PROJECT PERIODIC REPORT - · PDF fileReport type : Periodic Progress ... Declaration by the project coordinator . ... RETRO FIT ting candidate ships and select appropriate (green)

PROJECT PERIODIC REPORT

Grant agreement number : 285420 Project acronym RETROFIT Project title RETROFITing Ships With New Technologies For

Improved Overall Environmental Footprint Funding scheme Small or medium-scale focused research project (CP-

FP) Date of latest version of Annex I against which the assessment will be made:

June 30th, 2014; V14

Report type : Periodic Progress Report - Period II Periodic report 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Period covered: April 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2015 (Months 19 to and including Month 40)

Versi on: Final V1 Project co -ordinator name, title and organisation:

Ir.ing. R.B.J. Hoogvelt (October 1st, 2011 - January 31st, 2015); Ir. E.M. Krikke; (February 1st, 2015 – March 31st, 2015) Stichting Netherlands Maritime Technology Foundation, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Tel: +31 88 44 51 034 Fax: Not applicable E-mail: [email protected] Project website address: http://www.retrofit-project.eu

RETROFIT Progress Report Period-II; M19-M40 (final version1) 2

Declaration by the project coordinator


TABLE OF CONTENT 1 Section 1: Publishable Summary ............................................................ 4

1.1 Summary of project context and objectives ................................................ 4

1.2 Description of the work performed in Period II – Months 19 - 40 ....................... 5

1.3 Final results and potential impact and use ................................................. 6

1.4 Project website information ................................................................... 8

2 Section 2: Core of the report ................................................................. 9

2.1 Project objectives for the period .............................................................. 9

2.1.1 Work Package 1: RETROFIT ships in operation, overview of objectives: ....... 9

2.1.2 Work Package 2 :The RETROFIT ship, overview of objectives ................... 9

2.1.3 Work Package 3: RETROFIT green technologies, overview of objectives ...... 9

2.1.4 Work Package 4: RETROFIT process, overview of objectives .................... 9

2.1.5 Work Package 5: REFROFIT impact, knowledge and dissemination, overview of objectives .......................................................................................... 9

2.2 Work progress and achievements during the period ................................... 10

2.2.1 Work Package 1: RETROFIT ships in operation ................................... 10

2.2.3 Work Package 3 RETROFIT green technologies .................................. 28

2.2.4 Work Package 4: RETROFIT process ............................................... 38

2.2.5 Work Package 5 - REFROFIT impact, knowledge and dissemination ......... 45

2.3 Project management during the second period ......................................... 53

2.3.1 Consortium management tasks and achievements ............................... 53

2.3.2 Problems which have occurred and how they were solved ...................... 54

2.3.3 Changes in the consortium ............................................................ 55

2.3.4 List of project meetings, dates and venues ......................................... 55

2.3.5 Project planning and status ........................................................... 59

2.3.6 Impact of possible deviations from the planned milestones and deliverables . 60

2.3.7 Changes to the legal status of any of the beneficiaries, in particular non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, research organisations and SMEs ........................................................................................... 60

The following changes took place: .............................................................. 60

2.3.8 Development of the Project website ................................................. 60

2.3.9 Short comments and information on coordination activities ...................... 60

2.3.10 Access activity ........................................................................... 61

Section 3: Deliverables and milestones tables .............................................. 62

Deliverables ........................................................................................... 62

Milestones ............................................................................................. 64

Section 4: Explanation of the use of the resources ....................................... 65

Planned & Actual Costs .......................................................................... 65

ANNEX A: C-Forms per partner .................................................................. 73


1 Section 1: Publishable Summary

1.1 Summary of project context and objectives RETROFITting is defined as the renewing of installations on-board ships with state-of-the-art components or systems. RETROFITting could in principle be driven by the need to meet new regulatory standards or by the ship owner interest to upgrade to higher operational standards.

The RETROFIT project aims 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, while considering the condition of the particular ship such as service profile, remaining life cycle and the governing and expected regulations.

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 the RETROFIT project are: • Methods to identify ship candidates for retrofitting; • Methods and tools for simulating the working of various configurations of ship main

and auxiliary systems; • Methods and tools for ‘reverse engineering' enabling to build product models suitable

for the retrofitting process; • 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.

A consortium of fourteen European partners, listed in Table, including ship owners, major equipment suppliers, engineering bureaus and research organisations contributed to the RETROFIT project. In Period II Gdansk Shipyard (GDK) officially requested to leave the RETROFIT project. The request was accepted by the EC.


Table 1: Contribution partners to the RETROFIT proj ect.

No. Name partner Acronym

1 Stichting Netherlands Maritime Technology Foundation NMTF

2 Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek

TNO

3 Technische Universiteit Delft TUD 4 Center Of Maritime Technologies e.V. CMT 5 Gdańsk _Shipyards GDK 6 Wartsila Finland OY WAR 7 Stichting Maritiem Research Instituut Nederland MARIN 8 Compania Trasmediterranea SA ACC 9 IMAWIS Maritime Wirtschaft- und Schiffbauforschung GMBH IMAWIS

10 Damen Shiprepair Vlissingen DSV 11 MARLO AS MARLO 12 Vicus Desarrollos Tecnologicos S.L. VICUS 13 Universiteit Antwerpen UA 14 Imtech Marine IMTEC

Stichting Netherlands Maritime Technology Foundation (NMTF) is the coordinator of the RETROFIT project.

The project is split of five technical Work Packages (WPs) : 1. WP1 - RETROFIT ships in operation; 2. WP2 - The RETROFIT ship; 3. WP3 - RETROFIT Green technologies solutions; 4. WP4 - RETROFIT process; 5. WP5 - RETROFIT Impact, knowledge and dissemination.

1.2 Description of the work performed in Period II – Months 19 - 40 The work performed in period II:

WP1 - RETROFIT ships in operation. Activities carried out and results were: • The assessment methodology for identifying “worthy” ships to be retrofitted

developed in Period I was transferred into a software environment. • The method and tools to analyse and assess the performance of green technologies

developed in Period I was validated in practice by means of full scale measurements on-board the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales.

• Initially selected green technology retrofitting options (configurations) for the case ship were assessed on energy use, emissions and aggregated costs. This activity was repeated with the final selection of green technologies on-board the case ship.

WP2 - The RETROFIT ship. Activities carried out and results were: • The initially proposed retrofitting options for the case ship were evaluated on safety

and functionality aspects. This activity was repeated with the final selected retrofitting options.

• A method dealing with retrofitting considerations in ship design (design for retrofitting) was developed. The case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales was used to demonstrate the developed method.

• A regulatory framework to reduce CO2 emissions while yielding economic benefits for society was initiated. Possible incentives for implementing green technologies were identified and discussed with a variety of stakeholders.


WP3 - RETROFIT Green technologies solutions. Activities carried out and results were: • A first selection of green technology configurations for the case ship Jose Maria

Entrecanales. Following evaluation on technical and economic merits, a final selection of green technology configurations was done.

• A preliminary concept for a Decision Support System for energy and emission control and optimisation was developed and tested on-board the the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales.

WP4 - RETROFIT process. Activities carried out and their results were: • Full scale experiments in a shipyard aiming to acquire the ability to optimise ship

RETROFITting by simulation were carried out. At the same time the retrofitting process simulation tool developed in Period I was updated.

• Guidelines for optimal RETROFITting process were developed. The guidelines are based on the experiences and lessons learned from the full scale experiments with reverse engineering and process simulation that were carried out in Periods I and II.

WP5 - RETROFIT Impact, knowledge and dissemination. Activities carried out and their results were: • The organisation and execution of the mid-term and final conferences. • The continuing monitoring, analysis and reporting on advances in green

technologies, related legislation and ship yard processes. • The publishing of newsletters and articles, and the presentation at conferences of

the project RETROFIT targets, activities and achievements. • Two demonstrators concerning the performance analysis and green retrofitting

options for in-service ships. Retrofitting options were assessed using simulation tools and methods developed in the RETROFIT project.

RETROFIT Project Management kept close contact with the Work Package leaders and partners on a day to day basis keeping so that any issues arising during the work on the project could be immediately addressed. The project manager regularly communicated with Commission officials to discuss issues arising during the second period of the project. The execution of the work programme has been monitored and controlled using the project management tool ‘EU-xpert’ and the eligible costs (Person hours, Travel costs, etc.) using ‘EU-fin’ both tools are developed by ‘FP-Tools’. Besides day to day management and communication, project management activities are reported in the five General Assembly (GA) meetings and five Steering Committee (SC) meetings. A third contract amendment concerning changes in the consortium composition, in the Description of Work and in the corresponding budget distribution was requested and approved by the Commission Service.

1.3 Final results and potential impact and use The final results and potential impact and use are:

WP1 - RETROFIT ships in operation. Final results & potential impacts are: • Methods to identify ship candidates for retrofitting. • Methods and tools for simulating a ship voyage and the corresponding performance

of ship main and auxiliary systems. • A method for assessing the aggregated economic impact of retrofitting that contains

the direct costs and the societal costs. The potential impact will be: • The practical possibility to assess whether an existing ship is worthy to be retrofitted • To select, simulate and assess the performance of various green retrofitting options


• To estimate the environmental impact and the return on investment of investigated retrofitting options.

• The developed methods and tools can be used for variety of ship types, operating conditions and technology options.

All these will pave the way for improving the economic and environmental performance of the existing fleet and optimise the performance of new ship concepts.

WP2 - The RETROFIT ship. Final results & potential impacts are: • A procedure to assess the impact of retrofitting on a ship safety and functionality. • A method to include retrofitting aspects in ship design. • Proposals for incentives for green retrofitting of ships and their expected impact. The potential impact will be: • A responsible approach to retrofitting that considers a ship safety and functionality

for each retrofitting configurations. • The possibility to include retrofitting considerations in ship design hereby improving

access to ship spaces, systems and components, and reducing workload and lead time associated with retrofitting.

• Proposed incentives for ship owners could serve to develop regulatory frameworks that would benefit both ship owners and society, ships and stimulate the use of clean fuels, renewable energy sources and other green technologies on-board ships.

WP3 - RETROFIT Green technologies solutions. Final results & potential impacts are: • A list of green technologies • A list of green technologies configurations • A concept for a Decision Support System for energy optimisation based on optimal

(ship) trim. The potential impact will be: • Green technology evolve continuously and the yesterday’s innovations are

overtaken by tomorrow’s developments. Though, the green technologies list is an important reference for structuring and classifying on-going green technologies developments. The list of green technologies configurations sets an example on how to approach the retrofitting of existing ships.

• The concept Decision Support System (DSS) sets an example on how to monitor and optimise energy use on-board ships. The DSS, further developed and tested, opens possibilities for existing and new-built ships to optimise the energy use and emissions.

WP4 - RETROFIT process. Final results & potential impacts are: • The development of the simulation tool was finalised, tested and optimised in line

with realistic shipyard processes. • Practical evidence upon the retrieval of ship geometry information and further

processing of these by means of reverse engineering technologies • Practical guidelines on supporting retrofitting shipyard processes by reverse

engineering technologies and simulation of retrofitting processes. The potential impact will be: • It is expected that simulation methodology will improve retrofitting shipyards’

planning in terms of resources committed and lead time. This is of particular importance for scenarios where complex activities have to be planned and where sufficient time is available to obtain input information and to do planning in advance.

• Retrieving ship (systems) geometrical information can be done before the ship reaches the retrofitting shipyard. In this way retrofitting activities (engineering,


procurements, part fabrication, planning) can be done more efficiently and lead-time can be reduced.

• A guideline for retrofitting processes in shipyards will benefit the potential users (planners, designers, blue-collar workers) in applying supporting tools for geometrical information retrieving and process planning.

WP5 - RETROFIT Impact, knowledge and dissemination. Final results & potential

impacts are: • A final Technology monitor report. The continuation of this facility beyond the

RETROFIT contract was investigated but could not be realised within the terms of the Grant Agreement.

• A programme of dissemination actions was executed, including two conferences, various publications and presentations at national and international conferences and events as well as three public newsletters and a flier. Finally a promotion film was made.

• Two real practice demonstrators involving shipping companies were executed. The demonstrators contained the first two phases of a retrofitting process where various green technologies options were identified and assessed using the simulation tools developed and validated in RETROFIT.

The potential impact will be: • Awareness regarding the possibilities provided by green technologies to reduce

energy use and emissions of ships, and improve the ships economic performance • Awareness regarding the possibilities to assess the performance of green

technologies and improve shipyard processes using advanced simulation tools. • Awareness regarding green technologies costs and benefits to society.

1.4 Project website information

General A project website with a private (RETROFIT partners) and public section was developed at the start of the project. The aim is to provide: 1) Public information and communication and 2) A document storage and data exchange for all project. The website is to be registered under the ‘.eu’ domain. The website address is http://www.retrofit-project.eu/ .

Website design considerations The considerations that played a role in the development of the website were that it is primarily a tool to be used for informing the public on the existence of and progress made in the RETROFIT, having a simple (clear, user-friendly, and easily accessible) navigation structure and that the consortium confidential information can be made available through a private section of the website (e.g. through a login code protected area). A search function is included. Website content is managed by partner NMTF.

Arrangements were made for the continuation of the website for at least one year after the end of the RETROFIT contract to be implemented.


