Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 20

Powering Study Technique Applied to a

Pusher Tug Geared-Diesel Installation


R o b e r t Latorre ~

This paper presents a rational approach to the selection~of the main components of a medium-
speed marine diesel installation. The technique described matches the engine, reduction gear,
and propeller and determines a measure of merit for each combination. This matching calculation
is based on the speed-power characteristics of the vessel's hull, essential information about the
trade route, and vendors' prices. A c o m p u t e r program developed using this design technique is
presented with the results of a pusher tugboat powering study.

T I l E RECENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS Of tile manufacturers pared in the trade route. This is accomplished using the Eu-
of medium-speed diesels have introduced many new models ropean Congress International des Machines a Combustion
suitable for marine propulsion. This increase in powering alter- (CIMAC) formulas or the SAE test code formulas [9]. The
natives requires the engineer responsible for diesel engine selec- delivered horsepower (DHP) is then calculated by multiplying
tion to consider tile different features of each engine. The the derated B H P by the gear and shafting efficiencies.
engineer is also faced with a deadline to complete his evaluation Using relationship @ of Appendix 1 :
so that tile engine, reduction gear, and propeller may be ordered
to meet the shipyard schedule. E H P = DHPnHnonR
Due to the pressure to complete this phase of the preliminary where non~nR ~ the propulsive coefficient, it is possible to assume
design, a rational matching and evaluation technique would be an initial propulsive coefficient to calculate an initial E H P value.
a useful design tool. This paper presents one technique which The vessel hydrodynamic performance is generally presented
has been computerized to make a powering study of a single- in the resistance data vs. vessel speed as noted in Table 1. With
screw diesel installation in a pusher tugboat. the initial value of E H P an initial vessel speed can be determined.
The problem This initial speed in turn is used to ealculate the other resistance
parameters and a new nu and nR value. Using this new value of
The traditional method for matching the diesel engine, reduc-
the propulsive coefficient, the E H P ' is calculated.
tion gear, and propeller is to select a propeller type. Using the
To insure convergence, a cheek is made if the difference be-
largest permissible radius, the blades are pitched to obtain
tween E H P and E H P ' is smaller than some specified number 5.
maximum efficiency at a given service speed. The propeller
As illustrated in Fig. 1, if the difference is not small enough the
R P M required to maintain this efficiency is calculated and the
calculation is repeated with E H P = E H P ' . For this reason
ratio of engine R P M to propeller R P M governs the selection of
the speed is not fixed at a specific number but given a small range
the reduction gear ratio. Additional refinements complicate
of values, one of which the iteration loop will converge upon.
the matching of these propulsion inachiuery components. The
If the difference is small enough then the propeller R P M and
cost influence of the reduction gear and the penalty of higher fuel
propeller diameter are calculated using the matching relations
and lube oil rates due to running the engine outside its rating are
derived in Appendix 1.
just two design problems that have been discussed in the litera-
Examining a typical propeller chart, Fig. 2, the open-water
ture for over a decade [5,9]. 2 To present one design as an opti-
efficiency (no) is maximum at a specific advance ratio J for each
mmn requires a large amount of computations in which a ra-
pitch-diameter ratio P/D. The dashed line in Fig. 2 shows an
tionalized approach to the matching and evaluation would be
open-water efficiency of 60 percent as the maximum attainable
effective.
at a 1.2 P/D setting. Another eharaeteristic of this propeller
Matching engine, reduction gear, and propeller chart is the thrust coefficient (Kt) vs. advance ratio (J). At
The departure from the method previously described is that this point of maximum propeller efficiency the dashed line inter-
the matching calculation begins with the medium-speed diesel sects the K~ at a value of 0.24~8 and a J value of 0.8. These
engines being considered, and a speed range of half a knot is values of no, Kt, and J are used in relations and of Appen-
allowed. Table 1 presents the data required for this rational- dLx 1 to calculate the propeller R P M and diameter.
ized approach to the engine, propeller, and reduction gear match- The ratio of the engine R P M to the propeller R P M governs the
ing and system evaluation. These various design components reduetion gear ratio. With this ratio specified, the matching
enter into this calculation scheme as illustrated by the flow chart calculation of the diesel engine, propeller, and reduetion gear is
of Fig. 1. completed.
In an effort to avoid specifying a service condition outside the From the voyage data and calculated speed it is possible to
diesel engine's rating and tile penalty of higher operating costs, develop a voyage simulation. The results of this simulation
the matching calculation begins with the medium-speed engine are pointed out in Fig. 1, the yearly cargo flow (Q) and the
and its associated details, Table 1. total hours of propulsion plant operation per year. The yearly
The engine B H P is derated for the service condition antiei- fuel and lube oil consumptions then can be determined.
Evaluation scheme
~Graduate Student, Department of Naval Architecture and The last item in the rational matching and evaluation flow
Marine Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. chart of Fig. 1 is the measure of merit. I n this study the mea-
Presented at the May 7, 1971 meeting of the Gulf Section of THE
SOCIETY OF NAVALARCHITECTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS. sure of merit used is the required freight rate per ton (RFR).
2 Numbers in brackets designate I{eferences at end of paper. This evaluation scheme developed by Benford [1] consists of

APRIL 1972 231


Table 1 Data r e q u i r e d f o r rational p r o p e l l e r - e n g i n e - r e d u c t i o n g e a r m a t c h i n g and e v a l u a t i o n

Component of Design Data required for each alternatlve

Medium Speed Diesel Rated BHP


Rated RPM
Specific Fuel Consumption, lbs/hp-hr
Specific Lube 0il consumption, Ibs/hp-hr
Cost

Reduction Gear Cost as a function of BHP and Reduction


Ratio

Propeller Thrust coeff. (K t) and Advance Ratio (J)


values for each Pitch/Diameter Ratio (P/D)
at Maximum Open W a t e r Efficiency, (n o )
Cost

Vessel Performance Resistance Data:


Effective Horsepower vs Speed, EHP vs V
Hull Efficiency vs Speed, nH vs V
Rotative Efficiency vs Speed, nR vs V
Wake Fraction vs Speed, (1 - w) vs V
Thrust Deduction Fraction vs Speed,
(1 - t) vs V

Voyage Details Distance


Cost of Fuel
Cost of Lube 0il
Harbor Time
Ambient Temperature
Ambient Pressure

Economic Criteria Corporate Income Tax


After Tax Interest Rate
Service Life

the actual annual cost of the propulsion system ( A A C ) divided


MEDIUM SPEED DIESEL -]
by the yearly cargo flow (Q) calculated in the voyage sinmlation.
I DERATE FOR SERV CE
RFR = AAC/Q (i)
CALCULATE DHP
The actual annual cost (AAC) is the stun of the propulsion
ASSUME INITIAL PROPULSIVE system yearly operating cost (Y) plus the initial investment (P)
COEFFICIENT AND C A L C U L A T E times an after-tax capital recovery factor (CR).
EHP
A A C = Y 4- P . C R (2)
] VESSEL SPEED FRON'I For a corporate tax (tax), after-tax interest rate (i), and
EHP- SPEED CURVE
EI4P EJqP" j service life (n), the after-tax C R can be calculated [1 ]:
RESISTANCE VALUES FROM
RESISTANCE DATA VS SPEED i i(1 4- i) n tax/n
NEW PROPULSiVEEHP. C O E F F I C f E N T i c R = (1 + i),~ (3)
1 -- tax
~-~ ........... I C H E C K IEHP-EHP'I< g ]
The initial investment is the delivery price of the diesel, re-
duction gear, propeller and other components being studied.
i PROPELLER R P M In the following study the cost of the diesel engine and reduction
PROPELLER DIAMETER gear makes up P. The yearly operating cost (Y) is a ditfieult
FROM APPENDIX A matter to assess in the preliminary design stage. The yearly
I. . . . . maintenance cost and the installation cost would appear similar
! REDUCTION GEAR RATIO for a narrow BHI? range to the unbiased observer. In a more
L ~ ..........
/
detailed analysis these factors should be considered; however,
-VOYAGE S ; M U L A T ION- for simplicity they have been assumed equal and neglected.
The yearly operating cost is the yearly fuel cost and the yearly
YEARLY C A R G O FLOW lube oil cost determined in the voyage simulation. This ap-
TOTAL HOURS OF ENGINE proach emphasizes tile specific fuel and lube oil consumptions
OPERATION
YEARLY FUEL COST associated with each alternative diesel engine.
YEARLY LUBE OIL COST For the pusher tugboat powering study the R F R is a useful
I measure of merit. However, in the powering study for another
[ EASU EOF MERI [ type of vessel where the emphasis on payload is not so obvious,
the ship merit factor (SMF) proposed by Cheng [2] might be
Fig. 1 Flow chart of matching and evaluation technique substituted for the R F R :

232 MARINE TECHNOLOGY


OPEN WATER
EFFICIENCY I
rb 60% ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =~
rHRUS i
COEFF.

f.; I
,s 2o _ ,., , i.~-q

. . . . .

,2 .4 ,6 .~ ! ,0 ". 2

,A DVANCE RATJO
J

Fig. 2 Propeller c h a r t of Ka-70 controllable/reversible-pitch propeller in Kort nozzle


No. 19a (source: ref. [8])

I;V~. V
SMF = k
AAC )

1 1 Wp 1 RV
= 8760 L ' f ~ ' L ' (4)
+ f,, c' w R i)HV
W
( HAMPTON ROz~DS,
where f v IRG!NI~
/
SMF = ship merit factor
/c= 8760.f~.f,~@/(1 4- f,~) = service constant
Wp= payload
V= design speed, knots
AAC = actual annual cost
876O = 24. 365 hr/yr
L= utilization factor, percent of annual service hours
Lo= load factor, percent of design payload
operating speed factor, percent of design speed
L= port-time factor; port time/sea time
C~ = A A C / D H P = specific operating cost, dollars per
hp/yr L /
DHP = delivered horsepower
W~/W = payload-displacement ratio
R/tV = drag-displacement ratio )
RV/DHP = no- nu. n.~-ns = propulsive efficiency
/J
~?,S = shafting efficiency 4 J

Computer application of rational technique


The rational technique described previously and outlined in /
Fig. 1 was the basis for the computer program presented in
Appendixes 2 and 3. The program was tailored to the tugboat
powering study and hence represents one form of this matching
and evaluation technique.
A shipyard design office might apply this technique by pro-
graming tile medium-speed diesel data for which it has building
licenses. The resistance data of each proposed vessel could then Fig. 3 Trade route of tug-barge combination
be read in using curve-fitting polynomials.
As illustrated in reference [5], stock reduction gear ratios offer Illustrative study
savings in some B H P ranges. By programing the values of Kt, To illustrate the effectiveness of this rational technique in
no vs. J and solving for J in relation of Appendix 1, it is preliminary design, the following powering study was completed
possible to study the influence of the stock gear. using the computer program described ill Appendixes 2 and 3.
These applications of the matching technique could be adopted This study concerns the single-screw geared-diesel machinery
to the computer program presented in this report, depending on selection for a pusher tugboat linked to a notched-stem barge.
the design situation. This tug-barge combination ship is being considered for trans-

APRIL 1972 233


ITEM, UNITS VALUE SOURCE

Voyage Details:

Voyage length Philio's Distance


Hampton Roads nautical miles 5.091 Tables for Mariners
to Santos, Brazil 1956 edition*

Reduced speed hours 30 Assumed*


allowance

Port Time
(Bunkering time) hours 2 Assumed*

Working year days 350 Report "Economics of


Push Towing Conducted
for Yawata/Hikari
Barge Line" indicates
this as a reasonable
value*
Fuel cost
Diesel oil $/bbl. $5.01 Shipbuilding and Ship-
Heavy oil $/bbl. $3.65 ping Record, Jan 8, 1971"

Lube oil cost S/gallon $ .95 Report "Economic Compar-


ison of Low-Speed and
Medium-Speed Diesel and
General Electric Mat-13,
Table2 Data for computer
MST-14 Non-Reheat and studies
MST-14 Reheat Steam
Power Plants for European
Built Tankers, 1965." in-
dicates this as a reason-
able value*

Economics:
Corporate Tax % 35 Assumed*
Interest Rate I0 Assumed ~'
Life years 20 Assumed*

First cost of Quotation from Mr. Hans


Diesel engine Peter Fedderson, American
M.~.N. Corp.*
First cost o f
Reduction gear Quotation from Mr. Harry
Gaderlund, Falk Corp.

Tanktest Report #35217. Resistance


parameters and Self-Propulsion Test
Results of a 1:23.374 Scale
Model of a Tug and Barge
Combination. w Eric D. Snyder
*These values are inputs so
it is possible to change
them.

porting coal from the U. S. east coast to a steel mill near Santos, use the results of a tank test program of a pusher tug and notched-
Brazil. The vessel would transport coal from Hampton Roads, stern barge. The principal characteristics of the combination
Virginia over 5090 nautical miles to Santos, Fig. 3, where a pre- ship are presented in Table 3. Since the prototype vessel was
viously dispatched barge loaded with coffee or manganese ore tested in both a design draft corresponding to 6500 dwt and a
would be exchanged for the northbound voyage. 9000-dwt heavy draft, these two loading conditions were included
This operating scheme of using three barges, one in voyage in the programing, Appendix 2, for a more complete study scope.
linked to the pusher tug and the other two loading or off-loading Since the rational matching and evaluation technique was
cargo at either terminal, attempts to make full utilization of the developed for a single-screw geared-diesel propulsion installation,
propulsion machinery by avoiding costly dockside delays. The medium-speed diesel engines in the 3000 to 5000-BHP range were
voyage simulation of this trade route is also simplified since the considered.
port time will be nearly constant, i.e., time needed for exchanging For this illustrative powering study, the four models of the
the barges, bunkering, and loading provisions. These two fac- M.A.N. RV 40/54 series of diesels ranging from a 3350-BIIP six-
t o r s - t h e emphasis on machinery utilization and the simplified cylinder engine to a 5000-BHP nine-cylinder engine are used.
trade route simulation--provide a good basis for this computer- Each model of the series has six ratings from 300 R P M to the
aided powering study. maximum output at 430 R P M [3]. This represents 24 different
Discwssion of Data. Table 2 summarizes the data used in this engine ratings covering the study's B H P range. One feature
study which appear in the computer printout of Appendix 3. of the series is that the diesel engines are designed to burn heavy
The tugboat lines and the resistance data for the tug-barge oil of 1500 sac Redwood 1/100 deg F instead of the more expen-
combination were obtained from the University of Michigan, sive diesel oil [3]. This option was used in the study so the fuel
Ship Hydrodynamics Laboratory. Permission was obtained to price was for heavy-oil operation. Mr. H. P. Fedderson, Ameri-

234 MARLINE TECHNOLOGY


~arqe i:usher Tug

LOA 385' - O" i00' 0"

Beam 56' - 0" 35' - O"

Depth 26' - 0" 28' - 6"

D e s i g n Draft, mean 17' - l" 22' - 6"

Heavy [)raft, m e a d 21' - 4" 22' - 6"

Trim l' by tlne stern even keel

CB .78g .435
Table 3 Pusher tug-barge combination
ship: principal characteristics Displacement (see below) 979 L T S W

TUG A~'D 8:~RGE COM31.iED

Design Draft H e a v y Draft

LWL ~15' - g" 418' - 6"

Displaced Volume 3 1 5 , 7 7 ~ ft 3 3 9 1 , 0 2 5 ft 5

Displacement 6,965 LTSW 11,172 LTSW

Wetted S u r f a c e 29,732 ft 2 3 5 , 6 9 6 ft 2

can M.A.N. Corporation, prepared a price quotation found in tion technique, the usefulness of this form of presentation in pre-
Appendix 4. liminary design decisions can be easily appreciated.
While the European reduction gear manufacturers have models Concentrating on the six-cylinder model, several additional
designed for the 300-430 R P M operating range, a domestic gear studies were completed. Figure 6 illustrates the influence of the
must be specially manufactured. Mr. H. A. Gaderlund, Falk reduction gear cost and the P/D settings on the RFR. From
Corporation, was kind enough to prepare both a design and the tugboat lines drawing a maximum possible propeller diam-
quotation for the single-stage reduction gear requested; these are eter of 14.25 ft was determined. The optimum diameters
included in Appendix 4. associated with the 1.2 P/D were unsuitable; however, the 1.4
The reported better performance of dueted propellers in this P/D optfinum diameters could be fitted and were considered in
type of service [8] influenced the selection of the Ka 4-70 con- this study.
trollable/reversible-pitch propeller in a Kort nozzle. The char- The matching calculation for the 1.4 P/D propeller exhibited
aeteristies of this four-bladed propeller are presented in Fig. 2. one propulsion system with a $1.65 t l F R meeting the 70,000-ton
Three pitch-diameter ratios are considered: 1.0 P/D with a delivery and 10-knot speed criteria. This new candidate may
maximum open-water efficiency of 58 percent; 1.2 P/D and 1.4 have been considered initially because the 1.4 P/D ratio has a 60-
P/D settings both with 60 percent maximum open-water effi- percent maximum open-water efficiency compared to the 58-per-
cieneies. With three propeller-pitch settings, two deadweights, cent maximum of the 1.0 P/D setting. Several other differences
and 24 diesel engines from which an optimum combination is in the components are summarized in Table 4.
sought, the usefulness of this rationalized technique in a design The reduction gear influence is very evident in this comparison.
situation is illustrated. The diesel in each system is the same six-cylinder model with its
Results of powering studies specific fuel consumption and lube oil rates as well as its cost the
same in both alternatives. Even though the system character-
In the following studies the measure of merit is the required
ized by the 1.4 P/D setting runs at a lower B H P and RPM,
freight rate associated with each engine, reduction gear, and pro-
which implies a lower operating cost, it has the same R F R as the
peller system powering the tug and barge combination.
higher rating. Since the propeller cost is not included in these
The results of the matching calculation are plotted in Fig. 4,
studies, the difference is due to the cost of the reduction gear.
B H P vs. IIFR. In spite of the many alternative ratings, the
The 4.58 reduction ratio required to match the 1.4 P/D pro-
six-cylinder model powering the 9000-dwt vessel exhibits the
peller to the diesel engine and its relatively higher cost illustrate
lowest R F t l for each of its matched points (the curves are paired
a pitfall avoided by this rational matching technique of designing
in this and other figures for illustration).
for maximum propeller efficiency and paying for it in the reduc-
A more meaningful presentation of the results can be con- tion gear cost.
structed by plotting design speed vs. required freight rate (RFR)
The printout in Appendix 3 is part of the study of the savings
and yearly cargo flow. Figure 5 illustrates the effectiveness of
realized in burning the less-expensive heavy oil. Figure 7 illus-
this presentation in preliminary design decisions. A yearly
trates the savings realized from this option. By using the cargo
cargo flow of 70,000 tons is required to meet the delivery con-
tract, so the alternatives are limited to the systems powering the
vessel at speeds over 10 knots. A dashed line indicates the cut-
off point. The six-cylinder engine exhibits the lowest R F R Table 4 Comparison of competitive propulsion systems
within these design constraints, 81.65 vs. $1.75 for a propulsion RFR Speed P/D BHP ~ P M Cost Ratio Cost Dim
system using the seven-cylinder model. While the 70,000-ton $1.65 10.06 1.0 3260 400 $270,000 3.21 $60,386 12.94
delivery requirement was arbitrarily selected to illustrate a selec- $1.65 10.0 1.4 3055 375 $270,000 4.58 $76,577 14.06

APRIL 1972 235


$ 2.6'8' .... 9cy].
f. ....
J*

*'J
.
~+ - 8 c:,:.
jJ
2.4,0
+ ~" ,j*

jz
2,;iF

RFR
.- . ; :j , o j.o
Fig. 4 Plot of m a t c h i n g
2.00 calculation, RFR vs. B H P

:<:o ..........
K?: :':
i %;( jS
L RAF- DWZ
_ DES:ON 6 bOO
o" r-E,;., f %%00
o O C/. - <O
$ !.{O
o

~l-&~ I i , I I
...... >,-o .r,- L ;?,f 5}OL

BHP

O, , .
$2.60
/+

i~~ C

2.,40

2.20 _
%
..... "-b
S
RFR ~ +

o-
2,'+

z .

o
X, -; Fig. 5 Plot of m a t c h i n g
~; o
< ;' C, I. S' "v!S( ; L DR,z: ] P,,< ~. calculation, RFR vs. speed
-r3 13~; 6 5 '];
c
} ~ : /Y 90(;(

s ",( ..... - - " I 5 % ; ,


jo - ~- 1

[ I
I - 'f i }~ R Of
y x AL'" - .:;, 12.!
C A ~:OC' ' , C v ~ \ o i I
IX, R,5C;
(>50C'31~
~,,C',,~ ,. %- ]
I
I
81000 9 1 I
I 52COC

m20(_ 7 45tcc

)ESIGh
HYA.' ":" ~M V- RAF "
DRAF 7 92. " ._ " 3.5 i .( .2 "2.5
%

flow vs. speed plotted in Fig. 5, the differences in R F R were while the difference amounts to little more than three cents, it
converted into yearly savings. This represents over 816,000 in represents a yearly difference of $2800 in the design case. See
the case of the desig~ previously selected. Fig. 8.
The same method was used to study the influence of the 4-5 These studies provide an illustration to the effectiveness of
percent in the specific fuel rate. The M.A.N. R V 40/54 diesels this rationMized matching ,%rid evaluation scheme in preliminary
have a 152 4- 5 percent g r / B I t P - h r specific fuel consumption and, design studies.

