 0 77.932 0 35.932 3.81 1 0

B.SIDE SB B 0% 77.932 0 77.932 0 35.932 -3.81 1 0

B.SIDE PS C 0% 78.161 0 78.161 0 47.932 3.811 1 0

B.SIDE SB C 0% 78.161 0 78.161 0 47.932 -3.811 1 0

B.SIDE PS D 0% 78.312 0 78.312 0 59.932 3.81 1 0

B.SIDE SB D 0% 78.312 0 78.312 0 59.932 -3.81 1 0

B.SIDE PS E 0% 80.333 0 80.333 0 71.931 3.168 1 0

B.SIDE SB E 0% 80.333 0 80.333 0 71.931 -3.168 1 0

TOTAL 13.09% 1624.919 212.771 1624.919 212.771 17.793 0 2.825 0

Total Loadcase 5036.683 5569.409 4164.43 41.239 0 4.194 4.895

FS correction 0.001

VCG fluid 4.195

LOAD CONDITION


Displacement t 5169


Heel deg 0

Draft at FP m 5.871

Draft at AP m 5.791

Draft at LCF m 5.83

Trim (+ve by stern) m -0.08

WL Length m 82.105










KB m 3.042

KG fluid m 4.208

BMt m 2.275

BML m 92.438


GML m 91.271

KMt m 5.317

KML m 95.48


MTc tonne.m 58.679



Trim angle (+ve by stern) deg -0.0573

Equilibrium Results


3.1513 9.4187 198.8

5.1566 17.645 242.1

1.7189 8.2263 378.5

0.2 0.89 345

25 41.8 67.27

0.15 1.01 573.3

10 0 99.82

10 0 99.82

16 0.9 94.09

80 3.47 95.66

100 397.84 297.8




Criteria










39

3.COSTS ANALYSIS

The costs analysis will be divided into two parts:

• Increment in cost due to higher ice classes. When considering the feasibility of a vessel shipping

in ice-covered waters, there are many factors to take into account. The purpose of this point is

to study the increment of the main three cost of a vessel (capital, voyage and operational).

Because it is very difficult to find some cost values, the possible causes of this rise in price will

be explained.

• Development of a cost analysis tool. The objective is to study the differences regarding the cost

of the vessel designed within the ice class (for the ice classed considered IC, IB, IA and IA

super).

3.1. Voyage, CAPEX and OPEX

3.1.1. Voyage costs

Fuel consumption and type

Fuel expenses are usually the main variable term of the voyage costs. Prices depend on factors like

market, place of bunkering, quality.

The two grades of fuels more used are marine diesel oil (MDO) or intermediate fuel oil (IFO). In the case

of our vessel, it will be operating mainly on the Baltic sea region, meaning an Emission Control Areas

(ECAs). Therefore, the use of IFO fuels is forbidden.

The majority of ships operating in ice-covered water or artic routes uses MDO like the primary fuel

because it´s cheaper and there is not a significant energy demand for heating the fuel (to obtain the

adequate viscosity). In more severe ice conditions, vessels burn naval distillate fuel, like for example

the Canadian Coast Guard which uses P50(NATO code F75) or the naval feel operating in arctic regions

with a P60 fuel. Distillate fuels have a lower freezing point, but the prices per ton are high (around 35%

more) [16].

An alternative solution to reduce fuel consumptions could be to design ships with hybrid propulsion like

the 3800 TDW SAIMAX HYBRID MULTI PURPOSE VESSEL developed by Groot Ship Design.

Our vessel will operate with MDO which a price of 650€ per ton (bunkerindex.com price for October

2018).

40

Insurance

Another significant rise in expenses is due to the risk of operating in ice waters. Icy waters can cause

more problems in the vessel and crew integrity than in open waters, so the insurances are more

expensive for this case.

Insurance premiums for the ice class ship are influenced by many factors that can be:

• The crew experienced in ice waters

• Availability of icebreakers on the route

• Distance to the ports in case of an emergency

• Ice class

• Weather conditions (prevalence of ice and fog on the route considered)

• Experience of the company in ice waters. Meaning that new players in ice-covered waters, need

to pay a 75% more than shipping companies which have been sailing in the conditions

considered.

There are a lot of studies and models about the viability to operate in the Northern Sea Route. Some

authors mention a cargo insurance premium over 50% of the regular fees, others that global insurance

cost may be between 75% and more than 100 %. Regarding P&I (insurance protection that covers the

third-party liabilities during the commercial operation of the vessel), premiums vary from

16.7%,25%,50%,100%. On the case of H&M (insurance protection for the damage of the ship and the

equipment inside of it), the cost increment could be 25%,50% or even 100%(all these percentages are

based on estimations and studies of different authors) [18] [19].

In conclusion, the degree of uncertainty of the models underlines the difficulty of establishing an

increment in the price of the insurance within the ice class.

Ports of call

In the Saimaa area, there are some public and private ports. The last ones are created by companies

(mining, paper industry) to ship their products. To find information about handling equipment and tariffs

can be complicated.

Anyway, there is not a difference in port prices for ice-classed vessels.

Canal tolls and transit tariffs

Finnish waterway association establish a price to cross the Saimaa canal depending on the ice class

[20]. Higher ice classes have reduced tariffs because there is less risk of icebreaker assistance. The

next table shows these differences:

Saimaa canal dues per NT(€)

Open water 4

IC/IB 2.578

IA 1.09

IA SUPER 0.47 Table 38.Canal dues for the different ice classes

41

Pilotage and assistance

Along the Saimaa canal, the use of a pilot is compulsory during the full trip. The fees for Saimaa pilotage

have been reduced thanks to the EU-approved State support. Nowadays, tariffs are 67% cheaper than

before.

3.1.2. Capital costs

Like the insurance, estimations for the increased capital costs when building an Ice classed ship, vary

widely with the different authors [19] as can be seen on the next table:

Author(s) Ice class Capital cost

increment

Griffith2005,Mejlaender Larsen,2009,Wergeland

2013 “Ice class” +10 to 35%

Liu & Kronbak,2010 IB +20%

Mulherin et al.1996,Kamesaki,1999,Kitagawa 2001 IA +20 to 36%

Mulherin et al.1996, Schoyen & Brathen,2011 IA Super +1 to 20%

Table 39. Capital costs increment within ice class

To have a better understanding of ice-class ships respect to an open water vessel. The main changes

to accomplish an ice-class will be analysed. For this analysis, the hull, structure, power and propulsion,

and equipment will be focused.

