Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T12:06:57.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Intelligent Spatial Collision Risk Based on the Quaternion Ship Domain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 September 2010

Ning Wang
Ning Wang*
Affiliation:
(Marine Engineering College, Dalian Maritime University, China)
*
(Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, a novel ship domain model termed quaternion ship domain (QSD) is proposed. Unlike other ship domains, the proposed QSD is more dependable and more flexible for navigators to use to make decisions. The main characteristics are that: the domain size is determined by the quaternion including four radii, i.e. fore, aft, starboard and port, which sufficiently take factors affecting the domain (i.e. ship manoeuvring capability, speeds and courses, etc.) into account; and that the domain shape is modelled by another parameter which makes the QSD more flexible since the ship boundary could not only be linear or nonlinear, but also be thin or fat. In order to reasonably relate the proposed QSD to practical applications, i.e. collision risk assessment, collision avoidance and trajectory planning, etc., a fuzzy QSD (FQSD) has been developed by using fuzzy sets. As a result, fuzzy boundaries rather than crisp ones in the FQSD are more practical and more convenient for navigators to understand and judge since uncertainty and fuzzy information have been merged into the FQSD. Furthermore, concepts of longitudinal and lateral risk based on the FQSD have been introduced to estimate the spatial collision risk (SCR) for the ships encountered. Finally, several computer simulations have been conducted on various encounter situations and comparative studies with other ship domains have been comprehensively analyzed. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed QSD is more effective and more flexible than other ship domains, and that the intelligent SCR based on the FQSD are reasonable and dependable.

Keywords

Ship domainCollision avoidanceCollision risk
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 63 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 733 - 749
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Coldwell, T. G. (1983). Marine traffic behaviour in restricted waters. The Journal of Navigation, 36, 431–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, P. V., Dove, M. J. and Stockel, C. T. (1980). A computer simulation of marine traffic using domains and arenas. The Journal of Navigation, 33, 215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, P. V., Dove, M. J. and Stockel, C. T. (1982). A computer simulation of multi-ship encounters. The Journal of Navigation, 35, 347–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, Y. and Tanaka, K. (1971). Traffic capacity. The Journal of Navigation, 24, 543–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, E. M. (1975). A statistical study of ship domains. The Journal of Navigation, 28, 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gucma, L. and Pietrzykowski, Z. (2006). Ship manoeuvring in restricted areas: an attempt to quantify dangerous situations using a probabilistic-fuzzy method. The Journal of Navigation, 59, 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, C. N. (2002). The integrated design of fuzzy collision-avoidance and H ∞-autopilots on ships. The Journal of Navigation, 55, 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kao, S. L., Lee, K. T., Chang, K. Y. and Ko, M. D. (2007). A fuzzy logic method for collision avoidance in vessel traffic service. The Journal of Navigation, 60, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kijima, K. and Furukawa, Y. (2001). Design of automatic collision avoidance system using fuzzy inference. Proceeding of IFAC Conference on Control Applications in Marine Systems, Glasgow, U.K.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kijima, K. and Furukawa, Y. (2003). Automatic collision avoidance system using the concept of blocking area. Proceeding of IFAC Conference on Manoeuvring and Control of Marine Craft, Girona, Spain.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lisowski, J., Rak, A. and Czechowicz, W. (2000). Neural network classifier for ship domain assessment. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 51, 399–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, E. and Inoue, K. (2003). Simulator studies on a collision avoidance display that facilitates efficient and precise assessment of evasive manoeuvres in congested waterways. The Journal of Navigation, 56, 411–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietrzykowski, Z. and Uriasz, J. (2004). The ship domain in a deep-sea area. Proceeding of the 3rd International Conference on Computer and IT Applications in the Maritime Industries, Siguenza, Spain.Google Scholar
Pietrzykowski, Z. and Uriasz, J. (2006). Ship domain in navigational situation assessment in an open sea area. Proceeding of the 5th International Conference on Computer and IT Applications in the Maritime Industries, Oegstgeest, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Pietrzykowski, Z. and Uriasz, J. (2009). The ship domain – a criterion of navigational safety assessment in an open sea area. The Journal of Navigation, 62, 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietrzykowski, Z. (2008). Ship's fuzzy domain-a criterion for navigational safety in narrow fairways. The Journal of Navigation, 61, 499–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smierzchalski, R. and Michalewicz, Z. (2000). Modelling of a ship trajectory in collision situations at sea by evolutionary algorithm. IEEE Transaction on Evolutionary Computation, 4(3), 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smierzchalski, R. (2001). On-line trajectory planning in collision situation at sea by evolutionary computation-experiments. Proceeding of IFAC Conference on Computer Applications in Marine Systems, Glasgow, U.K.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szlapczynski, R. (2006). A unified measure of collision risk derived from the concept of a ship domain. The Journal of Navigation, 59, 477–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szlapczynski, R. (2008). A new method of planning collision avoidance manoeuvres for multi-target encounter situations. The Journal of Navigation, 61, 307–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, N., Meng, X. Y., Xu, Q. Y. and Wang, Z. W. (2009). A unified analytical framework for ship domains. The Journal of Navigation, 62, 307–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, P. A., Harris, C. J. and Hong, X. (2003). A line of sight counteraction navigation algorithm for ship encounter collision avoidance. The Journal of Navigation, 56, 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, J., Wu, Z. and Wang, F. (1993). Comments on ship domains. The Journal of Navigation, 46, 422–436.Google Scholar
Zhu, X., Xu, H. and Lin, J. (2001). Domain and its model based on neural networks. The Journal of Navigation, 54, 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar