MV Hyak

[rusty]

With my previous post I have reached a point of closure in regard to the Hyak Hybrid propulsion project. It's time to return to the day job. I want to thank those who operate and maintain this board, and it's participants--for it is you who facilitated the convoluted process that I followed in order to get to that post--which is the basis of my challenge to the validity of the Hyak Hybrid project.

I have just a couple of things I want to throw at the board, and see what sticks.

First, does anyone know where to locate details of what this project actually is. I haven't been able to find anything specific. By that I mean some sort of preliminary plan?

Without further information I can only conclude that this project is basically a large battery grafted onto the Hyak's propulsion bus--a Frakenferry of sorts.

Anyway, bye.
-fe2o3

[chokai]

It's unlikely other documentation exists, at least publicly. The Tiger grant process is a fairly standard federal grant process and works as follows:

1) Proposals are submitted. At this point proposals amount to "we would like to do _____" <-- this is where we are
2) A small subset of proposals are selected for further review and more detailed analysis, preliminary engineering and fleshing out.
3) An even smaller subset of grants are then approved for actual funding.

See here: www.dot.gov/recovery/docs/tigerprocess.pdf

I suspect you'd have to wait for Hyak to get to step 2 to be able to get what you want documentation wise. Given the current state and federal administrations and political climate I'd suspect it's likely that the project would get to that at least that step.

[rusty]

Thanks for the link chokai.

[rusty]

This post is bits & pieces, & my left over notes, from the previous dicussions:

In the Hyak Hybrid Ferry Propulsion Project grant application WSDOT requests more than twelve million dollars to purchase equipment for this project, without any sort preliminary plan. This is analogous to a home builder approaching you and saying “I’ll build you a house with a heat pump, give me $300,000.” No plan, no promise, no warranty, just a wink and a nod. Only a fool would do that, and WSDOT, I guess, assumes that the US Department of Transportation is that fool. We are the USDOT! This project needs to be sealed in a can, labeled pork, and put on the shelf.


On reflection, there is an aspect of a battery hybrid installation that makes sense. That would be to supplement the engines at peak power demand., such as full power back downs, and accelerating to transit speed. The system designer could then downsize the propulsion engines and thus maximize fuel efficiency.


It is a noble cause to increase fuel efficiency on the Hyak, but WSDOT should start by picking the low lying fruit first. I assume the Hyak’s heating system still uses those inefficient sectional cast iron boilers to heat vessel spaces. There are more fuel efficient boilers on the market. And of course, waste heat recovery from engine exhaust should be a priority system enhancement.


A few posts back I mentioned that the Klickitat served all of her 80 years with her 1927 control system. Yes, it was antiquated, but it was extremely reliable and easy to fix. One complaint about the Hyak is that the control system is old and antiquated. The thing has worked for 44 years, and easily could work another 16. As for control system spare parts, I sure hope they retained those after the retrofits on the other supers, or as they said on the Klickitat, give the monkey a file and a bar of copper.


Someone posted that the Hyak would make a good test bed, because if the hybrid system doesn’t work WSDOT could just scrap the boat. The loss would only be in the tens of millions. Kind of an expensive bet. If the hybrid propulsion system is that much of a gamble--don‘t do it!


My contention was that a smaller ferry would make a better test bed. WSDOT would lose less money. Then I remembered that WSDOT had four potential candidates. They sold them for $50,000 a piece a couple of years ago! Grrrr!

Grrrrrrr!!!

It was also my contention that fuel saving technologies should be incorporated into new vessel construction, as they will be burning fuel for the next 60 years. An OBTW & IMHO: WSDOT has to give up on those 2-cycle propulsion engines in new construction. The trucking industry did that over a decade ago. They have to buy their fuel from revenue, and make a profit.

-end

[dumbthird]

Nov 8, 2011 7:22:53 GMT -8 Barnacle said:

Anything to add about the constant-speed vs. fluctuating-speed argument, bs3? I know enough to not say when I don't know.

Constant speed generally infers 60hz AC generators, like the Elwha has, then the AC generated is rectified to DC for the drive motors. The MKII's have AC generators and drive motors, not sure how the drive motor speed control works though. Voodoo?
It's a flexible design, can be very efficient with the use of a power management system (automatically taking generators on/off line per load demand, very common with big boats elsewhere).

To answer your question though, i guess it depends on how either one (variable/constant speed) is executed. The variable speed DC setup works pretty darn good, but as in the Hyak's case (and the other Supers to a lesser extent) parts are scarce and the maintenance costs of the propulsion generators and drive motors are pretty significant, and thats not taking into account a unexpected major component casualty, its just the nature of the beast.

I like and agree with Rustys comment of picking low hanging fruit, unfortunately though, to design engineers its not a very sexy undertaking.

[chief]

Constant speed systems are used where the ship's auxiliary power comes from the propulsion system rather than dedicated ship's service generators. The constant speed system is needed to maintain 60 cycle power to the ship's hotel services (frequency is a function of speed).

Variable speed systems inevitably must run ship's service generators so ships like Hyak and the Jumbo MkI class run 6 generators at all times, four main propulsion generators and two ship's service generators. By comparison the Elwha runs only 3 and the Jumbo MkIIs run only two plus they start a third one when making a landing.

The benefits of the fewer generators and the AC power it produces is in maintenance costs. DC machinery is very labor intensive and requires a significant amount of time out of service for maintenance each year. The AC systems associated with constant speed vessesl require much less maintenance and can go a few years between major service activities if necessary.

The MkIIs use synchronous drive motors and so speed is a function of frequency. The control system adjusts the freqency of the power going to the drive motors in accordance with the command input. This is not done by changing the speed of the prime mover but by cutting up the wave form at 60 cycles and reconstructing it to a frequency that corresponds to the desired speed of the propeller.

All of the engines of a MkII accumulate a total of 12,000 hours per year, on a MkI and DC Super they accumulate about 30,000 hours per year. Hours of service translate directly into the frequency of overhaul. If the average overhaul occurrs every 30,000 hours (and costs more than $100,000 on a propulsion engine) one can calculate that a variable speed system requires one engine overhaul per year on average and a constant speed system one overhaul about every two and a half years. Of course there are exceptions to this generalization but the maintenance management economics are significantly skewed in favor of the constant speed system.

The two stroke vs four stroke question is not all that simple as just fuel efficiency. The two stroke has a far superior torque curve to a four stroke which is especially beneficial in constant speed systems where the load can vary by 10,000 horsepower in just a few seconds by the quartermaster pushing the throttle forward on the bridge. The same is true in CPP plants. This is where the ramping rates in the controls are tuned for the engine's ability to sustain torque is written in to the control logic. The two stroke handles this load well, the four stroke less well. In the case of two sisterships, one with a two stroke and one with a four stroke, the ship with a two stroke can be tuned to provide faster response to throttle inputs than the four stroke can be.

The constant speed system with two stroke engines can result in less maintenance, fewer engine overhauls, lighter weight, modern controls, fewer spare ships, higher levels of reliability and so on. There is much more to this question than simply which consumes less fuel per hp produced.

[dumbthird]

Nov 12, 2011 6:05:05 GMT -8 chief said:

Constant speed systems are used where the ship's auxiliary power comes from the propulsion system rather than dedicated ship's service generators. The constant speed system is needed to maintain 60 cycle power to the ship's hotel services (frequency is a function of speed).

Variable speed systems inevitably must run ship's service generators so ships like Hyak and the Jumbo MkI class run 6 generators at all times, four main propulsion generators and two ship's service generators. By comparison the Elwha runs only 3 and the Jumbo MkIIs run only two plus they start a third one when making a landing.

The benefits of the fewer generators and the AC power it produces is in maintenance costs. DC machinery is very labor intensive and requires a significant amount of time out of service for maintenance each year. The AC systems associated with constant speed vessesl require much less maintenance and can go a few years between major service activities if necessary.

The MkIIs use synchronous drive motors and so speed is a function of frequency. The control system adjusts the freqency of the power going to the drive motors in accordance with the command input. This is not done by changing the speed of the prime mover but by cutting up the wave form at 60 cycles and reconstructing it to a frequency that corresponds to the desired speed of the propeller.

All of the engines of a MkII accumulate a total of 12,000 hours per year, on a MkI and DC Super they accumulate about 30,000 hours per year. Hours of service translate directly into the frequency of overhaul. If the average overhaul occurrs every 30,000 hours (and costs more than $100,000 on a propulsion engine) one can calculate that a variable speed system requires one engine overhaul per year on average and a constant speed system one overhaul about every two and a half years. Of course there are exceptions to this generalization but the maintenance management economics are significantly skewed in favor of the constant speed system.

The two stroke vs four stroke question is not all that simple as just fuel efficiency. The two stroke has a far superior torque curve to a four stroke which is especially beneficial in constant speed systems where the load can vary by 10,000 horsepower in just a few seconds by the quartermaster pushing the throttle forward on the bridge. The same is true in CPP plants. This is where the ramping rates in the controls are tuned for the engine's ability to sustain torque is written in to the control logic. The two stroke handles this load well, the four stroke less well. In the case of two sisterships, one with a two stroke and one with a four stroke, the ship with a two stroke can be tuned to provide faster response to throttle inputs than the four stroke can be.

The constant speed system with two stroke engines can result in less maintenance, fewer engine overhauls, lighter weight, modern controls, fewer spare ships, higher levels of reliability and so on. There is much more to this question than simply which consumes less fuel per hp produced.

Nice write up! Show off..........

[Barnacle]

Nov 12, 2011 6:05:05 GMT -8 chief said:

All of the engines of a MkII accumulate a total of 12,000 hours per year, on a MkI and DC Super they accumulate about 30,000 hours per year.

How did you derive those numbers? Are you including auxiliaries in the computations, or just the mains?

[old_wsf_fan]

WSF already has a perfect viable candidate as a test bed for a hybrid retrofit project. The E-State could be retrofitted as a test bed after the new 144 comes on line.That way, WSF has enough vessels to spare. Providing her hull is in good shape and the State grants an exemption of the 60 years forced retirement age, she would be the perfect vessel to attempt it. In the event that it is unreliable, just does not work well at all or actually costs more in the long run, at least you did not have to waste a newer vessel on the experiment. Just a thought..........

[rusty]

Nov 12, 2011 9:06:07 GMT -8 old_wsf_fan said:

WSF already has a perfect viable candidate as a test bed for a hybrid retrofit project. The E-State could be retrofitted as a test bed after the new 144 comes on line.

That's a good idea, better to sacrifice the E-State in WSDOT's attempt as a venture capital firm.

I have a question for chief, and this is about a direct quote from the hybrid Hyak grant application.

From page 17, under the heading Variable speed generators: "WSF's Jumbo Mark II vessels: the MV Elwha, and the three E-state vessels, use electric motors and generators. But, their A/C generators create fixed 60HZ ferquency (as is common in all US electric distribution, i.e. any wall socket) and therefore have to spin the diesels at a constant 900rpm."

The grant proposal has some odd ideas about electricity, and conventionally, the engines need only to turn at multiples of 60rpm.

My question to chief is, do the propulsion engines on the Mk II's turn at 900rpm, as the grant proposal insists?

[rusty]

Nov 12, 2011 6:05:05 GMT -8 chief said:

The constant speed system with two stroke engines can result in less maintenance, fewer engine overhauls, lighter weight, modern controls, fewer spare ships, higher levels of reliability and so on. There is much more to this question than simply which consumes less fuel per hp produced.

Chief, about the only thing I agree with you on in that first sentence is lighter wieght. ;D

When it comes down to it, that's what it's about: g/(kW*h).

[FNS]

Let's take a break from the propulsion chat and have a nice look at the HYAK at night in Edmonds.


While waiting to see the CHETZEMOKA pass by on her trip from Anacortes to Eagle Harbor on the evening of November 9, I took a photo of this night scene at Edmonds. The Supers look neat at night.

[chief]

Rusty: Yes they turn at a constant 900 rpm.

BS3: It is nothing that BS2 could not do in his sleep.

Barnacle: Each vessel in full time service at WSF averages 5000 service hours, some a little more a few a little less. Multiply the number of engines in service to operate the ship by 5000 hours and that is the aggregate number of hours the plant accumulates each year. The MkIIs run two engines all of the time plus one more a small amount of time thus the 12000 hours, there are no ships service generators. The DC Supers use four mains and two generators at all times, that is six engines times 5000 hours or a total of 30000 engine hours per year.

[Barnacle]

Nov 12, 2011 19:52:29 GMT -8 chief said:

Barnacle: Each vessel in full time service at WSF averages 5000 service hours, some a little more a few a little less. Multiply the number of engines in service to operate the ship by 5000 hours and that is the aggregate number of hours the plant accumulates each year. The MkIIs run two engines all of the time plus one more a small amount of time thus the 12000 hours, there are no ships service generators. The DC Supers use four mains and two generators at all times, that is six engines times 5000 hours or a total of 30000 engine hours per year.

Thanks, Chief--I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the JM2s, so I had no idea where you came up with the 12k-hours.

[Steve Rosenow]

Is the Hyak ever going to be in Bremerton at all this year?

[chief]

Rusty: Fuel consumption is not the sole economic factor in the determination of efficiency. The 4 stroke vs two stroke question can't be approached strictly on this basis. Take the Evergreen State, her four stroke engines cost WSF nearly $500,000 each to rebuild. Her sister ships have two strokes that cost about $150,000 each to rebuild. All last as long as the other. The two strokes have a $700,000 cost advantage over the four every rebuild cycle. It takes a great deal of fuel to equalize the disparity and considering the Tillikum and Klahowya are on short runs with very low fuel consumption it is hard to say that they are at a disadvantage over the four.

On the other hand the fours on the Issaquah Class have turned out to be very good engines for that application. They could get faster response time from the EMDs but apparently do not need it. Of note, the new 144 class has an Issaquah class propulsion system except it uses two stroke EMDs for better response time. The necessary four stroke for that ship would have been larger and partially negated the hourly consumption difference.

Of course the LNG conversions will reset the WSF engine experience with Issaquah Class to zero and probably dictate new ramps in the control systems.

[rusty]

Chief, I agree with you that EMD's provide more power in a smaller and lighter package.

Back to the hybrid Hyak. This retrofit proposal calls for the installation of a variable speed AC propulsion system, including the replacement of the Hyak's DC drive motors with new AC drive motors (along with new thrust bearings). No WSF ferry has ever had a total drive motor replacement, and I question the wisdom of doing this on what is currently a 44 year-old boat.

The cost and complexity of the propulsion battery system (i.e. hybrid) is above and beyond of what will be the most expensive, complex propulsion retrofit in Washington State history, and that's without the hybrid component of this project.

[seasparky]

The replacement of the DC drive motors on Hyak to AC motors is not exactly a complex part of this project. But, it is where a significant chunk of the dollars will go. Other posts here hit the nail on the head, the Hyak was not really chosen for this, it is her total lack of propulsion upgrades that need significant work that make her the logical choice. Hyak getting new AC motors will mean the other three Supers get a spare DC motor. It was a major flashover on Elwha's that took her out of service for months and months. These motors have been the worst performing DC motors in the fleet and will challenge WSF to get them any where near a 60 year life.