Ice class hull

The design of shape for an icebreaking/ice class ship is a compromise between open water and ice

performance. The bow form to break level ice effectively should promote flexural failure instead of

crushing, meaning shallow flare buttocks and stem angles.

Depending on the ice class and the mission of the vessel, the selection of open water or icebreaking

shape needs to be studied. Icebreaker hulls increase the resistance and decrease the seakeeping when

sailing through open waters.

Figure 23.Open water and IA variant hull for an OPV vessel[20].

42

Regarding vessels operating in Saimaa, most of them have an ice-class IB or IA. It is logical because

there is ice presence in the canal around 5 to 6 months per year (and two of this months the canal is

close). So it is not a good option to create a vessel with icebreaking capabilities when half of the year

there is no ice on the area.

Structure

Ice sheets and lumps generate compressive pressures and contact loads, so the hull of an ice-class

vessel should be strengthened. To withstand these loads, an ice belt on the side shell is created. The

extent of this belt depends on the on the lower and upper ice waterline and the ice class of the ship.

Therefore, the decks will need to support and icing load of about (1 kN/m2).

The first step is to define our upper and lower ice waterline (UIWL-LIWL). According to the Finnish-

Swedish ice class rules [22], they will correspond to the maximum and minimum draught that the vessel

is intended to operate in ice like it is shown on the next picture:

Figure 24.Lower and upper ice waterlines

To define the ice belt, the Finnish-Swedish ice class rules, divide the hull into regions (bow midship and

stern). The ice class of the vessel is proportional to the extension of the ice belt. On the next picture, it

can be seen the three different regions:

Figure 25. Ice-strengthened regions of the hull.

It wasn´t considered the upper bow ice belt because it is only mandatory when the speed of the vessel

in open water is more significant than 16(knots). On the case of the forefoot, it is only necessary for the

ice class IA Super.

The process to calculate the increment in weight due to the ice belt is done by using the program

Rhinoceros. With this software, will be defined the different ice belts for the ice classed considered.

After, it be will calculate the different ice pressures and the corresponding scantlings (using the formulas

given by Finnish-Swedish ice class rules). By offsetting the different thickness, it is seen an estimation

43

of the volume of the ice belt. Subtracting this volume to the one for the open water vessel, the added

weight of steel is obtained.

This process even being simple and effective, doesn’t consider the reinforced of the stiffeners, frames.

To take into account these elements, it will be introduced a certain margin on the added weight. This is

not the best solution but for this thesis will be enough.

So the ice belts for the different ice classes look like:

Figure 26. Ice belts for the different ice classed considered

For the calculation of the ice belt, it has been considered two types of structures (longitudinal and

transversal) and two kinds of steel (regular and high strength). The results can be seen on the next

table:

Table 40.Ice belt scantling and added weights

Bow Midbody Stern Bow Midbody Stern

IA SUPER 1.5 1.1 0.9 5.1 15.7 3.5

IA 1.4 0.9 0.8 2.9 13.2 3.0

IB 1.3 0.7 0.6 2.6 11.9 2.6

IC 1.3 0.5 0.3 2.6 11.9 2.6

Bow Midbody Stern Bow Midbody Stern Bow Midbody Stern Bow Midbody Stern

IA SUPER 29 24 23 25 24 23 21 18 17 18 15 15

IA 26 21 20 23 21 20 19 15 15 17 13 13

IB 24 18 16 21 18 16 18 13 12 15 11 10

IC 23 15 12 20 15 12 17 11 10 14 10 10

IA SUPER

IA

IB

IC 10.0 9.2 3.1 1.1

36.2 34.2 20.6 13.6

22.1 21.3 10.7 6.9

14.9 14.1 6.3 2.6

Total Added Weight(tn) Total Added Weight(tn) Total Added Weight(tn) Total Added Weight(tn)

Ice Load (MPa)

Plate Thickness(mm) Normal Steel

Longitudinal Framing

Plate Thickness(mm) High Grade Steel

Longitudinal Framing

Plate Thickness(mm) Normal Steel

Transverse Framing

Plate Thickness(mm) High Grade

Steel Transverse Framing

Open Water Weight(tn)(t=10mm)

44

Power and propulsion

The power required for ships in icy waters can be obtained using the formulas given by the Finish-

Swedish ice formulas or in ice model laboratory.

Figure 27.Aker Arctic ice tank 1/03/2018

For this thesis, Aker Arctic provided data about the increment in power. Apart from the engine power, it

will be analysed how the settling capacity is incremented as well as the added weights (engine and

propulsion equipment). Ice class IC is not considered, because it requires the same power than the

open water vessel. The results can be seen on the next table:

Table 41. Increments in power, settling capacity, consumption and additional weight.

In the case of the class 1C, the installed power is enough for the vessel, conversely for 1B and 1A class

the power required an increase in 38% and 100% respectively. In the case of 1A Super, it is necessary

to modify the hull with better icebreaking capabilities (due to an increment of 380 % in the required

power).

Propellers for ice waters differs from the conventional one, to resist the ice milling (large ice blocks

trapped between hull and propeller) and ice impact (small-size pieces that are accelerated through a

propeller or thrown out radially and pushed around the edge of the propeller disk). The last ones are

less strong but occurs more frequently). All these loads result in propellers with thick blade sections,

high strength materials, larger blades areas or hubs (and little or no rake). These features increment the

cost of the propulsion.

Open water 1B 1A 1A Super

Required power(including PTO)(kW) 1050 1371 1863 3396

Engine model W6L20 W8L20 MAN6L27 W12V26

Installed power(kW) 1200 1600 2190 4080

Consumption(kg/h)(margin of 5%) 243 324 444 827

Weight of the engine(tn) 9 11 29 32

Weight of the propulsion equipment(tn) 84 106 131 199

Required settling capacity(m3) 152 204 279 520

Increment in consumption(%) 33 183 340

Increment in weight of the engine(%) 18 212 243

Increment in weight of the propulsion equipment(%) 26 156 237

Increment in Settling capacity(%) 34 184 342

Additional weight(tn)(engine+settling+propulsion equipment)(%) 45 126 331

45

The election between controllable pitch propellers (CPP) or fixed propellers (FPP) depends mainly on

the kind of propulsion, being the first one used for diesel geared and the second one for diesel-electric

propulsion. Even though CPP are more expensive, they have some advantages when operating in

frozen seas like a wide range of operation with different cargo conditions, elimination of shaft reversals

(avoiding ice damaged when starting or stopping) and the easier start of rotation in ice conditions

(neutral zero pitch position) [22].

