MEPC+60-4-5
For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are
kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION
IMO
E
MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
COMMITTEE
60th session
Agenda item 4
MEPC 60/4/5 18 December 2009 Original: ENGLISH PREVENTION OF AIR POLLUTION FROM SHIPS
Report on the trials on the verification of the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)
Submitted by Japan
SUMMARY
Executive summary:
This document provides a report on the EEDI verification trials conducted for two actual ships in accordance with the Interim Guidelines on Voluntary Verification of the Energy Efficiency Design Index. It also identified, based on the trial results, the issues in the Interim Guidelines that need further consideration and improvement, and provided insights on those issues, including suggestions on possible amendments to the Interim Guidelines Strategic direction: 7.3 High-level action: 7.3.1 Planned output: 7.3.1.3 Action to be taken: Paragraph 30 Related documents:
MEPC.1/Circ.682, MEPC.1/Circ.681; MEPC 59/4/2 and GHG-WG 2/2/16 Introduction
1 The MEPC 59 agreed to circulate the Interim Guidelines on Voluntary Verification of the
Energy Efficiency Design Index (MEPC.1/Circ.682: “the Verification Guidelines” or just “the
Guidelines”, hereafter) for the purpose of conducting EEDI verification trials on a voluntary
basis. By the time of implementation of the mandatory EEDI scheme, the Verification Guidelines are to be appropriately revised and adopted as “Guidelines on Surveys and Certification”. As part of this process, conducting EEDI verifications on a trial basis is a very
important step for identifying necessary improvements to be made to the Guidelines and makes it
possible to propose relevant revisions of the Guidelines. A major aim of these EEDI verification
trials is to develop a method capable of ensuring fair and robust verifications. At the same time,
careful attention should be paid to not imposing too much burden on shipbuilders and other
stakeholders by introducing an impracticable verification method. To achieve this, EEDI verification trials for two actual ships were conducted by a designated verifier (Class NK) in
close coordination with the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT),
Japan.
MEPC 60/4/5
- 2 -
Ship Name: “MUSANAH”
Ship Name: “SHIN KORYU”
Principal Particulars:
Principal Particulars:
Kind of ship:
Length overall:
Breadth:
Depth:
Scantling draught:
Gross tonnage:
Deadweight:
MCR of M/E:
LPG carrier 230.0 m 36.60 m 21.65 m 11.628 m 47,985 GT 55,028 tons 13,700 kW x 104.0 rpm Kind of ship: Length overall: Breadth: Depth: Scantling draught: Gross tonnage: Deadweight: MCR of M/E: Bulk carrier 299.70 m 50.00 m 25.00 m 18.20 m 106,367 GT 207,991 tons 16,610 kW x 81.0 rpm Date of Sea Trial: 30 September to 2 October 2009 Date of Sea Trial: 4 to 6 October 2009
Ships used for EEDI verification trials
2 This document shows the results of the verification trials and the consequently identified
issues in the Verification Guidelines that need improvement. For some of these issues, proposals
for the improvement and revision of the Guidelines are also given in the document.
Among the parameters of EEDI, ship speed is the parameter for which the verification is the most
difficult. A ship’s speed is one of the most important items to be confirmed in a commercial
contract between the shipowner and shipbuilder. Shipbuilders have estimated ship speeds by
their own methods established through the accumulation of their experience that includes a
significant amount of know-how as their intellectual property. When developing procedures for
verifying ship speed, this background and a balance between the validity of the verification and
the need to protect the intellectual property of shipbuilders should be well considered. Only then,
a practicable solution should be proposed. Some possible options for the verification method of
ship speeds are proposed in this document.
Ships used for verification trials
3 The ships, subject to the verification trials this time, consisted of a LPG carrier Musanah
and a cape-size bulk carrier Shin Koryu . The system configurations of both ships are conventional, i.e. the propulsion system is a single shafting with a direct-coupled diesel engine,
while the electricity supply system is composed of three main diesel-generators, and no energy
saving equipment needing to be taken into account in the EEDI calculations is installed on board.
- 3 - MEPC 60/4/5
Summary of verification trials
4 The verification trials were conducted basically in accordance with the Verification
Guidelines, of which procedures are illustrated in Figure 1 below.
*
To be conducted by a test organization or a shipbuilder itself.
Figure 1: Basic Flow of Verification Process (MEPC.1/Circ.682)
5 Preliminary verification at the design stage:
.1 Preparation of EEDI Technical File and Additional Information: The EEDI
Technical File and Additional Information were developed by the shipbuilders
based on the results of tank tests (model tests) formerly conducted for the subject
ships. Regarding tank tests, paragraph 4.2.5 of the Verification Guidelines reads
“… based on reliable results of tank test”. Although there might be some room
for discussion about the criteria for determining reliability, the results of the tank
tests were accepted as they were by the verifier, just by checking the particulars of
the tank test facilities and the calibration records of the measuring equipment
used; and
.2 Verification of the Attained EEDI: The calculation process of the Attained EEDI
was verified by the verifier based on the information provided in the
EEDI Technical Files and Additional Information. Regarding the methods used to
estimate the power curves (relationship between ship speed and shaft power
of M/E), it was confirmed by the verifier that the power curves under the
fully-loaded condition and the sea trial condition had been estimated in
accordance with exactly the same procedures. However, the shipbuilder’s
experience-based parameters such as Model-Ship correlation factors used in the
estimation process were accepted as they were, because it is not practicable for
any person or organization other than the shipbuilder to examine the technical
MEPC 60/4/5 - 4 -
aspects of the parameters as described in paragraph 4.2.6 of the Guidelines. It was
also confirmed that the calculations of the Attained EEDI were done in
accordance with the EEDI Calculation Guidelines (MEPC.1/Circ.681).
6 Final verification during sea trials:
.1 Sea trials were carried out in accordance with the test procedures which had been
prepared by the respective shipbuilders and confirmed by the verifier. For both
ships, the sea trials were carried out under the ballast condition, not the
fully-loaded condition. During the sea trials, the ship condition (draft and trim),
the system configurations of each ship stated in the EEDI Technical Files and the
measured values needed for development of the power curves were confirmed by
the verifier; and
.2 Final verification of the Attained EEDI: A power curve under measured sea
conditions was developed by the respective shipbuilders. From the power curve,
the ship speed at 75% MCR was determined and the Attained EEDI was
calculated by each shipbuilder. It was confirmed by the verifier that the
calculations of the power curve development was in accordance with ISO 15016
or the equivalent by fully following the shipbuilder’s calculations. It was also
confirmed that the ship speed needed for EEDI calculations were determined
appropriately in accordance with the Verification Guidelines.
Preliminary verification at the design stage
7 Items that should be included in the EEDI Technical File are listed in paragraph 4.2.2 of
the Verification Guidelines. The items included in the EEDI Technical Files of the verification
trials and their explanations are summarized in Table 1.
A sample of an EEDI Technical File developed through the verification trials is provided in the
annex of this document.
Table 1 – Items included in EEDI Technical File
Items Explanations
1 Deadweight, shaft power of the main
and auxiliary engines, ship speed, and
SFC of the main and auxiliary engines.
Value of each item should be provided.
A copy of NO x Technical Files showing SFC of
the main and auxiliary engines should be
attached.
2 Power curves under fully-loaded
condition and sea trial condition
Power curves should be illustrated.
3 Principal particulars and the overview
of propulsion and electricity supply
system
For easy reference of system configurations, a
schematic figure of systems should be illustrated.
- 5 - MEPC 60/4/5
4 Estimation process and methodology of
the power curves at design stage
A flow chart of estimation process of power
curves at design stage should be illustrated.
Descriptions of concrete values of parameters are
not necessary.
5 Description of energy saving equipment Specifications, schematic figures and/or photos, etc., of the following energy saving equipment should be provided, respectively:
- Energy saving equipment to be taken into account of in the EEDI calculations
- Other Energy saving equipment Alternatively, attachment of commercial catalogues may be acceptable.
6 Calculated value of the Attained EEDI Attained EEDI calculated in accordance with the EEDI Calculation Guidelines with its calculation summary should be provided.
8 Items that should be included under Additional Information are listed in paragraph 4.2.7
of the Verification Guidelines. The items included in the Additional Information of the
verification trials and their explanations are summarized in Table 2.
“Additional Information” is information which is not included in the EEDI Technical File and
that the verifier should request the shipbuilder to provide directly to the verifier. Additional
Information generally includes confidential information of the shipbuilder. From the viewpoint
of intellectual property protection, it is already specified in the Verification Guidelines that the
verifier should return the information to the shipbuilder when so requested. However, in addition
to this, it seems necessary that a secrecy agreement clause should be also specified in the Guidelines. A proposal for a revision of the Guidelines to this effect will be given in
paragraph 23 below.
Table 2 – Items included in Additional Information
Items Explanations
1 Description of the tank test facility The items are for examination of quality of tank tests. The items should include, at a minimum, the name of tank test facility, particulars of the tank and towing equipment, and calibration records of the measuring equipment used.
2 Lines of both the model ship and
the actual ship
The items are for use in confirming the similarity
between the model ship and actual ship.
3 The lightweight of the ship and
displacement table
The items are for confirmation of deadweight of the
ship.
4 Detailed report on the tank tests
5 Detailed calculation process of the
power curves
The items are for confirming that the power curves
under the fully-loaded condition and sea trial
condition are estimated in accordance with exactly
the same procedures.
The items should include sufficient information for a
verifier to fully follow an estimation process of power
curves, i.e. uncorrected measured data of tank tests,
shipbuilder’s experience-based parameters, propeller
open characteristics, and detailed calculation process
which can be easily followed should be included.
MEPC 60/4/5 - 6 -
9 The calculation process used for the Attained EEDI was verified based on the information provided in the EEDI Technical File and Additional Information. The following two points were confirmed during the verification process:
.1 The power curves under the fully-loaded condition and sea trial condition had been estimated in accordance with exactly the same procedures. This
confirmation was done in order to prevent the possibility that the power curve
under the sea trial condition is intentionally estimated in a conservative manner
(slow-speed side) relative to that under the fully-loaded condition so as to obtain a
lower value for the Attained EEDI; and
.2 The Attained EEDI was calculated taking into account all the necessary elements for EEDI, in accordance with the EEDI Calculation Guidelines
(MEPC.1/Circ.681).
When verifying the estimated power curves, as mentioned above, the tank test results and the shipbuilder’s experience-based parameters such as Model-Ship correlation factors for the
fully-loaded condition and for the sea trial condition were accepted as they were. However, for
more robust verification, further discussion would be necessary on issues pertaining
to 1) confirmation of the reliability of the tank tests, and 2) verification of the experience-based parameters. At the same time, as mentioned in paragraph 2 above, the historical background of
ship speed estimation and the balance between validity of the verification and intellectual property protection of the shipbuilder should be also considered for a practicable solution. Some possible options for a useful method for verifying ship speeds will be proposed in paragraph 22 below.
Final verification during sea trials
10 Prior to the sea trials, the measurement methods necessary for the measurement items for developing the required power curve were confirmed in the test procedures prepared by the shipbuilder.
11 The ship condition (draft and trim), the system configurations stated in the EEDI Technical File, and the measured values needed for developing a power curve listed in
Table 3 were confirmed onboard each ship. Each item listed in Table 3 is not a kind of newly required item to be measured at the time of a sea trial. However, for each item, a specific measurement method is not necessarily specified in the relevant Rules/Regulations. It may be necessary to develop a standard measurement method for some of these items in the future, which is an open question.
Table 3 – Items Measured and Measurement Methods Used
Measurement Methods
Items
“MUSANAH” “SHIN
KORYU”
Draft, Trim Visual measurement Visual measurement Speed over ground Temporarily installed GPS Temporarily installed GPS
Wind direction/speed Wind indicator of the ship Wind indicator of the ship
Shaft power of M/E Estimation from fuel rack Estimation from fuel consumption
- 7 - MEPC 60/4/5 12 Paragraph 4.3.7 of the Verification Guidelines specify that a power curve based on a measured ship speed should be calibrated by taking into account the sea condition in accordance with ISO 15016:2002 or the equivalent. It was verified that the calibration was in accordance with ISO 15016:2002 or the equivalent, by fully following the calculation process for the calibration. Considering the ship’s schedule, the verification was to be completed in a very short period of time, such as one or two weeks between the sea trial and delivery of the ship. In cases where a calibration was conducted in accordance with a method other than the ISO 15016:2002, it is not practicable to verify the equivalency of the method to ISO 15016:2002 in such a very short period. Therefore, it seems reasonable that calibrations of power curves should be fully in accordance with a standard method such as ISO 15016:2002, and the calibration calculations should be done using standard calculation software like the one proposed by Korea at MEPC 59 (MEPC 59/4/39).
13 It was confirmed that the finally attained EEDI was calculated using the results of the speed trial in accordance with the Verification Guidelines. In the verification trials, the ship speed under the fully-loaded condition was determined using the method illustrated in Figure 2 of the Guidelines.
Issues that need further consideration and improvement in the Verification Guidelines and some insights on them
14 Issues for further consideration and proposals for improvement of the Verification Guidelines found in the course of conducting the verification trials are given in the following paragraphs.
15 Definitions of “Ship of the same type” and “Ship of a similar type” (paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 of the Guidelines): To clarify the application criteria for omission of tank tests, the definition of the terms “Ship of the same type” and “Ship of a similar type” should be clarified further, by investigating shipbuilders’ current criteria for omitting tank tests.
16 Definition of “Tank tests” (paragraph 2.4 of the Guidelines): In cases where a sea trial under the fully-loaded condition is not practicable, the ship speed needed for EEDI calculation is determined by comparing estimated power curves under the fully-loaded condition and the sea trial condition, using the actual ship speed measured during sea trials. Therefore, both power curves are to be estimated at the design stage with the same accuracy in accordance with exactly the same procedures. For that reason, the Verification Guidelines specify that, in principle, power curves under both conditions should be estimated based on reliable results of tank tests. In paragraph 2.4 of the Guidelines, use of numerical tests is also allowed for estimating power curves. For numerical tests, however, further clarification would be necessary with respect to their definition and applicable range. The following cases are expected as examples of applying various kinds of numerical tests, e.g., theoretical calculations, CFD, or use of charts, etc., for estimating power curves under current shipbuilder practices.
.1 Substitution for a tank test;
.2 Supporting use for tank tests like calibration of tank test results, e.g., evaluation of the effect of additional hull features such as fins, etc., on ship’s performance;
and
.3 Estimation of propeller open characteristics.
MEPC 60/4/5 - 8 -
As mentioned above, estimation of power curves should be based on reliable tank test results, in principle. Therefore, use of a numerical test as a substitution for a tank test should not be readily accepted. On the other hand, for the cases of subparagraphs 16.2 and 16.3 above, establishment of a framework for accepting such cases that seem to be practicable requires further discussion.
17 Language of EEDI Technical File (paragraph 4.2.2 of the Guidelines): Considering that the targets of EEDI verifications include ships engaged in international voyages, the EEDI Technical File should be written at least in English. Therefore, an amendment to paragraph 4.2.2 of the Verification Guidelines is proposed as follows:
4.2.2 EEDI Technical File, which is to be developed by either a shipowner or a
shipbuilder, should be written at least in English. EEDI Technical File should include at least but not limited to:
…
18 Contents of EEDI Technical File (paragraph 4.2.2.6 of the Guidelines): The Verification Guidelines require that the calculated value of the Attained EEDI be included in the EEDI Technical File. However, the EEDI Technical File should include not only the calculated value but also the calculation summary. The calculation summary should include at least each value of the calculation parameters and a description of the calculation process used to determine the Attained EEDI. Therefore, an amendment to paragraph 4.2.2.6 of the Verification Guidelines is proposed as follows:
4.2.2.6 Calculated value of the Attained EEDI with the calculation summary, which
should contain, at a minimum, each value of the calculation parameters and the calculation process used to determine the Attained EEDI.
19 SFC of diesel engines (paragraph 4.2.4 of the Guidelines): The SFCs of main and auxiliary engines are quoted from the respective NO x Technical Files. However, since the SFC in the NO x Technical File is an uncorrected measured value, for EEDI calculations, the SFC should be corrected to a value corresponding to ISO standard reference conditions (Total barometric pressure: 100 kPa, Air temperature: 298 K, Relative humidity: 30%, Charge air coolant temperature: 298 K) using the standard lower calorific value of the fuel oil (42,700 kJ/kg) referring to ISO 15550:2002 and ISO 3046-1:2002. Therefore, an amendment to the first sentence of paragraph 4.2.4 of the Verification Guidelines is proposed as follows:
4.2.4 The SFC of the main and auxiliary engines should be quoted from the approved
NO x Technical File and should be corrected to the value corresponding to the ISO standard reference conditions using the standard lower calorific value of the fuel oil (42,700 kJ/kg), referring to ISO 15550:2002 and ISO 3046-1:2002.
reliability
of tank tests (paragraph 4.2.5 of the Guidelines): As mentioned in for
20 Criteria
paragraph 9 above, the criteria used for determining the reliability of tank tests are still open to question. For ensuring the quality of tank tests, for example, approval of tank test organizations or witnessing of each tank test by a verifier may be necessary in the future.
- 9 - MEPC 60/4/5 21Requirement of tank tests (paragraph 4.2.5 of the Guidelines): Although the verification Guidelines specify that estimation of power curves should be based on tank tests, in principle, the requirement of tank tests should be carefully discussed further, for the following reasons:
.1 In cases where the requirements of tank tests are applied to every ship of 400 GT or above for which EEDI Calculation Guidelines (MEPC.1/Circ.681) are applied,
there is a possibility that the number of tank test facilities will be insufficient to
adequately meet the demand for conducting such tests; and
.2 It is supposed that a large number of small shipbuilders will not have the experience required for properly conducting tank tests. Such shipbuilders may
be confronted with too many difficulties when tank tests are required for their
ships.
For mandatory EEDI scheme in the future, a categorization of ships according to their size is supposed to be introduced. It should be noted that the issue of the EEDI implementation in relation to ship size category was discussed at GHG-WG 2, based on the proposal by Japan (GHG-WG 2/2/16). GHG-WG 2 “agreed, in principle, to the categorization of ship sizes as proposed by Japan in document GHG-WG 2/2/16, annex 3, with a change from [10,000] to [X].” (paragraph 2.8 of MEPC 59/4/2 “Report on the outcome of second Intersessional Meeting of the Working Group on GHG Emissions from Ships”). Such “in-principle agreed” size categorization was as follows: Category I (less than 400GT: the whole EEDI requirements are exempted), Category II (400 to [X]GT: EEDI calculation is required, while compliance with EEDI limit is exempted), and Category III ([X]GT or above: both EEDI calculation and compliance with the limit are required). If such a categorization is applied, one idea for a solution of the above concerns is exempting tank tests for Category II ships for which compliance with the limit value of EEDI is not mandatory. In addition, for ships for which a sea trial under the fully-loaded condition is conducted, omission of tank tests seems to be technically acceptable as the ship speed for EEDI calculation could be confirmed from the results of speed trials directly.
22 Verification method of ship speed (paragraph 4.2.6 of the Guidelines): Bearing in mind that it is not practicable for some kinds of ships to undergo sea trials under the fully-loaded condition, some possible alternative options for methods for verifying ship speeds are proposed. The concepts of these options with their respective advantages and disadvantages are summarized in Table 4. For the verification trials this time, Option A was adopted as the method used to verify ship speeds. However, as pointed in paragraph 9, the difficulties of verifying the shipbuilder’s experience-based parameters such as Model-Ship correlation factors still remained unsolved. In general, because different values are used as the experience-based parameters for the fully-loaded condition and for the sea trial condition (ballast condition), it is not practicable to confirm the validity of the experience-based parameters for the fully-loaded condition through conducting the sea trial under the ballast condition. Option B, a modified method of Option A, would make it possible to indirectly verify a ship’s speed under the fully-loaded condition through a verification of the ship’s speed under the sea trial condition. This could be achieved by setting some restrictions on experience-based parameters. These restrictions could consist of a kind of giving correlations between experience-based parameters for the fully-loaded condition and for the sea trial condition. Other possible options are also listed in Table 4 for further discussion.
MEPC 60/4/5 - 10 -
Table 4 – Options for Methods to Verify Ship Speeds
Explanation Advantages
Disadvantages
A Shipbuilders’ own methods for estimating
power curves are accepted as they are. It is
confirmed that power curves under
fully-loaded condition and sea trial
condition have been estimated in
accordance with exactly the same
procedures by following the calculations
used for the respective estimations.
During the confirmation process,
shipbuilders’ experience-based parameters
such as Model-Ship correlation factors used
in the calculations are accepted as they are,
because it is not practicable for verifiers to
examine the technical aspects of the
parameters.
- Shipbuilders are able
to use their own
procedures.
- Relatively accurate
estimation of power
curves are expected
(as has been the case
until now).
- Burden of
verification is large,
because verifiers
need to follow the
various procedures
used by
shipbuilders one by
one.
- Less robustness of
verification of
power curves.
B Option B is a modified version of Option A.
The difference between these options is that
some restrictions are set on
experience-based parameters in Option B,
which enable verifiers to indirectly verify
power curves under fully-loaded condition
through a speed trial.
The restrictions give correlations between
experience-based parameters for
fully-loaded condition and sea trial
condition. For example, the following may
be assumed as reasonable ideas for setting
such restrictions:
1) Use same values for experience-based
parameters for both fully-loaded condition
and sea trial condition.
2) Shipbuilders’ own experience-based
parameters for sea trial condition multiplied
by a ratio between the evaluated values of
the parameters for both conditions using
evaluation formulas developed by the
Organization are used to estimate power
curves under fully-loaded condition.
- Shipbuilders are able
to use their own
procedures.
- Relatively accurate
estimation of power
curves are expected
(less accurate
compared to
Option A).
- Power curves are
verifiable by
verifiers.
- Burden of
verification is large,
because verifiers
need to follow the
various procedures
used by
shipbuilders one by
one.
- 11 - MEPC 60/4/5
C Tank test processes and the estimation of
power curves are left to the discretion of
shipbuilders. Estimated power curves are
accepted by verifiers as they are, based on
the declarations made by shipbuilders.
Verifiers confirm that the Attained EEDI is
calculated in accordance with the EEDI
Calculation Guidelines.
- Shipbuilders are able
to use their own
procedures.
- Relatively accurate
estimation of power
curves are expected
(as has been the case
until now).
- Burden of
verification is small.
- Less robustness of
verification of
power curves.
D A standard method developed by the
Organization is used to estimate power
curves.
All parameters other than measured
parameters used in the estimation process
are determined using standard values or
evaluation formulas developed by the
Organization.
- Burden of
verification is small.
- Power curves are
verifiable by
verifiers.
- Less accuracy of a
ship speed under
fully-loaded
condition leading to
lessened accuracy
of EEDI.
- Shipbuilders may
be forced to
dramatically
change their
procedures.
23 Additional
Information
(paragraph 4.2.8 of the Guidelines): Additional Information includes confidential information of the shipbuilder, in general. As noted in paragraph 8 above, a secrecy agreement clause should be specified in the Verification Guidelines. Therefore, an amendment to paragraph 4.2.8 of the Verification Guidelines is proposed as follows:
4.2.8 Such additional information may contain shipbuilders’ confidential information.
Therefore, after the verification, the verifier should return all or part of such information to the shipbuilder at its request. In the case where the shipbuilder wants a secrecy agreement with the verifier, the additional information should be provided to the verifier upon conclusion of such an agreement.
24 Test procedures for speed trials (paragraph 4.3.1 of the Guidelines): Prior to a sea trial, test procedures for the speed trial, including descriptions of items needing to be measured and corresponding measurement methods, should be submitted to the verifier. Therefore, an amendment to paragraph 4.3.1 of the Verification Guidelines is proposed as follows:
4.3.1 Prior to the sea trial,a shipowner should submit the application for the verification
of EEDI together with a description of test procedure to be used for the speed trial, the final displacement table and the measured lightweight, or a copy of the survey report of deadweight, as well as a copy of NO x Technical File, as necessary. The test procedure should include, at a minimum, descriptions of necessary items to be measured and corresponding measurement methods for developing a power curve under the sea trial condition.
25 Confirmation of measuring accuracy (paragraph 4.3.2 of the Guidelines): At the time of speed trials, it may be necessary for verifiers to confirm the accuracy of the measurements taken, e.g., confirm calibration records of the measurement equipment, etc., which is an open question.
MEPC 60/4/5 - 12 -
26 Method used for measuring shaft power of main engine (paragraph 4.3.6 of the Guidelines): As with the methods used to estimate ship speeds, each shipbuilder uses its own method for measuring the shaft powers of main engines during sea trials. Under the current circumstances, since it is difficult to fix the most appropriate method for measuring the shaft powers of main engines, it seems practicable to accept measuring methods proposed by shipbuilders, unless specific problems are found in the proposed methods. Therefore, an amendment to paragraph 4.3.6 of the Verification Guidelines is proposed as follows:
4.3.6The shaft power of the main engine should be measured by shaft power meter or
estimated by fuel rack. Otherwise, it should be measured by a method which the engine manufacturer recommends. Other methods may be acceptable upon agreement of the shipowner and shipbuilder and with approval of the verifier.
However, for fairer and more robust verifications, further discussions may be necessary regarding methods for measuring a shaft power in the future.
27 Method of calibrating power curve (paragraph 4.3.7 of the Guidelines): As mentioned in paragraph 12, it seems reasonable that calibrations of power curves should be fully in accordance with a standard method such as ISO 15016:2002, and the calibration calculations should be conducted using standard calculation software like the one proposed by Korea at MEPC 59 (MEPC 59/4/39).
28 Verification of power curves developed during sea trials (paragraph 4.3.7 of the Guidelines): Results of a speed trial and a detailed description of the calculation process used in developing the power curve should, upon agreement with the shipowner, be submitted from the shipbuilder to the verifier for verification that the power curve was developed using the measured data in accordance with a standard method such as ISO 15016:2002. Therefore, an amendment to paragraph 4.3.7 of the Verification Guidelines is proposed as follows:
4.3.7 The shipbuilder should develop power curves based on the measured ship speed
and the measured shaft power of the main engine at sea trial. For the development of the power curves, the shipbuilder should calibrate the measured ship speed, if necessary, by taking into account the effects of wind, tide and waves in accordance with ISO 15016:2002 or the equivalent. Upon agreement with the shipowner, the shipbuilder should submit a detailed report of the speed trials and the development of the power curve to the verifier for verification.
deadweight/gross
tonnage (New paragraph 4.3.9 and paragraph 4.3.10 of the 29 Final
Guidelines): In cases where the finally determined deadweight/gross tonnage differs from the designed deadweight/gross tonnage used in the EEDI calculation during the preliminary verification process, the Attained EEDI should be recalculated using the finally determined deadweight/gross tonnage. The recalculated Attained EEDI should be included in the EEDI Technical File. Therefore, it is proposed that a new paragraph 4.3.9 be added to the Guidelines. In this case, the original paragraph numbers 4.3.9 to 4.3.11 are to be renumbered and shifted in order.
New 4.3.9 In cases where the finally determined deadweight/gross tonnage differs from the designed deadweight/gross tonnage used in the EEDI calculation during the preliminary verification, the shipowner or shipbuilder should recalculate the Attained EEDI by using the finally determined deadweight/gross tonnage.
- 13 - MEPC 60/4/5 In addition, an amendment to paragraph 4.3.11 (ex. 4.3.10) of the Verification Guidelines is proposed as follows:
4.3.1011 The shipowner or the shipbuilder should revise an EEDI Technical File, as
necessary, by taking into account the results of sea trials. Such revision should include, as applicable, the adjusted power curve based on the results of sea trial (namely, modified ship speed at 75% of MCR power of the main engine at full-loaded condition), the finally determined deadweight/gross tonnage and SFC described in the approved NO x Technical File, and the recalculated Attained EEDI based on these modifications.
Action requested of the Committee
30 The Committee is invited to consider this document and take action as appropriate.
***
MEPC 60/4/5
ANNEX
EEDI Technical File (Sample)
1. Data
information
1.1 General
Shipbuilder JAPAN Shipbuilding Company
Hull No. 12345
IMO No. 94111XX
Kind of ship Bulk carrier
1.2 Principal
particulars
Length overall 250.0 m
Length between perpendiculars 240.0 m
Breadth, molded 40.0 m
Depth, molded 20.0 m
Scantling draught, molded 14.0m
Deadweight at scantling draught 150,000 tons
engine
1.3 Main
Manufacturer JAPAN Heavy Industries Ltd.
Type 6J70A
Maximum continuous rating (MCR) 15,000 kW x 80 rpm
SFC at 75% MCR 165.0 g/kWh
Number of set 1
engine
1.4 Auxiliary
Manufacturer JAPAN Diesel Ltd.
Type 5J-200
Maximum continuous rating (MCR) 600 kW x 900 rpm
SFC at 50% MCR 220.0 g/kWh
Number of set 3
speed
1.5 Ship
Ship speed in deep water at
14.25 knots
scantling draught at 75% of MCR
MEPC 60/4/5
ANNEX
Page 2
Curves
2. Power
The power curves estimated at the design stage and modified after the speed trials are shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Power curves
MEPC 60/4/5
ANNEX
Page 3 3. Overview of Propulsion System and Electric Power Supply System
system
3.1 Propulsion
3.1.1 Main engine
Refer to subparagraph 1.3.
3.1.2 Propeller
Type Fixed pitch propeller
Diameter 7.0 m
Number of blades 4
Number of set 1
3.2 Electric power supply system
3.2.1 Auxiliary engines
Refer to the subparagraph 1.4.
3.2.2 Main generators
Manufacturer JAPAN Electric
Rated output 560 kW (700 kVA) x 900 rpm
Voltage AC 450 V
Number of set 3
Figure 3.1: Schematic figure of propulsion and electric power supply system
MEPC 60/4/5
ANNEX
Page 4
4. Estimation Process of Power Curves at Design Stage
Power curves are estimated based on model test results. The flow of the estimation process is shown below.
Figure 4.1: Flow chart of process for estimating power curves
5. Description of Energy Saving Equipment
5.1 Energy saving equipment taken into account in EEDI calculation
N/A
5.2 Other energy saving equipment
(Example)
5.2.1 Rudder fins
MEPC 60/4/5
ANNEX
Page 5
5.2.2 Propeller boss cap fins
……
(Specifications, schematic figures and/or photos, etc., for each piece of equipment or device should be indicated. Alternatively, attachment of the commercial catalogue may be acceptable.)
6. Calculated Value of Attained EEDI
6.1 Basic data
Type of Ship Capacity DWT Speed V ref (knots)
Bulk Carrier 150,000 14.25
6.2 Main engine
MCR ME (kW) Shaft Gen. P ME (kW) Type of Fuel
C FME SCF ME (g/kWh) 15,000 N/A 11,250 HFO 3.1144 165.0
6.3 Auxiliary engines
P AE (kW) Type of Fuel C FAE SCF AE (g/kWh)
625 HFO 3.1144 220.0
6.4 Ice class
N/A
6.5 Innovative electrical energy efficient technology
N/A
6.6
Innovative mechanical energy efficient technology N/A
6.7
Calculated value of Attained EEDI
()()()()
mile /ton CO g 905.21
25.1415000010
00.2201144.36250.1651144.311250121)()(1)()(1)(11)()()(1??=×××?+××+×××=???
???? ? ???+?????+ ?? =∑∑∑∏∑∏======w
ref i neff i ME FME i eff i eff AE FAE neff i i AEeff i eff nPTI i i PTI M j j w
ref i AE FAE AE nME i i ME i FME i ME M j j f V Capacity f SFC C P f SFC C P f P f f V Capacity f SFC C P SFC C P f EEDI Attained EEDI: 2.905 g-CO 2/ton mile
________________