Early enthusiasts predicted an \u2018autonomy stairway\u2019, stepping neatly from intelligent systems to remote control, and onward to unmanned ships. Others weren\u2019t convinced, and believed that after a flush of interest, it would all be quietly dropped. Instead, diverse elements appear to be growing roots into mainstream operations \u2013 and these are intersecting with another relative newcomer: batteries.<\/p>\n
Short-hop autonomous vessels will likely be electrical \u201cas it\u2019s a good solution for mitigating the requirements for maintenance, and improving the robustness of the propulsion solution\u201d, says Bjorn Johan Vartdal of DNV GL. However, there are practical limits to how far batteries can propel even a modestly sized cargo vessel.<\/p>\n
It leaves short-sea shipping between a rock and a hard place. On one hand their duty cycles generally don\u2019t allow picking up an easy recharge, but these ships still spend \u201ca lot more time\u201d in restricted-emission, coastal areas than long haul vessels, points out Eero Lehtovaara of ABB. And, of course, air pollution is a particularly sensitive subject for city ports.<\/p>\n
Therefore, many short-sea ships will likely choose a battery and combustion engine pairing, allowing limited emission-free running with enough onboard grunt for higher-power operations. But, as Lehtovaara points out, \u201cboth two-stroke engines and four-stroke gensets will continue to need attention\u201d.<\/p>\n
Moreover, as Vartdal comments, hybrids are \u201cvery advanced, coupled systems\u201d. In short, out goes the relatively simple topology of either batteries or combustion engines: in come a number of multilayered problems…. Unsurprisingly, \u201cthere can be reliability issues\u201d, adds Vartdal.<\/p>\n
All this has a knock-on effect on what\u2019s being asked of the crew. \u201cAlong with combined energy sources, new fuels and new types of system, there will be a requirement for new skill sets,\u201d he says. \u201cIt would be difficult to have expertise onboard for each discipline, but you could have a spread of competencies onshore.\u201d<\/p>\n
This is the pathway explored by the ROMAS (remote operation of machinery and automation systems) project, a partnership including H\u00f8glund Automation, Fjord1, the Norwegian Maritime Authority and DNV GL. It\u2019s taken a modern dual-fuel, hybrid ro-ro ferry operating on the 35-minute crossing between Molde and Vestnes, and simply moved the engine control room ashore. This, claims Vartdal\u2019s colleague, Steinar L\u00e5g, results in operations which \u201ccan be implemented with a safety level the same, or better, than today\u201d.<\/p>\n
The Engine Control Centre (ECC) at Fjord1\u2019s office in Molde sees the role of chief engineer being taken by an operator with monitoring and control oversight of all the onboard propulsion and auxiliary machinery \u2013 though, says Vartdal, \u201cit\u2019s been arranged so you see more from the control centre than from a typical engine room\u201d. He explains there\u2019s been an upgrade from H\u00f8glund\u2019s existing integrated automation system (IAS), with \u201cadditional sensors, advanced alarms, closed-circuit television surveillance, cameras to show navigation and so on\u201d.<\/p>\n
The array is very high tech, but the support goes one step further. Augmented Reality (AR) glasses are fast becoming cheaper, better, and more readily available. As Vartdal relates, \u201cthe onshore control centre will have the same visual image as the onboard crew member, so you can guide them, \u2018look at this, check that\u2019…\u201d<\/p>\n
There are more advantages to this than just convenient working patterns. Although this pilot initially controls just one vessel, it is designed to handle three at once: the idea is that if there are simultaneous issues the on-duty engineer can call for assistance.<\/p>\n
Not only could this make the work more collaborative \u201cbut the quality of the response does depend on a breadth of experience, something that can be missing from a long-term position onboard a single ship\u201d, Vartdal explains. \u201cHowever, if you are attending multiple vessels, you get a range of challenges, and that grows both competence and confidence.\u201d<\/p>\n
So, what of the onboard crew? While there are requirements for ro-ro ferry manning levels that leave the overall crew numbers on the Fannefjord ferry unchanged, L\u00e5g explains the engineering role is being replaced by that of a \u201cmultiskilled seafarer\u201d. However, if applied to cargo vessels, (which have different requirements), this system could reduce the overall onboard personnel.<\/p>\n
COMMUNICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n However, communication is the big stumbling block. The Fannefjord route is only about 15km and within range for 4G signals, but many short-sea ships will be looking at longer routes. And there, \u201cconnectivity might be more of a challenge\u201d, admits Vartdal. \u201cYou need a far more robust communication system than you\u2019d normally have onboard.\u201d<\/p>\n When out of 4G range, it\u2019s down to satellites \u2013 and there are issues. It\u2019s not distance: \u201cLatency causes far more trouble for autonomous navigation,\u201d he explains. A short lag isn\u2019t usually critical when it comes to the engine room as machinery data loads are fairly low. Further, if a system needs to shut down very quickly, it will be flagged up and initiated onboard.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile delay is not such a big problem, losing connectivity completely is,\u201d underlines Vartdal. It\u2019s a conundrum: there are mitigation strategies for many potentially damaging, but identifiable incidents \u2013 however, it\u2019s much harder to deal with a blank screen.<\/p>\n Risk mitigation therefore involves \u201cprocedural\u201d fallback, he explains. A wide range of normal and abnormal operations, conditions and scenarios have been mapped out during the ROMAS project, establishing a division of responsibility between the engine control centres and onboard crew, says L\u00e5g.<\/p>\n But what does this mean for longer runs or those just falling outside 4G range? Well, until the communication systems are completely robust, it does mean that the crew will need to be able to go it alone, as any signal loss will hand over engine room command from the shore to the onboard personnel. So if there\u2019s any chance at all that the \u2018multiskilled seafarer\u2019 will have to take control, they\u2019d better be trained for it.<\/p>\n While it is possible to utilise transmitter posts, \u201cyou don\u2019t want to have to put up dedicated data connection points along all the routes\u201d, says Vartdal. However, he adds that time will likely solve the issue: \u201cAs connectivity gets more developed, it will probably gain an increase in reliability.\u201d<\/p>\n Despite this, \u201cwe will see remote engine rooms relatively soon\u201d, predicts Vartdal, \u201cmost are unmanned a lot of the time, so we are just moving control a bit further away\u201d.<\/p>\n ONBOARD SUPPORT<\/strong><\/p>\n There is another option that doesn\u2019t require shoreside connectivity, as the \u2018brain\u2019 is onboard. W\u00e4rtsil\u00e4\u2019s SmartDock is, despite its name, more than a berthing system as it can kick in during transit, taking over thrusters and other engine room functions along with the navigation. At heart it\u2019s a dynamic positioning spin-off, says Thomas Pedersen: \u201cWe\u2019ve been delivering offshore DP systems for years, so that\u2019s given us the base capability we need to move a ship from pier to pier.\u201d<\/p>\n Having said that, there have been changes to the sensors and controller logic; there are complex hydrodynamic aspects from proximity to the quayside, effects that don\u2019t turn up in offshore applications.<\/p>\n However, it\u2019s worth noting this isn\u2019t autonomy as such, as it\u2019s more about tracking points through a (robust) mixture of GPS and LiDAR.<\/p>\n Interestingly, while the automatic navigation will enable safer manoeuvring as it frees the crew up to concentrate on situational awareness, arguably its biggest effect is on the power plant.<\/p>\n Maintaining efficiency across the characteristically long, shallow water approaches of short-hop and short-sea operations can require extended, minute acceleration control. So, automating the transit could do more than iron out the distinctions between new and experienced drivers, as it also promises something far more valuable: power predictability.<\/p>\n \u201cMaritime applications, more than any other industry, have a very wide range in how a battery is used,\u201d says Ben Gully of LAVLE. \u201cThe primary challenge is to make sure the ship\u2019s high-level control system is able to optimise how much and when it charges and discharges the battery.\u201d<\/p>\n It can get tricky: there can be differences of opinion between the automated systems. Vartdal explains: \u201cFor example, the engine sends out a power demand, but the battery wants to protect itself… if these don\u2019t agree, it can result in a shutdown.\u201d<\/p>\n As Gully points out, \u201cpredictability enables better design and control\u201d of the onboard energy topology, a significant benefit for advanced hybrids.<\/p>\n Therefore, transit automation should give engineers, yards, and system integrators firmer numbers to work with, closing at least some of the loop on what can be lengthy, iterative plant development.<\/p>\n It will also make for more consistent operational parameters – and lower the risk of a power outage.<\/p>\n So, while it can\u2019t account for dynamic environments, voyage automation could begin to narrow output estimations for each mode or phase, promising clearer oversight, greater safety… and a longer plant life.<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Short-sea engine rooms may be looking at an interesting blend of onboard crew and supported operations, writes Stevie Knight<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":572,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[33],"tags":[],"sponsor":[],"class_list":["post-571","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-monitoring-control-digitalisation"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/571","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=571"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/571\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/572"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=571"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=571"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=571"},{"taxonomy":"sponsor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/sponsor?post=571"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}