Another cause of increment in cost due to the propeller is the material used for the construction,

propulsions for ice used to be built with CuNiAl-Bronze alloys (for moderate ice conditions) and stainless

steel (for massive ice operations). Apart from the related cost, there is an increment in the weight of the

propeller from 20-25%(IC) to 250% (IA super).

Shafting and gearing need to be projected to withstand torque variations produced by ice hitting the

propeller. For this purpose, the shaft and the gearbox are reinforced, meaning an increment in weight.

The additional weight varies from a 20% (ice class IC) to 400% (ice class IA super).

Equipment

Ice classed ship will operate in low-temperature environments, so the equipment needs to be adapted

for this operating conditions (to ensure the safety of the vessel). Also, additional equipment will be

installed to prevent the ice accumulation on the decks, tanks or pipes. As a result, the construction and

equipment prices will be higher, incrementing the capital costs.

The primary systems used on ice class vessels are:

• Coatings. Ice class paints are impact and abrasion resistance, adhesion and low friction

property and superior anti-corrosive protection (with labyrinth effect by glass flake). Producers

of paints recommend the next type and thickness for ice class vessels:

Ice class Type DFT(microns)

IA Super 1 st coat Vinyl Ester Primer 50

2 nd coat Vinyl Ester Glass Flake

Paint 450

IA IB 1 st coat Epoxy Paint 100

2 nd coat Epoxy Glass Flake Paint 400 Table 42.Coatings for ice-classed vessels

• Sea inlets for cooling water systems. They need to ensure that the suction pipe/sea chest

will never get blocked by an ice block. To avoid this problem a wide range of solutions is

available like heating coils, circulating of ballast water, air bubbling system. Having enough

height between the ice and the suction line will prevent the entrance of ice block on the pipe.

• Emergency appliances. Life rafts must ensure operation in the lowest temperature considered

and need to be protected from icing (to be all the time in an operative condition). Immersion

suits will be fit for the environment and should be stored in heated spaces.

46

• Winterization. A vessel designed for Baltic trade does not require much individual since It is

already projected for the Baltic winters. Like an example, with or without ice class, the air

conditioning and heating systems will be designed to operate in -25/-30ºC although there might

be some simple heating measure for keeping the space ways clear of ice.

• Navigation. The vessel will be equipped with an ice radar and heating on the bridge windows.

• Tanks. All the tanks above the waterline must have anti-freezing devices.

• General arrangement. This vessel will navigate in extreme darkness and extremely cold

temperatures. To avoid problems, they have some unique features line more interior access

ways, extra insulation and lighting. In some cases, they can also close some spaces like a bow

and stern mooring systems to facilitate the operation of the crew.

3.1.3 Operational costs

On vessel operating in low-temperature environments, the increment in cost is mainly due to the crew

(able to operate in ice waters) and the maintenance (risk of accidental damage is larger than in open

water).

Maintenance

Diverse studies have analysed the risk associated with ice damage of ships travelling in the Baltic region.

The three most common are hull ice damage, collisions and propeller damage. The first one is mainly

due to ice scratching paint, with a small percentage of incidents involving frame damages or ruptures.

Collisions occur when the icebreaker is escorting the ship, this situation is even worst on the case of

Saimaa canal due to the small manoeuvring space. The causes of ice damage on the propeller were

explained on the capital cost. All of these damages involve a higher rate of maintenance than for ice-

free waters.

Like an example. shipping companies in the Northern Sea Route reported that ice damage was incurred

on more than 30% of the vessels.

Crew

For all vessels sailing in ice waters, the master, chief mate and officers in charge of a navigational watch

requires an ice training or course. There are two types of training: advance training (ice concentration

bigger than 10%) or basic training (for concentrations smaller than 10%) in this case the training is only

mandatory for the master and chief mate of tankers and passenger ships.

Ice concentration in Saimaa (during winter) is always bigger than 10%.

3.2 Cost Model

This part of the thesis will give values about the feasibility of shipping in the Saimaa canal. On this thesis

it will be only analysed a cost model for Saimaa, meaning that there will be a minimum of two months

(closed period of the canal) that won´t take into account. During this period the vessel can operate in

other areas increasing the economic efficiency of the ship.

47

The first step is to define a voyage. A little research was done, finding that there is a potential market of

crushed stone from Kuopio port to Saint-Petersburg [24]. However, it´s needed to find a both-way

voyage because the trip Saint-Petersburg -Kuopio is not a long trip and it will decrease the economic

efficiency of the ship.

Like a solution, timber or pulpwood can be transported from Saint-Petersburg to the papers factories of

Varkaus, making the trip more efficient from the economical point of view.

On the picture below, it can be seen the route of the ship. Distances and cargos are also represented

on the right part of the image.

Figure 28.Voyage defined (distances and cargo)

48

The trip will have two different speeds, 11(knots) when the ship is loaded and 11.5(knots) in ballast

condition.

In the route created there are ten locks (8 from St. Petersburg to Varkaus and two more before arriving

at Kuopio. Locks increase the time of the trip; in our case, it has been assumed that it will lose a little bit

more than an hour in each lock.

On the case of the time spent in port in Saimaa canal, the traffic is not high so that it will assume 6 hours

for the ports of this area. Conversely, St. Petersburg used to be a congested port, so an average of 24

hours will be used in this case.

In conclusion, the total time for a round trip, taking into account all the times described above is listed

on the next table:

TRIP

Sailing time Time in locks Time in port Total time

St. Petersburg-Varkaus 24 h 11h 12min 6 h 41 h 12 min

Varkaus-Koupio 4 h 2 h 48 min 6 h 12 h 48 min

Koupiu-St.Petesburg 28 h 14 h 24 h 66 h

Total time for a round trip h 120

days 5 Table 43.Voyage times

Even knowing that Saimaa canal is closed two months per year (usually February and mid-January and

March), there is a period before and after this two month that the canal could be navigable only for the

higher ice classes. In other words, vessels with non or smaller ice class cannot operate the maximum

days available. It will be established that the classed IA Super/IA will operate 305 days, IC/IB 285 days

and 260 for the open water vessel.

It is essential to know the number of a round trip for all the classes considered. For the open water

vessel, it will be able to complete 52 round trips, IC/IB 57 and IA/IA Super 61.

The next pages will outline the different values and formulas used to develop the cost model.

3.2.1 Capital cost model

Hull steel cost

Considering that the ice class IC/IB will have a longitudinal structure and the IA/IA Super transverse

structure. To take into account the increment in the bulb and other secondary structural elements some

margins will be applied. The formula used to calculate this cost (for a coaster ship) is [24]:

𝐶𝐻 = 2925 ∗ 𝑊𝑆0.8815 ∗ 𝐶𝐵

−0.2285

49

Moreover, the results:

Ship Margin applied (%) Steel weight

(tones) Hull steel price

Open water 0 686 965 155 €

IC 2 700 982 497 €

IB 5 736 1 026 967 €

IA 10 766 1 063 225 €

IA SUPER 20 848 1 163 353 € Table 44.Hull steel cost

Equipment cost

For the calculation of this cost, it will use a formula that is dependent on the weight of the equipment.

Determine the additional weight of the equipment within the different ice classed is a tough task, talking

with Aker experts, they said that the best way to do it is to apply a certain margin to take into account

this increment. The formula used for a coaster ship (considering an equipment weight of 223 tonnes):

𝐶𝐸 = 13588 ∗ 𝑊𝐸0.9313

The cost is shown on the table below:

Ship Margin applied (%) Equipment

price

Open water 0 1 893 031 €

IC 2.5 1 940 357 €

IB 5 1 987 683 €

IA 10 2 082 334 €

IA SUPER 20 2 271 638 € Table 45.Equipment cost

Machinery costs

Here is where the big difference in prices can be seen due to the significant increment in power with the

ice class. The power of the auxiliary engines will be incremented according to the ice class, to obtain

this raise, the recommendations given by Aker have been followed (also taking a look to similar vessels).

Using the next equation, this price can be calculated:

𝐶𝑀 = 12507 ∗ 𝑃𝑀𝐶𝑅0.9313

The data obtained is shown on the next table:

Ship Main engine power

(kW) Aux power

(kW) Machinery

price

Open water 1200 118 2 115 523 €

IC 1200 118 2 115 523 €

IB 1600 125 2 439 619 €

IA 2190 140 2 888 000 €

IA SUPER 4080 160 4 023 975 € Table 46.Machinery costs

50

3.2.2 Operating cost model

Crew cost

A competent crew for operating in the ice covering waters is required, however nowadays this kind of

crew is highly demanded, and their wages are proportional to the experience in icy waters. For this

thesis, it will be hired a regular crew, and they will be formed with the advanced or basic ice training.

During the months that the crew is sailing in ice water, extra wages will be given (accounting for 260

days of navigation in open waters).

According to the Polar Code, advanced training in ice is necessary for the master and the chief mate

and necessary training to the officer and a member of the crew.

The next table shows the cost of the crew, training and the wages:

Wages per day Training per person

Ice No ice Basic 1 860 €

Master 200 € 180 € Advance 3 720 €

Chief mate 180 € 170 €

Officer 170 € 160 €

Chef 75 € 70 €

Crew members 70 € 65 €

Crew in ice Crew in O.Waters Training Total per

year

Open water 0.00 € 218 400 € 0 € 218 400 €

IC 22 625 € 218 400 € 11 160 € 252 185 €

IB 22 625 € 218 400€ 11 160€ 252 185 €

IA 72 400 € 218 400 € 11 160 € 301 960 €

IA SUPER 72 400 € 218 400 € 11 160 € 301 960€ Table 47.Crew costs

Supplies and Lube oil cost

The next formula gives a value, depending on the crew members, the power installed and the

dimensions of the ship:

𝐶𝑆𝑢𝑝 = 3500 ∗ 𝑁 + 4000 ∗ (𝐿𝐵𝑃 ∗ 𝐵 ∗ 𝐷)0.25 + 250 ∗ 𝑃𝑀𝐶𝑅0.7

Moreover, the results:

Ship Supplies/lube oil costs per year

Open water 111 933 €

IC 111 933 €

IB 121 436 €

IA 134 551 €

IA SUPER 173 713 € Table 48.Supplies and lube oil cost

51

Maintenance and repair cost

The maintenance is one of the costs that is inversely proportional to the ice class. Like it is logical ships

with higher classes will have less risk to be damaged by ice. Apart from the formula results, some

margins where applied. The expression used to depend on the initial cost of the ship and the power

installed:

𝐶𝑀𝑌𝑅 = 0.0035 ∗ 𝐶0 + 125 ∗ 𝑃𝑀𝐶𝑅0.6

It will be included the expenses due to docking the ship (distribuend annually). In this case, no margin

is going to be used. The equation used is the next one:

𝐶𝐷𝑂𝐶𝐾𝐼𝑁𝐺 = 0.004 ∗ 𝐶0

For the various ice classed considered the results are:

Ship Initial cost Margins Maintenance and repair

price per year Docking price

per year

Open water 4 973 710 € 0 41 899 € 19 894 €

IC 5 038 378 € 10 46 337€ 20 153 €

IB 5 454 269 € 5 50 749 € 21 817 €

IA 6 033 561 € 2.5 58 340 € 24 134 €

IA SUPER 7 458 967 € 0 79 737 € 29 835 € Table 49.Maintenance, repair costs and docking costs

Insurance cost

Like it was said before estimation of the cost of insurance when shipping in icy waters is difficult to

determine. So like it has been doing on the others parts a margin will be applied. The formula used

varies depending on the initial costs of the ship and the gross tonnage:

𝐶𝐼𝑁𝑆 = 0.01 ∗ 𝐶0 + 11.5 ∗ 𝐺𝑇

Ship Initial cost Margins Insurance cost per year

Open water 4 973 710 € 0 73 141 €

IC 5 038 378€ 10 81 166 €

IB 5 454 269 € 7.5 83 792 €

IA 6 033 561 € 2.5 85 833 €

IA SUPER 7 458 967 € 0 97 993 € Table 50.Insurance costs

Administration

In the absence of more data, a value of 70,000.00 € will be used for all the ship considered

52

3.2.3 Voyage cost model

Fuel

The fuel is one of the most significant components of the ship running cost. To simplify the thesis, the

consumption of the main engines will be only taken into account, because when sailing the ship will use

the PTO and the auxiliary engines will be used in harbour or manoeuvring condition (a tiny portion of

time). Having CPP propellers allows to run the engine in the best rates, so it is not necessary to calculate

the MCR of the engine for the different vessels.

It will multiply the consumption calculated on the analysis of costs by the time that the ship is sailing.

The next table shows the results:

MDO price per ton

650 € Total consumption in a year (tones) Fuel cost per year

Open water 707 459 950 €

IC 775 504 176 €

IB 1034 672 235 €

IA 1516 985 857 €

IA SUPER 2825 1 836 270 € Table 51.Fuel expenses

Port cost

Like it was said in Saimaa canal there are quays of public services and others created by the companies

or factories. It is challenging to find this data on the internet because Saimaa port is not widely used so

that it will assume a specific rate (smaller than in the case of St. Petersburg, because of the presence

of private ports). For St. Petersburg, the price of a complete operation in the port is 200€/GT (data

recollected for the official website of the port), and for Saimaa, we will assume 185€/GT.

Handling of cargo will be estimated in 2 €/tones for St. Petersburg and 1.5€/tones for Kuopio and

Varkaus. Even been said that the ports could be private the stowed can be operated by another company

or can be charged like a supplement of the factories for using their loading/discharging machines.

Apart from the cost related with the ports, where will show the final capacity of the different ice classes

accounting for the increments in weights obtained. The results are shown in the next table:

Handling cost

Ship Cargo

capacity (tones)

St. Petersburg

Koupio+Varkaus Port tariffs Total port cost per

year

Open water 2441 507 770€ 380 827 € 29 640 € 918 237 €

IC 2427 553 402€ 415 051 € 32 490 € 1 000 943 €

IB 2339 533 273€ 399 955 € 32 490 € 965 718 €

IA 2221 541 941 € 406 456 € 34 770€ 983 167 €

IA SUPER 1868 455 882 € 341 911 € 34 770 € 832 563 € Table 52.Port costs

Canal dues and pilotage

53

The pilotage in St. Petersburg is included in the price of the port operations. In Saimaa canal the pilotage

is compulsory during all the trip, the first 60 nm have a price of 834€ for a cargo capacity bigger than

2000 (tonnes), an additional fee is charged for each nautical mile over 60 nm (11€ per nm).

On the case of canal dues, higher ice classes have a discount. In the table below, it can be seen all

these values.

Ship Pilotage cost in Saimaa per year Saimaa canal dues per year

Open water 249 288€ 212 160 €

IC 273 258€ 149 884 €

IB 273 258 € 149 884€

IA 292 434 € 67 819 €

IA SUPER 292 434 € 29 243€

Table 53.Canal dues and pilotage costs

3.2.4 Profit model and influence of the EMMA project

Asking to the Finish administration and looking on the internet a value for the freight rate can be

obtained. For the route, Kuopio- St. Petersburg will be 11.2€/tones and for St. Petersburg-Varkaus.

10.8€/tones. In a round year of operation (excluding the months that the canal is close) the final values

of the cost and profit can be seen on the next table:

Table 54.Profit for around year of operation

Now it is time to see how the EMMA project will influence the revenue of the ships. The objective of this

project is to reduce in one month the time that the Saimaa canal is close and increase the maximum

cargo capacity to more than 3000 tonnes.

So, entering in Maxsurf again the new cargo capacity can be calculated with the draft of 4.45 m, as well

as modify the cost model to take into account the one more month of operation. The increment in the

operational time will influence the number of trips in a year for the ice classed considered, not for the

case of the open water vessel that still is not able to operate during that month (but the cargo capacity

will be increment). Another significant change will be the crew; they will have to work in an ice condition

one additional month. The results can be seen on the next table:

Ship Days of operation Round trips Profit Operating cost Voyage costs Revenue per year

Open water 260 52 2 792 735 € 535 268 € 1 839 636 € 417 831 €

IC 285 57 3 043 711 € 581 776 € 1 928 263 € 533 672 €

IB 285 57 2 933 004 € 599 981 € 2 061 097 € 271 927 €

IA 305 61 2 980 679 € 674 820 € 2 329 279 € -23 420 €

IA SUPER 305 61 2 507 352 € 753 240 € 2 990 512 € -1 236 400 €

54

Table 55.Profit for around year of operation with EMMA project

It can be seen that the EMMA project has a significant influence on the annual profit, making higher ice

classes more profitable.

3.2.5 Life cycle costs

On this part, the life cycle cost of operating the ship will be studied. It will be only analysed the ice

classes IC and IB. IA and IA supper shows a negative revenue per year, so it does not make too much

sense to study these classes. The tables of the life cycle cost can be seen on ANNEX III Some

assumptions were used for this study:

• It will assume a life of 25 years for both ships.

• No bank loan will be used, due to the small price of acquisition of the ship.

• The depreciation of the ship will be calculated for 24 years.

• The crew or manning will experiment an increment of 1% every year

• Periodic maintenance will be done every four years with an increment of 2% for the period

considered.

• The annual maintenance will increase over the years considered (a rate of 2%)

• The fuel of price will rise 1% every year

• All this analysis will be done assuming an off-hire period of 2 months (time that Saimaa canal is

close).

• A scrap price of 200€ per ton of lightweight.

Like a resume, on the next table, it can be seen the year of the amortisation and the accumulative cash

flow.

Amortisation in year Accumulative cash flow

IC 22 749 127 €

IB no amortization -7 542 341 € Table 56.Final lifecycle results

Ship Cargo capacity(tn) Days of operation Round trips Profit Operating cost Voyage costs Revenue per year

Open water 2511 260 52 2 872 815 € 535 268 € 1 865 116 € 472 431 €

IC 2497 315 63 3 461 122 € 608 926 € 2 093 597 € 758 599 €

IB 2409 315 63 3 338 761 € 627 131 € 2 240 413 € 471 218 €

IA 2291 335 67 3 377 041 € 711 020 € 2 512 638 € 153 383 €

IA SUPER 1938 335 67 2 857 157 € 789 440 € 3 242 704 € -1 174 988 €

55

4.CONCLUSIONS

The work presented in this thesis represents a real problem. With the future investment in waterways

by the European Union, the different shipper companies will need to think about changing to this mode

of transportation. However, a cost analysis should be done to maintain economic efficiency.

One of the disadvantages of doing a thesis in a remote place like it is the Saimaa area is the lack of

information. This thesis has much research behind, but even with it, the data available is not enough.

Another problem encounter is the difficulty of finding facts related to the increment in cost due to the ice

class. Most of the times manufacturers do not show their tariffs.

For the ice classed studied, it can be extracted some conclusions. The primary influence in the cost is

the fuel expenses, higher ice classes implies more power, meaning more significant values of

consumption. In the case of the ice classed IA and IA super it will be necessary to introduce changes in

the hull offset to make it more icebreaking capable, in this way the power needed will be smaller and

the economic efficiency of these two ice classes will be improved. However, these high class can obtain

a more significant freight rate when the conditions in Saimaa are more extreme and smaller ice classes

cannot operate.

The loss of cargo capacity is proportional to the ice class. Nevertheless, the quantity of trips per year is

more significant, in the end, one thing makes up for the other.

Regarding the other ice classes, it can be said that the most profitable is the ice class IC like the base

ship Noorderlich (vessel optimised to operate in the Saimaa area). The more significant power of the

class IB and the assuming increment on fuel price during the life cycle cost makes it nor profitable.

Like it has been shown, the EMMA project has a significant influence on the feasibility of operating in

the Saimaa canal. The extension of the navigational season to one month can generate more profit and

will enable higher ice classes like IB or even IA to operate in the area (without losing economic

efficiency).

There are a lot of future works related with this topic, first of all, it will be really interesting to optimise

the vessels hull and structure for all ice class considered, to have a more realistic point of view. Another

future work could be to contact shipping companies to get more accurate values of port cost in the

Saimaa area.

Emma project is going to be developed in the next years, that´s why the preliminary design of the vessel

was done with the actual maximum dimensions, but an interesting task will be to redo the design with

the new dimensions to see how significant is the influence of this project.

56

5.REFERENCES

[1] European Regional development fund “Inland Navigation in the Baltic Sea Region.”

[2] Finnish Ministry of Kansport and Communications. Helsinki 2014. “Finland´s Maritime Strategy 2014

– 2022”.

[3] Witral Commission for Navigation of the Rhine 2010“In Inland navigation in Europe”.

[4] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2010) “White paper of efficient and Sustainable

Inland Water Transport in Europe.”

[5] Dariusz Milewski “Inland water transport in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) Transportation System.”

[5] Royal Institution of Naval Architects. London 2010 “Significant ships of 2000.” pp 43-44.

[6] Bentley 2016. “Maxsurf Modeller Manual”.

[7] Gennadiy Egorov (2005) “Design experience of new generation river-sea vessels” Marine

Engineering Bureau.

[8] Lloyd´s Register. July 2018. “Rules and Regulations for the Classification of ships”. July 2018.

[9] Jorge Lao Regalis.Cartagena 2008“Buque de Cabotaje Polivalente”. The Polytechnic University of

Cartagena, pp200-300.

[10] Bentley 2016. “Maxsurf Resistance Manual”.

[11] Holtrop, J. (1984). A statistical re-analysis of resistance and propulsion data. International

Shipbuilding Progress. 31. 272-276.

[12] Alvaro Ruiz Besteiro.Cadiz 2001“Aante Anteproyecto de un buque costero de 6000 TPM” University

of Cadiz, pp60-100.

[13] Ricardo Alvariño, Juan José Azzpíroz, Manuel Meizso. Madrid 1997. “El proyecto básico del buque

Mercante”. Colegio Oficial de Ingenieros Navales, pp.400-500.

[14] Marian Rodríguez, Álvaro Romero. Madrid 2000 “Buque de Cabotaje 4600 TPM”. Polytechnic

University of Madrid.

[15] Bentley 2016. “Maxsurf Stability Manual”.

[16] Dennis Breitung, Sara Hogdahl.Turku 2017 “Ice Class Strengthening of Existing Reefer Vessels

Trading in the Baltic Sea”. Aalto University.

[17] Fredéric Lasserre (2015) “Simulations of Shipping along Arctic Routes: Comparison Analysis and

Economic” Laval University

57

[18] Sarah Grandinetti.Helsinki 2010“Development of a Cost-Benefit Model for Shipping in the Arctic”

Aalto University pp60-70.

[19] Valtteri Eronen (2010) “Feasibility study of a Cruise Ship for the Northwest Passage” Aalto

University

[20] Toumas Kiiski.Turku 2012 “Feasibility of Commercial cargo shipping along the Northern Sea Route”.

The University of Turku.

[21] RC Braithwaite & D Khan (2014) “Implications of ice class for an offshore patrol vessel”, Journal

of Marine Engineering & Technology,

[22] Finnish – Swedish maritime authorities. December 2010. “Finnish – Swedish Ice class rules”.

[23] Molland, A., Turnock, S., & Hudson, D. (2011). Frontmatter. In Ship Resistance and Propulsion:

Practical Estimation of Propulsive Power (pp. I-Iv). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[24] Manuel Ventura. Lisbon 2017. “Cost Estimate”. Instituto Superior Técnico de Lisboa.

[25] Lyudmila Alexandrova (2012) “The Utilization of Leftover Stones from Mines a Quarries in North

Savo Region” Saviona University pp50-70.

[26] Royal Institution of Naval Architects. London 2010 “Significant ships of 2000.” pp 43-44.

58

6.ANNEXES

Annex I: General arrangement of the ship

Annex II: Midship section

Annex III: Lifecycle cost for the ice classes IC/IB.

125110 135

95

115

25

90

35

15

35

10 85

25

15

100

35 4540205

0

5

0 45 80 125

20 85 90 130

85

205

110 115 12065 755025100

10

1510

5 25 35 60 75 110 130

5 15 30 50 8075 105 120

60 105

10 3025

13530 125 13095 10090807055

25155

20

20 30

15 20 4030 50 55 7065 105 115 120 135

0 10 4035 45 6055 7065 95 100

4 GA UGE

INS TRUME NTATION

ENGINE CONTROL

OPT IONAL AC

BALLAST

DIRTY OIL AUX

DIRTY OIL AUX

LOW SEA CHEST

BALLAST

DN

DN

VENTILATION DUCT

F.W

BALLAST

SEWAGE

9500 ab FORECASTLE DECK

7500 ab MAIN DECKCAPTAIN SALOON

SEWAGE

CAPTAIN BEDROOM

L.O

3000 ab E.R.TWEEN DECK

VENTILATION DUCT

ERESC

MDODAILY

DN

DN

UP

DN

GEARBOX OIL TANK

1000 ab DOUBLE BOTTOM

10000 ab BRIDGE DECK

CAPTAIN BATHROOM

BALLAST

DIRTY OIL ME

ERESC

BALLAST

5000 ab ACCOMMODATION DECK

5000 ab ACCOMMODATION DECK

F.W

BALLAST

10000 ab BRIDGE DECK

BALLAST

BALLAST

15350 ab AIR DRAUGHT

BALLAST

BALLAST BALLAST

12900 ab TOP DECK

BALLAST

PROVISIONS STORE

CREW BATHROOM

CREW ROOM(2 PERS)

OFFICER BATHROOM

OFFICER BATHROOM

OFFICER ROOM

DN

ELECTRICAL CABINET

FIRST AIDS

STEERING ESC

DN

DN

DN

WC

CASING

VENTILATION DUCT

VENTILATION DUCT

VENTILATION DUCT

VENTILATION DUCT

UP

WORKSHOP

OFFICER ROOM

CREW ROOM(2 PERS)

GALLEY

LAUNDRY ROOM

CASING

MESH ROOM

CHEF ROOM

STEERING GEARROOM

BOW THRUSTERS ROOM

MDO STORAGE

STEERING ESC

ERESC

VENTILATION DUCT

MDO DAILY SPARE/PILOT

BATHROOMSPARE/PILOT BEDROOMEMERGENCY

GENERATOR ROOM

CASING

DECK STORE

UP

3000 ab E.R.TWEEN DECK

7500 ab MAIN DECK

1000 ab DOUBLE BOTTOM

BALLAST

BALLAST

BALLAST

BALLAST

BALLAST

BALLAST

BALLAST

BALLAST

BALLAST

BALLAST

BALLAST

BALLAST

BALLAST

BALLAST

BALLAST

BALLAST

BALLAST

DN

BALLAST

BALLAST

BALLAST

1 54 10

H

G

B

D

C

A

E

F

G

Design GroupGO

F

1

B

A3

1 :100

H

C

A

D

0

E

PageSize

Drawing

104

GORKA OLARAN MATEOS 88087

51 3

INSTITUTO SUPERIOR TÉCNICO

Scale

12118

1

2

SIMPLIFIEDGENERAL ARRANGEMENT

6 7 9

Rev

9762 8 11 123

LENGTH oa.........................82,5 mLENGTH pp.........................80,4 mBREADTH...........................12,5 mDEPTH................................7,5 mDRAUGHT(Saimaa)............4,35 mDRAUGHT...........................5,9 mDEADWEIGHT(Saimaa).....2500 tonsDEADWEIGHT....................3750 tons

CLASSLLOYD´S REGISTER OF SHIPPING 100A1BOTTOM STRENGTHED FOR HEAVY CARGOCHARACTERISTICSMODULUS AT DECK.......1.19 m3MODULUS AT BOTTOM...2.19 m3INERTIA.........................5.8 m4

BOTTOM LONGITUDINALS 200x9

INNER BOTTOM LONGITUDINALS 200x9

PL.

10

mm

PL.

10

mm

150x10 mm

BASE LINE

222

150x10 mm

PL.10 mm

PL. 12 mmPL. 12 mm

PL.13 mm

PL

.10

mm

PL.12 mm

PL.10 mm

Ø500600x400 600x400 600x400600x400 Ø500Ø500Ø500Ø500

50

0

Ø500

MAIN DECK MAIN DECK

Ø500

S.S

TR

AK

E P

L.1

0 m

m

36

00

PL.10PL.10

12

00

R 50

42

00

R 50

54

54

Ø500

R 50

60

06

00

Ø500

R 50

PL.10 mm

60

0 600x400

140x7

120x8

60

0

600x400

60

0

200x912x100

PL.

10 m

mP

L.1

0 m

m

932

10

0x8

PL.13 mmPL.13 mm308

2

PL.10 mm PL.10 mm

PL

.10

mm

100

x8

PL.

12 m

m

200x12

200x12

10

0x8

200x

918

0x9

140x

10

10

0x8

1027

3177

BASE LINE

5327

7500

6600

6000

8500

8000

3600

600600

1600

1000

600

6.533.10

2200

3000

600

4200

4800

5400

KEEL 1250x12 mm

R 200

7200

Ø500

600

625

277

5

4950

R 200

16

50

600

10

0x8

15

00

100

x8

100x8

100x8

7250

600

60

06

00

5522

60

06

00

60

0

3372

600

300x150

60

0

1222

18

00

24

00

30

00

140x10

432

48

00

52

32

200x

9

59

59

62

50

BILGE PLATE 2150 mm

200x

9

291

180x

914

0x10

505

ICE CLASS IC

Initial cost 5 038 378 € Year Initial invesment Residual value Depreciation Mannig cost C.Maintenance P.Maintenance Supplies Adm+Insurace Fuel cost Voyage cost Total cost Revenue Cash Flow Accumulatione Cashflow

LWT(tn) 1054 0 5 038 378 € 5 038 378 € -5 038 378 €

Cost first year 1 209 932 € 252 185 € 46 337 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 509 218 € 1 423 142 € 2 703 913 € 3 043 711 € 339 798 € -4 698 581 €

Manning 1% 252 185 € 2 209 932 € 254 707 € 46 800 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 514 310 € 1 423 142 € 2 711 991 € 3 043 711 € 331 720 € -4 366 860 €

C.Maintenance 2% 46 337 € 3 209 932 € 257 254 € 47 268 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 519 453 € 1 423 142 € 2 720 149 € 3 043 711 € 323 562 € -4 043 298 €

P.Maintenace(4years) 2% 80 612 € 4 209 932 € 259 826 € 47 741 € 80 612 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 524 648 € 1 423 142 € 2 809 001 € 3 043 711 € 234 710 € -3 808 587 €

Fuel 1% 504 176 € 5 209 932 € 262 425 € 48 218 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 529 894 € 1 423 142 € 2 736 711 € 3 043 711 € 307 000 € -3 501 587 €

Revenue 3 043 711 € 6 209 932 € 265 049 € 48 701 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 535 193 € 1 423 142 € 2 745 116 € 3 043 711 € 298 595 € -3 202 992 €

7 209 932 € 267 699 € 49 188 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 540 545 € 1 423 142 € 2 753 605 € 3 043 711 € 290 106 € -2 912 887 €

8 209 932 € 270 376 € 49 680 € 82 224 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 545 950 € 1 423 142 € 2 844 404 € 3 043 711 € 199 307 € -2 713 580 €

9 209 932 € 273 080 € 50 176 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 551 410 € 1 423 142 € 2 770 840 € 3 043 711 € 272 871 € -2 440 708 €

10 209 932 € 275 811 € 50 678 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 556 924 € 1 423 142 € 2 779 587 € 3 043 711 € 264 124 € -2 176 584 €

11 209 932 € 278 569 € 51 185 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 562 493 € 1 423 142 € 2 788 421 € 3 043 711 € 255 290 € -1 921 294 €

12 209 932 € 281 355 € 51 697 € 83 869 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 568 118 € 1 423 142 € 2 881 212 € 3 043 711 € 162 499 € -1 758 794 €

13 209 932 € 284 168 € 52 214 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 573 799 € 1 423 142 € 2 806 355 € 3 043 711 € 237 356 € -1 521 438 €

14 209 932 € 287 010 € 52 736 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 579 537 € 1 423 142 € 2 815 457 € 3 043 711 € 228 254 € -1 293 184 €

15 209 932 € 289 880 € 53 263 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 585 333 € 1 423 142 € 2 824 649 € 3 043 711 € 219 062 € -1 074 122 €

16 209 932 € 292 779 € 53 796 € 85 546 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 591 186 € 1 423 142 € 2 919 480 € 3 043 711 € 124 231 € -949 892 €

17 209 932 € 295 707 € 54 334 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 597 098 € 1 423 142 € 2 843 312 € 3 043 711 € 200 399 € -749 493 €

18 209 932 € 298 664 € 54 877 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 603 069 € 1 423 142 € 2 852 783 € 3 043 711 € 190 928 € -558 565 €

19 209 932 € 301 650 € 55 426 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 609 100 € 1 423 142 € 2 862 349 € 3 043 711 € 181 362 € -377 203 €

20 209 932 € 304 667 € 55 980 € 87 257 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 615 191 € 1 423 142 € 2 959 268 € 3 043 711 € 84 443 € -292 760 €

21 209 932 € 307 714 € 56 540 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 621 342 € 1 423 142 € 2 881 769 € 3 043 711 € 161 942 € -130 819 €

22 209 932 € 310 791 € 57 105 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 627 556 € 1 423 142 € 2 891 625 € 3 043 711 € 152 086 € 21 267 €

23 209 932 € 313 899 € 57 676 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 633 831 € 1 423 142 € 2 901 580 € 3 043 711 € 142 131 € 163 398 €

24 209 932 € 317 038 € 58 253 € 89 002 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 640 170 € 1 423 142 € 3 000 636 € 3 043 711 € 43 075 € 206 473 €

25 210 800 € 320 208 € 58 836 € 111 933 € 151 166 € 646 571 € 1 423 142 € 2 711 856 € 3 254 511 € 542 655 € 749 128 €

Increment in the cost

ICE CLAS IB

Initial cost 5 454 270 € Year Initial invesment Residual value Depreciation Mannig cost C.Maintenance P.Maintenance Supplies Adm+Insurace Fuel cost Voyage cost Total cost Revenue Cash Flow Accumulatione Cashflow

LWT(tn) 1100 0 5 454 270 € 5 454 270 € -5 454 270 €

Cost first year 1 227 261 € 254 707 € 51 764 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 678 957 € 1 388 860 € 2 876 714 € 2 933 000 € 56 286 € -5 397 984 €

Manning 1% 252 185 € 2 227 261 € 257 254 € 52 799 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 685 747 € 1 388 860 € 2 887 086 € 2 933 000 € 45 914 € -5 352 070 €

C.Maintenance 2% 50 749 € 3 227 261 € 259 826 € 53 855 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 692 604 € 1 388 860 € 2 897 572 € 2 933 000 € 35 428 € -5 316 643 €

P.Maintenace(4years) 2% 87 268 € 4 227 261 € 262 425 € 54 932 € 87 268 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 699 530 € 1 388 860 € 2 995 442 € 2 933 000 € -62 442 € -5 379 084 €

Fuel 1% 672 235 € 5 227 261 € 265 049 € 56 031 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 706 526 € 1 388 860 € 2 918 892 € 2 933 000 € 14 108 € -5 364 976 €

Revenue 2 933 000 € 6 227 261 € 267 699 € 57 152 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 713 591 € 1 388 860 € 2 929 728 € 2 933 000 € 3 272 € -5 361 705 €

7 227 261 € 270 376 € 58 295 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 720 727 € 1 388 860 € 2 940 684 € 2 933 000 € -7 684 € -5 369 389 €

8 227 261 € 273 080 € 59 461 € 89 013 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 727 934 € 1 388 860 € 3 040 775 € 2 933 000 € -107 775 € -5 477 163 €

9 227 261 € 275 811 € 60 650 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 735 214 € 1 388 860 € 2 962 961 € 2 933 000 € -29 961 € -5 507 124 €

10 227 261 € 278 569 € 61 863 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 742 566 € 1 388 860 € 2 974 284 € 2 933 000 € -41 284 € -5 548 408 €

11 227 261 € 281 355 € 63 100 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 749 991 € 1 388 860 € 2 985 732 € 2 933 000 € -52 732 € -5 601 140 €

12 227 261 € 284 168 € 64 362 € 90 794 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 757 491 € 1 388 860 € 3 088 101 € 2 933 000 € -155 101 € -5 756 242 €

13 227 261 € 287 010 € 65 649 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 765 066 € 1 388 860 € 3 009 012 € 2 933 000 € -76 012 € -5 832 253 €

14 227 261 € 289 880 € 66 962 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 772 717 € 1 388 860 € 3 020 845 € 2 933 000 € -87 845 € -5 920 099 €

15 227 261 € 292 779 € 68 301 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 780 444 € 1 388 860 € 3 032 811 € 2 933 000 € -99 811 € -6 019 909 €

16 227 261 € 295 707 € 69 668 € 92 609 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 788 248 € 1 388 860 € 3 137 518 € 2 933 000 € -204 518 € -6 224 428 €

17 227 261 € 298 664 € 71 061 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 796 131 € 1 388 860 € 3 057 142 € 2 933 000 € -124 142 € -6 348 569 €

18 227 261 € 301 650 € 72 482 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 804 092 € 1 388 860 € 3 069 511 € 2 933 000 € -136 511 € -6 485 080 €

19 227 261 € 304 667 € 73 932 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 812 133 € 1 388 860 € 3 082 018 € 2 933 000 € -149 018 € -6 634 098 €

20 227 261 € 307 714 € 75 410 € 94 462 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 820 254 € 1 388 860 € 3 189 126 € 2 933 000 € -256 126 € -6 890 225 €

21 227 261 € 310 791 € 76 919 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 828 457 € 1 388 860 € 3 107 453 € 2 933 000 € -174 453 € -7 064 677 €

22 227 261 € 313 899 € 78 457 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 836 742 € 1 388 860 € 3 120 383 € 2 933 000 € -187 383 € -7 252 061 €

23 227 261 € 317 038 € 80 026 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 845 109 € 1 388 860 € 3 133 459 € 2 933 000 € -200 459 € -7 452 520 €

24 227 261 € 320 208 € 81 627 € 96 351 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 853 560 € 1 388 860 € 3 243 032 € 2 933 000 € -310 032 € -7 762 551 €

25 220 000 € 323 410 € 83 259 € 121 436 € 153 729 € 862 096 € 1 388 860 € 2 932 790 € 3 153 000 € 220 210 € -7 542 341 €

Increment in the cost

preliminary design of river ship accounting for ice class ... · gorka olaran mateos thesis to...

Documents