A framework for risk analysis of maritime transportation systems: A case study for oil spill from tankers in a ship-ship collision

Safety Science

Volumn 76, Issue , 2015, Pages 42-66

  Goerlandt, Floris ^a   Montewka, Jakub ^a  

^a AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Bayesian Network; Maritime safety; Risk analysis evaluation; Risk analysis framework; Ship ship collision

Indexed keywords

AIRSHIPS; BAYESIAN NETWORKS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; MARINE POLLUTION; OIL SHALE; OIL SPILLS; OIL TANKERS; PETROLEUM TRANSPORTATION; RISK ANALYSIS; RISK PERCEPTION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SHIPS; TANKERS (SHIPS); TRANSPORTATION; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; WATERWAY TRANSPORTATION;

ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS; ANALYSIS EVALUATION; ANALYSIS FRAMEWORKS; ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT; MARITIME SAFETY; MARITIME TRANSPORTATION; MARITIME TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM; SHIP COLLISION;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

ARTICLE; BAYESIAN NETWORK; FINLAND; MARINE ENVIRONMENT; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; OIL SPILL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SHIP; TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT; TRAFFIC SAFETY; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 84924589077     PISSN: 09257535     EISSN: 18791042     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.02.009     Document Type: Article

References (129)

1. Akhtar J., Bjornskau T., Jean-Hansen V. Oil spill risk analysis of routeing heavy ship traffic in Norwegian waters. WMU J. Marit. Aff. 2012, 11:233-247. 10.1007/s13437-011-0016-8.
2. Apostolakis G.E. How useful is quantitative risk assessment?. Risk Anal. 2004, 24:515-520.
3. Aven T. On the ethical justification for the use of risk acceptance criteria. Risk Anal. 2007, 27:303-312.
4. Aven T. Risk Analysis: Assessing Uncertainties beyond Expected Values and Probabilities 2008, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
5. Aven T. Perspectives on risk in a decision-making context - review and discussion. Saf. Sci. 2009, 47:798-806. 10.1016/j.ssci.2008.10.008.
6. Aven T. On how to define, understand and describe risk. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2010, 95:623-631. 10.1016/j.ress.2010.01.011.
7. Aven T. Misconceptions of Risk 2010, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, UK.
8. Aven T. Some reflections on uncertainty analysis and management. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2010, 95:195-201. 10.1016/j.ress.2009.09.010.
9. Aven T. Interpretations of alternative uncertainty representations in a reliability and risk analysis context. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2011, 96:353-360.
10. Aven T. Selective critique of risk assessments with recommendations for improving methodology and practise. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2011, 96:509-514. 10.1016/j.ress.2010.12.021.
11. Aven T. The risk concept-historical and recent development trends. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2012, 99:33-44. 10.1016/j.ress.2011.11.006.
12. Aven T. Practical implications of the new risk perspectives. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2013, 115:136-145. 10.1016/j.ress.2013.02.020.
13. Aven T., Guikema S. Whose uncertainty assessments (probability distributions) does a risk assessment report: the analysts' or the experts'?. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2011, 96:1257-1262. 10.1016/j.ress.2011.05.001.
14. Aven T., Heide B. Reliability and validity of risk analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2009, 94:1862-1868. 10.1016/j.ress.2009.06.003.
15. Aven T., Reniers G. How to define and interpret a probability in a risk and safety setting. Saf. Sci. 2013, 51:223-231. 10.1016/j.ssci.2012.06.005.
16. Aven T., Renn O. On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. J. Risk Res. 2009, 12:1-11.
17. Aven T., Vinnem J.E. On the use of risk acceptance criteria in the offshore oil and gas industry. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2005, 90:15-24. 10.1016/j.ress.2004.10.009.
18. Aven T., Zio E. Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2011, 96:64-74. 10.1016/j.ress.2010.06.001.
19. Aven T., Zio E. Foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management. Risk Anal. 2014, 34:1164-1172.
20. Ayyub B.M. Elicitation of Expert Opinions for Uncertainty and Risk 2001, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
21. Bi H., Si H. Dynamic risk assessment of oil spill scenario for Three Gorges Reservoir in China based on numerical simulation. Saf. Sci. 2012, 50:1112-1118.
22. Brown A.J. Collision scenarios and probabilistic collision damage. Mar. Struct. 2002, 15:335-364. 10.1016/S0951-8339(02)00007-2.
23. Brown A.J., Chen D. Probabilistic method for predicting ship collision damage. Ocean Eng. Int. 2002, 6:54-65.
24. Brunila O.-P., Storgård J. Oil Transportation in the Gulf of Finland in 2020 and 2030 (No. A61) 2012, Publications from the Centre for Maritime Studies. University of Turku, Turku.
25. Cahill R.A. Collisions and their Causes 2002, The Nautical Institute, London. third ed.
26. Carmines E.G., Zeller R.A. Reliability and Validity Assessment, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 1979, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
27. Chen, D., 2000. Simplified Ship Collision Model (M.Sc.). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
28. Coupé V.M.H., van der Gaag L.C. Properties of sensitivity analysis of Bayesian Belief networks. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 2002, 36:323-356.
29. COWI, 2011. BRISK - Sub-regional Risk of Spill of Oil and Hazardous Substances in the Baltic Sea.
30. Dalton T., Jin D. Extent and frequency of vessel oil spills in US marine protected areas. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010, 60:1939-1945.
31. Uncertainty in Industrial Practice - A Guide to Quantitative Uncertainty Management 2008, Wiley, New Jersey. E. De Rocquigny, N. Devictor, S. Tarantola (Eds.).
32. Debnath A.K., Chin H.C. Navigational traffic conflict technique: a proactive approach to quantitative measurement of collision risks in port waters. J. Navigation 2010, 63:137-152.
33. Diekmann S., Peterson M. The role of non-epistemic values in engineering models. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2013, 19:207-218.
34. Douglas H. Science, Policy and the Value-free Ideal 2009, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA.
35. Ehlers S. A review of collision and grounding damage assessment method. Mar. Syst. Ocean Technol. 2011, 6:5-15.
36. Ehlers S., Tabri K. A combined numerical and semi-analytical collision damage assessment procedure. Mar. Struct. 2012, 28:101-119. 10.1016/j.marstruc.2012.05.005.
37. Evangelista J. Scaling the tanker market. Surv. - Q. Mag. ABS 2002, 5-11.
38. Faber M.H. On the treatment of uncertainties and probabilities in engineering decision analysis. J. Offshore Mech. Arctic Eng. 2005, 127:243-248.
39. Felski A., Jaskolski K. The integrity of information received by means of AIS during anti-collision maneuvering. TransNav - Int. J. Mar. Navig. Saf. Sea Transp. 2013, 7:95-100.
40. Fenton N., Neil M. Risk Assessment and Decision Analysis with Bayesian Networks 2012, CRC Press.
41. Flage R., Aven T. Expressing and communicating uncertainty in relation to quantitative risk analysis (QRA). Reliab. Risk Anal. Theory Appl. 2009, 2:9-18.
42. Forrester J.W., Senge P.M. Tests for building confidence in system dynamics models. TIMS Stud. Manage. Sci. 1980, 14:209-228.
43. Friis-Hansen P., Simonsen B.C. GRACAT: software for grounding and collision risk analysis. Mar. Struct. 2002, 15:383-401.
44. FTA, 2010. GOFREP Master's Guide.
45. Fujii Y., Shiobara R. The analysis of traffic accidents - studies in marine traffic accidents. J. Navigation 1971, 24:534-543.
46. Garcia Negro M.C., Villasante S., Carballo Penela A., Rodriguez Rodriguez R. Estimating the economic impact of the Prestige oil spill on the Death Coast (NW Spain) fisheries. Mar. Policy 2009, 33:8-23.
47. Goerlandt F., Kujala P. On the reliability and validity of ship-ship collision risk analysis in light of different perspectives on risk. Saf. Sci. 2014, 62:348-365. 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.09.010.
48. Goerlandt F., Montewka J. Maritime transportation risk analysis: review and analysis in light of some foundational issues. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe. 2015, 138:115-134. 10.1016/j.ress.2015.01.025.
49. Graveson A. AIS - an inexact science. J. Navigation 2004, 57:339-343.
50. Gucma L., Przywarty M. The model of oil spills due to ship collisions in Southern Baltic Area. TransNav Int. J. Mar. Navig. Saf. Sea Transp. 2008, 2:415-419.
51. Hampel J. Different concepts of risk - a challenge for risk communication. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2006, 296:5-10.
52. Hänninen M. Bayesian networks for maritime traffic accident prevention: benefits and challenges. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 73:305-312.
53. Hänninen M., Mazaheri A., Kujala P., Montewka J., Laaksonen P., Salmiovirta M., Klang M. Expert elicitation of a navigation service implementation effects on ship groundings and collisions in the Gulf of Finland. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part O J. Risk Reliab. 2014, 228:19-28.
54. Harrald J.R., Mazzuchi T.A., Spahn J., Van Dorp R., Merrick J., Shrestha S., Grabowski M. Using system simulation to model the impact of human error in a maritime system. Saf. Sci. 1998, 30:235-247. 10.1016/S0925-7535(98)00048-4.
55. Hassel M., Asbjørnslett B.E., Hole L.P. Underreporting of maritime accidents to vessel accident databases. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43:2053-2063.
56. Hassler B. Accidental versus operational spills from shipping in the Baltic Sea: risk governance and management strategies. Ambio 2011, 40:170-178.
57. HELCOM, 2014. HELCOM - Baltic Sea Trends - Accidents. (accessed 12.20.14). http://helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/maritime/accidents.
58. Helle I., Lecklin T., Jolma A., Kuikka S. Modeling the effectiveness of oil combating from an ecological perspective - a Bayesian network for the Gulf of Finland; the Baltic Sea. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 185:182-192.
59. Hermansson H. Defending the conception of "objective" risk. Risk Anal. 2012, 32.
60. Hodges J.S. Six (or so) things you can do with a bad model. Oper. res. 1991, 39:355-365.
61. Hogström P. RoPax Ship Collision - A Methodology for Survivability Analysis (PhD Dissertation) 2012, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
62. IHS Maritime, 2013. Maritime Insight and Information.
63. IMO, 2003. Revised Interim Guidelines for the Approval of Alternative Methods of Design and Construction of Oil Tankers.
64. IMO, 2008. Formal Safety Assessment - FSA Crude Oil Tankers.
65. IMO, 2010. Manual on Oil Spill Risk Evaluation and Assessment of Response Preparedness. IMO Publishing.
66. Jolma, K., Haapasaari, H., 2014. Oil and Chemical Spill Response in Finland - Current Situation.
67. Kaplan S. The words of risk analysis. Risk Anal. 1997, 17:407-417. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00881.x.
68. Klanac A., Varsta P. Design of marine structures with improved safety for environment. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2011, 96:75-90. 10.1016/j.ress.2010.06.016.
69. Klanac A., Duletić T., Erceg S., Ehlers S., Goerlandt F., Frank D. Environmental risk of collisions in the enclosed European waters: Gulf of Finland, Northern Adriatic and the implications for tanker design. 5th International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships 2010, 55-65. Aalto University, Espoo, Finland.
70. Kloprogge P., van der Sluijs J.P., Petersen A.C. A method for the analysis of assumptions in model-based environmental assessments. Environ. Model. Softw. 2011, 26:289-301.
71. Koller D., Friedman N. Probabilistic graphical models: principles and techniques. Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning 2009, The MIT Press. first ed.
72. Lecklin T., Ryöma R., Kuikka S. A Bayesian network for analyzing biological acute and long-term impacts of an oil spill in the Gulf of Finland. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62:2822-2835.
73. Lee M., Jung J.-Y. Risk assessment and national measure plan for oil and HNS spill accidents near Korea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013, 73:339-344.
74. Lehikoinen A., Luoma E., Mäntyniemi S., Kuikka S. Optimizing the recovery efficiency of Finnish oil combating vessels in the Gulf of Finland using Bayesian Networks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47:1792-1799. 10.1021/es303634f.
75. Li S., Meng Q., Qu X. An overview of maritime waterway quantitative risk assessment models. Risk Anal. 2012, 32:496-512.
76. Lindley D.V. Understanding Uncertainty 2006, Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ. 11th ed.
77. Lützen, M., 2001. Ship Collision Damage. PhD Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby.
78. McAllister, T., Rekart, C., Michel, K., 2003. Evaluation of Accidental Oil Spills from Bunker Tanks (Phase I) (Technical Report No. SSC-424). Ship Structures Committee, Washington, DC.
79. Miraglia R.A. The cultural and behavioral impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on the native peoples of the Prince William Sound, Alaska. Spill Sci. Technol. Bull. 2002, 7:75-87.
80. Montewka J., Hinz T., Kujala P., Matusiak J. Probability modelling of vessel collisions. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2010, 95:573-589. 10.1016/j.ress.2010.01.009.
81. Montewka, J., Ståhlberg, K., Seppala, T., Kujala, P., 2010. Elements of risk analysis for collision of oil tankers. In: Reliability, Risk and Safety: Back to the Future. Presented at the European Safety and Reliability Annual Conference, ESREL2010, Rhodes, Greece, pp. 1005-1013.
82. Montewka J., Weckström M., Kujala P. A probabilistic model estimating oil spill clean-up costs - a case study for the Gulf of Finland. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013, 76:61-71. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.09.031.
83. Montewka J., Ehlers S., Goerlandt F., Hinz T., Tabri K., Kujala P. A framework for risk assessment for maritime transportation systems-a case study for open sea collisions involving RoPax vessels. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2014, 124:142-157. 10.1016/j.ress.2013.11.014.
84. Montewka J., Goerlandt F., Kujala P. On a systematic perspective on risk for formal safety assessment (FSA). Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2014, 127:77-85. 10.1016/j.ress.2014.03.009.
85. 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.
86. NRC, 2001. Environmental Performance of Tanker Designs in Collision and Grounding. Special Report 259. National Research Council.
87. Nyman, T., Porthin, M., Karppinen, S., 2010. Collision and Grounding Frequency Analyses in the Gulf of Finland.
88. OCIMF, 2008. Tanker Management Self-Assessment (TMSA). Oil Companies International Maritime Forum, London.
89. O'Hagan A., Buck C.E., Daneshkhak A., Eiser J.R., Garthwaite P.H., Jenkinson D.J., Oakley J.E., Rakow T. Uncertain Judgments: Eliciting Experts' Probabilities, first ed 2006, Wiley.
90. Okumoto Y., Takeda Y., Mano M., Okada T. Design of Ship Hull Structures: A Practical Guide for Engineers, first ed 2009, Springer.
91. Risk-based Ship Design: Methods, Tools and Applications 2009, Springer. A. Papanikolaou (Ed.).
92. Pitchforth J., Mengersen K. A proposed validation framework for expert elicited Bayesian Networks. Expert Syst. Appl. 2013, 40:162-167.
93. Porathe T., Lützhöft M., Praetorius G. Communicating intended routes in ECDIS: evaluating technological change. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2013, 60:366-370.
94. Psaraftis H.N. Formal safety assessment: an updated review. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2012, 17:390-402.
95. Qu X., Meng Q. The economic importance of the Straits of Malacca and Singapore: an extreme-scenario analysis. Transport. Res. E: Logist. Transport. Rev. 2012, 48:258-265.
96. Qu X., Meng Q., Suyi L. Ship collision risk assessment for the Singapore Strait. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43:2030-2036. 10.1016/j.aap.2011.05.022.
97. Qu X., Meng Q., Li S. Analyses and implications of accidents in Singapore Strait. Transport. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2012, 2273:106-111.
98. Rawson C., Crake K., Brown A. Assessing the environmental performance of tankers in accidental grounding and collision. SNAME Trans. 1998, 106:41-58.
99. Rosqvist T. On the validation of risk analysis - a commentary. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2010, 95:1261-1265.
100. Rosqvist T., Tuominen R. Qualification of formal safety assessment: an exploratory study. Saf. Sci. 2004, 42:99-120.
101. Samuelides M.S., Tabri K., Incecik A., Dimou D. Scenarios for the assessment of the collision behavior of ships. Int. Shipbuild. Prog. 2008, 55:145-162. 10.3233/ISP-2008-0043.
102. Sergejeva M., Laarnearu J., Tabri K. Hydraulic modelling of submerged oil spill including tanker hydrostatic overpressure. Analysis and Design of Marine Structures 2013, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group.
103. Shrader-Frechette K.S. Risk and Rationality: Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms 1991, University of California Press, Berkeley.
104. Smailys V., Česnauskis M. Estimation of expected cargo oil outflow from tanker involved in casualty. Transport 2006, 21:293-300.
105. Solberg O., Njå O. Reflections on the ontological status of risk. J. Risk Res. 2012, 15:1201-1215.
106. Sormunen O.-V.E., Goerlandt F., Häkkinen J., Posti A., Hänninen M., Montewka J., Ståhlberg K., Kujala P. Uncertainty in maritime risk analysis: extended case study on chemical tanker collisions. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part M: J. Eng. Marit. Environ. 2014, 10.1177/1475090213515640.
107. Ståhlberg, K., 2010. Estimating Deformation Energy in Ship-Ship Collisions with Stochastic Modeling (MSc thesis). Aalto University, Otaniemi, Finland.
108. 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. 10.1016/j.marstruc.2013.06.006.
109. Tabri, K., 2010. Influence of coupling in the prediction of ship collision damage. In: Presented at the International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, pp. 133-138.
110. Tabri K., Varsta P., Matusiak J. Numerical and experimental motion simulations of non-symmetric ship collisions. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2010, 15:87-101.
111. Tam C., Bucknall R. Collision risk assessment for ships. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2010, 15:257-270.
112. Tavakoli, M.T., Amdahl, J., Leira, B., 2010. Analytical and numerical modelling of oil spill from a side damaged tank. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Collision and Grounding, ICCGS, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland.
113. Taylor, E., Steen, A., Meza, M., Couzigou, B., Hodges, M., Maranda, D., Ramos, J., Moyano, M., 2008. IOSC workshop report: a proposed international guide for oil spill response planning and readiness assessment. In: Presented at the International Oil Spill Conference, Savannah, Georgia, pp. 1-18.
114. Terndrup Pedersen P., Zhang S. On impact mechanics in ship collisions. Mar. Struct. 1998, 11:429-449.
115. Thompson P.B., Dean W.R. Competing conceptions of risk. Risk Health Saf. Environ. 1996, 7:361-384.
116. Trochim W., Donnely J.P. The Research Methods Knowledge Base 2008, Atomic Dog Publishing. third ed.
117. USCG, 2012. Automatic Identification System - Encoding Guide.
118. Uusitalo L. Advantages and challenges of Bayesian networks in environmental modelling. Ecol. Model. 2007, 203:312-318.
119. Van de Wiel G., van Dorp J.R. An oil outflow model for tanker collisions and groundings. Ann. Oper. Res. 2011, 187:279-304. 10.1007/s10479-009-0674-5.
120. 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. 10.1007/s10479-009-0678-1.
121. Vanem E., Endresen O., Skjong R. Cost-effectiveness criteria for marine oil spill preventive measures. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2008, 93:1354-1368.
122. Vareman N., Persson J. Why separate risk assessors and risk managers? Further external values affecting the risk assessor qua risk assessor. J. Risk Res. 2010, 13:687-700.
123. Wandall B. Values in science and risk assessment. Toxicol. Lett. 2004, 152:265-272.
124. Wang Y., Zhang J., Chen X., Chu X., Yan X. A spatial-temporal forensic analysis for inland-water ship collisions using AIS data. Saf. Sci. 2013, 57:187-202.
125. Watson S.R. On the meaning of probability in probabilistic safety analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 1994, 45:261-269.
126. Weng J., Meng Q., Qu X. Vessel collision frequency estimation in the Singapore Strait. J. Navigation 2012, 65:207-221.
127. Wiśniewski K., Kołakowski P. The effect of selected parameters on ship collision results by dynamic FE simulations. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 2003, 39:985-1006.
128. Yan, X., Zhang, J., Zhang, D., Soares, Carlos Guedes, 2014. Challenges and developments in navigational risk assessment with large uncertainty. In: ASME 2014 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, San Francisco, CA, p. 8. doi:10.1115/OMAE2014-23411.
129. 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.