Multi-Ship Collision Avoidance Decision-Making Based on Collision Risk Index
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Preliminaries
2.1. Collision Risk Model
2.2. COLREGs
3. Collision Avoidance Procedure
3.1. DCPA Calculation with Course Alteration
- d1 (from Ts to T2): This period is the whole process from the starting of Ship 2’s changing course to the end. In addition, both ships are changing course.
- d2 (from T2 to T3): From the end of ship 2’s changing course to ship 1’s changing course, while ship 2 has returned to its original course.
- d3 (from T3 to T4): Ship 1 has changed course sufficiently. Both ships have returned to their original course at this stage, while the collision avoidance operation is done.
3.2. Procedures for Changing Course Decisions
3.3. Procedures for Changing Speed Decisions
3.4. Real-Time Decision Support Procedure
4. Case Studies
4.1. Simulation Scenario 1
4.2. Simulation Scenario 2
4.3. Simulation Scenario 3
4.4. Simulation Scenario 4
4.5. Simulation Scenario 5
5. Discussion
5.1. Analysis of trajectory safety
5.2. Analysis of Trajectory Efficiency
5.3. Analysis of Maneuver Difficulty
6. Conclusions
- (1)
- The timing of the ship taking collision-avoidance action is closely related to the selected value of the CRI. This paper evaluates the validity of the proposed multi-ship collision-avoidance decision model based on the collision risk index through five groups of comparative experiments and carries out a detailed parameter analysis and finds that, when the collision risk threshold value taken by the ship is small (such as CRI = 0.6), the ship takes a more timely collision avoidance action, and the magnitude is in-line with the recommendation of the COLREGs. Therefore, through discussion and analysis, it is suggested that the threshold of the CRI be within (0.6, 0.7), which will also be affected by other factors such as visibility, sea state, etc. The OOWs need to adjust the CRI to the real-time navigational environment. Meanwhile, the OOW’s experience in maneuvering ships should not be ignored as an aid to collision avoidance decision-making.
- (2)
- In multi-ship collision avoidance, different collision risk thresholds are set for experimentation, especially when different ships adopt different collision risk thresholds in the same scenario; the model can also provide decision aid and collision-avoidance warning for the OOW.
- (3)
- The fuzzy logic-based collision risk calculation method and expanding the real-time dynamic parameters such as the CRI, TCPA, DCPA and D are practical tools for a real-time collision risk analysis in multi-ship encounter situations.
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- George, R. Ninety Percent of Everything. Inside Shipping, the Invisible Industry That Puts Clothes on Your Back, Gas in Your Car, and Food on Your Plate; Portobello Books: London, UK, 2013; ISBN 9780805092639. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, B.; Yan, X.; Wang, Y.; Soares, C.G. An evidential reasoning-based cream to human reliability analysis in maritime accident process. Risk Anal. 2017, 37, 1936–1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baldauf, M.; Benedict, K.; Fischer, S.; Motz, F.; Schröder-Hinrichs, J.-U. Collision avoidance systems in air and maritime traffic. Proc. IMechE 2011, 225, 333–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, M.H.; Heo, J.H.; Wei, Y.; Lee, M.C. A path plan algorithm using artificial potential field based on probability map. In Proceedings of the 2011 8th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient Intelligence, Songdo Conventia, Incheon, Korea, 23–26 November 2011; pp. 41–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yıldırım, U.; Başar, E.; Uğurlu, Ö. Assessment of collisions and grounding accidents with human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS) and statistical methods. Saf. Sci. 2019, 119, 412–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, S.; Blanco-Davis, E.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, J.; Yan, X. Incorporation of human factors into maritime accident analysis using a data-driven bayesian network. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2020, 203, 107070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, S.; Zhang, J.; Blanco-Davis, E.; Yang, Z.; Wang, J.; Yan, X. Effects of seafarers’ emotion on human performance using bridge simulation. Ocean Eng. 2018, 170, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, S.; Zhang, J.; Blanco-Davis, E.; Yang, Z.; Yan, X. Maritime accident prevention strategy formulation from a human factor perspective using bayesian networks and topsis. Ocean Eng. 2020, 210, 107544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IMO. Conventions on the International Regulations for Preventing Collision at Sea (COLREGs); The International Maritime Organization (IMO): London, UK, 1972. [Google Scholar]
- Hilgert, H.; Baldauf, M. A common risk model for the assessment of encounter situations on board ships. Dtsch. Hydrogr. Z. 1997, 49, 531–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.; van Gelder, P.H.A.J.M. Collision risk measure for triggering evasive actions of maritime autonomous surface ships. Saf. Sci. 2020, 127, 104708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, L.; Goerlandt, F.; Kujala, P. Review and analysis of methods for assessing maritime waterway risk based on non-accident critical events detected from AIS data. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2020, 200, 106933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.; Chen, L.; Chen, P.; Negenborn, R.R.; van Gelder, P.H.A.J.M. Ship collision avoidance methods: State-of-the-art. Saf. Sci. 2020, 121, 451–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graziano, A.; Teixeira, A.P.; Guedes Soares, C. Classification of human errors in grounding and collision accidents using the tracer taxonomy. Saf. Sci. 2016, 86, 245–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandhåland, H.; Oltedal, H.; Eid, J. Situation awareness in bridge operations—A study of collisions between attendant vessels and offshore facilities in the North Sea. Saf. Sci. 2015, 79, 277–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fujii, Y.; Shiobara, R. The analysis of traffic accidents. J. Navig. 1971, 24, 543–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodwin, E.M. A statistical study of ship domains. J. Navig. 1975, 28, 328–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Coldwell, T.G. Marine traffic behaviour in restricted waters. J. Navig. 1983, 36, 430–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiskin, R.; Nasiboglu, E.; Yardimci, M.O. A knowledge-based framework for two-dimensional (2D) asymmetrical polygonal ship domain. Ocean Eng. 2020, 202, 107187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, N. A novel analytical framework for dynamic quaternion ship domains. J. Navig. 2013, 66, 265–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Szlapczynski, R.; Szlapczynska, J. Review of ship safety domains: Models and applications. Ocean Eng. 2017, 145, 277–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baldauf, M.; Mehdi, R.; Fischer, S.; Gluch, M. A perfect warning to avoid collisions at sea? Sci. J. Mar. Univ. Szczec. 2017, 49, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, B.; Pang, F. An approach of vessel collision risk assessment based on the D–S evidence theory. Ocean Eng. 2013, 74, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- REN, Y.; Mou, J.; Yan, Q.; Zhang, F. Study on assessing dynamic risk of ship collision. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Transportation Information and Safety, Wuhan, China, 2 July 2011; pp. 2751–2757. [Google Scholar]
- Li, S.; Liu, J.; Negenborn, R.R. Distributed coordination for collision avoidance of multiple ships considering ship maneuverability. Ocean Eng. 2019, 181, 212–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simsir, U.; Amasyalı, M.F.; Bal, M.; Çelebi, U.B.; Ertugrul, S. Decision support system for collision avoidance of vessels. Appl. Soft Comput. 2014, 25, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perera, L.P.; Carvalho, J.P.; Guedes Soares, C. Intelligent ocean navigation and fuzzy-bayesian decision/action formulation. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 2012, 37, 204–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Y.; Zhang, W. Concise deep reinforcement learning obstacle avoidance for underactuated unmanned marine vessels. Neurocomputing 2018, 272, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perera, L.P.; Guedes Soares, C. Collision risk detection and quantification in ship navigation with integrated bridge systems. Ocean Eng. 2015, 109, 344–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balmat, J.-F.; Lafont, F.; Maifret, R.; Pessel, N. MAritime risk assessment (MARISA), a fuzzy approach to define an individual ship risk factor. Ocean Eng. 2009, 36, 1278–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goerlandt, F.; Montewka, J.; Kuzmin, V.; Kujala, P. A risk-informed ship collision alert system: Framework and application. Saf. Sci. 2015, 77, 182–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, D.; Wan, X.; Dai, C.; Mou, J. A research on AIS-based embedded system for ship collision avoidance. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Transportation Information and Safety (ICTIS), Wuhan, China, 25–28 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, S.; Garofano, V.; Chu, X.; Negenborn, R.R. Model predictive ship collision avoidance based on Q-learning beetle swarm antenna search and neural networks. Ocean Eng. 2019, 193, 106609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoo, Y.; Lee, J.-S. Evaluation of ship collision risk assessments using environmental stress and collision risk models. Ocean Eng. 2019, 191, 106527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Wu, Z.; Zheng, Z. A cooperative game approach for assessing the collision risk in multi-vessel encountering. Ocean Eng. 2019, 187, 106175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chauvin, C.; Lardjane, S.; Morel, G.; Clostermann, J.-P.; Langard, B. Human and organisational factors in maritime accidents: Analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2013, 59, 26–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.; Liu, C. Improved hierarchical A-star algorithm for optimal parking path planning of the large Parking Lot. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation, Hailar, China, 30 July 2014; pp. 695–698. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, H.; Zhou, J.; Zheng, G.; Liang, Y. HAS: Hierarchical a-star algorithm for big map navigation in special areas. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Digital Home (ICDH), Guangzhou, China, 28–30 November 2014; pp. 222–225, ISBN 978-1-4799-4284-8. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, L.; Xue, S.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, M.; Tian, W.; Haugen, S. A path planning approach based on multi-direction A* algorithm for ships navigating within wind farm waters. Ocean Eng. 2019, 184, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.; Wang, C.; Zhang, A. A method of path planning on safe depth for unmanned surface vehicles based on hydrodynamic analysis. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, J.; Zhang, D.; Yan, X.; Haugen, S.; Guedes Soares, C. A distributed anti-collision decision support formulation in multi-ship encounter situations under COLREGs. Ocean Eng. 2015, 105, 336–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, D.; Hirayama, K.; Okimoto, T. Ship collision avoidance by distributed tabu search. Int. J. Mar. Navig. Saf. Sea Transp. 2015, 9, 23–29. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, D.; Hirayama, K.; Okimoto, T. Distributed stochastic search algorithm for multi-ship encounter situations. J. Navig. 2017, 70, 699–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, S.; Liu, J.; Cao, X.; Zhang, Y. A novel method for solving collision avoidance problem in multiple ships encounter situations. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Vietri sul Mare, Italy, 1–3 October 2018; Volume 11184, pp. 47–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, S.; Chu, X.; Zheng, M.; Liu, C. Ship predictive collision avoidance method based on an improved beetle antennae search algorithm. Ocean Eng. 2019, 192, 106542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, H.; Hashimoto, H.; Matsuda, A.; Taniguchi, Y.; Terada, D.; Guo, C. Automatic collision avoidance of multiple ships based on deep Q-learning. Appl. Ocean Res. 2019, 86, 268–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, L.; Roh, M.-I. COLREGs-compliant multiship collision avoidance based on deep reinforcement learning. Ocean Eng. 2019, 191, 106436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ożoga, B.; Montewka, J. Towards a decision support system for maritime navigation on heavily trafficked basins. Ocean Eng. 2018, 159, 88–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Q.; Wang, N. A Survey on Ship Collision Risk Evaluation. Promet Traffic Transp. 2014, 26, 475–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, J.; Ren, Y.; Wu, Z.; Fang, X. Fuzzy identification method for collision risk assessment of multi-ships encounter situation. J. Dalian Fish. Univ. 2002, 17, 313–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, B.; Cheng, T.; Yip, T.L.; Wang, Y. Fuzzy logic based dynamic decision-making system for intelligent navigation strategy within inland traffic separation schemes. Ocean Eng. 2020, 197, 106909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, B.; Yip, T.L.; Yan, X.; Guedes Soares, C. Fuzzy logic based approach for ship-bridge collision alert system. Ocean Eng. 2019, 187, 106152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahn, J.-H.; Rhee, K.-P.; You, Y.-J. A study on the collision avoidance of a ship using neural networks and fuzzy logic. Appl. Ocean Res. 2012, 37, 162–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, Q. A model for estimating the risk degrees of collisions. J. Wuhan Univ. Technol. 2002, 26, 74–76. [Google Scholar]
Ship | Ship1 (Red) | Ship2 (Green) | Ship3 (Blue) | Ship4 (Black) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Position (n mile) | (0, −4) | (2.723, 1.635) | (3.079, −1.238) | (−1.333, 3.389) |
Course(deg) | 0 | 230 | 300 | 150 |
Speed (kn) | 18 | 16 | 16 | 12 |
collision risk index | 0.4624 | 0.5459 | 0.4373 |
Ship | Ship 1 | Ship 2 | Ship 3 | Ship 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
The time to start changing course (s) | 282 | 194 | 625 | |
Turning angle (deg) | 33 | 30 | 25 | |
Period of staying on the new angle (s) | 405 | 597 | 158 | |
The time to start changing speed (s) | 689 | 2 | ||
Period of staying on the new speed (s) | 812 | 1498 | ||
Percentage of initial speed (%) | 60 | 70 | ||
Nearest relative distance of the other ship (nm) and moments | 0.91 706 | 0.86 1133 | 0.88 1105 |
Ship | Ship 1 | Ship 2 | Ship 3 | Ship 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
The time to start changing course (s) | 429 | 182 | 625 | |
Turning angle (deg) | 40 | 32 | 25 | |
Period of staying on the new angle (s) | 599 | 581 | 158 | |
The time to start changing speed (s) | 77 | |||
Period of staying on the new speed (s) | 1424 | |||
Percentage of initial speed (%) | 65 | |||
Nearest relative distance of the other ship (nm) and moments | 0.82 690 | 1.05 959 | 1.68 1100 |
Ship | Ship 1 | Ship 2 | Ship 3 | Ship 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
The time to start changing course (s) | 577 | 309 | ||
Turning angle (deg) | 45 | 40 | ||
Period of staying on the new angle (s) | 598 | 599 | ||
The time to start changing speed (s) | 309 | |||
Period of staying on the new speed (s) | 1191 | |||
Percentage of initial speed (%) | 45 | |||
Nearest relative distance of the other ship (nm) and moments | 0.31 715 | 0.34 990 | 1.16 968 |
Ship | Ship 1 | Ship 2 | Ship 3 | Ship 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
The time to start changing course (s) | 233 | 309 | 605 | |
Turning angle (deg) | 25 | 40 | 25 | |
Period of staying on the new angle (s) | 954 | 599 | 267 | |
The time to start changing speed (s) | 233; 732 | 309 | ||
Period of staying on the new speed (s) | 498; 768 | 1191 | ||
Percentage of initial speed (%) | 85; 45 | 45 | ||
Collision risk reference thresholds | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.7 |
Ship | Ship 1 | Ship 2 | Ship 3 | Ship 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
The time to start changing course (s) | 577 | 182 | 553 | |
Turning angle (deg) | 45 | 32 | 42 | |
Period of staying on the new angle (s) | 598 | 581 | 598 | |
The time to start changing speed (s) | 77 | |||
Period of staying on the new speed (s) | 1423 | |||
Percentage of initial speed (%) | 65 | |||
Collision risk reference thresholds | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.6 |
Collision Risk Thresholds | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.9 |
---|---|---|---|
Maximum steering angle (°), ship | 33°, S1 | 40°, S1 | 45°, S1 |
Length of deviation from route course (nm) | 1.315 | 2.513 | 2.990 |
Reduction of speed (%) | 40, S1 | 35, S3 | 55, S3 |
Number of steering, ship | 1, S1; 1, S3; 1, S4 | 1, S1; 1, S3 | 1, S1; 3, S3 |
Number of speed changes, ship | 1, S1; 1, S3 | 1, S3 | 1, S3 |
© 2020 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hu, Y.; Zhang, A.; Tian, W.; Zhang, J.; Hou, Z. Multi-Ship Collision Avoidance Decision-Making Based on Collision Risk Index. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 640. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8090640
Hu Y, Zhang A, Tian W, Zhang J, Hou Z. Multi-Ship Collision Avoidance Decision-Making Based on Collision Risk Index. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2020; 8(9):640. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8090640
Chicago/Turabian StyleHu, Yingjun, Anmin Zhang, Wuliu Tian, Jinfen Zhang, and Zebei Hou. 2020. "Multi-Ship Collision Avoidance Decision-Making Based on Collision Risk Index" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 8, no. 9: 640. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8090640