Diesel Electric Systems

Revolutionary propulsion

Like most new technologies, marine diesel electric systems were introduced in
the navy long before they were shown to the commercial industry. Their major
advantages are low noise and vibration disturbances, lower energy consumption
and higher flexibility in the ship design. Numerous diesel engines can be
connected in parallel in sound and vibration isolated rooms, almost anywhere on
the lower decks of the ship.
These diesel generators are then responsible for the electric ship propulsion, the
heating and any other electrical utilities on board. Running diesel-electric engines
at a stable load allows smoother transients and constant speeds. While at an
efficient load, marine diesel engines also tend towards optimum fuel
consumption, thereby reducing emissions and the impact on the environment.
Advantages of Diesel Electric Systems

It should be mentioned that the diesel electric system is extremely valuable for
ships with low average speed (10 knots), such as cruise liners. This technique of
combined diesel electric systems gains importance when the installed power
generating capacity can be used for various ship functions, and different
situations such as that needed for passenger services (i.e. electricity, heating).
The safety aspects of diesel electric systems are commonly regarded as being
related to redundancy in different ways. The number of electric power-generating
units is large enough to ensure propulsion capability and steerage way
irrespective of any component failure. In addition the diesel and electric units can
be located in different compartments to safeguard against loss of power in case
one compartment has been destroyed by fire or flooding. This flexibility also
allows the optimisation of cargo space volume and arrangement.

The shipbuilding industry has recently introduced a revolutionary new propulsion

system known as PODS in which the shaft has been replaced by a bulb-shaped
propulsion unit driven by an electric motor. The only connection between the bulb
and the ship is therefore electric cabling. This design significantly reduces wake
effects, and propulsion efficiency is improved by as much as 10%. Two PRODIS
projects are dedicated to this new system. OPTIPOD is looking at the impact of
PODS on ship design and attempting to optimise the shape of the stern. PODS
INSERVICE is a support project for OPTIPOD and any other future related
research in that it is collecting data from the existing POD fleet. At present
Finland has four passenger ships and one ice-breaker/tanker in-service using
this new technology. The French company, Chantiers de l'Atlantique has also just
delivered a POD vessel called Millennium - using two 20MW PODS, this vessel
represents the largest scale use of the technology to date.

Project goal
The final goal of the project is to develop guidelines for the design of podded
ships. The intention is to have these guidelines as general as possible, but
development work has been focused on four ship types: cruise liner, ro-pax ferry,
products tanker, and supply ship. The hydrodynamic development of these ship
types is the responsibility of those four consortium partners with model basins:
HSVA for the cruise liner, CTO for the ro-pax ferry (as outlined in The Naval
Architect's Polish report in July/August this year, page 15), SPA for the products
tanker, and VTT for the supply ship. The structure of the project is not, however,
based on these ship types but on the following issues, which form eight technical
work packages:
Hydrodynamics
Safety and risk analyses
Structural safety
Impact on environment
Operational aspects
Effects on general arrangement
Cost/benefit evaluation
The last work-package, which deals with the development of guidelines, will
mainly be carried out at the end of the project. The other activities run more or
less in parallel, with
input/output from one work-package to another.

As can be seen from the list above, the goal of the investigation is to have a very
broad base for forming the guidelines. When the project was formed in the spring
of 1999 there were many questions regarding podded ships: Could the layout of
the ship be more effective, ie, could there be space savings when moving from a
conventional propeller-shaft
arrangement with rudders to a podded solution?
Is it possible to improve the overall efficiency of all podded ships compared with
conventional?
How important is the increased manoeuvrability for different ship types using
pod propulsion compared with conventional?
What other benefits or drawbacks can be found using pod propulsion?
The major users of pod units have been cruise liner operators. Several partners
have significant experience with using pods for these ships, which is a very good
start for the project. The reason why the cruise liner was the first ship type to use
pods (although first prototypes were fitted to waterway service craft and an Arctic
tanker) is simple; several of the uestions above had a very positive answer for
these vessels. However, even for cruise liners there is much development work
to be done before finding the 'ultimate design'. As mentioned above, the goal of
the project is to develop guidelines for a range of ship types that can benefit from
a podded propulsion solution as compared with a conventional one. As can be
seen from the work-package list, the investigation will cover the main design
tasks that shipyards have to deal with in the initial design of a vessel. The
different parts of the work scope are explained below in a little more detail.
Hydrodynamic interaction
Looking back over a number of decades, there have not been so many
improvements in hull design in the low- or medium-speed range. The bulbous
bow arrived in the 1970s and has been further developed since then. Twin-skeg
hull form designs were also developed during that decade. The introduction of
pod propulsion, which will allow the propulsion unit to be placed without
considering any shaft arrangements or space for machinery will, of course, give
the naval architect many new opportunities to design the 'ultimate hullform'. The
propeller can be placed more freely in the longitudinal plane and tilted so it will
face the up-flow in the stern. To some extent, clearances between the propeller
tip and the hull can be
optimised easier than with a conventional arrangement. The traditional balance
of propulsive factors such as effective wake and thrust deduction together with
naked hull resistance will in some way give a new dimension to design work. The
possibility of creating a more homogeneous inflow to the propeller will also
improve cavitation properties and allow for higher speeds or reduction of
vibration and noise from the propeller. The risk of focusing on efficiency can be

that the sea-keeping properties and maneuverability, including course stability,

are put aside.
Safety and risk analyses
From the development work done for current cruise liners, there are no
indications that there should be any general problems with course stability, but, in
fact, the current general knowledge about manoeuvrability of podded ships is
limited. In OPTIPOD, effort will be focused on the development of mathematical
models for manoeuvring with pods. Input to these models will, of course, come
from model tests with the four ship types mentioned above. One of them, the
products tanker, will only have one pod unit. This means that there will be
possibilities to compare the behaviour of a single-screw conventional ship with a
single-pod ship.
Even though manoeuvring simulation models will primarily be based on results
obtained from model tests.
Effects on general arrangement
With the freedom to place machinery in the most favourable position onboard,
studies on the effect on general arrangements will be carried out for the two most
interesting ship types: the ro-pax ferry and the cruise liner. State-ofthe- art design
methodology as well as the latest3D virtual-design tools will be used.
Cost/benefit evaluation
Obviously, there is great interest in podded propulsion from owners of cruise liners,
judging by shipyards' orderbooks. Will there be the same interest for other ship types?
This is probably totally dependent on the overall economy of podded concepts. It is
important to clarify benefits in, eg, enhanced harbour manoeuvring as well
possible drawbacks (such as maintenance issues, demands on crew, and
sensitivity to rough seas).

PART II

PROPULSION SYSTEMS
In the following chapters we will describe three examples of diesel propulsion,
and argue the pro's and con's of the systems and describe a way to solve the
previous mentioned light

Conventional diesel propulsion with fixed pitch propellers

Conventional diesel propulsion with controllable pitch propellers

Diesel electric propulsion with Pods.

Conventional diesel propulsion with fixed pitch propellers

Pros and Cons

Pros:

it is a usual system and less expensive system.

Cons:

it is necessary to run three engines (two prime movers and one

generator);
to promote long engine life the yacht has to sail 13.8 knots or more.

Solution to solve a part of the light load problem:

Install two smaller engines of 660 B.HP each. As can be read in table 3 two
engines of 660 B.HP are enough to attain 15 knots. At a nice cruising speed of
13 knots the engines are running at 50 % load.
Use of an father/son gear box installation gives better load figures at lower
speed, but the cost of such an installation is enormous and therefor left out of this
comparison.

Conventional diesel propulsion with controllable pitch propellers

Pros and Cons
Pros:

up to 13.0 knots, one engine can be shut-off and the propeller can be set
in feathering position.
at 11 knots the engine is running at 50% load;
engine rating curve and propeller rating curve runs equal, by adjusting the
pitch;
perfect maneuverability, special at slow speed (no need of trolling valves).

Cons:

low propeller efficiency (ETA-P = 60-61%);

more expensive;
more maintenance;
above 13.0 knots still three engines are running.

Summary of the principal disadvantages of conventional diesel propulsion

light load problems;

mostly two prime movers and one generator running;
engine room lay-out not flexible;
no possibility of sound enclosures around prime movers;
extensive sound insulation and ventilation system.
problems with prime movers can lead to hazardous situations, there is no
back up.

Which options are available to develop a new configuration without the above
described disadvantages? The answer should be found in diesel electric
propulsion.

Integrated diesel electric propulsion

There are two types of electric power - AC or alternating current and DC or direct
current. A basic AC motor operates at a constant speed determined by frequency.
A DC motor speed will vary with the applied voltage.
A plain rectifier converts AC power to DC power and the DC voltage will be about
the same value as the AC. A SCR controls the conversion of AC power to DC
power so that a variable DC voltage from the constant AC voltage can be
obtained.
This provides an easy way to control the speed of a DC motor (analogous to a
rheostat for light dimmer). A conventional ship will have four or five diesel
engines with one engine dedicated to each propeller and the others dedicated to
ship service power.
For a diesel electric ship, the power bus bar arrangement has many inherent
advantages, including:

all vessel functions can be supplied by one or more engine/generator sets

feeding this common bus bar;
the common bus bar feeds the ships service switch panel and both SCRs
from where the speed controlled E.motors revolve the propellers by using
either conventional shaft installations with fixed pitch propellers or shaft
installations with controllable pitch propellers or Z-drive thrusters.
each variable speed function can be precisely controlled from zero to top
speed by the individual SCR. The phrase "from zero speed", is important.
With a standard mechanical drive the minimum propeller r.p.m. is
determined by engine idle speed (only with the aid of a trolling valve, it can
be reduced);
diesel generator sets can be put on line or removed as needed by the total
system load, without interrupting any operating load. This feature permits
fuel conservation when full power is not required;
on-board engine maintenance can be accomplished without laying up the
ship or losing any system function;
it is not possible to overload an engine even if the throttles are put full
ahead with only one engine running. This feature is provided by a power
limit circuit that compares the power available from the generator(s) that is
(are) running with the total power being used by all loads when the load
reaches 95% of available capacity, the SCR fed loads are restricted to
prevent overloading.

In stead of having one engine per load, engine/generator sets now channel their
power into a common reservoir, the power bus bar. As power is needed to turn a
propeller or to operate other vessels loads, that amount of power is pulled from
the bus bar and sent to the bowthruster, galley, air-conditioning motors or any
other electrical load.
An extensive power management and load sharing system will regulate all of
this.
With one or more engines shut off, the engine(s) being used will be operating at
a higher load.
Therefore, they are more efficient and use less fuel per horse-power hour
delivered. The result is that the diesel electric boat will use less fuel than a direct
drive boat to perform the same mission when less than full horsepower is
required. Here is where one of the big advantages of electric drives become
evident. Even when only one engine is running, you can still operate both of the
propellers in forward or reverse in any combination of speed relationships within
the horsepower capability of the one engine and supply ship service power
requirements. Again, the pilot cannot overload the engine.

Some other advantages of electric drive:

the engine(s) always operate between 50 and 100% load;
the engine(s) always operate at constant speed and will, therefore, accept
load changes much more quickly;

the engine(s) produce less black smoke and other pollutants when
accelerating the propellers;
more economical use of the fuel being fed to the engine;
the speed of the propeller(s) can be changed much faster;
reversing will be faster;
electric propulsion motor (and bowthruster) can be operated at 1% speed
with no time limit up to and above full rate speed;
gear boxes are simple reduction units with no reversing and no clutches;
engine room lay-out is more flexible;

Pros and Cons for AC-AC propulsion

Pros:

an AC propulsion motor is of simple construction, no brushes;

with an AC system the power factor (cos.phi) is high >0.94 and constant,
also at low speed, therefor less kVA's have to be installed;
the efficiency of an AC system at lower speed does not decrease as much
as a DC system;
due to a diode rectifier for the AC-DC conversion the disturbance of the
sinusoidal is lower compared to AC;
by the application of an AC system in 12-pulse execution a total harmonic
distortion (THD) to less than 5% and any single harmonic to 3% can be
reached without the use of expensive filters. This also is partly possible by
the AC-DC system;

Cons:

the ambient temperature for the inverter (DC to controllable AC) may not
exceed 45 C. This can be solved by application of an air/water cooler;
an AC-AC system needs more volume and weight;
the sound level in the high frequency range of the asynchronous motor is
more compared to a DC motor.

General note:
AC-DC with a 6 pulse system may require somewhat larger generators to handle
the higher harmonic currents. To develop a 12 pulse system it is necessary to
utilise phase shifting transformers and double SCR bridges. In that case the
weight and volume of an AC-DC and an AC-AC system are almost the same.
The client finally, depending on his sailing area, will make a decision for AC-DC
or AC-AC. This decision will often be directed by service possibilities etc.

Schematic drawing of a conventional diesel propulsion and an integrated

diesel electric propulsion.

Extra benefits of the diesel electric propulsion in combination with Z-drive

thrusters

the engine room lay-out is flexible;

the Z-drive thrusters are flexible mounted in a bottom well under a hatch
for easy dismantle and maintenance;
no need of difficult engine beds, shaft drives, struts and rudders;
each generator set can be installed in an airtight sound enclosure. The
engine air intake will be ducted with a silencer directly from an outside air
intake box. The heat rejection of the genset will be absorbed by a water/air
fan cooler. The sound enclosure will reduce the noise level with at least
45-50 dB.A. Each generator set will be mounted on air mounts in the
sound enclosures. Each assembly is double mounted on the engine bed;
with less sound insulation the sound level in spaces above and in front of
the engine room can be reduced to less than 50 dB.A.; a conventional
diesel propulsion yacht needs an extensive sound insulation to achieve a
sound level of 57-60 dB.A directly outside the engine room.
due to the fact that the combustion engines are placed in airtight and
cooled sound enclosures the ambient temperature in the engine room is
low and need maybe 10% of the normal air flow, which results in only a
small engine room fan, small ducting and less noise at the outside air
intake and air exhaust grill

outstanding maneuverability, particularly at slow speeds;

Further more a computer linked to a GPS guided dynamic position system
controls the Z-drive thrusters and bow thrusters to enable the yacht to
remain stationary at sea;
less man hours for the total installation.

Summary of benefits of diesel electric propulsion.

the possibility to run with one prime mover, which serves both propellers
and the ship's service at the same time.
with one or more engines shut off, the engine(s) being used will always
operate between 50 and 100% load, which promote long engine life.
the back up of three generators for propulsion.
less smoke and other pollutants.
the propulsion motors and the bowthruster motor can be precisely
controlled from zero to top speed.
it is not possible to overload any engine.
the speed of the propellers can be changed much faster.
more economical use of the fuel being fed to the engine.
engine room lay-out is more flexible.
extreme low noise level in- and outside the engine room.
low engine room temperature.
outstanding maneuverability, particularly at slow speed.

Project Title: ESMA - Efficient Ship Machinery Arrangement Project

Shafts vs. Pods, Comparison between a conventional shaft line and a podded drive

Conclusions

A podded drive has got clear and well proven advantages in manoeuvrability and
hydrodynamical efficiency. It also has got advantages in space usage, weight and
production efficiency which magnitudes depend on a case.
Compared to a conventional shaft line with a diesel electric power plant a podded
drive is today more expensive. A podded drive is a new product and it remains to
be seen how the price of the podded drive developes when more units are
delivered by several suppliers. Without predicting how splitting the design costs
on many units or new suppliers desire to enter the market will influence on the
price of the podded drives, it should be expected to decrease. Both suppliers and
yards can be required to improve their productivity along the experience.
Reaching the same price level than conventional shaft line in a few years is a
reasonable expectation. This with the advantages of the podded drive will make it
very competitive.

Objective
Objective of this study was to summarize actual differences in costs, space utilization,
manoeuvring characteristics and performance of a podded drive and a shaft line.
The study was carried out by comparing Fantasy class cruisers with different propulsion
systems to each other.
Shafts vs Pods
Building costs
Building costs were divided to material and labour costs. A pod unit has got a significant
amount of propulsion system parts preassembled in it. Thereby in a pod unit more labour
and design are included in material costs than in case of shaft line. This raises the
material costs of the podded drive. On the other hand the more compact design of the
podded drive should lower the overall material and installation costs.
Difference in material costs consists of replacing propulsion motors, shafts, bearings,
sealings, propellers, castings of the bosses and the shaft supporters, rudders and their
machinery and stern thrusters with pod units and their turning, cooling and power supply
appliances. The material costs of the podded drive were in case of the ships in this study
19% higher than the costs of the material that they replaced. Between the dates when the
corresponding materials were delivered to ships that were compared, a relevant producer
price index raised 5,8%. When inflations share is subtracted the difference in material
costs decreases to 12.4%.

Labour costs were expected to sink radically because of the podded drive. Savings in
labour costs were yet smaller than what was estimated covering 20% of the raising of the
price caused by material costs of the podded drive.
A choice of propulsion system has got an impact on other systems also such as cooling,
ventilation and lubrication. These differencies dont seem to cause important costs.
However space saving and lack of shaftline eases lay out design which provides potential
to weight and costs savings via more compact engine room arrangement and clearer pipe
arrangement when a podded drive is chosen.
A podded drive transferres work and tests to be done in workshops instead of to be done
on board. This binds more capital earlier but enables to shorten the passing through time.
Workshop hours are much more productive than working hours on board.
Since a podded drive has got better overall efficiency, a power-plant with a lower
nominal output can be chosen, than in case of shaft line, without raising the utilization.
This reflects to almost all of the auxiliary appliances to be rated lighter as well.
To give an image how the building costs of a podded drive and a shaft line relate to each
other, some figure has to be presented. Counting in only directly on propulsion system
connected material and labour costs results podded drive being 10% more expensive than
shaft line.
Operating costs
Producing and transferring electrical power from generator to the shaft of the propulsion
motor is approximately 1,5% more efficient in case of shaft line. In order to gain good
hydrodynamical efficiency, the diameter of the propulsion motor in pod has been reduced
which leads to stated 1,5%. On the other hand, transferring mechanical power from
propulsion motor to the propeller shaft is approximately 1,5% more efficient in case of
podded drive. Therefore shaft line (power plant) and podded drive can be regarded equal
when comparing the power transferring efficiency (PD/PB).
Comparing sea trial measurements and model tests predictions of the Fantasy class
cruisers suggests that a podded drive can be expected to have 5-9% better
hydrodynamical efficiency than shaft line. Also bigger figures have been presented by
some suppliers of podded drives. These figures need to be taken with care until more full
scale information is available.
Space requirement
The location of the main engines is defined by the funnel and distribution of the
bulkheads. Main engines are positioned at the same time with the propulsion motors
whose positions and installation angles are derived from the shaft arrangement. Long
under water part of the shaft line is expensive to build and it disturbes the wake field. The
attempt to shorten the length of the shaft line increases the angle of the shaft line which

lifts the propulsion motor higher and turns the propeller plane to an worse angle from
hydrodynamical point of view.
When choosing a podded drive the problem of positioning the propulsion motors and the
shafts does not exist and positioning of the main engines has got more latitude.
When main engines (and propulsion motors) are positioned, the rest of the engine room is
built up around them. In case of a podded drive there is considerably more space
available (which in addition should be more efficiently arranged by using the advantage
of increased latitude in positioning the main engines.)
Cyclo transformers which transform the voltage supplied by the main switch boards
suitable for the cyclo converters and the cyclo converters which control the power of
propulsion motors are posiotioned in M/S Elation and M/S Paradise at the same spot as in
their sister ships , that is, on tank top next to the room where propulsion motors used to
be positioned. This was due to M/S Elation and M/S Paradise being conversions in which
only the necessary changes were made. Today these appliancies are located outmost aft
one deck below the deck of the pod room. The goal is to supply the electricity as far as
possible with the higher voltage Besides saved money in cabling ,this means space
consumed on more valuable deck.
In lower decks podded drive saves space but on deck above the pod unit it consumes
more deck area than it saves. Rudder machinery room is replaced with rooms which
contain turning, cooling and power supply appliances. These appliances require more
than double the space of the rudder machinery. This deck is considered much more
valuable than tank top or the first deck.
In Fantasy class cruisers the spaces that the new arrangement with podded drive released
were used to increase waste treating capasity (195m2), for machine stores and spaces
(64m2) and for fresh water tanks (150m3). The price was 84m2 lost provision store spaces
out of which most was changed to pod room.
Weight
Weight savings were in the ships that were compared in this study in scale of one percent
of the light weight of the ships.
Rating the power plant lighter saves weight 9.8-16.5 tons/MW (only diesel engine)
supposing that the type of the engine does not change. Changing the type of the engine
may have significant influence on weight. The weight of the generator depends on the
angular speed. The higher the speed the lighter the generator.

Building procedure

Replacing shaft line with podded propulsion transferres work and testing to workshops. It
makes the aft part of the hull more simple and erases the shaft supporters and bosses.
Assembling of the podded drive starts by lifting the pod units to their places and
fastening them. Then turning, cooling and power supply accessories are built on top of
the pod units and the outfitting of the pod rooms is finnished.
Manoeuvrability
In manoeuvrability a podded drive is without doubt superior to a conventional shaft line.
This can be seen by comparing the seatrial measurements of all of the Fantasy class
cruisers.
Good controllability of a ship with a podded drive can be seen in results of the zig zag
tests of M/S Elation on sea trial.
Noise and Vibrations
Measurements at the sea trials of the M/S Elation and M/S Fantasy show that pressure
pulse amplitudes were lower with podded drive, some of the difference resulting from the
slightly bigger hull clearance in M/S Elation. In degree of vibration and noise,
measurements indicate significant diffrencies for advantage of a podded drive.

Wrtsil the Ship Power Supplier (Forts.)

Ultra-large container carriers (>10,000 TEU) with single-screw propulsion plant?
Engines for ultra-large container vessels
As mentioned in an article in this issue before, the containerised sea transport market has
been growing at a much faster rate than any other major sea transport sectors. With the
increasing number of containers transported, the maximum container vessel size has also
been growing, and the largest vessel today measures close to 8,000 TEU. The maximum
vessel size is expected to keep on getting larger, owing to the benefits from economies of
scale. However, the existing machinery configurations are not adequate for the increasing
power demand of the super container vessels and these therefore need new machinery
products and concepts.
Wrtsil is continuously developing new solutions and products to meet the future
demands of the shipbuilding market. As an example of this work, two machinery
solutions for future ultra-large container vessels are described in their recent Marine
News No. 1/2002. Wrtsil had already presented alternative propulsion concepts
ranging from traditional single screw arrangements to more complex hybrid solutions

featuring mechanical propulsion combined with electric pod drives.

The maximum power of a RTA 96 C two-stroke diesel engine is 5,720 kW/cyl. For the
time being cylinder in-line engines were fitted with up to 12 cylinders generating 68,640
kW. Plans exist to build them also with up to 14 cylinders producing 80,080 kW. But
such an engine reaches a weight of 2,300 t being close to 27 m and 11 m high. This might
be too much in dimensions and also in weight. There are various disadvantages of this
single-engine arrangement which can be compensated by a double-plant configuration.
But always when comes to weight problems the hybrid solutions might offer changing
advantages. One big problem for the huge two-stroke engines is part-load running of e.g.
only 20% when manoeuvring at low speeds in port entrances.
To overcome the manoeuvring problem at part-loads and low speeds best, a hybrid
solution of a single-screw driven by a huge two-stroke diesel engine in combination with
a diesel-electric podded drive behind the propeller instead of a rudder gives a lot of all
advantages together. The maximum power from a single diesel engine could create
around 70 MW. If 100 MW is needed to propel a lets us say 10,000 TEU container
vessel some additional 30 MW might come the diesel-electric pod. With these 30 MW
alone extreme good manoeuvring conditions can be reached as the pod can be turned to
all wanted directions.

Steerable Propulsion Units: Hydrodynamic issues and Design

Consequences
by Tom van Terwisga, Frans Quadvlieg and Henk Valkhof (MARIN, Wageningen,
The
Netherlands)
Paper written on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of Schottel GmbH & Co;
Presented on 11 August 2001
Introduction
The last three decades have shown a strong development in the market for
steerable
propulsion units. This paper addresses several main developments and places
them in a
historic perspective. The major objective of the paper is to present a review of
issues relevant
to steerable propulsor units. These issues are essentially of a hydrodynamic
nature. Although
it is thought that hydrodynamic issues often have a heavy impact on the design,
the
professional background of the authors rather than anything else prompts the
choice for an

emphasis on hydrodynamic aspects. Starting from the hydrodynamic aspects, we

draw
several conclusions towards the design and operations of vessels equipped with
steerable
propulsion units.
Steerable propulsion units refer here to those units that are able to actively
deliver a steering
moment by rotating the thrust vector through the rotation of the thruster. Such
propulsion units
may occur in different concepts. The most renowned example and one of the
oldest products
in this range is the steerable thruster unit (Figure 1).
Recently, since the early nineties, a distinct concept has made its way into the
marine world.
This new concept is referred to as podded propulsion (or in short: pods) and is
distinguished
from the original thruster in that its prime mover is an electric motor, situated in
the hub
underneath the strut, directly driving the propeller (Figure 2).
Figure 1 Steerable thruster unit
Figure 2 Podded propulsor
Apart from the steerable thruster and the pod, a number of other steerable
propulsor units
exist. One of the oldest is the Voith Schneider Cycloidal propeller (see Figure 3).
This
propeller is characterised by a number of foils rotating about a vertical axis, with
a blade angle
that depends on the blade position. The blade angle is controlled by a
mechanical actuator
mechanism, which essentially determines the thrust/torque ratio in every position.
A special type of waterjet that is worth mentioning is the Schottel Pumpjet, which
distinguishes itself by the combination of intake, pump and nozzle in one
rotatable unit (see
Figure 4). The gain in space and the consequent flexibility in the ship design are
obvious.
Page 2 of 15
Figure 3 Voith Schneider Propeller
Figure 4 Schottel Pump Jet
The paper first aims at providing some historic background to the development of
steerable
propulsion units. This is followed by a discussion on hydrodynamic issues and
design
consequences for perhaps the two most popular steerable propulsors: the
steerable thruster

and the podded propulsor.

Historic development
An early example of a propulsor applying the principle of the vectored thrust is
the German
Voith Schneider Propeller. The development of the Voith Schneider Propeller
started in 1926
and the first application powered an inland waterway vessel in 1929. The first tug
with the
VSP Cycloidal propeller installed (Figure 5) was launched in 1950.
Figure 5 First VSP Tractor Tug in 1950
Schottel has played an essential role in the history of azimuthing thrusters. Some
50 years
ago, Schottel introduced the Schottel Rudder Propeller SRP. This rudder
propeller could be
rotated over 360 deg (vertical axis), where the full propulsive power could be
used for any
angle (Figure 6). These days, azimuthing thrusters are available up to some 6
MW, allowing
for a wide range of applicability (Figure 7).
Page 3 of 15
Figure 6 First Schottel Rudder Propeller
launched in 1950
Figure 7 Largest Schottel Rudder
Propeller
The popularity of steerable thruster units can be explained by the various
applications of
Dynamic Positioning (DP) or Dynamic Tracking (DT), both in the offshore
industry, as well as
in other areas of seagoing activities. The conventional thruster unit which is
widely applied in
DP/DT applications, makes use of a mechanical power transmission, where the
prime mover
(mostly a diesel engine or an electric motor) is connected with the propeller
through one or
two right angle gears (designated respectively L or Z drive).
The increase in popularity of the conventional thruster in the early seventies was
caused by
several factors, according to Nienhuis [8]. "In the offshore industry activities were
shifting
towards increased water depths which in some cases prohibit the use of
conventional passive
mooring systems. The flexibility and mobility of DP systems led to its application
for the
exploitation of marginal oil fields, with the added advantage that assistance of
anchor

handling vessels is no longer necessary. This latter advantage is also beneficial

for cable or
pipe laying vessels, which nowadays may be fitted with dynamic tracking (DT)
systems.
Indeed there seems to be a trend for oil companies to require the use of actively
controlled
ships in the vicinity of subsea pipe lines to avoid the risk that these may be
damaged by the
use of anchors." Other applications of DP or DT systems can be found in
dredging vessels
(e.g. trenching, stone dumping, beach replenishment) and naval ships (mine
hunters in
hunting or hovering mode, frigates in mine sweeped areas, replenishment at sea
operations).
The number of applications of the rotatable thruster for other ship types also
grew. This was
a.o. promoted to a large extent by Bussemaker [1], who proposed tractor tugs
with azimuthing
propellers. In the mean time the application of rotatable thrusters has grown to
many other
ship types, such as double-ended ferries, stern drive tugs, inland passenger
ships, mine
hunters and offshore workships.
The traditional stronghold of the azimuthing thruster is the application where
good
manoeuvrability at low speeds is essential, such as e.g. for DP and DT. With the
maturing of
the concept of the azimuthing thruster and the availability of electric motors with
a high power
density, the thruster with an electric motor in the pod came within reach. The first
so-called
podded propulsors, using this design principle came into service in the early
nineties. One of
the main assets of this podded propulsor is probably that it has important
consequences for
the general arrangement of the ship as well, because of the different layout of the
propellershaftingengine chain. Other important aspects refer to the overall propulsive efficiency
and
the manoeuvrability.
The idea of placing the electric propulsion motor inside a submerged azimuthing
propulsor
arose in the late 1980s by Kvaerner Masa-Yards, together with ABB Industry. A
1.5 MW unit
was first installed in 1990 on the Finnish waterway service vessel Seili [7].

Over the last five to six years, podded propulsors have become more and more
important.
Particularly on cruise liners, the units have proven to be of major importance as a
means to
reduce cavitation and vibration and hence have lead to a new standard for a high
comfort
class of cruise ships. At MARIN, it all started with the request of Kvaerner MasaYards and
Page 4 of 15
Carnival Cruise Lines to compare the results of the twin screw open shaft
Fantasy class of
ships with similar ships provided with pods.
Based on encouraging results with pods as main propulsor, Carnival Cruise Lines
decided to
select ABB Azipod propulsion on the last two passenger cruise ships of the
Fantasy class.
"Elation", delivered in early 1998 from Kvaerner Masa Yards' Helsinki Yard was
thus the first
cruise ship fitted with electric azimuthing propulsion units. Two units were
installed with
pulling propellers in the front end of the pods. The electric motors feature a
power output of
14 MW each and a rotation rate range from 0-146 rpm. At present, the largest
podded drives
that are offered by the industry go up to powers of about 30 MW.
The podded propulsor (with the electric motors placed in the pod) have proven to
offer a
number of benefits, "such as a remarkably increased manoeuvrability. The crash
stop for
instance was half of the original, and the vessel remains manoeuvrable during a
crash stop.
Other benefits are less fuel consumption, reduced engine room size and flexible
machinery
arrangement, as well as low noise and vibrations. The need for long shaftlines,
conventional
rudders, CP-propellers and reduction gears are eliminated, resulting in space
and weight
savings and reduced need for maintenance." [7].
In the meantime, all major propulsor manufacturers have developed their own
podded
propulsor (Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10). A noteworthy deviation from the
mainstream pod
design is the Siemens - Schottel Propulsor (SSP, see Figure 11).
Figure 8 Azipod from ABB
Figure 9 Dolphin from John Crane-Lips
Figure 10 Mermaid from Rolls-Royce

Kamewa Figure 11 SSP from Siemens-Schottel

The hydrodynamic design of the SSP is characterised by two propellers, rotating
in the same
direction. By dividing the total thrust over two propellers, a number of potential
advantages
occur:
The mass flow through the propeller disk is increased when compared to only
one
propeller. This is caused by the contraction of the streamtube due to the acting
propeller
when going downstream. The wake of the first propeller at the downstream
propeller has
Page 5 of 15
therefore a diameter that is smaller than the propeller diameter. Consequently
additional
massflow is ingested, leading to a higher efficiency.
The loading over the blades is lower when the thrust is divided over two
propellers,
causing improved cavitation characteristics. Alternatively, at comparable
cavitation
behaviour, the blade area ratio can be decreased which decreases the frictional
drag
contribution to the torque.
At a lower loading per blade, there is room to decrease the propeller rotation
rate, also
resulting in smaller frictional drag contributions to the torque.
Decreasing the propeller rotation rate leads to larger rotational losses in the
wake. These
losses can largely be recovered when a proper stator (such as the stator fins and
the strut
on the SSP) is placed, downstream or upstream of the propeller.
The above tendencies may lead to improved powering performance, which is
almost always a
trade off between efficiency and the risk of vibration hindrance and erosion.
These potential
advantages do however not automatically lead to an improved overall
performance of the
ship. Much will depend for example on the constraints with regard to propeller
diameter.
A derivative of the hydrodynamic considerations is that it will be important to have
a highpowerdensity electric motor. This motor should be able to operate at low rotation rates,
or at
the same rotation rate at a reduced pod diameter. The SSP was the first podded
propulsor
fitted with a Permanent Magnet Motor, allowing for a high power density

Thrusters: Hydrodynamic issues and design consequences

This section touches upon some of the more dominant hydrodynamic issues in
the design
and operation of thruster units: thrust effectiveness, maximum thrust density and
manoeuvrability.
Thrust effectiveness
Perhaps the most important issue in DP, DT or low speed manoeuvring is
knowledge on the
effective forces that the thrusters exert on the ship in the encountered conditions.
These
forces determine the thruster effectiveness for a given input power and
consequently affect
the selection of the type of thruster, its size and the overall thruster layout.
Thruster effectiveness does not follow simply from a consideration of a thruster in
open water
conditions. The thruster always operates in the vicinity of the hull and of other
propulsors in
an environment determined by waves and the motions of the ship.
Nienhuis [8] acknowledged the following disturbing factors: "In the first place,
unsteady
conditions are inherent due to the low-frequency motions, the variable thrust
vectors as well
as the first-order ship motions. Secondly, the low speeds encountered may lead
to inflow
directions, which deviate significantly from the alongship direction. Further, it may
be
expected that other propellers operating in the vicinity of the considered thruster
or propeller
will not only alter its effective inflow velocity, and hence its thrust, but will also
affect the net
force which this thruster exerts on the ship. Next, the effect of wind and waves,
which more
often than not dominates the current, leads to thrust levels of the propeller which
are not in
balance with the current forces. This is similar to a tug in towing condition. Finally,
restricted
water (shallow water or the presence of quays) is often encountered, changing
the
performance of the propulsion devices.
These phenomena all combine to the fact that for a proper design and operation
of a vessel
operating at low speeds, it is not sufficient to know the bollard pull of each of the
propellers.
Still relatively little knowledge is available for conditions inherent to DP, tracking
or low speed

manoeuvring. These conditions being:

low propeller inflow speeds
drift angle varying from 0 to 360 degrees
thrust vectors largely uncorrelated with the current force vector
widely varying propulsion arrangements
restricted water
Page 6 of 15
unsteady dynamic behaviour as a function of waves and low and high frequent
ship
motions."
The effectiveness of a whole DP/DT system is often presented in a so-called DP
capability
prediction. Such a prediction aims at providing the sustainable conditions for a
ship with a
given thruster configuration. The sustainability is then defined in a simple way by
determining
the static balance between excitation forces imposed by the environment and
reaction forces
by the thrusters (Figure 12). As explained above, the conditions for a DP
operated ship are
highly dynamic and due to amongst others the effect of large inertia and damping
forces and
second order wave drift forces, this static approach suffers from severe
limitations. Wichers et
al. [11] conclude that static analysis (for a monohull) is inadequate in determining
the DP
capability of a 3 axis weathervaning vessel.
Figure 12 Example of a DP Capability plot showing the reduction in
capability by
thruster - hull and thruster thruster interaction. In this case, 6 azimuthing
thrusters
were applied, each of 200 kN bollard pull.
Another complication in the use of DP capability predictions is the large variety of
computational models that are used, each with their own simplifications and
neglects. In many
cases for example, no interaction effects with other thrusters or with the hull are
used. In even
more cases the effects of e.g. bow tunnel thruster degradation in waves are
neglected. These
are mostly outside the scope of the DP Capability programs, whereas these
effects can have
an important bearing on the capability.
To fully incorporate the above effects and other non-linear effects such as the
second order
wave drift forces on the hull, one should apply a simulation model that solves the
equations of

motion in the time domain (see e.g. Wichers et al. [11]).

Maximum thrust density
Because of structural considerations, the size of a thruster is usually heavily
constrained. This
constraint, together with the desire to keep the number of thrusters as low as
possible, has
posed the issue of the maximum thrust density (thrust per unit propeller disk
area). Although it
is recognised that the thruster efficiency decreases with increasing thrust density
in general,
there is nevertheless a drive toward higher thrust densities for DP as a result of
the overall
design problem.
The minimum dimensions of thrusters are however limited by cavitation induced
thrust
breakdown, cavitation-induced vibrations, erosion and possibly mechanical
constraints
imposed by the construction. Simple rules of thumb are mainly used in practice
by engineers
and propeller manufacturers to determine the minimal propeller size in an early
design stage.
Page 7 of 15
These rules mostly use a propeller tip speed criterion or a power density
criterion. More
refined criteria, deduced from model experiments, such as proposed by Auf'm
Keller [3] and
Holtrop [2], show that parameters as blade area ratio and number of blades
should also be
taken into account. Current computational tools such as lifting surface or panel
codes are able
to also show the effect of blade geometry on the maximum thrust density.
Van Rijsbergen and Van Terwisga [10] review methods to determine the minimal
propeller
diameter originating from full-scale experience, model-scale experiments and
theoretical and
computational considerations. Their paper focuses on thrust breakdown due to
the presence
of a certain amount of sheet cavitation on the propeller blade. Other types of
cavitation, such
as Propeller Hull Vortex (PHV) cavitation and erosive bubble cavitation can also
impose a
limit on the thrust density, but are not yet amenable to computational analysis.
It was concluded from this study that the minimum propeller is determined by two
criteria: A

non-dimensional thrust density criterion KT/n, and a non-dimensional tip speed

criterion n.
Dimensional equivalents of these criteria are less reliable because they show too
large a
dependency on shaft immersion and efficiency. Furthermore, the thrust capability
of a
propulsor was pointed out to be dependent on wake field, propulsor type (open
propeller,
ducted propeller or waterjet) and propeller design. These parameters should
preferably be
incorporated in the criteria.
Manoeuvrability
One of the most important goals of the azimuthing thrusters is to have the ability
to direct the
thrust in all directions. This allocation offers an excellent freedom in
manoeuvrability and is of
great use for the offshore industry, especially for the purpose of dynamic
positioning. Also for
other ships, it turned out to be a good solution.
The large amount of tugs that are presently equipped with azimuthing propellers
is a good
example of ships that are combining on-the-spot manoeuvrability with the
required vectored
thrust ability at low and high speeds. The nozzle on the steerable propeller
combines this
good manoeuvrability with a good bollard pull. A good example is the ship type
Azimuthing
Stern Drive (ASD) tug. The number of azimuthing stern drive tugs that are
delivered in the
recent years is enormous. The Azimuthing Stern Drive tug is hereby developed
as the
standard tug type, taking over from the tractor tugs and the conventional tugs.
Even a new
type of tug is developed and equipped with Schottel thrusters. This is the Rotor
tug [5], of
which an impression is given in Figure 13.
Page 8 of 15
The concept of three thrusters under the vessel without skegs yielded an
enormous freedom
in manoeuvrability (Figure 14), allowing even pure sideways movements of up to
6 knots
(Figure 15).
Figure 15 Sidestepping at 6 knots

For ships equipped with thrusters and their manoeuvrability, it becomes an issue
whether the
human helmsman is able to control the ship. This manoeuvring problem is in a
way related to
the control of the jet fighter F16. The F16 system in itself is course unstable and
so
manoeuvrable that one human cannot handle it. Placing a computer between the
controls of
the pilot and the actual steered flaps on the F16 formed a good solution. For the
Rotor Tug,
Schottel developed also such a device, called the Master-Pilot. Also for the ships
equipped
with DP capabilities, such computer systems are required to allocate the thrusts
of the
propellers in such a way that the environmental loads can be withstood, not only
effective, but
also efficient. This means that the DP job has to be done with as little power use
as possible.
During all these manoeuvres, it is important that the thrusters will have as little
mutual
interaction as possible. One thruster, blowing in the direction of a second
thruster, reduces
the effectivity of the leeward thruster to a large extent, see Figure 16 from
Nienhuis [8].
Figure 16 Mutual interference between thrusters
For manoeuvring and course keeping purposes, one is interested in the
characteristics of the
propellers in oblique flow at relative high speeds. The side force and the
longitudinal force as
function of larger forward speeds and oblique inflow angles are discussed in [6].
With
decreasing skeg sizes and in some cases no skeg at all, the aspect of the course
stability
becomes more critical. For the above mentioned Rotor-tug, it was found that for
small angles
of attack, the side force generated by an operating thruster with nozzle is of the
same order of
magnitude as a typical skeg. This is illustrated in Figure 17 from [5]. These
smaller angels of
attack (say up to 15) are important for course keeping. For an important part, the
course
stabilising effect is due to the nozzle. The following example of a double-ended
ferry
illustrates that for thrusters without nozzle, the situation is different.
Page 9 of 15

Comparison of lateral force

0.E+00
1.E+05
2.E+05
3.E+05
4.E+05
5.E+05
6.E+05
0 10 20 30 40 50
Angle of attack (deg)
Transverse force (N)
Skeg
Thruster
Figure 17 Comparing the lateral forces working on the ship due to thrusters
or skeg
Sufficient course keeping ability with rotatable propulsors is not trivial. Doubleended ferries
are sometimes equipped with thrusters without nozzles. In Figure 18, reported in
[4] an
illustration is given of two hull forms. While the upper hull form (initial design)
suffered from an
unacceptable course instability, the lower hull form appeared to show an
acceptable
behaviour. In this case, stability obviously has to come from both the hull form
and the
propulsors.
Figure 18 Hull form design consequences for sufficient course keeping
ability
Pods: Hydrodynamic issues and design consequences
With every new development, new uncertainties occur that need to be controlled.
Hydrodynamic issues that arose during the development of pods were
uncertainty about scale
effects in the power-speed prediction based on model tests, and the loads and
stresses that
occur on the pod during its operational life. MARIN has recognised these
problems in an early
stage and has invested in developing and validating an extrapolation method to
scale the
power-speed relation from model to full scale. This is reflected in the pod models
used for
hydrodynamic testing and in a Joint Industry Project on Pods in Service. The
objectives and a
description of the monitoring campaign are given later.
A number of design questions arose with the advent of the pod:
Will pods save money and will they show lower fuel consumption?

Will they lead to higher passenger and crew comfort, achieved by lower
propeller induced
hull pressures and excitation forces through better cavitation properties?
What about the manoeuvrability and the course keeping ability?
What about the safety and reliability of the new systems?
What are the hydrostructural loads under operational and extreme conditions?
Will they cavitate due to steering angles during course keeping?
Page 10 of 15
Can they replace stern thrusters?
Some general trends referring to these questions are given below. These trends
were found
from some 50 commercial and research projects on podded ships that were
carried out at
MARIN during the last 5-6 years. Due to an early investigation of the
hydrodynamic issues,
We are proud to say that some 80% of the commercial researches towards pods
are carried
out at MARIN. This includes the very prestigious projects towards the Eagle class
of cruise
vessels (Figure 19) and the Queen Mary II (Figure 20).
Figure 19 Eagle class cruise vessel
Figure 20 Queen Mary II
Propulsive Efficiency
Before establishing the power speed relation, one should make sure that the
pods are ideally
positioned in the flow, respecting possible design constraints. It has become
clear that the
optimisation of the so called tilt and rudder angles and transverse and
longitudinal position in
combination with the best rotational direction can lead to power savings of about
3-5%.
Although some trends between optimal position and hull form can be
distinguished, the
optimum position strongly depends on the shape of the hull, the aft body fullness
and the L/B
ratio of the ship.
Assuming that the pod configuration has been optimised, predicted power
improvements
relative to conventional propulsion configurations in the range of 7-12% are not
unusual. Up
to now, MARIN was able to validate her power predictions with the trial results of
some 7
ships. These results showed that the predicted power is close to the full-scale
measured
power, with a slight tendency to be somewhat conservative.

Comfort
Addressing the comfort issue, it can be stated that the minimisation of propeller
induced
pressure fluctuations is of utmost importance. Especially for cruise liners and
ferries this is an
important issue. The increase in cruising and crossing speeds over the last
decade and the
growing importance of passenger comfort has led to a decreasing feasible design
space for
propellers in a conventional shaft arrangement. Large propeller-hull clearances
and highly
skewed, tip unloaded propellers were the result. The deterioration of propulsive
efficiency was
thereby accepted.
With pods, excellent inflow characteristics and small cavitation extents on the
propeller blades
have been observed. Even the complete absence of cavitation has been
observed. A
consequent reduction of propeller induced hull pressure fluctuations and
excitation forces was
measured, even under steering angles of about plus or minus 7 degrees. It is
therefore
expected that in the near future, more sophisticated wake adapted propellers on
pods can
gain a few percent in efficiency without sacrificing the excellent vibration levels of
the ship.
Page 11 of 15
Manoeuvrability and course keeping
The introduction of podded propulsors with electric motors in the hub introduced
the vectored
thrust in a new market segment: the very large powers. This allowed for example
cruise ships
to be equipped with pods. The need for this was also obvious. Besides the
already present
trend to go for an All Electric Ship, there was a need for better manoeuvrability
with cruise
ships. Cruise ships are becoming larger and larger while ports stay at similar
sizes and
marine traffic becomes denser. A further improvement in controllability of cruise
ships should
therefore be pursued. The application of the podded propulsors stimulated this
enormously.
Besides the almost standard application of pods for cruise vessels, nowadays
pods are also
applied in other ships. The first application of the SSP was on a chemical tanker,
but there are

other applications possible such as heavy load ships.

Equipping ships with podded instead of conventional propulsion can improve the
manoeuvring characteristics of a ship considerably. However, the use of the word
can should
be emphasised here: worsening is also possible. Several manoeuvring aspects
are dealt with
in the following.
Low speed manoeuvring
For manoeuvrability at low speeds, the pod developments are the necessary leap
forward.
Due to the use of new materials and client requirements towards all balcony
ships, the
superstructure of modern cruise vessels and ferries is becoming very high. The
resulting wind
loads are enormous. Therefore, more powerful bow and stern thrusters are
required.
Especially stern thrusters have insufficient power. Now, the all-turnable podded
propulsors
are overcoming this in the aft ship. The most recently observed trend is that the
amount of
bow thruster power is the limiting factor in reaching the vessels low speed
manoeuvring
targets.
Course keeping ability
A design consequence of the application of pods is that freedom is obtained to
design a very
flat aft ship. This is often favourable from a resistance point of view, and creates
a very
homogeneous flow towards the pod, which is good to avoid cavitation and
vibrations.
Especially when three or four pods are used, this freedom is also needed from a
design and
construction point of view. References are the Queen Mary II and the Eagle class
of cruise
vessels. The open aft ship does not have much lateral resistance and hence the
course
keeping ability will be small. The podded propulsors are furthermore in general
without
nozzle. It was already stipulated in this paper that non-ducted propellers have
inherently
much lower course keeping stability than ducted propellers. Together, this makes
that podded
ships are in general more course unstable than conventional ships (see Figure
21). The
recent trends of applying pods to full ships (such as tankers and LNG carriers)
can become a

real challenge from the course keeping point of view.

The possible operational consequences of an insufficient course stability is
serious:
Not fulfilling the IMO resolution A751(18) towards course keeping ability,
Excessive steering actions imposed by the autopilot, causing wear and tear of
the
bearings and steering engine, increased resistance, loss of propulsive efficiency
and
possible cavitation.
An increased risk of broaching due to the loss of directional and transverse
stability in
stern quartering waves.
Increased risk of collisions due to the inability of the ship to counteract turns
adequately.
Increased required power because of the additional hull resistance resulting
from the nonzero
drift angles.
Excessive steering in calm water or waves should be avoided at all times from a
cavitation
point of view. The consequences are a constantly varying loading of the
propeller, resulting in
many peak loadings. There is an increased risk for adverse effects by cavitation
on the
propeller (when the propeller is in oblique flow, the cavitation inception speed is
lower). Ships
at higher speed may additionally suffer from cavitation on the struts of the pods.
Page 12 of 15
Figure 21 Aft ship equipped with conventional propulsion arrangement and
a pod
arrangement
Based on the above, it is the firm belief of MARIN that the course keeping ability
and
directional stability should be investigated thoroughly before building the ship.
More important
than ever seems here that the behaviour and performance of the vessel is the
result of a
marriage of the hull form with the propulsor.
Heel angles
A third important aspect of steering with pods is the occurrence of large heel
angles. The
pods are very powerful steering tools. The side force that can be generated is so
large, that
the steered vessel can suffer from very large heel angles. At MARIN, heel angles
of up to 25
have been measured with ship models due to regular steering. Knowing that the
panic limit for

passengers is at some 7, it is obvious that this is undesired. The design

consequences are
that the hull form will have to be modified to assure that the heel angles will stay
within
acceptable values. It is important to check this with model tests before the ship is
build.
Practical operation of pods and thrusters
Experience from past projects learns that crew training is becoming very
important when
ships are equipped with podded propulsors, which is true for steerable thruster
units as well.
Operating pods is a different way of sailing. The manoeuvring capabilities of
vessels equipped
with pods are potentially high, but full use of these capabilities requires crew
training,
preferably on a manoeuvring simulator in order to cover also propulsion
emergencies.
Examples of such projects are e.g. the cruise vessels built at MeyerWerft in
Papenburg, who
had to sail through the Ems to reach open sea. Very accurate steering is
necessary and the
slightest mistake will cause a risk on the loss of the ship. Other examples are the
training of
tugmasters, the handling of double-ended ferries such as for the PSD ferries and
the TESO
ferries. Figure 22 gives an illustration of a training for tugmasters on the handling
of a tug
while escorting large vessels.
Page 13 of 15
Figure 22 Master training in tug handling at MARIN's simulator centre
Safety and structural loads
To get an appreciation of the structural loads that are met during operations with
pod
propelled ships, a large European project was initiated by MARIN. The reliability
and safety of
pods under operational conditions had to be monitored on full scale. This Joint
Industry
Project was designated "Pods In Service" and has the following objectives:
1. Assess the reliability and safety of pods under operational conditions
2. Evaluate the operational performance and benefits for the ship owners
3. Develop design, construction and classification methods.
In this Joint Industries Project, 25 parties are collaborating world-wide. Besides
MARIN, these
are the cruise line operators, navies, the pod manufacturers ABB Azipod,
KaMeWa, SiemensSchottel, shipyards and classification societies and VTT Finland (see Figure 23).

Figure 23 Participants in the Pods in Service Project (Kvaerner Masa-Yards

meanwhile
also joined the project)
Page 14 of 15
During this project, four vessels will be monitored on full-scale during a period
between 6 to
12 months of their operational life. The measured ships are the Summit
(Millenium-class), the
TT-lines Nils Holgerson, RCCLs Radiance of the Seas and the Finnish Botnica.
During the
monitoring campaign, there is a focus on structural excitation and response. To
this end, the
following signals are measured continuously: strains in shaft, gear and pod
housing, hull
pressure fluctuations, hull accelerations and vibrations and propeller blade
strains.
Simultaneously, the conditions are monitored continuously by registration of
azimuth shaft
torque and angle, input power and propeller rpm, ship draft, motions, speed and
track and
wind, waves and current. For one of the vessels, the underwater-radiated noise
will be
measured.
From the measured quantities, important feed back is obtained. This is not only
hydrodynamic
feed back with respect to the efficiencies and vibrations. Much structural feed
back is
presented and classification societies are using this to upgrade or determine the
rules for the
classification of podded vessels. A special work group consisting of all
classification societies
is developing and verifying computational and design methods for pod and hull
strength.
The first ship, the Botnica, owned by the Finnish Maritime Administration,
experienced a
extreme severe storm situation (15 m significant waves) during the monitoring
campaign. The
results are being analysed during the first months of 2001. Then it also will
become clearer
what happened during that extreme event. But of course also the other
information will be of
importance to increase the knowledge related to the behaviour of the ship and its
POD
system during a longer period of time.
Final remarks

This paper gives a review of current issues in the design and application of
steerable
thrusters and podded propulsors. One can conclude from this review that the
concept of
steerable thrusters and its design space is relatively well known territory, yet
leaving a
number of pitfalls for the designer. The concept of the podded propulsor is
relatively new, and
relatively little empirical knowledge has yet been accumulated. Hence, designers
and
operators have to rely on model tests, supplemented with CFD calculations that
require
relatively little empiricism. For pods, one can state that the necessary empirical
knowledge is
generated more quickly than was the case with the steerable thruster some 50
years ago.
This is achieved through sophisticated model tests supplemented with CFD
computations and
comprehensive full-scale measurement campaigns.
On podded propulsors, different applications and more sophisticated designs can
be
expected. An extension of the pod applications can be expected toward full block
vessels and
container ships. Research programs are already initiated for this. A higher degree
of
sophistication of the design seems especially possible in an optimisation of the
combined hull
form pod system design (e.g. adaptation of hull lines) and in further reductions
of the pod
diameter and the optimisation of the stay (strut arm of the pod). In addition, the
propeller
optimisation will lead to a further improvement in efficiency and in cavitation and
vibration
reduction. It is expected that the range of applications will also grow with
increasing insight in
course keeping properties in calm water and waves.
Although this paper has dealt especially with hydrodynamic issues, we cannot
evade the
ever-important issue of economics. Even hydrodynamicists can see that a
reduction of the
price of the pods will definitely be beneficial toward extension of its use.
References:
[1] Bussemaker, O. and Corlett, E.C.B.; Tractor tug family fitted with rudder
propeller.
Proceedings of 2nd International Tug Convention. London, 1972

[2] Holtrop, J.; A statistical re-analysis of resistance and propulsion data,

International
Shipbuilding Progress, Vol 31 - No. 363 (1984)
[3] Keller, auf'm J., "Enige aspecten bij het ontwerpen van scheepsschroeven (in
dutch)",
Schip en Werf, Dec. 1966.
Page 15 of 15
[4] Kristensen, H.O.H.; The manoeuvrability of double ended ferries. Design
considerations,
construction and service experience. Int. Conference on Ship Motions and
Manoeuvrability. RINA, February 1998, London.
[5] Kooren, T., Aalbers A. and Quadvlieg, F.; Rotor Tugnology; ITS2000, The 16th
International Tug and Salvage Convention, Jersey, Channel Islands, May 2000.
[6] Oosterveld, M.W.C. and van Oortmerssen, G.; Thruster systems for improving
the
manoeuvrability and position keeping capability of floating objects. OTC paper
1625, May
1972
[7] Marine Propulsion International; '2000 Years of Propulsion History', Sept.
2000
[8] Nienhuis, U.; 'Analysis of Thruster Effectivity', PhD Thesis, Oct. 1992
[9] Valkhof, Henk H.; "Podded propulsors, it has all just started", Marine
Propulsion 2001
Conf., The Motorship, March 22-23, , London
[10] Van Rijsbergen, M.X. and Van Terwisga, T.J.C.; 'On the maximum thrust
density of
propellers', NCT'50 International Conference on Propeller Cavitation, Newcastle,
3-5 April
2000
[11] Wichers, J, Bultema, S. and Matten, R.; 'Hydrodynamic research on and
optimizing
dynamic positioning system of a deep water drilling vessel', Offshore Technology
Conference OTC, Vol 4, no. 8854, May 1998

Diesel Electric Propulsion System

for P&O Cruise Liner Aurora
Electric Propulsion System for P&O "Aurora" a Propulsion System with a high Level of Redundancy
STN ATLAS Marine Electronics system responsibility for:
Diesel-electric propulsion system, electrical power
generation and power distribution system;
Integrated navigation system
Main data:
Length overall approx. 270 m
Breadth 32.20 m
Design draught approx. 7.9 m
Gross measurement est. 76000 t
Passenger cabins 934
Service Speed 24 knots
Power plant 56.0 MW
Propulsion drives 2 x 20 MW
Thruster drives 4 x 1.5 MW
Chiller drives 3 x 1.35 MW
Propulsion and power components supplied by STN ATLAS
Marine Electronics
2 Diesel-electric main propulsion drives with:
- 2 Double-winding synchronous motors 20 MW, 140 rpm
- 2 Synchro-Converters 12/12-pulse, each with two pure
water coolers and two
redundant excitation and control systems in master/slaveconfiguration
- 8 Cast resin propulsion transformers 8.4 MVA
6 Diesel generators
4 x 17.5 MVA, 6.6 kV, 60 Hz, 514 rpm
2 x 1.25 MVA, 690 V, 60 Hz, 1800 rpm
Switchboards 6.6 kV with 11 and 12 panels for medium
voltage distribution
4 Harmonic filter banks reducing the total harmonic
distortion of the mains
voltage to max. 5 %
8 Ring main substation units 4 x 1.5 MVA and 4 x 1.1 MVA
incl. medium and

low voltage switchboards and cast resin transformers for low

voltage supply
5 Cast resin transformers for engine room and emergency
switchboard supply
7 AC motors 4 x 1.5 MW, 6.6 kV, 1200 rpm for thrusters
and 3 x 1.35 MW,
6.6 kV, 3600 rpm for air-condition compressors
3
General
For the new flagship of P&O, built at
Meyer Shipyard, STN ATLAS Marine
Electronics was selected as main
contractor for the complete electric
power generation, main power distribution
and the electric propulsion system.
Based on the existing experience
acquired from the delivery of more than
140 electrical propulsion drives, STN
ATLAS Marine Electronics has taken
over also the system responsibility for
the power generation in combination
with the propulsion system. Mathematical
models as well as own software
simulation programs allow precise
predictions concerning the behaviour
and the quality of the power network.
The "Aurora" is designed as a passenger
vessel with a very high standard for all
accommodation areas. This high standard
is consequently achieved also for the
machinery, especially for the propulsion
system. Intensive safety requirements
of P&O lead to a design with a high level
of redundancy. This guarantees a high
availability under all sailing conditions.
System Description
The "Aurora" is equipped with four diesel
generators providing all electric energy
for the propulsion, all machinery and

hotel consumers. The medium voltage

switchboard is split into two sections,
which feed all essential consumers. A
ring bus system supplies all substations
via two short circuit current limitation
reactors. Two fixed pitch propellers, each
driven by a synchroconverter system,
provide the required propulsion power.
Chiller and thruster motors with direct
on line start are connected to the medium
voltage switchboard. Four filter circuits
ensure a low harmonic distortion factor.
Synchro-Converter Drive Design
Each propulsion motor is designed as
six phase salient pole synchronous
machine with air cooling. Both of the
winding systems are fed by separate
converters. This results for the motor in
a 12-pulse torque ripple and a smooth
operation. Each of this two converters,
which are feeding one motor, is supplied
by 2 parallel transformers with a 30
shift for a 12-pulse line reaction. This
design provides an unchanged harmonic
signature with a 12 pulse line reaction
also in case of operation with only one
of the converters. The two converters
are consequently realised with their
own control, excitation and coolingcircuits.
The converter power section is
designed as direct water cooled system
to reduce the dimensions.
Switchboard Design
The 6,6 kV voltage switchboard is
designed in two separated parts connected
by SF 6 tie breakers. For the
main consumers like generators SF 6
breakers are used, for the smaller
outgoing panels with a higher switching

sequence contactors are used. A very

compact arrangement was achieved
with double stock compartments.
The substations operate with separate
SF 6 insulated switchboards feeding
three winding transformers.
Propulsion Redundancy Concept
The "Aurora" is equipped with an exceptional
high level of redundancy. Beside
the two propulsion motors there are in
total four independent converters. One
converter is connected to one winding
system of the motor. It is controlled and
monitored by its own control system.
The same applies for the water cooling
circuit, where the power part of each
converter is separately cooled. Each
converter is even equipped with an
excitation system, which will be automatically
switched over in case of a failure.
Each converter uses separate sensors,
so the monitoring is independent from
each other. As special design aspect
each converter is designed for 140% of
its nominal power. This built-in spare
power will be activated automatically, if
only one converter is in operation. A
total converter power of 28MW is
4
therefore installed per shaftline. Beside
the lower temperature level in normal
operation mode this power provides in
case of operation with one converter a
very low reduction of speed. Tests
show a reduction of only one knot. This
allows the vessel to maintain its time
schedule.
Consequently all power and auxiliary
feedings for one shaftline are supplied

from different distribution switchboards.

Also the filter circuits follow the principle
of redundancy. In case of a problem with
one of the filters, an unlimited operation
is possible without any restrictions.
The benefit of this concept is an
availability of a partial higher propulsion
power in case of a converter failure.
Telediagnostic System
The propulsion system is equipped with
intensive diagnostic and failure identification
systems. A transient recorder for
storing data in a memory is provided as
standard since many years for all STN
ATLAS Marine Electronics synchroconverters.
Now a telediagnostic system
is realised, which allows a service
engineer to perform an instantaneous
evaluation of an event from his home
office via satcom.
The service engineer can perform the
same analysis as being locally at the
converter board. In many cases the
failure can be corrected by the ships
staff engineers by data transmission
and phone/ fax support via Satcom.
Filter circuits/ Quality of the mains
Four filter circuits in total are provided,
each with an incorporated filter for the
5./7.th. and the 11./13.th harmonic frequency.
This configuration allows STN
ATLAS Marine Electronics to guarantee
a THD factor of <5% under all operating
conditions. This prediction was verified
by extensive measurements. The result
lies well under any classification requirement
and ships specification. The filter
circuits combine the reduction of the
THD factor to specified values with an

improvement of the power factor. This

reduces the reactive power and
increases the efficiency. The filters are
switched depending on load conditions in
order to avoid a capacitive power factor
on the mains.
Monitoring concept
Distributed I/Os for motor and transformers
collect all data from analogue and
digital sensors. The collected data are
sent via a bus system to the converter.
This concept reduces the cabling effort
to only a bus system and the DC supply
cable between the main components.
Beside this are all data available for
monitoring purposes by the converter
CPU. A bus transfer of all data to the
automation system is provided.
System Advantages
This advanced propulsion concept of
the P&O AURORA guarantees a very
high level of redundancy. This ensures,
that even with a fault in one of the
converters, the vessels time schedule
will be fulfilled. A high level of availability
is achieved by installing four independent
converters. In case of converter
problems a telediagnostic system
allows world wide an immediate
support by specialists of the supplier.
5
The single line shows the arrangement of the main supply
with the propulsion system. The consequent
separation between the propulsion ensures the high
availability.

Second tanker to have SSP podded propulsion

Swedish shipowners order chemical products tanker
with Siemens SCHOTTEL Propulsor

The Siemens SCHOTTEL Propulsor Cons

received an order from Swedish shipowne
of Dons to supply a Siemens SCHOTTEL
'podded' propulsion system for another ch
tanker. The order is worth around 5.5 milli
new vessel is scheduled for delivery in ea
vessel's sister ship the "Prospero", which
propulsion, entered service in November 2

Owners "Rederi AB Donstank" of Dons

in Sweden have recently placed an order
builders Shanghai Edwards Shipyard for a
products tanker of approximately 12,000G
metres overall length. The vessel will be p
Siemens SCHOTTEL SSP 7 Propulsor po
system with an output of 5.1MW.

At the heart of the SSP propulsion system

field electric motor that needs no costly an
system. Compact, hydrodynamically-effici
together with a twin-propeller concept prod
effective propulsion system which, compa
conventional systems, offers better efficien
substantially less space. These features h
and cut costs and so bring about a very us
in the amount of revenue-earning cargo ca
The fact that the pod swivels also gives a
vessel's manuvrability. Thanks to the sy
construction installing it on board the vess
simple procedure. At the same time the sy
key features such as excellent reliability a

maintenance costs.

One important reason for the new order fr

has been the highly successful performan
"Prospero" - the new vessel's sister ship w
service at the end of last year - over the p

For the press only: Data of illustrations on request: ksch

Getting twin propeller

efficiency from a pod
An innovative podded drive system is designed to give significant improvements
in economy and maneuverability for a broad range of vessels, including cruise
ships, chemical tankers, icegoing vessels, offshore units and naval vessels.
Available in power outputs from 5 MW
to 30 MW per unit, the SSP (Siemens
Schottel Propulsor) promises energy
savings of better than 10%, thanks to a
combination of the benefits of the
Schottel Twin Propeller and a new
permanently-excited synchronous
motor, developed by Siemens, that
allows the maximum efficiency in the
transmission of electrical energy within
a minimum installation space.The unit
builds on Schottel's experience in the
development of steerable right-angle
drives (its Rudderpropellers). The
benefits of these units in applications up
to 6 MW are well known and there are
more than 23,000 Schottel units of this
type in service.To improve the efficiency of the Rudderpropeller, Schottel
developed the Schottel Twin Propeller (STP), where the propeller load is
distributed 50/50 to two propellers, one forward and one aft of a lower housing.

This housing features two airplane type fins that recover rotational energy from
the forward propeller.
The STP achieves efficiencies up to 20% higher than standard Rudderpropellers.
However, mechanical right angle drives, including the STP, are limited to around
7 MW per shaft.
The SSP (Siemens Schottel Propulsor) was developed to make the advantages
of the STP available for higher powers. This was only possible by incorporating
powerful electric motors in the lower housing of the azimuthing drive.
Conventional high power, low speed synchronous motors are so large and heavy
that they must be housed within underwater housings with a diameter of as much
as 60% that of the propeller diameter, with a dramatic negative influence on the
unit's overall efficiency. Siemens has for some time been developing
permanently-excited synchronous motors with a longitudinal electrical flow
design. A 1,000 kW propulsion test unit has been in operation on a naval vessel
for several years. This type of unit, available in a power range of about 5 MW-30
MW at low speeds, allows a significant reduction in the diameter of the motor
and, in turn, in the diameter of the housing of a podded drive. This allows
optimum hub/propeller diameter ratios to be achieved.
The SSP is a marriage of the Schottel Twin Propeller and this new type of electric
motor.A standard Rudderpropeller: replaces the steering and propulsion systems
of vessels; gives optimum maneuverability without additional stern thrusters;
lowers noise and vibration thanks to special supports; occupies less space and
requires a smaller engine room than a conventional system; can be installed later
in the construction stage than the conventional system, saving on construction
time and costs.
Further advantages claimed for the SSP are: no risk of vibration excitation by
gear sets and cooling fans; simple surface-cooled motor; mounting of the lower
housing is possible without drydocking.
COMPARISON
A propulsion analysis was performed comparing the SSP with the propulsion
system of the 70,000 gt cruise vessel Century built by Meyer Werft in 1995. Tank
tests were performed by SVA, Potsdam, Germany, taking into consideration the
original tank tests of the vessel by SSPA, Gothenburg, Sweden.
The 248.5 m LOA Century displaces 35,200 tons on a design draft of 7.5 m.
Design speed is 22 knots. Its diesel mechanical propulsion system includes two
shaft lines, each with a 5.8 m diameter propeller absorbing 14 MW at 120 rpm.
SVA Potsdam carried out tank test and cavitation tunnel analyses of both:

a standard podded drive system using two units each with a 5.2 m
propeller diameter and propeller speeds of 160 rpm (hub diameter 60% of
propeller diameter);
an SSP system with two units each with propeller diameters of 5.4 m and
propeller speeds of 150 rpm.

