A human reliability assessment of marine auxiliary machinery maintenance operations under ship PMS and maintenance 4.0 concepts

  • C. KandemirEmail author
  • M. Celik
Original Article


Maintenance is one of the core technical aspects on board ships, which is required for the ready availability, reliability, and efficiency of machinery equipment. As machinery systems are critical for merchant ships, inadequate maintenance operations lead to serious consequences, including total loss of the vessel. The most commonly used maintenance approach on board a ship is a planned maintenance schedule (PMS). Since a PMS is highly dependent on human effort, human reliability comes into force as an important issue. However, the latest maintenance approaches, such as maintenance 4.0, focus on reducing the human workload in maintenance operations. Therefore, this study investigates the potential benefits of maintenance 4.0 in proportion to the aspects of human reliability. It examines a diesel generator maintenance operation. The shipboard operation human reliability analysis approach is utilized to conduct an empirical human reliability analysis for classic PMS, and, additionally, scenario-based maintenance 4.0 environments. Human error probability (HEP) values are calculated separately and a detailed comparison is provided. As a consequence, the overall HEP is dramatically reduced through the use of maintenance 4.0 (from 6.78E−01 to 1.17E−01).


Ship maintenance Ship PMS Human error Maintenance 4.0 Maintenance operations 



This article is produced from initial stages of PhD thesis research entitled “A human reliability assessment to marine auxiliary machinery maintenance operations under ship PMS and maintenance 4.0 concepts”, which has been executed in a PhD Program in Maritime Transportation Engineering of the Istanbul Technical University Graduate School of Science, Engineering and Technology. The authors are also grateful to operation managers and the shipboard personnel of STATU Shipping Company for their support of field studies on board ships.


  1. ABS (2014) Maritime accidents and human performance: the statistical trail. ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2004, presented at MARTECH 2004, Singapore, September 22–24, 2004Google Scholar
  2. Akyuz E (2015a) Quantification of human error probability towards the gas inerting process on-board crude oil tankers. Saf Sci 80:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akyuz E (2015b) A decision-making model proposal on human reliability analysis on-board ship. PhD thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Graduate School of Science Engineering and Technology. Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  4. Akyuz E (2016) Quantitative human error assessment during abandon ship procedures in maritime transportation. Ocean Eng 120:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Akyuz E (2017) A marine accident analysing model to evaluate potential operational causes in cargo ships. Saf Sci 92:17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Akyuz E, Celik M (2015a) A methodological extension to human reliability analysis for cargo tank cleaning operation on board chemical tanker ships. Saf Sci 75:146–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Akyuz E, Celik M (2015b) Application of CREAM human reliability model to cargo loading process of LPG tankers. J Loss Prev Process Ind 34:39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Akyuz E, Celik M, Cebi S (2016) A phase of comprehensive research to determine marine-specific EPC values in human error assessment and reduction technique. Saf Sci 87:63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Akyuz E, Celik E, Celik M (2018) A practical application of human reliability assessment for operating procedures of the emergency fire pump at ship. Ships Offshore Struct 13(2):208–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Almond RG (1992) An extended example for testing graphical belief. Technical Report 6, Statistical Sciences IncGoogle Scholar
  11. Baidya R, Ghosh SK (2015) Model for a predictive maintenance system effectiveness using the analytical hierarchy process as analytical tool. IFAC-PapersOnLine 48(3):1463–1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bertolini M, Bevilacqua M, Cooper SE (2010) Fuzzy cognitive maps for human reliability analysis in production systems. Prod Eng Manag Under Fuzziness Stud Fuzziness Soft Comput 252:381–415CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Bokrantz J, Skoogh A, Berlin C, Stahre J (2017) Maintenance in digitalised manufacturing: Delphi-based scenarios for 2030. Int J Prod Econ 191:154–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calhoun J, Savoie C, Randolph-Gips M, Bozkurt I (2014) Human reliability analysis in spaceflight applications, Part 2: modified CREAM for spaceflight. Qual Reliab Eng Int 30(1):3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Campos J, Jantunen E, Prakash O (2009) A web and mobile device architecture for mobile e-maintenance. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 45(1–2):71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Caputo F, Greco A, D’Amato E, Notaro I, Spada S (2018) On the use of virtual reality for a human-centered workplace design. Procedia Struct Integr 8:297–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chalabia N, Dahaneb M, Beldjilalia B, Nekic A (2016) Optimisation of preventive maintenance grouping strategy for multi-component series systems: particle swarm based approach. Comput Ind Eng 102:440–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chang HH, Si XS, Yang JB (2010) System reliability prediction model based on evidential reasoning algorithm with nonlinear optimization. Expert Syst Appl 37:2550–2562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chauvin C, Lardjane S, Morel G, Clostermann J-P, Langard B (2013) Human and organisational factors in maritime accidents: analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS. Accid Anal Prev 59:26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chiou SY, Chang SY (2018) An enhanced authentication scheme in mobile RFID system. Ad Hoc Netw 71:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cooper SE, Ramey-Smith AM, Wreathall J (1996) A technique for human error analysis (ATHEANA). Nureg/CR-6350, USNRC, 1996Google Scholar
  22. Cullum J, Binns J, Lonsdale M, Abbassi R, Garaniya V (2018) Risk-based maintenance scheduling with application to naval vessels and ships. Ocean Eng 148:476–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Detroit Corporation (1979) Service manual, Detroit diesel engines. Division of General Motors Corporation, Detroit, p 48228Google Scholar
  24. Embrey DE, Humphreys PC, Rosa EA, Kirwan B, Rea K (1984) SLIM-MAUD: an approach to assessing human error probabilities using structured expert judgement. NUREG/CR-3518. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  25. EMSA (2015) Annual overview of marine causalities and incident. European Maritime Safety Agency, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  26. Gaonkar RSP, Xie M, Ng MM, Habibullah MS (2011) Subjective operational reliability assessment of maritime transportation system. Expert Syst Appl 38(11):13835–13846Google Scholar
  27. Gertman D, Blackman H, Marble J, Byers J, Smith C (2005) The SPAR-H human reliability analysis method. NUREG/CR-6883. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  28. Hausken K (2008) Strategic defense and attack for reliability systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93:1740–1750MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Hirotsu Y, Suzuki K, Kojima M, Takano K (2001) Multivariate analysis of human error incidents occurring at nuclear power plants: several occurrence patterns of observed human errors. Cogn Technol Work 3(2):82–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hollnagel E (1998) Cognitive reliability and error analysis method. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  31. Islam R, Abbassi R, Garaniya V, Khan FI (2016) Determination of human error probabilities for the maintenance operations of marine engines. J Ship Prod Des 32:226–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Islam R, Abbassi R, Garaniya V, Khan F (2017) Development of a human reliability assessment technique for the maintenance procedures of marine and offshore operations. J Loss Prev Process Ind 50:416–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jang I, Kim AR, Al Harbi MAS, Lee SJ, Kang HG, Seong PH (2013) An empirical study on the basic human error probabilities for NPP advanced main control room operation using soft control. Nucl Eng Des 257:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kandemir C, Celik M (2017) Determining shipboard integration requirements of maintenance 4.0 concept in marine engineering. In: 2nd world conference on technology, innovation and entrepreneurship, 12–14 May 2017, Istanbul, Turkey. ISBN:978-605-9811-01-9Google Scholar
  35. Kandemir C, Celik M, Akyuz E, Aydin O (2019) Application of human reliability analysis to repair & maintenance operations on-board ships: the case of HFO purifier overhauling. Appl Ocean Res 88:317–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kirwan B, Gibson WH (2008). Human reliability assessment (CARA) development for EUROCONTROL Q07/22268NCGoogle Scholar
  37. Liang GS, Wang MJJ (1993) Evaluating human reliability using fuzzy relation. Microelectron Reliab 33(1):63–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mahon LLJ (1992) Diesel generator handbook. Newnes, LyntonGoogle Scholar
  39. Marquez FPG, Tobias AM, Perez JMP (2012) Condition monitoring of wind turbines: techniques and methods. Mayorkinas Papaelias Renew Energy 46:169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martins MR, Matuna MC (2013) Application of Bayesian Belief networks to the human reliability analysis of an oil tanker operation focusing on collision accidents. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 110:89–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Masoni R, Ferrise F, Bordegoni M, Gattullo M, Uva AE, Fiorentino M et al (2017) Supporting remote maintenance in industry 4.0 through augmented reality. Procedia Manuf 11:1296–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Musharraf M, Hassan J, Khan F, Veitch B, MacKinnon S, Imtiaz S (2013) Human reliability assessment during offshore emergency conditions. Saf Sci 59:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nazir S, Patel S, Patel D (2017) Assessing and augmenting SCADA cyber security: a survey of techniques. Comput Secur 70:436–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Noroozi A, Khakzad N, Khan F, MacKinnon S, Abbassi R (2013) The role of human error in risk analysis: application to pre-and post-maintenance procedures of process facilities. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 119:251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Okaro IA, Tao L (2016) Reliability analysis and optimisation of subsea compression system facing operational covariate stresses. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 156:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pyy P (2000) An approach for assessing human decision reliability. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 68(1):17e28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Qin J, Liu Y, Grosvenor R (2016) A categorical framework of manufacturing for industry 4.0 and beyond. Procedia Cirp 52:173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rangra S, Sallak M, Schön W, Vanderhaegen F (2017) A graphical model based on performance shaping factors for assessing human reliability. IEEE Trans Reliab 66(4):1120–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rashid HSJ, Place CS, Braithwaite GR (2014) Eradicating root causes of aviation maintenance errors: introducing the AMMP. Cogn Technol Work 16(1):71–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Raza A, Ulansky V (2017) Modelling of predictive maintenance for a periodically inspected system. Procedia CIRP 59:95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Restrepo LMR, Hennequin S, Aguezzoul A (2016) Optimization of integrated preventive maintenance based on infinitesimal perturbation analysis. Comput Ind Eng 98:470–482. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. Saaty TL (1986) Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Manage Sci 32:841–855MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. Saaty TL (1994) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces 24(6):19–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sipsas K, Alexopoulos K, Xanthakis V, Chryssolouris G (2016) Collaborative maintenance in flow-line manufacturing environments: an Industry 4.0 approach. Procedia CIRP 55:236–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Swain AD, Guttmann HE (1983) Handbook of human reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Taga H, Furuta K, Kanno T (2012) Human reliability analysis of car drivers in urban intersections. Cogn Technol Work 14(4):365–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Turan O, Ölçer Aİ, Lazakis I, Rigo P, Caprace JD (2009) Maintenance/repair and production-oriented life cycle cost/earning model for ship structural optimisation during conceptual design stage. Ships Offshore Struct 4(2):107–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ugurlu O, Kose E, Yıldırım U, Yukselyıldız E (2015) Marine accident analysis for collision and grounding in oil tanker using FTA method. Marit Policy Manag 42(2):163–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Uhlmann E, Laghmouchi A, Geisert C, Hohwieler E (2017) Decentralized data analytics for maintenance in industrie 4.0. Procedia Manuf 11:1120–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ung ST (2015) A weighted CREAM model for maritime human reliability analysis. Saf Sci 72:144–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vanderhaegen F (2017) Towards increased systems resilience: new challenges based on dissonance control for human reliability in Cyber-Physical&Human Systems. Annu Rev Control 44:316–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wang K (2016) Intelligent predictive maintenance (IPdM) system–industry 4.0 scenario. WIT Trans Eng Sci 113:259–268Google Scholar
  64. Weichai Power (2009) Operation & maintenance manual and service manual for WD615/WD10 series marine diesel engine. Revised in March 2009, 612600820178Google Scholar
  65. Westerbeke Corporation (2017) Operators manual marine diesel generators. Publication no: 044800, Revision 6, February 2017Google Scholar
  66. Williams JC (1988) A data-based method for assessing and reducing human error to improve operational performance. In: Proceedings of IEEE 4th conference on human factor and power plants. Monterey, California, pp 436–453Google Scholar
  67. Woods DD, Dekker S, Cook R, Johannesen L, Sarter N (2017) Behind human error. CRC, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Woodyard D (2009) Pounder’s marine diesel engines and gas turbines. Butterworth-Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  69. Xi YT, Yang ZL, Fang QG, Chen WJ, Wang J (2017) A new hybrid approach to human error probability quantification–applications in maritime operations. Ocean Eng 138:45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yang ZL, Bonsall S, Wall A, Wang J, Usman M (2013) A modified CREAM to human reliability quantification in marine engineering. Ocean Eng 58:293–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yanmar Corporation (2013) Operational manual, marine engines, 2nd edn. Yanmar Corporation, OsakaGoogle Scholar
  72. Ye M, Li M, Duan M, Gao P, Fang X, Liu X et al (2015) Design and verification of the ship attitudes measuring and monitoring and analysis system. Ships Offshore Struct 10(2):107–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marine EngineeringIstanbul Technical UniversityTuzlaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Basic ScienceIstanbul Technical UniversityTuzlaTurkey

Personalised recommendations