Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T11:57:28.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Revisit of the Definition of the Ship Domain based on AIS Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2018

Axel Hörteborn*
Affiliation:
(SSPA Sweden AB, SE-400 22 Gothenburg, Sweden)
Jonas W. Ringsberg
Affiliation:
(Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences, Division of Marine Technology, SE-412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden)
Martin Svanberg
Affiliation:
(SSPA Sweden AB, SE-400 22 Gothenburg, Sweden)
Henrik Holm
Affiliation:
(Svenska Beräkningsbyrån)
*

Abstract

When ships approach each other, they should keep a minimum area around them clear of other vessels in order to remain safe. The geometrical shape of this area has been studied since the early 1970s and is defined as the ship domain. The progress in computer capacity since then and the introduction of the Automatic Identification System (AIS) provides the potential to further investigate the size and the governing factors of the domain. This investigation revisits and proposes a method using data based on 600,000 ship encounters at 36 locations. It is concluded that the ship domain has the shape of an ellipse with half axis radii of 0.9 and 0.45 nautical miles. However, there are two factors that greatly affect the ship domain: how large the area is that is used to gather vessel intersections and whether they are constrained by water depth. In contradiction to some previous research, it is found that the ship domain is unrelated to the length of the ship.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2018 

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

Chang, S.-J., Hsiao, D.-T. and Wang, W.-C. (2014). AIS-based delineation and interpretation of ship domain models. OCEANS 2014-TAIPEI, IEEE, 16.Google Scholar
Coldwell, T. (1983). Marine traffic behaviour in restricted waters. The Journal of Navigation, 36, 430444.Google Scholar
Copping, A., Breithaupt, S., Whiting, J., Grear, M., Tagestad, J. and Shelton, G. (2016). Likelihood of a marine vessel accident from wind energy development in the Atlantic. Wind Energy, 19(9), 15571566. doi: 10.1002/we.1935.Google Scholar
Fujii, Y. (1983). Integrated study on marine traffic accidents. IABSE Colloquium on Ship Collision with Bridges and Offshore Structures, Copenhagen, 9198.Google Scholar
Fujii, Y. and Tanaka, K. (1971). Traffic capacity. The Journal of Navigation, 24, 543552.Google Scholar
Goodwin, E. M. (1975). A statistical study of ship domains. The Journal of Navigation, 28, 328344.Google Scholar
Gucma, L. and Marcjan, K. (2012). Examination of ships passing distances distribution in the coastal waters in order to build a ship probabilistic domain. Zeszyty Naukowe/Akademia Morska w Szczecinie, 3440.Google Scholar
Hansen, M. G., Jensen, T. K., Lehn-Schiøler, T., Melchild, K., Rasmussen, F. M. and Ennemark, F. (2013). Empirical ship domain based on AIS data. The Journal of Navigation, 66, 931940.Google Scholar
Hollnagel, E. 2014. Safety-I and safety–II: the past and future of safety management, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.Google Scholar
International Maritime Organization. (IMO) (1972). Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.Google Scholar
Jensen, T. K., Hansen, M. G., Lehn-Schiøler, T., Melchild, K., Rasmussen, F. M. and Ennemark, F. 2013. Free Flow–Efficiency of a One-way Traffic Lane between two Pylons. The Journal of Navigation, 66, 941951.Google Scholar
Jingsong, Z., Zhaolin, W. and Fengchen, W. 1993. Comments on ship domains. The Journal of Navigation, 46, 422436.Google Scholar
Larsen, O. D. (1993). Ship collision with bridges: The interaction between vessel traffic and bridge structures, IABSE.Google Scholar
Pearson, K. (1895). Note on Regression and Inheritance in the Case of Two Parents. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 58, 240242.Google Scholar
Pietrzykowski, Z. and Magaj, J. (2016). Ship domains in Traffic Separation Schemes. Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Morskiej w Szczecinie, 143149. doi: 10.17402/098.Google Scholar
Pietrzykowski, Z. and Magaj, J. (2017). Ship Domain as a Safety Criterion in a Precautionary Area of Traffic Separation Scheme. TransNav, the International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 11(1), 9398. doi: 10.12716/1001.11.01.10.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, 93108.Google Scholar
Przywarty, M., Gucma, L., Marcjan, K. and Bak, A. (2015). Risk Analysis Of Collision Between Passenger Ferry And Chemical Tanker In The Western Zone Of The Baltic Sea. Polish Maritime Research, 22(2), 38. doi: 10.1515/pomr-2015-0011.Google Scholar
Raymond, E. S. (2014). AIVDM/AIVDO protocol decoding. GPSD documentation Version, 1.Google Scholar
Robards, M., Silber, G., Adams, J., Arroyo, J., Lorenzini, D., Schwehr, K. and Amos, J. (2016). Conservation science and policy applications of the marine vessel Automatic Identification System (AIS)—a review. Bulletin of Marine Science, 92, 75103.Google Scholar
Szlapczynski, R. and Szlapczynska, J. (2017). Review of ship safety domains: Models and applications. Ocean Engineering, 145, 277289.Google Scholar
Silveira, P., Teixeira, A. and Soares, C. G. (2013). Use of AIS data to characterise marine traffic patterns and ship collision risk off the coast of Portugal. The Journal of Navigation, 66, 879.Google Scholar
Zhang, S.-K., Liu, Z.-J., Cai, Y., Wu, Z.-L. and Shi, G.-Y. (2016a). AIS trajectories simplification and threshold determination. The Journal of Navigation, 69, 729744.Google Scholar
Zhang, W., Goerlandt, F., Kujala, P. and Wang, Y. (2016b). An advanced method for detecting possible near miss ship collisions from AIS data. Ocean Engineering, 124, 141156.Google Scholar