Ship design evaluation subject to carbon emission policymaking using a Markov decision process framework

Abstract This paper outlines a novel ship design evaluation framework rooted in Markov decision analysis and derived metrics. The framework synthesizes concepts from dynamic network optimization, decision theory, and scenario analysis to holistically manage exogenous uncertainty and value ship system changeability. A Markov decision process is used to analyze development and operational paths over a ship׳s life cycle and to identify system characteristics consistent within high performing designs. Decision metrics then contextualize a fuller extent of design engineer and operator preferences toward tradeoffs between value creation and active ship management. The case study specifically examines future scenarios subject to carbon emission regulations and uncertainty surrounding enforcement of the Energy Efficient Design Index. Results inform decisions about when, where, and how to incorporate the changeability that maximizes expected life cycle rewards.

[1]  Stewart Coulter,et al.  Reducing environmental impact through systematic product evolution , 1998 .

[2]  David J. Singer,et al.  Strategic life cycle decision-making for the management of complex Systems subject to uncertain environmental policy , 2013 .

[3]  R. Asariotis,et al.  Review of Maritime Transport, 2014 , 2010 .

[4]  Edward J. Sondik,et al.  The Optimal Control of Partially Observable Markov Processes over a Finite Horizon , 1973, Oper. Res..

[5]  Warren B. Powell,et al.  A Distributed Decision-Making Structure for Dynamic Resource Allocation Using Nonlinear Functional Approximations , 2005, Oper. Res..

[6]  Matthias Jarke,et al.  The Brave New World of Design Requirements: Four Key Principles , 2010, CAiSE.

[7]  Annik Magerholm Fet,et al.  Systems engineering as a holistic approach to life cycledesigns , 2013 .

[8]  M. Mazraati,et al.  Challenges and Prospects of International Marine Bunker Fuels Demand , 2011 .

[9]  Zissimos P. Mourelatos,et al.  Design for Lifecycle Cost Using Time-Dependent Reliability Analysis , 2008 .

[10]  Afreen Siddiqi,et al.  Reconfigurability in space systems : architecting framework and case studies , 2006 .

[11]  Myles Alexander Walton Managing uncertainty in space systems conceptual design using portfolio theory , 2002 .

[12]  David J. Singer,et al.  Assessing changeability under uncertain exogenous disturbance , 2014 .

[13]  S. Liebowitz,et al.  Path Dependence, Lock-In, and History , 1995 .

[14]  Chin Hon Tan,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis in Markov Decision Processes with Uncertain Reward Parameters , 2011, Journal of Applied Probability.

[15]  L.J. Leifer,et al.  Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning , 2005, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[16]  Dan M. Frangopol Integrated Life-Cycle Framework for Maintenance, Monitoring and Reliability of Naval Ship Structures , 2010 .

[17]  Gordon Wilmsmeier Infrastructure charges: Creating incentives to improve environmental performance , 2012 .

[18]  Olivier L. de Weck,et al.  Time-expanded decision networks: A framework for designing evolvable complex systems , 2007 .

[19]  Alfons Guinier European Community Shipowners' Associations , 2010 .

[20]  Theo Notteboom,et al.  Analysis of the consequences of low sulphur fuel requirements , 2010 .

[21]  R. Bellman Dynamic programming. , 1957, Science.

[22]  Adam Michael Ross,et al.  Managing unarticulated value : changeability in multi-attribute tradespace exploration , 2006 .