1. The Impact of the Panama Canal Expansion on Ship design and trade Elizabeth Lindstad Sintef Ocean AS
Sintef Ocean AS: The merger of Norwegian Marine Technology Research Institute (MARINTEK), SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the environmental technology group of SINTEF Materials and Chemistry from January 2017

3. In 2006, The Panama Canal Authorities decided to build new canal locks to enable significantly larger vessels to pass through the canal
Achieve economies of scale by employing larger vessels in trades through the canal, to reduce transport costs.
Enable vessels too large for the existing canal, to re-route and thus reduce their voyage length and cost.
Make the sea-route from Asia through the canal directly to the east coast of the US more competitive vis-à-vis the west coast and the land-bridge route across the country to the east coast.
The Old Locks
Maximum Beam meter
Draft m
Length 290 m
The New Locks
Maximum Beam 49 m
Draft 15.2 m
Length 360 m
Source of drawing and map:
Dagens Industri 15 January 2013 3

4. Ship Design principles
Seagoing vessels have traditionally been designed to operate at their boundary speed based on hydrodynamic considerations.
For any given hull form, the boundary speed can be defined as the speed range where the resistance coefficient goes from an almost nearly constant value to rise rapidly as speed increases.
For an average Panamax bulker or tanker with block coefficient in the 0.85 to 0.9 range (1.0 for a shoebox) the boundary speed area starts at 12 – 13 knots, with a gradual increase in the resistance coefficient, which approaches infinity at speeds above 16 – 17 knots.
Higher fuel prices and growing environmental concerns have challenged the practice of maximising cargo-carrying ability and the practice of powering vessels to operate at their boundary speeds.

5. Alternative hull forms for a dry bulk Panamax of 80 000 dwt (displacement 92 000 ton
Beam - Block 28.2m – ,3m – m – m – 0.75

6. Slender hull forms – Boundary speed Vb=(1. 7-1. 4. Cb). (Lpp/0. 304)0
Slender hull forms – Boundary speed Vb=( *Cb)*(Lpp/0.304)0.5 (Silverleaf & Dawson 1996)

7. The Maximum economic speed for a design is a function of the fuel cost

8. Low fuel prices favours fullbodied bulk and tank designs8

9. Example of typical Block coeffisients and how increasing the beam, or the length, or both enables more slender vessels
Source: Lindstad, H, Assessment of Bulk designs Enabled by the Panama Canal expansion. (SNAME) Transactions 121, page , ISSN

10. Out of all global restrictions, none had the impact on vessel design as the original Panama Canal locks dating back to 1914
Apart from a few scientific papers, there has been relatively little focus on how the Canal's expansion will influence ship design and thus the energy efficiency of the global merchant shipping fleet.
Source : MT- Marine Technology, page 42 – 46 . Volume 53, Issue 4, October 2016

11. Expansion Impact – Container and car carriers built for the new locks

12. DNV-GL VLCC TRIALITY a block of 0. 6 compared to 0
DNV-GL VLCC TRIALITY a block of 0.6 compared to 0.8 for a conventional vessel -> a slender design

13. Laden and ballast voyage cost per as a function of vessel speed 9000nm roundtrip with a 110' dwt Aframax (Fuel = 600 USD/ton)
Source: Lindstad and Eskeland 2015 Low carbon maritime transport: How speed, size and slenderness amounts to Substantial Capital Energy Substitution. Transportation Research Part D 41

14. Fuel and cost per ton transported as a function of:
Fuel and cost per ton transported as a function of: vessel design – vessel size and vessel speed 900 USD/ ton of fuel
Source: Lindstad and Eskeland 2015 Low carbon maritime transport: How speed, size and slenderness amounts to Substantial Capital Energy Substitution. Transportation Research Part D 41

15. Building more slender bulk and tank vessels might be the easiest way to meet EEDI - IMO requirements

17. Potential reduction in CO2

18. 2050 BAU scenario' s for shipping and reduction potentials identified through previous studies
FIG.2 Annual CO2 emissions from the global shipping fleet, distinguished by business-as-usual and reduction scenario pathways (Bouman et al. 2017)
Fig 1: Lindstad 2016, own calculations and adapted from Bows-Larkin et al. (2015) Shipping charts a high carbon course. Nat. Clim. Chang.5a

19. CO2 emission reduction potential from individual measures Source: Bouman et al 2017

20. HULL DESIGN and Block Cofficient 30%
MAIN GOALS
POTENTIAL AREAS
SAVINGS UP TO
RESEARCH AREAS
EMISSIONS
REDUCTION
ENERGY
EFFICIENCY
MARITIME
CLUSTER
COMPETITIVENESS
83%
HULL DESIGN and Block Cofficient
30%
10%
45%
35%
POWER SYSTEMS AND FUELS
25%
20%
NOVEL PROPULSION & PROPULSION OPTIMIZATION
30%
50%
VESSEL PERFORMANCE SIMULATION
60%
EMISSION REGULATIONS
GLOBAL WARMING
EEDI
FUEL COST
EEOI
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION
COMPETITIVE ADANTAGE
URGENCY - CHALLENGES OF MARITIME INDUSTRY