search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Trans RINA, Vol 161, Part A4, Intl J Maritime Eng, Oct-Dec 2019


performance than the Distributed Local Search Algorithm (DLSA) (developed by Kim et al, 2014) and the Distributed Tabu Search Algorithm (DTSA) (developed by Kim et al., 2015).Wang et al. (2018a) has developed a yaw-guided method to accurate trajectory tracking control problem of an asymmetric underactuated surface vehicle to overcome both complex uncertainties and underactuations. In the study, a finite-time uncertainty observers-based yaw-guided tracking control scheme has been developed and the experimental tests have revealed that the scheme provides remarkable performance. Wang et al. (2018b) has also proposed a fuzzy based scheme for


Table 1. Comparison of the recent studies. Reference Method


COLREGs, 1972


Tsou and Hsueh, 2010


Lisowski, 2012


Naeem et al., 2012


Nguyen et al., 2012


Tam and Bucknall, 2013


Xu, 2014


Zhang et al., 2015


Wei et al., 2015


Lazarowska, 2015


Johansen et al., 2016


Lazarowska, 2017


Kim et al., 2017


The method proposed in this study


regulation ACO


course alteration/ speed change


course alteration


game theory course alteration/ speed change


A*, line-of-sight BFO


course alteration


course alteration


deterministic course alteration


danger immune algorithm


linear extension algorithm


CSBA ACO


course alteration


course alteration/ speed change


course alteration


course alteration


deterministic course alteration/ speed change


deterministic course alteration/ speed change


DSSA WBDA


course alteration


course alteration


the same problem and has achieved reliable consequences from the simulation tests.


To sum up, Table 1 provides the major features and comparison of the recent studies. The studies have been evaluated in accordance with the eight characteristics: the method used to reach solution, action type to avoid collision, ship domain type used for calculation and which ship is surrounded, expression of ship domain, problem solving capability in complex environments, consideration of dynamic and static obstacles and compliance to the COLREGs.


Action Type Domain Type n/a


circular (around the OS)


polygonal (around obstacle)


circular (around obstacle)


polygonal (around obstacle)


circular (around the OS)


circular (around the OS)


circular (around the OS)


circular (n/a)


polygonal (around obstacle)


circular (around the OS)


Polygonal (around obstacle)


circular (around the OS)


circular (around the OS)


Expression of Domain


Complex Env.


safe distance no


safety domain no ship domain yes


safety zone


domain of interest


yes


ship domain yes yes


ship domain no ship domain yes


safety distance no ship domain yes safe distance no


ship domain yes


safety domain yes ship domain no


Static Obstacle


no


no no


yes yes yes


no no no


yes no


yes no yes


Dynamic Obstacle


yes


yes yes


yes yes yes


yes yes


yes yes yes


yes


yes yes


COLREGs Compliance


-


yes yes


yes yes yes


yes yes


yes yes yes


yes


yes yes


A-348


©2019: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166