Herbert, United States
Herbert, United States

Time filter

Source Type

Mizine I.,Advanced Marine Center | Thorpe R.,Herbert Engineering Corporation | Deschamps L.,Annapolis flyer cab
11th International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures, PRADS 2010 | Year: 2010

The paper describes the results of the design of an innovative High-Speed Trimaran Trailership (HSTT as part of the fleet of trailerships, capable of carrying about 160 53' trailers in the speed range of 25 to 30 knots. The HSTT design requirements are the result of market analysis supporting a daily service between the U.S. States of Massachusetts and Florida using a four-ship fleet of express ships. This HSTT concept supports America's Marine Highways (AMH an evolving national strategy, including state and local public input by Metropolitan Planning Organizations. A commercial trimaran trailership has been justified for this Interstate Highway Route 95 designated U.S. East Coast 1000 nautical mile ocean route. This type of new express cargo ship could also provide military mobility capability in many inter and intra-theater sealift and sea base scenarios with a range of unrefueled voyage of up to 9,500 nautical miles. A dual-use commercial vessel design using National Defense Features (NDF) allows these HSTT trailerships to supplement existing and future sealift logistic ships. This would serve a growing need to recapitalize (replace) the aging U.S. Navy fleet of Ready Reserve Force vessels. The HSTT also creates a potential for the Army to lease necessary, flexible and capable ships for their sealift and humanitarian support and disaster response missions. © 2010 COPPE/UFRJ.


Van Rynbach E.,Herbert Engineering Corporation | Briers K.,Herbert Engineering Corporation
Operating Ships within Emission Control Areas, ECA's - SNAME Symposium | Year: 2010

• Vessel Routing will need to be optimized to minimize distance traveled in the ECA, considering impacts on vessel schedule and operating cost of any deviations. • When 0.1% sulfur fuel is required starting in 2015, per voyage fuel cost impacts (into and out of the ECA) can be on the order of $10,000 to $80,000 depending on port, route and ship daily consumption. Before 2015 cost impact will be much less. • Annual fuel cost impact can be $75,000 to $900,000 for ships on regular voyages into and out of the ECA starting in 2015 • For ships with multiple port calls in the ECA or in coastwise trade fuel cost impact will be higher • Unifuelship of the recent past will have to become the Dual Fuel ship of the future. • Substantial increases in ECA compliant fuel storage capacity will be needed on most ships, both existing and new • Changes will be needed to most ships' fuel transfer, purifying and service systems to operate on the newly required low sulfur, low viscosity fuels.


Briers K.,Herbert Engineering Corporation | Van Rynbach E.,Herbert Engineering Corporation | Delgatto N.,Herbert Engineering Corporation
Marine Technology | Year: 2015

Cost, training, and safety all have to be factored into meeting emission requirements in emission control areas (ECAs). In order to deal with the very low sulfur requirements in the ECAs for all the ships and the tier III NOx levels that will be required for new ships in 2016, there are three principal solutions to choose from. First is to burn marine gas oil with maximum sulfur of 0.1% in all engines; second to burn HFO with exhaust gas cleaning equipment and third is to burn natural gas stored as LNG. Engines that operate on the Otto cycle must have lower brake mean effective pressures in order to prevent pre-ignition knocking. A net present value analysis is the best means of comparing the first cost and the operating cost over the life of the ship.


Van Rynbach E.,Herbert Engineering Corporation | Hners K.E.,Herbert Engineering Corporation | Delgatto N.J.,Herbert Engineering Corporation
Transactions - Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers | Year: 2014

In the new era of ECA's and alternative fuels, vessel owners/operators are faced with important decisions with signflcant cost andfinancial risks. The days ofjust using HFO without exhaust cleaning are over in the ECA's and worldwide after 2020. Several alternative solutions for meeting the new emission regulations for a variety of ship types and sizes operating in a selection of trades are analyzed to determine their relative merits and costs. Three primary fuel alternatives were considered: a) Using MGO full time in the ECA now and worldwide after 2020 b) Using HFO with Scrubbers c) Using LNG The advantages and disadvantages of each fuel alternative are discussed, including the impact on emissions, and cost and benefit analyses are developed for a midsize tanker and midsize containership, which can also be applied to other ship types, such as bulk carriers, RoRo vessels, and multi-purpose vessels. No single fuel option stood out as the "best" solution for all ships in all services. It is hoped, however, that the analyses presented in this paper will demonstrate how owners can evaluate their service requirements, as well as the costs and benefits of the various options, in order to determine the best fuel alternative for their ships. The analysis work and time to prepare this paper were sponsored by Herbert Engineering Corp. It is intended for presentation at the November 18, 2014 meeting of the Chesapeake Section of SNAME. © 2015 by The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.


Van Rynbach E.,Herbert Engineering Corporation | Briers K.,Herbert Engineering Corporation
Transactions - Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers | Year: 2011

The design impacts of fuel storage capacity and the effect on the design of the fuel transfer, purifying and service systems are discussed. Meeting the requirements for sustained operation on low sulfur, low viscosity fuels will have two major impacts on the design of ships besides the impacts on the engines and boilers themselves. New ships can be designed specifically to incorporate the needed features, but since the ECA requirements apply to all ships, some modifications may be necessary on many existing ships, as well. Vessel Routing will need to be optimized to minimize distance traveled in the ECA, considering impacts on vessel schedule and operating costs of any deviations. Substantial increases in ECA compliant fuel storage capacity will be needed on most ships, both existing and new. Changes will be needed to most ships' fuel transfer, purifying and service systems to operate on the newly required low sulfur, low viscosity fuels.

Loading Herbert Engineering Corporation collaborators
Loading Herbert Engineering Corporation collaborators