See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344413967

Modified ISO 19030 for Assessing ROI

Preprint · September 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29874.02248

CITATIONS READS
0 613

2 authors, including:

Sandith Thandasherry
Navalt
9 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sandith Thandasherry on 29 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Modified ISO 19030 for Assessing ROI

Sandith Thandasherry, Syam Krishnan

XShip Design and Analytics

Abstract
International shipping, like every industry, is driven by economics. The rev-
enue and cost implications are a factor in every decision taken. Regulatory
compliance and market demands are also essential factors. Since revenue
is under stress, and more so in these difficult times, the global economy is
going through, the cost and its reduction is a significant focus. The fuel cost
contributes to 50-70% of OPEX1 for a ship. In recent years many solutions
have emerged that claims savings on fuel consumption like trim optimisa-
tion, route optimisation, PBCF2 installation, Higher efficient propeller, Bow
modification, and low friction coating. An investment in any of these so-
lutions needs clear ROI3 for a proper business decision. The emergence of
ISO 19030 as an accepted standard has paved the way for using the same
standard to arrive at ROI computation.
Keywords: ISO 19030, Vessel Performanc, Relative Performance,
Economics

1. Understanding Ship performance

If one takes the ship as a whole, the input for generating mechanical
energy is the fuel. If we separate propulsion needs, then the fuel consumption
by the main engine is the input. The output is speed on the water the ship
can move against all the adverse effects like the weight of the vessel, wind,
wave, hull, propeller, and engine condition. We can find the engine efficiency
in these steps. One way to separate the engine condition is to take engine
shaft power as input instead of fuel. By doing this as well removing the

Email address: sandith@xship.in (Sandith Thandasherry, Syam Krishnan)

1
Operating expenses
2
Propeller Boss Cap Fin
3
Return on Investment

Preprint submitted to Draft Ver.1 September 29, 2020

 Figure 1: Ship performance introduction

effect of vessel weight, wind, wave, current, depth, temperature, density, we

can track the change in performance as a measure of achieving speed by
keeping power as constant.

2. ISO 19030
Once we agree to the ship performance metric, there were several meth-
ods to do data filtering, corrections for various effects, as well as interpre-
tation of results. These range of options also meant that there was a need
for an industry standard. ISO 19030 fills that need. Here we monitor the
change in speed attained for the same power compared to sea trials condi-
tion after made necessary corrections for wind, current and filter for data
quality, water temperature, depth.
ISO 19030 clearly defines how to calculate speed loss for vessels using fre-
quently collected data (automatic data). It also gives provision to estimate
speed loss using noon data (reported once daily) with some exceptions by
compromising the accuracy of results. Since the methodology is standard-
ised, both owners and vendors (of energy-saving devices (ESD) and paint)
are at an agreement to measure the performance. Shipowners can verify the
claim raised by the vendors, and this brings transparency in the performance
measurement.

3. Limitations of ISO 19030

But still, ISO 19030 gives result in terms of speed loss or gain, which
will not help owners to know whether the investment justifies the cost. They
need to understand what reduction it caused in the vessel’s fuel consumption.
Only if get the savings they can verify the payback period or ROI. Speed
loss can be converted to the factor of time saved to reach a cargo, but not
a good measure when vessels are slow steaming.

2
 Figure 2: Seatrial for a sample vessel

Vendors convert the speed gain to the fuel gain using some coefficients.
But the method followed is approximate, and there exists a problem in an
accurate fuel savings estimation.

4. Current Methods and Issues

Vendors generally use three as a multiplier for fuel savings estimation

– i.e., assuming power is proportional to speed3̂. Hence if speed gain from
ISO analysis method is 2%, then the fuel savings are estimated at 6%. But
this relation is merely theoretical. See the below sea trial.
This sea trial is for ballast condition shows the following relationship,
Power = Const xSpeed4.664 . For this vessel, we are underestimating the fuel
savings by 55% if we multiply the speed gain by 3. For this example of 3%
speed gain (assume this gain is in ballast draft), actual fuel savings is 14%
where we estimated only 9%.
Another problem is when coefficients for ballast curve and scantling curve
are different. Here model test-based prediction shows for ballast draft, Power
= Const x Speed3.57 and for scantling draft, Power = Const x Speed2.87 .
Here, speed gain multiplied by three gives an average value, not accurate.

3
We are overestimating the fuel savings for the loaded voyage and underesti-
mating for a ballast voyage. So, fuel savings will change depending on the
voyage drafts.
Similarly, the curve nature is different for different trims also. These
examples show that we can underestimate or overestimate the fuel savings
if we ignore the vessel’s behavior at different speeds, drafts and trims.

5. Our Solution
One thing is evident now that we should have a database at sea trials
– for different speeds, drafts and trim. This database has to be created
from the vessel model/lines plan or sea trial if available. The model can
predict how the vessel behaviour changes when draft or trim is changed.
Hence the change in fuel consumption due to the change in operational and
environmental conditions can be accurately estimated. In other words, we
can normalise the fuel consumption for draft, trim and weather.
It is easy to compare if we normalise the fuel consumption to a particular
draft and trim, say scantling draft and even keel, at calm weather. We can
compare the normalised consumption before and after ESD installation or
Dry Docking and painting to know the fuel gain. Below images show how
normalisation can simplify the problem.
By this method, we will get real fuel savings by comparing the normalised
consumptions between two periods. Below image shows the fuel estimation
of a vessel after drydock.

4
 Figure 3: Speed Power plot for reported raw data

Figure 4: Speed Power plot after filtering and correcting for weather

Figure 5: Speed Power plot after normalising to design draft

5
 Figure 6: Fuel savings after drydock

6. Conclusion

ISO 19030 provides a proper methodology to estimate speed loss/gain.

This methodology standardises the performance estimation methods across
the industry and helps shipowners to get on the same page with vendors.
But the standard does not focus on estimating fuel loss/gain nor establishes
a method to convert it from speed loss/gain. Hence it leaves a gap behind
which needs the application of smart technology to overcome it. Normal-
ising fuel consumption is an effective method to estimate fuel gain due to
any retrofit activities or ESD installations. Hence shipowners require ad-
ditional technology along with implementing ISO 19030 to calculate the
consumptions and ROI accurately. XShip Performance provides normalised
fuel consumption for all its vessels.

References

[1] Sandith Thandasherry, ‘Removing Human Error in Ship Performance

Analysis’, TheNavalArch, 27 Oct 2019

View publication stats