Application of Collision Warning Algorithm Alarm in Fishing Vessel’s Waterway
<p>Flowchart of the study.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Overview of the collision warning algorithm for small fishing vessels.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Images of the front portion of each ship used in the real ship test and installed antennas: (<b>a</b>) ship A (Gyeonginho), (<b>b</b>) ship B (Yeonjaeho), and (<b>c</b>) ship C (Ara-2 ho).</p> "> Figure 4
<p>(<b>a</b>) Scenario 1: ships A and B sail in parallel at a course of ~045° while ship C sails from the opposite direction at ~225° and (<b>b</b>) scenario 2: ship A sails at the course of ~045°, ship B at ~315°, and ship C at ~180°, approaching a single location.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>(<b>a</b>) Diagrammatic representation of the track of alarms generated from the test results of Scenario 1 and (<b>b</b>) graphical representation of the alarms generated on ship C depending on time (from the top, alarms based only on the DCPA and TCPA criteria, alarms based only on PARK model risk value criterion, and alarms based on the algorithm).</p> "> Figure 6
<p>(<b>a</b>) Diagrammatic representation of the track of alarms generated from the test results of scenario 2 and (<b>b</b>) graphical representation of the alarms generated on ship C depending on the time (from the top, alarms based only on DCPA and TCPA criteria, alarms based only on PARK model risk value criterion, and the alarms based on the algorithm).</p> "> Figure 7
<p>(<b>a</b>) Vpass data plot for 7 days and (<b>b</b>) the plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals for 7 days.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>(<b>a</b>) Diagrammatic representation of the track of the alarms generated from the results of case 1 and (<b>b</b>) graphical representation of the alarms generated on ship D based on the time (from the top, alarms based only on DCPA and TCPA criteria, alarms based only on PARK model risk value criterion, and alarms based on the algorithm).</p> "> Figure 9
<p>(<b>a</b>) Diagrammatic representation of the track of the alarms generated from the results of case 2 and (<b>b</b>) graphical representation of the alarms generated on ship B depending on the time (from the top, the alarms based only on DCPA and TCPA criteria, alarms based only on the PARK model risk value criterion, and alarms based on the algorithm).</p> "> Figure 10
<p>(<b>a</b>) Heat map of the alarm generation zone, (<b>b</b>) heat map with the PARK model risk value at or above five, (<b>c</b>) heat map with ES value at or over 750, and (<b>d</b>) results of the collision frequency estimation by IWRAP MkII.</p> "> Figure 11
<p>Target waters to which 110 legs were applied according to the traffic flow.</p> "> Figure 12
<p>(<b>a</b>) Graph of the alarm generation ratio depending on the number of legs, (<b>b</b>) graph of the ratio of PARK model risk value at or over five depending on the number of legs, (<b>c</b>) graph of the ratio of ES value at or over 750 depending on the number of legs, and (<b>d</b>) graph of the yearly collision estimation frequency depending on the number of legs.</p> "> Figure A1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Vpass data plot on 15 May 2014; (<b>b</b>) The plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals on 15 May 2014; (<b>c</b>) Vpass data plot on 16 May 2014; (<b>d</b>) The plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals on 16 May 2014; (<b>e</b>) Vpass data plot on 17 May 2014; (<b>f</b>) The plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals on 17 May 2014; (<b>g</b>) Vpass data plot on 18 May 2014; (<b>h</b>) The plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals on 18 May 2014; (<b>i</b>) Vpass data plot on 19 May 2014; (<b>j</b>) The plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals on 19 May 2014; (<b>k</b>) Vpass data plot on 20 May 2014; (<b>l</b>) The plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals on 20 May 2014; (<b>m</b>) Vpass data plot on 21 May 2014; (<b>n</b>) The plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals on 21 May 2014.</p> "> Figure A1 Cont.
<p>(<b>a</b>) Vpass data plot on 15 May 2014; (<b>b</b>) The plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals on 15 May 2014; (<b>c</b>) Vpass data plot on 16 May 2014; (<b>d</b>) The plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals on 16 May 2014; (<b>e</b>) Vpass data plot on 17 May 2014; (<b>f</b>) The plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals on 17 May 2014; (<b>g</b>) Vpass data plot on 18 May 2014; (<b>h</b>) The plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals on 18 May 2014; (<b>i</b>) Vpass data plot on 19 May 2014; (<b>j</b>) The plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals on 19 May 2014; (<b>k</b>) Vpass data plot on 20 May 2014; (<b>l</b>) The plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals on 20 May 2014; (<b>m</b>) Vpass data plot on 21 May 2014; (<b>n</b>) The plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals on 21 May 2014.</p> "> Figure A1 Cont.
<p>(<b>a</b>) Vpass data plot on 15 May 2014; (<b>b</b>) The plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals on 15 May 2014; (<b>c</b>) Vpass data plot on 16 May 2014; (<b>d</b>) The plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals on 16 May 2014; (<b>e</b>) Vpass data plot on 17 May 2014; (<b>f</b>) The plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals on 17 May 2014; (<b>g</b>) Vpass data plot on 18 May 2014; (<b>h</b>) The plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals on 18 May 2014; (<b>i</b>) Vpass data plot on 19 May 2014; (<b>j</b>) The plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals on 19 May 2014; (<b>k</b>) Vpass data plot on 20 May 2014; (<b>l</b>) The plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals on 20 May 2014; (<b>m</b>) Vpass data plot on 21 May 2014; (<b>n</b>) The plot after the interpolation of Vpass data with 10 s intervals on 21 May 2014.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Collision Warning Algorithm for Small Fishing Vessels
2.1. PARK Model
: | Type factor | : | Tonnage factor | : | Length factor |
: | Width factor | : | Career factor | : | License factor |
: | Position factor | : | Target ship length overall (LOA) | ||
: | Crossing factor | : | Side factor | : | In/out harbor factor |
: | Speed factor | : | Speed difference | : | Distance |
2.2. Overview of the Collision Warning Algorithm
3. Application of Collision Warning Algorithm to Real Ship Test
3.1. Overview of the Real Ship Test
3.2. Results of the Real Ship Test
- 1.
- Scenario 1
- 2.
- Scenario 2
4. Application in Fishing Vessel’s Waterway Based on Vpass Data
: Position at time t | |
: Position after time | |
: Position after interval to be interpolated | |
: Distance between and | |
: Distance between and | |
: Distance between and |
4.1. Case Study of the Collision Warning Algorithm Application Based on Vpass Data
- 1.
- Case 1
- 2.
- Case 2
4.2. Comparison of the Waters That Generated Alarms and the Risk Waters Based on the Maritime Risk Assessment Tools
4.2.1. Overview of the Maritime Risk Assessment Tools
- 1.
- ES Model
: | Risk concerning the relative distance between the ships in relation to collision; |
: | Relative distance between two ships; |
: | Relative speed of the two ships; |
: | Average length of the two ships; |
If crossed from starboard, . | |
If crossed from portside, . | |
If meeting from the stem, . | |
If the own ship is overpassed from the stern, . |
- 2.
- IWRAP MkII
- Geometric number of collision or grounding candidates;
- Causation factor.
