Robotic inspection of ships: inherent challenges and assessment of their effectiveness

References

• [ABS] American Bureau of Shipping. 2018. Guidance notes on using unmanned aerial vehicles. Houston, TX, USA. www.eagle.org.
   Google Scholar
• [AGCS] Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty. 2018. Allianz safety and shipping review 2018. www.agcs.allianz.com.
   Google Scholar
• Bea R. 1996. Consideration of human and organization factors in development of design, construction, and maintenance guidelines for ship structures. Ship Structure Symposium ‘96, Arlington (VA).
   Google Scholar
• Berg HP. 2013. Human factors and safety culture in maritime safety (revised). International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation. 7(3):343–362. doi:https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.07.03.04.
   Google Scholar
• Bright CK, Bell SP. 1996. Improving human factors in marine maintenance. Ship Structure Symposium ’96; Nov 18–20; Arlington (VA).
   Google Scholar
• Demsetz LA, Cario R, Huang RT, Schulte-Strathaus R. 1996. Factors affecting marine structural inspection performance. Ship Structure Symposium ’96; Nov 18–20; Arlington (VA).
   Google Scholar
• Demsetz LA, Cario R, Schulte-Strathaus R. 1996. Report SSC-389: Inspection of Marine Structures, Ship Structure Committee. www.shipstructures.org.
   Google Scholar
• [EMSA] European Maritime Safety Agency. 2019. Annual overview of marine casualties and incidents 2019, Lisbon, Portugal. www.emsa.eu.
   Google Scholar
• Heij C, Knapp S. 2019. Shipping inspections, detentions, and incidents: an empirical analysis of risk dimensions. Maritime Policy & Management. 46(7):866–883. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2019.1647362.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes JM, Pippenger DT. 1996. Human elements in bulk carrier inspections and repair. Ship Structure Symposium ’96; Arlington (VA).
   Google Scholar
• [IACS] International Association of Classification Societies. 2005. Rec.90, ship structure access manual. London, UK. www.iacs.org.uk.
   Google Scholar
• [IACS] International Association of Classification Societies. 2015. Rec.141, guidelines for the assessment of safety aspects at workplace. London, UK. www.iacs.org.uk.
   Google Scholar
• [IACS] International Association of Classification Societies. 2016a. Rec.42, Rev.2, guidelines for use of remote inspection techniques for surveys. London, UK. www.iacs.org.
   Google Scholar
• [IACS] International Association of Classification Societies. 2016b. UR Z7, Rev.24, Hull classification surveys. London, UK. www.iacs.org.uk.
   Google Scholar
• [IACS] International Association of Classification Societies. 2020a. COVID-19 classification societies, IMO and flag states documentation, procedural requirements, guidelines and instructions and relevant links to Actions taken by IMO and its Member States and Measures taken by the EU Member States. www.iacs.org.uk/covid-19/.
   Google Scholar
• [IACS] International Association of Classification Societies. 2020b. UR Z, unified requirements concerning survey and certification. London, UK. www.iacs.org.uk.
   Google Scholar
• [IMO] International Maritime Organization. 2015a. Adoption of amendments to the guidelines on the enhanced programme of inspections during surveys of bulk carriers and oil tankers (Resolution A.744(18), as amended). Resolution MSC.261(84). www.imo.org.
   Google Scholar
• [IMO] International Maritime Organization. 2015b. Casualty-related matters, Reports on marine casualties and incidents, MSC MEPC.3/Circ.4/Rev.1, paragraphs 6 and 8. www.imo.org.
   Google Scholar
• [IMO] International Maritime Organization. 2015c. Code of International Standards and Recommended Practices for a Safety Investigation into a Marine Casualty or Marine Incident (Casualty Investigation Code), 2008 edition (resolution MSC.255(84)), paragraph 14.1, chapter 14 of the mandatory Part II. www.imo.org.
   Google Scholar
• [IMO] International Maritime Organization. 2015d. Focus paper on GBS. www.imo.org.
   Google Scholar
• [INTERGARGO] International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners. 2019. Bulk carrier casualty report – years 2009 to 2018 and trends. London, UK. https://www.intercargo.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Knapp S. 2007. The econometrics of maritime safety – recommendations to enhance safety at sea [PhD Thesis]: Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands (Promoter: prof. H.B.F. Franses).
   Google Scholar
• Knapp S, Bijwaard G, Heij C. 2011. Estimated incident cost savings in shipping due to inspections. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 43:1532–1539.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [LR] Lloyd’s Register of Shipping. 2018. Remote Inspection Technique Systems (RITS), assessment standard for use on LR class surveys of steel structure. London, UK. www.lr.org.
   Google Scholar
• Poggi L, Gaggero T, Gaiotti M, Ravina E, Rizzo CM. 2019. Robotic inspection of ship structures: how to fill the gap between available technologies and current survey practices? Proceedings of IMEKO TC-19 International Workshop on Metrology for the Sea, Genoa, Italy, Oct 3–5.
   Google Scholar
• Poggi L, Gaggero T, Gaiotti M, Ravina E, Rizzo CM. 2020a. Recent developments in remote inspections of ship structures. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering. 12(2020):881–891. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2020.09.001.
   Google Scholar
• Poggi L, Gaggero T, Gaiotti M, Ravina E, Rizzo CM. 2020b. Assessment of ship robotic inspections. Proceedings of IEEE ETFA 2020 International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, Vienna, Austria; Sep 8–12.
   Google Scholar
• Ravina E. 2015. Self-moving units for inspection tasks of marine structures and plants. International Conference on Ships and Shipping Research, NAV 2015, Lecco, Italy; Jun 24–26.
   Google Scholar
• Ravina E. 2017. Concept design of an autonomous mechatronic unit for inspection of holds. Progress in the Analysis and Design of Marine Structures, MARSTRUCT 2017, Lisboa, Portugal; May 8–10.
   Google Scholar
• [RINA] Registro Italiano Navale. 2018. Amendments to the rules for the certification of service suppliers, Doc.3.2, Genova, Italia. www.rina.org.
   Google Scholar
• Rizzo CM. 2008. Condition assessment of aged structures. Chapter 13: Inspection of aged ships and offshore structures, p. 367–406. ISBN 978 1 84569 334 3.
   Google Scholar
• Rizzo CM, Lo Nigro A. 2008. A review of ship surveys practices and of marine casualties partly due to aging effects. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering OMAE08, paper OMAE2008-57847; Estoril, Portugal; Jun, ISBN 0 7918 3821 8.
   Google Scholar
• Rizzo CM, Paik JK, Brennan F, Carlsen CA, Daley C, Garbatov Y, Ivanov L, Simonsen BC, Yamamoto N, Zhuang HZ. 2007. Current practices and recent advances in condition assessment of aged ships. Ship and Offshore Structures. 2(3):261–271. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17445300701423486.
   Google Scholar
• Rumawas V. 2016. Human factors in ship design and operation: experiential learning [PhD thesis]. Trondheim, Norway: NTNU (Advisor: prof. Bjørn Egil Asbjørnslett). doi:https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2483.2404.
   Google Scholar