TY  - GEN
N2  - The requirement to maintain and uplift fuel in naval vessels is a necessary operating constraint and, with&lt;br&gt;
projections forecasting that fuel oil prices will continue to rise, uplifts need to be scheduled to deconflict with&lt;br&gt;
military tasking whilst being financially efficient. This paper presents mission fuel management as an optimisation&lt;br&gt;
problem, where analytical techniques are used to explore the impact of intelligent uplifts, intelligent leg&lt;br&gt;
speeds and the impact of minimum fuel holding restrictions and hull bio-fouling. Using a representative transit,&lt;br&gt;
we demonstrate that relative fuel price differences between ports may be exploited to achieve mission fuel&lt;br&gt;
cost savings of 15% to 25%, without impacting mission dates. For time constrained transits, being those with leg&lt;br&gt;
speeds limited by the minimum fuel holding restriction, a saving of 4% to 5% is achievable by varying leg speeds.&lt;br&gt;
Finally, we conclude that challenging minimum fuel holding requirements can yield up to 5% saving, whilst hull&lt;br&gt;
bio-fouling has an almost negligible effect in our model (due to the short time at sea). Extrapolation indicates&lt;br&gt;
that whilst fuel consumption will invariably increase for a given speed, it does not affect the fuel uplift decision&lt;br&gt;
making.
AB  - The requirement to maintain and uplift fuel in naval vessels is a necessary operating constraint and, with&lt;br&gt;
projections forecasting that fuel oil prices will continue to rise, uplifts need to be scheduled to deconflict with&lt;br&gt;
military tasking whilst being financially efficient. This paper presents mission fuel management as an optimisation&lt;br&gt;
problem, where analytical techniques are used to explore the impact of intelligent uplifts, intelligent leg&lt;br&gt;
speeds and the impact of minimum fuel holding restrictions and hull bio-fouling. Using a representative transit,&lt;br&gt;
we demonstrate that relative fuel price differences between ports may be exploited to achieve mission fuel&lt;br&gt;
cost savings of 15% to 25%, without impacting mission dates. For time constrained transits, being those with leg&lt;br&gt;
speeds limited by the minimum fuel holding restriction, a saving of 4% to 5% is achievable by varying leg speeds.&lt;br&gt;
Finally, we conclude that challenging minimum fuel holding requirements can yield up to 5% saving, whilst hull&lt;br&gt;
bio-fouling has an almost negligible effect in our model (due to the short time at sea). Extrapolation indicates&lt;br&gt;
that whilst fuel consumption will invariably increase for a given speed, it does not affect the fuel uplift decision&lt;br&gt;
making.
AD  - RINA, UK
AD  - RINA, UK
AD  - RINA, UK
AD  - RINA, UK
T1  - Naval Vessel Mission Fuel Expenditure Optimisation
DA  - 2020-02-03
AU  - Fox, TE
AU  - Minty, D
AU  - O'Keefe, SM
AU  - Taylor, JG
L1  - https://library.imarest.org/record/7698/files/INEC_2020_Paper_92.pdf
JF  - Conference Proceedings of INEC
VL  - INEC 2020
PY  - 2020-02-03
ID  - 7698
L4  - https://library.imarest.org/record/7698/files/INEC_2020_Paper_92.pdf
KW  - Fuel consumption
KW  - Fuel efficiency
KW  - Fuel savings
KW  - Operational effectiveness
TI  - Naval Vessel Mission Fuel Expenditure Optimisation
Y1  - 2020-02-03
L2  - https://library.imarest.org/record/7698/files/INEC_2020_Paper_92.pdf
LK  - https://www.imarest.org/events/inec-2020
LK  - https://library.imarest.org/record/7698/files/INEC_2020_Paper_92.pdf
UR  - https://www.imarest.org/events/inec-2020
UR  - https://library.imarest.org/record/7698/files/INEC_2020_Paper_92.pdf
ER  -