2 Section 2: Core of the report

2.1 Project objectives for the period

2.1.1 Work Package 1: RETROFIT ships in operation, overview of objectives:

• A methodology & model for identifying "worthy" retrofitting candidates; • Develop a design/analysis model and assessment procedure for the

technological (energy and emissions) and economic performance; • Establish the performance of an (existing) case ship: a 10.000 TDW RORO; • Establish de performance of (retrofitted) case ships with green technologies; • Evaluate the performance results of the retrofitting and determine the

environmental costs benefit curve of an increasing amount of investments. 2.1.2 Work Package 2 :The RETRO FIT ship, overview of objectives

• Assure the safety and overall functionality of the retrofitted ship; • A design approach, a methodology and supporting tools which anticipates on

realistic retrofitting scenario's throughout the ship's Life Cycle; • A regulatory framework to implement the RETROFIT solutions.

2.1.3 Work Package 3: RETRO FIT green technologies, overview of objectives

• The ability for identifying, evaluating, selecting, combining and assessing the merit of green energy and emission technologies that can be used to enhance ship energy, emission foot-print and economic performance through retrofitting;

• Two new technologies for: o decision support for emission control and energy optimization over the entire

service profile; o monitoring and managing retrofitted technologies performance throughout the

rest Life Cycle.

2.1.4 Work Package 4: RETRO FIT process, overview of objectives

• A model for an optimal process of RETROFITting ships with green technologies also including the required product information;

• Ability for identifying, selecting, combining and assessing the merit of reverse engineering technologies;

• Ability to optimise ship RETROFITting by simulation the RETROFITting process; • Guidelines for optimal RETROFITting process.

2.1.5 Work Package 5: REFRO FIT impact, knowledge and dissemination, overview of objectives

• Certainty that RETROFIT Green Technology Solutions, Methods and Tools will become known to the widest possible group of potential users, and;

• The largest possible impact listed in the work programme


2.2 Work progress and achievements during the perio d

2.2.1 Work Package 1: RETRO FIT ships in operation Summary of progress period II The analysis model was validated (task T1.3) by comparing two sets of results: 1. Results from full scale measurements of fuel consumption and emissions of a voyage

made by the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales 2. Results of a computer simulation of exactly the same voyage. The simulations were

performed by means of the developed simulation platform (task T1.2, project period I) consisting of the GULLIVER/SCYLLA - GES simulation platform

Following the developed retrofit configurations in Work Package 3 (RETROFIT green technologies), a first performance assessment (task T1.4) and a final performance assessment (task T1.5) were done for each retrofit configuration developed in Work Package 3. The assessment made use of the developed (task T1.2) and validated (task T1.3) analysis model. The assessment focused primarily on energy, emissions and costs, including the external (societal) costs for which an aggregated model was developed.

The following deliverables were submitted: • Deliverable D1.3 (December 2013) • Deliverable D1.4 (July 2014) • Deliverable D1.5 (January 2015)

Details for each task Task T1.3: Analysis model validation Having developed a simulation platform as described in deliverable D1.2, the simulation models needed to be verified and validated by full scale measurements. The analysis model reliability is a crucial element in assessing the impact of green technologies on the energy consumption, emissions and costs of retrofitting. Of primary interest for the full scale measurements are the actual energy use of main & auxiliary engines in operational conditions. During the full scale measurements (carried out in Period I M 28) many parameters were logged from the on-board data logging systems and from temporary installed measuring devices. All parameters are shown in see Table 2 below.

Table 2: Overview of measured and simulated paramet ers to be validated


The corresponding voyage schedule of the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales in the course of the full-scale measurements (Table 3) was:

Table 3: Case ship voyage schedule

Saturday Port Arrival Time Departure Time CDI 15:00 Sunday Port Arrival Time Departure Time Navigation Monday Port Arrival Time Departure Time TCI 3:00 7:00 LPA 10:30 Tuesday Port Arrival Time Departure Time LPA 23:00

Wednesday Port Arrival Time Departure Time SPC 9:00 15:00 TCI 21:00 Thursday Port Arrival Time Departure Time TCI 2:00 Friday Port Arrival Time Departure Time CDI 17:00

The route of the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales is shown in Fig. 1 below:

Fig. 1: The route of the case ship Jose Maria Entre canales


The measurements were hampered by poor weather during the measurements period required the weather was rather poor, as illustrated in the adjacent Fig. 2. To obtain a reliable validation of the analysis model the simulation of the case ship voyage was conducted using initially the same route on exact the same dates as during the full scale measurements. A first comparison was made between the simulated shaft power and measured shaft power where after some minor modifications were made to the models. The validation process is shown in Fig. 3 below. Fig. 2: Weather conditions during full scale measurements

Fig. 3: The validation process

After these adaptations of the models, the following comparison was made for the ship speed and the shaft power of the main engines (Fig. 4).


Fig 4: Comparison measured and simulated ship speed and shaft power

In a similar way comparisons have been made for the main engine emissions and auxiliary power and emissions. All results and the validated models have been reported in D1.3. Work done by the partners • VICUS planned the measuring campaign together with ACCIONA, MARIN and TNO. • VICUS prepared the and installed the measuring devices on-board the case ship Jose

Maria Entrecanales, carried out the measurements, extracted, checked and analysed the logged data.

• Acciona provided the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales, participated in the preparation of the measurements and provided information and access to VICUS


personnel, assisted with the installation of measuring devices and provided additional information on request.

• MARIN, TNO and DUT analysed the logged data and compared the full scale measurements with the results of the voyage simulation of the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales.

• VICUS (task leader), MARIN, TNO and DUT prepared deliverable D1.3.

Task T1.4: First assessment; In this task the first try-out of assessing the impact of retrofitting an existing ship with green technologies took place. The input was provided by task T3.2 (Green technologies, 1st

configurations) and consisted of 6 green technologies configurations that could be applied to the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales. The assessment used the method and the analysis model developed and validated in tasks T1.2-T1.3 to determine the impact of the selected green technologies configurations (see Table 4 below):

Table 4: Overview selected green technologies confi gurations ID Description Configuration 0 Case ship as is Configuration 1 Dual fuel main engines installed Configuration 2 Scrubber installed Configuration 3 Cold ironing LNG for auxiliary engines only in harbour Configuration 4 Waste Heat Recovery (WHR) system installed Configuration 5 Variable speed generators with fixed pitch propellers Configuration 6 Renewable technologies, solar and wind power

Based on the initial technologies selected in WP3, the preliminary stage of macroeconomic analysis (with the previously developed model) was performed: • The collection of scenario-specific data was completed. • A set of scenarios was generated for modelling the impacts those nine technologies

considered under different assumptions. The inputs of for generation of scenarios were validated within the consortium. The selected scenarios were “transit mode” at sea and “manoeuvring mode” in port.

• The model was run and the model outputs were prepared. Those were used for contribution to the deliverable D1.4.

• An economic aggregated model was developed • A scientific paper for presentation at the IAME 2014 conference in Norfolk was

prepared. The paper was nominated for a prize. • An updated peer-reviewed version of the paper has been prepared for presentation at

the MTEC 2014 conference.

Work done by the partners • TNO developed additional numerical models for the GULLIVER/GES simulation

platform using the green technologies outlined in Work Package 3. TNO was further involved in analysing the results of the executed voyage scenarios with the GULLIVER/ GES simulation platform, and the preparation of deliverable D1.4.

• MARIN executed the voyage simulation scenarios using the GULLIVER/GES platform, implemented the DUT drive train model and prepared deliverable D1.4. Together with TNO, MARIN recommended improvements to the analysis model and assessment method.


• ACCIONA revised the data coming from the simulation through a comparison with real data obtained from the vessel operation. The parameters compared against real data: Fuel Consumption, Power (% MCR), Trip Duration, Pitch Ratio and sustained speed. ACCIONA further commented on deliverable D1.4.

• UA developed the economic aggregated model and contributed to deliverable D1.4, and prepared and gave two presentations (see below).

• DUT provided the motor model for manoeuvring in port, contributed to the development of the economic aggregated model and contributed to deliverable D1.4.

• VICUS participated in the assessment work regarding the matching between simulated voyage data and measured data, and contributed to deliverable D1.4.

Task T1.5: Final assessment. Task T1.5 is the project “proof of the pudding”, it demonstrates: • The process of “virtual” retrofitting through the use of the analysis model and

assessment method developed in task T1.2-T1.3. • The benefits of retrofitting ships with green technologies as first assessed in task T1.4.

The RETROFIT Final Assessment builds on the results of Work Package 3 task T3.3 (Green technologies final configurations) and applies the developed methods and tools to assess and compare the final green technologies in terms of energy, emissions and economic aspects. Task T1.5 also implemented all improvements recommended to the models and methods developed and validated/tested in previous Work Package 1 tasks T1.1-4. As part of these final improvements of models and methods a software tool for supporting ship owners’ decisions regarding the retrofitting “worthiness” of their ships was developed on the basis of the work done in tasks T1.4.

The final selection of the green technology configurations provided by task T3.3 (Deliverable D3.3) was examined for practical use for the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales in transit mode scenario. Considerations were available documentation to model the particular configuration and practical use of a model in a quasi-static model, as in the simulations time steps of 1 hours are used. The differences with the configurations considered in task T1.4 are shown in Table 5. • Waste heat recovery technology was considered inefficient for the case ship. • LNG is used to replace only 2 main engines and 2 auxiliary engines, as most of the

time this will be sufficient to run the ship on LNG. Occasionally some additional power is required. In that case the existing engines will be used.

• The batteries for harbour use is a new selected configuration.

Table 5: Technology configurations used in task T1. 5


Based on an updated set of technology configurations the main stage of macroeconomic analysis was done: • An updated set of scenarios was generated for modelling impacts of the updated

technology configurations. These scenarios were based on the outputs of GES model simulations done by other partners in the project.

• The scenarios were run and the outputs were prepared. • Using the developed assessment methodology, the main assessment of the

performance of selected technology configurations was done. Work done by the partners • TNO constructed additional GES energy models, for example the batteries. TNO was

further involved in the analysis of the GULLIVER/GES simulation results and contributed to deliverable D1.5.

• MARIN carried out the GULLIVER/GES simulations for the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales, analysed and discussed the results with TNO and prepared deliverable D1.5.

• DUT and UA carried out the macro-economic assessment of the selected green technology configurations and contributed to deliverable D1.5.

• ACCIONA commented on the outcome of the simulations for the case ship. • MARLO developed a software tool for supporting ship owners’ decisions regarding the

retrofitting “worthiness” of their ships was developed on the basis of the work done in tasks T1.4.

Significant results for Period II

The significant results of Work Package 1 are: • The validated analysis model and assessment method (task T1.3). • The developed aggregated economic model (task T1.4). • The first and final assessment of green technology configurations for the case ship

Jose Maria Entrecanales, demonstrating the practical value of the developed analysis model and assessment method.

• The software tool supporting ship-owners’ decision on retrofitting.

Deviations from Annex I

No work content deviations from Annex I occurred. D1.3 was late for delivery (rejected by the Quality manager) D1.4 was late for delivery, due to late receipt of validated components for the simulations and efforts made for completion of D1.3 Failure to achieve critical objectives

All critical objectives were achieved.


Statement on the use of resources (Tables 6 -7)

Table 6: Planned Person Months for Work Package 1 i n period II

Work package number WP1 Start date or start event M1

Work Package title RETROFIT Ships in operation

Activity type RTD

Planned Person Months period II

Participant number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Participant short name NMTF TNO TUD CMT Gdansk WAR MARIN Person months participant 0,3 3,5 4 0 0 0 8,49


Participant short name Acciona IMAWIS SP MARLO VICUS UA IMTECH Person months participant 4 0 0 1,8 4,57 3 0

Table 7: Total used Person Months for Work Package 1 in period II



Activity type RTD

Actual Person Months period II


Participant short name NMTF TNO TUD CMT Gdansk WAR MARIN Person months participant 0,45 5,89 2,645 0 0 0 14,2


Participant short name Acciona IMAWIS SP MARLO VICUS UA IMTECH Person months participant 2 0 0 7,9 2,54 1,59 0


2.2.2 Work Package 2 The RETROFIT ship Summary of progress period II The first validation of green technology configurations for the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales was carried out (task T2.1). The validation addressed the ship safety and functionality and was done following a procedure developed in task T2.1. The validation addressed the first selected green technology configurations provided by Work Package 3 (task T3.2). The same procedure was followed in the final validation that was carried out in task T2.3 addressing the final selection of green technologies configurations provided by Work Package 3 (task T3.3).

A method for involving retrofitting consideration in the design process of ships was developed (task T2.2) and tested with respect to the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales. The governing idea was, to anticipate during the design process on possible future retrofitting of the ship, in particular the access to components that could be replaced by new ones.

Combating emissions on a global scale is entrusted to international bodies such as the IMO and corresponding governments who introduce emission-reducing requirements and measures for new ships. These measures are not binding for existing short sea ships of 25 years old (and older), while their frequent port calls contribute significantly to CO2, Nox and PM emissions. For these ships green retrofitting is a feasible option but also one that requires investments that might be beyond the economic feasibility of the rest life time of these ships. Work Package 2 task T2.4 investigated options and ideas for a framework based on proposals for possible European regulations aiming to limit harmful emissions from (existing) ships calling European ports. Details for each task Task T2.1: RETROFIT design, first validation The methodology and procedure for validation were developed during RETROFIT Period I. The validation addressed the green technology configurations specified by Work Package 3 in task T3.2: • Configuration I: LNG. Dual fuel engines. • Configuration II: Scrubber. • Configuration III: Harbour emissions. • Configuration IV: Waste heat recovery. • Configuration V: Variable speed generator • Configuration VI: “Green technologies” (wind + solar + shore power) Each technology configuration is analysed, sharing the different aspects of the methodology and the technologies between Work Package 2 partners. As a result of this work, some sensitive areas for improvement are detected; the corresponding comments are included in deliverable D2.1 and used in Work Package 3 for determining the Final green technology configurations (task T3.3), see details below: • Configuration 1 - LNG for all engines: seems a good solution for navigation in ECAs,

with the advantage of cost savings. No further changes are proposed, but the a deeper economic study with different scenarios was recommended.

• Configuration 2 - Scrubber: keeping within the hypothetical scenario of an ECA, results are favourable. The possibility of interaction with other green technologies is pointed out. No further changes were proposed.

• Configuration 3 - Cold ironing LNG for generator in harbour: some week points regarding operations are observed. It is recommended to keep most interesting


advantages of this proposal and have a second loop; e.g., electric cold ironing supported by LNG fuelled generators, all within transportable modules.

• Configuration 4 - Waste Heat Recovery (WHR): this technology is considered to have a low efficiency, only compensated with the huge amount of available energy. The combination with energy storage or the use of a PTI on the main engines could be regarded in a second loop.

• Configuration 5 - Variable speed generators: It is recommended to obtain more accurate results from the simulations (task T1.4). No further changes are proposed.

• Configuration 6 - Renewable technologies – solar, wind energy: the area of operation is considered optimal for solar panels, but a huge area of solar panels is required for even a modest level power generation. In the case of wing sails, the main problem is the stability of the vessel, with heeling angles not admissible in Ro-Ro vessels.

Work done by the partners: • VICUS defined the validation procedure, discussed the various technology

configurations and checked the possibilities for executions and improvement with ACCIONA. VICUS prepared deliverable D2.1.

• ACCIONA provided information on the technical possibilities of the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales for each technology configuration

• TNO, DUT and Gdansk (partly) contributed to the analysis of the various technology configurations and contributed to deliverable D2.1.

Task T2.2: Design for RETROFIT- ting method Design-for-Retrofitting (DFR) is defined as a (design) concept that anticipates on possible, probable or necessary retrofitting during a ship life cycle. The aim is to introduce provisions for space, weight, accessibility and technology matching within a ship design that will facilitate low cost and short lead (retrofitting) time in the future. The basic idea here is that with technology life cycles ever becoming shorter it might pay to replace old-by-new or introduce new technology in existing ship configurations. The case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales was used as study object for the task. A first step in the task was an in-depth literature study on design methodologies that could support a design-for-retrofitting approach. Some relevant methods are: • Design-for-Assembly (DFA), usually considering primary factors related to the subject

product, including part symmetry, size, weight, fits, orientation etc. and the primary factors related to process as inserting, handling, gripping, orienting, special tooling etc. It is assumed that streamlining for assembly is beneficial for disassembly as well.

• Design for disassembly, for more cost-effective maintenance and repair of products. The method focuses on the relationship between two components in an assembly in order to determine possible disassembly sequences, also assuming that assemble and disassemble sequences are in fact reversible. Addressed aspects are accessibility to spaces, tools’ positioning, and the required force and time for disassembling.

• Design-for-Maintainability & Reparability, also addressed Design for Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul. The method involves various principles regarding complex product design principles for easy removal of parts and components.

The acquired knowledge was augmented by extracting practical knowledge from experts (expert knowledge elicitation) and expanding the research field to include maintenance, repair, overhaul: all activities requiring interference with existing ship internal arrangements of structures, equipment, outfitting etc.


In a next step Retrofittability principles were defined and a concept “Map of Retrofittability” was devised (Fig. 5 below). 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 5: Concept Map of Retrofit ability: input for the technical specification of the Retrofit Penalty Indicator

Fig. 5 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. 6. The developed Design-for-Retrofitting methodology was used in a demonstrator addressing the main engine room of the case ship (Jose Maria Entrecanales). An alternative configuration of the engine room showing the impact of the design-for-retrofitting approach on the ship design solution was created.

Recommendations for future developers of Design-for-Retrofit tools were 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.


Fig. 6: Input and Output of the Design for Retrofit ability Tool

As a general design recommendation, the guidelines included in deliverable D2.2 could be followed. Also, a design department could use the list of DFR principles as a starting point to create a ‘cookbook’ on how to translate such principles to design solutions typically applicable for ‘their’ ship types. For the future, designing for uncertain conditions will become more prominent and important and it is expected that there will be incentives to build-in standard assessment Design-for-X checks in the concept design phase. This study might provide some lessons-learned.

Work done by the partners: • Delft University of technology (DUT) carried out the bulk of the work. DUT performed

the literature study, developed the principles of retrofit ability, the Retrofit Penalty indicator and the supporting tool. DUT defined and performed the demonstrator and prepared deliverable D2.2.

• Damen SP “sister” company (Damen Ship Repair Schiedam) provided “Rules of the Thumb” input to the work of task T2.2.

Task T2.3: RETROFIT design, final validation Task 2.3 reproduces the same analysis made on T2.1, applied to the list of technologies proposed in T3.3 (final configurations). As some of the technologies had no changes in respect with T2.1, these were not included in D2.3, in order to focus on new proposals. As a summary, the conclusions are listed below: • Configuration 1 - LNG fuel for two main engines: the main problem is the uncertainty

about the fuel prices (LNG, but also HFO and MDO), so it is recommended to have a deeper economical long term study with different scenarios.

• Configuration 2 - LNG fuel for two generators :in combination with configuration 1 the relative investment will be lower because of the common storage and supply system for the fuel system and as such the payback period will be somewhat shorter.

• Configuration 3 - Electric cold ironing – using an onshore LNG generator: this enables the application of cold ironing in those situations where changing the electrical infrastructure should be too costly or the inland electrical supply system is too small sized for the required electrical power.

• Configuration 7 – Batteries for harbour use: Lacking a sound ROI this alternative has to be left.


Work done by the partners: • VICUS defined the validation procedure, discussed the various technology

configurations and checked the possibilities for executions and improvement with ACCIONA. VICUS prepared deliverable D2.3.

• ACCIONA provided information on the technical possibilities of the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales for each technology configuration

• TNO contributed to the analysis of the various technology configurations and contributed to deliverable D2.1.

Task T2.4: Regulatory framework to implement the RE TROFIT solutions Retrofitting ships with green technologies to reduce the use of fossil fuels and reduce harmful emissions is governed by technical and economic aspects. A core issue here concerns the end-users’ confidence in green technologies’ reliability and economic gains, both necessary conditions to overcome existing thresholds for green technologies market uptake. The developed tools in RETROFIT can provide the necessary confidence regarding the effectiveness of a variety of green technologies. The final threshold is however the retrofitting “economy” of the green technologies assessed in the RETROFIT project. Task T2.4 initial step is a financial evaluation of the proposed green technology configurations for ships. The evaluation was linked to a RORO ship-type corresponding with the RETROFIT case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales. RORO ships are considered to be representative for the European short sea fleet due to the variety in design speeds and main dimensions. This evaluation was based on the direct costs for the ship owner and on the hidden environmental costs. An evaluation of the effects of these measures on the emission levels in Europe based on a study of number of port calls of these ship types and a calculation of the total emission savings in relation to the total European RORO fleet. Newly developed micro and macro-economic models were used:

• The micro economic model calculates the required freight rates, the freight rate required to cover all costs including and excluding the external costs for the example vessel given a sailing profile;

• The macroeconomic model, also called aggregated model, calculates the impact of the proposed measures with different penetration ratio’s in the market. The average economic, energy and emission performance for the whole European RORO market were calculated. This approach supports an environmentally and economically conscious choice of technologies for retrofitting and arguments for incentives and rule making. See Fig. 7 below.


Scenario-specific inputs:- Investment cost- Impacts of retrofitting: saved fuel / efficiency increases / etc.- Applied to:ship type/-s that is retrofitted / engine type etc.- Market penetration

Reference scenario Nothing is done, no impacts (follows normal development patterns) ∆Cp=0 and ∆Rp=0∆Cs=0 and ∆Bs=0

Modelled scenario n(n – technology tested)

Inputs top level:- Ex-tremisenergy, emissions , transport activity (all by ship type)- Macroeconomic datagrowth, inflation, discount rate, etc.

Direct impacts (for the shipping company):Cost of retrofitting solution ∆Cp

Savings, extra profit because of retrofitting ∆Rp

Indirect impacts:For example, loss of employment in the ports, or creation of extra jobs in

the related manufacturing industries.No further investigation.

External impacts (environmental etc.):Change in external costs and benefits ∆Cs and ∆Bs

Legend:∆Cp – change in private cost∆Rp – change in private revenues∆Cs – change in social external costs∆Bs – change in social external benefits

Those would differ for each technology

Impacts of retrofitting in general:

∆−∆

∆−∆

ss

pp

CB

CR

Impacts

Modeling outputs

Direct impacts (for the shipping company):∆Cp = cost of implemeting (discounted, output of the calculation)∆Rp = savings, extra profit (discounted, output of the calculation)IRR, NPV, B/C ratio

External impacts (environmental etc.):Change in external costs and benefits ∆Cs and ∆Bs (discounted, output of the calculation)

Performance of retrofitting

economic

energy

emission

Fig. 7: Economic model (UA)


External costs (see impacts) can be regarded as a bill presented to society which, when not addressed properly, might lead to wrong decisions when choosing geographic supply regions for certain products meant to be used in Europe. The assessed technologies were: 1. Dual fuel engines for part of the

main propulsion power plant (two out of four engines);

2. Replacing two auxiliary engines by dual fuel ones;

3. Using a PTO (Power Take Off) concept to assist the main propulsion;

4. A SOx scrubber.

Fig. 8: Assessment criteria

The criteria used for the technologies assessment is shown in Fig. 8. For comparison of the technologies, the values of the technology assessment index were summarized in a radar graph (see example in Fig. 9).

Dual-fuel engine (LNG / Diesel)

Scrubbing (SOx)

Fig. 9: Comparison of technologies on the three cri teria

In a next step a study to identify existing legislations addressing emissions abatement was carried out. SOx, NOx and Ozone depleting emissions are regulated by legislation for new and existing ships, for example the SECA areas in force as per January 1st 2015. No regulations for Particulate Matter (PM) emissions were found, despite the health issues and consequential costs related to these emissions. For CO2 emissions the European Commission issued a scheme for “Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport”. There is however no overall scheme to encourage green technologies implementation in existing ships, for example in the form of a “Regulatory Framework” . Such a Framework, backed by close to market incentives, could provide the necessary stimulus to ship owners to invest in green technologies and contribute to EU and international policies on reducing the use of fossil fuels and emissions abatement.

A variety of proposals for such incentives was developed and discussed with the relevant stakeholders (see table 8 below).


Table 8: Incentives list

1. Five incentives are of interest to evaluate in more detail. These incentives are: 2. Clean fuels are cheaper / dirty fuels more expensive; 3. Emission taxes (CO2); 4. Bonus for emission reduction measures amounting societal costs; 5. Fiscal benefits for shippers using dedicated green ships; 6. Realistic penalties.

Incentive

ship

ya

rd/

rela

ted

ind

ust

ry

cha

rte

rer

ship

ow

ne

r

carr

ier

ship

pe

r

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

RE

TR

OF

ITR

ET

RO

FIT


Work done by the partners: • NMTF carried out the literature study on legislation, prepared and executed the stake

holders meeting and prepared deliverable D2.4 • UA and DUT participated in the stakeholders meeting, collected and processed the

provided information and carried out the economic study within the task. UA and DUT contributed to deliverable D2.2.

• VICUS participated in the stakeholder meeting and commented on the incentives. • ACCIONA provided the ship operator opinion on the incentives • WAR participated to the preparation and the execution of the stake holder meeting, and

in the analysis and processing of the incentives. Significant results for Period II

The following significant results were achieved within Work Package 2: • A methodology for evaluation of green technologies for a specific vessel was proposed

and apply with a wide range of different combinations. • Guidelines for design recommendations based on possible retrofitting are provided. • Methodology for the evaluation of different designs according to their retrofitting

possibilities are also proposed. • A wide list of possible rules and incentives are analysed and conclusions derive on

comments for a future legislation. Deviations from Annex I

No work content deviations from Annex I occurred. Some delay in uploading of deliverables occurred. Failure to achieve critical objectives

All critical objectives were achieved. Statement on the use of resources (Tables 9-10)

Table 9: Planned Person Months for Work Package 2 i n period II


Work Package title The RETROFIT Ship

Activity type RTD

Planned Person Months period II


Participant short name NMTF TNO TUD CMT Gdansk WAR MARIN Person months participant 2,8 3,07 3,21 0 7,16 0,68 0


Participant short name Acciona IMAWIS SP MARLO VICUS UA IMTECH Person months participant 1,7 0 0 0 0 0 0


Table 10: Total used Person Months for Work Package 2 in Period II


Work Package title The RETROFIT Ship

Activity type RTD

Actual Person Months period II


Participant short name NMTF TNO DUT CMT Gdansk WAR MARIN Person months participant 3,83 6,95 3,616 0 0 0 0


Participant short name Acciona IMAWIS SP MARLO VICUS UA IMTECH Person months participant 2,26 0 0 0 7,47 3,81 0


2.2.3 Work Package 3 RETROFIT green technologies Summary of progress period II The list of Green Technologies (first) configurations for the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales (task T3.2) was modified to include a more detailed economic evaluation for the chosen technologies. The corresponding deliverable D3.2 was updated and submitted. Following the completion of task T3.2 and upon receipt of the input from Work Packages 1 (task T1.4, First assessment) and 2 (task T2.1, Retrofit design, first validation) the final list of proposed green Technologies configurations for the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales was compiled (task T3.3) and the corresponding deliverable D3.3 was submitted. The final list provides a more detailed description of the green technologies, a description of operational and maintenance aspects and an economic evaluations of green technologies within the context of the case ship.

Tasks T3.4-5 dealt with the design, development, installation and testing of a concept Decision Support and Monitoring System (hereafter DSS) for optimising energy use and emissions on-board the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales. In task T3.4 (Preliminary concept decision support and monitoring systems) the fundamentals of the DSS system were determined, and the system design and construction, i.e. installation on-board the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales, were executed. In task T3.5 (Final concept decision support and monitoring systems) the system was tested on functionality, robustness and the logged data was analysed to assess the effectiveness of the concept DSS. Mush effort was dedicated to the operational maintenance of the DSS concept system and the restoring of the system functionality following sensors’ failure, IT-failure and human errors. The corresponding deliverables D3.4 and D3.5 were submitted. Details for each task Task T3.2: Green technology first configurations While the basic work in this task was done during the first reporting period P I, additional work was necessary following the initial rejection of deliverable D3.2. The additional work included a more detailed description of green technologies and a more detailed economic analysis. Deliverable D3.2 was modified accordingly and submitted. Work done by partners

Partner WARTSILA was the principal editor of the Green Technologies first configurations and of the corresponding deliverable D3.2. Partners ACC, DUT, VICUS, TNO and IMTE provided input as required and commented on the preliminary list of green technologies configurations. DUT, ACC and IMTE also provided financial data for the economic evaluation and maintenance. Task T3.3: Green technologies final configurations Task T3.3 builds on the results of task T3.2 and on the outcome of tasks T1.4 (First assessment) and T2.1 (Retrofit design, first validation). In a first step a renewed search for green technologies which were not included in the work of tasks T3.1/T3.2, was done though monitoring of publications of new and upcoming technologies. This new survey of various sources yielded new information, the distinct differences with task T3.2 were: • A different combination between green and (on-board) existing technologies. • A change of one green technology by another one using the short list from task T3.1

(Identify, evaluate, select green technologies).


The parameters for the technologies mentioned in the list were reviewed and updated. Some missing technologies were added (e.g. methanol, combined solar and sail, wind-turbo sail) and the entire list was rearranged. Green technologies classes were:

• Energy sources • Engine improvements • Operations & maintenance • Engine configurations • Auxiliary systems • After treatment

Upon completion of the (green technologies) list the overview of technology configurations (combi’s) from task T3.2 was updated with the revised green technology parameters and description of advantages and estimated costs (see Table 11 below).

Table 11: Example of green technologies short list

Short list

Note: For explanation of this table, please read the remarks in paragraph Fout! Verwijzingsbron niet gevonden. .

TR

L

Yea

rs to

in

dust

rialis

atio

n

Fit

for

Ret

rofit

Fit

in s

cope

of

Pro

ject

Ret

rofit

ener

gy

savi

ng p

oten

tial

CO

2 em

issi

on

savi

ng p

oten

tial

NO

x em

issi

on

savi

ng p

oten

tial

SO

x em

issi

on

savi

ng p

oten

tial

PM

em

issi

on s

avin

g po

tent

ial

Energy source Natural Gas (LNG/NG) 9 0 + yes 4% 27% 85% >99% 100% Dual-fuel engine (LNG / Diesel) 9 0 0 yes 4% 27% 85% >99% 100% LNG powered generator (for harbour use) 9 0

++ yes 0% 27% 85% >99% 100%

Wind (kites) 9 0 ++ yes 5-8% ---equals energy saving---

Solar 9 0 ++ yes 1% ---equals energy saving---

Cold Ironing (harbour electric power supply) 9 0

++ yes 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Cold Ironing (harbour power supply - LNG generator) 9 2

++ yes 0% 27% 85% 99% 100%

Battery for harbour use 9 4 ++ yes 0% 100%

100% 100% 100% See below an example of a green technology description (Energy source, LNG/NG).


Running on natural gas provides great savings – around 85% - in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) as well as cutting sulphur oxides (SOx) by some 99%, thus providing a useful means towards meeting not only the forthcoming ECA limits but also IMO Tier III. (Note: compared to HFO). The energy efficiency design index (EEDI) and ship energy efficiency management plan (SEEMP) regulations entering into force in 2013 will seek to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Because methane gas – the major component of most gaseous fuels – is a particularly potent greenhouse gas, the existence of un-burnt gas in the exhaust (methane slip) means that the difference in GHG emissions, when using gas fuel rather than Diesel fuels in a dual-fuel engine, is less obvious than the reductions in NOx, SOx and PM.

However, running on gas still provides a significant benefit, with gas-fuelled ships typically producing a clear reduction in GHG compared to conventional fuels (if the methane slip is minimized).

Fig. 10: Simplified flow diagram of LNG system

Working principle LNG system: (See also Figure 8) The storage tank is filled by the bunkering system. The liquefied natural gas is vaporized in the main gas evaporator (MGE) located in the tank connection space, and fed to the engine gas regulation system. The pressure build-up evaporator (PBE) controls the pressure in the LNG storage tank. The heating system circulates the heating media (Glycol Water) through the evaporators.

The biggest complication for retrofitting to LNG is getting the LNG tanks on board. This is limited by: • Geometric space on board which is limited by cargo access and safety distances • The existing vessel needs to be classed (very limiting for the inland waterways potential) • Depending on tank location, the requirements on the accommodation ventilation and electrical

systems may require a premature overhaul of the accommodation.

Another important issue for switching to LNG are the rules, the availability of bunkering facilities and the cost of LNG delivered on board. A detailed description of the current situation is given in Annex A.

Dual-fuel engine (LNG / Diesel) Dual-fuel engines can operate on LNG but also on diesel. A major benefit of this fuel flexibility is that it allows ships to choose fuel according to operational patterns and economic factors. The dual fuel engines can start and stop in gas mode, can idle for up to 8 hours in gas mode, and can change between gas and liquid fuels, and vice versa, on the go.

This flexibility provides the clue why the dual fuel option is a better fit compared to pure gas engines for ship propulsion. Taking a typical gas-fuelled installation, such as that on an offshore supply vessel, the engines are set up with both MDO and LNG supplies to all engines. In normal operation all engines will run on LNG from a single gas supply system. In the case of a gas system failure to one engine, that engine can be simply switched to MDO operation. Similarly, should a problem be encountered with the main gas supply, all engines can be switched to MDO. So, full redundancy can be simply achieved. LNG powered generator (for harbour) When the ship is in the harbour, only the LNG powered gen set is being used. This measure is mainly used to reduce harbour emissions. This measure can also reduce fuel cost depending on the LNG bunker price.


The final choice of green technologies configurations for the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales is shown below (Fig. 11).

Motivation CombinationTechnologyStrategy

Efficiency improvement

Upcoming regulations

Emission control (general)

Emission control (harbour)

Change of energy source

Optimized use of energy

DF engine (LNG / Diesel)

DSS: trim advice

Battery for harbour usage

Solar

Scrubbing (SOx)

Generators on PTO

Cold Ironing (LNG generator)

1 - LNG fuel for two main engines

7 – Batteries for harbour use

6 – Solar power

5 – Use scrubber to reduce SOx emissions

4 – Maximise use of PTO on main engines

3 – Electric cold ironing – using LNG generator

2 - LNG fuel for two generators

8 – Trim adjustment

Fig. 11: Final choice of green technologies configu rations

Work done by the partners Task T3.3 is in principle a continuation of task T3.2 by the same project partners. Partner WARTSILA was again the principal editor of the Green Technologies final configurations and of the corresponding deliverable D3.3. Partners ACC, DUT, VICUS, TNO and IMTE provided input on the selected technology configurations, in particular the newly introduced technologies, and assisted with the enhanced technology descriptions. DUT, ACC and IMTE checked the earlier provided financial data for the economic evaluation and maintenance. Task T3.4: Preliminary concept decision support and monitoring systems Task T3.4 started with an inventory of the tasks/responsibilities of ship/shipping operations stakeholders (owner, authorities, suppliers, service providers, etc.). An analysis of the diverse aspects of decision support and monitoring systems, of the information exchange and of the requirements (protection, reliability, quality etc.) to be posed to information exchange was carried out. In general, there is no single “optimal” DSS solution for all ships and all ship owners. “Optimal” depends on many factors of which the ship operational profile is one that stands out. This explains why the maritime market shows a large variation of DSS 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. Upon comparing the properties of these systems, one may find that DSS’s have a limited scope and they can be categorised by the type of advice they provide. Systems may be provided as offline version (giving advice before starting the operation), as online version (giving advice while executing the operation) or as service option (a specialised company using a DSS to give advice on request). Most DSS solutions aim for operational safety and reducing fuel consumption. Some examples: • Trim advice, influencing fuel consumption • RPM advice, influencing main engine efficiency and hence fuel consumption


• Route advice, influencing fuel consumption and operational safety • Desired Time of Arrival (DTA) advice, “just-in-time” arrival • Ship motions prediction, influencing fuel consumption and cargo safety Following discussions with the RETROFIT stakeholder Acciona Trasmediterranea, requirements for a Decision Support System (DSS) for “Trim Advice” regarding the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales were determined. At first a generic functional model was devised specifying stakeholders’ roles and the necessary information exchange. The model does not describe in detail the properties of components (engine, drive, automation system) but focuses on the interaction between these components, their users and the providers of the decision support. The generic model addresses such aspects as: • Time slots/traffic conditions; interaction ship operator/planner/traffic control • Maintenance; interaction ship operator/”green‟ component/CBM service provider • Sea conditions • Gathering information to learn how to further reduce the energy consumption. The generic model comprises sub-models such as the shore-ship communication, the navigation system, the power generation system etc., that are modular and suited for replacement i.e. expansion as represented systems may change over the life-cycle of a ship. Specific aspects were: • The generic DSS architecture, the approach to the decision making process. • More in depth generic functional model for a set-up using functions already present on

the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales. • Functional architecture for the prototype system including a hardware architecture (Fig.

12).

Fig. 12: Decision Support System model


Fig 13: Hardware architecture Correspondingly a prototype system for remote control monitoring was built and installed on-board the case ships Jose Maria Entrecanales (Fig. 13). Additional functionality for decision support was added and the entire system is scheduled to be operational till April 2015. See Fig. 14-17 below for details of the installed DSS.

Fig. 14: Hardware architecture of prototype system


Fig. 15: Radar sensors Fig. 16: Installed trim advice system compon ents

Fig. 17: Trim advice screen


Work of the partners Task leader IMTECH initiated the investigation on the tasks/responsibilities of ship/shipping operations stakeholders (owner, authorities, suppliers, service providers, etc.). Partners ACCIONA and UA provided the ship owner and the authorities view, partners VICUS and WAR provided the supplier’s and service providers view. TNO and DUT helped IMTECH with the analysis of the diverse aspects of decision support and monitoring systems, of the information exchange and of the requirements (protection, reliability, quality etc.). The Decision Support System design was done by IMTECH in accordance with the requirements set by ACCIONA (end user). IMTECH prepared deliverable D3.4 which was reviewed by partners WAR and VICUS. Task T3.5: Final concept decision support and monit oring systems In this task the impact of decision support and monitoring on the energy & emission performance of the case ship was demonstrated.

In a first step an architecture of green technologies within the information architecture of the decision support system was defined. For this purpose one of the final green technologies configurations from task T3.3 (Green technologies final configurations) was used. The overview of the final green technologies with potential DSS functionalities is shown below (Table 12). Option 8, Trim adjustment, was implemented.

Table 12: Green technology configurations for the c ase ship

# Description Performance monitoring Optimization advice

5 Use scrubber to reduce SOx emissions

Scrubber efficiency 1 LNG fuel for two main engines

Emission efficiency Hybrid energy selection

2 LNG fuel for two generators

3 Electric cold ironing – using LNG generator

6 Solar power Solar panel efficiency

4 Maximise use of PTO on main engines Generator efficiency Energy distribution

management 7 Batteries for harbour use 8 Trim adjustment Propulsion efficiency Trim optimization

Stakeholder-specific ship trim scenario's with and without the use of the decision support system were defined in cooperation with partner Acciona, see Table 14 below. During the use of the prototype DSS for trim advice it was necessary to service the prototype system for trouble shooting.

Table 13: Stake holder Acciona scenarios

No support of DSS With support of DSS

Monitor Limited and distributed over different equipment

Constant measurement automatically logged in one place.

Evaluate Exact relation trim/fuel flow unknown Relation trim/fuel flow automatically determined and validated

Plan Not possible to plan for a trim that minimizes fuel consumption

The optimal trim to minimize fuel consumption is presented and that can be used to decide on what to do

Act Small variations in trim are possible Small variations in trim are possible


Preliminary results analysed in project month M 40 show: • The fuel saving potential of using the DSS is ca. 15 % • An operational fuel saving of about 5 % is achievable. Experiments will continue till project month + 2 (April 2015). Upon evaluation Acciona will decide whether to keep the system on board.

Work of the partners Task leader IMTECH was responsible for the installation, maintenance and monitoring of the installed prototype DSS for trim advice. ACCIONA was responsible for operating the DSS on board the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales, and for the first-line trouble shooting. Participants DUT, TNO, WAR and UA maintained an advisory role and participated in the analysis of the acquired data. Significant results for Period II The following significant results were achieved within Work Package 3: • The preliminary and the final configurations for the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales • The Decision Support System (DSS) prototype for trim advice design • The setting to work of the prototype advisory system on board the José Maria

Entrecanales. • The preliminary performance results of the DSS, based on collected feedback,

measurements and advisory data • Gained experience with the system. Deviations from Annex I • Delays were observed in obtaining the deliverables. This has been corrected by

cooperation between partners and more direct focus on the content of the deliverable. • The prototype system has been on board for quite some time. Delays occurred in

setting the system to work due to some sensors. • As the project is ended only limited time could be spend on gaining experience as well

as feedback from the operator is limited in time.

Failure to achieve critical objectives

All critical objectives were achieved. Statement on the use of resources (Tables 14-15)

Table 14: Planned Person Months for Work Package 3 in period II


Work Package title RETROFIT Green technologies solutions

Activity type RTD Planned Person Months period II Participant number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Participant short name NMTF TNO TUD CMT Gdansk WAR MARIN Person months participant 0,27 3,63 2,28 0 1,36 13,1 0

Participant number 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Participant short name Acciona IMAWI SP MARLO VICUS UA IMTEC


S H Person months participant 2,95 0 0 0 4,6 1,8 12,7

Table 15: Total used Person Months for Work Package 3 in period II


Work Package title RETROFIT Green technologies solutions

Activity type RTD Actual Person Months period II Participant number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Participant short name NMTF TNO DUT CMT Gdansk WAR MARIN Person months participant 0,33 4,34 0,33 0 0 9,3 0


Participant short name Acciona IMAWI

S SP MARLO VICUS UA IMTEC

H Person months participant 2,61 0 0 0 4,53 1,44 23,87


2.2.4 Work Package 4: RETROFIT process Summary of progress period II While the work on task T4.1 (Process requirements) was completed in Period I the corresponding deliverable D4.1 was finalised and uploaded at the beginning of Period II. Task T4.2 (Reverse engineering technologies) was executed in part in Period I. In Period II additional measuring tests with reverse engineering technologies were carried out and the task with the corresponding deliverable were completed. Task T4.3 (Full scale measurements) was delayed due to the withdrawal of WP4 partner GDANSK shipyard from the project. The task contained simulation and reverse engineering experiments that were defined, executed and concluded in cooperation with Damen Ship Repair. The detailed data set of simulation results were transferred to DELFT University for cost analysis, the results of those were included in deliverable D4.3. Task T4.4 (Retrofit procedures and guidelines) contained the essence of “Lessons Learned”, i.e. practical guidelines on supporting retrofitting shipyard processes by reverse engineering technologies and retrofitting process. Details for each task

Task T4.1: Process requirements The technical work in Task 4.1 was completed within the first period. The related Deliverable D4.1 was completed, reviewed, finalised and submitted in the early phase of Period II. Work of the partners Partner CMT edited deliverable D4.1. Partners DUT and IMAWIS reviewed the deliverable. Task T4.2: Reverse engineering technologies The first part of the task was completed in Period I and contained the following activities: • A State- of- the- Art review of reverse engineering technologies • Analysis and benchmarking of reverse engineering technologies on the basis of their

performance qualities • Detail requirements for product model data obtained from reverse engineering

measurements regarding output to CAD- were completed during Period I.

Two test measurement campaigns in cooperation with Gdańsk Shipyard were carried out to make recommendations for reverse engineering technologies use in correspondence with the retrofitting scenarios from task T2.1. In this case, the selected engineering technologies, especially photo modelling, could be used under practical conditions. This allowed that sources of error could be detected and eliminated prior to the execution of task T4.3 (Full scale experiments). Furthermore, the transfer of the recorded geometric data into the existing CAD of the shipyard was examined so that a potential standard for the format transfer could be found. The STEP-format1 appeared to be promising.

The first measuring campaign was realised on M20 on a LPG tanker named SYN ANTARES. The collected raw data was processed to a geometric model. The results were presented at the GA meeting in Gdansk, project month M21. The results were discussed with partners Damen and Gdansk and conclusions and recommendations for follow-up measurements were made. A second measuring campaign was carried out in M 21 where

1 STEP (Standard for the Exchange of Product model data) is a standardized graphic exchange file format, covered by ISO 10303, an ISO standard for the computer-interpretable representation and exchange of product manufacturing information. Its official title is "Industrial automation systems and integration - Product data representation and exchange".


additional photos were made, to improve the results of the first campaign and to test new methods which emerged from experiences with the first measurements and the discussion with partners Damen and Gdansk. The final geometric data were used to build a virtual model that could be used for purpose of engineering work when such geometric information is not electronically available. The collected knowledge was used for deliverable D4.2.

In a next step a programme for full scale experiments with reverse technologies matching the retrofitting scenarios from task T1.2 and the recommendations from task T4.2 was developed. The aim was, to provide practical evidence on the efficiency and effectiveness of the recommended reverse engineering technologies. The programme started with the selection of a suitable measurement system aiming to optimise the entire process from data acquisition by photogrammetry to the post-processing of the geometric model. Recommendations built on the theoretical and practical work already done in WP4 were provided for every step, hereby assuring a good workflow for the full scale experiments. Work of the partners Partner IMAWIS (task leader) prepared and carried out the measurements in cooperation with GDK. IMAWIS processed the conclusions and recommendations obtained in the two measurements campaigns to develop a dedicated procedure for experiments with reverse engineering technologies, see further task T4.3. Task T4.3: Full scale experiments The usability of solutions developed in Work Package 4 was identified as a critical issue for project RETROFIT and also for the parallel project GRIP. A joint meeting of both projects was held in project month M24 where recommendations were made regarding the management of simulation input data, data analysis and the displaying of simulation results. Accordingly, a software named 'anteSim' was developed for the full scale experiments carried out in task T4.3. The execution of the full scale experiments was first delayed by the need to have the above mentioned joint meeting and later by the GDANSK shipyard's decision to leave the project. This problem was solved by DAMEN ship repair taking over GDANSK's role in task T4.3. Full scale experiments addressed the following:

a. Simulating the process for a selected retrofitting activity. For this purpose the retrofitting of a new LNG dual-fuel engine was selected, to be installed on a RORO cargo ship Victorine, see photo. The expected outcome of the simulation study was to have an overview of the optimisation of the lead time for the retrofitting process and insight in the optimum number

of required personnel. This activity took place at Damen Ship Repair Flushing. b. Carry out a reverse engineering test with photo

modelling technology. For this test an existing retrofitting contract for the dredger Oostsee (see Photo) provided a suitable study object: a section of a pipe system that had to be replaced. The ascertainment of the pipe shape was also carried out with conventional methods, hereby offering the opportunity to compare the results with the technology examined here and to give an assessment of practicability and possible benefits for the shipyard. This activity was took place at the Damen Ship Repair Schiedam. A schedule for carrying out the full scale experiments was prepared in month M28 and adjusted in month M29.

The details of these two experiments were:


a. Simulation experiment : A basic scenario with several variants for the “rough planning” of the retrofitting process was chosen, which also enabled to test the function of the anteSim tool for managing of simulation input data. AnteSim was modified to improve the tool capability and its user friendliness (see further below). Process information from Damen Ship Repair Flushing was uploaded into the simulation input data base. The obtained results comprised lead times (per process step and in total) for each simulation run, along with the occupation rates of resources. In addition, a statistical process model was made available that provided a set of equations expressing the effect of resource quantities on lead times. The simulation results were analysed on production cost aspects by Delft University. Fig. 16 shows the information flow between tools used in the simulation experiment. Fig. 17 shows the simulation outcome of a scenario variant where the shipyard is operates in 3 shifts of 8 hours per day for 7 days in the week on the basis of the resources outlined in Table 16.

Fig. 18: Information Flow between tools used in Full Scale Experiment

Fig. 19: Utilisation Chart of Steel Workers

Table 16: Shipyard resources variant

Resource Skills Quantity

Carrier Transport by crane, fork lift etc. 25

Pipe fitter Assembly, disassembly and fitting of pipe systems 15

Mechanic Assembly, disassembly and installation of machinery 25

Steel worker Processing, assembly, disassembly of steel structures 25

Sub-contractor Various kinds of subcontracted work 25


The simulation model used for the simulation studies was basically developed in the Plant Simulation platform along with the Simulation Toolkit Shipbuilding (STS Toolset) in the first period. During the development of the simulation models for the simulation experiment in Period II, some adaptations and modifications were required for some of the existing toolsets, so as to be utilised for the required purpose of simulating the retrofitting activity in RETROFIT. Following, are simulation tools that were utilised, adapted and/or modified during the implementing simulation of retrofitting activities: • STS_OrderGenerator • STS_AssemblyControl • STS_ConstraintManager • STS_MaterialAdministration • Shipyard Logistics using STS_TransportControl • STS_Statistics • STS_DataInterface for Data Communication with anteSIM

Similar to the adaptation and utilisation of simulation tools for building up a simulation model in Plant Simulation, during the course of Full Scale Experiment, some optimisation of anteSIM software was also made.

b. Reverse engineering experiments: Full scale

measurements were carried out in project month M30 according the developed procedure (see Fig. 24. A coordination meeting with the shipyard was held prior to the measurements, to clear up open points and questions on both sides: used equipment, the way of proceeding, missing information. After an inspection on-board the ship the exact scope of the measurement was specified. Before the start of the measurement a calibration of the camera (Fig. 20)

Fig. 20: The used camera was necessary. The next step was the data collection by taking photos according to the procedure described in Fig. 22. The scope of measurements in shown in Fig. 21.

Fig. 21: Scope of the

measurements

A total of 120 photos of the tank and especially of the pipe system were taken.

Fig. 22: The measurements procedure


The results of the full scale measurements were analysed regarding user-friendliness and the quality of the obtained information in relation with the product CAD model requirements. Furthermore, possible combinations of two or more reverse engineering technologies were demonstrated. In this way the different systems can be combined to increase accuracy and usability (see Fig. 23).

The completed model of the pipe section is shown in Fig. 24.

Fig. 23: Combination of photo modelling and tachymeter technology

The generated pipe model was sent to the project office of the shipyard to test the data for possible further processing in the own CAD system. The data could be imported in the CAD construction software and it was feasible to use it for further engineering work. Herewith it was demonstrated that shipyards or design offices can use the data for a virtual model that allows doing engineering work although such information was not electronically available before.

Fig. 24: 3D- model of the measured (photographed) pipe

Work of the partners

Partner CMT was responsible for the planning, coordination and execution of the simulation experiments together with partner SP. This included the choice of the ship, the activities, the inventory of resources, the shipyard procedures, the selection of scenario variants, the validation of data and procedures, the analysis and conclusions. Partner DUT carried out the cost analysis of the various retrofitting scenario variants.

Partner IMAWIS was responsible for the planning, coordination and execution of the full scale experiments with reverse engineering technologies together with partner SP and Damen Ship Repair Schiedam. This included the choice of the ship and the equipment for the measurements, the in-situ inspection of the engine room and the possibilities for deploying the equipment, the measuring procedure, the processing of the measurements and the exchange of the CAD model with the shipyard.

Task T4.4: Retrofit procedures and guidelines Several methods and techniques supporting retrofitting shipyards’ activities were developed, analysed and reviewed in WP4 tasks T4.1-3. The research and its outcome was presented and discussed from a technical point of view in the Deliverables D4.1, D4.2 and D4.3. Based on the lessons learned in tasks T4.1-3, task T4.4 puts the findings together to form a document that contains guidelines and advice on the practical aspects of reverse engineering, production planning and simulation technology in retrofitting. Deliverable D4.4 is not to be regarded as an exhaustive users’ manual for the suggested shipyard solutions, but


a compendium for interested parties that would like to learn about the solutions in general. Hence, an overview of the tools’ scope and particular features is also included, which sometimes is redundant with information already given in previous Deliverables. One aim of the Deliverable D4.4 is to show potential end users where and how they can be applied, but also where and how they should not be used. Therefore, D4.4 also provides the ‘DOs and DO NOTs in applying reverse engineering (but also planning and simulation) technologies’, that were originally attributed to Deliverable D4.3. The main issues addressed in task D4.4 are: 1. Retrofitting characteristics: short lead times, lack of product information, a wide pallet of

retrofitting activities for a wide pallet of ship types. 2. Lack of product information: the technologies enabling to acquire geometrical product

data and transform the data into manageable CAD models for engineering purposes. The use of the technologies depends on the geometrical data to be captured, the conditions at the location, the available resource at the shipyard and the available lead time. Recommendations for choosing and using reverse engineering technologies, possible problems and solutions but also introducing the solutions in a shipyard’s environment.

3 Short lead times: the main (production) planning activities that can be supported with the RETROFIT solutions, their main components and their introduction in a shipyard’s planning environment, possibilities for combining simulation tools with other planning methods.

Work of the partners The principal work on planning and process simulation was done by partner CMT (planning and simulation) with assistance from ACC on the ship owner point of view and DUT on retrofitting process costs and SP for the retrofitting shipyard point of view. The principal work on reverse engineering technologies was done by partner IMAWIS with assistance from Damen Ship Repair Schiedam. Significant results for Period II • Analytical and full scale validation of reverse engineering technologies, hereby

providing “hard” evidence on the technology potential to provide CAD/CAM usable geometrical product data.

• Demonstration of the potential of process simulation technology in support of shipyard retrofitting processes to optimise lead time and personnel resources for various scenarios.

• The development and validation of simulation tools including the important anteSim tool for managing of simulation input data.

• Guidelines for the use of reverse engineering technologies and process simulation outlining the various aspects of these processes and their potential for better controlling lead time and personnel resources.

• The interaction between analytical approaches to reverse engineering and shipyard process simulation and shipyard’s practical approach provide confidence that the developed guidelines match shipyard practices and approaches.

Reasons for deviations The decision of GDANSK shipyard to withdraw from the project which was issued in December 2013, was a critical event, since GDANSK was expected to give essential support both to the simulation and to the reverse engineering experiment. Due to this the work in tasks T4.3 was considerable delayed and could be executed due to the support provided by Damen Ship Repair organisation.


Reasons for failing to achieve critical objectives All critical objectives of Work Package 4 were achieved.

Statement on the use of resources (Tables 17-18)

Table 17; Planned Person Months for Work Package 4 in period II


Work Package title RETROFIT process

Activity type RTD Planned Person Months period II Participant number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Participant short name NMTF TNO TUD CMT Gdansk WAR MARIN Person months participant 0,34 0 0,78 15,78 11,41 0 0



S SP MARLO VICUS UA Imtech Person months participant 0 0 4,17 0 1 0 0

Table 18:Total used Person Months in Period II for Work Package 4 in period II



Activity type RTD Actual Person Months period II Participant number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Participant short name NMTF TNO TUD CMT Gdansk WAR MARIN Person months participant 0,49 0,81 26,1 0 0 0 0



S SP MARLO VICUS UA Imtech Person months participant 0 12,9 1,3 0 0,62 0 0


2.2.5 Work Package 5 - REFROFIT impact, knowledge a nd dissemination

Work Package 5 mission is: To make certain that RETROFIT Green Technology Solutions, Methods and Tools: � Will become known to the widest possible group of potential users, and; � Will achieve the largest possible impact listed in the work programme. Summary of progress Period II

In Period II the Technology Monitoring function developed in the Period I on the RETROFIT website and addressing the knowledge areas corresponding with Work Packages 2, 3 and 4 (Task T5.1) was further exploited. Information on green technologies, relevant legislation and shipyard processes was collected, structured and uploaded in the Monitor database. Periodic reports containing an analysis of the acquired information were issued. The combined Dissemination & Exploitation Plan (Task T5.2) was updated and the activities scheduled for Period II were executed. The main events of Period II were the mid-term conference held together with the EU project GRIP (M26) and the final conference (M40). Other dissemination activities were publications and presentations at a variety of national and international forums.

Details for each task Task T5.1 – Knowledge management The task aim is to maximise benefit from relevant technological developments and assure that the project technological advances are not bypassed by market developments. In practice, task T5.1 objective is to continuously monitor technological developments that could be relevant for project RETROFIT and provide the participants with this information: • Regarding new and upcoming legislation: Work Package 2 Task T2.4 (Regulatory

framework to implement the RETROFIT solutions); • Regarding green technologies: Work Package 3 (RETROFIT Green Technologies); • Regarding reverse technologies &scheduling: Work Package 4 (RETROFIT process).

In Period II the monitoring page developed in Period I was maintained by uploading new information. A three-monthly review & analysis of the uploaded information specifying the relevance for the RETROFIT Work Programme and any impacts on the on-going work was issued. The aim was to maximise benefit from relevant technological developments and make certain that the project technological advances are not bypassed by market developments. See Fig. 25 for the Knowledge Monitor status at the end of Period II.


• The final Monitor as delivered at the end of the project contains 185 records.

• The main sources were: o newsletters/maritime

websites o scientific journals o maritime journals o corporate publications

The distribution of categories is shown in the adjacent figure 1. See further Table 19.

Table 19: The count of records per category Row Labels Count of main subject Alternative energy sources 17 Alternative power/Propulsion plants incl. auxiliaries 40 Alternative propulsion trains 6 Emission reduction technologies 28 Legislation 29 Planning 1 Reports 20 Reverse engineering 11 Ship design operations and maintenance 33

Grand Total 185 Within the Monitor technology categories the articles on Alternative Energy Sources were for the greater part related to LNG, while in the category Emission Reduction Technology 40% of the information was related to scrubber technology. Other conclusions are: • Although the work regarding the Knowledge Monitor is perceived as very useful for

making background information accessible for the project participants, it has not immediately lead to additions to the shortlist for Green Technologies.

• The added value of the Technology Monitor will lie mainly in the provided information on economic assessment of designs-for-retrofit and the information on legislation. In this stage of the project, it has been decided not to remove topics or articles from the list, but leave them available for the participants.

• Scenarios for continuing and exploiting the Monitor facility after the termination of the RETROFIT contract were discussed with the Commission. No solution according to the FP7 Financial Guidelines was identified. Options to continue the Monitor will therefore be investigated outside the scope of FP7.

Work of the partners NMTF (former CMTI) was responsible for maintaining the Technology Monitor link with the RETROFIT website and contributed to collecting of articles and other information on green technologies from public sources. DUT contributed to the collecting of articles and other information on green technologies from public sources and uploaded the total received

Fig. 25: Distribution of Knowledge Categories


information on this subject in the Technology Monitor database. DUT prepared the periodic Technology Monitor reports and presented a summary of the findings at the General Assembly meetings held at Gdansk (M 21) and provided the final Technology Monitor report. Partner UA contributed to the collecting of articles and other information on green technologies and legislation from public sources.

Task T5.2 – Dissemination and Exploitation Plan (D& E-Plan)

Dissemination activities The task objective is to develop and execute a combined Dissemination & Exploitation Plan to maximise the potential impact of the project results, this in accordance with EC requirements. The structure of the plan will be such that the activities relevant for a particular target group are clearly identifiable and form an independent (sub) Dissemination & Exploitation Plan. A first draft of the Dissemination and Exploitation Plan was prepared and uploaded in M9. The first draft contained initially only the dissemination activities grouped into a Strategic outline (Objective, Message, Target group, Goals and Strategy to reach main target group), a PR calendar (During the project, Agenda) and Monitoring & evaluation. Realised main plan elements are: • Project website (see further task T5.3); • Project RETROFIT identity: project logo; • Social media networks: LinkedIn and Twitter (LinkedIn and Twitter were abandoned in M

16 due to insufficient activity); • Newsletter 1 (M9), Newsletter 2 (M18), Newsletter 3 (M40) • Project Flyer (M16); • Publications, see list ; • Presentations at conferences and other events (see list); • Meeting of the Industry Interest Group (IIG) in M 26; • Introducing RETROFIT analysis simulation environment through the Decision Science

Forum; • Midterm Conference held in M26 at the Europort 2013 fair at Rotterdam; • Final Conference held in M40, Rotterdam • Network: The RETROFIT network consists over 390 contacts by the end of month 18. Task T5.2 results over Period II are included in deliverable D5.4 (Final version of the D&E-Plan). An overview of Period II dissemination items is given in Table 20 below.

Table 20: Dissemination items

Dissemination item

Date Description: title, media or event, audience, language

Involved partners

Presentation June 2013 Green Retrofitting; Opportunities for Ship Owner, 4th Annual Asia Green Shipping Conference; English, (Singapore)

NMTF

Publication June 2013 Own periodic magazine; English MARIN Newsletter July 2013 TPR Newsletter; Progress project;

English University of Antwerp

News item website NMTF

July 2013 RETROFIT & GRIP join together for Midterm Conference: November 7th 2013; English & Dutch

NMTF

News item website July 2013 RETROFIT & GRIP join together for mid-term Conference: November 7th

NMTF


2013; English & Dutch Presentation November

2013 Zeehaven Brugge, Duurzame ontwikkeling binnen de Ro/Ro sector; Dutch

University of Antwerp

Presentation November 2013

RETROFIT & GRIP mid-term Conference, Europort 2013 Rotterdam: Efficient Retrofitting – How planning tools and reverse engineering methodologies can improve repair shipyards’ performance; English

CMT


RETROFIT & GRIP mid-term Conference, Europort 2013 Rotterdam: Ship Energy Efficiency from Ship owner’s point of view; English

Acciona


RETROFIT & GRIP mid-term conference, Europort 2013 Rotterdam: Machinery inside the ship; English

WNL


RETROFIT & GRIP mid-term conference, Europort 2013 Rotterdam: How green are Energy Saving Devices; English

MARIN


RETROFIT & GRIP mid-term conference, Europort 2013 Rotterdam: Retrofit with Decision Support Technology, an Integration problem; English

IMTECH


RETROFIT & GRIP mid-term conference, Europort 2013 Rotterdam: Green Technology optimization by modelling and voyage simulation; English

TNO


RETROFIT & GRIP mid-term conference, Europort 2013 Rotterdam: ESD Structural Assessment; English

BV

Publication January 2014

Azul Marino (Trasmediterranea Magazine) Sustainable Maritime Transport; Spanish, English

Acciona

Presentation April 2014

Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris Conference paper and poster: Efficient retrofitting of vessels - How planning tools and reverse engineering methodologies can improve repair shipyards' performance; English

CMT

Publication July 2014 IAME, 2014 Norfolk VA USA: Modelling the Impacts of Ship Retrofit Solutions in Europe; English


Presentation October 2014

Marine Maintenance Technology Conference 2014, Brussels: Methods and tools benefitting the ship repair industry involved in retrofitting

NMTF


activities; English Presentation October

2014 Marine Maintenance Technology Conference 2014, Brussels: The virtual maiden voyage; English

TNO

Presentation October 2014

MTEC: Ship Retrofit Solutions: Economic, Energy and Environmental Impacts; English


Conference January 2015

Final conference Retrofit; English All

Conference March 2015 Green Ship Technology (GST) conference in Copenhagen: Use of numerical models to assess the retrofit of a diesel direct power ferry to an LNG electric propulsion platform; English

TNO

Conference March 2015 Abschlusskonferenz RETROFIT t. b. d.; German

CMT

Conference ICCAS conference: t. b. d.; English CMT Conference July 2015 ICED15, Design for retrofit DUT Work of the partners Partner NMTF monitored the plan actions and carried out the following plan actions:

• Website; • Newsletter 3; • Network; • Social Media; • Mid-term conference organisation; • Final conference organisation; • Coordination publication of articles.

Partner Acciona contributed to the development of the Dissemination & Exploitation plan, commented on the plan activities and provided information on own dissemination activities. Partner DUT contributed to the development of the Dissemination & Exploitation plan, commented on the plan activities and provided information on own dissemination activities. Partner UA contributed to the development of the Dissemination & Exploitation plan, and carried out the following plan actions: • Prepared a first draft of PowerPoint presentation, taking into account that the RETROFIT

project should be represented in 1-3 or more slides • Wrote an article (Dutch version) for the magazine “Zeehaven Brugge vzw” and submitted

a translated version for the newsletter 2 (March 2013) • Addressed the RETROFIT project during other presentations, see also Table XXX. All partners provided coordinates of contact persons or provided their communication channel to inform about the RETROFIT project. The Department of Transport and Regional Economics of the University of Antwerp launched quarterly a newsletter. New information with respect to the project was added. The Newsletter is worldwide distributed in electronic format.


Exploitation activities Background The developed sophisticated simulation tools with new and advanced capabilities to assess the performance of green technologies in new and existing ships are of interest for ship owners wishing to upgrade 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: • Royal Wagenborg of Delfzijl, the Netherlands • Swedish Orient Line of Gothenburg, 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. 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 This exploitation activity was introduced as part of the third project amendment request of May 16th 2014, approved by the Commission on September 9th, 2014. Approach Approach for an evaluation of a vessel to be retrofitted with green technologies in three phases. • Phase 1: 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: o What are the technical possibilities for retrofitting? o What are the costs/ investments and what are the benefits?

• 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 Phase 3 consists of a quotation of a shipyard for retrofitting the vessel. This Phase will be managed by the ship owner.:

The confidential reports were compiled and handed to the Royal Wagenborg of Delfzijl, the Netherlands and the Swedish Orient Line of Gothenburg, Sweden. Follow-up activities will be discussed in the first quarter 2015.


Work of the partners NMTF developed the Terms of Reference and the work plan for the exploitation activity using input from partners MARIN, TNO and Delft University. NMTF coordinated the execution of the work plan and maintained communications with the ship owners. DUT provided input and comments to the Terms of Reference and work plan, analysed the operational data provided by the ship owners, defined the operational profile and carried out the economic evaluation of ship retrofit options. MARIN provided input and comments to the Terms of Reference and work plan, prepared and executed the ships’ voyage simulation for the chosen retrofit configurations and prepared the relevant reports. TNO prepared the simulation models for the various retrofit configurations of the two ships and carried out the energy systems’ simulation for the retrofit configurations. Partner MARLO provided and maintained the link to the Swedish Orient Line of Gothenburg, collected and structured the ship and ship operational data.

Task T5.3 – RETROFIT website

The task objective is to build a website which will support information, communication, publishing and archiving functions: • All information obtained though the work carried out by the RETROFIT participants

through Work Package activities; • PR plan, dissemination activities, conference programmes; • Any other information which might be useful for the project; The project website (http://www.retrofit-project.eu/) was developed and implemented in Period I (deliverable D5.3). The structure and functions of the website were included in the Period I report. In Period II the website functions were periodically reviewed and revised. The website will be maintained for a period of 1 year after the termination of the RETROFIT contract (January 2015). Work of the partners NMTF collected the comments of partners and executed all website modifications and updates. DUT contributed to the website content structure, in particular with regard to the Technology Monitor. Other RETROFIT partners (see above) commented on the website design and contributed to the content structure and content.

Significant results for Period II All targets for the second reporting period were achieved: • Task T5.1: the Technology Monitor was maintained and used, and the content was

analysed and presented to the RETROFIT partners. The significant findings are stated in this report.

• Task T5.2: the Dissemination and Exploitation Plan (D&E-Plan) was enhanced with exploitation activities. All D&E-Plan activities were executed. The main events (Mid-term Conference, Final Conference) and the Final Newsletter (D5.8) were carried out.

• Task T5.3: the RETROFIT website was implemented, maintained, used and enhanced.

Reasons for deviations • Some of the dissemination actions were executed later than scheduled. • The exploitation activities introduced in Amendment III were the main cause for

prolonging the contract by four months.


Reasons for failing to achieve critical objectives

All critical objectives of Work Package 5 were achieved.

Statement on the use of resources (Tables 21-22)

Table 21: Planned Person Months for Work Package 5 in period II

Used Person Months in the first Period Participant number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Participant short name NMTF TNO TUD CMT Gdansk WAR MARIN Person Months per participant 3,88 1,8 2,53 0 0 0 1,8

Participant number 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Participant short name Acciona IMAWIS SP MARLO VICUS UA Imtech Person Months per participant 0,49 0 0 0,2 0 1,9 0

Table 22: Total used Person Months in Period 2 for Work Package 5 in period II

Used Person Months in the first Period Participant number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Participant short name NMTF TNO TUD CMT Gdansk WAR MARIN Person Months per

participant 6,34 3,94 0,97 0 0 0 3,7

Participant number 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Participant short name Acciona IMAWIS SP MARLO VICUS UA Imtech

Person Months per participant 0,65 0 0 0,23 0 3,92 0


2.3 Project management during the second period

2.3.1 Consortium management tasks and achievements General The two main aspects of the RETROFIT organisational structure are: 1. The need to provide a full

complement of management functions to deal with the project work plan and the contractual obligations;

2. The size of the project consortium and the limitation in human resources that can be committed to project management activities.

Fig. 26: Project RETROFIT organisation Organisation structure The organisation structure of RETROFIT is based on three levels of control (Fig. 26): 1. Strategic level (Steering Committee) for monitoring, control and coordination of the

project objectives and constraints; 2. Operational level (Project Management) where the overall project Progress, Quality,

Dissemination & Exploitation are monitored and controlled; 3. Content level where the Work Package activities are monitored and controlled on task

basis, managing the work of the participants in the WP’s, coordinated at task level.

Project Manager tasks The Project Manager (PM) is responsible for the project results and is the principal link between the project “content level” and the strategically oriented SC. The PM is responsible for the management of the project on a day-to-day basis keeping close contact with Work Package leaders and partners so that any issues arising during the work on the project can be immediately addressed. The PM: • Monitors and controls the project Work Programme using instruments of management; • Deals with the registration, administration and control of the consortium resources

according to budget in a way that provides objective evidence to external auditing; • Organises and controls key events, reports on progress according to the contract terms; • Carry out the changes to the project Description of Work (DoW) and to the project budget

and prepares the request for amendments to the Grant Agreement; • Communicates with the Commission on technical and administrative/financial matters.

Principal communication infrastructure A project website with a private (RETROFIT partners) section was developed and has been in use since the start of the project (EU-fin). The aim here was to provide a document storage and data exchange for all project partners. For communication between project partners a set of mailing lists have been established at CMTI/ NMTF.

Instruments of management In addition to the project website, the FP-tools ‘EU-fin’ to manage the financial status and ‘EU-xpert’ to manage the report activities of the partners is in use since the start of the project. Requests for input by all partners in EU-fin and in EU-xpert are being sent to the partners on a two monthly basis.


Project management achievements Besides day-to-day management and communication, project management activities are reported on a regularly basis starting at the kick-off meeting (October 2011, Delft/The Netherlands) and during the following General Assembly (GA) and Steering Committee (SC) meetings (see list in the section List of Project meetings, Dates and Venues Period 2).

The project manager regularly communicated with Commission officials to discuss issues arising during the second period of the project. More information is given in the following chapter “Problems / Request for modifications” where individual partner problems are discussed. Amendments During the second period the following Amendments were accepted or are still open. Table 23: Table Amendments period II No. Subjects Date of acceptance 3 Termination beneficiary Stocznia Gdansk;

modification of duration of the project; change of banking details NMTF; Change of coordinator’s name and address, modification of Annex I DOW.

September 15th, 2014

4 Change of Coordinator’s name OPEN Statement on the use of resources The planned resources for Consortium Management activities for the whole duration of the project are 11 Person Months (PM). NMTF is the only partner for the consortium management. The actual resources for Consortium Management activities for the second period (M19 – M40) are 9,34 Person Months (PM), which is more than planned for the second period. The planned PM for this period is 6. Reasons for this overspending of PM is because of the difficulties about the termination of Gdansk, the delays in obtaining the information for the financial chapter for the Report Period 2 of the partners, the correspondence on the distribution of subsidy with the partners and a the modification of the duration of the project.

2.3.2 Problems which have occurred and how they wer e solved WP1 The contribution of partner MARLO to the project: Software/ Calculation tool to define the ‘Worthiness of a ship to be retrofitted’.

In Period I MARLO was officially warned by letter about the lack of contribution to the development of the model ‘Worthiness of a ship to be retrofitted’. This model was developed by partner DUT solely. In Period II the agreed software/ calculation tool of the DUT model as an alternative contribution by MARLO was late. The Steering Committee informed MARLO again about their dissatisfaction [SC9; February 2014]. In the SC and GA meeting of October 2014 MARLO again failed in presenting the promised software tool. MARLO was again informed about the disappointing contribution and measures were taken by the Project Coordinator to take over control of MARLO’s activities. MARLO was requested to weekly send a progress report of MARLO’s activities. This was done and at the final project conference held on January 20th MARLO presented the developed software tool.


Some delay occurred in the submitting of deliverable D1.5. WP2 No significant problems occurred. Deliverables D2.2 (Design for retrofit) and D2.4 (Regulatory framework) were late due to the longer duration of the work. WP3 Tasks T3.4 (Preliminary concept decision support and monitoring system) and T3.5 (Final concept decision support and monitoring system) encountered difficulties in the communication with the case ship Jose Maria Entrecanales. As the developed concept Decisions Support System had to be installed, operated and maintained (trouble shooting) on-board the case ship, encountered operational difficulties by the case ship personnel caused delays. The prototype system is still operational on-board the case ship till project month M40 (end project) +2. WP4 Task T4.3 (Full scale experiments) encountered difficulties due to the withdrawal of partner GDANSK Shipyard for the project (bankruptcy). The need to find other test objects for the full scale experiments and to reschedule the work of task T4.3 and T4.4 caused considerable delay to the execution of both tasks. The solutions were found in cooperation with partner Damen Ship Repair Flushing (simulation) and Schiedam (Reverse engineering). The experiments could be carried out and the respective deliverable D4.3 was submitted.

WP5 No particular problems occurred.

2.3.3 Changes in the consortium

• Gdansk Shipyards Poland officially requested to leave the project due to internal financial problems. After their announcement (August 2013) that they could not fulfil their obligations, Gdansk Shipyards requested a period of respite to solve their financial problems. By December 2013 it became clear that the problems were not solved, and will not be solved in the near future. The RETROFIT steering committee decided that the contribution of Gdansk Shipyard to the project will be taken over by other RETROFIT partners. In cooperation with the Commission Service a procedure to formally withdraw Gdansk Shipyards from the project was executed.

• Project coordinator CMTI changed name (NMTF) by May 2014.

2.3.4 List of project meetings, dates and venues During reporting Period II five Steering Committees and five General Assembly meetings were convened and held at different partner’s locations. The list below gives an overview of the meetings. The WP leaders organised their own WP meetings. Besides these physical meetings, tele-conferences between developing partners were held during the period.


Table 24: Table SC/GA meetings, conferences

• Steering Committee meetings

Country Place Host venue Date

Poland Gdänsk CMTI June 10th 2013

The Netherlands Rotterdam CMTI November 5th 2013

The Netherlands Wageningen MARIN February 5th 2014

The Netherlands Delft TNO October 7th 2014

The Netherlands Rotterdam NMTF January 21st 2015

• General Assembly meetings


Poland Gdänsk CMTI June 11th 2013

The Netherlands Rotterdam CMTI November 6th 2013

The Netherlands Wageningen MARIN February 6th 2014

The Netherlands Delft TNO October 8th 9th 2014

The Netherlands Rotterdam NMTF January 21st 2015

• Conferences


The Netherlands; mid-term Rotterdam CMTI November 7th 2013

The Netherlands; final Rotterdam NMTF (former CMTI) January 20th 2015


Fig. 27 : Photo’s RETROFIT Midterm Conference at EU ROPORT Fair;

Rotterdam, The Netherlands


Fig. 28: Photo’s RETROFIT Final Conference at nhow hotel,

Rotterdam, The Netherlands


2.3.5 Project planning and status The project started October 1st, 2011 and ended on January 31st, 2015. The first official report for the commission RETROFIT Period II report concerning M19 – M40 dated March 31st 2013, was send to the commission by July 2013. The planning and status was presented and discussed in all GA meetings.

Following a request (Amendment III) the RETROFIT contract was prolonged by four months, and ended on January 31st 2015 instead of September 30th 2014.

All project activities, with exception of the reports for project Period II and the final report, were finalised by January 31st 2015 including the uploading of the remaining deliverables. Based on the RETROFIT partners’ financial reports the person months account on January 31st 2015 is including the 2 months for reporting by the coordinator.

Table 25: RETROFIT Work Package performance in PM i n period II

Period II Planned [PM]

Progress [PM] Ratio

WP1 RTD 29,66 37,21 -7,55 WP2 RTD 25,52 27,93 -1,44 WP3 RTD 42,69 46,75 -4,06 WP4 RTD 44,74 42,22 2,52 WP5 OTH 12,6 19,75 -7,15 MAN MAN 6 9,34 -3,34 Total 136,71 156,77 -20,98


Figure 29: RETROFIT Work Package performance in PM period II

The total PMs spent for the categories ‘RTD’ (WP1 – WP4) is 154,11 PM. This is 7% of the total planned PMs for RTD of 143,61 PM.

For a total of 162,21 PM planned for the project, 183,19 PM were spent during the first period which yields a ratio of 13%.

The RETROFIT Project Management progress in the first period is 9,34 PM. With planned 6 PM gives this a ratio of 56%.

2.3.6 Impact of possible deviations from the planne d milestones and deliverables Table 27: Table Milestones WP5 Milestone No.

Name Lead beneficiary No.

Delivery date from Annex I

Final delivery date

Comments

MS6 Midterm conference

1 20 20 Dissemination of Retrofit knowledge to maritime stakeholders

2.3.7 Changes to the legal status of any of the ben eficiaries, in particular non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher education estab lishments, research organisations and SMEs

The following changes took place:

• Change of name: CMTI (Centrum voor Maritieme Technologie en Innovatie) was changed as from May 2014 to NMTF (Netherlands Maritime Technology Foundation).

2.3.8 Development of the Project website The website was developed at the start of the RETROFIT project and was updated frequently. The website will be maintained for a period of`12 months after the end of the project (January 31st, 2015).

2.3.9 Short comments and information on coordinatio n activities

• Coordination activities were carried out at project level (project manager and Steering Committee/Work Package leaders) and at Work Package level (Work Package leaders). See also Fig. 24 regarding the project organisation.

• The two-level coordination concept was found satisfactory for the size of the consortium and the number of Work Packages. Problems were dealt with at Work Package level, where necessary the project manager was involved.

• The periodic meetings at Steering committee and General Assembly levels (see par. 2.3.4) as well as additional meetings at Work Package level assured sufficient contact frequency for exchanging information on progress and coordination issues and for dealing with problems.

• Information activities made use of the following:


o Email and phone o Telephone conferences o Meetings at Work Package and General Assembly levels o The generally employed language was English. The general command of English

was satisfactory and allowed to carry out the technical and the management work.

2.3.10 Access activity Not applicable.


Section 3: Deliverables and milestones tables

Deliverables Table 28: List of Deliverables

Number Name Version WP

num-ber

Lead bene ficiary

number Nature

Disse-mina- tion

Delivery date from Annex I (month)

Actual delivery month

Status Contr

ac-tual

Comments

D1.1 Worthy to RETROFIT model 1 3 O CO 7 15 Accepted Yes

D1.2 Analysis and Assessment model 1 7 O CO 15 17 Accepted Yes

D1.3 Validated model 1 7 O CO 21 29 Accepted Yes

D1.4 First assessment 1 7 R CO 33 34 Accepted Yes Amendment III: new end date 33

D1.5 Final assessment 1 7 R CO 39 40 Accepted Yes Amendment III:

new end date 39

D2.1 First validation 2 12 R CO 33 34 Accepted Yes Amendment III:

new end date 33

D2.2 Design for RETROFIT 2 3 R CO 37 40 Accepted Yes Amendment III: new end date 37

D2.3 Final validation 2 3 R CO 37 40 Accepted Yes Amendment III:

new end date 37

D2.4 Regulatory framework 2 1 R PU 37 39 Accepted Yes Amendment III:

new end date 37 D3.1 Shortlist 3 6 R CO 11 39 Accepted Yes

D3.2 Initial combinations 3 6 R CO 32 33 Accepted Yes Amendment III:

new end date 32

D3.3 Final Combinations 3 6 R CO 33 37 Accepted Yes Amendment III:

new end date 33

D3.4 Decision support and monitoring systems

3 14 R CO 34 39 Accepted Yes Amendment III: new end date 34


D3.5 Impact 3 14 R CO 37 40 Accepted Yes Amendment III: new end date 37

D4.1 Simulation tool 4 4 O CO 20 25 Accepted Yes

D4.2 Reverse engineering 4 9 R CO 21 23 Accepted Yes

D4.3 Experiment 4 9 R CO 34 39 Accepted Yes Amendment III:

new end date 34

D4.4 Guidelines 4 4 R CO 38 40 Accepted Yes Amendment III: new end date 38

D5.1 New Knowledge 5 13 R PU 20 23 Accepted Yes

D5.2 Dissemination & exploitation plan 5 1 O PU 9 19 Accepted Yes

D5.3 Website 5 1 O RE 4 7 Accepted Yes

D5.4 Final version Dissemination & Exploitation plan

5 1 O PU 40 40 Accepted Yes Amendment III:

new end date 40

D5.5 Midterm conference 5 1 O PU 20 33 Accepted Yes

D5.6 Newsletter 5 1 O PU 9 12 Accepted Yes

D5.7 Newsletter 5 1 O PU 18 19 Accepted Yes

D5.8 Newsletter 5 1 O PU 40 40 Accepted Yes Amendment III:

new end date 40


Milestones

Table 29: List of RETROFIT Milestones

Num-ber Name WP number

Lead beneficiary

number

Delivery date from Annex I

Achieved Yes/No

Actual/ achievement

project month Comments

MS1 Green technologies WP3 6 10 Yes 39 Technologies 100% available

MS2 Simulation Tools WP1 7 14 Yes 29 Tools verified and working

MS3 Validation WP1; WP2; WP3; WP4

7 20 Yes WP1-21;WP2-3

33; WP3-37;WP4-39

Tools validated on full-scale

MS4 Reverse engineering WP4 4 27 Yes 23 Full scale experiments successful

MS5 New technology tool WP3 6 33 Yes 40 New technology feasible

MS6 Midterm conference WP5 1 20 Yes 26 Dissemination of RETROFIT knowledge to maritime stakeholders


Section 4: Explanation of the use of the resources

Planned & Actual Costs Table shows the planned and actual costs per partner, per Work package, for Staff, Travel etc., collected from the RETROFIT cost registration tool EU-fin.

Table 30: Planned and actual costs for Period II

Beneficiariy WP

Indirect costs

Other costs Personnel costs Subcontracting Travel costs Grand Total

01: NMTF WP01: RETROFIT ships in operation 7148,6 1854,71 7021,5 0 3038,12 19062,93

WP02: The RETROFIT ship 22638,23 0 36013,97 0 1716,41 60368,61

WP03: RETROFIT green technologies 7709,74 0 12849,57 0 0 20559,31

WP04: RETROFIT process 3892,34 0 6487,24 0 0 10379,58

WP05: RETROFIT impact, knowledge and dissemination 76703,3 32826,81 91680,82 0 3331,19 204542,12

01: NMTF Total 118092,21 34681,52 154053,1 0 8085,72 314912,55

02: TNO WP01: RETROFIT ships in operation 65893,04 0 45807,13 0 1185,05 112885,22



WP05: RETROFIT impact, knowledge and dissemination 22800,7 0 14497,51 0 0 37298,21

02: TNO Total 197080,53 0 136507,51 0 3150,07 336738,11

03: TUD WP01: RETROFIT ships in operation 56817,19 0 58064,95 0 2422,75 117304,89

WP02: The RETROFIT ship 27371,15 0 30110,49 0 0 57481,64


WP04: RETROFIT process 8833,31 0 8842,27 0 2103,99 19779,57


03: TUD Total 122269,94 0 123414,39 0 4526,74 250211,07

04: CMT WP04: RETROFIT process 160555,93 19265,54 231438,83 0 16888,84 428149,14


Beneficiariy WP Indirect

costs Other costs Personnel costs Subcontracting Travel costs Grand Total

05: Gdansk Shipyard

WP02: The RETROFIT ship 0 0 9285,24 0 1203,11 10488,35

WP03: RETROFIT green technologies 0 0 4009,05 0 3014,37 7023,42

WP04: RETROFIT process 0 0 33462,86 0 4495,43 37958,29

05: Gdansk Shipyard Total 0 0 46757,15 0 8712,91 55470,06

06: Wärtsilä FIN

WP03: RETROFIT green technologies 5172 0 25861 0 0 31033

07: MARIN WP01: RETROFIT ships in operation 73026,73 2019,62 167891,29 0 7150,4 250088,04

WP05: RETROFIT impact, knowledge and dissemination 10594,23 0 24077,8 0 151,2 34823,23

07: MARIN Total 83620,96 2019,62 191969,09 0 7301,6 284911,27

08: ACC-T WP01: RETROFIT ships in operation 25946,88 0 33759,91 0 643 60349,79

WP02: The RETROFIT ship 6225,05 0 7560,66 0 0 13785,71



08: ACC-T Total 70991,39 0 91280,95 0 643 162915,34

09: IMAWIS WP04: RETROFIT process 85668,35 15398,29 118454,74 0 9794,98 229316,36

10: DSV WP04: RETROFIT process 8662 0 57007,5 0 6103,25 71772,75

11: MARLO WP01: RETROFIT ships in operation 54917,67 0 82066,76 0 9462,69 146447,12

WP05: RETROFIT impact, knowledge and dissemination 1912,2 0 3187 0 0 5099,2

11: MARLO Total 56829,87 0 85253,76 0 9462,69 151546,32

12: VICUS WP01: RETROFIT ships in operation 27832,47 0 41399,23 0 4988,21 74219,91


WP03: RETROFIT green technologies 28484,12 0 44898,24 0 2575,3 75957,66

WP04: RETROFIT process 9018,08 0 12454,83 0 2575,3 24048,21

12: VICUS Total 91240,06 0 138313,94 0 13752,82 243306,82


Beneficiariy WP Indirect

costs Other costs Personnel costs Subcontracting Travel costs Grand Total

13: UA WP01: RETROFIT ships in operation 33769,66 3270,73 48363,84 0 4648,2 90052,43


WP03: RETROFIT green technologies 19839,74 512,69 28486,37 0 4067,16 52905,96


13: UA Total 106442,75 4241,42 157972,41 0 15190,75 283847,33

14: IMTECH WP03: RETROFIT green technologies 144007 0 192526 44257 12894 393684

15: Wartsila NL WP03: RETROFIT green technologies 69377 0 194689 6997 1897 272960

16: Wartsila IT WP03: RETROFIT green technologies 3804 0 5373 0 967 10144

17: ACC-I WP01: RETROFIT ships in operation 10498,01 0 15752,69 0 3946,12 30196,82


WP03: RETROFIT green technologies 4229,03 0 6329,15 0 689,76 11247,94

WP05: RETROFIT impact, knowledge and dissemination 0 0 0 0 0 0

17: ACC-I Total 19240,99 0 28821,08 0 9525,67 57587,74

Grand Total 1343054,98 75606,39 1979693,45 51254 128897,04 3578505,86


Table 31 shows the Form C figures out of the RETROFIT cost registration tool EU-fin, per Partner.

Table 31: Form C figures from the RETROFIT cost reg istration tool EU-fin per Partner

Period 2 Period 2 Total

Beneficiary Type of expenditure RTD Other activities Management of the consortium

01: NMTF Travel costs 517,6 3331,19 5057,7 8906,49

Subcontracting 0 0 3500 3500

Personnel costs 55187,62 53171,82 82797,89 191157,33

Other costs 1455,91 16152,85 496,81 18105,57

Indirect costs 34296,68 43593,52 53011,44 130901,64

01: NMTF Total 91457,81 116249,38 144863,84 352571,03

02: TNO Travel costs 1716,43 0 1716,43

Subcontracting 0 0 0

Personnel costs 77146,03 14497,51 91643,54

Other costs 0 0 0

Indirect costs 117346,51 22800,7 140147,21

02: TNO Total 196208,97 37298,21 233507,18

03: TUD Travel costs 2103,99 0 2103,99


Personnel costs 48050,76 6347,84 54398,6

Other costs 0 0 0

Indirect costs 42885,18 5856,03 48741,21

03: TUD Total 93039,93 12203,87 105243,8


Beneficiary Type of expenditure RTD Other activities Management of the consortium Total

04: CMT Travel costs 6986,93 6986,93

Subcontracting 0 0

Personnel costs 128744,86 128744,86

Other costs 10017,72 10017,72

Indirect costs 87449,71 87449,71

04: CMT Total 233199,22 233199,22

05: Gdansk Shipyard Travel costs 0 0

Subcontracting 0 0

Personnel costs 0 0

Other costs 0 0

Indirect costs 0 0

05: Gdansk Shipyard Total 0 0

06: Wärtsilä FIN Travel costs 0 0

Subcontracting 0 0

Personnel costs 0 0

Other costs 0 0

Indirect costs 0 0

06: Wärtsilä FIN Total 0 0

07: MARIN Travel costs 3022,54 151,2 3173,74


Personnel costs 110507,64 24077,8 134585,44

Other costs 19,62 0 19,62

Indirect costs 47262,65 10594,23 57856,88

07: MARIN Total 160812,45 34823,23 195635,68



08: ACC-T Travel costs 0 0 0


Personnel costs 40219,15 4868,29 45087,44

Other costs 0 0 0

Indirect costs 34894,13 4223,73 39117,86

08: ACC-T Total 75113,28 9092,02 84205,3

09: IMAWIS Travel costs 6731,79 6731,79

Subcontracting 0 0


Other costs 15398,29 15398,29


09: IMAWIS Total 119953,81 119953,81

10: DSV Travel costs 2903,25 2903,25

Subcontracting 0 0


Other costs 0 0

Indirect costs 1480 1480

10: DSV Total 31640,75 31640,75

11: MARLO Travel costs 7357,69 0 7357,69


Personnel costs 61334,76 3187 64521,76

Other costs 0 0 0

Indirect costs 41215,47 1912,2 43127,67

11: MARLO Total 109907,92 5099,2 115007,12



12: VICUS Travel costs 5494,91 5494,91

Subcontracting 0 0


Other costs 0 0


12: VICUS Total 103506,96 103506,96

13: UA Travel costs 9068,65 0 9068,65


Personnel costs 46832,6 26255,59 73088,19

Other costs 623,98 0 623,98

Indirect costs 33915,14 15753,35 49668,49

13: UA Total 90440,37 42008,94 132449,31

14: IMTECH Travel costs 9695 9695

Subcontracting 44257 44257

Personnel costs 130297 130297

Other costs 0 0


14: IMTECH Total 282032 282032

15: Wartsila NL Travel costs 541 541

Subcontracting 6997 6997

Personnel costs 106825 106825

Other costs 0 0


15: Wartsila NL Total 149745 149745



16: Wartsila IT Travel costs 0 0

Subcontracting 0 0

Personnel costs 0 0

Other costs 0 0

Indirect costs 0 0

16: Wartsila IT Total 0 0

17: ACC-I Travel costs 4889,79 0 4889,79


Personnel costs 6739,24 0 6739,24

Other costs 0 0 0

Indirect costs 4513,95 0 4513,95

17: ACC-I Total 16142,98 0 16142,98

Grand Total 1753201,45 256774,85 144863,84 2154840,14

RETROFIT Progress Report Period-II; M19-M40

ANNEX A: C-Forms per partner

No. Participant C-form

CS2

Adjustment CS1 CFS

1. NMTF � � �

2. TNO � � -

3. TUD � � -

4. CMT � � -

5. Gdansk - - -

6. Wärtsilä Finland � - -

Wärtsilä Italië � - -

Wärtilä The Netherlands � � -

7. MARIN � � -

8. Acciona Trasmediterranea

SA

� � -

Acciona Infraestructuras � � -

9. Imawis � - -

10. Scheldepoort � - -

11. Marlo � - -

12. Vicus � - -

13. UA � � -

14. Imtech � - -

RETROFIT Progress Report Period-II; M19-M40 74

NMTF












TNO



TUD



CMT



Wärtsilä Finland


Wärtsilä Italië


Wärtsilä The Netherlands



MARIN



Acciona Trasmediterranea SA



Acciona Infraestructuras



Imawis


Scheldepoort


Marlo


Vicus


UA



Imtech

PROJECT PERIODIC REPORT - · PDF fileReport type : Periodic Progress ... Declaration by the project coordinator . ... RETRO FIT ting candidate ships and select appropriate (green)

Documents