Advertisement

Journal of Marine Science and Technology

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 75–86 | Cite as

On the probability of underwater glider loss due to collision with a ship

  • Lucas MerckelbachEmail author
Original article

Abstract

The demonstrated utility of underwater gliders as measurement platforms for the open ocean has sparked a growing interest in operating them in shallow coastal areas too. Underwater gliders face additional challenges in this environment, such as strong (tidal) currents and high shipping intensity. This work focuses on the probability of losing a glider through a collision with a ship. A ship density map is constructed for the German Bight from observed ship movements derived from automatic identification system data. A simple probability model is developed to convert ship densities into collision probabilities. More realistic—but also more computationally expensive—Monte Carlo simulations were carried out for verification. This model can be used to generate geographic maps showing the probability of glider loss due to collisions. Such maps are useful when planning glider missions. The method developed herein is also applicable to other types of AUVs.

Keywords

Gliders Collision AIS German Bight 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author greatly appreciates the permission granted by D. Lekkas from the Department of Product and Systems Design Engineering, University of the Aegean, Greece, to use data on ship positions (as obtained from the website http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais) in this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Brito M, Griffiths G (2011) A markov chain state transition approach to establishing critical phases for auv reliability. IEEE J Ocean Eng 36(1):139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brito M, Griffiths G, Challenor P (2010) Risk analysis for autonomous underwater vehicle operations in extreme environments. Risk Analysis 30:1771G1788. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01476.x
  3. 3.
    Davis R, Eriksen C, Jones C (2002) Autonomous buoyancy-driven underwater gliders. In: Griffiths G (ed) The technology and applications of autonomous underwater vehicles. Taylor and Francis, London, p 324Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fuji Y, Shiobara R (1971) The analysis of traffic accidents. J Navig 24(4):534–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gallos L, Argyrakis P (2001) Accurate estimation of the survival probabililty for trapping in two dimensions. Phys Rev E 64:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goerlandt F, Kujala P (2011) Traffic simulation based ship collision probability modeling. Reliabil Eng Syst Safety 96:91–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kraus S (1990) Rates and potential causes of mortality in North Atlantic right whales Eubalaena glacialis. Mar Mammal Sci 6(4):278–291Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kundu P (1990) Fluid mechanics. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Laist D, Knowlton AR, Mead JG, Collet A, Podesta M (2001) Collisions between ships and whales. Mar Mammal Sci 17(1):35–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    MacDuff T (1974) The probability of vessel collisions. Ocean Industry Sept:144–148Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Montewka J, Hinz T, Kujala P, Matusiak J (2010) Probability modelling of vessel collisions. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 95:573–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mou JM, van der Tak C, Ligteringen H (2010) Study on collision avoidance in busy waterways by using AIS data. Ocean Eng 37:483–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Noblesse F, Delhommeau G, Kim HY, Yang C (2009) Thin-ship theory and influence of rake and flare. J Eng Math 64:49–80MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schlichting H, Gersten K (1999) Boundary layer theory, 8th edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Testor P, Meyers G, Pattiaratchi C, Bachmayer R, Hayes D, Pouliquen S, de la Villeon LP, Carval T, Ganachaud A, Gourdeau L, Mortier L, Claustre H, Taillandier V, Lherminier P, Terre T, Visbeck, Krahman G, Karstensen J, Alvarez A, Rixen M, Poulain P, Osterhus S, Tintore J, Ruiz S, Garau B, Smeed D, Griffiths G, Merckelbach L, Sherwin T, Schmid C, Barth J, Schofield O, Glenn S, Kohut J, Perry M, Eriksen C, Send U, Davis R, Rudnick D, Sherman J, Jones C, Webb D, Lee C, Owens B, Fratantoni D (2010) Gliders as a component of future observing systems. In: Hall J, Harrison D, Stammer D (eds) OceanObs’09: sustained ocean observations and information for society, OceansObs’09, vol. 2 (ESA Publication WPP-306). ESA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tuck E, Scullen D (2002) A comparison of linear and nonlinear computations of waves made by slender submerged bodies. J Eng Math 42:252–264MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tuck EO, Scullen DC, Lazauskas L (2002) Wave patterns and minimum wave resistance for high-speed vessels. In: Proceedings of 24th Symp Naval Hydrodynamics, Fukuoka, Japan, 8–13 July 2002Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vanderlaan A (2007) Vessel collisions with whales: the probability of lethal injury based on vessel speed. Mar Mammal Sci 23(1):133–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© JASNAOE 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GeesthachtGermany

Personalised recommendations