Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 51 - 63 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.4274/jems.2021.64872 İndeks Tarihi: 08-06-2021

Analysis of Draught Survey Errors by Extended Fuzzy AnalyticHierarchy Process

Öz:
Bulk carriers and general cargo vessels have the largest number and tonnage among different types of ship fleets. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development data in 2019, the tonnage of the global bulk carrier and general cargo vessel is 842,438,000 and 74,000,000 metric tons, respectively. The main cargo weight measurement method for bulk carriers and general cargo vessels is the draught survey calculation. In this study, a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process questionnaire was prepared based on previous studies and experts’ opinions. Responses from the experts were consolidated to determine the priority vector of the criteria of draught survey error sources. Expert evaluations showed that the major reasons of draught survey inconsistencies are problems occurring at draught reading and ballast measurement stages. Accordingly, the most effective alternatives to minimize the errors were found to be training and documentation, which are closely related to education. This study aims to determine the draught survey error causes and their priorities along with different means to reduce the errors from the experts’ opinions. This study will contribute to the literature by shedding light on draught survey errors in which studies in the academic literature are very limited.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • [1] “Economic and Social Council. Code of Uniform Standards and Procedures for the Performance of Draught Surveys of Coal Cargoes.” ECE, 1992. [Retrieved 17 December 2019 from]. https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/ie/se/pdfs/ece_ energy_19e.pdf.
  • [2] “UK P&I Club, Carefully to Carry,” Cargo Measurement, London: UK P&I Club.
  • [3] “Review of Maritime Transport,” UNCTAD, 2019. Retrieved January 12th, 2021, from https://unctad.org/system/files/ official-document/rmt2019_en.pdf
  • [4] IIMS. “Unit 5 Draught Surveying,” [Retrieved January 16th, 2021, from] https://www.academia.edu/33673828/UNIT_5_ Draught_Surveying
  • [5] C. B. BARRASS, and D.R, “Ship Stability for Masters and Mates,” Oxford: Elsevier Ltd, ISBN: 13:987-0-7506-6784-5. DERRETT, 2006.
  • [6] J. Isbester, “Bulk Carrier Practice,” London: ISBN: 1870077164. The Nautical Institute; 1993.
  • [7] G. Xu, K. Zhao, Z. Zuo, G. Liu, B. Jian, Y. Lın, et al. “Assessing Risk of Draught Survey by AHP Method,” China: AIP Conference Proceedings; 2018.
  • [8] Ö. Uğurlu, “Application of Fuzzy Extended AHP Methodology for Selection of Ideal Ship for Oceangoing Watchkeeping Officers,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 47, pp. 132- 140, May 2015.
  • [9] IIMS (1996) “Code of Practice for Draught Surveys. International Institute of Marine Surveyors,” Witherby & Company Ltd; 0 edition, London: January 1, 1998.
  • [10] West of England P&I Club (2018). “Inaccuracies in Draught Surveys,” [Retrieved December 18th, 2019] from https://www. westpandi.com/getattachment/08717f3d-c72d-43f8-a872- 3efcbf4345f9/loss-prevention-bulletins_inaccuracies-indraught-surveys_v2_lr-1-.pdf?disposition=attachment
  • [11] Japan P&I Club, “Preventing Cargo Shortage,” P&I Loss Prevention Bulletin vol. 37, Tokyo: Japan P&I Club, 2016.
  • [12] UK P&I Club, “Cargo Measurement,” Retrieved July 20, 2019 from https://www.ukpandi.com/fileadmin/uploads/uk-pi/LP%20 Documents/Carefully_to_Carry/C2C_Articles_2018/Cargo_ Measurement.pdf
  • [13] J. Ernstsen, and S. Nazir, “Consistency in the development of performance assessment methods in the maritime domain,” WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, vol. 17, pp. 71-90, February 2018.
  • [14] J. H. Myers, and M. I. Alpert, “Determinant Buying Attitudes: Meaning and Measurement,” Journal of Marketing, vol. 32, pp. 13-20, 1968.
  • [15] T. L. Saaty, “A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 15, pp. 234- 281, June 1997.
  • [16] E. W. L. Cheng, H. Li, and D. C. K. Ho, “Analytic Hierarchy Proses (AHP) a Defective Tool When Used Improperly,” Measuring Business Excellence, vol. 6, pp. 33-37, December 2002.
  • [17] P. J. M. van Laarhaven, and W. Pedrycz, “A Fuzzy Extension of Saaty’s Priority Theory, ” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 11, pp. 229-241, 1983.
  • [18] T. L. Saaty, Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytical Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World. Pennsylvania: Lifetime Learning Publications, 1982.
  • [19] Y. M. Wang, T. Elhag, and Z. Hua, “A Modified Fuzzy Logarithmic Least Squares Method for Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 157, pp. 3055-3071, 2007.
  • [20] D.Y. Chang, “Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 95, pp. 649- 655, December 1996.
  • [21] N. Gedik, “Assessment of the Importance of Competence Criteria for Persons Who Will Work as Electro-Technical Officer on Board.” Journal of ETA Maritime Science, vol. 5, pp. 140-152, 2017.
  • [22] C. R. Wu, C. W. Chang, and H. L. Lin, “Evaluating The Organizational Performance Of Taiwanese Hospitals Using The Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process,” The Journal of American Academy of Business, vol. 9, pp. 201-210, 2006.
  • [23] D.Y. Chang, “Extent analysis and synthetic decision,” Optimization Techniques and Applications, vol. 95, pp. 52-355, 1992.
  • [24] L. Mıkhaılov, “Deriving Priorities from Fuzzy Pairwise Comparison Judgements,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 134, pp. 365-385, March 2003.
  • [25] T.L. Saaty, “How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 48, pp. 9-26, September 1990.
  • [26] Y. M. Wang, Y. Luo, Z. Hua, “On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol, 186, pp. 735-747, April 2008.
  • [27] L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy Sets,” Information and Control, vol. 8, pp. 338-353, June 1965.
  • [28] H. M. Hsu, and C. T. Chen, “Fuzzy credibility relation method for multiple criteria decision-making problems,” Information Sciences, vol. 96, pp. 79-91, January 1997.
  • [29] J. J. Buckley, “Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 17, pp. 233-247, December 1985.
  • [30] W. Perdycz, “Why triangular membership functions?” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 64, pp. 21-30, May 1994.
  • [31] A. H. Lee, W. C. Chen, and C. J. Chang, “A fuzzy AHP and BSC Approach for Evaluating Performance of IT Department in the Manufacturing Industry in Taiwan,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 34, pp. 96-107, January 2008.
  • [32] S. Köse, M. Özkök, F.B. Demirel, and E. Köse, “Performance Indicators Considered for Selection of Agency in Maritime Industry,” Transportation Journal, vol. 57, pp. 238-257, 2018.
  • [33] C. W. Chang C. R. Wu, C. T. Lin, and H. C. Chen, “Evaluating and controlling silicon wafer slicing quality using fuzzy analytic hierarchy and sensitivity,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 36, pp. 322-333, March 2008.
  • [34] K. Zhu, Y. Jıng, and D. Chang, “A discussion on Extent Analysis Method and Applications of Fuzzy AHP,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 116, pp. 450-456, July 1999.
  • [35] F. T. S. Chang, and N. Kumar “Global Supplier Development Considering Risk Factors Using Fuzzy Extended AHP-Based Approach,” Omega, vol. 35, pp. 417-431, August 2007.
  • [36] N. B. Chang, Y. H. Chang, and H. W. Chen, “Fair Fund Distribution for a Municipal Incinerator Using GIS-Based Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 90, pp. 441-454, Jan 2007.
  • [37] A. C. Cheng, C. J. Chen, and C. Y. Chen, “A fuzzy multiple criteria comparison of technology forecasting methods for predicting the new materials development,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 75, pp. 131-141, January 2008
APA Canımoğlu R, YILDIRIM U, İnegöl G (2021). Analysis of Draught Survey Errors by Extended Fuzzy AnalyticHierarchy Process. , 51 - 63. 10.4274/jems.2021.64872
Chicago Canımoğlu Refik,YILDIRIM Umut,İnegöl Gani Mustafa Analysis of Draught Survey Errors by Extended Fuzzy AnalyticHierarchy Process. (2021): 51 - 63. 10.4274/jems.2021.64872
MLA Canımoğlu Refik,YILDIRIM Umut,İnegöl Gani Mustafa Analysis of Draught Survey Errors by Extended Fuzzy AnalyticHierarchy Process. , 2021, ss.51 - 63. 10.4274/jems.2021.64872
AMA Canımoğlu R,YILDIRIM U,İnegöl G Analysis of Draught Survey Errors by Extended Fuzzy AnalyticHierarchy Process. . 2021; 51 - 63. 10.4274/jems.2021.64872
Vancouver Canımoğlu R,YILDIRIM U,İnegöl G Analysis of Draught Survey Errors by Extended Fuzzy AnalyticHierarchy Process. . 2021; 51 - 63. 10.4274/jems.2021.64872
IEEE Canımoğlu R,YILDIRIM U,İnegöl G "Analysis of Draught Survey Errors by Extended Fuzzy AnalyticHierarchy Process." , ss.51 - 63, 2021. 10.4274/jems.2021.64872
ISNAD Canımoğlu, Refik vd. "Analysis of Draught Survey Errors by Extended Fuzzy AnalyticHierarchy Process". (2021), 51-63. https://doi.org/10.4274/jems.2021.64872
APA Canımoğlu R, YILDIRIM U, İnegöl G (2021). Analysis of Draught Survey Errors by Extended Fuzzy AnalyticHierarchy Process. Journal of Eta Maritime Science, 9(1), 51 - 63. 10.4274/jems.2021.64872
Chicago Canımoğlu Refik,YILDIRIM Umut,İnegöl Gani Mustafa Analysis of Draught Survey Errors by Extended Fuzzy AnalyticHierarchy Process. Journal of Eta Maritime Science 9, no.1 (2021): 51 - 63. 10.4274/jems.2021.64872
MLA Canımoğlu Refik,YILDIRIM Umut,İnegöl Gani Mustafa Analysis of Draught Survey Errors by Extended Fuzzy AnalyticHierarchy Process. Journal of Eta Maritime Science, vol.9, no.1, 2021, ss.51 - 63. 10.4274/jems.2021.64872
AMA Canımoğlu R,YILDIRIM U,İnegöl G Analysis of Draught Survey Errors by Extended Fuzzy AnalyticHierarchy Process. Journal of Eta Maritime Science. 2021; 9(1): 51 - 63. 10.4274/jems.2021.64872
Vancouver Canımoğlu R,YILDIRIM U,İnegöl G Analysis of Draught Survey Errors by Extended Fuzzy AnalyticHierarchy Process. Journal of Eta Maritime Science. 2021; 9(1): 51 - 63. 10.4274/jems.2021.64872
IEEE Canımoğlu R,YILDIRIM U,İnegöl G "Analysis of Draught Survey Errors by Extended Fuzzy AnalyticHierarchy Process." Journal of Eta Maritime Science, 9, ss.51 - 63, 2021. 10.4274/jems.2021.64872
ISNAD Canımoğlu, Refik vd. "Analysis of Draught Survey Errors by Extended Fuzzy AnalyticHierarchy Process". Journal of Eta Maritime Science 9/1 (2021), 51-63. https://doi.org/10.4274/jems.2021.64872