SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Marine Science and Technology Bulletin / 2026 / Volume: 12 Issue: 3

Effect of Electric Vehicle Transportation and Carbon Capture System on Concept Ro-Ro ship Stability and EEDI

Burak Göksu(Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University, Maritime Faculty, Department of Marine Engineering, 67300, Zonguldak, Türkiye)0000-0002-6152-0208
Kubilay Bayramoğlu(Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University, Maritime Faculty, Department of Marine Engineering, 67300, Zonguldak, Türkiye)0000-0002-5838-6132
Pages
—
Publication Date
2023-09-28
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Also, the EEDI level is approximately one-twentieth of the conventional model, which is an advantage of CCS.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In terms of their service life, ships may operate for decades.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The difficulty of integrating any new system into an existing ship increases the scope of the renovation.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Also, the EEDI level is approximately one-twentieth of the conventional model, which is an advantage of CCS.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Carbon capture · EEDI · Electric vehicles

Abstract

In terms of their service life, ships may operate for decades. Hence, it depicts the rapid development of machinery and equipment due to the substantial advancement of technology. Indeed, the ship’s systems must be updated to accommodate these new instruments. However, the importance of investigating the static-dynamic equilibrium and speed-power demand is a matter of concern as the ships are in motion on the water. There are currently limitations on carbon emissions from ships. To comply with these regulations, either the use of fuels that produce fewer carbon emissions or the use of after-treatment techniques to prevent the release of carbon into the atmosphere are employed. The difficulty of integrating any new system into an existing ship increases the scope of the renovation. This study compares the stability, speed-power, and EEDI values of today’s most popular electric vehicles while being transported on a concept Ro-Ro ship with and without a Carbon Capture System (CCS) ship. In the scenario where the ship transports both conventional and electric vehicles, the number of vehicles transported remains constant, but the effects of electric vehicles being heavier are illustrated. A ship with CCS and loaded with electric vehicles has 23.5% less maximum GZ than a regular ship with the traditional vehicles loaded condition by approximately 6% less at an angle of heeling. Also, the EEDI level is approximately one-twentieth of the conventional model, which is an advantage of CCS.

🔖

Cite This Article

Göksu, B., Bayramoğlu, K. (2023). Effect of Electric Vehicle Transportation and Carbon Capture System on Concept Ro-Ro ship Stability and EEDI. Marine Science and Technology Bulletin, Volume: 12 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.33714/masteb.1313638

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (62)

  1. Ampah, J. D., Yusuf, A. A., Afrane, S., Jin, C., & Liu, H. (2021). Reviewing two decades of cleaner alternative marine fuels: Towards IMO’s decarbonization of the maritime transport sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 320, 128871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128871
  2. Barrass, B. (2004). Ship design and performance for masters and mates. Elsevier.
  3. Bøckmann, E., & Steen, S. (2016). Calculation of EEDI weather for a general cargo vessel. Ocean Engineering, 122, 68-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.06.007
  4. Charchalis, A. (2014). Determination of main dimensions and estimation of propulsion power of a ship. Journal of KONES. Powertrain and Transport, 21(2), 39–44. https://doi.org/10.5604/12314005.1133863
  5. Demirel, Y. K., Turan, O., & Incecik, A. (2017). Predicting the effect of biofouling on ship resistance using CFD. Applied Ocean Research, 62, 100–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2016.12.003
  6. Fayaz, H., Saidur, R., Razali, N., Anuar, F. S., Saleman, A. R., & Islam, M. R. (2012). An overview of hydrogen as a vehicle fuel. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(8), 5511–5528. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.06.012
  7. Göksu, B., & Bayramoğlu, K. (2021). Control of ship roll and yaw angles during turning motion. Marine Science and Technology Bulletin, 10(4), 340–349. https://doi.org/10.33714/masteb.930338
  8. Grabowska, K., & Szczuko, P. (2015). Ship resistance prediction with Artificial Neural Networks. 2015 Signal Processing: Algorithms, Architectures, Arrangements, and Applications (SPA), 168–173. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPA.2015.7365154
  9. Hasan, S. M. R. (2011). Impact of EEDI on Ship Design and Hydrodynamics: A Study of the Energy Efficiency Design Index and Other Related Emission Control Indexes. [MSc. Thesis. Chalmers University of Technology].
  10. Holtrop, J., & Mennen, G. G. J. (1982). An approximate power prediction method. International Shipbuilding Progress, 29(335), 166-170.
  11. Ibrahim, R. A., & Grace, I. M. (2010). Modeling of ship roll dynamics and its coupling with heave and pitch. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2010, 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/934714
  12. Im, N.-K., & Choe, H. (2021). A quantitative methodology for evaluating the ship stability using the index for marine ship intact stability assessment model. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 13, 246–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2021.01.005
  13. IMO. (2022). Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) – 79th session, 12-16 December 2022.
  14. Irkal, M. A. R., Nallayarasu, S., & Bhattacharyya, S. K. (2016). CFD approach to roll damping of ship with bilge keel with experimental validation. Applied Ocean Research, 55, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2015.11.008
  15. Issa, M., Ilinca, A., & Martini, F. (2022). Ship energy efficiency and maritime sector initiatives to reduce carbon emissions. Energies, 15(21), 7910. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15217910
  16. Jia, J. (2007). Investigations of vehicle securing without lashings for Ro-Ro ships. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 12(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-006-0240-7
  17. Kafalı, K. (1988). Gemilerin dizaynı. İTÜ Baskısı.
  18. Kane, M. (2023). Electric cars from heaviest to lightest. Retrieved on June 5, 2023, from https://insideevs.com/news/527966/electric-cars-from-heaviest-lightest/
  19. Kang, M. H., Choi, H. R., Kim, H. S., & Park, B. J. (2012). Development of a maritime transportation planning support system for car carriers based on genetic algorithm. Applied Intelligence, 36, 585–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-011-0278-z
  20. Kavli, H. P., Oguz, E., & Tezdogan, T. (2017). A comparative study on the design of an environmentally friendly RoPax ferry using CFD. Ocean Engineering, 137, 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.03.043
  21. Kennedy, C. (2023). Ro-Ro ferries and the expansion of the PLA’s landing ship fleet. Retrieved on June 2, 2023, from https://cimsec.org/ro-ro-ferries-and-the-expansion-of-the-plas-landing-ship-fleet/
  22. Korlak, P. K. (2021). Analysis of operational efficiency of the proposed propulsion systems for selected large ropax vessel. Nase More, 68(3), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.17818/NM/2021/3.7
  23. Kupras, L. K. (1981). Design charts for determining main dimensions, main engine power and building costs of bulkcarriers. International Shipbuilding Progress, 28(322), 136–150.
  24. Kweku, D., Bismark, O., Maxwell, A., Desmond, K., Danso, K., Oti-Mensah, E., Quachie, A., & Adormaa, B. (2017). Greenhouse effect: greenhouse gases and their impact on global warming. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports, 17(6), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.9734/jsrr/2017/39630
  25. Labanti, J., Islam, H., & Guedes Soares, C. (2016). CFD assessment of ropax hull resistance with various initial drafts and trim angles. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Maritime Technology and Engineering, MARTECH 2016, 1(October 2017), 325–332. https://doi.org/10.1201/b21890-45
  26. Law, L. C., Othman, M. R., & Mastorakos, E. (2023). Numerical analyses on performance of low carbon containership. Energy Reports, 9, 3440–3457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.02.035
  27. Lee, S., Yoo, S., Park, H., Ahn, J., & Chang, D. (2021). Novel methodology for EEDI calculation considering onboard carbon capture and storage system. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 105, 103241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2020.103241
  28. Luo, X., & Wang, M. (2017). Study of solvent-based carbon capture for cargo ships through process modelling and simulation. Applied Energy, 195, 402–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.027
  29. MAN. (2014). EEDI energy efficiency design index. Retrieved on October 1, 2014, from https://www.man-es.com/docs/default-source/document-sync-archive/eedi-eng.pdf?sfvrsn=23fbab95_4#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20Energy%20Efficiency,negative%20impact%20on%20the%20environment.
  30. MAN. (2017). Emission project guide. In MAN Energy Solutions. Retrieved on October 1, 2017, from https://man-es.com/applications/projectguides/2stroke/content/special_pg/PG_7020-0145.pdf
  31. Marlantes, K. E., Kim, S. P., & Hurt, L. A. (2022). Implementation of the IMO Second Generation Intact Stability Guidelines. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 10, 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10010041
  32. McClintock, J., Ducklow, H., & Fraser, W. (2008). Ecological responses to climate change on the Antarctic Peninsula. American Scientist, 96(4), 302–310. https://doi.org/10.1511/2008.73.3844
  33. Mihail–Vlad, V. (2018). Advantages and disadvantages of different types of graphs. Journal of Marine Technology and Environment, 2(2), 57.
  34. Mikhaylov, A., Moiseev, N., Aleshin, K., & Burkhardt, T. (2020). Global climate change and greenhouse effect. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 7(4), 2897–2913. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2020.7.4(21)
  35. Molland, A. F., Turnock, S. R., & Hudson, D. A. (2017). Ship resistance and propulsion. Cambridge University Press.
  36. Mores, P., Rodríguez, N., Scenna, N., & Mussati, S. (2012). CO2 capture in power plants: Minimization of the investment and operating cost of the post-combustion process using MEA aqueous solution. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 10, 148–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.06.002
  37. Mores, P., Scenna, N., & Mussati, S. (2012). A rate based model of a packed column for CO2 absorption using aqueous monoethanolamine solution. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 6, 21-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.10.012
  38. Nieuwenhuis, P. (2017). Car Shipping. In A. Beresford & S. Pettit (Eds.), International Freight Transport: Cases, Structures and Prospects. Kogan Page.
  39. Niklas, K., & Pruszko, H. (2019). Full-scale CFD simulations for the determination of ship resistance as a rational, alternative method to towing tank experiments. Ocean Engineering, 190, 106435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106435
  40. Perissi, I., & Jones, A. (2022). Investigating European Union decarbonization strategies: Evaluating the pathway to carbon neutrality by 2050. Sustainability, 14(8), 4728. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084728
  41. Perrault, D. (2016). Correlations of GZ curve parameters. Proceedings of the 15th International Ship Stability Workshop, Sweden. pp. 1-10.
  42. Polakis, M., Zachariadis, P., & de Kat, J. O. (2019). The energy efficiency design index (EEDI). In Psaraftis, H. (Ed.), Sustainable shipping. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04330-8_3
  43. Rutherford, D., Mao, X., & Comer, B. (2020). Potential CO2 reductions under the Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index. International Council on Clean Transportation, Working Paper 2020-27. November 2020, 1-18.
  44. Sachs, N. M. (2020). The Paris agreement in the 2020s: Breakdown or breakup. Ecology Law Quarterly, 46(3), 865–909. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38H708140
  45. Salinger, M.J. (2005). Climate variability and change: Past, present and future — an overview. In Salinger, J., Sivakumar, M., & Motha, R. P. (Eds.), Increasing climate variability and change (pp. 9-27). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4166-7_3
  46. Shakeel, M., Khalid, H., Riaz, Z., Ansari, S. A., & Khan, M. J. (2022). Development of intact stability calculations tool for ships. Proceedings of 2022 19th International Bhurban Conference on Applied Sciences and Technology, pp. 858–872. https://doi.org/10.1109/IBCAST54850.2022.9990257
  47. Shepherd, T. A., Zhao, Y., Li, H., Stinn, J. P., Hayes, M. D., & Xin, H. (2015). Environmental assessment of three egg production systems- Part II. Ammonia, greenhouse gas, and particulate matter emissions. Poultry Science, 94(3), 534–543. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/peu075
  48. Shin, J., & Park, S. (2023). Numerical analysis for optimizing combustion strategy in an ammonia-diesel dual-fuel engine. Energy Conversion and Management, 284, 116980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.116980
  49. Simopoulos, G., Konovessis, D., & Vassalos, D. (2008). Sensitivity analysis of the probabilistic damage stability regulations for RoPax vessels. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 13(2), 164–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-007-0261-x
  50. Skoupas, S., Zaraphonitis, G., & Papanikolaou, A. (2009). Parametric design and optimization of high-speed, twin-hull roro-passenger vessels. Proceedings of the 10th International Marine Design Conference, Norway. pp. 744-760.
  51. Song, L. H., Zhang, Z. G., Wang, X. Z., & Feng, D. K. (2013). Prediction of surface ship’s residual resistance coefficient using neural networks. Advanced Materials Research, 756–759, 3141–3144. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.756-759.3141
  52. Stec, M., Tatarczuk, A., Iluk, T., & Szul, M. (2021). Reducing the energy efficiency design index for ships through a post-combustion carbon capture process. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 108, 103333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103333
  53. Sun, X., Wang, S., Wang, Z., Liu, C., & Yin, Y. (2022). A semi-automated approach to stowage planning for Ro-Ro ships. Ocean Engineering, 247, 110648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.110648
  54. Tadros, M., Ventura, M., & Guedes Soares, C. (2022). Optimization procedures for a twin controllable pitch propeller of a ROPAX ship at minimum fuel consumption. Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology, 22(4), 167-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/20464177.2022.2106623
  55. Thies, F., & Ringsberg, J. W. (2023). Retrofitting WASP to a RoPax vessel—design, performance and uncertainties. Energies, 16(2), 673. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16020673
  56. Tuswan, T., Zubaydi, A., Piscesa, B., Ismail, A., Ariesta, R. C., Ilham, M. F., & Mualim, F. I. (2021). Influence of application of sandwich panel on static and dynamic behaviour of ferry ro-ro ramp door. Journal of Applied Engineering Science, 19(1), 208–216. https://doi.org/10.5937/jaes0-27708
  57. Wang, H., Hou, Y., Xiong, Y., & Liang, X. (2021). Research on multi-interval coupling optimization of ship main dimensions for minimum EEDI. Ocean Engineering, 237, 109588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.109588
  58. Wang, M., Lawal, A., Stephenson, P., Sidders, J., & Ramshaw, C. (2011). Post-combustion CO2 capture with chemical absorption: A state-of-the-art review. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 89(9), 1609–1624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2010.11.005
  59. Xing, H., Spence, S., & Chen, H. (2020). A comprehensive review on countermeasures for CO2 emissions from ships. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 134, 110222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110222
  60. Yasukawa, H. (2019). Maneuvering hydrodynamic derivatives and course stability of a ship close to a bank. Ocean Engineering, 188, 106149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106149
  61. Zhong, W., & Haigh, J. D. (2013). The greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide. Weather, 68(4), 100–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/wea.2072
  62. Zhou, Y.-M., & Feng, Y.-S. (2014). The strategy and technology selection for non-CO2 greenhouse gas emission control. Advances in Climate Change Research, 5(1), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1248.2014.028