13th Congress of Intl. Maritime Assoc.

of Mediterranean
IMAM 2009, Istanbul, Turkey, 12-15 Oct. 2009, Page 1121-1128

Decision making system for the collision avoidance of marine vessel

navigation based on COLREGs rules and regulations.
L. P. PERERA
Centre for Marine Technology and Engineering (CENTEC), Technical University of Lisbon,
Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal
J. P. CARVALHO
INESC-ID, Technical University of Lisbon, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal
C. GUEDES SOARES
Centre for Marine Technology and Engineering (CENTEC), Technical University of Lisbon,
Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal

ABSTRACT: A fuzzy-logic based decision making (DM) system to facilitate the collision avoidance
capabilities for marine vessels during ocean navigation is presented in this paper. The collision avoidance of
the target vessel with respect to the vessel domain of the own vessel has been analyzed and fuzzy
membership functions have been derived in this study. Fuzzy rule based (IF-THEN) decision making system
has been formulated, implemented and results are summarized. Further, decisions on the DM system are
formulated in accordance with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) rules and regulations
(COLREGs) of ocean navigation to avoid conflict situations.

1 INTRODUCTION Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea

Conventional marine vessel navigational systems
consist of human guidance, hence 75-96% of marine
accidents and causalities are affected by some types
of human errors (Rothblum et al. 2006, Antão and
Guedes Soares 2008). Therefore implementation of
an intelligent DM system during the ocean
navigation is a mandatory requirement to achieve
higher maritime safety standards. This reality has
been characterized as e-Navigation (eNAV 2008).
Furthermore, to have Autonomous Guidance and
Navigation capabilities in ocean navigation, such as
the system described in Moreira et al (2007), it is
necessary to have a decision making system onboard
vessels to avoid collision situations. This application
area is bound to become more important in the
future ocean navigation (Fossen, 1999) due to its
cost reduction and requirements of maritime safety.
This paper focuses on a fuzzy logic based
Decision Making (DM) system to implement on
vessel navigation to improve safety of the vessel by
avoiding the collision situations. The rules and
regulations with respect to the collision avoidance
conditions, i.e., Convention on the International
(COLREGs) (IMO 1972), were formulated by the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) that
represents the importance of regulated prevention of
the collisions in ocean navigation.
Decision making process and strategies in
interaction situations with respect to the collision
avoidance conditions were presented by Chauvin et
al. (2008). The analysis of quantitative data
describing the maneuvers undertaken by ferries and
cargo-ships and the behavior of the 'give way' and
'stand on' vessels with respect to the verbal reports
on-board recorded in a car-ferry in the Dover Strait
were also presented in the same work.
The two main terminologies that were used in
recent literature with respect the collision avoidance
conditions could be presented as “Own vessel” (the
vessel with the DM system) and “Target vessel” (the
vessel that need to be avoided). Similar definitions
have been considered during the formulation of
collision situations in this study. The detection of a
target vessel location and velocity are two important
factors in the decision making process of the
collision avoidance. The combination of radar and
infrared imaging to detect the other vessel conditions
were proposed by Sato et al. (1998) as a part of the
collision avoidance system. The method of
measuring course of the target vessel and the
evaluation of the risk of the collision situations by
image processing are further proposed as
improvements of collision avoidance conditions in
the same work.
The defined region of vessel domain that was
bounded for dynamics of the marine vessel is an
important factor to define the collision conditions.
The vessel domain, in a collision situation, that
depends on parameters of the vessel size, vessel
course and heading angles of the encountered
vessels has been proposed by Pietrzykowski et. al
(2006) and fuzzy logic based domain determination
system has been considered. Similarly neural-
classifiers have been proposed by Lisowski et. al
(2000), as an element that is supporting the
navigator in the process of determining the ship's
domain where the area around the vessel should be
free from stationary or moving navigational
obstacles.
The calculations based on the kinematics of two-
ship collision encounters conjunction with the
equations of motion were presented by Kwik (1989).
The analysis of a collision avoidance situation was
illustrated with respect to the vessel velocity, turning
rate and direction, and the desired passing distance
in the same work. The collision avoidance
conditions among ships, shore installations and other
obstacles were considered by Yavin et al. (1995). In
addition a case study of a ship moving from one
point to another in a narrow zigzag channel was
considered and a computational loop command
strategy for the rudder control system associated
with the numerical differential equation solver was
proposed in the same study.
Ship trajectories are normally simulated by
mathematical models based on maneuvering theory
(e.g. Sutulo et al, 2002) although approaches based
on neural networks have also been proposed
(Moreira, and Guedes Soares, 2003). Modeling of
ship trajectory in collision situation by an
evolutionary algorithm was presented by
Smierzchalski et. al (2000) and comparison of
computational time for trajectory generation with
respect to the other maneuvering algorithms were
also illustrated. Static and dynamic constrains were
considered for the optimization process of the safe
trajectory in the same work.
2 COLREGs RULES AND REGULATIONS
It is observed that the COLREGs rules and
regulations with respect to collision situations in
ocean navigation were ignored by most of the recent
literature. The negligence of the IMO rules may lead
to conflicts during collision situations. Therefore the
methods ignoring COLREGs rules and regulations
should not be implemented.
On the other hand there are practical issues in the
implementation of the COLREGs rules and
regulations during the ocean navigation. As an
example, there will be implementation issues of
"give way” and “stand on" vessels of the COLREGs
rules during the vessel navigation in a situation
where the moving vessel or moving obstacle with
very low or very high speeds with respect to the own
vessel. Hence smart DM system must be
implemented to be consistent with the COLREGs
rules and regulations and also to eliminate
previously mentioned implementation conflicts.
Similarly considerable amount of recent research has
been focused on design and implementation of
optimization algorithms to find the safest path to
avoid collision situations. It is observed that some
optimization algorithms always find the safest path
behind the target vessel which may lead to a conflict
with the COLREGs rules and regulations.
Similarly some algorithms are enforcing the own
vessel to navigate away from the target vessel or
obstacle by repulsive forces from the vessel or the
obstacle during the collision situations. This concept
may lead to a conflict situation when the moving
vessel with very low speed or very high speed with
respect to the own vessel. In addition, complex
orientation of obstacles may lead to unavoidable
collision situations. Further, the concepts of "give
way” and “stand on" vessels that were derived on the
COLREGs rules and regulations during the vessel
navigation will not be honored in by the repulsive
forces based algorithms. Hence optimizations
algorithms integrated with a smarter DM system
should be considered to overcome the above
problems.
The consideration of course changes and/or speed
changes of vessels in ocean navigation must be
formulated in order to avoid critical collision
situations. However some of the recent collision
avoidance applications have been focused on
specific controllability of either course change or
speed change. According to the COLREGs rule 8(b).
“Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid
collision shall, if the circumstances of the case
admit, be large enough to be readily apparent to
another vessel observing visually or by radar; a
succession of small alterations of course and/or
speed should be avoided”.
Hence integrated controls of course changes
as well as speed changes should be implemented
during the vessel navigation to avoid collision
situations. Similarly special measures should be
considered during integrations of course and speed
controls due to the fact that the vessels may not
response to required changes in course or speed.
3 COLLISION SITUATION
Two vessels in a collision situation are presented in
Figure 1 and the following description has been
illustrated with respect to the collision conditions.
The own vessel that has implemented the DM
system is located at the point O (Xo, Yo), and the
target vessel, the vessel need to be avoided is located
at the point A (Xa, Ya). The own and target vessels
velocities of Vo, Va and course of ψo, ψa respectively
are also presented in the same figure. The relative
velocity of the target vessel with respect to the own
vessel was defined as Va,o and relative speed |Va,o| →
Va,o and course of ψa,o could be calculated from
Va,o = Va - Vo (1)
Figure 1. Vessel collision situation.
In addition the relative distance and angle of the
target vessel with respect to the own vessel are
derived as the |AO| and θo respectively. All angles
have been measured with respect to the positive Y-
axis as presented in Figure 1 and 2. The curve AB
represents the relative path of the target vessel with
respect to the own vessel and the collision encounter
angle is presented by θa,o. The vessel relative
collision situation that is similar to a Radar plot is
presented in Figure 2. As presented in the figure the
collision regions with respect to the own vessel have
been divided into eight regions: I, II, III, IV, V, VI,
VII, and VIII.
Figure 2. Vessel relative collision situation.
These regions have been separated by the
discontinue lines that are coincided with the fuzzy
regions as formulated in the fuzzy membership
function in Figure 4. It is assumed that any target
vessels should be located within these eight regions
and the decisions were formulated accordance to
each region. The gray circular region represents the
vessel domain with the radius of Rvd ( Figure 1). The
white circular region represents the critical collision
risk region due to the target vessel orientation.
As presented in Figure 2, the target vessel
position at the region II has been divided into eight
divisions of target vessel orientations with respect to
the relative course regions: II-a, II-b, II-c, II-d, II-e,
II-f, II-g and II-h. These divisions have been
separated by the discontinue lines that are coincided
with the fuzzy collision risk regions presented later.
4 COLLISION AVOIDANCE METHODOLOGY
4.1 Identification of Obstacles
The stationary and moving obstacles in the ocean
navigation can be identified by several instruments
and systems: Eye / camera, radar / Automatic Radar
Plotting Aid (ARPA), and Automatic Identification
System (AIS). ARPA provides accurate information
of range and bearing of nearby obstacles and AIS is
capable of giving all the information on vessel
structural data, position, course, and speed
(Hasegawa 2009). The collection of radar data has
been considered as the method of identifying
stationary and moving obstacles during this study.
4.2 Collection of Navigational Information Table 1. Collision Risk Assessment and Decisions
Reg. Division Risk Rule Condition Decision
The navigational information could be categorized I d Mid. 13 NA NA
into three sections: static information, dynamic e High 14 Va,o << 0 δψ > 0
information and voyage related information. Va,o ≈ 0 δψ > 0
Collection of navigational information is an Va,o >> 0 δψ > 0
important part of the decision making process of the f Mid. NA NA
II e Mid 15 NA NA
collision avoidance in ocean applications. However
f High 16 Va,o << 0 NA
it has not been emphasized on the navigational Va,o ≈ 0 δψ > 0
information of the target vessels at this stage of the Va,o >> 0 δψ > 0
study. g Mid. 17 Va,o << 0 NA
Va,o ≈ 0 δψ > 0
4.3 Analysis of Navigational Information Va,o >> 0 δψ > 0
The collected target vessel information should be III f Mid. 15 NA NA
considered for further analysis of navigational g High 16 Va,o << 0 NA
Va,o ≈ 0 δVo<< 0
information. Three distinct situations that are Va,o >> 0 δVo<< 0
involving risk of collision with respect to the ocean h Mid. 17 Va,o << 0 NA
navigation have been recognized by the recent Va,o ≈ 0 δVo < 0
literature (Smeaton, et. al 1987), overtaking, head-on Va,o >> 0 δVo < 0
and crossing, and same situations have been IV a Mid. 17 Va,o << 0 NA
highlighted in this study. However in ocean Va,o ≈ 0 δVo < 0
navigation, complex collision situations involving Va,o >> 0 δVo < 0
combinations of the above situations could occur g Mid. 15 NA NA
h High 16 Va,o << 0 NA
and identification of each situation with respect to Va,o ≈ 0 δVo<< 0
the each collision conditions will be helpful for the Va,o >> 0 δVo<< 0
overall decisions on vessel navigation. V a High 14 NA* NA*
4.4 Assessments on the Collision Risk b Mid. NA* NA*
h Mid. 13 NA* NA*
The analysis of navigational information will be able VI a Mid. 15 NA* NA*
to predict the collision risk assessments. Therefore b High 16 NA* NA*
the assessment of the collision risk should be c Mid. 17 NA* NA*
VII b Mid. 15 NA* NA*
continuous in the navigational system for safety of
c High 16 NA* NA*
the own vessel. As presented in recent literature, the d Mid. 17 NA* NA*
mathematical analysis of collision risk detection VIII c Mid. 15 NA* NA*
could be divided into two categories: 2D methods d High 16 NA* NA*
and 3D methods. Both methods consist of locations e Mid. 17 NA* NA*
of each vessel in 2D coordinate system and the 3D * Target vessel should take actions to avoid the collision situations.
method consists of an addition time axis. However
NA : Not Applicable
analysis of 2D method in real-time is proposed in
this study to capture the time axis effects. rules and regulations are presented in the last
The summarized collision risk assessments column.
including the fuzzy linguistic variables are presented With respect to the COLREGs rules and
in the Table 1. The first column represents the regulations the vessel coming from the starboard
collision regions with respect to the own vessel and side has the priority for the navigation. Hence, as
the second column represents the divisions of the noted from the table, the collision avoidance
target vessel orientations. Furthermore the third appropriate actions from own vessel have been
column represents the risk assessment with respect limited for the regions of I, II, III and IV. As
to each collision region and that have been divided presented in Table 1, δψ > 0 represents the decision
into three sections: Low risk (Low), Medium Risk to increase of own vessel course to the starboard
(Mid.) and High risk (High). The respective side, and δVo < 0 and δVo << 0 represent decrease of
COLREGs rules and regulations are presented in the own vessel different speed levels respectively.
fourth column. Target vessel relative speed 4.5 Decisions on Navigation
conditions are presented in the fifth column. Finally
the decisions that need to be taken to avoid the The decisions of collision avoidance in ocean
collision situations with respect to the COLREGs navigation should be based on several factors: Speed
and Course of each vessel, distance between two
vessels, Distance of the Closest Point of Approach during this study: Collision Regions µA (Figure 3),
(DCPA) RDCPA (see Figure 1), time to DCPA, Relative Speed µVa,o (Figure 4) and Relative Course
neighboring vessels and other environmental µψa,o (Figure 5). Similarly two fuzzy output
conditions. The initial decisions of collision membership functions have been considered: Speed
avoidance can be categorized into three stages for Change µδVo (Figure 6) and Course Change µδψo
each vessel. (Figure 7).
− When both vessels are at non collision risk range,
both vessels have the options to take appropriate
actions to avoid collision situation.
− When both vessels are at collision risk range,
'give way' vessel should be taken appropriate
actions to achieve safe passing distance
accordance with the COLREGs rules and Figure 3. Collision Regions Fuzzy Membership Function.
regulations and 'stand on' vessel should keep the
course and speed.
− When both vessels are at critical collision risk
range, 'give way' vessel should not be taken
appropriate actions to achieve safe passing
distance accordance with the COLREGs rules,
then 'stand on' vessel should be taken appropriate
actions to avoid the collision situation. Figure 4. Rel. Speed Fuzzy Membership Function.
In this study it is assumed that both vessel take
appropriate actions to avoid the collision situations
to with the respect to the COLREGs rules and
regulations.
4.6 Implementation of Decisions on Navigation
Figure 5. Rel. Course Fuzzy Membership Function.
As the final step, it is assumed that the decisions on
vessel navigation will be formulated with respect to
the collision risk assessments. The actions were
taken by own vessel are proportional to target vessel
behavior as well as the COLREGs rules and
regulations. The expected own vessel and target
actions of collision avoidance situations could be
divided into two categories. Figure 6. Speed change Fuzzy Membership Function.
− Own vessel course change and/or speed change.
− Target vessel course change and/or speed change

5 FUZZIFICATION & DEFUZZIFICATION

The Fuzzy-logic based DM system, which is
formulated for human type thinking, has created a
human friendly environment to facilitate the
collision avoidance capabilities for marine vessels.
Furthermore, a proper formulated fuzzy logic based
DM system has an advantage of simulating the
actions of an experienced helmsman in ocean
navigation.
5.1 Fuzzy sets and membership functions
Fussy sets are described by the membership
functions that are mappings from one given universe
of discourse to a unit interval. It is conceptually and
formally different from the fundamental concept of
the probability (Pedrycz et. al 2007). Three fuzzy
input membership functions have been considered
Figure 7. Course Angle change Fuzzy Membership Function.
The Core of the fuzzy set A is defined as the set
of all elements of the universe that are typical to A
that are associated with the membership value of 1,
that could be written as
Core ( A) = {x ∈ X | A( x ) = 1} (2)
where x is a generalized variable. The Support of the
fuzzy set is defined as the set of all elements of X
that have non-zero membership degree in A, that
could be written as
Supp ( A) = {x ∈ X | A( x ) ≥ 1} (3)
The Core and Supp values for the three input and
two output fuzzy membership functions was
formulated using the given variables in the
respective Figures 3 to 7. Mamdani type IF
<Antecedent > THEN <Consequent> rules based
system has been considered and inference via
Min/Max norm has been proposed. Finally the
defuzzification has been calculated by the center of
gravity method.
5.2 Fuzzy inference system
The block diagram for fuzzy inference system with
integration of the instruments as well as the data
acquisition system is presented in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Rel. Block diagram for fuzzy inference system
The initial step of the fuzzy inference system
consists of collection of the target vessel position
and velocity data. The next step is the calculations of
the relative positions, speed and course which have
previously been formulated. Then, the data is
fuzzified by membership functions in the Figures 3
to 5. The fuzzy rules were developed respecting the
COLREGs rules and regulations in Table 1. The
output of the rules based system could be
categorized as the collision risk assessment and the
fuzzy decisions. Finally the fuzzy decision will be
defuzzified (see Figure 6 and 7) to obtain the control
actions and that will be executed on own vessel
navigation.
6 COMPUTATIONAL SIMULATIONS
The implementation of the DM system has been
formulated by using the software MATLAB.
MATLAB supports for the fuzzy logic schemes of
Mamdani and Sugeno Types (Sivanandam et. al
2007). However this work has been implemented on
the GUI for fitting Mamdani based Fuzzy Inference
System (FIS).
The Mamdani type fuzzy logic inference
system consists of utilizing membership functions
for both inputs and outputs. As previously
mentioned If-Then rules are formed by applying
fuzzy operations into these membership functions
for given inputs: Collision regions, Relative Speed,
and Relative Course (see Figures 3 to 5).
The resulting output membership functions,
vessel speed change and course change (see Figures
6 & 7) have been calculated by the Fuzzy min-max
configurations. The MATLAB simulation results
with respect to the above formulation have been
presented in Figures from 9 to 15. These figures
contain the start and end positions of the both
vessels with respect to the equal time intervals. In
addition navigational trajectories for both vessels are
also presented in the same figures.
The simulations of two vessels crossing situation
with respect to different speeds and course
conditions in the Cartesian coordinate space have
been presented in Figures 9, 10 and 11. As presented
in Figure 9, for the speed condition of Vo ≈ Va, the
DM system made the proper decision and turned the
own vessel into the starboard side. However the
speed conditions of Vo >> Va and Vo << Va , in Figures
10 and 11, the DM system did not make any
decisions as formulated in the design phase. This is
one of the advantages in the fuzzy logic based DM
system that has not been addressed by recent
research on collision avoidance.
The avoidance of collisions with respect to
overtake and heading situations are presented in
Figures 12 and 13 respectively. Further angular
heading and angular overtake situations are
presented in Figures 14 and 15. The majority of the
collision situations have been avoided by changing
the course angle of the own vessel as preferred by
the navigators.
In an angular overtake situation (in Figure 15),
the initial speeds of both vessels are equal and the
final speed of the own vessel has been reduced by
the DM system to avoid the collision situation. This
is one of the special situations where the speed
change has been considered and the course changes
could not be implemented to avoid collisions.
 NM NM

NM NM

Figure 9. Crossing situation with High Collision Risk Figure 12. Overtake situation with High Collision Risk

NM NM

NM NM

Figure 10. Crossing situation with No Collision Risk Figure 13. Heading situation with High Collision Risk

NM
NM

NM NM

Figure 11. Crossing situation with No Collision Risk Figure 14. Ang. heading situation with High Collision Risk

NM
NM
Figure 15. Ang. overtake situation with High Collision Risk
7 CONCLUSION
This paper introduces a new DM system for ocean
navigation based on the fuzzy logic and human
expert knowledge. Although successful
computational results were obtained, it is assumed
that more complex collision situations can possibly
occur and unexpected actions of target vessels could
be experienced; hence higher capabilities should be
formulated into the DM system to overcome similar
situations. As mentioned before, the own vessel
collision avoidance actions have been limited for the
Regions of I, II, III and IV to eliminate the
navigational conflicts. However critical collision
situations with respect to the other regions should
considered and further study should be formulated.
8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The research of the first author has been supported
by a Research Fellowship of the Portuguese
Foundation for Science and Technology (Fundação
para a Ciência e a Tecnologia) under contract
SFRH/BD/46270/2008. This work is done within the
project of “Methodology for ships manoeuvrability
tests with self-propelled models”, which is being
funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science
and Technology, under contract
PTDC/TRA/74332/2006.
REFERENCES
Antão, P. and Guedes Soares, C. 2008; Causal Factors in
Accidents of High Speed Craft and Conventional Ocean
Going Vessels. Reliability Engineering and System Safety,
93:1292-1304.
Berthold M. R., 2005, “Tutorial: Fuzzy Logic”. Lecture notes
on Advanced course on knowledge discovery, June,
Ljubljana.
Chauvin, C., and Lardjane, S., 2008. “Decision making and
strategies in an interaction situation: Collision avoidance
at sea”. Transportation Research , January , pp. 259-262.
eNAV. 2008, enavigation, http://www.enavigation.org.
Fossen, T. I., ed., 1999. “Recent development in Ship Control
Systems Design”. World Super Yachat Review. Sterling
Publication Limited, London.
Hasegawa K., 2009, “Advanced marine traffic automation and
management system for congested water and coastal
areas”, Proceedings of International Conference in Ocean
Engineering, ICOE 2009, February, Chennai, India.
IMO, 1972. “Convention on the international regulations for
preventing collisions at sea (COLREGs) ”.
http://www.imo.org.
Imazu, H., 2006. “Advanced topics for marine technology and
logistics”. Lecture Notes on Ship collision and integrated
information system.
Kwik, K. H., 1989. “Calculations of ship collision avoidance
manoeuvres : A simplified approach”. Ocean Engineering,
16(5/6), pp. 475-491.
Lisowski, J., Rak, A., and Czechowicz, W., 2000. “Neural
network classifiers for ship domain assessments”.
Mathematics and Computers in Simulations, 51, 399-406.
Moreira, L. and Guedes Soares, C. 2003, Dynamic Model of
Manoeuvrability using Recursive Neural Networks, Ocean
Engineering, 30, pp. 1669-1697.
Moreira, L.; Fossen, T. I., and Guedes Soares, C. 2007, Path
Following Control System for a Tanker Ship Model, Ocean
Engineering. 34, pp. 2074-2085.
Pedrycz W. and Gomide F., 2007, “Fuzzy Systems
Engineering, Toward Human-Centric Computing”. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Pietrzykowski, Z., and Uriasz, J., 2006. “Ship domain in
navigational situation assessment in an open sea area”. 5th
International Euro Conference on Computer Applications
and Information Technology in the Maritime Industries.
Rothblum, A. M., Wheal, D., Withington, S., Shappell, S. A.,
Wiegmann, D. A., Boehm,W., and Chaderjian, M., 2002.
“Key to successful incident inquiry”. In 2nd International
Workshop on Human Factors in Offshore Operations,
HFW2002.
Sato, Y., and Ishii, H., 1998. “Study of a collision avoidance
system for ships”. Control Engineering Practice, 6, pp.
1141-1149.
Sivanandam S.N., Sumathi S. and Deepa S.N., 2007,
“Introduction to Fuzzy Logic using MATLAB”. Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, New York.
Smeaton, G. P., and Coenen, F. P., 1987. “Developing an
intelligent marine navigation system”. Computing &
Control Engineering Journal, March, pp. 95–103.
Smierzchalski, R., and Michalewicz, Z., 2000. “Modeling of
ship trajectory in collision situations by an evolutionary
algorithm”. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary
Computation, 4(3), pp. 227-241.
Sutulo, S.; Moreira, L., and Guedes Soares, C. 2002,
Mathematical Models for Ship Path Prediction in
Manoeuvring Simulation Systems, Ocean Engineering,
29(1), pp. 1-19.
Yavin, Y., Frangos, C., Zilman, G., and Miloh, T., 1995.
“Computation of feasible command strategies for the
navigation of a ship in a narrow zigzag channel”.
Computers Math. Applic., 30(10), pp. 79-101.