Carrousel Tug Design

By Dr. M. van der Laan IMC

Synopsis
Nowadays tug design can be characterized by keeping the
hull direction in line with the towing wire and rotating the
thrust force 360-degree around. The new carrousel tug
design can be characterized by rotating the hull direction
free from the towing wire.
This carrousel consists of a large horizontal ring, rotating
around the accommodation and fitted with the towing wire.
The attachment in the side reduces the heeling moment
sharply and enables to use the full extent of the dynamic hull
forces for escorting (steering and braking). Fig. 2 The effect of a radial support (C) and normal attachment (N)

For conventional tugs, this support was placed near the

center of lateral resistance (CLR). With the newer tug and
propulsion types appearing, the towing point was moved
away from the CLR towards bow or stern to ensure that an
‘overload’ in the towing wire would lead to a rapid turn of the
hull axis in line with the force and thereby prevent capsizing.
This feature in combination with wide-bodied hulls offers a
fairly good protection against capsizing instead of the radial
support and is widely applied on modern ASD and tractor
tugs.

1.3 New towing wire attachment: The carrousel

This paper describes a new revolutionary patented approach
to connect the towing wire to the ship’s hull with a full
Fig. 1 Scale model of the carrousel on a conventional Combi tug circular ring, the so-called carrousel. This carrousel offers
three important features:
1. Introduction 1) All around flexibility
The carrousel ring can rotate freely all around without
1.1 Present design focus on propulsion limitations and towing operations can be freely changed
The past 20 - 25 years design of harbor tugs has from bow to stern use or vice versa, see fig. 3.
concentrated on developing and improving the propulsion
and the associated maneuverability. Propulsion moved from
single to double prop, various nozzles and rudder types were
introduced and finally the propulsion developed into
omnidirectional thrust by two or more thrusters [1], [2] or
VSP [3]. This development forms the base of the present
day tendency of fully omnidirectional propulsion with ever
increasing bollard pull and with to a lesser extent use of
hydrodynamic forces by skegs and/or box keels [4] and [5].

1.2 Little focus on towing wire attachment

In contrast to the extensive developments in tug propulsion,
relative little developments were seen in the towing wire
attachment to the ship’s hull. Already dating back to the
fifties, many tow hooks were based on some kind of radial
support (e.g. ‘Seebeck patent’) using a half circular vertical
guiding support of the towing hook to move the attachment
point towards the side and thereby reduce the heeling arm,
see fig. 2. Radial supports have also been used to support
Fig. 3 All around flexibility by carrousel
fairleads instead of towing hooks. For further recent
developments on radial support, see e.g. [6].

2) Large stability enables to increase hydrodynamic

forces
The carrousel is based on the same principle as a radial
hook, but now extended to the full ship’s width. Hereby a
large increase in stability is achieved, which can be used to Fig. 4: Thrust Liner in side view
increase the hydrodynamic forces. 2.1.2 Design study: Thrust Lift Liner (TLL)
The Thrust Liner was purely based on bollard pull and low
3) Towing wire attachment point near lateral center speed assistance. For higher speed assistance the use of
The stability feature enables to position the carrousel right hydrodynamic forces was investigated by large skegs below
above the center of the lateral resistance and thereby the carrousel, leading to the following logical solution:
maximize the towline forces and minimize the need for Keep the Thrust all around and the hydrodynamic Lift
steering propulsion on the tug. forces in transverse direction
in line with the towing Line
The carrousel is independent of the propulsion type and can This solution could be achieved by a double skeg
therefore be applied to any type of tug design and propulsion arrangement below the carrousel and a twin thruster
type (and to a wide variety of smaller sized workboats). arrangement: One thruster in the bow (SB) and one mirrored
However, in this phase already special attention is drawn to aft (PS). By this arrangement, the center of the thrust
the attractive combination of the carrousel with conventional remains all around below the carrousel and the heading of
shaft propulsors. This combination raises the performance of the hull can be controlled.
‘conventional’ tugs to a significant higher level, leaving many
of the clear drawbacks of these tug types behind.

The carrousel is still in an ongoing development and

practical experience will finally determine the overall
performance and use as stern and/or bow tug(s). Therefore
in this phase, all comments and criticism are welcome to
assist the development, the application of the carrousel and
to improve the design in a joined effort.
Special attention is also drawn to the safe operational deck Fig. 5 Thrust Lift Liner in side view
procedures for the freely rotating winch for both stern and
bow area. 2.1.3 Design study: Carrousel on conventional tug
One topic of further development is the design of a compact Although the effectiveness of the TLL was without any
winch on the rotating carrousel. doubt, the necessity of thrusters was discussed and the
associated increase in draught (similar as for tractor tugs).
Further developments lead to the focus on longitudinal shaft
propulsion and transverse hydrodynamic forces, with the
2. Development of the concept following solution:
2.1 Background Keep the thrust longitudinal and the hydrodynamic lift
During the on-going development of various new tug forces transverse in line with the towing line
concepts, the carrousel itself formed a clear and important This solution could be achieved by a double skeg
step forward and is therefore considered in detail in this arrangement below the carrousel and conventional
paper. single/twin propulsion aft, possibly assisted by a small
(retractable) thruster in the bow.
2.1.1 Design study: Thrust Liner (TL)
In 1997, IMC started a preliminary design study for future The design options are summarized in table 1 below:
tug development in the Port of Rotterdam, with a clear focus
on harbour assistance: Low towing speeds, large bollard pull Carrousel THRUST LIFT
and little hydrodynamic lift / drag forces. development below towline below towline
The most logical solution for this setting is based on a force Thrust Liner Centered 360 -
vector diagram : (TL) degree around
Keep the Thrust vector all around in line with the towing Thrust Lift Liner Centered 360 Centered
Line. (TLL) degree around transverse only
This solution could be achieved by one thruster located Conventional Centered Centered
below a freely rotating winch around the accommodation. Carrousel Tug longitudinal only transverse only
Table 1 : Carrousel development

2.2 Functioning
The carrousel offers three new functional aspects:
2.2.1 All around flexibility
Traditionally tug design concentrated on towing over the
stern behind the accommodation offering a free range of
slightly more than 180 degrees for the towing wire. However,
for many jobs more freedom is required and therefore the
hull is turned 180 degrees. Modern ASD tugs use the same
principle and rotate the whole hull and towing wire around Capsizing due to towline force is statically no
the thrusters. longer possible for the carrousel tug !!!
However, the thought of easily changing towing over stern to
bow or vice-versa, has always been an ideal for tug The dynamic towline aspects are described in chapter 4 on
operators. model testing and show no danger for capsizing due to
Further, since the towline attachment point coincides with dynamic towline forces. However, other external forces may
the CLR, changes in towline loads do no longer turn the still lead to capsizing of the tug !
tug’s hull direction. This enables to control the hull and
sailing direction properly and offers a whole range of new What are then the practical implications ….? In order to
opportunities in assistance. take advantage of this large radial support of the carrousel,
the tug must heel to a certain degree (typical 10 – 15
Two typical examples, one for aft tug, second for bow tug,
degrees) to counter the large towing forces. Therefore,
see fig. 18 and 19:
already in the design stage, due consideration of these
I) Aft tug sails bow first with towing wire over bow (A):
angles on the functioning of the machinery and crew must
a) To brake the ship at higher speeds, the tug’s hull is
be included.
turned rectangular to the flow using the maximum
hydrodynamic drag forces (wire over side) (B).
The traditional danger of ‘deck immersion as last warning
b) To steer/pull the ship, the tug sails along outer circle
before capsizing’, is technically no longer present for a
forward and starts pulling the ship, (wire over stern) (E).
carrousel tug, although psychological still present !
II) Bow tug sails bow first with towing wire over stern (I):
Even a substantial amount of water on deck, leaves still
a) To brake the ship at higher speeds, the tug sails along
sufficient stability safety margin to ensure proper towing
outer circle aft and the hull is turned rectangular to the
operations. Also operations in exposed port areas with
flow, dragging alongside the ship (wire over bow/side)
significant wave heights can be performed safely.
(L).
b) To brake the ship at lower speeds, the tug reverses and
What is then the final limitation to towline force … ?
sails backward braking with full bollard pull ahead (wire
Primarily the strength of the towing gear itself (including
over stern).
dynamic peak values) and the buoyancy of the tug’s hull.
Instead of the traditional heeling angle limitation, the master
2.2.2 Large stability enables to increase requires the practical use of a towline load tensioning meter
hydrodynamic forces (lift & drag) and a clear sight on the water flow over deck.
The large effect of the wide radial support for a typical
carrousel tug design is shown in the following graph, see fig.
2.2.3 Towing wire attachment point near lateral
6:
center
In modern escort tugs the attachment point of the towing
wire is located substantially before the lateral center (in
indirect mode) primarily for stability reasons in case of
overloading.
In the carrousel tug, the stability issue is solved by the large
radial support. Therefore the attachment point of the towing
wire can be positioned right above the center of lateral
resistance, producing the highest tow-line forces : Ratio
towline force / hydrodynamic force ≈ 1 (higher than values
mentioned in [6] for Towliner 0.78 and Tractor tug 0.63).
The force diagram for the carrousel tug is shown in fig. 7.
Fig. 6 Graph of Heeling leverarm for Normal and Carrousel, Righting
leverarm and hatched safety margin carrousel.

For a normal tow line attachment near the ship’s center, the
heeling lever shows a slight increase, for the carrousel
however, the heeling lever lowers rapidly downwards and
reaches 0 (!) nearby 50 degrees.
For the maximum towline load, the static equilibrium for the
Normal heeling leverarm (N) is 31 degrees, for the Carrousel
heeling arm (C) the angle is reduced to only 18 degrees. Far
more important for the safety of the tug is, of course, the
stability range, which shows a generous safety margin for
the carrousel, see also Area Ratio concept [7].
Analyzing the above stability curve, the conclusion is clear
and simple:
 2.3.2 Effectiveness
All around flexibility
The carrousel can be used both as bow and stern tug and
offers easy and flexible operation plus additional safety to
control the hull direction independent of the external tow
force.
Large hydrodynamic forces
The large assistance forces for steering and braking
increasing with ship’s speed and can be used effectively to
assist a ship at higher sailing speeds.

2.3.3 Safety
The risk of capsizing due to towline forces is minimized and
the tug can be safely used in exposed areas with waves.
The large safety margin offers additional potential to counter
Fig. 7 Force balance for carrousel tug in indirect mode a possible ‘accident’.

2.3 Advantages of new carrousel 3. Preliminary design of

2.3.1 Cost carrousel
Building cost
Compared to a modern omnidirectional propulsion system
3.1 Introduction
for tugs, the conventional shaft system with FPP or CPP The design of the carrousel forms a close interaction with
offers a substantial reduction in cost. Further, the efficiency the tug design, the chosen beam (at deck level), the position
of shaft propulsion with large diameter propellers is higher in length in relation to the CLR, the position in height in
(typically 15 – 35 %), see table 2. This advantage can be relation to the stability range and the general arrangement.
either used to achieve a higher bollard pull, or to install Based on the tug interaction, the optimal structural design
smaller main engines. for the carrousel shall be investigated leading to the
conceptual design presented in this paper. Finally,
Name no. kW Pull kgf / in %
operational considerations are discussed.
eng (ton) kW
VSP Ajax [3] 2 3460 90 13 61%
ASD Thorax [5] 2 2646 90 17 80%
3.2) Interaction with tug design
ASD Smit 2 1830 61.3 17 79% 3.2.1 Diameter
Mississippi [8] The diameter of the carrousel is chosen nearby the beam of
RT Magic [2] 3 1566 75 16 75% the vessel for the following reasons:
Zeus [9] 2 2709 101 19 88% • Optimization of the stability effect of the carrousel
Multratug 12 3 331 21 21 100% • Maximize the deckhouse space within the carrousel
Carrousel Tug 2 2025 86 21 100%
Table 2 : Propulsion efficiency 3.2.2 Position on the vessel in length in relation to
the CLR
The relative low additional cost of the carrousel with The optimal position in length shall be determined by
standard rollers does still favor the total building cost of the hydrodynamic investigations (including model tests). The
carrousel tug and offers a reduction in range of 15 – 25 % hull can be compared to an aeroplane foil with lift and drag
compared to omnidirectional propulsors. components; the center of lateral resistance (CLR) varies
between 1/3 and 1/2 of the length (lift/drag). Detailed
Operational cost investigations of the position should be made in close
The use of hydrodynamic forces instead of / in addition to interaction with the hull shape and the fitting of skegs, see
propulsion power offers a sharp reduction in operational cost e.g. [3].
due to lower fuel consumption and shorter running hours.
This also result in less environmental pollution. 3.2.3 Position on the vessel in height in relation to
Further the proven conventional shaft technology results in the stability range
lower maintenance cost. And finally, the carrousel is based
The optimal position in height is a clear compromise
on sealed roller bearings with long maintenance intervals.
between small initial heeling arm and a large stability range.
The first having a traditional low position with little freeboard
Note: most significant reduction in fuel cost is achieved,
and small heeling angles (e.g. 6 - 12 degrees) when towing,
when a stern carrousel tug brakes the ship by hydrodynamic
but as a result also small stability range and rapid water
dragging sideward 90 degrees to the flow, nearly without
on/over deck.
propulsion power (fig. 18, cond. B)
The second having a rather unconventional high position
with a large freeboard and large(r) heeling angles when
towing ( e.g. 12 - 18 degrees), but as a result a large stability
range, a large excess of buoyancy and minimal water 3.5 Operational aspects
on/over deck. For the carrousel tug three parameters appear important:
For large towline force and extreme conditions various 3.5.1 All around rotating of carrousel
model tests have shown that the second strategy of a higher Although in principle not different from present day towing
freeboard provides better results. operation, safe operational deck procedures are necessary
and no human action should be performed on deck during
3.3 Structural design towing. During pickup of the connection and release of the
During the development of the carrousel structure a large towing connection, the carrousel rotation shall be
variety of concepts were considered and designed. In temporarily blocked to allow safe deck operations.
principle, two versions were considered:
• A strong fixed circular ‘T’ shaped rail, fitted with a small 3.5.2 Sailing at substantial heeling angle and water on
moving part-circle ‘U’-shaped horizontal trolley (similar deck
as used vertically for lifting equipment) equipped with a For the carrousel tug with large towline forces, these
tow hook. parameters can increase substantially, introducing additional
• A fixed inner ring with rails and a large full-circle ring risks for crew on deck. Combined with the free rotating
with rollers all around the circle and equipped with a towing wire, deck operations should be minimized under
tow hook. these circumstances.
Although simplicity favored the first solution, structural
optimization clearly favored the second solution.
Fig. 8 Side and top view ofMultratug 12 with carrousel
Based on the design mission and the hydrodynamic
3.5.3 Entering the deckhouse over the carrousel
investigation, the loads shall be determined with a horizontal
For small sized tugs, entering the deckhouse shall be done
and vertical component.
by passing over the carrousel. For large sized tugs, a
separate entrance from the lower aft deck below the
3.4 Conceptual design carrousel can be made.
This paper is limited to the main parameters of the design,
without a detailed explanation of the design parameters.
• Stiff inner ring forming integral part of deck structure
4. Design investigation carrousel
and accommodation support on existing conventional tug
• Flexing outer ring forming against stiff inner ring As part of the design study into the new carrousel and the
• Rollers between fixed inner and rotating outer ring fitting on new tug designs, more insight is required on the
• Number of rollers fitted on outer ring (fixed according to practical and operational aspects of such a new design
loading pattern turning with outer part) concept. Therefore the new carrousel was first investigated
• Structural optimization performed with the use of FEC, on board of an existing tug design.
showing advantage hinged towing arms
4.1 Choice of test tug
Various existing tug types have been considered for
retrofitting a carrousel, with specific attention to
maneuverability and structural integration of the carrousel.
Finally the Combi tug Multratug 12 of Multraship Towage &
Salvage was chosen as a good compromise, see fig. 8 and
table 3.
Main data Multratug 12
L= 28.50 m
B= 6.60 m
Tbase = 2.60 m
Main Prop (CPP) 900 hp / 2.6 m
Thruster (retract.) 450 hp / 1.0 m
Bollard Pull 21 ton
Lat. Area = ≈ 60 m² Fig. 10 Sailing ahead / wire over side (~ 60 ton)
Table 3 : Main data test tug
4.2.1 Measurements of tow-line force
Note: The design has a rather small freeboard, which limits A systematic variation of towing angles and sailing speeds
the maximum hydrodynamic forces, see model results. were performed, see fig. 11. The maximum forces were
limited as follows:
4.2 Model testing scale 1 : 15 • At small angle of attack limited by the buoyancy of the
Scale model tests were performed in the towing tank basin hull (stern submerges slowly above 80 ton)
Delft University of Technology, see fig. 9 and 10. Before • At large angle of attack limited by the propulsion control
these test measurements, the Radio Controlled model was to counter rotation.
already tested in respect to the longitudinal position of
carrousel in relation to CLR and the general maneuverability
(additional skegs fitted below carrousel).

Fig. 11 Tow-line force versus angle of attack

Please note that a towline force of 85 ton results in a heeling

angle of only 16 degrees !

4.2.2 Capsize test

In order to determine the behavior of the tug under
increasing snap loads, the tug was pulled sideward by the
towing carriage, see fig 12. The maximum measurement of
the force and the heeling angle is shown in fig 13 and 14.
Fig. 9 Sailing ahead / wire over stern
Higher loads were not considered realistic, since the towing
wire strength was already substantially exceeded.

Fig. 12 Capsize testing with sideward snap loading

 Video material of the real tug in action is planned to be
available at the date of the conference.

4.4 Conclusions & recommendations

• The carrousel tug is an ongoing development showing
good prospects.
• The lessons learned and coefficients derived from the
scale model and real size testing can be used properly
for newbuilding.
• Large buoyancy is of crucial importance in order to
maximize the hydrodynamic forces.
Fig. 13 Capsize test Force versus time • Even a narrow hull (L / B ratio 4.3) with a carrousel can
properly counter capsizing loads.
• The slender hull enables a high sailing speed and a
high lift / drag ratio.

5. Ship design
5.1 Mission profile
Proper design starts with both a clear knowledge and
definition of the mission profile, the essential question with
all new developments is related to the 'unfamiliar' design
Fig. 14 Capsize test Heeling angle versus time potential: What are the current market requirements based
on the present operated tugs and what could be the market
4.2.3 Tug performance diagram requirements when considering the full potential of the
The systematic measurements were combined in a tug carrousel tug.
performance diagram, see fig. 15. The diagram shows the Often present tug limitations are considered the maximum
large potential in hydrodynamic forces for the carrousel tug. scope of assistance e.g. [5].
The most remarkable part is obviously the large steering
forces compared to ASD / VS escort tugs, due to the slender 5.2 Clear separation of design scope inner / outer
hull (lift drag ratio up to 9 : 1). port
Tug assistance of larger ships can in general be divided into
two phases:
1) At relative higher speeds (5 – 10 kn) entering port: The
ship is using it’s own propulsion / rudder and the tugs are
running alongside with slack wires. Due to the higher speed
and propulsion power the ship can be reasonably controlled.
For additional maneuverability at high speeds, only a stern
escort tug can be used to steer or brake the ship.
2) At relative lower speeds (0 – 5 kn) in ‘inner’ port: The ship
is only marginally using it’s own propulsion and rudder and
both the bow and stern tugs are offering additional pull (and
push) to maneuver the ship to the right position. The tugs
are primarily used for transverse forces on the ship and the
own propulsion is used for the longitudinal force. Often
however, the ship requires constant propulsion thrust on the
rudder for steering and this requires an aft tug to brake
constantly.

Regarding the new potential of the carrousel tug the

following key words are:
Fig. 15 Tug performance diagram 1) Higher speed èlarge hydrodynamic forces, both
steering and braking
4.3 Real scale testing (progressing) 2) Lower speeds è all around flexibility / focus on thrust
The conversion of the real tug has recently started and
extensive tests are planned for this summer, aiming to This leads to two different design perspectives, summarized
validate the model results and to investigate the practical in the table 4, fig 16 and 17 and the results thereof in table 5
use of the system in real-life tug assistance of ships. below:
 Inner Port: Des. A Outer Port: Des. B
Focus on Thrust Thrust & Hydrodyn.
Assistance Low speeds Low & High speeds
Carrousel Above drag center Above lift center
In lift à stern In drag à bow
pulled to ship turned to ship

L / B ratio Small (2.5 – 3.5) Large (3.5 – 5)

Length oa < 33 m (Panama) > 35 m
(seakeeping)
Hull shape Fat & round Sharp & slender
Lateral area Centered midship Over whole length
Skegs Short twin set Along full length

Propulsion Twin CPP Single CPP (escor-

(possible FPP) ting) + bow thruster
Diameter Large diameter Large diameter
Steering High Lift Rudders Steerable nozzle(s)
Maneuverin Easy turn stern Easy turn bow
Fig. 17 General Arrangement of Outer Port Design B
g forward forward Combi Tug
Full Control Ahead Ahead & Astern
Engine fail. Reverse direction Bow forward Pre-Design Study Inner Port: Outer Port:
Table 4 : Inner / Outer port designs
Carrousel Design A Design B
Loa = 33 m 37 m
B= 11 m 10 m
Tbase = ≈4m ≈ 4.5 m
Power = ≈ 4000 kW ≈ 4000 kW
Dp = 2x 3.3 m 1x 3.9 m
BP = ≈ 85 ton ≈ 80 ton
Lat. Area = ≈ 120 m2 ≈ 190 m2
[Link]. (10 ≈ 150 ton ≈ 225 ton
kn)=
Table 5 : Pre-Design parameters Inner / Outer port designs

Note: To clarify the difference in mission profile, both

designs have been defined accordingly. However, designs
are often multi-purpose and will be probably based on a
combination of both designs.

5.3 Operational impact

5.3.1 Design A: ‘Inner port’
This design can be seen as a key alternative to the ASD /
tractor principle of turning the whole hull instead of only the
propulsor. For full optimal thrust the hull needs to be turned
with the stern towards the ship. Tug can also be fully used
Fig. 16 General Arrangement of Inner Port Design A as bow tug.
Advantages:
• Simple and robust propulsion concept
• High propulsion efficiency by large propeller diameter
and optimal free flow astern
• Stability performance of carrousel enables to increase
hydrodynamic fins / skegs (if necessary)
• Use as bow and stern tug possible
• Easy braking astern tug by dragging sideward
Disadvantages
• For full bollard pull, the hull needs to be turned
requiring slightly more time than turning an
omnidirectional propulsor.
Summarizing: All-around cheap and robust propulsion 4) At an angle behind ship in lift mode with partial
concept forward propulsion (C-D)
The tug’s hull is under a moderate angle (< 45 º) with the
5.3.2 Design B: ‘Outer port’ flow (indirect lift mode) and contributes largely to a
This design can be seen as a key alternative to the (reverse) combined steering and braking component. The propulsion
tractor tugs with hydrodynamic fins or the new generation of is partly used to control the tug’s angle and partly used to
ASD tugs with box keels under the bow. move forward.
Further design offers possibility to use features running
ahead and astern and both as aft and bow (!) tug. 5) Alongside ship in lift mode with (full) propulsion (D-E)
Advantages: The tug’s hull is under a moderate angle (< 30 º) with the
• Simple and robust propulsion concept flow (indirect lift mode) and contributes to a large steering
• High lifting / dragging forces due to attachment point component. The propulsion is (fully) needed to counter both
near hydrodynamic center the hull resistance and the lift induced drag component
• Stability performance of carrousel enables to increase (increases rapidly with increasing lift).
hydrodynamic fins / skegs
• Very high Lift / Drag ratio for high steering forces at For a so called Combi-tug design equipped with a small
high speeds (retractable) bow thruster, the sailing direction can be
• Running astern in Combi tug mode reversed with stern forward. Hereby the propeller and nozzle
• Stern and bow application possible work in their design condition with a higher efficiency than
• Bow application enable high dynamic steering and with reverse flow.
braking forces (doubling effect!) A normal Combi-tug continuously sails in this reverse
Disadvantages direction, but a carrousel tug with a (retractable) bow
• Longer hull requires more turning time. thruster can change easily working direction over bow or
Summarizing: Large hydrodynamic forces concept stern without human action on deck or any time delay.

5.4 Propulsion considerations for carrousel tug Please note that a carrousel tug connected to the bow of the
design ‘Inner/Outer’ port ship can also perform condition (G), (F) and (L at lower
speed), see fig. 19. This offers a completely new approach
In contrast to conventional escort tug designs, the towing
to ship’s assistance for the bow tug, whereby large
line attachment point is positioned in the optimum lateral
hydrodynamic steering and braking forces can be added to
pressure center and therefore requires only marginal
the bow of the ship !
steering forces to turn the hull in the flow.
Summarizing above conditions, the carrousel tug design
5.4.1 Typical tug positions
requires propulsion primarily along the longitudinal axis in
For escorting and harbor assistance in principle five
either forward direction or reverse direction with a wide
conditions can be discerned for an aft tug with bow forward
range of positive and negative inflow speeds.
assisting a ship at 5 – 10 kn : see fig 18.

1) Straight behind ship in direct (arrest) mode bow

forward with reversed propulsion (A)
The tug’s hull is straight in line with the flow (direct mode)
and the braking force is generated by reversing the
propulsion.

2) Straight behind ship in indirect (arrest) mode with

reversed propulsion (K)
The tug’s hull is under a large angle (> 45 º) with the flow
(indirect drag mode) and contributes largely to the braking
force. The propulsion is partly used to control the tug’s angle
and partly used to counter the lift component which is Fig. 18 Various positions for the aft tug
‘pulling’ the hull forward.

3) At an angle behind ship in drag mode with partial

forward propulsion (C)
Condition similar to condition 2, but tug is moved away from
a straight line behind the ship. Propulsion is primarily used
to control the tug’s angle, whereby the angle in respect to
the ship is controlled.
 6 Overall conclusions &
recommendations

• The carrousel is an ongoing development with good

prospects, offering a new revolutionary approach to
connect the towing wire to the tug’s hull.
• The carrousel offers two clear operational advantages
of all around flexibility and large hydrodynamic forces.
• Use of hydrodynamic forces instead of propulsion
reduces fuel consumption, pollution and engine running
hours.
• The large stability effect of the carrousel enables to
Fig. 19 Various positions for the bow tug locate the towing point near the center of lateral
resistance. This in return enables to control the tug’s
5.4.2 Typical propulsion results for carrousel tug heading safely independent of towline load variations.
In order to quantify above propulsion conditions, a number of • The carrousel effectively prevents capsizing due to
propulsion alternatives were selected for the carrousel tug towline forces.
with focus on design A) Inner port design: • Carrousel can be combined with various propulsor
• Thruster with FPP and CPP of 2800 mm concepts, depending on the required application
• Shaft driven FPP of 3000 mm • Combination of carrousel with conventional shaft CPP
• Shaft driven CPP of 2800 / 3000 / 3300 mm offers an attractive economic alternative, both regarding
All propulsion alternatives are twin arrangements and driven building and operational cost.
by the same 2025 kW 1000 rpm main engines. • Carrousel allows to control the bow tug safely, whilst
using the full steering and braking potential.
As typical conditions, the maximum thrust astern in • Preliminary design analysis shows two advantageous
condition 1 and the maximum thrust ahead in condition 5 design concepts, one for all around flexibility and the
are validated. To cover the typical (escorting) speeds, values other for maximum hydrodynamic forces. For low
of 6 knots and 10 knots ahead and astern were calculated, assisting speeds the bollard pull counts, for higher
see fig. 20 (produced by John Crane-Lips). assisting speeds the hydrodynamic forces count.
• Due to bow-first sailing and the large stability safety
5.4.3 Conclusion propulsion margin, the towing operations can even be performed in
• With same diameter, the BP of shaft FPP and CPP is adverse weather and wave conditions.
higher than of a thruster • The carrousel offers more effectiveness with less
• CPP diameter increase to 3300 mm offers approx. 20% investment. The use of the large hydrodynamic forces
increase in BP above thruster 2800 mm. may even lead to a reduction of the number of tugs.
• CPP offers similar ‘braking’ behavior as 180 degree- • Together with increasing escorting speed, the
rotated thruster at lower speed. hydrodynamic lift forces of the carrousel tug increase,
• Optimal braking performance at higher speeds subject thereby enabling safe operations at higher speeds.
to further study with respect to cavitation / vibrations. • Substantial increase in towline forces may require
• Shaft FPP has limited reverse thrust and is less additional strengthening on the side of the ship.
suitable for carrousel tug . • Even fitting a carrousel on a conventional tug can be
attractive due to the large improvements in operational
performance and safety.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to express his sincere thanks and

appreciation to the following contributors to the ‘carrousel
tug project’: Dutch Shipping Inspectorate, Dutch Agency on
behalf of Ministry for energy and environment (NOVEM),
SENTER, Dutch Council for Transport Safety, Multraship
Towage & Salvage, Mampaey Offshore Industries, John
Crane-Lips, Delft University of Technology, Techno Metal
Industry, Breskense Scheepsbouw en Machinefabriek,
Fig. 20 Propeller Efficiency Osborne Load Runners, Holland Roer Propeller.
References

1. Jansen, Joop., Damen ASD Tugs – an Ongoing

Development, ITS 2000, Proceedings of the 16 th
International Tug & Salvage Convention, May 2000.
2. Kooren, Ton., Quadvlieg, Frans., Aalbers, Arie., Rotor
Tugnology, ITS 2000, Proceedings of the 16 th
International Tug & Salvage Convention, May 2000.
3. Allan, Robert G., Bartels, J.E., Molyneux, D., The
Development of a New Generation of High-
Performance Escort Tug, ITS 2000, Proceedings of the
16th International Tug & Salvage Convention, May
2000.
4. Allan, Robert G., Developments in Escort Tug
Technology, ITS ’98, Proceedings of the 15 th
International Tug & Salvage Convention, November
1998.
5. Amundsen, Carl J., Optimised Escort Tug for Norske
Hydro’s Sture Terminal Part 2, ITS 2000, Proceedings
of the 16th International Tug & Salvage Convention,
May 2000.
6. Gale, C., Perceived Advantages of Z-Drive Escort
Tugs, ITS ’94, Proceedings of the 13 th International Tug
& Salvage Convention, 1994.
7. Hendy, N.R., Freathy, R.G., Reflections on escort tug
stability, Ship & Boat International January/February
1994.
8. Kok, F. Oplevering Smit Mississippi, Schip&Werf de
Zee Mei 1999.
9. Information Sheet of Alfons Håkans OY AB AHT Zeus.

More information: IMC Dr. M. van der Laan

Tel. 31-10-2417403 Fax: 31-10-2417404
E-mail: imcgroup@[Link]