The study indicated that the SSP system would reduce propulsion plant power
consumption by 10%, translating into either an 0.5 knot speed increase or a 10%
fuel savings. Though the study considered the advantages of the standard
podded drive's lower resistance (due to the absence of stern thrusters and shaft
brackets), its speed was found to be no better than with the conventional
drive.The SSP gives considerable space savings in applications such as cruise
ships. In addition, a weight comparison of the 14 MW SSP installation and a
conventional diesel electric installation indicates a total weight of 510 tons for the
SSP units, and associated cabling and structures. This compares with a total
weight of 760 tons for the conventional system.
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
The hydrodynamic requirement that the lower housing diameter not exceed 3040% that of the propeller, ruled out conventional synchronous motors. The
concept selected was, instead, the permanently-excited synchronous motor.
Siemens has many years' experience in designing this type of motor for naval
submarines.
Magnetic flux is generated by high performance magnetic elements. Generally
arranged on the motor's rotor, these substitute for the conventional excitation
winding and such auxiliaries as slip-rings, rectifier, cooling air ducts and cooling
fans. Besides significant volume and weight savings, this gives a considerable
gain in efficiency by avoiding core losses and heat losses due to the excitation
current.
The flux distribution selected for the SSP application was longitudinal. This
avoided the need for a disc-type rotor, giving flexibility in selecting the
relationship between axial and radial dimensions of the motor's active
components. The resulting design is very similar to that of a conventional
synchronous motor and has similar electrical characteristics, avoiding problems
with electrical supply via conventional converters.To optimize the drive
configuration, a self-commutated converter is required.
Depending on load requirements, the SSP will be offered with a cyclo or PWM
converter.
Depending on propulsion system demand, the motor will be designed with either
one winding system or two independent winding systems (in the latter case,
emergency operation with half the motor is possible).

A motor designed for a 14

MW drive will have the
following characteristics:
Output power
Supply voltage
Rated current
Efficiency
Power factor cos phi
Max speed
Number of poles

14 MW
3.3 kV
2.9 kA
0.98
0.85
150 rpm
18

The motor will be supplied

by a directly water-cooled,
fuseless and short circuit
proofed cycloconverter.
To reduce total harmonic
distortion in the ship's
network, each individual drive system is designed with 12 pulse configuration.
The converter will be selected to guarantee a near sinusoidal shape, resulting in
a low level of structure-borne noise.SAVINGSWhile power savings of 10% have
been indicated by studies of a 70,000 gt cruise ship, Schottel and Siemens
believe that for other types of ships, power savings may be even higher. ML

PODS FOR ROPAX

Siemens-Schottel propulsor systems will be powering two new RoPax vessels
ordered by the TT-Line shipping company and to be built by SSW Fhr- und
Spezialschiffbau GmbH of Bremerhaven. The ships will be operating in the ferry
service between Travemnde and Trelleborg. The Siemens Marine Engineering
Subdivision in Hamburg will be supplying and installing all the electrical
machinery and systems as a turn-key contract worth around $40 million.
Each of the 190 m ships will be propelled by two Siemens-Schottel SSP 10
Propulsors. The power output of each SSP 10 will be 11 MW. The turn-key
project also includes all the automation equipment employing proven SIMOS
IMAC 55 equipment and the communications systems.
The SSP utilizes a compact permanent magnet electric motor that allows the pod
to have a lower profile, permitting more efficient water flow into the propellers.

The SSP is particularly suitable for passenger vessels such as TT-Lines two new
RoPax ferries because its twin screws produce much lower noise and vibration
levels so passengers can enjoy higher standards of comfort.
Since the Propulsor comes in sizes from 5,000 kW to 30,000 kW it is suitable for
the whole range of outputs needed by seagoing vessels.
Further development of electric propulsion systems will undoubtedly be
expanding the range of application of pod-type propulsion systems in the future
.In the permanent-magnet electric motor and the twin propeller concept, the
Siemens-Schottel Propulsor is employing two basic technologies that, since they
are both innovative and trend-setting, provide a solid foundation for successful
penetration of the market. ML

POD PROPULSION
by F. Mewis
Interest in pod propulsion has been stimulated by the successful sea trials of
several ice breakers and cruise liners during the last few years. At present
electrically driven azimuth drives of up to 20 MW per unit are available.
From the hydrodynamic standpoint the primary advantages of this type of drive
unit are

lower power requirement

lower level of propeller-induced pressure pulses
improvement of the manoeuvrability

Powering Performance
Much research and development work has been done by the various pod
producers for the purpose of improving the pod drive performance.
By optimizing the pod propellers as well as the configuration of the pod housings,
the efficiency of the units can be improved dramatically. The use of modern CFD-

methods for optimization has led to a better understanding of the flow around the
pod housings, also in connection with the working propellers. The figures below
show the pressure distribution on a pod housing. The distribution is different on
the starboard and port side due to the influence of the working propeller on the
flow.

Starboard Side

Port Side

(Abb. part1.ps und part2.ps)

Model tests in the towing tanks with pod units include both propulsion tests and
open water tests.
HSVA has developed new model pod testing equipment which enables accurate
measurements of the propeller torque and thrust at both ends of the drive. The
pod unit thrust is also measured. The photograph shows a Siemens-Schottel
Propulser (SSP) with two 4-bladed propellers installed on HSVA's pod open
water device.

SSP model installed on HSVA pod open water device

Pod units are also well suited as booster drives for increasing the speed of
existing vessels. HSVA has carried out extensive model tests for a commercial
conversion project: a cruise vessel with an additional azimuthing pod on the
centerline. Within the scope of the work, the powering performance of four
different pod systems was investigated.

"Costa Classica" conversion with additional SSP

Diesel Electric Power Plant

Diesel electric power plants and propulsion solutions have clear merits which
may vary from one ship type to another. The safety aspects of diesel electric
propulsion are commonly regarded as being related to redundancy in different
ways. The number of power-generating units is large enough to ensure
propulsion capability and steerage way irrespective of any component failure. In
addition the units can be located in different compartments to safeguard against
loss of power in case one compartment has been destroyed by fire or flooding.
A summary of advantages:

Flexibility, the installed power generating capacity can be used for

various ship functions and different situations;
Propeller torque capability, full torque at any propeller speeds;

Permits running diesel engines at a stable load with smoother

transients;

Permits running diesel engines at a constant speed;

Permits running diesels engines at a more efficient load at optimum

specific fuel consumption, hereby reducing emissions and impact
on the environment;

Uniform machinery; simple spare parts logistics, maintenance, crew

training, etc;

Flexibility in location of main engines allows to optimise cargo

space volume and arrangement;

Redundancy, both in the sense of safety and freedom in

maintenance routines.

Propulsion for Performance

Commercial marine propulsion has been seeing a good deal of innovation

over the past few years, most of it in the cruise ship sector where podded
propulsion drive and gas turbines have been brought into play. Very large
diesel engines, the largest ever built for commercial application, are being
developed for mega-container vessels capable of transporting nearly
10,000 TEUs.
In the workboat sector, there has been a near full-scale shift to
azimuthing drive for ship-assist tugs, and tug owners have been choosing
from a wide variety of drive combinations. Fast ferry operators have been
demanding cutting-edge propulsion technology, and new hull forms are
being developed to use advanced medium-speed diesels as well as
compact gas turbines.
Over-shadowing all these developments are environmental regulations,
many emanating from California, that will influence marine propulsion
design over the next decade.
While propulsion equipment manufactures have come up with a number
of new concepts to reduce pollution and enhance ship operation, not all
installations have gone completely as planned.
In the cruise sector, Carnival Corporation has settled out of court with

Finland's ABB Industry Oy for problems the cruise line has experienced
with ABB-developed Azipod podded propulsion drives fitted on two
Carnival cruise liners, the Elation and Paradise. Repairs to the Paradise,
said to have involved pod bearings and seals, were carried out by
Virginia's Newport News Shipbuilding while the Elation was handled at
California's San Francisco Drydock. Carnival demanded compensation
from ABB because of canceled cruises and lost income due to the two
drydockings. Newport News has also handled Celebrity Cruises, new
cruise ship Millennium, which experienced problems with its Mermaid
podded drives, resulting in a forced speed reduction of about four knots.
Most recently, the new European car ferry Nils Holgersson experienced
bearing failure in a Siemens-Schottel podded propulsion unit during sea
trails in the Baltic Sea, which required drydocking of the vessel for
complete removal of the pod. Nevertheless, the benefits of podded
propulsion are many and manufacturers feel that "once the bugs are
worked out" they will become a standard propulsion device. Podded drive,
in fact, has already been specified for the Coast Guard's new icebreaker
being planned as a replacement for the 1944-built USCGC Mackinaw on
the Great Lakes.
Although podded propulsion has yet to be fitted to a large
containership, it is already finding application in the tanker field. Swedish
operator Rederi Donsotank has taken delivery of a 16,800 dwt product
tanker, the Prospero, from Chinese shipbuilders that makes use of a single
Siemens Schottel propulsion pod. The unit has two propellers, one at each
end, and is powered by four 9L20 Wartsila diesel generating plants with a
combined output of 6,480 kW. This gives the 478-foot vessel a loaded
speed of 14.5 knots and the capacity to accommodate about 1,000 cubic
meters more cargo than it would if conventional diesel-screw propulsion
was used. Podded propulsion has also been chosen for a series of larger
106,000 dwt tankers being built for Finland's Fortum Oil & Gas by Japan's
Sumitomo Heavy Industries. Fortum is a pioneer Azipod user, having had
pods fitted to two of its smaller ships, the Uikku and Lunni, almost a
decade ago. The new Sumitomo-built vessels will be "Double Acting
Tankers" in that they will move forward in open water but will use the
Azipods to move stern-first in ice conditions.
Podded propulsion is also making its way into the ferry sector and ABB
has developed a compact version of the Azipod that is being installed on a
double-ended ferry being completed in Europe for service on the Baltic
Sea. The smaller version of podded propulsion unit uses a permanent
magnet motor with direct cooling by the surrounding sea water. This in turn
allows a smaller diameter propeller to be used which, according to ABB,
gives more dynamic efficiency.
A zipod has been designed to have a reversible propeller for working

astern, which means that the units do not have to be completely

azimuthing. This, in turn removes the need for slip ring connections, allowing
cables to be used to transfer the required electrical power between generating
plant and drive.

Prop Shaft Bearing Failures Again

Sideline New Cruise Ships
Celebrity Cruises revealed two of its new pod-drive cruise ships are being sidelined due to
multiple propeller shaft bearing failures, one for the second time in under a year. Even with
insurance, parent Royal Caribbean expects the cost and lost profits to total $11.5 million.
The Millennium-class Infinity and Summit
are each equipped with two Rolls-Royce
Mermaid pod propulsion systems. Two large
bearings, approximately 2-1/2 feet in diameter,
carry the propeller shaft in each pod. The
bearings are apparently failing under thrust
loading.
The early-stage failures are showing up
as spalling, evidenced by metal in the pressurized lubrication system. Oil filters prevent further
contamination damage to the bearings, but to reduce thrust loading and prolong bearing life, the
drives are being operated at significantly restricted power. Under full power, the motors are
capable of using 19.8 megawatts to swing the 18-foot fixed-pitch propellers.
Infinity and Summit are scheduled to drydock for two weeks each at the Grand Bahama
Shipyard in Freeport. Repairs had to wait until both drydock space and new bearings were
available. Summit will have all four of its drive bearings replaced beginning March 29, 2002, with
Infinity to arrive on April 13, 2002 for the same work.
Celebrity President Jack Williams said, "The ships are operating safely, but unless these
repairs are made, we cannot guarantee the integrity of our advertised itineraries."
Last summer, Infinity experienced the first prop shaft bearing failure, shortly after being put
into service. It was emergency drydocked in Vancouver for two weeks to replace one bearing in
the port side pod.
click here to read the Infinity article, which also contains
information about pod drives and teething problems with the ships
Rolls-Royce analyzed the Infinity's 2001 bearing failure and a few months ago released a
reengineered bearing. Because Infinity's starboard-side pod is now showing the same failure, all
of the prop shaft bearings in both Infinity and Summit are being replaced with the new bearing eight in all. While the new Summit has not shown signs of failure, they are being replaced as a
precaution. Similarly, Constellation, the final Millennium-class ship still under construction, is
being retrofitted before it hits the water.

Millennium Class Specifications

The Millennium class represents the latest in advanced cruise ship technology and drive
systems. Millennium class are 91,000 tons, 965 feet long and can cruise at up to 24 knots. They
carry 1,950 passengers and 1,000 crew. The Infinity has the world's first conservatory at sea
(including six Magnolia trees), a cyber cafe, 25,000 square foot spa, Internet access in every
stateroom and numerous other features. They are built to Panamax standards and so are
certified to pass through the Panama and Suez canals. All Millennium class will be built by the
Chantiers de L'Atlantique shipyard at St. Nazaire, France. Each ship costs over USD $350
million.
New Drive and Propulsion Technologies Introduced
The Millennium class employs two new drive system technologies.
First, they are the world's first gas turbine powered cruise ships. Power is generated by
two GE LM2500+ aeroderivative gas turbine engines from GE Marine Engines division, GE
Aircraft Engines. The LM2500+ is a combined gas turbine and steam turbine integrated electric
drive systems (COGES). Each 22-foot, 11,000-pound engine produces 40,500 horsepower at
3600 RPM. The exhaust gas temperature is 965 degrees Fahrenheit. The gas turbines are the
cleanest burning powerplants for any cruise ship in operation today.
Second, the ship is powered through
the water by two Kamewa (Rolls-Royce AB) /
Alstom pod propulsion systems called
Mermaid. Each Mermaid pod propulsion
system consists of a 19.5 MW electric motor
turning an 18-foot fixed pitch propeller. The
electric motor is contained within the pod,
completely submersed, and has infinitely
variable speed control. Most importantly, the
two pods can be rotated through 360
degrees, providing thrust in any direction.
The propellers normally point forward, but
their infinite speed adjustment and infinite
directional adjustment allow the ship to be
steered in any direction at any speed up to 24 knots. The propulsion pods not only allow the
rudder to be eliminated, but putting the power unit in the pod frees up substantial space onboard.
Other advantages to the pod propulsion system are that the ship can easily dock
anywhere without tugboat assistance, and that by pointing the propellers into the oncoming water,
pressure pulses are reduced or eliminated. A propeller's pressure pulses create intrusive
vibrations within the ship; reduction of propulsion system noise and vibration has long been a key
design criteria for cruise ships.
Production
Royal Caribbean ordered four Millennium class ships to be delivered by the end of 2002.
The first, Millennium, was delivered in mid-2000. The Infinity was delivered on February 26, 2001,
over a month late, and was not inaugurated until April 29, 2001.
Chantiers de L'Atlantique is France's biggest shipyard and has built most of the world's
largest and most advanced oil tankers, over 120 advanced technology warships and produces
40% of the world's cruise ships. The shipyard employs over 8,500 people.

Teething Problems Plague Both Ships

Even though the shipyard's advanced technology capabilities are well established, this has
not prevented the Millennium class from experiencing a series of expensive and debilitating
teething problems.
The first ship, the Millennium, had to be taken out of service only a few months after
inauguration due to unacceptably high vibration levels amidships, traced to the gas turbines. The
ship was put in drydock at Newport News where it was fitted with a ducktail and additional buffer
section in the stern. Several cruises had to be cancelled in that case.
The Infinity was in its in final stages of completion just as the Millennium's unwanted
vibration problems surfaced. Infinity's launch was delayed by over a month as a solution was
engineered and incorporated into the ship. Several of Infinity's early cruises were cancelled.
In January 2001, the Millennium was once again out of service for two weeks due to an
"under-performing" electric motor in one of the Mermaid propulsion units. The weak motor limited
the ship's top speed to 20.5 knots instead of 24 knots, making it impossible to stay on schedule.
Two cruises were cancelled during the repair.
The Infinity's port-side pod drive bearing failure sidelined it for two weeks and forced the
cancellation of two more cruises. However, it was not immediately clear why the Infinity had to
return to drydock for repairs. According to Rolls-Royce, the entire Mermaid propulsion system can
be serviced or replaced in the water.
Pod Drive Technology Questions Persist
Bearing failures and other problems are not unique to Celebrity, lending credence to
several leading experts' opinions that pod drive systems are not yet a mature product or
technology.
In December 2000, ABB Industry reached a financial settlement with Carnival Cruise Lines
over a propeller bearing failure in one of the 14 MW Azipods which power the company's ship
Paradise. The Paradise's Azipod bearing failure was blamed on lubrication problems, although an
analysis pointed to a "series" of unspecified problems.

The latest generation of Pod Propulsion Systems, the Mermaid, are developed by RollsRoyce (former Kamewa) with Alstom responsible for the electric drive.
Rolls-Royce's extensive experience of propellers and thrusters, and Alstom's position as a
leading supplier of electric propulsion systems makes this team the world's leading
independant partner for shipowners and shipyards.
Both companies are long established suppliers to the demanding cruise and offshore
sectors, and the Mermaid is expected to have significant influence on future propulsion
technology for a wide range of applications suitable for electric propulsion. These include
offshore units, naval ships, cruise vessels and ferries.

