Modeling the risk of ship grounding—a literature review from a risk management perspective

WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 269-297

  Mazaheri, Arsham ^a   Montewka, Jakub ^a   Kujala, Pentti ^a  

^a AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Accident probability; Decision making; Risk management; Risk modeling; Ship grounding

Indexed keywords

EID: 84906672431     PISSN: 1651436X     EISSN: 16541642     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s13437-013-0056-3     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. Ale BJM, Bellamy LJ, Boom R, Cooper J, Cooke RM, Goossens LHJ, Hale AR, Kurowicka D, Morales O, Roelen ALC, Spouge J (2009) Further development of a causal model for air transport safety (CATS): building the mathematical heart. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94(9):1433–1441
2. Amrozowicz MD (1996a) The need for a probabilistic risk assessment of the oil tanker industry and a qualitative assessment of oil tanker groundings. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
3. Amrozowicz MD (1996b) The quantitative risk of oil tanker groundings. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
4. Amrozowicz MD, Brown A, Golay M (1997) A probabilistic analysis of tanker groundings. Paper presented at the 7th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu
5. Apostolakis GE (1988) The interpretation of probability in probabilistic safety assessments. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 23(4):247–252
6. Apostolakis GE (1990) The concept of probability in safety assessment of technological systems. Science 250(4986):1359–1364
7. Aven T (2010) On how to define, understand and describe risk. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95(6):623–631
8. Aven T (2011a) Interpretations of alternative uncertainty representations in a reliability and risk analysis context. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 96:353–360
9. Aven T (2011b) On some recent definitions and analysis frameworks for risk, vulnerability, and resilience. Risk Anal 31(4):515–522
10. Aven T (2013) A conceptual framework for linking risk and the elements of the data-information-knowledge-wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 111:30–36
11. Aven T, Heide B (2009) Reliability and validity of risk analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94(11):1862–1868
12. Aven T, Reniers G (2013) How to define and interpret a probability in a risk and safety setting. Saf Sci 51(1):223–231
13. Aven T, Zio E (2011) Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 96:64–74
14. Bobbio A, Portinale L, Minichino M, Ciancamerla E (1999) Comparing fault tree and Bayesian networks for dependability analysis. In: Kanoun K (ed) Computer safety, reliability and security, vol 1698. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/3-540-48249-0_27
15. Briggs MJ, Borgman LE, Bratteland E (2003) Probability assessment for deep-draft navigation channel design. Coast Eng 48:29–50
16. Brown A, Haugene B (1998) Assessing the impact of management and organizational factors on the risk of tanker grounding. Paper presented at the 8th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
17. Chen G, Zhang S-K (2002) Fuzzy probability calculation of ship grounding. J Ship Mech 6(3):69–75
18. COWI (2008) Risk analysis for Sea traffic in the area around Bornholm. Danish Maritime Authority, Kongens Lyngby
19. Cox D (1972) Regression models and life tables (with discussion). J R Stat Soc Ser B 34:187–220
20. Dash D, Druzdzel MJ (2003) Robust independence testing for constraint-based learning of causal structure. In: Kaufman M (ed) 19th Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-03). pp 167–174
21. DNV (2003) FSA navigation large passenger ships. Technical Report No. 2003-0277 by Det Norske Veritas
22. Ehlers S, Tabri K (2012) A combined numerical and semi-analytical collision damage assessment procedure. Mar Struct 28(1):101–119
23. Eide MS, Endresen O, Breivik O, Brude OW, Ellingsen IH, Roang K, Hauge J, Brett PO (2007) Prevention of oil spill from shipping by modelling of dynamic risk. Mar Pollut Bull 54:1619–1633
