Master in Industrial Engineering

Flettner Rotors Study

Renewable Energies

Boudour Yahyaoui - a52503 Gabriel

Henrique Silva Cangussu -a52574
Gabriel Salles do Amaral - a52496

Bragança, January 12, 2023

Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Technical considerations 3
2.1 Materials ...................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.1 CFRP material ..................................................................................... 3
2.1.2 GFPR material ..................................................................................... 4
2.2 Installation .............................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Operation ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Factors that interfere in the performance of a FR .............................................. 7
2.5 Costs of implementation............................................................................................. 7
2.6 Fuel savings ............................................................................................................ 8

3 Conclusion 9

Bibliography 10
Chapter 1

Introduction

This paper aims to present on the Flettner Rotor (FR) technology, briefly discussing
what it is and how it works, technical considerations, costs, and the potential for fuel
saving.
FR are rotating cylinders mounted on the deck that generate thrust forward through
the Magnus Effect, initially patented by Anton Flettner and with the ships Buckau and
Barbara as the first to use this device in the mid-1920s. The Figure 2.2 illustrated the
E SHIP 1 with certification OMI: 9417141 where you can see four FR’s installed on the
deck of the ship [7, 2].

Figure 1.1: E SHIP 1 (OMI: 9417141)

A da p te d f r o m [7]

These cylinder rotations are controlled by electric motors installed on board the ship.
Finally, the amount of power that can be substituted is determined by the power consumed
by the motors and the thrust generated by the rotors. In order to understand the reasons
tha t motivated the shipping industry to become involved in this topic, it is essential to
analyze some data [9].

2
 More than 90 % of the volume of international trade was carried by ships in 2020,
resulting in about 99,800 ships, equivalent to 2.13 billion deadweights capacity and
10.8 billion tons of cargo traded, demonstrating the importance of maritime transport
globally. However, this makes it one of the most polluting activities, due to gas emissions
from ships, It is estimated that about 3% of total global greenhouse gas emissions are
produced by maritime transportation [11, 9].
Because of this, the IMO has created regulations aimed at reducing emissions from
ships, at the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC’s) 72nd session in April
2018, the IMO, aligned with the United Nation’s 2015 Paris Agreement, established
targets for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 50% by 2050 and CO2
emissions per transport work by at least 40% by 2030 and 70% by 2050 compared to the
2008 level, which was 940 million tonnes [6, 2].
One approach is to use wind-assisted propulsion (WASP), which is the use of a device
to capture the energy of the wind and generate forward thrust, allowing a ship to maintain
the same speed for reduced engine power or increasing the ship’s speed for the same engine
power. By using wind power, besides reducing carbon dioxide emissions, it will also reduce
the exposure to the volatility of the fossil fuel market [2, 7].
Some of the WASP technologies are wing sail, soft sail, kite, or Flettner Rotor (FR),
the latter being the focus of this work. The literature points out that FRs have a fuel
saving potential of 10% to 35%, varying according to the vessel’s technical parameters
and operating conditions.

2
Chapter 2

Technical considerations

This chapter aims to present the technical parameters of Flettner Rotors, covering the
materials used, installation, and operation.

2.1 Materials
Table 2.1 shows a technical brochure about FR’s from Norsepower, which is a company
focused on rotor sail technologies [8].

Table 2.1: Flettner Rotor Materials.

Adapted from [8]
Component Model 18m x 3m Model 24m x 4m Model 30m x 5m
Rotor GFRP/CFRP GFRP/CFRP GFRP/CFRP
sandwich sandwich sandwich
Tower Cylindrical/conical Cylindrical/conical Cylindrical/conical
steel structure steel structure steel structure

Among the specifications described are the rotor and tower structure materials FR for
each available model with their respective dimensions developed by the company.
Glass fiber reinforced polymeric (GFPR) and Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFPR)
are fiber reinforced polymeric composites, are replacing steel for marine applications, mainly
because steel has a relatively poor service life in a high chloride environment [1].

2.1.1 CFRP material

CFRP is a composite material that consists of carbon fiber and a matrix that could
be thermoset, thermoplastic, or elastomer. Features include lightweight, low density,
corrosion resistance, better stiffness, and improved fatigue performance when compared to
conventional metals [5].
Because of these characteristics, CFRP is used in applications subject to environments
with various conditions such as temperature, humidity, salt, water, ultraviolet light, and
moisture, and is an appropriate material for the rotors of an FR [5].

3
2.1.2 GFPR material
In addition to CFRP, GFRP has some excellent property combinations. Due to their
lightness and corrosion resistance, these materials have become a viable alternative to
steel. Furthermore, GFRP composites have superior fatigue properties and can be
installed with significant ease and convenience, resulting in lower maintenance costs.
They are strong, yet low-density, stiff materials with high impact resistance, making them
idealfor marine applications [1].
GFRP composites are more commonly used in the marine environment due to their
lower cost, whereas CFRP composites have superior strength, corrosion resistance, and
durability [1].

2.2 Installation
When initiating an evaluation for the installation of FR on a boat, it must be assured
that the seeker boat is physically well suited to accommodate them. Boat data is used to
define the original confines and locales for perpetration, and depending on the boat type,
a different sense is applied. The original conditions are as follows [8]:

• Sufficient free sundeck space;

• No inconvenient structures;

• Sufficiently strong underpinning points.

These conditions eventually mean that a seeker boat must be of a type that has an open
sundeck area, with no expansive superstructure that could inhibit tailwind, or sundeck
outfit that could be dammed by, or would obstruct, the presence of a rotor.
During a stay at the dockyard, FR cruises are installed on the sundeck of the boat with
custom foundations. The rotors are mounted to the foundations with a screw connection.
When the foundation installation is completed, the rotors can be lifted onto the vessel
and secured to the foundations during a normal harbor stay [8].

2.3 Operation
The operation of a FR is through the Magnus effect, illustrated in Figure 2.1, and
is characterized by the relationship between the velocity and pressure of a moving fluid.
When the wind meets the spinning rotor, the airflow accelerates on one side of the rotor
sails and decelerates on the other. This change in airflow velocity causes a pressure
difference, which generates a lift force and a drag force, perpendicular and parallel to the
wind flow direction, respectively [9].

4
 Figure 2.1: Magnus Effect [9]

This can be observed by probing the line of trajectory suffered during ballistic testing.
After launch, as a shot rotates, a force is generated from the center of the sphere or cylinder
to a direction vertical to the axis of rotation. Consequently, the prognostic circles of these
projectiles are subject to deflections depending on their direction of rotation.
This also results from the trade of cross- affluence on a rotating cylinder or sphere.
When the inflow and the velocity of the cylinder face are in the same direction, the
boundary layer around the cylinder is accelerated. On the other hand, when the inflow
and the face velocity of the cylinder are in the opposite direction, the boundary layer
is retarded. This is attributed to the conformation of a thin boundary layer around the
cylinder wall due to the density of the fluid [10].
Due to this miracle, the rapid difference generated near the cylinder face leads to
an asymmetric pressure distribution. It can relate the pressure distribution to the rapid
distribution around the cylinder using Bernoulli’s equation along a streamline. When the
recession point is reached, the pressure reaches its maximum value and twisted inflow
patterns are generated around the cylinder.
The corresponding degree of pressure is at the origin of a force directed from the
point of maximum pressure to the point of minimum pressure. This thus results in the
generation of two forces when a cylinder is rotating in a crosswise inflow:

• The drag force, which acts from the trade of the inflow with a solid drawback;

• The lift force realized from the pressure difference around the cylinder.

This introductory model is useful for understanding the principles of this miracle.
Still, another detaining parameter, which needs to be taken into account, is the density of
the inflow. The density has a direct impact on the management of the inflow and changes
its pattern. Thus, it is necessary to consider the non-slip condition of the inflow on the
cylinder face, which generates a tilted boundary layer that will have an impact on its three-
dimensional pattern.

5
 Figure 2.2: The essential parts of the FR
[8]

Figure 2.3: Control panel of an RF

[8]

The RF is controlled via a panel by the crew, as illustrated in Figure 2.3. After a
push button start, the equipment is completely automated and able to detect when the
wind is strong sufficient to save fuel, where at this point the rotors start automatically,
saving crew time and resources.

6
 2.4 Factors that interfere in the performance of a FR
The performance of a FR is directly related to environmental, operational, and
commercial factors. Aspects such as wind speed and direction interfere with the energy
production of this technology, on the other side a place with higher wind speeds usually
has larger waves which cause a negative impact on the performance of a ship. As well as
the type of ship, decisions made by the captain, the navigation routes, and their
respective geographical locations can also influence the efficiency of this device.
Therefore, in order to obtain the best economic benefits from adopting a FR, it is
essential to evaluate these factors together to achieve high performance and consequently
higher fuel economy. Some of these factors are exemplified in the list below [2].

• Environmental factors: wind speed and direction, wave height, and seasonal pattern;

• On board factors: navigation routes, captain’s decision-making, and crew;

• Commercial factors: trip duration, type of the ship, and trip irregularity;

2.5 Costs of implementation

Zhang et al. [12] analyzed the cost differences between a vessel with a normal engine, a
vessel equipped with three FRs, and one equipped with a Parafoil. According to them,
on the route to Panama, a total fuel reduction of 7.98% (4.75% one way and 3.23%
return) was estimated, that is, approximately 25 tons of fuel and US$ 10,370 was saved
during the 24.9-day trip. Other information on this case can be found in Table 2.1. As a
result, it would take 17.25 years to recover all the investment required to apply this
technologyon the vessel.

Table 2.2: Comparison between the costs of an FR and a standard ship

Adapted from [12]
Type of cost Standard ship Flettner rotor
Fuel costs (US$/day) 10.437 10.021
Average fuel savings respect the standard (US$/day) n/a 416.4
Average fuel savings respect the standard (%) n/a 3.9%
Fuel savings westbound route (%) n/a 4.75%
Maximum fuel savings (%) n/a 25.39%
Fuel savings eastbound route (%) n/a 3.62%
Cost of the equipament tested (US$/day) n/a 2,156,220
Pay off period (years) n/a 17.26
Operation costs (US$/day) 4700 4700

In another study, the use of three FR with 3 and 5 meters in diameter was addressed
in a ship that uses a marine diesel engine [10].
In this, the TERA framework (Techno-economic Environmental Risk Analysis) was
used to calculate the performance and costs for implementation, operation, and
maintenance of the rotors. During the study, it was assumed that compared to the
operating costs of the gas turbine and diesel engine, that of the FRs would be
negligible.
. 7
 Table 2.3: Estimated capital costs in Million $ per unit
[10]
Technology Prices
Gas turbine 3.48
Reciprocating engine 1.86
3m diameter rotors 0.3
5m diameter rotors 0.5

Table 2.4: Operation and maintenance costs

[10]
Systems Operating e maintenance costs Units
Gas turbine 0.0059 $/kWh
Reciprocating engine 0.0079 $/kWh

The wind incidence needs to be between 100 and 130 to perform optimally. With a
Flettner tower measuring 3 meters in diameter, it was possible to obtain more than 2 MW
of contributory propulsion for the ship.
The tower diameter directly influences the lift force. With a diameter of 5 meters, it
was possible to obtain, in this study case, a maximum power of 1.3 MW.

2.6 Fuel savings

Comer et al. [3] examined the potential FRs of some ships that have this technology
installed, the technical characteristics of each of them are summarized in Table 2.6.

Table 2.5: Wind-assist ships analyzed

Adapted from [3]
Ship Ship Capacity Number Diameter Height Ship FR
name type of rotors of rotors of rotors year installation
(m) (m) build year
E-Ship 1 General 10,020 4 4 27 2010 2010
cargo/Ro- dwt
Lo
Estraden Ro-Ro 9,700 dwt 2 4 18 1999 2014

The E-Ship 1 is a general cargo ship with four Norsepower rotors installed since 2010.
It has shown fuel savings of about 25%, depending on weather conditions, as stated in
Enerco’s technical report [4, 3].
In turn, the Estraden is a 9,700-dwt roll-on/roll-off (ro-ro). By using one FR it showed
a fuel saving of 2.6% when sailing the route between the Netherlands and the UK. After
installing a second rotor, this economy increased to 6.1%, indicating that the more rotors
installed the better the potential savings [3].

8
Chapter 3

Conclusion

The regulations imposed to reduce gas emissions have encouraged the shipping
industry to search for solutions, such as the Flettner Rotor, However, what has really
driven the investment in this device is its ability to save fuel, which in turn provides
increased productivity and profit, which in a competitive market such as shipping is
essential. This paper aimed to investigate this technology and verify its applicability
It is also important to take into account factors such as the ship’s shipping route and
its respective wind speed and wave size patterns in order to obtain the best performance
from this technology.
Through a study conducted on several ships with the implementation of innovative
improvement technologies, it was found that there was indeed an improvement in
operational efficiency with the addition of rotors in the ship’s main system [3].
The main noticeable improvement is the reduction in fuel consumption. Using only
one rotor sail, it was possible to obtain a fuel saving of 2.6%, and with two sails, 6.1%.
With this, it is possible to see that the greater the amount of rotors implemented in the
ship, the greater the potential for fuel savings.
However, some aspects must be considered in order to implement this system:

• Verify the route the ship will take, as the performance of the rotor sail depends
directly on wind speed and direction;
• Know the available and usable space of the ship to deploy the rotors so that they
do not cause drastic changes in the ship’s structure;
• Increasing the number of rotors does not necessarily increases fuel savings. With
more rotor sails, more operating and maintenance costs are also required, which
means, more capital investment is needed for the entire project, and over time there
may be other additional costs.

Even with these caveats about using FR, in the case of the E-Ship 1, its four rotors
were able to meet almost half of the energy demand, which can also be seen with the
analysis of the low-performance route taken by it, from Portugal to Uruguay, where
it achieved a fuel economy of 47%, indicating the great potential that using this type
of technology in shipping can bring, demonstrating that this equipment is, in fact, an
excellent solution for the naval industry.

9
Bibliography

[1] Beura, S., Chakraverty, A., Pati, S., Pradhan, D.D., Thatoi, D., Mo-
hanty, U.: Effect of salinity and strain rate on sea water aged gfrp com-
posite for marine applications. Materials Today Communications 34, 105056
(2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2022.105056, https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352492822018979

[2] Chou, T., Kosmas, V., Acciaro, M., Renken, K.: A comeback of wind power in
shipping: An economic and operational review on the wind-assisted ship propulsion
technology. Sustainability 13(4) (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041880, https:
//www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/1880
[3] Comer, B.; Chen, C.S.S.R.D.: Rotors and bubbles: Route-based assess-
ment of innovative technologies to reduce ship fuel consumption and emis-
sions. pp. 1–19. The International Council on Clean Transportation, Washington,
DC, USA (2019), https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/
Rotors_and_bubbles_2019_05_12.pdf

[4] Enerco: Enercon e-ship 1: A wind-hybrid commercial cargo ship, https:

//www.stg-online.org/onTEAM/shipefficiency/programm/06-STG_Ship_
Efficiency_2013_100913_Paper.pdf

[5] Hegde, S., Satish Shenoy, B., Chethan, K.: Review on carbon fiber reinforced poly-
mer (cfrp) and their mechanical performance. Materials Today: Proceedings 19, 658–
662 (2019). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.07.749, https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214785319330445, 1st Interna-
tional Conference on Manufacturing, Material Science and Engineering

[6] (IMO), I.M.O.: Mepc74/wp1 - draft report of the marine environmental protection
commitee on its seventy-fourth session.

[7] Marine, L.R.: Wind-powered shipping a review of the commercial, reg-

ulatory and technical factors affecting uptake of wind-assisted propulsion
(2015), https://www.nsrsail.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Wind_powered_
shipping-Lloyds-Register.pdf

[8] Norsepower: Norsepower rotor sail solution, https:

//www.wind-ship.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/
Norsepower-Rotor-Sail-Solution-brochure-2018.pdf

10
 [9] Seddiek, I.S., Ammar, N.R.: Harnessing wind energy on merchant ships: case study
Flettner rotors onboard bulk carriers. Environmental Science and Pollution Research
28, 32695–32707 (2021). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12791-
3

[10] Talluri, L., Nalianda, D., Giuliani, E.: Techno economic and environmental assess-
ment of flettner rotors for marine propulsion. Ocean Engineering 154, 1–15 (2018).
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.02.020

[11] Trade, U.N.C.O., Development: Review of maritime transport 2021, https://

unctad.org/system/files/official-document/rmt2021_en_0.pdf

[12] Zhang, P., Lozano, J., Wang, Y.: Using flettner rotors and parafoil as al-
ternative propulsion systems for bulk carriers. Journal of Cleaner Production
317, 128418 (2021). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128418,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652621026317

11