1. Introduction
The reliability of a vessel’s main propulsion engine is a critical aspect of safe maritime operations, especially given that 90% of global cargo is transported via large bulk carriers (Castonguay, 2020). These immense ships rely on high-capacity diesel engines, often called main engines, which serve as the heart of the vessel’s propulsion system. Typically, these engines are slow-speed, high-power diesel engines running at up to 120 Revolutions Per Minute (RPM), while smaller vessels utilize high-speed diesels with operating speeds reaching up to 1000 RPM (Winterbone, et al., 1994). The main propulsion engine comprises several subsystems, including mechanical components, cooling water systems, fuel oil systems, scavenge air systems, and lubricating oil systems. Ensuring the reliability and extended runtime of these subsystems is vital for safe and efficient maritime travel.
Failures within these systems can have significant consequences for global trade. For instance, the bulk carrier Rava was temporarily disabled while transiting the Bosporus Strait due to a suspected main engine failure (Cagnassola, 2021). This underscores the crucial role of propulsion system reliability in world trade. A thorough investigation into reliability methodologies for the marine industry has been conducted using academic databases like Web of Science and Scopus. Recent studies, such as those by the Australian Maritime College, have applied techniques like Bayesian Networks, Weibull Failure Models, and Markov Models. However, methods like Fault Tree Analysis combined with Weibull, Gamma, and Normal models remain underutilized in the marine industry. While previous research defined systems using Fault Tree Analysis, such as Laskowski’s investigation, no reliability calculations were performed. By contrast, the aviation industry has successfully applied these techniques for reliability assessments, as demonstrated in studies on fuel system (Zhang, Chenhui, Liyong, Xiaojian, & Haiping, 2018). Within the marine sector, reliability analyses have often focused on scenarios like grounding probabilities, leaving a gap in studies addressing the failure hours of main systems.
Diesel engines dominate marine propulsion systems due to their operational reliability, thermal efficiency, and ability to burn heavy fuel oils (Xiros, 2002). Typical marine propulsion plants feature slow-speed, turbocharged, two-stroke diesel engines directly coupled to large-diameter, fixed-pitch propellers. These engines eliminate the need for gearboxes or reverse gears, making them ideal for merchant vessels requiring robust and efficient propulsion. The main components of these two-stroke engines include the bedplate and crankcase, crankshaft and flywheel, engine body, cylinder blocks and liners, and pistons with connecting rods (Xiros, 2002).
Engine failures can significantly impact maritime operations, as illustrated by the Maersk Emerald incident. This container ship experienced a sudden failure in the Suez Canal, resulting in grounding and disruption (Mohammed, 2021). Maintenance logs and schedules provide valuable data for estimating life expectancy and predicting potential failures. By applying failure distribution models, the occurrence of unexpected failures can be minimized.
In a case study on turbocharger failures, which are considered major failures leading to engine immobilization, reliability methods such as Markov analysis and Weibull distribution were used, including cost assessment (Anantharaman, Islam, & Garaniya, 2018). Although the turbocharger is an external component of the main engine, the study’s approach demonstrates how dependent failure rates can inform reliability analyses. For example, turbochargers exhibit a constant failure rate under similar conditions, suggesting that reliability assessments must account for time-dependent failure rates.
Using the Figure 1, it shows the different operating states, hence there is redundancy. As a main motor does not have any redundancy if it were to incur a major failure, we can only consider 3 states of operating, standby and failed. Referring to the DNV GL classifications under the systems and components of a ship section 2.1.5 it states that “The reliability and safety of components and complete units may also be documented by means of approved tests or service experience. The latter shall only be considered if a relevant load history can be documented”, (DNV GL, 2016).
Figure 1.
State of Oil Supply Pump (Anantharaman, Khan, Garaniya, & Lewarn, 2018).
Figure 1.
State of Oil Supply Pump (Anantharaman, Khan, Garaniya, & Lewarn, 2018).
This can be better interpreted by saying the comments should be logged and recorded. This can then be assessed to see any abnormalities within the recorded information. According to Charles Ebeling the Weibull distribution model is one of the most useful probability distributions within reliability. The distribution function can be used for both increasing and decreasing failure rates which makes it a common theoretical probability method alongside normal Lognormal and Gamma distributions. “These distributions have hazard rate functions that are not constant over time, thus providing a necessary alternative to the exponential failure law”, (Ebeling, 1997). The normal distribution is an alternative way to model fatigue wear out phenomena due to the relationship between the Lognormal distribution. This method allows the use of analysing further Lognormal probabilities as it provides a common bell shaped curved. The Gamma model has a similar distribution profile to Weibull as it has a family that includes the Exponential distribution.
According to research by Pinheiro and Bates, the log-likelihood of nonlinear mixed-effects models proves highly effective in handling unbalanced repeated-measures data in various fields, such as pharmacokinetics and economics (Pinherio & Bates, 2012). This methodology is also applicable when using distribution models for reliability assessments. As previously discussed, it can be applied to Weibull, Gamma, and Normal probability distributions, and the log-likelihood is particularly useful when applied to Probability Density Functions (PDFs).
The Mean Time to Failure (MTTF) is a critical metric in reliability analysis. As defined by Cadence, MTTF “evaluates the reliability of non-repairable items and equals the mean time expected until the first failure of a component, assembly, or system.” In essence, MTTF represents the predicted lifespan of a system or component. It is calculated by dividing the total hours of operation by the total number of units. This metric is widely used to predict when individual system components might fail, facilitating planned maintenance, repairs, or replacements to prevent unexpected breakdowns.
Charles Ebeling describes Fault Tree Analysis as a valuable tool for performing safety assessments on failures. According to Ebeling, “A fault tree analysis is a graphical design technique that provides an alternative to reliability block diagrams” (Ebeling, 1997). He outlines six key steps in conducting a Fault Tree Analysis:
Define the system, its boundaries, and the top event—For example, the reliability of a vessel’s main propulsion engine.
Evaluate the system using a data-driven model—Identify and characterize the combination of events leading to failures.
Construct the fault tree—Graphically represent the total system and its events, typically focusing on failures of individual components.
Perform a qualitative evaluation—Identify the combinations of events contributing to the top event, such as a failure in the main propulsion engine.
Conduct a quantitative evaluation—Assign probabilities and reliability values to the events defined in the fault tree.
Present findings and conclusions—Summarize the results of the analysis with respect to the reliability of the main propulsion engine and its subsystems.
This study seeks to develop a data-driven model and Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) to predict the reliability of the main engine onboard ships. The structure of this paper is outlined as follows:
Section 2 details the Materials and Methods used in the research;
Section 3 discusses the Results and Discussions; and
Section 4 concludes the study with key findings and implications.