A simplified approach for voyage analysis of fouled hull in a tropical marine environment

References

• Bialystocki N, Konovessis D. 2016. On the estimation of ship’s fuel consumption and speed curve: a statistical approach. J Ocean Eng Sc. 1(2):157–166. doi:10.1016/j.joes.2016.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coraddu A, Oneto L, Baldi F, Anguita D. 2017. Vessels fuel consumption Forecast and trim optimisation: a data analytics perspective. Ocean Eng. 130(November 2016):351–370. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.11.058.
   Google Scholar
• Coraddu A, Oneto L, Baldi F, Cipollini F, Atlar M, Savio S. 2019. Data-driven ship digital twin for estimating the speed loss caused by the marine fouling. Ocean Eng. 186(January):106063:1–14. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.05.045.
   Google Scholar
• Coraddu A, Oneto L, Ghio A, Savio S, Anguita D, Figari M. 2016. Machine learning approaches for improving condition-based maintenance of naval propulsion plants. ProcInst Mech Eng Part M J Eng Marit Environ. 230(1):136–153. doi:10.1177/1475090214540874.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couser PR, Wellicome JF, Molland AF. 1999. An improved method for the theoretical prediction of the wave resistance of transom-stern hulls using a slender body approach. Int Shipbuild Prog. 444:331–349.
   Google Scholar
• Demirel YK, Song S, Turan O, Incecik A. 2019. Practical added resistance diagrams to predict fouling impact on ship performance. Ocean Eng. 186(April):106112:1–21. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106112.
   Google Scholar
• Demirel YK, Turan O, Incecik A. 2017a. Predicting the effect of biofouling on ship resistance using CFD. Appl Ocean Res. 62:100–118. doi:10.1016/j.apor.2016.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demirel YK, Uzun D, Zhang Y, Fang HC, Day AH, Turan O. 2017b. Effect of barnacle fouling on ship resistance and powering. Biofouling. 33(10):819–834. doi:10.1080/08927014.2017.1373279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faulkner FD. 1964. Numerical determining methods for ship routes optimum. J Navig. 10(4):351–367. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-4296.1963.tb02061.x
   Google Scholar
• Gerritsma J, Beukelman W. 1972. Analysis of the resistance increase in waves of a fast cargo ship. Int Shipbuild Prog. 19(217):285–293. doi: 10.3233/ISP-1972-1921701
   Google Scholar
• Ghose JP, Gokarn RP. 2004. Basic ship propulsion. New Delhi: Allied Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Granville PS. 1958. The frictional resistance and turbulent boundary layer of rough surfaces. J Ship Res. 2(4):52–74.
   Google Scholar
• Granville PS. 1987. Three indirect methods for the drag characterization. Proc 21st Am Tow Tank Conf. 21:117–126.
   Google Scholar
• Haltiner GJ, Hamilton HD. 1962. Minimum time ship routing. J Appl Meteorol. 1(1):1–7. doi: 10.1175/1520-0450(1962)001<0001:MTSR>2.0.CO;2
   Google Scholar
• Hasselmann K, Hasselmann S, Bauer E, Jansenn PAEM, Komen GJ, Bertotti L, Lionello P, Guillaume A, Cardone VC, Greenwood JA. 1988. The WAM model – a third generation Ocean wave prediction model. J Phys Oceanogr. 18:1775–1810. doi: 10.1175/1520-0485(1988)018<1775:TWMTGO>2.0.CO;2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH. 2016. Ships and marine technology measurement of changes in hull and propeller performance – part 1: general principles ISO 19030-1. Vol. 1.
   Google Scholar
• Li X, Sun B, Zhao Q, Li Y, Shen Z, Du W, Xu N. 2018. Model of speed optimization of oil tanker with irregular winds and waves for given route. Ocean Eng. 164(June):628–639. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.07.009.
   Google Scholar
• Lu R, Turan O, Boulougouris E, Banks C, Incecik A. 2015. A semi-empirical ship operational performance prediction model for voyage optimization towards energy efficient shipping. Ocean Eng. 110(July 2014):18–28. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.07.042.
   Google Scholar
• Molland AF, Turnock SR, Hudson DA. 2011. Ship resistance and propulsion. First. New York(USA): Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reguram BR, Surendran S, Lee SK. 2015. Computer and experimental simulations on the fin effect on ship resistance. Ships Offsh Struct. 10(2):122–131. doi:10.1080/17445302.2014.918308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reguram BR, Surendran S, Lee SK. 2016. Application of fin system to reduce pitch motion. Int J Naval Architect Ocean Eng. 8(4):409–421. doi:10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2016.05.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz MP. 2007. Effects of coating roughness and biofouling on ship resistance and powering. Biofouling. 23(5):331–341. doi:10.1080/08927010701461974.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz MP, Bendick JA, Holm ER, Hertel WM. 2011. Economic impact of biofouling on a naval surface ship. Biofouling. 27(1):87–98. doi:10.1080/08927014.2010.542809.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song S, Demirel YK, Atlar MT. 2020. Penalty of hull and propeller fouling on ship self-propulsion performance. Appl Ocean Res. 94(November 2019):102006:1–24. doi:10.1016/j.apor.2019.102006.
   Google Scholar
• Swain J, Panigrahi JK, Vijayakumar D, Venkitachalam NR. 2003. Performance of 3G-WAM using IRS-P4 winds for its operational implementation in the Indian Ocean. Symposium on Advance in Microwave Remote Sensing Applications CSRE, IIT B. p. 50–55.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas D, Surendran S. 2019. Laser spectroscopic analysis of biofouling and its effect on ship resistance. OMAE 38th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore & Arctic Engineering. p. 61–68.
   Google Scholar
• Townsin RL. 2003. The ship hull fouling penalty. Biofouling. 19(September 2013):9–15. doi:10.1080/0892701031000088535.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tuck EO. 1966. Shallow-water flows past slender bodies. J Fluid Mech. 26(1):81–95. doi:10.1017/S0022112066001101.
   Google Scholar