The role of human factor in maritime environment risk assessment: A practical application on Ballast Water Treatment (BWT) system in ship

References

• Akyuz E. 2017. Application of Fuzz FMEA to perform an extensive risk analysis in maritime transportation engineering. Int J Maritime Eng 159, part A1:99–106
   Google Scholar
• Akyuz E, Celik E, and Celik M. 2017. A practical application of human reliability assessment for operating procedures of the emergency fire pump at ship. Ships Offshore Struct. doi:org/10.1080/17445302.2017.1354658
   Google Scholar
• Akyuz E. 2015. Quantification of human error probability towards the gas inerting process on-board crude oil tankers. Saf Sci 80:77–86
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akyuz E. 2016. Quantitative human error assessment during abandon ship procedures in maritime transportation. Ocean Eng 120:21–9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akyuz E and Celik M. 2015a. Application of CREAM human reliability model to cargo loading process of LPG tankers. J Loss Prev Process Ind 34:39–48
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akyuz E and Celik E. 2015b. A fuzzy DEMATEL method to evaluate critical operational hazards during gas freeing process in crude oil tankers. J Loss Prev Process Ind 38:243–53
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akyuz E and Celik M. 2015c. A methodological extension to human reliability analysis for cargo tank cleaning operation on board chemical tanker ships. Saf Sci 75:146–55
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akyuz E and Celik M. 2016. A hybrid human error probability determination approach: The case of cargo loading operation in oil/chemical tanker ship. J Loss Prev Process Ind 43:424–31
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akyuz E and Celik E. 2016. A modified human reliability analysis for cargo operation in singlepoint mooring (SPM) off-shore units. Appl Ocean Res 58:11–20
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akyuz E, Akgun I, and Celik M. 2016a. A fuzzy failure mode and effects approach to analyse concentrated inspection campaigns on board ships. Maritime Policy Manage 43 (7):887–908
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akyuz E, Celik M, and Cebi S. 2016b. A phase of comprehensive research to determine marine-specific EPC values in human error assessment and reduction technique. Saf Sci 87:63–75
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banerji S, Werschkun B, and Höfer T. 2012. Assessing the risk of ballast water treatment to human health. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 62:513–22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BWM. 2009. Ballast Water Management Convention and the Guidelines for Its Implementation. IMO, London
   Google Scholar
• Champ MA. 2002. Marine testing board for certification of ballast water treatment technologies. Mar Pollut Bull 44:1327–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castiglia F and Giardina M. 2013. Analysis of operator human errors in hydrogen refuelling stations: Comparison between human rate assessment techniques. Int J Hydrogen Energy 38:1166–76
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cebi S, Akyuz E, and Sahin Y. 2017. Developing web based decision support system for evaluation occupational risks at shipyards. Brodogradnja 68 (1):17–30
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Embrey DE, et al. 1984. SLIM-MAUD: An Approach to Assessing Human Error Probabilities using Structured Expert Judgement. NUREG/CR-3518. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, USA
   Google Scholar
• Cicek K and Celik M. 2013. Application of failure modes and effects analysis to main engine crankcase explosion failure on-board ship. Saf Sci 51 (1):6–10
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiMattia D, Khan FI, and Amyotte PR. 2005. Determination of human error probabilities for offshore platform musters. J Loss Prev Process Industry 18:488–501
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goerlandt F and Montewka J. 2015a. Maritime transportation risk analysis: Review and analysis in light of some foundational issues. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 138:115–34
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goerlandt F and Montewka J. 2015b. A framework for risk analysis of maritime transportation systems: A case study for oil spill from tankers in a ship–ship collision. Saf Sci 76:42
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gul M, Celik E, and Akyuz E. 2017a. A hybrid risk-based approach for maritime applications: The case of ballast tank maintenance. Human Ecol Risk Assess 23 (6):1389–403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gul A, Ak FM, and Guneri AF. 2017b. Occupational health and safety risk assessment in hospitals: A case study using two-stage fuzzy multi-criteria approach. Human Ecol Risk Assess: An Int J 23 (2):187–202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gul M and Guneri AF. 2016. A fuzzy multi criteria risk assessment based on decision matrix technique: A case study for aluminium industry. J Loss Prev Process Ind 40:89–100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavasani SM, et al. 2015a. Utilisation of Fuzzy Fault Tree Analysis (FFTA) for quantified risk analysis of leakage in abandoned oil and natural-gas wells. Ocean Eng 108:729–37
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavasani SM, et al. 2015b. Fuzzy risk assessment of oil and gas offshore wells. Process Saf Environ Prot 89 (5):277–94
   Google Scholar
• ISM Code. 2002. International Safety Management Code. IMO, London
   Google Scholar
• Montewka J, et al. 2014. A framework for risk assessment for maritime transportation systems—A case study for open sea collisions involving RoPax vessels. Reliab Eng System Saf 124:142–57
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mou JM, Tak CV, and Ligteringen H. 2010. Study on collision avoidance in busy waterways by using AIS data. Ocean Eng 37 (5–6):483–90
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soner O, Celik E, and Akyuz E. 2017. Application of AHP and VIKOR methods under interval type 2 fuzzy environment in maritime transportation. Ocean Eng 129:107–16
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qu X, Meng Q, and Suyi L. 2011. Ship collision risk assessment for the Singapore Strait. Accident Anal Prev 43 (6):2030–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ölçer AI, Tuzcu C, and Turan O. 2006. An integrated multi-objective optimization and fuzzy multi-attributive group decision-making technique for subdivision arrangement of Ro–Ro vessels. Appl Soft Comput 6:221–43
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ölçer AI and Odabaşi AY. 2005. A new fuzzy multiple attributive group decision making methodology and its application to propulsion/maneuvering system selection problem. Eur J Oper Res 166:93–114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trucco P, et al. 2008. A Bayesian Belief Network modelling of organisational factors in risk analysis: A case study in maritime transportation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93 (6):845–56
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Werschkun B, Sommer Y, and Banerji S. 2012. Disinfection byproducts in ballast water treatment: An evaluation of regulatory data. Water Res 46:4884–901
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dorp JR and Merrick JRW. 2011. On a risk management analysis of oil spill risk using maritime transportation system simulation. Ann Oper Res 187 (1):249–77
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanem E, et al. 2008. Analysing the risk of LNG carrier operations. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93 (9):1328–44
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zadeh LA. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–53
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar