IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 63, NO. 4, MAY 2014
1539
Lokukaluge P. Perera, J. P. Carvalho, Member, IEEE , and C. Guedes Soares
Abstract—This paper proposes a methodology for overcoming Mamdanitype inference failures on a fuzzylogicbased decision making process applied to collision avoidance in ship nav igation. The fuzzy inference failures are observed in three distinct situations: 1) intersected contradictory decision bound aries; 2) an improper transition region between the inference boundaries of nonintersected contradictory decisions; and 3) con tradictory decision accumulation under multiple obstacle scenar ios. The solutions for overcoming these fuzzy inference failures and their limitations are also discussed in this paper. The proposed solutions consist of insertion of smooth transition regions, deter mination of the proper size of the smooth transition regions, and use of multilevel decision/action formulations. Furthermore, this paper analyzes a decisionmaking process for ship navigation, derives input and output fuzzy membership functions (FMFs), for mulates an IF – THEN rulebased fuzzy inference system (FIS), and presents simulation results that support recovery from rule inference failures in several contradictory decision boundary conditions.
Index Terms—Contradictory decision inference, decision sup port systems, Mamdani fuzzy inference failure, maritime trans portation, ship collision avoidance.
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HE USE of Mamdanifuzzyrulebased inference in navigation/steering systems has been previously proposed
and extensively applied. However, this solution exhibits several problems that may become critical when applied in realworld systems. These problems arise in three different situations that have been identiﬁed in this paper. One of these situations is very well known, i.e., the problem of failures due to inferred contradictory decisions. For example, in the presence of a target located straight ahead on a region covered by two fuzzy rules
Manuscript received May 18, 2013; revised September 7, 2013; accepted October 23, 2013. Date of publication November 4, 2013; date of current version May 8, 2014. This work was supported in part by the Foundation for Science and Technology of Portugal (FCT) through Project “Methodology for Ships Manoeuvrability Tests with SelfPropelled Models” under Contract PTDC/TRA/74332/2006. The work of L. P. Perera was supported by the FCT through a doctoral fellowship under Contract SFRH/BD/46270/2008. The work of J. P. Carvalho was supported in part by the FCT under Project PEstOE/ EEI/LA0021/2013. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the IEEE Ninth International Conference on Industrial Informatics, Lisbon, Portugal, July 2011. The review of this paper was coordinated by Dr. M. S. Ahmed. L. P. Perera and C. Guedes Soares are with the Center for Ma rine Technology and Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, Lisbon 1049001, Portugal (email: prasad.perera@mar.ist.utl.pt; guedess@mar.ist.utl.pt). J. P. Carvalho is with the Institute of Systems and Computer Engineering– Research and Development in Lisbon, Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, Lisbon 1649004, Portugal (email: joao.carvalho@inescid.pt). Color versions of one or more of the ﬁgures in this paper are available online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. Digital Object Identiﬁer 10.1109/TVT.2013.2288306
where one rule states “turn left” and the other “turn right,” the decisions cancel each other out, and the vehicle goes straight ahead. From here on, we shall refer to this case as “Situation I:
intersected contradictory decision boundaries.” Although the other two situations are not commonly ad dressed in the literature, they can also result in catastrophic failures in realworld systems; these distinct situations usually occur in the presence of stationary/moving multiple targets, even if this is not a necessary condition, on 2D navigation/ steering systems. Such situations can occur when an obstacle is in close range due to the fact that small linear distances traveled either by a moving obstacle or the own vehicle can correspond to large angular movements of the obstacle when seen from the own vehicle. Therefore, the apparent position of the obstacle may quickly cross through the several angular fuzzy regions used to infer the decisionmaking process. For example, in two consecutive iterations, the moving obstacle can pass from a region where the correct inferred decision was “turn left” to a region where the decision is “turn right;” as a result, the system jumps between contradictory decisions. A navigation system where inertia is a factor (basically, all realworld largevessel navigation systems fall in such situations) may not quickly respond to such decision changes, and the time delay associated with the system response may cause an erratic, undesirable, and possibly dangerous behavior. This situation will be referred to as “Situation II: improper transition region between the infer ence boundaries of nonintersected contradictory decisions.” The ﬁnal situation, “Situation III: contradictory decision accumulation in multiple targets scenarios,” occurs when con tradictory decisions can cancel each other out due to the pres ence of multiple stationary or moving targets. This situation is commonly observed in what can be referred to as “single level” fuzzyrulebased decisionmaking systems, i.e., systems where fuzzy input and output variables are directly connected by inference rules. One can theoretically solve this problem by increasing the rule base size as long as the number of moving obstacles is limited and known in advance; however, this is rarely possible or practical since scalability becomes an issue due to the problem of combinatorial rule explosion. This paper proposes and describes several requirements that can be applied to overcoming the given situations and therefore prevent the inherent system failures. They include the following.
1) The navigation system should be equipped with a mini mum of two fuzzy output decisions (e.g., course/heading change and speed change). 2) There should be proper formulation of decisions in the input and output linguistic terms and respective fuzzy
_{0}_{0}_{1}_{8}_{}_{9}_{5}_{4}_{5} _{©} _{2}_{0}_{1}_{3} IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1540
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 63, NO. 4, MAY 2014
membership functions (FMFs), i.e., common boundary points or regions between contradictory decisions should be avoided in both input and output FMFs. 3) If a common boundary between regions that indicate contradictory decisions is unavoidable, then a smooth transition region should be inserted. 4) When a smooth transition region between common boundary points or regions of contradictory decisions is necessary, then its proper size should be discussed to prevent Situation II, i.e., an improper transition region between the inference boundaries of nonintersected con tradictory decisions. 5) A “multilevel” decision/action process should be used to avoid Situation III, i.e., contradictory decision accumulation.
This paper illustrates the three previously discussed types of inference rule failures and the solutions to be implemented on ocean navigation to improve safety by avoiding collision situations. To overcome the inference rule failures, the insertion of a smooth transition region between intersected contradic tory decision inference boundaries and a geometrical relation to determine its proper size are proposed. Furthermore, to overcome the accumulated decision failures, we propose a “multilevel” decisionaction process composed of a fuzzy logicbased parallel decisionmaking (PDM) module whose decisions are formulated into sequential actions by a Bayesian networkbased module.
