Advertisement

Journal of Marine Science and Application

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 111–128 | Cite as

Performance characterisation for risk assessment of striking ship impacts based on struck ship damaged volume

  • Abayomi Obisesan
  • Srinivas Sriramula
Article

Abstract

Ship collision accidents are rare events but pose huge threat to human lives, assets, and the environment. Many researchers have sought for effective models that compute ship stochastic response during collisions by considering the variability of ship collision scenario parameters. However, the existing models were limited by the capability of the collision computational models and did not completely capture collision scenario, and material and geometric uncertainties. In this paper, a novel framework to performance characterisation of ships in collision involving a variety of striking ships is developed, by characterising the structural consequences with efficient response models. A double-hull oil carrier is chosen as the struck ship to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed framework. Response surface techniques are employed to generate the most probable input design sets which are used to sample an automated finite element tool to compute the chosen structural consequences. The resulting predictor-response relationships are fitted with suitable surrogate models to probabilistically characterise the struck ship damage under collisions. As demonstrated in this paper, such models are extremely useful to reduce the computational complexity in obtaining probabilistic design measures for ship structures. The proposed probabilistic approach is also combined with available collision frequency models from literature to demonstrate the risk tolerance computations.

Keywords

ship collision hull damage numerical simulation structural reliability risk assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the support provided through the Lloyd’s Register Foundation Centre. The Foundation helps to protect life and property by supporting engineeringrelated education, public engagement and the application of research.

References

  1. Alsos HS, Amdahl J, 2007. On the resistance of tanker bottom structures during stranding. Marine Structures, 20(4), 218–237. DOI: 10.1016/j.marstruc.2007.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ang AHS, Tang WH, 2007. Probability concepts in engineering: Emphasis on applications to civil and environmental engineering. 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, 42–154.Google Scholar
  3. Atua KI, Assakkaf I, Ayyub BM, 1996. Statistical characteristics of strength and load random variables of ship structures. Proceedings of the 1996 ASCE Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structure Reliability, Worcester, 106–109.Google Scholar
  4. Ayyub BM, Assakkaf I, 2000. Reliability-based structural design of ships using load and resistance factor design. SSC/SNAME/ASNE Ship Structure Symposium, 1–21.Google Scholar
  5. Baris T, Otay EN, 1999. Modeling and analysis of vessel casualties resulting from tanker traffic through narrow waterways. Naval Research Logistics, 46(8), 871–892. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6750(199912)46:8<871::AID-NAV1> 3.0.CO;2-ICrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Béghin D, 2013. Technical evolution in the ship structural analysis over the last 50 years. Ships and Offshore Structures, 8(3–4), 337–345. DOI: 10.1080/17445302.2012.752139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bourinet JM, Mattrand C, Dubourg V, 2009. A review of recent features and improvements added to FERUM software. 10th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR 2009), Osaka.Google Scholar
  8. Brown A, Sajdak J, 2004. Predicting probabilistic collision damage extents for oil outflow assessment and regulation. SNAME Transactions, 112, 514–522.Google Scholar
  9. Brown AJ, 2002. Collision scenarios and probabilistic collision damage. Marine Structures, 15(4–5), 335–364. DOI: 10.1016/S0951-8339(02)00007-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bucher CG, Bourgund U, 1990. A fast and efficient response surface approach for structural reliability problems. Structural Safety, 7(1), 57–66. DOI: 10.1016/0167-4730(90)90012-ECrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Couckuyt I, Dhaene T, Demeester P, 2013. ooDACE toolbox -A matlab kriging toolbox: Getting started. Available from http://sumowiki.intec.ugent.be/OoDACE:ooDACE_toolbox [Accessed on 20 February, 2016].Google Scholar
  12. Das PK, Zheng Y, 2000. Cumulative formation of response surface and its use in reliability analysis. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 15(4), 309–315. DOI: 10.1016/S0266-8920(99)00030-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Debnath AK, Chin HC, 2009. Hierarchical modeling of perceived collision risks in port fairways. Transportation Research Record, 2100), 68–75. DOI: 10.3141/2100-08CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DNV, 2010. Design against accidental loads. DNV-RP-C204, Det Norske Veritas, Oslo, 10.Google Scholar
  15. Eliopoulou E, Papanikolaou A, 2007. Casualty analysis of large tankers. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 12(4), 240–250. DOI: 10.1007/s00773-007-0255-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fowler TG, Sørgård E, 2000. Modeling ship transportation risk. Risk Analysis, 20(2), 225–244. DOI: 10.1111/0272-4332.202022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fujii Y, Tanaka K, 1971. Traffic capacity. The Journal of Navigation, 24(4), 543–552. DOI: 10.1017/S0373463300022384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaspar B, Teixeira AP, Guedes Soares C, 2014. Assessment of the efficiency of kriging surrogate models for structural reliability analysis. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 37, 24–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.probengmech.2014.03.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Geng B, Wang H, Wang J, 2009. Probabilistic model for vessel-bridge collisions in the three gorges reservoir. Frontiers of Architecture and Civil Engineering in China, 3(3), 279–285. DOI: 10.1007/s11709-009-0044-zMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goerlandt F, Kujala P, 2014. On the reliability and validity of ship-ship collision risk analysis in light of different perspectives on risk. Safety Science, 62, 348–365. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.09.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guarin L, Konovessis D, Vassalos D, 2009. Safety level of damaged RoPax ships: Risk modelling and cost-effectiveness analysis. Ocean Engineering, 36(12–13), 941–951. DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2009.06.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guo JJ, Wang GG, Perakis AN, Ivanov L, 2012. A study on reliability-based inspection planning -application to deck plate thickness measurement of aging tankers. Marine Structures, 25(1), 85–106. DOI: 10.1016/j.marstruc.2011.12.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haldar A, Mahadevan S, 2000. Reliability assessment using stochastic finite element analysis. 1st ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 251–282.Google Scholar
  24. Hänninen M, Kujala P, 2009. The effects of causation probability on the ship collision statistics in the gulf of finland. In A. Weintrit (Ed.), Marine navigation and safety of sea transportation. 1st ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, 267–272. DOI: 10.1201/9780203869345Google Scholar
  25. Haris S, Amdahl J, 2012. An analytical model to assess a ship side during a collision. Ships and Offshore Structures, 7(4), 431–448. DOI: 10.1080/17445302.2011.614527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hess PE, Bruchman D, Assakkaf IA, Ayyub BM, 2002. Uncertainties in material and geometric strength and load variables. Naval Engineers Journal, 114(2), 139–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. IHS Fairplay, 2012. World casualty statistics. No. 2011, IHS Fairplay, Redhill.Google Scholar
  28. IMO, 2002. Guidelines for formal safety assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process. MSC/Circ.1023 MEPC/Circ.392, International Maritime Organization, London.Google Scholar
  29. IMO, 2007. Formal safety assessment -liquefied natura gas (LNG) carriers. MSC83/INF.3, International Maritime Organization, London.Google Scholar
  30. ITOPF, 2014. Oil tanker spill statistics 2014. Available from http://www.itopf.com/fileadmin/data/Documents/Company_Lit/Oil_Spill_Stats_2014FINALlowres.pdf [Accessed on 27 April, 2015].Google Scholar
  31. Jones N, 1998. Some recent developments and future trends in thin-walled sections for structural crashworthiness. Thin-Walled Structures, 32(1–3), 231–233. DOI: 10.1016/S0263-8231(98)00033-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaneko F, 2002. Methods for probabilistic safety assessments of ships. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 7(1), 1–16. DOI: 10.1007/s007730200009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaymaz I, Mc Mahon CA, 2005. A response surface method based on weighted regression for structural reliability analysis. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 20(1), 11–17. DOI: 10.1016/j.probengmech.2004.05.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kim S, Na S, 1997. Asian-pacific symposium on structural reliability and its applications response surface method using vector projected sampling points. Structural Safety, 19(1), 3–19. DOI: 10.1016/S0167-4730(96)00037-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Koutsourelakis PS, Pradlwarter HJ, Schuëller GI, 2004. Reliability of structures in high dimensions, part I: Algorithms and applications. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 19(4), 409–417. DOI: 10.1016/j.probengmech.2004.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kujala P, Hänninen M, Arola T, Ylitalo J, 2009. Analysis of the marine traffic safety in the gulf of finland. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 94(8), 1349–1357. DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2009.02.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levanger H, 2012. Simulating ductile fracture in steel using the Finite element method: Comparison of two models For Describing local instability due to ductile fracture. Master thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo, 58–87.Google Scholar
  38. Li S, Meng Q, Qu X, 2012. An overview of maritime waterway quantitative risk assessment models. Risk Analysis, 32(3), 496–512. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01697.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liu PL, Der Kiureghian A, 1991. Optimization algorithms for structural reliability. Structural Safety, 9(3), 161–177. DOI: 10.1016/0167-4730(91)90041-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Liu YW, Moses F, 1994. A sequential response surface method and its application in the reliability analysis of aircraft structural systems. Structural Safety, 16(1–2), 39–46. DOI: 10.1016/0167-4730(94)00023-JGoogle Scholar
  41. Lloyd’s Register, 2014. Guidance notes for collision analysis. Lloyd’s Register Group, London, 1–21.Google Scholar
  42. Lophaven SN, Nielsen BN, Sondergaard J, 2002. DACE -A matlab kriging toolbox, version 2.0. (IMM-REP-2002-12). Informatics and Mathematical Modelling, Technical University of Denmark: Lyngby, Denmark, 1–28.Google Scholar
  43. Lutzen M, 2001. Ship collision damage. PhD thsis, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby.Google Scholar
  44. Macduff T, 1974. Probability of vessel collisions. Ocean Ind, 9(9), 144–148.Google Scholar
  45. MacElrevey DH, MacElrevey DE, 2004. Shiphandling for the mariner. 4th ed., Cornell Maritime Press, Centreville, 101–241.Google Scholar
  46. Minorsky VU, 1959. An analysis of ship collision with reference to protection of nuclear power ships. Journal of Ship Research, 3(2), 1–4.Google Scholar
  47. Montewka J, Goerlandt F, Kujala P, 2012. Determination of collision criteria and causation factors appropriate to a model for estimating the probability of maritime accidents. Ocean Engineering, 40, 50–61. DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2011.12.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Montewka J, Hinz T, Kujala P, Matusiak J, 2010. Probability modelling of vessel collisions. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 95(5), 573–589. DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2010.01.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Anderson-Cook CM, 2009. Response surface methodology: Process and product optimization using designed experiments. 3rd ed., Wiley, Hoboken.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. NORSOK, 2004. Design of steel structures. N-004, standards Norway, Lysaker, 87.Google Scholar
  51. Obisesan A, Sriramula S, Harrigan J, 2015. A framework for reliability assessment of ship hull damage under ship bow impact. Ships and Offshore Structures, 11(7), 700–719. DOI: 10.1080/17445302.2015.1051281CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. Otto S, Pedersen PT, Samuelides M, Sames PC, 2002. Elements of risk analysis for collision and grounding of a RoRo passenger ferry. Marine Structures, 15(4–5), 461–474. DOI: 10.1016/S0951-8339(02)00014-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Paik JK, Park JH, Samuelides E, 2009. Collision-accidental limit states performance of double-hull oil tanker structures: Pre-CSR versus CSR designs. Marine Technology, 46(4), 183–191.Google Scholar
  54. Pedersen PT, 1995. Collision and grounding mechanics. Proceedings of WEMT, 125–157.Google Scholar
  55. Pedersen PT, Zhang S, 2000. Effect of ship structure and size on grounding and collision damage distributions. Ocean Engineering, 27(11), 1161–1179. DOI: 10.1016/S0029-8018(99)00043-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rawson C, Crake K, Brown AJ, 1998. Assessing the environmental performance of tankers in accidental grounding and collision. SNAME Transactions, 106, 41–58.Google Scholar
  57. Ringsberg JW, 2010. Characteristics of material, ship side structure response and ship survivability in ship collisions. Ships and Offshore Structures, 5(1), 51–66. DOI: 10.1080/17445300903088707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roeleven D, Kokc M, Stipdonk HI, de Vries WA, 1995. Inland waterway transport: Modelling the probability of accidents. Safety Science, 19(2–3), 191–202. DOI: 10.1016/0925-7535(94)00020-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sames PC, Hamann R, 2008. Towards environmental risk acceptance criteria. Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Berlin, 2, 277–283. DOI: 10.1115/OMAE2008-57257Google Scholar
  60. Samuelides M, 2015. Recent advances and future trends in structural crashworthiness of ship structures subjected to impact loads. Ships and Offshore Structures, 10(5), 488–497. DOI: 10.1080/17445302.2015.1009287Google Scholar
  61. Silveira PAM, Teixeira AP, Guedes Soares C, 2013. Use of AIS data to characterise marine traffic patterns and ship collision risk off the coast of Portugal. Journal of Navigation, 66(6), 879–898. DOI: 10.1017/S0373463313000519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Søfartsstyrelsen, 2008. Risk analysis for sea traffic in the area around bornholm. No. P-65775-002, COWI, Kongens Lyngby, 14–26.Google Scholar
  63. Ståhlberg K, Goerlandt F, Ehlers S, Kujala P, 2013. Impact scenario models for probabilistic risk-based design for ship-ship collision. Marine Structures, 33, 238–264. DOI: 10.1016/j.marstruc.2013.06.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tuovinen J, 2006. Statistical analysis of ship collision. Master thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, 94.Google Scholar
  65. Wang G, Arita K, Liu D, 2000. Behavior of a double hull in a variety of stranding or collision scenarios. Marine Structures, 13(3), 147–187. DOI: 10.1016/S0951-8339(00)00036-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wierzbicki T, 1983. Crushing behaviour of plate intersections. In N. Jones, T. Wierzbicki, Structural crashworthiness. 1st ed., Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd., Oxford, 66–95.Google Scholar
  67. Youssef SAM, Ince ST, Kim VS, Paik JK, Chang F, Kim MS, 2014. Quantitative risk assessment for collisions involving double hull oil tankers. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects Part A: International Journal of Maritime Engineering, 156(PART A2), 157–174. DOI: 10.3940/rina.ijme.2014.a2.288Google Scholar
  68. Youssef SAM, Kim YS, Paik JK, Cheng F, Kim MS, 2014. Hazard identification and probabilistic scenario selection for ship-ship collision accidents. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects Part A: International Journal of Maritime Engineering, 156, 61–80. DOI: 10.3940/rina.ijme.2014.al.277Google Scholar
  69. Youssef SAM, Paik JK, Kim YS, Kim MS, Cheng F, 2013. Probabilistic selection of ship-ship collision scenarios. Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Nantes, 1–13. DOI: 10.1115/OMAE2013-10316Google Scholar
  70. Zhang S, 1999. The mechanics of ship collisions. PhD thesis, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, 52–184.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Harbin Engineering University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lloyd’s Register Foundation (LRF) Centre for Safety and Reliability Engineering, School of EngineeringUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations