HANSA 05-2017

Schiffstechnik | Ship Technology
At recent HullPIC conference users and developers of hull performance
monitoring software discussed how to include the future technology to do
a more effective job. By Volker Bertram and Thomas Wägener
Volker Bertram (DNV GL),
co-organizer of the event, rates
the conference as a success. The
number of participants rose by 35%
compared to the premiere event last
year in Marorka, Italy, he says. At
this year’s HullPIC in Ulrichshusen,
Germany, about 110 international
maritime experts from all over the
world discussed how a ship’s hull
can be further improved. »The high
number of participants shows that
the topics that we talked about are
interesting for the maritime industry,«
Bertram reasons.
Many of the participants ccoming
from about 20 different countries
were from Scandinavia, but also
from the Netherlands, Asia, Singapore
and the USA. For nearly all of
them the network character of the
event was at least as important as the
topics that were discussed. For Søren
Hattel (Force Technology) it was interesting
to see »that other companies
have the same issues as us.« For
Bjarte Lund (Kyma) it was also good
to see »what the competitors are doing«.
Furthermore he points out the
great diversity of topics that were
discussed at HullPIC.
The conference ended with a forum
discussion that had – somewhat
cheekily – been given the title
»Operators and Developers – Galaxies
apart?« To make it short, the
answer to this question appears to
be »no«. On most points, the operator
representatives (Rory Kennedy
from cruise ship operator Royal Caribbean
and Mike Servos from Tsakos
Columbia Shipmanagement, operating
oil tankers, bulkers and containerships)
agreed with the developer
representatives (Manolis Levantis
of Jotun using a simulation-based
approach and Matti Antola from
Eniram using a machine-learning
approach). Moderator Michael vom
Baur (HANSA) tried to sound out
differences using pointed remarks,
but the panelists just wouldn’t bite
– they remained true to the atmosphere
of HullPIC where sober assessment
of factual diffculties
was the rule leaving little space for
catch phrasing. Still, a clearer picture
evolved and also the forum was
unanimously seen as a success.
The forum discussed first the key
question that was on the mind of
probably most of the HullPIC participants:
Where are we with ISO
19030? More specifically, vom Baur
prodded the operators: In view of all
the uncertainties presented at the
conference (and there were many),
how useful is performance monitoring?
Mike Servos brought it to a
point: »Five years ago we had nothing,
now we have at least something.«
Rory Kennedy agreed, taking a positive
angle on the state of the standard
and performance monitoring in
the industry. RCCL has started with
performance monitoring some years
ago and made already some impressive
progress with double-digit savings.
It is a process that will continue,
both on the development and on the
implementation. So – surprise – the
users think better than the developers
and the maritime world in general
would have thought.
Is machine learning the way forward
or is it simulation? Perhaps it
was gentlemen behavior, perhaps
simple realization of the intricacies of
performance monitoring: The developers
of the more simulation-based
approach recalled the importance of
calibrating models against in-service
experience and the developers
of the more machine-learning based
approach mentioned the usefulness
of virtual sensors and good hydrodynamic
models. As in HullPIC 2016,
the maritime industry was once
more reminded that all systems on
the market are »grey«, using hydrodynamic
modelling with some system
identification.
The discussion then turned towards
a theme that had woven like a red
thread through the conference: sensors,
human input and how we can
reduce errors in the input data for
performance monitoring. »With all
the discussions about speed logs,
torque meters, ambient conditions,
etc. – should we focus on getting
black boxes or should we focus on
the ›human factor‹?« And touching
on autonomous technology, should
machines do the job (of collecting
and monitoring) or humans?
On this point, all panelists and
quite a few members of the audience
commented, but the positions were
surprisingly close again. The consensus
was that it was not a question of
»either – or«, but »both« played a vital
role. All operators agreed that having
transparent and timely feedback
to the crew improved motivation and
data quality. But data frequency and
good algorithms are important, too.
Daniel Schmode (DNV GL) expanded
on the theme of his paper on how
to reduce errors in performance monitoring:
The crew is key to get bias
(= systematic errors) down; data frequency
is key to get noise (= random
errors and scatter) down. In the end,
you need both for good performance
monitoring.
For this point, the discussion went
naturally to »Big Data«. It is coming,
but as such nobody seemed to be overly
impressed. »A lot of data still does
not equal a lot of insight« received a
lot of agreeing nods both from the operators
and the developers. But using
smart filters to automatically identify
wrong data was seen as a likely way
performance monitoring will evolve.
Information fusion combining various
sensors, on-line services (e.g. for
weather conditions or AIS speed and
course data) and human data reporting
is on horizon.
In summary, the forum discussion
took a rather positive view of the ISO
19030 and the state of performance
monitoring. Both the standard and
the implementation in the industry
are deemed to be work in progress.
The way forward is cooperative sharing
of experience.
M
Photo: Jotun
HANSA International Maritime Journal – 154. Jahrgang – 2017 – Nr. 5 77