193
Simulation-Augmented Methods for Safe and Efficient
Manoeuvres in Harbour Areas
K.Benedict,M.Kirchhoff,M.Gluch,S.Fischer&M.Schaub
HochschuleWismar,UniversityofAppliedSciences,Warnemünde,Germany
M.Baldauf
WorldMaritimeUniversity,Malmö,Sweden
ABSTRACT:Safetyofnavigationisespeciallychallengingandcriticalwhenashipapproachesandmanoeuvres
inharbourareas.Improvingthesafetyespeciallyinthefirstandlastphaseofavoyageiscrucialandrequires
measuresaddressingboththehumanandtechnical‐technologicalelementsincludingsupportsystemstha
tshall
providehumanoperatorswithinformationrelevantfordecisionmaking.Thepresentsituationischaracterized
by the introduction of numerous sophisticated technical and support systems often integrated with several
componentsbecomingincreasinglycomplex.Ontheusersend,changes arenotthatobviousandnotthatrapid
asfortechnology.However,newa
pproachesareunderdevelopmentoralreadyinuse.Theyarecharacterized
byapplyingandadaptingsolutionsfromothertransportmodes.Inthisway,ta sksandproceduresonships,
thatarehighlysafety‐relevantandcontaininghighportionsofmanoeuvringactivitieshavebeenchangedto
highback‐upproceduresasinairplanes.Forportmanoeuvrese.g.thesystemofpilot
/co‐pilotwasintroduced
onferriesinasensethatoneofficerisoperatingandtheotherismonitoringandcheckingthesafeperformance.
In cruise shipping, new structures replacing the traditional rank‐based with a flexible system based on job
funct
ions.Thissystemcreatesakindofasafetynetaroundthepersonconningthevessel.Eachoperationis
crosscheckedbeforeexecutionbyoneortwootherpersons.Thefirstobviousconsequenceishighercostsdue
todoublingpersonnel.Ontheotherhandthereisalsoaneedforatechnologya
ppropriatelysupportingthe
checkingofficerbyenablingherorhimtomonitorwhattheconningofficerisdoing.“Fast‐TimeManoeuvring
SimulationTechnology”(FTS)developedattheInstituteforInnovativeShipSimulationandMaritimeSystems
(ISSIMS)hashugepotentialtofulfilthistask.FTScalculateswithinonesecondofcomputingti
meupto1000
secondsofrealmanoeuvringtimebyaverycomplexship‐dynamicsimulationmodelforrudder,engineand
thrustermanoeuvres.Itenablespromptpredictionofallmanoeuvrescarriedoutbytheconningofficerforthe
observingofficer,too.Predictionsofpathandmotionstatusallowallofficerstoseewhetherthemanoeuvring
act
ionshaveatleastthecorrecttendencyorindicatingtheneedforcorrections.Thisnewtypeofsupportis
called Simulation‐Augmented Manoeuvring Design and Monitoring (SAMMON) – it allows not only
overlookingthenextmanoeuvringsegmentaheadbutalsoforthefollowingorevenforseriesofmanoeuvring
segments.Thistechnologyhasbeenusedwithintworesearchprojects:COSINUS(Co‐operativeShipOperation
inIntegratedMaritimeTrafficSystems)setoutforimplementingFTSint
ointegratedshipbridgesandtoalso
communicate the manoeuvre plans and display it to VTS centres. Within the European project MUNIN
(Marit
ime Unmanned Navigation through Intelligence in Networks) this technology has been used to
investigateifitispossibletosteerautonomousships,incaseitwouldbenecessary.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 10
Number 2
June 2016
DOI:10.12716/1001.10.02.02
194
1 INTRODUCTION
In (Benedict et al., 2013) a fast‐time simulation tool
boxwasintroducedtosimulatetheshipsmotionwith
complex dynamic models and to display the ships
track immediately for the intended or actual rudder
orenginemanoeuvreintheElectronicChartDisplay
and Information System (ECDIS). The
SAMMON
(“Simulation‐Augmented Manoeuvring Design and
Monitoring”)‐tool box allows for a new type of
design of a manoeuvring plan as enhancement
exceedingthe common conventional pureway‐point
planning. The toolbox has big potential to play an
importantroleinfutureenhancedplanningprocesses
aswellasineducation
andtraininginsimulatorsfor
shiphandling.
As an attempt to improve safety of navigation,
Hederstrom presented new concepts for innovative
organisational structures specifically for bridge
management(Hederstrom,2102).
This paper presents the potential of the new
methodspecificallyforthesupportofmanoeuvringof
shipsbothforthenewmanning
conceptandevenfor
shore‐based support or, in the long‐term, moreover
for autonomous ships. Manoeuvring of ships is and
willbeahuman‐centred processdespiteofexpected
further technological developments. Most important
elements of this processremain the human operator
himselfandthetechnicalequipmenttosupport
their
task. However, most of the work is to be done
manually because even today nearly no automation
support is available for complex manoeuvres. Up to
now there was nearly no electronic tool to
demonstrate manoeuvring characteristics efficiently
or moreover to design a manoeuvring plan
effectively.However,duetothenew
demandsthere
is a need to prepare harbour approaches with
complete berth plans specifically in companies with
high safety standards like cruise liners. These plans
arenecessarytoagreeonaconceptwithinthebridge
teamandalsoforthediscussionandbriefing withthe
pilot.
For increasing the safety
and efficiency for
manoeuvring real ships, the method of Fast‐Time
Simulation will be used in future – even with
standardcomputersitcanbeachievedtosimulatein
1secondcomputingtimeamanoeuvrelastingabout
to 20 minutes using innovative simulation methods.
These Fast‐Time Simulation tools were initiated
in
researchactivities attheMaritimeSimulationCentre
Warnemuende (MSCW) which is part of the
Department of Maritime Studies of Hochschule
Wismar,UniversityofAppliedSciences‐Technology,
Business and Design in Germany. They have been
further developed by the start‐up company
Innovative Ship Simulation and Maritime Systems
(ISSIMSGmbH)
A brief overview is given for the modules of the
FTStoolsanditspotentialapplication:
SAMMONismadeforboth:
Applicationinmaritimeeducationandtraining to
supportlecturingforshiphandlingtodemonstrate
andexplainmoreeasily manoeuvring technology
details and to prepare more specifically
manoeuvringtraining in
ship‐handlingsimulators
(SHS)environmentand
Applicationon‐boardtoassistmanoeuvringofreal
ships e.g. to prepare manoeuvring plans for
challenging harbour approaches with complex
manoeuvresuptothefinalberthing/unberthingof
ships,toassistthesteeringbymultipleprediction
duringthemanoeuvringprocessandeventogive
supportforanalysingtheresult,
Thetoolboxcontainsthefollowingmodules:
Manoeuvring Design & Planning Module to
design ships‐manoeuvring concepts as
“manoeuvring plan” for harbour approach and
berthing manoeuvres (steered by virtual handles
onscreenbythemariner)
Manoeuvring Monitoring & Multiple Dynamic‐
Prediction Module: monitoring of
ships
manoeuvres during simulator exercises or
manoeuvresonarealshipusingbridgeshandles,
display of manoeuvring plan and predicted
manoeuvres in parallel. It calculates various
predictiontracksforfullships‐dynamicsimulation
and simplified curved‐headline presentation as
lookaheadforfutureshipsmotion.
ManoeuvringSimulationTrial&
TrainingModule:
ship handling simulation on laptop display to
check and train the manoeuvring concept
(providingthesamefunctionsasmonitoringtool;
steeredbyvirtualhandlesonscreen)
SIMOPT is a simulation‐optimiser software
module based on FTS for optimising standard
manoeuvres and modifying ship math model
parametersbothforsimulator
shipsandforonboard
applicationoftheSAMMONsystem.
SIMDAT is a software module for analysing
simulation results both from simulations in SHS or
SIMOPT and from real ship trials: the data for
manoeuvring characteristics can be automatically
retrievedandcomfortablegraphictoolsareavailable
fordisplaying,comparingand
assessingtheresults.
The SIMOPT and SIMDAT modules were described
in earlier papers (Benedict et. al: 2003, 2006) for
tuning of simulator‐ship model parameters. The
modulesforMultiple DynamicPrediction &Control
to be used on board as steering assistance tool and
later the manoeuvring design and planning
technologywere
describedlater(Benedictet.al:2012,
2014).
Inthispaper,thefocuswillbelaidonthepotentialof
theSAMMONsoftwaresupportingshipoperationsin
a collaborative way on‐board and ashore and to
improve safety of navigation and manoeuvring in
connection with innovative approaches of bridge
organisation.
2
FUNCTION‐BASEDBRIDGEORGANISATION
2.1 FunctionalPositions
The innovative concept of Function‐Based Bridge
OrganisationwasintroducedbyHansHederstromat
the INSLC Conference in 2012. Acknowledging that
all humans may make errors, the function‐based
bridge organization introduces organizational
countermeasuresto detect and manage human error
before it leads to
any negative consequence. It is
argued that it potentially can help to overcome
195
organizational shortcomings and even may remove
hierarchical barriers. In this way, function‐based
bridge organization may enhance teamwork and
communication,ifatraditionalrank‐basedsystemhas
been replaced by such an enhanced regime. The
function‐basedbridgeorganizationdoesnotdiminish
the authority of the Master. The Master assigns
officers to the particular functions based on watch‐
keeper competence and experience with the
upcoming operation, making it a very adaptable
system.
The system builds on the airline concept by
introducing Navigator and Co‐Navigator functions.
TheNavigatorwhoisconningtheshipisrequiredto
communicate intentions and orders
to the Co‐
Navigator. This means that no course changes or
engine orders will be carried out without a
confirmation from the Co‐Navigator. These new
protocolsalsorequireadoublewatch‐keepingsystem
withaminimumoftwobridgeofficersonwatchatall
timestheshipisatsea.
Forshipswithasinglewatch‐keepingofficeranda
lookoutonwatch,thesystemmaybesomewhatmore
difficult to introduce. However, with trained and
engaged lookouts there are definitely advantages to
gain.WhentheCaptainjoinsthebridgeteam,thereis
noproblemtousethefunctionbased
system.Thebest
waytoapplythesysteminthissituationwouldbeif
the Captain takes on the function as Co‐Navigator,
leavingthewatchofficertocontinueconningtheship.
The following definitions were given and the
following assigned tasks are included in these
procedures (only extracted items specifically
for
manoeuvringaspects)inFigure1:
OperationsDirector:Overviewoftheentirebridge
operation,ensuringthatitis,atalltimes,carriedout
in accordance with these procedures; Direct
monitoringofboththeNavigatorandCo‐Navigator,
ensuringthatsafepassageismaintainedandthatno
internal or external influences
are permitted to
distract them from their primar y tasks; Monitors
workload and transfers tasks between functions as
circumstances dictate; Unless directed otherwise by
the officer with the charge, will conduct the Pilot
exchangebriefing;IftheOperationsDirectortakesthe
conn, then the position of Operations Director must
bere‐established
assoonaspossible.
Navigator:Responsibleforconning,navigatingthe
ship following the approved passage plan and
collision avoidance. Ensure that the bridge team
(includingthePilot)isawareofplannedactionsand
intentions by “Thinking Aloud”. If a pilot has the
conn, the Navigator should ensure the Pilot’s
intentions
and planned actions are understood in
advance by all bridge team members and agreed
upon by the Navigator. If s/he has the charge, the
Navigator is responsible for taking back the conn
fromthePilotwhenevers/hedeterminesthatdoingso
isnecessaryorappropriateforthesafenavigationof
the
vessel.
Co‐Navigator: Monitors and cross checks the
actions of the Navigator. Supports, challenges, and
recommends actions to the Navigator. Notifies the
Master or Second in Command whenever s/he has
reason to believe that the Navigator has taken or
plans to take any action that violates the Master’s
orders or
is inconsistent with the safe navigation of
the vessel. Monitors and cross checks the shipʹs
position against the passage plan using real time
navigation methods. Monitors traffic and collision
avoidance. Unless directed otherwise by the officer
withthecharge,isresponsibleforexternalVHF(may
bedelegatedtothePilot)
andliaisonwiththeECR.
Administrator: Responsible for fixing the ship’s
positionwhenpaperchartsareinuse.Responsiblefor
alarm management and actions. Alarms to be
identified as either urgent or non‐urgent alarm.
Responsibleforinternalcommunicationsasdirected.
Responsible for logbook entries, checklist
management and status board.
Ancillary tasks as
assigned.
Lookout: Maintains all around lookout by sight
andbyhearing,reportingallsightingsand/orsound
signals to the Navigator, unless otherwise directed.
Maintains awareness of planned intentions and
reportsanynecessary clearancesbeforean alteration
of course. Must be able to give full attention to the
keeping
ofaproperlookout,andnootherdutiesshall
beundertakenorassignedwhichcouldinterferewith
the task. Be available to interchange duties with the
Helmsman. The duties of the Lookout and the
Helmsmanareseparate. TheHelmsman shallnot be
consideredtheLookoutwhilesteering.
Helmsman: Acknowledge and
execute steering
ordersgivenbythepersonwiththeconn.Advisethe
personwiththeconnofanysteeringconcerns.
2.2 TheCaptainasaLeaderinsteadofanOperator
ItisuptotheCaptaintodecidewhoshouldfulfilany
ofthefourfunctions.ARiskFactorsTableand
aRisk
AnalysisandBridgeManningLevelTablehavebeen
developed to assist the Captain in deciding what
manningleveltoset.Thosemanninglevelsaretobe
seeninFigure1.
Thephilosophybehindthesystemencouragesthe
Captain to assume the role of Operations Director,
acting as a
leader while the team undertakes the
operation.
By delegating the operational tasks, he
demonstrates trust in his team. This has many
positiveeffects,suchas:enhancedlearning;readiness
toactivelyparticipateinproblemsolving;enthusiasm
and motivation to work; and an engaged team
directlyleadingtoincreasedsafetyandefficiency.
As
officersareallowedtoconductthevessel,they
willbebetterpreparedfortheirpromotionwhentime
comes. This will normally also increase job
satisfaction, which facilitates officers‘ retention rate.
Eventhoughratherspeculative,theauthorsareofthe
opinion, that such an organizational watch regime
may potentially have avoided
accidents like the
capsizing of the “Herald of Free Enterprise”
(DepartmentofTransport,1987))or,maybeeventhe
groundingof“CostaConcordia”(DiLieto,2015).
And it is obvious that for the new manning
concepts the information sharing is most important,
bothfortheplanningphasetoprepareanddiscussa
manoeuvring concept and for the manoeuvring
operation to make the results of the momentary
196
control settings visible to all ship officers who are
involvedintotheconningprocess.
In the following chapters some elements are
presentedanddiscussedonhowthe communication
within the bridge team can be supported by
integrating Fast Time Simulation Modules of the
SAMMONSystemintotheoverallnavigationprocess.
3 SIMULATION‐AUGMENTEDSUPPORTFOR
SHIPMANOEUVRINGPROCEDURES
3.1 Pre‐planningwith“ManoeuvrePlanning&Design
Module“
The basic idea behind simulation augmented
manoeuvring support is to materialize and to
visualize the mental manoeuvring planning of an
experienced navigator. Compared to route planning
usingwaypointswhereachangeofcourse
andspeed
isforeseen (macroplanning), manoeuvring planning
uses manoeuvring points where an order of the
steering handles needs to be performed in order to
followacertainpath(microplanning).
As an example for creating a berth plan and
briefingthenavigationalofficer,aberthingscenariois
chosenfora
harbourarea‐thestartingsituationand
theenvironmentalconditionswithinthisareaonasea
chartistobeseeninFigure2.Theobjectiveistoberth
theshipwithportsidealongsideGrasbrookBerthat
HamburgPort.
Figure1. Required Functions and Manning Concept for
FunctionalApproachforBridgeOperation
Figure2.ExerciseareaandenvironmentalconditionsinPort
ofHamburgforberthingscenario,dividedinto twosections
forplanningthemanoeuvres
Figure3. MP0‐Initial position: The prediction already
showsthattheshipwoulddriftslightlytoportsidedueto
thesethandlepositions
Therespectiveharbourareaisbeingdividedinto
twomanoeuvringsectionsfollowingaspecificaim:
1 Section1:Attheendofthissectionthespeedover
ground (SOG) should be around 3kn and the
headingslightlytowardssoutheastaspreparation
forsection2.
2 Section 2: A state should
be reached, where the
shipcanbeheldinthecurrentatapositionwith
constantheadingandnospeed.Then,theshipcan
then crab towards the berthing place mainly by
meansofthrusters.Thecurrentcanbeusedasan
additionalsupportingaidtogoalongside.
In a
conventional briefing only these rough
indicationsofthemanoeuvringstatuscanbeusedto
developapotentialstrategyforberthingtheship.The
manoeuvres and setting of engines, rudders and
thrusters cannot be discussed in detail because no
specificmanoeuvringcharacteristicsareavailablefor
thespecificsituations.
With the new fast
‐time simulation there is the
chancefordesigningamanoeuvreplanasadetailed
strategy with the specific settings at distinguished
positionscalledtheManoeuvringPoints(MP).Inthe
following,thecourseofactionsisdescribedinaseries
offigurestomakeafullmanoeuvringplanbymeans
of
thecontrolactionsatthemanoeuvringpoints,MP.
InFigure3theinitialpositionistobeseenwherethe
instructorhassettheshipinthecentreofthefairway.
The prediction already shows that the ship would
drift slightly to port side due to the set handle
positions.It
canbelearnedthatthereforetherudders
have to be put slightly to starboard at the very
beginning in order to follow the straight track until
thenextMP1.AtMP2theruddersaresetamidships
again and both propulsion units are used to slow
down and to
steer the ship: the starboard engine is
kept at 34 %, resp. 43 rpm to allow for a certain
ruddereffectivenessforsteeringcontrol,whilstatMP
3 the portside engine is set backwards in order to
achieveabout3knSOGattheendofsection1.
InFigure4
(top),theshipisstoppedatMP4:The
vessel’s heading is chosen in that way, that all
handlescanbesetinzeroposition,holdingtheship
witha minimum speed almostat the same position.
At this moment, bow and stern thrusters can be
applied to bring the ship
safely to its berth. In the
bottomfiguretheshipisalreadybroughttotheberth.
The crabbing by means of bow and stern thrusters
needsafurtherMP5 inordertoreducethetransversal
speedshortlybeforeberthingatMP6.
197
The complete manoeuvring plan can be saved to
be used for the training or to be loaded again for
editingtheplanforanoptimisationtoachieveabetter
performance e.g. to do the whole manoeuvre in less
time. For an in‐depth discussion at the separate
manoeuvring points and
sections, there is the
possibilitytosavethespecificconditionsassituation
files.Thesesituationfilescanbeusefulfordiscussing
strategies during the planning at different places
wherenewchallengeswillcomeupaswellasforthe
debriefing sessions. In Figure 4 at the right bottom
cornerthe
timeistobeseenforthecompleteseriesof
segments: the total manoeuvre time is about 17.5
minutesforthisversionoftheplan.
Figure 4 Final part of the manoeuvring plan: At MP4 the
vesselisstoppedandtheheadingischoseninthatway,that
allhandlescanbesetinzeroposition(Top);atMP5/MP6
theshipisalreadybroughttotheberth(Bottom)
3.2 BerthingmakinguseofSimulation ‐augmented
supportinSHSandwithSAMMONMonitoring
ModuleandTrainingTool
During the exercise it is possible to take advantage
fromthemultiplepredictionsforthemanoeuvres.
In Figure 5 an example is shown for the On‐line
manoeuvreprediction(dottedshipcontours)starting
fromcurrentposition(blackshipcontours)attheend
ofblackpasttrack.Ontheshipbridgetheprediction
is controlled by the handles on the manoeuvring
controls. For training and test purposes the
manoeuvrecanalsobetestedintheSAMMONTrail
& Training Tool – in this software
the controls are
usedtobeseenintheMonitoring&ControlInterface
oftheTrainingToolpresentedontherightsideinthis
figure.
Figure5.Exampleforoverlayofapre‐plannedmanoeuvre
plan (MP) as manoeuvring basis (blue) and manoeuvre
prediction (dotted ship contours)starting from current
position(blackshipcontours)attheendofblackpasttrack
withherenginesorderedinoppositedirectionpresentedin
Monitoring&ControlInterfaceofthe
TrainingTool(right)
Forcomparingtheeffectivenessofthesimulation‐
augmented support tools a simulator test was made
withtraineeswhohavenosupportandtraineeswho
havepartsoreventhefullsupportoftheSAMMON.
Duringtheexerciseitispossibletotakeadvantage
from the multiple predictions for the manoeuvres.
The
students can bring their own laptop onto the
simulatorbridge(wherehehasalreadydevelopedthe
manoeuvring plan), the prediction is controlled via
the bridge handles, and another laptop with the
monitoring tool can also be placed at the instructor
station.
Figure6. Results from two manoeuvring exercises in
SIMDAT interface with ships track and time history of
thrusteractivities.(Blue:runofthetraineewithoutsupport
byFast‐TimeSimulation;Green:runofthetraineewithfull
supportbypre‐planningwithDesignandPlanningModule;
Red:preparedmanoeuvringplanwith
manoeuvringpoints)
InFigure6 acomparisonismadebetweenthetwo
simulatorresults ofthetraineeswithdifferentlevelof
preparationandthemanoeuvringplanofthesecond
trainee. The achievements of the better prepared
traineeareobvious–theplannedmanoeuvreisvery
198
close to the executed track and the actions of the
controlshasbeendonealsonearlyinaccordance with
theplannedprocedures.Itisobviousthatthereisnot
justareductionofmanoeuvringtimewhenapplying
theFast‐TimeSimulationtoolinbriefingandtraining;
thethrusterdiagramsshow
alsothatawellprepared
manoeuvrecanminimizetheuseofpropulsionunits
andthereforebemoreefficient.
The benefit of using the FTS is to be seen for
severalpurposes:
The multiple dynamic predictions are always a
great help for the Navigator steering the ship:
They have a
better overview on the current
situationandthechancesforthepotentialsuccess
ofanactioncanimmediatelybeseen;alsoforthe
Co‐Navigator there is the chance to see both the
manoeuvres and the success – this is a great
situation because they can both share a better
situation
overview.
Multipledynamicpredictionsmaybeusedtosee
boththecurrentstateofmotionbythestaticpath
predictionandthefuturedevelopmentoftheship
motioncausedbythecurrenthandlesettings–itis
expectedthatthestaticpredictionchangesintothe
dynamically predicted track, in
this case the pre‐
diction is correct. If not then the handle settings
canbeslightlyadjustedtocorrectforthetendency
of the potential impact of environmental effect
which might not have been considered by the
dynamicprediction,e.g.anon‐detectedcurrent.
4 RESEARCHPROJECTCOSINUS:SIMULATION
AUGMENTEDMANOEUVRING
FORBRIDGE
OPERATIONANDFORVTS
The goal of the project COSINUS (“cooperative
operation of ships for nautical safety through
integration of traffic safety systems – Bolles et al.,
2014)istoachievetheintegrationofmaritimetraffic
safety systems on board and on shore. Therefore,
novel concepts are investigated
regarding the
presentation of enhanced data to the operator and
operation of new tools and services as well as
decentralizeddatacapturing,processingandstorage.
Processed data of land‐based information systems
will be visualized in such a way that a complete
overviewoverthetrafficandenvironmental situation
is given
in order to support the navigational
operation of the vessel. This includes e.g. the
representation of a shared route and manoeuvring
plan, the operational interface to the VTS operator,
andthedepictionofweather‐dataalongthevoyageor
at the destination port. The goal is to establish a
cooperative
picture which offers a dynamically
enhanced view for the bridge crew going beyond
traditional ship‐based sensor information like own
ship RADAR or AIS. This will improve the safety
particularlyinheavytrafficsituations.Agreatdealof
workwillbecarriedoutconcerningthedefinitionand
establishment of new standards
for the ship based
navigation in cooperation with higher level traffic
managementsystems.Themainareasofworkarethe
following:
Visualization concept for representation of land‐
basedinformationonshipbridges
The proposal and the validation of modules and
interfaces for autonomous communication
betweenVTSandINS
Combination of ECDIS representation of
navigational data and VTS data to an integrated
navigationalandtrafficpicture
Concept for cooperative route‐ and manoeuvre
planning
Investigation of communication channels and
interfacesforexchangebetweenVTSandINS
Specifically for the integration of the Simulation‐
AugmentedManoeuvringSupportbySAMMON
the
newfunctionshavetobeinterfaced:
Theresultsofthemanoeuvreplanninghavetobe
madeavailableintothe IntegratedBridge System
and
Also the data transfer from ship data into the
Monitoring and Control Module have to be
adjusted.
Thedatatransferfromshipto
shoreintotheVTS
centrehastobeestablished.
The concept for sharing the information between
shipandshoreistobeseeninFigure7‐bothonthe
bridgeandintheVTSthesamedisplayelementsfor
plannedroutes andmanoeuvres can be observedon
allscreensinthe
sameway.InFigure8afirstresultis
to be seen for a ship station to display the
manoeuvring plan together with a route plan of
anothervessel.
Figure7. Project COSINUS – shared information on
manoeuvring plans and multiple prediction in ECDIS
betweenbridgeandVTS
Figure8.ProjectCOSINUSresults:Displayofmanoeuvring
plan(green)ofownshiptogetherwithrouteplanofanother
vessel(blue)presentedinIntegratedNavigationSystemof
project partner Raytheon‐Anschütz transmitted from VTS
stationofpartnerSIGNALIS
199
5 RESEARCHPROJECTMUNIN‐
MANOEUVRINGSUPPORTFOR
AUTONOMOUSSHIPS
5.1 Introduction&Objectives
MaritimeUnmannedNavigationthroughIntelligence
in Networks (MUNIN) was a collaborative research
projectofeightpartnersfromfiveEuropeancountries
co‐foundedbytheEuropeanCommission.MUNIN’s
aim was the development of an autonomous‐ship
concept and
its simulation‐augmented feasibility
study. (Burmester et al., 2014). MUNIN Project
coordinatorwas the Fraunhofer Center for Maritime
LogisticsandServices(CML)inHamburg,Germany.
The Department of Maritime Studies at
Hochschule Wismar (HSW), University of
Technology, Business and Design in Rostock‐
Warnemünde, Germany, was involved in both parts
of
ship operation the navigational and technical
systems.
The ship‐engineering department at HSW is
responsible for the analysis and conceptual
redesignofcurrentengine‐relatedtasksaswellas
for repair and maintenance optimisation for
unmannedoperationduringtheseapassage.
The Institute for Innovative Ship Simulation and
Maritime
Systems (ISSIMS) at HSW develops a
simulation augmented manoeuvring support
systems for remote‐controlled navigation in near
coastalwaters.
The Maritime Training Centre Warnemünde at
HSWserveswithitssimulation environmentand
partner’s prototype integration for the feasibility
studywithintheproofofconcept.
Themainidea behindthe
MUNINconcept isthe
autonomous sea passage of an unmanned vessel.
Nevertheless, before the ship can be set to
autonomousoperationithastoputoutatseainthe
traditional way with a crew on board. For the
unmannedvoyage part the vessel is monitored by a
Shore‐Control Centre.
When in autonomous mode,
thevessel solvesappearing problems with regardto
weather and traffic situation by autonomous
algorithmsandfollowsitspre‐definedvoyageplan.If
necessary, the operator takes over automatic control
bycommandingthevesselstrueheadingandspeed‐
over‐ground.Furthermore, when exact manoeuvring
isrequired,
theoperatorenables amock‐upbridgeto
manually control the vessels manoeuvring systems
likerudderandenginefromasituationroomwithin
the Shore‐Control Centre. Assuming that the
connectionfails,thevesselhastodriftor,ifpossible,
droptheanchortomaintainitsposition.
5.2 RemoteManoeuvringSupport
System–On‐line
Predictionandpresentationofoperationallimits
TheRemoteManoeuvring SupportSystemenvisages
theimprovementofthementalmodelofexperienced
ship officers on board sea‐going vessels to a Shore‐
Control Centre. Since for the shore‐based operators
thefeelingoftheship’smotionismissing,a
waymust
befoundtotransmittheimpressionandfeelingofthe
ship’sactualandfuturemotiontotheoperators.The
problem is: there is no scope for the conventional
“trial and error corrections” or “touch and feel
experiences”forvesselsfullycontrolledbyshore‐side
operators.
Theremote manoeuvringsupport
system’s aim isto
allowsafeandefficientremote‐controllednavigation
in near‐coastal waters. The innovative value of the
Fast‐Time Simulation technology is the look‐ahead
function of ship’s motion by dynamic‐prediction
methods,sothataship’sofficerorshore ‐sideoperator
canforeseethevesselsfuture
path.
TheRemoteManoeuvringSupportSystemprototype
containsthree different modules‐allbasedon Fast‐
TimeSimulationunddynamic‐predictionmethods:
Monitoring tool with visualisation of future ship
trackbymeansofdynamic‐predictionmethods
Pre‐planning tool to design safe and efficient
manoeuvreplansfortheupcomingmanoeuvring
Predictionoftheoperationallimitsvisualisingthe
requiredroomtomanoeuvre.
Not only for collision avoidance but also for
navigation in narrow waters it is from high
importance for a shore‐side operator to know the
operational limits of the vessels under his
surveillance.Theproblemisthatthe
manoeuvrability
depends on many hard‐to‐estimate factors. High
speedinshallowwatere.g.causessquateffects,and
the speed‐through‐the‐water to speed‐over‐ground
ratioincreases/decreasesruddereffectivenessaswell
as waves and gales affect the turning and stopping
behaviour.The mariner aboard senses this and
directly interprets
the effect by the above named
factors. He can feel and observe a squat effect way
easierasanoperatorsittinginacontrolcentreashore
infronthisscreens.Hehastrainedhismentalmodel
ofship’smotionbyyearsofexperienceatsea.
To support the shore based
operator by
information on ship’s motion dynamics, the Remote
Manoeuvring Support System supplies the operator
(and the collision avoidance system on board) with
vessel data regarding its operational manoeuvring
limits.
Figure9.Sampleforpresentationofdynamic‐manoeuvring
prediction of actual manoeuvring track (black‐dotted
contours)and three parallel predicted manoeuvringtracks
forHard‐to‐STB (green) and PT (red) as well as for Crash
Stop(black) from actual motion parameters‐theship has
appliedrudderamidshipsthepredictedcontours of
actual
controlsareaheadoftheshipsposition.
200
Figure 9 shows the monitoring concept with the
prediction of the manoeuvring limits. All four
manoeuvre predictions will be supplied in a 1 Hz
update rate. This figure shows a situation for a
collision threat: the own ship is the stand‐on vessel
andtheshiponitsportside
isexpectedtodoacourse
changetoavoidacollisionaccordingtoCOLREGrule
15.Incasetheshipasnotactinginpropertime,the
own ship is obliged to do an evasive manoeuvre
accordingtoCOLREGrule17.Fromthefigureitisto
be seen that
a stopping manoeuvre would not help
anymorebutaturningcircletostarboardwouldhelp.
Themostimportantsupportisnecessaryifthereis
a time delay in the communication between the
autonomousshipandtheshorecontrolcentreduring
theremotemanoeuvringstatus.InFig.13asampleis
given
for explanation of the effect of time delay
(e.g.10seconds)inship‐shorecommunicationandthe
advantage of prediction technology for filtering and
remote manoeuvring action by the shore‐based
controller:
The messages for the measured position on the
shipwereallreceivedwiththedelayof10s,e.g.
at
theactualtime10:00:30themessagewas sentfrom
shipat10:00:20andreceivedinSCCat10:00:30.
The position data were filtered (yellow stars), as
forthepreviousmeasuredpositionsbefore).
From this filtered positions the current Assumed
position(greenstar)wascalculated byprediction
on the
Predicted track (black broken line) with
control settings from 10:00:20. The assumed
Positionatcurrenttime10:00:30istheinitialpoint
forthenewpredictioncalculations.
Fromtheassumed/predictedpositionat10:00:30
newcontrol settingswill take effectafter another
delay of 10 sec at the position
at 10:00:40 – from
therethereddottedcontoursandtrackareshown
forthenewpredictedtrack.
Itisobviousthatitisverydifficulttosteertheship
if the time delay is increasing. In the future, it is
plannedtodosomeinvestigationsintothemaximum
delay allowed
to secure a safe control of the vessel
fromshore.
Figure10.Sampleforexplanationoftheeffectoftimedelay
10s in ship‐shore‐communication and the advantage of
prediction for filtering and remote manoeuvring at time
point10:00:30
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research results presented in this paper were
partly achieved in research projects “Cooperative
Operation of Ships for Nautical Safety through
Integration of Traffic Survey Systems” (COSINUS)
and Maritime Unmanned Navigation through
IntelligenceinNetworks(MUNIN)fundedbyEU,by
the German Federal Ministry of Economics and
Technology (BMWi), Education
and Research
(BMBF),surveyedbyResearchCentreJuelichPTJand
DLR. Additionally it has to be mentioned that the
professionalversionofthe SAMMONsoftwaretools
hasbeenfurtherdevelopedbythestart‐upcompany
Innovative Ship Simulation and Maritime Systems
GmbH(ISSIMSGmbH;www.issims‐gmbh.com).
REFERENCES
Benedict, K., Baldauf, M., Felsenstein, C., Kirchhoff, M.: “
Computer‐based support for the evaluation of ship
handling simulator exercise results” MARSIM‐
InternationalConferenceonMarineSimulationandShip
Manoeuvrability,Kanazawa, Japan,August25th–28th
2003
Benedict, K., Baldauf, M., Kirchhoff, M., Koepnick, W.,
Eyrich, R. 2006: Combining Fast‐Time
Simulation and
Automatic Assessment for Tuning Simulator Ship
Models. MARSIM‐International Conference on Marine
Simulation and Ship Manoeuvrability, Terschelling,
Netherlands,June25–302006.Proceedings,M‐Paper19
p.1‐9
Benedict,K.;Kirchhoff,M.;Gluch,M.;Fischer,S.;Baldauf,
M. 2009: Manoeuvring Simulation on the Bridge for
PredictingMotion
ofRealShipsandasTrainingToolin
Ship Handling Simulators. TransNav‐the International
Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea
Transportation,Vol.3No.1‐March2009.
Benedict,K.;Kirchhoff,M.;Gluch,M.;Fischer,S.;Baldauf,
M. 2013: Simulation Augmented Manoeuvring Design
and Monitoring – a New Method for
Advanced Ship
Handling.TransNav‐theInternational Journal on Marine
NavigationandSa fetyofSeaTransportation,Vol.3No.1‐
May2013.
Benedict,K.;Baldauf,M.;Fischer,S.;Gluch,M.;Kirchhoff,
M.; Schaub, M.; M.; Klaes, S. 2012: Fast Time
Manoeuvring Simulation as Decision Support for
PlanningandMonitoringofShip
HandlingProcessesfor
ShipOperationOn‐Boardand TraininginSimulators.
MARSIM‐International Conference on Marine Simulation
andShipManoeuvrability,Singapore,23‐27April2012.
Bolles, A.; Hahn, A.; Braun, M.; Rohde, S.; Gluch, M.;
Benedict,K.(2014).COSI NUS‐CooperativeNavigation
forNauticalSafety.In:DGON(Ed.)Proceedingsofthe
2014
InternationalSymposiumforInformationonShips,
Bonn,2014
BurmeisterH.C.,BruhnW.,RødsethØ.J. &PoratheT.2014
Autonomous Unmanned Merchant Vessel and its
Contributiontowardsthee‐NavigationImplementation:
The MUNIN Perspective, in International Journal of
e‐NavigationandMaritimeEconomy1(2014)1–13.
Fischer, S., Benedict,
K. 2009: “Analyses of manoeuvri ng
procedures on ferry Mecklenburg‐Vorpommern in
Rostock Sea Port and potential improvements using
alternative manoeuvring concepts with Dynamic
Predictor” Internal researchreport (in German only),
Hochschule Wismar, Dept. of Maritime Studies,
Warnemuende
ISSIMS GmbH 2012:Web page for SIMOPT & SIMDAT:
http://www.issims‐
gmbh.com/joomla/index.php/software‐products
201
Benedict,K.;Baldauf,M.;Fischer,S.;Gluch,M.;Kirchhoff,
M.;Schaub,M.;M.;Klaes,S.:APPLICATIONOFFAST
TIME MANOEUVRING SIMULATION FOR SHIP
HANDLING IN SIMULATOR TRAINING AND ON‐
BOARD. Proceedings of INSLC 17. Sept 2014 at
HochschuleWismar,RostockWarnemuende/Germany.
Di Lieto, A. (2015). Bridge Resource Management –
From
the Costa Concordia to Navigation in the Digital Age.
HydeasPtyLtd.Brisbane,Australia,FisrtEdition,201
Department of Transport (1987). The Merchant Shipping Act
1894. mv Herald of Free Enterprise. Report of Court no. 8074.
Formal investigation. HMSO, London
Hederstrom, Hans:MOVING FROM RANK TO
FUNCTION BASED BRIDGE ORGANISATION.
Proceedings of INSLC 17. Sept 2014 at Hochschule
Wismar–RostockWarnemuende/Germany
Kern, T. (2001): CONTROLLING PILOT ERROR:
AUTOMATION,Foreword,xxii,xxiii.McGraw‐Hill
