Further Development and Optimization of the Ballast-Free Ship 

Design Concept 

Final Report

Michael G. Parsons Arthur F. Thurnau Professor Emeritus 

Professor Emeritus of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 

Phone: 734-945-2886; FAX: 734-936-882; e-mail: parsons@umich.edu

Miltiadis Kotinis Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engineering, Old Dominion University 

 Phone: 757-683-5939; FAX: 757-962-5097; e-mail: mkotinis@odu.edu 

 

October 30, 2008 

Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 

University of Michigan 

2600 Draper Road 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2145 

This report represents the results of research conducted by the authors and does not necessarily 

represent the views or policies of the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute. This report does 

not contain a standard or specified technique. The authors and the Great Lakes Maritime 

Research Institute do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names 

appear herein solely because they are considered essential to this report. 

 

Research funded in part by the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute. 

This study was supported by the U.S. Maritime Administration 

Grant # DTMA1-G-06-005
Table of Contents 

 page 

1. Introduction 1 

2. Background 2 

2.1 Development of the Seaway-sized Bulk Carrier 4 

2.2 Arrangement and Design of Inlet and Outlet 6

3. Numerical Investigation 8

 3.1 External Flow 8 

 

 3.2 Internal Flow 15 

4. Experimental Investigation 16

5. Potential Economic Impacts of the Research Results 20

6. Dissemination of Study Results 22 

7. References 25 
List of Tables 

 page 

Table 2.1: Main Particulars of the Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier 5

Table 2.2: Characteristics of the Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier Model in Ballast Condition 5

Table 3.1: Grid Independence Study 10 

Table 3.2: Drag Coefficients and Form Factor 10 

Table 3.3: Nominal Axial Wake Fraction 14 

Table 4.1: Form Factor Comparison 17 

Table 4.2: Characteristics of the MHL No. 20 and No. 23 Propellers 17 

Table 4.3: Propulsion Test Results – Ballast Condition at 15.5 Knots 18 
List of Figures 

 page 

Figure 2.1: Schematic of the Ballast-Free Ship Concept 2 

 

Figure 2.2: Typical Seaway-size Bulk Carrier (left); 

 Ballast-Free Concept Bulk Carrier (right) 3 

Figure 2.3: Bow View of the Seaway-sized Bulk Carrier Model 5 

Figure 2.4: Stern View of the Seaway-sized Bulk Carrier Model 5 

Figure 2.5: Location of Forward Ballast Trunk Inlet 6 

Figure 2.6: Location of Two Ballast Trunk Discharges Investigated 7 

Figure 3.1: Bow Grid Detail of the Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier in Ballast Condition 8 

Figure 3.2: Stern Grid Detail of the Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier in Ballast Condition 8 

Figure 3.3: Bow Pressure Coefficient Contours of the Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier 

 (baseline no trunk flow case) 9 

Figure 3.4: Stern Pressure Coefficient Contours of the Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier 

 (baseline no flow case), Outlet Locations Shown for Reference 9 

Figure 3.5: Stern Pressure Coefficient of the Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier 

 (discharge Sta. 17 – 90 min) 11 

Figure 3.6: Stern Pressure Coefficient of the Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier 

 (discharge Sta. 19 – 90 min) 11 

Figure 3.7: Stern Pressure Coefficient of the Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier 

 (discharge Sta. 17 – 120 min) 11 

Figure 3.8: Stern Pressure Coefficient of the Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier 

 (discharge Sta. 19 – 60 min) 12 

Figure 3.9: Axial Velocity Contours in the Propeller Plane 

 (baseline no trunk flow case) 12 

Figure 3.10: Axial Velocity Contours in the Propeller Plane 

 (discharge Sta. 17 – 90 min) 13 

Figure 3.11: Axial Velocity Contours in the Propeller Plane 

 (discharge Sta. 19 – 90 min) 13 

Figure 3.12: Axial Velocity Contours in the Propeller Plane 

 (discharge Sta. 17 – 120 min) 14 
Figure 3.13: Axial Velocity Contours in the Propeller Plane 

 (discharge Sta. 19 – 60 min) 14 

Figure 3.14: Computational Model of Double Bottom Ballast Trunk Structure 15 

Figure 4.1: Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier Total Resistance 16 

Figure 4.2: Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier Effective Power 17 

Figure 4.3: Stock Propeller Open Water Characteristics and 

 Ship Thrust Requirement 19 

Figure 5.1: Order of Magnitude Economics Comparing a Typical Bulk Carrier with 

 Filtration and UV Treatment with Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier 21 
Executive Summary 

The initial investigation of the Ballast-Free Ship concept demonstrated the feasibility of the 

concept though a thorough examination of various design aspects. The effectiveness of the 

concept, in terms of eliminating the transport of foreign ballast water from ships operating in the 

ballast condition, was also demonstrated by utilizing Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) 

software to simulate the flow in the double bottom ballast trunks of the vessel. Nevertheless, this 

initial investigation did not succeed in showing the full cost-effectiveness of the concept. The 

main reason was a significant fuel penalty that resulted from an increased power requirement 

found in the initial hydrodynamic testing of a non-optimized discharge configuration on an 

existing, higher-speed vessel with a non-optimum propeller. 

The ongoing GLMRI sponsored research project has undertaken further hydrodynamic 

investigation of the Ballast-Free Ship concept; both experimental and numerical. The 

experimental investigation was performed by utilizing the Seaway-size bulk carrier model that 

was designed and built as part of the initial phase of this project. Resistance and propulsion tests 

were performed with this model in the towing tank of the University of Michigan Marine 

Hydrodynamic Laboratory in January 2007. The initial numerical investigations were performed 

utilizing the commercial CFD software FLUENT®. 

The computational results were utilized both as guidance for the experimental setup and also to 

corroborate the experimental results. Specifically, the selection of the trunk flow inlet and outlet 

locations utilized in the towing tank experiments was guided by the numerical results. The 

ballast trunk flow inlet was located in the center of the bulbous bow. Two different locations 

were tested for the water discharge: one at the level of the upper part of the propeller disk close 

to Station 17 (near the forward engine room bulkhead, full scale) and one lower close to Station 

19 (near the aft engine room bulkhead). 

The experiments in the towing tank consisted of detailed resistance and propulsion testing with 

and without the ballast trunk flow. The analysis of the model test data revealed that the 

experimental results were in good agreement with the numerical results. Overall, discharging 

water at the stern of the model slightly increases ship resistance, but proper design of the 

discharging arrangements can overcome this negative effect. Another source of modest ship 

resistance increase is the trunk inlet at the bow. Given the limited positive-pressure region at the 

bow of the full form bulk carrier under consideration, an inlet location other than that currently 

utilized will probably result in a significant reduction in the available pressure differential, 

without providing a noteworthy benefit in terms of ship resistance. 

Nonetheless, the proper water discharge at the stern of the vessel can have a favorable effect on 

the propulsion characteristics for the Seaway-size bulk carrier design investigated. The 

reduction in powering requirements, relative to the initial unmodified design, at an assumed 

ballast speed of 15.5 knots was found in the January 2007 experiments to be 7.3% for water 

discharge close to Station 17 and 2.1% for water discharge close to Station 19. The gain in 

overall propulsive efficiency outweighs the increase in ship resistance. The large power decrease 

of 7.3% was, however, suspect leading to additional work during in the current year. 
Additional numerical work was performed during the past year using the Star-CCM+® CFD 

software that includes the v2

-f turbulence modeling that has been found to be more effective for 

fuller hull forms as in the Seaway-sized bulk carrier under consideration. Additional modelscale experiments were also undertaken in the towing tank of the University of Michigan Marine 

Hydrodynamic Laboratory in July 2008. These experiments utilized improved methods for the 

resistance testing and this provided more consistent results and higher total resistance increases 

with the use of the Ballast-Free trunk flow than found in the January 2007 experiments. With the 

discharge at Station 19, the resistance increase in the ballast condition at 15.5 knots was found to 

be 2.44% full scale. With the discharge at Station 17, the resistance increase at the ballast 

condition at 15.5 knots was found to be 4.61%. 

When the required propulsion power was determined, it was found to decrease by 1.63% from 

the unmodified case with the preferred discharge at Station 17. This results from a change in the 

propeller operating point and changes in the flow over the stern due to the ballast trunk flow 

introduction into the boundary layer so that it increases the flow into the upper part of the 

propeller disk. This results in increases in the propeller operating efficiency and also the hull 

efficiency that are large enough to offset the increase in the total resistance measured without the 

propeller. These results confirm the required power decrease found in the January 2007 

experiments, but show that those results were unrealistically high. 

 

In order to investigate the economic benefit of the aforementioned propulsive improvements, an 

operating scenario for the grain trade to Europe was adopted for the Ballast-Free bulk carrier. 

The change in the Required Freight Rate (RFR) with respect to an alternative filtration and UV 

ballast treatment system was estimated. The net savings would be about $1.00 per tonne of 

cargo for the Ballast-Free bulk carrier with the water discharged close to Station 17. The overall 

ship design would also benefit from placement of the water discharge near the forward engine 

room bulkhead. A different operating scenario could result in even lower savings. Nevertheless, 

cost-effectiveness combined with a numerically-demonstrated foreign-ballast-elimination 

capability confirms the Ballast-Free Ship concept will be a viable alternative to more costly 

ballast treatment systems. Even though the current project focuses on a smaller Seaway-size 

bulk carrier, the concept should also be applicable to other new-construction ships of different 

types and sizes. 
1

1. Introduction 

The Ballast-Free Ship Concept was invented (US Patent #6,694,908 2004) and initially 

investigated (Kotinis et al. 2004, Kotinis 2005, Ballast Water News 2004) at the University of 

Michigan as a way to minimize the risk of the further introduction of nonindigenous aquatic 

species into the Great Lakes and other coastal waters by ships arriving in the ballast condition. 

Even though the feasibility of the concept was demonstrated, the initial analysis was limited by 

its required comprehensive research scope and limited associated budget. Thus, it was only 

feasible to support model testing that utilized an existing model. Although the vessel type of 

greatest interest for the Great Lakes nonindigenous aquatic species introduction problem is the 

Seaway-sized bulk carrier, the best available model was of a relatively finer, higher-speed bargecarrying Lighter Aboard Ship (LASH) vessel. The results with this finer model indicated a 

significant 7.4% power penalty with the use of the Ballast-Free Ship concept. 

The first year of GLMRI sponsored research (Parsons and Kotinis 2006) supported the design of 

a typical Seaway-sized bulk carrier and the construction of a scaled model to be utilized in 

subsequent towing tank experiments. This model was designed, constructed, and delivered in 

2006. The goal was to use this model to optimize the location of the Ballast-Free trunk 

discharges in order to reduce or eliminate the propulsion power increase observed with the 

modified LASH model. Experimental and numerical hydrodynamic investigations, combined 

with an optimization procedure, were expected to lead to a design solution that could offer a net 

required power reduction and savings in Required Freight Rate (RFR) relative to alternate ballast 

water treatment methods and approaches. 

In the second year of GLMRI sponsored research (Parsons and Kotinis 2007), the hydrodynamic 

aspects of the Ballast-Free Ship concept were further investigated both experimentally and 

numerically. Part of the numerical investigation, including discharge location design 

optimization, was reported in a paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Numerical 

Ship Hydrodynamics (Kotinis and Parsons 2007a). The experimental hydrodynamic 

investigation, supported by the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis and an economic 

analysis, was presented at the Annual Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 

(SNAME) Meeting in November 2007 (Kotinis and Parsons 2007b). This work showed a 

significant 6.3% net required power reduction that needed further confirmation. 

In the current year of GLMRI sponsored research, the hydrodynamic aspect of the BallastFree ship concept was further investigated both numerically and experimentally. The BallastFree bulk carrier model, utilized in prior phases of the investigation, was employed as the 

investigated model hull. The numerical part was performed using the Star-CCM+®

commercial CFD software. Various aspects of the flow were examined; the appropriate 

locations for the inlet/outlet, the form factor as a function of flow rate, the nominal wake, and 

the internal trunk flow. The experimental investigation was performed in July 2008 in the 

Marine Hydrodynamics Laboratory (MHL) towing tank of the University of Michigan. The 

qualitative effect of the water suction and discharge on the resistance of the bulk carrier model 

was determined and the results were extrapolated to full scale. Furthermore, the effect on 

propulsion and the economics was also examined utilizing a second propeller of the same 

diameter as the one utilized in the previous year experiments (Kotinis and Parsons 2007b). 
2

2. Background 

The initial Sea Grant supported development of the Ballast-Free Ship Concept was reported in a 

paper before the Annual Meeting of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 

(SNAME) in Washington, DC, in October 2004 (Kotinis et al. 2004). Overall, the investigation 

of the Ballast-Free Ship Concept has shown that it provides a viable alternative to the addition of 

costly ballast water treatment systems in order to meet the evolving performance requirements 

for ballast water treatment. The concept essentially eliminates the transport of foreign ballast 

water. This should be more effective than current treatment methods in reducing the potential 

for the further introduction of nonindigenous aquatic species into the Great Lakes and coastal 

waters. Furthermore, it should be equally effective as international requirements extend below 

the 50 micron range (IMO 2004). 

The traditional approach to ballast operations, since the introduction of steam machinery, has 

been the use of water ballast to increase the weight of the vessel in the light cargo condition. A 

paradigm shift in thinking here views the ballast condition as a change of buoyancy rather than 

an addition of weight in order to get the vessel to its safe ballast drafts. Such a shift in thinking 

led to the invention of the Ballast-Free Ship Concept (US Patent #6,694,908 2004). 

In this concept, the traditional ballast tanks are replaced by longitudinal, structural ballast trunks 

that extend beneath the cargo region of the ship below the ballast draft. A schematic of this 

concept is shown in Fig. 2.1. 

Figure 2.1: Schematic of the Ballast-Free Ship Concept 

The arrangement of a conventional Seaway-size bulk carrier is shown on the left in Fig. 2.2; the 

arrangement of an equal grain capacity Ballast-Free Ship Concept Seaway-size bulk carrier is 

shown for comparison on the right. In this example, the three ballast trunks per side are 

connected to the sea through a plenum at the bow and a second plenum at the stern. These trunks 
3

are flooded with seawater to reduce the buoyancy of the vessel in the ballast condition in order to 

get the vessel down to its ballast drafts. Since there is a natural hydrodynamic pressure 

differential created between the bow region and the stern region of a ship due to its motion 

through the water, a slow flow is induced in these open ballast trunks. This ensures that the 

ballast trunks are always filled with slowly-moving “local seawater.” This should ensure that 

there is no transport nonindigenous aquatic species across the globe. Therefore, the vessel 

becomes foreign “ballast-free” from the traditional viewpoint. 

When the ballast voyage is completed, the ballast trunks can be isolated from the sea by valves 

and then pumped dry using conventional ballast pumps. The need for costly ballast water 

treatment equipment or ballast water treatment chemicals would, thus, be eliminated. This 

approach would also be equally effective for biota smaller than 50 microns. During the full load 

condition or any condition where ballast is not necessary, the outer four ballast trunks would be 

segregated utilizing valves at each of the cargo hold bulkheads. This is needed to provide the 

vessel adequate damage survivability under current IMO requirements. 

Figure 2.2: Typical Seaway-size Bulk Carrier (left); Ballast-Free Concept Bulk Carrier (right) 

 In order to provide adequate intact stability, equivalent damage survivability, equivalent cargo 

capacity, etc., the entire vessel design needs to be developed to support this concept of ballast 

operations as illustrated in Fig. 2.2. Thus, it is not feasible for back fit and is suitable only for 

new construction. The ship requires a higher tank top in order to locate enough ballast trunk 
4

volume below the ballast draft and requires a greater hull depth in order to maintain the vessel’s 

capacity to carry light cargos, such as grain. The Ballast-Free Ship Concept also includes 

features to minimize the buildup of sediment within the ballast trunks and facilitate their required 

cleaning; i.e., easier to clean 2.4 m high ballast trunks and the elimination of the lower part of the 

floors next to the shell. 

As noted, the initial research on the development of the Ballast-Free Ship Concept was limited 

by its required comprehensive research scope and limited associated budget. For budgetary 

reasons, it was only feasible to support model testing that utilized an existing model. Although 

the vessel type of greatest interest for the Great Lakes nonindigenous aquatic species 

introduction problem is the Seaway-size bulk carrier, the best available model was of a relatively 

finer, higher-speed barge-carrying Lighter Aboard Ship (LASH) vessel. This existing model was 

modified to utilize a more conventional stern, but the model test results were not directly 

applicable to the Seaway-size bulk carriers studied in detail in the rest of the research effort. 

 

The initial model tests had to be limited to a single system design for the existing model. There 

was no opportunity to optimize the hydrodynamic design of the system to minimize the 

economic impact of the Ballast-Free Ship Concept design. The initial model tests using the 

modified LASH vessel hull showed that the specific ballast intake and discharge locations and 

method tested resulted in a modest 2.2% increase in resistance, but a more significant 7.4% 

increase in the required propulsion power. This specific result assumed a change in the ballast 

water within the ballast trunks once every two hours, which would meet the environmental intent 

of the Ballast-Free Ship Concept. The large power increase could result in an undesirable engine 

size increase and would certainly result in an important fuel cost penalty. In that investigation, it 

was concluded that further hydrodynamic optimization could eliminate most, if not all, of this 

significant added power requirement. 

This undesirable power penalty motivated the GLMRI sponsored research effort that has 

designed a Seaway-sized bulk carrier, produced a 5 m precision scale model of that vessel, 

undertaken Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analyses of this design, and conducted 

hydrodynamic testing of the model in the University of Michigan Marine Hydrodynamics 

Laboratory (MHL). The primary goal of this research has been the optimization of the ballast 

trunk intake and discharge configurations in order to provide a required power reduction rather 

than an increase, if feasible. 

2.1 Development of the Seaway-sized Bulk Carrier 

The Ballast-Free bulk carrier model, which was designed and built during the initial GLMRI 

sponsored phase of this project (Parsons and Kotinis 2006), was tested at the University of 

Michigan Marine Hydrodynamics Laboratory (MHL) in January of 2007 in year two. The main 

particulars of the ship are shown in Table 2.1. The characteristics of the model in the ballast 

condition are presented in Table 2.2. The bow and the stern of the constructed model are shown 

in Figs. 2.3 and 2.4, respectively. All of the initial tests were carried out at the ballast drafts at 

which the Ballast-Free trunks would be in use. 
5

Table 2.1: Main Particulars of the Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier

Table 2.2: Characteristics of the Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier Model in the Ballast Condition 

Figure 2.3: Bow View of the Seaway-sized Bulk Carrier Model 

Figure 2.4: Stern View of the Seaway-sized Bulk Carrier Model

Waterline length (m) 195.5 

Maximum beam (m) 23.76 

Depth to main deck (m) 16.00 

Full-load draft (m) 10.70 

Block coefficient CB 0.835 

Geometric scale ratio λ 37.92 

Waterline length (m) 5.00 

Maximum beam (m) 0.627 

F.P. draft @ 40% DWL (m) 0.113 

A.P. draft @ 70% DWL (m) 0.198 

Wetted surface area (m2) 5.34 
6

2.2 Arrangement and Design of Ballast Trunk Inlet and Outlets

A full-scale diameter of approximately 1 m was chosen for the plena inlet and outlet to ensure a 

smooth inflow and outflow without imposing severe constraints on the structural arrangements. 

The corresponding inlet/outlet diameter at model scale is approximately 2.6 cm. The flow rate 

in the longitudinal trunks was calculated assuming a full-scale volume of ballast water equal to 

18,500 m3

. This value was obtained from similar ships, under the assumption of flooding both 

the normal ballast tanks and a central cargo hold for a heavy weather ballast condition. 

Assuming an exchange time of 90 min and utilizing Froude scaling, the internal flow rate at 

model scale is Qm = Qs λ-5/2 = 3.9·10-4

 m3/s. Using the continuity equation and assuming a 

symmetrical plenum about the centerplane, the average discharge fluid speed is 0.382 m/s. 

The selection of the inlet location was based primarily on providing a pressure differential 

capable of sustaining a steady trunk (internal) flow. In addition to this, the inlet must be 

adequately submerged to avoid air ingestion and interaction with the free surface and the bowgenerated wave system. An important design constraint is the low forward draft in the ballast 

condition. It was decided to locate the water inlet right on the face of the bulbous bow in the area 

around the stagnation point to take advantage of the high positive pressure in this region. 

Therefore, the center of the water inlet was placed at approximately 25% of the design waterline 

(DWL) above the keel as shown in Fig. 2.5. 

Figure 2.5: Location of Forward Ballast Trunk Inlet

In order to investigate the effect of the water discharge on the flow at the stern, two different 

discharge locations were selected; one close to Station 17 and one close to Station 19 as shown 

in Fig. 2.6. Station 17 is approximately at the location of the forward engine room bulkhead in 

the full-scale ship; Station 19 is approximately at the aft engine room bulkhead. The discharge at 

Station 17 was located high at about the 45% DWL and the discharge at Station 19 was located 

lower at about the 30% DWL. The flow was discharged at about 10 degrees to the local hull 

surface. In this way, the effect on the boundary layer flow, as well as the effect on propeller 

inflow, could be investigated in a systematic manner. 

The choice of the discharge locations investigated was based on the results of a numerical CFD 

investigation. These results are presented in the next section. If trunk flow rate maximization 
7

were the only criterion, the water outlet should be located in an area with high suction pressure to 

maximize the pressure differential. On the other hand, when the propeller operation is taken into 

account, the real objective should be to minimize the ship’s power requirement subject to 

achieving adequate ballast trunk flow. 

Figure 2.6: Location of Two Ballast Trunk Discharges Investigated 
8

3. Numerical Investigation 

3.1 External Flow 

The numerical investigation of the flow around the Ballast-Free Concept bulk carrier model 

was performed using the Star-CCM+® CFD software during the recent year. A predominantly 

hexahedral grid, details of which are shown in Figs. 3.1 and 3.2, was utilized. Star-CCM+®

was used instead of FLUENT®, as used in the previous work, because the turbulence could be 

simulated using the v2

-f turbulence model, which has been more successful in predicting the 

wake characteristics of full hull shapes. The boundary layer flow was resolved all the way to 

the solid boundary (hull), as one of the goals was the successful prediction of the mixing 

between the boundary layer flow and the water discharge at the stern. The v2

-f turbulence 

model is theoretically valid throughout the flow domain without the need for turbulence 

damping functions in the viscous sublayer. Therefore, the mesh was created to provide the 

required refinement close to the hull. 

Figure 3.1: Bow Grid Detail of the Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier in Ballast Condition 

Figure 3.2: Stern Grid Detail of the Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier in Ballast Condition 
9

The positioning of the water inlet at the bow of the Ballast-Free bulk carrier was established 

using the earlier CFD results. A plot of the Star-CCM+® pressure coefficient distribution, at 

the ballast drafts and speed, is shown in Fig.3.3. The magenta is the highest pressure, while 

the blue-greens and blues represent a negative pressure. The high block coefficient of this 

hull form limits the region of positive pressure at the bow and, consequently, the alternatives 

for the bow inlet position. It was decided to place the inlet right on the tip of the bulb to 

ensure that there would be an adequate pressure differential to drive the trunk flow. This 

configuration was utilized in both sets of towing tank testing (January 2007 and July 2008) as 

well as in the numerical hydrodynamic investigations. 

Figure 3.3: Bow Pressure Coefficient Contours of the Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier (baseline no 

trunk flow case) 

Two discharge locations at the stern of the vessel were tested as shown on the model. These 

two locations are shown in Fig. 3.4 together with the pressure coefficient contours at the stern 

of the Ballast-Free bulk carrier while in ballast draft and speed, but with no trunk flow. There 

is a relatively flat suction pressure region near Station 17, which could provide a steadier 

internal (trunk) flow. As noted, the selected discharge location in this region offers an 

additional benefit as it would be close to the forward engine room bulkhead, thus, obviating 

the need for extending the trunks through the engine room. During the experimental 

investigation in January 2007, both these discharge locations provided a reduction in the 

propulsive requirements, leading to savings in the Required Freight Rate (RFR). The better 

Station 17 location was further investigated in 2008 to confirm the very large required power 

improvement (-7.3%) found in the 2007 tests. 

Figure 3.4: Stern Pressure coefficient Contours of the Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier (baseline 

 no flow case), Outlet Locations Shown for Reference 
10

Prior to deriving conclusions based on the numerical results, a grid convergence study was 

carried out in order to obtain a grid-independent solution. The investigation was performed in 

model scale (geometric scale factor of 37.92) in order to be able to perform direct 

comparisons with the experimental results. The grid convergence was evaluated by 

comparing the pressure, friction, and total drag coefficients of systematically refined grids. 

Given the unstructured nature of the generated grids, a systematic refinement was performed 

mainly in the area close to the hull (and within the boundary layer) setting a goal for an 

approximate grid refinement ratio of √2. 

The ballast speed in full scale was assumed to be 15.5 knots. The computational model did 

not include a free surface; therefore, the results do not include wave drag and can be utilized 

directly for the form factor calculation. An additional assumption pertains to the trunk flow 

speed. This was computed utilizing an exchange time for the ballast water of 90 min, which is 

equivalent to a model scale flow rate of 6.1 gpm, assuming that the flow is scaled to maintain 

Froude number similarity, in a manner similar to the external flow scaling. 

The model-scale simulations were run on a PC equipped with a quad-core 2.66 MHz 

processor and 8 GB of RAM running in 64-bit Windows Vista. A full-scale simulation of the 

flow has not been successful thus far, as the near-wall meshing requirements to allow for the 

flow mixing cannot be handled appropriately by the currently utilized grid generator. 

As shown in Table 3.1, the solution in the fine grid can be considered grid-independent. 

Subsequently, this grid was utilized in all simulations. The results in Table 3.2 reveal that the 

pressure drag coefficient is lower when the internal flow is simulated. It can be postulated 

that the major contribution to the pressure coefficient reduction comes from the placement of 

the water suction at the tip of the bulbous bow, which causes a significant pressure relief in 

this region producing a form drag reduction. The pressure coefficient contours at the stern 

with discharge near Stations 17 and 19 are shown in Figs. 3.5 and 3.6, respectively. 

 Table 3.1: Grid Independence Study 

Grid (# of cells) Baseline case 

 CP CF CT

Coarse (581,162) 0.960e-3 3.225e-3 4.185e-3 

Medium (815,402) 0.937e-3 3.366e-3 4.303e-3 

Fine (1,176,085) 0.936e-3 3.377e-3 4.313e-3 

 Table 3.2: Drag Coefficients and Form Factor 

CP CF CT Form 

Factor 

Baseline no trunk flow case 0.936e-3 3.377e-3 4.313e-3 0.315 

Discharge at St. 17 – 90min 0.906e-3 3.375e-3 4.281e-3 0.306 

Discharge at St. 19 – 90min 0.921e-3 3.378e-3 4.299e-3 0.311 
11

Figure 3.5: Stern Pressure Coefficient of the Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier 

(discharge Sta. 17 – 90 min) 

Figure 3.6: Stern Pressure Coefficient of the Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier 

(discharge Sta. 19 – 90 min) 

Additional runs were performed to investigate the flow rate effect on the resistance. 

Specifically, runs were made for an exchange time of 120 min, and thus, a slower water 

discharge, and also an exchange time of 60 min leading to higher discharge velocities. The 

first, slower case was investigated using the discharge location near Station 17 as this is a 

relatively higher pressure region which is less likely to provide a high exchange rate. The 

computed pressure drag coefficient has a value of 0.884e-3 and the friction drag coefficient 

has a value of 3.375e-3. The computed pressure drag coefficient value corresponds to a 

substantial reduction compared to the 90-min water exchange case with discharge from the 

same location. The resulting form factor value is 0.299. The pressure coefficient contours at 

the stern of the vessel in this case are shown in Fig. 3.7. 

Figure 3.7: Stern Pressure Coefficient of the Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier 

(discharge Sta. 17 – 120 min) 
12

The case with discharge near Station 19 was further investigated using a higher flow rate 

corresponding to a ballast exchange time of 60 min. The major consequence of the increased 

flow rate is a significantly higher pressure drag coefficient, which diminishes the benefits 

obtained through the bow water suction. The computed values of the pressure and friction 

drag coefficients are 0.932e-3 and 3.379e-3, respectively. The corresponding form factor 

value is 0.315. The pressure coefficient contours at the stern of the vessel in this case are 

shown in Fig. 3.8. 

Figure 3.8: Stern Pressure Coefficient of the Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier 

(discharge Sta. 19 – 60 min) 

The discharge effect on the nominal hull wake was studied by computing the nominal wake 

fraction. The corresponding values for each of the aforementioned cases are listed in Table 

3.3. Plots of the axial velocity at the propeller plane are shown in Figs. 3.9 through 3.13. The 

results reveal that a faster discharge flow provides a more uniform wake, even though, as 

pointed out earlier, this leads to higher pressure drag. On the other hand, the discharge at 

Station 19 provides a more homogeneous, but slower, wake at lower radii. 

Figure 3.9: Axial Velocity Contours in the Propeller Plane (baseline no trunk flow case) 
13

Figure 3.10: Axial Velocity Contours in the Propeller Plane (discharge Sta. 17 – 90 min) 

Figure 3.11: Axial Velocity Contours in the Propeller Plane (discharge Sta. 19 – 90 min) 
14

Figure 3.12: Axial Velocity Contours in the Propeller Plane (discharge Sta. 17 – 120 min) 

Figure 3.13: Axial Velocity Contours in the Propeller Plane (discharge Sta. 19 – 60 min) 

 Table 3.3: Nominal Axial Wake Fraction 

 wH

Baseline no trunk flow case 0.405 

Discharge at St. 17 – 90min 0.402 

Discharge at St. 19 – 90min 0.438 

Discharge at St. 17 – 120min 0.408 

Discharge at St. 19 – 60min 0.427 
15

3.2 Internal Flow 

The trunk flow was simulated by utilizing the computational model of the initial investigation 

of the Ballast-Free ship concept (Kotinis et al. 2004). The domain of the internal flow 

consists of the trunks in six cargo holds connected via sluice gates. The double bottom 

structures were modeled as accurately as possible, as shown in Fig. 14. Due to the center 

plane symmetry, only half of the domain was modeled. Even though the inlet location has 

changed since the initial investigation, it was decided to utilize the original configuration in 

order to compare the effect of the turbulence model on the calculations. The turbulence model 

utilized in this case was the v2-f model within Star-CCM+®. The objective was to compute 

the time required to flush the existing water inside the trunks. The pressure differential was 

set equal to 0.50. The concentration of the water that enters the trunks through the pressure 

inlet (‘new water’) was monitored and utilized as the stopping criterion. Specifically, three 

new water concentration levels for the entire array of ballast trunks were considered: 95%, 

99%, and 99.9%. The respective recorded times were 85.0, 108.5, and 139.4 minutes. All 

these times are slightly lower than those obtained earlier using FLUENT® (Kotinis et al. 

2004). 

Figure 3.14: Computational Model of Double Bottom Ballast Trunk Structure 
16

4. Experimental Investigation 

The flow around the Ballast-Free Ship was tested experimentally in the towing tank of the 

MHL in July 2008. A different stock propeller was utilized in an attempt to validate the 

results obtained in January 2007 and also investigate the performance of a propeller with 

different characteristics (blade sections, pitch, and expanded area ratio). In addition to this, 

the resistance tests utilized updated MHL testing equipment that provided a more reliable 

prediction of the trunk flow on the vessel resistance. Finally, the vessel was also tested in the 

full load condition. The latter provided more accurate input in the Ballast-Free Ship powering 

investigation. 

Plots of the International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC 1978) extrapolated ship resistance 

and effective power are shown in Figs. 4.1 and 4.2, respectively. Recall that effective power 

is the power equivalent of this total resistance obtained without a propeller so these show the 

same results. Even though there is some overlap in the error bands, there is a clear trend that 

the flow discharge increases the vessel's resistance. This trend was not obvious in results 

from the previous (January 2007) investigation. With discharge at Station 19, the resistance 

increase at the ballast speed of 15.5 knots is 2.44%. The corresponding increase for Station 

17 is 4.61%. The form factor values were also computed for each case. The experimental 

results were found to be in relatively good agreement with the numerical results. The CFD 

results, however, over predict the form factor in all cases. 

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 Ship Speed (knots)

RTs (kN)

baseline

St.19

St.17

Figure 4.1: Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier Total Resistance 
17

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 Ship Speed (knots)

Effective Power (kW)

baseline

St.19

St.17

Figure 4.2: Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier Effective Power 

 Table 4.1: Form Factor Comparison 

 CFD Experiment 

Baseline no trunk flow case 0.315 0.303 

Discharge at St. 17 – 90min 0.306 0.283 

Discharge at St. 19 – 90min 0.311 0.283 

The model was also tested in the full load condition at the speed that corresponds to the full 

scale design speed of 14.5 knots. The extrapolated effective power was 7,114 hp, only 

slightly higher than the effective power in the ballast condition at 15.5 knots (7,042 hp). This 

validates the selection of the vessel speed in the ballast condition. 

 The characteristics of the No. 20 stock propeller used in the 2008 testing and the No. 23 stock 

propeller used in the 2007 testing are listed in Table 4.2. 

 

Table 4.2: Characteristics of the MHL No. 20 and No. 23 Propellers 

 Characteristic MHL No. 20 MHL No. 23 

 Number of blades, Z 4 4 

 Diameter (m) 0.159 0.158 

 Hub diameter (m) 0.032 0.031 

 Pitch-diameter ratio 0.80 1.08 

 Expanded area ratio 0.40 0.55 
18

The propulsive performance was evaluated at the ballast speed. The discharge at Station 17 

resulted in reduced powering requirements, compared to the baseline no trunk flow case, even 

though the reduction was significantly lower than that observed in the January 2007 testing for 

the discharge at this same location. Part of this change resulted from the higher, and more 

accurately determined total resistance change (4.6% in July 2008 vs. 2.7% in January 2007). 

These propulsion test results are summarized in Table 4.3. 

 

 Table 4.3: Propulsion Test Results - Ballast Condition at 15.5 knots 

 Baseline No Trunk 

Flow Case 

Discharge at St. 17 – 

90min Exchange 

Open water efficiency ηO 0.487 0.522 

Wake fraction w 0.345 0.268 

Thrust deduction t 0.287 0.167 

Hull efficiency ηH = (1 – t)/(1 – w) 1.088 1.138 

Relative rotative efficiency ηR 1.013 0.959 

Behind propeller efficiency ηP = ηO ηR 0.493 0.501 

Advance coefficient J = V(1-w)/nD 0.478 0.533 

Propulsive efficiency ηD = ηO ηH ηR 0.536 0.570 

Change in propulsive efficiency base +6.34% 

Delivered power PD (kW) 9,794 9,634 

Change in required power base -1.63% 

The total resistance RT is related to the developed power PD needed at the input to the 

propeller by the following: 

 PD = RTV/1000ηD kW (1) 

where ηD is the product of the propeller open water efficiency ηO; the relative rotative 

efficiency ηR, which corrects this to the behind the hull condition; and the hull efficiency ηH

that is related to the wake fraction w and the thrust deduction t as shown in Table 4.3 (Parsons 

2003). When the ballast trunk flow is introduced into the upper part of the propeller disk, all 

of these components change. With the added flow the wake fraction w changes downward as 

the flow becomes closer to vessel speed. With the acceleration of the stern flow, the propeller 

accelerates the flow less also reducing the thrust deduction t. The net effect is an important 

increase in the hull efficiency ηH. With a faster propeller inflow, the advance coefficient J 

operating point of the propeller increases as the propeller assumes a new operating point to 

supply the greater ship total resistance. This results in an increase in the open water 

efficiency ηO and behind the hull propeller efficiency ηP. With both ηH and ηP increasing, the 

overall propulsive efficiency ηD increases. This increase is large enough (6.34%) to 

overcome the total resistance increase (4.61%), i.e. 1.0461/1.0634 = 0.9837, the 1.63% 

reduction in required power measured. 

The fact that we didn't observe a similar reduction in powering requirements can be partially 

attributed to both the increase in measured resistance and the use of a different stock propeller. 
19

The stock propeller utilized in July 2008 has blade sections with very low camber values; 

therefore, the propeller blades need to work at relatively high angles of attack to produce the 

required thrust and, thus, has lower open water efficiency. The propeller utilized in January 

2007 (MHL #23) was able to demonstrate significantly better performance at the ballast 

condition in all cases (with and w/o discharge). The open water diagrams of the two 

propellers with the ship requirements in full load are shown in Fig. 4.3 for comparison. 

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200

Advance Coefficient J

#23 Kt

#23 eta0

#20 Kt

#20 eta0

Kt, ship

Figure 4.3: Stock Propeller Open Water Characteristics and Ship Thrust Requirement 

There is also evidence that the Station 17 discharge experimental data that produced the large 

required power reduction (-7.3%) in the January 2007 experiments may have contained faulty 

data. When the direction of the change in w, t, J, ηO, and ηR (but not ηH and ηD) are compared 

between the baseline and the ballast flow cases found in the January 2007 tests with the 

discharge at Station 17 they are opposite to the direction of the changes found for the other tests 

as illustrated in Fig. 4.3. The direction of the changes found in the January 2007 tests with the 

discharge at Station 19 and the July 2008 tests with the discharge at Station 17 were consistent. 

This flawed data appears to be a third reason for very large required power reduction found in 

that January 2007 test with the discharge at Station 17. The results for this case as reported in 

Kotinis and Parsons 2007b appear to have been in error. 
20

5. Potential Economic Impact of the Research Results 

The economic impact of the Ballast-Free Ship concept on the capital and operating cost of a 

typical Seaway-sized bulk carrier was estimated in a manner similar to that used in the initial 

investigation of the concept (Kotinis et al. 2004). The results for the water discharge close to 

Station 17 are presented in Fig. 5.1. A realistic scenario was adopted for the economic analysis: 

a Handy-sized bulk carrier transporting grain from the upper Great Lakes (e.g. Duluth, Thunder 

Bay) to ports in Northern Europe and occasionally transporting steel into the Great Lakes. A 

North Atlantic voyage route between Rotterdam and Montreal, entering the Great Lakes through 

the St. Lawrence Seaway while in a ballast condition, is assumed. 

A conservative assumption is that the 1.6% reduction in the required power of the Ballast Free 

bulk carrier will not be enough to permit a change in the main engine; thus, no propulsion 

machinery capital cost reduction was included. Foreign new construction, typical of Korea, was 

assumed for the calculation of the hull steel and other construction costs. The eliminated ballast 

water treatment system was assumed to consist of automatic backflush filtration as a primary 

treatment combined with UV irradiation for a secondary treatment. The estimated cost of this 

treatment equipment was based upon a study commissioned by the Great Lakes Ballast 

Technology Demonstration Project (Hurley et al. 2001). 

The net savings in terms of the ΔRFR with the ballast trunk water discharge close to Station 17 is 

estimated to be about $1.00 per tonne of cargo. This is relative to a typical 2008 grain freight 

rate to Europe of about $100 per tonne and an annual cargo capacity for this vessel of 168,000 

tonnes if it were only involved in this trade. These savings are relative to the use of filtration 

primary and UV secondary ballast water treatment when ballast water exchange is no longer 

permitted in the future. 

 
21

Figure 5.1: Order of Magnitude Economics Comparing a Typical Bulk Carrier with Filtration and UV Treatmen

Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier 
22

6. Dissemination of Study Results 

During this past year, the project worked with University of Michigan New Services (Jim 

Erickson) to prepare a 5 min video and news release describing the Ballast-Free Ship concept 

and the testing sponsored by GLMRI. This was featured on the University website and a 

parallel article has appeared in The University RECORD, the in-house UM newspaper. The 

video has also been included on YouTube. The news spot has been picked up or utilized for 

articles by numerous organizations including the following: 

 UPI 

Washington Post

 WWJ radio in Detroit 

The Naval Architect of RINA 

Mechanical Engineer of ASME 

Technish Weekblad in Denmark 

Surveyor, to be published by the American Bureau of Shipping 

Discover magazine 

 Polish Newsweek magazine 

Estuary of the San Francisco Estuary Project 

Conservation 

Business Week 

 Prism of the American Association for Engineering Education

Frontiers of Ecology 

Ingenioren, Denmark 

Scandinavian Shipping Gazette 

Ballast Exchange Newsletter 

Inventique 

 

Parsons was interviewed for a spot that appeared on National Public Radio’s Environmental 

Report. A short invited article authored by Parsons and Kotinis appeared in the May 

environmental issue of Maritime Reporter. A short invited article by Parsons appeared in the 

2008 Yearbook of Maritime Technology published by the Scandinavian Shipping Gazette. A 

short article by Parsons and Kotinis has also been submitted for inclusion in a fall 2008 issue of 

Great Lakes/Seaway Review. The support of GLMRI has been mentioned whenever feasible. 

Parsons has been contacted informally by three parties (two U.S. and one Korean) concerning 

opportunities and interest in participating in the commercialization of the Ballast-Free Ship 

concept. 

The following publications during the past year were related to this funded research: 

 

• Kotinis, M. and Parsons, M. G., “Hydrodynamic Optimization of the Ballast-Free Ship 

Concept” Transactions SNAME, 115, 2007. This paper received the ABS/Captain 

Joseph H. Linnard Prize for the Best Paper presented before the society in 2007 
23

• Parsons, M. G. and Kotinis, M., “Recent Testing Indicates the Ballast-Free Ship Concept 

can also Provide Fuel Savings,” Maritime Reporter, May 2008. 

• Parsons, M. G., “An alternative solution to ballast water treatment: the Ballast-Free Ship 

concept,”2008 Yearbook of Maritime Technology, Scandinavian Shipping Gazette, 2008. 

• Parsons, M. G. and Kotinis, M., “Ballast-Free Ship Concept Testing Shows a Potential 

Fuel Savings,” to appear in Great Lakes/Seaway Review, fall 2008. 

The following presentations during the past year were related to this funded research: 

• Kotinis, M. and Parsons, M. G., “Hydrodynamic Optimization of the Ballast-Free Ship 

Concept” to be presented at the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 

Annual Meeting, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Nov. 2007. 

• Parsons attended and presented a summary of this project at the GLMRI Affiliates 

Meeting, September 23, 2008, in Superior, WI. 

• Kotinis and Parsons will present a paper on the results of the project at the meeting of the 

Great Lakes and Great Rivers of SNAME in Ann Arbor, MI, on November 13, 2008. 

The results of the funded research were reviewed in the following class: 

• It is understood that the results of this investigation were reviewed in the graduate class 

NA570 Advanced Marine Design at the University of Michigan in the Winter Semester 

2008. 
25

7. References 

Ballast Water News 2004 "The Ballast-Free Ship - Fact or Fancy?" Ballast Water News, Global 

Ballast Water Management Program, IMO, 17, April-June. 

Hurley, W. L. JR., Schilling, S. S. JR. and Mackey, T. P. 2001 “Contract Designs for Ballast 

Water Treatment Systems on Containership R. J. Pfeiffer and Tanker Polar Endeavor,” 

SNAME/ ASNE Marine Environmental Engineering Technical Symposium, Arlington, VA, 

May 31-June 1 (CD). 

IMO 2004 “International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water & 

Sediments,” Diplomatic Conference, February, London. 

ITTC 1978 “15th International Towing Tank Conference, 3-10 September 1978, The Hague, The 

Netherlands”, Netherlands Ship Model Basin, Wageningen. 

Kotinis, M., Parsons, M. G., Lamb, T. and Sirviente, A. 2004 “Development and Investigation of 

the Ballast-Free Ship Concept,” Transactions SNAME, 112, pp. 206-240. 

Kotinis, M. 2005 “Development and Investigation of the Ballast-Free Ship Concept,” Ph.D. 

Dissertation, University of Michigan, Department of Naval Architecture and Marine 

Engineering. 

Kotinis, M. and Parsons, M. G. 2007a “Numerical Investigation of the Flow at the Stern of a 

Ballast-Free Bulk Carrier Model” Proceedings of the 9th Int. Conference in Numerical Ship 

Hydrodynamics, Aug. 

Kotinis, M. and Parsons, M. G. 2007b “Hydrodynamic Optimization of the Ballast-Free Ship 

Concept” Transactions SNAME, 115, pp. 50-67. 

Parsons, M. G. 2003 “Parametric Design,” Ch. 11 in Lamb, T. (ed.), Ship Design and 

 Construction, SNAME, Jersey City, NJ. 

Parsons, M. G. and Kotinis, M. 2006 “Seaway-Sized Bulk Carrier Model for Hydrodynamic 

Optimization of Ballast-Free Ship Design,” GLMRI Annual Report, October 2. 

Parsons, M. G. and Kotinis, M. 2007 “Hydrodynamic Optimization Testing of Ballast-Free Ship 

Design,” GLMRI Annual Report, October 30. 

U. S. Patent #6,694,908 2004 “Ballast Free Ship System,” U. S. Patent and Trademark Office, 

Washington, DC.