Performance Monitoring and Analysis For Operational Improvements

Monohakobi
Technology Institute
Performance Monitoring and Analysis

for Operational Improvements
International Conference on Ship Efficiency
26-27 September 2011, Hamburg
Hideyuki Ando
MTI, NYK Group
Copyright 2006
Monohakobi Technology
Institute
Copyright
2011
Monohakobi Technology Institute
Monohakobi
Outline
1. Background
2. Performance monitoring and data collection

3. Performance monitoring tool
4. Performance analysis
5. Examples
6. Concluding remarks
2
Performance Monitoring and Analysis for Operational Improvements, Hideyuki Ando, MTI, NYK Group
International Conference on Ship Efficiency 2011, 26-27 Sep 2011 in Hamburg by STG
Monohakobi
1. Background
Monohakobi
1. Background
1-1. GHG emissions regulations
SEEMP (Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan)

MEPC 62 adopted revisions of MARPOL Annex VI introducing EEDI and SEEMP
Entry into force date: 1 January 2013
Operational measures
EEOI trend
6
weather routing
hull and propeller maintenance

.
Plan
Do
Check
Act
EEOI [g/ton-mile]
slow steaming
4
3
2
1
0
Continuous monitoring &

improvement
Voy. 1
Voy. 2
Voy. 3
Voy. 4
Voy. 5
Voy. 6
Voyage number
Voy. 7
Voy. 8
Monohakobi
1. Background
1-2. Shipping companies efforts for fuel saving

According to increased cost of bunker, shipping companies have
made efforts for fuel saving by operational and technical measures
Slow steaming
Weather routing
Performance monitoring
Applying energy saving devices
Cost benefit and emission reduction by slow steaming
e.g. 8,000 TEU container
Slow steaming
Ship speed
24 knot
20 knot
M/E fuel
consumption
225 ton/day
130 ton/day
M/E fuel cost

(@ 600 USD/MT)
134,800 USD/day
78,000 USD/day
CO2 emission
696 ton/day
403 ton/day
- 16 %
- 42 %
Monohakobi
1. Background
1-3. Example of actual fuel consumption

- same service and same size of vessel
Comparison of total fuel consumption per voyage
Same ship size and same voyage
7,000
Fuel Consumption [MT]
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
A -1
B-1
C-1
D-1
E-1
F-1
G-1
A-2
B-2
C-2
D-2
F-2
G-2
Vessel - Voyage
Total fuel consumption per voyage largely differs -> Why ?

6
Monohakobi
1. Background
1-4. Base performance + additional factors

Break down analysis is necessary to identify cause of fuel
consumption
Effect of distance increase
Effect of speed allocation
Total FOC
Effect of speed increase

Effect of weather
Generator use
Analysis
and
identify
Effect of ship hull condition

Effect of draft and trim
Ship base performance
Monohakobi
2. Performance monitoring and
data collection

data collection
Monohakobi
2-1. How can we improve operation ?

Monitoring
Ship
Fleet
Action for
Improvement
Cycle of Operation
Improvement
Ship
Analysis and
Evaluation
Performance
Monitoring
is the
key function
Monitoring and Analysis
for Operational
Improvements, Hideyuki Ando, MTI, NYK Group
International
Conference
on Ship Efficiency 2011,
26-27action
Sep 2011 in Hamburg
by STG
- Basis
of evaluation
and
planning

data collection
Monohakobi
2-2. Performance monitoring for right awareness

Monitoring
target
Awareness
Decision making
Action
Performance
monitoring
If awareness is wrong, decision making and action will be wrong

What is necessary for right awareness
Provide correct and necessary information in right time
10

data collection
Monohakobi
2-3 Monitor ship performance

- Every 1 hour data is necessary for right awareness
Existing data collection approaches

Manual reporting (every 24 hrs)
Automatic data collection (sampling
can be every 1 sec)
Every 1 hour data give detail

information about performance
Speed increasing profile and effect of
current can be seen in the 1 hour
interval graph.
Data interval comparison

red: OG speed, black: log speed
Ship type: VLCC
time (hour)
Data interval: 24 hours
Manual logging is inherently difficult

for OG and wind.
Values of OG speed and wind are
changing rapidly. Better to rely on
computer power.
time (hour)
Data interval: 1 hour

11
Monohakobi

data collection
2-4. Automatic data collection onboard
Flow meter
Requirements
Interface to existing onboard

equipment, such as engine D/L,
ECDIS, VDR, flow meter and etc.
Automatic data processing and
transferring to shore
Least additional load on crews
FUELNAVI
High reliability 24 hrs, 365

days work
Lower cost of implementation

Flexibility of customization
12
Monohakobi
13
Monohakobi
3-2. Onboard performance monitoring

FUELNAVI
Real time performance indicator in
bridge
Performance index
OG speed / fuel consumption
[NM/MT]
Fuel consumption [MT/day]
Trip meter function for onboard

performance trial
Energy efficiency evaluation
15
FUELNAVI
Monohakobi
3-3. Performance monitoring at shore

Comparison plan with actual
Speed
RPM
Buffer time (speed margin)
M/E load
RPM
fuel consumption
Buffer time limit (plan)
OG Speed (plan)
OG Speed (actual)
Buffer time (actual)
FOC
16
Monohakobi
3-4. Performance monitoring by weather routing provider

Monitoring data is also
sent to weather routing
provider
Comparison between
voyage plan and actual
Ship performance (rpm,
speed, fuel consumption)
Weather condition (wind
and ship motion)
Corrective action
Update voyage
recommendation
17
(part of voyage plan sheet)
Monohakobi
3-5. Performance analysis report
Help action planning for

operation improvement and
information sharing between
operators and vessels
Consists of 10 pages
Summary of voyage data
Analysis of FOC increase causes
Comparison with the other
vessel record
Evaluation of weather routeing
Advice for fuel saving
18
Monohakobi
19
Monohakobi
4-1. Voyage overview

Overview how vessel operated from departure port to arrival port
Higher M/E
load
Optimum M/E load
M/E load
Slip as weather index
Encounter rough sea

20
Time [day]
Drifting
M/E LOAD[%], Slip[%]
Speed [knot]
Speed (log, SOG)
M/E REVOLUTION[RPM]
M/E RPM
Monohakobi
4-3. Quantify and evaluate FOC increase factors

Compare each FOC increase factors with past record
300.0
250.0
Voy. 45
200.0
average
148.4
150.0
100.0
77.5
47.1
50.0
10.5
27.8
32.9 35.7
15.4
0.0
Distance
22
Speed
Weather
Optimum
Load
Speed
allocation
Monohakobi
4-4. Identify base performance from collected data

Oakland to Tokyo 10 days leg
Data interval : 1 hour (about 240 data)
120
Less than
Beaufort 2
100
FOC (ton/day)
140
160
180
All data
60
80
Less than
2pitch
16
23
18
20
22
24
Performance Monitoring
and
Analysis for Operational Improvements, Hideyuki Ando, MTI, NYK Group
LOG
SPEED(knot)
Monohakobi
4-5. Identify FOC increase by weather
24
Monohakobi
4-7. Review of weather routing
Vessel Position
Longer voyage distance causes large FOC increase

Requires speed up to keep schedule
Review of weather routing and discussion with its provider

26
Monohakobi
4-8. Coaching comments for corrective action planning

Coaching comments for fuel saving are attached
It helps understanding data and supports corrective actions of parties who
concern
Example
Total FOC was 950 tons, which is the second largest value among past records.
The main cause of FOC increase is 500 miles longer distance than plan, which
caused 80 tons FOC increase.
But FOC was saved 100 tons by reducing speed, schedule changed in advance.
27
Monohakobi
5. Examples
28
Monohakobi
5. Examples
5-1. Share good practice

Vessel A
Vessel B
1 day
RPM
SPEED
M/E LOAD
not good example
good example
Share good practice between operators and vessels

Keep averaged engine load until end of voyage
29
Monohakobi
5. Examples
5-2. Example of operation improvement (1)
Slow down
30
VOY.45
VOY.46
VOY.47
VOY.48
There is 12 knot speed restriction area within 40 miles from a port

Slow down too early timing was observed
Approach to port was advised to captain and improved in the following voyage
Monohakobi
5. Examples
30
100
25
80
20
60
15
40
10
20
M/E REVOLUTION [RPM], M/E LOAD[%] ,

slip [%]
Vs (OG,log speed) [knot]
5-3. Example of operation improvement (2)
Speed (log) [knot]

Speed (OG) [knot]
-20
1
25
49
73
97
121
145
169
193
217
241
265
Time [hour]
31
RPM
M/E Load [%]
slip [%]
Optimum M/E Load
After T/C cut, the M/E can be continuously operated under 50%
However, there was a case that a C/E was still combining 10% low load and
higher M/E load to operate shaft generator instead of diesel generator.
This operation was less energy efficient in terms of total optimization and
operation rule was changed after discussion.
Monohakobi
6. Concluding remarks
32
Monohakobi
6. Concluding Remarks
Another reason for automatic data collection

- Feedback to Weather Routing Provider
Weather RoutingPLAN
MonitoringCHECK
Voyage plan
Voyage actual
+ course, speed, rpm, FOC, weather

+ ship performance model
+ actual speed rpm

Feedback
+ actual weather
Ship model and weather forecast are inherently include errors.

But feedback loop by monitoring can make this system work.
34
Monohakobi
6. Concluding Remarks
Concluding remarks
For further improvement of ship energy efficiency in operation,
detail information by using automatic data collection and analysis
are necessary
There are several feedback loops for operation performance
improvement. Providing right awareness to them is necessary.
Especially the combination between weather routing and

performance monitoring is important and it is our next things to do
It is organizational improvement process for energy efficient fleet
operation. This direction will be in line with coming SEEMP
35
To Achieve Best Balance of Safety, Economy and Environment
Monohakobi
September 2011 rev.5
Roadmap of performance monitoring

CO2 minimize
Weather Routing
for Safety
Best balance S.E.E.
SEEMP package
Voyage planning
Monitoring
Evaluation and action
NYK e-Missions
2009 -
Optimum Fleet Management

C/B maximize with weather routing
and monitoring
Minimum emissions with SEEMP
Safety management at rough sea
2012 -
Optimum Weather Routing
2014 -
Safety + Economy + Schedule

2009 -
Broadband
Network
Real time Weather Routing

& Monitoring
Real time communication
Precise ship performance model
Onboard sea-keeping simulation
Weather Routing
& SIMS Monitoring
Onboard Weather
Routing Trial
2012 -
2010 -
2005 - 2006
Wave
Sensor
Accurate Performance Monitoring
and feedback to Ship Design
Now
Performance Monitoring
2010 -
Fuel Consumption
Monitor FUELNAVI
2007 - 2008
Fleet Monitoring
Ship
Monitoring
SIMS
2008 -
2009 -
Technical Performance
Analysis
Ship appendages
Paint
M/E governor
New design propeller
2008 -
Electronic Ablog
SPAS
2006 -
36
Smart Ship 2014 -
Minimize emissions
Integration of navigation
equipment and weather routing
Automatic performance model
identification
Accurate wave and wind measurement

Accurate torque and thrust measurement
Accurate log speed measurement
Accurate fuel consumption measurement
Ship performance model
2012 -
EEDI
validation
Performance Validation of
Low Emission Machineries
Hybrid Turbo Charger

Battery (Giga Cell)
Performance Monitoring and Analysis for Operational Improvements, Hideyuki
Ando, MTI, NYK Group
W.H.R
International Conference on Ship Efficiency 2011, 26-27 Sep 2011 in Hamburg by2011
STG
Feedback to
Shipyards &
new design
Monohakobi
Thank you very much for your attention
37

Performance Monitoring and Analysis For Operational Improvements

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Monitoring and Analysis For Operational Improvements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Monohakobi

Performance Monitoring and Analysis

2. Performance monitoring and data collection

1-1. GHG emissions regulations

SEEMP (Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan)

Entry into force date: 1 January 2013

hull and propeller maintenance

Continuous monitoring &

1-2. Shipping companies efforts for fuel saving

M/E fuel cost

1-3. Example of actual fuel consumption

Fuel Consumption [MT]

Total fuel consumption per voyage largely differs -> Why ?

1-4. Base performance + additional factors

Effect of speed increase

Effect of ship hull condition

2. Performance monitoring and

2. Performance monitoring and

2-1. How can we improve operation ?

2. Performance monitoring and

2-2. Performance monitoring for right awareness

If awareness is wrong, decision making and action will be wrong

2. Performance monitoring and

2-3 Monitor ship performance

Existing data collection approaches

Every 1 hour data give detail

Data interval comparison

Data interval: 24 hours

Manual logging is inherently difficult

Data interval: 1 hour

2. Performance monitoring and

2-4. Automatic data collection onboard

Interface to existing onboard

High reliability 24 hrs, 365

Lower cost of implementation

3. Performance monitoring tool

3. Performance monitoring tool

3-2. Onboard performance monitoring

Trip meter function for onboard

3. Performance monitoring tool

3-3. Performance monitoring at shore

3. Performance monitoring tool

3-4. Performance monitoring by weather routing provider

(part of voyage plan sheet)

3. Performance monitoring tool

3-5. Performance analysis report

Help action planning for

4-1. Voyage overview

Optimum M/E load

Slip as weather index

Encounter rough sea

M/E LOAD[%], Slip[%]

Speed (log, SOG)

4-3. Quantify and evaluate FOC increase factors

4-4. Identify base performance from collected data

4-5. Identify FOC increase by weather

4-7. Review of weather routing

Longer voyage distance causes large FOC increase

Review of weather routing and discussion with its provider

4-8. Coaching comments for corrective action planning

5-1. Share good practice

not good example

Share good practice between operators and vessels