: Length of the segment; | |
: The number of passages per unit time for each ship type and size; | |
: Speed of the ships; | |
: The probability that two ships will collide in a head-on situation; |
: Apparent collision diameter; | |
: Encounter angle of two ships. |
4.2.2. Comparison between Waters with Alarms and Risky Waters
5. Conclusions and Future Work
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Ton Factor | Length Factor | Width Factor | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
not more than 500 ton | 0.634656 | not more than 70 m | −1.065590 | not more than 10 m | 0.500588 |
500–1,000 ton | −0.229980 | 70–90 m | −2.487910 | 10–15 m | −0.025510 |
1,000–3,000 ton | 2.180813 | 90–108 m | −0.533920 | 15–20 m | 0.210588 |
3,000–5,000 ton | −0.093240 | 108–123 m | −0.142000 | 20–25 m | −0.289200 |
5,000–7,000 ton | −0.345600 | 123–140 m | −0.091250 | 25–30 m | 0.360838 |
7,000–10,000 ton | −0.765630 | 140–160 m | 0.754828 | 30–35 m | 0.099504 |
10,000–15,000 ton | −0.126220 | 160–185 m | −0.499360 | 35–40 m | 0.343936 |
15,000–20,000 ton | −0.131530 | 185–223 m | −0.927940 | 40–45 m | 0.046159 |
20,000–25,000 ton | 0.217815 | 223 −243 m | 0.562870 | more than 45 m | −0.289570 |
25,000–30,000 ton | −0.145350 | 243–259 m | 0.046498 | ||
30,000–50,000 ton | −0.656140 | 259–277 m | 0.709714 | Type Factor | |
50,000–60,000 ton | 0.063690 | more than 277 m | −0.249550 | fishing vessel | −0.072820 |
60,000–75,000 ton | −0.381260 | container ship | −0.335320 | ||
75,000–100,000 ton | 0.313252 | License Factor | pure car carrier | −0.031670 | |
more than 100,000 ton | 0.000000 | merchant 1 class | 0.177682 | tanker | −0.082580 |
merchant 2 class | 0.109177 | LNG/LPG carrier | 0.315854 | ||
Career Factor | merchant 3 class | 0.245199 | passenger ship | −1.597980 | |
not more than 1 year | −0.104830 | towing vessel | −0.116540 | ||
1–3 years | −0.332360 | Position Factor | other cargo ship | 0.000000 | |
3–5 years | −0.064230 | captain | 0.184283 | ||
more than 5 years | −0.136730 | chief officer | 0.176755 | Speed Factor | |
second officer | 0.296052 | OS speed # TS speed | 0.120578 | ||
Crossing Factor | third officer | −0.075180 | OS speed < TS speed | −0.056520 | |
CR45 | 0.468465 | OS speed > TS speed | 0.000000 | ||
CR90 | 0.500211 | Side Factor | |||
CR135 | 0.660194 | TS on Stbd side | −0.056600 | In/Out Harbor Factor | |
HO | 0.626923 | TS on Port side | 0.000000 | OS inner harbor | 0.062305 |
OS outer harbor | 0.000000 |
Appendix B
References
- Jung, C.H. A Study on the Improvement of Safety by Accidents Analysis of Fishing Vessels. J. Fish. Mar. Sci. Educ. 2018, 30, 179–186. [Google Scholar]
- Subash, T.D.; Pradeep, A.S.; Joseph, A.R.; Jacob, A.; Jayaraj, P.S. Intelligent Collision Avoidance system for fishing boat. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 24, 2457–2463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Håvold, J.I. Safety culture aboard fishing vessels. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48, 1054–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.H.; Kim, H.S.; Lee, Y.W. The causes and counterplan for marine casualties of fishing boats according to the fishing types. J. Korean Soc. Fish Ocean Technol. 2020, 56, 246–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal. Statistics of Marine Accidents. 2019. Available online: https://www.kmst.go.kr/kcom/cnt/selectContentsPage.do?cntId=21010000 (accessed on 4 December 2020).
- IMO. The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel [Adopted in July 1995]; International Maritime Organization: London, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- IMO. Cape Town Agreement of 2012 [Adopted in October 2012]; International Maritime Organization: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- ILO. The ILO Work in Fishing Convention No. 118 [Adopted in May 2007]; International Labour Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. Joining Forces to Shape the Fishery Sector of Tomorrow; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- IMO. Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, [with Amendments Adopted from December 2009]; International Maritime Organization: London, UK, 1972. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Pillay, A.; Kwon, Y.S.; Wall, A.D.; Loughran, C.G. An analysis of fishing vessel accidents. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2005, 37, 1019–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Uğurlu, F.; Yıldız, S.; Boran, M.; Uğurlu, Ö.; Wang, J. Analysis of fishing vessel accidents with Bayesian network and Chi-square methods. Ocean Eng. 2020, 198, 106956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- An, K.; Kim, I.C.; Kim, C.S. A Study on Navigational Support Services for Improving Navigational Safety of Non-SOLAS Ships. J. Korean Soc. Mar. Environ. Saf. 2016, 22, 305–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, W.S.; Kim, Y.D.; Lee, M.K.; Park, Y.S. The Development of a Collision Warning System for Small-Sized Vessels Using WAVE Communication Technology. J. Korean Soc. Mar. Environ. Saf. 2019, 25, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, E.B. A basic study on the development of ultrasonic alert system for preventing collision accident of small ships. J. Res. Inst. Mar. Ind. 2004, 15, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Kao, S.L.; Lee, M.A. Method for Small-Scale Fishing Boat Equipped with Radar Receiver to Avoid Ship Collision and the Radar Receiver Therefor. U.S. Patent 7,710,309, 4 May 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Kao, S.L.; Chang, K.Y. Study on fuzzy GIS for navigation safety of fishing boats. J. Mar. Eng. Technol. 2017, 16, 84–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seo, A.; Hida, T.; Nishiyama, M.; Nagao, K. Comparison and evaluation on user interface of small ship navigation support system. Proc. Jpn. Inst. Navig. 2018, 6, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, Y.; Park, G.K.; Pham, T.Q.M. A solving algorithm of navigational collision risk through data analysis of fishing vessel activities. J. Data. Inf. Manag. 2020, 2, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Park, D.J.; Yim, J.B.; Lee, C.K. Modeling navigator errors in collisions using hidden markov models. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2020, 28, 631–639. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, C.K.; Kim, S.H.; Lee, J.G.; Lee, S.M.; Kim, M.S. A study on the characteristics of manoeuvrability of fishing vessel. J. Korean Soc. Fish. Ocean Technol. 2018, 54, 239–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, S.W. A study about legal effect of navigation’s mistake on fishing vessels collision accident -Focused on the Korea maritime safety tribunal judgement with lights and shapes. J. Korea Mar. Law Assoc. 2020, 42, 81–112. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, M.K.; Park, Y.S. Collision prevention algorithm for fishing vessels using mmWAVE communication. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, J.S. A basic study on the collision risk of VTS considering the operational characteristics of small vessels. In Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference, Gyoungju, Korea, 8 November 2018; pp. 273–274. [Google Scholar]
- Cvach, M. Monitor alarm fatigue: An integrative review. Biomed. Instrum. Technol. 2012, 46, 268–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lim, S.W. Application Scope and Standard of ‘Fishing Vessels Working in Fishery’—Focused on the Correct Interpretation Direction. Justice 2020, 179, 161–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, Y.; Park, J.; Shin, D.; Lee, M.; Park, S. Application of potential assessment of risk (PARK) model in Korea waterways. J. Int. Marit. Saf. Environ. Aff. Shipp. 2017, 1, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Weather Information of Korea Meteorological Administration. Available online: http://www.weather.go.kr/mini/marine/marine_integrate.jsp (accessed on 17 December 2020).
- Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. Statistical Yearbook of Oceans and Fisheries; Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries: Sejong City, Korea, 2020; p. 466. [Google Scholar]
- Korea Ministry of Government Legislation. Notification on Installation Standards and Operation of V.-Pass Devices, etc. Available online: https://www.law.go.kr/ (accessed on 12 January 2021).
- Korea Ministry of Government Legislation. Fishing Vessels Act Article 5-2 Ship Location Transmitters Equipment for Fishing Vessels. Available online: https://www.law.go.kr/ (accessed on 12 January 2021).
- Korea Ministry of Government Legislation. Fishing Vessel Facility Standards Article 191 Ship Location Transmitters Equipment for Fishing Vessels. Available online: https://www.law.go.kr/ (accessed on 12 January 2021).
- Inoue, K. Evaluation method of ship-handling difficulty for navigation in restricted and congested waterways. J. Navig. 2000, 53, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IALA. IALA Waterway Risk Assessment Programme (IWRAP) Theory; IALA: Saint-Germain-en-Laye, France, 2014; pp. 2–16. [Google Scholar]
- Korea Hydrographic and Oceanographic Agency. Oceanmap. Available online: http://www.khoa.go.kr/oceanmap/main.do (accessed on 17 February 2021).
