Productivity regression analysis of cutter suction dredger considering operating characteristics and equipment status

Abstract

In order to optimize the operation parameters of cutter suction dredger in real time and adjust productivity as needed, a construction optimization strategy based on real-time productivity regression analysis is proposed. Machine learning methods, including Support Vector Regression (SVR), Gradient Boosting Regression Tree (GBRT), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) and a Super Learner that made up of them, are used to mine relevant features based on the big data of operation characteristics and equipment status. Firstly, the working principle of cutter suction dredger is analyzed, the features that need real-time monitoring are determined, and the above features are classified. Then, some missing values and outliers in the data are deleted. Next, Lasso method is used to eliminate the variables that are not related to the regression target, and the redundant variables are combined. In addition, five machine learning methods are used to train and test the off-line productivity data of cutter suction dredger. And they are used to fit recent online productivity data. Super Learner performed best, which achieved the highest R² (0.917), the lowest RMSE (75.096) and MAE (61.422) in the five models for online regression. Furthermore, the calculation time of each model is discussed, and the feasibility of the method proposed in this study for real-time regression of online productivity data has been confirmed. Finally, the importance of characteristics is analyzed to provide guidance for dredging operations under restricted construction conditions. According to the regression results and the importance of features, operators can give priority to adjusting some features to adjust the real-time construction productivity of dredger.

Keywords

Productivity regression analysis real-time construction optimization cutter suction dredger operating characteristics equipment status

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ngoc

Kim

, et al. Container port throughput analysis and active management using control theory. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment 2022; 236(1): 185–195.

Vijayan

Barik

Sha

. Shock transmission through universal joint of cutter suction dredger. Ocean Eng 2021; 233: 109185.

Zhou

Jin

, et al. Strength and structural variations in dredger fill subjected to vacuum dynamic consolidation. Mar Georesources Geotechnol 2022; 40: 914–921.

Al-Refaie

Abedalqader

. Optimal berth allocation under regular and emergent vessel arrivals. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment 2021; 235(2): 642–656.

Baptist

Gerkema

van Prooijen

, et al. Beneficial use of dredged sediment to enhance salt marsh development by applying a ‘Mud Motor’. Ecol Eng 2019; 127: 312–323.

Kong

Han

, et al. Novel method of construction-efficiency evaluation of cutter suction dredger based on real-time monitoring data. J Waterway Port Coast Ocean Eng 2018; 144(6): 05018007.

Anderson

Barkdoll

. Incorporation of air emissions in dredging method selection. J Waterway Port Coast Ocean Eng 2010; 136(4): 191–199.

Manap

Voulvoulis

. Risk-based decision-making framework for the selection of sediment dredging option. Sci Total Environ 2014; 496: 607–623.

Henriksen

Randall

Socolofsky

. Near-field resuspension model for a cutter suction dredge. J Waterway Port Coast Ocean Eng 2012; 138(3): 181–191.

10.

Yue

Zhong

Miao

, et al. Prediction of dredging productivity using a rock and soil classification model. J Waterway Port Coast Ocean Eng 2015; 141(4): 06015001.

11.

BSI (British Standards Institution). Code of practice for site investigations. British Standard 5930. London: BSI, 1999.

12.

ASTM. Annual book of ASTM standards. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2007.

13.

Wang

Zhou

, et al. Multi-scale geotechnical features of dredger fills and subsidence risk evaluation in reclaimed land using BN. Mar Georesources Geotechnol 2020; 38(8): 947–969.

14.

Rojas-Sola

De la Morena-De la Fuente

. Agustin de Betancourt’s mechanical dredger in the port of Kronstadt: analysis through computer-aided engineering. Appl Sci 2018; 8(8): 1338.

15.

Wei

Chen

. Obtaining human experience for intelligent dredger control: a reinforcement learning approach. Appl Sci 2019; 9(9): 1769.

16.

Yang

Wei

. A BP neural network model for predicting the production of a cutter suction dredger. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Material, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering (IC3ME 2015). Paris: Atlantis Press.

17.

Bai

Kong

, et al. Data mining approach to construction productivity prediction for cutter suction dredgers. Autom Constr 2019; 105: 102833.

18.

Yang

Yuan

Xiong

, et al. A novel principal component analysis integrating long short-term memory network and its application in productivity prediction of cutter suction dredgers. Appl Sci 2021; 11: 8159.

19.

Wang

Fan

Jiang

, et al. Research on predicting the productivity of cutter suction dredgers based on data mining with model stacked generalization. Ocean Eng 2020; 217: 108001.

20.

Bai

Song

, et al. Productivity analysis of trailing suction hopper dredgers using stacking strategy. Autom Constr 2021; 122: 103470.

21.

Taoufik

Boumya

Achak

, et al. The state of art on the prediction of efficiency and modeling of the processes of pollutants removal based on machine learning. Sci Total Environ 2022; 807(Pt 1): 150554.

22.

Lin

Liu

Guo

, et al. Sample adaptive aero-engine gas-path performance prognostic model modeling method. Knowl-Based Syst 2021; 224: 107072.

23.

Liu

Lin

, et al. Spare aero-engine demand prediction model based on deep Croston method. J Aerosp Inf Syst 2020; 17(2): 125–133.

24.

Donti

Kolter

. Machine learning for sustainable energy systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2021; 46: 719–747.

25.

Peng

Long

Ding

. Feature selection based on mutual information: Criteria of max-dependency, max-relevance, and min-redundancy. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal 2005; 27: 1226–1238.

26.

Breunig

Kriegel

, et al. Identifying density-based local outliers. Sigmod Rec 2000; 29(2): 93–104.

27.

Alpaydin

. Introduction to machine learning (adaptive computation and machine learning). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004.

28.

Bzdok

Altman

Krzywinski

. Points of significance: Statistics versus machine learning. Nat Methods 2018; 15(4): 233–234.

29.

James

Witten

Hastie

, et al. An introduction to statistical learning: with applications in R introduction. New York, NY: Springer, 2014.

30.

Tian

Song

, et al. Productivity estimation of cutter suction dredger operation through data mining and learning from real-time big data. Eng Construct Architect Manag 2021; 28(7): 2023–2041.

31.

Ghosh

Maiti

. Application of SWAT, Random Forest and artificial neural network models for sediment yield estimation and prediction of gully erosion susceptible zones: study on Mayurakshi river basin of eastern India. Geocarto Int 2022; 1–25. DOI: 10.1080/10106049.2021.2022016.

32.

Persson

Bacher

Shiga

, et al. Multi-site solar power forecasting using gradient boosted regression trees. Sol Energy 2017; 150: 423–436.

33.

Lingras

Butz

. Rough support vector regression. Eur J Oper Res 2010; 206(2): 445–455.

34.

Geng

Wang

, et al. Hybrid chaotic quantum bat algorithm with SVR in electric load forecasting. Energies 2017; 10(12): 2180.

35.

Yang

Chan

King

. Support vector machine regression for volatile stock market prediction. Intelligent data engineering and automated learning. In: 3rd International conference on intelligent data engineering and automated learning, Manchester, England, 12–14 August 2002, pp.391–396. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

36.

Friedman

. Stochastic gradient boosting. Comput Stat Data Anal 2002; 38: 367–378.

37.

Chen

Guestrin

. XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, San Francisco, CA, 13–17 August 2016. New York, NY: ACM.

38.

Meng

Finley

, et al. LightGBM: a highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. In: 31st Annual conference on neural information processing systems (NIPS), Long Beach, CA, 4–9 December 2017. La Jolla, CA, USA: Neural Information Processing Systems.

39.

Sha

Wang

, et al. Study on a prediction of P2P network loan default based on the machine learning LightGBM and XGboost algorithms according to different high dimensional data cleaning. Electron Commer R A 2018; 31: 24–39.

40.

Sun

Liu

Sima

. A novel cryptocurrency price trend forecasting model based on LightGBM. Finance Res Lett 2020; 32: 101084.

41.

van der Laan

Polley

Hubbard

. Super Learner. Stat Appl Genet Mol 2007; 6(1): 1309.