Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:47:45.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Unified Measure Of Collision Risk Derived From The Concept Of A Ship Domain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2006

Rafal Szlapczynski
Rafal Szlapczynski
Affiliation:
Gdansk University of Technology, Poland Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper introduces a new measure of collision risk derived from the concept of a ship domain. Its simplicity and the fact that it takes into account the courses of both ships, makes it a good alternative to the commonly used term of the distance at the closest point of approach (DCPA). The measure being presented is flexible enough to be applied in combination with any given ship domain. Derivations of all the necessary equations for the Fuji domain have been presented in detail. Additionally, the paper contains numerical algorithms that are capable of determining value of the measure for any other ship domain. Based on these algorithms a generic method for determination of the necessary course alteration is developed. Also, an example of an already known formula for risk assessment, that may benefit from the measure, is provided. All of the algorithms, formulas and their derivations in the text are presented explicitly, so that they could be directly applied in any collision avoidance or VTS system.

Keywords

Ship domainDCPACollision riskCollision avoidance
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 477 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2006

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

[1]. Coldwell, T. G. (1982). Marine Traffic Behaviour in Restricted Waters. The Journal of Navigation, 36. 431–444.Google Scholar
[2]. Davis, P. V., Dove, M. J., Stockel, C.T. (1982). A Computer Simulation of multi-Ship Encounters. The Journal of Navigation, 35. 347–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]. Fuji, J., Tanaka, K. (1971). Traffic Capacity. The Journal of Navigation, 24. 543–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]. Goodwin, E. M. (1975). A Statistical Study of Ship Domains. The Journal of Navigation, 28. 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]. 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
[6]. Lenart, A. S. (1982). Collision threat parameters for a new radar display and plot technique. The Journal of Navigation, 36. 404–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]. Lenart, A. S. (1999). Manoeuvring to Required Approach Parameters – CPA Distance and Time. Annual of Navigation 1, 99–108, Polish Academy of Sciences, Polish Navigation Forum, Gdynia.Google Scholar
[8]. Lenart, A. S. (1999). Manoeuvring to Required Approach Parameters – Distance and Time on Course. Annual of Navigation 1, 109–115, Polish Academy of Sciences, Polish Navigation Forum, Gdynia.Google Scholar
[9]. Lenart, A. S. (2000). Manoeuvring to Required Approach Parameters – Distance and Time Abeam. Annual of Navigation 2, 81–88, Polish Academy of Sciences, Polish Navigation Forum, Gdynia.Google Scholar
[10]. Lenart, A. S. (2000). Manoeuvring to Required Approach Parameters – Distance, Time and Bearings. Annual of Navigation 2, 89–98, Polish Academy of Sciences, Polish Navigation Forum, Gdynia.Google Scholar
[11]. Lisowski, J. (2001). Determining the Optimal Ship Trajectory in Collision Situation. Proceedings of the IX International Scientific and Technical Conference on Marine Traffic Engineering, 192–201, Szczecin Maritime University.Google Scholar
[12]. Pietrzykowski, Z., Gucma, L. (2001). Theoretical Basis of the Probabilistic – Fuzzy Method for Assessment of Dangerous Situation of a Ship Manoeuvring in a Restricted Area. Annual of Navigation 3, 111–126, Polish Academy of Sciences, Polish Navigation Forum, Gdynia.Google Scholar
[13]. Pietrzykowski, Z. (2001). Ship Fuzzy Domain on a Straight Section of a Fairway – Comparative Study. Proceedings of the IX International Scientific and Technical Conference on Maritime Traffic Engineering, 249–258, Szczecin Maritime University, Szczecin.Google Scholar
[14]. Pietrzykowski, Z., Gucma, L. (2002). Application of the Probabilistic – Fuzzy Method for Assessment of Dangerous Situation of a Ship Manoeuvring in a Restricted Area. Annual of Navigation 4, 61–72, Polish Academy of Sciences, Polish Navigation Forum, Gdynia.Google Scholar
[15]. Smierzchalski, R. (1998). Evolutionary Guidance System for Ship in Collisions Situation at Sea. 3rd IFAC Conference IAV Intelligent Autonomous Vehicle, Madrid.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]. Smierzchalski, R. (1998). Speed Mutation Evolutionary Ship Trajectory Planning in Navigation Traffic Areas. IFAC Conference Control Applications in Marine Systems 98, Fukuoka.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]. IMO (1972). Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS).Google Scholar