首页> 外文会议>OCEANS >Using RADAR AIS to investigate ship behavior in the Chesapeake Bay ocean approach off of Virginia, USA
【24h】

Using RADAR AIS to investigate ship behavior in the Chesapeake Bay ocean approach off of Virginia, USA

机译:使用RADAR和AIS调查美国弗吉尼亚州切萨皮克湾远洋通道的船舶行为

获取原文

摘要

We used a combination of AIS and RADAR to characterize large (≥ 65' long) vessel traffic in the Chesapeake Bay ocean approach along the US eastern seaboard from May 2008 through April 2009. During the 60 days of monthly surveys, we recorded over 2.6×106 records of data with ship position information. There were 1181 hours of AIS and 540 hours of RADAR data collected for a monthly mean of 98 and 45 hours for AIS and RADAR respectively. These data represented 1411 transits by vessels broadcasting AIS for a total of 69,606km of track line, and vessels acquired with RADAR represented a total of 506 transits for a total of 8,702km of track line. AIS and RADAR data resulted in 1.2 and 0.9 transits per hour respectively. We corrected the AIS data to match RADAR effort, and, when effort was equal, AIS data represented only 49.7% of the total large vessel transits observed, and transits per hour were equal for corrected AIS and RADAR data. We recorded more inbound vessels using AIS and more outbound vessels with RADAR. The density pattern of vessels recorded using AIS differed from the RADAR pattern. There was a very discrete pattern for vessels broadcasting an AIS signal that corresponded with the shipping lane buoys. Vessels recorded using RADAR, on the other hand, were more dispersed and displayed a less discrete pattern covering a large area outside of the ship buoys. Winter was the season with the fewest vessel transits for both data collection methods (23.8% AIS; 17.0% RADAR), though there was not a substantial decrease over other seasons in the AIS data. Spring, summer and fall were similar for AIS (24.2%, 25.7%, 26.3% respectively), but fall (31.4%) had considerably more vessels recorded by RADAR than spring and summer (26.5%, 25.1% respectively). When examining vessel type data, more than two thirds of the vessel transits recorded using AIS were cargo vessels (68%; n=337). Excluding unknown vessels, military vessels made up 47% (- =179) of the vessels we identified with RADAR, followed by fishing (32%; n=120) and federal law enforcement (USCG) vessels (10%, n=38). Spatial analysis was necessary to accurately evaluate ship speed over the entire study area. Spatial analyses of these data allowed us to examine speed behavior in a grid format, reducing the effect of directional bias from an overrepresentation of records from relatively slow moving vessels. Without utilizing spatial analysis, one could draw the conclusion that vessels were transiting the area more slowly than they actually were because AIS speed records are skewed by the greater number of speed points for slower vessels. There was an obvious reduction in speed of vessels transmitting AIS in the shipping lanes from before to after the Ship Strike Rule that was enacted in December 2008 to protect the western North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). The Ship Strike Rule identified a Seasonal Management Area (SMA) within which commercial ships ≥65 ft. in length were required to slow to 10kts or less for part of the year (50 CFR224.105). Although vessels slowed, many were not in compliance with the mandatory speed limit of the Rule. Speed restrictions had no effect on vessels observed using RADAR, most of which were not required to comply with the regulations. Cargo ships can be quite large and travel at speeds in excess of 20kt, and were required to broadcast AIS signals, so their behavior was relatively easy to assess. Few cargo vessels traveled 10kt or less for an entire transit through the SMA. Thus, we observed an apparent reaction to the speed restrictions in the SMA, but did not observe strict compliance. Recently the US Coast Guard has begun issuing speeding citations to vessels that have been recorded blatantly disregarding the speed restrictions in SMAs. We applaud these efforts and suspect that if the effort continues consistently it will encourage compliance. Our data suggest that A
机译:我们使用AIS和雷达的组合来表征沿2008年5月至2009年5月的美国东部海岸的Chesapeake Bay海洋方法中的大(≥65'长)船只交通。在每月调查的60天,我们记录了2.6× 10 6 船舶位置信息的数据记录。 AIS有1181小时的AIS和540小时的雷达数据,每月平均值为98和45小时,分别为AIS和雷达。这些数据表示1411通过血管通过89,606km的轨道线路的血管传输,并且雷达获得的血管总共表示总共506次,总共8,702km的轨道线。 AIS和雷达数据分别为1.2和0.9分别运转。我们纠正了AIS数据以匹配雷达工作,并且当努力相等时,AIS数据仅表示观察到的总大容器的49.7%,每小时的运输量相同,而校正的AIS和雷达数据则相等。我们使用AIS和更多带有雷达的船只录制了更多的入站船只。使用AIS记录的血管的密度图案与雷达图案不同。广播与运输车道浮标相对应的AIS信号的血管存在非常离散的模式。另一方面,使用雷达记录的血管更加分散,并展示覆盖船舶浮标外部的大面积的离散模式。冬季是数据收集方法最少的船舶过度赛季(23.8%; 17.0%雷达),尽管AIS数据中的其他季节没有大幅下降。春季,夏季和秋季的AIS(分别为24.2%,分别为25.7%,26.3%),但下降(31.4%)多大于雷达记录的血管比春夏(分别为26.5%,25.1%)。当检查血管类型数据时,使用AIS记录的超过三分之二的血管运输是货物容器(68%; n = 337)。除了未知的船只中,军用船只组成47%( - = 179)我们用雷达确定的船只,其次是捕鱼(32%; n = 120)和联邦执法(USCG)船只(10%,n = 38) 。必须在整个研究区域准确地评估船舶速度所必需的空间分析。这些数据的空间分析使我们能够以网格格式检查速度行为,从相对缓慢的移动容器中的记录过度陈述,降低定向偏差的效果。在不利用空间分析的情况下,人们可以得出比其实际更慢的船舶慢慢地将面积速度过度的结论,因为AIS速度记录被较大的血管的速度点偏斜。从2008年12月颁布的船舶罢工规则之前,船舶在运输车道中传播AIS的速度明显减少,以保护西北大西洋右鲸(Eubalaena Glacialis)。船舶罢工规则确定了商业船舶≥65英尺的季节性管理区域(SMA)。一年中的一部分(50 CFR224.105),长度为10公里或更少。虽然船只减速了,但许多人并不符合规则的强制性速度限制。速度限制对使用雷达观察到的血管没有影响,大部分都不需要遵守法规。货船可以相当大,以超过20kt的速度旅行,并且被要求广播AIS信号,因此他们的行为相对容易评估。通过SMA整个过境,很少有货船10kt或更少。因此,我们观察到SMA中的速度限制的表观反应,但没有观察严格的依从性。最近,美国海岸警卫队已开始发布向船舶发出超速引用,这些引用被记录出来的船只被公然地忽视了SMAS中的速度限制。我们赞扬这些努力并怀疑如果努力持续,这将鼓励合规。我们的数据表明了

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号