KR Webzine Vol.116

Smart autonomous ship development is a cost saving initiative which  proposes an unmanned automated system navigates a ship whilst upholding the  same high levels of safety expected from a conventional manned vessel. In  this study we introduce concepts relating to the development of alternative  technology for the development of unmanned automation which is  key to the development of autonomous shipping.  Smart autonomous ship development can be defined as "An automation  technology that can carry out one’s mission with unmanned or minimized  manpower while ensuring safe navigation". In order to reduce the minimum  crew size of the ship a shipowner needs to comprehensively review the  individual duties of each crew member, the characteristics of the in-ship  operation and the level of response according to the situation. This study aims  to explore the technical aspects  of  what an automated system is capable of achieving when replacing a regular  crew.             

 

Keywords: Smart  Autonomous ship, Seaman, mission, substitution

 

1. Introduction

 

In a period of substantial change and uncertainty in the shipping industry the need for automation has intensified.  Europe and parts of Asia such as Japan are already developing smart autonomous ships with the private sector and the government seeking solutions to overcome the shipbuilding depression and lead the mega-trend for new businesses. Through smart automation the shipping industry is hoping to reverse the recent depressed markets and reduce the cost of ship operations. 

 

As shipping faces increased political pressure to become more environmentally friendly, shipbuilding businesses must innovate to create smarter and more efficient vessels. The smart ship system currently under government and private sector development aims to reduce both labor and fuel costs, and is currently in the process of being commercialized. The technology is being mainly driven from Europe, specifically Norway, through  large-scale government support. The smart autonomous ship is constructed for the purpose of ensuring the economic efficiency of the ship’s operation by reducing the cost of fuel and optimizing the volume of labor. The ultimate goal of the development of smart autonomous ships is to secure unmanned automation systems, which require no crew members whilst ensuring the safety of the ship’s navigation. Achieving this will significantly reduce operational costs. This study will discuss the direction of the development of crew substitution technology and unmanned automation technology to reduce crew numbers, which is the ultimate goal of smart autonomous shipping.

   

2. Conventions / regulations on crew composition and work

  

2.1 Minimum crew composition

Alternative smart technologies should be able to respond appropriately to all situations arising during seafarer duties, work levels and navigation / port and anchorage with the minimum requirement of manpower. In addition, ships operating  a watch system should not violate the working standards of seafarers and should ensure the optimal working environment for the minimum crew of smart autonomous ships. To this end, it is necessary to review the existing agreements and regulations relating to the composition and workings of existing ships.

   

2.1.1 IMO Res. A. 1047 (27)

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has adopted the 2011 Principle of Minimum Safe Manning to establish procedures for constructing the minimum safety manning requirements for ships. IMO Resolution A.1047 (27) is to ensure that a sufficient number of crew members are working on board for the safety, efficiency and security of the ship. The flag state will grant a minimum crew certificate for each ship accordingly.

   

2.1.2 Minimum Safe Manning Certificate.

The minimum number of crew required for the ship is determined according to the detailed regulations specified by each flag and is composed of crews qualified as required by the STCW Convention. The minimum crew requirement is generally constructed as shown in Table 1 based on the gross tonnage of the ship and the engine power (kW).

 

Table 1. Example of minimum number of crew membership (Flag : Marshall Island)                                            