_{I}_{I}_{.} _{R} ELATED W ORK
A. DecisionMaking Processes
Humantype decisionmaking plays an important role in modern industrial applications. Therefore, several experimental platforms and industrial applications are formulated to sim ulate human decisionmaking capabilities. Although human decisionmaking capabilities go beyond singlecriterion situa tions, it is widely accepted that humans have more limitations in multicriteria decisionmaking situations. However, humans have better perceptions of time, direction, speed, shape and possibility, likelihood, truth, and other attributes of physical and mental objects when compared with artiﬁcial computational technology [1]. Since computers are of great help when dealing with crisp precise data, whereas humans are better adapted to deal with perceptions and uncertain data, the integration of human perceptions into multicriteria computational technology could be the ultimate objective in nextgeneration decision making processes in machine learning technology. Decisionmaking processes, as reviewed in recent litera ture, are usually divided into singlecriterion decisionmaking (SCDM) and multicriteria decisionmaking (MCDM). MCDM can be deﬁned as a study of methods and procedures by which concerns about multiple conﬂicting criteria. That can be formally incorporated into the management planning process [2] and can be further divided into individual decisionmaking
B. FuzzyLogicBased DecisionMaking
Fuzzylogicbased systems, which are formulated on the human type of thinking [7], are well known for facilitat ing a humanfriendly environment during a decisionmaking process. Hence, several fuzzylogicbased decisionmaking systems have been developed in research and commercial ap plications to fulﬁll the technological requirements inspired by human behavior in decisionmaking [8]. The human under standing of relationships among objects and/or situations in decisionmaking are illustrated using various fuzzy functions in [9] and [10], both based on Takagi–Sugeno–Kangtype and Mamdanitype fuzzy inference systems (FISs). Decisionmaking processes formulated to simulate human decisionmaking capabilities are extensively inﬂuenced on the area of autonomous navigation. The main objectives of a nav igation system decisionmaking process are to avoid static and dynamic targets and to reach the expected ﬁnal destination. Therefore, intelligent decisionmaking capabilities ultimately inﬂuence the survivability and success of the autonomous nav igation system. Fuzzylogicbased approaches for autonomous navigation systems have been widely considered in several recent studies. A fuzzytargetbased soft decision for mobile vehicles in dy namic environment is proposed in [11], where a navigation tra jectory for the ﬁnal destination is selected from all possible via points learned during its navigation. Similarly, a fuzzylogic based algorithm for path selection in autonomous vehicle navi gation is proposed in [12]. The drawbacks of the given methods come from the fact that they were implemented in limited and constrained environmental models, causing the decision making process to be less effective and timeconsuming in larger navigation spaces. Seraji and Howard present in [13] a fuzzy logic approach to behaviorbased robot navigation on challenging terrain. Seraji and Bon [14] also presented a study for autonomous navigation of planetary rovers using a fuzzy logic framework. These systems consist of multiple behavior capabilities: goal seeking, terrain traversing, and collision avoidance. Fatmi et al. propose a similar approach of fuzzy logic for mobile robot navigation in [15]. Fuzzylogicbased navigation controllers for a mobile robot where the input and output FMFs for steering and speed commands are expressed by linguistic values are proposed and implemented in [16] and [17]. However, all the mentioned systems were implemented under limited obstacle behavior and/or stationary environmental conditions. Fuzzy decisionmaking processes in mobile robot navigation under dynamic environmental conditions are presented in [18] and [19]. The fuzzy decisionmaking process in these studies consists of two algorithms for “obstacles avoidance” and “tar get following.” The drawback to this approach is that fuzzy inference rule failures can occur due to Situation I, as described earlier. Usually, fuzzyrulebased decisionmaking processes are formalized assuming a “singlelevel” system. However, it is
and group decisionmaking [3]. However, the approaches in possible to formulate the multiple identities within a sys
SCDM and MCDM could be further classiﬁed into determin istic, stochastic, and fuzzy control methods [4]–[6].
tem using different sets of rules, as proposed in [20], and a multiplebehaviorbased fuzzy control for sonarbased obstacle
PERERA et al.: SOLUTIONS TO FAILURES AND LIMITATIONS OF MAMDANI FUZZY INFERENCE
1541
avoidance of a mobile robot is presented in [21]. Although
these studies facilitated a multiplebehaviorbased fuzzy control
approach, they still suffer from the accumulated decision can
celation situations between the nonintersectedcontradictory
decision inference regions of a “singlelevel” fuzzylogicbased
system (i.e., Situation III), as further discussed in this paper.
C. FuzzyLogicBased Collision Avoidance Decisions
Collision avoidance facilities for an autonomous ocean navi
gation system with intelligent decisionmaking capabilities are
considered as a case study in this paper. The applications and
recent developments of autonomous ocean navigation systems
are summarized in [22]–[26]. However, the law of the sea
has been ignored by most of these studies. Theoretically, all
oceangoing vessels should follow the law of the sea when
trying to avoid collision situations. The current law of the sea
was introduced by the International Maritime Organization in
1972 by the Convention on the International Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs) [27], [28].
Fuzzylogicbased collision avoidance systems (CASs) for
ship navigation are proposed in [29]–[31]. However, several
drawbacks are observed in these implementations. The pro
posed studies are limited to twovessel collision situations, the
COLREGs rules and regulations and expert knowledge in ocean
navigation are ignored, and the system inputs and outputs are
directly related by fuzzy rules (singlelevel systems). Therefore,
the systems’ capabilities to overcome complex multivessel
collision situations are limited.
_{I}_{I}_{I}_{.} _{C} OLLISION AVOIDANCE IN S HIP N AVIGATION
A. Multivessel Collision Situation
A multivessel collision situation is shown in Fig. 1. The
own vessel, i.e., the vessel that is equipped with the pro
posed CAS, is located at point O (k ) (x _{o} (k ), y _{o} (k )). The
target vessels are located at points P _{1} (k ), P _{2} (k ),
...
,P _{i} (k )
with various navigational trajectories, respectively. The own
vessel trajectory will intercept the target vessel trajectories
around points C _{1} (k ), C _{2} (k ),
...
,C
_{n} (k ) at the time instants
T _{1} (k ), T _{2} (k ),
...
_{n} (k ), respectively.
,T
The ith target vessel that needs to be avoided is located
at point P _{i} (k ) (x _{i} (k ), y _{i} (k )). The ith target vessel estimated
relative trajectory P _{i} (k )B _{i} (k ) will intercept the own vessel
domain at the closest point B _{i} (k ). Therefore, the closest dis
tance between the vessels in a collision situation is represented
as R _{D}_{C}_{P}_{A} (k ). The twovessel collision point is represented
by C _{i} (k ), with the ith target vessel distance to the collision
point R _{c}_{i} (k ). The own vessel speed and course conditions
are represented by V _{o} (k ) and ψ _{o} (k ), respectively. The ith
target vessel speed and course conditions are represented by
Fig. 1. Multivessel collision situation.
B. Collision Avoidance System
A block diagram of the proposed CAS is shown in Fig. 2.
The CAS consists of ﬁve sections: 1) a vessel trafﬁc monitoring
and information system (VTMIS); 2) a collision risk assessment
(CRA) module; 3) a PDM module; 4) a sequential action
formation (SAF) module; and 5) an own vessel control system
(VCS). The inputs into the VTMIS are the position of the own
vessel and the positions of the target vessels.
The VTMIS consists of four sections: 1) a sensor unit; 2) a
vessel detection and tracking (VDT) module; 3) a vessel state
estimation and trajectory prediction (VSETP) module; and
4) an intervessel communication module. The sensor unit (i.e.,
radar and laser applications) acquires the realtime position
data of the target vessels. Then, the target vessels’ data are
used in the VDT module to identify and to track each target
vessel separately using these data. The VSETP module uses
the collected tracking data to estimate vessel states and to
predict each target vessel’s trajectory. Finally, the intervessel
communication unit distributes the previous information among
vessels (i.e., own vessel communication unit) and shorebased
centers. Extensive details on the VTMIS have been presented
in [32].
The main objective of the CRA module is to evaluate the
collision risk of each target vessel with respect to the own
vessel navigation. This is achieved by the relative course–speed
estimation unit and by the time and place until collision es
timation unit. More details on the CRA module have been
presented in [33]–[35]. The inputs into the CRA module are the
V _{i} (k ) and ψ _{i} (k ). The ith target vessel bearing and colli measured/estimated position data of the own vessel and target
sion point relative bearing (CPRB) conditions are represented
by θ _{i} (k ) and θ _{c}_{i}_{,}_{o} (k ), respectively. The relative course and
speed conditions of the ith target vessel are represented by
ψ _{i}_{,}_{o} (k ) and V _{i}_{,}_{o} (k ).
vessels. The output of the CRA module is the time until the
collision situation T _{i} (k ) of the ith target vessel, which in turn
is the input of the SAF module. The PDM module consists
of a fuzzylogicbased decisionmaking process that generates
1542
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 63, NO. 4, MAY 2014
Fig. 2. Block diagram for the CAS.
Fig. 3. Mathematical formulation of a twovessel collision situation.
parallel collision avoidance decisions D _{i} (k ), with respect to
each target vessel.
On the next step, the parallel ith decision of collision avoid
ance D _{i} (k ) is forwarded from the PDM module to the SAF
module. The main objective of the SAF module is to organize
the parallel decisions made by the PDM module into sequential
actions A _{i} (k ), while taking into consideration the time until
the collision situation T _{i} (k ) from the CRA module. The A _{i} (k )
actions are divided into course and speed control actions to be
implemented on the course control and speed control subsys
tems of the own VCS.
The collision avoidance actions A _{i} (k ) formulated by the
SAF module act as “secondlevel” decisions regarding the
fuzzylogicbased decisions D _{i} (k ) formulated in the PDM
module. Actions A _{i} (k ) are designed to overcome contradictory
accumulated rule inference failures (Situation III). The PDM
model is further discussed in Section IV and more details
regarding the fuzzyBayesianbased decision–action formula
tions in ship navigation can be found in [35].
_{I}_{V}_{.} _{F} UZZY L OGIC A PPROACH
The overall design process of the fuzzylogicbased decision
making process described in this paper can be resumed in the
following ﬁve steps: 1) identiﬁcation of fuzzy input and output
system variables; 2) creation of FMFs for each input and output
system variables; 3) formulation of the FIS IF – THEN fuzzy
rules; and 4) defuzziﬁcation of the decisions. However, these
input and output system variables are derived by considering a
twovessel collision situation that is shown in Fig. 3.
PERERA et al.: SOLUTIONS TO FAILURES AND LIMITATIONS OF MAMDANI FUZZY INFERENCE
1543
A. Fuzzy Membership Functions
The PDM module executes fuzzy inferences in the decision
making process (see Fig. 2). The module consists of three
main units: 1) a fuzziﬁcation unit, 2) a fuzzyrule unit, and
3) a defuzziﬁcation unit. The input fuzzy variables, and the
respective FMFs are range FMF (see Fig. 4), bearing FMF
(see Fig. 5), relative course FMF (see Fig. 6), and speed ratio
FMF (see Fig. 7). Two output fuzzy variables and respective
FMFs are used in the defuzziﬁcation unit of the PDM mod
ule: course change FMF (see Fig. 8) and speed change FMF
(see Fig. 9). The input and output FMFs are normalized and
have trapezoidal shapes. The respective FMFs in Figs. 4–9
have been reproduced from [35] to improve the readability of
this paper.
The mathematical formulation of a twovessel collision situa
as previously mentioned. The own vessel navigational space is
divided into three circular regions with radius R _{v}_{d} , R _{b} , and R _{a} .
Radius R _{a} represents the approximate range to the target vessel
detection when the own vessel is in a “give way” situation,
(i.e., when the own vessel has a lower navigation priority) and
should take appropriate actions to avoid collision situations.
Radius R _{b} represents the approximate distance to the target
vessel when the own vessel is in a “stand on” situation (with
the higher priority for navigation) but should take appropriate
actions to avoid the collision situation due to the absence of the
appropriate actions from the target vessel. One should note that
the vessel coming from the starboard side has higher priority
for navigation in accordance with the COLREGs rules and reg
ulations. The radius R _{v}_{d} represents the vessel domain. Dotted
circles separate the regions corresponding with the Range FMF
(see Fig. 4). The R _{i} (k ) represents the range of the ith target
vessel.
The own vessel navigation domain is divided into ten regions
numbered from I to X (see Fig. 3). Each of these regions
corresponds to one of the ten regions in the Bearing FMF (see
Fig. 5). It is assumed that the target vessel is located within
these ten regions, and the collision avoidance decisions are
taken in accordance with the respective regions. Although eight
regions are generally enough to implement the COLREGs rules
and regulations of ocean navigation as presented in [36], ten
regions are proposed to overcome Situation I rule inference
failures, as further discussed in Section VI.
As presented in Fig. 3, the target vessel position II domain is
divided into eight divisions (from IIa to IIh) of relative course
ψ _{i}_{,}_{o} (k ) (see Fig. 1). These divisions are separated by dotted
lines coinciding with the relative course FMF (see Fig. 6). The
higher collision risk regions, i.e., mid (IIe and IIg) and high
(IIf), are also shown in Fig. 6. Finally, the speed ratio FMFs
(see Fig. 7) are used to describe the speed ratio between the
tion used to derive the input and output FMFs is shown in Fig. 3
target vessel and the own vessel, i.e., V _{i} (k )/V _{o} (k ).
1544
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 63, NO. 4, MAY 2014
B. Fuzziﬁcation Unit
Fuzziﬁcation is the process that transforms crisp inputs into
a collection of the input membership degrees to each of the
fuzzy variable linguistic terms. This process is executed in the
fuzziﬁcation unit of the PDM module. The inputs from the CRA
module: range R _{i} (k ), bearing θ _{i} (k ), relative course ψ _{i}_{,}_{o} (k ),
and relative speed V _{i}_{,}_{o} (k ) of the ith target vessel are fuzziﬁed in
this unit with respect to the input FMFs, i.e., range FMF R _{i} (k )
(see Fig. 4), bearing FMF θ _{i} (k ) (see Fig. 5), relative course
FMF ψ _{i}_{,}_{o} (k ) (see Fig. 6), and speed ratio FMF V _{i} (k )/V _{o} (k )
(see Fig. 7). The fuzziﬁed results are transferred to the fuzzy
rules unit. A Mamdanitype rulebased FIS is used in this unit.
The min–max norm is the aggregation operation considered in
this paper. In this norm, the minimum operator is considered
for intersection, and the maximum operator is considered for
the union of two fuzzy sets.
C. Development of the Fuzzy Rules
The fuzzy rules are formulated in accordance with the rules
and regulations of the COLREGs [27] and expert navigational
knowledge to facilitate a regulated prevention of collision and
to eliminate navigation conﬂicts. Tables I and II present a
summary of the CRAs, fuzzy rules, and collision avoidance
decisions used in this paper. The tables have been reproduced
from [35] to improve the readability of this paper. The ﬁrst
column in Table I represents bearing θ _{i} (k ) (Bear.) of the target
vessel, which is divided into ten regions (I–X). The second
column represents the relative course ψ _{i}_{,}_{o} (k ) (Cou.), divided
into eight regions (a to h) of the target vessel orientations.
The collision risk (Risk) assessment with respect to the relative
course is divided into three sections of low risk (low), medium
risk (mid), and high risk (high). Only high and medium colli
sion risk situations, where the collision avoidance actions must
be executed, are present in Tables I and II. The target vessel
range R _{i} (k ) from R _{v}_{d} to R _{a} and from R _{a} to R _{b} are presented
in the third and fourth columns, respectively.
The third and fourth columns are further divided into two
subcolumns. The relative speed ratio of V _{i} (k )/V _{o} (k ) is pre
sented in the ﬁrst subcolumn of the third and fourth main
columns. The speed conditions of V _{i} /V _{o} <, ≈, and > 1 rep
resent the target vessel speed approximately less than, equal,
and greater than the own vessel speed. Finally, the decisions
that need to be taken to avoid collision situations are presented
in the second subcolumn of the third and fourth columns. The
decisions can be categorized as: course to starboard (δψ _{o} > 0);
course to port (δψ _{o} < 0); no course change (δψ _{o} = 0) increase
speed (δV _{o} > 0); decrease speed (δV _{o} < 0); no speed change
(δV _{o} = 0); and not applicable (NA). A similar organization is
considered for Table II.
TABLE I
CRA S , F UZZY RULES , AND D ECISIONS
Fig. 8) and the speed change FMF (see Fig. 9) to obtain
the course change decisions D _{δ}_{ψ}_{i} (k ) and the speed change
decisions D _{δ}_{V} _{i} (k ). These decisions will be formulated for
collision avoidance actions in the own vessel navigation.
The defuzziﬁcation process uses the centroid method. In this
method, one calculates the center of gravity of the result
ing fuzzy set and uses its abscissa as the ﬁnal result of the
inference.
D. Defuzziﬁcation Unit
The collision avoidance decisions D _{i} (k ) for each target
vessel are generated by the defuzziﬁcation unit, as presented
_{V}_{.} _{F}_{A}_{I}_{L}_{U}_{R}_{E}_{S} IN F UZZY R ULE I NFERENCE
As introduced in Section I, the rule inference failures in
in Fig. 2. The fuzzy inference results from the fuzzy rule fuzzylogicbased navigation/steering systems can occur in
unit are defuzziﬁed by the output course change FMF (see
three situations: Situation I (intersected contradictory decision
PERERA et al.: SOLUTIONS TO FAILURES AND LIMITATIONS OF MAMDANI FUZZY INFERENCE
1545
TABLE II
CRA S , F UZZY RULES , AND D ECISIONS
boundaries); Situation II (improper transition region between
the inference boundaries of nonintersected contradictory deci
sions) and Situation III (contradictory decision accumulation in
multiple targets scenarios).
A. Situation I: Intersected Contradictory
Decision Boundaries
Fig. 10 shows a pictorial example of a possible Situation
I failure if one considers that the own vessel should steer
to port when the target vessel is in region VIII and should
steer to starboard when the target vessel is in region I. If the
target vessel is located in the region where the input FMF that
Fig. 10. Fuzzyrule inference failure due to Situation I.
the defuzziﬁed inference result will be “No Action” due to
the cancelation of the two contradictory decisions (steer to
starboard: δψo > 0; steer to port: δψo < 0) when the centroid
defuzziﬁcation method is applied. This decision would possibly
lead to a catastrophic system failure. Notice that, although
the contradictory output FMFs do not intersect, the way that
rules are deﬁned generates contradictory decisions due to the
Mamdani inference mechanism.
Solution: Fuzzy Smooth Transition Region Insertion: The
usual solution for solving this problem consists in using a
higher level decision process to override one of the conﬂicting
decisions. However, these conﬂicting decision situations may
not be noticeable in the decision process and almost impossible
to capture the actual positions where these conﬂicts will occur.
Therefore, usually, there is not a simple universal solution;
therefore, one must consider and prepare the decision process
for every single possible rulebased failure case.
Here, a more elegant and simple solution is proposed, which
basically consists of the insertion of a fuzzy smooth transition
region on the boundary of the regions that have contradic
tory decisions, as presented in Fig. 11. A smooth transition
region X is inserted between the contradictory decision
regions IX and I. As presented in the ﬁgure, the decisions in this
smooth region must not contradict any of the decisions in the
original regions, and in addition, the speed of the own vehicle
should be decreased. As a result of these proactive actions,
the relative position of the target vehicle will automatically
be redirected into either one of the original regions IX or I.
As a result, the CAS will end up executing the collision avoid
ance decisions of the original regions. This solution is further
represent regions I and VIII intersect (fuzzy region, see Fig. 10),
discussed in Section VI.
1546
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 63, NO. 4, MAY 2014
Fig. 11. Fuzzyrule inference failure due to Situation II.
B. Situation II: Improper Transition Region Between the
Inference Boundaries of Nonintersected
Contradictory Decisions
As an example, consider a special collision situation ob
served in this paper regarding the size of the smooth transition
region X (see Fig. 3). This smooth region was necessary due to
the close range intersected contradictory decision boundaries
between regions I and IX. When region X is not properly sized,
Situation II failures might occur if the target vessel transits from
region I into region IX through region X.
To understand the process of designing a proper smooth
region, one should be aware that if no avoidance measures are
taken, when the target vessel is coming from the right end of
a headon situation (region I), the relative navigation trajectory
converges toward the own vessel domain if there is a collision
risk between vessels, and the relative trajectory diverges from
the target vessel domain when there is no collision risk. Hence,
the size of region X should be designed in such way that the rel
ative trajectories of the target vessel do not converge from one
region to another region that contains contradictory decisions.
This solution is further discussed regarding the fuzzylogic
based decisionmaking process of the CAS in ship navigation
in Section VI.
C. Situation III: Contradictory Decision Accumulation in
Multiple Targets Scenarios
When observing the ship navigation situation presented in
Fig. 12, it is easy to see that the presence of multiple moving
obstacles can generate catastrophic solutions on a navigation/
steering system since the rules applied in the depicted situation
would be “if the target vessel is in region I, then steer to
starboard” and “if the target vessel is in region IV, then steer to
Fig. 11 further shows a pictorial example of a possible port.” The accumulation of these two contradictory decisions
Situation II failure. Let us assume that, in this case, a smooth
transition region X exists between regions IX and I and that this
region avoids the problem of intersected contradictory decision
boundaries by stating no course change and speed decrease
while the target is in region X. These actions will make the
target vessel move into one of the nonconﬂict regions I or IX.
However, if the target vessel assumes the relative trajectory
shown in Fig. 11, Situation II failures can occur if region X
size is “improper,” i.e., not wide enough. In such case, the
navigation system decisions can be contradictory in consecutive
(or relatively close) instants resulting on an erratic trajectory
and a possible catastrophic failure since the target vessel might
would once again lead to a no action decision, and the own
vessel would eventually crash into the target vessel in region I.
This situation is categorized as a failure of contradictory deci
sion accumulation due to multiple stationary or moving targets
and can occur in “singlelevel” fuzzyrulebased navigation
systems.
Solution: Multilevel Decision/Action Formulations: The
decisionmaking process in “singlelevel” fuzzyrulebased
systems should be associated with a “secondarylevel” decision
process that can automatically overcome rule inference failures
due to multiple stationary or moving targets. In this approach,
one proposes the use of the SAF module (see Fig. 2) as a
not be avoided. Therefore, the selection of a proper fuzzy secondarylevel process whose role is to serialize parallel de
smooth region is an important part of the designing process of
the fuzzylogicbased system. This solution is further discussed
regarding the fuzzylogicbased decisionmaking process of the
CAS in ship navigation in Section VI.
Solution: Proper Sizing of Fuzzy Smooth Transition Regions:
In general, the smaller the size of the smooth transition regions,
the better is the system behavior as it facilitates the system
transition into a better decisionmaking region. However, since
smaller regions can cause the system to jump between two
contradictory decisions during the avoidance process. To im
plement two contradictory decisions on the same trajectory,
one must insure that the smooth region is large enough to
avoid contradictory decisions during the avoidance process of a
single target.
cisions taken on the PDM module when in the presence of mul
tiple moving target vessels. This solution is further discussed
with respect to the Bayesiannetworkbased SAF module of the
CAS in ship navigation in Section VI.
_{V}_{I}_{.} _{S} OLUTIONS TO THE FAILURES AND I TS L IMITATIONS
Although the three rule inference failures of the FMFs
discussed earlier might rarely occur in ocean navigation, they
cannot be neglected since they usually result in catastrophic
failures. The proposed solutions to overcome fuzzy rule infer
ence failures in the decisionmaking process of ocean naviga
tion are further discussed in the following.
PERERA et al.: SOLUTIONS TO FAILURES AND LIMITATIONS OF MAMDANI FUZZY INFERENCE
1547
Fig. 12. Fuzzyrule inference failure due to Situation III.
A. Insertion of Fuzzy Smooth Bearing Regions
Consider the mathematical formulation of a twovessel col
lision in the ocean navigation situation presented in Fig. 3.
The ﬁgure shows the collision avoidance decisions, i.e.,
course change decisions D _{δ}_{ψ}_{i} (k ) and speed change decisions
D _{δ}_{V} _{i} (k ), for highrisk collision situations for fuzzy bearing
regions I to X (see Tables I and II), and for the ranges R _{v}_{d} to
R _{b} , and R _{b} to R _{a} in each fuzzy bearing region. The decisions
on fuzzy bearing region I are formulated as course to starboard
(δψ _{o} > 0) and no speed change (δV _{o} = 0). In region II, the de
cisions are course to starboard (δψ _{o} > 0) and decrease speed
(δV _{o} < 0). Therefore, there are no contradictory decisions in
the intersection of both regions.
In region IV, the decisions are course to port (δψ _{o} < 0)
and decrease speed (δV _{o} < 0). Region III was introduced as
a smooth transition region between regions II an IV with
decisions no course change (δψ _{o} = 0) and decrease speed
(δV _{o} < 0). The region was made proper through the use of
Fig. 3, as further discussed in following. In region V, range
R _{v}_{d} to R _{b} , the decisions are course to port (δψ _{o} < 0) and no
speed change (δV _{o} = 0), and in the range of R _{b} to R _{a} , the
decisions are no course change (δψ _{o} = 0) and no speed change
(δV _{o} = 0). With the insertion of fuzzy smooth region III, all the
collision avoidance decision transitions in the right half of the
decision space are smooth, and no contradictory decisions exist.
A similar approach was followed in the left half of the decision
space, where regions VI and X were introduced as smoothing
regions.
B. Determination of Proper Sizing of Fuzzy Smooth
Bearing Regions
One should note that this type of fuzzy inference failure is
only observed in the left half of the decisionmaking process in
own vessel regions XI, X and I, and is due to the fuzzy rules
that were previously deﬁned in accordance with the COLREGs
rules and regulations. As shown in Fig. 3, line O (k )B (k )
separates regions I and X, and line O (k )D (k ) separates regions
X and IX. The line O (k )D (k ) intercepts the own vessel domain
at point C (k ). There is a collision risk if any relative trajectories
of the target vessel starting from region I converge into the own
vessel domain. The straight line B (k )E (k ) represents the left
end relative navigation trajectory starting from region I that
neither converges nor diverges from the own vessel domain.
Hence, all the relative navigational trajectories of the target
vessel in the region I with collision risk stay on the left side
of line B (k )E (k ). The line B (k )E (k ) intercepts the own vessel
domain at point E (k ). Hence, that should be used as a guideline
regarding whether the collision risk increases or decreases in a
collision situation in region I.
To ensure that the relative trajectories starting from region I
never enter region IX (preventing two contradictory decisions
in the same obstacle avoidance process), the line B (k )E (k )
should never cross region IX in the R _{b} –R _{a} range. This is
achieved if point C (k ) is always to the left of point E (k ).
Hence, the minimum size of region X should be given by
C (k ) ≡ E (k ). These conditions can be formulated into geo
metrical relationships among regions I, IX, and X. Considering
the triangle of O (k )B (k )E (k ) with C (k ) ≡ E (k ), the sine rule
can be written as
R a
sin(180 ^{◦} − κ _{6} − κ _{7} )
=
R vd
sin(κ
7 _{)} .
(1)
Since E (k )B (k ) is a straight line parallel to the Y _{o} axis and
angle κ _{1} is symmetric around the Y _{o} axis, the angle condition
κ _{7} = κ _{1} /2 and (1) becomes
κ _{6} = 180 − sin ^{−}^{1}
vd sin(κ _{1} /2) −
R
a
R
κ 1
2 (2)
.
Hence, the minimum size requirement for a proper smooth
transition region X in Fig. 3 is related to the size of the
contradictory decision regions I and IX that motivated the
creation of smooth region X. One should once again note that
if the region is smaller than the derived size, system decisions
can jump between contradictory decisions and/or two contra
dictory decisions may be implemented on the same navigational
trajectory.
1548
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 63, NO. 4, MAY 2014
Fig. 13. Course and speed collision avoidance actions.
C. Multilevel Decision/Action Formulations in
Ocean Navigation
In the proposed system, the SAF module (see Fig. 2) is
proposed as a “secondlevel” process that overcomes failures
due to contradictory decision accumulation in multiple obstacle
scenarios by the PDM module. The main objective of the
SAF module is to transform the parallel collision avoidance
decisions that are generated by the PDM module into sequential
actions that can be executed in the own vessel navigation system
while eliminating the mentioned failures. This can be achieved
by collecting from the PDM module the multiple collision
avoidance decisions, D _{i} (k ) ≡ (D _{δ}_{ψ}_{i} (k ), D _{δ}_{V} _{i} (k )), and eval
uating them using the time until the collision situation T _{i} (k )
from the CRA module regarding each target vessel. Final results
are arranged as a sequential formation of actions A _{i} (k ) ≡
(A _{δ}_{ψ}_{i} (k ), A _{δ}_{V} _{i} (k )) involving the course and speed actions at
given time instants T _{i} (k ) ≡ (T _{δ}_{ψ}_{i} (k ), T _{δ}_{V} _{i} (k )). Fig. 13 gives
an example of the accumulated process of sequential course
and speed action execution. D _{δ}_{ψ}_{i} (k ) and D _{δ}_{V} _{i} (k ), and A _{δ}_{ψ}_{i} (k )
and A _{δ}_{V} _{i} (k ) represent the course and speed change deci
sions and actions, respectively. This approach eliminates the
cancelation of contradictory decisions due to decision/action
accumulation.
The SAF module consists of a continuous Bayesian network
that is formulated to update the parallel collision avoidance
decisions into sequential actions that will execute at appropriate
time instants (see Fig. 2). As presented in the ﬁgure, the SAF
module consists of four nodes: 1) collision time estimation,
2) collision risk, 3) action delay, and 4) collision avoidance
actions. The inputs of the SAF module are the collision
decisions D _{i} (k ) and time until the collision situation T _{i} (k )
which generated, respectively, by the PDM and CRA modules
(see Section IIIB).
The main objective of the time until collision estimation
node is to estimate the time until the collision situation T _{i} (k )
between the own vessel and each of the target vessels. The
node collision risk estimation inferences the collision risk with
respect to each target vessel considering the collision time
estimation. The action delay node is designed to formulate the
appropriate time to take collision avoidance actions. The action
delay node, the collision risk estimation node, and the collision
avoidance decisions are used to infer the collision avoidance
action formulation node. The mathematical derivation of the
Fig. 14. Relative trajectories for CPRB 270 ^{◦} to 360 ^{◦} .
Bayesiannetworkbased SAF module, inferences and their as
sociated functions are further described in [35].
_{V}_{I}_{I}_{.} _{C} OMPUTATIONAL S IMULATIONS
The CAS is implemented on the MATLAB software plat
form. The following values are assigned for the FMF param
eters of the PDM module.
• 
Range FMF (see Fig. 4): R _{v}_{d} ≈ 1 nmi, R _{b} ≈ 6 nmi, R _{A} ≈ 
10 nmi. 

• 
Bearing FMF (see Fig. 5): κ _{1} ≈ 10 ^{◦} , κ _{2} ≈ 80 ^{◦} , κ _{3} ≈ 10 ^{◦} , 
κ _{4} ≈ 80 ^{◦} , κ _{5} ≈ 26 ^{◦} , and κ _{6} ≈ 26 ^{◦} . 

• 
Relative course FMF values (see Fig. 6): ν _{1} ≈ 5 ^{◦} , ν _{2} ≈ 5 ^{◦} , 
and ν _{3} ≈ 5 ^{◦} . 

• 
Speed ratio FMF (see Fig. 7): f χ _{1} ≈ 0.8, χ _{2} ≈ 1.2, and 
χ _{3} ≈ 5. 

• 
Course change output FMFs (see Fig. 8): ι _{1} ≈ 10 ^{◦} , and 
ι _{2} ≈ 40 ^{◦} . 

• Speed change output FMF (see Fig. 9): ϑ _{1} ≈ 2, and 

ϑ _{2} ≈ 10. 
The FMF parameters were derived considering various colli
sion avoidance situations under the simulated conditions.
A. Proper Fuzzy Smooth Region Insertion Simulations
Figs. 14–16 regard a twovessel collision situation and
present the simulations of the relative trajectories of the target
PERERA et al.: SOLUTIONS TO FAILURES AND LIMITATIONS OF MAMDANI FUZZY INFERENCE
1549
Fig. 15.
Relative trajectories for CPRB 180 ^{◦} to 270 ^{◦} .
Fig. 16.
Relative trajectories for CPRB 0 ^{◦} to 180 ^{◦} .
Fig. 17.
Zoomed view of the relative trajectories for CPRB 270 ^{◦} to 360 ^{◦} .
Fig. 18.
Zoomed view of the relative trajectories for CPRB 180 ^{◦} to 270 ^{◦} .
vessel with the CPRB (see Fig. 1) θ _{c}_{i}_{,}_{o} (k ), varying from
270 ^{◦} to 360 ^{◦} , 180 ^{◦} to 270 ^{◦} , and 0 ^{◦} to 180 ^{◦} , in 0.1 ^{◦} division
steps. Figs. 17–19 represent the zoomed view of the relative
trajectories of the target vessel around the own vessel initial
position with CPRB θ _{c}_{i}_{,}_{o} (k ), varying from 270 ^{◦} to 360 ^{◦} , 180 ^{◦}
to 270 ^{◦} , and 0 ^{◦} to 180 ^{◦} , also with 0.1 ^{◦} steps, respectively.
The vessel initial speed condition is V _{o} /V _{i} = 0.5, and the
initial own vessel course and speed are ψ _{o} = 0 ^{◦} and V _{o} =
12 knots, respectively. The own vessel is initially located at
O (k )=(0 nmi, 0 nmi). The target vessel start positions are
located around the collision point C _{i} (k )=(0 nmi, 5 nmi) (see
Fig. 1), with the target vessel startup distance to the collision
point R _{c}_{i} (k ) = 10 nmi. Constant speed and course conditions
are assumed for the target vessel. Before the insertion of the
fuzzy smooth regions, fuzzy rule inference failures occurred in
between relative bearing range of 180 ^{◦} to 270 ^{◦} and from 270 ^{◦}
to 360 ^{◦} , where the two contradictory decisions were intercepted
and the relative trajectory of the target vessel intercepts the own
vessel at initial position (0 nmi, 0 nmi).
1550
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 63, NO. 4, MAY 2014
Fig. 19.
Zoomed view of the relative trajectories for CPRB 0 ^{◦} to 180 ^{◦} .
Fig. 20.
Distance to the minimum point approach (CPRB 0 ^{◦} to 90 ^{◦} ).
Fig. 21.
Distance to the minimum point approach (CPRB 90 ^{◦} to 180 ^{◦} ).
Fig. 22.
Distance to the minimum point approach (CPRB 180 ^{◦} to 270 ^{◦} ).
Fig. 23.
Distance to the minimum point approach (CPRB 270 ^{◦} to 360 ^{◦} ).
vessel, are shown in Figs. 20–23. As observed from the ﬁgures,
two minimum distance points are noted around the CPRB,
i.e., θ _{c}_{i}_{,}_{o} (k ) = 175 ^{◦} to 180 ^{◦} , and 350 ^{◦} to 360 ^{◦} . However, the
minimum distance around the CPRB, i.e., θ _{c}_{i}_{,}_{o} (k ) = 175 ^{◦} to
180 ^{◦} , can be ignored since contradictory decision boundary
intersections are not present on this region.
Hence, the minimum distance around the CPRB, i.e.,
θ _{c}_{i}_{,}_{o} (k ) = 350 ^{◦} and 360 ^{◦} , should be further analyzed to observe
any fuzzy rule inference failures in the CAS. The main objective
of this analysis of the minimum distance around the CPRB,
i.e., θ _{c}_{i}_{,}_{o} (k ) = 350 ^{◦} and 360 ^{◦} , is to see whether any fuzzy
rule failure points are hiding around the region. This can be
observed by further zooming the view around the own vessel
initial points and observing the pattern of the relative navigation
trajectory of the target vessel.
The zoomed view of the target vessel relative trajectories
with respect to the CPRB, i.e., θ _{c}_{i}_{,}_{o} (k ) = 350 ^{◦} to 360 ^{◦} , around
the target vessel trajectories startup are presented in Fig. 24,
with the respective trajectories marked as a _{1} , a _{2} , a _{3} , b _{1} , b _{2} , c _{1} ,
c _{2} , d _{1} , d _{2} , d _{3} , and d _{4} . Similarly, the zoomed view of the target
vessel relative trajectories with respect to the CPRB, θ _{c}_{i}_{,}_{o} (k ) =
350 ^{◦} to 360 ^{◦} around the own vessel startup point are presented
The relative minimum distance between the two vessels with in Fig. 25, with the respective relative trajectories marked as
the CPRB, θ _{c}_{i}_{,}_{o} (k ), varying from 0 ^{◦} to 90 ^{◦} , 90 ^{◦} to 180 ^{◦} ,
180 ^{◦} to 270 ^{◦} , and 270 ^{◦} to 360 ^{◦} , with respect to the own
a _{1} , a _{2} , a _{3} , b _{1} , b _{2} , c _{1} , c _{2} , d _{1} , d _{2} , d _{3} , and d _{4} . As presented in
the ﬁgure, the own vessel initial position is bounded by the
PERERA et al.: SOLUTIONS TO FAILURES AND LIMITATIONS OF MAMDANI FUZZY INFERENCE
1551
Fig. 24. Zoomed view of the relative trajectories (CPRB 350 ^{◦} to 360 ^{◦} ) around the Target vessel initial position.
Fig. 25. Zoomed view of the relative trajectories (CPRB 350 ^{◦} to 360 ^{◦} ) around the Own vessel initial position.
relative trajectories of b _{1} and b _{2} that correspond to the minimum
distance between both vessels.
The relative trajectories of c _{1} and c _{2} are also bounded by
the relative trajectories of b _{1} and b _{2} , as observed in Fig. 24.
However, relative trajectories c _{1} and c _{2} shift away from the own
vessel region limited by the relative trajectories of b _{1} and b _{2} .
Further, the relative trajectories near the trajectory of b _{1} , i.e.,
a _{1} , a _{2} , a _{3} , and a _{4} , and b _{2} , i.e., d _{1} , d _{2} , d _{3} , and d _{4} , are also
observed, and all the trajectories shift away from the own vessel
initial position bounded by the relative trajectories of b _{1} and b _{2} .
Therefore, none of the relative trajectories generated around the
CPRB, i.e., θ _{c}_{i}_{,}_{o} (k ) = 350 ^{◦} to 360 ^{◦} , will converge into the own
vessel initial position that is bounded by the relative trajectories
of b _{1} and b _{2} . Hence, one can conclude that the system is free
from fuzzy inference failure points.
As presented in the ﬁgures, with the introduction of the
proper fuzzy smooth regions, the relative trajectory of the target
vessel no longer intercepts the own vessel. Instead, it shifts
its trajectory from one side of the origin to the other side.
The minimum distance between vessels becomes always above
0.02 nmi. One should note that this distance could be changed
by varying the FMF parameters of the PDM module.
B. Simulation of Overall System Performance
The computational simulations for the overall system, i.e.,
the integrated PDM and SAF modules, on a multivessel colli
sion situation are presented in Figs. 26–32. It is assumed that
the target vessels are moving in constant speed and course and
Fig. 26.
Simulations of a multivessel collision situation.
Fig. 27.
Simulations of a multivessel collision situation.
Fig. 28.
Simulations of a multivessel collision situation.
1552
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 63, NO. 4, MAY 2014
Fig. 29. Simulations of a multivessel collision situation.
Fig. 30.
Simulations of a multivessel collision situation.
do not honor any navigational rules and regulations of the sea
to keep the consistency in the collision situation.
In Fig. 26, the own vessel starts navigation from the origin
(0 m, 0 m) and the ﬁrst, second and third target vessels start
from positions (−1475 m, −1400 m), (9500 m, 1000 m), and
(−9220 m, 6500 m), respectively. All startup and ﬁnal positions
of the own and target vessels are represented by vessel shape
icons. The CRA is formulated by a Gaussian distribution and
presented in the x = −8000 m axis. Similarly, the collision
avoidance actions for the course and speed changes formulated
by the Gaussian distributions are presented in the x = −6000 m
and x = −4000 m axis, respectively. The scaled time axis
(actual time × 5s) is presented in the y axis, and the scaled
collision risk (%), course actions (%)and speed actions (%) are
presented in the xaxis.
In Fig. 26, the system has observed one possible collision
situation, and the respective collision avoidance actions of “no
Fig. 31.
Simulations of a multivessel collision situation.
Fig. 32.
Simulations of a multivessel collision situation.
avoid the ﬁrst target vessel, are presented. Fig. 27 shows the
completion of the ﬁrst action segment of collision avoidance.
In the same ﬁgure, the second target vessel is detected, and
the respective collision risk and collision avoidance actions of
“course to starboard” and “speed reduction” to avoid the second
target vessel are presented. In Fig. 28, the third target vessel
is detected, and the respective collision avoidance actions of
course to the port and no speed change to avoid the third target
vessel are presented. One should note that, in the same ﬁgure,
both vessels (i.e., own vessel and ﬁrst target vessel) are moving
in a close encounter situation without any collision risk.
Fig. 29 shows the subcompletion of the second action seg
ment of the collision avoidance actions, consisting in “speed
reduction” and continuation of “course change to starboard”
side by the own vessel. In Fig. 30, the own vessel is about
to safely pass the ﬁrst target vessel and the completion of the
second action segment of the collision avoidance actions. In
Fig. 31, the own vessel is about to safely pass the second target
course change” and “speed reduction,” which are taken to vessel and the completion of the third action segment of the
PERERA et al.: SOLUTIONS TO FAILURES AND LIMITATIONS OF MAMDANI FUZZY INFERENCE
1553
collision avoidance. Finally, the completion of all the collision
avoidance actions without collision risk and safe passing of
the second and third target vessel trajectories are presented in
Fig. 32. The own vessel speed, course, position and time values
are shown on top of the respective ﬁgures.
_{V}_{I}_{I}_{I}_{.} _{C} ONCLUSION AND F UTURE W ORK
Fuzzylogicbased systems have been implemented in sev
eral industrial applications. However, the FMF failures and
limitations in those systems have not been properly identiﬁed
in the recent literature. Therefore, this paper has shown how
Mamdanitype fuzzy inference failures observed in ship naviga
tion can be avoided and what the limitations are of the proposed
solutions. The overall proposed system consists of a fuzzy
logicbased PDM module and a Bayesiannetworkbased SAF
module that improves the decisionmaking process of a CAS
based on COLREGs rules and human expert knowledge in ship
navigation.
As was shown in the presented computational simulations,
successful results were obtained when applying the proposed
solutions of inserting a smooth transition region between
intersected contradictory decision inference boundaries, de
termining the proper size limitations between nonintersected
contradictorydecision inference regions and introducing a
“secondarylevel” decision/action formulation module to over
come “singlelevel” rule inference failures in the FMFs.
Although the results are promising, as future work it is
expected that improvements can be obtained by optimizing
the parameters in the FMFs. These parameters are somewhat
related to the navigational characteristics of the own vessel as
well as the navigational sensor capabilities. Therefore, further
studies should be developed to improve the identiﬁcation of the
parameters of the FMFs. Furthermore, an experimental imple
mentation of the CAS is shown in [37] and [38], and some pre
liminary experimental results with the respective videos of the
ship maneuvers can be found at www.youtube.com/thecentec.
To conclude, one should note that, although the proposed
solutions were developed with collision avoidance in ocean
navigation in mind, they can be applied on any Mamdanitype
fuzzylogicbased navigation system that suffers from similar
rule inference failures.
_{R} EFERENCES
[1] L. A. Zadeh, “A new direction in AI–toward a computational theory of perceptions,” AI Magazine, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 73–84, Jan. 2001. [2] UmmeHabiba and S. Asghar, “A survey on multicriteria decision mak ing approaches,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Emerging Technol., 2009,
pp. 321–325. [3] R. C. Kwok, J. Ma, and D. Zhou, “Improving group decision making: A fuzzy logic approach,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. C, Appl. Rev., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 54–63, Feb. 2002. [4] P. Khatun, C. M. Bingham, N. Schoﬁeld, and P. H. Mellor, “Application of fuzzy control algorithms for electric vehicle antilock braking/traction control systems,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 1356– 1364, Sep. 2003.
[5]
C. Y. Jung, H. Y. Hwang, D. K. Sung, and G. U. Hwang, “Enhanced Markov chain model and throughput analysis of the slotted CSMA/CA for IEEE 802.15.4 under unsaturated trafﬁc conditions,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 473–478, Jan. 2009.
[6] L. Xiang, “A new enterprise customer and supplier cooperative system framework based on multiple criteria decisionmaking,” in Proc. IEEE Comput. Soc. 3rd Int. Conf. Syst., 2008, pp. 300–305. [7] M. L. Smith, “Sensors, appliance control and fuzzy logic,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 305–310, Mar./Apr. 1994. [8] T. L. Hardy, “Multiobjective decisionmaking under uncertainty:
Fuzzy logic method,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, USA, NASA Tech. Memo. 106796–Comput. Aerosp. 10 Meet., Mar. 1995. [9] H. J. Rommelfanger, “Multicriteria decision making using fuzzy logic,” in Proc. Conf. NAFIPS, Aug. 1998, pp. 360–364. [10] T. Ozen, J. M. Garibaldi, and S. Musikasuwan, “Modeling the variation in human decision making,” in Proc. IEEE Annu. Meet. NAFIPS, Jun. 2004, vol. 2, pp. 617–622. [11] Y. Chen and S. Yasunobu, “Fuzzy target based soft decisions for mo bile vehicle in dynamic environment,” in Proc. 7th World Congr. Intell. Control Autom., Chongquig, China, Jun. 2008, pp. 800–805. [12] R. A. Hogle and P. P. Bonissone, “A fuzzy algorithm for path selection in autonomous vehicle navigation,” in Proc. 23rd Conf. Decision Control, Las Vegas, NV, USA, Dec. 2004, pp. 898–900. [13] H. Seraji and A. Howard, “Behaviorbased robot navigation on challeng ing terrain: A fuzzy logic approach,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 308–321, Jun. 2002. [14] H. Seraji and B. Bon, “Autonomous navigation of planetary rovers: A fuzzy logic approach,” Jet Propulsion Lab., Pasadena, CA, USA, JPL Internal Document, 1998. [15] A. Fatmi, A. A. Yahmadi, L. Khriji, and N. Masmoudi, “A fuzzy logic based navigation of a mobile robot,” in Proc. 22nd World Academy Sci., Eng. Technol., 2006, pp. 169–174. [16] T. E. Mora and E. N. Sanchez, “Fuzzy logicbased realtime navigation
controller for a mobile robot,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robot Syst., Victoria, BC, Canada, Oct. 1998, pp. 612–617. [17] I. N. D. Silva, F. A. C. Gomide, and W. C. D. Amaral, “Navigation of mobile robots using fuzzy logic controllers,” in Proc. AMC IEEE , Coimbra, Portugal, 1998, pp. 346–349. [18] A. Babalou and N. Seiﬁpour, “Application of fuzzy decisions making in mobile robot navigation in dynamic environments,” in Proc. FuzzIEEE , Jeju, Korea, Aug. 2009, pp. 877–881. [19] S. M. Raguraman, D. Tamilselvi, and N. Shivakumar, “Mobile robot nav igation using fuzzy logic controller,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Control, Autom., Commun. Energy Conserv., Jun. 2009, pp. 1–5. [20] M. A. Hersh, “Sustainable decision making: The role of decision support systems,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. C, Appl. Rev., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 395–407, Aug. 1999. [21] S. Thongchi and K. Kawamura, “Application of fuzzy control to a sonar based obstacle avoidance mobile robot,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Control Appl., Anchorage, AK, USA, Sep. 2000, pp. 425–430. [22] T. I. Fossen, Ed., Recent developments in Ship Control Systems Design. London, U.K.: Sterling, 1999, ser. World Superyacht Review. [23] K. Ohtsu, “Recent development on analysis and control of ship’s motions,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Control Appl., Aug. 1999, pp. 1096–1103. [24] L. Moreira, T. I. Fossen, and C. Guedes Soares, “Path following control system for a tanker ship model,” Ocean Eng., vol. 34, no. 14/15, pp. 2074– 2085, Oct. 2007. [25] K. D. Do and J. Pan, “Robust pathfollowing of underactuated ships:
Theory and experiments on a model ship,” Ocean Eng., vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 1354–1372, Jul. 2006. [26] T. Statheros, G. Howells, and K. McDonaldMaier, “Autonomous ship collision avoidance navigation concepts, technologies and techniques,” J. Navigat., vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 129–142, Jan. 2008. [27] Int. Maritime Org., Convention on the international regulations for pre venting collisions at sea (COLREGs), 1972. [Online]. Available: http:// www.imo.org/
[28]
A. N. Cockcroft and J. N. F. Lameijer, A Guide to The Collision Avoidance
Rules. Burlington, MA, USA: Elsevier, 2001. [29] K. Hasegawa, “Automatic collision avoidance system for ship using fuzzy control,” in Proc. 8th Ship Control Syst. Symp., 1987, pp. 234–258. [30] J. Zhao, M. Tan, W. G. Price, and P. A. Wilson, “DCPA simulation model for automatic collision avoidance decision making systems using fuzzy sets,” in Proc. OCEANS, Brest, France, 1994, vol. 2, pp. 244–249. [31] S. Lee, K. Kwon, and J. Joh, “A fuzzy logic for autonomous navigation of marine vehicles satisfying colreg guidelines,” Int. J. Control Autom. Syst., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 171–181, Jun. 2004. [32] L. P. Perera, P. Oliveira, and C. Guedes Soares, “Vessel detection, track
ing, state estimation and navigation trajectory prediction for the vessel
1554
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 63, NO. 4, MAY 2014
trajectory monitoring and information proces,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1188–1200, Sep. 2012. [33] L. P. Perera and C. Guedes Soares, “Detections of potential collision situations by relative motions of vessels under parameter uncertain ties,” in Sustainable Maritime Transportation Exploitation Sea Resources, E. Rizzuto and C. Guedes Soares, Eds. London, U.K.: Taylor & Francis, 2012, pp. 705–713. [34] L. P. Perera and C. Guedes Soares, “Vectorproduct based Collision Esti mation and Detection in eNavigation,” in Proc. 9th IFAC Conf. MCMC , Arenzano, Italy, 2012. [35] L. P. Perera, J. P. Carvalho, and C. Guedes Soares, “Intelligent ocean nav igation & FuzzyBayesian decisionaction formulation,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 204–219, Apr. 2012. [36] L. P. Perera, J. P. Carvalho, and C. Guedes Soares, “Fuzzylogic based decision making system for collision avoidance of ocean navigation un der critical collision conditions,” J. Marine Sci. Technol., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 84–99, Mar. 2011.
[37] L. P. Perera, L. Moreira, F. P. Santos, V. Ferrari, S. Sutulo, and C. Guedes Soares, “A navigation and control platform for realtime manoeuvring of autonomous ship Models,” in Proc. 9th IFAC Conf. MCMC , Arenzano, Italy, 2012.
[38]
L. P. Perera, V. Ferrari, F. P. Santos, M. A. Hinostroza, and C. Guedes Soares, “Experimental results in collisions avoidance of ship manoeu vres,” presented at the 32nd Int. International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering (OMAE), Nantes, France, Jun. 2013
OMAE201311265.
J. P. Carvalho (M’12) received the Licentiate, M.Sc., and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, in 1992, 1996, and 2002, re spectively, all in electrical and computer engineering. Since 1991, he has been a Researcher with the Institute of Systems and Computer Engineering– Research and Development in Lisbon, Instituto Su perior Técnico, University of Lisbon, where until 2008, he was with the Soft Computing Group. He is currently a Senior Researcher with the Spoken Lan guage Systems Laboratory, Institute of Systems and Computer Engineering–Research and Development, Lisbon. Since 1998, he has taught courses on computational intelligence, distributed systems, computer architectures, and digital circuits. He is currently an Assistant Professor with the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computation, Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon. He is the coauthor of over 70 papers in inter national scientiﬁc journals, book chapters, and peerreviewed conferences. His main research interests include the application of computational intelligence techniques to solve problems in noncomputingrelated areas.
Lokukaluge P. Perera received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in mechanical engineering from Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA, in 1999 and 2001, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in naval ar chitecture and marine engineering from the Techni cal University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, in 2012. He is currently with the Center for Marine Tech nology and Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon. Dr. Perera received Doctoral and Postdoctoral Fellowships from the Foundation for Science and Technology of Portugal in 2008 and 2012, respectively.
C. Guedes Soares received the M.S. degree in ocean engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Tech nology, Cambridge, MA, USA, in 1976; the Ph.D. degree from the Norwegian Institute of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, in 1984; and the Doctor of Science degree from the Technical Univer sity of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, in 1991. He is currently a Professor of naval architecture and marine engineering and the President of the Center for Marine Technology and Engineering, Uni versity of Lisbon, which is recognized and funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology.