Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T08:38:06.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Specification and Design of Safety Functions for the Prevention of Ship-to-Ship Collisions on the High Seas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 August 2018

Reyes Poo Argüelles ,
Jesús A. García Maza  and
Felipe Mateos Martín
Reyes Poo Argüelles*
Affiliation:
(Electrical, Electronic, Computers and Systems Engineering Dept., University of Oviedo, Spain)
Jesús A. García Maza
Affiliation:
(Marine Science and Technology Dept., University of Oviedo, Spain)
Felipe Mateos Martín
Affiliation:
(Electrical, Electronic, Computers and Systems Engineering Dept., University of Oviedo, Spain)
*
(E-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Maritime accident statistics reveal that ship collisions are among the most frequent and severe accidents. The same statistics indicate that most of them are caused by human error, mainly due to breaches of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs) and to the lack of communication between ships. There are also special situations where there is some ambiguity in the application of the COLREGs. In such occasions, and if there is no communication between the ships involved, compliance with the Rules may still end up in a collision. This article brings a new approach to Collision Avoidance Systems (CAS) and presents the earliest stages in the development of safety functions for the reduction of ship-to-ship collision risk on the high seas. These functions will help the concerned ships achieve coordinated compliance with the COLREGs. Functional safety standards are applied and, in their implementation, real, accessible electronic programmable systems (hardware and software) will be used.

Keywords

COLREGsCommand, Control and CommunicationsRisk MinimisationShip CollisionAIS
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 53 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aven, T. (2017). Improving risk characterisations in practical situations by highlighting knowledge aspects, with applications to risk matrices. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 167, 42–48.Google Scholar
Baldauf, M., Benedict, K., Fischer, S., Gluch, M., Kirchhoff, M., Klaes, S., Schröder-Hinrichs, J.-U., Meißner, D., Fielitz, U. and Wilske, E. (2011). e-Navigation and situation-dependent maneuvering assistance to enhance maritime emergency response. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 10, 209–226.Google Scholar
Chauvin, C., Lardjane, S., Morel, G., Clostermann, J.P. and Langard, B. (2013). Human and organisational factors in maritime accidents: Analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 59(C), 26–37.Google Scholar
COLREGs. (1972). Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. International Maritime Organization, London.Google Scholar
David, R. (1995). GRAFCET: a powerful tool for specification of logic controllers. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 3(3), 253–268.Google Scholar
Deuter, A. (2013). Slicing the V-Model – Reduced Effort, Higher Flexibility, IEEE 8th International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE), 1–10.Google Scholar
Eliopoulou, E., Papanikolau, A. and Voulgarellis, M. (2016). Statistical analysis of ship accidents and review of safety level. Safety Science, 85, 282–292.Google Scholar
EMSA. (2016). Annual overview of marine casualties and incidents 2016. European Maritime Safety Agency.Google Scholar
Estévez, E., Marcos, M. and Irisarri, E. (2009). Analysis of IEC 61131-3 Compliance through PLCopen XML interface. 7th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics, 757–762.Google Scholar
EU-OSHA. (2009). The human machine interface as an emerging risk. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work.Google Scholar
Ever-Alexandra, . (2015). Report on the investigation of the collision between the container ship Ever Smart and the oil tanker Alexandra 1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5665aff8e5274a0367000010/MAIBInvReport-28_2015.pdf. Accessed 4 March 2018.Google Scholar
Felski, A., Jaskólski, K. and Banyś, P. (2015). Comprehensive Assessment of Automatic Identification System (AIS) Data Application to Anti-collision Manoeuvring. The Journal of Navigation, 68, 697–717.Google Scholar
Florida_Chou Shan. (2014). Report on the investigation of the collision between CMA CGM Florida and Chou Shan. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c6f36e5274a4290000017/CMACGMFlorida_Report.pdf. Accessed 4 March 2018.Google Scholar
FSA. (2014). Revised guidelines for formal safety assessment (FSA) for use in the imo rule-making process. International Maritime Organization, London.Google Scholar
Gamer, T., Oriol, M. and Wahler, M. (2014). Increasing efficiency of M-out-of-N redundancy. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA), Barcelona, 1–8.Google Scholar
Goerlandt, F. and Montewka, J. (2015). Maritime transportation risk analysis: Review and analysis in light of some foundational issues. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 138, 115–134.Google Scholar
Goerlandt, F., Montewka, J., Kuzmin, V. and Kujala, P. (2015). A risk-informed ship collision alert system: framework and application. Safety Science, 77, 182–204.Google Scholar
Hibiscus-Hyundai. (2013). Report on the investigation of the collision between ACX Hibiscus and Hyundai Discovery. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c6f6ce5274a4290000029/ACXHibiscus-HyundaiDiscovery_Report.pdf. Accessed 4 March 2018.Google Scholar
IEC 60848. (2013). GRAFCET specification language for sequential function charts. International Electrotechnical Commission. https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/3684Google Scholar
IEC 61131-6. (2012). Programmable controllers - Part 6: Functional safety.Google Scholar
IEC 61508. (2010). Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems. http://www.iec.ch/functionalsafety/Google Scholar
IEC 61511. (2016). Functional safety/safety instrumented systems for the process industry sector. https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/24241Google Scholar
IEC 62061. (2005). Safety of machinery - Functional safety of safety-related electrical, electronic and programmable electronic control systems. International Electrotechnical Commission. https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/22797Google Scholar
ISO 11674-A. (2006). Ships and marine technology – Heading control systems. Annex A: Ship-motion simulator. International Organization for Standardization. https://www.iso.org/standard/44047.htmlGoogle Scholar
ITU-R M.1371-5. (2014). Recommendation ITU-R M.1371-5. Technical characteristics for an automatic identification system using time division multiple access in the VHF maritime mobile frequency band. Radiocommunication Assembly, International Telecomunication Union. https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-M.1371/enGoogle Scholar
John, K.H. and Tiegelkamp, M. (2010). IEC 61131-3: Programming Industrial Automation Systems. Springer Publishing Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Katre-Statengracht. (2014). Safety investigation into the collision between the Maltese registered general cargo KATRE and the Dutch registered general cargo STATENGRACHT. http://mtip.gov.mt/en/document%20repository/msiu%20documents/investigations%202013/mv%20katre_final%20safety%20investigation%20report.pdf. Accessed 4 march 2018.Google Scholar
Kosmowski, K.T. (2006). Functional safety concept for hazardous systems and new challenges. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 19, 298–305.Google Scholar
Last, P., Bahlke, C., Hering-Bertram, M. and Linsen, L. (2014). Comprehensive Analysis of Automatic Identification System (AIS) Data in Regard to Vessel Movement Prediction. The Journal of Navigation, 67, 791–809.Google Scholar
Lloyd, M.H. and Reeve, P.J. (2009). IEC 61508 and IEC 61511 Assessments. Some Lessons Learned. 4th IET International Conference on Systems Safety, 1–6.Google Scholar
Luo, M. and Shin, S. (2016). Half-century research developments in maritime accidents: Future directions. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Available online 19 April 2016.Google Scholar
Mathur, S. and Malik, S. (2010). Advancements in the V-Model. International Journal of Computer Applications, 1(12), 30–35.Google Scholar
Melchers, R.E. (2001). On the ALARP approach to risk management. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 71(2), 201–208.Google Scholar
Montewka, J., Goerlandt, F. and Kujala, P. (2014). On a systematic perspective on risk for formal safety assessment (FSA). Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 127, 77–85.Google Scholar
NMEA 0183. (2002). NMEA 0183 Standard for Interfacing Marine Electronic Devices. National Marine Electronics Association.Google Scholar
NMEA 2000. (2015). NMEA 2000 Standard for Serial-Data Networking of Marine Electronic Devices. National Marine Electronics Association.Google Scholar
Primorac, B.B. and Parunov, J. (2016). Review of statistical data on ship accidents. Maritime Technology and Engineering, 3, 809–814.Google Scholar
Pietrzykowski, Z., Woejsza, P. and Borkowski, P. (2017). Decision Support in Collision Situations at Sea. The Journal of Navigation, 70, 447–464.Google Scholar
Sotiralis, P., Ventikos, N.P., Hamann, R., Golyshev, P. and Teixeira, A.P. (2016). Incorporation of human factors into ship collision risk models focusing on human centred design aspects. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 156, 210–227.Google Scholar
Spring-Josephine. (2013). Spring Glory / Josephine Mærsk Collision. http://www.dmaib.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Ulykkesrapporter/Handelskibe/kollisioner/SPRING_GLORY_JOSEPHINE_MAERSK_2012.pdf. Accessed 4 March 2018.Google Scholar
Stauffer, T. and Clarke, P. (2016). Using alarms as a layer of protection. Process Safety Progress, 35(1), 76–83.Google Scholar
Summers, A.E. (2003). Introduction to layers of protection analysis. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 104(1–3), 163–168.Google Scholar
Uğurlu, Ö., Köse, E., Yıldırım, U. and Yüksekyıldız, E. (2013). Marine accident analysis for collision and grounding in oil tanker using FTA method. Maritime Policy & Management, 42, 163–185.Google Scholar
Vairo, T., Quagliati, M., Giudice, T., Barbucci, A. and Fabiano, B. (2017). From land- to water-use-planning: A consequence based case-study related to cruise ship risk. Safety Science, 97, 120–133.Google Scholar
Wen, Y., Huang, Y., Zhou, C., Yang, J., Xiao, C., Wu, X. (2015). Modelling of marine traffic flow complexity. Ocean Engineering, 104, 500–510.Google Scholar