Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T02:18:36.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Agent-Directed Marine Navigation Simulator

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2006

J N J Moon  and
D S Tudhope
J N J Moon
Affiliation:
School of Computing, University of Glamorgan Email: jnjmoon@glam.ac.uk
D S Tudhope
Affiliation:
School of Computing, University of Glamorgan Email: jnjmoon@glam.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The instructor of a full mission marine simulator faces a daunting task, controlling several target ships under varying environmental conditions while responding to a variety of communications. This project applies computer agent technology to an instructor station. Each target ship is controlled by a collision avoidance agent which takes command of the ship and a track-keeping agent which acts as an assistant, sending the collision avoidance agent advisory messages. Experiments have been performed for a number of collision situations in varying environmental conditions. An analysis of the results demonstrates the potential of such a system for producing realistic target ship motion, including track-keeping and some collision avoidance manoeuvres, thus reducing the instructor’s immediate load.

Keywords

automatic ship collision avoidancemarine simulationmulti-agent systemsnavigation training
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 461 - 475
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

AMO 2000, Maritime Authority Investigation Places Primary Responsibility On ‘Norwegian Dream’, The American Maritime Officer, July 2000. http://www.amo-union.org/Newspaper/Morgue/7-2000/Sections/News/collision.htm (retrieved March 28th 2006)Google Scholar
AMSA 2004, Fact Sheet: Shipborne Automatic Identification System (AIS), Australian Maritime Safety Authority. http://www.amsa.gov.au/Shipping_Safety/Fact_Sheets/Automatic_Identification_System.asp (retrieved March 28th 2006)Google Scholar
Blackwell, G. K., Rangachari, J., Stockel, C. T., 1991. An Intelligent Interactive Environment for A Maritime Real-Time Expert System, Proceedings of the Summer Computer Simulation Conference, Baltimore, USA, (Jul.), 358–363.Google Scholar
Chen, Y. H., 1992, Ship Simulator Instruction in Taiwan, PhD Thesis, University of Wales, Cardiff.Google Scholar
Craig, D. B., 1991, An Object Oriented Simulation of Autonomous Agents in a Complex Physical Environment, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference on AI, Simulation and Planning in High Autonomy Systems, April, 31–38.Google Scholar
Fisher, K. 2003, Safe Seas and AIS, Navigation News, The magazine of the Royal Institute of Navigation, September/October, 6–7.Google Scholar
Goodwin, E. M., 1975, A Statistical Study of Ship Domains, The Journal of Navigation, 28, 328–344.Google Scholar
Grabowski, M., 1990, Decision Support to Masters, Mates on Watch and Pilots: The Piloting Expert System, The Journal of Navigation, 43, 3, 364–384.Google Scholar
Grabowski, M., Sanborn, S. D., 2003, Human performance and embedded intelligent technology in safety-critical systems, International Journal Human-computer Studies, 58, 637–670.Google Scholar
Guicharrousse, M., 1990, Use of Simulators and Manned Models for Training, The Nautical Institute on Pilotage and Ship Handling, The Nautical Institute (pubs), 202 Lambeth Road, London.Google Scholar
Henesey, L., 2004, “A Multi Agent Based Simulator for Managing a Container Terminal” 2nd European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems (EUMAS 2004), December 16–17, 2004, Barcelona, Spain. http://www.ipd.bth.se/lhe/EUMAS2004/SimportTest_EUMAS_v%20Final.pdf (March 28th 2006)Google Scholar
IRPCS, 1989, International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 with amendments adopted from November 1989, International Maritime Organisation, London.Google Scholar
Lee, J., Lim, Y., Chi, S., 2004, Hierarchical Modeling and Simulation Environment for Intelligent Transportation Systems, Simulation, 80, 2, Feb 2004, 61–76.Google Scholar
Lenart, A. S., 2005, Distance and Speed Errors in ARPA systems, The Journal of Navigation, 58, 77–82.Google Scholar
McCallum, I, 1980, A ship steering model for all manoeuvring regimes, Proceedings of the symposium on ship steering automatic control, 119–139.Google Scholar
Maitre, B., Laasri, H., 1990, Cooperating Expert Problem-Solving in Blackboard Systems: ATOME Case Study, Decentralised AI 2: Proceedings on the Second European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, Demanzeau, Y. and Muller, J. P. (Eds), France, Aug, 251–263.Google Scholar
Minski, M. L., 1986, Society of Mind, Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Moeller, P. 2002, ECDIS Operator Training, The Digital Ship Magazine, October 2003, http://www.thedigitalship.com/DSmagazine/DS%20Oct%202002/ECDIS%20Training.doc (retrieved March 28th 2006)Google Scholar
Osman, I. H., Kelly, J. P., 1996, Meta-Heuristics Theory and Applications, Kluwer.Google Scholar
Pike, D., 2005, Collision Rules for High Speed Craft, The Journal of Navigation, 58, 159–163.Google Scholar
Pourzanjani, 1990, Formulation of the force mathematical model of ship manoeuvring, International Shipbuild. Progr. 37, 409, 5–32.Google Scholar
Ricci, A., Omicini, A., Denti, E., 2002, Engineering Agent Societies: A Case Study in Smart Environments. AAMAS’02, Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part 3, Bologna, Italy,, July 15–19, 1064–1065.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. A., Dessouky, Y. M., 1998, An Overview of Object-Oriented Simulation, Special Issue: Object-Oriented Simulation, Simulation, 70, 6, June, 359–368.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R., 1969, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy Of Language, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sloman, A., Scheutz, M., 2002, A Framework for Comparing Agent Architectures, Proceedings of UKCI’02: UKWorkshop on Computational Intelligence, Sept 2002, BirminghamUK. http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/cogaff/0-INDEX00-02.html#89 (retrieved March 28th 2006)Google Scholar
Smeaton, G. P., Coenen, F. P., 1990, Developing an Intelligent Marine Navigation System, Computing and Control Engineering Journal, March, 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smeaton, G. P., Dineley, W. O. and Tucker, S. M., 1994, ECDIS and ARPA: A Marriage of Convenience?, Presented at a Meeting of the Institute of Marine Engineers, London, 26th April.Google Scholar
STCW, 1995, The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarer’s, 1978, as amended in 1995 (STCW Convention) and Seafarer’s Training Certification and Watchkeeping Code (STCW Code), International Maritime Organisation, London.Google Scholar
Undrum, R. J., 2005, Definition of Fast and Manoeuvrable Craft and Amendments to the Collision Regulations, The Journal of Navigation, 58, 154–159.Google Scholar
van Doesburg, W. A., Heuvelink, A., van de Broek, E. L., 2005, TACOP: A Cognitive Agent for a Naval Training Simulation Environment, Proceedings of AAMAS’05, July 25–29th, 2005, Utrecht, Netherlands, 34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyns, D., Steegmans, E., Holvoet, T., 2004, AAMAS’04, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Vol 1. July 19–23. New York, 118–125.Google Scholar
Yang, C., Phan, S., Kuo, P., Lin, F. O., 2001, Applying Collision Avoidance Expert System to Navigation Training Systems as an Intelligent Tutor, The Proceeding of the 14th International Conference on Industry & Engineering Application of Artificial Intelligence & Expert System (IIEA/AIE), Budapest, Hungary. June 4–7. 941–947. NRC 44155.Google Scholar