Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:37:44.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Target Information Display for Visualising Collision Avoidance Manoeuvres in Various Visibility Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2015

Rafal Szlapczynski*
Affiliation:
(Gdansk University of Technology, Poland)
Joanna Szlapczynska
Affiliation:
(Gdynia Maritime University, Poland)
*

Abstract

The paper introduces a new approach to displaying information on targets. The proposed display visualises three types of information: targets' motion parameters (typical for target tracking), combinations of own course and speed which collide with those targets (typical for Collision Threat Parameters Area display by Lenart (1983)) and combinations of own course and speed which are not compliant with COLREGS in this case (based on ships' motion parameters and visibility conditions). A superposition of the last two types of data enables a navigator to quickly choose a collision avoidance manoeuvre which is both sufficient and COLREGS-compliant. Additionally, the displayed data may be filtered based on the remaining Time To Collision (TTC) so that navigators can concentrate on direct threats. The paper includes a description of the proposed visualisation technique as well as examples of visualised data for some encounter situations.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2015 

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

Birtley, W.B. (1965). Electronic plotting board. United States Patent US3188631A.Google Scholar
van Breda, L. (2000). Capability Prediction: An Effective Way to Improve Navigational Performance. The Journal of Navigation, 53, 343354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockcroft, A.N. and Lameijer, J.N.F. (2011). A Guide to Collision Avoidance Rules. Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
Coldwell, T.G. (1983). Marine Traffic Behaviour in Restricted Waters. The Journal of Navigation, 36, 431444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COLREGS. (1972). [with amendments adopted from December 2009]. Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. International Maritime Organization.Google Scholar
Fleischer, H., Lipsky, P. and Tiblin, B. (1973). Collision avoidance display apparatus for maneuverable craft. United States Patent US3725918A.Google Scholar
Hadnett, E. (2008). A Bridge Too Far. The Journal of Navigation, 61, 283289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakoyama, T., Kato, Y., Maeda, S. and Yamaguchi, H. (1996), Navigation display apparatus for collision avoidance utilizing polygonal safety regions and predicted danger areas. United States Patent US5515287A.Google Scholar
Holder, E. and Pecota, S.R. (2011). Maritime Head-Up Display: A Preliminary Evaluation. The Journal of Navigation, 64, 573594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, J. (2009). Behaviour Patterns in Crossing Situations. The Journal of Navigation, 62, 443453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenart, A.S. (1983). Collision threat parameters for a new radar display and plot technique. The Journal of Navigation, 36, 404410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenart, A.S. (1999). Manoeuvring to required approach parameters — CPA distance and time. Annual of Navigation, 1/99, 99108.Google Scholar
Lenart, A.S. (2005). Distance and Speed Errors in ARPA Systems. The Journal of Navigation, 58, 404410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Sullivan, J. P. (1982). Collision avoidance apparatus. United States Patent US4313115A.Google Scholar
Pedersen, E., Arai, Y. and Sato, N. (1999). On the Effect of Plotting Performance by the Errors of Pointing Targets in the ARPA System. The Journal of Navigation, 52, 119125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, E., Inoue, K. and Tsugane, M. (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, 411427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qiao, L. and Pedersen, E. (2004). Direct perception of collision danger information for safe marine navigation, IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics SMC ’04, 4, 3898–3902.Google Scholar
Qiao, L., Pedersen, E., Okazaki, T., Fukuto, J. and Tanaka, K. (2006). Direct perception interface for ship-ship collision avoidance, IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics SMC ’06, 1, 808–813.Google Scholar
Riggs, R. (1973). Ship's maneuver assessment system. United States Patent US3717873A.Google Scholar
Salinas, C.F. (2006). Restricted visibility: In Search of a Solution. The Journal of Navigation, 59, 349358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stateczny, A. and Kazimierski, W. (2011). Multisensor Tracking of Marine Targets – Decentralized Fusion of Kalman and Neural Filters. International Journal of Electronics and Telecommunications, 57, No. 1, 6570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szlapczynski, R. (2006). A unified measure of collision risk derived from the concept of a ship domain. The Journal of Navigation., 59, 477490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szlapczynski, R. (2009). Planning emergency manoeuvres. The Journal of Navigation, 62, 7991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, T.E. and Yancey, J.F. (2002). Method and apparatus for providing accurate boundaries of predicted areas of danger for collision avoidance, United States Patent US6408248B1.Google Scholar
Zhao, Z., Ji, K., Xing, X., Zou, H. and Zhou, S. (2014a). Ship Surveillance by Integration of Space-borne SAR and AIS – Review of Current Research, The Journal of Navigation, 67, 177189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Z., Ji, K., Xing, X., Zou, H. and Zhou, S. (2014b). Ship Surveillance by Integration of Space-borne SAR and AIS – Further Research. The Journal of Navigation, 67, 295309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao-lin, W. (1988). Analysis of Radar PAD Information and a Suggestion to Reshape the PAD, The Journal of Navigation, 41, 124129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar