Dergiler / Marine Science and Technology Bulletin / 2023 / Cilt: 12 Sayı: 3

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

Sayfa
267–281
Yayın Tarihi
2023-09-28
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

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

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:In terms of their service life, ships may operate for decades.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The difficulty of integrating any new system into an existing ship increases the scope of the renovation.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Also, the EEDI level is approximately one-twentieth of the conventional model, which is an advantage of CCS.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler: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.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

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, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 3, 267–281. https://ajindex.com/articles/962985

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (11)

  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. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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]. Holtrop, J., & Mennen, G. G. J. (1982). An approximate power prediction method. International Shipbuilding Progress, 29(335), 166-170.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. IMO. (2022). Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) – 79th sessi