Reliability Assessment of a Main Propulsion Engine Fuel Oil System- What are the Failure-prone Components?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main propulsion engine is the heart of a vessel which carries the entire load of the ship and propels to move ahead. The main engine consists of various sub‐systems, the fuel oil system is the most important one. Fuel oil system provides fuel to the engine via a fuel injector mounted on the engine cylinder head. During the voyage, the main engine of a ship encounters a variation in loads and stresses due to rough weather to harsh manoeuvring, which sometimes leads to the breakdown of the main engine. Fuel oil systems are identified as one of the main reasons for engine breakdown. Many accidents happened due to the failure of the main engine fuel oil system in the last two decades. To ensure safe and reliable main propulsion engine operation, it is required to assess the reliability of a fuel oil system. However, there is a significant lack of appropriate data to develop the reliability assessment techniques for fuel oil system. This study proposes appropriate data collection and analysis procedure for the reliability assessment of a fuel oil system. Data related to Failure Running Hours (FRH) of a fuel oil system is collected from 101 experienced marine engineers through a questionnaire. The collected data processed using a box plot and analysed for a normality test. It helps to identify the generalization of the data. Moreover, this study identified failure‐prone components of a fuel oil system. The collected data will help in developing reliability assessment techniques for accurate reliability analysis of a fuel oil system. The identified failure‐prone components will assist in future reliability analysis and risk mitigation strategies for improving the overall safety and reliability of the shipping industry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".