ISSN 2083-6473
ISSN 2083-6481 (electronic version)




Associate Editor
Tomasz Neumann

Published by
TransNav, Faculty of Navigation
Gdynia Maritime University
3, John Paul II Avenue
81-345 Gdynia, POLAND
www http://www.transnav.eu
e-mail transnav@am.gdynia.pl
Towards the Development of a Risk Model for Unmanned Vessels Design and Operations
1 Gdynia Maritime University, Gdynia, Poland
2 Aalto University, Espoo, Finland
3 Finnish Geospatial Research Institute, Kirkkonummi, Masala, Finland
4 Waterborne Transport Innovation Foundation, Poland
ABSTRACT: An unmanned merchant vessel seems to be escaping from the stage of idea exploration. Once the concept proofs its safety, it may become a part of maritime reality. Although the safety aspect of such a ship has been addressed by a handful of scholars, the problem remains open. This is mainly due to lack of knowledge regarding actual operational circumstances and design of unmanned ships, which are yet to be developed. In the attempt of bridging this gap, the risk analysis associated with unmanned ships needs to be carried out, where all relevant hazards and consequences are assessed and quantified in systematic manner. In this paper we present the results of a first step of such analysis, namely the hazard analysis associated with the unmanned ships. The list of hazards covers various aspects of unmanned shipping originating from both design and operational phases of vessel?s life. Subsequently the hazards and related consequences are organized in a casual manner, resulting in the development of a structure of a risk model.
Allianz. 2015. Safety and shipping review 2015. Munich.
Burmeister, H.C. & Bruhn, W.C. & Rødseth, Ø.J. & Porathe, T. 2014. Can unmanned ships improve navigational safety ? In Proceedings of the Transport Research Arena, 14-17 April 2014. Paris.
Flage, R. & Aven, T. 2009. On treatment of uncertainty in system planning. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 94(4): 884–90.
Gawdzińska, K. & Kwiecińska, B. & Przetakiewicz, W. & Pelczar, M. 2015. Przyczyny wypadków i pożarów na statkach morskich. Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Morskiej w Gdyni (91): 21–29.
Gerigk, M. 2015. Innowacyjne rozwiązania w zakresie okrętów i obiektów oływających. Logistyka 3: 1431–1438.
Gerigk, M. & Skorupski, J. 2012. Safety management of complex airborne and seaborne technical objects. Archives of Transport 24(3): 285–296.
IMO. 2002. Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process.
Isaksen, S.G. 1998. A review of brainstorming research: six critical issues for inquiry.
Jokioinen, E. 2016. Remote and autonomous ships - the next steps.
Kretschmann, L. & Rødseth, Ø. et al. 2015. Maritime Unmanned Navigation through Intelligence in Networks final report - Qualitative Assessment.
Kretschmann, L. & Mcdowell, H. et al. 2015. Maritime Unmanned Navigation through Intelligence in Networks final report - Quantitative Assessment.
Yemao, M. & Lundh, M. & Porathe, T. 2014. Seeking harmony in shore-based unmanned ship handling-from the perspective of human factors, what is the difference we need to focus on from being onboard to onshore? Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation. Part I: 231-239.
Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB). 2007. Report on the investigation of the machinery breakdown and subsequent fire onboard Maersk Doha. Southampton.
Mazaheri, A. & Montewka, J. & Nisula, J. & Kujala, P. 2015. Usability of accident and incident reports for evidence-based risk modeling - a case study on ship grounding reports. Safety Science 76: 202–14.
Özgüner, Ü. & Stiller, C. & Redmill, K. 2007. Systems for safety and autonomous behavior in cars: The DARPA grand challenge experience. Proceedings of the IEEE 95(2): 397–412.
Rødseth, Ø.J. & Tjora, Å. & Baltzersen, P. 2013. Maritime Unmanned Navigation through Intelligence in Networks final report - Architecture Specification.
Rogoway, T. 2015. DARPA’s unmanned submarine stalker could change naval warfare forever. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/darpas-unmanned-submarine-stalker-could-change-naval-wa-1695566032 (retrieved July 1, 2016).
Rossiter, J.R. & Lilien, G.L. 1994. New ‘brainstorming’ principles. Australian Journal of Management. 19(1): 61-72.
Stokey, R. et al. 1999. AUV bloopers or why Murphy must have been an optimist: a practical look at achieving mission level reliability in an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle. 11th International Symposium on Unmanned, Untethered, Submersible Technology (UUST ’99): 32–40.
Vanem, E. 2012. Principles for setting risk acceptance criteria for safety critical activities. In: Advances in Safety and Risk Management: 1741–1751. London.
Weber, P.G. & Medina-Oliva, G. & Simon, C. & Iung, B. 2012. Overview on Bayesian networks applications for dependability, risk analysis and maintenance areas. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 25(4): 671-682.
Citation note:
Wróbel K., Krata P., Montewka J., Hinz T.: Towards the Development of a Risk Model for Unmanned Vessels Design and Operations. TransNav, the International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, Vol. 10, No. 2, doi:10.12716/1001.10.02.09, pp. 267-274, 2016
Authors in other databases:
Krzysztof Wróbel:
Przemysław Krata: Scopus icon36188218300 Scholar iconcDDmTf4AAAAJ
Jakub Montewka:
Tomasz Hinz:

Other publications of authors:

File downloaded 707 times

Important: TransNav.eu cookie usage
The TransNav.eu website uses certain cookies. A cookie is a text-only string of information that the TransNav.EU website transfers to the cookie file of the browser on your computer. Cookies allow the TransNav.eu website to perform properly and remember your browsing history. Cookies also help a website to arrange content to match your preferred interests more quickly. Cookies alone cannot be used to identify you.
Akceptuję pliki cookies z tej strony