The Environmentally Friendly Ship, 28 - 29 February 2012, London, UK

FUEL CONSUMPTION AND AIR EMISSIONS PREDICTION BY ENERGY FLOW MODELING ONBOARD SHIPS: APPLICATION ON A MODERN BULK CARRIER SHIP
K. Chatzitolios, Bureau Veritas, France M. Claudepierre, Bureau Veritas, France A. Leblanc, Bureau Veritas, France SUMMARY Energy efficiency and air pollution prevention are the two main driving forces for future ship designs. A number of solutions for reducing fuel oil consumption and air emissions are presented in the paper and a possible ranking of energy saving measures and NOx reduction measures is proposed. The challenge that is faced by designers today is to optimally combine some of these measures in order to obtain a fuel efficient and environmentally friendly ship. With this in mind, Bureau Veritas has developed a ship modeling platform (SEECAT) to effectively simulate the different energy systems (diesel engines, propulsion system, steam production, cooling system, waste heat recovery etc.) and the energy transformations shared between them (fuel, heat, steam, mechanical power). The simulation is performed in time domain according to a pre-selected operational profile allowing for real time monitoring of fuel consumption and of CO2, NOx and SOx emissions. The methodology of component-oriented modeling is described in this paper and the energy model of a bulk carrier is presented. The results of comparative simulations for the given model are analyzed and the potential uses of energy flow simulation in the optimization of ship design are also discussed. 1. 1.1 INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 1.3 POLLUTANT EMISSIONS REGULATIONS IN THE MARINE INDUSTRY

The requirements for the environmental performance of a ship are wider than the objectives of just CO2 reduction. The scope of emissions reduction shall also embrace the existing and forthcoming environmental regulations, including the additional environmental requirements for NOx, SOx and PM emissions. 1.2 EXHAUST GAS EMISSIONS FROM TYPICAL MARINE DIESEL ENGINE A

International regulations have been put in place for the shipping industry by the United Nations, in order to offer a consistent scheme to the Maritime community. The United Nations Marine Branch, the International Maritime Organization, has encompassed the pollutant and GHG regulations in the Annex VI of the MARPOL 73/78, which stipulate the regulation for the exhaust gas emissions (NOx, SOx, PM and CO2). Since July 2011, the consolidated MARPOL has included in Annex VI, additional regulations on CO2, under the name: Regulations on Energy Efficiency for Ships. These new regulations, described later on the paper, will enter into force for new and existing ships on the first of January 2013. Other regulations on emissions reduction include, amongst others, the EC Directive 2005(33), California Air Resources Board (CARB), EPA, and local jurisdictions such as Port Administrations. 1.4 NOx EMISSIONS LIMITS (IMO)

Marine diesel engine exhaust gases contain oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide (CO2) which are produced from the combination of fuel with the oxygen during combustion. They also contain water vapour form reaction between the hydrogen in the fuel and the oxygen in the scavenge air and carbon monoxide (CO) produced by the incomplete combustion of the fuel. There is also sulphur dioxide (SO2), generated by the reaction of sulphur present in the fuel and oxygen, and nitrogen oxides (NOx), produced during the combustion process at high temperature between nitrogen and oxygen. Some hydrocarbons and volatile organic vapours are also present in small quantities as a result of imperfect combustion. The exhausts gases of a typical marine diesel engine contain also a mixture of solids carbons, soot, ash, heavy metals, precipitated sulphur oxides, corrosion particles and partially combusted hydrocarbon from fuel and lubricating oil. These derivatives are all classed as Particle Matters (PM).

The Annex VI provides a step by step approach to reduce the emissions of NOx in a three Tiers approach1. The original emission limit is referred to as Tier I, the current is the Tier II which entered into force in 2011 while the third, Tier III, will be introduced in 2016. The NOx limits of Regulation 13 of MARPOL Annex VI for the three Tiers are given in Table 1.

Applicable to all Diesel engines with a power output greater than 130kW but excluding engines used in emergency situations.

2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

The Environmentally Friendly Ship, 28 - 29 February 2012, London, UK

Table 1: IMO NOx limits. Tier Date NOx limit (g/kWh) N<130 Tier I Tier II Tier III (For ECA) 1.5 2000 2011 2016 17.0 14.4 3.4 130<N<2000 2000<N 45. N0.2 44. N0.23 9. N0.2 9.8 7.7 1.96

1.7

EMISSIONS LIMITS AND CO2 MONITORING INSTRUMENTS (IMO)

1.7 (a) Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) For New Ships The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) is an energy performance indicator developed by the IMO. It computes the CO2 emissions of a new ship relative to its transport work in gCO2/(t.nm), at design speed and in the fully loaded condition. The EEDI can be seen as a ratio between the environmental burden caused to the society for the benefit achieved by means of transport goods. 1.7 (b) Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for all Ships

SOx EMISSIONS LIMITS

The respective SOx limits for sailing in general areas and in SECA (SOx Emission Control Areas) are given in the table below in m/m (mass per mass) Table 2: IMO SOx limits. IMO ECA Date Global limits limits Today 1 January 2015 1st January 2020*
st

EU ports

California (< 24 nm)

3.50 % 3.50 % 0.5%

1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

The SEEMP is an Energy Management instrument for planning, monitoring and potentially improving the ship (or fleet) efficiency performance over time. It encourages the stake holders, at different stages of the plan, to adopt efficient operational practices and energy saving devices for optimizing the energy efficiency of existing ships and new ships and for reducing CO2 emissions. 1.7 (c) Energy Efficiency Operational Index (EEOI) for all Ships The concept behind the EEOI is to propose a performance indicator for the energy efficiency monitoring of a ship in operation, in the form also of CO2 emissions per unit of transport work. The EEOI can be used advantageously in the SEEMP to trace and monitor the energy efficiency improvement obtained over time during the operation of the ship. For the EEOI calculation, the following parameters are to be recorded: 1. 2. Fuel consumption, FC, which is defined as all fuel consumed at sea and in port or for a voyage. Distance sailed which means the actual distance sailed in nautical miles for the voyage2 or period in question. The distance travelled should be calculated by actual distance travelled, as contained in the ships log-book. Amount and type of fuel(s) used which are to be measured or extracted from bunker delivery notes and distance travelled should be according to the ships log-book

* Subject to review in 2018

These limits can be met either by the use of appropriate fuels (with lower sulphur content) or alternatively by using emission abatement devices in which case HFO can still be used in the engines. The European Union is also limiting to 1.5% by mass, the sulphur content of marine fuels used by passenger vessels on regular services to or from any port in the Union. Alternatively, ships are allowed to use an approved emission abatement technology, provided that these ships continuously achieve emission reductions. 1.6 PM REDUCTION TARGETS (IMO)

PM ash components are significantly reduced when the sulphur content of fuel is below 1%. Sulphates and associated water are correlated to the amount of sulphur in the fuel and the same for elemental carbons. Thus it is recognised that a reduction of sulphur content generates a reduction of PM by almost the same ratio.
2

3.

Voyage generally means the period between a departure from a port to the departure from the next port. Ballast voyages, as well as voyages which are not used for transport of cargo, such as voyage for docking service, should also be included. The distance travelled should be calculated by actual distance travelled, as contained in the ships log-book.

2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

The Environmentally Friendly Ship, 28 - 29 February 2012, London, UK

In order to simplify the administrative tasks for crews, it is recommended that the monitoring of the ships EEOI should be carried out by shore staff, utilizing data obtained from existing required records such as the official log-books and oil record books. The basic expression of the EEOI for a voyage is given below:

period where gases are at their highest temperatures and minimizing also the concentration of oxygen present initially in the charge air. These measures may include and combine fuel and water emulsion, modification of the charge air such as humidification (HAM), exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and modification of the combustion process such as the Miller timing. Another way to reduce NOx emissions is by post treatment of the exhaust gasses (i.e. selective catalytic reduction). The choice of one technology amongst others will depend on the type of engine (2 strokes or 4 strokes) and the targeted NOx reduction, keeping in mind that the performance of the engine may be also affected resulting in higher CO2 emissions4. 2.2 (a) Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

EEOI =

FC j C Fj m D

(1)

c arg o

When calculating the EEOI for a period or for a number of voyages the following expression may be used:

( FC C ) EEOI =

i i

j
(m
c arg o

ij

Fj

Di )

(2)

Where:

j: is the fuel type i: is the voyage number FCi j: is the mass of consumed fuel j at voyage i CFj3: is the fuel mass to CO2 mass conversion factor for fuel j mcargo: is the cargo carried (tonnes). D: is the distance in nautical miles corresponding to the cargo carried. 2. 2.1 AIR POLLUTANTS MEASURES GENERAL REDUCTION

The principle behind SCR is, as a post treatment method, to inject ammonia (NH3) in the exhaust gases, and drive them on a bed of specific catalytic components, at a specific temperature, in order to combine NOx with NH3 to produce benign nitrogen and water. The amount of ammonia needed depends on the amount of NOx produced and consequently on the engine load. For easier storage and safety, the ammonia can be stored as urea and dissolved in water before use. 2.2 (b) Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) This method is already in use for a while on cars and trucks using 4 stroke Diesel engines. The principle behind EGR is to cool and recirculate part of the exhaust gases, which contain oxygen, water and carbon dioxide. The produced inert gas (water and CO2) will absorb heat during the combustion and increase the heat potential of the cylinder charge, thus reducing the temperature during combustion. Also the reduced oxygen content of the air present in the combustion chamber is also contributing to reduce the combustion temperature and so the NOx combination. The two processes work together to globally decrease the combustion temperature which lowers the produced NOx. However this method needs clean fuels or intermediate scrubbing, in order to avoid potential issues caused by internal cylinder deposits from pollutants included in the recirculated gases. This process may require up to 40% recirculation of the exhaust gas. EGR are claimed from engine manufacturers to reach a NOx level reduction up to 80-90% (some are coupled with a water mist system), thus enabling new generation engines to comply with Tier III requirements.

The following paragraphs list the most common technologies available today for reduction of polluting air emissions and GHGs. It is important to note that a wide approach should be considered when targeting in emissions reduction measures as some solutions for CO2 or NOx reduction technologies may be detrimental to other environmental issues and should in any case not impair the ships safe operation. Therefore before adoption of a given emission reduction device, it is necessary to check if there is a risk of transferring environmental impact from one form to another. 2.2 NOx REDUCTION MEASURES

Emissions of NOx from diesel engines can be reduced by a number of measures, addressing the mitigation of peak combustion temperatures, minimizing the combustion Considered according to IMO MEPC.1/Circ.681, dated 17 August 2009.
3

Generally, the NOx and CO2 emissions are in counter balance, with the decrease of the first leading to the increase of the other and vice versa.

2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

The Environmentally Friendly Ship, 28 - 29 February 2012, London, UK

2.2 (c) Water In Fuel The principle behind the so called wet method of reducing NOx is to add water in the fuel, and to provoke their emulsion. During combustion the water is evaporated and the moisture helps to cool down the combustion chamber. This process is already in use today. If considered as a retrofit measure, its application may require some modifications, as for example the injection pump and the fuel injectors might need to be replaced because for the given power output the amount of injected liquid increases. This process is recognised to be able to reduce NOx emissions up to 30%. 2.2 (d) Humid Air Motor (HAM)

affected by the system and there is a good long term experience with low sulphur fuels. But there is an impact on the fuel consumption, and the system is more complicated compared to Humidification Air Motor. Piston top and injector may be impacted by corrosion with high sulphur fuels (>1.5%). A high NOx reduction level up to 50% is achievable. 2.3 RANKING

In order to class and benchmark the different types of NOx reducing systems the following ranking is proposed. It gives an order of magnitude of potential NOx emissions reduction in percentage. Table 3: NOx rating grades Letter Order of magnitude in NOx reduction A NOx Reduction > 80% (Tier III) B 50%< NOx Reduction < 80% C 20%< NOx Reduction < 50% D NOx Reduction < 20%

The principle is similar as above but with the humidification instead of the scavenge air. This process increases the inert gas fraction heat capacity and lowers the oxygen content. As a result, the combustion is slower and the combustion temperature is reduced. The SFOC is almost unaffected. The total NOx reduction is up to 40%, however this reduction is diminished at full engine load and at low loads. The water consumption is higher than for direct water injection, and very clean water is required in order to avoid fouling and corrosion of charge air compressor and air duct system. Also, the waste heat recovery potential is affected and less cooling water heat is available for the production of clean water. Corrosion can occur in the air duct system with high sulphur fuel (>3%). 2.2 (e) Miller Process The principle behind this method is to close the inlet valve before the piston reaches bottom dead centre. The expansion of the scavenging air in the cylinder generates a lower air temperature. The target is to obtain a lower gas combustion temperature. As already mentioned, the higher the combustion gas temperature, the larger the quantity of generated NOx. The reduction of NOx emissions obtained by the Miller principle is up to 15%20%. 2.2 (f) Direct Water Injection The principle is to inject water directly in the cylinder through a dedicated independent injection system. It enables the engine to receive large amount of water without compromising the power output. Advantages are a low water consumption compared to HAM, and the water quality is less crucial. Also the air duct system can be left unaffected without risk of specific corrosion. The heat recovery potentiality is not

Table 4: Rating of NOx reduction measures NOx emissions reduction devices Potential emission reduction Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) A Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) Water in Fuel Humid Air Motor (HAM) Direct Water Injection (DWI) Miller process 2.4 B CC C+ D

SOx REDUCTION MEASURES

2.4 (a) Scrubber Exhaust-gas scrubbing system can be employed to reduce the level of sulphur dioxide. Two main principles exist: open-loop seawater scrubbers and closed-loop scrubbers. Both scrubber concepts may also remove PM. Scrubbing of exhaust gases requires extra energy estimated between 1 to 2% of the engine nominal power. Particulate matters (PM) which are caught in the seawater have a significant environmental impact if released in the sea. The IMO fix limits and Port State requirements for effluent discharges may also impair the future use of open loop seawater scrubbers. 2.4 (b) Low Sulphur Fuels Low sulphur fuel obtained by blending HFO with diesel fuels is the most effective way to reach the IMO and EU levels without adding expensive and complicated devices. However, the risk of uncertain availability from refineries, high price associated with a need for

2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

The Environmentally Friendly Ship, 28 - 29 February 2012, London, UK

additional installations on-board for low sulphur fuel, and to inject additive for lubrication of the injection pump for example, also using different lube oil for the engine, make this solution not desirable by many. LNG as a fuel is an appropriate solution because of the absence of sulphur emissions. (Sulphur present in the extracted methane is eliminated during the liquefaction process). It has the advantage to produce less GHG emissions than conventional fuels, even though the 22% lower CO2 emissions is reduced to 16 to 20% lower net greenhouse gas emissions due to methane slip (which depends on employed engine technology). 3. GHG REDUCTION METHODS

it should be ascertained that the propulsion plant is free from harmful torsional vibrations throughout the entire operating speed range of the engine. NOx emissions may also be affected. In addition, there are commercial and minimum safe speed considerations which complicate the matter further, but these are out of the scope of this paper. Weather routing systems: are widely used by owners for a long time. It is therefore estimated that the saving potential is not more than 2 % for most realistic scenarios from what is already a widely spread practice nowadays. Also the saving potential largely depends on the trade route. Just in time arrival: the objective is to ameliorate the communication with the next port to call in order to get the maximum notice of berth availability and thus facilitate the use of optimum speed. (Model test or CFD based) Trim optimization: trim optimization tools are based on model test results, large measures on-board campaign and/or CFD calculations of large set of different combinations of draught, trim and speed. It improves the efficiency of the operation of the ship. However, when based on model tests results and/or CFD simulations, it is recommended that such application to be consolidated by a sea test campaign of the ship, or from a reference ship to validate the expected saving potential. 3.1 (b) Maintenance Level Improvement Measures Regular maintenance of hull and propellers increases the vessel performance by reducing hull fouling and propeller friction. Propeller cleaning and polishing or even appropriate coating may significantly increase fuel efficiency. Silicone Painting may improve propulsion efficiency by hull friction reduction. However this type of paint is very delicate and may be damaged easily, thus impairing the initial performances. Fluor polymer foul release coating, associated with a careful dry-docking cycle follow up, may improve the hull efficiency by minimising the average hull roughness growth, thus minimising the frictional resistance evolution. 3.1 (c) Basic Optimization Techniques (CFD) The use of CFD code computation studies for optimising the ships hydrodynamic performances can be done during the design process of the ship with a wide range of possibilities, or after its building due to changes of displacement, trim or speed leading to non-adapted bulbous bow or stern shapes.

GHG emissions can be reduced either by reducing the fuel oil consumption (i.e. by improving the energy efficiency) or by the use of low carbon fuels such as LNG. 3.1 ENERGY EFFICIENCY METHODS IMPROVEMENT

There are many different practices and technologies for saving energy on-board a ship and thus reducing GHG emissions. Those measures can be classed in three categories: The operational measures, or best practices, such as slow steaming and arrival just in time. The maintenance level improvement measures, not impacting on the design and integrity of the ship, such as hull cleaning and propeller polishing. The technical measures, impacting on the design, by adding Energy Saving Devices components to the installations (such as the Engine) or outside the hull (propeller optimisation for example). Hereafter some of the Energy Saving Devices are presented and classed in a tentative ranking which is based on literature and experience feedback. 3.1 (a) Operational Measures Slow steaming: is the adoption of a lower speed for an existing ship. The potential of energy saving is large, as much as 30% depending on initial design speed and speed reduction order of magnitude. However the potential to reduce speed is not limitless. It is not recommended to operate engines at low load without adjustments under the engine manufacturer control. The minimum load depends on the technical specification of the manufacturer for each individual engine. Electronically controlled engines are more flexible and can generally be operated at lower loads than mechanically controlled engines. Where it is intended to change the operating conditions of the propulsion plant,

2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

The Environmentally Friendly Ship, 28 - 29 February 2012, London, UK

A propeller with hull integration study consists in a parametric CFD study in order to optimise the thrust deduction factor and the wake. Stern shape and propeller location may also be studied. The expected gain can be up to 10% depending on the stern hull shape. 3.1 (d) Energy Saving Devices on Propeller CLT propeller: principle is to fix endplates fitted with minimum resistance in sight of higher efficiency and lower vibration and noise level. Propeller Boss Cap Fins: the principle behind is to break up the hub vortex, thus reducing the energy losses. Mewis duct: is a combination of a pre-swirl stator and wake equalizing duct. It has a power reducing potential up to 4 %. Pre Swirl Stator: is composed of a fixed set of blades positioned upstream of the propeller. The blades have different pitch angles. It affects the inflow by reducing the rotational losses, also having a positive effect on the wake. Contra-rotating propellers: combine recuperation of rotational energy losses with better propeller loading. However, contra-rotating propellers also have larger areas in general, and more bearings losses. In addition the mechanical complexity makes the decision to install contra-rotating propellers very difficult. The potential gain is recognised to be about 4%. 3.1 (e) Waste Heat Recovery Systems (WHR) A waste heat recovery system uses thermal heat losses from the exhaust gas for either electricity generation or additional propulsion with a shaft motor. It is generally installed on the main engine. This is the most potentially efficient system for improving the energy efficiency of a 2 stroke engine propulsion system. It is also positively used on-board large cruise vessels having 4 strokes engines and electric plants for providing extra power or steam to propulsion and hotel loads. It is estimated that fuel savings of 8% can be obtained by energy recovery from exhaust gas. For ships with PTI, the saving potential is estimated at 10%. 3.1 (f) Engine Tuning

3.1 (g)

Variable Turbine Area (VTA)

The principle is to use a variable turbine area that will be extended to a larger range of loads, specifically at part load and low load. The variation of area extends from a minimum and progressively increase until the scavenging air pressure reaches its normal MCR value. 3.1 (h) Turbocharger Cut-Out

It is applicable mostly to larger engines with two to four turbochargers; this option is based on cutting out one of these units in the lower load range. In contrast with exhaust gas bypass, there is thus no fuel consumption penalty in the high load range as all turbochargers are in operation. The cutting-out or cutting-in of a turbocharger has to be effected with the engine at dead slow or stopped. 3.1 (i) Exhaust Gas Bypass (EGB)

The principle is that a small turbocharger is more suitable for the engine at low load, thus reaching normal MCR scavenging air pressure at a partial load. Above the chosen partial load, the exhaust gas is bypassed so that the scavenging air pressure will not exceed the normal MCR value. 3.1 (j) Engine Derating

The principle is to derate the installed propulsion power in order to save fuel. If the same speed is to be maintained as before then a more powerful engine should be chosen (performed only in the design stage) otherwise the ship speed will decrease accordingly (performed for ships in operation). In the latter, a minimum power is to be maintained for safety reasons to ensure manoeuvrability and course keeping capability in adverse conditions. 3.2 LOW CARBON FUELS

LNG contains more hydrogen and less carbon than fuel oils, since the carbon factor of methane (CH4) is lower than diesel oil or heavy fuel oil, so emissions of CO2 are reduced. However, methane slip5 can generate involuntary emissions of unburned gas which will reduce the GHG reduction due to the Global Warming Potential of methane generally acknowledged as much as 20 to 25 times equivalent to CO2. 3.3 RANKING

Optimised electronic engine control will use the potentials of common rail injection and two stage turbo charging to improve engine efficiency in the whole range of operation. However, the engine improvements are currently dominated by the upcoming stringer requirements to reduce NOx emissions. This may act against fuel efficiency improvement, because of lower combustion temperatures and increased back pressure from exhaust gas cleaning systems.

In order to class and benchmark the different types of energy saving measures among others, a ranking is proposed. It gives an order of magnitude of potential
5

Methane slip is the incomplete combustion of methane in the cylinders and the consequent release of unburned methane in the atmosphere.

2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

The Environmentally Friendly Ship, 28 - 29 February 2012, London, UK

energy saving in percentage. The grades are based on an analysis of the available claims and results in the public domain crossed with experience and sea proven feedbacks and reviews from the authors. Table 5: Energy saving grades Letter Order of magnitude A Saving > 20% B C D E F 10<Saving < 20% 5< Saving < 10% 2,5 < Saving < 5% 1 < Saving < 2,5% Saving < 1%

Pre integrated Duct and Wake equalizing Duct Pre Swirl Stator Contra Rotating Propeller Propeller rudder transition bulb Hull stern shape optimization Thruster and sea chest openings optimisation Efficiency of scale using larger ships Design speed reduction smaller engine 4. ENERGY SEECAT FLOW

D D D D D F C B USING

MODELING

Compatibility between different fuel saving measures must be carefully assessed, as some devices may interact together to produce a total saving almost equal to the sum of each individual savings, while other combinations may eventually result to an unfortunate increase in fuel consumption. Table 6: Energy saving measures ranking6 Energy Efficiency improvement Potential measures energy saving Weather routing D Just in time arrival D Speed optimization D Super Slow Steaming A Optimum trim C Optimum ballast condition D Hull coating cleaning and C improvement associated with drydocking period Propeller cleaning and polishing C+ Silicone painting associated with hull Dcleaning Fluor polymer coating D Engine auto-tuning D Main engine derating E Main engine variable turbo area E Cooling and ventilation system F optimizations Use of alternative fuels B Waste Heat Recovery System B Flip rudder E Optimized rudder blade profile E CLT Propeller D+ Boss Cap Fins Propeller CMewis duct D+
6

SEECAT (Ship Energy Efficiency Calculation & Analysis Tool) is a ship energy modeling platform that has been recently developed by Bureau Veritas. It is based on SimulationX software and the Modelica language7. Over forty modules (objects), which simulate the physical behavior of the actual ship, constitute the SEECAT library. The modules are connected to each other to effectively model and link all the energy transformations present in the real ship during its operation (i.e. propulsion line, electrical network, heat network, steam production, electrical production etc.). The global architecture of the tool is designed under the logic that: the ships power needs should be fulfilled by the ships power producing units (i.e. the ship speed will be accomplished by the ships propulsion system). In order for these power needs to be satisfied, the systems require energy from the energy producers (i.e. main engine, diesel generators etc.), which in turn require fuel input. At the end, the ship may be represented by an energy chain of various physical components facilitating the energy flow from one to the other, under the same or under different energy forms. During this energy transportation (and occasional transformation), the energy losses can also be traced and minimized. Based on this energy process, the instantaneous fuel consumption and consequent CO2, NOx and SOx emissions of the individual producers may also be calculated and cumulated. 4.1 MODELING OF PROPULSION

The ship speed is given by a pre-defined operational profile. The resistance module computes the ships resistance corresponding to the defined speed, draft etc. The total resistance, Rt, can be either calculated for every speed and draft based on the actual speed power curves of the ship or it can be estimated with the use of empirical methods (i.e. Holtrop & Mennen [4], [5]).

It should be noted that the proposed ranking has been developed with focus on cargo ships. To this end some of these measures might achieve a higher or lower grade when applied to other ship types according to their energy saving potential.

Modelica is an object-oriented language used for the mathematical modelling of complex physical systems.

2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

The Environmentally Friendly Ship, 28 - 29 February 2012, London, UK

The hull efficiency, nh, is calculated as follows:

=
h

1 t 1 w

(3)

The wake fraction coefficient w and the thrust deduction coefficient t may be calculated with an empirical method or can be input directly by the user. Then the hydrodynamic performance of the propeller is computed by the propeller module which derives from the dimensionless thrust (KT) and torque (KQ) parameters, the torque (Q), thrust (T) and the rotary velocity (n) to be delivered to the shaft module:

consumption and the exhaust gas emissions (exhaust mass flow of CO2, NOx & SOx). The fuel consumption is calculated via the brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) curve which is a function of the engine load. A correction ratio is used to adapt to the specific characteristics of the fuel. The global efficiency is calculated by the expression: = 1/(LHV x BSFC) (10)

Where LHV9 is the Low Heat Value of the fuel and BSFC is the Brake Specific Fuel Consumption. Account for losses calculation is also made. The thermal power given to the cooling circuit is calculated and can be reused for water production, or preheating needs. The exhaust gasses from the engine can be reused for energy production according to their heating potential. 4.2 ELECTRICITY NETWORK MODELING

KT =
K
Q

n 2 D 4
Q

(4) (5)

n 2 D5

Where D is the propeller diameter and density.

the water

The propeller efficiency n0, is then calculated by the following expression:

0 =

1 KT J 2 K Q
Va nD

(6)

And the advance number of the propeller is expressed:

J=

(7)

Where Va is the speed of advance of the propeller. To take into account the interaction between the hull and the propeller, the power delivered from the engine to the propeller (PD) is connected to the effective power (PE) needed to drive the vessel with the following expression: PE=PD nhn0nr8, (8)

The tool emulates the electricity need considering several operating modes. The electricity need (Pload) is determined by the electrical balance given for each operating mode. The rated electric power (Pr) is adjusted by the service total factor of use (ku) for the different operating cases, so that Pload = Pr x ku. The navigation module indicates for each calculation step the actual operating mode and the electricity module selects the corresponding service factor which is multiplied by the total power which corresponds to the electrical power need. The electrical power need is transmitted to the electrical producers, the diesel generators (diesel engine and alternator). The load of the engine is adjusted to achieve the electrical power required by the ship. A PMS (Power Management System) module calculates the auxiliary engine load to achieve the necessary power. It can also select the number of engines in operation and their corresponding load. 4.3 STEAM NETWORK MODELING

Where nh is the hull efficiency, n0 the propeller efficiency and nr is the relative rotative efficiency. The required engine power (PS) is then calculated by the expression: PS=PD/ns Where ns is the shaft efficiency. With the estimation of the required engine power, the main engine load is calculated and thus the fuel oil
8

(9)

The tool emulates the steam need considering several operating modes. The steam need (Qsteam) is determined by the steam balance given for each operating mode. The rated steam mass flow (Qr) is adjusted by the service total factor of use (Lf) for the different operating case. The navigation module indicates for each calculation step the actual operating mode of the ship and the steam module chooses the corresponding service factor which is multiplied by the total mass flow. The required mass flow is then calculated as Qsteam = Qr x Lf. The required steam is transmitted to the steam producers. The priority is given to the exhaust gas operation of the

The product nhn0nr is usually referred to as QPC (quasipropulsive-efficiency)

Considered for this paper with the value: LHV = 42,700 kj/kg

2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

The Environmentally Friendly Ship, 28 - 29 February 2012, London, UK

composite boiler10. If the waste heat recovery steam production is enough to supply the steam need, the boiler is not using fuel to operate (this is usually the case for regular sailing operation). The waste heat recovery boiler steam production is determined by the load of the main engine. When the steam production from the waste heat recovery boiler is not sufficient, the boiler can supply the demand. The production depends on the load of the boiler. The fuel consumption of the boiler is determined by the boiler efficiency taking into account the combustion efficiency and the efficiency recovery from the exhaust gases into the chamber. In the same logic as the one described above, every physical component of the ship which interacts in the various energy transformations and consequently affects the overall efficiency (and emissions) of the ship could be modeled. 5. CASE STUDY

Table 8: Total resistance Rt for each ship speed Vs Vs [kn] Rt [kN] 11 417 11.5 458 12 502 12.5 550 13 603 13.5 661 14 726 14.5 800 15 882 15.5 974 16 1078 The wake fraction coefficient w, the thrust deduction coefficient t and the relative rotative efficiency nR can be estimated with various methods or can be provided directly based on similar designs. In this case, the Holtrop & Mennen prediction formulae are used [4], [5]. The open water efficiency n0 of the propeller is calculated for a B-series propeller and the shaft efficiency is taken at 0.99. The shaft power Ps and the relative propeller (and engine) speed N is then calculated for every ship speed. The resultant propeller curve (Figure 1) corresponds to a light running propeller (LR) for a clean hull and a calm sea [6]. Since this condition is only comparable to the ships sea trials, it is common practice to incorporate an additional 15% power margin12 which reflects the added resistance due to weather conditions. The propeller curve corresponds now to a heavy running propeller (HR) and this condition is analogous to the real operation of the ship. The two curves are depicted graphically in figure 1. For the desired ship speed of 14kn, the required shaft power is estimated at Ps=8,188kW and N=87.1Rpm and this operational point on the heavy running propeller curve corresponds to the engines CSR (continuous service propulsion point). By adding another 15% engine margin13 we arrive on the engines SMCR (specified maximum continuous rate). Based on this point (Ps=9633kW, N=91.7Rpm) the selection of the engine is now possible and in this instance the MAN 5S60MC-C8 is chosen. In figure 1, the above mentioned engine points are shown together with the engines layout diagram and SFOC14 [7].

Some of the optimization steps described in Section 3 have been applied on a 57,500 Tons bulk carrier (designed in 2008) using the energy flow calculations described in Section 4. The main particulars of the ship are presented in Table 7. Table 7: Main particulars of the case study vessel Length over all (Loa) 219.80 m Length between perpendiculars 212.00 m Moulded breadth 32.26 m Moulded depth 16.40 m Design draught 11.22 m Deadweight at design draught 57,500 t 5.1 BASIC OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES

During the concept design stage, the resistance of the ship is estimated using the design characteristics which are available at this stage of the design11. These include the initial lines plan of the vessel and a chosen propeller of D=6.5m in diameter. The design speed of the ship is considered at 14kn at the laden draft of 11.22m. The resistance prediction calculations are performed according to the Holtrop & Mennen methodology for a range of speeds [4], [5]. The resulting resistance for each speed is presented in Table 8.

12 10

In the case of the bulk carrier model used in the study, a composite boiler is the only steam producing unit. 11 At this point it is assumed that no hull form optimization has been performed using CFD calculations or model tests. Accordingly, the speed-power curves of the ship are not yet available.

This power margin is often referred to as the seamargin and can vary depending on the ship type. It will also account for a fouled hull and propeller for the inservice operation of the ship. 13 It is common practice to add this 10%-15% operational margin for the engine. 14 SFOC data used in this study correspond to ISO Ambient Conditions.

2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

The Environmentally Friendly Ship, 28 - 29 February 2012, London, UK

new CSR corresponds now to a power of Ps=8041kW at N=82.7Rpm (i.e. at 80% of SMCR). Consequently the FOC is now calculated at 32.5MT/day for a laden speed of 14kn.

Figure 1: Propeller and engine matching With the information acquired up to this point (speedpower curves, propeller characteristics & engine), the initial energy model of the ship is created using SEECAT (Figure 2). The daily FOC (Fuel Oil Consumption) of the ship is then calculated with SEECAT at 32.8MT/day for a laden speed of 14kn and a sea margin of 15% (to reflect in-service conditions). This consumption refers only to the main engine as at this point the diesel generators are not yet considered.

Figure 3: Propeller and engine matching for increased propeller diameter. 5.1 (b) Engine Derating

The next step is to use a more powerful engine, derated at the same SMCR. In Figure 4 is shown the propeller and the engine matching points for both the 5S60MC and the more powerful 6 cylinder 6S60MC.

Figure 4: Propeller and engine matching points for the 5 and 6 cylinder engines. Figure 2: Initial energy model 5.1 (a) Optimum Propeller Diameter The FOC for the 6 cylinder engine is now calculated at 31.6MT/day for a laden speed of 14kn and the same sea margin of 15%. 5.1 (c) Electronic Engine

With the aim of obtaining the best possible propulsive efficiency (QPC), the maximum propeller diameter should normally be chosen. Oftentimes the maximum desirable propeller diameter is restricted due to operational issues15. In this case, after an investigation of all possible loading conditions, during the initial design stage, a propeller of maximum diameter D=6.7m is finally chosen. The effect of an increased propeller diameter on the propeller curves and the CSR and SMCR points is depicted in Figure 3. As expected, the propeller curves have been shifted to the left, at the lower Rpm range. In order for the ship to obtain the service speed of 14kn, the
15

The use of an electronic engine at the same SMCR and SCR that were chosen above (in order to obtain the same ship speed) resulted in a further reduction of FOC. The FOC with an MAN 6S60ME-C8 engine is calculated at 30.9MT/day [8]. With the optimization steps described in 5.1(a), 5.1(b) and 5.1(c) an efficiency gain of 5.8% has been obtained in terms of daily fuel consumption. 5.1 (d) Hull Form Optimization

Generally it is required that the propeller should be fully immersed under all loading conditions including sailing in ballast.

The computations described previously have been based on the initial hull form of the vessel for which there has not been made any optimization attempts using CFD software or model tests. The effect of hull form

2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

The Environmentally Friendly Ship, 28 - 29 February 2012, London, UK

optimization for this particular ship will be presented hereafter. During the basic design stage, the initial hull lines have been examined and optimized with the cooperation of MARIN with the use of its non-linear potential flow computer program RAPID [9]. The main aspect of the optimization consisted of transforming the original Vshaped aft body of the ship to the so-called Hogner shape, with more pronounced roundings in the bilge of the gondola and a more narrow upper part of the gondola. This transformation of the aft part is aiming mainly to the improvement of the wake field in the propeller rather than reducing the resistance of the ship. The overall decrease in the resistance was calculated at around 3%4%16 [9]. For the optimized hull form, model tests were performed by MARIN, comprising of resistance and self-propulsion tests. The results of resistance extrapolation are given in Table 9 for various ship speeds [9]. Table 9: Results of resistance tests Vs [kn] Rt [kN] 11 436 11.5 478 12 523 12.5 567 13 611 13.5 658 14 709 14.5 776 15 873 15.5 1000 16 1163 The comparison between the estimated resistance (with Holtrop & Mennen methodology) of the initial hull form, the measured resistance of the optimized hull form using model tests and the estimated resistance of the optimized hull form using again the Holtrop & Mennen method is presented graphically in Figure 5. The estimated resistance seems to be in good agreement with the model test results17. An underestimation of the resistance (compared to the model tests) can be observed for ship speeds below 13.5kn and above 15kn while the opposite is calculated for the speed range between 13.5kn and 15kn.

Figure 5: Comparison of resistance calculation The final propeller curves for sea trial performance prediction and for service performance prediction18 that resulted from the model tests and the relative propeller open water tests are presented graphically in figure 6. The SMCR is considered at the lowest possible range for the 6S60ME engine (Ps=9660kW, N=89Rpm) and the CSR for a service ship speed of 14kn is taken at 83% of the SMCR. With this input, the FOC is calculated by SEECAT at 30.7MT/day. The fact that the hull form optimization did not achieve an impressive improvement in the resistance of the ship and consequently to the predicted daily consumption, should be attributed to the successful initial design process.

Figure 6: Final propeller curves and engine layout. At this stage of the design process, the use of any energy saving device similar to the ones described in 3.1(d) should be considered. The efficiency gain of any such device ought to be verified with CFD calculations and or model tests. The verified efficiency gains can then be transferred to SEECAT for further evaluation of the energy benefits for the ship. 5.2 OPTIMIZATION WITH ANALYSIS IN SEECAT SCENARIO

16

The calculated wave resistance decreased by 25%, but for a bulk carrier sailing at a Froude number of 0.16, the wave resistance is about 15% of the total resistance. 17 For the given speed of 14kn, the difference is 1.4%.

With the optimized hull form and propeller and with the chosen engine it is now possible to perform an energy optimization approach using scenario analysis. This optimization process could be performed also for an
18

Including the 15% sea margin relative to the sea trials.

2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

The Environmentally Friendly Ship, 28 - 29 February 2012, London, UK

existing ship in service (i.e. for the purpose of developing the SEEMP). The analysis requires the use of a navigational profile as an input in SEECAT which will be analysed based on time domain calculations. For the ship of this case study, the following navigational profile is considered (separated in three legs): 1. In the first leg of the trip, the ship travels for 7,000nm at the loaded draft of 11.22m from the port of departure to the port of arrival. At this draft the payload is estimated at 54,178Ton In the second leg of the trip the ship unloads its cargo at the arrival port. In the last leg, the ship returns to its departure port after traveling for 7,000nm at a mean ballast draft of 7.92m19. Figure 8: Cumulative fuel consumption of the main engine for the loaded condition From the calculated electrical and steam balance in SEECAT, the total cumulative fuel oil consumption of the D/Gs and the boiler is estimated and presented in Figure 9. From the electrical balance it is estimated that during normal sailing one D/G is operating at 92% of its full power20. The total fuel oil consumption is computed at 699.4tons (for in-service performance prediction including the 15% sea-margin).

2. 3.

It is now necessary to create the complete energy model of the ship, where all the energy consumers (electrical & steam) should be input in SEECAT for each leg of the navigational profile described above, together with the characteristics of the Diesel Generators (D/G) and the boilers or any other energy producing module (i.e. waste heat recovery system etc.). For the ship under consideration, three diesel generators are considered and one composite boiler. The energy model of the ship is depicted in Figure 7.

Figure 9: Cumulative fuel oil consumption of the D/G and the boiler for the loaded condition. The fuel oil consumption for the second leg of the trip (cargo unloading) is given in Figure 10. From the electrical balance, it is estimated that in order to meet the required electrical demand, two D/Gs are operating at 53% of their full load21.

Figure 10: Cumulative fuel oil consumption of the D/G and the boiler during loading operations For the last leg of the trip, the ballasted return, a ship speed of 14.5kn is considered. The cumulative fuel oil consumption of the main engine is given in Figure 11, while in Figure 12 the corresponding cumulative fuel oil consumption of the D/Gs and the boiler is presented. It is to be noted that ballast exchange operations have been considered in the latter case of the return trip. From the estimated power balance, an increased power demand of 21.9% is calculated compared to the normal sailing Considering also an alternators efficiency of approximately 92% 21 A mean unloading rate of 1200tons/hr has been considered. The given ship does not have own means of unloading its cargo
20

Figure 7: The energy model of the ship. For illustration purposes, each part of the navigational profile described above will be considered separately. For the design speed of 14kn the cumulative FOC for the first leg of the trip (500 hours) is shown in Figure 8. The depicted graph concerns only the consumption of the main engine for propulsion needs.

19

The 3 leg of the trip has been chosen mainly for illustration purposes since the ship will eventually spend a large part of its operational life in the ballast condition.

rd

2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

The Environmentally Friendly Ship, 28 - 29 February 2012, London, UK

condition, requiring two D/Gs in operation for the ballast exchange (due to the operation of the ballast pumps). The increased fuel consumption during ballast exchange takes place in the time domain between 300 and 310 hours but it is not visible in the scale of figure 12.

5.2 (a)

Slow Steaming

To investigate the effect of slow steaming in the vessels energy efficiency and emissions, the previous scenario is repeated with a speed of 13.3kn in the first leg of the trip and 12.5kn for the 3rd leg (ballast return). The total consumption for regular sailing and slow steaming is depicted in Figure 14. The steeper consumption curve of regular sailing evinces the hourly fuel gains of slow steaming. The time penalty for slow steaming is also evident from the same figure, with the delayed arrival to the discharge port and the overall delay of the trip, as compared to regular sailing. If this late arrival triggers for example a delay in the unloading of the ship, then the economic benefits of slow steaming may vanish. This fact points out that the time factor should be carefully considered when optimizing the energy efficiency of the ship considering real navigational scenarios (i.e. for SEEMP).

Figure 11: Cumulative fuel consumption of the main engine for the return trip

Figre 12: Cumulative fuel oil consumption of the D/G and the boiler for the return trip The cumulative NOx and SOx emissions for the complete round trip (loaded trip, harbour unloading & ballast return) are presented in Figure 1322. Figure 14: Comparison between regular sailing and slow steaming. The relevant reduction in NOx23 and SOx emissions while slow steaming can be seen in figures 14 and 15.

Figure 13: Cumulative NOx and SOx emissions. The EEOI is calculated according to (1) for the round trip at EEOI1=5.64 gCO2/ton-mile. While this EEOI value has been calculated for only one trip, the fact that the 3rd leg of the navigational profile is chosen as a large ballast trip, of the same miles as the payload trip, this value could potentially reflect an inservice EEOI value of the ship. Figure 16: SOx emissions
22

Fig 15: NOx emissions

Regarding the NOx emissions, the main engine and the D/Gs are IMO Tier II compliant and for the SOx emissions, 3.5% HFO has been considered for the first and the third leg of the navigational profile and 0.1% MGO while in port.

The EEOI for the round trip is now calculated at EEOI2=4.74 gCO2/ton-mile.
23

Considering the same NOx performance for the engine as for regular sailing.

2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

The Environmentally Friendly Ship, 28 - 29 February 2012, London, UK

5.2 (b)

Engine Tuning

As mentioned in 3.1(f) there are also engine tuning possibilities that could influence the fuel consumption of the engine (although constrained to certain extend due to NOx restrictions). If the scenario of paragraph 5.2(a) is repeated with the same engine, but this time the engine is part-load optimized at 70% of SMCR24, using for example an EGB system (see 3.1(i)), then the SFOC will be lower at the engine load required for slow steaming at 12kn. This is shown in Figure 16 where the cumulative fuel oil consumption is given for the time domain between 200 and 250 hours in the case of slow steaming with the high load optimized engine (scenario 5.2(a)) and with the relative part load optimized engine at 70% of SMCR. The graph reveals the small gain in the fuel consumption in the case of the part load optimization.

gains of arriving without delay at the port (just in time) and loading/unloading at arrival as compared to delays and increased harbour waiting times, can be simulated (partly presented in 5.2(a)). Or the effect of weather routing rather than steaming in heavy weather could be predicted25. Other factors which could influence the ships energy efficiency and environmental footprint can be also investigated when considering the energy model of the ship. For example, a scrubber system can be added as a module in the energy model of the ship, with the beneficial impact on the SOx and PM emissions but also with the increase in fuel consumption due to the operation of the scrubber unit (i.e. due to pump operation etc.). It is actually possible to model every system that interacts in the energy transformations on-board the ship (i.e. waste heat recovery systems, steam turbines etc.). 6. CONCLUSIONS

Figure 17: Part load and high load optimization (slow steaming). In Figure 18, the same comparison is made but this time with an increased power demand (i.e. due to heavy weather). The consumption for the part load optimized engine is now slightly increased.

Air emissions reduction is a major issue for the marine industry concerning both the existing fleet but also the designs that are currently on the drawing board. The emissions coming from the exhaust gases of the ships can be separated into those that add to the environmental pollution (NOx, SOx and PM) and to those fuelling the global warming of the atmosphere (CO2, NH3). The IMO has put forth limits for the pollutant emissions from ships which are presented and discussed in Section 1. There are several solutions today in the industry that can help reduce the pollutant emissions from ships. The SOx emissions solely depend on the level of sulphur in the fuel and to this end the measures are focused either on the use of better (distilled) fuels or on the post treatment of exhaust gasses. For the NOx reduction, there are also other measures focusing on the engine technology. A number of measures are introduced in Section 2 and are ranked based on their reduction potential. The GHG emissions are closely connected to the energy efficiency of the ship. As ships become more energy efficient, the GHG emissions are reduced for the cargo transferred. The IMO will make the EEDI and the SEEMP mandatory for new and existing ships from January 2013 in order to improve the energy efficiency of the global fleet, with the purpose of reducing the global warming potential arising from ships. There are many available solutions today to improve the energy efficiency of ships. Some of these options are introduced in Section 3 and are ranked based on their improvement potential.

Figure 18: Part load and high load optimization (heavy weather) It becomes obvious that there is not one simple solution when it comes to energy efficiency optimization and many scenarios should be investigated based on the intended operational profile of the ship. 5.2 (c) Other Considerations

With this kind of (time domain) scenario analysis using the energy model of the ship it is possible to examine also other factors which influence the ships energy efficiency and air emissions. For example the energy
24

25

One of the benefits of the electronic engines, as compared to the camshaft controlled ones, is also the wide range of load operation for which they can be optimized for.

Provided the accurate prediction of the ships added resistance in the waves. This can be estimated with CFD calculations or by real measured data for the ship under consideration or can be approximated with the use of empirical formulae.

2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

The Environmentally Friendly Ship, 28 - 29 February 2012, London, UK

It is obvious that with a great number of solutions at hand, a tool of simulating the energy and emissions performance of the ship becomes necessary. The software SEECAT (Ship Energy Efficiency Calculation & Analysis Tool), developed by Bureau Veritas, is a ship energy modeller, using energy flow calculations, which can be used to create the energy model of a ship in order to predict its energy efficiency and the level of its air emissions. SEECAT utilizes a user-defined navigational profile which facilitates the examination of the energy performance of the ship in a time domain scenario analysis. The methodology of energy flow modelling with SEECAT is described in Section 4. The application of energy flow modelling is presented for a bulk carrier in Section 5 using basic optimization steps and scenario analysis in order to demonstrate the potential of energy flow calculations. The tool can be used both for predicting the given energy status of a ship (i.e. an existing ship) and also for optimizing its energy efficiency (and emissions) by evaluating different measures under different scenarios. As a future development, the predicted results should be also verified by measurements on-board ships under various situations (calm sea, heavy weather, slow steaming etc.). 7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Architecture and Marine Engineering from the National Technical University of Athens. Before moving to Sales & Marketing Management in 2011, he has worked as hull surveyor for the Bureau Veritas plan approval office in Greece. During this period he has dealt with stability and hull matters of bulk carriers, oil tankers and passenger ships. In the period 2009-2010 Konstantinos underwent training for surveyor on board and obtained his surveyors certificate in 2010. Since 2010, Konstantinos holds also an MBA degree from the Athens University of Economics & Business. Martial Claudepierre holds the current position of Marine Leader for Environmental Services at Bureau Veritas with the primary role of providing technical and managerial leadership in the development of Environmental Rules and Services. He has a Master Engineer Degree in Mechanical applied to Naval Shipbuilding. Prior to joining Bureau Veritas in 2006, he has been working for 12 years in two major French civilian and military navy shipyards. Aude Leblanc holds the current position of Engineer at Bureau Veritas. She is responsible for the machinery development. She joined Bureau Veritas in 2009 after obtaining an Engineer Master Degree from INSA Lyon.

The authors wish to thank the designers of the ship used for the case study of the present paper: Mr D. Chalkias, Mr N. Papapanagiotou and Mr N. Protonotarios for providing the necessary information used for the energy model of the ship in SEECAT and relevant information on the optimization steps followed during the initial and basic design stage. 8. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 9. REFERENCES Second IMO GHG Study 2009. MEPC.1/Circ.684, 17 August 2009. KUIKEN, K., Diesel Engines For Ship Propulsion And Power Plants, 2008 HOLTROP, J., MENNEN, G.G.J., An Approximate Power Prediction Method, 1982. HOLTROP, A Statistical Re-Analysis of Resistance and Propulsion Data, 1984. CARLTON J., Marine Propellers and Propulsion, 2007. MAN B&W, S60MC-C8-TII Project Guide, 2010. MAN B&W, S60ME-C8-TII Project Guide, 2010. MARIN Report No22155-1-DT, dated Feb. 2008 AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY

Kostantinos Chatzitolios holds the current position of product manager at Bureau Veritas and is based in the Head Office, in Paris. He is responsible for the international business development in the field of container ships and dry bulk carriers. He joined Bureau Veritas in 2005 after obtaining a Diploma in Naval

2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects