559
1 ANINTRODUCTIONTOTHEMONALISA2.0
PROJECT
Within the MONALISA 2.0 project operations and
tools in the sectors dynamic and proactive route
planning, route optimization, the exchanging of
informationaboutroutesfromshiptoshoreandship
to ship with the use of diverse technologies are
importantareasofdevelopment.Overarchinggoalis
theenhancedresponseincaseofaccidentsaswellas
a boosted ships performa
nce. The all‐encompassing
vision compromise the real‐time information
availability to all authorized and interested
stakeholders within the whole maritime transport
chain.Amongothersinvolvedpartnerscouldbeship
owners, shipoperators,pilots,flagstates, port state
controls, cargo owners, freight forwarder, port and
termi
naloperatorsorP&Iclubs.
ThepreviousMONALISAprojecthasshownhow
vessels, equipped with capability of seeing each
other´s planned route, provide the master a more
complete picture of how adjoining vessels are
planningtheirupcomingvoyage(Porate,DeVries&
Prison 2014), (In De Waard et al. 2014).
Correspondingly,shoresidestakeholderandservices
are ca
pable to query valuable information and in
return to provide vessels with advices concerning
theirrouteorrecommendationstoavoidcongestions
in areas with high traffic areas. The primary
approach, dynamic route exchange, had been
achieved in order to increase the situational
awarenessonvessel´sbridge.Thisa
pproach turned
outto bean abundantbasement foran overarching
STMconceptacknowledgingtheseavoyage aspart
of the larger, whole maritime logistic chain. The
foundation for the aspired interoperable and
comprehensive information sharing will be the Sea
The Role of the European Maritime Simulator Network
in Assessing Dynamic Sea Traffic Management
Principles
A.Rizvanolli,H.C.Burmeister&O.John
FraunhoferCenterforMaritimeLogisticsandServices,Hamburg,Germany
ABSTRACT:TheMONALISA2.0(ML2.0)projectaimstodefinetheSeaTrafficManagementconcept(STM),
where information is shared amongst all stakeholders in the maritime tra nsport chain, including nautical
officers, ports, administrations, etc. Thus, a communication and information centered approach for data
exchangebySystemWideInformationManagementprincipleschangingfromsurface‐ba
sed‐tovoyage‐based‐
operationshasbeenproposed.Amongstothers,testingandverifyingthefeasibilityandbenefitsofSTMandits
solutionsshallbedoneintheEuropeanMaritimeSimulatorNetwork(EMSN),amacrosimulationenvironment
for ship handling simulators. This is an open IEEE 1278 standard network protocol enabling int
eractive
communication between distributed simulation environments. Based on an introduction into ML 2.0, the
proposed STM concept is introduced, its expected impacts are listed and Key Performance Objectives are
derived.ThebackgroundsontheEMSNaregivenanditisshownhowitcanassistinassessingtheimpactof
STM’sKeyPerformanceIndicators.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 9
Number 4
December 2015
DOI:10.12716/1001.09.04.13
560
TrafficManagementconcept,tobeformedtowardsa
common standardized information sharing
environment and enables a holistic maritime
informationmanagement(Jahn,etal.2012).
2 THESEATRAFFICMANAGEMENTCONCEPT
Today’s bridge equipment gives the officer of the
watch (OOW) a wide information basis about the
actual traffic situation as
well as about the historic
traffic evolvement. The Automatic Identification
System(AIS)givesthepossibilitytotrackotherships
which were not detected by radar. For the
establishment of a comprehensive and broad
situational awareness a significant component is
missing: the intentions of approaching vessels are
stillunknown.Decisionsare
madetoprimarilyaffect
futuretrafficsituation,whichmustbeanticipatedby
the OOW when doing his actual decisions. Thus,
there is actually a certain time gap before other
vesselsdecisionsbecomevisibletotheOOWdueto
theinertiaofvessels,whichmightbecriticalinclose
quartersituationsor
restrictedchannels.
Themajority ofshipsare usingelectronic charts,
which contain their route. Instead of making
assumptions, the existing navigational information
could be compiled in a joint situation picture
providingdecisionsupportforthebridgeteamofall
vesselsinaparticularsurroundingandrelatedshore
sideparties.To
makeuseofthevesselsintentionsis
thenucleusofSTMtakingintoaccounttheprinciples
ofcommunicationandinformationsharing.
TheworkintheSTMdefinitionphaseisinspired
from the SESAR program, which had Air Traffic
Management as one of its outcomes. Despite that,
STMwillnotbean
adaptedcopyoftheATMforthe
sea traffic. It will provide facilities and services
togetherwithallpartiesandinvolvedseabornessuch
thatthetrafficmanagementontheseaandmaritime
space integrate dynamically. The development of
STMtakesintoconsiderationthattheintermodalsea
transport is an irreplaceable
part of the multimodal
transportchain(Correaetal.2014).
2.1 ThedefinitionofSTM
The STM Concept is an information and
communication centered approach enabling
stakeholders in maritime domain to perform
operationsoptimallyforownpurposeaswellassea
trafficsystems.Inordertoachievesaferandefficient
sea
transports, that will lead to a reduced
environmental impact the Sea Traffic Management
concept is being defined in the Mona Lisa 2.0 as
following:
“Sea Traffic Management (STM) is a concept
encompassing all actors, actions, and services
assistingmaritimetrafficfromporttoport.STMisa
part of the
multimodal logistics supply chain,
encompassingseaaswellasshorebasedoperations.
TheSTMconceptincludesconceptsforstrategicand
dynamic voyage management, flow management,
port collaborative decision making, and the service
based communication infrastructure concept
SeaSWIM. STM puts an emphasis on interoperable
andharmonizedsystemsallowingashiptooperate
inasafeandefficientmannerfromporttoportwith
aminimalimpactontheenvironment.”
The development of STM should encompass in
futureallactors,actionsandsystems(infrastructure)
assisting maritime transport from port to port. The
followingfiveconceptsaretheenablingonesforthe
holisticSTM
concept.Thefirstfourmatcheswiththe
phasesavoyageandthelastone istheinformation
sharinginfrastructurethatismissinginshipping.
StrategicVoyageManagement(SVM)
Thescopeofthisconceptistooptimizetheinitial
planning phase of a voyage. As the shipping
companyisplanningthe
voyageinordertofulfill
its own needs and requirement and with the
scopetobesuccessful,thisphaseisalsocalledthe
strategicone.Givingthecompaniesthepossibility
tocheckallthefactorsandconstraintsthataffect
thevoyageiswhatstrategicvoyagemanagement
does. One of the
factors may be the information
fromotherpartiesconnectedtothatvoyage.SVM
includeslongandshorttimestrategicplanningof
a voyage but the biggest advantages of using
SVMrelatedservicesis whenitisapplied atthe
earliest possible point in time before a voyage
begins(Falnesunpubl.).
DynamicVoyageManagement(DVM)
DynamicVoyageManagementfollowstheearlier
strategic voyage management. Within DVM a
dynamic flow of information from ship to ship,
ship to shore and vice versa will be established
during an ongoing voyage. The information can
be shared with other ships e.g. during a tactical
action
theshipscanexchangetheirroutesorwith
shore based service providers for the route
optimization/validation.(Svedberg,unpubl.).
FlowManagement(FM)
Unlike the strategic and dynamic voyage
management, the flow management concentrates
on the whole traffic flow. Nevertheless they are
notindependentfromeachother.Theinformation
needed for the route
optimization during the
voyage planning phases is generated from the
flow management. On the other side the
individualvoyagesarethebuildingblocksofthe
whole traffic flow. As defined in (Flow
Management Task Force, unpubl.)“the overall
objective of the concept is to optimize and
increase safety of the
sea traffic flow during all
planning and executing phases”. Optimizing
traffic is achieved by using a coordinating
attitude, not control, hence leaving the final
decision to the Master, and using STM technical
enablers.
PortCollaborativeDecisionMaking(PortCDM)
Port CDM as defined in (Port CDM Task Force,
unpubl.) deals
with improving the maritime
transportaspartofthemultimodalsupplychain
byenablingthefollowingcollaborations:
Collaboration among actors operating within
theport
Collaboration between the port and actors
realizingseavoyages
Collaboration between the port and actors
realizing inbound and outbound
transportation(besidesseavoyages)
561
Collaboration between ports within each
collaborativearena
Sea System wide information management (Sea
SWIM)
ThisconceptisinspiredbytheSWIM conceptin
the aviation industry (SESAR, 2001), (Sea SWIM
Task Force, unpubl.). The Sea SWIM concept is
not a specific implementation of an information
sharingenvironment.Itwillchangethepa
radigm
of how information is managed along its full
lifecycle during a voyage. Sea SWIM can be
technologically implemented in different ways
covering one or different channels such that the
informationbeing shared will arrive in the right
time to the right place with minimal costs. Sea
SWIMwillprovideaninformat
ioninfrastructure
thatenablestheimplementationofSTMandother
services.Itwillbegovernedbyafederation(s)and
will be an enabler of the above described
operationalconcepts.
2.2 Potentialparadigmshiftofinformationmanagement
withSTM
EachcreatedSTMvoyageplanwillincludeaunique
SingleVoyageIdenti
ty(VoyageID).ThisVoyageIDis
usedas theidentifier ofall informationin theplan.
The VoyageID will enable the connection of
information in the network, making all involved
parties able to stay up to date themselves, but also
keep all other parties in the same state when they
updatetheinformat
iontheymanageandcontrol.The
VoyageID will be created during the strategic and
dynamic voyage planning phases and used during
thewholevoyage.Asmentionedaboveitwillbethe
keyenablerandcontributorforanefficientandclear
informationexchangeduringthewholevoyage.
Different a pproaches for the creation of the
VoyageID are being discussed in the project. They
can be classified in cent
ralized and decentralized
approaches. The centralized one is inspired by the
design approach for flight numbers in the air
industry.Theadvantageofthisapproachisthequite
easy implementation that allows fast tests. The
benefitsandcosts ofthi
sapproachcanberecognized
in short time and are easy to understand. One
possible implementation approach of the VoyageID
canbefoundin(Kula,2015).
2.3 KeyPerformanceAreas(KPAs)andKey
PerformanceObjects(KPOs)
STMwillpotentiallychangeseatrafficpatternsand
interactionsbetweenships andshore. Tomea
surethe
influence of STM of overall traffic flow, user and
operatingproceduresthefollowingkeyperformance
areas and objectives are recognized in the
MONALISA 2.0 project (STM Performance Targets‐
TaskForce,2014.).Themainkey performanceareas
correspond to the goals of STM for a safer and
efficient sea tra
nsport, with impacts in the
environmental sustainability, cost effectiveness,
predictabilityandinteroperabilityoftheinformation
systemsinthemaritimeworld.Thekeyperformance
objectives corresponding to these areas can be
classified in qualitative and quantitative ones. The
qualitative key performance objects can be further
mapped in models and evaluated easier as the
qualit
ative objects. Following classification of the
KPOsisstateoftheartintheproject:
Table1.KeyPerformanceObjectivesforSTM
_______________________________________________
QualitativeKPOsQuantitativeKPOs
_______________________________________________
Increasevoyagesafety Minimizeadministrative
burden
Reduceimpactfrom Increaseenergyefficiencyin
accidentsandincidents voyageoperations
Increasevoyagesecurity Decreasespillmarine
pollution
Increaseinformation Decreasenavigationwithin
exchangesecuritysensitiveareas
Increasevoyagesituation Reducetotalcostofownership
awareness(TCO)
IncreaseIn‐PortReducecostofportoperation
Navig
ationsafety
IncreaseconfidentialityandDecreaseintegration
integrityofcomplexity
communication
_______________________________________________
Obviouslyaresomeoftheobjectivesconflictingto
each other. Decrease navigation within sensit
ive
areaswhichcanbereachedbytheflowmanagement
concept enabled by information sharing via Sea
SWIMmaysometimes,dependingfromthesituation,
conflict with increase energy efficiency in voyage
operations. Dynamically changes on the route as
result of no‐go areas or weather condit
ions can
sometimes lead to longer voyage, which implies
more fuel consumption. Finding one or more
compromise solution or furthermore analyzing by
modelingthissituationasmulticriteriaoptimization
problem will indicate clearly the benefits of STM.
Furthermore,thetradeoffbetweenthedecisionscan
beanalyzedandassessed.Themodelcanbeusedas
areliabledecisionsupporttool.
3 THEEUROPEANMARITIMESIMULATOR
NETWORK
While proceeding from concept development
towa
rds implementation, testing of the concept and
validating the intended safety and efficiency
potentials is the important next step. Besides
persuadingmaritimestakeholdersbythebenefitsof
theconcept,theInternationalMaritimeOrganizat
ion
IMOastheglobalregulatorybodyadopttheconcept
laid out in the chapter before. Therefore, IMO 2007
requires conducting a Formal Safety Assessment
FSA. However, there is a certain lack in applicable
and trustworthy methods for conducting certain
stepsoftheFSAforsuchgroundbreakingconceptsas
STM,whichisthereasonwhytheout
linedEuropean
MaritimeSimulatorNetworkEMSNisproposed.
3.1 LimitationsofFSAtoolsforSTMevaluation
AFSAinthemeaningoftheIMOis“astructuredand
systematic methodology, aimed at enhancing maritime
safety, including protection of life, heal
th, the marine
environmentandproperty”(IMO2007).Itisconducted
infiveinterdependentstepsasoutlinedinFigure1.
562
Figure1.TheFSAProcess (IMO2007)
With regards to the intended safety benefits of
STM,especiallytheriskassessmentstepisofcertain
interest.Thereby,riskiscommonlydefinedas:
iii i
i
R
isk P H C U C
(1)
with P
i(Hi, Ci) being the probability that the
identifiedhazardH
iresultsinaconsequenceCiand
U(C
i) being the expected monetary damage of Ci
(IMO2007,Pedersen2010).Typicalmethodsapplied
inaFSA’ssecondstepare(IMO2007,IALA2009):
PAWSA (Port and Waterway Safety Assessment
tool),
IWRAP MkII (IALA Waterway Risk Assessment
Programme),
riskcontributiontreesand
influencediagrams.
However, PAWSA only provides quantitative
results and the latter two heavily rely on expert
opinions which ma
kes quantification rather
subjective. In contrast, the IWRAP MkII provides a
rather maritime specific approach based on
frequencymodellingbasedontheworkofFujii1983
andPedersen1995(Johnetal.2014).Thereby,P
ican
bequantifiedby:
iAc
PNP (2)
with N
A being the number of potential collision
candidates and P
C the causation probability. By
applying frequency models, N
A
cannow be derived
from traffic pattern statistics and geometrical
limitationsoftheseaarea.Instead,P
Cisinprincipala
probabilityindicatinghowmanycollisionsituations
resultinarealaccidentandthusincludealltechnical
and human error cases, which is derived either by
accident statistics, expert opinion or Bayesian
networks.
Incontrasttoe.g.introducinga trafficseparation
scheme,STMitselfdoesneitherchangetheseaarea
av
ailable nor directly the traffic pattern. Instead, it
basicallyaimstoimprovesituationalawarenessand
reduceshumanerror.IntermsofIWRAPMkII,this
shouldresultinachangeinP
C.However,PCisnotas
strictlyderivedfrommeasurableindicatorslikeN
A.
