Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT: Autonomous Guidance and Navigation (AGN) is meant to be an important part of the future
ocean navigation due to the associated navigational cost reduction and maritime safety. Furthermore intelli-
gent decision making capabilities should be an integrated part of the future AGN system in order to improve
autonomous ocean navigational facilities. This paper is focused on an overview of the AGN systems with re-
spect to the collision avoidance in ocean navigation. In addition, a case study of a fuzzy logic based decision
making process accordance with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Convention on the Interna-
tional Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs) has been illustrated.
on manoeuvring theory (Sutulo et al. 2002). An al- zation process are not taken into consideration and
ternative approach based on neural networks has also therefore may not be honoured.
been proposed by Moreira and Guedes Soares The intelligent control strategies implemented on
(2003). Optimization of a safe ship trajectory in col- collision avoidance systems could be categorized as
lision situations by an evolutionary algorithm is pre- Automata, Hybrid systems, Petri nets, Neural net-
sented by Smierzchalski and Michalewicz (2000), works, Evolutionary algorithms and Fuzzy logic.
where comparison of computational time for trajec- These techniques are popular among the machine
tory generation with respect to other manoeuvring learning researchers due to their intelligent learning
algorithms, and static and dynamic constrains for the capabilities. The soft-computing based Artificial In-
optimization process of the safe trajectories are also telligence (AI) techniques, evolutionary algorithms,
illustrated. However, the optimization algorithms fuzzy logic, expert systems and neural networks and
always find the solution for the safe trajectory based combination of them (hybrid expert system), for col-
on assumptions; hence the optimum solutions may lision avoidance in ocean navigation are summarized
not be realistic and may not have intelligent features. by Statheros et al. (2008).
As an example, it is observed that some of the opti- Ito et al. (1999) used genetic algorithms to search
mization algorithms always find the safest path be- for safe trajectories on collision situations in ocean
hind the Target vessel and that may lead to a conflict navigation. The approach is implemented in the
situation with the COLREGs rules and regulations. training vessel of ”Shioji-maru” integrating Auto-
matic Radar Plotting Aids (ARPA) and Differential
Global Position System (DGPS). ARPA system data,
1.3 The COLREGs which could be formulated as a stochastic predictor,
It is a fact that the COLREGs rules and regulations is designed such that the probability density map of
regarding collision situations in ocean navigation the existence of obstacles is derived from the
have been ignored in most of the optimization algo- Markov process model before collision situations as
rithms. The negligence of the IMO rules may lead to presented by Zeng et al. (2001) in the same experi-
conflicts during ocean navigation. As for the re- mental setup. Further, Hong et al. (1999) have pre-
ported data of the maritime accidents, 56% of the sented the collision free trajectory navigation based
major maritime collisions include violation of the on a recursive algorithm that is formulated by ana-
COLREGS rule and regulations (Statheros et al. lytical geometry and convex set theory. Similarly,
(2008)). Therefore the methods proposed by the lit- Cheng et al. (2006) have presented trajectory optimi-
erature ignoring the COLREGs rules and regulations zation for ship collision avoidance based on genetic
should not be implemented in ocean navigation. On algorithms.
the other hand, there are some practical issues on Liu and Liu (2006) used Case Based Reasoning
implementation of the COLREGs rules and regula- (CBR) to illustrate the learning of collision avoid-
tions during ocean navigation. Consider the crossing ance in ocean navigation by previous recorded data
situations where the Own vessel is in ”Give way” of collision situations. In addition, a collision risk
situations in Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7 and in ”Stand on” evaluation system based on a data fusion method is
situations in Figures 9, 10, 11 and 12, there are ve- considered and fuzzy membership functions for
locity constrains in implementing COLREGs rules evaluating the degree of risk are also proposed. Fur-
and regulations of the ”Give way” and the ”Stand ther intelligent anti-collision algorithm for different
on” vessels collision situations when the Target ves- collision conditions has been designed and tested on
sel has very low or very high speed compared to the the computer based simulation platform by Yang et
Own vessel. al. (2007) Zhuo and Hearn (2008) presented a study
In the collision avoidance approach of repulsive of collision avoidance situation using a self learning
force based optimization algorithms proposed by neuro-fuzzy network based on an off-line training
Xue et al. (2009), the Own vessel is kept away from scheme and the study is based on two vessel colli-
the obstacles by a repulsive force field. However this sion situation. Sugeno type Fuzzy Inference System
approach may lead to conflict situations when the (FIS) was proposed for the decision making process
moving obstacles present a very low speed or very of the collision avoidance.
high speed when compared to the Own vessel speed.
In addition, complex orientations of obstacles may
lead to unavoidable collision situations. On the other 1.4 Fuzzy-logic based systems
hand, repulsive force based optimization algorithms Fuzzy-logic based systems, which are formulated for
are enforced to find the global safe trajectory for human type thinking, facilitate a human friendly en-
Own vessel navigation, and this might not be a good vironment during the decision making process.
solution for the localized trajectory search. In addi- Hence several decision making systems in research
tion the concepts of the ”Give way” and the ”Stand as well as commercial applications have been pre-
on” vessels that are derived on COLREGs rules and sented before (Hardy (1995)). The conjunction of
regulations during the repulsive force based optimi- human behavior and decision making process was
formulated by various fuzzy functions in Rommel- Three distinct situations involving risk of collision in
fanger, (1998) and Ozen et al., (2004). A fuzzy logic ocean navigation have been recognized in recent lit-
approach for the collision avoidance conditions with erature (Smeaton and Coenen (1990)), Overtaking
integration of the virtual force field has been pro- (see Figures 3 and 8); Head-on (see Figures 2) and
posed by Lee et al. (2004). However the simulations Crossing (see Figures 4 to 7 and 9 to 12) and the
results are limited to the two vessel collision avoid- rules and regulations with respect to these collision
ance situations. The behaviour based controls formu- conditions have been highlighted by the COLREGs.
lated with interval programming for collision avoid-
ance of ocean navigation are proposed by Benjamin
et al. (2006). Further, the collision avoidance behav-
iour is illustrated accordance with the Coast Guard
Collision Regulations (COLREGS-USA).
Benjamin and Curcio (2004) present the decision
making process of ocean navigation based on the in-
terval programming model for multi-objective deci-
sion making algorithms. The computational algo-
rithm based on If-Then logic is defined and tested
under simulator conditions by Smeaton and Coenen
(1990) regarding different collision situations. Fur-
ther, this study has been focused on the rule-based Figure 2: Head-on Figure 3: Overtake
manoeuvring advice system for collision avoidance
of ocean navigation.
Even though many techniques have been proposed
for avoidance of collision situations, those tech-
niques usually ignore the law of the sea as formu-
lated by the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) in 1972. These rules and regulations are ex-
pressed on the Convention on the International
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COL-
REGs)(IMO (1972)). The present convention was
designed to update and replace the Collision Regula- Figure 4: Crossing Figure 5: Crossing
tions of 1960 which were adopted at the same time
as the International Convention for Safety of Life at
Sea (SOLAS) Convention (Cockcroft and Lameijer
(2001)).
The detailed descriptions of collision avoidance
rules of the COLREGs, how the regulations should
be interpreted and how to avoid collision, have been
presented by Cockcroft and Lameijer (2001). Fur-
ther, the complexity of autonomous navigation not
only in the sea but also in the ground has been dis-
cussed by Benjamin and Curcio (2004). The legal Figure 6: Parallel-crossing Figure 7: Crossing
framework, rules and regulations, is discussed and
the importance of collision avoidance within a set of
given rules and regulations is highlighted in the
same work.
3.6 Implementation of Decisions on Navigation bearing values in a given time interval. The relative
As the final step, the decisions on vessel navigation trajectory of the target vessel has been estimated
should be formulated with respect to the collision with the derivation of relative speed, Va,o and rela-
risk assessments. The actions that are taken by the tive course, ψa,o. All angles have been measured re-
Own vessel are proportional to the Target vessel be- garding the positive Y-axis. Further, it is assumed
haviour as well as the COLREGs rules and regula- that both vessels are power driven vessels regarding
tions. The expected Own and Target vessel actions the IMO categorization.
of collision avoidance could be formulated into two
categories: Course change and speed change. How-
ever the initiation for actions should be formulated
with respect to the Target vessel range and the rate
of change of range. Further if the actions taken by
the Target vessel are not clear or there is doubt about
actions, sound signals should be used as recom-
mended by the COLREGs.
In a collision situation, when the Target vessel is
ahead or fine on the bow of the Own vessel and the
Target vessel overtaking the Own vessel from astern
or fine on the quarter without the safe distance, al-
teration of course is more effective than speed altera-
tion. However in a collision situation, when the Tar-
get vessel is approaching from abeam or near the
abeam of the Own vessel, alteration of speed is more
effective than course alteration but course alteration
could be achieved the same.(Cockcroft and Lameijer
(2001)). On conventional navigational systems,
power driven vessels usually prefer course changes Figure 13: Relative Collision Situation in Ocean Navigation
over speed changes due to the difficulties and delays
in controllability of engines from the bridge unless Further, in Figure 13, the Own vessel ocean do-
the engines are on stand-by mode. However these main is divided into three circular sections with ra-
problems could be overcome with the AGN systems dius Rvd, Rb and Ra. The radius Ra represents the ap-
with the integration of speed and course control sys- proximate distance to the Target vessel identification
tems. and this distance could be defined as the distance
where the Own vessel is in a ”Give way” situation
and should take appropriate actions to avoid colli-
4 CASE STUDY: FUZZY LOGIC BASED sion. The distance Rb represents the approximate dis-
DECISION MAKING PROCESS tance where the Own vessel is in ”Stand on” situa-
tion, but should take actions to avoid collisions due
This section focuses on a fuzzy logic based Decision to absence of the appropriate actions from the Target
Making (DM) system to be implemented on vessel vessel. Further the distance Rvd represents the vessel
navigation to improve safety of the vessel by avoid- domain. The approximate distances considered for
ing the collision situations and is an illustration of this study are Rvd ≈ 1NM, Rb ≈ 6NM and Ra ≈
the study of Perera et al. (2009). The experienced 10NM.
helmsman actions in ocean navigation can be simu- The Own vessel collision regions are divided into
lated by a fuzzy logic based Decision Making (DM) eight regions from I, to VIII. It is assumed that the
process, being this one of the main advantages in Target vessel should be located within these eight
this proposal. regions and the collision avoidance decisions are
4.1 Formation of collision conditions formulated in accordance to each region. As repre-
sented in target vessel position II in Figure 13, the
Figure 13 presents two vessels in a collision situa- Target vessel positions have been divided into eight
tion in ocean navigation that is similar to a Radar divisions of vessel orientations regarding the relative
plot in the Own vessel. The Own vessel is initially course (from II−a to II−h).
located at the point O (xo, yo), and the Target vessel
is located at the point A (xa, ya). The Own and Tar- 4.2 Fuzzification and Defuzzification
get vessels velocities and course, are represented by The overall design process of the fuzzy logic based
Vo, Va and ψo, ψa. The relative speed (Va,o) and DM system could be categorized into the following
course (ψa,o) of the Target vessel with respect to the six steps.
Own vessel can be estimated using the range and
− Identification of the input Fuzzy Membership using navigational knowledge. The outputs of the
Functions (FMFs). rule based system are the Collision Risk Warning
− Identification of the output FMFs. and the Fuzzy Decisions. Finally the fuzzy decisions
− Creation of FMF for each inputs and outputs. are defuzzified by output FMF of Course Change
− Construction of If-Then fuzzy rules to operate and Speed Change to obtain the control actions that
overall system. will be executed in the Own vessel navigation. The
− Strength assignment of the fuzzy rules to execute
the actions.
− Combination of the rules and defuzzification of
the output.