AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
Article Link
Collect
Submit Manuscript
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Research Article | Open Access

Data fusion and machine learning for ship fuel efficiency modeling: Part Ⅲ – Sensor data and meteorological data

Yuquan Dua( )Yanyu Chena,bXiaohe Lia,cAlessandro SchönborndZhuo Sune
Centre for Maritime and Logistics Management, Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, Launceston, TAS 7250, Australia
Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, College of Sciences and Engineering, University of Tasmania, Taroona, TAS 7053, Australia
College of Power and Energy Engineering, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, 150001, China
Maritime Energy Management, World Maritime University, Fiskehamnsgatan 1, 201 24 Malmö, Sweden
College of Transportation Engineering, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, 116026, China
Show Author Information

Abstract

Sensors installed on a ship return high quality data that can be used for ship bunker fuel efficiency analysis. However, important information about weather and sea conditions the ship sails through, such as waves, sea currents, and sea water temperature, is often absent from sensor data. This study addresses this issue by fusing sensor data and publicly accessible meteorological data, constructing nine datasets accordingly, and experimenting with widely adopted machine learning (ML) models to quantify the relationship between a ship's fuel consumption rate (ton/day, or ton/h) and its voyage-based factors (sailing speed, draft, trim, weather conditions, and sea conditions). The best dataset found reveals the benefits of fusing sensor data and meteorological data for ship fuel consumption rate quantification. The best ML models found are consistent with our previous studies, including Extremely randomized trees (ET), Gradient Tree Boosting (GB) and XGBoost (XG). Given the best dataset from data fusion, their R2 values over the training set are 0.999 or 1.000, and their R2 values over the test set are all above 0.966. Their fit errors with RMSE values are below 0.75 ton/day, and with MAT below 0.52 ton/day. These promising results are well beyond the requirements of most industry applications for ship fuel efficiency analysis. The applicability of the selected datasets and ML models is also verified in a rolling horizon approach, resulting in a conjecture that a rolling horizon strategy of "5-month training + 1-month test/applicatoin" could work well in practice and sensor data of less than five months could be insufficient to train ML models.

References

 
Boser, B.E., Guyon, I.M., Vapnik, V.N., 1992. A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers. In: Haussler, D. (Ed. ), Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory. ACM Press, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 144–152.
 

Breiman, L., 2001. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45 (1), 5–32.

 
Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R., Stone, C., 1984. Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
 
Chen, T., Guestrin, C., 2016. Xgboost: a scalable tree boosting system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 785–794.
 

Drucker, H., 1997. Improving regressors using boosting techniques. ICML 97, 107–115.

 

Du, Y., Chen, Y., Li, X., Schonborn, A., Sun, Z., 2022. Data Fusion and Machine Learning for Ship Fuel Efficiency Modeling: Part Ⅱ – Voyage Report Data, AIS Data and Meteorological Data. Communications in Transportation Research, 2, p. 100073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commtr.2022.100073.

 
European Union (EU), 2021. Monitoring, reporting and verification of EU ETS emissions. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets/monitoring-reporting-and-verification-eu-ets-emissions_en. (Accessed 19 March 2022).
 

Freund, Y., Schapire, R.E., 1997. A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 55 (1), 119–139.

 

Friedman, J.H., 2001. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann. Stat. 29, 1189–1232.

 

Geurts, P., Ernst, D., Wehenkel, L., 2006. Extremely randomized trees. Mach. Learn. 63 (1), 3–42.

 
Haykin, S.O., 2008. In: Neural Networks and Learning Machines, the third ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
 
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Biavati, G., Horányi, A., Muñoz Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Rozum, I., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Dee, D., Thépaut, J. -N., 2018. ERA5 Hourly Data on Single Levels from 1979 to Present. Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS). https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.adbb2d47. (Accessed 10 September 2021).
 

Hoerl, A.E., Kennard, R.W., 1970. Ridge regression: biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics 12 (1), 55–67.

 

Ke, G., Meng, Q., Finley, T., Wang, T., Chen, W., Ma, W., Liu, T.Y., 2017. LightGBM: a highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 3146–3154.

 

Li, X., Du, Y., Chen, Y., Nguyen, S., Zhang, W., Schonborn, A., Sun, Z., 2022. Data Fusion and Machine Learning for Ship Fuel Efficiency Modeling: Part Ⅰ – Voyage Report Data and Meteorological Data. Communications in Transportation Research, 2, p. 100074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commtr.2022.100074.

 

Man, Y., Sturm, T., Lundh, M., MacKinnon, S.N., 2020. From ethnographic research to big data analytics—a case of maritime energy-efficiency optimization. Appl. Sci. 10 (6), 2134.

 

Meng, Q., Zhang, Y., Xu, M., 2017. Viability of transarctic shipping routes: a literature review from the navigational and commercial perspectives. Marit. Pol. Manag. 44 (1), 16–41.

 

Rio, M.H., Mulet, S., Picot, N., 2014. Beyond GOCE for the ocean circulation estimate: synergetic use of altimetry, gravimetry, and in situ data provides new insight into geostrophic and Ekman currents. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41 (24), 8918–8925.

 

Soner, O., Akyuz, E., Celik, M., 2018. Use of tree based methods in ship performance monitoring under operating conditions. Ocean Eng. 166, 302–310.

 

Tibshirani, R., 1996. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B 58 (1), 267–288.

 

Yan, R., Wang, S., Psaraftis, H.N., 2021. Data analytics for fuel consumption management in maritime transportation: status and perspectives. Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 155, 102489.

Communications in Transportation Research
Article number: 100072
Cite this article:
Du Y, Chen Y, Li X, et al. Data fusion and machine learning for ship fuel efficiency modeling: Part Ⅲ – Sensor data and meteorological data. Communications in Transportation Research, 2022, 2(1): 100072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commtr.2022.100072

688

Views

10

Crossref

31

Web of Science

30

Scopus

Altmetrics

Received: 30 April 2022
Revised: 18 June 2022
Accepted: 19 June 2022
Published: 06 July 2022
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Tsinghua University Press.

This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Return