Multi-stakeholder decision-making in the risk-based design of a RO-PAX double bottom for grounding

Abstract

Grounding accidents can be fatal for ships. This paper discusses decision-making in risk-based design to avoid such outcomes for a 30 000 GT RO-PAX in a powered hard grounding. Five alternatives of a double-bottom structure are suggested to reduce the risks of loss of life, environmental damage, and material damage. Risk assessment concentrates on the consequences, applying numerical grounding simulations to model the energy absorption of the proposed alternatives. To determine the risks, 1295 Monte Carlo simulations are performed running a quasi-static model of ship motions. Accounting for these risks and the added production costs and operational loss, a new multi-stakeholder approach for selecting alternatives is proposed assuring simultaneous maximal satisfaction to both the shipyard and the ship owner. As an outcome, two alternatives are selected, the first increasing the bottom shell thickness by 50 per cent, and the second increasing the stiffness of longitudinal stiffeners by 90 per cent. If observing their performance, it is possible to recommend the latter as the most effective solution. Such an outcome is in accordance with the established practical opinions in increasing safety for grounding, proving sagacity of the presented approach.

Keywords

grounding decision-making stakeholder risk-based design RO-PAX

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

IMO

Casualty statistics and investigations: Very serious and serious casualties for the year 2003

FSI Casualty Statistics and Investigations, 2005 (International Maritime Organization, London).

Spouge

The relative importance of human and technical factors in ship grounding

Learning from Marine Incidents II, International Conference, London, 2002, pp. 141–147 (RINA, London).

NWEPRS

Safety Assessment of Passenger/RoRo Vessels - Methodology Report. NW European Project on Ro-Ro Safety, DNV Technica, 1996.

Skjong

Ronold

K O

Societal indicators and risk acceptance. 17th International Conference on

Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 1998 (ASME) Lisboa.

Friis-Hansen

Ditlevsen

Nature preservation acceptance model applied to tanker oil spill simulations

Struct. Saf., 2003, 25 (1), 1–34.

Žanić

Grubišić

Trincas

Multiattribute decision-making system based on random generation of nondominated solutions: An application to fishing vessel design. In Proceedings of

PRADS 92, 1992, pp. 1443–1460 (Elsevier Applied Science, London).

Grubisic

Munic

Multi-attribute design optimization of Adriatic catamaran ferry. In Proceedings of

IMAM 2005, Lisbon, Portugal, 2005, pp. 851–858 (Taylor & Francis, London)

Ölcer

A I

Odabasi

A Y

A new fuzzy multiple attributive group decision making methodology and its application to propulsion/maneuvering system selection problem

Eur. J. Oper. Res., 2005, 166, 93–114.

Miettinen

Nonlinear multiobjective optimization, 1999 (Kulwer Academic Publishers, Boston).

10.

Marler

R T

Arora

J S

Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering

Struct. Multidisc. Optim., 2004, 26 (6), 369–395.

11.

Saaty

T L

The Analytic Hierarchy Process, 1980 (McGraw-Hill, New York).

12.

Arrow

K J

Social Choice and Individual Values, 1951 (Cowles Foundation and Wiley, New York).

13.

Hazelrigg

Systems Engineering, 1996 (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey).

14.

Deutsch

A theory of co-operation and competition

Human Relations, 1949, 7, 129–152.

15.

Rao

J R J

Badhrinath

Pakala

Mistree

A study of optimal design under conflict using models of multi-player games

Eng. Opt., 1997, 28, 63–94.

16.

Thomson

Cooperative models of bargaining. In

Handbook of Game Theory Eds R. J. Aumann and S. Hart), 1994, pp. 1237–1284.

17.

Scott

M J

Antonsson

E K

Aggregation Functions for Engineering Design Trade-offs, Fuzzy Set. Syst., 1998, 99 (3), 253–264.

18.

Nash

J F

The bargaining problem

Econometrica, 1950, 18, 155–162.

19.

May

K O

A set of independent necessary and sufficient conditions for simple majority decision

Econometrica, 1952, 20, 680–684.

20.

Kalai

Smorodinsky

Other solutions to Nash's bargaining problem

Econometrica, 1975, 43 (3), 513–518.

21.

Nash

J F

Non cooperative games. PhD Thesis, Princeton University, 1950.

22.

Jalonen

Risk analysis of a RO-PAX grounding incident. Licenciate Thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, 2003 (in Finnish).

23.

Tikka

Fishbeck

Bergquist

Tuckel

Analysis of hypothetical groundings in US waters. 2nd International Conference on

Collision and Grounding of Ships, Copenhagen, 2001.

24.

Tabri

FE simulations of a double-bottom grounding on a conical rock. Helsinki University of Technology, Ship Laboratory, Report M-271, 2002.

25.

Simonsen

B C

Mechanics of ship grounding. PhD Thesis, Department of Naval Architecture and Offshore Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 1997.

26.

Lax

Ship model tests of hard grounding. Helsinki University of Technology, Ship Laboratory, Report M-260, 2001 (in Finnish).

27.

Luukkonen

Damage study concerning ship groundings in Finland. Helsinki University of Technology, Ship Laboratory, Report M-240, 1999 (in Finnish).

28.

Harvald

Normand's number for merchant ships

European Shipbuilding, J. Ship. Technical Society, 1964, 13 (1), 14–23.

29.

ShipPax

Ferry, Cruise & RO-RO Register Yearbook - Guide 02, 2002.

30.

Thurston

D L

A formal method for subjective design evaluation with multiple attributes

Res. Eng. Des., 1991, 3, 105–122.

31.

Gurnani

A P

Lewis

Robust multiattribute decision making under risk and uncertainty in engineering design

Eng. Optim., 2005, 37 (8), 813–830.

32.

Bowman

V J

On the relationship of the Tchebycheff norm and the efficient frontier of multiple-criteria objectives In Multiple-Criteria Decision Making Eds H. Thieriez and S. Zionts), 1976, pp. 76–85 (Springer-Verlag, New York).