Collision and Grounding of Ships and Offshore Structures – Amdahl, Ehlers & Leira (Eds)

© 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-00059-9

An improvement on a method for estimating number of collision

candidates between ships

F. Kaneko
National Maritime Research Institute, Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan

ABSTRACT: Methods for estimation of frequency of collision candidates have been developed by several
researchers, such as Fujii, Pedersen and Kaneko etc. Those methods are thought to be able to deal with wide
ranging situations of collision candidates. However the case of small crossing angle has not been dealt with to a
satisfactory extent. This paper introduces a method to estimate the number of collision candidates in a crossing
between twowater ways which cross with a small angle. Prior to this a holistic formulation for considering
collision candidates is made and the existing method is reformulated. The method was examined by comparing
its results with the results of traffic simulations. This examination suggests the rationality of the model.

1 INTRODUCTION water way considering the shape of ships (Pedersen

As Table 1 shows collision between ships has been
still very numerous and hazardous casualty to life and
environment globally. As the results of collision water
ingress and capsizing occur, persons on board were
killed and serious water pollution was caused. Most
collision accidents are considered to be caused in such
a manner that after occurrences of collision candidates
which are situations in which related ships collide with
each other without evasive action, responses of related
ships to the situations are failed. The probability of
failing evasive action is called “causation probability”
(Pedersen 2010). This approach for modeling collision
is regarded as common way to consider collision now.
Fujii proposed this approach first (Fujii 1970). The
case that while no collision candidates occur sudden
turning of a ship to the near ship occur and shortly
after collision between those ships occur, rarely occurs.
However this case is out of consideration in this paper.
The important thing in judging collision candidate
is to model the collision situation between two ships,
that is, to model geometrical collision situation consi-
dering ship shape.
Fujii considered collision situation between ships
which sail in mutually crossed waterways. He defined
closed region the border of which is a trajectory of the
center point of an other ship obtained by sliding the
other ship keeping the progress direction of it along
the edge of an own ship and keeping it contact with
the own ship (Fujii 1970). He also defined the “colli-
sion diameter” which is the length of projection of the
region to the direction of the relative velocity vector.
Pedersen developed the method that enables to
estimate number of collision candidate in crossing
area between two water ways which have probabilis-
tic distribution of ship’s position laterally along each
2010). He used a closed region around a ship which
is defined in the same way as Fujii defined. He
also used “collision diameter” defined by Fujii in his
formulation.
Kaneko developed a method that enables to esti-
mate number of collision candidate analytically under
the assumption that a ship appears at the circular border
and progresses in the circular area with random direc-
tion (Kaneko 2004). Kaneko also developed a method
that enables to estimate the number of collision candi-
dates in the area of unique ship density by defining the
ship’s shape as rectangle (Kaneko 2007). Kaneko esti-
mated the number of collision candidates in real sea
area in Japan and estimated the collision frequency
of the area using the estimated number of collision
candidates obtained by application of the method and
number of collision accidents which were written in
the casualty statistics from the Japan Coast Guard
(Kaneko 2007).
Montewka developed a collision model in which
a ship is represented as a disc and MDTC (min-
imum distance to collision) is defined instead of
the abovementioned “collision diameter”. To deter-
mine MDTC value ship dynamics was considered
(Montewka 2010, 2012). He criticized collision mod-
els by Fujii, Pedersen and Kaneko as not considering
ship dynamics. He also suspected that their model may
not fully reflect the real interaction between ships at
close quarters (Montewka 2010). However rationality
of their model can be supported by the abovementioned
definition of collision candidates. The result of inter-
action between relevant ships at close quarters may
affects causation probability along as ship dynamics
affects it (Pedersen 2010). Therefore collision can-
didate based on geometrical collisional situation is
essential for analysis of occurrence of collision.

27
Table 1. Significant casualties from 2000 to 2011 (IHS
Fairplay casualty database).

Volume of
spilled
Occurrence Number of liquids
Casualty number fatalities (Kilo Liter)

Collision 3,181 421 55,353.0

Contact 1,357 47 19,169.2
Foundered 582 6,622 11,024.6
Fire/Explosion 1,123 1,751 25,042.0
Hull/machinery 5,030 40 6,832.1
damage
War loss etc. 30 43 352.8
Missing 12 72 0.0 Figure 1. Expression of crossed waterways.
Grounding 3,246 1,127 59,040.3
Miscellaneous 60 22 12.0

Here the shape of an IA is assumed to be a rectangle

However in case of small crossing angle to the
extent that two crossing waterways are almost paral-
lel, such as a juncture of river branches and closely
located waterways near a coast, the models by Fujii and
Pedersen cannot be applied to for estimating number of
collision candidates. In such crossing area the length
of the crossing is relatively so long that collision candi-
dates are likely to happen even though such a crossing
is narrow. Here the crossing angle is categorized into
two types by its sharpness, and an applicable method
for estimating number of collision candidates to each
type is discussed. The method for estimating the num-
ber of collision candidates in a crossing with small
angle is newly developed and is an improvement on a
method for estimating number of collision candidates.
2 HOLISTIC FORMULATION FOR
ESTIMATION OF NUMBER OF COLLISION
CANDIDATES AT CROSSING AREA
In the followings the shape of a ship is approximated to
be rectangular, the length and the width of which are
the length and the breadth of a ship (Kaneko 2007).
One of crossed waterways is set upright so that the
other waterway crosses it from the left to the right.
Because the case that the other waterway crosses the
vertically set waterway from the right to the left can
be considered to be a mirror image of the crossing
situation from the left to the right, the handling does
not lose generality.
The crossing angle is defined as shown in Figure 1.
The crossing angle of opposite directional waterway
is 0 radian and that of co-directional waterway is π
radian by this definition. At the edge of each water-
ways a ship appears following Poisson distribution
mean appearance rate of which is λ1 (x1 ) or λ2 (x2 )
respectively.
Here an inspection area (IA) is set to count the
number of collision candidates in the crossing of two
mutually crossed waterways. If an IA includes the
whole crossing, the problem to count a number of
collision candidates is called Problem 1 (Figure 1(a)).
and a pair of edges which are parallel is parallel to one
of the crossing waterways. The complementary prob-
lem to “Problem 1” is the problem to count the number
inside an IA which does not include the whole crossing
(Figure 1(b)). The problem is called “Problem 2”. A
case that a whole IA is included in the crossing area is
called Problem 2C. As the methods used to solve Prob-
lem 2C can be applied to the other cases of Problem
2, only methods for solving Problem 2C are discussed
here. In Problem 1 all considered ships pass through
the crossing perfectly. In Problem 2, in an IA there exist
ships which do not pass through the crossing perfectly.
If the angle between crossed waterways is large, that
is, near π/2 radian, it is easy to set an IA as it includes
whole crossing area. On the other hand if the angle is
small, that is, near 0 or π radian, it becomes difficult to
set an IA in such a manner. This indicates that in case
of a crossing with a small angle Problem 2 is essential.
The basic process of calculating the number of col-
lision candidates is to count colliding ships in the other
waterway while a ship in the waterway of upright posi-
tion sails in the considered time. The former ship is
called the “other ship” and the latter ship is called
the “own ship” here. After that by multiplying the esti-
mated number of colliding ships in the other waterway
with the number of ships in the waterway of upright
position which sail in the crossing in the considered
time the number of collision candidates in the crossing
can be obtained.
Prior to the formulation of the problems the follow-
ing definition of symbols are made. In the definitions
suffix i denotes own (i = 1) or other ship (i = 2).
Li : Length of a ship
Bi : Breadth of a ship
V
i : Velocity vector
Vi : Absolute value of velocity vector.
V
2 − V
1 : Relative velocity vector of an other ship
to an own ship.
|V
2 − V
1 |: Absolute value of the relative velocity
θ: Crossing angle of waterway 2 to waterway 1
defined in Figure 1
θ−V
1 ·V
2 −V
1 : Angle between V
2 − V
1 and reverse
direction to the progress direction of an own ship.

28
Figure 2. Collision area (CA) and collision polygon (CP).

Figure 3. Relation between CA and crossed water way and

collision segment (CS) at problems. Figure 4. Case division of Problem 1.

