Assessment of Hull and Propeller Degradation Due to Biofouling Using Tree-Based Models
Source abstract
Abstract
A hull and propeller biofouling assessment framework is presented and demonstrated using a bulk carrier as a case study corresponding to an operational period of two and a half years. The aim is to support the decision-making process for optimizing maintenance related to hull and propeller cleaning actions. For the degradation assessment, an appropriate key performance indicator is defined comparing the expected shaft power required with the measured power under the same operational conditions. The power prediction models are data-driven based on machine learning algorithms. The process includes feature engineering, filtering, and data smoothing, while an evaluation of regression algorithms of the decision tree family is performed. The extra trees algorithm was selected, presenting a mean absolute percentage error of 1.1%. The analysis incorporates two prediction models corresponding to two different approaches. In the first, the model is employed as a reference performance baseline representing the clean vessel. When applied to a dataset reflecting advanced stages of biofouling, an average power increase of 11.3% is predicted. In the second approach, the model entails a temporal feature enabling the examination of scenarios at different points in time. Considering synthetic data corresponding to 300 days since hull cleaning, it was derived that the fouled vessel required an average 20.5% increase in power.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Maritime Transport Emissions and Efficiency · Marine Biology and Environmental Chemistry · Maritime Navigation and Safety
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 15780 Athens, Greece
SimFWD, 15232 Chalandri, Greece
Funding
European Union’s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Program
References (38)
Show source-provided references
1. IMO (2018). Initial IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships, International Maritime Organisation. Resolution MEPC.304.
2. IMO (2023). IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships, International Maritime Organization. Resolution MEPC.377(80).
3. Review of ship energy efficiency10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.111594 ↗
4. Andersson, K., Brynolf, S., Lindgren, J.F., and Wilewska-Bien, M. (2016). Energy efficiency and fuel changes to reduce environmental impacts. Shipping and the Environment: Improving Environmental Performance in Marine Transportation, Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-49045-7_12 ↗
5. State-of-the-art technologies, measures, and potential for reducing GHG emissions from shipping—A review10.1016/j.trd.2017.03.022 ↗
6. An Investigation into The Drag Increase on Roughen Surface due to Marine Fouling Growth
7. Four KPIs for the assessment of biofouling effect on ship performance10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107971 ↗
8. Arndt, E., Robinson, A., Hester, S., Woodham, B., Wilkinson, P., Gorgula, S., and Brooks, B. (2021). Factors That Influence Vessel Biofouling and Its Prevention and Management, Center of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis. Final Report for CEBRA Project 190803.
9. Time-dependent biofouling growth model for predicting the effects of biofouling on ship resistance and powering10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106432 ↗
10. (2016). Ships and Marine Technology—Measurement of Changes in Hull and Propeller Performance (Standard No. ISO 19030).
11. Data-driven modelling of ship propulsion and the effect of data pre-processing on the prediction of ship fuel consumption and speed loss10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.108616 ↗
12. Spandonidis, C., and Paraskevopoulos, D. (2023). Evaluation of a Deep Learning-Based Index for Prognosis of a Vessel’s Propeller-Hull Degradation. Sensors, 23.10.3390/s23218956 ↗
13. Numerical methods for monitoring and evaluating the biofouling state and effects on vessels’ hull and propeller performance: A review10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.110883 ↗
14. Comparison of supervised machine learning methods to predict ship propulsion power at sea10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.110387 ↗
15. Machine learning approach to ship fuel consumption: A case of container vessel10.1016/j.trd.2020.102389 ↗
16. Kim, Y.R., Jung, M., and Park, J.B. (2021). Development of a fuel consumption prediction model based on machine learning using ship in-service data. J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 9.10.3390/jmse9020137 ↗
17. Examining the performance of retrofit measures in real ship operation using data-driven models10.1080/09377255.2022.2109327 ↗
18. A deep learning method for the prediction of ship fuel consumption in real operational conditions10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107425 ↗
19. Ma, Y., Zhao, Y., Yu, J., Zhou, J., and Kuang, H. (2023). An Interpretable Gray Box Model for Ship Fuel Consumption Prediction Based on the SHAP Framework. J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 11.10.3390/jmse11051059 ↗
20. A novel, data-driven heuristic framework for vessel weather routing10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106887 ↗
21. The development of a ship performance model in varying operating conditions based on ANN and regression techniques10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.106972 ↗
22. Machine learning for shaft power prediction and analysis of fouling related performance deterioration10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.108886 ↗
23. Huang, G., Liu, Y., Xin, J., and Bao, T. (2024). Assessment of Hull and Propeller Performance Degradation Based on TSO-GA-LSTM. J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 12.10.3390/jmse12081263 ↗
24. Interpretable, data-driven models for predicting shaft power, fuel consumption, and speed considering the effects of hull fouling and weather conditions10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2024.100592 ↗
25. Using a ship’s propeller for Hull condition monitoring
26. Measuring and testing dependence by correlation of distances
27. On wave–current interaction in deep and finite water depths10.1007/s40722-023-00278-x ↗
28. Pedersen, B.P., and Larsen, J. (2009, January 21–24). Modeling of ship propulsion performance. Proceedings of the World Maritime Technology Conference WMTC 2009, Mumbai, India.
29. Data-driven ship digital twin for estimating the speed loss caused by the marine fouling10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.05.045 ↗
30. Themelis, N., Nikolaidis, G., Zagkas, V., and Tsoulakos, N. (2023, January 14–15). Operational data analysis to aid the optimization of Retrofit solutions within the RETROFIT55 framework. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Marine Technology, Palaio Faliro, Greece.
31. Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Stone, C.J., and Olshen, R.A. (1984). Classification and Regression Trees, Chapman and Hall.
32. Random Forests10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
33. Extremely randomized trees10.1007/s10994-006-6226-1 ↗
34. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine10.1214/aos/1013203451 ↗
35. Machine learning models for predicting ship main engine Fuel Oil Consumption: A comparative study10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106282 ↗
36. The Use of Ranks to Avoid the Assumption of Normality Implicit in the Analysis of Variance10.1080/01621459.1937.10503522 ↗
37. Individual comparisons by ranking methods10.2307/3001968 ↗
38. Theodoropoulos, P., Spandonidis, C.C., Themelis, N., Giordamlis, C., and Fassois, S. (2021). Evaluation of different deep learning models for the prediction of a ship’s propulsion power. J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 9.10.3390/jmse9020116 ↗