Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters Concept Design Master Thesis

Home , Cable ferry, Cruiseferry

D. Fernández Orviz Delft University of Technology

Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters Concept Design Master Thesis

D. Fernández Orviz

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science in

Marine Technology Ship design

at the Delft University of Technology, to be defended publicly on Tuesday July 28th, 2020 at 10:00 AM.

Thesis number: SDPO.20.016.m. Student number: 4711289 Project duration: January, 2020 – July, 2020

Thesis committee: Prof. Dr. Ir. J.F.J. Pruijn, TU Delft, Chairman Dr. Ir. A.A. Kana, TU Delft, Supervisor Ir. R. Kersten, C-Job, Supervisor Ir. K. Houwaart, C-Job, Supervisor Dr. Ir. S. Schreier, TUDelft, External member

An electronic version of this thesis is available at http://repository.tudelft.nl/.

A mi familia, sin vuestro apoyo y esfuerzo no estaría donde estoy ahora.

iii

Abstract

C-Job Naval Architects, a naval architecture company committed to developing sustainable ship designs, received a request from the coastal tourist agency IJmuidense Rondvaart to study the feasibility of a Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters concept design. This passenger-only ferry is featured by operating at high speeds (22 knots) between the metropolitan areas of IJmuiden and Amsterdam, being completely zero-harmful-emission and carrying a maximum of 40 commuters and 15 bicycles.

Based on the high levels of traffic congestion reported in the historical center of Amsterdam, the City of Amsterdam announced in its policy Traffic and Transport the implementation of more ferry services in the IJ waterway as one of the measures to battle this issue. In addition and considering the negatives effects of traffic congestion with regards to the concentration of air pollution, the City of Amsterdam also aims to establish zero-emission areas within the city between 2020 and 2030 as part of the measures announced in the policy Clean air.

Therefore, the necessity of a zero-emission ferry service within the Amsterdam area to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution exists. In order to achieve a feasible design, a Systems Engineering approach was applied. This methodology provides a solid base and structure to manage the constraints and complexity that a zero-emission design involves, highly related to weight and range.

Thus, an initial analysis of the applicable current technology was carried out. This analysis allowed to determine and examine the most effective technology to achieve a feasible design. In addition to examine the available technology, previous sustainable ferry designs were studied as well in order to observe the limitations, challenges and solutions taken by other ferry designs.

Considering the challenges observed from previous designs and the examination of the current technology, different candidate systems were explored. From this exploration three systems highlighted as the most suitable, in which Model 18 was the selected candidate system for being capable of meeting the weight and volume requirements as well as for standing out because of the greater sustainability and lower costs.

Lastly, a more detail description of the characteristics of this model was given. This description indicated the general arrangement showing the lay-out of the different compartments, analyzed the stability performance of the hull design and made a simplified study of the economical feasibility, in which the minimum fare to cover OPEX was determined and compared with the competition. Moreover, an estimation of the approximated payback period was performed too.

Overall, this feasibility study proved that a technical feasible design is achievable and, depending on the acceptability by the public opinion, i.e. operational capacity, an economical feasibility might be also possible.

D. Fernández Orviz July 28 th 2020 Delft, The Netherlands

Acknowledgements

As everything in life, I would not have been able to achieve and complete this thesis without the support and help of the people who surround me all this time. Thus, I want to express my gratitude and acknowledgement to the following persons.

Firs of all, I would like to express my gratitude to C-Job Naval Architects for giving the opportunity and confidence to carry out this project and, specially, my supervisors Ir. R. Kersten and Ir. K. Houwaart for his patience, assistance and support during my period in C-Job. Also, of course, to the rest of my colleagues.

I want to thank as well Prof. Dr. Ir. J.F.J. Pruijn and Dr. Ir. S. Schreier for accepting being part of the examination committee and taking the time to read this thesis project. Also, I would like to gratitude my daily supervisor, Dr. Ir. A.A. Kana, for guiding me during this whole period and his patience reading and checking my work.

A special thank to all my friends for making my time in the Netherlands more joyful, for the good and special moments together and for all the laughs shared in the way.

Y por supuesto, a mi familia, a mis hermanos, a mis padres, sin ellos no estaría aquí, sin ellos este logro no habría sido posible. Gracias por vuestro apoyo, por vuestras preocupaciones y por todo lo que he conseguido.

D. Fernández Orviz July 28 th 2020 Delft, The Netherlands

vii

Contents

Abstract v Acknowledgements vii List of Figures xi List of Tables xiii Acronyms xviii Nomenclature xix 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Project description and Research question...... 1 1.2 Background information ...... 4 1.2.1 Definition and type of ferries ...... 5 1.2.2 Introduction to Sustainability ...... 7 1.2.3 Concept Design: Applicability of Systems Engineering...... 8 1.3 Chapter conclusions ...... 11 2 Necessity of Sustainable Ferries 13 2.1 Problem Statement ...... 13 2.2 Stakeholders ...... 15 2.3 Harmful emissions: Polluting and Non-Polluting Ferries ...... 17 2.4 Chapter conclusions ...... 23 3 Sustainable Fast Ferries: State of art 25 3.1 Sustainable ferries ...... 25 3.2 Zero-emission energy sources ...... 31 3.3 Applicable hull designs ...... 40 3.4 Lightweight materials ...... 43 3.5 Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters challenges ...... 45 3.6 Chapter conclusions ...... 51 4 Concept Exploration 53 4.1 Route analysis ...... 53 4.2 Hull and material analysis ...... 56 4.2.1 Dimensioning and Hull shaping ...... 57 4.2.2 Resistance theory introduction...... 59 4.2.3 Parametric models and form factor ...... 61 4.2.4 Resistance regression applicability ...... 64 4.2.5 Resistance analysis ...... 67 4.3 Energy production and storage analysis ...... 79 4.3.1 Sailing condition ...... 79 4.3.2 Docking condition ...... 87 4.3.3 Hotel consumption ...... 94 4.3.4 Models feasibility ...... 95 4.4 Chapter conclusions ...... 100

ix x Contents

5 Concept Definition 101 5.1 Dimensioning and Hull forms ...... 101 5.2 General arrangement ...... 103 5.3 Naval architecture and Intact stability ...... 104 5.4 Resistance and installed power ...... 107 5.5 Cost assessment ...... 109 5.6 Chapter conclusions ...... 112 6 Conclusions 113 6.1 Conclusions ...... 113 6.2 Recommendations ...... 114 6.3 Personal reflection ...... 114 Bibliography 115 A Definition of ferry 123 A.1 Ferry: general definition...... 123 B Zero-emission technology 125 B.1 Electro-Chemical Energy Storage systems: definition and working principle . . .125 B.2 Electro-Magnetic Energy Storage systems: definition and working principle. . . .126 B.3 Fuel Cells: definition and working principle ...... 127 C IJmuiden - Amsterdam route 129 C.1 15min-frequency route schedule ...... 129 C.2 20min-frequency route schedule ...... 129 C.3 30min-frequency route schedule ...... 129 D Resistance prediction methods 133 D.1 Molland et al. method (1994)...... 133 D.2 Round Bilge Catamaran Series of Sahoo, Browne & Salas (2004) ...... 136 E Hydrostatics and Stability criteria 139 E.1 Hydrostatics...... 139 E.2 Stability criteria...... 139 List of Figures

1.1 IJmuiden - Amsterdam route, highlighted in yellow and with the starting and ending points circled...... 2 1.2 Passenger and Passenger/Vehicle ferry market in EU...... 5 1.3 MV Glenachulish turntable ferry...... 6 1.4 Ferry classification and Commuter ferry subcategory...... 7 1.5 Sustainable Development Matrix...... 8 1.6 C-Job design process...... 9 1.7 Systems Engineering Life Cycle Stages...... 10 1.8 Concept Development phases ...... 10

2.1 Greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 2017 in EU-28...... 14 2.2 Total number of ships with battery systems from 1998 to 2026...... 14 2.3 Urban linear ferry routes in which the colors indicate different segments...... 15 2.4 Influence and interest of the main stakeholders...... 16 2.5 Types of fuels used in U.S. Ferry fleet...... 17 2.6 Damen Water Bus 2007 design...... 18 2.7 Emission-free areas in Amsterdam ...... 20 2.8 Emissions from domestic water transport between 1990 and 2018...... 21 2.9 CO2 emission of different hydrogen-based fuel cells...... 22 2.10 Pollutant Emission factor of different hydrogen-based fuel cells...... 22

3.1 Zero-Emission Fast Ferry design...... 26 3.2 Battery powered Boats, providing Greening, Resistance reduction, Electric, Efficient and Novelty project design ...... 27 3.3 San Francisco Bay Renewable Energy Electric vessel with Zero Emissions project design 28 3.4 Non-high-speed zero-emission ferries...... 30 3.5 Rechargeable battery types in terms of energy density and specific energy...... 32 3.6 Rechargeable battery types in terms of operating cost and cycle efficiency...... 33 3.7 Electro-Magnetic energy storage systems in terms of energy density and specific energy. 34 3.8 Electro-Magnetic energy storage systems in terms of operating cost and cycle efficiency. 35 3.9 Polluting and Non-Polluting propulsion technology...... 39 3.10 Hull resistance estimations in a 22m monohull vessel with a 70% air support...... 42 3.11 Brake power - Service speed curve...... 45 3.12 Energy and Power profile during one round trip...... 45 3.13 Fuel Cell propulsion plant weight evolution. Bars indicate from left to right different sailing speed conditions at 15kn, 18kn and 22kn, keeping the sailing time constant. Considering S3 fuel cell from PowerCell...... 48 3.14 Fuel Cell propulsion plant volume evolution. Bars indicate from left to right different sailing speed conditions at 15kn, 18kn and 22kn, keeping the sailing time constant. Considering S3 fuel cell from PowerCell...... 48 3.15 Battery propulsion plant weight evolution. Bars indicate from left to right different sailing speed conditions at 15kn, 18kn and 22kn, keeping the sailing time constant. Considering Nomada battery from SuperB...... 49 3.16 Battery propulsion plant volume evolution. Bars indicate from left to right different sailing speed conditions at 15kn, 18kn and 22kn, keeping the sailing time constant. Considering Nomada battery from SuperB...... 49 3.17 Energy curve at different range conditions, 20min (dashed line), 30min (solid line) and 45min (pointed line). Different velocities are indicated as well, 22kn (square), 18kn (diamond) and 15kn (triangle)...... 49

xi xii List of Figures

4.1 Alternative transportation routes...... 53 4.2 Hull and material analysis: Overview...... 56 4.3 Main dimensions estimation: Linear regression...... 57 4.4 Distribution of Hydrostatic and Hydrodynamic lift...... 58 4.5 3D models: NPL series model (left) and SFFC estimated model (right)...... 59 4.6 Wave resistance comparison between Molland et al. experiments (Round Bilge 1994), Schwetz & Sahoo regression (Round Bilge 2002) and Sahoo, Browne & Salas regression (Round Bilge 2004)...... 61 4.7 Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters parametric space...... 62 4.8 Demihull lines: Model 13, 14 & 15...... 66 4.9 Block coefficient sensitivity: Resistance results of Model 13, 14 & 15 using Molland et al. and Slender body method...... 66 4.10 Slenderness sensitivity: Resistance results of Model 1, 4, 7, 10 & 25 using Molland et al., Sahoo, Browne & Salas and Slender body method...... 68 4.11 Dominant resistance study: Resistance results of Model 5, 18 & 19 using Sahoo, Browne & Salas and Slender body method...... 69 4.12 Demihull separation study: Resistance results of Model 8 using Sahoo, Browne & Salas and Slender body method...... 70 4.13 Demihull separation study: Resistance results of Model 11 using Sahoo, Browne & Salas and Slender body method...... 70 4.14 Demihull separation study: Resistance results of Model 27 using Sahoo, Browne & Salas and Slender body method...... 71 4.15 Total resistance results using Sahoo, Browne & Salas method: 퐿/퐵 = 7.0 ...... 73 4.16 Total resistance results using Sahoo, Browne & Salas method: 퐿/퐵 = 11.0...... 74 4.17 Total resistance results using Sahoo, Browne & Salas method: 퐿/퐵 = 15.0 ...... 75 4.18 Sailing power plant and Hull cumulative expenses...... 85 4.19 Docking power plant cumulative expenses...... 92

5.1 Curve of Areas: Model 18 (blue line) and NPL model (red line)...... 102 5.2 Hull lines: Model 18 (top) and NPL model (bottom)...... 102 5.3 Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters General Arrangement: Profile and Front view. .. 103 5.4 Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters General Arrangement: Top view...... 104 5.5 Location of the different compartments/equipment...... 105 5.6 GZ curve: General stability criteria...... 106 5.7 Catamaran stability behaviour...... 106 5.8 GZ curve: Weather, Passenger and Turning criteria...... 108 5.9 Resistance curve: Model 18 at s/L=0.2...... 108 5.10 Effective power curve: Model 18 at s/L=0.2...... 108

B.1 Li-Ion battery diagram...... 125 B.2 Electrical Double-Layer Capacitors diagram...... 126 B.3 Fuel Cell system diagram...... 127

D.1 NPL Round Bilge series: Model body plans...... 133 D.2 Round Bilge Catamaran Series of Sahoo, Browne and Salas (2004): Model body plans. 136

E.1 Weather criterion explanation...... 140 List of Tables

1.1 Summary of Research question and Subquestions...... 4 1.2 Comparison between traditional and sustainable engineering...... 8

2.1 Damen Water Bus 2007 design specifications...... 18 2.2 Volvo IPS-650 / D11...... 19 2.3 Damen Water Bus 2007 pollutant emission ratio...... 19 2.5 Tons of emissions per operating day...... 19 2.4 Estimated IJmuiden - Amsterdam route operation...... 20 2.6 Annual emission contribution...... 20 2.7 Emission-free regulation announcements translated into English...... 21

3.1 Zero-Emission Fast Ferry operational routes...... 26 3.2 Zero-Emission Fast Ferry features...... 26 3.3 Battery powered Boats, providing Greening, Resistance reduction, Electric, Efficient and Novelty project design features ...... 27 3.4 Vallejo - San Francisco route...... 28 3.5 San Francisco Bay Renewable Energy Electric vessel with Zero Emissions project design features ...... 28 3.6 Specification summary of Ar Vag Tredan, Ampere and Ellen E-ferry...... 30 3.7 Route, technical, economical and regulatory challenge summary...... 30 3.8 Rechargeable battery properties summary...... 33 3.9 Possible causes, results and effects of different abuses on batteries...... 34 3.10 Electro-Magnetic energy storage system properties summary...... 35 3.11 Fuel Cell systems properties summary, 1st Table...... 38 3.12 Fuel Cell systems properties summary, 2nd Table...... 38 3.13 Summary of applicable hull design solutions for the Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters. 42 3.14 Energy and Power profile for one-way trip...... 45 3.15 Energy and Power technology systems (Fuel Cell, Battery and Ultracapacitors) comparison, 1st Table...... 46 3.16 Energy and Power technology systems (Fuel Cell, Battery and Ultracapacitors) comparison, 2nd Table...... 46 3.17 Extra equipment required in an electric propulsion system...... 47 3.18 Fuel Cell propulsion plant...... 47 3.19 Battery propulsion plant...... 47

4.1 IJmuiden-Amsterdam connection: public transportation...... 54 4.2 IJmuiden-Amsterdam connection: private transportation...... 54 4.3 Information about the connection IJmuiden - Amsterdam by waterborne transport. .. 55 4.4 Operational profile for the IJmuiden-Amsterdam route...... 56 4.5 List of reference catamaran vessels...... 57 4.6 Estimated main dimensions...... 58 4.7 Hull characteristics of the first SFFC model...... 59 4.8 Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters parametric models ...... 62 4.9 Regression coefficient for Equation 4.17...... 64 4.10 Form factors for each parametric model...... 65 4.11 Block coefficient sensitivity: Parametric models characteristics...... 66 4.12 Slenderness sensitivity: Parametric models characteristics...... 67 4.13 Dominant resistance study: Parametric models features...... 67 4.14 Demihull separation study: Parametric models features...... 70

xiii xiv List of Tables

4.15 Difference Method: Correction coefficients...... 72 4.16 Total weight estimation breakdown of the Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters. .... 72 4.17 Machinery weight estimation: Coefficients and efficiencies...... 72 4.18 Estimation of the structural weight using the Difference method: 퐿/퐵 = 7.0...... 73 4.19 Weight feasibility criteria: 퐿/퐵 = 7.0...... 74 4.20 Estimation of the structural weight using the Difference method: 퐿/퐵 = 11.0...... 75 4.21 Weight feasibility criteria: 퐿/퐵 = 11.0...... 75 4.22 Estimation of the structural weight using the Difference method: 퐿/퐵 = 15.0...... 76 4.23 Weight feasibility criteria: 퐿/퐵 = 15.0...... 76 4.24 Average material price: CFRP, GRP and Aluminium...... 77 4.25 Average fuel cell plant costs...... 77 4.26 Weight feasibility criteria summary...... 77 4.27 Features summary of the three most suitable options...... 78 4.28 Total estimated CAPEX and OPEX, 1st Table...... 78 4.29 Shallow water criteria...... 79 4.30 Sailing condition: Model 6...... 79 4.31 PowerCell S3 fuel cell features...... 80 4.32 Nomada SuperB battery features...... 80 4.33 Skeleton SkelMod supercapacitors features...... 80 4.34 Model 6 fuel cell plant configuration at Sailing condition: Required fuel cells and Hydrogen mass...... 80 4.35 Hexagon Type 4 hydrogen cylinder features...... 81 4.36 Essential equipment required in a fuel cell electric propulsion system...... 81 4.37 Model 6 fuel cell plant configuration at Sailing condition: Total estimated weight and expenses...... 82 4.38 Nomada SuperB battery: Charge & Discharge Specifications...... 82 4.39 Model 6 battery configuration characteristics for one trip at Sailing condition...... 83 4.40 Model 6 battery plant configuration at Sailing condition: Total estimated weight and expenses...... 83 4.41 Charging process specifications for Sailing condition...... 84 4.42 Replacement year of batteries and fuel cells: Sailing condition...... 84 4.43 Sailing condition: Model 18...... 85 4.44 Model 18 fuel cell plant configuration at Sailing condition: Required fuel cells and Hy- drogen mass...... 86 4.45 Model 18 fuel cell plant configuration at Sailing condition: Total estimated weight and expenses...... 86 4.46 Sailing condition: Model 26...... 86 4.47 Model 26 fuel cell plant configuration at Sailing condition: Required fuel cells and Hy- drogen mass...... 87 4.48 Model 26 fuel cell plant configuration at Sailing condition: Total estimated weight and expenses...... 87 4.49 Ballard FCvelocity - 9SSL fuel cell features...... 88 4.50 Docking condition: Model 6...... 88 4.51 Model 6 fuel cell plant configuration at Docking condition: Required fuel cells and Hy- drogen mass...... 88 4.52 Model 6 fuel cell plant configuration at Docking condition: Total estimated weight and expenses...... 89 4.53 Model 6 battery plant configuration at Docking condition for one trip...... 89 4.54 Model 6 battery plant configuration at Docking condition for one operational day. ... 90 4.55 Model 6 supercapacitor configuration characteristics for one trip at Docking condition. . 91 4.56 Model 6 supercapacitor plant configuration at Docking condition...... 92 4.57 Replacement year of batteries, fuel cells and supercapacitors: Docking condition. ... 92 4.58 Docking condition: Model 18...... 93 4.59 Model 18 supercapacitor plant configuration at Docking condition for one operational day. 93 4.60 Docking condition: Model 26...... 94 4.61 Model 26 supercapacitor plant configuration at Docking condition for one operational day. 94 List of Tables xv

4.62 Estimated nominal hotel power and energy requirements...... 94 4.63 Battery plant for the Hotel requirements...... 95 4.64 Fuel cell plant configuration a for the Hotel: Required fuel cells and Hydrogen mass. .. 95 4.65 Fuel cell plant for the Hotel requirements...... 95 4.66 Distribution of the deck area within cargo, passengers and officers...... 96 4.67 Remaining available volume for power plants and circulation spaces...... 96 4.68 Total required weight and volume for a 15min-frequency schedule...... 97 4.69 Total required weight and volume for a 20min-frequency schedule...... 97 4.70 Total required weight and volume for a 30min-frequency schedule...... 97 4.71 Weight feasibility summary...... 97 4.72 Transport efficiency at the Sailing condition...... 98 4.73 Total structure and power plant expenses summary...... 98 4.74 Total weight breakdown of Model 6 for each schedule from left to right: 15min, 20min and 30min frequency...... 98 4.75 Total weight breakdown of Model 18 for each schedule from left to right: 15min, 20min and 30min frequency...... 99 4.76 Total weight breakdown of Model 26 for each schedule from left to right: 15min, 20min and 30min frequency...... 99

5.1 Main dimensions and characteristics...... 102 5.2 Loadcase: Fully loaded...... 104 5.3 General stability criteria...... 106 5.4 Remaining stability criteria: Weather, Passenger crowding and Turning criterion. .... 107 5.5 Resistance and Power requirements...... 108 5.6 Profile conditions and energy requirements...... 109 5.7 Estimation of the Total Capital Expenses...... 110 5.8 Estimation of the yearly Operational and Voyage expenses...... 110 5.9 Cost assessment: CAPEX and OPEX per year...... 110 5.10 Minimum SFFC fares to operate without losses...... 111 5.11 Payback period considering the maximum fare to be competitive...... 111

C.1 15-minutes-frequency route schedule...... 130 C.2 20-minutes-frequency route schedule...... 131 C.3 30-minutes-frequency route schedule...... 132

D.1 NPL Round Bilge series: Hull characteristics...... 134 D.2 Molland et al. method (1994): Parameter range...... 134 D.3 Molland et al. method (1994): Regression coefficients, 1st Table...... 134 D.4 Molland et al. method (1994): Regression coefficients, 2nd Table...... 135 D.5 Round Bilge Catamaran Series of Sahoo, Browne and Salas (2004): Hull features. ... 136 D.6 Round Bilge Catamaran Series of Sahoo, Browne and Salas (2004): Parameter range. . 137 D.7 Round Bilge Catamaran Series of Sahoo, Browne and Salas (2004): Regression coefficients.137

E.1 Hydrostatics at the full load condition...... 139

Acronyms

AFC Alkaline Fuel Cell. 36, 37, 39

BB GREEN Battery powered Boats, providing Greening, Resistance reduction, Electric, Efficient and Novelty. xi, xiii, 26, 27, 41, 96 BMS Battery Management System. 9

CAPEX Capital Expenses. xiv, 76–78, 81, 83, 85, 91, 97, 110, 111, 114 CFRP Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer. xiv, 44, 73, 76–78, 113 CoB Center of Buoyancy. 106 CoG Center of Gravity. 103, 104, 106

DMFC Direct Methanol Fuel Cell. 36, 37 DoD Depth of Discharge. 81, 83, 89, 91 DWT Deadweight Tonnage. 71

EDLC Electrical Double-Layer Capacitors. xii, 33, 126 ESR Equivalent Series Resistance. 91 ESS Energy Storage System. 29 EU European Union. xi, 5, 14, 27

FP7 Seventh Framework Programme. 27 FRP Fiber Reinforced Plastic. 44, 51

GRP Glass-Reinforced Plastic. xiv, 44, 73, 74, 76, 77

HC Hydrocarbons. 18 HFO Heavy Fuel Oil. 18 HSC High-Speed-Craft. 5, 6, 105 HSC-Code International Code of Safety for High-Speed Craft. 105–107 HSMV High-Speed Marine Vehicles. 64 HT-PEMFC High Temperature Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell. 36, 38 HVAC Heat, Ventilation and Air Conditioning. 40, 94

IS Code International Code of Intact Stability. 105–107, 139 ITTC International Towing Tank Conference. 59, 60, 63, 64, 107, 119

LHV Lower Heating Value. 76

xvii xviii Acronyms

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas. 28, 37 LWT Lightweight Tonnage. 71, 72

MCFC Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell. 36–38 MDO Marine Diesel Oil. 18 MGO Marine Gas Oil. 18, 19, 48

MLC Maritime Labour Convention. 96

NCDs Noncommunicable Diseases. 1 NCFO National Census of Ferry Operators. 17 NPL National Physical Laboratories. xii, xv, 59, 61, 101, 133, 134 NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. 41, 118

OPEX Operational Expenses. v, xiv, 76–78, 81, 83, 85, 91, 111

PAFC Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell. 36–38 PEMFC Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell. 36, 37, 39

RoPax Roll-on/Roll-off-Passenger. 6

RoRo Roll-on/Roll-off. 6, 123

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction. 17

SE Systems Engineering. 8, 9, 11, 23, 31, 51, 53, 113 SF-BREEZE San Francisco Bay Renewable Energy Electric vessel with Zero Emissions. xi, xiii, 27, 28, 41 SFFC Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters. v, ix, xii–xv, 1–5, 9, 10, 13, 23, 25, 28, 38, 40–43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 57–59, 62, 64, 67, 72, 73, 100, 101, 103–105, 111–114 SMES Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage. 33, 34, 126 SoC State of Charge. 81, 91

SOFC Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. 37, 38 SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Live at Sea. 6 SWATH Small-Waterplane-Area Twin Hull. 6

USA United States of America. 17

VAT Value-added tax. 110 VOC Volatile Organic Components. 18

WHO World Health Organization. 1, 13, 115, 116

ZEFF Zero-Emission Fast Ferry. xi, xiii, 25, 26, 41 Nomenclature

SUBSCRIPTS 푖 Half entrance angle 퐶퐴푇 Catamaran 퐿/∇/ Slenderness ratio

푐ℎ Charge 퐿/퐵 Length-to-beam ratio

푑푒푚푖 Demihull 퐿 Length

푑푖푠푐ℎ Discharge 푠/퐿 Hull spacing 퐹퐶 Fuel cell 푇 Draft 푙푑 Loaded MARINE ENGINEERING 푂퐴 Overall 휂 Efficiency 푟푡 Round-trip 퐶 Battery capacity 푟 Rated 퐶 Supercapacitor capacitance 푤푙 Waterline 퐼 Current SHIP DESIGN 푚 H2 mass 훽 Deadrise angle 푁 No. H2 tanks Δ Displacement 푛 No. trips ∇ Displaced volume 퐵/푇 Beam-to-draft ratio 푃 Brake power 퐵 Beam 푝푒푟 Pollutant emission ratio 푠푓푐 Specific fuel consumption 푐 Block coefficient 푠푓푐

푐 Water plane coefficient 푉 Voltage

ℎ/푇 Depth-to-draft ratio 푥 Sulphur concentration in fuel

xix

1 Introduction

In this first chapter, Introduction, the thesis project is presented. This chapter is divided into two sections in which the project as well as the basis are introduced. The first part, Problem description and Research question, will briefly indicate the reasons to develop this concept design. This section provides an overview of the possible operations and market as well as the different questions to be addressed along the project. The Background information section explains the basis and key concepts by defining the project title, Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters Concept Design. Therefore, the definition and type of ferries, sustainability and concept design are given and addressed by answering the following questions:

What is the definition of Ferry

What makes Commuter Fast Ferry different from other ferries

What does Sustainable design consist of

Which sustainable principles are applicable to this concept design

What does concept design refer to

How can Systems Engineering be applied to this design project

1.1. Project description and Research question

The City of Amsterdam has reported traffic congestion due to the rapid growth of the city. The worst part of this traffic congestion is located in the historic city center. As a result, the City of Amsterdam announced in its policy Traffic and Transport new measures to battle this congestion, e.g. the creation of new ferry services along the IJ waterway [1]. Moreover, one consequence of traffic congestion is the increase of the concentration of air pollution. The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes that air pollution is a critical factor for Noncommunicable Diseases (NCDs), causing an estimated 34% of all adult deaths from heart disease, 20% from stroke, 19% from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and 7% from lung cancer [2]. As consequence, the City of Amsterdam aims to implement zero-emission areas by 2030 as one of the measures announced in its policy Clean air [3], Chapter 2: Necessity of Sustainable Ferries provides more details about this implementation plan.

Therefore, C-Job Naval Architects, a naval architecture company committed to developing high quality, innovative and sustainable ship designs, received a request to study the feasibility of a concept design. This feasibility study consists of designing a Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters (SFFC) with the following specifications:

1 2 1. Introduction

Passenger capacity: 40 commuters and/or tourists Cargo capacity: 15 bicycles Emissions: Zero harmful emissions Speed: 22 knots Range: 30 - 45 minutes (approx. 11 - 16.5 nautical miles) Route: IJmuiden - Amsterdam

These specifications have been established by IJmuidense Rondvaart. This coastal tourist agency provides boat tours in the port area of IJmuiden, North Sea Canal and North Sea coast. In addition, IJmuidense Rondvaart provides canal ferry services. One of these services was the route between IJmuiden and Amsterdam, used as an alternative to bus transportation, see Figure 1.1. This ferry service line was discontinued in 2014 as it stopped being profitable. The reason for this was a fuel inefficient design and a chain of multiple accidents which led to a reduction in the service speed and, therefore, a decline on passenger numbers due to longer sailing times [4]. All these accidents were mainly related to the high operating speed (32kn) and human errors. As a consequence, the operating velocity for this new concept design is reduced to 22 knots. This reduction in speed might ensure safety and not repeat past mistakes.

Figure 1.1: IJmuiden - Amsterdam route, highlighted in yellow and with the starting and ending points circled [5].

The implementation of a Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters would reduce traffic congestion and local air pollution as well, by offering a zero-emission alternative or complement to road transportation. In addition to commuting, this sustainable ferry service would also provide a direct connection to IJmuiden beach from Amsterdam Central. The main advantage of this ferry service over the bus transportation is the possibility of carrying bicycles on board.

With regards to the design, according to the studies developed by HELCOM [6] and DNV-GL [7], weight and range suppose an important issue in the design of zero-emission vessels. The current zero-emission marine technology is quite heavy and voluminous to allow an acceptable proportional ship design. Therefore, the aim of this project is to study the feasibility of a Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters by answering the following question: 1.1. Project description and Research question 3

How feasible is a concept design of a Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters, of 40 passengers of capacity, for operations of 45 minutes at 22 knots Defining feasible according to the Cambridge Dictionary as [8]:

– Feasible - able to be made, done or achieved (common definition). Possible to do and likely to be successful (business definition).

This research question and specifications leads to multiple sub-questions mainly in terms of marine engineering, ship design and structural material.

• Marine Engineering

What are the current and near-future most effective emission-free energy sources and technologies

Are these ones applicable in terms of safety, durability and affordability to Fast Ferries

The viability of using these energy sources highly depends on the ship weight and resistance as well as on the own properties of the energy source. Therefore, this implies a great dependency on the energy source properties, ship hydrodynamics, power consumption and hydrodynamic efficiency.

• Ship design

How can the hull shape impact the use of these energy source technologies on board a passenger vessel

How could the displacement of the SFFC be minimized

Several advanced hull shapes, e.g. hydrofoils and SWATHs, have been developed and studied over the course of naval history, especially when velocity plays an important role, achieving great results with regards to reducing hull resistance. However, other factors such as comfort and affordability might counteract its great efficiency. As this concept design needs to be feasible in multiple aspects such as technical and economical, high performances need to be balanced with acceptable levels of comfort and construction costs. Therefore, a trade-off analysis is required to select the most efficient, safe and economically feasible hull design that makes this emission-free ferry concept design achievable.

• Structural material

What would be the impact of lightweight materials on the concept design

Are these materials environmentally friendly, recyclable and safe

The material selected might considerably affect the weight of the ship. However, this should not be the only characteristic to consider during the design stages. As this project consists on the design of a sustainable ferry, the material should be sustainable and environmentally friendly, not only during operation also during its recycle.

Therefore, the objective of this thesis is thus to design a lightweight sustainable fast ferry which satisfies the following design criteria: – Robust, sustainable and durable technology. – Safe and affordable. 4 1. Introduction

– Feasible with the available technology within now and three years.

Table 1.1 compiles all the questions to be answered along the project.

Table 1.1: Summary of Research question and Subquestions.

Research question How feasible is a concept design of a Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters, of 40 passengers of capacity, for operations of 45 minutes at 22 knots Subquestions Chapter - What is the definition of Ferry Subsection 1.2.1, Chapter 1. - What makes Commuter Fast Ferry different from other ferries

- What does Sustainable design mean Subsection 1.2.2, Chapter 1. - Which sustainable principles are applicable to this concept design

- What does concept design refer to Subsection 1.2.3, Chapter 1. - How can System Engineering be applied to this design project

- What is the concept of harmful emissions and which gases are considered harmful Section 2.3, Chapter 2. - What is the difference between non-polluting ferries and polluting ferries in terms of exhausting emissions

- What are the current and near-future most effective emission-free energy sources and technologies Section 3.2, Chapter 3. - Are these ones applicable in terms of safety, durability and affordability to Fast Ferries

- How can the hull shape impact the use of these energy source technologies on board a passenger vessel Section 3.3, Chapter 3. - How could the displacement of the SFFC be minimized

- What would be the impact of lightweight materials on the concept design Section 3.4, Chapter 3. - Are these materials environmentally friendly, recyclable and safe

- Is this Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters concept design Subsection 4.3.4, Chapter 4. technically feasible

- Is this Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters concept design Section 5.5, Chapter 5. economically feasible

After introducing the operating route and market interest as well as the Research questions and subquestions to answer, the next section will cover the concept of sustainable commuter fast ferry.

1.2. Background information

It is important to define and understand the concept of ferry and the different types of ferries operating in the market. This definition and classification will explain what fast ferry for commuters encompasses. Moreover, as this project consists of developing a sustainable concept design, it is also crucial to have clear understanding what sustainability refers to as well as what concept design consists of. 1.2. Background information 5

1.2.1. Definition and type of ferries This thesis uses the following definition for ferries applicable to any geographic area worldwide, see Appendix A: Definition of ferry:

”A boat or ship for taking passengers and often accompanied vehicles and freight across an area of water, as a regular service whose duration does not exceed 48 hours.”

Taking into account this definition and using the ferry service classification given by the U.S. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Service [9], ferries can be sorted in terms of their purposes as follows:

• Passenger transportation or Transit

⋅ Ferry Urban - ferries operating in scheduled services within a city or metropolitan area. ⋅ Ferry Intercity - vessels providing a scheduled service between metropolitan areas.

• Passenger and Vehicle transportation or Highway

⋅ Ferry Essential - ships following a scheduled service outside or between metropolitan areas and providing vehicle transportation.

Figure 1.2 indicates the size of these two ferry services in Europe, expressed in terms of the number of vessels employed. The passenger/general cargo ferry is a vessel type commonly used for commuting (passenger) and supplying (general cargo) islands, e.g. Canary and Balearic Islands in Spain. The chart shows a relative balanced market between passenger and passenger/vehicle ferries, and even though passenger/vehicle ferries might compete with airline services, e.g. UK-NL ferry routes, both ferry types are considered transport network links. In conclusion, ferry services are quite important in locations where there is a large body of water, for example islands and river cities, as it oftentimes offers a faster and cheaper mode of transportation through water.

Figure 1.2: Passenger and Passenger/Vehicle ferry market in EU [10].

The concept of Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters fits in the definition of Ferry Intercity, as it operates between metropolitan areas, IJmuiden - Amsterdam, and carrying only passengers, 40 commuters. Moreover, the SFFC can be considered as a sub-category of High-Speed-Crafts as well. This sub-type is commonly limited to operate in inland waterways such as canals in the Netherlands and rivers located in urban areas, e.g. Thames in London, carrying principally passengers and bicycles. A further insight will be given in Section 2.1.

The design of a ferry also depends on parameters other than the ferry purpose. These parameters are route length, capacity (number of vehicles and passengers), required speed and water conditions, as 6 1. Introduction

C-Job Naval Architectures states1. Therefore, and considering the previous purposes, ferries can be classified as follows:

• Roll-on/Roll-off (RoRo) - Conventional ferry designed specifically for transporting vehicles in an easier and faster manner. It is defined as ”a passenger ship with RoRo cargo spaces or special category spaces 2”.

• Roll-on/Roll-off-Passenger (RoPax) - RoRo ferry built for freighting vehicle transport with passenger accommodation. Also known as CruiseFerry, RoPax ferry combines Roll-on/Roll-off and passenger design features.

• Double-ended ferry - Ferry featured by the interchangeable bow and stern. This characteristic allows the vessel to avoid turning around for the return service.

• Pontoon ferry - Ferry typically used in less developed countries to carry vehicles across rivers and/or lakes as solution to high bridge construction costs.

• Cable ferry - Similar to pontoon ferries. These ferries are only used for short distances in which the vessel is steered by cables connected to both sides of the shore. In contrast to pontoon ferries, cable ferries lack of self-propulsion.

• Fast ferry - Fast ferries, fast-crafts or High-Speed-Craft (HSC) consist of vessels designed to transport passengers and, in some occasions, vehicles at high velocities. Hydrofoil, catamaran, SWATH and monohull designs are the most common and popular hulls used for fast ferries.

Even though different kinds of ferries have been indicated in the previous list, this one does not include all ferry types in the world e.g. turntable ferries commonly operated in Scotland. Turntable ferries are equipped with a rotating platform over the main deck which eases embarking and disembarking of vehicles, as Figure 1.3 shows.

Figure 1.3: MV Glenachulish turntable ferry.

Figure 1.4 visually simplifies this ferry classification being defined passenger ship and passenger according to SOLAS 3 as:

”a ship which carries more than twelve passengers”

”every person other than: the master and the members of the crew or other persons employed or engaged in any capacity on board a ship on the business of that ship and a child under one year of age”

In conclusion, contrary to other types of ferries, Commuter Fast Ferries stand out for operating at high speeds in domestic waters connecting metropolitan areas and carrying exclusively passengers. Once the definition of ferry is clear, in special Commuter Fast Ferry, the next step is to clarify the concept of sustainability. Concepts such as sustainable design and engineering are indicated in the next section.

1This has been verified interviewing naval architects at C-Job such as Kevin Houwaart. 2See Chapter II-1 of the International Convention for the Safety of Live at Sea (SOLAS). 3See Chapter I-Part A, Definitions, of the International Convention for the Safety of Live at Sea. 1.2. Background information 7

Figure 1.4: Ferry classification and Commuter ferry subcategory.

1.2.2. Introduction to Sustainability The term sustainability has a multidisciplinary use and meaning. Typically, sustainability is defined as the capability of a system to endure and maintain by itself [11]. Since 1980s, sustainability has been linked and used more in the sense of human sustainability. This category of sustainability involves specific goals, strategies and methods to preserve and improve human life quality. Sociological, environmental and resource-based factors play an important role in human sustainability.

This more frequent use in the sense of human sustainability resulted in the concept of sustainable development. The Brundtland Commission of the United Nations [12] defines it as:

”A development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”

Therefore, a new design philosophy emerged, Sustainable design. This concept, largely advocated by William McDonough, American architect, designer and author, establishes that materials, products and systems can be designed in a way it continuously improves over time. Sustainable designs are subject to the following nine principles, see Figure 1.5 [11]:

1. Insist on rights of humanity and nature to 5. Create safe objects of long-term value. coexist. 6. Eliminate the concept of waste. 2. Recognize interdependence. 7. Rely on natural energy flows. 3. Respect relationships between spirit and matter. 8. Understand the limitations of design. 4. Accept responsibility for the consequences of 9. Seek constant improvement by the sharing design. of knowledge.

Within these nine principles, the most relevant in this design are the first, sixth and eighth principle. These refer to respect nature (environmentally-friendly), eliminate waste, both material (recyclability) and power and energy waste (employing the least possible), and balancing technical, economical and sustainable feasibility. Applying these sustainable principles to engineering a different approach was developed. Table 1.2 indicates the main differences between traditional and sustainable engineering: 8 1. Introduction

Table 1.2: Comparison between traditional and sustainable engineering [11].

Traditional engineering Sustainable engineering Considers the object or process. Considers the whole system in which the object or process will be used. Focuses on technical issues. Considers both technical and non- technical issues synergistically. Solves the immediate problem. Strives to solve the problem for infinite future. Considers the local context. Considers the global context. Assumes others will deal with polit- Acknowledges the need to interact experts ical, ethical and societal issues. in other disciplines related to the problem.

Figure 1.5: Sustainable Development Matrix [13].

Lastly, the definition of concept design and use of Systems Engineering in this project will be discussed. These definitions and study are shown in the next section.

1.2.3. Concept Design: Applicability of Systems Engineering In general, concept design consists of forming, modeling and shaping a new idea, approach or abstrac- tion of an implementation [14]. In the maritime sector, concept design corresponds to the early ship design stages and is associated with feasibility studies [15], see Figure 1.6. In this stage, the foundations of the vessel are laid. Therefore, several analyses as well as decisions need to be taken into account and made. Systems Engineering (SE) is an approach used in design to develop and integrate successful, efficient and complex systems [17]. The characteristics of a system whose development, test and application require SE are [18]:

• The system is an engineered product and satisfies a specified need.

• It consists of diverse components that have intricate relationships with one another and hence is multidisciplinary and relatively complex.

• It uses advanced technology in ways that are central to the performance of its primary functions and hence involves development risk and often a relatively high cost. 1.2. Background information 9

Figure 1.6: C-Job design process [16].

Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters meets these characteristics as it is an engineered product that satisfies a need (commuter transport), consists on diverse complex components interrelated (batteries, fuel cells, Battery Management System, fuel cell heat management systems, etc.) which, in addition, are still in development, and uses advanced technology that is essential to its performance (zero- emission technology, e.g. fuel cells).

In addition, the combination of the design requirements indicates a high grade of complexity. This is due to the demanding operational profile (high speeds and continuous service) and the design restrictions (zero-harmful emissions and small capacity). Hence, the hull design not only has to provide enough displacement the bear the power plant requirements but also needs to be in line with the capacity of the vessel to avoid a disproportional size and expenses. Therefore, applying Systems Engi- neering allows to follow a systematic approach and structure to converge into a feasible solution and avoid losing the overall research goal.

R.J. Halligan, executive project manager in Project Performance International, defines Systems Engi- neering in his course System Engineering for Technology-Based Projects and Product Developments [19] as follows: ”Systems engineering is an interdisciplinary, collaborative approach to the engineering of systems (of any type) which aims to capture stakeholder needs and objectives and to transform these into a description of a holistic, life-cycle balanced system solution which both satisfies the minimum requirements, and optimizes overall project and system effectiveness according to the values of the stakeholders. Systems engineering incorporates both technical and management processes” Once the applicability of Systems Engineering has been proven, the next step is to identify the Systems Engineering approaches to use.

• System Engineering Life cycle

SE life cycle defines the evolution of a new system from concept through development and on to production, operation and ultimate disposal. Therefore, three stages are identified in a system life cycle, see Figure 1.7: – Concept development Establishes the system need, explores feasible concepts, and selects a preferred system concept. Subdivided into Needs Analysis, Concept Exploration and Concept Definition. 10 1. Introduction

– Engineering development Validates new technology, transforms the selected concept into hardware and software designs, and builds and tests production models. Subdivided into Advanced Development, Engineering Design and Integration and Evaluation. – Postdevelopment Produce and deploys the new system and supports system operation and maintenance. Subdi- vided into Production and Operations and Support.

Figure 1.7: Systems Engineering Life Cycle [18].

As this project consists of a concept design of a Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters, it will focus on the first stage of Systems Engineering Life Cycle, Concept Development, see Figure 1.8. Within this stage, three additional phases are identified: – Needs Analysis This phase indicates the need for a new system, examines the current available technology and shows the required capabilities by the system to fulfil the needs. This study and examination are shown in Chapters 2 and 3. – Concept Exploration In this phase, potential system concepts are examined. By this examination, this phase produces a set of candidate system concepts to explore the range of possibilities in satisfying the needs. This analysis is performed in Chapter 4, which concludes with the selection of one system out of different candidates. – Concept Definition This last phase functionally and physically describes the selected concept that balances capability, operational life and costs, within the candidate systems. Such a system description is indicated in Chapter 5.

Figure 1.8: Concept Development phases [18]. 1.3. Chapter conclusions 11

1.3. Chapter conclusions

In this first introductory chapter, Introduction, several key concepts and the project description have been presented. These concepts will be considered along the entire research, specially the concept of sustainable development which will play an important role in any decision making. In addition, an introduction to ferry service was also mentioned. This introduction included an overview of the different ferry types as well as the two possible transportation purposes, passenger transportation or passenger and vehicle transportation. In this subsection, two questions were addressed and answered:

What is the definition of Ferry

”A boat or ship for taking passengers and often accompanied vehicles and freight across an area of water, as a regular service whose duration does not exceed 48 hours.”

What makes Commuter Fast Ferry different from other ferries

This ferry can be defined as a high-speed Ferry Intercity which stands out for operating between metropolitan areas (IJmuiden - Amsterdam) in inland waterways (North Sea and IJ waterway) and carrying exclusively passengers (Transit ferry service).

As it was mentioned, the concept and basics of sustainability were studied as well. This subsection concluded giving an overview of sustainable design and its nine principles and addressing the next questions. Moreover, a distinction between traditional and sustainable engineering was indicated as well.

What does Sustainable design mean

A design that meets the necessity of the present generation without compromising future generation’s ability to meet their own needs, and states that materials, products and systems can be designed to continuously improve.

Which sustainable principles are applicable to this concept design

Principles such as eliminating waste (recyclability), respect to nature (environmentally friendly) and understanding design limitations (balance between technical, economical and sustainable feasibility) will be highly present in the design process.

Last studied concept was the use of Systems Engineering in this project. Moreover, the stage in which this research is located in the Systems Engineering Life Cycle, Concept development, has been indicated too. Two questions were answered in this subsection, Concept Design: Applicability of Systems Engineering.

What does concept design refer to

In the maritime sector, concept design corresponds to the first ship design stages and is associated with feasibility studies, where the vessel foundations are laid.

How can Systems Engineering be applied to this design project

Systems Engineering is an approach used to develop and integrate successful, efficient and complex engineered systems by making justified decisions. By applying SE life cycle a systematic approach to define needs, study candidate systems and select the suitable model is followed, Concept Development.

2 Necessity of Sustainable Ferries

This chapter, Necessity of Sustainable Ferries, explains in more detail the reasons to develop a Sus- tainable Fast Ferry for Commuters. First of all, the problem statement is introduced followed up by the main stakeholders involved in the design. Before concluding the chapter, further information regarding to the problem statement will be presented. This additional information will help to clarify concepts such as harmful emissions and non-polluting ferries. Therefore, the following questions will be studied:

What is the concept of harmful emissions and which gases are considered harmful

What is the difference between non-polluting ferries and polluting ferries in terms of exhausting emissions

2.1. Problem Statement

In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) considered air pollution as the greatest environmental risk to health [20]. Updated estimations reveal a death rate of 7 million people every year caused by ambient (outdoor) and household (indoor) air pollution. Nearly 60% of these deaths occurred in South-East Asia (2 million) and Western Pacific (2 million) regions. In contrast, the European region only encompasses around 7% (500.000 deaths) of this total. Air pollution can be divided into two main polluting groups [21]:

• Air pollutants - these contaminants in the atmosphere cause direct harm to people or environment. The most common air pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). • Greenhouse gases - in contrast to air pollutants, these gases affect the climate leading to possible harmful effects. This group includes gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and tropospheric ozone (O3) among others. A deeper description of the negative effects on human health and environment is given in Section 2.3. In this section the definition of harmful emissions and a comparison between polluting and non- polluting ferries is given.

Regarding to emission regulations, in 2014 the European Council adopted the 2030 climate & energy framework. This framework has as target a reduction of at least 40% of the greenhouse gas emissions compared to the values in 1990 (5723 million tons of CO2 equivalent in EU-28) [22]. Figure 2.1 shows the evolution of this reduction between 1990 and 2017 in EU-28. Even though the greenhouse gases have been reduced 22% compared to the 1990s values, the target is to set a maximum level of GHG emissions of 60%.

13 14 2. Necessity of Sustainable Ferries

Figure 2.1: Greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 2017 in EU-28 [23].

The implementation of zero-emission ferries can help to achieve this target by replacing polluting ferries and decreasing the use of road vehicles as well. This last goal can only be reached if a competitive waterborne alternative is provided. The interest and emergence of urban ferry services started in the 1980s, when a shift in urban structure in many cities occurred. Ports moving downriver and attentive- ness of developing commercial and residential waterfronts in inner cities resurged the interest in water borne passenger transport [24]. Congestion in public road transport worldwide creates a public transport opportunity for commuter/urban ferries. Scheduled ferry services stopping at multiple destinations using high speed vessels are becoming a popular configuration and alternative to road transportation.

Several cities such as New York, London, Gothemburg, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Bangkok and Brisbane have already incorporated ferry services as an alternative or complement to public transport. Figure 2.3 shows some of the urban linear ferry routes in operation in which the colors indicate different segments. Worldwide there is a growing demand on replacing ferries by non-polluting ferries, specially in urban areas where the level of harmful emissions affects directly living quality. This trend is clearly observed in Figure 2.2. This graph shows the evolution in the construction of ships equipped with battery systems (including hybrid, plug-in hybrid and fully electric). The dominant sector is the car/passenger ferry service encompassing more than half of these ships [25].

Even though free emission ferries are emerging, a combination of zero-emission, short range (30 - 45 minutes), high speed (22 knots) and small capacity (40 passengers) has not been shown yet, see Chapter 3: Sustainable Fast Ferries: State of art. This is quite related due to the design challenges that zero-emission vessels involve, Section 3.5 explains the challenges this combination of design requirements imply.

Figure 2.2: Total number of ships with battery systems from 1998 to 2026 [25]. 2.2. Stakeholders 15

Figure 2.3: Urban linear ferry routes in which colors indicate different segments [24].

2.2. Stakeholders

This section has as aim presenting the different stakeholders involved as well as their concerns. For this project, the next main stakeholders have been considered, see Figure 2.4. These ones have been analyzed due to their closer relation to the feasibility of the design. 16 2. Necessity of Sustainable Ferries

– Government By the investment on new technologies and the application of tax regimes on fossil fuels, emission regulations, subsides and incentives, the government presents the highest influence on the implementation of zero-emission ferries. An example of governmental measures is the emission-free areas plan of the City of Amsterdam [3]. – Zero-emission manufacturers This stakeholder group includes the manufactures of zero-emission technology. This group presents a high interest and influence on the feasibility of the design, as they are responsible for the development of the required technology. However, their influence is greatly conditioned by the government actions. More investment on researches would allow a rapid development and thus, implementation. – Ferry operator This stakeholder refers to the ship owner and operator. The influence of this stakeholder is mainly related with the ferry service, as this directly affects the zero-emission technology operation. Section 3.5 shows this effect. – Classification societies The Classification societies show a great influence on the manufacturers. This is due to the zero-emission technology needs to be designed, produced and certified according to the safety standards established by the Classification societies. – Port authorities With regards to the port authorities, these are mainly related to the design by the bunkering/charging infrastructure. Incentives from the government ease the design by setting the necessary infrastructure. – General public Lastly, the general public influences the design by electing the government and being the ferry users. As a final user, a poor utilization of the ferry service might affect its viability. In addition, the selection of a less sustainable government would slow down the ferry design and integration due to the lack or reduction of incentives.

Figure 2.4: Influence and interest of the main stakeholders. 2.3. Harmful emissions: Polluting and Non-Polluting Ferries 17

2.3. Harmful emissions: Polluting and Non-Polluting Ferries

As it was stated before, this project consists of designing an emission-free ferry. Even though being emission-free literally means emitting no gases, substances or particles during the exhausting process, this term commonly refers to the emission of harmful pollutants. Therefore, the definition of harmful emission needs to be clarified in order to satisfy customer´s requirements and converge into a sustainable design. Following this definition, a comparison between polluting and non-polluting ferries will be given. This comparison has as objective indicating the benefits of developing a ”green” ferry fleet.

An analysis based on the passenger-only ferry market of the United States of America (USA) 1, see Figure 2.5, shows that 77% of the fleet registered uses diesel as a fuel. Therefore, the following definitions and comparison will be made based on diesel fuels.

• Harmful emissions

Harmful emissions are defined as any emitted gas, particle or substance likely to cause harm or damage to human health and/or environment. The excessive concentration of these emissions leads to air pollution which may cause diseases, allergies, human death as well as harm to living organisms and environment. Emissions from diesel engines can be classified according to its source of origin in [27]:

Figure 2.5: Types of fuels used in U.S. Ferry fleet [26].

– Air related emissions These emissions include nitrogen (N2) and argon (Ar). These are not considered harmful as they make part of air composition. Oxygen (O2) is also present but only a small percentage is released. – Fuel related emissions These are the emissions from the complete combustion process. This emission group mainly includes carbon dioxide (CO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2), water (H2O) and nitrogen oxide (NO). Sul- phur trioxide (SO3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) may be present as well, it is typical to group these two emission components inside the sulphur oxide (SOx) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) family respectively. These two last gases are of special concern as threats to vegetation, environment and human health [28]. NOx can be abated by applying Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) systems. Meanwhile SOx is reduced by applying low sulphur fuels or scrubber systems. While water is the only harmless component, the other emission gases cause damages to the environment in the form of climate change, global warming, acid rain, etc. and human health resulting in unconsciousness and irritation in case of large concentrations. – Cylinder process related emissions In this case, contrary to the prior fuel related emissions, these ones are caused by the incomplete combustion in the diesel engine process due to low temperature and/or lack of oxygen [29].

1Data based on the National Census of Ferry Operators (NCFO)[26]. 18 2. Necessity of Sustainable Ferries

These emissions compromise carbon (soot or smoke), carbon monoxide (CO), gaseous unburned hydrocarbons (HC or VOC) and particulate matter (PM). Particulate matter can be significantly hazardous depending on the size. Small particles deposited in the alveolar region can cause lung cancer, chronic obstructive disease (COPD), etc. In case of HC, even though the hazards are difficult to assess as the exposure to HC is combined with the exposure to other pollutants, some HC might cause irritation on eyes and nose, carcinogenic effects, etc. As a summary, most of all gases, substances and particles emitted during a diesel engine combustion process are harmful to either the environment or living organism health, directly or indirectly. The emissions of water (H2O), nitrogen (N2) and argon (Ar) are the only exceptions as they are completely harmless and/or make part of air composition.

• Polluting and Non-Polluting Ferries It is important to observe the differences between polluting and non-polluting ferries. Despite the fact the following comparison is based on literature and estimations, it will provide an insight of the great advantage of non-polluting ferries in terms of environmental impact and emission regulations. The estimation of ship emissions depends on several factors [30]: – Engine type ⋅ Low speed two stroke diesel engines ⋅ Medium speed four stroke diesel engines ⋅ High speed four stroke diesel engines ⋅ Gas turbines – Specific fuel consumption – Fuel type ⋅ Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) ⋅ Marine Gas Oil (MGO) or distillates2 All these previous factors are quite interrelated and dependent to each other. HFOs are mainly used in low-speed engines. Small ships (high speed engines) can not efficiently combust residual fuels (HFO) due to the higher viscosity rate and, hence, distillate fuels need to be employed (MGO)[31]. The fuel specific emission rate (pollutant emission ratio) will be only calculated for the most polluting and harmful substances. This list includes carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM).

In addition, the Damen Water Bus 2007 will be used as a polluting based ferry due to the similar specifications in terms of speed (21.5kn) and capacity (56pax). Table 2.1 and 2.2 indicates the characteristics of both, passenger ferry and high-speed diesel engine run by MGO.

Damen Water Bus 2007 Hull design GRP catamaran hull Length 19.40m Beam 7.00m Depth 2.30m Draft 1.40m Speed 21.5kn Capacity 56pax Main engine 2× Volvo IPS-650 / D11 Total power 2× 280kW Fuel capacity 2.00m

Figure 2.6: Damen Water Bus 2007 design. Table 2.1: Damen Water Bus 2007 design specifications [32].

2Marine Diesel Oil (MDO) is included in this group. 2.3. Harmful emissions: Polluting and Non-Polluting Ferries 19

Table 2.2: Volvo IPS-650 / D11 [33].

Power Specific Energy Specific Power Weight Volume density power density energy 280kW 1195kg 1.50m 186.67 kW/m 0.23 kW/kg 140 kWh/m 0.176 kWh/kg

In order to estimate the emissions realised by Damen Water Bus 2007, the compiled formulas from the project Energy demand and exhaust gas emissions of marine engines [30] developed by H.O. Kristenen will be used.

3 – CO2 pollutant emission ratio

푝푒푟 = 3.206 [CO2 / ] (2.1) CO2 fuel 4 – NOx pollutant emission ratio 44푛. 푝푒푟 = [NOX / ] (2.2) NOX 푠푓푐 fuel

– SO2 pollutant emission ratio

푀SO 푝푒푟 = 2 푥 [SO2 / ] (2.3) SO2 s fuel 푀S – HC and CO pollutant emission ratio 0.5 푝푒푟 = 푝푒푟 = [/ ] (2.4) HC CO 푠푓푐 fuel – PM pollutant emission ratio

0.26 + 0.081푥s + 0.103푥s 푝푒푟 = [PM / ] (2.5) PM 푠푓푐 fuel Applying these formulas, the following emissions have been estimated. An approximated fuel consumption of 208 g/kWh [33] per engine and a maximum sulphur content of 0.1% [34] were considered.

Table 2.3: Damen Water Bus 2007 pollutant emission ratio.

Pollutant emission ratio [푡/푡]

CO2 NOx SO2 HC CO PM 6.412 0.0397 0.004 0.0024 0.0013

In order to have a clear overview of the operating footprint, the previous emission ratios will be expressed in tons of emitting gas per operating day. As a result, the next route logistic was estimated, this estimation is based on previous C-Job ferry projects, see Table 2.4. Using this table, it was estimated that the ferry would perform around 19 trips per day5 within the established schedule. Therefore, Table 2.5 indicates the amount of emissions per operating day.

Table 2.5: Tons of emissions per operating day.

Emissions per day [푡/푑푎푦]

CO2 NOx SO2 HC CO PM 7.117 0.044 0.071 0.0026 0.0014

3Exclusively for Marine Gas Oil. 4Define according to IMO Tier II standards. 5Assuming 10 minutes moored. 20 2. Necessity of Sustainable Ferries

Table 2.4: Estimated IJmuiden - Amsterdam route operation.

Operational Sailing Sailed Operation Schedule time speed distance Docking & Undocking 5min 5kn 0.42nm from 6:30 Sailing 30min 21.5kn 11nm to 20:30

In conclusion, Table 2.6 indicates the total fleet emission percentage, composed of four Damen Water Bus 2007, compared to the last emission measurements in 2018 [35]. This number of ferries has been considered, based on previous C-Job studies, in order to guarantee a competitive waterborne alternative by providing ferry services with a frequency of 15 minutes. Table 2.6 indicated what the contribution of a polluting ferry fleet would be to the total domestic water transport emissions. This contribution is significantly low compared to the annual emission rate, as the emissions of each gas are lower than 1% of the total, except SO2.

Table 2.6: Annual emission contribution.

a Annual emissions [푡/푦푟]

CO2 NOx SO2 HC CO PM Damen Water Bus 2007 fleet 9963.8 61.6 99.4 3.64 1.96 Domestic water transport 6.7M 113.0k 4.6k 6.0k 12.3k 3.4k Fleet emission contribution 0.15% 0.05% 2.2% 0.06% 0.03% 0.06%

However, as it was mentioned, the City of Amsterdam announced a plan to implement emission-free areas within the city between 2020 and 2030 [36], see Figure 2.7. Therefore, the implementation of more polluting ferries would bring future regulation problems and slow down the decreasing tendency in the emissions of the domestic water transport, see Figure 2.8. Table 2.7 indicates the English translation of the regulation announcements shown in Figure 2.7.

Figure 2.7: Emission-free areas in Amsterdam [36]. aAssuming 350 days of operation per year. 2.3. Harmful emissions: Polluting and Non-Polluting Ferries 21

Table 2.7: Emission-free regulation announcements translated into English.

Emission-free areas in Amsterdam between 2020 and 2030 Emission-free center in 2022: Blue box For buses and coaches.

Emission-free zone within the A10 ringroad in 2025: Orange box For buses, coaches, passenger ships, taxis, vans and heavy good vehicles, pleasure crafts, public ferries (mopeds and scooters in the entire build-up area).

Emission-free Amsterdam in 2030: Green box For buses, coaches, passenger ships, taxis, vans and heavy good vehicles, pleasure crafts, public ferries, mopeds and scooters, passenger cars and motorbikes.

(a) CO2 emissions. (b) NOx emissions. (c) SO2 emissions.

(d) HC emissions. (e) CO emissions. (f) PM emissions.

Figure 2.8: Emissions from domestic water transport between 1990 and 2018 [35].

Zero-emission ferries, on the other hand, are run by electrical power which is obtained from zero- emission fuels. Zero-emission fuels such as batteries or fuel cells (hydrogen-based cells) do not emit any pollutants during its use. However, both alternative fuels present some polluting emissions in terms of production and distribution. These total emissions can vary depending on the type of production and distribution system [37].

In case of batteries, these ones need to be recharged periodically. If the electricity required is obtained from renewable energy sources, only the distribution system would emit pollutants [25]. However, as electricity is transported by High Voltage cables, no pathway emission is released.

With regard to fuel cells, hydrogen can be produced from four different methods [37]:

– Fossil Natural Gas Compressed Gas - Hydrogen is produced by reforming fossil natural gas and transporting and storing as a compressed gas.

– Fossil Natural Gas LH2 - Make use of the same previous method but, in this occasion, hydrogen is liquefied.

– Renewable Compressed Gas and LH2 - Hydrogen is obtained through 100% renewable electrolysis and later compressed or liquefied. 22 2. Necessity of Sustainable Ferries

Figures 2.9 and 2.10 show the total polluting emissions (production and pathway) per unit of hydrogen energy [GJ]. Pathway emissions are estimated assuming a road transport of 300km carrying 400kg CH2 or 3500kg LH2 in case of Figure 2.9 and 50 miles carrying 240kg CH2 or 3700kg LH2 in Figure 2.10:

Figure 2.9: CO2 emission of different Figure 2.10: Pollutant Emission factor of different hydrogen-based fuel cells [37]. hydrogen-based fuel cells [37].

Both figures indicate significant emission variations depending on the production and distribution method. Important differences are observed between fossil and renewable hydrogen. The method used to distribute hydrogen makes a great distinction as well. This transportation influence is clearly noted by looking at the emissions released in the distribution of compressed and liquid renewable hydrogen. This difference is related to the higher density of liquid hydrogen (higher energy content).

Therefore, considering the emissions in Table 2.6 and Figures 2.9 and 2.10, the great benefits of zero- emission fuels/vessels in terms of fulfilling present and future emission regulations and sustainability are observed. This is highly seen when renewable hydrogen or batteries are employed. As a result, it is assumed that hydrogen and electricity is obtained from renewable sources, electrolysis in case of hydrogen and renewable energy in case of electricity. 2.4. Chapter conclusions 23

2.4. Chapter conclusions

In this chapter the problem statement and main stakeholders were presented. The problem statement indicated the reasons to make more environmentally-friendly the ferry fleet, especially the ferries operating in urban areas. The next section, Stakeholders, the influence and interest of the stakeholders were indicated.

Furthermore, information about the differences between emissions and harmful emissions together with polluting and non-polluting ferries were indicated. In this section, Harmful emissions: Polluting and Non-Polluting Ferries, the following questions were covered:

What is the concept of harmful emissions and which gases are considered harmful

Harmful emissions are defined as any emitted gas, particle or substance likely to cause harm or damage to human health and/or environment. Most of all substances emitted during a diesel engine combustion process are harmful to either the environment or living organism health, directly or indirectly. Being water, nitrogen and argon the only exceptions.

What is the difference between non-polluting ferries and polluting ferries in terms of exhausting emissions

Contrary to polluting ferries, zero-emission ferries emit nearly zero exhausting gases. However, these gases are related to pathway emissions, thus no emission is released during the ferry operation.

This section concluded indicating the great advantages that employing zero-emission technology implies. These advantages are mainly related to exhausting emissions and, hence, emission regulations, both present and future.

With regards to the Systems Engineering approach, this chapter has shown the needs for this new system, Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters. The measures established by the City of Amsterdam to reduce traffic congestion (Traffic and Transport policy [1]) and local pollution (Clean air policy [3]) indicates the necessity to implement a new ferry service and, in addition, free of emissions.

3 Sustainable Fast Ferries: State of art

This chapter has as objective performing the second part of the Needs Analysis, examining the available current technology and indicating the required capabilities. Before studying the current technology, previous zero-emission fast ferry projects will be presented in order to observe the challenges and limitations in the implementation of emission-free technology. Based on these challenges, the available current technology and required capabilities are analyzed by addressing the following questions. There- fore, this chapter is divided into several sections: Sustainable ferries, Zero-emission energy sources, Applicable hull designs, Lightweight materials and Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters challenges.

What are the current and near-future most effective emission-free energy sources and technologies

Are these ones applicable in terms of reliability, durability and affordability to Fast Ferries

How can the hull shape impact the use of these energy source technologies on board a passenger vessel

How could the displacement of the SFFC be minimized

What would be the impact of lightweight materials on the concept design

Are these materials environmentally friendly, recyclable and safe

3.1. Sustainable ferries

The background information regards to previous studies in the Green Ferry sector is also important to identify at which stage of development these projects are located. The following projects have been chosen considering three main characteristics: zero-emission, high speed and passenger ferry service. It is important to remark that most of these ferries are classified as passenger-only ferries, same as Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters, and that the gathered information has been obtained from their final project reports. In addition, other non-high-speed green ferries have been taken into account as well. The analysis of these ferries will allow to have a wider knowledge of the different challenges and solutions present in zero-emission ferry designs.

• Zero-Emission Fast Ferry (ZEFF) [38]

25 26 3. Sustainable Fast Ferries: State of art

This feasibility project, developed by ZEFF Consortium in 2019, composed of Selfa Arctic, LMG Marin, Servogear, Norled and HYON, to Trondelag county, aimed to study the applicability of zero-emission fast ferries in three different routes in the region of Trondheim. The characteristics of these routes are indicated in Table 3.1. The aim of this design is to develop a zero-emission fast ferry and, in addition, reduce the energy consumption compared to the vessels already employed in these routes by 45%.

Table 3.1: Zero-Emission Fast Ferry operational routes.

Passage Nautical Passenger Sailing Inactive Route time miles per trip speed time Trondhein - Vanvikan 19min 8.3nm 125 25kn 10min Trondhein - Brekstad 50min 27nm 125 33kn 10min Trondhein - Kristiansund 3.5h 95nm 275 35kn 15min

The inactive time in the table refers to the time available between arrival and departure for charging or refueling. This time span does not include embarking and disembarking of passengers.

Considering these route requirements, the following challenges were found. These challenges are classified into route, technical/operational and regulation challenges.

– Route challenges

⋅ Availability of liquid or pressurized hydrogen. ⋅ Adaptability of terminals to vessel characteristics (draft limitation).

– Technical and operational challenges

⋅ Resistance and weight reduction compared to employed ferries. ⋅ Battery - Hydrogen arrangement and propulsion optimization (long range limitations). ⋅ Effective charging or refueling logistic.

– Regulation challenges

⋅ Limited regulations regarding to battery-powered ships, led by DNV-GL. ⋅ Limited regulations in the use of fuel cells, multiple gaps in terms of bunkering, safety issues, storage, etc.

Three parametric designs were developed, one per each route due to the different operational requirements. Adjustments in the route schedule were suggested for the first route (Trondhein - Vanvikan) in order to improve charging times.

Trondhein Trondhein Trondhein Vanvikan Brekstad Kristiansund Hull design Hydrofoil trimaran hull Material Carbon fiber composite sandwich Velocity 25kn 35kn 35kn Capacity 125pax 125pax 275pax Energy 360kWh 1370kWh 8636kWh Energy source Battery 41kg/trip H2 260kg/trip H2

Figure 3.1: Zero-Emission Fast Ferry design. Table 3.2: Zero-Emission Fast Ferry features.

• BB GREEN project [39] 3.1. Sustainable ferries 27

This project, concluded in 2015 and funded by the EU throughout the Horizon 2020 Programme and Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) and carried out by SES Europe AS among others, had as goal to develop and prove the feasibility of a new innovative waterborne transport solution. This new ferry concept would run entirely on renewable electric energy in order to reduce road traffic congestion and local/global emissions. The BB GREEN ferry had the goal of being the first fully electric ferry able to operate at high speeds (30kn). Previous ferries had already incorporated this technology on board, however, such speed requirements were not shown before.

The challenges faced to achieve this ambitious result, zero-emission fully electric high-speed ferry, are listed here below:

– Technical challenges

⋅ Weight reduction through lightweight materials. ⋅ Hull resistance and energy consumption reduction. ⋅ Wake wash reduction to operate in urban water areas. ⋅ Fast recharging to provide a competitive waterborne transport.

Most of these challenges are related to the use of batteries. As batteries present a limited energy density (output energy per unit volume), a significant reduction in the power consumption, i.e. hull resistance and ship weight, is crucial to achieve high speeds. In addition, another goal was to develop a commercial competitive waterborne transport, therefore fast recharging and low wake wash played another important role. This combination would allow to operate with acceptable frequency and in urban waters without damaging shore banks.

The features of the design solution are displayed in Table 3.3. It is important to highlight the development of a new battery prototype along the project. This prototype was necessary as no commercial battery met the design conditions.

BB GREEN prototype Hull design Air supported 1 mono hull Material Carbon fiber composite sandwich Velocity 30kn Capacity 70pax & 20bicycles Range 14nm Energy 400kWh Energy source Battery

Figure 3.2: BB GREEN design. Table 3.3: BB GREEN features.

This project represents a prototype of the BB GREEN concept design. Green City Ferries, start-up focused on the design of the BB GREEN series, developed a larger concept with a capacity of 147 passengers and a charging time of 15 minutes, 5 minutes faster.

• SF-BREEZE project [40]

SF-BREEZE consists on a detailed feasibility study of a zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell high-speed passenger ferry. The final result of this project, developed by Sandia National Laboratories in 2016, was to prove the possibility of designing a commercial-useful zero-emission vessel run by hydrogen. Previous studies in this area demonstrated that slower and smaller tourboats operating in calm waters such as lakes or rivers are feasible. However, this type of vessels is not suitable for San Francisco Bay. Vessels operating in SF bay carry more than 100 passengers at high velocities to compete with buses

1Dynamically and air supported by a lift fan system at the aft. 28 3. Sustainable Fast Ferries: State of art and cars, and in tougher sailing conditions.

The route selected in which SF-BREEZE would operate corresponds to the Vallejo - San Francisco route. The characteristics as well as the operational profile of the ferry in this route are presented in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4: Vallejo - San Francisco route.

Pax Manoeuvr. Mare SF Bay Manoeuvr. Pax Total loading Vallejo Island Crossing SF unloading Nautical miles - 0.1nm 2.0nm 21.65nm 0.25nm - 24nm Sailing speed - 5kn 10kn 35kn 5kn - - Passage time 5min 1.2min 12min 37.1min 3min 5min 63.3min

SF-BREEZE project team faced the next challenges along the feasibility analysis:

– Technical challenges ⋅ Limited compactability of fuel cells. ⋅ Large volume and weight hydrogen storage requirements. – Economical challenges ⋅ Large fuel cell powerplant capital expenses (CAPEX). ⋅ High hydrogen bunkering costs (OPEX). ⋅ Larger initial investment than diesel-powered ferries. ⋅ Lack or limited incentives. – Regulation challenges ⋅ Lack or limited rules on low flashpoint fuels, rules focused on LNG. ⋅ Limited fuel cell regulations in marine applications.

Despite the negative economic fact that hydrogen involves in the short term, Sandia National Labo- ratories and its partners believed that mass manufacturing of fuel cells would reduce both bunkering and fuel cell technology costs. Therefore, a hydrogen-based fast ferry with the following features was developed, see Table 3.5.

SF-BREEZE feasible design Hull design Catamaran hull Material Aluminium Velocity 35kn Capacity 150pax Range 100nm Energy 20760kWh Energy source 1200kg liquid H2

Figure 3.3: SF-BREEZE design. Table 3.5: SF-BREEZE features.

• Non-high-speed zero-emission ferries

Even though the ferries that will be indicated in this subsection differ in terms of features and/or market with SFFC, an analysis of these vessels will help to understand the solution taken for other designs. In this subsection ferries such as Ar Vag Tredan developed by STX Europe, Ampere from Norled and Ellen E-ferry from the European Programme Horizon 2020 will be studied. Table 3.6 shows the design solutions taken in each ferry concept to achieve the goal of zero-emissions and fulfil the operational 3.1. Sustainable ferries 29 requirements. Moreover, specifications about the different operating areas are indicated as well.

◦ Ar Vag Tredan

In 2008 the Lorient Agglomeration in France planned to modernise the local ferry fleet. As consequence, the commuter ferry Ar Vag Tredan was built by STX Europe in 2012 becoming the first electric boat in the world powered by supercapacitors [41]. This supercapacitor ferry was designed to operate between Lorient and Locmiquelic in a 10-minute route. Employing supercapacitors allows fast recharges from the local grid at the terminal. This charging process only takes four minutes letting the ferry keep its schedule.

◦ Ampere

Ampere is a double-ended ferry built in 2014 by Fjellstrand AS and is considered the world’s first electric-powered car ferry. This vessel operates in a local area in Norway communicating the villages of Lavik and Oppedal by crossing the Sognefjord [42]. The main limitation on this design was the operating area. As this ferry links the Lavik and Oppedal villages, the local grid is not able to supply enough power to charge the Ampere batteries and electrical energy to the locals at the same time. As a solution, Siemens AS and Corvus Energy installed additional onshore Energy Storage System (ESS) at both sides of the route in order to remain the port electric grid infrastructure unchanged [43].

◦ Ellen E-Ferry

This ferry project was supported in 2015 by the European initiative Horizon 2020 involving the design, building and demonstration of a fully electric powered ”green” ferry able to sail without polluting and emissions [44]. The overall objective of E-ferry was to apply an energy efficient design concept and demonstrate a 100% electric, emission-free and medium sized ferry for passengers, cars, trucks and cargo in full-scale operation on distances longer than 5 nautical miles. This fully electric ferry was designed to communicate the Aeroe island with mainland in Denmark.

The challenges faced along the project were highly related to the implementation of electrical ferries. These barriers/challenges concerned legal, technical and operational issues associated with the sailing range, 100% electrical operation, charging at very high rates and use of lightweight materials [45]. One of the main problems in electric ferries is the charging periods. The Ellen E-ferry solved this problem by oversizing the battery system. This solution allows the vessel to sail for two round trips without charging. After these two trips the vessel will be charged as much as possible while it is docked and, then, fully charged when it is moored for the night.

In general, these three design projects were mainly limited by the next challenges: – Technical challenges ⋅ Limited battery autonomy. ⋅ Extra weight due to employing batteries. ⋅ Weight reduction by applying composite materials in the superstructure. – Route challenges ⋅ Electrical infrastructure on land. ⋅ Short port stays complicate battery charging. ⋅ Charging from the local grid at very high rates. ⋅ Integration in the local public transport. – Economical challenges ⋅ Tax regimes in favour of fossil fuels and not electricity. ⋅ Higher expenses due to the use of composite materials. 30 3. Sustainable Fast Ferries: State of art

(a) Ar Vag Tredan ferry design. (b) Ampere design. (c) Ellen E-ferry concept design.

Figure 3.4: Non-high-speed zero-emission ferries.

Table 3.6: Specification summary of Ar Vag Tredan, Ampere and Ellen E-ferry.

Ar Vag Tredan Ampere Ellen E-ferry Soeby - Fynshav & Route Lorient - Locmiquelic Lavik - Oppedal Soeby - Faaborg Sailing time 10min 20min 55min Double-ended Hull design Catamaran hull Mono hull catamaran hull Steel, Material Aluminum Aluminium Aluminium and composites Velocity 10kn 10kn 14kn 350pax, 147/198pax and Capacity 113pax & 10bicycles 120cars & 8trucks 31cars or 5trucks Range 0.5nm 3nm 22nm Energy 25kWh 1040kWh 4300kWh Energy source Supercapacitors Batteries Batteries

As a summary, all the challenges, related to the implementation of zero-emission technology, electric ferries and high-speed vessels in the market, are compiled in Table 3.7.

Table 3.7: Route, technical, economical and regulatory challenge summary.

Challenges Route Technical Economical Regulatory Resistance and weight Limited regulation on Availability of liquid or Large capital reduction to reduce the battery and hydrogen pressurized hydrogen investment (CAPEX) large energy consumption uses in marine applications

Terminal adaptability Optimal Battery-Fuel cell High hydrogen Multiple regulation to vessel features arrangement and bunkering costs gaps regarding propulsion (OPEX) fuel cell application

Effective charging Limited governmental or refueling logistic incentives

Wake wash reduction to operate in confined water areas

Large battery and hydrogen volume and weight storage requirements 3.2. Zero-emission energy sources 31

3.2. Zero-emission energy sources

The concept of zero-emission energy sources refers to any fuel or energy storage system that does not release harmful emissions during its utilization. In Section 2.3, a description and definition of harmful emissions was given. This section concluded that all emissions, except water and air components (N2 and Ar), are harmful to humans and/or environment.

In this section an overview of the current available emission-free technology is shown. In addition, a conclusion of the most effective and applicable technologies is given as well. The following fuels or energy storage systems meet this zero-emission requirement:

• Electro-Chemical Energy Storage systems or • Electro-Magnetic Energy Storage systems. Batteries • Fuel Cell systems.

Taken into account SE methodology and the challenges shown in Table 3.7, the zero-emission systems need to provide the following capabilities in order to overcome or minimize the previous challenges:

• High energy and power density to minimize electric plant volume

• High specific energy and power to reduce tonnage

• Relative low cost to avoid large investments

• Safety and reliability to satisfy classification society regulations

Once the capabilities that the system should have have been defined, the next step is to explore the different available systems in the market.

• Electro-Chemical Energy Storage systems [46]

Electro-Chemical energy storage systems, commonly known as batteries, store energy as chemical energy. Batteries are mainly categorized as primary and secondary types. In this project only secondary batteries will be studied as these ones can be charged electrically, whereas primary batteries can not [47]. In addition, batteries can be divided according to the chemical components as well. Examples of the most relevant batteries in the market are:

– Lithium - Ion batteries – Nickel - Cadmium batteries – Nickel - Metal Hydride batteries – Lead - Acid batteries

– Sodium - Sulphur batteries – Vanadium - flow batteries

Figure 3.5 shows these battery types in terms of energy density and specific energy. It has to be mentioned that the previous indicated batteries are the most relevant, available and commercial ones in the global battery market.

The higher the specific energy is, the lighter the battery is per energy content. A similar situation occurs regarding to energy density. The higher the energy density is, the more compact the battery is per energy stored. Therefore, batteries located in the right top corner will be the most suitable battery type due to the limited space available and the ship sensitivity to heavy equipment, see Figure 3.5.

Considering the previous statement, Li-Ion battery types should be selected as main option for this application within the Electro-Chemical Energy Storage system family. However, other characteristics such as operating costs, cycle life and cycle efficiency might counteract these great energy properties and, therefore, they need to be analysed as well. Battery safety is another significant characteristic to take into account. A safety analysis is indicated in Table 3.9. 32 3. Sustainable Fast Ferries: State of art

Figure 3.5: Rechargeable battery types in terms of energy density and specific energy [46].

– Operating costs Relates the expenses of one charge/discharge cycle per unit of energy. Other expenses, e.g. cost of maintenance, heating and labor, are included too.

– Cycle life Indicates the number of times a battery can be charged and discharged before the battery capacity drops to 80% of its initial capacity.

– Cycle efficiency Rate between the output and input energy, i.e. percentage of the energy provided by the battery and the energy supplied to the battery.

These properties are shown in Figure 3.6 and summarized in Table 3.8. Figure 3.6 shows the relation between operating costs and cycle efficiency. Ideal batteries would be located in the bottom right corner, meaning that they would maximize the supplied energy at low operating costs.

No significant disadvantages have been observed between Li-Ion batteries and other battery types. Moreover, Li-Ion batteries minimize losses due to their higher cycle efficiency range, 80% to 95%, increasing their advantages over the other types.

When the main purpose of a marine application is transporting passengers, safety becomes a highly influencing parameter. This safety study will be performed from a Li-Ion battery perspective as these ones have shown better properties than any other Electro-Chemical Energy Storage system [48]. As battery cells are composed of flammable materials, the failure of a cell could result on ignition and fire. The main sources of failure can be sorted into four different abuses:

– Mechanical abuse – Electrical abuse – Aging abuse – Thermal abuse

Table 3.9 shows the possible causes, results and effects of the previous abuses. These large number of failure causes and effects justify the high battery prices. Cutting costs on some aspects of a battery design, e.g. outer case and electronics, might lead to cell failure and significant casualties as lithium cell flames are not easy to put out. 3.2. Zero-emission energy sources 33

Table 3.8: Rechargeable battery properties summary [46].

Energy density Specific energy Operating cost Cycle Cycle [푀퐽/푚] [푀퐽/푘푔] [퐸푈푅/(푀퐽 · 푐푦푐푙푒)] life efficiency Lead-Acid 200 - 430 0.07 - 0.18 0.0007 - 0.0024 200 - 1500 0.70 - 0.90 Ni-Cd 72 - 310 0.08 - 0.23 0.0007 - 0.0047 800 - 1200 0.60 - 0.85 Na-S 140 - 540 0.20 - 0.70 0.0032 - 0.0033 3600 - 4700 0.75 - 0.83 V-flow 110 - 170 0.07 - 0.13 0.0032 - 0.0033 10000 - 16000 0.71 - 0.88 Ni-MH 190 - 1300 0.10 - 0.43 0.0004 - 0.0024 300 - 1000 0.65 - 0.85 Li-Ion 720 - 1400 0.29 - 0.68 0.0016 - 0.0040 300 - 2000 0.80 - 0.95

Figure 3.6: Rechargeable battery types in terms of operating cost and cycle efficiency [46].

Therefore, applying the operating rules suggested by the scientific paper Aspects of safe operation of lithium-based batteries in marine applications [48] a safe use of Lithium batteries might be ensured. These operating rules which allow longer and reliable operations refer to avoiding:

– 100% charge and discharge. – Operate the battery in high temperatures. – Fast charging with high current value. – High discharge rates. – Store the battery in low temperatures.

• Electro-Magnetic Energy Storage systems [46]

Electromagnetic energy can be stored in the form of an electric field or as a magnetic field generated, for instance, by a current-carrying coil. Two types of technology can store electrical energy directly:

– Electrical Double-Layer Capacitors (EDLC), Super-capacitors or Ultra-capacitors.

– Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES) systems. 34 3. Sustainable Fast Ferries: State of art

Table 3.9: Possible causes, results and effects of different abuses on batteries [48].

Abuse Process caused Result for the cell Effect Electrode forced contact Heat Inner short-circuit Electrode deformation Heat Mechanical Release of organic compounds Toxic and flammable Depressurization Loss of electrolyte Heat Outer short-circuit - Heat

Short-circuit causing Separator decomposition Electrode forced contact additional heat Thermal Dry electrodes, voltage change Heat Electrolyte decomposition Rapid depressurization Inner pressure rise (flammable exhaust) No air needed to sustain Electrode decomposition Oxygen released further oxidation and flame

Electrolyte decomposition Dry electrodes, voltage change Heat Unsealing the main cell gaskets Depressurization Toxic and flammable Age and life Electrical abuse due to capacity Inner short-circuit Heat loses of the cell Inner pressure rise Toxic and flammable

Heating of electrodes Inner short-circuit Heat Electrical Dry electrodes. voltage change Heat Electrolyte decomposition Inner pressure change Toxic and flammable

Following the same procedure as in Electro-Chemical Energy Storage systems, Figure 3.7 and 3.8 and Table 3.10 shows the relation between energy density and specific energy, operating cost and cycle efficiency and cycle life of these two technologies respectively.

Figure 3.7: Electro-Magnetic energy storage systems in terms of energy density and specific energy [46].

Super-capacitors present better advantages in terms of compactability (energy density), lightweight (specific energy) and lifespan (cycle life). However, its operating costs are slightly higher than SMES 3.2. Zero-emission energy sources 35 systems. Despite this disadvantage, super-capacitors are the most effective Electro-Magnetic Energy Storage system type. The main advantage of super-capacitors is the combination of high-power rates (high specific power), fast charging process (low charge time) and high life expectancy (cycle life). This characteristic makes this technology suitable for operations which require high power rates in short time periods.

Regarding to super-capacitor safety considerations, Skeleton Technologies, ultra-capacitor manufac- turer, tested the behaviour of the SkelCap SCA0500 cell under five different abuses [49]. These abuses were: – Burning - The safety valve opened when the pressure inside the cell reached a critical point releasing the electrolyte and decomposition product vapor. No explosion or combustion took place. – Nail penetration - Test used to simulate internal short-circuit. The penetration led to the release of electrolyte vapors without any explosion or combustion. – Short circuiting - The cell remained fully functional without any harm after being short-circuited. However, other parts in the circuit might have suffered some damaged. – Overcharging - Overcharging the cell made the pressure and temperature increased due to electrolyte decomposition. The releasing electrolyte vapors ripped the sleeve open but no explosion or combustion was observed. – Crushing - The compression exerted by a hydraulic press released bulk electrolyte without any explosion. These tests and their results prove the high levels of safety compared to Li-Ion batteries (highly flammable). Therefore, it can be stated that ultra-capacitors or super-capacitors are a safer way to store energy, even though the energy rates are significantly lower than batteries.

Figure 3.8: Electro-Magnetic energy storage systems in terms of operating cost and cycle efficiency [46].

Table 3.10: Electro-Magnetic energy storage system properties summary [46].

Energy density Specific energy Operating cost Cycle Cycle [푀퐽/푚] [푀퐽/푘푔] [퐸푈푅/(푀퐽 · 푐푦푐푙푒)] life efficiency EDLC 10 - 25 0.01 - 0.02 0.0002 - 0.0071 1M - 10M 0.85 - 0.92 SMES 2 - 10 0.001 - 0.02 0.0007 - 0.0016 0.05M - 0.2M 0.90 - 0.95 36 3. Sustainable Fast Ferries: State of art

• Fuel Cell systems [50]

Fuel cells, contrary to the previous two technologies, continuously generate electrical energy by a chemical reaction, as long as a fuel source is provided. In addition to a fuel supply, fuel cells require oxygen as well to generate electricity. As well as Electro-Chemical and Electro-Magnetic energy storage systems, different types of fuel cells have been developed since its origin. DNV-GL distinguished seven types [51]:

– Alkaline Fuel Cell (AFC) Alkaline Fuel Cell is one of the earliest types of fuel cells. It consists normally of a nickel anode, a silver cathode and an alkaline electrolyte. AFC makes use of pure hydrogen and oxygen (purification might be required). This type of fuel cell can operate at room temperature and with efficiencies in the range of 50% to 60%. In addition, fuel reforming or heat recovery systems are not needed. The presence of CO2, in either oxygen (air) or hydrogen (fuel), supposes a great inconvenient. Reductions in the efficiency and lifespan are observed when hydrogen and oxygen is not purified.

– Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC) PEMFC uses platinum-based electrodes and a humidified polymer membrane (electric insulator) as an electrolyte. This fuel cell type uses hydrogen and oxygen, releasing as by-product heat and water. Other fuel sources can be used, however, these ones need to be converted into hydrogen prior injection. The efficiency and operational temperature of PEMFC is 50% - 60% and 50oC- o 100 C. The principal advantage respect AFC is the less sensitivity to CO2 poisoning, allowing the use of air without previous purification.

– High Temperature Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (HT-PEMFC) HT-PEMFC is a subtype of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell. This fuel cell type makes use of a mineral acid electrolyte, instead of a water based one, to achieve temperatures up to 200oC. Compared with conventional PEMFC, HT-PEMFC is less sensitive to CO and S poisoning and no water management is needed. Even though both fuel cells have similar efficiencies, HT-PEMFC can increase the overall efficiency by using heat recovery systems. However, this fuel cell type also presents the disadvantage of having a lower power density than conventional Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell.

– Direct Methanol Fuel Cell (DMFC) This fuel cell, subcategory of PEMFC types, uses methanol directly without prior reforming into hydrogen. This functionality is achieved through a platinum-ruthenium catalyst. The use of methanol as fuel has some advantages and disadvantages. Methanol is featured by higher energy densities than hydrogen. Moreover, it is easier to handle and store. However, it is not considered a zero-emission fuel as CO2 is released due to the oxidation at the anode. Another relevant disadvantage is the poor efficiency of DMFC, around 20%.

– Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell (PAFC) PAFC was the first fuel cell with operating temperatures up to 200oC. Higher temperatures mean higher quality excess heat. Heat of such a quality can be utilised to increase the overall efficiency from around 40% to 80%. Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells are composed of a phosphoric acid electrolyte in a silicon carbide structure and platinum-dispersed-on-carbon electrodes. As consequence of the high temperatures, fuel sources other than pure hydrogen can be used, however, these ones need to be reformed in a different stage. In addition, higher temperatures reduce sensitivity of CO poisoning. The main inconveniences of the using PAFC is the low electrical efficiency, 40%, and power density which leads to large and heavy equipment.

– Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell (MCFC) Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell is a high temperature fuel cell operating at 600oC - 700oC. Molten carbonate salts are used as electrolytes and nobel-metal catalysts are required. Nickel alloy is commonly used as anode, while nickel oxide with lithium incorporated in the structure as cathode. 3.2. Zero-emission energy sources 37

Similar to the previous fuel cell, PAFC, MCFC has the advantage of being flexible towards the choice of fuel, e.g. LNG, coal flue gas and hydrogen. CO2 is always present in the fuel cell (in circulation) to regenerate carbonate in the electrolyte. Using fuel sources other than hydrogen will lead to CO2 emissions. Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell presents advantages such as fuel flexibility and high efficiency using heat recovery systems. However, the high temperatures also make it vulnerable to negative cycling effects, e.g. cracking and corrosion.

– Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) This last fuel cell, SOFC, operates at high temperatures too, 500oC - 1000oC. The electrolyte employed is a porous ceramic material, commonly yttrium stabilized zirconia. SOFC uses the same anode material as MCFC, nickel alloy, but, by contrast, the cathode is made of lanthanum strontium manganite. The fuel flexibility advantage is also present in this fuel cell and, contrary to Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell, no CO2 is required to add at the cathode. Heat recovery systems can improve the overall efficiency from 60% to 85%.

A summary of all previous fuel cells studied is indicated in Table 3.11 and 3.12. It is important to remember that only zero-emission fuel cells will be considered in future analyses, i.e. hydrogen-based fuel cells. Table 3.12 indicates that the main safety issue in fuel cells is the use of hydrogen. Hydrogen has a very wide flammable range and very low minimum ignition energy. In addition, embrittlement of metal might lead to leakages [52]. However, this safety risk can be minimised by reforming hydrogen from other feed stocks. Ammonia, stored as aqueous solution, can be considered an alternative to compressed or liquefied hydrogen as it is safer, does not release harmful emissions during the reforming process and avoids as well the use of cryogenic plants on board [52].

The previous fuel cell types can be divided in terms of their application in portable, stationary and transport [53]:

– Portable applications - this group encompasses units that are built into, or charge up, products that are designed to be moved, including small auxiliary power units (APUs). Fuel Cells such as PEMFC, DMFC and SOFC are typically used in this sector.

– Stationary applications - units that provide electricity, and in certain occasions heat, but are not designed to be moved are included in this application group. PEMFC, MCFC, AFC, SOFC and PAFC are the most common used fuel cells.

– Transport application - this application type includes units that provide propulsive power or range extension to a vehicle. The two main used fuel cells are PEMFC and DMFC.

Considering the design requirements from Section 1.1 and the previous fuel cell classification, key parameters such as module power, mobility (transport application), size and emissions (fuel) will condition the selection of the most effective fuel cell types. As the objective of this research is to develop a zero-emission fast ferry, any fuel cell making use of fuels other than hydrogen, will emit pollutants and, consequently, will not be considered in future analyses.

Module power and size are two significant properties in this design. The small carrying capacity of this concept design implies the use of compact technology. Therefore, an effective fuel cell for this project would need to provide high power rates and minimum volume requirements, i.e. high-power density rates, and, as it is expected, it needs to be designed for transport applications. Taking into account the previous statements, the list of fuel cells is reduced, then, to the following:

– Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell

Direct Methanol Fuel Cells have been discarded as they are the only fuel cell type which do not guarantee the fulfilment of the zero-emission condition and, in addition, this technology has not reached an acceptable level of maturity yet (under development). 38 3. Sustainable Fast Ferries: State of art

Table 3.11: Fuel Cell systems properties summary, 1st Table [51].

Power a Impurities Size Efficiency b Fuel Emission c [푘푊] sensitivity High purity AFC 500 Small 0,5 - 0,6 High - hydrogen PEMFC 120 Small 0,5 - 0,6 Hydrogen Medium - LNG Methanol CO HT-PEMFC 30 Small 0,5 - 0,6 Low 2 Diesel NOx Hydrogen DMFC 5 Small 0,2 Methanol Low CO2 LNG Methanol CO PAFC 100 - 400 Large 0,4 Medium 2 Diesel NOx Hydrogen LNG Methanol CO MCFC 500 Large 0,5 Low 2 Diesel NOx Hydrogen LNG Methanol CO SOFC 20 - 60 Medium 0,6 Low 2 Diesel NOx Hydrogen

Table 3.12: Fuel Cell systems properties summary, 2nd Table [51].

Relative Cycling Safety Lifetime Maturity cost tolerance aspects AFC Moderate Low Good High Hydrogen PEMFC Moderate Low Good High Hydrogen High temperature HT-PEMFC - Moderate Good Low Hydrogen Under DMFC Moderate Moderate Good Methanol development High temperature PAFC Excellent Moderate Moderate High Hydrogen High temperature MCFC Good High Low High Hydrogen High temperature SOFC Moderate High Low Moderate Hydrogen

Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells and Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells have not been considered due to cost and size related reasons. Even though these two types of fuel cell can provide high power rates, the larger size characteristics restrict its application to uninterruptible power supplies (UPSs), combined heat and power plants (CHPs) and/or large permanent auxiliary power units (APUs) [53].

The last two fuel cells remaining, SOFC and HT-PEMFC, present common disadvantages. The combination of low power rates, moderate to high costs and less mature technology make them not suitable for the SFFC operational profile and requirements. aMaximum output power. bHeat recovery system improves efficiency on PAFC, MCFC and SOFC. cZero emissions only when hydrogen is used. 3.2. Zero-emission energy sources 39

Alkaline Fuel Cell are significantly sensitive to impurities and, therefore, only high purity hydrogen can be used. This disadvantage leads to purification methods which are high costly processes [54]. More- over, even though AFC Energy [55] is currently developing a small-sized AFC, HydroX-Cell (S), able to operate with lower grade hydrogen, the prototype, which is expected to be launched in 2020, would provide an output power of 10 kW. This small power compared to other previous options combined with the lack of available information makes the fuel cell type not suitable for the required operation.

Therefore, the following effective systems from each group has been selected:

– Electro-Chemical energy Storage systems

⋅ Lithium-Ion Battery.

– Electro-Magnetic Energy Storage systems

⋅ Super-capacitors.

– Fuel Cell systems

⋅ Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell.

In order to understand the challenges and limitations that the marine application of zero-emission technology involves, this technology needs to be compared with the current propulsion technology (combustion engines). This comparison will be performed in more detail in Section 3.5. A first impression of the differences between polluting (combustion engines) and non-polluting technology (zero-emission) is given in Figure 3.9.

Figure 3.9: Polluting and Non-Polluting propulsion technology [56].

Similar to Figure 3.5, ideal propulsion technology should be located in the top right corner, as it is the case of combustion engines. Technology located in this corner would provide enough power and energy to move the vessel and keep it moving for the demanded time. Consequently, in order to achieve the same performance using zero-emission technology, more units are required which will lead to heavier and more voluminous solutions due to the lower energy and/or power rates per mass/volume unit. Therefore, this might indicate that the solution could be combining different technologies in order to compensate these energy/power lacks and reduce the number of required units.

Different ways exist to reduce or minimize these heavy and voluminous issues. One of these methods is designing low-resistance vessels by applying advanced hull designs and/or lightweight materials. Sections 3.3 and 3.4 explain how this method can be achieved. 40 3. Sustainable Fast Ferries: State of art

3.3. Applicable hull designs

Section 3.1 indicated that one of the limitations of employing emission-free technology is the low energy/power rates per unit of mass/volume. As consequence, more units need to be installed leading to high weight and volume issues. Reducing power consumption would lead to lower power and energy requirements and thus, less number of units on board. One method to cut down the power consumption is by reducing the propulsion power as this one accounts for a large portion of the total energy/power of a vessel [57]. Assuming that the Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters is equipped with similar secondary systems (nautical, communication, Heat, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC), etc.) as the based commuter ferry Damen Water Bus 2007, the hotel power requirements will oscillate around 4% of the total power on board [32]. Therefore, reducing the power consumption can be achieved minimizing the total ship resistance. Equation 3.1 indicates the relation between installed power (nominal engine power) and ship resistance [58].

푃 = 휂 휂 푘 푘 퐸푀 푃 = 푅 푣 (3.1)

퐸 = 푃 푡 (3.2) In which:

• 푃 - Effective power [kW] • 푃 - Nominal engine power [kW]

• 휂 - Propulsive efficiency [-] • 푅 - Total ship resistance [kN] • 휂 - Transmission efficiency [-] • 푣 - Ship speed [m/s] • 푘 - Number of engines per shaft [-] • 퐸 - Nominal engine energy [kWh] • 푘 - Number of propellers [-]

• 퐸푀 - Engine margin [-] • 푡 - Service time [h]

Ship resistance and effective power can be expressed in a non-dimensional form too [58]&[59]. These two non-dimensional coefficients are defined in Equations 3.3 and 3.4, which show that by reducing the ship displacement and wetted surface area, the resistance and installed (nominal) power are reduced. The ship displacement is defined as the weight of volume displaced by the ship, being equal to the total ship weight (buoyancy). Therefore, one way to lower the displacement is by reducing the displaced volume (underwater volume) or using lighter hull materials.

푅 퐶 = = 푓(푅푒, 퐹푛, 휎) (3.3) 1/2 휌 푆 푣

푃 퐶 = = 푓(푅푒, 퐹푛, 푘, 퐻푢푙푙푓표푟푚, 퐸푥푡푒푟푛푎푙푓푎푐푡표푟푠) (3.4) / / 휌 Δ 푣 Being:

• 퐶 - Total resistance coeff. [-] • 퐹푛 - Froude number [-] • 휎 - Cavitation number [-] • 퐶 - Specific resistance coeff. [-]

3 • 푘 - Roughness [m] • 휌 - Water density [t/m ] • Hull form - Hull geometry (L, B, T, etc.) 2 • 푆 - Wetted surface area [m ] • External factors - Sea state, water depth, • 푅푒 - Reynolds number [-] etc.

This section, Applicable hull designs, will be focused on reducing the resistance through the hull geometry and form. Meanwhile, Section 3.4: Lightweight materials will indicate the second reduction method. 3.3. Applicable hull designs 41

Before proceeding with the hull analysis, the capabilities or main characteristics that the hull design should have, will be indicated. As the Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters will operate under calm sea states (sheltered water), i.e. low wave heights, the main capabilities that would allow the implementation of zero-emission systems and a good operability are among others:

• Low resistance to reduce installed power and thus, zero-emission system units • Large available space for the required number of systems • Good manoeuvrability to reduce docking and undocking time • Low complexity to decrease construction costs • Low wake wash to operate in confined waterways

In addition, the hull design needs to be as sustainable as possible. One method to determine the sustainability of a hull design is by using the concept of Transport efficiency. This efficiency is defined in the final report Study of Green Ferry Alternatives for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) as follows [60]:

푣 푛 퐸 = (3.5) 푃 Being:

• 푣 - ship speed [m/s or kn] • 푃 - Power [kW]

• 푛 - number of passengers [kN or -] • 퐸 - Transport efficiency [- or (pax·kn)/kW]

The higher the efficiency, the more sustainable the hull design is. In addition, as the number of passengers (40pax) and velocity (22kn) will not change from one hull to another, higher efficiencies will also indicate lower resistance.

The zero-emission high-speed passenger ferries shown in Section 3.1 present different hull concepts. A description and applicability of these hulls is given here below.

• ZEFF - Hydrofoil trimaran hull (hydrodynamic lift) • BB GREEN - Air supported monohull (powered lift) • SF-BREEZE - Catamaran hull (hydrostatic lift)

Employing catamaran hull designs present some advantages in terms of stability and available deck space [61]. As catamarans are composed of two demihulls, larger deck areas and finer hull shapes (slenderness) can be obtained [40]&[62]. Lengthening the vessel hull significantly reduces the impact of the wave-making resistance as the vessel cuts through waves more cleanly [63], this cleaner sail reduces wake wash2 as well. The overall beam created by multiple linked hulls allows catamaran and trimaran vessels to lengthen the hull without compromising transverse stability3. In case of monohulls this lengthening is quite limited [40].

One counter-effect of increasing the hull length is the increase, as well, of the skin friction resistance. An adequate selection of the hull length is required in order to avoid this counteracting effect. The higher catamaran slenderness is able to provide reductions in the vessel resistance up to 20% compared to equivalent monohulls [40]. In addition, the larger deck area provides more usable spaces for passengers and zero-emission technology as well [59]. Regarding to construction costs, catamaran hull designs are more complex than monohulls leading to higher costs. However, advantages such as larger available deck space, lower resistance and better manoeuvrability due the use of two propulsion plants stand out over this cost disadvantage. Trimarans provide similar advantages as catamarans in

2Wake wash refers to wave-making patterns and water disturbances created by a moving ship. 3Transverse stability is directly dependent of the beam length [40]. 42 3. Sustainable Fast Ferries: State of art general. However, their building costs are more expensive making them less attractive [40].

Even though monohulls are not as efficient as catamarans in terms of hull resistance reduction, applying air support systems could solve the slenderness limitation making them more efficient and a valid option. Air support systems are able to reduce the hull resistance by lifting a great part of the vessel displacement. Hull resistance estimations performed by SSPA Sweden show reductions above 30% with an air support of 70% [64]. Figure 3.10 shows the results of these estimations.

Figure 3.10: Hull resistance estimations in a 22m monohull vessel with a 70% air support [64].

The main advantage of implementing this system is that the vessel will not be affected by humps or increases in the resistance due to transition to fast-speed operation modes. In addition, such a resistance reduction would allow wider beams and therefore, larger deck areas than conventional monohulls. However, these systems require extra power and thus, its application will be only justified in case of large resistance reductions.

With regards to hydrofoils, this hydrodynamic lifting technology can reduce as much resistance as air support systems. In contrast, vessels equipped with hydrofoils need to operate above certain volumetric Froude numbers in order to provide resistance improvements. Literature suggests minimum volumetric Froude numbers of around 2 [65]&[66]. This is due to the increase in the resistance at low speeds by the extra drag created.

Another limitation is the water depth, the extra draft of some hydrofoil configurations could lead to squat effects or run aground casualties in the worst-case scenario. The water depth in the Amsterdam Central terminals is around 3.5 meters [67] which limit the length of hydrofoils to no more than 1.5 meters, considering a draft similar to Damen Water Bus 2007 (1.4m) [32].

Both, air support and hydrofoil systems, can be applied to different hull designs in order to improve their performance and hydrodynamic efficiency. Examples of this combination are observed in zero- emission ferries shown in Section 3.1: Sustainable Ferries.

Table 3.13: Summary of applicable hull design solutions for the Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters.

Monohull Catamaran Trimaran ASV Hydrofoils Low Low Lowest Lowest Resistance High (Lower reduction (20% approx.) (40% approx.) (30% approx.) than Catamarans) Low deck area Largest deck area Large deck area Available space - - Large hold area Lowest hold area Low hold area Complexity Simplest More complex Most complex - - Manoeuvrability Worse Better Worse Average Best

Table 3.13 summarizes all the previous information given. This table shows an overview of the different 3.4. Lightweight materials 43 characteristics of each hull type in terms of usable space, resistance, manoeuvrability and construction complexity (cost). Further numerical analyses are required in order to make a final selection. Even though Table 3.13 differentiates the previous discussed hull designs, this comparison has been done considering exclusively literature and previous resistances analysis. Therefore, a final decision can not be taken. This type of analysis is useful in order to constraint the types of hulls and save future calculation time.

Catamaran hulls present lower resistances compared with an equivalent monohull. This reduction can be improved even more by the application of ASV or hydrofoil technology. The possible application of these ones will depend on the operational conditions (volumetric Froude number, water depth, etc.). In terms of available space, specially for zero-emission technology, catamarans also provide the largest deck area and lowest hold area as well due to the narrow demihulls. Trimarans slightly balance this space distribution by providing larger hold areas (main hull) than catamarans but also lower deck areas as main hull and outriggers differ in length. As monohulls required slender or fine hull shapes to efficiently operate at high speeds, the available deck area is significantly reduced compared to multihull designs.

Regarding to complexity, the implementation of additional hulls (multihull) will lead to more construc- tive requirements and therefore, additional building expenses. This is clearly observed in the bridge deck that links the different hulls in catamarans and trimarans designs. The use of ASV and hydrofoils implies an extra increase in the complexity as well.

Finally, manoeuvrability also plays an important role in passenger transportation in order to reduce, for example, docking and undocking times. The use of more propulsion plants increase manoeuvring performance due to bigger turning moments are created. In addition, lower waterplane areas enhance the manoeuvrability as less momentum is required to turn. Catamarans due to the use of two propulsion systems and hydrofoils because of the lower waterplane area present the best manoeuvring skills. Trimarans and monohulls, on the other hand, present the opposite case. The closer location of the propeller to the centerline, plus the extra inertia that the narrow trimaran outriggers imply make these hull designs less manoeuvrable and attractive. This is under the assumption that the outriggers would be significantly narrow and no available space exits to locate the electric motors.

Concluding, air support systems and hydrofoils were only seen as enhancing systems applicable to other hull designs (monohull, multihull, etc.). These systems will be considered as solution to reduce power consumption in case a higher reduction is needed to achieve feasibility, as these systems increase the overall complexity.

In conclusion, the following hull designs might be applicable to the SFFC case. Trimarans have been discarded from this selection due to the higher number of disadvantages compared to catamarans (more complexity, worse manoeuvrability, lower resistance reduction [66]) and ASV and hydrofoils will be only considered in case higher resistance reductions are required.

• Catamarans • Catamarans assisted by air support systems or hydrofoils • Monohulls assisted by air support systems or hydrofoils

3.4. Lightweight materials

In this section, Lightweight materials, the second method of reducing power consumption is studied. This method is based on Equation 3.4 in which indicates that the effective power can be decreased by reducing the displacement [58]. / / 푃 = 퐶 휌 Δ 푣 (3.4) Following the same procedure as in the previous two sections, the following needs/capabilities have to be met by the materials in order to ease the implementation of zero-emission systems and a feasible design. Most of these features are common in any ship design, e.g. good fire and corrosion resistance: 44 3. Sustainable Fast Ferries: State of art

• High strength-weight ratio to provide the required strength with lighter materials

• Good corrosion properties to reduce maintenance (dry docking periods) and operational expenses

• Good fire resistance properties to guarantee passenger safety on board

• Sustainability (recyclability) to eliminate waste during ship breaking

• Relative low cost to reduce construction costs

Reductions in the displacement can be achieved by applying lightweight materials such as aluminium and composite materials, e.g. Glass-Reinforced Plastic (GRP) and Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP). Sustainable principles indicated in Section 1.2.2 will play an important role in the selection of materials. In special, the principle that encourages for eliminating waste, i.e. recycling.

In high-speed crafts, the structural weight varies from 25% to 35% of the gross weight [61]. The most common lightweight materials employed in high-speed vessels are aluminium alloys and fiber reinforced plastics such as CFRP and GRP. The application of lightweight materials in high-speed marine environments highly depends on properties such as the strength-weight ratio, corrosion resistance and fire resistance. This last property takes great importance when passengers are involved in the ship activities.

Aluminium has traditionally been the preferred material in high-speed craft designs for both commercial and, military applications. The aluminium alloy 5000-series is commonly used in ship hulls due to the excellent corrosive properties. The application of aluminium presents advantages in terms of strength-weight ratio, however, aluminium has lower melting point than steel implying that appropriate insulation is required in order to make aluminium equivalent to steel for fire purposes [68]&[59].

In general, Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP) is very attractive in small craft applications due to the high strength-weight ratio, good corrosion and fire resistance and easy fabrication in moulds leading to lower overall costs [61], [69]&[70]. In addition, FRPs also offer good fatigue properties and low maintenance costs [68]. Even though FRP have low thermal conductivity, it is considered a combustible material and emissions of smoke and toxic fume are released when polyester resins burn [59] &[61]. This can be minimized using phenolic-based FRPs in which smoke and toxic flume emissions are significantly reduced [59] or applying adequate insulation layers (rockwool).

The main issue with Fiber Reinforced Plastics is their recyclability. Even though studies have shown that recycling composite materials is possible [71], composites are inherently difficult to recycle as they are constructed to be strong, durable and non-homogeneous. This construction method leads to recycling processes that reduce recyclate quality complicating circular usage or second market applications.

On the other hand, aluminium can be recycled and reused. Aluminium is infinitely recyclable which means it remains essentially unchanged even after being processed and used several times [72]. This feature makes a big difference between composites and lightweight metals in terms of sustainability.

In conclusion, aluminium alloys present better properties in terms of sustainability as aluminium can be effectively recycled. However, Glass-Reinforced Plastic stands out for the great corrosion resistance and being the cheapest marine material [61]. The main disadvantage of FRPs is the smoke and flume released under burning conditions (combustible material). In addition, aluminium alloys and GRP do not differ significantly in terms of density, both present densities around 2.6 t/m3. CFRP solutions can lower even more the weight structure but also increase the capital expenses due to its higher price. Therefore, CFRP will be only taken into account in case that larger weight reductions are needed. Hence, the material options are reduced to the following two:

• Aluminium • Glass-Reinforced Plastic 3.5. Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters challenges 45

3.5. Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters challenges

Previous sections introduced the available zero-emission technology and different methods to reduce the power and energy consumption by modifying the hull form and/or applying lightweight materials. This section will introduce the innovative character of this project by indicating the challenges that this combination of features implies. First of all, an estimated energy and power profile will be shown, followed by a comparison of different applicable energy/power technologies and the challenges that the design features carry.

Table 3.14 and Figures 3.11 and 3.12 show a more detailed operational profile, based on the estimated operating route and reference commuter ferry Damen Water Bus 2007.

Figure 3.11: Brake power - Service speed curve. Figure 3.12: Energy and Power profile during one round trip.

Table 3.14: Energy and Power profile for one-way trip.

Speed Time Distance Brake power Required energy [푘푛] [푚푖푛] [푛푚] [푘푊] [푘푊ℎ] Moored 0 5 - - - Undocking 5 2.5 0.21 5.26 0.22 Sailing 22 30 11.00 448.00 224.00 Docking 5 2.5 0.21 5.26 0.22 Moored 0 5 - - -

The brake power curve has been approximated considering that the power is proportional to the 3rd power of the velocity and an engine margin (EM) of 0.8. Therefore, the next relation was employed [58]: 푣, 푃, = ( ) 푃, (3.6) 푣,

Knowing the maximum power required by the vessel to operate at 22kn (448kW of brake power) and total amount of energy that needs to be supplied in order to meet the operational requirements of the IJmuiden - Amsterdam route, a comparison of different fuel cells, batteries and ultracapacitors is real- ized. Tables 3.15 and 3.16 show a resume of this comparison indicating the most suitable technologies for this operation from each type of energy technology.

From these two tables it can be observed that fuel cells are the option with lowest volume and weight requirements. However, subsystems such as cooling, air and fuel storage have not been considered yet. In addition, other essential equipment in electric propulsion plants were not taken into account either. This extra equipment refers among others to electric motors, switchboards to distribute the electrical energy on board and DC/DC converters and AC/DC inverters to match and couple battery, fuel cells, motors and/or any other electrical system with the DC bus [58]. Table 3.17 shows this required extra equipment. 46 3. Sustainable Fast Ferries: State of art

Table 3.15: Energy and Power technology systems (Fuel Cell, Battery and Ultracapacitors) comparison, 1st Table.

FCgen-LCS FCvelocity-9SSL S3a Ballard Ballard PowerCell Dimensions [푚푚] 612×425×110 302×760×60 420×444×156 Weight [푘푔] 33.70 17.00 34.00 Power [푘푊] 56.00 21.00 98.00 Energy [푘푊ℎ] 32.67 12.25 51.17 Power density [푘푊/푚] 1957.29 1524.92 3368.75 Specific power [푘푊/푘푔] 1.66 1.24 2.88 Energy density [푘푊ℎ/푚] 1141.75 889.54 1965.11 Specific energy [푘푊ℎ/푘푔] 0.97 0.72 1.68

No. unitsb 8 22 5 Installed energy [푘푊ℎ] 261.33 269.50 285.83 Required volume [푚] 0.23 0.30 0.15 Mass [푘푔] 269.60 374.00 170.00

Table 3.16: Energy and Power technology systems (Fuel Cell, Battery and Ultracapacitors) comparison, 2nd Table.

Nomada Type M Skelmod 102V SuperB Aentron Skeleton Dimensions [푚푚] 437×90×175 400×160×90 502×480×155 Weight [푘푔] 10.00 8.10 28.80 Power [푘푊] 1.84 1.40 419.50 Energy [푘푊ℎ] 1.08 0.82 0.13 Power density [푘푊/푚] 267.80 243.60 1.12×10 Specific power [푘푊/푘푔] 0.18 0.17 14.57 Energy density [푘푊ℎ/푚] 156.22 142.10 3.40 Specific energy [푘푊ℎ/푘푔] 0.11 0.10 0.004

No. unitsb 244a 320b 2 Installed energy [푘푊ℎ] 262.35 261.92 0.25 Required volume [푚] 1.68 1.84 0.07 Mass [푘푔] 2440.00 2592.00 57.60

Installing batteries leads to larger volume and weight conditions than fuel cells, however, batteries do not require extra storage systems. Meanwhile, ultracapacitors, although they are constrained by the low energy rates, are able to store enough energy to cover the docking and undocking operations. This characteristic, combined with the fast charging feature, makes ultracapacitors a good option for short operations at low speeds and with limited available charging time as the Ar Vag Tredan ferry shows [41].

Table 3.17 shows some of the extra equipment required in an electrical propulsion. The cooling and air subsystem necessary for the fuel cells was estimated based on the available information from similar fuel cells (Ballard FCveloCity-HD [73]). The other electrical equipment (DCDC converters [74], ACDC inverters [75] and electric motors [76]) was defined using the products from the electrical company ARADEX AG. Finally, regarding to the switchboard, due to the limit information it has been estimated using switchboards from similar previous C-Job projects. aPrototype. bNumber of units to meet power conditions. aUp to 60 batteries connected in series. bMaximum serial voltage limited to 900V. 3.5. Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters challenges 47

Table 3.17: Extra equipment required in an electric propulsion system.

Dimensions Weight Power [푚푚] [푘푔] [푘푊] DC/DC convertera 529×414×271 75 200 AC/DC inverterb 566×470×168 40 320 Switchboardc 1000×800×2000 800 - Electric motord 565×D560 400 240 FC air subsysteme 676×418×355 60 - FC cooling subsysteme 737×529×379 45 -

Therefore taking into account the approximated volume and weight from the extra equipment required in Table 3.17, the following propulsion driveline solutions can be computed, see Table 3.18 and 3.19.

Table 3.18: Fuel Cell propulsion plant.

Dimensions Weight Volume Power Units [푚푚] [푘푔] [푚] [푘푊] DC/DC converter 529×414×271 3 75 0.18 200 AC/DC inverter 566×470×168 2 40 0.09 320 Switchboard 1000×800×2000 2 800 3.2 - Electric motor 565×D560 2 400 0.28 240 Fuel Cell systema 420×444×156 5 34 0.15 98 676×418×355 60 FC air&cooling subsystem 5 1.24 - 737×529×379 45 FC H2 tank subsystemb 2413×D654 2 147 0.81 - 3.69 tons 6.75 m3

Table 3.19: Battery propulsion plant.

Dimensions Weight Volume Power Units [푚푚] [푘푔] [푚] [푘푊] DC/DC converter 529×414×271 3 75 0.18 200 AC/DC inverter 566×470×168 2 40 0.09 320 Switchboard 1000×800×2000 2 800 3.2 - Electric motor 565×D560 2 400 0.28 240 Battery systema 437×90×175 244 10 0.01 1.84 5.07 tons 5.37 m3

The hydrogen tank indicated in Table 3.18 has been selected from the hydrogen transportation company Hexagon. Moreover, the required number of units has been calculated as follows:

퐸 푛 푁 = (3.7) 퐿퐻푉 푚 휂 aVP5000-DCDC200, ARADEX AG bVP600-18W268, ARADEX AG cBased on previous C-Job ferry projects. dVM600M-28W0350, ARADEX AG eFCvelocity-HD, Ballard aFuel Cell S3, PowerCell b25MPa Type 4 Hydrogen cylinders, Hexagon aBattery Nomada, SuperB 48 3. Sustainable Fast Ferries: State of art

It has been considered a fuel cell efficiency of 55%, see Table 3.11, and a hydrogen mass inside one Hexagon tank of 10.4kg according to the Type 4 Hydrogen cylinders specifications.

On the other side, it was assumed that the number of batteries linearly increases proportional to the number of trips to be performed without charging. This means that the required number is obtained by multiplying the number of needed batteries for one trip (indicated in Table 3.16) by the total trips.

Both configurations (Fuel Cell or Battery) do not significantly differ in terms of weight and volume from each other. However, comparing these two propulsion configurations with the Damen Water Bus 2007 referenced ferry, both of them exceed the assigned volume for the diesel propulsion plant (5m). This volume has been calculated considering engine and fuel tank volumes, see Table 2.1 and 2.2. In terms of weight contribution, only the battery configuration runs over the diesel plant tonnage (4.1t), in contrast, fuel cells decrease the tonnage on board due to the low density of hydrogen compared to MGO (average density 860kg/m)[77]. Therefore, this indicates that the implementation of zero-emission technology in such a vessel is not that far away from the present.

However, the current estimation only shows the volume and weight requirements for one-way trip. Increasing the endurance in order to provide a competitive service will increase the energy to be installed on board, meaning on a greater number of batteries or more hydrogen tank units4. Figures from 3.13 to 3.16 show the increasing evolution on the volume and weight of the propulsion plant with the number of one-way trips to perform without bunkering or charging at three different sailing velocities, 15, 18 and 22 knots.

In order to operate without bunkering or charging a full day (19 trips), both propulsion plant configurations would require available spaces and tonnage that can be 2 to 12 times higher than the volume and weight of Damen Water Bus 2007 diesel plant. This increase is significant in case of a battery plant as the required volume and weight would be 7 and 12 times higher respectively.

Figure 3.13: Fuel Cell propulsion plant weight evolution. Bars indicate from left to right different sailing speed conditions at 15kn, 18kn and 22kn, keeping the sailing time constant. Considering S3 fuel cell from PowerCell.

Figure 3.14: Fuel Cell propulsion plant volume evolution. Bars indicate from left to right different sailing speed conditions at 15kn, 18kn and 22kn, keeping the sailing time constant. Considering S3 fuel cell from PowerCell.

4The rest of equipment will remain constant as they are not dependent of energy. 3.5. Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters challenges 49

Figure 3.15: Battery propulsion plant weight evolution. Bars indicate from left to right different sailing speed conditions at 15kn, 18kn and 22kn, keeping the sailing time constant. Considering Nomada battery from SuperB.

Figure 3.16: Battery propulsion plant volume evolution. Bars indicate from left to right different sailing speed conditions at 15kn, 18kn and 22kn, keeping the sailing time constant. Considering Nomada battery from SuperB.

Therefore, these graphs may give a reason why a combination of these design features have not been shown yet. These demanded design characteristics are reflected in Figure 3.17 and the previous figures as well. Figure 3.17 indicates that the energy increase when the range (operating time) is increased as well, as it was expected. Larger ranges would imply bigger capacities in order to make the route profitable, this increase implies as well larger ships and therefore more available space. Decreasing the range, on the other hand, would ease the implementation of this technology due to the great reduction in energy demand.

Figure 3.17: Energy curve at different range conditions, 20min (dashed line), 30min (solid line) and 45min (pointed line). Different velocities are indicated as well, 22kn (square), 18kn (diamond) and 15kn (triangle). 50 3. Sustainable Fast Ferries: State of art

Reducing the sailing speed decrease the demanded energy as well, making easier achieve the technical feasibility of the design. This effect is clearly reflected in the evolution of the volume and weight plants. Decreasing the speed from 22kn to 18kn already shows a significant reduction in the volume and weight required.

Therefore, the following issues and challenges can be extracted:

– High speeds (22kn) and relative short ranges (30min) require large energy demands.

– Zero-emission technology needs more volume and increases tonnage in order to provide the same performance as an ICE. – Small capacities mean small-sized vessels and therefore, limited available space.

– Optimize propulsion plant configuration to reduce volume and weight requirements and charging periods as well to increase competitiveness. – Advance ship design solutions in order to decrease power and energy consumption. – Maximize the limited available space to avoid disproportional designs. 3.6. Chapter conclusions 51

3.6. Chapter conclusions

In this chapter, Sustainable Fast Ferries: State of art, similar projects/ferries have been shown as well as the challenges and limitations observed along their development. In addition and following Systems Engineering, this chapter has also examined the available current technology, hull designs and material, indicating the necessary capabilities to satisfy the needs shown in Chapter 2. Three different zero- emission systems, electro-chemical energy storage, electro-magnetic energy storage and fuel cells, were analysed and studied by answering the following questions: What are the current and near-future most effective emission-free energy sources and technologies Three different systems, Li-Ion batteries, PEM fuel cells and supercapacitors (ultracapacitors), stood out from the other options due to technical (energy and power density), safety and economical (operating costs) reasons. Are these ones applicable in terms of safety, durability and affordability to Fast Ferries Subsection 3.2 concluded that supercapacitors are the safest zero-emission technology as well as the most durable. Batteries and fuel cells required additional safety measures due to the flammable chemicals (batteries) and the ignition and flammable properties of hydrogen (fuel cells). In terms of affordability, all of them presented relative similar operational costs.

In addition, two different methods of reducing the power consumption were presented. These two methods were based from a ship design perspective. Suggestions of different hull designs and materials concluded this section. Therefore, the following questions were answered: How can the hull shape impact the use of these energy source technologies on board a passenger vessel The power consumption can be reduced by minimizing displacement and wetted area. Therefore, hull designs with lower wetted surface area and/or larger hold or deck areas as well can influence the number of zero-emission technology units required and on board. How could the displacement of the SFFC be minimized The ship displacement is defined as the weight of volume displaced by the ship, being equal to the total ship weight as well (buoyancy). Therefore, one way to lower the displacement is by reducing the displaced volume (underwater volume) or using lighter hull materials. What would be the impact of lightweight materials on the concept design As the previous answered indicated, the displacement can be reduced by applying lightweight materials such as aluminium and fiber composites due to the lower densities. In addition, its application also implies additional fire measures (insulation) to guarantee safety. Are these materials environmentally friendly, recyclable and safe FRP presented the worst properties in terms of sustainability due to the toxic flume and smoke released in case of fire and the poor recyclability as the material quality is reduced after the process. Aluminium enhanced these properties but it is more susceptible to corrosion than fiber materials.

Concluding this chapter, the challenges and limitations that developing this design involves were illus- trated. Initial estimations indicate that a feasible design is possible, however, charging and bunkering periods after every one-way trip would reduce the attractiveness of the project due to larger stops and bigger infrastructure.

4 Concept Exploration

In this chapter, Concept Exploration, the second phase of Concept Development from the Systems Engineering approach is developed and shown. This phase consists of the selection of the most suitable candidate systems regarding hull design, structural material and zero-emission energy system. Therefore, the objective of this section is to determine the technical feasibility of the concept design.

In addition, an analysis of the operating route, IJmuiden - Amsterdam, is indicated as well to analyze the competition features. Therefore, this chapter aims to answer the following question and is divided in three different analyses: Route analysis, Hull and material analysis and Energy production and storage analysis.

Is this Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters concept design technically feasible

4.1. Route analysis

This section analyzes the different alternatives to connect IJmuiden and Amsterdam. These alternatives include road transportation (public and private transport) and ferry (SFFC line). In order to make an accurate and fair comparison, the route will be defined between the stops IJmuiden, De Noostraat/Pont Velsen and Amsterdam, Central Station, see Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Alternative transportation routes.

53 54 4. Concept Exploration

The main objective of this analysis is to determine a suitable schedule able to reduce the use of road transportation and thus, traffic congestion, by providing a sustainable and competitive alternative. Therefore, the ferry service should provide a similar trip duration and frequency. Ticket price plays another important role as well. The total operational costs will determine the ferry ticket price.

In Table 4.1 information about the connection between IJmuiden and Amsterdam by public transport is shown. As the 382R bus line does not connect IJmuiden and Amsterdam Central Station, an additional transfer in Amsterdam, Station Sloterdijk is necessary to reach the final destination. This route option implies a total trip duration and ticket price of approximately 35 minutes and 6.50EUR respectively. Traffic congestion can significantly affect the trip duration of the bus line.

Table 4.1: IJmuiden-Amsterdam connection: public transportation [78]&[79].

IJmuiden - Amsterdam route Public transport 382R Connexxion bus line Intercity/Sprinter NS train line IJmuiden, Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Amsterdam, De Noostraat STA Sloterdijk STA Central STA Sloterdijk Pont Velsen Distance 24.5km

05:26 - 00:21 05:59 - 00:21 05:15 - 01:19 (Mon. - Fri.) (Mon. - Fri.) (Mon. - Th.) 05:41 - 01:23 06:50 - 23:50 06:19 - 00:19 05:15 - 03:50 (Mon. - Th. & Sun.) Schedule (Sat.) (Sat.) (Fri. & Sat.) 05:41 - 03:24 07:22 - 23:50 07:22 - 00:21 06:11 - 01:19 (Fri. & Sat.) (Sun.) (Sun.) (Sun.)

Trip duration 28min 6min

10min (workday peak hours) 5min 15min to 30min (workday & weekend) Frequency (workday off-peak hours) 60min 30min (after 01:53 on Fri. & Sat.) (weekend)

Price 4.10EUR 2.40EUR

In case of the private transportation, the route operational costs are approximately reduced to 2.00EUR. However, this mode of transport is the main contributor to traffic congestion, which can increase the trip duration of the road transportation to 55 minutes [80]. Table 4.2 shows the characteristics of this mean of transport.

Table 4.2: IJmuiden-Amsterdam connection: private transportation.

IJmuiden - Amsterdam connection Private transport Distance 24.5km Trip duration 30- 55min Costa 1.89EUR (diesel) - 2.25EUR (gasoline)

a Using an average consumption and fuel price in the Netherlands of 5.2-5.5 L/100km [81] and 1.44-1.72 EUR/L [82]&[83]. 4.1. Route analysis 55

Tables 4.1 and 4.2 have shown the two road transport options to connect IJmuiden and Amsterdam. The trip duration of these options is highly influenced by the traffic levels specially during peak/rush hours. This time frame generally encompasses from 06:00 to 09:00 and 16:30 to 19:30 [78]&[79].

With regards to the waterborne alternative, the following features have been considered in order to provide a similar and competitive regular service, see Table 4.3. Three different route schedules (service frequency) have been suggested. The timetable has been scheduled in a way that the ferry service stops when the bus frequency is reduced to 30 minutes, approximately at 19:30 [78]. This schedule allows to cover both peak hours and stop the ferry service to charge and/or bunker when the competition decreases the service frequency (decline in the number of travellers).

Decreasing the service frequency (increasing the dwell time) has some advantages and disadvantages. More time in between services would allow a longer charging time and less trips per day, reducing the energy installed on board and the fleet as well. However, it will make this service less competitive relegating it from an alternative to a complement transportation option. This new transport status will reduce the total turnover and increase the return-of-investment time. Service frequencies of 15, 20 and 30 minutes will imply dwell times of 10, 15 and 25 minutes respectively. From Appendix C: IJmuiden - Amsterdam route, it can be observed that in order to provide a continuous and regular service each suggested timetable respectively needs to employ a fleet of 6, 5 and 4 ferries. Moreover, it has been assumed the same schedule during workdays and weekend to simplify calculations.

The route schedule and characteristics presented in Table 4.3 lead to the operational profile indicated in Table 4.4. The docking speed has been increased to six knots with respect the estimated values in the Literature Review (Section 3.5) to guarantee that the transition from low to high speed is done far enough from the passenger terminal. This distance (approx. 400m) will hopefully reduce damages on the quay wall caused by propeller and wake effects.

Table 4.3: Information about the connection IJmuiden - Amsterdam by waterborne transport.

IJmuiden - Amsterdam ferry connection Waterborne transport IJmuiden, Amsterdam, De Noostraat STA Central Pont Velsen Distance 11.5nm (21.3km)

06:00 - 19:45 06:15 - 20:00 (15min frequency) (15min frequency) 06:00 - 19:40 06:30 - 20:10 Schedule (20min frequency) (20min frequency) 06:00 - 19:30 06:30 - 20:00 (30min frequency) (30min frequency)

Trip duration 35min

Frequency 15min, 20min or 30min

Pricea TBS

These three different service frequencies will be used to observe the influence of the schedule on the feasibility of the design. Once the schedule is defined, the next required analysis will consist of determining the appropriated hull forms for this concept design and operation. Section 4.2 describes this analysis and procedure. aTo be specified after the cost analysis, see Section 5.5: Cost assessment. 56 4. Concept Exploration

Table 4.4: Operational profile for the IJmuiden-Amsterdam route.

Velocity Time Distance Undocking 6kn 2.5min 0.25nm Sailing 22kn 30min 11nm Docking 6kn 2.5min 0.25nm 10min Moored - 15min - 25min 45min Total 50min 11.5nm 60min

4.2. Hull and material analysis

In this section a deeper numerical study of hull designs is performed. This analysis will be focused on studying the applicability of catamaran hulls, due to its greater features in terms of manoeuvrability, resistance and simplicity. This preliminary study is shown in the Literature Review (Section 3.3).

Therefore, in order to proceed with the analysis, first, the order of magnitude of the main dimensions (length, beam and draft) needs to be estimated. This pre-study as well as the hull shaping is shown in the following subsection, Dimensioning and Hull shaping. Figure 4.2 shows an overview of the whole hull and material analysis.

Figure 4.2: Hull and material analysis: Overview. 4.2. Hull and material analysis 57

4.2.1. Dimensioning and Hull shaping This subsection indicates the procedure of how the initial main dimensions and hull of the Sustain- able Fast Ferry for Commuters have been established. As the passenger capacity is the main design requirement with a direct impact on the vessel dimensions, it will be used as input during the estimation.

This estimation has been done considering the following reference catamaran ferries. These vessels were chosen attending to their passenger capacities and speeds. The capacity range has been limited from 30 to 60 passengers in order to keep a similar linear relation Passenger capacity - Main dimensions. From this reference vessels, three ratios between main dimensions and passenger capacity were defined. These ratios were considered to determine the required length, beam and draft per passenger.

Table 4.5 and Figures 4.3 indicate, both numerically and graphically, these ratios. As it is observed, the R-squared value of each linear regression is above 0.8, indicating that a correlation between main dimensions and capacity exists at this range of passengers.

Table 4.5: List of reference catamaran vessels [84], [85]&[86].

PAX LOA LOA/PAX BOA BOA/PAX Tld Tld/PAX Speed [−] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚/푝푎푥] [푚] [푚/푝푎푥] [푘푛] DWB 2107 60 21.1 0.35 6.5 0.11 1.4 0.02 21.6 DWB 2007 56 19.4 0.35 7.0 0.13 1.4 0.03 21.5 Damen Group DWB 2006 50 19.4 0.39 6.5 0.13 1.4 0.03 21.6 DWB 1806 40 17.7 0.44 6.5 0.16 1.4 0.04 21.6 DWB 1606 30 16.0 0.53 6.5 0.22 1.4 0.05 21.6 Osenfjord 48 21.0 0.44 7.5 0.16 - - 29.0 Brodrene AA Fjordsol 50 18.5 0.37 7.5 0.16 - - 25.0 Mararoa 48 19.0 0.40 6.2 0.13 1.5 0.03 25.0 Incat Crowther Confidence 50 20.5 0.41 6.5 0.13 1.0 0.03 30.0

(a) LOA/PAX ratio. (b) BOA/PAX ratio.

Figure 4.3: Main dimensions estimation: Linear regression. 58 4. Concept Exploration

From the regression equations shown in Figures 4.3a, 4.3b and 4.3c, the three dimensions, length, beam and draft, can be estimated: 퐿 = −0.006 · 푃퐴푋 + 0.709 = −0.006 · 40 + 0.709 = 0.47 푃퐴푋 퐿 퐿 = · 푃퐴푋 = 0.47 · 40 = 18.8푚 푃퐴푋 퐵 = −0.003 · 푃퐴푋 + 0.310 = −0.003 · 40 + 0.310 = 0.19 푃퐴푋 퐵 퐵 = · 푃퐴푋 = 0.19 · 40 = 7.6푚 푃퐴푋 푇 = −0.001 · 푃퐴푋 + 0.068 = −0.001 · 40 + 0.068 = 0.03 푃퐴푋 푇 푇 = · 푃퐴푋 = 0.03 · 40 = 1.1푚 푃퐴푋 Therefore, the Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters can be initially defined with the next dimensions. The demihull beam has been defined following the statement from The Marine Engineering Reference Book [59] which indicates that a separation of 1.25 times the demihull beams is reasonable to avoid large interference effects between both hulls. Nevertheless, these preliminary dimensions simply indicate the order of magnitude of the vessel size and can be subject to changes, specially to minimize hull resistance.

Table 4.6: Estimated main dimensions.

Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters

No. LOA BOA BOA,demi Tld Speed Pax. [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푘푛] 40 18.8 7.6 2.2 1.1 22

In addition, as the vessel would operate at Froude numbers between 0.7 and 0.9 (semi-displacement or semi-planning mode), below the planning mode (Fn=1), a round bilge design (displacement catamaran) was chosen as the most suitable option [62]. This selection was based on Figure 4.4 which indicates that at this range of Froude number (0.7-0.9) the hydrostatic lift force is still dominant (60% of total lift), and therefore, the resistance reduction that a hard chine design provides would not be significantly effective due to the relative low hydrodynamic lift [87].

Figure 4.4: Distribution of Hydrostatic and Hydrodynamic lift [87].

With regards to the hull form, this second part of the subsection has as aim shaping an initial render based on the estimated dimensions from Table 4.6. This first render will be used in the coming subsection, Parametric models, to create a series of catamaran hull designs that will allow to study the feasibility of this concept design with a wider hull design spectrum, permitting reducing the power 4.2. Hull and material analysis 59 requirements mainly due to the lower friction. Therefore, this indicates that the previous estimated dimensions are considered the starting point of these series of hulls.

As the National Physical Laboratories (NPL) series of Round Bilge Monohulls has been extensively used in the area of fast semi-displacement ferries and presents one of the widest parametric sets of resistance data for catamarans [88], the catamaran models of this concept design will be based on this round bilge series. Figure 4.5a shows an example of this series.

(a) NPL model [89]. (b) First estimated model.

Figure 4.5: 3D models: NPL series model (left) and SFFC estimated model (right).

Using the hull model given in Figure 4.5a, a 3D render of the initial hull model defined by the dimensions indicated in Table 4.6 was shaped, see Figure 4.5b and Table 4.7. This render has been shaped by individually scaling each dimension (length, beam and draft) to the initial estimation shown previously.

Table 4.7: Hull characteristics of the first SFFC model.

Demihull Demihull Length Waterline Loaded Demihull beam waterline c L/B B/T L/∇/ overall length draft volume overall beam [−] [−] [−] [−] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] 18.8 17.90 2.2 1.89 1.1 14.68 0.4 9.45 1.72 7.31

Before continuing with the parametric series, a brief introduction of the resistance components considered in this design, will be presented. This introduction is given in the next subsection, Resistance theory introduction.

4.2.2. Resistance theory introduction The total hull resistance has been defined according to the procedures and guidelines of the 1978 International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC). The ITTC78 defines the total resistance as the sum of the next components [90]:

푅 = (1 + 푘) 푅 + 푅 + 훿푅 + 푅 + 푅 (4.1) In which:

– (1+k) - Form factor – 훿Rf - Roughness allowance

– Rf - Frictional resistance (ITTC57) – RA - Correlation allowance

– Rw - Wave-making resistance – RAA - Air resistance

When it comes to catamarans, Equation 4.1 slightly varies in order to consider the viscous and wave interference between both demihulls. The total catamaran resistance coefficient was then proposed in Insel and Molland’s method [91] to:

퐶 = (1 + 휙푘)휎 퐶 + 휏퐶, = (1 + 훾푘) 퐶 + 퐶, (4.2) 60 4. Concept Exploration

Where:

– 휙 - takes into account the pressure field change around the demihull – 휎 - takes into account the velocity augmentation between hulls – 휏 - wave resistance interference factor – 훾 - viscous interference factor (combination of 휙 and 휎)

Using this proposed total resistance by Insel & Molland, Equation 4.1 and its resistance components are re-expressed as follows:

푅, = (1 + 훾푘) 푅 + 푅, + 훿푅 + 푅 + 푅 (4.3)

퐶, = (1 + 훾푘) 퐶 + 퐶, + 훿퐶 + 퐶 + 퐶 (4.4)

0.075 (5.68 − 0.6 푙표푔 푅푒) 휌퐴 (4.5) 퐶 = 퐶 = (4.6) 퐶 = 퐶 (4.7) (푙표푔 푅푒 − 2) 10000 휌푆

/ 푘 / 훿퐶 = 0.044 (( ) − 10 푅푒 ) + 0.000125 (4.8) 퐿 Being:

– C - Air drag coefficient (0.8 as ITTC78 de- – k - Roughness (150·10 m as ITTC78 de- fault value [90]) fault value [90]) 1 – A - Front air projected area

The wave-making resistance component is calculated using three different catamaran resistance regressions or methods. Appendix D: Resistance prediction regression methods indicates the regression equation, its applicable parameter range and the coefficient values for each regression, as well as a small introduction of the procedure followed and the models employed. These regressions are:

• Molland et al. regression method (1994) [91] • Round Bilge Catamaran Series of Sahoo, Browne & Salas (2004) [92] • Slender body approach (mainly used as a validation method)

These two prediction regression methods studied the calm water resistance of high-speed semi displacement round bilge catamarans under deep water conditions (additional corrections will be needed for this design due to the low water depth in the North Sea and IJ canal, shallow water). Both prediction methods can accurately estimate the wave resistance between Froude numbers of 0.5 and 1.0, but they differ at low speeds (0.2 < Fn < 0.5), see Figure 4.6.

These differences at low Froude numbers might be related with the different procedures used to determine the regression equations. Molland et al. made use of experimental results (NPL-series towing tank tests) to compute the regression keeping the form factor constant according to the statement that it is independent of speed [92]. Meanwhile, Sahoo, Browne & Salas developed a regression equation from CFD analyses and, later validated comparing the results with the NPL-series results from Molland et al. [89]. In addition, the form factor used by Sahoo, Browne & Salas is based on the Armstrong’s study2, which states that the form factor only depends on the Froude number at full/ship scale [93].

1Taken from previous C-Job catamaran projects as a constant value. 2See Subsection 4.2.3: Parametric models and form factor. 4.2. Hull and material analysis 61

These two resistance regressions have been considered due to the range of Froude numbers. This range will allow study the two different operational profiles (docking and sailing) separately. The aim of this separated analysis is to select individual power plants for each profile and hence, reduce cyclic loads and improve efficiency. Moreover, both regressions combined provide a broad applicable range, specially in terms of the slenderness ratio (퐿/∇/), to study different catamaran hull shapes, see Sub- section 4.2.3: Parametric models and form factor.

With regards to the slender body approach, this method determines the wave-making resistance from the wave pattern generated by the hull using a potential flow CFD approach. Therefore, as this method is not constrained by any parameter range, as long as the vessel is slender (퐿 >> 퐵), it will be used to verify and validate the results obtained from the regressions. The only drawback of this method compared to the regressions is that the model needs to be rendered in order to determine the resistance, meanwhile the regressions simply require the hull dimensions. Subsection 4.2.4: Resistance regression applicability shows this validation and applicability study.

Figure 4.6: Wave resistance comparison between Molland et al. experiments (Round Bilge 1994), Schwetz & Sahooa regression (Round Bilge 2002) and Sahoo, Browne & Salas regression (Round Bilge 2004)[91].

4.2.3. Parametric models and form factor In the first part of the subsection, Parametric models and form factor, the characteristics and hydrostatics of the different computed models are shown. This parameterization has been done based on the National Physical Laboratories (NPL) series which consists of a series of Round Bilge Monohulls. This series was defined by, first, scaling the NPL model to the initial estimated dimensions, see Subsection 4.2.1: Dimensioning and Hull shaping, and later parameterizing the parent hull into the desired models by means of Maxsurf Modeler.

These parametric models were scaled according to the dimensionless parameters indicated in Figure 4.7. These parameters refer to the main dimensional constraints of the regression methods (퐿/퐵, 퐵/푇, / 퐿/∇ and 푐)[91]&[92]. The range of application, which is indicated in the first three columns of Table 4.8, was selected to study the feasibility at the minimum, midpoint and maximum size allowed by the regression limits. Moreover, as the slenderness ratio (퐿/∇/) can be expressed as function of the other parameters, see Equation 4.9, the parametric space boundary was defined by three parameters: block coefficient (푐), length-to-beam ratio (퐿/퐵) and beam-to-draft ratio (퐵/푇).

퐿 퐿 퐵 1 √ / = ( ) ( )( ) (4.9) ∇ 퐵 푇 푐

From this parametric space the demihull series were made. To generate the series of catamarans, an additional parameter (hull spacing) was introduced. This parameter (푠/퐿) encompasses a range from aPrevious work to Sahoo, Browne & Salas prediction mainly focused on hard-chine high-speed catamarans. 62 4. Concept Exploration

0.2 to 0.4, range established according to the Sahoo, Browne & Salas constraint [92]. In addition, considering that the total resistance of a catamaran is mainly affected by the wet surface (푆), slen- / derness ratio (퐿/∇ ) and hull spacing (푠/퐿)[87], the waterline beam (퐵) has been kept constant and equal to the intial estimated model, to reduce the number of analysis to 27. Table 4.8 shows the parametric hull models.

Figure 4.7: Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters parametric space.

Table 4.8: Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters parametric models

/ 퐿/퐵 퐵/푇 푐 퐿/∇ ∇ 푆 퐿 퐿 퐵 퐵 푇 푖 훽 [−] [−] [−] [−] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푑푒푔] [푑푒푔] M1 7.00 1.50 0.40 5.69 25.37 71.52 13.81 13.26 2.19 1.89 1.26 5.50 41.30 M2 7.00 1.50 0.45 5.47 28.54 75.37 13.44 13.26 2.11 1.89 1.26 5.50 41.30 M3 7.00 1.50 0.50 5.28 31.71 78.67 13.37 13.26 2.11 1.89 1.26 6.60 37.70 M4 7.00 2.00 0.40 6.26 19.02 60.27 13.81 13.26 2.19 1.89 0.95 5.15 36.20 M5 7.00 2.00 0.45 6.02 21.40 63.21 13.46 13.26 2.11 1.89 0.95 5.50 33.50 M6 7.00 2.00 0.50 5.81 23.78 65.94 13.37 13.26 2.11 1.89 0.95 6.60 30.30 M7 7.00 2.50 0.40 6.74 15.22 53.88 13.81 13.26 2.19 1.89 0.76 5.15 30.40 M8 7.00 2.50 0.45 6.48 17.12 56.25 13.46 13.26 2.11 1.89 0.76 5.50 27.90 M9 7.00 2.50 0.50 6.26 19.02 58.67 13.37 13.26 2.11 1.89 0.76 6.60 25.00 M10 11.00 1.50 0.40 7.68 39.86 112.17 21.69 20.83 2.19 1.89 1.26 3.25 44.10 M11 11.00 1.50 0.45 7.39 44.84 118.22 21.11 20.83 2.11 1.89 1.26 3.50 41.30 M12 11.00 1.50 0.50 7.13 49.82 123.39 21.00 20.83 2.11 1.89 1.26 4.25 37.70 M13 11.00 2.00 0.40 8.46 29.89 94.55 21.69 20.83 2.19 1.89 0.95 3.25 36.20 M14 11.00 2.00 0.45 8.13 33.63 99.16 21.11 20.83 2.11 1.89 0.95 3.50 32.80 M15 11.00 2.00 0.50 7.85 37.37 103.44 21.00 20.83 2.11 1.89 0.95 4.25 30.30 M16 11.00 2.50 0.40 9.11 23.92 84.54 21.69 20.83 2.19 1.89 0.76 3.50 28.00 M17 11.00 2.50 0.45 8.76 26.91 88.26 21.11 20.83 2.11 1.89 0.76 3.50 28.00 M18 11.00 2.50 0.50 8.46 29.89 92.10 21.00 20.83 2.11 1.89 0.76 4.25 25.00 M19 15.00 1.50 0.40 9.45 54.35 152.91 29.58 28.41 2.19 1.89 1.26 2.45 44.20 M20 15.00 1.50 0.45 9.09 61.15 161.15 28.79 28.41 2.11 1.89 1.26 2.65 41.40 M21 15.00 1.50 0.50 8.77 67.94 168.22 28.65 28.41 2.11 1.89 1.26 3.20 37.80 M22 15.00 2.00 0.40 10.40 40.77 128.91 29.58 28.41 2.19 1.89 0.95 2.45 36.20 M23 15.00 2.00 0.45 10.00 45.86 135.19 28.79 28.41 2.11 1.89 0.95 2.65 33.60 M24 15.00 2.00 0.50 9.65 50.96 141.04 28.65 28.41 2.11 1.89 0.95 3.20 30.30 M25 15.00 2.50 0.40 11.20 32.61 115.26 29.58 28.41 2.19 1.89 0.76 2.45 30.40 M26 15.00 2.50 0.45 10.77 36.69 120.34 28.79 28.41 2.11 1.89 0.76 2.65 28.00 M27 15.00 2.50 0.50 10.40 40.77 125.51 28.65 28.41 2.11 1.89 0.76 3.20 25.10 4.2. Hull and material analysis 63

With respect the form factor (1 + 푘 or 1 + 훾푘), this represents a relevant component in Equation 4.4. This term, together with the frictional resistance, is used to compute the viscous resistance component defined by Hughes [88]. Different ways to determine the form factor are described and studied here below. First of all, before indicating the empirical prediction methods, a brief introduction of this concept will be made.

The total resistance of a ship can be described by two approaches, Froude Approach (traditional, Equation 4.10) or Hughes Approach (form factor, Equation 4.11). Froude approach relies on scaling all the resistance components, with the exception of the frictional component, according to Froude’s law. Meanwhile, Hughes approach is based on scaling the viscous resistance (skin friction and form) according to Reynolds law [88]. Both methods are not entirely correct as, in case of Froude’s approach, the form resistance component included within the residuary resistance depends on Reynolds and, in case of Hughes approach, the wave resistance component (dependent of Froude number) is interfered by the viscous resistance. Despite of these physical inaccuracies, Hughes method describes more precisely the resistance physics and it is the most commonly used approach in general [88].

퐶 = 퐶(푅푒) + 퐶(퐹푛) (4.10)

퐶 = 퐶(푅푒) + 퐶(퐹푛) = (1 + 푘)퐶(푅푒) + 퐶(퐹푛) (4.11) Therefore, to define the form factor, different methods exist. The Hughes method determines the form factor at low Froude numbers, experimental level and used as constant, independently of the Froude number [88]. At this range of speeds, the wave-making resistance component is nearly zero and, can consequently be neglected leading to Equation 4.12. Another method, and based on the same assumption, is Prohaska’s method described in Equation 4.13 (highly recommended by ITTC)[94].

퐶 퐶(퐹푛 < 0.1) ≈ 퐶 = (1 + 푘)퐶 → (1 + 푘) ≈ (4.12) 퐶 퐶 퐹푛 퐶(0.12 < 퐹푛 < 0.2) ≈ (1 + 푘)퐶 + 푦퐹푛 → = (1 + 푘) + 푦 (4.13) 퐶 퐶 On the other hand, empirical formulation exists to determine the form factor for practical powering purposes, e.g. concept designs [88]. Specifically for catamarans, the next prediction formulas might be applied:

• Couser et al. formulation [95]

퐷푒푚푖ℎ푢푙푙푠 (1 + 푘) = 2.76(퐿/∇/). (4.14) 퐶푎푡푎푚푎푟푎푛푠 (1 + 훾푘) = 3.03(퐿/∇/). (4.15)

• Armstrong formulation [93]

. 퐿 퐵 (1 + 푘) = 1.72 − 푓 ( ) ( ) 1 · 10 < 푅푒 < 2 · 10 ∇/ 푇 푓 = 2.25 퐹푛 − 4.47 퐹푛 + 1.61 0.6 < 퐹푛 < 1 (4.16) 푓 = 0.61 퐹푛 > 1 푔 = 0.76 − 1.09 푓

• Sahoo formulation from Molland et al. measurements [91] 퐵 퐿 푠 퐵 퐿 퐵 푠 퐿 푠 (1 + 훾푘) = 푎 + 푎 + 푎 + 푎 + 푎 (1 + 푘) + 푎 + 푎 + 푎 + 푇 ∇/ 퐿 푇 ∇/ 푇 퐿 ∇/ 퐿 퐵 퐿 푠 퐵 퐿 푠 + 푎 (1 + 푘) + 푎 (1 + 푘) + 푎 (1 + 푘) + 푎 + (4.17) 푇 ∇/ 퐿 푇 ∇/ 퐿 퐵 퐿 퐵 푠 퐿 푠 + 푎 (1 + 푘) + 푎 (1 + 푘) + 푎 (1 + 푘) 푇 ∇/ 푇 퐿 ∇/ 퐿 64 4. Concept Exploration

Table 4.9: Regression coefficient for Equation 4.17.

푎 0 푎 -2.506 푎 0.258 푎 -2.432 푎 2.505 푎 100.173 푎 -150.791 푎 -1.636 푎 4.932 푎 1.417 푎 -1.446 푎 -43.355 푎 68.628 푎 -2.927 푎 6.549

Moreover, the ITTC recommends the use of a form factor equal to one ((1 + 푘) = 1) for High-Speed Marine Vehicles (HSMV) when it can not be accurately estimated [96]. This assumption is taken due to the effect of transom sterns and the variation of wet surface with speed, making towing tank tests at low speeds not sufficiently reliable.

Another important peculiarity in the Couser et al. formulation is that the form factor remains constant, independently of the separation between demihulls. This contradicts the measurements performed by Molland et al. [89]. Consequently, a correction in the formulation will be added to consider the effect of the demihull separation. This correction, derived by Jamaluddin et al. [97], is defined as follows: (1 + 훾푘) = 3.03(퐿/∇/). + 0.016(푠/퐿). (4.18)

– Form factor analysis After indicating the different empirical formulas applicable to catamarans, the next step would be studying its applicability to the case study: Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters. This applicability analysis will be performed for each parametric model shown in Table 4.8.

First of all, Armstrong formulation will be analyzed due to the high Reynolds number requirements. In order to apply this formula at ship scale a minimum Reynolds number of 1·109 is required, this requirement leads to a minimum ship length of 100m at 22kn and even higher at lower speeds. In case this prediction equation is employed, the design would end up in a disproportional ferry. Consequently, this formulation is discarded as an applicable option. Regarding to the remaining predictions, Table 4.10 indicates the values obtained for each model at three different hull spacing (푠/퐿 equal to 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4).

From this table it is observed that the regression equation developed by Sahoo, Browne & Salas is quite inconsistent in the results, leading in some occasions to unrealistic form factors. This is noticeable in models where the form factor exceeds 1.65 (highest form factor measured by Molland et al. [89]), and/or the catamaran form factor is lower than the demihull value in isolation, which contradicts the statement that 훾 is higher than an unity (훾 > 1 for catamarans and 훾 = 1 for demihulls) [91]. See highlighted form factors in Table 4.10.

Therefore and in conclusion, the Couser et al. formulation corrected by Jamaluddin et al., to consider the hull spacing effect, will be employed for every model in order to keep consistency in the results.

Once the parametric models and form factors are set, the resistance analysis can be carried out. Be- fore making any calculation, two pre-studies are performed. The aim of these studies is to determine the applicability and reliability of the regression equations when the parametric models differ from the applicable range established by the authors, see Appendix D.

4.2.4. Resistance regression applicability In order to guarantee the reliability of the resistance results, an applicability study needs to be carried out. This subsection, Resistance regression applicability, performs such an analysis indicating the suitable regression method per parametric model attending to its dimensionless parameters. 4.2. Hull and material analysis 65

Table 4.10: Form factors for each parametric model.

Catamaran Catamaran Demihull (Couser et al.) (Sahoo et al.) - 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 Model 1 1.38 1.56 1.55 1.54 1.69 1.78 1.87 Model 2 1.40 1.58 1.57 1.56 1.78 1.91 2.04 Model 3 1.42 1.60 1.59 1.59 1.87 2.03 2.20 Model 4 1.33 1.50 1.49 1.48 1.43 1.49 1.54 Model 5 1.35 1.52 1.51 1.51 1.46 1.52 1.58 Model 6 1.37 1.54 1.53 1.53 1.48 1.55 1.62 Model 7 1.29 1.46 1.45 1.44 1.36 1.50 1.63 Model 8 1.31 1.48 1.47 1.46 1.35 1.47 1.59 Model 9 1.33 1.50 1.49 1.48 1.35 1.44 1.54 Model 10 1.22 1.39 1.37 1.37 1.34 1.24 1.15 Model 11 1.24 1.41 1.40 1.39 1.35 1.26 1.18 Model 12 1.26 1.43 1.42 1.41 1.37 1.30 1.23 Model 13 1.18 1.34 1.33 1.32 1.33 1.41 1.50 Model 14 1.19 1.36 1.35 1.34 1.33 1.40 1.48 Model 15 1.21 1.37 1.36 1.36 1.34 1.40 1.46 Model 16 1.14 1.30 1.29 1.28 1.23 1.57 1.90 Model 17 1.16 1.32 1.31 1.30 1.27 1.57 1.88 Model 18 1.18 1.34 1.33 1.32 1.29 1.57 1.85 Model 19 1.12 1.28 1.27 1.26 1.48 1.41 1.33 Model 20 1.14 1.30 1.29 1.28 1.42 1.34 1.25 Model 21 1.16 1.32 1.31 1.30 1.39 1.29 1.19 Model 22 1.08 1.23 1.22 1.22 1.37 1.58 1.80 Model 23 1.10 1.25 1.24 1.24 1.35 1.54 1.72 Model 24 1.11 1.27 1.26 1.26 1.34 1.50 1.66 Model 25 1.05 1.20 1.19 1.18 0.94 1.46 1.98 Model 26 1.07 1.22 1.21 1.20 1.01 1.49 1.97 Model 27 1.08 1.23 1.23 1.22 1.07 1.52 1.96

In Appendix D: Resistance prediction methods, the applicable parameter range of each regression is indicated. In case of the Molland et al. method [89] the main limitation is related to the block coefficient, as the regression equation was developed at a constant block coefficient of 0.4. Moreover, the slenderness ratio (퐿/∇/), which varies according to Equation 4.9, might also limit the application of the regression due to its lower range (6.3 < 퐿/∇/ < 9.5).

On the other hand, the regression developed by Sahoo, Browne & Salas [92] allows more variation in the forms (0.4 < 푐 < 0.5) but also limits its application to models with higher slenderness (10 < 퐿/퐵 < 15 and 8.04 < 퐿/∇/ < 11.2). Therefore, the following analysis will be divided in two sensitivity studies (푐 and slenderness).

• Block coefficient sensitivity This study is performed to observe the influence of the block coefficient value on the Molland et al. resistance results. Three models have been chosen to represent this influence, see Table 4.11. These models are featured by the same length (퐿), beam (퐵) and draft (푇) but different block coefficient (푐) and, hence, hull shape.

The main difference between these models is the stern hull body. In order to achieve the required block coefficient, the aft body was modified using fuller hull forms which led to a larger transom stern area, see Figures 4.8. Figures 4.9 indicate the total resistance results obtained using Molland et al. regression [89] and Slender body approach, as a validation method. 66 4. Concept Exploration

Table 4.11: Block coefficient sensitivity: Parametric models characteristics.

푐 ∇ 퐿 퐿 퐵 퐵 푇 푖 훽 [−] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푑푒푔] [푑푒푔] Model 13 0.40 29.89 21.69 20.83 2.19 1.89 0.95 3.25 36.20 Model 14 0.45 33.63 21.11 20.83 2.11 1.89 0.95 3.50 32.80 Model 15 0.50 37.37 21.00 20.83 2.11 1.89 0.95 4.25 30.30

From the results shown in Figures 4.9, it can be concluded that Molland et al. regression equation only provides reliable results when the block coefficient is kept constant and equal to 0.4.

(a) Model 13: . (b) Model 14: . (c) Model 15: .

Figure 4.8: Demihull lines: Model 13, 14 & 15.

(a) Model 13: . and / .. (b) Model 14: . and / ..

Figure 4.9: Block coefficient sensitivity: Resistance results of Model 13, 14 & 15 using Molland et al. and Slender body method. 4.2. Hull and material analysis 67

• Slenderness sensitivity Following a similar procedure, five models were chosen to study the influence of the slenderness in the results, these models were chosen because of their out-of-range slenderness ratio according to Molland et al. or Sahoo, Browne & Salas range. Table 4.12 shows the characteristics of such models. This study includes the analysis of the length-to-beam ratio (퐿/퐵) and slenderness ratio (퐿/∇/) for both regression methods.

Table 4.12: Slenderness sensitivity: Parametric models characteristics.

/ 퐿/퐵 퐵/푇 푐 퐿/∇ ∇ 퐿 퐿 퐵 퐵 푇 푖 훽 [−] [−] [−] [−] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푑푒푔] [푑푒푔] Model 1 7.00 1.50 0.40 5.69 25.37 13.81 13.26 2.19 1.89 1.26 5.50 41.30 Model 4 7.00 2.00 0.40 6.26 19.02 13.81 13.26 2.19 1.89 0.95 5.15 36.20 Model 7 7.00 2.50 0.40 6.74 15.22 13.81 13.26 2.19 1.89 0.76 5.15 30.40 Model 10 11.00 1.50 0.40 7.68 39.86 21.69 20.83 2.19 1.89 1.26 3.25 44.10 Model 25 15.00 2.50 0.40 11.20 32.61 29.58 28.41 2.19 1.89 0.76 2.45 30.40

Figures 4.10 indicate the resistance results. From these graphs it is observed that Molland et al. method is significantly sensitive when the model does not lay within the established range. Moreover, it can be also concluded that Sahoo, Browne & Salas regression is more robust and able to predict the resistance with lower error, even if the model lays outside the parameter range.

From this applicability study several conclusions can be extracted: – Molland et al. regression method significantly differs from realistic results (Slender body approach) when the block coefficient is distinct of 0.4. – Molland et al. prediction is more accurate at lower velocities than Sahoo, Browne & Salas prediction. – Sahoo, Browne & Salas prediction equation is more robust and accurately predicts the resistance at high speeds, even if the parameter range is not fulfilled. – Molland et al. method can only be applied within the parameter range, contrary to Sahoo, Browne & Salas regression.

4.2.5. Resistance analysis This analysis studies the resistance operational profile of the Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters. First of all, the dominant resistance component will be determined. Following this, a study of the influence of the separation between demihulls on the resistance will be performed. Finally, three models will be pointed out from this analysis as suitable options. Each model will present a different length- to-beam ratio (퐿/퐵) in order to have a wide perspective of feasible hull options.

• Dominant resistance study The dominant resistance component will be determined using only three models as samples, as great variations between models are not expected. Table 4.13 indicates the model features. These models / were chosen due to its different dimensionless ratios (푐, 퐿/퐵, 퐵/푇 and 퐿/∇ ).

Table 4.13: Dominant resistance study: Parametric models features.

/ 퐿/퐵 퐵/푇 푐 퐿/∇ ∇ 퐿 퐿 퐵 퐵 푇 푖 훽 [−] [−] [−] [−] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푑푒푔] [푑푒푔] Model 5 7.00 2.00 0.45 6.02 21.40 13.46 13.26 2.11 1.89 0.95 5.50 33.50 Model 18 11.00 2.50 0.50 8.46 29.89 21.00 20.83 2.11 1.89 0.76 4.25 25.00 Model 19 15.00 1.50 0.40 9.45 54.35 29.58 28.41 2.19 1.89 1.26 2.45 44.20 68 4. Concept Exploration

(a) Model 1: /∇/ ., / and / .. (b) Model 4: /∇/ ., / and / ..

(e) Model 25: /∇/ ., / and / ..

Figure 4.10: Slenderness sensitivity: Resistance results of Model 1, 4, 7, 10 & 25 using Molland et al., Sahoo, Browne & Salas and Slender body method.

Figures 4.11 shows that the dominant resistance corresponds to the viscous component (푅 or (1 + 훾푘)푅). Even though the wave and viscous resistances of Model 5 are relatively close at the sailing speed (22kn), the viscous resistance was expected to be the dominant component as the operational profile is located outside the main wave-resistance hump (0.4

In addition, despite the increase on the slenderness (퐿/퐵 and 퐿/∇/), which is the main feature used to reduce wave resistance, significant reductions have not been observed. This is evident by comparing the results of Model 5 and Model 19 in which the wave-making resistance was reduced around 1kN by increasing the length more than 10m. As a drawback of this length increase, the viscous resistance ((1 + 훾푘)푅) significantly increases leading not only to a larger total resistance but also higher construction costs due to more material is required.

Therefore, the main conclusions from this study are:

– The main dominant resistance component in this design is the viscous resistance.

– Lengthening the demihulls slightly reduces the wave-making resistance, meanwhile significantly increases the frictional resistance.

– Reducing the wet surface is more effective regarding to total resistance reduction than increasing the slenderness.

/ / (a) Model 5: ., /∇ ., / . and (b) Model 18: ., /∇ ., / . and / .. / ..

/ (c) Model 19: ., /∇ ., / . and / ..

Figure 4.11: Dominant resistance study: Resistance results of Model 5, 18 & 19 using Sahoo, Browne & Salas and Slender body method. 70 4. Concept Exploration

• Demihull separation study

Under the assumption that the demihull separation has the same effect on the resistance independently of the hull design, three models will be selected for this analysis to demonstrate such statement. The characteristics of the models are shown in Table 4.14.

Table 4.14: Demihull separation study: Parametric models features.

/ 퐿/퐵 퐵/푇 푐 퐿/∇ ∇ 퐿 퐿 퐵 퐵 푇 푖 훽 [−] [−] [−] [−] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푑푒푔] [푑푒푔] Model 8 7.00 2.50 0.45 6.48 17.12 13.46 13.26 2.11 1.89 0.76 5.50 27.90 Model 11 11.00 1.50 0.45 7.39 44.84 21.11 20.83 2.11 1.89 1.26 3.50 41.30 Model 27 15.00 2.50 0.50 10.40 40.77 28.65 28.41 2.11 1.89 0.76 3.20 25.10

Figures 4.12, 4.13 and 4.14 show the influence of the demihull separation. As it was stated, the same tendency is observed for the three models, although this influence is clearer in less slender models.

(a) Model 8: Sahoo et al. method. (b) Model 8: Slender body method

Figure 4.12: Demihull separation study: Resistance results of Model 8 using Sahoo, Browne & Salas and Slender body method.

(a) Model 11: Sahoo et al. method. (b) Model 11: Slender body method

Figure 4.13: Demihull separation study: Resistance results of Model 11 using Sahoo, Browne & Salas and Slender body method. 4.2. Hull and material analysis 71

(a) Model 27: Sahoo et al. method. (b) Model 27: Slender body method

Figure 4.14: Demihull separation study: Resistance results of Model 27 using Sahoo, Browne & Salas and Slender body method.

This tendency indicates that the more separation between demihulls, the less resistance interference is observed. However, the interference is more remarkable at Froude numbers between 0.4 and 0.7 (wave resistance hump). Therefore, with regards to this design, the demihull separation will not play a significant role in the resistance analysis, as at the design speed (22kn) its effect is not significantly appreciable. As consequence, the separation between demihulls will be seen as an option to increase the deck area in case it is needed.

Before moving on to the selection of the most suitable candidate systems, the breakdown of the total displacement and the procedure employed to estimate the structural and machinery weight will be explained. These guidelines and procedure are used to weed out non-feasible options.

• Total displacement breakdown

The displacement of any vessel is divided in Lightweight Tonnage (LWT) and Deadweight Tonnage (DWT) which comprises as well the following weight components [98], see Equation 4.19.

Δ = 퐿푊푇 + 퐷푊푇

퐿푊푇 = 푊 + 푊 + 푊 (4.19)

퐷푊푇 = 푊 + 푊 + 푊

The Deadweight Tonnage, with the exception of the fuel weight, is defined by the design requirements (passengers and bicycles). This weight will remain constant independently of the vessel dimensions and power plant employed. Additionally, a total crew of two officers on board is considered, based on similar fast ferries. The mass of each person and bicycle were assumed as 80kg and 20kg respectively.

On the other hand, the Lightweight Tonnage is compound of two weights which depend on either the main dimensions (푊) or power requirements (푊). The third weight component (푊) has been assumed constant and determined based on similar ferries too.

Regarding to the structural weight, this is estimated making use of Difference Method [98] which is stated to be very effective for parametric studies. This method, as well as the corrections it implies, is described in Equation 4.20 and Table 4.15. An extra correction (퐶) is added to the formula in order to adapt the weight when other materials than the reference one are employed.

푊 = 푊, (1 + 퐶 + 퐶 + 퐶 + 퐶 + 퐶 + 퐶)(1 + 퐶)퐶 (4.20) 72 4. Concept Exploration

Table 4.15: Difference Method: Correction coefficients [98].

Correction for different length - Δ퐿 = 퐿 − 퐿 퐶 = Δ퐿/퐿 Correction for different breadth - Δ퐵 = 퐵 − 퐵 퐶 = 0.7 Δ퐵/퐵 Correction for different side depth - Δ퐷 = 퐷 − 퐷 퐶 = 0.4 Δ퐷/퐷 Correction for local strengthening components as to the length 퐶 = 0.45 퐶 Correction for local strengthening components as to the breadth 퐶 = 0.35 퐶 Correction for local strengthening components as to the side depth 퐶 = 0.65 퐶 Correction for different block coefficient - Δ푐 = 푐, − 푐, 퐶 = Δ푐 Correction for different material 퐶 = 휌/휌

Taken into account these considerations and weight components, a minimum displacement has been established. Table 4.16 indicates the total weight breakdown and the lower displacement limit. A margin of 10% in the Lightweight Tonnage is used in order to take in consideration uncertainties such as superstructure shape.

Table 4.16: Total weight estimation breakdown of the Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters.

Structure Hull & Superstructure TBS a kg Commuters chairs (x40) 1000 kg Navigation chairs (x2) 250 kg Outfitting Lining & Lighting 750 kg Navigation systems 600 kg Machinery Zero-emission engine room TBS a kg LWT (10% margin) 2.86 t a Hydrogen H (18.00 kg/m at 25MPa) TBS kg Commuters (x40) 3200 kg POB Crew (x2) 160 kg Cargo Bicycles (x15) 300 kg DWT 3.66 t DISPLACEMENT 6.52 t

The machinery weight, including the mass of hydrogen, can be initially estimated using the results obtained from the Literature Review (Section 3.5). This estimation is helpful in the early stage of the resistance analysis to discard unfeasible hull designs and hence, avoid unnecessary calculations. This estimation procedure is indicated in Equation 4.21. In which the nominal power (푃) is determined from the total resistance results at 22kn and efficiencies indicated in Table 4.17.

푊,[푡] 7 푃 푊 ≈ 푃 = 푃 = (4.21) 푃,[푘푊] 560 80

Table 4.17: Machinery weight estimation: Coefficients and efficiencies [99].

Engine Margin (퐸푀) 0.8 Transmission efficiency (휂) 0.95 Propulsive efficiency (휂) 0.65

• Suitable models selection and filtering-out process In this last study the selection of the most suitable hull options (Candidate system concepts) will take place. With the aim of having a wide spectrum of possible feasible solutions, one model per each group aTo be specified. 4.2. Hull and material analysis 73 of length-to-beam ratio will be chosen.

First the models with a length-to-beam ratio equals to 7.0 will be studied. This group encompasses models 1 to 9, see Table 4.8. Taken into account that Molland et al. method [89] cannot be applied to all the models in this group, Sahoo, Browne & Salas regression [92] will be used for consistency.

Figure 4.15 shows the obtained resistance results of each model. This graph agrees with the conclusion from the dominant resistance study that greater resistance reductions are observed when the wet surface is reduced. From these results, it could be stated that Model 7 is the most suitable option from this group due to its lower resistance. However, before extracting any conclusion, a simple weight verification needs to be performed to guarantee floatability. Table 4.19 indicates such verification.

This verification shows that only few models guarantee the floatability of the Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters. In addition, the only structural material that ensures the weight fulfilment is CFRP, with exception of Model 3 which also allows the use of GRP as hull material.

Figure 4.15: Total resistance results using Sahoo, Browne & Salas method: / .

Table 4.18: Estimation of the structural weight using the Difference method [98]: / ..

Main dimensions Structural weight

퐿 퐵 푇 푐 Δ 푊. 푊. 푊. [푚] [푚] [푚] [−] [푡] [푡] [푡] [푡] Model 1 13.81 2.19 1.26 0.40 25.37 12.43 17.83 19.31 Model 2 13.44 2.11 1.26 0.45 28.54 11.80 16.94 18.34 Model 3 13.37 2.11 1.26 0.50 31.71 11.94 17.14 18.56 Model 4 13.81 2.19 0.95 0.40 19.02 12.08 17.33 18.77 Model 5 13.46 2.11 0.95 0.45 21.40 11.47 16.46 17.82 Model 6 13.37 2.11 0.95 0.50 23.78 11.59 16.63 18.01 Model 7 13.81 2.19 0.76 0.40 15.22 11.87 17.03 18.44 Model 8 13.46 2.11 0.76 0.45 17.12 11.26 16.16 17.49 Model 9 13.37 2.11 0.76 0.50 19.02 11.38 16.33 17.68 74 4. Concept Exploration

Table 4.19: Weight feasibility criteria: / ..

Machinery weight Total required weight Δ > 푊 푊 푊 푊 푊 . . . 퐶퐹푅푃 퐺푅푃 퐴푙 [푡] [푡] [푡] [푡] Model 1 4.37 25.00 30.95 32.57 YES NO NO Model 2 4.83 24.84 30.47 32.01 YES NO NO Model 3 5.35 25.54 31.26 32.81 YES YES NO Model 4 3.39 23.54 29.32 30.90 NO NO NO Model 5 3.71 23.22 28.70 30.20 NO NO NO Model 6 4.08 23.76 29.31 30.82 YES NO NO Model 7 2.85 22.71 28.39 29.94 NO NO NO Model 8 3.11 22.32 27.71 29.18 NO NO NO Model 9 3.39 22.77 28.21 29.70 NO NO NO

With respect to the second group of models (Model 10 - Model 18), Figure 4.16 shows the resistance results. Following the same procedure, Sahoo, Browne & Salas method has been used to determine the total resistance due to the greater stability in the results, as it was indicated in Subsection 4.2.4.

In this occasion, the number of feasible hull designs increased from four to seven, compared to the previous hull type. This is due to the increase of the hull length, which allows larger displacement with small resistance increments. Moreover, this hull length permits as well the application of aluminium (Model 11 & Model 12) and GRP in more than one model.

Figure 4.16: Total resistance results using Sahoo, Browne & Salas method: / ..

With regards to the last group of hull models (퐿/퐵 = 15.0), the same procedure is followed. Figure 4.17 indicates the total resistance results obtained from Sahoo, Browne & Salas method and Table 4.23 the weight verification criteria. 4.2. Hull and material analysis 75

Table 4.20: Estimation of the structural weight using the Difference method [98]: / ..

Main dimensions Structural weight

퐿 퐵 푇 푐 Δ 푊. 푊. 푊. [푚] [푚] [푚] [−] [푡] [푡] [푡] [푡] Model 10 21.69 2.19 1.26 0.40 39.86 17.31 24.85 26.90 Model 11 21.11 2.11 1.26 0.45 44.84 16.64 23.88 25.86 Model 12 21.00 2.11 1.26 0.50 49.82 16.83 24.15 26.15 Model 13 21.69 2.19 0.95 0.40 29.89 16.85 24.18 26.18 Model 14 21.11 2.11 0.95 0.45 33.63 16.17 23.21 25.13 Model 15 21.00 2.11 0.95 0.50 37.37 16.36 23.47 25.41 Model 16 21.69 2.19 0.76 0.40 23.92 16.57 23.78 25.74 Model 17 21.11 2.11 0.76 0.45 26.91 15.89 22.80 24.69 Model 18 21.00 2.11 0.76 0.50 29.89 16.07 23.06 24.97

Table 4.21: Weight feasibility criteria: / ..

Machinery weight Total required weight Δ > 푊 푊 푊 푊 푊 . . . 퐶퐹푅푃 퐺푅푃 퐴푙 [푡] [푡] [푡] [푡] Model 10 5.38 31.48 39.77 42.03 YES YES NO Model 11 5.95 31.37 39.34 41.51 YES YES YES Model 12 6.56 32.25 40.30 42.50 YES YES YES Model 13 4.17 29.64 37.71 39.91 YES NO NO Model 14 4.54 29.31 37.05 39.16 YES NO NO Model 15 4.95 29.95 37.78 39.91 YES NO NO Model 16 3.51 28.61 36.53 38.70 NO NO NO Model 17 3.80 28.18 35.78 37.85 NO NO NO Model 18 4.11 28.72 36.41 38.51 YES NO NO

Figure 4.17: Total resistance results using Sahoo, Browne & Salas method: / . 76 4. Concept Exploration

Table 4.22: Estimation of the structural weight using the Difference method [98]: / ..

Main dimensions Structural weight

퐿 퐵 푇 푐 Δ 푊. 푊. 푊. [푚] [푚] [푚] [−] [푡] [푡] [푡] [푡] Model 19 29.58 2.19 1.26 0.40 54.35 22.22 31.89 34.52 Model 20 28.79 2.11 1.26 0.45 61.15 21.48 30.83 33.38 Model 21 28.65 2.11 1.26 0.50 67.94 21.73 31.18 33.76 Model 22 29.58 2.19 0.95 0.40 40.77 21.63 31.04 33.61 Model 23 28.79 2.11 0.95 0.45 45.86 20.90 29.99 32.47 Model 24 28.65 2.11 0.95 0.50 50.96 21.13 30.32 32.83 Model 25 29.58 2.19 0.76 0.40 32.61 21.27 30.53 33.05 Model 26 28.79 2.11 0.76 0.45 36.69 20.54 29.48 31.92 Model 27 28.65 2.11 0.76 0.50 40.77 20.77 29.81 32.28

Table 4.23: Weight feasibility criteria: / ..

Machinery weight Total required weight Δ > 푊 푊 푊 푊 푊 . . . 퐶퐹푅푃 퐺푅푃 퐴푙 [푡] [푡] [푡] [푡] Model 19 6.07 37.64 48.27 51.17 YES YES YES Model 20 6.67 37.49 47.77 50.58 YES YES YES Model 21 7.25 38.39 48.79 51.62 YES YES YES Model 22 4.72 35.50 45.85 48.67 YES NO NO Model 23 5.12 35.14 45.14 47.86 YES YES NO Model 24 5.55 35.87 45.98 48.74 YES YES YES Model 25 4.00 34.32 44.50 47.28 NO NO NO Model 26 4.31 33.86 43.69 46.37 YES NO NO Model 27 4.63 34.46 44.40 47.12 YES NO NO

A summary of the resistance analysis at the sailing speed (22kn) and weight criteria for the complete parametric series is shown in Table 4.26. From this table it is observed that the more the length is increased, the more applications exists for aluminium and GRP as hull material.

To determine the most suitable candidate models, a simple estimation of the costs will be carried out. This cost analysis encompasses the acquisition cost or Capital Expenses (CAPEX) of the hull material and the OPEX and CAPEX of the propulsion plant. Taken into account that the machinery weight was defined based on a fuel cell plant configuration, the propulsion plant costs are estimated using hydrogen and fuel cell system prices.

Table 4.24 shows the material price per unit of mass of CFRP, GRP and Aluminium. The CAPEX of the composite materials indicates the price of the ended product, i.e. resins and reinforcing fibers are included. Moreover, these prices do not include labour expenses such as welding in case of aluminium.

With regards to the total propulsion plant costs, the CAPEX are defined by the fuel cell installation costs and the OPEX by the fuel price, as the hydrogen price is the main driver of the Operational Expenses. Table 4.25 indicates the average expenses in terms of the required fuel cell system power. The hydrogen price has been adapted considering the same fuel cell efficiency (0.55) and hydrogen LHV (119.96 MWh/kg) used in the Literature Review (Section 3.5). 4.2. Hull and material analysis 77

Table 4.24: Average material price: CFRP, GRP and Aluminium [100]&[101]

Average material price CFRP [퐸푈푅/푘푔] GRP [퐸푈푅/푘푔] Aluminium [퐸푈푅/푘푔] 47.5 30.5 5.3

Table 4.25: Average fuel cell plant costs [25]&[102].

Average fuel cell plant expenses

CAPEX [퐸푈푅/푘푊] OPEX [퐸푈푅/푘푊ℎ] 3460 0.27

From these average expenses, the following costs were estimated, see Tables 4.28. This cost estimation has been only performed for those hull models which fulfilled the weight requirement criteria, see Table 4.26.

Table 4.26: Weight feasibility criteria summary.

Resistance Displacement Total required weight Δ > 푊

푅 [푘푁] Δ [푡] 푊, [푡] 푊, [푡] 푊, [푡] CFRP GRP Al Model 1 15.2 25.37 25.00 30.95 32.57 YES NO NO Model 2 16.8 28.54 24.82 30.47 32.01 YES NO NO Model 3 18.6 31.71 25.54 31.26 32.81 YES YES NO Model 4 11.8 19.02 23.54 29.32 30.90 NO NO NO Model 5 12.9 21.40 23.22 28.70 30.20 NO NO NO Model 6 14.2 23.78 23.76 29.31 30.82 YES NO NO Model 7 9.92 15.22 22.71 28.39 29.94 NO NO NO Model 8 10.8 17.12 22.32 27.71 29.18 NO NO NO Model 9 11.8 19.02 22.77 28.21 29.70 NO NO NO Model 10 18.7 39.86 31.48 39.77 42.03 YES YES NO Model 11 20.7 44.84 31.37 39.34 41.51 YES YES YES Model 12 22.8 49.82 32.25 40.30 42.50 YES YES YES Model 13 14.5 29.89 29.64 37.71 39.91 YES NO NO Model 14 15.8 33.63 29.31 37.05 39.16 YES NO NO Model 15 17.2 37.37 29.95 37.78 39.91 YES NO NO Model 16 12.2 23.92 28.61 36.53 38.70 NO NO NO Model 17 13.2 26.91 28.18 35.78 37.85 NO NO NO Model 18 14.3 29.89 28.72 36.41 38.51 YES NO NO Model 19 21.1 54.35 37.64 48.27 51.17 YES YES YES Model 20 23.2 61.15 37.49 47.77 50.58 YES YES YES Model 21 25.2 67.94 38.39 48.79 51.62 YES YES YES Model 22 16.4 40.77 35.50 45.85 48.67 YES NO NO Model 23 17.8 45.86 35.14 45.14 47.86 YES YES NO Model 24 19.3 50.96 35.87 45.98 48.74 YES YES YES Model 25 13.9 32.61 34.32 44.50 47.28 NO NO NO Model 26 15.0 36.69 33.86 43.69 46.37 YES NO NO Model 27 16.1 40.77 34.46 44.40 47.12 YES NO NO

Table 4.28 shows the total expenses of the feasible hull models. As it was expected, those models that allow its construction in aluminium present lower Capital Expenses due to the significant difference between material prices. However, these ones also present the highest Operational Expenses, meaning in lower benefits or even losses depending on the scenario. Therefore, as low OPEX permit 78 4. Concept Exploration a greater flexibility in terms of ferry ticket price to increase competitiveness and higher incomes as well, CFRP turned into the first hull material option. In addition, other costs which would increment the total OPEX were not considered in the estimation, e.g. maintenance due corrosion in case of aluminium.

Taken into account this expense criteria, Model 6, 18 & 26 has been selected as the most suitable candidate models due to the lower resistance (power requirements) and hence, operational expenses. See Table 4.27. Moreover, several conclusions regarding to the design of zero-emission fast ferries can be extracted from these analyses:

– CFRP allows extend the design feasibility to smaller vessels. – The high demanding weight conditions highly constrain the applicability of materials other than CFRP. – Increases in the length allows larger deck areas with small resistance increments but conditioned by larger constructions costs.

Table 4.27: Features summary of the three most suitable options.

퐿 퐿 퐵 퐵 푇 Δ 푐 푖 훽 푅 [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푚] [푡] [−] [푑푒푔] [푑푒푔] [푘푁] Model 6 13.37 13.26 2.11 1.89 0.95 23.78 0.50 6.60 30.30 14.20 Model 18 21.00 20.83 2.11 1.89 0.76 29.89 0.50 4.25 25.00 14.30 Model 26 28.79 28.41 2.11 1.89 0.76 36.69 0.45 2.65 28.00 15.00

Table 4.28: Total estimated CAPEX and OPEX, 1st Table.

Fuel cell Structure Total CAPEX OPEX

CAPEX CAPEXCFRP CAPEXGRP CAPEXAl CAPEXCFRP CAPEXGRP CAPEXAl OPEX/trip M1 1.21 M€ 0.59 M€ - - 1.80 M€ - - 46.68 € M2 1.34 M€ 0.56 M€ - - 1.90 M€ - - 51.62 € M3 1.48 M€ 0.57 M€ 0.52 M€ - 2.05 M€ 2.00 M€ - 57.08 € M6 1.13 M€ 0.55 M€ - - 1.68 M€ - - 43.61 € M10 1.49 M€ 0.82 M€ 0.76 M€ - 2.31 M€ 2.25 M€ - 57.48 € M11 1.65 M€ 0.79 M€ 0.73 M€ 0.14 M€ 2.44 M€ 2.38 M€ 1.79 M€ 63.62 € M12 1.82 M€ 0.80 M€ 0.74 M€ 0.14 M€ 2.62 M€ 2.55 M€ 1.95 M€ 70.02 € M13 1.16 M€ 0.80 M€ - - 1.96 M€ - - 44.55 € M14 1.26 M€ 0.77 M€ - - 2.03 M€ - - 48.55 € M15 1.37 M€ 0.78 M€ 0.72 M€ - 2.15 M€ 2.09 M€ - 52.82 € M18 1.14 M€ 0.76 M€ - - 1.90 M€ - - 43.88 € M19 1.68 M€ 1.06 M€ 0.97 M€ 0.18 M€ 2.74 M€ 2.65 M€ 1.86 M€ 64.82 € M20 1.85 M€ 1.02 M€ 0.94 M€ 0.18 M€ 2.87 M€ 2.79 M€ 2.02 M€ 71.22 € M21 2.01 M€ 1.03 M€ 0.95 M€ 0.18 M€ 3.04 M€ 2.96 M€ 2.18 M€ 77.36 € M22 1.31 M€ 1.03 M€ - - 2.33 M€ - - 50.42 € M23 1.42 M€ 0.99 M€ 0.91 M€ - 2.41 M€ 2.33 M€ - 54.68 € M24 1.54 M€ 1.00 M€ 0.92 M€ 0.17 M€ 2.54 M€ 2.46 M€ 1.71 M€ 59.35 € M26 1.20 M€ 0.98 M€ - - 2.17 M€ - - 46.15 € M27 1.28 M€ 0.99 M€ - - 2.27 M€ - - 49.48 € 4.3. Energy production and storage analysis 79

• Shallow water correction

In Subsection 4.2.2: Resistance theory introduction, it was mentioned that additional corrections are needed in order to convert the deep-water resistance results in shallow-water results. However, C.B. Barras indicates that the shallow-water effects start to be noticeable at depth-draft ratios (h/T) defined by Equation 4.22 [103]. ℎ/푇 = 4.96 + 52.68(1 − 퐶) (4.22) Taken into account this equation and the water depth of the North Sea Canal (15.5m) and IJ waterway (10.5m) [67], the results shown in Table 4.29 were obtained. These results indicate that no significant effects are observed and therefore, the deep-water resistance results can be used for the next sections.

Table 4.29: Shallow water criteria [103].

Model 6 Model 18 Model 26 (퐶 = 0.796) (퐶 = 0.796) (퐶 = 0.765)

C.B. Barras study ℎ/푇 7.15 7.15 7.87 North Sea canal ℎ/푇 16.32 16.32 20.40 IJ waterway ℎ/푇 11.05 11.05 13.82

4.3. Energy production and storage analysis

This section studies the feasibility of the concept design from a marine engineering point of view. In the Literature Review (Section 3.2) it was mentioned that, in order to achieve a zero-emission fast ferry design, fuel cells, batteries or supercapacitors need to be employed. This analysis is divided in three independent subsections: Sailing condition, Docking condition and Hotel consumption. These subsections will be divided as well in the three different candidate hull models.

4.3.1. Sailing condition

• Model 6: 퐿 = 13.26푚, 퐵 = 1.89푚 and 푇 = 0.95푚

Table 4.30 indicates the characteristics of the operational condition of Model 6. The calculations in this subsection have been done considering the fuel cells S3 from PowerCell [104], the battery Nomada from SuperB [105] and the supercapacitors/ultracapacitors SkelMod from Skeleton [106], same technology used during the estimation in the Literature Review (Section 3.5). Tables 4.31, 4.32 and 4.33 show the characteristic of this technology.

From the information given in these tables, the propulsion plant configuration can be determined. First, a fuel cell plant configuration will be studied, followed later by a battery configuration. Due to the low energy storage properties, a supercapacitor configuration will not be studied for the sailing condition.

Table 4.30: Sailing condition: Model 6.

19 trips 18 trips 14 trips (15min freq.) (20min freq.) (30min freq.) Time [푚푖푛] 30 Velocity [푘푛] 22 Resistance [푘푁] 14.20 Nominal power [푘푁] 326.78 Nominal energy [푘푊ℎ/푡푟푖푝] 163.39 Nominal energy [푘푊ℎ/푑푎푦] 3104.41 2941.02 2287.46 80 4. Concept Exploration

Table 4.32: Nomada SuperB battery Table 4.31: PowerCell S3 fuel cell features [104]. features [105].

PowerCell S3 fuel cell Nomada SuperB battery Rated power [푘푊] 49 63 81 98 125 Length [푚푚] 437 Length [푚푚] 420 420 420 420 420 Width [푚푚] 90 Width [푚푚] 271 321 383 444 568 Height [푚푚] 175 Height [푚푚] 156 156 156 156 156 Mass [푘푔] 10 Mass [푘푔] 21 25 29 34 43 Nom. Capacity [퐴ℎ] 105 Nom. Voltage [푉] 12.8

Table 4.33: Skeleton SkelMod supercapacitors features [106].

Skeleton SkelMod ultracapacitors Nominal Voltage [푉] 17 51 102 131 170 Capacitance [퐹] 533 177 88 6.7 53 Length [푚푚] 418 418 502 396 920 Width [푚푚] 67 194 480 142 630 Height [푚푚] 183 188 155 213 370 Mass [푘푔] 4.4 15.8 28.8 5.1 63.0

– Fuel cell plant The required number of fuel cells and the needed amount of hydrogen to operate is determined from the Equations 4.23 and 4.24. Table 4.34 shows the obtained results. From these 5 options of fuel cells it is observed that S3-49kW fulfils the power requirement with the lowest overall weight contribution. This is due to the small excess of power which leads to less hydrogen on board.

푃 퐸 푁 ≈ (4.23) 푚 = (4.24) 푃, 퐿퐻푉 휂

The hydrogen tanks have been defined using the most common commercial sizes provided by Hexagon Lincoln [107] and optimized in order to minimized the weight contribution of the tanks. Within the available variety of tanks in terms of nominal working pressure, the 25MPa hydrogen tanks have been considered due to this pressure level is similar to the maximum fuel pressure that the PowerCell S3 fuel cells allow [104]. Table 4.35 shows the characteristics of these tanks.

Table 4.34: Model 6 fuel cell plant configuration at Sailing condition: Required fuel cells and Hydrogen mass.

S3-49kW S3-63kW S3-81kW S3-98kW S3-125kW Units [−] 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 FC mass [푘푔] 147.00 150.00 145.00 136.00 129.00 FC volume [푚] 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.11 Installed power [푘푊] 343.00 378.00 405.00 392.00 375.00 Nominal energy [푘푊ℎ/푡푟푖푝] 171.50 189.00 202.50 196.00 187.50 H2 mass [푘푔/푡푟푖푝] 9.36 10.31 11.05 10.69 10.23 19 trips 2419.40 2664.20 2846.30 2746.00 2588.60 H2 mass [푘푔/푑푎푦] 18 trips 2294.40 2506.80 2688.90 2588.60 2500.60 (including tank) 14 trips 1767.20 1949.30 2106.70 2049.60 1949.30

With regards to the rest of essential equipment in a fuel cell plant, these are indicated in Table 4.36. This equipment coincides with the equipment used in the estimations of the Literature Review (Sec- tion 3.5), with exception of the ACDC inverter [108] and switchboard. These changes were made 4.3. Energy production and storage analysis 81

Table 4.35: Hexagon Type 4 hydrogen cylinder features [107].

Working pressure Diameter Length Tank weight H2 capacity Water volume [푀푃푎] [푚푚] [푚푚] [푘푔] [푘푔] [퐿] 25 541 2783 164 8.0 450 25 503 2342 94 6.3 350 25 654 2413 147 10.4 581 25 653 4419 267 21.0 1170 25 653 5689 342 27.8 1544 as more information about the consumers was available, making possible a more accurate estimation. The switchboard, as its dimensions varies depending on the electrical installation [109], has been dimensioned with the help of Arjen Zijlmans, Expert Engineer Electric Systems at C-Job.

Table 4.36: Essential equipment required in a fuel cell electric propulsion system.

Dimensions Weight Units [푚푚] [푘푔] [−] DC/DC converter 529×414×271 75 2 AC/DC inverter 261×392×146 16 2 Switchboard 1000×400×1000 300 1 Electric motor 565×D560 400 2 FC air subsystem 676×418×355 60 4 FC cooling subsystem 737×529×379 45 4

Taking into account the equipment indicated in the previous Tables 4.34 and 4.36, the total weight of the propulsion plant (Machinery weight) is determined, see Table 4.37. This table indicates as well the total estimated costs (CAPEX and OPEX), defined following the same procedure as in Subsection 4.2.5: Resistance analysis. In this occasion the expenses, both CAPEX and OPEX, are expressed as a range. DNV-GL estimates this range between 3000$/kW and 4500$/kW (2767.2€/kW - 4150.8€/kW) for CAPEX and 3.5$/kg - 8.3$/kg (3.2€/kg - 7.6€/kg) for OPEX [25]&[102].

Both, Table 4.34 and 4.37 shows the great influence of the schedule, i.e. the number of trips per day, in the design of the propulsion plant. In this case, fuel cell plant, the influence is related to the amount of hydrogen to store on board and, consequently, the operational expenses. This is observed by comparing the results, in which the hydrogen mass and expenses can be reduced up to approximately 700kg and 350EUR, respectively.

