On the reliability and validity of ship-ship collision risk analysis in light of different perspectives on risk

Safety Science

Volumn 62, Issue , 2014, Pages 348-365

  Goerlandt, Floris ^a   Kujala, Pentti ^a  

^a AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Quantitative risk analysis; Reliability; Risk perspective; Ship ship collision; Validity

Indexed keywords

DETECTION MECHANISM; NUMERICAL ACCURACY; QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY; RISK PERSPECTIVE; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SHIP-SHIP COLLISION; VALIDITY;

RELIABILITY; RISK ANALYSIS; SHIPS;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

ARTICLE; CASE STUDY; FUZZY SYSTEM; METRIC SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SHIP; SHIP SHIP COLLISION; TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT; VALIDITY;

EID: 84885938371     PISSN: 09257535     EISSN: 18791042     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.09.010     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Almaz, O.A., 2012. Risk and performance analysis of ports and waterways: the case of Delaware river and bay, PhD Thesis, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
2. Apostolakis G.E. The concept of probability in safety assessments of technological systems. Science 1990, 250:1359-1364.
3. Aven T. Perspectives on risk in a decision-making context - review and discussion. Saf. Sci. 2009, 47:798-806.
4. Aven T. On how to define, understand and describe risk. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2010, 95:623-631.
5. Aven T. A risk concept applicable for both probabilistic and non-probabilistic perspectives. Saf. Sci. 2011, 49:1080-1086.
6. Aven T. Foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management. Risk Anal. 2012, 32:1647-1656.
7. Aven T. The risk concept-historical and recent development trends. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2012, 99:33-44.
8. Aven T. Practical implications of the new risk perspectives. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2013, 115:136-145.
9. Aven T., Heide B. Reliability and validity of risk analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2009, 94:1862-1868.
10. Aven T., Reniers G. How to define and interpret a probability in a risk and safety setting. Saf. Sci. 2013, 51:223-231.
11. Aven T., Renn O. On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. J. Risk Res. 2009, 12:1-11.
12. Buzek F.J., Holdert H.M.C. Collision Cases Judgments and Diagrams 1990, Lloyd's of London Press Ltd., London. 2nd ed.
13. Cahill R.A. Collisions and their Causes 2002, The Nautical Institute, London. 3rd ed.
14. Carmines E.G., Zeller R.A. Reliability and validity assessment, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 1979, Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, California.
15. COWI, 2011. BRISK - Sub-regional risk of spill of oil and hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea.
16. Drost E.A. Validity and reliability in social science research. Educ. Res. Perspect. 2011, 38:105-123.
17. Felski A., Jaskolski K. The integrity of information received by means of AIS during anti-collision manoeuvring. Trans. Nav. Int. J. Mar. Navig. Saf. Sea Transp. 2013, 7:95-100.
18. Flage R., Aven T. Expressing and communicating uncertainty in relation to quantitative risk analysis (QRA). Reliab. Risk Anal. Theory Appl. 2009, 2:9-18.
19. Fowler T.G., Sørgård E. Modeling ship transportation risk. Risk Anal. 2000, 20:225-244.
20. Friis-Hansen P., Simonsen B.C. GRACAT: software for grounding and collision risk analysis. Mar. Struct. 2002, 15:383-401.
21. Fujii Y., Shiobara R. The analysis of traffic accidents - studies in marine traffic accidents. J. Navig. 1971, 24:534-543.
22. Fujii Y., Tanaka K. Traffic capacity. J. Navig. 1971, 24:543-552.
23. Goerlandt F., Kujala P. Traffic simulation based ship collision probability modeling. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2011, 96:91-107.
24. Goerlandt F., Ståhlberg K., Kujala P. Influence of impact scenario models on collision risk analysis. Ocean Eng. 2012, 47:74-87.
25. Goodwin E.M. A statistical study of ship domains. J. Navig. 1975, 28:329-341.
26. Graveson A. AIS - an inexact science. J. Navig. 2004, 57:339-343.
27. Gucma L., Marcjan K. Examination of ships passing distances distribution in the coastal waters in order to build a ship probabilistic domain. Sci. J. Marit. Univ. Szczec. 2012, 32:34-40.
28. Hogström, P., 2012. RoPax ship collision - a methodology for survivability analysis, Dissertations of the Chalmers University of Technology. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
29. IALA, 2009. IALA Recommendation O-134 on the IALA risk management tool for ports and restricted waterways.
30. IMO, 2007. Formal safety assessment - Consolidated text of the guidelines for formal safety assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process (MSC/Circ. 1023-MEPC/Circ.392).
31. IMO, 2010. Degree of risk evaluation. SN.1/Circ. 296.
32. International Risk Governance Council, 2009. Risk governance deficits - an analysis and illustration of the most common deficits in risk governance.
33. Kaplan S., Garrick J.B. On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal. 1981, 1:11-27.
34. Kijima, K., Furukawa Y., 2003. Automatic collision avoidance system using the concept of blocking area, In: Proceedings of the IFAC Conference on Manoeuvering and Control of Marine Craft. Girona, Spain.
35. Konovessis D., Vassalos D. Risk-based design for damage survivability of passenger ro-ro vessels. Int. Shipbuild. Prog. 2007, 54:129-144.
36. Kukić D., Lipovac K., Pešić D., Vujanić M. Selection of a relevant indicator - road casualty risk based on final outcomes. Saf. Sci. 2013, 51:165-177.
37. Li S., Meng Q., Qu X. An overview of maritime waterway quantitative risk assessment models. Risk Anal. 2012, 32:496-512.
38. MacDuff T. The probability of vessel collisions. Ocean Ind. 1974, 144-148.
39. Montewka J., Hinz T., Kujala P., Matusiak J. Probability modelling of vessel collisions. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2010, 95:573-589.
40. Montewka J., Krata P., Goerlandt F., Mazaheri A., Kujala P. Marine traffic risk modelling - an innovative approach and a case study. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part O J. Risk Reliab. 2011, 225:307-322.
41. Montewka J., Ehlers S., Goerlandt F., Hinz T., Kujala P. A model for risk analysis of RoPax ships - the Gulf of Finland case. 11th International Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference and the Annual European Safety and Reliability Conference 2012, 5544-5553. Curran Associates Inc., New York.
42. Montewka J., Goerlandt F., Ehlers S., Kujala P., Erceg S., Polic D., Klanac A., Hinz T., Tabri K. A Model for Consequence Evaluation of Ship-Ship Collision Based on Bayesian Belief Network, in: Sustainable Maritime Transportation and Exploitation of Sea Resources 2012, Taylor & Francis Group, London.
43. Montewka J., Goerlandt F., Kujala P. Determination of collision criteria and causation factors appropriate to a model for estimating the probability of maritime accidents. Ocean Eng. 2012, 40:50-61.
44. Montewka J., Goerlandt F., Kujala P. On a risk perspective for maritime domain. J. Pol. Saf. Reliab. Assoc. 2013, 4:101-108.
45. Mou J.M., van der Tak C., Ligteringen H. Study on collision avoidance in busy waterways by using AIS data. Ocean Eng. 2010, 37:483-490.
46. Pedersen P.T. Collision and grounding mechanics. Proceedings of the Danish Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 1995, 125-157.
47. Pedersen P.T. Review and application of ship collision and grounding analysis procedures. Mar. Struct. 2010, 23:241-262.
48. Qu X., Meng Q., Li S. Ship collision risk assessment for the Singapore Strait. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43:2030-2036.
49. Rae A.J., Alexander R., McDermid J.A. The science and superstition of quantitative risk assessment. Proceedings of PSAM 11 & ESREL 2012. International Association of Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management 2012, IAPSAM, Helsinki, Finland.
50. Ruponen, P., 2007. Progressive flooding of a damaged passenger ship, TKK dissertations. Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland.
51. Sheskin D. Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures 1997, CRC Press, New York.
52. Ståhlberg K., Goerlandt F., Montewka J., Kujala P. Uncertainty in analytical collision dynamics model due to assumptions in dynamic parameters. Trans. Nav. Int. J. Mar. Navig. Saf. Sea Transp. 2012, 6:47-54.
53. Ståhlberg K., Goerlandt F., Ehlers S., Kujala P. Impact scenario models for probabilistic risk-based design for ship-ship collision. Mar. Struct. 2013, 33:238-264.
54. Stevens S.S. On the theory of scales of measurement. Science 1946, 103:677-680.
55. Suokas J. On the Reliability and Validity of Safety Analysis 1985, Technical Research Centre of Finland, Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland.
56. Suokas J., Kakko R. On the problems and future of safety and risk analysis. J. Hazard. Mater. 1989, 21:105-124.
57. Trochim W., Donnely J.P. The research Methods Knowledge Base 2008, Atomic Dog Publishing. 3rd ed.
58. USCG, 2012. Ports and waterways safety assessment methodology.
59. Van Dorp J.R., Merrick J.R. On a risk management analysis of oil spill risk using maritime transportation system simulation. Ann. Oper. Res. 2011, 249-277.
60. Van Iperen E. Detection of hazardous encounters at the North Sea from AIS data. Proceedings of International Workshop on Next Generation Nautical Traffic Models 2012, 1-12. Shanghai, China.
61. Vanem E., Rusås S., Skjong R., Olufsen O. Collision damage stability of passenger ships: holistic and risk-based approach. Int. Shipbuild. Prog. 2007, 54:323-337.
62. Vinnem J.E. Risk indicators for major hazards on offshore installations. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48:770-787.
63. Wang N. An intelligent spatial collision risk based on the quaternion ship domain. J. Navig. 2010, 63:733-749.
64. Wang N., Meng X., Xu Q., Wang Z. A unified analytical framework for ship domains. J. Navig. 2009, 62:643-655.
65. Weng J., Meng Q., Qu X. Vessel collision frequency estimation in the Singapore Strait. J. Navig. 2012, 65:207-221.
66. Zio E., Apostolakis G.E. Two methods for the structured assessment of model uncertainty by experts in performance assessments of radioactive waste repositories. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 1996, 54:225-241.