Energy Efficiency Design Index

Good day everyone,
I am an M.Sc student at Chalmers University, studying Naval Architecture. Soon I am going to start my thesis. The thesis is related to the Energy Efficiency Design Index. I need some help from the experts regarding some questions. And, all types of suggestion are most welcome. The questions are as following:
1. Where do IMO, EU and others stand regarding development and implementation of different
indexes?
2. What is the likely formulation of indexes?
3. When will they be implemented, and for what part of the shipping fleet?
4. How will the implication affect vessel design and operation?
5. What is the impact on hydrodynamic issues?

Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Manon

 

I would suggest that you identify the type of vessel you will be applying this to first. Different vessel types will have very different design goals.

Essentially, you are looking to minimize a cost function. Unfortunately for you it's a very complex function.

For instance, a racing yacht is all about speed. Production cost is not a big driver, but low weight is. The hull design is for the minimum drag, with sufficient stability, but over a wide range of conditions. The rig, similarly is designed for optimum speed around a typical course. Hence the "Cost function" which depends on all the above is minimised for a particular course.

However, a cargo ship is about transporting your cargo at the best fuel efficiency, whilst maintaining your schedule. This looks like a simpler question, but often there are hydrodynamic tradeoffs in order to fit more cargo in, therefore the optimum vessel is often not the optimum hydrodynamic shape. Hence your cost function could be expressed in terms of fuel consumption and loading, but you will find that there are other terms in there as well.

The rest of your questions are what your thesis is about. You will have to decide what the goal of these energy efficiency indices are, whether in production or through-life. And that will affect how the indices affect the design decisions made.

Hope this helps,

Tim B.

 

Thanks Tim B,
So far I know about EEDI, IMO is going to implement this Index rule for all types of ships, as a criteria. But, the formulation is not still correct for all types of ship. This is why, research for improving the formulation and influence on several types of ship is going on. Do you have any recent journal or research paper regarding this index? Because, than I can actually learn, at what stage the world is standing now, regarding this matter.

Regards, Manon

 

I don't have any other info on this topic. In fact I was not aware that IMO was considering this. That's not surprising, though, since I don't do whole commercial ship design work. When you say IMO are going to implement it as a criteria, a criteria for what?

This sounds like a problem to me, given the number of different types of boat, and the diversity of the designs seen, most of which will have been optimised to some extent, for some specific purpose. The mere idea of developing an index, or a cost function which considers enough to discern anything useful seems ludicrous across such a wide range of operational requirements. Even for one class of vessels it would be hard to formulate a useful index.

I think the use of this "Cost Function" method is in the preliminary design, where you use it to help decide on the principle dimensions.

Best of luck,

Tim B.

 

http://www.cmti.nl/Upload/The_IMO_Energy_Efficiency_Design_Index.pdf

http://www.bairdmaritime.com/index....index-&catid=76:marine-environment&Itemid=212

I think, the above two links will help some basics about EEDI, and IMO ibjectives.

 

Hm....

I thing You could derive a formula that would include all types of ships, but then You would have to give some coefficients regarding which goal is most important for Your design. For an example...

AX+BY=C

if x represents hydrodynamic performace, resistance.... ,
and y represents comfort.

Then for a racing yacht x would be larger (let's say 0.9, and y is 0.1)
Thus for a pleasure yacht is the opposite.

Just an idea...

 

The CMTI conclusions make interesting reading, don't they.

Tim B.

 

What a nightmare. I took their formula apart to the extent that I convinced myself it made no sense to me and then quit. Lets start with some basic observations- and a very different viewpoint than the creators of that model-

From society's perspective, transportation has no "benefit" at all. One segment gains a commodity and another segment looses it. It does however have costs- it removes the commodity's availability for a time. And there are direct expenses of operations that can be expressed as costs in varying ways. And there is the collateral damage of these operations, costs not born by the operator, provider,or purchaser of the stuff.

You cannot do a cost/benefit calc because benefit=0. You can jigger the costs around plenty.

