Research on risk transfer path of ship navigation in Arctic waters based on SFN and SD

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.04.0840

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to clarify the risk transfer path of ship navigation in the Arctic waters, risk factors of ship navigation were identified from the human, ship, environment and management. SFN and decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method were used to analyze the Arctic navigation risk events. The risk transfer probability and risk transfer path were obtained by subjective data and then the risk transfer network model of ship navigation in the Arctic waters was constructed. Based on the navigation record data of vessel "Yongsheng", SD method was used to simulate and verify the Arctic waters ship navigation risk transfer network model. The results showed that among the risk events of ship navigation in the Arctic, 8 were edge events, 14 were process events and 8 are target events and 15 risk transfer paths from edge events to target events were generated. The example shows that the risk transfer network model is reliable. This model can describe the transmission effect and path of risk events, obtain the dynamic probability curve of ultimate risk events, reveal the law of ship navigation risk transmission in the Arctic waters, which provide technical support for the formulation of risk prevention measures.

Key words: space fault network (SFN), system dynamics (SD), Arctic ice covered waters, ship navigation risk, transfer network

XI Yongtao, ZHANG Liang, FU Shanshan, HU Shenping, HAN Bing. Research on risk transfer path of ship navigation in Arctic waters based on SFN and SD[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(4): 52-60.

Figures/Tables 13

Fig.1

Tab.1

Tab.2

Fig.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Tab.5

Fig.3

Tab.6

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

References 24

[1]	KOROSOV A A, RAMPAL P, PEDERSEN L T, et al. A new tracking algorithm for sea ice age distribution estimation[J]. The Cryosphere, 2018, 12(6): 2073-2085. doi: 10.5194/tc-12-2073-2018
[2]	YE Yufang, HEYGSTER G, SHOKR M. Improving multiyear ice concentration estimates with reanalysis air temperatures[J]. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2016, 54(5):2602-2614. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2015.2503884
[3]	封安全. 商业视角下北极东北航道问题研究[J]. 西伯利亚研究, 2020, 47(1): 5-15.
	FENG Anquan. Research on the Northeast Waterway of the Arctic from the commercial perspective[J]. Siberian Studies, 2020, 47(1): 5-15.
[4]	席永涛, 付姗姗, 陈伟炯, 等. 北极水域船舶航行风险管理研究现状分析[J]. 交通信息与安全, 2020, 38(3): 67-76.
	XI Yongtao, FU Shanshan, CHEN Weijiong, et al. A status quo analysis of studies on risk management of ship navigation in Arctic Waters[J]. Journal of Transport Information and Safety, 2020, 38(3): 67-76.
[5]	KHAN B, KHAN F, VEITCH B. A dynamic Bayesian network model for ship-ice collision risk in the Arctic waters[J]. Safety Science, 2020, 130:DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104858. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104858
[6]	KHAN B, KHAN F, VEITCH B. A cellular automation model for convoy traffic in Arctic waters[J]. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 2019, 164: DOI:10.1016/j.coldregions.2019.102783. doi: 10.1016/j.coldregions.2019.102783
[7]	付姗姗, 张笛, 张明阳, 等. 北极水域船舶航行环境风险影响因素识别[J]. 哈尔滨工程大学学报, 2017, 38(11): 1682-1688.
	FU Shanshan, ZHANG Di, ZHANG Mingyang, et al. Identification of environmental risk influencing factors for ship operations in Arctic waters[J]. Journal of Harbin Engineering University, 2017, 38(11): 1682-1688.
[8]	AFENYO M, KHAN F, VEITCH B, et al. Arctic shipping accident scenario analysis using Bayesian network approach[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2017, 133: 224-230. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.02.002
[9]	KUM S, SAHIN B. A root cause analysis for Arctic marine accidents from 1993 to 2011[J]. Safety Science, 2015, 74: 206-220. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.12.010
[10]	李凤鹏, 崔巍, 刘振强. 基于DSR模型的北极航道通航风险多维指标评估[J]. 计算机仿真, 2022, 39(10): 138-142.
	LI Fengpeng, CUI Wei, LIU Zhenqiang. Multi dimensional evaluation of navigation risk in Arctic channel based on DSR model[J]. Computer Simulation, 2022, 39(10): 138-142.
[11]	李壮, 付姗姗, 高郭平, 等. 海冰影响下船舶北极水域航行风险评估方法[J]. 交通信息与安全, 2020, 38(3):92-98.
	LI Zhuang, FU Shanshan, GAO Guoping, et al. A risk assessment method of ship navigation in the Arctic Waters under influences of sea ice[J]. Journal of Transport Information and Safety, 2020, 38(3):92-98.
[12]	何佩龙, 马晓雪, 张靖雯, 等. 基于模糊层次分析-多级可拓的北极东北航线不同航段风险评价[J]. 极地研究, 2021, 33(2):279-293. doi: 10. 13679/j.jdyj.20200016
	HE Peilong, MA Xiaoxue, ZHANG Jingwen, et al. Risk evaluation of different legs of Northeast Arctic route based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process-multilevel extension[J]. Chinese Journal of Polar Research, 2021, 33(2): 279-293. doi: 10. 13679/j.jdyj.20200016
[13]	LI Zhuang, HU Shenping, GAO Guoping, et al. Decision-making on process risk of Arctic route for LNG carrier via dynamic Bayesian network modeling[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2021, 71: DOI:10.1016/j.jlp. 2021.104473. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp. 2021.104473
[14]	FU Shanshan, YU Yuerong, CHEN Jihong, et al. A framework for quantitative analysis of the causation of grounding accidents in arctic shipping[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2022, 226: DOI:10.1016/j.ress.2022.108706. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2022.108706
[15]	VALDEZ B O A, GOERLANDT F, KUZMIN V. Risk management model of winter navigation operations[J]. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2016, 108:242-262. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.03.071 pmid: 27207023
[16]	KHAN B, KHAN F, VEITCH B, et al. An operational risk analysis tool to analyze marine transportation in Arctic waters[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2018, 169: 485-502. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2017.09.014
[17]	李振福, 孙悦, 韦博文. “冰上丝绸之路”:北极航线船舶航行安全的跟驰模型[J]. 大连海事大学学报, 2018, 44(3): 22-27.
	LI Zhenfu, SUN Yue, WEI Bowen. Car following model for navigation safety on "Polar Silk Road"[J]. Journal of Dalian Maritime University, 2018, 44(3): 22-27.
[18]	马晓雪, 何佩龙, 乔卫亮, 等. 韧性视域下北极航行风险级联效应分析[J]. 极地研究, 2022, 34(2):219-238. doi: 10.13679/j.jdyj.20210056
	MA Xiaoxue, HE Peilong, QIAO Weiliang, et al. On the cascading effect of Arctic navigation risk based on the perspective of resilience[J]. Chinese Journal of Polar Research, 2022, 34(2):219-238. doi: 10.13679/j.jdyj.20210056
[19]	付姗姗, 刘燕平, 席永涛, 等. 北极海冰环境下船舶事故严重程度影响因素分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(10): 84-90. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.10.013
	FU Shanshan, LIU Yanping, XI Yongtao, et al. Analysis of influencing factors on severity of ship accidents in ice-covered Arctic waters[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(10): 84-90. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.10.013
[20]	LI Zhuang, HU Shenping, GAO Guoping, et al. Risk feasoning from factor correlation of maritime traffic under Arctic sea ice status association with a Bayesian Belief Network[J]. Sustainability, 2020, 13(1):DOI: 10.3390/su13010147. doi: 10.3390/su13010147
[21]	方丹辉, 周敏, 洪荭, 等. 考虑疫苗效力差异的封闭场馆疫情传播分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(7):121-127. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.07.2366
	FANG Danhui, ZHOU Min, HONG Hong, et al. Analysis of epidemic transmission in closed venues considering difference of vaccine effectiveness[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(7):121-127. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.07.2366
[22]	景熠, 曹柳, 张闻秋. 基于改进型GERT网络的供应链突发事件风险传递研究[J]. 运筹与管理, 2022, 31(12): 62-68. doi: 10.12005/orms.2022.0388
	JING Yi, CAO Liu, ZHANG Wenqiu. Research on risk transmission of emergencies in supply chain based on an improved GERT network[J]. Operations Research and Management Science, 2022, 31(12): 62-68. doi: 10.12005/orms.2022.0388
[23]	崔铁军, 李莎莎. 空间故障树与空间故障网络理论综述[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2019, 19(2): 399-405.
	CUI Tiejun, LI Shasha. Revision of the space fault tree and the space fault network system[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2019, 19(2): 399-405.
[24]	崔铁军, 李莎莎. 系统故障演化过程最终事件状态及发生概率研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(8):1-7. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.08.001
	CUI Tiejun, LI Shasha. Study on target event state and occurrence probability of system fault evolution process[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(8):1-7. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.08.001

编号	风险事件	备注	编号	风险事件	备注	编号	风险事件	备注
1	低温	边缘事件	11	船员疏忽	过程事件	21	航海信息缺乏	过程事件
2	高纬		12	基础设施缺乏		22	缺乏维护	过程事件
3	偏远		13	设备性能降低		23	冰困	最终事件
4	海冰		14	通信导航设备受限		24	船体倾覆
5	极昼极夜		15	航行受阻		25	人体冻伤
6	天气恶劣		16	船体和设备结冰		26	机损
7	船员经验缺乏		17	船舶稳性降低		27	撞冰受损
8	船舶冰级低		18	人员活动受限		28	搁浅
9	人员心理生理受影响	过程事件	19	操作失误		29	碰撞
10	冰情信息质量低	过程事件	20	机械故障		30	火灾/爆炸

风险事件	影响度	被影响度	中心度	原因度
1	1.270 1	0.000 0	1.270 1	1.270 1
2	0.757 6	0.000 0	0.757 6	0.757 6
3	0.403 4	0.000 0	0.403 4	0.403 4
4	0.774 9	0.129 0	0.903 9	0.645 8
5	0.347 8	0.129 0	0.476 8	0.218 8
6	0.628 6	0.064 5	0.693 2	0.564 1
7	0.448 9	0.129 0	0.577 9	0.319 8
8	0.371 7	0.000 0	0.371 7	0.371 7
9	0.316 1	0.442 2	0.758 4	-0.126 1
10	0.225 7	0.199 8	0.425 5	0.025 9
11	0.350 4	0.473 3	0.823 7	-0.122 9
12	0.074 9	0.096 8	0.171 7	-0.021 9
13	0.238 1	0.274 7	0.512 8	-0.036 6
14	0.268 5	0.197 7	0.466 2	0.070 8
15	0.131 1	0.382 0	0.513 1	-0.250 9
16	0.194 1	0.129 0	0.323 1	0.065 1
17	0.137 4	0.173 8	0.311 1	-0.036 4
18	0.116 7	0.201 9	0.318 6	-0.085 2
19	0.466 0	0.589 2	1.055 1	-0.123 2
20	0.460 1	0.663 0	1.123 1	-0.202 9
21	0.161 3	0.244 8	0.406 1	-0.083 5
22	0.205 8	0.148 6	0.354 4	0.057 2
23	0.032 3	0.505 8	0.538 1	-0.473 5
24	0.064 5	0.380 7	0.445 2	-0.316 1
25	0.000 0	0.266 7	0.266 7	-0.266 7
26	0.000 0	0.539 8	0.539 8	-0.539 8
27	0.000 0	0.801 3	0.801 3	-0.801 3
28	0.000 0	0.540 5	0.540 5	-0.540 5
29	0.000 0	0.458 7	0.458 7	-0.458 7
30	0.000 0	0.283 9	0.283 9	-0.283 9

编号	职务	学历	极地航行时间/月	加权因子	权重
1	船长	本科	75	20	0.20
2	二副	本科	10	5	0.05
3	船长	本科	58	17	0.17
4	二副	本科	15	7	0.07
5	驾驶员	本科	54	18	0.18
6	船长	硕士	4	10	0.10
7	大副	本科	9	7	0.07
8	大副	硕士	9	8	0.08
9	大副	硕士	11	8	0.08

等级	梯形模糊数	定性描述	概率表征
非常低	(0, 0.1, 0.2)	极少发生	(0,10^-6)
低	(0.1, 0.25, 0.4)	很少发生	(10^-6,10^-3)
中等	(0.3, 0.5, 0.7)	偶然发生	(10^-3,10^-2)
高	(0.6, 0.75, 0.9)	经常发生	(10^-2,10^-1)
非常高	(0.8, 0.9, 1)	频繁发生	(10^-1,1)

编码	概率	编码	概率	编码	概率	编码	概率	编码	概率	编码	概率
q₁	0.19	q₈	0.48	q₁₅	0.24	q₂₂	0.38	q₂₉	0.58	q₃₆	0.57
q₂	0.72	q₉	0.56	q₁₆	0.56	q₂₃	0.52	q₃₀	0.68	q₃₇	0.54
q₃	0.46	q₁₀	0.51	q₁₇	0.45	q₂₄	0.43	q₃₁	0.24	—	—
q₄	0.41	q₁₁	0.62	q₁₈	0.56	q₂₅	0.54	q₃₂	0.43	—	—
q₅	0.39	q₁₂	0.68	q₁₉	0.62	q₂₆	0.42	q₃₃	0.65	—	—
q₆	0.59	q₁₃	0.70	q₂₀	0.54	q₂₇	0.80	q₃₄	0.37	—	—
q₇	0.41	q₁₄	0.34	q₂₁	0.80	q₂₈	0.58	q₃₅	0.50	—	—