Q&A: Aligning vessel design with operational demands

Job Volwater

In this Q&A, Marine Log Editor-in-Chief Heather Ervin speaks with Job Volwater, CEO of C-Job Naval Architects, about the disconnect between vessel design and real-world operations, and what it will take to close that gap.

Heather Ervin: When you look at today’s tugs, towboats and workboat projects, where do you see the biggest disconnect between how they are designed and how they are operated?

Job Volwater: Well, we see nowadays still there’s a challenge between the design specifications of a vessel and the real operational profile of the vessel. So especially with those push boats, you see that it’s important to design a ship being capable to perform its peak performance and be power. But in general, such vessels only operate like one to 10% in this big power situation, which means that you’re carrying a lot of engines and a lot of power with you while not being used. So, where you see the challenge now today and today’s technologies, it’s easier to make the correlation between real operational excellence and the design of a vessel. Bigger is not always better for instance. Making a vessel capable of doing speed performance but just go for a different layout that makes it more suitable for the whole term of operation. So, the whole 100% of the time that it’s in use.

Ervin: What are some examples where operational reality has forced a design change either late in the process or after delivery, and what usually drives that gap?

Volwater: A very good example of that one is, for instance, we have done a project with some container vessels that were supposed to go a bit faster than they were originally designed for. Challenging situation of course, but the owner had a trade that was so important for them where they need to speed up a bit more, and the vessel was designed for a lower service.

As a good example, what do you need to change to still meet the requirements for emission and how to keep the whole vessel within the window that is operational and/or economically feasible? What we did was optimize CFD analysis and development of that bulbous bow, creating a different bulbous bow for the different service speeds and operational conditions that it was intentionally designed for. And that created a fuel saving and emission saving of more than 5% while going faster in that operational profile. This was done by taking the desired loading cases, reading different drafts and trims, and combining them in our in-house-developed CFD tooling.

What you see is creating or optimizing existing assets for its new operating profile, around down-scaling it from an old situation. For instance, if you talk about a big tugboat, depending on the age, you could also see if there is enough space onboard for putting battery packs on board and integrating electric motors instead of the diesel direct big gearbox setup or a gearbox power intake with an electromotor just to get to the peaks that you need, but just not to have the big engine always do the big work or actually the big engine doing the small work 1 to 10% of the operational time. So those are some examples of what we see in real  life where we can help our clients to optimize the operation.

Ervin: How much of vessel design today is being shaped primarily by regulation rather than operational need? Has that balance shifted in recent years?

Volwater: We see a shift there because there are more regulations, especially here in Europe for FuelEU Maritime, which is all about the carbon intensity of a vessel. And that seems now to dictate its commercial viability as where the clients , of course, still must conduct this system.

And yeah, we now often try to optimize the new regulation instead of optimizing the operational profile. So, customers all have their own demands on whatever vessel they work with, with their own philosophies of operation, and then try to come to the best solution for making money with the business. But now there’s these regulations popping up that are becoming stricter, and nowadays we can still come close and meet it and be compliant by just cleaning the hull or downgrade the engine. But over time there will be more activities needed in order to comply with these new regulations.

And we now see that the awareness is shifting from, “Okay, we will sort it later,” to, “Oh, we’re going to have a problem soon, so we need to come up with some good ideas.” And we at C-Job, of course, love to help with these ideas if it’s about different fuel types or different ways of operating vessels. That’s where we can help in an early stage for a new design but also assist in developing an existing design into a new operation scheme.

Ervin: At what point do budget constraints begin to meaningfully reshape a vessel’s design, and which compromises tend to appear first?

Volwater: Well, that’s a classic question because it’s the OPEX trap, right? So, we can design a vessel in such a way to optimize it for CAPEX. Also, if you talk about new build or about modification of vessels, there’s always the money that goes up front and then you have the OPEX, the money that goes into your operation.

And what we see now is that the constraints are often, especially if the vessel needs to be financed from outside, the constraints are on CAPEX because you need to find investors who want to put their money in such a vessel and in the building of it. And then you can have great ideas about saving emissions or doing a different vessel setup, different engines or come up with some future-ready ideas that change the design of it that doesn’t make it cheaper. And then it’s hard to get the financing together.

It’s always that trap. Being cheap today often makes you more expensive later. And it’s just finding that balance of doing not too cheap today, but smart, and then be able to be flexible enough to comply with all the rules and regulation and still have a successful business case.

And that’s where we see budgets have been constraining already as long as we exist. It’s always about the budget, but also, it’s about the great ideas. I can remember some vessel designs over a decade ago where we just explained if we just invest now one million more in this vessel, it will give you a way better operation, and it was about scrubbers. In the end, the client had to say no. Had to decline the great ideas because it was unsure what the resale value of the vessel would be, so the financials were not buying it. And that is still ongoing over 10 years later.

Ervin: When owners enter early design discussions, what do they most often overestimate or underestimate about what is realistic?

Volwater: What we now see a lot is that for new builds, owners often cannot switch yet to alternative fuels or have the future fuels like methanol or ammonia because these engines are not really proven to be ready yet.

What, in my opinion, owners often overestimate is the easiness of switching from one fuel to another in a later stage of the vessel’s life. It is not that simple. You need to consider so many design features to be able to use future fuels the way we know it today.

What I see a lot in all kinds of industries, when we talk about mega yards, container vessels, heavy lift vessels, or even dredgers, and tugboats, is that people think we can switch with ease. Well, that is not so easy because the volume of different fuel will really determine the layout of the design.

And what they underestimate is the power of data. What we can do today is so much more than what we could do 10 years ago. There is so much that you can do by looking at existing assets and existing vessels and improving the business case compared to what it was before.

Ervin: If vessel design is going to better reflect operational reality, where does change need to happen first—with owners, regulators, shipyards or designers?

Volwater: We at C-Job believe in working closely together with all stakeholders. We are partners of development in any project, and as a designer in the early stages, we play a role that is vital. As soon as the ship is at the shipyard to be built, our role goes to the background.

That is something which will change, and not only for our work, but also for the owner, the shipyard and regulatory bodies. We should work together much more as a team, with the right people sitting in one room at least two days a month to go through the whole design.

I believe that if we work together much more closely than we are used to today, we will be able to cut the lead time of building a vessel by 30%. That also applies to modifying vessels or doing lifecycle upgrades. If expectations are clear and everyone delivers on time, we can really make this happen. And just imagine what that would do to new builds or retrofits. There is still so much to win.