Modern Navigation Systems and their Role in Increasing the Safety of Marine Transportation: A Simulation Study

Parmen Khvedelidze , Dursun Tsintsadze, Giorgi Kikvidze, Valerian Imnaishvili and Nino Beridze
Faculty of Maritime Engineering, Batumi Navigation Teaching University, Batumi, Georgia
Correspondence to: Parmen Khvedelidze, khvedelidzeparmen@gmail.com

DOI: https://doi.org/10.70389/PJS.100139

Additional information

• Ethical approval: N/a
• Consent: N/a
• Funding: No industry funding
• Conflicts of interest: N/a
• Author contribution: Parmen Khvedelidze – Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft, Supervision, Project Administration; Dursun Tsintsadze – Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing; Giorgi Kikvidze – Investigation, Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing; Valerian Imnaishvili – Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing; Nino Beridze – Data Curation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing.
• Guarantor: Parmen Khvedelidze
• Provenance and peer-review:
  Unsolicited and externally peer-reviewed
• Data availability statement: N/a

Keywords: Accident reduction, Cyber threats, Digital infrastructure, Economic profitability, Insurance discounts, Personnel training, Port traffic.

Peer Review
Received: 1 September 2025
Last revised: 25 September 2025
Accepted: 30 September 2025
Version accepted: 3
Published: 13 October 2025

Plain Language Summary Infographic

Highlights

• GPS and AIS deliver the highest ROI with low costs.
• In Georgia, AIS cuts incidents by 20%, saving $6k annually on insurance.
• Integrated Bridge System is effective but limited by high costs and low adoption.
• Usability and training costs are decisive factors for adoption.
• Cybersecurity is a major vulnerability for key navigation systems.

Introduction

Maritime transport remains a vital component of the global economy, accounting for up to 80% of international trade volumes. However, the rapid development of the marine industry has been accompanied by numerous challenges, ranging from technical and navigational risks to environmental threats caused by increased shipping activity. In this context, navigation systems based on digital technologies play a key role in enhancing the safety and sustainability of maritime transport. The integration into the marine sector allows for a reduction in accident probability, route optimisation, pollution prevention, and timely response to risks arising from both human factors and external conditions.

Existing maritime navigation solutions encompass not only technical but also environmental, logistical, and strategic aspects. The study by N.P. Santos et al.¹ explores uncrewed maritime vehicles as platforms for hybrid navigation models. Additional contributions were made by studies in the field of environmentally sustainable maritime technologies. The authors emphasised that autonomous operation under high uncertainty required new navigation logics with sensor adaptability, spatiotemporal prediction, and multi-criteria decision-making, which reduced dependence on human factors and increased the reliability and safety of navigation. Additional contributions were made by studies in the field of environmentally sustainable maritime technologies. X. Rao et al.² explored methanol as an alternative fuel for marine engines, stressing that its use necessitated a revision of navigation algorithms in light of new risks – storage, ignition, and emergencies. The authors highlighted the need to integrate these factors into routing and traffic management systems, which were directly linked to navigation safety and compliance with environmental standards.

J. Ma et al.³ proposed a model for analysing the causes of spontaneous vessel flooding based on a network approach. The authors systematised the set of technical, organisational, and human factors affecting emergencies, identifying potential escalation points. The work demonstrated the importance of considering complex and poorly structured interconnections between elements of the navigation system. It underlined the necessity of integrating such models into maritime safety management processes. M. Li et al.⁴ assessed the probability of damage to submarine cables when anchoring vessels. The authors developed a probabilistic model that allowed for the consideration of navigational behaviour near critical infrastructure. The study stressed the importance of accurate positioning and movement forecasting in port zones, where anchoring errors could lead to systemic communication and safety failures.

M. Zhang et al.⁵ systematised accumulated solutions in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) integration, navigation analysis automation, and multisensory data processing. The authors went beyond a technological review, offering a conceptual framework for improving maritime safety, demonstrating how adaptive predictive algorithms and distributed control could reduce navigational risks in highly dynamic naval environments. The study laid a methodological foundation for the development of next-generation navigation systems focused on resilience, autonomy, and proactive incident prevention. Despite the existence of successful practices and universal solutions, significant gaps remain due to the uneven spread of modern technologies, especially in countries with developing maritime infrastructure, such as Georgia. The adaptation of these technologies requires further research, particularly in the integration of hybrid navigation models for uncrewed maritime vehicles. While promising, the literature on this topic is limited, especially regarding sensor adaptability, multi-criteria decision-making, and spatiotemporal prediction. Exploring these areas is crucial for advancing autonomous maritime systems and improving overall safety and sustainability.

The purpose of this study was to comprehensively assess the economic and operational performance of existing maritime navigation systems on an international scale, taking into account the specific characteristics of Georgia’s maritime sector, to justify the path to improved navigation safety and reduced shipping costs. To achieve this goal, the following objectives were set: to conduct a quantitative and comparative assessment of the economic efficiency of maritime navigation systems considering costs, ROI, Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), and insurance returns in both global and regional (Georgian) contexts; to evaluate the impact of navigation technology implementation on shipping safety, taking into account the specifics of the Georgian navigation environment; to analyse the social applicability of the systems and to develop practical recommendations for the integration into the maritime industry, considering the Georgian context.

Materials and Methods

The study was conducted from June 2024 to April 2025 at the laboratory of the internationally accredited Batumi State Maritime Academy (BSMA). The primary focus was on the comparative analysis of the Automatic Identification System (AIS), Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS), Global Positioning System (GPS), Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS), International Maritime Satellite Organization (Inmarsat), radar systems, and Integrated Bridge System (IBS). Simulation modelling was carried out in four stages using a custom model that combined a probabilistic approach and empirical input parameters. It aimed to quantitatively assess the impact of navigation technologies on safety, operational costs, and practical applicability in both international and regional (Georgian) contexts.

At the first stage, a baseline scenario of vessel operation without the implementation of automated navigation systems was modelled. The input parameters used included: vessel type — standard medium-tonnage cargo fleet (10,000–50,000 Deadweight Tonnage), most commonly used in international and Georgian practice; statistically relevant visibility values (0.5–10 miles); traffic density and hydrometeorological conditions, based on reports by Inmarsat⁷ and the National Environmental Agency of Georgia;⁸ and the frequency of incidents (collisions, groundings, communication failures), reconstructed using data from DNV Cyber & FT Longitude.⁹ The normative service life of electronic navigation equipment was assumed to be 10 years, which was an industry-standard figure for TCO and investment model calculations by maritime operators. The choice of data ensured the representativeness of the scenario and its compliance with real-world operating conditions. The developed scenarios included both the separate modelling of AIS, ECDIS, GPS, GMDSS, IBS, and other systems, as well as their combined use. Each scenario also received a quantitative assessment of incident reduction, operational cost reduction, and improved navigational accuracy compared to the baseline model. For Georgia, additional factors included the heavy port traffic in Batumi and Poti, narrow channels, adverse weather, and low fleet digitalisation. This allowed the models to be adapted to the region’s real conditions and objectively assess the effectiveness of the systems.

