https://doi.org/10.20965/jaciii.2017.

p0467

Analysis of Near-Miss Ship Collisions Using Logistic Regression

Paper:

Study on the Analysis of Near-Miss Ship Collisions

Using Logistic Regression
Kwang-Il Kim∗ , Jung Sik Jeong∗ , and Byung-Gil Lee∗∗
∗ InternationalMaritime Transportation Science, Mokpo National Maritime University
91 Haeyangdaehag-ro, Mokpo, Jeon-Nam 58628, Republic of Korea
E-mail: kikim82@cbnu.ac.kr, jsjeong@mmu.ac.kr
∗∗ Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute

218 Gajeong-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34129, Republic of Korea

E-mail: bglee@etri.re.kr
[Received March 20, 2016; accepted January 4, 2017]

Generally, risk assessment for a ship collision can be
performed by analyzing the trajectories of two ships
as they get close to each other. A near-miss collision
between ships is an undesired event that did not re-
sult in collision, but had a high risk of doing so. Due
to the high frequency of these occurrences, many ac-
tual accident data samples can be obtained. In this
paper, we extract various variables related to near-
miss collisions from this data, such as Distance to Clos-
est Point of Approach (DCPA), Time to Closest Point
of Approach (TCPA) and Collision Avoidance Vari-
ance (CAV). To assess near-miss collision risk, logistic
regression analysis is performed by categorizing en-
counter types based on ship trajectories collected over
4 months in coastal water areas.
Keywords: ship encounter variables, near-miss ship col-
lision, logistic regression
1. Introduction
Ship collisions are one of the most common maritime
accidents at sea. In order to reduce collision numbers,
ship collision risk assessment has become an important
issue for maritime safety and traffic management. Many
researchers have reported that conflicts in navigation in-
tentions account for a substantial portion of ship colli-
sions [1, 2]. In general, risk assessment for ship collisions
can be performed by analyzing the trajectories of ships as
they near each other, using Automatic Identification Sys-
tem (AIS) dynamic information. It is reported that collid-
ing ships typically exhibit unsafe movements [3].
A ship encounter situation consists of two main parts.
The first part is made up of collision predictors such as
Distance to Closest Point of Approach (DCPA) and Time
to Closest Point of Approach (TCPA); these are proximity
indicators for the Closest Point of Approach (CPA). They
represent temporal and spatial margins between two ships
prior to a collision.
J. M. Mou et al. [4] proposed a dynamic risk model us-
ing CPA, TCPA, and the encounter angle between vessels.
This dynamic model only calculates collision risk for en-
counter situations.
The second part is made up of the consequences of
encounter situations, such as collision accidents or near-
misses. Collision accident data contains sufficient expla-
nation regarding an encounter situation. Additionally, it
is categorized according to ship size and type, encounter
type (i.e. head on, cross, overtake), human factors in-
volved in the collision accident, etc.
By looking at previous studies on the usage of ship
collision accident data as dependent variables, Roeleven
et al. [5] calculated the probability of a collision acci-
dent through a casuistic approach by using the binary
logit model of Generalized Linear Models (GLM). In this
model, collision accident data contains a two-value de-
pendent variable indicating whether or not a collision ac-
cident occurs. Jin et al. [6] also employed a binary logit
model for modeling the probability of fishing ship ac-
cidents. It used wind speed, ship length, navigating or
working regions, seasons, etc. obtained from dichoto-
mous accident data.
Despite the many advantages of collision accident data,
there is still a significant lack of samples for statistical
analysis. As Debnath [7] and Inoue et al. [8] pointed out,
it is necessary to have a database containing a sufficiently
large number of collision accident cases to draw statisti-
cally sound inferences from the analysis of collision acci-
dent records.
Table 1 displays statistical data on the consequences
of encounter situations over a one-year time period in the
coastal water areas of Busan Port and Busan New Port
located in the south-eastern part of South Korea. The
number of reported collision accident is only three per
year [9]. Near-misses, however, account for 1,278 cases,
and close quarter situations account for 15,114 cases;
these numbers are sufficient for statistical analysis. A
near-miss collision is an undesired event that did not re-
sult in collision, but had a high risk of doing so. A close
quarter situation is a sequence of events and/or conditions
between ships that had the potential to result in a colli-
sion [10]. The encounter distance of a close quarter situa-

Vol.21 No.3, 2017 Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence 467

and Intelligent Informatics
© Fuji Technology Press Ltd. Creative Commons CC BY-ND: This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/).
Kim, K.-I., Jeong, J. S., and Lee, B.-G.
Table 1. The number of consequences of encounter situa-
tions in target area.
Number per year
Collision accident 3
Collision near-miss 1,278
Close quarter situation 15,114
tion is typically larger than that of a near-miss.
To overcome the low sample problem, several stud-
ies have examined near-miss ship collisions (called near-
miss) instead of actual collisions [11, 12]. Near-miss en-
counters between ships occur frequently enough to enable
statistical analysis. It is also possible to obtain ship size
and type information, as well as encounter types from the
AIS device, equivalent to collision accident reports con-
tents except human errors.
In this paper, we extract statistical variables related to
near-misses risk from the consequences of ship encounter
situations. In order to obtain a model equation, ship en-
counter cases related to near-misses are examined from
the analysis of ship trajectories. In this study, because
near-miss data is presented as a dichotomous variable
with values of “near-miss” and “no near-miss,” logistic re-
gression analysis is appropriate for finding the best model
describing the relationship between a near-miss event and
the ship collision assessment variables from an encounter
situation.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
Section 2 describes the extraction of ship encounter vari-
ables for the regression model. In Section 3, independent
and dependent variables are extracted from AIS ship tra-
jectory data in the target water area and used to derive a
model equation using logistic regression. Finally, conclu-
sions are drawn in Section 4.
2. Ship Encounter Variables
2.1. Predictors of Collision
Generally, when one ship is about to collide with an-
other, the navigators make a plan for collision avoidance
by considering the magnitude of DCPA and TCPA to de-
termine an appropriate collision avoidance action.
DCPA is the distance between two ships at their CPA.
TCPA is the time required to move from the current ship
position to the CPA. In Fig. 1, DCPA and TCPA are both
illustrated in a cross situation encounter [13].
Let the own ship and the target ship be approaching
each other from their current positions of (xi , yi ) and
(x j , y j ) with latitudinal and longitudinal components of
(xi , yi ) and (xj , yj ) according to each ship’s course and
velocity.
In this encounter situation, DCPA and TCPA can be
derived as follows:
−[(y j − yi )(yj − yi ) + (x j − xi )(xj − xi )]
TCPA(t) =
(yj − yi )2 + (xj − xi )2
468 Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence
and Intelligent Informatics
Fig. 1. Categorization of encounter type.
DCPA(t) =

[(y j−yi )+(yj−yi )×TCPA]2+[(x j−xi )+(xj−xi )×TCPA]2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
Another predictor variable in a collision situation is the
collision avoidance action. A collision avoidance action
can lower collision risk by increasing DCPA and TCPA.
Therefore, it is closely correlated with the occurrence of
a near-miss. In this study, we propose the concept of
Collision Avoidance Variance (CAV). It is a dichotomous
variable derived by checking if course deviation is over
15◦ . CAV(1) indicates less than 15◦ course variance, and
CAV(2) indicates greater than 15◦ course variance.
The other relevant variable for ship collisions is en-
counter type. An encounter can be classified as head-
on, cross, or overtake, as defined in the Collision Regu-
lations [14]. Using a ship’s heading as a bearing of 0◦ , a
head-on situation is −5◦ to 5◦ , a cross situation is 5◦ to
112.5◦ and −5◦ to −112.5◦, and an overtake situation is
112.5◦ to 180◦ and −112.5◦ to −180◦ . These encounter
types are illustrated in Fig. 2.
2.2. Near-Miss Variable
A near-miss collision means that ship navigation almost
resulted in a collision or a near-passing course, but colli-
sion was avoided through navigator action or luck [12].
To discriminate near-miss events from other encoun-
ters, Kim et al. [12] and Goerlandt et al. [11] employed
the ship elliptical domains proposed by Fujii [15] as near-
miss criteria. Fig. 3 shows the near-miss and no near-miss
areas between nearby ships. A near-miss event variable is
dichotomous with values of occurrence (value = 1) and
no-occurrence (value = 0) determined using this ship do-
main criteria.
When selecting near-miss events from other encoun-
ters, analysis of ship trajectories is performed whether or
not a target ship’s position falls inside the owned ship’s
domain. Based on ship length (L), an elliptical domain
(1)
in sea speed is drawn with size 8 L in the direction of
Vol.21 No.3, 2017

Fig. 2. Categorization of encounter types.
Fig. 3. Concept of a near-miss event illustrated by an ellip-
tical domain.
Fig. 4. Discrimination of the ship elliptical domain.
the ship’s course, and 3.2 L perpendicular to the ship’s
course [15]. Fig. 4 represents discrimination of near-miss
events by rotating the own ship’s elliptical domain and
comparing the target ship’s position to the boundary.
Because the elliptical domain depends on the ship’s
course, it must be rotated to match the course direction.
Using Eq. (3), a coordinate (x, y) on the ship domain
boundary can be rotated to (x , y ).
x = cos θ × x + sin θ × y
y = sin θ × x − cos θ × y . . . . . . . .
Where, angle of intersection with the x-axis (θ ) is calcu-
Vol.21 No.3, 2017 Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence
and Intelligent Informatics
Analysis of Near-Miss Ship Collisions Using Logistic Regression
Fig. 5. Ship trajectories and close quarter situation points in
the target area.
lated based on the ship’s course (ψ ) using Eq. (4).

|90◦ − ψ | (ψ ≥ 180◦ )
θ= . . . . . . (4)
|270◦ − ψ | (ψ ≤ 180◦ )
After applying Eqs. (3) and (4) to the elliptical domain,
Eq. (5) is used to discriminate near-miss events between
the own and target ships. If the value on the left is less
than 1, a near-miss event occurred, otherwise, no near-
miss occurred.
(cos θ × (xc − xo ) + sin θ × (yc − yo ))2
+
(4 × Lo )2
(sin θ × (xc − xo ) − cos θ × (yc − yo ))2
≤1 . (5)
(1.6 × Lo )2
3. Methodology
3.1. Target Water Area
The target water area for this study is the coastal water
area around Busan port and Busan New port located in the
south-eastern part of South Korea. We use ship trajectory
data from a 4 month time period. This coastal water area
is suitable for assessing ship collision risk because there
are no obstructions or route regulations. Therefore, near-
miss situations occur more frequently compared to port
water areas. Fig. 5 shows ship trajectories and close quar-
ter situation points (CPA < 0.5 nautical miles and TCPA
< 5 minutes) in the target area.
3.2. Extraction of Model Variables
Ship trajectory data received from an AIS device con-
sists of dynamic and static information. The dynamic in-
formation includes vessel movement information such as
ship position, course, and speed. Encounter information
between navigating ships is not included [16]. Therefore,
we must extract encounter variables from ship trajectory
(3)
data. Fig. 6 illustrates the process of extracting ship en-
counter variables.
469
Kim, K.-I., Jeong, J. S., and Lee, B.-G.

Table 2. Description of near-miss variables.

Variable Variable
Description p-value
Name Type
DCPA/L Mean DCPA /
0.000
(X1 ) Own Ship length
TCPA Independent
TCPA at 0.5 nm 0.001
(X2 ) Variables
CAV(1): under 15◦
CAV
CAV(2): more than 0.000
(X3 )
15◦
1: Head-on
Encounter Selection
2: Cross –
Type Variable
2: 3: Overtake
Near-miss Dependent 0: No Near-miss
–
Event Variable 1: Near-miss

Table 3. The resulting coefficients (Odds Ratio) from logis-

tic regression.
DCPA/L TCPA CAV Constant
(β1 ) (β2 ) (β3 ) (α )
−2.007 −0.492 −1.135 3.7
Head on
(0.134) (0.611) (0.321) (40.45)
−1.414 −0.075 −1.055 2.125
Cross
(0.243) (0.928) (0.348) (8.37)
−0.905 −0.256 −1.776 3.237
Overtake
(0.404) (0.774) (0.169) (25.45)
( ) : Odds Ratio

is DCPA based on own ship length, and this is used be-

Fig. 6. Ship encounter data extraction module.
First, ship trajectory data is arranged in chronolog-
ical order, and then data from adjacent ships is com-
bined to form a ship encounter at the same time i. Data
is combined based the close quarter situation criteria of
DCPA being less than 0.5 nautical miles, and TCPA be-
ing less than 10 minutes [9]. Second, DCPA/L, TCPA,
CAV, and encounter type are calculated. Position of an
encounter are determined using Dead Reckoning Posi-
tions [17]. Third, the module determines the minimum
distance in an encounter and decides whether or not a
near-miss event occurred using Eq. (5). Finally, ship en-
counter and near-miss event variables are saved to the
database. After searching through all ship trajectories, re-
gression coefficients are calculated using the Maximum
Likelihood method.
Table 2 displays the descriptions of near-miss variables
and their statistical significance (p-value) in this analysis.
DCPA/L, TCPA, and CAV are used as dependent vari-
ables. These variables satisfy the statistical significance
threshold (p-value < 0.05) for a near-miss event. DCPA/L
cause domain size depends on ship length. TCPA is cal-
culated when the distance between ships reaches 0.5 nm
because that is the close quarter threshold. CAV is deter-
mined by the difference between maximum course change
and minimum course change in a close quarter situa-
tion [18].
Although the encounter type variable is not statistically
significant to a near-miss event, it does has an effect on
DCPA/L, TCPA, and CAV variables (see Table 3). It is
used as a selection variable for separating encounters into
three groups (head-on, cross, overtake).
3.3. Applying to the Logistic Regression
Logistic regression is a type of linear regression used to
analyze dichotomous dependent variables, such as near-
miss occurrence. It is based on the construction of a sta-
tistical model that describes the relationship between ob-
served dependent and independent variables, also called
response and explanatory variables [19]. It can not only
be used to predict posteriori probability, but also for clas-
sification of data samples. Therefore, it can be used to
calculate posteriori probability using categorical and con-
tinuous variables through a logistic function.
In this study, binomial logistic regression is applied to
test for an association between the dependent variable of a
near-miss and the independent variables of related data in
an encounter. By applying the logistic function in Eq. (6),
near-miss probability becomes a value between 0 and 1,

470 Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence Vol.21 No.3, 2017

and Intelligent Informatics
 Analysis of Near-Miss Ship Collisions Using Logistic Regression

regardless of the size of the independent variables.

e(α +β1 X1 +···+βn Xn )
NP = . . . . . . . (6)
1 + e(α +β1 X1 +···+βn Xn )
For estimation of the model coefficient value of Xi , we use
a logit transformation function similar to a linear regres-
sion model, shown in Eq. (7):
 
NP
log it(NP) = ln = α + β1 X1 + · · · + βn Xn (7)
1 − NP
The regression equation coefficients (β ) are estimated
using the Maximum Likelihood method proposed by Fig. 7. Near-miss probability curves in head-on situation.
Cox [20]. The primary output from the logistic regression
model is an Odds Ratio (OR), or probability, of a near-
miss event. The OR is the relative amount by which the
odds of an outcome increase (OR greater than 1.0) or de-
crease (OR less than 1.0) when the value of the predictor
is increased by 1 unit.
Using the independent and dependent variables from
ship encounter data, logistic analysis is performed by the
SPSS package. Table 3 displays coefficients (β ), and OR.
In order to calculate near-miss probability, regression
model equations are derived using the regression coeffi-
cients as shown in Eqs. (8)–(10).
e(3.7−2.01X1 −0.49X2 −1.14X3 )
NPhead−on = . . (8)
1 + e(3.7−2.01X1 −0.49X2 −1.14X3 ) Fig. 8. Near-miss probability curves in cross situation.

e(2.13−1.41X1 −0.08X2 −1.06X3 )

NPcross = . . . (9)
1 + e(2.13−1.41X1 −0.08X2 −1.06X3 )
e(3.24−0.91X1 −0.26X2 −1.78X3 )
NPovertake = . (10)
1 + e(3.24−0.91X1 −0.26X2 −1.78X3 )
Where, X1 : DCPA/L, X2 : TCPA, X3 : CAV (1) =
0,CAV (2) = 1.

3.4. Discussion
The DCPA/L independent variable has a negative effect
on near-miss probability in all encounter situations (OR in
head-on: −2.007 times, OR in cross: −1.414 times, OR Fig. 9. Near-miss probability curves in overtake situation.
in over-take: −0.905 times) when it is decreased by 1.
The TCPA independent variable also has a negative effect
on near-miss probability in all encounter situations (OR
in head-on: −0.492 times, OR in cross: −0.075 times, CAV(1) and CAV(2) for near-miss probability is signifi-
OR in over-take: −0.256 times) when it is decreased by cantly higher for overtake situations compared to the other
1. For the CAV independent variable, CAV(1) has a nega- encounter types.
tive effect when compared with CAV(2) for all encounter
situations (OR in head-on: −1.135 times, OR in cross:
−1.055 times, OR in over-take: −1.776 times). 4. Conclusion
Figures 7–9 shows near-miss probability distribution
curves calculated using the regression coefficients values We utilized ship encounter data including DCPA/L,
for each encounter type. The X-axis is DCPAL, the Y -axis CAV, and encounter type from near-miss events for logis-
is TCPA, and the Z-axis is Near-miss Probability. The tic regression to perform statistical assessment of water-
slopes of the curves are determined by |β |, which is asso- way risk. Near-misses, which are as a dependent variable,
ciated with independent variable sensibility. are substituted for actual accidents due to their relatively
In the distributions of near-miss probabilities, the vari- high occurrence in the available dataset.
ance in head-on and cross situation are higher than in The model coefficients, OR, are obtained by applying
overtake situations. Additionally the difference between regression to the encounter data. The resulting model

Vol.21 No.3, 2017 Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence 471

and Intelligent Informatics
Kim, K.-I., Jeong, J. S., and Lee, B.-G.
equations are useful for analyzing risk factors posed by
independent variables, and calculating near-miss proba-
bility.
The results will support vessel traffic service operators
or ship navigators in collision avoidance and real-time
traffic control. Additional encounter data and the addition
of other risk variables will improve model classification
accuracy in the future.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program
through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded
by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2016R1A6A3A 11935806).
This work was supported by ETRI through the Maritime Safety &
Maritime Traffic Management R&D Program of the MPSS (Min-
istry of Public Safety and Security) and KIMST (2009403, Devel-
opment of next generation VTS for maritime safety).
References:
[1] J. S. Jeong, G. K. Park, and K. I. Kim, “Risk Assessment Model
of Maritime Traffic in Time-Variant CPA Environments in Water-
way,” J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Inform. (JACIII), Vol.16, No.7,
pp. 866-873, 2012.
[2] R. M. Darbra and J. Casal, “Historical analysis of accidents in sea-
ports,” Safety Science, Vol.42, No.2, pp. 85-98, 2004.
[3] T. Hong, “Development of a System for Transmitting a Navigator’s
Intention for Safe Navigation,” Int. J. of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent
Systems, Vol.14, No.2, pp. 130-135, 2014.
[4] J. M. Mou, C. van der Tak, and H. Ligteringen, “Study on collision
avoidance in busy waterways by using AIS data,” Ocean Engineer-
ing, Vol.37, pp. 483-490, 2010.
[5] D. Roeleven, M. Kok, H. L. Stipdonk, and W. A. de Vries, “In-
land Waterway Transport; Modeling the Probability of Accidents,”
Safety Science, Vol.19, pp. 191-202, 1995.
[6] D. Jin, H. L. Kite-Powell, E. Thunberg, A. R. Solow, and W. K. Tal-
ley, “A Model of Fishing Vessel Accident Probability,” J. of Safety
Research, Vol.33, No.4, pp. 497-510. 2002.
[7] A. K. Debnath, “Traffic Conflict based Modeling of Collision Risk
in Port Waters,” Ph.D. dissertation, National University of Singa-
pore, Singapore, pp. 29-30, 2009.
[8] K. Inoue and M. Kawase, “Innovative Probabilistic Prediction of
Accident Occurrence,” Int. J. on Marine Navigation and Safety of
Sea Transportation, Vol.1, No.1, 2007.
[9] Korea Maritime Safety Tribunal, Maritime Accidents Statistics
2011-2016, http://www.kmst.go.kr [accessed Mar. 1, 2016], 2017.
[10] C. Jean-Charles, “Close quarter situations reporting by VTS,”
Rights and Safety of Marime and Ocean Activities Speciality,
pp. 38-39, 2004.
[11] F. Goerlandt, et al., “Analysis of the Near-collisions using AIS data
for the selected locations in the Baltic Sea,” EfficienSea Tech. Rep.,
2012.
[12] K. I. Kim, J. S. Jeong, and G. K. Park, “A Study on Near-miss Inci-
dents from Maritime Traffic Flow by Clustering Vessel Positions,”
J. of Korean Institute of Intelligent Systems, Vol.24, No.6, pp. 603-
608, 2014.
[13] A. K. Debnath and H. C. Chim, “National Traffic Conflict Tech-
nique : A Proactive Approach to Quantitative Measurement of Col-
lision Risks in Port Waters,” The J. of Navigation, Vol.63, pp. 137-
152, 2010.
[14] IMO, COLREG: Convention on the international regulations for
preventing collisions at sea 1972, The International Maritime Or-
ganization, 2002.
[15] Y. Fujii and K. Tanaka, “Traffic Capacity,” The J. of Navigation,
Vol.24, pp. 543-552, 1971.
[16] E. K. Kim, J. S. Jeong, G. K. Park, and N. K. Im, “Characteristics of
Ship Movements in a Fairway,” Int. J. of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent
Systems, Vol.12, No.4, pp. 285-289, 2012.
[17] J. S. Kim, J. S. Jeong, and G. K. Park, “Utilization of Planned
Routes and Dead Reckoning Positions to Improve Situation Aware-
ness at Sea,” Int. J. of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems, Vol.14,
No.4, pp. 288-294, 2014.
[18] K. I. Kim, J. S. Jeong, and G. K. Park, “A Study on the Analysis
of Ship Encounter Data using Logistic Regression,” The 16th Int.
Symp. on Advanced Intelligent Systems, pp. 235-242, 2015.
472 Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence
and Intelligent Informatics
[19] D. R. Collet, “Modelling Binary Data,” Chapman and Hall, 1991.
[20] D. K. Cox and E. J. Snell, “The Analysis of Binary Data,” London,
1970.
Name:
Kwang-Il Kim
Affiliation:
Computer Science, Chungbuk National Univer-
sity
Address:
1 Chungdae-ro, Seowon-gu, Cheongju, Chungbuk 28644, Republic of
Korea
Brief Biographical History:
2005 Received the Bachelor of Science in Department of Maritime
Transportation System from Mokpo National Maritime University
2005-2009 Navigator-Deck Officer, Ssangyong Shipping, Co. Ltd.
2010- VTS Officer, Yeosu VTS, Ministry of Public Safety and Security,
Republic of Korea
2012 Received the Master degree in Department of Maritime
Transportation System from Mokpo National Maritime University
2012 Received the Doctor degree in Department of Maritime
Transportation System from Mokpo National Maritime University
Main Works:
• “Risk Assessment Model of Maritime Traffic in Time-Variant CPA
Environments in Waterway,” J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Inform.
(JACIII), Vol.16, No.7, pp. 866-873, 2012.
Membership in Academic Societies:
• Korea Institute of Intelligent Systems
• Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research
Name:
Jung Sik Jeong
Affiliation:
Mokpo National Maritime University
Address:
91 Haeyangdaehag-Ro, Mokpo City, Jeon-Nam, 530-729, Republic of
Korea
Brief Biographical History:
1987 Received the Bachelor of Science in Department of Nautical
Science from Korea Maritime University
1993 Received the Master Degree in Department of Electronic and
Communication from Korea Maritime University
1993-1996 Senior Researcher, Korea Telecom R&D Center
2001 Received the Doctoral Degree in the Department of Electrical and
Electronic Engineering from Tokyo Institute of Technology
2001-2002 Senior Researcher, Korea Telecom R&D Center
2002 Associate Professor, Faculty of Maritime Transportation
Main Works:
• Parameter estimation, statistical risk assessment, maritime traffic
engineering, collision avoidance
Membership in Academic Societies:
• Korea Institute of Intelligent Systems
• Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research
• The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Signal
Processing Society
Vol.21 No.3, 2017
 Analysis of Near-Miss Ship Collisions Using Logistic Regression

Name:
Byung-Gil Lee

Affiliation:
Electronics and Telecommunications Research
Institute (ETRI)

Address:
218 Gajeong-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 34129, Republic of Korea
Brief Biographical History:
1991-2001 Senior Research Engineer, Dacom R&D Center
2001-present Principle Member of Engineering Staff in Hyper-connected
Communication research laboratory of ETRI
2003 Received the Doctoral Degree in the Department of Electrical and
Electronic Engineering from the Kyungpook National University
Main Works:
• “An intelligent real-time multi-vessel collision risk assessment system
from VTS view point based on fuzzy inference system,” Elsevier Expert
Systems with Applications, Vol.40, Issue 4, pp. 1220-1230, 2013.
Membership in Academic Societies:
• Korea Institute of Information and Communication Engineering
• Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research
• Korean Institute of Communications and Information Sciences
• Korea Multimedia Society

Vol.21 No.3, 2017 Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence 473

and Intelligent Informatics

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)