Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Towards Real-World Validation of a Physics-Based Ship Motion Prediction Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A physics-based maneuvering model for an 83-meter container ship predicts real-world voyages closely enough that most two-minute trajectory segments fall into the paper's optimal or satisfactory categories.

desk verdict Useful incremental validation study whose headline claim outruns its evidence; worth reviewing, but the authors must show the full distribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13804 v1 pith:UZ7LU4FC submitted 2025-01-23 eess.SY cs.ROcs.SY

Michail Mathioudakis , Christos Papandreou , Theodoros Stouraitis , Vicky Margari , Antonios Nikitakis , Stavros Paschalakis , Konstantinos Kyriakopoulos , Kostas J. Spyrou This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.ROcs.SY
keywords shipmotionpredictionphysics-basedmaneuveringmodelhydrodynamicderivativesreal-worldvalidationcontainertrajectorydistancemeasuresenvironmentalforcesautonomousnavigation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a conventional physics-based ship maneuvering model, tuned to a single 83-meter container ship, can track real trajectories closely enough to support autonomous navigation and decision support. It builds a 3-degree-of-freedom hydrodynamic-derivatives model, integrates forces from the rudder, propeller, wind, waves, and sea currents, and compares its predictions against actual two-minute voyage segments of the ship. Agreement is assessed visually and with seven distance measures, including a custom normalized measure (cVDM) that combines position, heading, surge speed, sway speed, and yaw rate. The authors report that the vast majority of real-world segments fall into optimal or satisfactory agreement, which would narrow a gap in the literature where physics-based models are rarely validated against full-scale vessel data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the FAM model: a 3-degree-of-freedom nonlinear dynamics model for surge, sway, and yaw, using equations from Spyrou (1996) and hydrodynamic coefficients computed with the methods of Inoue et al. (1981) and Clarke et al. (1982). Rudder forces follow Spyrou (1996) and Kijima (2002), propeller thrust follows Kijima (2002) with coefficients from Holtrop and Mennen (1982), wind forces follow Fujiwara et al. (1998), wave resistance follows the ITTC (2014) STAWAVE1 correction, and sea currents enter kinematically by relating speed-over-ground to speed-through-water. The validation instrument is cVDM, a percentage distance measure that normalizes deviations in position, heading, surge, sway, and yaw rate by trajectory length, mean speed, and the vessel's maximum yaw capability, giving a single number for how close two trajectories are.

What would settle it

A direct disconfirmation would be to run the same FAM model on voyages with independent onboard measurements of wind, waves, and current, and show that under accurate environmental inputs the majority of two-minute segments still fall into the optimal or satisfactory cVDM range; if most segments become sub-optimal, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Full Analytical Model (FAM), a physics-based surge-sway-yaw model with hydrodynamic coefficients estimated from standard prediction methods, produces trajectories that align closely with real-world voyages of the 83-meter container ship SUZAKU. Across several dozen voyages broken into two-minute trajectories, the authors find that most compared segments fall into optimal or satisfactory categories under their custom vessel distance measure (cVDM), with sub-optimal cases concentrated in regimes such as rudder angles around 10 degrees. The paper also shows that FAM reproduces the turning-circle trajectories of an MMG model that had itself been validated against scaled-model experiments. Together these results are presented as evidence that a physics-based model, not a learned black box, can serve as a practical trajectory predictor in real maritime conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The real-world validation assumes that hindcast weather data from the closest weather station, including wind, waves, and currents, accurately represent the conditions the SUZAKU actually sailed through; if those environmental inputs are wrong, the trajectory comparison is not a fair test of the model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If FAM's accuracy holds beyond the reported voyages, a physics-based model can act as a predictive component in route optimization, collision avoidance, and autonomous navigation without requiring per-voyage retraining.
  • The cVDM measure gives practitioners a single normalized percentage for trajectory agreement, replacing visual inspection of position and heading plots with a quantitative acceptance threshold.
  • The reported degradation at rudder angles near 10 degrees directs future modeling work toward the sway-yaw coupling regime, where rudder forces are small and the model tends to over-turn.
  • The validation protocol, including the distance-measure comparison and the optimal/satisfactory/sub-optimal categories, provides a template for benchmarking later models against real vessel trajectories.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • My inference: the cVDM score could be recalibrated into a probabilistic positional uncertainty estimate, such as expected cross-track error over the next two minutes, which is the quantity a collision-avoidance planner actually needs.
  • My inference: the failure mode at roughly 10-degree rudder angles suggests a concrete testable extension: adding a small data-derived sway-yaw coupling correction for that regime should move sub-optimal trajectories into the satisfactory category, a claim the paper does not make.
  • My inference: applying the same validation protocol to multiple ships, loading conditions, and weather states would yield a comparison standard for physics-based versus learned motion models; the paper only begins that comparison with a single vessel.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a physics-based 3-DoF maneuvering model (FAM) for an 83-meter container ship, with hydrodynamic forces based on published empirical methods (Spyrou, Kijima, Fujiwara, Holtrop and Mennen) and without fitting the model to the validation data. The authors compare FAM trajectories against MMG-model trajectories from the literature, then against real voyage data from the SUZAKU vessel over 2-minute windows, using visual inspection and seven distance measures. They introduce a custom distance measure (cVDM) and report six real-voyage examples categorized as optimal, satisfactory, or sub-optimal, asserting that the vast majority of compared trajectories fell in the first two categories.

Significance. If the validation evidence were complete, this would be a valuable contribution: full-scale validation of a physics-based maneuvering model without data-driven fitting is rare, and the paper explicitly avoids fitting the model to the validation trajectories. The comparison against MMG trajectories from published, experimentally supported studies provides a useful sanity check, and the distance-measure analysis, especially the cVDM construction that balances position, heading, and speed terms, is a sensible methodological contribution. However, the central empirical claim about real-world agreement currently rests on a small, possibly hand-selected set of examples and on aggregate statements that are not backed by reported distributions, thresholds, or selection procedures. The paper's value will depend substantially on the authors supplying the missing evidence in revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3] The claim that 'the vast majority of the real-world trajectories compared against the predictions of our model did actually fall into optimal or satisfactory category' is not supported by the data presented. Only six trajectory examples are shown (Figures 8-13), with no description of how they were selected, no total number of voyages or 2-minute segments analyzed, and no aggregate cVDM distribution. Without this information, the reader cannot distinguish a representative sample from cherry-picking, and the 'vast majority' statement is not independently checkable. Please report the full set of cVDM values (or a histogram), the number of segments, and an explicit selection procedure for the displayed examples.
  2. [§4.3, paragraph 2 and §5] The environmental inputs are hindcast weather data from the closest weather station, and only the wind component is cross-checked against the onboard anemometer. The model's prediction error is therefore an inseparable combination of model error and environmental-input error; if the hindcast waves or currents differ from actual conditions, the comparison is not a fair test of the model's dynamics. The paper should either provide a validation or uncertainty estimate for the wave and current inputs, or explicitly discuss how errors in these inputs would affect the reported cVDM values. This point is load-bearing because the abstract's claim of close agreement with real trajectories presupposes that the environmental inputs are sufficiently accurate.
  3. [§4.2, Eq. (16) and Table 2] The cVDM thresholds that separate 'optimal', 'satisfactory', and 'sub-optimal' are never defined. Table 2 lists cVDM values (0.8, 0.9, 1.7, 2.3, 5.9, 8.7) with category labels, but the reader cannot tell where one category ends and the next begins, nor whether the thresholds are principled or selected post hoc. Additionally, the parameter rmax in Eq. (16) is set to 0.0314 rad/s as the ship's maximum turning capability without a reference or derivation. Please define the thresholds before presenting the categorization, and justify the rmax value.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §5] The abstract states that 'Both methodologies demonstrate that the model's predictions align closely with the real-world trajectories,' but Section 5 concedes that 'FAM's accuracy may diminish in scenarios involving slight turns,' and two of the six displayed real-world examples are categorized as sub-optimal. The wording should be qualified to reflect the observed performance range rather than making an unqualified close-alignment claim.
  2. [§3.1] The caption of Figure 2 says the body-fixed system is 'ys − xs', but the text later defines the body-fixed axes as xs and ys with the origin amidships; the order and naming are inconsistent, and the sentence 'Both are illustrated in Section 3.1' should refer to Figure 2.
  3. [§4.2, Eq. (14)-(15)] Equation (14) divides by (x_bar_i + y_bar_i + psi_bar_i + u_bar_i), which can be near zero for small or low-speed trajectories and is not dimensionless (mixing meters, radians, and m/s). Please clarify the intended normalization or replace it with a quantity that is well-defined for all trajectories.
  4. [§4.2, text after Eq. (16)] The sentence 'they prone to balance issues' and the phrase 'tree one-dimensional plots' in the caption of Figures 4-7 should be corrected; also 'error explanatory scenarios' in those captions is likely meant to be 'error-explanation scenarios'.
  5. [§4.3] The paper says 'several dozen voyages' were used, but gives no exact count of voyages or 2-minute segments. Providing these counts would allow readers to assess the throughput of the validation and the representativeness of the six displayed examples.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FAM is an independently parameterized physics model validated against real trajectories without fitting to them.

full rationale

The claimed prediction chain is self-contained relative to the validation data. Section 3.3 states 'a 3-DoF nonlinear mathematical model from Spyrou, 1996 is used' and 'The hydrodynamic coefficients were calculated for the selected ship according to the methods presented in Inoue et al., 1981 and Clarke et al., 1982.' These coefficients, plus the rudder, propeller, wind, wave, and current sub-models from Kijima, Fujiwara, Holtrop and Mennen, and ITTC, are fixed from ship geometry and published empirical methods; nothing in Section 4 fits the model to the SUZAKU voyage data used for validation. The cVDM metric introduced in Eq. (16) uses the hand-set rmax = 0.0314 rad/s as a normalizer, but this value is taken as the ship's maximum turning capability and does not feed back into FAM's dynamics. The only self-citations are Spyrou (1996, 2006) as the origin of the HD dynamics and rudder/propeller force expressions; these are independent prior publications, not uniqueness claims or ansatze imported to force the current results. The paper's evidence for 'the vast majority of the real-world trajectories compared against the predictions of our model did actually fall into optimal or satisfactory category' is statistically weak, since only six hand-picked examples are shown and the category thresholds are not defined, but this is a correctness and evidence risk, not a circular derivation. No step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on standard empirical formulas and ship-specific constants; none of the parameters are fitted to the validation trajectories in the paper. The main validation claim leans on an unquantified selection of examples and subjective category thresholds.

free parameters (5)
  • aH (rudder-to-hull interaction coefficient) = 0.2
    Hand-set in Section 3.4; affects rudder forces in Eq. (3).
  • xR (rudder center of lift longitudinal coordinate) = about -40 m
    Approximate ship-specific value in Section 3.4; affects rudder moment.
  • AR (rudder area) = about 5.8 square meters
    Approximate ship-specific value in Section 3.4; affects rudder normal force.
  • D (propeller diameter) = about 3 m
    Approximate ship-specific value in Section 3.5; affects thrust and torque.
  • rmax (maximum yaw rate for cVDM) = 0.0314 rad/s
    Hand-set in Section 4.2 as the maximum turning capability of SUZAKU; normalizes the yaw-rate term in the distance measure.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The 3-DoF nonlinear dynamics in Eq. (2) from Spyrou (1996) are an adequate representation of SUZAKU's surge, sway, and yaw over the tested maneuvers.
    Section 3.3: the equations are taken as the model core without independent verification for this vessel.
  • domain assumption Hydrodynamic derivatives computed via Inoue et al. (1981) and Clarke et al. (1982) are valid for SUZAKU without experimental tuning.
    Section 3.3 states the coefficients were calculated for the selected ship according to these methods.
  • domain assumption Wave forces are modeled only for +/-45 degrees off-bow directions, with Ywave = 0 and Nwave = 0 in all tested conditions.
    Section 3.6 imposes this restriction; if the voyages involved other wave angles, the wave contribution is ignored.
  • domain assumption Hindcast weather data from the closest station represent the actual wind, wave, and current conditions along the voyage.
    Section 4.3 describes using hindcast data and only wind was cross-checked against the onboard anemometer.
  • domain assumption The MMG trajectories from Suyama et al. (2024) are a valid benchmark for FAM's initial evaluation.
    Section 4.1 compares visually to figures from prior work without quantitative or uncertainty analysis.
  • domain assumption The real-voyage ground-truth trajectories are free of sensor errors large enough to affect the comparison.
    Section 4.3 relies on actual vessel data but does not describe sensor accuracy or data filtering.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Real-World Validation of a Physics-Based Ship Motion Prediction Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UZ7LU4FC

@misc{pith2026250113804,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Real-World Validation of a Physics-Based Ship Motion Prediction Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UZ7LU4FC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13804}
}
read the original abstract

The maritime industry aims towards a sustainable future, which requires significant improvements in operational efficiency. Current approaches focus on minimising fuel consumption and emissions through greater autonomy. Efficient and safe autonomous navigation requires high-fidelity ship motion models applicable to real-world conditions. Although physics-based ship motion models can predict ships' motion with sub-second resolution, their validation in real-world conditions is rarely found in the literature. This study presents a physics-based 3D dynamics motion model that is tailored to a container-ship, and compares its predictions against real-world voyages. The model integrates vessel motion over time and accounts for its hydrodynamic behavior under different environmental conditions. The model's predictions are evaluated against real vessel data both visually and using multiple distance measures. Both methodologies demonstrate that the model's predictions align closely with the real-world trajectories of the container-ship.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13804 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Computational flow of a physics-based vessel motion prediction model, with the following key blocks that are specific to ship maneuvering models: (a) “Control”: control commands of the rudder and the propeller, (b) “Environment”: environmental effects from the wind, waves, and sea currents, (c) “Force calculation”: computation of forced using the outputs of (a) and (b) along with hydrodynamic forces and the current … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The body-fixed coordinate sys￾tem of the vessel is ys − xs, while the earth￾fixed coordinate system is y − x. The posi￾tion OS and heading ψ of the vessel, and the direction of the sea current ω are de￾picted in terms of an earth-fixed coordinate system y − x. Surge speed u, sway speed v, total speed U and yaw rate of turn r are de￾picted in terms of a body-fixed coordinate system ys − xs. Also, the drift angle of t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visual comparison of trajectories from FAM (our model) and an MMG model as described and reported in ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Error explanatory scenarios. Case Study 1. All dimensions are very close between actual trajectory and FAM. 249700 249600 249500 249400 249300 249200 y (m) 93100 93000 92900 92800 92700 92600 x (m) Ground truth FAM 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 time (s) 93000 92800 92600 x (m)…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Error explanatory scenarios. Case Study 2. In this trajectory there is close distance in terms of x, y but not as good in terms of heading ψ and yaw rate of turn r. turn) and soon after it will result in divergent trajectories. This intricacy is effectively captured by…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Error explanatory scenarios. Case Study 3. All dimensions are very close in the beginning of the trajectory which is not the case at the end. 250800 250700 250600 250500 250400 250300 250200 y (m) 92100 92000 91900 91800 91700 91600 91500 x (m) Ground truth FAM 0 20 40…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Error explanatory scenarios. Case Study 4. FAM diverged from the ground truth trajectory, as a result the differences in all dimensions are large. the two contrasted trajectories are either very ’close’ or very ’far’. Hence, the discrepancy is uniformly distributed acr…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of FAM vs Real world data. Optimal scenario 1. All dimensions of FAM follow closely the actual trajectory. not mean that will be the only measure that is going to be utilized. We strongly believe that using more than one measures provides diversification and…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of FAM vs Real world data. Optimal scenario 2. FAM follows closely the actual trajectory in all measures. consistent with the ground truth trajectories. Please note that these deviations are mostly towards the end of the trajectories, hence they have a minim…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of FAM vs Real world data. Satisfactory scenario 1. FAM follows actual trajectory for half of the distance but then becomes sub-optimal. 6200 6300 6400 6500 6600 6700 y (m) 18100 18000 17900 17800 17700 17600 x (m) Ground truth FAM 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 tim…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of FAM vs Real world data. Satisfactory scenario 2. FAM and actual data are close to each other for the bigger part of the trajectory but the deviation subsequently becomes large. 14700 14600 14500 14400 14300 14200 y (m) 26100 26000 25900 25800 25700 25600…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of FAM vs Real world data. Sub-optimal scenario 1. The difference between FAM and the actual trajectory grows large from the beginning of the trajectory. © 2024: Annual Conference of Marine Technology 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of FAM vs Real world data. Sub-optimal scenario 2. The turning of the vessel widens the difference of FAM vs actual vessel trajectory in almost all dimensions. Comparing FAM’s predictions with MMG model turning tests yielded nearly identical trajectories, r…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ship hydrodynamics-steering and manoeuvrability

    Abkowitz, M. A. (1964). “Ship hydrodynamics-steering and manoeuvrability”. In:Hydro-and Aerodynamics

    work page 1964

  2. [2]

    Non-parametric dynamic system identification of ships using multi-output Gaussian Processes

    Ariza, Ramirez, W et al. (2018). “Non-parametric dynamic system identification of ships using multi-output Gaussian Processes”. In: Ocean Engineering 166, pp. 26–36. ˚Astr¨om, K. J. and K ¨allstr¨om, C. G. (1976). “Identification of ship steering dynamics”. In: Automatica 12.1, pp. 9–22. © 2024: Annual Conference of Marine Technology 16 Hellenic Institute...

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    The Application of Manoeuvring Criteria in Hull Design Using Linear Theory

    Clarke, David, Gedling, P, and Hine, George, T. (1982). “The Application of Manoeuvring Criteria in Hull Design Using Linear Theory”. In: International Shipbuilding Progress

    work page 1982

  4. [4]

    Turning and course keeping qualities

    Davidson, K. S. M. and Schiff, L. I. (1946). “Turning and course keeping qualities”. In: Stevens Institute of

    work page 1946

  5. [5]

    Captive model tests based 6 DOF shallow water manoeuvring model

    Delefortrie, G et al. (2016). “Captive model tests based 6 DOF shallow water manoeuvring model”. In: 4th MASHCON. Bundesanstalt f”ur Wasserbau, pp. 273–286

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Fossen, T. I. (2011). Handbook of marine craft hydrodynamics and motion control. John Wiley & Sons

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Estimation of wind forces and moments acting on ships

    Fujiwara, T., Ueno, M., and Nimura, T. (1998). “Estimation of wind forces and moments acting on ships”. In: Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan 1998.183, pp. 77–90

    work page 1998

  8. [8]

    An approximate power prediction method

    Holtrop, J. and Mennen, G. G. J. (1982). “An approximate power prediction method”. In: International Shipbuilding Progress 29.335, pp. 166–170

    work page 1982

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Hydrodynamic derivatives on ship manoeuvring

    Inoue, S., Hirano, M., and Kijima, K. (1981). “Hydrodynamic derivatives on ship manoeuvring”. In: Inter- national Shipbuilding Progress 28.321, pp. 112–125. ITTC (2014). “Analysis of speed/power trial data”. In: ITTC – Recommended Procedures and Guidelines

    1981

  2. [10]

    Analysis of ship maneuvering difficulties under severe weather based on onboard measurements and realistic simulation of ocean environment

    Jing, Q et al. (2021). “Analysis of ship maneuvering difficulties under severe weather based on onboard measurements and realistic simulation of ocean environment”. In: Ocean Engineering 221, p. 108524

    2021

  3. [11]

    On the practical prediction method for ship manoeuvring characteristics

    Kijima, K. (2002). “On the practical prediction method for ship manoeuvring characteristics”. In:Trans West Jpn Soc Nav Archit 105, pp. 21–31

    2002

  4. [12]

    On a mathematical model of maneuvering motions of ships in low speeds

    Kose, K. et al. (1984). “On a mathematical model of maneuvering motions of ships in low speeds”. In: Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan 1984.155, pp. 132–138

    1984

  5. [13]

    Active disturbance rejection with sliding mode control based course and path following for underactuated ships

    Li, R. et al. (2013). “Active disturbance rejection with sliding mode control based course and path following for underactuated ships”. In: Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2013.1, p. 743716

    2013

  6. [14]

    Modeling of ship maneuvering motion using neural networks

    Luo, W and Zhang, Z (2016). “Modeling of ship maneuvering motion using neural networks”. In:Journal of Marine Science and Application 15, pp. 426–432

    2016

  7. [15]

    Application of optimal control theory based on the evolution strategy (CMA-ES) to automatic berthing

    Maki, A. et al. (2020). “Application of optimal control theory based on the evolution strategy (CMA-ES) to automatic berthing”. In: Journal of Marine Science and Technology25, pp. 221–233

    2020

  8. [16]

    Optimization on planning of trajectory and control of autonomous berthing and unberthing for the realistic port geometry

    Miyauchi, Y . et al. (2022). “Optimization on planning of trajectory and control of autonomous berthing and unberthing for the realistic port geometry”. In: Ocean Engineering 245, p. 110390

    2022

  9. [17]

    Dynamic model of manoeuvrability using recursive neural networks

    Moreira, L and Soares, CG (2003). “Dynamic model of manoeuvrability using recursive neural networks”. In: Ocean Engineering 30.13, pp. 1669–1697

    2003

  10. [18]

    Course stability of ships

    Motora, S. (1955). “Course stability of ships”. In: Journal of Zosen Kiokai 1955.77, pp. 69–90. — (1959). “On the measurement of added mass and added moment of inertia for ship motions”. In: Journal of Zosen Kiokai 1959.105, pp. 83–92

    1955

  11. [19]

    On the steering qualities of ships

    Nomoto, K. et al. (1957). “On the steering qualities of ships”. In: International Shipbuilding Progress 4.35, pp. 354–370

    1957

  12. [20]

    Theory and observations on the use of a mathematical model for ship manoeuvring in deep and confined waters

    Norrbin, NH (1971). Theory and observations on the use of a mathematical model for ship manoeuvring in deep and confined waters. Tech. rep

    1971

  13. [21]

    MMG report-I, on the mathematical model of ship manoeu- vring

    Ogawa, A, Koyama, T, and Kijima, K (1977). “MMG report-I, on the mathematical model of ship manoeu- vring”. In: Bull Soc Naval Archit Jpn 575.22-28

    1977

  14. [22]

    Maneuvering simulations at large drift angles of a ship with a flapped rudder

    Okuda, R et al. (2023). “Maneuvering simulations at large drift angles of a ship with a flapped rudder”. In: Applied Ocean Research 135, p. 103567

    2023

  15. [23]

    Simulation of combined engine and rudder maneuvers using an im- proved model of hull-propeller-rudder interactions

    Oltmann, P and Sharma, SD (1984). Simulation of combined engine and rudder maneuvers using an im- proved model of hull-propeller-rudder interactions. Tech. rep. © 2024: Annual Conference of Marine Technology 17 Hellenic Institute of Marine Technology

    1984

  16. [24]

    Neural network identification of marine ship dynamics

    Oskin, DA, Dyda, AA, and Markin, VE (2013). “Neural network identification of marine ship dynamics”. In: IFAC Proceedings Volumes46.33, pp. 191–196

    2013

  17. [25]

    System identification for nonlinear maneuvering of large tankers using artificial neural network

    Rajesh, G and Bhattacharyya, SK (2008). “System identification for nonlinear maneuvering of large tankers using artificial neural network”. In: Applied Ocean Research 30.4, pp. 256–263

    2008

  18. [26]

    Dynamic instability in quartering seas: the behavior of a ship during broaching

    Spyrou, K. J. (1996). “Dynamic instability in quartering seas: the behavior of a ship during broaching”. In: Journal of Ship Research 40.01, pp. 46–59. — (2006). “Asymmetric surging of ships in following seas and its repercussions for safety”. In: Nonlinear Dynamics 43, pp. 149–172

    1996

  19. [27]

    Development of a core mathematical model for arbitrary manoeuvres of a shuttle tanker

    Sutulo, S and Soares, CG (2015). “Development of a core mathematical model for arbitrary manoeuvres of a shuttle tanker”. In: Applied Ocean Research 51, pp. 293–308

    2015

  20. [28]

    Parameter fine-tuning method for MMG model using real-scale ship data

    Suyama, R et al. (2024). “Parameter fine-tuning method for MMG model using real-scale ship data”. In: Ocean Engineering 298, p. 117323

    2024

  21. [29]

    Ship trajectory planning method for reproducing human operation at ports

    Suyama, R., Miyauchi, Y ., and Maki, A. (2022). “Ship trajectory planning method for reproducing human operation at ports”. In: Ocean Engineering 266, p. 112763

    2022

  22. [30]

    Ship maneuvering motion due to tugboats and its mathematical model

    Takashina, J (1986). “Ship maneuvering motion due to tugboats and its mathematical model”. In:Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan 1986.160, pp. 93–102

    1986

  23. [31]

    A comparative analysis of trajectory similarity measures

    Tao, Y et al. (2021). “A comparative analysis of trajectory similarity measures”. In: GIScience & Remote Sensing 58.5, pp. 643–669

    2021

  24. [32]

    Design, modeling, and nonlinear model predictive tracking control of a novel au- tonomous surface vehicle

    Wang, W. et al. (2018). “Design, modeling, and nonlinear model predictive tracking control of a novel au- tonomous surface vehicle”. In:2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp. 6189–6196

    2018

  25. [33]

    Dynamic model identification of unmanned surface vehicles using deep learning net- work

    Woo, J et al. (2018). “Dynamic model identification of unmanned surface vehicles using deep learning net- work”. In: Applied Ocean Research 78, pp. 123–133

    2018

  26. [34]

    System identification of ship dynamic model based on Gaussian process regression with input noise

    Xue, Y et al. (2020). “System identification of ship dynamic model based on Gaussian process regression with input noise”. In: Ocean Engineering 216, p. 107862

    2020

  27. [35]

    Introduction of MMG standard method for ship maneuvering predictions

    Yasukawa, H. and Yoshimura, Y . (2015). “Introduction of MMG standard method for ship maneuvering predictions”. In: Journal of Marine Science and Technology20, pp. 37–52

    2015

  28. [36]

    Mathematical model for the manoeuvring ship motion in shallow water (2nd Report)- mathematical model at slow forward speed

    Yoshimura, Y (1988). “Mathematical model for the manoeuvring ship motion in shallow water (2nd Report)- mathematical model at slow forward speed”. In: Journal of Kansai Society of Naval Architects 210.210, pp. 77–84

    1988

  29. [37]

    Hydrodynamic force database with medium high speed merchant ships including fishing vessels and investigation into a manoeuvring prediction method

    Yoshimura, Y and Masumoto, Y (2012). “Hydrodynamic force database with medium high speed merchant ships including fishing vessels and investigation into a manoeuvring prediction method”. In: Journal of the Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers 14, pp. 63–73

    2012

  30. [38]

    Unified mathematical model for ocean and harbour ma- noeuvring

    Yoshimura, Y, Nakao, I, and Ishibashi, A (2009). “Unified mathematical model for ocean and harbour ma- noeuvring”. In: International Conference on Marine Simulation and Ship Maneuverability

    2009

  31. [39]

    Ship nonlinear-feedback course keeping algorithm based on MMG model driven by bipolar sigmoid function for berthing

    Zhang, Q., Zhang, X., and Im, N. (2017). “Ship nonlinear-feedback course keeping algorithm based on MMG model driven by bipolar sigmoid function for berthing”. In: International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 9.5, pp. 525–536

    2017

  32. [40]

    Black-box modeling of ship manoeuvring motion based on feed-forward neural network with Chebyshev orthogonal basis function

    Zhang, XG and Zou, ZJ (2013). “Black-box modeling of ship manoeuvring motion based on feed-forward neural network with Chebyshev orthogonal basis function”. In: Journal of Marine Science and Technol- ogy 18, pp. 42–49

    2013

  33. [41]

    Soft Actor–Critic based active disturbance rejection path following control for unmanned surface vessel under wind and wave disturbances

    Zheng, Y . et al. (2022). “Soft Actor–Critic based active disturbance rejection path following control for unmanned surface vessel under wind and wave disturbances”. In: Ocean Engineering 247, p. 110631. © 2024: Annual Conference of Marine Technology 18

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.