80 likes | 216 Views
EEDI: Bridging the GAP from Bergholtz to IMO/EEDI. S.Krüger TU Hamburg-Harburg. Bergholtz- Originial (1). Bergholtz- Originial (2). Bergholtz- Approach uses EEQ instead of EEDI, where EEQ = EEDI/v But: SDV (Right side) also uses v (in Froude Number)
E N D
EEDI: Bridging the GAP fromBergholtz to IMO/EEDI S.Krüger TU Hamburg-Harburg
Bergholtz- Approach uses EEQ instead of EEDI, where EEQ = EEDI/v But: SDV (Right side) also uses v (in Froude Number) Reduce SDV by one order in V makes EEQ=EEDI -> It makes no difference whether EEDI or EEQ is used, it solely depends on the order of v that remains in equation. Bergholtz- SDV contains: Fn , B/T, L/B, cb Technically OK, but too many variables: No freedom for design, Transport- Task is evaluated. Second Problem: cB not in LR Data Base Analysis
We use EEDI on left side of Eqn. and a modified SDV, L/B left out. Our approach As cb is not available in Data Base, we use instead: Filling in and using positive c gives: We use a=1.75 (speed reduction incentive), b=1,c=1
Plotting EEDI over modified SDV gives good fit for our own Ship data base (only correct speed power data) Our approach
Right side of Eqn. is SDV, can be written as SDV=Fkorr/DW or Fkorr=SDV*DW Dividing both sides of Eqn. by Fkorr, we obtain: EEDI remains in its original definition, to be divided by Fkorr (for RoRos). Right side is IMO- compatible and R**2 can be obtained by regression. From SDV to EEDI Filling in and using positive c gives: We use a=1.75 (speed reduction incentive), b=1,c=1
All ShiPax RoRos, none excluded (blue), all “outliers” also included Own ships (red) From SDV to EEDI Scatter is extremely small, robust method, baselines have already been developed (confidential at present due to NDA w. customer). Filling in and using positive c gives: We use a=1.75 (speed reduction incentive), b=1,c=1