236 M A R I N E TECHNOLOGY
Kff;
P/ !. !. d./-
SYVB() o
Ocyl. D~', T 9 0 0 0 tons
RFR
51.5< $ !.80

%70 1.70
"o
;.6 C 1.60 o j
2 o *
.t>( S i.50 - - t
9.5 - S., , ......
O; [WUM
S 7-'C~2
ioFtOP3L - t S ; r ' , h E'r ;i

1lift. =-~+ .... k +-- + + S i N G L E - S T A 3 E rREDbC]ICN GEAR COST


!
...... < ~ .... .--. "--'%}t<
As<t
13 i
3,SR

o r7
2 . tO
3.4 tol
k .........

S (5C00C _- ~ - - -: - DATA :
FALK C(:RP.
J t~ -~,t9%- - ........
25 30 (} O 3 5 00 3 0:3 0 ,4 ) , j (- [, O0 0
%F{P

Fig. 6 Study of influence of reduction gear cost

RFR
RRR
$ !.90 ! sa
i
$ %70
!.80 t -- ~- 160gr/h:)-hr ,- -~-i ....
: .6C . . . . . . -- 152 gr'/hp-hl"
1.70 O

E -; 1.5: ;
L GO -i-

s 1.50
"YEARLY
SAV NGS
YEAR L "~
$I 6 0 0 0
D/FFE J,~_ ~i(2

15000 f 53000

1 ooo I Ii :
i]
2500
j
13000 $ ] , I 2000 r~ i F
I It
i I i
512ooo J~l + 11 11 ~ i $! 5 :SO -q
25 oo 3000 3500 2500 3000 3500
BHP BHP
Fig. 7 Study of savings realized in burning heavy oil. Price d a t a : 6 cyl; P/D : 1,0; 9000 d w t
heavy oil $3.65 bbl, diesel oil $5.01 bbl (ref. [4]): 6 cyl; P/D = 1.0;
9000 dwt Fig. 8 Study of influence: + 5 % in specific fuel rate

Development of a fuel-pitch control p r o g r a m


The settings outlined in Table 5 and plotted in Fig. l0 are
While tile design previously selected had its propeller diameter near the 1.0 P/D setting, suggesting t h a t the propeller might have
and reduction ratio specified as well as t h e P/D setting of 1.0, a fixed pitch of 1.0 P/D; a reversing reduction gear could be BOI1-
the propeller has a controllable pitch and so there is freedom to sidered as another design alternative. This would require a
select the pitch at other than the design condition. To insure separate study.
t h a t the pitch was set at points of lowest fuel eonsumption the
method outlined by 8chentz [7] was used. General Arrangements. Figure 11 presents the inboard profile
of the pusher tug and the diesel engine, reduction gear, and pro-
The results of this calculMion is a pitch-fuel control setting
peller matched by the rational technique described in this paper.
for various speeds. It: is plotted in Fig. 10, which would be used
Figure 12 gives the plan view of this installation.
to specify the program tabulated in Table 5. The P/D-speed
grid was constructed by fairing equilibrium points determined Conclusion
from Fig. 9. Using relation @ derived in Appendix 1 the K~-J This paper has presented a rational approach to the matching
lines of constant speed were calculated using the previously and evMuation of the main components of a medium-speed diesel
deternfined diameter value of 12.94 ft. propulsion system. The matching technique has been proposed

APRIL 1972 237


THRUST
C OEF F.
1.0

"\ J - K t LINES
" PROM FLGURE 2
.8

Fig. 9 Determination of equilibrium


.b ....~p~,6 points for P/D.speed grid of
propeller-engine control program
Kt ....., K~-J lines of constant speed
calculated using relation @ from
.4 " \ p/=12"\,,\ ~ , Appendix 1.

"--. "-% \\

.2 ,4 ,6 .8 1,O 1.2

BqP Table 5 Propeller pitch/engine fuelcontrol program specifications


I

Power RPM Pitch BMEP Speed


3 000 J .... / / 1.028 430 1.05 244 10.16
"IC.C,5 1.00 400 1.00 256 10.06
/ / 0.75 370 1.05 256 10.04
0.90 361 1.05 246 10.03
I 6/F~,'D //' ,,, 0.85 353 1.025 245 10.02
2500 // ,'/ 0.80 ~43 1.00 234 10.01
1.4/P/D / 0.70 325 1.03 217 9.5
0.60 305 1.00 200 8.6
/ 0,40 257 1.025 160 7.6
!,2 ./ 9 kno ~s 0.20 193 1.1 110 6.0
i
/ /
2 CC.} .-

5
Acknowledgments
', //
/ / I wish to thank the following companies for their help in pro-
/ / / viding me with information on tile various aspects of the illus-
i
/ C,8/'FYD trative study: American M.A.N. Corporation, New York,
15 CO -- New York, Mr. H. P. Feddersen, representative; and The Falk
Corporation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Mr. H. A. Gaderlund,
~/ //I,//I//' ,,, ~~.~)NTR(};_. representative. I also wish to thank Professor John Woodward
I I I for his help and Professor ttarry Benford for his encourage-
~/ p R()r;-P~A%J
i // / , , S E T T NG
merit. I am also grateful to ARMCO Steel Corporation for
1o(-.',o ]- / / / .... 7 knots initially sponsoring this paper.
/ / / /
References
~- b knots 1 Benford, H., '~Fundamentals of Ship Design Economics,"
Lecture Notes, The University of Michigan, Department of NavM
500 i~ Architecture and Marine Engineering, 1968.
l 2 Cheng, H. M., "Performance Comparisons for Marine Ve-
hicles," SNAME, New York Metropolitan Section, Sept. 196S.
o r. 3 "M.A.N. Four Stroke Diesel Engine ]~V 40/54," The M.A.N.
,-
~ ( ~r%~,Pc_
F ....
[ ~ R 50 '5 100 , ~J RPb Corporation, Nuernberg, Germany.
4 "NoSlowinginBunkerPriceRises,"ShipbMldingandShipping
~:.N,LSINE 150 200 2bO 300 3~0375400 43C RPtq Record, Vol. 12, Jan. 8, 1971.
5 D'Ottavio, Joseph, "Some Aspects of Indirect Diesel Drives,"
Fig. 10 Propeller-engine control program International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 2, No. 9, 1955.
6 Sawa, M., "Economics of Push Towing Conducted for the
Yawata/Hikari Barge Line," SNA~4iE Great Lakes and Great
to avoid designing outside the engine rating and to h d p the Rivers Section, 1967.
7 Sehantz, F., "The Controllable Pitch Propeller as an Integral
engineer in his selection task. A computer program is presented Part of the Ship's Propulsion System," Trans. SNAME, Vol. 75,
to illustrate the application of this scheme to the preliminary 1967.
design of a single-screw vessel. It is hoped that the points made 8 Van Manen, J. D., and Oosterveld, M. W. C., "Amdysis of
Ducted Propeller Design," Trans. SNA ME, Vol. 74, 1966.
concerning the reduction gear influence in the required freight 9 Woodward, J. B., "The Diesel Engine to Drive A Ship,"
rate and the other studies will be useful to someone faced with a Lecture Notes, The University of Michigan, Department of NavM
similar evaluation. Architecture and Marine Engineering, 1971.

238 MARINE TECHNOLOGY


PRINCIPAL
DIMENSIONS
Pilot [
.... ]
LOA
BEAM
100'-0"
35'-0""
/Roo,.
DEPTH 28"- 6" enetalOr
DRAFT 22'- 6 "
CB 0.435 Radio Mate i M o te 't
o.i~o, / I "~,
Crew's TecMicionj ~uec~. t__ -
Mess

~ "tz - - ~ 7~ ~
-'~\ F ~
engine
__L~ ...... ~ i spares
spare~ J
3,500 HP Diesel ~ "q
P\" FO
._.. d"i
_~/ ~ ~ e n g i n e~-'-~
~ -~L--I ~o~o~ - ]

AP 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 I FP

Fig. 11 Tug inboard profile

[
]Central
I Control ~ngine -~----
j/ Room

- llAlurul,llcl / /
"!' l FO ~ ~.

....
i',LO
i
!
x l~.-,',~
/ ~

-
AI
r"s~s
~ - 1 " OOrlillrs o[ _ _ _]_
7U;' ~/
~ - - ~ ~ s~-. , lOOK, i,N ,~s,Ano,,, ,[,.
] - - ~ - ~ l_[!~Glltllli ...... ----" Machinery Flat

t # t + --
AY 7 6 4 3 2 1 FP

/ FIITR STAND-BY :~ ~

FILTEP " ""


"<'Oie,. ~ ~ ' ~b iX- ......
0 0 --fuIPS
.... , ~ ~] ,,
STANOS.W
~ Engine lloonl Floor

AP 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 I FP

Fig. 12 Plan view of tug machinery a r r a n g e m e n t

APRIL 1972 239


Appendix 1
Derivation for matching calculation
Sought: N propeller RPM propeller diameter From ~ @nd
nD = VA = ND V(1.68(I - w))
Given: V speed in knots DHP delivered horsepower J 60 J
(I - t) thrust deduction nH hull efficiency
Solvin~ for D
(I - w) wake fraction nR rotative efficiency o = vI16811 --)) .......

N
EHP effective horsepower no propeller open water
of vessel efficiency
Kt Thrust coefficient Substitutln~ <~ into @
Governing Relationships: N2
J advance ratio
EHP = RVF = DHPn0nHnR550
550 DHPn0nHnR R = (i - t)T
J4 I-~0) ~ p(l - t)VI.68K t

VA = Ft/sec = V(1.68(1 -w)) VF = VI.68 Ft/sec SolvinE for N


_ VA
T J
nD ~_~J p(l - t)(l - w)4VSI.685Kt
p0~2
DHPn0nHnR550j~

where: n = rev/sec = ~ D = FT.


N = 60/ p(l-t)(l - w)4VSl,~85K t
N = RPM T = lbs.
J DHPn0nHnR550J4

Derivation: Knowing a value for N)relatlonshlp ~ can be used to determine


Substltutln~ @ ~ ~ into ~A~ results in: the propeller diameter. D:

EHP = (i - t)TvI.68 = DHPn~n~n~ D ..... VI.68(I - w)


550 :'g'd-
N

So!vin~ for T :

DHPn0nHn R From relations and ~ It is possible to derive a Kt-J


~P~o
T = (I - t)vl.68 = (I - t)Vi.68 relation at constant speed.
Substituting ~ into ~ results in : From ~ :
vi.68(1 - w)
Kt = DHPn0nHnR550 n = - JD
p ~ n Z ( l - t)Vi.68 Substituting ~ into ~ :
Solving for D4n 2
TJ 2
D4n2 = DHPn0nHnR550
Kt
T
~a/Vl.68(l
pw \ JD
=,,~ 2 pD2V22.83(1 - w)E
n(l - t)Vl.68K t
m_ Appendix 2
r-
Computer program documentation and flow chart, variable listing
F l o w c h a r t of e n g i n e ,
r e d u c t i o n gear, and CO~hMENTS
COMMENTS propeller selection

DATA CARDS:
design project
c o n s i d e r s two d e s i g n 6 Q ~ Yes
N = # Engines
D w t . ' s (cargo ca-
BHPR = Rated Brake pacities) noted by
Horsepower
D = Design
ERPM = Rated RPM 6,500 ton
D w T DD
WTH
and
FR = Fuel Rate
gr/SHP-HR fF, GE~F EF Y H = Heavy EHP > ~ HHP > 4,000~--~
LR = Lube Rate 9,000 ton
gr/SHP-HR
(DIS , LC II Linear approx, of L i n e a r a p p r o x , of
C E N = C o s t of
Engine
/PA, P design
vs EHP
draft
curve
speed heavy draft speed
vs E H P c u r v e
PA,TA : Pressure,
/ HPR, BRPMFR, ',R, CEN Source: [ VD = f (EHP) VH = f(HHP)
Temp. of Tank T e s t D a t a ] ]
Service Report #35217
Linear approx. ~ Linear approx, of
DIST : Voyage Length design draft heavy draft
Miles h u l l eff. h u l l eff.
R e s i s t a n c e and S e l f
WY = Working Year P r o p u l s i o n T e s t Re- nH D BHH
Days s u l t s of a 1 : 2 3 . 3 7 4 H E n : f (VD) H E H = f (VH)
S c a l e M o d e l of a T u g
AL = Reduced Speed
Allowance BHPR = ENG(I)
and B a r g e C o m b i n a -
tion, N o v . , 1970. L i n e a r approx, of |
I
Linear approx, of
BT = Bunkering ERPM = ENG(I + l) design draft heavy draft
Time Hours rotative rotative
FR = E N G ( I + 2]
lefficiency efficiency
FC = F u e l C o s t - B B L
LR = ENG(I + 3) nR nR
LC = L u b e O i l
CEN = ENG(I + 4) RED : f (VD) REH : f (VH)
Cost - Gal
CEN = CEN*I.2 ]
RI = I n t e r e s t Rate
Y : Y e a r s of
I In this s e c t i o n a ~ i n e a r a p p r o x , of P a r a b o l i c approx, of
s u b s t i t u t i o n for the ~esign draft wake heavy draft wake
Service F R = FR* .002025 |
++ t a n k t e s t d a t a of raction fraction
SEFF = Shafting FLR = FLR* .002025
J another ship would F| (1 - W) (1 - W)
Efficiency e n o u g h to m o d i f y the
I p r o g r a m for a n o t h e r | W D : f(VD) WH : f (VH)
GEFF = Gear Effi-
cieicy
C o r r e c t i o n of r a t e d B H P
for s e r v i c e c o n d i t i o n s
vessel's powering
study.
I I
L i n e a r a p p r o x , of L i n e a r a p p r o x , of
DWTD = Design Draft using CIMAC formula
design draft thrust heavy draft thrust
Dwt. = BHPC = BHPR*( )
deduction factor deduction factor
6 , 5 0 0 L.T.
I I (i - T) (i - T)
DWTH = Heavy Draft TD : f(vm) TH : f(VH)
C a l c u l a t i o n of d e l i v e r e d
Dwt. =
horsepower taking into
9,000 L.T.
a c c o u n t s h a f t i n g and I
+ 20% of c o s t for gear losses
engine & auxiliary DHP = B H P C * S E F F * G t F F
equipment C a l c u l a t i o n of c o n s t a n t in
d e r i v e d KTJ4 r e l a t i o n s h i p
++ c o n v e r s i o n g r / B H P -
HI
H R to I b s / B H P - H R SO = - -
6O
I
COMMENTS 7- COMMENTS

D e s i g n of P r o p e l l e r
U s i n g K A 4 - 7 0 s c r e w ir
K o r t n o z z l e No. 19a
for m a x i m u m e f f i -
;No ? I CGMAX =
CGMIN
(BHPC-
(BHPC
3350)( ) +
3350) ( )
( )I
I

]
ciency Pitch/dia. I Pitch/dia. Pitch/dia.
=1.2 : 1.4
BEF : 160 CEF : 60% I D A ( 1 4 , 1 3 ,8) < 3. R1 = C G M I N
Source YUKI :
DHP
A S O B U : DHP
CEFr~Hrl R
1
J. D. v a n M a n e n and DHP*~FrlHr~ R
BEFBHB R
IDAIl4,13,81 GT.S>----~CR1 = G G M A X .~
M. W. C. O o s t e r v e l d , DARE =
" A n a l y s i s of D u c t e d FURU AME [
SAMUI = [ EHP I
I
Propeller Design," EHP
YUKI-~i
EHP!
IA S O S U
I
-
BHPC ICRI 07 0 0>
S N A } ~ T r a n s . , Vol. 74 _ H-~F I
1966. M E T H O D OF D E T E R M I N I N G
1
COST OF REDUCTION ICGR CGMIN + I---)J
I GEARING
F ~
IFURU > 20,-4P~ S ~ I > 20.HP | D A R E > 20~----n
A c h e c k is m a d e to I
see if the EHP f r o m
b e f o r e is w i t h i n
20 Hp o the n e w
__]_____ CR4
DA(Ii,i,7) DA(ii,2,7) DA(Ii,3,7)
value. = Propeller = Propeller
: Propeller
RPM RPM RPM D E T E R M I N A T I O N OF
DA(II,I,8) DA(II,2,8) DA(II,2,8) C O N T R O L S (LARGE G E A R Ico2 = o.ool
: Reduction = Reductior = Reduction A N D S M A L L PINION)
Ratio Ratio Gear I
DA(II,I,9)
= Propeller
DA(I1,2,9)
= Propellez
DA(II,2,9)
= Propeller I CDMAX = (BHPC - 3350) ~
(10) + 50
Dia. Dia. Dia.
CDMIN = (BHPC- 3350)(4 ) + 36

I
DA(14,13,8) .67 3
CENTER
DA(14,13,8) .67 5
DISTANCE
~@ ICD2 .67

CD = i
D e s i g n of Reductio__~n I
Gear BHPC
60 to 43
Data: Falk Corp. M E T H O D OF D E T E R M I N I N G THE
REDUCTION GEAR RATIO'S
@- - - - - ~ - CONTINUE
C E N T E R DIST.
CD = LD2

m_ C o s t e s t i m a t i o n b a s e d on BHP 1 I
Z
m
and r e d u c t i o n r a t i o ~---~ CONTINUE I
-4
m
2:
Z
O
t-
O
O-(
_m
r-

V A R I A B L E LIST
COMMENTS

C a l c u l a t l o n of voyage I VARIABLE DESCRIPTION VARIABLE DESCRIPTION


-details- J NAME OR E X P L A N A T I O N NAME OR E X P L A N A T I O N
I

I
A. Voyage time: H a m p t o n Roads, ENG( ) array containing EI mechanical efficiency
V i r g i n a to Santos, Brazil engine p a r t i c u l a r s
[ D~D design p a y l o a d (DWT)
V o y a g e time = D i s t / s p e e d VYHR = DIS~ A( ) array c o n t a i n i n g
THR = total voyage DA(I4~i3,2) d e a d w e i g h t values DTWH heavy p a y l o a d (DWT)
time I THR = V Y H R + AL + BT
AL = reduced speed DA( , , ) array containing AIT part of Kt-J 4
time a l l o w a n c e THR1 = VYHR + AL data of d e s i g n derivation
BT = port(bunkerlng) indexed on 2 dead-
time i WYHR = WYe24 w e i g h t s , 3 pltch/dla VRMIN least expensive of
wyH___~R ratios, 9 v a r i a b l e s alternatives
THR1 ~ total engine
r u n n i n g time VYYR THR
2 BEST( ) a r r a y c o n t a i n i n g data BHPR rated b r a k e h o r s e p o w e r
VYZR = voyages from of least expensive
US to ~razil IB. C a l c u l a t i o n of fuel costs alternative EEPM rated engine RPM
completed in 1 i
year. FLR*BHPC*THR1 PD( ) p i t c h / d i a m e t e r ratios FR fuel rate, g r / B H P - H R
WLO = 2240
WLO = weight of lube FR*BHPC*THR1 n u m b e r of engines FRI fuel rate, I b s / B H P - H R
N
oil, tons FWT = 2240
FWT = weight of fuel ambient pressure LR lube oil r a t e 0 g r / B H P - H R
PA
tons TFC = 6.63*FWT*FC + 294*WLO*LC
TFC total lube oil YFC = TFC*VYYR FLR lube oil r a t e , l b s / B H P - H R
TA ambient temperature
and fuel cost
C. Economic t r a d e o f f c a l c u l a t i o n of

I
P d e n s i t y of salt w a t e r CEN cost of engine
1 ton = 6.63 Bbls, the increased revenue from m o r e
1 ton = 294 gal. voyages per year vs. increased DIST v o y a g e length CP,CT.CK CIMAC c o r r e c t i o n f o r m u l a
1st costs and fuel costs. variables for r a t i n g a
CRF = a f t e r tax cap- I
WT working year t u r b o - c h a r ~ e d d i e s e l for
ital r e c o v e r y SAL = (1. + RI)**Y service c o n d i t i o n s
factor CRF = RI*SAL
AL r e d u c e d speed a l l o w a n c e
VRI = total y e a r l y SAL - 1 BHPC corrected brake horsepower
cargo cRF - TA__Z BT port (bunkering) time
CRF = Y DHP delivered horsepower
VR = r e q u i r e d freight 1. - TAX
rate associatedi FL fuel cost, $/bbl.
VRI = A(I4*2)*VYYR EHP effective h o r s e p o w e r
w i t h each e n g i n
LC lube oil cost, S/gal. for d e s i g n DWT
and gear com- vR = YFC + (q~R + CEN)*C~I
bination VRI
RI rate of interest, dec- HHP effective horsepower
l imal for h e a v y DWT
D e t e r m i n a t i o n of
the most r e a s o n a b l e
[vR i
5----- RII rate of interest, % VD design d r a f t speed
c o m b i n a t i o n from VREIN = VR
TAX c o r p o r a t e tax, ~ec- HED design draft hull eff.
alternatives BEST(l) BHPR
imal
RED d e s i g n draft r o t a t i v e
TAXX c o r p o r a t e tax, % efficiency

Y s e r v i c e llfe WD d e s i g n draft w a k e
fraction
SEFF shafting efficiency
TD d e s i g n draft thrust
GREFF gear efficiency deduction factor

VH heavy d r a f t speed
V A R I A B L E LIST (cont.)

VARIABLE DESCRIPTION VARIABLE DESCRIPTION


NAME OR E X P L A N A T I O N NAME OR E X P L A N A T I O N

HEH h e a v y draft hull eff. DARE difference between


current and p r e v i o u s EHP
REH heavy draft r o t a t i v e
efficiency CGMAX cost of 5 to i r e d u c t i o n
g e a r for BHPC
WH heavy draft w a k e fraction
CGMIN cost of 3 to 1 r e d u c t i o n
TH h e a v y d r a f t thrust gear for B H P C
deduction factor
CRI counter
GO 550aHHP or 550*EHP
CGR cost of r e d u c t i o n gear
HI p*vS*AIT*(I-t)i~l-w) 4
d e r i v e d in K t - J CD2 counter
relationships
C DMAX m a x i m u m d i s t a n c e of center,
Q~ for % to 1 r e d u c t i o n
relationship at BHPC

AEF m a x i m u m efficiency, CDMIN m i n i m u m d i s t a n c e of c e n t e ~


58% w i t h P / D = 1.0 for 3 to 1 r e d u c t i o n at
BHPC
AME current EHP v a l u e
CD center d i s t a n c e
FURU difference between
current EHP and pre-
vious EHP VYHR total v o y a g e hours

BEF m a X i m u m efficiency, THR total time for one voyage


60% ~ i t h P / D = 1.2
THai total o p e r a t i n g hrs. in
YUKI current EHP value a voyage

SAMUI difference between WYHR hours per w o r k i n g y e a r


c u r r e n t EHP and
previous F~{P VYYR voyages per w o r k i n g y e a r

CEF m a x i m u m efficiency, WLO w e i g h t of lube oil


60% w i t h P/D = 1.4
FWT w e i g h t of fuel
ASOBU current EHP v a l u e
TFC total fuel cost
VRL t o n n a g e carried
YFL yearly fuel cost
VR r e q u i r e d freight rate
CRI capital r e c o v e r y f a c t o r
Z

-4
0
Z
0

0
"I=

r"
Appendix 3
Computer program: listing and output
~COMP ILE C LINEAR APPROX. OF DESIGN DRAFT SPEED - FHP CURVE.
C D E S I G N PROGRAM TO SELECT THE ~ S T ECDN3MICAL ENGINE AND 50 IF(EHP.GT.kDO0) GO TD 50
C R E D U C T I D N G~A~ C O M 3 I ~ A T I D N AND C A L C U L A T E P R O P E L L E R D I A M E T E R . 51 IF(EHP.LT. 3500| V D = ( E H P - 3 0 ~ n ) * . O O I 2 ~ 1 3 . 5
1 REAL LC, LR 52 IF(EHP.LT.3000) VD=(EHP-ZSDO|*.OOI4 I2.R
2 DIMENSION E N G ( I 3 0 ) , A ( ~ ) , DA(2,3,9|, 8FST(2O), PD(3| 53 IF(EHP.LT.2500I VO=lEHP-2nOn)*.OOI6 + I P . O
3 READ(5,10I N 54 IFIEHP.L T. 2ODO) VD=IFHP-1500)*.OO2 + I I . n
z. N=N#5 55 IF(EHP.LT.[SDOI VO:IEHP-IIOO)#.Oh25 ID.O
5 READ(5,11) { E N G I I ) , I = I , N ) C LINEAR APPROX. OF CESIGN DRAFT HULL EFFICIENCY.
6 R E A D ( 5 , 1 3 ) PA, TA, P 56 IF(VD.LT.15.0) HFD=[.OSO-IVD-I3.SI*.n2
7 READ(5,14) DIST, wY, AL, BT, FC~ LC 57 IF(VD. L T . 1 3 . 5 I HED=I.O55-(VD-13.O)*.OOI
.R R E A O ( 5 , I 6 ) R I , Y , TAX 58 IF(VD.LT.13.D) H E O = I . O S O + I V D - 1 2 . 0 1 * . n 0 5
9 READ(5,1?| SEFF, GREFF, EF 59 [F(VD.LT.I2.0) HED=I.O40+(VD-II.OI*.OI
10 READ(5,1R) D!4TD, D W T H 60 IF(VD. L T . I I . O I HE~=I.O25(VD-IO.OI*.OI5
11 AI2)=OWTP LINEAR APPROX. DF DESIGN DRAFT ROTAIIVE EFFICIENCY.
12 AI4)=DWTH 61 IF(VO.LT.LS.O) RFD=.~60+(VO-13.S)*.OI
13 PII=RI*IOO.O 62 IF(VD.LT.13.5) RED=.~TR+(VO-I2.5)*.OI5
14 TAXX=TAX~InO. O 63 IFIVD.LT.12.SI REO=.830*IVD-II.5)*.Ot5
15 PRINT 120 64 IF(VD. L T . I l J 5 I RFD=.825(VO-tl.0)*.OI
16 PRINT I02, DIST, A t 65 IFIVD. L T . I I . O I R E D = . R 2 5
L7 P R I N T I03, ST, WY LINEAR APRROX. DF DESIGN DRAFT WAKE FRACTION: (I-WTI.
PRINT 104, FC, LC 66 IF{VD.LT.15.0) WD:.R75
PRINT I 0 5 , R I [ , y, TAXX 67 IFIVD. L T . 1 4 . 0 I WD=.~BS-IVD-12.5)*.OO7
2O PRINT I0~, TA, PA 68 I F ( V D . L T . 1 2 . S I WD=.885
21 PD(I)=I.O 69 I F I V D . L T . I I . S I WD=.87R+(VD-IO.O)*.O07
22 PD(2)=I.2 LINEAR APPROX. OF DESIGN DRAFT THRUST OEDUCTION ~ACTOR: ( L - T ) .
23 PD(3)=I.4 70 IF{VD. LT.IS.O) TD=.925-(VD-L3.5)~.020
24 Al T=I.6R*e5 71 IFIVD.LT.I3.SJ TD=.g30-(VD-13.0I*.OI
25 V R M I N = i00. T2 IFIVD.LT.13.0) TO=.930
26 PRINT 150 73 IF(VD.LT.I2.0I TD=.915(VD-II.OI*.01
P7 PRINT 151 74 IEIVD. LT.12.0) T O : . g l S + ( V D - ] I . O ) * . O I
28 PRINT 152 75 I F ( V D . L T . I I . O ) TD:.9OO+(VD-IO.D)*.OI5
29 DO 7 0 I = I , N , 5 76 DAII,IZ,II=EHP
30 RHPR=ENG(I| 77 DAII,12,2)=VD
31 ERPM=ENG(II) 78 DA(I,12,3)=HFO
32 FRI=ENG(I+2) 79 DAII,12,4)=RED
3~ LR=ENG(I+3) 80 DA(I,I2,SI=TO
34 CEN=ENG(I4) 81 DA(I,I~,6)=WD
35 CEN=CEN~I.2 82 GO TO 35
36 FR=FRI*.O020?5 WITH VESSEL SPEED, HULL E F F I C I E N C Y , ROTATICNAL E F F I C I E N C Y
~7 FLR= L R * . O 0 2 0 2 5 KNOWN A NEW FHP VALUE IS CALCULATED
CORRECTION OF BHP RATING FOR SFRVICP CUNOITIO~IS LINEAR APPRCX. ~F HEAVY DRAFT SPEED - EHP CURVE.
U S I N G C I M ~ C F O R M U L A FOR T U ~ B O C H A R G E D D I E S E L E N G I N E S . 83 30 C O N T I N U E
38 CP=(PA/29.02)~.7 84 I F ( H H P . G T . 4 O O O ) GO TO 60
3q CT=(TA/~6)~I.5 85 [F(HHP.LT.3OOO) VH=(HHP-2500)*.OOI2 + [2.5
40 CK=CT*CP 86 IF(HHP.LT.2500) VH=IHHP-1750I*.OO/6 ll.3
41 BHPC=RHPP~(CK-O.7~(I.~-CK)~(I.~/EF-I.n)) 87 IFIHHP.LT.1750) VH=IHIIP-ISOO)*.O02 * I0.8
CALCULATION OF DELIVERED HDRSFPOWE? TAKIN~ INTO AccnuNT 8~ I F I H H P . L T . ISOOI V H = ( H H P - / 2 5 0 ) * . O 0 2 4 + IO.2
SHAFTING L~SSES AND GEAR LOSSES. 89 IFIHHP.LT.1250I VH=IHHP-I~OOI*.OD2B + g.5
42 DHP:BHRC~SEFF~GREF F LINEAR APPRCX. OF PEAVY DRAFT HULL EFFICIENCY.
I N I T I A L EHP CALCULATION WITH QHASI-PROPULSIVE CPFFF. = . 5 2 . go IF(VH.LT.15.0) HEH=I.O00 + ( V H - L 2 . 5 ) * . 9 4
43 EHPI=DHP~.52 91 IF{VH. LT.12.5) HEH=O.9?5 + ( V H - I I . 5 ) * . 0 2 5
USING A L I N E A R A P P R O X I M A T I O N OF THE EHP - S P E E D C U R V E OF 92 [ F ( V H . L T . I I . 5 ) FEH=O.955 + ( V H - I O . ~ ) * . 0 2
THE M R O E L TEST, T H E C O R R F S D Q N D F N O I H G SPEED IS O E T F R M I N E D g3 I F ( V H . L T . I 3 . 5 ) HEII=O.~50 (VH-IO.C)*.OI
AND C~RRFCTED WITH HULL AN() ROTATIVE EFFICTENCIES. 94 IF(VH. LT.IO.O) HEH=O.95
44 EHO=EHPI LINEAR APPROX. nF HEAVY ~RAFT R~TATIVE EFFICIENCY.
z~5 HHP=EHPI g5 I F ( V H . L T . t S . 0 ) REH=0.755 (VII-L3.0)~.~05
46 Dq 64 I I = I , 2 96 IF(VH.LT.13.O) REH=O.755
47 12=I 97 I F I V H . L T . I O . 5 ) REH=O.750
48 20 CONTINUE PARABIILIC APPROX. OF HEAVY DRAFT WAKE FRACTION: WT}.
49 I F I [ I . E O . 2 ) G~ TO 3 0 9~ WH=.875+IIVH-IP.0)*ep)*.OO375
C LINEAR APPROX. OF HEAVY DRAFT THRUST DEDUCTION FACTOR: ( I - T ) . 151 D A ( I I , 3 , 7 } = 60.~SQRT((SO*.~IIOI/I.78**G))
99 IFIVH. LT.15.0) TH=.QIS+(VH-13.5)~.05 152 DA(II,B,8)=ERPM/DAII1,3,?)
lOO I F ( V H . L T . I 3 . 5 ) TH=.875+(VH-I?.5~.04 153 D A I I I , 3 , P I = ( D A ( I I , 3 , 2 ) ~ D A ( I I , 3 , 6 ) * I . 6 R I / ( . T 8 * I D A ( I I , 3 , ? ) / 6 f)
0.
101 IFIV~.tT.12.5) TH=.850+(VH-II.5)*.025 154 EHP=EHPI
102 IFIVH.LT.II~5) TH=.845+IVH-I!.n)~.OIO 155 HHP=EHPI
103 I F I V ~ . L T , I I . n ) TH=845 156 64 CONT INUE
104 IFIVH. LT.IO.5) TH:.955+(VH- 9 . 5 ) * . n ! 0 157 DO 55 14=i ,2
105 DA(2,I2,])=HHP 158 DO 5 6 I 3 = 1 , 3
106 DAI2-IP,21:VH CALCULATION OF FALK SINGLE STAGE REDUCTION GEAR
107 DA(2,I2,3):HEH COST AND CENTER DISTANCE.
108 DAI2,12,4)=REH COST ESTIMINATION BASED ON BHP AND REDUCTION RATIO.
109 DAI2,I2,5)=TH 159 CGMAX=IBHPC-3350.)~(I5000./2250.) +85030.
lIO OA(Z,I2,61=~H 160 CGMIN=(BHPC-3350.)e(20000./2250.1 +60030.
111 35 CONTINUE 161 CRI=O. O0
C CALCULATION OF CONSTANT IN DERIVED K T - J ~ * 4 R E L A T I O N S H I P . 162 I F I D A ( 1 4 , I 3 , 8 ) . L T . 3 . } CRI=CGMIN
112 GO=DAIIl,I2,1)*550. 163 IF(DA(14,13,R).GT.5.) CRI=CGMAX
113 HI=P*(OA(II,I?,2)~*5)*ALT~IDAIII,12,6I**4)~DAIII,12,5) 164 IF(CRI.GT.O.Ol GO TO 4 0
It4 SO = H I / G O 165 CGR=CGMIN ((DAII4,13,8)-3.|Z2.)~ICGNAX-CGMIN)
115 IF(12.GT.1I GO TO 37 166 GO TO 41
CC DESIGN OF PROPELLER (/SING KA 4 - 7 0 SCREW IN KDRT 167 40 CONTINUE
C NOZZLE NO. 19A, FOR MAXIMUM E F F I C I E N C Y AT EACH 168 CGR=CRI
C H / D RATIO. 16g 41 CONTINUE
C PITCH DIAMETER RATIO OF 1.0 C C A L C U L A T I O N OF C E N T E R D I S T A N C E
