Evolutionary analysis of ship collision risk propagation under a complex network

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.05.0684

Abstract

Abstract:

The event tree analysis(ETA) was applied to the risk propagation process of the risk event chains involved in ship collisions for the purpose of developing directed weighted complex, which was then analyzed according to the topological structure. The traditional K-shell decomposition algorithm was adaptively improved to propose the calculation approach for the absolute criticality of the nodes in the CN. The SIR model was utilized to simulate the risk propagation process within the CN, based on which the dynamic sensitivity of the nodes within CN was analyzed under different cases of infection rates and recovery rates. It is pointed out that approximately 25% of the risk events are found as relatively non-active, and the top 10 critical risk events have no relation with the direct causes of the collision accidents. The sensitivity and criticality of risk events are not consistent at all times, and some risk events would not lead to serious consequences or accidents even though countermeasures are not taken. The existence of direct causes for the collision accidents should be acknowledged for the control and management of risk involved in the ship collisions, and much attention should be paid to the risk propagation process. As a result, differential strategies should be taken during the risk management and control to prevent the ship collisions.

Key words: complex network(CN), ship collision, risk propagation, K-shell decomposition algorithm, susceptible-infected-recovered (SIR) simulation

CLC Number:

X928.03事故预防与预测

QIAO Weiliang, DENG Wanyi, MA Xiaoxue, HAN Bing. Evolutionary analysis of ship collision risk propagation under a complex network[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(5): 101-110.

Figures/Tables 8

Fig.1

Table 1

Fig.2

Table 2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

References 14

[1]	CHAI Tian, HAN Xue. A study on ship collision conflict prediction in the Taiwan strait using the EMD-based LSSVM method[J]. PloS One, 2021, 16(5): DOI: 0.1371/journal.pone.0250948.
[2]	刘正江, 吴兆麟, 邹开其, 等. 基于专家问卷调查的船舶碰撞事故中人的因素的识别[J]. 大连海事大学学报, 2003, 29(增 1):43-47.
	LIU Zhengjiang, WU Zhaolin, ZOU Kaiqi, et al. Identifying the human factors in ship collisions based on the investigation by questionnaires[J]. Journal of Dalian Maritime University, 2003, 29(S1): 43-47.
[3]	李娜. Logistic回归模型在船舶碰撞受损因素分析的应用[J]. 舰船科学技术, 2017, 39(22): 141-143.
	LI Na. Application of Logistic regression model in damage analysis of ship collision[J]. Ship Science and Technology, 2017, 39(22): 141-143.
[4]	刘俊峰, 胡志强. 船舶碰撞损伤风险分析方法及应用[J]. 船舶工程, 2017, 39(11): 23-29.
	LIU Junfeng, HU Zhiqiang. A method for ship collision damage risk analysis and its application[J]. Ship Engineering, 2017, 39(11): 23-29.
[5]	AVLIJAŠ G, RADUNOVIĆ M. Application of event chain methodology in schedule risk analysis[J]. European Project Management Journal, 2019, 9(2): 26-34.
[6]	UĞURLU Ö, KÖSE E, YILDIRIM U, et al. Marine accident analysis for collision and grounding in oil tanker using FTA method[J]. Maritime Policy & Management, 2015, 42(2): 163-185.
[7]	RAIYAN A, DAS S, ISLAM M R. Event tree analysis of marine accidents in Bangladesh[J]. Procedia Engineering, 2017, 194: 276-283. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.10.006
[8]	MACRAE C. Human factors at sea: common patterns of error in groundings and collisions[J]. Maritime Policy & Management, 2009, 36(1): 21-38.
[9]	司东森, 张英俊, 郎坤, 等. 基于改进BN的集装箱船舶碰撞事故致因分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(10):31-37.
	SI Dongsen, ZHANG Yingjun, LANG Kun, et al. Causation analysis of container ship collision accidents based on improved BN[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(10): 31-37.
[10]	杨应柳, 晋良海, 邵波, 等. 基于复杂网络的煤矿火灾爆炸致因研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(1):145-151. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.01.0601
	YANG Yingliu, JIN Lianghai, SHAO Bo, et al. Research on causes of coal mine fire and explosion based on complex network[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(1):145-151. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.01.0601
[11]	KITSAK M, GALLOS L K, HAVLIN S, et al. Identification of influential spreaders in complex networks[J]. Nature Physics, 2010, 6(11): 888-893.
[12]	MA Xiaoxue, DENG Wanyi, QIAO Weiliang, et al. A novel methodology concentrating on risk propagation to conduct a risk analysis based on a directed complex network[J]. Risk Analysis, 2022, 42(12): 2800-2822. doi: 10.1111/risa.13870 pmid: 35028963
[13]	GARAS A, SCHWEITZER F, HAVLIN S. A k-shell decomposition method for weighted networks[J]. New Journal of Physics, 2012, 14(8): DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/14/8/083030.
[14]	HOLLNAGEL E. Safety-II in practice: developing the resilience potentials[M]. London: Routledge, 2018:4-5.

类别	代号	节点
顶事件	[22]	碰撞
风险传播演化事件	[2]	适任能力不足
	[3]	不清楚船舶位置
	[5]	船舶间沟通协调不畅
	[7]	船上缺少指导监督
	[8]	船舶作业时未穿戴好防护用品
	[9]	船舶偏移
	[10]	风浪
	[11]	过度依赖助航仪器
	[13]	忽视报警事件或警告
	[14]	驾驶台团队沟通协调不当
	[15]	教育培训不足
	[17]	锚泊位置选择不当
	[18]	能见度不良
	[20]	疲劳
	[21]	偏离既定航道/航线
	[23]	设备故障
	[25]	态势感知丧失
	[26]	通航环境复杂
	[27]	未重视可疑事件
	[28]	未尽到特殊情况下要求的戒备
	[29]	未及早地采取有效避碰行动
	[30]	未采用安全航速
	[31]	未配备设备资源
	[32]	未能对当时危险局面作出充分估计
	[33]	未按要求交接班
	[34]	未遵循海员通常做法/习惯航法
	[35]	未保持正规瞭望
	[36]	避碰行动时机不对/错过
	[37]	未充分利用助航仪器
	[38]	未正确显示号灯号型
	[39]	未充分履行停泊值班安全职责
	[40]	未通知船长
	[41]	未正确发出声响和灯光信号
	[42]	未遵守船舶在互见中的行动规则
	[43]	未控制好船位
	[44]	未遵守狭水道等特殊水域航行规则
	[45]	未充分估计当前环境对船舶操纵的影响
	[46]	未发现潜在风险
	[47]	未严格执行计划航线
	[48]	未遵守能见度不良下的行动规则
	[49]	未保持报警系统处于常开工作状态
	[53]	值班水手操舵失误
	[52]	应急处置措施不当
	[54]	走锚
	[56]	走锚靠泊失败/偏离正常泊位
顶事件	[22]	碰撞
事故触发事件	[1]	安全意识淡薄
	[4]	不熟悉航道环境
	[6]	船岸沟通不畅
	[12]	货物条件
	[16]	交通流密度大
	[19]	配员不足
	[24]	设备维护保养不足
	[50]	酗酒或值班作业前4h内饮酒
	[51]	压力
	[55]	盲目自信

前10位			后10位
层序号	节点代号	重要度	层序号	节点代号	重要度
40	[32]	1.000 0	1	[4]	0.214 4
39	[46]	0.942 1	2	[6]	0.214 4
38	[35]	0.942 1	3	[12]	0.214 4
37	[29]	0.942 1	4	[31]	0.214 4
36	[30]	0.884 3	5	[50]	0.214 4
35	[28]	0.797 5	6	[51]	0.214 4
34	[44]	0.710 7	7	[19]	0.214 4
33	[41]	0.703 7	8	[24]	0.214 5
32	[48]	0.674 1	9	[1]	0.214 7
31	[14]	2.106 8	10	[55]	0.240 3