Proceedings of the IDFS 2013, pp.

25-27, November,2013

Workshop: WRB-1

Shanghai, China

Casualty analysis of Cellular Container Ships

Eleftheria Eliopoulou1
Rainer Hamann2,
Apostolos Papanikolaou3
Pavel Golyshev4
1
2

Germanischer Lloyd SE, Germany, rainer.hamann@gl-group.com

3

Ship Design Laboratory, NTUA, Greece, eli@deslab.ntua.gr

Ship Design Laboratory, NTUA, Greece, papa@deslab.ntua.gr

Germanischer Lloyd SE, Germany, pavel.golyshev@gl-group.com

ABSTRACT
Regulators increasingly apply risk-based methods in
their decision making, which requires quantitative risk
assessment. An important step of the risk assessment
procedure is the evaluation of the safety level of ships on
the basis the analysis of historical data of casualties.
Typically, maritime industries perform the risk analysis
ship type dependent and rarely in dependence on ship
size.
The particular study presents an investigation of
recorded casualties pertaining to cellular type
containerships for the period 1990-2012 and addresses
the need of careful evaluation of employed databases
and use of primordial data as important parameters for
the risk modeling and quantification.
INTRODUCTION
The first IMO Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) on
containerships was carried out by the partially funded EU
research project SAFEDOR (2005 2009). Since then
additional FSAs or risk analysis of other ship types were
performed showing the need for careful review of casualty
reports, in particular the FSA on crude oil tanker
(MEPC 58/ INF.2, 2008) and passenger ships project
GOALDS (Papanikolaou et al., 2012). Responding to the
rapid change of the containership fleet in recent years, an
update of the FSA on containerships was initiated by
Germanischer Lloyd and a new casualty database was
set-up and carefully analyzed.

The particular paper presents an investigation and statistical

analysis of recorded casualties pertaining to cellular type
containerships in the period 1990-2012 based on this new
database. Raw casualty data was reviewed and re-analysed
in order to produce appropriate statistics useful for the
implementation of risk-based assessment methodologies.
The analysis focused on cellular containerships which at the
time of incident were registered to members of the
International Association of Classification Societies (IACS).
Based on the proposed global risk model described in
(Hamann et al., 2013) the initiating top events (or incidents)
were analysed namely collision, contact, grounding, fire,
and explosion as well as incidents which are important
contributors to afore mentioned categories, e.g. machinery
failure as a root cause for grounding and collision or
Non-Accidental Structural failure leading to ship's loss of
stability and/or foundering.
The main outcome of the present study is the identification
of significant qualitative historical trends, quantitative
characteristics like overall accidental frequencies per ship
year, frequencies of each major accident category, event
location, ships operating/load condition at the time of
incident, as well as the consequences/outcome of the
accident.

CRITICAL REVIEW OF COMMERCIAL DATABASES

Commercial/professional casualty databases are essential
for the statistical analysis of casualties, because they are the
prime source of comprehensive information about the
occurrence of casualty events, thus for the set-up of

Casualty analysis of Cellular Container Ships

What can be stated is that IHS database appears to have

stricter constraints with respect to severity. Moreover and
very important, some incidents are registered in one
database, but are not captured at all in the other.
Concluding, from the authors' point of view, it is
recommended to not mix-up the initial sampling plan from
different database sources, because this practice may affect
negatively resulted frequencies in terms of number of
accidents and Operational Fleet at Risk, as well as with
respect to the consequence evaluation, especially where the
registered degree of incidents severity is used.
Focusing on the IHS database, a rapid increase of accidents
with serious degree of severity especially after year 2003
was noticed, Fig.1, whereas the non serious incidents are
decreasing.

Non Serious

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

0
1991

Typically, current high-level risk analysis is focusing on

major risk contributors. In order to determine the casualty
reports relevant for the development of high-level risk
models, the severity of casualties classification by casualty
database provider was used, noting that each database
characterizes an incident as "Serious" or "Non-Serious"
based on the consequences of the incident in question.
The comparison of the assignment of incidents to the
mentioned categories led to the conclusion that different
definitions were used on what is considered serious in a
certain incident. The particular comparison between the
same event cases showed that several records in LMIU
database are considered as Non-Serious cases, whereas in
the IHS database they are Serious events. Accordingly,
when selecting reports by the severity criterion, it follows
that the size and structure of the statistical sample will
differ between the two databases. Therefore, it is important
to investigate the available database record by record and
re-assess casualty reports related to the objectives of the
risk analysis.

Serious
160

1990

IHS Fairplay-LMIU databases

IHS Database,
Number of recorded events by degree of severity

Incidents' Number

statistical sampling plan in terms of incident recording; it

should be however noted, that the database information
associated to each accident is often incomplete, erroneous
or missing, even for some catastrophic type of accidents
(MSC 91/22, 2012).
An investigation was performed among relevant
commercial/ professional databases, namely IHS, LMIU
and GISIS in order to evaluate the primordial accidental
data of containerships for the historical analysis. Some of
the major findings were summarised in the following.

Fig.1 IHS Database, registered casualties of cellular

containerships, degree of severity recording
Since this peculiar distribution with respect to the change of
trends of "Serious" vs. "Non-Serious" accidents after year
2003 cannot be readily justified, it may be assumed that the
definition of casualties' severity by the IHS database
providers may have changed through the years. Note that
the particular phenomenon on the distribution of serious
recorded events is also noticed (but not to that extent) in the
sampling plan of the large tanker casualty data
(MEPC 58/INF.2, 2008)
GISIS database
The GISIS (Global Integrated Shipping Information
System) database is a recent attempt of IMO to
systematically gather important information about maritime
incidents. The structure of each recorded event is very
efficient and helpful for the analyst, because it contains all
the necessary information in details providing results for
the root cause mapping up to the end consequence step.
GISIS distinguishes between public available information
and information available for the Administration only.
Unfortunately, the majority of the detailed investigation
reports is only available to the latter group and not to the
public.
Theoretically, the particular database could provide
comprehensive and detailed information with respect to
accidents, as it has good structure; however, the present
investigation showed that the number of recorded cases in
GISIS is very limited up to date and insufficient for a
historical statistical analysis, thus it cannot be used as a
self-contained evaluation tool.

IACS & Non-IACS CELLULAR CONTAINERSHIPS

Based on the above preparatory to the study findings, the
IHS database was used for the following analysis. Table 1
presents the Operational Fleet at Risk as well as the number
of casualty records of ships that were classified by IACS or
Non-IACS Class Societies at the time of incident according
to the IHS Fairplay ship register.
Table 1: Fleet at Risk & Incident Records by IACS Class

Eleftheria Eliopoulou, Rainer Hamann, Apostolos Papanikolaou, Pavel Golyshev

Time Period 1990-2012
Incident Records - Class
Fleet at Risk
at the time of incident
Number
%
Number
%
49405
90%
1419
96%
2462
4%
2
0%

IACS
Non-IACS
Unknown
Class

3125

6%

56

IHS database, Number of incidents

IACS Ships

467

Non-IACS & Unknown

356

400
300

86

82
7

14

15

43

8000-12500

5500-8000

4500-5500

3400-4500

2500-3400

1000-2500

500-1000

<500

6 0

69

IACS ships
65

58

52

Killed-Missing

Injuries

Fig.3 IHS Database, Fatality recording

METHODOLOGY OF WORK
Sampling plan
The casualty analysis was performed for a time period
covering year 1990 and up to October 2012, considering
Cellular Containerships classified by IACS Societies that
were built after year 1981 and having Gross Tonnage
1,000 GT.
The presented results are focusing on cases occurred during
the operational phase of the ships in question and were
registered with serious degree of incidents' severity
according to IHS database.

2 3
>=15000

100

150

144
83

12500-15000

200

All incidents

4%

Focusing on the casualties, only 2 events were recorded for

Non-IACS ships within the study period, whereas 96% of
ships involved in the incidents were under IACS Class
Societies. In addition, the vast majority of cellular
containerships' Operational Fleet is under IACS Class
Societies, namely 90% of entire fleet recording.
Fig.2 presents the number of incidents of IACS and
Non-IACS/unclassified ships according to TEU number
capacity, which gives indications regarding the ship size
and casualties recording.

500

Time Period 1990-2012

Fig.2 IHS Database, Number of incidents by TEU number

The outcome of the particular investigation leads to the
following two issues, which are of importance for the risk
evaluation:
It seems that there is no underreporting issue in case of
IACS cellular containerships. With respect to
Non-IACS class ships the same cannot be stated with a
certain confidence.
Thus, in terms of calculating frequency of accident
values, using only IACS ships or the entire fleet
regardless the registered class, no significant differences
are expected.
The same conclusion cannot be said for the consequence
analysis, especially with respect to the Potential Loss of
Life (PLL) calculations, because serious accidents of
Non-IACS ships may have significant number of
fatalities, Fig.3. For example, it was found that in one
Non-IACS total loss case, the recorded number of
fatalities was 11 persons. The particular accident is not
accounted in the present analysis, because the vessel
was Non-IACS ship.

New Database
Although commercial databases contain a plethora of
records with useful information about marine incidents,
their structure cannot be used directly in risk assessment
procedures, as elaborated earlier.
For that purpose, a new database was developed in MS
Access 2007 in order to capture the available textual
information in a proper manner (using checklists,
pull-down menus, etc.), so that this information can be
easily retrieved, post-processed and systematically analysed
within risk assessment procedures.
Re-analysis of primordial data
Initial raw casualty data were retrieved from the IHS
database. The particular records were inserted in the newly
developed database, were reviewed and enhanced by
additional information to the extent available; the data in
hand were re-analyzed and post-processed in the way to
produce input to the global risk model.
Note that all captured accidents were assigned to one of the
predefined main incident categories according to the last
accidental event. The considered main accident
categories are mainly the navigational events and fire and
explosion cases.
Operational state at the time of incident
Four different operational states - associated with different
operational speed ranges- were identified as important
parameters in the risk evaluation, namely:

Casualty analysis of Cellular Container Ships

Terminal areas (Port, Anchorage, Port Approach and at
Berth).
Operation in coastal waters (Coastal (<12 miles off) or
restricted waters).
En route at sea (Open Sea (12 miles off) &
Archipelagos).
Operation in limited waters (Rivers, Canals and Inland
waters).
Note that in cases where in the IHS database the distance to
the coast was given, this value was registered and used in
the re-analysis of data. Moreover, when the accidents
location coordinates were stated in the database, Google
Earth was used for the further evaluation.

ANALYSIS OF ACCIDENTAL DATA

Navigational Event cases
Collision events refer to incidents where two vessels
accidentally come into contact with each other (regardless
of whether under way, anchored or moored).
In total, 348 cases were classified as collision events from
which in 47% the containership was the struck vessel and in
53% was the striking one (not accounting for the unknown
information of 126 records).
76% of collision events occurred while the vessel was
en-route and the rest during manouvering operations to
moor or while the vessel was at berth.
With respect to the weather conditions at the time of
incident: 23% of cases occurred during heavy weather
conditions, 47% under poor visibility, 27% in good weather,
3% in freezing conditions (not accounting 256 records
registered as "unknown/not reported").
With respect to the ship condition after the accident, 68% of
the involved ships had major repairs, 21% minor repairs
and 11% no damage reported in the complementary texts of
the database. Note that there was no ship's total loss
because of collision during the studied period.
In 3 events, there were 3 non-serious injuries of crew
members and 4 fatalities.
Contact events refer to scenarios where the vessel
accidentally comes into contact with a floating object or a
fixed installation other than those included in collision and
grounding.
In total, 109 cases were classified as contact events from
which in 88% the containership hit a fixed installation and
in 12% of cases the ship came in contact with a floating
object.
39% of contact events occurred while the vessel was
en-route and the rest during manouvering, mooring
operations or while the vessel was at berth.
Information on weather condition was very limited because
in 92 records, out of 109, weather conditions were
registered as "unknown/not reported".
With respect to the ship condition after the accident, 61% of
the involved ships had major repairs, 31% minor repairs
and 8% no damage reported by the database. Note that there

was no ship's total loss because of contact during the

studied period.
No fatalities were recorded because of contact events.
Grounding events refer to scenarios where the vessel
accidentally comes into contact with the sea bed or shore or
underwater objects (wrecks, etc.) other than those included
under collision or grounding. Grounding is predominantly
caused by navigational failure (powered grounding) or by
propulsion, power or steering failure (drift grounding).
In total, 232 cases were classified as groundings from
which in 75% of cases the containership had a powered
grounding and the 25% was related to drift grounding.
96% of grounding events occurred while the vessel was
en-route and the rest during anchoring operations.
With respect to the weather conditions: 50% of cases
occurred during heavy weather conditions, 19% under poor
visibility, 31% in good weather (not accounting 184 records
registered as "unknown/not reported").
With respect to the ship condition after the accident: in 3%
of cases there was ship's total loss, 43% of the involved
ships had major repairs, 18% minor repairs, 2% no damage
sustained and 34% no damage reported by the database.
In 2 events, there were 2 serious injuries of crew members
and 1 fatality.
Fig.4 presents the event location of each incident category.
Terminal areas and coastal waters are the main sea location
that navigational accidents are appeared. Especially, in
terminal areas, many collisions happened during
manouevring operations.
Event Location at the time of incident
Collision
140

Contact

Grounding

348 Collisions, 109 Contacts, 232 Groundings

120
100

80
60
40

20
0
Terminal Areas

Coastal

Open Sea

Limited waters

Fig.4 Event Location of navigational events

In the vast majority (60%-80%), the containership was
loaded at the time of incident. In the rest of cases, ship's
loading condition was registered as "unknown condition" or
"ballast"/"empty" in the database. Practically, a
containership maybe operating fully or partly loaded, but
exceptionally in ballast (empty of cargo) condition.
Regarding the cargo loss, in total 431 TEU were registered
as lost because of the investigated navigational accidents
within the studied period (collision: 233 TEU, contact: 14
TEU, grounding: 184 TEU). In addition, 2325 tonnes of
bunker oil released to the sea in the same examined
conditions (collision: 725 tonnes, contact: 270 tonnes,
grounding: 1330 tonnes).

Eleftheria Eliopoulou, Rainer Hamann, Apostolos Papanikolaou, Pavel Golyshev

High CI
7.82E-03
2.66E-03
5.34E-03
High CI
4.56E-03
3.06E-03
3.81E-03

Collision

Contact

Grounding

1.20E-02
1.00E-02
8.00E-03
6.00E-03
4.00E-03
2.00E-03
0.00E+00

Fig.5 Annual frequency of collision, contact and grounding

events with serious degree of severity
Focusing on the collision events, there is relative high
frequency in Terminal Areas and Coastal waters after year
2003, Fig.6, whereas the frequency of collisions in the
Open Sea has an almost constant behavior.

High CI

Fig.5 presents the annual distribution of frequency for each

navigational event category. After year 2003, an increased
annual frequency of having a serious navigational event is
noted.

Coastal Waters

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

In Fig.7, the frequency of serious events with oil released to

the sea is presented in tonnes/shipyears. Grounding events
present here relatively the highest values.
Frequency of events with oil Release to the sea
Serious incidents-IACS ships-Operational Phase
Collision

Contact

Grounding

3.00E-03
2.50E-03
2.00E-03
1.50E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04

2012

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

0.00E+00

1994

Table 3: Frequency of serious events with bunker oil or hazardous

cargo release
Time Period 1990-2012
Frequency of oil
Frequency of release
released to the sea
of hazardous cargo
(tonnes/shipyear)
(event/shipyear)
Collision
3.44E-04
2.02E-05
Contact
2.23E-04
2.02E-05
Grounding
3.85E-04
2.02E-05

Open Sea

Fig.6 Annual frequency of serious collision events

(tonnes/shipyears) in terminal areas, coastal waters and
open sea

1992

Table 3 presents the frequency of having a serious accident

with bunker oil released to the sea as well as the frequency
of having an accident with release of hazardous cargo
within the studied period.
Note that a release of hazardous cargo was registered in one
case of collision, one for contact and one for grounding
events, leading to the same corresponding frequency for
each navigational event.

Terminal Areas
5.00E-03
4.50E-03
4.00E-03
3.50E-03
3.00E-03
2.50E-03
2.00E-03
1.50E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
0.00E+00
1991

Focusing on the second decade (2002-2012), higher

frequencies of having a serious accident are noticed. In case
of collision events, the calculated frequency is about 2.5
times higher in comparison to the corresponding one of
period 1990-2001 and about 1.2 times higher from the
average value of overall period. Contact events present
almost similar frequencies, whereas the grounding
frequency based on 2002-2012 is about 2 times higher than
the corresponding coming from time period 1990-2001 and
about 1.1 times higher from the average value of overall
period.

Collision events - Terminal Areas, Coastal waters & Open Sea

Serious incidents-IACS ships-Operational Phase

1990

9.26E-03
2.78E-03
6.16E-03

1990

Table 2: Frequency of serious events

Frequency of occurrence
Low CI
Time Period 1990-2012
Collision
7.04E-03
6.33E-03
Contact
2.21E-03
1.81E-03
Grounding
4.70E-03
4.11E-03
Frequency of occurrence
Low CI
Time Period 1990-2001
Collision
3.37E-03
2.43E-03
Contact
2.09E-03
1.36E-03
Grounding
2.73E-03
1.89E-03
Frequency of occurrence
Low CI
Time Period 2002-2012
Collision
8.28E-03
7.38E-03
Contact
2.25E-03
1.79E-03
Grounding
5.36E-03
4.64E-03

Navigational events
Serious incidents-IACS ships-Operational Phase

1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

The overall frequency of occurrence of a serious

navigational event is given in Table 2, splitting also by
decades. In additional, confidence intervals (CI) are
presented based on a binomial confidence analysis; they are
calculated as 95% confidence intervals corresponding to the
95% probability that certain values will be met.

Fig.7 Annual frequency of oil released to the sea

(tonnes/shipyears), navigational events
Fire, and Explosion events
Fire events refer to scenarios where fire is the first,
initiative event. Fire can start due to internal sources,

Casualty analysis of Cellular Container Ships

external sources (i.e spread of fire from other ship) or due
to atmospheric conditions (by lighting).
In total, 76 events were classified as serious fire cases from
which 99% was started from internal source and the 1% by
external source.
Focusing on the events in which fire started from internal
source, in 63% of cases fire started in Aft Area, from which
90% started in the Engine Room, 19% started in Cargo hold
area and 8% on deck cargo area.
74% of fire events occurred while the vessel was en-route
and the remained one during manouevring operations or at
berth.
With respect to the ship condition after the accident, in 3%
of cases there was ship's total loss, 46% of the involved
ships had major repairs, 30% minor repairs and 21% no
damage reported by the database.
In 6 accidents out of 76, there were 4 fatalities (3 killed and
1 missing person) and 20 injuries (18 serious and 2
non-serious).

No bunker oil released to the sea because of fire and

explosion accidents.

Explosion events refer to scenarios where the explosion is

the first, initiative event.
In total, 23 events were classified as serious explosions
from which the 43% followed by fire.
83% of explosion events occurred while the vessel was
en-route and the remaining ones during discharging
operations or at berth.
Explosion started in the Aft area in 74% of the cases, from
which 82% started in the Engine Room, 18% in Cargo Hold
area, 4% on deck cargo area and 4% in Ballast/Void spaces.
With respect to the ship condition after the accident, 57% of
the involved ships had "major repairs", 30% minor repairs
and 13% no damage reported by the database. Note that
there was no ship's total loss because of explosion during
the studied period.
In 11 accidents out of 23, there were 15 fatalities (13 killed
and 2 missing persons) and 15 serious injuries.

Fig.9: Annual frequency of serious fire, and explosion

events

Fig.8 presents the event location per incident category.

More than half of such serious fire and explosion accidents
occurred in Open Sea operation.
Event Location at the time of incident
Fire

Explosion

70%
60%
50%

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Terminal Areas

Coastal

Open Sea

Limited waters

Fig.8 Event Location of fire, and explosion events

With respect to the consequences on cargo, in total 560
TEU were registered as lost within the studied period (fire:
455 TEU, explosion: 110 TEU).

