Ocean Engineering 106 (2015) 39–46

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

A rating based fuzzy analytic network process (F-ANP) model

for evaluation of ship maneuverability
Xin Wang, Zhengjiang Liu, Yao Cai n
Navigation College, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian 116026, PR China

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, a novel rating based fuzzy analytic network process (F-ANP) model is proposed for the
Received 11 November 2014 evaluation of ship maneuverability and the improvement of maneuverability standards. By incorporating
Accepted 30 June 2015 the F-ANP technique into the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) maneuverability standards, the
Available online 17 July 2015
proposed model is able to solve the problem of mutual dependencies of the maneuvering factors
Keywords: inherent in the evaluation of ship maneuverability and the insufficiency of unreasonable weights of
Fuzzy analytic network process (F-ANP) maneuvering factors assigned in current maneuverability standards. Following this model, the more
Evaluation of ship maneuverability synthesized and advanced evaluation process for ship maneuverability is achieved and the more
Rating based maneuverability standards reasonable weights for each maneuvering factor are assigned. The pairwise comparison matrices are
Triangular fuzzy number
formed by the expert team. To deal with the problem of ambiguity and vagueness, the index attribute
values are fuzzied with triangular fuzzy number. Furthermore, the maneuvering data of three ships are
applied to the case studies and discussions to illustrate the reasonableness, effectiveness and advantages
of the proposed rating based F-ANP model by comparing with the common F-AHP model and current
ABS standards. The comparative results are encouraging, and show that the proposed rating based F-ANP
approach is a viable and effective tool for evaluation of ship maneuverability.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction which define the minimal level of maneuvering performance

Ship maneuverability weighs the response capability when
ship is handled by operator or interfered by external environment
force (Hong and Yang, 2012). The study of maneuverability
performance of ship is a major and important issue in the study
of ship due to the maritime safety and environmental protection,
e.g. the relationship between maneuverability and safety was
considered with the benefits to ship owners from incorporating
maneuverability and safety highlighted (Biancardi, 1993).
In order to prevent that ships are built with very poor maneu-
verability, the standards are essential to be used to evaluate the ship
maneuverability and to improve those responsible for ship design,
construction, repair and operation to ensure that ships comply with
the standards. For the standards of ship maneuverability, much
significant developments have been achieved. By evolving over a
long period of time in formulation, the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) adopted the resolution MSC. 137(76), which is
“Standards for Ship Maneuverability” (IMO, 2002a, 2002b). How-
ever, the IMO standards are minimal standards by its very nature,
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: caiyao@dlmu.edu.cn (Y. Cai).
representing an internationally accepted level of safety. Meanwhile,
based on a large amount of full-scale (builder’s) trials data, the
outcome of research (Barr et al., 1981) was a rating system of
maneuvering criteria, which not only established a minimally
acceptable standard, but also gave credit for enhanced maneuvering
performance. Subsequently, a rating-based maneuvering standard
(Belenky and Falzarano, 2006) which combines the IMO require-
ments as a minimum with the slightly improved rating-based
system was described. This approach is implemented in the
published American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Guide for Vessel
Maneuverability (ABS, 2006), which the optional class notation is in
compliance with IMO standards and signifies demonstration of
maneuvering performance superior to IMO standards.
Nonetheless, in current ABS standards the resultant rating is
calculated as an average of all the individual ratings, this is
equivalent to the assumption that all maneuvering factors are
equally important. The ABS has pointed out that this assumption is
inadequate due to lack of sufficient data and the analysis of the
relative importance of the different maneuvering factors is one of
the directions for future research.
Essentially, the evaluation of ship maneuverability is a multi-
criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem. With the development
of the research of multi-criteria decision technique, in recent

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.06.061
0029-8018/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
40 X. Wang et al. / Ocean Engineering 106 (2015) 39–46
years, a number of alternative approaches have been proposed for
the evaluation of ship maneuverability and many significant
results have been achieved (Hong and Jia, 2002; Qiu et al., 2005;
Spyrou, 1994). For example, based on the maneuvering test data of
6 model large ships, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
approach was applied to rank the ship maneuverability (Hong
and Jia, 2002). And a comprehensive assessment model of ship
handing performance was constructed based on the AHP and
Fuzzy theory (Qiu et al., 2005).
However, there is one limitation exists in aforementioned
alternative approaches, that is the assumption of independence
among various maneuvering factors. Just like many MCDM pro-
blems, the dynamic nature of ship maneuverability determines
that factors considered in the evaluation process are often not
independent, the decision will mostly affect the performance of
not just one, but other factors (Chan and Wang, 2013). Therefore,
both the evaluation of ship maneuverability and the improvement
of maneuverability standards require intensive analysis and should
be evaluated and improved from a holistic point of view.
In recent years, among the available multi-attribute decision
making methods, only ANP can be used to evaluate performance
systematically due to the dependencies and feedbacks caused by the
mutual effects of the criteria. The ANP, introduced by Saaty (1996), is a
generalization and extension of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) .
Saaty suggested the use of AHP to solve the problem of independence
on alternatives or criteria, and the use of ANP to solve the problem of
dependence among alternatives or criteria. The ANP feedback
approach replaces hierarchies with networks in which the relation-
ships between levels are not easily represented as higher or lower,
dominant or subordinate (Meade and Sarkis, 1999). For instance, not
only does the importance of the criteria determine the importance of
the alternatives, but also the importance of the alternatives may have
impact on the importance of the criteria. Hence, the ANP is the most
comprehensive framework available for the analysis of corporate
decisions. Several studies (Demirtas and Ustun, 2009; Onut et al.,
2009; Sarkis, 2002; Tuzkaya and Onut, 2008; Wey and Wu, 2007;
Yurdakul, 2003) have adopted the ANP to evaluate performance. For
example, a systemic ANP model was presented to evaluate environ-
mental practices and programs (Sarkis, 2002) in analyzing various
projects, technological or business decision alternatives. To address
the interrelated attributes of a manufacturing system, the literature
(Yurdakul, 2003) employed the ANP approach and developed a
performance measurement model.
Nevertheless, ANP does not allow for any uncertainty among
factors. Due to incomplete information or knowledge, complexity and
uncertainty within the decision environment, it is relatively difficult
for the decision maker to make a correct judgment or objective
evaluation during the evaluation process. Thereby, fuzzy logic, which
can be employed to deal with uncertain parameters and information,
is introduced in the pairwise comparison of ANP to make up for this
deficiency in conventional ANP. Recently, many researchers combine
fuzzy set theory and ANP and have applied F-ANP to several research
fields (Dagdeviren et al., 2008; Dagdeviren and Yuksel, 2010; Liu and
Lai, 2009; Luo et al., 2010; Mikhailov and Madan, 2003; Mohanty et
al., 2005; Tuzkaya et al., 2009). Specifically, the literature (Liu and Lai,
2009) proposed an integrated decision support framework for the
environmental impact assessment of construction project. To quantify
the qualitative indexes and deal with the interaction of some indexes
during the process of VRC performance evaluation, a comprehensive
performance evaluation method based on triangular fuzzy number
and ANP was proposed in Luo et al. (2010).
Based on above observation in this paper, and in order to
overcome the disadvantages of current ABS standards and existing
decision making approaches, the F-ANP technique is employed to the
evaluation of ship maneuverability and the improvement of maneu-
verability standards in this paper. Although F-ANP has been applied
to a few decision making or evaluation performance processes, to the
best knowledge of the authors, there is not any research using the F-
ANP method for the evaluation of ship maneuverability and the
improvement of maneuverability standards. In the meantime, the
evaluation model of ship maneuverability includes many factors and
a factor could affect another factor. Moreover, it can be suggested that
there may be some interactions among these factors. For above
reasons, this study is concentrate on applying the rating based F-ANP
model to evaluate the ship maneuverability and improve the
maneuverability standards systematically.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly
describes the F-ANP model. The rating based maneuverability
standards are described in Section 3. In Section 4, the calculation
process of rating based F-ANP model for evaluation of vessel
maneuverability is presented in detail. Then the maneuvering
data of three ships are applied to case studies and discussions in
Section 5. The paper ends with conclusion in Section 6.
2. Fuzzy analytic network process
2.1. Fuzzy sets and fuzzy number
Zadeh (1965) introduced the fuzzy set theory to deal with the
uncertainty due to imprecision and vagueness. A major contribu-
tion of fuzzy set theory is its capability of representing vague data.
The theory also allows mathematical operators and programming
apply to the fuzzy domain. A fuzzy set is a class of objects with a
continuum of grades of membership. Such a set is characterized by
a membership (characteristic) function, which assigns to each
object a grade of membership ranging between zero and one.
Fuzzy set theory provides numerous methods to represent the
qualitative judgment of the decision maker as quantitative data.
There are two most commonly used fuzzy numbers: trapezoidal
fuzzy number and triangular fuzzy number. Triangular fuzzy
numbers are used in this paper to assess the preferences of
decision maker since they are easy to use and easy to interpret.
A triangular fuzzy number is defined as a triple (l, m, u), as shown
in Fig. 1. The parameters l, m and u denote the smallest possible
value, the most promising value, and the largest possible value that
describe a fuzzy event, respectively. Each triangular fuzzy number
has linear representations on its left and right side such that its
membership function can be defined as (Tuzkaya and Onut, 2008):
8
< ðx  lÞ=ðm lÞ; l r x r m;
>
μA ðxÞ ¼ ðx  uÞ=ðm  uÞ; m r x r u; ð1Þ
>
: 0; x o l or x 4 m:
µ( x)
1
l m u x
Fig. 1. Triangular fuzzy number.
 X. Wang et al. / Ocean Engineering 106 (2015) 39–46
Control level Network level
Cluster C2
Criterion P1 Cluster C1
Goal
Cluster CN
Criterion Pn
Fig. 2. The typical structural model of ANP.
Table 1
Linguistic scales for importance.
Linguistic scale for importance Triangular fuzzy Triangular fuzzy reciprocal
scale scale
Equally important (EI) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1, 2)
Weakly more important (WMI) (1, 3/2, 2) (1/2, 2/3, 1)
Strongly more important (SMI) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3)
Very strongly more important (2, 5/2, 3) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2)
(VSMI)
Absolutely more important (5/2, 3, 7/2) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5)
(AMI)
2.2. Analytic network process (ANP)
ANP is a comprehensive decision-making technique appropri-
ate for both quantitative and qualitative data types and capable of
overcoming the problem of interdependence and feedback among
alternatives or criteria so as to facilitate a more systematic
analysis.
ANP uses a network without the need to specify levels as in a
hierarchy. Generally, the system is divided into two parts: the
control level and the network level under ANP. The control level
includes the goal and the decision criteria. The network level
consists of the elements controlled by the control level. The
elements interact on each other and form a network structure.
The typical structural model of ANP is shown in Fig. 2 (Luo et al.,
2010).
The process of ANP involves three sub-steps as follows:
Step 1. Without assuming the interdependence among criteria,
the decision makers are asked to evaluate all proposed criteria
pairwise. They responded questions such as: “which criteria
should be emphasized more in a personnel, and how much
more?”. Each pair of criteria is judged only once. A reciprocal
value will be automatically assigned to the reverse comparison.
Once the pairwise comparisons are completed, the local weight
vector w1 is computed by
Aw1 ¼ λmax w1
where λmax is the largest eigenvalue of pairwise comparison
matrix A. The obtained vector is further normalized by dividing
each value by its column total to represent the normalized local
weight vector w1.
Step 2. Resolve the effects of the interdependence that exists
between the evaluation criteria. The decision maker examines
the impact of all the criteria on each other by using pairwise
comparisons as well. Questions such as: “which criterion will
influence criterion 1 more: criterion 2 or criterion 3? and how
much more?” are answered. Various pairwise comparison
matrices are formed for each of the criterion. These pairwise
comparison matrices are needed to indentify the relative
41
Table 2
Maneuverability rating and rating levels.
Maneuverability rating Rating levels
Very poor 1
Poor 2
Moderate 3
Good 4
Cluster Ci Excellent 5
impacts of criteria interdependent relationships. The normal-
ized principal eigenvectors for these matrices are calculated
and shown as column component in interdependence weight
matrix of B.
Step 3. Calculate the interdependence weights of the criteria by
synthesizing the results from previous two steps:
w ¼ BwT1 ð3Þ
2.3. The fuzzy analytic network process (F-ANP) model
The suggested model for the evaluation of ship maneuverability
includes the following steps (Dagdeviren et al., 2008):
Step 1. Identify the factors and sub-factors to be used in
the model.
Step 2. Construct the ANP model (goal, factors, sub-factors).
ANP model is composed of three stages. The first stage includes
the goal of the model, determined as “the evaluation of ship
maneuverability”. The second stage includes the factors to be
used in the evaluation of ship maneuverability. Sub-factors
related to these factors are in the third stage.
Step 3. Determine the local weights of the factors and sub-factors
by using pairwise comparison matrices (assume that there is no
dependence among the factors). The fuzzy scale regarding
relative importance to measure the relative weights is given in
Table 1. This scale (Kahraman et al., 2006; Tolga et al., 2005) is
proposed and used for solving fuzzy decision-making problem.
Step 4. Determine the inner dependence matrix of each factor
with respect to other factors with fuzzy scale (Table 1). This
inner dependence matrix is multiplied by the local weights of
the factors (determined in Step 3), to compute the interdepen-
dent weights of these factors.
Step 5. Calculate the ship maneuverability by using the weights
of factors and the rating levels of ship maneuverability. The
maneuverability rating consists of the rating levels one to five
of all the rated maneuverability factors, as described in Table 2.
While evaluating the ship maneuverability, the maneuverabil-
ity rating can take different values depending on the rating of
ð2Þ
each factor in the ship maneuverability standards. The ship’s
maneuverability rating is computed by aggregating rating
levels of each factor multiplied by related the interdependent
weights. According to Table 2, the maneuverability rating of the
ship can be determined.
3. The ship maneuverability standards
The ABS provides the Guide for Vessel Maneuverability to help
its clients prepare for implementation of the IMO standards and
application of the relevant procedures. The ABS standards are
assigned based on a maneuverability rating that consists of the
rating levels one to five of all the rated maneuverability criteria.
42 X. Wang et al. / Ocean Engineering 106 (2015) 39–46

Minimum rating equals to one indicates adherence to the IMO The second overshoot angle in the 10/10 zig–zag test a102 is to
standards. be evaluated with the following function:
Maneuvering performance of a vessel is judged based on 8
> 25:0 L=V r 10 s
maneuvering criteria which are characteristic of several maneu- <
vers. These maneuvers and their criteria, as well as the required f 102 ðL=VÞ ¼ 17:5 þ 0:75  ðL=V Þ 10s o L=V o 30 s ð7Þ
>
: 40:0
numerical values, are described as follows. L=V Z 30 s

the second overshoot angle in 10/10 zig–zag test should meet the
3.1. Turning ability following requirement:
 
a102 o f 102 L=V ð8Þ
Turning ability is the measure of the ability to turn the vessel
using hard-over rudder (or other primary mean of directional As measured in the 20/20 zig–zag test, the first overshoot angle
control), the result being a minimum “advance” at 901 change of a201 is to be rated as follows:
heading and “tactical diameter” defined by the “transfer at 1801
if 20:09 þ K 3 o a201 r25 then Rta20 ¼ 1
change of heading”. The ABS standards require that the advance is
14:84 þ K 3 o a201 r 20:09 þ K 3 then Rta20 ¼ 2
to be less than 4.5 ship lengths:
7:84 þ K 3 o a201 r 14:84 þ K 3 then Rta20 ¼ 3
Ad r4:5L ð4Þ
2:59 þ K 3 o a201 r 7:84 þ K 3 then Rta20 ¼ 4
Provided that Condition (4) is satisfied, the rating of turning a201 r 2:59 þ K 3 then Rta20 ¼ 5
ability is found from the following formulae:
where K3 is 4.44Cb, Rta20 is rating for the first overshoot angle
if ð4:26  K 1 ÞL o TD r 5L then Rtd ¼ 1 in 20/20 zig–zag test.
ð3:63  K 1 ÞL o TD r ð4:26  K1 ÞL then Rtd ¼ 2 Provided both ratings Rta10 and Rta20 are one or more, the
ð2:79  K 1 ÞL o TD r ð3:63  K1 ÞL then Rtd ¼ 3 resultant overshoot angle rating is to be calculated as:
ð2:16  K 1 ÞL o TD r ð2:79  K1 ÞL then Rtd ¼ 4 Rta ¼ 0:5  ðRta10 þ Rta20 Þ ð9Þ
TD o ð2:16  K 1 ÞL then Rtd ¼ 5

where K1 is 1.62  10  6△, TD is tactical diameter, L is vessel 3.3. Initial turning ability
length, △ is vessel displacement, Rtd is the rating of turning ability.
The initial turning ability is defined by the change-of-heading
3.2. Course changing and yaw checking ability response to a moderate helm, in terms of heading deviation per unit
distance sailed or in terms of the distance covered before realizing a
The yaw-checking ability of the vessel is a measure of the certain heading deviation. Specifically, with the application of a 101
response to counter-rudder applied in a certain state of turning. rudder angle, the vessel must not travel more than 2.5 ship lengths
The essential information obtained from the zig–zag test is the before the vessel's heading has changed 101. Assignment of the
first and second overshoot angle in the 10/10 zig–zag maneuver, initial turning ability rating is to be done as follows:
the first overshoot angle in the 20/20 zig–zag maneuver. if 2:24L o l10 r 2:50L then Rti ¼ 1
As measured in the 10/10 zig–zag test, the first overshoot angle 2:07L ol10 r 2:24L then Rti ¼ 2
a101 is to be evaluated with the following auxiliary function:
1:89L ol10 r 2:07L then Rti ¼ 3
8
> 10:0 L=V r 10 s 1:63L ol10 r 1:89L then Rti ¼ 4
<
f 101 ðL=VÞ ¼ 5 þ 0:5  ðL=VÞ 10s oL=V o 30 s ð5Þ l10 r 1:63L then Rti ¼ 5
>
: 20:0 L=V Z 30 s
where l10 is distance that the vessel travels from the moment of
where V is vessel speed. The first overshoot angle in the 10/10 zig– the first execute until the course angle reaches 101 in the 10/10
zag test is to be rated as follows. zig–zag test, Rti is rating for the initial turning ability.
The rating for the first overshoot angle in the 10/10 zig–zag
test, Rta10 ¼1 can be assigned only if: 3.4. Stopping ability
 
10:04 þ K 2 of 101 L=V ð6Þ
Stopping ability is measured by the “track reach” and “head
where K2 is 2.22Cb, Cb is the block coefficient. Provided that reach” realized in a stop engine-full astern maneuver performed
Condition (6) is satisfied: after a steady approach at the test speed until ahead speed in ship
  coordinates changes sign.
if 10:04 þ K 2 o a101 r f 101 L=V then Rta10 ¼ 1
Stopping ability rating only if:
7:42 þ K 2 o a101 r 10:04 þ K 2 then Rta10 ¼ 2
TR o 20L for low  powered large displacement vessel
If Condition (6) is not satisfied:
  TRo 15L in all other cases ð10Þ
if 7:42 þ K 2 o a101 r f 101 L=V then Rta10 ¼ 2
where TR is the track reach.
Assignment of other ratings does not depend on Condition (6) Provided that Condition (10) is satisfied, the head reach is to be
and is to be done according to the following formulae: rated as follows:

if 3:92 þ K 2 o a101 r 7:42 þ K 2 then Rta10 ¼ 3 if Fnð69:4 þK 4 Þ o HR=L then Rts ¼ 1

1:29 þ K 2 o a101 r 3:92 þK 2 then Rta10 ¼ 4 Fnð56:2 þ K 4 Þ o HR=L rFnð69:4 þ K 4 Þ then Rts ¼ 2
a101 r1:29 þ K 2 then Rta10 ¼ 5 Fnð29:8 þ K 4 Þ o HR=L rFnð56:2 þ K 4 Þ then Rts ¼ 3
where Rta10 is rating for the first overshoot angle in 10/10 zig– Fnð16:6 þ K 4 Þ o HR=L rFnð29:8 þ K 4 Þ then Rts ¼ 4
zag test. HR=L r Fnð16:6 þ K4 Þ then Rts ¼ 5
 X. Wang et al. / Ocean Engineering 106 (2015) 39–46 43

where
pffiffiffiffiffi K4 is 0.000139△, HR is non-dimensional head reach, Fn is
V= gL, Rts is rating for stopping ability.
The overall rating is an average of the above individual rating:
Rt ¼ 0:25  ðRtd þ Rta þ Rtiþ RtsÞ
values show the degree of relative impact between two factors.
The relative importance of the factors on the basis of inter-
dependence can be calculated using the data provided in
ð11Þ

Table 3
Local weights and pairwise comparison matrix of factors.
4. The calculation for ship maneuverability
Factors TA CYA ITA SA Local weights

The study of the proposed rating based F-ANP model for the TA (1, 1, 1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1, 3/2, 2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) 0.38
evaluation of ship maneuverability is performed in this section. CYA (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) 0.20
Pairwise comparison matrices used to calculate factor and sub- ITA (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) 0.26
SA (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) 0.16
factor weights are formed by the expert team, which is composed
by professors and veteran Captains. The F-ANP model for the
evaluation of ship maneuverability is composed of the following
steps: Table 4
Pairwise comparison matrix of TA sub-factors.
Step 1. Determine the factors and sub-factors which used in the
TA Ad TD Local weights
evaluation of ship maneuverability. The factors and sub-factors
to be used in the model are determined by current ABS Ad (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 2/3, 1) 0.4
standards. Fig. 3 shows the factors and sub-factors concerned. TD (1, 3/2, 2) (1, 1, 1) 0.6
Step 2. Construct the ANP model. Based on the typical structure
of ANP in Section 2.2 and the factors and sub-factors deter-
mined in the first step, the ANP model for evaluation of ship
maneuverability is shown in Fig. 3. Table 5
Step 3. Determine the local weights of the factors and sub- Pairwise comparison matrix of CYA sub-factors.
factors. Pairwise comparison matrices are formed by the
CYA a101 a102 A201 Local weights
expert team. Assuming there is no interaction between the
factors and sub-factors. The fuzzy evaluation matrices and a101 (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) (1, 3/2, 2) 0.43
the comparative local weights of each factor are shown in a102 (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) 0.29
Table 3. Similarly, the fuzzy evaluation matrices and local a201 (1/2, 2/3, 1) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) 0.28

weights of sub-factors with respect of TA, CYA and SA

factors are displayed in Tables 4–6. The local weights for
the factors and sub-factors are calculated by the eigenvalue Table 6
method. Pairwise comparison matrix of SA sub-factors.
Step 4. In this step, interdependent weights of the ship
SA TR HR Local weights
maneuverability factors are calculated and the dependencies
among the factors are considered. Dependencies among the TR (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) 0.6
factors are determined by analyzing the impact of each factor HR (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) 0.4
on every other factor. Based on the dependencies between
factors (as shown in Fig. 4), the dependencies among all factors
are defined by the expert team via pairwise comparison
matrices. Three pairwise comparison matrices are formed for
TA, CYA and ITA factors. The resultant relative importance
TA CA ITA SA
weights of these matrices are calculated. The results are
displayed in Table 7. “0” values presented in Table 7 mean that
there is no dependence between two factors. The numerical Fig. 4. Inner dependence among factors.

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Goal Factors Sub-factors
Advance (Ad)
Turning ability
Tactical diameter (TD)

First overshoot angle in 10/10 test (a101)

Course changing
The evaluation and yaw checking Second overshoot angle in 10/10 test (a102)
of ship ability
maneuverability First overshoot angle in 20/20 test (a201)

Initial turning ability Distance traveled before 10o course change (l10)

Track reach (TR)

Stopping ability
Head reach (HR)
Fig. 3. The proposed ANP model for evaluation of ship maneuverability.
44 X. Wang et al. / Ocean Engineering 106 (2015) 39–46

Table 7 Table 9
Relative impact for ship maneuverability factors. Evaluation of the sample vessel maneuverability.

Factors TA CYA ITA SA Factors Local weights (w) Ratings (v) Factor ratings (w  v)

TA 0.46 0.29 0.32 0 TA 0.32 Rtd¼ 3 0.96

CYA 0.22 0.43 0.22 0 CAY 0.22 Rta ¼2.5 0.55
ITA 0.32 0.28 0.46 0 ITA 0.30 Rti¼ 5 1.50
SA 0 0 0 1 SA 0.16 Rtd¼ 5 0.80
Ship maneuverability 3.81

