PROJECT FINAL REPORT - CORDIS · 2016-08-18 · • WP4: Retrofit process. WP4 deals with the process of retrofitting, in particular reverse engineering and process simulation & planning

PROJECT FINAL REPORT

Grant Agreement number: 285420

Project acronym: RETROFIT

Project title: RETROFITing ships with new technolog y for improved overall environmental footprint

Funding Scheme: FP7

Period covered: October 1nd 2011 from to January 31st 2015

Name of the scientific representative of the projec t's co-ordinator:

Netherlands Maritime Technology Foundation

Mr. M. Krikke

Tel: 0031 88 44 51 34

Fax: not applicable

E-mail: [email protected]

Project website address: www.retrofit-project.eu

2

Contents

1. FINAL PUBLISHABLE SUMMARY REPORT 3 1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 1.2 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES 4 1.2.1 Background 4 1.2.2 Approach 4 1.2.3 Challenge 4 1.2.4 Project objectives 5 1.2.5 Project work plan 6 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE MAIN S&T RESULTS/FOREGROUNDS 7 1.3.1 A method to identify ship candidates for retrofitting 7 1.3.2 Analysis and assessment model 8 1.3.3 Economic assessment model 10 1.3.4 Design for retrofit 12 1.3.5 Regulatory Framework to Implement the RETROFIT solutions 14 1.3.6 Short list of green technologies 16 1.3.7 Retrofit technology combinations 18 1.3.8 Decision Support System 21 1.3.9 Tool for retrofit process simulation and planning 24 1.3.10 Reverse engineering technology 26 1.4 POTENTIAL IMPACT 27 1.4.1 Introduction 27 1.4.2 Retrofit technical impact 28 1.4.3 Retrofit economic impact 28 1.5 MAIN DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES AND EXPLOITATION OF RESULTS 31 1.5.1 Main dissemination activities 31 1.5.1.1 Retrofit mid-term conference 31 1.5.1.2 Retrofit final conference 32 1.5.1.3 Other major dissemination events 32 1.5.2 Exploitation/market uptake 33 1.5.2.1 Background 33 1.5.2.2 Objective 33 1.5.2.3 Approach 33

2. USE AND DISSEMINATION OF FOREGROUND 35 2.1 Section A 35 2.2 Section B 35

3. FINAL REPORT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION 53

3

1. FINAL PUBLISHABLE SUMMARY REPORT

1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Retrofitting is defined as the installation on-board ships of state-of-the-art or innovative components or systems and could in principle be driven by the need to meet new regulatory energy and emission standards or by the ship owner interest to upgrade to higher operational standards. While sea transport market conditions alone might not justify retrofitting, public interest expressed through national and international policies foster a reduction of energy usage and emissions. Project Retrofit aim is, to develop methods and supporting tools for the benefit of the shipbuilding and ship-repair industry, as well as the shipping community involved in (ship) retrofitting activities. These developments will allow to identify worthy retrofitting candidate ships and select appropriate (green) technologies that can be fitted at minimum cost and lead time. The condition of the particular ship such as service profile, remaining life cycle and the existing and expected regulations, must be taken in account.

Technologically rejuvenated ships might / will “age” again within years after retrofitting. Possessing the capability to monitor and manage the retrofitted ship overall performance throughout the remaining life cycle will a) ensure optimal performance and b) help identify emerging conditions which justify new retrofitting action(s). Retrofitting should therefore become an established practice in the shipping industry involving the entire value chain and exploring the possibilities that may open to the industry on a continuous basis. The focus points of project Retrofit are:

• Methods to identify ship candidates for retrofitting; • Methods and tools for simulating the working of the ship main and auxiliary systems; • Methods and tools for extracting geometrical data (reverse engineering) from existing ships/ship

systems, this to build product models for re-engineering work of retrofitting processes; • Methods and tools to control ships energy and emission performance: decision support systems

for emission control and energy optimization over the entire service profile; • Design-for-retrofitting methodology based on standardisation and modularisation principles; • Efficient corresponding yard processes for minimum out-of-business time for retrofitting ships. The project work programme contained 5 technical and 1 management Work Packages (WP’s): • WP1: Retrofit Ships in operation. WP1 developed a method for identifying “worthy” retrofitting

candidates and tools for full-scale ships voyage and energy usage simulation. • WP2: The Retrofit ship. WP2 handles the new (retrofitted) ship configuration in terms of safety

and functionality, and investigates a “design for retrofitting” approach. • WP3: Retrofit Green technologies solutions. WP3 selects, evaluates and combines green

technologies into an existing ship configuration, and develops a Decision Support System (DSS) to control ships energy and emission performance.

• WP4: Retrofit process. WP4 deals with the process of retrofitting, in particular reverse engineering and process simulation & planning methods and tools.

Work Packages 1, 3 and 4 made use of full scale experiments and measurements to validate the developed methods and tools. • WP5: Retrofit impact, knowledge and dissemination • WP6: Retrofit project management The project consortium contained fourteen European partners, including ship owners, major equipment suppliers, engineering bureaus and research organisations.

4

1.2 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT CONTEXT AND OBJE CTIVES

1.2.1 Background A ship life cycle is usually set at 25 years, but the actual age of (for example) the short sea fleet is higher, reaching at more than 30 - 35 years of age for perhaps as much as 40 % of the fleet. The life cycle of ship systems and major components is much shorter, this because of the ever faster technological developments. In general, 10-15 years after launching the ship main systems are outdated. While waterborne transport market conditions alone might not justify the replacing of elderly technology in ships by new ones (retrofitting), national and international policies fostering reduction of energy usage and emissions issue new regulations on energy efficiency and emission reduction. For example, the geographic regions in which only low sulphur fuel can be used are growing due to regional air quality regulations (e.g. CARB) or international Emissions Control Areas (ECA’ s) defined by IMO. These developments have created the need for advanced methods and tools to assess the impact of new/expected emissions regulations on own (ship) operations now and in mid-term future and to support decisions on measures to meet these new regulations by retrofitting existing ships with green technologies.

1.2.2 Approach Retrofitting could in principle be driven by the need to meet new regulations or by the ship owner interest to upgrade to higher operational standards. There is also the broader interest to maintain the leading role of Europe’s marine equipment suppliers fostering clean, safe and competitive European waterborne transportation with a view to meet future market and societal needs. This broader interest is justified by the state of the world fleet segments: • While the average age of the total world fleet continued to decrease since 2007 (11.8 years)

with the youngest fleet continued to be that of containerships, general cargo vessels continue to be the oldest vessel type, with more than 55 %of the tonnage being 20 years and older.

• More recent statistics unveil a European (European Economic Area or EEA) fleet slightly younger than the world fleet, but for passenger ships.

• Finally, figures on the age of the EU- fleet show a ca. 50 million TDW capacity considered to be suitable for retrofitting.

Bringing ships-in-service to current/upcoming environmental standards should however not remain an incidental activity driven by rules and regulations only. Improving continuously the environmental efficiency of waterborne transportation requires not only to ensure the optimal performance of the retrofitted ship but also to keep in mind that technologically rejuvenated ships might / will “age” again within years after retrofitting. In both cases the capability to monitor and manage the retrofitted ship overall performance throughout the remaining life cycle will be necessary: • First, to ensure optimal performance • Second, to identify emerging conditions when the gap between the ship performance and the

newly available (green) technologies justifies new retrofitting action(s).

1.2.3 Challenge Retrofitting should therefore become an established practice in the shipping industry involving the entire value chain and exploring the possibilities that retrofitting may open to the industry on a continuous basis. The ever-going challenge is:

How to identify worthy retrofitting candidates and establish appropriate (green) technologies that can be suitably fitted at minimum cost and lead time, while considering

the condition of the particular ship, her service profile, her remaining life cycle and the governing and expected regulations

5

1.2.4 Project objectives Project Retrofit overall aim is to initiate a new impulse in combating climate change by improving the environmental efficiency of waterborne transportation, specifically the environmental footprint of existing ships. To do this, available and newly developed technologies will be fitted into existing ship configurations, aiming to improve energy efficiency and cleanness while at least maintaining but preferably improving the ships’ rest - life cycle economic performance. Keeping in mind that the technologically rejuvenated ship might / will “age” within years after retrofitting, it will be necessary to monitor and manage the retrofitted ship overall performance throughout the remaining life cycle to ensure optimal performance and to identify new emerging retrofitting needs.

Modifying existing ships to a different service profile is an established practice in ship repair and conversion, for example converting large ships where the buoyancy function and part of the machinery is maintained and enhanced by additional structures and machinery. Retrofitting ships with green technologies has however a different purpose i.e.: improve the environmental performance by reducing energy usage and emission levels, this without altering the ship service profile. All these to be done within the restriction of existing hull geometry, compartment division and machinery/equipment/outfit arrangements. Ship owners/shipyards involved in ship retrofitting must:

• Be capable to determine whether a ship is “worthy” to be retrofitted. • Be capable to assess the ship performance on energy usage and emissions prior to and after

retrofitting before decisions on costly investments are taken • After retrofitting, be capable to monitor the ship performance and operate the ship at minimum

energy usage.

Fig.1 : A retrofitting process concept

Fig. 1 displays a sequence of steps depicting a concept for a retrofitting process that answers to the above capability demand. The ability to execute these steps needs to be developed within project Retrofit, the derived project challenges are therefore: 1. To identify “worthy” ship candidates for retrofitting taking into account existing and expected

legislation regarding energy, emissions and safety. 2. To identify appropriate green technologies and the corresponding hardware, embedded

systems etc. 3. To establish the possibilities of these green technologies to be fitted into existing

arrangements of space, machinery, equipment, piping, cabling, fittings etc. at the lowest possible cost and lead time.

4. To establish the impact of the new ship configuration after retrofitting on the (rest) life cycle performance of the retrofitted ship.

5. To enable the monitoring and managing the retrofitted ship overall performance. 6. Anticipating on retrofitting as new practice in a ship life cycle, develop a design-for-retrofitting

methodology and ship architecture based on modularisation and standardisation principles. 7. Assure a long-term impact of Retrofit solutions. 8. Have suitable methods and tools that are necessary to meet the challenges stated above. To successfully meet the above challenges project Retrofit must yield the following results:

• A list of green technologies and components which can be fitted to existing ships taking into account existing and expected legislation regarding energy, emissions and safety.

6

• Methods to identify ship candidates for retrofitting based on (rest) life cycle considerations and tools to assess the overall economic performance of ships before and after retrofitting.

• Methods and tools for simulating the working of various configurations of ship main and auxiliary systems regarding energy usage and emissions including alternative fuels, alternative energy sources, energy recovering systems, emission treatment systems etc. under operational conditions at sea, during port approach/leaving and during manoeuvring.

• Methods and tools for “reverse engineering” enabling to build product models suitable for the retrofitting process. Ship external (hull form) and internal geometry (compartments), and machinery & outfit positions (with all relevant piping & cabling) will be necessary.

• Methods and tools to control ships energy and emission performance: decision support systems for emission control and energy optimization over the entire service profile, monitoring and managing retrofitted technologies performance throughout the remaining life cycle.

• Design-for-retrofitting methodology based on standardisation and modularisation principles. • Recommendations in support of policy measures to mitigate emissions.

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

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

7

Fig. 3: Project Retrofit work plan structure

1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE MAIN S&T RESULTS/FOREGROUNDS The Scientific and Technological Results and Foregrounds (S&TRF) are listed according to the project Work Package structure.

1.3.1 A method to identify ship candidates for retr ofitting Source/reference Work Package 1, Deliverable D1.1 Name A method to identify ship candidates for retrofitting Application domain Ship economic assessment Result type Report, excel tool IP-owner Delft University Challenge/question Be capable to determine whether a ship is “worthy” to be retrofitted Result description This is a first step in the (retrofit) decision making process, allowing the ship owner to determine whether a particular ship is “worthy” to be retrofitted. The governing criterion for this decision is: • A candidate ship worthy to be retrofitted should be, after retrofitting, economically competitive in

comparison to a new or second hand vessel, build according the state of the art, common in the trade and the logistical chain meant to be serviced.

Conditions for identifying “worthy” retrofit candidates are: • Ships are mainly one of designs ideally fit for a specific service • Excellent hull design, potentially good propulsion system in order to be able to achieve emission

reduction and an economical operation. • Ships with a design speed far above the economic speed are probably difficult to operate

economically at lower speeds due to partial loaded main engines. Also the hull design could be wrong for the lower speeds. A possible approach in such a case could be, to optimise the power plant for the new “design speed”.

• There should be space enough to accommodate the proposed equipment, especially end of pipe solutions, for NOx, SOx and PM.

8

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

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

1.3.2 Analysis and assessment model Source/reference Work Package 1, Deliverable D1.2, D1.3 Name Analysis and assessment model Application domain Ship voyage and energy systems simulation Result type Report, simulation models, simulation platform for ship voyage and energy IP-owner MARIN, TNO, Delft University Challenge/question Acquire the ability to:

• analyse a ship energy / emission performance in operational conditions • assess the results of the analysis • determine a reference for the performance of new technologies

Result description Fig. 4 below depicts the concept principles of the Retrofit assessment and analysis model. The model calculates the ship energy needs at various ship operational modes (transit, manoeuvring) and, using the ship systems’ behaviour (characteristics) provides fuel consumption/emission figures. These figures are further used to claculate the ship overall costs corresponding to the particular ship physical model and energy needs.

Fig. 4: Retrofit assessment/analysis model concept

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

9

Fig. 5: Schematic overview of assessment and analys is model The ship operational profile is split between transit, where large time scales are applicable, and operation in confined waters, where a shorter time scale is required to capture the details of the physical process.

Simulation in transit condition: this is done with two different tools: • GULLIVER (MARIN) is a simulation tool that uses hind cast weather and wave data to calculate

a ship behaviour in a seaway. • GES (TN) is a dedicated schematic description of the complete energy household on-board a

ship. It contains different models for the ship engines and machinery that uses energy or produces emissions.

Simulation in confined waters: this is again done with two different tools • Scylla (MARIN) is the GULLIVER “equivalent” for manoeuvring in confined waters. • Tools (Delft University) to simulate the behaviour of the ship engine during manoeuvring: a

generic dynamic diesel engine model and models of all the components using energy or producing emissions.

Economic performance analysis: see economic assessment model

Envisaged exploitation use Ship owners and shipyards will be able to assess the impact of green technologies on a ship energy and emission performance prior to and after retrofitting before decisions on costly investments are taken.

10

1.3.3 Economic assessment model Source/reference Work Package 1, Deliverable D1.2, D1.3 Name Economic assessment model Application domain Economic assessment of retrofitting alternatives Result type Report, models, Excel tool IP-owner Delft University, Antwerp University Challenge/question Acquire the ability to assess the economic performance of ships retrofitted

with green technologies considering: • Internal costs • External costs (i.e. societal costs)

Result description

∆−∆

∆−∆

ss

pp

CB

CR

Fig. 6: Retrofit Economic model

11

The economic model developed in project Retrofit (see Fig. 6 above) introduces a new concept in evaluating the economic performance of ships. The new concept takes into account the (negative) impact of emissions. The total ship operational costs are therefore: • the direct costs for the ship owner, and • the hidden environmental costs (costs to society) The economic model contains two components (Fig. 6): • A micro-economic (sub) model that calculates the freight rate required to cover all costs

including and excluding the external costs for a given ship and given a service profile • A macro-economic (sub) model, also called aggregated model, calculates the impact of the

proposed green technology measures with different penetration ratio’s in the market, for (example) the whole European RORO market.

See Fig. 7 for the criteria used to assess the economic impact of various (green) technologies.

Fig. 7: Assessment criteria for comparing technolog ies

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

12

1.3.4 Design for retrofit Source/reference Work Package 2, Deliverable D2.2 Name Design for retrofit Application domain Ship design process anticipating on future retrofitting needs Result type Report, model, computer tool IP-owner Delft University Challenge/question The challenge is to introduce retrofitting provision for space, weight,

accessibility and technology matching within a ship design that will facilitate low cost and short retrofitting lead time in the future.

Result description A concept “Map of retrofitting ability” and corresponding retrofittability principles were devised using relevant design methodologies that could support a design-for-retrofitting approaches, and practical knowledge from experts. The same Map was used to define a “Retrofit Penalty Indicator (RPI)”, in fact a measure of merit for retrofittability determined by three indicators: • Ease of Handling • Transportation path for equipment in-and-out • Required number of handlings.

Fig. 8: Concept Map of Retrofit ability:

input for the technical specification of the Retrof it Penalty Indicator

Fig. 8 shows that the Retrofit ability of a design is mainly determined by the effect the layout and engineering details have on the required retrofit actions. The costs of these retrofit actions are driven by the ease of handling components, the allowed transportation paths for equipment in-and-out and the required number of handlings.

To consolidate the defined concept of retrofit ability a tool was developed and used in a demonstrator addressing the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales. The input and output of the tools are show in Fig. 9. The demonstrator addressed the main engine room of the case ship: an alternative configuration of the engine room showing the impact of the design-for-retrofitting

13

approach on the ship design solution was created.

Fig. 9: Input and Output of the Design for Retrofit ability Tool

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

14

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

technologies in existing ships, in particular regarding the reducing of CO2 emissions.

Result description

Incentive

ship

yard

/

rela

ted

ind

ust

ry

chart

ere

r

ship

ow

ner

carr

ier

ship

per

pro contra

Tax

Clean fuels are cheaper / dirty fuels more

expensive x x x pollutor pays how much cleaner can fuel?

Emission taxes (CO2)

x

nuanced introduction in total economic

system

better balance in investment

susceptible to fraud

risk of excessive taxation (measure: price

fixing by independent agency)

Fiscal benefits for shippers using

dedicated green ships X X X

Funding/subsidy

bonus for emission reduction measures

amounting societal costs (outside

regulations fall) X x good behavior is rewarded difficult to measure

(tiered) eco-checque (for instance,

maintenance of green ships in EU ports) x

reward for first movers

reduces opex establish new institute who can organize

port costs OR PORT DUES

x immediately noticeable + EU regulated

limited / restricted

controlled by port (better European)

Financing

supply of capital / interest on loan

x

risk reduction for owner ship / fin.

institutions or lenders

C / B ratio decrease

recover of capital (eg on profit of ship,

then ship never makes profit)

operating lease equipment (wind: wind

rich / poor area) (scrubber lease)

x

a manner of (portable) systems to invest

with periodic / area dependent yieldstechnological feasibility

investment funds (tax in Norway goes to a

fund, money goes to research ...) x

lowering capital company / owner (off

balance)susceptible to fraud, log, transparency

Regulation

SEEMP operationalize

xgreater flexibility in sales'

very difficult to implement (benchmark

needed !!)

realistic penalties (look at economic gain)

(crime should not be pay!) x

no taxation without compensation:

money stays in the sectorcontrols needed / supervisor needed

make CO2 (more broadly emissions)

visible to shippers x

consistent with existing system / win-

win for ship owner / chartererunenforceable

CO2 certificate x x x greater incentive to follow regulations unenforceable

green award system expand (mandatory /

EU organization) x

reflects social developments elsewhere

in the industryadm. burden, you must submit a file

rule based (SOLUTION DROP / certain

catalysts) xawareness of the whole chain payment Inspections

goal based (DIRECTIVE catalysts)

x

reflects social developments elsewhere

in the industrymay not always be the best solution

emission trading x awareness of whole chain " log system

chain liability x x x good behavior is rewarded hampering innovation "

Upgrade IS0 14001 simple to maintain stimulate innovation

construction of a ship (EEDI are

economical built)difficult to maintain complex

life cycle ship to adjust ceiling less support

upgradable ship external cost charge

scrappage 1: 1 everyone has the same interests

directive LNG (TEN-T) (directive

alternative fuels

NO

RETR

OFIT

RETR

OFIT

Fig. 10: List of proposed incentives

15

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

16

1.3.6 Short list of green technologies Source/reference Work Package 3, Deliverable D3.1, D3.2 Name Short list of green technologies Application domain Selection of green technologies for green retrofitting of ships Result type Report IP-owner Wärtsilä NL Challenge/question How to select/evaluate green technologies for ship retrofitting Result description

A list of evaluated green technologies regarding Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and suitable for retrofitting. The list is structured according to the following green technology categories:

• Energy sources – main • Main engines – configuration • Main engines – improvements • Generators • Auxiliary systems

• Operation and maintenance • Reduction of Nox • Reduction of Sox • Reduction of CO2 • Other environmental techniques

Selection criteria were: • TRL (Technology Readiness Level) • Years to industrialisation (market uptake) • Fit for retrofit • Fit in the scope of the project • Various IMO references such as energy saving potential • Emission mitigation potential for Nox, Sox, CO2 and PM

The final (short) list in shown in Fig. 11 below.

Envisaged exploitation use

It is important to notice that the list represents the state of the art anno 2011-2013. The list is therefore primarily a reference for identifying types of green technologies that could be used for ship green retrofitting. For example, it identifies SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction) technology for Nox emission reduction but the emission reduction potential represents the 2011-2013 state-of-the-art. Though the list is useful to explore retrofit options and possible combinations of technologies.

17

Fig. 11: Green technologies list

Remarks: - All information is for marine applications. - Figures related to total ship power - Figures related to State Of The Art technology 2012. - All data is merely illustrative and depending on various parameters, like ship type and operation. - Emissions are only focussed on the ship, not on the whole fuel cycle

TRL = Technological Readiness Level (ref. NASA)

For Retrofit Short-list, select: "TRL = 9" and "fit for retrofit"

TR

L

Yea

rs to

indu

stria

lisat

ion

Fit

for R

etro

fit

Fit

in s

cope

of P

roje

ct R

etro

fit

Imo

2009

par

agra

ph

ener

gy s

avin

g po

tent

ial -

IMO

- 2

009

ener

gy s

avin

g po

tent

ial -

IMO

- 2

010

ener

gy s

avin

g po

tent

ial -

EE

C w

arts

ila

ener

gy s

avin

g po

tent

ial

conc

lude

d

CO

2 em

issi

on s

avin

g po

tent

ial

NO

x e

mis

sion

sav

ing

pote

ntia

l

SO

x e

mis

sion

sav

ing

pote

ntia

l

PM

em

issi

on s

avin

g po

tent

ial

War

tsila

pro

duct

or d

evel

opm

ent

1 0

Energy source - main 1 0

Natural Gas (LNG/NG) 9 0 ++ yes A2.79/81 4% 4% 25% 85% 100% W

Dual-fuel engine (LNG / Diesel) 9 0 ++ yes A2.79/81 4% 4% 25% 85% 100% W

Electric - Battery: harbour approach 9 4 ++ yes 0% 100% 100% 100% W

Main engines - configuration 1 0

Diesel electric machinery 9 0 ++ yes 5-8% 5-8% ----equals energy saving----W

Variable speed operation of propeller 9 0 ++ yes <5% <5% ----equals energy saving----W

Combined Diesel-electric and Diesel-mechanic 9 0 ++ yes <4% <4% ----equals energy saving----W

Main engines - improvements 1 0

Engine upgrade 9 0 ++ yes A2.68/71 t.b.d. ----equals energy saving----W

Generators 1 0

Power management to improve use of generators 9 0 ++ yes <5% <5% ----equals energy saving----W

Generators with variable speed 9 0 ++ yes <3% <3% ----equals energy saving----W

Auxilliary systems 1 0

Waste Heat Recovery - electricity - with gas turbine 9 0 ++ yes <10% 12% ----equals energy saving----W

Waste Heat Recovery - electricity - without gas turbine 9 0 ++ yes 7% ----equals energy saving----W

Waste Heat Recovery - only steam 9 0 ++ yes 7% ----equals energy saving----W

Autopilot improvement 9 0 ++ yes 0,5-3% <4% 3% ----equals energy saving----

Use energy efficient equipment 9 0 ++ yes 2% ----equals energy saving----

speed control on cooling water pumps 9 0 ++ yes <1% 2% ----equals energy saving----

Low loss concept for electric propulsion systems 9 0 ++ yes <2% 2% ----equals energy saving----

Operation and maintenance 1 0

Analysing and cleaning hull condition 9 0 ++ yes A2.56 1-10% <5% 5% ----equals energy saving----

Analysing and cleaning propeller condition 9 0 ++ yes 2-5% 10% 5% ----equals energy saving----

Crew training and awareness 9 0 ++ yes <10% 5% ----equals energy saving----

Port efficiency enabling speed reduction in transfer 9 0 ++ yes <10% 5% ----equals energy saving----

Vessel trim adjustment 9 0 ++ yes <5% <5% 5% ----equals energy saving----

Voyage optimization (Weather, waves, current, speed) 9 0 ++ yes 0,1-4% <10% 4% ----equals energy saving----

Real time condition monitoring techniques (e.g. diesel) 9 0 ++ yes 4% ----equals energy saving----

Monitoring of energy consumption to improve operation 9 0 ++ yes 3% ----equals energy saving----

Hotel load; lighting; load balancing & storage (Freezer as buffer)9 0 ++ yes 1% ----equals energy saving----

Reduction of NOx 1 0

SCR system (catalyst) 9 0 ++ yes 0% 0% 80% 0% t.b.d. W

EGR system (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) 9 0 ++ yes 0% 0% 70-80% 0% t.b.d. W

Direct Water Injection 9 0 ++ yes 0% 0% 50% 0% t.b.d. W

High pressure Turbo Charging System (2-stage) 9 0 ++ yes 0% 0% 40% 0% t.b.d. W

Charge air humidification 9 0 ++ yes 0% 0% 40% 0% t.b.d. W

Water Fuel Emulsion 9 0 ++ yes 0% 0% 25% 0% t.b.d. W

Reduction of SOx 1 0

Scrubbing (SOx) 9 0 ++ yes -1,5% 0% 0% 97% 45% W

Reduction of CO2 1 0

Other environmental techniques 1 0

Ballast water treatment - electro chlorination (EC) 9 0 ++ yes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% W

Ballast water treatment - ultra-violet (UV) 9 0 ++ yes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% W

Oily water seperator 9 0 ++ yes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% W

18

1.3.7 Retrofit technology combinations Source/reference Work Package 3, Deliverable D3.2, D3.3 Name Retrofit technology combinations Application domain Combination of technologies for green retrofitting of ships Result type Report IP-owner Wärtsilä NL Challenge/question Given a specific ship type and service profile, the challenge is to identify

suitable green technologies that could be profitably integrated into the existing ship configuration. These green technologies, either combined or in stand-alone configuration are called “combi’s”.

Result description

Clarification: the project result outlined below concerns the project case ship, a RORO vessel of 10 000 TDW measuring 209 x 26,5 m. The selected technology combi’s are therefore tailored to the ship specifics and the corresponding service profile, and might not be applicable to other ships of the same type. Though, the followed retrofitting strategy can be used in a wider context for similar ships and even for ships of a different type. The main message is that, retrofitting must consider a variety of technical, economic and regulatory aspects before selecting green technologies for retrofitting the particular ships.

The project case ship drive system is depicted in Fig. 12 below.

Main drive: 4 x MAN B&W Diesel 9L 48/60 B Power 10800 kW Speed 500 rpm Cylinders: 9 Bore 480 mm Stroke 600 mm SFOC 176 g/kWh Turbo TCA 66 Main generators 3 x MAN L21/31 Power 1635 kW Generator power (Leroy Somer) 2044 kVA Speed 1000 rpm Harbour + emergency generators: 2 x MAN D 2842 LE20 1 (not used in normal operations) Power 430 kW Generator power 538 kVA Speed 1000 rpm

Fig. 12: Drive system of the project case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales

The selected green technology (combi’s) fitting the project case ship, are: Selected green technology Configuration Green technology type • Dual-fuel engine (LNG / Diesel) 1 + 2 Energy sources

• Cold Ironing (harbour supply - LNG generator) 3 Engine configuration

• Generators on PTO with variable speed 4 Engine configuration

• Scrubbing (SOx) 5 Sox reduction

• Solar 6 Energy sources

• Electric – Battery for harbour usage 7 Energy sources

• Decision Support Systems - trim advice 8 Operation & Maintenance

19

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

Fig. 13: The project retrofit strategy for the case ship

A more detailed description of the selected green technologies and the motivation is given below.

Measures on Energy source • Dual-fuel (DF) engine (LNG / Diesel) – selected in configuration 1 and 2.

LNG is an upcoming fuel in shipping, not as the main fuel but as one of the marine fuels of the future. DF engines are chosen because of the ability to use either liquid fuel or gas fuel, giving more flexibility in operation and also in design. The on-board LNG amount depends on the fuel use and the bunkering options. Improvements that can be achieved with DF engines are on both exhaust and fuel cost. Important considerations to implement DF engines are: o The bunkering infrastructure o LNG bunkering prices o Operation area: ECA zone

• Solar energy selected in configuration 6. This technology has a low power density and has only a small impact on the total fuel cost. However this technology is selected because: o The ROI is reasonable. o Big area required but not very complex. Proven technology. o The green image of the solar panels is important for the owner

• Electric – Battery for harbour usage selected in configuration 7. This configuration could be interesting for two reasons: o Reduces harbour emissions o Load batteries with main engines running on HFO and better efficiency and save running

generators on MDO with lower efficiency

Measures on engine configuration • Cold Ironing (harbour supply - LNG generator) selected in configuration 3.

This technology enables to reduce emissions in harbours. The LNG generator on harbour side is a realistic solution where the LNG generator could be on shore or on a barge. The barge solution is momentary being built in Hamburg.

• Generators on PTO with variable speed is selected in configuration 4. This option is used on the PTO of the main engines. This technology is fuel saving and

20

therefore reduces emissions and cost. Two reasons for efficiency improvement: o Improvement of the efficiency of the main engines o Make use of the better efficiency of the main engines compared to the generators

Operations and Maintenance • Decision Support Systems - trim advice – selected in configuration 8.

Trim influences the hull resistance and hence the fuel consumption. Trim control can be achieved by critically looking at the positioning of the cargo and of the ballast water. A trim monitoring system will help decide on the optimum cargo positioning and on the use of ballast water. This technology is actually installed on the case ship.

Sox reduction • Measures on Reduction of Sox were selected in configuration 5.

Reduction of SOx is important within ECA zones. The Emission Control Area (ECA) for SOx in Europe is in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. It is expected that also the Mediterranean Sea will be within the ECA. An exhaust-gas scrubbing system can reduce the level of sulphur dioxide (SO2). Various principles exist, such as Dry scrubbers and Wet scrubbers with applications for various ship service profiles.


The followed methodology can be used in a wider context for similar ships and even for ships of a different type. The main message is that, retrofitting must consider a variety of technical, economic and regulatory aspects before selecting green technologies for retrofitting the particular ships.

21

1.3.8 Decision Support System Source/reference Work Package 3, Deliverable D3.4, D3.5 Name Decision Support System Application domain Emission control and energy optimization over the entire service profile by

optimising the ship trim Result type Report IP-owner Imtech Marine Challenge/question How to monitoring and manage the retrofitted ship energy and emission

performance, using the project case ship as full scale demonstrator. Result description A Decision Support System (DSS) is a computer-based information system that supports decision-making activities, see a simple DSS representation in the adjacent figure. The maritime market uses a large variety of DSSs with functionalities that vary from simple showing monitored data to advanced advisory systems that use current, wind and wave forecasts to statistically deduce the best route given a variety of operational desires and constraints. Following discussions with the case ship owner (project partner Acciona Trasmediterranea), a choice was made to develop and test at full scale a prototype DSS Trim Control as a primary means for emission control and energy saving. A concept for the DSS Trim model is shown in Fig. 14 below.

Fig. 14: Concept Trim Decision Support System model

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

The installed prototype DSS architecture is shown in Fig. 16.

22

Fig 15: Hardware architecture

Fig. 16: Installed prototype DSS architecture

23


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

24

1.3.9 Tool for retrofit process simulation and plan ning Source/reference Work Package 4, Deliverable D4.1, D4.3 Name Tool for retrofit process simulation and planning Application domain Shipyard retrofit processes Result type Software tool IP-owner CMT Challenge/question The challenge is, to minimise the duration of the ship retrofitting lead time

at the shipyard. Result description

Retrofitting lead time is determined by the duration of dis-assembly and assembly processes at the shipyard. Simulation tools can help to find the optimal process sequence with optimal use of shipyard resources. In Retrofit a planning/simulation tool was developed that:

In Stage 1 : Data management tool anteSim can be used for rough planning, especially in an early stage when little input information is available. AnteSim contains templates and libraries for generating missing data and functions for editing planning data. AnteSim is: • A user-friendly interface supporting

Fig 17: Software concept

management of data relevant for retrofit planning • Typical activities can be predefined in a in a process pattern library. • When planning a retrofit, the required activities will be defined and budgeted by using and

parameterizing process patterns

In Stage 2 : Simulation toolkit STS for assessment of manufacturing and logistic processes on a detailed level(including e. g. transport processes). Further STS provides detailed statistics and analyses of results. STS requires considerable efforts and skills to prepare the simulation model and the input data. With STS: • The total lead time can be determined using material flow simulation using Plant Simulation. • The information defined in anteSim can be directly used as input data for the simulation. • Simulating several scenarios, e. g. different availability of resources, can help assessing the

robustness of the plan. • Based on a set of simulation runs done with varied model parameters, statistical process models

can be obtained. • Statistical process models can serve for parameter optimisation, e. g. for achieving a trade-off

between short lead time and not using more workers than necessary. • Statistical models can be used for cost optimisation as well.

Fig. 17 depicts the software concept of the simulation tool developed in Retrofit.

Fig. 18 depicts the overall tool model, and includes an example of the simulation tool output: an utilisation chart for shipyard steel workers.

25

Fig 18: Overall model of the developed planning/sim ulation tool with resulting utilisation chart of steel workers


The developed tool can be used in early phases of negotiation between a ship owner and a shipyard to obtain a rough estimate of the resources needed and of the process lead time. In a more advanced negotiation various process alternatives can be simulated and a more accurate planning can be made. The tool is being demonstrated to repair & retrofit shipyards.

26

1.3.10 Reverse engineering technology Source/reference Work Package 4, Deliverable D4.2, D4.3 Name Reverse engineering technology Application domain Ship retrofitting and ship repair processes Result type Software IP-owner Imawis Chal lenge/question A governing condition in retrofitting is the availability of complete, correct

and timely provided product information. Often such product information is missing or is not complete or not available in a suitable form. The challenge here is, to create the necessary or missing information on the basis of the full scale product, the retrofit candidate ship.

Result description Reverse engineering is a viable method to create a 3D virtual model of an existing physical part for use in 3D CAD, CAM, CAE or other software. The reverse-engineering process involves measuring an object and then reconstructing it as a 3D model. The physical object can be measured using various technologies like laser scanners, structured light digitizers, digital photogrammetry or computed tomography. The used measuring method depends on the in-situ conditions such as accessibility, space and light. In project Retrofit photogrammetry and photo-modelling were used to acquire geometrical data of equipment and pipe pieces and transform the measurements into CAD-models.

Fig 19 depicts a procedure for acquiring and processing of geometrical data. .

Fig. 19: Reverse engineering procedure

Fig. 19a: Pipe system in ER Fig. 19b: Measured cylinders of the pipe system

19c: Modelled pipe system


The developed procedure and the tested tools can be used in retrofitting processes where essential product information is missing. The demonstrated technology allows to build CAD-models that can be used for engineering purposes. Building a complete product model will require specialised skills and involve several measurement technologies.

27

1.4 POTENTIAL IMPACT

1.4.1 Introduction FP7 call 2011 Activity 7. 2. 1 (The greening of surface transport) Area 7.2.1.1 (The greening of products and operations) mentions the following expected impacts that are relevant for Retrofit:

A. Contribution to CO2 reduction emissions from surface transport operations aligned with new policy targets as set out in the Climate and Renewable Energy Package of 2009. In the short to medium term (before 2020) reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 10% compared to 1990 levels. Beyond 2050, reducing greenhouse gas emissions through domestic and complementary international efforts by 25 to 40% by 2020 and by 80 to 95% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels.

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

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

D. At least a neutral impact on climate change. Project Retrofit reviewed an extensive list of green technologies (deliverable D3.1) and green technology combinations for the project case ship. For each technology the potential impact regarding energy saving and emission reduction (SOx, NOx, CO2, PM), and the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) were mentioned. The potential impact depends however on the extent to which the technology can be used in an existing ship, and on the economic aspects of retrofitting the ship specific green technologies.

Retrofit assessed the impact of 7 selected technology configurations (ref. D3.3) for the case ship:

A. From the technical point of view i.e. energy and emissions B. From the economic point of view i.e. regarding the direct and the societal costs. The seven selected technology configurations were: • Configuration 1 - LNG fuel for two main engines • Configuration 2 - LNG fuel for two generators • Configuration 3 – Electric cold ironing – using LNG generator • Configuration 4 – Maximise use of PTO on main engines • Configuration 5 – Use scrubber to reduce SOx emissions • Configuration 6 – Solar power • Configuration 7 – Batteries for harbour use • Configuration 8 – Trim adjustment For configurations 1-2 and 4-7 a complete voyage simulation was executed for transit (9 years of sailing) and harbour (simplified model) conditions to determine the technical and economic impact of each configuration with respect to the as-built case ship.

28

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

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

HFO MDO LNG SO2 CO2 NOx HC CO PM

ton ton ton ton*100 ton ton*100 ton*100 ton*100 ton*100

config 0 As built 421 51 0 1593 1461 2845 311 286 136

config 1 LNG ME 122 51 217 459 1150 1360 546 826 52

Savings 71% 0%

71% 21% 52% -76% -189% 62%

config 2 LNG AE 421 1 39 1584 1411 2605 384 337 127

Savings 0% 98%

1% 3% 8% -23% -18% 7%

config 4 Max PTO 479 0 0 1800 1478 2907 342 316 146

Savings -14% 100%

-13% -1% -2% -10% -10% -7%

config 5 Scrubber 431 54 0 182 1500 2939 319 293 139

Savings -2% -6%

89% -3% -3% -3% -2% -2%

config 6 Solar 421 49 0 1593 1457 2837 311 286 136

Savings 0% 4%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

config 7 Batteries 421 62 0 1595 1496 2900 313 288 138

Savings 0% -22%

0% -2% -2% -1% -1% -1%

Saving/reduction Increase No change

Fig. 20: The impact of Retrofit green technologies for the case ship, transit condition (9 years of sailing)

1.4.3 Retrofit economic impact In general, the impacts of a retrofit solution can be defined with several variables. • For the shipping company introducing a retrofit solution, the variables are:

o ∆Rp : change in the private revenues as a result of green technology innovation o ∆Cp: change in private costs as a result of green technology innovation\

• For society, as a result of introducing a retrofit solution, the variables are: o ∆Bs : change in societal benefit as a result of green technology innovation o ∆Cs: change in societal costs as a result of green technology innovation\

The economic impact of green technology configurations addresses two types of costs/benefits:

• Direct impacts: refer to the ones that the shipping companies, introducing a green retrofit solution, would experience. The reference or “business as usual” situation equals ∆Rp = 0, ∆Cp = 0, ∆Bs = 0 and ∆Cs = 0, while the introduction of a retrofit solution for a shipping company is associated with a certain cost ∆Cp, which in turn is compensated for by the financial benefits

29

∆Rp that the retrofit solution brings. For each individual retrofit solution those costs differ due to the technological characteristics of the retrofit solution.

• External impacts: refer to the costs or benefits imposed on others that are not taken into account by the person taking the action. In the context of ship retrofitting, an increase of social benefit, for example, could be related to the reduction of harmful air emissions.

The impacts of introducing of a ship retrofit solution for the shipping company would therefore be ∆Rp – ∆Cp, and the impacts for society ∆Bs - and ∆Cs.

To calculate the overall impact the economic model and the impact assessment criteria outlined in par. 1.3.3 were developed. Fig. 21 shows graphically the obtained technology impact assessment index with average values for each technology. The value for each of the performance characteristics is marked on the corresponding axis, creating triangles that characterize the performance of each technological option. Fig. 21 also shows which of the tested technology options are best for achieving specific policy targets, and which have the best overall performance.

The technologies or approaches that have the best performance are those with the largest triangle areas, like speed reduction in this case. The shape of the triangle describes in which of the performance areas the technology gives best results. The quantitative figures behind the radar diagram are given in Fig. 22.

1. LNG fuel for main engines

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1economic

energyemission

2. LNG fuel for generators

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1economic

energyemission

4. Maximise use of PTO on main engines

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1economic

energyemission

5. Use scrubber to reduce SOx emissions

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1economic

energyemission

6. Solar power

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1economic

energyemission

7. Batteries for harbour use

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1economic

energyemission

Fig. 21: Retrofit technology configurations’ impact assessment

30

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

Fig. 22: Performance comparison of the technology c onfigurations For comparison of the technologies, the values of the technology assessment index can also be summarized in a spider graph (see Fig. 23). It can be seen that LNG fuel for generators and solar power perform better than other technologies on the economic level and LNG fuel for main engines is with the best emission and energy performance.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1 LNG fuel for

main engines

2 LNG fuel for

generators

4 Maximise

use of PTO on

main engines

5 Use scrubber

to reduce SOx

emissions

6 Solar power

7 Batteries for

harbour use

economic

energy

emission

Fig. 23: Performance comparison of the green techno logy configurations

31

1.5 MAIN DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES AND EXPLOITATION OF RESULTS A complete overview of dissemination and exploitation activities is contained in deliverable D5.4 “ Final Dissemination and Exploitation Plan”.

1.5.1 Main dissemination activities Main dissemination activities were the project mid-term and final conferences.

1.5.1.1 Retrofit mid-term conference Retrofit mid-term conference took place at the Europort 2013 fair at Rotterdam on Thursday, November 7th, 2013. The Europort fair is a worldwide complete maritime exhibition. Over 31,000 maritime professionals from all segments of the shipbuilding industry, from naval to dredging and from fishery to offshore, are brought together at this exhibition.

The European project Grip (Green Retrofitting through Improved Propulsion Project) joined the Retrofit mid-term conference. The Grip project brought knowledge together on propeller-hull interaction, structural integrity and manufacturing processes through the participation of world leading hydrodynamic institutes, propeller designers, a European ship operator, a major European yard, a yard association and a classification society. The aim of the Grip project was, to reduce fuel consumption in shipping by 5% (with individual ships up to 10%) and thus reduce exhaust gas emissions (www.grip-project.eu). Retrofit and Grip cooperated to ensure compatibility of models and tools concerning hull propulsion optimization as well as identification of modification affecting the hull propulsion optimization. Conference programme 12:00 – 13:00 Lunch 13:00 – 13:10 Opening and key note by the chairman Durk-Jan Nederlof

13:10 – 14:20 Theme Green Technologies • Machinery inside the ship; Teus van Beek (Wärtsilä) • How green are Energy Saving Devices? Ms Yan Xing Kaeding (HSVA), Tom van Terwisga

(MARIN) • Retrofit with Decision Support Technology: an Integration problem; Peter van der Klugt (Imtech) 14:20 – 14:50 Theme Voyage Simulation & Energy Cons umption • Green Technology optimization by modelling and voyage simulation; Dan Veen (TNO) and

Patrick Hooijmans (MARIN)

14:50 – 15:20 Break

15:20 – 15:50 Theme Retrofit Process • Efficient Retrofitting – How planning tools and reverse engineering methodology scan improve

repair shipyards’ performance; Matthias Krause (CMT) and Michael Mueller (IMAWIS) 15:50 – 16:30 Theme Regulatory Framework Developmen ts • ESD Structural Assessment; (Stephane Paboeuf of Bureau Veritas) • Ship Energy Efficiency from Ship owner’s point of view; José Manuel Fernández Hernando

(ACCIONA Infraestructuras S.A.)

16:30 – 17:00 Panel discussion 17:00 – 17:10 Closing; Chairman 17:10 – 18:00 Informal reception

32

1.5.1.2 Retrofit final conference Conference concept The conference concept was based on the following elements: • Knowledge dissemination to small groups, 10-15 minutes presentations/demonstrations with

ample Q/A time, “Hands on” actions and a straight to-the-point presentation of working tools. • Rotating principle: the (small) audiences rotate between the presentation locations, hereby

introducing a dynamic element in the final conference • Facilitated (moderated) parallel sessions (small groups) • Collecting and analysing parallel sessions’ results • Plenary session for presenting of results • Conference ends by a panel discussion The following headings for presenting and discussing the Retrofit project results were used:

Challenge Topic Lack of information on technologies available for retrofitting ships (ref. COM (2013) 480 final)

Presentation: Green technologies for retrofitting of ships Workshop: Retrofitting strategies: energy efficiency, clean fuels or cleaning emissions

Lack of reliable information on fuel efficiency of ships (ref. COM (2013) 480 final)

Presentation: How to determine the ship fuel efficiency and green technologies impact Workshop: Do ship owners know their ships’ fuel efficiency ?

Lack of access to finance for investments into ship efficiency (ref. COM (2013) 480 final)

Presentation: Economic aspects of green retrofitting Workshop: The ship owner dilemma/analyser, Incentives for green retrofitting, or COM 2013 480 final proposal for a MRV-system

Lack of technical ship data and insight in shipyard retrofitting processes

Presentation: Efficient retrofitting of ships Workshop: The shipyard approach (moderator Damen) or Design for retrofitting

The workshop results were collected and structured , later used for the closing panel discussion.

1.5.1.3 Other major dissemination events

Event Date Title/author 51 º Spanish Naval Architecture Congress.

Oct. ‘12 Retrofitting of existing ships with green Technologies (RETROFIT)/ J. M. Fernández (Acciona)

GreenSEENet Workshop, Hamburg, Germany

March ‘13

Presentation: Retrofitting of advanced technologies to existing vessels/ M. Krause (CMT)

4th Annual Asia Green Shipping Conference

June ‘13 Green Retrofitting; Opportunities for Ship Owner/B. Hoogvelt (NMTF)

Zeehaven Brugge Nov. ‘13 Duurzame ontwikkeling binnen de Ro/Ro sector/Ms C. Sys(UA)

Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris

April ‘14 Efficient retrofitting of vessels – How planning tools and reverse engineering methodologies can improve repair shipyards' performance/ Matthias Krause et al (CMT, IMAWIS)

IAME, 2014 Norfolk VA USA July ‘14 Modelling the Impacts of Ship Retrofit Solutions in Europe/ Ms Christa Sys et al (UA)

Marine Maintenance Technology Conference 2014, Brussels

Oct. ‘14 Methods and tools benefitting the ship repair industry involved in retrofitting activities/ M. Goldan (NMTF) The virtual maiden voyage/D. Veen (TNO)

MTEC Oct. ‘14 Ship Retrofit Solutions: Economic, Energy and Environmental Impacts/Ms C. Sys (UA)

Green Ship Technology (GST) conference in Copenhagen

March ‘15

Use of numerical models to assess the retrofit of a diesel direct power ferry to an LNG electric propulsion platform/ D. Veen (TNO)

33

1.5.2 Exploitation/market uptake

1.5.2.1 Background Project Retrofit has developed sophisticated simulation tools with new and advanced capabilities to assess the performance of green technologies in new and existing ships. These developments are of interest for ship owners for upgrading their ships to higher environmental and operational standards. To test and assess the effectiveness and market-usefulness of the developed tools the Retrofit partnerships has sought market parties interested in analysing the impact of green technologies on the performance of their owned/operated ships. The interested parties were: • A ship owner operator from the Netherlands • A ship owner/operator from Sweden Both shipping companies agreed to make available technical and operational data of particular units of their respective fleets, to serve as study objects for green technologies retrofitting. The provided technical and operational data is confidential and will not be mentioned in this report. The results of the study are also confidential and disclosed only to the shipping companies.

1.5.2.2 Objective The objectives of the study are: • For the ship owners, to determine the best suitable choice for retrofitting the ship to higher

environmental and operational (cost wise) standards • For the Retrofit partnership, to test the effectiveness and market-usefulness of the developed

methods and tools

1.5.2.3 Approach Approach for an evaluation of a vessel to be retrofitted with green technologies in three phases. Phase 1 Phase 1 is a pragmatic approach to determine whether a ship is worthy to be retrofitted with green technologies for amongst others: Lower fuel consumption and Cleaner emissions. A short feasibility study to support the ship owner. Questions to be solved: • What are the technical possibilities for retrofitting? • What are the costs/ investments and what are the benefits? See further Annex 3. Phase 2 Phase 2 contains an evaluation of the vessel in more detail to the dedicated use (voyage, cargo, etc.), based on the technologies listed in the Phase 1 report. Decide on the best way to carry out the evaluation and the necessary tools. Benchmark the retrofit solutions mentioned in Phase 1 report to the base-line vessel. Determine the investment, the advantages and disadvantages for the various retrofitting alternatives, also taken into account the out of service period of the vessel. In this Phase a shipyard should be involved for estimating the cost of retrofitting and the lead time.

Phase 3 2. Quotation of a shipyard for retrofitting the vessel. This Phase will be managed by the ship owner.

34

1.6 PROJECT WEBSITE ADDRESS The project website address is: www.retrofit-project.eu The contact details of project Retrofit partners are given below Coordin ator Contact

Person Phone number Mail address

Netherlands Maritime Technology Foundation

Mr. M. Krikke 0031 88 44 51 31

[email protected]

Participants Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek

Mr. D. Veen 0031 88 86 64 765

[email protected]

Technische Universiteit Delft

Mr. K. Frouws

0031 15 27 86 66 [email protected]

Center of Maritime Technologies e.V.

Mr. M. Krause

0049 69 20 876-33 [email protected]

Wartsila Finland OY Mr. T van Beek


Stichting Maritiem Research Instituut Nederland

Mr. P. Hooijmans

0031 74 93 244 [email protected]

Compania Trasmediterranea SA

Mr. J. Manuel Hernandez


IMAWIS Maritime Wirtschaft- und Schiffbauforschung GMBH

Mr. D. Lemke 0049 38 12 10 45 511 [email protected]

Damen Shiprepair Vlissingen

Mr. T. Kloosterman


MARLO AS Mr. J.T. Pedersen


Vicus Desarrollos Tecnologicos S.L.

Ms. V. Ruiz 0034 88 61 13 547 [email protected]

Universiteit Antwerpen Ms. C. Sys 0032 32 65 41 56 [email protected]

Imtech Marine Mr. R. Nuijten


35

2. USE AND DISSEMINATION OF FOREGROUND

2.1 Section A Tables A1 and A2 are completed.

2.2 Section B Part B1: List of applications for patents, trademar ks, registered designs etc . No applications for patents trademarks etc. were made. Part B2: Exploitable foreground The exploitable foreground table is completed.

36

Section A (public)

TEMPLATE A1: LIST OF SCIENTIFIC (PEER REVIEWED) PUBLICATIONS , STARTING WITH THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES

NO

.

Titl

e

Mai

n au

thor

Titl

e of

the

perio

dica

l or

the

serie

s

Num

ber,

da

te o

r fr

eque

ncy

Pub

lishe

r

Pla

ce o

f pu

blic

atio

n

Yea

r of

pu

blic

atio

n

Rel

evan

t pa

ges

Per

man

ent

iden

tifie

rs1

(if

avai

labl

e)

Is/W

ill

open

ac

cess

2 pr

ovid

ed to

th

is

publ

icat

ion

1 Ship retrofit solutions : economic, energy and environmental impacts

Aronietis Raimonds, Sys Christa, Vanelslander Thierry

2014 Maritime-port technology and development / Ehlers, Soren [edit.]; et al. - - CRC Press

2014 , p. 57-66 ISBN 978-1-138-02726-8

Book (to be bought)

2 An economic analysis of the costs effectiveness function for measuring ship's technology abatement potential

Frouws J., Sys Christa, Vanelslander Thierry, Yella G

Response of ships and shipping research to the international crisis

2012 p. 57-58 ISSN 2282-8397 -

Book

3 International emission regulation in sea transport: economic feasibility and impacts

Christa Sysa, Thierry Vanelslanderb, Mathias Adriaenssensc, Ive Van Rillaerc

2015 (forthcoming)

Transport Research D

2015 Scientific paper

4 Retrofit technologies: from selection to regulatory framework

Frouw J., Sys Christa, Vanelslander Thierry, Meersman Hilde, Eddy Van de Voorde

2015 (forthcoming)

2015 Book

5 Easy application of simulation at SME shipyards’ planning process

M. Krause, M. Hübler, D. Narayan

ICCAS 2015

Sept. 2015 Bremen, Germany

2015 Conference papers

37

TEMPLATE A2: LIST OF DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES

NO. Type of activities3 Main leader

Title Date/Period Place Type of audience4

Size of audience

Countries addressed

1 Article published in popular press

NMTF Europese project RETROFIT bezoekt testschip

February 2012 Rotterdam NA NA The Netherlands

2 Web NMTF European project RETROFIT visit case ship


3 Web NMT Europese project RETROFIT bezoekt testschip



CMT RETROFIT und GRIP - Zwei EU-Projekte für umweltfreundliche und kosteneffiziente Schiffe durch Nachrüstung

June 2012 Hamburg Industry NA Germany

5 Presentation CMT Actuell gestartete Forschungsprojekte - Ein Auszung

June 2012 Hamburg Industry 50-60 Germany

6 Web NMTF Retrofit first results were presented and discussed at the Hamburg meeting

June 2012 Hamburg Industry 20-30 Germany

7 Web UA Progress project July 2012 Antwerp Scientific community

NA Belgium

8 Web NMTF Eerste resultaten Europees project gepresenteerd

July 2012 Rotterdam Scientific community, industry

NA The Netherlands

9 Publication CMT Potentielle Pioniere October 2012 Hamburg Industry NA Germany 10 Conference Acciona Retrofitting of existing ships with green

Technologies (RETROFIT) October 2012 Gijon Scientific

community, industry

50 Spain

11 Conference UA, TUD

An economic analysis of the costs effectiveness function for measuring ships' technology abatement potential

October 2012 Napoli Scientific community, industry

NA Italy

38

12 Web NMTF RETROFIT: next milestone reached November 2012 Rotterdam Industry Other

NA The Netherlands

13 Web NMT RETROFIT: next milestone reached November 2012 Rotterdam NA The Netherlands 14 Workshop Retrofitting of advanced technologies to

existing vessels March 2013 Hamburg Scientific

community, industry

50 + Germany

15 Conference NMTF Green Retrofitting; Opportunities for Ship Owner

June 2013 Singapore Scientific community, industry

250-300 Singapore

16 MARIN report MARIN Unknown June 2013 Wageningen Scientific community Industry

NA The Netherlands

17 Web UA Progress project July 2013 Antwerp Scientific community Industry

NA Belgium

18 Press release NMTF RETROFIT & GRIP join together for Conference

July 2013 Rotterdam Scientific community Industry

NA The Netherlands

19 Web NMTF RETROFIT & GRIP join together for Midterm Conference

July 2013 Rotterdam Scientific community Industry

NA The Netherlands

20 Conference Duurzame ontwikkeling binnen de Ro/Ro sector

November 2013 Brugge Scientific community Industry

NA Belgium

21 Conference CMT Imawis

Efficient Retrofitting: How planning tools and reverse engineering methodologies can improve repair shipyards’ performance

November 2013 Rotterdam Scientific community Industry

60-70 The Netherlands

22 Conference Acciona Ship Energy Efficiency from Ship owner’s point of view.



23 Conference Wartsila Machinery inside the ship November 2013 Rotterdam Scientific community Industry


24 Conference MARIN How green are Energy Saving Devices November 2013 Rotterdam Scientific community Industry


25 Conference Imtech Retrofit with Decision Support Technology: an Integration problem;



39

26 Conference MARIN Green Technology optimization by modelling and voyage simulation



27 Conference BV ESD Structural Assessment November 2013 Rotterdam Scientific community Industry



Acciona Sustainable Maritime Transport January 2014 Seville Industry NA Spain

29 Conference/poster CMT Efficient retrofitting of vessels - How planning tools and reverse engineering methodologies can improve repair shipyards' performance

April 2014 Paris Scientific community Industry

NA France

30 Conference UA Modelling the Impacts of Ship Retrofit Solutions in Europe

July 2014 Norfolk Scientific community Industry

NA USA

31 Conference NMTF Methods and tools benefitting the ship repair industry involved in retrofitting activities-

October 2014 Brussels Scientific community Industry

40-50 Belgium

32 Conference TNO The virtual maiden voyage October 2014 Brussels Scientific community Industry

40-50 Belgium

33 Conference UA Ship Retrofit Solutions: Economic, Energy and Environmental Impacts

October 2014 Trondheim Scientific community Industry

NA Norway

34 Web NMTF News item January 2015 Rotterdam Scientific community Industry

NA The Netherlands

35 Conference TNO Use of numerical models to assess the retrofit of a diesel direct power ferry to an LNG electric propulsion

March 2015 Copenhagen Scientific community Industry

NA Denmark

40

Section B (Confidential 5 or public: confidential information to be marked c learly) Part B1: No applications were undertaken

TEMPLATE B1: LIST OF APPLICATIONS FOR PATENTS , TRADEMARKS , REGISTERED DESIGNS, ETC.

Type of IP Rights6:

Confidential Click on YES/NO

Foreseen embargo

date dd/mm/yyyy

Application reference(s)

(e.g. EP123456)

Subject or title of application

Applicant (s) (as on the application)

41

Part B2

Type of Exploitable Foreground 7

Description of

exploitable foreground


Foreseen embargo

date dd/mm/yyyy

Exploitable product(s) or measure(s)

Sector(s) of application 8

Timetable, commercial or any other use

Patents or other IPR exploitation (licences)

Owner & Other Beneficiary(s) involved

General advancement of knowledge

Method to identify ship candidates for retrofitting

NO NA Software 61 Water transport

74 Other business activities

2015 NA Delft University, University of Antwerp

Purpose To identify “worthy to retrofit” ship candidates. A first assessment of techno-economic aspects for retrofitting a ship. How to exploit the foreground A preliminary analysis of ship technical and operational data requested by the ship owner and carried out by experts. This

analysis is a first phase towards decision-making regarding the retrofitting of a ship. IPR measures No IPR measures Further research The method was used for RoRo and cargo ships involved in short sea shipping operations. Additional research is needed to

validate the method for other ship types and service profiles. Potential/expected impact Impact is difficult to estimate. The use of the method might help ship owners to decide on retrofitting their ships.

Commercial exploitation of R&D results

Simulation platform



2015 Software ownership

MARIN

TNO

Purpose Ship voyage simulation and simulation of energy systems on-board ships. Simulation platform contains commercially used propriety software GULLIVER/SCYLLA (MARIN) and GES (TNO).

How to exploit the foreground Contract analysis/assessment of ship operational performance regarding energy use and emissions for given ship architecture and on-board technical systems.

IPR measures Yes Further research Further research is needed to upgrade the modelling of ship systems and equipment and ship behaviour in all service conditions Potential/expected impact Improved decision making in ship design and ship retrofitting, better insight in the impact of chosen technologies

42


Description of



Foreseen embargo

date dd/mm/yyyy







Method to assess the economic impact of technologies

NO

NA

Software 61 Water transport


NA NA Delft University, University of Antwerp

Purpose The method is used to assess the economic, energy and emission impact of a ship. The method considers the private (ship owner) costs and the societal costs.

How to exploit the foreground To be used along the technical assessment of a ship performance to establish the overall impact of a ship design or a retrofitting activity by consulting organisations.

IPR measures NO Further research Further research to enhance the use of the method to various ship types and validate the method is necessary. Potential/expected impact Improved decision making in ship design and ship retrofitting, better insight in the impact of chosen technologies on private and

societal costs.


Design for retrofit method



NA NA Delft University

Purpose To design ships anticipating on future retrofitting actions, hereby creating conditions for efficient retrofitting processes. How to exploit the foreground Apply the developed method and software to assess the retrofitability of ship designs, by ship design offices IPR measures NA Further research Further research is necessary to enhance the method and validate the developed tool Potential/expected impact Ship design will allow to remove existing and introduce new equipment/systems efficiently, hereby reducing lead time and costs.

Exploitation of results through EU policies

Regulatory framework to implement Retrofit solutions

NO NA Framework 61 Water transport


NA NA Retrofit consortium

Purpose Develop ideas for incentives that could be used to stimulate the introduction of green technologies in existing ships, in particular regarding the reducing of CO2 emissions.

How to exploit the foreground The proposed incentives need to be considered by national and EU authorities, and be further developed into a formal regulatory

43


Description of



Foreseen embargo

date dd/mm/yyyy






framework for investing in green technologies ob-board ships. IPR measures NA Further research Further research and development work is needed to develop the regulatory framework. In addition, research on behavioural

measure for ship personnel is needed to exploit fully the benefit of green technologies on-board ships. Potential/expected impact In case an attractive regulatory framework is implemented, large-scale introduction of green technologies in short sea shipping

could be expected. This will lead to significant reduction of emissions along the EU coast and in ports.


List of green technologies

NO NA The list contains public information

61 Water transport


2015 NA Wartsila

Purpose The list can be used as a reference to select green technologies for ship retrofitting. How to exploit the foreground The list can be used by ship engineering organisations/departments and by ship owners to investigate retrofitting options. IPR measures NA Further research No research is needed. However, the list represents the state-of-the-art and requires continuous updating. Potential/expected impact As an aid to engineers the list is not expected to have a significant impact.


Retrofit technology configurations

YES NA Technology configurations for RoRo ships

61 Water transport


2015 NA Wartsila Acciona Imtech

Purpose The technology configurations were developed for the case ship and her particular service profile. Though, the methods used to identify and select technologies, and to assess their impact on the ship performance (economy, energy, emissions) are applicable to other ships of the same type.

How to exploit the foreground Retrofit green technology configurations can be offered to ship owners and assessed for particular service profiles. The developed step-wise approach (see par. 5.3) is already tested with the involvement of two ship owners.

IPR measures NA Further research The technology configurations represent the state-of-the-art. Follow-up research is needed for identifying and assessing on-going

technology developments in clean fuels, scrubbers etc. Potential/expected impact The potential impact is considerable amongst the European short sea fleet. Retrofitting ships with green technology

configurations require however a regulatory framework and incentives for ship owners.

44


Description of



Foreseen embargo

date dd/mm/yyyy







Decision Support System (DSS)

YES 2016 Decision Support System

61 Water transport


2016 Imtech

Purpose The Decision Support System advises the ship personnel on the optimal ship trim position with regard to the ship resistance in calm water. The optimal position can then be achieved by dedicated cargo and ballast water distribution.

How to exploit the foreground The DSS trim advise system is tested on-board the case ship. Following the system performance assessment in the first half of 2015 continuation of use and/or tests on the Retrofit case ship as well as later commercialisation are envisaged.

IPR measures Further research Follow-up research is needed regarding data collection and processing on-board, data transmission to shore (trim advise from

shore services) and integration of the DSS into existing ship data systems. Potential/expected impact Optimal trim can yield up to 5 % energy (fuel) savings and the corresponding decrease of emissions.


Retrofit process planning and simulation

YES 2016 Process simulation and planning tool

61 Water transport


2016 CMT

Purpose To optimise the retrofitting process in terms of lead time and use of human resources How to exploit the foreground Demonstration actions were carried out during the Retrofit project. The developed tool is being demonstrated to shipyards. The

tool can be used by shipyard personnel after training. IPR measures ??? Further research Follow-up research is needed for further developing of the process pattern library, tool validation etc. Potential/expected impact Advanced simulation of retrofit and repair/maintenance processes can achieve up to 20 % (???) lead time and cost reduction.


Reverse engineering technology

YES 01-04-2016 Reverse engineering procedures and tools

61 Water transport


From the date of issue

NA Imawis

Purpose To acquire geometrical data from ship hull shape and ship machinery in case such data is not available or not complete or not correct.

45


Description of



Foreseen embargo

date dd/mm/yyyy






How to exploit the foreground Demonstration actions were carried out during the Retrofit project. The developed tool is being demonstrated to shipyards. The tool cannot be used by shipyard personnel because of the necessary expertise for acquiring and processing the geometrical data.

IPR measures None Further research Follow-up research is needed to increase the efficiency and lead time of reverse engineering. Potential/expected impact In principle geometrical data acquisition does not need to be done at the shipyard before retrofitting. By acquiring the necessary

information forehand considerable lead-time reduction can be obtained since all work preparation etc. can be done before the ship arrives at the shipyard.

46

Report on societal implications

A General Information (completed automatically when Grant Agreement number is entered.

Grant Agreement Number: 285420

Title of Project: RETROFIT

Name and Title of

RETROFITing ships with new technology for improved overall environmental footprint

B Ethics

1. Did your project undergo an Ethics Review (and/o r Screening)?

• If Yes: have you described the progress of compliance with the relevant

Ethics Review/Screening Requirements in the frame of the periodic/final project reports?

Special Reminder: the progress of compliance with the Ethics Review/Screening Requirements should be described in the Period/Final Project Reports under the Section 3.2.2 'Work Progress and Achievements'

NO

2. Please indicate whether your project involv ed any of the follow ing issues (tick box) :

NO

RESEARCH ON HUMANS • Did the project involve children? • Did the project involve patients? • Did the project involve persons not able to give consent? • Did the project involve adult healthy volunteers? • Did the project involve Human genetic material? • Did the project involve Human biological samples? • Did the project involve Human data collection?

RESEARCH ON HUMAN EMBRYO /FOETUS • Did the project involve Human Embryos? • Did the project involve Human Foetal Tissue / Cells? • Did the project involve Human Embryonic Stem Cells (hESCs)? • Did the project on human Embryonic Stem Cells involve cells in culture? • Did the project on human Embryonic Stem Cells involve the derivation of cells from Embryos?

PRIVACY • Did the project involve processing of genetic information or personal data (eg.

health, sexual lifestyle, ethnicity, political opinion, religious or philosophical conviction)?

NO

• Did the project involve tracking the location or observation of people? NO RESEARCH ON ANIMALS

• Did the project involve research on animals? NO • Were those animals transgenic small laboratory animals?

47

• Were those animals transgenic farm animals? NO

• Were those animals cloned farm animals? NO

• Were those animals non-human primates? NO

RESEARCH INVOLVING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES • Did the project involve the use of local resources (genetic, animal, plant etc)? NO

• Was the project of benefit to local community (capacity building, access to healthcare, education etc)?

NO

DUAL USE • Research having direct military use NO

• Research having the potential for terrorist abuse NO

C Workforce Statistics

3. Workforce statistics for the project: Plea se indicate in the table below the number of people who worked on the project (on a headcount ba sis).

Type of Position Number of Women Number of Men

Scientific Coordinator 1 2 Work package leaders 1 5 Experienced researchers (i.e. PhD holders) 3 18 PhD Students 1 Other 4 33

4. How many additional researchers (in companies an d universities) were recruited specifically for this project?

10

Of which, indicate the number of men:

9

48

D Gender Aspects 5. Did you carry out specific Gender Equality Actions under the project ?

NO

6. Which of the following actions did you carry out and how effective were they? Not at all

effective Very

effective

� Design and implement an equal opportunity policy � � � � � � Set targets to achieve a gender balance in the

workforce � � � � �

� Organise conferences and workshops on gender � � � � � � Actions to improve work-life balance � � � � � � Other:

7. Was there a gender dimension associated with the research content – i.e. wherever people were the focus of the research as, for example, con sumers, users, patients or in trials, was the issue of gender considered and addressed?

� Yes- please specify

X NO E Synergies with Science Education

8. Did your project involve working with stude nts and/or school pupils (e.g. open days, participation in science festivals and events, priz es/competitions or joint projects)?


X NO

9. Did the project generate any science education m aterial (e.g. kits, websites, explanatory booklets, DVDs)?


� No F Interdisciplinary

10. Which disciplines (see list below) are invo lved in your project? X Main discipline9: 1.1-2, 2.2-3 X Associated discipline9: 5.2 � Associated discipline9:

G Engaging with Civil society and policy makers

11a Did your project engage with societal actors beyond the research community? (if 'No', go to Question 14)

X �

Yes No

11b If yes, did you engage with citizens (citizens' panels / juries) or organised civil society (NGOs, patients' groups etc.)?

� No � Yes- in determining what research should be performed

9 Insert number from list below (Frascati Manual).

49

� Yes - in implementing the research X Yes, in communicating /disseminating / using the results of the project

11c In doing so, did your project involve actors wh ose role is mainly to organise the dialogue with citizens and organised c ivil society (e.g. professional mediator; communication company, scien ce museums)?

� X

Yes No

12. Did you engage with government / public bo dies or policy makers (including international organisations)

� No � Yes- in framing the research agenda � Yes - in implementing the research agenda X Yes, in communicating /disseminating / using the results of the project

13a Will the project generate outputs (expertise or scientific advice) which could be used by policy makers?

X Yes – as a primary objective (please indicate areas below- multiple answers possible) � Yes – as a secondary objective (please indicate areas below - multiple answer

possible) � No

13b If Yes, in which fields? Energy, Environment, Fisheries and Maritime, Regional Policy, Research and Innovation, Transport

Agriculture Audiovisual and Media Budget Competition Consumers Culture Customs Development Economic and Monetary Affairs Education, Training, Youth Employment and Social Affairs

Energy Enlargement Enterprise Environment External Relations External Trade Fisheries and Maritime Affairs Food Safety Foreign and Security Policy Fraud Humanitarian aid

Human rights Information Society Institutional affairs Internal Market Justice, freedom and security Public Health Regional Policy Research and Innovation Space Taxation Transport

50

13c If Yes, at which level? � Local / regional levels X National level X European level X International level

H Use and dissemination

14. How many Articles were published/accepted fo r publication in peer-reviewed journals?

5

To how many of these is open access 10 provided?

How many of these are published in open acce ss journals? 5

How many of these are published in open repo sitories?

To how many of these is open access not provided?

Please check all applicable reasons for not providing open access: � publisher's licensing agreement would not permit publishing in a repository � no suitable repository available � no suitable open access journal available � no funds available to publish in an open access journal � lack of time and resources � lack of information on open access � other11: ……………

15. How many new patent applications (‘priority fil ings’) have been made? ("Technologically unique": multiple applications for the same invention in different jurisdictions should be counted as just one application of grant).

No patent applications

16. Indicate how many of the following Intellectual Property Rights were applied for (give number in each box).

Trademark None

Registered design None

Other None

17. How many spin-off companies were created / a re planned as a direct result of the project?

None

Indicate the approximate number of additional jobs in these companies:

18. Please indicate whether your project has a po tential impact on employment, in comparison with the situation before your project:

� Increase in employment, or � In small & medium-sized enterprises � Safeguard employment, or � In large companies � Decrease in employment, � None of the above / not relevant to the project X Difficult to estimate / not possible to

quantify

10 Open Access is defined as free of charge access for anyone via Internet. 11 For instance: classification for security project.

51

19. For your project partnership please estimate the employment effect resulting directly from your participation in Full Time Equivalent ( FTE = one person working fulltime for a year) jobs:

Difficult to estimate / not possible to quantify

Indicate figure: �

I Media and Communication to the general public

20. As part of the project, were any of the benefic iaries professionals in communication or media relations?

X Yes � No

21. As part of the project, have any beneficiaries received professional media / communication training / advice to improve communic ation with the general public?

� Yes X No

22 Which of the following have been used to communi cate information about your project to the general public, or have resulted from your proj ect?

X Press Release X Coverage in specialist press � Media briefing X Coverage in general (non-specialist) press � TV coverage / report X Coverage in national press � Radio coverage / report � Coverage in international press X Brochures /posters / flyers � Website for the general public / internet X DVD /Film /Multimedia X Event targeting general public (festival,

conference, exhibition, science café)

23 In which languages are the information products for the general public produced?

X Language of the coordinator X English X Other language(s): X German, Spanish Question F-10: Classification of Scientific Disciplines according to the Frascati Manual 2002 (Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development, OECD 2002): FIELDS OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY : 1.1, 2.2, 2.3, 5.2 1. NATURAL SCIENCES 1.1 Mathematics and computer sciences [mathematics and other allied fields: computer

sciences and other allied subjects (software development only; hardware development should be classified in the engineering fields)]

1.2 Physical sciences (astronomy and space sciences, physics and other allied subjects) 1.3 Chemical sciences (chemistry, other allied subjects) 1.4 Earth and related environmental sciences (geology, geophysics, mineralogy, physical

geography and other geosciences, meteorology and other atmospheric sciences including climatic research, oceanography, vulcanology, palaeoecology, other allied sciences)

1.5 Biological sciences (biology, botany, bacteriology, microbiology, zoology, entomology, genetics, biochemistry, biophysics, other allied sciences, excluding clinical and veterinary sciences)

52

2 ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY 2.1 Civil engineering (architecture engineering, building science and engineering,

construction engineering, municipal and structural engineering and other allied subjects)

2.2 Electrical engineering, electronics [electrical engineering, electronics, communication engineering and systems, computer engineering (hardware only) and other allied subjects]

2.3. Other engineering sciences (such as chemical, aeronautical and space, mechanical, metallurgical and materials engineering, and their specialised subdivisions; forest products; applied sciences such as geodesy, industrial chemistry, etc.; the science and technology of food production; specialised technologies of interdisciplinary fields, e.g. systems analysis, metallurgy, mining, textile technology and other applied subjects)

3. MEDICAL SCIENCES 3.1 Basic medicine (anatomy, cytology, physiology, genetics, pharmacy, pharmacology,

toxicology, immunology and immunohaematology, clinical chemistry, clinical microbiology, pathology)

3.2 Clinical medicine (anaesthesiology, paediatrics, obstetrics and gynaecology, internal medicine, surgery, dentistry, neurology, psychiatry, radiology, therapeutics, otorhinolaryngology, ophthalmology)

3.3 Health sciences (public health services, social medicine, hygiene, nursing, epidemiology)

4. AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES 4.1 Agriculture, forestry, fisheries and allied sciences (agronomy, animal husbandry,

fisheries, forestry, horticulture, other allied subjects) 4.2 Veterinary medicine 5. SOCIAL SCIENCES 5.1 Psychology 5.2 Economics 5.3 Educational sciences (education and training and other allied subjects) 5.4 Other social sciences [anthropology (social and cultural) and ethnology, demography,

geography (human, economic and social), town and country planning, management, law, linguistics, political sciences, sociology, organisation and methods, miscellaneous social sciences and interdisciplinary , methodological and historical S1T activities relating to subjects in this group. Physical anthropology, physical geography and psychophysiology should normally be classified with the natural sciences].

6. HUMANITIES 6.1 History (history, prehistory and history, together with auxiliary historical disciplines

such as archaeology, numismatics, palaeography, genealogy, etc.) 6.2 Languages and literature (ancient and modern) 6.3 Other humanities [philosophy (including the history of science and technology) arts,

history of art, art criticism, painting, sculpture, musicology, dramatic art excluding artistic "research" of any kind, religion, theology, other fields and subjects pertaining to the humanities, methodological, historical and other S1T activities relating to the subjects in this group]

53

3. FINAL REPORT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION

Report of the European Union financial contribution between beneficiaries:

No. Name of beneficiary Final amount of EU

contribution per beneficiary in Euros

1 Netherlands Maritime Technology Foundation € 85.469,48 2 Nederlandse Organisatie voor toegepaste

Natuurwetenschappenlijk Onderzoek - TNO € 53.992,49

3 Technische Universiteit Delft € 41.050,36 4 Center Maritime Technologies EV € 53.002,69 5 Gdansk € -29.636,19 6 Wärtsilä Finland € -46.387,20 6 Wärtsilä Italy € x 6 Wärtsilä The Netherlands € x 7 MARIN € 30.562,29 8 Compania Trasmediterranea S.A. € 23.617,36 8 Acciona Infraestructuras S.A. € x 9 Imawis Maritime Wirtschafts- und Schiffbayforschung

GmBH € 30.346,67

10 Scheldepoort B.V. € -30.850,52 11 Marlo AS € -3.755,20 12 Vicus Desarrollos Technologies SL € 38.805,46 13 University of Gent € 49.692,54 14 Imtech € 37.658,25

Documents

PROJECT FINAL REPORT - CORDIS · 2016-08-18 · • WP4: Retrofit process. WP4 deals with the process of retrofitting, in particular reverse engineering and process simulation & planning