Review of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Models for Ship Collisions with Structures
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Method
3. Statistics of Collision Rates
4. Statistical Models
4.1. AASHTO Model
4.2. Kunz’s Model
4.3. Eurocode Model
4.4. Pedersen’s Model
4.5. Drift Model
4.6. Three Random Variables Model
4.7. Comparisons of the Statistical Models
5. Simulation Models as a Substitute
5.1. Simulation Models
5.2. Comparisons of The Simulation Models
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Laheld, P. Statistics on collision accidents involving offshore structures. In Ship Collision with Bridges and Offshore Structures, Introductory Report, IABSE COLLOQUIUM. 1983; IABSE: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gardenier, J.S. Safety of bridges and offshore structures: The role of ship simulation. In Ship Collision with Bridges and Offshore Structures, Introductory Report, IABSE COLLOQUIUM. 1983; IABSE: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larsen, O.D. Ship collision risk assessment for bridges. In Ship Collision with Bridges and Offshore Structures, Introductory Report, IABSE COLLOQUIUM. 1983; IABSE: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ylitalo, J. Ship-Ship Collision Probability of the Crossing Area between Helsinki and Tallinn, in a Student Research Project; Helsinki University of Technology: Espoo, Finland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Geng, B. Safety Assessment of Bridges Due to Vessel Impact; Tongji University: Shanghai, China, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Gucma, L. Method of ship-bridge collision safety evaluation. Reliab. Risk Anal. Theory Appl. 2009, 4, 50–63. [Google Scholar]
- Goerlandt, F.; Khakzad, N.; Reniers, G. Validity and validation of safety-related quantitative risk analysis: A review. Saf. Sci. 2017, 99, 127–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shu, Y.; Daamen, W.; Ligteringen, H.; Wang, M.; Hoogendoorn, S. Calibration and validation for the vessel maneuvering prediction (VMP) model using AIS data of vessel encounters. Ocean Eng. 2018, 169, 529–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, F. Ships in an Artificial Force Field: A Multi-Agent System for Nautical Traffic and Safety; Delft University of Technology: Delft, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Goerlandt, F. Risk analysis in maritime transportation: Principles, frameworks and evaluation. In Department of Applied Mechanics; Aalto University: Helsinki, Finland, 2015; p. 94. [Google Scholar]
- Geng, B.; Wang, H.; Wang, J. Probabilistic Model of Influence Parameters for Vessel-Bridge Collisions in Three-Gorges Reservoir. J. Tongji Univ. Nat. Sci. 2008, 36, 477–482. [Google Scholar]
- Li, S.; Meng, Q.; Qu, X. An Overview of Maritime Waterway Quantitative Risk Assessment Models. Risk Anal. 2012, 32, 496–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mazaheri, A.; Montewka, J.; Kujala, P. Modeling the risk of ship grounding—A literature review from a risk management perspective. WMU J. Marit. Aff. 2014, 13, 269–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, J.; Xu, Y.; Liu, M.; Zhang, J.; Li, B. Study on dangerous collision area of ships out of control in Sutong Bridge area. Eng. Sci. 2009, 7, 85–88. [Google Scholar]
- PIANC. Ship Collision Due to the Presence of Bridge, Report of Working Group 19 of the Inland Navigation Commision; PIANC General Secretariat: Brussels, Belgium, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Van Manen, S.E.; Frandsen, A.G. Ship collision with bridges, review of accidents. In Ship Collision Analysis; Balkema: Rooterdamm, The Netherlands, 1998; pp. 3–11. [Google Scholar]
- Trucco, P.; Cagno, E.; Ruggeri, F.; Grande, O. A Bayesian Belief Network modelling of organisational factors in risk analysis: A case study in maritime transportation. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2008, 93, 845–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bin, L. Behavior of Ship Officers in Maneuvering to Prevent a Collision. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2006, 14, 225–230. [Google Scholar]
- Kujala, P.; Hänninen, M. The effects of causation probability on the ship collision statistics in the Gulf of Finland. Mar. Navig. Saf. Sea Transp. 2009, 4, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Itoh, H.; Mitomo, N.; Matsuoka, T.; Murohara, Y. Extension of the m-SHEL Model for Analysis of Human Factors at Ship Operation. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships (ICCGS 2004), Izu, Japan, 25–27 October 2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zheng, B.; Xia, S.; Chen, J.; Jin, Y. Human Factor Analysis on Marine Accidents Based on Attribute Reduction. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Measuring Technology and Mechatronics Automation, Zhangjiajie, China, 11–12 April 2009; Volume 2, pp. 499–502. [Google Scholar]
- Roeleven, D.; Kok, M.; Stipdonk, H.; De Vries, W. Inland waterway transport: Modelling the probability of accidents. Saf. Sci. 1995, 19, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gucma, L.; Schoeneich, M. Probabilistic Model of Underkeel Clearance in Decision Making Process of Port Captain. TransNav Int. J. Mar. Navig. Saf. Sea Transp. 2008, 2, 167–171. [Google Scholar]
- Ylitalo, J. Modelling Marine Accident Frequency. In Faculty of Information and Natural Sciences; Aalto University School of Science and Technology: Helsinki, Finland, 2010; p. 91. [Google Scholar]
- AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications—SI Units, 3rd ed.; American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Kunz, C. Ship bridge collision in river traffic, analysis and design practice. In Ship Collision Analysis; Balkema: Rooterdam, The Netherlands, 1998; pp. 13–21. [Google Scholar]
- Vrouwenvelder, A.M. Design for Ship Impact According to Eurocode 1, Part 2.7; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pedersen, P.T. Collision risk for fixed offshore structures close to high-density shipping lanes. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part M J. Eng. Marit. Environ. 2002, 216, 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larsen, O.D. Ship Collision with Bridges: The Interaction between Vessel Traffic and Bridge Structures; International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering: Zürich, Switzerland, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Frandsen, A.G.; Olsen, D.F.; Lund, H.T.; Bach, P.E. Evaluation of Minimum Bridge Span Openings Applying Ship Domain Theory; Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Povel, D. Collision Risk Analysis for Offshore Structures and Offshore Wind Farms. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. Volume 1: Offshore Technology; Offshore Wind Energy; Ocean Research Technology; LNG Specialty Symposium, Hamburg, Germany, 4–9 June 2006; pp. 653–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, T.; Wang, J.; Chen, A. Construction of Probability Models about Ship Collision with Bridge Piers Based on Accident Records. J. Tongji Univ. Nat. Sci. 2007, 35, 181–186. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Geng, B. Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Safety Measurement of Bridge under Vessel Collisions; China Communications Press: Beijing, China, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Xiao, F.L.; Ale, B.; Jagtman, E. Overview of Methods on Modeling Risks of Ship in the Presence of Bridge; Progress in Safety Science and Technology: Hangzhou, China, 2010; Volume Viii, Pts. A and B, pp. 1905–1916. [Google Scholar]
- Goerlandt, F.; Montewka, J. Maritime transportation risk analysis: Review and analysis in light of some foundational issues. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2015, 138, 115–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webster, W.C. Shiphandling Simulation: Application to Waterway Design; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Priadi, A.A.; Tjahjono, T.; Benabdelhafid, A. Assessing Safety of Ferry Routes by Ship Handling Model through AHP and Fuzzy Approach. Intell. Inf. Manag. 2012, 4, 277–283. [Google Scholar]
- Szwed, P.; van Dorp, J.R.; Merrick, J.; Mazzuchi, T.; Singh, A. A Bayesian paired comparison approach for relative accident probability assessment with covariate information. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2006, 169, 157–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Łącki, M. Neuroevolutionary Ship Handling System in a Windy Environment. Int. J. Mar. Navig. Saf. Sea Transp. 2012, 6, 453–458. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, Y.; Daamen, W.; Vellinga, T.; Hoogendoorn, S. Review of maritime traffic models from vessel behavior modeling perspective. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2019, 105, 323–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, P.V.; Dove, M.J.; Stockel, C.T. A Computer Simulation of Marine Traffic Using Domains and Arenas. J. Navig. 1980, 33, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodwin, E.M. A Statistical Study of Ship Domains. J. Navig. 1975, 28, 328–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, K.; Yuan, Z.; Xin, X.; Zhang, J.; Wang, W. Conflict detection method based on dynamic ship domain model for visualization of collision risk Hot-Spots. Ocean Eng. 2021, 242, 110143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pietrzykowski, Z.; Uriasz, J. The Ship Domain—A Criterion of Navigational Safety Assessment in an Open Sea Area. J. Navig. 2009, 62, 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pimontel, L.A. A Study into Maritime Collision Probability, in Civil Engineering and Geosciences; TU Delft, Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Hydraulic Engineering: Delft, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Van Dorp, J.R.; Merrick, J.R.; Harrald, J.R.; Mazzuchi, T.A.; Grabowski, M.A. risk management procedure for the Washington state ferries. Risk Anal. 2001, 21, 127–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merrick, J.R.; van Dorp, J.; Blackford, J.P.; Shaw, G.L.; Harrald, J.; Mazzuchi, T.A. A traffic density analysis of proposed ferry service expansion in San Francisco Bay using a maritime simulation model. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2003, 81, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merrick, J.R.W.; Van Dorp, J.R.; Dinesh, V. Assessing Uncertainty in Simulation-Based Maritime Risk Assessment. Risk Anal. 2005, 25, 731–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrald, J.; Mazzuchi, T.; 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merrick, J.R.; van Dorp, J.R.; Harrald, J.; Mazzuchi, T.; Spahn, J.E.; Grabowski, M. A systems approach to managing oil transportation risk in Prince William Sound. Syst. Eng. 2000, 3, 128–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merrick, J.R.W.; van Dorp, J.R.; Mazzuchi, T.; Harrald, J.R.; Spahn, J.E.; Grabowski, M. The Prince William Sound Risk Assessment. Interfaces 2002, 32, 25–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grabowski, M.; Merrick, J.; Harrold, J.; Massuchi, T.; Van Dorp, J. Risk modeling in distributed, large-scale systems. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.—Part A Syst. Hum. 2000, 30, 651–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Merrick, J.R.W.; van Dorp, R. Speaking the truth in maritime risk assessment. Risk Anal. 2006, 26, 223–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Van Dorp, J.R.; Merrick, J.R.W. On a risk management analysis of oil spill risk using maritime transportation system simulation. Ann. Oper. Res. 2009, 187, 249–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasegawa, K.; Shigemori, Y.; Ichiyama, Y. Feasibility study on intelligent marine traffic system. In Proceedings of the 5th IFAC Conference on Maneuvering and Control of Marine Craft (MCMC), Aalborg, Denmark, 23–25 August 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Köse, E.; Başar, E.; Demirci, E.; Güneroǧlu, A.; Erkebay, Ş. Simulation of marine traffic in Istanbul Strait. Simul. Model. Pr. Theory 2003, 11, 597–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulusçu, Ö.S.; Özbaş, B.; Altıok, T.; Or, I. Risk Analysis of the Vessel Traffic in the Strait of Istanbul. Risk Anal. 2009, 29, 1454–1472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goerlandt, F.; Kujala, P. Traffic simulation based ship collision probability modeling. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2011, 96, 91–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montewka, J.; Hinz, T.; Kujala, P.; Matusiak, J. Probability modelling of vessel collisions. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2010, 95, 573–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kujala, P.; Hänninen, M.; Arola, T.; Ylitalo, J. Analysis of the marine traffic safety in the Gulf of Finland. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2009, 94, 1349–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xin, X.; Liu, K.; Yang, X.; Yuan, Z.; Zhang, J. A simulation model for ship navigation in the “Xiazhimen” waterway based on statistical analysis of AIS data. Ocean Eng. 2019, 180, 279–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krata, P.; Montewka, J. Assessment of a critical area for a give-way ship in a collision encounter. Arch. Transp. 2015, 34, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Qi, L.; Zheng, Z.; Gang, L. A cellular automaton model for ship traffic flow in waterways. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2017, 471, 705–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, L.; Zheng, Z.; Gang, L. Marine traffic model based on cellular automaton: Considering the change of the ship’s velocity under the influence of the weather and sea. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2017, 483, 480–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Z.; Chen, Z.; Hu, H.; Zheng, J. Ship interaction in narrow water channels: A two-lane cellular automata approach. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2015, 431, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, F.; Ma, Y. Artificial forces for virtual autonomous ships with encountering situations in restricted waters. Marit. Policy Manag. 2020, 47, 687–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosqvist, T. On the validation of risk analysis—A commentary. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2010, 95, 1261–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Risk Factors | Risk Elements | AASHTO Model | Kunz’s Model | Eurocode Model | Pedersen’s Model | Drift Model | Three Random Variables Model |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Structure Factor | Pier/Object Positions | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Span of Bridge | √ | √ | - | √ | √ | √ | |
Pier/Object Dimensions | √ | √ | - | √ | √ | √ | |
Navigational Circumstances | Wind | - | - | - | - | √ | - |
Current | √ | - | - | - | √ | - | |
Tide | - | - | - | - | √ | - | |
Water Depth | √ | - | - | √ | √ | √ | |
Visibility | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
Channel Bends | √ | - | √ | - | - | - | |
Ship Traffic Density | √ | - | √ | √ | - | - | |
Ship Factor | Ship Dimension | √ | - | - | √ | √ | √ |
Probability of Vessel Aberrancy | √ | - | √ | √ | - | - | |
Distribution of Vessel Position Perpendicular to Normal Route | √ | - | √ | √ | - | √ | |
Ship Deviation Angle | - | √ | - | - | √ | √ | |
Distribution of Stopping Distance | - | √ | - | - | √ | √ | |
Failure Rate Per Travel Unit | - | √ | √ | - | - | √ | |
Speed of The Ships | - | - | √ | √ | √ | - | |
Ship Classification | √ | - | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
Human Factor | Human Error | - | - | √ | √ | - | - |
Pros and Cons | Factors | Ship-Handling Simulators | MARTRAM | OFI Model | SMARTS | Istanbul Strait Model | MDTC Model | CA Model |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Contributions for Risk Assessment | Collision Avoidances | √ | √ | - | √ | - | - | - |
Considering Extreme Circumstances | √ | √ | - | - | - | - | - | |
Ship Hydrodynamics | √ | - | - | - | - | √ | √ | |
Widely Recognized | √ | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
Considering Ship Traffic Conditions | - | √ | √ | √ | - | - | √ | |
Automatic Behavior | - | √ | - | √ | - | - | √ | |
Fast | - | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
Encounter Counts | - | - | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
Distribution of Vessel Position | - | - | - | - | √ | √ | ||
Distribution of Ship Arrival | - | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||
Various Ship Speed | √ | - | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
Crossing Encounters | √ | √ | - | √ | - | √ | - | |
Limitations for Risk Assessment | Human Intervention | √ | - | √ | - | - | - | - |
Time Consuming | √ | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
Expensiveness | √ | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Xiao, F.; Ma, Y.; Wu, B. Review of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Models for Ship Collisions with Structures. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3441. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12073441
Xiao F, Ma Y, Wu B. Review of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Models for Ship Collisions with Structures. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(7):3441. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12073441
Chicago/Turabian StyleXiao, Fangliang, Yong Ma, and Bo Wu. 2022. "Review of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Models for Ship Collisions with Structures" Applied Sciences 12, no. 7: 3441. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12073441
APA StyleXiao, F., Ma, Y., & Wu, B. (2022). Review of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Models for Ship Collisions with Structures. Applied Sciences, 12(7), 3441. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12073441