Anda di halaman 1dari 9

Diesel Engine Versus Steam Turbine Propulsion for a

34,000-dwt Tanker
J. W. S t e a d m a n , 1 J. F. Smith, 2 and J. R. Lindgren, Jr. 3

The authors report on a unique experience where identical hull forms and equal horsepower (nominal) in two ships having different power plants were compared. One ship was powered by a conventional steam turbine plant and the other by diesel. Sea trial data are corrected to a common
base and compared. Special problems and advantages of each plant are discussed.

Introductien
The authors' company has had a unique situation wherein
two recent contracts use the same hull form, but with different propulsion systems. Therefore, certain comparisons between these ships are interesting.
The ships involved were four vessels built for the Falcon
Lines and one vessel built for Marine Transport Lines. The
Falcon contract was originally negotiated by Litton's Transportation Division in 1967. The hull lines were developed by
Litton's Advanced Marine Technology Division in Culver
City, California, at that time under the direction of Mr. C.
R. Schaeffner. The contract drawings were developed by Marine Consultants and Designers in Cleveland, Ohio, with the
detail working drawings being prepared by Ingalls with the
support of Marine Consultants and Designers. The Marine
Chemist design utilized to the m a x i m u m extent practicable
the design prepared for the Falcon tankers.
The first Falcon tanker, the Fah:'on Lady/, was delivered
March 11, 1971; the last Falcon tanker, the Falcon Princess,
was delivered on May 3, 1972. One of the four Falcon sister
ships is shown in Fig. 1. The tanker tbr the Marine Transport
Lines, the SS Marine Chemist, Fig. 2, was delivered on November 13, 1970.
In comparing steam with diesel propulsion, we will make
no attempt to justify the selection of either. We will discuss
the two ships giving some comparisons of the arrangements
and machinery and pertinent points noted during the sea
trials of these vessels.

Description of Falcon and Marine Chemist


Hull. The hull forms for Marine Chemist and the Falcon
ships are identical. The ships are 672 ft 31/2 in. in length with
an 89-ft beam. M a x i m u m draft is approximately 36 ft and
total displacement is approximately 45,900 tons. Table 1
gives the principal characteristics. These hulls, the first to be
faired by computer at Ingalls, have relatively fine line for a
tanker and showed favorable speed versus horsepower characteristics when tank tested.
Falcon Lady: Arrangement of hull. The hull of the Falcon
Lady, and her three sister ships, is conventionally arranged.
Immediately aft of the collision bulkhead are port and starboard deep tanks which, like the forepeak, are available for
saltwater ballast. The cargo tanks extend for a length of 435
ft 6 in. and, for the most part, consist of 48 ft 0 in. long tanks
1 Director of Program Engineering, Ingalls Shipbuilding, Pascagoula, Miss.
2 Director of Submarine Engineering, Ingalls Shipbuilding, Pasca~
goula, Miss.
~Manager of LHA Project Engineering, Ingalls Shipbuilding,
Pascagoula, Miss.
Presented at the September 22, 1972 meeting of the Gulf Section of
The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
124

on centerline and 96 ft 0 in. long wing tanks port and starboard. Aft of the cargo tanks are cofferdam, fuel tanks, machinery space, and aft peak. There is no pump room. Forward there is a forecastle superstructure used for shops and
stores. A poop superstructure aft is occupied by the machinery casing, crew accommodations, reefer, dry and other
stores, and mess rooms. There is a small cargo-control deckhouse forward of amidships on the weather deck. The machinery space has fuel oil bunkers port and starboard in addition to those forward of the machinery space. Double bottoms in way of the machinery space are used for saltwater
ballast and a lubricating oil sump. Potable water, 101 tons,
and boiler feedwater, 58 tons, are carried in tanks on the
steering gear flat level and aft of the machinery space.
Table 1

