DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/kapal.v22i2.72849

Utilizing ANP for a Comprehensive Risk Assessment and Mitigation Prioritization of Lithium Battery Energy Storage Systems (LBESS) on Commissioning Service Operation Vessels (CSOV)

*Deri Setiawan  -  Department of Marine Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS) Surabaya, Indonesia
Nurhadi Siswantoro orcid scopus  -  Department of Marine Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS) Surabaya, Indonesia
Trika Pitana orcid scopus  -  Department of Marine Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS) Surabaya, Indonesia
Received: 1 May 2025; Published: 7 Jul 2025.
Open Access Copyright (c) 2025 Kapal: Jurnal Ilmu Pengetahuan dan Teknologi Kelautan
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Citation Format:
Abstract

Integrating Lithium Battery Energy Storage Systems (LBESS) into offshore Commissioning Service Operation Vessels (CSOV) poses significant safety concerns, including fire, explosion, and toxic gas release. The expanding offshore wind industry increases demand for CSOVs equipped with energy storage, making robust risk management essential. This study addresses the critical need to understand and manage LBESS hazards on CSOVs, given the absence of comprehensive international regulations and inherent lithium battery risks like thermal runaway.

This study utilizes Risk Assessment data and the Analytic Network Process (ANP) to analyze these hazards and identify optimal mitigation strategies. The research systematically identified six distinct hazards, eighteen main causes, and twenty specific sub-causes through hazard identification (HAZID). A purposive sampling method selected seven qualified practitioners with at least three years of experience in BESS security and risk assessment on CSOVs, including ship construction supervision. Data was collected via a questionnaire using pairwise comparisons and the Saaty scale, processed with SuperDecisions software, and combined using Geomean calculations.

The ANP analysis shows safety is the top priority for LBESS implementation (63.6%), significantly exceeding environmental (16.3%) and operational (10.2%) factors. Within safety, explosion (39.0%) and fire (25.9%) are the most prevalent hazards , with thermal runaway and battery electrolyte decomposition being key contributors to LBESS failure. For mitigation, the analysis highlights Battery Physical Design and Protection (31.5%), Battery Monitoring and Control Systems (27.9%), and Operational Procedures and Training (15.4%) as crucial. Prioritizing safety is essential for LBESS deployment on CSOVs, with explosion and fire being the most severe threats, and robust engineering and operational protocols are critical mitigation strategies.

Fulltext
Keywords: Risk Assessment, Lithium Battery, Energy Storage System, LIBESS, CSOV Vessel, ANP.

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Research Articles
Language : EN
Recent articles
Utilizing ANP for a Comprehensive Risk Assessment and Mitigation Prioritization of Lithium Battery Energy Storage Systems (LBESS) on Commissioning Service Operation Vessels (CSOV) Effect of Pitch Distribution on The Propeller Efficiency and Cavitation of Offshore Patrol Vessels 98 Meter Domestic Container Shipping Market Profile: A Case Study of Indonesia More recent articles
Most cited articles
Estimation of Effective Wave Slope Coefficient of Ships with Large Breadth and Draught Ratio PENGARUH BENTUK LAMBUNG KAPAL TERHADAP POLA ALIRAN DAN POWERING PADA KAPAL PERAIRAN SUNGAI DAN LAUT PEMANFAATAN TENAGA ANGIN DAN SURYA SEBAGAI ALAT PEMBANGKIT LISTRIK PADA BAGAN PERAHU PENGARUH ANTI-SLAMMING BULBOUS BOW TERHADAP GERAKAN SLAMMING PADA KAPAL PERINTIS 200 DWT HIGH SPEED SHIP TOTAL RESISTANCE CALCULATION (AN EMPIRICAL STUDY) More cited articles
  1. “Guidance on the Safety of BESS on board ships EMSA Guidance on the Safety of Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) on board ships,” 2023
  2. Y. Chen and H. Lin, “Overview of the development of offshore wind power generation in China,” Oct. 01, 2022, Elsevier Ltd. doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2022.102766
  3. B. Li, “Operability study of walk-to-work for floating wind turbine and service operation vessel in the time domain,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 220, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.108397
  4. R. Yin et al., “Risk analysis for marine transport and power applications of lithium ion batteries: A review,” Jan. 01, 2024, Institution of Chemical Engineers. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2023.11.015
  5. DNV GL, “DNVGL-RU-SHIP-Pt6Ch2 Propulsion, power generation and auxiliary systems,” 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.dnvgl.com,
  6. H. Helgesen, “MARITIME BATTERY SAFETY JOINT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Technical Reference for Li-ion Battery Explosion Risk and Fire Suppression Partner Group,” 2019, [Online]. Available: www.dnvgl.com
  7. C. Zhang et al., “Fire Accident Risk Analysis of Lithium Battery Energy Storage Systems during Maritime Transportation,” Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 15, no. 19, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.3390/su151914198
  8. E. H. Y. Moa and Y. I. Go, “Large-scale energy storage system: safety and risk assessment,” Sustainable Energy Research, vol. 10, no. 1, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1186/s40807-023-00082-z
  9. M. Ghiji et al., “A review of lithium-ion battery fire suppression,” Oct. 01, 2020, MDPI AG. doi: 10.3390/en13195117
  10. “Handbook on Battery Energy Storage System,” Manila, Philippines, Dec. 2018. doi: 10.22617/TCS189791-2
  11. J. A. Jeevarajan, T. Joshi, M. Parhizi, T. Rauhala, and D. Juarez-Robles, “Battery Hazards for Large Energy Storage Systems,” ACS Energy Lett, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 2725–2733, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1021/acsenergylett.2c01400
  12. O. Grönlund, M. Quant, M. Rasmussen, O. Willstrand, and J. Hynynen, DIVISION SAFETY AND TRANSPORT FIRE SAFE TRANSPORT Guidelines for the fire protection of battery energy storage systems
  13. P. J. Bugryniec, E. G. Resendiz, S. M. Nwophoke, S. Khanna, C. James, and S. F. Brown, “Review of gas emissions from lithium-ion battery thermal runaway failure — Considering toxic and flammable compounds,” May 15, 2024, Elsevier Ltd. doi: 10.1016/j.est.2024.111288
  14. M. Kaliaperumal et al., “Cause and mitigation of lithium-ion battery failure—a review,” Materials, vol. 14, no. 19, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.3390/ma14195676
  15. M. Zhi et al., “Review of prevention and mitigation technologies for thermal runaway in lithium-ion batteries,” Aerospace Traffic and Safety, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 55–72, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.aets.2024.06.002
  16. X. Hu et al., “Advancements in the safety of Lithium-Ion Battery: The Trigger, consequence and mitigation method of thermal runaway,” Feb. 01, 2024, Elsevier B.V. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2023.148450
  17. J. E, H. Xiao, S. Tian, and Y. Huang, “A comprehensive review on thermal runaway model of a lithium-ion battery: Mechanism, thermal, mechanical, propagation, gas venting and combustion,” Aug. 01, 2024, Elsevier Ltd. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2024.120762
  18. W. He et al., “Lessons learned from the commercial exploitation of marine battery energy storage systems,” May 15, 2024, Elsevier Ltd. doi: 10.1016/j.est.2024.111440
  19. T. Zhu, S. Haugen, and Y. Liu, “Risk information in decision-making: definitions, requirements and various functions,” J Loss Prev Process Ind, vol. 72, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104572
  20. R. Stoiber and L. O. Valøen, “Project name: Qualification of Large Battery Systems Report title: DNV GL Handbook for Maritime,” 2016, [Online]. Available: www.dnvgl.com
  21. A. Aksöz, B. Asal, S. Golestan, M. Gençtürk, S. Oyucu, and E. Biçer, “Electrification in Maritime Vessels: Reviewing Storage Solutions and Long-Term Energy Management,” Applied Sciences, vol. 15, no. 10, p. 5259, May 2025, doi: 10.3390/app15105259
  22. H. Taherdoost and M. Madanchian, “Analytic Network Process (ANP) Method: A Comprehensive Review of Applications, Advantages, and Limitations,” Journal of Data Science and Intelligent Systems, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 12–18, May 2023, doi: 10.47852/bonviewjdsis3202885
  23. T. L. Saaty and M. Hall, “FUNDAMENTALS OF THE ANALYTIC NETWORK PROCESS.”
  24. M. R. Asadabadi, E. Chang, and M. Saberi, “Are MCDM methods useful? A critical review of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Analytic Network Process (ANP),” Cogent Eng, vol. 6, no. 1, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1080/23311916.2019.1623153
  25. J. J. Wang, Y. Y. Jing, C. F. Zhang, and J. H. Zhao, “Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making,” Dec. 2009. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021
  26. S. Kheybari, F. M. Rezaie, and H. Farazmand, “Analytic network process: An overview of applications,” Appl Math Comput, vol. 367, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2019.124780
  27. I. Etikan, “Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling,” American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 1, 2016, doi: 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2025-08-07 00:59:00

No citation recorded.