Research Article

Reducing Carbon Footprint of Ships in Voyage Planning: A Case Study of Atlantic Passage

Number: 225 June 30, 2024
EN TR

Reducing Carbon Footprint of Ships in Voyage Planning: A Case Study of Atlantic Passage

Abstract

Determining the most efficient ship routes is crucial for ensuring both safety and fuel savings during voyage planning. Great circle Navigation (GC) and weather routing (WR) are the two most common methods used by navigators for ocean crossings. GC Navigation is renowned for its potential to save time and fuel by following shorter routes over long distances; however, it may expose vessels to adverse weather conditions and sea states due to navigating at higher latitudes. On the other hand, weather routing integrates pilot charts and meteorological data to identify safer routes, albeit potentially longer, minimizing risks associated with rough weather. This study focuses on route planning for a handy-sized tanker contracting a westbound Atlantic ocean voyage within a specific timeframe. The main objective of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of these two methods. The GC route components were computed using spherical trigonometry equations, while weather routing planning relied on pilot charts and meteorological data. Environmental conditions were simulated and tested in the Transas Full Mission Simulator (NTPRO 4000). The results reveal that the WR method provides 21.3% higher energy efficiency than GC. The insights derived from this research contribute significantly to enhancing the operational efficiency and safety standards of commercial vessels.

Keywords

References

  1. Chen, C., Chen, Y., Bian, S., Li, H., & Liu, Q. (2019, February). Great Circle Route and Its Plotting on Chart Projection. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 234, No. 1, p. 012038). IOP Publishing.
  2. Simonsen, M. H., Larsson, E., Mao, W., & Ringsberg, J. W. (2015, May). State-of-the-art within ship weather routing. In International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (Vol. 56499, p. V003T02A053). American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
  3. Skoglund, L., Kuttenkeuler, J., Rosén, A., & Ovegård, E. (2015). A comparative study of deterministic and ensemble weather forecasts for weather routing. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 20(3), 429-441.
  4. Perera, L. P., & Soares, C. G. (2017). Weather routing and safe ship handling in the future of shipping. Ocean Engineering, 130, 684-695.
  5. Kytariolou, A., & Themelis, N. (2022). Ship routing optimisation based on forecasted weather data and considering safety criteria. The Journal of Navigation, 75(6), 1310-1331.
  6. Walther, L., Rizvanolli, A., Wendebourg, M., & Jahn, C. (2016). Modeling and optimization algorithms in ship weather routing. International journal of e-navigation and maritime economy, 4, 31-45.
  7. Zhao, W., Wang, H., Geng, J., Hu, W., Zhang, Z., & Zhang, G. (2022). Multi-objective weather routing algorithm for ships based on hybrid particle swarm optimization. Journal of Ocean University of China, 21(1), 28-38.
  8. Zis, T. P., Psaraftis, H. N., & Ding, L. (2020). Ship weather routing: A taxonomy and survey. Ocean Engineering, 213, 107697.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Naval Architecture

Journal Section

Research Article

Early Pub Date

June 3, 2024

Publication Date

June 30, 2024

Submission Date

March 25, 2024

Acceptance Date

May 18, 2024

Published in Issue

Year 2024 Number: 225

APA
Turna, İ. (2024). Reducing Carbon Footprint of Ships in Voyage Planning: A Case Study of Atlantic Passage. Gemi Ve Deniz Teknolojisi, 225, 107-117. https://doi.org/10.54926/gdt.1458845