At the second stage, a quantitative assessment was conducted of the key operational, economic, and safety characteristics of navigation technologies. The selected parameters included prevalence, capital, annual operating costs, ROI, reduction in operational expenses, and the level of incident reduction. The parameters were selected based on industry standards as the most universal indicators of technological and investment efficiency in the maritime sector. Prevalence was considered a measure of technology maturity and a prerequisite for effective scalability. Financial costs (capital and operational) were used to calculate TCO and Lifetime Customer Value/Life Cycle Value (LCV), reflecting long-term benefit. ROI was applied as a universal indicator of investment efficiency. Cost reduction metrics were modelled as the result of integrating technologies into typical operational processes. The level of incident reduction was defined as an integral indicator of navigational safety, directly affecting insurance premiums and strategic operational reliability.

The third stage of your study involves assessing user-friendliness with a System Usability Scale (SUS), which includes 20 operators: 12 final-year maritime students and 8 BSMA instructors. The operators were tasked with performing typical tasks such as route planning and processing AIS signals. These tasks were evaluated on a 1-5 scale, where 1 indicated very poor usability and 5 indicated maximum ease of use. The SUS assessment was conducted using Transas Navi-Trainer Professional 5000 navigation simulators. The participants were selected based on their different levels of maritime experience: 12 students, who are nearing graduation, and 8 instructors with over five years of seafaring experience. This diversity in experience allows for a broad perspective on the usability of the system, as both groups may interact with the technology differently due to their varying levels of familiarity with maritime navigation systems.

In terms of sampling, the group of 20 operators is a combination of students, who represent future maritime professionals, and instructors, who bring practical, experienced-based insights into the usability of the system. This mixed sample enhances the comprehensiveness of the assessment by including both theoretical and practical perspectives on system usability. All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. Ethics approval number 34 was granted by the Batumi Navigation Teaching University Ethics Committee for this study. Results were processed using the arithmetic mean and statistically tested for consistency (Cronbach’s alpha >0.8). For the regional scenario (Georgia), adjustments were made based on expert evaluations – lower scores for ECDIS (3.8→3.5) and IBS (4.0→3.8) were due to limited digital training, lack of adapted interfaces, and training infrastructure. The duration of certification courses, retraining frequency, and simulator usage costs were also taken into account. For Georgia, the model was adapted to account for increased rates (by 20–30%) and the need to hire external instructors.

To enhance the transparency and replicability of the models presented in this study, it is crucial to provide full mathematical formulations, explicit parameter values, data sources, and uncertainty ranges for the TCO, ROI, LCV, and insurance profitability models. At present, several figures in the study are described as “simulated” or “hypothetical,” which limits the ability of peers to verify or replicate the calculations. The mathematical formulations for TCO, ROI, and LCV are provided in the following equations: The TCO accounts for all costs incurred throughout the life cycle of a system or technology, including initial investments, operational costs, maintenance, and potential upgrades. The formula can be expressed as follows:

where: C_init — initial investment in hardware, software, installation, licenses,, C_train — Costs of training and retraining personnel to operate the system, C_oper,t – operating costs in year t (operating period), C_maint,t Maintenance in year t, C_upgrade,t — grades and updates in year t, S_res,n — residual value at the end of the life cycle (in year n (total life cycle of the technology or equipment, expressed in years)). Regional adaptation used adjustment factors based on differences in resource costs (training, infrastructure). The factors ranged from +20% to +30%, reflecting the need for external contractors and the limitations of in-house training. ROI evaluates the economic return of an investment by comparing the annual savings generated by a technology to the capital investment. The formula is (2):

where the annual savings represent the reduction in operational expenses resulting from the implementation of navigation technologies, and capital costs reflect the initial investment. The total savings are calculated over the entire operation period, capturing the economic effect of technology implementation. The formula is (3):

where: E_econ – total economic effect (savings) for the entire period of operation, C_base,t – costs without the introduction of technology at time t, C_withtech,t – costs after the introduction of technology at the same time t. LCV measures the long-term value generated by the technology, considering the time value of money. The formula is (4):

where: r – Discount rate.

Additionally, an insurance profitability model for maritime navigation systems was developed, including a forecast of expected insurance discounts, annual savings on premiums, and ROI calculation for insurance. The insurance profitability model assesses the impact of reducing incidents on insurance savings. The expected savings on insurance premiums are calculated as (5):

where: base premium = the initial premium amount (e.g., USD 250,000 globally, USD 50,000 in Georgia); incident reduction = the percentage reduction in incidents due to the technology; correlation coefficient = a coefficient that adjusts the savings based on fleet and infrastructure differences (e.g., 0.8 for international fleets, 0.6 for Georgian fleets).

The discount was calculated as a function of the percentage reduction in incidents, with correlation coefficients reflecting insurance practices based on regional and international fleet differences. The correlation coefficient of 0.8 for international fleets is typically grounded in standardized global risk management protocols, which ensure consistent and predictable outcomes across well-digitalized fleets. In contrast, the coefficient of 0.6 for Georgian fleets reflects regional variability due to infrastructure limitations, fluctuating safety records, and the evolving nature of fleet modernization. The model is supported by industry reports and actuarial studies that outline these premium determinants and provide a framework for adjusting these values under different operational conditions. Insurance savings were calculated as the product of the base premium rate (USD 250,000 per year globally and USD 50,000 per year in Georgia) and the expected discount. ROI was calculated as the ratio of annual savings to the capital costs of a specific system, with additional sensitivity analysis performed to assess how changes in premium rates, correlation coefficients, and incident reduction percentages could impact the results. The goal of these calculations was to identify the systems with the highest insurance return, particularly under resource constraints and the varied fleet structures present in Georgia.

The model parameters were based on simulated incident data, industry reports,7,9 and consultations with representatives from insurance companies. The goal of the calculation was to identify the systems with the highest insurance return, especially under limited resources and varied fleet structures. An additional analysis of the operational characteristics of navigation technologies was conducted through the systematization of the advantages and limitations of each system globally, considering the specificities of Georgia’s maritime sector. The comparative results of all aspects served as the foundation for practical recommendations to optimize the use of navigation equipment in marine education and operational activities, taking into account the specific characteristics of the Black Sea region.

To ensure the reliability of simulation scenarios and compliance with international standards,^10–12 a specialised hardware and software complex was used. Each component of the complex was selected based on the tasks of a specific modelling stage and requirements for result verification. For comprehensive modelling of navigation operations under various conditions (port operations, open sea, and complex weather conditions), the Transas Navi-Trainer Professional 5000 platform was used – an industry standard among navigation simulators, approved by⁷ and¹². It provided realistic integration of key ship systems, including AIS, ECDIS, GPS, radar, GMDSS, and IBS, allowing for the simulation of complex operational scenarios. To assess electronic chart systems and route planning, certified solutions, Transas Navi-Sailor 4000 and Furuno FMD-3200, were used. The use of both platforms enabled a comparative analysis of navigation accuracy and user interface convenience. GPS signal simulation was conducted using the Spirent GSS6700, a device widely used in maritime and aviation testing. It allowed for the simulation of real signal transmission conditions, including interference, spoofing, and temporary losses, which were critical for assessing positioning system vulnerabilities.

Radar navigation was simulated using Furuno FAR-2117 and Sperry Marine VisionMaster FT, which are compliant with11 and are commonly used in practical navigation. This ensured the comparability of simulation results with real-world operations. A GMDSS satellite communication simulation, including Search and Rescue (SAR) and SafetyNET functions, was conducted using Inmarsat-C terminals (International Maritime Satellite Communication system, Class C) and FleetBroadband. IBS integration was modelled using the Kongsberg K-Bridge platform, which supported realistic visualisation and data processing from multiple devices. This platform was widely used in training and certification processes, including those adhering to12 standards.

The simulator task design in the study utilizes a simulation modelling approach to evaluate maritime navigation systems’ efficiency under various operational conditions. It is conducted using a probabilistic model combined with empirical data, simulating vessel operations both with and without automated navigation systems. The four-stage simulation process encompasses a baseline scenario of manual navigation, followed by simulations that incorporate different systems (e.g., AIS, GPS, ECDIS). These models assess the impact of technologies on operational costs, safety incidents, and navigational accuracy. The final stage of simulation involves evaluating the usability of these systems using the SUS with participants from different maritime experience levels. The assessment is designed to quantify how technology adoption influences operational performance in real-world maritime settings, particularly under adverse weather and high traffic conditions.

Performance metrics are based on key indicators such as the ROI, cost reductions, incident reduction rates, usability ratings, and training expenses. Additionally, the study incorporates an insurance profitability model, which evaluates the expected savings from reduced incidents and the corresponding insurance premium discounts, further supporting the economic analysis. These metrics provide a comprehensive view of the systems’ effectiveness in enhancing both safety and cost-efficiency in the maritime sector. To simulate local Black Sea hydrometeorological conditions, weather stations and data from8 were utilized, ensuring realistic simulations of wave height, precipitation, fog, and wind factors that affect navigation safety and system reliability. Usability and ergonomics of navigation equipment interfaces were assessed using Oculus Rift virtual reality technology. VR modules provided immersive feedback and supplemented traditional cognitive load evaluation methods such as SUS. Economic and operational analysis was performed using MATLAB (Matrix Laboratory)/Simulink and AnyLogic. MATLAB supported complex mathematical modelling, while AnyLogic enabled agent-based simulation of navigation scenarios.

Verification of results was carried out by comparing the simulated data with international^7,8 and regional9 sources. Pearson correlation analysis was used to assess consistency at a significance level of α = 0.05, with a correlation coefficient (r) greater than 0.85 considered indicative of a high correlation. Additionally, the simulated indicators were compared to industry standards and regional data.^7–9,12 Simulations on the Transas platform confirmed the model’s validity. Comparisons with market rates and a correlation coefficient of r > 0.8 ensured a quantitative assessment of the social applicability of systems under constrained resources. To ensure model validity and assess the uncertainty of the obtained results, a comprehensive comparison of simulated data with real-world statistical indicators was conducted. Simulated incident frequencies (collisions, groundings) were benchmarked against historical data from the 2019–2024 period sourced from global reports by Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty (AGCS) and regional reports from the Georgian Maritime Transport Administration. To quantitatively assess the agreement between simulated and empirical data, calibration plots were constructed, and residual statistics were analyzed. The coefficient of determination (R²) for the model was 0.89, indicating a high explanatory power. Residual analysis (the difference between observed and predicted values) showed a Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of ±0.7% for the reduction in incident rates and a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of ±1.1%.

To verify the model’s robustness, k-fold cross-validation (with k = 5) was performed, which confirmed the stability of the results: the standard deviation of ROI values between folds did not exceed ±5%. Pearson correlation analysis confirmed a strong relationship between simulated and market data for insurance premiums (r = 0.87, p < 0.05) and operational costs (r = 0.91, p < 0.05). Uncertainty ranges for key economic indicators were determined through sensitivity analysis by varying input parameters within ±15% (costs) and ±20% (efficiency). For instance, the ROI value for AIS in the global context was 120% with a 90% confidence interval [102%, 138%], and the LCV value for IBS in Georgia was [−32,000 USD] with an interval of [−48,000 USD, −16,000 USD]. This methodology ensures calculation transparency and allows stakeholders to assess the reliability of the results and the boundaries of their applicability.

Results

Impact of modern navigation systems on maritime safety: The georgian experience

The integration of modern navigation systems into Georgia’s maritime industry is shaped by both technological advancements and the region’s unique challenges. Given Georgia’s developing infrastructure and the complexities of the Black Sea, effective navigation systems must address issues like human error, route optimization, and local safety risks. This section evaluates how these systems contribute to safety improvements and operational efficiency, considering Georgia’s specific maritime context.

Table 1 presents a comparative assessment of the economic efficiency of various navigation systems in Georgia’s maritime sector, highlighting key factors such as prevalence, capital and operational costs, ROI, cost reduction, incident reduction, usability ratings, and training expenses. GPS (95% prevalence) and AIS (90% prevalence) are the most widely adopted due to their cost-effectiveness and efficiency, with GPS offering the highest ROI (150%) and cost reduction (12%), while AIS also demonstrates a strong ROI (125%) despite slightly higher maintenance costs. In contrast, IBS, with low prevalence (30%) and high implementation costs, offers less economic efficiency. AIS significantly reduces incidents by 20%, and Inmarsat (GMDSS) contributes to a 15% reduction, making them particularly valuable in Georgia’s high-traffic ports like Batumi and Poti. Usability ratings further highlight that GPS (4.8) and AIS (4.6) are user-friendly and require minimal training, with low tuition fees (USD 500 for GPS, USD 1,500 for AIS), while more complex systems like ECDIS and IBS (rated 3.8 and 3.2, respectively) demand higher training costs, which can affect overall cost-effectiveness.

Table 1: Comparative evaluation of economic efficiency and safety impact of marine navigation systems in Georgia.
System	Prevalence (%)	Implementation costs (USD)	Annual maintenance costs (USD)	ROI (%)	Cost reduction (%)	Decrease in incidents (%)	Reduction of incidents in Georgia (%)	Usability Rating (1-5)	Tuition fees (USD)
AIS	90	15,000	2,000	125	18	7.6	20	4.6	1,500
ECDIS	70	50,000	5,000	80	10	5	5	3.5	6,000
GPS	95	10,000	1,000	150	12	5	5	4.8	500
Radar systems	85	30,000	3,000	100	13	6	6	3.2	2,500
Inmarsat (GMDSS)	80	20,000	4,000	110	14	7	15	4.4	2,500
IBS	30	100,000	10,000	85	18	8	8	3.8	12,000
Note: the data did not reflect actual financial, insurance, or operational contracts, but were the result of simulation modelling approximating industry practice. Source: compiled by the authors based on DNV Cyber & FT Longitude9, Inmarsat7, National Environmental Agency of Georgia8.

High ROI and cost reduction of AIS and GPS systems make them ideal candidates for widespread adoption in Georgia. At the same time, IBS and ECDIS, despite offering high potential for incident reduction and cost-saving, are constrained by high implementation costs and specialized training needs, which should be addressed through state support and infrastructure modernization.

The analysis of simulation modelling results showed that under the conditions of Georgia’s maritime industry, the GPS, AIS, and Inmarsat (GMDSS) navigation systems demonstrated the highest economic efficiency. The GPS featured the highest ROI (150%) with minimal capital and annual costs. AIS, despite slightly higher maintenance costs, provided a high ROI (125%) and the maximum cost reduction effect (18%) among all systems, making it particularly beneficial for widespread adoption. The Inmarsat (GMDSS) system demonstrated a balanced ratio of efficiency and cost, with an ROI of 110% and a 14% cost reduction, which explained its value in ensuring reliable communication under the challenging hydro-meteorological conditions of the Black Sea. In contrast, IBS and ECDIS showed lower profitability (ROI 85% and 80%, respectively) with high implementation costs. This was especially true for IBS, which, despite a significant cost reduction potential, had limited prevalence (30%), which could be attributed to technological and institutional barriers, including insufficient crew training and limited digital infrastructure in ports.

In the Georgian context, the effectiveness of specific systems increased significantly. The most noticeable effect was demonstrated by AIS, which resulted in a 20% reduction in the number of incidents. This was due to its critical importance when operating in areas with high traffic density, narrow routes, and limited visibility. Inmarsat also made a significant contribution to safety, showing a 15% reduction, thanks to its reliable communication in the challenging weather conditions of the Black Sea. Other systems (GPS, ECDIS, and radar complexes) maintained stable efficiency in both global and regional scenarios (5–6%), reflecting the role as essential but not regionally adaptive solutions. In Georgia, IBS retained its global level of reduction (8%), though its effect could have been significantly greater if wider integration across the fleet had been implemented.

According to the modelling and expert scale, GPS (4.8) and AIS (4.6) were recognised as the most user-friendly systems in operation. These systems were characterised by intuitive interfaces, a high level of automation, and required minimal personnel training time. The low training costs made these systems particularly attractive for widespread adoption within the regional fleet. Inmarsat (GMDSS) also demonstrated a high level of user accessibility (score 4.4) with average training costs, reflecting the standardised approach to training under the internationally adopted GMDSS framework. At the same time, ECDIS and IBS showed lower usability ratings (3.5 and 3.8, respectively), indicating interface complexity, high integration requirements with other systems, and the need for specialised training. This was especially evident in the case of IBS, where training costs reached USD 12,000, which, given the low level of fleet digitalization in Georgia, limited its widespread adoption. Radar systems proved to be the least user-friendly (score 3.2), most likely due to the need for manual signal interpretation and limited automation, especially on outdated platforms. To comprehensively assess the applicability of maritime navigation technologies in Georgia, an analysis of the advantages and limitations of key systems was also conducted, taking into account the regional specifics of the Black Sea, port infrastructure characteristics (Batumi, Poti), the digitalisation level of the fleet, as well as socio-economic and cyber risks (Table 2).

Table 2: Key advantages and limitations of marine navigation systems in the Georgian maritime sector.
System	Advantages	Disadvantages
AIS	Support for real-time monitoring is essential for the dense traffic in Georgian ports. Simplicity of interface, minimizing the need for training	Vulnerability to cyberattacks, especially in the context of geopolitical risks in the Black Sea Requires integration with other systems for full effectiveness Limited port infrastructure
ECDIS	Precise route planning in the tricky waters of the Black Sea Compliance with IMO standards for international ships	Complex software requires training High implementation costs Limited hydrographic infrastructure in Georgia
GPS	High precision and ease of use Suitable for fuel economy	Vulnerability to interference in conflict zones Dependence on a satellite network
Radar systems	Reliability in poor visibility conditions, which are common in the Black Sea	The complexity of calibration requires training Limited effectiveness in dense traffic without AIS
Inmarsat (GMDSS)	Reliable satellite communications in stormy conditions of the Black Sea SAR (Search and Rescue) operations and SafetyNET II for warnings	High costs for implementation and maintenance Vulnerability to cyberattacks. Limited port infrastructure
IBS	Integration of systems for autonomous navigation is promising for large vessels.	High costs, difficulty of integration with obsolete vessels Low prevalence in Georgia
Source: compiled by the authors based on National Environmental Agency of Georgia8, Inmarsat7, DNV Cyber & FT Longitude9.

AIS and GPS stand out for their simplicity and effectiveness in dense port traffic, with AIS offering real-time monitoring and reducing incidents by 7.6%, supported by its ease of use and minimal training costs. GPS, known for its high precision and low training expenses, contributes to fuel savings and operational efficiency. However, both systems are vulnerable to cyberattacks, especially in the context of Georgia’s geopolitical risks, and require integration with other systems, such as IBS, to be fully effective. Inmarsat (GMDSS) provides reliable satellite communications in adverse weather conditions and supports Search and Rescue (SAR) operations, although its high implementation and maintenance costs make it less economically viable. Radar systems are crucial for visibility in poor weather conditions but require manual calibration and are less effective in dense traffic without AIS integration. ECDIS, while valuable for precise route planning in challenging waters, faces high implementation costs and is constrained by Georgia’s limited hydrographic infrastructure. IBS, while promising for autonomous navigation, suffers from high implementation and training costs and is not widely used in Georgia due to integration challenges with older vessels and limited digital infrastructure. These advantages and limitations underline the need for a tailored approach to system adoption in Georgia, balancing cost, safety, and technological integration^.13

Table 3 presents an adapted economic assessment of maritime navigation systems, taking into account the specific characteristics of the Georgian naval sector – in particular, the limited tonnage of the national fleet, comparatively low capital and operating costs, and the unique navigation conditions in the Black Sea basin and the ports of Batumi and Poti.

Table 3: Cost-benefit analysis of marine navigation systems in Georgia’s maritime sector.
System	TCO (USD)	Total Savings (USD)	LCV (USD)
AIS	26,500	190,000	163,500
ECDIS	81,000	75,000	−6,000
GPS	15,500	85,000	69,500
Radar systems	47,500	95,000	47,500
Inmarsat (GMDSS)	42,500	145,000	102,500
IBS	162,000	130,000	−32,000
Note: the data did not reflect actual financial, insurance, or operational contracts, but were the result of simulation modelling approximating industry practice. Source: compiled by the authors based on DNV Cyber & FT Longitude9, Inmarsat7, National Environmental Agency of Georgia8.

The research results in the context of Georgia demonstrated differences from global indicators, which were associated with adapting calculations to the conditions of the Georgian maritime sector – a smaller fleet scale, reduced implementation costs, and a more pronounced effect of digitalization within the limited Black Sea area. The AIS system demonstrated the highest economic efficiency, with an LCV of USD 163,500, which was attributed to its widespread use, low cost, and significant contribution to improving safety in the ports of Batumi and Poti. Significant LCV values were also recorded for Inmarsat (GMDSS) (USD 102,500) and GPS (USD 69,500), highlighting the importance of accurate navigation and stable communication under the complex hydrometeorological conditions of the region. Radar systems provided a positive LCV due to their reliability in low visibility conditions and acceptable operating costs. ECDIS (USD -6,000) and especially IBS (USD -32,000) showed negative LCVs due to high implementation and training costs, as well as the lack of a developed infrastructure for comprehensive digital integration. Additionally, Table 4 demonstrated the additional economic efficiency of navigation technologies through the reduction of insurance premiums.

Table 4: Economic efficiency of navigation systems in Georgia: impact on insurance savings.
System	Decrease in incidents (%)	Estimated insurance discount (%)	Premium savings (USD/year)	ROI on insurance
AIS	7.6	9	22,500	150
ECDIS	5	6	15,000	150
GPS	5	5	12,500	25
Radar systems	6	6	15,000	50
Inmarsat (GMDSS)	7	8	20,000	100
IBS	8	12	30,000	30
Note: the data did not reflect actual financial, insurance, or operational contracts, but were the result of simulation modelling approximating industry practice. Source: compiled by the authors based on DNV Cyber & FT Longitude9, Inmarsat7.

The IBS and AIS systems demonstrated excellent efficiency in insurance-related matters. Despite high capital expenditure, IBS provided the maximum insurance discount (12%) and savings of up to USD 30,000 per year, corresponding to a 30% ROI. AIS, due to its high effectiveness in preventing navigational incidents, enabled savings of USD 22,500 with a 150% ROI – the highest among all systems. Inmarsat (GMDSS) and ECDIS also provided significant insurance-related benefits (USD 20,000 and USD 15,000 per year, respectively), reflecting their role in enhancing communication and navigation safety in adverse conditions. The ROI for these technologies ranged from 100% to 150%. GPS and radar systems yielded moderate insurance returns (USD 12,500–15,000 per year) with relatively low ROI, especially in the case of GPS (25%), which was attributed to the perception of these systems as basic equipment with limited influence on insurance coefficients. Additionally, Table 5 presents the results of a comparative analysis of insurance ROI for navigation systems in Georgia’s maritime sector.

Table 5: Projected insurance benefits from the adoption of marine navigation technologies in Georgia.
System	Decrease in incidents (%)	Estimated insurance discount (%)	Premium savings (USD/year)	ROI on insurance
AIS	20	12	6,000	40
ECDIS	5	3	1,500	3
GPS	5	3	1,500	15
Radar systems	6	3.6	1,800	6
Inmarsat (GMDSS)	15	9	4,500	22.5
IBS	8	4.8	2,400	2.4
Note: the data did not reflect actual financial, insurance, or operational contracts, but were the result of simulation modelling approximating industry practice. Source: compiled by the authors based on DNV Cyber & FT Longitude9, Inmarsat7, National Environmental Agency of Georgia8.

The results indicated that the AIS system provided the most significant insurance benefit in the Georgian context, offering savings of 6,000 USD per year and an ROI of 40%, due to a considerable reduction in incidents and the availability of the technology. Inmarsat (GMDSS) also showed high potential (savings of 4,500 USD, ROI of 22.5%), reflecting its value in ensuring stable communication and safety. Other systems, such as ECDIS, GPS, radar technologies, and IBS, were characterized by significantly lower ROI indicators (2.4–15%), which limited their attractiveness in the context of Georgia.

The results of this study enabled the formulation of practice-oriented recommendations for shipping companies, port operators, logisticians, and regulators, taking into account both global trends and the specific nature of Georgia’s maritime sector. The analysis of economic and operational indicators confirmed the high efficiency of AIS and GPS systems, characterised by low capital and operational costs while significantly reducing navigation risks and insurance premiums. It was proposed to ensure the widespread installation of AIS and GPS systems on ships, including government co-financing measures for small-tonnage fleets, as well as expanding the use of AIS in port traffic monitoring systems. For medium and large-tonnage vessels, a phased transition to IBS was advisable, which, despite high implementation and training costs, demonstrated a synergistic effect in reducing navigation risks and increasing crews’ situational awareness.^14–16

For the phased implementation of IBS on medium and large tonnage vessels, the decision to implement should be based on achieving key cost-benefit thresholds. These include a minimum return on investment (ROI) of 15–20%, a reduction in incidents of at least 8%, and an increase in operational efficiency of 10% or more. If the total costs of training, system integration, and maintenance exceed a set percentage of the fleet budget (e.g., 30%) or if maintenance costs exceed 5–10% of annual operating expenses, the implementation strategy should be reviewed. Additional factors include the frequency of safety-related incidents, port traffic density, and regulatory or insurance requirements. IBS implementation can also be accelerated by technological advances that reduce implementation costs or improve integration with existing infrastructure, as well as by the availability of inexpensive crew training programs.

It was recommended to include IBS in fleet modernization programs, introduce it in port VTS systems, and develop educational platforms in cooperation with international maritime organizations. The use of ECDIS and GPS systems contributed to the efficiency of maritime logistics by enabling accurate route planning, reducing anchorage time, and minimizing supply disruptions, and integrating with logistics IT systems.^17–19 It was necessary to intensify the use of ECDIS in the fleet and ports, as well as to modernise the hydrographic base and digital infrastructure. Navigation technologies, primarily AIS, Inmarsat, and IBS, were recognised by insurers as tools for risk reduction, which provided insurance discounts in the range of 5−12%. It was recommended to certify these systems by IMO standards and to use verified data on incident reduction during negotiations with insurance companies.

Given the specifics of the Georgian maritime sector (small fleet, complex weather conditions, limited resources), it was advisable to subsidise the installation of AIS and ECDIS on small-tonnage vessels, introduce IBS into port logistics and dispatching, implement crew training programmes in partnership with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), as well as to develop cyber resilience of port and vessel infrastructure. The growth of digitalisation increased the vulnerability of navigation solutions to cyber threats (signal interception, spoofing, system interference), which encouraged the implementation of comprehensive protection measures (encryption, anomaly monitoring) and the development of national cybersecurity protocols in the maritime sector.47,48 The proposed measures were based on a comparison of efficiency indicators, risks, and costs. They could be applied both in the strategic planning of shipping companies and in state policy in the field of maritime safety and the digitalization of transport infrastructure.

Global baseline analysis of navigation systems

The research results demonstrated significant differences in the effectiveness of navigation systems depending on the scenario (global or regional – Georgia). Within the international fleet, most systems exhibited a moderate reduction in incidents, ranging from 5% to 8%, reflecting their fundamental role in ensuring navigational safety. The most effective system in the international context proved to be the IBS (8% reduction), which was explained by its ability to process data centrally and minimise the human factor. AIS and Inmarsat (GMDSS) also proved effective (7.6% and 7% respectively) due to the monitoring and communication functions. Empirical modelling allowed for the identification of the social parameters of navigation system use in the maritime industry. It took into account the crew’s subjective evaluation of usability as well as the costs required for personnel training (Table 6).

Table 6: Social and usability assessment of marine navigation systems in the maritime industry.
System	Usability rating (1–5)	Tuition fees (USD)
AIS	4.6	1,000
ECDIS	3.8	5,000
GPS	4.8	500
Radar systems	3.2	2,000
Inmarsat (GMDSS)	4.4	2,000
IBS	4.0	10,000
Note: the data did not reflect actual financial, insurance, or operational contracts, but were the result of simulation modelling approximating industry practice. Source: compiled by the authors based on DNV Cyber & FT Longitude9, Inmarsat7.

The results showed that GPS and AIS were the most user-friendly systems, receiving high scores (4.8 and 4.6, respectively) due to the intuitive interfaces and minimal learning complexity. The low training costs for GPS (USD 500) and AIS (USD 1,000) made GPS and AIS accessible to crews with varying levels of preparation. Inmarsat (GMDSS) also demonstrated high usability (4.4) with moderate training expenses (USD 2,000), highlighting its efficiency in ensuring effective communication. In contrast, ECDIS and radar systems received lower usability ratings (3.8 and 3.2), which could be attributed to their complexity and the need for extended training. IBS, despite its average usability score (4.0), required a significant training investment (USD 10,000), which limited its adoption, particularly on vessels with constrained resources. This confirmed that systems with high intuitiveness and low training costs (GPS, AIS) were the most preferable for widespread implementation. To provide a detailed assessment of the applicability of navigation systems, a comparative analysis of their operational characteristics was conducted. Table 7 presents the primary advantages and limitations of each technology, taking into account the impact on safety, costs, ROI, and crew training requirements.

Table 7: Functional overview and operational characteristics of marine navigation systems.
System	Advantage	Disadvantages
AIS	Reduced incidents by 7.6% through real-time monitoring High usability rating (4.6) due to the simple interface Low implementation and maintenance costs ROI 120% due to reduced insurance premiums Support for dense traffic in ports	Vulnerability to cyberattacks (GPS spoofing, data interception) Limited effectiveness in stand-alone systems without integration with IBS Training costs (1 thousand USD) due to the need for crew certification
ECDIS	Reducing costs by 10% through precise route planning 5% reduction in incidents under challenging waters Ensuring compliance with IMO navigation standards Support for digital maps updated in real time	Complex software reduces the usability rating High costs for implementation and maintenance Training costs due to human factors and certification Operator errors increase risks
GPS	High positioning accuracy (up to 1 m), high usability rating (4.8) due to simplicity Minimal costs for training and implementation Route optimisation reduces fuel costs by 12%	Vulnerable to jamming and spoofing, especially in conflict zones Limited reduction in incidents (5%) Dependence on satellite infrastructure
Radar systems	Reduction of incidents by 6% in conditions of poor visibility (fog, night) Average implementation and maintenance costs Reliable in detecting objects up to 24 miles away	Low usability rating (3.2) due to calibration required Training costs (2 thousand USD) for working with the interface Limited effectiveness in dense traffic without AIS
Inmarsat (GMDSS)	Reducing incidents by 7% due to reliable satellite communications High convenience rating (4.4) IoT (Internet of Things) for data transfer Efficiency in storm conditions	High maintenance costs (4,000 USD/year) and implementation costs (20,000 USD) Training costs for setting up equipment Dependence on a satellite network
IBS	Cost reduction of 18% achieved through the integration of all systems Reduction in incidents by 8% Support for autonomous navigation, reducing crew workload	High costs for implementation (100,000 USD) and maintenance (10,000 USD/year) Training costs are due to complexity Low prevalence (60%) due to cost Difficulty of integration with legacy vessels
Source: compiled by the authors based on Y. Han and L. Chu12, M.H. Hsieh et al.20, Inmarsat6, DNV Cyber & FT Longitude8, S. Liu et al.21, N. Veltsin et al.22, R.G. Wright23, T. Yuzui and F. Kaneko24, J. Zhang et al.25, L. Yang et al26.

AIS was the most economical option, with a high ROI and strong effectiveness in dense traffic; however, it was vulnerable to cyberattacks and proved less effective without integration with IBS. ECDIS ensured compliance with IMO^27,28 standards and facilitated accurate route planning; however, the complex software and high implementation costs necessitated significant training. GPS stood out for its high accuracy and simplicity, which reduced fuel consumption; however, it was susceptible to interference. Radar systems were reliable in poor visibility conditions, but were difficult to operate and less effective in dense traffic.^29–31 Inmarsat (GMDSS) provided reliable communication and IoT support; however, it was expensive to install and maintain. IBS led in reducing costs and incidents, supporting autonomy, but its high cost and integration complexity limited its application on outdated vessels. The optimal system depended on the shipowner’s priorities. For cost-saving and simplicity, AIS and GPS were preferred; for challenging conditions, radars and Inmarsat were used; and for maximum efficiency and autonomy, IBS was chosen, despite its high expenses. System integration could have minimised the shortcomings and enhanced overall safety and efficiency.^32,33 Figure 1 summarizes the key findings of the study, comparing the incident reduction, ROI, and LCV of various maritime navigation systems in both global and Georgian contexts.

Thus, the data shows that AIS and GPS systems deliver the highest ROI, with GPS reaching 150% and AIS at 125%, while also achieving significant reductions in incidents, with AIS reducing incidents by 20% and GPS contributing to fuel savings through optimized routes. In the Georgian context, AIS is particularly beneficial, given the high traffic density in ports like Batumi and Poti. Inmarsat (GMDSS) also demonstrates strong potential with a 15% reduction in incidents and an ROI of 110%, highlighting its importance in ensuring reliable communication under challenging weather conditions. However, systems like IBS, while effective in reducing incidents by 8% and offering an 18% cost reduction, show lower ROI and negative LCV due to their high implementation and training costs. The figure reinforces the conclusion that AIS and GPS systems offer the most cost-effective solutions, with high ROI and incident reduction, while IBS and ECDIS, despite their potential, face significant barriers to widespread adoption in Georgia due to their higher costs and complex integration requirements.

Discussion

The research results showed that AIS and IBS contributed to enhanced maritime safety through the integration of navigational data and intelligent information processing. The effectiveness of AIS in reducing incidents was confirmed in a study by Y. Zhou et al.,34 where an algorithm for collision avoidance based on AIS data and an improved Dynamic Window Approach (DWA) was developed and successfully tested in high-traffic conditions. The work also examined the integration of navigational systems and support for autonomous navigation, indicating the potential of IBS use in complex navigational environments. The cybersecurity of maritime navigation systems has emerged as a significant issue owing to the growing complexity and interconnectivity of contemporary vessel systems. System-specific threats encompass potential compromises aimed at onboard communication networks, including GPS spoofing or data interception, which may result in unauthorized access or alteration of navigational data. To mitigate these threats, maritime operators must establish stringent cyber controls, encompassing firewalls, encryption methods, and ongoing network monitoring to identify anomalies. Moreover, implementing secure software development methodologies and consistently applying patches for vulnerabilities are crucial for protecting navigation systems against advancing cyberattacks.

Verification processes are essential for guaranteeing the efficacy of these controls. Regular penetration testing and vulnerability assessments, adhering to the IMO Guidelines on Cyber Risk Management,³⁵ enable operators to detect vulnerabilities before to exploitation. Furthermore, the implementation of cyber risk assessments, certifications, and real-time monitoring systems guarantees continuous compliance and a proactive approach to emerging risks. The implementation of these procedures, with crew training and incident response protocols, is essential for preserving the integrity and security of marine navigation systems, hence enhancing their resilience to cyber threats.

The data obtained during the modeling showed that radar systems, despite having moderate usability (3.2) and requiring crew training, ensured a consistent reduction in incidents (by 6%) in limited visibility conditions. This confirmed the importance of this element as a key component in navigational safety architecture, particularly in regions with weak satellite signals and unstable communication. The present study aligned with the findings of J. Wang et al.³⁶ developed a Bayesian model for assessing navigational risk, taking into account radar system characteristics, weather conditions, traffic density, and the availability of alternative navigation tools. In the simulation, the authors demonstrated that radar systems maintained high object detection accuracy and stability even without a GPS signal. The model also allowed for formalising threshold conditions under which radar tools became critically crucial for timely threat alerts, especially at night and in low visibility.

The economic efficiency analysis of navigation systems considering insurance savings was supported by existing research on risk management and improving maritime transport safety. T. Rabus,³⁷ in the work, focused on a comprehensive approach to managing external risks in the aviation and marine sectors, emphasising that the integration of modern navigation technologies could significantly reduce the likelihood of emergencies and, as a result, reduce insurance costs. This correlated with the modelling data, according to which IBS and AIS systems demonstrated the highest insurance efficiency and ROI levels despite significant capital investment.

The study’s results confirmed the high economic and operational efficiency of AIS and GPS systems, as well as the expediency of phased IBS implementation and the expansion of digitalization in Georgia’s maritime sector. These findings were supported by academic research, which reinforced the practical relevance of the proposed recommendations. The study by X. Liu and K.F. Yuen³⁸ demonstrated the wide-ranging opportunities for applying AI and digital technologies in ports, which aligns with this study’s recommendation to develop port monitoring systems based on AIS and IBS. The authors emphasized the need to enhance the cyber resilience of digital infrastructure, which was particularly relevant for Georgia’s maritime sector, given the increasing digitalization and associated cyber risks. The introduction of comprehensive protection measures, including data encryption and anomaly detection, could reduce the vulnerability of navigation systems, which aligns with the study’s findings on the need for national cybersecurity protocols.^39–41

The real-time anomaly detection methodology for ship behaviour presented by Y. Qi et al.⁴² confirmed the practical value of modern monitoring systems in reducing the number of incidents and insurance premiums. The use of deep learning algorithms, a combination of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), allowed timely detection of deviations and potential threats, supporting prompt decision-making by crews and port services, thus confirming the relevance and effectiveness of the monitoring systems identified in this study, aimed at reducing navigation risks and insurance premiums. The ability to detect deviations and threats was crucial for the Georgian fleet, considering its climatic conditions and limited resources. The study by H.S. Berg et al.⁴³ explored the application of digital twins and advanced control methods for autonomous surface vessels, which supported this research in highlighting the potential for integrating advanced navigation technologies into the maritime industry. The use of digital twins enabled the modelling and optimisation of navigation processes, improving route planning and reducing the risk of accidents. This also supported the current study’s recommendations on implementing IBS and developing educational platforms for crews in cooperation with international maritime organisations.

Therefore, the synthesis of research findings with academic publications confirmed the rationale for the widespread installation of AIS and GPS systems on vessels, expanding the use of IBS, modernising port systems and digital infrastructure, and strengthening cybersecurity. These steps contributed not only to enhancing navigation safety and reducing risks but also ensured significant savings by lowering insurance premiums and optimising operational processes. In this study, the use of simulation models to evaluate marine navigation systems entails a number of limitations that must be taken into account. One of the main problems is the relatively small sample size for testing usability, which involved only 20 people, 12 final-year students. and 8 teachers. While this sample provides some insight into usability, it may not reflect the full range of operating conditions or the diversity of user experiences in real maritime environments. In addition, the small sample size makes it difficult to generalize the results to a broader population, which may lead to systematic error in the results. The limited scope of usability testing, combined with the use of a single geographical and institutional environment, means that the conclusions drawn from this study may not fully reflect the different operational realities of other countries or regions, especially those with more developed maritime infrastructure.

Furthermore, the results of the study are heavily influenced by the context of Georgia’s maritime sector, which may differ significantly from other regions of the world. Factors such as local infrastructure, fleet characteristics, training practices, and cyber vulnerabilities are unique to Georgia, which may affect the transferability of the results to other maritime contexts. The use of simulation models adapted to the specific conditions in Georgia means that the potential impact of navigation technologies may vary significantly in other countries with different maritime conditions, levels of fleet digitalization, or economic conditions. Thus, while the results provide valuable information for Georgia, caution should be exercised in applying these findings to global maritime practice, and further research in different regions will be needed to confirm or refine the results.

Conclusions

This study aimed to comprehensively assess the economic and operational performance of existing maritime navigation systems on an international scale, with a focus on Georgia’s maritime sector. The results confirm that AIS and Inmarsat (GMDSS) systems were the most effective in both global and Georgian contexts. AIS demonstrated a 20% reduction in navigation incidents and yielded significant annual insurance savings of USD 6,000, with a return on investment (ROI) of 40%. Inmarsat (GMDSS) provided a 15% reduction in accidents and showed an ROI of 110%, with an LCV of USD 102,500. GPS also demonstrated strong profitability with an ROI of 150% and an LCV of USD 69,500, although its effectiveness in Georgia was somewhat limited by vulnerability to signal interference in the Black Sea region.

The study confirmed that ECDIS and radar systems, while yielding moderate ROI (80% and 100% respectively), are beneficial for navigation under challenging conditions. These systems showed positive LCV (USD 47,500 for radar) but faced widespread adoption barriers due to high training costs and complex interfaces. IBS systems presented a potential cost reduction of up to 18% and a reduction in incidents by 8%, but their high implementation costs and integration barriers in Georgia resulted in a negative LCV of USD −32,000. Therefore, AIS, GPS, and Inmarsat should be prioritized for Georgia, while ECDIS and IBS require state support, infrastructure modernization, and improved integration strategies. The findings emphasize that the integration of these navigation technologies should be carefully balanced with infrastructure development and digital adoption, particularly in Georgia’s context. The study recommends focusing on expanding AIS and GPS use, supported by government co-financing for small-tonnage vessels. The implementation of advanced systems like IBS and ECDIS should be considered with a long-term strategy, including state support, modernization of infrastructure, and the development of training programs.

Future research should explore the role of international maritime organizations in supporting the digital transition of smaller fleets like Georgia’s. Additionally, further studies should address the risks associated with cyber threats, the potential for AI integration into navigation systems, and the development of large-scale digitalization scenarios for Black Sea ports. These future directions will help ensure the continued improvement of navigation safety and cost reduction in the global maritime industry, with particular attention to regions with emerging maritime infrastructures.

References

1. Santos NP, Moura R, Antunes TL, Lobo V. Uncrewed vehicles: A promising solution to addressing sea pollution. In: OCEANS 2024 – Singapore. Piscataway: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; 2024:863–866. https://doi.org/10.1109/OCEANS51537.2024.10682272
2. Rao X, Yuan C, Guo Z, Xu Y, Sheng C. Methanol as an alternative fuel for marine engines: A comprehensive review of current state, opportunities, and challenges. Renew Energy. 2025;252(5):123562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2025.123562
3. Ma J, Wang L, Xu L, Zhao J, Lin R. Intelligent construction and analysis of a complex network for determining risk-influencing factors in ship self-sinking accidents. ASCE-ASME J Risk Uncertainty Eng Syst Part A Civ Eng. 2025;11(3):04025025. https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.RUENG-1559
4. Li M, Zhao X, Jiao Y, Liu C, Chu X, Mou J. Research on the risk of submarine cable damage from anchored ships based on probability analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2025;261(8):111114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2025.111114
5. Zhang M, Zhang X, Fu S, Dai L, Yu Q. Recent developments and knowledge in intelligent and safe marine navigation. J Mar Sci Eng. 2023;11(12):2303. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11122303
6. Inmarsat. The future of maritime safety: Report 2024. London: Inmarsat; 2024.
7. National Environmental Agency of Georgia. National report: 17th meeting of the Black and Azov Seas Working Group. Batumi: International Hydrographic Organization; 2024.
8. DNV Cyber & FT Longitude. Maritime cyber priority 2024/25: Managing cyber risk to enable innovation. Oslo: DNV; 2024.
9. International Telecommunication Union. Technical characteristics for an automatic identification system using time division multiple access in the VHF maritime mobile frequency band (Recommendation ITU-R M.1371–5). Geneva: ITU; 2014.
10. International Electrotechnical Commission. Maritime navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systems – Electronic chart display and information system (ECDIS) – Operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and required test results. Geneva: IEC; 2015.
11. Det Norske Veritas. Certification of maritime simulator systems. Høvik: DNV; 2022.
12. Han Y, Chu L. A systematic review and bibliometric analysis for maritime emergency management. J Sea Res. 2025;205(4):102585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2025.102585
13. Akhmet A, Nurekenova E, Rakhimberdinova M, Nurmukhametov N, Vasa L. The impact of transport routes on Kazakhstan’s agro-industrial complex considering ESG approaches. Probl Perspect Manag. 2025;23(1):656–672. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.23(1).2025.49
14. Andrenko P, Rogovyi A, Hrechka I, Khovanskyi S, Svynarenko M. Characteristics improvement of labyrinth screw pump using design modification in screw. J Phys Conf Ser. 2021;1741(1):012024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1741/1/012024
15. Marchuk AV. Generalization of discrete and continuous structural approaches to elaboration of a mathematical model of laminated plates and masses. Mech Compos Mater. 1996;32(3):261-269. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02254693
16. Piskunov VG, Marchuk AV, Il’chenko YaL. Free vibrations of thick layered cylindrical shells. Mech Compos Mater. 2011;47(2):177–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11029-011-9196-8
17. Smailov N, Batyrgaliyev A, Akhmediyarova A, Seilova N, Koshkinbayeva M, Baigulbayeva M, Romaniuk R, Orunbekov M, Assem K, Kotyra A. Approaches to evaluating the quality of masking noise interference. Int J Electron Telecommun. 2021;67(1):59–64. https://doi.org/10.24425/ijet.2021.135944
18. Zharkenov NB, Kabikenov SZH, Kutienko SYU, Esbosynov KT, Sungatollakyzy A, Vlnka AJAN. Technique of bit-by-bit reliability calculation of dump trucks electrotransmission. J Ind Pollut Control. 2017;33(2):1184–1187.
19. Voloshina A, Panchenko A, Titova O, Pashchenko V, Zasiadko A. Experimental studies of a throughput of the distribution systems of planetary hydraulic motors. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng. 2021;1021(1):012054. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1021/1/012054
20. Hsieh MH, Xia Z, Chen CH. Human-centred design and evaluation to enhance the safety of maritime systems: A systematic review. Ocean Eng. 2024;307(2):118200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2024.118200
21. Liu S, Zhu L, Huang F, Hassan A, Wang D, He Y. A survey on air-to-sea integrated maritime Internet of Things: Enabling technologies, applications, and future challenges. J Mar Sci Eng. 2024;12(1):11. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12010011
22. Veltsin N, Chountalas PT, Koutsouki E, Karvounidi MD, Fousteris AE. Modeling human critical success factors for maritime safety: A DEMATEL approach. Saf Sci. 2025;189:106886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106886
23. Wright RG. Ship sensors: Conventional, unmanned, and autonomous. New York: Routledge; 2024. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003377900
24. Yuzui T, Kaneko F. Toward a hybrid approach for the risk analysis of maritime autonomous surface ships: A systematic review. J Mar Sci Technol. 2025;30(1):153–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-024-01040-0
25. Zhang J, Yang F, Li J, Sun Z, Zhang R, Zhao L. Integrity monitoring for real-time precise point positioning in a maritime precise operating environment. Measurement. 2025;253(Part B):117574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2025.117574
26. Yang L, Liu J, Zhou Q, Liu Z, Chen Y, Wang Y, Liu Y. Enabling autonomous navigation: Adaptive multi-source risk quantification in maritime transportation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2025;261:111118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2025.111118
27. International Maritime Organization (IMO). International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code. 2022;1(1):1–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/IMDG2022
28. International Maritime Organization (IMO). International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974. 2022;1(1):1–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/SOLAS2022.
29. Prykhodko AA, Alekseyenko SV, Prikhodko VV. Numerical investigation of the influence of horn ice formation on airfoils aerodynamic performances. Int J Fluid Mech Res. 2019;46(6):499–508. https://doi.org/10.1615/InterJFluidMechRes.2019026024
30. Prikhod’ko AA, Alekseenko SV, Chmovzh VV. Experimental investigation of the influence of the shape of ice outgrowths on the aerodynamic characteristics of the wing. J Eng Phys Thermophys. 2019;92(2):486–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10891-019-01955-1
31. Dreus A, Aleksieienko S, Nekrasov V. Determining the aerodynamic performance of a high-speed unmanned marine WIG craft. East Eur J Enterp Technol. 2024;4(7(130)):41–46. https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2024.309708
32. Wójcik W, Kalizhanova A, Kulyk YA, Knysh BP, Kvyetnyy RN, Kulyk AI, Sichko TV, Dumenko VP, Bezstmertna OV, Adikhanova S, Zhassandykyzy M, Junisbekov M, Smailov N, Yussupova G. The method of time distribution for environment monitoring using unmanned aerial vehicles according to an inverse priority. J Ecol Eng. 2022;23(11):179–187. https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/153458
33. Kisała P, Wójcik W, Smailov N, Kalizhanova A, Harasim D. Elongation determination using finite element and boundary element method. Int J Electron Telecommun. 2015;61(4):389–394. https://doi.org/10.2478/eletel-2015-0051
34. Zhou Y, Li W, Cheng K, Shi G, Schonfeld P. Automatic ship collision avoidance algorithm based on AIS data processing and improved DWA algorithm. ASCE-ASME J Risk Uncertainty Eng Syst Part A Civ Eng. 2025;11(3):04025030. https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.RUENG-1525
35. International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2009). Guidelines on cyber risk management (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3). International Maritime Organization. https://www.imo.org
36. Wang J, Fan H, Chang Z, Lyu J. Unleashing data power: Driving maritime risk analysis with Bayesian networks. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2025;264(Part A):111310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2025.111310
37. Rabus T. Handling of external risks, including launch and re-entry events, in the aviation and maritime sector. J Space Saf Eng. 2024;11(4):673–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsse.2024.04.003
38. Liu X, Yuen KF. A systematic review on artificial intelligence applications in seaports – A network analysis approach. Expert Syst Appl. 2025;289:128309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2025.128309
39. Sergiyenko O, Hernández Balbuena D, Tyrsa V, Rosas Méndez PLA, Lopez MR, Hernandez W, Podrygalo M, Gurko A. Analysis of jitter influence in fast frequency measurements. Meas J Int Meas Confed. 2011;44(7):1229–1242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2011.04.001
40. Kyurchev V, Kiurchev S, Rezvaya K, Fatyeyev A, Głowacki S. Assessing the reliability of a mathematical model of working processes occurring in a hydraulic drive. Lect Notes Mech Eng. 2024:281–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-63720-9_24
41. Panchenko A, Voloshina A, Titova O, Panchenko I, Zasiadko A. The study of dynamic processes of mechatronic systems with planetary hydraulic motors. Lect Notes Mech Eng. 2021:704–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68014-5_68
42. Qi Y, Yang J, Bai A, Liu J. A method for real-time detection of vessel abnormal behavior based on CNN-LSTM. Expert Syst Appl. 2025;288:128303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2025.128303
43. Berg HS, Menges D, Tengesdal T, Rasheed A. Digital twin syncing for autonomous surface vessels using reinforcement learning and nonlinear model predictive control. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):9344. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-93635-9

Cite this article as:
Khvedelidze P, Tsintsadze D,  Kikvidze G,  Imnaishvili V and  Beridze N. Modern Navigation Systems and their Role in Increasing the Safety of Marine Transportation: A Simulation Study. Premier Journal of Science 2025;14:100139

Export to EndNote Export to Mendeley