Accident Probabilities in Selected Areas of The Gu

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/242323030
ACCIDENT PROBABILITIES IN SELECTED AREAS OF THE GULF OF FINLAND
Article
CITATIONS READS
6 296
3 authors, including:
Maria Hänninen P. Kujala

Finnish Transport Infrastructure Agency Aalto University
35 PUBLICATIONS 1,252 CITATIONS 298 PUBLICATIONS 6,951 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
SAFEWIN View project
Human Factors in Risk-Based Design Methodology "FAROS" View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Maria Hänninen on 07 January 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Helsinki University of Technology. Faculty of Engineering and Architecture.
Department of Applied Mechanics. Series AM
Teknillinen korkeakoulu. Insinööritieteiden ja arkkitehtuurin tiedekunta.
Sovelletun mekaniikan laitos. Sarja AM
Espoo 2008, FINLAND TKK-AM-6
ACCIDENT PROBABILITIES IN SELECTED AREAS OF THE GULF

OF FINLAND
Ylitalo Jutta Hänninen Maria Kujala Pentti
Helsinki University of Technology

Faculty of Engineering and Architecture
Department of Applied Mechanics
Teknillinen korkeakoulu
Insinööritieteiden ja arkkitehtuurin tiedekunta
Sovelletun mekaniikan laitos
Distribution:
Helsinki University of Technology
Department of Applied Mechanics
P.O. Box 4100
FIN-02015 TKK
Tel. +358-9-451 3501
Fax +358-9-451 4173
 Jutta Ylitalo, Maria Hänninen, Pentti Kujala
ISBN 978-951-22-9725-2
ISBN 978-951-22-9726-9 (PDF)
ISSN 1797-609X
ISSN 1797-6111 (PDF)
Printed in Multiprint
Espoo 2008, FINLAND
HELSINKI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY ABSTRACT
PO Box 1000, FI - 02015 TKK
http://www.tkk.fi/ 17.12.2008
Faculty Department
Engineering and Architecture Applied Mechanics
Author(s)
Ylitalo, Jutta; Hänninen, Maria; Kujala, Pentti
Title
Accident Probabilities in Selected Areas of the Gulf of Finland
Abstract
In this study, ship-ship collision and grounding probabilities are estimated for several crossing areas and
narrow passages and for one grounding location in the Gulf of Finland. The estimates are calculated with
AIS-data from July 2006. In addition, the collision probability for the crossing area between Helsinki and
Tallinn is estimated for winter month March 2006. Estimates of crossing collision probabilities in 2015 are
calculated and compared to the probabilities of 2006. For the crossing area between Helsinki and Tallinn,
some expected oil spill sizes and their probabilities are also estimated.
Collision probabilities are estimated as a product of geometrical and causation probabilities. The
geometrical probabilities are described as the expected numbers of collision candidates, which are
estimated with a model derived from literature. Causation probabilities for the collisions are estimated with
a Bayesian network model. Grounding probabilities are estimated with three models and with causation
probability values derived from literature. For the collision probability estimates in the crossing areas in
2015, the number of tankers heading to and from Russia is assumed to double compared to the year 2006,
and for the number of cargo ships, coefficient of 1.5 is applied for the increase of traffic. Based on collision
probabilities, oil leak probabilities and expected oil spill sizes are estimated with models and assumptions
derived from literature.
The results showed that collision probability is highest in the crossing area between Helsinki and Tallinn,
where the average time period between accidents for summer traffic is estimated to be five years. In 2015
the average time period is estimated to be about three years. The average causation probability value for the
crossing areas is estimated to be 2.7 ∙ 10-4 and 1.0 ∙ 10-5 for head-on encounters. Average time period
between cargo oil spills in the crossing between Helsinki and Tallinn in 2006 is estimated to be 126 years,
the average spill size being 3200 tons. Bunker oil spill of 330 ton average size is estimated to occur once in
54 years. For groundings, there is a lot of uncertainty related to many of the parameters of applied models,
and none of the models estimates the probability of grounding in a sound way in the studied location.
Keywords (and classification)

marine traffic safety, collision probability, the Gulf of Finland, Bayesian networks
Place Month - Year Language Number of pages
Espoo, Finland December -2008 English 49
ISBN (printed) ISBN (electronic) ISSN (printed) ISSN (electronic)
978-951-22-9725-2 978-951-9726-9 1797-609X 1797-6111
Serial name Serial number or report code
Series AM TKK-AM-6
Distribution of the printed publication
Helsinki University of Technology, Department of Applied Mechanics, P.O. Box 4100, FIN-02015 TKK
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE .............................................................................................................................. 7
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 8
1.1 Objective ................................................................................................................ 8
1.2 Estimation of collision and grounding probabilities .............................................. 8
1.3 Bayesian networks ................................................................................................. 9
1.4 Automatic Identification System ......................................................................... 10
1.5 Limitations and report structure ........................................................................... 11
2 TRAFFIC PROPERTIES ............................................................................................ 13
2.1 Overview of traffic in the Gulf Finland ............................................................... 13
2.2 Traffic properties in the studied locations ........................................................... 14
2.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 14
2.2.2 Crossing area between Helsinki and Tallinn ............................................... 19
2.2.3 Crossing in front of Tallinn ......................................................................... 20
2.2.4 Merging traffic from Kotka to the main route of the Gulf of Finland ......... 21
2.2.5 Merging of the waterway to Sköldvik and the main route of the Gulf of
Finland… ..................................................................................................................... 21
2.2.6 Merging of two waterways near Sommers .................................................. 22
2.2.7 Merging of lanes from Primorsk and St. Petersburg ................................... 23
2.2.8 Waterway to St. Petersburg ......................................................................... 23
2.2.9 Waterway to Kotka ...................................................................................... 24
2.2.10 Waterway to Vyborg .................................................................................... 24
2.2.11 Grounding location near Sköldvik ............................................................... 24
3 MODELS ..................................................................................................................... 25
3.1 Ship-ship collision probability ............................................................................. 25
3.1.1 Geometrical probability models for crossing and head-on encounters ........ 25
3.1.2 Causation probability model ........................................................................ 27
3.2 Grounding probability.......................................................................................... 29
3.2.1 Pedersen‟s model ......................................................................................... 29
3.2.2 Simonsen‟s model ........................................................................................ 31
3.2.3 The model by Fowler and Sørgård .............................................................. 31
3.2.4 Causation probability for grounding ............................................................ 32
3.3 Probability and magnitude estimation of oil spills .............................................. 32
4 DATA .......................................................................................................................... 33
4.1 AIS-data ............................................................................................................... 33
4.2 Other input data sources ...................................................................................... 34
5 RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 36
5.1 Ship-ship collision probabilities .......................................................................... 36
5.1.1 The number of collision candidates ............................................................. 36
5.1.2 The causation probabilities .......................................................................... 36
5.1.3 Estimated collision probabilities and return periods in studied locations ... 36
5.2 Grounding probability.......................................................................................... 37
5.3 Change in collision probabilities in the future ..................................................... 38
5.4 Estimates of oil spill sizes in the crossing area between Helsinki and Tallinn ... 39
6 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 40
6.1 Example of ship-ship collisions: the crossing between Helsinki and Tallinn ..... 40
6.2 Groundings ........................................................................................................... 41
7 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 42
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... 46
7
PREFACE
This report has been written within SAFGOF-project, which is a multidisciplinary project
conducted in Kotka Research Maritime Centre by Universities of Helsinki and Turku, Hel-
sinki University of Technology and Kymenlaakso University of Applied Sciences. In the
SAFGOF- project, the accident risks of marine traffic in the Gulf of Finland are estimated
in the current traffic situation and in the year 2015. Also, the direct environmental effects
and the risk of environmental accidents can be evaluated. Finally, the effects of national
and international legislation and other management actions are modeled, to produce advice
and support to governmental decision makers. The aim of this study, conducted by Kotka
Maritime Research Centre and Helsinki University of Technology, Department of Applied
Mechanics, is to estimate ship-ship collision and grounding probabilities in several cross-
ing areas and narrow passages and in one example grounding location in the Gulf of Fin-
land.
For funding of the project, the authors wish to thank European Union, European regional
development fund, Regional Council of Kymenlaakso, City of Kotka, Kotka-Hamina re-
gional development company Cursor Ltd., Kotka Maritime Research Association Meri-
kotka, and Kotka Maritime Research Center Corporate Group.
In Kotka, 17.12.2008
Authors
8
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective
The Gulf of Finland is a sensitive geographical area. In 2005, the Baltic Sea, and the Gulf
of Finland as a part of it, was categorized as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) by
International Maritime Organization (IMO). The gulf is approximately 400 kilometers long
and from 58 to 135 kilometers wide. The average depth of the gulf is only 37 meters and
the eastern part is even shallower. Especially the Finnish coast is full of islands. Marine
traffic is continuously increasing in the Gulf of Finland. Especially the increasing number
of oil tankers is raising concern in coastal countries. Russia is building new oil terminals,
and the annual oil transports via the Gulf of Finland are estimated to increase even up to
250 millions of tons by 2015. The risk of an oil accident in the Gulf of Finland is signifi-
cant. An oil disaster would be devastating for its vulnerable nature. /1, 2, 3, 4/
Authorities are aware of the increasing amount of maritime transport and thus rising risk
level. The safety of marine transport is already improved in many ways. In the Gulf of Fin-
land, traffic separation schemes (TSSs) were introduced. In July 2004, the Gulf of Finland
mandatory Ship Reporting System (GOFREP) went into operation. It covers the entire sea
area in the gulf. Finland, Estonia and Russia manage the system through co-operation. All
vessels of over 300 GT are obligated to report before entering the Gulf of Finland or leav-
ing a port in it. The system was launched to improve sea safety and especially reduce the
risk of ship collisions. GOFREP operators inform crews about issues affecting the safety or
flow of the traffic. They also monitor that regulations are followed. The system relies on
the use of radar, AIS (Automatic Identification System) and camera systems. /5/
Several reports concerning grounding and collision risks in the Gulf of Finland have been
made, e.g., /6, 7, 8/, but the overall risks of maritime transportation remain to be estimated.
It is important to know the present risks in order to make decisions about necessary risk
control options and to be sufficiently prepared for possible oil and other accidents. Current
risk level also has to be known in estimating the future change in risk level due to increas-
ing traffic.
In this study, the existing models for estimating the ship-ship collision and grounding
probabilities were applied to several crossing areas and narrow passages and one example
grounding location. The estimates were calculated for summer traffic, but for the crossing
area between Helsinki and Tallinn, collision probability was estimated for wintertime also.
Estimates of some collision probabilities in 2015 were calculated and compared to the
probabilities of 2006. For the crossing area between Helsinki and Tallinn, some expected
oil spill sizes and their probabilities were calculated.
1.2 Estimation of collision and grounding probabilities

In Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA), risk is defined as a product of the probability of an
unwanted event to happen and the magnitude of its consequences:
risk the probability of an event the consequences of the event
9
The probability is often described as the number of events per time unit, for example the
number of collisions per year. The costs describing the magnitude of the consequences
might be for example lost human lives in a year or the cost of cleaning oil spills in a year.
The objective of risk analysis is to find out what might happen, how probable it is and what
are the consequences. /9/
Probabilities of collisions and groundings in marine traffic have often been modeled based
on the approach of Fujii et al. /10, 11/ and Macduff /12/. In the approach the probability of
a collision or grounding is calculated as
P PG PC (1)
, where
PG is the geometrical probability and
PC is the so-called causation probability
The geometrical probability denotes the probability of a ship being on a collision or groun-
ding course. This can be also described using the so-called number of collision/grounding
candidates Na. Na denotes the number of ships that would collide or run aground, if no
aversive maneuvers are made. This depends on the properties of ship traffic such as traffic
distribution on the studied waterway and ship sizes and speeds. For calculating the geome-
trical probability, there exist few models. These models and their applications to marine
traffic risk assessments have been reviewed in /13/. In the earliest studies (e.g., /11, 12/)
the traffic was assumed to be distributed evenly on the waterway. To get more realistic
distributions, Automatic Identification System (AIS) data gathered from ship traffic in the
area can be utilized.
The causation probability denotes the probability of failing to avoid the accident while the
ship is being on a collision/grounding course, i.e., the probability of not making an evasive
maneuver. An accident candidate may result in an accident for example because of a tech-
nical fault or human error. Causation probability quantifies the proportion of cases when an
accident candidate ends up grounding or colliding with another vessel. Traditionally the
causation probability has been estimated based on the difference in calculated geometrical
probability, which solely predicts too many accidents, and statistics-based accident fre-
quency (e.g., /11, 12/). In more modern models the value for causation probability has been
estimated by applying risk analysis tools such as fault-trees, e.g., in /14/, or utilizing Baye-
sian networks.
1.3 Bayesian networks

Bayesian networks are directed acyclic graphs that consist of nodes representing variables
and arcs representing the dependencies between variables. Each variable has a finite set of
mutually exclusive states. For each variable A with parent nodes B1,…, Bn there exist a
conditional probability table P(A | B1, …, Bn). If variable A has no parents it is linked to
unconditional probability P(A). /15/
10
Bayesian networks are used to get estimates of certainties or occurrence probabilities of

events that cannot or are too costly to be observed directly. For identifying the relevant
nodes and the dependencies between nodes, and constructing the node probability tables,
both hard data and expert opinions can be used and mixed. When constructing a network,
the structure of the network may be known for example by a domain expert opinion but the
probability values of states of nodes may be unknown, or there may not be expert judgment
available and then the network structure may also be unknown. If there is some data avail-
able, the network structure and the parameters could be learnt from it with maximum like-
lihood estimation, maximum a posteriori estimation or using EM-algorithm, depending on
the completeness of the data. /15/
Bayesian networks have been applied in several fields, including risk analysis of military
vehicles /16/, modeling the operational accident causation in railway industry /17/, and the
reliability of search and rescue operations /18/. They have been used in modeling nuclear
power plant operators‟ situation assessment /19/. In Aviation System Risk Model (ASRM)
presented by Luxhøj /20/, human factors in aviation accidents were assessed using Baye-
sian networks and HFACS human error framework. In 2006, utilization of Bayesian net-
work at step 3 of Formal Safety Assessment was suggested in a document /21/ submitted
by the Japan body of maritime safety to the IMO Maritime Safety Committee. Bayesian
networks have been applied for modeling human factors in marine traffic, and the existing
models have been reviewed in /22/.
1.4 Automatic Identification System

Automatic Identification System (AIS) provides means for ships to electronically exchange
information. The information is also transmitted to Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) where
authorities may observe traffic. AIS operates primarily on two dedicated radio channels but
it is capable of being switched to alternate channels. AIS data includes static, dynamic and
voyage-related information (table 1). Static information is entered on installation of the
system and normally needs not to be changed after that. Dynamic information is automati-
cally got from the ship sensors connected to AIS and only „Navigational status‟ needs to be
manually changed. Voyage-related information is manually entered and updated. Also
short safety-related messages may be send via AIS. /23, 24/
By the end of 2004, AIS had to be fitted to /25/

- all ships of 300 gross tonnage and upwards engaged on international voyages
- cargo ships of 500 gross tonnage and upwards not engaged on international voyag-
es
- all passenger ships irrespective of size
Some vessel types, for example warships and naval auxiliaries, do not have to carry AIS
/25/. The report rate of different dynamic AIS information is presented in table 2.
11
Table 1. Different types of AIS information
Static information Dynamic information Voyage-related information

MMSI (Maritime Mobile Service Ship‟s position with accuracy
Ship‟s draught
Identity) indication and integrity status
Position Time stamp in Coordi-
Call sign and name Hazardous cargo (type)
nated Universal Time
Destination and Estimated Time
IMO number Course over ground (COG)
of Arrival (ETA)
Length and beam Speed over ground (SOG) Route plan (waypoints)
Type of ship Heading

Location of position-fixing an- Navigational status (i.e. under-
tenna way by engines or at anchor)
Rate of turn (ROT)
Table 2. Report rate of dynamic AIS information /24/
Dynamic information General reporting interval
Ship at anchor or berthed, speed 0-3 knots 3 min
Ship at anchor or berthed, speed 3 knots or more 10 s
Underway, speed 0-14 knots 10 s
Underway, speed 0-14 knots, changing course 3 1/3 s
Underway, speed 14-23 knots 6s
Underway, speed 14-23 knots, changing course 2s
Underway, speed > 23 knots 2s
Underway, speed > 23 knots, changing course 2s
1.5 Limitations and report structure

This study concentrates on the probability estimation of the unwanted event in risk assess-
ment. More information on consequence estimations of collisions and groundings can be
found in /26/ and /27/.
The risk of all accident types is not analyzed in this study, only ship-ship collisions and
groundings. Other accident types include collisions with a bridge, quay or floating object,
fires, explosions, leakings, storm damages and capsizings. In the Gulf of Finland, groun-
dings and ship-ship collisions have been the most frequent marine accident types /28/.
From the probability of ship-ship collisions, the probabilities of overtaking collision and
intersection collision are not analyzed in this document. Latter may occur if a ship omits to
change course at the bend of the waterway and as a result collides with another vessel.
12
This report is organized as follows. The locations for which the accident probabilities have
been estimated are described in chapter 2. Chapter 3 describes the applied models for geo-
metrical and causation probability estimations, and for the probability and magnitude of oil
spills. In chapter 4 the applied AIS data and other input for the modeling is presented. The
results are presented in chapter 5 and sensitivity analysis in chapter 6. Finally the results
are discussed in chapter 7.
13
2 TRAFFIC PROPERTIES
2.1 Overview of traffic in the Gulf Finland
As an example of the vessel traffic in the Gulf of Finland, figure 1 presents the traffic
based on AIS records on the 1st of July 2006. Main part of traffic had been directed from or
to the Gulf of Finland. Some ships had still operated only in the gulf, for example passen-
ger ships and high speed crafts between Helsinki and Tallinn.
Figure 1. Movements of ships in the Gulf of Finland based on AIS-data from one day
Based on July 2006 AIS-records, 1666 vessels had entered the Gulf of Finland, and 1687
had left it on the way to west. 61 % of ships had been cargo vessels, 19 % tankers, 16 %
passenger ships, and 4 % other ships. Less than 10 % of the tankers had been chemical and
gas tankers. The rest of the tankers had been crude oil and oil products tankers.
The length distribution of ships grouped by ship type is shown in figure 2. In most cases,
the length had been between 100 and 200 meters. The average length of passenger vessels
was the longest, 174.31 m. All ships had been less than 300 meters long but there had been
several more than 200 m long tankers navigating in the Gulf of Finland at all times. The oil
tankers had been in average larger than the chemical and gas tankers.
1000
800 <50 m
50-100
Ships
600
100-150
400
150-200
200 200-250
0 ≥250 m
Passenger ships Cargo ships Tankers Other ships
Figure 2. Length distributions of ships entering or leaving the Gulf of Finland in July
2006
14
Speed distributions of the ship type groups are presented in figure 3. The average speed of
all ships had been 14.15 knots. The speeds of all ships had been less than 30 knots. Passen-
ger ships were the fastest ship type with the average velocity of 17.31 at the entrance to the
Gulf of Finland.
It should be noted that all ships navigating in the Gulf of Finland were not taken into ac-
count in the distributions of figures 2 and 3, only the ships which left or entered the Gulf of
Finland in July 2006. Thus the traffic such as high speed crafts moving between Helsinki
and Tallinn which do not normally leave the Gulf of Finland were not included in the dis-
tributions.
900
750 <5 knots
600 5-10 knots
Ships
450 10-15 knots

300 15-20 knots
150 ≥20 knots
0
Passenger ships Cargo ships Tankers Other ships
Figure 3. Speed distributions of ships entering or leaving the Gulf of Finland in July
2006
2.2 Traffic properties in the studied locations

2.2.1 Introduction
The estimates for ship-ship collision probabilities were calculated for six different crossing
areas and for three narrow passages in the Gulf of Finland:
Crossing area between Helsinki and Tallinn
Crossing in front of Tallinn
Merging traffic from Kotka to the main route of the Gulf of Finland
Merging of the waterway to Sköldvik and the main route of the Gulf of Finland
Merging of lanes from Primorsk and St. Petersburg
Channel to St. Petersburg (13.7 km long section)
Waterway to Kotka (15.94 km long section)
Waterway to Vyborg (4.7 km long section)
The grounding probability estimate was calculated for tanker traffic in an example location
near Sköldvik. If a ship had not been changing course at a given point in the example loca-
tion, it would have ran aground. The considered areas are presented in figures 4-13. The
15
properties of ship traffic derived from the AIS-data for each location are described in the
following sub-chapters.
Figure 4. Studied crossing area between Helsinki and Tallinn
Figure 5. Studied crossing area in front of Tallinn

16
Figure 6. Studied crossing area from Kotka to the main route
Figure 7. Studied crossing area from Sköldvik to the main route

17
Figure 8. Studied crossing area near Sommers
Figure 9. Studied merging of shipping lanes from Primorsk and St. Petersburg
Figure 10. Studied stretch of channel to Saint Petersburg

18
Figure 11. Studied narrow passage to Kotka
Figure 12. Studied passage to Vyborg
Figure 13. Studied powered grounding location, a bending waterway near Sköldvik
19
2.2.2 Crossing area between Helsinki and Tallinn
In the crossing area between Helsinki and Tallinn, mainly fast ferries (50 %) and passenger
ships (45 %) navigating between Helsinki and Tallinn had been crossing mainly cargo ves-
sels (71 %) and tankers (19 %) heading to and from eastern part of Gulf of Finland. No
high speed crafts had been navigating eastbound or westbound. In total, there had been
2122 ships navigating northbound or southbound and 2303 ships crossing them along the
main route in July 2006. The velocity of fast ferries had been over 30 knots. East- and
westbound traffic had been navigating in wide area so there was not just one clearly li-
mited crossing area, as can be seen in figure 4. Some ships that had been crossing the main
route in this area had been heading to Turku. The average angle between the considered
waterways was 56 degrees. The angle between ships navigating to different directions had
varied considerably.
During the 21 days in March 2006, the total number of ships navigating between Helsinki
and Tallinn had been 444, of which 72 % had been passenger ships and 20 % had been
cargo vessels. In winter, there are no high speed crafts navigating between Helsinki and
Tallinn, which decreased the average speed of ships in the studied area. In total, 1414 ships
had been moving eastbound or westbound. 65 % of them had been cargo vessels, 20 %
tankers, and 8 % had been passenger ships.
The numbers of ship movements and average velocities, lengths, and widths for different
ship types in July and March 2006 are presented in tables 3-6.
Table 3. Ships navigating northbound or southbound in the crossing area between

Helsinki and Tallinn in July 2006
Number of Average ve- Average Average

vessels locity (knots) length (m) width (m)
Passenger ships 959 24.43 104.13 17.48
Cargo ships 80 13.03 115.98 17.21
Tankers 17 13.12 145.06 22.82
High speed crafts 1056 32.73 88.61 17.85
Other ships 10 9.4 98.2 14.4
Table 4. Ships navigating eastbound or westbound in the crossing area between Hel-
sinki and Tallinn in July 2006

Passenger ships 131 16.54 191.70 26.77
Cargo ships 1635 13.31 123.81 18.08
Tankers 445 14.05 165.03 26.63
High speed crafts 0
Other ships 92 11.64 107.22 17.16
20
Table 5. Ships navigating southbound of northbound in the crossing area between Hel-
sinki and Tallinn during 21 days in March 2006

Passenger ships 318 16.27 147.97 24.33
Cargo ships 91 9.66 119.71 17.80
Tankers 19 9.58 140.74 21.58
High speed crafts 0
Other ships 16 10.93 98.88 19.56
Table 6. Vessels navigating eastbound or westbound in the crossing area between

Helsinki and Tallinn during 21 days in March 2006

Passenger ships 109 18.02 183.52 29.07
Cargo ships 914 12.58 130.96 19.15
Tankers 282 11.81 163.47 25.83
High speed crafts 0
Other ships 109 11.77 116.49 22.75
2.2.3 Crossing in front of Tallinn
Ship movements through the crossing area in front of Tallinn in July 2006 are summarized
in tables 7 and 8. North- and southbound moving ships had been mainly high speed crafts
(49 %) and passenger ships (47 %). North- and southbound traffic had consisted almost the
same vessels as in the crossing area between Helsinki and Tallinn. Cargo vessels had been
the most frequent ship type of ships moving west- or eastbound (49 %). In total, 2155 ships
had been navigating north- or southbound and 116 ships had been heading west or east in
the area in July 2006. The average angle between the considered waterways had been 84
degrees.
Table 7. Ships navigating north- or southbound in the crossing in front of Tallinn

Passenger ships 1004 23.90 108.81 17.95
Cargo ships 21 11.16 97.01 15.36
Tankers 24 10.29 107.21 16.21
High speed crafts 1058 32.61 88.62 17.86
Other ships 48 14.04 48.83 9.46
Table 8. Ships navigating east- or westbound in the crossing in front of Tallinn

Passenger ships 2 11.15 211.5 27
Cargo ships 57 12.89 108.51 16.62
Tankers 31 10.46 94.77 14.55
High speed crafts 0
Other ships 26 12.00 44.31 9.27
21
2.2.4 Merging traffic from Kotka to the main route of the Gulf of Finland
The crossing traffic from Kotka to the main route had not been a real crossing but more a
joining of two waterways, as can be seen in figure 6. The traffic moving from west to
Kotka had been crossing the westbound traffic of the main route, but the traffic coming
from Kotka had not been crossing but rather joining it. Therefore only westbound traffic of
the main route was taken into account for the calculations.
Ships from or to Kotka are shown in table 9 and ships moving westbound along the main
route at the considered area are shown in table 10. 70 % of ships navigating westbound had
been cargo vessels and 17 % had been tankers. 83 % of ships navigating north- or south-
bound had been cargo vessels and 11 % had tankers. In total, 510 ships had been heading
to or from Kotka and 795 ships had been navigating westbound.
Table 9. Ships going to Kotka or coming from Kotka in July 2006

Passenger ships 8 14.51 160.88 22.63
Cargo ships 424 15.63 132.79 19.88
Tankers 58 13.49 116.43 18.12
High speed crafts 0
Other ships 20 12.51 101.40 16.45
Table 10. Ships navigating westbound in the merging area of traffic from Kotka to the
main route in July 2006

Passenger ships 79 16.08 189.01 25.77
Cargo ships 558 12.39 122.73 17.65
Tankers 132 13.95 196.71 32.15
High speed crafts 0
Other ships 26 11.62 112.50 18.23
2.2.5 Merging of the waterway to Sköldvik and the main route of the Gulf of Fin-
land
Similarly to the crossing traffic from Kotka to the main route, traffic from Sköldvik to the
main route had not been actually crossing but rather merging the main route‟s traffic.
Therefore, of the ships navigating along the main route, only westbound ships and some
eastbound traffic navigating at north side of west going ships were taken into account.
In total, 234 ships had been navigating to or from Sköldvik and they had been crossing
1100 ships in the considered area in July 2006. 62 % of ships to or from Sköldvik had been
tankers and 32 % had been cargo vessels. 73 % of westbound ships had been cargo vessels.
The numbers of ship movements and the average velocities, lengths, and widths for differ-
ent ship types in July 2006 are presented in tables 11 and 12.
22
Table 11. Ships going to Sköldvik or coming from Sköldvik in July 2006

Passenger ships 3 12.27 124.33 17.67
Cargo ships 74 11.69 99.97 14.85
Tankers 145 13.72 135.79 21.30
High speed crafts 0
Other ships 12 13.09 151.42 19.50
Table 12. Ships navigating westbound in the merging area of traffic from Sköldvik

Passenger ships 93 15.44 184.76 25.22
Cargo ships 802 13.41 127.04 18.50
Tankers 163 13.51 182.55 29.66
High speed crafts 0
Other ships 42 10.78 103.62 17.14
2.2.6 Merging of two waterways near Sommers
Similarly to Kotka and Sköldvik crossings, instead of an actual crossing, the considered
crossing area near Sommers had been a junction of two shipping lanes. Traffic heading
east, towards St. Petersburg, was not taken into account because it did not contribute to
collision probability at the crossing point.
In total, there had been 708 ships heading west. 71 % of those ships had been cargo vessels
and 14 % had been tankers. 244 ships had been navigating north- or southbound. 70 % of
them had been cargo vessels and 27 % had been tankers. The numbers of ship movements
and the average velocities, lengths, and widths for different vessel types in July 2006 are
presented in tables 13 and 14.
Table 13. Westbound traffic at the crossing area near Sommers in July 2006

Passenger ships 83 16.55 190.88 25.99
Cargo ships 503 12.61 125.64 18.05
Tankers 97 13.80 210.10 34.92
High speed crafts 0
Other ships 25 12.08 116.08 18.48
Table 14. North- and southbound traffic at the crossing area near Sommers

Passenger ships 0
Cargo ships 170 10.58 103.4 14.98
Tankers 66 13.90 160.80 24.71
High speed crafts 0
Other ships 8 9.75 85.5 15.5
23
2.2.7 Merging of lanes from Primorsk and St. Petersburg
The considered area had not been an actual crossing but rather a merging zone so only the
westbound traffic of the horizontal waterway was taken into account. Properties of traffic
from and to the waterway leading to Primorsk are shown in table 15. In total, 95 ships had
been navigating along the waterway. 85 % of them had been tankers whose average length
had been 247.46 m. Westbound traffic from St. Petersburg is shown in table 16. In total,
696 vessels had been navigating westbound along the waterway. 70 % of those ships had
been cargo vessels, 14 % had been tankers and 12 % had been passenger ships.
Table 15. Ships coming to and going from Primorsk in July 2006

Passenger ships 0
Cargo ships 4 13.43 131.50 19.25
Tankers 81 11.35 247.46 43.01
High speed crafts 0
Other ships 10 10.83 40.76 12.36
Table 16. Ships navigating westbound along the main route in the merging of Primorsk
traffic in July 2006

Passenger ships 84 16.49 191.32 26.02
Cargo ships 489 12.56 125.43 18.01
Tankers 97 12.98 209.36 34.73
High speed crafts 0
Other ships 26 11.73 107.13 17.72
2.2.8 Waterway to St. Petersburg
In total, there had been 729 ships navigating to or from St. Petersburg in the analyzed
13 700 m long waterway section in July 2006. The main ship type had been cargo vessels,
72 % of all ships. 7 % of ships had been tankers. The average distance between the parallel
waterways had been 48.65 m. The numbers of vessel movements and the average veloci-
ties, lengths, and widths for different ship types for the two-way traffic in July 2006 are
presented in table 17.
Table 17. Ships navigating along the passage to St. Petersburg in July 2006

Passenger ships 65 12.03 195.33 26.68
Cargo ships 527 9.51 117.60 16.78
Tankers 51 10.34 144.46 22.22
High speed crafts 0
Other ships 86 8.65 109.73 15.99
24
2.2.9 Waterway to Kotka
In the studied 15 940 m long waterway stretch to Kotka, there had been 526 vessels navi-
gating in July 2006. 76 % of ships had been cargo vessels and 12 % had been tankers. The
average distance between the parallel waterways had been 67.19 m. The numbers of ship
movements and the average velocities, lengths, and widths for different vessel types for the
two-way traffic in July 2006 are presented in table 18.
Table 18. Ships navigating along the narrow passage to Kotka in July 2006

Passenger ships 51 14.48 158 22
Cargo ships 401 15.80 132.13 19.96
Tankers 62 13.40 116.34 18.18
High speed crafts 0
Other ships 12 16 141 20.25
2.2.10 Waterway to Vyborg
332 vessels had been navigating in the studied 4 900 m long stretch of waterway to Vyborg
in July 2006. 92 % of the vessels had been cargo ships and 2 % had been tankers. The av-
erage distance between the parallel waterways had been 24.63 m. The numbers of ship
movements and the average velocities, lengths, and widths for different vessel types for the
two-way traffic in July 2006 are presented in table 19.
Table 19. Ship navigating along the passage to Vyborg in July 2006

Passenger ships 6 12.38 57 10
Cargo ships 307 9.16 85.02 12.32
Tankers 7 9.29 56.28 11.66
High speed crafts 0
Other ships 12 7.08 50.08 10.17
2.2.11 Grounding location near Sköldvik

Only tankers were taken into account in the grounding probability estimation. 76 tankers
had been approaching the example location from southwest in July 2006. The average ve-
locity of the tankers had been 13.87 knots and the average length had been 128.03 m. The
bend in the waterway was located 1000 m apart from the considered powered grounding
location.
25
3 MODELS
3.1 Ship-ship collision probability
3.1.1 Geometrical probability models for crossing and head-on encounters
The ship-ship collision probability was calculated as the product of geometrical and causa-
tion probability (equation 1). The applied approach for estimating the geometrical proba-
bility of ship-ship collisions in two crossing waterways was based on a model by Pedersen
/26/, in which the geometrical probability was presented as the number of collision candi-
dates, denoting the number of collisions, if no aversive maneuvers were made, in a studied
time period. The model has been applied in many studies such as /29, 30, 31, 32/.
The number of ship-ship collision candidates in the crossing area of two waterways as the
one presented in figure 14 during time period Δt was calculated as /26/
Q1i Q2 j
Na (1) ( 2)
f i (1) ( z i ) f j( 2) ( z j )Vij Dij dA t (2)
i j ( zi , z j ) Vi V j
, where
i and j were the ship classes of the colliding vessels,
Na was the number of collisions if no aversive maneuvers were
made,
Q1i was the number of class i vessels at waterway 1 in time unit,
Q2j was the number of class j vessels at waterway 2 in time unit,
Vi(1) was the velocity of class i vessels at waterway 1,
Vj(2) was the velocity of class j vessels at waterway 2,
fi(1) was the lateral distribution of traffic in waterway 1,
fj(2) was the lateral distribution of traffic in waterway 2,
Vij was the relative velocity, and
Dij was the geometrical collision diameter.
The relative velocity in equation (2) was calculated as
Vij (Vi (1) ) 2 (V j( 2) ) 2 2Vi (1)V j( 2) cos

(3)
, where
θ was the angle between waterways as shown in figure 14.
The geometrical collision diameter (see figure 15) was calculated as /26/
L(i1)V j( 2) L(j2)Vi (1)
Dij sin
Vij
1/ 2 2 1/ 2
2
Vi (1)
V j( 2)
Bj 1 sin Bi 1 sin
Vij Vij
(4)
26
, where
Li was the length of vessel in ship class i in the waterway 1,
Lj was the length of vessel in ship class j in the waterway 2,
Bi was the width of vessel in ship class i in the waterway 1, and
Bj was the width of vessel in ship class i in the waterway 1.
Lateral traffic distributions fi and fj were approximated with Gaussian distributions
2
1 z
f ( z) exp 2
(5)
2 2
Figure 14. Crossing waterways
Figure 15. Definition of geometrical collision diameter Dij /26/
The number of head-on collision candidates in parallel waterways (see figure 16), was de-
rived from equation (2) using θ = 180° and σ1 = σ2. The number of collision candidates at
Lw length of parallel waterways separated by a distance μ was then calculated as /26/
2
Q1i Q2 j 1
Na Lw (Vi (1) V j( 2) ) ( Bi(1) B (j 2) ) exp t (6)
2 i j Vi (1) V j( 2) 4 2
27
Figure 16. Parallel waterways
For the collision candidate calculations, ships were grouped in five categories: passenger
ships, cargo vessels, tankers, high speed crafts (HSCs), and other ships. Each category was
divided into four size groups: length less than 100 meters, length at least 100 but less than
200 meters, length at least 200 m, and length unknown. For the length unknown group, the
average values of length and width of the whole ship type category were applied. The
above described groups were formulated in both directions of each lane. The angle be-
tween crossing ships had been varying at the crossing points, so the average angle of arriv-
al of each ship group from each approach direction was applied in the calculations. Esti-
mates for the number of collision candidates were calculated for all traffic and for situa-
tions, where at least one of the meeting ships was a tanker. All geometrical probability
calculations were executed with Excel.
3.1.2 Causation probability model
The causation probability, denoting the probability of collision candidates failing to avoid
the collision, was calculated with a Bayesian network model. The model was based on
fragments of a collision model network applied in the FSA of large passenger ships /33/
and a grounding model from the FSA of ECDIS system /34/, both FSAs conducted by Det
Norske Veritas. The network estimated the probability of a collision given that two ships
were on a collision course, one ship had lost control and the other ship did not give way.
Some modifications were made to the network, mostly because the same network was ap-
plied into several locations and because the probability was now calculated for multiple
ship type groups. The added nodes and their states are described in table 18 and the added
dependencies (arcs) in table 19. “Other ship type”-node‟s states were modified to match
the ship type groups listed in chapter 3.1.1. “Give way situation”-node‟s states related to
overtaking situations were removed since these encounters were not included in this study.
The descriptions of the rest of the nodes which were not modified can be found in /33/ and
/34/. The network structure can be seen in figure 17. The network was built and the proba-
bility calculations were performed with Bayesian network software Hugin /35/.
With the network, the causation probability could be calculated for a chosen location and
either for summer or winter traffic by setting the corresponding location and time of year
states‟ probability to one. The causation probability for a situation, where at least one of
the colliding vessels was a tanker, was calculated as
28
P(collision | at least 1 tanker) P(collision | own ship type " tanker")
P(collision | other ship type " tanker") (7)
- P(collision | own ship type " tanker", other ship type " tanker")
Table 20. Added nodes to the Bayesian network for estimating the probability of not
making an evasive maneuver
Node name Description States

Passenger vessel
High-speed craft
The causation probability can be esti-
Own ship type Cargo ship
mated for multiple ship types
Tanker
Other
Modified to be one of the influencing < 100 m
Other ship size factors on visual detection (instead of 100-200 m
other ship type) > 200 m
Utilized for calculating the probabili- Summer
Time of year
ties for summer and winter Winter
Helsinki-Tallinn crossing
Tallinn crossing
Kotka merging
Sköldvik merging
Utilized for calculating the probabili- Sommers
Location
ties for different risk locations Primorsk-St. Petersburg cross-
ing
St. Petersburg head-on
Kotka head-on
Vyborg head-on
Figure 17. Bayesian network model for causation probability estimation adapted from
/33/ and /34/
29
Table 21. Added arcs to the Bayesian network for estimating the probability of not mak-
ing an evasive maneuver
From node To node
Other ship size Visual detection
Own ship type AIS own ship
Own ship type Maintenance routines
Own ship type Safety culture
Own ship type Familiarization
Own ship type Communication level
Own ship type Daylight
Own ship type Bridge design
Other ship type Other ship size
Location Own ship type
Location Other ship type
Location Weather
Location VTS
Location Daylight
Location Give way situation
Time of year Own ship type
Time of year Other ship type
Time of year Weather
Time of year Daylight
3.2 Grounding probability

3.2.1 Pedersen’s model
Three different grounding probability models were applied to the example grounding loca-
tion. The grounding probability was estimated only for tanker traffic.
The first model has been presented by Pedersen /26/. It describes the situation shown in
figure 18. In the model, the number of groundings in a time unit is estimated as a sum of
four different grounding scenarios:
I. Ships navigating along the waterway at normal speed. Accidents may occur be-
cause of a human error or problems with the propulsion/steering system near a
shoal.
30
II. Ships which do not change course as they should at the bend.
III. Ships which have to take an evasive action near the shoal and therefore ground on
the shoal.
IV. All other ships, for example drifting ships and off-course ships.
Figure 18. Bend of a waterway /26/
Grounding candidates of categories I and II are shown in figure 18. The example groun-
ding scenario considered in this study belonged to category II. The expected number of
category II groundings of one ship type per year (F) was calculated as /26/
(d a) a
Fcat. II Pc QP0 f ( z ) Bdz (8)
L
, where
Q was the number of ship movements in the considered waterway
per year,
L was the total width of the studied area perpendicular to vessel
traffic,
f was the ship track distribution,
B was a grounding indication function , which was 1 when the ship
grounded and 0 when the ship passed the area safely of run aground
before the shoal,
P0 was the probability of omission to check the position of ship,
d was the distance between the shoal and the bend, varying with the
lateral position of the ship,
a was the average length between position checks by the navigator,
and
Pc was the causation probability.
As in ship-ship collisions, lateral traffic distribution f was approximated with a Gaussian
distribution.
31
It should be noted, that in this study the distance between the shoal and the bend d was
calculated as a distance from the bend to the coastline. In reality, ships would run aground
before hitting the coast, i.e., as soon as their draughts would be larger than the water depth.
This approximation was adopted because the available water depth information was not
detailed enough for calculating the distances from the bend to actual grounding points sep-
arately for all ship sizes and draughts.
3.2.2 Simonsen’s model
The second grounding probability model that was applied was the model described by Si-
monsen /36/. The model follows Pedersen‟s model but with an assumption that the event of
checking the position of the ship could be described as a Poisson process. With this hypo-
thesis, the equation (8) became
d a
Fcat II Pc Qe f ( z ) Bdz (9)
L
, where
the factor e-d/a represented the probability of omission to check the
position from the bend to the shoal.
3.2.3 The model by Fowler and Sørgård
The third model for estimating the probability of grounding has been presented by Fowler
and Sørgård /14/. In their model, grounding is divided into powered grounding situation
and drift grounding situation. The main reason for powered grounding is assumed to be a
failure to make a critical course change in the vicinity of the shoreline or shallow water.
The dominant critical situation is defined as a situation when a ship navigates to a way-
point within 20 minutes of landfall such that a powered grounding results if no critical
course change is made. The number of powered groundings fpg in time unit was estimated
as
f pg n pg ( Pc p pg ,c Pf p pg , f ) (10)
, where
npg was the number of dominant critical situations in a time unit,
Pc and Pf are the probabilities of clear and reduced visibility, and
ppg,c and ppg,f are the corresponding probabilities of grounding in
clear or reduced visibility given critical situation.
Related to the distance d approximation adopted in application of Pedersen‟s and Simon-

sen‟s models, the number of critical situations was calculated as that the number of ships
navigating to a way-point within 20 minutes of coastline in question, not of the point where
water depth was smaller than draught.
32
3.2.4 Causation probability for grounding
All three grounding probability models applied in this study included a causation probabili-
ty estimate, and in the model of Fowler and Sørgård there were two separate causation
probabilities for good and poor visibility. Instead of applying models, universal values for
the causation probabilities derived from literature were applied. For Pedersen‟s and Simon-
sen‟s grounding probability models, a causation probability value of 1.59 ∙ 10-4, previously
applied, e.g., in /31, 37/, was utilized. For the model of Fowler and Sørgård, the probability
values presented in /14/ were applied: 2.47 ∙ 10-4 for good visibility, and 8.57 ∙ 10-4 for
poor visibility.
3.3 Probability and magnitude estimation of oil spills

For estimating the probability of a cargo oil spill in a tanker collision, a literature value
was applied: based on historical data, the average probability of cargo oil spill had been
estimated as 0.39 spills per collision /38/, cited in /39/. The expected size of the spill was
also calculated based on literature /40/, where it had been estimated to be 6.9 % of dead-
weight of the tanker.
Other ships than tankers also carry oil as bunker oil. In case of a collision, the value of
0.128 spills per collision /38, cited in 39/ was applied as a bunker spill probability. Bunker
fuel was assumed to be stored in two tanks of equal size. Average bunker spill size was
assumed to be the half of the bunker capacity of the ship which meant roughly /39/
Vbun ker ton 0.0161 L2 0.5457 L (11)
, where
L was the length of the ship.
33
4 DATA
4.1 AIS-data
Traffic data was obtained from stored AIS-records from March and July 2006. A collision
probability estimate for winter traffic was calculated from the March data. March data was
chosen because during normal winter in the Gulf of Finland, the sea is widely frozen in
March. July represented the marine traffic in summer.
The information for the applied models that was derived from the AIS data is presented in
table 22. It should be noted that the dynamic information had been saved only every 30 to
40 seconds in the database utilized in this study.
In cargo oil spill size estimation, the ship size needed to be given in deadweight instead of
ship length. The corresponding average deadweights for the three tanker length groups
were derived from the AIS-data, and the deadweight as a function of ship length for tank-
ers is presented in figure 19.
Table 22. AIS-data fields utilized as input data for parameters of different models
Number Number Number

Number of groun- of groun- of critical Causation
Utilized for Oil spill
AIS-data of colliding ding situations, probabili-
model parame- size esti-
field sion can- candi- candi- Fowler ty of
ters mation
didates dates, dates, and collision
Pedersen Simonsen Sørgård
Ship type x x x x x
Type of
Own ship type x
ship
Other ship type x
Length x x x x
Length
Other ship size x
Beam Width x
Lateral traffic x x x
distribution
Distance from x x
Ship‟s posi- the shoal to the
tion bend
Number of criti-
cal grounding
x
situations
Course over Mean crossing
x
ground angle
Speed over
Mean ship speed x
ground
Position
Time stamp
in Coordi- Daylight x
nated Uni-
versal Time
34
Figure 19. Tanker deadweight as a function of ship length, based on AIS-data. Blue
dots are the AIS records and the orange curve is a power trendline fitted to the data
(equation shown in the figure). This dependence was applied in cargo oil spill estima-
tions
4.2 Other input data sources

Most of the probability values of the causation probability model were gathered from /33/
and /34/ and they had been based on expert judgment and technical data. The probability
distributions of “Weather” states were based on Finnish Meteorological Institute‟s statistics
on the average number fog days at Isosaari in July and March during 1961-2000 /41/, the
average number of storm days at Finnish sea areas in July and March during 1990-2008
thinned by the average portion of storm observations from the Gulf of Finland in 2006-
2007 /42/, and the average number of strong wind days at Isosaari in July and March dur-
ing 1961-2000 /42/. The daylight distribution describing the probability of a ship navigat-
ing in the dark was based on AIS information on time of day and sunrise and sunset times
at the studied locations at 15.3.2006 and 15.7.2006. The probability of “VTS” state “yes”
was set to 1 because all studied areas belong to either VTS or GOFREP areas and are mo-
nitored by VTS stations /43, 44/.
In Pedersen‟s and Simonsen‟s grounding probability models, there was a parameter a that
described the average length (in meters) between position checks by the navigator. The
parameter depends on navigational environment and ship characteristics such as type and
size /27/. The mentions of numerical values of a are very rare in the literature. In Simon-
sen‟s example /27/, a value of 0.75 – 1 for the ratio of a/L had been applied, but that exam-
ple location was different from the studied area in this study. Thus, the grounding probabil-
ity calculations were made with values {0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 2.0, 3.} for the ratio a/L.
The Finnish Environment Institute has estimated that total oil transportation will increase
up to 250 million tonnes in 2015 in the Gulf of Finland /45/. In 2006, the amount of trans-
ported oil was just below 140 million tonnes /45/. The increasing oil transports are coming
from Russia where new oil terminals are under construction /45/. The amount of oil trans-
ported to and from Finland and western Estonia is not predicted to grow /45/. The volume
35
of cargo transported via the Gulf of Finland is also growing /46/. Average size of oil tank-
ers is growing which means that the number of oil tankers in the Gulf of Finland is not
increasing in same proportions as the amount of transported oil. Yet, the distribution of
tanker size in 2015 is difficult to estimate. Therefore, only the increase of the number of
tankers was taken into consideration in the calculations. Based on these predictions, the
numbers of ships in 2015 were calculated as follows:
The number of tankers navigating along the main route of the Gulf of Finland in
2015 = 2 x the number of tankers navigating along the main route of the Gulf of
Finland in 2006
For the crossing area of the waterways from Primorsk and St. Petersburg, the num-
ber of tankers visiting Primorsk in 2015 = 2 x the number of tankers visiting Pri-
morsk in 2006
The number of cargo vessels heading to and from Russia in 2015 = 1.5 x the num-
ber of cargo vessels heading to and from Russia in 2006
Traffic in other lanes and for other ship types was not modified.
36
5 RESULTS
5.1 Ship-ship collision probabilities
5.1.1 The number of collision candidates
The number of collision candidates per month for all locations and for the winter traffic in
the crossing area between Helsinki and Tallinn are presented in table 23. Table 23 also
shows the number of collision candidates when least one of vessels being on a collision
course was a tanker.
Table 23. Number of collision candidates in the studied areas. It should be noted that
the numbers for winter traffic in the crossing between Helsinki and Tallinn (marked with
“*”), were calculated for 21 days, not for the whole month
Location Collision candidates per month Of which a tanker involved

Channel to St. Petersburg (head-
114 20
on)
Between Helsinki and Tallinn,
61 14
summer traffic (crossing)
17* 4*
winter traffic (crossing)
Waterway to Kotka (head-on) 11 3
Kotka – main route (crossing) 7.4 2.2
Sköldvik – main route (crossing) 6.8 3.4
Channel to Vyborg (head-on) 4 0.1
Near Sommers (crossing) 3.1 1.2
In front of Tallinn (crossing) 2.7 0.8
Primorsk – main route (crossing) 1.7 1.6
5.1.2 The causation probabilities
The estimates of the causation probabilities for the studied locations in summer and at the
crossing area between Helsinki and Tallinn during winter were calculated for a general
situation, when there is no information on the ship class, and for being certain that at least
one of the colliding vessels is a tanker. The results are listed in table 24.
5.1.3 Estimated collision probabilities and return periods in studied locations
Multiplication of the number of collision candidates with the causation probability resulted
the estimated number of collisions in studied locations for one month. These are presented
in table 25. The return periods of collisions in years the locations can also been seen in
table 25. These return periods were calculated with July 2006 traffic generalized to all
months.
37
Table 24. Causation probability in the studied areas
Pc for all traffic (no prior Pc for collisions where at

Location
knowledge on ship class) least one tanker is involved
Kotka – main route 2.7378 ∙ 10-4 2.7378 ∙ 10-4
Sköldvik – main route 2.7374 ∙ 10-4 2.7375 ∙ 10-4
Near Sommers 2.7357 ∙ 10-4 2.7357 ∙ 10-4

2.6977 ∙ 10-4 2.6981 ∙ 10-4
summer traffic
In front of Tallinn 2.6968 ∙ 10-4 2.6972 ∙ 10-4
Primorsk – main route 2.6968 ∙ 10-4 2.7383 ∙ 10-4

2.7512 ∙ 10-4 2.7835 ∙ 10-4
winter traffic
Channel to St. Petersburg 1.007 ∙ 10-5 1.007 ∙ 10-5
Waterway to Kotka 1.007 ∙ 10-5 1.007 ∙ 10-5
Channel to Vyborg 1.007 ∙ 10-5 1.007 ∙ 10-5
Table 25. Ship-ship collision estimates and return periods in the studied areas. It
should be noted that the monthly probabilities for winter traffic in the crossing between
Helsinki and Tallinn (marked with “*”), were calculated for 21 days, not for the whole
month
Average time between collisions

Location Collision probability (1/month)
(years)
For all traffic (no For collisions For all traffic (no For collisions
prior knowledge where at least one prior knowledge where at least one
on ship class) tanker is involved on ship class) tanker is involved
Between Helsinki and
Tallinn, summer traf- 1.6357 ∙ 10-2 3.6719 ∙ 10-3 5 23
fic (crossing)
Between Helsinki and
Tallinn, winter traffic 4.6781 ∙ 10-3* 1.2523 ∙ 10-3* 12 46
(crossing)
Kotka – main route
2.0261 ∙ 10-3 5.9575 ∙ 10-4 41 140
(crossing)
Sköldvik – main route
1.8647 ∙ 10-3 9.3285 ∙ 10-4 45 89
(crossing)
Channel to St. Peters-
1.1498 ∙ 10-3 2.0489 ∙ 10-4 72 407
burg (head-on)
Near Sommers (cross-
8.3449 ∙ 10-4 3.4166 ∙ 10-4 100 244
ing)
In front of Tallinn
7.1960 ∙ 10-4 2.1872 ∙ 10-4 116 381
(crossing)
Primorsk – main route
4.5206 ∙ 10-4 4.2755 ∙ 10-4 184 195
(crossing)
Waterway to Kotka
1.0847 ∙ 10-4 2.5848 ∙ 10-5 768 3224
(head-on)
Channel to Vyborg
3.9088 ∙ 10-5 1.3235 ∙ 10-6 2132 62967
(head-on)
38
5.2 Grounding probability

The model of Fowler and Sørgård estimated 2.0 ∙ 10-2 powered groundings per month for
traffic similar to July 2006 in the studied location. This is equal to 0.24 groundings in a
year or one grounding in 4.2 years if all model parameter values would remain similar all
year.
The number of groundings by Pedersen‟s and Simonsen‟s models was estimated with dif-
ferent a/L values. The results are shown in table 26. When a/L ratio was 0.5, the probabil-
ity estimate by Simonsen‟s model was 2.9 ∙ 1022 times the result of Pedersen‟s model. The
results of Pedersen‟s and Simonsen‟s model converged as the value of a increased: when
a/L ratio was set to 3, Pedersen‟s model estimated one grounding in 11 000 years, and Si-
monsen‟s model one grounding per 93 years. This result of Simonsen‟s model was 119
times the result of Pedersen‟s model.
Table 26. Results of grounding probability in a month with different a/L ratio values
Probability of ground- Probability of

ing, Pedersen’s model grounding, Simon-
(per month) sen’s model (per
month)
0.5 6.9 ∙ 10-32 2.0 ∙ 10-9
0.75 1.8 ∙ 10-21 3.6 ∙ 10-7
a/L ratio 1.0 2.9 ∙ 10-16 4.9 ∙ 10-6
2.0 1.9 ∙ 10-8 2.4 ∙ 10-4
3.0 7.5 ∙ 10-6 9.0 ∙ 10-4
5.3 Change in collision probabilities in the future

With the future predictions described in chapter 4.2, the estimated return periods of colli-
sions would change as is shown in table 27. Collision risks were estimated as if the traffic
would remain similar all year. When all crossing areas of table 27 were taken into account,
the overall collision probability rose 58 %. The probability of collisions in which at least
one tanker is involved rose 97 %.
Table 27. Comparison of the estimated return periods of collisions in the crossing
areas in 2006 and 2015 calculated based on July AIS-data
Average time In 2006, at least Average time In 2015, at least

between colli- one tanker in- between colli- one tanker in-
sions in 2006 volved in (years) sions in 2015 volved in (years)
(years) (years)
Helsinki/Tallinn – main route 5 23 3 11
Kotka – main route 41 140 27 77
Sköldvik – main route 45 89 29 57
Primorsk – St. Petersburg 184 195 63 65
39
5.4 Estimates of oil spill sizes in the crossing area between Hel-
sinki and Tallinn
The estimated oil spill sizes and probabilities for tankers at the crossing area between Hel-
sinki and Tallinn in 2006 and 2015 are shown in table 28. The estimated bunker oil spill
sizes and probabilities at the crossing area between Helsinki and Tallinn in 2006 and 2015
are presented in table 29. The estimations were calculated with the assumption of similar
traffic all year.
Table 28. Average oil spill sizes and probabilities for tankers due to a collision
Length of tanker (m) < 100 100-200 > 200
Average spill size (tons) 340 1100 8000
2006: Probability of oil spill per year 4.2 ∙ 10-4 5.0 ∙ 10-3 2.5 ∙ 10-3
Table 29. Average bunker oil spill sizes and probabilities due to a collision
Length of ship (m) < 100 100-200 > 200
Average bunker spill size (tons) 130 360 950
40
6 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
6.1 Example of ship-ship collisions: the crossing between Hel-
sinki and Tallinn
The sensitivity of the geometrical collision model was examined in the crossing between
Helsinki and Tallinn in July by altering a value of one parameter at a time while keeping
the other parameters unchanged. The effects of modifications to parameter values on the
number of collision candidates are presented in table 30. From table 30 it can be seen that
the change in traffic volume resulted larger increase in the number of collision candidates
than the changes in other tested parameters.
Table 30. The effects of altering a geometrical collision probability model’s parameter
value on resulting number of collision candidates in the crossing between Helsinki and
Tallinn
Resulting number of collision

Parameter to be changed Magnitude of change
candidates
- - 61 (no change)
Ship length + 10 m 65
Ship width +5m 63
Meeting angle + 10 deg 59
Traffic volume x 1.5 137
Ship speed + 5 knots 45
The Bayesian network model for the causation probability estimation consisted of 56 nodes
and 1782 probability values of in total. Most of the probability values were derived from
/33/ and /34/ and had been estimated by experts. This feature and the nature of the pheno-
menon the model was describing suggest that there was a lot of uncertainty related to the
model parameters. The sensitivity of the network was tested with Hugin by setting some
states‟ probability to one, thus examining situations where there was certain knowledge on
some of the parameters‟ states. Testing revealed that the node “Give-way” had a large role
on collision probability. If the probability of loss of control was set to zero, there was still a
2.4999 ∙ 10-4 probability of a collision at the crossing between Helsinki and Tallinn. The
main reason for this was that the probability table of the node “Give-way” was based on
the assumption derived from /33/, that even when the control was not lost and the ship was
supposed to give way, there was a 2.0 ∙ 10-4 probability of collision.
41
6.2 Groundings
The probability of grounding using different a/L ratio values was already presented in re-
sults at chapter 5.2. It is not obvious that the value of a, the average length between posi-
tion checks by the navigator, depends on the length of the ship. Some other approaches for
estimating the parameter could be adopted instead. If a = 50 m, Pedersen‟s model esti-
mated 1.2 ∙ 10-40 groundings per month like July 2006 and Simonsen‟s model estimated 2.5
∙ 10-15 groundings. If the value of a was set to the distance moved during 180 s, Pedersen‟s
model estimated 3.4 ∙ 10-2 groundings in a month or 4.9 in a year and Simonsen‟s model
estimated 5.6 ∙ 10-3 groundings per month or 0.80 in a year. With this value for the parame-
ter a, Pedersen‟s model estimated a larger number of possible groundings than Simonsen‟s
model. With small values of a, the results of the models differed a lot from each other and
from the result of the model of Fowler and Sørgård. When a increased, the results of all
three models converged. When value of a was set to the distance moved during 180 s, the
result of the model of Fowler and Sørgård model was between the results of Pedersen‟s
and Simonsen‟s models.
Especially the Pedersen‟s model was very sensitive to the value of a. Hardly even profes-
sional navigators can estimate a so exactly that it would not give a large uncertainty to the
results. In Simonsen‟s model it was assumed that the event of checking the position of the
ship would to be a Poisson process which made its result less sensitive to a compared to
Pedersen‟s mode but still not completely insensitive.
42
7 DISCUSSION
Collision and grounding probabilities were estimated in certain locations in the Gulf of
Finland. The probabilities were estimated as products of geometrical and causation proba-
bilities. Geometrical probabilities were estimated with commonly applied models. Causa-
tion probabilities of collisions were modeled with a Bayesian network based on a model
derived from literature. Causation probability values that were applied to grounding proba-
bility estimation were based on literature. Collision probabilities were also estimated for
the year 2015. Finally, the probability and magnitude of oil leak in the crossing between
Helsinki and Tallinn were estimated.
As a light of collision probability, the most dangerous location of all studied locations is
the crossing of Helsinki-Tallinn traffic and the main traffic of the Gulf of Finland heading
to and from east: it was estimated that there occurs 1 collision in every 5 years. If a tanker
collided with another vessel in one of the crossing waterways, the location would most
probably be the crossing between Helsinki and Tallinn. As is shown in figure 4, there are
several small merging locations around the area. They also contribute to the collision risk
in the area even though they were not taken into calculations in this study.
For the head-on situations, the waterway to St. Petersburg had the highest collision proba-
bility and thus the shortest mean time between collisions: 72 years. This is a bit surprising
because the location is not in general considered as a very high risk area in the Gulf of Fin-
land. In the crossing in front of Tallinn, the collision probability seems to be relatively low.
Collisions were not predicted to occur often in the merging of Primorsk and St. Petersburg
waterways either, but if one should take place, it would be very likely that a large oil tank-
er would be involved, which increases the risk of the accident by increasing the seriousness
of the consequences. The head-on collision probability in Kotka waterway does not appear
particularly alarming. The waterway to Vyborg does not seem a risky one either, unless the
traffic volume will increase considerably.
Since the collision and grounding accidents are still quite rare in the Gulf of Finland, it is
not very sensible to compare the accident probabilities estimated with the models to acci-
dent statistics. However, according to accident statistics, there had been one collision in six
years near the studied crossing area between Helsinki and Tallinn /28/. Although the repre-
sentativeness of statistics from six years period can be questioned, the model results in this
area seem to be realistic.
In literature the applied value of causation probability has been varying between 6.8 ∙ 10-5
– 6.0 ∙ 10-4 for crossing ships and between 2.7 ∙ 10-5 – 6.0 ∙ 10-4 for head-on encounters,
depending also on the studied traffic conditions and ship types /12, 7, 31, 14, 47, 48/. If the
Pc values estimated with the model are compared to the values from literature, it can be
stated that the results were about the same order. The model applied in this study had been
based on models in /33/ and /34/, and in /33/ the probability of a collision given critical
situation for large passenger ships was estimated to be 8.4 ∙ 10-6. This is somewhat lower
than the estimates in this study. This is mainly because of the difference in the definition of
critical course: in this study it was assumed that all critical courses will lead to collision if
43
none of the ships will give way, in /33/ it was assumed that in 20 % of the cases where no
evasive maneuver is made, the collision is still avoided.
The estimate for the value of causation probability is only one outcome of modeling the
accident causation process. The acquired structure and causal relationships describing the
process of failures related to human and organizational factors are maybe even more im-
portant. The applied Bayesian network is not a comprehensive description of the all factors
behind collision causation. In the future, a network that is trying to capture the essential
parameters and their occurrence probabilities related to the marine traffic in the Gulf of
Finland will be constructed based on expert opinion and bridge simulator studied. The
network will also include parameters for studying the effects of different traffic scenarios
and risk control options on collision probabilities in the Gulf of Finland. Corresponding
network will be constructed also for groundings.
The number of ships navigating in the studied waterways is the most influencing parameter
of the geometrical crossing collision model. Mainly because of this, the collision probabili-
ty was estimated to grow in the future. On the other hand, marine traffic safety has been
improved in the Gulf of Finland in the 21st century. If it is assumed to continue improving
in the future, the applied causation probability model‟s probability values should be ad-
justed accordingly.
The number of collision candidates in the crossing between Helsinki and Tallinn during
March was only 41 % of the value estimated with summer traffic. The difference reflects
the lower number of ship movements in the area in winter: The number of ships that passed
the considered area in March is only 62 % of the number in July. The causation probability
for winter traffic was almost as small as for summer traffic, and so the resulting collision
probability was lower during winter then in the summer. This is contradictory to the statis-
tics, which show that the majority of collisions had happened in ice conditions /28/. The
causation probability was not considering the presence of ice, the different nature of winter
navigation and its influence on human failure and could be the main reason for the differ-
ence in the estimated results and accident statistics. It should also be noted that when ships
are navigating in a convoy in an ice channel, the geometrical probability of a collision in
the collision model applied in this study would probably be equal to 1.0 all the time.
The ship-ship collision model takes into consideration only a meeting situation of two ves-
sels. Particularly in heavily trafficked locations, three or even more ships may approach the
area at the same time. A collision is more difficult to avoid when actions of several other
vessels need to be observed. The applied accident probability models do not take into ac-
count that traffic is not evenly distributed round the clock which might produce “risk
peaks”. For example, passenger traffic between Helsinki and Tallinn is more active during
the day than at night time. This changes risk level from the estimate given by the model.
The mentioned problem could be avoided by discrete-event simulation in which for exam-
ple timetables of ferries could be taken into account. Dynamic Bayesian networks could
then be applied in causation probability estimation.
44
Especially in the crossing between Helsinki and Tallinn, there was large variation in the
value of crossing angle. One reason for the large variation is that for example all north-
bound ships had not been heading to Helsinki but towards more western ports of Finland.
The considered crossing is located in the middle of the Gulf and there is plenty of space to
choose one‟s route. The situation becomes more complicated if more than two vessels ap-
proach the crossing area at the same time. Avoiding other ships may also partly explain
also the large variety of crossing angles. There was a lot of uncertainty in many of the
grounding models‟ parameters as well. For example, since the mechanisms behind human
failures are not well known and the probability of a human failure is heavily influenced by
environment, universal values for parameters such as the probability of omission to check
position of ship are difficult or even meaningless to estimate. In the future, using Bayesian
networks as a modeling tool also for the estimation of geometrical probabilities might be
useful. The uncertainty in the parameters such as the crossing angle would be included in
the model if the parameters would be expressed as probability distributions instead of av-
erage values.
The results of the three grounding models varied significantly. For the considered area, it is
impossible to decide which model would give the most realistic estimate. A lot of accident
data would be needed for choosing and validating a model. In the future, a model that is
suitable for estimating the grounding probabilities in the Gulf of Finland will be developed.
All analysis completed in this document is based on the traffic of only two months, July
and March 2006. Thus, the amount of traffic during a month is more or less random. In
some of the studied waterways, there were much more traffic to one direction than to
another. Presumably it is often due to randomness and not the average situation. A part of
the traffic is regular, for example many passenger ships operate on the same schedule for
several months. The amount of traffic is largely dependent on season as can be seen if the
traffic of July and March are compared. Most of the estimates of this study are calculated
with summer traffic and thus the yearly estimates of may not be accurate.
The AIS records did not contain perfect information. Ship observations without MMSI
number, latitude or longitude had not been stored in the database. Thus, the estimated col-
lision probabilities might be lower than the actual frequencies. There were also some
blanks in some fields of observations, such as the length, speed or course over ground.
Small vessels do not have to carry AIS but they certainly raise the risks of collision and
grounding. A large number of recreational boats and fishing ships navigate in the Gulf of
Finland. Especially in summertime there are many pleasure boats crossing the Gulf be-
tween Helsinki and Tallinn, which were excluded from the calculations since they do not
carry AIS. These boats raise the already high risk of collision in the area as well as groun-
ding risk because sometimes vessels may end up off-waterway when trying to avoid a col-
lision with a pleasure boat.
There are more crossing and merging areas in the Gulf of Finland than those considered in
this document. It is often impossible to tell exactly where a shipping lane has converged to
another waterway. Especially in open sea, a ship may continue its voyage long way parallel
45
to the actual waterway where the majority of vessels are navigating. Such a behavior is
difficult to model. However, the most distinctive crossing and merging areas contribute the
most to the collision probability of the whole Gulf of Finland.
46
REFERENCES
/1/ Sonninen, S., Nuutinen, M. & Rosqvist, T. Development Process of the Gulf of
Finland Mandatory Ship Reporting System. Reflections on the Methods. VTT,
Espoo 2006. VTT Publications 614. 120 p.
/2/ Hietala, M. Oil transportation in the Gulf of Finland. Finnish Environment

Institute. 29.6.2006 (online) [cited 22.10.2008]. Available in pdf-format: <URL:
http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=53583>
/3/ Finnish Environment Institute. Oil transportation in the Gulf of Finland through
main oil ports – Oil transportation in years 1995-2005 and estimated development
by year 2015. 19.2.2007 (online) [cited 16.7.2008]. Available in pdf-format:
<URL:http://www.environment.fi/download.asp?contentid=64444&lan=en>
/4/ International Maritime Organization. Revised Guidelines for the Identification

and Designation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs). Resolution
A.982(24). 2005.
/5/ Finnish Maritime Administration. GOFREP – Gulf Of Finland Reporting. n.d.

(online) [cited 12.8.2008]. Available in www-format: <URL:http://www.fma.fi/e>
/6/ Hänninen, S., Nyman, T., Rytkönen, J., Sonninen, S., Jalonen, R., Palonen, A.
& Riska, K. Risks of maritime transport in the Gulf of Finland. Preliminary study
(In Finnish). VTT Tuotteet ja tuotanto, Espoo, 2002. BVAL34-021198. 106 p.
/7/ Rosqvist, T., Nyman, T., Sonninen, S. & Tuominen, R. The implementation of
the VTMIS system for the Gulf of Finland - a FSA study. RINA International
Conference Formal Safety Assessment, London, UK 18.-19.9.2002. London 2002.
The Royal Institution of Naval Architects (RINA). p. 151-164.
/8/ Nikula, P. & Tynkkynen, V.-P. Risks in Oil Transportation in the Gulf of Finland:
“Not a Question of If – But When”. Aleksanteri Institute, University of Helsinki &
Nordregio, Nordic Centre for Spatial Development, 2007. CIVPRO Working Paper
2007:7. 27 p.
/9/ Bedford, T. & Cooke, R. Probabilistic Risk Analysis: Foundations and Methods.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2001. 393 p.
/10/ Fujii, Y. & Shiobara, R. The Analysis of Traffic Accidents. Journal of Navigation
24(1971)4, p. 534-543.
/11/ Fujii, Y., Yamanouchi, H. & Mizuki, N. Some Factors Affecting the Frequency of
Accidents in Marine Traffic. II - The Probability of Stranding and III - The Effect of
Darkness on the Probability of Collision and Stranding. Journal of Navigation
27(1974)2, p. 239-247.
47
/12/ Macduff, T. The probability of vessel collisions. Ocean Industry 1974, p. 144-148.
/13/ Hänninen, M. & Kujala, P. Modeling of Collision and Grounding Risks in Marine
Traffic. Literature review (in Finnish). Helsinki University of Technology, Ship
Laboratory, Espoo 2007. M-299. 65 p. Available in pdf-format:
<URL:http://www.merikotka.fi/julkaisut/MSGOF_raportti_tkk_hanninen_07.pdf>
/14/ Fowler, T. G. & Sørgård, E. Modeling Ship Transportation Risk. Risk Analysis
20(2000)2, p. 225-244.
/15/ Jensen, F. V. & Nielsen, T. D. Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs, 2nd
Edition. Springer, New York 2007. 447 p.
/16/ Neil, M., Fenton, N., Forey, S. & Harris, R. Using Bayesian belief networks to
predict the reliability of military vehicles. IEEE Computing & Control Engineering
Journal 12(2001)1, p. 11-20.
/17/ Marsh, W. & Bearfield, G. Using Bayesian Networks to Model Accident

Causation in the UK Railway Industry. 2004
/18/ Norrington, L., Quigley, J., Russell, A., & Van der Meer, R. Modelling the
reliability of search and rescue operations with Bayesian Belief Networks.
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 98(2008)7, p. 940-949.
/19/ Kim, M. C. & Seong, P. H. An analytic model for situation assessment of nuclear
power plant operators based on Bayesian inference. Reliability Engineering and
System Safety 91(2006)3, p. 270-282.
/20/ Luxhøj, J. T. Probabilistic Causal Analysis for System Safety Risk Assessments in
Commercial Air Transport. Workshop on Investigating and Reporting of Incidents
and Accidents (IRIA), Williamsburg 16.-19.9.2003. Hampton 2003. NASA. p. 17-
38.
/21/ International Maritime Organization. Formal Safety Assessment. Consideration

on utilization of Bayesian network at step 3 of FSA. Maritime Safety Committee 81st
Session. IMO, London 2006. MSC 81/18/1. 4 p.
/22/ Hänninen, M. Analysis of Human and Organizational Factors in Marine Traffic

Risk Modeling: Literature review. Helsinki University of Technology, Department
of Applied Mechanics, Espoo 2008. TKK-AM-4. 51 p.
/23/ International Maritime Organization. Guidelines for the Onboard Operational

Use of Shipborne Automatic Identification System (AIS). IMO, London, 2002. 14 p.
/24/ Finnish Maritime Administration. Automatic Identification System (AIS). n.d.

(online) [cited 12.8.2008]. Available in www-format: <URL: http://www.fma.fi/e>
48
/25/ International Maritime Organization. IMO www pages. n.d. (online) [cited
18.7.2008]. Available in www-format: <URL: http://www.imo.org>
/26/ Pedersen, P. T. Collision and Grounding Mechanics. Proceedings of WEMT'95.

Copenhagen 1995. The Danish Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
p. 125-157.
/27/ Simonsen, B. C. Mechanics of Ship Grounding. PhD Thesis. Technical University

of Denmark, Department of Naval Architecture and Offshore Engineering. Kgs.
Lyngby 1997. 260 p.
/28/ Kujala, P., Hänninen, M., Arola, T. & Ylitalo, J. Analysis of the marine traffic
safety in the Gulf of Finland. 2009. Submitted to Reliability Engineering and
System Safety.
/29/ Pedersen, P. T. & Zhang, S. Collision Analysis for MS Dextra. SAFER EURORO
Spring Meeting, Nantes, France 28.4.1999. Paper No. 2, p. 1-33.
/30/ Germanischer Lloyd. DEXTREMEL Final Technical Report. 2001 (online) [cited
11.8.2008]. Available in pdf-format:
<URL:http://research.germanlloyd.de/Projects/DEXTREMEL/DEXTREMEL-final-
report.pdf>.
/31/ Otto, S., Pedersen, P. T., Samuelides, M. & Sames, P. C. Elements of risk
analysis for collision and grounding of a RoRo passenger ferry. Marine Structures
15(2002)4, p. 461-474.
/32/ Rambøll. Navigational safety in the Sound between Denmark and Sweden
(Øresund); Risk and cost-benefit analysis. Rambøll Danmark A/S, 2006 (online)
[cited 5.6.2008]. Available in pdf-format:
<URL:http://www.dma.dk/graphics/Synkron-
Library/Sofartsstyrelsen/Publikationer/2006/Navigational_safety_Oresund.pdf>.
/33/ Det Norske Veritas. Formal Safety Assessment – Large Passenger Ships, ANNEX
II. n.d. (online) [cited 30.5.2008]. Available in pdf-format:
<URL:http://research.dnv.com/skj/FSALPS/ANNEXII.pdf>.
/34/ Det Norske Veritas. Formal Safety Assessment of Electronic Chart Display and
Information System (ECDIS). 2006. Technical Report No. 2005-1565, rev. 01. 111
p.
/35/ Hugin Expert A/S. Hugin. n.d. [cited 22.10.2008]. Trial version can be
downloaded at: <URL:http://www.hugin.com/>.
/36/ Simonsen, B. C. Mechanics of Ship Grounding. PhD Thesis. Technical University

of Denmark, Department of Naval Architecture and Offshore Engineering. Kgs.
Lyngby 1997. 260 p.
49
/37/ Fujii, Y. & Mizuki, N. Design of VTS systems for water with bridges. In: Gluver,
H. & Olsen, D. (ed.). Ship Collision Analysis: proceedings of the International
Symposium on Advances in Ship Collision Analysis. Rotterdam 1998, Balkema. p.
177–90.
/38/ MacDonald A., McGeehan C., Cain M., Beattie J., Holt H., Zhou R. &
Farquhar, D. Identification of Marine Environmental High Risk Areas (MEHRA's)
in the UK. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London
1999. ST-87639-MI-1-Rev 01.
/39/ International Maritime Organization. Åland Sea FSA Study. Sub-Committee on

Safety of Navigation, 54th session, IMO London 2008.
/40/ Det Norske Veritas. A Simple Model of The Costs of Ship Accidents Rev 3. 2003.
34 p.
/41/ Finnish Meteorological Institute. Weather statistics - humidity and fogs (in
Finnish). n.d. (online) [cited 19.11.2008]. Available in www-format:
<URL:http://www.fmi.fi/saa/tilastot_7.html>
/42/ Finnish Meteorological Institute. Weather statistics - wind and storms (in
Finnish). n.d. (online) [cited 19.11.2008]. Available in www-format:
<URL:http://www.fmi.fi/saa/tilastot_20.html>
/43/ Finnish Maritime Administration. FMA www pages. n.d. (online) [cited
18.10.2008]. Available in www-format: <URL: http://www.fma.fi/e>
/44/ Central Marine Research and Design Institute (CNIIMF). VTMIS and AIS
Network in Russia (the Gulf of Finland). Present State and News. November 2006.
/45/ Finnish Environment Institute. Oil transportation in the Gulf of Finland through
main oil ports – Oil transportation in years 1995-2005 and estimated development
by year 2015. 2007 (online) [cited on 16.7.2008]. Available in pdf-format:
<URL:http://www.environment.fi/download.asp?contentid=64444&lan=en>.
/46/ The Institute of Shipping Analysis (in Sweden), BMT Transport Solutions
GmbH (in Germany) & Centre for Maritime Studies (in Finland). Baltic Mari-
time Outlook 2006. Goods flows and maritime infrastructure in the Baltic Sea Re-
gion. 2006. 112 p.
/47/ Fujii, Y. Integrated Study on Marine Traffic Accidents. IABSE Colloquium on Ship
Collision with Bridges and Offshore Structures, Copenhagen 1983. p. 91-98.
/48/ Karlsson, M., Rasmussen, F. M. & Frisk, L. Verification of ship collision

frequency model. In: Gluver, H. & Olsen, D. (eds.). Ship collision analysis:
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Advances in Ship Collision
Analysis. Rotterdam 1998, Balkema. p. 117-121.
View publication stats

Accident Probabilities in Selected Areas of The Gu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accident Probabilities in Selected Areas of The Gu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

ACCIDENT PROBABILITIES IN SELECTED AREAS OF THE GULF OF FINLAND

Maria Hänninen P. Kujala

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

SAFEWIN View project

Human Factors in Risk-Based Design Methodology "FAROS" View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ACCIDENT PROBABILITIES IN SELECTED AREAS OF THE GULF

Ylitalo Jutta Hänninen Maria Kujala Pentti

Helsinki University of Technology

 Jutta Ylitalo, Maria Hänninen, Pentti Kujala

Keywords (and classification)

1.2 Estimation of collision and grounding probabilities

1.3 Bayesian networks

Bayesian networks are used to get estimates of certainties or occurrence probabilities of

1.4 Automatic Identification System

By the end of 2004, AIS had to be fitted to /25/

Static information Dynamic information Voyage-related information

Type of ship Heading

Table 2. Report rate of dynamic AIS information /24/

Dynamic information General reporting interval

Ship at anchor or berthed, speed 0-3 knots 3 min

Ship at anchor or berthed, speed 3 knots or more 10 s

Underway, speed 0-14 knots 10 s

Underway, speed 0-14 knots, changing course 3 1/3 s

Underway, speed 14-23 knots 6s

Underway, speed 14-23 knots, changing course 2s

Underway, speed > 23 knots 2s

Underway, speed > 23 knots, changing course 2s

1.5 Limitations and report structure

450 10-15 knots

2.2 Traffic properties in the studied locations

Crossing area between Helsinki and Tallinn

Crossing in front of Tallinn

Merging of lanes from Primorsk and St. Petersburg

Channel to St. Petersburg (13.7 km long section)

Waterway to Kotka (15.94 km long section)

Waterway to Vyborg (4.7 km long section)

Figure 4. Studied crossing area between Helsinki and Tallinn

Figure 5. Studied crossing area in front of Tallinn

Figure 6. Studied crossing area from Kotka to the main route

Figure 7. Studied crossing area from Sköldvik to the main route

Figure 8. Studied crossing area near Sommers

Figure 10. Studied stretch of channel to Saint Petersburg

Figure 11. Studied narrow passage to Kotka

Figure 12. Studied passage to Vyborg

2.2.2 Crossing area between Helsinki and Tallinn

Table 3. Ships navigating northbound or southbound in the crossing area between

Number of Average ve- Average Average

Number of Average ve- Average Average

Number of Average ve- Average Average

Table 6. Vessels navigating eastbound or westbound in the crossing area between

Number of Average ve- Average Average

2.2.3 Crossing in front of Tallinn

Table 7. Ships navigating north- or southbound in the crossing in front of Tallinn

Number of Average ve- Average Average

Table 8. Ships navigating east- or westbound in the crossing in front of Tallinn

Number of Average ve- Average Average

Table 9. Ships going to Kotka or coming from Kotka in July 2006

Number of Average ve- Average Average

Number of Average ve- Average Average

Number of Average ve- Average Average

Number of Average ve- Average Average