# Frequency versus tons of oil spilt curve of oil tankers using an enhanced power-law distribution function

- 69 Downloads

## Abstract

There is a possibility that accidents of oil tankers cause human loss and/or marine environmental pollution. Therefore, it is important to examine safety measures to prevent the accidents or to reduce subsequent damages. “Risk” is an index to quantitatively evaluate the effectiveness of such measures. One of the methods to express the risk is *F*–*T* (frequency vs. tons of spilt oil) curve. Some approximation functions have been proposed so far by the application of power-law distributions to express exceedance frequency curves of consequence severity, corresponding to *F*–*T* curve. However, there are some technical issues to be resolved in these approximation functions. Hence, the authors developed approximation functions to express the exceedance frequency curve of consequence severity by applying power-law distributions. In this study, these functions have been modified further to approximate *F*–*T* curve. It has been found that the present functions nicely reproduce *F*–*T* curve obtained from historical database. Furthermore, in the application of the present functions, it has been shown that the approximation of *F*–*T* curve by these functions enables us to identify a volume range of spilt oil with higher risk.

## Keywords

Frequency versus tons of oil spilt (*F*–

*T*) curve Enhanced power-law distribution function Oil tanker Risk analysis

## Notes

## References

- 1.IMO (2018) Revised guidelines for formal safety assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process, MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.12/Rev.2Google Scholar
- 2.Hirst IL, Carter DA (2002) A “worst case” methodology for obtaining a rough but rapid indication of the societal risk from a major accident hazard installation. J Hazard Mater 92(3):223–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.IChemE (2009) An independent review of HSE methodology for assessing societal risk. HSEGoogle Scholar
- 4.Spouge J (2006) New generic leak frequencies for process equipment. Process Saf Prog 24(4):249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Kasai N, Matsuhashi S, Sekine K (2013) Accident occurrence model for the risk analysis of industrial facilities. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 114:71–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Kaneko F, Yuzui T, Maeda K (2013) Frequency analysis of cryogenic fluid’s leakage on FLNG. Pap Natl Maritime Res Inst 13(4):1–12
**(in Japanese)**Google Scholar - 7.Kaneko F, Arima T, Yoshida K, Yuzui T (2015) On a novel method for approximation of FN diagram and setting ALARP borders. J Mar Sci Technol 20(1):14–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.IHS Maritime & Trade (2018) Ship Data BespokeGoogle Scholar
- 9.IHS Maritime & Trade (2018) Casualty Data BespokeGoogle Scholar
- 10.Carroll DL (1999) FORTRAN generic algorithm (GA) driver. Version 1.6.4, 1999. http://www.cuaerospace.com/Technology/Genetic-Algorithm/GA-Driver-Free-Version
- 11.Cochran WG (1952) The χ
^{2}test of goodness of fit. Ann Math Stat 23:315–345CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 12.Cochran WG (1954) Some methods for strengthening the common χ
^{2}tests. Biometrics 10:417–451MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 13.The R Core Team (2018) A language and environment for statistical computing, Version 3.2.2. http://www.r-project.org/
- 14.Jacob C (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New JerseyzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 15.Fullwood RR, Hall RE (1988) Probabilistic risk assessment in the nuclear power industry, fundamentals and applications. Pergamon Press, Oxford, p 43Google Scholar
- 16.Yuzui T, Kaneko F, Ogawa Y (2015) Estimation of risk levels of small passenger ships based on IHSF databases, 12th International Marine Design Conference Proceedings, Vol 2, pp 479–494Google Scholar