Table 8
Maneuvering data and related ratings. Table 10
Principal dimensions of three ships.
Sub-factors Maneuvering data Rating levels Ratings
Hull type Containership1 Containership2 Bulk Carrier
Ad 2.77L Passed
TD 2.79L Rtd¼ 3 Rtd¼3 Length (m) 282 200 182
a101 11.061 Rta10 ¼2 Breadth (m) 32.2 32.2 32.2
a102 32.171 Passed Draft amidships (m) 12.1 11.7 12.3
a201 17.321 Rta20 ¼ 3 Rta¼ 2.5 Block coefficient (dimensionless) 0.645 0.61 0.823
l10 1.63L Rti¼ 5 Rti¼ 5 Displacement (ton) 72,700 45,800 60,860
TR 9.7L Passed
HR 7.42L Rts¼ 5 Rtd¼5
are small. For example, the resultant rating of the maneuverability
for ship Containership1 is 3.1 by using F-ANP model in Table 11,
Tables 3 and 7: while the resultant ratings are 3.25 in current ABS standards and
2 3 2 3 2 3 3.22 in F-AHP model respectively. In Table 12, the resultant ratings
0:46 0:29 0:32 0 0:38 0:32
6 0:22 of the maneuverability for ship Containership2 are 2.75 in current
6 0:43 0:22 07 6 7 6 7
7 6 0:20 7 6 0:22 7
wf actors ¼ 6 76 7¼6 7 ð12Þ ABS standards, 2.64 in F-AHP model and 2.56 in F-ANP model
4 0:32 0:28 0:46 0 5 4 0:26 5 4 0:30 5
respectively. And in Table 13, the resultant ratings of the maneu-
0 0 0 1 0:16 0:16 verability for ship Bulk Carrier are nearly the same and equal to 3.
Since the current ABS standards are official guides which have
According to the calculation results, TA, ITA and CYA are three of the already been applied in practice, based on the above resultant
most important factors to be considered in the evaluation of ship ratings, it can be certified that the resultant ratings of ship maneu-
maneuverability. Significant differences are observed between the verability evaluated by the F-AHP model and the F-ANP model are
weights obtained for interdependent factors and the results reasonable. Nevertheless, in current ABS standards the resultant
obtained in Table 3 when dependencies are not considered. For ratings are calculated on the assumption that all the maneuvering
example, the results change from 0.38 to 0.32, 0.20 to 0.22 and 0.26 factors are equally important, and the ABS has pointed out this
to 0.30 for the weight values of factors TA, CYA and ITA, respectively. assumption is inadequate due to lack of sufficient data.
Step 5. Calculate the ship maneuverability by using the weights In recent years, the F-AHP model has been widely used to solve
of factors and the values of maneuverability rating levels. For many complicated problems, such as MCDM problem, and many
instance, the maneuvering data and related ratings for a sample significant results have been achieved. However, by comparing the
ship in current ABS standards are summarized in Table 8. Then, resultant ratings of ship maneuverability calculated respectively by F-
the evaluation of the sample ship maneuverability using the AHP model and F-ANP model (as described in Tables 11–13), the
previously described rating based F-ANP model is carried out in results are close though a few of difference still exist. The main
Table 9. It can be seen from Table 9 that the maneuverability of reason is that there is one limitation exists in F-AHP model, that is
the sample ship is Good in accordance with the maneuver- the assumption of independence among various factors. As the F-
ability rating (Table 2). ANP is a comprehensive decision-making technique and capable of
capturing the interdependence of maneuvering factors during eva-
luation process, the more systematic evaluation of ship maneuver-
ability can achieved by the suggested rating based the F-ANP model.
5. Case studies and discussions Significant differences are also observed in the results obtained
for the factor weights (as shown in Tables 11–13). In accordance
In order to certify the effectiveness and advantages of the with aforementioned case studies, the most important factor that
proposed F-ANP model, the maneuvering data of three ships are affects the maneuverability of ship is the “Turning ability” in F-ANP
provided (Belenky and Falzarano, 2006). The comprehensive model. It is the main reason why there is an obvious difference
maneuvering performances of these ships are identified by current between the resultant ratings of ship maneuverability in F-ANP
ABS standards, common fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (F-AHP) and current ABS standards for ship Containership1 and Container-
model and F-ANP model respectively. The current ABS standards ship2, while the resultant ratings are approximately equal for
are applied to verify the reasonableness of proposed Fuzzy ANP vessel Bulk Carrier. Meanwhile, in the daily practice of ship
model, and the common F-AHP model is applied to illustrate the maneuvering, the “Turning ability” which is measure of the ability
effectiveness of the proposed F-ANP model. The principal dimen- to turn the ship using hard over rudder is also the most important
sions of three ships are given in Table 10. The detailed available factor to measure the maneuverability of a ship, hence the
maneuvering data and resultant ratings of ship maneuverability resultant rating calculated by F-ANP model is reasonable and close
for each ship are listed in Tables 11–13. to reality. Comparing the factor local weights of F-AHP model and
According to Tables 11–13, it is obvious that the resultant rating F-ANP model, the weight values change from 0.37 to 0.32, 0.20 to
calculated by current ABS standards, F-AHP model and F-ANP 0.22 and 0.26 to 0.30 for maneuvering factors TA, CYA and ITA,
model respectively for each ship are different, but the differences respectively. As a result, it can be seen that the more reasonable
 X. Wang et al. / Ocean Engineering 106 (2015) 39–46 45

Table 11
Maneuvering data and resultant ratings of Containership1.

Sub-factors Maneuvering data Ratings (v) ABS standards Fuzzy AHP model Fuzzy ANP model

Weight (w) wv Weight (w) wv Weight (w) wv

TD 2.3L Rtd¼ 4 0.25 1 0.38 1.52 0.32 1.28

a101 3.951 Rta ¼ 4 0.25 1 0.20 0.80 0.22 0.88
a201 10.531
l10 2.5L Rti¼ 1 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.30 0.30
HR 7.36L Rtd¼ 4 0.25 1 0.16 0.64 0.16 0.64
Resultant ratings 3.25 3.22 3.10

Table 12
Maneuvering data and resultant ratings of Containership2.

Sub-factors Maneuvering data Ratings (v) ABS standards Fuzzy AHP model Fuzzy ANP model

Weight (w) wv Weight (w) wv Weight (w) wv

TD 2.94L Rtd ¼3 0.25 0.75 0.38 1.14 0.32 0.96

a101 5.851 Rta ¼ 3 0.25 0.75 0.20 0.60 0.22 0.66
a201 12.631
l10 2.5L Rti ¼1 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.30 0.30
HR 8.49L Rtd ¼4 0.25 1 0.16 0.64 0.16 0.64
Resultant ratings 2.75 2.64 2.56

Table 13
Maneuvering data and resultant ratings of Bulk Carrier.

Sub-factors Maneuvering data Ratings (v) ABS standards Fuzzy AHP model Fuzzy ANP model

Weight (w) wv Weight (w) wv Weight (w) wv

TD 2.92L Rtd¼ 3 0.25 0.75 0.38 1.14 0.32 0.96

a101 16.41 Rta ¼ 1 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.22
a201 19.851
l10 1.71L Rti¼ 4 0.25 1 0.26 1.04 0.30 1.20
HR 6.91L Rtd¼ 4 0.25 1 0.16 0.64 0.16 0.64
Resultant ratings 3.00 3.02 3.04

Table 14
(l10)”, “Tactical diameter (TD)” and “Advancer (Ad)” in F-AHP model are
Comparison of the results by F-ANP and F-AHP model.
changed to (0.30, 0.19, and 0.13) in F-ANP model respectively.
Factors Factors Sub-factors Sub-factors It is easily to find out from Tables 11–14 that the complex and
local local weights global weights interdependent relations of the evaluation factors for ship man-
weights euverability are simplified by current ABS standards and F-AHP
model, and the evaluation information is partly lost. However, the
F-ANP F-AHP F-AHP model F-AHP
model model model dependent information and feedback among the factors are
revealed in the comprehensive weights exactly in proposed rating
TA 0.32 0.38 Ad 0.40 0.13 0.15 based F-ANP model for evaluation of ship maneuverability in this
TD 0.60 0.19 0.23
study. The comparison results verify the validity and practicability
CYA 0.22 0.20 a101 0.43 0.10 0.08
a102 0.29 0.06 0.06 of the proposed rating based F-ANP model.
a201 0.28 0.06 0.06
ITA 0.30 0.26 l10 1 0.30 0.26
SA 0.16 0.16 TR 0.60 0.10 0.10 6. Conclusion
HR 0.40 0.06 0.06

Combined the F-ANP technique with the American Bureau of

and effective evaluation for ship maneuverability is obtained via
the proposed F-ANP model comparing with the F-AHP model.
Then, for both F-AHP model and F-ANP model, the global sub-
factor weights are computed by multiplying local weights of the sub-
factors (Tables 4–6) by the weights of the factors to which it belongs.
The overall weights information for each sub-factors are summarized
in Table 14. According to the global sub-factor weights of the proposed
F-ANP model shown in Table 14, the first three most important sub-
factors for the evaluation of ship maneuverability are “Distance traveled
before 101 course change (l10)”, “Tactical diameter (TD)” and “Advance
(Ad)” both in F-ANP model and F-AHP model. Meanwhile, the global
weights (0.26, 0.23, 0.15) for “Distance traveled before 101 course change
Shipping (ABS) maneuverability standards, a novel rating based F-
ANP model is presented for the evaluation of ship maneuverability
and the improvement of maneuverability standards in this study.
As a consequence, the problem of mutual dependencies of the
maneuvering factors existed in evaluation of ship maneuverability
and the insufficiency of unreasonable weights of maneuvering
factors assigned in current maneuverability standards are solved.
Since the capable of handling the interdependence among the
factors considered in the evaluation of ship maneuverability, the more
reasonable weights of each maneuvering factors are achieved in
proposed rating based F-ANP model in contrast with common
F-AHP model and current ABS standards. Meanwhile, the maneuvering
46 X. Wang et al. / Ocean Engineering 106 (2015) 39–46
data of three ships are applied to illustrate the effectiveness and
advantages of the proposed rating based F-ANP model by comparing
with the resultant ratings calculated by common F-AHP model and
current ABS standards. The comparative results are encouraging, and
indicate that the proposed rating based F-ANP approach is a viable and
highly capable methodology and can be used as an effective tool for the
evaluation of ship maneuverability.
In this study, the interdependence among maneuvering factors
has been focused on in a detailed manner and the pairwise
comparison matrices are formed by the expert team. Hence, the
composing of expert team is very important. In future research, the
suggested rating based F-ANP model can be used in research on the
interdependence and feedback among sub-factors for evaluation of
ship maneuverability, and the maneuverability of ship can be
measured more precisely on the basis of the sub-factor weights
obtained from these analyses. In addition, according to the char-
acteristics of various types of vessels, the suggested rating based F-
ANP model can be used to applicable local weights of factors for all
types of vessels, it will helpful for practical applications.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported in part by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China under Grant 51309041, in part by the Funda-
mental Research Funds for Central Universities under Grant
3132014201 and in part by the Scientific Research Foundation of
Graduate School of Dalian Maritime University under Grant
2014YB04.
References
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), 2006. Guide for Vessel Maneuverability.
Houston, TX.
Barr, R.A., Miller, E.R., Ankudinov V., Lee F.C., 1981. Technical basis for maneuvering
performance standards. Report CG-M-8-81 Hydronautics, Inc. Technical Report
8103-3, Laurel, MD.
Belenky, V., Falzarano, J., 2006. Rating-based maneuverability standards. ABS
Technical papers, pp. 227–238.
Biancardi, C.G., 1993. Integrating ship manouevrability with safety. SNAME Trans.
102, 447–474.
Chan, H.K., Wang, X.J., 2013. Fuzzy Hierarchical Model for Risk Assessment.
Springer-Verlag, London.
Dagdeviren, M., Yuksel, I., 2010. A fuzzy analytic network process (ANP) model for
measurement of the sectoral competititon level (SCL). Expert Syst. Appl. 37,
1005–1014.
Dagdeviren, M., Yuksel, I., Kurt, M., 2008. A-fuzzy analytic network process (ANP)
model to identify faulty behavior risk (FBR) in work system. Saf. Sci. 46,
771–783.
Demirtas, E.A., Ustun, O., 2009. Analytic network process and multi-period goal
programming integration in purchasing decisions. Comput. Ind. Eng. 56 (2),
677–690.
Hong, B.G., Yang, L.J., 2012. Ship Handing. Dalian Maritime University Press, Dalian.
Hong, B.G., Jia, C.Y., 2002. Synthetical evaluation of large ship maneuverability.
J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 2 (2), 55–58.
International Maritime Organization (IMO), 2002a. Standards for Ship Maneuver-
ability. Resolution MSC. 137(76).
International Maritime Organization (IMO), 2002b. Explanatory Notes to the
Standard for Ship Maneuverability. MSC/Circ 1053.
Kahraman, C., Ertay, T., Buyukozkan, G., 2006. A fuzzy optimization model for QFD
planning process using analytic network approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 171,
390–411.
Liu, K.F.R., Lai, J.H., 2009. Decision-support for environmental impact assessment: a
hybrid approach using fuzzy logic and fuzzy analytic network process. Expert
Syst. Appl. 36, 5119–5136.
Luo, Z.M., Zhou, J.Z., Zheng, L.P., 2010. A TFN-ANP based approach to evaluation
Virtual Research Center comprehensive performance. Expert Syst. Appl. 37,
8379–8386.
Meade, L.M., Sarkis, J., 1999. Analyzing organizational project alternatives for agile
manufacturing processes: an analytical network approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 37,
241–261.
Mikhailov, L., Madan, G., 2003. Fuzzy analytic network process and its application
to the development of decision support system. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.-
Part C: Appl. Rev. 33 (1), 33–41.
Mohanty, R.P., Agarwal, R., Choudhury, A.K., Tiwari, M.K., 2005. A fuzzy ANP based
approach to R&D project selection: a case study. Int. J. Prod. Res. 43, 5199–5216.
Onut, S., Kara, S.S., Isik, E., 2009. Long term supplier selection using a combined
fuzzy MCDM approach: a case study for a telecommunication company. Expert
Syst. Appl. 36 (2), 3887–3895.
Qiu, Y.M., Zhao, K, Chen, W.J., Chen, J.B., 2005. The comprehensive assessm ent of
ship handling performance based on AHP, Fuzzy theory. Jiangsu Ship 22 (2),
8–11.
Saaty, T.L., 1996. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The analytic
Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
Sarkis, J., 2002. Quantitative models for performance measurement systems-
alternate considerations. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 86, 81–90.
Spyrou, K., 1994. A new approach for assessing ship maneuverability based on
decisions analysis and its practical application. J. Soc. Nav. Archit. Jpn. 167,
267–280.
Tolga, E., Demircan, M.L., Kahraman, C., 2005. Operating system selection using
fuzzy replacement analysis and analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 97,
89–117.
Tuzkaya, U.R., Onut, S., 2008. A fuzzy analytic network process based approach to
transportation-mode selection between Turkey and Germany: a case study. Inf.
Sci. 178, 3133–3146.
Tuzkaya, G., Ozgen, A., Ozgen, D., Tuzkaya, U.R., 2009. Environmental performance
evaluation of suppliers: a hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach. Int. J.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 6, 477–490.
Wey, W.M., Wu, K.Y., 2007. Using ANP priorities with goal programming in resource
allocation in transportation. Math. Comput. Model. 46 (7), 985–1000.
Yurdakul, M., 2003. Measuring long-term performance of a manufacturing firm
using the analytic network process (ANP) approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 41 (11),
2501–2529.
Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8 (3), 338–353.