Journals / Journal of Naval Sciences and Engineering / 2026 / Volume: 22 Issue: 1

An Analysis of Ship Waiting Times at Bozcaada Anchorage Area

Bozcaada Demirleme Sahasında Gemi Bekleme Sürelerinin Analizi

Alkan Öztekin(CANAKKALE ONSEKIZ MART UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF MARITIME SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF MARINE SCIENCES)0000-0003-3914-9788
Özgür Üreyil(ÇANAKKALE ONSEKİZ MART ÜNİVERSİTESİ LİSANÜSTÜ EĞİTİM ENSTİTÜSÜ)0009-0006-4565-5248
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-06-26
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that long-term anchorage behavior is the most influential factor, increasing waiting time by approximately 18 days on average, while variables such as gross tonnage, vessel type, and anchorage fees have limited explanatory power.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study analyzes the waiting times of vessels voluntarily anchoring at the Bozcaada Anchorage Area, located at the southern entrance of the Çanakkale Strait, during 2024.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The dataset consists of vessels with anchorage durations between 72-168 hours (short-term) and over 168 hours (long-term).The results reveal a clear distinction between short-term and long-term anchorage regimes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that long-term anchorage behavior is the most influential factor, increasing waiting time by approximately 18 days on average, while variables such as gross tonnage, vessel type, and anchorage fees have limited explanatory power.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Çanakkale Strait · Bozcaada · Ship Traffic Density

Abstract

This study analyzes the waiting times of vessels voluntarily anchoring at the Bozcaada Anchorage Area, located at the southern entrance of the Çanakkale Strait, during 2024. The dataset consists of vessels with anchorage durations between 72-168 hours (short-term) and over 168 hours (long-term).The results reveal a clear distinction between short-term and long-term anchorage regimes. Short-term anchorage durations remain relatively stable, averaging 4-6 days, whereas long-term anchorage extends to several weeks and shows significant variability. Oil/chemical tankers and dry cargo vessels exhibit the longest average durations, reaching approximately 43 and 32 days, respectively. A multiple regression model was applied to identify the determinants of anchorage duration. The findings indicate that long-term anchorage behavior is the most influential factor, increasing waiting time by approximately 18 days on average, while variables such as gross tonnage, vessel type, and anchorage fees have limited explanatory power. Overall, the Bozcaada anchorage area functions as an operational waiting zone, where prolonged anchorage is primarily driven by structural and operational factors rather than transit-related constraints.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, Çanakkale Boğazı güney girişinde yer alan Bozcaada demirleme sahasında 2024 yılı boyunca kendi isteğiyle demirleyen gemilerin bekleme süreleri analiz edilmiştir. Veri seti, 72-168 saat (kısa süreli) ve 168 saat üzeri (uzun süreli) demirleme yapan gemilerden oluşmaktadır. Bulgular, kısa süreli ve uzun süreli demirleme arasında belirgin bir ayrım olduğunu göstermektedir. Kısa süreli demirleme süreleri 4-6 gün aralığında sınırlı bir dağılım sergilerken, uzun süreli demirleme süreleri haftalar düzeyine ulaşmakta ve yüksek değişkenlik göstermektedir. Petrol/kimyasal tankerler ve kuru yük gemileri sırasıyla yaklaşık 43 ve 32 gün ile en uzun ortalama demirleme sürelerine sahiptir. Demirleme süresini etkileyen faktörleri belirlemek amacıyla çoklu regresyon analizi uygulanmıştır. Sonuçlar, uzun süreli demirleme davranışının en güçlü belirleyici olduğunu ve bekleme süresini ortalama yaklaşık 18 gün artırdığını göstermektedir. Buna karşılık, gros tonaj, gemi tipi ve demirleme ücretinin açıklayıcı gücü sınırlı kalmıştır. Genel olarak, Bozcaada demirleme sahasının transit odaklı bir bekleme alanından ziyade, operasyonel ve ekonomik kararlar doğrultusunda kullanılan bir demirleme alanı olduğu ortaya konmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Öztekin, A., Üreyil, Ö., *, Ö. Ü. (2026). An Analysis of Ship Waiting Times at Bozcaada Anchorage Area. Journal of Naval Sciences and Engineering, Volume: 22 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.56850/jnse.1885797

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (32)

  1. Andersen, T., Hove, J. H., Fagerholt, K., & Meisel, F. (2021). “Scheduling ships with uncertain arrival times through the kiel canal”. Maritime Transport Research, 2. doi:10.1016/j.martra.2020.100008.
  2. Arıcan, O. H. (2024). “Türk karasularında gerçekleşen gemi kazalarının denizcilik sözleşmeleri ihlalleri üzerine araştırma”. Gemi ve Deniz Teknolojisi, 225, 73–86. doi:10.54926/gdt.1417218.
  3. Arıcan, O. H. (2025). “Optimal tugboat placement in narrow straits for ship safety: A fuzzy Delphi and P-median approach, as exemplified by the Dardanelles Strait’’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 1–13. Doi:10.1080/17445302.2025.2502862.
  4. Balık, İ., Aydın, S.Z., & Bitiktaş, F. (2022). “Türk boğazları trafik yoğunluğu, bekleme süreleri ve deniz kazaları”. Kent Akademisi Dergisi, 15(1):262-276. doi:10.35674/kent.1033749.
  5. Bayar, İ., & Akan, G. (2021). “Investigation of marine accidents in the turkish search and rescue region”. Journal of ETA Maritime Science, 9(1), 1–12.
  6. Bayazit, O., Toz, A. C., & Buber, M. (2020). “Spatial distribution analysis of ship accidents in the Çanakkale Strait”. Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Morskiej w Szczecinie, (62 (134), 9-17. doi:10.17402/414.
  7. Bereza, D., Rosen, D., & Shenkar, N. (2020). “Current trends in ship movement via the Suez Canal in relation to future legislation and mitigation of marine species introductions”. Management of Biological Invasions, 11(3). doi:10.3391/mbi.2020.11.3.09.
  8. Beşiktepe Ş, Özsoy E, Latif M A & Oğuz T (2000). Marmara Denizi'nin hidrografisi ve Dolaşımı, (Hydrography and Circulation of the Marmara Sea). Marmara Sea 2000 Symposium, İstanbul, Nov. 11-12, 2000, 14 pp.
  9. Bogalecka, M. (2024). “Collision and contact–Analysis of accidents at sea’’. TransNav, International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 18(1), 75–85. Doi: 10.12716/1001.18.01.06.
  10. Chico, C., Wang, Z., Reyes, E. K. C., & Mariasingham, M. J. (2024). “Navigating drought: analyzing panama canal transit disruptions using AIS big data”. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4193827/v1.
  11. Chico, C., Cordel, M. O. I., Mariasingham, M. J., & Tan, E. S. (2025). “Analyzing anomalous events in passageways with high-frequency ship signals”. PloS one, 20(4). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0320129.
  12. Ece, N. J. (2007). “İstanbul Boğazı: deniz kazaları ve analizi”. Deniz Kılavuzluk AŞ.
  13. Ece, J.N., (2011). “Kanal İstanbul ve Montrö Sözleşmesi”. Ortadoğu Analiz 3 (29): 48-64.
  14. Engin, K., (1995). Boğaz Trafiği ve Tüzüğün İrdelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Deniz Ulaştırma ve İşletme Mühendisliği Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul,79.
  15. Franzkeit, J., Pache, H., & Jahn, C. (2020). “Investigation of vessel waiting times using AIS data’’. In International Conference on Dynamics in Logistics (pp. 70-78). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  16. Fuentes, G., Wallace, S. W., & Adland, R. (2024). “The effects of waiting times on the bunkering decision for tramp ships”. Maritime Transport Research, 6. doi:10.1016/j.martra.2024.100106.
  17. Fuentes, G., & Munim, Z. H. (2025). “Climate influence on panama canal operations: predicting canal water times with integrated environmental and operational data”. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 203. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2025.104319.
  18. Gao, X., Makino, H., & Furusho, M. (2015). “Analysis of actual situation of waiting ship using AIS data’’. In ISOPE International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference (pp. ISOPE-I). ISOPE.
  19. Ilgar, R. (2015). “Çanakkale boğazındaki gemi hareketliliği ve kaza risk haritasının belirlenmesi”. Türk Coğrafya Dergisi, (65), 1-10. doi:10.17211/tcd.73754.
  20. Jovanovic, S., Olivella, J., & Radmilovic, Z. (2005). “Ship waiting time in a river port with priority servicing and limited anchorage area’’. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, 79, 301–309.
  21. Kadıoğlu, S. O., Esmer, S., & Yorulmaz, M. (2024). “A Study on the Effect of Waiting Time of Ships at Anchor on Efficiency Measurement in Ports’’. İşletme Bilimi Dergisi, 12(2), 185-195. doi.org/10.22139/jobs.1511719.
  22. Kurumahmut A. (2006). Montrö Sözleşmesi. Türk Boğazları ve Karadeniz. s. 163, İstanbul, Türk Deniz Araştırmaları Vakfı Yayınları.
  23. Kundakçı, B., & Nas, S. (2022). “Vessel traffic characteristics analysis on the cross-section of the 1915 Çanakkale Bridge at the Strait of Çanakkale’’. International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics, 9(2), 60–70. doi.org/10.30897/ijegeo.976490.
  24. Meisel, F., & Fagerholt, K. (2019). “Scheduling two-way ship traffic for the Kiel Canal: Model, extensions and a matheuristic”. Computers & Operations Research 106, 119-132. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2019.02.015.
  25. Notteboom, T., Pallis, T., & Rodrigue, J. P. (2021). “Disruptions and resilience in global container shipping: The case of the Suez Canal blockage’’. Maritime Economics & Logistics. doi: 10.1057/s41278-020-00180-5.
  26. Oguz, T., & Sur, H. I. (1989). “A two-layer model of water exchange through the Dardanelles Strait”. Oceanologica Acta, 12(1), 23–31.
  27. Sambracos, E. (2001). The Role of the Corinth Canal in the Development of the S.E. European Short Sea Shipping System. MPRA Paper.
  28. T.C. Ulaştırma ve Altyapı Bakanlığı Kıyı Emniyeti Genel Müdürlüğü, (2025). Türk Boğazları Gemi Trafik Hizmetleri Kullanıcı Rehberi. Accessed Date: 17.10.2025 https://kiyiemniyeti.gov.tr/Data/1/Files/Document/Documents/kb/OM/TM/OR/TBGTH%20Kullanıcı%20Rehberi.pdf is retrieved.
  29. T.C. Ulaştırma ve Altyapı Bakanlığı, (2025). Ulaştırma ve Altyapı Bakanlığı. Accessed Date: 17.10.2025, https://denizcilikistatistikleri.uab.gov.tr/turk-bogazlari-gemi-gecis-istatistikleri is retreived.
  30. Usluer, H. B., & Alkan, G. B. (2016). “Importance of the marine science and charting about environmental planning, management and policies at the Turkish Straits”. European Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 1(1), 16–25.
  31. Usluer, H. B., Bora, A. G., & Gazioğlu, C. (2022). “What if the Independenta or Nassia tanker accidents had happened in the Strait of Canakkale (Dardanelles)? Ocean Engineering, 260, 111712. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.111712.
  32. Usluer, H. B., Bora, A. G., Çakmak, E., & Arslan, A. (2023). “A proposed emergency response site selection for preventing pollutions and collision effects using neutrosophic EDAS method and a numerical application in the Strait of Canakkale (Dardanelles)’’. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4353614.