See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309395738

The Sensitivity of Safe Ship Control in Restricted Visibility at Sea

Article · January 2012

DOI: 10.1201/b11344-14

CITATIONS READS

4 28

1 author:

Józef Lisowski
Gdynia Maritime University
294 PUBLICATIONS   831 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ship collision avoidance View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Józef Lisowski on 30 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal Volume 6
on Marine Navigation Number 1
and Safety of Sea Transportation March 2012

The Sensitivity of Safe Ship Control in

Restricted Visibility at Sea
J. Lisowski
Gdynia Maritime University, Electrical Engineering Faculty, Department of Ship Automation,
Gdynia, Poland

ABSTRACT: The structure of safe ship control in collision situations and computer support programmes on
base information from the ARPA anti-collision radar system has been presented. The paper describes the sen-
sitivity of safe ship control to inaccurate data from the ARPA system and to process control parameters altera-
tions. Sensitivity characteristics of the multi-stage positional non-cooperative and cooperative game and kin-
ematics optimization control algorithms on an examples of a navigational situations in restricted visibility at
sea are determined.

1 SAFE SHIP CONTROL the Closest Point of Approach) and also the assess-
ment of the collision risk rj (Bist 2000, Bole 2006).
1.1 Structure of control system
The challenge in research for effective methods to
prevent collisions has become important with the in-
creasing size, speed and number of ships participat-
ing in sea carriage. An obvious contribution in in-
creasing safety of shipping has been application of
the ARPA (Automatic Radar Plotting Aids) anti-
collision system (Fig. 1).

Figure 2. Navigational situation passing of the own ship with j

met ship moving with Vj speed and ψj course.
Figure 1. The structure of safe ship control system.

1.2 Information of the state process The risk value is defined by referring the current
situation of approach, described by parameters
The ARPA system enables to track automatically at j j
least 20 encountered j objects as is shown on Figure Dmin and Tmin , to the assumed evaluation of the
2, determination of their movement parameters situation as safe, determined by a safe distance of
(speed Vj , course ψj) and elements of approach to approach Ds and a safe time Ts – which are necessary
j to execute a collision avoiding manoeuvre with con-
the own ship ( Dmin = DCPA j - Distance of the
j sideration of distance Dj to j-th met ship (Cahill
Closest Point of Approach, Tmin = TCPA j - Time to 2002).

35
 The functional scope of a standard ARPA system The properties of control process are described by
ends with the trial manoeuvre altering the course the state equation:
± ∆ψ or the ship's speed ± ∆V selected by the nav-
igator (Cockcroft & Lameijer 2006, Gluver & Olsen [( )( )]
x i = f i x0,ϑ0 ,..., xm ,ϑm , u 0,ν 0 ,...,u m ,ν m , t (1)
1998).
where:

1.3 Computer support of navigator x0, ϑ (t ) - ϑ0 dimensional vector of process state of
0
The problem of selecting such a manoeuvre is very own ship determined in time t ∈ [t0 , t k ] ,
difficult as the process of control is very complex 
since it is dynamic, non-linear, multi-dimensional, x j , ϑ (t ) - ϑj dimensional vector of the process state
j
non-stationary and game making in its nature. In
practice, methods of selecting a manoeuvre assume a for j-th ship,

form of appropriate steering algorithms supporting u0, ν (t ) - ν0 dimensional control vector of own ship,
navigator decision in a collision situation. Algo- 0
rithms are programmed into the memory of a Pro- 
u j , ν (t ) - νj dimensional control vector of j-th ship
grammable Logic Controller PLC (Fig. 3) (Lisowski j
2008). (Isaacs 1965, Lisowski 2010, Engwerda 2005).

The constraints of the control and the state of the

process are connected with the basic condition for
the safe passing of the ships at a safe distance Ds in
compliance with COLREG Rules, generally in the
following form:
Figure 3. The system structure of computer support of naviga-
tor manoeuvring decision in collision situation.
( j
g j ( x j ,ϑ j ,u j ,ν j ) = Ds − Dmin )
≤0 (2)

For the class of non-coalition games, often used

in the control techniques, the most beneficial con-
2 COMPUTER PROGRAMMES OF
duct of the own ship as a player with j-th ship is the
NAVIGATOR SUPPORT
minimization of her goal function in the form of the
2.1 Base model of process payments – the integral payment and the final one:
tk
The most general description of the own ship pass- I 0, j = ∫ [ x0,ϑ0 (t )] 2 dt + r j (t k ) + d (t k ) → min (3)
ing the j number of other encountered ships is the
t0
model of a differential game of j number of moving
control objects (Fig. 4). The integral payment represents loss of way by
the ship while passing the encountered ships and the
final payment determines the final risk of collision
rj(tk) relative to the j-th ship and the final deflection
of the ship d(tk) from the reference trajectory (Fig. 5)
(Modares 2006, Nisan et al. 2007).

2.2 Programme of multi-stage positional non-

cooperative game MSPNCG
The optimal steering of the own ship u0∗ (t ) , equiva-
lented for the current position p(t) to the optimal po-
sitional steering u0∗ ( p) . The sets of acceptable strat-
egies U 0j [ p(t k )] are determined for the encountered
ships relative to the own ship and initial sets
U 0jw [ p(t k )] of acceptable strategies of the own ship
relative to each one of the encountered ship. The
m
Figure 4. Block diagram of the basic differential game model pair of vectors u j and u0j relative to each j-th ship
of safe ship control process. is determined and then the optimal positional strate-
gy for the own ship u0∗ ( p) from the condition (4).

36
 2.4 Programme of non-game kinematic
optimization NGKO
Goal function (4) for kinematics optimization has
the form:
t Lk
I∗0 = min
∗
∫ u 0 ( t ) dt = S0 ( x 0 , L k ) (6)
m
U0 t0
j
u0∈ 
j =1

3 THE SENSITIVITY OF SAFE SHIP CONTROL

3.1 Definition of safe control sensitivity

The investigation of sensitivity of game control fetch
for sensitivity analysis of the game final payment (3)
measured with the relative final deviation of d(tk)=dk
safe game trajectory from the reference trajectory, as
sensitivity of the quality first-order.
Taking into consideration the practical applica-
Figure 5. The final risk of collision rj(tk) relative and the final tion of the game control algorithm for the own ship
deflection d(tk) from the reference trajectory in situation pass-
ing of three met ships.
in a collision situation it is recommended to perform
the analysis of sensitivity of a safe control with re-
t Lk
gard to the accuracy degree of the information re-
I∗0 = min max min
∗
∫ u 0 ( t ) dt = S0 ( x 0 , L k ) (4) ceived from the anti-collision ARPA radar system
m j m j j
u 0∈  U0 u j ∈ U j u 0∈ U0 t 0 on the current approach situation, from one side and
j=1
also with regard to the changes in kinematical and
The function S0 refers to the continuous function dynamic parameters of the control process (Lisowski
of the manoeuvring goal of the own ship, character- 2009, Straffin 2001).
ising the distance of the ship at the initial moment t0
to the nearest turning point Lk on the reference pr(tk) Admissible average errors, that can be contribut-
route of the voyage (Millington & Funge 2009, Os- ed by sensors of anti-collision system can have fol-
borne 2004). lowing values for:

The optimal control of the own ship is calculated − radar, o

at each discrete stage of the ship’s movement by ap- − bearing: ±0,22 , o
plying the Simplex method to solve the problem of − form of cluster: ±0,05 ,
the triple linear programming, assuming the relation- − form of impulse: ±20 m, o
ship (4) as the goal function and the control con- − margin of antenna drive: ±0,5
o
,
straints (2). − sampling of bearing: ±0,01 ,
− sampling of distance:
o
±0,01 nm,
Using the function of lp – linear programming − gyrocompas: ±0,5 ,
from the Optimization Toolbox Matlab, the posi- − log: ±0,5 kn,
tional multi-stage game non-cooperative manoeu- − GPS: ±15 m.
vring MSPNCG program has been designed for the
determination of the own ship safe trajectory in a The algebraic sum of all errors, influent on pictur-
collision situation (Lisowski 2010). ing of the navigational situation, cannot exceed
o
for
absolute values ±5% or for angular values ±3 .

2.3 Programme of multi-stage positional

cooperative game MSPCG 3.2 The sensitivity of safe ship control to
inaccuracy of information from ARPA system
The quality index of control (4) for cooperative
Let X0,j represent such a set of state process control
game has the form: information on the navigational situation that:
t Lk
I∗0 = min min min
∗
∫ u 0 ( t ) dt = S0 ( x 0 , L k ) (5) X 0, j = {V , ψ,V j , ψ j , D j , N j } (7)
m j m j j
u 0∈ U 0 u j ∈ U j u 0∈ U 0 t 0
Let then X0ARPA represent a set of information from

j =1 ,j

ARPA system containing extreme errors of meas-

urement and processing parameters:

37
X 0ARPA = {V ± δV , ψ ± δψ,V j ± δV j , ψ j ± δψ j , ing the navigator manoeuvring decision, were car-
,j
(8) ried out on an example of a real navigational situa-
D j ± δD j , N j ± δN j } tions of passing j=3, 12 and 20 encountered ships.
The situations were registered in Kattegat Strait on
Relative measure of sensitivity of the final pay- board r/v HORYZONT II, a research and training
ment in the game sinf as a final deviation of the ship's
vessel of the Gdynia Maritime University, on the ra-
safe trajectory dk from the reference trajectory will
be: dar screen of the ARPA anti-collision system Ray-
theon (Figs 6-7).
d kARPA ( X oARPA
,j )
sinf = ( X 0ARPA
, j , X 0, j ) = (9)
d k ( X 0, j )
Vj ψj Dj Nj
sinf = {sV , s ψ , s ,s ,s ,s } (10)

3.3 Sensitivity of safe ship control to process

parameters alterations
Let Xparam represents a set of parameters of the state
process control:
X param = {tm , Ds , ∆tk , ∆V } (11)

Let then X 'param represents a set of information

containing extreme errors of measurement and pro-
cessing parameters:

X 'param = {tm ± δtm , Ds ± δDs , tk ± δtk , ∆V ± δ∆V } (12)

Relative measure of sensitivity of the final pay-

ment in the game as a final deflection of the ship's Figure 6. The place of identification of navigational situations
safe trajectory dk from the assumed trajectory will in Kattegat Strait.
be:

d k' ( X 'param )
sdyn = ( X 'param , X param ) = (13)
d k ( X param )

sdyn = {s tm , s Ds , stk , s ∆V } (14)

where:
tm - advance time of the manoeuvre with respect to
the dynamic properties of the own ship,
tk - duration of one stage of the ship's trajectory,
Ds – safe distance,
∆V - reduction of the own ship's speed for a deflec- Figure 7. The research-training ship of Gdynia Maritime Uni-
o
tion from the course greater than 30 (Baba & versity r/v HORYZONT II.
Jain 2001).
4.1 Navigational situation for j=3 met ships

4 SENSITIVITY CHARACTERISTICS OF SAFE Computer simulation of MSPNCG, MSPCG and

SHIP CONTROL IN RESTRICTED NGKO programmes was carried out in
VISIBILITY AT SEA Matlab/Simulink software on an example of the real
navigational situation of passing j=3 encountered
Computer simulation of MSPNCG, MSPCG and ships in Kattegat Strait in restricted visibility when
NGKO algorithms, as a computer software support- Ds=2 nm and were determined sensitivity character-

38
istics for the alterations of the values X0,j and Xparam
o
within ±6% or ±3 (Figs 8-14).

Figure 8. The 12 minute speed vectors of own ship and 3 en-

countered ships in situation in Kattegat Strait.

Figure 10. Sensitivity characteristics of safe ship control ac-

cording to MSPNCG programme on an example of the naviga-
tional situation j=3 in the Kattegat Strait.
Figure 9. The safe trajectory of own ship for MSPNCG algo-
rithm in restricted visibility Ds=2 nm in situation of passing
j=3 encountered ships, r(tk)=0, d(tk)=7.60 nm.

39
 Figure 13. The safe trajectory of own ship for NGKO algo-
rithm in restricted visibility Ds=2 nm in situation of passing
Figure 11. The safe trajectory of own ship for MSPCG algo- j=3 encountered ships, r(tk)=0, d(tk)=3.70 nm.
rithm in restricted visibility Ds=2 nm in situation of passing
j=3 encountered ships, r(tk)=0, d(tk)=4.71 nm.

Figure 12. Sensitivity characteristics of safe ship control ac-

cording to MSPCG programme on an example of the naviga-
tional situation j=3 in the Kattegat Strait.

Figure 14. Sensitivity characteristics of safe ship control ac-

cording to NGKO programme on an example of the naviga-
tional situation j=3 in the Kattegat Strait.

40
4.2 Navigational situation for j=12 met ships
Computer simulation of MSPNCG, MSPCG and
NGKO programmes was carried out in
Matlab/Simulink software on an example of the real
navigational situation of passing j=12 encountered
ships in Kattegat Strait in restricted visibility when
Ds=2 nm and were determined sensitivity character-
istics for the alterations of the values X0,j and Xparam
o
within ±6% or ±3 (Figs 15-21).

Figure 15. The 12 minute speed vectors of own ship and 12 en-
countered ships in situation in Kattegat Strait. Figure 17. Sensitivity characteristics of safe ship control ac-
cording to MSPNCG programme on an example of the naviga-
tional situation j=12 in the Kattegat Strait.

Figure 16. The safe trajectory of own ship for MSPNCG algo-
rithm in restricted visibility Ds=2 nm in situation of passing Figure 18. The safe trajectory of own ship for MSPCG algo-
j=12 encountered ships, r(tk)=0, d(tk)=3.20 nm. rithm in restricted visibility Ds=2 nm in situation of passing
j=12 encountered ships, r(tk)=0, d(tk)=1.40 nm.

41
Figure 19. Sensitivity characteristics of safe ship control ac- Figure 21. Sensitivity characteristics of safe ship control ac-
cording to MSPCG programme on an example of the naviga- cording to NGKO programme on an example of the naviga-
tional situation j=12 in the Kattegat Strait. tional situation j=12 in the Kattegat Strait.

4.3 Navigational situation for j=20 met ships

Computer simulation of MSPNCG, MSPCG and
NGKO programmes was carried out in
MATLAB/SIMULINK software on an example of
the real navigational situation of passing j=20 en-
countered ships in Kattegat Strait in restricted visi-
bility when Ds=2 nm and were determined sensitivi-
ty characteristics for the alterations of the values X0,j
o
and Xparam within ±6% or ±3 (Figs 22-28).

Figure 20. The safe trajectory of own ship for NGKO algo-
rithm in restricted visibility Ds=2 nm in situation of passing
j=12 encountered ships, r(tk)=0, d(tk)=1.23 nm.

42
Figure 22. The 12 minute speed vectors of own ship and 20 en-
countered ships in situation in Kattegat Strait.

Figure 24. Sensitivity characteristics of safe ship control ac-

cording to MSPNCG programme on an example of the naviga-
tional situation j=20 in the Kattegat Strait.

Figure 23. The safe trajectory of own ship for MSPNCG algo-
rithm in restricted visibility Ds=2 nm in situation of passing
j=20 encountered ships, r(tk)=0, d(tk)=8.06 nm.

Figure 25. The safe trajectory of own ship for MSPCG algo-
rithm in restricted visibility Ds=2 nm in situation of passing
j=20 encountered ships, r(tk)=0, d(tk)=6.64 nm.

43
Figure 26. Sensitivity characteristics of safe ship control ac- Figure 28. Sensitivity characteristics of safe ship control ac-
cording to MSPCG programme on an example of the naviga- cording to NGKO programme on an example of the naviga-
tional situation j=20 in the Kattegat Strait. tional situation j=20 in the Kattegat Strait.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity of the final game payment:

− is least relative to the sampling period of the tra-
jectory and advance time manoeuvre,
− most is relative to changes of the own and met
ships speed and course,
− it grows with the degree of playing character of
the control process and with the quantity of ad-
missible strategies.
The less sensitivity of safe ship control in collision
situations is represented by NGKO algorithm and
highest by MSPNCG algorithm.
The considered control algorithms are, in a cer-
tain sense, formal models of the thinking process of
navigator steering of the ship motion and making
Figure 27. The safe trajectory of own ship for NGKO algo-
manoeuvring decisions.
rithm in restricted visibility Ds=2 nm in situation of passing
j=20 encountered ships, r(tk)=0, d(tk)=6.94 nm.

44
 Therefore they may be applied in the construction Isaacs, R. 1965. Differential games. New York: John Wiley &
new model of ARPA system containing the comput- Sons.
Lisowski, J. 2008. Computer support of navigator manoeuvring
er supporting of navigator decisions. decision in congested water. Polish Journal of Environmen-
tal Studies, Vol. 17, No. 5A:1-9.
Lisowski, J. 2009. Sensitivity of safe game ship control on base
REFERENCES information from ARPA radar. Chapter in monograph “Ra-
dar Technology”: 61-86, Croatia: Intech.
Baba, N. & Jain, L.C. 2001. Computational intelligence in Lisowski, J. 2010. Optimization decision support system for
games. New York: Physica-Verlag. safe ship control. Chapter in monograph “Risk Analysis VII
Bist, D.S. 2000. Safety and security at sea. Oxford-New Delhi: Simulation and Hazard Mitigation”: 259-272, Southamp-
Butter Heinemann, ton-Boston: WIT Press.
Bole, A., Dineley, B. & Wall, A. 2006. Radar and ARPA man- Millington, I. & Funge, J. 2009. Artificial intelligence for
ual. Amsterdam-Tokyo: Elsevier. games. Amsterdam-Tokyo: Elsevier.
Cahill, R.A. 2002. Collisions and thair causes. London: The Modarres, M. 2006. Risk analysis in engineering. Boca Raton:
Nautical Institute. Taylor & Francis Group.
Cockcroft, A.N. & Lameijer, J.N.F. 2006. The collision avoid- Nisan, N., Roughgarden, T., Tardos, E. & Vazirani, V.V. 2007.
ance rules. Amsterdam-Tokyo: Elsevier. Algorithmic game theory. New York: Cambridge Universi-
Engwerda, J.C. 2005. LQ dynamic optimization and differential ty Press.
games. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. Osborne, M.J. 2004. An introduction to game theory. New
Fadali, M.S. & Visioli, A. 2009. Digital control engineering. York: Oxford University Press.
Amsterdam-Tokyo: Elsevier. Straffin, P.D. 2001. Game theory and strategy. Warszawa:
Gluver, H. & Olsen, D. 1998. Ship collision analysis. Rotter- Scholar (in polish).
dam-Brookfield: A.A. Balkema.

45
View publication stats