- Korea Hydrographic and Oceanographic Agency. Nautical Chart Approaches to Asan Man No. 3437; Korea Hydrographic and Oceanographic Agency: Busan, Korea, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Internal elements | Type factor, Length factor, Width factor, Tonnage factor, Career factor, License factor, and Position factor |
External elements | Crossing factor, Side factor, In/Out harbor factor, and Speed factor |
Ship Type | Length (m) | Width (m) | Depth (m) | Gross Tonnage (G/T) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | Fishing | 10.95 | 3.31 | 0.83 | 4.97 |
B | Fishing | 10.00 | 3.27 | 0.82 | 6.63 |
C | Fishing | 10.06 | 4.12 | 0.99 | 9.77 |
Time (s) | Own Ship | Target Ship | Distance (m) | DCPA (m) | TCPA (s) | Risk | Alarm |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
99.3 | Ship B | Ship C | 1689.56 | 21.86 | 148.87 | 7.0 | first Main |
99.3 | Ship C | Ship B | 1689.56 | 21.86 | 148.87 | 7.0 | first Main |
105.1 | Ship A | Ship C | 1596.54 | 31.17 | 140.82 | 7.0 | first Main |
161.1 | Ship B | Ship C | 924.29 | 10.50 | 83.54 | 7.0 | second Main |
161.1 | Ship C | Ship B | 924.29 | 10.50 | 83.54 | 7.0 | second Main |
211.5 | Ship A | Ship B | 89.41 | 27.55 | 146.34 | 7.0 | second Main |
Time (s) | Own Ship | Target Ship | Distance (m) | DCPA (m) | TCPA (s) | Risk | Alarm |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
176.4 | Ship B | Ship C | 1387.23 | 6.70 | 149.93 | 7.0 | First Main |
176.4 | Ship C | Ship B | 1387.23 | 6.70 | 149.93 | 7.0 | First Main |
191.6 | Ship A | Ship B | 1049.63 | 12.43 | 149.77 | 7.0 | First Main |
210.9 | Ship A | Ship B | 913.81 | 29.53 | 139.56 | 7.0 | Second Main |
210.9 | Ship B | Ship A | 913.81 | 29.53 | 139.56 | 7.0 | Second Main |
224.5 | Ship C | Ship B | 925.76 | 1.08 | 100.51 | 7.0 | Second Main |
Time (s) | Target Ship | Distance (m) | DCPA (m) | TCPA (s) | Risk | Alarm |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9.7 | Ship C | 1067.53 | 29.59 | 149.97 | 7.0 | first Main |
41.3 | Ship C | 815.54 | 34.83 | 83.39 | 7.0 | second Main |
113.2 | Ship C | 76.88 | 76.88 | 0.04 | 6.0 | second Main |
247.8 | Ship B | 753.38 | 30.41 | 70.35 | 7.0 | second Main |
317.2 | Ship B | 8.20 | 8.12 | 0.11 | 7.0 | second Main |
Time (s) | Target Ship | Distance (m) | DCPA (m) | TCPA (s) | Risk | Alarm |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
171.6 | Ship D | 935.74 | 27.27 | 101.01 | 7.0 | first Main |
172.9 | Ship D | 923.76 | 27.09 | 99.72 | 7.0 | second Main |
266.8 | Ship D | 135.12 | 135.10 | 0.58 | 5.0 | second Main |
318.1 | Ship D | 58.76 | 27.63 | 59.93 | 7.0 | second Main |
341.2 | Ship A | 85.38 | 26.37 | 38.55 | 7.0 | second Main |
437.2 | Ship A | 26.25 | 17.65 | 566.25 | 5.0 | second Main |
452.2 | Ship A | 17.35 | 12.95 | 149.64 | 7.0 | second Main |
471.4 | Ship A | 5.56 | 5.40 | 7.04 | 7.0 | second Main |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lee, M.-K.; Park, Y.-S.; Park, S.; Lee, E.; Park, M.; Kim, N.-E. Application of Collision Warning Algorithm Alarm in Fishing Vessel’s Waterway. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4479. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11104479
Lee M-K, Park Y-S, Park S, Lee E, Park M, Kim N-E. Application of Collision Warning Algorithm Alarm in Fishing Vessel’s Waterway. Applied Sciences. 2021; 11(10):4479. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11104479
Chicago/Turabian StyleLee, Myoung-Ki, Young-Soo Park, Sangwon Park, Eunkyu Lee, Minjeong Park, and Ni-Eun Kim. 2021. "Application of Collision Warning Algorithm Alarm in Fishing Vessel’s Waterway" Applied Sciences 11, no. 10: 4479. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11104479