See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301418778

Current and Future Tendency of Monitoring Technology for Integrity

Assessment and Life Extension of the Hull Structure of Floating Production,
Storage and Offloading (FPSO) Vessel

Conference Paper · May 2015

DOI: 10.1115/OMAE2015-41020

CITATIONS READS

0 242

1 author:

Shan Guan
Det Norske Veritas
35 PUBLICATIONS   212 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Magnetic MEMS View project

KODAK PRINTING View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shan Guan on 12 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DRAFT Proceedings of the ASME 2015 34th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
May 31-June 5, 2015, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada
CURRENT AND FUTURE TENDENCY OF MONITORING TECHNOLOGY FOR
INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT AND LIFE EXTENSION OF THE HULL STRUCTURE OF
FLOATING PRODUCTION, STORAGE AND OFFLOADING (FPSO) VESSEL
Shan Guan
Strategic Research & Innovation, DNV-GL
Dublin OH, 43017 US
ABSTRACT
This paper critically reviewed commercially available hull
stress monitoring systems (HSM) and summarized notations for
vessels with hull stress monitoring systems from major
classification societies. The authors recommended that, for
every FPSO vessel, at least one HSM should be equipped in
compliance with regulation from the International Maritime
Organization. Additionally, sixteen types of sensing
technologies were identified for monitoring of FPSO Vessel.
Depending on the technology matureness and readiness for
application in marine structures, they were categorized into
three groups: Proven, Un-Proven and State-of–the-art
technology. Furthermore, challenges associated with FPSO
hull monitoring including Sensor Systems, Communication and
Data Analysis techniques were examined. It is concluded that
multiple sensing technologies should be systematically
combined to provide more accurate information. Based on
these discussions, a feasible solution that integrates proper
wireless sensor network technology and Bayesian Network
modeling was proposed as the future direction of FPSO hull
monitoring system.
INTRODUCTION
The floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO)
vessel is used extensively for the purpose of processing and
storage of oil from the oil rigs in the middle of the ocean and in
the high seas. As reported, more than 247 FPSO and 90 FSO
vessels are currently in service worldwide [1]. However, FPSO
is particularly prone to corrosion and corrosion-induced
structural degradation (strength and fatigue) because of the
saline marine environment, the continuous loading and
offloading, and variable wave-induced loads. Additionally
FPSOs are usually converted from aging single-hull oil tankers,
OMAE2015
OMAE2015-41020
which makes them more susceptible to structural failure. Hence,
to assure the structural integrity and safe operation, these
vessels must be inspected periodically, and ideally continuously
monitored in real-time. Nowadays, Hull Monitoring Systems
containing strain gauges and accelerometers have been widely
installed on ships for safety assurance [2]. However, for FPSOs
it is expected to stay on station for life without dry docking the
vessel. Any maintenance, unplanned maintenance or repair, will
be very costly especially if there is an associated loss of
production. As a result, the current commercial HMS cannot
meet these requirements, and it is essential to develop a robust
integrity management process where effective use of monitoring
should be incorporated with goals for continuous safe operation
of hull structures, prevention of impact to environments, and
maximizing asset value to be reached.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Commercially Available Ship Hull Monitoring Systems
Hull Monitoring System (HMS) or Hull Response
Monitoring System (HRMS) measures and displays ship
motions and hull structural responses in real time to ensure safe
operation of ships. As summarized by Slaughter et al., the
complementary goals for an HMS include [2]:
Reduce the risk of encountering dangerous environment
and situations;
Alert and warn the ship operators to the onset and severity
of those conditions;
Provide ship handling guidance to avoid mitigate their
effects.
HMS has become an important safety assurance for modern
shipping industry. As early as 1994, the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) had recommended that all bulk carriers
1 Copyright © 20xx by ASME
over 20,000 deadweight tons should be equipped with hull
stress monitoring systems. Maritime and Coastguard Agency
(MCA) supported IMO’s recommendations, also adding that
consideration should be given to fitting such systems to other
types of ship [3]. Based on a survey conducted in the early of
2000, there were at least 11 active manufacturers of HMS, and
today there are even more choices to choose [2]. Through an
incomplete survey using the internet, at least 15 active providers
of HMS were identified. Table 1 is a list of their names along
with the associated products. Compared to the survey that
Slaughter et al. did in 2000, many HSM providers were
different. The reasons include that some of them were acquired
by others, switched their focus of business or went out of
business. As shown in Table 1, a majority of the HMS
providers are located in Europe such as Norway, Finland, and
the United Kingdom, while many others are based in East Asia
such as South Korea and Singapore. Regardless of the
manufacture, a useful HSM system should contain at least the
following components: Sensors, Microprocessors, Visual
Displays, and Data Storage. Also the HMS provider needs
deliver system verification, approval and the necessary
trainings.
Most major ship-classification companies such as ABS,
DNV GL, and Lloyd’s Register offer HMS guides and
classification notations. Although the main content and
directions of these guides are similar, there are however, minor
technical variations. In order to be certified, the ship owners
should consulted with their own classification companies before
installing a hull stress monitoring system. Table 2 details some
of the notations from major classification societies for vessels
equipped with HSM systems. The early forms of HMS were
almost exclusively focused on the hull stress monitoring,
including measuring, recording, and analyzing hull stresses in
conjunction with other ship motion, navigational, and
performance data. For the hull stress monitoring, the sensor
systems include long-based strain gauges for strain
measurements that were typically placed at different positions
along the ship’s length on the main deck. One accelerometer
was placed at the bow for measuring vertical accelerations and
two accelerometers were used for measuring rolling and
swaying, suitably located at the center line of the ship. Figure 1
shows the basic sensor arrangement for measuring the hull
stress [4]. Leading manufactures that offer these types of basic
HSM systems include MACSEA, BMT-Sea Tech, StrainStall,
MCA Consultants, CPE Systems, and Sea Structure Technology.
Besides stress analysis, the latest version of hull monitoring
system added real time analysis of hull fatigue, ship motion and
sea state. The data communication can be realized either using
a LAN network or through wireless communication. For
example, the HULLMOS® monitoring system co-developed by
four European companies and one research institute has the
capability of continuously monitoring the hull stress, motion
fluctuations and wave height around the ship. HULLMOS®
consists of four modules of Strain Analysis, Fatigue Analysis,
Vessel Motion and Wave Field Analysis. These four modules
act independently and are connected through a LAN network
for data communication and real-time analysis. [5]
Figure 1. An example of typical sensors arrangement for a
hull stress monitoring system [4].
MCA Consultants Inc. marketed a hull monitoring system
that activated with wireless, radio-linked data transmission to
the deck-house. The HMS can continuously display animated
and real-time operating status such as accelerations, deck stress,
bow pressure, wind and wave velocities, speed, and slam
probability. In addition, GPS, power consumption, historical
status and terminal status can be displayed in separate windows
[6].
Some modern hull monitoring systems also utilize state-of-
the-art sensors such as fiber optic sensors. Light Structures AS.,
a Norwegian company, offers a hull stress monitoring system
that integrated fiber optic sensors for measuring such as strain,
temperature and acceleration. Compared to mechanical sensors,
fiber optic sensors have advantages including direct strain
measurement with low noise, longer life, and tolerance for the
cold environment. However, disadvantages of the hull
monitoring system incorporated with fiber optic sensors are
higher cost, a complex and expensive detection system, a
precise installation procedure to follow and unfamiliarity to
many end-users [7]. Nevertheless, Light Structures’ SENSFIB
hull monitoring system has proven to be successful and can be
configured for several classes including DNV GL’s HMON,
Lloyds Register’s ShipRight SEA, ABS’s HM1, HM2, and +R,
as well as Bureau VERITAS’s MON-HULL. So far, over 100
Light Structures HMS have been installed on LNGCs, FPSOs,
VLCCs, shuttle tankers, container, high-speed and naval
vessels.
Table 1. A SURVEY OF COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE
HULL MONITORING SYSTEMS PROVIDERS
Company Products
Name
MCA Consultants Inc. Hull Monitoring System
BMT Scientific Vessel Structural Monitoring
Marine Services System
2 Copyright © 20xx by ASME
 for later evaluation
MACSEA Ltd. Hull Medic™ Lloyd’s Register of
Hull & Propeller ShipRight-SEA (Hss-n, optional extensions).
Shipping
Condition Monitoring The extension -n signifies the number of
Light Structures AS Fiber Optics strain gauges connected to the system.
Hull Monitoring System VDR An interface with the ship’s voyage data
Automasjon and Hull Stress recorder system to enable the recording of hull
Data AS Monitoring System stress, ship motion and hull pressure information
Korean Register of Rules for Classification of Steel Ships (2008),
Rouvari Oy HULLMOS®
Shipping Pt. 9: Additional Installations,
Hull Stress Monitoring
SAJ Hull Flex Ch. 6: Hull
Instrument AB Ltd Monitoring System Monitoring Systems
Nippon Kaiji Kyokai Rules for Hull Monitoring Systems
MPT Consultancy SENSFIB Fiber Optic
(valid at the date 07/2008)
Hull Stress Monitoring System

StrainStall Marine Hull Stress

Monitoring (Stress Alert)
BEN Marine SafenavTM Available FPSO Hull Monitoring Technology
Hull Monitoring System The fundamental component for a ship hull monitoring
system is the sensor. Careful selection of sensors based on their
SMARTEC SA Hull/Vessels Structural application, accuracy, reliability, and cost is critical to ensure
Monitoring system
CPE Systems Hull Stress
that a HMS system can provide useful information while being
Monitoring System still affordable. In term of technology matureness and readiness
for application in marine structures, especially applicability to
Korea Marine Hull Stress FPSO vessels, the sensors identified in this paper can be
Technology Co., Ltd. Monitoring System
divided into three different groups of proven, un-proven and
Sea Structure Hull Stress state-of-the-art technologies (Table 3). Proven monitoring
Technology Co., Ltd Monitoring System, Naviscan technology accepted for ship hull monitoring include Strain
Gauge (short and long baseline strain gauges), Accelerometer,
Global Maritime HULLFIB – Fiber Optic
Pressure Sensor, Ultrasonic Testing (UT), and 3-D Laser
Engineering , Inc. Hull Stress Monitoring System
(GME) STREMOS - Hull Stress Scanning/Photogrammetry/Fiber Optics. Un-proven
Monitoring System technologies are monitoring technology adopted by other
industries however need approval for marine applications (in
AMI Maritime Pte Ltd SMART hull stress term of class acceptance). Those identified are Acoustic
(AMI Marine Ltd) and performance
monitoring system Resonance Testing (ART), Acoustic Emission Testing (AET),
Guided Wave Testing (GWT), Remotely Operated Vehicle
KDU WORLDWIDE Fiber Optical Hull Stress (ROV), Thermography, and Sensor Networks (including
TECHNICAL SERVICES Monitoring System Wireless Sensor Networks, WSN). State-of-the-art technology
Totem Plus Ltd. Hull Stress
has potential for the ship hull monitoring application but
Monitoring (HSM) requires further technology development. Those technologies
included in Table 3 are MEMS (Micro-Electro-Mechanical
Systems) Accelerometer, MEMS Pressure Sensor, Ice Accretion
Table 2. NOTATIONS FOR VESSELS WITH HULL Sensor, Smart Coatings, and Smart Dust.
STRESS MONITORING SYSTEMS FROM MAJOR
CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES
Classification HMS Classification Table 3. SENSORS FOR MONITORING SHIP HULL
Society Notation Rules STRUCTUR OF FPSO UNIT
DNV-GL HMON (A):
where within the brackets there is a letter of Sensor Type Monitoring Type Maturity in Maritime
A, C, D, E, G, H, L, M, N, O, P, S, T, W
which denotes different sensors Strain Gauges Strain Proven
and data communications. (short and long baseline
Bureau Veritas MON-HULL strain gauges)
American Bureau of HM1: Motion Monitoring Accelerometers Acceleration Proven
Shipping (ABS) HM2: Stress Monitoring 3-D Laser Scanning Optical Proven
HM3: Voyage Data Recording
+R: Provision for data recording Photogrammetry Optical Proven

3 Copyright © 20xx by ASME

Fiber Optic Optical Proven information to the ship owners. But additional approaches are
necessary to solve the problems and eliminate the defects. The
Pressure Sensors Pressure Proven
last group of monitoring technology can be extended to provide
Conventional Sound Proven some types of preventing functions. For example, some types
Ultrasonic Testing (UT) of smart coatings are able to self-heal to prevent the substrate
Acoustic Resonance Sound Un-Proven materials from further corrosion attacks [8]. The challenge is
Testing (ART) that most of these technologies are still under research and
Acoustic Emission Sound Un-Proven development. Before applying any of these technologies,
Testing (AET) carefully planned lab tests plus field verifications should be
Guided Wave Testing Sound Un-Proven performed. Table 4 is a summary of monitoring technologies
(GWT) based on their functionalities.
Remotely Operated Optical, Electrical, Un-Proven
Vehicle (ROV) 5 Table 4. MONITORING TECHNOLOGY BASED ON
Sound FUNCTIONALITIES OF SENSORS
Thermography Temperature Un-Proven Monitoring Monitoring Note
1
Mechanism Technology
Sensor Networks Varies Un-Proven Continuously
Monitoring Strain Gauges,
(including Wireless Accelerometers
Sensor Networks) (MEMS and
MEMS Accelerometers Acceleration State-of-the-art Conventional), Pressure
Sensors
MEMS Pressure sensors Pressure State-of-the-art (MEMS and
conventional), Optic
Ice Accretion Sensor Sound, Capacitance State-of-the-art Sensors,
Smart Coatings Color State-of-the-art Ice Accretion Sensors
and Smart Dust.
Smart Dust Electrical State-of-the-art
Periodic *depends on the
Inspection Ultrasonic Testing, Sensors it carries.
Photogrammetry/
3-D Laser Scanning,
Acoustic Resonance
Challenges with Current Monitoring Systems Testing,
In general, challenges for an effective monitoring system Acoustic Emission
Testing, Guided Wave
come from three areas: Sensor Systems, Communication, and Testing,
Data Analysis. Thermography,
Of the 16 types FPOS hull morning technologies, some *Remotely Operated
can continuously monitor the hull structures. Sensors fit into Vehicle.
this category are mainly physical sensors such as strain gauges, Preventive Smart Coatings, *depends on the
accelerometers, pressure sensors and optical sensors. They have Monitoring *Sensors Networks type of monitoring
been successfully applied to the commercially available hull motes.
stress monitoring (HSM) systems [2]. Another group of
monitoring technology is only suitable for inspection of ship
hull. For example, UT can be an effective technique to locate To date, most of the hull monitoring systems are still using
defects in either inner or external hull of FPSO. To use UT for cables for data transformation. This brings some limitations
an accurate inspection of inner hull, the stored oil needs to be since the installation and maintenance of cables can be time
emptied and hull walls cleaned. For the inspection of external consuming. In addition, certain locations on the ship are not
hull, the UT set-up can be carried using a Remotely Operated suitable for installation of cables. Especially for large vessels
Vehicle. Both processes are time consuming and labor intense such as the FPSO, cables may need to travel a long distance to
that can take weeks to finish. Thus, it is almost impossible to be connected to a data processing unit (typically is the computer
perform these inspections in a relatively short time interval. for control). For example, a wired strain gauge needs two or
However, the conditions of the vessel can change greatly during four wire-leads to pick up the signal. In some cases, the sensors
the two inspections. In fact, these technologies will be more and wire-leads have to be heavily shielded to minimize
useful to locate the hidden defects from FPSO, either new-built electromagnetic interference (EMI). Then each sensor needs a
or converted from an old vessel, before being put into service. pre-amplifier with two more wire-leads required for amplifier
The first two groups of monitoring technologies are based on and power source. These limitations make current technologies
passive monitoring mechanism. They can be used to accurately intrusive, heavy, and susceptible to EMI, complicated and with
locate the defects and find problems, and then pass the many failure points. In other situations the sensor data can be

4 Copyright © 20xx by ASME

temporary saved in recording media such as a portable hard
drive and manually transferred when needed. This is the
common practice for the pressure sensors installed on a ship.
However, this method greatly limited the opportunity of real-
time data analysis. Furthermore, this method does not fit for
monitoring those hard to access areas since obtaining the data
storage media itself can be a difficult task [9]. Data
transformation through wireless communication has been
successfully tested and partially verified on several ships. It is
the preferred communication technique for monitoring naval
vessels because it can potentially offer a non-intrusive
technique with EMI resistance and has minimal wiring. The
challenge with wireless communication is the high power
consumed, which is likely to be a serious issue if sensors were
powered using batteries. Although this can be partially
compensated by using MEMS-based sensors, some types of
energy harvesting techniques may be needed for a reliable
wireless monitoring system.
No sensors can be 100% accurate, and thus modeling
tools are necessary to discard useless information and extract
meaning out of the useful data. It is equally important to
interpret the results in a way that is easy to understand.
Visualization through visual imagery has been regarded as an
effective way to communicate both abstract and detailed
analysis [10]. For the task of ship hull monitoring, several data
visualization and analysis software such as Google Earth,
Quantum GIS (QGIS), Gephi, Visualization Toolkit may be
selected from with the ability of translating the modeling results
to images, diagrams, or animations to communicate the status of
hull structure to ship owner.
A Potential Solution
An ideal technique for ship hull monitoring should possess
the features of simplicity, reliability, scalability and
affordability. Recent development of less expensive hardware
has enabled economical implementation of wireless sensor
networks. As mentioned, the cost for building a state-of-the-art
WSN is now about $50 to $100 per mote, which should be
affordable to most of the ship owners [11]. This has made
wireless monitoring network a viable solution for ship hull
monitoring. Based on these considerations, a distributed
network of sensors for real-time monitoring of FPSO hull
structures were proposed. Figure 2 illustrated the concept of
such a wireless sensor network, which can provide time-
relevant developments information to the ship owner and crew
members for real-time ship hull monitoring [12]. Wireless
sensor network can measure the conditions of ship hull more
accurately because it has the capability not only be distributed
at a number of locations in an installation/system, but also
network autonomously. Data can be communicated
automatically to an internet-accessible location, enabling
experts to make judgments on system safety from wherever they
are located at any time.
A primary problem of current commercial HSM systems is
that they are mainly measuring the overall response of the ship,
such as the overall strain that ship endured during the loading
and unloading processes, or the overall wave-effect pressure
and stress put on the ship. While these HSM systems are really
important to ensure the integrity and safe operation of the ship,
their measurements are actually an “average”, and sometime
may not represent the localized stain/stress of the ship hull. The
latter however is normally responsible for the initiation of
cracks or fatigue. This is actually an issue with selection
between “Macro” and “Micro.” A possible solution is to install
more sensors to those areas with a higher risk of failure.
However, this brings two new challenges. One is the extra cost
for sensors placement and maintenance. The other one is how to
precisely determine the high risk locations for monitoring. This
issue could be solved by using MEMS sensors instead of
conventional sensors. MEMS sensors not only possess
advantages of smaller footprint, lower cost, better accuracy, but
also consume less energy which is extremely important for a
wireless sensor network. Furthermore, MEMS-based energy
harvesting has been proven as a very practical way to power up
a wireless MEMS sensor network. There are already several
approaches to harvest energy using solar cells, thermoelectric
generators, and piezoelectric devices [13, 14, and 15].
In this paper, we intend to use the hull pressure monitoring
as an example to explain the utilization of MEMS sensors. For
most of the hull monitoring systems approved by the major
classification societies, pressure sensor is not a mandated
component although many state-of-the–art systems include
pressure sensors such as a bow seawater pressure gauge.
Lloyd’s Register of Shipping (LR) also recommended that the
technical specifications for pressure sensors measuring the sea
water pressure on the ships are accuracy higher than 0.025 bar
and frequency range of 0 – 100 Hz. To monitor large areas
such as the hull of a FPSO vessel, pressure sensors/transducers
can play an important role for measuring localized stress
concentration which could lead to fatigue or crack. The stress
distribution on the hull of FPSO is not uniform due to its large
extended hull and the structural configuration. The strain/stress
measurements using long baseline strain gauges (LBSG) can
only reveal an average load on the ship hull, and often are far
from a reflection of actual stress distribution. Pressure sensors
can accurately monitor the local stress
distribution/variation/concentration. When used together with
certain types of modeling tools, the probability of a structural
failure due to localized stress concentration can be predicted
and will be useful for the life cycle management of the hull
structures. MEMS based pressure sensor is a better candidate
for localized pressure measurement since they are more suitable
for measuring dynamic pressure with a high speed, more
accurate. In addition, MEMS pressure sensors do not rely on a
high power input which is safer to use for monitoring of FPSO
hull structure. Similarly, the strategy of combining multiple
types of sensors especially using MEMS sensors for hotspots
measuring would apply for other types of FPSO hull condition
monitoring.
5 Copyright © 20xx by ASME
 For the data analysis and modeling tool, we propose using
a Bayesian network (BN) model to assess the failure probability
of ship hull and prioritize sensor placement. It is possible to use
Bayesian network models to establish a threshold for filtering
false information from the sensors because of the learning
capability it possesses. In addition, Bayesian network models
take into account dependencies among all variables and it
readily handles situations with incomplete data chosen for
several reasons [16]. Although it has become more and more
affordable to deploy a wireless sensor network for structure
health monitoring, considering the large hull area of FPSO, the
total cost may still be high. Therefore, there exists a need to
establish guidance on how to locate areas with higher
probability of failure. A higher density of sensors should be
placed at localities where the ship hull is at a significant higher
probability of failure. Additionally, to reduce the overall cost,
in practice the WSN can be deployed prioritily at those
locations with a higher threat of failure probability. Although
such arrangement will not completely eliminate the risk for the
entire system, it remains to be an effective method with much
less total cost. As a last step, the sensor data analyzed using a
calibrated Bayesian networks model can be visualized via data
visualization software that best fits the user needs.
In summary, we believe that a systematic combination of
MEMS and conventional sensors integratable with wireless
sensor network will become the most promising technique for
monitoring the structural integrity of an FPSO hull.
Figure 2. An illustration of an FPSO hull monitoring
system using wireless sensors network.
CONCULUTION
This paper critically reviewed the commercially available
hull stress monitoring (HSM) systems and summarized
notations for vessels with HSM systems from major
classification societies. To ensure structural integrity and safe
operation of FPSO vessel, the author recommended that, for
every FPSO vessel, at least one modern hull stress monitoring
(HSM) system should be equipped in compliance with
regulation from the International Maritime Organization.
Furthermore, to minimizing down time and maximizing asset
value, sixteen types of sensing technologies were identified for
FPSO hull monitoring. According to the technology matureness
and readiness, these technologies were divided into three groups
of Proven, Un-Proven and State-of-the-art technology for ship
hull monitoring. It is worthy pointing out that technologies
reviewed in this paper are not currently substitutes for
traditional class surveys and inspections, however in the future,
if proved to provide an equivalent level of safety, they can be
accepted by the Maritime industry as easier, less costly, more
reliable and less time consuming methods for assessing the
integrity of an FPSO vessel hull. Challenges associated with
FPSO hull monitoring including Sensor Systems,
Communication and Data Analysis were examined. It is
concluded that multiple sensing technologies should be
systematically combined to provide more accurate information.
MEMS sensors were identified to be especially useful for
hotspots monitoring due to their small footprints and low cost.
A feasible solution that integrates proper wireless sensor
network technology and Bayesian Network modeling was
proposed as the future direction of FPSO hull monitoring
system.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like thank Dr. Graeme Ripley and Dr.
Narasi Sridhar for their valuable inputs.
REFERENCES
1. “2009 Worldwide Survey of Floating Production,
Storage and Offloading (FPSO) Units,” Mustang Engineering,
August 2009.
2. S.B. Slaughter, M.C. Cheung, D. Sucharski, and B.
Cowper, “State of the Art in Hull Monitoring Systems,” SHIP
STRUCTURE COMMITTEE, 1997. Report #SSC-401.
3. Maritime and Coastguard Agency, “Marine Guidance
Note 108(M), Hull Stress Monitoring Systems,” 02-1999.
4. G. Sagvolden, “Hull Stress Monitoring System
(HSMS) / Advisory Monitoring Systems (AMS),” Presentation
from Light Structure AS.
5. HULLMOS,
http://www.eurekanetwork.org/c/document_library/get_file?uui
d=21e8fd94-ef46-405f-8b4e-018351253726&groupId=10137,
(Web. 28 March 2013).
6. MCA Consultants Inc., “Hull Monitoring System”,
http://www.mcaco.com/products/index.html, (Web. 28 March
2013).
7. S. Thakral, and P. Manhas, “Fiber Optic Sensors
Technology and Their Applications,” International Journal of
Electronics & Communication Technology, 2(2), 2011, p. 126-
127.
6 Copyright © 20xx by ASME
 8. W. Feng, S. H. Patel, M. Y. Young, and J. L. Zunino,
“Smart Polymeric Coatings—Recent Advances,” Advances in
Polymer Technology, 26(1), 2007, p. 1-13.
9. A. J. Seman, “Next Generation Navy Ship Automation
Systems Engineering from Sensors to Systems,” In Systems,
Man and Cybernetics, 2005 IEEE International Conference on,
p. 1218-1222.
10. C. Ware, Information Visualization: Perception for
Design, 3rd ed., Morgan Kaufmann Pub, 2012.
11. B. Aygün, and V. C. Gungor, “Wireless Sensor
Networks for Structure Health Monitoring: Recent Advances
and Future Research Directions,” Sensor Review, 31(3), 2011,
p. 261–276.
12. S. Guan, K. Hansen, F. Ayello, and N. Sridhar,
“Applications of MEMS Sensors and Opportunities for DNV,”
Det Norske Veritas Technical Report. 2012-9653, 2012.
13. J. Xie, L. Chengkuo, and H. Feng, “Design,
Fabrication, and Characterization of CMOS MEMS-Based
View publication stats
Thermoelectric Power Generators”, Journal of
Microelectromechanical Systems, 19(2), 2010, p: 317-324.
14. V. Leonov, P. Fiorini, S. Sedky, T. Torfs, and C. Van
Hoof, “Thermoelectric MEMS Generators as a Power Supply
for a Body Area Network”, Proc. of the 13th Int. Conf. On
Solid-State Sensors, Actuators and Microsystems, Leuven
Belgium, May 2005, p: 291-294.
15. T. Huesgen, P. Woias, and N. Kockmann, “Design and
Fabrication of MEMS Thermoelectric Generators with High
Temperature Efficiency”, Sensors and Actuators A: Physical,
145/146(7-8), 2008, p: 423-429.
16. I. Ben-Gal, Bayesian Networks, in F. Ruggeri, F.
Faltin, and R. Kenett, Bayesian Networks, Encyclopedia of
Statistics in Quality & Reliability, 1st ed., New York : Wiley &
Sons, 2008.
7 Copyright © 20xx by ASME