It6 AEF=.58 170 CD2=O.OO
117 AME=DHP*AEF~DAIII~I,3I*OA(II,I,4) 171 CDMAX=(RNPC-3350.|*(IO./2250.) + 50.
118 EHP=AM 172 CDMIN=IBHPC-3350.)~( 4.12250.) + 36.
it9 HHP=AMt I F I D A ( I 4 ~ ! 3 ~ 8 } . L T . 3 o ) CD2=CnM!~
120 FURU=ABSIAME-OAIII,I,1)] 174 I F I D A I I 4 , 1 3 , 8 ) . G T . 5 . ! CD2=CDMAX
t2t IFIFURU.OT.20) GO TO 20 175 IFICD2.GT.O.n) GO TO 42
122 OAf/I,1,7)= 60.*SQRT(ISD~.1896)/(.S6~)) 176 CD=CDMIN+(IDA(14,13,R)-3.I/2.I*(CDMAX-SDMIN)
t23 DA(II,I,RI=ERPM/DA(II,I,7) iT7 GO TO 43
124 DAII1,1,9)=(DA(II~I~2)~DA(II,l,6)~I.6R)/(.56~IOAIII,I~7}/60.)| 178 42 CONTINUE
125 EHP=EHPI ITO CO=CO2
t26 HHP=EHPI 180 43 CONTINUE
127 12=2 C CALCULATION nF VOYAGE DETAILS
128 GO TO 20 C A. VOYAGETIME FRC~ HAMPTON ROADS, VIRGINA TO
129 31 CONTINUE C SANTOS, BRAZIL.
130 IF(I2.OT.2) GO TO 39 181 VYHR=DIST/DA(14,13,2)
C PITCH DIAMETER RATIO OF 1.2 t82 THR=VYHR+AL+BT
131 BEF=,6O 183 THRI=VYHR+AL
132 YUKI=DHP~BEF*DAII1,2,B)*OA(I1,2,4) 184 WYHR=WY~24.0
133 EHP=YUKI 185 VYYR=IWYHR/THR)/2.
134 HHP=YUKI 186 THD=THRI/24. O
135 SAMUI=ABS(YUKI-DA(II,2,1)) 8. CALCULATION OF FUEL COSTS.
136 IF(SAMUI.GT.2O) GO TO 20 187 WLO=IFLR*BHPC*THRI)/2240
137 DA(II,2,7)= 60.*SORT((S0~.2124)/{.70~)) 188 FWT=(FR*BHPC*THRI)/2240
138 OAIII,2~8)=ERPM/DA(II,2~T) 189 TFC=6.63*FWT~FC + 294.*LC~WLD
139 DA(II,2,9)=(DA([1,2,2)~DAIII,2,6|~I.68I/(;70#(OA(II,2,7)/60.|) 190 YFC=TFC~VYYR
140 EHP=EHP1 C. ECONOMIC TRAOEOFF CALCULATION OF THE INCREASED REVENUE FROM
t4t HHP=EHP1 MORE VOYAGES PER YEAR VERSES THE INCREASED FIRST COST
142 12=3 AND FUEL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH HIGHER DIESEL ENGINE OUTPUTS
143 GO TO 20 191 SAL=II.O+RI)**Y
C PITCH DIAMETER RATIO OF 1.4 192 CRF=IRI~SALI/ISAL-I.O)
144 39 CONTINUE 193 CRF = (CR~-(TAX/Y))/(I.O-TAXl
145 CEF=.60 194 VRI =AII4*SI~VYYR
166 ASOBU=DHP*CEF~DAII[,B,B)*DA(I1,3,~I Ig 5 VR=(YFC+ICGR*CEN)*CRF)/VRI
1~7 EHP=ASOBU 196 IFIVR.GT.VRMIN) GO TO 54
Z 148 HHP=ASOBU lgT VRMIN=VR
149 DARE=ABSIASOBU-CA(Ii,3,1)) 198 BESTII|=BHPR
ml 15o IF(DARE.GT.2O) GO TO PO 199 BEST(2)= ERPM
0
.p
Z
0
p,.
0
-(
200 BEST(3)'= DHP I RPM, PRODUCING ' , F 6 . 1 , ' OHP WITH I )
201 BEST(4) = CEN 252 124 FORMAT( u t t l 5 X t ' A FIRST COST OF T t , F g . 2 , 1 , FOB GERMAN EXPORT PORT.
202 BEST(5) = B A i t 4 , 1 3 , 0 | I')
203 BESTI6) = CA(14,13,71 253 12~ FORMAT(' o , 1 5 , ' A ' , F 4 . 2 , ' TO I FALK SINGLE STAGE REDUCTION GEAR P
2 04 BEST(?) = CGR IROVIDING , i F 5 . 1 , ' PROPELLER RPM,')
205 BESTI8) = 0A(14,13,9) 254 126 FORMAT(' , ,15XvtWITH CENTER DISTANCE OF OFF4.1,' IN. AT A COST OF
2 06 BEST(g) = P0(13) I$',F9.2,' o)
207 BEST(TO) = FWT 255 127 FORMAT(' ' , 1 5 X , ' A CONTROLLABLE-REVERSING PITCH KA 4-70 PROPELLER '
208 BEST(11) = WLO lwF5.2, t FE ET IN DIAMETER,')
209 BEST(12) = VYYR 256 128 FORMAT(' ' , I B X y ' T H I S INSTALLATION USES ' , F 6 . 2 , ' TONS OF BUNKER C,
210 BEST(13) = A(14~2) i O , E 5 . 2 , ' T DNS OF LUBE OIL IN PROPEL-'/15X,'LING A ' , F B . I , ' DWT BAR
211 BEST(14) = D A ( I 4 , 1 3 , 2 ) 2GE AT ' , F 5 2 , ' KNOTS. AT THIS SPEED ' , F 4 . 1 , ' VOYAGES FROM HAMPTON'
212 BEST(15) = VYYRmA(14~2) 3/15X,'ROAD S, VIRGINA TO SANTOS, BRAZIL ARE MAOE YEARLY TRANSPORTIN
213 BEST(16)=CD 4 G ' , F 8 . 1 , ' TONS ~F COAL.')
2 14 54 C O N T I N U E 25-i 150 FORMAT(' o ,45X,'RE~ULTS OF CALCULATIONS'//)
215 PRINT I 5 3 , BHPR,ERPMwDHP,FRI,LRwCENwDA(14,13, BI,CO,CGR~OA{14,13wT|, 258 151 FORMAT(' ' ,16X,OENGINE SPFCIFICATIONS',IBX,'REDUCTION GEAR',)5X,'P
1DA(14,13wg),PD(131,A(14~2),DA(14,.I3w2I,VR IPOPELLER t , IlX,'VOY~GE DETAILS'Z)
216 56 CONTINUE 25q 15~ FORMAT(' ' ,6X,WBHP',5X,'ERPM',3X,tDHP',BX,OSFR',3X,'SLR',4X, ICOST'
217 55 CONTINUE 1,4X,'RATIO't2X,tCENTERS',2X,'COST',6X,'RPM',3Xw'DIAMETER',2X,'P/O '
218 45 CONTINUE 2,4X,eDWT',4Xw'SP~ED',2X,'COST/TONI/)
219 50 CONTINUE 260 153 FORMAT(' t B X w F b . I , 2 X w F 5 . 1 , 2 X v F 6 . 1 , 2 X , F B . I , 2 X , F 4 . 1 , 1 X w ' $ ' w F B . 1 , 2 X ,
220 60 CONTINUE 1F4.2,3X, E 4 . 1 , 1 X , t $ , F B . 1 , 3 X v F B . I , 4 X , F 5 . 2 , 3 X , F 3 . 1 , 3 X , F 6 . 1 , 2 X w F 5 . 2 , 3
221 70 CONTINUE 2X,'$',F5.2)
222 PRINT 120 261 131 FORMAT(' ' t I 5 X , ' S E T A T ' , F 4 . 1 w ' PITCH DIAMETER R A T I O . I )
223 PRINT 121 262 PRINT 120
224 PRINT 102, DIST, AL 263 120 FORMAT('I')
225 PRINT 1 0 3 , 8 T , WY 264 STOP
226 PRINT 104, FC, LC 265 END
227 PRINT 1 D 5 , R I I , Y , TAX
228 PRINT 108, TA, PA $CATA
22g PRINT 122, VRMIN
230 PRINT 123, B E S T ( l } , BEST(P), BEST(3)
23i PRINT 124, BEST(4)
232 PRINT 125, BEST(5), BEST(6)
233 PRINT 126, B E S T I I 6 ) , ~EST(7)
234 PRINT 127, BEST(B)
235 PRINT 131, BEST(g)
236 PRINT 128, BEST(IO), B E S T ( I I ) , BESTI13)~BEST(14),BEST(12),BEST(15)
23? 10 FORMAT(I5)
238 I I FORMAT( ( 5 F I O . 2 ) )
23g 13 FORMAT(3F10.4)
240 14 FORMATI6FIO.2I
241 16 F O R M A T ( 3 F S . 2 )
242 I? F O R M A T ( 3 F 5 . 3 )
243 I8 F O R M A T ( 2 F I O . 2 )
244 i02 FORMAT( ' , I O X , ~ V O Y A G E DETAILS: L E N G T H = ~ t F 6 . ~ w ' MILES, R E D U C E D SP (Appendix 3 continued next page)
IEED ALLOWANCE =twF4.1,w HOURS,w)
245 103 FORMAT( ',26X,'BUNKERING TIME= ' , F 3 . 1 , w HOURS, WORKING YEAR = ' , F
1 5 . I w ' DAYS.Z)
246 104 FORMAT( ',IOXttOPERATICN COSTS: FUEL COST=$,FB.2, e PER BBLw LUBE
1 O i l C O S T = $ ' , F 4 . 2 , ' PER G A L . ' / )
247 105 FORMAT( ',IOX,IECCNOMIC CRITERIA: ' , F 5 , 2 , ' ~ INTEREST RATE, ' , F 4 .
l l t YEARS OF OPERATION, I , F B . 2 , ' X CORPORATE T A X . ' / )
248 I08 FORMAT( ',IOX,~SERVICE CONDITIONS: AMBIENT TEMPFRATURE=',F4.1,' O
1EGREES~ PRESSURE=OwF5.2w ' INCHES H G . ' I I )
240 12i FORMAT( ,IOX,'RESULTS OF AN ECONOMIC SELECTION BASED ON LOWEST C
lOST PER TON TRANSPORTED.'/)
250 122 FORMAT( ' , I B X , ' T H E MACHINERY INSTALLATION SHOWING THE LOWEST COST
I $',F62,' PER TON, C O N S I S T S OF:'/)
251 123 FORMAT( ' , I S X , ' A MAN DIESEL ENGINE RATED ' ~ F 6 . 1 , ' BHP AT ' ~ F B I ,
VOYAGE DETAILS: LENGTH = 5 0 9 0 . 0 MILES, REDUCED SPEED ALLOWANCE = 3 0 . 0 HOURS,
BUNKERING TIME= 2.0 HOURS, WORKING YEAR = 350.0 DAYS.

