Ship energy performance benchmarking/rating: methodology and application

Ship energy performance benchmarking/rating: methodology and application

Z Bazari, BSc, MSc, DIC, PhD, CEng, MIMechE, MEI Lloyds Register EMEA, UK

Energy benchmarking/rating is used in order to assess the performance of an asset against best-in-class equivalents. In many cases, the best-in-class equivalents are defined in standardised formats. Energy labelling of home appliances and cars and energy rating of buildings are examples of standard benchmarking/rating schemes. There is currently no well-defined or standardised energy performance benchmarking/ rating scheme for ships.This paper aims to fill this gap via introducing basic methodology, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), their reference values and an energy rating scheme. Data are used to demonstrate how the scheme is implemented and sample results are provided. It is shown that the proposed benchmarking/rating scheme for ships is feasible and it could be used to differentiate ships according to their energy performance. As such, its use within a wider ship owners energy efficiency and emissions control programme is recommended.

INTRODUCTION
erformance benchmarking is the process of comparing an assets performance against a reference standard or benchmark, with the objective of improving the assets performance. The benchmark may be an industry standard or established commonly accepted norm. It could even be a companys internal performance target or best-practice especially if a number of similar assets are used. Energy performance benchmarking/rating normally focuses on a comparative analysis of energy use per unit of production (energy intensity). In a similar way, exhaust emissions performance benchmarking may be made through comparative analysis of assets exhaust emissions levels. Energy and emissions benchmarking/rating is part of the asset management processes and relies on accurate and verifiable data. As such, in the benchmarking process more emphaAUTHORS BIOGRAPHY Dr Zabi Bazari is a Principal Consultant Engineer at Lloyds Register EMEA. He specialises in ship power plants and propulsion systems energy conversion technologies, including performance assessment and exhaust emissions. He leads Lloyds Register consultancy activities on ship energy management and related technologies.

sis is given to data collection and analysis. Being part of asset management activities, the management commitment to benchmarking/rating is essential for its success. This paper deals with ship energy performance benchmarking/rating and the issue of exhaust emissions benchmarking/rating is not addressed.

Benchmarking/rating and energy management

For ship owners that manage a larger number of high-value assets, the best way of implementing an in-service energy efficiency programme is through a step-by-step implementation of processes as shown in Fig 1. As Fig 1 shows, benchmarking is one element of a larger energy management programme. Benchmarking provides a broad indication of performance deviations relative to baseline and allows allocation of assets performance rating and improvement targets. This is followed by energy audit that identify where and how these improvements are to be made. To translate these into real saving, action plans are developed and implemented. Monitoring is used to ensure that the targets are achieved and maintained over time.

Benchmarking/rating and environmental management

Energy use contributes significantly to environmental pollution and climate change. There are a number of international and industry standards that help businesses to deal with their

No. A9 2007

Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology

11

Ship energy performance benchmarking/rating: methodology and application

Performance benchmarking
Gather data Estimate KPIs and compare to their benchmarks Assign performance targets/ratings

Audit
Collect data and analyse management and technical process Compare to bestpractice, benchmarks and industry standards Identify feasible energy efficiency opportunities

Performance monitoring
Are targets achieved?

NO

YES
Monitor and evaluate performance Implement

Fig 1: Main aspects of assets energy management processes environmental impact analysis, including those due to use of energy. These standards and their relation with the proposed benchmarking/rating scheme are introduced here. ISO 14001 ISO 14000 series of standards deal with environmental management system, environmental auditing, environmental performance evaluation, environmental labelling and so on. ISO 14001 primarily deal with environmental management system via identification of environmental aspects and the methodology for management and control of these aspects. Energy (fuel) consumption leads to environmental impacts. Since energy consumption is quantifiable and controllable, it permits objective analysis of its impact and control of the related environmental aspects. Energy performance and emissions benchmarking/rating provides a means of judging relative performance and therefore assists organisations to demonstrate their commitment to control of environmental aspects due to energy use. ISO 14031 In addition to ISO 14001 that focuses on the environmental management system, ISO 14031 gives guidance on the design and use of environmental performance evaluation, and identification and selection of environmental performance indicators. An example of a performance indicator in this standard is the quantity of energy used per unit of production (i.e. energy intensity). Although ISO 14031 is mainly concentrating on environmental parameters, nevertheless, this standard could provide a structured procedural framework which may be used for energy benchmarking1. GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is an independent institution whose mission is to develop and disseminate globally applicable Sustainability Reporting Guidelines2. These guidelines are developed for voluntary use by organisations for reporting on the economic, environmental and social dimensions of their activities, products and services. One area of reporting is on energy use and resulting exhaust emissions.

Within GRI, a number of indicators are defined and technical protocols for determination of each indicator are developed. Each protocol addresses a specific indicator (e.g. energy use) or set of indicators by providing detailed definitions, procedures, formulae and references to ensure consistency across reports. In the case of energy, there are a number of energy consumption indicators within GRI, examples of which are given below: G EN3 Direct energy use segmented by primary source: As part of this, the organisation should report on all energy sources used by organisation for its own uses as well as for the production and delivery of energy products (e.g. electricity or heat) to other organisations. G EN4 Indirect energy use: As part of this, the organisation should report on all energy used to produce and deliver energy products purchased by the reporting organisation. G EN17 Initiatives to use renewable energy sources and to increase energy efficiency: As part of this, the organisation should report its activities regarding level of uptake of renewable energy or the level of savings as a result of its energy efficiency programme. In addition to the above indicators that directly relate to energy use, there are a number of indicators on exhaust emissions that require either direct measurement of emissions or their calculation using energy consumption. The ship owners who choose to report their sustainability related activities within GRI protocols, would require measuring their energy consumption, estimating their level of exhaust emissions and embarking on initiatives for reduction in use of fossil fuels and ship operation energy efficiency. Performance benchmarking/rating would be one initiative, within a larger corporate sustainability programme, to achieve the above objectives.

Energy rating as a policy instrument

Performance benchmarking/rating of assets could be carried with the added objective of their use as a policy tool. For example, energy rating of cars is currently used by the UK government as the basis for setting the road tax in order to encourage use of energy efficient and environmental friendly road vehicles. Similar policy tools, using agreed energy benchmarking/rating schemes, could be made within shipping industry. For example, shipping companies could enter into voluntary agreement with flag states or port states in order to rate their ships according to energy and emissions rating schemes as advocated here. These ratings can then be used to differentiate ships taxes, port dues and charges. Insurance rates, charter rates and other financial conditions could also be related to ships energy and emissions ratings. International shipping has weak incentives to enter into voluntary agreements with flag and port states3. However, with the expanding application of GHG control protocols, approval of the IMO CO2 Index for voluntary application4, and forthcoming emissions trading schemes, it would be prudent for the leading ship owners to move in this direction. Reporting emissions or efficiency levels and actions taken to improve them could be part of a voluntary agreement programme3.

12

Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology

No. A9 2007

Ship energy performance benchmarking/rating: methodology and application

New construction and in-service aspects

Performance benchmarking/rating could be implemented for either new ships or in-service ships. In general terms, schemes directed towards new construction would be easier to define and monitor than those for existing ships. Schemes for new vessels could easily be controlled and verified by independent verification bodies such as maritime administrations and classification societies as part of commissioning trials. On the other hand and following Kyoto Protocol, use of GHG control regulations, such as IMO CO2 Index4, tends to mainly directed towards the in-service aspects, for purposes of use within regulatory or market-based emissions control solutions. In general, any ship energy efficiency or emissions control programme must start from ship design and then followed into ship broking, chartering and operation. As such, the use of proposed benchmarking/rating schemes is advocated to span from new construction to in-service and be used within a wider corporate energy efficiency and emissions control programme.

Data collection

Data quality check

Selection of KPIs

Estimation of KPIs

Setting KPIs targets

Comparisons (actual vs. target)

Deviations from targets

Allocation of rating

Fig 2: Benchmarking/rating process

Data sources
Implementation of benchmarking/rating schemes relies on accurate and verifiable data. Since collection of quality data is normally a practical issue, it is important that all the available data sources are identified and used. For ship performance benchmarking/rating purposes, the following data sources may be used: G Ships technical specification. G Speed trial reports. G Engines NOx Technical File that would include engine performance data. G Operational data logs. G Data from dedicated trials. To ensure consistency, benchmarking should be carried out using either commissioning trial data (design rating) or data from dedicated in-service trials (operation rating). For engines, shop trial data and data from dedicated in-service trials may be used.

IMO GHG emissions index for ships

IMOs MEPC at its 53rd session in July 2005 adopted the interim guidelines for voluntary ship CO2 emissions indexing for use in trials 4. The guidelines are intended for use by ship owners in order to evaluate the performance of their fleet with regard to CO2 emissions. The intention is that after a few years of trial implementation, the guidelines will be amended and finalised. Within the IMO guidelines, the CO2 index is calculated in gram CO2 per tonne cargo per unit mile. To estimate the index, the guideline defines method of data collection and data verification. Although the guideline is at its infancy and has some shortcomings, specifically in dealing with new construction aspects5, it is regarded as a positive move forward in what would eventually lead to worldwide ship CO2 indexing. The data gathered within this initiative would make use of performance benchmarking/rating schemes, as advocated in this paper, more effective.

Data correction
To enable effective and wider use of ship performance benchmarking/rating, it should be carried out under standard reference conditions. The standard reference conditions should specify the following as a minimum: G Ship draught (normally would be design draught for each ship). G Standard reference ship speed (normally will be a fixed speed per ship type). G Reference fuel. G Reference ambient conditions, normally taken as operation in calm water and low/zero wind, and at a reference sea water and air temperatures. If the data available relate to any other condition, they should be corrected to the reference conditions for use in the benchmarking/rating schemes. To avoid complications due to sea state and wind, it would be best to carry out dedicated trials in calm sea and low wind velocity. Alternatively, an internationally acceptable standard procedure such as ISO 150166 or other industry accepted practices may be used for data correction purposes.

METHODOLOGY
Overall process
Typically, the steps involved in ship performance benchmarking/rating are as shown in Fig 2. Three main activities include: G Selection of KPIs and specifying their reference target values. G Data gathering and assuring data quality. G Estimating the KPIs, comparing to reference targets, estimating deviations and allocating rating.

Choice of KPIs
The choice of KPIs for performance benchmarking/rating is important and should be done with due consideration to implementation. As a minimum, the indicators should possess the following characteristics: G Be indicative of ships performance. G Show appropriate and consistent variations with ship size. G Require minimal number of measured data for its estimation. G Be unambiguous and easy to understand.

KPIs targets
Setting the targets for KPIs for benchmarking purposes needs to be carried out through a systematic process of

No. A9 2007

Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology

13

Ship energy performance benchmarking/rating: methodology and application

characterisation of ship or machinery performance. Data sources such as speed trials, operational trends before and after dry dock, comparison between sister ships and international standards could be used to set the targets. For energy rating purposes, reference or standard targets, that are acceptable to wider industry members, need to be developed and used.

reference values need to be established. In this section, a selected number of KPIs are introduced, discussed and typical reference values are proposed.

Fuel Consumption Index (FCI)

FCI is defined as the amount of fuel consumed by ship per tonne of weight carried per unit of distance travelled. FCI = Fuel consumed/weight carried/distance travelled (1) FCI could have the unit of g/t-nm (gram fuel per tonne per nautical mile) or any other equivalent unit. Weight carried could be either the ship deadweight or displacement. The fuel consumption and distance travelled can be related to main engine power and ship speed respectively. As a result the above equation could be converted to the following: FCI = Power*BSFC/weight carried/ship speed (2)

Energy rating scheme

In order to allocate the ships energy rating, a rating scheme is needed. The rating scheme normally relies on a single KPI and its standard target level (this will be referred to as Reference Benchmark (RB) in this paper). In many cases, the value of RB shows the lowest common denominator for a wide population of ships, and not necessarily the best-in-class performance. Table 1 shows a possible scheme for ship energy performance rating, that rely on a single RB (multiple RB may be used but would complicate the process). In this scheme, the ships are rated into a number of rating bands with rating 1 showing most efficient and rating 10 showing least efficient ships. To enable use of this rating scheme, RB needs to be defined. As Table 1 shows, the rating bands for ship design are from 1 to 7 (compatible with rating scheme in other industries). Rating bands 8 to 10 are added here to include operational aspects.
Rating Description Comments 1 Index < RB - 10% most efficient (design) 2 RB - 10% =< Index < RB -6 % 3 RB - 6% =< Index < RB - 2% 4 Index = RB +/- 2% Standard (design) 5 RB +2% < Index =< RB +6% 6 RB +6% < Index =< RB +10% 7 RB +10% < Index =< RB +15% least efficient (design) 8 RB +15% < Index =< RB +20% 9 RB +20% < Index =< RB +25% 10 Index > RB +25% least efficient (operation) RB: Reference Benchmark for ship energy performance evaluation.

The advantage of using FCI is that it is relatively simple to determine, easy to understand and requires minimal amount of data to estimate. The main drawback is that its value varies with type of fuel (heating value) and therefore needs to be normalised to a reference fuel. The overall variation in FCI, based either on deadweight or displacement, has been established using Lloyds Register Fairplay data7. This is shown in Fig 3. The curves represent the best regression fit to selected worlds tanker fleet data and as such represent the mean performance of fleet according to ship size.

Ship Energy Intensity (SEI)

SEI is defined as the energy consumed by ship per tonne of weight carried per unit of distance travelled. SEI = Energy consumed/weight carried/distance travelled (3) SEI is specified in kJ/t-nm (kJ energy of fuel per tonne per nautical mile) or any other equivalent unit. The relationship between FCI and SEI is through fuel lower heating value (LHV): SEI = FCI * LHV (4)

Table 1: Concept energy rating scheme

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (KPIS)

In order to carry out the ship performance benchmarking/rating, KPIs that are representative of ship energy efficiency performance need to be identified. Also, their corresponding

Since SEI varies proportionally with FCI, the variation in SEI with ship types and ship size is similar to that of FCI, provided that the fuel types are the same. Fig 4 shows the variation of SEI with ship size, derived using Lloyds Register Fairplay data7, using a constant value of fuels LHV.

Fig 3: Ship FCI benchmark (tankers) Ship Fuel Consumption Index, FCI_dis
4 FCI_dis [g/t-nm] 3 2 1 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 Displacement [tonne] 400,000 FCI_dwt [g/t-nm] 4 3 2 1 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 Deadweight [tonne] 400,000

Ship Fuel Consumption Index, FCI_dwt

14

Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology

No. A9 2007

Ship energy performance benchmarking/rating: methodology and application

Ship Energy Intensity, SEI_dis

200 150 100 50 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 Displacement [tonne] 400,000 SEI, dwt [kJ/t-nm] SEI_dis [kJ/t-nm] 200 150 100 50 0

Ship Energy Intensity, SEI_dwt

100,000 200,000 300,000 Deadweight [tonne]

400,000

Fig 4: Ship SEI benchmark (tankers) Propulsion Energy Intensity, PEI_dis

100 PEI_dwt [kJ/t-nm] PEI_dis [kJ/t-nm] 75 50 25 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 Displacement [tonne] 400,000 100 75 50 25 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 Deadweight [tonne] 400,000

Propulsion Energy Intensity, PEI_dwt

Fig 5: Ship PEI benchmark (Tankers)

Propulsion Energy Intensity (PEI)

PEI is defined as the amount of propulsion (shaft) energy that is used for displacing one tonne of ship weight over a unit of distance: PEI = propulsive (shaft) power / weight carried / ship speed (5)

IMO8, which is shown in Fig 7 (note that BSFC and NOx trends are opposite to each other). BSFC and NOx reference benchmarks as shown in Figs 6 and 7 may be used for engine performance and emissions benchmarking purposes.
BSFC Benchmark
220 210 BSFC [g/kWh] 200 190 180 170 160 0 400 800 1200 1600 Engine speed (rev/min) 2000 2400

PEI is specified in kJ/t-nm (kJ of shaft energy per tonne per nautical mile) or any other equivalent unit. There is a direct relationship between PEI and SEI, the proportionality factor being the combined efficiency of engine and propulsion shaft line ( e). PEI = SEI* e (6)

PEI shows how effective the propulsive power is used and as such, it is a measure of ships overall hydrodynamic efficiency. Fig 5 shows a typical representation of the index that is derived using Lloyds Register Fairplay data7, assuming a constant engine and shafting efficiency.

Fig 6: Diesel engine BSFC benchmark

IMO Annex VI - NOx Limit
20 18 NOx [g/kWh] 16 14 12 10 8 0 400 800 1200 1600 Engine speed (rev/min) 2000 2400

Engine SFC (Specific Fuel Consumption)

The engine SFC is a measure of engine fuel efficiency, indicating the fuel consumed by the engine for production of one kWh mechanical energy output. The engine SFC depends on the type of prime mover (diesel, gas turbine, etc), prime mover size and other features. In the case of diesel engines, it depends on cycle type, engine size, engine speed and so on. Additionally SFC is a function of fuel type and its use as a benchmarking KPI should be carried out using correction to standard fuel type and conditions. The benchmark BSFC for a diesel engine may be defined as a function of engine speed as shown in Fig 6. This is similar to diesel engines NOx emissions limits as set by the

Fig 7: IMO diesel engine NOx limits

No. A9 2007

Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology

15

Ship energy performance benchmarking/rating: methodology and application

14 CO2I_dis [g/t-nm] 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Ship CO2 Intensity, CO2I_dis

14 CO2I_dwt [g/t-nm] 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Ship CO2 Intensity, CO2I_dwt

100,000

200,000 300,000 Displacement [tonne]

400,000

100,000

200,000 300,000 Deadweight [tonne]

400,000

Fig 8: Ship CO2I benchmark (tankers)

CO2 Intensity (CO2I)

CO2 intensity is defined as the amount of CO2 produced by the ship when transporting one tonne of weight per unit of distance travelled. CO2I = CO2 produced/weight carried/distance travelled (7) CO2I could have the unit of g/t-nm (gram CO2 produced per tonne per nautical mile) or any other equivalent unit. The relationship between CO2 and FCI is via carbon content of fuel, Cfuel, as follows: CO2I=3.67 * Cfuel * FCI (8)

outlined in previous sections together with KPIs and their reference values are used to carry out the ships energy benchmarking/rating. The results presented here are based on the following considerations:
G

G G

The CO2I is recognised as the ships GHG emissions index by the IMO4. Although its use as an environmental performance indicator is justified, it cannot be used as a benchmark for ship energy performance as CO2I is not directly representative of ships fuel efficiency, especially when alternative fuels are used (impact of Cfuel). Fig 8 shows typical values of this index, derived using Lloyds Register Fairplay data7 and equation 8, assuming a fixed level of fuel carbon content.

G G G

Ship type: Due to major differences between certain ship types, it is difficult to determine a single reference benchmark that is applicable across the board. Accordingly, benchmarking/rating herein is carried out for a specific ship type (eg tankers). Ship size: In this paper, displacement is used to represent ship size. Choice of KPI for rating: For rating purposes, a single KPI is best to be used. In this paper, SEI is chosen for ship energy rating. Reference fuel: Marine diesel oil is used as the reference fuel. Reference ship speed: For tankers, a speed of 15kts is used as the reference speed. Reference values of SEI: Fig 3 shows the reference values of SEI as a function of ship displacement.

CASE EXAMPLES
In order to demonstrate how the system will work in practice, implementation aspects are discussed here. The processes
Ship size Panamax 1 Panamax 2 Aframax 1 Aframax 2 Suezmax 1 Suezmax 2 VLCC 1 VLCC 2 Deadweight [tonne] 70 000 67 000 97 000 87 000 147 000 152 000 281 600 281 700 Displacement [tonne] 84 000 80 700 111 000 93 000 168 000 175 500 325 000 314 000

Rating based on as-built specification

The ship build specification contains information such as design speed, design draught, engine power rating, engine
SEI dis [kJ/t-nm] 41.14 49.81 42.30 49.28 33.54 34.46 24.04 20.34 SEI dis.BM [kJ/t-nm] 47.50 48.48 41.24 45.11 33.43 32.69 23.92 24.34 Diff [%] -13.39 2.75 2.57 9.24 0.34 5.41 0.50 -16.45 Rating [-] 1 5 5 6 5 5 4 1

Main engine power [kW] 9200 10 700 12 500 12 200 15 000 16 100 20 800 17 000

Table 2: Rating based on ships specification data

Displacement [tonne] Tanker 1 Specification Speed trial Specification Speed trial 115 500 115 800 133 000 133 000 SEI dis [kJ(t-nm)] 44.73 43.08 43.21 41.69 SEI dis BV [kJ(t-nm)] 40.44 40.38 37.58 37.58 Diff [%] 10.61 6.69 14.98 10.94 Rating [-] 7 6 7 7

Tanker 2

Table 3: Rating according to commissioning speed trials data

16 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A9 2007

Ship energy performance benchmarking/rating: methodology and application

Displacement [tonne] Specification Speed trial Operation (daily logs) 115 500 115 800 111 300

SEI dis [kJ(t-nm)] 44.73 43.08 52.15

SEI dis BV [kJ(t-nm)] 40.44 40.38 41.2

Diff [%] 10.61 6.69 26.58

Rating [-] 7 6 10

Table 4: Rating according to operational data SFC and engine and sea margins. The above information could be used to derive the ships SEI. Table 2 shows these particulars for a number of ships together with estimated SEI, benchmark SEI (calculated from Fig 3), the difference between the two and ship rating level according to the scheme in Table 1. Table 2 shows that amongst the selected ships, there are big differences in their energy rating, varying between 1 (high efficiency) and 6 (low efficiency). This shows that use of benchmarking/rating at pre-contract specification could be a very low-cost exercise in establishing the ships energy performance that may be used by owner to ask for a more energy-efficient design, with subsequent significant savings during ship life cycle.
G

Access to reliable data is an important aspect of any benchmarking/rating exercise. This issue will to some extent be resolved in the future when IMO guidelines on CO2 indexing of ships are implemented.
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Tanker 1 Tanker 2
Specification Speed trial Operation

Rating based on speed trial data

Another data source is the ship commissioning speed trials performance verification reports. The data in such reports can be used for energy rating of the ship. Also, they can be used to establish if fuel consumption and performance criteria set in the contract specification are met. Table 3 shows examples, where the speed trial data are used for ship rating purposes. Table 3 shows that the ships under consideration show trial performance better than the design specification.

Fig 9: Fleet level comparisons The impact of using the proposed techniques within marine industry will be twofold i) energy efficiency and ii) environment. On energy efficiency, it will lead to procurement of more energy-efficient new ships and will provide inservice fleet managers with techniques to compare ships against each other or against international fleet from both performance and exhaust emissions perspectives. On the environment, uptake of benchmarking process by shipping corporations will demonstrate best practice in dealing with GHG and other exhaust emissions and will thus promote the marine industrys image on issues relating to a more sustainable marine transportation.

Rating based on operation data

Another set of data that are available for performance assessment of a ship are those from operation. For ship operation performance assessment, KPIs may be calculated and corrected to reference conditions. As indicated earlier, to reduce the need for correction, in-service speed trials in calm sea are recommended. Table 4 shows the KPIs and rating for a ship, comparing specification with speed trial and operation. The operational data relates to ship daily averages, in good ambient and sea conditions, rather than dedicated in-service trials. As expected, the ship performance rating during operation is worst than trial due to various margins.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper presented an overall scheme for ship energy performance benchmarking/rating. The feasibility of application of the scheme was demonstrated and it was shown that the scheme can provide a simple but effective method of differentiating ships according to their energy efficiency. As such, it provides a low-cost tool for energy efficient ship procurement and evaluation of in-service ship energy performance. The proposed scheme can be further enhanced via linking it more positively to IMO CO2 index for ships. Its wider use will be boosted by the availability of data that will be collected as part of the implementation of the IMO CO2 index. It is recommended that more work be carried out in this area and marine industry shows its commitment to this process through a voluntary adoption of ship energy rating schemes via their business associations.

Discussion
Comparison of KPIs for the above three sets of data indicates the following: G The rating scheme seems to be effective in differentiating between various ships from energy efficiency point of view. G As expected, the ship energy rating under operation is worse than commissioning trials. Analysis of operational data against trial for a number of ships could indicate if their sea margins are different or not. G The difference between specification, commissioning trials and operations for the above cases are shown in Fig 9. Derivation of similar diagrams for a fleet of ships can provide further information on the behaviour of different ships.

REFERENCES
1. Benchmarking and energy consumption fact sheet, East Anglian Business Environment Club, UK, August 1999. 2. For more information on Global Reporting Initiative,

No. A9 2007

Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology

SEI deviation from benchmark [%]

17

Ship energy performance benchmarking/rating: methodology and application

refer to their website on: http://www.globalreporting.org/ 3. ECON Centre for Economic Analysis GHG emissions from international shipping and aviations, Report 01/03, ECON Project 38400, ISBN 82-7645-577-8, January 2003. 4. International Maritime Organisation Interim guidelines for voluntary ship CO2 emission indexing for use in trials, MEPC Circular 471, 29 July 2005, IMO, London, UK. 5. Bazari, Z GHG indexing for ships an industry expert view, Presentation to IMO Technical Workshop on GHG emissions index for ships , July 2005, IMO Headquarters, London, UK. 6. ISO/CD 15016 standard Ships and marine technology general requirements Guidelines for the assessment of speed and power performance by analysis of sea trial data, ISO/TC8/SC9 N11 dates 1998-12-11 7. Lloyds Register Fairplay Register of ships on CDROM, Version 2.14, January 2004. 8. International Maritime Organisation Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78 Regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships and NOx technical annex

ISBN 92-801-6089-3, IMO 1998.

ABBREVIATIONS
BSFC BSFC CO2I dis dwt FCI GHG GRI IMO LHV MEPC PEI RB SEI SFC t-nm VLCC Brake Specific Fuel Consumption Brake Specific Fuel Consumption CO2 Index or Intensity Displacement deadweight Fuel consumption index Greenhouse Gas Global Reporting Initiative International Maritime Organisation Lower heating value Marine Environment Protection Committee Propulsion energy intensity Reference Benchmark Ship energy intensity Specific Fuel Consumption Tonne nautical mile Very Large Crude Carrier

18

Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology

No. A9 2007