Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:03:56.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Unified Analytical Framework for Ship Domains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2009

Ning Wang ,
Xianyao Meng ,
Qingyang Xu  and
Zuwen Wang
Ning Wang*
Affiliation:
(Dalian Maritime University)
Xianyao Meng
Affiliation:
(Dalian Maritime University)
Qingyang Xu
Affiliation:
(Dalian Maritime University)
Zuwen Wang
Affiliation:
(Dalian Maritime University)
*
(Email: n.wang.dmu.cn@gmail.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most of the existing typical ship domains have been comprehensively reviewed and classified. Most of these ship domains are described in a geometrical manner that is difficult to apply to practices and simulations in marine traffic engineering. According to different types of geometrical ship domains, we have proposed mathematical models, based on which a unified analytical framework has been established. It is feasible and practical for the analytical models to be applied to the assessment of navigational safety, collision avoidance and trajectory planning, etc. Finally, some computer simulations and comparative studies of the proposed domain model have been presented and the simulation results show that the uniform analytical framework for ship domains is effective and identical to the original geometrical ones. It should be noted that the analytical domain models could be directly applied in any collision risk, collision avoidance or VTS system while the geometrical ones would be more illustrative but less practical or analytical.

Keywords

Ship domainCollision avoidanceCollision riskAnalytical model
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 62 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 643 - 655
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2009

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
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
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. (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
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