See discussions, st ats, and author pr ofiles f or this public ation at : https:www .researchgate.ne tpublic ation265693796 [615295]

See discussions, st ats, and author pr ofiles f or this public ation at : https://www .researchgate.ne t/public ation/265693796
E-T ype self-propelled vessel: a novel concept for the Danube
Conf erence Paper · Sept ember 2014
DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4672.1287
CITATIONS
2READS
293
4 author s:
Some o f the author s of this public ation ar e also w orking on these r elat ed pr ojects:
MoVe IT! (Modernisation of v essels f or inland w aterway fr eight tr ansport) View pr oject
TR35009 – DEVEL OPMENT OF A NEW GENER ATION SAFE, EFFICIENT , EC OLOGICAL (SE-EC O) SHIP S View pr oject
Igor Ba č kalov
Univ ersity of Belgr ade
26 PUBLICA TIONS    69 CITATIONS    
SEE PROFILE
Milan Kalajdzic
Univ ersity of Belgr ade
10 PUBLICA TIONS    40 CITATIONS    
SEE PROFILE
Nikola Mom č ilovi ć
Univ ersity of Belgr ade
14 PUBLICA TIONS    26 CITATIONS    
SEE PROFILE
Aleksandar Simi ć
Univ ersity of Belgr ade
13 PUBLICA TIONS    43 CITATIONS    
SEE PROFILE
All c ontent f ollo wing this p age was uplo aded b y Igor Ba č kalov on 17 Sept ember 2014.
The user has r equest ed enhanc ement of the do wnlo aded file.

European Inland Waterway Navigation Conference
10-12 September , 201 4, Budapest, Hungary
____________________________________________________________________________________
E-Type self-propelled vessel: a novel concept for the Danube
Igor BAČKALOV1, Milan KALAJDŽIĆ, Nikola MOMČILOVIĆ,
Aleksandar SIMIĆ
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Naval Architecture
Kraljice Marije 16, 11120 Belgrade 35, Serbia
ABSTRACT
The goal of the present study is to encourage the discussion on the future of the Danube fleet by provi d-
ing a novel approach to design of self -propelled dr y bulk cargo vessels for the Danube. The main dime n-
sions of a standard European CEMT Va class vessel are re- examined in the light of the Danube naviga-
tion conditions, characterized by the shallow -water sectors and thus, considerably affected by the low –
water periods. As a result, a shallow -draught vessel of increased beam, the so called E -Type, is put fo r-
ward. Given that the proposed design could be regarded as “unusual” by classification societies, the pr e-
liminary design study is followed by a thorough analysis of structural strength, with particular emphasis
on the longitudinal strength issues. Th e study is com plemented by an assessment of energy efficiency of
the novel conce pt. It is believed that the pro posed E-Type concept could represent a viable, cost -effective
and environmentally -friendly solution for the present navigation conditions on the Danube.
Keywords : Innovative Danube vessel, Shallow -draught vessels, E-Type vessel, Unusual design, Energy
efficiency in shallow water
1. INTRODUCTION
As a rule, a ship design study is based on the similar vessels of the existing fleet. Usua l-
ly, a successful vessel is adopted as a prototype and modified so a s to fulfil particular
require ments. However, if the operational conditions and desired performance of the
new design considerably deviate from those used in the development of the present ve s-
sels, the ship will most likely represent a “paradigm shift”. In such cases, as Lamb
(2003) points out, the designer should r ely on first principles rather than on the similar
vessels. Several circumstances indicate that the Danube self -propelled vessel should
represent such a shift from the standard European inland vessels.
The navigation conditions on individual inland waterwa ys may significantly differ, as
well as the hi nterland development and the as sociated market that are equally important
as the fairway itself. These differences affect the composition of the fleet, as it was
elaborated by Radojčić (2005): the share of the self-propelled vessels is by far greater
on the Rhine than on the Danube, where push boats and convoys proved to be more effective. Even so, the utilization of inland freight vessels on the Danube and the share of the inland waterway transport in most of t he Danube countries are, for years, steadily
low.
The present paper stems from the dilemma whether ineffe ctiveness of self -propelled
vessels on the Danube should be, at least to a cer tain extent, attributed to inadequate
design of the existing ships. Although Žigić (2006) demonstrated that there is more than
one option for modernization and efficiency enhancement of the present vessels, up to 80% of the benefits and drawbacks of a part icular design are in fact a consequence of
“early design decisions”, as stated in the recent study by Germanischer Lloyd (2013). Therefore, the design of the standard European CEMT class Va (Large Rhine Vessel) is reconsidered taking into account navigation conditions on the Danube, primarily the waterway depth restrictions. Several concepts are introduced and compared based on

1 Corresponding author ( ibackalov@mas.bg.ac.rs )

European Inland Waterway Navigation Conference
10-12 September , 201 4, Budapest, Hungary
____________________________________________________________________________________
the evaluation of transport costs and annual cargo carrying capacity. The most succes s-
ful design is further elaborated so as to ass ess the technical feasibility (structural
strength, powering) and environmental performance (energy -efficiency) of the concept.
So far, only a few studies dealt with the de sign of the self -propelled ships for the Da n-
ube. Hofman (2006) provided guidelines f or the optimal design of the Danube container
vessel, as the outcome of an analysis that included the hydrodynamic considerations and
transport ef ficiency assessment of a series of containership arrangements. Radojčić
(2009) proposed the design of a multi -purpose self -propelled dry cargo vessel that i n-
cluded a number of novel arrangement solutions and a state -of-the-art propulsion plant.
Blaauw et al. (2006) sought the most feasible design of a Ro- Ro vessel for the Danube.
Despite the different goals, all the aforementione d studies investigate the influ ence of a
low design draught and the modifica tion of principal dimensions of the standard Eur o-
pean vessels and hence represent important references for the present work.
Finally, it should be noted that the authors were involved in the research project Innova-
tive Danube Vessel , carried out within the framework of the EU Strategy for the Dan-
ube Region and that the present investigation was triggered, to an extent , by the discu s-
sions that took place during the project.
2. THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN, STAGE 1: DRAUGHT VARIATION
According to the Resolution 92/2 of the CEMT (1992), the design draught of the
standard European self -propelled vessels of class Va, also known as the Large Rhine
vessels , is 2.5m ÷ 4.5m. The rel evant studies on the Danube navigation, however, point
towards substantial draught limitations. U sing several sources, Rad ojčić (2009) provi d-
ed a comprehensive overview of navigation conditions on the Danube which indicated that water depth by LNRL
2 on a c onsiderable number of sectors did not exceed 2.5m.
The findings of Schweighofer et al. (2010) presented within the ECCONET project
showed that between 1946 and 1995, the average number of days with water depth
below 2.5m was 127 and 86 at two sectors on the Hungarian part of the Danube,
whereas in 2005 the number of such days amounted to 137 and 133 at the same sectors. A recent study by ÖIR (2013) carried out within the Innovative Danube Vessel project
concludes that unless extensive infrastructure upgrade projects take place, the vessel
draught of 2.5m cannot be guaranteed in the low water periods even in those sectors where regular maintenance is sustained. However , permanent removal of bottlenecks is
under scrutiny due to growing environmental concerns, see WWF (2005).
Therefore, in the first stage of the preliminary design, the effect of draught variation on transport capacity and costs is studied. In order to establish some design trends, four vessel series were initially model ed for relevant range of l engths, based on the
following conditions:
• A-Type vessel series (Table A.1, Appendix) represents the shallow -draught vessels
(design draught d = 2m) of standard breadth ( B = 11.4m) and minimal freeboard for
navigation zone 3, according to the Directive 2006/87/EC.
• B-Type vessel series (Table A.2, Appendix) represents the shallow -draught vessels
(design draught d = 2m) of standard breadth ( B = 11.4m) and freeboard derived from
the provision of the Germanischer Lloyd rules for classification of inland vesse ls by
which L/D ratio should be below 35 for “usual” designs. In case that L/D > 35, a

2 LNRL, Low Navigation and Regulation Level: water level that corresponds to the flow available for
94% of the navigable season.

European Inland Waterway Navigation Conference
10-12 September , 201 4, Budapest, Hungary
____________________________________________________________________________________
number of additional conditions regarding structural strength are to be fulfilled. It
should be highlighted that L/D < 35 condition also stems from the Rhine, where
typical vessels have large d and consequently D , too.
• C-Type vessel series (Table A.3, Appendix) represents the vessels of standard
breadth ( B = 11.4m), design draught d = 2.5m and freeboard derived from afore –
mentioned provision of the Germanischer Lloyd ( L/D < 35).
• D-Type vessel series (Table A.4, Appendix) represents the vessels of standard
breadth ( B = 11.4m), design draught d = 2.8m and freeboard derived from afore –
mentioned provision of the Germanischer L loyd ( L/D < 35).
The displacement of all vessels is obtained assuming the block coefficient C B = 0.88, a
value typical for inland vessel hull forms. The lightship of the vessels represents the average of two values calculated using formulas (1) and (2) bas ed on the cubic module
LBD :
()2 66.6607 10 0.21822 4.1LIGm LBD LBD−= − ⋅ + ⋅− (1)
()2 64.44 10 0.195LIGm LBD LBD−= −⋅ + ⋅ (2)
Formulas are based on Heuser (1986) and Hofman (2006). Once the deadweight and displacement are known, the deadweight coefficient may be calculated:
DWT
DWTmη=∆ (3)
The deadweight coefficient of the examined series is given in Fig. 1 as a function of
vessel length. It may be noticed that for L ≈ 104m, D-Type vessel attains an optimum.
Furthermore, for this length, D -Type would have the highest deadweight / displacement
ratio in comparison to other series. However, the deadweight coefficient of the shallow –
draught A-Type vessel is insignificantly smaller. Low values of the B -Type vessel
deadweight coefficient, which steadi ly decrease with the increase of length, indicate that
vessels conforming the standard L/D ratios, cannot be feasible at low draughts.

Figure 1. The deadweight coefficient of the examined vessel series

European Inland Waterway Navigation Conference
10-12 September , 201 4, Budapest, Hungary
____________________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Reference cargo
In order to assess the transport capabilities of respective designs, the following
parameter is introduced. Assuming that A -Type vessel operates fully laden 300 days a
year, the “reference cargo” R C is calculated as:
300C DWTRm= ⋅ (4)
Reference cargo may be described as maximal annual cargo carrying capacity of the vessel. R
C that corresponds to A -Type vessel series is given in Table 1. Furthermore, the
minimal number of days required to transport the R C (A) by B -, C- and D-Type series
vessels when fully loaded, is calculated and presented in the same Table. The vessels
with larger design draught would need less time to transport the same amount of cargo, provided, of course, that sufficient water depth on the fairway could be guaranteed. For instance, B-Type vessel of approximate length of 104m would have to sail fully laden
some five weeks longer than the A -Type vessel of the same length. Contrary to that, D –
Type vessel would transport the reference cargo in 212 days; the water depth, however,
would have to be sufficient for safe navigation with draught of 2.8m throughout 30 weeks a year at least.
Table 1: Minimal number of days necessary to transport the reference cargo R
C (A)
RC (A) A B C D
L [m] t/year days days days days
78.75 361199 300 304 238 212
91.25 419575 300 319 238 212
97.5 448881 300 327 241 211
103.75 478265 300 335 246 212
110 507726 300 343 250 215
122.5 566884 300 358 258 221
135 626355 300 373 266 227
It was previously demonstrated that depending on the year and the season, this could be
a challenging demand for a number of the Danube sectors. However, regardless of the statistical data, the question remains what a sufficient water depth is and how does it relate to the costs of transport.
2.2. Transport costs
Out of four vessel series, only two sample vessels are selected for further analysis
(Tables 2 and 3). The length of both of the vessels is limited to L ≈ 104m, given that the
highest deadweight coefficient in all the cases examined is attained (by D -Type vessel)
for that length precisely. Besides, this length enables vessel to form a coupling train with a standard, 77m long Danube barge in total shorter than 185m, a restriction imposed by the size of locks on the Upper Danube. The vessels also have the same, standard breadth. Their design draughts are, however, considerably different: d = 2m
and d = 2.8m, for A -Type and D-Type vessel, respectively. The displacement and
deadweight of the D -Type sample vessel are also calculated for two additional
operational draughts ( d = 2m and d = 2.5m) whereby presuming that the block
coefficient does not change considerably. It should be noted that two sample vessels

European Inland Waterway Navigation Conference
10-12 September , 201 4, Budapest, Hungary
____________________________________________________________________________________
have the same freeboard: F B ≈ 0.15m, as required by the Directive 2006/87/EC for
navigation in zone 3.
Table 2: A -Type sample vessel
L [m] B [m] d [m] D [m] Δ [t] mDWT [t]
103.75 11.4 2 2.15 2082 1594
Table 3: D -Type sample vessel
L [m] B [m] d [m] D [m] Δ [t] mDWT [t]
103.75 11.4 2 2.96 2082 1428
103.75 11.4 2.5 2.96 2602 1948
103.75 11.4 2.8 2.96 2914 2260
The costs of transport are calculated using the model based on time and distance -related
cost coefficients for inland waterway transport, as presented by Blauwens et al. (2008).
The model is extrapolated so as to include mDWT up to 2300t. Hour coefficient u and
kilometre coefficient k estimated for year 2004 are given in Fig. 3, as a function of
deadweight. In present analysis, for a known m DWT, costs of transport T C are calculated
as:
C
DWTlk tuTlm⋅+⋅=⋅ (5)
Here, l represents the length of the route in kilometres and t duration of the voyage in
hours. The following should be noted. The cost coefficients refer to new vessels. The model includes a number of cost categories: crew wages, insurance, administrative costs (related to time ), fuel consumption (related to distance), depreciation and maintenance
costs (related to both time and distance travelled). Port dues, being neither time nor distance related, are excluded from the model. As port dues depend on the specific route, they ar e omitted from the present analysis.

(a) (b)
Figure 2. Cost coefficients for inland shipping: hour coefficient, u and kilometre
coefficient, k
Duration of the voyage depends on the speed of the vessel. In limited water depth, the speed may be restrained by efficiency or safety requirements. Therefore, some “speed limits” are imposed on the examined vessels. For instance, the maximal service speed of
the A-Type vessel may be limited by the shallow water condition F
nh = 0.65. Using the

European Inland Waterway Navigation Conference
10-12 September , 201 4, Budapest, Hungary
____________________________________________________________________________________
speeds derived from this condition, the costs of transport of 1594t by the A -Type sample
vessel over l kilometres may be calculated for a range of water depths (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Costs of transport by A -Type and D-Type sample vessels
Hofman (2006), however, argues whether Fnh = 0.65 should be taken as an efficiency –
related speed limit. Instead, the speed of the vessel could be optimized with the aim of
attaining the highest profit possible (“economic speed”). In given conditions, this
applies to the shallow -draught A-Type vessel only. Unlike that, the speed of the D -Type
sample vessel has to be limited in order to avoid grounding and contact with the riverbed due to squat. Indeed, Schweighofer (2013) correctly points out that grounding is one of the major causes of accidents in inland navigation in low -water conditions.
Therefore, i n Fig. 3, the costs of transport of 2260t by vessel D over l km are given for a
range o f water depths, whereby T
C corresponds to speeds limited by squat estimated
using several formulas, as given by Briggs (2006). Increase of transport costs for sample
vessel A with the decrease of water depth is presented in the same figure. It may be
notic ed that the A -Type vessel remains practically unaffected by changes of water depth
in the examined range. Contrary to that, T C of D-Type vessel increases considerably as
the water depth decreases, regardless of the squat estimation method used.

Figure 4. Average increase of transport costs of the D -Type vessel at 2.8m draught in
comparison to the costs of the A -Type sample vessel

European Inland Waterway Navigation Conference
10-12 September , 201 4, Budapest, Hungary
____________________________________________________________________________________
The average increase of TC when utilizing the D -Type vessel at draught 2.8m instead of
the shallow -draught A-Type, ΔTC is give n in Fig. 4 as a function of water depth. The
cost-efficiency of the D-Type vessel would become tangible only in water depths
greater than 3.3m.
3. THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN, STAGE 2: INCREASE OF BEAM
So far , it was demonstrated that shallow -draught vessels of s tandard breadth ( A-Type)
could be more cost -efficient in limited waterway depth conditions than the typical ones.
In the next stage of preliminary design, the breadth of the A -Type vessel is increased to
15m so as to enlarge the cargo carrying capacity whi le preserving the low draught. As a
result, the E -Type vessel series is generated (Table A. 5, Appendix).
3.1 Reference cargo
Novel E-Type concept is analysed using the methodology laid out in the previous
section. The reference cargo corresponding to the E -Type vessels is given in Table 4, as
well as the minimum number of days required to transport the R C(E) using fully laden
vessels of series B , C and D. The D-Type vessel would have to sail at full draught of
2.8m almost as long as the shallow -draught E-Type in order to transport the same
amount of cargo on the annual basis. When only partially loaded, the D -Type vessels
would have to sail much longer to attain the same R C (for instance, at L = 103.75m and
d = 2m, almost half a year longer).
Table 4: M inimal number of days necessary to transport the reference cargo R C (E)
RC (E) E B C D
L [m] t/year days days days days
78.75 477645 300 402 315 280
91.25 555340 300 423 315 280
97.5 594390 300 433 319 280
103.75 633575 300 444 325 280
110 672896 300 454 331 285
122.5 751943 300 475 342 293
135 831532 300 495 353 301
3.2 Transport costs
For the purpose of further analysis, a sample vessel of the length L ≈ 104m will be
selected from the E -Type series (Table 5) and subsequently compared to the D -Type
sample vessel.
Table 5: E -Type sample vessel
L [m] B [m] d [m] D [m] Δ [t] mDWT [t]
103.75 15 2 2.15 2739 2112
It was already demonstrated that water depth has a considerable effect on transport costs
TC. As a result, the D -Type sample vessel performed better than the A-Type shallow –
draught ship only if the water depth was greater than 3.3m. In this section, the costs of
transport by sample vessel D are weighed against the T C of the E -Type sample vessel.
The conclusions are princ ipally the same as in the previous section, but the cost –

European Inland Waterway Navigation Conference
10-12 September , 201 4, Budapest, Hungary
____________________________________________________________________________________
effectiveness of the shallow -draught vessel becomes even more evident. For all
waterway depths up to h W = 3.5m, the average costs of transport by the D-Type vessel
exceed T C of the E -Type (Fig. 5).

Figure 5. Average increase of transport costs of the D -Type vessel at 2.8m draught in
comparison to the costs of the E -Type sample vessel

Figure 6. Average increase of transport costs of the D -Type vessel at 2m draught in
comparison to the costs of the E -Type sample vessel
In case that the D -Type vessel sails only partially loaded, at 2m draught, the same speed
restrictions would apply to both of the vessels in the examined range of water depths,
but the capacity of the D-Type would be only just above 1400t (Table 2). In that case,
the transport costs of D -Type vessel would rise up to about 20% in comparison with the
novel E-Type (Fig. 6). Furthermore, the annual cargo carrying capacity of the D -Type
would be less than 70% of R C(E).
So far, it may be concluded that the wide, shallow -draught vessel is competitive in
terms of cargo carrying capacity and more cost -efficient than the standard self -propelled
inland ships in water depth up to 3.5m. However, due to atypical main particulars and,
consequently, exceptionally high length to depth ratio, the vessel could be regarded as an “unusual” design by the classification societies. Such designs should be additionally

European Inland Waterway Navigation Conference
10-12 September , 201 4, Budapest, Hungary
____________________________________________________________________________________
verified with respect to structural strength issues: buckling, longitudina l strength,
torsion. It may be expected that some structural elements need to be reinforced thus
making the hull structure heavier and deadweight smaller than predicted by the formulas (1) and (2) that were developed based on the typical vessels of the Rhi ne fleet.
Therefore, in order to assess the technical feasibility of the E -Type vessel on one hand,
and to check the evaluated deadweight (as given in Table 3), on the other, a detailed calculation of her structure is carried out.
4. STRUCTURAL STRENGTH OF THE E-Type VESSEL
Scantling determination of the novel vessel concept is performed according to the Rules
of Germanischer Lloyd (2011) and with respect to the principles and criteria provided
by the Rules. The Rules state that the vessels with L/D > 35 are to be considered on a
case by case basis . Consequently, it was assumed that the vessel would be regarded as
an “unusual design”, whereby a direct calculation of the still water bending moment is
to be carried out along with structural checks which include proof of buckling strength and verification of strength in testing conditions .
The Rules provide equations for determination of net thickness and net cross section modulus of platings and structural members. Net scantlings do not include margin for
corrosion. All structural checks and direct calculations are performed based on calculated net scantlings. In order to obtain gross (adopted) values, corrosion additions were taken into account according to the member position, tank type etc.
The vessel is assumed to be longitudinally stiffened. Scantling calculation is performed for two cases of floors and web frames spacing: S
1 = 2m and S 2 = 3m.
Proof of buckling strength is assessed for single plate fields and lateral and torsion buckling of stiffene rs. Compressive stresses for each structural member are calculated
with respect to the rule bending moment (hogging and/or sagging) and cross section properties of the vessel. Single plate field buckling check includes unstiffened part of
the plates between stiffeners and girders. Lateral buckling check takes into account
bending and compressive stresses acting on stiffener while torsional buckling check considers torsional cross section properties of stiffener. Cross section properties are also checked for minimal scantling requirements of platings and structural members of
compartments subjected to testing conditions.
Due to extraordinary low depth of the vessel, high normal stresses occur in the elements
furthermost positioned from the neutral axis (deck, hatch coaming, bottom plating).
High compressive stresses made some structural members prone to buckling issues. Consequently, hull girder modulus had to be enlarged by reinforcing net scantlings of the hatch coaming and deck structure. Hatch coaming net thickness was increased from
16.5mm up to 30mm and strengthened with three stiffeners instead of two. The deck net thickness was increased from 12mm to 16.5mm.
Adopted gross scantlings for S
2 = 3m that fulfilled the described requirements, are given
in Fig. 9. Gross floor and web frame thicknesses are 9mm and 11mm respectively. For
the S1 = 2m case all plating thicknesses remain almost the same (except for the hatch
coaming, reduced by 2mm and the bottom girders, reduced by 4mm in comparison to the S
2 = 3m arrangement). Moreover, stiffeners have lower hull section modulus due to
decreased span, so their dimensions have also been slightly reduced.

European Inland Waterway Navigation Conference
10-12 September , 201 4, Budapest, Hungary
____________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 7: Gross scantlings of the web frame corresponding to S 2 = 3m structural
arrangement (all dimensions are given in mm)

(a) (b)
Figure 8: Bending moments (a) and shear forces (b) in examined loading cases,
corresponding to S 2 = 3m structural arrangement
Although the rule bending moment wa s calculated ( MH = 53459kNm for hogging and
MS = 45371kNm for sagging condition) and used for cross section properties evaluation,
unusual design of the vessel required further analysis including direct longitudinal
strength calculation. Longitudinal bending moments and shear forces are calculated for:
fully loaded vessel (I), lightship condition (II) and loading in one run starting from the
aft end of the cargo hold (III), and given in Fig. 8.
The calculations have shown that the maximal bending moment, 25000kNm, occurred in case III (loading in one run). This value is twice as low as the rule bending moment used for scantling determination of cross section properties of the vessel. Thus, the adopted gross scantlings given in Fig. 7 are also the final ones.
It should be emphasized that, following the shipbuilding practice, the inner bot tom
thickness t
IB is increased to 10 mm even though 7mm would be sufficient according to
the Rule s requirements and all strength checks. Such reinforcement of the structural part
subjected to frequent wear and tear is a typical choice of ship -owners who strive to
extend the life of the vessel.
Mass of deadweight corresponding to the examined structural arrangements i s given in
Table 6. Hull weight is calculated based on structure weight per length distribution,

European Inland Waterway Navigation Conference
10-12 September , 201 4, Budapest, Hungary
____________________________________________________________________________________
whereas total mass of lightship can be estimated using standard weights of the engine,
equipment, welding, paint, hatches, superstructure etc. Interestingly, i t turned out that
formulas (1) by Heuser (1986) and (2) by Hofman (2006) predicted the mass of lightship of the E -Type considerably accurate (thus confirming the results of the
preliminary design stage) even though they were based on the properties of the typical Rhine vessels. This is in particular valid for the formula of Hofman (2006) giving m
LIG
≈ 603t.
Table 6. Mass of deadweight corresponding to examined structural arrangements
S1 = 2m mHULL [t] mLIG [t] mDWT [t]
tIB = 7mm 408.9 573.5 2136.5
tIB = 9mm 430.6 595.2 2114.8
tIB = 10mm 442.2 606.8 2103.2
S2 = 3m mHULL [t] mLIG [t] mDWT [t]
tIB = 7mm 397.3 561.9 2148.1
tIB = 9mm 420.2 584.8 2125.2
tIB = 10mm 431.4 596.0 2114.0
5. ENERGY-EFFICIENCY IN LIMITED WATER DEPTH
Energy -efficiency (related to the amount of CO 2 emitted while transporting given mass
of deadweight by certain speed) is being put forward by International Maritime
Organisation (IMO) as one of the key indicators of environmental performance of sea –
going ships. For inland fleet, however, a similar legal framework presently does not exist. There are, nevertheless, research attempts to establish a proper approach to assessment of the energy -efficiency of inland vessels as well. In present paper, the
method proposed by Simić (2012) was employ ed. The so called “modified energy –
efficiency design index”, EEDI
* is calculated as:
* Bref
DWT sP SFC CFEEDImv⋅⋅=⋅ (6)
Formula ( 6) is shaped following the general idea put forward by IMO, see IMO (2011)
and IMO (2012). There are, however, some important differences. P Bref represents brake
power required for attaining certain service speed v s, instead of 75% of installed power,
as en visaged for the seagoing ships. For each ship, EEDI* is calculated for a range of
service speeds, instead for one, reference or design speed. Although the reasons for such deviation from the approach implemented by IMO are beyond the scope of this paper, i t
should be noted that they are inherent to the exploitation of inland vessels, as outlined in Simić & Radojčić (2013).
In the present study, EEDI
* of D-Type and E-Type sample vessels attained in h W = 3.5m
was calculated for a range of service speeds (Fig. 9). At this water depth, fully laden D –
Type vessel becomes as cost -efficient as the proposed E -Type (see Fig. 5). Nevertheless,
from the environmental protection point of view, the novel concept remains
considerably advantageous. Namely, EEDI* attained by the D -Type at design draught is
higher than the value corresponding to the E -Type at the same service speed, even at
moderate speeds. For instance, at 13km/h, the overall costs for society (environmental costs vs. benefits for society) double when sailing with the standard vessel at large draught, in comparison to the exploitation of the shallow -draught E-Type. On the other

European Inland Waterway Navigation Conference
10-12 September , 201 4, Budapest, Hungary
____________________________________________________________________________________
hand, the novel concept may attain the same level of energy -efficiency at higher speeds,
thus enabling shorter transportat ion times.

Figure 9. Modified energy -efficiency design index of examined vessels
In order to attain the energy -efficiency level of the E -Type sample vessel, the D -Type
ship would have to sail partially loaded, at d = 2m. In that case, however, due to a
considerably smaller deadweight (see Table 2), the transport costs would be up to 20%
higher in comparison to the fully laden shallow -draught E -Type (Fig. 6).
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The starting point of the study was a dilemma whether a shift in the design of the stan d-
ard European inland ships could improve the performance of self -propelled vessels on
the Danube . The analysis of influence of main particulars on transport costs led to con-
clusion that improvements are possible. The novel E -Type concept , presented in Fig. 10,
was proposed, featuring shallow -draught that would enable a regular service throughout
the most of the year , and increased beam so as to regain the cargo capacity of a standard
vessel.
It is well known that ship design is a trade -off between opposing demands. Accordingly,
the proposed E -Type concept has certain drawbacks as well. Possibly the most signif i-
cant one comes as a consequence of increased beam; the upstream navigation range of
the vessel would be limited to Regensburg, due to the 12m width of the local lock. A n-
other operational issue could represent the radius / the reaching point of existing port cranes corresponding to breadth of the standard vessels (up to 11.4m).
E-Type has not been optimized for transport of containers. Hofman (2006), however,
indicated that a container vessel for the Danube should be “beamy” (rather than long and narrow), with the length to beam ratio 7 ÷ 9. Being on the lower boundary of the suggested L/B range, the proposed concept could be, perhaps, suitable f or efficient
transport of containers. Still, a number of aspects would have to be reconsidered. Among other issues, vulnerability to wind gusts and related intact stability failures in
realistic weather conditions would have to be investigated. H aving in m ind that the nov-
el designs may not be properly taken into account by the existing stability criteria, as it was noted by Belenky et al. (2008), it would be advisable to use a risk- based approach
to stability of inland vessels, proposed by Hofman & Bačkalov (2010).

European Inland Waterway Navigation Conference
10-12 September , 201 4, Budapest, Hungary
____________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 12. E -Type self -propelled vessel for the Danube
Finally, the p roposed breadth B = 15m and draught d = 2m should not be considered as
ultimate . The main dimensions could be further optimized and fine -tuned to attain better
economic performance. Moreover, the study demonstrated the importance of the vessel
speed. Given that the low draught allows for larger grounding- related safety margin in
the restricted water depths , the speed of the E -Type concept could be adjust ed to the
economic speed related to the highest profit possible, as defined by Hofman (2006). On
the other hand, it was also shown that E-Type could sail at a higher speed at the same
energy efficienc level (same EEDI*) when compared to the standard vessel of a deeper
draught. It is, therefore, considered that proposed E -Type concept represents a sound
basis for development of an innovative, environmentally -friendly and economically
viable self -propelled vessel for the Danube.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The paper is part of the project “Development of Next Generation of Safe, Efficient,
Ecological (SE -ECO) Ships” executed by Department of Naval Architecture, Faculty of
Mechanical Engineering University of Belgrade. The project is p artly financed by
Serbian Ministry of Education and Science, Contract No. TR35009.

European Inland Waterway Navigation Conference
10-12 September , 201 4, Budapest, Hungary
____________________________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES
Belenky, V ., de Kat, J.O., Umeda, N., 2008, “ Toward Performance -Based Criteria for
Intact Stability ”, Marine Technology and SNAME News , V ol. 45, No. 2, pp. 101-
123.
Blaauw, H., Radojčić, D., Thill, C., Žigić, B., Hekkenberg, R., 2006, “The Four Cases
of CREATING”, Proceedings of International Conference on Coastal Ships and I n-
land Waterways II, London, Paper 3.
Blauwens, G., De Baere, P., Van de V oorde , E., 2008, “Transport Economics”,
Uitgeverij De Boeck, Antwerp.
Briggs, M.J., 2006, “Ship squat predictions for ship/tow simulator”, Coastal and H y-
draulics Engineering Technical Note CHETN -I-72, U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center, Vicksbur g.
CEMT, 1992, Conférence Européene des ministres des transports / European conference
of ministers of transport (CEMT/ECMT), Resolution No. 92/2 on New classification
of inland waterways, Athens.
Germanischer Lloyd, 2011, Rules for Classification and Cons truction, Inland Naviga-
tion Vessels, Hamburg.
Germanischer Lloyd, 2013, InFocus magazine , Issue 1: Ship efficiency and emission
reduction, Hamburg.
Heuser, H., 1986, “Anwendung Deim Entwurf von BinnenSchiffen”, Schifftechnik,
Band 33, Heft 1, Duisburg.
Hofman, M., 2006, “Inland Container Vessel: Optimal Characteristics for a Specified
Waterway”, Proceedings of International Conference on Coastal Ships and Inland Waterways II, London, Paper 6.
Hofman, M., Bačkalov, I., 2010, “Risk- Based Analysis of Inland Vessel Stability”, Pr o-
ceedings of the 11th International Ship Stability Workshop, Wageningen, pp. 67- 72.
IMO (International Maritime Organization), 2011, Resolution MEPC.203(62),
“Amendments to the Annex of the Protocol of 1997 t o amend the International Co n-
vention for the prevention of pollution from ships, 1973, a s modified by the Protocol
of 1978 r elating t hereto ”, London.
IMO (International Maritime Organization), 2012, Resolution MEPC.212(63), “2012
Guidelines on the Method of Calculation of the Attained Energy Efficiency Design
Index (E EDI) For New Ships ”, London.
Lamb, T., (Editor), 2003, “Ship Design and Construction”, The Society of Naval Archi-
tect and Marine Engineers, Jersey City.
ÖIR ( Austrian Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial Planning ), 2013, “Collection
and evaluation of relevant data on conditions for ship operation on the Danube”, R e-
port of the Work Package 1, Innovative Danube Vessel project, Vienna.
Radojčić, D., 2005, “ Danube intermodal ships: Container vs. Ro- Ro, 26
th Duisburg Col-
loqui um”, The Ship in Intermodal Transport, Duisburg .
Radojčić, D., 2009, “Environmentally friendly inland waterway ship design for the
Danube River”, Belgrade.
Schweighofer, J., 2013, “The impact of extreme weather and climate change on inland

European Inland Waterway Navigation Conference
10-12 September , 201 4, Budapest, Hungary
____________________________________________________________________________________
waterway transport ”, Natural Hazards, 1 -18.
Schweighofer, J., Hartl, T., Nilson, E., Klein, B., Klein Tank, A., Prozny, T., Balint, G.,
Gnandt, B., Horanyi, A., Szépszó , G., 2010, “Selected navigation routes and present
climate conditions”, Deliverable 1.1, ECCONET project, Brussels .
Simić, A., 2012, “Energy Efficiency of Inland Self -Propelled Cargo Vessels” (in Serb i-
an), Doctoral thesis, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Belgrade.
Simić , A., Radoj čić, D., 2013, “ On Energy Efficiency of Inla nd Waterway Self –
Propelled Cargo Vessels”, FME Transactions, V ol. 41, No. 2, pp. 138- 145.
WWF (World Wildlife Fund) , 2009, “The Danube – a lifeline or just a navigation corr i-
dor”, WWF position paper on inland navigation on the Danube , WWF Danube –
Carpathian Programme and WWF Austria, Vienna .
Žigić, B., 2006, “Modernisation of the Danube fleet – Matching the future
requirements “, The 3rd Danube Summit, Budapest.
NOMENCLATURE
B vessel breadth (m)
CB block coefficient ( -)
CF carbon emission factor (g CO 2/t fuel)
D vessel depth (m)
d vessel draugh t (m)
EEDI* modified energy -efficiency design index ( g CO 2/tkm)
FB vessel freeboard (m)
Fnh depth- based Froude number ( -)
hW water depth (m)
k kilometre cost coefficient (€/km)
l length of the route (km)
L vessel length (m)
mDWT mass of deadweight (t)
MH bending moment for hogging (kNm)
mHULL hull weight (t)
mLIG mass of lightship (t)
MS bending moment for sagging (kNm)
RC reference cargo (t/year)
S1, 2 floors and web frames spacing (m)
SFC specific fuel consumption (g/kWh)
t voyage duration (h)
TC transport costs (€/tkm)
tIB thickness of inner bottom (mm)
u hour cost coefficient (€/h)
vs service speed (km/h)
Δ vessel displacement (t)
DWTη deadweight coefficient ( -)

European Inland Waterway Navigation Conference
10-12 September , 201 4, Budapest, Hungary
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix: Examined vessel series
Table A.1: A -Type series of vessels
L [m] B [m] d [m] D [m] Δ [t] mDWT [t]
78.75 11.4 2 2.15 1580 1204
91.25 11.4 2 2.15 1831 1399
97.5 11.4 2 2.15 1956 1496
103.75 11.4 2 2.15 2082 1594
110 11.4 2 2.15 2207 1692
122.5 11.4 2 2.15 2458 1890
135 11.4 2 2.15 2709 2088
Table A.2: B -Type series of vessels
L [m] B [m] d [m] D [m] Δ [t] mDWT [t]
78.75 11.4 2 2.25 1580 1187
91.25 11.4 2 2.61 1831 1313
97.5 11.4 2 2.79 1956 1372
103.75 11.4 2 2.96 2082 1428
110 11.4 2 3.14 2207 1481
122.5 11.4 2 3.50 2458 1583
135 11.4 2 3.86 2709 1680
Table A.3: C -Type series of vessels
L [m] B [m] d [m] D [m] Δ [t] mDWT [t]
78.75 11.4 2.5 2.65 1975 1517
91.25 11.4 2.5 2.65 2289 1763
97.5 11.4 2.5 2.79 2445 1861
103.75 11.4 2.5 2.96 2602 1948
110 11.4 2.5 3.14 2759 2033
122.5 11.4 2.5 3.50 3072 2197
135 11.4 2.5 3.86 3386 2357
Table A.4: D -Type series of vessels
L [m] B [m] d [m] D [m] Δ [t] mDWT [t]
78.75 11.4 2.8 2.95 2212 1706
91.25 11.4 2.8 2.95 2563 1983
97.5 11.4 2.8 2.95 2739 2123
103.75 11.4 2.8 2.96 2914 2260
110 11.4 2.8 3.14 3090 2364
122.5 11.4 2.8 3.50 3441 2566
135 11.4 2.8 3.86 3792 2763
Table A. 5: E-Type series of vessels
L [m] B [m] d [m] D [m] Δ [t] mDWT [t]
78.75 15 2 2.15 2079 1592
91.25 15 2 2.15 2409 1851
97.5 15 2 2.15 2574 1981
103.75 15 2 2.15 2739 2112
110 15 2 2.15 2904 2243
122.5 15 2 2.15 3234 2506
135 15 2 2.15 3564 2772

View publication statsView publication stats