This work focuses on the development of a deterministic dynamic risk method that can be used by operational end-users such as seafarers, when navigating in restricted waters where there is spatial conflict due to multi-use of marine areas by the shipping and offshore renewable energy industries. The developed method can also be used during the planning stages of offshore renewable energy installations. A case study of vessel operations near an offshore wind farm is also presented. The article also briefly discusses the potential application of manoeuvring-based dynamic risk methods to resolve spatial conflicts in the maritime, as well as other transport domains.
MehdiRASchröder-HinrichsJ-U. A theoretical risk management framework for vessels operating near offshore wind farms. In: OstachowiczWMcguganMSchröder-hinrichsJ-U, et al. (eds). MARE-WINT: new materials and reliability in offshore wind turbine technology. Heidelberg: Springer, 2016, pp.85–126.
RenNOuJ.A crashworthy device against ship-OWT collision and its protection effects on the tower of offshore wind farms. China Ocean Eng2009; 24(4): 593–602.
6.
WrightGMehdiRBaldaufM.3-dimensional forward looking sonar: offshore wind farm applications. In: Proceedings of 24th European navigation conference, Helsinki, 30 May–2 June 2016. New York: IEEE.
7.
MehdiRABaldaufMDalaklisD, et al. Making the case: simulators for offshore renewable energy installations navigational risk assessment. In: Proceedings of 5th international Human Sea-Marisk symposium, Nantes, 3–4 October 2014. Bilbao: Gomylex.
8.
GoerlandtFMontewkaJ.Maritime transportation risk analysis: review and analysis in light of some foundational issues. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2015; 138: 115–134.
MacduffT.Probability of vessel collisions. Ocean Ind1974; 9(9): 144–148.
11.
FujiiYYamanouchiHMizukiN.Some factors affecting the frequency of accidents in marine traffic. J Navig1974; 27: 239–248.
12.
StåhlbergKGoerlandtFEhlersS, et al. Impact scenario models for probabilistic risk-based design for ship–ship collision. Mar Struct2013; 33: 238–264.
13.
YoussefSAMPaikJKKimYS, et al. Probabilistic selection of ship-ship collision scenarios. In: Proceedings of 32nd ASME international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering – volume 2A: structures, safety and reliability, Nantes, 9–14 June 2013. New York: ASME.
MontewkaJGoerlandtFKujalaP.A new definition of a collision zone for a geometrical model for ship-ship collision probability estimation. Int J Mar Navig Safe2011; 5(4): 497–504.
16.
DeebHMehdiRAHahnA.A review of damage assessment models in the maritime domain. Ships Offshore Struct2017; 12: S31–S54.
17.
MontewkaJEhlersSGoerlandtF, et al. A framework for risk assessment for maritime transportation systems – a case study for open sea collisions involving RoPax vessels. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2014; 124: 142–157.
18.
GoerlandtFMontewkaJ.A probabilistic model for accidental cargo oil outflow from product tankers in a ship-ship collision. Mar Pollut Bull2014; 79: 130–144.
19.
HelleIAhtianenHLuomaE, et al. A probabilistic approach for a cost-benefit analysis of oil spill management under uncertainty: a Bayesian network model for the Gulf of Finland. J Environ Manag2015; 158: 122–132.
20.
GoerlandtFKujalaP.On the reliability and validity of ship–ship collision risk analysis in light of different perspectives on risk. Safe Sci2014; 62: 348–365.
21.
SormunenO-VEGoerlandtFHäkkinenJ, et al. Uncertainty in maritime risk analysis: extended case study on chemical tanker collisions. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment2014; 229(3): 303–320.
22.
BelaALe SourneHBuldgenL, et al. Ship collision analysis on offshore wind turbine monopile foundations. Mar Struct2017; 51: 220–241.
23.
LaineVGoerlandtFBaldaufM, et al. OpenRisk guideline for regional risk management to improve European pollution preparedness and response at sea, October2018, www.helcom.fi
24.
BaldaufMMehdiRDeebH, et al. Manoeuvring areas to adapt ACAS for the maritime domain. Zeszyt Nauk Akad Morsk Szcz2015; 43(15): 39–47.
25.
StróżynaMAbramowiczW.A dynamic risk assessment for decision support systems in the maritime domain. Stud Ekonom2015; 243: 295–307.
26.
FernandesRBraunschweigFLourençoF, et al. Combining operational models and data into a dynamic vessel risk assessment tool for coastal regions. Ocean Sci2016; 12(1): 285–317.
27.
FernandesRLourençoFBraunschweigF, et al. Dynamic risk assessment of shoreline contamination from ships: integrating an oil spill model. In: Proceedings of international oil spill conference (IOSC), Savannah, 5–8 May 2014. Washington, DC: IOSC.
28.
BiHSiH. Dynamic risk assessment of oil spill scenario for three gorges reservoir in China based on numerical simulation. Safety Sci2012; 50(4): 1112–1118.
29.
KoldenhofYNijsseHvan der TakC, et al. Risk analysis as an integrated operational and legal instrument with respect to the safety of maritime traffic. In: BrebbiaCA (ed.) Risk analysis VII & brownfields V. Southampton: WIT Press, 2010, pp.245–256.
30.
da SilvaAMLJardimJLReiAM, et al. Dynamic security risk assessment. In: IEEE Power Engineering Society summer meeting, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 18–22July1999, pp.198–205. New York: IEEE.
31.
WangJYeMLiuY, et al. Design of integrated toolkit for coastal natural disaster risk assessment based on GIS technology. In: Proceedings of 19th international conference on geoinformatics, Shanghai, China, 24–26 June 2011. New York: IEEE.
32.
LeongWF. Applicability of dynamic risk assessment in the oil and gas industry. In: Proceedings of Society of Petroleum Engineers: Middle East health, safety, security, and environment conference and exhibition, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2–4 April 2012. Dallas, TX: SPE.
33.
GoerlandtFMontewkaJKuzminV, et al. A risk-informed ship collision alert system: framework and application. Safety Sci2015; 77: 182–204.
34.
NakanoTHasegawaK. An attempt to predict manoeuvring indices using AIS data for automatic OD data acquisition. IFAC Proc Vol2012; 45(27): 1–6.
35.
MoulasDShafieeMMehmanparastA. Damage analysis of ship collisions with offshore wind turbine foundations. Ocean Eng2017; 143: 149–162.
36.
DeebHAbdelaalMHahnA. Pre-crash advisor – decision support system for mitigating collision damage. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on computer and IT applications in the maritime industries (COMPIT’17), Cardiff, 15–17 May 2017, http://data.hiper-conf.info/compit2017_cardiff.pdf
37.
GöhlerUD. Estimation of expectation areas of ships considering resistance changes, due to yaw angle and according to model experiments. Schiffbauforschung1983; 4: 235–246.
38.
InoueK. Concept of potential area of water as an index for risk assessment in ship handling. J Navig1990; 43(1): 1–7.
39.
BenedictKMüllerRBaldaufM, et al. Functions of the system – collision avoidance. Report no.: EURET 1.3 TAIE – Task 5 work package report, January1994. Rostock: Department of Maritime Studies, Wismar University, p.56.
40.
RawsonARogersE. Assessing the impacts to vessel traffic from offshore wind farms in the Thames estuary. Zeszyt Nauk Akad Morsk Szcz2015; 43(15): 99–107.
CockcroftALameijerJ. A guide to the collision avoidance rules. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2011.
45.
BaldaufMMehdiRFischerS, et al. A perfect warning to avoid collisions at sea?Zeszyt Nauk Akad Morsk Szcz2017; 52(124): 53–64.
46.
MouJTangGRongH, et al. Predict manoeuvring indices using AIS data by bridge regression. Zeszyt Nauk Akad Morsk Szcz2013; 36(108): 137–142.
47.
ChislettMS. A generalised math model for manoeuvring. In: ChislettMS (ed.) Marine simulation and ship manoeuvrability. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1996, pp.593–606.
48.
CraneCLEdaHLandsburgA. Controllability. In: LewisEV (ed.) Principles of naval architecture, Vol. 3. Jersey City: SNAME, 1989, pp.191–365.
49.
InoueSHiranoMKijimaK, et al. A practical calculation method of ship maneuvering motion. Int Shipbuild Prog1981; 28(235): 207–222.
50.
KijimaK. On a prediction method of ship manoeuvring characteristics. In: Proceedings of international conference on marine simulations and ship manoeuverability (MARSIM ’93), St John’s, NL, Canada, 26 September–2 October 1993. St John’s, NL, Canada: Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University and National Research Council.
51.
AbkowitzMA. Lectures on ship hydrodynamics: steering and maneuvrability (Hydrodynamisk og aerodynamisk Laboratorium). Lyngby: Danish Technical Press i Komm, 1964.
52.
ZouZ. Lecture notes on ship manoeuvring and sea keeping. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 2006.
53.
BenedictKKirchhoffMGluchM, et al. Manoeuvring simulation on the bridge for predicting motion of real ships and as training tool in ship handling simulators. Int J Mar Navig Saf Sea Transp2011; 3(1): 25–30.
54.
Van IperenWH. Classifying ship encounters to monitor traffic safety on the north sea from AIS data. Transnav – the International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation2015; 9: 51–58.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). Regulatory scoping exercise for the use of maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS). MSC 99/5/12, March2018, www.imo.org
