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 II – Voyage report data, AIS 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

When voyage report data is utilized as the main data source for ship fuel efficiency analysis, its information on weather and sea conditions is often regarded as unreliable. To solve this issue, this study approaches AIS data to obtain the ship's actual detailed geographical positions along its sailing trajectory and then further retrieve the weather and sea condition information from publicly accessible meteorological data sources. These more reliable data about weather and sea conditions the ship sails through is fused into voyage report data in order to improve the accuracy of ship fuel consumption rate models. Eight 8100-TEU to 14,000-TEU containerships from a global shipping company were used in experiments. For each ship, nine datasets were constructed based on data fusion and eleven widely-adopted machine learning models were tested. Experimental results revealed the benefits of fusing voyage report data, AIS data, and meteorological data in improving the fit performances of machine learning models of forecasting ship fuel consumption rate. Over the best datasets, the performances of several decision tree-based models are promising, including Extremely randomized trees (ET), AdaBoost (AB), Gradient Tree Boosting (GB) and XGBoost (XG). With the best datasets, their R2 values over the training sets are all above 0.96 and mostly reach the level of 0.99–1.00, while their R2 values over the test sets are in the range from 0.75 to 0.90. Fit errors of ET, AB, GB, and XG on daily bunker fuel consumption, measured by RMSE and MAE, are usually between 0.8 and 4.5 ton/day. These results are slightly better than our previous study, which confirms the benefits of adopting the actual geographical positions of the ship recorded by AIS data, compared with the estimated geographical positions derived from the great circle route, in retrieving weather and sea conditions the ship sails through.

References

 

Bennett, G.G., 1996. Practical rhumb line calculations on the spheroid. J. Navig. 49 (1), 112–119.

 
Bergstra, J., Yamins, D., Cox, D.D., 2013. Making a science of model search: hyperparameteroptimization in hundreds of dimensions for vision architectures. In: Proceedings of the30th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2013), pp. 115–123.
 
BIMCO, 2021. Just in Time Arrival Clause for Voyage Charter Parties 2021. https://www.bimco.org/contracts-and-clauses/bimco-clauses/current/just-in-time-arrival-clause-for-voyage-charter-parties-2021. (Accessed 5 April 2022).
 
Boser, B.E., Guyon, I.M., Vapnik, V.N., 1992. A training algorithm for optimal marginclassifiers. In: Haussler, D. (Ed. ), Proceedings of the Annual Conference onComputational 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 ofthe 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and DataMining, pp. 785–794.
 

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

 

Freund, Y., Schapire, R.E., 1997. A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learningand 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. 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 topresent. 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 nonorthogonalproblems. Technometrics 12 (1), 55–67.

 

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

 

Li, X., Du, Y., Chen, Y., Nguyen, S., Zhang, W., Schönborn, A., Sun, Z., 2022. Data fusion and machine learning for ship fuel efficiency modeling: Part I – Voyage report dataand meteorological data. Commun. Transport. Res. 2, 100074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commtr.2022.100074.

 

Merkel, A., Kalantari, J., Mubder, A., 2022. Port call optimization and CO2-emissionssavings–Estimating feasible potential in tramp shipping. Marit. Transport Res. 3, 100054.

 

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 intogeostrophic and Ekman currents. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41 (24), 8918–8925.

 

Tibshirani, R., 1996. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B58 (1), 267–288.

 

Wan, Z., El Makhloufi, A., Chen, Y., Tang, J., 2018. Decarbonizing the international shippingindustry: solutions and policy recommendations. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 126, 428–435.

 

Weintrit, A., Kopacz, P., 2011. A novel approach to Loxodrome (Rhumb-Line), orthodrome (great circle) and geodesic line in ECDIS and navigation in general.Methods and Algorithms in Navigation, Marine Navigation and Safety of SeaTransportation 123–132.

 

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

Communications in Transportation Research
Article number: 100073
Cite this article:
Du Y, Chen Y, Li X, et al. Data fusion and machine learning for ship fuel efficiency modeling: Part II – Voyage report data, AIS data and meteorological data. Communications in Transportation Research, 2022, 2(1): 100073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commtr.2022.100073

557

Views

17

Crossref

39

Web of Science

43

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