Thus,assessing the effects ofSTM based on that
tool again results in certain subjectivity about the
expectedchangeofthehumanerror.Ashumanerror
is involved in about 65‐95% of all ship accidents
(Sanquist 1992 & Rothblum n.d.) and as STM is
primarilyaddressingthisissue,amoreobjectiveway
in assessing effect
s of regulatory and procedural
changesisneeded:TheEuropeanMaritimeSimulator
Network(Johnetal2014).
3.2 EMSNtechnicalspecifications
TheEMSNisinprincipleaninternet‐basednetwork
connecting multiple individual ship handling
simulators allowing them to interact and operate
together in one joint scenario. Besides, it offers the
possibilit
ytoaddfurther IT‐services and exchanges
to implement new maritime concepts so that it can
act as a virtual, full‐scale navigational laboratory.
Thus,thetechnicalarchitectureoftheEMSNconsist
ofthreedifferentsubnets(Johnetal2014):
GroundTruthexchangeviaDIS,
VoicecommunicationviaTeamSpeakand
PerceivedTruthexchangeviaTCP/IP.
To ensure tha
t all individual simulators operate
onthesamescenariobasis,theEMSNusestheIEEE
1278standardforDistributedInteractiveSimulation
DIS (IEEE 1278). Within EMSN, it basically ensures
that the traffic related data are exchanged, e.g. the
vessel’sact
uallatitude,longitude , velocity SOG
andheadingTH. Withthe helpof acommon setof
DIS entities, it is ensured that each ownship’s
movement,meaningthevesseldirectlycontrolledby
oneshiphandingsimulators,iscorrectlyrepresented
byatrafficshipintheothersimulators(seefigure2).
However, in the first version of the EMSN, furt
her
environmental data, like e.g. wind speed, wave
direction or visibility, is not exchanged. Thus, it
needs to be ensured by the overall EMSN
managementthatallsimulatorsworkundercommon
environmentalconditions.
Figure2.EMSN’sgroundtruthexchangeviaDIS
Forvoicecommunication,astandardTeamSpeak‐
Server is used, which is state‐of‐the‐art for voice
communication in online gaming.
2
By connecting a
push‐to‐talk‐microphoneandconfiguringtheClient,
theVHFmaritimemobilebandcanbeemulated.In
comparisontothereality,TeamSpeakdoeshowever
only provide duplex transmission and can’t be
directlyreducedtomarinetypicalsimplexmode.
All other applications, e.g. the planned STM‐
servicesarethenimplementedintheperceivedtruth
exchange, which is an extra TCP/IP‐Layer.
Additionally, the corresponding hardware is also
2
Seehttp://www.teamspeak.com/forfurtherdetails
563
connectedtoe.g.thebridge’sNMEA‐interfacesofthe
simulator,togetthenormalshipdatarequired.
3.3 EMSNtestmethodology
ThecoreobjectiveoftheEMSNtestsistoprovidea
furthervalidatedinputtotheFSA’sriskassessment,
especially with regards to the evolvement of
situational awareness and
traffic patterns by
applying STM. Hereby, the test methodology itself
consistsofthreeindividualstages:
Analyzecurrenttrafficpatterns,
SimulatetrafficsituationinEMSNand
Analyzesimulatedtrafficpatterns.
Within the first step, a representative real‐world
situationischosen,whichshouldserveasabaseline
for
evaluating the benefits of STM. Recorded AIS‐
Data of areas of interest are beneficiary, to further
analyze and investigate the safety and efficiency
metrics in the as‐is‐situation. Possible metrics with
regardstotheKPOsaree.g.(Jahnetal.2014):
KPOEnergyefficiencyinvoyageoperations
Distances
sailed(pervesselandoverall),
Timesailed(pervesselandoverall),
Average speed profiles (to indirectly assess
fuelefficiency),
KPOCostofportoperation
ETApredictability,
Ontimearrival
KPOVoyagesafety
Numberofmeetingsituationsarising,
Numberofclose‐quartersituations,
Averagepassingdistances,
Numberoftrafficregulationviolations,
CPA/TCPAhistograms,
AsatestcasefortheSTMevaluation,asituation
inTSSHatternintheGreatBelt,Denmarkhasbeen
chosenasbaseline(Weber,unpubl.).Furthermore,as
EMSNis applied forthefirst time invalidating the
STM,
additionalsimulationrunshavebeenmadein
that area without STM functionalities (so called
baselinesimulations).Thepurposeofthesetestsisto
validate, if EMSN is producing traffic patterns and
situations comparable to the real situation that has
beenoccurred.Thisisanimportantcharacteristic,as
otherwisethe EMSN
can’tbeusedas a further risk
assessment tool. During the first run, thirteen own‐
ships participated in this four days test series with
promisingresults(seefigure3).
Figure3.TSSHatternduringbaselinetest
In the second stage, parts of the dynamic STM
functionalitiesareimplementedandthesameinitial
situation is simulated. Afterwards, baseline and
STM‐situation can be analyzed according to the
predefined metrics set and conclusions are derived,
which provides the input towards FSA’s risk
assessment, but also to the cost‐benefit
assessment
steps.
4 CONCLUSIONANDOUTLOOK
The Sea TrafficManagement Concept (STM), which
is still being developed in the MONALISA 2.0
project, is an information and communication
centered approach amongst all stakeholders in the
maritime transport chain. Within the STM the
Dynamic Voyage Management concept is one main
enablerfor
routeexchangeandrouteoptimizationin
betweenshipandshorebasedservicesproviders.An
upcoming implementation of new STM procedures
andserviceswillinvolvepotentialimpactsregarding
interactions between ships and shore and
overarching sea traffic patterns. The related
qualitative and quantitative key performance
objectives for safety, cost effectiveness and
environmental
sustainability in sea transport have
been derived. On the way from a concept
development to implementation testing and
validationofaspiredsafetyandefficiencyobjectives
willbethecrucialnexttask.Today,aFormalSafety
Assessments is required by IMO prior the
implementation process of new international
regulations. It had
been laid out that for more
complex regulatory changes, like e.g. the
implementationofSTM,thismethodologymightbea
bitrestrictedascertainimpactsandhumanbehavior
cannot be accurately foreseen and quantified in a
verychanging andcomplexenvironmentbymodest
assessment approaches. Therefore, the specified
European Maritime Simulator
Network has been
installed, in order to provide a macro‐simulation
environmentwhichcouldfacilitateanadvancedand
IMO regulation conformal FSA. At the example of
theoutlined baselineruns inthe Great Beltand the
underlyingEMSNtestmethodologypossiblemetrics
564
linked to the STM KPOs are proposed. They will
provide on the one hand the input towards FSA´s
risk assessment as well as cost benefit assessment
requirements.
In future common test‐principles for concept
assessmentbyEMSNhavetobedefined,sothatthe
EMSN is applicable for further concept
validation,
likee.g.MUNIN(Burmeisteretal.2014),ordemands
for data and system standardization and will last
beyond original test purposes for large‐scale
maritime traffic studies. Moreover, a deeper
definitionofKOPsandKPIsisnecessarysothatthey
canbeuncomplicatedmodelledandassessed.
REFERENCES
Burmeister, H.C.; Bruhn, W.C.; Rødseth, T.E.; Porathe, T.
(2014): Autonomous Unmanned Merchant Vessel and
its Contribution towards the e‐Navigation
Implementation: The MUNIN Perspective. In
International Journal of e‐Navigation and Maritime
EconomyVolume1:01‐13.
Burmeister,H.C;Rødseth,Ø.J.(2015):Riskassessmentfor
anunmannedmerchantship
Correa, S.
V.; Martínez de Osés F. X.; la Castells M.;
Svedberg, U. (2014): MONALISA 2.0 and The Sea
Traffic Management‐a concept creating the need for
new maritime information standards and software
solutions
Falnes,S.T.(unpubl.):ConceptDescription‐StrategicVoyage
Management (working document in the MONALISA
2.0project)
FlowManagementTaskForce(unpubl.):Flow
Management
Concept Description (working document in the
MONALISA2.0project)
Fujii, Yahei (1983): Integrated Study on Marine Traffic
Accidents. In: IABSE Reports 42, S. 91–98. Online
verfügbar unter http://dx.doi.org/10.5169/seals‐32407,
zuletztge‐prüftam11.10.2012.
IALA 2009:IALA Recommendation O‐134 on the IALA
RiskManagement Tool for Ports and Restricted
Waterways. In‐ternational Association of Marine Aids
toNavigationandLighthouseAuthorities.
IEEE1278:StandardforDistributedInteractiveSimulation
(DIS)
IMO2007:FormalSafetyAssessment.Consolidatedtextof
theGuidelinesforFormalSafetyAssessment(FSA)for
use in the IMO rule‐making process
(MSC/Circ.1023−MEPC/Circ.392). International
MaritimeOrganization.
InDe
Waard,D.,Brookhuis, K., Wiczorek,R.,Di Nocera,
F.,Barham,P.,Weikert,C.,Kluge,A.,Gerbino,W.,and
Toffetti, A., (Eds.) (2014): Proceedings of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society Europe Chapter 2013
AnnualConference.
Jahn,C.,Burmeister,H.‐C.andJohn,O.(2012):Potentialof
on board information systems for
ashore ship
managementandlogisticsprocesses.ISIS2012.
John, O., Burmeister, H.C., Brödje, A., Bornhorst, C.,
Grube,C. (2014): Assessing the MONALISA 2.0
Concept: Establishment of the European Maritime
SimulationNetwork.ISIS2014
Kula, T. (2015):Konzeption operationeller Daten fuer eine
effiziente Kommunikation im Sea Traffic Management
(Bachelorarbeitan der Jade Hochschule
Elsfleth und
FraunhoferCML)
Pedersen, P.T. (2010): Review and application of ship
collisionand grounding analysis procedures. Marine
Structures23:241–262.
Pedersen, P. T. (1995): Probability of Grounding and
Collision Events. In: Technical University of Denmark
(Hg.):Accidental Loadings onMarine Structures: Risk
and Response. 22nd WEGEMT Graduate School.
London
Porathe,
T.,DeVries,L.andPrison,J.(2014): Shipvoyage
plancoordinationintheMONALISAproject:usertests
ofaprototypeshiptrafficmanagementsystem.
PortCDMTaskForce,(unpubl.):ConceptDescription‐Port
CDM (working document in the MONALISA 2.0
project)
Rothblum, A.M. (n.d.): Human Error and Marine Safety.
USCG.http://www.bowles‐
langley.com/wp‐
content/files_mf/humanerrorandmarinesafety26.pdf
.[Accessed28.02.2013].
Sanquist, T. F. (1992): Human Factors in Maritime
Applications: A New Opportunity for Multi‐Modal
Transportation Research.InProceedings of the Human
Factors 36th Annual Meeting‐1992:1123‐1127. Sage
Publications
Sea SWIM Task Force (unpubl.): Sea System Wide
Information System Concept Description (working
documentintheMONALISA
2.0project)
SESAR(2001):SWIMConceptofOperations
STM Performance Targets‐TaskForce (unpubl.): STM
Performance Targets (working document in the
MONALISA2.0project)
Svedberg, U. (unpubl.): Dynamic Voyage Management
Concept Description (working document in the
MONALISA2.0project)
WeberReto(unpubl.):ChalmersMONALISA2.0:BaseLine
Exercise
