IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

A framework for description of autonomous ship systems and operations

To cite this article: Lars Andreas Lien Wennersberg et al 2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 929 012004

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 84.52.249.89 on 07/12/2020 at 10:08

The 3rd International Conference on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship (ICMASS 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 929 (2020) 012004 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/929/1/012004

A framework for description of autonomous ship systems

and operations

Lars Andreas Lien Wennersberg1,2, Håvard Nordahl1, Ø rnulf Jan Rødseth1,

Kay Fjørtoft1 and Even Ambros Holte1

1
SINTEF Ocean, Otto Nielsens veg 10, 7052 Trondheim, Norway
2
Corresponding author, e-mail: Lars.Andreas.Wennersberg@sintef.no

Abstract. The Concept of Operations, or ConOps, has become a central document for the
specification, design and approval of autonomous ship systems and operations in the absence of
prescriptive rules and regulations. The flexible structure of the ConOps and the fact that it is
written in prose text makes it very accessible for all involved stakeholders, but also prone to
discrepancies between the descriptions and the actual design. This paper proposes a description
framework, for autonomous ship systems and operations, that covers the information items
requested through the ConOps. The proposed framework has the potential to facilitate
development of a formalized ConOps, which in turn could lead to a standardization of the current
approval procedures for autonomous ship systems and operations.

1. Introduction
The development of autonomous ship systems is to a large degree driven by the need to improve
the sustainability and cost-effectiveness of zero-carbon shipping. The shift from conventional to
autonomous shipping will have a significant impact on how ships interact with their surroundings.
We expect that the autonomous ships will be designed to fit much more effectively into supply
chains and logistics systems [1]. We also expect more automation and increased digital
communication in ports and fairways. New interactions with onshore personnel that take over
functions from the traditional ship crew will also be introduced, and the interaction between ships
with and without crew onboard will need careful considerations. This and other elements in the
automated ship’s surroundings will require new communication principles and mechanisms. We
expect an extensive shift from voice communication to digital information exchanges between
automated entities.
The transition from conventional to autonomous shipping is challenging. The enabling
technologies for autonomous ship systems are largely untested and technology development runs
in parallel with implementation projects [2]. Issues with integration of technical systems has always
been a challenge in the maritime industry, and these issues are not expected to diminish for
autonomous ships. A tighter integration with shore-based systems adds on to the complexity of
both the systems and operations. We expect that few, if any, large autonomous ships will operate
completely without human control in the foreseeable future, but they will have personnel placed
onshore both for supervision and control. Lack of crew onboard the ship will also require us to re-
think how daily maintenance activities shall be carried out [3]. There are several regulatory gaps
both on a national and international level. There are no prescriptive rules and regulations neither

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
The 3rd International Conference on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship (ICMASS 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 929 (2020) 012004 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/929/1/012004

for ships nor for equipment, and the definitions and responsibilities of the master, crew and
responsible person used in conventional shipping are not defined for autonomous shipping [4].
The purpose of this paper is to provide a systematic framework for description of autonomous
ship systems and operations. The target group of the framework are the stakeholders involved in
the design and specification, the approval, and the implementation of autonomous ship systems.
The proposed framework is a result of ongoing work with development of a design standard and a
holistic design methodology for autonomous ship systems and operations in the AUTOSHIP project
[5]. The objective of the framework is to support a structured way of organizing information
throughout the design process and the corresponding approval activities, as well as to lay the
foundation for detailed design activities, system implementation, testing and final approvals.
The framework is needed for several reasons. Development of new technology that supports
crew reductions onboard ships need clear and consistent descriptions of the relationships between
the physical components and the roles of the human actors in the autonomous ship system. The
system context is a critical part of the system design as it will define the system boundary and the
most important communication paths. The definition of the components that are inside or outside
of an autonomous ship system will have a major impact on the context.
The difference between the autonomous ship system and its context needs to be well understood,
and higher degrees of automation and integration of the system into specific supply chains and
logistics systems will require more context awareness during the design process compared to
conventional ship design processes.
In the following sections, we will discuss the expected approval process for autonomous ships
and analyse the information items that the authorities request through the Concept of Operations.
We will explain how the description framework is built up and discuss the advantages of adopting
the framework for design and approval activities.

2. The expected approval process

The approval process for conventional ships, seen from an industry perspective, is relatively
straight forward today. Much of the components and equipment is already type approved and the
final approval of the ship by the flag state or its recognized organisations is normally based on
prescriptive rules that are well suited to the industrial production processes. In addition, the class
societies will be involved, governed by the chosen class notations. All stakeholders involved in the
design, the build and the operation of the ship must ensure that the systems comply with known
requirements through the well-defined acceptance criteria and test regimes.
This is not the case for autonomous ship systems and operations as of today. The required
technology is unproven, and the development of this technology runs in parallel with ongoing
implementation projects. One could also say that the application domain for autonomous ships can
be very different than the domain for conventional ships: The desire to integrate an autonomous
ship into specific supply chains and logistics systems to optimize the cost-effectiveness could
potentially reduce the system flexibility and put constraints on the allowable operating area. The
lack of experience with the necessary technology, the operations and to some extent the application
domain is reflected by the lack of well-defined acceptance criteria and consequently prescriptive
rules.
There are however several initiatives that together work on closing the gaps. IMO has issued an
interim guideline for MASS trials to guide the authorities and stakeholders in the process of
planning and executing trials [6]. ISO has provided input to IMO on definitions of automation and
autonomy with the purpose of aligning the understanding of the terminology for autonomous ships
among involved stakeholders [7]. Several classification societies have issued guidelines for the
design and operation of autonomous ship systems to facilitate development and implementation
initiatives [8], [9], [10], [11]. We expect that the classification societies will gain experience
through their involvement in the processes, and then contribute to the transition towards a more
streamlined regulation framework. Until that happens, the IMO Guidelines for the Approval of

2
The 3rd International Conference on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship (ICMASS 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 929 (2020) 012004 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/929/1/012004

Alternatives and Equivalents [12] is thus the current norm for the design, the implementation
and the approval of autonomous ship systems. The Norwegian Maritime Authority (NMA) has as
a response issued a more specific circular [13] that is aligned with the IMO guidelines.
We do not expect that rules and regulations will be developed and made available for the
industry within short time, as the scoping and drafting exercises within IMO are time-consuming
processes. This will lead to many challenges and complications in the approval process of
autonomous ship systems that will be time consuming and costly for the involved stakeholders if
not managed in a structured and systematic way. Type approvals for new technology and equipment
are not possible within the current regime. We expect more testing of both individual systems and
integration testing prior to final approvals at commissioning and sea-trials. It is also likely that the
ship needs to be approved together with the system, at least for those components that are tightly
linked with the control and monitoring strategy. This leads to a case-by-case approval regime,
where the autonomous ships cannot be easily relocated to another operating area without
reapprovals. It also indicates that it probably not will be allowed to generalize the approval process
of a ship, but perhaps parts of it.
Whereas the approval process primarily is concerned with the safety and the security of
autonomous ship systems and operations, we expect that cost-effectiveness and sustainability
aspects will be more closely linked compared to today's conventional ship regime. As cost-effective
and sustainable operations are the primary motivation of the development initiatives, these aspects
will play an increasingly significant role when designing out and mitigating safety and security
hazards. We do not want autonomous ship systems that reduces the cost-effectiveness or worsens
the environmental impact of shipping operations, unless there are special circumstances where a
"higher than normal" safety and security level is desirable.
A key challenge is to precisely communicate all aspects of the autonomous ship system and
operations that are relevant for the approval activities, and understandable for a wide range of
involved stakeholders. For this purpose, the Concept of Operations has become a central document
for the specification of autonomous ship operations in the absence of both international and national
rules for the design, building and operation of autonomous ships.

3. The Concept of Operations (ConOps)

A number of maritime industry guidelines explicitly refers to the ConOps as a document that is to
be used to communicate the design of autonomous ship systems and operations [9], [10], [11]. This
also applies to the NMA circular that explicitly lists the ConOps as one of the documents that is to
be submitted as part of the autonomous ship system design study to initiate the preliminary design
approval process [13].
There are various definitions of the ConOps in international standards and it is not within the
scope of this paper to discuss these. The framework for description of autonomous ship systems
and operations that will be proposed in this paper should capture the information items that is
requested through the ConOps. The previous mentioned maritime guidelines has for that reason
been analyzed, and a summary of the main information items that these guidelines request as part
of the ConOps is listed in Table 1. The summary includes some non-exhaustive examples of
specific details, and also reflects information requests from a maritime guideline that implicitly
requests similar type of information [8].
Categories one to five list information items intended to describe the ship and the components
that it shall interact with, and this can be viewed as a description of the autonomous ship system
and the system context. Categories six and seven are a mix of functional and operational
requirements, as well as descriptions of the operating conditions. Category nine is concerned with
the safety management and operational management of the autonomous ship system.
The amount of information requested through the ConOps is extensive and should together be
considered as a collection of requirements that will need to be verified against the relevant
authorities' or class societies' specific needs. The ConOps should be looked upon as a living

3
The 3rd International Conference on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship (ICMASS 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 929 (2020) 012004 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/929/1/012004

document that is maintained throughout the life cycle of the autonomous ship system. It is to be
expected that the detail level will increase as the available information base is improved and the
uncertainties reduced.
Table 1. Summary of information elements requested in the Concept of Operations.

1 Physical characteristics of ship - major system elements and how they are connected and interact,
performance characteristics.
1.1 Size, speed, cargo type and capacity, cargo handling.
1.2 Steering, propulsion, energy storage and capacity, endurance.
1.3 Navigation system, sensors, position fixing systems and accuracy, detection capabilities.
1.4 Hull integrity, stability, hull strength.
1.5 Fire protection, cargo monitoring.
1.6 Communication systems.
2 External supporting systems during normal operations. Performance characteristics.
2.1 External sensor or positioning systems.
2.2 External automation in port for cargo, cold ironing, berthing.
2.3 Planned response services, tugs, escort.
3 Crew, passenger and others on board
3.1 How persons can enter ship.
3.2 How safety of persons is catered for.
3.3 Life support systems, if any.
4 Remote Control Centre.
4.1 Features of RCC if in use, manning levels, location, redundancy.
4.2 Communication systems for safe control.
4.3 Forms of human-machine interfaces where applicable.
4.4 Mechanisms for coordination of ship automation, ship crew and RCC personnel.
5 Communication with other ships, VTS, MRS.
5.1 Responsibilities for communication (RCC, automation, other).
5.2 Procedures and preparedness.
6 Functions and operations.
6.1 Intended area of operation, significant phases in operation and voyage, operational
environment and characteristics, limitations and restrictions.
6.2 Functions to be performed during operations and voyage.
6.3 Operational risk factors, including e.g. traffic density, environmental conditions, geography.
6.4 Division of responsibility between human and automation in the different functions/phases of
operation ("degree of automation/control/autonomy").
6.5 Additional support where applicable, e.g. incidence response, planned response.
6.6 Fallback solutions, minimum risk conditions.
7 Recovery, incident and emergency preparedness.
7.1 Incident or emergency preparedness systems and plans.
7.2 Towage, on board recovery teams.
8 Safety management system.
8.1 Logistics management.
8.2 Operations planning.
8.3 Operational procedures and responsibilities.
8.4 System health monitoring and system maintenance plans and facilities.

4
The 3rd International Conference on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship (ICMASS 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 929 (2020) 012004 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/929/1/012004

The advantage of the ConOps is that the format is very accessible for all stakeholders. It is normally
written in prose text and the structure is flexible. However, as the objective of the document also
is to facilitate precise communication of a specific design between the involved stakeholders, the
format has some shortcomings.
The use of prose text can be subject to individual interpretations. Information in the document
will be transferred from prose text into other engineering systems and tools, and back again.
Discrepancies between the ConOps description and the actual design could easily occur, causing a
mismatch between the design intention, the approval basis and subsequently the acceptance criteria.
The question whether this can be avoided has led to the question whether it is possible to formalize
the ConOps, and subsequently the identification of the need to have a framework for description
of autonomous ship systems and operations.

4. The AUTOSHIP description framework

The objective of the AUTOSHIP description framework is to support a structured way of
organizing information throughout the design process and the corresponding approval activities for
autonomous ship systems and operations, as well as to lay the foundation for detailed design
activities, system implementation, testing and final approvals. To achieve this, we have identified
that the framework should facilitate:
 a precise description and clear understanding of what an autonomous ship is,
 a precise description and clear understanding of the roles and relationships in the
autonomous ship system,
 systematic analysis of the autonomous ship systems ability to carry out the intended
voyages and operations, including safety, security and cost-effectiveness, and
 it should capture all information items that will be requested in the ConOps, as a minimum,
to satisfy the authorities.

The relationship between the four description documents that together constitutes the description
framework for autonomous ship systems and operations proposed in this paper, the scope of the
AUTOSHIP design methodology and the scope of the ConOps is illustrated in Figure 1.

AUTOSHIP design method

Autonomous ship System Operational Scenario description
system context envelope General Supply chain
description description description operations and logistics
ConOps
Figure 1. Relationship between the four design description documents and the ConOps.

The objective of the autonomous ship system description, the system context description and the
operational envelope description is to provide a general overview of what the proposed design can
do. These three documents have a one-to-one relationship with the ConOps.
The objective of the scenario description is to provide an exact description of what the proposed
design shall do, and this must match the abilities and constraints defined in the descriptions of the
autonomous ship system, the system context, and the operational envelope. Note that the scenario
description is divided into two parts: General operations and supply chain and logistics. The
primary concern for the approval of a system design is related to the general operations part of the
scenario description, which is important for the safety and security analysis.
The supply chain and logistics part will contain specific details of the intended operation,
including more details on cargo flows and the overall logistics model. If the ship is moved to
another operation, it will in many cases be possible to change only the supply chain and logistics

5
The 3rd International Conference on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship (ICMASS 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 929 (2020) 012004 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/929/1/012004

part, if this is within the boundaries of the general operation. This would allow reapproval for a
new operation by only checking that these two documents are consistent. It should not be necessary
to go through a full approval process again. The AUTOSHIP design methodology will also evaluate
the sustainability and cost-effectiveness of the autonomous ship system, and for this purpose an
extensive supply chain and logistics description is needed.
The relationship between the description framework, the system objectives and the resulting
design is illustrated in Figure 2. The system objectives are the highest-level objectives for the
design of the autonomous ship system and its operations, and these form the input needed to start
the design and specification process. They are typically linked to the business and societal effects
of the resulting outcome of implementing the design [14]. One example of a system objective is to
reduce the cost per transported unit of goods, and another is to increase the frequency of goods
deliveries to customers from a biweekly to a weekly basis. The collection of the four description
documents is the design that will be subject to approval activities, and it will, if deemed
economically viable, safe and sustainable, be subject to further detailed design activities,
implementation, testing and final approvals. The following subsections will outline the structure of
each of the four description documents.

System objectives

Scenarios Operational envelopes Autonomous ship system System context

Design

Figure 2. High-level structure of the framework.

4.1. Scenario description

The objective of the scenario description is to provide a description of what the proposed system
design shall do. The first part of this document includes a high-level description of the operations
that must be carried out given the specific system objectives. It also includes the properties of the
specific voyage. The second part of the document contains a detailed description of the supply
chain and logistics system that the autonomous ship system is part of. In the following, only the
first part will be discussed as this is most relevant for the approval process.
The scenario description provides an overview of the general operations in a framework that
divides the use cases into generic voyage phases [3]. This is illustrated in Figure 3, where each of
the generic voyage phases contain one or more operations.

Figure 3. Structure of the general operations in the scenario description.

The process of identifying the general operations is supported by a systematic supply chain

6
The 3rd International Conference on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship (ICMASS 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 929 (2020) 012004 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/929/1/012004

analysis and a proposal for process subdivision. The systematic supply chain analysis supports
identification of use cases based on semi-structured interviews of stakeholders as well as analysis
of available quantitative data for the specific supply chain and logistics system in question [3]. The
process subdivision provides guidance on relevant operations, functions, and tasks in an
autonomous ship system divided into ship operations, ship management operations, inland
waterways operations, port operations, coastal operations and on-site operations [5].
Identification and categorization of general operations and use-cases into generic voyage phases
is not sufficient to describe the scenarios that the autonomous ship system shall be designed for.
The properties of each operation must also be linked to the actual voyage and the specific sailing
route which is described in the supply chain and logistics document. The general operations will
have to describe each class of voyage phases, e.g. characterized by maximum wave height,
visibility, duration etc.
In the supply chain and logistics document, the voyage is described using directed graphs with
nodes and edges [15]. Each node corresponds to a geographical position and each edge is a voyage
leg between two positions. This is illustrated in Figure 4. In the general operations these can be
described as general use cases with parameters as suggested above.

Location Voyage leg Obstacle Voyage leg Location

Voyage Leg Voyage leg

Waypoint Voyage leg Obstacle Voyage leg Waypoint

Figure 4. Structure of the voyage in the scenario description.

The voyage contains three main types of nodes. A location describes a factory, quay, or any
equivalence where the ship carries out activities such as loading and offloading of goods. An
obstacle is a location on the route where the ships needs to pass e.g. a water lock or bridge but does
not offload or load any goods. A waypoint separates two voyage legs that have different
characteristics. The objective of this description is to provide an accurate overview of the
operational area and the characteristics of all locations and voyage legs that the ship will be subject
to during operations.
The systematic supply chain analysis is also used to establish the voyage description, and much
of the information that is obtained in this analysis will also be leveraged to create the operational
envelope description.

4.2. Operational envelope description

The Operational Envelope (OE) is defined as "the specific conditions and scenarios under which a
given autonomous ship system is designed to function" in [5]. An important step in the design
process of autonomous ship systems is to do an operability study where the capabilities of the
autonomous ship system is assessed. The capability assessment considers the tasks the autonomous
ship shall perform, and under which conditions the tasks must be performed. The result is a set of
operational limits for the autonomous ship system. The objective of the operational envelope is to
provide an accurate overview of all operating conditions that the autonomous ship system will
encounter, and translate this to boundaries for the identified operations and voyages, and a strategy
for distribution of and transfer of control between automation and humans. The structure of the
operational envelope description is illustrated in Figure 5.

7
The 3rd International Conference on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship (ICMASS 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 929 (2020) 012004 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/929/1/012004

Figure 5. Structure of the operational envelope description.

The operational envelope description is based on the high-level overview of the operations and
conditions identified in the general operations. Each scenario and operation consist of a set of
functions that can be further subdivided into specific tasks until an adequate level of details is
reached. All functions and tasks are subject to one or more operating conditions.
The conditions of the OE include weather complexity, traffic complexity and geographical
complexity in the temporal and spatial dimension of the operating area. The autonomous ship
system needs to be aware of changes in these conditions, and to be able to act in an appropriate
manner to ensure that it stays within the limits of the operational envelope boundary, or
alternatively fall back into a safe state or minimum risk condition outside the OE. Development of
the operational envelope description will require iterations over the autonomous ship system
description as it includes a description of the distribution of responsibility and transfer of control
between the components and roles defined in the autonomous ship system.

4.3. Autonomous ship system description

The objective of the autonomous ship system description is to provide a description of all physical
components and roles that together ensure effective monitoring and control of the autonomous ship
processes for the ship's intended operation or voyage. The autonomous ship system must be viewed
as a cyber-physical system of systems that consists of many physical components both onshore and
onboard the ship. These physical components interact with each other and they are connected and
communicate.
The structure of the autonomous ship system description is illustrated in Figure 6. The physical
components and roles are either allocated to the ship or to shore. The ship will have a combination
of various equipment, automation systems and crew onboard, and various equipment, automation
systems and personnel will support the ship operation from one or several shore-based locations.
The automation systems, ship crew and shore personnel will together have the overall
responsibility of operating both the ship and shore equipment, and this distribution of responsibility
is reflected in the operational envelope description. The main components of the communication
architecture, and the implementation of procedures, information models and protocols will affect
how control can be transferred between humans and automation and explicitly contribute to the
operability.

8
The 3rd International Conference on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship (ICMASS 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 929 (2020) 012004 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/929/1/012004

Figure 6. Structure of the autonomous ship system description.

The definition of the autonomous ship system proposed in the AUTOSHIP project is illustrated
in Figure 7 and a detailed description of the components and roles is given in [5]. The physical
components and roles within this definition has been selected based on the criteria of including the
components that are tightly integrated with the control and monitoring strategy of the autonomous
ship.

Figure 7. Examples of components and roles in an autonomous ship system [5].

It should be noted that it is possible that both the number and types of components, as well as
the number of ships in the autonomous ship system could vary depending on the specific system
objectives.

4.4. System context description

The objective of the system context description is to provide an accurate description of the
boundaries between the autonomous ship system and its environment that includes the components,
the roles and the most important communication paths. The structure of the system context
description is illustrated in Figure 8.

9
The 3rd International Conference on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship (ICMASS 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 929 (2020) 012004 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/929/1/012004

Figure 8. Structure of the system context description.

The description is divided into two parts. The first part contains a description of the shore-based
components and roles that the autonomous ship system interacts with. The second part of the
document contains a description of other ships that operate within the defined operating area of the
autonomous ship system. The essence of the system context description is to capture the
communication requirements between the autonomous ship system and the context components.
The definition of what is inside or outside the boundaries of the autonomous ship system is
subjective and likely to be influenced by the individual designer or design team. The selection of
the components that belong in the autonomous ship system creates the necessary boundary to define
the system context of the autonomous ship system. The definition of the system context proposed
in the AUTOSHIP project is illustrated in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Examples of components and roles in the context of the autonomous ship system [5].

A detailed description of these components and roles is given in [5], and it should be noted that
the system context only includes components that exchange information with the autonomous ship.

10
The 3rd International Conference on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship (ICMASS 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 929 (2020) 012004 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/929/1/012004

Unknown objects in the water are not included as they are mapped through the traffic complexity
conditions in the operational envelope description.

5. Discussion
We believe that it is possible to formalize the ConOps, and the AUTOSHIP framework for
description of autonomous ship systems and operations proposed in this paper is the first step in
this process. The framework facilitates the use of a formal modeling approach, and even though it
might be impossible to avoid prose text descriptions completely, the shift towards a formal
description will most likely reduce discrepancies between the actual design and the design
descriptions. A formal description of the autonomous ship system and operations would also
facilitate effective reuse of information between different designs and allow us to create strong
links between the design description and the approval basis, the acceptance criteria and test results.
The structure of the proposed framework also has some features that lead us to believe that it is
possible to standardize parts of the approval processes. The high-level structure of the autonomous
ship system description, the system context description and the operational envelope description
will probably not change much from design to design. We anticipate that it is possible to create a
maximum template that only needs to be configured according to the contents of the scenario
description. This would allow for a more efficient process. This also has the implication that should
one decide to change the operating area of an already built autonomous ship in the future, then
reapproval would require that an updated scenario description is assessed and analyzed with the
already existing autonomous ship description, the system context description and the operational
envelope description.
The description of the operations in terms of the general operations description would also allow
a much simpler reapproval process, should the ship be moved to another operating area.
The use of a common description framework will allow us to compare designs in cost and
benefit analysis using the same basic structure. This also applies to safety, security, and
cybersecurity analysis that requires a well-defined description of roles and relationships between
the autonomous ship system components and its environment.
In a wider scope, a common framework for description of autonomous ship systems will ease
work on standardisation activities, which are considered as essential for successful implementation
of autonomous shipping. This particularly applies to the communication links between the
autonomous ship system and its context. Furthermore, a common description framework
complemented by a corresponding common terminology that is being developed for autonomous
and automated ships, will enable more consistent communication in the technical and scientific
community researching this area.

6. Conclusions
This paper has introduced a framework for description of autonomous ship systems and operations
that consists of four description documents: The scenario description, the operational environment
description, the autonomous ship system description and the system context description. The
contents of the description framework cover the information items that the authorities request
through the ConOps. The framework has the potential to facilitate development of a formalized
ConOps. This could in turn lead to a standardization of the current approval procedures for
autonomous ship systems and operations. Further research is required to validate the framework
through implementation and testing on specific use-cases.

Acknowledgements
The work presented in this paper is a result of a collaboration between the AUTOSHIP project
funded by EU Horizon 2020 with grant number 815012 and the AEGIS project funded by EU
Horizon 2020 with grant number 859992

11
The 3rd International Conference on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship (ICMASS 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 929 (2020) 012004 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/929/1/012004

References
[1] Rødseth, Ø . J. (2018). Assessing business cases for autonomous and
unmanned ships. Technology and Science for the Ships of the Future. Proceedings
of NAV, 2018, 19th
[2] Heffner, K., & Rødseth, Ø . J. (2019, October). Enabling Technologies for Maritime Autonomous
Surface Ships. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1357, No. 1, p. 012021). IOP
Publishing
[3] Wennersberg, L. A. L., Nordahl, H., Bolbot, V., and Theotokatos,G. "AUTOSHIP
deliverable D2.1: Complete supply chain mapping & identification of interactions
between SSS and IWW demonstrators" , November 2019
[4] Faivre J., Nzengu W., Bolbot V. "AUTOSHIP deliverable D2.3: Regulatory framework
mapping & Identification of gaps and requirements for autonomous ships compliance",
Revision 3.0, May 2020
[5] Rødseth Ø .J., Faivre J., Hjørungnes S.R., Andersen P., Bolbot V., Pauwelyn A.S.,
Wennersberg L.A.L. "AUTOSHIP deliverable D3.1: Autonomous ship design standards",
Revision 1.0, June 2020
[6] IMO (2019). Interim Guidelines for MASS Trials, MSC.1/Circ.1604, 14 June 2019
[7] ISO (2020). Input document to Maritime Safety Committee, Session 102, agenda item 5:
Regulatory Scoping Exercise for the Use of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships
(MASS), Proposed terminology for MASS, Submitted by International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), February 2020
[8] Bureau Veritas (2019), Guidelines for Autonomous Shipping, October 2019, Guidance Note
NI 641 DT R01 E
[9] LR (2017), ShipRight - Design and Construction, Additional Design Procedures, LR Code
for Unmanned Marine Systems. February 2017
[10] ABS (2019) Advisory on Autonomous Functionality, American Bureau of Shipping
[11] DNV GL (2018) Class Guideline DNVGL-CG-0264, Autonomous and remotely operated ships
[12] IMO (2013). Guidelines for the Approval of Alternatives and Equivalents as provided for in
Various IMO Instruments, MSC.1/Circ.1455, 24 June 2013
[13] Norwegian flag state authorities (2019): Rundskriv ‐ Serie V (RSV 12-2020), "Requirements
to documentation in conjunction with building autonomous, unmanned and/or remotely
controlled vessels" – 04.06.2020 (In Norwegian)
[14] Samset, K. (2010). "Early project appraisal: making the initial choices". Springer, pp 12-18
[15] Cormen, T.H., Leiserson, C.E., Rivest, R.L., Stein, C., 2009. "Introduction to Algorithms",
Second Edition, MIT Press, pp. 528

12