Advertisement

Crash Stop Maneuvering Performance Prediction: a Data-Driven Solution for Safety and Collision Avoidance

  • Luca OnetoEmail author
  • Andrea Coraddu
  • Francesca Cipollini
  • Olena Karpenko
  • Katerina Xepapa
  • Paolo Sanetti
  • Davide Anguita
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 241 Downloads

Abstract

The continuous increase of marine traffic and the entry of autonomous ships into the market is urging an improvement in safety measures to guarantee avoidance of collisions between moving objects at sea. This rise in automated maneuverability requires gaining further insight in the vessel’s behavior. The ship design has to ensure that the vessel is controllable and capable of maneuvering securely, even at critical operating conditions. Crash stop maneuvering performance is one of the key indicators of the vessel’s safety properties for designers and shipbuilders. Many factors affect this performance, from the hull design to the environmental conditions; hence, it is non-trivial to assess them accurately during the preliminary design stages. In this paper, the authors focus on predicting accurately and with minimal computational effort the crash stop characteristics of a vessel in the design stage, for the preliminary assessment of safety requirements imposed by the classification societies. The crash stop prediction model of the said vessel can be utilized in combination with collision avoidance algorithms. The authors propose a new data-driven method, based on the popular Random Forests learning algorithm, for predicting the crash stop maneuvering performance. Results from full-scale measured data show the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Keywords

Marine safety Vessel maneuvering Crash stop Data-driven methods Random forests Collision avoidance Performance estimation 

References

  1. 1.
    American Bureau of Shipping: guide for vessel manoeuvrability (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Anguita, A. Ghio, L. Oneto, S. Ridella, In-sample and out-of-sample model selection and error estimation for support vector machines. IEEE TNNLS. 23(9), 1390–1406 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Balkin, The international maritime organization and maritime security. Tul. Mar. LJ. 30, 1 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Blaser, P. Fryzlewicz, Random rotation ensembles. JMLR. 2, 1–15 (2015)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Breiman, Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45(1), 5–32 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    O. Catoni, PAC-bayesian supervised classification institute of mathematical statistics lecture notes-monograph series (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Coraddu, L. Oneto, F. Baldi, A. Anguita, in Ship efficiency forecast based on sensors data collection: improving numerical models through data analytics. OCEANS 2015-Genova, (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Coraddu, L. Oneto, F. Baldi, D. Anguita, Vessels fuel consumption forecast and trim optimisation: a data analytics perspective. Ocean Eng. 130, 351–370 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    A.R.T. Donders, G.J.M.G. van der Heijden, T. Stijnen, K.G. Moons, Review: a gentle introduction to imputation of missing values. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 59(10), 1087–1091 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Fernández-Delgado, E. Cernadas, S. Barro, D. Amorim, Do we need hundreds of classifiers to solve real world classification problems? JMLR. 15(1), 3133–3181 (2014)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Friedman, T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani. The elements of statistical learning (Springer, New York, 2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. Germain, A. Lacasse, A. Laviolette, M. ahd Marchand, F. R.J., Risk bounds for the majority vote: from a pac-bayesian analysis to a learning algorithm. JMLR. 16(4), 787–860 (2015)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Good, Permutation tests: a practical guide to resampling methods for testing hypotheses. Springer Science & Business Media (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    I. Guyon, A. Elisseeff, An introduction to variable and feature selection. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3, 1157–1182 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    S.A. Harvald, Factors affecting the stopping ability of vessels. Journal of International Shipbuilding Progress. 23(260), 106–121 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    C.W. Hirt, A.A. Amsden, J.L. Cook, An arbitrary lagrangian-eulerian computing method for all flow speeds. J. Comput. Phys. 14(3), 227–253 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    W. Hoeffding, Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 58(301), 13–30 (1963)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    International Maritime Organization: resolution MSC.36(63), International Code of Safety for High-Speed Craft (1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    International Maritime Organization: resolution MSC.97(73), International Code of Safety for High-Speed Craft (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    International Maritime Organization: resolution MSC.137(76), Standards for Ship Maneuverability (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    International Maritime Organization: resolution MSC/Circ.1053, Explanatory Notes to the Standard for Ship Maneuverability (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    G. Langxiong, L. Liangming, Z. Yuangzhou, Z. Baogang, A new method for accurate prediction of ship’s inertial stopping distance. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 18(6), 3437–3440 (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    G. Lever, F. Laviolette, F. Shawe-Taylor, Tighter pac-bayes bounds through distribution-dependent priors. Theor. Comput. Sci. 473, 4–28 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    L. Ming, J.X. Liu, S. Yang, in A new method on calculation of vessels stopping distance and crash stopping distance. Advanced materials research, Vol. 779, (2013), pp. 800–804Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    H. Okamoto, A. Tanaka, K. Nozawa, Y. Saito, Stopping abilities of vessels equipped with controllable pitch propeller. Journal of International Shipbuilding Progress. 21(235), 53–69 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    L. Oneto, Model selection and error estimation without the agonizing pain. WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery (2018)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    I. Orlandi, L. Oneto, D. Anguita, in Random forests model selection. ESANN, (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    V.N. Vapnik. Statistical learning theory (Wiley, Hoboken, 1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    M. Wainberg, B. Alipanahi, B.J. Frey, Are random forests truly the best classifiers? JMLR. 17(110), 1–5 (2016)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    D.I.F. Wirz, Optimisation of the crash-stop manoeuvre of vessels employing slow-speed two-stroke engines and fixed pitch propellers. Journal of Marine Engineering & Technology. 11(1), 35–43 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DIBRISUniversity of GenovaGenovaItaly
  2. 2.Department Of Naval Architecture, Ocean, Marine EngineeringUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowUK
  3. 3.DAMEN Shipyards GorinchemGorinchemThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations