• International Journal of Technology (IJTech)
  • Vol 13, No 2 (2022)

Design Evaluation Methodology for Ships’ Out?tting Equipment by Applying Multi-criteria Analysis: Proper Choices Analysis of Ballast Water Management Systems

Design Evaluation Methodology for Ships’ Out?tting Equipment by Applying Multi-criteria Analysis: Proper Choices Analysis of Ballast Water Management Systems

Title: Design Evaluation Methodology for Ships’ Out?tting Equipment by Applying Multi-criteria Analysis: Proper Choices Analysis of Ballast Water Management Systems
Sumanta Buana, Katsuhisa Yano, Takeshi Shinoda

Corresponding email:


Cite this article as:
Buana, S., Yano, K., Shinoda, T., 2022. Design Evaluation Methodology for Ships’ Outfitting Equipment by Applying Multi-criteria Analysis: Proper Choices Analysis of Ballast Water Management Systems. International Journal of Technology. Volume 13(2), pp. 310-320

679
Downloads
Sumanta Buana Department of Marine Transportation Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya 60111, Indonesia
Katsuhisa Yano Hibiki, Wakamatsu, Kitakyushu, Fukuoka 808-0035, Japan
Takeshi Shinoda Department of Marine Systems Engineering, Kyushu University, 744 Motooka Nishi-ku, Fukuoka 819-0395, Japan
Email to Corresponding Author

Abstract
Design Evaluation Methodology for Ships’ Out?tting Equipment by Applying Multi-criteria Analysis: Proper Choices Analysis of Ballast Water Management Systems

All ocean-going ships must be outfitted with adequate ballast water equipment in compliance with Regulation D-2, Section D, Standards for Ballast Water Management, International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, promoted by the International Maritime Organization. However, it is difficult to choose the appropriate equipment because the methods used to develop the equipment have similar advantages and disadvantages . Such circumstances make it difficult for two parties who have conflicting priorities, ship designers and ship owners, to choose the most suitable equipment. To address this issue, multi-criteria analysis is effective because it can simultaneously consider several criteria under evaluation as early as possible in the design stage. The aim of this paper is to propose an evaluation methodology for out?tting appropriate ballast water management system (BWMS) equipment by applying multi-criteria analysis combined with the value engineering concept. This combination can directly compare the bene?ts of function and the disbenefits of cost aspects of a particular system. Nine available methods were evaluated before their installation on ocean-going vessels with a carrying capacity of 300,000 deadweight tons (DWT). The results of the analyses show that, from a ship designer’s point of view, the most appropriate method is one that uses ozone; while, from the viewpoint of a ship owner, the most appropriate method is one that uses a combination of a filter and ultraviolet radiation. Ship designers and ship owners have di?erent opinions. A ship designer emphasizes cost reductions and profit maximization. On the other hand, a ship owner prefers to have a ship out?tted with a system that is easy to operate as well as to maintain.

Ballast water management system; Multi-criteria analysis; Ship outfitting; Value engineering

Introduction

Ship out?tting, which consists of various types of processes, is one of the most important stages in designing and building a vessel. Outfitting requires equipment that must comply with the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments promoted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), which entered into force on September 8, 2017 (IMO, 2004). Ballast water is very important for ensuring the seaworthiness of non-fully-laden vessels (NRC, 1996). When a vessel o?oads its cargo, its ballast tanks are flooded with seawater for stability. The seawater is then discharged at a particular port when the vessel is reloaded with cargo (see Figure 1). However, ballast water also introduces invasive organisms, which are very dangerous to ocean health (La Carbona et al., 2010).


Figure 1 Ballasting proc

 A ballast water treatment system must be selected at an early stage of ship design because it in?uences the layout of the machinery space and increases capital cost. Each treatment method sometimes performs similarly, making it difficult for both ship owners and ship designers to choose the most appropriate equipment. To address this issue, multi-criteria analysis is effective because it can simultaneously consider several qualitative criteria under evaluation as early as possible in the design stage. However, conventional multi-criteria analysis usually ranks criteria without considering the degree of appropriateness of the results. And yet, it is important to consider the degree of appropriateness as doing so yields clear insights that can reduce the gap between the opinions of ship owners and ship designers. Thus, the aim of this paper is to propose an evaluation methodology for out?tting ut appropriate ballast water management equipment by applying multi-criteria analysis combined with a value engineering concept. The value engineering concept will be introduced in the evaluation methodology because it is considered the bene?ts of function aspect and disbenefits of cost aspects The evaluation based on the views of ship owners and ship designers/shipyard was conducted for vessels with a carrying capacity of 300,000 deadweight tons (DWT): very large crude carriers/very large ore carriers. These vessels must comply with Regulation D-2, Annex – Section D, Standards for Ballast Water Management, International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (IMO, 2004).

Table 1 Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) Method

Treatment Components

Treatment Process

Capacity
(m3/h)

Neutralization

(T1)

Ozone

Ozone injected into ballast tank will kill harmful microorganisms and produce hypobromite as a byproduct. The byproduct will be neutralized when de-ballasting is carried out.

3,000

yes

(T2)

Filter +
Hypochlorite
+ Cavitation

After filtrating plankton sized 50 m? or larger, harmful microbes will be exterminated by filling tanks with sodium hypochlorite, agitated by a venture tube. The residual chemical is then neutralized.

4,500

yes

(T3)

Filter + UV

Microbes resulting from plankton filtration through a disk-filter will be destroyed using UV.

6,000

no

(T4)

Filter + UV + TiO2

After filtrating plankton sized 50 m? or larger, microbes will be killed using UV, supplemented with titanium dioxide. The residual chemical is neutralized when de-ballasting.

3,000

yes

(T5)

Filter + N2 gas + Cavitation
+ Electrolysis

After filtrating plankton sized 50 m? or larger, microbes are destroyed by sterilization in the cavitation unit using nitrogen gas and electrolysis.

10,000

no

(T6)

Flocculant + Filter

Microbes are sedimented by filling tanks with flocculant and magnetic powder and are then separated from seawater by a magnetic disc.

2,400

yes

(T7)

Electrolysis

The microbes are destroyed by sodium hypochlorite and the residual chemical is neutralized.

300 or more

 

yes

(T8)

Filter + CO2

After filtrating plankton sized 50 m? or larger, remaining microbes are killed using chlorine dioxide.

16,000

yes

(T9)

Filter + Hypochlorite

After filtrating plankton sized 50 m? or larger, microbes are destroyed using sodium hypochlorite. The residual chemical is then neutralized.

625

yes

Conclusion

An evaluation methodology for out?tting BWMS equipment by applying a multi-criteria analysis method can be constructed and used to select the most appropriate system among the available methods. Each method has several con?icting aspects regarding function and cost. By applying the value engineering concept, these aspects were evaluated with respect to the bene?ts of function items and the detriments of cost items. The results of the evaluation show the degrees of appropriateness of a particular method. Because the evaluation results from two perspectives, i.e., those of the ship designer and the ship owner, were di?erent, both parties must compromise about which system to install on board an ordered vessel.

References

Bakalar, G., 2016. Comparisons of Interdisciplinary Ballast Water Treatment Systems and Operational Experiences from Ships. SpringerPlus, Volume 5(1), pp. 1–12. https://bit.ly/353Pxza

Berawi, M.A., Berawi, A.R.B., Prajitno, I.S., Nahry, N., Miraj, P., Abdurachman, Y., Tobing, E., Ivan, A., 2015. Developing Conceptual Design of High Speed Railways Using Value Engineering Method: Creating Optimum Project Benefits. International Journal of Technology, Volume 6(4), pp. 670-679

Berawi, M.A., Zagloel, T.Y.M., Berawi, A.R.B., Abdurachman, Y., 2015. Feasibility Analysis of Trans-Sumatera Toll Road Using Value Engineering Method. International Journal of Technology, Volume 6(3), pp. 388-399

Buana, S., Shinoda, T., 2014. Establishment of Evaluation and Decision Making Model for Cargo Transportation System in Indonesia. The Journal of Japan Institute of Navigation, Volume 131, pp. 149–158

Class, N.K., 2021. Latest Information of Approval of Ballast Water Management System. Available online at https://bit.ly/3t1TIUg, Accessed on October 3, 2021

Firmawan, F., Othman, F., Yahya, K., 2012. Improving Project Performance and Waste Reduction in Construction Projects: A Case Study of a Government Institutional Building Project. International Journal of Technology, Volume 3(2), pp. 182-192

Fukuda, J., Kodama, N., Masanori, H., 1995. Introduction to OR. Taga Shuppan, Tokyo, Japan

[IMO] International Maritime Organization, 2004. Adoption of the Final Act and Any Instruments, Recommendations and Resolutions Resulting from the Work of the Conference: International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004. Available online at https://bit.ly/3pyjeiM, Accessed on December 1, 2020

[IMO] International Maritime Organization, 2019. Infographic: Complying with the Ballast Water Management Convention. Available online at https://bit.ly/36supTu, accessed on January 4, 2021

Karahalios, H., 2017. The Application of the AHP-TOPSIS for Evaluating Ballast Water Treatment Systems by Ship Operators. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 52, pp. 172–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.03.001

Kuroshi, L., Ölçer, A., 2017. Technique Selection and Evaluation of Ballast Water Management Methods under an Intuitionistic Fuzzy Environment: An Information Axiom Approach. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, Volume 231(3), pp. 782–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475090216674543

La Carbona, S., Viitasalo-Frösen, S., Masson, D., Sassi, J., Pineau, S., Lehtiniemi, M., Corroler, D., 2010. E?cacy and Environmental Acceptability of Two Ballast Water Treatment Chemicals and an Alkylamine-based Biocide. Science of the Total Environment Journal, Volume 409, pp. 247–55

Li, X.Y., Chen, Y., Liu, S., Zhou, Z.M., 2014. Flocculation Process for the Treatment of Ballast Water Application Research Process. Applied Mechanics and Materials, Volume 654, pp. 39–42. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.654.39

Marzouk, M.M., 2011. ELECTRE III Model for Value Engineering Applications. Automation in Construction, Volume 20(5), pp. 596–600

Moffitt, C.M., Watten, B., Barenberg, A., Henquinet, J., 2015. Hydroxide Stabilization as a New Tool for Ballast Disinfection: Efficacy of Treatment on Zooplankton. Management of Biological Invasions, Volume 6(3), pp. 263–275. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2015.6.3.05

Montasaera, A., Montaserb, A., 2017. Value Engineering Decision Making Model Using SMART. In: ISARC 2017 – Proceedings of the 34th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, pp. 536–543

[NRC] National Research Council, 1996. Stemming the Tide: Controlling Introductions of Nonindigenous Species by Ships’ Ballast Water. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA

Panneerselvam, R., 2012. Production and Operations Management. 4th Edition. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited

Polatidis, H., Haralambopoulos, D.A., Munda, G., Vreeker, R., 2006. Selecting an Appropriate Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Technique for Renewable Energy Planning. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, Volume 1(2), pp. 181-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/009083190881607

Ren, J., 2018. Technology Selection for Ballast Water Treatment by Multi-stakeholders: A Multi-attribute Decision Analysis Approach Based on the Combined Weights and Extension Theory. Chemosphere, Volume 191, pop. 747–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2017.10.053

Saaty, T.L., 1990. How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, Volume 48(1), pp. 9–26

Šateikiene, D., Januteniene, J., Bogdevi?ius, M., Mickevi?iene, R., 2015. Analysis into the Selection of a Ballast Water Treatment System. Transport, Volume 30(2), pp. 145–151. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2015.1045025

Satir, T., 2014. Ballast Water Treatment Systems: Design, Regulations, and Selection under the Choice Varying Priorities. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Volume 21, pp. 10686–10695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3087-1

Shinoda, T., Fukuchi, N., 1992. Establishing the Evaluation and Decision Making Methods for Uncertainty Problems. Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan, pp. 149–161. Available online at https://bit.ly/35L4aHN

Shinoda, T., Yano, K., 2012. Development of Evaluation Analysis for Out?tting Equipment in the Ship Equipment Design: Application to Ballast Water Management System. In: 2012 Autumn Lecture Program. Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers Lecture

Wao, J.O., 2018. Weighted Product Method in the Value Engineering Process for Construction Project. International Journal of Scientific Research and Management, Volume 6(12), pp. 153–161

Yan, B., Qiu, W.H., 2011. Based on TOPSIS Value Engineering in Manufacturing Enterprise Logistics Cost Management Application Research. In: 2011 International Conference on E-Business and E-Government, ICEE2011 – Proceeding, pp. 7763–7766, Shanghai, China