RETROFITting ships with new technologies for improved overall environmental footprint

Final Report Summary - RETROFIT (RETROFITting ships with new technologies for improved overall environmental footprint)

Executive Summary:
1. FINAL PUBLISHABLE SUMMARY REPORT
1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Retrofitting is defined as the installation on-board ships of state-of-the-art or innovative components or systems and could in principle be driven by the need to meet new regulatory energy and emission standards or by the ship owner interest to upgrade to higher operational standards. While sea transport market conditions alone might not justify retrofitting, public interest expressed through national and international policies foster a reduction of energy usage and emissions.

Project Retrofit aim is, to develop methods and supporting tools for the benefit of the shipbuilding and ship-repair industry, as well as the shipping community involved in (ship) retrofitting activities. These developments will allow to identify worthy retrofitting candidate ships and select appropriate (green) technologies that can be fitted at minimum cost and lead time. The condition of the particular ship such as service profile, remaining life cycle and the existing and expected regulations, must be taken in account.
Technologically rejuvenated ships might / will “age” again within years after retrofitting. Possessing the capability to monitor and manage the retrofitted ship overall performance throughout the remaining life cycle will a) ensure optimal performance and b) help identify emerging conditions which justify new retrofitting action(s). Retrofitting should therefore become an established practice in the shipping industry involving the entire value chain and exploring the possibilities that may open to the industry on a continuous basis.

The focus points of project Retrofit are:
• Methods to identify ship candidates for retrofitting;
• Methods and tools for simulating the working of the ship main and auxiliary systems;
• Methods and tools for extracting geometrical data (reverse engineering) from existing ships/ship systems, this to build product models for re-engineering work of retrofitting processes;
• Methods and tools to control ships energy and emission performance: decision support systems for emission control and energy optimization over the entire service profile;
• Design-for-retrofitting methodology based on standardisation and modularisation principles;
• Efficient corresponding yard processes for minimum out-of-business time for retrofitting ships.

The project work programme contained 5 technical and 1 management Work Packages (WP’s):
• WP1: Retrofit Ships in operation. WP1 developed a method for identifying “worthy” retrofitting candidates and tools for full-scale ships voyage and energy usage simulation.
• WP2: The Retrofit ship. WP2 handles the new (retrofitted) ship configuration in terms of safety and functionality, and investigates a “design for retrofitting” approach.
• WP3: Retrofit Green technologies solutions. WP3 selects, evaluates and combines green technologies into an existing ship configuration, and develops a Decision Support System (DSS) to control ships energy and emission performance.
• WP4: Retrofit process. WP4 deals with the process of retrofitting, in particular reverse engineering and process simulation & planning methods and tools.
Work Packages 1, 3 and 4 made use of full scale experiments and measurements to validate the developed methods and tools.
• WP5: Retrofit impact, knowledge and dissemination
• WP6: Retrofit project management

The project consortium contained fourteen European partners, including ship owners, major equipment suppliers, engineering bureaus and research organisations.

Project Context and Objectives:
1.2 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES
1.2.1 Background
A ship life cycle is usually set at 25 years, but the actual age of (for example) the short sea fleet is higher, reaching at more than 30 - 35 years of age for perhaps as much as 40 % of the fleet. The life cycle of ship systems and major components is much shorter, this because of the ever faster technological developments. In general, 10-15 years after launching the ship main systems are outdated. While waterborne transport market conditions alone might not justify the replacing of elderly technology in ships by new ones (retrofitting), national and international policies fostering reduction of energy usage and emissions issue new regulations on energy efficiency and emission reduction. For example, the geographic regions in which only low sulphur fuel can be used are growing due to regional air quality regulations (e.g. CARB) or international Emissions Control Areas (ECA’ s) defined by IMO. These developments have created the need for advanced methods and tools to assess the impact of new/expected emissions regulations on own (ship) operations now and in mid-term future and to support decisions on measures to meet these new regulations by retrofitting existing ships with green technologies.
1.2.2 Approach
Retrofitting could in principle be driven by the need to meet new regulations or by the ship owner interest to upgrade to higher operational standards. There is also the broader interest to maintain the leading role of Europe’s marine equipment suppliers fostering clean, safe and competitive European waterborne transportation with a view to meet future market and societal needs. This broader interest is justified by the state of the world fleet segments:
• While the average age of the total world fleet continued to decrease since 2007 (11.8 years) with the youngest fleet continued to be that of containerships, general cargo vessels continue to be the oldest vessel type, with more than 55 %of the tonnage being 20 years and older.
• More recent statistics unveil a European (European Economic Area or EEA) fleet slightly younger than the world fleet, but for passenger ships.
• Finally, figures on the age of the EU- fleet show a ca. 50 million TDW capacity considered to be suitable for retrofitting.
Bringing ships-in-service to current/upcoming environmental standards should however not remain an incidental activity driven by rules and regulations only. Improving continuously the environmental efficiency of waterborne transportation requires not only to ensure the optimal performance of the retrofitted ship but also to keep in mind that technologically rejuvenated ships might / will “age” again within years after retrofitting. In both cases the capability to monitor and manage the retrofitted ship overall performance throughout the remaining life cycle will be necessary:
• First, to ensure optimal performance
• Second, to identify emerging conditions when the gap between the ship performance and the newly available (green) technologies justifies new retrofitting action(s).
1.2.3 Challenge
Retrofitting should therefore become an established practice in the shipping industry involving the entire value chain and exploring the possibilities that retrofitting may open to the industry on a continuous basis. The ever-going challenge is:
How to identify worthy retrofitting candidates and establish appropriate (green) technologies that can be suitably fitted at minimum cost and lead time, while considering the condition of the particular ship, her service profile, her remaining life cycle and the governing and expected regulations
1.2.4 Project objectives
Project Retrofit overall aim is to initiate a new impulse in combating climate change by improving the environmental efficiency of waterborne transportation, specifically the environmental footprint of existing ships. To do this, available and newly developed technologies will be fitted into existing ship configurations, aiming to improve energy efficiency and cleanness while at least maintaining but preferably improving the ships’ rest - life cycle economic performance. Keeping in mind that the technologically rejuvenated ship might / will “age” within years after retrofitting, it will be necessary to monitor and manage the retrofitted ship overall performance throughout the remaining life cycle to ensure optimal performance and to identify new emerging retrofitting needs.
Modifying existing ships to a different service profile is an established practice in ship repair and conversion, for example converting large ships where the buoyancy function and part of the machinery is maintained and enhanced by additional structures and machinery. Retrofitting ships with green technologies has however a different purpose i.e.: improve the environmental performance by reducing energy usage and emission levels, this without altering the ship service profile. All these to be done within the restriction of existing hull geometry, compartment division and machinery/equipment/outfit arrangements. Ship owners/shipyards involved in ship retrofitting must:
• Be capable to determine whether a ship is “worthy” to be retrofitted.
• Be capable to assess the ship performance on energy usage and emissions prior to and after retrofitting before decisions on costly investments are taken
• After retrofitting, be capable to monitor the ship performance and operate the ship at minimum energy usage.

Fig.1 : A retrofitting process concept

Fig. 1 displays a sequence of steps depicting a concept for a retrofitting process that answers to the above capability demand. The ability to execute these steps needs to be developed within project Retrofit, the derived project challenges are therefore:

1. To identify “worthy” ship candidates for retrofitting taking into account existing and expected legislation regarding energy, emissions and safety.
2. To identify appropriate green technologies and the corresponding hardware, embedded systems etc.
3. To establish the possibilities of these green technologies to be fitted into existing arrangements of space, machinery, equipment, piping, cabling, fittings etc. at the lowest possible cost and lead time.
4. To establish the impact of the new ship configuration after retrofitting on the (rest) life cycle performance of the retrofitted ship.
5. To enable the monitoring and managing the retrofitted ship overall performance.
6. Anticipating on retrofitting as new practice in a ship life cycle, develop a design-for-retrofitting methodology and ship architecture based on modularisation and standardisation principles.
7. Assure a long-term impact of Retrofit solutions.
8. Have suitable methods and tools that are necessary to meet the challenges stated above.

To successfully meet the above challenges project Retrofit must yield the following results:
• A list of green technologies and components which can be fitted to existing ships taking into account existing and expected legislation regarding energy, emissions and safety.
• Methods to identify ship candidates for retrofitting based on (rest) life cycle considerations and tools to assess the overall economic performance of ships before and after retrofitting.
• Methods and tools for simulating the working of various configurations of ship main and auxiliary systems regarding energy usage and emissions including alternative fuels, alternative energy sources, energy recovering systems, emission treatment systems etc. under operational conditions at sea, during port approach/leaving and during manoeuvring.
• Methods and tools for “reverse engineering” enabling to build product models suitable for the retrofitting process. Ship external (hull form) and internal geometry (compartments), and machinery & outfit positions (with all relevant piping & cabling) will be necessary.
• Methods and tools to control ships energy and emission performance: decision support systems for emission control and energy optimization over the entire service profile, monitoring and managing retrofitted technologies performance throughout the remaining life cycle.
• Design-for-retrofitting methodology based on standardisation and modularisation principles.
• Recommendations in support of policy measures to mitigate emissions.

1.2.5 Project work plan
Retrofit work plan is developed in parallel with the retrofitting process concept depicted in Fig.1. For each step main/research/other issues are listed and the corresponding research and technological activities are elaborated. Using the project results to maximum impact is an additional important project objective. This achieved by a variety of project results dissemination and exploitation activities. The overall structure of the project work plan is depicted in Fig. 3.

Fig. 2: Detailed concept retrofitting process: (main) issues, research issues

Fig. 3: Project Retrofit work plan structure

Project Results:
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE MAIN S&T RESULTS/FOREGROUNDS

The Scientific and Technological Results and Foregrounds (S&TRF) are listed according to the project Work Package structure.

1.3.1 A method to identify ship candidates for retrofitting
Source/reference Work Package 1, Deliverable D1.1
Name A method to identify ship candidates for retrofitting
Application domain Ship economic assessment
Result type Report, excel tool
IP-owner Delft University
Challenge/question Be capable to determine whether a ship is “worthy” to be retrofitted
Result description
This is a first step in the (retrofit) decision making process, allowing the ship owner to determine whether a particular ship is “worthy” to be retrofitted. The governing criterion for this decision is:
• A candidate ship worthy to be retrofitted should be, after retrofitting, economically competitive in comparison to a new or second hand vessel, build according the state of the art, common in the trade and the logistical chain meant to be serviced.
Conditions for identifying “worthy” retrofit candidates are:
• Ships are mainly one of designs ideally fit for a specific service
• Excellent hull design, potentially good propulsion system in order to be able to achieve emission reduction and an economical operation.
• Ships with a design speed far above the economic speed are probably difficult to operate economically at lower speeds due to partial loaded main engines. Also the hull design could be wrong for the lower speeds. A possible approach in such a case could be, to optimise the power plant for the new “design speed”.
• There should be space enough to accommodate the proposed equipment, especially end of pipe solutions, for NOx, SOx and PM.

The quality of the ship design is given by two parameters:
• The power performance ratio between real required and calculated power at design condition
• The lightweight ration between the real lightweight and the calculated lightweight using statistical data.

An Excel-based model calculates the allowable investment level as a function of the amount of fuel saved by introducing energy saving technology, the price of the fuel and the “financial” duration of the project.
Envisaged exploitation use
Ship owners will be capable to identify ship candidates “worthy” to be retrofitted and capable to estimate the allowable investment to achieve the required (better) operational ship performance (energy usage and emissions)

1.3.2 Analysis and assessment model
Source/reference Work Package 1, Deliverable D1.2 D1.3
Name Analysis and assessment model
Application domain Ship voyage and energy systems simulation
Result type Report, simulation models, simulation platform for ship voyage and energy
IP-owner MARIN, TNO, Delft University
Challenge/question Acquire the ability to:
• analyse a ship energy / emission performance in operational conditions
• assess the results of the analysis
• determine a reference for the performance of new technologies
Result description
Fig. 4 below depicts the concept principles of the Retrofit assessment and analysis model. The model calculates the ship energy needs at various ship operational modes (transit, manoeuvring) and, using the ship systems’ behaviour (characteristics) provides fuel consumption/emission figures. These figures are further used to claculate the ship overall costs corresponding to the particular ship physical model and energy needs.

Fig. 4: Retrofit assessment/analysis model concept
Fig. 5 shows a schemativ overview of the simulation platform that was developed in RETROFIT to execute the assessment and analysis work. The various, already existing components of the simulation paltform are linked into Quaestor, a software environment to develop and use knowledge bases containing computational methods and data such as formula’s, programs, spreadsheets, database, etc. into a consistent knowledge based system.

Fig. 5: Schematic overview of assessment and analysis model

The ship operational profile is split between transit, where large time scales are applicable, and operation in confined waters, where a shorter time scale is required to capture the details of the physical process.
Simulation in transit condition: this is done with two different tools:
• GULLIVER (MARIN) is a simulation tool that uses hind cast weather and wave data to calculate a ship behaviour in a seaway.
• GES (TN) is a dedicated schematic description of the complete energy household on-board a ship. It contains different models for the ship engines and machinery that uses energy or produces emissions.
Simulation in confined waters: this is again done with two different tools
• Scylla (MARIN) is the GULLIVER “equivalent” for manoeuvring in confined waters.
• Tools (Delft University) to simulate the behaviour of the ship engine during manoeuvring: a generic dynamic diesel engine model and models of all the components using energy or producing emissions.
Economic performance analysis: see economic assessment model
Envisaged exploitation use
Ship owners and shipyards will be able to assess the impact of green technologies on a ship energy and emission performance prior to and after retrofitting before decisions on costly investments are taken.

1.3.3 Economic assessment model
Source/reference Work Package 1, Deliverable D1.2 D1.3
Name Economic assessment model
Application domain Economic assessment of retrofitting alternatives
Result type Report, models, Excel tool
IP-owner Delft University, Antwerp University
Challenge/question Acquire the ability to assess the economic performance of ships retrofitted with green technologies considering:
• Internal costs
• External costs (i.e. societal costs)
Result description

Fig. 6: Retrofit Economic model

The economic model developed in project Retrofit (see Fig. 6 above) introduces a new concept in evaluating the economic performance of ships. The new concept takes into account the (negative) impact of emissions. The total ship operational costs are therefore:
• the direct costs for the ship owner, and
• the hidden environmental costs (costs to society)

The economic model contains two components (Fig. 6):
• A micro-economic (sub) model that calculates the freight rate required to cover all costs including and excluding the external costs for a given ship and given a service profile
• A macro-economic (sub) model, also called aggregated model, calculates the impact of the proposed green technology measures with different penetration ratio’s in the market, for (example) the whole European RORO market.
See Fig. 7 for the criteria used to assess the economic impact of various (green) technologies.

Fig. 7: Assessment criteria for comparing technologies
Envisaged exploitation use
The developed economic model enables to calculate the micro-economic and the macro-economic performance of ships retrofitted with green technologies. The micro-economic model represents the direct costs to the ship owner and may or may not indicate a better economic performance with respect to the initial situation. The macro-economic model represents the costs to society and may or may not indicate a preference for an investment from the societal point of view.

1.3.4 Design for retrofit
Source/reference Work Package 2, Deliverable D2.2
Name Design for retrofit
Application domain Ship design process anticipating on future retrofitting needs
Result type Report, model, computer tool
IP-owner Delft University
Challenge/question The challenge is to introduce retrofitting provision for space, weight, accessibility and technology matching within a ship design that will facilitate low cost and short retrofitting lead time in the future.
Result description
A concept “Map of retrofitting ability” and corresponding retrofittability principles were devised using relevant design methodologies that could support a design-for-retrofitting approaches, and practical knowledge from experts. The same Map was used to define a “Retrofit Penalty Indicator (RPI)”, in fact a measure of merit for retrofittability determined by three indicators:
• Ease of Handling
• Transportation path for equipment in-and-out
• Required number of handlings.

Fig. 8: Concept Map of Retrofit ability:
input for the technical specification of the Retrofit Penalty Indicator
Fig. 8 shows that the Retrofit ability of a design is mainly determined by the effect the layout and engineering details have on the required retrofit actions. The costs of these retrofit actions are driven by the ease of handling components, the allowed transportation paths for equipment in-and-out and the required number of handlings.
To consolidate the defined concept of retrofit ability a tool was developed and used in a demonstrator addressing the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales. The input and output of the tools are show in Fig. 9. The demonstrator addressed the main engine room of the case ship: an alternative configuration of the engine room showing the impact of the design-for-retrofitting approach on the ship design solution was created.

Fig. 9: Input and Output of the Design for Retrofit ability Tool
Recommendations for future developers of Design-for-Retrofit tools are difficult to make. A Design-for-Retrofit evaluation has to cover aspects that are prone to uncertainty to such an extent that the bandwidth of predicted values is far too large to draw any conclusions yet. What is promising though, is that application of DFR principles shows potential benefits for future Retrofits and other Maintenance and Repair Scenarios. The feasibility of such redesigns can only be tested in a further advanced stage of design and engineering.
Envisaged exploitation use
The defined retrofit penalty indicator can be used to assess the retrofitability of a ship design but can also be used to assess the effectiveness of a ship design with regard to assembly, maintainability & reparability. The developed concept retrofit ability tool requires further definition and development work before application in commercial design processes.

1.3.5 Regulatory Framework to Implement the RETROFIT solutions
Source/reference Work Package 2, Deliverable D2.4
Name Regulatory Framework to Implement the RETROFIT solutions
Application domain Regulatory framework for stimulating green retrofitting of ships
Result type Report
IP-owner NMTF, Delft University, University of Antwerp
Challenge/question What incentives could be useful to stimulate the introduction of green technologies in existing ships, in particular regarding the reducing of CO2 emissions.
Result description

Fig. 10: List of proposed incentives
Financial stimulation with no negative or a small direct negative economic effect could be helpful
to achieve the CO2 objectives of the European Community. The proposed framework is based on solutions investigated and proposed in Retrofit for possible European regulations aiming to limit harmful emissions from (existing) ships calling European ports. The complete list of proposed incentives by a group of stakeholder experts in shown in Fig. 10. Five incentives are of interest to evaluate in more detail. These incentives are:
1. Clean fuels are cheaper / dirty fuels more expensive;
2. Emission taxes (CO2);
3. Bonus for emission reduction measures amounting societal costs;
4. Fiscal benefits for shippers using dedicated green ships;
5. Realistic penalties.
Envisaged exploitation use
The rules and regulations planned by IMO and corresponding governments are mainly meant to introduce emission reducing requirements and measures for new ships. The proposed list of incentives can be used to develop international and/or state regulatory frameworks to stimulate the retrofitting of ships with green technologies.

1.3.6 Short list of green technologies
Source/reference Work Package 3, Deliverable D3.1 D3.2
Name Short list of green technologies
Application domain Selection of green technologies for green retrofitting of ships
Result type Report
IP-owner Wärtsilä NL
Challenge/question How to select/evaluate green technologies for ship retrofitting
Result description
A list of evaluated green technologies regarding Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and suitable for retrofitting. The list is structured according to the following green technology categories:
• Energy sources – main
• Main engines – configuration
• Main engines – improvements
• Generators
• Auxiliary systems • Operation and maintenance
• Reduction of Nox
• Reduction of Sox
• Reduction of CO2
• Other environmental techniques
Selection criteria were:
• TRL (Technology Readiness Level)
• Years to industrialisation (market uptake)
• Fit for retrofit
• Fit in the scope of the project
• Various IMO references such as energy saving potential
• Emission mitigation potential for Nox, Sox, CO2 and PM
The final (short) list in shown in Fig. 11 below.
Envisaged exploitation use
It is important to notice that the list represents the state of the art anno 2011-2013. The list is therefore primarily a reference for identifying types of green technologies that could be used for ship green retrofitting. For example, it identifies SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction) technology for Nox emission reduction but the emission reduction potential represents the 2011-2013 state-of-the-art. Though the list is useful to explore retrofit options and possible combinations of technologies.

Fig. 11: Green technologies list

1.3.7 Retrofit technology combinations
Source/reference Work Package 3, Deliverable D3.2 D3.3
Name Retrofit technology combinations
Application domain Combination of technologies for green retrofitting of ships
Result type Report
IP-owner Wärtsilä NL
Challenge/question Given a specific ship type and service profile, the challenge is to identify suitable green technologies that could be profitably integrated into the existing ship configuration. These green technologies, either combined or in stand-alone configuration are called “combi’s”.
Result description
Clarification: the project result outlined below concerns the project case ship, a RORO vessel of 10 000 TDW measuring 209 x 26,5 m. The selected technology combi’s are therefore tailored to the ship specifics and the corresponding service profile, and might not be applicable to other ships of the same type. Though, the followed retrofitting strategy can be used in a wider context for similar ships and even for ships of a different type. The main message is that, retrofitting must consider a variety of technical, economic and regulatory aspects before selecting green technologies for retrofitting the particular ships.
The project case ship drive system is depicted in Fig. 12 below.
Main drive: 4 x MAN B&W Diesel 9L 48/60 B
Power 10800 kW
Speed 500 rpm
Cylinders: 9 Bore 480 mm Stroke 600 mm
SFOC 176 g/kWh
Turbo TCA 66
Main generators 3 x MAN L21/31
Power 1635 kW
Generator power (Leroy Somer) 2044 kVA
Speed 1000 rpm
Harbour + emergency generators: 2 x MAN D 2842 LE201 (not used in normal operations)
Power 430 kW
Generator power 538 kVA
Speed 1000 rpm
Fig. 12: Drive system of the project case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales
The selected green technology (combi’s) fitting the project case ship, are:

Selected green technology Configuration Green technology type
• Dual-fuel engine (LNG / Diesel) 1 + 2 Energy sources
• Cold Ironing (harbour supply - LNG generator) 3 Engine configuration
• Generators on PTO with variable speed 4 Engine configuration
• Scrubbing (SOx) 5 Sox reduction
• Solar 6 Energy sources
• Electric – Battery for harbour usage 7 Energy sources
• Decision Support Systems - trim advice 8 Operation & Maintenance

Fig. 13 below depicts a model outlining the project approach to retrofitting of the case ship.

Fig. 13: The project retrofit strategy for the case ship
A more detailed description of the selected green technologies and the motivation is given below.
Measures on Energy source
• Dual-fuel (DF) engine (LNG / Diesel) – selected in configuration 1 and 2.
LNG is an upcoming fuel in shipping, not as the main fuel but as one of the marine fuels of the future. DF engines are chosen because of the ability to use either liquid fuel or gas fuel, giving more flexibility in operation and also in design. The on-board LNG amount depends on the fuel use and the bunkering options. Improvements that can be achieved with DF engines are on both exhaust and fuel cost. Important considerations to implement DF engines are:
o The bunkering infrastructure
o LNG bunkering prices
o Operation area: ECA zone
• Solar energy selected in configuration 6.
This technology has a low power density and has only a small impact on the total fuel cost. However this technology is selected because:
o The ROI is reasonable.
o Big area required but not very complex. Proven technology.
o The green image of the solar panels is important for the owner
• Electric – Battery for harbour usage selected in configuration 7.
This configuration could be interesting for two reasons:
o Reduces harbour emissions
o Load batteries with main engines running on HFO and better efficiency and save running generators on MDO with lower efficiency
Measures on engine configuration
• Cold Ironing (harbour supply - LNG generator) selected in configuration 3.
This technology enables to reduce emissions in harbours. The LNG generator on harbour side is a realistic solution where the LNG generator could be on shore or on a barge. The barge solution is momentary being built in Hamburg.
• Generators on PTO with variable speed is selected in configuration 4.
This option is used on the PTO of the main engines. This technology is fuel saving and therefore reduces emissions and cost. Two reasons for efficiency improvement:
o Improvement of the efficiency of the main engines
o Make use of the better efficiency of the main engines compared to the generators
Operations and Maintenance
• Decision Support Systems - trim advice – selected in configuration 8.
Trim influences the hull resistance and hence the fuel consumption. Trim control can be achieved by critically looking at the positioning of the cargo and of the ballast water. A trim monitoring system will help decide on the optimum cargo positioning and on the use of ballast water. This technology is actually installed on the case ship.
Sox reduction
• Measures on Reduction of Sox were selected in configuration 5.
Reduction of SOx is important within ECA zones. The Emission Control Area (ECA) for SOx in Europe is in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. It is expected that also the Mediterranean Sea will be within the ECA. An exhaust-gas scrubbing system can reduce the level of sulphur dioxide (SO2). Various principles exist, such as Dry scrubbers and Wet scrubbers with applications for various ship service profiles.
Envisaged exploitation use
The followed methodology can be used in a wider context for similar ships and even for ships of a different type. The main message is that, retrofitting must consider a variety of technical, economic and regulatory aspects before selecting green technologies for retrofitting the particular ships.

1.3.8 Decision Support System
Source/reference Work Package 3, Deliverable D3.4 D3.5
Name Decision Support System
Application domain Emission control and energy optimization over the entire service profile by optimising the ship trim
Result type Report
IP-owner Imtech Marine
Challenge/question How to monitoring and manage the retrofitted ship energy and emission performance, using the project case ship as full scale demonstrator.
Result description
A Decision Support System (DSS) is a computer-based information system that supports decision-making activities, see a simple DSS representation in the adjacent figure. The maritime market uses a large variety of DSSs with functionalities that vary

from simple showing monitored data to advanced advisory systems that use current, wind and wave forecasts to statistically deduce the best route given a variety of operational desires and constraints. Following discussions with the case ship owner (project partner Acciona Trasmediterranea), a choice was made to develop and test at full scale a prototype DSS Trim Control as a primary means for emission control and energy saving. A concept for the DSS Trim model is shown in Fig. 14 below.

Fig. 14: Concept Trim Decision Support System model

The hardware architecture of the prototype DSS is shown in Fig. 15.
The installed prototype DSS architecture is shown in Fig. 16.

Fig 15: Hardware architecture

Fig. 16: Installed prototype DSS architecture

Envisaged exploitation use
The prototype system was installed on-board the project case ship for operational tests and planned to end by April 2015. Experiences with the prototype DSS will be discussed by experts from project Retrofit partners Imtech Marine and Acciona Trasmediterranea. Follow-up options include the continuation of operational tests that could lead to further upgrading of the prototype DSS towards TRL (Technology Readiness Level) 8 and commercialisation.

1.3.9 Tool for retrofit process simulation and planning
Source/reference Work Package 4, Deliverable D4.1 D4.3
Name Tool for retrofit process simulation and planning
Application domain Shipyard retrofit processes
Result type Software tool
IP-owner CMT
Challenge/question The challenge is, to minimise the duration of the ship retrofitting lead time at the shipyard.
Result description
Retrofitting lead time is determined by the duration of dis-assembly and assembly processes at the shipyard. Simulation tools can help to find the optimal process sequence with optimal use of shipyard resources. In Retrofit a planning/simulation tool was developed that:
In Stage 1: Data management tool anteSim can be used for rough planning, especially in an early stage when little input information is available. AnteSim contains templates and libraries for generating missing data and functions for editing planning data. AnteSim is:
• A user-friendly interface supporting
Fig 17: Software concept
management of data relevant for retrofit planning
• Typical activities can be predefined in a in a process pattern library.
• When planning a retrofit, the required activities will be defined and budgeted by using and parameterizing process patterns
In Stage 2: Simulation toolkit STS for assessment of manufacturing and logistic processes on a detailed level(including e. g. transport processes). Further STS provides detailed statistics and analyses of results. STS requires considerable efforts and skills to prepare the simulation model and the input data. With STS:
• The total lead time can be determined using material flow simulation using Plant Simulation.
• The information defined in anteSim can be directly used as input data for the simulation.
• Simulating several scenarios, e. g. different availability of resources, can help assessing the robustness of the plan.
• Based on a set of simulation runs done with varied model parameters, statistical process models can be obtained.
• Statistical process models can serve for parameter optimisation, e. g. for achieving a trade-off between short lead time and not using more workers than necessary.
• Statistical models can be used for cost optimisation as well.
Fig. 17 depicts the software concept of the simulation tool developed in Retrofit.
Fig. 18 depicts the overall tool model, and includes an example of the simulation tool output: an utilisation chart for shipyard steel workers.

Fig 18: Overall model of the developed planning/simulation tool with
resulting utilisation chart of steel workers
Envisaged exploitation use
The developed tool can be used in early phases of negotiation between a ship owner and a shipyard to obtain a rough estimate of the resources needed and of the process lead time. In a more advanced negotiation various process alternatives can be simulated and a more accurate planning can be made. The tool is being demonstrated to repair & retrofit shipyards.

1.3.10 Reverse engineering technology
Source/reference Work Package 4, Deliverable D4.2 D4.3
Name Reverse engineering technology
Application domain Ship retrofitting and ship repair processes
Result type Software
IP-owner Imawis
Challenge/question A governing condition in retrofitting is the availability of complete, correct and timely provided product information. Often such product information is missing or is not complete or not available in a suitable form. The challenge here is, to create the necessary or missing information on the basis of the full scale product, the retrofit candidate ship.
Result description
Reverse engineering is a viable method to create a 3D virtual model of an existing physical part for use in 3D CAD, CAM, CAE or other software. The reverse-engineering process involves measuring an object and then reconstructing it as a 3D model. The physical object can be measured using various technologies like laser scanners, structured light digitizers, digital photogrammetry or computed tomography. The used measuring method depends on the in-situ conditions such as accessibility, space and light. In project Retrofit photogrammetry and photo-modelling were used to acquire geometrical data of equipment and pipe pieces and transform the measurements into CAD-models.
Fig 19 depicts a procedure for acquiring and processing of geometrical data. .
Fig. 19: Reverse engineering procedure

Fig. 19a: Pipe system in ER Fig. 19b: Measured cylinders of the pipe system 19c: Modelled pipe system
Envisaged exploitation use
The developed procedure and the tested tools can be used in retrofitting processes where essential product information is missing. The demonstrated technology allows to build CAD-models that can be used for engineering purposes. Building a complete product model will require specialised skills and involve several measurement technologies.

Potential Impact:
1.4 POTENTIAL IMPACT

1.4.1 Introduction
FP7 call 2011 Activity 7. 2. 1 (The greening of surface transport) Area 7.2.1.1 (The greening of products and operations) mentions the following expected impacts that are relevant for Retrofit:
A. Contribution to CO2 reduction emissions from surface transport operations aligned with new policy targets as set out in the Climate and Renewable Energy Package of 2009. In the short to medium term (before 2020) reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 10% compared to 1990 levels. Beyond 2050, reducing greenhouse gas emissions through domestic and complementary international efforts by 25 to 40% by 2020 and by 80 to 95% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels.

B. Increased share of renewable energy (bio-fuels, renewable electricity) as alternative to hydrocarbon fuels in transport applications, for renewable energy the aim will be to arrive at a 10% in transport by 2020.

C. Introduction of hydrogen and fuel cell technology in surface transport applications by 2020 as an economic, safe and reliable alternative to conventional engines.

D. At least a neutral impact on climate change.

Project Retrofit reviewed an extensive list of green technologies (deliverable D3.1) and green technology combinations for the project case ship. For each technology the potential impact regarding energy saving and emission reduction (SOx, NOx, CO2, PM), and the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) were mentioned. The potential impact depends however on the extent to which the technology can be used in an existing ship, and on the economic aspects of retrofitting the ship specific green technologies.
Retrofit assessed the impact of 7 selected technology configurations (ref. D3.3) for the case ship:
A. From the technical point of view i.e. energy and emissions
B. From the economic point of view i.e. regarding the direct and the societal costs.

The seven selected technology configurations were:
• Configuration 1 - LNG fuel for two main engines
• Configuration 2 - LNG fuel for two generators
• Configuration 3 – Electric cold ironing – using LNG generator
• Configuration 4 – Maximise use of PTO on main engines
• Configuration 5 – Use scrubber to reduce SOx emissions
• Configuration 6 – Solar power
• Configuration 7 – Batteries for harbour use
• Configuration 8 – Trim adjustment

For configurations 1-2 and 4-7 a complete voyage simulation was executed for transit (9 years of sailing) and harbour (simplified model) conditions to determine the technical and economic impact of each configuration with respect to the as-built case ship.

The wider societal implications were addressed in Retrofit task T2.4 (deliverable D2.4) where a (maritime) stakeholders’ consultation was held to discuss incentives to ship owners investing in green technologies.

1.4.2 Retrofit technical impact
Fig. 20 below shows the impact of the various green technology combinations on emissions. The positive values show the “savings”, the negative values show an increase with respect to the case ship “as built”. Fig. 20 shows that, the LNG configurations result in reducing SO2, CO2, NOx and PM emissions while the scrubber reduces SO2 emissions only.

HFO MDO LNG SO2 CO2 NOx HC CO PM
ton ton ton ton*100 ton ton*100 ton*100 ton*100 ton*100
config 0 As built 421 51 0 1593 1461 2845 311 286 136
config 1 LNG ME 122 51 217 459 1150 1360 546 826 52
Savings 71% 0% 71% 21% 52% -76% -189% 62%
config 2 LNG AE 421 1 39 1584 1411 2605 384 337 127
Savings 0% 98% 1% 3% 8% -23% -18% 7%
config 4 Max PTO 479 0 0 1800 1478 2907 342 316 146
Savings -14% 100% -13% -1% -2% -10% -10% -7%
config 5 Scrubber 431 54 0 182 1500 2939 319 293 139
Savings -2% -6% 89% -3% -3% -3% -2% -2%
config 6 Solar 421 49 0 1593 1457 2837 311 286 136
Savings 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
config 7 Batteries 421 62 0 1595 1496 2900 313 288 138
Savings 0% -22% 0% -2% -2% -1% -1% -1%

Saving/reduction Increase No change
Fig. 20: The impact of Retrofit green technologies for the case ship,
transit condition (9 years of sailing)

1.4.3 Retrofit economic impact
In general, the impacts of a retrofit solution can be defined with several variables.
• For the shipping company introducing a retrofit solution, the variables are:
o ∆Rp : change in the private revenues as a result of green technology innovation
o ∆Cp: change in private costs as a result of green technology innovation\
• For society, as a result of introducing a retrofit solution, the variables are:
o ∆Bs : change in societal benefit as a result of green technology innovation
o ∆Cs: change in societal costs as a result of green technology innovation\

The economic impact of green technology configurations addresses two types of costs/benefits:
• Direct impacts: refer to the ones that the shipping companies, introducing a green retrofit solution, would experience. The reference or “business as usual” situation equals ΔRp = 0, ΔCp = 0, ΔBs = 0 and ΔCs = 0, while the introduction of a retrofit solution for a shipping company is associated with a certain cost ΔCp, which in turn is compensated for by the financial benefits ΔRp that the retrofit solution brings. For each individual retrofit solution those costs differ due to the technological characteristics of the retrofit solution.
• External impacts: refer to the costs or benefits imposed on others that are not taken into account by the person taking the action. In the context of ship retrofitting, an increase of social benefit, for example, could be related to the reduction of harmful air emissions.
The impacts of introducing of a ship retrofit solution for the shipping company would therefore be ΔRp – ΔCp, and the impacts for society ΔBs - and ΔCs.
To calculate the overall impact the economic model and the impact assessment criteria outlined in par. 1.3.3 were developed. Fig. 21 shows graphically the obtained technology impact assessment index with average values for each technology. The value for each of the performance characteristics is marked on the corresponding axis, creating triangles that characterize the performance of each technological option. Fig. 21 also shows which of the tested technology options are best for achieving specific policy targets, and which have the best overall performance.
The technologies or approaches that have the best performance are those with the largest triangle areas, like speed reduction in this case. The shape of the triangle describes in which of the performance areas the technology gives best results. The quantitative figures behind the radar diagram are given in Fig. 22.
1. LNG fuel for main engines

2. LNG fuel for generators

4. Maximise use of PTO on main engines

5. Use scrubber to reduce SOx emissions
6. Solar power

7. Batteries for harbour use

Fig. 21: Retrofit technology configurations’ impact assessment

economy energy emissions
LNG fuel for two main engines 0,72 0,71 0,94
Configuration 2 - LNG fuel for two generators 0,99 0,15 0,83
Configuration 5 – Use scrubber to reduce SOx emissions 0,33 0,56 0,28
Configuration 4 – Maximise use of PTO on main engines 0,91 0,04 0,82
Configuration 6 – Solar power 0,99 0,13 0,83
Configuration 7 – Batteries for harbour use 0,92 0,13 0,83
Fig. 22: Performance comparison of the technology configurations

For comparison of the technologies, the values of the technology assessment index can also be summarized in a spider graph (see Fig. 23). It can be seen that LNG fuel for generators and solar power perform better than other technologies on the economic level and LNG fuel for main engines is with the best emission and energy performance.

Fig. 23: Performance comparison of the green technology configurations

List of Websites:
PROJECT WEBSITE ADDRESS
The project website address is: www.retrofit-project.eu

The contact details of project Retrofit partners are given below

Coordinator Contact Person Phone number Mail address
Netherlands Maritime Technology Foundation Mr. M. Krikke 0031 88 44 51 31
krikke@maritimetechnology.nl
Participants
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek Mr. D. Veen 0031 88 86 64 765
dan.veen@tno.nl
Technische Universiteit Delft Mr. K. Frouws 0031 15 27 86 66 j.w.frouws@tudelft.nl
Center of Maritime Technologies e.V. Mr. M. Krause 0049 69 20 876-33 Krause@cmt-net.org
Wartsila Finland OY Mr. T van Beek 0031 65 37 97 704 Teus.vanBeek@wartsila.com
Stichting Maritiem Research Instituut Nederland Mr. P. Hooijmans 0031 74 93 244 P.M.Hooijmans@Marin.nl
Compania Trasmediterranea SA Mr. J. Manuel Hernandez 0034 77 22 79 58 Josemanuel.fernandez.hernando@acciona.com
IMAWIS Maritime Wirtschaft- und Schiffbauforschung GMBH Mr. D. Lemke 0049 38 12 10 45 511 Detlef.lemke@imawis.com
Damen Shiprepair Vlissingen Mr. T. Kloosterman 0031 11 84 83 044 tk@akanchorchain.nl
MARLO AS Mr. J.T. Pedersen 0047 95 07 80 65 jantp@marlo.no

Vicus Desarrollos Tecnologicos S.L. Ms. V. Ruiz 0034 88 61 13 547 v.ruiz@vicusdt.com

Universiteit Antwerpen Ms. C. Sys 0032 32 65 41 56 christa.sys@uaantwerpen.be
Imtech Marine Mr. R. Nuijten 0031 10 48 71 540 Rene.Nuijten@imtechmarine.com

Final Report Summary - RETROFIT (RETROFITting ships with new technologies for improved overall environmental footprint)

Related documents

Share this page

Download