Risk evaluation index system for ship collision with navigable bridges based on collision probability

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.09.1064

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to improve the accuracy and reliability of ship-bridge collision risk assessment for navigable bridges, the causes of 248 ship-bridge collision accidents at home and abroad were statistically analyzed and identified, thereby constructing the initial index system of ship-bridge collision risk factors, including 23 risk causes. Based on the fault tree analysis method, the initial fault tree of ship-bridge collision risk was constructed. Boolean algebra operation was used to obtain the fault tree cut sets. By merging and deduplicating the minimum cut sets, the number of causes in the initial fault tree was first simplified. According to the calculation and analysis of the accident probability caused by residual risk causes, combined with Pearson correlation analysis of risk factors, the number of fault tree risk causes was simplified in the second step, and then the main risk factors affecting ship-bridge collisions were identified. The results show that factors such as "navigational conditions and exceeding navigational clearance height", "poor working status", "weak communication ability and poor crew ability", "ship equipment aging and psychological habit" should be incorporated into risk causes including "unfamiliarity with navigational conditions", "lack of navigation technology", "mechanical equipment failure and fluky psychology". Abnormal psychology did not cause accidents during the 8-year period of accident probability analysis, and its proportion in accidents over 10 years was only 0.21%, so it should be eliminated. The correlation between ship density, management of navigational aids and other factors is weak, and the probability caused by the two factors is low, so they can be removed from the main risk factors of ship-bridge collision. Therefore, a ship-bridge collision risk evaluation index system for navigable bridges is constructed, which is based on 14 main risk factors such as meteorological and hydrological conditions, mechanical equipment failure, and weak professional navigation technology and weak emergency response capability.

Key words: collision probability, navigable bridges, risk factors, ship collision risk, index system, accident samples, correlation analysis

CLC Number:

X913.4安全系统工程

FENG Yutao, HE Yang, DENG Hao, YU Kui, HOU Yunfei. Risk evaluation index system for ship collision with navigable bridges based on collision probability[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(9): 60-69.

Figures/Tables 10

Table 1

Statistics of 20 ship-bridge collision accidents between 2013 and 2023

事故时间	事故桥梁	对象	事故结果	事故致因
2013年7月	重庆牛角沱嘉陵江大桥	船撞击桥墩	2号桥墩被撞	驳船受洪水冲击
2013年9月	上海南浦大桥	船撞击桥墩	上游右侧桥墩被撞	船员疏忽瞭望
2014年3月	美国得克萨斯州 Houston Viaduct Bridge	船撞击桥墩	油轮受损,原油泄漏	恶劣天气致视线受限
2015年10月	肇庆西江铁路大桥	船撞击梁部	大桥钢桁梁受损	不了解桥梁通航高度
2016年3月	广东港珠澳大桥(通车前)	船撞防撞设施	26号墩北侧防撞桩变形	能见度不良、疏忽瞭望
2016年4月	美国伊利诺伊州 Thebes Railroad Bridge	船撞击桥墩	2艘船沉没、14艘船受损	人为操作失误
2016年7月	天津永定新河特大桥	船撞击桥墩	桥墩受损,船舶沉没	船员无证驾驶
2017年8月	中山磨刀门特大桥	船撞桥墩横梁	船舶侧翻,部分桥跨受损	台风影响
2017年10月	美国明尼苏达州 Union Pacific Rail Bridge	船撞击桥墩	驳船撞上桥墩	船员缺乏经验,操作失误
2018年9月	广州白坭河大桥	船撞击桥墩	大桥主墩开裂	舵机失灵,船舶失控
2018年10月	美国佛罗里达州 Sunshine Bridge	船撞击梁部	桥梁损毁,交通中断	人为操作失误
2019年1月	广州东洲河大桥	船撞击梁部	T梁受损,船舶输送臂折断	船员无证驾驶
2019年3月	美国弗吉尼亚州 Southern Railway Bridge	船撞击桥墩	轨道偏转,铁路中断	急流影响船舶行驶
2020年6月	肇庆封开西江大桥	船撞防撞设施	货船碰撞桥墩	暴雨和急流影响
2020年9月	舟山桃夭门大桥	船撞击梁部	钢箱梁和斜拉索受损	人为操作失误
2021年1月	美国路易斯安那州 CSX Rigolets Bridge	船撞击梁部	桥梁与船舶受损	桥梁通航孔无导航照明
2021年10月	广东广深沿江高速大桥	船撞防撞设施	船、墩柱及防撞设施受损	淤积致使航道变窄
2022年3月	美国路易斯安那 Houma Twin Span Bridges	船撞击梁部	桥面断裂,交通受阻	不了解桥梁通航高度
2022年4月	日本东京湾横滨大桥	船撞防撞设施	桥墩防撞设施受损	遭遇大风影响
2023年4月	美国密西西比 Natchez-Vidalia Bridge	船撞击桥墩	船舶沉没	船员疏忽瞭望

Table 1

Fig.1

Fig.2

Table 2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Fig.5

References 15

[1]	付姗姗, 张悦, 席永涛, 等. 多因素耦合下长江口水域交通事故致因链分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(3):60-67. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.03.1367
	FU Shanshan, ZHANG Yue, XI Yongtao, et al. Causal chain of maritime accidents in Yangtze River estuary considering coupling effects of multi-risk factors[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(3):60-67. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.03.1367
[2]	张智超, 张景峰, 杨栋, 等. 基于目标失效概率的桥梁船撞风险及防撞水准论证[J]. 公路交通科技, 2023, 40(2):72-80. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0268.2023.02.010
	ZHANG Zhichao, ZHANG Jingfeng, YANG Dong, et al. Demonstration of bridge-vessel collision risk and fortification criterion against vessel collision based on target failure probability[J]. Journal of Highway and Transportation Research and Development, 2023, 40(2):72-80.
[3]	中华人民共和国交通运输部. 船舶碰撞桥梁隐患治理三年行动实施方案(交办水〔2020〕69号)[Z]. 2020-12-23.
[4]	陈伟炯. 面向21世纪的海事控制理论探讨:船舶营运安全的基本要素结构[J]. 中国航海, 1999, 22(1): 34-38.
	CHEN Weijiong. An exploration of marine accident control theories for the 21st century:structure of the basic elements of ship operation safety[J]. Navigation of China, 1999, 22(1): 34-38.
[5]	江玉杰, 万征, 陈继红. 基于有序选择模型的船舶事故严重度致因分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(12):131-139. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.12.0245
	JIANG Yujie, WAN Zheng, CHEN Jihong. Causation analysis of ship accident severity based on ordered choice model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(12):131-139. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.12.0245
[6]	WU Bing, YIP T L, YAN Xinping, et al. Fuzzy logic based approach for ship-bridge collision alert system[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2019,187:106 152-106 164.
[7]	孔宪卫. 桥区水域船舶通航安全研究[D]. 天津: 天津大学, 2020.
	KONG Xianwei. Study on safety of ship navigation in the waterway of bridge area[D]. Tianjin: Tianjin University, 2020.
[8]	徐飞. 基于贝叶斯网络的船舶触碰事故致因分析[D]. 大连: 大连海事大学, 2021.
	XU Fei. Causal analysis of ship allision accidents based on Bayesian network[D]. Dalian: Dalian Maritime University, 2021.
[9]	高延祥. 基于倒塌概率的桥梁抗撞设计方法研究[D]. 武汉: 华中科技大学, 2022.
	GAO Yanxiang. Study on crashworthiness design of bridges basing on probability analysis[D]. Wuhan: Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 2022.
[10]	高攀, 李丝蔓, 赵旭, 等. 五元联系数在大中型水库船桥碰撞风险评价中的应用: 以三峡库区为例[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2023, 23(10):3419-3428.
	GAO Pan, LI Siman, ZHAO Xu, et al. Application of the five-element correlation number in the ship-bridge collision risk assessment in medium and large reservoirs:a case study of the Three Gorges Reservoir Region[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2023, 23(10): 3419-3428.
[11]	杨峰. 南京长江第五大桥船桥碰撞安全风险评估研究[D]. 大连: 大连海事大学, 2018.
	YANG Feng. A tentative study of risk assessment of ship-bridge collision for Nanjing Yangtze River Bridge V[D]. Dalian: Dalian Maritime University, 2018.
[12]	钱国辉. 既有航道桥梁船舶撞击风险评估及抗撞性能分析[J]. 中国市政工程, 2022, 236(1):99-102.
	QIAN Guohui. Ship collision risk assessment and anti-collision performance analysis of existing navigable bridges[J]. China Municipal Engineering, 2022, 236(1): 99-102.
[13]	KIM D H. Investigating collision risk factors perceived by navigation officers in a close-quarters situation using a ship bridge simulator[J]. Cognition, Technology & Work, 2021, 23(3): 419-428.
[14]	刘灵芝. 基于IWRAP理论的船舶碰撞概率计算方法研究[D]. 武汉: 武汉理工大学, 2016.
	LIU Lingzhi. Research on calculation method of ship collision probability based on the theory of IWRAP[D]. Wuhan: Wuhan University of Technology, 2016.
[15]	OLORUNLEKE O F, ANTHONY O O, STANLEY A O, et al. Validation of selected gridded potential evapotranspiration datasets with ground-based observations over Ogun-Osun River Basin, Nigeria[J]. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 2024, 17(5):113213-113 221.

事件及符号		逻辑门及符号
顶上事件/ 中间事件		与门
基本事件		或门
开关事件		异或门
条件事件		优先与门

基本事件	概率值
基本事件	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
气象水文X₁	1.1×10^-4	6.1×10^-5	4.7×10^-5	2.1×10^-5	1.5×10^-4	6.9×10^-5	3.9×10^-5	1.8×10^-5
地形地貌X₂	2.7×10^-5	4.1×10^-5	0	4.2×10^-5	0	2.3×10^-5	1.9×10^-5	0
自然灾害X₃	2.7×10^-5	0	2.3×10^-5	2.1×10^-5	2.5×10^-5	0	0	1.8×10^-5
船舶密度X₄	0	2.0×10^-5	0	0	0	0	0	0
船体建造规格X₅	0	2.0×10^-5	0	2.1×10^-5	0	4.6×10^-5	0	0
机械设备故障X₆	1.1×10^-4	2.0×10^-5	4.7×10^-5	6.4×10^-5	2.5×10^-5	4.6×10^-5	3.9×10^-5	5.4×10^-5
侥幸心理X₇	8.0×10^-5	2.0×10^-5	4.7×10^-5	6.4×10^-5	7.6×10^-5	9.2×10^-5	1.9×10^-5	3.6×10^-5
反常心理X₈	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
身体疾病X₉	2.7×10^-5	0	2.3×10^-5	0	2.5×10^-5	2.3×10^-5	0	0
缺乏航行技术X₁₀	1.1×10^-4	1.4×10^-4	9.4×10^-5	2.1×10^-5	5.0×10^-5	1.1×10^-4	3.9×10^-5	3.6×10^-5
驾驶经验不足X₁₁	2.7×10^-5	4.1×10^-5	7.0×10^-5	2.1×10^-5	5.0×10^-5	0	1.9×10^-5	1.8×10^-5
通航状况生疏X₁₂	2.7×10^-4	1.6×10^-4	2.1×10^-4	1.5×10^-4	2.3×10^-4	1.8×10^-4	2.1×10^-4	1.4×10^-4
桥梁运营体制X₁₃	2.7×10^-5	6.1×10^-5	4.7×10^-5	2.1×10^-5	5.0×10^-5	2.3×10^-5	1.9×10^-5	0
助航设施管理X₁₄	0	0	0	4.1×10^-5	0	0	0	0
应对能力不强X₁₅	5.4×10^-5	0	2.3×10^-5	0	2.5×10^-5	0	0	0
无证驾驶船舶X₁₆	5.4×10^-5	4.1×10^-5	7.0×10^-5	8.5×10^-5	1.3×10^-4	4.6×10^-5	1.9×10^-5	3.6×10^-5
疲劳驾驶X₁₇	5.4×10^-5	2.0×10^-5	2.3×10^-5	6.4×10^-5	2.5×10^-5	4.6×10^-5	0	1.8×10^-5

r取值范围	相关程度	相关方向
(-1, -0.8)	强线性相关	负向
[-0.8,-0.3]	中线性相关	负向
(-0.3, 0)	弱线性相关	负向
(0, 0.3)	弱线性相关	正向
[0.3, 0.8]	中线性相关	正向
(0.8, 1)	强线性相关	正向

事件	X₁	X₂	X₃	X₄	X₅	X₆	X₇	X₉	X₁₀	X₁₁	X₁₂	X₁₃	X₁₄	X₁₅	X₁₆	X₁₇
X₁	1	-0.457	0.298	-0.296	-0.103	-0.223	0.554	0.684	-0.339	0.260	0.546	0.364	0.207	0.395	0.734	-0.013
X₂	-0.457	1	-0.372	0.204	0.529	0.169	-0.029	-0.372	0.271	-0.377	-0.214	0.117	0.271	-0.196	-0.235	0.483
X₃	0.298	-0.372	1	-0.276	-0.557	0.515	0.401	0.437	-0.291	0.457	0.387	-0.019	0.125	0.688	0.644	0.397
X₄	-0.296	0.204	-0.276	1	0.218	-0.442	-0.196	-0.376	0.600	0.189	-0.297	0.606	0.085	-0.253	-0.222	-0.213
X₅	-0.103	0.529	-0.557	0.218	1	-0.164	0.379	-0.005	0.342	-0.543	-0.423	0.009	0.049	-0.470	-0.124	0.450
X₆	-0.223	0.169	0.515	-0.442	-0.164	1	0.430	0.300	0.007	-0.248	0.424	-0.450	-0.171	0.637	-0.119	0.615
X₇	0.554	-0.029	0.401	-0.196	0.379	0.430	1	0.755	0.490	-0.215	0.375	-0.062	0.435	0.455	0.521	0.746
X₉	0.684	-0.372	0.437	-0.376	-0.005	0.300	0.755	1	0.388	0.285	0.740	0.299	0.276	0.744	0.463	0.309
X₁₀	-0.339	0.271	-0.291	0.600	0.342	0.007	0.490	0.388	1	0.374	0.241	0.578	0.116	0.379	-0.228	0.069
X₁₁	0.260	-0.377	0.457	0.189	-0.543	-0.248	-0.215	0.285	0.374	1	0.316	0.714	0.277	0.387	0.476	-0.269
X₁₂	0.546	-0.214	0.387	-0.207	-0.423	0.424	0.375	0.740	0.241	0.316	1	0.265	0.020	0.744	0.241	0.049
X₁₃	0.364	0.117	-0.019	0.606	0.009	-0.450	-0.062	0.299	0.578	0.714	0.265	1	0.558	0.558	0.419	-0.113
X₁₄	0.207	0.271	0.125	0.085	0.049	-0.171	0.435	0.276	0.116	0.277	0.020	0.558	1	0.014	0.641	0.538
X₁₅	0.395	-0.196	0.668	-0.253	-0.470	0.637	0.455	0.744	0.279	0.387	0.744	0.558	0.014	1	0.339	0.297
X₁₆	0.734	-0.235	0.644	-0.222	-0.124	-0.119	0.521	0.463	-0.228	0.476	0.241	0.419	0.641	0.339	1	0.340
X₁₇	-0.013	0.483	0.397	-0.213	0.450	0.615	0.746	0.309	0.069	-0.269	0.049	-0.113	0.538	0.297	0.340	1