DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08 SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER DNV GL © 2013 Version 1

MARITIME

Future development of ultra large container ships

1

Where are the limits?

2014-04-08

Jost Bergmann

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Future development of container ships

Driving factors

Main particulars

– Length

–Beam

–Draft

–Depth

–Air draft

Other factors

– Propulsion concepts

– LNG fuel

Conclusion

2

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Future development of container ships

Driving factors

Main particulars

– Length

–Beam

–Draft

–Depth

–Air draft

Other factors

– Propulsion concepts

– LNG fuel

Conclusion

3

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

The evolution of the container ship 1960-2015

4

MAERSK S-series

MAERSK E-series

MAERSK triple-E

UASC, MSC, CSCL 18k+

Year build

TEU

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

The largest container ships 2006-2015

5

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Bay 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Row

13 3,500 TEU 3,500 TEU 3,650 TEU 4,300 TEU 4,900 TEU 5,060 TEU

(32.25 m) (212 m) (225.5 m) (254 m) (262 m) (275 m) (283 m)

14

4,250 TEU 4,500 TEU

(35.0 m) (253.4 m) (268.5 m)

15 3,600 TEU 4,500 TEU 4,600 TEU 4,900 TEU

(37.5 m) (219 m) (249 m) (254.7 m) (269.2 m)

16

5,500 TEU 5,900 TEU 6,800 TEU

(40.0 m) (257.4 m) (273.45 m) (300 m)

17

7,090 TEU 8,063 TEU 8,600 TEU

(42.8 m) (300 m) (323 m) (334 m)

18

8000 TEU 9,000 TEU 9,200 TEU 10,000 TEU

(45.6 m) (300 m) (320 m) (336.7 m) (349.7 m)

19

8,800 TEU

11,500 TEU 12,600 TEU

(48.2 m) (300 m) (349.7 m) (366 m)

20

13,300 TEU 14,000 TEU

(51.2 m) (366 m) (383 m)

21

14,800 TEU 16,000 TEU

(54.0 m) (383 m) (399 m)

22

Emma M CMA CGM

(56.2 m) (397m) (396 m)

23

19,000 TEU

(59.0 m) (396 m)

Container Ship Matrix of Bay & Row

6

New Panamax

Panamax

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Economy of scale – where is the end?

7

Economy of scale exist even for the step from 18k to 21k TEU

What else could be the limiting factors?

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Future development of container ships

Driving factors

Main particulars

– Length

–Beam

–Draft

–Depth

–Air draft

Other factors

– Propulsion concepts

– LNG fuel

Conclusion

8

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Length

Ship length has large influence on ship strength

delta length has a square effect

delta length is approximately 14,60 m (one bay)

delta width has a linear effect

delta width is approximately 2,50 m

Other aspects related to ship length

– Harbour restrictions

– Turning basin diameter

– Quay length etc.

9

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Hull girder of ULCS

10

Plate thickness up to 100 mm in upper part

Benefit of EH 47 steel is only 3 mm compared to EH 40

BUT: Strength in bottom structure becoming critical as well!

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

18k max - One hold more?

L = 429,2 m (26 bays)

B = 58,6 m (23 rows)

Hold

– Tiers = 11

– Rows = 21 (19 in lower tier)

Deck

– Tiers = 11

– Rows = 25 (23 in upper tier)

Nominal TEU = about 20.760

11

An even number of 40´bays is

needed between the engine room

and deck house area due to

damage stability requirements!

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Beam

Basically aligned with container raster

Limitations

– Ship design and operation

– Strength

– Transverse strength

– TBHD deflection

– Stability

– Transverse accelerations

– Other

– Harbour/ crane outreach

– Seaways

– Suez Canal

– B = 58,6 m – T max = 16,13 m

– B = 61,2 m – T max = 15,44 m

– B = 63,8 m – T max = 14,81 m

12

HISTORY…

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

18k ULCS – One or two rows wider?

L = 400 m

B = 61,2 m (24 rows)

TEU = about 20.750

13

L = 400 m

B = 63,8 m (25 rows)

TEU = about 21.700

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Draft

ULCV’s normally have

– T design about 14,5 m

– T scantling about 16,0 m

Scantling draft seldom fully utilized

– Average weight of containers

– Most relevant for last loading & first

discharge port (can be adapted)

Draft restrictions

– Harbours/ terminals

– Seaways

– Rivers

– Canals

14

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Depth

15

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

970

2910

H – 9’6”

S – 8’6”

10 tiers 11 tiers

2300

25580

30200

High cube design

Max. tier(9’6”/8’6”): 10 tiers / 11

tiers

ISO container is the limiting factor

Max. depth around 30,40 m

10 tiers

481

166

Pipe Tunnel

Passage way

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Terminal restriction: Air draft

Air draught during loading and unloading

Emma Maersk in

Kobe 2006

16

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Air draught of selected bridges

Port Air draught

from water level needed draught

Bayonne Bridge 46,00 m 19,90 m

Gerald Desmond Bridge- POLB 47,55 m 18,35 m

Osaka Bay Bridge 47,30 m 18,60 m

Chiwan Bridge – Hong Kong 53,00 m 12,90 m

Koehlbrand Bridge 53,00 m 12,90 m

17

Maximum height is based on

10 tiers high cube in the cargo hold

10 tier high cube on the hatch cover

Telescope type radar

1 meter margin

Golden Gate and Oakland Bridge have a

sufficient air draught at US ports

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Future development of container ships

Driving factors

Main particulars

– Length

–Beam

–Draft

–Depth

–Air draft

Other factors

– Propulsion concepts

– LNG fuel

Conclusion

18

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Single or twin main engine /screw concept

Both concepts could be realized for wide beam ships

Maximum speed requirement of about 22 kn is no limiting factor

Propeller dimension for single engine concept reasonable /

realistic still

Needed power is no limiting factor to built larger container ships

19

MAN B&W 11(12) S90-ME9.2

(63,910/69,720kW x 84rpm)

Wartsila 11(12) X92

(64,350/70,200kW x 80rpm)

MAN B&W 7(8) S80-ME9.2

(31,570/36,080kW x 78rpm)

Wartsila 7(8) RT-flex82T

(31,640/36,160kW x 80rpm)

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Influence of fuel on the principal dimensions

Dual fuel main engine and auxiliaries

20

40 days range on HFO 33 days range on HFO

7 days range on LNG

7 days range on HFO

33 days range on LNG

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Influence of LNG as fuel for largest Container ships

LNG tanks require more space than HFO

For larger LNG volumes prismatic tanks are more suitable

Enlarged ship length due to LNG tanks to keep the same nominal

capacity will maybe occur?

21

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Future development of container ships

Driving factors

Main particulars

– Length

–Beam

–Draft

–Depth

–Air draft

Other factors

– Propulsion concepts

– LNG fuel

Conclusion

22

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Even larger container ships?

23

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Bay 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Row

13 3,500 TEU 3,500 TEU 3,650 TEU 4,300 TEU 4,900 TEU 5,060 TEU

(32.25 m) (212 m) (225.5 m) (254 m) (262 m) (275 m) (283 m)

14

4,250 TEU 4,500 TEU

(35.0 m) (253.4 m) (268.5 m)

15 3,600 TEU 4,500 TEU 4,600 TEU 4,900 TEU

(37.5 m) (219 m) (249 m) (254.7 m) (269.2 m)

16

5,500 TEU 5,900 TEU 6,800 TEU

(40.0 m) (257.4 m) (273.45 m) (300 m)

17

7,090 TEU 8,063 TEU 8,600 TEU

(42.8 m) (300 m) (323 m) (334 m)

18

8000 TEU 9,000 TEU 9,200 TEU 10,000 TEU

(45.6 m) (300 m) (320 m) (336.7 m) (349.7 m)

19

8,800 TEU

11,500 TEU 12,600 TEU

(48.2 m) (300 m) (349.7 m) (366 m)

20

13,300 TEU 14,000 TEU

(51.2 m) (366 m) (383 m)

21

14,800 TEU 16,000 TEU

(54.0 m) (383 m) (399 m)

22

Emma M CMA CGM

(56.2 m) (397m) (399 m)

23

19,000 TEU

20,800 TEU

(58.6 m) (396 m) (429 m)

24

20,750 TEU

(61.2 m) (396 m)

25

21,700 TEU 22,750 TEU

(63,8 m) (396 m) (429 m)

Container Ship Matrix of Bay & Row

24

New Panamax

Panamax

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

18k ULCS- one hold longer & two rows wider?

L = 429,2 m (26 bays)

B = 63,8 m (25 rows)

Hold

– Tiers = 11

– Rows = 23 (21 in lower tier)

Deck

– Tiers = 11

– Rows = 25 (23 in upper tier)

Nominal TEU = about 22.750

25

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

Summary

Economy of scale is reducing transportation costs per TEU

provided sufficient utilization

Hull structural design has several limiting factors considering

present typical layouts

More easy to increase beam compared with increasing length

Wide beam designs have to cope with increased acceleration and

GM values

Single or twin main engine / propeller concepts are realized at

present and LNG will be a typical fuel in the future

Most harbors could serve large container ships but air draft/ under

crane clearance could be critical for intermediate loading

conditions

26

3

0o

4

0o

Unprotected

Opening

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

27

Have we overlooked any other factors?

Evolution of Large Crude Carriers in the 1970’s

Size levelled out at about 320.000 DWT

Could this happen to the container ship segment as well?

Source: Malaccamax report

DNV GL © 2013 2014-04-08

SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER

www.dnvgl.com

Future development of container ships

28

Jost Bergmann, Business director container ships

jost.bergmann@dnvgl.com

+49 151 4066 9182