Division		Target ship	Manning  composition
Basic   (Deck & Eng‘)		All ships over 8000 GT / 3000 kW   Non-Automated	Master Chief Mate Two(2) Officers  in charge of a navigational watch Radio Officer /  GMDSS Three(3) Able  Seafarers or Able Seafarers Deck Two(2) Ordinary  Seafarers Chief Engineer 1st  Assistant Engineer Two(2) Officers  in charge of an engineering watch Three(3)  Oiler/motors or able seafarers engineers
Deck	D/1	Vessels over  5000 GT but under 8000 GT	Master Chief Mate Two(2) Officers  in charge of a navigation watch Radio officer /  GMDSS Four(4) Able  Seafarers or Able Seafarers Decks
Deck	D/2	Vessels over  3000 GT but under 5000 GT	Master Chief Mate Two(2) Officers  in charge of a navigation watch Radio officer /  GMDSS Two(2) Able  Seafarers or Able Seafarers Decks Two(2) Ordinary  Seafarers
Eng‘	E/1	Vessels over  3000 kW and certified for unattended operation	Chief Engineer 1st  Assistant Engineer Two(2)  Oiler/Motor or Able Seafarers Engineers
Eng‘	E/2	Vessels under  3000 kW but over 750 kW not equipped for unattended operation	Chief Engineer  Two(2) Officers  in charge of an engineering watch Three(3) Oiler/Motor  or Able Seafarers Engineers
Eng‘	E/3	Vessels under  3000 kW but over 750 kW and certified for unattended operation	Chief Engineer 2nd  Assistant Engineer Two(2)  Oiler/Motor or Able Seafarers Engineers
* The minimum number of crew shall  be determined by the Flag state, taking into account the relevant laws and  regulations, ship type, age, tonnage, navigation area, etc., and the above  provisions are provided for the representative Flag state (Marshall Islands).

  

2.2 Seaman working standards

   

2.2.1 Maritime Labor Convention

In Article A2.3 of the Maritime Labor Convention, maximum working hours not exceeding a certain period of time and minimum rest time provided for a certain period for crew engaged in duties related to marine safety and security operations are guaranteed.     

 

Table 2. Standards of crew members' working hours or break time       

Maximum working  hours	Minimum working  hours
The maximum  working hours shall not exceed: ◦ 14 hours of any 24-hour period,  ◦ 72 hours of any 7 day period	Minimum break  time shall not be less than: ◦ 10 hours of any 24 hour period, ◦ 77 hours of any 7 day period
※ Rest times may be divided so as  not to exceed two times, of which at least 6 hours shall be allowed and the  interval between successive breaks shall not exceed 14 hours.

  

2.2.2 The Seaman Law

Following the ratification of the 2006 Maritime Labor Convention, Korea adopted the Convention as part of the seaman law, and amended the working hours and breaks for seafarers as follows.   

■ Article 60 (Working Hours and Time to Rest)   (1) Working  hours shall be 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week: a shipowner and seafarers  may extend working hours by up to but not exceeding 16 hours a week  (hereinafter referred to as "overtime work") by mutual agreement.   (2)  Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a shipowner may order a seafarer who keeps the  navigational watch to work overtime within the extent of 16 hours a week, and  other seafarers to work overtime within the extent of 4 hours a week.   (3) Notwithstanding  paragraphs (1) and (2), a shipowner shall grant seafarers the time to rest  not less than 10 hours in any 24 hours and not less than 77 hours in any one  week. In such cases, he/she may split the time to rest less than 10 hours in  any 24 hours only once, and that rest split shall continue no less than 6  hours. In addition, the interval between the continuous time to rest shall  not exceed 14 hours.

     

Each vessel under international law, especially those engaged in international voyages, records the daily working hours, breaks and overtime hours of seafarers, and if it fails to cover the daily working hours and breaks, a “Rest hour deviation report" is written. However, in actual operational vessels, there is no guarantee of break time stipulated in the Convention due to frequent arrival and departure schedules, coastal sailing, bunkering activities (fuel supply), canal passages and tank cleaning work. If this happens, additional crew support is needed.

   

3. Crew Activities and Emergency Response

   

3.1 Responsibilities and duties of each crew position

Normally, a certain responsibility and authority shall be granted according to the position of each crew member. Table 3 shows the individual duties in case of general navigation and port/anchorage.

 

The navigational department will carry out these three duties  during the voyage and manage the general deck activities. The engine department is operated by the day workers with UMA (Unattended Machinery Automatic Control) systems in place only for automated ships. Figure 1 shows the tasks assigned to each crew member’s position, and includes various technical tasks such as cargo management, decking work, loading management, berthing and de-berthing work, machinery equipment and generator and auxiliary equipment. As a result, the technology of smart autonomous ships should replace the work of the crew. In addition to the automatic navigation technology, it is necessary to examine in detail the basic duties and inspections performed by the officers and ratings during a normal voyage such as control/action/management etc. 

 

Table 3. Responsibilities and duties by crew's position                                             

Position	Responsibilities and duties
Captain	Responsibility and authority for conduct of command / management /  control as general manager
C/E	As the fleet  management officer, assistance to the captain and supervises the entire  organization / pollution prevention
Deck officer	Assists the captain as navigator, loading/unloading and transport  manager and manage overall deck operations
Engine officer	Assist the C/E as engine and equipment, as the operation and maintenance  manager for the Engine and equipment
Ratings	Individual duties assigned to deck / agency personnel according to their  department

 

  

Fig. 1. Assignment of duties by crew's position

 

3.2 Emergency Response System

Emergency situations and activities that might occur on a ship include fire-fighting, abandoning ship, oil spills, emergency steering, rescue from an enclosed space. These are in addition to operational accidents such as collision, contact, stranding and sinking. In all these instances the crew must respond. Emergency response manuals on each ship will specify the position and duties of each crew member for the purpose of minimizing damage and reducing the possibility of a secondary crisis. Manuals enable crew members to respond effectively and promptly to an onboard crisis. As shown in Figure 2, the minimum number of crew members required to carry out major activities in situations such as fire-fighting, oil-spill, recovery operations, and emergency steering is about 8 to 10 and includes the site leader for situation determination and direction as well as crew members to carry out specific actions. In other words, in the event of a crisis situation, the direct on-site command and incident response is entrusted to 1st and 2nd officers (3 to 4 persons), and technical support is primarily handled by the deck and engine departments.

Fig. 2. Emergency response mission classification by crew

  

Future smart autonomous ships are required to have software based counter measures such as hacking, cyber terrorism, navigation control, and system shutdown in addition to the above emergency situations. In addition, crew activity substitution smart ship technologies should be able to replace field missions with a minimum number of crew members and include onshore support technologies that can replace the role of the general director (decision, judgment and direction).  

 

4. Technical definition and classification

 

The future development of smart ship technology and the transition of the shipbuilding industry needs to  define clear targets for smart autonomous ships. Although the industry is already studying the development of smart ship technology, it has not been able to offer an exact technical definition, describing the innovation as either an unmanned ship, smart ship or autonomous ship. In 2015, the European Union's SARUMS (Safety and Regulations for European Unmanned Maritime System) defined the ship classification criteria according to automation levels as shown in Table 4. Ships are classified in detail according to the level of automation and whether they are existing ships, smart ships, autonomous ships or fully unmanned ships; and where the decision making takes place. However, there is no clear definition of the final technology levels and specific technology for smart autonomous ships, so the type of smart technology required for each level of automation is still relatively unknown.

 

Table 4 Category of ships (Smart Ship, Autonomous Ship, Unmanned ship)                           

Ship  classification		Automation   Level	Information   acquisition	Situation   analysis	Decision	Counter-   measurement
Existing ship		0	Human	Human	Human	Human
Existing ship		1	System/Human	Human	Human	Human
Smart ship		2	System	System/Human	Human	Human
Autonomous ship	Lev.1	3	System	System	System/Human	Human
Autonomous ship	Lev.2	4	System	System	System	System/Human
Unmanned ship	Lev.3	5	System	System	System	System

 

4.1 Smart autonomous ship technology levels

The definition of the level of smart autonomous ship technology to be discussed in this study is "the step of reporting the implementation status to the operator after controlling the situation and recognizing the situation in the system". the definition describes the level of monitoring only. This corresponds to the autonomous ship Level 2 in Table 4 above, and the reliability of the automation technology is significantly different from that of a fully unmanned vessel (Level3).      

4.2 Activity substitution smart technology

     

4.2.1 Technical Definitions

Aiming to reduce the number of crew members by replacing the crew with smart autonomous ships can be defined as "Automation technology that can carry out a crew member’s duties with unmanned or minimized manpower whilst ensuring safe navigation".  

   

4.2.2 Technology Classification

   

Fig. 3. Classification  of mission substitution smart technology

 

As shown in Fig. 3, the mission substitution smart technology can distinguish  the technology type as the recognition/judgment technology and the  countermeasure technology. First, the recognition/judgment technology is the  technology that replaces the existing method of acquiring/understanding. It  can be composed of sensors for information acquisition, big-data, and  processing technology such as the analysis of algorithms. On the other hand,  the countermeasure technology can be replaced with the S/W based automatic  control and measures, and the easy repair and fast replaced technology as a  technology to replace the existing measures for the crew to solve an  irregular  situation. In other words,  it refers to the common sense of the seafarer who judges the situation inside  and outside the ship, the decision making process, and the technique to  replace the physical control and support when the situation arises. The  countermeasure technologies must cope with all situations that arise due to  the nature  of ship type, navigation area, harbor, etc illustrating that the technical  scope is vast.       

In addition, the development of technologies that can solve the  special situations of ICT-based smart ships (i.e. shutdown of control  systems, hacking, cyber terrorism) as well as emergency situations of  existing ships should be considered. As a result, the crew substitution smart  technology, each individual crew duties, tasks that require many staff and  personnel placement for each situation, the analysis is essentially  responsible for the mission and it is possible to do this more clear development  through technical analysis.   

 

4.3 Technology Derivation Plan

 

Fig. 4. Mission substitution technology derivation plan   

 

4.3.1 Analysis of crew work  

As shown in Fig. 4, in order to identify the recognition/judgment technology and the countermeasure technology of the activity substitution smart technology, not only do individual tasks of the deck and engine part related to the actual operation of the ship, but also the arrival/departure, bunkering, It is necessary to analyze in detail the work environment, work level, and working time of the common activities which requires much manpower such as repair, cargo handling and unloading. In addition, we intend to specify the possibility of substitution smart technology and its necessity by analyzing the occurrence frequency of each detailed work activity and the risk analysis related to it at the time of sailing and when in port/anchoring.

   

4.3.2 Estimation of the minimum number of crew members on board

When the activity substitution smart technology is applied, measures should be taken to reduce the crew's duties by comprehensively reviewing the minimum manpower required for the seafarers' individual tasks, common tasks, general situations and emergency situations. However, despite the fact that minimum crew members perform all the duties on board, this should not have a direct effect on crew fatigue or long-term safe navigation.

 

4.3.3 Technical definition and reliability           

Table 5 shows the definition and technical reliability of each step based on activity substitution smart technology. This is the autonomous ship Level 1 and Level 2 and the unmanned vessel Level 3, but it is further specified by distinguishing between the recognition/judgment technology and the countermeasure technology (normal and emergency situation), which is a substituted technical classification of the activity. In the first phase of development of substitution technology, this paper first develops the situation judgment/decision support system based on the recognition/judgment technology, and based on this, in the second and third stages how it will cope in both normal and emergency situations where a 100% reliability level is aimed for.

 

Table 5 Definition and reliabilaity of mission substituttion technology development                        

Step	Definition	Reliability
1st  stage   (Automation 3rd  stage)	Development of  decision support system based on sensor / big data analysis result based on  recognition / judgment technology	Recognition /  judgment technology (80%)
2nd  stage   (Automation 4th  stage)	Development of  countermeasures for general situation level according to decision result	Recognition /  judgment technology (100%) +  Countermeasure technology (60%) (Normal)
3rd  stage   (Automation 5th  stage)	Development of  countermeasure technology at emergency level according to decision result	Countermeasure technology (60%)   (Normal + Emergency)

  

5. Conclusion

  

In this study, the authors introduced the direction of development for activity substitution smart technology for unmanned ships while securing economy of operation in relation to the development of smart autonomous ships. The reduction of the minimum manning of the ship is a comprehensive review of each crew's individual duties, the characteristics of the onboard work, the level of response according to the situation and detailed technical elements that can significantly change the duties performed by the crew.

  

To this end, the authors of this paper argue that as the global shipping industry evolves, the demand for smart technology for ships is increasing. Accordingly, the authors of this paper expect it to contribute to strengthening international competitiveness of advanced smart ship technology through the development and application of IT shipbuilding convergence technology and revitalization of the high value-added digital shipbuilding industry.

  
 Reference

IMO. Res. A.1047(27) 2011. Principle of minimum safe manning  

MLC. 2006. A2.3 Marine Labour Convention  

Republic of the Marshall island. Minimum safe manning requirements for vessels