Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T09:25:15.396Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reducing the risk of collision between ships in a close-quarters situation by simulating collision avoidance actions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2021

Djani Mohovic ,
Robert Mohovic ,
Marko Suljic  and
Marko Njegovan
Djani Mohovic*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Maritime Studies, University of Rijeka, Croatia
Robert Mohovic
Affiliation:
Faculty of Maritime Studies, University of Rijeka, Croatia
Marko Suljic
Affiliation:
Faculty of Maritime Studies, University of Rijeka, Croatia
Marko Njegovan
Affiliation:
Faculty of Maritime Studies, University of Rijeka, Croatia
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

‘Close-quarters situation’ is a term used in the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. As the term is not precisely defined, this paper analyses the interpretations and definitions of the term by various authors or courts, based on judicial processes and judgments. In the end, the authors suggest their own definition of the term ‘close-quarters situation’. Knowing the minimum distance from another ship and the time to the closest point of approach at which collision may still be avoided by one's own manoeuvre is information that every ship's officer needs to know. In accordance with the proposed definition of the term ‘close-quarters situation’, minimum distances between ships and time to the closest point of approach in which the ship can still take action to avoid a collision by its own manoeuvring are determined by means of simulations on a navigational simulator. A total of 168 simulations were performed with three fine-form vessel sizes and three full-form vessel sizes. Due to the extensive amount of data, the paper presents the results for one vessel only.

Keywords

close-quarters situationlast opportunity to avoid collisionaction to avoid a collision
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 74 , Issue 3 , May 2021 , pp. 558 - 573
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2021

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

Bakdi, A., Glad, I. K., Vanem, E. and Engelhardtsen, Ø. (2019). AIS-based multiple vessel collision and grounding risk identification based on adaptive safety domain. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 8(1), 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldauf, M., Mehdi, R., Deeb, H., UweSchröder-Hinrichs, J., Benedict, K., Krüger, C., Fischer, S. and Gluch, M. (2015). Manoeuvring areas to adapt ACAS for the maritime domain. Scientific Journals of the Maritime University of Szczecin, 43(115), 39–47.Google Scholar
Baldauf, M., Mehdi, R., Fischer, S. and Gluch, M. (2017). A perfect warning to avoid collisions at sea? Scientific Journals of the Maritime University of Szczecin, 49(121), 53–64.Google Scholar
Cahill, R. A. (1983). Collisions and Their Causes. London, England: Fairplay Publications.Google Scholar
Cockcroft, A. N. and Lameijer, J. N. (2011). A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules. 7th Edition. Oxford Butterworth–Heinemann.Google Scholar
Cornillou, J. C. (2014). Close Quarter Situations Reporting by VTS. Université de Nantes, Nantes, France.Google Scholar
Craig, H. A. (2005). Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road. 8th Edition. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.Google Scholar
He, Y., Jin, Y., Huang, L., Xiong, Y., Chen, P. and Mou, J. (2017). Quantitative analysis of COLREG rules and seamanship for autonomous collision avoidance at open sea. Ocean Engineering, 140, 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IMO. (1972). Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. Consolidated Edition 2003, London, IMO Publication.Google Scholar
IMO (2004) Adoption of the Revised Performance Standards for Radar Equipment ((Resolution MSC.192 (79)). The Maritime Safety Committee on its seventy-ninth session (MSC 79/23). London, International Maritime Organization.Google Scholar
Krata, P. and Montewka, J. (2015). Assessment of a critical area for a give-way ship in a collision encounter. The Archives of Transport, 34(2), 51–60.10.5604/08669546.1169212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krata, P., Montewka, J. and Hinz, T. (2016). Towards the Assessment of Critical Area in a Collision Encounter Accounting for Stability Conditions of a Ship. Pr. Nauk. Politech. Warsz. Transport, 114, 169–178.Google Scholar
Mankabady, S. (1987). The Law of Collision at Sea. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.Google Scholar
Sjekavica, I. and Kacic, H. (1982). Pravila za izbjegavanje sudara na moru. Zagreb: Skolska knjiga.Google Scholar
Szlapczynski, R., Krata, P. and Szlapczynska, J. (2018). A ship domain-based method of determining action distances for evasive manoeuvres in stand-on situations. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2018, 1–19.10.1155/2018/3984962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Transas NaviSailor NTPro 5000. v5.35., Licensed by Faculty of Maritime Studies in Rijeka, Croatia.Google Scholar
Tsai, C. C., Chang, J. R. and Chen, C. L. (2017). Manoeuvrability-based critical time for preventing close-quarters situations. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 25(3), 249–258.Google Scholar