4.7 Review

A review of ship fuel consumption models

Journal

OCEAN ENGINEERING
Volume 264, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.112405

Keywords

Ship energy efficiency; Fuel consumption model; Energy consumption prediction; Machine learning; Knowledge map

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51809202]
  2. Green Intelligent Inland Ship Innovation Programme of China [MC-202002-C01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study conducted a literature review on ship fuel consumption (SFC) models using the bibliometric tool CiteSpace, analyzing the different types of SFC models, their advantages and disadvantages, influencing factors, and suitable applications. Improvement suggestions and future research directions were proposed.
The ship fuel consumption (SFC) model is crucial for research on ship energy efficiency simulation, optimisation, and carbon emission prediction. In this study, the bibliometric tool CiteSpace was used to conduct a literature review on SFC models. Based on the review, it was concluded that the current SFC models can be classified into three types: white, black, and grey boxes. Considering the different types of SFC models, the advantages and disadvantages, accuracy improvement methods, and verification methods were analysed. Furthermore, the influencing factors of the SFC models were investigated. Based on the top-down and bottom-up modelling methods, appropriate applications of the SFC models were analysed. Furthermore, the SFC models suitable for different operation stages of ships were classified based on the degree of data availability. Finally, the persisting problems in SFC models were summarised, and corresponding solutions were proposed. In addition, future research directions for SFC models were also proposed. This study can serve as a reference for research on ship energy efficiency improvement and carbon emission forecasting.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available