OPERATION COSTS: FUEL CEST=$ 5.01 PER BBt, LUBE O i l COST=$0.95 PER GAL.

ECONOMIC CRITERIA: lO.OO ~ INTEREST RATE, 23.0 YEARS OF OPERATION, 45.00Z CORPORATE TAX.

SERVICE CONDITIONS: AMBIENT TEMPERATURE=B3.0 DEGREES, PRESSURE=29.90 INCHES HG.

RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS

ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS REDUCTION GEAR PPDPELLER VOYAGE DETAILS

8HP ERPM DHP SFR SLR COST P A T I O CENTERS COST RPM DIAMETER P/D DWT SPEEO COSTITO~

3350.0 430.0 2984.5 |52.0 5.0 $269999.9 3.06 36.] $ 59123.1 140.7 12.37 1.0 6500.0 10.97 $ 2.44
3350.0 430.0 2984.5 152,0 5.0 $269999.9 4.46 45.5 $ 76912.9 96.5 14.63 1.2 6500.0 i i . I0 $ 2.46
3350.~ 430.0 2984.5 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 4.57 46.3 $ 78389.8 94.0 13.47 1.4 6500.0 II.I0 $ 2.47
3350.0 430,0 2984.5 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 3.~3 38.6 $ 63868.6 125.4 12.95 1.0 9000.0 10.16 $ 1.90
3350.0 430.0 2984.5 152,0 5.0 $269999.9 5.D3 49.2 $ 83815.0 85.5 15.33 1.2 9000.0 10.27 $ 1.93
3350.0 430.0 2984. 5 152.0 5.0 $26)9999,9 5.16 49.2 $ 83815.0 83,4 14.11 1,4 9000.0 10.27 $ 1.93
3260.0 400.0 2904.3 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 2.88 35.5 $ 57662.5 139.0 12.40 1.0 6500.0 10.86 $ 2.42
3~6D,0 400.0 2904.3 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 4.17 43.3 $ 72688.9 95.8 14.61 1.2 6500.0 II.02 $ 2.43
3260.0 400.0 2904.3 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 4.28 %4.1 $ 74082.8 93.4 13.45 1,4 6500.0 11.02 $ 2.44
3260.C 400.0 2904.3 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 3.21 [36.9 $ 60386. I 124.5 12.94 1.0 9000.0 10.06 $ 1.88
3260.0 400.0 2904.3 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 4.70 46.8 $ 79415.7 85.1 15.29 1.2 9000.0 10.19 $ 1.91
3260.0 400.0 2904.3 [52.0 5.0 $269999.9 4.82 47.7 $ 80985.1 82.9 14.98 1.4 9000.0 10.19 $ 1.91
3055.C 375.0 2721.6 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 2.77 35.2 $ 55937.0 135.3 12.43 1.0 6500.0 10.63 $ 2.37
3055.0 375.0 2721.6 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 4.02 41.7 $ 69181.0 93.3 14,66 1.2 6500.0 10.79 $ 2.38
3055.0 375.0 272].6 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 4.12 42.4 $ 70545.3 91.0 13.50 1.4 6500.0 10.79 $ 2.39
3055.0 375.0 2721.6 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 3.D5 35.5 $ 56566.3 123.0 12.91 1.0 9000.0 9.89 $ 1.83
3055.0 375.0 2721.6 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 4.47 44.6 $ 75010.6 84.0 15.27 1.2 9000.0 10.00 $ 1.86
3055,0 375,0 2721.6 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 4.5~ 45.3 $ 76527,0 81,8 14,06 1.4 9000.0 lO.O0 $ 1.87
2930.0 360.0 2610.3 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 2.70 35.0 $ 54884.8 133.1 12.45 1,0 6500.0 10.48 $ 2.35
2930.0 360.0 2610.3 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 3.94 40.9 $ 67282.2 91.3 14.69 1,2 6500.0 10.59 $ 2.36
2930.0 360.0 2610.3 152.0 S.O $269999.9 4,05 41,5 $ 68634.6 89.0 13.53 1.4 6500.0 10.59 $ 2.37
2930.0 360.0 2610.3 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 2.96 35.0 $ 54884.8 121.8 12.87 l.O 9000.0 9.73 $ 1.82
2930.0 360.0 2610.3 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 4.34 43.3 $ 72431.3 83.0 15.23 1.2 9000.0 9.84 $ 1.84
2930.0 ~60.0 2610.3 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 4.&5 '%4.0 $ 73918.1 80.9 14.02 1.4 9000.0 9.84 $ 1.85
2645.0 325.0 2556.4 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 2.53 ;54.5 $ 52485.9 128.7 12.44 1.0 6500.0 10.15 $ 2.28
2645.0 325,0 2356.4 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 3,69 38.6 $ 61772.9 88.1 14.T0 1.2 6500.0 10.25 $ 2.29
2645.C 325.0 2356.4 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 3.79 39.1 $ 63067.6 85.8 13.54 1.4 6500.0 10.25 $ 2.30
2645.0 325.0 2356.4 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 2.71 [)4.5 $ 52485.9 I19.~ 12.T4 1.0 9000.0 9.43 $ 1.77
2645.0 325.0 2356.4 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 3.99 ,%0.3 $ 65728.~ 81.5 15.10 1.2 9000.0 9.52 $ 1.78
2645.0 325.0 2356.4 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 4,09 40.9 $ 67126.3 79.5 13.91 1.4 9000.0 9.52 $ 1.79
2440.C 300.0 2173.8 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 2.38 34.2 $ 50760.3 125.9 12.40 1.0 6500.0 9.92 $ 2.23
2440.0 300.0 2173.8 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 3.49 36.9 $ 57430.9 86.0 14.67 1.2 6500.0 10,01 $ 2.23
2440.C 300.0 2173.8 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 3.58 37.4 $ 58674.2 83.8 13.51 1.4 6500.0 IO,Ol $ 2.24
2440.0 300.0 2173.8 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 2.52 34.2 $ 50760.3 118.9 12.62 l,O 9000.0 9.22 $ 1.73
2440.0 300.0 2173.8 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 3.71 38.2 $ 60522.8 80.8 14.97 [.2 9000.0 9.30 $ 1.74
2440.0 300.0 2173.8 152.0 5.0 $269999.9 3.81 38.7 $ 61846.9 78.7 13.78 1.4 9000.0 9.30 $ 1.74

RESULTS OF AN ECONOMIC SELECTION BASED ON L~WEST CgST PER TON TRANSPORTED.

VOYAGE DETAILS: LENGTH =5090.0 MILES, RF!DUCED SPEED ALLOWANCE =30.0 HOURS)
~UNKERING TIME: 2.0 HOURS, WORKING YEAR = 350.0 DAYS.

CPERATION COSTS: FUEL CEST=$ 5 . h l PER B~L, LUBE OIL COST=$0.95 PER GAL.

ECONOMIC CRITERIA: IO.O0 ~ INTEREST RATE, 20.0 YEARS OF OPERATION, 45.00~ CORPORATE TAX.

SERVICE CONDITIONS: AMBIENT TEMPERATURE=R3.0 DEGREES, PRESSURE=29.PO INCHES HG.

THE MACHINERY INSTALLATION SHOWING THE LOWEST COST $ 1.73 PER TON, CONSISTS OF:

A MAN DIESEL ENGINE RATED 2 4 4 0 . 0 BHP AT 300.0 RPM, PRODUCING 2173.8 ~HP WITH
A FIRST COST OF $26999~.90, FOB GERMAN EXPORT PORT.
A 2.52 TO I FALK SINGLE STAGE REDUCTION GEAR PROVIDING 118.9 PROPELLER RPM,
WITH CENTER DISTANCE OF 34.2 IN. Al A COST OF $ 50760.35 .
A CONTROLLABLE-REVERSING PITCH KA ~-70 PROPELLER 12.62 FEET IN DIAMETER,
SET AT l . O PITCH DIAMETER RATIO.

THIS INSTALLATION USES 184.89 TONS OF BUNKER C, 6.08 TONS OF LUBE OIL IN PROPEL-
LING A 9000.0 DWT BARGE AT 9.22 KNOTS. AT T H I S SPEED 7.2 VOYAGES FROM HAMPTQN
POAOS, VIRGINA TO SANTOS~ BRAZIL ARE MADE YEARLY TRANSPORTING 64687.8 TONSOF COAL.

248 MARINE TECHNOLOGY


I" Appendix 4
Cost data

A,k,1 E R I C A N [M_~L~]~~] CORPORATION


~ ~P,L~ ~ L~ rH AVENUE - NEW YORK, N Y 10036 - TELEPbqONE (812 7 3 6 - 2 8 4 5 CABLE MANBt REA'J

Naroh lo~ 19~i


Please note that all these prices are for delivery
f.o.b. Germ~n port of e ~ o r t for the engines with
Robert G. Latorre
221 West Z~m
#u'~ Arbor: Hictigan: ibtlo8
~ r s ~ l y ~ m reel that the relatively low output stipulated
in your project csp~ be oonfortably covered b y engines in
the 9oo rpm range, which should be less extensive in terms
Re: ~Tug/Barge-Combinatiom for deep water service. of initial investment costs. Ho~Jever~ these cheaper engines
would not be able to b u r n heavy fuel~ contrary to our
models ~0/5% em_d 52/5~.

Dear Hr. Latorre: I trust that this information ~,~ill be usefull for your
presentation, for which I ',~ish you the best of luck.
~hc~llk you for your letter of February 20~ 19'/]. Refe~:'ring to
your request for information on page 2 we would like to comment
as follows:
I. Enclosed please rind a set of literature on medium speed
engines.

2. We do not have stsm_dardized reduction ratios rot our medium


s~eed engines: but the Naval Architect or the shipyard are
f]~ee to select ashy gear configuration or ratio they we~t. KPP/ev E.P. Feddersen ~ /
Please t ~ e into consideration that in Eurooe the shipyards
themselves buy the gears directly from the gear ms~mfactlxrer
rather than getting them through the engine msLuufacturer.
ilDherefore H.A.N. does not have b~icai data sheets or price-
lists for gears. However: to give you some idea how the
problem is usually approached I am sending you the gear mad
rot a twin engine insta]lation~ b y which the proper gear
size may be selected: based on the ratio of input h.p. :
input speed e~d input speed : output speed respectively.

~. F~c!osed ~lease find also a photostatieal copy of a


compilation of budget prices for medium steed engines;
for smaller outputs bhe_u listed in the enclosure and which
would be applicable to your project we would suggest the
following badger prices:
hp/%30 rpm
RGV ~bO/5~ 3350 225 000.00
R?V z~0/5% 3900 255 0 0 0 . 0 0 K~_cl :
RSV z~O/5~ /~50 280 ooo.oo
Rgv z~O/5Zt- 5000 305 000.00
V5V ~0/5% 56OO 335 000.00

-2
Off,ces and Pla~t

THE FALK C 0 R P 0 f;~ A T I 0 N


F&LK
a goodnamein in(iust~y
3001 VTest Canal Stree~
Telephone (414) 342-3131
TWX (910) 262-3468
Telex 026670

BOX 492, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 53201

DQ'~a ~O?F(EX
CL# 7"6 hl

Mr. R o b e r t L a t o r r e
221 }iest Ann S t r e e t
April i, 1971

%
i
<
Ann Arbor, M i c n i g a n %$!08

D e a r Mr. L a t o r r e :

In r e p l y to y o u r q u e s t i o n s d u r i n g our r e c e n t t e l e p h o n e
c o n v e r s a t i o n , 1 am e n c l o s i n g a r o u g h s ~ e t c n for a non-
reversing re@uct~on gear giving appcoximate outline
d i m e n s i o n s ano a d o l l a r value /'or uudge~ e s t i m a t i n g . Ue
----"i-- "-
/
do not nave s t a n d a r d d e s i g n s a e v e i o p e d /'or the h o r s e p o w e r J
and speeds w h i c h you requested~ t h e r e f o r e the r o u g h sketch. C< H
I am also e n c l o s i n g a copy of our B u l l e t i n L~30 w h i c h gives
you i n f o r m a t i o n on our s t a n @ a r d line of x'evemsing r e d u c t i o n
gears used wibn diesel engines having ~'abings of i000-3500 3 +
HP e 8 0 0 - ~ 0 0 RPM e n g i n e s p e e d . This is include@ as a matter G,~-FtR ~ 0. f 2_
of i n t e r e s t to you a l t h o u g h you a s k e d for i n f o r m a t i o n on non- 5 g o c, 3~So .5g c o
r e v e r s i n g gears. .3 o 5 5-

I mope this da~a will De of some help to y o u in y o u r studies.


~PM 43o//%~ #3//43
C B roTE 5
,3~ " ,~Z0 " So" go"
V e r y truly yours, PIP'/. n 8B" 11~" Ibo"
THE F A L K ~ T R P O R A T I O N 13 84 f~ 12o 13z"
/~ Ioo /oZ.
y z Zo 2q
E 5o 3&
H. A. Gaderlund, .36
S t a f f A s s i s t a n t to C h i e f E n g i n e e r
F 30 q8 54
HAG/' i j s 42 q8
eric : /4 38 5o 4o 4q
f Zo 2& 2/ Z3
J 4 S~ 4s 5~
K 27 6z
4& ~Yz ~ sz
P L ~ N m 9 P~ic6 ~0,oo0 ~5~oo I zoo ~oo

subsi#iary o~ Sundstrand Corporation s ~sr~

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi