Enhancing the traffic efficiency of restricted channels is one of the most important objectives for maritime transportation, especially in busy waterways and ports. In many cases, the variance of ship speed would impede the traffic efficiency in restricted channels where overtaking between ships is not allowed. The ship behaviors in restricted channels are studied in this article. Two indicators are applied to evaluate traffic efficiency, which are the percentage of ships that reduce speed and the increase of navigating time in the channel due to speed reduction. Screening method is introduced to make sensitivity analysis considering five factors, which are the mean value of ship speed, variance of ship speed, channel length, safety distance and arriving rate. The results indicate that the mean value of ship speed is most sensitive to traffic efficiency, followed by the variance of ship speed and arriving rate. The safety distance is the least sensitive to channel efficiency. Quadratic equation models and response surface method are further used to make interaction analysis between the factors. High degree of interactions among the mean value, variance of ship speed, arriving rate and channel length are identified. These findings are valuable for the guidance of making effective measurements to make full use of channel resource to promote its efficiency.
YeoG-TRoeMSoakS-M. Evaluation of the marine traffic congestion of north harbor in Busan port. J Waterw Port C2007; 133(2): 87–93.
2.
KöseEBaşarEDemirciEet al. Simulation of marine traffic in Istanbul strait. Simul Model Pract Th2003; 11(7–8): 597–608.
3.
WangYZhangJChenXet al. A spatial–temporal forensic analysis for inland-water ship collisions using AIS data. Safety Sci2013; 57: 187–202.
4.
ZhangDYanXYangZet al. An accident data-based approach for congestion risk assessment of inland waterways: A Yangtze River case. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2014; 228(2): 176–188.
5.
ZhangJSantosTAGuedes SoaresCet al. Sequential ship traffic scheduling model for restricted two-way waterway transportation. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment2017; 231(1): 86–97.
KendallDG. Stochastic processes occurring in the theory of queues and their analysis by the method of the imbedded Markov Chain. Ann Math Stat1953; 24(3): 338–354.
9.
MavrakisDKontinakisN. A queueing model of maritime traffic in Bosporus straits. Simul Model Pract Th2008; 16(3): 315–328.
10.
SunZChenZHuHet al. Ship interaction in narrow water channels: a two-lane cellular automata approach. Phys A2015; 431: 46–51.
11.
LiuJXHanXB. Capacity analysis of restricted channels based on the queuing theory. Navig China2008; 31(3): 261–264.
12.
MengQWengJLiS. Analysis with automatic identification system data of vessel traffic characteristics in the Singapore Strait. Transp Res Record2014; 2426: 33–43.
13.
RawsonARogersEFosterDet al. Practical application of domain analysis: Port of London case study. J Navig2014; 67: 193–209.
14.
HouHQLiYCHeWet al. Vessel traffic flow distribution model of bridge area waterway in the middle stream of Yangtze river. Appl Mech Mater2014; 551: 127–133.
15.
NewellGF. A simplified car-following theory: a lower order model. Transport Res B2002; 36(3): 195–205.
GalilAEM. Marine traffic organization in international waters. In: Proceedings of fourth international symposium on vessel traffic services, Bremen, Germany, 28–30 April 1981.
19.
FarnooshREbrahimiM. Monte Carlo method via a numerical algorithm to solve a parabolic problem. Appl Math Comput2007; 190(2): 1593–1601.
20.
SaltelliA. Sensitivity analysis for importance assessment. Risk Anal2002; 22: 579–590.
MurphyJMSextonDMBarnettDNet al. Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature2004; 430(7001): 768–72, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15306806
25.
CampolongoFCariboniJSaltelliA. An effective screening design for sensitivity analysis of large models. Environ Modell Softw2007; 22(10): 1509–1518.
26.
WangGWuMWangHet al. Sensitivity analysis of factors affecting coal and gas outburst based on an energy equilibrium model. Chin J Rock Mech Eng2015; 34(2): 238–248.
27.
SaltelliAAnnoniP. How to avoid a perfunctory sensitivity analysis. Environ Modell Softw2010; 25(12): 1508–1517.
28.
BoxGEPWilsonKB. On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions. J R Stat Soc1951; 13(1): 1–45.
29.
ShanockLRBaranBEGentryWAet al. Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: a powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. J Bus Psychol2010; 25(4): 543–554.
30.
HongBGGaoXRLiQ. Rudder effect of slow-speed ships in harbor. J Dalian Marit Univ2010; 36(2): 6–10.
31.
EldemirFCamciFUysalO. Analysis and simulation of Istanbul Strait marine traffic management strategies. In: Proceedings of the transportation research board 92nd annual meeting, Washington, DC, 13–17 January 2013. Transportation Research Board Meeting.
32.
BhattiMSReddyASThukralAK. Electrocoagulation removal of Cr(VI) from simulated wastewater using response surface methodology. J Hazard Mater2009; 172(2–3): 839–846.
33.
LuoD. Optimization of total polysaccharide extraction from Dioscorea nipponica Makino using response surface methodology and uniform design. Carbohydr Polym2012; 90(1): 284–288; 7(3): 25–29.
34.
TancoMVilesEIlzarbeLet al. Dissecting DoE software. Six Sigma Forum Mag2008; 7(3): 25–29.
35.
BoxGEPBehnkenDW. Some new three level designs for the study of quantitative variables. Technometrics1960; 2(4): 455–75.
36.
DraperNR. Center points in second-order response surface designs. Technometrics1982; 24(2): 127–133.