Fig.9 presents the annual frequency of serious fire and

explosion events, whereas the overall frequency is given in
Table 4 along with the binomial confidence interval values.
Fire, and Explosion evens
Serious incidents-IACS ships-Operational Phase
Fire

Explosion

3.00E-03
2.50E-03
2.00E-03
1.50E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

0.00E+00

Table 4: Frequency of event occurrence, Time Period 1990-2012

Frequency of occurrence
Low CI
High CI
Fire
1.54E-03
1.21E-03
1.93E-03
Explosion
4.66E-04
2.95E-04
6.98E-04

Non-Accidental Structural Failures (NASF)

Non-Accidental Structural Failure refers to events when the
hull presents cracks and fractures, affecting ships
seaworthiness. Causes could be structural fatigue, inferior
construction, ship's overloading, extreme weather
conditions and poor maintenance.
The complexity of the causes of the particular incident
category, which cannot be easily identified and captured in
a database, may lead to a different categorization, as shown
in the root cause analysis paper of Hamann et al., 2013. In
any case, it is considered very important to be deeply
analyzed, because such failures affect ship's watertightness
and lead to a significant probability of ship's total loss.
In total, in 35 cases appeared structural failures that
affected ship's floatability; in 3% of these cases, the vessel
proceeded to beaching intentionally or not; in one case the
vessel reported machinery failure in combination to a crack
in the fuel oil tank.
Moreover, in 6 cases out of 35 (17%) the ship was lost.
Focusing on the operational state, the following was
observed:
45% of particular cases occurred in open sea operation;
in 21% of these cases there was ship's total loss.
16% of the cases occurred in coastal waters; in 40% of
them the ship was lost.
39% occurred in terminal areas from which 8% led to
ships total loss.
The overall frequency of having a Non-Accidental
structural failure is 7.08E-04.

Eleftheria Eliopoulou, Rainer Hamann, Apostolos Papanikolaou, Pavel Golyshev

Fig.10 presents the annual frequency of occurrence a

structural failure in a non-accidental way.

4.00E-03
3.50E-03
3.00E-03
2.50E-03
2.00E-03
1.50E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
0.00E+00

CONCLUSIONS

1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

Frequncy

Existence of Non-Accidental Structural Failure

Serious incidents-IACS ships-Operational Phase

The most prominent example of NASF leading to ship's

total loss came up very recently (June 2013), namely the
breaking in two pieces of MOLs Comfort containership,
involving a ship built in year 2008 (age or merely 5 years).
The causes of this accident and its likely categorization
remain to be clarified.

Fig.10: Annual frequency of cases with existence

Non-Accidental Structural failures
The peak frequency value in year 2006 corresponds to six
(6) accidents, which briefly described in Table 5.
Focusing on these accidents, 4 ships presented a structural
failure having an age of less than 10 years.
Flottbek sustained damage to her hull in heavy weather
conditions. Hal Singapore reported heavy weather damage.
Ever Dainty and Hs Mozart reported cracks in the fuel oil
tank.
Table 5: Cases in Year 2006
Built
Year
1997

APL Korea

1995

11

Ltc John
U.D. Page

1985

21

Hs Mozart

2002

Hal
Singapore

2004

Flottbek

2005

According to the updated results, during the second decade

(2002-2012), higher frequencies of having a serious
accident are noticed especially in collision events, where
the calculated frequency is about 2.5 times higher than the
corresponding one for the time period 1990-2001.

Updated Results

Age / Outcome

Ever
Dainty

The newly developed casualty database for containerships

by NTUA & GL aims to support the earlier conducted
SAFEDOR FSA of cellular containerships (MSC 83/INF.8,
2007), to review and evaluate updated risk models
presented in Hamann et al, 2013.

Table 6: Comparison of frequencies, navigational events

Year 2006
Ship Name

The preparatory, critical evaluation of the tools to be used

in risk analysis procedures is a very important step for risk
assessment techniques.
Casualty databases, which are readily accessible and
contain detailed root causes, will enhance the risk
assessment methodologies and the quality of output results.

remains
afloat
remains
afloat
remains
afloat
remains
afloat
remains
afloat
remains
afloat

TEU
capacity
4211
5108
4614
4389
750
1638

Note that there is in general difficult to reliably identify the

causes of the above accidents due to lack of sufficient
public data.
When structural failure occurs, the master must take quick
actions to avoid or mitigate severe consequences, i.e ship
sinking, cargo loss and environmental damage. In 2007, the
4419 TEU container ship MSC Napoli, encountered heavy
seas, causing the ship to pitch heavily (MAIB 2008). The
vessel suffered a catastrophic failure of her hull in way of
her engine room. Because of the severe risk of ship's total
loss, the ship was intentionally beached. Finally, she broke
into pieces and broken up. The particular accident is
registered in the IHS (and our) database as "grounding"
event, though it is actually a NASF catastrophic event.

Only serious events

Only IACS ships
Time Period 1990-2012
Fleet at Risk = 49405
Collision
7.04E-03
Contact
2.21E-03
Grounding
4.70E-03
Frequency of occurrence
Time Period 1990-2001
Collision
3.37E-03
Contact
2.09E-03
Grounding
2.73E-03
Frequency of occurrence
Time Period 2002-2012
Collision
8.28E-03
Contact
2.25E-03
Grounding
5.36E-03

SAFEDOR FSA
All events (serious and non
serious)
IACS ships
Time period 1993 2004
Fleet at Risk = 30682
1.61E-02
3.65E-03
6.84E-03

The resulted updated frequencies of navigational events are

reduced, Table 6, compared to the SAFEDOR FSA.
However, these statistical results are not directly
comparable, because of a variety of reasons:
1. Only serious events of IACS cellular containerships were
selected for the present study, whereas the SAFEDOR FSA
did not differentiate with respect to severity and class
society.
2. The operational fleet of containerships increased by more
than 50% after year 2004.

Casualty analysis of Cellular Container Ships

3. The need for slower steaming will have also an effect on
the reduced frequency of collision events, and to a lesser on
groundings and contacts.
4. The reduced transport demand of TEU cargo in recent
years, led to a reduction of the active operational fleet by
about 3-5% of containership tonnage (laid-up ships), which
means that resulted accidents frequencies need to be
corrected for this.
Frequencies of fire and explosion events exhibit very
similar statistics, Table 7. The updated results indicate as
most vulnerable location the Engine Room for the
particular types of accidents.
Table 7: Comparison of frequencies, fire/explosion events
Updated Results
Fire
1.54E-03
Explosion
4.66E-04

SAFEDOR FSA
Fire/Explosion: 3.55E-03

Grounding events exhibit relatively the highest frequency

of ship's total loss (1.62E-04). Finally, structural failures in
a non-accidental way (NASF) show also relatively high
frequencies of ship's total loss (1.21E-04). The recent
accident (June 2013) of the relatively young MOLs
Comfort containership rings the alarm regarding the impact
of the operating and loading conditions of the particular
ship type on ship's structural integrity that needs urgent
review by relevant authorities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A major part of the present study is supported by the
bilateral project CONTIOPT of GL and NTUA-SDL. The
financial support of Germanischer Lloyd is acknowledged.
The authors would like to thank Messrs. R. Foutzopoulos,
Sp. Georgakopoulos, A. Konstantinou and A. Kopoukis, for
their support to the present work through their diploma
theses conducted at the Ship Design Laboratory of NTUA.
Additionally, this work was supported by IHS Fairplay by
permitting the usage of collected casualty data for this
investigation.
REFERENCES
Hamann, R., Papanikolaou, A., Eliopoulou, E. and
Golyshef, P. (2013), "Assessment of Safety Performance
of Container Ships". Design for Safety Conference,
Shanghai.
MAIB (2008), "Report on the investigation of the structural
failure of MSC Napoli", Report No 9/2008
MEPC 58/INF.2, 2008, "FSA Crude Oil Tankers". Danish
Submission to IMO Maritime Environmental Pollution
Committee, London.
MSC 91/22, 2012, "Report of the Maritime Safety
Committee on its ninety-first session", 17 December 2012.

MSC/Circ.1023, 2002: Guidelines for Formal Safety

Assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO Rule-Making
Process. IMO, London (revision: MSC-MEPC.2/Cric.12).
MSC 83/INF.8, 2007: FSA container vessels Details of
the Formal Safety Assessment. Danish Submission to
IMO Marine Safety Committee, London.
Papanikolaou, A., Hamann, R., Lee, Byung S., Amins, C.,
Olufsen, O., Vassalos, D. and Zaraphonitis, G., (2012):
GOALDS Goal Based Ship Stability & Safety Standards.
Transport Research Arena - Europe, Elsevier.
SAFEDOR (2005-2009) "Design, Operation
Regulation for Safety". EU project, FP6-516278.

and