You are on page 1of 10

DOI 10.1515/rnam-2014-0006 | Russ. J. Numer. Anal. Math.

Modelling 2014; 29 (2):6978

Valeriy I. Agoshkov, Anton O. Zayachkovskiy*, Robert Aps, Pentti Kujala, and Jorma
Rytknen
Risk theory based solution to the problem of optimal
vessel route
Abstract: The problem of ship route optimization is studied in the paper. A functional is introduced so that it
includes the terms corresponding to the deviation of the ship trajectory from the preliminary route and to the
risk of crossing for the trajectories of the ship and a dynamically moving dangerous object. The minimization
problem of the introduced functional is posed to determine the optimal route of the ship. The problem is
studied for the solvability, the existence, and uniqueness conditions are obtained for the solution. Results of
numerical experiments are presented.

Keywords: Valuation of vessel route, risk theory nonlinear problem, solvability conditions of variational prob-
lem.

MSC: 49K20

||
Valeriy I. Agoshkov: Institute of Numerical Mathematics Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 119333, Russia
*Corresponding Author: Anton O. Zayachkovskiy: Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 119991, Russia. E-mail: an-
ton@adeq.inm.ras.ru
Robert Aps: University of Tartu, Estonian Marine Institute, Tallinn, Estonia
Pentti Kujala: Aalto University, School of Engineering, Helsinki, Finland
Jorma Rytknen: Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland

Modern navigation is a complicated process controlling a vessel with the main goal to provide a safe and eco-
nomical motion. The main aim of navigation is to provide the safety of sailing in any conditions. Based on this
primary objective, modern navigation provides the solution to the following particular targets: preliminary
choice of the most favorable route of the ship, navigating the ship on a pre-planned way and monitoring its
sailing, study of external factors affecting the motion of the ship, the nature of this influence, and methods
of its accounting. Based on data obtained before the voyage, preliminary routing and calculations are per-
formed. The peculiarities of the ship targets are taken into account in the choice of the route, as well as the
navigation, hydrographic and hydrometeorological conditions of the voyage.
Different methods and approaches are used to calculate optimal routes and extensive literature relates to
this subject. In essence, ship routing according to advisable routes is a process of forecasting a path following
which the ship is due to sail in the most favorable weather and roughness conditions and according to the
planned schedule. As a rule, in the case of good weather and low roughness, vessels take the shortest paths. In
some sense these are preliminary optimal routes calculated and recommended by shipping support services.
When a ship follows a preliminary optimal route, new information may appear concerning, for example,
a cyclone with a known trajectory, or information on a possible traversing the route of another ship, etc. A
problem of ship route correction arises in this case, i.e., we have to determine a new optimal route with a
lower risk of it traversing the trajectories of a cyclone or other ships, with maximum possible minimization
of expenses cased by the change of the ship route. In order to determine the optimal solution, we have to
solve minimization problems for special functionals, including cost functionals for ship deviations from pre-
calculated routes and functionals for various kinds of risks [6, 7, 11].
In this paper we consider the problem of ship routing in the case of possible traversing the trajectory of
another object and certain approaches to its solution. These approaches are based on the theory of random
functions and on the risk theory. We use the well-known methods of study and solution of extreme prob-
lems [13].

Brought to you by | University of Victoria McPherson Library Serials


Authenticated
Download Date | 6/6/15 3:18 AM
70 | V. I. Agoshkov et al, The problem of optimal ship route

1 Mathematical formulation of the problem


Let the movement of the ship (routing) occur in a bounded domain from R2 with a Lipschitzian piecewise-
smooth boundary . For the sake of simplicity, we restrict ourselves with consideration of the rectangular
coordinate system x (x1 , x2 ) . Denote the sailing trajectory of the ship by X(t) = (X1 (t), X2 (t)) (ship
route), where t [0, T] is the time, T < . Assume | dX/ dt| (( dX1 / dt)2 + ( dX2 / dt)2 )1/2 < t [0, T],
i.e., the ship can move with a finite speed only. By X (0) (t) = (X1(0) (t), X2(0) (t)) we denote the preliminary optimal
trajectory of the ship pre-calculated and recommended by shipping support services. We assume that the
following conditions hold:

X(0) = X (0) (0) = X(0) , X(T) = X (0) (T) = X(T)

i.e., both the required trajectory X(t) and the preliminary one X (0) (t) start at the same point X(0) for t = 0 and
end at the same point X(T) for t = T.
Introduce the following functional:

ZT
1 d(X X (0) ) 2

J1 (X) J1 (X, X (0) ) = k1 (t) dt (1.1)
2 dt
0

where X(t) = (X1 (t), X2 (t)) is the ship trajectory in the case of a risk (this will be discussed below), X (0) (t) is
the optimal trajectory calculated in advance without taking into account the possible risk. The functions
X i (t), X (0)
i (t), i = 1, 2, are extended to R by the constant X (0),i for t < 0 and by the constant X (T),i for t > T. The
coefficient k1 (t) is a positive smooth function for any t.
Functional (1.1) can be considered as costs (penalty) related to the deviations of the ship trajectory from
X (0) .

Remark 1.1. Note that we may consider the following more general functional:

ZT
d(X X (0) ) 2
 
1

(0) 2
J1 (X) = k1 (t) + k0 (t)|X X | dt
2 dt
0

where 0 6 k0 (t) 6 . However, in order to simplify the presentation, below we consider J1 in form (1.1).

Now suppose we have got information that a moving object appears within the time of the voyage and the
meeting with it may represent a certain danger to the ship, for example, this may be another ship (or a ty-
= (Y
phoon) and the collision may lead to extremely undesirable consequences. By Y(t) (t)) we denote
(t), Y
1 2

the trajectory of that dangerous object and consider Y(t) as a random variable varying in time, i.e., as a ran-
dom process [13]. For definiteness sake, at each fixed time moment t [0, T] we consider the random process
as a random variable governed by the following two-dimensional normal distribution law:
Y
1 2 2 1 2 2
f (x) f1 (x1 ) f2 (x2 ) = e(x1 Y1 (t)) /(21 ) e(x2 Y2 (t)) /(22 )
21 22
determined by the mathematical expectation Y i (t) and the mean square deviation i of the ith normal distri-
bution, i = 1, 2. By definition, the nonrandom function Y i (t) determines the mathematical expectation of the
random process [13]. The vector Y(t) = (Y1 (t), Y2 (t)) can be interpreted as the most probable trajectory of the
object representing the danger. The parameters 1 and 2 are set to be equal to some small positive value ,
i.e.,
1 = 2 = > 0.
= (Y
Thus, we have specified the following random process Y(t) (t), Y
(t)) with the mathematical expec-
1 2
tation Y(t), the variance , and the probability density f (t, x):
1 ((x1 Y1 (t))2 +(x2 Y2 (t))2 )/(22 )
f (t, x) = e .
22

Brought to you by | University of Victoria McPherson Library Serials


Authenticated
Download Date | 6/6/15 3:18 AM
V. I. Agoshkov et al, The problem of optimal ship route | 71

Note that in particular practical problems the probability density f (t, x) may be calculated on the base of
data related to probabilities of dangerous events in the sea (see, e.g., [13, 1417]).
We measure the risk using the approach of [17] based on the measurement of losses in an unfavorable
case. The risk measure R is represented in this approach by the pair consisting of the probability P of an
unfavorable event and the consequence Q of its occurrence (losses). In the general case the following formula
is valid:
R = P Q.
It is known from [12, 17] that if there are several (say, N) outcomes representing unfavorable events with
the probabilities P i and the corresponding losses Q i , i = 1, ..., N, then
N
X
R= Pi Qi .
i=1

We consider the case of not discrete, but continuous random variable Z given on R with the distribution
density f (t). Let N and take into account that [13]

P{t 6 Z < t + t} f (t)t.

In this case we get


N
X ZT
R = lim Pi Qi = f (t)Q(t) dt.
N
i=1 0

Note also that this form of the functional R represents just the mathematical expectation of the loss func-
tion Q(t).
Under the risk conditions of traversing the trajectory of another object the mathematical expectation of
the loss function is calculated as
ZT
J2 = M[Q] = f (t, X(t)) Q(t) dt.
0

Let the loss resulting from the critical situation be Q = const > 0, for example, this may be the possible
damage to the ship or the cargo in this critical situation.
Now we form the functional
J (X) = J1 (X) + J2 (X),
where > 0 is the weighting coefficient. Taking different values for , we can consider different cases of the
optimal ship routing problem.
Formulate the following problem: calculate the trajectory X(t) (W21 (0, T))2 so that

J (X()) = inf J (X(t)) (1.2)


X (W21 ([0, T]))2
X(0) = X(0) , X(T) = X(T)

is the optimal ship routing problem under a possible crossing of its route with the trajectory of another object.
If we assume = 0, or 0 < 1, this means that we consider the problem with a negligible risk of
collision and, obviously, here we have X X (0) . If 1, then the risk term in J can become dominant and
we probably have to make a decision to change the trajectory X(t) essentially in comparison with X (0) and
thus incur considerable additional expense in order to minimize the risk.

Brought to you by | University of Victoria McPherson Library Serials


Authenticated
Download Date | 6/6/15 3:18 AM
72 | V. I. Agoshkov et al, The problem of optimal ship route

2 Solvability of the problem and the variational equation


Suppose X(t) is the solution to minimization problem (1.2) formulated above. In this case it necessarily satis-
fies the variational equation (Eulers necessary optimality condition) [4], i.e.,

ZT !
d(X X (0) ) d
J = k1 (t) + Q f (t, X) dt = 0
dt dt
0

X (W 12 (0, T))2

where  f
1 f2 
f (t, X) = (t, X1 )f2 (t, X2 ), f1 (t, X1 ) (t, X2 ) .
x1 x2
Let X be a smooth trajectory, for example, X (0) (W22 (0, T))2 . Assuming that X(t) is smooth, the vari-
(0)

ational equation implies the following classic variational problem:

d(X X (0) )
 
d
k1 (t) + Q f (t, X(t)) = 0, t (0, T)

dt dt (2.1)
X(0) = X(0) , X(T) = X(T) .


Let x(t) X(t) X (0) (t). In this case x(t) (x1 (t), x2 (t)) (W 12 (0, T))2 satisfies the system
 
d k (t) dx + Q f (t, x + X (0) ) = 0, t (0, T)
1
dt dt (2.2)
x(0) = x(T) = 0

or, in the component-wise notation,


 
d dx1

f

k 1 (t) +Q (t, x + X (0) ) = 0
dt  dt  x1


d dx f
k1 (t) 2 + Q (t, x + X (0) ) = 0, t (0, T)
dt dt x

2



x1 = x2 = 0 t = 0, t = T.

Let us study the issues related to the solvability of problem (1.2). Apply the arguments similar to those
from [3] where the case of stationary danger was considered. The difference is that in this paper we consider
a moving dynamic danger and certain expressions that used to be deterministic now take a functional form.
First we consider the properties of the functional J2 . Write J2 as a functional for the increment x(t)

(X X (0) ) (W 12 (0, T))2 taking into account that (t1 , t2 ) (0, T), we have

ZT
(0) 1
J2 (x) J2 (X + x) Q f (t, x(t)) dt
22
0

where
(0) 2 2
f (t, x) f1 (t, x1 ) f2 (t, x2 ), f i (t, x i ) = e((x i + X i Y i (t)) )(2 ) .
Note that the expressions for the first and second Gteaux derivatives of J2 (x) have the form

ZT
1
DJ2 (x, h) hF(x), hi Q f h dt
22
0
f  
f 2 (x 1 + X 1(0) Y 1 (t)), (x 2 + X 2(0) Y 2 (t))

ZT
2 1 f
D J2 (x; h1 , h2 ) hF (x)h1 , h2 i Q 4 A(t, x) h1 h2 dt
22
0

Brought to you by | University of Victoria McPherson Library Serials


Authenticated
Download Date | 6/6/15 3:18 AM
V. I. Agoshkov et al, The problem of optimal ship route | 73


where h, h1 , h2 (W 12 (0, T))2 and the matrix A(t, x) = A T (t, x) {a ij (t, x)} has the following elements:
2
a ii = (x i + X (0) 2
i Y i (t)) , i = 1, 2
a12 = a21 = (x1 + X1(0) Y1 (t)) (x2 + X2(0) Y2 (t)).

The eigenvalues of the matrix A(t, x) have the form


2 2
1 = 2 , 2 = (x1 + X1(0) Y1 (t)) + (x2 + X2(0) Y2 (t)) 2 .

Therefore, for any vector functions x, h (W 12 (0, T))2 we have
(Q)
D2 J2 (x; h, h) = hF (x)h, hi > khk2L2 (0,T))2 .
24

Consider the function ( ) of the form ( ) hF(x), xi for [0, 1] and some x (W 12 (0, T))2 . Note
that for kxk2(L2 (0,T))2 < we have
ZT
Q Q
(a) |(0)| = |hF(0), xi| |X (0) a| |x | dt 6 kX (0) ak(L2 (0,T))2
24 24
0
ZT
d 1 f d( ) Q1

(b) ( ) = Q A(x) x x dt, 6 C0 kxk2(L2 (0,T))2
d 22 4 d 26
0

where C0 = max(|1 |, |2 |) 6 const < providing the domain is bounded.


In this case the following formula is valid for any [0, 1]:

Z

( ) = ( ) d + (0)

0

which, in particular, implies the continuity of ( ) with respect to , i.e.,


C0 Q
|( + ) ( )| 6 | | .
26

Thus, the function hF(x), xi is continuous with respect to on [0,1] for any x (W 12 (0, T))2 .
The functional J1 (x) J1 (x + X (0) ) is quadratic and satisfies the estimate

k(0)  2
J1 (x) > 1
kx k2(L2 (0,T))2
2 T
where k(0)
1 = mint[0,T] k 1 (t) > 0, and the following evident relations also hold:

ZT
dx 2
2  2
(0) dx

hJ 1 (x), x i = k1 (t) dt > k1 > k(0)
1 kx k2(L2 (0,T))2
dt dt (L2 (0,T))2 T

0
ZT
dh 2
 2
(0)

hJ 1 (x)h, hi = k1 (t) dt > k1 khk2(L2 (0,T))2 .
dt T
0

Below we suppose that the following inequality is valid:

2 3 4 k(0)
1
Q < . (2.3)
T2
Let (2.3) hold, the properties of the functionals J1 (x) and J2 (x) be valid, and take into account the theorems
of nonlinear analysis from [15, 16]. In this case the functional J = J1 + J2 and its gradient DJ F possess
the following relation and properties:

Brought to you by | University of Victoria McPherson Library Serials


Authenticated
Download Date | 6/6/15 3:18 AM
74 | V. I. Agoshkov et al, The problem of optimal ship route


(a) the function hF (x), xi is continuous with respect to on [0,1] for any x (W 12 (0, T))2 ;

(b) hF (x + h) F (x), hi > 0 for all x, h (W 12 (0, T))2 , i.e., F is a monotone operator and J is a convex
one. Moreover, the operator F is strictly monotone and J is strictly convex.
hF (x), x i
(c) lim > C = const > 0, therefore, F is coercive.
kxk 1 2
k x k2
(W2 (0,T))
(W12 (0,T))2

Based on the properties of the functional J established above, we get the following result.

Theorem 2.1. Let condition (2.3) hold. Then in any finite neighbourhood S {X (W 12 (0, T))2 : kX
X (0) k 1 2
6 r < } of the vector function X (0) there exists an inner point X S where J attains the
(W2 (0,T))

absolute minimum and X satisfies the equation hJ (X), hi = 0 h (W 12 (0, T))2 , i.e., X is the solution to
problem (1.2).

Proof. Consider the functional J (x) with x X X (0) . In this case problem (1.2) is equivalent to the problem

of determination of the minimal value of J (x) for x (W 12 (0, T))2 . Properties (a)(c) have been already
established for J (x). In addition, under the validity of (2.3) we have

hJ (x)h, hi > 0 x, h (W 12 (0, T))2 .

Therefore, the functional J (x) is semicontinuous from below on any S r = {x (W 12 (0, T))2 :
kx k 1 2
6 r} (see Theorems 8.5, 8.6 from [15]).
(W2 (0,T))
Now, based on generalized Weierstrass theorems and theorems on the existence of critical points (see
26 from [16]), we conclude that S r contains the unique inner point x0 of the absolute minimum of the func-
tional J and x0 satisfies the equation J (x0 ) = 0, which in its classic form is just (2.2). If we introduce the
vector function X x0 + X (0) , then this function is the solution to problem (1.2). This solution is unique and
satisfies (2.1).
Problem (2.1) can be solved approximately by different methods. We consider one of them in the next section.

3 Approximate solution of the problem


The solution to minimization problem (1.2) formulated here is a function X(t) satisfying system (2.1) under
condition (2.3), which, assuming the change x(t) = X(t) X (0) (t), is the solution to the equation J (x) = 0
under condition (5). The equation J (x) = 0 is nonlinear with a given initial guess for the point of minimum of
the functional J given as a preliminary optimal trajectory X (0) of the ship motion. We construct an iterative
method on the base of Newtons method [5] for solution of the nonlinear equation taking into account the
peculiarities of the problem formulated here.
Rewrite the equation  
d dx
k1 (t) + Q f (t, x + X (0) ) = 0
dt dt
in the form  
d dx
k1 (t) + g(x) = 0. (3.1)
dt dt
Replace g(x) in (3.1) by a truncated Tailor series, i.e.,
g(x) g(x k ) + (x x k )g (x k )
where x k is the approximate solution to (3.1) on the kth iteration.
We get the iterative process of the following form: given the iterative solution x k , the next approximation
x k+1 is determined from the equation
dx k+1
 
d
k1 (t) + g(x k ) + (x k+1 x k )g (x k ) = 0. (3.2)
dt dt

Brought to you by | University of Victoria McPherson Library Serials


Authenticated
Download Date | 6/6/15 3:18 AM
V. I. Agoshkov et al, The problem of optimal ship route | 75

Let us study the convergence of this iterative method. Let v = {x : kx X kH < v}. Let for some v, v1 , v2 ,
0 < v, 0 6 v1 , v2 < , the following conditions hold:
1
k( g (X)) kY 6 v1 , x v (3.3)

kg(u 1 ) g(u 2 ) g (u 2 )(u 1 u 2 )kY 6 v2 ku 2 u 1 k2H (3.4)

for u1 , u2 v . Denote v1,2 = v1 v2 , u1,2 = min{v, v1


1,2 }.

Theorem 3.1. Under conditions (3.3), (3.4), and x0 u1,2 iterative process (3.2) converges with the error esti-
mate
2n
kx k X kH 6 v1 0
1,2 (v 1,2 k x X kH ) . (3.5)

Proof. Let x0 u1,2 . Using induction over n, prove that all x k u1,2 . Let this assertion be proved for a
certain n; since u1,2 6 v, we have x k v . Substituting u1 = X and u2 = x k into (3.4), we get

kg(X) g(x k ) g (x k )(X x k )kY 6 v2 kx k X k2H .

Since g(x k ) = g (x k )(x k+1 x k ) and g(x) = d/ dt k1 (t) dx/ dt , this relation can be rewritten in the form


kg (x k )(x k+1 X)kY 6 v2 kx k X k2H .

Using (3.3), we obtain the inequality

k(x k+1 X)kH 6 v1,2 kx k X k2H . (3.6)

This implies
k(x k+1 X)kH < v1,2 u 21,2 6 b,

therefore, x k+1 belongs to u1,2 too. Thus, for x0 u1,2 all x k belong to u1,2 and hence (3.6) is valid for them.
Let q k = v1,2 k(x k X)kH . After multiplication by v1,2 inequality (3.6) can be written in the form q k+1 6 q2k .
n
Using induction over k, prove the inequality q k 6 q20 . For k = 0 it is obvious. Suppose it holds for k = n. We
n k+1 n
get q n+1 6 q2n 6 (q20 )2 = q20 . Thus, q k 6 q20 for all k. This means

2k
v1,2 k(x k X)kH 6 (v1,2 kx0 X k2H ) .

The latter expression implies (3.5). According to the definitions of v1,2 and u1,2 , we have

v1,2 k(x0 X)kH < v1,2 u1,2 6 1

and hence x k X.

4 Numerical experiments
Numerical calculations implementing the algorithms presented in this paper correspond to the problem of a
collision risk for two ships in the water area of the Baltic Sea (in the Gulf of Finland).
The Gulf of Finland has one of the densest maritime traffic in the world. The Gulf of Finland Mandatory
Ship Reporting System (GOFREP), which is a complex socio-technical maritime traffic safety system, has been
in efficient operation since 2004 and is open to further improvement and development [14]. Based on the
results of this study on the risk theory-based ship route optimization, it is suggested to amend the GOFREP
system according to the Concept of Systems-Theoretic Accident Model and Processes (STAMP) with the aim
to improve further the maritime traffic safety in the Gulf of Finland. According to Leveson [8], the STAMP-
related safety is viewed . . . as a control problem, and safety is managed by a control structure embedded

Brought to you by | University of Victoria McPherson Library Serials


Authenticated
Download Date | 6/6/15 3:18 AM
76 | V. I. Agoshkov et al, The problem of optimal ship route

Figure 1. AB is the ship route (preliminary blue, optimal green), A1 B1 is the trajectory of danger (red).

Figure 2. AB is the ship route (preliminary blue, optimal green), A1 B1 is the trajectory of danger (red).

in an adaptive socio-technical system .... The author continues: In systems theory terminology, safety is
an emergent property that arises when the system components interact within an environment. Emergent
properties are controlled or enforced by a set of constraints (control laws) related to the behaviour of the
system components. Accidents result from a lack of appropriate constraints on the interactions. The STAMP
model of accident causation is built on three basic concepts: safety constraints, a hierarchical safety control
structure, and process models [9]. The presented approach and the solution to the risk theory-based ship route
optimization is seen as the first step in creating the STAMP-based operational process model for the Gulf of
Finland maritime traffic safety management. In a wider context, for example, the developed approach and the
algorithms can contribute towards international activities aiming at developing and testing new models in
route planning based on the existing Electronic Nautical Charts and the Automatic Identification System [10].

Brought to you by | University of Victoria McPherson Library Serials


Authenticated
Download Date | 6/6/15 3:18 AM
V. I. Agoshkov et al, The problem of optimal ship route | 77

Performing numerical experiments, preliminary ship routes and also the probabilities of a collision and
the corresponding material loss were specified according to www.marinetraffic.com. We chose several regions
of high maritime traffic in the Baltic Sea and some of the main European ports. We considered a part of a ship
route where the preliminary routes were dangerously close or even overlapped. We calculated the case of a
critical situation with traversing merchant ship routes between Estonia and Finland and Saint Petersburg. The
calculations were performed on a 5-kilometer grid with the resolution of 11/180 in the latitude and 8/180
in the longitude. The calculations corresponded to zero wind and roughness. The results of the calculations
are presented in Figs. 12.
Replacing the preliminary route by the optimal one decreased the ship collision risk. Although the tra-
jectories overlap, it is worth noting that the ships pass the same physical coordinates at different times which
means that a dangerous situation does not occur. It is well seen from the figures how the optimal route AB
changes under the consideration of the danger A1 B1 .

5 Conclusion
It is not difficult to see that the problem considered above can be easily extended to the case of N possible
critical situations. In this case the functional J2 may be given in the following form:

N Z T

Q(n) (t) f (n) (X(t)) dt


X
J2 (X) = (5.1)
n=1 0

where Q(n) (t) and f (n) (X(t)) have the same physical sense as Q(t) and f (X(t)) in the above problem, but only
for the nth critical situation.
Similar to the above presentation, one can consider a solution algorithm for other optimal ship route
problems formulated in the first section. Obviously, each of those problems has its specific features, which
affects both the solution and the algorithms of their study. However, the methodology based on the theory
of random functions, risk theory, and extreme problems solution methods may form the common technique
for such problems.

Funding: The work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project 130100753), by
the Estonian Science Foundation (grant No. 7609), Estonian target financing program SF0180104s08, Esto-
nian Environmental Investment Centre and by the Central Baltic INTERREG IVA Programme Project MIMIC
Minimizing risks of maritime oil transport by holistic safety strategies.

References
[1] V. I. Agoshkov, Adjoint equations and perturbation algorithms in the problem of optimal trajectories. In: Computational
Mathematics and Mathematical Modelling. Proc. Int. Conf. Vol. 1 (Ed. V. P. Dymnikov), INM RAS, Moscow, 2000, pp. 3653.

[2] V. I. Agoshkov, Methods of Optimal Control and Adjoint Equations in Problems of Mathematical Physics. INM RAS, Moscow,
2003 (in Russian).

[3] V. I. Agoshkov, and A. O. Zayachkovskii, The study and solution algorithms for the problem of optimal ship routing based
on the risk theory and remote danger sensing. Contemp. Problems Earth Remote Sensing from Outer Space 9 (2012), No. 3,
917.

[4] V. M. Alekseev, V. M. Tikhomirov, and S. V. Fomin, Optimal Control. Fizmatlit, Moscow, 2007 (in Russian).

[5] N. S. Bakhvalov, N. P. Zhidkov, and G. M. Kobelkov, Numerical Methods. BINOM, Moscow, 2003 (in Russian).

[6] D. J. Dankel, R. Aps, G. Padda, C. Rckmann, J. P. van der Sluijs, D. C. Wilson, and P. Degnbol, Advice under uncertainty in
the marine system. ICES J. Marine Sci. 69 (2012), No. 1, 37.

Brought to you by | University of Victoria McPherson Library Serials


Authenticated
Download Date | 6/6/15 3:18 AM
78 | V. I. Agoshkov et al, The problem of optimal ship route

[7] M. Leppranta, J. Rytknen, and S. Knuuttila, Maritime risk and safety. In: The Gulf of Finland: FinnishRussianEstonian
Cooperation to Protect the Marine Environment. History and Prospects for the Future (Ed. J.-M. Rintala and K. Myrberg).
Ministry of the Environment of Finland, Helsinki, 2009, pp. 3132.

[8] N. G. Leveson, A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Safety Science 42 (2004), No. 4, 237270.

[9] N. G. Leveson, Engineering a Safer World. Systems Thinking Applied to Safety. Engineering Systems. The MIT Press, 2011.

[10] MONALISA. Dynamic & proactive routes or green-routes. EU TEN-T Project No: 2010-EU-21109-S. Motorways & electronic
navigation by intelligence at sea (2012), http://www.sjofartsverket.se/en/MonaLisa/.

[11] J. Montewka, F. Goerlandt, and P. Kujala, Determination of collision criteria and causation factors appropriate to a model
for estimating the probability of maritime accidents. Ocean Engrg. 40 (2012), 5061.

[12] E. Muschick and P. H. Mller, Eintscheidungspraxis. VEB Verlag Technik, Berlin, 1987.

[13] D. T. Pismennyi, Lectures in the Theory of Probabilities, Mathematical Statistics, and Random Processes. Airis Press,
Moscow, 2010 (in Russian).

[14] S. Sonninen, M. Nuutinen, and T. Rosqvist, Development process of the Gulf of Finland Mandatory Ship Reporting System.
Reflections on the Methods. VTT Publications 614, 2006.

[15] M. M. Vainberg, The Variational Method and the Method of Monotone Operators in the Theory of Nonlinear Equations.
Nauka, Moscow, 1972 (in Russian).

[16] M. M. Vainberg, Functional Analysis. Prosveshchenie, Moscow, 1979 (in Russian).

[17] Ya. D. Vishnyakov and N. N. Radaev, General Risk Theory. Publ. Center Akademia, Moscow, 2008 (in Russian).

Received November 10, 2013; revised December 12, 2013; accepted January 25, 2014.

Brought to you by | University of Victoria McPherson Library Serials


Authenticated
Download Date | 6/6/15 3:18 AM

You might also like