2.1 Problem 1
For simplifying explanatory figures below a filled This problem includes four cases considering an angle
rectangle (
) is used instead of θ−V
1 ·V
2 −V
1 . between relative the velocity vector V
2 − V
1 and the
θV
2 ·V
2 −V
1 : Angle between V
2 − V
1 and the progress velocity vector of an own ship V
1 . The case division is
direction of an other ship. Similarl to the treatment illustrated in Figure 4.
of θ−V
1 ·V
2 −V
1 , a filled triangle () is used instead of The positions of other ships on a CS which corre-
θV
2 ·V
2 −V
1 . spond to the points on the border of a CP are illustrated
An other ship collides with an own ship when she in figures from Figure 5(a) to (d) at every cases. Ships
comes into the polygonal area, the boundary of which of both ends of a CS is only tangent to a CP. Although
is the trajectory of a center point of an other ship the positions of the other ships at the border of a CP
obtained by sliding the other ship while keeping the differ at every cases, the width of both lines which con-
progress direction of an other ship along the edge of nect both ends of a CS and corresponding points on
an own ship and keeping it contact with the own ship. the border of CP is expressed by the same equation,
The polygonal area is called the “Collision polygon that is, Equation (1). The width has been called the
(CP)” (Figure 2). Other ships which collide with an “collision diameter” until now (ex. (Pedersen 2010)).
own ship during duration T locates in the area shown
in Figure 3. The both edges of the area are parts of a
CP and both sides are line segments which is tangent
to the CP of both sides of the area. The length of the
line segments of both sides of the area is |V
2 − V
1 | · T
and the slant is the slope of a vector of V
2 − V
1 . From law of sines Equation (2) holds.
The area is called “Collision area (CA)”. Ships on
the line segment which is obtained after cutting a sail-
ing line of other ships by CA collide with the own ship.
The line segment is called “Collision Segment (CS)”
(Figure 3). Problem 1 is the case that both boundaries
of waterway 2 intersect the side lines of CA. Prob- Then Equation (1) is transformed into Equation (3)
lem 2C is the case that whole CA is included inside
of waterway 2. There exists the case that only a part
of CA is included in waterway 2. As stated above the
case can be dealt with using the methods used to the
above case. Therefore the case is not dealt with here.

29
 Equation (3) is the same form as the length of colli-
sion diameter in (Pedersen 2010). The length of CS
(LCOL ) is related to collision diameter (DCOL ). The
relation is expressed as equation (4).

The numbers of ships which collide with an own

ship during duration T while the own ship passes
through the crossing area between waterways can be
estimated by integrating numbers of ships on a CS
throughout a CA. As a ship is assumed to appear at
the edge of waterway following Poisson distribution,
the number is obtained if the sailing time in CS is esti-
mated. The time is obtained to divide the length of CS
by the velocity of an other ship (V2 ).
Then the mean value of number of ships in CS(NS )
is expressed by Equation (5).

Next the parameter of Poisson distribution (λi (xi )),

that is, the mean value of ship appearance rate, can be
expressed as λi (xi ) = i · ki (xi ) using the following
values. In the definitions suffix i denotes own (i = 1)
or other ship (i = 2).
i : Number of ships which appear at the end of a
waterway during unit time
ki (xi ): Probabilistic distribution function (PDF) of
position where ship appear
Then in the case that all ships pass through the cross-
ing between waterway 1 and 2 number of collision
candidate (NCOL ) is obtained by Equation (6) during
duration T that is much longer than the time for passing
through the crossing.

Equation (6) is the same form with that of (Pedersen

2010). As Equation (6) does not include any function
of x1 and x2 , it is simplified as Equation (7).

Figure 5. Collision segment (CS) and collision diameter in

cases of Problem 1.

2.2 Problem 2C be S/(2*DCOL ). S means surface of a CP. S is expressed

by Equation (8).
CA defined above has edge parts with a complicated
shape. Therefore in order to simplify the case division
needed to estimate number of collision candidates at
this problem, the shape of edges of the CA is trans-
formed into a rectangle the width of which is DCOL
and the length(d) defined in Figure 6 is calculated to

30
Figure 6. Simplified collision area (CA) used in
Problem 2C.
This transformation of edges of a CA has a merit
that transformed edges becomes the right shape at the
crossing angle is 0 and π.
This problem is divided into several cases by a cross-
ing angle and the difference of edges of a CA which a
CS crosses. In the following an IA is defined in front
of an own ship inside the crossing and it is assumed
that an own ship appears at the lower edge of the IA.
DW1 is defined as the length of IA. Then the time that
an own ship passes through the IA is DW1 /V1 .
In the following sections several auxiliary lines and
points are defined in explanatory figures to obtain
an equation which express the number of collision
candidates. As explanation of those lines and points
consumes so much space that the explanation is made
only in Figure 7. Auxiliary lines and points in other
figures can be understood easily by analogy with the
explanation of Figure 7.
2.2.1 Case 1: θ ≈ 0 and a CS crosses both a short
edge and a long edge or a CS crosses short
edges of both sides of a CA
This case corresponds to the following inequality.
In Figure 7 the rectangle E1 E2 E3 E4 is a CA. PS1
is appearance position of an own ship. The own ship
appears at an optional position on the line XW1 , coor-
dinates of which is denotes as (xW1 , 0) following the
Poisson distribution parameter of which is 1 k1 (xW1 ),
and she sails upward. The other ship appears at an
optional position on the line XW2 , coordinates of which
is denoted as (xW2 , H) following the Poisson distri-
bution parameter of which is 2 k2 (xW2 ) and sails
diagonally downward with crossing angle θ. In case
that the own ship sails from its original position to the
other edge of the IA, the length of a CS cut by the CA,
which is included in the integrand for obtaining NCOL
can be derived from Figure 7. Upper and lower limits
of the domains of integration also can be derived from
Figure 7.
31
Figure 7. Relation between CS and CA in Case 1.
E5 is a point of intersection of E1 E2 and a line which
passes through E3 and is parallel to V
2 . E6 is a point
of intersection of line XW2 and E3 E5 . E7 is a point
of intersection of line XW2 and a line which passes
through E2 and is parallel to V
2 . E8 is a point of inter-
section of E4 E3 and a line which passes through E1 and
is parallel to V
2 . E9 is a point of intersection of line
XW2 and a line which passes through E4 and is paral-
lel to V
2 . E10 is a point of intersection of line XW2 and
E1 E8 . E11 is a point of intersection of line XW1 and
a line which passes through E1 and is perpendicular
to XW1 . E12 is a point of intersection of line XW1 and
E1 E4 . E13 is a foot of the perpendicular to E1 E4 from
PS1 which is an appearance position of an own ship.
E14 is also a foot of the perpendicular to line XW2 from
E1 . H is the distance between line XW1 and XW2 . x1
is distance between E6 and a point of intersection of
the line XW2 and a line which is parallel to E3 E5 and
intersects E1 E2 and E2 E3 . y1 is length of a line seg-
ment obtained by cutting the line which is parallel to
E3 E5 and intersects E1 E2 and E2 E3 by E1 E2 and E2 E3 .
x2 is distance between E9 and a point of intersection of
the line XW2 and a line which is parallel to E1 E6 and
intersects E1 E4 and E4 E3 . y2 is length of a line seg-
ment obtained by cutting the line which is parallel to
E3 E5 and intersects E1 E2 and E2 E3 by E1 E2 and E2 E3 .
Then length of E1 E8 , y1 and y2 are obtained below.
NCOL (T) of this case is estimated by Equation (9)
using Z defined below.
 The upper and lower limits of the domains of inte-
gration, that is E6 (xW2 ), E7 (xW2 ), E9 (xW2 ), E10 (xW2 ),
are obtained below.
As integral forms of NCOL in the cases after this case
are all the same except integrand “Z” for saving space
the integral forms are not described in the following
cases. Only integrand “Z” is shown.
θ = 0, that is the opposite directional is a special
one of this case. In this case as E9 and E10 are same
point, E6 and E7 are also same point, y1 and y2 cannot
be defined. Moreover the following relations hold.
Therefore at θ = 0, integrand “Z” is expressed by
Equation (10).
2.2.2 Case 2: θ ≈ 0 and a CS crosses both a short
edge and a long edge or a CS crosses long
edges of both sides of a CA
This case corresponds to the following inequality.
Similar to Case 1 length of CS cut by CA, which
is included in integrand for obtaining NCOL can be
derived from Figure 8. Upper and lower limits of the
domains of integration can be derived from Figure 8.
Then length of E1 E15 , y1 and y2 are obtained below.
In this case, integrand “Z” is expressed by
Equation (11)
32
Figure 8. Relation between CS and CA in Case 2.
2.2.3 Case 3: θ ≈ π and 4 cases defined by
overtaking relation between an own and an
other ship and crossing relations between a
CS and edges of a CA
This case is rather complicated. In this case relation
between velocity of an own ship and an other ship the
situation that an other ship overtakes an own ship and
the opposite situation exists if there exists probabilistic
distribution of velocity of ships. In the case that veloc-
ity’s mean value of an own ship and that of an other
ship are nearly equal, those opposite situations occur
frequently. In the case that an other ship overtakes an
own ship CA is made at left lower of an own ship,
in the opposite case CA is made at left upper of an
own ship. Moreover in every cases there are two cases
which are case 1 and case 2 of Problem 2C. Therefore
the four cases explained in the followings should be
considered.
2.2.3.1 Case 3.1: θ ≈ π and an own ship overtakes
an other ship and a CS crosses both a short
edge and a long edge or a CS crosses short
edges of both sides of a CA
In this case velocity of an own ship and that of an other
ship have the relation below.
In addition following inequality holds.
In Figure 9 E1 E2 E3 E4 is a CA. PS1 is appearance
position of an own ship. QS1 is the relative position of
the center point of other ships which collide with the
own ship at the final position of the own ship. An own
ship appears at an optional position of line XW1 being
followed to PDF of an own ship’s appearance and sails
upward. An other ship appears at an optional position
of line XW2 being followed to PDF of an other ship’s
Figure 9. Relation between CS and CA in Case 3.1.
appearance, and sails diagonally upward at crossing
angle θ.
In case that an own ship sails from appearance posi-
tion to the opposite edge of the IA, length of a CS cut
by the CA, which is included in integrand for obtaining
NCOL can be derived from Figure 9. Upper and lower
limits of the domains of integration can be derived
from Figure 9. Length of E1 E8 , y1 and y2 are obtained
below.
Then in this case, integrand “Z” is expressed by
Equation (12).
θ = π, that is the co-directional is a special one of
this case. In this case as E9 and E10 are same point,
E6 and E7 are also same point, y1 and y2 cannot be
defined. Moreover the following relations hold.
Then in this case, integrand “Z” is expressed by
Equation (13).
33
Figure 10. Relation between CS and CA in Case 3.2.
2.2.3.2 Case 3.2: θ ≈ π and an own ship overtakes
an other ship and a CS crosses both a short
edge and a long edge or a CS crosses long
edges of both sides of a CA
Similar to Case 3.1 of Problem 2C, velocity of an own
ship and that of an other ship have the relation below.
In addition following inequality holds.
The length of a CS cut by a CA, which is included
in integrand for obtaining NCOL can be derived from
Figure 10. Length of E2 E5 , y1 and y2 are obtained
below.
Then in this case, integrand “Z” is expressed by
Equation (14).
2.2.3.3 Case 3.3: θ ≈ π and an other ship overtakes
an own ship and a CS crosses both a short
edge and a long edge or a CS crosses short
edges of both sides of a CA
In this case velocity of an own ship and that of an other
ship have the relation below.
 In addition following inequality holds.

In this case a CA locates lower left of an own ship

and there would be the case that the line where other
ships appear crosses the CA. To deal with this case a
treatment explained in the followings to estimate coor-
dinate value of the appearance position of an other ship
applied to. The line where other ships appear is named
as XW2 and a position where other ships which collide
with the own ship appear is named using a symbol with
a dash, that is, E’6 , E’7 , E’9 , E’10 .
The length of a CS cut by the CA, which is included
in integrand for obtaining NCOL can be derived from
Figure 11. E’6 (xW2 ), E’7 (xW2 ), E’9 (xW2 ), E’10 (xW2 ),
length of E4 E5 , y1 and y2 are obtained below.
Figure 11. Relation between CS and CA in Case 3.3.

Then in this case, integrand “Z” is expressed by

Equation (15).

θ = π, that is the co-directional is a special one of

this case.
Figure 12. Relation between CS and CA in Case 3.4.
In this case as E9 and E10 are same point, E6 and
E7 are also same point, y1 and y2 cannot be defined.
Moreover the following relations hold. In addition following inequality holds.

Then in this case, integrand “Z” is expressed by

Equation (16).
2.2.3.4 Case 3.4: θ ≈ π and an other ship overtakes
an own ship and a CS crosses both a short
edge and a long edge or a CS crosses long
edges of both sides of a CA
Similar to case 3.3 velocity of an own ship and that of
an other ship have the relation below.
A CA locates also lower left of an own ship and there
would be the case that the line where other ships appear
crosses the CA. To deal with this case a treatment
explained in the followings to estimate the coordi-
nate value of the appearance position of an other ship
applied to. The line where other ships appear is named
as XW2 and a position where other ships which collide
with the own ship appear is named using a symbol with
a dash. E’6 (xW2 ), E’7 (xW2 ), E’9 (xW2 ) and E’10 (xW2 ) are
obtained by same equations of Case 3.3.
The length of a CS cut by the CA, which is included
in integrand for obtaining NCOL can be derived from
Figure 12.

34
 E4 E19 , y1 and y2 are obtained below.

Then in this case, integrand “Z” is expressed by

Equation (17).

3 TRAFFIC SIMULATION

Assuming that own ships and other ships appear at

edges of Waterway 1 and 2 being followed to Poisson
distributions which are defined at each waterway
respectively, and that the appearance positions of own
ships and other ships are followed to normal dis-
tributions which are also defined at each waterway Figure 13. Target area of simulation at Problem 1.
respectively, ship traffic simulations were carried out
in both Problem 1 and Problem 2C. The formula-
tions made in chapter 2 were examined comparing the
results with corresponding results by simulations.
Since probabilistic distribution of ship appear-
ance assumed to be normal distribution, ends of ship
appearance line segment are meaningless. Important
values are the center of the line segment and standard
deviation.
Collision between ships is judged by finding the
intersection of ships which sail in mutually different
waterways.

3.1 Problem 1 Figure 14. A snapshot of a traffic simulation of Problem 1

Conditions of simulation are as follows.
Duration: One hour
This means that counting number of collision was
continued until all own ships which appear during
continuous one hour had passed through the crossing
area.
Crossing angle: π/4, π/3, π/2, 2π/3, 3π/4
Number of times of simulation: 10 (at each crossing
angle)
Additional conditions were set in Table 2 to every
crossing angle.
Figure 13 shows the target area used in the sim-
ulation for Problem 1. IA was set as it included the
crossing area between Waterway 1 and 2. Own ships
and other ships sail until they reach their terminal lines.
Figure 14 is a snapshot of a traffic simulation
of Problem 1, where crossing angle is 1/3π. Filled
rectangles are ships in Waterway 2 which collide with
ships in Waterway 1.
Table 3 shows the results obtained by the theoretical
model and by the simulation.
In the column “Theory” the values which were
obtained by models was shown. The integra-
tion of Equation (7) was carried out by using
(crossing angle: 1/3 π).
MATHEMATICA. In the column “Simulation” the
number obtained by simulation was shown.
It can be said that values by the model is near to cor-
responding value by simulation. However number of
times of simulations is too few to judge whether there
is significant difference between the theoretical model
and the corresponding simulation or not statistically.
3.2 Problem 2C
Simulation condition is as follows.
Duration: One hour
This means that counting number of collision
continued until all own ships which appear within
continuous one hour had passed through IA.
Crossing angle: 0, π/50, π/20, (45/50)π, (49/50)π, π
Number of times of simulation: 10 (at each crossing
angle)
Additional conditions were set in Table 4 to every
crossing angle.

35
Table 2. Traffic simulation condition (Problem 1). Table 4. Traffic simulation condition (Problem 2C).

Items Waterway 1 Waterway 2 Waterway 2

Ship appearance rate Items Waterway 1 θ ≈ 0 θ≈π

Type of distribution Poisson Poisson
Mean (1/sec) 1/60 2/60 Ship appearance rate
Type of distribution Poisson Poisson Poisson
Ship appearance position Mean (1/sec) 1/60 2/60 2/60
Type of probabilistic Normal Normal
distribution Ship appearance
position
Coordinates of center (1450, 0) (0, XW2min + 250)
Type of distribution Normal Normal Normal
point
Coordinates of (1450, 0) (1400− (1400−
standard deviation (m) 87.5 67.5 center point 2000 ∗ tan(θ), 500 ∗ tan
Velocity 4300) (π − θ), 0)
Type of distribution Normal Normal standard 87.5 200 + 250 ∗ 200 + 250∗
mean (kt) 10 20 deviation (m) tan(θ) tan(π − θ)
standard deviation (kt) 1 2 Inspection Area (IA)
Ship length Lower left (1100, 300) (1100, 500)
Type of distribution Normal Normal Upper right (1800, 1300) (1800, 500)
mean (m) 250 150 Velocity
standard deviation (m) 25 15 Type of distribution Normal Normal Normal
mean (kt) 10 20 20
Ship Breadth
standard 1 2 2
Type of distribution Normal Normal
deviation (kt)
mean (m) 40 30
standard deviation (m) 4 3 Length of ship (m) 250 150 150
(Constant)

π 
*XW 2MIN = 1000 + 1700 ∗ tan 2
−θ Breadth of ship (m) 40 30 30
(Constant)

Table 3. Number of collision candidates by theoretical

model and by simulation (Problem 1).

Simulation
Crossing
angle Theory Average Maximum Minimum

π/4 170.7 168.0 210 145

π/3 162.8 162.7 220 118
π/2 147.3 153.6 189 120
2π/3 138.9 145.6 184 124
3π/4 143.0 139.9 210 85

In this problem integration was carried out in the

manner that every used random valuable is digi-
tized by suitable interval and summarized all number
of collision candidate obtained at the combination
of valuables. For saving time of integration, length
and breadth of a ship are assumed to be constant
respectively and MATHEMATICA was not used.
Figure 15 shows the target area used in the simula-
tion for Problem 2C where crossing angle (θ) is close Figure 15. Target area of simulation at Problem 2C where
crossing angle (θ) is close to zero.
to zero. Figure 16 also shows the target area used in the
simulation for Problem 2C where crossing angle (θ) is
close to π. IAs are hatched rectangles in these figures.
Own ships and other ships sail until they reach their Results are summarized in Table 5.
terminal lines. Similar to Problem 1 it is said that values from
Figure 17 is a snapshot of a traffic simulation of theory is near to the corresponding value from sim-
Problem 1, where crossing angle is 45/50π. Filled rect- ulation. However simulation number is too few to
angles are ships in Waterway 2 which collide with ships judge whether there is a significant difference or not
in Waterway 1. statistically.

36
 Table 5. Number of collision candidates by developed
method and by simulation (Problem 2).

Simulation
Crossing
angle Theory Average Maximum Minimum

0 90.7 84.3 106 55

1/50π 82.9 74.6 111 50
1/20π 66.7 63.3 96 44
45/50π 80.3 71.7 103 56
49/50π 54.8 46.0 72 20
π 69.2 56.4 76 46

existing method already. Problem 2 has not been dealt

Figure 16. Target area of simulation at Problem 2C where
crossing angle (θ) is close to π radian.
with by existing method. Therefore it can be said that
the developed method for Problem 2 can be said to
be an improvement added to the existing method for
Problem 1.
Moreover at every sub-problem those methods were
verified by traffic simulation. For establishment of
those methods for estimation of number of the col-
lision candidates statistical verification is necessary.
For this purpose a lot of traffic simulations and field
measurement are necessary.

Figure 17. A snapshot of a traffic simulation of Problem 2C
(crossing angle: 45/50π).
4 CONCLUSION
The existing method for estimation of the number
of collision candidates at the crossing of two water
ways was reexamined and a holistic formulation for
the estimation of the collision candidates was made.
In the formulation the problem of the estimation of
the number of collision candidates was divided into
two sub-problems, that is Problem 1 and Problem 2
by the relation between an inspection area (IA) and
the crossing. Problem 1 has been dealt with by the
REFERENCES
Fujii, Y.; Yamanouch, H. & Mizuki, N. 1970. On the fun-
damentals of marine traffic control. Part I: Probabilities
of collision and evasive actions. Electronic Navigation
Research Institute Papers 2: 1–16.
Kaneko, F. 2004. Effectiveness of separation scheme for
prevention of collision by diminishing ships’ encounter
probability, Proceedings of the 3rd international con-
ference on collision and grounding of ships (ICCGS):
211–220. Izu, Japan.
Kaneko, F. & Hara, D. 2007. Estimation of dangerous
encounters’ number from observed ship trajectories.
4th international conference on collision and grounding
of ships. Hamburg University of Technology (ICCGS).
Schiffbautechnische Gesellschaft. 187–19. Hamburg,
Germany.
Pedersen, P.T. 2010. Review and application of ship collision
and grounding analysis procedures. Marine Structures 23:
241–262.
Montewka, J.; Hinz, T.; Kujala, P. & Matusiak, J. 2010.
Probability modeling of vessel collisions. Reliability
Engineering and System Safety 95: 573–589.
Montewka, J.; Goerlandt, F. & Kujala, P. 2011. Determina-
tion of collision criteria and causation factors appropriate
to a model for estimating the probability of maritime
accidents. Ocean Engineering 40: 50–61.

37