R

THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS

74 Trinity Place, New York, N.Y., 10006

Paper to be presented at the Spring ~eting, Lake Buena Vista, Rorida, April 2-4, 1973

Electric Power for Small Commercial Vessels

Paper R

John B. Woodward, Member, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Frank C. Vi brans, Member, Nickum & Spaulding Associates, Seattle, Washington

Copyright 1973 by The Society of Naval Architects and M.ulne Engineers

ABSTRACT

some of the principal items of electrical engineering that require the understanding of the marine
designer are reviewed. These are voltage drops in
distribution systems, voltage and frequency tolerances
under steady and transient conditions, motor control,
circuit protection, generator paralleling, and the
relative merits of direct and alternating current
systems. Emphasis is on systems for the small commercial vessel. some of the design problems to be faced
are also discussed. These are load analysis, circuit
protection methods, choice of emergency power source,
choice of alternating current versus direct current,
and choice of distribution system. Two actual electric plants are described, one an alternating current
system, the other direct current, aboard small passenger ferries of near-identical construction. It is
seen that prominent features of the designs are dictated by special requirements of the vessel service.
INTRODUCTION
No one is likely to dispute our opening assertion
that electric power is important in marine engineering,
Although we could get by without electricity at sea,
the needs of~rn communication and lighting come
close to making it essential, and pumping, ventilating,
air conditioning, refrigeration, and cargo handling
create many demands for the use of electric motors.
Electric power systems in all sizes and situations have many elements and problems in common, but
each application has its unique features also. Any
marine application must, of course, endure the special
burden of the marine environment. Perhaps more significant is its need for self-reliance; there is no
Big Brother power company providing unfailing (well,
almost) electricity at well-controlled voltage and
frequency, and in any quantity. It scarcely needs
saying that a vessel of any size and type must produce
its own power, and in so doing manage the problems of
quantity and quality of that power.
our title declares that small commercial vessels
are to be treated, and this requires further definition. The ''commercial" implies no prejudiCe against
pleasure craft and naval vessels, but is to limit the
paper to a manageable scope. We prefer to omit discussion of the simplest systems found in most of the
smaller pleasure boats, and not to delve into the
special proglems of the naval application, such as
mechanical shock. "Small" is difficult to define
precisely, though our thoughts center on the small
passenger vessel category of the Coast Guard rules (1).
Typically, the power system of interest will be of no

2/73 1000

more than about 25 kw in connected load. It may be

either DC or AC, powered by a single generator, diesel
or gasoline driven, or perhaps belted from the propulsion engine,
The paper first reviews some of the problems of
marine electrical power systems that the designer
should be familiar with, Much of this ground is
covered in~ Engineering (2), but the emphasis
in that source is on the ship-size plant. Here we
make a point of noting any considerations that are of
special interest to the smaller craft.
The next section reviews the electrical design
decisions that most generally face the small craft
designer. In some instances, we recommend a particular technique or solution.
The climax of the paper is the description of two
actual cases, both small ferries requiring about 20 kw
of generating capacity. The two vessels are almost
twins in many respects, but one has a direct current
electrical system; the other has an alternating current system, Each has its unique design problems that
general advices, such as gLven in earlier sections of
the paper, do not anticipate. It is thus interesting
to see how these designs conform to, or deviate from,
the earlier discussions.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
General Characteristics
Safety, reliability, and economy are excellent
starting points for all decisions regarding the electric power system. This may seem obvious, and indeed
could be equally well said about many other marine
systems. Some special points make these factors worth
mentioning in brief fashion, nonetheless.
Economy implies minimal costs in both operation
and initial construction. In the small power system,
operating cost is not likely to be a major consideration. For example, the question of what fuel is to
be used by the generator driver is unlikely to be
decided on the basis of an economic criterion; the
simplicity of using the same fuel as the propulsion
engine is likely to be the decisive consideration.
Fi~st cost is usually a more important factor.
As
will be seen in the last section, it was a major
factor in. the choice of AC oVer DC in the seCond of
our examp1e ves.sels.
Rel.icibility is a traditional fetiSh-word with the
marine engineer, and he declares this attribute to be
essential when speaking of any of his responsibilities.
Nonetheless, it is worth the risk of banality to mention it once again here--remember that when all else
fails, the abilities to communicate with the shore
and distant vessels, and to light an escape path to

R
the deck, will be important beyond everything else.
Advocating safety as important also may have the
ring of triteness, but several points bear mentioning
in connection with the electric power system. One, of
course, is the personnel hazard that is accentuated
afloat by the factors of possible wetness, contact
with conducting structure, etc., that are much less
prevalent ashore. Another is the hazard to the vessel
itself; fire, explosion, and electrolytic corrosion
are all possible consequences of electrical system
shortcomings. These possibilities are widely recognized, and are generally avoidable by careful obedience to published safety criteria,
Voltage Drop in Distribution (Steady state)
Loss of voltage because of conductor resistance
is a phenomenon common to all electric power systems.
The loss itself represents a waste of energy, and
manifests itself by a heating of conductors and of
insulation that can be dangerous if excessive. Also,
loss of voltage between source and loads implies low
voltage at the loads, and this causes dim lights,
faulty operation of electronic gear, and in the case
of motors, an excessive current drain that exacerbates
the problem. The phenomenon is most noticeable 'during
transient conditions when current flows are briefly
heavier than normal, but also requires attention under
steady-state conditions.
The first consideration is to avoid the unacceptable heating of the distribution system, and this can
be readily done by choosing conductor sizes to suit
the currents that they must carry. This choice is
independent of conductor length, since it is the loss
per unit length that determines the resulting temperature. The second consideration is the total loss in
voltage along the conductor, and this depends on
length--the longer the path, the greater the loss, in.
direct proportion. Now, given that a loss of voltage
can be compensated to some extent by raising the
source voltage, it is feasible to make a tradeoff
between cost of the distribution system and the cost
of the energy it dissipates--the minimum conductor
size allowed by heating considerations will give the
cheapest distribution system, but will waste the most
energy. Further, a similar tradeoff is an important
factor in determining system voltage. In general, the
higher the voltage, the smaller can be the conductors
because the currents are reduced in proportion as
voltage is raised.
Consideration of unacceptable heating is equally
applicable to any size of vessel or of power system,
and minimum conductor sizes will always be specified.
The same might be said about the tradeoff between conductor size and supply voltage, though the problem
may differ in magnitude between large and small vessels. ~n recent ship designs, the length of cable
runs and the magnitudes of the loads has forced the
designer to consider abandoning the long-standard 450
volts {AC) in favor of still higher voltage (3), The
designer of a small vessel will also face a choice of
voltage, but his shorter cable runs and smaller loads
will almost certainly allow a choice between standard
voltages, and modest ones at that (e.g. 12 volts or
125 volts if DC).
Choice of voltage is discussed further in a
later section.
Voltage Tolerance
In addition to the drop in voltage that occurs
between source and user, the variation in generated
voltage that occurs because of changes in load must
be limited. All power-using devices are sensitive in

some degree to changes in voltage; lighting is an easy

example, it dimming or brightening as voltage changes,
and flickering during voltage transients. The most
sensitive devices are usually labelled "electronic,"
such as radar and depth sounders. These require precisely controlled supply voltage for accurate performance; so closely controlled, in fact, that they cannot rely on the vessel's power system, but must have
interposed their own special power supplies.
The phenomenon of voltage change with change in
load is quantified by the term regulation, defined as
the fractional change of voltage that occurs between
no load and full load.
Voltage varies at the terminals of a using device
because the impedance between it and the source causes
a loss proportional to the current. In part, this
impedance is cable resistance, and thus is part of the
voltage drop question discussed previously, In addition, the internal impedance of generators (or batteries) causes a loss at the terminals that is proportional to current. In general, the natural decline of
terminal voltage as load increases is unacceptably
large, so that some means of control must be imposed.
The generated voltage must thereby be artificially
raised as load increases to offset the internal loss.
Voltage generated by a rotating machine is a
function of both speed and field strength. Control of
the speed as a means of controlling voltage is usually
impracticable (e.g. in AC speed must remain constant
to keep frequency constant), leaving control of the
field current as produced by the generator exciter as
the universal method. There are, however, many practical ways of controlling this current. Those commonly
used by the builders of small-craft generators are
described briefly following (4):
1. Saturated pole. A very strong field current is used
so that the demagnitizing effects of increasing load
current have a minor effect on the field strength.
2, One-step field relay. At about one-half load, a
relay shorts out a resistor in the field circuit so
that voltage at this load point is restored to noload value.
3, Voltage stabilizer. A current proportional to load
current is fed back to an auxiliary field winding
to increase field strength as load increases.
4. Electromechanical regulator. Terminal voltage is
sensed and controls the number of resistors that
may be cut in or out of the field circuit.
5, Static regulator. This .is used with static excitation, i.e. field current obtained by solid-State
rectification of generator output, OUtput voltage
is sensed, and a saturable-reactor or silicon controlled rectifier controls the field current to
suit.
These methods are listed in an approximate ascending order, i.e. the saturated pole method is
typical of the largest. For example, one manufacturer
uses the saturated pole method on its generators rated
4 kw and below, with voltage regulation of 10\ claimed,
and uses static regulation only above 10 kw, with plus
or minus 2% regulation claimed with this method on the
larger plants in its line (4).
Voltage tolerance is to be specified at the loads.
Presumably a designer can work to such a tolerance,
given knowledge of the regulation expected from the
generator, and his calculation of voltage drop in the
distribution system. But what tolerance should he
expect, or design for? There is no firm answer to this
in commercial work. If we step out of bounds for a
moment, though, we can get at least some guidance from
the Navy; Navy specifications are quite definite on
characteristics of power (5), Their "Type I" power

systems must meet the following specifications for

steady-state voltage:
Line-to-line in three-phase AC 5%
Line-to-line for single phase
8%
of a three-phase system
The Navy's Type I corresponds to the quality of power
found aboard commercial ships, and so is quoted here
as an indication of what may be expected in ship-size
systems.
Perhaps the best guide for the small vessel
designer is to meet the specifications of the builders
of the equipment his power system will be serving. As
a sample of what he may find in this direction, the
following values are quoted as typical of the steadystate voltage tolerances listed in application literature for small-craft electronic gear:
Radar
MFGR A
MFGR B
DC
+20% to -10%
+20% to -20%
AC
+10% to -10%
+20% to -20%
Depth Sounder
DC
+30% to -10%
+10% to -15%
DC (above 32 volts)
AC
+10% to -15%
(These are input tolerances to the units'
own built-in power supplies.)
The discussion to this point has concerned only
the steady-state changes in voltage that occur because
of changes in the steady load, But transients also
require attention. These most often take the form of
sudden dips in voltage caused by the starting of a
large motor. Because motors typically draw several
times their rated current before they come up to
operating speed, and because generator voltage regulators cannot respond instantaneously, the result is
a dip of perhaps a few seconds duration that far exceeds the steady-state change that addition of the
motor will cause. several consequences can follow,
for example:
l . Lights dim.
2. The accuracy of electronic equipment is spoiled,
3, If the dip is severe enough, low voltage will trip
out the motor that is attempting to start.
In considering a specification to set on the
transient, one might look at each of these consequences
in turn. The dimming of lights as a factor depends
largely on human response, both to the severity of th~
dip and to the frequency of its occurance. If the
motor involved is to be started only when the propulsion plant is being put on the line, then the consequent light dimming would probably be too infrequent
to matter, irrespective of magnitude. But if the
motor is to continually cycle on and off, any noticeable effect on lighting can be annoying. It is
recorded (3) that in the design of the QUeen. Elizabeth
II, careful tests were conducted with human volunteers
to determine if expected flickers of the lighting would
become annoying to passengers. {A voltage dip of 11
percent, recovering within ~ second, was found to be
acceptable. )
Inaccuracy of navigation equipment can be more
than just annoying, of course, but if the transient is
brief it can be accepted because the human viewer of a
radar screen, for example, is unlikely to be deceived
by a momentary flicker. The same might be said with
respect to the navigation lights.
With respect to the effect on the motor controller, there is no question that the dip must not be
sufficient to trip the motor controller on low voltage.
Typically, this trip will occur at about 50\ of rating,
so that at least 60% (say) of rated voltage must be
maintained during the transient.
For reference, we might note the available ship-

size specifications: the Navy (5) limits Type I power

to a transient of 16%, recovering within 2 seconds.
The Maritime Administration (6) specifies a dip of no
more than 20% when the largest system motor is being
started,
The marine designer may not find it practicable
to attempt a calculation of magnitude and time of the
voltage dip resulting from motor starting, since he may
not possess all of the necessary data. The magnitude
of motor starting current, the impedance of the distribution system, the transient reactance of the
generator, and the response characteristics of voltage
regulator and of generator exciter are the significant
factors. Although he may know some of these, and be
able to obtain all if the generator manufacturer is
cooperative, he may find it more expedient to estimate
the voltage dip magnitudes from curves such as those
of Figure 1. This figure shows percent dip as a
function of motor power for several different generator

so

GENERATOR RATING, KW
45
30

110

40

-:!l
0
p.' .30

ii

w
..,

~
~

~0

:J

10

10
eo
G ---+j--F
Fig. 1

30

40

50

60

10

MOTOR HP

Voltage Dip as a Function of Motor Rating

and Generator Ratin~

ratings (the code letters are indicators of starting

kva per hp, and are usually found on motor name plates).
This particular figure was adapted from the application
literature of a manufacturer (7), and is offered here
as a typical example; a designer with an actual problem
in hand should obtain the equivalent curves from the
vendor he is working with.
Overvoltage transients also occur, generally
attributable to inaccuracy or faulty operation of the
voltage regulator in responding to some upset in voltage, Overvoltage of a transient nature is probably not
significantly damaging to motors or to lighting, but
can damage electronic equipment. For example, one
manufacturer cites damage to radar sets on 32 volt DC
systems from surges in excess of 40 volts bccuring
during battery charging (8).
Frequency Tolerance
Frequency tolerance applies, naturally enough,
only to AC systems, and depends strictly on the rotational speed of the generator engine. Both steady-state
and transien.t conditions might be considered, although
no significant consequences can be assigned to reasonable transients in the ordinary power system. Steady
conditions depend on the characteristics of the engine
governor, and the regulation of frequency therefore
will equal the droop of the governor. Transient

response likewise depends on the governor, but also on

the transient characteristics of the engine and its
fuel system.
The principal sufferers from improper frequency
are the AC induction motors and synchronous motors
(if any), A low frequency, for example, produces high
current for a given power output.
Frequency specifications are given by the Navy
(5} for Type I power as 5% steady state, 3% recovering within 2 seconds transient; Haritime Administration specifications (6) are 1 cycle, steady state,
Typical specifications offered by builders of
small craft generators are 5% frequency regulation,
with transient response not specified (7}
Motor Control
The motor controller is a device that starts,
stops, and usually protects a motor. The simplest
controller would be a manual switch (protection in
this case would have t~ come from a fuse or circuit
breaker elsewhere in the circuit). This is typical
of a small portable motor, e.g. for a portable power
tool. The alternative to a manual controller is the
magnetic controller, in which the main switch contacts
are activated by a magnetic coil that is in turn
activated by a manual pushbutton, or by some automatic
device such as a pressure switch. In the latter case,
the controller would be classified as an automatic
controller, though the manual start and stop would
doubtless be provided also.
Magnetic controllers usually provide protection
to the motor against overload and against low voltage,
The overload feature is commonly provided by thermal
elements that are heated by excessive current just as
the motor would be. On reaching a set temperature,
they activate contacts that deenergize the main contact magnetic coil, thus stopping the motor. The low
voltage feature is inherently provided since loss of
voltage allows the coil to release the main contacts.
However, a distinction is to be made between low
voltage protection and low voltage release. The
former term implies that the motor is not restarted
automatically when voltage is restored to normal; the
latter implies automatic restarting. Automatic restarting is nominally to be avoided, because it would
mean the simultaneous occurrence of the starting
current surge from every motor. For some motor
services, however, it may be more important to have
restoration at the earliest possible moment (e.g. a
lube oil pump}, hence the necessity for the release
option.
Controllers for AC motors usually start across
the line, i.e. they connect the motor terminals
instantaneously to the power system. However, where
motors are large enough in relation to the system to
cause an unacceptable voltage dip on starting, the a
autotransformer or wye-delta starter may be used to
reduce initial current. See Marine Engineering (2),
page 628, for descriptions of these devices. In a
DC system, across-the-line starting may be unacceptable because in addition to the undesireable starting
current surge, the starting torque may be a hazard to
the load, especially if the motor is of the series
type. Resistors are therefore usually included in
the starting circuit. They will be cut out as the
motor comes up to speed, either manually or automatically, depending on the type of controller.
In general, the necessities and functions of
motor control are the same for vessels large and
small, but in practice there is likely to be a relation between size of vessel and size of motor that
leads to some differences. For example, you will see

R 4
in our subsequent discussion of two actual vessels
that all of their motors, save a single one, are of
fractional horsepower. The question of concern is
thus one of the consequences of low horsepower in
motor control. As seemS natural, things are simpler
at the low end of the scale. This is recognized by
the regulatory bodies, and we may borrow from the
Coast Guard (9) for the details. The following rules
are paraphrased from (9) :
1. The branch circuit overcurrent device may serve as
controller for motors of one-eighth hp or less that
are normally left running, and are not damaged by
overload or failure to start,
2, A stationary motor rated 2 hp or less at 300 volts
or less may be controlled by a general use switch
having an ampere rating at least twice the full
load current of the rotor.
3, A motor of one horsepower or less, manually started,
portable, and used within sight of the starter may
be protected by the branch overcurrent device.
4. If a motor of one horsepower or less is automatically controlled, and has sufficient winding
impedance to prevent overheating upon failure to
start, it may be protected by the branch overcurrent device.
5. If a motor of one horsepower or less is automatically controlled, and is part of an assembly which
does not overload the motor, and which protects it
from stalled rotor current, the motor does not
otherwise require protection.
6. A portable motor rated one-third horsepower or less
may be controlled by its portable plug and receptacle.
7. Protection against low voltage is not required for
motors less than 2 hp.
You must note that these exceptions are permissive and
and not mandatory. The designer may wish to use the
control and protection associated with larger motors
when the circumstances at hand so warrant.

Protection
Protection implies several things, principally
these:
1. Components, especially motors, that are subject to
overloading, must be protected from the consequences (destruction through overheating) of the excessive currents that overloads cause.
2. The vessel must be protected against the consequences of electrical failure, e.g. fire due to short
circuit.
3, The vessel must be protected against another consequence of electrical failure, i. e. the loss of
the functions--perhaps vital--dependent on electric
power.
4. Personnel must be protected from the obvious hazards
of electric power systems.
The first of these has been discussed in the
preceding section, and to summarize, we saw there that
protection against overcurrent and low voltage is
usually provided by the motor controller. Exceptions
are allowed for small motors, as when the overcurrent
device that protects the circuit feeding the motor
also protects the motor.
We shall say little about the last of these here
because a careful following of the rules (9, 10, 11),
which means use of proper insulation, grounding of all
exposed metal parts, use of deadfront construction
where required, etc,, usually ensures safety to personnel. The two remaining points, however, involve
some options for the designer, and so deserve some
discussion.
The general hazard to the electric power system

R
and its components is excessive current. Motors, in
particular, are subject to overcurrents caused by
overloading; the protection of the motor itself from
this hazard has been discussed in the preceding
section. OVercurrent to a motor may mean overcurrent
in its branch circuit, which also requires protection.
In some instances, action of the motor protective
device protects the circuit also, but the circuit may
require additional protection. A case is the classical one of the branch lighting circuit with an unconscionable number of toasters, waffle irons, hair
driers, and whatever, plugged into its receptacles.
A more serious case of overcurrent is that caused
by a fault at any point in the system. The term fault
implies a failure of insulation that allows a "short
circuit" or bypassing of loads via a low resistance,
unauthorized path. Although the resulting current
can be small, as when insulation is leaking slightly,
it also can be of an order of magnitude higher than
normal currents when the fault is more complete. Such
currents can rapidly burn out conductors that carry it,
and the accompanying high temperature is a fire threat
to the surroundings.
To mitigate this hazard, the circuit carrying the
fault current must be interrupted, and quickly. The
characteristics of the device for this function must
be different in several respects from those of the
device protecting against overloads. First, the
action must be essentially instantaneous under heavy
fault currents, whereas the overcurrent device must
delay its action to avoid opening the circuit on
normal motor startup currents, Second, it must be
capable of opening the circuit when the highest predicted fault current is flowing (i.e. mustn't be
welded shut by heavy arcing), In practice, the same
device--circuit breaker or fuse--usually performs
both the protective functions. The circuit breaker,
for example, will be selected with an interrupting
rating suitable to the situation, and of course, this
permits it to open against any lesser current. It
also will typically have an inverse time tripping
characteristic, for example, it might pass a current
of 125% rating for 10 seconds before tripping, SOOt
for 0,5 second, and trip within 0.01 second on 1000%
current, a behavior that satisfies the requirements
cited.
The protection against loss of function in the
event of a fault is impossible for the portion of the
system in which the fault occurs, but it is always
desireable to make this portion as small as practicable. The basic idea is to have the protective
device nearest to the fault on the upstream side
(i.e. toward the generator) trip before any other
can act. In this way, the fault is cleared from the
system with the loss of no more of the system than
n~cessary while the fault is being repaire~.
Paralleling of Generators
Paralleling of marine generators is confined to
large vessels where more than one generator may be
required to carry the total load. The ability to
parallel requires extra consideration in design, such
as provision of reverse current relays, matching of
engine governors for equal load sharing, and provision of synchronizing equipment when alternating
current is used. The small vessel designer is unlikely to be concerned with paralleling, since he can
provide for his modest loads with a single generator.
In fact, he must be careful with switching arrangements to make it impossible to accidentally attempt
to parallel a second (i.e. standby) generator with
one carrying the load, or to parallel shore power

with the vessel's generator.

Direct Current Versus Alternating CUrrent Systems
Direct current systems were long the unchallenged
standard for marine electric power in vessels of all
sizes and of all services, In commercial vessels the
change to alternating current first became a definite
trend in the early 1950s, and now is virtually complete. Ships built in this and many other countries
have standardized on 440-v, 3-phase, 60-hz systems
with 110-v lighting distribution. (Higher voltages
are now being used in a few cases, 3,)
The points of consideration in a decision between
DC and AC have been covered many times in the marine
engineering literature (for an example, see 12). In
this paper we shall briefly review the major points,
at first without regard to whether the large or small
vessel is under consideration.
The greatest appeal of DC has always been the
favorable characteristics of the motors. The DC
series motor is characterized by a speed-torque curve
that falls steeply as torque increases. This is ideal
for lifting service, as in cargo handling, because
high speed with no load and creeping speed with full
load are inherently provided, and without excessive
current draw at low speeds. The shunt motor, on the
other hand, provides nearly constant speed over a
wide range of load torques, a characteristic desireable for driving fans and pumps. Further, speeds in
both these basic types are easily changed by external
control. Also, the characteristics of series and
shunt motors can be blended by providing both series
and shunt fields windings in the same motor--the
compound motor.
In contrast, the AC motor operates at a speed
that must be close to some integral fraction of supply frequency, which is nearly always invariable.
Thus no-load speeds of 3600, 1800, 1200, 900, etc.,
rpm are available with 60 hz supply, but generally
only one of these speeds in a single motor. In many
applications the motor must of course accelerate a
load from 0 rpm, and the usual induction motor does
indeed run at speeds down to zero, and with high
torque, but only at the expense of excessive current
which can be allowed only for a few seconds, Multispeed AC motors are built, and are used at sea, the
wound-rotor motor and the multi-winding motor being
common examples, but they do not match the DC motors
in simplicity of speed control, nor can they provide
a speed-torque characteristic as good for heavy lifts
as the series motor.
It is these favorable motor characteristics,
particularly that of the series motor used in cargo
handling, that maintained the marine dominance of DC
long after it had been supElanted ashore. In fact,
DC motors continue to be used for cargo gear aboard
AC ships, along with the necessary rectification
equipment.
But another feature of the DC motor provides its
fundamental weakness. This is the commutator--the
rotating mechanical switch that is necessary to convert the DC supply into a reversing current within
the motor windings. It is a source of failure, and
hence of maintenance, that has no parallel in AC
motors.
The commutator is also a feature of the DC
generator, and in addition to the maintenance problems, imposes limits on the voltage and current that
can be handled, As size (i.e. kw load) of power
systems has increased with increasing use of electrical auxiliaries, air conditioning, communications,
etc., there has been a natural trend to higher

voltage in order to keep the current from increasing

beyond the capacity of available switchgear and
cabling. But the practical limitations of the commutator just don't allow the DC system to go to 440
volts and beyond in the manner of AC. Thus as power
systems have increased in size beyond a few hundred
kw, DC has been left behind because of its inability
to make the corresponding steps up in voltage.
AC is generally regarded as more dangerous to
humans--given the same nominal voltages--than DC.
After all, AC peak voltages are on the order of twice
nominal voltages. As an example of a difference that
the hazard factor makes, the Coast Guard rules (9)
require deadfront construction of switchboards for AC
voltages above 55 volts, but for DC only for voltages
above 250. For 110 or 220-volt systems, say, the
switchboard construction is thus likely to be more
expensive for the AC alternative.
Other factors can be listed, but before proceeding, let's review the discussion above for influences
of vessel size, The first point to make is that the
size of the vessel and size of the power system are
obviously related: small vessel, small power system.
The two small ferries used as examples later her~ have
connected loads on the order of 10 - 20 kw, This is
far below the kw range in which magnitudes of current
and switchgear forces the designer to opt for system
voltage above 220, and hence inevitably for AC. Also,
vessels in the small commercial category are not
likely to have the cargo handling chores that make DC
series motors attractive; it is likely that their
hauling and lifting duties will be met by hydraulically-actuated components. If so, then a major incentive toward a DC system is missing. Other factors
m~ntioned so far are not significantly affected by
vessel or system size.
One principal appeal of each alternative is seen
above to be devalued in small vessel technology, so
it might be said that the choice is here much more
evenly contested than among the ships. seVeral
factors that are most often associated with small
systems remain to be discussed, however,
small vessel generators are often driven by the
propulsion engine (although the practice appears also
in recent ship construction). Voltage generated is a
function of generator rpm, but a voltage regulator
can vary excitation to keep voltage nearly constant
over a wide range of speeds, so that voltage may be
satisfactory over the operating speed range. But if
the generator is AC, its frequency will vary with
speed, This is always unacceptable, and no regulator
can do anything about it. Attached AC generators are
nonetheless used, but at the cost of avoiding the
frequency problem somehow. One method is to use a
controllable-pitch propeller so that vessel speed
changes' don't require engine speed changes. Another
consists essentially of rectifying to DC, then inverting back to AC at 60 hz independent of engine rpm,
Unless one of these schemes are used (at extra
cost, of course) the AC system will require a separately-driven generator that will run all the time
unless shore power is being used. In contrast, the
DC system will have a battery floating on the line
to carry the load when the propulsion engine is
secured or running at a very low speed. The.battery
is beyond all doubt quieter than the engine-driven
generator, its operating cost is less, and it
requires less management to maintain voltage, frequency, and availability. It may, however, have a
higher first cost, and be heavier,
A small vessel is likely to be more dependent on
shore power than a ship. Almost certainly the avail-

R 6
able shore power is going to be AC. However, this is
but a slight factor in favor of AC aboard because the
rectification equipment is compact and not a major
cost item.

DESIGNER'S TECHNIQUES AND DECISIONS

Load Analysis
The traditional method of performing a load
analysis, i.e. estimating the required power output of
the generating plant, is well described in Marine
Engineering (2). It has long been used with apparent
success for ships, but may give a misleading result
when used for small vessels having only a few components consuming electric power. The possible defect
is illustrated here, and an improved method is outlined.
The traditional method of load analysis is basically this:
L =

(1)

where

average load under some appropriate condition (e.g, port, maneuvering, cruising,
etc.)

power drawn by the ith unit of load when

operating under its rated condition
fractional time on the line for the ith
component
L is the expected value, or average, of the load
imposed on the generator. The designer usually bases
his choice of generator rating on the highest value
of L found for the various conditions he examines,
allowing some margin for non-average conditions.
The defect in this method is that it gives no
information about the non-average conditions. The
ship designer escapes the consequences by adding on
the margin just mentioned; he presumably has a fair
idea of what the margin should be from experience with
previous designs. However, if the designer of a small.
vessel follows ship experience in his work (or perhaps
uses Marine Engineering as a guide), he may underestimate the margin, for the difference between average
conditions and typical off-design conditions tends to
become larger in electric power systems with fewer
components. To illustrate, let's consider two systems,
one of ship size, and the other quite small.
The larger system supports 100 loads of 10 kw
each, and each is expected to be on the line 50 percent of the time. The average load is obviously 500
kw. Because all Zi and fi are the same, it is
easy to apply elementary probability theory to show
that a 20 percent overload (for example) should be
exceeded only 2~ percent of the time, The other
system supports only two power-consuming units of 5 kw
each, each being independently on line 50 percent of
the time (fl = 0.5
f2 = 0.5}. The average load is
0,5 x 5 + 0,5 x 5 = 5 kw. To get an estimate of nonaverage conditions, apply the binomial theorem from
probability theory. The appropriate formula from
probability theory shows that the probability of both
units being on the line simultaneously is 0,25 , For
25 percent of the time, therefore, the generator load
will be 10 kw, or 100% overload. It is apparent that
generator rating had better be no less than 10 kw,
though application to the 5 kw average of a margin
appropriate to a ship might lead to a choice of, say,
7.5 kw.
Now, in such a simple case as the latter example,
the designer might be expected to realize the proper
generator rating with no formal analysis at all. The
hazard appears in intermediate situations where the
magnitudes and fractional times of non-average loads
L

R
are not so obvious, and not nearly so small as in the
first example. A method is needed that estimates the
magnitudes and probabilities of loads other than
average, so that a margin can be selected on a rational basis for small vessels as well as large.
The method outlined here uses sampling from
populations of random numbers to establish a possible
total load. The process is repeated many times in
order to build up a statistical picture of load
behavior in practice. Although the computations are
quite simple, the repetitions make a digital computer
an essential tool. Its availability to the designer
is assumed in the following sketch of the method:
1. For each individual load ti , draw a number ri
from a population of random numbers, uniformly
distributed over the range 0 to 1.0 1 inclusive.
2. If ri S fi (fi as previously defined), set
fi = 1.0; otherwise set fi = 0
3. Find the total load by equation {1). This represents one possible load.
4. To build up a statistical picture, repeat many
times (10,000 is suggested),
The statistics to be kept are somewhat at the option
of the user, but the mean L of all L 1 and the
standard deviation of L about L , are the likely
choices. The mean is simply the sum of all L ,
divided by the number of them calculated, and should
be nearly identical to the average load found by the
traditional analysis. The standard deviation can be
estimated by the root-mean-square deviation from the
mean, i,e, by

where

2
.e.E
)
- ..c(..eL"'
N-"--"LJ-

or

(2)

L
average L over all N trials
Lj
total load found on the jth trial
The actual load at any moment can be expected to
be I. s no more than 68 percent of the time, L
L 2s no more than 95 percent of the time, etc,
These figures are obtained from a glance at any table
of the normal probability distribution. The table
(found in any mathematical handbook, or in any text
on probabilitY and statistics) can be used to find
the fractionai time for any specified deviation from
mean load L . The designer may thereby prepare what
amounts to a load ptofile for the system he is
designing. Although this in itself does not tell
him what the generator rating must be, it does show
him clearly the consequences of any choice of margin
he may make, and so gives him a rational tool for
making that choice.
This method has been used on the example load
analysis given in ~ Engineering, page 608, It
finds an average load of 1112.3 kw, compared to the
1116.6 in the book (sea load condition), and a standard deviation-of 203 kw. It is also used on the
load analysis of Table 1, which was developed in the
traditional manner by the designer of the actual AC
plant used for example discussions later in this
paper. Average loads are found to be 17.36 and 12.89
kw for the p~ak and normal conditions, respectively,
nearly identical to those given in the table. standard deviations are estimated to be 2.69 and 2.62 kw.
A check will show that as fractions of the respective
means, these deviations are about the same as that
found in the ~ Engineering example. This result
runs somewhat counter to the preceding discussion,
which has suggested that deviation should be greater
in the smaller plants. The explanation comes from a
close look at the analyses. Table 1 analysis shows
generally higher values of the f' s (!'load factors" in

the table), leaving a much smaller range over which

load can swing. The much higher ratios of average
load to connected load in Table 1 is also a consequence of the higher f values.

DESCP.!P1I(H

~~

"

E ..O>SIDE

,!

"

~-

d '

(,:l6

0.0

l.lS

0.41

0,60

0.0

o.so

0.>

0.40

0.46

"'

O.:ll

O.>

o.n

=u~

S.ll

O.GS

IIH-Sl'RG SPJ.<':>:

l.SS

0.>

2.Sl

4.11

NIG>tT

!! '

!!

I.C.

~.

TIE,

o.
o.o

4.57

O.>

4.SJ

O.GS

0.0

O,GS

1.10

0.0
0,0

1.10
2.00

0.0
0,0

1.10

o.>
LO

o.,s

0.10

0,0

0.10
0.9S

O.>
o.>

o.:n

0.54

o
o.

o.u

SHIP S!'...,ICE

2.40

o.>

~=

1.80
l.lO

0.0

1.20
1.ao
0.16

0.(0

0.60

o.

>.00

LO

0,00

<OFSIO!
~.

~.

I!E.I."rl""

~~

11.11. CliiC.

s.w.

F.ll.~

IIA....-.:!<1 CI!>.RGUG

~~

TOTAl. SHIP

s.s.

S~INIO:

'~RG>:w.:Y

"'
'"
"'
"'

0.00
0.20

0.,
0,54

O.>

0.27

oo

0.49

Ch.o-~9 '"""

Shore

l'>'i'-

Co=eotlO<>

16.49

U.lO

H),lS

5.20

n.al

n.n

U.$9

T&ble 1

Ehetrlc

t-oo~

M.olyh

Circuit Protection
The designer 1 s principal task is to determine the
maximum fault current in order to select the interrupting rating of the circuit protective devices. The
magnitude of this current depends on the rating of the
generator, its subtransient reactance, the impedance
of the distribution system to the point of fault, and
on a contribution from motors that may momentarily
feed current back into the system as the fault begins.
If the data on these factors is on hand, the calculation of fault current is straightforward; see Marine
Engineering, (2), page 652 1 for explanation oft~
technique and a numerical example. An alternative to
the calculation is to use one of the following estimating formulas for maximum current:
DC system: ten times the normal rated current of
all motors that can be operating
simultaneously.
AC system: ten times the normal rated current of
all generators (including a spare)
plus three times the normal rated
current of all motors that can be
operating simultaneously.
These are taken from the Coast Guard rules (9}, and
satisfy their requirements in lieu of a detailed
calculation of fault current. Presumably they give
conservative values, and so ensure that interrupting
ratings chosen thereby will be safely on the high
slde. However, they make no distinction among fault
currents as they might occur in different parts of
the system, i.e. do not take into account the impedance
of the distribution circuits.
The designer will also aim for selectivity in the
tripping of the circuit protective devices, this to
ensure that the clearance of the fault by tripping
removes the least possible portion of the system from
service. This objective is usu~lly accomplished if
the first and only tripping occurs just on the generator side of the fault.
The inverse time relationship of protective

devices makes it possible for this selectivity to be

accomplished in a way intended by the designer. In
the case of a large and complex system, he may find
it necessary to make a detailed calculation of fault
currents throughout the system, and analyze the tripping behavior of each device in relation to those upstream of it. The principle will be the same in the
small system, but the accomplishment will be simpler.
An example is shown here in Figure 2, wherein only
the generator circuit breaker and the circuit breaker

10

"

,5 AM.P CIRCUIT BREAKER

~ t'SOO AMP INTERRUPT

w'

i=
\!)
z

0,1

0.01

\ '20 KW GENERATOR)

---

1---

.........

SAMP CIRCUIT BR~E.R

1000 AMP INTERRUPT I

~MOTOR ~RANCH)

F~ULT fURR~NT ~~TOO

0
Fig. 2

z.

4-

AlPS

CURRENTJ \0~ AMPS

Circuit Breaker Tripping Times

for a motor branch circuit are in series. Fault current is estimated by the simple rule just cited, and
interrupting ratings for these circuit breakers set
accordingly; normal current ratings are selected for
the normal currents. The maximum tripping times for
the branch as a function of current, and the minimum
tripping times for the generator, are plotted from a
vendor's catalog, and show that the branch circuit
breaker is expected to trip first under all overload
currents.
Emergency Power
Both prudence and the Coast Guard (9) require a
source of emergency power for such lights and other
equipment that may be essential in an emergency, For
the vessels that fall into our small category 1 either
a diesel generator or a storage battery is acceptable
as the source, and the designer's only major decision
in the emergency area is which of these to use. The
choice probably lies in the length of time that will
be required for the source to operate. The Coast
Guard specifies times running from 8 to 36 hours,
depending on the size arid type of vessel, but also
allows the option of making it no more than twice the
length of run, if such time be shorter. The battery
alternative is probably preferred from the standpoint
of simplicity when times are short, but when the
maximum time (36 hours) is required, the battery may
be found unacceptably heavy and expensive.
Choice of AC or DC
The relative merits of alternating and direct
current systems were discussed in an earlier section,
but with no conclusions being offered. It is, of
course, imprudent to make an unqualified pronouncement
covering every design, but we would now like to make a
recommendation which should be correct in a majority
of cases, as follows:

Direct current systems should be used only when

the system is small enough to make 12 volts appropriate. Otherwise, alternating current should be
chosen,
This recommendation is based largely on lessons presented by the two example vessels to be discussed in
the next section, especially in reg~rd to these
points:
1. Direct current components are more expensive than
their alternating current counterparts, unless the
DC uses the readily available 12 volt automotive
equipment. If loads and cable lengths are great
enough to make 120 volts preferred, the AC components will be found to be distinctly cheaper.
2. Automatic or "automated" controls, and resilient
mountings and acoustical control techniques remove
much of the objection to small separately-driven
diesel generators running unattended.
3. A direct current system powered by a generator
attached to the propulsion engine must have a
battery to carry the system when the engine slows
to very low speeds, or when in port. At voltages
of 120 and over, the battery is likely to be
heavier and more expensive than the separatelydriven generator required for the AC vessel.
Choice of the Distribution System
Let us assume that the alternating current system
is to be chosen, and next examine the question of
system voltage, Obviously, 120 volts must be provided
for lighting, if standard fixtures are used. The
voltage for other uses depends on the current demand
and cable size. If the electrical load is entirely
lights and a small number of fractional horsepower
motors, 120 volts can be used economically for everything. On the other hand, the single biggest load on
many small ships is the galley electric range, Typically, ranges use power at a standard voltage, 208,
220, or 440 volts, either single or three phase,
depending on the size and complexity. The range then
may govern the highest system voltage (primary voltage)
to keep current and the distribution components within
reasonable sizes. To simplify the system, a common
voltage should be used for galley range and any other
big loads, such as water heaters and motors. Here
again the choice is 208, 220, or 440 volts; usually
three phase. If a ship's largest motor is not over
20 hp, and most motors are much smaller, 208 or 220
volts is economical for the primary voltage. If a
ship has several motors of, say, 15 hp or a few larger
than 20 hp, 440 volts probably is the more economical
primary voltage.
Consider a design with 220 or 208 primary voltage,
What is the choice, since both are "standards" and
only 12 volts apart?
The first, generated at 230 to 240 volts, 3phase, is distributed through three "hot" wires 1 none
of which is grounded. The voltage between any pair
of leads is nominally 220 volts. To get 120 volts
secondary power for lighting, the system needs one or
more step-down transformers and a secondary 120 volt
distribution system. Figure 5 can illustrate this
system if the primary is assumed 230 volts instead of
450. The secondary distribution system is 3-phase
with 120 volts between any pair of "hot" wires. The
single phase loads are tapped of pairs of "hot" wires
in rotation to balance phases.
A small ship distribution system of this type
might contain the following major components, exclusive of emergency power requirements,
2 - Generators, 230 volts, 60 hz, 3-phase
1 - switchboard with the following:

2
generator panels
1 - power distribution panel - 230 volts,. 3phase (engine room loads)
1 - lighting distribution panel - 120 volts,
3-phase with single phase branches for
engine room and other below deck lightir,g,
1 - galley power panel for range, fryers, etc.
230 volts, 3-phase
1 - deck power panel, 230 volts, 3~phase
1 or 2 - 230/120 volt, 3-phase, transformer
1 or 2 - g~neral lighting panel, 120 volts,
3-phase, with single phase branches,
The second type primary power, generated at 212
to 216 volts, 3-phase, is distributed through four
wires, three hot and 1 neutral, usually grounded to
the ship's hull. The voltage between any pair of hot
wires is nominally 208 volts, and between any hot wire
and neutral is 120 (120 = 208/.rl ), This system
distributes both primary and secondary voltage, since
at any point, 208 volts, 3-phase and single phase, and
120 volt single phase are all available. As in all
systems, the single phase branch loads must be distributed among the phases to balance the phase currents.
Figure 3 illustrates, and shows the reason for the "Y"
designation for this type of system, as in the following discussion.

2.08

z.oa v
N!OUTRAL

GENERATOR

Fig, 3

T~e

LOADS

208/120 volt Distribution System

A distribution system with 208/120 y voltage

might contain the following major components, again
excluding the emergency requirements.
2 - Generators, 208/120 volt - Y, 60 hz, 3-phase
1 - Switchboard with
2 - generator panels
1 - power and lighting distribution panel 208 volts, 3-phase and 120 volts, single
phase
1 - galley power and lighting panel, 208/120 volts
1 or 2 - deck power and lighting panels, 208/120
volts.
The simplicity of the 208/120 - Y distribution
system makes it very popular ashore, especially in
11
downtown" areas of cities where buildings must serve
offices and light industrial tenants with computers,
business and manufacturing machines as well as lights,
To meet the demand, manufacturers rate motors and
other equipment for the dual voltages of 220 volts or
208 volts. For example, a motor will develop its rated
power with either 220 volts or 208 volts, Also to
serve this distribution system, the industry builds

and stocks stardardized four wire breaker panels, each

with "hot" bus strips and a neutral terminal strip.
Neat, standardized circuit breakers snap into the
panels for the branch circuits. The simplicity and
economy of standardization make the 208/120 - Y distribution system attractive to the small ship, and we
believe it will be the superior system in most cases.
Naturally, like every good thing the 208/120 - Y
distribution system presents some problems aboard ship.
Economically, the three-phase power branches may
require larger conductors to transmit the higher
current associated with the 208 volts for a given
motor power. Likewise, pumps, fans, and the like may
require higher rated motors since at 208 volts less
overload capacity exists than with 220 volts, Note
the verb "may". since the small ships 1 arrangement
determines cable lengths, voltage drops may or may
not be critical in cables sized to meet regulatory
body requirements. Also, since a motor must be selected to suit the driving machine's load and duty cycle,
an oversize motor is needed with 208 volts only where
the analysis shows demand power right at a standard
rating. Then the next larger size should be used to
provide a margin for overload.
A second potential shortcoming with 208/120 - Y
distribution is that panel feeders must have four
conductors in place of three. This is not an added
cost if a single panel for both power and lighting
can substitute for two panels, one power and the other
lighting, Although the panel feeders are potentially
about 33 percent more costly with the fourth conductor,
the lengths are usually short. The added cost then
is not significant in the cost of the whole system.
The neutral conductor should be grounded so that
a person inadvertently touching a hot conductor can
never be exposed to more than 120 volts. This
practice is the subject of controversy, because even
120 volts can be lethal when the victim is standing
on a highly conductive deck. A system with ungrounded
neutral (or with no neutral at all, as with the first
system discussed) does not present this hazard, and
so is seemingly safer. But it is safer only as long
as no other conductor is accidentally grounded through
a fault. If such a ground does exist, and it may
without being detected since it has not caused a shortcircuit current, the potential between deck and the
point accidentally touched can be full system voltage.
Further, a ground in the 208/120 - Y system is selfcorrecting in a sense, for it demands corrective
action of the crew. A circuit breaker will have tripped, putting some part of the power system out of
action. On the other hand, a single accidental ground
in an ungrounded system does not detract from the
performance of the system, and therefore does not
demand immediate attention from the crew. Local
heating near the ground may occur, even to the point
of being a fire hazard, and the shock hazard will be
increased, as previously noted.
EXAMPLE DESIGNS
Washington State Ferry HIYU
General. The HIYU is a small double-ended ferry
designed in 1965 for the state of Washington, The
electrical system is direct current, and may be
briefly described as an oversized automotive type,
requiring no supervision, with the main generator
driven by one of the propulsion engines. As we shall
see, the main features of the design were determined
by the service of the vessel, and the mode of operation that this made possible. The service is a short
shuttle run of perhaps 40 minutes between terminals.

R
The vessel is therefore in frequent contact with the
shore, and is laid up at a pier each night. The
engine room is unmanned. As planned, a shore-based
engineer would perform routine maintenance, bilge
pumping, and the like during night layup. None of
the threeman.deck crew would have to enter the engine
room. The design then provided for minimum electric
powered pumps. The fire pumps, a bilge pump, and air
compressor, and the two steering gear pumps were
driven from the two propulsion engines. The fire
pumps and the fire and sprinkling mains were controlled
from the pilot house.
To meet ABS and USCG requirements, an auxiliary,
separately-driven DC generator was provided as part of
a "one man band 11 including a small diesel engine, the
auxiliary generator, an air compressor, and bilge pump.
This unit was intended primarily for use by the
maintenance engineer if needed during his work aboard
the ship at night.
Generators, The main generator driven from a
propulsion engine is a variable speed machine, able
to develop its rated voltage and power from about
half rated to full speed. A separate regulator
controls excitation to maintain voltage within this
speed range.
The auxiliary, constant speed generator is a
compound wound, self-excited machine, driven at 1800

10

rpm by the auxiliary diesel engine. The generators

do not run in parallel so their characteristics need
not match,
Each generator is rated 15 kw at 120 volts,
which is sufficient for the normal load but a bit
deficient for the peak load.
Storage Batteries. since the main generator
voltage can drop below 120 volts when its driving
engine runs at idle speed, and since the generator
capacity will not quite meet peak demand, a ship
service storage battery floats on the main bus. The
battery rating is sufficient to carry the normal load
for 30 minutes in the event of a generator failure.
This permits the ferry to reach a terminal with a
shore power connector, where a shore based engineer
can start the auxiliary engine and put its generator
on the line while correcting (hopefully} the problem
with the main generator. A separate, 120-volt
emergency battery is provided for emergency lights,
interior communication, and radio as required by the
USCG. This battery is rated to carry the emergency
load for 1~ hours, something over twice the time for
one passage between terminals. A third battery at
14 volts is provided for the general alarm, again to
meet USCG requirements. All batteries are nickel
cadmium. The ship service battery is connected
directly to the main bus, and the emergency battery

SHORt M, R!CEPT,
120 V .I.C
100 .1.,

bR
uS,

m.
"'- "

LTS,

1f0 V.I.C I

~lhrf~~

/.;'
L..

1~

VOC

,----+ft4

I
I

m::1.

SWITCM

:TTE~Y

CHARGING
SEU:CTOR SWITCH

l'>-----'

15 KW,

125 V DC

---- - _j

.I.VTO,

....

"'' wire

mru,..

~~

P.I.SSHGR SP.I.CS
VEIIT f.I.IIS

ill! ...,

SJ60.

""~
OC OR .I.C BUS

Fig, 4

Simplified Electrical Elementary Diagram

for Washington State Ferry HIYU

R
can be connected to the main bus through a reverse
current relay to permit charging only. The general
alarm battery is kept at full charge from the main bus
through a charging panel.
The batteries can be charged through rectifier
panels fed from shore power. Thus, after a day 1 s
operation, the ship service battery can be restored tn
full charge during the night layup. Each panel automatically controls the charging rate to suit the
battery condition.
Distribution. Figure 4 shows a simplified elementary diagram of the system.
A dead front switch board contains the generator
disconnect switches mechanically interlocked so at any
time, only one of the switches can be closed. A
reverse current relay in the generator feeder prevents
the ship service battery from feeding back into the
generator. The board contains two 2-bar busses, one
for DC only and the other for DC or single phase AC.
This complication allows AC shore power to furnish
lighting without rectification into DC. TWo transfer
swi~ches are fitted, one to charge from the generator
power supply to shore power supply, and the other to
select the ship service or the emergency battery for
charging from shore power.
Since heat must be supplied to the ship during
night time layup in winter, a diode bridge rectifier
is fitted in the feeder and to the oil fired hot water
heater and circulating pumps so they receive DC power,
irrespective of the basic power supply. Several of
the devices fed from the Interior Communications Panel
via the Emergency Panel cannot tolerate the AC fed
into the panel from shore power. Since they are not
needed during night layup, their circuits contain
relays which automatically open upon the introduction
of AC.
U.S. Navy Ferry YFB 87
General. The YFB 87 was designed in 1969 as a
ferry for Navy service in Hawaii. Although owned by
the Navy, it is by no means a naval vessel, but is
built to commercial standards, i.e. to American Bureau
of Shipping and Coast Guard rules. Some Navy practice
is evident, however, especially in the choice of 450
volts for the system, this being Navy standard. All
electric motors are 1 hp or less (a 3-hp sewage pump
operates on shore power only), making a 120 volt
single-phase system a reasonable choice otherwise,
(There is no galley or other large load, such as were
instrumental in our advocacy earlier of a 208/120 volt
system.)
As originally proposed, the YFB 87 was to be a
duplicate essentially, of the HIYU. The only differences electrically were deletion of the h'eating
system and passenger space ventilation and the addition
of a 3 hp sewage pump to be ope~ated from shore power
only, Several factors appeared early in the new
ferry's construction which caused western Boat
Building Corp. to change from the proposed DC system
to an AC system, Primarily they are:
1. Tremendous cost increase in DC generators and
motors between 1965 and 1969,
2, The Navy planned to have a watch engineer at all
times who could supervise the electric system
supplied by separate, auxiliary diesel driven
generators.
(Ironically, the HIYU now carries a
watch engineer because of a union agreement.)
3. The sewage pump power is too much to be operated
conveniently with 120 volt single phase AC shore
power. Power at 220 volts, or 440 volts would be
better for the pump, but would make the HIYU type,
dual bus distribution arrangement awkward.

ll

A 450 volt, 3-phase electric power system was installed, supplied by either of two generators, each
driven by its own diesel engine, One of the auxiliary
engines also drives a bilge pump and an air compressor
as in the HIYU. Also as in the HIYU, each propulsion
diesel engine drives a fire pump and one drives an
air compressor, The electrical load thus is not
materially different from that of the HIYU.
Generators. Without a ship service battery to
cover peak loads, the ship service generator rating
was increased from 15 kw to 20 kw. OUtput is 3 phase,
60 kz, 450 volts. Each generator has a brushless
exciter and voltage regulator with solid state components. Since the generators do not operate in
parallel, precise frequency control is not important.
Each auxiliary engine has a simple hydraulic speed
governor which can be adjusted only at the engine.
Distribution. Figure 5 shows a simplified
elementary diagram of the system. Following ABS and
USCG rules, the switchboard is dead front, and contains a generator panel, with the breakers, controls,
and instruments for the two generators and the shore
power connection, a 450-volt, 3-phase distribution
panel, and a 120-volt, 3-phase distribution panel.
All electric motors on the ship are 3-phase, fed
directly from the switchboard 450-volt bus. The
emergency battery is kept charged at 120 volts DC
from the 450 volt bus through a transformer rectifier.
The emergency power panel loads are all DC, fed
through the emergency battery. The emergency lighting
panel is fed with AC normally, and with DC from the
emergency power upon failure of AC power.
For night layup, the shore power at 450 volts,
3-phase AC, can supply the whole electrical system on
the ship, including the separately connected sewage
pump. The emergency battery is charged from the main
bus, and so requires no special provision for shore
power.
Analysis. Table 1 is a reproduction of the
electric load analyses made by the designer of this
vessel. One notes that this is made in the traditional style, as per Marine Engineering. The results
found for this vessel by the present authors, using
the method expounded in an earlier section, have been
mentioned in that section.
Table 1 serves also to illustrate the magnitudes
of the individual loads to be expected on a vessel of
this size. Note that only one motor is greater than
one horsepower, and that it is fed by a separate
shore power circuit,
The determination of load is the only formal
analysis to be found in the design records of the
vessel, The designer did not believe it necessary,
nor was he compelled by rules, to analyze for voltage
transients in view of the small ratings of motors
relative to generator rating, nor to make a formal
fault current analysis.
REFERENCES
1. United States Coast Guard, subchapter T, Rules and
Regulations for small Passenger Vessels.
2. Melvin, Burr, "Electric Plants", Chapter XVII,
Harine Engineering, Society of Naval Architects
and Marine Engineers, 1971.
3. Bolton, M. J. A., "The Electric Power System in
The Queen Elizabeth II--Design and Operational
Experience", Transactions, Institute of Marine
Engineers, Vol. 83, Part 11, 1971.
4, Kohler Company, Technical Information Bulletin GE-4.
5, General Specifications for ships of the United
states Navy.

R
6. standard Specifications for cargo Ship Construction, united states Maritime Administration.
7. Kohler Company, Technical Information Bulletin EL-7.
8. Private communication, Sperry Marine systems,
9. United states Coast Guard, subchapter J, Electrical
Engineering Regulations.
10. American Institute of Electrical and Electronical

Engineers, standard 45, Recommended Practice for

Electrical Installations on Shipboard.
11. National Fire Protection Association, Fire Protection Standard for Motor Craft.
12. Evans, F. w. "An Approach to the Use of AC on
Ships" 1 Transactions, Institute of Marine
Engineers, Vol. 73, No. 6, 1961.

EI-ERG,
LTG.
PANEl
VEND,

MACH,

RCEPT,

'"'

PANEL

'"'
PNl.

I I I
" EE
120

'"

p.

aus

"'
v

"'

aus

"

"

"

WM~R

lilfl

J?lA
P<J< S

~nt
FHS

2P

\~R~Ac a~T{ls c~~~GER

fll~M~~
so 120 v ..

Fig. 5

E'"ERG.

INTER,

F/ R
ALARM

)P

12

u~
EI-ERG.
BATT,

1-ECH. INTERLOCK
TO PRfVEHT
PAAAI..ll OPRATI 00

SEWAGE
Pl><J'

Simplified Electrical Elementary Diagram

for Navy Ferry YFB B7

20 KW,

)lftl,

60 HZ