If CO2 is the issue, you can create partial differential equations with respect to opportunity cost, operational cost, and cost to society that are quite general in nature. Each of these would act on a function-
Opportunity cost would be f(1/speed,cost of production at the time of lading,etc).
Operational cost would be f(tonnage, vessel type, speed, etc).
societal cost would be f(gCO2,risks,etc).

You have a set of functions for different goods, different vessels (and routes), and different societal models. The goal here would be to study the problem and apportion the CO2 production (emission, tradeables, etc) to changes in the underlying variables such that you get good correlation within the existing fleet.

nothing here that Mathmatica's integrator can't handle in your sleep.

I can't help but wonder if this has something to due with carbon credits trading. That also has no benefit to society.

Sorry for the incomplete thought- I have to run now

 

I was a bit worried by my hasty post above, but I've had a chance to look a bit closer, and it still looks like crap to me. There's quite a bit of analysis of the formula available on the web and basically you have a guy who can't build a decent hammer trying to get the watchmakers to do a better job. The reason the fleet in the study shows such startlingly poor correlation to the index is because the factors the index includes are garbled in form and the factors it doesn't include are where most of the owners' discretionary freedom lie. I seriously hope the NAs out there don't ever have to justify themselves with respect to such a poorly contrived index.

 

http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environm...hnical and operational reduction measures.pdf

Well, there has been lots of criticism about the formulation and the implementation of this index. But, what exactly IMO is thinking? Read the point 2.8-2.10 in the above document. It was published in 2009, and right now I dont know about the further development. In the point 2.8 it is said that, The EEDI is expected to be made mandatory for new ships on completion of this improvement work, most probably by 2010. So, what is the situation now?
According to point 2.10, my work will be started on. But, right now, I am more or less in blackout.

 

What is your thesis about. The above doesn't give us much to go on.

 

The questions, that have been made in the first post above, can be considered as major task for me, but all the questions are concentrated to the 5th. Right now, what I am seeking, some relevant documents, information, links, expert person, research works or any kind of suggestion that helps me with the project.

 

Society does benefit when goods are transported if the parties sending and receiving the goods are better off.

Let's say I have food and need lumber to build a house, and you have lumber but need food to eat. If we swap food and lumber then we're both better off, and the swap wouldn't happen without transportation.

Now the question can arise as to whether this particular swap is the best one which could have been arranged. Perhaps there is some closer to you who needs lumber and has food. Then it might be better if you swapped with the other person. But more than distance needs to be considered. What if you and I can swap goods withyou by water transportation but for you to swap with the other person requires transportation by truck over mountain roads? Then the answer may not be so obvious.

 

dcockey

the key word is "IF"

The important distinction here lies in discriminating between what the future will be and what the present expectations of the future are. The decision to engage in trade of commodities is based on the expectations. Models can be vetted if the expectations are explicit. they cannot be vetted if they actually depend on the future to already be in a certain state when they arrive. When you stick to the present time frame and only the data that can be vetted, the value of the trade is a pure assumption. In the context of reducing CO2, I see no reason to assign a specific value to it. Let us assume instead that we don't care about any future gains that might be realized by the trading parties and they don't care about the costs they externalize. You can extend the model to include these terms if you want to, but it will be easier to construct one without at first.

When you assign a value to an assumption at the start, you risk developing a model that cannot be evaluated at other assumption-values later on. Bureaucrats loathe anyone who challenges their assumptions and their models reflect this. This how concepts such as trade having an intrinsic value come into being. In the proposed index, it does not have a specific value, but it is assumed to be always positive and PROPORTIONAL TO BOAT VELOCITY. WTF?

 

just answered my own question regarding the Norway study-

Appendix 5
Summary of the proposal submitted by Norway to MEPC 60 on a Further outline of a Global Emission Trading System (ETS) for International Shipping (MEPC 60/4/22)

http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environm...ion/Documents/Summary of MBM-EG proposals.pdf