24. Fowler TG, Sørgård E (2000) Modeling ship transportation risk. Risk Anal 20(2):225–244
25. Friis-Hansen P, Simonsen BC (2002) GRACAT: software for grounding and collision risk analysis. Mar Struct 15:383–401
26. Fujii Y, Oshima R, Yamanouchi H, Mizuki N (1974) Some factors affecting the frequency of accidents in marine traffic: I—the diameter of evasion for crossing encounters, II—the probability of stranding, III—the effect of darkness of the probability of collision and stranding. J Navig 27(2):239–247
27. Fujii Y, Shiobara R (1971) The analysis of traffic accidents. J Navig 24(4):534–543
28. Goerlandt F, Kujala P (2011) Traffic simulation based ship collision probability modeling. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 96(1):91–107
29. Goerlandt F, Ståhlberg K, Kujala P (2012) Influence of impact scenario models on collision risk analysis. Ocean Eng 47:74–87
30. Grabowski M, Merrick JRW, Harrald JR, Mazzuchi TA, Drop JRv (2000) Risk modeling in distributed, large-scale systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A: Syst Hum 30(6):651–660
31. Gucma L (2002) Navigation risk assessment for vessels maneuvering in various conditions. Paper presented at the Risk Analysis III, Southampton, Boston
32. Gucma L (2006) The method of navigational risk assessment on waterways based on generalised real time simulation data. In: International conference on marine simulation and ship maneuverability, Terschelling
33. Haimes YY (2009) On the complex definition of risk: a system-based approach. Risk Anal 29(12):1647–1654
34. Hänninen M, Mazaheri A, Kujala P, Laaksonen P, Salmiovirta M (2012) The Effects of an Enhanced Navigation Support Information Service on Maritime Traffic Risks in the Gulf of Finland. Paper presented at the 11th Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference (PSAM) and the Annual European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL), Espoo, Finland, June 25th–29th
35. Hänninen M, Mazaheri A, Kujala P, Montewka J, Laaksonen P, Salmiovirta M (2013) Expert elicitation of a navigation service implementation effects on ship groundings and collisions in the Gulf of Finland. Proc IME O J Risk Reliab. doi:10.1177/1748006X13494533
36. Helle I, Lecklin T, Jolma A, Kuikka S (2011) Modeling the effectiveness of oil combating from an ecological perspective—a Bayesian network for the Gulf of Finland; the Baltic Sea. J Hazard Mater 185:182–192
37. Hogström P, Ringsberg JW (2012) An extensive study of a ship's survivability after collision—a parameter study of material characteristics, non-linear FEA and damage stability analyses. Mar Struct 27(1):1–28
38. IMO (2002) Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process. MSC/Circ. 1023. London
39. IMO (2012) Formal Safety Assessment, Outcome of MSC 90. Draft revised FSA guidelines and darft HEAP guidelines.
40. IWRAP (2009) IALA Waterway Risk Assessment Programme. http://www.ialathree.org/iwrap/.
41. Jebsen JJ, Papakonstantinou VC (1997) Evaluation of the Physical Risk of Ship Grounding. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
42. Kaneko F (2010) A method for estimation of grounding frequency by using trajectories of ships and geometry of seabed. In: International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships (ICCGS), Espoo
43. Kaplan S (1997) The words of risk analysis. Risk Anal 17(4):407–417
44. Kaplan S, Garrick BJ (1981) On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal 1(1):11–27
45. Karlsson M, Rasmussen FM, Frisk L (1998) Verification of ship collision frequency model. Paper presented at the Ship Collision Analysis, Balkema
46. Kite-Powell HL, Jin D, Jebsen J, Papakonstantinou V, Patrikalakis N (1999) Investigation of potential risk factors for groundings of commercial vessels in U.S. Ports. Int J Offshore Polar Eng 9(1):16–21
47. Kristiansen S (2005) Traffic-based models. Maritime transportation-safety management and risk analysis. Elsevier Ltd., Hungary
48. Kristiansen S (2010) A BBN approach for analysis of maritime accident scenarios. In: Ale BJM, Papazpglou IA, Zio E (eds) ESREL. Taylor & Francis, Rhodes
49. Lax R, Kujala P (2001) Statistics on ship groundings in Finnish waters and simulation of the grounding event by model scale testing. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships (ICCGS), Copenhagen, Denmark, 1–3 July
50. Lecklin T, Ryömä R, Kuikka S (2011) A Bayesian network for analyzing biological acute and long-term impacts of an oil spill in the Gulf of Finland. Mar Pollut Bull 62:2822–2835
51. Li S, Meng Q, Qu X (2012) An overview of maritime waterway quantitative risk assessment models. Risk Anal 32(3):496–512. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01697.x
52. Lin S, Kite-Powell HL, Patrikalakis NM (1998) Physical risk analysis of ship grounding. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
53. Luxhøj JT, Coit DW (2006) Modeling low probability/high consequence events: an aviation safety risk model. Paper presented at the Annual reliability and Maintainability Symposium, Newport Beach
54. Macduff T (1974) The probability of vessel collisions. Ocean Industry 9(9):144–148
55. Martins MR, Maturana MC (2010) Human error contribution in collision and grounding of oil tankers. Risk Anal 30(4):674–698
56. Mazaheri A (2009) Probabilistic modeling of ship grounding—a review of the literature. TKK-AM-10, vol 10. Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo
57. Mazaheri A, Kotilainen P, Sormunen O, Montewka J, Kujala P (2013a) Correlation between the ship grounding accident and the ship traffic—a case study based on the statistics of the gulf of Finland. Int J Mar Navig Saf Sea Transp 7(1):119–124, 10.12716/1001.07.01.16
58. Mazaheri A, Sormunen OVE, Hyttinen N, Montewka J, Kujala P (2013b) Comparison of the learning algorithms for evidence-based BBN modeling - A case study on ship grounding accidents. Paper presented at the Annual European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2013), Amsterdam, 29 September–2 October
59. Mazaheri A, Ylitalo J (2010) Comments on geometrical modeling of ship grounding. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships (ICCGS), Espoo
60. Merrick JRW, Dorp JR, Singh A (2005a) Analysis of correlated expert judgments from extended pairwise comparisons. Decis Anal 2(1):17–29
61. Merrick JRW, van Dorp JR (2006) Speaking the truth in maritime risk assessment. Risk Anal 26(1):223–237. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00708.x
62. Merrick JRW, van Dorp JR, Dinesh V (2005b) Assessing uncertainty in simulation based maritime risk assessment. Risk Anal 25(3):731–743
63. Montewka J, Hinz T, Kujala P, Matusiak J (2010a) Probability modelling of vessel collisions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95:573–589
64. Montewka J, Ståhlberg K, Seppala T, Kujala P (2010b) Elements of risk analysis for collision of oil tankers. In proceedings of TransNav 2010: Reliability, risk and safety: back to the future, eds: Ale, Papazoglou and Zio; pp. 1005–1013; Taylor & Francis Group, Gdynia, Poland
65. Montewka J, Krata P, Goerlandt F, Mazaheri A, Kujala P (2011) Marine traffic risk modelling—an innovative approach and a case study. Proc IME O J Risk Reliab 225(3):307–322. doi:10.1177/1748006X11399988
66. Mullai A, Paulsson U (2011) A grounded theory model for analysis of marine accidents. Accid Anal Prev 43(4):1590–1603
67. Nyman T (2009) Review of collision and grounding risk analysis methods which can utilize the historical AIS data and traffic patterns in seawaters. SKEMA Study, vol SE3.2.1. VTT,
68. Otto S, Pedersen PT, Samuelides M, Sames PC (2002) Elements of risk analysis for collision and grounding of a RoRo passenger ferry. Mar Struct 15:461–474
69. Paté-Cornell ME (1996) Uncertainties in risk analysis: six levels of treatments. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 54:95–111
70. Paté-Cornell ME (2007) The engineering risk analysis method and some applications. In: Edwards W, Jr., Miles RF, von Winterfeldt D (eds) Advances in decision analysis, from foundations to applications. pp 303–324. Cambridge University Press, New York
71. Pedersen PT Collision and Grounding Mechanics. In: Proceedings of WEMT ‘95, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1995. The Danish Society of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering
72. Pedersen PT (2010) Review and application of ship collision and grounding analysis procedures. Mar Struct 13(3):241–262
73. Pedronia N, Zio E, Ferrario E, Pasanisi A, Couplet M (2012) Propagation of aleatory and epistemic uncertainties in the model for the design of a flood protection dike. Paper presented at the PSAM 11 & ESREL 2012, Helsinki
74. Przywarty M (2008) Models of ships groundings on coastals areas. J KONBiN 2(5):140–147. doi:10.2478/v10040-008-0045-3
75. Pyy P (2000) Human reliability analysis methods for probabilistic safety assessment. VTT Publications no. 422, Technical Research Center of Finland, Espoo
76. Quy NM, Vrijling JK, Gelder PHAJMv, Groenveld R (2006) On the assessment of ship grounding risk in restricted channels. Paper presented at the The 8th International Conference on Marine Sciences and Technologies—Black Sea Conference, Varna, Bulgaria, 25–27 September
77. Rae A, McDermid J, Rob A (2012) The science and superstition of quantitative risk assessment. Paper presented at the PSAM 11&ESREL 2012, Helsinki
78. Rambøll (2006) Navigational safety in the sound between Denmark and Sweden (øresund). Rambøll Danmark A/S, Denmark (trans: hydrography TRDAoNa, authority TDM, administration TSM)
79. Roelen ALC (2008) Causal risk models of air transport: comparison of user needs and model capabilities. IOS Press, The Netherlands
80. Roelen ALC, Lin PH, Hale AR (2011) Accident models and organizational factorsin air transport: the need for multi-method models. Saf Sci 49(1):5–10
81. Rosqvist T (2003) On the use of expert judgment in the quantification of risk assessment. Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo
82. Rosqvist T (2010) On the validation of risk analysis —a commentary. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95(11):1261–1265
83. Rosqvist T, Tuominen R (2004) Qualification of formal safety assessment: an exploratory study. Safety Science 42(2):99–120
84. Rowe WD (1994) Understanding uncertainty. Risk Anal 14(5):743–750
85. Samuelides MS, Ventikos NP, Gemelos IC (2009) Survey on grounding incidents: statistical analysis and risk assessment. Ships Offshore Struct 4(1):55–68
86. Sergejeva M, Laanearu J, Tabri K (2013) Hydraulic modelling of submerged oil spill including tanker hydrostatic overpressure. In: Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Marine Structures, MARSTRUCT 2013: 4th International Conference on Marine Structures, 25–27.03.2013, Espoo, Finland. Taylor & Francis, p 209–217
87. Simonsen BC (1997) Mechanics of ship grounding. Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby
88. Singer D (1990) A fuzzy set approach to fault tree and reliability analysis. Fuzzy Set Syst 34:145–155
89. Stirling A, Gee D (2002) Science, precaution, and practice. Public Health Rep 117(6):521–533
90. Talavera A, Aguasca R, Galvan B, Cacereno A (2013) Application of Dempster–Shafertheoryforthequantificationand propagation of the uncertainty caused by the use of AIS data. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 111:95–105
91. Tavakoli MT, Amdahl J, Leira BJ (2010) Analytical and numerical modelling of oil spill from a side damaged tank. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships (ICCGS), Espoo, 14–16 June
92. Uluscu ÖS, Özbas B, Alitok T, Or I (2009) Risk analysis of the vessel traffic in the strait of Istanbul. Risk Anal 29(10):1454–1472
93. van de Wiel G, van Dorp J (2009) An oil outflow model for tanker collisions and groundings. Ann Oper Res 26(1):1–26
94. van Dorp JR, Merrick JRW (2009) On a risk management analysis of oil spill risk using maritime transportation system simulation. Ann Oper Res 187:249–277. doi:10.1007/s10479-009-0678-1
95. Winkler RL (1996) Uncertainty in probabilistic risk assessment. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 54:127–132