Quantification of human error probability towards the gas inerting process on-board crude oil tankers

Safety Science

Volumn 80, Issue , 2015, Pages 77-86

  Akyuz, Emre ^a  

^a PIRI REIS UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Crude oil tanker; Gas inerting; HEP quantification; Maritime safety; Risk assessment

Indexed keywords

CRUDE OIL; ERRORS; GASES; IONIZATION OF GASES; PROBABILITY; REDUCTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY ENGINEERING; SHIPS; TANKS (CONTAINERS);

HEP QUANTIFICATION; HUMAN ERROR PROBABILITY; INERTING; MARINE ENVIRONMENT; MARITIME SAFETY; OPERATIONAL BENEFITS; PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTS; QUANTITATIVE APPROACH;

OIL TANKERS;

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PROCESS CONTROL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK REDUCTION; SAFETY; SHIP; SHIPPING;

EID: 84938125094     PISSN: 09257535     EISSN: 18791042     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.07.018     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. ABS, 2013. Marine Health, Safety, Quality, Environmental and Energy Management (The ABS Guide for Marine Management Systems). American Bureau of Shipping, Houston, USA.
2. Akhtar M.J., Utne I.B. Human fatigue's effect on the risk of maritime groundings - a Bayesian network modeling approach. Saf. Sci. 2014, 62:427-440.
3. Akyuz E., Celik M. A methodological extension to human reliability analysis for cargo tank cleaning operation on board chemical tanker ships. Saf. Sci. 2015, 75:146-155.
4. Allianz Global Corporate and Speciality, 2013. Safety and Shipping, 1912-2012. Cardiff University.
5. Apostolakis G.E., Bier V.M., Mosleh A. A critique of recent models for human error rate assessment. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 1988, 22:201-217.
6. Balmat J.-F., Lafont F., Maifret R., Pessel N. A decision-making system to maritime risk assessment. Ocean Eng. 2011, 38:171-176.
7. Celik M., Lavasani S.M., Wang J. A risk-based modelling approach to enhance shipping accident investigation. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48:18-27.
8. Chang C.-H., Xu J., Song D.-P. An analysis of safety and security risks in container shipping operations: a case study of Taiwan. Saf. Sci. 2014, 63:168-178.
9. David M., Gollasch S., Leppakoski E. Risk assessment for exemptions from ballast water management - the Baltic Sea case study. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013, 75(1-2):205-217.
10. DiMattia D., Khan F.I., Amyotte P.R. Determination of human error probabilities for offshore platform musters. J. Loss Prevent. Process Ind. 2005, 18:488-501.
11. EMSA, 2013. Maritime Accident Review.
12. Fabiano B., Curro F., Reverberi A.P., Pastorino R. Port safety and the container revolution: a statistical study on human factor and occupational accidents over the long period. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48(8):980-990.
13. 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.
14. Goerlandt F., Montewka J. A probabilistic model for accidental cargo oil outflow from product tankers in a ship-ship collision. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 79(1-2):130-144.
15. He X., Wang Y., Shen Z., Huang X. A simplified CREAM prospective quantification process and its application. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2008, 93:298-306.
16. Hollnagel E. Human reliability Analysis: Context and Control 1993, Academic Press, London, UK.
17. Hollnagel E. Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method 1998, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
18. IBC Code, 2007. International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk, IMO Publications, London, UK.
19. ISGOTT, 2006. International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals, fifth ed. ICS, OCIMF and IAPH, London.
20. Jianhua L., Zhenghua H. Fire and explosion risk analysis and evaluation for LNG ships. Procedia Eng. 2012, 45:70-76.
21. Karahalios H. The contribution of risk management in ship management: the case of ship collision. Saf. Sci. 2014, 63:104-114.
22. Lavasani S.M., Zendegani A., Celik M. An extension to Fuzzy Fault Tree Analysis (FFTA) application in petrochemical process industry. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2015, 93:75-88.
23. Liwång H., Ringsberg J.W., Norsell M. Quantitative risk analysis - Ship security analysis for effective risk control options. Saf. Sci. 2013, 58:98-112.
24. Price J.M., Johnson W.R., Ji Z.-G., Marshall C.F., Rainey G.B. Sensitivity testing for improved efficiency of a statistical oil-spill risk analysis model. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2004, 19:671-679.
25. Qu X., Meng Q., Suyi L. Ship collision risk assessment for the Singapore Strait. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43(6):2030-2036.
26. Roohi S.F., Xie M., Ng K.M. Accident risk assessment in marine transportation via Markov modelling and Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation. Ocean Eng. 2014, 91:363-370.
27. Soeanu A., Debbabi M., Alhadidi D., Makkawi M., Allouche M., Bélanger M., Léchevin N. Transportation risk analysis using probabilistic model checking. Expert Syst. Appl. 2015, 42:4410-4421.
28. Shepherd A. Hierarchical Task Analysis 2001, Taylor and Francis, London.
29. UNCTAD, 2014. Review of Maritime Transport. United Nations, New York and Genova.
30. Wang Y.F., Xie M., Habibullah M.S., Ng K.M. Quantitative risk assessment through hybrid causal logic approach. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. O: J. Risk Reliab. 2011, 225(O3):323-332.
31. Yang Z., Wang J. Use of fuzzy risk assessment in FMEA of offshore engineering systems. Ocean Eng. 2015, 95:195-204.