Advertisement

Quantitative Grounding Risk Assessment and Management

  • Jeom Kee PaikEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Topics in Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality book series (TSRQ, volume 37)

Abstract

Grounding is a phenomenon in which the bottom part of a structural system, such as a ship, offshore platform, automobile, or aircraft, is accidentally damaged. Three types of grounding accidents are relevant, namely grounding, stranding, and squatting (as described in Chap.  1). As far as ship grounding is concerned, the first type usually occurs due to navigational errors associated with failures in the process of passage planning and piloting and nautical charts with out-of-date data. Stranding in the shipping industry happens when a ship is swept away by waves and tides as its engine power fails, where bottom structures are damaged on a rock near shore by vertical loading due to the difference between buoyancy and weight in ebb tide. Squatting may happen in ships operating in shallow waterways. In the aviation industry, grounding can occur upon landing when the landing gear system is malfunctional. This chapter describes the quantitative risk assessment and management of grounding accidents, with a focus on the first type of ship grounding. The methods are described in association with the shipping industry, but can be applied to other types of structural systems in grounding.

References

  1. 1.
    AGCS (2014) Global claims review 2014. Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty, Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    AGCS (2016) Safety and shipping review 2016. Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty, Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    AIBN (2017) Reports. Norwegian Accident Investigation Board, Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alsos HS, Amdahl J (2007) On the resistance of tanker bottom structures during stranding. Mar Struct 20(4):218–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ATSB (2017) Marine safety investigations and reports. Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    BEAmer (2017). Accidents full reports. French Marine Casualties Investigation Board, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    BMA (2017) Casualty and reporting. Bahamas Maritime Authority, BahamasGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    BSU (2017) Investigation reports. The Federal Bureau of Maritime Casualty Investigation, Hamburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bulian G, Lindroth D, Ruponen P, Zaraphonitis G (2016) Probabilistic assessment of damaged ship survivability in case of grounding: development and testing of a direct non-zonal approach. Ocean Eng 120:331–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bužančić Primorac B, Parunov J (2016) Review of statistical data on ship accidents. Marit Technol Eng, 809–814Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clarkson PLC (2017). Clarkson shipping intelligence network. London, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    DMIB (2017) Casualty reports. Danish Maritime Accident Investigation Board, Carl Jacobsens Vej, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dnv GL (2016) Canaport energy east marine terminal risk studies. Det Norske Veritas Germanicher Lloyds, Høvik, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eleftheria E, Apostolos P, Markos V (2016) Statistical analysis of ship accidents and review of safety level. Saf Sci 85:282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    EMSA (2017) Accident investigation and marine casualties. European Maritime Safety Agency, Lisboa, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fowler TG, Sørgård E (2000) Modeling ship transportation risk. Risk Anal 20(2):225–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fujii Y, Yamanouchi H, Mizuki N (1974) Some factors affecting the frequency of accidents in marine traffic: I—The diameter of evasion for crossing encounters, II—The probability of stranding, III—The effect of darkness of the probability of collision and stranding. J Navig 27(2):239–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    GOALDS (2009–2012) Goal-based damage stability. European Commission, FP7-DG Research, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    HARDER (1999–2003) Harmonization of rules and design rational. European Commission, DG XII-BRITE, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    HBMCI (2017) Investigation reports. Hellenic Bureau for Marine Casualties Investigation, Piraeus, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heinvee M, Tabri K, Kõrgesaar M (2013) A simplified approach to predict the bottom damage in tanker grounding. In: International conference on collision and grounding of ships and offshore structures, 17–19 June, Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    IMO (1995) Interim guidelines for approval of alternative methods of design and construction of oil tankers under regulation 13F(5) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78. Technical Report 66(73):1–44. London, UKGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    IMO (2012) SLF55/INF.7-The GOAL based Damage Stability (GOALDS)—Derivation of updated probability distributions of collision and grounding damage characteristics for passenger ships. London, UKGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    JTSB (2017) Marine accident and incident reports. Japan Transportation Safety Board, Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kaneko F (2012) Models for estimating grounding frequency by using ship trajectories and seabed geometry. Ships Offshore Struct 7(1):87–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lu G, Calladine C (1990) On the cutting of a plate by a wedge. Int J Mech Sci 32(4):293–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lützen M, Simonsen BC (2003). Grounding damage to conventional vessels. World maritime technology conference, San Francisco, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    MAIB (2017) Marine accident investigation branch reports. Marine Accident Investigation Branch, Southampton, UKGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    MARDEP (2017) Reports and statistics. Maarine Department-The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Hong Kong, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Maritime NZ (2017) Investigation reports on maritime accidents and incidents. Maritime New Zealand, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    MARS (2017) MARS reports. Nautical Institute, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mazaheri A (2009) Probabilistic modeling of ship grounding. Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    MCIB (2017) Reports. The Marine Casualty Investigation Board, Dublin, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    MSA (2017) Casualty investigation. Maritime Safety Administration of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Naar H, Kujala P, Simonsen BC, Ludolphy H (2002) Comparison of the crashworthiness of various bottom and side structures. Mar Struct 15(4):443–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nguyen T-H, Amdahl J, Leira BJ, Garrè L (2011) Understanding ship-grounding events. Mar Struct 24(4):551–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nguyen T-H, Garrè L, Amdahl J, Leira BJ (2011) Monitoring of ship damage condition during stranding. Mar Struct 24(3):261–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    NMD (2011) Marine casualties 2000–2010. Norwegian Maritime Directorate, Haugesund, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    NTSB (2017) Marine accident reports. National Transportation Safety Board, Houston, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Paik JK (1994) Cutting of a longitudinally stiffened plate by a wedge. J Ship Res 38(4):340–348Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Paik JK (2018) Ultimate limit state analysis and design of plated structures, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Papanikolaou A, Eliopoulou E (2008) Impact of ship age on tanker accidents. In: International symposium on ship operations, management and economics, 17–18 September, Athens, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pedersen PT (1995) Collision and grounding mechanics. In: West European conference of maritime technology societies (WEMT), Danish Society of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, 17–19 May, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pedersen PT, Zhang S (2000) Absorbed energy in ship collisions and grounding: Revising Minorsky’s empirical method. J Ship Res 44(2):140–154Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pedersen PT, Zhang S (2000) Effect of ship structure and size on grounding and collision damage distributions. Ocean Eng 27(11):1161–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rawson C, Crake K, Brown A (1998) Assessing the environmental performance of tankers in accidental grounding and collision. SNAME Trans 106:41–58, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Alexandra, VA, USAGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Samuelides M (2015) Recent advances and future trends in structural crashworthiness of ship structures subjected to impact loads. Ships Offshore Struct 10(5):488–497Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Samuelides M, Ventikos N, Gemelos I (2009) Survey on grounding incidents: statistical analysis and risk assessment. Ships Offshore Struct 4(1):55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Senauth F (2013) The sinking and the rising of the Costa Concordia. AuthorHouse, Bloomington, UKGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    SHK (2017) Investigations. The Swedish Accident Investigation Authority, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    SIA (2017) Investigation reports by year. Safety Investigation Authority, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Simonsen BC (1997) Ship grounding on rock—II: Validation and application. Marine Structures 10(7):563–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Simonsen BC, Hansen PF (2000) Theoretical and statistical analysis of ship grounding accidents. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng 122(3):200–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Simonsen BC, Törnqvist R, Lützen M (2009) A simplified grounding damage prediction method and its application in modern damage stability requirements. Mar Struct 22(1):62–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sirkar J, Ameer P, Brown A, Goss P, Michel K, Nicastro F, Willis W (1997) A framework for assessing the environmental performance of tankers in accidental groundings and collisions. SNAME Trans 105:253–295, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Alexandra, VA, USAGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sormunen O-VE, Castrén A, Romanoff J, Kujala P (2016) Estimating sea bottom shapes for grounding damage calculations. Mar Struct 45:86–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    TSB (2017) Marine investigation reports. Transportation Safety Board of Canada, Gatineau, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wang G, Ohtsubo H, Liu D (1997) A simple method for predicting the grounding strength of ships. J Ship Res 41(3):241–247Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wang G, Spencer J, Chen Y (2002) Assessment of a ship’s performance in accidents. Mar Struct 15(4):313–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Youssef SA, Paik JK (2018) Hazard identification and scenario selection of ship grounding accidents. Ocean Eng 153:242–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zeng J, Hu Z, Chen G (2016) A steady-state plate tearing model for ship grounding over a cone-shaped rock. Ships Offshore Struct 11(3):245–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Zhang A, Suzuki K (2006) Dynamic FE simulations of the effect of selected parameters on grounding test results of bottom structures. Ships Offshore Struct 1(2):117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Zhu L, James P, Zhang S (2002) Statistics and damage assessment of ship grounding. Mar Struct 15(4):515–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Zipfel B, Lehmann E (2012) Evaluation of critical stranding incidents. Ships Offshore Struct 7(1):101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.The Korea Ship and Offshore Research Institute (Lloyd’s Register Foundation Research Centre of Excellence)Pusan National UniversityBusanKorea (Republic of)

Personalised recommendations