In an article originally published by The Conversation , Dr Christian Matthews from Liverpool John Moores University department of maritime and mechanical engineering, examines some of the challenges created by the rise of autonomous shipping
The Yara Birkeland isn’t an ordinary cargo ship. If all goes well then the vessel, currently being built for a Norwegian agricultural fertiliser company, will become the world’s first fully autonomous cargo ship when it launches in 2020.
Current international shipping law states that ocean-going vessels must be properly crewed, so fully autonomous, unmanned ships aren’t allowed in international waters. As such, the Yara Birkeland will have to operate close to the Norweigan coast at all times, carrying out regular short journeys between three ports in the south of the country.
But change is afoot in the maritime sector, and earlier this year the UN’s International Maritime Organisation (IMO) began discussions that could allow unmanned ships to operate across oceans. This raises the prospect of crewless “ghost” ships crisscrossing the ocean, with the potential for cheaper shipping with fewer accidents.
Several Japanese shipping firms, for example, are reportedly investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the technology. And British firm Rolls-Royce demonstrated the world’s first remote-controlled unmanned commercial ship earlier this year.
However, removing experienced crew from ships means that any accidents that do occur could be far more severe. On top of this, many practical, regulatory and technological barriers remain in turning the world’s cargo ships into a fully autonomous fleet, and that could mean it’s a long time before it’s actually profitable to invest in the technology.
The IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee sat for the 98th time in June 2017, starting discussions that may well lead to a change in the rules set by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. But indications are that it is likely to be a long and complex process. The issues relating to the safety and economics of unmanned ships have barely started to be considered. A lot of work will need to be done before solutions are found, or agreements are reached.
Fewer accidents?
One of the biggest issues is the safety of solely relying on computers to operate ships over vast ocean distances. Some think that autonomous ships would have fewer accidents because the majority of maritime accidents involve collisions or groundings, caused by humans. In its 2016 annual overview, the European Maritime Safety Agency found that 62% of the 880 accidents occurring globally (2011-2015) were caused by “human erroneous action”.
If we accept that autonomous vessels might be navigated without making the same mistakes as a human crew then the statistics do seem to stack up. But things are actually much more complex than that.
A study from March 2017 analysed 100 accidents that occurred from 1999 to 2015. The researchers attempted to assess whether the accidents would have been more or less likely to happen if the vessel had been unmanned. They found that the likelihood of groundings or collisions might have been decreased significantly if those vessels had been unmanned.
But they also identified that where accidents do happen, the consequences may become more severe without a crew to intervene. In particular, accidents involving fires may be more serious if there is no crew to act as firefighters. This means it’s far from clear that the overall risk from accidents would decrease significantly if ships were unmanned, although there is certainly a case to be made that there will be fewer.
The operators of cargo ships will also only adopt unmanned ships if they offer economic benefits. If profit margins can be increased, then the return on investment of buying and operating a ship may be attractive. The full picture is, again, complex. A recent study reviewing the potential economic benefits of unmanned ships found that there are indeed savings to be made, mainly related to crew pay, accommodation and utilities.
Unexpected costs
But some new costs will also be introduced, with a new workforce needed to do more family friendly shore-based jobs in operations centres. The cost of the new sensors and control systems required will also offset any potential savings. The study found that if potentially improved fuel efficiency is factored in then an unmanned bulk cargo carrier may be able to reduce the cost of carrying freight by around just 3.4%.
There is also a practical problem. The majority of ships operate on heavy fuel oil that is so thick and dirty that it must be heated and purified on board before use. The study found that it would be impractical to automate this process. If that is the case, then unmanned ships would need to operate using a more refined fuel such as marine-grade diesel oil. This would reverse the economic argument substantially, increasing the cost of transporting freight by as much as 14.8%.
As the Yara Birkeland starts her journey towards the status of the first fully autonomous ship, there will be lots of interest in how she fares. It feels inevitable that unmanned ships will come of age. But there are still plenty of problems that need to be solved before they become a mainstream choice for carriers.
Christian Matthews, Head of Maritime Technology, Liverpool John Moores University
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article
The analysis of risk only looks at accidents that happened. The purpose of having an “adequate crew” is to ensure that accidents are avoided. Data on avoided accidents, be they near miss or unplanned preventative maintenance, may be harder to quantify but these scenarios are possibly equally hard to program against in an autonomous ship.
And how would these ships protect themselves from pirates? Would they have autonomous defence systems on board, or rely on escort ships from the military?
I’m intrigued about the comment that it would be “too impractical” to automate the heavy fuel heating and purification process…why? I’d expect articles in The Engineer to ask “why” and not just unquestioningly repeat what they find in a press release!
The crew does a lot more than just fight fires should they occur.
Preventative maintenance and general running repairs allow the ship to be maintained and repaired while moving.
Piracy would also appear to be easier against an unmanned ship.
Yes I can foresee a day when ships no longer require onboard crews, as for pirates I would expect the new ships to have extremely sensitive sensor arrays easily capable of detecting small ‘pirate’ ships. The ability of the remote operator to assimilate data at a distance to confirm if it was a pirate ship or another small vessel straying across its path is intriguing. The fuel issue is a current conundrum and I suspect only a matter of time before ‘other’ forms of propulsion become available.
” the European Maritime Safety Agency found that 62% of the 880 accidents occurring globally (2011-2015) were caused by “human erroneous action”. We used to call these mistakes?”
EKIJ’s comment reminds me of an expert witness project. A vessel shipping cotton from India to Brazil caught fire: the crew were ordered to abandon ship. (The Captain alone knew that the deck cargo -containers- contained fireworks!) No-one was lost. A rescue/salvage tug got a line on the blazing ship and managed to tow it to Madagascar. Now the fun really started. Instead of a simple loss by sinking, there was now the possibility of evidence left of what is called ‘hot-work’ -welding in situ during the voyage- possible of the fire already in the cargo at loading (the dock insisted that the sweepings from the wharf (including the cigarettes stubs left by stevedores) be added to the holds……even the possibility/probability that the automatic fire-suppression system (Carbon Di-oxide) had failed to operate fully. The lawyers were in Heaven. Its your rotten cargo! No, its your rotten ship, no its your rotten fire protection system, no its you doing hot-work during the voyage…it went on and on. Total costs of litigation: about twice the value of ship and cargo.
Its this which I (and I believe other Engineers) are most concerned about. Yet again those whose livelihoods depend on the conflict, not its outcome, keep control and their hands in the national till!
In a previous employ, we had developed and were selling commercially, processor-based systems to heat bunker oil to a temperature where it had the same viscosity as marine grade diesel for use in diesel engines. Fuelling is a minor issue, having suitable ‘accurate’ charts and the handoff to local pilots, tugs etc would be still an issue.
What happens in the event of a mid-ocean total systems failure or part failure? A totally powerless and crewless vessel in busy seaways/major canals could be a major problem. Where would liability rest in the event of such a failure and an accident (collision with another ship or major structure such as an oil rig, wind farm or port facilities) did in fact happen. This could be a happy hunting ground for lawyers and the insurance sector. The dreaded nerd in a fetid bedroom trying desperately to crack into the systems of autonomous vessels would also be a problem for autonomous ships (plus platooning trucks and cars).
What about Rule 1 of the international colregs, a lookout must be kept at all times. This refers to the MK1 human eye ball. Like all autonomous vehicles, safety must be the primary issue.
“Current international shipping law states that ocean-going vessels must be properly crewed, so fully autonomous, unmanned ships aren’t allowed in international waters”. Why am I getting recollections of Laws which insisted that men with red flags walked in front of the earliest steam and IC vehicles! Happily technology soon saw that eclipsed: and the rest as they say is history!
Of course all laws are well behind the technology they attempt to curtail. {How else would those who ‘police’ , implement such stupidity and fine wrong-doers… stay in work?] Lunatics, tipping point, asylum. This is the reality of the disruptive technologies. Let we Technologists [STEM trained and educated] all work to disrupt and then eclipse once and for all that final frontier. The ascent of man surely follows as “(k)night and (judgement) day!”
Those proposing these autonomous ships appear to be focused on the long deep sea passages but no mention or suggestions have been made about the tricky bits at the ends of the passage, the entering and leaving port. The images appear to leave off details such as a bridge or access and equipment for working with tug boats or is it imagined that a port such as Southampton will simply leave the ship to sort itself out. The only answer to this that I can see would be offshore terminals and the transfer of cargoes which will wipe the savings on crew wages.
I thought the pirates’ main source of income was ransoms for kidnapped crew – no crew, no ransoms. Also, a crewless vessel could be more comprehensively battened down, so making it more difficult for pirates to enter them.
MB (8 Sept 2:47) doesn’t inform us the fate of the “cotton + fireworks” ship upon arrival in Madagascar. Springs to mind, this on a smaller scale than, the fate of the good ship Richard Montgomery in R Medway during WW2 and SS Mont-Blanc in Halifax/NS (Dec 1917)