I certainly hope no one here would challenge the complexity of replacing the original DC generators with AC ones. This has been done on countless ferries just in the WSF fleet. And, drives are neither cheap or simple. But, every diesel electric system in the world for the last few decades uses them. So, AC motors, AC generators, and drives are the lion's share of this investment.

The 60 year life span is not only not a fixed thing. It is also totally dependent on the state getting new 144's on line to replace Supers. This after replacing the three E-state boats first. This investment will mean that Hyak will be switched around with the other three Supers for retirement. Any bets on when both legislative funding, in state ship building controversies, and contractual snafus may have us seeing the seventh 144 online to retire Hyak?

Yes, the Hyak is currently variable speed and WSF needs to correct that error. But, the general point is valid. The Hyak's current propulsion system is very inefficient. The Hyak, Kaleetan and Yakima can't take a generator on or offline like an AC one can. She must bring all loop current and voltage to zero and then manually spin setup switches, etc to reconfigure. More importantly, the three vessels can't run three DC generators, only two or four. Two gen mode is only used when there is a failure of a diesel or DC generator. And, as others have pointed out, the maintenance hours really rack up when you're running six diesels (incl 2 ship svc) all the time, even when at the dock. AC machines will save other maintenance dollars as well.

What WSF is really interesting in is variable speed AC combined with power management. The batteries become critical to ensure a high level of safety. This system will be running the lowest number of diesels online at the slowest possible speed. The size of a battery bank capable of one diesel's power output will mean that that power will be available for many minutes. And, once you have that size of battery bank for backup power reasons, you also have a big enough of a bank to charge at night and use during the day for short spurts like accel power leaving the dock. All the boats use 150 amp shore power plugs. The MKIIs actually connect two at night and that is what the Hyak would likely do. Nothing fancy about that.

Yes, the batteries are not cheap but may only account for ten percent of the equipment cost. Given that the basic reason for them is emergency power, that is not exactly pushing the technological window here. If that emergency power ensures the boats operate safety while pursuing the actual fuel savings, it is well worth the investment. The batteries being able to do anything else is just gravy.

[rusty]

If WDOT can install a variable speed AC propulsion system, with the specified power management system, a propulsion battery of the power of one main engine with all of the ancillary equipment, replace thrust bearings, and replace the current DC motors with AC drive motors for $12.5 million dollars; well, I would admit that is a bargain. But the history of extensive retrofits is one of typically huge cost overruns. Elwha, Evergreen State, and the Rhododendron are examples.

As WSDOT is now having built a new 144 car ferry, which is the same vehicle capacity as the Super class, and WSDOT seeks to build more of them, I question the wisdom of spending limited resources on a complex, one of a kind propulsion system on a vessel that is currently 44 years old.

The lesson of the Chetzemoka is that Ferries division capital projects need to be examined. The purpose of new construction and vessel retrofits should be to provide the best boat for its intended service--at reasonable cost. Capital projects should not be funded by politicians as a method of ensuring profit for the shipyard.

If there was some guarantee that the hybrid Hyak could be done for less than 120% of the $12.5 million budgeted, I’d shut-up and go with the program.

[chief]

Rusty: You might not agree with me but I do agree with you

[rusty]

I also agree with you, chief, and more than you might think.

The point I was trying to make with discussion of engine selection was not the specifics of engine type, rather, that fuel saving technologies should be maximized in new construction, not in a vessel nearing the end of its service life.

[hergfest]

DOT announced TIGER funds for the JBLM I-5 smart project and the light rail extension from Sea-Tac to 200th. The Hyak project was part of these bids so I believe it wasn't selected.

[rusty]

Not yet, at least.

[zargoman]

I don't think anything has changed on the Hyak since I was onboard last


She developed a pretty good list during the turn into Colman Dock.


I know the little room on the left was added not too long ago, but at least it could have matched the pattern and color (or lack thereof) from the rest of the boat. And, just gotta love the dark olive colored door and the "vintage" speaker.

[rusty]

The Hyak's a classic, for sure!