4.7 Article

A framework for onboard assessment and monitoring of flooding risk due to open watertight doors for passenger ships

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2022.108666

关键词

Maritime risk and safety; Watertight doors; Vulnerability to flooding; Accident susceptibility

资金

  1. European Union [814753]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper introduces a novel concept for rapidly assessing the flooding risk onboard passenger ships, taking into account both the likelihood and consequences of flooding accidents. Active monitoring of flooding risk can increase crew's situational awareness and positively influence the safety culture onboard the ship.
Post-accident safety of ships is governed by damage stability, affected by watertight subdivisions which limit accidental flooding. This is important for passenger ships with watertight doors (WTDs) often fitted in the bulkheads. Awareness of the ship flooding risk due to open WTDs and the conditions under which the associated risk level changes are prerequisites for proactive risk mitigation. Accident risk is often expressed as a combination of accident likelihood and its consequences. Current solutions for flooding risk mitigation often treat these elements separately, or the adopted metrics are based on quantities not allowing proper active control of risk. In this paper an attempt is made to fill this gap by introducing a novel concept for rapidly assessing the flooding risk onboard passenger ships, accounting for the two dimensions of flooding accidents. The likelihood part is based on the complexity of surrounding traffic, operational conditions, and human reliability assessment. The consequences are based on precalculated probabilistic damage stability results of ship survivability. The presented case studies indicate that active monitoring of flooding risk can increase the crew's situational awareness of the effect of open WTDs on the flooding risk, thus positively influencing the safety culture onboard the ship.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据