A comparison of two ship performance models against full-scale measurements on a cargo ship on the Northern Sea Route

Figures & data

Figure 1 . A non-icebreaking vessel operating in small ice-floe condition infested on the NSR (photo credit: SCF Group) (This figure is available in colour online).

Table 1 . Comparison of SPM component calculation methods.

Procedure	ShipCLEAN	SPM-B
Calm water resistance	Average of: Kristensen and Lützen (2012), Hollenbach (1998), full scale CFD results from standard series hullforms.	Holtrop and Mennen (1982), Holtrop (1984)
Wind resistance	Blendermann (1993)	Fujiwara (2006)
Wave resistance	Average of: STA2 (ITTC 2014), Liu and Papanikolaou (2016), Liu et al. (2016).	Liu et al. (2016)
Ice resistance	Level ice (FSICR)	Same as ShipCLEAN
	Ice-floe (Huang et al. 2021, 2020)	Same as ShipCLEAN
Propeller	OpenProp (Epps et al. 2009)	Wageningen B Series (Oosterveld and Oosnan 1975)
Engine & fuel consumption	MAN CEAS tool (MAN 2017)	MAN Project Guide (MAN 2019)

Table 2 . Principal variables for floe-ice resistance.

Parameter	Definition	Symbol	[Unit]
Ship beam	Maximal width on the ship’s design waterline	B	[m]
Ship speed	Straight-line speed	v	[m*s^−1]
Ice concentration	The proportion of a certain sea surface covered by ice	C	[–]
Ice thickness	The average thickness of all floes	h	[m]
Ice diameter	The average diameter of all floes	D	[–]
Ice density	Assume its value for all ice is 900	ρice	[kg*m^−3]
Froude number	Ship speed divided by the square root of gravitational acceleration times ship length	Fr	[–]
Coefficients	Values are dependent on the specific hull	α & β	[–]

Figure 2 . Schematic of the models and data of the VPT (This figure is available in colour online).

Table 3 . Particulars of the case study vessel.

Overall shiplength [m]	190.0
Breadth mold [m]	28.5
Depth mold [m]	15.8
Scantling draft [m]	11.0
Deadweight [tonnes]	37124.8
Ice-class (FSICR)	1A

Table 4 . Particulars of the propulsion system.

Main engine	WinGD 6RT-flex50-D
Maximum Continuous Rating (MCR)	10,470 kW * 124 r/min
Continuous Synopsis Record (CSR = 65% MCR)	6806 kW * 107.4 r/min
Service speed	14.8 knots

Table 5 . Distances, average target speeds and RPMs of the two voyages.

	Distance [km]	Average target speed [kn]/RPM outside Arctic	Average target speed [kn]/RPM in Arctic
Voyage I	10294	14.3/100	10.0/72
Voyage II	13472	13.4/95	12.7/85

Figure 3 . Encountered sea ice concentration (left) and sea ice thickness in metres (right) of Voyage I (This figure is available in colour online).

Figure 4 . The encountered significant wave height (H_s) and the LIT of Voyage I (This figure is available in colour online).

Figure 5 . Comparison of fuel consumption of Voyage I (This figure is available in colour online).

Figure 6 . Encountered sea ice concentration (left) and sea ice thickness in metres (right) of Voyage II (This figure is available in colour online).

Figure 7 . The encountered significant wave height (H_s) and the LIT of Voyage II (This figure is available in colour online).

Figure 8 . Comparison of fuel consumption of Voyage II (This figure is available in colour online).

Table 6 . Total FCs in tonnes of the two voyages.

	Measurement	ShipCLEAN	SPM-B
Voyage I	297.7	316.1	295.4
Voyage II	328.7	350.5	379.3

Kristensen HO, Lützen M. 2012. Prediction of resistance and propulsion power of ships. Copenhagen: Technical University of Denmark. Project No. 2010-56, Report No. 04.

 Google Scholar

Hollenbach KU. 1998. Estimating resistance and propulsion for single-screw and twin-screw ships. Ship Technol Res. 45(2):72–76.

 Google Scholar

Holtrop J, Mennen G. 1982. An approximate power prediction method. Int Shipbuild Prog. 29:166–170.

 Google Scholar

Holtrop J. 1984. A statistical re-analysis of resistance and propulsion data. Int Shipbuild Prog. 31:272–276.

 Google Scholar

Blendermann W. 1993. Schiffsform und Windlast – Korrelations- und Regressionsanalyse von Windkanalmessungen am Modell [Shipshape and wind load- correlation and regression analysis of wind tunnel model tests]. Hamburg: Technische Universität Hamburg. Report No. 533.

 Google Scholar

Fujiwara T. 2006. A new estimation method of wind forces and moments acting on ships on the basis of physical components models. J Jpn Soc Naval Archit Ocean Eng. 2:243–255.

 Google Scholar

ITTC. 2014. Recommended procedures and guidelines. Analysis of speed/power trial data 7.5-04-01-01.2.

 Google Scholar

Liu S, Papanikolaou A. 2016. Fast approach to the estimation of the added resistance of ships. Ocean Eng. 112(1):211–225.

 Google Scholar

Liu S, Shang B, Papanikolaou A, Bolbot V. 2016. Improved formula for estimating added resistance of ships in engineering applications. J Mar Sci Appl. 15(1):442–451.

 Google Scholar

Huang L, Li M, Romu T, Dolatshah A, Thomas G. 2021. Simulation of a ship operating in an open-water ice channel. Ships Offsh Struct. 16(4):353–362.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Huang L, Li Z, Ryan C, Li M, Ringsberg JW, Igrec B, Andrea G, Stagonas D, Thomas G. 2020. Ship resistance when operating in floating ice floes: a derivation of empirical equations, accepted for publication in ASME 2020 39th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering (OMAE).

 Google Scholar

Epps BP, Stanway MJ, Kimball RW. 2009. OpenProp: an open-source design tool for propellers and turbines. Proceedings of Propellers and Shafting 2009; Sept 15–16. Williamsburg (VA): Crown Plaza.

 Google Scholar

Oosterveld M, Oossnan P. 1975. Further computer-analyzed data of the Wageningen B-screw series. Int Shipbuild Prog. 22:2–14.

 Google Scholar

MAN. 2017. CEAS engine calculations. [accessed 2020 May 15]. http://marine.man.eu/two-stroke/ceas.

 Google Scholar

MAN. 2019. Two-stroke project guide. [accessed 2020 May 15]. https://marine.man-es.com/two-stroke/project-guides.

 Google Scholar