A comparison of two ship performance models against full-scale measurements on a cargo ship on the Northern Sea Route

References

• Balmasov S. 2018. Detailed analysis of ship traffic on the NSR in 2017 based on AIS data. Arctic Shipping Forum.
   Google Scholar
• Bertram V, Schneekluth H. 1998. Ship design for efficiency and economy. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Blendermann W. 1993. Schiffsform und Windlast – Korrelations- und Regressionsanalyse von Windkanalmessungen am Modell [Shipshape and wind load- correlation and regression analysis of wind tunnel model tests]. Hamburg: Technische Universität Hamburg. Report No. 533.
   Google Scholar
• Calleya JN. 2014. Ship design decision support for a carbon dioxide constrained future [Doctoral dissertation]. University College London.
   Google Scholar
• Cichowicz J, Theotokatos G, Vassalos D. 2015. Dynamic energy modelling for ship life-cycle performance assessment. Ocean Eng. 110:49–61.
   Web of Science ®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. 186:106063.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epps BP, Stanway MJ, Kimball RW. 2009. OpenProp: an open-source design tool for propellers and turbines. Proceedings of Propellers and Shafting 2009; Sept 15–16. Williamsburg (VA): Crown Plaza.
   Google Scholar
• Fan A, Yan X, Bucknall R, Yin Q, Ji S, Liu Y, Song R, Chen X. 2020. A novel ship energy efficiency model considering random environmental parameters. J Mar Eng Technol. 19(4):215–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiedler E, Martin M, Blockley E, Lea D, Fournier N.. 2019. Optimisation of sea ice forecasting for ship navigation. Report D3.1 of the EU Horizon 2020 Project SEDNA.
   Google Scholar
• Fujiwara T. 2006. A new estimation method of wind forces and moments acting on ships on the basis of physical components models. J Jpn Soc Naval Archit Ocean Eng. 2:243–255.
   Google Scholar
• Hollenbach KU. 1998. Estimating resistance and propulsion for single-screw and twin-screw ships. Ship Technol Res. 45(2):72–76.
   Google Scholar
• Holtrop J. 1984. A statistical re-analysis of resistance and propulsion data. Int Shipbuild Prog. 31:272–276.
   Google Scholar
• Holtrop J, Mennen G. 1982. An approximate power prediction method. Int Shipbuild Prog. 29:166–170.
   Google Scholar
• Huang L, Li M, Romu T, Dolatshah A, Thomas G. 2021. Simulation of a ship operating in an open-water ice channel. Ships Offsh Struct. 16(4):353–362.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang L, Li Z, Ryan C, Li M, Ringsberg JW, Igrec B, Andrea G, Stagonas D, Thomas G. 2020. Ship resistance when operating in floating ice floes: a derivation of empirical equations, accepted for publication in ASME 2020 39th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering (OMAE).
   Google Scholar
• Huang L, Ren K, Li M, Tuković Z, Cardiff P, Thomas G. 2019. Fluid-structure interaction of a large ice sheet in waves. Ocean Eng. 182:102–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang L, Tuhkuri J, Igrec B, Li M, Stagonas D, Toffoli A, Cardiff P, Thomas G. 2020. Ship resistance when operating in floating ice floes: a combined CFD&DEM approach. Marine Struct. 74(2020):102817.
   Google Scholar
• ITTC. 2014. Recommended procedures and guidelines. Analysis of speed/power trial data 7.5-04-01-01.2.
   Google Scholar
• Khon VC, Mokhov II, Latif M, Semenov VA, Park W. 2010. Perspectives of Northern Sea Route and Northwest passage in the twenty-first century. Clim Change. 100(3):757–768.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristensen HO, Lützen M. 2012. Prediction of resistance and propulsion power of ships. Copenhagen: Technical University of Denmark. Project No. 2010-56, Report No. 04.
   Google Scholar
• Li Z, Ringsberg JW, Rita F. 2019. A voyage planning tool for Arctic transit of cargo ships. Proceedings of the ASME 2019 38th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering (OMAE 2019), 9–14 June 2019, Glasgow, Scotland. Paper no. OMAE2019-95128.
   Google Scholar
• Li Z, Ringsberg JW, Rita F. 2020. A voyage planning tool for ships sailing between Europe and Asia via the Arctic. Ships Offshore Struct. 15(sup1):10–19.
   Google Scholar
• Lindquist A. 1989. Straightforward method for calculation of ice resistance of ships. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions, Luleå, Sweden, June 12–16, 1989, p. 722–735.
   Google Scholar
• Liu S, Papanikolaou A. 2016. Fast approach to the estimation of the added resistance of ships. Ocean Eng. 112(1):211–225.
   Google Scholar
• Liu S, Shang B, Papanikolaou A, Bolbot V. 2016. Improved formula for estimating added resistance of ships in engineering applications. J Mar Sci Appl. 15(1):442–451.
   Google Scholar
• MAN. 2017. CEAS engine calculations. [accessed 2020 May 15]. http://marine.man.eu/two-stroke/ceas.
   Google Scholar
• MAN. 2019. Two-stroke project guide. [accessed 2020 May 15]. https://marine.man-es.com/two-stroke/project-guides.
   Google Scholar
• Oosterveld M, Oossnan P. 1975. Further computer-analyzed data of the Wageningen B-screw series. Int Shipbuild Prog. 22:2–14.
   Google Scholar
• Ørts Hansen C, Grønsedt P, Lindstrøm Graversen C, Hendriksen C. 2016. Arctic shipping–commercial opportunities and challenges. Cph Bus Sch Marit.
   Google Scholar
• Riska K, Wilhelmson M, Englund K, Leiviskä L. 1997. Performance of merchant vessels in the Baltic. Ship Laboratory, Winter Navigation Research Board, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo. Research Report.
   Google Scholar
• Riska K, Wilhelmson M, Englund K, Leiviskä T. 1998. Performance of merchant vessels in ice in the Baltic. Helsinki. Winter Navigation Research Board. Research Report No. 52.
   Google Scholar
• Smith LC, Stephenson SR. 2013. New Trans-Arctic shipping routes navigable by midcentury. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. p. E1191–E1195.
   Google Scholar
• Stroeve JC, Kattsov V, Barrett A, Serreze M, Pavlova T, Holland M, Meier WN. 2012. Trends in Arctic sea ice extent from CMIP5, CMIP3 and observations. Geophys Res Lett. 39. doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL052676.
   Google Scholar
• Thomson J, Ackley S, Girard-Ardhuin F, Ardhuin F, Babanin A, Boutin G, Brozena J, Cheng S, Collins C, Doble M. 2018. Overview of the Arctic sea state and boundary layer physics program. J Geophys Res Oceans. 123(12):8674–8687.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tillig F. 2020. Simulation model of a ship’s energy performance and transportation costs [Doctoral thesis]. Chalmers University of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Tillig F, Ringsberg JW, Mao W, Ramne B. 2017. A generic energy systems model for efficient ship design and operation. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part M J Eng Marit Environ. 231(2):649–666.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tillig F, Ringsberg JW, Mao W, Ramne B. 2018. Analysis of uncertainties in the prediction of ships’ fuel consumption – from early design to operation conditions. Ships Offsh Struct. 13(sup1):13–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinther Hansen S. 2011. Performance monitoring of ships [PhD thesis]. Copenhagen: Technical University of Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Wadhams P, Aulicino G, Parmiggiani F, Persson POG, Holt B. 2018. Pancake ice thickness mapping in the Beaufort Sea from wave dispersion observed in SAR imagery. J Geophys Res Oceans. 123:2213–2237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang S, Ji B, Zhao J, Liu W, Xu T. 2018. Predicting ship fuel consumption based on LASSO regression. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ. 65:817–824.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamaguchi H. 2015. Northern Sea Route handbook. 1-3, Toranomon 1-chome Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0001 JAPAN. The Japan Association of Marine Safety.
   Google Scholar