Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:45:45.454Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk Assessment of Operational Safety for Oil Tankers - A Revised Risk Matrix

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2017

Wen-Kai Hsu ,
Shu-Jun Lian  and
Show-Hui Huang
Wen-Kai Hsu*
Affiliation:
(Shipping and Transport Management, National Kaohsiung Marine University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan)
Shu-Jun Lian
Affiliation:
(Shipping and Transport Management, National Kaohsiung Marine University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan)
Show-Hui Huang
Affiliation:
(International Business and Trade, Shu-Te University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan)
*
(E-mail: khsu@webmail.nkmu.edu.tw)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper is aimed at the risk assessment of operational safety for oil tankers. Based on the operational features of oil tankers and relevant literature, the Risk Factors (RFs) of operational safety were first identified. A revised risk matrix based on a fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach was then proposed to assess the risk classes of the RFs. Finally, to validate the research model, the oil tanker fleet of Chinese Petroleum Corporation (CPC) in Taiwan was empirically investigated. The results can provide practical information for oil carriers to improve their ships' operational safety. Furthermore, the revised risk matrix may provide a theoretical reference for methodological researches in safety risk assessments.

Keywords

Oil tankerRiskFuzzy AHP
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 70 , Issue 4 , July 2017 , pp. 775 - 788
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2017 

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

Arunraj, N.S., Mandal, S. and Maiti, J. (2013). Modeling uncertainty in risk assessment: An integrated approach with fuzzy set theory and Monte Carlo simulation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 55(2), 242–255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckley, J.J. (1985) Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(2), 233–247.Google Scholar
Chang, C.H., Xu, J. and Song, D.P. (2014). An analysis of safety and security risks in container shipping operations: A case study of Taiwan. Safety Science, 63(2), 168–178.Google Scholar
Chang, Y.H. and Wang, Y.C. (2010). Significant human risk factors in aircraft maintenance technicians. Safety Science, 48, 54–62.Google Scholar
Cox, L.A. Jr. (2008). What's wrong with risk matrices? Risk Analysis, 28, 497–512.Google Scholar
Duijm, D.J. (2015) Recommendations on the use and design of risk matrices. Safety Science, 76, 21–13.Google Scholar
Fabiano, B., Curro, F., Reverberi, A.P. and Pastorino, R. (2010). Port safety and the container revolution: A statistical study on human factor and occupational accidents over the long period. Safety Science, 48, 980–990.Google Scholar
Franks, A.P. and Maddison, T. (2006). A simplified method for the estimation of individual risk. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 84, 101–108.Google Scholar
Gordor, R., Flin, R. and Meaens, K. (2005). Defining and evaluating a human factors investigation tool (HFIT) for accident analysis. Safety Science, 43, 147–171.Google Scholar
Havold, J.I. (2005). Safety-culture in a Norwegian shipping company. Journal of Safety Research, 36, 441–458.Google Scholar
Havold, J.I. (2010). Safety culture and safety management aboard tankers Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 95, 511–519.Google Scholar
Hetherington, C., Flin, R. and Mearns, K. (2006). Safety in shipping: The human element. Journal of Safety Research, 37, 401–411.Google Scholar
Hsu, W.K. (2012). Ports' service attributes for ship navigation safety. Safety Science, 50, 244–252.Google Scholar
Hsu, W.K. (2015). Assessing the safety factors of ship berthing operations. Journal of Navigation, 68, 568–588.Google Scholar
Ismail, Z. and Karim, R. (2013) Some technical aspects of spills in the transportation of petroleum materials by tankers. Safety Sciences, 51, 202–208.Google Scholar
IMO. (2013). Revised guidelines for formal safety assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process. MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.12, Lodon, UK.Google Scholar
ISO. (2009). ISO 31000:2009(E) Risk management principles and guidelines, first ed. ISO. Geneva.Google Scholar
Kaufinami, A. and Gupta, M.M. (1991). Introduction to Fuzzy Arithmetic: Theory and Applications. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Kokotos, D.X. and Smirlis, G.Y. (2005). A classification tree application to predict total ship loss. Journal of Transportations and Statistics, 8 31–42.Google Scholar
Kontovas, C.A. and Psaraftis, H.N. (2009). Formal safety assessment: a critical review. Marine Technology, 46, 45–59.Google Scholar
Levine, E.S. (2012). Improving risk matrices: the advantages of logarithmically scaled axes. Journal of Risk Research, 15, 209–222.Google Scholar
Liu, C.P., Liang, G.S., Su, Y. and Chu, C.W. (2006). Navigation safety Analysis in Taiwanese ports. Journal of Navigation, 59, 201–211.Google Scholar
Lu, C.S. and Tsai, C.L. (2008). The effects of safety climate on vessel accidents in the container shipping context. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40, 594–601.Google Scholar
Lu, C.S. and Yang, C.S. (2010). Safety leadership and safety behavior in container terminal operations. Safety Science, 48, 123–134.Google Scholar
Meng, Q., Weng, J. and Qu, X. (2010). A probabilistic quantitative risk assessment model for the long-term work zone crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42, 1866–1877.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
NPSA (National Patient Safety Agency) (2008). A risk matrix for risk managers. http://www.npsa.nhs.uk/nrls/improvingpatientsafety/patient-safety-tools-andguidance/risk-assessment-guides/risk-matrix-for-risk-managers/.Google Scholar
Psaraftis, H.N. (2012). Formal safety assessment: an updated review. Journal of Science and Technology, 17, 390–402.Google Scholar
Saaty, T.L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.Google Scholar
Sahin, B. and Senol, Y.E. (2015). A novel process model for marine accident analysis by using generic Fuzzy-AHP algorithm. Journal of Navigation, 68, 162–183.Google Scholar
Smith, E.D., Siefert, W.T. and Drain, D. (2009). Risk matrix input data biases. System Engineering, 12, 344–360.Google Scholar
Yager, R.R. (1981). A procedure for ordering fuzzy subsets of the unit interval. Information Sciences, 24, 143–161.Google Scholar