Patent Grant
8776705
The apparatus described herein generally relates to the field of rotor ships, and more directly, rotor ships with flettner rotors with extremely low height to diameter ratios.
Rotor ships exploit the Magnus effect to generate wind propulsion. In essence, the Magnus effect dictates that a rotor in a wind stream will generate low and high pressure regions on either side of the rotor tangential to the direction of the wind stream. Thus, a powered rotor can propel a ship in a wind stream by harnessing some of the energy of the wind stream and redirecting it to propelling the ship.
The rotor ship was invented by Anton Flettner in the early 1920s. Flettner constructed the first rotor ship, the Buckau, in 1924. The Buckau proved the viability of rotor ship technology on its maiden voyage in February 1925, crossing the North Sea from Danzig to Scotland. Despite being dogged by extremely poor weather, the voyage was a success and proved that Flettner rotors were sufficiently effective and durable for ship propulsion, even in the harshest conditions.
Although Flettner had demonstrated that Magnus propulsion was a viable shipping technology, the rotor ship did not achieve mainstream success in the 20th century shipping industry. Conventional water propeller systems remained the mainstream choice, in part because those systems are simple and their performance is not dependent on weather conditions. Furthermore, fossil fuels generally remained inexpensive during this era, at least compared with the costs associated with more exotic ship designs that improved efficiency.
Those market realities began to change in the early 21st century. Fuel prices increased as did political pressure to reduce fuel consumption and emissions. Furthermore, the late 2000's global recession placed incredible pressure on the shipping industry. The total volume of cargo traffic decreased significantly, as did demand for new ships. Shipping companies that have survived in this market are very interested in cutting costs wherever possible, including fuel costs.
These paradigm shifts have renewed interest in rotor ship technology because of potential fuel savings and emissions reductions. Of particular interest are retrofittable rotor systems, because of the aforementioned reduction in new ship production. However, the old rotor designs of the early 20th century and similar contemporary designs leave much to be desired.
The primary problem is the space taken up on the deck by having several rotors. This is especially problematic on ships that were not originally designed to use flettner rotors (retrofitted ships). Attempts have been made to get around this problem, such as retractable telescoping rotors or foldable rotors. However, these systems are complex, potentially fragile in extreme weather conditions, and do little to save deck space.
There remains a need in the art for a truly modern rotor ship system that can be incorporated on modern non-rotor ships with minimal interference with their normal operation. Such a design could result in huge fuel consumption and emissions reductions because it could be incorporated on a large portion of the global shipping fleet.
A watercraft includes a deck and no more than two flettner rotors having a height to diameter ratio of less than five. At least one of the flettner rotors is elevated above the deck such that individuals on the deck can walk underneath the flettner rotor. A portion of a footprint of at least one of the flettner rotors is suspended over an edge of the deck.
A method of manufacturing a flettner rotor includes the steps of assembling a cage and rotating the cage 360 degrees relative to a supply of sheet. The method further includes wrapping a sheet around the cage as they are rotated relative to each other until the cage is substantially covered by the sheet material. The method further includes mounting the sheet to the cage as it is wrapped around the cage.
A method of manufacturing a flettner rotor includes providing a spindle and providing a plurality of planar frames. The method further includes mounting the frames in a circular configuration around the spindle and wrapping a sheet around the frames such that the ends of the frames are substantially covered by the sheet. The method further includes mounting an end plate with a larger diameter than the rotor diameter on an upper portion of the frames and a skirt, also with a larger diameter than the rotor diameter on the lower end of the frames.
A flettner rotor includes a plurality of frames comprising horizontal spokes, vertical columns, and diagonal members. The flettner rotor further includes a spindle comprising at least one flange coupled to the horizontal spokes. The flettner rotor further includes a sheet disposed on the frames and an end plate disposed on the top of the frames.
A method of retrofitting a flettner rotor onto a ship includes the steps of providing a previously assembled ship and manufacturing one or two flettner rotors separately from the ship, the flettner rotors having a height to diameter ratio of less than five. The method further includes installing a mounting platform off of a stern or bow end of the deck. The method further includes installing the flettner rotor on the mounting platform in an elevated position such that individuals on the deck can walk underneath the flettner rotor. Less than 50% of a footprint of the flettner rotor is over the deck.
Flettner rotors 1 are mounted on ship 100 such that they are elevated from deck 150 and forecastle 160. Flettner rotors 1 are elevated above deck 150 and forecastle 160 sufficiently high so that crew members can walk underneath flettner rotors 1 and perform work on deck 150 and forecastle 160. Thus, the normal operation of the crew will not be interrupted by the installation of flettner rotor 1. In some embodiments, the bottoms of flettner rotors 1 are at least two or three meters above deck 150 or forecastle 160. Rotors 1 should be at least two meters above deck 150 and forecastle 160 so as to be high enough for crew members to walk under. Preferably, the rotors are at least 3 meters above deck 150 and forecastle 160 to provide plenty of headroom for the crew walking on deck 150 or forecastle 160 and prevent contact between the crew and rotors 1, which could result in injury. With the rotors 1 sufficiently elevated, the crew can perform its normal occupational duties underneath rotors 1, making rotors 1 less of an obstruction to the normal operation of ship 100. The anchor winches, chain guides and wells on and below forecastle 160; along with the mooring winches, bollards, and towing equipment on the aft deck 150 are heavy, costly, and difficult to relocate. The elevation of rotors 1 and the lack of deck space taken up by support legs 16 eliminate the need to relocate heavy equipment or alter normal crew operations after retrofitting one or more rotors 1 onto an existing ship.
The stern flettner rotor 1 is mounted so that part of its footprint is not over deck 150. In other words, stern flettner rotor 1 overhangs deck 150 and rotor 1 is suspended over an edge 500 of deck 150. This saves space on deck 150, increases the clearance between superstructure 120 and rotor 1, and allows for easier retrofitting of flettner rotor 1. Superstructure 120 also creates a wind shading effect which would decrease the performance of a rotor 1 mounted too closely to it. Thus, by having a portion of rotor 1 overhang edge 500, the performance of rotor 1 is improved. Lifeboat 130 is mounted inside stern flettner rotor 1. Since the underside of flettner rotors 1 is conical and empty in the center, there is room to stow lifeboat 130 inside the bottom portion of flettner rotor 1. Because stern flettner rotor 1 overhangs deck 150, lifeboat 130 can be stowed inside stern flettner rotor 1 and easily deployed by dropping lifeboat 130 off of edge 500 of deck 150 in an emergency. In this embodiment, approximately 50% of the footprint of stern flettner rotor 1 is above deck 150. The overhang of flettner rotor 1 can also be clearly seen in
In some embodiments such as the embodiment shown in
As shown in
Superstructure 120 including a funnel and a mast 180 form the highest point above waterline on ship 100 before flettner rotors 1 are installed. In this embodiment, mast 180 is the highest point above waterline on ship 100 before rotors 1 are installed. Flettner rotors 1 are not significantly higher than the highest point of superstructure 120, mast 180, or ship cranes 140. Therefore, the total height of ship 100 is not substantially increased by the installation of flettner rotors 1, allowing ship 100 to clear the same overhead obstacles as it was capable of clearing prior to retrofitting.
The thrust generated by a flettner rotor increases with its diameter. By having rotors with a very low height to diameter ratio (i.e. thicker rotors), significant thrust can be generated without impeding deck space or significantly increasing the height of ship 100. This is especially true given that fewer rotors 1 can be used while still achieving the desired level of thrust. The larger diameter rotors 1 allow for a maximum thrust while not adding to the total height of ship 100 or using an unnecessary number of rotors 1, which would take up deck space. Furthermore, having fewer and wider rotors 1 makes elevating rotors 1 above deck 150 a viable option for saving deck space. Elevating a large number of conventional thin rotors would do little to save deck space and significantly increase complexity.
Most conventional ships have direct-drive diesel drive trains. However,
As shown in
A shaft 12 is extended upwards concentrically through a bore in axle 9, and keyed to cover 13, which is bolted internally to flange 7. Shaft 12 protrudes downwards past the lower end of axle 9 where it is connected with the output axle of an electric gear motor 14. The motor 14 may be an AC motor powered from a variable frequency inverter drive or a variable speed hydraulic motor capable of spinning the rotor at a circumferential velocity on the order of two to four times the wind speed.
The propulsive force developed by the system may amount to as much as 50 metric tons in a vessel moving at 14 knots in a 20 m/s crosswind. This amount of force on rotor 1, and the resulting bending moment on axle 9 while the system is operating exceeds the force developed while the rotor is stationary in a hurricane force wind, meaning that as long as the rotor is not turning it does not need to be collapsed or otherwise stowed due to wind conditions. However, in one embodiment ship 100 includes means for momentarily securing rotor 1 against damage due to excessive forces caused by the roll and pitch of ship 100 in extreme weather conditions.
To that purpose, the embodiment in
When installed in vessel 100, rotor 1 is supported on a vertical drive shaft 9 whose top part is located inside the lower central tube 8. The manufacturing plant features a similar, assembly drive shaft 1100, which is placed standing upright on the factory floor and serves to support and slowly rotate rotor 1 during assembly.
The large dimensions of the rotors 1 described herein present unique construction challenges. Rotors 1 must be lightweight and strong as discussed above, and have such a large diameter that external skin 6 is more difficult to construct as a single tube or unit structure. Thus, the following methods for constructing rotors 1 in accordance with the embodiments shown herein are discussed below.
The process includes the following steps:
(A) An assembled central structure or spine consisting of sections 8, 4, and 910 are lowered onto assembly drive shaft 1100 and temporarily bolted in place onto assembly flange 1110, as shown in
(B) The frames 1000 are lowered into place one by one and their horizontal spokes 1010 bolted onto the four tiers of flanges 7 (as shown in
(C) Coils of sheet material 1300, typically 1 to 2 meters wide are placed one after another on a vertically indexable platform 1310 and unwound as the material is transferred onto the slowly rotating rotor cage 1320. During the process the band 1330 is welded, riveted or bolted onto the vertical columns 1020. After completion of a full revolution, band 1330 is cut and the two ends joined by welding or secured in place by other means. Platform 1310 is then raised an amount equal to the width of coil 1300, and the process is repeated step by step until the entire rotor cage 1320 is covered. This portion of the process is shown in
(D) Rotor 1 is brought into slow rotation in front of a stationary welding head 1340, and the horizontal joint separating the first and second tier of band material welded closed. Welding head 1340 is indexed upwards one step using platform 1310, and the process repeated until all the horizontal joints have been welded. This portion of the process is shown in
(E) The top of rotor 1 is closed by means of triangularly shaped sheet metal sections 1400 which are welded or otherwise affixed onto the top tier of spokes 1010 forming end plate 800, as shown in
(F) The assembled rotor is unbolted from assembly drive shaft 1100, lifted clear and stored to await installation on vessel 100.
A more mechanized variation of installing the sheet material (steps C and D) is shown in
(C′) Coils of sheet material 1300 are placed one after another onto platform 1310 which is raised continuously at a rate equal to the width of band 1330 each revolution of rotor skeleton 1320. The process of winding band 1330 onto the cage has to be interrupted only when a coil 1300 of material is completely used up and needs to be replaced. The continuous process saves labor and enables the horizontal edges to be joined by means of a stationary welding head 1340. The helical winding process may equally well start from the top while lowering platform 1310 at a steady rate as starting from the bottom while raising the platform 1310 as described. Upon completion of rotor surface 6, the excess material applied during the first and last turn is cut off along the horizontal dotted line 1500.
In embodiments where external skin 6 is made of fiberglass, an entire fiberglass tube or shell is constructed separately from rotor skeleton 1320. The shell is then placed over skeleton 1320 and mounted to skeleton 1320.
The rotor systems described herein offer a novel way of configuring and locating a Flettner propulsion system which is low in cost and contains a minimum of moving parts. It does not interfere with loading and discharging and is dimensioned, so its height does not exceed the height of the mast and standing rig. The system is capable of being easily and momentarily secured in case of extreme wind or excessive roll and pitch of the vessel in the sea, without the use of complex stowing systems.
A single rotor must have a large diameter in order to match the performance of the multiple slim and tall rotors currently being proposed for cargo vessels. Typically a rotor according to the embodiments described herein for a Handysize vessel of 30,000 to 40,000 dwt will be 10 to 20 meters in diameter and 20-25 meters tall. A cylinder this large would be a significant obstacle if placed on the main deck, besides obstructing the view ahead from the bridge. As a consequence, the systems described herein are mounted aft of the deck house and straddle the stern of the vessel with its lower edge raised 3 or 4 meters above deck so as not to impede mooring operations.
An alternative solution suitable for larger vessels may feature a second rotor mounted above the deck and straddling the bow (or located at the extreme forward end of the bow). Locating the second rotor at the extreme bow does not impede loading and discharging and, due to the distance from the helm, may bring the blind sector as viewed from the bridge within the maximum five degree angle specified by the IACS.
A rotor system comprising 1 or 2 large diameter rotors, each generating the same amount of thrust as 3 or 4 slim rotors of similar height has the following advantages. It is less complex and contains fewer moving parts. The cost per ton thrust is reduced by over 50%. The supporting structure may be designed more efficiently within the ample space inside the rotor. Less reinforcement of the deck structure is required since forces may be spread over a larger area. The main support legs can be placed ten or more meters apart and in most cases connected directly to the hull plating near the corners. Having fewer rotors also saves deck space. Furthermore, having a small number of wide rotors can save space when they are mounted elevated above the deck.
Interference with gear and daily operation of the vessel is minimized because the rotor is elevated 3-4 meters above deck, also raising system safety. Rotational speed is reduced from 200-250 rpm to 40-60 rpm thus extending bearing life and periods between scheduled maintenance. Easy installation, possibly during scheduled maintenance, may eliminate down time, and makes retrofitting viable. The systems do not require an additional or specialized crew. They also require little maintenance and have few moving parts. Such systems could save 20-35% on fuel consumption, resulting on a return on investment within one year.
Most scientists and engineers knowledgeable in the art of flettner rotors believe that a rotor must have a high height to diameter ratio in order to perform effectively due to boundary effect being more pronounced in shorter rotors than longer cylinders. This has caused the flettner rotor industry to overlook rotors of low height to diameter ratios. As a result, flettner rotors with a height to diameter ratio of less than six have been avoided in the art.
Those skilled in the art are correct that when comparing rotors with the same projected area but widely different aspect ratios (height to diameter ratio), the rotors with higher aspect ratios will perform significantly better. For example a tall and slim rotor of 20×4 meters will be more effective than a short and stubby one of 10×8 meters when rotating at the same spin ratio. They both have a projected area of 80 square meters but the shorter one will produce less thrust due to higher boundary losses. This is correct, but in the case of equally tall rotors, the pressure gradients near the ends and boundary effects are the similar irrespective of the diameter so in this case the efficiency remains the same for high and low aspect ratios. As a result of this incorrect analysis, those skilled in the art have been led away from producing rotors with low height to diameter ratios, and completely overlooked the benefits of doing so. Thus, those skilled in the art have not used flettner rotors with height to diameter ratios of less than five, much less rotors with ratios of than three, for practical use as wind propulsion systems. More important are the factors that affect practical efficiency, such as: return on investment, reliability, and ease of installation.
The rotor systems described herein solve the aforementioned problems associated with modern rotor ship systems. This is accomplished by providing an easily retrofitable system that does not interfere with normal ship or crew operation. The rotors described herein also generate substantial thrust. When these rotors are coupled with other energy saving technologies such as propeller energy recapturing systems and solar power, their fuel consumption and emissions reduction benefits are further improved. Because these systems are designed for retrofitting, a large portion of the global fleet can take advantage of this technology and a large global reduction in fuel consumption and emissions can be realized. These benefits can be realized in today's market where fewer new ships are being built and the global fleet is aging and outdated, having been designed when low fuel consumption and emissions were not considered as important.
Although the invention has been described with reference to embodiments herein, those embodiments do not limit the scope of the invention. Modifications to those embodiments or different embodiments may fall within the scope of the invention.
The present application claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/575,910 filed on Aug. 31, 2011 and U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/632,149 filed on Jan. 19, 2012. The contents of both of those applications are incorporated herein by reference.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1041825 | Low | Oct 1912 | A |
| 1640891 | Fritzel | Aug 1927 | A |
| 1665533 | Daily | Apr 1928 | A |
| 1674169 | Flettner | Jun 1928 | A |
| 1697779 | Roos | Jan 1929 | A |
| 1744924 | Sargent | Jan 1930 | A |
| 1785300 | De La Tour Castelcicala | Dec 1930 | A |
| 1791731 | Madarasz | Feb 1931 | A |
| 1796789 | Howard | Mar 1931 | A |
| 1807353 | Tarshis | May 1931 | A |
| 1820919 | Massey | Sep 1931 | A |
| 1834558 | Wander, Jr. | Dec 1931 | A |
| 1927538 | Zaparka | Sep 1933 | A |
| 1930380 | Binks | Oct 1933 | A |
| 1977681 | Lee et al. | Oct 1934 | A |
| 2039676 | Zaparka | May 1936 | A |
| 2078837 | Carter | Apr 1937 | A |
| 2307418 | McDonald | Jan 1943 | A |
| 2417358 | Grose | Mar 1947 | A |
| 2452355 | Candler | Oct 1948 | A |
| 2532899 | Dubost | Dec 1950 | A |
| 2596726 | Rydell | May 1952 | A |
| 2985406 | Bump | May 1961 | A |
| 3120275 | Pfleiderer et al. | Feb 1964 | A |
| 3162401 | Hopwood | Dec 1964 | A |
| 3262259 | Bennett et al. | Jul 1966 | A |
| 3262656 | Boehler et al. | Jul 1966 | A |
| 3439887 | Boehler et al. | Apr 1969 | A |
| 3692259 | Yuan | Sep 1972 | A |
| 3734641 | Hirs | May 1973 | A |
| 3757723 | Pangalila | Sep 1973 | A |
| 4051622 | Sharp | Oct 1977 | A |
| 4161154 | Kollenberger | Jul 1979 | A |
| 4225286 | Fork | Sep 1980 | A |
| 4316721 | Weiss et al. | Feb 1982 | A |
| 4366386 | Hanson | Dec 1982 | A |
| 4401284 | Austin | Aug 1983 | A |
| 4446379 | Borg et al. | May 1984 | A |
| 4602584 | North et al. | Jul 1986 | A |
| 6932553 | Roodenburg et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
| 8134251 | Barber | Mar 2012 | B2 |
| 8230798 | Rohden | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8539894 | Levander | Sep 2013 | B2 |
| 8601964 | Rohden | Dec 2013 | B2 |
| 20090217851 | Kind | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090241820 | Rohden | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090311924 | Wobben | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20110209650 | Fan | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20120000408 | Levander et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20130055944 | Poulsen | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 101198516 | Jun 2008 | CN |
| 101454197 | Jun 2009 | CN |
| 102005062615 | Jun 2007 | DE |
| 659443 | Jun 1929 | FR |
| 249730 | Apr 1926 | GB |
| 244791 | Jul 1926 | GB |
| 284940 | Feb 1928 | GB |
| 2006885 | May 1979 | GB |
| M397355 | Feb 2011 | TW |
| 2007076825 | Jul 2007 | WO |
| 2011098601 | Aug 2011 | WO |
| 2011098605 | Aug 2011 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority Application No. PCT/US2012/053065 Completed: Jan. 16, 2013; Mailing Date: Feb. 7, 2013 11 pages. |
| Office Action of the Intellectual Property (translation), Application No. (Taiwan) 101131614, Issued: Feb. 25, 2014, 9 pages. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20130055944 A1 | Mar 2013 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61575910 | Aug 2011 | US | |
| 61632149 | Jan 2012 | US |
