Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Korea (대한조선학회논문집)

The Society of Naval Architects of Korea (대한조선학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Study on Risk and Redundancy Assessment Methodology of Ship Machinery System

선박의 의장시스템에 대한 안전성 및 Redundancy 평가 방법론 연구

  • Moon, Kyung-Tae (Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Seoul National University, RIMSE) ;
  • Yang, Young-Soon (Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Seoul National University, RIMSE) ;
  • Youn, Yeo-Pyo (Cruise & Ferry Team, Samsung Heavy Industries Co. LTD) ;
  • Ryu, Won-Sun (InfoGet System)
  • 문경태 (서울대학교 조선해양공학과, 해양시스템공학연구소(RIMSE)) ;
  • 양영순 (서울대학교 조선해양공학과, 해양시스템공학연구소(RIMSE)) ;
  • 윤여표 (삼성중공업 여객선설계팀) ;
  • 유원선 ((주)인포겟시스템)
  • Published : 2010.02.20
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

According to the new rules and regulations (New SOLAS), major safety critical systems are to be designed to be redundant, which is called 'Redundancy Design'. This paper was to quantitatively analyze the degree of influence of the redundancy design applied to major safety critical systems using IMO's FSA(formal Safety Assessment) method. For the purpose of this study, the diesel engine system, which is actually one of major safety critical systems, was dealt with FMEA, FTA and ETA technique. In addition, whether the redundancy was met or not was verified and the degree of safety, or redundancy, was represented in terms of reliability. In conclusion, the safety of propulsion systems is possibly assessed systematically by estimating the risk level in terms of frequency and fatality.

Keywords

References

  1. Buksa, A., Tudor, M. and Martinovic, D., 2005, “Research of The Failure Incidences In the Diesel-Engine Propulsion System,” 9th International Conference on Traffic Science, pp. 14-15.
  2. Hansson, L. and Kiaer, E., 1997, Technical Failures, System Criticality Ranking, SAFECO Work Package II.6, MARINTEK Report No. MT23 F96-0360/233509.00.01.
  3. IMO, 2008a, Consideration of the GBS Generic Structure(MSC 84/5/4).
  4. IMO, 2008b, FSA-RoPax Ships(MSC 85/17/2).
  5. IMO, 2008c, Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment for use in the IMO Rule-making Process(MSC Circ 1023).
  6. IMO, 2006a, Guidelines on Alternative Design and Arrangements for SOLAS Chapter II-1 and III(MSC Circ 1212).
  7. IMO, 2006b, SOLAS Regulations II-2/21.4
  8. IMO, 2006c, SOLAS Regulations II-2/21.5.1.2
  9. Lee, J.O., Yeo, I.C. and Yang, Y.S., 2001, “A Trial Application of FSA Methodology to the Hatchway Watertight Integrity of Bulk Carriers,” Marine Structures, Vol. 14, pp. 651-667. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8339(01)00007-7
  10. SAFEDOR, 2005, “Risk Evaluation Criteria”, SAFEDOR Deliverable D4.5.2.
  11. Svein Kristiansen, 2005, MARITIME TRANSPORTATION, ELSEVIER, Burlington, M.A..
  12. www.safedor.org.

Cited by

  1. Integration of Ontology Model and Product Structure for the Requirement Management of Building Specification vol.48, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.3744/SNAK.2011.48.3.207
  2. A Study on the Hole-Plan system combined with 3D CAD vol.13, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2012.13.1.1
  3. Research of Risk Assessment for Retrofitting an Ozone Treatment Type Ballast Water Treatment System on an Existing Vessel vol.30, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.13000/JFMSE.2018.06.30.3.923