Sort by
Memory-Efficient 3D LiDAR Graph SLAM for Ballast Water Tank Inspection Robots Using Robust Hierarchical Bundle Adjustment and a Kaczmarz Backend
Sanghyun Cha
,Wonchul Yoo
,Tae-Wan Kim
Posted: 26 June 2026
Advancing Robustness Thinking in the Comprehensive Gap Analysis of Risk Governance in Nigeria's Emerging Ship Recycling Industry
Ini Akpadiaha
,Joseph Maurice
,Glory Peter
,Aniekeme Mayor
Posted: 24 June 2026
Methane Slip, Black Carbon and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from an LNG-Fuelled Cruise Ship: Insights from FuelEU and IMO Engine Load Monitoring Methodologies
Benoit Sagot
,Raphael Defossez
,Aurelia Miquel
Posted: 17 June 2026
CM-MAC: A Cluster-Based Hierarchical Scheduling Protocol for Reliable Neighborhood Multicasting in Mobile AUV Swarms
Meiyan Liu
,Guangjie Han
Posted: 10 June 2026
Improving Long-Range Significant Wave Height Forecasts for Maritime Energy Efficiency: A Residual U-Net Approach Validated with Real-Ship Fuel Consumption Data
Hyunju Lee
,Jaehee Jung
,Joon-Woo Roh
Posted: 09 June 2026
Energy Management Strategies and Capacity Sizing for Hybrid Ship Systems
Tino Vidović
,Gojmir Radica
,Nikolina Pivac
,Branko Lalić
Posted: 04 June 2026
An Uncertainty-Aware Assessment Framework for Multi-Glider Cooperative Observation of Mesoscale Eddies
Dongyang Xue
,Fang Liu
,Yaqiang Zhu
,Xuehao Wang
,Shuai Li
,Shufeng Li
,Peng Wang
Posted: 29 May 2026
From Quasi‐Static to Time‐Domain Strong Coupling: A Methodological Review on Dynamic Stability and Survivability for Modern Wind‐Assisted Ships
Jiaye Chen
,Yuming Su
,Tianyu Zhang
,Youbo Jie
,Rui He
,Qingsong Zeng
Posted: 20 May 2026
FSA-Based Fire Risk Assessment of Electric Vehicles on Korean Coastal Car Ferries: Expert-Elicited FTA–ETA Analysis with Vessel-Specific Cost–Benefit Evaluation
Byung-Hwa Song
Posted: 19 May 2026
Experimental Analysis of Motion Response, Mooring Loads, and Failure Redundancy of an Eight-Point System for the OCTABUOY Platform
Haitao Xu
,Hong Zhou
,Xiao Xu
Posted: 15 May 2026
Experimental Study on Hydrodynamic Characteristics of a Disk-Shaped Buoy Using a Large-Scale Wave Flume
Zhonghua Tan
,Hanbao Chen
,Songgui Chen
,Ning Guan
,Yingni Luan
,Wenjun Shen
Posted: 14 May 2026
Assessing Coastal Vulnerability in Al Hoceima Bay, Morocco, Using a GIS-Based Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI)
Youssef Fannassi
,Younes Oubaki
,Zhour Ennouali
,Karderic Williams
,Aicha Benmohammadi
,Ali Masria
Posted: 12 May 2026
Numerical Study on the Evolution Characteristics of the Bubble Dynamics and Free Surface Structures in Extremely Shallow Water Explosion
Wenbo Zhao
,Guocang Liu
,Qi Kong
,Yunlong Liu
,Yu Wang
,Jincheng Gao
Posted: 05 May 2026
Techno-Economic and Multi-Criteria Evaluation of LNG Regasification Alternatives under Capacity Scaling
Choi Hyun Cheol
,Kim Sung Ji
,Kim Hee Seok
,Emmanuel Brilian Tangka
,Lee Sang Deuk
This study evaluates the techno-economic feasibility of LNG regasification alternatives, including offshore platform conversion, floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU) retrofit, and onshore LNG terminals, under conceptual design conditions at a capacity of 100 MMSCFD. The analysis integrates cost estimation, project schedule, and technical maturity within a multi-criteria decision-making framework based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), combining quantitative techno-economic results with expert judgment to support structured comparison of alternatives. Cost estimation is conducted using two approaches, namely cost–capacity scaling and analogous estimation, to examine their influence on feasibility outcomes. The results indicate that the conventional scaling method, using an exponent of 0.6, produces inconsistent results across configurations, overestimating costs for offshore-based systems while underestimating costs for onshore LNG terminals. Back-calculation of effective scaling exponents yields values of approximately 0.43 for offshore platform conversion, 0.37 for FSRU retrofit, and 0.78 for onshore LNG terminals, demonstrating that cost–capacity relationships are configuration-dependent and cannot be represented using a single uniform exponent. The AHP evaluation, conducted under two scenarios based on the applied cost estimation methods, shows that offshore platform conversion consistently achieves the highest feasibility ranking, followed by FSRU retrofit and onshore LNG terminals. While the ranking remains unchanged, the choice of cost estimation method influences the magnitude of score differences, affecting the strength of preference among alternatives. These findings highlight the limitations of conventional scaling approaches and demonstrate that offshore platform conversion can serve as a cost-competitive and time-efficient alternative for LNG infrastructure development, particularly in regions with existing offshore assets.
This study evaluates the techno-economic feasibility of LNG regasification alternatives, including offshore platform conversion, floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU) retrofit, and onshore LNG terminals, under conceptual design conditions at a capacity of 100 MMSCFD. The analysis integrates cost estimation, project schedule, and technical maturity within a multi-criteria decision-making framework based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), combining quantitative techno-economic results with expert judgment to support structured comparison of alternatives. Cost estimation is conducted using two approaches, namely cost–capacity scaling and analogous estimation, to examine their influence on feasibility outcomes. The results indicate that the conventional scaling method, using an exponent of 0.6, produces inconsistent results across configurations, overestimating costs for offshore-based systems while underestimating costs for onshore LNG terminals. Back-calculation of effective scaling exponents yields values of approximately 0.43 for offshore platform conversion, 0.37 for FSRU retrofit, and 0.78 for onshore LNG terminals, demonstrating that cost–capacity relationships are configuration-dependent and cannot be represented using a single uniform exponent. The AHP evaluation, conducted under two scenarios based on the applied cost estimation methods, shows that offshore platform conversion consistently achieves the highest feasibility ranking, followed by FSRU retrofit and onshore LNG terminals. While the ranking remains unchanged, the choice of cost estimation method influences the magnitude of score differences, affecting the strength of preference among alternatives. These findings highlight the limitations of conventional scaling approaches and demonstrate that offshore platform conversion can serve as a cost-competitive and time-efficient alternative for LNG infrastructure development, particularly in regions with existing offshore assets.
Posted: 30 April 2026
Optimizing the Rate Constant of the Primary Zeldovich Reaction for NO Formation in a Marine Four-Stroke Medium-Speed Diesel Engine
Branko Lalić
,Tatjana Stanivuk
,Karlo Bratić
Posted: 27 April 2026
An Integrated Framework for Safe and Efficient AUV Navigation: Synergizing Enhanced Path Planning, Curvature-Adaptive Tracking, and Information-Driven 3D Exploration
Mingming Xiao
,Yuliang Wen
,Jiaheng Li
,Naiyao Liang
,Dan Xiang
Posted: 16 April 2026
Advancing Dolphin Acoustic Monitoring: A Comprehensive Whistle Classification Framework
Ming Xiang
,Luobin Wang
,Yankun Chen
,Kangrong Li
,Zhengqiao Zhao
,Jie Chen
Posted: 15 April 2026
A Risk-Driven Maritime Patrol Route Optimization Framework for IUU Fishing Surveillance Using Multi-Source AIS and SAR Data Fusion
Songtao Hu
,Qianyue Zhang
,Yiming Wang
,Xiaokang Wang
Posted: 14 April 2026
Bayesian-Optimized Neural Networks with High-Fidelity FEM for Intelligent Residual Strength Prediction in Damaged Ships
Jianxiao Deng
,Fei Peng
,Jinlei Mu
,Hailiang Hou
Posted: 09 April 2026
Integrated Spatial Planning as a Framework for Climate Adaptation in Coastal and Marine Systems
Francisco Javier Córdoba-Donado
,Vicente Negro-Valdecantos
,Gregorio Gomez-Pina
,Juan J. Muñoz-Pérez
,Luis J. Moreno Blasco
Posted: 07 April 2026
of 21