– Battery plant

In this occasion, the battery plant will be dimensioned in order to extend as much as possible the cycle life. In the Literature Review (Section 3.2), it was indicated that to guarantee reliable operations and longer life expectations, high charge and discharge rates, fast charging processes at high current values and high charge and discharge states need to be avoided. Therefore, limitations on the State of Charge (SoC), Depth of Discharge (DoD) and intensity are applied.

Consequently, in order to prolong battery life, the State of Charge and Depth of Discharge have been both limited to 80%. This limitation implies a useful battery capacity of 60% (63Ah) with respect the nominal capacity. In addition to this constraint, SuperB Lithium Power B.V. establishes certain restrictions with respect the charge and discharge voltage and current. These restrictions are shown in Table 4.38. Moreover, SuperB Lithium Power B.V. also suggests to fully charge the batteries every one or two weeks in order to balance the cells and calibrate the SoC measurements. 82 4. Concept Exploration

Table 4.37: Model 6 fuel cell plant configuration at Sailing condition: Total estimated weight and expenses.

Equipment Mass [푘푔] Volume [푚] Units [−] Fuel Cells 147.00 0.12 7 Air subsystem 240.00 0.40 4 Cooling subsystem 180.00 0.59 4 DCDC converter 150.00 0.12 2 ACDC inverter 32.00 0.03 2 Electric motor 800.00 0.28 2 Switchboard 300.00 0.40 1 TOTAL 4089.00 kg 14.31 m3 (19 trips) (excluding H2 mass 3973.00 kg 13.76 m3 (18 trips) and including H2 tanks) 3484.00 kg 11.04 m3 (14 trips) CAPEX 0.95 M€ - 1.42 M€ 0.58 k€ - 1.37 k€ (19 trips) OPEX per day 0.55 k€ - 1.30 k€ (18 trips) 0.43 k€ - 1.01 k€ (14 trips)

Table 4.38: Nomada SuperB battery: Charge & Discharge Specifications [105].

Charge method CCCVa Charge Voltage 14.3 - 14.6 V Max Charge Current 105 A Cut-off Discharge Voltage 10 V Discharge Current Continuous 315 A Discharge Pulse Current (10s) 525 A

With respect to the charge and discharge rates, these are commonly defined by the C-rate. C-rate is a measure of the rate at which a battery is discharged or charged relative to its maximum capacity. Furthermore, this relation is equivalent to compare the output battery power over the battery energy (E-rate) [110]. Equation 4.25 indicates these definitions.

푃 [푘푊] 퐼 [퐴] 퐸푟푎푡푒 = ≡ 퐶푟푎푡푒 = (4.25) 퐸 [푘푊ℎ] 퐶 [퐴ℎ] Table 4.38 points out that the maximum current, which allows a continuous discharge, is 315A. This implies a maximum discharge rate (C-rate) of 3C (20min). With regards to the charging process, the maximum C-rate is 1C (60min), as the nominal capacity and maximum charge current are equal.

In the Literature Review (Section 3.5) it was shown that if the propulsion plant is designed to operate for the whole day without charging (oversizing), the weight and volume requirements (approx. 50t and 35m3) would lead to a disproportional ship design. Therefore, for the sailing condition the battery plant can only be designed to charge between trips.

To determine the required number of batteries, first the operational current needs to be calculated. This one will be determined in way that a complete discharge of the battery capacity is made within the sailing time. These calculations, as well as the method to determine the number of batteries, are shown here below: 퐼 1 퐼 퐶푟푎푡푒 = → = → I=126 A 퐶 30/60 [ℎ] 63 [퐴ℎ]

퐸 푁 · 푁 ≈ (4.26) 퐼 푉 푡 휂 aConstant Current, Constant Voltage. 4.3. Energy production and storage analysis 83

Once the discharge current is known, the battery plant can be designed. Table 4.39 indicates the required number of batteries as well as their operational characteristics. As the number of batteries obtained was an irregular number to distribute between parallel and series connection, extra batteries were added to avoid imbalances in the voltage and capacity, as these could lead to excessive heat and become a fire hazard [111]. Increasing the number of batteries increase as well the installed energy and, therefore, the excess of energy. In order to avoid this excess, the current has been adjusted.

Table 4.39: Model 6 battery configuration characteristics for one trip at Sailing condition.

Output required power (Poutput) 261.42 kW Output required energy (Eoutput) 130.71 kWh Voltage (V) 12.80 V Capacity (C) 63.00 Ah Current (I) 124.69 A C-ratea 1.98 Round-trip Efficiency (휂) 0.80 Charge efficiency (휂) 0.90 Useful power (Puseful) 1.44 kW Useful energy (Euseful) 0.72 kWh Units 182 7p×26s Depth of Discharge (DoD)b 99.0 %

The charge and discharge efficiency of the battery, which has been assumed equal, is defined by the company HOMER Energy LLC specialized on Hybrid Optimization of Multiple Energy Resources as the square root of the battery round-trip efficiency. The round-trip efficiency represents the fraction of energy put into the storage that can be retrieved [112]. Typically, this one is taken as 0.8 and hence, the discharge and charge efficiency as 0.9.

Table 4.40 shows the total battery plant weight and volume estimation. The other equipment has been defined by the same commercial products as in the fuel cell plant, with exception of the air and cooling subsystems. Moreover, the cost analysis is based on the estimations of DNV-GL [25]&[102] which estimates the CAPEX as 550$/kWh - 1400$/kWh (507.3€/kWh - 1291.4€/kWh), plus an added cost of 160$/kW (147.6€/kW) due power conversion, and OPEX (electricity) as 0.09$/kWh - 0.30$/kWh (0.08€/kWh - 0.28€/kWh).

Table 4.40: Model 6 battery plant configuration at Sailing condition: Total estimated weight and expenses.

Equipment Mass [푘푔] Volume [푚] Units [−] Batteries 1820 1.25 182 DCDC converter 150.00 0.12 2 ACDC inverter 32.00 0.03 2 Electric motor 800.00 0.28 2 Switchboard 300.00 0.40 1 TOTAL 3102.00 kg 2.08 m3 CAPEX 0.12 M€ - 0.32 M€ 0.26 k€ - 0.86 k€ (19 trips) OPEX per day 0.24 k€ - 0.81 k€ (18 trips) 0.19 k€ - 0.63 k€ (14 trips)

As it was mentioned before, batteries need to be charged after every trip and, in addition, can only be charged at a 1C rate, according to the specifications given in Table 4.38. Table 4.41 indicates the aC-rate with respect useful capacity (63Ah). bDepth of Discharge with respect useful capacity (63Ah). 84 4. Concept Exploration maximum amount of energy that can be supplied for the three suggested schedules.

Table 4.41: Charging process specifications for Sailing condition.

Time moored C [퐴ℎ] I [퐴] V [푉] C-rate Power [푘푊] Energy [푘푊ℎ] SoC 10min 63 63 14.45 1C 149.12 24.85 16.7% 15min 63 63 14.45 1C 149.12 37.28 25.0% 25min 63 63 14.45 1C 149.12 62.13 41.7%

As it is observed the batteries cannot be fully charged for any of the schedules. Therefore, other alternatives need to be applied, one alternative might be to locate 2 extra battery packs per ferry on shore (one in each terminal) to swap the batteries after each trip. This alternative implies a crane and a crane operator to load and unload the batteries. However, this can not be applied due to the limited available time to load and unload the batteries and to embark and disembark the passengers as well.

Another alternative would be to implement extra ferries in the schedule. This alternative has a similar concept that the previous one, but in this occasion the batteries are not swapped. The extra number of ferries required depends on the schedule, in order to provide a continuous service 8 more ferries for the 15-min frequency, 6 for the 20min-frequency and 4 extra ferries for the 30min-frequency schedule are needed. This alternative allows to reduce fuel costs but increases the initial investment due to the larger fleet. Figure 4.18 indicates the evolution of the cumulative costs along the ferry life expectancy (approx. 30 years) for these two options, fuel cells and batteries. This cost estimation takes also into account the maintenance expenses that replacing batteries and fuel cells imply, see Table 4.42.

As it is observed due to the large investment that a bigger ferry fleet implies, no significant reductions in the expenses are seen when the worst-case scenario is used to compare (maximum possible expenses). Furthermore, this alternative presents the disadvantage that more maintenance operations are required due to the low cycle life of batteries, meaning in more downtime and less income.

Table 4.42: Replacement year of batteries and fuel cells: Sailing condition.

Batteries Fuel Cells Cycles/day Max. cycles Replace after Hours/day Max. hours Replace after 15min-freq. 9 3500 1.11 years 9.5 20000 6.02 years 20min-freq. 9 3500 1.11 years 9 20000 6.35 years 30min-freq. 8 3500 1.25 years 7 20000 8.16 years

In conclusion, the operation at Sailing condition is possible by the use of a fuel cell plant configuration. This is due to loading and unloading the batteries and also embarking and disembarking the commuters can not be ensured in the required time (mooring time) and in a safe manner, and implementing more ferries, as second alternative, makes no reduction in the costs and, moreover, increases the ferry downtime.

• Model 18: 퐿 = 20.83푚, 퐵 = 1.89푚 and 푇 = 0.76푚

The power plant of Model 18 is designed following the same methodology and steps done for the previous hull model. First of all, the operational profile needs to be indicated. Table 4.43 shows this profile and the power and energy requirements of Model 18 at the Sailing condition.

In addition to following the same methodology, the equipment considered in the design will not change as well. Furthermore, as the power and energy requirements have not varied significantly with respect to the previous model, the battery plant will not be determined, as it was already demonstrated not to be feasible due to safety and downtime reasons. Consequently, only the fuel cell plant is defined. 4.3. Energy production and storage analysis 85

(a) 15min-frequency schedule. (b) 20min-frequency schedule.

Figure 4.18: Sailing power plant and Hull cumulative expenses.

Table 4.43: Sailing condition: Model 18.

19 trips 18 trips 14 trips (15min freq.) (20min freq.) (30min freq.) Time [푚푖푛] 30 Velocity [푘푛] 22 Resistance [푘푁] 14.30 Nominal power [푘푊] 329.08 Nominal energy [푘푊ℎ/푡푟푖푝] 164.54 Nominal energy [푘푊ℎ/푑푎푦] 3126.27 2961.73 2303.57

– Fuel cell plant

Same as in Model 6, Table 4.44 shows the different fuel cell options and their weight contributions. As it is observed the obtained results coincide with the values of Model 6, this is due to the insignificant difference between the resistance of both hull models. As a result, the fuel cell power plant of Model 18 is identical to the previous hull model, see Table 4.45.

Hence and in conclusion, both hull models present the same CAPEX and OPEX with regards to the propulsion plant but they differ in terms of the material employed, leading, in case of Model 18, to higher material expenses and overall CAPEX. 86 4. Concept Exploration

Table 4.44: Model 18 fuel cell plant configuration at Sailing condition: Required fuel cells and Hydrogen mass.

Table 4.45: Model 18 fuel cell plant configuration at Sailing condition: Total estimated weight and expenses.

• Model 26: 퐿 = 28.41푚, 퐵 = 1.89푚 and 푇 = 0.76푚 Table 4.46 indicates the operational profile of Model 26 for the Sailing condition. As same as in the previous two hull models, no changes with regards to the equipment of the power plant will be made and, in addition, the battery plant configuration for this operational condition is discarded as well.

Table 4.46: Sailing condition: Model 26.

19 trips 18 trips 14 trips (15min freq.) (20min freq.) (30min freq.) Time [푚푖푛] 30 Velocity [푘푛] 22 Resistance [푘푁] 15.00 Nominal power [푘푊] 345.19 Nominal energy [푘푊ℎ/푡푟푖푝] 172.19 Nominal energy [푘푊ℎ/푑푎푦] 3279.30 3106.71 2416.33

– Fuel cell plant Using the fuel cell options given in Table 4.31, the following required fuel cells and hydrogen mass are obtained. In this case the amount of fuel cells and hydrogen has increased compared with the previous two hull models. Table 4.47 shows these differences. 4.3. Energy production and storage analysis 87

Table 4.47: Model 26 fuel cell plant configuration at Sailing condition: Required fuel cells and Hydrogen mass.

S3-49kW S3-63kW S3-81kW S3-98kW S3-125kW Units [−] 8.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 FC mass [푘푔] 168.00 150.00 145.00 136.00 129.00 FC volume [푚] 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.11 Installed power [푘푊] 392.00 378.00 405.00 392.00 375.00 Nominal energy [푘푊ℎ/푡푟푖푝] 196.00 189.00 202.50 196.00 187.50 H2 mass [푘푔/푡푟푖푝] 10.69 10.31 11.05 10.69 10.23 19 trips 2746.00 2664.20 2846.30 2746.00 2588.60 H2 mass [푘푔/푑푎푦] 18 trips 2588.60 2506.80 2688.90 2588.60 2500.60 (including tank) 14 trips 2049.60 1949.30 2106.70 2049.60 1949.30

Table 4.48: Model 26 fuel cell plant configuration at Sailing condition: Total estimated weight and expenses.

Equipment Mass [푘푔] Volume [푚] Units [−] Fuel Cells 129.00 0.11 3 Air subsystem 180.00 0.30 3 Cooling subsystem 135.00 0.44 3 DCDC converter 150.00 0.12 2 ACDC inverter 32.00 0.03 2 Electric motor 800.00 0.28 2 Switchboard 300.00 0.40 1 TOTAL 4120.00 kg 15.02 m3 (19 trips) (excluding H2 mass 4042.00 kg 14.55 m3 (18 trips) and including H2 tanks) 3530.00 kg 11.67 m3 (14 trips) CAPEX 1.04 M€ - 1.56 M€ 0.63 k€ - 1.49 k€ (19 trips) OPEX per day 0.60 k€ - 1.41 k€ (18 trips) 0.47 k€ - 1.11 k€ (14 trips)

As it is observed from the previous table, the required number of S3-49kW fuel cells has increased in one unit, making them one of the heaviest options for this hull model. Due to this increase, S3-125kW turned to be the best option in terms of total weight contribution. Therefore, considering this fuel cell, the following plant was designed, see Table 4.48.

4.3.2. Docking condition

• Model 6: 퐿 = 13.26푚, 퐵 = 1.89푚 and 푇 = 0.95푚

The operational profile of Model 6 for the docking condition is shown in Table 4.50. In view of the low power requirement, a different fuel cell will be employed in order to avoid large excess of power. This fuel cell refers to the Ballard fuel cell FCvelocity - 9SSL, Table 4.49 indicates its features. In case of the battery configuration, this low required power will not affect the battery plant design and hence, Nomada battery from SuperB is considered.

Following the same structure and methodology as in the previous subsection (Sailing condition), first a fuel cell plant configuration will be studied, continued later by a battery configuration. In addition, as a result of the low energy per trip, a supercapacitor power plant will be analysed as well. 88 4. Concept Exploration

Table 4.49: Ballard FCvelocity - 9SSL fuel cell features [113].

Ballard FCvelocity - 9SSL fuel cell Rated power [푘푊] 3.8 4.8 10.5 14.3 17.2 21.0 Length [푚푚] 92 104 174 220 255 302 Width [푚푚] 760 760 760 760 760 760 Height [푚푚] 60 60 60 60 60 60 Mass [푘푔] 7.1 7.2 10.7 13 15 17

Table 4.50: Docking condition: Model 6.

19 trips 18 trips 14 trips (15min freq.) (20min freq.) (30min freq.) Time [푚푖푛] 2.5 (docking) and 2.5 (undocking) Velocity [푘푛] 6 Resistance [푘푁] 0.96 Nominal power [푘푊] 6.03 Nominal energy [푘푊ℎ/푡푟푖푝] 0.25 (docking) and 0.25 (undocking) Nominal energy [푘푊ℎ/푑푎푦] 4.77 (x2) 4.52 (x2) 3.51 (x2)

– Fuel cell plant

The calculations for the docking condition are based on the same principle as for the sailing condition, the only dissimilarity on the calculations is the operational time. In this case both operations, docking and undocking, need to be considered together, leading to a total operational time of 5 minutes (2.5min each operation). Table 4.51 presents the results obtained for this operational profile.

Due to the little required mass of hydrogen and the standard sizes of the hydrogen tanks, all the fuel cells present the same weight contribution regards to hydrogen (Hydrogen mass and Hydrogen tank). Therefore, the fuel cell FC-10.5kW is considered for the design of the docking fuel cell plant, based on the lower fuel cell mass.

Table 4.51: Model 6 fuel cell plant configuration at Docking condition: Required fuel cells and Hydrogen mass.

FC-3.8kW FC-4.8kW FC-10.5kW FC-14.3kW FC-17.2kW Units [−] 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FC mass [푘푔] 14.20 14.40 10.70 13.00 15.00 FC volume [푚] 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Installed power [푘푊] 7.60 9.60 10.50 14.30 17.20 Nominal energy [푘푊ℎ/푡푟푖푝] 3.80 4.80 5.25 7.15 8.60 H2 mass [푘푔/푡푟푖푝] 0.035 0.044 0.048 0.065 0.078 19 trips 100.3 100.3 100.3 100.3 100.3 H2 mass [푘푔/푑푎푦] 18 trips 100.3 100.3 100.3 100.3 100.3 (including tank) 14 trips 100.3 100.3 100.3 100.3 100.3

Therefore, considering this fuel cell, the following fuel cell plant is defined. As the essential electrical equipment (DCDC converters, ACDC inverters, electric motors and switchboard) has been already considered in the previous estimation (Sailing condition), only the fuel cells, hydrogen tanks (excluding the hydrogen mass) and air and cooling subsystems contributes to the total weight of the plant (Machinery weight). Table 4.52 shows this weight contribution as well as the related expenses. 4.3. Energy production and storage analysis 89

Table 4.52: Model 6 fuel cell plant configuration at Docking condition: Total estimated weight and expenses.

Equipment Mass [푘푔] Volume [푚] Units [−] Fuel Cells 10.70 0.01 1 Air subsystem 60.00 0.10 1 Cooling subsystem 45.00 0.15 1 TOTAL 209.70 kg 0.72 m3 (19 trips) (excluding H2 mass 209.70 kg 0.72 m3 (18 trips) and including H2 tanks) 209.70 kg 0.72 m3 (14 trips) CAPEX 29.06 k€ - 43.58 k€ 2.93€ - 6.94€ (19 trips) OPEX per day 2.77€ - 6.58€ (18 trips) 2.16€ - 5.12€ (14 trips)

– Battery plant

Contrary to the Sailing condition, the docking condition allows two options for the design of the battery plant. From one side, the battery plant can be configured to operate the whole day without charging in between trips, meaning in less charging cycles per day, and from the other side, the plant can be also designed to charge between trips and hence, reduce the battery weight on board. These both options are applicable due to the low energy requirement.

Table 4.53 and 4.54 show these two options, respectively. These results have been calculated following the same procedure shown in Subsection 4.3.1: Sailing condition. In Table 4.53, the characteristics of the charging process for the first battery plant option are also indicated. For this operational condition, irregular number of batteries was obtained as well and, hence, extra batteries were added to avoid imbalances.

Table 4.53: Model 6 battery plant configuration at Docking condition for one trip.

(a) Battery configuration characteristics: Discharge.

Poutput Eoutput V C I C-rate 휂 Puseful Euseful Units DoD 4.82kW 0.40kWh/trip 12.80V 63Ah 52.30A 0.83C 0.9 0.60kW 0.05kWh 4p×2s 6.92%

(b) Total estimated weight and expenses.

Equipment Mass [푘푔] Volume [푚] Units [−] Batteries 80 0.06 8 TOTAL 80.00 kg 0.06 m3 CAPEX 5.46 k€ - 13.89 k€ 0.79€ - 2.64€ (19 trips) OPEX per day 0.75€ - 2.50€ (18 trips) 0.58€ - 1.95€ (14 trips)

Time moored C I V C-rate Puseful Euseful DoD 10min 63Ah 26.06A 14.45V 0.41C 2.71kW 0.45kWh 6.89% 15min 63Ah 17.16A 14.45V 0.28C 1.81kW 0.45kWh 6.89% 25min 63Ah 10.30A 14.45V 0.17C 1.08kW 0.45kWh 6.89% 90 4. Concept Exploration

Table 4.54: Model 6 battery plant configuration at Docking condition for one operational day.

(a) Battery plant configuration characteristics: Discharge.

C [퐴ℎ] I [퐴] V [푉] C-rate Power [푘푊] Energy [푘푊ℎ] Units DoD 19trips 63 34.87 12.8 0.55 0.40 0.64 6p×2s 87.6% 18trips 63 42.00 12.8 0.67 0.48 0.73 5p×2s 100% 14trips 63 54.00 12.8 0.86 0.62 0.73 4p×2s 100%

(b) Total estimated weight and expenses.

Equipment Mass [푘푔] Volume [푚] Units [−] Batteries 120 0.08 12 TOTAL 120.00 kg 0.08 m3 CAPEX 8.18 k€ - 20.83 k€ (19 trips) OPEX per day 0.79€ - 2.64€ Batteries 100 0.07 10 TOTAL 100.00 kg 0.07 m3 CAPEX 6.82 k€ - 17.36 k€ (18 trips) OPEX per day 0.75€ - 2.51€ Batteries 80 0.06 8 TOTAL 80.00 kg 0.06 m3 CAPEX 5.46 k€ - 13.89 k€ (14 trips) OPEX per day 0.60€ - 2.01€

The main differences between both battery options are related to the amount of batteries on board which leads to higher capital expenses and machinery weight. Carrying all the required energy on board has the advantage of simplifying the operations and prolonging the battery life due the lower charging cycles per day. This prolonged life will reduce future capital expenses as the durability of the batteries is increased and therefore, less battery changes are required over the whole ship life.

– Supercapacitor plant

Supercapacitors are characterized by providing high power rates and charging in short periods of time, but they are also featured by their low stored energy properties. In the Literature Review (Section 3.5), it was shown the possibility of using supercapacitors for the docking condition due to the low energy requirements.

Similar as in the battery configuration, limitations in the charge and discharge states are applied. In case of supercapacitors, these limitations are applied on the voltage, setting a minimum and maximum. This is due to supercapacitor’s voltage varies on time. In addition, in order to provide a constant power in the discharge process, the intensity needs to vary on time as well. These two parameters vary according to Equations 4.27 and 4.28 [114].

2 푃 푁 푉 2 푁 푉(푡) = √푉 − 푡 (4.27) 퐼(푡) = √ − 푡 (4.28) 푁 푁 퐶 푁 푃 푁 퐶 푃

In which the capacitance (C) is assumed constant and the required number of supercapacitors (N) is defined by Equation 4.29 [114]. With regards to the charging process, this will be carried out at constant current, being determined as Equation 4.30 shows. 4.3. Energy production and storage analysis 91

푉 − 푉 2 푃 푁 = 푁 푁 = 푡 (4.29) 퐼 = 퐶 (4.30) 푡. 퐶 (푉 − 푉)

Being:

• 푉 - Maximum voltage [V] • 푉 - Lower voltage level after discharge [V]

• 푉 - Cut-off voltage [V] • 푃 - Required useful power [W]

Taken into account the previous equations, the following number of supercapacitors were obtained. Table 4.55 indicates the required number of units as well as the weight contribution of each supercapacitor shown in Table 4.33. The voltage has been limited to 20% (minimum) and 80% (maximum) of the nominal voltage, similar limitation as the 80% on SoC and DoD in batteries. From this table, it is observed that the supercapacitor with a capacitance (C) of 533F presents the lowest contribution to the total weight. In addition, the table shows that the supercapacitors nearly have zero losses. This is due to the low Equivalent Series Resistance (ESR) of supercapacitors. Equations 4.31, 4.32 and 4.33 show an approximation of the discharge, charge and round-trip efficiency [115].

1/2 (푉 − 푉) 휂 ≈ (4.31) 1/2 (푉 − 푉) + 퐼 퐸푆푅 (푉 − 푉)

1/2 (푉 − 푉) 휂 = (4.32) 1/2 (푉 − 푉) + 퐼 퐸푆푅 (푉 − 푉)

휂 = 휂 · 휂 (4.33)

Table 4.55: Model 6 supercapacitor configuration characteristics for one trip at Docking condition.

Output required power (Preq) 4.82 kW Output required energy (Ereq) 0.40 kWh/trip

V0 [푉] 13.6 40.8 81.6 104.8 136.0 C [퐹] 533.0 177.0 88.0 6.7 53.0 ESR [푚Ω] 1.3 4.0 7.6 75.7 12.7 Iavg [푚퐴] 0.06 0.51 2.00 0.32 5.33 Ich [퐴] 8.60 8.10 6.93 0.87 5.86 휂 [−] 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 휂 [−] 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 휂 [−] 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Units [−] 32p×1s 11p×1s 6p×1s 42p×1s 4p×1s M [푘푔] 140.8 173.8 172.8 212.1 252.0 DoD [%] 94.9% 89.6% 77.2% 99.5% 65.0%

Therefore, using this supercapacitor as energy storage system, the following power plant is defined. Table 4.56 shows the capital and operational expenses as well as the volume and mass properties of this supercapacitor plant. The CAPEX has been defined assuming a cost per energy of 10000$/kWh (9224€/kWh) [116], meanwhile the OPEX are determined based on the electricity expenses estimated by DNV-GL [25]&[102].

Once the three power plant alternatives are defined, a similar cost analysis as in the sailing condition will be performed. Following the same procedure, Table 4.57 indicates the number of cycles per day as well as the years in operation before replacement is required, and Figures 4.19 the evolution of the total expenses. In this case as the power plant configuration does not affect the fleet, the structural expenses will not be included in the cost estimation. 92 4. Concept Exploration

Table 4.56: Model 6 supercapacitor plant configuration at Docking condition.

Equipment Mass [푘푔] Volume [푚] Units [−] Supercapacitors 140.8 0.17 32 TOTAL 140.80 kg 0.17 m3 CAPEX 6.29 k€ 0.63€ - 2.11€ (19 trips) OPEX per day 0.60€ - 2.00€ (18 trips) 0.47€ - 1.56€ (14 trips)

Table 4.57: Replacement year of batteries, fuel cells and supercapacitors: Docking condition.

15min-freq. 20min-freq. 30min-freq. Cycles/day 1 1 1 Batteries Max. cycles 3500 3500 3500 Replace after 10 years 10 years 10 years Hours/day 1.58 1.50 1.17 Fuel Cells Max. hours 20000 20000 20000 Replace after 36.17 years 38.10 years 48.84 years Cycles/day 19 18 14 Supercapacitor Max. hours 1000000 1000000 1000000 Replace after 150.38 years 158.73 years 204.08 years

(a) 15min-frequency schedule. (b) 20min-frequency schedule.

Figure 4.19: Docking power plant cumulative expenses. 4.3. Energy production and storage analysis 93

From these figures it is observed that employing fuel cells lead to the highest total expenses and weight contribution as well. On the other side, batteries are able to reduce the initial investment compared to fuel cells, however, due their limited cycle life, batteries need to be replaced every 10 years leading to a rapid increase in the costs. This short life expectancy makes batteries almost as expensive as fuel cells (considering the worst-case scenario). Lastly, supercapacitors, even though they present the highest cost per energy unit, turned out to be the best economical option. This is highly related to the combination of low operational expenses and a significantly high cycle life which allows operating with the minimum maintenance costs.

In conclusion, mainly based on the high operational and capital expenses that a fuel cell plant involves and the high maintenance costs of a battery plant, supercapacitors have been chosen as power plant configuration for the Docking condition.

• Model 18: 퐿 = 20.83푚, 퐵 = 1.89푚 and 푇 = 0.76푚 Table 4.58 shows the operational profile of Model 18 at the Docking condition. Taking into account the conclusions from the previous hull model, a fuel cell or battery plant for the docking condition will not be considered. As it was mentioned previously, this is due to the higher expenses, weight contribution and maintenance costs. Therefore, a supercapacitor plant will be designed, even though it slightly increases the total weight compared to a battery plant alternative.

Table 4.58: Docking condition: Model 18.

19 trips 18 trips 14 trips (15min freq.) (20min freq.) (30min freq.) Time [푚푖푛] 2.5 (docking) and 2.5 (undocking) Velocity [푘푛] 6 Resistance [푘푁] 1.00 Nominal power [푘푊] 6.28 Nominal energy [푘푊ℎ/푡푟푖푝] 0.26 (docking) and 0.26 (undocking) Nominal energy [푘푊ℎ/푑푎푦] 4.97 (x2) 4.71 (x2) 3.66 (x2)

– Supercapacitor plant Table 4.59 indicates the design of the supercapacitor plant of Model 18. This power plant has been designed to achieve a full discharge after every trip in order to reduce machinery tonnage. This is possible due to the large cycle life and fast charging process of supercapacitors.

Table 4.59: Model 18 supercapacitor plant configuration at Docking condition for one operational day.

(a) Supercapacitor plant configuration characteristics.

Preq Ereq V0 C ESR Iavg Ich 휂 휂 휂 Units DoD 5.02kW 0.42kWh/trip 13.6V 533F 1.3mΩ 0.05mA 8.80A 1.00 1.00 1.00 33p×1s 97.1%

(b) Total estimated weight and expenses.

Equipment Mass [푘푔] Volume [푚] Units [−] Supercapacitors 145.2 0.17 33 TOTAL 145.20 kg 0.17 m3 CAPEX 6.48 k€ 0.66€ - 2.20€ (19 trips) OPEX per day 0.63€ - 2.09€ (18 trips) 0.49€ - 1.62€ (14 trips) 94 4. Concept Exploration

• Model 26: 퐿 = 28.41푚, 퐵 = 1.89푚 and 푇 = 0.76푚 Following the same procedure as in the two previous models, only the design of the supercapacitor plant will be performed. Table 4.60 indicates the power and energy requirements of Model 26 for the Docking condition.

Table 4.60: Docking condition: Model 26.

19 trips 18 trips 14 trips (15min freq.) (20min freq.) (30min freq.) Time [푚푖푛] 2.5 (docking) and 2.5 (undocking) Velocity [푘푛] 6 Resistance [푘푁] 1.10 Nominal power [푘푊] 6.90 Nominal energy [푘푊ℎ/푡푟푖푝] 0.29 (docking) and 0.29 (undocking) Nominal energy [푘푊ℎ/푑푎푦] 5.47 (x2) 5.18 (x2) 4.03 (x2)

– Supercapacitor plant

In Table 4.61 the supercapacitor configuration characteristics as well as the weight contribution and total expenses are shown.

Table 4.61: Model 26 supercapacitor plant configuration at Docking condition for one operational day.

(a) Supercapacitor plant configuration characteristics.

Preq Ereq V0 C ESR Iavg Ich 휂 휂 휂 Units DoD 5.52kW 0.46kWh/trip 13.6V 533F 1.3mΩ 0.04mA 8.97A 1.00 1.00 1.00 36p×1s 99.0%

(b) Total estimated weight and expenses.

Equipment Mass [푘푔] Volume [푚] Units [−] Supercapacitors 158.4 0.19 36 TOTAL 158.40 kg 0.19 m3 CAPEX 7.07 k€ 0.73€ - 2.42€ (19 trips) OPEX per day 0.69€ - 2.30€ (18 trips) 0.54€ - 1.79€ (14 trips)

4.3.3. Hotel consumption In this last subsection, Hotel consumption, the design of the energy plant in charge of the Hotel power requirements is shown. Table 4.62 indicates the Hotel power and energy consumption. The required power has been estimated as approximately 5% of the total propulsion power (sailing and docking) and taken constant for the three candidate models. This required power is mainly driven by the Heat, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system and the marine electronics necessary to sail such as radar, compass, radio, etc.

Table 4.62: Estimated nominal hotel power and energy requirements.

Schedule Time per trip Power Energy per trip Energy per day 19 trips 45 min 12.75 kWh 242.25 kWh 18 trips 50 min 17 kW 14.17 kWh 255.00 kWh 14 trips 60 min 17.00 kWh 238.00 kWh 4.3. Energy production and storage analysis 95

As this power consumption will remain constant during the whole day, batteries are discarded as energy supplier due to their properties as energy storage instead of energy generator. Table 4.63 justifies this decision. As it is observed a great number of batteries is required to provide the necessary energy, meaning in weight contributions above 4t. Therefore, batteries are discarded as applicable option.

Table 4.63: Battery plant for the Hotel requirements.

C [퐴ℎ] I [퐴] V [푉] C-rate Power [푘푊] Energy [푘푊ℎ] Units DoD 19trips 63 4.42 12.8 0.070 0.041 0.581 418 100% 18trips 63 4.20 12.8 0.067 0.039 0.581 440 100% 14trips 63 4.50 12.8 0.071 0.041 0.581 410 100%

As a result, fuel cells need to be employed. Table 4.65 indicates the characteristics of the Hotel fuel cell plant. In this case, as the power plant will be continuously operating, an independent DCDC converter and ACDC inverter need to be implemented in the design.

Table 4.64: Fuel cell plant configuration a for the Hotel: Required fuel cells and Hydrogen mass.

FC-3.8kW FC-4.8kW FC-10.5kW FC-14.3kW FC-17.2kW Units [−] 5.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 FC mass [푘푔] 35.50 28.80 21.40 26.00 15.00 FC volume [푚] 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 Installed power [푘푊] 19.0 19.20 21.0 28.60 17.20 Nominal energy [푘푊ℎ/푡푟푖푝] 14.25 14.40 15.75 21.45 12.90 H2 mass [푘푔/푡푟푖푝] 0.778 0.786 0.859 1.170 0.704 19 trips 257.7 257.7 257.7 358.0 257.7 H2 mass [푘푔/푑푎푦] 18 trips 257.7 257.7 288.0 369.8 257.7 (including tank) 14 trips 257.7 257.7 257.7 358.0 257.7

Table 4.65: Fuel cell plant for the Hotel requirements.

Equipment Mass [푘푔] Volume [푚] Units [−] Fuel Cells 15.00 0.01 1 Air subsystem 60.00 0.10 1 Cooling subsystem 45.00 0.15 1 DCDC converter 75.00 0.06 1 ACDC inverter 16.00 0.02 1 TOTAL 452.00 kg 1.61 m3 (19 trips) (excluding H2 mass 452.00 kg 1.61 m3 (18 trips) and including H2 tanks) 452.00 kg 1.61 m3 (14 trips) CAPEX 47.60 k€ - 71.39 k€ 43.18€ - 102.39€ (19 trips) OPEX per day 45.45€ - 107.78€ (18 trips) 42.42€ - 100.59€ (14 trips)

4.3.4. Models feasibility In this subsection a summary of the previous calculations is shown. The objective of this subsection is to indicate the feasibility of the candidate models in terms of weight and volume. In order to determine the available volume for the different power plants, first the required volume for the cargo (15 bicycles), passengers (40 commuters) and wheelhouse (2 officers) needs to be defined. 96 4. Concept Exploration

The space required by the bicycles has been defined based on the dimensions of a typical Dutch bike [117] and assuming a total width per bike of 0.75m. With respect to the wheelhouse, the required space was estimated based on the General Arrangement of similar fast ferries, e.g. Damen Water Bus 2007 [32] and BB GREEN ferry [39]. Lastly, the commuter spaces have been defined as well based on ferry’s General Arrangements and on the following formulas:

퐵, − 푤 푃퐴푋 푛, = (4.34) 퐿 = 푑 (4.35) 푤 푛,

퐴 = 퐵, · 퐿 (4.36) In which:

– 푛, - No. Passenger per row – 퐿 - Passenger room length

3 – 푤 - Aisle width (1.4m) – 푃퐴푋 - No. passengers (40)

– 푤 - Seat width (0.5m) – 푑 - Distance between seat (0.9m)

In Table 4.66, the different space occupied by the cargo, commuter and wheelhouse, as well as the remaining available space for the different power plants is shown. The total deck area has been defined by approximating the shape to a rectangle of dimensions 퐿 and 퐵,.

Table 4.66: Distribution of the deck area within cargo, passengers and officers.

s/L ATOT [푚 ] Acargo [푚 ] Apax [푚 ] AWH [푚 ] Aavail. [푚 ] 0.2 63.69 25.49 8.16 Model 6 0.3 81.42 21.04 23.37 9.00 28.00 0.4 99.14 22.19 46.91 0.2 131.87 23.17 78.67 Model 18 0.3 175.63 21.04 21.62 9.00 123.97 0.4 219.39 20.79 168.57 0.2 224.38 21.94 172.40 Model 26 0.3 306.17 21.04 20.73 9.00 255.40 0.4 387.96 20.09 337.84

Therefore, from Table 4.66 and assuming a maximum height of 2.10m, height above the minimum permitted headroom established by the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC)[118], the following remaining volume is available for the power plants and circulation spaces. See Table 4.67.

Table 4.67: Remaining available volume for power plants and circulation spaces.

Model 6 Model 18 Model 26 s/L 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 Vavail. [푚 ] 17.14 58.81 98.52 165.21 260.35 353.99 362.05 536.35 709.46

With respect to the weight and volume required by the power plants, Tables 4.68, 4.69 and 4.70 indicate the total volume and weight necessary per each hull model. The volume of the hydrogen tanks has not been considered in this tables, this is due to it has been opted to install the tanks over the superstructure. This decision has been made due to the asphyxiant properties of hydrogen under sufficient concentrations in confined spaces [119].

3Distributed in one main aisle or two aisles of 700mm. 4.3. Energy production and storage analysis 97

Table 4.68: Total required weight and volume for a 15min-frequency schedule.

Model 6 Model 18 Model 26 M [푡] V [푚] M [푡] V [푚] M [푡] V [푚] Sailing power plant (fuel cell) 4.09 1.94 4.09 1.94 4.12 1.68 Docking power plant (supercapacitor) 0.14 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.19 Hotel power plant (fuel cell) 0.45 0.33 0.45 0.33 0.45 0.33 TOTAL 4.68 t 2.44 m3 4.69 t 2.44 m3 4.73 t 2.20 m3

Table 4.69: Total required weight and volume for a 20min-frequency schedule.

Model 6 Model 18 Model 26 M [푡] V [푚] M [푡] V [푚] M [푡] V [푚] Sailing power plant (fuel cell) 3.97 1.94 3.97 1.94 4.04 1.68 Docking power plant (supercapacitor) 0.14 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.19 Hotel power plant (fuel cell) 0.45 0.33 0.45 0.33 0.45 0.33 TOTAL 4.57 t 2.44 m3 4.57 t 2.44 m3 4.65 t 2.20 m3

Table 4.70: Total required weight and volume for a 30min-frequency schedule.

Model 6 Model 18 Model 26 M [푡] V [푚] M [푡] V [푚] M [푡] V [푚] Sailing power plant (fuel cell) 3.48 1.94 3.48 1.94 3.53 1.68 Docking power plant (supercapacitor) 0.14 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.19 Hotel power plant (fuel cell) 0.45 0.33 0.45 0.33 0.45 0.33 TOTAL 4.08 t 2.44 m3 4.08 t 2.44 m3 4.14 t 2.20 m3

From the previous tables it is observed that the volume requirements do not suppose a problem for the feasibility of the design. This is quite clear by comparing the remaining available volume on the deck from Table 4.67 and the required volume of the power plants from Tables 4.68, 4.69 and 4.70.

With regards to the weight, next tables indicate the weight breakdown of each hull model and for each schedule. A summary of these tables is shown in Table 4.71. In case of Model 18 and Model 26, the hulls provide enough displacement to bear the required weight, contrary to Model 6. Therefore, this hull model will be only feasible if some of the required hydrogen is stored on shore and later bunkered. However, due to the lack of infrastructure and the high costs this construction implies [40], which overweight the low CAPEX of this model, it has been considered as a non-feasible model. Tables 4.73 shows a summary of the total expenses of each hull model.

Table 4.71: Weight feasibility summary.

Total weight [푡] Displacement [푡] 19 trips 18 trips 14 trips Model 6 24.61 24.48 23.90 23.78 Model 18 29.55 29.41 28.84 29.89 Model 26 34.53 34.43 33.79 36.69 98 4. Concept Exploration

As conclusion, Model 18 represents the most suitable option in terms of expenses, sustainability and power. Table 4.73 showed that Model 18 presents both lower Capital and Operational expenses than Model 26 and, in addition, Model 18 can be also considered more sustainable by the fact that less power is required to develop the same tasks. This definition of sustainability is given by the concept of Transport Efficiency, see Equation 3.5 and Table 4.72.

Table 4.72: Transport efficiency at the Sailing condition.

Model 6 Model 18 Model 26 Transport efficiency 2.67 · 2.67 · 2.55 ·

Table 4.73: Total structure and power plant expenses summary.

Model 6 Model 18 Model 26 19 trips 1.55 M€ - 2.05 M€ 1.77 M€ - 2.27 M€ 2.07 M€ - 2.61 M€ CAPEX 18 trips 1.55 M€ - 2.05 M€ 1.77 M€ - 2.27 M€ 2.07 M€ - 2.61 M€ 14 trips 1.55 M€ - 2.05 M€ 1.77 M€ - 2.27 M€ 2.07 M€ - 2.61 M€ 19 trips 0.62 k€ - 1.48 k€ 0.62 k€ - 1.48 k€ 0.67 k€ - 1.59 k€ OPEX/day 18 trips 0.60 k€ - 1.41 k€ 0.60 k€ - 1.41 k€ 0.64 k€ - 1.52 k€ 14 trips 0.47 k€ - 1.11 k€ 0.47 k€ - 1.11 k€ 0.51 k€ - 1.21 k€

Table 4.74: Total weight breakdown of Model 6 for each schedule from left to right: 15min, 20min and 30min frequency.

Structure Hull & Superstructure 11590kg 11590kg 11590kg Commuters chairs (x40) 1000kg 1000kg 1000kg Navigation chairs (x2) 250kg 250kg 250kg Outfitting Lining & Lighting 750kg 750kg 750kg Navigation systems 600kg 600kg 600kg Machinery Zero-emission engine room [푘푔] 4682kg 4566kg 4077kg LWT (10% margin) 20.76t 20.63t 20.09t Hydrogen H (18.00 kg/m at 25MPa) 196.1kg 187.1kg 148.9kg Commuters (x40) 3200kg 3200kg 3200kg POB Crew (x2) 160kg 160kg 160kg Cargo Bicycles (x15) 300kg 300kg 300kg DWT 3.86t 3.85t 3.81t DISPLACEMENT 24.61t 24.48t 23.90t 4.3. Energy production and storage analysis 99

Table 4.75: Total weight breakdown of Model 18 for each schedule from left to right: 15min, 20min and 30min frequency.

Structure Hull & Superstructure 16072kg 16072kg 16072kg Commuters chairs (x40) 1000kg 1000kg 1000kg Navigation chairs (x2) 250kg 250kg 250kg Outfitting Lining & Lighting 750kg 750kg 750kg Navigation systems 600kg 600kg 600kg Machinery Zero-emission engine room [푘푔] 4686kg 4570kg 4081kg LWT (10% margin) 25.69t 25.57t 25.03t Hydrogen H (18.00 kg/m at 25MPa) 196.1kg 187.1kg 148.9kg Commuters (x40) 3200kg 3200kg 3200kg POB Crew (x2) 160kg 160kg 160kg Cargo Bicycles (x15) 300kg 300kg 300kg DWT 3.86t 3.85t 3.81t DISPLACEMENT 29.55t 29.41t 28.84t

Table 4.76: Total weight breakdown of Model 26 for each schedule from left to right: 15min, 20min and 30min frequency.

Structure Hull & Superstructure 20543kg 20543kg 20543kg Commuters chairs (x40) 1000kg 1000kg 1000kg Navigation chairs (x2) 250kg 250kg 250kg Outfitting Lining & Lighting 750kg 750kg 750kg Navigation systems 600kg 600kg 600kg Machinery Zero-emission engine room [푘푔] 4730kg 4652kg 4140kg LWT (10% margin) 30.66t 30.57t 30.01t Hydrogen H (18.00 kg/m at 25MPa) 211.3kg 201.3kg 162.0kg Commuters (x40) 3200kg 3200kg 3200kg POB Crew (x2) 160kg 160kg 160kg Cargo Bicycles (x15) 300kg 300kg 300kg DWT 3.87t 3.86t 3.82t DISPLACEMENT 34.53t 34.44t 33.83t 100 4. Concept Exploration

4.4. Chapter conclusions

This chapter, Concept Exploration, has addressed the technical feasibility of the SFFC concept design. In this chapter three different analysis, Route analysis, Hull and material analysis and Energy production and storage analysis, were used to study this feasibility and explore the different candidate systems.

In the first analysis, the characteristics of the competition, public and private road transport, were shown. These characteristics refer to service frequency, fare or operational expenses and service timetable. This analysis concluded with the suggestion of three schedules featured by different frequency services (15, 20 and 30 minutes). These frequencies were used on later analysis to observe the influences on the technical feasibility.

With regards to the second analysis, Hull and material analysis, the study of different parametric catamaran models were performed. From this study several conclusions were extracted. From one side, it was observed the high sensitivity that Molland et al. prediction regression presents in terms of dimensionless parameters, and the great robustness by contrast of Sahoo, Browne & Salas method to estimate the resistance. From the other side, it was also shown that to easy the integration and feasibility of the design, sustainability had to be compromised by applying non-recyclable materials. This last decision implied the application of the sustainable principle ”understanding the design limitations” (8th principle).

The last analysis, Energy production and storage analysis, studied the application of three different power and energy sources (fuel cells, batteries and supercapacitors) to the different conditions (sailing and docking). This chapter concluded stating that in order to achieve feasibility a power plant configuration fuel cell - supercapacitors needs to be employed.

In conclusion, this chapter explored the technical feasibility of a series of different catamaran models. From this series, three hull designs highlighted because of the lower resistance and operational expenses, in which Model 18 met all the technical verification and stood out as the most suitable system to satisfy the needs. Therefore, the following question was answered:

Is this Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters concept design technically feasible

This chapter has indicated that a sustainable concept design is technically feasible. Model 18 proved that it is possible to meet all the power, energy, weight and volume requirements to achieve a technical feasible design and provide a continuous service. 5 Concept Definition

In this Chapter 5, a more detailed description of the ferry concept is given. This chapter encompasses the definition of the hull shape, general arrangement and power consumption among others. All these definitions will be given for the most competitive schedule (15min-frequency route schedule). There- fore, multiple sections are included in this chapter: Dimensioning and Hull forms, General arrangement, Naval architecture and Stability, Resistance and Installed power and Cost assessment. This last section has the goal of showing the economical feasibility of the design, hence the next question is addressed:

Is this Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters concept design economically feasible

5.1. Dimensioning and Hull forms

In this section, Dimensioning and Hull forms, more details about the dimensional characteristics of Model 18 are given. Furthermore, this section also indicates how the renders has been shaped and the differences between the reference model (NPL-series) and Model 18.

In Section 4.2: Hull and material analysis, three hull models stood out as possible candidate systems. These models presented similar hydrodynamic resistance (14.0 - 15.0 kN) but different hull lengths: 13.26m (Model 6), 20.83m (Model 18) and 28.41m (Model 26). After performing a weight requirement analysis and estimating the total expenses in Section 4.3: Energy production and storage analysis, it was shown that Model 18 highlighted as the most suitable candidate hull model as it is able to bear the total required weight, provide a continuous daily service and operate with one of the lowest operational expenses. The main dimensions and characteristics of this model are presented in Table 5.1a.

With regards to the hull forms, Table 5.1b shows the characteristics of the reference model obtained from the NPL series of round-bilge monohulls. In order to define Model 18 from these characteristics, two independent modifications were done:

1. From one side, the main dimensions were individually scaled to the specifications of Model 18 without modifying the hull shape, i.e. without varying the block coefficient.

2. And on the other side, the hull was also shaped by manually modifying the initial sections to increase the hull displaced volume and hence, block coefficient from 0.4 to 0.5, without altering the main dimensions.

These modifications are clearly observed in Figures 5.1 and 5.2. The first figure shows the dimensionless curve of areas of both hull models, in which the x-axis indicates the frame number, being frame zero located at the aft. From this graph it can be pointed out the greater area of the transom stern and the slightly increase of the forward body area due to the employed of a straight bow shape. These two characteristics, greater transom stern and straight bow shape, are more appreciable in Figure 5.2.

101 102 5. Concept Definition

Table 5.1: Main dimensions and characteristics.

(a) Model 18. (b) NPL model.

Overall length 21.00 m Overall length 41.94 m Waterline length 20.83 m Waterline length 39.93 m Overall breadth 2.11 m Overall breadth 5.16 m Waterline breadth 1.89 m Waterline breadth 4.45 m Draught 0.76 m Draught 2.23 m Displacement 29.89 t Displacement 311.40 t Wetted surface 92.10 m2 Wetted surface 421.28 m2 Block coefficient 0.50 - Block coefficient 0.40 - Midsection coefficient 0.66 - Midsection coefficient 0.58 - Prismatic coefficient 0.75 - Prismatic coefficient 0.69 - Waterplane coefficient 0.79 - Waterplane coefficient 0.76 - Half-entrance angle 4.25 deg Half-entrance angle 3.95 deg Deadrise angle 25.00 deg Deadrise angle 32.70 deg Longitudinal center of buoyancy 1 42.89 % Longitudinal center of buoyancy 1 43.68 % Longitudinal center of flotation 1 43.95 % Longitudinal center of flotation 1 41.73 %

Figure 5.1: Curve of Areas: Model 18 (blue line) and NPL model (red line).

Figure 5.2: Hull lines: Model 18 (top) and NPL model (bottom).

1Measured from the aft. 5.2. General arrangement 103

5.2. General arrangement

This section, General Arrangement, presents the different compartments considered in the design as well as its location along the vessel. These compartments refer to the following elements:

• Wheelhouse • Bicycle storage area • Commuter area • Machinery room • Hydrogen storage area

In order to provide a clear and wide visibility, the wheelhouse has been located it at the forward part of the main deck. This compartment is equipped with visibility of 180º, from starboard to port side. Moreover, the wheelhouse was also located at the main deck (1760mm above the base line) to keep the Center of Gravity as low as possible and hence, enhance the stability behaviour.

Following this compartment is positioned the Commuter area. This room accommodates the 40 passengers and embraces the whole breadth from port to starboard. Length wise, it is limited by the forward bulkhead of the Machinery room with an extension of around 6 meters. In addition, this compartment provides an open view of the route due the wide windows located along the compartment length.

Behind this compartment, as it was mentioned, continues the Machinery room which shelters the power plant equipment such as fuel cells, switchboard, etc. This room represents the last structural compartment of the superstructure.

On top of the Machinery room, the hydrogen tanks have been located. The reason of this position is merely related to safety measures. Locating the hydrogen in an open space and far enough from the passenger areas would reduce casualties such as asphyxiation in case of any leakage. The main drawback of these location is an increase of the CoG in the vertical direction.

Lastly, the bicycle area is located at the aft in the same open area in which passengers embark and disembark. This space is covered by an extension of superstructure roof to merely protect the bicycles against the weather conditions.

Figures 5.3 and 5.4 show the General Arrangement of the Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters, in which it is shown the location of all the previous mentioned compartments. The shape of the superstructure is based on previous C-Job projects.

Figure 5.3: Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters General Arrangement: Profile and Front view. 104 5. Concept Definition

Figure 5.4: Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters General Arrangement: Top view.

5.3. Naval architecture and Intact stability

This section, divided in Naval architecture and Intact stability, provides, from one side, more details about the hydrostatic characteristics of Model 18 at the fully loading condition, and, on the other side, studies the intact stability according to respective regulations.

• Naval architecture

First of all, the loading condition will be shown. Table 5.2 and Figure 5.5 indicate the approximated location of the different mass bodies as well as the estimated Center of Gravity (CoG), which has been estimated from the General Arrangement.

In this table, ”Commuters and Crew” implies both, the mass of the Persons on Board and Outfitting. The Machinery Weight, from Table 4.16, has been divided into Hydrogen, Machinery and Propulsion & Other. This table refers Machinery as the mass of the power plant equipment, with the exception of the electrical motors (Propulsion & Other) and hydrogen tanks (Hydrogen). The term ”Other” has been added to achieve the fully load condition and accounts for unknown components such as compressors and pump systems.

Table 5.2: Loadcase: Fully loaded.

Compartment/Equipment Mass [t] X [m] Y [m] Z [m] Structure 17.68 8.91 0.00 1.01 Cargo (bicycles) 0.30 2.35 0.00 2.69 Commuters and Crew 6.22 11.74 0.00 2.80 Hydrogen 2.92 7.48 0.00 4.69 Machinery 1.55 7.65 0.00 2.98 Propulsion & Other 1.23 1.55 0.00 0.84 TOTAL 29.89 8.92 0.00 1.86

Once the loadcase is defined, the hydrostatic characteristics at this condition can be determined. Table E.1 in Appendix E: Hydrostatics and Stability criteria shows the hydrostatics of Model 18 at the fully load condition (푇 = 0.76푚). Values in this table such as the Metacentric height (GM) and the location of the CoG with respect the keel (KG), will be required in the next study in order to verify the fulfilment of the stability criteria. 5.3. Naval architecture and Intact stability 105

Figure 5.5: Location of the different compartments/equipment.

• Intact stability

Before proceeding with the stability analysis, first the regulations that applied to the Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters need to be defined. The application and definition of the appropriate regulation will be conditioned by the following vessel and operational characteristics:

– Passenger ship below 24m length.

– High-Speed-Craft (HSC), specifically Multihull Craft.

– Ship engaged on domestic voyages.

The definition of HSC and Multihull Craft is given by the International Code of Safety for High-Speed Craft (HSC-Code)[121], in which states:

”High-Speed-Craft is a craft capable of maximum speed, in meter per second (m/s), equal to or exceeding:” 푣 = 3.7∇.

”Multihull craft means a craft which in any normally achievable operating trim or heel angle, has a rigid hull structure which penetrates the surface of the sea over more than one discrete area”

Based on these definitions, SFFC is considered a HSC (푣 = 6.51 푚/푠 ≡ 푣 = 12.7 푘푛) and a multihull craft, as its hull is composed of two demihulls. Despite these two characteristics, the International Code of Safety for High-Speed Craft is not applicable as this regulation exclusively applies to vessels engaged on international voyages.

Therefore, and as consequence of operating in Dutch domestic waters, the ferry is subjected to the European standards and safety rules. This refers to the following directive which applies, regardless of the flag, to passenger ships of 24m in length and above and high-speed passenger crafts engaged on domestic voyages:

– Directive (EU) 2009/45/EC on safety rules and standards for passenger ships [122]

With regards to the stability criteria, the Directive 2009/45/EC refers to the International Code of Intact Stability (IS Code)[120]. The stability criteria to be met by any passenger ship according to the IS Code is indicated in Appendix E. These criteria refer to the General stability criterion, Passenger crowding criterion, Weather criterion and Turning criterion.

Considering these standards, the following results were obtained. Figure 5.6 indicates the GZ curve for the first four stability standards (General criterion), meanwhile Table 5.3 shows the criteria results and their verification. The downflooding angle (51.1º) has been defined at the starting height line of the commuter compartment windows, see Figure 5.5. 106 5. Concept Definition

Figure 5.6: GZ curve: General stability criteria.

An important peculiarity of the IS Code is that no distinction is made between hull types. This is important with regards to the stability of catamarans due to its different behaviour, as Figure 5.7 shows. As it is observed, due the large transversal distance between the CoG and CoB, the righting lever (GZ) rapidly increases achieving the maximum GZ below permitted angle of heel (25º), see Figure 5.6.

Figure 5.7: Catamaran stability behaviour [123].

As a result, the IS Code allows the application of alternative criteria as long as it presents an equivalent level of safety [120]. Therefore, for this situation, the HSC-Code will be applied, as this regulation makes a distinction between monohulls and multihulls.

Table 5.3: General stability criteria.

Criteria Value Result Status - Area between 0º and 30º (IS Code) Area under the GZ curve 0.055 m·rad 0.683 m·rad PASS - Area between 0º and 40º (IS Code) Area under the GZ curve 0.090 m·rad 0.905 m·rad PASS - Area between 30º and 40º (IS Code) Area under the GZ curve 0.030 m·rad 0.221 m·rad PASS - Minimum GZ at 30º or greater (IS Code) Minimum GZ 0.200 m 1.427 m PASS - Maximum GZ at 25º or greater (IS Code) Maximum GZ at 25.0 deg 18.2 deg FAIL - Maximum GZ at 10º or greater (HSC-Code) Maximum GZ at 10.0 deg 18.2 deg PASS - Initial GM (IS Code) Minimum GM 0.150 m 8.214 m PASS 5.4. Resistance and installed power 107

With regards to the remaining criteria (Weather, Passenger crowding and Turning), Figures 5.8a, 5.8b and 5.8c indicate the respective GZ curves and Table 5.4 the criteria verification results. In the Weather criterion the roll back angle from equilibrium or angle of roll to windward due to wave action (휙) is defined empirically by the IS Code [120]. However, this formulation can only be applied on vessels that satisfy the next parameters:

– Moulded breadth-to-moulded draught ratio (B/d) smaller than 3.5 (SFFC: 퐵/푑 = 7.96) – (KG/d - 1) between -0.3 and 0.5 (SFFC: 퐾퐺/푑 − 1 = 1.43) – Rolling period smaller than 20s (SFFC: 푇 ≈ 2.3푠)

As it is observed most the parameters exceed the maximum value permitted and hence, the IS Code empirical formula can not be applied. As alternative, the IS Code indicates that this angle can be estimated by means of experiments. Nevertheless, as this is not a valid option, the HSC-Code will be employed as alternative once again. This regulation states that in case that the experiments can not be carried out, a roll back angle of 15º (measured from the GZ-axis) can be taken as approximation for multihull crafts.

Table 5.4: Remaining stability criteria: Weather, Passenger crowding and Turning criterion.

Criteria Value Result Status - Severe wind and rolling (IS Code) Steady wind angle of heel 16.0 deg 1.50 deg PASS Deck edge immersion angle 26.1 deg Steady wind angle / Deck immersion angle 80.0% 5.7% PASS Area a 0.359 m·rad Area b 0.767 m·rad Area a / Area b 100.0% 213.8% PASS - Crowding angle of equilibrium (IS Code) Passenger crowding angle of heel 10.0 deg 2.03 deg PASS - Turning angle of equilibrium (IS Code) Turning angle of heel 10.0 deg 1.21 deg PASS

In conclusion, it has been shown that the catamaran design is able to pass every stability criteria with regards to passenger ships and with substantial margin, indicating a great stability behaviour.

5.4. Resistance and installed power

In this section, Resistance and installed power, a summary of the resistance and power requirements, previously determined in Chapter 4: Concept exploration, is shown. This summary will indicate the resistance and power curves as well as the different equipment installed and employed on board. The total resistance were determined according to the guidelines established by the ITTC78 and the specific corrections for catamarans proposed by Insel and Molland [91], see Subsection 4.2.2.

Moreover, the catamaran wave-making resistance component were defined empirically by two regression models (Sahoo, Browne & Salas and Molland et al.) and later validated by means of potential CFD approaches (Slender body method). From this validation it was observed the high accuracy and robustness of the Sahoo et al. regression compared to Molland et al. method. Figures 5.9 and 5.10 indicate both, the resistance and the effective power curve obtained from the Sahoo et al. regression.

From these two graphs, the following resistance and power requirements were estimated, see Table 5.5. The total required power was calculated considering the efficiencies and engine margin shown in Table 4.17. It has to be mentioned that the total power in Table 5.5 represents the approximated nominal power of the propulsion plant. This was estimated applying a margin of 25% over the brake power (푃) to avoid overloads on the power suppliers (Engine margin). 108 5. Concept Definition

(a) Weather stability criterion. (b) Passenger crowding stability criterion.

Figure 5.8: GZ curve: Weather, Passenger and Turning criteria.

Table 5.5: Resistance and Power requirements.

Speed Total resistance Effective power Total power 6 kn 1.00 kN 3.10 kW 6.28 kW 22 kn 14.30 kN 161.83 kW 329.08 kW

Figure 5.9: Resistance curve: Model 18 at s/L=0.2. Figure 5.10: Effective power curve: Model 18 at s/L=0.2. Considering the ferry service shown in Section 4.1: Route analysis, and the previous power requirements, the operational profile was defined. Table 5.6 shows the required energy per each operational condition, including the Hotel requirements. This power and energy are supplied by the next equip- 5.5. Cost assessment 109 ment:

• Sailing condition – Fuel Cell S3 from PowerCell [104] ⋅ Units: 7 ⋅ Power: 49 kW – Hydrogen tanks Type 4 from Hexagon [107] ⋅ Units: 8 ⋅ H2 mass: 6.3 kg (x2) and 27.8 kg (x6) • Docking and Undocking condition – Supercapacitor SkelMod17V from Skeleton [106] ⋅ Units: 33 ⋅ Energy: 0.7 kWh • Hotel consumption – Fuel Cell FCvelocity-9SSL from Ballard [73] ⋅ Units: 1 ⋅ Power: 17.2 kW – Hydrogen tanks Type 4 from Hexagon [107] ⋅ Units: 2 ⋅ H2 mass: 6.3 kg (x1) and 10.4 kg (x1)

Table 5.6: Profile conditions and energy requirements.

Condition Time Nominal energy per day Power plant type Sailing 30 min 3126.27 kWh Fuel Cell Docking/Undocking 2.5/2.5 min 4.97/4.97 kWh Supercapacitor Hotel 45 min 242.50 kWh Fuel Cell

5.5. Cost assessment

In this section, Cost assessment, a more detailed description of the different expenses considered in the design is given. This cost assessment will be used to determine the appropriate fare and the economical feasibility. For this cost assessment, the total expenses were divided in:

• Capital costs • Operational and Voyage Expenses – Structural related – Fuel related ⋅ Material acquisition costs ⋅ Hydrogen costs ⋅ Manufacturing costs ⋅ Electricity costs – Power plant related – Maintenance related ⋅ Sailing fuel cell plant costs ⋅ Structural maintenance costs ⋅ Docking supercapacitor plant costs ⋅ Sailing fuel cell replacement costs ⋅ Hotel fuel cell plant costs ⋅ Supercapacitor replacement costs ⋅ Hotel fuel cell replacement costs – Port fees ⋅ Port tariffs 110 5. Concept Definition

The Capital costs of both, structure and power plant, have been already estimated along the design project in Chapter 4. In this detailed assessment, an additional cost related to the manufacturing process was added. This cost has been extrapolated from the cost assessment of a high-speed ferry [101]. Table 5.7 indicates the total Capital expenses.

Table 5.7: Estimation of the Total Capital Expenses.

- Structural expenses Material costs 763,410.00 € Manufacturing costs 244,036.00 € - Power plant expenses Sailing fuel cell costs 949,150.00 € - 1,423,724.00 € Docking supercapacitor costs 6,484.00 € Hotel fuel cell costs 47,596.00 € - 71,394.00 € TOTAL CAPEX 2,010,675.00 € - 2,509,048.00 €

With regards to the Operational and Voyage expenses, these costs have been shown or mentioned before in Chapter 4 too. The structural maintenance has been extrapolated from composite high-speed ferries [101] and the power plant maintenance (replacement) was assumed equal to the respective capital costs. Therefore and considering that the Hotel fuel cells operate uninterruptedly during one operational day for 14.25h, this fuel cell plant needs to be replaced approximately every 4 years (considering a lifetime of 20000 hours). Furthermore, the Port of Amsterdam establishes a port tariff of 3.82€/m2 [124], excluding VAT which has been taken as 9% [125]. Table 5.8 shows the total Opera- tional and Voyage expenses per year.

Table 5.8: Estimation of the yearly Operational and Voyage expenses.

- Fuel expenses Hydrogen costs per year 221,581.00 € - 525,464.00 € Electricity costs per year 231.00 € - 770.00 € - Maintenance expenses Structural maintenance costs per year 2,648.00 € Sailing fuel cell maintenance costs per year 158,192.00 € - 237,287.00 € Docking supercapacitor maintenance costs per year - Hotel fuel cell maintenance costs per year 11,899.00 € - 17,848.00 € - Port fees Port tariffs per year (incl. VAT) 530.00 € TOTAL OPEX per year 395,081.00 € - 781,900.00 €

The two previous tables have shown a simplified version of the total expenses. As this estimation has been only based on the expenses related to the structure and power plant, a margin of 30% on the CAPEX will be applied in order to account for unknown equipment and/or costs at this stage of design, e.g. marine electronics. Therefore, the total expenses were quantified as follows:

Table 5.9: Cost assessment: CAPEX and OPEX per year.

CAPEX OPEX/yr 2,613,877.00 € - 3,261,762.00 € 395,081.00 € - 781,900.00 €

Once the total expenses have been defined, the next step would be to determine the suitable fare from the total Operational expenses and the payback period. In order to determine these parameters and the economical feasibility, three scenarios or riderships are considered:

– High ridership (optimistic) - average capacity of 80% (32 passengers) 5.5. Cost assessment 111

– Medium ridership (neutral) - average capacity of 60% (24 passengers) – Low ridership (pessimistic) - average capacity of 40% (16 passengers)

Considering these scenarios, the following minimum fares to cover the operational expenses were determined. Table 5.10 indicates these minimum fares. As it is shown the first two scenarios (optimistic and neutral) present minimum fares that are lower than the public transport ticket price (6.50€). Therefore, considering this ticket price the maximum allowed fare to be competitive, the Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters might experience losses in case a pessimistic scenario which could lead to a non-feasible design.

Table 5.10: Minimum SFFC fares to operate without losses.

Average trip capacity Minimum fare Optimistic scenario 32 passengers 1.86 € - 3.68 € Neutral scenario 24 passengers 2.48 € - 4.90 € Pessimistic scenario 16 passengers 3.72 € - 7.35 €

With regards to the payback period or return of investment, Table 5.11 indicates when the investment would be recovered if the maximum fare (6.50€) to be competitive is considered. This payback period has been determined by dividing the total investment (CAPEX) over the operational cash flow [126], defined as the difference between the yearly income (fares) and yearly operational expenses (OPEX). As it is observed the first two scenarios allow to recover the investment within the first 13 years, meanwhile a low ridership (pessimistic scenario) could imply that the investment is never recovered.

Table 5.11: Payback period considering the maximum fare to be competitive.

Fare Payback period Optimistic scenario 6.50€ 2.6 - 5.4 years Neutral scenario 6.50€ 4.1 - 12.8 years Pessimistic scenario 6.50€ 8.8 years - never

In conclusion, the acceptability of this ferry line by the commuters will significantly condition the feasibility of the design. A low participation in the commuting service (pessimistic scenario) might lead to losses and that the investment is never recovered. However, a medium to high participation or ridership would allow to recover the initial investment and therefore, develop a feasible design. 112 5. Concept Definition

5.6. Chapter conclusions

In this chapter, Concept Definition, more details about the characteristics of the Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters were indicated. These characteristics included hull shape, General arrangement, stability performance, power plant features and estimated investment and operational expenses.

In this Concept Definition, it was shown that the ferry is able to meet all the stability criteria regarding to passenger ships despite the negative effect that locating the hydrogen tanks (heavy weight) on top of the superstructure implies (increase of the vertical center of gravity).

In addition, this chapter also indicated the different expenses and investment this ferry involves. In the cost assessment section, it was observed that depending on the acceptability by the public (commuters) the design could be classified as feasible or non-feasible. A high to medium participation in the market (high - medium ridership) might ensure feasibility and the return of investment within the ship operational life. However, in case of low ridership (low acceptability) the ferry would hardly operate without losses or ensure a complete return of the investment. Therefore, the following question was answered: Is this Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters concept design economically feasible

It has been shown that this Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters concept design is economically feasible for certain operational capacities and that its profitability will depend on the acceptability by the general public. 6 Conclusions

6.1. Conclusions

In this Master thesis the feasibility of a concept design of a Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters, of 40 passengers of capacity, for operations of 45 minutes at 22 knots has been studied. This feasibility has been analysed from both, a technical and economical viability.

In order to achieve this feasibility or viability, a Systems Engineering approach has been applied. This systematic approach allows to study the feasibility following a well-defined structure, in which first the reasons and needs to develop such a sustainable design were indicated (Needs analysis), followed by the exploration of the different candidate systems that allow such a feasibility (Concept Exploration) and lately the definition of the selected candidate model (Concept Definition).

During the Needs analysis (Chapter 2 and 3), the market opportunities and needs to develop a zero- emission ferry design (traffic congestion and future emission regulations, both local and global) and the different effective technology (fuel cells, batteries, supercapacitors, lightweight materials, etc) to achieve this design were shown.

With regards to the Concept Exploration, different candidate systems in terms of ship design (including structural material) and marine engineering were analysed. This analysis was carried out considering sustainable principles such as eliminate waste (recyclability) and understand design limitations (trade-offs). These ones are observable during the Hull and material analysis as a trade-off between sustainability and technical and economical feasibility was seen. This trade-off consisted of compromising material sustainability by employing non-efficient recyclable materials (CFRP) in order to achieve a feasible design by reducing weight and costs (design limitations).

In addition, this trade-off also implied the application of the sustainable principle of eliminating waste. This is due to, even though material waste is generated by applying CFRP instead of Aluminium, less power and energy is wasted as well, as the same operation can be carried out by employing less amounts of energy and power. Moreover, apart of applying sustainable principles, it is also evident the application of a sustainable engineering approach. This is observed, for example, by considering the whole system (ferry design, ferry schedule, ferry cumulative costs, etc) and technical and non-technical issues (technical and economical feasibility).

Lastly, the Concept Definition specified the candidate system characteristics such as general arrangement, stability performance and capital and operational expenses. In this last stage of the Concept Development, it was shown that the economical feasibility of the design highly depends on the acceptability by commuters (ridership). This is due to the high investment and expenses zero-emission vessels imply, which required medium to high capacity operations in order to be feasible, viable and succeed.

113 114 6. Conclusions

Therefore, answering the research question: How feasible is a concept design of a Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters, of 40 passengers of capacity, for operations of 45 minutes at 22 knots

Sustainable Fast Ferry for Commuters Concept Design has been proved to be technically feasible and economically feasible for certain scenarios of operational capacity. Thus, this concept design is not completely feasible, as profitability cannot be ensured.

6.2. Recommendations

Several recommendations can be suggested as future work for this feasibility study. These recommendations or suggestions refer to analyses that were not able to be carried out due to the limited available time for this project.

From one side, as the parametric series was constrained to three different ship lengths to reduce the number of generated models, one recommendation would be to study the feasibility of models whose ship length lays between 13 and 20 meters. Even though, these models would hardly reduce the total resistance, as Model 6 and Model 18 presents similar resistance requirements, the use of a shorter vessel would allow to reduce material costs (CAPEX) and hence, improve economical feasibility.

Another suggestion, and related to the economical feasibility, would be to make a more detailed analysis of the costs and finances related with the operability of the ferry service. This analysis would include the study of the effect of downtiming on the service due to maintenance and also a reliability study of the power plant equipment.

In addition to this suggestions and recommendations, the next natural steps to follow would be also to continue with the next stages of the Systems Engineering Life Cycle, i.e. Engineering Development and Post Development.

6.3. Personal reflection

With regards to my personal reflection of this feasibility study, I personally think that we are in right moment to make a real transition to zero-emission technology. The effects of climate change have been observed during the last years and demand the application of more strict measures with regards to the restriction of fossil fuel technology.

In addition, developments in this area are and will still going on and reductions in the manufacturing costs of this technology are expected. Also, more and more emission and environmental regulations should be applied to encourage the implementation of this technology.

Thanks to this master thesis project, I was able to expand my knowledge in terms of electrical propulsion and zero-emission technology. Moreover, a practical application of Systems Engineering allowed me to acquire a full understanding of its benefits on the design of new and complex vessels. Bibliography

[1] Mobility Implementation Plan. Policy: Traffic and Transport. City of Amsterdam, 2019. URL https://www.amsterdam.nl/en/policy/policy-traffic/

[2] WHO. 9 out of 10 people worldwide breathe polluted air, but more countries are taking action. World Health Organization, 2018. URL https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/02-05-2018-9-out-of-10-people -worldwide-breathe-polluted-air-but-more-countries-are-taking-action

[3] Clean Air Action Plan. Policy: Clean air. City of Amsterdam, 2019. URL https://www.amsterdam.nl/en/policy/sustainability/clean-air/

[4] Wikipedia. Fast Flying Ferry. 2020. URL https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Flying_Ferry

[5] Connexxion. OV-chipcard ticket workdays information. URL https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/53976743/ov-chipkaart-vervo erbewijs-werkdagen-information-jahrhunderts-veranstaltungen

[6] Á. Bakhtov. Alternative fuels for shipping in the Baltic Sea Region. HELCOM, 2019.

[7] Comparison of Alternative Marine Fuels. DNV-GL, 2019.

[8] FEASIBLE Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary. Cambridge University Press, 2019. URL https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/feasible

[9] A. Bruzzone. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. Transit Cooperative Research Program, 2012.

[10] Sea Europe. Market Forecast report. Shipyards & Maritime Equipment Association Europe, 2018.

[11] M. Fedkin, Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering. Technologies for Sustainability Systems: Principles of Sustainable Systems. College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, 2018. URL https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme807/node/3

[12] UN Documents: Gathering a Body of Global Agreements. Our Common Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. United Nations, 1987. URL http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm#I

[13] William McDonough & Partners. The Hannover Principles: Design for Sustainability. William Mc- Donough Architects, 2000. URL https://ioannouolga.blog/2019/12/17/the-hannover-principles/

[14] Concept Design Definition by Dragon1. Dragon1 Inc, 2020. URL https://www.dragon1.com/terms/concept-design-definition

[15] P. Kujala and L. Lu. Marine Design XIII, Volume 1. CRC Press/Balkema, 2018.

[16] C-Job. C-Job design process. C-Job dedicated Naval Architects, 2020. URL https://c-job.com/ship-design-services/ship-design-engineering/

[17] Systems Engineering. Study.com, 2020. URL https://study.com/directory/category/Engineering/Systems_Engineeri ng.html

115 116 Bibliography

[18] A. Kossiakoff, W.N. Sweet, S.J. Seymour and S.M. Biemer. Systems Engineering principles and practice. John Willey & Sons, Inc., 2011.

[19] R.J. Halligan. Systems Engineering for Technology-Based Projects and Product Developments. Project Performance International, 2011.

[20] WHO. Ten threats to global health in 2019. World Health Organization, 2019. URL https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/ten-threats-to-globa l-health-in-2019

[21] B. Cushman-Roisin. Chapter 4: Pollutants and Greenhouse gases. Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, 2020.

[22] EU Climate Action. 2030 climate & energy framework. European Commission, 2014. URL https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2030_en

[23] European Environment Agency. Greenhouse gas emission statistics. Eurostat, 2019. URL https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title =Greenhouse_gas_emission_statistics

[24] M. Tanko and M. Burke. Transport innovations and their effect on cities: the emergence of urban linear ferries worldwide. Elsevier, 2016.

[25] Alternative Fuels Encyclopedia. Batteries & Fuel Cells. DNV-GL, 2020. URL https://afi.dnvgl.com/KnowledgeHub/Encyclopedia

[26] Bureau of Transportation Statistics. National Census of Ferry Operators. United States Department of Transportation, 2018.

[27] D. Starpersma. Diesel Engines Volume 4: Emissions and Heat transfer. Royal Netherlands Naval College, 2010.

[28] Encyclopedia of Marine Technology. Exhaust gas emissions from ships. Wartsila, 2020. URL https://www.wartsila.com/encyclopedia/term/exhaust-gas-emissions-f rom-ships

[29] I. Komar and B. Lalic. Sea Transport Air Pollution. University of Split, 2015. URL https://www.intechopen.com/books/current-air-quality-issues/sea-tr ansport-air-pollution

[30] H.O. Kristenen. Energy demand and exhaust gas emission of marine engines. Technical University of Denmark, 2015.

[31] Marquard & Bahls Glossary. Marine Fuels (Bunker Fuels). Marquard & Bahls, 2015. URL https://www.marquard-bahls.com/en/news-info/glossary/detail/term/m arine-fuels-bunker-fuels.html

[32] Damen Water Bus 2007 technical data. Damen Shipyards Group. URL https://products.damen.com/en/ranges/water-bus/water-bus-2007

[33] Volvo IPS-650 / D11 technical data. Volvo Penta. URL http://verdemotors.ro/products/marine-commercial-engines/propulsion /volvo-penta-ips/ips650-11-liter-in-line-6-cylinder.html

[34] IMO. Sulphur 2020: cutting sulphur oxide emissions. International Maritime Organization, 2020. URL http://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/sulphur-2020.aspx

[35] Statline. Emissions to air by the Dutch economy. Statistics Netherlands (CBS), 2019. URL https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/en/dataset/83300ENG/line?ts= 1580897772949 Bibliography 117

[36] CLARS. Urban access regulations in Europe: Amsterdam. Charging, Low Emission Zones, other Access Regulation Schemes (CLARS), 2007. URL https://urbanaccessregulations.eu/countries-mainmenu-147/netherlan ds-mainmenu-88/amsterdam [37] J.W. Pratt and L.E. Klebanoff. Optimization of Zero Emission Hydrogen Fuel Cell Ferry Design, with Comparisons to the SF-BREEZE. Sandia National Laboratories, 2018. [38] Final report: Zero-emission Expressboat Development Project (Sluttrapport: Nullutslipps Hurtig- bat Utviklingsprosjekt). Selfa Arctic, LMG Marin, Servogear, Norled and HYON, 2019. [39] T.K. Livgaard. Battery powered Boats, providing Greening, Resistance reduction, Electric, Efficient and Novelty. SES Europe AS, 2015. [40] J.W. Pratt and L.E. Klebanoff. Feasibility of the SF-BREEZE: A Zero-Emission, Hydrogen Fuel Cell, High-Speed Passenger Ferry. Sandia National Laboratories, 2016. [41] Commuter craft prototype creates no emissions. Passenger Ship technology magazine, 2012. [42] Ampere Electric-Powered Ferry. Ship Technology magazine, 2020. URL https://www.ship-technology.com/projects/norled-zerocat-electric-p owered-ferry/ [43] CASE STUDY: Norled AS, MF Amepre, Ferry. Corvus Energy, 2015. [44] E-ferry: the project at a glance. European Union´s Horizon 2020, 2015. URL http://e-ferryproject.eu/ [45] E. Gagatsi, T. Estrup and A. Halatsis. Exploring the potentials of electrical waterborne transport in Europe: the E-ferry concept. Transportation Research Procedia, 2016. [46] CES EduPack 2019. Database. Granta Design, ANSYS Inc. URL https://grantadesign.com/education/ces-edupack/data/ [47] M.U. Mutarraf, Y. Terriche, K.A.K. Niazi, J.C. Vasquez and J.M. Guerrero. Energy Storage Systems for Shipboard Microgrids - A review. Department of Energy technology, Aalborg University, 2018. [48] A. Polak, G. Grzeczka, P. Swoboda and P. Bakiera. Aspects of Safe Operation of Lithium-based Batteries in Marine Applications. Scientific Journal of Polish Naval Academy, 2016. [49] Ultracapacitor Safety Testing - 5 Ways to Abuse an Ultracapacitor. Skeleton Technologies, 2017. URL https://www.skeletontech.com/skeleton-blog/video-ultracapacitor-sa fety [50] FCHEA. Fuel Cell basics. Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Energy Association. URL http://www.fchea.org/fuelcells [51] T. Tronstad, H.H. Astrand, G.P. Haugom and L. Langfeldt. Study on the use of Fuel Cells in Shipping. DNV-GL, 2017. [52] S. Bennett. Reducing CO2 Emissions to Zero: The ”Paris Agreement for Shipping”. International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), 2018. [53] E4tech. The Fuel Cell Industry Review 2018. E4tech International consultancy, 2018. [54] T. Konrad. 12 Hydrogen And Fuel Cell Stocks. Forbes Media LLC., 2013. URL https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomkonrad/2013/12/11/twelve-hydrogen- and-fuel-cell-stocks/#1c3d675e1b79 [55] AFC Energy. HydroX-Cell (S). AFC Energy PLC., 2020. URL https://www.afcenergy.com/products/hydrox-cell-s/ [56] Y. Shao, M. F. El-Kady, J. Sun, Y. Li, Q. Zhang, M. Shu, H. Wang, B. Dunn and R. B. Kaner. Design and Mechanism of Asymmetric Supercapacitors. American chemical Society, 2018. 118 Bibliography

[57] B. T. W. Mestemaker, M. B. Gonçalves Castro, E. C. van der Blom, H. J. Cornege and K. Visser. Zero emission vessels from a shipbuilders perspective. Royal IHC and Delft University of Technology, 2019.

[58] H. K. Woud, D. Stapersma. Design of Propulsion and Electric Power Generation Systems. The Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology, 2002.

[59] A. F. Molland. Marine Engineering Reference Book. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, 2008.

[60] F. Ralbovsky. Study of Green Ferry Alternatives. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, 2007.

[61] D. Stapersma, J. Pinkster and J. W. Frouws. Design of Advanced Marine Vehicles. Delft University of Technology, 2000.

[62] L. Yun and A. Bliault. High Performance Marine Vessels Marine Design and Research Institute of China, 2012.

[63] USNA. Chapter 7: Resistance and Powering of ships. United States Naval Academy, 2020. URL https://www.usna.edu/NAOE/_files/documents/Courses/EN400/00.0_EN400 _Course_Notes_Spring_2020

[64] U. S. Tudem and T. K. Livgard. Air Supported Vessel (ASV) Monohull Demonstrator. Design development, testing at sea and results proving the concept. Effect Ships International AS, 2011.

[65] G. Migeotte and K. G. Hoppe. Developments in Hydrofoil Assistance for Semi-Displacement Cata- marans. University of Stellenbosch, 1999.

[66] R. Moolman. Comparative Evaluation of a Hydrofoil-Assisted Trimaran. University of Stellenbosch, 2005.

[67] Port map: Inland shipping. Port of Amsterdam, 2020. URL https://www.portofamsterdam.com/en/shipping/port-map

[68] M. Razola. On Structural Design of High-Speed Craft. KTH University, 2013.

[69] F. Rubino, A. Nistico, F. Tucci and P. Carlone. Marine Application of Fiber Reinforced Composites: A review. Marine Science and Engineering, 2020.

[70] M. L. Kaminski. Composite materials in marine applications. Delft University of Technology, 2005.

[71] A. A. van Oudheusden. Recycling of composite materials. Delft University of Technology, 2019.

[72] Recycling aluminium. European Aluminium, 2015.

[73] FCveloCity-HD. Product datasheet. Ballard Power Systems, 2020.

[74] VP5000-DCDC200. Product datasheet. Aradex AG, 2020.

[75] VP600-18W268. Product datasheet. Aradex AG, 2020.

[76] VM600M-28W0350. Product datasheet. Aradex AG, 2020.

[77] Marine Gas Oil DMA - product data. Neste Oil, 2019.

[78] Timetable: Line 382, IJmuiden Seaport - Amsterdam Station Sloterdijk. Connexxion, 2020. URL https://www.connexxion.nl/en/results/timetable

[79] Journey planner: Amsterdam, Station Sloterdijk - Amsterdam, Station Centraal. Nederlandse Spoorwegen, 2020. URL https://www.ns.nl/en

[80] Google directions: Amsterdam, Station Centraal - IJmuiden, De Noostraat/Pont Velsen. Google maps, 2020. Bibliography 119

[81] Fuel Economy in Major Car Markets: Technology ad Policy Drivers 2005-2017. International Energy Agency (IEA), 2019.

[82] Diesel prices, liter, January-2020. Global Petrol Prices, 2020. URL https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/Netherlands/diesel_prices/

[83] Gasoline prices, liter, January-2020. Global Petrol Prices, 2020. URL https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/Netherlands/gasoline_prices/

[84] Ferries: Damen Waterbus. Damen Shipyards Group, 2020.

[85] Brodrene AA: Deliveries. Brodrene AA AS, 2020. URL https://www.braa.no/fast-ferries

[86] Products Commuter. Incat Crowther, 2020. URL http://www.incatcrowther.com/products-commuter

[87] E.V. Lewis. Principles of Naval Architecture, Volume II: Resistance, Propulsion and Vibration. The Society of Naval Architectures and Marine Engineers, 1988.

[88] A.F. Molland, S.R. Turnock and D.A. Hudson. Ship Resistance and Propulsion: Practical Estimation of Ship Propulsive power. University of Southampton, 2011.

[89] A.F. Molland, J.F. Wellicome and P.R. Couser. Resistance Experiments on a Systematic Series of High-Speed Displacement Catamaran Forms: Variation of length-displacement ratio and breadth- draught ratio. Department of Ship Science, University of Southampton, 1994.

[90] ITTC. 1978 ITTC Performance Prediction Method: Standard procedure 7.5-02-03-01.4. Interna- tional Towing Tank Conference, 2017.

[91] P.K. Sahoo, M. Salas and A. Schwetz. Practical Evaluation of Resistance of high-speed Catamaran hull form - Part I. Ship and Offshore Structure, 2008.

[92] P.K. Sahoo, N.A. Browne and M. Salas. Experimental and CFD Study of Wave Resistance of High- Speed Round Bilge Catamaran Hull Forms. Australian Maritime College, 2004.

[93] N.A. Armstrong. On the Viscous Resistance and Form Factor of High-Speed Catamaran-Ferry Hull forms. University of New South Wales, 2000.

[94] ITTC. Testing and Data Analysis, Resistance test: Standard procedure 7.5-02-02-01. International Towing Tank Conference, 2008.

[95] P.R. Couser, A.F. Molland, N.A. Armstrong and I.K.A.P Utama. Calm water powering prediction for High-Speed Catamarans. Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, 1997.

[96] ITTC. Testing and Extrapolation Methods, High Speed Marine Vehicles, Resistance Test: Standard procedure 7.5-02-05-01. International Towing Tank Conference, 2008.

[97] A. Jamaluddin, I.K.A.P. Utama and B. Widodo. Experimental and Numerical study of the resistance component interactions of catamarans. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 2013.

[98] A. Papanikolaou. Ship Design: Methodologies of Preliminary Design. Springer, 2014.

[99] A.D. López de Asiaín Zabia. Sistemas de Propulsión y Gobierno. [Diseño de Cámara de Máquinas slides]. Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Navales, 2017.

[100] CES EduPack 2019. Material database. Granta Design, ANSYS Inc. URL https://grantadesign.com/education/ces-edupack/data/

[101] M. Burman. Cost and Energy assessment of a High-speed ship. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2002. 120 Bibliography

[102] Alternative marine fuels study. Comparison of Alternative Marine Fuels. DNV-GL, 2019. [103] C.B. Barras. Ship-handling problems in shallow water. MER, 1979. [104] PowerCell S3. Product datasheet. PowerCell Sweden AB, 2020. [105] Nomada 12V105Ah SuperB. Product datasheet. SuperB Lithium Power B.V., 2020. [106] SkelMod ultracapacitors. Product datasheets. Skeleton Technologies Group OU, 2020. URL https://www.skeletontech.com/all-products [107] Hexagon Type 4 hydrogen cylinders. Product datasheet. Hexagon Lincoln, Inc, 2019. [108] VP600-18X160-HP. Product datasheet. Aradex AG, 2020. [109] A.D. López de Asiaín Zabia. Planta de Generación Electrica. [Diseño de Cámara de Máquinas slides]. Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Navales, 2017. [110] MIT Electric Vehicle Team. A Guide to Understanding Battery Specifications. Massachusetts In- stitute of Technology, 2008. [111] I. Buchmann. BU-302: Series and Parallel Battery Configurations. Battery University, 2019. URL https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/serial_and_parallel_bat tery_configurations [112] Hybrid Optimization Model for Multiple Energy Resources Pro 3.13. HOMER Pro 3.13 User Manual. HOMER Energy LLC., 2019. URL https://www.homerenergy.com/products/pro/docs/latest/battery_round trip_efficiency.html [113] FCvelocity-9SSL. Product datasheet. Ballard Power Systems, 2020. [114] R. Kalbitz and F. Puhane. How to use Supercapacitors A brief guide to the design-in process. Würth Elektronik, 2019. [115] K. Webb. Section 4: Ultracapacitors. Oregon State University, 2018. [116] I. Buchmann. BU-209: How does a Supercapacitor Work. Battery University, 2019. URL https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/whats_the_role_of_the_s upercapacitor [117] The Sundowner, a feature-rich Dutch style bike. Woosh Bike limited, 2020. URL https://wooshbikes.co.uk/2014/sundowner/mini/sundowner-dimensions. jpg [118] Maritime Labour Convention. International Labour Conference, 2006. [119] Hydrogen tool. Hydrogen leaks. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 2020. URL https://h2tools.org/bestpractices/hydrogen-leaks [120] International Code on Intact Stability. Resolution MSC.267(85). International Maritime Organi- zation, 2008. [121] International Code of Safety for High-Speed Craft. Resolution MSC.36 (63). International Mar- itime Organization, 2008. [122] Directive (EU) 2017/2108 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Directive 2009/45/EC on safety rules and standards for passenger ships. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2017. [123] D. Harvey. Multihulls for Cruising and Racing. Adlard Coles, 2003. [124] Inland Harbour Dues. Port of Amsterdam, 2020. URL https://www.portofamsterdam.com/en/shipping/inland-shipping/submit ting-your-statement-inland-harbour-dues#bhg2 Bibliography 121

[125] VAT rates applied in the Member States of the European Union. European Commission, 2020. URL https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/resource s/documents/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/rates/vat_rates_en.pdf

[126] P. van der Burg, A. Engelsman, E. Geerling, J.A.S van der Laan, C. Mertens, E. Schultz, J. Valkier and B. de Vries. MT724: Ship finance. Delft University of Technology and Nesec B.V., 2014. [127] FERRY Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary. Cambridge University Press, 2019. URL https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ferry [128] Interferry. Ferry Industry Facts. 2019. URL https://interferry.com/ferry-industry-facts/?

A Definition of ferry

A.1. Ferry: general definition

Cambridge Dictionary [127] defines ferry or ferry boat as: ”A boat or ship for taking passengers and often vehicles across an area of water, especially as a regular service” Ferries are primarily considered as merchant vessels which travel over water and are used to carry passengers, products and other types of goods. Larger ferries are able to transport bigger cargoes such as trucks, buses and even trains. Normally, ferries operate within a specific route, offering a regular service.

Generally, the following vessels are not included in the definition of ferry [128]:

– Vessels that do not operate on a regular schedule. – Vessels that normally carry only unaccompanied freight vehicles, e.g. RoRo freight vessels.

– Vessels that operate on routes greater than 48 hours in duration, e.g. cruise ships. – Vessels whose main purpose is not the transport of passengers/vehicles from point A to point B, e.g. cruise ships.

The U.S. Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services [9] add to the definition of ferry that only vessels operating in narrow waterways, i.e. non-sea-going routes, are classified as ferries.

This concept of narrow waters is difficult to apply in Europe, unless the Mediterranean, Baltic and North Sea routes are considered narrow waterways. Therefore, considering the previous statements, an accurate definition of ferry, applicable to any geographic area, would be:

”A boat or ship for taking passengers and often accompanied vehicles and freight across an area of water, as a regular service whose duration does not exceed 48 hours.”

123

B Zero-emission technology

B.1. Electro-Chemical Energy Storage systems: definition and working principle

Electro-Chemical energy storage systems, commonly known as batteries, store energy as chemical energy. Batteries consists of two half cells, each containing a metal and a salt solution of that metal.

The half cell with the more reactive metal is the anode. This metal is oxidized, becoming a metal ion and releasing electrons. The half cell with the less reactive metal is the cathode. The metal ions from the solution are reduced.

The metals from each half cell are connected through a conducting circuit. The electrons are transported from the anode to the cathode through this circuit, where they provide electricity. In order to maintain balance of charge, anions (negatively charged ions) are allowed to pass through a porous disk or salt bridge from one solution to the other.

Figure B.1: Li-Ion battery diagram [46].

125 126 B. Zero-emission technology

B.2. Electro-Magnetic Energy Storage systems: definition and working principle

– Electrical Double-Layer Capacitors (EDLC) or Super-capacitors.

– Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES) systems.

Conventional capacitors consist on two plates placed in close proximity, with a dielectric insulator between them. Energy is used to remove charge from one and place it on the other, creating a potential difference between them. Energy is extracted by allowing the charge to return, after passing through an external circuit where it delivers energy. Even though these can be charged and discharged very quickly, their specific energy is significantly low.

EDLC or Super-capacitors store the charges at the interface between activated carbon and a liquid electrolyte, rather than between two plates. The large area to volume ratio of activated carbon and the vanishingly thin distance over which the charged is stored, improves the capacitance densities and energy densities of EDLC.

On the other hand, SMES systems store energy as magnetic energy by charging up a superconducting magnet with current, which creates a magnetic field. The energy is released by charging the current through an external field.

The main disadvantage of this system is that the superconducting material needs refrigeration. This refrigeration implies a reduction in the efficiency, making SMES be used for short term storage.

Figure B.2: Electrical Double-Layer Capacitors diagram [46]. B.3. Fuel Cells: definition and working principle 127

B.3. Fuel Cells: definition and working principle

Fuel cells, contrary to the previous two technologies, continuously generate electrical energy by a chemical reaction, as long as a fuel source is provided. In addition to a fuel supply, fuel cells require oxygen as well to generate electricity. This technology is composed of an anode, cathode and an electrolyte membrane.

The fuel employed, hydrogen-rich fuel, passes through the anode in which the hydrogen molecules are split into electrons and protons. These protons pass throughout the electrolyte membrane, while the electrons through a circuit generating electric current and heat as losses.

On the other side, the oxygen passing through the cathode combines with the protons and electrons producing water molecules. Fuel cells are characterized, therefore, for being clean electric generators as only water and heat is released in the exhausting process.

Figure B.3: Fuel Cell system diagram [47].

C IJmuiden - Amsterdam route

C.1. 15min-frequency route schedule

C.2. 20min-frequency route schedule

C.3. 30min-frequency route schedule

129 130 C. IJmuiden - Amsterdam route IJmuiden - Amsterdam schedule 15-minutes-frequency route schedule. Table C.1: 6:15 6:306:50 6:45 7:05 7:00 7:209:45 7:15 7:35 10:0010:20 7:30 10:15 7:50 10:35 10:30 7:45 10:50 8:05 10:4513:15 11:05 8:00 11:00 8:20 13:30 11:20 11:15 8:1513:50 13:45 11:35 8:35 11:30 14:05 14:00 11:50 8:30 11:45 8:50 14:20 14:15 12:05 12:00 8:45 14:35 14:30 12:2016:45 9:05 12:15 14:50 14:45 12:35 17:00 9:00 12:30 9:20 15:05 15:0017:20 12:50 17:15 12:45 9:15 15:20 15:15 17:35 13:05 17:30 9:35 13:00 9:30 15:35 15:30 17:50 13:20 17:456:00 9:50 15:50 15:45 18:05 13:35 18:00 6:15 10:05 16:05 16:00 18:20 18:156:35 16:20 16:15 18:35 18:30 6:30 6:50 16:35 16:30 18:50 18:45 6:45 16:50 19:05 19:00 7:059:30 17:05 19:20 19:15 7:00 7:20 9:45 19:35 19:3010:05 7:15 19:50 19:45 7:35 10:00 10:20 7:30 20:05 20:00 10:15 10:35 7:50 20:20 10:3013:00 10:50 7:45 8:05 20:35 10:45 13:15 11:05 8:00 11:0013:35 13:30 11:20 8:20 11:15 13:50 13:45 11:35 8:15 8:35 11:30 14:05 14:00 11:50 8:30 11:45 14:20 14:15 12:0516:30 8:50 12:00 16:45 14:35 14:30 12:20 8:45 9:05 12:15 14:50 14:4517:05 12:35 17:00 9:00 12:30 17:20 15:05 15:00 12:50 17:15 9:20 12:45 9:15 15:20 15:15 17:35 13:05 17:30 9:35 15:35 15:30 17:50 13:20 17:45 9:50 15:50 15:45 18:05 18:00 16:05 16:00 18:20 18:15 16:20 16:15 18:35 18:30 16:35 18:50 18:45 16:50 19:05 19:00 19:20 19:15 19:35 19:30 19:50 19:45 20:05 20:20 Amsterdam, Station Central IJmuiden, De Noostraat/ Pont Velsen Amsterdam, Station Central IJmuiden, De Noostraat/ Pont Velsen Amsterdam, Station Central IJmuiden, De Noostraat/ Pont Velsen Amsterdam, Station Central IJmuiden, De Noostraat/ Pont Velsen IJmuiden, De Noostraat/ Pont Velsen Amsterdam, Station Central IJmuiden, De Noostraat/ Pont Velsen Amsterdam, Station Central IJmuiden, De Noostraat/ Pont Velsen Amsterdam, Station Central IJmuiden, De Noostraat/ Pont Velsen Amsterdam, Station Central C.3. 30min-frequency route schedule 131 IJmuiden - Amsterdam schedule 20-minutes-frequency route schedule. 6:30 6:507:05 7:10 7:25 7:30 7:4511:10 7:50 11:30 8:05 11:5011:45 8:10 8:25 12:10 12:05 8:30 12:30 12:25 8:45 12:5015:50 12:45 8:50 9:05 13:10 16:10 13:05 9:10 13:3016:25 16:30 13:25 9:25 13:50 16:45 16:50 13:45 9:30 9:45 14:10 17:05 17:10 14:056:00 9:50 14:30 17:25 17:30 14:25 10:05 6:20 14:50 17:45 17:50 14:45 10:10 10:256:35 15:10 18:05 18:10 15:05 10:30 10:45 6:40 6:55 15:30 18:25 18:30 15:25 10:50 11:05 7:00 18:45 18:50 15:45 11:25 7:1510:40 19:05 19:10 16:05 7:20 11:00 7:35 19:25 19:30 11:2011:15 7:40 19:45 19:50 7:55 11:35 11:40 8:00 20:05 20:10 11:55 12:00 8:15 20:25 12:15 12:2015:20 8:20 8:35 20:45 15:40 12:35 12:40 8:40 16:00 12:55 13:0015:55 8:55 16:15 16:20 13:15 13:20 9:00 9:15 16:35 13:35 13:40 16:40 9:20 16:55 13:55 14:00 17:00 9:35 14:15 14:20 17:15 17:20 9:40 9:55 14:35 14:40 17:35 17:40 10:00 14:55 15:00 17:55 18:00 10:15 10:20 15:15 18:15 18:20 10:35 15:35 18:35 18:40 10:55 18:55 19:00 19:15 19:20 19:35 19:40 19:55 20:15 Table C.2: Amsterdam, Station Central IJmuiden, De Noostraat/ Pont Velsen Amsterdam, Station Central IJmuiden, De Noostraat/ Pont Velsen Amsterdam, Station Central IJmuiden, De Noostraat/ Pont Velsen IJmuiden, De Noostraat/ Pont Velsen Amsterdam, Station Central IJmuiden, De Noostraat/ Pont Velsen Amsterdam, Station Central IJmuiden, De Noostraat/ Pont Velsen Amsterdam, Station Central 132 C. IJmuiden - Amsterdam route IJmuiden - Amsterdam schedule 6:30 7:007:05 7:30 7:35 8:00 8:0513:30 8:30 14:00 8:35 14:3014:05 9:00 9:05 15:00 14:35 9:30 15:30 15:056:00 9:35 16:00 15:35 10:00 6:30 10:05 16:30 16:05 10:306:35 10:35 17:00 16:35 7:00 11:00 7:05 11:05 17:30 17:05 11:30 7:30 11:35 18:00 17:35 7:35 12:0013:00 12:05 18:30 18:05 8:00 12:30 13:30 8:05 12:35 19:00 18:35 13:00 13:35 14:00 8:30 13:05 19:30 19:05 8:35 14:05 14:30 13:35 9:00 20:00 19:35 14:35 15:00 9:05 20:05 15:05 15:30 9:30 9:35 20:35 15:35 16:00 10:00 16:05 16:30 10:05 10:30 16:35 17:00 10:35 11:00 17:05 17:30 11:05 11:30 17:35 18:00 11:35 12:00 18:05 18:30 12:05 12:30 18:35 19:00 12:35 19:05 19:30 13:05 19:35 20:05 30-minutes-frequency route schedule. Table C.3: Amsterdam, Station Central IJmuiden, De Noostraat/ Pont Velsen Amsterdam, Station Central IJmuiden, De Noostraat/ Pont Velsen IJmuiden, De Noostraat/ Pont Velsen Amsterdam, Station Central IJmuiden, De Noostraat/ Pont Velsen Amsterdam, Station Central D Resistance prediction methods

D.1. Molland et al. method (1994)

Molland et al. regression equation was developed based on the experiments carried out by A.F. Molland and P. Couser [89]. These experiments compromise total resistance measurements together with wave pattern analyses.

The models employed in the experiments were derived from the National Physical Laboratories round bilge series. This series was, first, tested as monohulls and, later, in catamaran configuration applying four different hull spacings (푠/퐿 of 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5). Figure D.1 and Table D.1 indicate the model body plans and hull characteristics of the models used in the experiments.

Figure D.1: NPL Round Bilge series: Model body plans [89].

133 134 D. Resistance prediction methods

Table D.1: NPL Round Bilge series: Hull characteristics [89].

/ Model 퐿 [푚] 퐿/퐵 [−] 퐵/푇 [−] 퐿/∇ [−] 푐 [−] 푐 [−] 푐 [−] 푆 [푚 ] 3b 1.6 7.0 2.0 6.27 0.397 0.693 0.565 0.434 4a 1.6 10.4 1.5 7.40 0.397 0.693 0.565 0.348 4b 1.6 9.0 2.0 7.41 0.397 0.693 0.565 0.338 4c 1.6 8.0 2.5 7.39 0.397 0.693 0.565 0.340 5a 1.6 12.8 1.5 8.51 0.397 0.693 0.565 0.282 5b 1.6 11.0 2.0 8.50 0.397 0.693 0.565 0.276 5c 1.6 9.9 2.5 8.49 0.397 0.693 0.565 0.277 6a 1.6 15.1 1.5 9.50 0.397 0.693 0.565 0.240 6b 1.6 13.1 2.0 9.50 0.397 0.693 0.565 0.233 6c 1.6 11.7 2.5 9.50 0.397 0.693 0.565 0.234

This series of round bilge hulls constrained the application of Equation D.1 to models with characteristics laying within the parameter range shown in Table D.2. Tables D.3 & D.4 indicate the regression coefficients for Equation D.1.

Table D.2: Molland et al. method (1994): Parameter range [91].

Parameter range 7.0 length-to-beam ratio (퐿/퐵) 15.1 1.5 beam-to-draft ratio (퐵/푇) 2.5 6.3 slenderness ratio (퐿/∇/) 9.5 0.2 hull spacing (푠/퐿) 0.5 block coefficient (푐) 0.4

퐿 퐵 퐿 푠 퐿 퐵 퐿 퐿 퐵 퐿 퐿 푠 퐵 푠 퐶, = 푏 + 푏 + 푏 + 푏 / + 푏 + 푏 + 푏 / + 푏 / + 푏 + 푏 + 퐵 푇 ∇ 퐿 퐵 푇 퐵 ∇ 푇 ∇ 퐵 퐿 푇 퐿 (D.1) 퐿 푠 퐿 퐵 퐿 퐿 퐵 푠 퐿 퐿 푠 퐵 퐿 푠 퐿 퐵 퐿 푠 + 푏 + 푏 + 푏 + 푏 + 푏 + 푏 ∇/ 퐿 퐵 푇 ∇/ 퐵 푇 퐿 퐵 ∇/ 퐿 푇 ∇/ 퐿 퐵 푇 ∇/ 퐿

Table D.3: Molland et al. method (1994): Regression coefficients, 1st Table [91].

Fn b0 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7 0.20 0.000 -1.010 -3.482 2.936 0.434 -1.782 0.053 1.169 0.25 0.000 -0.624 -1.430 0.911 14.494 -0.576 0.063 0.573 0.30 0.000 -0.135 -1.171 0.928 -21.610 -0.730 0.012 0.487 0.35 0.000 -1.870 -8.177 5.059 4.144 -2.346 0.095 2.106 0.40 0.000 -1.437 -2.620 2.150 32.489 -0.306 0.082 0.413 0.45 0.000 2.504 10.900 -6.979 10.979 4.132 -0.114 -2.901 0.50 0.000 5.921 19.565 -8.431 39.226 1.270 -0.324 -2.430 0.55 0.000 3.149 26.826 -2.589 111.705 -1.619 -0.237 -2.989 0.6 0.000 1.398 29.096 0.614 107.296 -2.655 -0.191 -3.503 0.65 0.000 0.701 17.120 -0.514 65.457 -0.368 -0.092 -2.409 0.70 0.000 1.602 13.789 -2.218 59.031 0.291 -0.122 -2.024 0.75 0.000 2.173 9.941 -2.585 53.376 0.192 -0.151 -1.356 0.80 0.000 1.811 9.833 -2.216 44.561 0.217 -0.139 -1.497 0.85 0.000 1.841 10.540 -1.971 38.833 -0.315 -0.138 -1.409 0.90 0.000 2.148 13.265 -2.749 33.474 0.104 -0.168 -2.080 0.95 0.000 2.448 13.923 -3.472 31.412 0.402 -0.183 -2.266 1.00 0.000 2.882 14.586 -4.781 7.184 0.961 -0.189 -2.480 D.1. Molland et al. method (1994) 135

Table D.4: Molland et al. method (1994): Regression coefficients, 2nd Table [91].

Fn b8 b9 b10 b11 b12 b13 b14 b15 0.20 2.437 8.242 -6.962 0.041 4.230 -0.137 -2.816 -0.092 0.25 1.051 -3.927 -3.763 -0.004 0.905 -0.043 0.120 -0.021 0.30 3.235 12.628 0.754 0.017 -0.351 -0.328 -1.728 0.119 0.35 4.918 21.604 -12.503 0.012 5.082 -0.270 -5.153 0.021 0.40 2.854 -2.519 -11.615 -0.022 2.830 -0.035 -0.280 -0.075 0.45 -0.970 -7.798 10.730 -0.100 -11.150 -0.046 5.288 0.444 0.50 -11.378 -24.067 13.500 0.076 -6.242 0.614 3.816 0.171 0.55 -13.638 -77.986 -5.439 0.244 3.388 1.254 9.134 -0.586 0.60 -9.326 -83.327 -13.326 0.320 6.584 1.134 10.051 -0.797 0.65 -4.015 -38.325 -7.119 0.120 0.620 0.512 5.253 -0.199 0.70 -5.949 -33.130 -2.283 0.079 -0.876 0.572 4.822 -0.136 0.75 -7.233 -26.712 -1.242 0.067 0.184 0.637 3.380 -0.169 0.80 -6.278 -27.259 -1.141 0.074 0.618 0.591 3.702 -0.230 0.85 -5.976 -28.430 -1.758 0.106 2.476 0.556 3.214 -0.330 0.90 -5.934 -32.675 0.171 0.120 1.401 0.559 4.515 -0.338 0.95 -6.845 -36.448 3.349 0.117 -0.169 0.599 5.638 -0.315 1.00 -5.623 -27.406 9.518 0.100 -2.972 0.363 5.129 -0.140 136 D. Resistance prediction methods

D.2. Round Bilge Catamaran Series of Sahoo, Browne & Salas (2004)

Contrary to the previous regression shown, Sahoo, Browne & Salas developed a resistance prediction equation from computational experiments (CFD analysis) [92] by means of the numerical software SHIPFLOW.

Moreover, the series of models employed in this regression method is based on the typical hull forms used by the high-speed ferry industry in Australia. The body plan as well as the hull features of these models are indicated in Figure D.2 and Table D.5 respectively.

Figure D.2: Round Bilge Catamaran Series of Sahoo, Browne and Salas (2004): Model body plans [92].

Table D.5: Round Bilge Catamaran Series of Sahoo, Browne and Salas (2004): Hull features [92].

/ Model 퐿/퐵 [−] 퐵/푇 [−] 푐 [−] 퐿/∇ [−] 퐿 [푚] 퐵 [푚] 푇 [푚] Δ [푡] 푖 [푑푒푔] 훽 [푑푒푔] 푆 [푚 ] 1 15.00 1.50 0.40 9.45 50.00 3.33 2.22 151.93 5.43 42.99 246.10 2 15.00 1.50 0.45 9.08 50.00 3.33 2.22 170.91 7.18 44.32 256.20 3 15.00 2.50 0.50 10.40 50.00 3.33 1.33 113.90 7.03 24.94 195.89 4 15.00 2.50 0.40 11.20 50.00 3.33 1.33 91.08 4.00 23.32 181.97 5 12.50 1.50 0.45 8.04 50.00 4.00 2.67 246.10 8.60 44.11 307.57 6 12.50 2.50 0.45 9.54 50.00 4.00 1.60 147.69 8.60 30.37 231.71 7 10.00 2.50 0.45 8.22 50.00 5.00 2.00 230.77 10.71 30.37 289.90

From Table D.5 the applicable parameter range can be established. In this case, the block coefficient has not been fixed and varies between 0.4 and 0.5. In addition, the hull spacing (푠/퐿) was limited by the authors to a maximum separation of 0.4. Equation D.2 shows the regression equation developed by Sahoo, Browne & Salas, which was validated using the measurements of Molland et al. [89] even though it was developed using a different round bilge series. The regression coefficients for Equation D.2 are tabulated in Table D.7. D.2. Round Bilge Catamaran Series of Sahoo, Browne & Salas (2004) 137

Table D.6: Round Bilge Catamaran Series of Sahoo, Browne and Salas (2004): Parameter range [92].

Parameter range 10 length-to-beam ratio (퐿/퐵) 15 1.5 beam-to-draft ratio (퐵/푇) 2.5 8.04 slenderness ratio (퐿/∇/) 11.2 0.4 block coefficient (푐) 0.5 0.2 hull spacing (푠/퐿) 0.4

퐿 퐵 퐿 푠 퐶 = 푒 ( ) ( ) 푐 ( ) 푖 훽 ( ) (D.2) , 퐵 푇 ∇/ 퐿

Table D.7: Round Bilge Catamaran Series of Sahoo, Browne and Salas (2004): Regression coefficients [92].

Fn C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 0.2 2.571 0.436 0.000 0.000 -4.124 -0.039 -0.199 0.037 0.3 0.585 0.000 0.000 0.945 -3.282 0.246 0.087 -0.089 0.4 3.324 0.000 -0.471 -0.963 -3.523 0.000 -0.688 -0.035 0.5 2.439 0.379 0.000 -0.600 -4.262 0.000 -0.337 -0.368 0.6 1.809 -0.110 0.000 0.000 -3.625 -0.061 -0.095 -0.314 0.7 1.055 0.000 0.082 -0.025 -3.617 0.000 -0.064 -0.181 0.8 0.603 0.222 0.266 0.000 -3.869 0.000 0.000 -0.069 0.9 -0.466 0.049 0.162 0.000 -3.322 0.128 0.000 -0.006 1.0 -1.221 0.000 0.117 0.000 -3.046 0.264 0.000 0.075

E Hydrostatics and Stability criteria

E.1. Hydrostatics

Table E.1 indicates the hydrostatic characteristics of Model 18 at the fully loaded case.

Table E.1: Hydrostatics at the full load condition.

Displacement 29.89 t Draft at FP 0.76 m Draft at AP 0.76 m Draft at LCF 0.76 m Trim (+ by stern) 0.01 m WL Length 20.83 m Beam max extents on WL 6.06 m KB 0.49 m KG 1.86 m BMT 9.58 m BML 57.85 m GMT 8.21 m GML 56.48 m KMT 10.06 m KML 58.33 m Immersion (TPc) 0.63 t/cm Moment to Trim 1cm (MTc) 0.81 t·m Righting Moment at 1deg 4.28 t·m Trim angle (+ by stern) 0.02 deg

E.2. Stability criteria

International Code of Intact Stability establishes the following stability criteria to be satisfied by any passenger vessel:

1. The area under the righting lever curve (GZ curve) shall not be less than 0.055 metre-radians up to 휙 = 30º angle of heel and not less than 0.09 metre-radians up to 휙 = 40º or the angle of down-flooding (휙) if this angle is less than 40º. Additionally, the area under the righting lever curve (GZ curve) between the angles of heel of 30º and 40º or between 30º and 휙, if this angle is less than 40º, shall not be less than 0.03 metre-radians.

2. The righting lever (GZ) shall be at least 0.2m at an angle of heel equal to or greater than 30º.

139 140 E. Hydrostatics and Stability criteria

3. The maximum righting lever shall occur at an angle of heel not less than 25º.

4. The initial metacentric height (GM) shall not be less than 0.15m.

5. Weather criterion:

This criteria studies the ability of the vessel to withstand the combined effects of beam wind and rolling, defined in Figure E.1 and by the next heeling levers and angles.

Figure E.1: Weather criterion explanation [120].

The ship is subjected to a steady wind pressure acting perpendicular to the ship’s centerline, resulting in a steady wind heeling lever (푙): 푃 퐴 푍 푙 = 1000 푔 Δ

푃 = 푤푖푛푑 푝푟푒푠푠푢푟푒 (504푃푎) 퐴 = 푙푎푡푒푟푎푙 푝푟표푗푒푐푡푒푑 푎푟푒푎 푎푏표푣푒 푤푎푡푒푟푙푖푛푒 푍 = 푑푖푠푡푎푛푐푒 푓푟표푚 푡ℎ푒 푐푒푛푡푒푟 표푓 푎푟푒푎 ”퐴” 푡표 푡ℎ푒 푐푒푛푡푒푟 표푓 푢푛푑푒푟푤푎푡푒푟 푙푎푡푒푟푎푙 푎푟푒푎

From the resultant angle of equilibrium (휙), the ship is assumed to roll owing to wave action to an angle of roll (휙) to windward. The angle of heel under action of steady wind (휙) should not exceed 16° or 80% of the angle of deck edge immersion, whichever is less.

The ship is then subjected to a gust wind pressure which results in a gust wind heeling lever (푙), defined as: 푙 = 1.5 푙

Under these circumstances, Area b shall be equal to or greater than Area a, as indicated in Figure E.1, in which Area b is limited by the heeling angle (휙). This angle is defined as the down-flooding angle (휙), 50º or 휙, whichever is less.

6. Passenger crowding criterion: E.2. Stability criteria 141

The heeling angle on account of the passenger crowding righting lever (퐺푍), defined as the movement of a horizontal weight according to the following equation, shall not exceed 10º. 푛 푀 퐺푍 = 푑 푐표푠(휙) Δ

푑 = ℎ표푟푖푧표푛푡푎푙 푑푖푠푡푎푛푐푒 푚푒푎푠푢푟푒푑 푓푟표푚 푡ℎ푒 푠ℎ푖푝 푐푒푛푡푒푟 푙푖푛푒 (푚) 푛 = 푛푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 푝푎푠푠푒푛푔푒푟푠 푀 = 푚푎푠푠 표푓 푎 푠푖푛푔푙푒 푝푎푠푠푒푛푔푒푟 (푡)

7. Turning criterion:

The heeling angle on account of the turning lever (퐺푍), defined by the next expression, shall not exceed 10º. 푣 퐺푍 = 0.2 (퐾퐺 − 푑/2) 퐿 푔

푣 = 푠푒푟푣푖푐푒 푠푝푒푒푑 (푚/푠) 퐿 = 푙푒푛푔푡ℎ 표푓 푠ℎ푖푝 (푚) 푑 = 푚푒푎푛 푑푟푎푓푡 (푚)