Principal Characteristics

Falcon
Marine
Characteristics
Lady
Chemist
Length overal~
672 ft 31/2 in.
672 ft 31/2 in.
Length between
638 ft 0 in.
638 ft 0 in.
perpendiculars
Breadth, molded
89 ft 0 in.
89 ft 0 in.
Depth to weather dk.
46 ft 9 in.
46 ft 9 in.
at side, molded
Draft, Characteristics
36 ft 25/8 in.
36 ft 27/8i n .
Lightweight, tons
8,601
9,957
Fuel oil, 100%, tons
2,600
2,407
Lubricating oil, tons
50
35
Fresh water, 100%, tons
159
1,047 a
Crew & effects, tons
4
6
Consumable stores, tons
50
70
Cargo deadweight tons
34,413
32,384
Total displacement, tons
45,877
45,906
Total deadweight, tons
37,276
35,949
Cargo
Grade B petroleum Grade A petroleum
& chemicals
Cargo tank capacity,
309,510
208,080
100%, bbl
Cargo-manifold hose
10
2
handling capacity, tons
Licensed personne!
11
9
Unlicensed personnel
12
23
Total licensed &
23
32
unlicensed personnel
Pilot and spares
4
9
Total accommodations
27
41
Propulsion machinery
Twin reductionCross-compound,
geared reversing
double reductiondiesels
geared steam
turbines
Maximum continuous
15,000 bhp
15,000 shp
horsepower
16.5
16.5
Designed tria~ speed,
knots
a Includes 888 tons of fresh water for washing cargo tanks and lines.

MARINE

TECHNOLOGY

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

APRIL 1973

Falcon Duchess

Marine Chemist

125

The following tabulation shows the distribution of compartments along the ship's length.
Forepeak, S. W. ballast
40 ft 0 in.~ 63 ft 6 in.
No. 1 deep P & ~, S.W. ballast
23 ft 6 in./
No. 1A cargo P & S
20 ft 6 in.]
Eight C.L. cargo tanks each 48 ft 0 in./384 ft 0 1 - |
Four wing cargo tanks each 96 ft 0 in. ~
"n.~ 435 ft 6 in.
No. 10 C.L. cargo
/
......
"/
No. 6 wing cargo P & S~
~1 It u m . !
Cofferdam
3 ft 0 in.~
Bunkers & settlers
11 ft 6 in. 103 ft 0 in.
Machinery space
88 ft 6 in.
Aft peak, S.W. ballast
36 ft 0 in.
36 ft 0 in.
Length between perpendiculars
638 ft 0 in. 638 ft 0 in.
There is a total of nine 4 centerline tanks and ten 4 wing
tanks, five on each side. In addition, there are two cargo
deep tanks forward. The approximate capacity of a typical 48
ft 0 in. long centerline tank is 17,860 bbl, and the capacity of
a typical 96 ft 0 in long wing tank is about 17,500 bbl. In
each case, 100-percent full capacity is shown. Full capacities
of the types of tanks are:
Centerline cargo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wing cargo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Deep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

185,845
113,245
10,420
309,510

bbl
bbl
bbl
bbl

All cargo tanks are also available for use as saltwater ballast tanks. The No. 3 wing tanks port and starboard and the
No. 4 and 5 centerline tanks are connected by holes cut in
the longitudinal bulkheads to provide a flume stabilization
system. When the ship is being flume stabilized, the amount
of cargo which can be carried in the stabilizing tanks is reduced.
Marine Chemist: Arrangement of hull.
The Marine
Chemist hull has the same lines as the hull of Falcon Lady.
The overall length of the cargo tanks, 435 ft 6 in., is the same
in both ships. In the Marine Chemist, the machinery space is
4 ft shorter than in Falcon Lady. This difference is made up
by the bunker tanks forward of the machinery space being 4
ft longer in Marine Chemist than in Falcon Lady. Like the
Falcon Lad3', Marine Chemist has structural longitudinal
bulkheads port and starboard. Unlike Falcon Lad3', Marine
Chemist has a double bottom extending the length of the
cargo tanks but only inboard of the wing bulkheads. Forward
and aft superstructures and cargo control houses are similar
in both designs. Fuel oil is carried in tanks immediately forward of, and in the wings of, the machinery space. Machinery space double bottoms are used for saltwater ballast as are
the double bottoms under the inboard cargo tanks. Potable
water and boiler feedwater are carried in the same quantities
as in Falcon Lad3'. An additional 888 tons of fresh water is
carried in deep tanks forward for washing cargo tanks and
lines.
The centerline cargo tanks are designed to carry cargos of
densities up to 14 lb per gallon (specific gravity 1.683). Wing
cargo tanks are designed for a m a x i m u m cargo unit weight of
10 lb per gallon (specific gravity 1.202). Cargos denser than
these are prohibited to avoid local structural damage.
The following table shows the distribution of compartments along the ship's length.

4 In way of the flume stabilization system, four tanks are permanently connected together so that 21 tanks become 18 separate compartments.
126

Forepeak, S. W. ballast
,40 ft 0 in.~ 63 f't 6 in.
23 ft 6 in./
No. 1 deep P & S, S.W. ballast
C.L. cargo tank No. 1B & 2A
44 ft 6 in.
Wing cargo tank No. 1A, 1C, 1D
& wash water tanks
Inboard cargo tank No. 2B & 2C &
72 ft 0 in.
C.L. tank No. 2D & 2E
Wing S.W. ballast tank No. 2P & 2S~
Inboard cargo tank No. 3C & 3E &/
96 ft 0 in.
C.L. tank No. 3A, 3B, 3D & 3F
435 ft 6 in.
Wing cargo tank No. 3P & 3S
/
Inboard cargo tank No. 4A & 4C &
C.L. tank No. 4B & 4D & coefferdam} 96 ft 0 in.
Wing S.W. ballast tank No. 4P & 4S
Inboard cargo tank No. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B~ 96 ft 0 in.
Wing cargo tank No. 5P, 5S, 6P, 6S /
C.L. cargo tank No. 7
31 ft 0 in.
Wing cargo tank No. 7P & 7S/
3 ft 0 in.
Cofferdam
15f't6in. 1 0 3 f t 0 i n .
Bunkers & settlers
84 ft 6 in.
Machinery space
36 ft 0 in.
36 ft 0 in.
Aft peak S.W. ballast
638 ft 0 in. 638 ft 0 in.
Length between perpendiculars
The cargo tank area, particularly that between the longitudinal bulkheads, is highly compartmented in Marine Chemist and there is a total of 30 below-deck cargo tanks. This is
in contrast to a total of only 18 cargo tanks in Falcon Lady.
In Marine Chemist, there is a considerable variation in tank
capacities: the largest can hold about 17,900 bbl, while the
capacity of the smallest cargo tank is only 1074 bbl at 100percent full. In addition to the conventional cofferdam between cargo and bunker tanks, four of the below-deck cargo
tanks are surrounded by cofferdams. Differing from Falcon
Lady, Marine Chemist carries a total of eight cylindrical ondeck dished-head cargo tanks. Full capacities range from 354
to 469 bbl, and the total on-deck cargo capacity is 3360 bbl.
In addition to Grade A petroleum products, Marine Chemist can carry a variety of chemical cargos. Accordingly, special tank coatings and claddings are provided in accordance
with those shown in Table 2.
Accidental mingling of noncompatible cargos could result
in the production of one or more of the following: toxic gases,
intense heat, fire, explosion, and overflow and spillage. Cargos which would react in an unsatisfactory m a n n e r if mixed
are, in Marine Chemist, always separated by a cofferdam, an
empty tank, or a tank containing a mutually compatible
cargo. Compatibility of the various chemical cargos for which
Marine Chemist is designed are shown by Table 3.
Falcon Lady and Marine Chemist deckhouses. In both
ships the houses aft are three tiers high above the poop deck.
The following staterooms and offices are provided for the services shown and in the indicated quantities.

Name
Captain' stateroom
Captain's office
Chief engineer's stateroom
Chief engineer's office
Chief officer's stateroom
Chief officer's office
First asst. engineer's stateroom
First asst. engineer's office
Officer's staterooms
Boatswain's stateroom
Chief cook's stateroom
Crew's staterooms

Falcon
Lady

Marine
Chemist

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
1
1
11

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
1
1
22

MARINE TECHNOLOGY

Marine Chemist--chemical cargos and tank cladding

Table 2

CHEMICAL
CARGO
A C E T I C A C I D (GLACIAL)

ACETONE
N-BUTANOL

CARBON TETRACHLO RIDE

SSR

S SR

50% C A U S T I C

X
X

X
X

CHLO R O T H E N E
X

S SR

E T H Y L E N E DIAMI N E
X

S SR

ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE
X
GLYCOL

G L Y E R C I NE
METHANOL

METHYLENE CHLORIDE

S SR

X
R

X
R
X

P E R C H L O RO E T H Y L E N E
R

N-PROPYL ACETATE
R
PROPYLENE GLYCOL

X IX

R
R

S SR

STYRENE
2RICHLORO E T H Y L E N E
WERSI~IE
X

i
Notes."

1. X's appear where chemical cargos may be loaded. A blank square indicates a tank
where the named chemical shall not be loaded due to possible damage to tank coating or
structural damage due to specific-gravity restriction.
2. Where S's appear, the tank's heating coil must be secured (no heat) for safe carriage
of the named chemical.
Heating Coil

Coil Material

3F
4A, 4B, 4C
4D
All deck tanks

Stainless steel
Stainless steel
Nickel
Stainless steel

3. Where R's appear, chemical cargos may be loaded if the following restrictions are followed:
(a) Tanks are completely free of moisture and chemical is free of water.
(b) Glycols and glycerine less that 0.01% acid and 9.3% water for Dimetcete-3.
(c) For Dimetcote-3, ph range 5.5 to 11.
4. Deck tanks No. 1 through 4 P/S are reserved for ethylene diamine.

In each case separate lounge and recreational facilities are


provided for licensed and unlicensed personnel. An electric
galley is provided in each ship. In Falcon Lady, the commissary facilities are designed for 27 persons. In Marine Chemist, the facilities can accommodate 41 persons. In each design
separate laundries are available for licensed and unlicensed
personnel. Spaces such as linen storerooms, linen lockers,
baggage rooms, slop chests, oilskin lockers, and dry, reefer,
A P R I L 1973

and stewards' stores are provided in both Falcon Lady and


Marine Chemist.
Machinery.
The difference in machinery between the
Marine Chemist and the Falcon ships is the real basis of this
discussion. The Marine Chemist has a conventional steam
turbine plant, whereas the Falcon ships have medium-speed
diesels. Both plants are nominally rated at 15,000 hp, although the Falcon measures 15,000 hp at the engine and Ma127

Table 3

Compatibility of chemical cargos carried by Marine Chemist

CHEMICAL
CARGOS

ACETIC ACID

ACETONE

N -B U T A N O L

CARBON T E T R A C H L O R I D E
50% C A U S T I C

CHLO RO THI~IE
E T H Y L E N E DIdd~INE

X
X

ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE

X
X

X
X

GLYERCINE

X
X

METHYLENE CHLORIDE
N-P ROPY'L A C E T A T E
P E R C R L O RO E T H Y L E N E
X

TRI CHLO RO E T H Y L E N E

PROPYLENE GLYCOL

X
X

METHANOL

VERSENE

X
X

GLYCOL

STYRI~E

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X

Xl
X

XX
X

Note:
Noncompatibility is indicated where there is an X at the intersection of a vertical column and a
horizontal line. I--or example, carbon tetrachloride is not compatible with 50% caustic, ethylene
diamine, styrene, and versene.

rine Chemist measures 15,000 hp at the shaft. The difference


5. Shaft stops.
in power to the propeller is 3 percentage points (calculated)
6. Clutches engage and brakes are released.
lower for the Falcon ships.
7. Engines and shaft advance to desired rpm.
Falcon ships. The Falcon propulsion plant consists of two
In the event of an engine stall when reclutching, the
16-cylinder 16 PC 2 V Pielstick diesel engines furnished by clutches will again drop out and the brakes will hold the
Fairbanks Morse. The engines are each rated at 7500 bhp at shaft. The engine will restart and reengage with the advan521.6 rpm and are direct reversing with air starting. The en- tage of further slow down of the ship and consequently less
gines are individually clutched to a Falk twin-pinion, sin- opposite torque on the shaft. This operation is completely
automatic and was proven to be reliable and effective, as will
gle-reduction gear.
Engine accessories include attached lube oil, jacket water,
be demonstrated later. A unique advantage is gained in reand seawater pumps. Independent standby pumps are also versals with diesel engines, i.e., full horsepower is available
provided for these vital services. The propulsion engines are astern.
started on diesel oil and may be changed over to heavy fuel
Two ship's-service diesel generators are installed and have
a rating of' 500 kw.each. The diesels are Caterpillar model
after a warm-up period. When the engines are burning heavy
fuel for normal cruising the fuel is processed by purifiers and
D-398-B and run on diesel oil only. The generators were
is heated prior to arriving at the engine.
manufactured by Electric MachineD" Manufacturing. Hotel
The special problem of maneuvering with diesels, includ- services and engine-room steam heating for fuel and lube oil
ing crash stops, was given particular attention. The solution are provided by a waste-heat boiler installed in the diesel exwas to provide brakes and clutches for each engine at the
haust system.
gear and to control their operation through a logic circuit in
The Falcon tankers are operating as one-man engine
the control system.
rooms, although control is completely automatic with singleDuring a high-speed reversal, the following sequence of lever throttle control on the bridge. Control may be transevents take place:
ferred to the central engine-room console if desired or may be
1. Engine fuel racks go to stop.
switched to manual if required in case of a control-system
2. Line shaft slows down with the aid of engine compres- failure.
sion.
The owners' particular requirements for cargo handling re3. At 30 shaft rpm clutches disengage and brakes engage.
quired the use of steam cargo pumps and deck machinery. A
4. Engines start in reverse direction.
70,000 lb/hr Foster-Wheeler packaged boiler was installed for
128

MARINE TECHNOLOGY

in-port use. Steam pressure is 600 psig and temperature is


489 F. Five turbine-driven 5000-gpm deep-well pumps were
installed.
Marine Chemist. A conventional steam plant was installed in Marine Chemist. General Electric turbines and
gears and Babcock & Wilcox boilers are used. The boilers
have a normal rating of 55,300 lb/hr each (69,200 l b / h r max)
at 600 psig and 905 F. The cross-compound high- and lowpressure turbines are coupled to a double-reduction gear and
deliver 15,000 hp at the shaft. Two ship's-service turbogenerators rated at 750 kw each are installed.
Marine Chemist has a two-man engine room with automatic combustion control including flame scanners. Control
is from the engine room.
The particular requirements for chemical cargo called for
32 cargo and ballast pumps in five sizes ranging from 250 to
3300-gpm capacity. Electrically driven deep-well pumps are
used.
Comparison. There are obviously distinct advantages to
both plants. A few of these are compared below:
On the steam ship, an abundance of steam is available
for any service desired. Steam is cheap and is provided by
proven automated and highly efficient boilers. On the diesel
ship auxiliary steam is free as provided by the waste-heat
boiler--but only if the engines are running. On the k~leon
ships the packaged boiler previously described was used to
fill this gap when in port. While this may appear as a disadvantage, there are certainly other alternatives which in other
applications may have been attractive. Namely, larger or additional numbers of diesel generators could be used to provide hotel and cargo-pumping power. Some steam would
probably still be required to heat fuel oil, for instance, but a
small packaged boiler for such service would not be objectionable.
On the diesel ship, engine reversal is more complicated
than on a steam ship, but the control is completely automatic and, as will be discussed later, completely satisfactory.
Availability of full horsepower astern is a real advantage.
On the steam ship fuel handling is relatively simple and
standard boilers make efficient and clean use of heavy fuel.
Modern diesels also burn heavy fuel. In the latter case, however, the fuel must be conditioned by centrifuges and filters.
Complete automation is available for either steam or
diesel using available equipment.
Tank tests and sea trials
Model t a n k tests versus actual trial p e r f o r m a n c e
Marine Chemist. Standardization data were taken ibr the
SS Marine Chemist during both the builder's and the official

Table 4

: L L - # l i ~ ::: i:::

9 : 0 ...................
r~:: ~ I L E f - { :

:!

i
i
I
I
i t~ZEi

&PPI: +

~_o--7~

L!!:

i--

~J:i:} :~L,
-=:

~. . . . :

. ,+

:r:i:::

::7:}:::

I........ m,:?'
::::m::

......... i -

h::i::::

ii= ::: i;~{ ::GL


. . . . . . . .

~,

LL:/L

: : ~: :
~ L

<
:

L
;

....

-- ~ : ~ : : : ~ t ~

iit7:.7 i:.t:-i:.i

]!-~:
il
:ll
{~i~_2ii:k~2i
::{-~i
~7ii~i{ {}7i7 P . ~

-7iiI~

PIi~ii:_i~ili! {

Fig. 3

sea trials. Both trials were run in deep waters of the Gulf of
Mexico with an even-keel draft of 36 ft 3 in. under mild
weather and calm sea conditions. The builder's trial was run
four months after launching and prior to drydocking. The official trial was run immediately after drydocking, at which
time the bottom of the ship was scraped and repainted. The
sea trial methods and data taken are considered of good
quality.
The rpm, shp, and speed data from the standardization
trials are averaged by combining runs in opposite directions
at approximately the same rpm. In those cases in which
three runs are available, the data of the middle run are doubled to obtain a weighed average. The results of this averaging are ph)tted in Fig. 3 along with the model test data. Cor-

Builder's triala--table of standardization data


SS MarMe Chemist

Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Time
0558
0629
0656
0723
0747
0819
0844

Heading
330
150
330
330
150
150
330

Fathoms
460
550
600
550
550
600
660

Run
1
2
3
4

Time
0608
0638
0718
0743

Heading
167
347
167
347

Fathoms
200
200
200
200

RPM
113
112
113
93.8
90.8
114.2
113.8

SHP
13,580
13,339
13,669
7,443
7,599
14,059
14,206

Feet
10,419
9,973
10,319
8,680
8,142
10,207
10,311

Seconds
360
360
360
360
360
360
360

Knots
17.149
16.413
16.98
14.286
13.399
16.799
16.97

SS Falcon Lady
RPM
SHP
108.7
13,438
108.8
13,277
111,2
14,177
111.0
13,937

Feet
10,188
10,225
10,388
10,350

Seconds
360
360
360
360

Knots
16.768
16.829
17.098
17.034

a SS Falcon Lady builder's trial represents a combined builder's and official trial.

APRIL 1973

129

Table 5

Summary of Standardization D a t a - - B u i l d e r ' s Trial

SS Marine Chem~t
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

RPM Average
113
112
112.5 a
113
93.8
90.8
92.3
114.2 114.0
113.8

FALCON

SHP
Average
13,580
13,339 13,482 a
13,669
7,443
7,599
7,521
14,059 14,132
14,206
SS Falcon Lady
Run RPM Average
SHP
Average
1 108.7
13,438
2 108.8 108.7
13,277 13,357
3 111.2
14,177
4 111.0 111.1
13,937 14,057

Knots
17.15
16.41
16.98
14.29
13.40
16.80
16.97

Average

Knots
16.768
16.829
17.098
17.034

Average

16.74 a

.loo
I

/ /

16

13.84
16.88

:~]

17.07

MOOEL TES

I
--"lj,ri" / "

16.80

.....
[ l:'

a Weighted averages, i.e., (A + 2B + C)/4.

rections for wind, sea state, current:, density, and temperature are considered to be negligible. Referring to Fig. 3, the
following relationships occur:

Specification guarantee . . . . . . . . . .
Model test predication . . . . . . . . . . .
Standardization
Builder's trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Official trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Official trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

//

"

"

shp
13,500
13,500

16.7
17.2
16.5

13,500
13,500
11,400

SP

,,,

/"~'~"~ MODI~TEST
L
..... i
pRER
ICTION

'

--J

Speed,
knots
16.5
16.75

ED--'NOT
Fig. 4

It can be seen that speed increased about 0.5 of a knot at the


same shp between the standardization on builder's trial and
standardization on official trial. This increase is attributed
to cleaning and repainting the bottom of the ship just prior
to the official trials.
The specified speed guarantee was exceeded by 0.7 of a
knot, which is 0.45 of a knot greater than the model test prediction. The model tests predicted 12,750 shp for a speed of
16.5 knots, and official trials indicate only 11,400 shp was required. This is a substantial difference; the owner has the
fortunate choice of operating at the reduced shp and saving
on reduced fuel consumption or of operating at the higher
speed and making more voyages.
Falcon Lady. Standardization data were taken for the
Falcon Lady during the combined builder's and official sea
trials. These trials were run in the deep waters of the Gulf of
Mexico with an even-keel draft of 34 ft 3 in. The trials were
run five months after launching and prior to drydocking. The
sea trial methods and data taken are considered of good
quality.
The rpm, shp, and speed data from the standardization
trials are averaged by combining runs in opposite directions
at approximately the same rpm. The results of this averaging
are plotted in Fig. 4 along with the model test data. Corrections for wind, sea state, current, density and temperature
are considered to be negligible. Referring to Fig. 4, the following relationships occur:
Speed,
knots
Specification guarantee . . . . . . . . . . .
16.5
Model test predication . . . . . . . . . . . .
16.9
Standardization
Official Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16.7
Official Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16.5
130

shp
13,100
13,100
13,100
12,400

The specified speed guarantee was exceeded by 0.2 of a knot,


which is 0.2 of a knot less than the model test prediction.
The model tests predicated 11,900 shp for a speed of 16.5
knots, and official trials indicate 12,400 shp was required.
Marine Chemist~Falcon Lady data comparison. To compare the trial data of the two hulls, it was necessary to extrapolate the Falcon standardization data to 36 ft 3 in. draft,
the same draft at which the Marine Chemist trials were conducted; i.e., the Falcon Lady's trials were conducted at 34 ft
3 in. draft. The rationale used in the extrapolation calculations is that the residual resistance coefficient, frictional resistance coefficient, Reynolds number, and propulsion coefficient are assumed to be negligible, and therefore shaft horsepower is directly proportional to wetted surface area. These
assumptions yield the following results:

Falcon Lady(extrapolated data)


Speed
knots
16.80
17.07

shp
13,840
14,560

As can be seen from the plot on Fig. 5, the above data points
coincide almost exactly with the Marine Chemist builder's
trial curve, which tends to confirm the validity of the sea
trial observations and calculations for both ships, and in addition lends credence to the Falcon extrapolation assumptions. Again, note that the bottom condition was approximately the same for both ships in that the Marine Chemist
was in the water four months and the Falcon Lady five
months prior to trials.
MARINE

TECHNOLOGY

Sea Trial Data


15,148
115.4

Design Data
shp . . . . . . . 15,000
rpm . . . . . . . . . 112
F u e l r a t e . . . . . . . 0.5351b/shp/hr

0.52691b/shp/hr

Falcon Lady. The Falcon Lady's propulsion plant consists


of two PC2V Pielstick reversing diesel engines each rated at
7500 bhp. The ship's electrical power is provided by two generator sets driven by diesel engines. The distilling plant was
on the line and operating at rated capacity during the trials. Normal steam supply for the evaporators is from the propulsion engines' exhaust waste heat boiler, except during maneuvering or low power conditions. The fuel consumption of the
ship's-service diesel generators was not metered during the
trials; however, average generator load was 317 kw. With the
above plant operating conditions, the below listed data were
obtained during a four-hour endurance trial run. Design data
are also listed for reference.

Sea Trial Data


Design Data
abhp (full power) . . . .
15,000
shp (thllpower) . . . . . . 14,550
14,348
abhp (endurance 90%) . 13,500
13,918
shp (endurance 90%)
13,095
110.9
rpm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
111.3 (@ 15,000 bhp)
0.3698
Fu el r at e, l b / b h p / h r ,. 0.369

L~4~J

a Brake horsepower is based on shaft horsepower plus 3% loss in


gear train.
Fig. 5
Table 7

D e s i g n propulsion
f o r m a n c e data

plant

data

versus

sea

trial

per-

Marine Chemist. As previously stated, the Marine Chemist's propulsion plant is steam-driven turbines. Steam is generated by two Babcox & Wilcox Boilers rated at 55,300 l b / h r
each with superheated outlet conditions of 600 psig and 905
F. Steam-driven turbogenerators provide the ship's electrical
power and support for the propulsion auxiliaries. The generators were on the line during the trial run with an average
l o a d of 545 kw. The distilling plant was on the line and operating at rated capacity. With the above plant operating conditions, the following data were obtained during a four-hour
endurance trial run. Design data are also listed for reference.

Table 6

APRIL 1973

Run
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Summary of standardization data--official trial,


SS Marine Chemist

RPM
40.7
42
60.4
61.33
80.33
79.33
114.13
112.58
118.17
118.75
115.58

Average
41.35
60.87
79.83
113.35
117.81 a

SHP
651
771
2,074
2,157
4,494
4,576
13,497
13,414
15,032
15,007
14,166

Average
711
2,115
4,535
13,455
14,803 a

Knots
5.87
6.17
9.63
8.28
12.04
12.56
17.63
17.06
17.26
17.70
17.45

Average
6.02
8.95
12.30
17.34
17.53 a

a Weighted averages, i.e.. (A + 2B + C ) / 4 .

Official trial--table of standardization data, SS Marine Chemist

Run

Time

Heading

Fathoms

RPM

SHP

Feet

Seconds

1
2
3

2252
2300
2319

175
175
175

800
800
800

18.75
19.3
41

1,628
1,592
3,409

360
360
360

2.68
2.62
5.61

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

2327
Skip
0021
0042
0122
0146
0234
0528
0637
1338
1425
1454

175

800

40.7

60
60
Not
recorded
651

Knots

3,569

360

5.87

355
355
175
175
355
175
355
173
173
353

800
800
800
800
800
800
1000
800
1200
1100

42
60.4
61.33
80.33
79.33
114.13
112.58
118.17
118.75
115.58

771
2,074
2,157
4,494
4,576
13,497
13,414
15,032
15,007
14,166

3,750
5,850
5,031
7,315
7,634
10,713
10,365
10,488
10,755
10,605

360
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
360

6.17
9.63
8.28
12.04
12.56
17.63
17.06
17.26
17.70
17.45

131

Propulsion plant performance comparison. On the Marine


Chemist, boiler fuel oil consumption was metered to obtain a
trial fuel rate for the plant conditions listed in the foregoing.
On the Falcon Lady, main engine (only) fuel oil consumption
was metered to obtain a trial fuel rate for the plant conditions listed above. The basic differences for comparison purposes are:
(a) Turbogenerators using steam generated by metered fuel
versus diesel generators using nonmetered fuel.
(b) Distilling plants rated at 16,000 gpd on Marine Chemist versus 8000 gpd on Falcon Lad)'.
Utilizing sea trial fuel rates for each ship, the below listed
comparison was made by deducting fuel consumed for the
steam utilized by the turbogenerators on the Marine Chemist
and the additional steam required for the difference in distilling plant capacities, i.e., 16,000 gpd on Marine Chemist
versus 8000 gpd on Falcon Lad)'.

Marine
Chemist

Falcon
Lady

Fuel rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.5269
Less turbogenerator . . . . 0.0242
Less distilling plant . . . . 0.0057
Adjusted fuel rate . . . . . . 0.4970

0.3698

0.3698

Crash-stop performance c o m p a r i s o n - - s t e a m turbine versus diesel. Since the I~lcon Lady was the first ship of her
type and equipment to be built in the United States, it is of
particular interest to compare the capability of the two different propulsion systems to stop the ship during a crashstop maneuver. For comparison purposes, the reach was determined by the "along ship track" method as defined in the

132

SNAME code on maneuvering and special trials and tests


dated 1950 and reprinted in 1968.

Marine Chemist

Falcon Lady

Falcon Duchess

Reach . . 6390 ft
Time . . . 6 m i n . 21sec

6040 ft
6 m i n . 45sec

5448 ft
5 m i n . 20sec

The difference in time and reach between the Falcon Lady


and Duchess is the result of an adjustment in the enginebrake-clutch controls performed to effectively shorten the
ship's stopping time; i.e., the brake was held approximately
200 seconds on the Lady, whereas the Duchess brake was
held only 20 seconds before reversing engines.
Conclusion
Trials of two ships with identical hulls, one powered by
steam and the other by diesel, have provided a unique opportunity to compare the two kinds of propulsion. The question
of steam propulsion versus diesel propulsion is a subject that
merits an in-depth study comparing material costs, construction costs, operating costs, maintenance costs, and, in general, total life-cycle costs of these two methods of propulsion.
References
1 Schumacher, G. F., "The Falcon Tankers, Their Past,
Their Present, Their Future," presented to the New York
Metropolitan Section of The Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers, April 13, 1972.
2 Page, T. E., "Model-Ship Correlation, SS Marine
Chemist," presented to the Pascagoula Section of The Society of Naval Engineers, Nov. 17, 1971.

MARINE TECHNOLOGY