# Data Analysis and Decision on Navigation Safety of Yangshan Port Channel

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Pilotage Interruption Wind Analysis

#### 2.1. Statistics and Analysis of Gale Information Effecting Pilotage Interruption

- (1)
- The relationship between high wind control and wind direction (As shown in Figure 1).

- (2)
- The relationship between high wind control and wind level (As shown in Figure 2).

- (3)
- The relationship between high wind control and gusts (As shown in Figure 3).

#### 2.2. Model and Analysis of Pilot Interruption Triggered by Strong Wind

- (4)
- Error Analysis

- (5)
- Error handling method selection

_{i}to θ

_{i+1}is:

_{i+1}− t

_{i}is a constant, the median angle of ${\theta}_{i}$ and ${\theta}_{i+1}$ is:

- (6)
- Graham Scan algorithm

- Find the point with the smallest ordinate y among all the points, which is the lowest point among them, and record it as p0.
- Then, calculate the cosine value of the angle between the line spanning the remaining points, and the point recorded as p0 and the x-axis. Then sort these points according to their sine value for the lowest point, from large to small. The sorted points are denoted as p1, p2, p3,…
- Press the lowest point p0 and the first point p1 of the sorted points into the stack, then count from p2 and calculate whether the two points at the top of the stack and the three-point vector of the point are rotated counterclockwise. If so, press the point into the stack, otherwise push out the top element of the stack.
- Finally, the elements in the stack are the points outside all the convex hulls.

- (7)
- Model construction and analysis

## 3. Analysis of Pilotage Interrupted Traffic Flow

#### 3.1. Vessel Flow Analysis under Normal Weather, Windy Weather and Wind Control

#### 3.2. Statistics and Analysis of Different Ship Lengths

#### 3.3. Statistics and Analysis of Different Ship Speeds

#### 3.4. Statistics and Analysis of Different Ship Types

## 4. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Zhou, Y.; Daamen, W.; Vellinga, T.; Hoogendoorn, S.P. Impacts of wind and current on ship behavior in ports and waterways: A quantitative analysis based on AIS data. Ocean Eng.
**2020**, 213, 107774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Liu, J. Ship pilotage management regulations. China Ports
**2002**, 4, 37–39. [Google Scholar] - Ding, F.; Liu, F.; Zhang, J.; Sun, Z. Risk rating of ship pilotage based on meteorological conditions. China Navig.
**2019**, 42, 71–74+113. [Google Scholar] - Hu, S.; Huang, C.; Deng, H.; Huang, D. Markov chain model for the dynamic simulation of process risk in ship piotage at harbor. J. Harbin Eng. Univ.
**2017**, 38, 1391–1398. [Google Scholar] - Mikulik, J.; Zajdel, M. Automatic risk control based on FSA methodology adaptation for safety assessment in intelligent buildings. Int. J. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci.
**2009**, 19, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Fang, Q.; Hu, S. Application of formal safety assessment to the risk assessment of the ship-pilotage. J. Harbin Eng. Univ.
**2006**, 27, 329–334. [Google Scholar] - Hosack, G.R. Prior elicitation for Bayesian generalized linear models with application to risk control option assessment. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
**2017**, 167, 351–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Özabas, B. Comprehensive scenario analysis for mitigation of risks of the maritime traffic in the Strait of Istanbul. Marit. Policy Manag.
**2011**, 3, 375–380. [Google Scholar] - Trucco, P.; Cagno, E.; Rugger, F.; Grande, O. A Bayesian belief network modelling of organizational factors in risk analysis: A case study in maritime transportation. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
**2008**, 93, 845–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN). Safety (QBA) Software. 2015. Available online: http://www.marin.nl/web/Facilities-Tools/Software/Safety-QRA-Software.htm (accessed on 1 February 2018).
- Szlapczynski, R. Evolutionary planning of safe ship tracks in restricted visibility. J. Navig.
**2015**, 68, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lehikoinen, A.; Hänninen, M.; Storgård, J.; Luoma, E.; Mäntyniemi, S.; Kuikka, S. A Bayesian network for assessing the collision induced risk of an oil accident in the Gulf of Finland. Environ. Sci. Technol.
**2015**, 49, 5301–5309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Silveira, P.; Teixeira, A.P.; Soares, C.G. Analysis of maritime traffic off the coast of Portugal. In Maritime Engineering and Technology; CRC Press: London, UK, 2012; pp. 35–41. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, B.; Tian, H.; Yan, X.; Guedes Soares, C. A probabilistic consequence estimation model for collision accidents in the downstream of Yangtze River using Bayesian Networks. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part O
**2019**, 234, 422–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, D.; Yan, X.P.; Yang, Z.L.; Wall, A.; Wang, J. Incorporation of formal safety assessment and Bayesian network in navigational risk estimation of the Yangtze River. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
**2013**, 118, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kum, S.; Sahin, B. A root cause analysis for Arctic Marine accidents from 1993 to 2011. Saf. Sci.
**2015**, 74, 206–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Radon, A.N.; Wang, K.; Glässer, U.; When, H.; Westwell-Roper, A. Contextual verification for false alarm reduction in maritime anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), Santa Clara, CA, USA, 29 October–1 November 2015; pp. 1123–1133. [Google Scholar]
- Goerlandt, F.; Kujala, P. Traffic simulation based on ship collision probability modeling. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
**2011**, 96, 91–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Han, S.; Sha, Z. Analysis of pilotage risk and countermeasures for large ships entering and leaving Guangzhou port. Pearl River Water Transp.
**2021**, 24, 42–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, X.; Chen, W.; Xi, Y.; Hu, S.; Tang, L. Dynamics Simulation of the Risk Coupling Effect between Maritime Pilotage Human Factors under the HFACS Framework. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
**2020**, 8, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Qiu, C.; Li, D. The calculation method of average wind direction and its comparison. Plateau Meteorol.
**1997**, 16, 94–98. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 1.**The relationship between the number of strong wind control and the distribution of wind direction.

**Figure 2.**The relationship between the number of high wind control and the distribution of wind levels.

**Figure 4.**Scatter plot (Blue dots represent all wind level wind points that trigger high wind control).

**Figure 5.**Results of convex hull algorithm (Blue * represents the point where all wind levels and directions that trigger high wind control can be enclosed).

**Figure 8.**Visualization of import/export vessel data for each observation line under normal weather conditions.

**Figure 9.**Visualization of import/export vessel data for each observation line under windy weather conditions.

**Figure 10.**Visualization of import/export vessel data for each observation line during high wind control hours.

**Figure 15.**The length-vessel speed linear fitting diagram of a container ship. * represents multiplication sign.

**Table 1.**Statistical table of import and export vessels of each observation line under normal weather conditions.

Observation Line | Import Ships Number | Average Number of Ships Imported per Day | Export Ships Number | Average Number of Ships Exported per Day | Total Ships Number | Average Number of Ships Imported and Exported per Day |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

L1 | 795 | 28.39 | 908 | 32.43 | 1703 | 60.82 |

L2 | 1011 | 36.11 | 105 | 3.75 | 1116 | 39.86 |

L3 | 2466 | 88.07 | 1908 | 68.14 | 4374 | 156.21 |

L4 | 543 | 19.39 | 318 | 11.36 | 861 | 30.75 |

L5 | 719 | 25.68 | 749 | 26.75 | 1468 | 52.43 |

L6 | 640 | 22.86 | 284 | 10.14 | 847 | 30.25 |

L7 | 1968 | 70.29 | 324 | 11.57 | 2292 | 81.86 |

L8 | 576 | 20.57 | 2683 | 95.82 | 3259 | 116.39 |

L9 | 821 | 29.32 | 673 | 24.04 | 1494 | 53.36 |

**Table 2.**Statistical table of import and export vessels of each observation line under windy weather conditions.

Observation Line | Import Ships Number | Average Number of Ships Imported per Day | Export Ships Number | Average Number of Ships Exported per Day | Total Ships Number | Average Number of Ships Imported and Exported per Day |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

L1 | 37 | 16.15 | 35 | 15.27 | 72 | 31.42 |

L2 | 10 | 4.36 | 1 | 0.44 | 11 | 4.80 |

L3 | 89 | 38.84 | 79 | 34.47 | 168 | 73.31 |

L4 | 11 | 4.80 | 6 | 2.62 | 17 | 7.42 |

L5 | 23 | 10.04 | 29 | 12.65 | 52 | 22.69 |

L6 | 33 | 14.40 | 14 | 6.11 | 47 | 20.51 |

L7 | 49 | 21.38 | 32 | 13.96 | 81 | 35.34 |

L8 | 31 | 13.53 | 61 | 26.62 | 92 | 40.15 |

L9 | 2 | 0.87 | 1 | 0.44 | 3 | 1.31 |

**Table 3.**Statistical table of import and export vessels of each observation line during high wind control hours.

Observation Line | Import Ships Number | Average Number of Ships Imported per Day | Export Ships Number | Average Number of Ships Exported per Day | Total Ships Number | Average Number of Ships Imported and Exported per Day |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

L1 | 4 | 2.78 | 0 | 0.0 | 4 | 2.78 |

L2 | 1 | 0.70 | 1 | 0.70 | 2 | 1.39 |

L3 | 23 | 16.0 | 23 | 16.0 | 46 | 32.0 |

L4 | 3 | 2.09 | 3 | 2.09 | 6 | 4.17 |

L5 | 0 | 0.0 | 6 | 4.17 | 6 | 4.17 |

L6 | 11 | 7.65 | 4 | 2.78 | 15 | 10.43 |

L7 | 13 | 9.04 | 8 | 5.57 | 21 | 14.61 |

L8 | 9 | 6.26 | 19 | 13.22 | 28 | 19.48 |

L9 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |

0–50 m | 51–100 m | 101–150 m | 151–200 m | 201–250 m | 251–300 m | 301–350 m | 351–400 m | Above 400 m | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Observation line 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 8 | 63 | 43 | 79 | 0 | 195 |

Observation line 3 | 0 | 181 | 149 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 338 |

Observation line 4 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 |

Observation line 6 | 0 | 12 | 54 | 8 | 12 | 65 | 43 | 79 | 0 | 273 |

Observation line 8 | 0 | 177 | 98 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 275 |

Observation line 9 | 0 | 10 | 11 | 0 | 10 | 63 | 44 | 79 | 0 | 217 |

Total | 0 | 381 | 326 | 18 | 30 | 191 | 130 | 237 | 0 | 1313 |

Percentage | 0% | 29.01% | 24.82% | 1.37% | 2.28% | 14.54% | 9.9% | 18.05% | 0% |

Speed | Time | |
---|---|---|

0–50.49 | 12.54 | 16.65 |

50.50–100.49 | 7.23 | 90.65 |

100.50–150.49 | 8.52 | 122.79 |

150.50–200.49 | 11.28 | 166.92 |

200.50–250.49 | 0 | 0 |

250.50–300.49 | 13.15 | 289.6 |

300.50–350.49 | 13.14 | 331.05 |

350.50–400.49 | 12.84 | 380.18 |

Above 400.50 | 0 | 0 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Bai, X.; Guan, T.; Xu, X.; Xiao, Y.
Data Analysis and Decision on Navigation Safety of Yangshan Port Channel. *Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, 7968.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137968

**AMA Style**

Bai X, Guan T, Xu X, Xiao Y.
Data Analysis and Decision on Navigation Safety of Yangshan Port Channel. *Sustainability*. 2022; 14(13):7968.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137968

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Bai, Xiang’en, Tian Guan, Xiaofeng Xu, and Yingjie Xiao.
2022. "Data Analysis and Decision on Navigation Safety of Yangshan Port Channel" *Sustainability* 14, no. 13: 7968.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137968