1
08/22/02

The Commercial Rim-Driven Permanent Magnet

Motor Propulsor Pod
Bill Van Blarcom, Juha Hanhinen, and Friedrich Mewis 1
Patent Pending

ABSTRACT
Podded propulsion is gaining more widespread use in the marine industry and is prevalent in
newer cruise ships in particular. This propulsion system can provide many advantages to the ship
owner, including improved propulsion efficiency, arrangement flexibility, payload and harbor
maneuverability. A new unique podded propulsor concept is being developed that allows
optimization of each element of the system. The concept integrates a ducted, multiple blade row
propulsor with a permanent magnet, radial flux motor rotor mounted on the tips of the propulsor
rotor blades and the motor stator mounted within the duct of the propulsor. This concept,
designated a Commercial Rim-Drive Propulsor Pod (CRDP), when compared to a conventional
hub-drive pod, offers improved performance and attributes in a number of areas, including:
smaller weight and size, and equal or improved efficiency and efficiency bandwidth, cavitation
and hull unsteady pressures. The combination of these CRDP attributes and performance

parameters could allow the ship designer greater flexibility to provide improved ship performance
at reduced cost, as compared to that of a hub-drive pod. The advantages extend across the entire
operating range, from sea trial to off design conditions. The advantages when compared to a hubdrive
pod could allow a CRDP to achieve higher ship speeds, or to be applied to a wider range of
platforms, or to extend the operating envelope of those platforms. The present paper discusses the
CRDPs advantages for both the ship designer and operator, compared to currently available
hub-drive pods.
Bill Van Blarcom is with General Dynamics Electric Boat (EB), Groton, Connecticut
Juha Hanhinen is with Deltamarin Ltd, Helsinki, Finland
Friedrich Mewis, is with the Hamburg Ship Model Basin (HSVA), Hamburg, Germany

2
08/22/02
INTRODUCTION
General Dynamics Electric Boat (EB) has
developed a commercial rim-driven propulsor pod
(CRDP, patents pending) and recently completed
hydrodynamic model testing of an 18MW CRDP at 1/25
model scale to demonstrate performance potential [1].
Testing included powering (open water and self
propulsion) and measurement of cavitation and hull
pressure fluctuations (at 0 o and 8o angle of incidence).
The purpose of this paper is to expand on those test
results and provide an assessment of the benefits of the
CRDP for a variety of platforms.
Principles Of CRDP Design
The CRDP design balances the hydrodynamic
performance and structural integrity of the propulsor
while integrating the motor. The key hydrodynamic
performance parameters for the CRDP are high
efficiency, good cavitation performance and off-design
performance while maintaining a compact overall size
(length and diameter), light weight and structural
integrity. One of the main advantages of a rim-drive
design is the mounting of the motor rotor on the rim
attached to the propulsor rotor. This allows the motor to
produce a higher torque, thus enabling operation at a
low RPM. The low RPM results in low relative velocity
over the rotor blades, which contributes to good
efficiency and cavitation performance. An additional
advantage is reduced flow distortion due to the strut
being located outside the propeller flow stream. These
advantages are enabled by radial field PM motors.
The strut and duct of the CRDP are designed within
the constraints imposed by the motor. The motor
requires provisions for both cooling and electrical
connections and cabling, which affect the strut chord
length and duct geometry. Motor cooling is provided
via seawater flow through the gap between the rotor and
stator and seawater flow over the outside surface of the
duct immediately behind the motor stator. For
maximum efficiency the strut span can be minimized,
but must be sufficient to provide a hull to propulsor
standoff to achieve acceptable hull unsteady pressures
as well as clearance for pod azimuthing. The duct
diameter and thickness should also be minimized
resulting in a short duct length to minimize drag,

maximize efficiency, and reduce maneuver resistance of

the pod. The duct diameter is driven by the rotor and
stator blade design, while the duct thickness is driven by
the motor design.
Scale Model Hydrodynamic Test Results Summary
And Conclusions
A complete series of model scale hydrodynamic
performance tests were conducted on a small-scale
model of the CRDP. These tests included
measurements of the open water and behind hull
powering performance in the Hamburg Ship Model
Basin (HSVA) tow tank and cavitation inception, torque
breakdown due to cavitation and hull pressure
fluctuation measurements in the HSVA large cavitation
tunnel. The CRDP tested was a 1/25.11 scale model of
a unit that was designed to operate on a typical twin
screw panamax cruise ship at a power level of ~18 MW
per pod. The CRDP was designed to provide improved
powering (efficiency), cavitation inception and hull
pressure fluctuation performance compared to that of a
comparable power and size hub-drive pod with an open
propeller. In addition, the CRDP was designed to have
acceptable cavitation breakdown performance and
experience no cavitation erosion during operation.
Conclusions of the test program conducted at
HSVA are summarized [1] as:
(1) At 1/25th model scale the open water efficiency at
the design advance coefficient of the CRDP is =
67.2% and of the comparative hub-drive pod is =
64.3% [2], representing a relative improvement of
4.5% for the CRDP ({67.2/64.3}-1).
(2) Scaling model results to full-scale, the open water
efficiency at the CRDP design advance ratio is =
71.7%, and the peak open water efficiency is =
72.1%. Applying the same scaling methods to a
particular hub-drive pod yielded consistent results
with previous full-scale efficiencies, and showed
the CRDP relative improvement at the peak
efficiency point to increase further, to about 6%.
(3) The efficiency versus advance coefficient
dependence of the CRDP (Figure 6 of [1]) shows
much less sensitivity to off design operation
(variation in blade loading) at model scale than with
the comparative hub-drive pod; i.e., even larger
improvements in the CRDP efficiency at off-design
conditions. Efficiency curves at full-scale cannot
be shown due to business sensitivities, but the
sensitivity difference between the CRDP and hubdrive
pod are even more pronounced at full-scale.
(4) The improved behind hull efficiency (D) of the
CRDP results in the use of less power for given
ship speed or increased speed for given power.
(5) The CRDP as designed exhibited cavitation-free
operation at full-scale up to a a cavitation index ()
of 2.55 at a 0o angle of incidence and 2.95 at an 8o

angle of incidence. The small amount and types of

cavitation, exhibited above incidence speed by the
CRDP and their stable nature led HSVA to state
that no cavitation erosion would occur on the
CRDP at or below the maximum speed, angle of
incidence and blade loading tested. The maximum
speed tested exceeded 26 knots, maximum angle of
incidence tested was 8o at 26 knots, and a test at 24
knots straight ahead with a 15% blade overload also
met the cavitation erosion free criteria. The tests
3
08/22/02
did not go to high enough speed or loading to
predict when erosion would occur, so the limits of
the specific design tested are unknown.
(6) The hull pressure fluctuations induced by the CRDP
have extremely low amplitudes, in fact the lowest
ever seen by HSVA or Deltamarin at the clearances
tested. CRDP maximum level at blade rate was
0.25 kPa at 26 knots and 24 knots with a 15% blade
overload, even at 8o angle of incidence, compared
to ~1.4 kPa at blade rate at 24 knots at 0o angle of
incidence for a good comparative hub-drive pod.
And those CRDP levels showed only a gradual
increase throughout the speed range tested, thus
supporting that continuous operation at higher
speeds is viable for the specific pod designed (i.e.,
that specific CRDP could potentially be applied to a
lower resistance, higher speed platform).
(7) The hull pressure fluctuations induced by the CRDP
at higher harmonics, i.e., 3 times, 4 times, and 5
times blade rate, have extremely low amplitudes;
less than or equal to 0.09 kPa at 24 knots for 0o and
8o angle of incidence.
(8) Torque (or thrust) breakdown due to cavitation
occurred at about 26 knots with the hull tested, well
above the maximum operating speed for the ship
hull tested of 24.5 knots. But the falloff rate, after
breakdown is very gradual, thus supporting that
continuous operation above the breakdown point is
viable, but with a slight impact on efficiency. By
contrast, open propellers, such as those of hub-drive
pods, typically experience a very rapid fall-off to
near zero from the breakdown point.
Benefits Assessment Basis
The following assessment identifies key aspects of
the CRDP that are considered potentially the most
attractive to the commercial market. Most of these
benefits are a direct outcome of and supported by the
CRDP hydrodynamic demonstration effort performed at
HSVA. This assessment combines that knowledge with
insight gained by market research and with additional
CRDP design knowledge (e.g., motor efficiency,
cooling).
This effort involved market research including
discussions with knowledgeable commercial ship and

propulsion machinery designers, builders, testers and

owners. Other efforts included gathering reports and
papers, technical research, attending presentations and
symposia, etc., covering numerous types of platforms
and propulsion systems. From that research and an
expanding knowledge base of the physical and
performance features of EBs CRDP in a number of
configurations, assessments of the potential benefits and
detractions of the CRDP vs. currently available hubdrive
pods in various platforms was accomplished.
Since new commercial propulsion system advances are
continuing, this effort also continues.
SIZE AND RATINGS
The initial assessment point is a comparison of the
CRDPs size and rating compared to hub-drive pods
capable or near-capable of delivering the same thrust;
Table 1 provides that comparison. Table 1 was compiled
from open literature for the hub-drive pods, with the pod
ratings also based on open literature which identifies
those ratings to panamax cruise ships.
EFFICIENCY AND ASSOCIATED SAVINGS
Hydrodynamic Efficiency
The maximum speeds for panamax cruise ships
have also appeared in open literature, with the
maximum of any today being ~25.5 kts. Based on that
maximum speed and the 20MW HDP ratings above, a
maximum powering point can be compared to the
predicted maximum powering point for the CRDP on a
panamax cruise ship derived from self propulsion
testing [1]. That powering point shows the CRDP to
have a ~7% efficiency advantage, or ~2.6MW lower
power comsumption. A powering curve based on that
7% advantage at all speeds is considered reasonably
representative of the sea trial powering performance of
Table 1- Comparison of CRDP to Commercial Pods @ Approx. Comparable Behind-Hull Unit Thrust
ABB Azipod [2] Mermaid [2] Dolphin [4] SSP [5] EBs CRDP
Nominal Power Rating ~20MW ~20MW ~19MW 20MW 18.5MW (nominal)
Continuous Torque Rating ~1340kN-m(est) ~1250kN-m(est) ~1396kN-m 1470kN-m(est) 1918kN-m*
Length 11.40 m 11.15 m 13.05 m 11 m 3.90 m
Hub diameter 2.85 m 2.90 m ~2.8m.2 (est) ~2.9m.2 (est) 1.46 m
Propeller diameter 5.80 m 5.75 m 6.0m 6.25 m 4.9m (propeller)
5.85 m (duct)
*The CRDP continuous torque rating includes a minimum of 30% margin on pullout; that margin is
therefore
available for temporary maneuvering loads.
4
08/22/02
todays best at-sea hub-drive pods on a panamax cruise
ship hull form. That powering curve is shown in Figure
1 below alongside the CRDP powering curve from
testing at HSVA [1]. Alternatively, at the same power
level the ship can be propelled at higher speeds with the
CRDP than with the comparative hub-drive pod, an ~.4
knots higher speed than the hub-drive pod at the CRDP
continuous torque rating.
Motor Efficiency

Besides the hydrodynamic efficiency advantage

demonstrated by model testing, the CRDP could also
provide a significant motor efficiency advantage.
Wound field synchronous (WFS) motors power most
current hub-drive pods. The CRDP is powered by a
permanent magnet (PM) radial field motor, which has a
clear efficiency advantage over WFS motors since
power does not have to be applied to the field (rotor),
and field power losses are thus eliminated. Figure 2
below shows the efficiency of the PM motor (blue) for
the 18MW CRDP vs. a typical WFS motor (red), plotted
vs. ship speed. At full power the PM motor is about 2%
more efficient (PM = 98.8%), but the PM motor
efficiency advantages are most dramatic at lower power
levels, approaching a 50% improvement at 4 knots.
Figure 2 also shows the combined efficiency advantage
from the 18MW PM motor and CRDP hydrodynamic
performance, and the resulting power savings vs. ship
speed, with the power savings scale to the right of this
plot. Taking this projection one step further, Figure 3
shows revised ship powering curves which now include
the effect of the PM vs. WFS motor efficiency
advantage. It is noted that these efficiency comparisons
do not take into account novel drive schemes that may
allow these motors to be driven more efficiently at
lower power. For instance, drive technology exists that
can power part of the windings (e.g., reduced phases),
thus reducing winding losses at part loads, but these can
be applied to both motor types. The efficiency
difference might therefore be reduced at loads lower
than 50%, but the CRDP motor would still be more
efficient than the WFS with the same type of drive.
However, there are other factors that bias this
comparison in favor of the hub-drive pod as discussed
below, so the overall comparison is considered
reasonable.
Figure 1 Behind Hull Powering Results, CRDP vs. Good Representative Hub-Drive Pod
5
08/22/02
Figure 2 CRDP w/PM Motor Efficiency vs. Conventional Hub Drive and WFS Motor
Figure 3 Behind Hull Powering Curve, CRDP vs. Comparative Hub-Drive Pod with Both Hydrodynamic
and
Predicted PM vs. Expected WFS Motor Efficiency Accounted for
Potential Annual Savings
Figure 4 below takes this efficiency comparison
even further, by showing a potential annual power/cost
savings for the CRDP in a panamax ship. This
projection was developed from an average annual
operating profile of several panamax ships from data
provided by Deltamarin and projecting the powering
difference of the CRDP hydrodynamic and motor
performance vs. a conventional hub-drive pod with
WFS motor from Figure 3. Note that for ~40% of the
annual hours the ship is at standstill. The power
generating cost and efficiency, $0.10/kW-hr and 95%
6

08/22/02
drive efficiency, have been used in other commercial
marine papers and appear reasonable by comparison to
other more complex estimating methods evaluated.
Projected Efficiency Gains Are Conservative
Some factors not accounted for in this savings
projection that bias the results in favor of the hub-drive
pod, and thus bring some degree of conservatism to this
projection are:
Projections Are Based on Sea Trial Conditions,
Resulting in Lower Than Average Power Requirement
The powering projections at all speeds, as shown in
Figures 2, 3, and 4 are for straight ahead, sea trial
conditions (clean smooth hull, deep calm water, no
current, 2.365m/sec headwind (Beaufort 2, ~5kts)).
These are not representative of even average conditions
over the life of these ships, which include operating at
the following conditions:
Deepwater conditions: Trim, wind, current, waves
and hull fouling are factors having significant
impact on ship resistance. A +15% loading factor is
considered a normal adjustment from sea trial to
average deep-water conditions. In heavy weather
the overload condition can easily be 50%.
Shallow water conditions: Water depth also has
extremely strong influence on resistance. In one
report it was noted that that for panamax size cruise
ships (~8m draft) strong depth impact starts around
30m water depth and in 15m deep water these
vessels can typically only reach 50% of top speed.
Low speed operation: At lower speeds in particular,
sea trial conditions are the most unrepresentative,
since lower speed ranges are likely in shallow
depth, high harbor maneuvering conditions where
propeller loading would be considerably increased.
And in those maneuvering conditions the pods are
usually turned into a crabbing orientation, in
which they are typically oriented between 30 to 90
degrees to each other to allow rapid thrust vectoring
(e.g., see Figure 5). The 4 to 12 knot powering
portion of the Figure 4 powering comparison is
based on both pods powering from the 0o angle of
incidence position; the crabbing position changes
this. Thus higher blade loads will be experienced
during low speed operation than has been analyzed,
and those operations will be at inflow angles of
incidence to the pod, both factors increasing the
advantage of the CRDP.
CRDP Operation at These More Severe Operating
Conditions Will Be Even More Efficient
The CRDPs higher efficiency and flatter efficiency
vs. speed of advance curve as shown in Figure 6 below
(Figure 6 of [1]) demonstrates that the CRDP will
perform even more efficiently at higher, more normal
loading conditions (lower advance coefficient, J) and
result in additional savings. This figure shows model

Figure 4 Potential CRDP Annual Fuel Savings for Representative Panamax Cruise Ship
7
08/22/02
scale open water efficiency (o) versus advance
coefficient for the CRDP and a good comparative hubdrive
pod. As shown, at the peak efficiency advance
coefficient (J/JPeak = 1), the CRDP shows ~4.5% higher
efficiency at model scale compared to the
representative hub-drive pod. But in addition, at off
peak advance coefficients the CRDP efficiency is
shown to be much less sensitive than that of the
comparative hub-drive pod. As an example (from [1]),
if the off design operation is limited to a 3% drop in
efficiency from the HDP peak (to about 61.3%), the off
design operation range of the CRDP is almost twice
that of the hub- drive pod range (.54/.28 = 1.93). This
insensitivity of the CRDP to off design operation can
enable lower ship operating costs and higher operating
speeds in heavier sea states with the CRDP. In
addition, it allows the design and use of fewer CRDP
units for operation over a range of power levels than
possible with hub-drive pods. And while impressive at
model scale the difference is even more at full-scale,
although it cannot be presented due to business
sensitivities.
Thus using sea trial conditions is conservative in
the annual powering projections of Figures 3 and 4.
Figure 5 Typical Pod Crabbing Orientation for Harbor
Maneuvering
Additional CRDP System Efficiencies Are Not
Accounted For
Additional electrical system power savings. The
CRDPs PM motor operates at a higher power
factor (~.94) than does a WFS motor (~.72 to .82);
that difference can amount to a ~ 1% higher
efficiency of the generator and distribution system.
Less secondary system power consumption.
The CRDP does not require a dedicated
cooling system, and therefore the energy to run
such a system is saved (See Secondary Ship
Design Impacts/Opportunities discussion on
page 10).
The CRDP also uses seawater lubricated
bearings instead of lubricated oil bearings.
The ships lubrication systems energy
consumption is thus also reduced.
These differences are also not accounted for in Figures
3 or 4, thus further adding to their conservatism.

o
Figure 6 Open Water Efficiency at Model Scale of a
CRDP Developed for a Panamax Cruise Ship vs. a
Representative, Good Hub-Drive Pod
SHIP DESIGN OPPORTUNITIES
The CRDP could offer more freedom to the ship
designer; in certain circumstances this may be a

significant advantage.
Narrower Ship Beams, And Unique Configurations:
The pod size itself offers an obvious benefit for
narrow beam ships, evident by the length comparison of
Table 1 and also depicted in Figures 7 and 8. But
beyond the conventional twin screw ships as tested the
CRDP size can also support more unique configurations
that conventional hub-drive pods cannot, or can support
them in more flexible arrangements.
8
08/22/02
Figure 7 Typical ~20MW Commercial Pod vs.
~18.5MWCRDP Shown in Relative Size
(CRDP ~1/3 length)
Figure 8 Typical Twin-Screw Panamax Cruise Ship Hub-Drive Pod vs. CRDP Arrangement Comparison
Consider, for instance, a three-pod arrangement
similar to the Voyager of the Seas Class (Figure
9). Those ships have two azimuthing pulling
pods (facing forwards) and one fixed pushing pod,
with the pod size (power) and spacing between
pods dictated by the azimuthing pods turning
circle. The CRDP, being shorter in length, could
support a two-pod arrangement delivering
comparable thrust, or a three across, all pods
azimuthing configuration, if desirable to the ship
designer or owner (Figure 10). It could also
support more pod arrangements than the hub-drive
pods, which might be of advantage for locating
pods in more ideal wake locations and thus further
improve hull efficiency (H) or cavitation
performance as desired.
Figure 9 Three 14MW Pod Arrangement on Voyager
of the Seas
Figure 10 HDP vs. CRDP in Narrow Ship Beam
Arrangements
In the case of a four pod ship, such as the Queen
Mary 2 (as noted in reference [3]), the CRDP could
obviously support more pod arrangement
opportunities than a conventional hub-drive pod.
The 4 hub-drive pod arrangement for the Queen
Mary 2 will include two azimuthing and two fixed
pods. A more flexible arrangement, if desired,
with all azimuthing pods can easily be imagined
with the CRDP, given the significantly smaller pod
9
08/22/02
size. But also of note in reference [3] is a
statement that the four-pod configuration was
selected after a three-pod configuration was
evaluated (26.5MW each); the three-pod
configuration was abandoned due to excess per pod
weight, in excess of 300 tonnes. Since the CRDP
also offers a weight advantage it carries a lower
probability of creating a trim problem for the ship,

allowing for a more rationale distribution of the

machinery and load items, and it might thus
support a three-pod configuration where the hubdrive
could not.
Also consider a booster pod arrangement, such as
the Costa Classica extension project. The smaller
CRDP length can allow the pod to be located
further behind the center skeg, due to the smaller
pod turning circle. The ship designer would have
to determine whether there was any advantage on a
particular ship, but with that freedom it might
allow internal arrangement improvements or result
in higher efficiency and ship speed because of a
more favorable wake in that position. Another
opportunity for the designer would be putting in a
more powerful azimuthing pod in the same space.
More Freedom In Stern Configuration:
The CRDP also offers opportunities to reconfigure
the stern lines, which could enable increased payload,
increased hull efficiency (and further reduce operating
costs), or podded propulsion of Ro-Ro platforms where
conventional hub-drive pods arent feasible.
Two CRDP Features Enable These Design
Opportunities:
Lower Vibration Levels.
The CRDP pressure fluctuation amplitudes are
smaller than hub-drive pods, which may allow
reduced clearance between the pod and hull.
Hull clearance (clearance between propeller
blade tips to nearest point of hull) is typically set
by propeller cavitation effects, and in particular
hull vibration associated with cavitation. The
propeller operates in a flow field affected by the
hull, which is decelerated and non-uniform into the
propeller, and has negative effects on propeller
operation. The propeller induces an unsteady
pressure field that affects the submerged part of the
stern, mainly caused by cavitation. This unsteady
cavitation is often the main cause of ship vibration
problems [2]. The vibration tolerance level varies
dependent on the type of ship. As a rule of thumb,
cruise liners and cruise ferries are typically
designed to achieve pressure amplitudes on the hull
of less than 2kPa at blade rate. By comparison fast
ferries would typically allow 3 to 3.5kPa, container
ships with installed propulsion power in the range
of 20 to 30MW would typically allow 3 to 5kPa
and tankers would typically allow 5 to 6kPa.
Clearance for a cruise ship has typically been 25%
to 35% of the propeller tip diameter to achieve its
vibration tolerance level; other ship types would of
course have different typical clearances. The tip (or
hull) clearance both provides distance to dissipate
energy from the source (propeller cavitation) as
well as placing the propeller in a more benign wake
and thus limiting cavitation.

In the CRDP configuration tested, with

roughly comparable hull clearance (CRDP duct
outside diameter and clearance hub-drive pod
blade tip outside diameter and clearance), pressure
fluctuation levels are so dramatically lower than
conventional pods that the CRDP clearance to the
ship could be reduced. CRDP levels are less than
20% of the hub-drive pod levels as noted in
reference [1] and page 3, paragraph (7) herein.
Note also that the CRDP levels are ~10% of the
normal tolerance level of 2kPa for a cruise ship,
even at an 8 o angle of incidence. Besides showing
dramatically lower levels these results also show
less sensitivity to wake than do hub-drive pods,
further supporting the tolerance to smaller hull
clearances.
Pod Configuration
The CRDP 18MW design for this
demonstration was developed with a self imposed
specification on duct diameter and clearance
propeller diameter and blade tip clearance of the
comparable hub-drive pod. But the CRDP could
be redesigned with a smaller duct diameter if
desired. Although the impact would be a reduction
in efficiency and lengthening of the CRDP both
those features have significant margin to trade off
vs. the comparable hub-drive pod. And efficiency,
although affected by a reduced diameter would not
be impacted as much as would a conventional hubdrive
pod if reduced by the same amount.
- Resultant Stern Configuration Opportunities
The stern could be lowered thus allowing more
gentle ship lines.
Thus providing a more gentle distribution of
displacement, reducing the boundary layer
thickness and steady pressure gradient.
Consequently this could reduce ship drag and
thereby improve behind hull efficiency (D).
This gain might be great enough to offset
reduced pod efficiency in the case of applying
a smaller diameter CRDP in order to lower the
stern.
10
08/22/02
More gentle ship lines could create more aft
payload space.
Ro-Ro ships must work the requirement to roll
cargo on and off the ship around the draft and
internal height constraints for the propulsion and
azimuthing system. In the case of an azimuthing
podded propulsion system the azimuthing system
imposes a height requirement directly above the
propeller that non-podded ships do not have. This
has been a reason for disqualifying podded

propulsion in some Ro-Ro designs. The reduced

hull clearances and/or smaller propeller/duct
diameters enabled by the CRDP might thus enable
more extensive podded propulsion on Ro-Ro ships,
by allowing deeper stern lines and thus lowering
the internal height constraint.
More Payload
As noted above, the CRDP allows stern
configuration opportunities that may open up additional
space for payload. But by virtue of the CRDPs
improved efficiency it can also offer additional payload
opportunities by allowing fuel bunker reductions while
still supporting the same service/refueling range.
Secondary Ship Design Impacts/Opportunities
The CRDP motor does not require a dedicated
cooling system, therefore there is less cooling
system demand resulting in secondary efficiency
savings and cooling system equipment reduction.
The CRDP features allowing the elimination of the
cooling system are:
The CRDP rotor, being a properly designed
PM machine, generates little losses.
The CRDP stator, being located in the duct, is
cooled by the seawater passing by the hull,
both internal and external of the duct.
- The surface area of the duct immediately
surrounding the motor, being much
greater and more uniformly exposed to the
passing flow than the comparable surface
of a hub-drive pod motor, enables this
cooling method.
- Also, the CRDP motor stator core length
is considerably shorter than a comparable
hub-drive pod, since the stator core
diameter is considerably greater than the
hub-drive pods. The shorter core length
shortens the conduction path from the
center of the core to the end-turns,
enabling more uniform temperatures
throughout the CRDP stator.
Lower power demands due to higher CRDP
efficiency can support lowering power plant space,
weight and cost.
Passenger comfort at higher speeds/higher seas.
The low pressure fluctuation levels demonstrated
by the CRDP both straight ahead at high course
keeping angles of attack could allow vessels to
operate at higher speeds or fill more spaces aft with
passengers without a reduction in their comfort
level.
SHIP OPERATION OPPORTUNITIES
Higher performance in all operating conditions
As previously noted, the CRDPs higher
efficiency and flatter efficiency vs. speed of advance
curve, as shown in Figure 5, demonstrates that the

CRDP will perform more effectively and efficiently at

all loading conditions. A maximum continuous thrust
vs. ship speed analysis for the tested panamax hull was
performed. The analysis assumed the CRDP and the
hub-drive sea trial powering curves of Figure 1 as a
starting point. Based on that starting point the
maximum continuous powering/thrust capability at
each ship speed is based on the motor continuous
torque ratings (Table 1) and open water performance
curves for each pod (e.g., Figure 5 of [1] and Figure (6)
of [2]). The advance coefficient (J), was varied until
the torque coefficienct (KQ) of each pod produced the
maximum continuous torque; the thrust coefficient (KT)
was then determined and used to calculate the thrust.
Figure 11 below shows some of the sea trial and
maximum thrust operating points on the CRDP and
hub-drive pod open water efficiency curves. At the sea
trial operating points for each pod they are delivering
equivalent thrust, at the maximum continuous thrust
points they are both operating at the motor continuous
torque point. In addition, operating points are shown
for the CRDP which match the hub-drive pods
maximum continuous thrust point, thereby enabling
comparison of efficiency at the same thrust.
By comparing the sea trial operating points it
should be noted that the hub-drive pod was given a
slight additional advantage in this analysis since its sea
trial starting point is at a more favorable point than the
CRDPs for all ship speeds. The hub-drive pods sea
trial point is just past its peak efficiency point whereas
the CRDPs is just before that point. For thrust and
blade loading to increase, propeller speed must also
increase, and J therefore decreases. From Figure 11 it
can be seen that efficiency will therefore initially
increase from the sea trial condition as J decreases for
the hub-drive pod whereas efficiency will only decrease
as J decreases for the CRDP. Thus the relative
efficiency and maximum thrust benefit predictions for
the CRDP thus computed should be conservative at all
thrust conditions and all ship speeds.
11
08/22/02
The analysis showed the CRDP relative
hydrodynamic efficiency advantage growing to over
10% at 13 knots and over 13% at 10 knots when
matching maximum thrust capability of the
representative hub-drive pod at those speeds. Or, the
CRDP can produce steadily greater thrust than the hubdrive
pod, 2.5% additional at 24 knots but increasing to
20% additional thrust at 10 knots, thus enabling higher
ship speeds in heavier seastates, casualty conditions,
etc. In addition, cavitation and pressure fluctuation
testing has demonstrated that the higher CRDP
efficiency performance also comes with improved
cavitation performance over a broader range of blade
loading as well.

Figure 11 CRDP vs. Hub-Drive Pod, Operating Points on

Open Water Performance Curve Predicted for Sea Trial and
Maximum Thrust Conditions
Less Maintenance
The CRDP is expected to require significantly less
maintenance than other pods for a number of reasons as
listed below:
Less cavitation erosion can be expected, therefore
resulting in lower maintenance costs. Besides the
cavitation testing that supports this conclusion is
one design difference of note: the strut position
relative to the propellers swirling discharge. In
the case of hub-drive pods, usually 1/3 to 1/2 the
strut is exposed to the strong propeller discharge,
and there have been reports that this exposed area
is highly susceptible to cavitation erosion as well
as vibration excitation. The CRDP strut on the
other hand is entirely outside and protected from
the propeller discharge and should not experience
comparable erosion or vibration. CRDP stator
vane erosion (stationary blades) might be of
concern since they are exposed to propeller
discharge, but these vanes are designed as a
matched set with the rotor blades to minimize
cavitation erosion amongst other factors.
Bearings. The CRDP uses seawater lubricated
journal and thrust bearings, thus avoiding the
necessity for seals to protect oil filled bearing
cavities. This type of bearings has been used for
many years and while successful they have evolved
from yesteryears brass backed rubber stave
bearings to special polymer materials today that
improve bearing life and reduce friction. The
CRDP journal bearing is designed within industry
standard design guidelines for projected area
pressure loading. The thrust bearing is designed to
operate at higher pressure than that calculated for
the journal bearing projected area pressure. The
thrust bearing is designed to operate at
approximately the peak calculated journal bearing
pressure, which is approximately six times the
projected area pressure. The thrust bearing design
was tested and verified using a scale model bearing
approximately 1/3rd the diameter of the CRDP
thrust bearing at maximum CRDP surface speed
and pressure. The thrust bearing design
demonstrated little or no wear while operating at
maximum CRDP conditions with a friction
coefficient of 0.005. The expected maintenance
interval of both the CRDP journal and thrust
bearings is at least 12 years.
Current commercial propulsion pods by
contrast do not appear to either incorporate a robust
bearing service life or separate bearing cavity seals
to prevent seawater contamination of the
lubrication system. The typical commercial pod

uses oil-lubricated roller bearings for both the shaft

radial and thrust bearings, which have become a
maintenance problem for many ship operators,
requiring expensive dry-dock periods to
disassemble the pod(s) and replace roller bearings.
The current bearing problems appear to be
aggravated by early seal failures, in some reported
instances at least, that introduce seawater into the
bearing cavity and lead to rapid bearing failure.
Also, the failed seals and flooded bearing cavities
can allow oil to escape the pods and become
penalizing environmental spills.
Cooling System: Less cooling system equipment is
required since the CRDP is totally cooled by
naturally passing seawater past the duct and by the
pressure developed by the propeller rotor causing
seawater flow through the gap between the motor
stator and rotor. This feature also lowers overall
system noise levels by eliminating disturbing
noises emitting from cooling fans, etc., which are
required for most other pods.
Lubrication System: Separate bearing lubrication
system is avoided, since the bearings are seawater
lubricated.
12
08/22/02
Higher Attainable Ship Speeds
From information gathered, the greatest apparent
obstacle to achieving higher ship speeds with current
commercial hub-drive pods is primarily due to high
cavitation and pressure fluctuation levels, aggravated
by pod dithering in high speed course keeping and by
potential for strong propeller/strut vibration and erosion
effects (as also noted in the less maintenance
discussion above). The CRDP's demonstrated
performance on this initial pod demonstrator, which by
the way was not designed to achieve higher speed than
the maximum speed identified for the particular
panamax cruise ship, was dramatically better than the
comparative hub-drive pod.
Higher performance in single pod operation. Many
pod propelled cruise ships have had publicized
propulsion system problems. Other podded ships,
particularly other ship types, may have also experienced
problems but have not been as widely publicized.
Some of these casualties were known to involve at least
one pod, and others, while not necessarily caused by the
pod, may have still disabled powering one pod. Some
of these resulted in cruise cancellation in mid-cruise
with considerable revenue impact. It is reasonable to
assume several of these resulted in single pod operation
to either complete the cruise or get back to port.
Infinity and Summit in fact were noted to have operated
in single pod mode at lower ship speeds and modified
itineraries in order to support scheduled cruises while
awaiting a time window for repairs. It is therefore

realistic to consider this operating mode as being of

some interest to a commercial ship owner/operator. As
already noted the CRDP can deliver more thrust at
somewhat higher blade loading than the hub-drive pods
and therefore will support higher speeds in these
casualty conditions.
CONCLUSIONS
In comparison to currently available commercial
hub-drive pods:
CRDP delivers required net thrust with a smaller
pod (~1/3 as long).
CRDP is more efficient in all operating conditions
(e.g., sea trial condition, fouled hull, maneuvering,
and varying sea states) than current hub-drive pods.
Overall efficiency advantage is a result of
hydrodynamic, motor and secondary system
efficiency advantages.
CRDP is less prone than hub-drive pods to
performance degradation, both straight ahead and
at steering angles.
CRDP provides better passenger comfort; ~5 times
lower hull unsteady pressure levels for given hull
clearance will result in reduced hull vibrations.
CRDP can achieve higher ship speeds with
acceptable cavitation and no risk of cavitation
erosion.
CRDP allows more hull design flexibility
(narrower ship beams, reduced clearance to hull,
more gentle and fuller stern lines, etc.).
CRDP can support a wider range of operating
modes, such as single pod propulsion on multiscrew
ships, than conventional hub-drive pods.
CRDP allows use of an alternate water lubricated
bearing system that does not require lubricating oil
or seals and is expected to be more reliable than the
current practice of oil lubricated roller bearings.
CRDP is expected to require less maintenance.
The maintenance advantage results from reduced
cavitation erosion, reduced support system
equipment (e.g., reduced cooling and lubricating
system requirements) and the alternate bearing
system noted above.
The CRDP, therefore, should be a more
economical choice for a wider range of ship types than
other propulsion alternatives.
REFERENCES
[1] Lea, M.; Thompson, D.; Van Blarcom, B.; Eaton,
J.; Richards, J.; & Friesch, J; Scale Model
Testing of a Commercial Rim-Driven Propulsor
Pod, September 2002
[2] Mewis, F., HSVA Seminar for Ship Owners
and Operators, 10May01
[3] Naval Architect (publication of the Royal
Institute of Naval Architects, UK), January 2001
[4] DOLPHIN A John Crane Lips/STN ATLAS

Marine Electronics Podded Propulsion System,

DS 1.036.01/2000
[5] The SSP Propulsor, An Ingenious Podded Drive
System, 159U538 02981
NOMENCLATURE
ARL The Pennsylvania State University Applied
Research Laboratory
CRDP commercial rimdrive propulsor pod, patents
pending
DR rotor diameter
EB Electric Boat Corporation, a General
Dynamics Company
HSVA Hamburg Ship Model Basin (Hamburgische
Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt GmbH)
ITTC International Towing Tank Conference
J advance ratio or coefficient = V/nDR
KT thrust coefficient = T/n2DR
KQ torque coefficient = Q/n2DR
5

13
08/22/02
L length
MW megawatt
n rotor rotational speed, in revolutions per
second
Q steady torque
PD Power delivered to propeller = 2nQ
PE Effective Power delivered by propeller pod =
RT V
RT Total Ship Resistance
RPM revolutions per minute
T steady thrust
t thrust-deduction fraction = (T-RT)/T
V ship speed
VA speed of advance of propeller = V(1-w)
VRel relative velocity
w Taylor wake fraction = (V-VA)/V
O complete pod efficiency in open water
= (JKT)/(2KQ)
D propulsive efficiency (a.k.a., quasi-propulsive
coefficient)
= PE/PD = R O H
H hull efficiency = (1-t)/(1-w)
R relative rotative efficiency
= KQ (open water test) /KQ (propulsion test)
water kinematic viscosity
water mass density
cavitation index (related to ship speed)
= (po-pv)/ (0.5(VA)2)
multiplication sign
AUTHORS
Bill Van Blarcom is a Principal Engineer at
General Dynamics Electric Boat, Groton, CT. He holds
a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Rensselaer, NY, and a

Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the
University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. He has worked
in various engineering positions at Electric Boat
Corporation over the last 28 years including analysis,
design development, program management and
supervision. His current efforts at Electric Boat have
been in advanced concept development and evaluation
of integrated electric power/propulsion system
components.
Electric Boat
Eastern Point Rd.
Groton, CT 06355
(860) 437-5631; (860) 437-5428 (fax)
bvanblar@ebmail.gdeb.com
Juha Hanhinen is a Naval Architect from
Deltamarin Helsinki Office. He did his masters thesis
for Azipod about azimuthing podded propulsors and
received his degree from the Technical University of
Helsinki in 94. After short periods in Helsinki
Shipyard and Finnish propeller manufacturer
FinnScrew, he joined the Deltamarin team in summer
95. Since then hes been heading the companys
hydrodynamic group and closely followed the
development of commercial pod propulsors and their
introduction in cruise ship applications.
Deltamarin Ltd
Sarkiniementie 7
FIN-00210 Helsinki, Finland
358 2 4377 311; 358 2 4380 378 (fax)
juha.hanhinen@deltamarin.com
Friedrich Mewis is a Director of the Hamburg Ship
Model Basin (HSVA) where he is also head of the
Resistance and Propulsion department. He holds a
Diplomingenieur fr Schiffbau from the University of
Rostock, Germany. For the previous 27 years he was
employed at the Potsdam Ship Model Basin (SVA),
where he specialized in the areas of resistance and
propulsion as well as hull form and propulsion
optimization. He has continued his work in this field at
HSVA, where he has been for 6 years. He has published
15 major papers, among them The Efficiency of Pod
Propulsion, HADMAR2001, Varna, Bulgaria. He is
secretary of the Propulsion Committee of the 23rd
ITTC.
Hamburgische Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt (HSVA)
GmbH
Bramfelder Strasse 164
D-22305 Hamburg, Germany
49 (40) 69 203-224; 49 (40) 69 203-345 (fax)
Mewis@hsva.de
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors recognize that numerous, diverse
teams of people on both sides of the Atlantic worked to
support this demonstration effort, and it is with regret
we cannot name them all, but all are thanked herewith.

The following limited list of individuals were

considered the greatest supporters, and most gratefully
acknowledged:
From Electric Boat: Al Franco, Scott Forney, Chas.
St. Germain, Dan Kane, Charles Knight, Michelle Lea,
Donald Thompson, Spyro Pappas, Stu Peil, Mark
Warburton. From HSVA: John Richards, Jrgen
Friesch, Karl-Heinz Koop, Eckhard Praefke, Dietrich
Wittekind and Gerhard Jensen. From Penn State ARL,
Jon Eaton.

Manufacture of a Prototype Advanced Permanent

Magnet Motor Pod
Piet Van Dine
Principal Engineer
Electric Boat Corporation
September 2002

AUTHOR
Piet Van Dine is a Principal Engineer at Electric Boat Corporation, Groton, CT.
He holds a Bachelor of Science in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering
from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. He has worked in various
positions in the marine industry over the last 21 years including field engineering
for General Electric, engineering assistant for Norfolk Naval Shipyard and 19
years in engineering positions at Electric Boat. His efforts at Electric Boat have
been in advanced concept and component development. Mr. Van Dine has been
actively working with composite material over the past twelve years and is
responsible for advanced concepts composites efforts. He has written several
papers and submitted several patents relating to composites manufacturing
processes and applications, including eleven that have been awarded.
40 Overlook Ave.
Mystic CT 06355
(860) 437-5220 (phone)
(860) 437-5428 (fax)

Manufacture of a Prototype Advanced Permanent

Magnet Motor Pod
Piet Van Dine
Principal Engineer
Electric Boat Corporation

ABSTRACT
Podded propulsion is prevalent in the marine industry. Podded
propulsion systems provide many advantages to the ship owner,
including increased propulsion efficiency and reduced construction

cost. To evaluate the potential of a new pod configuration, a

prototype machine was constructed and tested. This prototype
machine was mainly constructed of composite parts. The propeller,
housings, structural blading, motor canning and fairings were
constructed of composite materials. Composite materials were
chosen as a cost saving, schedule reduction, performance
enhancement and as a technology demonstration. This paper will
review the unit construction, and test results, focusing on the
lessons learned for the composite part manufacture.
KEY WORDS: Pods, Composites

INTRODUCTION
Podded propulsion has become a shipbuilding standard for commercial ships.
This propulsion alternative offers the ship owner many advantages. The
advantages include reduced ship acquisition costs, improved propulsion
efficiency and improved ship arrangements. Podded propulsion has taken the
form of a driver contained in a hull, turning the propeller by a shaft. The driver
hull (or pod) includes a shaft sealing system to prevent water from entering. The
pod is connected to the ship hull by a strut. The strut can be connected directly
to ship structure or to an azmuthing system. The azimuthing system offers the
ship owner improved maneuvering over standard rudder systems. Figure 1 is an
artists depiction of one of the most popular podded propulsion systems,
produced by Asea Brown Boveri (ABB).
Figure 1: ABB Azipod Podded Propulsion {1}
An alternate podded propulsion system has been invented, incorporating the
driver or motor on the rim of the propeller. The motor rotor is attached to the rim
and driven by the motor stator, which is located outside the rotor. This
propulsion system has been shown analytically and empirically to offer improved
efficiency and reduced weight when compared to current podded propulsion.
The configuration of a rim driven pod (RDP) is represented by Figure 2. The pod
configuration and many details are Patent Pending.
Figure 2: Rim Driven Pod Concept
A prototype RDP was designed and constructed to provide an empirical
database to validate the analysis. This hardware was designed to be tested
statically, and so reproduced the flow path and driver hardware properly. The
external shape was not faired due to the static test conditions. The bearings
used for the initial demonstration were angular contact ball bearings. This
system offered a low risk, low cost alternative to hydrodynamic bearings as are
expected to be used in many future applications. The unit was manufactured of
composite materials to minimize costs and schedule. Cost and schedule
advantages stemmed from the non-production nature of the part and novel
composite manufacture techniques employed. The composite material also
offered some definable performance advantages. Figure 3 is a picture of the
assembled prototype RDP.
Figure 3: Prototype Rim Driven Propulsion Pod

DESIGN
The prototype RDP was designed for static operation, the thrust was absorbed in

a moored barge. The integration of the various components to create the RDP
assembly was fully evaluated in the design and manufacturing stages to preclude
problems in future units. Other features of the prototype RDP included:
Rolling Element (ball) bearings enclosed in a pressure compensated housing.
Static lip seals to prevent bearing oil from leaking into the water.
A permanent magnet (PM) motor design.
A two stage propeller blade set, the first rotating, the second stationary,
canceling swirl from the first to maximize efficiency.
Two composite stator can concepts, a solid can and a hollow pressure
compensated can.
A solid composite canning for the motor rotor.
Composite blading manufactured with a patent pending concept, which
manufactures each blade independently and then joins them into a monolithic
structure.
End bells and cones manufactured of composite materials.
Figure 4 is a cross sectional drawing of the prototype RDP with a pressure
compensated hollow stator can. This drawing represents the option that was
manufactured, assembled and tested.
Figure 4: Prototype RDP Drawing
The design attributes of the prototype RDP are:

120 Horsepower
500 RPM
24 Poles
144 Stator Slots
6 Phase Motor
0.45 Inch Electrical Gap
MANUFACTURE
This section will review the manufacture of the key parts of the prototype RDP,
the methods used and the lessons learned. These key parts include the rotor,
the stator can, and the stationary blading. The manufacturing methods chosen
reflected the required part configuration. The two primary manufacturing
428 Volts
75Hz
98.188% Motor Efficiency
methods used were a vacuum assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM) and
filament winding. The VARTM methods used both soft and hard molds. The
resin system for the parts was a DOW DEREKANE Vinyl Ester with E Glass
reinforcement. A metallic structure was included as a permanent part of some
parts as reinforcement, load carrying, wear surfaces or thread pads. Part
shrinkage rates and cure were calculated based on empirical VARTM data. A

2% average shrink rate was used for the thick parts. This rate was proven to be
appropriate for the reinforcement, resin and fillers used.
Rotor
The rotor was manufactured (using a patent pending process) by first molding
impeller sections that include the entire blade span and portions of the hub and
shroud, see Figure 5-1. These sections were then assembled with adhesive to
form a complete set of blades. The set of blades was then placed in a mold with
a glass wrap on the outside of the blade assembly, see Figure 5-2. This
assembly was then injected to form the shroud. The metallic hub was inserted
with glass fiber and injected with resin, see Figure 5-3. The part was then
demolded and the rotor finish-machined to accept the motor rotor. The motor
rotor is then installed, see Figure 5-4. Glass was packed around the rotor, and
the rotor VARTM injected to form a solidly canned part, see Figure 5-5.
Figure 5-1. Composite Rotor Segments
Figure 5-3. Rotor with Shroud and Hub
Figure 5-2. Rotor Segments in Tooling
Figure 5-4. Rotor with Motor Rotor
Figure 5-5: Completed Rotor with Motor Rotor Canned
Stator
The stator vanes were manufactured (using a patent pending process) in the
same manner as the rotor, by first molding sections that include the entire blade
span and portions of the hub and shroud, see Figure 6-1. These sections were
then assembled with adhesive to form a complete set of blades, see Figure 6-2.
The set of blades was then placed in a mold with a glass wrap on the outside of
the blade assembly. This assembly was then injected to form the shroud. The
assembly was then installed in a VARTM cylinder on which aluminum stiffeners
and thread plates were attached with resin, see Figure 6-3. The part was then
demolded, see Figure 6-4. The part finish machining completed the effort, see
Figure 6-5
Figure 6-1: Stator Segments Figure 6-2: Assembled Stator Segments
Figure 6-4: VARTM Stator Assembly Figure 6-3: Stator Assembly
Figure 6-5: Finished Stator
Stator Can
The stator can was manufactured using two different methods. The first method
used was a solid encapsulation. A hollow, pressure compensated canning
method was also used. Figure 7-1 is the motor stator that was canned.
Figure 7-1: Motor Stator
The solid canning was manufactured by inserting the motor stator in a hard tool
with locating features and dry glass cloth. The part was then VARTM processed,
resulting in a single monolithic structure, see Figure 7-2. This method resulted in
some shifting of the motor stator during the VARTM process. The reason for the
shifting was the curing pattern of the part and the inadequate locating features.
Based on these problems a process revision was developed for future use. The
solid canning process is protected under US Patents #06069421, #6150747 and
pending patents.
Figure 7-2: Solid Canned Stator

The other configuration used to manufacture the stator canning was a pressure
compensated hollow can. This configuration is also protected by pending
patents. The manufacturing process entailed filament winding of inner and outer
composite cylinders, see Figures 7-3 and 7-4. These cylinders are assembled
with metal end plates and O Rings to form a sealed container, see Figures 7-5,
7-6 and 7-7. The assembly was tested by immersion in water and pressurizing
with air. The air pressure was held for 30 minutes and the water watched for
bubbles. The container was then disassembled for motor stator installation. The
motor stator was installed and positively located by mechanical connection to an
end plate. The container assembly was then completed and installed on the unit,
see Figure 7-8. This container was filled with dielectric fluid and was externally
pressure compensated. This assembly resulted in a reliable test configuration
with positive locating features. The unit testing proceeded based on this motor
stator can configuration.
Figure 7-3: Outer Can
Figure 7-8: Canned Stator on Unit Figure 7-7: Outer Can
Figure 7-6: Partially Assembled Can Figure 7-5: Can End Plates
Figure 7-4: Inner Can
Other Parts
The other major parts were manufactured in two methods; the end bells were
manufactured using soft molds and the VARTM process. The cones were
manufactured by forming a metallic core and filament winding over the core. The
parts were then finish machined. Figure 8 is a picture of the parts ready for
assembly.
Figure 8: Unit Parts
Process Review
The processes used to manufacture the prototype RDP were successful. The
process could be improved for the end cones by reshaping the metallic core to
be more conducive to the filament winding process. See Figure 9 for the cone
winding form that was used. Various details and permanent tooling would
improve efficiency.
Figure 9: End Cone Winding Form

ASSEMBLY
The parts were assembled to complete the prototype RDP. The process
required a careful attention to details to ensure that parts were not damaged.
The fact that powerful permanent magnets were a part of the unit caused strong
forces during assembly. The use of composite materials reduced this attractive
force and the parts were positively controlled during the entire assembly. Figure
10 is a photograph of the completed unit.
Figure 10: Completed prototype RDP

TEST
Testing was conducted by mounting a pipe to the top mounting plate. Four
tethers were used to attach to the corners of the test barge. Figure 11 is a
picture of the prototype RDP entering the water for testing. This configuration
formed a solid truss support that held the prototype RDP steady. The testing
included operation across the range of speeds and at varying depths to stress

the design. The test results proved the predicted performance results, increased
efficiency of the motor design was in the 6 efficiency point range over metallic
canning (predicted 98.188% for composite, 92.285% for metallic). The metallic
canning losses would have been directly related to eddy currents in the stator
side gap. The hydraulic design resulted in better efficiency than predicted. The
hydraulic efficiency differences were due to blade design improvements between
predictions and manufacture as well as better than expected inflows. No
integration issues or design flaws were found as a result of testing. The
composite parts in particular performed well. The stator can resulted in no eddy
current losses as would result from a metallic can.
Figure 11: Prototype RDP in Test Configuration

CONCLUSIONS
An alternate pod configuration was manufactured and tested. The prototype
RDP met the analysis predictions. The cost to produce this unit in its entirety was
35% lower than was quoted for a metallic unit. The time to reach the test for the
prototype (including unscheduled problems) was the same as quoted for the
metallic manufacture. First of a kind units usually require some schedule
slippage. This indicates that even with problems, the composite parts were less
expensive and time consuming than metallic parts. The composite part
manufacture was successful.

REFERENCES
{1} ABB Azipod Project Guide, dated 3 December 1998