Regulations and Liability for Autonomous...
62
Regulations and Liability for Autonomous Ships – Use and Modification of Current IMO Conventions and/or Creation of a New Convention Caio Pessanha Marques Projeto de Graduação apresentado ao Curso de Engenharia Naval e Oceânica, Escola Politécnica, da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, como parte dos requisitos necessários à obtenção do título de Engenheiro Naval e Oceânico. Orientadora: Marta Cecilia Tapia Reyes Rio de Janeiro Outubro de 2018
Transcript of Regulations and Liability for Autonomous...
Regulations and Liability for Autonomous Ships – Use
and Modification of Current IMO Conventions and/or
Creation of a New Convention
Caio Pessanha Marques
Projeto de Graduação apresentado ao
Curso de Engenharia Naval e
Oceânica, Escola Politécnica, da
Universidade Federal do Rio de
Janeiro, como parte dos requisitos
necessários à obtenção do título de
Engenheiro Naval e Oceânico.
Orientadora: Marta Cecilia Tapia Reyes
Rio de Janeiro
Outubro de 2018
Regulations and Liability for Autonomous Ships - Use
and Modification of Current IMO Conventions and/or
Creation of a New Convention
Caio Pessanha Marques
PROJETO DE GRADUAÇÃO SUBMETIDO AO CORPO DOCENTE DO
CURSO DE ENGENHARIA NAVAL E OCEÂNICA DA ESCOLA POLITÉCNICA
DA UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO RIO DE JANEIRO COMO PARTE DOS
REQUISITOS NECESSÁRIOS PARA A OBTENÇÃO DO GRAU DE
ENGENHEIRO NAVAL E OCEÂNICO.
Examinado por:
Prof.ª D.Sc. Marta Cecilia Tapia Reyes (Orientadora)
Professor Severino Fonseca da Silva Neto
Eng. Higuel Parga de Paiva Norões
RIO DE JANEIRO, RJ - BRASIL
OUTUBRO DE 2018
i
Marques, Caio Pessanha
Regulations and Liability for Autonomous Ships -
Use and Modification of Current IMO Conventions and/or
Creation of a New Convention/ Caio Pessanha Marques -
Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ/ ESCOLA POLITÉCNICA, 2018
viii, 52 p.: il.: 29,7 cm.
Orientador: Marta Cecilia Tapia Reyes
Projeto de Graduação - UFRJ/ POLI/ Engenharia
Naval e Oceânica, 2018.
Referências Bibliográficas: p. 49-52.
1.Regulations 2. Liability 3. Autonomous Ships 4.
IMO Conventions I. Tapia Reyes, Marta Cecilia. II.
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Escola
Politécnica, Curso de Engenharia Naval e Oceânica. III.
Regulations and Liability for Autonomous Ships - Use and
Modification of Current IMO Conventions and/or
Creation of a New Convention
ii
Dedico este trabalho aos meus pais, Cátia Pessanha dos
Santos e Vlamir José Marques, que sempre puseram seus
filhos em primeiro lugar para que pudessemos alcançar
nossos próprios sonhos.
iii
AGRADECIMENTOS
Primeiramente, agradeço ao meu Tio Juninho, minha avó e madrinha Cotinha e avó Dona Estelina. A eterna dor da saudade é puro reflexo de lembranças extremamente boas. Obrigado por ainda participarem da minha vida.
À minha mãe, Dra. Cátia Pessanha dos Santos, que sempre foi modelo de guerreira, leoa, batalhadora, trabalhadora, sonhadora e, acima de tudo, mãe. Que se sacrificou inumeras vezes em prol dessa conquista e ainda o faz em prol das que virão. Muito obrigado por sempre acreditar no seu filhote.
Ao meu pai, Sr. Vlamir José Marques, que sempre foi modelo de carinho, justiça, amor, sapiência e paciência. Seus limites me trouxeram até aqui e me levarão ainda mais longe. Mostrou-me como ser uma pessoa boa e sempre me deu um norte, sendo inclusive referência neste trabalho.
Às minhas irmãs, Ludmila Pessanha Marques e Bárbara Pessanha Marques, que me mostraram como ser um homem. Nossos pais sempre nos ensinaram que não há nada igual o amor dos irmãos, e o nosso sempre prevalecerá. Obrigado pelos ouvidos, críticas e conselhos de sempre.
Aos meus amigos de Vitória, que mesmo depois de anos, continuam não só meus amigos de infância, mas meus irmãos. Obrigado, Macacada. Também ao Vinícius Macedo, por sempre estar ao meu lado, muito obrigado.
Aos amigos que fiz no Rio, em especial Adriano Fonseca, Evandro de Paula, Geovane Mattos, Julia Barbosa, Luísa Torres, Marina Heil e Pedro Dias. Obrigado por me apoiarem e empurrarem, seja em choppadas, em sala ou em encontros de turma. Aos meus amigos da Naval, Andrea Xavier, Eloisa Moreira, Simone Morandini, companheiros de 2014.2 e de tantos outros períodos, obrigado pelos trabalhos em grupo, estudos em conjunto, resenhas na sala de estudos exclusiva, Caninhas. Obrigado Ana Paula Benete e Mirelle Rocha por terem me recebido tão bem depois do intercâmbio e virado grandes amigas.
Aos meus amigos do intercâmbio, que estiveram presentes no ano que pra sempre vou ter saudade, obrigado por terem feito o inverno parecer verão.
Ao Henrique Frazão, Erick Sobrinho, Daniel Flórido, Gabriel Sanfins e Luiz Felipe Bauzer, pelas segundas casas no Rio, pelas famílias que me adotaram, pelas diversas visões de mundo, pelas inúmeras despedidas e reencontros, pelas semelhanças e diferenças, pelas viagens, pelos melhores dias da faculdade.
Agradeço a cada um que de alguma maneira participou e ajudou a construir este trabalho de conclusão de curso, em especial ao professor Osmar Turan, que sabiamente me aconselhou durante o intercâmbio e ajudou a escolher o tema, ao Sr. Cesar Benfica, que, com toda sua experiência, me orientou e direcionou, e à professora Marta Cecilia Tapia Reyes, que acolheu o projeto e me orientou.
iv
Resumo do Projeto de Graduação apresentado à Escola Politécnica/UFRJ como parte
dos requisitos necessários para a obtenção do grau de Engenheiro Naval e Oceânico.
Regulamentações e Responsabilidade de Navios
Autônomos – Uso e Modificação das Atuais
Convenções da IMO e/ou Criação de uma Nova
Convenção
Caio Pessanha Marques
Outubro/2018
Orientadora: Marta Cecília Tapia Reyes
Curso: Engenharia Naval e Oceânica
As convenções da IMO são alteradas e melhoradas ao longo dos anos,
de acordo com as tendências da indústria da construção naval e de seus
requisitos. Quando novas tecnologias foram criadas devido a diferentes e/ou
maiores demandas, geralmente, os construtores de navios costumavam se
concentrar nos regulamentos anteriores, mas isso provou ser uma abordagem
errônea para novos projetos. Isso nos leva ao tema central deste projeto:
“Regulamentações e Responsabilidade de Navios Autônomos - Uso e
Modificação das Atuais Convenções da IMO e/ou Criação de uma Nova
Convenção?” Uma das novas tecnologias e tendências no setor marítimo hoje
em dia é a de navios autônomos ou não tripulados. É evidente que as
convenções atuais nem sempre serão aplicáveis por razões óbvias, por
exemplo, com requisitos para a tripulação e ponte de comando. Elas funcionam
como um guia não apenas para a construção e o para corpo físico do navio,
mas também para seu funcionamento, concentrando-se em atividades
humanas, como navegação e outras tarefas relevantes.
v
Abstract of Undergraduate Project presented to POLI/UFRJ as a partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Naval Engineer.
Regulations and Liability for Autonomous Ships - Use
and Modification of Current IMO Conventions and/or
Creation of a New Convention
Caio Pessanha Marques
October/2018
Advisor: Marta Cecília Tapia Reyes
Graduation Course: Ocean and Marine Engineering
IMO Conventions are amended and improved during the years according
to the trending of the shipbuilding industry and its requirements. When new
technologies were created because of different and/or bigger demands, usually,
the shipbuilders used to focus on the previous regulations, but it proved to be a
wrong approach to new designs. It leads us to the central topic of this report:
“Regulations and Liability for Autonomous Ships – Use and Modification of
Current IMO Conventions and/or Creation of a New Convention?” One of the
new technologies and trends in the maritime industry nowadays is the
autonomous or unmanned ships. It is evident that the current conventions will
not always be applicable for obvious reasons, e.g. requirement for crew and
command bridge. They work as a guide not only for construction and the
physical body of the ship, but also for its operational, focusing in human
activities, such as navigation and other relevant tasks.
vi
SUMARY
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
2 Objective ......................................................................................................................... 5
3 Autonomous Ships ......................................................................................................... 6
4 Design Requirements ..................................................................................................... 8
4.1 Project Methodology ............................................................................................... 8
4.2 Evans’ Spiral ........................................................................................................... 8
4.3 Differences of Design ........................................................................................... 10
4.3.1 First General Arrangement Estimation .......................................................... 11
4.3.2 Machinery ...................................................................................................... 12
4.3.3 Form Coefficients and Resistance and Propulsion Issue ............................. 12
4.3.4 Cubic Capacity and Depth and Weights ....................................................... 14
4.3.5 Form Coefficients and Resistance and Propulsion ....................................... 15
4.3.6 Stability .......................................................................................................... 15
4.3.7 Final Spiral Scheme ...................................................................................... 15
4.4 Cost Benefit Analysis ............................................................................................ 16
4.4.1 Crew ............................................................................................................... 16
4.4.2 Green Energy ................................................................................................ 16
4.4.3 Security .......................................................................................................... 18
4.4.3.1 Redundancy ........................................................................................... 18
4.4.3.2 Cybersecurity and on sea security ......................................................... 19
4.5 Ongoing Design Projects ...................................................................................... 19
4.5.1 Sisu ................................................................................................................ 20
4.5.2 ReVolt and Yara Birkeland ............................................................................ 21
4.5.3 Smaller Ships Projects .................................................................................. 22
5 Regulations and Conventions ...................................................................................... 24
vii
5.1 Applicability of Current Conventions .................................................................... 24
5.1.1 STCW ............................................................................................................ 24
5.1.2 TONNAGE ..................................................................................................... 26
5.1.3 MARPOL ........................................................................................................ 27
5.1.3.1 Annex I, Annex II and Annex III ............................................................. 27
5.1.3.2 Annex VI ................................................................................................. 28
5.1.4 ISM ................................................................................................................. 28
5.1.5 SOLAS ........................................................................................................... 30
5.1.5.1 Chapter I ................................................................................................. 30
5.1.5.2 Chapter II-1 and Chapter II-2 ................................................................. 31
5.1.5.3 Chapter IV .............................................................................................. 32
5.1.5.4 Chapter V ............................................................................................... 32
5.1.5.5 Chapter VI and Chapter VII .................................................................... 33
5.1.5.6 Chapter XI-1 and Chapter XI-2 .............................................................. 34
5.1.6 COLREG ........................................................................................................ 35
5.1.6.1 Software for navigation with standard rules........................................... 36
5.2 Liability for accidents and/or damages ................................................................. 36
5.2.1 Employers’ liability ......................................................................................... 37
5.2.2 Objective liability ............................................................................................ 37
5.2.3 Liability for collisions ...................................................................................... 38
5.2.4 Liability with the use of standardized software for navigation ...................... 38
5.2.5 LLMC ............................................................................................................. 39
6 Resume ........................................................................................................................ 40
6.1 STCW .................................................................................................................... 40
6.2 TONNAGE ............................................................................................................ 41
viii
6.3 MARPOL ............................................................................................................... 41
6.4 ISM ........................................................................................................................ 42
6.5 SOLAS .................................................................................................................. 42
6.6 COLREG ............................................................................................................... 44
6.6.1 Software for navigation .................................................................................. 45
6.7 Liability .................................................................................................................. 45
6.7.1 LLMC ............................................................................................................. 45
6.8 Remote Control Centres ....................................................................................... 46
6.9 Cyber functioning and integrity ............................................................................. 47
7 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 47
8 Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 49
1
1 Introduction
The modern society in which we live today is shaped by the industrial revolution
and its effects in people’s lives. One of the most significant impacts took place in the ship
industry, when iron was gradually adopted in shipbuilding and the techniques used to
construct ships improved. With all these changes, the risk of being wrecked for Atlantic
shipping fell by one third, and of foundering by two thirds, reflecting improvements in
seaworthiness and navigation respectively (Kelly and Gráda, 2017). With that, according
to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the waterborne transportation system
turned into the biggest mean of commerce in the world, responsible for 80% of the world
cargo trades.
With all the importance in the society’s way of life, ships needed rules to improve
the security and safety of life at sea, so the conventions and regulations were made. It all
began during the 18th century, when tradesman needed to guarantee a compensation if
something happened during his journey, since sailing was a risky activity, then, to ensure
that, he would pay a portion of its profits to the “insurer”. The problem is that the
conditions of the ships weren’t as good as today, so it was likely that the tradesman would
never come back, and the insurer would have a big loss. That was when the insurer
began to demand some requirements to make it more likely that the ship would come
back safe. That was the beginning of the classification societies (Boisson, 1994). The first
necessity the ships had to fulfil was limitation of cargo by the freeboard load line. The
Plimsoll Disc (⦵) is used until today to exhibit the maximum draught the ship can sail with
according to the respective cargo for different waters, e.g. tropical fresh draught, winter
north artic draught.
2
Figure 1 - Lloyd's Register Plimsoll Disc
IMO Conventions are responsible to ensure technical standards for the
construction and operation of ships and offshore structures. These standards are meant
to guarantee the safety of life at sea and the security of the cargo and the environment.
They are created, modified and improved with amendments to establish requirements for
different types of ships. Classification societies are the entities that, based on these
conventions, stablishes requirements and rules for ships to follow so they can be in class
according to the designated society. With the “quality seal”, the ship can finally be well
accepted by insurance companies.
The most famous conventions nowadays are International Conventions for the
Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) (IMO, convention from 1974), International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) (IMO, convention from 1973) and
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers (SCTW) (IMO, convention from 1978). Another important convention for the
main topic of this report is The Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing
Collisions at Sea (COLREG) (IMO, convention from 1972). The following figure shows
3
some of the principal conventions and the signatories. The full table is available at IMO’s
website.
Table 1 - Principal conventions and some of the signatories
The conventions are amended and improved during the years according to the
trending of the shipbuilding industry and its requirements. When new technologies were
created because of different and/or bigger demands, usually, the shipbuilders used to
focus on the previous regulations, but it proved to be a wrong approach to new designs.
The creation and changes of the conventions were usually made when a major accident
happened, e.g. the first version of SOLAS was created in response to the Titanic disaster
and MARPOL’S Protocol of 1978 adopted because of a spate of tanker accidents in 1976-
1977 (IMO).
It leads us to the central topic of this report: “Regulations and Liability for
Autonomous Ships – Use and Modification of Current IMO Conventions or Creation of a
New Convention?” One of the new technologies and trends in the maritime industry
nowadays is the autonomous or unmanned ships. It is evident that the current
conventions will not always be applicable for obvious reasons, e.g. requirement for crew
and command bridge. They work as a guide not only for construction and the physical
body of the ship, but also for its operational, focusing in human activities, such as
navigation and other relevant tasks. It means that the majority of the rules and procedures
were designed for decisions in the chain of command.
4
However, “international maritime law has proved flexible enough to accommodate
technological developments. […] This assumption creates some peculiar issues for a
crewless ship.” (Carey, 2017). The recent experience with the accidents that preceded the
creation and/or modification of the conventions proved that it is necessary to have a deep
study in this matter before applying the current regulations in these new technologies.
5
2 Objective
The principal objective of the companies, regardless the sector, is the profit.
Nevertheless, it can’t overlap the safety and security of other people involved, as well as
the environment. Autonomous ships are a solution that must involve all these concerns in
a win-win situation. Human error is the key factor of accidents in marine industry (Carey,
2017) and unmanned vessels would practically eliminate this kind of matter, turning the
activities safer and more efficient at the same time. No “human factor” would significantly
decrease the accidents and damages to the environment, resulting in not only less losses,
but more profits (Kretschmann, Burmeister, Jahr, 2017). This new technology can be a
landmark in maritime industry history, as being a long-term investment. Nevertheless,
there is much to do before implementing this technology, such as regulate it, to make sure
it is really safe and liable.
Accidents with autonomous ships are still inexistent, since they are still only on
project, however, accidents such as the one with the autonomous car in Arizona (one
fatality) are a prediction of what can happen and must be avoided by new rules and
regulations.
The main objective of this report is to improve understanding of current
conventions and suggest new standards or guidance for new regulations for partial and
fully autonomous ships, according to Lloyd’s Register terminology (Table 2). For this, it is
important to stablish what is an unmanned ship and what is the difference between the
levels of autonomy. After that, an understanding of the modifications of the design will
give the ideas of what would change in ship’s body, e.g. accommodations, hull, engine
room. With this background, it is possible to analyse in a deeper way the effects on ships
operations and therefore in its regulations, legislations and liability.
According to Erick Tvedt, special adviser at the DMA (Danish Maritime Authority,
“If you are thinking of a totally autonomous, fully unmanned ship going from one container
terminal to another, across the world, then we are far off.” (Kingsland, 2018). This is why
this report is naturally subjective. The attempt to make it more objective may be useful for
further studies to make the implementation of this new technology more tangible.
6
3 Autonomous Ships
Usually, the society relates unmanned systems and autonomous systems as the
same thing. Nevertheless, it is important to stablish the difference between them, since
the operational of these types of ship differ from each other.
The National Institute of Standards and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology define unmanned systems basically as a system with no human operator
aboard the principal components. On the other hand, autonomous systems can be
defined as a system’s or sub-system’s ability of acting with no outer interference
according to expected situations, which may vary with the level of autonomy.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology defines autonomy as the
ability of integrated sensing, perceiving, analysing, communicating, planning, decision-
making, and acting, to achieve its goals as assigned by its human operator(s) through
designed human-machine interface (HMI). This means that unmanned systems are a
“sub-category” of autonomous systems (Utne, Sørensen and Schjølberg, 2017).
Autonomous ships can then be divided in two groups: partially autonomous ships
and fully-autonomous ships. Partially or semi-autonomous ships still require human
interaction for different activities, nevertheless, these interventions are considerably
reduced, since the ships can perform multiple tasks by themselves. On the other hand,
fully-autonomous ships are completely unleashed from human intervention, being able to
accomplish the original objective, e.g. going from port A to port B, following their own
decisions (Norris, 2013).
It is important to remember that to reach the fully-autonomous level, it is necessary
to walk through the stages of autonomy until the partially-autonomous and finally the fully-
autonomous level (Kongsberg, 2017). This kind of approach is already implemented in
United States with Uber and Google cars.
Table 2 - Terminology related to automatic steering, remote operation, remote monitoring
and autonomy (Lloyd’s Register, 2016)
7
Instruments that inform the ship’s position, distance to other ships, their course,
speed, trajectory, status of the systems of the vessel and even decision-support in
guidance for the navigation officer about evasive action are already used for commercial
ships. Larger vessels usually have autopilot to keep the ship on its predefined track,
however, manual control of the rudder and main engine is necessary for manoeuvring in
some places, e.g. ports, shoal and sheltered waters. (Blanke and Bang, 2016).
It is also important to mention that what makes the autonomy is not the difficulty of
reaching it, but the ability acquired in performing the designated activity in an independent
way. It means that different ships for different purposes may have the same level of
autonomy, but the difficulty to reach that varies with its operability and the risk involved
due to cargo or environmental potential risk, e.g. a large container vessel or LNG carrier
needs a bigger predictability when compared to a small ferry (Jokioinen, 2016).
8
4 Design Requirements
It is important to establish very well the idea of the design in that case. Since the
industry is dealing with a new concept, with different requirements according to the
different ways of operating of the ship, it is indispensable that the characteristics of the
new design are well defined. More than that, to reach to objective of this thesis, it is
important to know what implications these differences will have in maritime regulations
and conventions. Because of that, in this chapter, ideas of the new design will be
presented, and solutions will be suggested.
4.1 Project Methodology
“Usually, the development of a conceptual solution in engineering is treated as a
receipt that leads to the final objective, which represents a prescriptive method, whose
effectiveness is granted by the experience of the “owner of the method”, guaranteed by
the well succeeded historic of its professional practice” (Martins Filho, 2002). Analysing
this sentence, it is possible to state that the solution of a regular problem in engineering is
usually solved with a method developed previously by someone with sufficient experience
in the field, able to create a methodology that can figure out any problem from that same
nature. More specifically, Protásio Dutra Martins Filho, in his article “Engineering Project:
an intellectual game between free creation and disciplined action”, treats about the nature
of the process of the project, focusing on new designs of ships.
Nevertheless, he says that there are challenges in which the objective is unique or
new and when it happens, a rational approach needs to be methodically steered to
guarantee consistency of the iterative process of the creation of this new objective in
order to converge the solution to the best possible configuration. These challenges cover
the main topic of this chapter: Design Requirements of Autonomous Ships. Since
autonomous ships are a trend of the maritime industry and are still in development, the
challenge of applying this new technology begins with the design.
Lloyd’s Register (February 2017) and DNV-GL (September 2018) already
developed classes guidelines for designing autonomous ships compared to the current
guidelines over conventional ships.
4.2 Evans’ Spiral
9
According to Evans, a spiral would cover all the aspects of the project through
iterative process, in a way that the designer could see the project as a whole in an
organized view. That is the principal reason this methodology was chosen to analyse the
differences between the design of unmanned ships and manned ships. This rational
approach of the global process was the first propose of a method to a new design of a
ship, introducing the concept of the spiral (Evans, 1959).
Figure 2 - Ship Design Spiral (Evans, 1959)
As the spiral shows, the first thing to be estimated is the general arrangement. It is
possible to estimate it with the requirements and with a database from similar ships. After
that, the machinery can be estimated, and then the displacement and trim and the
principal dimensions. Now, it is possible to estimate form coefficients and to calculate the
block coefficient, for example, even if it is only based in estimations. The next four steps
of the spiral (sectional area and waterline characteristics, floodable length, stability,
freeboard) are not included in the first round of estimations and calculations. After the
form coefficients estimations, it is time to estimate the resistance and the propulsion, skip
the lines and Bojean curves, estimate the cubic capacity and depth, skip the structural
10
design and finally end the first round by estimating the weights of the ship, e.g. steel
weight, machinery weight, outfit weight and deadweight. After that, the estimations and
calculations of the characteristics of the ship can be refined. Now, for example, to make a
better estimation of the general arrangement, the first estimation of the principal
dimensions is available.
4.3 Differences of Design
Considering that a design for an unmanned ship has the same requirements of a
manned ship (same limitations of dimensions), the principal differences will be described
in the same order of Evans Spiral. It is important to mention that the speed of the ship
may vary, so the required speed wouldn’t be necessarily the same for both ships. Since
unmanned ships have no crew, it is possible that economic techniques are applied, such
as Slow Steaming, reduction of 30% of speed and consequently 50% reduction in fuel
consumption (Porathe, Prison and Man, 2014).
Another way to compare the design of these ships is through the deadweight.
Since it is expected that the unmanned ships are going to have more cargo space and
that its lightship weights are going to be lighter, it is possible to say that, for the same
deadweight, the unmanned ship would be smaller than manned ships. An important
addendum is the concern about the weight gained because of the possible redundancy
needs. However, as discussed further in this thesis, machinery weight for autonomous
ships tend to be individually lighter and smaller, since possible rules may require hybrid or
electrical engines. It means that not even the redundancy would be able to compensate
the loss of machinery weight and occupied space.
Therefore, it would be smarter to compare this new design of autonomous ship
with manned ships with the same dimensions after stablishing the deadweight and doing
a second round on the spiral. The first round would expose overrated dimensions and the
second would estimate more adequate ones. In other words, for the matter of comparison
between the design of regular manned ship and the design of an unmanned ship, it was
assumed that the main dimensions would be the same for both cases. In the case
deadweight is the reference, after the second round, the methodology would be the same
as the one with the same estimated dimensions.
11
4.3.1 First General Arrangement Estimation
The first analysed characteristic is the general arrangement. Here, since it is the
first estimation of all and that the database is practically inexistent, the general
arrangement will depend a lot on studies and the expertise of the designer. Some
characteristics of the general arrangement can be estimated, and the biggest difference is
probably the absence of accommodations, allowing the design to have more cargo space.
Another difference seen in some predictions from MUNIN Project and AAWA
Project is the size and shape of the navigating bridge. Some people would think it is
nonsense to have a navigating bridge in an unmanned ship, since there is no crew, but
according to the rules of the ports that the ship may berth, it may be necessary to request
for a local ship maneuverer to berth and unberth, so it would indispensable to have the
navigating bridge where this professional can perform the manoeuvring. The possible
requirements for specifications of this issue will be more detailed through the thesis.
Figure 3 - Example of navigating bridge for unmanned ships. AAWA Position Paper ©
Rolls-Royce
On the other hand, the available technology allows ships to manoeuvre, berth and
unberth with Dynamic Positioning Systems. These systems are able to maintain vessels
positions according to the GPS, with very strict deviation. They are widely used in
platforms in order to fasten its position to keep the risers in a non-stressing situation and
other procedures. It is expected that with time, the expertise and therefore the acceptance
of ports regarding this technology will increase and autonomous ships will be able to
manoeuvre with, for example, remote control centres in the ports of activity where the port
maneuverer can perform it, or even without this mandatory support and remote control
centres in ports.
12
4.3.2 Machinery
The technology of these ships is, for sure, the most advanced of the world.
Because of that, it is expected that the machinery of these ships is going to be more
reliable and lasting. Therefore, it is expected that autonomous ships would have to apply
more redundancies than usual on its systems, to avoid further complications in the middle
of the voyage (MUNIN, 2016). The obvious disadvantage is that the ship would lose cargo
space.
Since there will be no crew, some requirements for specific ships wouldn’t make
sense, e.g. potable water generator. However, since it is an autonomous ship, a complex
information system has to be considered to send the necessary updates and, in extreme
cases, to receive orders from a remote control centre (Blanke, Henriques and Bang,
2016). Sensors for navigation should be included in this system.
Beyond that, there is a governmental and popular pressure for clean energy, not
only for autonomous ships, but for the whole global industry. European Union has
promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% to 2050 (European Commission,
2012). Hence, it is expected that these new ships are going to be equipped with hybrid or
electric engines, such as DNV-GL project ReVolt. More than being clean, these types of
engine have reduced operating costs, since the number of rotating parts is significantly
decreased (Adams, 2014), are smaller and lighter.
4.3.3 Form Coefficients and Resistance and Propulsion Issue
With the idea that the compared ships would have the same dimension and that
the unmanned ship wouldn’t have accommodations and therefore the superstructure will
be drastically reduced (except for the bridge) or even eliminated, it is possible to say the
centre of mass of the unmanned ship will tend to move forward. Because of that, the ship
would get an undesirable trim, and therefore, a new shape of the hull should take place, in
order to move the centre of buoyancy the same way. It means that the bow would have to
be larger than usual and/or the stern would have to be smaller, and this modification
implies big differences in the resistance (Larsson and Raven, 2010).
13
Figure 4 - FPSO P-67 Stern Design
An example of a new difference in the distribution of weights is the design of new
FPSO’s, like the platform P-67. These new ships have their stern design in with a different
shape exactly because of the new positioning of the centre of mass. Since the new design
has no propulsion, the centre of mass moves forward and so the stern has a shape that
focus on decreasing the buoyancy in that area to compensate it.
14
Figure 5 - Hull pressure distribution and wave pattern for a manned tanker in deep water
For the first round on the spiral, it is most probable that the estimation obtained for
the form coefficients wouldn’t be so satisfying, since it would be hard to figure out how
much the centre of buoyancy would go forward to match with the new centre of mass of
the ship. The difference than relies on the distribution of the weight, and that’s why a
change in the order of the spiral could result in better and faster estimations. Since there
is no sufficient database for autonomous ships, at least for the first round it would be
appropriate to separate and estimate the Cubic Capacity before the form coefficients, so it
is possible to have the first prediction of distribution of the weights, except for the steel
(since we still don’t have the form coefficients). That way, the first estimation of the shape
of the hull would be more reliable.
4.3.4 Cubic Capacity and Depth and Weights
Since autonomous ships have no accommodations, there is a huge difference in
the distribution of steel weight and space inside the ship. For now, because the estimation
of cubic capacity is the priority, this distribution of space estimated in the general
arrangement will be determinant.
Analysing the general arrangement, it is possible to predict that there will be a
bigger cargo space, since there will be no structures for crew. This new distribution will
15
modify the final centre of mass of the ship, and consequently its equilibrium. That way, it
is possible now to estimate the centre of mass of the cargo and then analyse the form
coefficients and resistance and propulsion.
4.3.5 Form Coefficients and Resistance and Propulsion
With the centre of mass of the cargo (deadweight) and the centre of mass of
machinery, the only centre of mass missing is from the steel weight. To calculate it, it is
necessary to equalize the centre of mass of the ship (sum of the previous centre of mass)
and the centre of buoyancy coordinates.
Using computer programs to make first iterations to match the centre of buoyancy
and the centre of mass (by varying the form of the hull and consequently the steel weight
value and coordinates of centre of mass), it is possible to reach a satisfying form of the
hull for the first round, thus the form coefficients are now known.
4.3.6 Stability
The last part with a possible significant difference is the stability. Since the ships
covered on the conventions have crew, there are requirements for roll period to avoid
discomfort, e.g. seasickness, safety and security (Gomes, 1973). Nevertheless, since
autonomous ships are not designed for a crew, it is likely to say that these limits and
requirements for roll should be redefined. A suggestion for this is analyse the cargo and
machinery integrity, therefore, the rules for stability should rely mostly on three things:
cargo, machinery and material.
4.3.7 Final Spiral Scheme
It is important to remember that the other aspects of the ship will vary according to
the design and the designer. However, they won’t be determinant for the topic of the
thesis. The analysed differences here are the differences that may conflict with the current
conventions.
Since the current database is not sufficient, another scheme, probably the same
as used today, should take place later when the amount of autonomous ships will be
enough to sustain a satisfying database.
16
4.4 Cost Benefit Analysis
The cost benefit, according to some project methodologies, is analysed during the
creation of the new design (e.g. Benford project methodology) (Sanglard, 1995).
Nevertheless, this analysis is done in another part of this thesis because it leaves other
aspects that need to be studied more deeply. In order to expose the principal factors that
can affect the cost of an autonomous ship, a decomposition in four major subjects is
adopted.
4.4.1 Crew
The first thing that comes to mind is the wage. Since there is no crew, it is likely to
assume that the costs with wage will decrease significantly. A study about the economic
benefit of unmanned ships compares the costs of an autonomous ship and a conventional
bulk carrier and shows that the cost, direct and indirect, related to the crew are 45% of the
operational costs of the vessel per year (Kretschmann, Burmeister, Jahn, 2017).
Human factor is another important and probably the most debated topic about this
matter. Statistics point human factor as responsible for 62% of accidents with European
Union registered ships from 2011 to 2016 (EMSA, 2016). So, it is understandable that the
decreasing the human factor allows ships to be safer. Even being autonomous ships,
specialized personnel are going to watch over the vessels through remote control centres,
so the human factor will always be there, nevertheless, the objective is that their action is
not needed. More than that, in terms of fatal accidents, it is 5 to 16 times more dangerous
to work on deck than on jobs ashore (Primorac & Parunov, 2016; Roberts et al., 2014).
Until now, the aspects of having no crew are beneficial, however, to apply it, it is
necessary to study the interpretations of the conventions over this, moreover, they were
made for manned ships, so some aspects should be revised (e.g. net tonnage calculation,
training convention).
4.4.2 Green Energy
The autonomous ships are expected to be the most technological ships ever built.
Therefore, it is expected that their machinery is going to be so futuristic as the ship can
be. In other words, it is expected that the engine, pumps and other equipment are going
to be more reliable, lasting, efficient, smarter and cleaner. It is important to mention that
17
since there will be no crew, some requirements for specific ships wouldn’t make sense,
e.g. potable water generator. DNV-GL’s ReVolt Project is a good example of what is
expected, but yet to be improved for larger ranges:
“Instead of using diesel fuel, “ReVolt” is powered by a 3000 kWh battery. This
reduces operating costs by minimizing the number of high maintenance parts such as
rotational components. The vessel has a range of 100 nautical miles, before the battery
needs to be charged. If the energy required for that is harnessed from renewable sources,
this would eliminate carbon dioxide emissions.” (Adams, 2014)
There is a governmental and popular pressure for clean energy, not only for
autonomous ships, but for the whole global industry. European Union has promised to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% to 2050 (European Commission, 2012).
Because unmanned ships have no crew, it is possible that economic techniques are
applied, such as Slow Steaming, reduction of 30% of speed and consequently 50%
reduction in fuel consumption (Porathe, Prison and Man, 2014). This reduction happens
because the resistance suffered by the hull decreases (Larsson and Raven, 2010), so,
when analysing the same phenomenon at the ships with electric engines, the
consumption would decrease in a similar way.
Nevertheless, according to studies over stochastic processes, applying this
technique would result in the necessity for more ships to supply the same demand
(Atuncar, 2011). With this concern, calculations madden for container shipping show that
slow steaming has the potential of reducing consumption by around 11% (Cariou, 2011).
The reduction calculated by Cariou is close to the 15% reduction by 2018 proposed by the
International Maritime Organization’s Marine Environment Protection Committee in 2009
(Maritime Environment Committee, 2009).
Another important factor is that since it is a new technology, it is expected to
increase considerably the cost of the ship. Because of that, shipbuilders would have to
build ships that last more than the ships now-a-days. The new IACS Common Structure
Rules states that the vessel should conform to the 25-year design life set by the IMO Goal
Based Standards (Gratsos and Zachariadis, 2009).
It means that new conventions and regulations would have to consider the
operability of the ship up to 40 years from now, for example. Therefore, the impact these
ships will cause over the environment in the future have to be measured in order to create
18
requirements for clean energy, which means that certain kind of engine commonly used
may be prohibited.
4.4.3 Security
The security involving autonomous ships covers the same principles of manned
ships, however, it is known that regarding the lack of crew, some extra procedures and
cares should take place in order to make the ship more reliable, resilient and safer. More
than that, it is important to also stay close to specific requirements, such as for cyber
integrity and security.
4.4.3.1 Redundancy
The technology of autonomous ships is, for sure, the most advanced maritime
technology of the world. Because of that, it is expected that the machinery of these ships
is going to be more reliable and lasting. In fact, it is not only expected, but needed too.
Therefore, autonomous ships would have to apply more redundancies than usual on its
systems, to avoid further complications in the middle of the voyage (MUNIN, 2016). The
obvious disadvantage is that the ship would lose cargo space.
The need for reliability comes from the fact that there will be no crew to do the
daily tasks commonly done inside the ship. Cleaning of main sectors of the vessel would
be affected, resulting in possible contamination of fluids, e.g. lubricants, or causing
malfunction of exhaust systems. Thus, an adaptation or a future convention would have to
take care to avoid this kind of fault, with a proper isolation of the possible areas of risk, but
never leaving aside the refrigeration of the machinery, and of course its inspection.
However, because of this isolation, since it is a new technology, it is possible that this new
environment needs to be studied for the entrance of survey and repair staff, so the
ventilation and purification of the sector can be properly done.
Since there will be no crew, some requirements for specific ships wouldn’t make
sense, e.g. potable water generator. However, since it is an autonomous ship, a complex
information system has to be considered to send the necessary updates and, in extreme
cases, to receive orders from a remote control centre. Sensors for navigation should be
included in this system. So, more than just the engine and pumps, the connection
systems and sensorial machinery would have to be in a safe place of the ship and have
redundancy too.
19
In the case of completely losing of one of the systems, the ship would have to
assume an emergency status in which it runs a safe procedure, e.g. full stop (Blanke,
Henriques and Bang, 2016). The remote control centre would take the necessary
measures in order the solve the problem as soon as possible, which could even include
sending a team to the ship to recover its well-functioning.
4.4.3.2 Cybersecurity and on sea security
Communication is one of the fields with the biggest technology developments in
the world. The adoption of this technology for the industry made it possible to develop the
autonomous ships studies, but unfortunately, with the benefits, it brought some
counterparts. One of the biggest threats of the communication system is the cyberattacks,
whatever the reason for the assault. These invasions may happen for hijacking of the ship
and its cargo, intentional collision, vandalism and even terrorism.
Because of that, methods are applied to prevent the systems against intrusions,
such as data classification, data encryption, user identification, authentication and
authorisation. Nevertheless, since it is a dynamic environment, the threat is always
updated and so must be the security, and that’s why it is a concern during IMO’s
committee, being one of the debated topics with specialists and journals (Jalonen,
Tuominen and Wahlström, 2016).
Another concern is the directly physic attack, such as piracy and illegal exploit of
the ship, e.g. illegal transport of goods and/or humans. However, since autonomous ships
don’t need openings for crew, from the design, even if the intruder is on board, it is harder
to get inside the ship. For that matter, with all the needed sensor on board, it is easier to
identify and locate the individual, and communicate the port of destiny, so the responsible
at the destination can take the necessary measures to avoid the entrance of the individual
at the port and, if appropriate, alert the authorities so that they can take legal action on
this event.
4.5 Ongoing Design Projects
As mentioned before, projects involving fully autonomous cargo ships that sail
through the whole world is a distant reality. However, some interesting projects are
conducted in the field and bringing the future closer. The following projects are about
autonomous ships and remotely controlled ships, with diesel, hybrid and electric engines.
20
They are great examples of what to expect of this new technology and how they are going
to be applied in the beginning.
Two major initiatives are conducted in order the study the legal, technological and
economic feasibility of autonomous ships and have support of different governments. The
first one is the Advanced Autonomous Waterborne Applications (AAWA), that has the
support of the Finnish (Technical Research Centre of Finland) and Turkish (University of
Turku) governments, and of the companies Rolls-Royce, NAPA, DNV GL, Deltamarin and
Inmarsat. The second one is the Maritime Unmanned Navigation Through Intelligence in
Networks (MUNIN), in an European sphere, counts with studies conducted in Germany
(Horchschule Wismar), Ireland (University College Cork) and Sweden (Chalmers
Technical University) and has a partnership with the companies MARINTEK, MarineSoft,
Aptomar, Fraunhofer CML and Marorka
For the last, it is important to remember that other ongoing projects are already a
reality and are already being used in maritime industry. However, since the autonomous
vessels currently used are smaller than 24 meters, some IMO Conventions do not apply,
which means that they are not part of the scope of this thesis. These smaller vessels are
already regulated by a Code of Practice, developed by companies associated to Maritime
UK.
4.5.1 Sisu
In partnership with the global towage operator Svitzer, Rolls-Royce conducted the
world’s first remotely operated commercial vessel in Copenhagen harbour. Sviter
Hermond is a 28 meters long tug and powered by two Rolls-Royce diesel engines. It was
also equipped with Rolls-Royce Dynamic Positioning System, key link to the remote
controlled system. Lloyd’s Register support was essential to overcome the legal
challenges and perform the testing and manoeuvrings satisfactorily (Rolls-Royce, 2017).
21
Figure 6 - Remote control centre for Svitzer Hermod operation
4.5.2 ReVolt and Yara Birkeland
If the three projects presented here could be placed in a scale of autonomy and
futurism, where the first one is the most autonomous and futurist, ReVolt and Yara would
be on the top.
One of the biggest classification societies of the world, DNV-GL (Det Norske
Veritas – Germanischer Lloyd), is behind Re-Volt Project, which is a project of a fully
autonomous ship. As debated in Chapter 4, section 3, subsection 2 and Chapter 4,
section 4, subsection 2, its engines are also environmentally oriented, powering the ship
with a 3000 kWh battery. (Adams, 2014).
DNV-GL is also involved in Yara Birkeland project, regarding the rules and
regulations of the new ship. Yara and Kongsberg entered in partnership to build the
world’s first autonomous and zero emission ship. It is expected that Yara Birkeland will
start operating in 2019 as a manned vessel, gradually changing to remote control and
finally to fully autonomous ship in 2020. Its operation will be conducted in southern
Norway (Kongsberg, 2017).
22
Figure 7 - Yara Birkeland model in tower tank test
Associated with Yara Birkeland project, a project to automatize the port activities in
Porsgruun. Kalmar is the company responsible for the technology to load and offload,
autonomous crane, charging facilities, etc. The implementation is going to be gradual, as
the operation of the vessel (Kalmar, 2017).
4.5.3 Smaller Ships Projects
As we can see further in this thesis, smaller autonomous vessels (called here
autonomous surface vehicles, ASVs) could be used for repair and inspections specially
under water for autonomous vessels. These ASVs have many functions and are already
in use, making it easier to be applied for autonomous ships.
23
Figure 9 - ASV Global Autonomous vessels
The current IMO Conventions analysed in this thesis are only applicable for
vessels over than 24 meters long and with a GT value bigger than 100 tons. Therefore,
these smaller ships are not taken into consideration in the analysis of the applicability of
the current IMO Conventions. This classification is studied in the Code of Practice and in
the Code of Conduct, published by the Society of Maritime Industries on behalf of
Maritime UK.
Table 3 - Classes of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships
24
5 Regulations and Conventions
The most famous IMO conventions nowadays are International Conventions for
the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) (IMO, convention from 1974), International Convention
for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) (IMO, convention from 1973) and
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers (SCTW) (IMO, convention from 1978). Another important convention for the
main topic of this report is The Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing
Collisions at Sea (COLREG) (IMO, convention from 1972). These conventions aim to
stablish standards meant to guarantee the safety of life at sea and the security of the
cargo and the environment. They are created, modified and improved with amendments
during IMO’s conventions to guarantee the adequate requirements for different types of
ships.
5.1 Applicability of Current Conventions
The amendments and improvements of the conventions occur according to the
trending of the shipbuilding industry and its requirements. When new technologies were
created because of different and/or bigger demands, usually, the shipbuilders used to
focus on the previous regulations, but it proved to be a wrong approach to new designs.
The creation and changes of the conventions were usually made when a major accident
happened, e.g. the first version of SOLAS was created in response to the Titanic disaster
and MARPOL’S Protocol of 1978 adopted because of a spate of tanker accidents in 1976-
1977 (IMO).
In order to prevent future accidents with unmanned ships, studies about the
applicability and modification of the conventions are made upon the requirements that
may be inapplicable or that may be inconclusive because of the absence of crew and
because of the navigability.
5.1.1 STCW
The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers was created in order to mitigate the difference between the
trainings by individual governments, usually with no mention to other countries practices.
Thus, STCW prescribes minimum standards relating to training, certification and
watchkeeping for seafarers which countries are obliged to meet or exceed. The STCW
25
Code is separated in two parts: Part A (mandatory, technical requirements) and Part B
(recommendations for achieving Part A requirements). This convention is constantly
updated, and a major change was the requirement for the Parties to the Convention to
provide detailed information about administrative measures taken to ensure compliance
with the convention. It was the first time IMO acted over compliance and implementation,
usually flag States and port State control responsibilities (IMO).
Technically, STCW does not apply to people that are not on board. According to
its Article III, the convention applies “to seafarers serving on board seagoing ships”
(Jalonen, Tuominen and Wahlström, 2016). Nevertheless, it is clear that a satisfying and
standardised training will have to be conducted for the responsible of the ship, regardless
of the level of autonomy of the ship. It means that even if the ship is fully autonomous, the
responsible for monitoring the ship would have to be capable of taking the necessary
measures in case of emergency. Because of this, at first, according to AAWA (Advanced
Autonomous Waterborne Applications Initiative), the biggest concern about the safety of
the operation of a fully or partially autonomous ship would rely on watchkeeping.
The watchkeeping requirements stablish that “a safe continuous watch or watches
appropriate to the prevailing and conditions are maintained on all seagoing ships at all
times”, and, according to Regulation VIII/2(2)(2), “officers in charge of the navigational
watch are responsible for navigating the ship safely during their periods of duty, when
they shall be physically present on the navigating bridge or in a directly associated
location such as the chartroom or bridge control room at all times”. In other words,
considering that a remote control centre is a location directly associated to the navigation
bridge, which makes sense, unmanned ships would be in accordance with these
requirements, which leaves the issue related only to the training. The same is valid for
other areas of the ship, e.g. engine room. Hence, the training for watchkeeping and
emergency situations for unmanned ships should be analysed deeply for possible
amendments of STCW Code.
Watchkeeping requirements are covered in Part A. These requirements include
the condition for watchkeeping, lookout, bridge, engine room and watches. Taking into
account that the monitoring would be done from a remote control centre, it is possible to
say that environment in which the operator is watchkeeping is far more comfortable and
safe than the ship. Under the regulations over work hours and resting hours, these factors
decrease significantly the fatigue and consequently the human errors. However, the
26
systems for controlling and monitoring tend to be far more complex too. It means that the
watchkeeper should be qualified, e.g. graduated in engineering and with experience in the
field, and trained accordingly to the available equipment, e.g. ship-handling and
manoeuvring simulator.
Nevertheless, according to Article IX (1), “The Convention shall not prevent an
Administration from retaining or adopting other educational and training arrangements”,
which grants the different simulators and training routines can be adopted by different
companies. It means that the simulator requirements should be standardized too,
therefore, the training would comply with possible requirements for operations with
autonomous ships.
Regarding the emergency cases, possible new requirements would act more like a
provisional behaviour, including stronger sensors for monitoring any possible deviation as
soon as possible, and remotely controlled systems with proper equipment to reverse that
deviation in any operation. Another possible requirement would be a mandatory crew
promptly ready for emergencies in strategic spots and responsible for a limited fleet.
5.1.2 TONNAGE
The International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of ships was introduced
in 1969 with the objective of creating a universal tonnage measurement system and
entered into force in 1982. The calculations for Gross Tonnage and Net Tonnage had to
be universalised because they are used to calculate port dues (IMO).
According to IMO, Gross tonnage forms the basis for manning regulations, safety
rules and registration fees. It is a function of the moulded volume of all enclosed spaces
of the ship and follows the equation:
𝐺𝑇 = 𝑉 ∗ (0.2 + 0.02 ∗ log10 𝑉)
According to the previous analysis of this thesis, it is possible to assume that
unmanned ships moulded volume is going to be lower than manned ships moulded
volume when designed for the same cargo weight. Hence, the gross tonnage of
unmanned ships tends to be smaller than the gross tonnage of manned ships. Beyond
that, the manning regulations and safety rules related to the gross tonnage would be
27
applicable only in specific cases that should be featured for unmanned ships, e.g.
manoeuvring in ports.
However, there is a complication when comparing the calculation of net tonnages
of unmanned and manned ships. Since the net tonnage is a function of the number of
passengers (𝑁1 +𝑁2), it may cause irregularities when calculating the value for
unmanned ships. The following formula shows that a term of the equation would be zero,
and with a smaller value for net tonnage, the requirement that the net tonnage shall not
be taken less than 30 per cent of the gross tonnage may be not satisfied.
𝑁𝑇 = 𝐾2𝑉𝑐4𝑑2 +𝐾3(𝑁1 + 𝑁2)
It is not possible in this thesis to suggest another way to calculate the net tonnage
for unmanned ships, nevertheless, it is clear that a new way of calculating it should be
introduced in a compatible way with the existing one, in order to keep the same basis for
port dues.
5.1.3 MARPOL
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)
is the most important convention related to the prevention and mitigation of pollution of
the marine environment by operational and accidental causes by ships.
According to IMO, MARPOL was adopted in 1973, but only after a spate of tanker
accidents between 1976 and 1977 the convention entered into force, in 1983, after the
fusion of the convention itself with 1978 MARPOL Protocol. With the concerns about the
environment, the convention is updated by amendments through the years. In 1997, the
Annex VI was added and entered into force in 2005 (IMO).
Annexes IV and V are not applicable for unmanned ships issues.
5.1.3.1 Annex I, Annex II and Annex III
The Annexes I, II and III cover the Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by
Oil, Regulations for the Control of Pollution by Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk and
Prevention of Pollution by Harmful Substances Carried by Sea in Packaged Form,
respectively. The cited requirements in these parts of the convention are related to the
28
physical integrity of the cargo, e.g. double hulls for oil tankers, and the pollution from
operational measures as well as from accidental discharges (IMO).
When analysing the differences unmanned ships would have in its design, there
are no expected difference about the physical integrity of the cargo. Beyond that, as
discussed before, the unmanned vessels are expected to be more precise and efficient
than manned ships in operational matters, so the pollution from operational measures
should be even minimised.
The biggest concern would rely on the accidental discharges. The Convention
aims not only to prevent, but to mitigate the pollution too, including when there is a spill of
cargo. When and accident occurs, measures predicted in ‘shipboard oil pollution
emergency plan’ (SOPEP) are taken, however, in many cases, they assume that the crew
will perform the necessary steps to contain the pollution (Ringbom, Collin and Viljanen,
2016). Because of this, adaptations for unmanned ships should be studied.
Similar to STCW Code, three measurements are suggested. The first two
measurements would act more like a provisional behaviour, including stronger sensors for
monitoring any possible leaking as soon as possible, and autonomous systems for
containing the pollution, e.g. ASVs able to position oil spill balloons. The third would be a
mandatory crew promptly ready for emergencies in strategic spots and responsible for a
limited fleet.
5.1.3.2 Annex VI
The Annex VI is related to the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships (IMO). At first,
unmanned and manned ships wouldn’t differ inside this part, however, as pointed in
Chapter 4, section 4.3, subsection 4.3.2, it is likely that unmanned ships are going to last
more than manned ships. Because of that, it is expected that the regulations that cover
the pollution related to the machinery, in this case air pollution, are going to be most
restricted than the regulations into force today.
5.1.4 ISM
The next convention addressed in this report is the International Safety
Management (ISM) Code and since it is present in some chapters of the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), mainly at Chapter IX, it is important to
have a discussion over the topic covered in and this Code.
29
ISM Code is responsible for stablishing standards for the safety management and
operation of ships and for pollution prevention. Following another Conventions, it is
divided in two parts, Part A and Part B. The first covers the Implementation and the
second the Certification and Verification, however, Part B and chapters 10, 11 and 12 of
Part A are easily applicable for unmanned ships with the idea of digital certificates, so the
discussion on this section will be focused on the remaining chapters of Part A.
Part A includes the designation of a person to have direct access to the highest
level of management and the master’s responsibilities and authority, such as provisions
for emergencies and documentation by the Company. Chapter 4 on Part A says that a
person or persons ashore should be designated for maintaining a link between the crew
(master) and the highest level of management of the company. However, even saying the
exactly master of the ship, it doesn’t stablish that this person has to be on board of the
ship, except for, if necessary, present the pertinent documents for verification, which
would be bypassed by digital certificates.
DNV-GL is now implementing digital certificates in its classified ships. This kind of
certificate does more than simply turn the verification in a paperless procedure, it
decreases the bureaucracy and then the fatigue of those who work in the remote control
centre (Arslan et al., 2014). Even though it is a great head start, there is a long way to go.
Currently, these digital certificates still need a master (representant) to deliver it to the
port authority.
Chapter 6 is named Resources and Personnel and requires that the Company
should ensure that each ship is appropriately manned with qualified seafarers capable of
maintaining safe operation on board. Chapter 8 and 9 cover the emergency requirements,
regulating over emergency preparedness and reports and analysis of non-conformities,
accidents and hazardous occurrences.
These chapters are also in theory easily suitable for unmanned ships. Since
“appropriately manned” does not stablish objectively a precise minimum number of
seafarers, Chapter 6 adaptation would follow the same principles as mentioned for STCW
(Chapter 5, section 1, subsection 1), but this time focused on the company’s duties.
Chapters 8 and 9 would have the same solution as mentioned before for STCW in this
report (Chapter 5, section 1, subsection 1), regarding stronger sensors for monitoring any
possible deviation as soon as possible, remotely controlled systems with proper
30
equipment to reverse that deviation in any operation and a mandatory crew promptly
ready for emergencies in strategic spots and responsible for a limited fleet.
5.1.5 SOLAS
In response to the Titanic disaster, the International Convention for the Safety of
Life at Sea (SOLAS) was created in 1914 and is regarded today as the most important of
all international conventions about the safety of merchant ships.
The requirements provided for by SOLAS aim to stablish minimum standards for
the construction, equipment and operation of ships, compatible with their safety. The
application though, is done by the Flag States over the ships under their own flags, and
other Contracting Governments are allowed to verify the compliance of ships entering
their ports if they suspect over the (Port State Control procedure) (IMO).
Nevertheless, these minimum standards are meant for preserving life at sea and
since unmanned ships have no crew, some requirements may be inappropriate, e.g.
minimum roll period. Beyond that, the surveillance and verifications like Port State Control
requirements demand a responsible on board. This kind of incompatibility will be
discussed, and solutions will be suggested.
A financial discussion could be deeply driven regarding the risk of unmanned ships
in another thesis, however, SOLAS also treats about autonomous ships navigability in
ports. Since it is a new technology, the thought of increasing fees for receiving unmanned
ships in ports seems consistent, however, studies suggest that the risk of unmanned
ships is far lower than of manned ships (Utne, Sørensen and Schjølberg, 2017).
Chapters III is not applicable for unmanned ships and Chapters X, XII, XIII and XIV
are not applicable in this report.
Since Chapter IX is taken as the enforcement of ISM Code, it is discussed during
the Code study, in Chapter 5, section 1, subsection 4 of the present report.
5.1.5.1 Chapter I
Chapter I of SOLAS is named General provisions and treats about Surveys and
certificates (Part B). Two points in this chapter can be considered inconclusive for
31
unmanned ships not because of its operability, but because of its natural differences
compared to regular ships.
The first topic to be discussed about this chapter is the ability and reach of the
surveyor regarding the new technologies. It is expected that unmanned ships will have the
most technologic and complexes systems of maritime industry, and because of this, new
parts of the ship would need more attention than before, e.g. telecommunication system,
integrability of systems. Hence, it is probable that surveyors would have a new training in
order to meet the needs of this new type of ship and also the remote control systems.
How these surveys would happen is discussed later in this chapter.
The other topic that needs more attention in this chapter is about detention. In
case the ship doesn’t meet the requirements and thus is detained, the ship, after the
execution of the necessary procedures, would have to go to the place designed for its
repair. Regardless of the need of tugs, it is possible that the presence of a representant
would be mandatory to monitor and respond for the manoeuvre. However, since the ship
has no crew, the company responsible could be charged for extra fees related to the time
for the representant to arrive at the port, beyond the current fees already into force for
manned ships.
5.1.5.2 Chapter II-1 and Chapter II-2
These chapters are related to the Construction-Structure, subdivision and stability,
machinery and electrical installations. This part of the convention is where the biggest
differences of different types of ships emerge. For example, special requirements
regarding all parts of the ship are presented for passenger ships, and, of course, they are
not applicable for this report. However, it opens margin for the following questioning: since
unmanned ships have no crew at all, it means that the requirements, e.g. for its structure,
would be less strict? The answer for this question is definitely no. Even if these special
requirements are not applicable for autonomous ships, for sure the technology involving
them would have to be considered when creating new exigencies and it could lead to
even more strict regulations.
The same logic presented for what is covered in Chapter II-1 is applicable for fire
protection, fire detection and fire extinction, covered in Chapter II-2. Some requirements
of this chapter wouldn’t be applicable, e.g. escape route, and other would need a deep
32
study. For example, fire fighting, notification and detection and alarm would have to be
reanalysed, which also may guide autonomous ships to less permissive requirements.
The current “Gold-based standards” for oil tankers and bulk carriers, adopted in
2010, refers to a stronger physical integrity of the ship. As discussed before, autonomous
ships are expected to have a longer life cycle, and gold-based standards require “new
ships to be designed and constructed for a specified design life and to be safe and
environmentally friendly in intact and specified damage conditions, throughout their life.
Under the regulation, ships should have adequate strength, integrity and stability to
minimize the risk of loss of the ship or pollution to the marine environment due to
structural failure, including collapse, resulting in flooding or loss of watertight integrity”
(IMO). These standards could be mandatory for unmanned ships, however, with adequate
modifications discussed in Chapter 4, like the design life and stability.
5.1.5.3 Chapter IV
Probably one of the chapters with the biggest increase of requirements.
Radiocommunications are probably to critic part of unmanned ships and its restrictions
and requirements should be reinforced. For sure, as in other systems of the ship,
resiliency and efficiency have to be improved. The creation of a new regulation about
cybersecurity should be discussed for autonomous ships. Many IMO’s conventions and
meetings recognise this matter and discus alternative solutions for this problem, and since
cyberspace is an extremely dynamic area, these conventions and meetings should gain
more importance and periodicity.
In case of emergency or failure in communication, the same approach suggested
for STCW and MARPOL emergencies should take place, with a mandatory crew promptly
ready for emergencies in strategic spots and responsible for a limited fleet.
5.1.5.4 Chapter V
The aspects relating the navigability are covered be two IMO conventions: SOLAS
and COLREG. SOLAS however, sets forth provisions of an operational nature applicable
in general to all ships on all voyages, while COLREG acts more like a guidance for
avoiding collisions during navigation.
Because of this, SOLAS tends to be less objective when compared to COLREG.
For example, it says that Contracting Governments must ensure that all ships shall be
33
sufficiently and efficiently manned from a safety point of view. Considering the well-
functioning of autonomous ships systems, it is possible to consider the ship is sufficiently
and efficiently manned from a safety point of view, even is the number of the crew is zero.
This could be transferred for the number of people at the remote control centre, with the
minimum number of people and limitation of the fleet this group could handle with at the
same time.
Nevertheless, some aspects should be excluded, modified or hardened for
unmanned ships. For example, the requirement for the masters to proceed to the
assistance of those in distress or life-saving signals may be not applicable. On the other
hand, the carriage of voyage data recorders (VDRs) and automatic ship identification
systems (AIS) should be modified for the allowance of digital documentation, while the
principles relating to bridge design and procedures should be deeply analysed and
modified or excluded, as discussed in Chapter 4. A requirement that should be hardened
is the Approval, surveys and performance standards of navigational systems and
equipment, demanding more resilience and efficiency.
5.1.5.5 Chapter VI and Chapter VII
Ship loading and offloading are regulated in this chapter, concerning about the
safety and integrity of the ship and the security of the crew. The same thought discussed
for Chapter II-1 and Chapter II-2 may be applicable, regarding the requirements: even if
the requirements over crew are not applicable for autonomous ships, for sure the involved
technology would have to be considered when creating new exigencies and it could lead
to even more strict regulations.
The biggest preoccupation about this chapter though should be the compatibility
with other systems the autonomous ship could get in touch with for procedures, e.g.
FPSOs offloading. Requirements for achieving a proper compatibility should be applicable
for both systems in this case, including ports. Nevertheless, since it is much harder to
modify the systems already in operation, autonomous ships should be designed, at least
for the beginning of its implementation, with a system compatible to the ones already in
use.
34
5.1.5.6 Chapter XI-1 and Chapter XI-2
Chapters XI-1 and XI-2 cover special measures to enhance maritime safety, more
specifically about surveys and inspections on Administrations’ behalves, and the
application of the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code (ISPS Code),
respectively. The most relevant requirements for this thesis both chapters relate are the
precautions and measures demanded for activities and security in ports.
The first concern is again about the certificates, and a study over digital certificates
is a possible solution for this matter. However, the biggest concern is about the lack of
personnel for receiving the surveyors for eventual verification and port State control
(PSC). Because of this, it is important to clarify the need for PSC verification. According to
Chapter XI-1, Regulation 4, section 1, of SOLAS, PSC inspections are made when there
are “clear grounds for believing that the master or crew are not familiar with essential
shipboard procedures relating to the safety of ships” (IMO).
When analysing unmanned ships in this context, it is possible to say that the
security in the interior of the ship is theoretically maintained from the port of origin, since
according to the predictions of design (Chapter 4) there is no openings and then no
alteration of status inside the ship. Comparing to the exterior of the ship, requirements
such as sufficient cameras and monitoring systems will be recording the voyage and
therefore will be able to point any possible irregularity. With the images and the updated
status of the ship sent to the destination port, it is possible to assume the ship is safe for
carrying out the intended procedures. More than that, possible small ASVs able to be
launched from the very same ship to perform underwater inspection can be used to verify
the integrity of the ship. There are already available ASVs that can launch ROVs
(Remotely operated underwater vehicle) to perform inspections and simple repairs.
Nevertheless, it is important to remember that PSC demands that the master and
crew are familiar with essential shipboard procedures relating to the safety of ships. Since
it is, for now, an unprecedented procedure, according to the point of view of the
Contracting Government of the port, it may be necessary to have a master onboard when
the ship enters the port, in order to assure security. In the course of time, it is possible to
assume that the trainings and procedures of unmanned ships will be more accepted and
regulated by the governments responsible for the port and then this demand won’t be
necessary anymore.
35
5.1.6 COLREG
The Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea
(COLREG) is probably the one that concerns maritime industry the most. This convention
stablishes clear procedures that should be taken to avoid collisions covering a wide range
of situations and requirements, e.g. overtaking and light colour, and responsibilities
between vessels, determining which vessel underway shall keep out of the way of another
vessel. No specification require crew, which technically turns the convention easily
applicable, however, it is probably the most difficult convention to apply for autonomous
ships because the ship itself would be responsible for performing the manoeuvrings
(discussed in the next section, Chapter 5, section 2).
The first thing to be mentioned is in Part A – General: Rule 3 – General definition,
where kinds of ships and possible status are defined, and, of course, autonomous ships
should be included. Considering that the design of unmanned ships would be very
different from manned ships, perhaps the positioning of lights could suffer some changes,
but nothing abrupt, as covered in Part C and D of the convention. At the end, in Annex IV
– Distress signals, human signals for emergencies wouldn’t be applicable. Nevertheless,
as discussed in other topics (Chapter 5, section 1, subsections 3, 4, and 5) of this report,
telecommunication in general, including for emergencies, in autonomous ships should
have stricter requirements.
Concerning manoeuvring, Part B – Steering and Sailing Rules is subjective and
doesn’t require crew for performing the procedures provided by the convention, which
means they are applicable to autonomous ships. However, for an autonomous ship to
manoeuvring properly even with the influence of other ships, powerful sensors should be
designed and requirement over their capacity should take place, as expected from a new
SOLAS amendment. For example, if the autonomous ship is in a situation of overtaking,
the sensor should be precise enough to estimate the distance for manoeuvring and the
necessary acceleration or deacceleration.
It is important to emphasize too that human senses are predicted in COLREG. It
means that the remote control centre should receive all this information about noises and
visibility in order to properly monitor the status of the ship and its surroundings. It is
discussed in Chapter IV of SOLAS (Chapter5, section 1, subsection 5, subsection 3). It
also means that the remote control centres should be analysed and certified, which leads
36
us to a study over the creation of another convention, discussed in the conclusion of this
report.
5.1.6.1 Software for navigation with standard rules
Regarding the self-navigability of autonomous ships, it is possible to assume that
this is where the biggest challenges are. COLREG is an interpretative guide with step-by-
step instructions for masters to perform safe manoeuvrings to avoid collisions. The
problem is that since the convention is written for humans, with instructions based on the
perception of the master, it is not simply transferred for autonomous systems
interpretation. An adaptation for computational algorithms should be studied, since the
lack of exact values make it impossible for unmanned ships to perform the necessary
manoeuvrings.
It is important to recognize the difficulty of this “translation” for computational
algorithms in a way every autonomous ship would comprehend the situations the same
way. Even with exact values for creating new requirements, ship have different designs,
with different sizes and shapes, leading to different instructions, e.g. bigger or heavier
ships in a situation of an immediate full stop need a bigger distance until complete stop
when compared to smaller or lighter ships.
It may lead different autonomous ships from different companies to navigate with
different codes and algorithms. Because of this, it is important to standardize autonomous
ships actions through these programs.
5.2 Liability for accidents and/or damages
This part of the present report is about how liability for manned ships would
change for unmanned ships. It is based on the structure of a study realised in the
University of Bergen (Norway), named “Shipowner’s liability for unmanned ships – Can
existing legislation handle the challenges of the future?”.
The liability for accidents in general can be split in 3 parts with the same principles.
In maritime industry, we can call these parts as follows: employers’ liability, objective
liability and collision liability. They will be more detailed during this chapter, but first, it is
important to stablish the limits for what it covered. Here in this report, the liability studied
is referred to accidents that occur out of contract.
37
5.2.1 Employers’ liability
The shipowner is responsible for those who has a relevant connection with the
ship, regardless of contractual or employment position. Therefore, it is possible to say that
the shipowner is responsible for misconduct or predictable system faults (Brækhus,
1953).
It is essential that the failure or neglect occur during shift by anyone related to the
service of the ship, and that it is related to the designated task the person is accounted
for, hereafter called a helper. To be able to consider a negligent act, it means the helper
did something out of what is expected for that specific task, and it must be proven by the
one claiming compensation that one or several of the helpers have acted negligently,
otherwise, the shipowner can’t be blamed (Tiberg and Schelin, 2016), regardless of which
helper did it. However, foreseeable consequences of using a helper can be included in
owner’s responsibilities, such as negligent actions done off-duty, but still on board the
ship, except for those the owner can’t protect himself from.
There are two conditions to be met, and when bringing it to autonomous ships, it is
possible to see that both would be technically the same for unmanned ships. For partially
and fully autonomous ships, the people responsible for piloting and monitoring its actions,
respectively, would be qualified as the helpers.
5.2.2 Objective liability
Objective liability is placed when there is no one to blame, but to consider
responsible for. In this case, opposite to regular sues, the shipowner is the one who must
prove innocence. It is a common ground for objective civil liability in many countries
(Marques, 2008).
Objective liability is only applicable in exceptional and rare cases. It is relevant
when damage is caused by failure, weakness or imperfection in the ship’s technical
equipment or machinery (Selvig, 1970). However, there is a substantial difference in this
case: it is only applicable if failures could not have been noticed and repaired. That is a
huge concern over autonomous ships systems. Since they are more numerous and
complex, autonomous ships are more susceptible to this liability. A solution for this could
be splitting the objective liability with the providers of the systems in contract. The most
38
vulnerable parts of an unmanned ship would probably be the communication and the
integration of the systems.
Thus, there are three conditions for objective liability to be used: damage caused
to another party, technical failure of equipment or machinery, and impossibility of
prediction and repair of this failure.
5.2.3 Liability for collisions
For legal matters, collisions are defined by contact between ships. However, the
Maritime Code also considers liability for collisions when there is a misconduct when
navigating the ship, e.g. excessive speed, causing swell and then damage to other ships
(Manca, 1971).
Unlike objective liability, for liability for collisions, the shipowner is liable only if the
fault or negligence is proven by the one claiming compensation. However, if the ship that
caused the accident is in compliance with required standard of care (conventions and
codes), the shipowner is relieved.
There are 4 different ways of setting the liability though. The first is explained
above, with the shipowner being fully liable for the collision. The second one is when both
ships are liable. In this case, both are responsible for the damages according to their fault.
The third way is, when it is impossible to tell the respective responsibilities, the damage is
equally compensated by both parties. The last one is when no one can be blamed for an
accident and no one is proven to have acted negligently. Thus, each ship must cover its
own costs (Falkanger and Bull, 2004).
5.2.4 Liability with the use of standardized software for navigation
With the discussion of the applicability of liability for collisions, it is possible to
stablish that if the ship is in compliance to the conventions and codes of navigability, e.g.
SOLAS and COLREG, the shipowner wouldn’t be liable for covering the damages to
another party. With that in mind, considering that autonomous ships would navigate under
algorithms with standard requirements based on the same conventions and codes, is it
possible to conclude that these new ships would never be liable for collisions?
Considering a perfect algorithm, the answer for this question would be positive.
However, these ships, principally fully-autonomous, are expected to act under an artificial
39
intelligence that “learns” and then changes its own algorithms according to the situations it
goes through during its operation. It means that possible accidents caused by
autonomous ships would be associated to objective liability, since it is an unpredicted
failure in its operation. It is important to remember though, that time for action of the
operator back in the remote control centre is essential for this judgment. If it is proven by
the third party that the operator had enough time to avoid the accident, the liability can be
considered for collision.
5.2.5 LLMC
It is also important to mention the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime
Claims (LLMC). This convention prevents the shipowners to be completely liable for
damages over a specific value that varies with the gross tonnage of the damaged ship.
This limitation is not applied when it is proven that the accident was intentional. However,
a deeper study over unmanned ships costs should be conducted in order to apply values
compatible with them.
40
6 Resume
After the full discussion over the conventions, a resume with the principal points is
raised in order to highlight the topics that should suffer some modifications for the safe
implementation of autonomous ships. They are listed for each convention and it is pointed
how they would be adopted, e.g. amendment in chapters, annexes, or creation of a new
convention.
6.1 STCW
Technically, STCW does not apply to people that are not on board. According to
its Article III, the convention applies “to seafarers serving on board seagoing ships”
(Jalonen, Tuominen and Wahlström, 2016). However, the issue related to training is a real
preoccupation. The systems for controlling and monitoring tend to be far more complex. It
means that the watchkeeper should be sufficiently qualified.
Regarding the emergency cases, possible new requirements would act more like a
provisional behaviour, including stronger sensors for monitoring any possible deviation as
soon as possible, and remotely controlled systems with proper equipment to reverse that
deviation in any operation. The third would be a mandatory crew promptly ready for
emergencies in strategic spots and responsible for a limited fleet.
Therefore, an annex including specially the following requirements would be
satisfying for the applicability of STCW for autonomous ships:
1. Qualification of watchkeepers and operators at the remote control centre, e.g.
graduated in engineering and with experience in the field;
2. Training accordingly to the available equipment, with minimum standards and
certifications, e.g. ship-handling and manoeuvring simulator;
3. Stronger sensors for monitoring any possible deviation as soon as possible,
with possible limit for alerts; e.g. time limit for alerting the necessity of a
manoeuvre;
4. Remotely controlled systems with proper equipment to reverse possible
deviations in any operation, e.g. immediate control for manoeuvrings;
5. Crew promptly ready for emergencies in strategic spots and responsible for a
limited fleet, e.g. oil spilling, system fault.
41
6.2 TONNAGE
It is not possible in this thesis to suggest another way to calculate the net tonnage
for unmanned ships. Nevertheless, considering the expectations for new designs, it is
clear that a new way of calculating it should be introduced in a compatible way with the
existing one, in order to keep the same basis for port dues and charges related to
accidents liabilities. The creation of an exclusive annex for unmanned ships could be
adopted.
6.3 MARPOL
Similar to STCW Code, three measurements are suggested. The first two
measurements would act more like a provisional behaviour, including stronger sensors for
monitoring any possible leaking as soon as possible, and autonomous systems for
containing the pollution. The third would be a mandatory crew promptly ready for
emergencies in strategic spots and responsible for a limited fleet.
The Annex VI is related to the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships (IMO). At first,
unmanned and manned ships wouldn’t differ inside this part, however, as pointed in
Chapter 4, section 4.3, subsection 4.3.2, it is likely that unmanned ships are going to last
more than manned ships. Because of that, it is expected that the regulations that cover
the pollution related to the machinery, in this case air pollution, are going to be most
restricted than the regulations into force today.
Therefore, a compliment of the current annexes should include the following
requirements to make it satisfy for the applicability of MARPOL for autonomous ships:
1. Stronger sensors for monitoring any possible deviation as soon as possible,
with possible limit for alerts; e.g. time limit for alerting spills (Annexes I, II and
III);
2. Autonomous systems for containing the pollution, e.g. ASVs for placing oil spill
balloons (Annexes I, II and III);
3. Crew promptly ready for emergencies in strategic spots and responsible for a
limited fleet, e.g. oil spilling, system fault (Annexes I, II and III);
4. Very limited CO2 and NOX pollution, with possible benefits for those with even
less eject of greenhouse effect gases, e.g. usage of hybrid or electric engines
(Annex VI).
42
6.4 ISM
This convention is also in theory easily suitable for unmanned ships. Chapter 6
adaptation would follow the same principles as mentioned for STCW (Chapter 5, section
1, subsection 1), but this time focused on the company’s duties.
Suggestions for ISM modifications are amendments in its chapters according to
the theme:
1. Allowance of Digital Certificates with proper validation system (chapter 4);
2. The Company should demand qualification of watchkeepers and operators at
the remote control centre, e.g. graduated in engineering and with experience in
the field (chapter 6);
3. The Company should provide training according to the available equipment,
with minimum standards and certifications, e.g. ship-handling and
manoeuvring simulator (chapter 6);
4. The Company should require stronger sensors for monitoring any possible
deviation as soon as possible, with possible limit for alert; e.g. time limit for
alerting the necessity of a manoeuvre (chapter 8);
5. The Company should require remotely controlled systems with proper
equipment to reverse possible deviations in any operation, e.g. immediate
control for manoeuvrings (chapter 9);
6. The Company should provide a crew promptly ready for emergencies in
strategic spots and responsible for a limited fleet, e.g. oil spilling, system fault
(chapter 9).
6.5 SOLAS
Some requirements of this convention wouldn’t be applicable, e.g. escape route,
and other would need a deep study. For example, fire fighting, notification and detection
and alarm would have to be reanalysed, which also may guide autonomous ships to less
permissive requirements.
Radiocommunications are probably to critic part of unmanned ships and its
restrictions and requirements should be reinforced. For sure, as in other systems of the
ship, resiliency and efficiency have to be improved. The incorporation of a new regulation
about cybersecurity in Chapter IV should be discussed for autonomous ships. For that, a
43
new convention referred inside this section seems to be the best solution, like chapter 9
refers to ISM.
In case of emergency or failure in communication, the same approach suggested
for STCW and MARPOL relating emergencies should take place, with a mandatory crew
promptly ready for emergencies in strategic spots and responsible for a limited fleet.
Contracting Governments must ensure that all ships shall be sufficiently and
efficiently manned from a safety point of view. Considering the well-functioning of
autonomous ships systems, it is possible to consider the ship is sufficiently and efficiently
manned from a safety point of view, even is the number of the crew is zero. This could be
transferred for the number of people at the remote control centre, with the minimum
number of people and limitation of the fleet this group could handle with at the same time.
The biggest preoccupation about Chapter VI is probably the compatibility with
other systems autonomous ship could get in touch with for procedures, e.g. FPSOs
offloading. Requirements for achieving a proper compatibility should be applicable for
both systems in this case, including ports. Nevertheless, since it is much harder to modify
the systems already in operation, autonomous ships should be designed, at least for the
beginning of its implementation, with a system compatible to the ones already in use.
In Chapters XI-1 and XI-2, the biggest concern is about the lack of personnel for
receiving the surveyors for eventual verification and port State control (PSC).
Therefore, regarding the operation of autonomous ships, the following
amendments for SOLAS are suggested:
1. Stronger sensors for monitoring any possible deviation as soon as possible,
with possible limit for alert; e.g. time limit for alerting the necessity of a
manoeuvre (Chapters II-1 and II-2);
2. Reliable communication system for any necessary intervention, with possible
limit for the gap between the command and the action; e.g. time limit for
alerting the necessity of a manoeuvre (Chapter IV);
3. Implementation of a new convention regarding cybersecurity (Chapter IV);
4. Allowance of Digital Certificates with proper validation system (Chapter V);
5. Crew promptly ready for emergencies in strategic spots and responsible for a
limited fleet, e.g. oil spilling, system fault (Chapter V);
44
6. Minimum level of compatibility for specific loading and offloading operations.
Regular ships already in operation should have a period for adaptations, in
case it is necessary (Chapter VI);
7. Requirements on cameras, sensors and, in some cases, ASVs to assure
integrity (provisional repair) and safety of the interior and exterior of the ship,
providing images and integral updated status of the ship and its systems for
the nominated surveyor (Chapters XI-1 and XI-2).
a. For adaptation, at the beginning, a member of the Contracting
Company must accompany surveyors for also traditional procedures of
PSC.
6.6 COLREG
The positioning of lights could suffer some changes, but nothing abrupt, as
covered in Part C and D of the convention. At the end, in Annex IV – Distress signals,
human signals for emergencies wouldn’t be applicable. Nevertheless, as discussed in
other topics (Chapter 5, section 1, subsections 3, 4, and 5) of this report,
telecommunication in general, including for emergencies, in autonomous ships should
have stricter requirements.
It is important to emphasize too that human senses are predicted in COLREG. It
means that the remote control centre should receive all this information about noises and
visibility in order to properly monitor the status of the ship and its surroundings. It is
discussed in Chapter IV of SOLAS (Chapter5, section 1, subsection 5, subsection 3). It
also means that the remote control centres should be analysed and certified, which leads
us to a study over the creation of another convention, discussed further in the conclusion
of this report.
Because of the necessity of perception of sounds and lights in the remote control
centre, COLREG would need an annex, besides amendments in its currents parts:
1. Analysis, verification and certification of remote control centres to ensure that
the sounds and lights captured from the sensors on board the ship are
sufficient for assisting watchkeepers (Part B);
2. Resilience for lights and sounds systems for identification of the ship during
operation (Parts C and D).
45
6.6.1 Software for navigation
Regarding the self-navigability of autonomous ships, it is possible to assume that
this is where the biggest challenges are. An adaptation for computational algorithms
should be studied, since the lack of exact values make it impossible for unmanned ships
to perform the necessary manoeuvrings.
It may lead different autonomous ships from different companies to navigate with
different codes and algorithms. Because of this, it is important to standardize autonomous
ships actions through these programs.
A new convention should be created then, to standardise these different software,
including minimum manoeuvrings, a system for learning outcomes of the situations the
ship goes through, and a previous analysis before the implementation of learned
procedures.
6.7 Liability
Differences in the current types of liabilities doesn’t make sense, however, the way
they are applied would be significantly changed. With the discussion of the applicability of
liability for collisions, it is possible to stablish that if the ship is in compliance to the
conventions and codes of navigability, e.g. SOLAS and COLREG, the shipowner wouldn’t
be liable for covering the damages to another party. It means that possible accidents
caused by autonomous ships would be associated to objective liability since it is an
unpredicted failure in its operation, which makes a big difference when analysing the
liability judgment for accidents.
It is important to remember though, that time for action of the operator back in the
remote control centre is essential for this judgment. If it is proven by the third party that
the operator had enough time to avoid the accident, the liability can be considered for
collision.
6.7.1 LLMC
It is also important to mention that LLMC prevents the shipowners to be
completely liable for damages over a specific value that varies with the gross tonnage of
the damaged ship. A deeper study over unmanned ships costs related to its gross
46
tonnage should be conducted in order create an annex to apply values compatible with
them.
6.8 Remote Control Centres
The necessity for modifications or amendments regarding remote control centres
appears in almost all conventions. Therefore, a new convention covering the
requirements a remote control centre would need is a good suggestion in order the
standardise the equipment, facilities, range, capacity.
It is expected that unmanned ships will have the most technologic and complexes
systems of the industry, and because of this, new parts of the ship would need more
attention than before, e.g. telecommunication system, integrability of systems and also
remote control centres. In STCW, a remote control centre would be a location directly
associated to the navigation bridge. Hence, it is probable that surveyors would have a
new training in order to meet the needs of this new type of ship and the associated
remote control centre.
In SOLAS, for example, Contracting Governments must ensure that all ships shall
be sufficiently and efficiently manned from a safety point of view. Considering the well-
functioning of autonomous ships systems, it is possible to consider the ship is sufficiently
and efficiently manned from a safety point of view, even is the number of the crew is zero.
This could be transferred for the number of people at the remote control centre, with the
minimum number of people and limitation of the fleet this group could handle with at the
same time.
It is important to emphasize too that human senses are predicted in COLREG. It
means that the remote control centres should receive all this information about noises and
visibility in order to properly monitor the status of the ship and its surroundings. It is
discussed in Chapter IV of SOLAS (Chapter5, section 1, subsection 5, subsection 3). It
also means that the remote control centres should be properly analysed and certified.
The following principles would be a good starting point for a new convention
regarding safety and well-functioning of remote control centres, and compliance with other
conventions:
1. Compatibility and minimum resilience of communication systems:
a. Inside the ship;
47
b. Inside the remote control centre;
c. Between the ship and the remote control centre.
2. Proper certification and training for surveyors in order to guarantee of safety,
integrity and well conditions of the ship and the remote control centre;
3. Maximum capacity of the remote control centre associated with the number of
equipment and qualified personnel;
4. Minimum personnel for monitoring ships, depending on the equipment and the
level of autonomy of the ships;
5. Proper receptivity of signals from the sensors in order to comply with COLREG
requirements;
6. Creation of remote control centres in ports with autonomous ships activities for
proper manoeuvring performed by local ship maneuverer.
6.9 Cyber functioning and integrity
Radiocommunications are probably to critic part of unmanned ships and its
restrictions and requirements should be reinforced. For sure, as in other systems of the
ship, resiliency and efficiency have to be improved. Many IMO’s conventions and
meetings recognise this matter and discuss ways of work around this problem, and since
cyberspace is an extremely dynamic area, these conventions and meetings should gain
more importance and periodicity.
Autonomous systems inclusion in ships is increasing, and since it happens not
only for autonomous ships, an annex in SOLAS requiring stricter standards for
telecommunication and radiocommunication systems in all ships would be the most
appropriate. It would be a safe procedure for all ships, with different requirements
depending on the integral dependence of the ship over this communication.
7 Conclusion
The actual IMO conventions, codes and regulations were created in order to
assure the well-functioning of maritime industry. They regulate over ships from its design
until its dismantling, going through its material, operation, contracts and other. When
these conventions were created, the intention was to arise with an alternative solution for
accidents that in some way were significant for the maritime industry and also to the
society.
48
However, with the mentality focused on safety, it is obvious that this approach is
not adequate for the implementation of another technology. Studies about the
modification and creation of regulations are essentials for assuring the well-functioning
and the safety of maritime environment and all its relative activities. More than that, the
maintenance and renovation of conventions are important for following higher standards
and market updates.
It is important to value technological improvements and make them useful for
mankind. In the case of autonomous ships, the future regulations concerning its safety
and well-functioning can be also adapted for regular ships, principally about the
environment.
Therefore, the study here presented aimed to build a thought on how autonomous
ships would be different relating to the actual regulations and how conventions would
cover them in a safe and efficient way. The objective was to present a general idea of the
chapters and annexes of each of the most important conventions and suggest adaptions
for them. Also, the idea of new conventions was proposed in order to regulate and
standardise remote control centres and cyber integrity.
49
8 Bibliography
ADAMS, S. D. ReVolt – next generation short sea shipping. 2014. Available at:
https://www.dnvgl.com/news/revolt-next-generation-short-sea-shipping-7279 [Accessed
15 Apr. 2018].
ADVANCED AUTONOMOUS WATERBORNE APPLICATIONS INITIATIVE (AAWA).
Remote and Autonomous Ships – The next steps. London: Rolls-Royce PLC, 2016.
ARSLAN, O. et al. Safety enhancement in maritime transportation: SEAHORSE
Project. Glasgow: Barrie Lewarn, 2014.
ATUNCAR, G. Conceitos Básicos de Processos Estocásticos. Belo Horizonte:
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 2011.
Autonomous ship project, key facts about YARA Birkeland. Available at:
https://www.km.kongsberg.com/ks/web/nokbg0240.nsf/AllWeb/4B8113B707A50A4FC125
811D00407045?OpenDocument [Accessed 23 May 2018].
BLANKE, M.; HENRIQUES, M.; BANG, J. A pre-analysis on autonomous ships.
Copenhagen: Technical University of Denmark, 2016.
BOISSON, P. Classification societies and safety at sea: Back to basics to prepare for
the future. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, 1994.
BRÆKHUS, S. Rederens husbondansvar. Götemborg: Gumperts, 1953.
CAREY, L. All Hands of Deck? The Legal Barriers to Autonomous Ships. Singapore:
National University of Singapore, 2017.
CARIOU, P. Is slow steaming a sustainable means of reducing CO2 emissions from
container shipping?. Marseilles: Elsevier, 2011.
EMSA. Annual Overview of Marine Casualties and Incidents 2016. Lisbon: European
Maritime Safety Agency, 2016.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION. A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon
economy in 2050. Brussels: European Commission, 2012.
50
EVANS, J. H. Basic Design Concepts. Cambridge: Journal of the American Society of
Naval Engineers, 1959.
GOMES, C. Estabilidade do Navio: Estática e Dinâmica. Rio de Janeiro: Sindináutica,
1973.
GRATSOS, G.; ZACHARIADIS, P. Life cycle cost of maintaining the effectiveness of
a ship's structure and environmental impact of ship design parameters: An update.
[S.l.: s.n.], [200-?]
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION (IMO). Convention on Limitation of
Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC). London: IMO, 1976.
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION (IMO). Convention on the International
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREG). London: IMO, 1972.
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION (IMO). International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). London: IMO, 1973.
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION (IMO). International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). London: IMO, 1974.
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION (IMO). International Convention on
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW).
London: IMO, 1978.
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION (IMO). International Convention on
Tonnage Measurement of Ships (TONNAGE). London: IMO, 1969.
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION (IMO). International Management Code
for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (International Safety
Management (ISM) Code). London: IMO, 2015.
KINGSLAND, P. Is it time to talk about regulating autonomous ships?. [S.l.]: [s.n.],
2018.
KRETSCHMANN, L.; BURMEISTER H.; JAHN, C. Analysing the economic benefit of
unmanned autonomous ships - An exploratory cost-comparison between an
autonomous and a conventional bulk carrier. Hamburg: Elsevier, 2017.
51
LARSSON, L.; RAVEN, H. The Principles of Naval Architecture Series – Ship
Resistance and Flow. Jersey City: The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers,
2010.
MANCA, P. International Maritime Law. Antwerp: European Transport Law, 1971.
MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE. Analysis on the Appropriate
Values of the Reduction Rates of the Required EDDI. Japan: IMO, 2009.
MARQUES, V. A Responsabilidade Civil do Transportador Marítimo de Cargas.
Vitória: Faculdade de Direito de Vitória, 2008.
MARTINS FILHO, P. D. Projeto de Engenharia: um jogo intelectual entre livre criação e
ação disciplinada. Rio de Janeiro: EE-COPPE-UFRJ, 2002.
MORGAN, K.; Ó GRÁDA, C. Technological Dynamism in a Stagnant Sector: Safety at
Sea during the Early Industrial Revolution. Dublin: University College Dublin (School of
Economics), 2017.
MUNIN. Research in maritime autonomous systems project - Results and technology
potentials. Hamburg: European Commission, 2016.
NORRIS, A. Legal Issues Relating to Unmanned Maritime Systems Monograph.
Newport: U.S. Naval War College, 2013.
PORATHE, T.; PRISON J.; MAN, Y. Situation Awareness in Remote Control for
Unmanned Ships. London: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects, 2014.
PRIMORAC, B.; PARUNOV, J. Review of statistical data on ship accidents. Marine
Technology and Engineering 3. London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2016.
ROBERTS, S. et al. Fatal accidents and injuries among merchant seafarers
worldwide. Occupational Medicine. Swansea: Swansea University, 2014.
Rolls-Royce demonstrates world’s first remotely operated commercial vessel. 2017.
Available at: https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-stories/press-releases/2017/20-06-
2017-rr-demonstrates-worlds-first-remotely-operated-commercial-vessel.aspx [Accessed
23 May 2018].
52
SANGLARD, J. H. PROJETO: ARTE ou CIÊNCIA?. Rio de Janeiro: PEnO/COPPE/UFRJ,
1995.
SOCIETY OF MARITIME INDUSTRIES. Being a Responsible Industry – An Industry
Code of Practice. London: Society of Maritime Industries, 2017.
TIMBERG, H.; SCHELIN, J. On Maritime & Transport Law. Stockholm: Kluwer Law
International, 2016.
UTNE, I.; SØRENSEN, A.; SCHJØLBERG, I. Risk Management of Autonomous
Marine Systems and Operations. Trondheim: 2017 ASME, 2017.
Shipowner’s Liability for unmanned ships – Can existing legislation handle the
challenges of the future. Bergen: University of Bergen, 2017.
