Quantitative Collision Risk Assessment and Management

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


In engineering problems, collisions are accidents in which a moving body collides with another body that is either moving, stationary, or fixed. The collisions between two moving bodies can be grouped into three types associated with the direction of the collision, namely head-on (or bow) collisions, overtaking collisions, and crossing collisions. This chapter describes the methods for assessing collision risk, where nonlinear structural mechanics and limit state methodologies should inevitably be applied (as described in Chap.  11). As an illustrative example, a collision between two ships is highlighted. Similar procedures can be applied to other types of collisions. Nonlinear finite element method modeling techniques for the consequence analysis associated with structural crashworthiness in collisions are referred to in Chap.  11. The methods in this chapter are described in association with the shipping industry, but can be applied to other types of structural systems in collisions.


  1. 1.
    Asbjørnslett BE, Hassel M, Hole LP (2010) Reliability risk and safety back to the future: comparative study of vessel accident databases from a risk management perspective. Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, UKGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chakravarti IM, Laha RG (1967) Handbook of methods of applied statistics. Wiley, Chichester, UKzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eliopoulou E, Papanikolaou A (2007) Casualty analysis of large tankers. J Mar Sci Technol 12(4):240–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fowler TG, Sørgård E (2000) Modeling ship transportation risk. Risk Anal 20(2):225–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Friis-Hansen P, Ravn E, Engderg P (2009) The BaSSy toolbox Baltic sea safety—basic modeling principles for prediction of collision and grounding frequencies. Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fuji Y, Yamanouchi H, Matui T (1983) Survey on vessel traffic management systems and brief introduction to marine traffic studies. Electronic Navigation Research Institute Papers, Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fujii Y, Tanaka K (1970) Traffic capacity. J Navig 24(4):543–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fujii Y, Mizuki N (1998) Design of VTS systems for water with bridges. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on advances in ship collision analysis, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanninen M, Kujala P (2010) The effects of causation probability on the ship collision statistics in the Gulf of Finland. Int J Mar Navig Saf Sea Transp 4(1):79–84Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hassel M, Asbjørnslett BE, Hole LP (2011) Underreporting of maritime accidents to vessel accident databases. Accid Anal Prev 43:2053–2063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    IMO (2000) SOLAS/2 recommended longitudinal strength. MSC.108(73), Maritime Safety Committee, International Maritime Organization, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    IMO (2003) Revised interim guidelines for the approval of alternative methods of design and construction of oil tankers. Marine Environmental Protection Committee of the Organization by Resolution MEPC 110(49), International Maritime Organization, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    IMO (2013) Revised guidelines for formal safety assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process. MSC 91/22/Add. 2 Annex. 34, International Maritime Organization, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaneko F (2002) Methods for probabilistic safety assessment of ships. J Marit Sci Technol 7(1):1–16MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kontovas CA, Psaraftis HN, Ventikos NP (2010) An empirical analysis of IOPCF oil spill cost data. Mar Pollut Bull 60:1455–1466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kujala P, Hanninen M, Arola T, Ylitalo J (2009) Analysis of the marine traffic safety in the Gulf of Finland. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 94(8):1349–1357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lützen M (2001) Ship collision damage. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Macduff T (1974) The probability of vessel collision. Ocean Ind 9(9):144–148Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Montewka J (2009) Predicting risk of collision for oil tankers in the Gulf of Finland. J KONBiN 3–4(11–12):17–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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 Eng 40:50–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Otto S, Pedersen PT, Samuelides M, Sames PC (2002) Elements of risk analysis for collision and grounding of a RoRo passenger ferry. Mar Struct 15(4):461–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paik JK (2018) Ultimate limit state analysis and design of plated structures, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Paik JK, Kim DK, Park DH, Kim HB, Mansour AE, Caldwell JB (2013) Modified Paik-Mansour formula for ultimate strength calculations of ship hulls. Ships Offshore Struct 8(3–4):245–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paik JK, Kim SJ, Ko YK, Youssef SAM (2017) Collision risk assessment of a VLCC class tanker. SNAME Maritime Convention, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 23–28 October, Houston, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paik JK, Thayamballi AK (2007) Ship-shaped offshore installations: design, building, and operation. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pedersen PT (1995) Collision and grounding mechanics. Danish Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pedersen PT, Zhang S (1998) On impact mechanics in ship collisions. J Mar Struct 11(10):429–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pedersen PT, Zhang S (1999) Collision analysis for MS Dextra. SAFER EURORO Spring Meeting, Nantes, FranceGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Psarros G, Skjong R, Eide MS (2010) Under-reporting of maritime accidents. Accidents Anal Prev 42(2):619–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Roeleven D, Kok M, Stipdonk HL, De Vries WA (1995) Inland waterway transport: modelling the probability of accidents. Saf Sci 19(2):191–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rosqvist T, Nyman T, Sonninen S, Tuominen R (2002) The implementation of the VTMIS system for the Gulf of Finland—a FSA study. In: Proceedings of the RINA international conference on formal safety assessment, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    SINC (2010) Shipping intelligence network of Clarkson’s. (
  33. 33.
    Thomas M, Sjkong R (2009). Cost benefit analysis of inert gas systems for chemical and product tankers. In: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Ocean, offshore and arctic engineering, May 31 to June 5, Hawaii, USAGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ventikos NP, Sotiropoulos FS (2014) Disutility analysis of oil spills: graphs and trends. Mar Pollut Bull 81:116–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Weng J, Meng Q, Qu X (2012) Vessel collision frequency estimation in the Singapore Strait. J Navig 65(2):207–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yamada Y (2009) The cost of oil spills from tankers in relation to weight of spilled oil. Mar Technol 46(4):219–228Google 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