Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:13:21.762Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Empirical Ship Domain based on AIS Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2013

Martin Gamborg Hansen*
Affiliation:
(Rambøll, Hannemanns Allé 53, DK-2300 København S)
Toke Koldborg Jensen
Affiliation:
(Rambøll, Hannemanns Allé 53, DK-2300 København S)
Tue Lehn-Schiøler
Affiliation:
(Rambøll, Hannemanns Allé 53, DK-2300 København S)
Kristina Melchild
Affiliation:
(Rambøll, Hannemanns Allé 53, DK-2300 København S)
Finn Mølsted Rasmussen
Affiliation:
(Rambøll, Hannemanns Allé 53, DK-2300 København S)
Finn Ennemark
Affiliation:
(Femern A/S Vester Søgade 10, 1601 København V)
*
(E-mail: MAGH@ramboll.dk)

Abstract

In this paper the minimum ship domain in which a navigator feels comfortable is estimated. That is, we estimate the free space surrounding a ship into which no other ship or object should enter. This is very useful when estimating the maximum flow through a channel or a bridge span. The paper benefits from the introduction of Automatic Identification System (AIS) data as it is now much easier to conduct studies involving a large number of observations. Our observations are based on ships sailing in southern Danish waters during a four year period, and from the observations we estimate how closely ships pass each other and fixed objects in open sea navigation. The main result is the establishment of an empirical minimum ship domain related to a comfortable navigational distance.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2013 

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 behaivour in restricted waters, The Journal of Navigation, 36, 431444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COLREG. (1972). Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. International Maritime Organization (IMO).Google 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, 215222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, Y. & Tanaka, K. (1971). Traffic Capacity. The Journal of Navigation, 24, 543552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, Y., Yamanouchi, H. & Matui, T. S. (1984). Survey on Vessel Traffic Management Systems and Brief Introduction to Marine Traffic Studies, Electronic Navigation Research Institute Papers (Japan), 84.Google Scholar
Goodwin, E. M. (1975). A statistical study of ship domains. The Journal of Navigation, 28, 329341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, T. K., Hansen, M. G., Lehn-Schiøler, T., Melchild, K., Rasmussen, F. M., & Ennemark, F. (2013). Free Flow – Efficiency of a One-way Traffic Lane between two Pylons, Journal of Naviagtion, 66.Google 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
Pietrzykowski, Z & Uriasz, J. (2009). The Ship Domain – A Criterion of Navigational Safety Assessment in an Open Sea Area. Journal of Navigation, 62, 93108.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
Zhao, J., Wu, Z. and Wang, F. (1993). Comments on ship domains. The Journal of Navigation, 46, 422436.Google Scholar
Zhu, X., Xu, H. and Lin, J. (2001). Domain and its model based on neural networks. The Journal of Navigation, 54, 97103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar