An Overview of Maritime Waterway Quantitative Risk Assessment Models

Abstract

The safe navigation of ships, especially in narrow shipping waterways, is of the utmost concern to researchers as well as maritime authorities. Many researchers and practitioners have conducted studies on risk assessment for maritime transportation and have proposed risk reduction/control measures accordingly. This article provides a detailed review and assessment of various quantitative risk assessment models for maritime waterways. Eighty-seven academic papers and/or project reports are summarized and discussed. The review then proceeds to analyze the frequency and consequence estimation models separately. It should be pointed out that we further summarize the advantages and disadvantages of frequency estimation models and provide recommendations for their application. From the overview, we find that the quantification of the impact of human error is of great importance and should be considered in future studies. Possible solutions are also proposed in the discussions.

Comparison study on AIS data of ship traffic behavior

“…Originally, analytical methods were used to calculate the probability of collisions, such as AASHTO model AASHTO (1998). Li et al (2012) and Xiao et al (2010) compared alternative is to simulate ship movements based on Fuzzy Logic approach (Priadi et al, 2012), Bayesian Networks Szwed et al, 2006), and Neural Networks (Łącki et al, 2012). However, these methods are still dependent on expert opinions or other human interventions.…”

A Theoretical Risk Management Framework for Vessels Operating Near Offshore Wind Farms

“…Organizations like ANATEC (2014) also use accident statistics and subsequent predictive estimates to assess the consequences of maritime accidents near OWFs. Goerlandt and Montewka (2014), amongst others, have developed thorough and robust probabilistic consequence models using methods such as Bayesian Networks, fault trees, and event trees (Li et al 2012). Similar work has been carried out by Vanem and Skjong (2004), Mazaheri (2009), Montewka (2009, Montewka et al (2010aMontewka et al ( , 2014a, van de Wiel and van Dorp (2011), Ståhlberg et al (2013), and Helle et al (2015), amongst other authors.…”

“…Review texts range from complete books, to comparison and review papers (Goerlandt and Montewka 2015;Amdahl et al 2013;Li et al 2012;Pedersen 2010;Wang et al 2002;Soares and Teixeira 2001). It is therefore unfeasible, and redundant, to have a detailed discussion of the various risk assessment models in this report.…”

“…Fujii and Tanaka (1971) also pioneered the concept of a 'collision diameter' or 'ship domain'. A 'collision diameter' is essentially an area enveloping a ship, which-if encroached by another ship-would lead to an imminent collision; this diameter or domain can be calculated using factors such as ship size, manoeuvring capabilities, waterway geometry, and laws of motion (Li et al 2012).…”

Ship Collision Frequency Estimation in Port Fairways: A Case Study

“…Many studies have further reported that collisions are over-represented in port water accidents (Goossens and Glansdorp, 1998;Akten, 2004;Yip, 2008). Li et al (2012) reported that Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) models can assess the effectiveness of risk mitigation measures. Considering the fact that the most important contributing input into QRA models is ship collision frequency (Weng et al, 2012), more focus should be placed on the estimation of ship collision frequency in the port water fairways.…”